Talk:Council on American–Islamic Relations

Banned in the UAE as terrorist group?

Is that true?--Simon19801 (talk) 09:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

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. [1][2] The US, where CAIR is located, does not consider it a terrorist organization. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

RFC: Removing "Funding Request for Muslim Peace Foundation from Muammar Qaddafi"

I think it is worth noting when the group receives funding from outside the US. Since it is called the "Council for American-Islamic Relations" we all expect both sides of that relational boundary to be participants, and it is not taboo to mention when they receive funding from foreign dignitaries.

That being said, at the end of the article currently, is a small section about Nihad Awad writing a letter to Qaddafi in 2009 asking for a financial donation from him in support of an initiative of CAIR's, and it includes a comment from Steven Emerson, and the response from CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper about the letter. And in that respect, it seems balanced enough.

I would like to delete the small section however for the following reasons: 1) I think it is cluttering the article. Why include a request for funding which was never responded to? If we were to include all such requests to dignitaries which were never replied to, the article would be full of boring non-connections between the group and others. 2) It seems that this section is trying to imply a link between CAIR and Qaddafi's part in the Libyan Civil War in 2011 (especially given that the letter was cited in Congress in 2011), and in that sense it seems to be grossly misleading. As far as Wikipedia mentions on Qaddafi's page, he was in good standing with the US government as of 2009. His country was removed from the US list of state-sponsors of terrorism in 2006. And the letter to him was dated in 2009, when he was considered in good standing by the government. But he is most known to people as a brutal dictator who was ousted in a populist rebellion, and this is largely because of events dated after the letter in 2009.

For this reason, I'd like to see how people feel about removing the section. It doesn't seem to have affected the group's actual funding in any way, and it is, in my opinion trying to imply to the reader that CAIR supports the violence of a regime like Qaddafi's, without making it clear that the timing of the letter and the Libyan Civil War are different. Mavriksfan11 (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with your specific numbered arguments as the criticism of the letter seems to have gotten enough coverage to merit a mention, and your second point seems like OR. However, the passage strikes me as problematic in other ways.

1. The placement implies that the letter requested funding for CAIR, but it doesn't seem that the sources identify this as a CAIR initiative, rather than Awad's separate project. This probably belongs in the article on Awad rather than here, or at most in the criticism section.
2. The quote from the letter is undue.
3. One understands the point of the "hypocritical" criticism and the response from reading the cited sources, but not from their summary here. This is related to your point 2), but the problem can be traced down to our failure to reflect the sources properly.
4. There's a separate mention of a meeting with Qaddafi, but this seems too tangential to mention here.

Eperoton (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The Qaddafi funding request is well sourced and quite extraordinary for an organization based in the United States. It should be in.Icewhiz (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, it's been made quite clear by both of us that the request was not made by the organization CAIR at all. Even the source included in the section mentions that the request for funding was made by Awad for a separate project. Thus, the information, if it is so extraordinary and well-sourced, belongs in Awad's page, not in this one.Mavriksfan11 (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

CAIR is mentioned - in the title we should note - of some of the sources - with more promienience than Awad - who as Executive Director isn't quite so separate from CAIR. Follow the sources CAIR Caught in Gaddafi $ Web [3]. Congressmen questioned the FBI regarding its relationship with CAIR at large - not just Awad. It is not for us to decide definitely that this is a "private project" and not part of CAIR. And in any event the funding of the Executive Director of CAIR by Libya is seen as significant by the sources and members of congress.Icewhiz (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree. Even in your source it is never suggested that this funding was sought for CAIR itself. Without suggestion of that intent by any source, you are asking us to include information implying a tie which no one else has explicitly claimed exists. Just as it is not for us to decide this is a "private project" it is also not for us to decide that this funding request was for CAIR usage either. Other people need to claim that, and then we can include it here. Until there is a source which claims this, I can't see how it's relevant, especially under the section "Funding" given it has explicitly nothing to do with the group's funding.Mavriksfan11 (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

It has been linked to CAIR, which appears in the title while Awad does not. We could rename the section to Links to Libya under Muammar Qaddafi seeing that CAIR's leader engaged with Libya's.Icewhiz (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, I will not accept that. Until an actual, notable person claims that such a link exists, we will not imply that to readers based on our reading of a Fox News article title. I do not wish to repeat myself again, as I've said already that "Other people need to claim [this]". If you again respond alleging this link without naming a notable person who has claimed it, I will not respond.Mavriksfan11 (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Eperoton, you say it's "gotten enough coverage", but all the sources are Fox News. Is this something that mainstream news in general has covered, or is it just Fox beating this drum? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Fox News is the only mainstream news organization I'm seeing reporting on this, but the stories do come from one of their newsroom correspondents. No RSs I see state or even suggest that the funding request was for CAIR, though. They do identify Awad as the director of CAIR, but so what? Eperoton (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

While "corporations are people", separating between Awad and CAIR is quite novel seeing that Awad is/was directing CAIR.Icewhiz (talk) 07:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

A claim that this action by Awad is tied to CAIR would also be novel, as no notable person has claimed it yet. The section is on the Nihad Awad page where it belongs because it was an action by Nihad Awad.Mavriksfan11 (talk) 07:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

You are engaging in WP:OR. This - [4] has CAIR in the title with Ghaddafi CAIR Caught in Gaddafi $ Web. It has a notable person - Frank Wolf (politician) citing the letter to Ghaddafi in the context of Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., cited the letter Wednesday at a House Appropriations sub-committee hearing, during which Wolf asked FBI Director Robert Mueller about the FBI's relationship with CAIR.. This letter has been covered mainly in the context of CAIR - as the organization itself is notable whereas Awad as an individual is less so, other than his activities as leader of CAIR.Icewhiz (talk) 08:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, there is only one source for this information and no letter to corroborate the claims of that article. No other mainstream news media source makes this claim, raising red flags for WP:V. And you know what else? The Fox News article claims that Frank Wolf made these statements on "Wednesday" at "a House Appropriations sub-committee hearing". Given that the article was published on April 7, 2011, we can go to the US government's website, where they keep transcripts of all the House Appropriations committee subcommittee meetings from that year 2011, and so if we go there we should be able to find Wolf's statements right, to verify that this happened. If you visit the one for Wednesday April 6, you find that it doesn't feature Mr. Wolf at all. The same is true for Thursday April 7. The same is true for Wednesday March 30. Mr. Wolf did sit in a subcommittee meeting on Wednesday April 13, but he said nothing. So considering there are no other mainstream media sources reporting this, given that it's not something we can find in US Congress transcripts for the appropriate subcommittee meetings, I'm leaning on the side of this being WP:V and you needing to bring at least one other mainstream media source which claims this fact (and which does not rely on a reference to the Fox News article as it's source). If it's so notable and so important that you are willing to edit war over it, you should be able to find another credible source reporting on it.Mavriksfan11 (talk) 09:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

The observation that Awad is not CAIR isn't novel at all. One is a person and the other is an organization. It takes no "research" to keep them apart. News stories about Tim Cook identify him as Apple's CEO, and usually in the headline, but that doesn't make them all stories about Apple, let alone stories that should be covered in Apple Inc. The only statement about CAIR I see in those sources is that "Wolf asked FBI Director Robert Mueller about the FBI's relationship with CAIR", which in itself isn't news or the main topic of the reports. Eperoton (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• Icewhiz, your claims have been that this is "well-sourced" and "extraordinary" so why can you not produce a single mainstream news source reporting on it other than Fox News? Why can you not present any transcripts of House hearings (they are all public) which corroborate this story? You say "It is not for us to decide definitely that this is a "private project" and not part of CAIR" but the source you link to right here explicitly say that: "In the letter, obtained by Fox News and dated Sept. 23, 2009, CAIR executive director Nihad Awad asks Qaddafi for funding for his new project called the Muslim Peace Foundation." and "the congressman said the letter showed that Awad was in the process of setting up the Muslim Peace Foundation" and ""A number of community leaders and organizations were invited to a meeting in New York, at which support was sought for an initiative, unrelated to CAIR, to promote peace and mutual understanding," Hooper said." You are the one engaging in WP:OR by claiming that this project is a part of CAIR without any evidence or source to back that up. And the relevant information is on the page for Nihad Awad so it does not need to be included here. Feel free to write any rebuttal to this you'd like. Mavriksfan11 (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

The request for a Third Opinion on this matter has been removed (i.e. denied) because there are more than two editors involved in the discussion and 3O is only for disputes with exactly two editors involved. (Or to say this in a different way, the 3O was given when the third editor involved in this discussion joined in.) If dispute resolution is still needed, consider DRN. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC) (Not watching this page)

Terror org designation by UAE

This is highly significant information which we should place in the lead. It is not our place to judge UAE's record - just to state they made this designation. The designation itself is highly significant as it impacts anybody who is a member of CAIR or who does business with CAIR - should they concurrently be doing business with any organization based in the UAE (physical, financial, or even just flying Emirates (airline) (which is a major carrier in the middle east).Icewhiz (talk) 08:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely not. This is an American organization whose activities are focused on the United States. There is, by all accounts here, no evidence that the group supports, endorses or otherwise participates in terrorist activities, and the nation where the CAIR is based in does not agree with the UAE's finding. The UAE, to say the least, has zero reputation for anything resembling due process, the rule of law, transparency, fair courts or adherence to democratic principles. We are not required to give undue weight to unevidenced claims of an unelected authoritarian government.

Or do you propose that we include Press TV's vile Holocaust denial claims in the lede of our article about the Holocaust because it's not our place to judge Iran's record? "According to the Iranian government, the Holocaust is the Greatest Lie Ever Told." That would be impossibly silly. We are not required to treat different things as if they are the same, and a claim by a country with a well-known and widely-accepted record of authoritarian repression and a lack of respect for human rights does not have to be judged on equal merit with that made by a Western democracy with reasonably-function systems of law, justice, civil rights and freedoms. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Iranian Holocaust claims are widely discounted. On the other hand - there are actually some quite significant calls to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist in the US as well (Cruz's bill in 2015, revived in 2017. Whitehouse talk in 2017). The motivations for/against such a designation tend to focus less on the "truth" (is X a terror org) but rather on the diplomatic practicalities (possible future Arab regimes, alienating Turkey and Qatar). In any event - the designation itself has an effect on financial institutions and effects individuals even in such benign areas such as travel (e.g. - choosing to fly Emirates, particularly in a stopover in the Dubai hub, would be problematic for involved individuals). We should state this is a UAE designation - possibly also stating it has not been so designated by the US.Icewhiz (talk) 09:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

We are, of course, concerned here with the truth and with providing fair and neutral articles based upon reliable sources, whether or not the UAE is, and whether or not you are. The reliable sources available do not tend to give credence to the UAE's claims about the CAIR; the group is widely-cited and widely-discussed by mainstream news sources as a significant civil rights group in the United States (this is easily confirmable by a Google News search). These articles in mainstream U.S. news sources do not tend to even mention the UAE's claims, presumably because they are treated as the dubious products of a repressive dictatorship that they are. Your conflation of CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood here is inappropriate in the extreme. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The truth is that CAIR has been designated as a terror org by the UAE. Such designation (or lack of designation) are of course entirely political - for any designated terror org. We should give ample space to CAIR's (and supporters) rebuttal - as well as space to the UAE's rationale and outside support for its decision (for which there is support - including domestic US support). CAIR's record is a bit more complex than "just a civil rights org" (from unindicted co-conspirator status, cutting off of FBI ties at times, etc.).Icewhiz (talk) 09:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC) I do not conflate CAIR with MB - but they have been associated by many (including RS, including the Federal government's prosecution in the Holy Land case which described CAIR as an affilate), while this has been disputed by others. the UAE (and several others - including well versed academics) does see CAIR as a local affiliate of the MB. As the MB is loosely organized (or quite possibly (per several) - not organized at all beyond common ideology and teachings), those who make such an association tend to base it on common ideology and personnel (e.g. founders of X, were previous in Y). I'll note that the MB has been co-opted by less-RS as well in the US (the name in English tends to lead itself to various theories), and that labeling the MB itself as terrorist is contentious in and of itself (and possibly more so than the alleged association of CAIR and MB).Icewhiz (talk) 10:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Icewhiz. David A (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Unless David A is ever going to explain why he agrees with Icewhiz anywhere on this page, we should ignore that user. As for this discussion, I agree with NorthBySouthBaranof that it should not be in the lead. I think if it is to have its own section, it should go below "Criticism" as that follows the protocol of most wikipedia pages, to list the truths about an organization (such as "Litigation" and "History") first and to list allegations and criticism at the bottom. Mavriksfan11 (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

This is beyond an allegation. It is a legal designation that has ramifications for CAIR workers, activists, donors, and people who do business with the above - should they travel to (or even via, or on the national carrier) the UAE, conduct business in the UAE, or transact financially with groups in the UAE. Wikipedia typically lists such designations in the lead, regardless of the merits of the designation.Icewhiz (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

It is a "legal designation" by an unelected authoritarian dictatorship, supported by no evidence, publicly-available analysis or legal recourse. If Iran declared the ADL to be a terrorist organization, we would not include it in the lede of that article, no matter that it might "have ramifications" for that group. The UAE stands entirely alone in its declaration, while the organization continues to operate in the US as a tax-exempt non-profit. In short, the UAE's position is a fringe minority view shared by no other government and apparently nobody else of any note or significance. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I have moved a paragraph discussing the CAIR's opposition to certain proposed legislation to a different location; it's WP:SYNTH to include it in a section about the UAE's designation when the cited source nowhere mentions the UAE's designation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• It's not lede-worthy. As NorthBySouth points out, reliable sources don't consider it especially meaningful, and since CAIR is an organization that operates solely within the United States, which does not consider it a terrorist group, the supposed "ramifications" for CAIR employees abroad are nonexistent. Sources like the WaPo have also noted that this is a politically motivated six-degrees-of-separation thing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Bold, revert, discuss

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)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: - 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 - [5], and I think this one - [6] 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)

I agree with Icewhiz here as well. David A (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

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)

@Mavriksfan11: - 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)

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)

This source has the fatal, for our purposes, flaw of overbreadth and argument by assertion. It mentions a number of groups that it purports are part of some purported "New Brotherhood," and proceeds to at length describe a series of evil things that this "New Brotherhood" are responsible for. However, it cites no evidence that CAIR is part of this purported network, nor does it cite any examples of what CAIR has allegedly done that would prove its point. It describes them as a monolith, and that doesn't appear to have any foundation. In fact, the CAIR is mentioned by name exactly once in the entire 20-plus page article. That doesn't sound like a good source for information about CAIR. We need to avoid guilt by association campaigns here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

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) addendum: Seems this author wrote a book on the subject on the new brotherhood, that discusses cair at length. Will source from there.Icewhiz (talk) 19:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Confusing language in "Allegations of Islamist Ties: Hamas"

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)

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)

Proposal to delete the terror designation and second paragraph and move "Allegations" and "Muslim Mafia" material to three paragraphs in "Post-9/11" section. (modified 2/10/20)

Dear fellow Wikipedians,

I'm writing to request a discussion of two proposed changes. Since these changes would be major, I hope you'll read and respond to a longer-than-usual post.

First, I propose deleting the second paragraph, and the terror designation mention in the first paragraph. (modified 2/10/20) Including this information in the introduction gives undue weight to fringe theories (WP:UNDUE, WP:FRNG, WP:LEAD). Here's the paragraph as of this writing:

• "Critics of CAIR have accused it of pursuing an Islamist agenda[5][6][7] and have claimed that the group is connected to Hamas[8] and the Muslim Brotherhood,[9][7] claims which CAIR has rejected and described as an Islamophobic smear campaign.[10] The government of the United Arab Emirates has designated CAIR as a terrorist organization.[11]"

Second, to address the same problem further down, I propose (a) deleting the "Allegations of Islamist ties" and "Muslim Mafia" sections, (b) adding these allegations to the six paragraphs already covering this topic in "Post-9/11 (2001–present)," and (c) condensing those six paragraphs to three:

1. One summarizing the 2007 Holy Land Foundation trial and 2008 retrial, as well as subsequent rulings on CAIR regarding these trials.
2. One summarizing the allegations against CAIR by reliable sources and prominent politicians based on these court documents (as well as the FBI policy shift and UAE designation).
3. One summarizing answers to these allegations by reliable sources and CAIR.

Why just three paragraphs? Because none of these allegations is adequately supported by reliable sources. Perhaps for related reasons, these claims represent a minority view in the discourse, and a tiny portion of mainstream news coverage. Yet they take up more than half the summary, and more than a third of the article (WP:OR, WP:TRUTH, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:CORG). Reasons for these revisions thus fall into three categories: proportion, verifiability, and falsifiability.

1. Proportion

For example, just two reliable sources (out 168 citations) endorse any of the controversial assertions in the lede: that CAIR has (a) an Islamist agenda, (b) Hamas connections, and (c) ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. One is Matthew Levitt, who endorses the second assertion (b) in two paragraphs of his 2006 book on a university press (139). Another is Lorenzo Vidino, who endorses all three assertions in his 2010 book, also on a university press (140), repeating his argument in his 2011 Templeton Lecture (144)—though not in his 2011 House testimony (155) or 2011 policy paper (153).

Joseph Abrams at Fox News comes close to endorsing the second assertion (b), reporting in 2009 that "The FBI is severing its once-close ties with [CAIR]... amid mounting evidence that it has links to a support network for Hamas" (8) (59—redundant citation). He means materials from the Holy Land Foundation trials, though he does not confirm this as the reason for the FBI policy change, contrary to two citations of this article (WP:SYN).

These sources are outliers. According to the Brookings Institution's Peter Skerry (who endorses all three assertions—see 145),writing in Foreign Affairs in 2017, "The FBI's rebuke of CAIR has gone largely unnoted. In fact, most major media outlets continue to seek out CAIR spokespeople for comments—including about the current proposal to declare the Brotherhood an FTO—without ever mentioning CAIR’s history and provenance." Bruce Bawer, writing in his 2009 book Surrender (which also endorses the assertions), argued that "the mainstream media essentially boycotted the [Holy Land Foundation] trial—and, in reports on Islam, continued to refer to CAIR as if it were a respectable mainstream organization." A quick search of Newspapers.com complements these impressions: Among 6,599 articles mentioning CAIR's name, just 9% mention "Hamas," 5% the word "Islamist," 4% the "Muslim Brotherhood," and 3% the "Holy Land Foundation."

No reliable source I can find supports the graver assertions here: that (a) CAIR is a "terrorist organization," as the United Arab Emirates' designated them in 2014, or that (in a previous version of this sentence) CAIR's alleged ties to the Muslim Brotherhood are furthermore (b) "apparent" and (c) the verifiable reason for that designation. The last two claims were made in the encyclopedia's voice, which is why I tried to edit them a few weeks ago. (My apologies, I should have come here first.)

But the citations are a mismatch: The non-bylined National article just reports the list of designated groups (11). Adam Taylor in the Washington Post merely observes that "rumors about links to the Muslim Brotherhood"—not "apparent ties"—have "dogged CAIR," and speculates that such rumors are why the UAE made its designation, given that the Emirates had already targeted the Brotherhood (7). But even if you changed "apparent ties" to "rumored ties," there's nothing beyond the author's educated guess to confirm this as the reason (WP:SYN, WP:OR). The foreign minister interviewed on Fox didn't say so (118), and neither did the minister of state in his tweet quoted by Reuters (121). The sentence further implied (before the clause was removed) that such "ties" alone would justify the designation, a violation of WP:NPOV.

As for the first claim, given its seriousness, it's notable that the UAE designation barely registers in the mainstream discourse on CAIR at all. Of the 6,599 Newspapers.com results mentioning CAIR, just 1% also mention the "United Arab Emirates." The Google overlap is just 6%, with this page the top result. Including this designation in the summary soapboxes the view of a foreign autocracy (WP:NOT, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:LABEL, WP:SUSPECT).

2. Verifiability

Even if due proportion were not an issue, verifiability would be a decisive one (WP:V, WP:FIXBIAS). Significant controversies belong in any summary and article, but the minimum standard of significance on Wikipedia is that criticisms are not just prominent but directed at things the subject verifiably did or said, as reported by reliable sources, with demonstrable and impactful consequences (WP:CRIT, WP:FRNG, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:CORG, WP:LEAD).

An example would be Greenpeace's use of direct-action strategies, or its anti-GMO campaign. Both are widely-reported controversies surrounding actions the group verifiably took, with verifiable effects. Both are mentioned in the group's page summary. A non-example would be the allegation that the NAACP is a Communist front, an assertion made for years by dozens of congressional and state politicians and a former FBI agent in the late 1950s, culminating in state hearings in Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi. This allegation was not supported by most reliable sources. Today it does not even appear on the group's page.

None of the allegations in the CAIR summary—or "Allegations" or "Muslim Mafia" sections—meets this minimum standard. For one thing, the allegations are just that: allegations, not criminal convictions. Vidino is not an outlier because he somehow gained access to information the rest of the media missed (see 137, 138). He is arguably an outlier because he gives more weight to the same information available to anyone, relying heavily on FBI materials never used to charge CAIR with a crime. No other reliable source that I can find gives these materials the credence he does, and probably for good reason: The items have never been challenged in a court of law by CAIR (WP:SUSPECT, WP:PERP, WP:TRUTH, WP:PRIMARY, WP:OR).

The only reason we know about this material at all in connection with CAIR is that the group's fifth amendment rights were violated. Before prosecutors introduced the material as evidence against the defendants in the 2007 Holy Land Foundation trial and 2008 retrial (9), CAIR was included by prosecutors on a list of 246 "unindicted co-conspirators" in 2007 pretrial motion, a move that would have been constitutional, in the opinion of the district court judge reviewing it in 2009, if the names had been kept secret—to admit hearsay evidence without "stigmatizing private citizens as criminals." Publishing this list was exactly the kind of "official public smear" Judge Solis cited as precedent when he sided with CAIR and against the government in ruling to seal the list after the fact. As Solis wrote, "This information is unaccompanied by any facts providing a context for evaluating the basis for the United States Attorney's opinion."

Citing this ruling now as support for allegations against CAIR of Hamas ties—including the judge's assessment of the prima facie case for conspiracy—seems like WP:CHERRYPICKING in the extreme. Focused on the years before Hamas was designated a terrorist organization, the allegations against CAIR and two other groups remained just that, in Solis's opinion, untried in any court, which is why he also sealed his own 2009 ruling. After a federal appellate court upheld his decision in 2010 and unsealed his opinion, Ron Kampeus of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency argued that "Solis' ruling more or less vindicates the groups," placing CAIR and two other organizations squarely in the "protective rather than the incriminative category" of "unindicted co-conspirator."

This slotting fits the initial expedient purpose of the list, as reported by Newsweek's Michael Isikoff in 2007: "According to one senior law-enforcement official (who asked not to be named talking about an ongoing case), the listing of ISNA, CAIR and other groups as 'unindicted co-conspirators' was largely a tactical move by the government. By listing the groups, the official said, it makes it easier for prosecutors to introduce documents, tapes and other evidence mentioning them and which relate to what the government charges is a wide-ranging conspiracy to raise money in the United States in support of Hamas." The appellate court in 2010 called the list "simply an untested allegation of the Government made in anticipation of a possible evidentiary dispute that never came to pass."

3. Falsifiability

With any allegations, the presumption of innocence is arguably the flipside of falsifiability: We give people the benefit of the doubt—the equivalent of the null hypothesis, which holds that random coincidences are just that, and beliefs aren't necessarily true—because all theories must be tested. (This is how science works, arguably: Experiments are not designed to "prove" theories but to demolish them, and what's left is called "support." One measure of "good" journalism or research, or "fair" trials, is the degree to which they mirror this built-in internal opposition—with editors, fact-checkers, peer reviewers, lawyers, and jurors chipping away at theories until they are dust or diamond-hard sculptures.)

Conspiracy theories function in the opposite way, from this perspective: Scientific theories are stronger the more falsifiable they are, the more they are tested, and the more they treat the null hypothesis—the presumption of innocence in any allegation—as the default truth, requiring robust challenge to be unseated as reality. By contrast, conspiracy theories are stronger the more unfalsifiable they are, the more they elude empirical test, and the more they treat the null hypothesis—above all the presumption of innocence—as already overturned.

Vidino's 2010 book arguably falls in the conspiracy theory category (140). The author argues that CAIR was created as a front group by the Muslim Brotherhood to advance a secret plan of establishing a caliphate in the West by means of conversion and demographic replacement. If one can falsify this theory—which, like Robert Spencer's 2008 book Stealth Jihad, combines the thesis of Bat Ye'or's 2005 book Eurabia with the prosecution's case in the 2007 Holy Land Foundation trial—Vidino has not tried to do so that I can see, for instance by conducting semi-structured interviews with a large sample of Muslim Brotherhood members and letting other researchers code the results. Instead, he seems to have talked to just a handful of members, and does not cite their words for his key observations.

Vidino writes that, "The Brothers are... well aware that immigration, high birth rates, and conversions are contributing to a seemingly unrelenting increase of the Muslim population in Europe and North America"—and he does not cite any Brotherhood members for these perceptions. He adds, "Although they seldom state it openly, the Brothers see such demographic shifts and their dawa efforts as the factors that could lead to radical changes in the social, political, and religious makeup of the West." Again, he cites no sources for this view.

"Understanding that such discourses can make many Westerners uncomfortable," he continues, "the New Western Brothers have kept a certain ambiguity over their long-term goals"—and here, he quotes another scholar, who actually differentiates a broader range of opinion among Brotherhood members. Vidino then returns with his flat generalizations: "A quintessentially pragmatic movement, the New Western Brotherhood sees no point in attracting undesired attention by publicly expressing the vision of something that, even in the most optimistic of views, lies far in the future." Again, he provides no citations for this view.

To report CAIR's part in this story—starting with an alleged Venn diagram of group membership at its founding in 1994—Vidino turns to court materials from the Holy Land Foundation trials that, again, have not been used to charge CAIR with a crime. He also accepts the framing of these materials by prosecutors and federal investigators from those trials implicitly.

For example, he gives central importance and many references to an internal memo written by a Muslim Brotherhood member in 1991, a document seized by the FBI in 2004 and widely circulated after it was introduced at the 2007 trial to show an association between various groups. (The memo identifies a list of "our organizations and the organizations of our friends.") According to George Washington University's Nathan Brown, speaking with Sarah Posner in Religion Dispatches in 2011, "Nobody has ever produced any evidence that the document was more than something produced by the daydream of one enthusiast."

Yet this document became the basis of the "civilization jihad" conspiracy theory that Vidino promotes: According to the New Yorker's David K. Shipler, reporting in 2015, "Virtually all the alarm over the coming Islamic takeover and the spread of Sharia law can be traced back to [this] old document of questionable authority and relevance." In 2016, a team of Georgetown University researchers examined the memo and found that it was not—to quote the claims they cite—a "mission statement" for a "secret plan for taking down our country," or a "report to the Mothership in Egypt." Instead, searching the web for the author's phrasing and arguments in Arabic, the researchers found no verifiable effect from the memo at all, including on the Muslim Brotherhood itself, or on Muslims in general. Alison Pargeter, who has written three books on the Muslim Brotherhood, told Triad City Beat in 2017 that "this document has been completely overblown," and "the idea that the [Brotherhood] has some sort of plan to Islamicize and take over the West is ridiculous in the extreme."

In another example, reporting on the year before CAIR was founded, Vidino extensively quotes conversations from a conference at a Philadelphia hotel in October 1993, attended by two future CAIR founders, and secretly taped by the FBI—again, as presented at the Holy Land Foundation trials (via the FBI's transcription and translation from Arabic). The attendees talk about how to oppose the Oslo Accords politically, and one unidentified subject refers to the accords as "peace with Jews." But Vidino does not entertain what might be the null hypothesis about this conference: that Palestinian Americans might have non-fanatical reasons for opposing the agreement, which Edward Said called a "Palestinian Versailles" later the same month, in the London Review of Books. A CAIR spokesperson later described the conference as "an open meeting of Palestinian activists who came together to discuss the Olso peace accords and their struggle to gain a homeland" (138). If accurate, that would mean a range of opinions was probably inevitable. Yet Vidino presents each attendee as speaking for the monolith.

Reviews of Vidino's book have similarly commented that it "often runs along rather clear-cut 'good' versus 'evil' binary lines" (Stefano Bonino in Political Studies Review, 2018) and promotes a theory considered to be "scaremongering" by at least one other scholar (The Economist, 2010). For these reasons, presenting this source as the last word on allegations against CAIR may violate WP:NPOV. The encyclopedia might better balance the views of a conservative think tank (146, 147) with the views of a liberal one: for example, David Sterman of New America, who told the Nation in 2018 that "Neither CAIR nor any other major American Muslim organization has played a role in jihadist terrorist plotting in the United States."

One last point: Some reliable sources join CAIR in characterizing the allegations in the second paragraph as being part of a widely propagated conspiracy theory (see this piece), while others join CAIR in calling this conspiracy theory Islamophobic or anti-Muslim (see these various articles, and these more partisan ones). Still others note that Muslims have also made these allegations against CAIR (see this article). Both facts may be worth mentioning to maintain WP:NPOV.

Thank you for considering these points, and my proposals. I look forward to reading your own views.

Peter Scholtes (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Grestoremarie! Since there were no responses to the above, thinking there was not disagreement with it, I cut the second paragraph, and then saw you reverted it. I saw that you did not address my arguments that devoting half of the introduction to these accusations does not constitute balance. Anyway, I accidentally reverted that revert without adding a reason (sorry! I'm still new at this!). My purpose was to engage you or other contributors in a discussion here. Soapboxing a fringe theory in the lede is not balance, but this is a point that requires more than a couple sentences or even paragraphs to make, which is why I wrote my reasons at length above. Peter Scholtes (talk) 13:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I reverted your removal because of the guideline at WP:LEAD, which says the lead section must summarize the most important points of the article. Your version of the lead section failed to do so. And of course the removal of well-cited negative material from the lead section is almost always a violation of WP:Neutral point of view. Binksternet (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Binksternet (sorry I called you by the wrong name). I offered a number of reasons above why including this paragraph in the WP:LEAD violates WP:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies. Did you wish to counter any of those points? Peter Scholtes (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

You shouldn't be complaining about the WP:LEAD guideline, which is passive here. The LEAD guideline simply asks us to summarize the article body in the lead section. Your complaint is against the article body, which you think goes too far into criticism. I don't agree with that assessment, so I don't agree that the article body needs so much paring down. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Binksternet! I'm confused, because I didn't complain about the WP:LEAD guideline. To the contrary, I just added that guideline (which I had missed) to my post above, since it's consistent with the other Wikipedia guidelines I cited in support of my complaint. I also did not say there was too much criticism in this article, which would be a separate problem—my post doesn't address the criticism section at all.

Do you disagree with any of the points I did make above? If so, I would welcome a discussion about them. If not, that would seem to an argument in favor of the changes I'm suggesting. Peter Scholtes (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm out of my element here. All I know is that, per WP:LEAD, you should not remove from the lead section a paragraph summarizing important points made in the article body. Obviously you have strong concerns about the article body text. You might want to start a WP:Request for comment to get more people participating. Make sure your request statement is as concise as possible. Binksternet (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

February 26, 1993 WTC ?

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)

Internal Controversies section

@Mia4121: in regards to the following section:

National Public Radio (NPR) "interviewed 18 former employees at the national office and several prominent chapters who said there was a general lack of accountability when it came to perceived gender bias, religious bias or mismanagement."

Allegations of Gender Bias

Allegations of sexual abuse and harassment as well as gender discrimination at CAIR has led to victim's advocacy groups calling for a Me Too moment of reckoning for CAIR. The stories from women relayed accounts of being tricked into secret marriages, being sexually exploited and harassed, of suffering workplace discrimination and then targeted and vilified for complaining.

Several efforts emerged in 2021 to document issues of gender bias at CAIR, including:

• CAIR Victims Forum
• WeCAIR
• WeCAIR Coalition
• Reform CAIR

Chapter Executive Director Resignation

In January 2021, CAIR-Florida's Executive Director Hassan Shibly resigned after he was “accused of physical and sexual abuse and harassment by his estranged wife and several other women.” He has denied the allegations.

The allegations, as first reported by NPR, include: “taking photos of flight attendants’ backsides; Shibly telling [an employee] he loved her; and, she said, inaction by CAIR when she complained.”

"NPR reported that another women said Shibly tricked her into a secret religious marriage behind his wife’s back, and that he’d preyed on her recent conversion to Islam and her desire to deepen her faith. After she posted a picture of herself without a headscarf on social media, she said, he cut off her ponytail in her sleep. When she refused sex, he told her she had to because she was his wife.”

Shibly’s wife asked the court for a domestic violence injunction December 28, 2020.

Gender Discrimination Lawsuits

On April 24, 2019, an employment discrimination lawsuit (Case 37-2019-000021331-CU-MC-CTL) was filed against CAIR-California in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. The lawsuit alleges official organizational policies that discriminate against women, as well as a pattern of long-tolerated abuse.

On January 8, 2021, a second employment discrimination lawsuit (Case 37-2021-00000977-CU-WT-CTL) was filed against CAIR-California in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego alleging gender discrimination.

Thwarting Employee Efforts to Unionize

NPR’s investigation reported that CAIR “thwart[ed] employees' efforts to unionize in the national office in 2016.”

“Service Employees International Union Local 500 said in filings Wednesday that the Council on American-Islamic Relations was trying to bust its effort to organize the civil rights group's staff. CAIR responded with a statement Thursday calling the charge ‘meritless.’”

On April 28, 2017, SEIU Local 500 tweeted: ”Disappointed that a civil rights group like #CAIR is trying to stop it’s employees from even voting on having a union."

Reform CAIR reported: “CAIR’s attorney literally argued that requiring the organization to engage in collective bargaining with its employees would “compromise [its] constitutional free exercise of religion." The Board decided in favor of the employees and scheduled a vote to determine if they wanted to unionize (National Labor Relations Board, Case 05-RC-186732). But the vote never took place; the seven union organizers were gone by then.”

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)

@Mia4121: 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)

Hyphen vs En-dash in title

@Kwamikagami: Why was this page moved? This is not typically not how en dashes are used. CAIR uses a hyphen consistently on its website. Snuish (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Snuish2: As for whether the dash is appropriate, is CAIR the council on relations between Islam and America, or the council on the relations of American Islam?

CAIR itself would not be a RS if they don't use dashes. Different sources use different conventions, and we don't flip back and forth depending on which source we happen to be using. — kwami (talk) 06:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

That's a good question. I always assumed it was the latter. I flipped through a few books on Google Books mentioning CAIR. All of them, including the The Oxford Handbook of American Islam, used the hyphen. I couldn't find any that used the en dash. Snuish (talk) 08:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: any further thoughts? Snuish (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

We'd need to verify that a source makes the distinction before we could use it as evidence for the hyphen, which is tricky since it's so infrequent in texts. I know the Economist uses it, and they have several mentions of CAIR, but I can't access those articles to check. (One I found, which is a printable page from the e-edition, uses neither: "such as the American Muslim Council and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)". — kwami (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Finding a source that makes that distinction seems like an arbitrarily high goal post, particularly when we have not found any reliable sources using a dash in the name. You are correct that the Economist uses the hyphen. I have access to their articles; the half-dozen or so that I reviewed all use a hyphen: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13].
I understand that the hyphen/dash distinction is made in a lot of style guides for this type of usage, but the fact is that CAIR uses a hyphen in its name in its own documentation and website and reliable sources do the same. Forcing the dash here is sort of akin to saying that Krispy Kreme must be moved to Crispy Cream or that Mortal Kombat must be moved to Mortal Combat. Snuish (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Requiring evidence is not an "arbitrarily high goal". It should be our only goal. If a source does not make a distinction in usage in general, we can't use it as evidence for a lack of distinction in particular.

I didn't mean the Economist uses the hyphen in this case (in the one instance I found, it *doesn't* use a hyphen), but that it makes the distinction between hyphen and dash in attributive phrases, and so would meet my "arbitrarily high goal". I can't access your links. Are they web or print editions? If print, they would be evidence, if web I don't know -- does the Econ make this distinction in their web editions?

As for your MOS point, that is something people have been objecting to for a decade but that is still consensus: we follow our WP style guide, just as the Economist follows its style, the NYT follows its style guide, and so-on for every established publication. We don't create a melange of different styles because our sources use different style guides. In this case, our MOS matches with the Economist style guide, so we can use the Economist as evidence for how we should handle this case. — kwami (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Why is the burden of proof is being imposed before we move can move the page to a form with a hyphen, a form that is found both in reliable sources and used by the organization itself? Why is the burden of proof not being imposed the other way, i.e., in retaining the dash?
The articles I linked to appear both on Economist web and the print magazine. Snuish (talk) 22:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I'm considering seeking a third opinion at WP:3O. Do you think that's a good idea? Can you provide me with a brief summary of your current position that I can use in my request? Snuish (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not a good idea to move an article back and forth, back and forth with every piece of evidence. If we're going to have a discussion, it's a better idea to finish the discussion on whether to move and then move the article.

I'm happy to accept the print edition of the Economist as critical evidence for the proper punctuation. This is the first time you've mentioned it. So yes, go ahead and move it.

As for going off the website of the org itself, a lot of ppl don't make the distinction. Moving an article based on a source that doesn't make the relevant distinction risks moving it to a name that would contradict the intended meaning of the name. "Mortal Kombat" is a false analogy: the people who created that orthography distinguish C from K, so it's obvious they intended K over C. The people who founded CAIR may not distinguish a hyphen from en dash, so their use of the hyphen is not evidence that they intended the meaning of a hyphen over that of an en dash. The Economist does make the distinction (at least in print), so their use of a hyphen is evidence that it is to be preferred. — kwami (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Great. I'm glad that you were receptive to this information. Snuish (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I removed two external links with no sources, owners noted and really no notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Instagramtan (talk • contribs) 05:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring between two editors

This diff demonstrates violation of the Active Arbitration remedies (explained above) as both editors have made multiple reverts on the page. Any admin might have blocked both editors. Would still be within their responsibilities to do so. I have chosen to briefly full protect the page so that discussion might take place. A reminder, Arbitration remedies also apply to this talk page, so keep any discussion civil. BusterD (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi BusterD I made 2 edits on this page. One of the edits was citing a source that had been requested. The other, I reverted an edit made by GXIndiana, because they cited a primary source (ACLU website), and they simultaneously deleted a paragraph from a 3rd editor in a single edit. I assumed GXIndiana would then find a secondary source and add intended information. I also assumed the paragraph they deleted would get edited or deleted in a separate edit with a reason in comments.

I made no further edits, and was surprised to get a message from you on my talk page. There were definitely not multiple reverts. You can look at the history.

I thought edit war "occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions." Wouldn't there have to have been at least 1 back and forth between 2 or more editors?

This is the first time I have had a request to respond to an edit war. I am replying to this thread because you requested this on my talk page. I must admit I am confused as to what is the problem and what is the remedy. Sincerely Badabara (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm looking at the history. Now I see why you created and invitation to discuss on the talk page. Thank you BusterD!

Quite frankly, I would not have responded to GXIndiana or made further edits on the CAIR page. GXIndiana and I have no previous interactions. Their comment was not an invitation to work together in good faith.

Sincerely Badabara (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

• I appreciate your engaging, User:Badabara. Perhaps that user will accept my request to defend their edits here. I hope that user appreciates I didn't choose to block them immediately. In any case, the light is on and more eyes are watching this. BusterD (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  Now that you've reviewed the history, I trust that you understand what's going on here. Quite frequent on Wikipedia I'm sure. What I said to BusterD:

  As an environmental professional, I only operate on the basis of facts. If I understand the policy on "original research" correctly, that does not apply to the ACLU material. It is self published but obviously they're an organization of attorneys, first of all, and they have superior editorial oversight. These are not people on the History Channel talking about their book on aliens. Badabara --- is not clear on the concept.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Referencing_for_beginners

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_301

  Things like SCOTUSBlog, or the Southern Poverty Law Center, or the American Civil Liberties Union when they post items to their websites, while the groups are "self publishing", we do not consider these SPSs, there is that factor that there is editorial oversight and control that prevent raw thoughts from going from pen to publication without any check, and that's basically what's the distinguishing factor here. But basically, the SPS is more gears to individual blogs more than anything else. --Masem (t) 13:27, 7 July 2020

  FINALLY, review my improvements to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihad_AwadCleaned up real nice, IMHO. I thoroughly researched his statements about Oct. 7 and used the fullest quote I could find. There'd be a link to the actual speech at the AMP convention but apparently they took it off their website under pressure.

  - Finally finally, looking back at my edits, I see that I deleted a paragraph - 2 or 3 sentences I think, not much - about Jake Tapper's mountain-from-a-molehill attempted kerfuffle about a vague reference he made to a CAIR rep's use of the word "if" in a discussion of 9/11. I explained that. I'm sure that those with a zealous agenda could comb the internet and come up with a plethora of minutiae to bash CAIR with, but is that what Wikipedia is for? GXIndiana (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

• Please be very careful when you add possibly negative content about Nihad Awad, as he is a living person and that is covered by WP:BLP.VR _talk 03:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  Hi Vice regent duly noted. Quotes by Mr Awad in New York Times fit nicely in line with (NPOV)(V)(NOR).

  Badabara (talk) 05:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you GXIndiana that the fullest quote from Awad should be used. Some may argue to shorten the quote in order to avoid undue weight.

The real problem though is the entire quote was deleted more than once. VR deleted the quote from the lead, but did not insert it back into any other section. Was that sloppy editing or in hopes their edit would get overlooked? I re-inserted Awad's quote into the "Criticism" section. Badabara (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey, please assume WP:AGF. I assumed the quote would be in the body of the article because...if its not in the body it doesn't belong in the lead per WP:LEAD.VR _talk 17:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

My apologies. Thank you for your clarification. Badabara (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

RFC re October 7 controversy

The only source provided for Awad's claim that he included the quoted section on antisemitism in his speech on November 25 is from the statement he issued two weeks later in December 7 in response to the outcry, where he stated, "during my remarks at a conference two weeks ago... As I said, 'the hatred...'"

The only source for this quote is from a statement issued by Awad himself on the CAIR website dated December 7, 2023, where he is the one who puts it in quotes, using single quotations inside a larger double quotation to frame that part as reported speech he claims to have used two weeks earlier.

Yet the article presents this section in double quotes and directly states that it came from the speech on November 25, without any source or citation besides the same first-person statement from Awad issued two weeks later.

The same source is cited again in the next paragraph, where it is clearly framed as coming from the statement issued in December, and not from the speech itself in late November.

There are no other sources provided in the article which reference that quote coming from the speech given on November 25 other than the statement Awad issued on December 7, and all later references to it in RS only cite that same statement by Awad rather than the speech itself or any contemporaneous coverage of it.

I had edited that paragraph's text to more accurately reflect sources and maintain consistency with the following section, but @Firecat93 immediately reverted the edit without explanation to unequivocally assert in Wikipedia voice that the quote was in fact included in the original source as presented, without any corroboration in the corresponding citation nor any corresponding reference to the same in RS.

I request that either someone provide a citation from RS including a clear and unambiguous attestation of the quoted section's inclusion in Awad's speech as given on November 25 (rather than references to his statement about it from December), or that the text of that section be fixed to more accurately reflect sources, as I had done in the edit 26 December 10:16: that Awad has claimed to have said that, without providing any corroborating evidence from the event itself to substantiate that claim. 2A02:14F:1F5:BD8A:1DEB:4229:7A62:AADC (talk) 11:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)