Talk:Council on American–Islamic Relations/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Terrorism

Ghassan Elashi was a founder of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, and was a member of the founding board of directors of the Texas branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Elashi was arrested in December 2002 for conspiracy, money laundering, and dealing in the property of a designated terrorist. He was convicted on all charges in April 2005.

CAIR is a spin-off of the Islamic Association for Palestine, identified by two former FBI counterterrorism chiefs as a “front group” for Hamas. At least four[1] CAIR leaders have been convicted on terrorism-related charges.

obviously all of this needs to be sourced. shld be possible to find reliable newspaper reports of any facts in there. the one source (an anti-muslim rant site) obviuosly fails WP:RS. also serious problem with the seperate section just labled 'terrorism', seems atempt to imply that cair is involved in or front for. any of this that's relevant could be incorporated into 'criticism' section. stuff about the individual may be sourced on his page, but if it's here, needs reliable sources here. sorry about the above inclusion of the paragraph, can't work out how else to do it, this [2] is the diff of my edit.  ⇒ bsnowball  16:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree the first paragraph you removed seemed to be unsourced, so it should go. I merged a modified version of the second paragraph into the Criticism section, where it belongs. frontpagemag.com is not a 'hate site' - it's an online magazine that is regularly publishing new articles by well-known writers like Alan Dershowitz (and run by another well-known writer, David Horowitz), albeit with a partisan slant. Certainly there are superior sources for news, but it's reliable enough for sourcing criticism. - Merzbow 20:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want sourcing for Ghassan Elashi, look at that article. (SEWilco 05:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC))

Is there a way of quoting the content in dispute without using "pre" tags? In my browser the writing clashes with the archive box. Andjam 05:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Funding of June 2006 campaign

The text of the Wikipedia article reads,

In June 2006, CAIR announced a $50 million project to influence the American media ($10 million per year for five years). According to the article, the project will be spearheaded by Paul Findley, former US Congressman, and funded by Saudi Prince Alwaleed ibn Talal.

while the cited article says

“We are planning to meet Prince Alwaleed ibn Talal for his financial support to our project. He has been generous in the past,” he added.

The citation does not support the declaration that the prince is funding the campaign. It merely says that he is to be approached about funding. In addition, this article is cited twice (using different numbers) to make the same assertion. Is someone able to clarify? Mbelisle 00:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• My cursory reading supports the conclusion that the source article doesn't support this statement. I've removed it. Autocracy 20:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Book donations by CAIR

The article asserts near the end that Paul Findley's book "included complimentary views of convicted terrorist Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi and former neo-Nazi William Baker." Being unfamiliar with CAIR or Paul Findley, I have no idea who William Baker is, so the link to 14 different William Bakers is not helpful. I also see some previous discussion about whether or not William Baker is, in fact, a neonazi. If William Baker is relevant to CAIR, this point needs a citation and clarification. Mbelisle 00:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

From a search of the book on Amazon, there are a few passing mentions of William Baker where he is described as "a christian leader." This hardly seems relevant except to taint the reader's opinion of CAIR with a weasly mention of neonazism. In addition, there is no mention of Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi made in the book. I removed the mentions of the contents of the book. Alright, the spelling threw me off. Mbelisle 00:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

On further review, Libraries revist Islam does not mention banning the Koran translation from the LA School System and the anti-semitic views are merely a passing reference ("I hope they are careful these books [from CAIR] are not full of anti-Semitism, hatred against the West and non-Muslims.") not a claim. This paragraph has run out of citations and is removed in its entirety. Mbelisle 00:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

problems External Links Section

I have, for a second time, added the website: DanielPipes.org into the External Links section of this wiki entry. While no discussion is likely to evolve from such a minor edit, I give the reason for this as follows:

Pipes' having been a essayist of CAIR, and having been sued-at-law by CAIR's representatives, CAIR itself has made Pipes very central to what CAIR is about. Whoever chose to remove the link must be overly concerned for the appearance of a wikipedia entry, or plainly afraid of what others have to say about CAIR, at (what amounts to nothing more than) an encyclopedia entry.

Never the less, I invite a consensus to form regarding the above additional URL link Mark Preston 18:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Since the link to Daniel Pipes' source is broken, it might be better to link to the last available version of the press release, web.archive.org/web/20031002040618/http://www.saudiembassy.net/press_release/archive/99_news4.html. Mbelisle 23:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have double-checked the link as of December 26, 2006 around 6:16pm, UCT and found it to be fully operational or "up and running". Mr. Mbelisle, I believe you have a bad internet connection.Mark Preston 18:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The link to Pipes' blog, yes, is functional. But the link from his blog to the primary source www.saudiembassy.net/press_release/archive/99_news4.html is not. Mbelisle 08:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Mbelisle, you should add the link to the embassy as you like, however, the link to Mr. Pipes' site and pages are fully functinal. What possible reason is there to remove a link on that basis?

Can you please explain to me how, by suing Daniel Pipes, "CAIR itself has made Pipes very central to what CAIR is about?" I have no information on the nature of this lawsuit. And even then, a simple libel suit would not make "Pipes very central to what CAIR is about." CAIR is about improving improving relations between Americans and Muslims, and furthering the understanding that Americans have on the meaning of Islam; or at least it appears that way to me. Pipes, a very well-known zionist, has written several articles linking CAIR with several lurid ideas, none of which appear to me to be what CAIR is about. Can you please re-evaluate your thought process on this before making a so-called "minor edit," i.e. putting in a link that, if anything, prints accusations about an organization with few veritable facts and firsthand information? Shabeki 07:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I can do that, Mr. Shabeki, but here goes:

Can you please explain to me how, by suing Daniel Pipes, "CAIR itself has made Pipes very central to what CAIR is about?"

The venue for the lawsuit is in the United States, is it not? Would the council have sued for something trivial in their opinion? I think not. (Did they win their lawsuit?) Did this make Pipes' ideas, writings and talks or speeches about CAIR central something CAIR was concerned about? Absolutely. Is the criticism about CAIR "central" to the concerns laid there? Again, Absolutely. As one of CAIR's chief essayists and critics he is certainly "central" as far as a link from a Wikipedia page to a Pipe's page is concerned. After all, this truly isn't CAIR's page, it is a page about CAIR. Do you understand the significant distinction? Are you arguing that a link makes CAIR's pages trivial, or unnecessary, or irrelevant at Wikipedia? Pipes' centrality as much as CAIR is important to anyone is that he is most reasonably the person who would most likely to be called in legal terms: "an expert witness" on the subject of CAIR, the Middle East, and Arabiana. That is the original, correct and proper context of what is meant (in my words) by 'central'. I think you have misunderstood by what I meant by central. In any measure, he is none the less, the most quoted, most outstanding, most cogent and best informed person to take CAIR's measure and essay it: objectively. Perhaps I should use the other synonyms: relevant, germain, gravamen, essential. Get it?

I have no information on the nature of this lawsuit. And even then, a simple libel suit would not make "Pipes very central to what CAIR is about."

The centrality is that Daniel Pipes was "ringing the tocsin" about "radical" Islam long before the tragic and extrajudicial murders of September 11th. His clarion call, albeit ringing in silence by the mostly American news-mass-media, has been heard at the highest reaches of the U.S. Republic. He is the thorn in CAIR's "side". The rest of us, those who don't speak, read or write Arabic, Hebrew, Farsi and other dialects of the foregoing, reasonable rely on his (and others) writings, etc. to help inform our Democracy.

CAIR is about improving improving relations between Americans and Muslims, and furthering the understanding that Americans have on the meaning of Islam; or at least it appears that way to me.

I can't tell whether you are saying that American and Muslim relations are improving or whether CAIR is improving improved or (still yet) improving relations ("improving improving" or whether you have a typographical error in the above. I've parsed that as best I can.

Please see my link below at Pipes' Middle Eastern Forum, titled: "Fooling the Establishment". Or Andrew Whitehead's website: Anti-CAIR, or Joe Kauffman's webpages: Americans Against Hate, etc., etc., etc. I aver that just like Jim Jones and his Jonestown, people, can be easily fooled, or misled by those who are dissembling of moderate Islam. As these essayists or critics have repeatedly characterized CAIR as an extremest goups, so all the more reason to include a link to CAIR's most intellectual of critics. Like Pipes I admire and enjoy real Islam. I own a Quran. I have read parts. I'm not yet a believer.

As to your words, "appears that way to me".

There are two sides to the above and my response is to quote from the Class Action Suit filed on behalf of the approximately 3029 human being murdered on September, 11, 2001. Some of whom were not Americans, but foreigners from South America or perhaps, even Middle Easterners by birth or extraction.

   "COUNCIL ON AMERICAN ISLAMIC RELATIONS (CAIR) and CAIR CANADA

     86.     Council on American Islamic Relations and CAIR Canada (collectively,

CAIR), have aided, abetted, and materially sponsored and al Qaeda and international terrorism. CAIR is an outgrowth of the Hamas front group the Islamic Association of Palestine. The FBI's former associate director in charge of Investigative and Counter- Intelligence Operations described the Islamic Association of Palestine as an organization that has directly supported Hamas military goals and is a front organization for Hamas that engages in propaganda for Islamic militants. It has produced videotapes that are very hate- filled, full of vehement propaganda. It is an organization that has supported direct confrontation.

     87.     CAIR and CAIR-Canada have, since their inception, been part of the

criminal conspiracy of radical Islamic terrorism. These organizations play a unique role in the terrorist network. They emanate from the notorious HAMAS terrorist organization and like so many of the terrorism facilitating charities named and indicted by the United States government they are engaged in fund raising under the guise of assisting humanitarian causes they are, in reality, a key player in international terrorism. The unique role played by CAIR and CAIR-Canada is to manipulate the legal systems of the United States and Canada in a manner that allows them to silence critics, analysts, commentators, media organizations, and government officials by leveling false charges of discrimination, libel, slander and defamation. In addition, both organizations have actively sought to hamper governmental anti-terrorism efforts by direct propaganda activities aimed at police, first- responders, and intelligence agencies through so-called sensitivity training. Their goal is to create as much self-doubt, hesitation, fear of name-calling, and litigation within police departments and intelligence agencies as possible so as to render such authorities ineffective in pursuing international and domestic terrorist entities.

    88.    The role of CAIR and CAIR-Canada is to wage PSYOPS (psychological

warfare) and disinformation activities on behalf of Whabbi-based Islamic terrorists throughout North America. They are the intellectual “shock troops” of Islamic terrorism. In the years and months leading up to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 these organizations were very effective in helping to ensure that North American law enforcement and intelligence officials were sufficiently deaf, dumb, and blind to help pave the way for the attacks on the United States. The role played by these entities is an absolutely essential part of the mix of forces arrayed against the United States as they help soften-up targeted countries so as to facilitate and enhance the likelihood for a successful attack." from a document at: http://www.september11terrorlitigation.com

In the United States, is is against the canons of judicial ethics to represent a fact that an attorney does not believe to be true. To do so is: unethical, illegal. The attorney who made the above representation must believe the foregoing to be true. As this suit is for a money judgement, and as the litigation is ongoing (but let us not forget the Libyan government's payout of billions as a result of the terrorist act over Scotland); you may argue there is no evidence. That will be the subject of whether there should be more than a link to Pipes' pages once a verdict is in, however. For now, shouldn't it be better to err on the side of inclusion, just in case?

Pipes, a very well-known zionist, has written several articles linking CAIR with several lurid ideas, none of which appear to me to be what CAIR is about.

I doubt that being a Zionist is a cause for concern about a link at Wikipedia. Again, I'm suggesting that a link to a non-Wikipedia page be added, in the appropriate section of the Wikipedia page about the Council. Nothing more. Even then, they might not agree with Pipes, either, after looking at his pages. You've got to take your chances. He remains a very good source of divergent opinion about CAIR.

I am still under the impression that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such, contains all human knowledge. So, complaining of "lurid ideas" isn't dispositive. CAIR was, is and will be controversial. Are there serious essays into the politics of such organizations as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, or the Red Crescent/Red Cross or Goodwill?. Those organizations have no meaningful political agenda. CAIR does. By acts of members of CAIR now serving time in jails for terrorism or terrorism related charges, CAIR's connection (in such high numbers, again say compared to: Goodwill Industries or the Ronald McDonald House,) shows that there is something controversial about CAIR. Perhaps a "hidden" agenda, going far beyond being merely similar to civil-rights organizations like the NAACP. I believe I can form a consensus of opinion with Wikipedia editors about the foregoing.

Can you please re-evaluate your thought process on this before making a so-called "minor edit," i.e. putting in a link that, if anything, prints accusations about an organization with few veritable facts and firsthand information? Shabeki 07:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Under the standards you seem to propose, changing a "the" to an "a" could conceivably be more than a"minor" edit. As for your assertion of a lack of "firsthand information" at Pipe's webpages, well, CAIR did sue him. I would assume that anyone who reads CAIR's various public documents (multimedia or print) has "first hand" knowledge. Are you saying you know whether Pipes has or has not read any of CAIR's public documents? As Wikipedia's standard for what qualified as includable "information" is large, broad or more poetically: huge, your notion about "firsthand information" won't have standing: reasonably. Wikipedia tends to be very inclusive. I find this to be rather a two-edged sword, myself. Wiki editors seem to go to some pains to find the negative and include it. But as that is the adopted standard here, you should probably stand-down and not contest the link.

Furthermore: your disagreement about "verifiable facts" is disusaive, putting a link on a page is verifiable as to the link by clicking it. As for Pipes' facts they are as verifiable as need be, again, under Wikipedia's broad interpretation of "human knowledge".

If the link were in the main section about CAIR, then maybe it wouldn't qualify as a "minor edit", but you see, adding a link to Pipes is a minor edit. It isn't even a whole line, graphicly, technically, substantively. That's pretty minor. It is where it should be in the "external links" section.

As for some "verifiable facts", the link at Pipes' organization: Middle Eastern Forum has quotes from U.S. Senators Charles Schumer, NY and Richard Durbin, IL, stating the CAIR is a terrorist front organization ("ties to terrorism"-Schumer). Those declarations are based on a U.S. Senate Hearing. That hearing, popularly known as: "Connecting the Dots", US Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security from Sept. 10, 2003 can be found at: (http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=910). Since Pipes' has characterized CAIR on those and other bases, your rejoinder about "facts" seems inordinate, and out of touch with the Spirit of Wikipedia.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinon, but not their own facts" U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.Mark Preston 20:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Before we go any further, I suggest you read CAIR's response to many of the myths perpetrated about them at http://www.cair.com/urbanlegends.pdf

Senators Charles Schumer and Richard Durbin may believe that CAIR has ties to terrorism, but I see no evidence of this beyond their claims. A nice parallel to this would be members of our government believing that Saddam Hussein's regime was involved in the 9/11 attacks, even if reality shows differently. Members of CAIR have gotten themselves in legal trouble, but unlike the "terrorism-related charges" that Matthew Epstein refers to, they appear to be a weapons charge (Ismail Royer), bank and visa fraud (Dr. Bassem El-Khafagi, who was never a employee of CAIR to begin with) and a deportation for overstaying a visa (Rabih Haddad, also never a member of CAIR). The actions of one former member Ghassan Elashi (who was never an employee of the organization) does not implicate the organization itself. While we're talking about the spirit of wikipedia here; again I have to implore that we take a more neutral point of view rather than give in to our own prejudices.

Most important of all, if CAIR were really a front for terrorism as you imply by invoking the words of Senators Schumer and Durbin, do you really think that they would be allowed to exist still after all these years? I have faith in our government's ability to dismantle terrorist organizations. Shabeki 07:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether I have or have not read the "urban legends" stuff is fairly much irrelevant. The link to Pipes is appropriate, not more arguement. If you wish to argue CAIR as connected/not-connected to terror, that is good, let's start a Google/Yahoo group for that. You have nowhere, in my rejoinder to your response to my willingness to discuss a link to Pipes' come up with a reason about that, only CAIR (and it's sectators) say there is no link. Fine. Well, Good. I'm putting Pipe's link in and if it is removed. I'm taking this to Wiki's arbitration committee.66.81.154.229 23:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Description of group incorrect

This is not an advocacy group. Its actions show it to be a radical Islamist organization. See http://www.meforum.org/article/916 for detailed information about the CAIR organization.

Above comment was posted by an IP user. There seems to be plenty of supporting information for them being described as an advocacy group. Autocracy 20:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Who cares if its an IP user? Does having a username make your words worth any more than his, "Autocracy"?

Above comment was posted by an IP user. I'm simply identifying an unsigned comment, in this case as in the one above. Bolding my comment for emphasis wasn't appropriate either. If you would like to emphasize something that wasn't emphasized by an original poster, it would be much better to emphasize it as a quote rather than chaging the original context. If you were logged in as "JimBob" and didn't sign you comment, this would say at the start "above comment was posted by "User:JimBob."

I agree that they are an advocacy group. Elizmr 23:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that many of the cowards who anonymously slander CAIR as a terrorist group without providing any credible sources of information must be engaging in mere hatemongering. Shabeki 07:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

I've added a 'neutrality dispute' tag. I'm very concerned about some of the sites linked to this page and listed as sources. Also, much of the page isn't adequatley sourced. --Wgbc2032 00:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with this. The external links section is horrible. I counted only three credible sites: CAIR's website, one of the two news articles and the Anti-Defamation League's profile of CAIR (which I find biased for obvious reasons). The rest of the sites listed appear to be fringe sites that I would expect to see on the same level of some neo-Nazi skinhead site. And FrontPageMag is not a credible news site now matter if its political content agrees with you. The external links section needs to be pared down dramatically. I'm shocked that bigots would defame this entry due to their obscene hatred of Muslims. Shabeki 07:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that a 'neutrality dispute' tag is a necessary at this time. I am in the process of making a rejoinder to Mr.? Shabeki's (I am having to guess this is his last name.) reasoning that a link to Daniel Pipes webpage (central to CAIR criticism) is as he says: "horrible". Mark Preston 23:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

While I'm flattered that you're interested in learning my last name, let's stick to the topic at hand, shall we? My problem with the this page as it's set up is that most of the links seem superfluous. Let me expand my thoughts on this:

Under "News Articles," "CAIR's Legal Troubles" actually links to a reprint of a FrontPageMag article (again, a shady "news" site) on www.sullivan-county.com, a site which describes itself as the "the unoffical news and opinion website for Bristol," Virginia. The page itself seems to act as a portal to various sites criticizing Islam in general. Keep in mind that this isn't Daniel Pipes' website; it merely links to it. This is not a firsthand source of news; and again, the source of it really can't be credibly counted as a news source to begin with.

The "Anti-CAIR" site appears to be a blog run by an Andrew Whitehead, a man who settled out of court with CAIR for an undisclosed amount (though he claims a victory in the case, as the site is obviously still up and running). I personally have never taken seriously personal blog commentary as a means of effective public criticism, especially for an online encyclopedia.

CAIRwatch actually uses the ironically-named americansagainsthate.org URL. The chairman of this organization, Joe Kaufman, is described as an "investigative journalist" for Frontpage Magazine (again, a reliable source of partisan tabloid news), host of a radio show and a special assistant to the chairman of the watchdog organization Judicial Watch.

"CAIR-the nation's loudest baby" is quite possibly the most offensive and erroneously included of the links. Its juvenile main picture appears to be a crying baby with the symbol of CAIR transposed over the genitalia of the newborn. The site is run by the same folks who run thereligionofpeace.com, another apparently partisan blog whose supercilious nature is headlined by the words, "Islam: The Religion of Peace (believe it or else." The site is a joke, and so is the inclusion of this link.

On the other end of the spectrum, I personally found sites such as the Anti-Defamation League's profile of CAIR and Matthew Epstein's (analyst at a counterterrorism think tank) testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee to be far more informative and unfiltered sources of information. This is why I believe that the neutrality dispute tag on this article was very deserved. Unsubstantiated blogs and hysterical rants do not (in my eyes) belong in an online encyclopedia.

And by the way, "Mr. Preston," Daniel Pipes' website danielpipes.org (highly prejudiced for sure, but in my eyes, Pipes is a far more authoritative and accredited source of info on Muslims than the other websites I mentioned) is not actually linked to this article. Shabeki 07:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the first sentence of this article doesn't even tell the reader CAIR's purpose before it begins criticizing. Isn't there a separate article for CAIR criticism? I think that a lot of the content on this page (including the external links to criticism) should be relocated there, and that this page should focus on CAIR's mission and projects, linking to the criticism page. As it stands, wikipedia basically has two CAIR criticism pages. It would be better to either merge the pages and have a more extensive criticism section in this page, while leaving the rest of the content more neutral, or to move the critical content from this page to the existing CAIR criticism page. CAIR is not an indisputably shady organization; many organizations, individuals and news soucres have positive things to say about it. A balanced article or set of articles would include these. Digopheliadug 12:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I have (once again it would seem) added a NPOV tag to this article. In it's present form it does not conform to the Neutral Point of View principle as specified here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view.

It needs to be cleaned up by someone that has read and understood the paragraphs listed below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Balance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Fairness_of_tone

The sources listed below all has a well known (and in most cases open) conservative / right-wing bias / worldview. National Review is THE conservative opinion journal. Daniel Pipes is a self appointed Crusader against Islamism and arguably (in my opinion) a modern Joe McCarthy. The same goes for Robert Spencer and David Horowitz of Jihad Watch.

Furthermore f ex David Horowitz is involved in FrontPageMag (Editor), Jihad Watch (frequent contributor), National Review (frequent contributor). Robert Spencer, David Horowitz and Daniel Pipes constitutes a club for mutual appriciation. Having these guys contribute half the sources for this page hardly helps for avoiding issues like balance, undue weight and fairness of tone.

None of these sources can fairly be characterized as either reliable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS) or unbiased.

WorldNetDaily http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Net_Daily

Washington Times http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Times#Alleged_news_bias

Daniel Pipes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pipes

FrontPageMag http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontpagemag#Criticism

National Review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Review

Jihad Watch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad_Watch

In my view these sources need to be replaced (ideally) with sources about CAIR from the so-called MSM (main stream media) that are generally considered reliable or they should be balanced (then at least we have a he said she said situation which would be marginally better) with some voices from the other end of the ideological spectrum.

Good luck!

--RandySpears 13:12, 24 August 2007 (CET)

CAIR's "Urban Legends"

CAIR has recently responded to many criticisms it has been faced with. Right or wrong, it has to be mentioned in the article. For instance, in the Funding section, there is no mention of CAIR's response to the charges of receiving donations from foreign nations. Anyway here it is: http://www.cair.com/urbanlegends.pdf --Seventy-one 22:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

-That's about as lopsided and biased as they come. I'll remember to ask a child abuser for reasons why they beat children and take them as fact. - Me76.236.133.162 05:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Projects Section

From the Project "section" of the Article page:

"CAIR monitors local, national, websites and international media in part to challenge negative stereotypes, but also to applaud and encourage positive representations of Islam and Muslims."

Stereotype

Stereotype \Ste"re*o*type\, n. [Stereo- + -type: cf. F.

  st['e]r['e]otype.]
  1. A plate forming an exact faximile of a page of type or of
     an engraving, used in printing books, etc.; specifically,
     a plate with type-metal face, used for printing.
     [1913 Webster]

  Note: A stereotype, or stereotypr plate, is made by setting
        movable type as for ordinary printing; from these a
        cast is taken in plaster of Paris, paper pulp, or the
        like, and upon this cast melted type metal is poured,
        which, when hardened, makes a solid page or column,
        from which the impression is taken as from type.
        [1913 Webster]

  2. The art or process of making such plates, or of executing
     work by means of them.
     [1913 Webster]

  {Stereotype block}, a block, usually of wood, to which a
     stereotype plate is attached while being used in printing.
     [1913 Webster]

-- From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48

Stereotype \Ste"re*o*type\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. {Stereotyped};

  p. pr. & vb. n. {Stereotyping}.] [Cf. F. st['e]r['e]otyper.]
  1. To prepare for printing in stereotype; to make the
     stereotype plates of; as, to stereotype the Bible.
     [1913 Webster]

  2. Fig.: To make firm or permanent; to fix.
     [1913 Webster]

           Powerful causes tending to stereotype and aggravate
           the poverty of old conditions.        --Duke of
                                                 Argyll (1887).
     [1913 Webster]

-- From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48

stereotype

    n : a conventional or formulaic conception or image; "regional
        stereotypes have been part of America since its founding"
    v : treat or classify according to a mental stereotype; "I was
        stereotyped as a lazy Southern European" [syn: {pigeonhole},
         {stamp}]

By using the word "stereotype" in the phrase "negative stereotype" there is an implied good "stereotype". I think this word is overused entirely in the English language and has no meaning. If one says someone or some behavoir is "stereotypical" one means it is unacceptable. If one thinks of "conventional conceptions" or "formulaic conceptions" based on the above definition, it may not be accurate to say that CAIR's words, acts, deeds are not also "stereotypical". Mark Preston 17:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Major reversion due to copyright problems

I've had to revert to a very early version of this article due to copyright concerns. People have copied portions of text from copyrighted works, and the response to such copyright violations is to revert to a version prior to such violation, as we can't just remove the bits of text which were the violation.

The current version of the document had text very similar to [3] such as "but also to applaud and encourage positive representations of Islam and Muslims". The text appears to have been introduced with this edit

The version preceding that edit, dated July 7 2005, also had copyright problems. Text such as "Other American Muslim leaders have raised questions about their possible alliances with radical groups, and many academics are disturbed by the groups' prominence." is a copyright violation of this Salon article. The text appears to have been introduced in this edit. The edit prior to that also copied copyrighted text. Prior to that, the edit history is clean (apart from a copyright violation that got reverted).

As a result, over 1000 edits have become moot. Andjam 06:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

"the response to such copyright violations is to revert to a version prior to such violation, as we can't just remove the bits of text which were the violation"... Please quote us the policy that allows you to throw over 1000 edits into the trashbin, and very quickly. 90% of what you deleted, such as the criticism material, apparently has no connection with the material you allege to have been violated. Such a policy would allow submarine sabotage of articles by letting people sneak in a stolen sentence or two, then reveal the copyvio a year later and nuke the article. - Merzbow 08:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw the change before the talk page, and thought it might be vandalism. Nothing really justifies such wholesale undoing of work. Edit the article to make the content free from copyright violations. It is more work than just reverting to some ancient version of the article, but that is the only way to go to correct the problem. Coldbud 18:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Coldbud is a sockpuppet of a banned user. Andjam 04:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If I thought that removing merely the copyrighted text was the solution, I'd do so. But as far as I can tell, any derivative work of a copyright violation is itself a copyright violation, so removing the copyrighted portion doesn't work. Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Instructions seems to say you should revert, not merely edit. However, to clarify things I've asked for clarification here. Andjam 21:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

excellent resource for more info

http://www.meforum.org/article/916

It's too POV to serve as a cite, but it's packed with its 141 footnotes straight to the sources. Guanxi 19:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead

The NYT is used a reference for the statement in the leads; that article specifically discusses a "small band of critics" making a "determined but unsuccessful effort" to link CAIR to terrorism. Any mention of these allegations in the lead should not misquote or misrepresent reliable sources. Hornplease 17:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The article mention what the criticism has in general been about, and what the critics in most cases has been pointing towards. This is what we should also be discussing in the lead section, and not relatively minor issues, such as the specific allegations regarding CAIR's possible relations to Hamas and Hizbollah. -- Karl Meier 20:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

How does "CAIR has often been accused of having ties to and supporting violent extremists in the Middle East." misquote the source? Your version is POV-pushing, selectively quoting to attack the accusations. I don't think Karl's version is any better, BTW. The lead should simply mention the fact that critics have made these accusations, and the article body will discuss the merits. Let's just revert back to where it was and leave it be. - Merzbow 21:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

My version does seem to be slightly inappropriate in that it directly quoted the NYT. That being said, the lead should place "notable controversies" in context (a "brief description", according to the current, if disputed, version of the guideline). The only secondary source quoted in the article on the allegations about CAIR use the phrases I mentioned above; the lead should accurately reflect that these are viewed as marginal allegations. "Often been accused of having ties to and supporting" does not reflect (a) the position of these critics with respect to mainstream opinion and (b) the success of these criticisms, at least as far as reliable secondary sources claim. I am open to rewriting the lead in such a way that this is made clear. Hornplease 21:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

There are several references to additional articles reporting on or making this accusation, such as note 43, which is an article titled "One Muslim advocacy group's not-so-secret terrorist ties" from The New Republic, a major source. I'll try to rephrase it again with more refs. - Merzbow 00:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing the revamped section. Please do keep in mind that the lead must reflect the balance of opinions as a whole. Hornplease 01:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that I have just purchased and read the TNR article. It is of less moment to me than the NYT article because it is essentially a blog post on TNR online - the reference should be updated to reflect that - and, in fact, seems to be about the NYT article. Nowhere does it disagree with the Times' estimation of the number or the success of CAIR's accusers; it prefers to discuss the specific allegations. In addition, the post is written by an individual who volunteers the information that the FBI has "simply refused to read the materials on CAIR that I, and others, provided" on CAIR's connections. I think this counts as an opinion piece by an interested party rather than news reporting.

Given that, I continue to insist that the lead misrepresents the number of, and success of, allegations against CAIR.Hornplease 05:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Many more refs added, including a Newsweek article which gives pages to a discussion of these criticisms. When a solidly liberal senator withdraws an award to a Muslim group because of allegations of terror ties, then these allegations are noteworthy. "Boxer “expressed concern” about some past statements and actions by the group, as well as assertions by some law enforcement officials that it “gives aid to international terrorist groups,” according to Natalie Ravitz, the senator’s press spokeswoman." - Merzbow 17:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain how it contradicts the statement that I made about the TNR above: it does not discuss the "number or the success of CAIR's accusers; it prefers to discuss the specific allegations"? That's precisely what's happening here. The NYT pieces specifically discusses the critics as well as the criticism. Hornplease 17:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see your point. The numerous references now include both direct criticism and discussions of the critics. You can no longer support dismissing them with "a small number". - Merzbow 17:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Where do the articles contradict the NYT's assertion that they are a small number?Hornplease 17:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"small number" is a blanket characterization made by only one of about a half-dozen reliable sources referenced. If the critics could be dismissed as small in number, it's the journalistic responsibility of the reporters to mention that, yet only one article did, so this is a clear minority opinion among the sources. The solution is to quote the NYTimes article in the body of the text. - Merzbow 18:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The NYT piece is the only piece specifically addressing the critics in the context of views as a whole. The Newsweek piece, while informative about the specific criticism, does not in any way contradict the NYT piece. In other words, the only R Secondary S we have about the notability of criticism specifies that it is minimal and unsuccessful. Permitting any impression other than that in the lead seems inappropriate. Hornplease 21:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That's because all the other articles take the notability of the criticisms for granted, else Newsweek wouldn't be devoting a 4-page spread to them. Omission of an assertion by all but one source on a subject is not carte blanche to present the assertion as true; in fact, it is evidence that the assertion itself is not notable and/or is a minority opinion. - Merzbow 23:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The presence of an article on a particular criticism in a reliable source does indicate that that criticism is notable. It does not specify how notable. You are yet to present a reliable source that disagrees with the NYT's estimation as "small" and "unsuccessful". There have been a trillion articles on those who oppose the global warming hypothesis that do not specify "this view is not shared by any respectable member of the scientific community"; does that mean that each of those articles is saying the opposite? No, you need to find a reliable source that evaluates these critics in context other than the NYT; that is the only one that has been discovered which makes any statements at all about their relative size and importance. Hornplease 00:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

<outdent> You are unfairly restricting the definition of what constitutes evidence of notability far enough to just include the single article that supports your POV. A major article about criticisms of something is an implicit positive statement about the notability of said criticisms, unless it states otherwise. Every major article on global warming deniers states that it is a minority scientific opinion. Out of all the articles about criticisms of CAIR, however, you can point to a grand total of one that characterize the critics as a small group. Frankly I find endless wrangling over weasel words like "most", "many", or "small" to be highly unproductive. Small compared to what? Many compared to what? Their only use seems to be to disparage or praise something the editor doesn't like or likes. Let's just leave them out, please. - Merzbow 00:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concern about that sort of endless wrangling. The only thing that concerns me more is the misrepresentation of sources. In this case, I read the Newsweek article carefully, and the only line that suggested to me that these critics of CAIR are different than what the NYT suggested was the single anon source that the authors quoted within the FBI indicating that the presence of FBI officers at CAIR meeting had been extensively discussed within the bureau. Other than that, may I point out that all you have so far presented is inference. I do not disagree that 'small set' or something might be improved; I merely wish the 'brief description' of CAIR's 'notable controversies' that WP:LEAD mandates be accurately reflective of the only reliable source on the size and effectiveness of its critics.

You misunderstand my point about an article about global warming, but let it go.

Further, I suggest you abandon your prejudice about what my POV is. For your information, if tomorrow evidence emerges on the front page of the NYT that large amounts of money have been seen to flow from accounts adminstered by CAIR to accounts connected to shady figures in Pakistan, I wouldn't be in the least surprised. So I recommend that you avoid any further assumptions of this sort, as they destroy any good feeling one might have towards fellow-editors. I'd ask you to withdraw the accusation that I'm not editing in good faith, but I don't know whether that serves any purpose. I think it would be best if you stopped thinking like that, however. Hornplease 01:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that other reliable sources on the same subject do not characterize the group of critics as small is equally important to convey to the reader. If you want to add the sentence "A NYTimes article on CAIR controversies states that its critics are a small group", I am equally justified adding the sentence "A Newsweek article on CAIR controversies does not state that its critics are a small group". The omission of the characterization conveys just as much information about the "size and effectiveness of the critics" as a characterization. - Merzbow 02:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

THe omission of any discussion of X is hardly the same as "not X". Hornplease 02:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"Small group of critics" is an opinion presented by one source out of many. It is not corroborated by any other reliable source listed on the subject. That's as simple as I can make it. - Merzbow 02:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"Small group of critics" is the only reliable opinion on the subject. Everything else is your own inference. None of the other sources discuss the issue at all. That is similarly simple.Hornplease 04:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

A major article about a subject that does not impugn that subject's notability means it is notable. That's common sense. I guess we'll just have to disagree. - Merzbow 05:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

For heaven's sake! A major article can easily be written about a critic of X without discussing the degree to which X's criticisms have been successful overall. This article did precisely that. It discussed exactly two critics: bloggers Kaufman and Horowitz. All it said was that a flap was caused by Boxer withdrawing a citation. Then the validity of the blogger's claims was discussed. What was notable was that Boxer withdrew the citation. Yes. We are told why as well: she read a blog. Be honest: where in the article is a claim made that these criticisms are not made by a "small number" of activists? Appealing to common sense is fine, but occasionally that overrated virtue has to be defended. (At least I tend to think of it as so.)Hornplease 05:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Still no response..... Hornplease 09:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No reason to go over the same points for the 40th time. We discussed it, we disagree, and your opinion appears to be in the minority of active editors to the page. - Merzbow 04:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Really? I seem to read talkpage archives and see something different about that last part. In any case, I don't think we discussed it sufficiently, because you don't understand yet the point I am making. Your last claim was "A major article about a subject that does not impugn that subject's notability means it is notable"; which seems to me to be confusing notable enough for Wikipedia with actually notable, as in contradicting the NYT's description. Let us make this clear: you wish the lead to imply something different from what the only reliable source on the subject says on the matter? Is this really what you are saying? Hornplease 10:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"Small number" is a value judgment, plain and simple. "42 critics" or "11 critics" would be a verifiable fact, "small number" is not. According to policy (NPOV), we can only assert facts about opinions, not the opinions themselves. Especially since the conspicuous omission of any such value judgment in the MSNBC article casts doubt on the reliability of the NYTimes' opinion. You want to say, in the text, "The NYTimes claims that..." go ahead. That's the compromise. - Merzbow 00:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, we can take the 42 vs "small number" argument on in a moment. First of all, I would like you to explain what part of my above argument is problematic: the Newsweek story does not 'cast doubt" on the NYT story at all. I read today several stories about Warren Jeffs in the mainstream press. Some of them mentioned the size of his community, some called it 'small', some did not discuss it at all. Some of them -the NYT among them - put in a disclaimer that it had no connections with the mainstream Mormon church. Some did not. The central point is that one cannot deduce anything from what has been left out. Magazines write articles about newsworthy things, and newsworthy things might still be small from the point of view of an encyclopaedia article about larger things. This is really rather obvious.

You dispute the choice of the word 'small', as that is an opinion. Well, 42 would be an opinion as well. (No! there are 36!) Further, it would be a pointless opinion, as we have no way of telling whether that is a large or small number in the context of the article. My point is simple: do we represent what is reported about this organisation fairly or not? The current lead implies that it faces considerable criticism. According to the only reliable source that deals with the subject, that criticism is marginal and 'unsuccessful'. The lead, as a matter of WP's core policies, shouldreflect that fact. How do you plan to word a sentence in the lead about it?Hornplease 02:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"small" is a heck of a lot more of a value judgment than "42". A multi-page article on an organization's critics that conspicuously does not mention their insignificance is counterveiling evidence against an statement of insignificance from another article, plain and simple. By your logic, if a movie reviewer says that some actor's performance in a movie sucks, but no other review of the movie mentions the actor's performance at all, it's now magically a fact that it sucked and can be stated as such. Nope, can't do that, it must be attributed. - Merzbow 06:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No, but writing a lead implying that something doesn't suck when the only RS on the subject says it does is inappropriate. In any case, we are not talking about "sucking" here; we are evaluating the notability of the charges. It would be a severe violation of NPOV to imply that the charges are more notable than the only RS on the subject deems them to be.

"A multi-page article on an organization's critics that conspicuously does not mention their insignificance is counterveiling evidence against an statement of insignificance from another article, plain and simple." Why? Can you explain what leads you to that statement? As I said, "Magazines write articles about newsworthy things, and newsworthy things might still be small from the point of view of an encyclopaedia article about larger things." Hardly plain and simple! Hornplease 10:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This issue has now been completely beaten to death, and we aren't going to change each other's minds. You can either attempt a revert and see if you have support from active but silent editors to keep it that way, or raise it to another level of dispute resolution. - Merzbow 21:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. "Active but silent" is code, I'm afraid, for revert-happy POV-warriors, and I don't think that they have a say in this. I would like you to respond to the statement I made above. An issue can hardly be 'beaten to death' when such a basic question is still open. Hornplease 21:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

One article says "small number of critics". Another only says "critics", unmodified. The NPOV formulation, by policy, is "critics", followed by "The NYTimes writes that the number of critics is small". That's the last I'm going to say on the issue, all our points have indeed been beaten to death. If you can't accept the fact that we disagree it's not my fault. - Merzbow 22:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It won't be helpful if you don't actually respond to the question.

How, for example, does the NPOV formulation become "critics"? The NPOV formulation doesn't permit us to evade the truth.

If you're tired of discussing this, you can go elsewhere and unwatch this article. But you do have to discuss it, unless you're announcing that I'm a troll and you're going to revert me on sight. Taking it to DR will just mean making all the points again, and we will wind up at exactly the same discussion. You'll still have to respond to the questions I'm asking, and I to yours. Hornplease 22:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Take it to DR, and let me know. - Merzbow 23:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. Does that mean you are specifically refusing to continue discussion to find a compromise? Hornplease 23:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I made a compromise offer which you did not respond to. And have yet to see a single one from you. - Merzbow 23:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) The compromise is to quote the NYT directly? Hornplease 12:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, after the existing neutral sentence in the lead. - Merzbow 16:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The existing sentence is hardly accurate or neutral as it stands; however, since you are, I see, close to giving up altogether, let me suggest: "Allegations have been made that the organization and its leadership have ties to militant Islamic extremist groups and ideologies; the set of critics making these allegations have been called "small" by the NYT." Hornplease 17:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, if I get to add a small sentence afterward noting Emerson's criticism of the NYT article disparaging the critics, for balance. - Merzbow 17:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

A statement responding to the NYT article in the body of the article is probably OK. Hornplease 21:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Then the NYT disparagement of the critics must be in the body as well. - Merzbow 21:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

But that means that the lead would remain unbalanced, right? Hornplease 15:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

TNR says that the NYTimes article that you want to so prominently feature is "fraught with errors--of commission and omission" and is "a coup of CAIR propaganda". In other words, it casts serious doubt on the reliability of the source. It would be remiss of us and a violation of NPOV to not present this to the reader where he can decide for himself (and not bury it deeper in the article where you very well know 95% of readers don't get to). If this balanced presentation is too much for the lead, we can agree to keep both in the body.

That would be true if it was an actual TNR story and not a blog hosted by TNR. As a blog, it naturally doesnt have the same standards of reliability. That being said, I quite agree that it deserves a mention: but the very fact that the blog post bemoans the misinfomation of the NYT story that the latter is a matter of record in the manner in which the former is not. If you prefer, the TNR reference can be put in as a footnote from the lead. Hornplease 18:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I note, incidentally, that even the TNR post does not attempt contradict the NYT's statements about the size or success of the critics, only its account of their motivation and some factual details about who was left out and what was not reported about CAIR's statements. Hornplease 18:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not a "blog post", it's an article published in TNR's online edition. "This Article is Available to Subscribers Only", in the "Articles" section of Emerson's site, etc. If you have evidence that TNR's standards of fact-checking, etc. did not apply to this article, please present it. If you want to feature the NYTimes article, you need to feature its criticism as well, not bury it. - Merzbow 19:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Er, I don't need to demonstrate that that TNR's standards do not apply. The assumption that online-only content in print newspapers is not of the same level of accuracy is well-established; we do not quote, for example, the Trail on wp.com in BLPs. As I said, a footnote is acceptable. I notice you do not respond to the fact that even that article does not attempt contradict the NYT's assessment of the size or success of the set of critics.Hornplease 20:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The article says that the NYTimes article is "fraught with errors--of commission and omission" and is "a coup of CAIR propaganda". I'd say we can reasonably conclude that casts doubt on everything in it. And you still confuse blog content with articles that just happens to be published in the online edition. An article by TNR is an article by TNR. - Merzbow 20:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

About your first point, the post, as I mentioned earlier, "..is written by an individual who volunteers the information that the FBI has 'simply refused to read the materials on CAIR that I, and others, provided' on CAIR's connections. I think this counts as an opinion piece by an interested party rather than news reporting." Given that, I certainly don't think it serves to discredit the NYT piece in the manner you claim. Incidentally, I see nothing indicating that the author in question has published anything in TNR proper; he has only one other contribution to TNR online, about the Muslim Public Affairs Council. I think we know why TNR wouldn't put this in their print edition, don't you? It's not a news piece. Its an opinion piece. It isn't by a TNR reporter. It isn't in the published version of the TNR. It states up front that the author is an activist involved in doing precisely what the NYT article discusses. And finally, it doesn't even, in its long list of errors, choose to disagree with the NYT's assessment of the critics size or success. The article discusses the nasty things that CAIR has said, who in the FBI said what, and so on. A post by an avowed activist hardly serves as a sufficient counterweight to an article in the paper of record. Hornplease 21:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you done attacking the credibility of Emerson? Because your opinion of him is irrelevant. The fact remains it's an article by TNR, a rock-solid reliable source. And his condemnation of the NYT article is unqualified (as the quotes about show). - Merzbow 22:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not 'by' TNR. It's an op-ed. It's an opinion, not news. And whose opinion makes it less useful: I had no idea who the writer was; I had to look him up just now. (Incidentally, the convenience link you added crashes firefox.) The writer's identity severely weakens your case: he appears to be one of CAIR's major critics. Even if the NYT was neutral, would you seriously expect him to be anything but displeased with it? For that matter, CAIR might be displeased with the NYT article as well.

As you say, my opinion of the writer is irrelevant. Quite right. (I have no opinion. Chap might be a genius: I'll never know as long as his blog crashes my browser.) However, the fact that he states in his article that he is an anti-CAIR activist is relevant. The fact that he is not a regular reporter, but a guest columnist, and that TNR did not publish his essay, merely hosted it, is relevant. The fact that he nowhere says the article mischaracterises the nature of opposition to CAIR, but points out several occasions where CAIR has misbehaved and the NYT hasn't mentioned it. The fact that he precedes it with a summary condemnation does not detract from the fact that in his itemised condemnation, he provides us with nothing useful in evaluating that specific part of the NYT's reporting. Hornplease 00:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Whether it's an opinion piece has nothing to do with its reliability. Magazines like TNR, Salon, National Review publish almost exclusively opinion pieces (and others like The Atlantic publish a mix), yet the consensus of WP editors is that they are reliable. And "news artices" like the NYTimes' often contain judgments and opinions made by the reporter, such as "small group" and "largely unsuccessful". Something does not magically become fact because it's printed in a newspaper. Go ahead and begin stripping all TNR, Salon, and NR articles from Wikipedia because they are "op-ed" and you won't get very far. And the fact remains Emerson's condemnation of the NYT article was blanket. His examples of errors were just that, examples to buttress his main point. You would only have an argument if the condemnation were not blanket. - Merzbow 01:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) A blanket condemnation by a subject of the article is simply not enough contra-indication, as I am sure you will agree if you take a step back. I naturally do not claim that TNR and Salon are in any way not reliable in terms of facts. I just argued elsewhere, for example, that facts from a Sidney Blumenthal article in Salon should be viewed as facts, not opinion. That being said, there is a difference between that and what was in the TNR post you describe, which is a condemnation of the NYT article, and clearly meant as the opinion of the poster, and the NYT article, which is clearly reported as news, and in which it is to be supposed the synthesis of facts ("small band of critics" etc) represents the NYT's synthesis of the available facts. I do not dispute any of the facts presented in the TNR post, but opinion there is still the opinion of the poster rather than a synthesis of facts by TNR. Also, a blanket condemnation hardly helps anyone's case. What, so even the things that are anti-CAIR in it are supposedly condemned by the TNR poster? Again, we can't read into pieces things that aren't there. Hornplease 02:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

What the TNR piece communicates to is that there are grave doubts about the overall reliability of the NYT piece. We can't answer the question of exactly which pieces of the article Emerson thinks are bad. What we have is a blanket condemnation, which means we must take it all with caution. Balance requires that we make sure to report this fact to the reader wherever the dubious article is used. - Merzbow 03:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

When an opinion writer with strong, partisan views (of any nature) who is the subject of a piece in the NYT issues a blanket condemnation of that piece, I do not necessarily think it is incumbent on us to balance it. Is everyone displeased with their coverage in the NYT permitted a response on WP each time the NYT is cited? Especially when we are using a fact from that article that this person did not even cite as problematic? Hornplease 04:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

TNR had the choice not to publish the article if it thought it unreliable. Your psychoanalysis of the author is irrelevant. - Merzbow 05:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

(1) Yes, and they didn't publish it (2) not psychoanalysis, but a question, which you haven't answered.Hornplease 05:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

(1) It's on their site as an article, it's published. (2) TNR is a reliable source, talk to them and get them to withdraw Emerson's article, your opinion of Emerson is not relevant. - Merzbow 06:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

(1) Its online content, and its an opinion piece. (2) Its not my opinion of Emerson. (as I said, I don't have one.) Its about whether everyone displeased with their coverage in the NYT permitted a response on WP each time the NYT is cited. Hornplease 06:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No new points have been raised. See above. - Merzbow 07:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You still have not responded to the claim. Are we to assume that every statement in a report in the paper of record is immediately to be considered 'doubtful' if one of the people covered by it makes a blanket condemnation of it in an opinion piece in a version on the website of an RS that may or may not be RS itself? Do you have any idea how absurd that sounds? Hornplease 14:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Convenience break

And I've just realized your original argument is fatally flawed in another way. You say you don't want the lead to contain "critics" unmodified, because that would imply more notability for the critics than you think they are worth, based on the NYTimes article. But then you say that the fact that other articles aside from the NYT use "critics" unmodified does not imply anything about their notability. You're contradicting yourself. Either "critics" unmodified by "small" implies notability, in which case the non-NYTimes articles do imply positive notability, or "critics" unmodified by "small" does not imply notability, in which case you would have no objection to using just the neutral "critics" in the lead. - Merzbow 18:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Because other sources do not have necessarily follow our standards. We need to ensure our lead is balanced; other sources are under no such constraint; they merely need to present newsworthy stories in a readable manner. Hornplease 18:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This has to be the weakest argument you've presented by far. I'd rather AGF that those writers know what they're doing, unless you have evidence to the contrary. (I actually have a reliable source casting doubts on the credibility of the NYTimes article.) If they meant "small", they would have said "small", but they didn't. A five-word letter does not impact readability. - Merzbow 19:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

We don't AGF about sources. My point is simply that we have different standards from these sources. They can talk about critics without needing to qualify their size or influence, or about individuals without putting in perspective their efforts. That is their prerogative. We don't have that prerogative, so the cases are different. And, again, deducing meaning from what was not said is OR. Hornplease 20:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"And, again, deducing meaning from what was not said is OR". But you wish to claim that readers will deduce meaning (of notability) if we just say "critics" unmodified in the lead. If you want to claim the former is an unwarranted assumption, then I'll claim the latter as well. - Merzbow 20:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The two are unrelated, of course. You must stop try and applying WP rules to everything off-WP! The first is, of course, something that we cannot do; there are several reasons why something 'not' in a text might not be there, and we should not deduce it. The second case is because readers are likely aware of our policies and will view things in that light. I would not read an article in Newsweek and assume anything based on what was not qualified, as Newsweek is not constantly re-edited to preserve neutrality and NOR, and indeed operates under none of those constraints; if I were reading a statement on WP, by contrast, it is expected that it accurately and fairly reflects the available reliable sources. In this case, one might not infer anything about the quality of 'critics' in a reference off-WP, but in a WP lead, we have a set of rules that mean that something would and could be inferred. Hornplease 21:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Whether they are a 'small group' or not is an opinion not implied by one unmodified mention of the word 'critics', and I've seen no reason to think otherwise. This is common-sense English. I would say that since 'small group' is clearly a derogatory opinion of notability, the fact that virtually every article on CAIR by a reliable source focuses on its controversies and critics is opposing evidence. WP:LEAD supports this: "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources."

If you insist on quoting that opinion in the lead, I will then balance with other relevant opinions (about CAIR, its critics, or the NYTimes article) from other articles. Readers will see 1 quote that says "small group", and 4 that don't, and they can make up their own minds. Alternatively, we can leave the lead simple and place the quotes in the text. - Merzbow 22:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) "Whether they are a 'small group' or not is an opinion not implied by one unmodified mention of the word 'critics', and I've seen no reason to think otherwise." It is clearly stated, surely that the criticism are propounded by “a small band of critics” in the NYT? I will agree to any form of balance, as I have said, the moment you produce a reliable, neutral source that specifies that the critics are not small. If we quote the NYT article, and then a bunch of those actual criticisms, are we not guilty of severely unbalancing the lead? What on earth is the hurry? If CAIR's critics are so numerous, surely -soon- a time will come when another article is written in a reliable source about CAIR and its critics that clearly mentions that they are no longer (or have never been) a miniscule, unsuccessful minority. Until then, any mention in the lead that violates what the only reliable source to directly address the matter tells us is the proper balance of views on CAIR is a violation of our core policies.

"I would say that since 'small group' is clearly a derogatory opinion of notability, the fact that virtually every article on CAIR by a reliable source focuses on its controversies and critics is opposing evidence." I don't think 'small group' is in any way derogatory. It is merely evidence of their current size. And, as you correctly quote from WP:Lead, the emphasis in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic: and how are we to know that? "According to reliable, published sources. Well, the only published source that answers the question "what is its importance to the subject" is the NYT, and that reference is quite clear.

Incidentally, I do not insist on placing the NYT reference in the lead. I merely ask that the reference to 'critics' be placed in some perspective per reliable sources. I am open to any other re-wording that does not quote the NYT directly. (As I said above, I believe doing so is unsatisfactory.) I personally believe a modifying word or two, together with a lengthy sentence about the allegations, and another sentence (perhaps) about legal troubles with Holy Land, is hardly too much to ask with putting in "four" POINT-y sentences. Hornplease 00:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

So is the size of this group an important point or not? You would not be successful in arguing its important, because out of numerous articles on this group, only one (The NYTimes) feels necessary to broach the subject of the size of its critics, while almost all discuss the critics and their points. That is hard evidence it doesn't belong in the lead, since "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources." Even if you can argue that omission is not a positive or negative statement, omission most certainly is a reflection of relative unimportance. The one single source out of many that discusses the critics' size can go in the body. You feel it's an important point, but the vast majority of reliable sources disagree. - Merzbow 01:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, other sources are under no compulsion to discuss the size of the group. For them, it may not be important enough. For us, it is important to establish the size of the set of critics, because we have policies that indicate balance is required. So, according to all reliable, neutral, published sources on the subject, the importance of the critics to CAIR altogether is minimal, because they are a small group, and their criticisms have been 'unsuccessful'. We thus modify the criticism to reflect that. That these are small groups might not be of great importance in re their own notability; but it is relevant for our guidelines. Were there an article on Critics of CAIR, for example, I would not require that this mention be put in the lead. As I said, I do not require that the exact words of the NYT quote be used, but that the wording of the lead should reflect our infomation about the critics relative notability that appears in RSes. Hornplease 02:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources." When a dozen articles talk about X, but only one of those dozen talks about the Y aspect of X, it belongs in the body, not the lead. There is no exception for statements about the size of X or the success of its arguments. I'm sorry you disagree that Newsweek, WashTimes, FoxNews, IHT, Oakland Tribune, and more do not think the "size" of the critics and the "success" of their arguments important enough to discuss. - Merzbow 03:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Very simply, if even one of those articles had contradicted the NYT, I would not have spent all this time. However, your interpretation in this case is flawed: the "aspect Y" in this case is the aspect that directly impacts NPOV for the article as a whole. Your claim extends to whether or not the unimportance of the critics is considered central by reliable sources. Regardless of what RSes think about it its centrality, it is of central importance to us. That's the difference between us and the Oakland Tribune. (Incidentally, that piece is by Jeff Jacoby. Is there no article about CAIR's critics not written as an opinion piece by a conservative commentator?)Hornplease 04:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No, "size" and "argument success" are not the same thing as notability. For example, al Qaeda is a small group whose arguments have been manifestly unsuccessful, yet they are very notable. For whatever reason, these other authors did not address "size" and "argument success"; I imagine they thought their articles would make it clear to readers the critics had enough of an impact (i.e. Sen. Boxer) to make them worthy to write about, regardless of their "size" and "argument success". Anyways, these two qualities are ignored by all but one source, thus not appropriate for the lead. - Merzbow 05:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, we shouldn't read the minds of the journalists or op-ed writers writing the other pieces you cite. Try not doing that, please? (It should be easy, you just accused me of psychoanalysis.) That these two qualities are 'ignored' means merely that we have a smaller set of sources from which to make a determination about how mainstream these views are about CAIR. And the answer is provided by the source that addresses it. So our 'brief description' of CAIR's 'notable controversies' should be framed in that light.

I don't understand your A-Q analogy . Do you mean that the Western civilisation page should include their criticisms in the lead, because they're notable critics and a vast majority of articles about them do not mention that they are relatively small in size and that their arguments have been largely unsuccessful? Good luck with that. Hornplease 05:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"Ignored" by all but one source means they are not notable enough for the lead; again, see WP:LEAD. And if 90% of news articles and books about "Western Civilization" spent half their time discussing A-Q, then yes, I would insist including A-Q in the lead. - Merzbow 05:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You aren't engaging my point. WP:LEAD clearly says that proportion should be in terms of importance as gauged by reliable sources: and we are given uncontradicted evidence that their importance is small! That's how we have to use the LEAD policy here. As I already said, counting sources as "no"s just because they say nothing is OR; we have to count them as "abstain"s.

Oh, and about western civ: run a search for "Western Civilisation" in Gnews (excluding the word "Shakira". No, seriously.) and you'll see that nearly all the articles are indeed about Islamism. Hmm. Hornplease 06:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"Size" and "argument success" != notability, and != importance, as my A-Q example illustrates. Regardless of either, CAIR's critics have been quite important in getting responses out of CAIR and others, hence the numerous articles about them. And I have no objection to adding criticism to the Western Civilization lead. Go for it. - Merzbow 07:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, you are not listening. Can you please respond to my claim that "counting sources as "no"s just because they say nothing is OR; we have to count them as "abstain"s."? (Oh, and if the A-Q thing hasn't brought you to a sense of the absurdity of your claim, I am amazed. After all, Western Civ's critics have also been quite effective in "getting responses" out of us.) Hornplease 14:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Explained and responded to many times. Omission by almost all sources means non-importance, see the quote from WP:LEAD. - Merzbow 17:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

How many, or how small, is the U.S. Government? Or is evidence in court not a criticism? (SEWilco 17:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC))

From here: the US government lists CAIR as an "unindicted co-conspirator" in a terrorist funding case. "Small" indeed. - Merzbow 06:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

CAIR's Legal Position

I invite comment about adding a section to the encyclopedia entry regarding CAIR's legal position(s). It is somewhat incredulous that CAIR, which represents itself, in part, as a charitable organization, can have lawsuit after lawsuit and indictment after indictment in which it is named as either a tortfeaser or denominated as a supporter of illegal activities. Nowhere in my mind can I recall any charity with such a distinguished character. Yet, I recognize that CAIR's activities are not wholly falling below the "standard of society" or a conspiracy or other criminal acts. Hence, I invite all writers and editors of Wikipedia to help "build a concensus" before adding this material. This section is not intended as criticism, but ONLY factual material. For instance: CAIR has been indicted in Federal District Court in Texas and listed as a "co-conspirator". This does not mean that CAIR or it's members, agents or assigns have broken any law. It does mean that information, ordinarily precluded by the "Hearsay Rule" is not excluded in the case of the 300 odd "unindicted co-conspirators", of which CAIR is one. Mark Preston 17:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen the criticism sub-article? Lots in there about that already. Perhaps the criticism section/article should be renamed "controversies" to more widely include such material. - Merzbow 18:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As I had posted on the 'net "CAIR's friends at Wiki will probably come out in force against this, but it is not intended as part of CRITICISM of cair, which surprisingly has it's own page. I say surprisingly because I know of no encyclopedia (in print or otherwise online) that has such a thing." I suppose that many charities have legal problems. That type of information, while superficial for an encyclopedia in the face of genuine charitable work, isn't so easily reached here in this case. I know of no charity under so many indictments, whether civil or criminal that stretches back for such a long time and is so central to historic events. If the Ronald McDonald House or the Salvation Army has an occassional defalcation that is not much in the way of news. If CAIR has had defalcations, maybe that wouldn't warrant an entry, either. Repeated jailings of it's members, whether acting in an agency capacity or not, the 9/11 families allegations, the current trial in Dallas this isn't standard business for a charity. Mark Preston 23:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow: I'm waiting to hear from you (or anyone). I am concerned about putting my proposal into NPOV, rather than criticism. I propose only to have a section titled: Recurrent Legal Problems. Under that head: the charge or allegation, the person's named, and the sentence or fine. In the case of the Dallas "co-conspirator" indictment, it's not a person, it's an organization.76.170.211.236 14:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add a section if you can find sufficient reliable sources on the subject. However, a list like you have in mind might be open to problems unless each incident is covered in several reliable sources and is linked to CAIR specifically. Hornplease 15:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

By "linked to CAIR", you mean "connected to CAIR" and not "linked to a document on the CAIR web site"? CAIR deleted at least one legal document (their own amicus filing in the HLF trial) from their web site. (SEWilco 17:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC))

By way of example, for the sake of discussion, I cite the following as reasonable for inclusion in the proposed Legal Position: GHASSAN ELASHI is a named defendant in more than one legal matter; viz.: Ghassan Elashi, founding board member of CAIR-Texas, a founder of the HLF, and a brother-in-law of Marzook, was arrested by the United States and charged with, among other things, making false statements on export declarations, dealing in the property of a designated terrorist organization, conspiracy and money laundering. Mr. Elashi is also named in the indictment at: http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/HLF/U.S._v_HLF_Indictment.pdf. Again this is not for inclusion as criticism, only due to the highly unusual number of law suits that CAIR has taken part in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Preston (talk • contribs) 15:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

As of Oct. 1, 2007 I see no further communications from others. So here is what I'm going to do: wait until the outcome of the Dallas Texas "conspiracy" trial to settle down a little and start some sort of rendering of CAIR's legal "history". Any takers? Mark Preston (who forgot to sign in for this brief post)76.170.211.236 06:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Preston, I do not see that CAIR identifies itself primarily as a "charitable organization" as you claim. Rather its stated goals seem to classify it primarily as an anti-discrimination and Muslim advocacy organization. A similar group for Jewish advocacy/anti-discrimination, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), has been the subject of litigation several times. Such groups are inherently political and often take positions considered controversial or subversive by the government or other organizations. These types of organizations are NOT the Salvation Army or United Way and often find themselves in the middle of political controversy which sometimes leads to lawsuits or even (in the case of CAIR and the ADL) criminal investigations. And even the Salvation Army is not above controversy-- in the early days they were used as strikebreakers and counterdemonstrators, and more recently have come under fire for their policy on homsexuals.--Nicky Scarfo 16:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Entry of November 17, 2007 by MPreston: The legal position section must now wait for the retrial. As I see encyclopedia entries as being non-topical in content, I am considering starting an entire wikipedia entry for any number of entities that have what I think is too much topicality. For example Michael Jackson, the singer, has a wiki that changes every time he makes "news". Those entries are "topical". They belong in another section of wikipedia about Michael Jackson. There should be cross-links between these pages, but this CAIR page needs cleaning up. It shouldn't be changing. If they weren't so controversial it wouldn't be changing. RFC.69.228.4.230 (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Changes

Made some changes in the "Overview" section, which apparently was authored by Ann Coulter and Daniel Pipes. Someone wrote that CAIR was founded with funding from the Holy Land Foundation. This is stated as fact even though CAIR disputes it. Also presented as fact is CAIR alleged ties with terrorists, also disputed by the organization. Besides, there's a "Criticism" section in this article that mentions all these things, so there's no reason to state it twice. Well, actually there is a reason...so that anti-Muslim bigots can present their slanted allegations as fact within the first few paragraphs of the article, immediately leading the reader to believe that CAIR is a terrorist organization of some sort. Keep it in the criticism section, stormtroopers, and try to refrain from presenting allegations as undisputed facts. --Nicky Scarfo 16:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)(retroactively signed as I forgot to sign in last time)

Somebody put back the text I removed in less than a day. Does WorldNetDaily have a full-time staffer to ensure a slanted article about CAIR on Wikipedia? Again, this information is disputed by CAIR and should not be presented as undisputed fact in the first two paragraphs of the "Overview" section. Mention of this information is made in the "Criticism" section already, that section can be augmented/expanded as the person who keeps reposting this information sees fit. --Nicky Scarfo 16:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The parent organization does not belong as part of its history? And you deleted stuff which was not elsewhere. (SEWilco 02:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC))

Again, since you didn't bother to read what I wrote-- CAIR disputes that the HLF was a "parent organization", yet it is presented as undisputed fact. This time I deleted the information from the Overview and added it to the Criticism section. IN other words, I did your work for you. You're welcome.--Nicky Scarfo 17:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so that wasn't good enough for you-- you (or someone) just returned it back to the original. Well, this time I will delete it without rewriting the criticism section to compensate. And I will keep deleting it for as long as the right-wing bigots keep inserting it back to provide readers of the article a bias against CAIR in the first paragraph.--Nicky Scarfo 03:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

So Merzbow, you are threatening to block me from deleting this information, and apparently keep re-posting it, yet have given no argument as to why such biased (and contested) information belongs in "Overview" rather than "Criticism". Perhaps you consider yourself too good to give justifications for your unilateral actions. I have given reasons for my revisions-- you have not. This is intellectual thuggery in the service of a smear campaign against Muslim civil rights/advocacy organizations, which is apparently acceptable on Wikipedia. I wonder how people would feel if the same sort of biased editing was allowed on the NAACP page by Klan or Council of Conservative Citizens sympathizers? --Nicky Scarfo 18:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You should read our policy on personal attacks at WP:NPA. That's the last time I'll respond to any post by you containing one. - Merzbow 20:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I read it, and after reading I do not believe I violated it.--Nicky Scarfo 00:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Other articles

Added a section for other Wikipedia articles on Muslim and Arab advocacy organizations in the U.S. CAIR is the most controversial and loudest (and as a result, the most well-known), but it's not the only one. Of course, I'm sure to the right-wing bigots they're all equally evil. --Nicky Scarfo 17:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You sure know how to endear yourself to other editors with your tone. Good luck with that. - Merzbow 20:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your well-wishes! I tend to have a nasty tone with bigots, fascists and reactionaries. I'm funny like that. --Nicky Scarfo 03:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep it up and you will find your Wikipedia career to be nasty, brutish, and mercifully short. - Merzbow 08:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Master Po, but such is life. --Nicky Scarfo 17:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently "mercifully short" because you intend on blocking me because you don't like my "tone", and although I have given clear and compelling reasons for deleting info from the "Overview" section and moving it to "Criticism", you seem to have no reservations about restoring that information unilaterally and threatening to block me without offering ONE reason as to why my edits are uncalled for. You've obviously been around here for a while, therefore you are above having to respond to my reasons for deleting information from one section and adding it to another. Instead, you simply play Wikipedia bully and repeatedly change my edits without cause and threaten to purge me. --Nicky Scarfo 18:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You need to get consensus first about moving that information around. You did not, and were reverted. Instead of trying to get that consensus on the talk page, you then decided to vandalize the article by just blanking the material out of spite. Do you now promise to not blank the material and get consensus for your edits instead? - Merzbow 20:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, it's hardly vandalism if I clearly explained my reasons for deleting the information, and, then, upon objection, attempted to move the info rather than deleting it. Second, I didn't delete out of spite-- the only objection to my deletion I addressed by moving the info, when that wasn't good enough I simply deleted not "out of spite", but because it was easier just to delete, and if my efforts to move information weren't good enough, I'm not going to spend more of my time moving biased, contested info from one place to another-- easier to simply delete. Don't blame me for that, blame those (perhaps yourself) who think that it's more imortant to smear CAIR in the first few paragraphs than to include contested information in a more appopriate section of the article.

Finally, three questions-- 1. So, then, consensus is required for every edit? 2. How do I achieve consensus when no one even responds to my intitial objections (save one, who no one can say I did not try to accomodate)? 3. If no consensus, then what? The biased and contested info stands at the beginning of the article uncontested? That seems a set-up which favors CAIR's bigot critics rather than objective fact.--Nicky Scarfo 00:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No response? Okey-doke. I'm removing this clause from the end of the first sentence in "Overview"-- "of the Hamas front Islamic Association of Palestine.". This is already addressed under "Criticism", and I believe CAIR (and others) dispute IAS's status as "front organization" for Hamas. It very well may be, but just the term "front" is a loaded term and organizations known as political fronts often dispute the designation, so the information is more appropriate in "Criticism", where it currently is in any event (no sense having the information listed twice). All the information is there, in its appropriate format, everyone should be happy, except the most virulent and nasty of CAIR's critics (or supporters). And with that I'm done editing the article (until the stormtroopers return of course). --Nicky Scarfo 20:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily and FrontPageMag not reliable news sources

I have recently removed several references because they go to unreliable sources. My edits only remove WorldNetDaily and FrontPageMag when used as sources for "news." It should be noted that placing a news article in the criticism section does not make the source itself a piece of criticism. For example, a news piece from FrontPagMag about a court case involving CAIR and an anti-CAIR website is not a reliable source for criticism of CAIR. The reliability issue was raised on Talk:Islam in the United States and on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard where unanimously a slew of uninvolved editors agreed with each other in that WorldNetDaily and FrontPageMAg were not reliable sources for news. I will not revert war over this but I believe that these standards should be upheld and editors should be doing everything they can to ensure source reliability. Please don't simply revert back without taking these points into consideration. Thank you.PelleSmith 13:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I restored the FPM links, which were appropriate. All but one were used in the criticism section, and its perfectly appropriate to use FPM there. The other ref was this: "Saudi Gazette, November 2002 quoted in http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19241 Michael Graham, Killed in Action". It's just reproducing a fact printed in a reliable news publication, the Saudi Gazette. If you really care, this can simply be replaced by a direct reference to the Saudi Gazette, but I'm not sure that's online. And if people from other discussions on other pages want to come here and discuss the specific use of specific publications in this article, they are free to do so. Sources are rarely blanket "reliable" or "unreliable" for any and all uses. - Merzbow 19:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not true. The whole point of establishing source reliability is to do so for X, Y, or Z uses generically. Those sources are not reliable for "news," period. Are you actually arguing with that? I left the sources intact where they were actually printing a statement of critical opinion. I deleted them when they were printing a news story. If a source refers to someone else's criticism in reportage its news coverage, not criticism itself. In other words it is a secondary source. Neither of these sources are reliable as secondary sources (this also goes for reproducing another news source). Ontop of this, if you the editor take news reportage which is not itself overtly critical and interpret it as critical because it reports on something that could be used in criticism, like the fact that a CAIR official is arrested for X,Y, or Z reason then you are violating WP:OR. You the editor can only report on the criticism clearly stated by another individual, not engage in criticism yourself. That covers all my deletions. What do you have to say substantively to these points?PelleSmith 19:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Uhh read the FPM links you are deleting from the criticism section, they are criticism. You have no consensus for deleting FPM. - Merzbow 18:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I have read them and I have asserted that they are news pieces. Can you quote some of this supposed "criticism?" I should remind you again that if you take a piece of reportage and judge it to be critical, then the critical aspect comes from you and not the reportage, and that is OR. In other words if you would criticize CAIR because of the arrest of one of their officials that is OR. If the source issues a critical opinion based upon that fact then the source is being critical. Do you dispute this distinction? BTW consensus about source reliability isn't something one builds on entry talk pages. Again, sources are either considered reliable for a stated usage or they are not. This is an encyclopedia and not a collection of blogs. In fact you haven't argued against the claim that it is a reliable source for news. You are instead claiming its criticism and not news, so I don't really understand what consensus has to do with the present discussion at all. Please answer my points and if you are going to claim this is criticism then you should be able to prove it by quoting the text. I would rather not have to revert in order to get you to discuss this so please continue this discussion. Thanks.PelleSmith 18:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure.

• CAIR Backs Down from Anti-CAIR - "With CAIR’s hopes of defeating its opponents in the legal arena at least temporarily defeated, the next step for those of us in North America unwilling to live under Islamic law is to thwart the organization’s social and political ambitions." Looks like criticism to me.
• CAIR's Al Qeada Link Exposed - Look at the title. Neutral news articles do not say "<something's> link to <organization everyone agrees is evil> exposed". Also "CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad has openly expressed support for Hamas suicide bombers."
• "I don't really understand what consensus has to do with the present discussion at all". WP:CONSENSUS - "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making." - Merzbow 21:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

In the first point above I will concede that this one liner (and only that one liner), found at the very end of a section after the news piece called "comments" implies criticism of CAIRs "political agenda," which is what is being sourced. That's a pretty ridiculous stretch (especially given that I'm sure there a much more relevant criticisms made by Daniel Pipes), but yes it does seem to be an expression of criticism. Good job. In the second point there is nothing critical there at all and that is why you have failed to quote anything critical. You are taking a news piece that states what FrontPageMag is presenting as fact and insinuating or stating that these supposed facts are the basis of criticism, but what I asked you to show me was how the article is itself critical. "CAIRs Al Queda Link Exposed" is not a criticism, it is a statement that is meant to be taken factually and the same goes for "CAIR Executive Director Hihad Awad has openly expressed support for Hamas suicide bombers". Those are both statements of supposed fact. Neither express any criticism of that fact. Surely FrontPageMag wants you to be critical of these "facts" but again such criticism would be OR. You're supposed answer to this is simply a distraction. You quote statements presented as facts and say that they aren't neutral. Well no-one said that FPM's news coverege was neutral, in fact that's a big part of why its unreliable as a news source--thanks for pointing that out. The fact remains that these statements and that news piece is not "criticism". As for WP:CONSENSUS, I think we all know what that policy states, so thanks for your out of context quotation and insinuation. My point is that this debate has never been one regarding consensus but one regarding the nature of the articles I deleted. I am claiming they are news pieces and you are claiming they are criticism. The misdirection is unappreciated.PelleSmith 21:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right, the factual statements should be moved out of 'Criticism'. (SEWilco 23:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC))

"My point is that this debate has never been one regarding consensus but one regarding the nature of the articles I deleted." Good to know that you have no intention of respecting WP:CONSENSUS. BTW, you're still wrong, "CAIRs Al Queda Link Exposed" is obviously criticism, it is phrased in a patently non-neutral manner, which is what criticism is. - Merzbow 01:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I respect consensus and I haven't been reverting you while we are having this discussion. The point is that consensus already exists regarding the reliability issue and you can follow the links I provided initially. You have never argued against the reliability issue either. Our discussion has been about the nature of those articles. Please stop misdirecting the discussion to make me seem like someone unwilling to conform to Wikipedia policy. Please also acquaint yourself with what criticism is. POV reportage is not criticism. That's just simply false.PelleSmith 13:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"In other contexts, the term describes hostility or disagreement with the object of criticism." Hmm. "CAIRs Al Queda Link Exposed". Yup, sounds like hostility or disagreement. Your argument might have merit if there was any distinction on FrontPageMag's site between different types of articles. There isn't. Everything is all in one pile. There is no "news" section opposed to an "op/ed" section. And it's all explicitly critical of the Left - that's the purpose of the site. - Merzbow 17:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Now you're joking right? I mean this is unbelievably ridiculous--what disagreement or hostility are you talking about? That statement is presented "factually." I'm going to seek further opinions on the RS noticeboard because this is reaching absurd proportions.PelleSmith 19:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Do whatever you gotta do man. Note that attempts to canvass people who you think agree with you to come here and edit aren't allowed, so I hope that's not what you're planning. - Merzbow 20:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to get anyone over here to edit. I'm trying to purge a clearly unreliable source from this entry. The RS Noticeboard is a place where one goes to ask for impartial commentary on sourcing, not where one canvasses to support a POV. If any of the people commenting on this issue over there were the usual POV pushers your little cadre of POV pushers normally spars against I'm sure you'd know them well, but I doubt you will find that to be the case. By the way, what's your problem with the desire to conform to basic reliability guidelines and principles?PelleSmith 23:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't respond to incivility. Good day. - Merzbow 01:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, your pattern of "response" speaks for itself. I have nothing more to say about it.PelleSmith 04:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: The ongoing discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard can be found here. I hope these non-involved views will help clarify the issue.PelleSmith 23:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The dicussion is not over whether to use FPM as news but as criticism. Nobody there has said it can't. - Merzbow 01:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No the discussion is as to whether news coverage in FPM is reliable for anything, which it isn't. Also, the discussion on the RS noticeboard has just started so hold your horses.PelleSmith 02:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

And to clarify, what you are continually trying to do is to use news coverage as criticism.PelleSmith 02:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Their opinions will be taken into consideration, but foremost responsibility for an article's content likes with its editors and the primary venue for discussion is the article's talk page. - Merzbow 04:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a content dispute but a source dispute. What content have I altered or proposed to alter? It isn't even a question of whether or not certain types of statements can be sourced or not, but about the use of one specific media outlet. Your continued misdirection continues to be unappreciated.PelleSmith 13:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, I don't respond to incivility. - Merzbow 17:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the verify credibility tag about criticism of the CAIR trying to supress Criticism of Islamic terrorism and intolerant as being anti-Muslim, because even if Daniel Pipes and Jihad watch are not valid sources for news, they still made the criticism, a subjective criticism to begin with, not a fact, and therefore the criticism has been made by people with somewhat influential voices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtbob12 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I see people are still paying attention. The important thing is that a) that is made clear in the text if one or both grouops say both things and b) their biases are exposed, or at least alleged, as I did with NPOV balancing quotes. Carol Moore 02:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Apparently unbalanced sources

I've noticed that negative claims about this organization are sourced to a heavy preponderance of Washington Times, Daniel Pipes, National Review / New Republic editorials, and yes, even FrontPageMagazine despite the repeatedly established consensus that they areFPM is a non-reliable source of dubious value if any.

Now, we do have some articles from mainstream, reliable sources like the New York Times, but they report that the criticisms exist rather than making the criticisms themselves. Indeed, the New York Times piece "Scrutiny Increases for a Group Advocating for Muslims in U.S." ([4]) states that "A small band of critics have made a determined but unsuccessful effort to link it to Hamas and Hezbollah..." and quotes a retired FBI terrorism specialist saying, "there is probably more suspicion about CAIR, but when you ask people for cold hard facts, you get blank stares". It notes that "law enforcement officials" pointed out that CAIR was never formally accused of anything by the government, even though "any hint of suspicious behavior would have resulted in a racketeering charge". It notes that "some pro-Israeli lobbyists have created what one official called a “cottage industry” of attacking the group and anyone dealing with it."

Yet, we seem to be ignoring this view in favor of the "cottage industry"'s wild and offensive claims. It is very unfortunate and needs to be corrected. <eleland/talkedits> 18:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)strikeout for clarity 19:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

NYT, Newsweek, New Republic, National Review, WashTimes are all reliable and notable sources. Some mention of this belongs in the lead. This issue was decisively beaten to death in an earlier discussion. - Merzbow 19:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Will you drop the smokescreen, please? The NYT piece tears the "CAIR/terorrism connection theory" to shreds, and I'm not objecting to its reliability. Perhaps my comments were unclear; National Review and TNR editorials are to an extent reliable. The question is one of WP:UNDUE weight. We are currently ignoring the strongly expressed view of reliable sources including the Times that CAIR is a victim of spurious accusations from partisans. Instead, we're prominently featuring those partisan accusations. Perhaps you managed to "beat to death" well-founded policy arguments earlier, but I'm afraid that kind of a mob mentality won't be allowed to fly unchallenged. <eleland/talkedits> 19:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Your lack of WP:CIVIL is not endearing me to your cause. Again, the NYT is the only piece that belittles the critics. Other reliable sources do not, thus the NYT opinion is in the minority. - Merzbow 21:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any violation of WP:CIVIL. If you think another editor is violating WP:CIVIL have them warned or take other appropriate action. In entry talk pages these types of comments about incivility only serve the purpose of attempting to tarnish another editors character or throwing up a smokescreen over a poor argument. Lets stick to the issues, and like I said if you find something problematic about another editors behavior take appropriate action. Cheers.PelleSmith 01:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll be glad to bring your incivility to an RFC if you start doing it again (as in the above section). I'm happy to see that for the moment you've stopped. - Merzbow 03:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

What are you waiting for? Lets see this RFC. If you're glad to do it, and I'm happy to see you do it then there should be nothing stopping you. Can't wait. Cheers.PelleSmith 03:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

One source, one vote, is it? The NYT is the most influential newspaper in the world, and that was a news article rather than an opinion piece. The factual claims all came from US government anti-terror experts. Do you really think that's overwhelmed by a bunch of op-eds in conservative magazines and fringe newspapers? <eleland/talkedits> 22:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Since when is Newsweek a "fringe" newspaper? Senator Boxer herself wished to be disassociated from this group because of the criticisms of it. And it's US prosecutors who named CAIR an "unindicted co-conspirator" in terrorist funding. - Merzbow 03:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The nation comment

This comment does not belong, because it is a libel against Pipes in general, not from CAIR, nor is it a response to his comment on CAIR. It is therefore irrelevant to this article, and is clearly an attempt to libel Pipes, and therefore violates WP:BLP. Yahel Guhan 05:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

CAIR's Loss of Non-Profit Status vis a vis IRS 501(C)3.

Is there any evidence of CAIR's loss of tax exempt (non-profit)status, other than anecdotal evidence?Mark Preston (talk) 05:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The CAIR web site states it is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization. The DC.gov corporate registration says the organization is active, but does not mention the tax status. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The IRS charity list [5] has "Cair Foundation Inc., Washington, DC" with an advance ruling expiration date "Until December 2009". -- SEWilco (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

So it is then true that CAIR no longer qualified under 501(c)4, only (c)3? and why has this changed -- anybody know?Mark Preston (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"terrrorist-associated"

Why is there such an insistence on having "terrorist-associated" in the introduction? The article specifically says that CAIR is a "co-conspirator in a terrorism case", which better reflects exactly what is going on with them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the sentence, from the Washington Times:

"CAIR is among several hundred Muslim groups listed as unindicted co-conspirators in a recent federal terrorism trial in Dallas into activities by the Holy Land Foundation Inc., a group linked to funding the Palestinian Hamas terrorist group."

This by no means justifies labeling the group as "terrorist-associated" in the first sentence of the lead. I'm removing it now because it is a tenuous link and an unduly weighted POV.PelleSmith (talk) 05:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note that this is already included in the lead: "CAIR has faced criticism from opponents who claim that the organization and its leadership have ties to Islamist groups and ideologies.[3][4][5]" Utilizing "terrorist-associated" as some objective descriptor of the group is clearly not NPOV. If someone doesn't feel that "Islamist groups and ideologies" is descriptive enough then perhaps work on changing the phrase, but it should be presented in this fashion.PelleSmith (talk) 05:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I've no severe objection, but I think you did it in a rushed fashion not waiting for responses from the other side. Also, you removed the provided source (bad form!), so I've added the provided source back on the "CAIR has faced criticism" paragraph. M1rth (talk) 05:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe it is bad form at all to edit boldly, particularly in such a clear cut situation. If a reference is added along with a piece of content and the content doesn't belong then it is up to editors who believe that the reference has relevance somewhere else to add it back in. Bad form is using a phrase like "terrorist associated" in the first few words of an entry about a, be it mildly controversial, non-profit organization that has no clear cut or strong ties to terrorism. Thankfully this project strives to be a NPOV encyclopedia as opposed to the anti-Muslim blogsphere of conservative commentators hell bent on perpetuating a clash of civilizations. My point being that we should find ways to present critical facts objectively, and in due weight proportionate to the subject matter.PelleSmith (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I agree with Pelle. That is an very serious allegation involving a real organization. That is not something to be taken lightly, especially given that all the edit warring has been over that wording. If the provided sources doesn't offer anything more than an excuse for a bad name-calling, it isn't necessary there; it was good for something else, it should have linked elsewhere, Mirth. Sources aren't just supposed to be somewhere on the page and then you can use language everywhere. Frankly, using it in a sentence like "faced criticism" is equally bad. Why not just be specific? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Please calm down, I'm not insisting the wording be added back in, but I merely object to the removal of a valid source completely rather than refactoring or moving the source appropriately. That seems just as POV to me as putting the words "terrorist-associated" in the article.

Question, however: should the record of a US court be valid? This one from federal prosecutors, page 58 says "Moreover, from its founding by Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists." Also possible but weaker (though deserving of a mention in the criticism section if nothing else) is the accusations of Rep. Sue Myrick and the Anti-Terrorism/Jihad Caucus of the US House of Representatives; an interview in Investor's Business Daily in which she said "There was a lot of evidence presented at the recent Holy Land Foundation trial, which exposed CAIR, ISNA and others as front groups for the Muslim Brotherhood." The first seems more than just a "criticism." M1rth (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

How about "The US government alleges conspires with Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists...." [note that the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't explicitly list them as terrorists, just connected], and "Myrick says that they are front groups for the Brotherhood." Saying "critics say ...." actually weakens the criticism against them (as it could just be like run-of-the-mill critics complaining). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that Mirth is using his narrow POV to deny balance to the CAIR article and keeps reverting any legitimate changes. If you make cited statements against CAIR in the first opening paragraphs, then they deserve to be equally balanced with cited statements showing the contrary. You reversed Eleland's legitimate addition of the following:

"CAIR has called the allegations urban legends, and the New York Times quotes U.S. government officials describing "the standards used by critics to link CAIR to terrorism as akin to McCarthyism.""

Why? This perfectly provides a neutral tone to the opening of the article, with both sides shown. Here is another example, of a simple one I made to the end of a sentence to provide a proper balance, which Mirth reverted:

"and says that the money received was a fee CAIR charged for public relations consulting, and that it came months after the creation of CAIR."

I'm going to restore these balanced edits, with the hope that they will not be reverted. Kahmed (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed the edit, and the edits you support constitute WP:OR and fail WP:V; they fail to accurately describe the source which you claim supports them. Please re-read WP:NPOV as well. M1rth (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I have read those links, and the edits made were cited, verifiable and are not dubious (CAIR PDF document and NY Times). Conversely, your recent edit seems to be very POV. Why are you against any type of balance against serious allegations? Kahmed (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You cite a NYT article which does not, on the whole, say what you claim it says. That is misrepresenting a source via selective citation (aka Contextomy). Without your NYT spot, the CAIR PDF is mere first-person sourcing and fails. Again, please read the policies and get a better understanding of what it is you are doing. M1rth (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I will review them again ... in the meantime, how do your edits meet the WP:OR and WP:V?? The Investigative Project is NOT a reliable source, but is at par with FrontPageMag and WorldNetDaily and other pseudo-publications. Any level-headed person will see this. That leaves you with an Investor's Business Daily opinion piece by Paul Sperry, an unreliable source in the same pseudo-publications category. Sperry is published largely in WorldNetDaily and FrontPageMag, and has no mainstream independent expertise, and is nothing more than first-person opinion. I suggest you follow the rules you purport to place on me and others. If Sperry's opinion is included, then so can CAIR's PDF on what it calls 'Urban Legends'. Lastly, I suggest ForeverFreeSpeech be reprimanded for violationg WP:CIV by inappropriately calling me an "Hamasshole". Do you tolerate that? Kahmed (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

How is this for a legitimate source? www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/30/fbi-cut-ties-cair-following-terror-financing-trial/

Fox news article on 1/30/2009 regarding CAIR ties to terrorist fundraising.

Reversion of cited material

Forever, ignoring the massively uncivil edit summary, why did you reverse that cited material? The Omar Ahmad part I understand (his name is spelled "Omar" in the linked PDF, but why aren't you or M1rth allowing the inclusion of any cited information from CAIR itself? It is vastly approaching WP:OWN concerns with you two. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've warned ForeverFreeSpeech about civility before. With that being said, I've already shown what's wrong with the stuff Kahmed/Eleland is trying to push above. It fails WP:NPOV, WP:V, particularly in being a rather poor cherry-picked misrepresentation of a source. And I didn't appreciate the veiled personal attack on my talk page either. M1rth (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Mirth, you are incorrect in your assessment. It is not cherry picking and misrepresenting a source. The NYT article clearly related the cited quote, and it remains in the context of CAIR being accused of radical links. So I don't see how you can even begin to say otherwise. Secondly, if you are using sources like pseudo-journalists and disreputable pseudo-publications, then the CAIR PDF, which directly answers the allegations, needs to be included to meet the [[WP:NPOV}} standards. What you are currently suggesting is a violation of W:NPOV. The cited edits that were made by Eleland and myself do not violate Wiki standards, as you maintain. Kahmed (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You still have yet to explain why the one specific quote, when countered by many other quotes in the article, somehow stands as the quote to be used. That is misrepresenting a source. M1rth (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty simple, folks. We have a bunch of Israel-aligned lobby groups pushing the "CAIR = terrorism!" view, and we have the most respected newspaper in the world quoting numerous US government officials, each speaking independently of the other, noting that the standards used to link CAIR to terror are akin to McCarthyism. There's no "cherry picking," there's no misrepresentation of the source. Reliable sources don't treat the CAIR-terror link as something proven or even credible. It's a smear. <eleland/talkedits> 23:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Gaahhh, this article is a disaster. Looking over the reference list, it's all Washington Times, New Republic, Daniel Pipes up the wazoo... There's a claim that "The US federal government has accused the government of being one of many groups that conspires with the Muslim Brotherhood to assist terrorists," the sources cited to back it are an interview with a fundamentalist Christian US congresswoman, and a court document in which the prosecuting attorney tries to discredit a CAIR brief by claiming that CAIR and the defendant have a "shared background that limits their membership to those of a particular political bent, and undercuts their credibility." What utter bilge. <eleland/talkedits> 00:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You're not helping your case behaving like that and making attacks upon people, Eleland. M1rth (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

And you're not making your case at all, M1rth. <eleland/talkedits> 19:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've made mine. You seem to think dropping code-words and calling people names is a valid response. M1rth (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The only "names" I've called anybody here are entirely accurate - Congresswoman Myrick is a member of the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, an evangelical Methodist, and a promoter of a bizarro-world conspiracy theory in which a Muslim infiltration-coup of U.S. society is in its advanced stages. Your accusation of "code words" is unspecific and unhelpful. Again, these people do not belong in the lede. They are segments of highly biased opinion. A report from the world's premier newspaper, quoting numerous US law enforcement officials all making the same point about "McCarthyism," is ideally placed in contrast to the "CAIR = terror" accusations. <eleland/talkedits> 18:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

M1rth I suggest you do not repeat edits like these inserting unsourced and POV material into the lead. If you do want to insert unsourced POV, do so in the sandbox.Bless sins (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll repeat my concern. How in the world does CAIR itself violate WP:V? That is what they claim. Your accusations of "code words" are very hollow. Again, I'm am going to correct the article so that it is more specific than just random "critics claim this, critics claim that" when it is clearly from a few specific critics. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Unsupported

The last paragraph in the article "At times, CAIR has been accused of portraying events that are not hate crimes, as such..." is unsupported (two dead links). I will wait for a while (maybe someone will provide evidence) then I'll remove the whole paragraph.Hamdan2 (talk) 06:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems someone undid my removal of the unsupported text mentioned above without citing working references to support the allegations. I will undo the undo (meaning redo :) ) the deletion.--Hamdan2 (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge of CAIR and Criticism of CAIR

Why are these seperate? CAIR has been accused by many of being a Jihhadist, terrorists supporting organization hiding behind a mask of civil rights. Saksjn (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Accused? That is exactly what they are. I'm actually surprised that this article is not protected though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.128.185 (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else have a comment on this. Cause if no one does, I'll go ahead and start the merge. Saksjn (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. The criticism section in this article has been trimmed and cleaned, it would unbalance the article to add more to it (without expanding the rest of the article first). I suggest cleaning up the Criticism sub-article, it's a mess. - Merzbow (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

new source

[6] Zeq (talk) 06:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is the nuetrality questioned?

It is well documented and sourced that CAIR has had terrorism ties. Just because we state that doesn't mean its not nuetral. Saksjn (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The current version is vaguely acceptable. Previous versions, upon which I placed the tag, were a lot worse. We're still devoting too much weight, IMO, to completely political and tendentious sources criticising CAIR, but it doesn't need a "totallydisputed" tag at the top now. I'll put an undie tag in the criticism section. <eleland/talkedits> 19:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the section should probably be shrunk a bit, perhaps by a third. Certainly I immediately see some things not important enough for the main article. - Merzbow (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I finished my cleanup. I don't think anything I did should be too controversial. - Merzbow (talk) 03:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Nicely done. If additional shortening is ever required, I suggest we prune those parts of the section that make general comments rather than specific accusations. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The criticism section is very well sourced, if you can provide unbiased sources to show that there is a good size group of people that consider CAIR to be non-controversial, then you can add the tag; but if you can't give us some sources, the tag needs to be removed. Saksjn (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The rest of the article certainly needs more sourcing and cleaning up too. This will also help lessen the contrast with the criticism section. - Merzbow (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Specific rebuttal

I restored the "CAIR responds by arguing that only one former employee was arrested on a non-terrorism weapons charge, and that this took place after the period of his employment by CAIR" response. This is because this response is more specific towards the charge made.

The other response is a generic response aimed at most criticism in general. If we were to talk of general criticism, then the response may have been appropriate. However, we are specifically talking of the connection to terrorism, so that response seems to be more appropriate.Bless sins (talk) 06:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

There is not one single charge made by the critics; for example, that specific response does not address the "ideology" charge. The lead needs to be kept general. - Merzbow (talk) 06:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said in my comment above, the charge bieng made is regarding ties to terrorist organizations and ideologies (Critics say that the organization and its leadership have ties to Islamic terrorist organizations and ideologies). Their rebuttal is in response to charges of terrorism.Bless sins (talk) 06:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, the response that you posted is only a response to the specific charge that "Former CAIR employees and board members have been arrested, convicted, deported, or otherwise linked to terrorism-related charges and activities." This is from CAIR's own document. It is not a response to "Some law enforcement officials have asserted that CAIR aids terrorists", or "CAIR has not condemned Hamas or Hezbollah", other things from the document. Or "ties to ideology", the other general charge in the lead. The mess that's in the lead now is simply poor editing. - Merzbow (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

CAIR Wiki & Daniel Pipes

Some two or three years ago, I inserted a link to Daniel Pipes' webpage: Daniel Pipes.org (http://www.danielpipes.org/). It took immense effort to install that one short external link. I was opposed in this "edit" by three, then two and lastly one person. Eventually (and I believe out of common sense) the link was installed. When it was removed I do not know. YET, given the very words of Daniel Pipes & his criticism of CAIR, which I quote here: "Daniel Pipes alleges that CAIR attempts to suppress criticism of Islamic terrorism and intolerance ... " I say: RES IPSA LOQUITOR. If the vandal "editor" who removed the mere link to Pipes' website wants to come to this talk page and discuss why the link was removed ... well ... bring it on.Mark Preston (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not the editor who originally deleted the link, but I did just delete it now. No one is going to "bring it on," and its generally advisable to take a more civil tone. There is absolutely no need for that link. It is not specifically about CAIR, and what Pipes does say about CAIR is highly contentious. Please review our policies on external links.PelleSmith (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Less than two hours after re-inserting an external link on the CAIR page, I find that the editor has responded, not here, for open debate but to my "personal" user page. Here is what was posted there:

"Mark, regarding your recent talk page comment at the CAIR entry, I would advise you take a more collegial tone. I've reverted your addition and responded to you there. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)"

I would say not "reverted" but controverted. There must be a lot of (is it?) danger, distress, trouble in having a link to a Middle Eastern expert at a CAIR webpage. As for the "collegian tone": I ask if PS is CAIR aggrieved at having a link to Daniel Pipes. This link, by itself does not criticize CAIR. Nor does it invite using the link as it is not in the Criticism of CAIR section. So are you afraid? And of what? If the link to Pipes' had a "tone" collegial or otherwise, I could understand the request/criticism, but as it took 6 months of wearisome argument with sycophants about a mere link the first time, and as NOBODY gave a rationale for the links removal, maybe it would be best to submit the idea of the link to Wiki arbitration now. Anybody?Mark Preston (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The link is not about CAIR, it is to Pipe's website. As such it is not appropriate. Please see the policy on external links. WP:EL. What Pipes does say about CAIR is not appropriate either since its highly contentious. Any criticism of CAIR can go into the article if it is appropriate and from a reliable source. Please see WP:RS regarding that.PelleSmith (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You say: "Please review our policies on external links.PelleSmith (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)" But have no word on whose policies you are speaking of. As to Wiki "policies", they are more like "rules of thumb", and I will quote to you from the Wiki page on External Links. "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic ..." Pipes.org has, on it's front page: under the rubric: NOTEWORTHY --- Learn about CAIR. This is relevant to CAIR. Highly contentious is laughable. You would assert that CAIR isn't contentious? Really? In what world is that? And as for your pabulum about "bringing it on" ... well ... you have already started.Mark Preston (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If you read the policy one point applies specifically:

13)"Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article.."

Which of the reasons for linking are you applying here? The general rule is to avoid linking and not to include a link just because someone wants the own pet POV represented in the EL section.PelleSmith (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Apples & Apples, I agree, I will change the link to Pipes' page about CAIR: "Getting to Know the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)" which is what I described above? Yet this is the exact same argument as last time, "it's not relevant". CIAR & Pipes have a long history, n'es pas?Mark Preston (talk) 00:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Its not relevant. We don't put each and every critical comment about subject matters into the external links section of their entries. Wiki entries are not reposatories of links, certainly not contentious ones. Put notable criticism into the entry and source it appropriately. Please answer the simple question: What part of WP:EL suggests to you that this is an appropriate addition? What you are now doing is disruptive.PelleSmith (talk) 02:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I came back to this page today, after the verdict in the HLF trial has has been rendered as against the defendants and for the people to take to task PelleSmith's unwillingness to have critical links to this webpage. According to his user page he has "retired". (Perhaps he's fleeing prosecution himself?). As soon as Daniel Pipes or the NEFA have considered words about CAIR in regard to the HLF, I am going to link them to CAIR's webapage. If you object, better come up with your reasons, now.69.233.10.163 (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Another editor has suggested on Talk:Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations that we merge the entry back into this one. I agree with this suggestion because the other entry presents no evidence of notability on its own. Instead its filled with possibly BLP violating accusations and primary sourced criticisms from blogs we otherwise consider unreliable. Any thoughts?PelleSmith (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Any encyclopedia article that shows only the "good side" of something is by it's nature against the purpose of Wikipiedia or other encyclopedias. That said, it is also unlike an encyclopedia to have constant changes to the article. That's why the Encyc. Brittanica started issuing supplemental volumes each year. While it's true that an "internet" document has the power of greater flexibility, is that a positive aspect? Constant changes to articles make for poor stability. None the less, I support merging some of each of the two "articles".Mark Preston (talk) 01:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support merge- for reasons stated above.PelleSmith (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support merge of both articles. This would give the context to the criticism.Bless sins (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Texas trial - CAIR mentioned as being involved?

Please read this and discuss here. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 07:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Given that CAIR has explicitly denied what was just found in a court of law to be the case, and that fact is mentioned at the beginning of the article, I reckon this is relevant. --Hiddekel (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

CAIR as Unindicted Co-Conspirator

I read in the Dallas Morning News that CAIR is now an "unindicted co-conspirator" (http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/10/fbi-cair-is-a-front-group-and.html) and the evidence used in the "case" or lawsuit is to be found at: http://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/judges/hlf2.html. I think this information should be included here in the "article". I'm waiting to see a discussion of this idea. Mark Preston (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Anybody there?Mark Preston (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

What goes on with this CAIR entry at Wikipedia? Does no one read this Discussion page any longer?Mark Preston (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It's already in the article. And new messages are usually placed on the bottom.

Deletion discussion

Please see the related discussion regarding the deletion or merging of Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. The discussion is here:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (2nd nomination)

Comments would be helpful.PelleSmith (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent reverts

Just a few questions:

Steve Emerson's "Investigative Project on Terrorism" is not a reliable source here ... the rest of this is BLP problem not to mention NPOV

• Since when is reuters not a reliable source? Steve Emerson is a notable journalist whose work has been published in dozens of magazines and journals. Plus, he's written books on the subject. the report is published in a reliable source, if you really want we can say, "According to Steve Emerson...." But there was no reason to delete the information.

• How is this a BLP issue? Like seriously?

• What is NPOV about it? Perceived negativity = not NPOV. It is cited information, what is the problem?

the involvement of individual group members does not belong here)

• Yes it does. there is no policy stating the article's content must be limited to general events. For example, American Israel Public Affairs Committee discusses about individuals involved. So does Anti-Defamation League. Plus, the paragraph is cited by not only 1 reliable source but also a press release from the United States Federal government.

I encourage you to discuss in talk before reverting everything (especially information of this scale). It's not the proper way to edit wikipedia. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

OK here is a point by point. I am not going to explain them over and over and over again however. Once is enough.

• Reuter's should not be considered the source, and indeed they make this rather clear themselves by 1) categorizing this piece as a press release and not a news article and 2) attributing it not simply to Emerson as an author but also to his organization. "According to Steve Emerson ..." does not belong anywhere in this entry unless his opinion is notable and it certainly does not belong as you used it to source supposed facts.
• Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. This applies in entries not specifically about those people as well. When you make sensationalistic claims about "the groups founders" and source it to the unreliable source discussed above that is a BLP issue.
• "NPOV issue", as in not adhering to the WP:NPOV policy. The section is quite clearly written to highlight a negative POV. It is WP:UNDUE. It is sourced mostly from what amounts to a Steven Emerson editorial and a primary document from the department of justice, not to mention a very out of context quote from the NYT further down. Of course the irony is that the NYT, which as a highly reliable tertiary source, puts this sensationalism in its rightful place ... as senationalism.
• The involvement of individual group members in illicit activities most certainly does not belong unless it has some baring on the notability of the organization. The fact that it does to a fringe minority consisting of a handful of conservative bloggers with a political agenda does not make actually notable. BTW I'm not sure where you got the idea that a press release is reliable. A press release is an explicitly biased source.PelleSmith (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you really need to make this brief and perhaps link to policies instead of copying and pasting entire paragraphs.

• Emerson is a notable investigated journalists. I see no reason why we should include his analysis, and according to policy it passes. Your claim that the report was not a "reliable source" is wrong. Remember, I'm simply going off your edit summaries.

• Okay, I really don't understand this sensationalist claim. It's pretty straight forward, the BLP claim has little substance. It's all cited thoroughly, nothing libelous about it. You're BLP claim is 100% dependent on the claim that Emerson is not reliable or notable - when that is certainly not the case. He is a recognized investigative journalist and has been published in top-tier academic journals and newspapers. This can't be disputed. Couching him in the "fringe" category is rather dubious.

• NPOV claim is also moot. CAIR leadership members have been sent to jail for fronting Hamas charities. There is nothing sensationalist about it, and the NYT article was not taken out of context. They dedicate more than 2 paragraphs to it. The Justice Department is also very explicit. Again, nothing sensationalist about it, it's all notable. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary so continuing to edit-war out every addition with "BLP, NPOV, undue" simply isn't fair. I think you really don't understand how reliable sources work with statements like these, "The fact that it does to a fringe minority consisting of a handful of conservative bloggers with a political agenda does not make actually notable. BTW I'm not sure where you got the idea that a press release is reliable. A press release is an explicitly biased source." This is not a minority viewpoint, these are proven facts. It is censorship to not include FBI indictments and CAIR leadership officials being hauled off to jail. You need to read this: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. You seem to be very concerned about the truthiness of the information (which is understandable) but that directly conflicts with how wikipedia operates. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, a press release by Emerson's organization is not a reliable source for facts about CAIR. Period. Take it to the RS/N if you want to hear the same thing from others. Have you actually read the NYT article? The very selective paraphras you shoved into this entry from the NYT cuts the original NYT statement in half. Here is the rest of what it says.

• ... particularly since some pro-Israeli lobbyists have created what one official called a ?cottage industry" of attacking the group and anyone dealing with it.

The POV you try to ram into the entry is a minority view. Here's another tidbit from the NYT you clearly have no use for: "A small band of critics have made a determined but unsuccessful effort to link it to Hamas and Hezbollah." And btw, you claim elsewhere that only CAIR themselves call this fringe criticism "guilt by association" but the NYT makes it clear that "Government officials" have done so: "Government officials in Washington said they were not aware of any criminal investigation of the group. More than one described the standards used by critics to link CAIR to terrorism as akin to McCarthyism, essentially guilt by association." The rest of your policy arguments are completely misguided. Please take this up at relevant noticeboards if you are unwilling to take it from me.PelleSmith (talk) 03:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, relax. The sources verify the information, you are fixating on the truth aspect. NYT is quoting the legal defense team of CAIR. The information I cited paints a much different picture. There might be a COI if you continue to remove cited content material under dubious claims. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

We are not here to "paint pictures" with selective information, but you seem dead set on doing just that. NYT is not "quoting the legal defense team" unless "government officials" are on the "legal defense team". Please provide evidence for your claim.PelleSmith (talk) 11:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The evidence is in the reliable references. I requested an uninvolved 3rd party to make an assessment of the dispute. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Please provide evidence for your claim -- That the NYT is quoting the legal defense team of CAIR in the quotes I brought forth above.PelleSmith (talk) 11:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It was an exaggeration. The NYT is a world-class media and not a blog. They covered both sides in the article, and you are covering one while dismissing the other as "fringe" and "minority" when that is simply the defense of CAIR. Get it? Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

So you were simply "exaggerating" and there is no actual proof that this information has come from anyone but "government officials"? When are you not exaggerating? I have news for you ... when the NYT writes "A small band of critics", they are not quoting CAIR either. The NYT makes the minority status of the critical position exceedingly clear ... and again this is attributed to the NYT and not CAIR. Your this side vs. that side scenario is completely disingenuous. The suggestion that the NYT "covered both sides in the article, and [I am] covering one while dismissing the other" is ridiculous since it is exactly that which I have pointed out you are doing by ripping half a sentence out of context for use in "painting a picture" of your liking. I should have stopped after the first post. More wasted time and talk page space simply because you fail to understand policy and then argue about it. When additions violate policy they will be dealt with as such. No need to keep on explaining to someone who simply refuses to hear that.PelleSmith (talk) 11:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> No, I was being sarcastic. The article is not an op-ed, it is covering both sides. CAIR claims the criticism is coming from a small band of critics when that is not the case, and yet you continue to edit-war valid (and cited) additions claiming "they don't qualify because of x, x, and x - also, criticism should be limited to a "small band of critics" because NYT said so in a cherry-picked sentence." That is your logic, not mine. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You keep on claiming that "CAIR" says this or that ... when it is not attributed to CAIR in the NYT ... just part of general reportage. Prove otherwise.PelleSmith (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It would help if you put the actual links and difs up so we can look at the articles/issues in question. Stellarkid (talk) 02:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

No offense meant by this at all, but you are a new editor as of a month ago and you're coming here to offer a third opinion on a subject matter which is intricately related to the only subject area that you have been editing from a distinct POV. How did you even know about 3O in your one month and change at the project? This is not the type of "neutral" third opinion sought by this dispute resolution process. Please allow someone who is not a Israel-Palestine single purpose account offer an actually neutral opinion on this matter. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 02:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is how I got here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_portal (Under the Help out) section -->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion. I read this part of the talk page then the article. I found a link that was requested on the article page and added it, then came back to the talk page for more information. I really don't think it fair to accuse me of a distinct POV before I have even offered any opinion. All I asked was for the specific articles and diffs to be presented so they can be considered. Does what you perceive as my POV and the fact that I am a short-termer somehow disqualify me from "helping out?" Or is it just that you suspect my POV does not correspond to yours? Stellarkid (talk) 03:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't disqualify you from helping out in the least. You can edit here just as much as we do and please do. It's just that you don't necessarily represent the kind of "third opinion" desired from 3O. That's all I'm saying. Add your insights to the discussion by all means, I just don't want to see Wikifan claim some strange appeal to authority by equating your opinion with 3O dispute resolution because given your editing history you quite clearly not a disinterested "neutral" third party on Isreal-Palestine related articles (which again is not against policy by any means but it is what it is).PelleSmith (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This is what I wrote 05:15, 20 July 2009. Like all my edits, Pelle reverted it with Steve Emerson's "Investigative Project on Terrorism" is not a reliable source here ... the rest of this is BLP problem not to mention NPOV)

He's edit-wars out everything and then demands pages of argument. Steve Emerson is a notable and award-winning investigative journalist and the link is a reliable source. I don't understand how this is a BLP issue (he continued to put "guilt by association" which is a small stipulation that has little to no relevance in our dispute) and NPOV is bogus. Anyways, I really don't feel welcomed when every edit is met with hostility and accusations of policy violation. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Wikifan12345 for the clarification. I can understand PelleSmith's concern that a press release from this organization may not really qualify as a valid newspaper article. Surely there must be a reliable newspaper article somewhere that carried the same information? Stellarkid (talk) 03:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a reliable source - and that still has nothing to do with BLP, NPOV, or any other blanket copy/paste policy. How long have you been editing? Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Just looking at the edit again and it looks like you have put in other sources to support your argument. The Foxnews reference refers to Emerson's group and is not a press release. I haven't been editing very long, though I have been looking around. I realize I don't know all policy and have a lot to learn. Still, that shouldn't be a reason to dismiss me. If I am speaking in ignorance, I hope that other editors like yourself would let me know what I am doing wrong. Stellarkid (talk) 03:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Also it would be nice to disambiguate Israel lobby in the article, so that people know what is being spoken of there. I would do it myself, except that I am not sure what exactly the author/editor meant by it. Stellarkid (talk) 03:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The Sun reference only covers the "unindicted co-conspirator" part and has nothing to do with the FBI cutting ties in 2009. As it is this statement is OR. It implies, without backing from a source, that the FBI has cut ties with the group because of the Holy Land trial. A clear cut case of WP:SYNTH.PelleSmith (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been looking at and editing the Emerson article to help me determine if Emerson is in fact a reliable source as Wikifan12345 asserts. In the process I uncovered this source from Fox News FBI Cuts Ties With CAIR Following Terror Financing Trial [7]. I would think that if Fox News has no trouble using Emerson's material that we here at WP shouldn't have any problem with it. I won't put it in the article though until I hear your objections, if any. Stellarkid (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The Fox news source does link the Holy Land trial to the FBI withdrawal of ties, but problems still remain with this. Please see this more recent source from the Christian Science Monitor -- [8]. Fox News insinuates the connection, while the CSM reports that the FBI has never made the connection themselves, in fact they write -- The FBI cited "a number of distinct narrow issues" that it has refused to make public. You would have to attribute this insinuation to FOX News which is rather ridiculous. I suggest using the CSM, which is much more neutral, and keeping it to the known facts. The FBI has not made its problems with CAIR public unless you have a source that actually claims this.PelleSmith (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Update -- I made changes to accurately reflect the CSM -- CAIR believes the Holy Land case is the cause for the break in relations, but the FBI has not made this public. As an aside, these facts are a good example of how Emerson is not a reliable source on CAIR. He does not report facts, but peddles in politically advantageous innuendo.PelleSmith (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the discussion of whether or not Emerson and the Investigative Project is a RS, a couple of points. 1)The Emerson article uses FAIR and Counterpunch as a RS to make charges against Emerson. I would think that Emerson is at least as reliable to make charges against CAIR. 2)Because Emerson's Investigative Project is a primary source, it is best to use something referring to it, rather than it itself. This does not make it unreliable though, and 3)Just because a source is occasionally wrong, doesn't make it unreliable. Pipes has corrected himself on his errors and that is all we ask. If we demanded that a source was never wrong, we would have no sources at all! :) At least that's how I understand WP policy. Stellarkid (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Pipes and Emerson are only reliable sources for their own opinions. They are not reliable sources for facts about CAIR. The section in question presented "facts about CAIR". Also, their opinions do not belong, even as attributed opinions, unless they are notable and relevant. Regarding the Steven Emerson entry, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'm not sure what those sources are used in that entry to source but they should not probably not be used to source facts. Like in the example above, neutral reliable sources should be sought.PelleSmith (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed that most other articles on these controversial organizations includes a criticism section. Those criticisms come from other groups and organizations on the opposite side of the political spectrum. That seems to be a legitimate way of providing a neutral pov in an article. Emerson and Pipes are surely notable enough. FBI section requires expanding. For example this article from Fox News [9] says that CAIR was "listed as an unindicted co-conspirator" in the Holy Land case after 15 years' investigation. It refers to "mounting evidence that it has links to a support network for Hamas" and adds:

"CAIR's executive director, Nihad Awad, attended a post-Sept. 11 meeting with then-FBI director Robert Mueller, and he met with other top brass as recently as 2006. But that was before Awad was shown to have participated in planning meetings with the Holy Land Foundation, five officials of which were convicted in December of funneling $12.4 million to Hamas."

This was important enough that another Fox article [10] notes that "several lawmakers are calling on their colleagues to "think twice" before meeting with the Islamic advocacy group, which the FBI considers a front for Islamic radicals." There is almost nothing in this article about these facts, and it is only correct and appropriate that they be included. Stellarkid (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Except the FBI has not made any such "considerations" known to anyone. What you quote is speculation by FOX, which by the way, is similar to CAIR's own speculation ... with the exception of additionally sensationalistic writing. The Christian Science Monitor article makes this all abundantly clear and I suggest you read it. What other articles do you refer to and what do you mean by "these controversial organizations?" Piling on criticism from people with a political axe to grind is not a neutral way of writing encyclopedia entries, despite what various POV-pushers from either side of political issues seem to have convinced you of. What you refer to is a problem here at Wikipedia and not a solution. Have a good look at the various venues where the fall out from this type of behavior finds itself -- WP:POVN, WP:CCN, WP:BLP, WP:FTN, WP:ANI, etc.PelleSmith (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, I have been checking these pages out. I did make a change that was in your CSM article that the FBI confirmed (apparently to the CSM) that this was the reason--thus it comes from a reliable source as opposed to CAIR speculation. Also Washington Post says "Government sources say the FBI cut off contact with CAIR because it was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the terrorist funding trial of the Holy Land Foundation." [11]. It is clearly true that the group has been named though not convicted. I think perhaps the best path here is to change the section title re FBI ties. Or if you are going to talk about the broken ties, you might want to talk about the original ties first. Then I think that this Holy Land case should have its own section. This would allow information to be added as it becomes available. Stellarkid (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

oh an example of another "controversial organization" which might be a good parallel to this one would be the Anti-Defamation League. It has a section on criticism. In fact, criticism is not a bad thing per se. It sometimes can be "constructive."  :) Stellarkid (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The Christian Science Monitor Source

I am changing Stellarkid's recent edit which claimed in the edit summary: "this was in the article. It was "confirmed" by the FBI according to CSM". The edit claims that: A source within the FBI confirmed that these issues stem from being named an "un-indicted co-conspirator" in the case against Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. An anonymous source does not "confirm" an official FBI position. The CSM writes the following:

• The situation began last fall when the FBI quietly withdrew formal relations with all local chapters of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), one of the largest Muslim American civil rights organizations. The FBI cited "a number of distinct narrow issues" that it has refused to make public.
• The FBI declined to say what "distinct narrow issues" had prompted it to suddenly sever ties with CAIR. But in a statement, FBI spokesman John Miller said, "We have made CAIR's national leadership aware of these issues."
• CAIR's Mr. Hooper says that is not the case.
• CAIR believes the decision goes back to May 2007, when it was named along with 300 other Muslim American groups and individuals as an "unindicted coconspirator" in the controversial terrorist funding trial of the Holy Land Foundation ...
• A source within the FBI confirmed that the alleged ties to the Holy Land Foundation were the basis for the FBI's actions.

No where does the CSM use hyphens in "unindicted coconspirator". Steven Emerson does that. We are not using Emerson here.PelleSmith (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Look, the point here is not that I believe this isn't the reason why ties were cut ... CAIR itself seems to think it is, but it is not accurate to attribute this, as fact, to the FBI when they have declined to make the reasons public and have done so publicly. Because of the CSM article we know this is in fact the case. The Washington Post and Fox are playing a bit fast and lose with their reporting, but it isn't as accurate at CSM's because it implies an official position. Besides, the information is there, just more accurately so.PelleSmith (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, funny how two people can read the same information and come to different conclusions. What you have done is outline the article in a way that you feel it works for you. Now I will take out the CSM section in context and show you what works for me...

After a mistrial in 2007, the charity and some of its officials were found guilty in 2008 for ties to Hamas, a Palestinian terrorist organization.

In a letter to the FBI, CAIR argues that the "unindicted coconspirator" designation should never have been made or made public.

"Making this unjust designation public violates the Justice Department's own guidelines and wrongly implies that those listed are somehow involved in criminal activity," the CAIR letter states.

A source within the FBI confirmed that the alleged ties to the Holy Land Foundation were the basis for the FBI's actions. He also said, that as a result of the final conviction in the Holy Land case, "there was a public policy problem with us going forward" in formal relations with CAIR. -- my italics

The "alleged ties" "confirmed" refers to the unindicted co-conspirator charge in the paragraph just above. The newspaper quotes an inside source, and while not stated officially, it was confirmed to the satisfaction of the Monitor (our RS), as it was in the Post ("Government sources say the FBI cut off contact with CAIR because it was named as an unindicted co-conspirator"). If our sources make the claim, that should be sufficient. While it may not be an official position, it has been reported (in 4 different sources) as the position. Nothing requires that this view be official, it just is. Can't see that the officialness or lack of it makes any difference whatever in our reporting of the sources. The newspapers are our secondary source and they are reporting the position of the FBI. We don't need to provide hurdles for our sources to jump. ("hey, you didn't say it was official so it doesn't count.") Stellarkid (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

In terms of this information you version only differs from mine in that you exclude two separate mentions that the FBI declines to state its reasons. The inside source satisfied the CSM enough to mention it as such with proper attribution (something the Post and Fox completely fail to do). They also mention, on two separate occasions, that the FBI officially declines to state its reasons. Is there something about this that is confusing? An accurate version would include: 1) the FBI's official statement 2) CAIR's belief that it is due to the Holy Land trial and 3) the inside source affirming this belief. That is what I tried to do. I do not understand what the problem is with this.PelleSmith (talk) 13:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Israel lobby vs pro-Israel lobby

The NY Times article makes says this:

"In November, the group sponsored a panel discussion by two prominent academics who argue that the pro-Israeli lobby exercises detrimental influence on United States policy on the Middle East.“Traditionally within the government there is only one point of view that is acceptable, which is the pro-Israel line,” said Nihad Awad, a founder of CAIR and its executive director. “Another enlightened perspective on the conflict is not there, and it causes some discomfort.”"

When I tested the two terms, "Israel lobby" went to a disambiguate page -- and pro-Israel lobby went to the WP page directly. This is still the case. For this reason, using "pro-Israel lobby" is more appropriate/accurate than "Israel lobby" in this case and has nothing to do with pushing a particular point of view, as PelleSmith asserted in a recent edit summary, and also making similar and more accusatory comments on my talk page. I don't understand what the problem is. The issue is extremely straightforward in my view. Stellarkid (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If you actually ran the test as you claim you would know that what you claim is false. Pro-Israel lobby redirects to Israel lobby which is a disambiguation page. Pro-Israel lobby in the United States (which is what we are linking as you know) redirects to Israel lobby in the United States. In any event this discussion belongs at the talk page of the "lobby" entry and not here. It is clear what Wikipedia uses. Using the "pro" version equates to POV pushing against Wikipedia standard usage.PelleSmith (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually I ran the test yesterday and it did what I said it does and so has since changed. I see where both go to the disambiguate page now. In any event, the NY Times article being quoted from or referenced refers to pro-Israel lobby. It should be used the way it is used in the reference, then the inline direction go to the correct place, which it did not as of yesterday. Although I am at a loss to know for sure what the speaker in the article actually meant by it ie where to go on the disambiguate page. But we should not put words in anyone's mouth that are not there, that I do know. Stellarkid (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

As I've already posted at your talk page ... wrong again. The redirect I mention has been in place since 2006. Please see the history of pro-Israel lobby. You can link directly to it here. Are you actually confused or simply making things up? Also, our usage in this entry is not part of a quote. Accurate usage remains "Israel lobby".PelleSmith (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Pro-Israel lobby is not POV. It is a generally accepted reference to a largely ambiguous organizations (some of which have little to do with Israel) but alas reality is not what we aim for - verifiability is. If CAIR says "Pro-Israel lobby" that is what we should include. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure CAIR uses that phrase but either way CAIR does not dictate our usage conventions. I've explained this thoroughly already. Nothing more to explain.PelleSmith (talk) 11:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Individual members

Whether or not individual members of CAIR have been deported or convicted of crimes is not something we report in this entry. If those members are themselves notable enough to have an entry then report it there. Unless there is an established link between their activities and the organization itself it is completely irrelevant. Piling in this information is indeed "guilt by association".PelleSmith (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really, since CAIR itself was noted as an unindicted co conspirator. Furthermore, it has been noted in RS newspapers that CAIR was implicated and the connection between CAIR and these individuals noted, thus notable. It is not up to us to decide it is irrelevant and/or issue of "guilt by association." Royer was an active CAIR official when he was found running around DC with an AK-47 and 200 rounds of ammo and training with a militia. One can change the title of the section but the information about these important members of CAIR and really needs to be in there. There is considerable criticism of CAIR related to this in the press, and it should not be whitewashed because we don't like it. Stellarkid (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The only notable aspects of this are already reflected in the entry. The relations with the FBI which were effected by CAIR being named as an unindicted coconspirator in the Holy Land trial are notably mentinoed in reliable sources and are featured in the entry. The fact that a couple of its members/officials were convicted of a crime in that same trial is on the borderline of being trivial, but even that is in the entry. Individual instances of other members being convicted for this or that crime are not notable. In fact the specifics of who was convicted in the Holy Land trial is not notable even. It is not up to you and the fringe sources that pile on the guilt by association to the actually notable facts to decide what should be included either.PelleSmith (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The relations with the FBI section is in itself rather silly hanging alone as it does with zero background. This whole article sounds like a advert for CAIR, rather than real unbiased information. Readers who are interested in reading about CAIR because they have read in the papers about its background, the leaders who were indicted, the controversy surrounding it, etc, would be extremely surprised that virtually nothing in this article speaks to some of the criminal issues and accusations made both by and against them. I will continue to try to expand this article to include this sort of information, but if you insist on keeping this information out I think there should be a disputed tag placed on this article. "An established link between their activities and the organization itself" is made by the sources. The sources do not consider the link irrelevant or they would never have been mentioned. It is not up to WP editors to take it upon themselves to make that determination. Stellarkid (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There is more relevant background if you read the CSM article, but it doesn't have to do with the convictions of CAIR members. According to CSM CAIR had good relations until the Holyland Trial. After the trial relations have further soured because of other factors, according to the CSM. All of that actually relates to the organization. Why don't you expand that information? Oh wait I know why because that isn't the most efficient use of the FBI cutting ties because it doesn't so readily make CAIR look bad. Is that it? Please stop the POV pushing.PelleSmith (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There are numerous articles alleging that CAIR and its members have ties to terror, so perhaps it would be better to call the section something like CAIR's terror ties. I suggest that to insist on taking out this sourced and important and highly relevant material may be seen by others as POV-pushing by you. Perhaps we could try for another opinion, a fourth one? Here are some well sourced allegations and indictments of CAIR and its membership. I would think the best and fairest way to resolve this would be for the allegations to be included and CAIR's denials and and concerns acknowledged as well. I can't do everything at once, as it is a big enough job just cataloging their alleged misdoings.

"amid mounting evidence that it [CAIR] has ties to a support network for Hamas. " --Fox News, FBI cuts ties with CAIR following terror financing trial

"And several lawmakers are calling on their colleagues to 'think twice' before meeting with the Islamic advocacy group, which the FBI considers a front for Islamic radicals." Fox News - House leaders wary CAIR FBI Shuns group

"The inclusion of the Islamic groups on the list of alleged conspirators could give ammunition to critics of the organizations. CAIR, in particular, has faced persistent claims that it is soft on terrorism. Critics note that several former CAIR officials have been convicted or deported after being charged with fraud, embargo violations, or aiding terrorist training."

"Last year, Senator Boxer of California, a Democrat, withdrew an award she gave to an official at a local CAIR chapter. She said she had concerns about statements by some CAIR officials and about claims of financial links to terrorism." New York Sun, Islamic groups named in Hamas funding case

"The evidence has long suggested that 'CAIR is a criminal organization set up by the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas to further its aims of stealth Jihad in the U.S."Who is CAIR by Rep Frank Wolf (10th District of Virginia)

More recent allegations against CAIR members including Ibrahim Hooper and Amina Rubin, Nihad Awad aka Nihad Hammad, Parvez Ahmed, Tahra Goraya, Khadijah Athman & Nadhira al-Khalili can be read at this Reuters article, including this comment-- "Goraya served as 'national director' of the Council on American-Islamic Relations at the time of the alleged fraudulent scheme perpetrated by CAIR and its national leadership in Washington, D.C." You can't just pretend this stuff doesn't exist. These facts and allegations are highly relevant toward giving a complete picture of CAIR and deserve more than one liner you wish to give it. In fact, more attention is given to blaming the Israeli lobby! for CAIR's legal and reputational woes than on elucidating those very woes for WP readers. That in itself is more than a bit ridiculous! Stellarkid (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are you "cataloging their alleged misdoings"? Are you here simply to smear this organization as opposed to writing with balance and neutrality? Everything you quote above put together would give you about one additional line of relevant text. Basically that other government officials have also distanced themselves from CAIR because of its perceived ties to Hamas. Nothing above makes a case for including details about these individual convictions. The Fox piece you are so fond of quoting is extremely sensationalistic and filled with unverified claims such as "the FBI considers a front for Islamic radicals." According to whom? We know the FBI has not made any public statements like this about CAIR so what is Fox talking about? The lines you quote from the Sun which are not summarized by the one liner I presented you with in this response are relevant only to the criticism section ("ammunition to critics", "critics note that ...", etc.). All that said it really worries me that you have no time to present a balanced picture of something because you are spending all of your time "cataloging their alleged misdoings".PelleSmith (talk) 01:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Press releases are not reliable sources

In Stellarkid's last attempt to reinstate the edits being discussed above he added an additional piece of information about a federal RICO complaint made by four former CAIR "clients". The source used for this information is a press release of the lawyer representing the former clients. A press release is not a reliable source for facts. To make matters worse Stellarkid's text claims that the feds are "prosecuting" CAIR on these charges, when in reality the former clients have a lawyer (David Yerushalmi) who is representing them privately in a "lawsuit". This is really shameful.PelleSmith (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh? Press releases from the federal government or promoted by reliable media is certainly relevant. If CAIR is actively counter-suing allegations of supporting terrorism, then that should be in the article. But to totally deny that nothing is going on is absurd because the references speak for themselves. It is a certified-fact several CAIR leaders have been indicted and convicting for fronting-Hamas charities, and yet that continues to be warred out under odd "BLP" rationales. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The press release is from a private lawfirm and not from the federal government.PelleSmith (talk) 11:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree totally with Wikifan12345. Particularly the part about it being promoted by reliable media, in this case Reuters. Stellarkid (talk) 13:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

So you both agree that we should use a source against WP:RS. What a surprise. Your agreement does not trump policy.PelleSmith (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• I haven't read all of the discussion above, but a lawfirm's press release is not a RS. It becomes an RS once the press picks it up and reports on it. WP:WELLKNOWN. --JN466 23:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Pelle argues that the entire history of CAIR officials being thrown in jail for fronting terrorist-charities should be denied wholesale, and now he says a press release that has been pimped by a series of reliable media and responded to by CAIR also does not deserve a voice. We have loads of reliable sources that could add depth and put a critical spin on CAIR, but instead he wars everything out. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Reading the full talk page it is clear that PelleSmith has been acting as doorkeeper for this article since 2007. His self-assigned task seems to be to keep unpleasant information out and only allow in good stuff about CAIR. Stellarkid (talk) 02:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Both of these comments are almost farcical. Relevant and notable information should clearly go into the entry within the limits of policy and guidelines. What both of these editors are interested in has been aptly put by one of them on this very page -- "cataloging [CAIR's] alleged misdoings". It is clear cut POV pushing without any attempt at balance and neutrality.PelleSmith (talk) 06:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It is appropriate to do so. Obviously, the use of the term alleged is also appropriate except in the case of those members, ex-members/officials, ex-officials of CAIR that have already been convicted. Disallowing any word of these allegations, trials, and convictions is POV-pushing. Once the details or catalogue if you prefer, have been provided, you can edit them for balance and neutrality. By not even allowing the material into the article, it becomes you who is POV-pushing, and is clear from reading this page that you have been doing so for some time. The press release issue is just another excuse, since the vast majority of the information I (and apparently others, above) put up was attained from Washington Post, Fox News, NY Times, NY Sun and other reliable sources; material you deleted entirely, with no attempt at providing balance through editing. It might be time to stop accusing others and to get down to the serious business of editing. As it stands now the vast majority of this article is a panegyric taken from its own website. Stellarkid (talk) 11:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been saying this over and over and over. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Looking at this diff – the last paragraph was the one sourced to the press release, correct? I was unable to find news coverage of this case in google news November 08, except for a page on WorldNetDaily, which doesn't seem to have good standing on WP:RSN. Have there been further updates on the case in reliable sources?
• The penultimate para seemed to concern an individual, a fundraiser in Ann Arbor; I doubt this would be relevant to this article. Presumably they have several thousand of those.
• discoverthenetworks.org has previously been found wanting as an RS: [12]
• As for CAIR being named as an unindicted coconspirator, the sources, Washington Times and New York Sun, are okay. Likewise FoxNews. So it is less apparent to me why this information should not have a place in the article. Humanevents.com on the other hand ("Headquarters of the Conservative Underground") seems quite clearly a non-RS. The doj court record must not be used, per WP:WELLKNOWN, unless referenced in a secondary source. Hope that helps. --JN466 22:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The reliable sources do already have a place in the entry and the entry does already mention the link between the Holy Land trial and severing of ties with the FBI. There is also room for some modest expansion of reliable sourced and notable information. For instance, also worthy of note is the more indepth subject matter of the NYT piece which deals with the issue of other government officials distancing themselves from the group from various angles. However, the two editors complaining above have no desire to flesh this subject matter out in a neutral manner. Instead they just keep on trying to fill the entry with details about this or that person associated with CAIR who was convicted. It seems rather clear that what they want to do is to establish as much of a link between CAIR and "terrorism" as possible with little to no regard for policy and guidelines. Perhaps they should take their passion to WorldNetDaily or Jihad Watch where our pesky policies don't matter.PelleSmith (talk) 02:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the reliably sourced material is already there, in the "Relations with the FBI" section. That satisfies me, at any rate. --JN466 02:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict]Jayen466, being named a co-conspirator was put up in a single sentence with zero background or context, and sounds rather like a fart in church. The founders and co-founders and top officials' troubles have their place in this article as well, given that there is a reliable source. Some legislatures have warned their colleagues about CAIR. [13] This all seems to me as speaking to the relevance and importance of these charges (or rumors?) against CAIR. The ADL, has said that their reputation has been tarnished. It has been talked up and down on conservative talk radio. It's relevant. The current status and reputation of CAIR is relevant, and it should be balanced against what it says about itself and what is said about it by others. It's legal status is relevant. I may not be doing it as well as might be hoped, (that's why none of us are writing this by ourselves) :), but it should certainly be in the article. Headquarters of the Conservative Underground was printing the words of a Representative Frank Wolf from Virginia. He was presumably talking about something of which he had some knowledge, and I would argue that he is RS. As for the rest, if anything of this nature is consistently edited out, it becomes meaningless to bother to put anything at all up! There is much in the article that is [citation needed] but it remains in there, much that is supported only from CAIR itself. But when it comes to anything about CAIR's legal & criminal woes, PelleSmith has reverted wholesale everything I have put up on this subject at least 3 times so far. That doesn't include his long history here at this article or anyone else's edits. He of course is only gate-keeping to keep any unpleasantness out, while others who do not accept his view are "POV-pushing", "have an agenda", and are in general, dolts. You apparently agree with him and I don't plan to get into an edit war over it. Stellarkid (talk) 03:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

POV tag

I have been asked to put up a rationale for the POV tag I put up. I expressed my rationale above but to clear up any misunderstandings, here it is specifically stated. The article in my view whitewashes CAIR and does not have a section outlining what is really happening with CAIR in the real world, that is, allegations, trials, indictments, and convictions. I (and others) have been putting up sections with this information well sourced, but it has been consistently reverted as POV, irrelevant, not really having to do with CAIR, etc. So until we can agree or compromise I feel the tag belongs there. Thank you. Stellarkid (talk) 13:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to begin a reorganization of the page because alot of it seems redundant or not relevant. Hopefully that will improve the overall quality of the article and resolve the pov issue. 19:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClockSpire (talk • contribs)

External Links Addition

In an effort to improve the site and link it to relevant material, I propose adding within the external links section, a link connecting the WP site to the various cair chapters that exist. This is non-controversial and will provide more resources for those reading the article. Unless there are any objections to be discussed, I will add the relevant links. 18:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClockSpire (talk • contribs)

Gaubatz and Sperry

Everyone get ready for adding stuff from Gaubatz and Sperry who have studied CAIR and brought to light a lot of good stuff about it in their new book Muslim Mafia. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not a reliable source. WMD Books is not a reliable publisher. The book is good only for the opinion of the authors which should only be included if reliable sources prove that opinion to be notable.PelleSmith (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Well if it isnt PelleSmith, who else would it be. I feel some people here work for CAIR or something. Anyway we'll see how it goes. When or if the book gets coverage on other notable places it could be used but I dont have the time to battle it out so dont worry. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The book is based on 12,000 pages of documents given to Gaubatz' son Chris, who served as a volunteer intern at CAIR's national headquarters under an assumed name and was given the documents for shredding purposes but instead turned the documents over to an attorney.Psyclonic (talk) 06:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course they are, and there is no question that these papers confirm the presense of CAIR on the grassy noll. What a discovery! We are not about to add conspiracy theories published by WND Books to any of our entries. Sorry.PelleSmith (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably not nearly as sorry as you will be when the true role of CAIR as an apologist for radical Islamist politics is revealed, as it inevitably will be, over the course of the ensuing investigations. Psyclonic (talk) 08:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, and I'll be equally sorry when the birthers are proven right, and the fake moon landing is exposed, etc.PelleSmith (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I notice you didnt mention the 9/11 "truth movement"...perhaps you agree with such conspiratorial kookery. Claiming 9/11 to be an "inside job" would probably fit right in with the agenda of a CAIR apologist like yourself...Psyclonic (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Robert Spencer in intro? Really?

Why is a blogger and self-published author given so much undue weight in the lead? Clearly WP:NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.167.184 (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit history from this IP shows vandalism, I dont think anyone is going to take you seriously. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Regardless Robert Spencer is clearly not a viable source for the lede. I would question if he constitutes a RS at all. Simonm223 (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Spencer's website consistently documents their articles with links to mainstream media from across the globe: [[14]] Why would such a valuable source of information on radical Islamist activities around the world not be a viable source of information?Psyclonic (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead: Controversial issues

PelleSmith, 'salam' to you

So can you explain what you're doing and why you're deleting information from the article after I've told you on your talk page not to do it? Yoou said we should use the talk page so lets use it before you change the previous version of the article. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't get to tell people not to delete anything. We include and exclude information based on policy and consensus. The version you are reverting to is not the established version as you claim but one that contains UNDUE POV information in the lead which was recently added. A summary of the criticism should be there, I agree, which is why I've tried leaving it in. I have no patience for these shenanigans and will take this matter up in the appropriate forum.PelleSmith (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Undue is an old excuse, sorry. You attempted to delete information (FBI severing its ties with CAIR) which I told you about on your talk page. Whenever you go to that forum, be sure to tell them about this. I'll see you there. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I've taken this matter to ANI. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Matt57_crossing_several_lines_in_smear_campaign. I'm not going to play these games with you.PelleSmith (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Self published criticism of the group by a guy with an axe to grind (borderline libelous to boot since the allegation is that the group is composed of people who are "fundamentally deceptive and corrupt")? No.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. A more neutral mention of criticism should probably be in the lead however. Mainstream sources have reported on this criticism and CAIR has seen fit to respond to it several times. Personally I see most of it as conspiracy theory and guilt by association but it is out there.PelleSmith (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the sources on that and haven't thought about CAIR for quite some time. A sentence like "Critics allege the group has ties to terrorist organizations, a charge the group denies." Might be acceptable (assuming it's dealt with lower down). Less subjective, more specific about the "charges." Have at it.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Holyland trial, the lead and unreliable sources

The information that User:Islamrevealed keeps on inserting to the lead clearly does not belong there if it belongs in the entry at all. The trial documentation he references is a primary source, which doesn't explain anything regarding their connection to this trial. The most reliable source of the remaining is Fox News. Other sources include WorldTribune.com which isn't reliable and Steve Emerson's Investigative Project on Terrorism certainly isn't either. In fact on this topic, Fox News needs to be taken with an even larger grain of salt than usual. In other words these sources are junk, and cannot be used to source "facts" of this nature, and certainly not in the lead. I'm going to delete this again. Please engage the talk page.PelleSmith (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

PelleSmith, you have deleted the same paragraph for different reasons, first citing it was POV and then that the sources were unverifiable, among other reasons. The material is factual and neutral in tone. Sources include acknowledged, reputable news outlets, including The National Review, The Washington Times, and The New York Post. The same information can be found on hundreds of additional sites, including In City News, The NEFA Foundation, and even the ACLU's own webpage. Please stop deleting factual information that is indisputable. If you have a legitimate basis for why you believe the information is erroneous, let's discuss it here rather than arbitrarily deleting it.Islamrevealed (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You've kept in all those poor quality sources and now you've added others. The NY Post, Washington Times, and The National Review, are hardly neutral sources of news in this arena. The piece from the Post was written by Steven Emerson, the Times piece apparently has no author, and the National Review Online editorial is written by one of the three contributers to [Powerline]. Then there is the matter of Incitynews, whatever that may be, which has republished something from WorldNetDaily--which is right up there with Steve Emerson in reliability. And I'm not sure what I'm supposed to make of the ACLU hosting a memorandum by the US attorney (so what?) on their website. Where are the reputable sources? I'm reverting your recent edit again. If you want this information to stay in the criticism section find some decent sources.PelleSmith (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

All sources removed other than ABC News and FOX News. Cannot get more mainstream and reputable than ABC, PelleSmith.Islamrevealed (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Good article

I'm a bit disappointed that this article is at C class status.

I encourage everyone to colloborate to make this article better. Any ideas of how we can get it to G Class status?

VR _talk 15:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Added Hudson Institute Material On CAIR Founding

This stuff needs to be condensed and it is pretty much a "copy and paste job" at the moment but the source is credible and cites numerous court and law enforcement documents. I didn't want to do the edit job on it if who ever is "controlling" this page will simply delete it. It is important for readers to know that this organization had its origins in the Hamas infrastructure in the U.S. and, however it is done, this material belongs here in some fashion. This article currently reads like a press release for the organization,

(sgmiller 08:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC))

Hudson institute is not a reliable source for much and i've removed the essay you placed at the top of the article (which may have been a copyvio to boot per "copy and paste job.")Bali ultimate (talk) 12:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Your comment on Hudson is nonsense as they do much credible research on the Muslim world. Nevertheless, I agree about the copyvio issue so I did a rewrite and placed it in the Criticism section. It provides some backup to the designation as an unindicted co-conspirator status of CAIR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgmiller (talk • contribs) 19:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I totally rewrote this so there is no hint of any copy/paste. The NEFA references all point to original source documents. The material is support for the criticms, already noted in the article, that CAIR had ties to Hamas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgmiller (talk • contribs) 13:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Take it up at the reliable sources notice board. They are not, believe me, a reliable source (since they're partisans) in the wikipedia sense. Good luck.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Is is an irrelevant point now, but the Hudson Institute would be a reliable source in this case. No less so than the Center for American Progress would be in a "criticism" section of a hot-button issue. We're talking about a book here. —DMCer™ 23:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

section removed as "littered with unreliable sources"

I thought I would put the section up here and we could discuss each one with respect to its reliability, rather than a blanket removal. Just a quick look I would say the Levitt book would be an RS, not sure where the Watson memo would be found, as it isn't clear from the reference, would have to investigate "nefa foundation" and believe blogs are generally considered unreliable. But they deserve a bit of discussion rather than a simple revert.

Critics of CAIR have cited ties from the CAIR founders to Hamas. Both Omar Ahmad and Nihad Awad had earlier been officer of the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP), described by a former Treasury Department intelligence official as "intimately tied to the most senior Hamas leadership."<.ref> “Levitt, Mathew, Hamas : Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad, Yale University Press : May 1, 2006. p. 149 ISBN: 0300110537</ref>

Both Ahmad and Awad participated in a meeting held in Philadelphia on October 3, 1993 that involved senior leaders of Hamas, the Holy Land Foundation, and the IAP. Based on electronic surveillance of the meeting, the FBI reported that “the participants went to great length and spent much effort hiding their association with the Islamic Resistance Movement [Hamas]"<.ref> “Action Memorandum, Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development International Emergency Economic Powers Act,” From Dale Watson, Assistant Director FBI Counterterrorism Division to Richard Newcomb, Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of Treasury, November 5, 2001.</ref>

Participants at the meeting received extensive briefings from Hamas operatives on Hamas infrastructure and activities.<.ref>http://nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/HLF/93philly_muin.pdf.</ref>

There was also discussion about forming a "political organization and public relations” body, “whose Islamic hue is not very conspicuous."<.ref>http://nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/HLF/93Philly_11.pdf.</ref><.ref>http://nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/HLF/93Philly_8.pdf</ref>

An agenda of a July 1994 meeting of the Palestine Committee of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood identified CAIR, along with IAP and HLF, as "working organizations" of the Committee.<.ref>http://counterterrorismblog.org/site-resources/images/CAIR%20Minutes.pdf</ref>

Stellarkid (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate a discussion of the sources rather than an edit war with summaries equivalent to : "yes they are" & "no they aren't". What is wrong with the scholarly book by Mathew Levitt, for starters? Stellarkid (talk) 16:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The NEFA Foundation and the Counterterrorism Blog are not reliable sources for information on this ... case closed (on them). Matthew Levitt directs a program at a pro-Isreali think tank which represents an extreme POV diametrically opposed to one that at least critics of CAIR would attribute to that organization. In other words both organizations should be considered detractors of each other, de facto. He is not in any way a neutral source here and hence not reliable for facts. Notable criticisms are fine if properly attributed and if proven notable. You know this by now. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice if you actually looked at the references which point to source documents (Federal court exhibits) hosted on the NEFA/CT servers. The organizations themselves are not relevant. I redid the references to make this more clear. I also linked to the WP IAP article instead of using the Leavitt reference. I also linked to the WP article on IAP instead of using the Leavitt reference. So, I put things back on this basis. Also, I would like to know who you are, actually, to declare what is "case closed."

They sources listed are, of course, reliable. They are government exhibits and transcripts of recordings that a judge deemed reliable enough for a U.S. courtroom. Furthermore, they have notability because they prompted the FBI to "avoid formally constructed partnerships" with CAIR. The fact that the documents are hosted on the NEFA Foundation's servers is irrelevant. Also, a scholarly book published by the Yale University Press is also completely appropriate to cite in this article. If you doubt that, I suggest seeing WP:ATT, particularly the phrase, "In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities..." At any rate, it's usually not appropriate to remove a block of cited information without discussing it on the talk page first, particularly when there are POV issues behind the removal. —DMCer™ 21:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The other point is redundancy. There is a paragraph that discusses the Holy Land Foundation trial as well as FBI severing ties from CAIR as a result. No effort was made to work with that existing paragraph, instead info was slapped on top of it, ignoring the previous state of the article. There is no point in having two paragraphs, back to back, saying pretty much the same thing.VR _talk 17:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

They sources listed are, of course, reliable. They are government exhibits and transcripts of recordings that a judge deemed reliable enough for a U.S. courtroom.

Wikipedia doesn't look to US courtrooms for reliability. We have our own policies.

Furthermore, they have notability because they prompted the FBI to "avoid formally constructed partnerships" with CAIR.

Can you find a reliable source linking those court documents with FBI's actions in avoiding relationships with CAIR?

Agree wtih Yale University Press book comment.VR _talk 17:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The article includes the following response to criticism "CAIR disputes criticisms which cite loose ties to specific organizations and personalities." However, there is no presentation about what critics believe these ties to be. The unindicted co-conspirator status does not speak to the charges of "ties" which CAIR is responding to. Probably the most important such link is from the CAIR founders to Hamas. The HLF court documents were introduced into evidence in Federal court and the presence of the two founders at the Philadelphia meeting has never been contested in any venue. The FBI produced hotel receipts which document all of those who attended. Surely if CAIR's defense of the charge of "loose ties" is in the article, the charges themselves are not redundant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgmiller (talk • contribs) 21:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

CAIR's supposedly weak response to "evidences" doesn't make them any more reliable. Neither does your claim that they have never been contested in any venue (well I'm contesting them now, and its up to you to back the claims with sources that meet WP:RS).

Also keep in mind that sources must be "third-party, published sources". The information contained in an exhibit should have been published in a reliable third-party source.VR _talk 22:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The source documents in question are transcripts of meetings recorded by the FBI, accepted in federal court as evidence, and not-contested by the defense. They clearly meet the verifiability test as the case/exhibit numbers are stamped on the documents. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Anybody can check the authenticity of the documents by contacting the federal court.

I have added the Matt Leavitt book again since we agree that Yale University Press is a high quality source according to WP guidelines. I also added another FBI document posted on the federal court web site.

Once again, we need a publication. Some one needs to have published those documents in a third-party source. Where were these transcripts published, and what makes these transcripts notable? "Contacting the federal court" is not even close to "has already been published by a reliable source."

Also, I'm removing NEFA. Please don't re-add it. It is a very unreliable source. Find a better source than that.VR _talk 16:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it would make the reference stronger to remove the links and just leave the document numbers? The references which are U.S. court documents, copies of which are merely HOSTED on the NEFA and/or CT blog servers. I have been through this before on other WP articles and moderators have said that court documents are perfectly acceptable and it is better to provide a link to an "image-hosting service" of some kind so people can read them. In this case, the organizations in question are acting as such services. The documents are in that sense "published" by the courts and anybody who wants to verify can access them through the courts. It is no different than a book in a library. We are simply making it easier for the readers to get to the documents by pointing to them on those servers. Unless you can show where this somehow violates WP guidelines I will continue to revert deletions and if you keep taking them out, we will need to get moderation on this. NEFA and the CT blog themselves are not being uses as sources only as a hosting service for the actual documents. This meets the WP policy of verifiability.====

NEFA and CT blog are not reliable sources, means they are not reliable sources. How do we know they are not fabricating the documents and presenting them out of context? If we can't trust a source we can't trust it. Feel free to find a neutral and reliable image hosting service, and provide links to it. For example, this is a reliable source you've added, and I trust its authenticity. (Though the problem with that source is that it doesn't say what you want it to say, see below). Find a similarly reliable source for the rest of the documents.VR _talk 19:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"How do we know they are not fabricating the documents and presenting them out of context?" Again, we know because they weren't produced by NEFA or the CT blog, they're hosted by them. They were produced by the FBI, used in court proceedings, and cited by countless media outlets. In this case, I'd argue that CT Blog is a reliable source. See WP:RS, said "blog" is appropriate when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Have a look at the contributing experts column on the left side of the site. At any rate, if you're so concerned about the host server and not the document, why don't you just change the link to one of the many sites that host the same document? I'll do that.‚DMCer™ 21:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Changing the link to a more reliable one would be much appreciated. (Note I didn't remove the material, only the unreliable sources). Also, regarding blogs, please read the caveats in WP:V and WP:RS. Blogs are of the lowest reliability (even when considered reliable), and if we're using them for allegations against living persons (e.g. Nihad Awad), then WP:BLP rules them out. ("Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material...")VR _talk 21:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Once you change the link to a reliable one, we can proceed to see whether the document says what other editors claim it says. See below for an example where the document that doesn't make any criticism of CAIR is purported for that purpose.VR _talk 21:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(moving thread left a few notches). Yeah, I agree about meeting roster being WP:OR in and of itself. I finished replacing the sources, please have a look. I avoided questionable sources and tried to shift it to the mainstream. I removed the CT blog source, because although I believe it to be reliable, there were less controversial ways of stating similar criticism that has been more widely covered. Also, the two NIFA sources still listed are placed behind others, and are only there to provide a link to the original document that the other, third-party, sources cite.—DMCer™ 23:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Up until now, I have not taken issue with the repeated characterization of the NEFA Foundation as an "unreliable" source. There has been no evidence provided to support this assertion which has now escalated to suggestions that the organization might conceivably hosting "forged" documents. I did a little research on NEFA and found this listing:

http://www1.nefafoundation.org:80/news1.html

containing numerous instances of mainstream news organizations relying on materials produced and hosted by NEFA. So, if its good enough for the Washington Post, Associated Press, and CBS News, it clearly is good enough here,

==language changes==

I made some small language changes to enhance neutrality:

1. eliminated "need for advocacy" sentence as this is unreferenced an implies a knowledge of what the motivation was 2. eliminated "voice for American Muslims" until such time there is a reference supporting that the majority of American Muslims feel this way 3. Retitled "Partners" to "Relationships"...I doubt that many "U.S. Presidents" agree that they are "partners" 4. Change "desecration"to "controversial" to describe cartoons....not all would consider them desecration —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgmiller (talk • contribs) 14:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I changes these further so they are now neutral. Let me know fi you disagree with any of the changes I made.VR _talk 17:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Bin Talal

Not sure why the reference to his donation to the families of suicide bombers was deleted. CAIR has been criticized for its connection to Hamas and hence Hamas terrorism so its important to understand why taking money from Bin Talal was controversial. The reference is from a high-quality UK media source so this should not be an issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgmiller (talk • contribs) 12:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What Bin Talal does with the rest of his money doesn't belong on this article, but rather on his own article. You are bringing two unrelated facts together.VR _talk 16:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

First, I did place it in his article. Second, his contributions to Hamas were the basis for why CAIR was criticized. Since critics tied CAIR to Hamas, the fact that CAIR took money from somebody who donated a large sum to the families of terrorists was seen as further support of Hamas/terrorism.

Did critics tie CAIR to Hamas because of Bin Talal? Secondly, did Talal give money to Hamas suicide bombers? Does Talal's giving money to Palestinians have anything to do with CAIR?VR _talk 19:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

ADL/Pipes/Spencer articles

I changed this language because after actually reading the articles, it is clear that they never once mention CAIR's opposition to "Israeli policies" per se but rather the use of antisemitic and nazi imagery. For example, from the ADL article:

"CAIR also organizes anti-Israel rallies during which protestors and speakers engage in anti-Semitic rhetoric, use offensive Holocaust imagery likening Jews and Israelis to Nazis, and express support for terror groups."

I also deleted Spencer since he is a blogger while the others have more mainstream credentials.

It seems pretty clear to me at this point that up till now the Criticism section was constructed in such a way as to discredit critics as far as possible while giving maximal credibility to the CAIR defense section. The claim that ADL/Pipes objected to CAIR on the basis of opposition to "Israeli policies" is just one example. The earlier statement by one of the editors that he considered the criticism to be "conspiracy theories" further supports my assumption here. I think we now have some balance in the Criticism/Defense—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgmiller (talk • contribs) 13:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The ADL website says "CAIR also continues to offer a platform to conspiratorial Israel-bashers and outright anti-Semites. " Anti-Israel criticism is part of ADL's opposition to the group.VR _talk 16:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If you believe that, please provide references. The ADL article cited only refers to "conspiratorial Israel-bashers " which is a term referring to those who employ various conspiracy theories to denigrate the country. That is different from criticizing CAIR because it attacks Israeli policies per se.

Well if the ADL views criticism of Israel as conspirational - that's no surprise. ADL is free to call CAIR's criticism of Israel anything it wants. I'm not saying that antisemitism is not part of ADL's complaint, I'm saying you can't remove the Israel part.VR _talk 19:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I will simply quote then from the ADL article itself.Sgmiller (talk) 06:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

What is this?

Why is this being used as a source? [15]

All I see in this link, that is relevant to CAIR, is that Nihad Awad was a speaker and was planning phone calls. That's it. How is that criticism of CAIR, let alone how does it link CAIR to Hamas?VR _talk 17:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The reference is further evidence that Awad was present at the meeting according to the FBI. It simply supports the other sources.

Please see WP:NOR. We are not here to string together pieces of "evidence" in order to make a case for something. Besides that the "evidence" you site has no direct connection to CAIR whatsoever and hence has no business in this entry.PelleSmith (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see....when you write "evidence" like this you suggest it isn't really evidence. No connection to CAIR? Did not the exhibit clearly label the two CAIR founders as present at the meeting. I am only adding these because it is clear that some hear are simply going to revert/fight/take issue with any substantive criticism of CAIR so the more references, the stronger the "case". What is the point of having a criticism section if actual criticism, backed up with court documents, transcripts, media reports, and a scholarly book are constantly being reverted?====

Bieng present t a random meting is no evidence of anything, nor criticism. You can't take documents out of context and extrapolate "connections"/"ties" from them.VR _talk 19:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Random? It was a meeting which the FBI described as bringing together the top leadership of Hamas in the U.S. and which the FBI used, in part, to argue that CAIR is a "front group for Hamas. Please explain how this constitutes "random." It wasn't the Elks Club after all.Sgmiller (talk) 07:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the source doesn't seem to say "was a meeting which the FBI described as bringing together the top leadership of Hamas in the U.S." Correct me if I'm missing something.VR _talk 17:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I will delete this source as it was left over from previous edits. Per above, it was originally provided to try and deal with the constant deletions and reverts of any criticism of CAIR. It is no longer necessary as 3rd party sources are being used as references.Sgmiller (talk) 09:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Critics

As far as the "who" question on critics, please give me a day or so and I will provide references for those.Sgmiller (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Stop simply reverting people who are challenging your additions. There is a very helpful essay about this kind of thing at WP:BRD. Establish consensus on the talk page before reverting back to your own contentious version. Personally I'd roll this back further. It is up to you to make a case for you additions and to get support for them before putting them back.PelleSmith (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I would be glad to do that once I see that consensus is actually the standard being used here. As it was, the article made it appear that the critics were a bunch of conspiratorial nutcases attacking CAIR with no fair basis. In fact, you yourself stated in the discussion that you believed yourself that the criticism was conspiracy based. The result was a "stacked deck" where the Criticism section is being emasculated while the Responses are give full play. Responses to criticism were given full exposition while the criticisms themselves where never elaborated, merely slandered by associating them with the likes of Robert Spencer. A 2007 article, predating the HLF evidence, was exploited in full, for example, while there was not not a single mention of the presence of the CAIR founders at perhaps the most important meeting of Hamas leadership ever held in the U.S. So yes, lets work with consensus but please lets not pretend that this has ever been a fair venue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgmiller (talk • contribs) 18:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Please sign your comments. The NYT article, if you care to actually read it, is pretty accurate on this subject matter. Criticisms are mostly guilt my association claims without any real evidence of connections between the group and terrorism. Yes those who promote these theories are cranks like Spencer and Pipes. There is no stacked deck. What you've started doing is pushing the crank POV into the entry. I don't have the energy for this so I hope someone else will deal with this. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Your continual insistence that the connection between CAIR and Hamas is "guilt by association" simply makes the case that this is a stacked deck and is actually now becoming the "crank" position. First, you asked for credible sources to show that CAIR is tied to Hamas. So, a pile of evidence is produced showing that the founders/leaders were active participants in a meeting where the entire leadership of the U.S. Hamas infrastructure is present and which is attempting to conceal its affiliation. Instead of dealing with this evidence, you choose to attack the sources even though the organizations hosting the documents had nothing to do with the documents themselves. In addition, you continue to insist that " cranks like Spencer and Pipes" are the ones behind this. Do you actually think the FBI and U.S. prosecutors base their investigations and actions on Spencer and Pipes? The fact that these two also have been suggesting there are ties between CAIR and Hamas simply means they turned out to be correct in this instance. You cannot denigrate the truth of something because you don't like some of the people who agree with it. I have taken great pains to introduce sources that have nothing to do with these two in order to illustrate that this is NOT something concocted by them.

The New York Times article, which I have read in fact (have you read the court documents??) is a piece of junk that chose to cite unidentified "government officials. I think I can find such unidentified officials in the government to support any point of view. In the case of CAIR, there are government officials on both sides; its just that the journalist chose only to present those on one side. Also, as I said, the article was written BEFORE the public release of the HLF evidence tying CAIR to Hamas. So keep invoking one article by the NYT as a holy writ if you want.

So, what we have is a situation where both the FBI and the U.S. Justice Department have formally made the case that CAIR is part of the U.S. Hamas infrastructure, supporting that case with court documents and designating CAIR as an unindicted co-consprirator. Hamas is also officially designated as a terrorist organization so that means CAIR is tied to a terrorist organization. I would think then what remains is for somebody to re-write the Responses section post HLF (you will notice that the CAIR defense document is no longer live on the Internet) and stop this mantra that its all "guilt my association claims without any real evidence of connections between the group and terrorism. " The real evidence has been produced and the government has acted on it.Sgmiller (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously we can't list every notable critic, but I added attributions, which make it a bit more specific than the general, "critics." (Disclosure: I didn't read the entire thread in its entirety.)—DMCer™ 23:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Unindicted Co-Conspirator

I changed the description to link to the WP article characterization. As it was written, it was implying that the designation was made because of a lack of evidence sufficient for charging. The reasons cannot be known.

World Tribune Article

I rewrote this section to add the reasons for the FBI decision, citing the actual statements quoted in the reference. It was clear from the World Tribune article that the FBI was not merely using a "technical legal" basis but rather believed that CAIR had something to do with Hamas. That is what the article actually says. I see from the above discussion that the FBI reason for cutting off CAIR has already been discussed but, as I said, I am only citing what the source actually said about the decision.

Explain, please

Pardon my ignorance, but I don't understand the nature of the following source:

“Action Memorandum, Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development International Emergency Economic Powers Act,” From Dale Watson, Assistant Director FBI Counterterrorism Division to Richard Newcomb, Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of Treasury, November 5, 2001.

It doesn't seem to be a book, nor an article. Is it a report? Is it a letter? Is it an act?

It would also be helpful if the wikipedian who introduced it, could inform us where he/she read this source. Was it obtained at a local library, from the server of a government database? Is the wikipedian blindly quoting another source that used it, without actually having read the source the wikipedian is quoting?

Answers in this matter would be much appreciated.VR _talk 19:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not "blindly" quoting from this document which is in my possession and has been posted on the Internet. Give me a couple of days and I will post a link to it but if is going to be deleted because it is hosted on the server of an organization which somebody doesn't like, I won't bother.Sgmiller (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

How did it end up in your possession? Is it something sold on Amazon, or available at a library? I'm not asking for your copy of it, but where would one find a copy for the sake of verifiability. VR _talk 20:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No explanation?VR _talk 17:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Moved from main article

I'm moved this here to discuss. It can be moved back so relax. However, I don't think it should be unless it is seriously edited because it has some rather fundamental flaws (see below):

• Four members of the U.S. House and Senate, have cited ties between CAIR founders to Hamas. Both Omar Ahmad and Nihad Awad had earlier been officers of the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP), described by a former Treasury Department intelligence official as "intimately tied to the most senior Hamas leadership." Both Ahmad and Awad participated in a meeting held in Philadelphia on October 3, 1993 that involved senior leaders of Hamas, the Holy Land Foundation, and the IAP. Based on electronic surveillance of the meeting, the FBI reported that “the participants went to great length and spent much effort hiding their association with the Islamic Resistance Movement [Hamas]" Participants at the meeting received extensive briefings from Hamas operatives on Hamas infrastructure and activities. There was also discussion about forming a "political organization and public relations” body, “whose Islamic hue is not very conspicuous." At a 1994 meeting at Barry University Awad stated that he is, "in support of the Hamas movement, although CAIR has sought to discredit his comments, stating Hamas was only designated a terrorist organization in January 1995 and did not commit its first wave of suicide bombings until late 1994, after Mr. Awad made the comment.

Discussion

The paragraph above starts out with what is currently a very weasely sentence about members of congress and the senate being critical of CAIR. The fact that those government officials are critical of CAIR can obviously be included here if it is notable. The specific criticisms they have made can likewise be included if notable. However, the remainder of the paragraph reads like someone trying to make the case for them. To make matters worse none of this material is directly about CAIR, but instead about accusations made against people affiliated with the organization. It does not belong in this entry. If notable critics say "we don't like CAIR because one of its founders did X, Y, or Z thing" ... then fine leave it in and attribute it to the critics. But we are not here to sow together a narrative to support their criticism, especially when it is only tangentially related to the organization in the first place. The NYT and other sources have actually written about these types of issues. How about using those sources to provide a published second/third party perspective on these matters instead of this POV laden OR?PelleSmith (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you changed the first sentence to make it appear that the criticism against the organization is minor and ambiguous. I cited examples of 6 members of Congress who have criticized the organization. You changed it to 4 after pasting it here, which is both incorrect and misleading. I took the initiative and cited 6 members of Congress critical of the organization, in order to attribute the claim. It does not mean that they are the only prominent critics, again, it only serves to appropriately attribute the claim and provide a basis for critics. We're not here to list the precise number, which is impossible. Your wish to name the exact number implies that there are only 6 U.S. officials critical of CAIR, and that they are only Congressmen. Wow! If there were exactly 134 critics of an organization, some lawmakers, some organizations (the FBI), etc., should we scour the web and tally up all the sources? I believe it was fine the way it was. Secondly, you again inserted your second {who} tag when the article clearly states who the founders are. It is not ambiguous and your tag is not necessary. To your point, "The NYT and other sources have actually written about these types of issues. How about using those sources to provide a published second/third party perspective on these matters instead of this POV laden OR'." There's no OR here -- that's why I revised the section. The NYTimes is used as a reference, as are other "second/third" party sources. If you want, you can insert "[name of newspaper] reported that..." before each sentence, but I think we both know that would be excessive. That's what the citations are for. Finally, I agree with your addition of the "Response to Critics" section for the sake of balance (although it is very under-sourced), but your repeated removal of a chunk of the criticism section to which I spent a long time revising to suit your concerns by adding reliable third-party sources is, in a word, irritating. I added very little criticism, but only sought to verify what was there. There was a dispute about the primary research documents used, and a rather trivial concern over the host website, so I opted to cite the newspapers and websites that reported on the original documents.—DMCer™ 05:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I restored the paragraph in with some minor edits. Removed the "extensive training" part, as I can't see that from the document that was cited.—DMCer™ 06:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The counting of 4 rather than 6 was a simple mistake. "Some" is completely weaselly, in fact even a number is since the notability of this matter changes rather drastically depending on what congressman or woman is involved. Also what does it mean that they have "cited ties ..."? This section is not about innuendo but criticism. Are they critical of CAIR based upon alleged ties? If yes, then say so. However, the biggest problem here is not with the first sentence it is with what follows. See below.PelleSmith (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I changed the host server for the "Islamic hue" document to the U.S. Federal court; this should satisfy the NEFA critics, although as noted above, NEFA is often cited by mainstream publications such as the Washington Post, Associated Press, etc. This should lay to rest the absurd charge that NEFA could have "forged" federal court documents.Sgmiller (talk) 09:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Re-reading the above, I need to say that firstly, if the previous version read like somebody trying to make the case for the critics, it was because my first attempt to introduce this material was met with the usual "unreliable source" argument referring to the Hudson Institute report. I then made the mistake of thinking that there would be interest in the sources behind the report so I wrote it that way. I should have gone the route now taken which is to have found the third party sources, now included, that wrote about the HLF documents rather than the documents themselves. No problem. However, the idea that the Hamas background of the CAIR founders (and others in the organization not identified) is "tangential" is preposterous. If they had founded a cookie company perhaps, but they founded an overtly political organization that, as the article notes, has been advising journalists, police, and government on issues related to terrorism and the Middle East conflict. It would be as if I had been/was a secret member of the Mafia leadership and then formed and led organization to fight organized crime. Surely the fact that I was actually part of the Mafia would be of interest to those that I was advising? I could accept that prior edits asking for 3rd party documents, etc, etc were reasonable efforts to improve the article, but this sort of thing or, above, the idea that the Philadelphia meeting was "random" or that NEFA might have "forged" documents suggests to me that it has now become an attempt to prevent "negative" information about CAIR from appearing in the article.Sgmiller (talk) 11:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

None of this solves the problem. I'm going to post at the original research message board for guidance here. The issue is that we should not make reference to critics and then make a case for them, stringing along alleged facts in an attempt to back up their criticisms. That is a violation of WP:NOR. I wont even go into the way in which these sources are being used in the first place.PelleSmith (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

A link to that discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Is_making_the_case_for_critics_in_a_criticism_section_original_research.3F.PelleSmith (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that this section is not written ideally, the root of the problem is not "original research." The problem is that the article as it stood might as well have been a press release for the organization and, in fact, relied almost entirely on the organization's own material. The reality is that CAIR is "criticized" if you want to call it that by a wide variety of actors including Federal law enforcement, Congressmen, NGO's, obviously with their own interests. They are also defended by another group of actors also with their own interests. That said, the reality is that there is existing, verifiable evidence that the CAIR leadership has been/is part of the leadership of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas which no reasonable person can say is not relevant to the subject. The fact that partisan groups (which does not include NEFA in my opinion) are criticizing the organization does not negate that fact in any more than having equally partisan groups on the other side supports it. I thought that one way of dealing with this is to simply spell out the arguments that both sides are using in a Criticism/Responses nature but the people who are objecting have gone on record here as stating that the criticism is not valid in the first place and have raised every possible objection to any inclusion of such criticism unless it refers to the most dubious of those who are making it (eg Robert Spencer.) So, I am open to suggestions on how to resolve all this but based on my belief that readers who come to this page deserve to know important information about the organization and its leaders that is relevant to what the organization says it is trying to do. CAIR says it is fighting terrorism and extremism while there is solid evidence, reported by media, law enforcement and a variety of NGO's with good reputations for producing reliable material that the CAIR leadership themselves were, at least a one time, part of the leadership of a terrorist organization. As I said, I am open on how to report that, but it needs to be reported. Otherwise, what is the point of this article. Readers otherwise might just as well visit the CAIR web site and we can save ourselves a ton of aggravation.Sgmiller (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)