Talk:Tareq Al-Suwaidan

message: This fact has been reverted many, many times. As far as I can see, the only reason has been that it reflects "unfavorably" on the subject. As I have pointed out, the subject is a leader in the Muslim Brotherhood which supports Hamas and has spoken before an organization in the U.S. that is associated with Hamas. Therefore, the fact that U.S. prosecutors have alleged his participation in a conspiracy to fund raise for Hamas is part of his nobility as a Muslim Brotherhood leader. The article links to the WP article on Unindicted Co-Conspirators which explains exactly what this charge means. At times, the fact has been removed ostensibly because the subject was not charged although it is noted in the article that the subject was not charged even though an Unindicted Co-Conspirator is not charged by definition. There are many, many other WP articles which reference Unindicted Co-Conspirator Status so there is ample precedent for its inclusion. So, other than not wanting any "negative" information in the article, it should not be continually deleted.Sgmiller (talk) 10:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again this was reverted with no explanation. As I have noted above, the only reason ever given for deleting it was that the subject was not charged. This is a logically incoherent argument because, by definition, Unindicted Co-Conspirators are never charged.Sgmiller (talk) 20:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The content guidelines state " If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." My contention is that the status is notable and relevant due to the subject's status as a Muslim Brotherhood figure and person who has engaged in other activities linked to Hamas. I do not understand what "false impression" is being given. Your statement that you will revert without discussion is also against WP policy.Sgmiller (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

text: First you are reverting the entire page based on a continually shifting set of arguments. As far as the latest, yes, the subject has condemned 911 terrorism as has the Muslim Brotherhood in general. The subject has never condemned Hamas terrorism and, in fact, has engaged in activities linked to Hamas, is a leader in an organization that supports Hamas, and has made incendiary statements about the MIddle East conflict. There is no contradiction for a Muslim Brotherhood to condemn 911 but support Hamas. The article, as it was previously written, elected to include only the statements he has made which portray the subject "favorably." I do not see the relevance about how many times he has said what. If the subject has gone on record renouncing statements which you object to, please document and we will include these. Otherwise, including the full spectrum of the subject's views is actually more accurate than selecting only those which put him in the best light.Sgmiller (talk) 00:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

text: You are continuing to revert the entire page based on new objections. Now there is a note about "no reference" to subject and Social Reform Society. This set of references has gotten very confused due to the constant reverting so I am simplifying. I cited a 2003 article from the Toronto Star which called the subject "a U.S.-trained management consultant and a leader of Kuwait's moderate Muslim Brotherhood party." By the way, his reported comments at this conference were also somewhat incendiary but we can take that up at another time. Also, you are now in violation of the 3-revert rule and I have posted a warning on your User Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Suwaidanmd . The next step is a referral to the Edit War board.Sgmiller (talk) 01:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

text: You are not revising...you are reverting wholesale which you have now down probably 12 times in one day. 
And I note that you do not have a WP user page. Again another example of your double standard.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suwaidanmd (talk • contribs) 01:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

text: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sgmiller&action=edit&redlink=1 
I quote WP policy for events not constituting Edit warring: Enforcing certain overriding policies. For example, under the policy on biographies of living persons, where negative unsourced content is being introduced, the risk of harm is such that removal (possibly backed by administrative action) is the norm until it is fixed and policy-compliant.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.7.17 (talk) 01:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

text: This is just another in a long line of shifting rationale for reverting. There is not a single piece of "unsourced content" that I have introduced. Everything is sourced to reliable, secondary sources such as newspaper reports, scholarly papers, etc. Sgmiller (talk) 01:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Unindicted Co-Conspirator Status

message: This article has been continually reverted by the same user acting under his user ID and unsigned with the same IP address. The dispute concerns the subject's role as a leader of the Kuwaiti Muslim Brotherhood and now boils down to three issues:
 
1) The identification of the subject as a leader of the Kuwaiti Muslim Brotherhood. The identification has been referenced to an article from a Canadian newspaper which "which called the subject "a U.S.-trained management consultant and a leader of Kuwait's moderate Muslim Brotherhood party." The user requested a reference yet  despite this reference being provided, all mention of the subject as a leader of the Kuwaiti Muslim Brotherhood has been reverted multiple times.
2) The subject's statement calling for Muslims to "liberate the Holy Land" saying that "Muslims would sacrifice their sons for the holy mosque of Al Aqsa." This was referenced to a Chicago Sun Times article. It has been continually reverted because the user has stated that citing such statements "give a false impression." No evidence has been presented to document this such as subject's statements about the Mideast conflict that are in contradiction.
3) The inclusion of the subjects designation as an unindicted co-conspirator in the terrorism financing case against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. This fact has been reverted perhaps 50 times in the history of the article on the basis that the subject was not charged although, by definition, an unindicted co-conspirator is one who is alleged to have participated but is not charged.
First, the user demanded references and references had either been provided or were further enhanced.
Next, the user shifted his opposition stating "In the coat rack article WP states that it does not matter if the references are true, what matters is that the article doesn't become a coat rack for everything a subject has ever said or done. I will continue revisions based on this." The user has stated he feels that even though all of the facts are true, it is misleading and an example of a "coat rack" article saying "until you pose an argument against the abovementioned WP article [on coat rack articles] I will continue to revert WITHOUT discussion." An argument was made  against the article yet the user is still reverting without discussion.
In the latest iteration of the reverting, the user has stated that he is enforcing "the policy on biographies of living persons, where negative unsourced content is being introduced" event though there is no such unsourced content.
I have referred him to the edit war Noticeboard and will wait for the results before requesting mediation/page protection.Sgmiller (talk) 09:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Continual Reverts

message: I am going to raise another issue here which I have not previously raised. I believe the user in question is a relative of the subject and has not disclosed the possible Conflict of Interest (COI). I have posted a warning on his user page and will also consider referring this article to the COI noticeboard.Sgmiller (talk) 10:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict of Interest

message: The page is now locked for two weeks. I would ask that a good faith attempt be made to resolve the above issues but I am pessimistic. However, I will wait a couple of days to allow for such an attempt and will create three sections below corresponding to the three areas of dispute. My position on the issues is above in the section on "Continual Reverts" and I ask that these issues be addressed in discussion. Failing that, I am going to submit COI, SPI, and BLP notices.Sgmiller (talk) 11:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Protected

message: I propose we rewrite the sentence "Al-Suwaidan has been linked to activities associated with Hamas" as could be misconstrued and is vague. I would like to change it to "In a speech to the Islamic Association for Palestine, Al-Suwaidan......." and delete the "linked to" part. I don't remember how that made it in but probably because of all the reversions/deletions. Since the all the facts in that sentence are contained in the Sun Times article, can we agree to that change?Sgmiller (talk) 12:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with taking the quotes out but the problem is that he didn't "support the cause of Hamas" (although I am sure Hamas would agree with what he said) rather, he called for Muslims to "liberate the Holy Land" and "Muslims would sacrifice their sons for the holy mosque of Al Aqsa." So, we should say Al-Suwaidan has called for Muslims to liberate the Holy Land and said Muslims would sacrifice their sons for Al-Aqsa. There is no other way to describe it. "Liberating the Holy Land" is a view held by numerous groups.Sgmiller (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it is difficult but if we say "Palestine" it is putting words in the subject's mouth. I think we have to say "Holy Land" and "al-Aqsa" other wise the religious nature of the statements is lost.Sgmiller (talk) 12:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I have no problem describing instead of quoting but then suggest a wording that doesn't put words in the subject's mouth.If you want, it can be "Al-Suwaidan has called for the liberation of Palestine and said Muslims would be willing to sacrifice their sons for the cause of the Al-Aqsa mosque."
I think that reads well and is accurate.188.52.1.231 (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Activities Linked...

message: Now that the page has been unlocked, I changed the views section as discussed above. I have retained the description of the subject as a "leader of the Kuwaiti Muslim Brotherhood as also discussed. I am waiting for sources on the "IRF thing" and will make that change if and when they are produced. Otherwise, I believe the current version of the article to represent consensus and would appreciate it if discussion preceded any further changes.Sgmiller (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus

message: I have removed the newly added content about the book with alleged anti-Semitic content for several reasons:
1- The source is not available in English
2- The source is a forum and not a reputable news source
3- Even if we were to translate the source (which I did) it does not show that the CONTENT of the book is anti-semitic rather it is a book review with the view of the reviewer on the book.
4- The wording of the addition used "weasel words"
For these reasons I have reverted back to the consensus version.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suwaidanmd (talk • contribs) 04:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: New Addition on Book

message: This article was the product of long discussions and moderation before consensus was reached. Subsequently, anything that was critical of the subject was deleted. For example, the reference to being an unindicted Holy Land coconspirator was removed based on an allegation that a 2010 court ruling said it was a "misstep." That is NOT accurate. The ruling said that the list should not have been made public but did not contest the actual designation. See:
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20101106-Judge-ruled-prosecutors-should-not-have-6808.ece  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgmiller (talk • contribs) 21:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Please Do Not Edit SubstantiallyWithout Discussion

message: It has been a while since anybody has edited this page so I cleaned up a variety of things. First of all, the TBS interview has disappeared from the Internet so I redid content referenced  to that interview. If anybody can find a copy of the interview, I would be glad to incorporate it once more but I think what I did will be sufficient. I inserted Citation Needed tags where appropriate and also deleted the characterization of Suwaidan's beliefs in favor of his actual statements. Finally, I deleted the very long list of course topics as they seemed over the top for an encyclopedia article.
Sgmiller (talk) 14:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: New Edits

message: A large amount of referenced content was deleted, apparently by the subject of the article who said "I am Dr. Tareq Alsuwaidan and have edited the bio and took out the phrases that were manipulated or taken out of context." However, he presented no evidence of any such manipulation or larger context that was omitted. Therefore, I am attempting to restore the earlier content as it is against WP policy to delete content in this manner and without discussion. It may take me some time to re-polish the article but much of it has been done.Sgmiller (talk)14 May 2014   — Preceding undated comment added 05:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Large Amount of Content Deleted

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Tareq Al-Suwaidan. 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://news.kuwaittimes.net/2012/11/12/dubai-top-cop-spews-bile-at-brotherhood-some-kuwaiti-mps-barred-from-uae/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Tareq Al-Suwaidan. 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/20051127101957/http://www.thedohadebates.com/output/Page29.asp to http://www.thedohadebates.com/output/Page29.asp
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.archive.org/web/20051127101957/http%3A//www.thedohadebates.com/output/Page29.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121117035052/http://news.kuwaittimes.net/2012/11/12/dubai-top-cop-spews-bile-at-brotherhood-some-kuwaiti-mps-barred-from-uae/ to http://news.kuwaittimes.net/2012/11/12/dubai-top-cop-spews-bile-at-brotherhood-some-kuwaiti-mps-barred-from-uae/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified