Talk:Council on American–Islamic Relations/Archive 1

(earlier discussion)

CAIR representatives have been included in several public functions hosted by United States President George W. Bush."

Any source for that would be helpful. Thanks!

I reverted the page since the update posted 13:46, 8 Apr 2004 is almost completely copied from the organization's about page which not only may be a copyright infringement but also is unlikely to be neutral.

--Patrickdavidson 00:03, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Columnist Michelle Malkin claims that:

CAIR fights dirty -- fabricating quotes, taking comments out of context, indulging in the cult of victimology and exploiting a gullibly sympathetic press. By manufacturing an anti-Muslim hate epidemic that doesn't exist, CAIR obfuscates its own suspicious role in fomenting anti-American extremism. [1]

I hardly think Michelle Malkin is a neutral source in regards to anything about Islam.

DigiBullet 15:27, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why does Malkin have to be a neutral source? She is a public figure whose views are worth noting, whether you agree with them or not. As long as it's identified as Malkin's quote, I fail to see the problem. --Briangotts 22:00, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Michelle Malkin's quote here is basically inaccurate, that's why. We're living in a time where a pregnant Iraqi woman was beaten and suffered a miscarriage, where a high school teacher yanked on a Muslim student's religious headscarf and disrespected her religion, where Fleet bank in America refused service to a man because his name was "Mohammed", and when numerous town residents lobby together to block the opening of a community mosque. All of these actions are real, causing CAIR to lobby in support of these Muslim people and communities. mr100percent 06:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

And I challenge you to provide reliable sources for your assertions, particularly your statement regarding Fleet Bank. In any case, your statements are 100% irrelevant, even if true. Malkin is a public figure who frequently comments on this general topic and her quotes are noteworthy. If there are sources which contradict her assertions or public figures who have provided refutations for them, then those quotes should be included as well. Ibrahim Hooper hardly qualifies as an unbiased source yet nobody disputes that his quotations should be included in the article. --Briangotts (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Why would he be able to prove his allegations? You are the one quoting the anti-Muslim hatemonger Michelle Malkin? Briangotts, I want you to provide sources validating Malking that CAIR fabricates quotes and manufactures anti-Muslim hate? I don't think "a prregnant Iraqi woman was beaten and suffered a miscarriage, where a high school teacher yanked on a Muslim student's religious headscarf and disrespected her religion, where Fleet bank in America refused service to a man because his name was "Mohammed", and when numerous town residents lobby together to block the opening of a community mosque" qualifies as manufactured anti-Muslim hate.

Further NPOV edit

I am not a fan or an unqualified supporter of CAIR, but would like to edit the article further to increase the NPOV nature. For example, I would like to change:

ranking members of CAIR have taken stances that many say belie its self-description as a moderate organization.

to

ranking members of CAIR have taken stances that its critics say belie its self-description as a moderate organization.

Is that okay?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 00:35, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Activities

Would also like to add a description of some of the things CAIR has done—for better or worse. Especially the non-terrorism related and pre-9/11 litigation, etc.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 00:37, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Recent whitewashing

The recent whitewashing, and subsequent attacks on critics of CAIR are unacceptable. Anonymous contributors should read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, they obviously don't understand that it's not acceptable to say things like:

"CAIR has been criticized by individuals in the far Christian-Right and pro-Israel" - CAIR activists may wish to believe this but not all critics can be lumped in as raving Zionist loonies
"It has been accused of supporting terrorists and extremism, but these claims are baseless and grounded in guilt-by-association and smear tactics." - blatant POV. Wikipedia articles never make value judgments such as this.
"a concentrated effort by neo-conservatives and pro-Israel elements to discredit and disenfranchise the American Muslim community" - I'm having trouble not using obscenities about this paragraph.
"It is well known that the critics of American Muslim organizations like CAIR are all neo-conservative and Zionist organizations with political agendas." - completely POV (and completely wrong)
"It has been consistently shown that Muslims that are uncritical of Israel's policies and that politically attack fellow American Muslims are in the good books of and receive praise from pro-Israel organizations" - completely POV
"Many of the "sources" quoted by pro-Israel organizations and neoconservatives that oppose CAIR are openly biased and are heavily affiliated with pro-Israel interests and organizations." - ah scare quotes in an article, lovely.

Don't come back until you've read the NPOV policy. What you're doing is unacceptable. Rhobite 01:45, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

POV from the right

It seems this article is a target from both sides. Lately anti-CAIR editors have pasted in entire posts from Daniel Pipes' weblog. I wish it went without saying, but this is a violation of the WP:NPOV policy. Please use your own words, and make sure that you're writing neutrally. Rhobite 18:49, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Diglewop, feel free to use the talk page at any point now. Feel free to explain how it is NPOV to copy entire posts from Daniel Pipes' weblog, or to state that CAIR has a "campaign to silence critics", or that "CAIR has subscribed to a policy of wildly inflating the Muslim population count in the United States." Rhobite 00:58, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

If you ever get around to actually writing the section about the "campaign to silence critics", you can add it then. Don't just add a list of people you claim that CAIR has "censured". Rhobite 04:06, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

As you can see I have already begun adding the details to the list of people Cair has tried to silence. Notice that I renamed the section to campaigns against critics. Unless you can challenge a specific assertion in the article then I will remove the POV tag. The POV tag is not meant for use just because you do not like how the facts are adding up.--Diglewop 13:33, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you remove the tag again I'm going to request that you be blocked from editing. Disputes: The phrase "smear campaign" is POV. The word "censure" is not only POV, you're thinking of the word "censor". Accusing CAIR of censorship would be POV too. The word "Wahabby lobby" is not only opinionated, it's downright bigoted. The "financing from extremist sources" section needs a citation. Each unsubstantiated item in the "campaign to silence" section needs to be removed or cited. You can't just make a list like that and say you'll cite it later. Accusing them of "attacks" is POV. Quoting three whole paragraphs from the lawsuit is excessive and unnecessary. So don't remove the tag. Rhobite 17:59, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

You can request all you want that I be blocked, it has no merit since I only removed it once. Actually "smear campaign", "censure" and "Wahhaby lobby" are not POV, they are descriptive phrases, and are unfortunately accurate enough. People like you can't deal with that so you play the POV card ad nauseam. Just like any criticism of Islam is at once labelled Islamophobic. I will be adding fully cited edits in the coming days, since you apparantly can't understand the idea that the outline I set was just the start of more comprehensive insertions. And by the way not its not CENSOR, its Censure , CAIR is not in a position to CENSOR anything but they can certainly censure.--Diglewop 20:47, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article still uses highly POV language, so I have reinstated the tag.Yuber^(talk) 15:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you correct the POV language yourself instead of whining about it. --Germen 15:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First of all, please be civil. The POV tag should remain until there is consensus to remove it. There is an ongoing edit war with Diglewop. As long as he chooses to revert endlessly, inserting phrases about the "Wahhaby lobby" and CAIR "censuring" its opponents, the POV tag should be there.

I note that the Boeing/National Review paragraph was very misleading. CAIR didn't threaten to "use its influence in the Middle East to void the purchase of Boeing 777 airplanes by the United Arab Emirates". It organized a letter-writing campaign. The idea that CAIR could influence a nation (actually Emirates Airlines) to renege on its commitment to buy hundreds of millions of dollars worth of planes, over a couple of books, is just silly. Rhobite 16:38, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

If you had bothered to read the source documentation you would have seen the letter by CAIR threatening to do exactly that. Obviously the best answer is a full presentation of the source materials so that neither Rhobite , myself or other users will be able to spin it according to their POV. CAIR being a controversial topic will require this.--Diglewop 17:07, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please link to the letter CAIR wrote where they threatened to "void the purchase" of two 777's. I read both the WND piece and CAIR's action alert. Neither mentions this. From the CAIR action alert: "Awad noted that just today, Boeing announced the delivery of the first two Boeing 777-300ER airplanes to Emirates airlines." From WND: "CAIR explained that Boeing had a full back-page ad in the latest issue of National Review and recently accounced delivery of the first two Boeing 777-300ER airplanes to Emirates Airlines, the official carrier of the Muslim Gulf state, United Arab Emirates." Rhobite 17:18, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

From RFC

This article needs some work. I have read it through, but have only done work to the top portion. Just some copyediting. Also a question on this section:

CAIR representatives have been included in several public functions hosted by United States President George W. Bush a few weeks after the September 11, 2001 attacks. CAIR had previously endorsed Bush for president during the 2000 presidential election. [2]. The Ohio chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union has given its annual Liberty Flame Award "for contributions to the advancement and protection of civil liberties" to CAIR. [3]

The article states this as a matter of fact, which they may well be, but to what point? There's no context. Has someone criticized these things? If so, that criticism should be properly cited. If not, everything but the award is irrelevant information. Can anyone speak to this? · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:28, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Think I answered my own question. This seems more appropriate for placement in the "criticism" section, which I've done. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:35, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by your question. You're saying we should only include Bush's mention of CAIR if someone has criticized it? That seems like an odd system for removing statements from articles. It's a fact that Bush was friendly with CAIR in the weeks after the 9/11 attacks. I see no reason to remove this fact. Rhobite 21:36, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why you moved that paragraph into the criticism section. It's just general factual info about CAIR. Do you think it has a negative connotation? Rhobite 21:37, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Turning your question around, what's the reason for including it? It's not necessarily negative -- or positive -- but that's just the problem. Is it positive? Is it negative? If it's neither, what's the point of including it? I'm sure lots of people have hosted this organization; should we include mentions of all of them? Should we just have a section of "quotes" with no context? Every fact on this organization available? The problem is there's no context. Facts without context are useless, otherwise where is the line drawn? It seemed to me to be more appropriate to place it in the "criticism" section, where it makes the point that though CAIR has been feted by various political leaders (and use that information as examples), others have criticized its stances as disingenuous. That puts the information in context so that its inclusion makes sense. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:45, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I do think, though, after thinking on it a bit, that those paragraphs need to be massaged. Otherwise it looks like we de facto are being critical of them having happened. Hmm. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:51, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Another question: CAIR argued that Abdul-Rahman's lawyers' criticisms of the trial as "far from free and fair" on a 1996 list of "incidents of anti-Muslim bias and violence" in a book called The Price of Ignorance which dealt with the "status of Muslim civil rights in the United States." I am not sure that I know what this is trying to say. It's awkwardly-worded. Is this saying that CAIR said Abdul-Rahman didn't get a fair trial? If so, it would be easier to just say it in that fashion, then use the book as a source at the bottom of the page in a references section, maybe. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:45, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Why are you assuming that all facts have to be positive or negative? Is it positive or negative that Idaho is known for producing potatoes? I think mentioning notable facts about CAIR's history is beneficial to the article. Whether this history is viewed negatively or positively is up to the reader. If you're concerned about a lack of context, please add to the article. Moving neutral text into the criticism section seems arbitrary. Re: your second question, I am also confused by this sentence, I agree that it should be reworded. Rhobite 21:54, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite, I moved the paragraph back out of criticism -- upon reflection I think it's not the right place for it... and moved it back up into the main body, but added a few words to intro the thoughts. Let me know what you think of this version. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:56, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

It isn't so much that something HAS to be positive or negative, but facts have to have context... it has to make sense that any certain fact should be included -- an encyclopedia article (even a non-paper one) isn't a clearinghouse of every scrap of information on a topic, it's supposed to hit the highlights. Context is all I was looking for. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:02, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Abdel-Rahman

CAIR has been critical of the U.S. government's prosecution of suspected terrorists, including that of Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, whom U.S. authorities deemed the ringleader of the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, and who was convicted of conspiring to blow up the Lincoln Tunnel and other New York City landmarks. CAIR argued that Abdul-Rahman's lawyers' criticisms of the trial as "far from free and fair" on a 1996 list of "incidents of anti-Muslim bias and violence" in a book called The Price of Ignorance which dealt with the "status of Muslim civil rights in the United States."'

CAIR certainly has been critical of some of the government's terrorism-related prosecutions, but I'm not sure that using Abdel-Rahman's as an exemplar is appropriate. I have yet to see where CAIR has criticized the handling of this particular case. However, there has been a rather public spat over whether CAIR called his prosecution a "hate crime," which CAIR has denied. Apparently, from what I can gather from news reports on Lexis-Nexis, Siraj Wahhaj, who at the time was on CAIR's advisory board, served as a character witness for Abdel-Rahman during his trial (and who was named during that trial as a possible unindicted co-conspirator). I have not seen any source material (such as a transcript) that quotes Wahhaj as calling Abdel's prosecution a "hate crime," but in any case CAIR denies that it ever took such a stance or said such a thing as a group. The group said that was an accusation started by an op/ed in the April 24, 2002 Jerusalem Post by a Daniel Pipes, and other media picked it up from there. This information needs to be changed in the aritcle. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:28, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I found a few references to Awad's article. Just made a few fixes and added his later denial. · Katefan0^(scribble) 01:24, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

CAIR lawsuit

I see no good reason to quote three entire paragraphs from the lawsuit. That makes the section disproportionately large compared to the rest of the article. Rhobite's summarized version was fine. Diglewop, before changing it back, please explain your rationale on the Talk page. Firebug 01:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Wikipedia strives to be "a collection of synthesized knowledge presented from a neutral point of view". This means we do not copy three paragraphs of rhetoric from a lawsuit. Rhobite 01:42, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that three large paragraphs quoted from a legal brief is too much text. But I also find the summation of those paragraphs to be wanting, particularly of this information: CAIR and CAIR-Canada have, since their inception, been part of the criminal conspiracy of radical Islamic terrorism. These organizations play a unique role in the terrorist network. They emanate from the notorious HAMAS terrorist organization and like so many of the terrorism facilitating charities named and indicted by the United States government they are engaged in fund raising under the guise of assisting humanitarian causes they are, in reality, a key player in international terrorism. The summation as it stands does not touch on the suggestion that CAIR engages in a conspiracy to promote Islamic terrorism, and that allegedly, far from a humanitarian organization, they are in fact are a cog in the international terrorism network. Some sort of thumbnail of these charges should be added to the summation, I think, because these too are serious charges. · Katefan0^(scribble) 02:12, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

That is exactly why I suggest that we put the 3 paragraphs in since no one seems neutral enough to not spin the contents. Let the reader make up their own minds.--Diglewop 05:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I understand your point, but it's just too much text. Wikipedia demands that we assume good faith -- I'm sure that reasonable adults can work together to craft a summary that is acceptable to everyone instead of dumping 500 words of text that nobody will want to read through into the article. Do you think that the current version is an unfaithful representation of the lawsuit's charges? · Katefan0^(scribble) 11:43, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Hit-list?

Why is it necessary to have a laundry list of everybody CAIR has criticized? We don't do this, in my experience here on Wikipedia, for any other group. Why this one? It seems immaterial, fron an encyclopedic standpoint, to me whether they've criticized some radio crazy's insensitive comments about Islam or not. It's fine I think to say that CAIR is aggressive when defending themselves against public commentary, but I don't think it's necessary to break out a list of each specific instance. · Katefan0^(scribble) 11:58, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is absolutely necessady .The reason for this is because it is impossible to make any statement on this page that are not detailed and fully documented. Statements that CAIR wages vilification campaigns against critics would get instantly deleted or whitewashed by pro-cair editors on the basis of no details or citation provided.--Diglewop 12:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is absolutely necessady .The reason for this is because it is impossible to make any statement on this page that is not fully documentted. Statements that CAIR wages vilification campaigns against critics would get instantly deleted or whitewashed by pro-cair editors on the basis of no citation or merit.--Diglewop 12:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand your arguments. You think accusations of CAIR campaigning against its critics get erased, and so you feel it's necessary to have a 200-word list of its critics? It's just not necessary. Find a source that accuses them of waging campaigns against their critics and cite it. That's all that's needed. If you can't find a source that suggests that CAIR wages campaigns against its critics, even if you believe it to be true, then it has no place in the article. We are not here to make judgments ourselves (or to do original research), but to summarize debates and pertinent information. Do you have a source critical of CAIR for such actions? · Katefan0^(scribble) 12:18, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Diglewop. Sometimes lists are necessary to retain documentation. A nearly identical case arose on the neo-confederate article and some related articles I was editing involving a passage that referenced a self-described "watchdog" activist's allegations of being "neo-confederate" etc. against several US politicians. The original phrasing stated in summary that the "watchdog" had accused several major US politicians of being neo-confederates, including several cases that bordered on ridiculous and, by its simple factual inclusion, made the "watchdog" list look like the work of a kook (for example, the guy essentially made the allegation against the last three Presidents and about half the US Senate). Another editor who was supportive of the self-decribed "watchdog's" political positions used the lack of a source for the generalized statement to delete the entire reference to his allegations - which he did not want shown because it indicated many extreme and bizarre political beliefs that the "watchdog" was taking. So it became necessary to list each and every one by name to prevent the deletion of legitimate content. The CAIR article seems to be a similar case. Making a factual list of all the people they've targetted is embarrassing to some CAIR proponents because, when shown, it makes them look like they're vilifying people - which is a criticism that's been made against the organization. But if you go with the alternative and simply state that CAIR has targetted many politicians, it will be deleted as unsourced material. Remember - wikipedia is not bound by the constraints imposed by paper, so there is no harm in this list lengthening the article. Rangerdude 18:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude's approach seems to make a lot of sense in this case. Feco 19:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying and appreciate the frustration particularly given this particular group's activities, but the problem with just listing CAIR talking about a bunch of radio hosts and then saying, without a source, that these are examples of CAIR smearing critics is itself POV. You say potato, I say potatoe, right? Are they smearing them, or are they just responding to something? Whose perspective gets represented? That's why it's necessary, if we feel that case should be made, to find a critic that has said it. That way we can summarize a valid criticism or position (and perhaps a rebuttal), without appearing to ourselves take that position. If it's happened so often and the practice has been so criticized, surely it would be relatively easy to find a source to cite. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:22, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

The neo-confederate matter that RangerDude refers to is not accurately described. The situation was that the article claimed that an activist had called Clinton and Bush "neo-confederates", when actually he had simply criticized them for writing supportive letters to a group that he called "neo-confederate". So we found the actual accusation and corrected the article. If a list of people that CAIR has attacked is included here then the list should be checked for accuracy, and a description of the attack/criticism should be included. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:51, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

User:Willmcw's claim above is inaccurate and premised on semantical disputes that originated with himself and remain wholly inaccurate to this day. The language that Willmcw objected to there asserted that the activist in question had called a plethora of politicians both "neo-confederate" and "pro-confederate" and stated that he had also used other synonyms of the same. Willmcw objected to both forms of this terminology. [4] Contrary to Willmcw's claims, the activist in question did indeed apply the term itself and its synonyms to the politicians named, including the header on his website where he named them: "All the Confederate and neo-Confederate information about elected officials and candidates, both pro-Confederate and pro-neo-Confederate" [5] It was also documented at the time of this dispute that, contrary to Willmcw's claims, the activist in question had explicitly applied the "neo-confederate" label outright to several different politicians included on the list, among them Trent Lott (described as "a leading figure in the Neo-Confederate movement"), John Ashcroft (featured in an article entitled "John Ashcroft: Neo-Confederate") and several others.[6] Rangerdude 18:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As an aside unrelated to this article discussion, I will further note that I am disinclined to give much credence to the comments of this particular poster,User:Willmcw, as I am of the strong belief that they are not made in the best interest of wikipedia, but rather out of a personal stalking vendetta he has participated in against me dating back to the very same article of this dispute and continuing over the last five months (see documentation here [7]). It should be further noted that Willmcw's arrival on yet another obscure talk page here at the CAIR article here, where I have simply attempted to offer pertinent information about how another similar article dispute was resolved in hopes that it may be of some use, is simply the latest incident in his stalking pursuits and further proof that, despite my repeatedly stated objections to this behavior of his, both polite and firm, he persists in this activity to the detriment of wikipedia and in violation of its injunctions to assume good faith towards other editors and practice appropriate etiquette. As with other incidents, this case of stalking will be duly noted in the ongoing log of his stalking behavior found here. Rangerdude 18:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have now added the source Katefan0 was demanding and reinserted the section.--Diglewop 02:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite's latest change

Rhobite -- without this: CAIR has been questioned for its statistics of the amount of Muselims in America, which CAIR has estimated at about 7 million. there's no point in having the statistics information in there at all. Do you dispute that CAIR's number has been questioned? It treats it right there in the quote from the Post article itself. · Katefan0^(scribble) 01:38, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

You're right. I rewrote the opening paragraph of that section. Rhobite 03:54, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

personal opinion

Diglewop wrote [8]

Daniel Pipes Cair has been running a long-standing campaign to vilify Daniel Pipes, an expert on Islamism and militant Islam. [9]

Please do not draw conclusions for the reader. Either quote a few sample "vilifications", or cite a published author who makes the claim. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 01:42, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

My point exactly -- about the whole list, actually. · Katefan0^(scribble) 01:52, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Should Correct Its Cair's Info. Page

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)

How do you know that true terrorists and their sympathizers would refrain from civic action? Andjam 02:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Because extremely militant, terrorism-minded type Muslims never work through the mainstream. They even consider voting within a non-Sharia system to be a sin.

NPOV

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)

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)

NPOV, etc

I was one of the people (under an anon IP) that extended this article a long time ago. Two things.

One, I have drastically slimmed the critics section. If we include every single person CAIR has criticized, we would be here until doomsday. It's just expected that CAIR is going to argue with, e.g., Don Imus. What is potentially notable is when CAIR persues legal action. Furthermore, I don't know of any other article, on right- or left- or whatever-wing groups, that maintains this kind of detail. Imagine a similar section on Michael Moore's article, or perhaps, I dunno, some right-winger. It's just not notable. The most important case, a giant million-dollar lawsuit, I have kept.

Two, I have taken off the NPOV tag. It seems that over a month has gone by with no more discussion. In my opinion, this article is NPOV and very well sourced. There is criticism from Mr100% that there is not enough positive information about CAIR. That is for him (or others) to add -- slapping an NPOV tag on the article is not the way to solicit contributions and only serves to inflame the debate.

--Sdedeo 06:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually the section you blanked had been agreed by consensus of the editors on this page , please review the earlier discussions on this talk page related to that section. It has been reverted back However I agree with you on the POV tag--Siegfried 00:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

What? Who agreed to the laundry list of critics? Not me, not Katefan, not Willmcw. It would be inaccurate to say that there is any consensus on including the exhaustive list. Rhobite 00:51, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if you will look through the archive, you'll see me lodging a specific complaint about just this portion of the article. Personally I don't think it's necessary; it's cherry picking and original research. · Katefan0^(scribble) 04:09, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Just reverted some vandalism. I don't want to get into a debate over this. But it really is very silly to list every argument. It dilutes the usefulness of the page, IMO. Only major disputes should be listed. Put me down as a vote for listing only the lawsuit, which is notable. Sdedeo 04:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Seems like the bulk of folks active on this page agree with your position. · Katefan0^(scribble) 05:28, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Let me make a new section for a brief "vote."

I added the POV tag back in. This article is written from a much too acerbic perspective. For example, CAIR was founded in 1994 by Nihad Awad, Omar Ahmad, and other former members of the Islamic Association of Palestine, which in turn was founded by senior Hamas figure Mousa Mohammed Abu Marzook, later deported from the U.S.. What's the point of saying that some members of CAIR are former members of an organization that had Hamas members in it? Hamas isn't just a terrorist organization since it also has a political/social wing. Yet still, the connection that is automatically made for the reader here is but a small example of this article's POV.Heraclius 18:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. You think that Hamas is a good organization, but that CAIR's connection to Hamas shouldn't be mentioned because other people don't like Hamas, and this makes the article POV? Perhaps you could come up with something more substantive before slapping an NPOV tag on the article and depricating the research of others. Sdedeo 02:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Please reread what I said. I said that the connection is automatically made for the reader and even then it is a weak one. Just because some former members of Hamas (which also has a social/political wing) founded an organization which had some CAIR members in it, doesn't mean CAIR has connections to Hamas. We don't start articles about organizations by saying that some of the organization's members were former members of an organization that had members from another organization. That is ludicrous. Also, why are you claiming that I think Hamas is good? I never said that, I consider the military wing to be a terrorist organization pure and simple. However, they do have a social and political wing. And yes, that social wing is good; it provides food for the needy and cleans up communities. It's a shame that the social wing associates itself with Hamas. It should really be a separate organization.Heraclius 03:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Heraclius. If this remark on Hamas is removed (I agree it is a stretch) do you support removal of the NPOV tag? If not, please explain any other issues you might have with this article. I am keen to get the tag removed, as I think the article is well-written, well-sourced, and neutral. The unfortunate fact is that there is little positive to be said about CAIR (although everything that is positive is given prominence.) Sdedeo 03:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Vote on Critics Section

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

Trying to shape up this article

I have kept all the information in the Critics section; however, I have "slimmed" it down, so that now it only lists the names of people CAIR has disputed with, and provides links to the newspaper articles that talk about it. I think this is a reasonable compromise between the two sides over this debate. All the information is still there, either on the linked wiki entries, or on the referenced newspaper articles.

Secondly, I am trying to get the NPOV tag off of this article. Hopefully Heraclius will get back to us on the talk page with any other objections he might have. Mr100% seems to have stopped attending to the debate back in July. I will wait a while (at least a week, probably more), and if there is no more debate on the NPOV issue, I will remove the tag.

Sdedeo 21:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely not sdedeo you do not make unilateral changes like that, and especially not to as some sort of concession to get the POV tag off the page. That list of critics is been subject to a great deal of discussion and the consensus was to leave the list there, plus you also quietly took out some names from the list while you were at it.--65.144.44.127 23:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

User, you should be open to compromise on this question, and you should refrain from insinuating that I am trying to "quietly" take out names. If I removed a name, it was in good faith (AFAIK, you seem to be reacting to my not including Boeing Aerospace as a target of CAIR criticism.) From your preemptory attitude, however, it appears that you will revert any attempt I will make to improve this page, so I will quietly bow out from the potential edit war. If I am wrong about this, let me know. Sdedeo 23:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I've grown tired of dealing with critics accusing me of underhanded bias (and then disappearing into the night when I try to engage a discussion) in my attempt to improve this page. I've taken this off of my watchlist and will not be involved further in editing of this page. If anyone wants to try to build consensus on removing the NPOV tag and dealing with the laundry-list, please contact me on my user page. Sdedeo 00:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Just FYI, I happen to agree with you. · Katefan0^(scribble) 02:36, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I've created a new entry, Disputes and dialogue involving CAIR. Maybe some stuff can now be trimmed from this article and moved there. Andjam 11:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

CAIR’s response to critics section

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)

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)

Quotation of Michael Graham

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)

Denomination of Al-Waleed bin Talal

Mirv objected to Saudi royal Al-Waleed bin Talal being described as a Salafi. Isn't that like wondering whether Queen Elizabeth is a member of the Church of England, suspecting she might be Catholic instead? Andjam 08:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't doubt that he's a Salafist; this is indeed obvious. (As I understand, though, he's fairly liberal—for a Saudi prince, at least.) What I objected to was the unsubtle attempt to link his beliefs with his donation to CAIR; as far as I know nobody has demonstrated that the library donations he funded pushed an anti-Shiite or anti-Sufi point of view. —Charles P. (Mirv) 20:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Though come to think of it, the piety and devotion of Saudi princes covers a wide range indeed. Even Ibn Saud had his (sometimes bloody) differences with the Wahhabis. I'd compare it to the Kennedy family in the U.S., most of the whom are nominally Roman Catholic, but not all of whom attend daily Mass (to put it mildly). The point of this edit was, it's not terribly meaningful to mention that he's a Salafist without knowing where he falls on the spectrum. I suppose I should have said "strict Salafist" in the edit summary.

The question of whether anyone claims his beliefs influenced his donation still stands. —Charles P. (Mirv) 07:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

CAIR's critics portray it as a Wahhabi organisation. You may want to contribute to the article on Wahhabism, because if there's a spectrum of Wahhabism, a lot of people aren't aware of that. Andjam 15:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I am aware of how CAIR's critics portray it as a Wahhabi organization. What I am not aware of, and what has still not been demonstrated, is any allegation that Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal's donation carried any strings related to his beliefs. (And when I spoke of a spectrum, I meant among Saudi princes, obviously; I can't speak about Wahhabis in general.) —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV, again

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)

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)

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)

Financing from the Middle East

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)

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)

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)

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)

I've moved the financing section to the opening part of the article. In general, we generally do mention where a group's money comes from, but it seems odd to put it in the "criticism" section. If someone notable is critical of CAIR's sources of funding, a separate mention should be made in the criticism section.

Also note that I've remaned "CAIR's Accomplishments" to "CAIR's Project"; it was a rather POV title, and we don't do it for any other group. Sdedeo 19:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Further expanded intro with the financial information.--CltFn 03:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Removal of NPOV tag

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)

population stats

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)

The source is here --> : American Religious Identification Survey .--CltFn 23:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

removal of links

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)~~

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 [10]. 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: [11] and [12]. 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)

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. joturn e r 04:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Purpose of CAIR

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)

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)

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)

We would need a reliable source (e.g. US government) to declare that the original purpose of CAIR was a money laundering scheme, otherwise we can't include it. Sdedeo (tips) 01:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Already done in court documents. 190 Proof 02:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You'll need to source that Nloth 03:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

190, please do not refer to me and others who have done the work to source and explain this article as "vandals". And, please provide a linked source for your claims. Sdedeo (tips) 06:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Please provide a linked source for your claim. This is the ~~third~~ fourth time you've been asked. Sdedeo (tips) 16:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV (new)

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)

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)

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)

Which links say that CAIR was created (not merely used) for the purposes you've listed? Andjam 03:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

190 Proof has been banned again, this time for incivility. Andjam 03:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about arguing with 190 Proof. He has been indefinately banned. Pepsidrinka 03:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV (new new)

Eventhough I appreciate the fact that many people have contributed to this article, I doubt that their intentions are anything but malicious. As I'm reading the article, I read many unsubstantiated claims from the perennial CAIR and Muslim-baiter, Daniel Pipes whose opinionated weblog is quoted extensively in this particular article.

It says in the main introduction that CAIR has 11 top officials have been pled guilty of aiding groups "like Hamas?" May we know the name of all the groups and ALL 11 "top officials" please?

When I scroll down to the section of "alleged support for terrorism" I only count 5 officals of which only two are considered "top or founders." The others were either in an advisory role or heads of subchapters.

Therefore as I read this article, I get an awful sense of bias, where only CAIR's alleged link to terrorism is highlighted, however its numerous contributions, including the many successful cases of briding US-Islamic relations (as its name purports) is missing. For example, the Executive Director's positive role in traveling to Baghdad into ask the kidnappers for reporter Jill Carroll's unconditional release. AND condemning their behavior as "unIslamic."

So until this issue is resolved, including removal of the re-hashed claim by some of "CAIR being named in 9/11 suit" (so what? All of the other Middle Eastern governments and the Bush administration are named aswell) without being proven guilty.

Would somebody kindly address these concerns and dismiss the claim of accusations that hold no water?

Appreciate a response.

Hi. Thanks for pointing out the 11 officials thing; I've changed the article to reflect that.

CAIR is named in the 9/11 suit, but your statement that the Bush administration is named is rather odd -- neither they nor any other governmental agencies are listed on the suit.

If you have more information on the positive role of CAIR, please include it. Simply claiming that it exists is not enough to keep an NPOV tag up. Sdedeo (tips) 20:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Please get back to us with a response in the next tweleve hours, or I will remove the tag as a drive-by. Sdedeo (tips) 22:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello Sdedeo. Alright thanks for that, but my greater concern is not merely that part, its the alleged claims, innuendoes, and opinion on the blog site of the perennial Daniel Pipes that causes great concern. Seems to me he is out there to discredit CAIR, and CAIR is out there to discredit him. CAIR on their site has a long list of his quotes and alleged examples of his "Islamophobia" and he quotes of CAIR's memebers listing them as members of "terrorist-sympathizers." Also, he never forgave CAIR for opposing his USIP (United States Institute of Peace) nomination by the Bush administration.

The Bush administration is named in the 9/11 suit. Yes that might seem absurd at first glance, but equally absurd is the fact that CAIR and the entire Saudi royal family is also named in the many lawsuits. The fact of brining a suit against one party is not reason enough to prove their guilt, however publicizing the fact that a suit even exists, destroys the defendant's credibility in the court of public opinion. So I ask you to delete that subsection about *CAIR named as defendant in 9/11 terror lawsuit.* It information is extraneous and unnecessary (it is posted word for word from Daniel Pipes, weblog on Middle East Forum.) and unless they are found guilty, one must refrain from posting such dangerous allegations which might seem trivial but can ruin an organizations reputation irreparably. And that's exactly the goal of demagogues like Pipes. *www.danielpipes.org*

As for the Bush and his administration being named as defendant here is the link. This lawsuit is brougt forth in the same year as the one naming CAIR as defendant, 2004: http://911review.org/Wiki/StanleyHiltonLawsuit.shtml

And in the external links section, remove the links about the exaggerated "dangers" of CAIR by Mr. Pipes. Remember the site is meant to be about CAIR and its activities, not to serve as promotional and discrediting tools for anyone's agenda, be it Pipes, Emerson, or Andrew Whitehead.

I shall post some of the "positives" which I mentioned earlier, if I find them. And I have removed the NPOV link temporarily until the update. Many thanks again Sdedeo.

If you see "inneudenos" please remove them, but the bulk of this article seems well sourced.

The Bush administration is not named in the referenced suit. Please read the referenced link to see who is listed as a co-defendent.

Sdedeo (tips) 05:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sdedeo,

Ok I heve edited out the section of CAIR's alleged support for terrorism.

Among the criticisms leveled at CAIR are affiliation with Islamist imams (like who? is left out), the instigation of death threats against moderate American Muslims (I haven't seen CAIR making a death threat against "moderate Muslims." Wouldn't that be illegal and wouldn't they be shut down if they did? So why are we accepting this as legitimate statements?), and the promotion of anti-Semitism (CAIR has been known to be outspoken for the rights of the Palestinians and against Israeli military tactics. But being anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian is not anti-Semitism, which is defined by racism against Jewish people based solely on religion.)

Pomerantz, former FBI assistant director whose charge against CAIR's activities "effectively give aid to international terrorist groups," was baseless. Since he couldn't label which group and since CAIR hasn't been found guilty of the alleged "aid" allegations, I will remove his assertion.

Additionally, any assertions with CAIR's "alleged links with radical groups" without proof and backup should not be posted. Again, the purpose of this article is to inform our readers about the organization; not go around making innuendoes based on Daniel Pipes personal agenda with the organization.

I am restoring Pomerantz's quote. Whether or not it is a baseless accusation, it is notable because of Pomerantz's position. Further, you deleted a paragraph about a CAIR board member's tangles with the DoJ; this is again a notable event. I'll restore this also. Your other edits I have no problem with. Sdedeo (tips) 23:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The board member you refer to was an advisor to the group not part of CAIR itself. He was accused by the United States Department of Justice as one of several "unindicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirators in the attempt to blow up New York City monuments." That's not true, find me the source. Remember the KEY WORD is ACCUSED. He stands free and completely absolved of all the accusations. I say this because allegeing him as a co-conspirator which he wasn't indicts him in the court of PR which is nothing short of character assassination. Would you like to be accused of something and have that accusation (where nothing is made of it) to be counted on your profile? Or police records, etc?

Therefore I will edit this out. Why don't you go wiki his profile just for info. I'll post and edit other things later.

Take care.

That a member of CAIR's board was accused by the DoJ is a significant fact. Are you asking me to show you proof that they listed him as an unindited co-conspirator? His name appears on the "List of unindicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirators in United States versus Omar Ahmad Ali Abdel Rahman, Mary Jo White, US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, February 2, 1995". You're welcome to go to your local law library to dig that up, or you can trust [13] Sdedeo (tips) 02:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm asking you that merely labeling him as "unindiccted person who MAY BE ALLEGED as co-conspirators" is not enough to mention him and tar his image as linked to terrorism. OR at the very least, mention that the list was never updated and the investigation never found HIM ACTUALLY GUILTY of being directly linked with the bombings or having any prior knowledge of it. That's all.

I'm not tarring his image, the Department of Justice is. The DoJ is a notable source. Sdedeo

Right, but the DoJ has since stopped their investigation and he is free of any "terrorist connection." So if the DoJ has notihng on him, why are we still using their mistake on wiki, as actual "Terrorist links of CAIR" (notice not links of even Mr. Siraj). That my friend is a pretty serious allegation, that should most definitely be omitted. It's not like the other two people who are quoted have anything positive to say about CAIR under the same subsection of "Alleged terrorist links." Right.

At the risk of repeating myself: the fact that the DoJ named a member of CAIR's board as an unindited co-conspirator in a terrorist attack is a significant fact. Everything you say -- that he was not found guilty, etc. etc. -- is contained in the fact that he was unindited. You are definitely correct that it is a "pretty serious allegation" -- which is precisely why it is included. As for calling it a mistake, if you have a source that says the DoJ later said his inclusion was a mistake, we should definitely include it. Sdedeo (tips) 03:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think what we're doing here is the chicken and the egg thing. First Imam Siraj ISN'T a member of the board, he was an advisory position TO the board. His seat is symbolic in that he doesn't control day to day function of the group. Besides if sitting on an advisory board is enough to 'link' and 'tie' your group to terrorism, then the 10 other organizations he sits in as VP, CFO, and other leading roles in other Muslim organizations, are also "linked" with terrorism and somehow have a dubious record. This is an unacceptable tactic of "guilt by association."

I DO understand your point of the DoJ's charge being serious and being significant.

But my point is that mere allegation shouldn't be enough to list somebody as having 'terror ties.' Yes, its a serious allegation; BUT if there is NO substance behind the accusation, ITS STILL REMAINS A HOLLOW ACCUSATION, not worthy of even being mentioned b/c its devoid of facts and reality. The fact of having no substance behind it is key, not the seriousness of a charge.

Suppose you or I get accused of something serious like rape for example, would you want that allegation to appear on your history or to appear on your employee's corporate profile; even if you were subsequently found not guilty. Do we paint all of them as somehow "linked to terrorism aswell?"

The same thing with the being named a "defendant" in the 9/11 lawsuit. The following:

CAIR named as defendant in 9/11 terror lawsuit In December 2004, CAIR was named as a defendant in a class-action lawsuit relating to the 9/11 terror attacks. In the complaint, the plaintiff has alleged that CAIR is a "front organization for Hamas that engages in propaganda for Islamic militants," and "manipulate[s] the legal systems of the United States and Canada in a manner that allows them to silence critics, analysts, commentators, media organizations, and government officials by leveling false charges of discrimination, libel, slander and defamation."

is extraneous.

And looking at the source: http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/394 ONE IS NOT SURPRISED! I'm really surprised at you sdedeo that you didn't look into and follow up on the details of those who are posting on this article; what their connection is, to who, and what is their background. Sure they are quick to condemn any organization, but what dark spots of their own are they hiding?

As I said before, George W. Bush was named defendant in a similar lawsuit, does that mean biographers have to include that in his profile? I send you the link and you said, the administration is not named, sure... but the president is and his chief law enforcer, Attorney General John Ashcroft.

So merely being accused of a "serious" charge SHOULD NEVER BE enough for that accusation to stick to you in your profile even if its being a co-conspirator (sounds evil and scary doesn't it?)

Sdedeo,

Tell me about the photo doctoring and please explain why is that included in an organization's profile? I don't understand why are anti-Muslim sources (jihadwatch, a Pipes affiliated website) being used to show somehow this group is dishonest. I don't know if the source is verifiable, but assuming that its true, CAIR supposedly is a Muslim group. As such if they alter a photo of their own event where women's *heads* are shown to be covered, how is that pertanent to its profile? Is it trying to imply by the neocons that its further proof the group can not be trusted?

You are getting tiresome; your reasons for deleting the Siraj paragraph keep changing. I don't have the patience to deal with you any more; I'm hoping someone with more energy can take over. In the meantime, instead of deleting things, why don't you do what you originally said you would: i.e., add information on CAIR's positive achievements. Sdedeo (tips) 17:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

My reasons for the Siraj paragraph are many. I didn't change them, but added to them. Please don't call me tiresome. I take great exception when people's characters are assassinated by agenda driven ideologues. I hear your point, but your constant reversion back without articulation as to why leaves me scratching my head. I will take your advice to add the positives but that shouldn't preclude you from admitting the erroenous facts of some info. here. And you have yet to answer why many of Daniel Pipes' accusations are pasted word for word here from his myriad of Middle Eastern and Israeli apologist websites such as [Jihadwatch, Campuswatch, Middle East Institute, MEMRI]? I apologize for having to go back and forth but I can not tolerate a profile of an organization where CIRCUMSTANTIAL facts are used to character assissinate it by those with a pro-Israeli tilt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.225.226.57 (talk • contribs) .

In response to your earlier question

Suppose you or I get accused of something serious like rape for example, would you want that allegation to appear on your history or to appear on your employee's corporate profile; even if you were subsequently found not guilty.

My response would be that there are plenty of people with wikipedia entries which document that a false claim of rape has been made against that person. Andjam 12:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Andjam. In response to your comments above: Even though there are plenty of people with wiki entries with false claim, does simply the quantitative number of "such entries" make the CAIR accusation subsequently valid? It's like the classical argument moms all over the world make, "If your friend jump out the window, would you? Would that be a justification?"

But the larger dilemma sure there are people out there in whose life biography they will have a section of a rape case accusation. But chances their rape case when it goes to trial, facts come out. More importantly the perspective, profile, and history of the accusor making the claim comes out; who was she, where's she from, and what's her motivation in repeatedly alleging the same thing (links to terrorism in CAIR's case) without being found guilty to such a charge? Surely after the a certain amount of time, people stop taking her allegations seriously.

Here CAIR is being accused by the same neocon cohorts who seem to me by a glance at their website that they have been unsuccessful in getting the gov't to find something on them. Thus, it seems they want to settle their personal tidbit online, discrediting any Muslim organization they perceive as anti-Israel or pro-Palestine. That's the general theme that seems to be projected again and again.

"Thats" what I'm objecting to. The gross violation of the NPOV standard in this article. Its loaded with every bit of "guilt by association" the accusors can find. Tell me about the organization and its own self-explained mission statement; not someone else's accusation of what the organization is or what it "secretly" stands for!

The agenda to discredit CAIR is not hard to pick up with quotes taken WORD FOR WORD from Daniel Pipes' and his neocon ilk's websites such as Jihadwatch.org, Dhimmiwatch, Islamistwatch, Campuswatch. Its like the "McCarthyisque red scare wild accusations" all over again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.225.226.57 (talk • contribs) .

I'm not sure if I'm understanding you. Are we quoting Daniel Pipes word for word? If so, can you point out where we are doing so? Andjam 14:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure I'd love to point them out, but with the discussion not moving forward, what's the point? Its not like you would amend any of the ideologues statements, even if I point them out, since Wiki has changed its editing policy and has given control to only a hand picked few.

To whoever is taking down the NPOV tag. Please stop removing it unless the discussion is resolved.

You have said you did not wish to continue the discussion. If you wish to continue it, respond to Andjam. If you don't, I will take down the tag. Sdedeo (tips) 21:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not say I do not wish to continue the discussion. I said in reply to Andjam "With the discussion not moving forward, what's the point of me listing all of the Pipes example?"

I want assurance that if I point out those glaring Pipes quotes (just as this entire article appears biased; where the "Criticism of CAIR" makes up more than half of the entire profile of the organization) that they would subsequently be removed or at the VERY LEAST explained to the reader that he is an agenda driven ideologue out to assassinate CAIR politically.

I amended several passages before, removing extraneous information linking Imam Siraj to unindicted conspiracies, and offered up a lengthy discussion as to why that is being mentioned if nothing came of it by the Justice Dept only to be told by those who control the content that the extraneous info. because of the weight of the accusor's (Mary Jo White) proves "CAIR's guilt." I'm arguing only those accusation with are substantiated with subsequent prosecution and guilty verdict be mentioned. Remember this page IS ABOUT the organization of CAIR. Not what its advisors to the board are accused of doing (*UNINDICTED*).

Stop blathering. Respond to Andjam. Sdedeo (tips) 19:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'm done talking with you Sdedeo. I'll respond to him at his request. By the way who controls the content of this website?

And please don't disrespect me. Afford the same courtesy that I afford you. Go look at your own rules of engagement of "be respectful."

Andjam asked you a question. Respond to it. That's all. Sdedeo (tips) 20:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I will respond to Andjam. But first, I'd like you to look over the following:

U.S. state attorneys have filed a number of lawsuits both against CAIR itself as well as against several participants in CAIR under the U.S. PATRIOT Act, accusing them of supporting terrorism. Where's the proof or link for this so this info. can be verified?

Take it up with Andjam; I am not interested in discussing the content of the article with you any more, as I said above. The only reason I got involved again was that you seemed to have stopped participating in the discussion. Sdedeo (tips) 20:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sdedeo,

May I ask you, respectfully, what yours and Andjam's respective position are? I mean how many Wiki pages oversight do you have authority over? I understand and apologize if this is becoming tiresome. Trust me, this goes both ways :)

We are both editors, as are you; if the way wikipedia works is confusing, try reading Wikipedia:FAQ. Do please learn to sign your posts with ~~~~. Sdedeo (tips) 21:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up.

I am editing the following: "While the administration has since been reported to have renounced its ties with CAIR over the latter's alleged support for Hezbollah and Hamas [7], a number of mainstream politicans maintain friendly relations."

I can't seem to find the administration has renounced all ties, since I read on CNN that CAIR is working with the State Dept. in sending "Muslim" ambassadors to Europe to help it improve America's image overseas.

I've added: "Some in the Bush administration have lobbied him to cut relations with CAIR, but a number of mainstream politicians maintain friendly relations, including the FBI who works frequently with CAIR to find translators and educate officers in Islamic culture. The State Department also works with CAIR where recently its top legal director went on a continental roadtrip as the Muslim ambassador to Europe to help improve America's image overseas.

It seems that Bush has cut personal ties with CAIR, even if some parts of the government haven't. I'm reverting the changes you've made to the article en masse as many of them don't follow a neutral point of view. Also, were you saying that we were quoting Daniel Pipes word for word? Thanks, Andjam 14:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Andjam, Show me where the Bush administration says they have cut ties with cair. DON'T revert to the previous changes; show me how my changes don't follow NPOV.

I've had discussions with Sdedeo and neither he nor I seem to have problems. tyruler 10:49, 25 June 2006

Why did you revert the entire article "en masse" without pointing out to me, where I violated the NPOV The article as it stands now, is only the introduction. Kindly revert back to entire article with my edits.

I have been extemely careful in following the NPOV. tyruler 11:09, 25 June 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.225.226.57 (talk • contribs) .

Anything with "it must be noted that", such as [14], isn't going after a neutral point of view. Also, please do not remove notings of unsigned statements. Thanks, Andjam 15:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, describing a civil war as "bloody" [15]. Andjam 15:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

oK then remove the words "it must be noted that," and the adjective "bloody." But don't revert to the rest of the article that adheres to the NPOV. As for the signature, I'll be mindful of that. Thanks for reminding me I did that. I take exception when you revert and cancel all of my edits just because few words didn't adhere to "NPOV." I appreciate your courtesy and desire to resolve my corrections amicably. Take care and Gooooo England!

I've been observing the arguments being played out here. I agree with the argument being offered by the user who claims all of his edits shouldn't be deleted based on few npov words. I think its reasonable to remove few questionable words but not all of the edits. Andjam please restore the previous page. andy_f_90

That should be a reasonable compromise. andy_f_90

Thank you, finally some reason. So, andjam stop resisting my changes and give me a good reason for deleting my entire edits (3 hours) and claiming to do so out of NPOV. As the article currently stands, it violates NPOV. Hence the whole ongoing dispute.

I find it very suspicious that a user is suddenly created, and his first act as a wikipedia user is to support "tyruler". I suggest that he is a sockpuppet. Meanwhile, Tyruler, I disagree with practically every edit you have made; please don't suggest otherwise. Sdedeo (tips) 18:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You keep on your suspicions just as you keep the suspicions on my edits from being posted. Right. I think when somebody disagrees with you, you immediately start leveling "your suspicions."

In any case Sdedeo, saying you disagree with my edits doesn't resolve anything. You keep going back to the biased article as it stands now without even considering the edits, which proves you are the party that is truly biased. In addition you sought the help of andjam where you request his assistance in resisting any changes to this clearly biased article.

Hi Nloth, Yahnatan, Andjam, PeruvianLlama, There's another POV pusher on the CAIR article; I'm contacting you because you've recently been involved in maintaining the article. I've tried to talk things out with the guy, but he remains dedicated to removing important information from the article, and I don't have the time to deal with his long screeds and shifting rationales. Could you maybe help out here? I confess I've lost my patience with him, but would be happy to help if you could join in the discussion and brewing edit war. Thanks, Sdedeo (tips) 19:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

So we now know who the ultimate POV pusher really is, thanks for that Sdedeo.

I'm still open to the idea of trying to work with you, if not, we'll have an edit war on our hands. -tyruler

Guys, read "WP:RS", read WP:NPOV. Alleging that a major civil rights and advocacy group has direct links to terrorism is a serious matter. It's not enough to present sources, they need to be credible. So much of the content here is easily refutable. On 'the government cutting ties with CAIR', did anyone bother to look up government websites on CAIR? A congressionally supported report published this year COMMENDS CAIR's work in assisting the government on matters of security and in fighting extremism. Editors here have featured third rate polemicism over solid sources. I'm removing all allegations of terrorist involvement that isn't supported with credible facts. Several of the statements supported by sources here are misleading. His Excellency... 20:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much Your excellency! Though I must say, andjam doesn't seem to budge. They have their own bias and would not even consider another points of view, your excellency. This makes two people with logic now. But don't worry, we are all 'sock puppets' according to himTyruler 20:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)