Talk:Tareq Al-Suwaidan

Allegations section
The allegations section refer to allegations that are almost a year old and Al-Suwaidan has not been prosecuted or called as a witness in any proceedings. They do not form a major portion of his notability and therefore should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.219.226.66 (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 *  [ Talk:Tareq Al-Suwaidan/Archive 1 ]  *
 * Please do no anonymously edit this page without discussion (see above note*). Being prosecuted or "called as a witness" are not the only criteria for including relevant material about an individual.
 * Sgmiller —Preceding comment was added at 09:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again this article has been edited by unsigned persons and with no addition to the discussion page. As I have repeatedly said, this article reached consensus by two people who spent a great deal of time on it. If you want to make changes, please come to the discussion page and make your points. It seems, as always, that anything perceived to be unfavorable to the subject is removed. If whoever is doing this unsigned editing cannot accept this, we can always ask for some form of moderation. Sgmiller —Preceding comment was added at 22:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This article has been extensively discussed and mediated. It is repeatedly being changed by unsigned editors and, at times, by either the subject or somebody related to him. The material being removed is anything which does not show the subject in a favorable light. However, as a leader of the Kuwaiti Muslim Brotherhood, the subjects statements on Jihad and his business dealings in the U.S. with other elements of the Brotherhood are relevant even if they have not yet been found to be criminal (unlikely in the case of calling for Jihad in Israel). This is not supposed to be a press release but rather a source of useful information. Please do not change the article without coming to the discussion and making your case. Sgmiller

Due to repeated anonymous reverts, I have requested that this page be locked from anonymous edits. Sgmiller —Preceding comment was added at 18:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been informed by Wikipedia that if repeated anonymous reverts continue, they will consider protecting the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgmiller (talk • contribs) 18:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I have made minor edits and removed the unindicted co-conspirator section due to The United States Attorneys' Manual generally recommends against naming unindicted co-conspirators, although their use is not generally prohibited by law or policy

Views on Israel, Terrorism Condemnations
I am going to try and resolve a long-standing dispute here by improving the quality of the "Views and Ideology" section by including Al-Suwaidan's views on terrorism, Israel, etc. I have made a concerted attempt to only reference quality secondary sources, primarily newspaper reports. So:

I added some material on Al-Suwiadan's views on Israel as well as his speaking appearance before the Islamic Association for Palestine in 2000. All additions are sourced to reliable secondary sources so there should be no questions. I also re-added the 2007 indictment in the Holy Land case. It is sourced to an anti-terrorism NGO who published a federal court document, only states a fact, and notes that he was not charged or further prosecuted.

In addition, I edited the part about his condemning terrorism from the TBS interview as he never says in it anything about suicide bombing or terrorism in general only referring to the 911 terrorists.

Finally, I added criticism of Al-Resalah TV. The same MEMRI criticism is also found on the Al-Resalah WP page.

.Sgmiller (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I have removed assertions that amount to "guilt by association" such as attending rallys and conferences, as well as the unindicted co-conspirator as the trial has ended and Al-Suwaidan has not been implicated or charged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suwaidanmd (talk • contribs) 03:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, you removed all changes not only the two you identified above by reverting. Second, there was no "guilt by association." Al-Suwaidan was a featured speaker at a conference where a secondary source reported his comments. Also, he was one of a group of prominent Kuwaitis who attended an anti-israel rally as reported by the local media. Both incidents speak to his views. As for the unindicted co-conspirator status, yes the trial ended but this has no bearing on the fact that was reported and it was noted that he was not charged. All of the above was sourced to reliable secondary sources. There was no mention or inference of any "guilt". Other than the information reflecting "unfavorably" on the subject, please cite WP policies before reverting sourced material.Sgmiller (talk) 14:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

If the trial has ended and it is not an issue that the subject of the article is "Notable" for then this does fit WP policies in removing. Biographical articles are supposed to be about why a person is notable not every single newspaper article about him/her. If we did that for Bill Clinton or Barack Obama the article would be never ending. Your argument for including the court case is non-sensical, the subject is not noted for it and he was not charged and the trial has ended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.7.17 (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way I looked up the articles you have edited on WP you are obviously and anti-Islamist activist with slanted views. Furthermore in every comment you post on the Talk sections you try to come off as the non-biased, rational observer when you are obviously a skewed pundit. Just so you know you can keep trying to skew this page but I will pick apart every edit you make that I believe is skewed based on WP policies so don't try to pull off any of your I'm referencing valid material and just presenting news report garbage with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.7.17 (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly this article is heading toward mediation of some kind as it is being reverted by unsigned editors who are now making personal attacks and the changes were reverted wholesale even though they are referenced to reliable secondary sources. As far as "notability", the subject is a leader of the Kuwaiti Muslim Brotherhood which is an overtly political organization that takes strong positions on terrorism, Israel, etc. The article previously contained statements about the subject's positions on terrorism so clearly his views on terrorism were accepted as notable. I fail to understand how the subject's statements condemning 911 are notable but his attendance/comments at pro-Palestinian events are not, particularly when the events are either sponsored by Hamas-linked groups such as the Islamic Association for Palestine or take on strident anti-Israel/U.S tones such as the burning of flags, shouts of "death to....." etc etc. The subject is a prominent religious/political figure in Kuwait and I would think his positons/activities related to the MIdeast conflict are notable.Sgmiller (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You have not explained why you keep adding the court case as the subject has not been charged and the case has been closed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.117.9 (talk) 04:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, unindicted co-conspirators are not charged by definition so I do not see the relevance. As the WP article on the subject explains, the unindicted co-conspirator listing is made for a variety of reasons. In this situation, the case was not "closed" but rather the Holy Land Foundation and its leaders were convicted of financing Hamas. The subject is a leader of the Kuwaiti Muslim Brotherhood and the Muslim Brotherhood is intimately related to Hamas. The subject has spoken at a convention in the U.S. of an organization that was also intimately related to Hamas. The subject's unindicted co-conspirator listing  was published by a well-known anti-terrorism think tank. It would seem that the subject's connections to Hamas are part of his notability as a Muslim Brotherhood leader. Second, please do not revert the article as you are doing without discussing objections and without signing. At this point, we are only discussing the court case and I have explained  my basis for including it.Sgmiller (talk) 10:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the statement on MEMRI as this deals with Al-Resalah channel and belongs in that page. Please do not return without reason. I have removed statement dealing with Palestinian conference as the link to reference cannot be substantiated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suwaidanmd (talk • contribs) 03:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I reverted the deletion of the Chicago Sun Times article. WP policy is that sources must be verifiable. As the WP page on citing sources states "If your source is not available online, it should be available in reputable libraries, archives, or collections." I can assure you this article is available either in the Sun Times archives or in any good reference library. I retrieved it from LexisNexis. The article is also available at http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-4568673.html. You can also use this link to verify most of what is cited. Some further info on Verifiability:


 * "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries. WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to assist in obtaining copies/excerpts of sources that are not easily accessible."


 * As far as the MEMRI statement on content, I included it to balance the subject's characterization of the station as "clashing with terrorist ideas" and as "clean media." There is no WP policy stating that everything about a topic must be restricted to the article on that topic. Clearly that is impossible. In any event, I rewrote the sentence to make it more clear and to emphasize that there are competing viewpoints about the channel.Sgmiller (talk) 08:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The article continues to be reverted by an unsigned user in violation of WP policy. I have undone the revert and also made some changes. First, I condensed the opening section and removed the "Biographical Details" by combing these sections. Much of what was in there was already in the other sections. I also moved the Common Word reference to Views. The Views section needs to be re-written and the subjects history of activism against Israel should be condensed which I will do soon. Also, I added a reference to the subjects book on Jews. More material on this needs to be found but I just listed this for now.Sgmiller (talk) 11:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I have made minor edits and removed the unindicted co-conspirator section due to The United States Attorneys' Manual generally recommends against naming unindicted co-conspirators, although their use is not generally prohibited by law or policy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suwaidanmd (talk • contribs) 21:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the MEMRI statement it is not relevant to this article and should be added to the Al-Resalah Article.

And I notice you still have not answered my point about the articles you edit on Wikipedia and your obvious anti-Islamic skew.

I have edited the views section as per WP "coat rack" article policy e.g. The contents of a coatrack article can be superficially true. However, the mere excessive volume of the bias subject creates an article that, as a whole, is less than truthful. When confronted with a potential coatrack article, an editor is invited to ask: what impression does an uninitiated reader get from this article? If an article about a journalist mostly describes a conspiracy article he once wrote, the reader will leave the article with the false impression that the journalist's career is mostly about that conspiracy theory, and he is a vocal advocate of the theory. An article might have a disproportionately large "criticism" section, giving the impression that the nominal subject is hotly contested by many people, when in fact the criticism is merely selected opinions and the section creates an artificial controversy. This, too, gives the reader a false impression about reality even though the details may be true. The coats hanging from the rack hide the rack—the nominal subject gets hidden behind the sheer volume of the bias subject. Thus the article, although superficially true, leaves the reader with a thoroughly incorrect understanding of the nominal subject. A coatrack article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject.

The article now reads well and is balanced please discuss prior to editing
 * I find it more than ironic that after dozens and dozens of reverts and undocumented changes, I am now being asked not to make any changes without discussing. As far as the "coatrack" idea, as you note "A coatrack article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject."The article as it was previously written appeared to be nothing more than a press release for the subject not informing the reader in any way about the subject's views on the MIddle East conflict nor his Hamas related activities. In that sense, it was a "coatrack" article which is why I started adding new material. As for what you call my "obvious anti-Islamic skew", I haven't responded because it was a personal attack and, more importantly, not true.I have never edited any WP article about Islam per se nor ever commented about the religion of Islam so where this charge comes from is a mystery to me. The only articles I have every edited have concerned the Muslim Brotherhood and/or its leaders including the Western representatives of the MB. Many of these articles were "coatrack" in the sense that they gave false impressions and I have simply added material to present a more truthful picture. The Muslim Brotherhood often charges its "critics" with being anti-Islamic, conflating criticism of the Brotherhood with criticism of Islam itself so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.


 * As far as the changes I have made, since you think any description of Al-Reslah belongs in the WP article, I have also removed the subject's characterization of the station which, interestingly, you had no problem with. I have also restored the subject's role in the Kuwaiti Muslim Brotherhood in the opening section since there was no reason for it to have been removed. I have also restored the description of the Social Reform Society as a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood because that it was the source actually said. There was no mention in the source of the notion of "ideologically close." Finally, I have expanded the section on the subject's Hamas linked activities. If it is acceptable to expound upon the subject's "favorable" views such as free speech, religious tolerance, etc, it seems disingenuous to then truncate his other views to one sentence.Sgmiller (talk) 10:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I have decreased "coat-rack" on the opposite end. I have also made numerous sentence structure edits such as removing the redundant pro- prefix when referring to views. Also I have removed the reference to the book on Jews. What should be used instead is a list of the subject's work. I think the only books, albums that need to be specifically mentioned not in list form are those that are notable for being best-selling —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.7.17 (talk) 19:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Again I quote WP policy:

Fact picking Often the main tool of a coatrack article is fact picking. Instead of finding a balanced set of information about the subject, a coatrack goes out of its way to find facts that support a particular bias. A common fact picking device is listing great amounts of individual peoples' quotes criticizing of the nominal subject, while expending little or no effort mentioning that the criticism comes from a small fraction of people. That small fraction thus gets a soapbox that is far larger than reality warrants. Even though the facts may be true as such, the proportional volume of the hand-picked facts drowns other information, giving a false impression to the reader. [edit]What to do about coatracks

An appropriate response to a coatrack article is to be bold and trim off excessive biased content while adding more balanced content cited from reliable sources. In extreme cases, when notability is borderline, and there is little chance the article can be salvaged, deletion of the entire article may be appropriate. Editors are not required to fill out the article so that more time is spent on non-biased matters in order to keep bias content. Instead, editors may fix an article by balancing it out with more facts but are in no way required to do so. It is inappropriate to "even out the percentage of bias" by adding fluff, such as minute details of a subject's life. These are considered scarves, hats, and gloves, and along with the coats, obscure the coatrack, and are also good candidates for removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.8.70 (talk) 17:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You can keeping invoking "coatrack" as much as you like; the fact remains that it is just the latest justification for restricting the information about the subject. For example, the subject's statements about Al-Reslah are seen as relevant while outside criticism of Al-Reslah is not. What the subject said about 911 is relevant but what he said about the Mideast conflict is not. And so on....


 * I restored the subject's position as a leader in the Kuwaiti MB in the front section. I see no reason why is it is continually being removed. I deleted again the subject's comments about Al-Reslah. If it is not appropriate to have comments about Al-Reslah in the article, than I see no reason why the subject's comments should be privileged. Finally, in line with the latest edits, I have condensed the Hamas linked section to a bare minimum including the Unindicted Co-Conspirator Status (see below).Sgmiller (talk) 20:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

"You can keeping invoking "coatrack" as much as you like; the fact remains that it is just the latest justification" this quote shows your obvious bias. Suddenly WP policies don't matter when they dont suit you! I agree with some of your edits but not the unindicted co-conspirator. The subject was one of literally hundreds of people listed as unindicted co-conspirators in this court case. He was listed for being involved with an allegedly linked group to HLF the Islamic Relief Organization. The links are speculative at best and are not in any way why the subject is notable. Please abide by WP policies that you keep quoting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.7.17 (talk) 21:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the characterization of the Social Reform Society based on US State dept. description. The WP page on the Muslim Brotherhood states that the Brotherhood in Kuwait is represented by Hadas. The subject does not have a known link with Hadas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.7.17 (talk) 21:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am reverting all changes. First, they are being made by unsigned editors and undocumented or discussed. The change to the Social Reform society seems part of the pattern of trying to obfuscate the subject's political connections. First, the description was changed to "ideologically close to the Muslim Brotherhood" then it was deleted based an a WP article then to "Islamist" based on a State Depart description. It is against WP policy to cite WP articles as references and since clearly, the Muslim Brotherhood is Islamist so there is no contradiction here. Since the Carnegie article is a scholarly source and the most specific, it makes no sense to use a State Department source. I have added a second source by a Professor of Political Science at Kuwait University to back up this statement.Sgmiller (talk) 00:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You have not answered the assertion re: WP policies "Even though the facts may be true as such, the proportional volume of the hand-picked facts drowns other information''', giving a false impression to the reader". The subject is not NOTABLE for being an unindicted co-conspirator. He is one of hundreds of people listed in this case. The fact that this fits "a pattern of revisions" is not enough, until you pose an argument against the abovementioned WP article I will continue to revert WITHOUT discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suwaidanmd (talk • contribs) 00:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, you are reverting the entire page now based on one point which is the unindicted co-conspirator status. I have explained again in the following section.Sgmiller (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Unindicted Co-Conspirator Status
This fact has been reverted many, many times. As far as I can see, the only reason has been that it reflects "unfavorably" on the subject. As I have pointed out, the subject is a leader in the Muslim Brotherhood which supports Hamas and has spoken before an organization in the U.S. that is associated with Hamas. Therefore, the fact that U.S. prosecutors have alleged his participation in a conspiracy to fund raise for Hamas is part of his nobility as a Muslim Brotherhood leader. The article links to the WP article on Unindicted Co-Conspirators which explains exactly what this charge means. At times, the fact has been removed ostensibly because the subject was not charged although it is noted in the article that the subject was not charged even though an Unindicted Co-Conspirator is not charged by definition. There are many, many other WP articles which reference Unindicted Co-Conspirator Status so there is ample precedent for its inclusion. So, other than not wanting any "negative" information in the article, it should not be continually deleted.Sgmiller (talk) 10:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again this was reverted with no explanation. As I have noted above, the only reason ever given for deleting it was that the subject was not charged. This is a logically incoherent argument because, by definition, Unindicted Co-Conspirators are never charged.Sgmiller (talk) 20:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The content guidelines state " If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." My contention is that the status is notable and relevant due to the subject's status as a Muslim Brotherhood figure and person who has engaged in other activities linked to Hamas. I do not understand what "false impression" is being given. Your statement that you will revert without discussion is also against WP policy.Sgmiller (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The false impression is that a new reader to the article, if read the way you want it written, leaves with an overbearing impression that this is an individual who has a storyline of inciting hate, supporting terrorism and being an extremist. You can go to YouTube and open any one of the subjects many videos there or read many transcripts from much more numerous lectures he has given and the overall theme is one of progress, pride and independence. He has numerous specific statements of which a few are mentioned in the article that state opposition to extremist/terrorist ideology. He is on record multiple times telling Western Muslim audiences what amounts to "You are lucky you live in the West... You could not have the freedoms you have in the Muslim world...etc. etc." Your proposed representation of a small proportion of the subjects public statements is obviously skewed in that it is given a bigger proportion in the article than it is in actuality, which is exactly what WP warns against when discussing "coat-rack" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suwaidanmd (talk • contribs) 00:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * First you are reverting the entire page based on a continually shifting set of arguments. As far as the latest, yes, the subject has condemned 911 terrorism as has the Muslim Brotherhood in general. The subject has never condemned Hamas terrorism and, in fact, has engaged in activities linked to Hamas, is a leader in an organization that supports Hamas, and has made incendiary statements about the MIddle East conflict. There is no contradiction for a Muslim Brotherhood to condemn 911 but support Hamas. The article, as it was previously written, elected to include only the statements he has made which portray the subject "favorably." I do not see the relevance about how many times he has said what. If the subject has gone on record renouncing statements which you object to, please document and we will include these. Otherwise, including the full spectrum of the subject's views is actually more accurate than selecting only those which put him in the best light.Sgmiller (talk) 00:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It is relevant based on the fact that you are creating a storyline when there isn't one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suwaidanmd (talk • contribs) 00:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are continuing to revert the entire page based on new objections. Now there is a note about "no reference" to subject and Social Reform Society. This set of references has gotten very confused due to the constant reverting so I am simplifying. I cited a 2003 article from the Toronto Star which called the subject "a U.S.-trained management consultant and a leader of Kuwait's moderate Muslim Brotherhood party." By the way, his reported comments at this conference were also somewhat incendiary but we can take that up at another time. Also, you are now in violation of the 3-revert rule and I have posted a warning on your User Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Suwaidanmd . The next step is a referral to the Edit War board.Sgmiller (talk) 01:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

So be it. I believe I am backed up by WP policies. In the coat rack article WP states that it does not matter if the references are true, what matters is that the article doesn't become a coat rack for everything a subject has ever said or done. I will continue revisions based on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suwaidanmd (talk • contribs) 01:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are not revising...you are reverting wholesale which you have now down probably 12 times in one day.

And I note that you do not have a WP user page. Again another example of your double standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suwaidanmd (talk • contribs) 01:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sgmiller&action=edit&redlink=1

I quote WP policy for events not constituting Edit warring: Enforcing certain overriding policies. For example, under the policy on biographies of living persons, where negative unsourced content is being introduced, the risk of harm is such that removal (possibly backed by administrative action) is the norm until it is fixed and policy-compliant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.7.17 (talk) 01:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is just another in a long line of shifting rationale for reverting. There is not a single piece of "unsourced content" that I have introduced. Everything is sourced to reliable, secondary sources such as newspaper reports, scholarly papers, etc. Sgmiller (talk) 01:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Continual Reverts
This article has been continually reverted by the same user acting under his user ID and unsigned with the same IP address. The dispute concerns the subject's role as a leader of the Kuwaiti Muslim Brotherhood and now boils down to three issues: 1) The identification of the subject as a leader of the Kuwaiti Muslim Brotherhood. The identification has been referenced to an article from a Canadian newspaper which "which called the subject "a U.S.-trained management consultant and a leader of Kuwait's moderate Muslim Brotherhood party." The user requested a reference yet despite this reference being provided, all mention of the subject as a leader of the Kuwaiti Muslim Brotherhood has been reverted multiple times.

2) The subject's statement calling for Muslims to "liberate the Holy Land" saying that "Muslims would sacrifice their sons for the holy mosque of Al Aqsa." This was referenced to a Chicago Sun Times article. It has been continually reverted because the user has stated that citing such statements "give a false impression." No evidence has been presented to document this such as subject's statements about the Mideast conflict that are in contradiction.

3) The inclusion of the subjects designation as an unindicted co-conspirator in the terrorism financing case against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. This fact has been reverted perhaps 50 times in the history of the article on the basis that the subject was not charged although, by definition, an unindicted co-conspirator is one who is alleged to have participated but is not charged.

First, the user demanded references and references had either been provided or were further enhanced.

Next, the user shifted his opposition stating "In the coat rack article WP states that it does not matter if the references are true, what matters is that the article doesn't become a coat rack for everything a subject has ever said or done. I will continue revisions based on this." The user has stated he feels that even though all of the facts are true, it is misleading and an example of a "coat rack" article saying "until you pose an argument against the abovementioned WP article [on coat rack articles] I will continue to revert WITHOUT discussion." An argument was made against the article yet the user is still reverting without discussion.

In the latest iteration of the reverting, the user has stated that he is enforcing "the policy on biographies of living persons, where negative unsourced content is being introduced" event though there is no such unsourced content.

I have referred him to the edit war Noticeboard and will wait for the results before requesting mediation/page protection.Sgmiller (talk) 09:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
I am going to raise another issue here which I have not previously raised. I believe the user in question is a relative of the subject and has not disclosed the possible Conflict of Interest (COI). I have posted a warning on his user page and will also consider referring this article to the COI noticeboard.Sgmiller (talk) 10:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

This belief is not justified and your belief is based on the username I have selected, solely for the purpose of editing this page. If we go the COI route I am prepared to report you as well as having an agenda based on the edits you have made on pages linked to the Muslim Brotherhood as they are not balanced and continually represent one point of you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suwaidanmd (talk • contribs) 17:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Page Protected
The page is now locked for two weeks. I would ask that a good faith attempt be made to resolve the above issues but I am pessimistic. However, I will wait a couple of days to allow for such an attempt and will create three sections below corresponding to the three areas of dispute. My position on the issues is above in the section on "Continual Reverts" and I ask that these issues be addressed in discussion. Failing that, I am going to submit COI, SPI, and BLP notices.Sgmiller (talk) 11:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the locking, but I will make attempts in good faith as well before requesting that the page be unlocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suwaidanmd (talk • contribs) 17:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Muslim Brotherhood Leader
This is clearly stated in the Toronto Star article so I do not see any reason to change this.

I agree with this, however I think that at the reference both at the beginning of the article and in the views section the subject is identified as "a leader of the Social Reform Society in Kuwait which is affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood". There is no entity in Kuwait called the "Kuwaiti Muslim Brotherhood".
 * Please sign your comments. The current article does not reference the Social Reform Society. The Muslim Brotherhood in Kuwait, as scholars have noted, has different entities-- The Islamic Constitutional Movement, the Social Reform Society, etc. I don't think it matters if it says "a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Kuwait" or "a leader of the Kuwaiti Muslim Brotherhood" as they both parse out to the same. The fact that is not registered as an entity is not relevant as the various Muslim Brotherhood branches in the region are never called by that nameSgmiller (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't know how to sign. I just read and figured out how to do it. I disagree in Egypt and several other countries it goes by the name the Muslim Brotherhood. The Social Reform Society in Kuwait and the Islamic Constitutional Movement are two separate but allied entities in Kuwait. The Social Reform Society is involved with social and charitable work while the Islamic Constitutional Movement is a defacto political party (although political parties are banned in Kuwait they exist non-officially). My understanding is that both organizations share members but not every member of SRS is a member of ICM and vice versa. Further the Muslim Brotherhood has many ideologically linked but differing groups from the original Egyptian branch. Differences were evident during the invasion of Kuwait and the Gulf War. Further the peaceful political involvement of Muslim Brotherhood linked groups in places like Kuwait, Lebanon, Iraq (eg. the current vice president) is quite different from the revolutionary MB ideology in Egypt, Sudan, Syria. There is no evidence for the subject of this article running for office in Kuwait or representing the ICM. I think a correct characterization would be that he is a leader of the "Social Reform Society in Kuwait" and an article about the Social Reform Society discussing all these subtleties can be created to be linked to. OR we could say "a leader of the Social Reform Society in Kuwait, an Islamist group ideologically linked to the Muslim Brotherhood".173.34.117.9 (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Only in Egypt is it actually known as the MB. In Jordan, the political arm is known as the Islamic Action Front for example. As for the subject, we have to follow what the sources say otherwise it is "original research." The only clear and unambiguous source is the Toronto Star article which clearly says "leader of the Kuwaiti Muslim Brotherhood." If you have another source we can look at it. I also have several scholarly sources that say the ICM and the SRS are all parts of the Muslim Brotherhood in Kuwait. While it is true that the various national branches different amongst themselves, this is already made clear in the WP article on the MB which is linked to.Sgmiller (talk) 12:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it matters, since the Star has it wrong. There is no entity called the Kuwaiti Muslim Brotherhood. I think we should make reference to the Social Reform Society and either make a reference to it being allied with the Muslim Brotherhood or create a page for the SRS that way we are hitting two birds with one stone, linking the subject to as he puts it the "moderate Islamist" group and also creating new info about SRS.188.52.1.231 (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Look, you can't write the article based on what you think is write or wrong. Everything has to be supported by verifiable, reliable sources. In any event, several scholars and media reports have testified to the existence of a Kuwaiti Muslim Brotherhood including:


 * http://mondediplo.com/2002/06/04kuwait
 * http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=19016
 * etc etc


 * Even the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood web site says so:


 * http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=4119


 * This is not going to work unless we stick to facts. We can debate references but not opinions.Sgmiller (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your rationale and am pleased with our lively debate. However all three references you are citing again refer to the ICM also known by it's Arabic acronym HADAS. Even the WP on the muslim brotherhood refers to MB being represented in Kuwait by Hadas. We have no references linking the subject to Hadas.188.52.1.231 (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * First, the sentence in the article actually reads "The Muslim Brotherhood in Kuwait is represented in the Kuwaiti parliament by Hadas" which would not rule out the subject if he had not affiliated with the ICM as scholars consider ICM to be one, but only one, component of the Kuwaiti. Second, WP policy is completely against using other WP articles as references as that would make the whole project circular in nature. What we do have is a reliable, verifiable reference that says the subject is a leader of the Kuwaiti Muslim Brotherhood. Given that the subject has himself acknowledge being an"Islamist", I see no reason not to go with the characterization " a leader of the Kuwaiti Muslim Brotherhood" as stated in the reference.Sgmiller (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I just visited this page and was surprised to see the allegation that Dr. Tarek Al-Suwaidan is a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Kuwait! I thought that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so to speak, not a forum for allegations and conspiracy-theory conclusions. If he is "a leader of the Social Reform Society in Kuwait", and some claim that it "is affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood", then that is the [only] respectable thing that can be published on a source like Wikipedia! I [am] making this change now. And a Canadian newspaper cannot, by any academic means, be considered a [source] or [reference] on a Kuwaiti entrepreneur and speaker! Unless it was a referenced investigation by an investigative reporter who collected a lot of evidence to support or prove something, like when reporters strive to prove the corruption of a local politician; obviously, a Canadian newspaper has nothing like this to do with a Kuwaiti public figure like Dr. Tarek Al-Suwaidan. People with higher authority over this page (and perhaps biased or dubious agendas) can certainly change it back to the un-cited and opinionated previous form, and I can only say that it is disgraceful that such dishonest phrasing be allowed on a website and universal source like Wikipedia!—Wisdawn (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Activities Linked...
I propose we rewrite the sentence "Al-Suwaidan has been linked to activities associated with Hamas" as could be misconstrued and is vague. I would like to change it to "In a speech to the Islamic Association for Palestine, Al-Suwaidan......." and delete the "linked to" part. I don't remember how that made it in but probably because of all the reversions/deletions. Since the all the facts in that sentence are contained in the Sun Times article, can we agree to that change?Sgmiller (talk) 12:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Would also like to add back his participation in various rallies.

I disagree with this point. It again gets into quoting the subject for random speeches. If you insist on this point within 1 week I will have dozens of sourced quotes to the subject on his anti-terrorism/reform of Islam views and the article will become a collection of quotes i.e. exactly what a coat rack is. I would propose that the facts speak for themselves through references and that all quotes be removed from the article, including statements on the 9/11 hijackers. For example: Al-Suwaidan holds pro-democratic, etc. viewpoints [reference]. He has voiced opposition to the actions and ideology of the 9/11 hijackers [reference]. Al-Suwaidan has made statements supporting the cause of Hamas [reference]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suwaidanmd (talk • contribs) 17:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with taking the quotes out but the problem is that he didn't "support the cause of Hamas" (although I am sure Hamas would agree with what he said) rather, he called for Muslims to "liberate the Holy Land" and "Muslims would sacrifice their sons for the holy mosque of Al Aqsa." So, we should say Al-Suwaidan has called for Muslims to liberate the Holy Land and said Muslims would sacrifice their sons for Al-Aqsa. There is no other way to describe it. "Liberating the Holy Land" is a view held by numerous groups.Sgmiller (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

See but then you are quoting without quoting. If we do that then we should detail what he said in opposition to the 9/11 hijackers. Why not say: Al-Suwaidan has urged Muslims to liberate Palestine (not sure whether we should say Palestine or Holy Land, Palestine strikes me as the more proper secular term).173.34.117.9 (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree it is difficult but if we say "Palestine" it is putting words in the subject's mouth. I think we have to say "Holy Land" and "al-Aqsa" other wise the religious nature of the statements is lost.Sgmiller (talk) 12:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Look I think if we are going to quote without quoting ie. say has called for liberation of the holy land and for muslims to sacrifice their sons etc. Then we should also give examples for his pro women, pro freedom of religion etc. quotes such as the CSM saying "the smiling sheikh shakes women's hands" or subject saying "these people are dangerous to Islam and to themselves etc". I dont like this approach however because it becomes a group of quotes. I still think we should use the approach Al-Suwaidan holds pro-democratic, etc. viewpoints [reference]. He has voiced opposition to the actions and ideology of the 9/11 hijackers [reference]. Al-Suwaidan has called for the liberation of the Holy land. [reference]. Using "muslims to sacrifice their sons is using rhetoric towards the same point of liberating the Holy Land. Again it is just quoting without quoting. 188.52.1.231 (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no problem describing instead of quoting but then suggest a wording that doesn't put words in the subject's mouth.If you want, it can be "Al-Suwaidan has called for the liberation of Palestine and said Muslims would be willing to sacrifice their sons for the cause of the Al-Aqsa mosque."

I think that reads well and is accurate.188.52.1.231 (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Unindicted Co-Conspirator Status
This has been extensively discussed. The first objection has been that he was not charged which is incoherent because Unindicted Co-Conspirators are not charged by definition. The other objection is that it is not part of his notability. However, Wp policy states

"The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles, except for lists of people. Instead, various content policies govern article content, with the amount of coverage given to topics within articles decided by its appropriate weight."Sgmiller (talk) 13:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The phrasing " convicted along with its leaders of financing Hamas" is misleading. It is not clear if convicted is referring to the subject or to HLF. Also with regards to UCC's not being charged by definition, most readers would not know this without looking it up so it should be noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suwaidanmd (talk • contribs) 17:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We can add "which was convicted" ..that should clear it up. As for the readers not knowing, that is not an issue really. If they want to know, they can click on the link (thats what links are for) and it says clearly he was not charged.Sgmiller (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I also want to say I am impressed by your willingness to come to the table as it were to try and work this out in fair waySgmiller (talk) 17:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I still think a statement should be in there saying the case has been concluded and Al-Suwaidan is not implicated in associated prosecutions. It wraps up the event and makes it less ambigous.

There are a few other small edits. The commonest spelling I have seen online is Tareq (with an e) and Mohammed (with an e) for the subject's name. The reference for consulting to regional organizations is the subjects CV.173.34.117.9 (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The article already says that he was not charged and if the HLF was convicted, by necessity the case was concluded. Anything else is just redundant.Sgmiller (talk) 12:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I'm trying to imagine myself as an uninitiated reader that likely does not know what an unindicted coconspirator is and will then think the subject is somehow in cahoots with global terrorists where as it stands the allegations are that he is involved with the HLF because he sat on the board of Islam Relief. We should make clearer what the allegations were to clarify that it is "second cousin once removed" allegation and that the subject was not punished by the courts. Otherwise again a novice reader gets the wrong idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.52.1.231 (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There are no references stating the basis for the designation that I am aware of so unless you can point to them, we can't explain further. Second, the "second cousin once -removed" is your interpretation. The article on unindicted coconspirator already explains what it is and the explanation does not include this idea. WP guidelines say that primary source documents like court documents should be described only:


 * "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot or plot elements, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source"


 * In other words, the policy is absolutely against providing explanation for the meaning of the primary source, in this case a court document. We can say he was designated, link to the article on unindicted coconspirators, and say that he has not been charged in any associated prosecutions. That’s all.Sgmiller (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that. I have read the thing about IRF in the court documents. Let me look through them again and let you know where.188.52.1.231 (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

A federal court ruling in 2010 has indicated that the listing of 245 un-indicted co-conspirators in the HLF case was a misstep by the US government "The court held that the Government did not argue or establish any legitimate government interest that warranted publicly identifying NAIT and 245 other individuals and entities as unindicted coconspirators or joint venturers, and that the Government had less injurious means than those employed, such as anonymously designating the unindicted coconspirators as "other persons," asking the court to file the document under seal, or disclosing the information to the defendants pursuant to a protective order. The court declined to expunge the mention of NAIT; rather, it ordered the sealing of Attachment A and "all pleadings, records, documents, orders, and other papers concerning... NAIT's Motion ... including this Order." reference: US v. HOLY LAND FOUNDATION FOR RELIEF, 624 F. 3d 685 - Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.7.70 (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

This is incorrect. The court did not rule that the designation was a "misstep" It only ruled that the public identification had not been justified. The fact remains that he was so designated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgmiller (talk • contribs) 21:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Consensus
Now that the page has been unlocked, I changed the views section as discussed above. I have retained the description of the subject as a "leader of the Kuwaiti Muslim Brotherhood as also discussed. I am waiting for sources on the "IRF thing" and will make that change if and when they are produced. Otherwise, I believe the current version of the article to represent consensus and would appreciate it if discussion preceded any further changes.Sgmiller (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the way it reads now. Thank you for the collaborative work.199.212.7.17 (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

New Addition on Book
I have removed the newly added content about the book with alleged anti-Semitic content for several reasons: 1- The source is not available in English 2- The source is a forum and not a reputable news source 3- Even if we were to translate the source (which I did) it does not show that the CONTENT of the book is anti-semitic rather it is a book review with the view of the reviewer on the book. 4- The wording of the addition used "weasel words"

For these reasons I have reverted back to the consensus version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suwaidanmd (talk • contribs) 04:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Please Do Not Edit SubstantiallyWithout Discussion
This article was the product of long discussions and moderation before consensus was reached. Subsequently, anything that was critical of the subject was deleted. For example, the reference to being an unindicted Holy Land coconspirator was removed based on an allegation that a 2010 court ruling said it was a "misstep." That is NOT accurate. The ruling said that the list should not have been made public but did not contest the actual designation. See:

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20101106-Judge-ruled-prosecutors-should-not-have-6808.ece — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgmiller (talk • contribs) 21:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

If the court says that the list should not have been made public, then the list should not be public. Are you defying the court? The designation will be removed again. Consensus is subject to ongoing discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.52.120 (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

First of all, this page should not be edited by anonymous users. Second, the court ruling was simply an opinion about the wisdom of having originally released the list not an injunction against reporting that there was such a list. Therefore, nobody is "defying the court." I have added a line about the court ruling for clarity. .Sgmiller (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The court did not offer an "opinion about the wisdom of having originally released the list." It stated that the list should NOT have been released and has ordered it sealed. The only purpose of mentioning the factoid in this biographical article at this point is defamation. The statement will be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.7.70 (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an arm of the U.S. Courts. The policies state clearly that if a fact is reported by a leg imitate second-party source, then it may be included here. Whatever the court ruled subsequently about the release of the list, it has been released and the release had been reported. It may not reflect favorably on the subject but is a fact about him that is relevant to his positions on terrorism. I already included a sentence about the recent court decision but there is no reason to eliminate the fact itself. It is simply an opinion that the intent is "defamation." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgmiller (talk • contribs) 16:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Unindicted co-conspirator
The article says, "'In May 2007, Al-Suwaidan was listed by U.S. federal prosecutors, along with a group of U.S. Muslim Brotherhood members, as an unindicted co-conspirator in the terrorism financing case against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development..."

Are there any reliable secondary sources that mention this fact? I don't see Al-Suwaidan at the DallasNews site, nor at the New York Sun site. I only see his name on a page from investigativeproject.org which is quite biased and not reliable.Bless sins (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It is not just a "page from the Investigative Project (IP), rather it is a copy of the actual court document. There are numerous other copies and they all are identical. The authenticity of the IP version has never been questioned.Sgmiller, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

New Edits
It has been a while since anybody has edited this page so I cleaned up a variety of things. First of all, the TBS interview has disappeared from the Internet so I redid content referenced to that interview. If anybody can find a copy of the interview, I would be glad to incorporate it once more but I think what I did will be sufficient. I inserted Citation Needed tags where appropriate and also deleted the characterization of Suwaidan's beliefs in favor of his actual statements. Finally, I deleted the very long list of course topics as they seemed over the top for an encyclopedia article. Sgmiller (talk) 14:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Large Amount of Content Deleted
A large amount of referenced content was deleted, apparently by the subject of the article who said "I am Dr. Tareq Alsuwaidan and have edited the bio and took out the phrases that were manipulated or taken out of context." However, he presented no evidence of any such manipulation or larger context that was omitted. Therefore, I am attempting to restore the earlier content as it is against WP policy to delete content in this manner and without discussion. It may take me some time to re-polish the article but much of it has been done.Sgmiller (talk)14 May 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 05:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Tareq Al-Suwaidan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.kuwaittimes.net/2012/11/12/dubai-top-cop-spews-bile-at-brotherhood-some-kuwaiti-mps-barred-from-uae/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tareq Al-Suwaidan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051127101957/http://www.thedohadebates.com/output/Page29.asp to http://www.thedohadebates.com/output/Page29.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.archive.org/web/20051127101957/http%3A//www.thedohadebates.com/output/Page29.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121117035052/http://news.kuwaittimes.net/2012/11/12/dubai-top-cop-spews-bile-at-brotherhood-some-kuwaiti-mps-barred-from-uae/ to http://news.kuwaittimes.net/2012/11/12/dubai-top-cop-spews-bile-at-brotherhood-some-kuwaiti-mps-barred-from-uae/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

An Outdated Article
Hi, I went through this article of Tareq Al-Suwaidan and found it so outdated and wanted to update it. I am trying to add whatever I could find about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BVshnUCP (talk • contribs) 15:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good! The only thing I have to mention is, you don't need to add links to words like "writer" or "businessman".  Everyone knows what they are, and no one is going to want to click those links.  But that's a minor thing, of course.  Excellent work. Le Marteau (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, remember to sign your what you write on talk pages with "~" . Le Marteau (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@Le Marteau Thank you. I saw one link is missing online after this "At a meeting of the Islamic Association of Palestine in Chicago in 2000 Al-Suwiadan said "Palestine will not be liberated but through Jihad. Nothing can be achieved without sacrificing blood. The Jews will meet their end at our hands." He was subsequently banned from the US." What should we do with that, delete the sentence or put a citation needed template? I could not find its alternative anywhere. BVshnUCP (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The text you mention does have a citation, although it does not have a link. Not every citation is required to have a link. It is not preferred, but it is acceptable to have a citation without a link.  For example, there are many citations on Wikipedia that cite a book, and unless you have a copy of the book, you cannot verify the citation. This is a similar situation.


 * So, to answer your question, the only thing we as editors can do with that, is get a copy of the newspaper the citation mentions, and read it for ourselves to verify whether or not the citation is valid. It is not the preferred situation, but it does happen. Le Marteau (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you. BVshnUCP (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC) There are several sources dead, I couldn't find alternatives for those. There are several statements which miss citations and I also couldn't find sources for those too. What should I do with those by the way, leave as it or remove those statements and sentences? BVshnUCP (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC) And I also need help in finding duplicate links as references in the article. Is there any fast way to find those or can you point those out for me please? BVshnUCP (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)