Talk:Canadian Arab Federation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have returned this page to my original design but I have removed the references to Tarek Fatah's blog since, as was correctly pointed out, blogs are not considered acceptable references. However, the rest of my writing is properly sourced and referenced. If somebody disagrees with what I have written, please provide an explanation here (on the talk).(Hyperionsteel 23:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC))

Please read WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP. These are Wikipedia policies that deal with how we present information in a neutral and reliable fashion. You cannot write:

Mouammar is extremely anti-Israel and repeatedly uses loaded and polemical language whenever the topic of Israel comes into play in the public or media.

This is editorializing and is not written from a neutral point of view. It's also original research. Not one of the sources you have provided says that.

Many of your edits that I removed were removed for this same reason. I am going to restore my version and ask that you think about the policies I have pointed out to you with regard to the material you are attempting to reinsert. Thanks. Tiamut 18:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed some comments you claim to be editorial but I am keeping the rest. I've properly cited all sources, many of which were written by Mouammar himself.

In particular, I see that you removed the paragraph that noted that the Canadian Press obtained an email sent out by Mouammar which included the flyer - despite the fact that Mouammar claimed that he had no role in distributing it. The source for this is a CTV news, which is one of the largest news organizations in Canada.

Also, the quotes I cite regarding Zafar Bangash were, in the most part - written by him (which is why I've kept them)

I would like to state that I think you are misintrepriting the meaning of "neutral" with regard to Wikipedia. Neutral refers to the format in which the information presented. It does not mean that the information itself must be altered to appear neutral. I suggest you think about that.

If you must remove my material, please explain in more detail why my sources are incorrect/insufficient. If you feel I am taking a quote out of context, please specifiy what context I should take them in. S

Simply writted broad statements is not sufficient, in my view, to justify removing specific material. (Hyperionsteel 22:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC))

I've tried to incorporate the Canadian Press info and your new source from the Senate. But I don't agree with how you've formulated the wording. It is not per the sources you have cited. Also, the Zafar Bangash section is pure original research (which goes against WP:NOR) and seems to be based on the themes raised in that very one-sided editorial by Licia Corbella. It is not WP:NPOV to give one person's take on an issue so much prominence. Please keep reading the policies and try "writing for the enemy". Tiamut 21:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I plan to revisit my sources on Zafar Bangash. In particular, I think this article should mention Bangash's 2001 article in which he concludes by calling for the explusion of Jews from Israel (you can read it for yourself here if you don't believe me: http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/movement01/pal-move.htm Hyperionsteel 23:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC))

This article is about CAF, not Bangash. Take your war with Bangash somewhere else. 142.214.60.130 (talk) 15:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Bangash's views are indeed relevant to this article. Khaled Mouammar has stated that Bangash is "a man of dignity" who has not used the term "kuffar." However, Bangash's views, and his use of the term "kuffar" are freely available online (at a website he routinely writes for). This shows that Mouammar is either lying or is unaware of Bangash's views.

Neither Bangash nor Mouammar are the subject of this article. This article is about the Canadian Arab Federation. It's not the place for your extended analysis of Bangar and his views and Mouammar's position on them. A brief mention of the controversy (i.e. derived from the one article written on the subject by a right-wing journalist) with a link to the article is sufficient coverage of this issue. Anything else is WP:UNDUE. Please also read WP:BLP again. I don't think you actually understood it (if you did indeed read it per my previous recommendations) the last time. Tiamut 13:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Mouammar, in his capacity as President of the CAF, gave an award to Zafar Bangash. It is correct to point out Bangash's views by directly citing his own writings. This information is very relevant because Mouammar claimed that Bangash is a "man of dignity" who has not used the term kuffar. I am directly citing Bangash's own writings to prove that Mouammar is either lying or is misinformed. Citing Bangash's own writings is more appropriate than citing a journalist's column in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperionsteel (talk • contribs) 03:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No it is not. Please read WP:OR. You cannot make original conclusions by putting A and B together. We are not analysts, just reporters. And we use reliable sources only when we compile our reports. The article by Corbella is blatantly biased and an op-ed style piece. It's hardly a reliable source. Further, this article is not about Mouammar. It's about the CAF. If you want to write an article about Mouammar, please do so under Khaled Mouammar. But before you do, please read WP:BLP. I don't know how many times I have to direct you to these policies before you take heed of them. Tiamut 03:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe that Mouammar didn't know about Bangash's views and his writings. But even if he didn't know, evidence of Bangash's true views should be put forward. This is not a "hack and slash" job but rather a series of quotes, taken in context, from Bangash's writings. This is more accurate than a brief summation by a journalist.(Hyperionsteel 03:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC))

Acutally again, it is not more accurate and it's called original research. You have no idea if Mouammar read those pieces by Bangash or not. You cannot cut and paste together a bunch of Bangash's writing an imply that Mouammar share or condones those views without a reliable source reporting on that. Again, this article is about a Canadian NGO and not Mouammar ande not Bangash. Please stop disrupting Wikipedia by adding unreliable, original research of tangential relevance to this article. Tiamut 10:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disrupting Wikipedia, and don't lecture me, Tiamut. I'm high-lighting the fact that the CAF gave an award to Bangash. CAF President Mouammar specifically stated that Bangash has not used the term "kuffar." I have cited Bangash's own writings which are freely available on the Internet in which he uses the term "kuffar." Thus, Mouammar was lying or was unaware of Bangash's true views. Either way, I have a right to point this out. I've cited Bangash's own writings on a website he routinely writes for - explain to me how that is unreilable. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC))

You are indeed being disruptive. You keep ignoring that the fact that CAF gave an award to Bangash is already amply represented in the version I keep restoring. (See here.) I have explained to you a number of times that neither Mouammar nor Bangash are the subject of this article. The granting by CAF of an award to Bangash and the criticism of that by one right-wing commentator deserve a brief mention perhaps, but nothing more. Also, please read WP:OR. Stop using Bangash's writings as primary source material to make your own conclusions. Tiamut 14:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, let me spell it out for you. The CAF President, acting in that capacity, gave an award to an Bangash and defended him from criticism that he is an Islamist and an extremist. It is not disruptive to point this out by citing specific writings which are more accurate than a journalist's rehash. The CAF opened the door for this when they gave out this award.

You seem to express doubt that the "right-wing commentator" is credible since you refer to her by that term. I am citing Bangash's own original writings. Therefore, it seems I am more interested in accuracy than you are. Citing original writings is not "original research" and is a commonly used practice throughout Wikipedia. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC))

Please read WP:BLP. Specifically:

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons (BLP) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.

This is not the place for your extended WP:OR analysis or editorializing about whether or not Mouammar lied and whether or not Bangash is an extremist. (Both of which are already mentioned in the article, by the way.) Your additions seem to be designed to make a case that Mouammar and Bangash are bad men. That's not in line with WP:NPOV. And it's also not what this article is about. This article is about the Canadian Arab Federation. One article on an award granted by the CAF to Bangash isn't enough to qualify it as an incredibly notable event. It certainly doesn't deserve more mention that it already has in the article. (Read also WP:UNDUE.) Tiamut 22:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Zafar Bangash refers to non-Muslims in a derogatory manner, supports the fundamentalist regime in Iran, seeks the destruction of Israel and the explusion of its Jewish population. Protraying him as a "bad man" is not very difficult.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC))

BANGASH IS NOT THE SUBJECT OF THIS ARTICLE. And even if he were, your opinion that he is "a bad man", it not relevant here. We write information on people on in a neutral fashion, per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. We do not relish in picking and choosing the quotes we think best make the case that they are bad people. Please cease your axe-grinding. Tiamut 14:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Bangash is not the subject of this article, but the CAF gave him an award and defended him against criticism - which makes Bangash's views very relevant. If you think I'm taking Bangash's quotes out of context, feel free to explain what context they should be taken in. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 02:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC))

The award to Bangash is already ocvered in the article. I think we're done here. Tiamut 03:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)