Talk:Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations

message: If you can replace them with working links, please do.  You may look through the article history (not the discussion history) to see which 10 links were removed. Not easy being green 12:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't delete sources.  Fix them.  (SEWilco 07:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I removed 10 broken links 

message: On the account of the following sentence: "CAIR itself has never been found guilty of supporting any terrorist organization", and nothing in the section says that CAIR, as an organization has supporting "terrorist" groups, "CAIR's support for terrorist organizations" is only an allegation.74.12.4.36 16:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you allege. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 18:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the main controversy is actually about CAIR actively "supporting" terrorist groups in any concrete or material sense, but rather that CAIR generally only condemns some terrorist attacks which directly affect American citizens (and which it would have been political suicide not to condemn, if they want to retain effective influence within the U.S. political system as a political interest and lobbying group).  CAIR has never condemned the terrorist methods of Hamas and Hezbollah (such as blowing up pizza parlors or buses), nor most attacks which didn't result in direct American casualties. AnonMoos 21:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged support of terrorist groups 

message: Given that CAIR supporters will NOT allow criticism on the CAIR-Wikipedia entry page, it is more than unusual to see that the wiki-entry named: "Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations) is noticed (at the top) as BIASED or PREJUDICED, i.e., "Neutrality is disputed". Who ever put that "complaint" at the top of this page should come here and make his case. Post haste. It's preposterous that neutrality is to be taken "serouisly", on a page of criticism. That is exactly what criticism is. Duh! Yet, a brief discourse on CAIR's politics is not entirely out of line here: just because Switzerland was NEUTRAL during World War II, doesn't mean that the Swiss SHOULD have been neutral. If Hitler had designated the Swiss as being equal to the Jews, then what good was neutrality? Oh! Duh on ME. There was no HOLOCAUST, according to some Shi'a.
In much the same way, CAIR is a HAMAS stepchild. That is, they or their purpose are unbelievably enough anit-Semites. The U.S. State Department has declared HAMAS a TERRORIST organization. How NEUTRAL is that? And why should it be? Within all the controversy about CAIR, one thing stands out: criticism is to be eviscerated. Yet as Senator Daniel Moynihan said: "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts".  The members of CAIR and it's fellow travellers, have as yet to be able to live up to that standard, here on the Wikipedia pages. If Wiki weren't so generous with it design of inclusion of "human knowledge", CAIR would be banned. For surely, somewher, somehow, some Jews have posted something or other. Mark Preston 18:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course a discussion of criticism can be NPOV, and in Wikipedia it must be. Criticism is just another subject. I've removed the tag, as I don't see any major problems with the article. - Merzbow 04:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The neutrality of this article is disputed. 

message: Shouldn't CAIR's responses be mentioned in the article?--Seventy-one 22:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add them.  (SEWilco 02:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added them to the external links. They should be incorporated into the larger article.--98.237.179.147 (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: CAIR's response to criticism

message: Unfortunately, this article is derived from a copyright violating version of main article on CAIR, and therefore is itself a copyright violation. See this section in the main article's talk page. Andjam 06:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turning into redirect 

message: I do not edit this entry and did not intend to ever edit it but for the link I followed from Islam in the United States. My edit only attempts to remove WorldNetDaily when used as a source for "news."  The issue was raised on Talk:Islam in the United States and on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard where unanimously a slew of uninvolved editors agreed with each other in that WorldNetDaily was not a reliable source for news.  Since I do not intend on editing this entry in the future, after removing these references again I will not come back, and I will not revert war over it.  That said I believe we need uniformity in applying these types of measures, especially when entries link together, such as this one and Islam in the United States so please don't simply revert back without taking these discussions into consideration.  Thank you.PelleSmith 12:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WorldNetDaily not a reliable news source 

message: Could something be added about the lawsuit Michael Savage is filing against CAIR for their infringement on his material? Jtrainor 21:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What lawsuit?  Sources are needed.  Is a lawsuit criticism (this article) or is it an activity related to the organization (CAIR article)?  -- SEWilco 04:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  http://www.savage-productions.com/Savage_CAIR_suit.html AnonMoos 21:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That has a date, December 3, a day ahead of when you mentioned it.  It won't get filed until daylight in the USA on Monday.  I see one mention in a newspaper so far.   -- SEWilco 06:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  The lawsuit seems to be about copyright infringement, so is not directly a criticism about CAIR's purposes.  Should be in CAIR's article and not here, if it is verifiable/notable.  Verifiable sources are needed or other indications of notability.  Unless this shows up in the news it may have little significance or documentation until a trial is scheduled or it begins.  However, perhaps it can be mentioned in the article on Savage because his own web site can be considered reliable for what he is doing.  -- SEWilco 16:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Sure, if it's received suitable media coverage... AnonMoos (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Michael Savage lawsuit

message: Anyone think we should add anything about Savage's responce to cair suing him? Saksjn (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, if it's received suitable media coverage... AnonMoos (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  cair suing savage 

message: Pipes' blog needs to be used carefully, because it is self-published. I will highlight three points made by WP:SELFPUB:
:Material from self-published sources may be used so long as:
:*it is not contentious;
:*it does not involve claims about third parties;
:*it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
Much of what Pipes says is quite contentious. Some of his claims involved third parties, (like CAIR), while others are not directly related to him (like CAIR being a defendant in a 9/11 lawsuit).
Thus, I will begin to carefully remove references to Pipes that violate the policy cited above.Bless sins (talk) 04:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Daniel Pipes blog

message: Who the heck made the link to cars.com? this is just another attempt to defame Islam AND I WON'T HAVE IT.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Velanthis (talk • contribs) 04:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  what? 

message: This article needs considerable work to achieve a NPOV and represent wider views. It needs to represent both positive and negative views. Right now it looks like a blatent POV fork for attacking the organisation. --neon white talk 09:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that I agree this is the right tag for the issues with this page.  If we are to have criticism entries or criticism sections within entries they will necessarily be more representative of the critical point of view.  However, two questions should be asked.  1) Is the criticism actually "notable" in the first place and relatedly 2) is it a violation of WP:NOR to pile together primary sources of criticism, mostly from anti-Islamic blogs, as if they are so notable.  In terms of NPOV, I would say that balancing an entry like this could only be done by presenting notable counter-criticisms -- and not simply putting in CAIR's own rhetoric, which we clearly would assume is defensive in nature.  On the other hand, as I suggested already, much of the criticism in this entry may be in violation of WP:NOR.PelleSmith (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This article should be merged back into CAIR. Having an article that only gives one viewpoint is an automatic violation of WP:NPOV. If it seeks to fully represent all significant viewpoints it should have a title like "Reception of the Council on American-Islamic Relations".  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with merging back or otherwise deleting this entry.  Much of what is here is irrelevant, BLP violating, and or otherwise original research.PelleSmith (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Per I'm going to run this through an AfD.  The page is a clear POV Fork.  Criticism of CAIR is not notable in mass culture.  It is notable in the rhetoric of a handful of right wing bloggers and popular writers more or less critical of Islam in general.  The criticism section on the main entry is certainly large enough to deal with this mostly fringe view.PelleSmith (talk) 12:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge -> AFD

message: The tags were just removed from this entry citing "disputes no longer active".  Article issue tags get removed when disuptes are resolved and/or issues are taken care of.  From those actually commenting there also seemed to be consensus to merge back into the main CAIR article.  Please do not remove the tags unless the issues have been resolved.PelleSmith (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag removal 

message: I think the entire section on CAIR members facing charges should be drastically shortened if not eliminated altogether.  Guilt-by-association claims are specifically warned against in WP:BLP.  We wouldn't begin a page on "criticism of the US Congress" with a list of Congressmen who have been arrested with the sneering implication that all of Congress is guilty of whatever crimes specific members have been charged with.  Any objections to removing this entirely? csloat (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  guilt by association 

message: I also removed stuff on a lawsuit that named CAIR as one of 174 defendants.  There's no information this lawsuit was commented on by any outside party, or that it has received any attention outside of Wikipedia.  There's also no indication that this lawsuit had any merit whatsoever.  Even if it turns out it did, why is this on the CAIR page but not on pages for any of the 173 other folks mentioned?  (OK, 99 of them are John Does but that still leaves 74 organizations and individuals, several of which have Wikipedia pages).  It seems that editors in the past looked for anything they could to make CAIR look bad and included it in here no matter how trivial.  I'm also not sure how being involved in a lawsuit constitutes "criticism."   
The stuff about the library seemed incredibly trivial to me.  Seriously, someone complained that there were too many books about Islam in a library of the Council on American-Islamic Relations?  This is considered important notable criticism??  And that one book might have had a positive comment in it about someone who was later convicted of a crime?  Let's at least attempt to keep things encyclopedic. csloat (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: lawsuits and libraries 

message: The section titled "CAIR members facing charges" is not reporting on criticism attributed to others.  As User:Wikifan12345 has pointed out in the deletion discussion this is an OR problem per WP:CRIT.  I am deleting all unattributed original research.PelleSmith (talk) 02:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly you don't know what original research is. I restored SOME of the information you removed and rewrote for syntax and grammar's sake. I also added a few more RS because the article severely lacks them even though many exist. I'll probably end up adding more later after I finish crafting the sections with better sourcing. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:SYNTH.  I'm well aware of the relevant policies (but it appears that you are not).  The section I removed did not have a single "criticism" in it.  It merely documented, through more or less reliable sources, various incidents that put some members of CAIR in a bad light.PelleSmith (talk) 03:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing OR section 

message: Please only add material that is reported by WP:RS as criticism -- The word critic comes from the Greek κριτικός (kritikós), "able to discern"[1], which in turn derives from the word κριτής (krités), meaning a person who offers reasoned judgment or analysis, value judgment, interpretation, or observation[2]. The term can be used to describe an adherent of a position disagreeing with or opposing the object of criticism.  CAIR "officials have been implicated in supporting Islamic terrorism by several federal agencies and politicians".  Great but who is criticizing CAIR?  We are not here to build a case of criticism ourselves, but only to report on it.PelleSmith (talk) 03:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This entry is about "Criticism" 

message: I removed the material about the Israeli flag for a few reasons - (1) it is trivial.  There's no indication there was any outcry that arose from this. (2) it is not "criticism" except through WP:SYN -- the source makes no criticism of the incident nor does anyone in the news that I'm aware of.  (3) CAIR-Ohio is only one of the five groups that reportedly asked the flag to be removed; it is ridiculous to single out CAIR and say they were criticized as some kind of extremists when it's clear from context that they were expressing a consensus view among several Muslim groups.  (4) the claim that this is considered religious intolerance appears nowhere in the source.  It is listed without information other than CAIR's own spin, and the footnote even gives the reader information about how to join CAIR!  It is listed below a "name conflict" among Universalists -- why aren't people pushing to add this as an example of religious intolerance to this page?  (5) this is a self-published source, a newsletter from a nonprofit organization -- it can be cited for information about that organization, but it does not meet WP:RS for the purpose of "criticism."  Finally, (6) this isn't "criticism" at all; the source certainly never mentions any criticism. csloat (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  israeli flag 

message: *Why does this article need a notability tag? The AFD isn't for a lack of notability. CAIR is notable and criticisms of CAIR is most certainly notable. It is your POV that criticism is not notable. What is a valid criticism is that the article is a fork, but that independent of notability. Can you please stop edit-warring out information Pelle? Thanks. 
In regards to this, this is not a criticism ... please stick to "Criticism of CAIR"), I have no idea why its being removed. The FBI dragged CAIR officials to court and politicians corroborated these happenings in their comments. The FBI inditment supports the criticisms and proves these stabs aren't empty SOAPS. You taking the concept "criticism" to an ultra level that defies reliable information. Please self-revert and stop edit warring information! Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I responded to this particular issue above.  If these federal agencies are actually critical of CAIR, the organization and not simply a handful of its members, then you can easily corroborate that with a direct quote.  Lets see it.PelleSmith (talk) 03:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You still don't get it. The FBI convicted known-CAIR officials of being involved in terrorist activities. X historian/expert accuses/affirms CAIR officials of having ties to terrorism. Both are notable. Removing the FBI which is sourced by several RS and is commented on by some of the people mentioned in the article reduces the reliability of the critics statements. So please stop edit-warring the FBI link you, you are mis-attributing the Criticism page and obviously no idea what it entails. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Show me an example of another Criticism page that piles on the type of information you want to include ... which is not criticism but secondary "evidence" that supports the critics POV.PelleSmith (talk) 04:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh? You still aren't explaining why you are removing the FBI prosecution against CAIR officials who have ties to terrorism. Politicians and historians/experts/pundits accuse CAIR of having ties to terrorism. They base their accusations off of the FBI and US government indictments. So you're claiming these inclusions don't qualify under criticisms policy? Are you sure you want to stand by that? Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "criticisms policy".  This is basic article writing policy.  I've been more than clear now you show me an example of a criticism entry that uses sources in the way you want to.  I will contend they don't because it is a violation of WP:SYNTH, but since you claim it isn't then you should easily be able to find an example or two.PelleSmith (talk) 05:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

text: You say "Politicians and historians/experts/pundits accuse CAIR of having ties to terrorism"; if that is the case, we should quote them, not link to an FBI file.  In fact, we already do quote them, or at least one of them.  If you know of others please link to the sources. csloat (talk) 05:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We are quoting them. Are you seriously debating the relevance of CAIR being convicted of having ties to terrorism when people have accused CAIR of having ties to terrorism? Hello?? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes we are quoting them; that's all we need to do.  It is not wikipedia's job to help make a critic's case by piling on links to information so that it appears to substantiate their claim, especially when the entire claim is based on guilt by association.  Please review these rules carefully. csloat (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. I rewrote the long section about the NY because it was rather fact-picky and quoted CAIR's official statements to represent their POV. Also added another source, and restored the FBI allegation since politicians and CAIR seem continue to refer to it. Also added the allegation that the Israel lobby has some involvement, and copy edited the NY source since it is used 3 times. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I've gone ahead and reverted your edits.  The indictments don't belong here at all as we have previously established; do not add them again.  It is a severe WP:BLP violation.  You removed the evidence that even government officials have questioned the criticism of CAIR and the important quote about "blank stares."  You removed a lot of the NYT information; the explanation that it was "fact-picky" is nonsense.  The Israeli lobby stuff did not seem relevant but maybe you can explain it better?  Thanks. csloat (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I also restored the notability notice; that was quite separate from the AfD. Cheers, csloat (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is absurd. You didn't even read the NYT article and donated and obscene amount of space to unimportant facts. I neutralized it and expanded the paragraph while including another source, and the FBI insert is NOT a blp violation. And yes, it was fact-picky. The whole section was fact-picky and was borderline plagiarism. Practically copy/paste. I'm reverting your edit once, only once. Explain your edits as I have in summaries. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) you have no way of knowing what I read or didn't read. (2) Here is what you consider "unimportant facts":  You deleted the fact that a former FBI official of counterterrorism confirmed that these charges smacked of McCarthyism and that even their defenders couldn't support them (the "blank stares" point).  You deleted the fact that the criticism is recognized as coming from "a small band of critics" who "made a determined but unsuccessful effort to link it to Hamas and Hezbollah," and yet you want to highlight the quotes from that same small band of critics.  Most importantly, you want to link to every person who ever had anything to do with CAIR who was ever arrested for anything, and yet you deleted this: "While critics cite five figures with "ties" to CAIR who have been "convicted or deported for links to terrorist groups," the article notes that "There were no charges linked to CAIR in any of the cases involved, and law enforcement officials said that in the current climate, any hint of suspicious behavior would have resulted in a racketeering charge."  It's pretty obvious that your deletion of the NYT material is blatant POV-pushing bordering on vandalism.  Don't remove this material again. csloat (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

text: CAIR claims this is just a band of critics. According to the NYT articles and basic knowledge, that certainly isn't the case. Consciously censoring criticism based off CAIR saving face is against policy. Check my paragraph, I retained much of the original message, removed the obscene plagiarism and copy/paste which you and Pelle continue restore to while accusing my thoroughly cited and well-crafted paragraph is original research. Lulz. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: you also dubiously removed the copy edit. Please try to collaborate instead of reverting everything you disagree with. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Collaborate?"  This from the editor who called us "meatpuppets" the minute we started editing this page and dubiously reported me to AN for editing warring.  As I asked you twice already, please show us an example elsewhere on the Wiki where a criticism entry includes the type of information you want to include here.  We contend it is OR, you claim it is not.  Fine, then at least start by showing a precedent for it.PelleSmith (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, try and collaborate. Don't play this card, you moved the dispute to a silly etiquette report claiming you were victim to hostility yaddayaddayadda. Take responsibility for your edits, you and Cslot practically edit together and have reverted all my edits. And you still say it is OR? Really? And then you say I'm getting against consensus when there was one? Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability tags, unsubstantiated summaries, edit-warring 

message: This edit, made by Wikifan, is a BLP violation.  See the relevant text -- Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material.  I have reverted it.PelleSmith (talk) 04:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:BLP]] Violation 

message: Only two editors at the AfD argued for a keep with no mention of a "merge" -- all others either wanted to merge or were amenable to merge as an option along with a keep or delete vote.  Along with the previous consensus above, I believe keeping them separate is a minority position.  If you are opposed to merging please state your reasons below.PelleSmith (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: I filed a 3rd opinion notice as part of beginning stages wikipedia:dispute resolution. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  3rd opinion 

message: The 2009 article that mentions that the FBI "cut its ties" with CAIR can be included here if you show that it is the basis for criticism of CAIR - I still haven't seen it in the sources provided.  There is the suggestive but somewhat meaningless phrase "unindicted co-conspirator" -- sounds scary until you read that CAIR is one of 300 organizations and individuals named in this way.  CAIR was not banned by FBI nor its members rounded up; its offices were not searched or shuttered, its funding was not seized, so we know there really isn't anything linking them to "terrorism"; the FBI just "cut off contact" -- presumably, if the FBI thought CAIR was funding terrorists, they would want to MAKE contact, and we'd probably see some direct action against the organization.  But nothing of the sort has been reported.  The FBI spokesperson said of the cutting of contact that "That is not to suggest that anyone or everyone associated with CAIR has any kind of taint."  There is some implication in recent press reports that there is tension because of the FBIs use of agents provocateur to infiltrate Muslim organizations and that CAIR complained loudly about it; some see this as a smear campaign initiated under Bush.  
All terribly interesting, but none of it amounts to "criticism."  And certainly singling out CAIR from 300 organizations and persons to smear with this information seems to be undue weight. csloat (talk) 03:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh, too many words. I explained why FBI accusing several CAIR officials of having ties to terrorism and a few of those officials being sent to prison is relevant criticism. The fact that they cut ties because of Hezbollah/Hamas "relations" (supposedly) is pertinent to those who have corroborated or repeated such accusations. Plus, CAIR has defended itself from said criticisms. The accusers routinely refer to the various allegations and statements made by CAIR, and thus are necessary. Your rant about Bush makes no sense. 
Anyways, this is redundant. You obviously getting desparate and like Pelle continue to bring up new issues. Original research claim was bogus and the current paragraph is still plagiarized. You two have been edit-warring out all my additions even though my summaries are very accurate. this is not how wikipedia works, and like Pelle I suggest you practice somewhere else. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

text: OK, first of all, please stop making up BS.  "Plagiarism" is not an issue here, despite your constant repetition of it.  Second, saying "too many words" is not a good reason to only include the words you agree with.  Third, if we put this in, we include the full context, including CAIR's response (and the facts as explained by the FBI spokesman)  -- this is an encyclopedia entry, not an article in the Washington Times.  Finally, please read this page, this page, and this one.  Thanks. csloat (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is getting redundant. Please stop throwing policies in my face if you don't know how to read them. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: FBI cuts ties

message: This article has/had multiple issues.  Two separate editors have contended that some of the material Wikifan wants to keep in the entry has several different issues.  Some of it amounts to original research, some of it violates BLP policy, and some of it is problematic for different reasons.  I'm pointing this out because Wikifan keeps on claiming that we are coming up with different reasons to delete the same material and that simply is not the case.  If it were Wikifan could provide diffs instead of just making accusations.  The only time I mistakenly conflated material in my editing I corrected the mistake.  Wikifan no one has given up on the OR claim, but not all of issues with all of the material you are fighting for amounts to OR.PelleSmith (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the McCarthy one.  I agree about the last two -- neither of these items expresses "criticism"; they clearly both rely on guilt by association.  They should be deleted forthwith.  The second one is particularly bizarre -- is this Saudi Prince some kind of criminal?  Why are "ties to Arab governments" raising suspicion??  Hell, the FBI has ties to Arab governments!  As for the NYT section, I agree it is long but I'm not sure how to shorten it; Wikifan tried to shorten it but he did so by removing some of the most important points of clarification. csloat (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's too much text because you plagiarized. My version was by the book and was cited by multiple references to corroborate the NYT, and in addition I did copy edit while you simply listed NYT over and over again. You then accuse me of original research about 9 times and then BLP violations, along with everything else. Then you get all angry over "guilt by association" silliness. This whole "not criticism" is pure semantics. Everyone is criticizing CAIR having ties to terrorism. They claim it is only a small group of people and it is guilt by association. That is fine, but several CAIR officials have been dragged to jail, leaders have hosted dinners with rogue nations, some have "supposedly" make comments referencing they do not condone violence against Israel and have associated with groups that don't either. This is important. On top of that, they have received 500,000+ dollars from an oil despot - futher raising suspicions if they truly are a general Islamic union or do they wish to mirror the extreme form of SA. These are all criticisms, if a CAIR official murdered someone and no one said anything it would still be put in the criticism section. You continually base your edits off what CAIR is saying and seem to take deep offense at anything remotely negative. You are washing it down with your policies, stop saying guilt by association. The current paragraph is a total joke and so is edit warring out every addition that doesn't meet your standards. When 3OO gets here he'll fix everything because I know my paragraph meets policy. I know this. This is getting totally redundant and frustrating. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry; one more unsupported accusation of plagiarism and I am reporting you to WP:AN/I.  Besides the obvious WP:NPA violation here, there are severe WP:BLP issues with the continued insistence that "CAIR officials have been dragged to jail" and other guilt by association accusations against CAIR.  Please take a look at this page and answer the question I asked earlier; should we insert all of these crimes into the page on the United States Congress and make the claim that the US Congress is a criminal institution?  By the way, the Saudi shit really confuses me.  Last I checked, Saudi Arabia was an ally of the United States, and was not considered a terrorist or outlaw nation.  That a Muslim advocacy organization received money from a wealthy Muslim from a Muslim nation should not raise an eyebrow.  If I showed that AIPAC received $500,000 from a prominent Israeli would that cause suspicion?  And, if so, can we provide evidence of the actual suspicion (or "criticism") rather than just stating information about the contribution itself in a manner that is thick with sneering innuendo? csloat (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Linking various people and organizations to Saudi money is a common post-911 practice used to discredit these entities.  There is a tacit understanding amongst certain political sectors that Saudi money = the promotion of Islamism.  That this logic is not particularly sound should not be a surprise.PelleSmith (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Copy
ing and pasting entire sentences without attributions let alone is plagiarism. Please report me to ANI if you believe plagiarism is okay. Your interpretation of what qualifies as criticism is bizarre and please stop bringing up guilty by association. The NYT article is about why x people are criticizing CAIR. CAIR claims it is guilt by association, but mingling with Hamas and Hezbollah, hosting dinners with Iranian despots (at a time when the US was at odds with the country), leadership officials being sent to jail certainly, and receiving money from a country that is complicit in supporting the Taliban and Al-Queda says a lot. If CAIR is trying to separate itself from the general sterotypes of muslim it isn't doing a very good job. This is why politicians are alienated by the organization and this is why people are criticizing the group. you seem to be advocating on behalf of CAIR rather than using the source. My version was well sourced and your claims of original research (the only reason Pelle deleted it) was totally bogus. All of this is pertinent to the article. Pelle, I don't care. We write what the source says. If they're trying to discredit the organization it isn't our problem. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikifan, I'm going to tell you this for the last time.  I restored your version as soon as my mistake was pointed out.  It is rather unfortunate to see escalations of hostility like this.  At some point this will go to the appropriate user conduct noticeboard and you will not like the result.PelleSmith (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

text: You reduced my draft and left your extremely bloated plagiarized/undue paragraph that has little to do with criticisms. Giving 3 sentences to a non-notable uninvolved FBI agent is rather odd. There's a difference between hostility and straight forwardness. If you'd like, I can up the happy faces. : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Nope. Copying and pasting entire sentences which is what you did and simply posting a reference after 9 sentences is not proper citation. You have to understand how citation rules work. You cannot put citations around paragraphs of copyrighted journalism. That is what I'm saying, if there wasn't a reference then it would probably be considered original research. Can you please clarify this guilt by association policy? I see it no where on wikipedia. I do however see CAIR constantly moaning about how all these accusations are "guilt by association." this isn't a rule and we shouldn't be limiting content to CAIR defenses. If critics are citing CAIR and officials are being dragged to prison for mingling with Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, etc...etc...it's perfectly accept to include in the article. Long quotes with ambiguous and general defenses about how they have nothing to do with terrorism is not fair when you censor out everything that they've done that is related to terrorism. You cannot have it both ways. Choosing one vague quote from a non-notable FBI official against a indictments by the FBI and leadership officials being sent to jail is bizarre. The article (NYT) had 3 pages of valuable content and you've guys been skewering it with claims of "guilt by association" which is not our job to determine. This is wikipedia, not CAIR.com. Am I making sense? Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia's policy on WP:BLP is where the "guilt by association policy" is.  We're not talking about "CAIR constantly moaning"; we're talking about the NYT and an FBI official and several other government officials saying this is guilt by association AND we're talking about you deleting the evidence of those statements!  Please stop saying things like "everything they have done that is realted to terrorism" -- CAIR, as CAIR, has done nothing related to terrorism and in fact has denounced terrorism over and over.  A few members of CAIR were arrested for terrorism related charges -- those are two different things!  Can't you see this?  I've said this again and again and you ignore it -- several members of US Congress have been convicted of sexual crimes with children.  Does that mean the US Congress is an institution that molests children??  Answer the question. csloat (talk) 07:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the guilt by association claim is CAIR's wording. You should see Burden of proof. Guilt by association entails a source that simply has CAIR in the context but has little to do with the subject. While some have claimed this is the case, actions speak louder than words. CAIR officials have been caught hosting dinners for Arab despots, receiving donations from Arab despots, condoning the violence actions of Arab despots, and being indicted by Federal agencies for "associating" with Arab despots. Are you seriously saying these facts that are supported by your very own NYT's article qualifies as "guilt by association"?? Are you serious? Seriously? You've continually edited-out cited information with dubious claims of COATRACk and *lols* BLP violations of guilt-by-association. We can very well sell CAIR's claims and for neutrality reasons we are obligated to. But consciously weeding out valid content that does not even remotely meet BLP violations to fit the agenda of CAIR is bogus. This is what you are doing, and I've said this many times. I won't say it again. Bolded/Italicized for importance. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the NYT's wording and is further used and clarified by several other sources.  You should see WP:BLP.  All your comments about CAIR members being arrested and such are irrelevant.  Arab despots?  Get a grip - President Bush used to "associate" with Arab despots, and President Obama does today - are you saying they support terrorism?  It seems you forgot to answer my question about the US Congress, so it appears you're actually conceding the basis of the argument here.  It's time to move on. csloat (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you continue to apply personal standards instead wikipedia policy. You REMOVED NYT's wording, everything in my paragraph came straight from NYT paragraph and it was cited properly, even with a confirming source from a competing newspaper. CAIR being arrested for ties to TERRORISM is certainly relevant when people who criticize the organization are explicitly referring to those events. CAIR has alienated much of the partisan world for its bizarre statements and actions that are contrary to the "guilt by association" which you falsely applied from BLP. The NYT wording has little to do with criticism and was simply a nice long undue explanation as to why CAIR is innocent. Comparing CAIR "associating" (euphemism, mind you) with controversial figures to Bush friendlies is nothing less than a fallacy. This is seriously getting redundant. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Identify what sentence was removed from the NYT and explain why it should not have been removed; then we have something to discuss.  I explained exactly what was wrong with the stuff you removed, and I explained exactly why I removed the guilt-by-association material.  You have made vague (and preposterous) accusations of plagiarism and you continue to repeat the guilt-by-association material without even seeming to understand why it is inappropriate here, even after extensive explanation from two different editors.  You're right, this is getting redundant. csloat (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

text: You have never once quoted what you think is plagiarized.  The charge is transparently dishonest at best.  Guilt by association has been explained.  Your arguments have been quite clearly responded to at length. csloat (talk) 04:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Guilt by association has been thoroughly rebuked. Notice the discrepancy between the length of my response to yours, and yet you continue to say the same things over and over again. How are CAIR officials being sent to prison for communicating with terrorists is somehow "guilt by association"? And yes, copy and pasting entire sentences with improper attribution is plagiarisim in the eyes of wikipedia. We can't legally host entire excerpts of newspaper articles without proper citations, citations Pelle removed under "original research."  You removed all of my edits under the original research accusation which has also been proven false. Remember that? Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What I remember most is you incessantly repeating false claims.  I'm not going to continue responding to your nonsense, sorry.  Over at Wikiquette alerts the consensus was that you are a problem user with behavior destructive to Wikipedia and that user conduct RfC should be filed.  If you insist on being disruptive on this article I will be forced to take that step, but otherwise, this conversation has grown tiresome. csloat (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly this discussion is not going anywhere so I ask that we simply part ways on the article. I haven't edited the article very much anyways, and may only add things here and there. Though I do hope that you guys rely on talk more before edit-warring everything out. I provided legitimate reasons for my concern yet most of those were ignored. Good bye. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just discovered this article and hadn't realized all that has been going on with it.  I see that there is more than one doorkeeper for CAIR here at WP.  Stellarkid (talk) 13:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Issues 

message: "Andrew C. McCarthy expressed concern about how "several CAIR officials ..."
*"expressed concern" is a subjective evaluation here.  McCarthy, who is clearly critical of CAIR, never actually expresses concern about these things.  He simply states this as fact to undermine the organizations credibility.  Please find a way to accurately reflect this.PelleSmith (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the McCarthy one.  I agree about the last two -- neither of these items expresses "criticism"; they clearly both rely on guilt by association.  They should be deleted forthwith.  The second one is particularly bizarre -- is this Saudi Prince some kind of criminal?  Why are "ties to Arab governments" raising suspicion??  Hell, the FBI has ties to Arab governments!  As for the NYT section, I agree it is long but I'm not sure how to shorten it; Wikifan tried to shorten it but he did so by removing some of the most important points of clarification. csloat (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specific ongoing issues 

message: :::Yeah, it's too much text because you plagiarized. My version was by the book and was cited by multiple references to corroborate the NYT, and in addition I did copy edit while you simply listed NYT over and over again. You then accuse me of original research about 9 times and then BLP violations, along with everything else. Then you get all angry over "guilt by association" silliness. This whole "not criticism" is pure semantics. Everyone is criticizing CAIR having ties to terrorism. They claim it is only a small group of people and it is guilt by association. That is fine, but several CAIR officials have been dragged to jail, leaders have hosted dinners with rogue nations, some have "supposedly" make comments referencing they do not condone violence against Israel and have associated with groups that don't either. This is important. On top of that, they have received 500,000+ dollars from an oil despot - futher raising suspicions if they truly are a general Islamic union or do they wish to mirror the extreme form of SA. These are all criticisms, if a CAIR official murdered someone and no one said anything it would still be put in the criticism section. You continually base your edits off what CAIR is saying and seem to take deep offense at anything remotely negative. You are washing it down with your policies, stop saying guilt by association. The current paragraph is a total joke and so is edit warring out every addition that doesn't meet your standards. When 3OO gets here he'll fix everything because I know my paragraph meets policy. I know this. This is getting totally redundant and frustrating. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry; one more unsupported accusation of plagiarism and I am reporting you to WP:AN/I.  Besides the obvious WP:NPA violation here, there are severe WP:BLP issues with the continued insistence that "CAIR officials have been dragged to jail" and other guilt by association accusations against CAIR.  Please take a look at this page and answer the question I asked earlier; should we insert all of these crimes into the page on the United States Congress and make the claim that the US Congress is a criminal institution?  By the way, the Saudi shit really confuses me.  Last I checked, Saudi Arabia was an ally of the United States, and was not considered a terrorist or outlaw nation.  That a Muslim advocacy organization received money from a wealthy Muslim from a Muslim nation should not raise an eyebrow.  If I showed that AIPAC received $500,000 from a prominent Israeli would that cause suspicion?  And, if so, can we provide evidence of the actual suspicion (or "criticism") rather than just stating information about the contribution itself in a manner that is thick with sneering innuendo? csloat (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Linking various people and organizations to Saudi money is a common post-911 practice used to discredit these entities.  There is a tacit understanding amongst certain political sectors that Saudi money = the promotion of Islamism.  That this logic is not particularly sound should not be a surprise.PelleSmith (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Copy
ing and pasting entire sentences without attributions let alone is plagiarism. Please report me to ANI if you believe plagiarism is okay. Your interpretation of what qualifies as criticism is bizarre and please stop bringing up guilty by association. The NYT article is about why x people are criticizing CAIR. CAIR claims it is guilt by association, but mingling with Hamas and Hezbollah, hosting dinners with Iranian despots (at a time when the US was at odds with the country), leadership officials being sent to jail certainly, and receiving money from a country that is complicit in supporting the Taliban and Al-Queda says a lot. If CAIR is trying to separate itself from the general sterotypes of muslim it isn't doing a very good job. This is why politicians are alienated by the organization and this is why people are criticizing the group. you seem to be advocating on behalf of CAIR rather than using the source. My version was well sourced and your claims of original research (the only reason Pelle deleted it) was totally bogus. All of this is pertinent to the article. Pelle, I don't care. We write what the source says. If they're trying to discredit the organization it isn't our problem. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikifan, I'm going to tell you this for the last time.  I restored your version as soon as my mistake was pointed out.  It is rather unfortunate to see escalations of hostility like this.  At some point this will go to the appropriate user conduct noticeboard and you will not like the result.PelleSmith (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You reduced my draft and left your extremely bloated plagiarized/undue paragraph that has little to do with criticisms. Giving 3 sentences to a non-notable uninvolved FBI agent is rather odd. There's a difference between hostility and straight forwardness. If you'd like, I can up the happy faces. : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Nope. Copying and pasting entire sentences which is what you did and simply posting a reference after 9 sentences is not proper citation. You have to understand how citation rules work. You cannot put citations around paragraphs of copyrighted journalism. That is what I'm saying, if there wasn't a reference then it would probably be considered original research. Can you please clarify this guilt by association policy? I see it no where on wikipedia. I do however see CAIR constantly moaning about how all these accusations are "guilt by association." this isn't a rule and we shouldn't be limiting content to CAIR defenses. If critics are citing CAIR and officials are being dragged to prison for mingling with Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, etc...etc...it's perfectly accept to include in the article. Long quotes with ambiguous and general defenses about how they have nothing to do with terrorism is not fair when you censor out everything that they've done that is related to terrorism. You cannot have it both ways. Choosing one vague quote from a non-notable FBI official against a indictments by the FBI and leadership officials being sent to jail is bizarre. The article (NYT) had 3 pages of valuable content and you've guys been skewering it with claims of "guilt by association" which is not our job to determine. This is wikipedia, not CAIR.com. Am I making sense? Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia's policy on WP:BLP is where the "guilt by association policy" is.  We're not talking about "CAIR constantly moaning"; we're talking about the NYT and an FBI official and several other government officials saying this is guilt by association AND we're talking about you deleting the evidence of those statements!  Please stop saying things like "everything they have done that is realted to terrorism" -- CAIR, as CAIR, has done nothing related to terrorism and in fact has denounced terrorism over and over.  A few members of CAIR were arrested for terrorism related charges -- those are two different things!  Can't you see this?  I've said this again and again and you ignore it -- several members of US Congress have been convicted of sexual crimes with children.  Does that mean the US Congress is an institution that molests children??  Answer the question. csloat (talk) 07:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the guilt by association claim is CAIR's wording. You should see Burden of proof. Guilt by association entails a source that simply has CAIR in the context but has little to do with the subject. While some have claimed this is the case, actions speak louder than words. CAIR officials have been caught hosting dinners for Arab despots, receiving donations from Arab despots, condoning the violence actions of Arab despots, and being indicted by Federal agencies for "associating" with Arab despots. Are you seriously saying these facts that are supported by your very own NYT's article qualifies as "guilt by association"?? Are you serious? Seriously? You've continually edited-out cited information with dubious claims of COATRACk and *lols* BLP violations of guilt-by-association. We can very well sell CAIR's claims and for neutrality reasons we are obligated to. But consciously weeding out valid content that does not even remotely meet BLP violations to fit the agenda of CAIR is bogus. This is what you are doing, and I've said this many times. I won't say it again. Bolded/Italicized for importance. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the NYT's wording and is further used and clarified by several other sources.  You should see WP:BLP.  All your comments about CAIR members being arrested and such are irrelevant.  Arab despots?  Get a grip - President Bush used to "associate" with Arab despots, and President Obama does today - are you saying they support terrorism?  It seems you forgot to answer my question about the US Congress, so it appears you're actually conceding the basis of the argument here.  It's time to move on. csloat (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you continue to apply personal standards instead wikipedia policy. You REMOVED NYT's wording, everything in my paragraph came straight from NYT paragraph and it was cited properly, even with a confirming source from a competing newspaper. CAIR being arrested for ties to TERRORISM is certainly relevant when people who criticize the organization are explicitly referring to those events. CAIR has alienated much of the partisan world for its bizarre statements and actions that are contrary to the "guilt by association" which you falsely applied from BLP. The NYT wording has little to do with criticism and was simply a nice long undue explanation as to why CAIR is innocent. Comparing CAIR "associating" (euphemism, mind you) with controversial figures to Bush friendlies is nothing less than a fallacy. This is seriously getting redundant. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Identify what sentence was removed from the NYT and explain why it should not have been removed; then we have something to discuss.  I explained exactly what was wrong with the stuff you removed, and I explained exactly why I removed the guilt-by-association material.  You have made vague (and preposterous) accusations of plagiarism and you continue to repeat the guilt-by-association material without even seeming to understand why it is inappropriate here, even after extensive explanation from two different editors.  You're right, this is getting redundant. csloat (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

text: You have never once quoted what you think is plagiarized.  The charge is transparently dishonest at best.  Guilt by association has been explained.  Your arguments have been quite clearly responded to at length. csloat (talk) 04:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Guilt by association has been thoroughly rebuked. Notice the discrepancy between the length of my response to yours, and yet you continue to say the same things over and over again. How are CAIR officials being sent to prison for communicating with terrorists is somehow "guilt by association"? And yes, copy and pasting entire sentences with improper attribution is plagiarisim in the eyes of wikipedia. We can't legally host entire excerpts of newspaper articles without proper citations, citations Pelle removed under "original research."  You removed all of my edits under the original research accusation which has also been proven false. Remember that? Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What I remember most is you incessantly repeating false claims.  I'm not going to continue responding to your nonsense, sorry.  Over at Wikiquette alerts the consensus was that you are a problem user with behavior destructive to Wikipedia and that user conduct RfC should be filed.  If you insist on being disruptive on this article I will be forced to take that step, but otherwise, this conversation has grown tiresome. csloat (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly this discussion is not going anywhere so I ask that we simply part ways on the article. I haven't edited the article very much anyways, and may only add things here and there. Though I do hope that you guys rely on talk more before edit-warring everything out. I provided legitimate reasons for my concern yet most of those were ignored. Good bye. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just discovered this article and hadn't realized all that has been going on with it.  I see that there is more than one doorkeeper for CAIR here at WP.  Stellarkid (talk) 13:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-content based discussion please keep seperate 

message: I should have left a note here before "merging" this into the main entry, but I do believe there was consensus for a merge but that this was overlooked when Wikifan turned the entry into a battle field earlier in the summer.  Of course this may not be all that obvious without some links.  Those participating in this discussion, prior to the recent AfD suggested the entry was a POV fork and that it should be merged to the main entry.  
*see Talk:Criticism_of_the_Council_on_American-Islamic_Relations#NPOV
*see also Talk:Council_on_American-Islamic_Relations#Merge_proposal
The reason I put it up for AfD was to get more discussion going about deleting, merging and redirecting. While the AfD closed as "no decision" I believe it is clear that the consensus there was for a merge as well.  5 (6 including me the nominator) participants voted for a merge in some manner or another.  There was 1 plain delete and 2 plain keeps.  
*see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_the_Council_on_American-Islamic_Relations_(2nd_nomination)
I attempted to get the discussion focused back to the idea of merging during the disputed period this summer to no avail.  I believe however, as I said then that there is a consensus to merge any relevant materials and to redirect this page.  It has little to no support to stand on its own.  As to whether or not the merge I attempted was sufficient enough that is another matter.  I did not merge all the unnecessary bloat from this entry into that one, but I believe I got all the essential elements.  If I did not lets make sure that takes place.PelleSmith (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent merge and consensus