Talk:Council on American–Islamic Relations/Archive 1

message: I, as well as many people, support CAIR mission statement of educating Americans about Islam and fighting anti-Muslim bigotry wherever it exists. Like anti-Semitism it must be rooted out from the deepest depths and furthest corners of the Earth, especially in Washington D.C. 
The fact of the matter is CAIR has come under a smear and character assassination campaign by Pro-Israeli supporters who can't stand CAIR's and American Muslims steadfast support of the Palestinian cause of statehood.
The truth is CAIR has *NEVER* been found guilty of any "terrorist charges" that has been used to slur its image by the neocons, the CHIEF AMONGST THEM BEING the DIS-GRACED Daniel Pipes and his anti-Muslim cohorts. 
If CAIR did support or have links to doubtful organizations, then would not the FBI, CIA, and various Law enforcement agencies would have discovered their "links" by now.
Wouldn't they have SHUT CAIR DOWN like they did with the Holy Land Foundation and Benevolent Foundation? But nothing has given them the least indication to even suspect or investigate those utterly CYNICAL, anti-Muslim organizational charges.
Thus in these times, with even the "neutral" Wikipedia giving the TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE CAIR-BASHERS a medium to air their poison, instead of talking about the organization,
CAIR's mission becomes more important than ever.
Which is to help fight the very anti-Muslim onslaught against American Muslims' civil liberties and to protect their most basic, cherished American rights: the freedom of expression and NOT of DEFAMATION!
----
Check the information about CAIR in the article, Anonymous. 
Several employees of CAIR are convicted felons, CAIR receives funding from known jihad-sympathizers, CAIR promotes a fundamentalist strain of islam and vilifies moderate and liberal Muslims. 
--Germen 4 July 2005 08:54 (UTC)
----
CAIR is anything but fundamentalist. They work through mainstream American channels, lobbying and encouraging Muslims to vote for positive changes and civil rights. True terrorists and their sympathizers would refrain from civic action and simply plot to blow things up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keythah (talk • contribs) 22:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know that true terrorists and their sympathizers would refrain from civic action? Andjam 02:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia's Should Correct Its Cair's Info. Page

message: Is there a concrete reason why this article still has a NPOV boilerplate?  There isn't anything in it that's factually questionable, and I haven't seen anything in the discussion that appears to address the boilerplate.
:MSTCrow July 6, 2005 05:34 (UTC)
::There had been an edit war over various information in the page here a week or so ago, but it seems to have died down now.  · Katefan0(scribble) July 6, 2005 14:19 (UTC)
I feel that this needs to keep its NPOV boilerplate for the moment. This article is mainly slanted on criticism of the organization, and no factual listing of the positive accomplishments the group has done. They have ten years of experience, and a large number of civil rights victories that need to be mentioned. At the moment, all we see in the article is the controversy surrounding the group, not the deeds. Mr100percent
:Why don't you add some? I'm not familiar enough with the group to know what they've done. · Katefan0(scribble) July 8, 2005 13:19 (UTC)
:I very much doubt the statement that CAIR has a "large number of civil rights victories." Googling CAIR+"civil rights victory" for one turns up nothing relevant. Secondly, CAIR does not file lawsuits (except against critics) or produce legal amicus briefs, so it would be pretty hard for it to gain a civil rights victory a la the ACLU or what-have-you. I am of course open -- if anybody can produce evidence of a "civil rights victory" it should definitely be included. Sdedeo 19:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  CAIR has actually done a lot, but you're not going to find it under a google search with those terms. CAIR has asked schools with large muslim populations to honor absences during the 2 Islamic holidays of the year, or helped provide support for people fired for post-9/11 discrimination, and a number of other things. Their own website has a list of accomplishments, and their daily email has a lot of info about events happening all over the country in their branch offices. 06:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I have removed my "call for a vote", since nobody seems to be participating. :) Sdedeo 21:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote on Critics Section

message: The section "CAIR’s response to critics section" provides no evidence of CAIR making the responses made in paragraphs 1 and 3. ("CAIR has responded to critics..." and "CAIR also frequently charges that its comments are misconstrued or misused by the media.") The only external hyperlink provided is to a Zionist organization. Paragraph 2 "CAIR is particularly critical of Daniel Pipes" notes that CAIR has criticised Daniel Pipes, but the external hyperlink provided does not contain any response to criticism of CAIR.
Unless evidence can be found of CAIR making the responses described, it should be assumed that these are not responses of CAIR, but of a pro-CAIR wikipedian, and as such a violation of NPOV. Andjam 08:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Andjam. I would encourage you to be bold and edit the article as you see fit. If you do delete stuff about CAIR's responses, I'd suggest doing your best to try to dig up something to replace it. I'm sure CAIR has responded to critics -- perhaps in news articles about various controversies it's been involved in. Sdedeo 21:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  CAIR’s response to critics section 

message: As an example, Michael Graham of WMAL in Washington D.C. was fired by his station in August, 2005 after CAIR led a campaign against him for saying that "Islam is a terrorist organization" [26], including the following:
"Because of the mix of Islamic theology that, rightly or wrongly, is interpreted to promote violence, added to an organizational structure that allows violent radicals to operate openly in Islam's name with impunity, Islam has, sadly, become a terrorist organization. It pains me to say it. But the good news is it doesn't have to stay this way, if the vast majority of Muslims who don't support terror will step forward and re-claim their religion."
While CAIR quotes him as saying "Islam is a terrorist organization", the quote that follows doesn't contain that phrase. Unless a non-Dowdified quote can be found of him saying that, we should remove the quotes or attribute it to CAIR. Andjam 08:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotation of Michael Graham 

message: I am going to try again to get the NPOV tag removed from this article. Can anybody who believes this article has POV problems please list and discuss them here? If there are no comments after a few days (let's say one week, i.e., until now next Thursday), I will remove the tag. If there are specific complaints, we can discuss and resolve them. Thanks, Sdedeo 17:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel the "CAIR’s response to critics section" has NPOV problems. But I don't know what to do about it short of deleting it or finding out what CAIR's actual response to criticism is. Andjam 12:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we need some work there, but in general I think the statements are accurate (what I mean is that CAIR does generally claim these things in response to critics.) But the best thing would be to get some sources. Sdedeo 19:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV, again

message: I haven't read all of this talk page, so please excuse me if I am repeating old stuff. There seems to be some controversy here, so I guess most of the article has been thoroughly discussed already... It's just that I noticed the "criticism" part, and that it includes "Financing from the Middle East". It then lists two donors. Now, I'm sure the information is correct, but I can't understand how it would qualify as "criticism" of CAIR to state that they have received donations from Muslims abroad, since these donations are not accused of being illegal or in any way suspect. So, my question is, can this part be removed without an outcry? Arre 07:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can it? No. Should it? Maybe. The financing from the Middle East, when stripped of poorly-supported scandalmongering and innuendo, amounts to nothing much. Al-Waleed bin Talal is one of the richest men in the world and does a great deal of philanthropy, and nobody has demonstrated anything untoward about the book package that he supported. The royal family of Dubai, meanwhile, is not exactly noted for its fanaticism. Perhaps the information about financing should be moved into the main body of the article and expanded; CAIR is a public non-profit organization, so public records should be available somewhere, and it would be interesting to know where it gets its financing. —Charles P. (Mirv) 08:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: CAIR is not the first organisation to be accused of receiving outside funding, and such criticisms aren't only raised against Muslims. Just because it isn't illegal doesn't mean it is non-noteable. Also, while I can't speak personally about the royal family of Saudi Arabia, the Saudi government they run doesn't offer Christians the same civil rights that CAIR demands for Muslims in the USA. Would that be an additional reason for him financing CAIR being noteable? But I'd be ok with it moved into a separate section. Andjam 12:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, of course the information could stay, as part of the general article, if this is indeed a significant part of CAIR's funding (I have no idea about its total budget). I just have a problem calling this part "criticism", since it isn't in any way criticising CAIR. Both people who want the article to be critical to CAIR and those who do not, should be bothered by that. Arre 16:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text:  Further expanded intro with the financial information.--CltFn 03:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Financing from the Middle East

message: More than two weeks ago, I asked for people to explain why they felt the NPOV tag should remain on this article. There haven't been any responses, except for Andjam who mentioned possible problems with the "response to critics" section. IMO, this last section is pretty OK right now although it could well be expanded; it's not a reason to keep an NPOV tag up.
I do not want to get into an edit war. If someone wants to replace the NPOV tag, go ahead. But please: you are expected to explain what your problems are with the article on the talk page. I encourage others who see the NPOV tag added without comment on the talk page to go ahead and remove it.
Sdedeo 18:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of NPOV tag

message: I have no reason to disbelieve the U of C and CUNY stats, but can anybody provide online sources for them? Sdedeo 23:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is here --> : American Religious Identification Survey .--CltFn 23:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: population stats

message: Why is it that people who add links to this page get warnings, but people who remove them do not. I have been warned by User:Joturner, but he has been the one removing the links without explaining why? Is there a way to stop him from doing this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.101.5 (talk • contribs) 
:As far as I can tell, the only warnings have been given for removing links. Can you provide a link to a warning of the kind you're complaining of? Andjam 00:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I've had a bit of a look, and you seem to have been the victim of unjustified warnings. User:Joturner has given a warning to User:152.163.100.201 . While the dynamic IP has a long history of vandalism (probably not by you - you may wish to register an account), the only recent edits by this IP to CAIR reverted removal of stuff:  and . I think the warnings were given by vandalproof, an automated program, so they may have been given in error. Thanks, Andjam 04:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Given the user's history of warning (although the AOL account complicates matters), the IP, and the fact that the edit summary (revert previous blanking AGAIN!) seemed to indicate that the content had been removed before, I determined the edit to be vandalism. It appears from the talk discussion that the edit was in fact legitimate. joturner 04:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: removal of links

message: It is a supposed non-profit, non-governmental organization, built to launder money from donors like the Al Maktoum Foundation and Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal through groups like the now-defunct Holy Land Foundation to terrorist entities like Hamas and Hezbollah and to cover up worldwide human rights abuses and crimes by Islam in the American press.
That may be what it does, but is it what it was designed to do in the first instance? Andjam 13:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The court decisions on 11 former CAIR officials including chapter founders, who are all either in jail or deported after pleading guilty or being found guilty in court of helping launder money for Hamas, say yes. 190 Proof 20:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, that could mean it ended up being used for some of those purposes. I also think that your language is unnecessarily inflamatory. Nloth 00:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Already done in court documents. 190 Proof 02:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You'll need to source that Nloth 03:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Anyone who removes information without showing good reason is a vandal. 190 Proof 12:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose of CAIR 

message: -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sigh. We have a new "warrior".
First of all we need sources for things like "major terrorist front group." Secondly, as with all articles, we present criticisms in the "criticisms" section. The opening paragraph is as neutral as possible, and in general does not consist entirely of critics; instead, we use words like "controversial", and point readers towards a later section.
Look, if CAIR declared itself to be a "terrorist group", that's how we would describe it. Instead, it describes itself as otherwise; we give them that space, and then we include the (huge) numbers of criticisms later in the article.
Finally, the language needs to be very cold and precise.
Lots and lots of people have worked on this article to bring it to the present form. Please respect that. Add new information and new sources, but please respect the ways in which dozens and dozens of us have worked to shape the material.
Please discuss here before reverting the article again. You (190 Proof) are new to the editing here, and we need you to work with us, not against us.
Sdedeo (tips) 01:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:190_Proof violated WP:3RR. See 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:190_Proof for discussion. Nloth 06:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Nloth is a CAIR vandal and not worth bothering with, since he demands "proof" for things that are already linked in the article. 190 Proof 12:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which links say that CAIR was created (not merely used) for the purposes you've listed? Andjam 03:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV (new)

message: I wouldn't say that the views of manic-islamophobes don't deserve some notice...But to use Daniel Pipe's opinion of them all throughout the article? To make the 'ciriticism' section half the length of the entire article, while using deliberately misleading information to indict the organization in what's left of it? Seriously, if CAIR had any direct ties, or sympathy even, for terrorists, wouldn't the US government have their membership locked up? To the contrary, the government has vocally commended CAIR's efforts against extremism and violence. His Excellency... 23:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where have we used material written by Pipes? Provide specific examples. Andjam 01:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, 'all throughout the article' was overboard. Sorry about that. The first sourced statement links to an article written by Daniel Pipes though. The third one comes from an "Arab News" site, but doesn't mention an author name, so I don't know how credible that is. The info it supports should stay (I'm not convinced it's inaccurate), but a more noteworthy source would be good. If CAIR's heavily involved in taking ME donations, that should be documented here. The length of the 'criticism' section and the list of indictments after it is a bit excessive for an article aiming for NPOV. The lawsuit mentioned later  is an interesting one. It's definitely noteworthy content, however the date on the document suggests this case was filed in late 2004. I'd like to know what's happened in regards to this case since then. CAIR still operates, and I didn't hear of them paying damages (though I don't particularly pay much attention to CAIR anyway, a lawsuit of several trillion dollars over 9/11would make news)...I'll see if I can find that info. His Excellency... 02:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: What's removed in the elipses? Just "the Muslim book of scripture"? Andjam 10:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Most of the text in the paragraph is derived from the text of the lawsuit. I can't spot any "complete cut and pastes" from Pipes' site. Can you be a bit more specific? Andjam 10:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using Wikipedia as a platform to vilify Muslim organizations

message: Why have the following been removed from the article?
* Rabih Haddad - deported, citation included.
* Ghassan Elashi - convicted on terrorism charges, no citation given but here's one that can be used: .
* Bassem Khafagi - pled guilty, deported. Andjam 01:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why were the following removed? 

message: Register for wikipedia on the same day, and make their first edits to this article. Is this just one big coincidence, or have they been recruited to influence a content debate? Andjam 07:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two new users ... 

message: User bahasaab attempted to break up this article by removing uncomplementary facts about cair evidently trying to whitewash the article to his POV. Nice try but it has now been restored to the full version.--CltFn 04:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice try? What are you talking about? Having criticisms of CAIR that are longer than the rest of the article does not make this NPOV; I have reverted your edits. Read Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight. BhaiSaab talk 17:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously other wikipedia editors may not agree with your changes thus you have to discuss it first and get consensus.--CltFn 01:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. BhaiSaab, don't remove well-sourced material. - Merzbow 01:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not removing it - it's being moved to another article so this entire article on CAIR isn't mostly its criticism. BhaiSaab talk 02:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with moving the bulk of the criticism to a separate article and including a summary in this main article. But there's no justification for deleting the material until then. NPOV is not achieved by deletion of good material, but by addition of countervailing material or by movement of material. - Merzbow 05:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhh...it's already been moved. I've noticed most of the accusations fly around Wiki without anyone bothering to actually check what other people have done. See Criticism_of_the_Council_on_American-Islamic_Relations. BhaiSaab talk 17:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I missed that, but you did not mention this on talk before you did it. If I see large blanking of portions of an article, and see nothing on talk, I'm going to revert and let the blanker do the explaining. You should have publicized and gained consensus for this first on talk before doing it. - Merzbow 23:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I don't think it's his fault you didn't bother to check the edit thoroughly :). Anyway, the split-off article Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations needs some general cleanup like internal and external links and a proper header, etc. Aranherunar 07:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Restored full version of article 

message: *Misguided Muslim groups
--CltFn 03:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added to Criticism_of_the_Council_on_American-Islamic_Relations. BhaiSaab talk 04:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article on CAIR to be added when page unlocks

message: I've done a bit of searching, to try to find the origins of the section.
this edit by 216.174.134.2 seems to be the basis of the material (and removes a lot of legitimate material), and this edit by 24.72.127.90 seems to be more recognisable. The hyperlinks are external links rather than citations. 
Once some consensus has been reached about criticism of CAIR, can the response section be removed? Thanks, Andjam 04:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to critics section 

message: No discussion of criticism of CAIR is complete without a few words from or at least a link to Daniel Pipes (http://www.danielpipes.org/). Towards that end, I'm soliciting comments here on the talk page for a while to: "hash things out", so to speak.Mark Preston 01:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Daniel Pipes

message: This is a terrorist supporting front, why is it given a bogus description in the article.
see www.anti-cair-net.org for more info
: Anonymous, the description in the article is what editors have created.  If you have a correction use the "edit this page" link to improve it.  Sources should be supplied.  (SEWilco 05:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CAIR is a terrorist supporting front