Talk:Sami Al-Arian

message: There is a large quantity of articles on liberal or alternative media (The Nation, CounterPunch, ZCommunications, TomDispatch, Democracy Now, antiwar.com, etc etc) which present a view which completely contradicts the government's position, yet they have all been removed from the article.  This is despite the fact that the most popular article online about Sami Al Arian (after wikipedia) is the counterpunch article.
I recall reading this article over a year ago and it was FAR better than it is now.  What happened?
207.188.69.26 (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't follow this article or its changes very closely, but the central fact remains that that there's a very significant likelihood that Al-Arian started off with the FBI by lying to them about Sheikh Abdullah Ramadan or Ramadan Abdullah Shallah (see above), and nothing that has come along subsequently has diminished this likelihood... AnonMoos (talk) 03:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree w/Anon.  The article is far, far better referenced now, and reflects the RS references far more.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  It may be better now (I am not sure how bad it was before) but it is still grotesquely biased. There is a significant number of RS (possibly more than 50% of total) which have strongly denounced government actions regarding this case. This case was a central topic among writers who opposed the PATRIOT ACT. That is not how the article is balanced. The article is weighted towards the government's position. It is not NPOV to state that Al Arian accepted a plea bargain without stating that he was held in solitary confinement for years (which many human rights organizations consider a form of torture) before agreeing. That is a major theme in much of the RS. As I noted above (the IP address is mine) articles about Al Arian from the left (The Nation, Tom Dispatch, CounterPunch, Zmag, Salon, etc) all present a POV totally counter to this article and they are far more numerous than article written about him from the right.  I am going to propose some changes in the future.  But given the nature of beast it will take some time. This article does not present a balance of the RS at all. Poyani (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I looked back at the history and this article is actually far worse than it used to be.  It used to have less RS, but now it reeks of OR and POV.  Editors have removed much of the controversy regarding Al Arian's internment in solitary confinement (without trial), trial, plea bargain, and further government abuse, and have inserted their own OR, such as the one above from Anon.  It doesn't matter if editors feel that there is "a very significant likelihood that Al-Arian started off ..."  That is irrelevant.  The case of Al Arian is notable because of the mountain of RS written on the subject of him being subjected to the PATRIOT Act's worst excesses.  What editors feel is likely about Al-Arian is simply irrelevant. Poyani (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I still agree w/Anon.  It is the reverse.  It read much more like your above post, but was in fact less-RS-supported, and more POV-driven.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  What do you mean it was "in fact less-RS-supported, and more POV-driven"?  I posted more than 50 RS just below your post (there were so many I thought they required their own section). And the RS I posted is still just a small minority of RS related to this case.  The vast majority of RS is frames Al Arian's notability in relations to criticisms of the PATRIOT Act.  Poyani (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: February 2011

message: Epeefleche. I did not understand the explanation for your revert. Were you objecting to the change in info box or content or both?  Please advise! Poyani (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent revert by Epeefleche 

message: I do not think the use of the criminal infobox is appropriate.  The template for the infobox states the following: 
Choose this template judiciously. Unwarranted or improper use of this template may violate the Biographies of living persons, Neutral point of view and Privacy policies.
This template is generally reserved for convicted serial killers, gangsters, mass murderers, old west outlaws, murderers, mafia members, fugitives, FBI 10 most wanted, serial rapist, mobsters, and other notorious criminals.
Al-Arian does not fit in this category. He pled guilty (under controversial circumstances) to conspiracy to make or receive contributions of funds, goods or services to or for the benefit of Palestinian Islamic Jihad. I propose the use of the more generic Person Infobox. Poyani (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi --responding to this and prior post, which I just noticed.  I think the infobox is appropriate.  That list wasn't an exclusive list -- he is notable (just check the ghits), and he is notorious because of the criminal activity for which he was convicted.  Also -- please read the sentence in the template that follows the one you quoted ... if it may be used as a secondary Infobox in the middle of those articles having a section dealing with a crime of an individual whose notability is not due mainly to their being convicted criminals, such as in Winona Ryder, Martha Stewart, James Traficant, Duke Cunningham, and Tom DeLay, certainly it is appropriate to use it here, where it is the primary reason he is notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think once the article is made a bit more NPOV by including some excluded info, it might be brought to the community. I did some research on "conviction" and even discussed this at WikiProject Law since relevant Wiki articles not clear. A search of WP:RS shows that while prosecutors do consider a guilty plea a "conviction" it's hard to find any real legal definition that confirms that. So while Wikipedia usage does seem to be in that direction, the actual legal definition is more ambivalent. Perhaps there's even a WP:RS about this case that mentions that fact. So I think that it still is an issue that could be brought to the larger community at BLPN at some point. CarolMooreDC 03:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is a gray area at all.  He pleaded guilty, and was convicted based on his guilty plea.  That's Criminal Law 101.  Could have something to do with why the prosecutor referred to it as a "conviction".--Epeefleche (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Per this wikipedia project law discussion no one could find any statement in law saying a plea bargain is a conviction, only prosecutor assertions that it does. If you have one from some law book or law professors book or legal statute, do tell.  I'll put it in the Plea bargain article. Definitely an issue needing clarifying across wikipedia and not just this article. CarolMooreDC 15:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See the first para under History in 48 Notre Dame L. 835 (1972-1973), Finality of a Plea of Guilty, The; Erickson, William H., here.  --Epeefleche (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Now several Wikipedia articles can be clarified. CarolMooreDC 04:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Reformation32 should comment on this and we can at least settle this issue, per discussion above. But per the quote from the policy on this in the quoted second paragraph at top of the thread, I don't think someone who copped a plea to an offense regarding knowledge of potential crimes in a foreign country to get out of solitary confinement is exactly a "notorious criminal."  But I could be wrong. Perhaps we should take it to WP:BLP after the rest of the article is scruitinized. CarolMooreDC 02:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criminal Infobox 

message: I just read through them all in order, including revert of User:Epeefleche's revert and a few comments:
*Please read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle on properly dealing with reverts. Obviously we don't want a revert war here.  (The fact that so many reference links are broken and in red doesn't help. On the other hand, there are existing multiple uses of same refs in one paragraph that also need cleanup.)
*In general it's good when you intend to rewrite an article to start in a text file, do format clean up in a sand box and then put in the info ASAP section by section, allowing people to more easily understand and discuss the changes.  In a controversial article it's better to do that first with the least controversial changes and then move on to more controversial changes. 
*The article DID need better organization, fact checking of sources, new sources and more info and a less POV presentation and that was done with some edits, though detailing which could be a bit difficult since there were so many, so I really can't comment on current status or specific issues. 
*Most important is that it looks like a couple of the govt. documents you deleted as sources because of broken links could be found through a search of the name. Perhaps that also is true of some news articles. It's always good to search the title because the publication may have changed the link or some reputable source may have reprinted it. 
*However, IF the source - esp. for some negative allegation - cannot be found, then it is acceptable under WP:BLP to remove the specific material and only use material found in WP:RS referring more generally to the material in question.  (Unless someone wants to just quote everything from the document in a footnote.) And there certainly is a problem with detailing everything in a govt indictment where the person was found innocent of almost all the charges, whether or not you have the document link.
*Note criminal infobox issue was discussed above so feel free to weigh in there. And you could always bring it to the WP:BLPN noticeboard, but I have a feeling that should wait til other issues are either settled or also need community input.
*Probably best to detail the least controversial changes you have made/want to make (depending on revert status) so we can quickly get them out of the way, and then go into the more controversial ones.
CarolMooreDC 05:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. I'm involved in a couple things today, maybe tomorrow, but hopefully over the weekend I'll just go through and see if my concerns addressed and if have any more info/refs to add. CarolMooreDC 18:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly, what I was thinking. If we discuss any concerns, we can certainly speed up this process. Look forward to working with you. Reformation32 (talk) 05:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: But a reminder, in this case the editors who reverted have not come to explain their reverts or complain about yours. (And it helps to come and defend your changes when they do revert or it definitely gets into edit warring territory for which you can be sanctioned.) See WP:BRD for policy. CarolMooreDC 13:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Too busy getting ready for hurricane sandy and dealing with other issues to look, but after the power that surely will go out comes back on hopefully will have time to compare whatever the latest version is with original one.  CarolMooreDC 12:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I know about hurricanes. Wish you well. Stay safe. Reformation32 (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent changes/reverts

message: Sami Al-Arian amd Sami Al-Arian indictments and trial should definitely be merged.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Reformation32 (talk • contribs) 
:Probably half the material in this article should be merged into Sami Al-Arian indictments and trial now that his next battle doubtless will be fighting deportation - or whatever notable things he does/happen to him that will make the news. But we can give it a week and see if feds find some new rationale for a continuation of current situation. 15:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge help please

message: As I pointed out in the archives in 2007, Sami Al-Arian sponsored this individual's entry into the United States, gave him employment, and worked closely with him on an almost-daily basis, until one day in 1995 when he suddenly disappeared and popped up shortly afterwards in Damascus as the new external leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. This was what led to Al-Arian's first extended contact with the FBI, and seems to have laid the foundation for most of his subsequent legal troubles. (If Sami Al-Arian took the same line with the FBI in October/November 1995 that he did publicly -- i.e. that he had no knowledge whatsoever of Ramadan Abdullah Shallah's affiliations, and that Shallah's departure and re-emergence atop the PIJ came as complete and total utter surprise -- then it's safe to say that the FBI considered Sami Al-Arian's replies less than fully truthful.)  This article doesn't mention Ramadan Abdullah Shallah at all, while article Sami Al-Arian indictments and trial merely mentions his name, but doesn't provide any context, or explain his significant role in focusing FBI attention on Sami Al-Arian.  I find these omissions rather baffling (just as I did over 7 years ago)... AnonMoos (talk) 04:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What Reliable Sources show this is notable and relevant and not a guilt by association inference? Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 15:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with AnonMoos. Carol -- just try a google search. Epeefleche (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

text: "Guilt by association" is totally irrelevant here, because either way -- whether Sami Al-Arian was as pure as the driven snow, or whether he was guilty as sin -- it remains a simple fact that Ramadan Abdullah Shallah's exodus was the catalyst for his legal problems.  Before October 1995, Sami Al-Arian had no federal legal problems (he had some public relations problems and university relations problems), but after October 1995 he was now on the FBI's radar in a big way, initially due to Ramadan Abdullah Shallah... AnonMoos (talk) 05:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

text: From what I saw in one ref, this seems to be relevant to why they indicted Al-Arian, an indictment that came pretty much to naught [added later: with no convictions]. It would help if somone provided a diff of the last version or best version where this info was included to see if it was taken out because it lacked decent refs, lacked proper context or was WP:Undue.  Find a high quality neutral source that describes what happens and its import is what matters.  Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 01:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The indictment came "pretty much to naught"? He admitted to one of the charges in exchange for being released and deported, claimed that testifying in another case would violate his plea deal on the charge in the indictment that he pleaded guilty to, and when he therefore refused to testify he was held under house arrest for six years.  A guilty plea on one charge is more than naught.  Deportation is more than naught.  And six years of house arrest because of disagreement over the plea arrangement stemming from the indictment is more than naught. Epeefleche (talk) 05:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I added "with no convictions" to clarify. Now if the government wants to mess with people and keep them in prison or under house arrest for years and years, obviously it can do so and does. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 13:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: He was guilty -- he admitted as much -- to a crime listed in the indictment. That's more than "naught".  He was, as a result of being guilty of a crime listed in the indictment, to be deported.  That's more than "naught." We don't even have to go any further ... though in his case the impact of the indictment and subsequent event to it does ... The characterization of "pretty much to naught" was inaccurate. Epeefleche (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me be clear: I was making the point that there is no reason that anyone partisan out there should be against including RS/NPOV info about this factoid since it didn't affect the jury verdict. So if you want to put such info in, go for it. There is no disagreement, just waiting for someone to do some work. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 01:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Sheikh Abdullah Ramadan (Ramadan Abdullah Shallah) excised from article again

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Sami Al-Arian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120926000651/http://www.miamiherald.com/news/florida/AP/story/940573.html to http://www.miamiherald.com/news/florida/AP/story/940573.html
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 01:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have no desire to get into an edit war on this article (or even to really edit it at all, for that matter), but it's highly undesirable that the article omits any mention of Ramadan Abdullah Shallah, since that's how Sami Al-Arian first came to the attention of federal government law enforcement, and seems to have been the catalyst for his federal legal troubles after that point.  (He had no federal legal troubles before Ramadan Abdullah Shallah absconded.)  There's a good probability that if the FBI had been fully satisfied with the truthfulness and comprehensiveness of Sami Al-Arian's answers to their questions about Abdullah Shallah, then they wouldn't have bothered to go after Sami Al-Arian at that point.  The omission of any mention of Ramadan Abdullah Shallah from this article is unjustified and tendentious (hopefully not malicious, but after 10 years I'm beginning to wonder...)  AnonMoos (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Sheikh Abdullah Ramadan (Ramadan Abdullah Shallah) yet again for a third time in ten years

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Sami Al-Arian. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sptimes.com%2F2006%2F04%2F23%2FHillsborough%2FIn_his_plea_deal__wha.shtml&date=2012-10-21 to http://www.sptimes.com/2006/04/23/Hillsborough/In_his_plea_deal__wha.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120301162657/http://nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/FeaturedDocs/U.S._v_Al-Arian_pleaagr.pdf to http://nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/FeaturedDocs/U.S._v_Al-Arian_pleaagr.pdf
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) 03:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I don't see any citations or later evidence in the article that actually suggests this is the case, his activism seems to be focused on Palestine and the treatment of Muslim Americans. Calling him an Islamicist based on that alone, especially someone who was targeted and tortured under dubious circumstances by the us government, seems at best insensitive to the context. 38.42.46.6 (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Islamicist is an appropriate label for someone like him. He is at least a supporter of Islamist parties: Islamic Jihad, campaigned for Egyptian presidential candidate in 2014: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdel_Moneim_Aboul_Fotouh, a supporter of the Erdogan party in Turkey, a supporter of the Iranian regime. etc. 193.134.162.64 (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the subject of the article described as an Islamicist? 

message: Al-Arian family is a known Egyptian family. Sami Al-Arian's cousin Tarek Al-Arian https://www.instagram.com/tarekalarianofficial/ is a famous Egyptian director. Mohammed El-Erian is a famous Egyptian American economist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_A._El-Erian. Sami Al-Arian's entire family lives in Egypt and are Egyptian citizens. Palestinians who emigrated to Egypt were never able to obtain Egyptian citizenship if they cannot prove their Egyptian origin. Sami Al-Arian himself grew up in Egypt after being born in Kuwait. Sami Al-Arian was also a campaign manager for one of the Egyptian presidential candidates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdel_Moneim_Aboul_Fotouh 
There is virtually no presence in Gaza or the West Bank for the Al-Arian family.
As a Palestinian, I am tired of the self-proclaimed Palestinian community leaders and activists. We don't need more cooks in the kitchen. For sure not someone who helped George W. Bush win the elections in 2000. Videotron (talk) 13:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Sami Al-Arian actually Palestinian?