Talk:Council on American–Islamic Relations/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Palestine Committee

I think the part about the organization that CAIR's founders worked for, Islamic Association for Palestine, should be removed or at least edited so that it reflects the two sides of the issue. Now the article reads: "IAP was an Islamist organization that it was later revealed raised money in the US for Hamas, though it billed itself as "a not-for-profit, public-awareness, educational, political, social, and civic, national grassroots organization." The charge that IAP was an Islamist organization is an unproven allegation. The source, Harvey Kushner, is a conservative extremist who hates Islam. Ideally, this part, from "IAP" to "organization" should be removed. Failing that, it should say, "Critics alleges IAP was an Islamist organization."Ibnsina786 (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I re-added the part about CAIR being one of the four working organizations of the Palestine Committee of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood. I sourced the criticism to an ADL report and included a pointer to the document, yes, hosted on the NEFA servers. Please, as I have written above, no more nonsense about NEFA. The organization was once again cited today by the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/10/AR2009111020051.html?hpid=topnews

so that should remove any doubts about the credibility of the organization which, as I have said repeatedly in this case is only hosting the source documents which are identified by case number and therefore can be verified. The fact that CAIR was, at least at the time of its founding, a part of the U.S Muslim Brotherhood is highly relevant to the question of it being a "Hamas front organization" in the words of the FBI.Sgmiller (talk) 12:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The reliability of NEFA should be considered on a case to case basis. Where it is quoted by a reliable source, then it should be taken into wikipedia as such. Where there is no reliable, impartial source making a similar claim or quoting/backing NEFA, a reliable source is needed.

BTW, what is your above link trying to establish?VR _talk 17:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

POV concern

The criticism section curently looks like it was written by critics of CAIR, taking most of what they say as fact. Per WP:NPOV, we must write this from a neutral perspective taking both the opinions of CAIR and its critics and treat them as opinions.

Further, care should be taken to not place UNDUE weight.VR _talk 17:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sure this must be a joke because most of the article looks like a press release from the organization itself. Previously, the criticism section was written so as to actually discredit the criticism as much as possible while giving maximal credibility CAIR's defense. In fact, one of the principal editors has gone on record here as saying that he believes the criticism to be unfounded and labels it a "crank" POV. I think what you are seeing here is a fair presentation of the criticism for the first time. You just don't like itSgmiller (talk) 07:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Please stop referring to what I've "gone on the record" to state as if it implies some inherent bias by those who don't agree with you. Yes most of the criticism is absolutely of a fringe variety. The result of removing the originators of most of this criticism from the entry, so as to make it look as if is not fringe, has resulted in massive amounts of original research. This entry is a magnet for every anti-Muslim American xenophobe editing the encyclopedia unfortunately. Attempts to whittle criticisms in this entry down to notable criticisms which are well balanced always run afoul exactly because of this fact. And by the way none of this is a "joke" ... certainly not to the law abiding Muslim-American citizens who are associated with CAIR and who have a more honest distaste for extremism than someone like you could possibly imagine. Good luck VR, I'm not really interested in playing these games on this entry anymore as I have no personal investment in any of this. I'm going to take this page off of my watchlist.PelleSmith (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

No Sgmiller, my concerns are not a "joke". I wished you took others' perspectives seriously.

Everything must be written from a neutral perspective. Neither Cair's nor its critics. Of course we can quote CAIR on a lot of issues per WP:SELFPUB. This includes its (non-controversial) projects, members, info about offices and operations. If CAIR changes its headquarters, don't expect New York Times to report it, this info will have to come from the CAIR's website. And, per WP:SELFPUB we can quote it.VR _talk 17:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, your statement only confirms that your are not honestly trying to report the criticism and assumed the role of self-appointed defender of the " law abiding Muslim-American citizens who are associated with CAIR." Also important is your implication that critics are "anti-Muslim American xenophobes" which, of course, is exactly the position that CAIR itself takes on these issues. That CAIR has a "more honest distaste for extremism" than I could ever know...well, I suppose the only way you could discern that would be if you had some form of personal relationship with the organization. Otherwise, how would you know about such "distaste?" While I agree that anti-Muslim xenophobia does exist, the fact remains that CAIR is criticized by a wide variety of actors including the FBI, Congressmen, and a host of NGO's none of whom meet that definition. All we are trying to do is to find a way to include this criticism in the article consistent with WP policy. You could have actually chose to help us do that instead of having a temper tantrum because you seem to have personal feelings of admiration for the organization. Oh well.Sgmiller (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as my "joke" comment, what I meant was that it is ironic that the article is now considered POV suspect because it merely has a Criticism section. As I have aid repeatedly, before it simply cited CAIR's own material and included a few lines of commentary on criticism which appeared written to maximally discredit such criticism as opposed to reporting it honestly. Yes, it is ok to cited CAIR material but if this all there is, what is the point of the article as the reader could learn essentially the same thing by going to the CAIR web site. As far as taking other "perspectives seriously", I think I have tried to do just that by developing a sound and healthy criticism section. It was, in fact, the other way around. The critical perspective was deemed "crank" and the critics deemed "anti-Muslim xenophobes." Did I ever label CAIR supporters "self-deluded, pompous, politically correct apologists" and attempt to gut the Defense section because that would be the equivalent of what was done here. In the end, the article is still lousy because it now looks like a press release from CAIR and a section tacked on by critics. It needs to be thoroughly re-written by people with a real knowledge of the organization and without an ax to grind on either side, but at least now a reader will be alerted to the fact that CAIR is in an organization in the middle of a very heated debate about Islamist, the Muslim Brotherhood, Muslims in America, etc.Sgmiller (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I added the POV tag to the defense section. As long as every single attempt to report the criticism of CAIR is going to be an issue, then lets broaden the issue here. As per the above discussion, this article had been heavily edited by somebody who has publicly stated that he considers the critics of CAIR to be "anti-Muslim xenophobes" and has call CAIR a "law-abiding" organization which, to me, suggests that he has taken a position on the issues, clearly a POV suspect thing to do, no?Sgmiller (talk) 11:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolving POV

I am going to once again suggest that if you think the Criticism is not neutral, then rewrite it and improve it. Just do it in such a way so that the criticism is reported fairly instead of the way it was before. That would show me that you are not just using POV as a red herring because you also are a "supporter." I promise you that if you actually improve it instead of gutting it, I will have no problem at all.Sgmiller (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I have a little more work to do, but for this to be proper it needs to properly reflect what is said in RSs. Its just about there, though frankly some material is missing.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think that the criticism section is still biased. That is no excuse to remove well-sourced material or to add unsourced material, of course. But it will take time. And a sign should be there warning the readers.VR _talk 16:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

What in that section reflects POV?--Epeefleche (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Pipes

Pipes is given a huge paragraph in the criticism section, even though his criticism is of no particular notability and he certainly isn't a very reliable source. I suggest summarizing that paragraph into the space less than that provided to more maintream parties FBI, US senators etc.VR _talk 16:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there should be more criticism by mainstream parties, disagree that Pipes is not reliable. Here is a source [1] saying that US Rep Myrick accuses "a Muslim advocacy group of attempting to place interns on key national security committees to sway policy in its favor" and,

“Why would anyone allow a group, who the FBI says is tied to terrorism, to influence national security policy, or any policy for that matter?” she said in a statement. “If the FBI has cut ties with CAIR, Congress should wake up and do the same.”

On Wednesday, Myrick and fellow GOP members of the Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus, Reps. John Shadegg (Ariz.), Paul Broun (Ga.) and Trent Franks (Ariz.), called for the House sergeant at arms to investigate whether the House Homeland Security Committee, Intelligence Committee and Judiciary Committee had hired interns who acted as “spies” for CAIR.

There's plenty of criticism by RS to be found. It just hasn't been able to find its way into this article. Stellarkid (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/both points raised by Stellar.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

As than america citzen I donot recogize Danial Pipe and Robert Spencer as being america citizen.

The america federal coutt arenot doing they job to protect america muslim citizen civil right and human right from the islamistprobic like Danial Pipe and Robert Spence of jihadwatch of being hater.Since our legal system does nothing I donot recogize Danial Pipe or Robert Spencer as being america citizen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.148.188.147 (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

With a remedial grammar equivalent to that of a kindergarden schoolchild, I doubt it very much that you are in fact an American citizen. Anyhow, who gives the rat's ass whether you think Pipes and Spencer are American citizens or not. Who are you anyway? Who elected you? How are you anymore of an American citizen than the two "Islamistprobics"?

And hey let's say you are right. Pipes and Spencer aren't American citizens because you are an American citizen and they aren't. Well Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly are also american citizens, so would you support them not recognizing the founders of CAIR as American citizens? Fellytone (talk) 05:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Arrangement of History Section

The purely chronological list was not particularly informative. I think this section should be broken up into major stories and categories. I've started doing this by isolating the Holy Land Foundation case and CAIR's relationship with Congress since such large chunks of the previous article dealt with them. Maybe another good section would be "reaction to terrorist attacks" or something in this vein. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swimslave (talk • contribs) 22:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that the history section can be a good idea if the major milestones are covered, because rather than list and describe every sort of action they take, the article could take us through CAIR's growth and evolution into what it is today. e.g. working for headscarf rights, allowing Muslim students time off for Eid holidays, conducting workplace sensitivity training, and putting out condemnations of terrorism. It would be great if the article laid those out in the article, but since that's not really done I'd say incorporate them into a timeline (for now at least) BrotherSulayman (talk) 09:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

CAIR's fatwa

I want to edit the section talking about CAIR's fatwa and restore NPOV but I realize that could kick off an edit war by critics because I'll be deleting a reference and not putting anything suitable in its place. I thought I'd post it on the Talk page to show the problem. The offending sentence is "The fatwa was notable, however, in that it did not condemn attacks on military targets, and is not—like other fatwas—binding on Muslims everywhere." (Shienbaum) It's factually incorrect; if you look at the definition of fatwa you'll find that none "are binding on Muslims everywhere" since they are given by local scholars and in people's native languages. Second, although CAIR released this fatwa for American Muslims, it is consistent with fatwas released in Europe, the Middle East, Asia and Africa, so it is de facto binding on Muslims everywhere (and thus not a valid criticism). Lastly, "attacks on military targets" is arguably not considered terrorism (according to the Wikipedia entry for it), so that shouldn't be a valid criticism for the page. Besides, CAIR has condemned attacks on the armed forces as well (most notably the Fort Hood shooting). Even so with all of this, I'd suggest anyone who wants to criticize the fatwa put it in the page's Criticisms section where it belongs. BrotherSulayman (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I commend you for bringing what you think may be a contentious edit to the talk page first. That, and your general attitude in the short time I've seen your editing, are highly gracious and commendable. As to the specifics, perhaps it would help if you were to precede the material you think is factually incorrect with "x said". That takes it out of Wiki's narrative voice, and puts it in the author's narrative voice. As to all of this, I would say that any "corrections" that appear in RSs are appropriate to reflect in the article, as long as they appear in relation to CAIR -- but not otherwise, per wp:synth. I don't have a considered view yet as to whether moving it to the criticism section is best. Cheers.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm really happy for the feedback. I took your advice and tried presenting the material in that format, but it strikes me as the source just being a bad fit. I tried to remove the wp:synth problem that was blatant before it, but I don't think leaving the source in fixes the problem. The page is in the format of "CAIR did x in 2005," but the source and quote is making judgements on it (which may belong outside the timeline). Putting the other viewpoint in that paragraph for NPOV would result in a lengthy paragraph over what's in essence a small issue. BrotherSulayman (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

King hearings

The Peter King hearings seem to have been conducted in significant part to "expose" CAIR, and could be mentioned here. (see Missing target at King hearing: CAIR - Josh Gerstein and Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com etc.). P.S. Old discussions at Talk:Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations... AnonMoos (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Other "Muslim Mafia" kerfuffles?

Has CAIR had other court battles such as the one involving the FBI and the authors of Muslim Mafia? If so, why have they not been included in the article? 64.134.222.142 (talk) 03:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well CAIR was sued by Michael Savage and I think there was a reciprocal suit which both were dropped in the end. BrotherSulayman (talk) 02:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The Anti-CAIR-net dot org website provides some very interesting details about the former leaders and current leaders of CAIR. CAIR attempted to sue the website author for typical islomphobic gorp, but they droped the lawsuit because he was reporting fact, not slander. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.61.206.179 (talk) 02:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Image from mainspace

I found this image in the article.

check from Holy Land Foundation
to CAIR

Are there any sources to back the image? Why would CAIR publish images of the donor cheques it receives? The title of the image "Check from terrorist organization HLF to Islamic organization CAIR" seems to show certain biases of the uploader.VR _talk 23:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This check doesn't prove anything without the reverse side also being included, which will show whether or not it was negotiated and into which account. Anyone with a home printer and some check stock from any office supply store could produce a check made payable to or from anyone. At a minimum, the source for the image of the check needs to be cited.

Finally, the file name itself is misleading, as it reads "Screenshot of scanned check given to Islamic organization Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) by the terrorist organization Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development". No one has proven that this item was indeed given to CAIR or that CAIR negotiated it, just that this check exists. This is amateur at best, potentially fraudulent at worst. Former Operations Supervisor of Key Bank, N.A.69.29.155.98 (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

alleged IAP links

In the Early Years section, the first paragraph tries to link CAIR to Hamas via an alleged association of several founders to the IAP. The paragraph uses loaded words like "Islamist" and language that makes it sound like a proven connection existed, but the actual cited sources do not make that connection. I don't think that this attempt to draw an indirect link between the groups or accuse IAP belongs in the History section on the CAIR page, and is already heavily covered in the Criticisms section. I move to strike it from the History section due to its speculative, contested nature, and dubious citation. BrotherSulayman (talk) 06:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Related article?

I've just come across The Iran lobby in the United States, an orphaned article which looks potentially quite problematic - I don't know much about the topic, but it reads fairly one-sided, and may not be appropriate for a Wikipedia article. (Apart from anything else, a contribution by a user called "Minitrue Propdep" is faintly alarming). It mentions this group specifically - could someone with expertise take a look? If need be, it may need deleting, or partially merging into Iran – United States relations.

Thanks, Shimgray | talk | 10:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Sources behind paywall

User Luke 19 Verse 27 has done a series of edits, some of which are decent, and some I don't think are conducive to the page. First, he has removed the reference to 222 anti-Muslim and anti-Arab hate crimes after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, claiming the source does not contain that statistic. Unfortunately the source is behind a paywall, and I can't see it from here to say whether it does or not. Searching the internet shows a LATimes article and NYTimes from nearly the same timeframe however, although CAIR is not referenced by name and instead referred to as a "defamation group." I think the text should be reverted and possibly the sources be replaced with these articles. Second, Luke 19 Verse 27 also deletes the word "offensive" from a complaint, citing " language. I've never seen an offensive greeting card, even at porn shops." While I don't wish to repeat it, the card was making a joke about "shi'ite" with a curse word for fecal matter. Anyone could see how that is offensive. I think these changes need to be reverted. BrotherSulayman (talk) 06:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

tough question brothersulayman. my thoughts: a) paywall - if it is not covered anywhere else, with CAIR mentioned by name, then maybe it just isn't so notable?; and b) i think for the word offensive to be included, then more info needs to be there. when i saw that the word 'offensive' was removed, i tended to agree (not because i have never seen an offensive greeting card, but because it did seem out of place). but now, i understand the issue better, having seen actual offensive play on words. so, can you try to reword it and get it in being more explicit without being offensive? Soosim (talk) 08:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Criticisms of CAIR

I was trying to figure out where the source that said CAIR came out and said women need to keep their heads covered (right now, referenced in a NYTimes article). I can't find any source other than the news article itself. I am not sure about past stances, but this most certainly does not sound like an issue that CAIR would espouse. Is one news article enough to cite to where there doesn't seem to be other evidence available? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.250.85.65 (talk) 11:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, many have criticized CAIR for its presentations given in schools. One was given at Friendswood Junior High in Friendswood [http://www.wnd.com/2008/06/66865/ ], TX, which caused outrage among parents in 2008. Parents and students were not notified of the presentation given. The ACLJ [2], the Houston Area Pastor's Council, and State Board Member David Bradley condemned the presentation as indoctrination. The school's principal, Robin Lowe, was forced to resign after the incident. CAIR also attempted to give a presentation to a school in Georgia in 2010; however, outraged parents prevented the presentation from taking place. In February of 2012, a presentation was given by CAIR in a school in Tampa Bay, FL. see [3]. --99.25.90.226 (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Mike 99.25.90.226 (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

content removal

Daniel Pipes and FrontPage magazine are fringe sources that do not belong in Wikipedia articles about topics other than themselves. The Ahmad quote is from a reliable source, but that source contains a great deal of material other than the quote and cherrypicking it to make CAIR look bad violates WP:NPOV. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

:I agree. FrontPage magazine is run by an ultra-conservative that goes by the name of Horowitz - who in and of himself has no credibility because of his racist views. And Daniel Pipes doesn't seem reliable either given how he's stated a number of horrendous things against a largely non-White minority in Europe who just happen to be Muslim (and who's also claimed that the odious myth, that "Obama is a Muslim"m is true). Numpty9991 (talk) 01:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC) - block evading sock puppet of Dalai Lama Ding Dong Beta Jones Mercury (talk) 04:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Co conspirator status

I have deleted the part about a judge removing CAIR from the unidicted co-conspirator list. This isn't true and wasn't supported by the sources provided. If you would like, I will write a piece about CAIR's attempt to get their name off the list, and where we are today, but don't put up false information about this, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livingengine1 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The sources you added were laughable and likely violated BLP as well as our verifiability/neutrality policies. As I pointed out to you earlier, NALT and CAIR aren't the same organization; is this the origin of your confusion with the cited sources? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

"For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the district court's order only insofar as it requires that the opinion and order be sealed.  All other requests for relief are DENIED. The case is REMANDED to the district court to unseal its order in accordance with this opinion." http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1541982.html

AS I think is clear here, the Fifth Circuit merely unsealed the Attachment A list, and did not remove any names from the list. Any modifications made here to the contrary will be deleted by me. Livingengine1 (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, you seem to be confusing NALT and CAIR. If you have a wording change, feel free to suggest it, but your removal of sourced information and your insertion of the other nonsense was obviously inappropriate. Additionally, your declaration that you intend to edit war to push your personal views is unlikely to be well received. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't what you are referring to when you say "NALT". It has nothing to do with CAIR's inclusion on the Attachment A list. No judge has removed their names from this list at any time. The sources that you provided do not qualify. As far as edit wars go, you are the one doing this. You are putting up false information, and I think it may qualify as vandalism at this point. Shall we take this to the administrator? Livingengine1 (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been meaning to say NAIT. I hope you understand now what I'm referring to. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand very well what the North American Islamic Trust is. They, along with the Islamic Society of North America, filed a request to have their names removed from the Attachment A list. On July 1, 2009 Judge Jorge Solis ruled in a decision combining both NAIT, ISNA and CAIR's request to have their names expunged from the Attachment A list. Judge Solis denied the request to expunge their names because "Government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA and NAIT with HLF, the Islamic Association for Palestine (“IAP”), and with Hamas."

However, Judge Solis agreed that their rights had been violated when the Attachment A list was made public. So, he had the Attachment A list sealed from public view along with his decision.

NAIT appealed this decision, and on 10/20/2010 the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in NAIT's favor, ordering the unsealing of the Attachment A list, as well as, Judge Solis' decision, but said this about expunging -

". . . the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to expunge the mention of NAIT in the newly sealed attachment."

All that happened was a paper shuffle. If you have other relevant information, I am all ears, but so far, you are putting misinformation on the Wikipedia page. Livingengine1 (talk) 23:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

So, again, would you like to propose alternate wording instead of removing sources? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not know what you mean by "again". I have have been up front about what I intended to do here, even giving an announcement here on the talk page, with no response from Roscelese, just straight to the blocking.

I find it interesting that neither Roscelese nor the admin Zad can tell me, either here or any where else, what is the offending part in this suggested entry for the 1993 Philadelphia Meeting.

Crying violation of BLP is something that has been noted for its over use, I think that is what is going on here.

What do you say Roscelese? Livingengine1 (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Since you declined to propose alternate wording, I myself have edited the content you added to make it acceptable. I've explained the BLP violation on the other page you've been trying to put the unacceptable content into...but I'm sure we would all be interested in hearing about how a "new" user is aware that BLP-flagwaving is a problem. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, well, well, I read it on Wikipedia, Roscelese.

You don't want to explain the BLP violation on this page, Roscelese? Why? Livingengine1 (talk) 07:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Requesting correction (300 to 245) and addition to body of article

The lead says 245 were on the list; the body says 300. Can someone fix?

The only mention of the Federal Appeals Court decision is in the lead. Text needs to be added to the article body that gives more details of this October 2010 appeals court decision, perhaps at the end of a new section titled "Holy Land Foundation case" that consolidates all the related info already in the article? --72.66.30.115 (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Requesting changes to references for this article

I'm requesting the removal of references # 5 and 8 and the addition of a reference to an NRO article by A. McCarthy:

McCarthy, Andrew C. (October 27, 2010). "Unindicted Coconspirators". National Review Online. Retrieved October 16, 2013.

This article by Andrew McCarthy states that the names were not removed or expunged, while giving a clear explanation of what happened.

Current reference #5, sourced to PRNewswire.com, should be removed entirely as it is mostly a press release from CAIR reported by PRNewswire.com.

Reference #8 from JewishJournal.com says that names were expunged* but we know this is not correct, so it doesn't support the current text as re-written by Roscelese.

* "By clearing CAIR and ISNA of “unindicted co-conspirator” status, the unsealing of Solis’ decision could have political consequences, as a number of conservative and pro-Israel groups had used the label to tar politicians associated with the groups."

Good job on the re-write, Roscelese, but couldn't you have done it before you got Livingengine1 blocked?

—requested by Mr. IP 72.66.30.115 (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, but it is not a good job. It is wrong. It is still wrong. Its even worse, now. His citations include CAIR Press Releases. Outrageous. Livingengine1 (talk) 07:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

LE1 was blocked for violating BLP after far too many warnings, not for trying to change this section. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Le1, may I call you Le1?, it's a big improvement. It no longer says the term was removed, and says "the designation would not be removed because the government had produced enough evidence to establish the group's relationship with the defendants". --72.66.30.115 (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious, Roscelese. How long have you known that the phrase formerly in the lead "A federal appeals court removed the label [of unindicted co-conspirator] for all parties . . ." was factually incorrect? Livingengine1's first edit to the article, on Sept. 14, 2013, with a full, explanatory edit summary, was to correct this error of fact. You reverted his edit. (Do we agree that the only name expunged was NAIT, and that in one place but not in another place?) --72.66.30.115 (talk) 02:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I became aware that it was incorrect when LE1 posted a link to the full decision with a relevant excerpt; I'd made a mistake when looking at the sources before, whether because they were unclear or because I wasn't familiar enough with the relevant caselaw (which is Briggs - the fact that they are named but not indicted means they suffer damage to their reputation but don't have a chance to defend themselves in court). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining, Roscelese, I know you don't have to. I accept your explanation. (But I'm not sure one needs to know caselaw to determine whether the designation had been expunged or not.) --72.66.30.115 (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Completely transparent, it doesn't even qualify as a fig leaf.

He let an untruth, a complete reversal of fact, sit on Wikipedia for three years. If you look at the section above titled "blow to its standing", you will see other people have noted that the citations contradicted what was being stated at Wikipedia, that CAIR had been taken off the list.

Now, he says this, (and it is not true, either.) - " a federal appeals court sealed the list on October 20, 2010, ruling the designation violated the group's rights and was the result of "simply an untested allegation of the Government, made in anticipation of a possible evidentiary dispute that never came to pass," but that the designation would not be removed because the government had produced enough evidence to establish the group's relationship with the defendants"

You are telling me this is not a violation of a neutral point of view?

He is consistently wrong in exactly the same way, and overly protective of this falsity.

I really have to complain. Roscelese is behaving like a CAIR partisan. This needs to stop. I want to know if Roscelese is going to work with me on improving this article, or is he going to insist on his propaganda?

I would like you to start addressing me, Roscelese. Are you going to co operate, or not? If you will not talk to me, I will talk to other people about this.

There is a clear pattern of putting false information here.

Why don't we keep it between ourselves, rather than involve admins, and all that?

Talk to me, Roscelese.Livingengine1 (talk) 07:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Livingengine1, I can't edit the article page because it's protected and I'm an IP. If you agree with my arguments that ref #5 and 8 should be removed, then remove them for me. It's a start. (PS: stop whining—it's a given that Roscelese is partisan; we still have to play the game by the rules.) --72.66.30.115 (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Le1, there's no error of fact in Roscelese's current revision of the lead. CAIR's Fifth Amendment rights were violated when the list became public. And, although I don't like including the language about "an untested allegation ... ", it's true and it's what the appeals court said, so for the sake of domestic tranquility, can't we let it pass? Now the lead doesn't state, incorrectly, that CAIR's designation has been removed from court documents. Please read Andrew McCarthy's article Unindicted Coconspirators in National Review Online, which I requested above be added to the references for the last paragraph in the lead. It gave me a clearer understanding of what the court said, and, what it means. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2013

(UTC)

Hi 72.66.30.115, I am not "whining". You are wrong about the entry, it is still in error, and in exactly the same way, giving the wrong information. I am going to revert that section to more accurately reflect events. I notice ROscelese has not responded here, but continues to vandalize this page. If there are any objections to my correcting her error, she can let me know on this page. That is how things are done.

This portion is factually wrong - "a federal appeals court sealed the list on October 20, 2010", i will change it. Talk to me if you have any objections. unsigned comment by Livingengine1.

Le1, this is turning into a mess (and the more Double Dog I drink, the messier it gets!). I just looked at the appeals court decision (copy hosted at Politico). The appeals court unsealed Solis's order and opinion, but it left Attachment A, the list of cocons, sealed. Judge Solis in July 2009 had sealed all three of these items in his decision. If you look at footnote 3 in the appeals court decision (at the bottom of page 5), you see that neither the US Government (DOJ) or the "movant-appellant" (NAIT) contested the sealing of Attachment A: 3 "Neither party has challenged the district court’s decision to seal Attachment A." 1) You are correct: the lead should be re-worded to say that Attachment A remains sealed per Judge Solis's July 2009 opinion and its unsealing was not addressed by the appellate court because neither party challenged its remaining sealed. 2) "CAIR and other groups" did not motion for an appeal. Only NAIT, the North American Islamic Trust, was a "Movant-Appellant" in the case heard by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. 3) since NAIT was the only movant-appellant, doesn't the appeals court opinion apply only to NAIT and not to the other 245 "co-conspirators/joint venturers"? (would an appeals court even have the time or manpower to determine how closely the other 245 were associated with Hamas or the Muslim Brotherhood or whoever the intermediaries, if any, were?). I would appreciate Roscelese's analysis of what I've said here. She and I approach the issue from opposite ends of the political spectrum, but I acknowledge her high intelligence and admit her greater experience than mine in reading legal cases. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

It already is a mess, 72.66.30.115 (why don't you have an account?). Whatever good qualities she may have, she is behaving in a partisan fashion. There is a well established pattern of her misleading the Wikipedia readers, and of not co operating with other people.

As you yourself have noted, she has included a citation which is grossly in error. Apparently, secondary sources are preferable to Roscelese even if they are wrong, and contradict the rest of the article. I will remove the offending citation after waiting for Roscelese to respond since she is the one most likely to object. Livingengine1 (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I am Mr. IP 72.66, scourge of the IP-phobes; I need no named account. Roscelese almost always edits in a partisan fashion; she was born that way. Why haven't you made any of the changes I requested? I gave good reasons for the changes. You don't need to wait for Roscelese for all of them. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 02:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I am trying proceed slowly so that I don't get draw into anything like an edit war. Just the same, I am going to wait a bit Mr. IP. Thanks, by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livingengine1 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Verizon, without consulting me, changed my IP address again. Now, I'm Mr. IP 96.231.113.61 (talk). But at least now Geolocate describes it as a "Static" IP, so let's hope it stays static (previously it was listed as "Dynamic"). --96.231.113.61 (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't need "Responses to criticisms"

We don't need a section on "Responses to criticisms", and all that material should simply be integrated into the controversy section. I think its best if we mention CAIR's response to a particular criticism immediately after we mention that criticism.VR _talk 06:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

JudicialWatch

I'm gonna remove JudicialWatch, because it doesn't look like a reliable source. It makes ridiculous claims like putting President Obama at the top of "Top Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians", and accusing him of "continual lies".VR _talk 04:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I brought back some criticism and removed the JudicialWatch source per your request, even though it looks very reliable to me. Shalom11111 (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculous external links

I really have to question your (pl.) motivations here in including "CAIR Unmasked", "Muslim Brotherhood Watch" and "CAIR Internet Myths and Facts" here. They're such transparently, obviously unusable links! They violate multiple points of the external links guideline. What are you hoping to accomplish? Just annoying users who are trying to improve the encyclopedia? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

My motivation is the prevention of whitewashing. This started when numerous editors attempted to whitewash Muhammad and Criticism of Muhammad. I thought I put a lid on this when I started the FAQ on the Muhammad article. These references you're trying to delete are of groups that are openly skeptical and critical of CAIR and it's stated goals. For a group that is involved in so much controversy, it is baldfacedly dishonest to suppress critics like this. -- Frotz(talk) 22:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

There's plenty of criticism of CAIR in the article. You need to stop your opposition to CAIR from overriding your interest in complying with WP policies and guidelines (RS and NPOV as well as the external links guideline). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts on CAIR specifically are irrelevant. It is very relevant to present honest criticism and verified facts as well as their sources. -- Frotz(talk) 22:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

If the "verified facts" don't appear in reliable sources, they're not verified at all, and if they do appear in reliable sources, you should cite those instead, instead of obviously unreliable ones. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

All three of these sources take great pains to document their assertions. What's your problem again? -- Frotz(talk) 00:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The fact that they are extremely obviously not reliable sources. I'm sure I could make a lovely blog post that documented my theories on something or another just as well, but I'm also not a reliable source. If they cite reliable sources and you think those are missing from the article, consider using them in a way that conforms to our RS guidelines (eg. not original interpretation of primary sources, etc.). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese, a Wikipedia article needs to represents all significant viewpoints. So instead of removing these important and relevant links, simply add to that section additional reliable links which you think may be needed in order to comply with Wikipedia:External links's guidelines. -Shalom11111 (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works. You're not reading the guidelines you're linking to. They explicitly ask users to minimize the number of external links and to eschew linking sites that contain "factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research". As I said to Frotz, if you have something to add, then find it in a reliable source and write it in the article text. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I've gone through those links you want to delete and I find that the claims are very well-documented. -- Frotz(talk) 05:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations! Now you have done all the groundwork to add material based on reliable secondary sources, if that's what they cited! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Very good. I'm glad we're at some sort of agreement. I'll do the citations later on today or tomorrow. -- Frotz(talk) 22:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I also think the links are particularly fringe. An example of a link that does belong in External Links is this interview with a CAIR chapter. It's too big to include in the article, and the statements published were actually made, since this appeared in a newspaper.VR _talk 04:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

VR, just because you happened to disagree with the consensus here doesn't mean you can simply remove all of these links. This is unacceptable, and your recent edits on this article are obviously very problematic, though I was able to fix a few of which now. -Shalom11111 (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese, you can't just revert people without a detailed explanation, tell me which source is not reliable here:

CAIR has been criticized numerous times by various officials and organizations. The organization was criticized for its pursue of extremist Islamist agenda, propaganda, for its connection to the Muslim Brotherhood, its ties to Palestinian Terrorism and al-Qaeda, for Anti-Semitic allegations and statements about "Christians", for its funding sources and other terrorist ties.

Shalom11111 (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You could just read the part above where I named them, but I'll be nice: Global Muslim Brotherhood Watch and "CAIR Internet Myths and Facts" are obvious rubbish. The Times is fine, which is why I, y'know, left it where it was. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know which "Global Muslim Brotherhood Watch" source you're talking about but it's no longer in use. Secondly, are you saying that the CAIR Internet Myths and Facts source by Investigative Project on Terrorism is not reliable? If you say no, I'll take it to the WP:RSN since I don't want to fight over it. -Shalom11111 (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Uhhh the reason it's no longer in use is because I removed it. Are you saying that you added sources without knowing what they were? This is generally a bad idea. And yes, an obvious self-published hit piece from a poor source like the Investigative Project does not belong in the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Self-published sources

We can't really use blogs and self-published sources as criticism for CAIR. For example, what Steven Emerson has written about CAIR is a self-published source making claims about third-parties.VR _talk 06:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

This source is no longer in use in the article. Shalom11111 (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

But apparently you can use self-published sources to cite that CAIR is a civil liberties organization!--23.240.43.113 (talk) 10:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

CAIR blames "Islamophobia" on Zionism

http://www.barenakedislam.com/2014/02/20/justice-is-a-warm-cupcake-says-cairs-terrorist-sympathizing-anti-semitic-anti-american-scary-looking-executive-director-of-hamas-dba-cairs-san-francisco-bay-area-chapter/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.140.31 (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: Litigation section - FBI seizure of documents

I noticed the dead link issue with the reference for the FBI seizing the 12,000 pages of documents from the court case CAIR brought against the authors of "Muslim Mafia". I decided to see if I could find an active link and archive it. I found it fairly easily (the dead one was a mobile link) and archived it using Webcite. However, I decided to see if I could find additional citations for that information, as the reference is simply a blog post. I found that the only source for the FBI allegedly doing this was World Net Daily, which the blog author stated he was getting the story from. I found one other (fringe) site repeating the story, also listing WND as their source. I decided to look up WND, and noticed they have admitted to putting out false stories in the past. WorldNetDaily#Libel_lawsuit They are also the ones that published the book involved in the lawsuit. Additionally, the blog post referenced states that spokespeople for the FBI and Justice Department were unaware of any FBI actions in the case.

For these reasons, this seems to be a very unreliable source imo, and unlikely to be true. As such, I'm not sure that information should be included in the article unless a reliable news source or actual court files can be found. However, as an inexperienced editor, I'm hesitant to remove it without some input from someone more experienced.

For reference, here is the active link to the blog post used for the source. www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/1109/FBI_moves_to_seize_CAIR_records_from_author.html#

If it's decided that the source is valid, I have the archived link for it, if someone would prefer to use that over the one above, to prevent another dead link. Just let me know if it's needed!

Thanks for any help with this!

-- Elfglitter (talk) 06:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Anti-racist?

Since when are muslim a race? I have seen arab muslims, chinese muslims (east asian), black muslims, WHITE muslims (even blonde blue-eyed "aryans", like Hitler´s wet dreams), etc. Islam is A RELIGION, not a race.--186.48.118.135 (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

"Racism" is often used in regard to ethnic groups rather than simply races. Yes, Islam is a religion, but in the US, it also has somewhat the character of an ethnic group since practitioners tend to have a number of shared cultural characteristics and/or traditions that group them together and in opposition to mainstream American culture. This is basically the same reason why the Chinese government considers the Hui people to be an ethnic group even though their main characteristic is simply Islam. Benwing (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Islam is not a "race" any more than it is just a religion - it is also a political ideology. A rather dangerous one. Criticisms of it cannot simply be dismissed as "racism" or "Islamaphobia". EyePhoenix (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That is your opinion. One could draw parallels to Judaism, which some view as a race, some view as a religion, others view as a mix, and others view as a political ideology. CAIR isn't going after any typical criticism of Islam, but rather fighting the more extreme versions of Islamophobia that lead to discrimination and violation of civil liberties. BrotherSulayman (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

"...More extreme versions...?" Did you read the section about Cair's campaign against a greeting card? But anyway, Cair calls it racism (I think cause that word is a strong one in the American lexicon), but WP's voice shouldn't, Islamaphobia is a form of discrimination. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed on CAIR calling it "racism." They did think it was bigotted; the card was making a joke about "shi'ite" with a curse word for fecal matter. Anyone could see how that is offensive, and shia in America were bothered by it. I think your change needs to be reverted. BrotherSulayman (talk) 07:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Analogies between Jews and Muslims are not too helpful in this area, because "Jewish" has traditionally been an ethnic group in several countries, including the Soviet Union and the United States of America (where the ancestors of most American Jews come from regions which are now part of Germany, Poland, and Ukraine, but such Jews would not generally call themselves "German-Americans", "Polish-Americans", or "Ukrainian-Americans", or be considered such by self-defined German-Americans, Polish-Americans, or Ukrainian-Americans) -- and there are proud ethnic Jews who would not dream for a moment of denying their Jewish heritage and ancestry, but do not follow the religion of Judaism (see Category:Jewish atheists). Muslims are not an ethnicity anywhere except Bosnia, as far as I can tell, and a Muslim who renounced Islam would not be called a "Muslim atheist"! Note that in China, "Hui" is not the same thing as a resident of China who is a Muslim -- "Hui" is a specific ethnic group with a specific traditional geographic origin, and only one of several groups within China which are traditionally Muslims (e.g. Uighurs, etc.)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

CAIR on UAE list of terrorist groups

I realize the nuances of an article such as this Wiki article on CAIR. Is it noteworthy that the UAE government included CAIR in its list of terrorist organizations? http://www.thenational.ae/uae/government/list-of-groups-designated-terrorist-organisations-by-the-uae --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

"blow to its standing"

Reading the third paragraph from the top; "The organization was dealt a significant blow to its standing..." seems quite dubious. The citation links to a report which cites a Washington Times article claiming membership fell, but CAIR denies it. According to the original citation, the story "was publicly discredited by CAIR executive director, Nihad Awad, who claimed the article was 'false and misleading.'" I think this needs to be revised in light of the fact that the source is arguing against the fact that being named a co-conspirator hurt the organization's membership and funding. From the actual citation itself, "All of the harms alleged by CAIR in its memorandum to this Court pertain to its decreasing membership and donations resulting from CAIR’s negative reputation within the United States prior to being named as an unindicted co-conspirator in this prosecution." (page 18)

I think this is ample basis for removing the paragraph, and keeping the claim in the Criticisms section of the page where it belongs and printing CAIR's refutation next to it. BrotherSulayman (talk) 02:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The ruling to which the article refers, http://www.politico.com/static/PPM153_nait.html, does not indicate that the "unindicted co-conspirator ruling" was removed. The only ruling made was that the appeals court reversed the lower court's ruling that the opinion and ruling be sealed. It did not rule on the "unindicted co-conspirator" status of CAIR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.146.245.3 (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I realize the legalese of the ruling is a bit hard to read, but I have 4 recent news sources[4] [5] [6] [7] that cite the ruling and conclude that CAIR was removed from the un-indicted co-conspirators list. The last link was from Politico, citing the same URL you posted. BrotherSulayman (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the portion of the entry which claims CAIR was removed from the un-indicted co-conspirators list. This statement is in error, and has no basis in fact. In fact, the Politico article states - "NAIT asked the appeals court to unseal Solis's opinion and to strike the part linking NAIT to HLF and Hamas. However, the appeals court declined to erase or vacate that part of Solis's opinion, which found there was "ample evidence to establish the association of ... NAIT with HLF, the Islamic Association of Palestine ('IAP') and Hamas."" - Josh Gerstein, Politico — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livingengine1 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

NALT and CAIR aren't the same organization. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

If I'm reading the links correctly, it's a Fifth Circuit court decision that removed CAIR from the un-indicted co-conspirators list. Therefore, it's only binding on the lower courts in the Fifth Circuit, which includes Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.100.13 (talk) 09:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Timing of Hamas links

Consider the sentences, "CAIR acknowledges that Nihad Awad declared support for Hamas in 1994. It notes that Hamas was only designated a terrorist organization in January 1995 and did not commit its first wave of suicide bombings until late 1994, after Awad made the comment." What is left unstated is that the Hamas Covenant of 1988 calls for "Jihad in the face of the oppressors," i.e., a "struggle against the Jews" and the violent destruction of Israel, allegedly using several anti-Semitic tropes to do so. In 2010, Hamas dismissed the Covenant as "a piece of history," but it was still current back then, standing in contrast to the implication that Hamas somehow changed with the advent of suicide bombing. This should be included in such a way to bring this section toward having a neutral point of view. Calbaer (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Content Organization Question

It seems that the introductory section of the article devotes a disproportionate amount of space/time to discussing the unindicted co-conspirators issue (nearly 50% of the allotted text). While this would be appropriate had the charges been upheld, the fact that they were dropped and ruled an "untested allegation" would seem to indicate that it doesn't belong within the main description of the group. As it stands, its inclusion seems inherently prejudicial, since it's one of the first things that a new reader encounters, and it doesn't seem appropriate that such content dominates nearly half of the introductory overview. It deals less with an issue of inherent identity about the group than a description of a detail about the organization's past activities (in contrast, the final paragraph of that section is obviously fine); as such, it would seem to fall more appropriately within the "Controversy" section (in which it's already described in detail). Note: Please let me know if I'm off-base here about how the content should be organized, since I'm new to Wikipedia and this is my first suggestion for an edit. I'm very willing to admit that I may be wrong.

I agree that there was a lot of repetition and excess detail in the Lead and have trimmed it. However, there was also a huge number of primary sources to the organization's own website that often promoted the org's point-of-view, etc. and I have trimmed those. We rely on credible, independent sources and should avoid the org's own website in most cases. CorporateM (Talk) 04:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks pretty good, mostly beneficial. I wonder if we shouldn't restore the resolution to the whole unindicted co-conspirator thing, although I agree the sources were poor; it seems common on WP to allow exonerating material, such as groups' response to charges, as follow-up even if self-published (the "untested allegation" line is sourceable elsewhere). I've also removed the poor ME Forum source, which I think you missed by mistake. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Criticism

Wikipedia describes the Jewish human rights organization Stop Islamization of America as "an American Islamophobic organization," but the Islamic propaganda organization CAIR is described as "a Muslim civil liberties advocacy organization that deals with civil advocacy," and the source for that is itself! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.143.192 (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

This anonymous user actually made a really good point. I agree 100% that this needs to be fixed. Shalom11111 (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

How about Time Magazine as a source for the proposition that CAIR is "the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization?" See http://time.com/3273873/stop-isis-islam/Ibnsina786 (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Council on American–Islamic Relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.khou.com/news/state/stories/khou070826_tnt_muslimcharity.70ea6a5c.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.islamdaily.org/en/charities/6843.judge-due-to-rule-on-holy-land-defense-challenge.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130923125015/http://www.charlotteobserver.com/topstories/story/1047173.html to http://www.charlotteobserver.com/topstories/story/1047173.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Council on American–Islamic Relations

Cyberbot II has detected links on Council on American–Islamic Relations which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://web.archive.org/web/20050104225642/http://www.cair-net.org/libraryproject/

  Triggered by \bcair-net\.org\b on the local blacklist

• http://www.cair-net.org/libraryproject/

  Triggered by \bcair-net\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

"L and P"

@Trinacrialucente: I understand you're an inexperienced user but please note BRD. Why do you believe this should be included when reliable sources don't make any particular connection to CAIR? The bulk of the IB Times's mention of CAIR comes in the disavowal that he'd ever done any significant work for them, and that's the most that any reliable source talks about it. This is a meme from the usual hate bloggers, Geller et al., but they are not reliable sources here. You must gain consensus for your addition by showing that it can be reliably sourced. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Roscelese: First off, not really sure how you get I'm an "inexperienced" user as I've been editing for a few years now. Second, no one is indicting CAIR in this sting. But it is relevant that they hired an employee who worked as a "youth coordinator" for their organization who turned out to be a pedophile. Ahmed Saleem also had his own "youth organization" outside of CAIR. Just like ANY organization that has a youth outreach, anytime they miss the warning signs and hire pedophiles into positions where they are dealing with children, the story is relevant from an accountability standpoint. All you need to do is a VERY quick web search on CAIR Ahmed Saleem to see the number of "reliable" (and not sure what your standard is for that word) news sources to see this is a pervasive and national story http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/06/04/florida-child-sex-sting-nets-former-workers-from-disney-seaworld-and-universal-studios/ But I am not unreasonable, so we have two dissenting opinions. So, this is where we get others to weigh in. Trinacrialucente (talk) 03:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to prove that it happened, I'm asking you to prove that anyone thinks it's particularly relevant to CAIR, since any article that mentions it mentions it trivially and makes a point of noting that he's barely associated with them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

yeah...you're speaking in WP:WEASEL language since as is it stands this "anyone" appears to be just you at the moment. Also, you'd need to quantify "trivial" (i.e. how many times does CAIR need to be mentioned on a page for it NOT to be "trivial" in your mind). And he was a regional coordinator for CAIR and a youth organizer...so hardly "barely associated" (yet again...not very objective on your part). To repeat, if you're unyielding then we should bring in a 3rd party Admin to resolve.Trinacrialucente (talk) 03:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You need to edit your third opinion request to conform to the requirements, or you risk getting an invalid response. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I saw this at Third Opinion, where I'm a regular volunteer, but I'm weighing in here as "just another editor" because I have edited the article to remove the section in question and I do not opine in cases where I have edited. Since that individual has not been convicted, inclusion of any information about him violates the BLPCRIME policy which prohibits inclusion of information about relatively unknown people who have been accused or charged with a crime until after they have been convicted. Even if he had been convicted, to include it in this article violates the SYNTHESIS policy, which says in pertinent part, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here." In this case, the fact that he is an accused child sex offender is being synthesized with the fact he was a CAIR affiliate to imply that CAIR was negligent or somehow at fault for hiring him (as was fairly plainly stated above by Trinacrialucente in his 03:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC) post above: if you have to make that kind of argument, it's plain that you're using the material to imply something that was not stated.) If you do not make that implication, then all you're reporting is that someone affliated with CAIR committed a crime and that violates UNDUE. But be that as it may, it cannot go in at all because of BLPCRIME. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I find it strange and a border-line abuse of authority that you made said edits supposedly as "just another editor" when you failed to mention this initially (evidenced in the version history here), since I clearly requested a third-party admin arbitrate this. I thought it was suspicious that you made the edits, yet my request was still under "active". As such I accept the WP:BLCRIME but I think your assessment of WP:SYNTHESIS is biased and invalid, given the timelines and course of events here. I will await Saheed's court-case then reinstate this article upon his conviction for said crimes. You should fix your moral compass.Trinacrialucente (talk) 02:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not how that works here - you aren't able to unilaterally decree that only an admin is allowed to revert you. If you're not happy with the result, you may file a properly worded and formatted RFC to assess a broader consensus. (Note that since the material is not really related to CAIR, waiting for a conviction to appear in the local news is not the only hurdle that has to be jumped. TransporterMan was correct to point out that you've made your motives clear in your comments, but that's not what an encyclopedia is for.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Unlike you my only motives are bringing truth and facts to an article within the guidelines of wikipedia, rather than adhering to a world-view or agenda. Once again, you show your hand in being biased as I did not "unilaterally" decree anything. I respected the WP:BPLCRIME decision as it cannot be disputed. The other was a clear over-reach by a very like-minded editor, and it can and will be disputed when the time comes. Until then I suggest you move on as there is no room or need for discussion until that point. Trinacrialucente (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, I am not an administrator. Indeed, most of the volunteers who work at the various dispute resolution forums — 3O, DRN, and RFC — are not administrators; the sole exception is Mediation where most members, but not all, are administrators. When I mentioned editing as just another editor, that was not taking off my administrator hat or setting aside my authority, since I have none, but instead was saying that I was not offering my opinion, above, under the restrictions of the 3O project. I said that pursuant to paragraph #6 of my personal standards as a Third Opinion Wikipedian. Because of that, I left it listed there though I knew that some other volunteer would likely do what Robert McClenon has, in fact, done below due to the Third Opinion Paradox. As for the SYNTHESIS analysis, it is one which I have issued in various forms in several prior disputes of various kinds in my work in dispute resolution here and it is hardly unique to this particular case or situation or subject matter. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I understand...WP:SYNTHESIS a wonderful, subjective catch-all excuse for people like you to use. And you did NOT state that you were editing in the capacity as "just another editor" when you initially made the edits which given your rampant volunteerism on the 30 project would have been important given my request. However you'd like to excuse it, it was sloppy on your part (and I checked your history, so I'm willing to dismiss this as yet another example of your sloppy editing style as opposed to abuse).Trinacrialucente (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Trinacrialucente - You say that you are not an inexperienced editor. Maybe you are not. However, you are posting like an inexperienced editor. You wanted administrative arbitration of a content dispute. Wikipedia doesn't have administrative arbitration of content disputes. You asked for an opinion, and you didn't like the opinion that you got, and now you are engaging in incivility toward both User:Roscelese and User:TransporterMan, and accusing Roscelese of a "world-view or agenda" and accusing TransporterMan, who is a far more experienced and far more restrained editor than you, of sloppiness or abuse. The real problem seems to be that it is 3-1 against the inclusion of "L and P" (yes, I agree with TransporterMan and with Roscelese) and so you are just not happy with that. If you don't like the fact that local consensus is against you, publish a Request for Comments. If you continue to engage in incivility, you may be reported at WP:ANI. If you insert the questionable material against consensus, you may be reported at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A third opinion was requested about the inclusion of a questioned section. However, a third editor has removed the section as violating WP:BLPCRIME and as synthesis amounting to original research. As a result, there are now more than two editors, so that third opinion is no longer applicable. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Recent addition of unreliable sources

@Princessmidhatpasha: You are mistaken. Testimony before Congress is a non-fact-checked primary source, and these claims that are allegedly cited to CAIR materials are not verifiable. Steven Emerson and his IPT, FrontPage, etc. are also the perennial laughingstock of reliable media. You should have checked that the sources conformed to WP:RS before restoring them, not just gone "oh, looks like the newly added material has ref tags." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Council on American–Islamic Relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for //www.cair-net.org/libraryproject/materials.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

"Discussed"

Currently, the article says:

Participants at the meeting discussed forming a "political organization and public relations" body, "whose Islamic hue is not very conspicuous."

This is not quite what the source says:

At the meeting, former Holy Land CEO Shukri Abu Baker talked about the need for more secular, mainstream organizations in America, "which can benefit from a new atmosphere, one whose Islamic hue is not very conspicuous," according to a transcript.

1) "There is a need for more organizations" is not the same as "let's form an organization". 2) If I'm at a meeting and some idiot says, "Let's all buy pink jumpsuits and learn to play kazoo" was I in a meeting where "participants at the meeting discussed" this? No, I was at a meeting where someone said this. Comments? - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

As there has been no discussion on this point, I have gone ahead and attempted to remove the implied spin as best as I could. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion request- attack page

Per your speedy deletion policy, I would like to request a deletion of an attack page for the nonprofit civil rights organization, Council on American-Islamic Relations: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Council_on_American%E2%80%93Islamic_Relations&gettingStartedReturn=true

The page includes inflammatory content that exists only to disparage the organization, its founders and staff.

It was created by an Islamophobe using the name RK who has several other anti-Muslim, hateful contributions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RK (cur | prev) 23:17, 17 December 2002‎ RK (talk | contribs)‎ . . (1,105 bytes) (+1,105)‎ . .

He initially registered the page as “CAIR, a large and controversial Islamic group in the US,” which clearly shows his true intention in creating the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palscout (talk • contribs)

Do you have any policy based reasons based on the current version of the article for deleting the page? Because the article has changed quite a bit over the past 13 years. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Council on American–Islamic Relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150128164602/http://www.islamdaily.org/en/charities/6843.judge-due-to-rule-on-holy-land-defense-challenge.htm to http://www.islamdaily.org/en/charities/6843.judge-due-to-rule-on-holy-land-defense-challenge.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091119131000/http://www.cdobs.com/archive/featured/what-is-going-on-in-america-corproate-diversity-is-not-national-security,90205 to http://www.cdobs.com/archive/featured/what-is-going-on-in-america-corproate-diversity-is-not-national-security,90205

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

This page is very biased/slanted in favor of Islamophobes

This page does not talk at all about all the work a civil rights organization does. It does not mention any case wins or projects or campaigns to counter Islamophobia. But rather focuses on negatives presented by Islamophobes and organizations that are funded to attack Muslim groups. I'm concerned that Wikipedia is helping these Islamophobic groups carry out their mission by attacking and misrepresenting the nation's largest Muslim civil rights organization.

SEE: Fear, Inc https://islamophobianetwork.com/ Countering Islamophobia: www.Islamophobia.org

I suggest visiting www.cair.com and adding information to make the page more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joep332 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Council on American–Islamic Relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111112111846/http://articles.cnn.com:80/1998-11-21/us/9811_21_nike.islamic_1_nihad-awad-playgrounds-cair?_s=PM:US to http://articles.cnn.com/1998-11-21/us/9811_21_nike.islamic_1_nihad-awad-playgrounds-cair?_s=PM:US
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070814183744/http://www.cair.com/FatwaJuly2005.pdf to http://www.cair.com/FatwaJuly2005.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090917160734/http://www.cair.com/muhammad/ to http://www.cair.com/Muhammad/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091016040309/http://sun.cair.com:80/AboutUs/VisionMissionCorePrinciples.aspx to http://sun.cair.com/AboutUs/VisionMissionCorePrinciples.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120502155656/http://www1.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/HLF/PalCommJuly94MeetingMin_trial2.pdf to http://www1.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/HLF/PalCommJuly94MeetingMin_trial2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Clarion Project

I agree with Mavriksfan11 (talk · contribs)'s removal of this link. The Clarion Project is named by the hate group watchdog SPLC as an anti-Muslim group that promotes conspiracy theories, its advisory board includes notorious Islamophobic conspiracy theorists Frank Gaffney, Daniel Pipes, and the films it produces are widely recognized as propaganda. This is not an acceptable WP:EL. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The SPLC has also named the heroic Muslim reformist Maajid Nawaz as an "anti-Muslim extremist", despite that he simply opposes genocidally bigoted theocratic fascism/Islamism, and they have also publicly supported Linda Sarsour, despite that she has made several public explicit statements of actively supporting Sjaria law, and wishing to see it installed in different states of the USA. They are extremely partisan and completely unreliable concerning this particular issue. David A (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

If you will focus on the issue, the report itself and whether it should be included, you will see that there is very little room to avoid the fact that the report is extremely biased. Let's look at a lines verbatim from the report, hopefully this will present why it should not be included. We have this quote, from the report, given under "Ideology" to explain the ideology of CAIR: "One 1991 U.S. Muslim Brotherhood memorandum, which was entered as evidence in the Holy Land Foundation trial, describes the Brotherhood’s role as engaging in a 'Civilization-Jihadist Process.' It states: 'The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.'" That's as diversionary and factless as any kind of report can get. Nothing related to CAIR, instead explicitly stating 1) that the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood can be assumed from a memo released in 1991, despite the fact that the group has existed for many decades and its ideology has shifted in that time (as all groups do) and 2) that this ideology from this memo is the exact same ideology as CAIR, without any proof that that is the case. Many of the claims in the report are similarly extremely poorly sourced and thus the report has zero value to anyone interested in learning about CAIR and does not meet the criteria for being listed under "External Links" Mavriksfan11 (talk) 09:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Latest changes

@Hillersaurus: I'm reverting your recent additions since they've reproduced multiple passages that have been edited and moved elsewhere and reinstated other removed passages without addressing the objections. It looks like you've missed the recent change in section structure and Mavriksfan11's edit summaries. Please discuss here. Eperoton (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Council on American–Islamic Relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://articles.cnn.com/1998-11-21/us/9811_21_nike.islamic_1_nihad-awad-playgrounds-cair?_s=PM%3AUS
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091226230413/http://cbs4.com/national/republicans.spying.cair.2.1248819.html to http://cbs4.com/national/republicans.spying.cair.2.1248819.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cdobs.com/archive/featured/what-is-going-on-in-america-corproate-diversity-is-not-national-security%2C90205
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070826144932/http://www.cair.com/factsaboutcair.asp to http://www.cair.com/factsaboutcair.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101006012822/http://www.cair.com/AboutUs/25FactsAboutCAIR.aspx to http://www.cair.com/AboutUs/25FactsAboutCAIR.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Council on American–Islamic Relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090118104254/https://www.cair.com/Muhammad/page.asp?pageid=pressclip&pressclipid=18 to http://www.cair.com/Muhammad/page.asp?pageid=pressclip&pressclipid=18
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091103233000/http://kyl.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=308555 to http://kyl.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=308555

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

ADL criticism

@Mavriksfan11: We can talk about different ways to phrase it, but it's undeniable that a substantial, reiterated part of the ADL's criticism is their mentions of links to anti-Semites and anti-Semitism. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Ties to antisemitism appears in every ADL releases in 2008 (which was in the article), as well as the current 2015 profile.Icewhiz (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I am okay with that being in the article, but I'm not okay with that being claimed from a source which does not say that anywhere on it. If you find a better reference, perfect. If it is so undeniable, it should be easy to find.Mavriksfan11 (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The cited source talks about antisemitism multiple times. [Edit: Just saw your update. I'm concerned that you're painting their repeated mentions of antisemitism as merely "anti-Israel."] –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

It talks about antisemitism, yes, but what was written in the article was not accurate with the claims made by this encyclopedic entry, namely that CAIR associates with and supports known anti-Semites. The charges are: 1) That Southern California InFocus, financially supported by CAIR, reprinted an article, written by someone else, in 2006 which "says that the Zionist movement “declared war on Germany,” insinuating that the Holocaust was somehow the result of a Jewish provocation" 2) In 2002, Nihad Awad spoke at an ANSWER Coalition rally where speakers allegedly called for the dismantling of Israel or held signs "comparing Zionism and Israel to Nazi Germany or chanted violent and anti-Semitic slogans" 3) "Nihad Awad was asked about anti-Semitic materials distributed by the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) with which he was associated" and his answer was "I asked them to remove that from the shelf" and then "The United Nations Charter grants people who are under occupation to defend themselves against illegal occupation". The Wikipedia entry claimed that the ADL was accusing CAIR of associating with anti-Semitic people and organizations here is the old version for source. That is not upheld by the 3 instances mentioned here, which is why I opposed it. If people want to list the specific criticisms of the ADL by quoting from that source, I have no problem. But to imply that it associates with anti-Semitic people and orgs when the charges are 1) It funded a newspaper which reprinted a news story which had an allegedly anti-Semitic claim 2) It's director spoke at a rally where people in the crowd allegedly shouted anti-Semitic slogans and compared Israel to Nazi Germany 3) Awad gave an interview saying he did not support anti-Semitic reading materials, is disingenuous. None of those are legitimate ways for one to be associated with an anti-Semite or and organization of anti-Semites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavriksfan11 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Deleting "Litigation" section

For a group which is a civil rights group and has brought numerous high profile cases to the courts on behalf of various defendants, why is the only litigation mentioned in the "Litigation" section about CAIR suing a former employee for unlawfully obtaining and releasing the information of workers and donors of the group?

That section seems written solely to make people aware of the book the defendant of that case wrote. Either someone will add the actual litigation that the group has brought forward as part of its day-to-day operations, or I will delete the section. 5 days is given for comment. If people want the section to remain, please explain why it should be allowed to stand as it does and why the section should continue to not mention any actual litigation the group pursues as part of its civil rights work and should only focus on this one lawsuit against a former employee.

Mavriksfan11 (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Status as a civil rights group is contested (for instance, the UAE government would definitely disagree). This is well sourced information. We could possibly change the section heading (e.g. "allegations of ties to international terrorists"). As a procedural note - please do not label sections as an RFC if you are not actually running a RFC.Icewhiz (talk) 15:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you link me somewhere so I can learn how to conduct a proper RFC? I just want to reach out to other contributors before making large changes. As to your charges, "status" as a civil rights group may be contested, but it's a fact that the group conducts various suits of civil rights litigation in the US (examples include their class-action lawsuit challenging the no-fly list, lawsuit against police for forcible removal of hijab, lawsuit against Abercrombie for firing employees who wore hijab, etc.). For renaming the section, I don't think it should be a new section (there is already one for allegations of Hamas ties, this could be added to that).Mavriksfan11 (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with removing valid important and sourced criticism. David A (talk) 04:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@David A: Okay, seems like enough people disagree. I'll just add more of the actual civil rights litigation to the section then. Thanks all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavriksfan11 (talk • contribs)

@Mavriksfan11: See WP:RFC for RFC instructions. Eperoton (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)