Talk:Council on American-Islamic Relations

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 (http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=About) 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] (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/mm20040505.shtml)

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)

Contents

1 Further NPOV edit 2 Activities 3 Recent whitewashing 4 POV from the right 5 From RFC 6 Abdel-Rahman 7 CAIR lawsuit 8 Hit-list? 9 Rhobite's latest change 10 personal opinion 11 personal remarks

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] (http://www.amaweb.org/election2000/ampcc_endorses.htm). 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] (http://cair-net.org/asp/article.asp?id=32696&page=NB)

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] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neo-confederate/archive1) 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] (http://web.archive.org/web/20021126053712/www.templeofdemocracy.com) 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] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neo-confederate/archive2) 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] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rangerdude#Notable_Cases)). 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] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Council_on_American-Islamic_Relations&diff=prev&oldid=15563629)

• Daniel Pipes Cair has been running a long-standing campaign to vilify Daniel Pipes, an expert on Islamism and militant Islam. [9] (http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1070)

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)

personal remarks

Let's all try to Wikipedia:avoid personal remarks when discussing articles. If you have a problem with a user, take it to his talk page or ask an admin (like me!) for help.

Avoid comments like:

• personal vendetta
• stalking
• working to the detriment of Wikipedia

It's better to be specific, like "reverted my changes too much" or "seemed like biased writing". -- Uncle Ed (talk) 03:20, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)