Talk:Council on American-Islamic Relations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Islam
Islam Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the Shi'a Islam task force. (with unknown importance)
This article is supported by the Sunni Islam task force. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] WorldNetDaily and FrontPageMag not reliable news sources

I have recently removed several references because they go to unreliable sources. My edits only remove WorldNetDaily and FrontPageMag when used as sources for "news." It should be noted that placing a news article in the criticism section does not make the source itself a piece of criticism. For example, a news piece from FrontPagMag about a court case involving CAIR and an anti-CAIR website is not a reliable source for criticism of CAIR. The reliability issue was raised on Talk:Islam in the United States and on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard where unanimously a slew of uninvolved editors agreed with each other in that WorldNetDaily and FrontPageMAg were not reliable sources for news. I will not revert war over this but I believe that these standards should be upheld and editors should be doing everything they can to ensure source reliability. Please don't simply revert back without taking these points into consideration. Thank you.PelleSmith 13:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I restored the FPM links, which were appropriate. All but one were used in the criticism section, and its perfectly appropriate to use FPM there. The other ref was this: "Saudi Gazette, November 2002 quoted in http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19241 Michael Graham, Killed in Action". It's just reproducing a fact printed in a reliable news publication, the Saudi Gazette. If you really care, this can simply be replaced by a direct reference to the Saudi Gazette, but I'm not sure that's online. And if people from other discussions on other pages want to come here and discuss the specific use of specific publications in this article, they are free to do so. Sources are rarely blanket "reliable" or "unreliable" for any and all uses. - Merzbow 19:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
That's not true. The whole point of establishing source reliability is to do so for X, Y, or Z uses generically. Those sources are not reliable for "news," period. Are you actually arguing with that? I left the sources intact where they were actually printing a statement of critical opinion. I deleted them when they were printing a news story. If a source refers to someone else's criticism in reportage its news coverage, not criticism itself. In other words it is a secondary source. Neither of these sources are reliable as secondary sources (this also goes for reproducing another news source). Ontop of this, if you the editor take news reportage which is not itself overtly critical and interpret it as critical because it reports on something that could be used in criticism, like the fact that a CAIR official is arrested for X,Y, or Z reason then you are violating WP:OR. You the editor can only report on the criticism clearly stated by another individual, not engage in criticism yourself. That covers all my deletions. What do you have to say substantively to these points?PelleSmith 19:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Uhh read the FPM links you are deleting from the criticism section, they are criticism. You have no consensus for deleting FPM. - Merzbow 18:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I have read them and I have asserted that they are news pieces. Can you quote some of this supposed "criticism?" I should remind you again that if you take a piece of reportage and judge it to be critical, then the critical aspect comes from you and not the reportage, and that is OR. In other words if you would criticize CAIR because of the arrest of one of their officials that is OR. If the source issues a critical opinion based upon that fact then the source is being critical. Do you dispute this distinction? BTW consensus about source reliability isn't something one builds on entry talk pages. Again, sources are either considered reliable for a stated usage or they are not. This is an encyclopedia and not a collection of blogs. In fact you haven't argued against the claim that it is a reliable source for news. You are instead claiming its criticism and not news, so I don't really understand what consensus has to do with the present discussion at all. Please answer my points and if you are going to claim this is criticism then you should be able to prove it by quoting the text. I would rather not have to revert in order to get you to discuss this so please continue this discussion. Thanks.PelleSmith 18:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure.
  • CAIR Backs Down from Anti-CAIR - "With CAIR’s hopes of defeating its opponents in the legal arena at least temporarily defeated, the next step for those of us in North America unwilling to live under Islamic law is to thwart the organization’s social and political ambitions." Looks like criticism to me.
  • CAIR's Al Qeada Link Exposed - Look at the title. Neutral news articles do not say "<something's> link to <organization everyone agrees is evil> exposed". Also "CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad has openly expressed support for Hamas suicide bombers."
  • "I don't really understand what consensus has to do with the present discussion at all". WP:CONSENSUS - "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making." - Merzbow 21:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
In the first point above I will concede that this one liner (and only that one liner), found at the very end of a section after the news piece called "comments" implies criticism of CAIRs "political agenda," which is what is being sourced. That's a pretty ridiculous stretch (especially given that I'm sure there a much more relevant criticisms made by Daniel Pipes), but yes it does seem to be an expression of criticism. Good job. In the second point there is nothing critical there at all and that is why you have failed to quote anything critical. You are taking a news piece that states what FrontPageMag is presenting as fact and insinuating or stating that these supposed facts are the basis of criticism, but what I asked you to show me was how the article is itself critical. "CAIRs Al Queda Link Exposed" is not a criticism, it is a statement that is meant to be taken factually and the same goes for "CAIR Executive Director Hihad Awad has openly expressed support for Hamas suicide bombers". Those are both statements of supposed fact. Neither express any criticism of that fact. Surely FrontPageMag wants you to be critical of these "facts" but again such criticism would be OR. You're supposed answer to this is simply a distraction. You quote statements presented as facts and say that they aren't neutral. Well no-one said that FPM's news coverege was neutral, in fact that's a big part of why its unreliable as a news source--thanks for pointing that out. The fact remains that these statements and that news piece is not "criticism". As for WP:CONSENSUS, I think we all know what that policy states, so thanks for your out of context quotation and insinuation. My point is that this debate has never been one regarding consensus but one regarding the nature of the articles I deleted. I am claiming they are news pieces and you are claiming they are criticism. The misdirection is unappreciated.PelleSmith 21:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you're right, the factual statements should be moved out of 'Criticism'. (SEWilco 23:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC))
"My point is that this debate has never been one regarding consensus but one regarding the nature of the articles I deleted." Good to know that you have no intention of respecting WP:CONSENSUS. BTW, you're still wrong, "CAIRs Al Queda Link Exposed" is obviously criticism, it is phrased in a patently non-neutral manner, which is what criticism is. - Merzbow 01:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I respect consensus and I haven't been reverting you while we are having this discussion. The point is that consensus already exists regarding the reliability issue and you can follow the links I provided initially. You have never argued against the reliability issue either. Our discussion has been about the nature of those articles. Please stop misdirecting the discussion to make me seem like someone unwilling to conform to Wikipedia policy. Please also acquaint yourself with what criticism is. POV reportage is not criticism. That's just simply false.PelleSmith 13:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
"In other contexts, the term describes hostility or disagreement with the object of criticism." Hmm. "CAIRs Al Queda Link Exposed". Yup, sounds like hostility or disagreement. Your argument might have merit if there was any distinction on FrontPageMag's site between different types of articles. There isn't. Everything is all in one pile. There is no "news" section opposed to an "op/ed" section. And it's all explicitly critical of the Left - that's the purpose of the site. - Merzbow 17:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Now you're joking right? I mean this is unbelievably ridiculous--what disagreement or hostility are you talking about? That statement is presented "factually." I'm going to seek further opinions on the RS noticeboard because this is reaching absurd proportions.PelleSmith 19:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Do whatever you gotta do man. Note that attempts to canvass people who you think agree with you to come here and edit aren't allowed, so I hope that's not what you're planning. - Merzbow 20:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to get anyone over here to edit. I'm trying to purge a clearly unreliable source from this entry. The RS Noticeboard is a place where one goes to ask for impartial commentary on sourcing, not where one canvasses to support a POV. If any of the people commenting on this issue over there were the usual POV pushers your little cadre of POV pushers normally spars against I'm sure you'd know them well, but I doubt you will find that to be the case. By the way, what's your problem with the desire to conform to basic reliability guidelines and principles?PelleSmith 23:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't respond to incivility. Good day. - Merzbow 01:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry, your pattern of "response" speaks for itself. I have nothing more to say about it.PelleSmith 04:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: The ongoing discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard can be found here. I hope these non-involved views will help clarify the issue.PelleSmith 23:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The dicussion is not over whether to use FPM as news but as criticism. Nobody there has said it can't. - Merzbow 01:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
No the discussion is as to whether news coverage in FPM is reliable for anything, which it isn't. Also, the discussion on the RS noticeboard has just started so hold your horses.PelleSmith 02:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
And to clarify, what you are continually trying to do is to use news coverage as criticism.PelleSmith 02:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Their opinions will be taken into consideration, but foremost responsibility for an article's content likes with its editors and the primary venue for discussion is the article's talk page. - Merzbow 04:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a content dispute but a source dispute. What content have I altered or proposed to alter? It isn't even a question of whether or not certain types of statements can be sourced or not, but about the use of one specific media outlet. Your continued misdirection continues to be unappreciated.PelleSmith 13:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, I don't respond to incivility. - Merzbow 17:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the verify credibility tag about criticism of the CAIR trying to supress Criticism of Islamic terrorism and intolerant as being anti-Muslim, because even if Daniel Pipes and Jihad watch are not valid sources for news, they still made the criticism, a subjective criticism to begin with, not a fact, and therefore the criticism has been made by people with somewhat influential voices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtbob12 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I see people are still paying attention. The important thing is that a) that is made clear in the text if one or both grouops say both things and b) their biases are exposed, or at least alleged, as I did with NPOV balancing quotes. Carol Moore 02:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

[edit] Apparently unbalanced sources

I've noticed that negative claims about this organization are sourced to a heavy preponderance of Washington Times, Daniel Pipes, National Review / New Republic editorials, and yes, even FrontPageMagazine despite the repeatedly established consensus that they areFPM is a non-reliable source of dubious value if any.

Now, we do have some articles from mainstream, reliable sources like the New York Times, but they report that the criticisms exist rather than making the criticisms themselves. Indeed, the New York Times piece "Scrutiny Increases for a Group Advocating for Muslims in U.S." ([1]) states that "A small band of critics have made a determined but unsuccessful effort to link it to Hamas and Hezbollah..." and quotes a retired FBI terrorism specialist saying, "there is probably more suspicion about CAIR, but when you ask people for cold hard facts, you get blank stares". It notes that "law enforcement officials" pointed out that CAIR was never formally accused of anything by the government, even though "any hint of suspicious behavior would have resulted in a racketeering charge". It notes that "some pro-Israeli lobbyists have created what one official called a “cottage industry” of attacking the group and anyone dealing with it."

Yet, we seem to be ignoring this view in favor of the "cottage industry"'s wild and offensive claims. It is very unfortunate and needs to be corrected. <eleland/talkedits> 18:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)strikeout for clarity 19:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

NYT, Newsweek, New Republic, National Review, WashTimes are all reliable and notable sources. Some mention of this belongs in the lead. This issue was decisively beaten to death in an earlier discussion. - Merzbow 19:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Will you drop the smokescreen, please? The NYT piece tears the "CAIR/terorrism connection theory" to shreds, and I'm not objecting to its reliability. Perhaps my comments were unclear; National Review and TNR editorials are to an extent reliable. The question is one of WP:UNDUE weight. We are currently ignoring the strongly expressed view of reliable sources including the Times that CAIR is a victim of spurious accusations from partisans. Instead, we're prominently featuring those partisan accusations. Perhaps you managed to "beat to death" well-founded policy arguments earlier, but I'm afraid that kind of a mob mentality won't be allowed to fly unchallenged. <eleland/talkedits> 19:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Your lack of WP:CIVIL is not endearing me to your cause. Again, the NYT is the only piece that belittles the critics. Other reliable sources do not, thus the NYT opinion is in the minority. - Merzbow 21:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any violation of WP:CIVIL. If you think another editor is violating WP:CIVIL have them warned or take other appropriate action. In entry talk pages these types of comments about incivility only serve the purpose of attempting to tarnish another editors character or throwing up a smokescreen over a poor argument. Lets stick to the issues, and like I said if you find something problematic about another editors behavior take appropriate action. Cheers.PelleSmith 01:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll be glad to bring your incivility to an RFC if you start doing it again (as in the above section). I'm happy to see that for the moment you've stopped. - Merzbow 03:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
What are you waiting for? Lets see this RFC. If you're glad to do it, and I'm happy to see you do it then there should be nothing stopping you. Can't wait. Cheers.PelleSmith 03:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
One source, one vote, is it? The NYT is the most influential newspaper in the world, and that was a news article rather than an opinion piece. The factual claims all came from US government anti-terror experts. Do you really think that's overwhelmed by a bunch of op-eds in conservative magazines and fringe newspapers? <eleland/talkedits> 22:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Since when is Newsweek a "fringe" newspaper? Senator Boxer herself wished to be disassociated from this group because of the criticisms of it. And it's US prosecutors who named CAIR an "unindicted co-conspirator" in terrorist funding. - Merzbow 03:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The nation comment

This comment does not belong, because it is a libel against Pipes in general, not from CAIR, nor is it a response to his comment on CAIR. It is therefore irrelevant to this article, and is clearly an attempt to libel Pipes, and therefore violates WP:BLP. Yahel Guhan 05:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CAIR's Loss of Non-Profit Status vis a vis IRS 501(C)3.

Is there any evidence of CAIR's loss of tax exempt (non-profit)status, other than anecdotal evidence?Mark Preston (talk) 05:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The CAIR web site states it is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization. The DC.gov corporate registration says the organization is active, but does not mention the tax status. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The IRS charity list [2] has "Cair Foundation Inc., Washington, DC" with an advance ruling expiration date "Until December 2009". -- SEWilco (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

So it is then true that CAIR no longer qualified under 501(c)4, only (c)3? and why has this changed -- anybody know?Mark Preston (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "terrrorist-associated"

Why is there such an insistence on having "terrorist-associated" in the introduction? The article specifically says that CAIR is a "co-conspirator in a terrorism case", which better reflects exactly what is going on with them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the sentence, from the Washington Times:
"CAIR is among several hundred Muslim groups listed as unindicted co-conspirators in a recent federal terrorism trial in Dallas into activities by the Holy Land Foundation Inc., a group linked to funding the Palestinian Hamas terrorist group."
This by no means justifies labeling the group as "terrorist-associated" in the first sentence of the lead. I'm removing it now because it is a tenuous link and an unduly weighted POV.PelleSmith (talk) 05:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Please note that this is already included in the lead: "CAIR has faced criticism from opponents who claim that the organization and its leadership have ties to Islamist groups and ideologies.[3][4][5]" Utilizing "terrorist-associated" as some objective descriptor of the group is clearly not NPOV. If someone doesn't feel that "Islamist groups and ideologies" is descriptive enough then perhaps work on changing the phrase, but it should be presented in this fashion.PelleSmith (talk) 05:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I've no severe objection, but I think you did it in a rushed fashion not waiting for responses from the other side. Also, you removed the provided source (bad form!), so I've added the provided source back on the "CAIR has faced criticism" paragraph. M1rth (talk) 05:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe it is bad form at all to edit boldly, particularly in such a clear cut situation. If a reference is added along with a piece of content and the content doesn't belong then it is up to editors who believe that the reference has relevance somewhere else to add it back in. Bad form is using a phrase like "terrorist associated" in the first few words of an entry about a, be it mildly controversial, non-profit organization that has no clear cut or strong ties to terrorism. Thankfully this project strives to be a NPOV encyclopedia as opposed to the anti-Muslim blogsphere of conservative commentators hell bent on perpetuating a clash of civilizations. My point being that we should find ways to present critical facts objectively, and in due weight proportionate to the subject matter.PelleSmith (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I agree with Pelle. That is an very serious allegation involving a real organization. That is not something to be taken lightly, especially given that all the edit warring has been over that wording. If the provided sources doesn't offer anything more than an excuse for a bad name-calling, it isn't necessary there; it was good for something else, it should have linked elsewhere, Mirth. Sources aren't just supposed to be somewhere on the page and then you can use language everywhere. Frankly, using it in a sentence like "faced criticism" is equally bad. Why not just be specific? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Please calm down, I'm not insisting the wording be added back in, but I merely object to the removal of a valid source completely rather than refactoring or moving the source appropriately. That seems just as POV to me as putting the words "terrorist-associated" in the article.

Question, however: should the record of a US court be valid? This one from federal prosecutors, page 58 says "Moreover, from its founding by Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists." Also possible but weaker (though deserving of a mention in the criticism section if nothing else) is the accusations of Rep. Sue Myrick and the Anti-Terrorism/Jihad Caucus of the US House of Representatives; an interview in Investor's Business Daily in which she said "There was a lot of evidence presented at the recent Holy Land Foundation trial, which exposed CAIR, ISNA and others as front groups for the Muslim Brotherhood." The first seems more than just a "criticism." M1rth (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

How about "The US government alleges conspires with Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists...." [note that the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't explicitly list them as terrorists, just connected], and "Myrick says that they are front groups for the Brotherhood." Saying "critics say ...." actually weakens the criticism against them (as it could just be like run-of-the-mill critics complaining). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


It's unfortunate that Mirth is using his narrow POV to deny balance to the CAIR article and keeps reverting any legitimate changes. If you make cited statements against CAIR in the first opening paragraphs, then they deserve to be equally balanced with cited statements showing the contrary. You reversed Eleland's legitimate addition of the following:

"CAIR has called the allegations urban legends[1], and the New York Times quotes U.S. government officials describing "the standards used by critics to link CAIR to terrorism as akin to McCarthyism."[2]"

Why? This perfectly provides a neutral tone to the opening of the article, with both sides shown. Here is another example, of a simple one I made to the end of a sentence to provide a proper balance, which Mirth reverted:

"and says that the money received was a fee CAIR charged for public relations consulting, and that it came months after the creation of CAIR.[3]"

I'm going to restore these balanced edits, with the hope that they will not be reverted. Kahmed (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed the edit, and the edits you support constitute WP:OR and fail WP:V; they fail to accurately describe the source which you claim supports them. Please re-read WP:NPOV as well. M1rth (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I have read those links, and the edits made were cited, verifiable and are not dubious (CAIR PDF document and NY Times). Conversely, your recent edit seems to be very POV. Why are you against any type of balance against serious allegations? Kahmed (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You cite a NYT article which does not, on the whole, say what you claim it says. That is misrepresenting a source via selective citation (aka Contextomy). Without your NYT spot, the CAIR PDF is mere first-person sourcing and fails. Again, please read the policies and get a better understanding of what it is you are doing. M1rth (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I will review them again ... in the meantime, how do your edits meet the WP:OR and WP:V?? The Investigative Project is NOT a reliable source, but is at par with FrontPageMag and WorldNetDaily and other pseudo-publications. Any level-headed person will see this. That leaves you with an Investor's Business Daily opinion piece by Paul Sperry, an unreliable source in the same pseudo-publications category. Sperry is published largely in WorldNetDaily and FrontPageMag, and has no mainstream independent expertise, and is nothing more than first-person opinion. I suggest you follow the rules you purport to place on me and others. If Sperry's opinion is included, then so can CAIR's PDF on what it calls 'Urban Legends'. Lastly, I suggest ForeverFreeSpeech be reprimanded for violationg WP:CIV by inappropriately calling me an "Hamasshole". Do you tolerate that? Kahmed (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion of cited material

Forever, ignoring the massively uncivil edit summary, why did you reverse that cited material? The Omar Ahmad part I understand (his name is spelled "Omar" in the linked PDF, but why aren't you or M1rth allowing the inclusion of any cited information from CAIR itself? It is vastly approaching WP:OWN concerns with you two. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've warned ForeverFreeSpeech about civility before. With that being said, I've already shown what's wrong with the stuff Kahmed/Eleland is trying to push above. It fails WP:NPOV, WP:V, particularly in being a rather poor cherry-picked misrepresentation of a source. And I didn't appreciate the veiled personal attack on my talk page either. M1rth (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Mirth, you are incorrect in your assessment. It is not cherry picking and misrepresenting a source. The NYT article clearly related the cited quote, and it remains in the context of CAIR being accused of radical links. So I don't see how you can even begin to say otherwise. Secondly, if you are using sources like pseudo-journalists and disreputable pseudo-publications, then the CAIR PDF, which directly answers the allegations, needs to be included to meet the [[WP:NPOV}} standards. What you are currently suggesting is a violation of W:NPOV. The cited edits that were made by Eleland and myself do not violate Wiki standards, as you maintain. Kahmed (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You still have yet to explain why the one specific quote, when countered by many other quotes in the article, somehow stands as the quote to be used. That is misrepresenting a source. M1rth (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty simple, folks. We have a bunch of Israel-aligned lobby groups pushing the "CAIR = terrorism!" view, and we have the most respected newspaper in the world quoting numerous US government officials, each speaking independently of the other, noting that the standards used to link CAIR to terror are akin to McCarthyism. There's no "cherry picking," there's no misrepresentation of the source. Reliable sources don't treat the CAIR-terror link as something proven or even credible. It's a smear. <eleland/talkedits> 23:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Gaahhh, this article is a disaster. Looking over the reference list, it's all Washington Times, New Republic, Daniel Pipes up the wazoo... There's a claim that "The US federal government has accused the government of being one of many groups that conspires with the Muslim Brotherhood to assist terrorists," the sources cited to back it are an interview with a fundamentalist Christian US congresswoman, and a court document in which the prosecuting attorney tries to discredit a CAIR brief by claiming that CAIR and the defendant have a "shared background that limits their membership to those of a particular political bent, and undercuts their credibility." What utter bilge. <eleland/talkedits> 00:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
You're not helping your case behaving like that and making attacks upon people, Eleland. M1rth (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
And you're not making your case at all, M1rth. <eleland/talkedits> 19:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I've made mine. You seem to think dropping code-words and calling people names is a valid response. M1rth (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The only "names" I've called anybody here are entirely accurate - Congresswoman Myrick is a member of the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, an evangelical Methodist, and a promoter of a bizarro-world conspiracy theory in which a Muslim infiltration-coup of U.S. society is in its advanced stages. Your accusation of "code words" is unspecific and unhelpful. Again, these people do not belong in the lede. They are segments of highly biased opinion. A report from the world's premier newspaper, quoting numerous US law enforcement officials all making the same point about "McCarthyism," is ideally placed in contrast to the "CAIR = terror" accusations. <eleland/talkedits> 18:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

M1rth I suggest you do not repeat edits like these inserting unsourced and POV material into the lead. If you do want to insert unsourced POV, do so in the sandbox.Bless sins (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll repeat my concern. How in the world does CAIR itself violate WP:V? That is what they claim. Your accusations of "code words" are very hollow. Again, I'm am going to correct the article so that it is more specific than just random "critics claim this, critics claim that" when it is clearly from a few specific critics. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unsupported

The last paragraph in the article "At times, CAIR has been accused of portraying events that are not hate crimes, as such..." is unsupported (two dead links). I will wait for a while (maybe someone will provide evidence) then I'll remove the whole paragraph.Hamdan2 (talk) 06:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems someone undid my removal of the unsupported text mentioned above without citing working references to support the allegations. I will undo the undo (meaning redo :) ) the deletion.--Hamdan2 (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge of CAIR and Criticism of CAIR

Why are these seperate? CAIR has been accused by many of being a Jihhadist, terrorists supporting organization hiding behind a mask of civil rights. Saksjn (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Accused? That is exactly what they are. I'm actually surprised that this article is not protected though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.128.185 (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else have a comment on this. Cause if no one does, I'll go ahead and start the merge. Saksjn (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. The criticism section in this article has been trimmed and cleaned, it would unbalance the article to add more to it (without expanding the rest of the article first). I suggest cleaning up the Criticism sub-article, it's a mess. - Merzbow (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] new source

[3] Zeq (talk) 06:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why is the nuetrality questioned?

It is well documented and sourced that CAIR has had terrorism ties. Just because we state that doesn't mean its not nuetral. Saksjn (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The current version is vaguely acceptable. Previous versions, upon which I placed the tag, were a lot worse. We're still devoting too much weight, IMO, to completely political and tendentious sources criticising CAIR, but it doesn't need a "totallydisputed" tag at the top now. I'll put an undie tag in the criticism section. <eleland/talkedits> 19:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the section should probably be shrunk a bit, perhaps by a third. Certainly I immediately see some things not important enough for the main article. - Merzbow (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I finished my cleanup. I don't think anything I did should be too controversial. - Merzbow (talk) 03:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Nicely done. If additional shortening is ever required, I suggest we prune those parts of the section that make general comments rather than specific accusations. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The criticism section is very well sourced, if you can provide unbiased sources to show that there is a good size group of people that consider CAIR to be non-controversial, then you can add the tag; but if you can't give us some sources, the tag needs to be removed. Saksjn (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The rest of the article certainly needs more sourcing and cleaning up too. This will also help lessen the contrast with the criticism section. - Merzbow (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Specific rebuttal

I restored the "CAIR responds by arguing that only one former employee was arrested on a non-terrorism weapons charge, and that this took place after the period of his employment by CAIR" response. This is because this response is more specific towards the charge made.

The other response is a generic response aimed at most criticism in general. If we were to talk of general criticism, then the response may have been appropriate. However, we are specifically talking of the connection to terrorism, so that response seems to be more appropriate.Bless sins (talk) 06:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

There is not one single charge made by the critics; for example, that specific response does not address the "ideology" charge. The lead needs to be kept general. - Merzbow (talk) 06:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
As I said in my comment above, the charge bieng made is regarding ties to terrorist organizations and ideologies (Critics say that the organization and its leadership have ties to Islamic terrorist organizations and ideologies). Their rebuttal is in response to charges of terrorism.Bless sins (talk) 06:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, the response that you posted is only a response to the specific charge that "Former CAIR employees and board members have been arrested, convicted, deported, or otherwise linked to terrorism-related charges and activities." This is from CAIR's own document. It is not a response to "Some law enforcement officials have asserted that CAIR aids terrorists", or "CAIR has not condemned Hamas or Hezbollah", other things from the document. Or "ties to ideology", the other general charge in the lead. The mess that's in the lead now is simply poor editing. - Merzbow (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)