Talk:Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations

I removed 10 broken links
If you can replace them with working links, please do. You may look through the article history (not the discussion history) to see which 10 links were removed. Not easy being green 12:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't delete sources. Fix them.  (SEWilco 07:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC))

I am removing the following from the External Links Section: Misguided Muslim groups. This due to it being a now dead end with no CAIR information at all.Mark Preston 17:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Alleged support of terrorist groups
On the account of the following sentence: "CAIR itself has never been found guilty of supporting any terrorist organization", and nothing in the section says that CAIR, as an organization has supporting "terrorist" groups, "CAIR's support for terrorist organizations" is only an allegation.74.12.4.36 16:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So you allege. --Haizum   μολὼν λαβέ 18:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think the main controversy is actually about CAIR actively "supporting" terrorist groups in any concrete or material sense, but rather that CAIR generally only condemns some terrorist attacks which directly affect American citizens (and which it would have been political suicide not to condemn, if they want to retain effective influence within the U.S. political system as a political interest and lobbying group). CAIR has never condemned the terrorist methods of Hamas and Hezbollah (such as blowing up pizza parlors or buses), nor most attacks which didn't result in direct American casualties. AnonMoos 21:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Given that CAIR supporters will NOT allow criticism on the CAIR-Wikipedia entry page, it is more than unusual to see that the wiki-entry named: "Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations) is noticed (at the top) as BIASED or PREJUDICED, i.e., "Neutrality is disputed". Who ever put that "complaint" at the top of this page should come here and make his case. Post haste. It's preposterous that neutrality is to be taken "serouisly", on a page of criticism. That is exactly what criticism is. Duh! Yet, a brief discourse on CAIR's politics is not entirely out of line here: just because Switzerland was NEUTRAL during World War II, doesn't mean that the Swiss SHOULD have been neutral. If Hitler had designated the Swiss as being equal to the Jews, then what good was neutrality? Oh! Duh on ME. There was no HOLOCAUST, according to some Shi'a.

In much the same way, CAIR is a HAMAS stepchild. That is, they or their purpose are unbelievably enough anit-Semites. The U.S. State Department has declared HAMAS a TERRORIST organization. How NEUTRAL is that? And why should it be? Within all the controversy about CAIR, one thing stands out: criticism is to be eviscerated. Yet as Senator Daniel Moynihan said: "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts". The members of CAIR and it's fellow travellers, have as yet to be able to live up to that standard, here on the Wikipedia pages. If Wiki weren't so generous with it design of inclusion of "human knowledge", CAIR would be banned. For surely, somewher, somehow, some Jews have posted something or other. Mark Preston 18:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course a discussion of criticism can be NPOV, and in Wikipedia it must be. Criticism is just another subject. I've removed the tag, as I don't see any major problems with the article. - Merzbow 04:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

CAIR's response to criticism
Shouldn't CAIR's responses be mentioned in the article?--Seventy-one 22:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Add them. (SEWilco 02:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC))
 * I've added them to the external links. They should be incorporated into the larger article.--98.237.179.147 (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Turning into redirect
Unfortunately, this article is derived from a copyright violating version of main article on CAIR, and therefore is itself a copyright violation. See this section in the main article's talk page. Andjam 06:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily not a reliable news source
I do not edit this entry and did not intend to ever edit it but for the link I followed from Islam in the United States. My edit only attempts to remove WorldNetDaily when used as a source for "news." The 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 was not a reliable source for news. Since I do not intend on editing this entry in the future, after removing these references again I will not come back, and I will not revert war over it. That said I believe we need uniformity in applying these types of measures, especially when entries link together, such as this one and Islam in the United States so please don't simply revert back without taking these discussions into consideration. Thank you.PelleSmith 12:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: In the initial revert of my removal it was cited that WorldNetDaily was a "top 80 news source." If you go to WorldNetDaily you will see it is a top 80 as rated by Alexa internet, which means it is in the top 80 websites (categorized by Alexa as a news site) for online traffic. This rating has nothing to do with reliability, and the categorization as a news site is self descriptive. Alexa simply compiles information on web traffic. Cheers.PelleSmith 13:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael Savage lawsuit
Could something be added about the lawsuit Michael Savage is filing against CAIR for their infringement on his material? Jtrainor 21:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What lawsuit? Sources are needed.  Is a lawsuit criticism (this article) or is it an activity related to the organization (CAIR article)?  -- SEWilco 04:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * http://www.savage-productions.com/Savage_CAIR_suit.html AnonMoos 21:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That has a date, December 3, a day ahead of when you mentioned it. It won't get filed until daylight in the USA on Monday.  I see one mention in a newspaper so far.   -- SEWilco 06:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The lawsuit seems to be about copyright infringement, so is not directly a criticism about CAIR's purposes. Should be in CAIR's article and not here, if it is verifiable/notable.  Verifiable sources are needed or other indications of notability.  Unless this shows up in the news it may have little significance or documentation until a trial is scheduled or it begins.  However, perhaps it can be mentioned in the article on Savage because his own web site can be considered reliable for what he is doing.  -- SEWilco 16:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

cair suing savage
Anyone think we should add anything about Savage's responce to cair suing him? Saksjn (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, if it's received suitable media coverage... AnonMoos (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes blog
Pipes' blog needs to be used carefully, because it is self-published. I will highlight three points made by WP:SELFPUB:
 * Material from self-published sources may be used so long as:
 * it is not contentious;
 * it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.

Much of what Pipes says is quite contentious. Some of his claims involved third parties, (like CAIR), while others are not directly related to him (like CAIR being a defendant in a 9/11 lawsuit).

Thus, I will begin to carefully remove references to Pipes that violate the policy cited above.Bless sins (talk) 04:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

what?
Who the heck made the link to cars.com? this is just another attempt to defame Islam AND I WON'T HAVE IT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Velanthis (talk • contribs) 04:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What does Car.com have anything to do with defaming Islam? Chill man. Saksjn (talk) 01:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
This article needs considerable work to achieve a NPOV and represent wider views. It needs to represent both positive and negative views. Right now it looks like a blatent POV fork for attacking the organisation. -- neon white talk 09:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that I agree this is the right tag for the issues with this page. If we are to have criticism entries or criticism sections within entries they will necessarily be more representative of the critical point of view.  However, two questions should be asked.  1) Is the criticism actually "notable" in the first place and relatedly 2) is it a violation of WP:NOR to pile together primary sources of criticism, mostly from anti-Islamic blogs, as if they are so notable.  In terms of NPOV, I would say that balancing an entry like this could only be done by presenting notable counter-criticisms -- and not simply putting in CAIR's own rhetoric, which we clearly would assume is defensive in nature.  On the other hand, as I suggested already, much of the criticism in this entry may be in violation of WP:NOR.PelleSmith (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This article should be merged back into CAIR. Having an article that only gives one viewpoint is an automatic violation of WP:NPOV. If it seeks to fully represent all significant viewpoints it should have a title like "Reception of the Council on American-Islamic Relations". ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with merging back or otherwise deleting this entry. Much of what is here is irrelevant, BLP violating, and or otherwise original research.PelleSmith (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge -> AFD
Per I'm going to run this through an AfD. The page is a clear POV Fork. Criticism of CAIR is not notable in mass culture. It is notable in the rhetoric of a handful of right wing bloggers and popular writers more or less critical of Islam in general. The criticism section on the main entry is certainly large enough to deal with this mostly fringe view.PelleSmith (talk) 12:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Tag removal
The tags were just removed from this entry citing "disputes no longer active". Article issue tags get removed when disuptes are resolved and/or issues are taken care of. From those actually commenting there also seemed to be consensus to merge back into the main CAIR article. Please do not remove the tags unless the issues have been resolved.PelleSmith (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

guilt by association
I think the entire section on CAIR members facing charges should be drastically shortened if not eliminated altogether. Guilt-by-association claims are specifically warned against in WP:BLP. We wouldn't begin a page on "criticism of the US Congress" with a list of Congressmen who have been arrested with the sneering implication that all of Congress is guilty of whatever crimes specific members have been charged with. Any objections to removing this entirely? csloat (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

lawsuits and libraries
I also removed stuff on a lawsuit that named CAIR as one of 174 defendants. There's no information this lawsuit was commented on by any outside party, or that it has received any attention outside of Wikipedia. There's also no indication that this lawsuit had any merit whatsoever. Even if it turns out it did, why is this on the CAIR page but not on pages for any of the 173 other folks mentioned? (OK, 99 of them are John Does but that still leaves 74 organizations and individuals, several of which have Wikipedia pages). It seems that editors in the past looked for anything they could to make CAIR look bad and included it in here no matter how trivial. I'm also not sure how being involved in a lawsuit constitutes "criticism."

The stuff about the library seemed incredibly trivial to me. Seriously, someone complained that there were too many books about Islam in a library of the Council on American-Islamic Relations? This is considered important notable criticism?? And that one book might have had a positive comment in it about someone who was later convicted of a crime? Let's at least attempt to keep things encyclopedic. csloat (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing OR section
The section titled "CAIR members facing charges" is not reporting on criticism attributed to others. As User:Wikifan12345 has pointed out in the deletion discussion this is an OR problem per WP:CRIT. I am deleting all unattributed original research.PelleSmith (talk) 02:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly you don't know what original research is. I restored SOME of the information you removed and rewrote for syntax and grammar's sake. I also added a few more RS because the article severely lacks them even though many exist. I'll probably end up adding more later after I finish crafting the sections with better sourcing. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:SYNTH. I'm well aware of the relevant policies (but it appears that you are not).  The section I removed did not have a single "criticism" in it.  It merely documented, through more or less reliable sources, various incidents that put some members of CAIR in a bad light.PelleSmith (talk) 03:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This entry is about "Criticism"
Please only add material that is reported by WP:RS as criticism -- ''The word critic comes from the Greek κριτικός (kritikós), "able to discern"[1], which in turn derives from the word κριτής (krités), meaning a person who offers reasoned judgment or analysis, value judgment, interpretation, or observation[2]. The term can be used to describe an adherent of a position disagreeing with or opposing the object of criticism.'' CAIR "officials have been implicated in supporting Islamic terrorism by several federal agencies and politicians". Great but who is criticizing CAIR? We are not here to build a case of criticism ourselves, but only to report on it.PelleSmith (talk) 03:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Likewise where is the criticism here?: "Ghassan Elashi, a founding member of the CAIR-texas chapter and co-founder of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, was detained by the FBI and charged with having ties to front groups for Islamic terrorism. In 2005, Elashi was sentenced to 7 years in prison for his involvement with the charity." That isn't criticism of CAIR, that's simply a factual statement about what happened to one of its founding members.  If someone were to refer to this piece of information while criticizing CAIR it would be another matter and then it should be clearly sourced in that manner.PelleSmith (talk) 03:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

israeli flag
I removed the material about the Israeli flag for a few reasons - (1) it is trivial. There's no indication there was any outcry that arose from this. (2) it is not "criticism" except through WP:SYN -- the source makes no criticism of the incident nor does anyone in the news that I'm aware of. (3) CAIR-Ohio is only one of the five groups that reportedly asked the flag to be removed; it is ridiculous to single out CAIR and say they were criticized as some kind of extremists when it's clear from context that they were expressing a consensus view among several Muslim groups. (4) the claim that this is considered religious intolerance appears nowhere in the source. It is listed without information other than CAIR's own spin, and the footnote even gives the reader information about how to join CAIR! It is listed below a "name conflict" among Universalists -- why aren't people pushing to add this as an example of religious intolerance to this page? (5) this is a self-published source, a newsletter from a nonprofit organization -- it can be cited for information about that organization, but it does not meet WP:RS for the purpose of "criticism." Finally, (6) this isn't "criticism" at all; the source certainly never mentions any criticism. csloat (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability tags, unsubstantiated summaries, edit-warring

 * Why does this article need a notability tag? The AFD isn't for a lack of notability. CAIR is notable and criticisms of CAIR is most certainly notable. It is your POV that criticism is not notable. What is a valid criticism is that the article is a fork, but that independent of notability. Can you please stop edit-warring out information Pelle? Thanks.

In regards to this, this is not a criticism ... please stick to "Criticism of CAIR"), I have no idea why its being removed. The FBI dragged CAIR officials to court and politicians corroborated these happenings in their comments. The FBI inditment supports the criticisms and proves these stabs aren't empty SOAPS. You taking the concept "criticism" to an ultra level that defies reliable information. Please self-revert and stop edit warring information! Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I responded to this particular issue above. If these federal agencies are actually critical of CAIR, the organization and not simply a handful of its members, then you can easily corroborate that with a direct quote.  Lets see it.PelleSmith (talk) 03:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You still don't get it. The FBI convicted known-CAIR officials of being involved in terrorist activities. X historian/expert accuses/affirms CAIR officials of having ties to terrorism. Both are notable. Removing the FBI which is sourced by several RS and is commented on by some of the people mentioned in the article reduces the reliability of the critics statements. So please stop edit-warring the FBI link you, you are mis-attributing the Criticism page and obviously no idea what it entails. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Show me an example of another Criticism page that piles on the type of information you want to include ... which is not criticism but secondary "evidence" that supports the critics POV.PelleSmith (talk) 04:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh? You still aren't explaining why you are removing the FBI prosecution against CAIR officials who have ties to terrorism. Politicians and historians/experts/pundits accuse CAIR of having ties to terrorism. They base their accusations off of the FBI and US government indictments. So you're claiming these inclusions don't qualify under criticisms policy? Are you sure you want to stand by that? Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no "criticisms policy". This is basic article writing policy.  I've been more than clear now you show me an example of a criticism entry that uses sources in the way you want to.  I will contend they don't because it is a violation of WP:SYNTH, but since you claim it isn't then you should easily be able to find an example or two.PelleSmith (talk) 05:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You say "Politicians and historians/experts/pundits accuse CAIR of having ties to terrorism"; if that is the case, we should quote them, not link to an FBI file. In fact, we already do quote them, or at least one of them.  If you know of others please link to the sources. csloat (talk) 05:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We are quoting them. Are you seriously debating the relevance of CAIR being convicted of having ties to terrorism when people have accused CAIR of having ties to terrorism? Hello?? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes we are quoting them; that's all we need to do. It is not wikipedia's job to help make a critic's case by piling on links to information so that it appears to substantiate their claim, especially when the entire claim is based on guilt by association.  Please review these rules carefully. csloat (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine. I rewrote the long section about the NY because it was rather fact-picky and quoted CAIR's official statements to represent their POV. Also added another source, and restored the FBI allegation since politicians and CAIR seem continue to refer to it. Also added the allegation that the Israel lobby has some involvement, and copy edited the NY source since it is used 3 times. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've gone ahead and reverted your edits. The indictments don't belong here at all as we have previously established; do not add them again.  It is a severe WP:BLP violation.  You removed the evidence that even government officials have questioned the criticism of CAIR and the important quote about "blank stares."  You removed a lot of the NYT information; the explanation that it was "fact-picky" is nonsense.  The Israeli lobby stuff did not seem relevant but maybe you can explain it better?  Thanks. csloat (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I also restored the notability notice; that was quite separate from the AfD. Cheers, csloat (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is absurd. You didn't even read the NYT article and donated and obscene amount of space to unimportant facts. I neutralized it and expanded the paragraph while including another source, and the FBI insert is NOT a blp violation. And yes, it was fact-picky. The whole section was fact-picky and was borderline plagiarism. Practically copy/paste. I'm reverting your edit once, only once. Explain your edits as I have in summaries. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) you have no way of knowing what I read or didn't read. (2) Here is what you consider "unimportant facts": You deleted the fact that a former FBI official of counterterrorism confirmed that these charges smacked of McCarthyism and that even their defenders couldn't support them (the "blank stares" point).  You deleted the fact that the criticism is recognized as coming from "a small band of critics" who "made a determined but unsuccessful effort to link it to Hamas and Hezbollah," and yet you want to highlight the quotes from that same small band of critics.  Most importantly, you want to link to every person who ever had anything to do with CAIR who was ever arrested for anything, and yet you deleted this: "While critics cite five figures with "ties" to CAIR who have been "convicted or deported for links to terrorist groups," the article notes that "There were no charges linked to CAIR in any of the cases involved, and law enforcement officials said that in the current climate, any hint of suspicious behavior would have resulted in a racketeering charge."  It's pretty obvious that your deletion of the NYT material is blatant POV-pushing bordering on vandalism.  Don't remove this material again. csloat (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * CAIR claims this is just a band of critics. According to the NYT articles and basic knowledge, that certainly isn't the case. Consciously censoring criticism based off CAIR saving face is against policy. Check my paragraph, I retained much of the original message, removed the obscene plagiarism and copy/paste which you and Pelle continue restore to while accusing my thoroughly cited and well-crafted paragraph is original research. Lulz. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * you also dubiously removed the copy edit. Please try to collaborate instead of reverting everything you disagree with. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Collaborate?" This from the editor who called us "meatpuppets" the minute we started editing this page and dubiously reported me to AN for editing warring.  As I asked you twice already, please show us an example elsewhere on the Wiki where a criticism entry includes the type of information you want to include here.  We contend it is OR, you claim it is not.  Fine, then at least start by showing a precedent for it.PelleSmith (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, try and collaborate. Don't play this card, you moved the dispute to a silly etiquette report claiming you were victim to hostility yaddayaddayadda. Take responsibility for your edits, you and Cslot practically edit together and have reverted all my edits. And you still say it is OR? Really? And then you say I'm getting against consensus when there was one? Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP Violation
This edit, made by Wikifan, is a BLP violation. See the relevant text -- Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. I have reverted it.PelleSmith (talk) 04:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge
Only two editors at the AfD argued for a keep with no mention of a "merge" -- all others either wanted to merge or were amenable to merge as an option along with a keep or delete vote. Along with the previous consensus above, I believe keeping them separate is a minority position. If you are opposed to merging please state your reasons below.PelleSmith (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

3rd opinion
I filed a 3rd opinion notice as part of beginning stages dispute resolution. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Identified plagiarism.
Here is Pelle's version, which he claims meets policy:

Despite such accusations, the New York Times reported that "Government officials in Washington said they were not aware of any criminal investigation of the group. More than one described the standards used by critics to link CAIR to terrorism as akin to McCarthyism, essentially guilt by association. 'Of all the groups, there is probably more suspicion about CAIR, but when you ask people for cold hard facts, you get blank stares,' said Michael Rolince, a retired F.B.I. official who directed counterterrorism in the Washington field office from 2002 to 2005." The paper noted that "a debate rages behind the scenes in Washington about the group, commonly known as CAIR, its financing and its motives. A small band of critics have made a determined but unsuccessful effort to link it to Hamas and Hezbollah, which have been designated as terrorist organizations by the State Department, and have gone so far as calling the group an American front for the two." While critics cite five figures with "ties" to CAIR who have been "convicted or deported for links to terrorist groups," the article notes that "There were no charges linked to CAIR in any of the cases involved, and law enforcement officials said that in the current climate, any hint of suspicious behavior would have resulted in a racketeering charge."

Not sure? Yeah, I wasn't either. I discovered the half the of the paragraph is a direct copy and pasted from the new york times article. Plagiarized ENTIRE sentences without attributing author. Not to mention the response of CAIR was not directed at any of the accusers/politicians/ outside of the FBI (which you said wasn't important and was *lol* BLP violation." and also removed).

Pelle claimed this was original research,

Despite such accusations, the New York Times reported that "Government officials in Washington said they were not aware of any criminal investigation of the group and described the standards used by critics  "as akin to McCarthyism, essentially guilt by association." CAIR and its supporters say these critics "are a small band of people who hate Muslims and deal in half-truths." CAIR officials believe these accusations are "rooted" in its refusal to endorse America's "blanket" condemnation of Hezbollah and Hamas, though it reportedly condemned Hamas for targeting civilians. Federal officials claim CAIR's Washington charter has repeatedly issued controversial statements that have made it difficult for senior government officials to associate with the group. Nihad Awad believes these decisions by some politicians to isolate itself from the organization can be sourced from the Pro-Israel lobby, saying “Traditionally within the government there is only one point of view that is acceptable, which is the pro-Israel line." In September of 2006, CAIR hosted a dinner for President Mohamed Khatami of Iran at a time "when much of official Washington had ostracized that Islamic republic." CAIR was also criticized for accepting funding from individuals and foundations that have ties to Arab governments, and has received $500,000 from Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia.

How is this OR? I paragraphed crucial information and even CITED direct quotations from CAIR. Your edit not only removed the copy edit, fixed spelling, corrected sources, hyperlinked ACLU and notable names (from an entirely different section), but also the SF gate reference, and acceptable syntax. Not to mention the original New York Times source instead of just the title and page number. I read the whole 2 page letter and your version is not an honest representation of the article's message.

You obviously didn't even look at my edit because your claim of original research simply doesn't add up. Stop slamming me with bogus policies you do not understand. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not "Pelle's version". Show me the diff where I added this material?  You wont find them because I did not. I admit that edits to this section have been caught up in others that I intended to revert because they are still WP:OR, and I will look through the edit history more meticulously regarding this section specifically.  However your additions are still OR.PelleSmith (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And you know better than anyone that this has nothing to do with what has been identified as OR. Unbelievable.PelleSmith (talk) 01:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's the version you reverted to and restored - hence your version. You reverted to a plagiarized and extreme misrepresentation of the original source and then claimed my rewrite was *LOL* original research. The entire edit, which included fixes on the entire article. You are reverting every single one of my edits without even looking at them.
 * Also, strike your accusation of original research. I attributed everything according to policy and quoted CAIR officials. What is original research? What am I making up? you can do a word search from the information I used and everything will add up. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, I will go back and have a look at edits that may have been caught in the middle of your OR additions. Regarding the synthesis you are creating prove me wrong.  Show me where this kind of information is acceptable in a criticism entry. Still waiting on that one.PelleSmith (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * None of it is OR. Link explicit sentences that is SYTH and OR. Please, go ahead. Do it. Now. Btw, you restored a plagiarized and horribly written paragraph. Yeah. You, Pelle. You. Continuing to say OR OR OR and...OR does not make it so. Prove your accusations, as I have. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually I just corrected that mistake and I was happy to do so. Why don't you chill out and wait for the third opinion. Right now two of us on this talk page say certain additions don't belong and one person says they do. It would very much help your case if you could in some way establish a precedent for your additions. From the last few edits ... the following material does not belong: There is no criticism in these additions. They are facts, or supposed facts, that by your own admission are meant to lend credibility to some of the critics. Well if the critics do so themselves then we can add the material, but we cannot do it for them. That is a form of OR. I'm sick of explaining this. Please wait for the third opinion or find a relevant policy related board to post a complaint on if you are impatient.PelleSmith (talk) 01:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A number of CAIR officials have been implicated in supporting Islamic terrorism by several federal agencies and politicians, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Ghassan Elashi, a founding member of the CAIR-texas chapter and co-founder of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, was detained by the FBI and charged with having ties to front groups for Islamic terrorism. In 2005, Elashi was sentenced to 7 years in prison for his involvement with the charity.
 * In January of 2009, it was reported that the FBI cut off communication with CAIR following "damning" evidence that the groups founders had ties to a "Hamas-support network in America." CAIR was named as an "un-indicted co-conspirator" in the case against Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development that convicted the charity of illegally routing money to Hamas.
 * Yes, these are notable facts and not original research. Politicians and the FBI have accused CAIR of having ties to terrorism. CAIR denies these accusations (thus appreciating it is criticism). It is criticism, especially when notable experts/journalists/etc are referring to the events. And again, none of thos is OR and none of this explains how you plagiarized and misrepresented the NYT article, not to mention improperly sourcing the content. Please read wikipedia policy and practice somewhere else. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you truly believe this isn't criticism and 3O agrees, then we'll move it directly to the CAIR article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, thanks for accusing me of trolling in your discussion page. I removed your retired tag from your user page because you obviously are not. Hopefully that's okay. Hope this 3O comes soon and confirms my paragraph is not even close to OR, which you repeatedly accuse me of violating. I consider that slander and libelous. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

So, here's the deal: we do not have sections devoted to stating that such-and-such individual was indicted for terrorism. This is about CAIR, not about individual officers or members. The same way we don't take up the U.S. Congress page with a paragraph on this or that Congressman who was caught molesting children. Especially not when we have quotes from government sources -- which Wikifan keeps erasing -- stating that CAIR itself was never implicated in these various things. We can make the point that a small group of people are attacking CAIR viciously based on these convictions, and cite the response (not just from CAIR but from former FBI officials and government agents) that CAIR was not implicated in these events, and that's it. But dwelling on the individuals is not appropriate here and creates a severe undue weight problem. csloat (talk) 02:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * According to CAIR. According to the FBI, CAIR officials have been convicted for belong to terrorist or having ties to terrorist organization. You are taking the POV of CAIR rather than what the references are saying, and your comparison to congress molestation is bogus. anyways, current edition is still plagiarized and is half as good as my version. Keep making up excuses, I'll continue to respond. Guess the original research accusation is gone, hmm? Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ummmm, NO. According to the NYT.  The FBI never convicted CAIR, just individuals.  Stuff about individuals doesn't belong here.  Only the fact that a small group of extremists have used the individuals who have been arrested to smear CAIR, and that the smears were directly refuted by government officials.  You call my analogy "bogus" but never say why?  It's the same thing.
 * Please stop making up nonsense about "plagiarism." If there's an unattributed quote tell us what it is and let's erase it or find the citation.  I don't see any plagiarism. csloat (talk) 03:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know. The FBI cannot convict people but they did indict several members. Stuff about individuals do belong here, CAIR is not a single entity but a collective group of leaders. Criticisms aren't are not limited to general complaints - if individuals are outed by reliable sources we can post them. And no, your paragraph is plagiarized. Copy and pasting entire sentences with extremely long quotes with no respect for paraphrasing or basic wikipedia editing policy is called PLAGIARISM. I'm not going to fix it cause I know you will just revert and say "original research blah blah." When will this 3OO show up?? Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Putting the word plagiarism in capital letters does not make it true. If you would like to identify a plagiarism instance please do so but I don't see it.  As for indicting CAIR on the basis of a few members; nope, we're not going to play that game.  It's clearly spelled out in wikipedia policy: avoid claims that smack of guilt by association.  Thanks, csloat (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but copying and pasting entire sentences without attributing author or relying on secondary sources is plagiarism. Plus, you didn't even paraphrase the sourced content accurately. Then you claim my version, which was far more neutral and represented the reference according to what it actually said, was "original research." This has nothing to do with BLP and I don't get this guilt by association. That is what CAIR says and it is in the article, are you advocating on behalf of CAIR? They might say guilt by association but CAIR officials being sent to prison for fronting Hamas charities says a whole lot more. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Right. OK.  Hey, so it turns out that I actually already know what plagiarism is.  My question was not about the meaning of the word, but whether there was any material actually plagiarized.  Could you please provide a link, a diff, or a direct quote of what the hell you're talking about?  That would be swell.
 * Now. As far as guilt by association, click the link and read for a while.  Or read WP:BLP, which says very clearly the following:
 * Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.
 * So you see, claiming that CAIR supports terrorism because a few people who have been associated with CAIR support terrorism is a claim based on guilt by association. That's what you're doing here.  Hope this helps! csloat (talk) 07:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said CAIR supports terrorism and the paragraph I posted didn't either. You seem to be taking this very seriously and continue to use the "guilt by association" which is most common CAIR mantra. Prominent CAIR members have ties to islamic movements and leaders (such as Awad) have made controversial statements that have isolated politicians and governments. Hosting a dinner for an Iranian despot doesn't win you any points, guilty by association or not. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as you keep your guilt by association claims out of the article, we have no problem. I take it you are withdrawing your "plagiarism" claims now too, right? csloat (talk) 08:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not making in claims - I am simply citing what the reliable source says. I'm sorry if it paints a picture of CAIR that you don't like but the content is sound. Accusations of original research and BLP vio were baseless. As far as plagiarism is concerned, copying and pasting entire sentences is still illegal. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:SYN to better understand why using sources in this manner is inappropriate. Also please stop accusing me of "plagiarism"; you haven't once pointed to a plagiarized sentence or paragraph.  And if you think it is "illegal," call the FBI or something; you're really not making any argument here based on that. csloat (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

FBI cuts ties
The 2009 article that mentions that the FBI "cut its ties" with CAIR can be included here if you show that it is the basis for criticism of CAIR - I still haven't seen it in the sources provided. There is the suggestive but somewhat meaningless phrase "unindicted co-conspirator" -- sounds scary until you read that CAIR is one of 300 organizations and individuals named in this way. CAIR was not banned by FBI nor its members rounded up; its offices were not searched or shuttered, its funding was not seized, so we know there really isn't anything linking them to "terrorism"; the FBI just "cut off contact" -- presumably, if the FBI thought CAIR was funding terrorists, they would want to MAKE contact, and we'd probably see some direct action against the organization. But nothing of the sort has been reported. The FBI spokesperson said of the cutting of contact that "That is not to suggest that anyone or everyone associated with CAIR has any kind of taint." There is some implication in recent press reports that there is tension because of the FBIs use of agents provocateur to infiltrate Muslim organizations and that CAIR complained loudly about it; some see this as a smear campaign initiated under Bush.

All terribly interesting, but none of it amounts to "criticism." And certainly singling out CAIR from 300 organizations and persons to smear with this information seems to be undue weight. csloat (talk) 03:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ugh, too many words. I explained why FBI accusing several CAIR officials of having ties to terrorism and a few of those officials being sent to prison is relevant criticism. The fact that they cut ties because of Hezbollah/Hamas "relations" (supposedly) is pertinent to those who have corroborated or repeated such accusations. Plus, CAIR has defended itself from said criticisms. The accusers routinely refer to the various allegations and statements made by CAIR, and thus are necessary. Your rant about Bush makes no sense.

Anyways, this is redundant. You obviously getting desparate and like Pelle continue to bring up new issues. Original research claim was bogus and the current paragraph is still plagiarized. You two have been edit-warring out all my additions even though my summaries are very accurate. this is not how wikipedia works, and like Pelle I suggest you practice somewhere else. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, first of all, please stop making up BS. "Plagiarism" is not an issue here, despite your constant repetition of it.  Second, saying "too many words" is not a good reason to only include the words you agree with.  Third, if we put this in, we include the full context, including CAIR's response (and the facts as explained by the FBI spokesman)  -- this is an encyclopedia entry, not an article in the Washington Times.  Finally, please read this page, this page, and this one.  Thanks. csloat (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is getting redundant. Please stop throwing policies in my face if you don't know how to read them. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Article Issues
This article has/had multiple issues. Two separate editors have contended that some of the material Wikifan wants to keep in the entry has several different issues. Some of it amounts to original research, some of it violates BLP policy, and some of it is problematic for different reasons. I'm pointing this out because Wikifan keeps on claiming that we are coming up with different reasons to delete the same material and that simply is not the case. If it were Wikifan could provide diffs instead of just making accusations. The only time I mistakenly conflated material in my editing I corrected the mistake. Wikifan no one has given up on the OR claim, but not all of issues with all of the material you are fighting for amounts to OR.PelleSmith (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Specific ongoing issues
"Andrew C. McCarthy expressed concern about how "several CAIR officials ..." ''Despite such accusations, the New York Times reported that "Government officials in Washington said they were not aware of any criminal investigation of the group. More than one described the standards used by critics to link CAIR to terrorism as akin to McCarthyism, essentially guilt by association. 'Of all the groups, there is probably more suspicion about CAIR, but when you ask people for cold hard facts, you get blank stares,' said Michael Rolince, a retired F.B.I. official who directed counterterrorism in the Washington field office from 2002 to 2005." The article noted that "a debate rages behind the scenes in Washington about the group, commonly known as CAIR, its financing and its motives. A small band of critics have made a determined but unsuccessful effort to link it to Hamas and Hezbollah, which have been designated as terrorist organizations by the State Department, and have gone so far as calling the group an American front for the two." While critics cite five figures with "ties" to CAIR who have been "convicted or deported for links to terrorist groups," the article notes that "There were no charges linked to CAIR in any of the cases involved, and law enforcement officials said that in the current climate, any hint of suspicious behavior would have resulted in a racketeering charge." In September of 2006, CAIR hosted a dinner for President Mohamed Khatami of Iran at a time "when much of official Washington had ostracized that Islamic republic." CAIR was also criticized for accepting funding from individuals and foundations that have ties to Arab governments, and has received $500,000 from Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia.''
 * "expressed concern" is a subjective evaluation here. McCarthy, who is clearly critical of CAIR, never actually expresses concern about these things.  He simply states this as fact to undermine the organizations credibility.  Please find a way to accurately reflect this.PelleSmith (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is way too much text. I suggest finding a way to paraphrase essential details from all the text after the phrase "guilt by association" into one sentence max.  Another suggestion might be to put some of the detail into a footnote with the citation.PelleSmith (talk) 12:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no criticism here at all. This is a good example of the pile on of "facts" to make them look bad.  Who is criticizing them for this?  In the article this piece of information is part of a paragraph that establishes a rationale for why political interests may be influencing the public stances of senior officials.  In our text this is not reflected.PelleSmith (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The article actually says "raised suspicion" and not "criticized."PelleSmith (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I fixed the McCarthy one. I agree about the last two -- neither of these items expresses "criticism"; they clearly both rely on guilt by association.  They should be deleted forthwith.  The second one is particularly bizarre -- is this Saudi Prince some kind of criminal?  Why are "ties to Arab governments" raising suspicion??  Hell, the FBI has ties to Arab governments!  As for the NYT section, I agree it is long but I'm not sure how to shorten it; Wikifan tried to shorten it but he did so by removing some of the most important points of clarification. csloat (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Non-content based discussion please keep seperate

 * Yeah, it's too much text because you plagiarized. My version was by the book and was cited by multiple references to corroborate the NYT, and in addition I did copy edit while you simply listed NYT over and over again. You then accuse me of original research about 9 times and then BLP violations, along with everything else. Then you get all angry over "guilt by association" silliness. This whole "not criticism" is pure semantics. Everyone is criticizing CAIR having ties to terrorism. They claim it is only a small group of people and it is guilt by association. That is fine, but several CAIR officials have been dragged to jail, leaders have hosted dinners with rogue nations, some have "supposedly" make comments referencing they do not condone violence against Israel and have associated with groups that don't either. This is important. On top of that, they have received 500,000+ dollars from an oil despot - futher raising suspicions if they truly are a general Islamic union or do they wish to mirror the extreme form of SA. These are all criticisms, if a CAIR official murdered someone and no one said anything it would still be put in the criticism section. You continually base your edits off what CAIR is saying and seem to take deep offense at anything remotely negative. You are washing it down with your policies, stop saying guilt by association. The current paragraph is a total joke and so is edit warring out every addition that doesn't meet your standards. When 3OO gets here he'll fix everything because I know my paragraph meets policy. I know this. This is getting totally redundant and frustrating. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry; one more unsupported accusation of plagiarism and I am reporting you to WP:AN/I. Besides the obvious WP:NPA violation here, there are severe WP:BLP issues with the continued insistence that "CAIR officials have been dragged to jail" and other guilt by association accusations against CAIR.  Please take a look at this page and answer the question I asked earlier; should we insert all of these crimes into the page on the United States Congress and make the claim that the US Congress is a criminal institution?  By the way, the Saudi shit really confuses me.  Last I checked, Saudi Arabia was an ally of the United States, and was not considered a terrorist or outlaw nation.  That a Muslim advocacy organization received money from a wealthy Muslim from a Muslim nation should not raise an eyebrow.  If I showed that AIPAC received $500,000 from a prominent Israeli would that cause suspicion?  And, if so, can we provide evidence of the actual suspicion (or "criticism") rather than just stating information about the contribution itself in a manner that is thick with sneering innuendo? csloat (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Linking various people and organizations to Saudi money is a common post-911 practice used to discredit these entities. There is a tacit understanding amongst certain political sectors that Saudi money = the promotion of Islamism.  That this logic is not particularly sound should not be a surprise.PelleSmith (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Copy

ing and pasting entire sentences without attributions let alone is plagiarism. Please report me to ANI if you believe plagiarism is okay. Your interpretation of what qualifies as criticism is bizarre and please stop bringing up guilty by association. The NYT article is about why x people are criticizing CAIR. CAIR claims it is guilt by association, but mingling with Hamas and Hezbollah, hosting dinners with Iranian despots (at a time when the US was at odds with the country), leadership officials being sent to jail certainly, and receiving money from a country that is complicit in supporting the Taliban and Al-Queda says a lot. If CAIR is trying to separate itself from the general sterotypes of muslim it isn't doing a very good job. This is why politicians are alienated by the organization and this is why people are criticizing the group. you seem to be advocating on behalf of CAIR rather than using the source. My version was well sourced and your claims of original research (the only reason Pelle deleted it) was totally bogus. All of this is pertinent to the article. Pelle, I don't care. We write what the source says. If they're trying to discredit the organization it isn't our problem. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikifan, I'm going to tell you this for the last time. I restored your version as soon as my mistake was pointed out.  It is rather unfortunate to see escalations of hostility like this.  At some point this will go to the appropriate user conduct noticeboard and you will not like the result.PelleSmith (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You reduced my draft and left your extremely bloated plagiarized/undue paragraph that has little to do with criticisms. Giving 3 sentences to a non-notable uninvolved FBI agent is rather odd. There's a difference between hostility and straight forwardness. If you'd like, I can up the happy faces. : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, enough Wikifan. There is no plagiarism here. Please quit lying about that. "Plagiarism" is when you use quotes that are unattributed. Everyone here agrees that the quotes in question are from the NYT (assuming we even are talking about the same quotes; you refuse to even tell us which quotes you're talking about!) The quotes are all properly attributed and have quotation marks around them; if there is a mistake show us where it is and we can correct it. As for whether the FBI agent's view is relevant, it is directly responsive to the nonsense guilt by association charge you seem to think is so important here. It establishes the context and it shows that there is no basis for these complaints. I think the debate here is done. csloat (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope. Copying and pasting entire sentences which is what you did and simply posting a reference after 9 sentences is not proper citation. You have to understand how citation rules work. You cannot put citations around paragraphs of copyrighted journalism. That is what I'm saying, if there wasn't a reference then it would probably be considered original research. Can you please clarify this guilt by association policy? I see it no where on wikipedia. I do however see CAIR constantly moaning about how all these accusations are "guilt by association." this isn't a rule and we shouldn't be limiting content to CAIR defenses. If critics are citing CAIR and officials are being dragged to prison for mingling with Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, etc...etc...it's perfectly accept to include in the article. Long quotes with ambiguous and general defenses about how they have nothing to do with terrorism is not fair when you censor out everything that they've done that is related to terrorism. You cannot have it both ways. Choosing one vague quote from a non-notable FBI official against a indictments by the FBI and leadership officials being sent to jail is bizarre. The article (NYT) had 3 pages of valuable content and you've guys been skewering it with claims of "guilt by association" which is not our job to determine. This is wikipedia, not CAIR.com. Am I making sense? Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's policy on WP:BLP is where the "guilt by association policy" is. We're not talking about "CAIR constantly moaning"; we're talking about the NYT and an FBI official and several other government officials saying this is guilt by association AND we're talking about you deleting the evidence of those statements!  Please stop saying things like "everything they have done that is realted to terrorism" -- CAIR, as CAIR, has done nothing related to terrorism and in fact has denounced terrorism over and over.  A few members of CAIR were arrested for terrorism related charges -- those are two different things!  Can't you see this?  I've said this again and again and you ignore it -- several members of US Congress have been convicted of sexual crimes with children.  Does that mean the US Congress is an institution that molests children??  Answer the question. csloat (talk) 07:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the guilt by association claim is CAIR's wording. You should see Burden of proof. Guilt by association entails a source that simply has CAIR in the context but has little to do with the subject. While some have claimed this is the case, actions speak louder than words. CAIR officials have been caught hosting dinners for Arab despots, receiving donations from Arab despots, condoning the violence actions of Arab despots, and being indicted by Federal agencies for "associating" with Arab despots. Are you seriously saying these facts that are supported by your very own NYT's article qualifies as "guilt by association"?? Are you serious? Seriously? You've continually edited-out cited information with dubious claims of COATRACk and *lols* BLP violations of guilt-by-association. We can very well sell CAIR's claims and for neutrality reasons we are obligated to. But consciously weeding out valid content that does not even remotely meet BLP violations to fit the agenda of CAIR is bogus. This is what you are doing, and I've said this many times. I won't say it again. Bolded/Italicized for importance. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the NYT's wording and is further used and clarified by several other sources. You should see WP:BLP.  All your comments about CAIR members being arrested and such are irrelevant.  Arab despots?  Get a grip - President Bush used to "associate" with Arab despots, and President Obama does today - are you saying they support terrorism?  It seems you forgot to answer my question about the US Congress, so it appears you're actually conceding the basis of the argument here.  It's time to move on. csloat (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, you continue to apply personal standards instead wikipedia policy. You REMOVED NYT's wording, everything in my paragraph came straight from NYT paragraph and it was cited properly, even with a confirming source from a competing newspaper. CAIR being arrested for ties to TERRORISM is certainly relevant when people who criticize the organization are explicitly referring to those events. CAIR has alienated much of the partisan world for its bizarre statements and actions that are contrary to the "guilt by association" which you falsely applied from BLP. The NYT wording has little to do with criticism and was simply a nice long undue explanation as to why CAIR is innocent. Comparing CAIR "associating" (euphemism, mind you) with controversial figures to Bush friendlies is nothing less than a fallacy. This is seriously getting redundant. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Identify what sentence was removed from the NYT and explain why it should not have been removed; then we have something to discuss. I explained exactly what was wrong with the stuff you removed, and I explained exactly why I removed the guilt-by-association material.  You have made vague (and preposterous) accusations of plagiarism and you continue to repeat the guilt-by-association material without even seeming to understand why it is inappropriate here, even after extensive explanation from two different editors.  You're right, this is getting redundant. csloat (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I was pretty explicit when I compared to the two paragraphs. You explained why you removed the GBA material and I explained your how reasoning was flawed and was not supported by wikipedia policy. I made very specific accusations of plagiarism (copying and pasting entire sentences without proper attribution). I've responded to everything single one of your claims, your obsession with "guilt-by-association" which makes no sense whatsoever and edit-warring every addition you disagree with with dubious rationales. Pelle warred virtually all of my editions with "original research" when everything came straight from the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You have never once quoted what you think is plagiarized. The charge is transparently dishonest at best.  Guilt by association has been explained.  Your arguments have been quite clearly responded to at length. csloat (talk) 04:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Guilt by association has been thoroughly rebuked. Notice the discrepancy between the length of my response to yours, and yet you continue to say the same things over and over again. How are CAIR officials being sent to prison for communicating with terrorists is somehow "guilt by association"? And yes, copy and pasting entire sentences with improper attribution is plagiarisim in the eyes of wikipedia. We can't legally host entire excerpts of newspaper articles without proper citations, citations Pelle removed under "original research." You removed all of my edits under the original research accusation which has also been proven false. Remember that? Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What I remember most is you incessantly repeating false claims. I'm not going to continue responding to your nonsense, sorry.  Over at Wikiquette alerts the consensus was that you are a problem user with behavior destructive to Wikipedia and that user conduct RfC should be filed.  If you insist on being disruptive on this article I will be forced to take that step, but otherwise, this conversation has grown tiresome. csloat (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly this discussion is not going anywhere so I ask that we simply part ways on the article. I haven't edited the article very much anyways, and may only add things here and there. Though I do hope that you guys rely on talk more before edit-warring everything out. I provided legitimate reasons for my concern yet most of those were ignored. Good bye. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I just discovered this article and hadn't realized all that has been going on with it. I see that there is more than one doorkeeper for CAIR here at WP.  Stellarkid (talk) 13:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent merge and consensus
I should have left a note here before "merging" this into the main entry, but I do believe there was consensus for a merge but that this was overlooked when Wikifan turned the entry into a battle field earlier in the summer. Of course this may not be all that obvious without some links. Those participating in this discussion, prior to the recent AfD suggested the entry was a POV fork and that it should be merged to the main entry. The reason I put it up for AfD was to get more discussion going about deleting, merging and redirecting. While the AfD closed as "no decision" I believe it is clear that the consensus there was for a merge as well. 5 (6 including me the nominator) participants voted for a merge in some manner or another. There was 1 plain delete and 2 plain keeps. I attempted to get the discussion focused back to the idea of merging during the disputed period this summer to no avail. I believe however, as I said then that there is a consensus to merge any relevant materials and to redirect this page. It has little to no support to stand on its own. As to whether or not the merge I attempted was sufficient enough that is another matter. I did not merge all the unnecessary bloat from this entry into that one, but I believe I got all the essential elements. If I did not lets make sure that takes place.PelleSmith (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * see Talk:Criticism_of_the_Council_on_American-Islamic_Relations
 * see also Talk:Council_on_American-Islamic_Relations
 * see Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_the_Council_on_American-Islamic_Relations_(2nd_nomination)