Talk:Council on American-Islamic Relations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sunni Islam, a WikiProject related to the Sunni Islam.

It has been rated - on the quality scale.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] problems with 'terrorism' section

[edit] Terrorism

Ghassan Elashi was a founder of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, and was a member of the founding board of directors of the Texas branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Elashi was arrested in December 2002 for conspiracy, money laundering, and dealing in the property of a designated terrorist. He was convicted on all charges in April 2005.

CAIR is a spin-off of the Islamic Association for Palestine, identified by two former FBI counterterrorism chiefs as a “front group” for Hamas. At least four[1] CAIR leaders have been convicted on terrorism-related charges.

obviously all of this needs to be sourced. shld be possible to find reliable newspaper reports of any facts in there. the one source (an anti-muslim rant site) obviuosly fails WP:RS. also serious problem with the seperate section just labled 'terrorism', seems atempt to imply that cair is involved in or front for. any of this that's relevant could be incorporated into 'criticism' section. stuff about the individual may be sourced on his page, but if it's here, needs reliable sources here. sorry about the above inclusion of the paragraph, can't work out how else to do it, this [2] is the diff of my edit.  ⇒ bsnowball  16:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree the first paragraph you removed seemed to be unsourced, so it should go. I merged a modified version of the second paragraph into the Criticism section, where it belongs. frontpagemag.com is not a 'hate site' - it's an online magazine that is regularly publishing new articles by well-known writers like Alan Dershowitz (and run by another well-known writer, David Horowitz), albeit with a partisan slant. Certainly there are superior sources for news, but it's reliable enough for sourcing criticism. - Merzbow 20:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
If you want sourcing for Ghassan Elashi, look at that article. (SEWilco 05:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC))

Is there a way of quoting the content in dispute without using "pre" tags? In my browser the writing clashes with the archive box. Andjam 05:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Funding of June 2006 campaign

The text of the Wikipedia article reads,

In June 2006, CAIR announced a $50 million project to influence the American media ($10 million per year for five years). According to the article, the project will be spearheaded by Paul Findley, former US Congressman, and funded by Saudi Prince Alwaleed ibn Talal.

while the cited article says

“We are planning to meet Prince Alwaleed ibn Talal for his financial support to our project. He has been generous in the past,” he added.

The citation does not support the declaration that the prince is funding the campaign. It merely says that he is to be approached about funding. In addition, this article is cited twice (using different numbers) to make the same assertion. Is someone able to clarify? Mbelisle 00:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • My cursory reading supports the conclusion that the source article doesn't support this statement. I've removed it. Autocracy 20:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Book donations by CAIR

The article asserts near the end that Paul Findley's book "included complimentary views of convicted terrorist Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi and former neo-Nazi William Baker." Being unfamiliar with CAIR or Paul Findley, I have no idea who William Baker is, so the link to 14 different William Bakers is not helpful. I also see some previous discussion about whether or not William Baker is, in fact, a neonazi. If William Baker is relevant to CAIR, this point needs a citation and clarification. Mbelisle 00:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

From a search of the book on Amazon, there are a few passing mentions of William Baker where he is described as "a christian leader." This hardly seems relevant except to taint the reader's opinion of CAIR with a weasly mention of neonazism. In addition, there is no mention of Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi made in the book. I removed the mentions of the contents of the book. Alright, the spelling threw me off. Mbelisle 00:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
On further review, Libraries revist Islam does not mention banning the Koran translation from the LA School System and the anti-semitic views are merely a passing reference ("I hope they are careful these books [from CAIR] are not full of anti-Semitism, hatred against the West and non-Muslims.") not a claim. This paragraph has run out of citations and is removed in its entirety. Mbelisle 00:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] problems External Links Section

I have, for a second time, added the website: DanielPipes.org into the External Links section of this wiki entry. While no discussion is likely to evolve from such a minor edit, I give the reason for this as follows:

Pipes' having been a essayist of CAIR, and having been sued-at-law by CAIR's representatives, CAIR itself has made Pipes very central to what CAIR is about. Whoever chose to remove the link must be overly concerned for the appearance of a wikipedia entry, or plainly afraid of what others have to say about CAIR, at (what amounts to nothing more than) an encyclopedia entry.

Never the less, I invite a consensus to form regarding the above additional URL link Mark Preston 18:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Since the link to Daniel Pipes' source is broken, it might be better to link to the last available version of the press release, web.archive.org/web/20031002040618/http://www.saudiembassy.net/press_release/archive/99_news4.html. Mbelisle 23:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have double-checked the link as of December 26, 2006 around 6:16pm, UCT and found it to be fully operational or "up and running". Mr. Mbelisle, I believe you have a bad internet connection.Mark Preston 18:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The link to Pipes' blog, yes, is functional. But the link from his blog to the primary source www.saudiembassy.net/press_release/archive/99_news4.html is not. Mbelisle 08:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Mbelisle, you should add the link to the embassy as you like, however, the link to Mr. Pipes' site and pages are fully functinal. What possible reason is there to remove a link on that basis?


Can you please explain to me how, by suing Daniel Pipes, "CAIR itself has made Pipes very central to what CAIR is about?" I have no information on the nature of this lawsuit. And even then, a simple libel suit would not make "Pipes very central to what CAIR is about." CAIR is about improving improving relations between Americans and Muslims, and furthering the understanding that Americans have on the meaning of Islam; or at least it appears that way to me. Pipes, a very well-known zionist, has written several articles linking CAIR with several lurid ideas, none of which appear to me to be what CAIR is about. Can you please re-evaluate your thought process on this before making a so-called "minor edit," i.e. putting in a link that, if anything, prints accusations about an organization with few veritable facts and firsthand information? Shabeki 07:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I can do that, Mr. Shabeki, but here goes:

Can you please explain to me how, by suing Daniel Pipes, "CAIR itself has made Pipes very central to what CAIR is about?"

The venue for the lawsuit is in the United States, is it not? Would the council have sued for something trivial in their opinion? I think not. (Did they win their lawsuit?) Did this make Pipes' ideas, writings and talks or speeches about CAIR central something CAIR was concerned about? Absolutely. Is the criticism about CAIR "central" to the concerns laid there? Again, Absolutely. As one of CAIR's chief essayists and critics he is certainly "central" as far as a link from a Wikipedia page to a Pipe's page is concerned. After all, this truly isn't CAIR's page, it is a page about CAIR. Do you understand the significant distinction? Are you arguing that a link makes CAIR's pages trivial, or unnecessary, or irrelevant at Wikipedia? Pipes' centrality as much as CAIR is important to anyone is that he is most reasonably the person who would most likely to be called in legal terms: "an expert witness" on the subject of CAIR, the Middle East, and Arabiana. That is the original, correct and proper context of what is meant (in my words) by 'central'. I think you have misunderstood by what I meant by central. In any measure, he is none the less, the most quoted, most outstanding, most cogent and best informed person to take CAIR's measure and essay it: objectively. Perhaps I should use the other synonyms: relevant, germain, gravamen, essential. Get it?


I have no information on the nature of this lawsuit. And even then, a simple libel suit would not make "Pipes very central to what CAIR is about."


The centrality is that Daniel Pipes was "ringing the tocsin" about "radical" Islam long before the tragic and extrajudicial murders of September 11th. His clarion call, albeit ringing in silence by the mostly American news-mass-media, has been heard at the highest reaches of the U.S. Republic. He is the thorn in CAIR's "side". The rest of us, those who don't speak, read or write Arabic, Hebrew, Farsi and other dialects of the foregoing, reasonable rely on his (and others) writings, etc. to help inform our Democracy.

CAIR is about improving improving relations between Americans and Muslims, and furthering the understanding that Americans have on the meaning of Islam; or at least it appears that way to me.


I can't tell whether you are saying that American and Muslim relations are improving or whether CAIR is improving improved or (still yet) improving relations ("improving improving" or whether you have a typographical error in the above. I've parsed that as best I can.

Please see my link below at Pipes' Middle Eastern Forum, titled: "Fooling the Establishment". Or Andrew Whitehead's website: Anti-CAIR, or Joe Kauffman's webpages: Americans Against Hate, etc., etc., etc. I aver that just like Jim Jones and his Jonestown, people, can be easily fooled, or misled by those who are dissembling of moderate Islam. As these essayists or critics have repeatedly characterized CAIR as an extremest goups, so all the more reason to include a link to CAIR's most intellectual of critics. Like Pipes I admire and enjoy real Islam. I own a Quran. I have read parts. I'm not yet a believer.

As to your words, "appears that way to me".

There are two sides to the above and my response is to quote from the Class Action Suit filed on behalf of the approximately 3029 human being murdered on September, 11, 2001. Some of whom were not Americans, but foreigners from South America or perhaps, even Middle Easterners by birth or extraction.

   "COUNCIL ON AMERICAN ISLAMIC RELATIONS (CAIR) and CAIR CANADA

     86.     Council on American Islamic Relations and CAIR Canada (collectively,

CAIR), have aided, abetted, and materially sponsored and al Qaeda and international terrorism. CAIR is an outgrowth of the Hamas front group the Islamic Association of Palestine. The FBI's former associate director in charge of Investigative and Counter- Intelligence Operations described the Islamic Association of Palestine as an organization that has directly supported Hamas military goals and is a front organization for Hamas that engages in propaganda for Islamic militants. It has produced videotapes that are very hate- filled, full of vehement propaganda. It is an organization that has supported direct confrontation.

     87.     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 unique role played by CAIR and CAIR-Canada is to manipulate 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. In addition, both organizations have actively sought to hamper governmental anti-terrorism efforts by direct propaganda activities aimed at police, first- responders, and intelligence agencies through so-called sensitivity training. Their goal is to create as much self-doubt, hesitation, fear of name-calling, and litigation within police departments and intelligence agencies as possible so as to render such authorities ineffective in pursuing international and domestic terrorist entities.

    88.    The role of CAIR and CAIR-Canada is to wage PSYOPS (psychological

warfare) and disinformation activities on behalf of Whabbi-based Islamic terrorists throughout North America. They are the intellectual “shock troops” of Islamic terrorism. In the years and months leading up to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 these organizations were very effective in helping to ensure that North American law enforcement and intelligence officials were sufficiently deaf, dumb, and blind to help pave the way for the attacks on the United States. The role played by these entities is an absolutely essential part of the mix of forces arrayed against the United States as they help soften-up targeted countries so as to facilitate and enhance the likelihood for a successful attack." from a document at: http://www.september11terrorlitigation.com

In the United States, is is against the canons of judicial ethics to represent a fact that an attorney does not believe to be true. To do so is: unethical, illegal. The attorney who made the above representation must believe the foregoing to be true. As this suit is for a money judgement, and as the litigation is ongoing (but let us not forget the Libyan government's payout of billions as a result of the terrorist act over Scotland); you may argue there is no evidence. That will be the subject of whether there should be more than a link to Pipes' pages once a verdict is in, however. For now, shouldn't it be better to err on the side of inclusion, just in case?


Pipes, a very well-known zionist, has written several articles linking CAIR with several lurid ideas, none of which appear to me to be what CAIR is about.


I doubt that being a Zionist is a cause for concern about a link at Wikipedia. Again, I'm suggesting that a link to a non-Wikipedia page be added, in the appropriate section of the Wikipedia page about the Council. Nothing more. Even then, they might not agree with Pipes, either, after looking at his pages. You've got to take your chances. He remains a very good source of divergent opinion about CAIR.

I am still under the impression that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such, contains all human knowledge. So, complaining of "lurid ideas" isn't dispositive. CAIR was, is and will be controversial. Are there serious essays into the politics of such organizations as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, or the Red Crescent/Red Cross or Goodwill?. Those organizations have no meaningful political agenda. CAIR does. By acts of members of CAIR now serving time in jails for terrorism or terrorism related charges, CAIR's connection (in such high numbers, again say compared to: Goodwill Industries or the Ronald McDonald House,) shows that there is something controversial about CAIR. Perhaps a "hidden" agenda, going far beyond being merely similar to civil-rights organizations like the NAACP. I believe I can form a consensus of opinion with Wikipedia editors about the foregoing.


Can you please re-evaluate your thought process on this before making a so-called "minor edit," i.e. putting in a link that, if anything, prints accusations about an organization with few veritable facts and firsthand information? Shabeki 07:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


Under the standards you seem to propose, changing a "the" to an "a" could conceivably be more than a"minor" edit. As for your assertion of a lack of "firsthand information" at Pipe's webpages, well, CAIR did sue him. I would assume that anyone who reads CAIR's various public documents (multimedia or print) has "first hand" knowledge. Are you saying you know whether Pipes has or has not read any of CAIR's public documents? As Wikipedia's standard for what qualified as includable "information" is large, broad or more poetically: huge, your notion about "firsthand information" won't have standing: reasonably. Wikipedia tends to be very inclusive. I find this to be rather a two-edged sword, myself. Wiki editors seem to go to some pains to find the negative and include it. But as that is the adopted standard here, you should probably stand-down and not contest the link.

Furthermore: your disagreement about "verifiable facts" is disusaive, putting a link on a page is verifiable as to the link by clicking it. As for Pipes' facts they are as verifiable as need be, again, under Wikipedia's broad interpretation of "human knowledge".

If the link were in the main section about CAIR, then maybe it wouldn't qualify as a "minor edit", but you see, adding a link to Pipes is a minor edit. It isn't even a whole line, graphicly, technically, substantively. That's pretty minor. It is where it should be in the "external links" section.

As for some "verifiable facts", the link at Pipes' organization: Middle Eastern Forum has quotes from U.S. Senators Charles Schumer, NY and Richard Durbin, IL, stating the CAIR is a terrorist front organization ("ties to terrorism"-Schumer). Those declarations are based on a U.S. Senate Hearing. That hearing, popularly known as: "Connecting the Dots", US Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security from Sept. 10, 2003 can be found at: (http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=910). Since Pipes' has characterized CAIR on those and other bases, your rejoinder about "facts" seems inordinate, and out of touch with the Spirit of Wikipedia.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinon, but not their own facts" U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.Mark Preston 20:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


Before we go any further, I suggest you read CAIR's response to many of the myths perpetrated about them at http://www.cair.com/urbanlegends.pdf

Senators Charles Schumer and Richard Durbin may believe that CAIR has ties to terrorism, but I see no evidence of this beyond their claims. A nice parallel to this would be members of our government believing that Saddam Hussein's regime was involved in the 9/11 attacks, even if reality shows differently. Members of CAIR have gotten themselves in legal trouble, but unlike the "terrorism-related charges" that Matthew Epstein refers to, they appear to be a weapons charge (Ismail Royer), bank and visa fraud (Dr. Bassem El-Khafagi, who was never a employee of CAIR to begin with) and a deportation for overstaying a visa (Rabih Haddad, also never a member of CAIR). The actions of one former member Ghassan Elashi (who was never an employee of the organization) does not implicate the organization itself. While we're talking about the spirit of wikipedia here; again I have to implore that we take a more neutral point of view rather than give in to our own prejudices.

Most important of all, if CAIR were really a front for terrorism as you imply by invoking the words of Senators Schumer and Durbin, do you really think that they would be allowed to exist still after all these years? I have faith in our government's ability to dismantle terrorist organizations. Shabeki 07:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


Whether I have or have not read the "urban legends" stuff is fairly much irrelevant. The link to Pipes is appropriate, not more arguement. If you wish to argue CAIR as connected/not-connected to terror, that is good, let's start a Google/Yahoo group for that. You have nowhere, in my rejoinder to your response to my willingness to discuss a link to Pipes' come up with a reason about that, only CAIR (and it's sectators) say there is no link. Fine. Well, Good. I'm putting Pipe's link in and if it is removed. I'm taking this to Wiki's arbitration committee.66.81.154.229 23:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Description of group incorrect

This is not an advocacy group. Its actions show it to be a radical Islamist organization. See http://www.meforum.org/article/916 for detailed information about the CAIR organization.

Above comment was posted by an IP user. There seems to be plenty of supporting information for them being described as an advocacy group. Autocracy 20:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Who cares if its an IP user? Does having a username make your words worth any more than his, "Autocracy"?
Above comment was posted by an IP user. I'm simply identifying an unsigned comment, in this case as in the one above. Bolding my comment for emphasis wasn't appropriate either. If you would like to emphasize something that wasn't emphasized by an original poster, it would be much better to emphasize it as a quote rather than chaging the original context. If you were logged in as "JimBob" and didn't sign you comment, this would say at the start "above comment was posted by "User:JimBob."
I agree that they are an advocacy group. Elizmr 23:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that many of the cowards who anonymously slander CAIR as a terrorist group without providing any credible sources of information must be engaging in mere hatemongering. Shabeki 07:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

I've added a 'neutrality dispute' tag. I'm very concerned about some of the sites linked to this page and listed as sources. Also, much of the page isn't adequatley sourced. --Wgbc2032 00:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with this. The external links section is horrible. I counted only three credible sites: CAIR's website, one of the two news articles and the Anti-Defamation League's profile of CAIR (which I find biased for obvious reasons). The rest of the sites listed appear to be fringe sites that I would expect to see on the same level of some neo-Nazi skinhead site. And FrontPageMag is not a credible news site now matter if its political content agrees with you. The external links section needs to be pared down dramatically. I'm shocked that bigots would defame this entry due to their obscene hatred of Muslims. Shabeki 07:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that a 'neutrality dispute' tag is a necessary at this time. I am in the process of making a rejoinder to Mr.? Shabeki's (I am having to guess this is his last name.) reasoning that a link to Daniel Pipes webpage (central to CAIR criticism) is as he says: "horrible". Mark Preston 23:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


While I'm flattered that you're interested in learning my last name, let's stick to the topic at hand, shall we? My problem with the this page as it's set up is that most of the links seem superfluous. Let me expand my thoughts on this:

Under "News Articles," "CAIR's Legal Troubles" actually links to a reprint of a FrontPageMag article (again, a shady "news" site) on www.sullivan-county.com, a site which describes itself as the "the unoffical news and opinion website for Bristol," Virginia. The page itself seems to act as a portal to various sites criticizing Islam in general. Keep in mind that this isn't Daniel Pipes' website; it merely links to it. This is not a firsthand source of news; and again, the source of it really can't be credibly counted as a news source to begin with.

The "Anti-CAIR" site appears to be a blog run by an Andrew Whitehead, a man who settled out of court with CAIR for an undisclosed amount (though he claims a victory in the case, as the site is obviously still up and running). I personally have never taken seriously personal blog commentary as a means of effective public criticism, especially for an online encyclopedia.

CAIRwatch actually uses the ironically-named americansagainsthate.org URL. The chairman of this organization, Joe Kaufman, is described as an "investigative journalist" for Frontpage Magazine (again, a reliable source of partisan tabloid news), host of a radio show and a special assistant to the chairman of the watchdog organization Judicial Watch.

"CAIR-the nation's loudest baby" is quite possibly the most offensive and erroneously included of the links. Its juvenile main picture appears to be a crying baby with the symbol of CAIR transposed over the genitalia of the newborn. The site is run by the same folks who run thereligionofpeace.com, another apparently partisan blog whose supercilious nature is headlined by the words, "Islam: The Religion of Peace (believe it or else." The site is a joke, and so is the inclusion of this link.

On the other end of the spectrum, I personally found sites such as the Anti-Defamation League's profile of CAIR and Matthew Epstein's (analyst at a counterterrorism think tank) testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee to be far more informative and unfiltered sources of information. This is why I believe that the neutrality dispute tag on this article was very deserved. Unsubstantiated blogs and hysterical rants do not (in my eyes) belong in an online encyclopedia.

And by the way, "Mr. Preston," Daniel Pipes' website danielpipes.org (highly prejudiced for sure, but in my eyes, Pipes is a far more authoritative and accredited source of info on Muslims than the other websites I mentioned) is not actually linked to this article. Shabeki 07:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CAIR's "Urban Legends"

CAIR has recently responded to many criticisms it has been faced with. Right or wrong, it has to be mentioned in the article. For instance, in the Funding section, there is no mention of CAIR's response to the charges of receiving donations from foreign nations. Anyway here it is: http://www.cair.com/urbanlegends.pdf --Seventy-one 22:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Projects Section

From the Project "section" of the Article page:

"CAIR monitors local, national, websites and international media in part to challenge negative stereotypes, but also to applaud and encourage positive representations of Islam and Muslims."

Stereotype

Stereotype \Ste"re*o*type\, n. [Stereo- + -type: cf. F.

  st['e]r['e]otype.]
  1. A plate forming an exact faximile of a page of type or of
     an engraving, used in printing books, etc.; specifically,
     a plate with type-metal face, used for printing.
     [1913 Webster]

  Note: A stereotype, or stereotypr plate, is made by setting
        movable type as for ordinary printing; from these a
        cast is taken in plaster of Paris, paper pulp, or the
        like, and upon this cast melted type metal is poured,
        which, when hardened, makes a solid page or column,
        from which the impression is taken as from type.
        [1913 Webster]

  2. The art or process of making such plates, or of executing
     work by means of them.
     [1913 Webster]

  {Stereotype block}, a block, usually of wood, to which a
     stereotype plate is attached while being used in printing.
     [1913 Webster]

-- From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48

Stereotype \Ste"re*o*type\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. {Stereotyped};

  p. pr. & vb. n. {Stereotyping}.] [Cf. F. st['e]r['e]otyper.]
  1. To prepare for printing in stereotype; to make the
     stereotype plates of; as, to stereotype the Bible.
     [1913 Webster]

  2. Fig.: To make firm or permanent; to fix.
     [1913 Webster]

           Powerful causes tending to stereotype and aggravate
           the poverty of old conditions.        --Duke of
                                                 Argyll (1887).
     [1913 Webster]

-- From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48

stereotype

    n : a conventional or formulaic conception or image; "regional
        stereotypes have been part of America since its founding"
    v : treat or classify according to a mental stereotype; "I was
        stereotyped as a lazy Southern European" [syn: {pigeonhole},
         {stamp}]

By using the word "stereotype" in the phrase "negative stereotype" there is an implied good "stereotype". I think this word is overused entirely in the English language and has no meaning. If one says someone or some behavoir is "stereotypical" one means it is unacceptable. If one thinks of "conventional conceptions" or "formulaic conceptions" based on the above definition, it may not be accurate to say that CAIR's words, acts, deeds are not also "stereotypical". Mark Preston 17:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major reversion due to copyright problems

I've had to revert to a very early version of this article due to copyright concerns. People have copied portions of text from copyrighted works, and the response to such copyright violations is to revert to a version prior to such violation, as we can't just remove the bits of text which were the violation.

The current version of the document had text very similar to [3] such as "but also to applaud and encourage positive representations of Islam and Muslims". The text appears to have been introduced with this edit

The version preceding that edit, dated July 7 2005, also had copyright problems. Text such as "Other American Muslim leaders have raised questions about their possible alliances with radical groups, and many academics are disturbed by the groups' prominence." is a copyright violation of this Salon article. The text appears to have been introduced in this edit. The edit prior to that also copied copyrighted text. Prior to that, the edit history is clean (apart from a copyright violation that got reverted).

As a result, over 1000 edits have become moot. Andjam 06:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

"the response to such copyright violations is to revert to a version prior to such violation, as we can't just remove the bits of text which were the violation"... Please quote us the policy that allows you to throw over 1000 edits into the trashbin, and very quickly. 90% of what you deleted, such as the criticism material, apparently has no connection with the material you allege to have been violated. Such a policy would allow submarine sabotage of articles by letting people sneak in a stolen sentence or two, then reveal the copyvio a year later and nuke the article. - Merzbow 08:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I saw the change before the talk page, and thought it might be vandalism. Nothing really justifies such wholesale undoing of work. Edit the article to make the content free from copyright violations. It is more work than just reverting to some ancient version of the article, but that is the only way to go to correct the problem. Coldbud 18:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
User:Coldbud is a sockpuppet of a banned user. Andjam 04:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If I thought that removing merely the copyrighted text was the solution, I'd do so. But as far as I can tell, any derivative work of a copyright violation is itself a copyright violation, so removing the copyrighted portion doesn't work. Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Instructions seems to say you should revert, not merely edit. However, to clarify things I've asked for clarification here. Andjam 21:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/u/Talk%7ECouncil_on_American-Islamic_Relations_5c01.html"