Talk:Mike Hawash/Hawash source and NPOV discussion

Daniel Pipes article
As User:IronDuke no doubt knows, a search for "Hawash" on the New York Post website shows no results. The Pipes editorial is a blog post, and not WP:RS. The onus is on him to find a reliable source. --


 * 1) Please sign your posts. 2) Please log in, as opposed to harassing me from multiple IP's. 3) You raise good points. I will address them as soon as you stop harassing me and start conforming to WP policy. IronDuke  23:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Neglected to add an edit summary, apologies: I added a number of sources re McGeady and Hawash. Pipes is totally legit, but as Mr. Anonymous Unsigned IP Address points out, if something's true, there should usually be multiple sources for it. And indeed, there are. IronDuke  00:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:OWN
IronDuke, no editor WP:OWNs this or any page. You need to list your concerns here, instead of simply labelling random things "argumentative". Please supply reasons for your edits, lest they appear to betray a POV. -- 195.36.46.80 20:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * IronDuke -- do NOT remove talk page comments. If you think the comment above is NPA, then get another editor to agree with you and remove it. Anonymous editors have just as many rights as you do.  -- 195.36.46.61 08:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * One more time -- do NOT remove talk page comments. If you have proof of your "sockpuppet" accusations, then provide it.  Otherwise, leave Talk page comments as they are -- to do anything else is vandalism. -- 88.149.148.182 20:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * For the third time, I have restored (in a somewhat edited form), the Talk page comment that IronDuke continues to delete. -- 213.86.231.109 07:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed attacks
-- Personal attack by socks removed. Jersyko's comments apply to the removed material. Jersyko, I know you mean well, but please take a moment to observe the drive-by nature of the multiple socks attack this page before discussion of "interacting more fluidly" takes place. IronDuke 22:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, the first comment in this subsection could be interpreted as a roundabout personal attack. Perhaps you would consider removing the last sentence of that comment?  I'm sure IronDuke would appreciate such an offer of peace, and perhaps both of you would be able to interact more fluidly as a result. -  Jersyko &middot;talk 20:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * IronDuke's accusation of "multiple socks" is itself a WP:NPA personal attack. Anonymous editors are fully supported in Wikipedia, and continuing to delete comments by anonymous editors is a violation of policy, and if repeated, may become vandalism. -- 213.86.231.109 07:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

From rfc
I've run through the article and removed information that seemed to toe the POV line (as well as some rewording for flow). Aside from the fact that there was an overabundance of quotes by Hawash supporters in the article, giving them undue weight, there really weren't a lot of problems. Both of you should calm down. Typically, accusations of WP:OWN violations do not help anything in disputes like this, regardless of whether it is true or not. I hope this helps, let me know if there's anymore I can do. - Jersyko &middot;talk 13:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for your input. You make good points. I'm a little concerned about taking out the prof's analysis; I have no opinion as to whether he is legally correct (and I don't think he's saying it's illegal, just not in the spirit, if you know what I mean). You are also right that Hawash's supporters are being given a lot of weight. I will look into that, time permitting (or anything you want to add would be great, too). In the meantime, I think some outside expert source discussing why people objecting to Hawash's detention objected would be good. What do you think of quoting this: ""Mike is just the tip of the iceberg," says David Fidanque, Executive Director of the Oregon ACLU. "There's no question that [Attorney General John] Ashcroft and the Justice Department have been bending the constitution for what they think is a good cause," he adds." from . Thanks again for your edits. IronDuke  15:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, hmm. From my relatively uninitiated point of view in regard to the Hawash incident, but somewhat knowledgeable pov in regard to what I think is the relevant legal issue, it seems that the arguments being made by the professor and the ACLU are part of a general argument that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional, rather than that authorities in Hawash's particular situation violated federal statutes.  For the most part, I happen to agree in re the Patriot Act, but that's neither here nor there.  The general constitutional argument almost seems so broad to be out of place in this article.  However, perhaps if, instead of merely providing the quotes by the professor or ACLU, you wrote that the professor or ACLU pointed out that the Hawash incident was an example of what they believe to be an unconstitutional application of the Patriot Act . . . well, I know it's somewhat contrived and complicated, sorry.  But the quotes, standing alone, are somewhat misleading.  Make sense? -  Jersyko &middot;talk 19:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What you say makes sense. I have a few more things to put in, and I would take some issue with your removing all the McGeady stuff and will add it back in, although I'm certainly open on this point if you have strong objections. But I have read extensively on this case, and McGeady is more widely quoted (all over the place) than Hawash himself. Also, his tenacious defense of Hawash lead to sharp criticism after Hawash pleaded guilty. We need to contextualize both sides of the debate. IronDuke  23:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

IMO, Jersyko's edits have been excellent. The salient aspects of the case are: The distinction from other Ashcroft terror cases is essentially in these points. Some believe that the charges were overblown, but that is belied to some degree by the guilty plea. Most of the protest was (at least ostensibly) about the material witness detention. -- 88.149.148.182 20:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Hawash was arrested and held for five weeks under a material witness warrant, rather than under charge;
 * 2) Hawash (in distinction from most other Muslims charged in Portland or elsewhere) gathered a coterie of supporters, and was a successful, Americanized Palestinian;
 * 3) The nature of the charge was a conspiracy charge, rather than an overt action;
 * 4) The supporters were brought up short by the guilty plea; and
 * 5) Hawash's plea essentially closed the case.

Major rewrite
I added tons of stuff, really far too much to summarise. One quick question: I've seen Hawash's wife as "Lisa Ryan" and "Lisa Hawash." Anyone know which is right? Both? Neither? IronDuke 02:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This page is being used as an attack
First of all, since I have tangled with User:IronDuke before, he will accuse me of being a sockpuppet for someone, perhaps the anon editing before, or perhaps someone else. I welcome a checkuser, or whatever, as this is most definitly not the case. In reading the history, I have tried to assume good faith, but IMO, IronDuke may be using this page to attack Steven McGeady by including biased and out-of-context quotes, and pushing a POV. It is possible that this is not the intention, but the result is the same. Even after another editor balanced the article, much of the bias was added again in the rewrite. I was alerted to this and came off wikibreak to deal with it. IronDuke will inevitably ask that I be banned, but please judge the edits on their own basis and not on the basis of groundless accusations. -- Anomicene 21:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether the page was biased after either IronDuke's or your rewrite (and I haven't read either version yet, so I can't say at the moment), you cannot protect a page, and especially a talk page, simply because you don't want people to edit the article or talk page. There is a process by which editors can request page protection.  Your attempt to protect them from further editing didn't work, anyway, as only administrators have the ability to protect pages.  It does, however, demonstrate some bad faith on your part.  Try to assume good faith, please. -  Jersyko &middot;talk 21:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)  Didn't realize it had been protected by an admin who forgot to put the templates up. -  Jersyko &middot;talk 12:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, Anomicene. Not sure where to begin. I guess I should point out that saying we have "tangled" is not quite how I'd put it. You were tagged by a respected admin as a sockpuppeteer of User:gomi-no-sensei, who had been harassing me. Now, in my personal view, while you were involved with this user (by your own admission, I think), the truth is a little more complicated than that, and let me say right now that I am sorry if the wrong person was punished in that case, although I firmly believe that even in a best-case scenario, you were involved in activity that is frowned on here. Having said that, I'd really love it if you could stay away from me. If you'll take a moment to check out what the IP socks have been up to, you will see that they have (meaning "he has") been following me to other pages and reverting my edits. That's called wikistalking, and is usually taken pretty seriously. I'll confess, after some of the other behavior that's gone on, I don't have much of a sense of humor about it and am not about to tolerate it. I hope you can appreciate why. As to the specifics of this article: the vast majority of the article was written by me, at this point, and the vast majority concerns Steven McGeady not at all. Jersyko seemed to think there was too much McGeady quoting, which was fine with me. I have no problem with the McGeady quotes you put into the article. FWIW, I think they make McGeady look worse than what I had, but either way is fine. (And BTW, I see absolutely no evidence from you that the quotes I'm using are in any way out of context.) I think some of your changes are fine. Some, as you know, I do not think are fine (especially the ones that the sockpuppet has directed you to change), and am going to revert. And again: I ask you not to change what I've done. You've said your piece, fair enough, now please move on. This article has been opened to RfC, it attracted an editor who actually has some expertise in these matters, and I'm happy to write this article in conjunction with him and any other editor who comes to this page without having been urged to do so by a sockpuppet. Which brings me to my final question: you say you were "alerted" to what was going on. Was the person who alerted you responsible for any of the anon IP edits this article was sprotected against? And no, I'm not going to try to get you "banned." I will ask an admin to take a look at this and weigh in, but in my experience admins don't take orders from us ordinary joes. IronDuke  23:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, not that it is any of your business, but the complaint I got was from one of Hawash's friends and supporters who is mentioned in the article (not McGeady). Here is a quote: "the piece reads like a precis of the NJ Star-Ledger article with all of the balance and positive stuff taken out." Here are the specific complaints: In short, I and others think this article is a thinly-veiled hatchet job on Hawash's supporters and spokepeople, the most prominent of which was McGeady.
 * 1) The "Nazi" quote from Reinhard is way out of line -- none of Hawash's supporters every uttered the word, he is referencing the old "firt they came for the trade unionists" thing and then waving "Nazi" around like a banner. This is Godwin's Law at its worst.  The whole Reinhard thing is a slander on the family spokespeople;
 * 2) The article seems to delight in taking comments McGeady made as family spokesperson, attributing them to him personally, and trying to embarass him with them. I know he doesn't really care, but other people are finding it highly offensive;
 * 3) The closing quote, from Pipes, is a demonstrably inaccurate opinion. Several prominent supprots have expresed regret and second thoughts, while others have more nuanced opinions, most of which are in the public record.  Using the Pipes piece as the closing statement is inflammatory and outrageously biased;
 * 4) As part of the item above, the "Aftermath" section is 100% biased, with no balance -- IronDuke even removed the Cohen quote I provided, intended to provide some balance.

The motivation is harder to fathom, but not by much -- IronDuke started editing this the very same day he succeeded in getting a colleague of mine, User:Gomi-no-sensei (falsely) banned as a sockpuppet of mine, and in effect getting me banned from using Wikipedia by my employer. This is because of a link IronDuke appears to believe exists between me, Gomi, McGeady, and another Wikipedia user. So who exactly is wikistalking who here? I am going to correct only the worst parts of the article now (the Nazi quote and the Pipes quote), and hopefully someone will address the other issues in more depth. Finally, as for the anon, I do not know who it is. I would imagine Gomi might be behind it, but he is out of the country at the moment. -- Anomicene 19:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm really not sure how to untangle what you've written above. Your "colleague" harassed me, and now your employer has "banned" you from using Wikipedia (which you appear to be doing anyway)? I'm also starting to feel a little foolish debating multiple meat and sockpuppets who may all in fact be the same person. But I'll just say this: I looked for a long time for any of the supporters to publically indicate regret. If any of them want to email me and point the way, I swear by all that is good and holy I will include as many of the quotes as I can and fight to keep them in the article. (As for Cohen, he's representing Ford, not Hawash.) I might also point out that you came to this page to accuse me of targeting McGeady (although you've now changed your charges -- taken out all the "positive stuff?" I don't know about you, but I see litle that's positive here. Just a big, tragic, wasteful mess), and tried to rectify this by putting in more McGeady quotes which I did not touch. The only substantive changes I made (apart from rolling back some of your POV) was to keep the criticism intact and, as I say, I'm happy to put in any statements of regret made by any of the principals. What I am not happy to do is have my edits reverted by multiple sock and meatpuppets or their puppeteers. And yes, that includes you. IronDuke  21:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The Issues
OK, as predicted, IronDuke has now labeled me a sockpuppet or whatever, but as near as I can tell, I have a right to edit here, and whatever happened to him in the past is not relevant here. I have removed the blog posting, as noted above, and added a balancing quote (rather than remove the offensive one) and the Nazi reference. I welcome a debate on the issues, not on unrelated Wiki-politics. -- Anomicene 06:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't labeled you, an admin has: anyone curious can just click on Gomi-no-sensei and see the history for themselves. And I'm still waiting to hear from these maligned supporters you claim have contacted you... IronDuke  19:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of your beliefs, I do have a right to contribute here. You don't have a right to question non-Wikipedia users or contact them. Please discuss the issues, rather than simply revert. -- Anomicene 19:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have discussed the issues, ad nauseum. You would have the right to contribute here if a) You weren't a self-confessed meatpuppet and b) you didn't have a record of harassing me in the past. I rather suspected that these "non-Wikipedia users" (whom I have no desire to "question") were a fiction. Good we can move on from that, at any rate. IronDuke  20:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not a puppet and your words and a personal attack. Discuss the edits, not the editor. -- Anomicene 07:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You came to this page attacking me, after you were involved in harassing me. I've not attacked you, merely pointed to your history and the history of your "colleagues." IronDuke  20:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, you've made your accusation for the record. I will happily prove -- if such proof is needed -- my reason for editing this article to any competent, independent administrator upon request. In the meantime, please address the edits, not the editor. -- Anomicene 20:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Holy cow, that was a fast revert, especially considering you don't seem interested in editing any other pages here. Are you getting paid to watch this page? I'm envious, if you are. IronDuke  21:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

 * IronDuke, if you won't accept mediation, you should just say so. It of course is not mandatory. However, continuous reversions are clearly not the answer either. -- Anomicene 20:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Response
Okay, you asked me to “explain” my “problems” with your edits. I feel that I’ve done this, but here’s one more try. You first arrived at this page shortly after it was sprotected against anonymous IP’s, which were harassing me and wikistalking me here and elsewhere. At the time, you admitted you had been directed by someone else to come here. This fact, combined with the fact that you were tagged as a sockpuppeteer of Gomi-no-sensei made it very difficult to assume good faith about your edits. Sorry, that was weasel-wording. It made it impossible to assume good faith about your edits. Now, that doesn’t mean that your edits are therefore worthless, just because I’m casting a jaundiced eye on them, any more than someone’s edits about whom I was assuming good faith would be automatically good. The combination of 1) some of your edits being okay and 2) your generally using a civil tone made me more inclined to deal with you directly than maybe I should have been. To the issues:

You accuse me of pushing POV, and yet POV pushing is virtually all you’ve done on this page, and sockpuppets aid you in this. Let me be clear: you came to this page accusing me of being anti-McGeady, of using quotes that were “biased” and “out-of-context” and even claimed, weirdly, that McGeady couldn’t be quoted as believing his own statements because he was acting as a “spokesman for the family” (so… McGeady secretly thought Hawash was guilty as sin, but was too enamored of the limelight to say so?) I challenged you early on to provide the “missing context” which you did not do, nor did you demonstrate bias, other than simply repeating the charge. You in fact edited the page to make McGeady arguably look worse. Then, contrary to what the one uninvolved editor had to say, you started adding even more McGeady quotes, as though we had to have McGeady responding to every point. We don’t. This article is not about McGeady.

Moving on. The Nazi quote you object to shows that you’re not aware of what standards WP uses to include or not include quotes. It makes no difference whatever whether Reinhard is “correct” or not. What matters is that he said it, it was notable, and was in fact responded to by McGeady. So what do we do? We put it all in there and let the reader decide. And as for Pipes, the argument shifts from “it’s not true” to “it’s a blog.” Again, it doesn’t matter if it’s “true.” What matters is if a notable person said it (and Pipes is notable, so his website is quotable – in fact, it was extensively quote elsewhere, as I showed). And again, I challenged you to provide quotes from Hawash supporters expressing regret. None were forthcoming.

Also, I find some of your disingenuous comments disturbing, this one in particular: "Finally, as for the anon, I do not know who it is. I would imagine Gomi might be behind it, but he is out of the country at the moment.”

I actually laughed out loud when I read that. Gomi? Gomi? “Gomi,” as you well know,” does not exist – it is simply the name of your sockpuppet. You and I both know the actual account name of the person behind all of these edits, and we know his RL name as well, and that it is he who is out of the country. I understand you have to pretend this might be true for the sake of others who are reading this page, but you see how that could set my teeth on edge?

Let me clear. I am well aware that I do not “own” this article in any way. However, when I first came to this article, it looked like this. Not a particularly edifying stub, is it? I built this article up from that, adding tons of information, from many sources, pro, negative, and neutral towards Hawash. So having you come out of the woodwork after the socks were banned (and moved on to other pages to harass me) to start arguing with me, well… try to move on and let me actually build this article. If parts of it are unbalanced, other editors will eventually come and help balance it. I’d even start another RfC on it, but I’d want to wait until after you had moved on and things had cooled down. Most editors don’t want to jump into a discussion where wikistalking sockpuppets are prevalent. I know I wouldn’t. IronDuke 16:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

First, let's set aside your paranoid ramblings about sockpuppetry, User:Gomi-no-Sensei, and your delusion that you have some secret insight into the identity of a mysteriously hidden editor. That stuff is laughable. Let's concentrate on the edits: You would like to taint me and everyone else here with your wild accusations, and fog the issues with words like "puppet" and "stalking", but it is about the issues above -- what is wrong with those edits??? What do independent editors -- not ones who hang out on Islamofascism and Israeli apartheid -- have to say? -- Anomicene 20:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Adding "material witness arrest and detention" to the lead in the context of the uproar: This is what the central debate was about; the Patriot Act was secondary, relating only to the ceasure of certain evidence -- it was really the 5-week detention that made the headlines;
 * 2) The para "Hawash and the Portland Seven" -- this para completely obscures the fact that the Portland Six, as they were known for months, were arrested and charged in October, whereas Hawash was unknown and uncharged for months after, until April. You continue to revert this for reasons unknown to me;
 * 3) Statement: "Hawash was the last to leave and first to return" - this is straight out of the primary reference you use for the article here, the NJ Star-Ledger. It is both true and pertinent -- why continue to delete it?
 * 4) Reinhard quote #1 (on Hawash's appearance): Reinhard accuses them of "creating a false impression" -- why not balance this qith a quote frmo the other side? If you can find a non-McGeady quote, feel free, but you choose a quote that emphasizes the point tha "if he looks like a long-bearded Arba, he must be a terrorist"!
 * 5) Hawash's assertion that the government had treated him fairly. This was part of his allocution -- why put it in under "Aftermath"?  It should go in the section regarding his allocution;
 * 6) Reinhard quote #2 -- the "Nazi" quote: this quote is completely taken out of context -- the supports never called the U.S. government Nazis -- there is absolutety no evidence to that effect. Some overzealous individual quoted the warhouse "Niemöller" quote, and Reinhard inflated that into Nazis.  Even putting Reinhard's quote into context would address it (and make it look silly), but you want to get the "Nazi" dig in;
 * 7) And finally your trademark Daniel Pipes quote: it is from a blog -- it is NOT listed in the NY Post archives. You have admitted above that it is not WP:RS!  Yet you keep putting it in as a provocation!  Pipes is a neo-con, pro-Israeli, anti-Arab nutcase.  Having his quote capstone the article is what has caused all of this bull!

I probably shouldn't do this, but...
Okay, Anomicene. This is getting on my nerves. I could try to have you banned, start a whole kerfuffle, but I'd rather have this end amicably. In a way, making any sort of agreement with you encourages you and others to game the system, but as I say, I want this to end and I have a feeling that this the only way the harassment of me is going to stop. It seems to me that your main objection is to the Pipes quote. So what I'm going to do, for now, is leave your edits as is (except for taking out the "He had been the last to leave the U.S. and the first to return." statement). Why take that out? Because it doesn't mean anything. And if it did mean anything (e.g., that Hawash had misgivings) we've already made Hawash's position on that as clear as can be. I'm leaving the Pipes quote out, even though I think it should be in, with the understanding that you will stop harassing me. That means no more sock puppets, meat puppets, anon IP attacks and attack accounts meant to mimic me. (It also means staying away from me with your main account, but you knew that already.) Now, I understand that you cannot admit to being party to any or all of those attacks, so let me just say that if you write "I will leave you alone" or such-like and nothing more, I will take that as an understanding that you are going to lay off, now and forever. Does that seem fair to you? IronDuke 03:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I must say that you have an unusual way of being convincing: wild accusations, insults, and blackmail. If you had reason to have me banned, I suspect you would have done so already.  However, the normal Wikipedia editing process has taken place, though somewhat painfully, and a compromise is being reached.  You should be prepared to do so on other articles, as that is the essence of Wikipedia.  I have made a proposal through User:SlimVirgin, and that is the only agreement that I am prepared to make, other than to abide by the normal rules and mores of Wikipedia, as I hope you will do as well, by refraining from personal attacks on me, focusing on the edits rather than the editors, and ensuring your sources are reliable. -- Anomicene 16:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Archiving
So, I'm going to go ahead and archive this talk page, as well as CURP. I'm doing this as a way to keep the pattern of de-escalating things that seems to be progressing in the last few days. Things seem to have cooled down, and I'm hoping it stays that way. If you object to this, feel free to put the talk back. As I say, this is all in an effort to put things behind us and encourage other editors to dive into this article, rather than being intimidated by our discussion. I do plan to keep editing this page as well as the pages I created or made significant contribs to. Please know this is in no way meant to provoke you. In fact, there are a few pages related to this one that I'm going to try and stay away from (pages I have made no edits to as yet or perhaps only one edit) just so as not to antagonize you -- for reasons you are well aware of, I think. I'd offer this in a spirit of friendship and healing, but I've a feeling you'd scoff at that. But I hope at least you are as anxious as I am to move on from this. IronDuke 03:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)