Talk:Council on American–Islamic Relations

message: Is that true?--Simon19801 (talk) 09:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Source says aye, along with the major Muslim groups in a bunch of Northern European countries and the Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies alongside your usual Isis and so on. Not really sure what happened there - it certainly gets bandied around a lot by the racist right wing, but a quick google suggests it's some Kevin-Bacon six-degrees-of-separation thing.  The US, where CAIR is located, does not consider it a terrorist organization. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not really Kevin Bacon 6 degrees. The banned the global Muslim Brotherhood (which in general - both on the local level and on the international level is not a well defined group - it is a huge collection of Dawah/charities, organizations, etc) - and as part of the ban also listed the local country affiliates of the brotherhood in several countries - so no, it is not 6 degrees, but rather a single link - an alleged association with the brotherhood.Icewhiz (talk) 08:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Important word there, "alleged," and given that the UAE government is not exactly known for its commitment to democratic principles, the rule of law, freedom of speech, transparency or due process, it's inappropriate to place undue weight on a controversial declaration that apparently found no support from any other country. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not our place to judge the UAE's record, but rather just quote said criticism. Regarding the Muslim Brotherhood ties - these are actually alleged by many more sources than just the UAE. What is more relevant to your argument isn't whether CAIR is an MB local affilate/inspired-group - but rather whether the Brotherhood itself should be designated as terrorist (which it has been in several Arab countries - whose record may indeed be assailed (as the Brotherhood's record may be as well)). In any event the designation as a terrorist org - warranted or not - has significant ramifications for whomever is involved directly or transacts with CAIR and wishes to be able to do business in the UAE (even if said business is only to fly Emirates (airline)).Icewhiz (talk) 08:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banned in the UAE as terrorist group? 

message: I have reverted a series of major changes to this article made by Icewhiz; some of them are probably unobjectionable, but several of them are quite objectionable. I request that as per the bold, revert, discuss cycle, that Icewhiz discuss their proposed changes and additions, and develop editorial consensus here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: - please at least restore those parts you find un-objectionable. For instance - I don't quite see why you reverted breaking  the litagation section into subheadings (following Mavriksfan11's introduction of clutter + removal with a false edit summary of long standing information). The stable version should be if at all - , and I think this one -  is better). BRD is not an excuse for removing well-cited material. For instance, at the very least we should state UAE's rationale for listing CAIR (as opposed by just the designation and then pro-CAIR counter-criticism). If we are to reach a compromise here - leaving in those parts you find as non-objectionable would be a good start. I also propose that the UAE designation should be out of the history chrono - and in a separate subsection - either on its own, or with the Hamas ties section - this is better organizationally for a "timeless" designation (as the organization is still designated as a terror org by UAE as of 2017 - the designation is an ongoing label).Icewhiz (talk) 09:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Icewhiz here as well. David A (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

text: I don't agree with Icewhiz here. There's nothing misleading about my edit summary, he just likes to revert all my edits across Wikipedia. [here]. And this David A is just his buddy who backs him up without ever explaining himself (like a sock puppet). Back to my edit summary, I mitigated a dead, non-archivable reference, as I said in my edit summary. The reference is still a dead link and there is still no version of it on any archival website anywhere. See this snapshot from the WayBack Machine from 2012, which results in a 404 page. It fails WP:V if we say "According to X" when there is no way to verify that X actually said that. It's absolutely a lie to call my edit summary false. That information is no longer verifiable and cannot be included in the article. Mavriksfan11 (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:   - you had better retract this WP:PERSONAL and WP:ASPERSIONS statement. The accusations of sockpuppetry between me and user:David A are particularly egregious - and utterly unfounded - Editor Interaction Analyser: Icewhiz vs. David A (it seems our sole interaction is this page from today on this page, and noticeboards) - David probably responded here as he had this page on his watchlist - and it doesn't seem he has ever "backed me up".Icewhiz (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been in Wikipedia for over 11 years. Being accused of sockpuppetry is a new experience. David A (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

text: It does name CAIR. It then treats the various MB inspired organizations as a basket (and they really are similar - e.g. Muslim Association of Britain in the UK). Note that despite some rather crackpot theories on the fringe of the American right that the Brotherhood itself (or Ikhwan) is not nearly as nefarious as some of these theories make them out to be - the MB is a political force with parallels elsewhere. I don't see Vidino listing them as a source of evil - to the contrary - his end recommendation to policymakers is cautious engagement.Icewhiz (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold, revert, discuss 

message: Under "Hamas" in the section "Allegations of Islamist Ties" there is a line that is confusing and can be read to ways.
"Six Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate have alleged ties between the CAIR founders and Hamas."
This reads in two very opposite ways depending if "have" is the verb or if "alleged" is the verb. The former would read that these members are supposedly tied to CAIR and Hamas. The latter reads like the members have accused CAIR of ties. ErixTheRed (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The former would have "to" instead of "between". Actually, what we're saying here is that the six Republicans have used what some believe to be their own neck ties to lasso CAIR founders, arranging the loose ends of the ties between their captives and Hamas in a decorative bow. Eperoton (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing language in "Allegations of Islamist Ties: Hamas" 

message: Wasn’t the establishment of CAIR at all in part for advocacy after the 1993 WTC attack? Or was it just in response to the the Arnold Schwarzneggar movie? Dianne93101 (talk) 12:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  February 26, 1993 WTC ? 

message: in regards to the following section:
There are a few issues that make much of this section inconsistent with Wikipedia policy:
* The "Allegations of Gender Bias" does not cite any reliable sources.
* The section on "Chapter Executive Director Resignation" only describes the involvement of CAIR as "inaction by CAIR when she complained." The rest of the material is irrelevant to the organization itself. I retained and moved the sentence regarding the accusation of "inaction."
* The section on "Gender Discrimination Lawsuits" cites only primary sources.
* In "Thwarting Employee Efforts to Unionize", the first sentence is not actually found in the cited source (NPR). I've moved and retained the second sentence from the Washington Examiner. The rest of the section does not cite any reliable sources.
A review of WP:Reliable Sources would help. Snuish (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: your attention is being directed here for the fourth or fifth time. The second bullet and fourth bullets above still apply to the remaining content you insist on re-inserting into the article. You have not engaged in any discussion at all thus far. Snuish (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internal Controversies section