Talk:Council on American-Islamic Relations/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Terrorism 2 Funding of June 2006 campaign 3 Book donations by CAIR 4 problems External Links Section 5 Description of group incorrect 6 Neutrality 7 CAIR's "Urban Legends" 8 Projects Section 9 Major reversion due to copyright problems 10 excellent resource for more info 11 Lead 11.1 Convenience break 12 CAIR's Legal Position 13 Changes 14 Other articles

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'm concerned that the first sentence of this article doesn't even tell the reader CAIR's purpose before it begins criticizing. Isn't there a separate article for CAIR criticism? I think that a lot of the content on this page (including the external links to criticism) should be relocated there, and that this page should focus on CAIR's mission and projects, linking to the criticism page. As it stands, wikipedia basically has two CAIR criticism pages. It would be better to either merge the pages and have a more extensive criticism section in this page, while leaving the rest of the content more neutral, or to move the critical content from this page to the existing CAIR criticism page. CAIR is not an indisputably shady organization; many organizations, individuals and news soucres have positive things to say about it. A balanced article or set of articles would include these. Digopheliadug 12:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I have (once again it would seem) added a NPOV tag to this article. In it's present form it does not conform to the Neutral Point of View principle as specified here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view.

It needs to be cleaned up by someone that has read and understood the paragraphs listed below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Balance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Fairness_of_tone

The sources listed below all has a well known (and in most cases open) conservative / right-wing bias / worldview. National Review is THE conservative opinion journal. Daniel Pipes is a self appointed Crusader against Islamism and arguably (in my opinion) a modern Joe McCarthy. The same goes for Robert Spencer and David Horowitz of Jihad Watch.

Furthermore f ex David Horowitz is involved in FrontPageMag (Editor), Jihad Watch (frequent contributor), National Review (frequent contributor). Robert Spencer, David Horowitz and Daniel Pipes constitutes a club for mutual appriciation. Having these guys contribute half the sources for this page hardly helps for avoiding issues like balance, undue weight and fairness of tone.

None of these sources can fairly be characterized as either reliable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS) or unbiased.

WorldNetDaily http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Net_Daily

Washington Times http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Times#Alleged_news_bias

Daniel Pipes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pipes

FrontPageMag http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontpagemag#Criticism

National Review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Review

Jihad Watch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad_Watch

In my view these sources need to be replaced (ideally) with sources about CAIR from the so-called MSM (main stream media) that are generally considered reliable or they should be balanced (then at least we have a he said she said situation which would be marginally better) with some voices from the other end of the ideological spectrum.

Good luck!

--RandySpears 13:12, 24 August 2007 (CET)

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)

-That's about as lopsided and biased as they come. I'll remember to ask a child abuser for reasons why they beat children and take them as fact. - Me76.236.133.162 05:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

excellent resource for more info

http://www.meforum.org/article/916

It's too POV to serve as a cite, but it's packed with its 141 footnotes straight to the sources. Guanxi 19:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead

The NYT is used a reference for the statement in the leads; that article specifically discusses a "small band of critics" making a "determined but unsuccessful effort" to link CAIR to terrorism. Any mention of these allegations in the lead should not misquote or misrepresent reliable sources. Hornplease 17:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The article mention what the criticism has in general been about, and what the critics in most cases has been pointing towards. This is what we should also be discussing in the lead section, and not relatively minor issues, such as the specific allegations regarding CAIR's possible relations to Hamas and Hizbollah. -- Karl Meier 20:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

How does "CAIR has often been accused of having ties to and supporting violent extremists in the Middle East." misquote the source? Your version is POV-pushing, selectively quoting to attack the accusations. I don't think Karl's version is any better, BTW. The lead should simply mention the fact that critics have made these accusations, and the article body will discuss the merits. Let's just revert back to where it was and leave it be. - Merzbow 21:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

My version does seem to be slightly inappropriate in that it directly quoted the NYT. That being said, the lead should place "notable controversies" in context (a "brief description", according to the current, if disputed, version of the guideline). The only secondary source quoted in the article on the allegations about CAIR use the phrases I mentioned above; the lead should accurately reflect that these are viewed as marginal allegations. "Often been accused of having ties to and supporting" does not reflect (a) the position of these critics with respect to mainstream opinion and (b) the success of these criticisms, at least as far as reliable secondary sources claim. I am open to rewriting the lead in such a way that this is made clear. Hornplease 21:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

There are several references to additional articles reporting on or making this accusation, such as note 43, which is an article titled "One Muslim advocacy group's not-so-secret terrorist ties" from The New Republic, a major source. I'll try to rephrase it again with more refs. - Merzbow 00:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing the revamped section. Please do keep in mind that the lead must reflect the balance of opinions as a whole. Hornplease 01:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that I have just purchased and read the TNR article. It is of less moment to me than the NYT article because it is essentially a blog post on TNR online - the reference should be updated to reflect that - and, in fact, seems to be about the NYT article. Nowhere does it disagree with the Times' estimation of the number or the success of CAIR's accusers; it prefers to discuss the specific allegations. In addition, the post is written by an individual who volunteers the information that the FBI has "simply refused to read the materials on CAIR that I, and others, provided" on CAIR's connections. I think this counts as an opinion piece by an interested party rather than news reporting.

Given that, I continue to insist that the lead misrepresents the number of, and success of, allegations against CAIR.Hornplease 05:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Many more refs added, including a Newsweek article which gives pages to a discussion of these criticisms. When a solidly liberal senator withdraws an award to a Muslim group because of allegations of terror ties, then these allegations are noteworthy. "Boxer “expressed concern” about some past statements and actions by the group, as well as assertions by some law enforcement officials that it “gives aid to international terrorist groups,” according to Natalie Ravitz, the senator’s press spokeswoman." - Merzbow 17:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain how it contradicts the statement that I made about the TNR above: it does not discuss the "number or the success of CAIR's accusers; it prefers to discuss the specific allegations"? That's precisely what's happening here. The NYT pieces specifically discusses the critics as well as the criticism. Hornplease 17:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see your point. The numerous references now include both direct criticism and discussions of the critics. You can no longer support dismissing them with "a small number". - Merzbow 17:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Where do the articles contradict the NYT's assertion that they are a small number?Hornplease 17:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"small number" is a blanket characterization made by only one of about a half-dozen reliable sources referenced. If the critics could be dismissed as small in number, it's the journalistic responsibility of the reporters to mention that, yet only one article did, so this is a clear minority opinion among the sources. The solution is to quote the NYTimes article in the body of the text. - Merzbow 18:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The NYT piece is the only piece specifically addressing the critics in the context of views as a whole. The Newsweek piece, while informative about the specific criticism, does not in any way contradict the NYT piece. In other words, the only R Secondary S we have about the notability of criticism specifies that it is minimal and unsuccessful. Permitting any impression other than that in the lead seems inappropriate. Hornplease 21:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That's because all the other articles take the notability of the criticisms for granted, else Newsweek wouldn't be devoting a 4-page spread to them. Omission of an assertion by all but one source on a subject is not carte blanche to present the assertion as true; in fact, it is evidence that the assertion itself is not notable and/or is a minority opinion. - Merzbow 23:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The presence of an article on a particular criticism in a reliable source does indicate that that criticism is notable. It does not specify how notable. You are yet to present a reliable source that disagrees with the NYT's estimation as "small" and "unsuccessful". There have been a trillion articles on those who oppose the global warming hypothesis that do not specify "this view is not shared by any respectable member of the scientific community"; does that mean that each of those articles is saying the opposite? No, you need to find a reliable source that evaluates these critics in context other than the NYT; that is the only one that has been discovered which makes any statements at all about their relative size and importance. Hornplease 00:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

<outdent> You are unfairly restricting the definition of what constitutes evidence of notability far enough to just include the single article that supports your POV. A major article about criticisms of something is an implicit positive statement about the notability of said criticisms, unless it states otherwise. Every major article on global warming deniers states that it is a minority scientific opinion. Out of all the articles about criticisms of CAIR, however, you can point to a grand total of one that characterize the critics as a small group. Frankly I find endless wrangling over weasel words like "most", "many", or "small" to be highly unproductive. Small compared to what? Many compared to what? Their only use seems to be to disparage or praise something the editor doesn't like or likes. Let's just leave them out, please. - Merzbow 00:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concern about that sort of endless wrangling. The only thing that concerns me more is the misrepresentation of sources. In this case, I read the Newsweek article carefully, and the only line that suggested to me that these critics of CAIR are different than what the NYT suggested was the single anon source that the authors quoted within the FBI indicating that the presence of FBI officers at CAIR meeting had been extensively discussed within the bureau. Other than that, may I point out that all you have so far presented is inference. I do not disagree that 'small set' or something might be improved; I merely wish the 'brief description' of CAIR's 'notable controversies' that WP:LEAD mandates be accurately reflective of the only reliable source on the size and effectiveness of its critics.

You misunderstand my point about an article about global warming, but let it go.

Further, I suggest you abandon your prejudice about what my POV is. For your information, if tomorrow evidence emerges on the front page of the NYT that large amounts of money have been seen to flow from accounts adminstered by CAIR to accounts connected to shady figures in Pakistan, I wouldn't be in the least surprised. So I recommend that you avoid any further assumptions of this sort, as they destroy any good feeling one might have towards fellow-editors. I'd ask you to withdraw the accusation that I'm not editing in good faith, but I don't know whether that serves any purpose. I think it would be best if you stopped thinking like that, however. Hornplease 01:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that other reliable sources on the same subject do not characterize the group of critics as small is equally important to convey to the reader. If you want to add the sentence "A NYTimes article on CAIR controversies states that its critics are a small group", I am equally justified adding the sentence "A Newsweek article on CAIR controversies does not state that its critics are a small group". The omission of the characterization conveys just as much information about the "size and effectiveness of the critics" as a characterization. - Merzbow 02:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

THe omission of any discussion of X is hardly the same as "not X". Hornplease 02:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"Small group of critics" is an opinion presented by one source out of many. It is not corroborated by any other reliable source listed on the subject. That's as simple as I can make it. - Merzbow 02:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"Small group of critics" is the only reliable opinion on the subject. Everything else is your own inference. None of the other sources discuss the issue at all. That is similarly simple.Hornplease 04:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

A major article about a subject that does not impugn that subject's notability means it is notable. That's common sense. I guess we'll just have to disagree. - Merzbow 05:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

For heaven's sake! A major article can easily be written about a critic of X without discussing the degree to which X's criticisms have been successful overall. This article did precisely that. It discussed exactly two critics: bloggers Kaufman and Horowitz. All it said was that a flap was caused by Boxer withdrawing a citation. Then the validity of the blogger's claims was discussed. What was notable was that Boxer withdrew the citation. Yes. We are told why as well: she read a blog. Be honest: where in the article is a claim made that these criticisms are not made by a "small number" of activists? Appealing to common sense is fine, but occasionally that overrated virtue has to be defended. (At least I tend to think of it as so.)Hornplease 05:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Still no response..... Hornplease 09:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No reason to go over the same points for the 40th time. We discussed it, we disagree, and your opinion appears to be in the minority of active editors to the page. - Merzbow 04:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Really? I seem to read talkpage archives and see something different about that last part. In any case, I don't think we discussed it sufficiently, because you don't understand yet the point I am making. Your last claim was "A major article about a subject that does not impugn that subject's notability means it is notable"; which seems to me to be confusing notable enough for Wikipedia with actually notable, as in contradicting the NYT's description. Let us make this clear: you wish the lead to imply something different from what the only reliable source on the subject says on the matter? Is this really what you are saying? Hornplease 10:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"Small number" is a value judgment, plain and simple. "42 critics" or "11 critics" would be a verifiable fact, "small number" is not. According to policy (NPOV), we can only assert facts about opinions, not the opinions themselves. Especially since the conspicuous omission of any such value judgment in the MSNBC article casts doubt on the reliability of the NYTimes' opinion. You want to say, in the text, "The NYTimes claims that..." go ahead. That's the compromise. - Merzbow 00:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, we can take the 42 vs "small number" argument on in a moment. First of all, I would like you to explain what part of my above argument is problematic: the Newsweek story does not 'cast doubt" on the NYT story at all. I read today several stories about Warren Jeffs in the mainstream press. Some of them mentioned the size of his community, some called it 'small', some did not discuss it at all. Some of them -the NYT among them - put in a disclaimer that it had no connections with the mainstream Mormon church. Some did not. The central point is that one cannot deduce anything from what has been left out. Magazines write articles about newsworthy things, and newsworthy things might still be small from the point of view of an encyclopaedia article about larger things. This is really rather obvious.

You dispute the choice of the word 'small', as that is an opinion. Well, 42 would be an opinion as well. (No! there are 36!) Further, it would be a pointless opinion, as we have no way of telling whether that is a large or small number in the context of the article. My point is simple: do we represent what is reported about this organisation fairly or not? The current lead implies that it faces considerable criticism. According to the only reliable source that deals with the subject, that criticism is marginal and 'unsuccessful'. The lead, as a matter of WP's core policies, shouldreflect that fact. How do you plan to word a sentence in the lead about it?Hornplease 02:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"small" is a heck of a lot more of a value judgment than "42". A multi-page article on an organization's critics that conspicuously does not mention their insignificance is counterveiling evidence against an statement of insignificance from another article, plain and simple. By your logic, if a movie reviewer says that some actor's performance in a movie sucks, but no other review of the movie mentions the actor's performance at all, it's now magically a fact that it sucked and can be stated as such. Nope, can't do that, it must be attributed. - Merzbow 06:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No, but writing a lead implying that something doesn't suck when the only RS on the subject says it does is inappropriate. In any case, we are not talking about "sucking" here; we are evaluating the notability of the charges. It would be a severe violation of NPOV to imply that the charges are more notable than the only RS on the subject deems them to be.

"A multi-page article on an organization's critics that conspicuously does not mention their insignificance is counterveiling evidence against an statement of insignificance from another article, plain and simple." Why? Can you explain what leads you to that statement? As I said, "Magazines write articles about newsworthy things, and newsworthy things might still be small from the point of view of an encyclopaedia article about larger things." Hardly plain and simple! Hornplease 10:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This issue has now been completely beaten to death, and we aren't going to change each other's minds. You can either attempt a revert and see if you have support from active but silent editors to keep it that way, or raise it to another level of dispute resolution. - Merzbow 21:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. "Active but silent" is code, I'm afraid, for revert-happy POV-warriors, and I don't think that they have a say in this. I would like you to respond to the statement I made above. An issue can hardly be 'beaten to death' when such a basic question is still open. Hornplease 21:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

One article says "small number of critics". Another only says "critics", unmodified. The NPOV formulation, by policy, is "critics", followed by "The NYTimes writes that the number of critics is small". That's the last I'm going to say on the issue, all our points have indeed been beaten to death. If you can't accept the fact that we disagree it's not my fault. - Merzbow 22:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It won't be helpful if you don't actually respond to the question.

How, for example, does the NPOV formulation become "critics"? The NPOV formulation doesn't permit us to evade the truth.

If you're tired of discussing this, you can go elsewhere and unwatch this article. But you do have to discuss it, unless you're announcing that I'm a troll and you're going to revert me on sight. Taking it to DR will just mean making all the points again, and we will wind up at exactly the same discussion. You'll still have to respond to the questions I'm asking, and I to yours. Hornplease 22:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Take it to DR, and let me know. - Merzbow 23:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. Does that mean you are specifically refusing to continue discussion to find a compromise? Hornplease 23:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I made a compromise offer which you did not respond to. And have yet to see a single one from you. - Merzbow 23:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) The compromise is to quote the NYT directly? Hornplease 12:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, after the existing neutral sentence in the lead. - Merzbow 16:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The existing sentence is hardly accurate or neutral as it stands; however, since you are, I see, close to giving up altogether, let me suggest: "Allegations have been made that the organization and its leadership have ties to militant Islamic extremist groups and ideologies; the set of critics making these allegations have been called "small" by the NYT." Hornplease 17:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, if I get to add a small sentence afterward noting Emerson's criticism of the NYT article disparaging the critics, for balance. - Merzbow 17:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

A statement responding to the NYT article in the body of the article is probably OK. Hornplease 21:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Then the NYT disparagement of the critics must be in the body as well. - Merzbow 21:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

But that means that the lead would remain unbalanced, right? Hornplease 15:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

TNR says that the NYTimes article that you want to so prominently feature is "fraught with errors--of commission and omission" and is "a coup of CAIR propaganda". In other words, it casts serious doubt on the reliability of the source. It would be remiss of us and a violation of NPOV to not present this to the reader where he can decide for himself (and not bury it deeper in the article where you very well know 95% of readers don't get to). If this balanced presentation is too much for the lead, we can agree to keep both in the body.

That would be true if it was an actual TNR story and not a blog hosted by TNR. As a blog, it naturally doesnt have the same standards of reliability. That being said, I quite agree that it deserves a mention: but the very fact that the blog post bemoans the misinfomation of the NYT story that the latter is a matter of record in the manner in which the former is not. If you prefer, the TNR reference can be put in as a footnote from the lead. Hornplease 18:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I note, incidentally, that even the TNR post does not attempt contradict the NYT's statements about the size or success of the critics, only its account of their motivation and some factual details about who was left out and what was not reported about CAIR's statements. Hornplease 18:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not a "blog post", it's an article published in TNR's online edition. "This Article is Available to Subscribers Only", in the "Articles" section of Emerson's site, etc. If you have evidence that TNR's standards of fact-checking, etc. did not apply to this article, please present it. If you want to feature the NYTimes article, you need to feature its criticism as well, not bury it. - Merzbow 19:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Er, I don't need to demonstrate that that TNR's standards do not apply. The assumption that online-only content in print newspapers is not of the same level of accuracy is well-established; we do not quote, for example, the Trail on wp.com in BLPs. As I said, a footnote is acceptable. I notice you do not respond to the fact that even that article does not attempt contradict the NYT's assessment of the size or success of the set of critics.Hornplease 20:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The article says that the NYTimes article is "fraught with errors--of commission and omission" and is "a coup of CAIR propaganda". I'd say we can reasonably conclude that casts doubt on everything in it. And you still confuse blog content with articles that just happens to be published in the online edition. An article by TNR is an article by TNR. - Merzbow 20:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

About your first point, the post, as I mentioned earlier, "..is written by an individual who volunteers the information that the FBI has 'simply refused to read the materials on CAIR that I, and others, provided' on CAIR's connections. I think this counts as an opinion piece by an interested party rather than news reporting." Given that, I certainly don't think it serves to discredit the NYT piece in the manner you claim. Incidentally, I see nothing indicating that the author in question has published anything in TNR proper; he has only one other contribution to TNR online, about the Muslim Public Affairs Council. I think we know why TNR wouldn't put this in their print edition, don't you? It's not a news piece. Its an opinion piece. It isn't by a TNR reporter. It isn't in the published version of the TNR. It states up front that the author is an activist involved in doing precisely what the NYT article discusses. And finally, it doesn't even, in its long list of errors, choose to disagree with the NYT's assessment of the critics size or success. The article discusses the nasty things that CAIR has said, who in the FBI said what, and so on. A post by an avowed activist hardly serves as a sufficient counterweight to an article in the paper of record. Hornplease 21:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you done attacking the credibility of Emerson? Because your opinion of him is irrelevant. The fact remains it's an article by TNR, a rock-solid reliable source. And his condemnation of the NYT article is unqualified (as the quotes about show). - Merzbow 22:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not 'by' TNR. It's an op-ed. It's an opinion, not news. And whose opinion makes it less useful: I had no idea who the writer was; I had to look him up just now. (Incidentally, the convenience link you added crashes firefox.) The writer's identity severely weakens your case: he appears to be one of CAIR's major critics. Even if the NYT was neutral, would you seriously expect him to be anything but displeased with it? For that matter, CAIR might be displeased with the NYT article as well.

As you say, my opinion of the writer is irrelevant. Quite right. (I have no opinion. Chap might be a genius: I'll never know as long as his blog crashes my browser.) However, the fact that he states in his article that he is an anti-CAIR activist is relevant. The fact that he is not a regular reporter, but a guest columnist, and that TNR did not publish his essay, merely hosted it, is relevant. The fact that he nowhere says the article mischaracterises the nature of opposition to CAIR, but points out several occasions where CAIR has misbehaved and the NYT hasn't mentioned it. The fact that he precedes it with a summary condemnation does not detract from the fact that in his itemised condemnation, he provides us with nothing useful in evaluating that specific part of the NYT's reporting. Hornplease 00:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Whether it's an opinion piece has nothing to do with its reliability. Magazines like TNR, Salon, National Review publish almost exclusively opinion pieces (and others like The Atlantic publish a mix), yet the consensus of WP editors is that they are reliable. And "news artices" like the NYTimes' often contain judgments and opinions made by the reporter, such as "small group" and "largely unsuccessful". Something does not magically become fact because it's printed in a newspaper. Go ahead and begin stripping all TNR, Salon, and NR articles from Wikipedia because they are "op-ed" and you won't get very far. And the fact remains Emerson's condemnation of the NYT article was blanket. His examples of errors were just that, examples to buttress his main point. You would only have an argument if the condemnation were not blanket. - Merzbow 01:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) A blanket condemnation by a subject of the article is simply not enough contra-indication, as I am sure you will agree if you take a step back. I naturally do not claim that TNR and Salon are in any way not reliable in terms of facts. I just argued elsewhere, for example, that facts from a Sidney Blumenthal article in Salon should be viewed as facts, not opinion. That being said, there is a difference between that and what was in the TNR post you describe, which is a condemnation of the NYT article, and clearly meant as the opinion of the poster, and the NYT article, which is clearly reported as news, and in which it is to be supposed the synthesis of facts ("small band of critics" etc) represents the NYT's synthesis of the available facts. I do not dispute any of the facts presented in the TNR post, but opinion there is still the opinion of the poster rather than a synthesis of facts by TNR. Also, a blanket condemnation hardly helps anyone's case. What, so even the things that are anti-CAIR in it are supposedly condemned by the TNR poster? Again, we can't read into pieces things that aren't there. Hornplease 02:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

What the TNR piece communicates to is that there are grave doubts about the overall reliability of the NYT piece. We can't answer the question of exactly which pieces of the article Emerson thinks are bad. What we have is a blanket condemnation, which means we must take it all with caution. Balance requires that we make sure to report this fact to the reader wherever the dubious article is used. - Merzbow 03:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

When an opinion writer with strong, partisan views (of any nature) who is the subject of a piece in the NYT issues a blanket condemnation of that piece, I do not necessarily think it is incumbent on us to balance it. Is everyone displeased with their coverage in the NYT permitted a response on WP each time the NYT is cited? Especially when we are using a fact from that article that this person did not even cite as problematic? Hornplease 04:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

TNR had the choice not to publish the article if it thought it unreliable. Your psychoanalysis of the author is irrelevant. - Merzbow 05:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

(1) Yes, and they didn't publish it (2) not psychoanalysis, but a question, which you haven't answered.Hornplease 05:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

(1) It's on their site as an article, it's published. (2) TNR is a reliable source, talk to them and get them to withdraw Emerson's article, your opinion of Emerson is not relevant. - Merzbow 06:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

(1) Its online content, and its an opinion piece. (2) Its not my opinion of Emerson. (as I said, I don't have one.) Its about whether everyone displeased with their coverage in the NYT permitted a response on WP each time the NYT is cited. Hornplease 06:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No new points have been raised. See above. - Merzbow 07:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You still have not responded to the claim. Are we to assume that every statement in a report in the paper of record is immediately to be considered 'doubtful' if one of the people covered by it makes a blanket condemnation of it in an opinion piece in a version on the website of an RS that may or may not be RS itself? Do you have any idea how absurd that sounds? Hornplease 14:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Convenience break

And I've just realized your original argument is fatally flawed in another way. You say you don't want the lead to contain "critics" unmodified, because that would imply more notability for the critics than you think they are worth, based on the NYTimes article. But then you say that the fact that other articles aside from the NYT use "critics" unmodified does not imply anything about their notability. You're contradicting yourself. Either "critics" unmodified by "small" implies notability, in which case the non-NYTimes articles do imply positive notability, or "critics" unmodified by "small" does not imply notability, in which case you would have no objection to using just the neutral "critics" in the lead. - Merzbow 18:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Because other sources do not have necessarily follow our standards. We need to ensure our lead is balanced; other sources are under no such constraint; they merely need to present newsworthy stories in a readable manner. Hornplease 18:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This has to be the weakest argument you've presented by far. I'd rather AGF that those writers know what they're doing, unless you have evidence to the contrary. (I actually have a reliable source casting doubts on the credibility of the NYTimes article.) If they meant "small", they would have said "small", but they didn't. A five-word letter does not impact readability. - Merzbow 19:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

We don't AGF about sources. My point is simply that we have different standards from these sources. They can talk about critics without needing to qualify their size or influence, or about individuals without putting in perspective their efforts. That is their prerogative. We don't have that prerogative, so the cases are different. And, again, deducing meaning from what was not said is OR. Hornplease 20:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"And, again, deducing meaning from what was not said is OR". But you wish to claim that readers will deduce meaning (of notability) if we just say "critics" unmodified in the lead. If you want to claim the former is an unwarranted assumption, then I'll claim the latter as well. - Merzbow 20:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The two are unrelated, of course. You must stop try and applying WP rules to everything off-WP! The first is, of course, something that we cannot do; there are several reasons why something 'not' in a text might not be there, and we should not deduce it. The second case is because readers are likely aware of our policies and will view things in that light. I would not read an article in Newsweek and assume anything based on what was not qualified, as Newsweek is not constantly re-edited to preserve neutrality and NOR, and indeed operates under none of those constraints; if I were reading a statement on WP, by contrast, it is expected that it accurately and fairly reflects the available reliable sources. In this case, one might not infer anything about the quality of 'critics' in a reference off-WP, but in a WP lead, we have a set of rules that mean that something would and could be inferred. Hornplease 21:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Whether they are a 'small group' or not is an opinion not implied by one unmodified mention of the word 'critics', and I've seen no reason to think otherwise. This is common-sense English. I would say that since 'small group' is clearly a derogatory opinion of notability, the fact that virtually every article on CAIR by a reliable source focuses on its controversies and critics is opposing evidence. WP:LEAD supports this: "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources."

If you insist on quoting that opinion in the lead, I will then balance with other relevant opinions (about CAIR, its critics, or the NYTimes article) from other articles. Readers will see 1 quote that says "small group", and 4 that don't, and they can make up their own minds. Alternatively, we can leave the lead simple and place the quotes in the text. - Merzbow 22:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) "Whether they are a 'small group' or not is an opinion not implied by one unmodified mention of the word 'critics', and I've seen no reason to think otherwise." It is clearly stated, surely that the criticism are propounded by “a small band of critics” in the NYT? I will agree to any form of balance, as I have said, the moment you produce a reliable, neutral source that specifies that the critics are not small. If we quote the NYT article, and then a bunch of those actual criticisms, are we not guilty of severely unbalancing the lead? What on earth is the hurry? If CAIR's critics are so numerous, surely -soon- a time will come when another article is written in a reliable source about CAIR and its critics that clearly mentions that they are no longer (or have never been) a miniscule, unsuccessful minority. Until then, any mention in the lead that violates what the only reliable source to directly address the matter tells us is the proper balance of views on CAIR is a violation of our core policies.

"I would say that since 'small group' is clearly a derogatory opinion of notability, the fact that virtually every article on CAIR by a reliable source focuses on its controversies and critics is opposing evidence." I don't think 'small group' is in any way derogatory. It is merely evidence of their current size. And, as you correctly quote from WP:Lead, the emphasis in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic: and how are we to know that? "According to reliable, published sources. Well, the only published source that answers the question "what is its importance to the subject" is the NYT, and that reference is quite clear.

Incidentally, I do not insist on placing the NYT reference in the lead. I merely ask that the reference to 'critics' be placed in some perspective per reliable sources. I am open to any other re-wording that does not quote the NYT directly. (As I said above, I believe doing so is unsatisfactory.) I personally believe a modifying word or two, together with a lengthy sentence about the allegations, and another sentence (perhaps) about legal troubles with Holy Land, is hardly too much to ask with putting in "four" POINT-y sentences. Hornplease 00:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

So is the size of this group an important point or not? You would not be successful in arguing its important, because out of numerous articles on this group, only one (The NYTimes) feels necessary to broach the subject of the size of its critics, while almost all discuss the critics and their points. That is hard evidence it doesn't belong in the lead, since "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources." Even if you can argue that omission is not a positive or negative statement, omission most certainly is a reflection of relative unimportance. The one single source out of many that discusses the critics' size can go in the body. You feel it's an important point, but the vast majority of reliable sources disagree. - Merzbow 01:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, other sources are under no compulsion to discuss the size of the group. For them, it may not be important enough. For us, it is important to establish the size of the set of critics, because we have policies that indicate balance is required. So, according to all reliable, neutral, published sources on the subject, the importance of the critics to CAIR altogether is minimal, because they are a small group, and their criticisms have been 'unsuccessful'. We thus modify the criticism to reflect that. That these are small groups might not be of great importance in re their own notability; but it is relevant for our guidelines. Were there an article on Critics of CAIR, for example, I would not require that this mention be put in the lead. As I said, I do not require that the exact words of the NYT quote be used, but that the wording of the lead should reflect our infomation about the critics relative notability that appears in RSes. Hornplease 02:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources." When a dozen articles talk about X, but only one of those dozen talks about the Y aspect of X, it belongs in the body, not the lead. There is no exception for statements about the size of X or the success of its arguments. I'm sorry you disagree that Newsweek, WashTimes, FoxNews, IHT, Oakland Tribune, and more do not think the "size" of the critics and the "success" of their arguments important enough to discuss. - Merzbow 03:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Very simply, if even one of those articles had contradicted the NYT, I would not have spent all this time. However, your interpretation in this case is flawed: the "aspect Y" in this case is the aspect that directly impacts NPOV for the article as a whole. Your claim extends to whether or not the unimportance of the critics is considered central by reliable sources. Regardless of what RSes think about it its centrality, it is of central importance to us. That's the difference between us and the Oakland Tribune. (Incidentally, that piece is by Jeff Jacoby. Is there no article about CAIR's critics not written as an opinion piece by a conservative commentator?)Hornplease 04:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No, "size" and "argument success" are not the same thing as notability. For example, al Qaeda is a small group whose arguments have been manifestly unsuccessful, yet they are very notable. For whatever reason, these other authors did not address "size" and "argument success"; I imagine they thought their articles would make it clear to readers the critics had enough of an impact (i.e. Sen. Boxer) to make them worthy to write about, regardless of their "size" and "argument success". Anyways, these two qualities are ignored by all but one source, thus not appropriate for the lead. - Merzbow 05:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, we shouldn't read the minds of the journalists or op-ed writers writing the other pieces you cite. Try not doing that, please? (It should be easy, you just accused me of psychoanalysis.) That these two qualities are 'ignored' means merely that we have a smaller set of sources from which to make a determination about how mainstream these views are about CAIR. And the answer is provided by the source that addresses it. So our 'brief description' of CAIR's 'notable controversies' should be framed in that light.

I don't understand your A-Q analogy . Do you mean that the Western civilisation page should include their criticisms in the lead, because they're notable critics and a vast majority of articles about them do not mention that they are relatively small in size and that their arguments have been largely unsuccessful? Good luck with that. Hornplease 05:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"Ignored" by all but one source means they are not notable enough for the lead; again, see WP:LEAD. And if 90% of news articles and books about "Western Civilization" spent half their time discussing A-Q, then yes, I would insist including A-Q in the lead. - Merzbow 05:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You aren't engaging my point. WP:LEAD clearly says that proportion should be in terms of importance as gauged by reliable sources: and we are given uncontradicted evidence that their importance is small! That's how we have to use the LEAD policy here. As I already said, counting sources as "no"s just because they say nothing is OR; we have to count them as "abstain"s.

Oh, and about western civ: run a search for "Western Civilisation" in Gnews (excluding the word "Shakira". No, seriously.) and you'll see that nearly all the articles are indeed about Islamism. Hmm. Hornplease 06:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"Size" and "argument success" != notability, and != importance, as my A-Q example illustrates. Regardless of either, CAIR's critics have been quite important in getting responses out of CAIR and others, hence the numerous articles about them. And I have no objection to adding criticism to the Western Civilization lead. Go for it. - Merzbow 07:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, you are not listening. Can you please respond to my claim that "counting sources as "no"s just because they say nothing is OR; we have to count them as "abstain"s."? (Oh, and if the A-Q thing hasn't brought you to a sense of the absurdity of your claim, I am amazed. After all, Western Civ's critics have also been quite effective in "getting responses" out of us.) Hornplease 14:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Explained and responded to many times. Omission by almost all sources means non-importance, see the quote from WP:LEAD. - Merzbow 17:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

How many, or how small, is the U.S. Government? Or is evidence in court not a criticism? (SEWilco 17:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC))

From here: the US government lists CAIR as an "unindicted co-conspirator" in a terrorist funding case. "Small" indeed. - Merzbow 06:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

CAIR's Legal Position

I invite comment about adding a section to the encyclopedia entry regarding CAIR's legal position(s). It is somewhat incredulous that CAIR, which represents itself, in part, as a charitable organization, can have lawsuit after lawsuit and indictment after indictment in which it is named as either a tortfeaser or denominated as a supporter of illegal activities. Nowhere in my mind can I recall any charity with such a distinguished character. Yet, I recognize that CAIR's activities are not wholly falling below the "standard of society" or a conspiracy or other criminal acts. Hence, I invite all writers and editors of Wikipedia to help "build a concensus" before adding this material. This section is not intended as criticism, but ONLY factual material. For instance: CAIR has been indicted in Federal District Court in Texas and listed as a "co-conspirator". This does not mean that CAIR or it's members, agents or assigns have broken any law. It does mean that information, ordinarily precluded by the "Hearsay Rule" is not excluded in the case of the 300 odd "unindicted co-conspirators", of which CAIR is one. Mark Preston 17:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen the criticism sub-article? Lots in there about that already. Perhaps the criticism section/article should be renamed "controversies" to more widely include such material. - Merzbow 18:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As I had posted on the 'net "CAIR's friends at Wiki will probably come out in force against this, but it is not intended as part of CRITICISM of cair, which surprisingly has it's own page. I say surprisingly because I know of no encyclopedia (in print or otherwise online) that has such a thing." I suppose that many charities have legal problems. That type of information, while superficial for an encyclopedia in the face of genuine charitable work, isn't so easily reached here in this case. I know of no charity under so many indictments, whether civil or criminal that stretches back for such a long time and is so central to historic events. If the Ronald McDonald House or the Salvation Army has an occassional defalcation that is not much in the way of news. If CAIR has had defalcations, maybe that wouldn't warrant an entry, either. Repeated jailings of it's members, whether acting in an agency capacity or not, the 9/11 families allegations, the current trial in Dallas this isn't standard business for a charity. Mark Preston 23:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow: I'm waiting to hear from you (or anyone). I am concerned about putting my proposal into NPOV, rather than criticism. I propose only to have a section titled: Recurrent Legal Problems. Under that head: the charge or allegation, the person's named, and the sentence or fine. In the case of the Dallas "co-conspirator" indictment, it's not a person, it's an organization.76.170.211.236 14:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add a section if you can find sufficient reliable sources on the subject. However, a list like you have in mind might be open to problems unless each incident is covered in several reliable sources and is linked to CAIR specifically. Hornplease 15:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

By "linked to CAIR", you mean "connected to CAIR" and not "linked to a document on the CAIR web site"? CAIR deleted at least one legal document (their own amicus filing in the HLF trial) from their web site. (SEWilco 17:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC))

By way of example, for the sake of discussion, I cite the following as reasonable for inclusion in the proposed Legal Position: GHASSAN ELASHI is a named defendant in more than one legal matter; viz.: Ghassan Elashi, founding board member of CAIR-Texas, a founder of the HLF, and a brother-in-law of Marzook, was arrested by the United States and charged with, among other things, making false statements on export declarations, dealing in the property of a designated terrorist organization, conspiracy and money laundering. Mr. Elashi is also named in the indictment at: http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/HLF/U.S._v_HLF_Indictment.pdf. Again this is not for inclusion as criticism, only due to the highly unusual number of law suits that CAIR has taken part in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Preston (talk • contribs) 15:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

As of Oct. 1, 2007 I see no further communications from others. So here is what I'm going to do: wait until the outcome of the Dallas Texas "conspiracy" trial to settle down a little and start some sort of rendering of CAIR's legal "history". Any takers? Mark Preston (who forgot to sign in for this brief post)76.170.211.236 06:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Preston, I do not see that CAIR identifies itself primarily as a "charitable organization" as you claim. Rather its stated goals seem to classify it primarily as an anti-discrimination and Muslim advocacy organization. A similar group for Jewish advocacy/anti-discrimination, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), has been the subject of litigation several times. Such groups are inherently political and often take positions considered controversial or subversive by the government or other organizations. These types of organizations are NOT the Salvation Army or United Way and often find themselves in the middle of political controversy which sometimes leads to lawsuits or even (in the case of CAIR and the ADL) criminal investigations. And even the Salvation Army is not above controversy-- in the early days they were used as strikebreakers and counterdemonstrators, and more recently have come under fire for their policy on homsexuals.--Nicky Scarfo 16:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Entry of November 17, 2007 by MPreston: The legal position section must now wait for the retrial. As I see encyclopedia entries as being non-topical in content, I am considering starting an entire wikipedia entry for any number of entities that have what I think is too much topicality. For example Michael Jackson, the singer, has a wiki that changes every time he makes "news". Those entries are "topical". They belong in another section of wikipedia about Michael Jackson. There should be cross-links between these pages, but this CAIR page needs cleaning up. It shouldn't be changing. If they weren't so controversial it wouldn't be changing. RFC.69.228.4.230 (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Changes

Made some changes in the "Overview" section, which apparently was authored by Ann Coulter and Daniel Pipes. Someone wrote that CAIR was founded with funding from the Holy Land Foundation. This is stated as fact even though CAIR disputes it. Also presented as fact is CAIR alleged ties with terrorists, also disputed by the organization. Besides, there's a "Criticism" section in this article that mentions all these things, so there's no reason to state it twice. Well, actually there is a reason...so that anti-Muslim bigots can present their slanted allegations as fact within the first few paragraphs of the article, immediately leading the reader to believe that CAIR is a terrorist organization of some sort. Keep it in the criticism section, stormtroopers, and try to refrain from presenting allegations as undisputed facts. --Nicky Scarfo 16:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)(retroactively signed as I forgot to sign in last time)

Somebody put back the text I removed in less than a day. Does WorldNetDaily have a full-time staffer to ensure a slanted article about CAIR on Wikipedia? Again, this information is disputed by CAIR and should not be presented as undisputed fact in the first two paragraphs of the "Overview" section. Mention of this information is made in the "Criticism" section already, that section can be augmented/expanded as the person who keeps reposting this information sees fit. --Nicky Scarfo 16:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The parent organization does not belong as part of its history? And you deleted stuff which was not elsewhere. (SEWilco 02:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC))

Again, since you didn't bother to read what I wrote-- CAIR disputes that the HLF was a "parent organization", yet it is presented as undisputed fact. This time I deleted the information from the Overview and added it to the Criticism section. IN other words, I did your work for you. You're welcome.--Nicky Scarfo 17:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so that wasn't good enough for you-- you (or someone) just returned it back to the original. Well, this time I will delete it without rewriting the criticism section to compensate. And I will keep deleting it for as long as the right-wing bigots keep inserting it back to provide readers of the article a bias against CAIR in the first paragraph.--Nicky Scarfo 03:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

So Merzbow, you are threatening to block me from deleting this information, and apparently keep re-posting it, yet have given no argument as to why such biased (and contested) information belongs in "Overview" rather than "Criticism". Perhaps you consider yourself too good to give justifications for your unilateral actions. I have given reasons for my revisions-- you have not. This is intellectual thuggery in the service of a smear campaign against Muslim civil rights/advocacy organizations, which is apparently acceptable on Wikipedia. I wonder how people would feel if the same sort of biased editing was allowed on the NAACP page by Klan or Council of Conservative Citizens sympathizers? --Nicky Scarfo 18:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You should read our policy on personal attacks at WP:NPA. That's the last time I'll respond to any post by you containing one. - Merzbow 20:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I read it, and after reading I do not believe I violated it.--Nicky Scarfo 00:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Other articles

Added a section for other Wikipedia articles on Muslim and Arab advocacy organizations in the U.S. CAIR is the most controversial and loudest (and as a result, the most well-known), but it's not the only one. Of course, I'm sure to the right-wing bigots they're all equally evil. --Nicky Scarfo 17:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You sure know how to endear yourself to other editors with your tone. Good luck with that. - Merzbow 20:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your well-wishes! I tend to have a nasty tone with bigots, fascists and reactionaries. I'm funny like that. --Nicky Scarfo 03:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep it up and you will find your Wikipedia career to be nasty, brutish, and mercifully short. - Merzbow 08:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Master Po, but such is life. --Nicky Scarfo 17:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently "mercifully short" because you intend on blocking me because you don't like my "tone", and although I have given clear and compelling reasons for deleting info from the "Overview" section and moving it to "Criticism", you seem to have no reservations about restoring that information unilaterally and threatening to block me without offering ONE reason as to why my edits are uncalled for. You've obviously been around here for a while, therefore you are above having to respond to my reasons for deleting information from one section and adding it to another. Instead, you simply play Wikipedia bully and repeatedly change my edits without cause and threaten to purge me. --Nicky Scarfo 18:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You need to get consensus first about moving that information around. You did not, and were reverted. Instead of trying to get that consensus on the talk page, you then decided to vandalize the article by just blanking the material out of spite. Do you now promise to not blank the material and get consensus for your edits instead? - Merzbow 20:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, it's hardly vandalism if I clearly explained my reasons for deleting the information, and, then, upon objection, attempted to move the info rather than deleting it. Second, I didn't delete out of spite-- the only objection to my deletion I addressed by moving the info, when that wasn't good enough I simply deleted not "out of spite", but because it was easier just to delete, and if my efforts to move information weren't good enough, I'm not going to spend more of my time moving biased, contested info from one place to another-- easier to simply delete. Don't blame me for that, blame those (perhaps yourself) who think that it's more imortant to smear CAIR in the first few paragraphs than to include contested information in a more appopriate section of the article.

Finally, three questions-- 1. So, then, consensus is required for every edit? 2. How do I achieve consensus when no one even responds to my intitial objections (save one, who no one can say I did not try to accomodate)? 3. If no consensus, then what? The biased and contested info stands at the beginning of the article uncontested? That seems a set-up which favors CAIR's bigot critics rather than objective fact.--Nicky Scarfo 00:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No response? Okey-doke. I'm removing this clause from the end of the first sentence in "Overview"-- "of the Hamas front Islamic Association of Palestine.". This is already addressed under "Criticism", and I believe CAIR (and others) dispute IAS's status as "front organization" for Hamas. It very well may be, but just the term "front" is a loaded term and organizations known as political fronts often dispute the designation, so the information is more appropriate in "Criticism", where it currently is in any event (no sense having the information listed twice). All the information is there, in its appropriate format, everyone should be happy, except the most virulent and nasty of CAIR's critics (or supporters). And with that I'm done editing the article (until the stormtroopers return of course). --Nicky Scarfo 20:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)