Talk:Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 Sept. 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

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)[reply]

Don't delete sources. Fix them. (SEWilco 07:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

So you allege. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 18:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

CAIR's response to criticism

Shouldn't CAIR's responses be mentioned in the article?--Seventy-one 22:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add them. (SEWilco 02:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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. [1] -- SEWilco 06:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

what?

Who the heck made the link to cars.com? this is just another attempt to defame Islam AND I WON'T HAVE IT.