Talk:Tareq Al-Suwaidan/Archive 1

Sounds like a press release

In 2003, he told a student run conference:

"It (the West) will continue to grow until an outside force hits it and you will be surprised at how quickly it falls....It is the duty of local Muslims to help cure America's inner decay...."We do not want them to collapse. Wish they would wake up, fix their mistakes, fix their structure, fix their justice system - so justice is not just for the white, rich male...."

Also, he explained that corruption, defined as "no ethics, no family structure, injustice, materialistic world", was one of the two causes of civilizaitonal collapse and that "If this was true, then America should collapse," he said. "The second thing that must happen for a civilization to collapse is an attack from the outside."

The article also identified him as the head of the Kuwaiti Muslim Brotherhood (aka Reform Society).

Toronto Star January 6, 2003 Monday Ontario Edition SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A08 HEADLINE: Help cure West's ills, Muslims told BYLINE: Catherine Porter, Toronto Star

Perhaps somebody might want to dig a little bit more into this guy. This article sounds like a press release to me. Sgmiller 13:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC) sgmiller

revisions

Sorry but I am new to WP edits so I made a bunch of changes without explaining. I won't do that again.

As far as the changes I have already made, this article was clearly written as a PR piece with many unsubstantiated statements and much language of praises. So I:

1) deleted and/or changed some of the language

2) deleted the statements that had no references.

3) cut down the section defending the Candian comment; it was completely out of balance and presented no arguments on why this quotation could be seen as provocative

4) added the testimony of Richard Clarke as to Suwaidan's dealings with BMI

5) added another statement of Suwaidan about Israel to balance the one-sided account of his "moderate" stance

I am sure this will provoke whoever wrote the piece but there was no balanced POV in the original —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sgmiller (talk • contribs) 15:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

balance

I am afraid that this is going to turn out to be a battle. As I have said earlier, this article read like a Press Release from the office of the subject. Al-Suwaidan is a leader in the Muslim Brotherhood of Kuwait and therefore a public political figure in the center of the current political storm about that organization. Perhaps I am wrong, but it appears that whoever has authored this piece cannot tolerate anything that is not glowingly favorable. My additions were deleted without comment here so I have no basis on which to make a conclusion.

I am adding back Suwaidan's statement about the Al-Aqsa mosque as reported by the Chicago Sun Times as it was reported by a major media source and, as far as I know, has never been contested. I have also added the report that Al-Suwaidan was excluded from the U.S as a result of his comments about Israel at an IAP meeting in 2000. Although the source of the report could be considered an "activist", the fact has never been contested either as far as I know. I also added another comment relating to the Danish cartoon affair.

I also readded the deleted section about Al-Suwaidan's alleged dealings with BMI. This was testified to by a former top U.S counter-terrorism official and surely is relevant to whether or not Al-Suwaidanis a true critic of terrorists. Of course, it is possible that he didn't know the character of BMI but this is doubtful. In any event, the article nowreports the statement.

The article is a mixed bag at the moment and needs to be re-written to enhance the neutral POV by incorporating the new quotations more smoothly. For example, I did delete much of the defense of Al-Suwaidan's remarks at the Canada conference. I believe that by inluding only the quotation and then four paragraphs of defense, the writer's bias was obvious. I will continue to edit this article as I have time, but as I said, I am afraid this will become a contest here because it is clear that whoever wrote this is acting as an advocate for the subject. At least that is what it seems to me.

Although far from perfect, I believe that the article is now more balanced and reads more like an encyclopedia and less like a Press Release.

Sgmiller 10:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC) sgmiller

SgMiller is an Anti-Islamist

Typical of those in the camp of Daniel Pipes Sgmiller is attempting to start a battle on this page. He has deleted quoted references without giving a reason and basing his opinion on Dr. Al-Suwaidan on newspaper articles rather than evidence from his own speeches. Sgmiller and his fellow pundits alienate all moderate and modern Islamists that give hope to the cause of rescuing the Muslim youth from the clutches of extremist and into a more tolerant and accepting version of Islam. If he is seeking to make all Muslim liberal pundits this is impossible, the best hope is to make them more moderate Muslims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.132.122.10 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

balance again

For the record, I am in nobody's "camp." I am just trying to reach a balanced point of view. If presenting less favorable material puts me in "Daniel Pipes camp" then I supposed it might be said that favorable material puts one in the "Muslim Brotherhood camp." So, lets see if we can keep the discussion and edits within some reasonable boundaries. When I add something, I will provide a reason and a reference and I will only delete something if there is no reference or a non-credible reference.

So, in that spirit, here goes:

1) I added the quotation about Israel from the Chicago Sun Times because it speaks to Al-Suwaidan's views on violence and terrorism.

2) I added the statement that Al-Suwaidan has been excluded from the U.S because of similar comments. Even thought the author is a known critic of Islamism, the fact has never been contested and appeared in a major magazine. This also speaks to Al-Suwaidan's views on violence and terrorism.

3) I added the quotation from the New York Times about the cartoons because it speaks to Al-Suwaidan's credentials as a a conciliator.

4) I added the testimony of Richard Clarke about BMI because it is relevant to the Al-Suwaidan's views on terrorism. Here, a major U.S counter-terrorism official has testified that Al-Suwaidan reportedly was dealing with BMI which has been implicated in terrorism financing. It doesn't necessarily mean that Al-Suwaidan was involved with such financing but it is relevant and needs to be reported.

Yes, these statements do not portray Al-Suwaidan so positively but articles are supposed to present all sides. For the time being, I am re-adding these quotations. If they are to to be deleted once again, I am requesting an explanation. I don't think it is the purpose of Wikipedia to "give hope to the cause of rescuing the Muslim youth from the clutches of extremist and into a more tolerant and accepting version of Islam" but to prevent factual information about the subject at hand. In other words, you can't delete something because of the impact the information might have. In others words, please do not delete something just because you don't like it. (I would have moved the material to the users page, but there is no signature).

In addition, I am deleting the defense of Al-Suwaidan's comments in Toronto because they are unsupported. It read previously that "Al-Suwaidan's supporters argue" with no reference as to which supporters, if any, make this argument (other than the author). If the author wants to reference himself as a "supporter" than a written reference should be provided as to where these arguments can be found in a public source. In other words, please don't defend the subject of the article but rather, find material by others that defend him if such material is credible.

Sgmiller 22:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC) sgmiller

Deleted Quotes

Why do you keep insisting then on deleting the two REFERENCED quotes regarding Muslim freedom in Canada and admiration of the West. I am leaving the quotes you added but returning those quotes because they are referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.132.122.10 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

Lets see if we can end this "war" and reach a consensus. I have left the quotes you have added but have made the presentation a little more balanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.132.122.10 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to Consensus

Fair enough. I didn't mean to delete the referenced quotes. I did that earlier when I was trying to cut down the length of the defense of his Toronto statement, but I think the section reads much better the way it is now with those quotes back in. I won't mess with them for now although I am a bit uncomfortable with the references. Are these his published remarks or something you heard at the conference and took notes on?

However, we are not a consensus yet. I see you added text at the end of the Ideology section that claims that Al-Suwaidan was "caught" between the Islamist "far-right" and the "moderates" and that he has become more moderate post 911. This is one interpretation but it is your interpretation unsupported by evidence or expert opinion. I think it could also be argued that many after 911 were more careful about what they were saying but didn't really change their opinions. I am not saying which is true in Al-Suwaidan's case, but if you are going to include material about his motivation for making such remarks, as I said, you need to reference this with something other than your own opinion as well as include other interpretations.

By the way, I never thought this was a war and I think what we did shows that the process can work. Thanks for helping me reach this point.

Sgmiller 02:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC) sgmiller

Discussion of Consensus

Thank you for your comment and for your kind words. You may rest assured the quotes are accurate word for word. You can confirm by ordering the DVD's from SpiritWorks www.revivingtheislamicspirit.com. With regards to the section you deleted regarding his motivation I understand where you are coming from re: expert opinion, but I think it is acceptable to theorize unto political motivations, this is a process that is done all the time by newspapers, media and testimonies such as the ones you are quoting. Let me propose this I will replace that section again and let's edit it together to make it more neutral, but I think that viewpoint must be posed to be fair.

I also on a personal note other than the wikipedia context, want to assure you that Al-Suwaidan truly is one of the "good guys" if there is such a thing. I have personally witnessed him moving very far-Right and radical Islamic youth towards the middle through his very logical approach to argument (one that he attributes to his training in the West). He has also withstood very harsh criticism by hard-line clerics because of what they call his 'Americanization' of Islam. You must understand the socio-cultural nuances of the Muslim world sometimes require would-be reformers to make populist statements for Palestine and against the defamation of the Prophet Muhammad in order for the masses to accept their other statements regarding the acceptability of democracy and women's rights in Islam.

Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.132.122.10 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

more editing needed

I am glad we are coontinuing to productively work on this article but I think it would be better if you signed your contributions as I have done.

I see that you re-added the section trying to explain Al-Suwaidan's comments about Jihad in Israel. I can see why you might want to give context to his statements but then we will have to do the same for his "non-violent" comments. In other words, it it is possible that he made the jihad comments to appease the "far-right" but it is just as possible that he made his non-violent comments to appease the West. The problem is that we just don't know and while theorizing is sometimes appropriate it needs to be done by experts and/or supported by evidence which has not yet been done. So, I suggest that if you want to speculate about why Al-Suwaidan made his comments, then I think you should so in a way which either uses expert opinion and considers more than one possible explanation. Until then, I have deleted this section.

I know that you believe Al-Suwaidan is one of the "good guys." Personally, his statements about Israel trouble me. I think a true moderate and leader speaks out against mass opinion instead of using it to build his power, but as I have said, we really don't know why he said what he said.

Sgmiller 09:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC) sgmiller

Defensive Jihad

I have re-written the Ideology section by adding comments about "Defensive Jihad." We know that Al-Suwaidan is a leader in the Reform Society which is thought by most analysts to be the Kuwaiti branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. We also know, supported by scholars such as Robert Leiken who has written favorably about the Brotherhood, that they believe in Defensive Jihad which allows for violent Jihad where Muslims consider themselves to be under attack. Therefore, it seems to me this doctrine is a credible explanation for Al-Suwaidan's seemingly contradictory statements and one which does not rely on unsupported speculation about his motivation. If yoiu wish to add another possible explanation, I am open to it as long as it is supported by evidence or expert opinion.

Sgmiller 11:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC) sgmiller

Please stop using a biased approach.

sgmiller, with all due respect you are using a very biased approach. Here are my grievances:

1- From the TBS interview you selected the only quote that showed that Al-Suwaidan is refusing to visit the US and left so many quotes where he appears moderate and even adoring of the West. 2- You are associating him with the Muslim Brotherhood based on speculation. In fact there is no proof to this. The Islamic Reform Society in Kuwait has never officially been affiliated with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and in fact has grown further away from them ideologically since their skewed stance at the time Kuwait was invaded by Iraq in 1990. 3- You are quoting Richard Clarke's testimony that he had dealings with BMI (which by the way in your hyperlink is linking to British Midland International Airlines so I will fix that). This does not mean anything apart from him possibly having some investments. In fact many prominent secular and liberal Arab businessman and Saudi Royals had financial interests with BMI in a less assuming pre 9/11 world.

I am going to correct some of these grievances I have.

M. Al-Saleh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.238.10 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

response to bias

1) I added the quotation from the TBS interview because it was relevant to the issue of Al-Suwaidan being excluded from the U.S. The source that says he was excluded is a critic, so I thought it was important to show that Al-Suwaidan himself acknowledges that the U.S has taken action against him. We have already included quotations from him that are positive about the West in the section on Criticism.

2) Both the Muslim Brotherhood itself, in the source I referenced, as well as the U.S State Department (in 2006) say that the Reform Society is affililated with the Muslim Brotherhood. I added the State Department reference to make the case stronger. There are also many more experts who connect the Reform Society to the Brotherhood. We are going to need more than your opinion to contradict this.

3) I agree that having investments in BMI does not necessarily mean anything. However, counter-terrorism officals believe that BMI was an instrument of the Muslim Brotherhood and therefore it is relevant to Al-Suwaidan's status with regard to that organization. I changed your wording a bit but made it very clear that we don't know what this means and that Al-Suwaidan was never implicated in any of BMI's problems.

4) I edited the section on Israel. First, you claim that most Muslims consider Israel to be Islamic land. Maybe thats true but you will need to provide references for that. Also, I changed "armed combat" back to "violence." Nowhere in the referenced statements does Al-Suwaidan talk about "armed combat." He does talk about the whole Muslim world acting against Israel and the "sacrifice" of blood." This is clearly violence. I did add the qualifier that his statements rather than Al-Suwaidan himself appear to support violence.

Also, I would prefer not to be constantly accused of "bias." I am simply trying to balance what was a one sided description of this obviously complicated individual. I think it is pretty clear that Al-Suwaidan is somebody you admire and approve of. There is nothing wrong with that but it is not the basis for an encyclopedia article.

Sgmiller 00:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC) sgmiller

Meaning of rephrasing on Israel?

Again with all due respect to you as a person, how can I see you as balanced when you insist on the rephrasing on Israel. Why is it unfair to say that most Muslims consider this a land under occupation, it ties in to the concept of defensive Jihad and if you obviously know so much about the region then you know this is a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.238.10 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

rephrasing

This language is related to an explanation of why Al-Suwaidan criticizes violence sometimes and seems to encourage it about Israel. The best evidence I can find suggests it is because he is taking the MB position of "defensive jihad". Therefore, it is relevant in that regard that the MB supports jihad against Israel. I don't think what "most Muslims" believe is relevant to this section. I edited the sentence again and hopefully it is more clear.

I also combined the two quotations about martyrdom since they were from the same source in order to make the section read better and changed one of your sentences slightly.

Sgmiller 12:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC) sgmiller

Complicated individual

I think that is a valid description that even I as a supporter would agree with. But the region is a complicated one. Again out of the Wikipedia context and just for the sake of an intellectual discussion, do you believe that the Arab and Muslim world can be made into a more democratic, economically-liberal, law-abiding, human rights respecting place by alienating both hardline and relatively moderate Muslim leaders and just aligning foreign policy with liberal secular non-practicing Muslims? To reach the masses you need a leader who is willing to compromise but not come off as a puppet. Through our lively and engaging discussions I can see that we both seek the same goal of living in a more peaceful and safe world were people can live happily and raise their kids in no fear of terrorism nor war-mongering by superpowers. I think we are just using a different language to say the same sentence.

Thanks again for this process, I have learned many things as well.

M. Al-Saleh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.238.10 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The MIddle East

Your question is a good one and also one that the U.S. government seems to be struggling with. The problem is that you seem to be implying that for a leader to "reach the masses", he has to incite violence against the Israelis and/or Jews. I can say from much time spent in the MIddle East, that I don't think much progress can be made as long as so many people blame all of their problems on the Israelis. A true leader would tell the people this but when they do, as in the case of Sadat, not so nice things tend to happen. Personally, I will support any leader in any country who supports human rights and equal opportunity for all. So far, only "secular", democratic states seem to be able to at least partly reach that goal. Of course, there shouldn't be any problem with a practicing Muslim as a leader of such a state as long as the doesn't try to politicize religion.

I hope that answers your question at least a bit and

I also have learned from this process. I have much more respect now for the Wikipedia process as this is the first article I have edited so extensively.

Sgmiller 01:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC) sgmiller

Re: Middle East

But you see it is on that point exactly that I have heard Al-Suwaidan be so critical. He constantly says in his lectures that the first way we should point our fingers is in the mirror. He is different in that he is not a conspiracy theorist and doesn't blame the Jews for everything. The problem I have though is that when he calls for something that in Ireland would be called freedom-fighting and rewarded after many years by Sinn Fien having a seat in the leadership of Northern Ireland. In Palestine is called terrorism and is used to contextualize every single statement a person makes. The media loves sound bytes as you know and that is how they have covered Al-Suwaidan. The problem is I cant put any of this in the article because no Western newspapers cover it. In fact, in Kuwait Al-Suwaidan is continually at odds with the Islamic Reform Society leadership but whenever I have met him and asked him why he doesnt leave them and become unaffliated he says that he is fighting the fight from within which is more difficult but has a chance for a bigger change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.238.10 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Corrections

1- Changed violent Jihad to armed Jihad. I believe this is more accurate please explain if you want to change. I actually prefer the term Jihad without an adjective before it. It is self-explanatory in this day and age.

2- I disagree with your phrasing re: the Muslim Brotherhood considering Israel an occupying force. You know very well that most Muslims do. However if you do not want to state it in that manner then my current phrasing should suffice. I do not think it is fair to phrase it in a way that falsely implies that only the Muslim Brotherhood considers Israel an occupier.

I believe we are close to reaching a consensus on this article. I also plan to invite Dr. Al-Suwaidan to speak his own mind in the discussion section.

M. Al-Saleh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.238.10 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

response to corrections

1. I left the sentence at just "jihad."

2. I don't want to get into the tired debate about whether or not suicide-bombings and related actions are "freedom fighting" as opposed to terrorism. It is clear where the MB stands on this issue and I am just attempting to explain the seeming contradictions in Al-Suwaidan's statements which go beond the simple idea of fighting Israel by calling for jihad and holy war, concepts that cast the struggle in terms of religion as opposed to a conflict over territory. Not all people who support the Palestinian side, including not all the Palestinians, view the conflict in these terms. Therefore, it is relevant that being associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Suwaidan seems to be adopting their position on the conflict. That is why I again re-wrote the sentence, hopefully clearer, to state that he is endorsing Jihad in a way that is consistent with the MB position. I don't think the sentence implies or suggests that the MB is the only group that support violent action in Israel and I also think that just about everybody understands public opinion in the Islamic world on these issues.

3. With respect to Al-Suwaidan speaking here Wikipidia has many suggestions in this regard. (For example see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AUTO). I think the most important of these is that if that what he says on these pages does not, by itself, constitute evidence. You do realize that by introducing Al-Suwaidan to this process, it will most likely protract the writing of this article significantly. It is certainly your right, and his, to do so but I urge you to think about it some more before you take that on.

Sgmiller 07:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC) sgmiller

condensed section

1) Since all the debate has been about the views of Al-Suwaidan, I combined the sections on Ideology and Criticism into one section-Ideology and Views. I also cut out some quotes, both "positive" and "negative" to make it more readable. I think you will agree there there are now a balanced number of quotes on both sides of each issue and that the whole thing reads better.

2) I did delete the reference to Al-Suwaidan's Saudi critic because there was no reference for this source and also because it apparently was written in Arabic and we need to verify that it has been translated reliably. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English

3) I also moved Al-Suwaidan's position with the Reform Society to the first section where it belongs with his other biographical details instead of in the Ideology and Views section.

Sgmiller 12:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC) sgmiller

Personal discussion

I have been reminded that this discussion page is only for the purpose of discussing the article and not for the discussion of the subject in general:

"The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views."

We need to stick to discussing the article only in the future and avoid personal discussion as interesting as they be.

Sgmiller 15:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC) sgmiller

Better Balance

I think the article as it stands now is better balanced. Thanks\\ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.238.10 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Continuing to edit

I am continuing to work on this article as I have time:

1) I edited the section on the American Creative Academy for neutrality. I sourced the description as comming from the website and removed the other statements because there were no references. Also, I found one report by an expat in Kuwait who had some very bad things to say about the school. I did not include these comments because they were made by only one anonymous person but it might indicate there is another side to the institution. Until such time as we have better references on the school, I am editing out everything but what their website says about it.

2) I removed this statement that he is a voice of moderation and critic of extremism because that is covered in the Ideology and Views section. I also removed the statement about his being well-versed in American culture which is already implied by the fact that he lived in the U.S.

3) I added some material about Al Resalah TV including its Advisory Council. There are no Wiki articles on these individuals but I know them to be controversial but that will have to wait for somebody (me?) to put something about them into an article. I also tried to make it more clear that Al-Suwaidan is the GM and not the owner of Al-Resalah which I believe to be correct. I see now that the sentence on the Prince duplicates the opening bio but I will deal with that later.

4) I can find nothing on Al-Ruwad so unless there is referencing forthcomming I will delete this section in the future.

5) I added the accusation from MEMRI that al-Resalah aired anti-Western, anti-Semitic, and pro-Al Qaida content. I realize that MEMRI is controversial but there is a Wikipedia page on MEMRI for that discussion. I believe this acccusation is relevant to the claim that the channel is promoting responsible content. The accusation is linked and details can be found there specifically about the ocntent that MEMRI is objecting to.

I believe these changes continue to improve the neutrality of the article.

Sgmiller 14:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC) sgmiller

RE: Continuing to edit responses

Your last edit is not completely neutral, my responses are below

Sgmiller stated: 1) I edited the section on the American Creative Academy for neutrality. I sourced the description as comming from the website and removed the other statements because there were no references. Also, I found one report by an expat in Kuwait who had some very bad things to say about the school. I did not include these comments because they were made by only one anonymous person but it might indicate there is another side to the institution. Until such time as we have better references on the school, I am editing out everything but what their website says about it.

Response: I agree with this edit and with not including an anonymous reference.

Sgmiller stated: 2) I removed this statement that he is a voice of moderation and critic of extremism because that is covered in the Ideology and Views section. I also removed the statement about his being well-versed in American culture which is already implied by the fact that he lived in the U.S.

Response: I don't agree with the removal of these sentences just because something is covered does not mean it cannot be summarized, I will replace these sentences with more neutral summaries.

Sgmiller stated: 3) I added some material about Al Resalah TV including its Advisory Council. There are no Wiki articles on these individuals but I know them to be controversial but that will have to wait for somebody (me?) to put something about them into an article. I also tried to make it more clear that Al-Suwaidan is the GM and not the owner of Al-Resalah which I believe to be correct. I see now that the sentence on the Prince duplicates the opening bio but I will deal with that later.

Response: I think the sentence I wrote in the intro is abundantly clear as to the fact that Al-Suwaidan is the GM and the Prince is the owner. I also believe it should remain in the intro because it is his main current occupation and should be included in the initial intro. I will edit your changes to reflect this.

Sgmiller stated: 4) I can find nothing on Al-Ruwad so unless there is referencing forthcomming I will delete this section in the future.

Response: Al-Ruwad does have a website I will reference it.

Sgmiller stated: 5) I added the accusation from MEMRI that al-Resalah aired anti-Western, anti-Semitic, and pro-Al Qaida content. I realize that MEMRI is controversial but there is a Wikipedia page on MEMRI for that discussion. I believe this acccusation is relevant to the claim that the channel is promoting responsible content. The accusation is linked and details can be found there specifically about the ocntent that MEMRI is objecting to.

Response: I agree with the inclusion of this accusation but due to the fact that MEMRI is a contreversial organization I think this should be briefly stated in the article rather than depending on the read to link to their wiki.

Sgmiller stated: I believe these changes continue to improve the neutrality of the article.

Response: I again believe these changes have a different agenda than pure neutrality, but I think our mutual edits will balance each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.99.141.180 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

websites

http://www.alruwad.org/mainframset.asp

http://www.aware.com.kw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.99.141.180 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to Neutrality

I am getting tired of constantly being accused of bias and of having "an agenda". You have done this repeatedly while I have refrained from responding in kind. The article as originally written was not neutral as defined by Wikiepedia:

" representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)."

It presented only what might be characterized as the "positive" interpretation of Al-Suwaidan and his statements and no other point of view. It is unfortunate that you consider including other points of view as consitituting an "agenda" but on a subject as controversial as the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamism, Israel, Jihad, etc, I suggest you prepare your self with a different attitude regarding this process. Once again, when I first encountered this article, there was no hint of any controversy about Al-Suwaidan and his views. That is not neutrality. I have added whatever material I could find from reliable sources that deal with the controversey and including controversey is not a violation of POV, I believe, if all points of view are covered. If you feel that the article does not do this, please say where you beleive that to be true so we can work on it further. Otherwise, it seems to me that this article is far more neutral than it was when I first saw it.

As for the changes:

1) I am editing again the statement about Al-Suwaidan's views. There is no evidence that his perspective is "unique" and there are many scholars who are "well versed in Western Culture." Also, "generally considered" are weasel words as defined by Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_words

I think you will be satisfied with the rewrite.

2) I am editing the sentence about MEMRI. There is no evidence that it is "oft criticized" and the sentence is akward. I thought about saying "sometimes criticised" but everything on this topic is criticized sometimes including Suwaidan, the Muslim Brotherhood, MEMRI, the United States, everything. I don't think MEMRI is criticised any more often than anything elsein this field and the existing Wiki article covers what critics have said and MEMRI's defense of this criticism. As far as I know, there was never any indication that what MEMRI said about the content was inaacurate and we have already included positive statements about Al-Resalah as well as a qualification about MEMRI that it is a critic of the Islamic media. Therefore, I am reverting this sentence. Also, I added s short description of Al-Resalah's advisory council members, identifying them as "Islamists." Naseef is a former head of the Muslim World League and Al-Refai is the part of the Muslim World Congress. These are important Saudi Islamist institutions and this speaks to the character of the station. I think this characterization can get better if and when articles on these individuals are written.

3) The website for Al-Ruwad is in Arabic. Please see the Wikipedia policy about foreign language sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

The Al-Ruwad website is in Arabic and I can find no English language sources dealing with Ruwad. Therefor, I am editing this section until such time that English sources can be found or a translation from Arabic provided I cannot evaluate the claims that it is "pioneering" and I am not sure what is meant by "Islamic Reform" so I am removing these words until they can be verified.

4) I am removing the neutrality tag. You are free to put it back of course but the actual differences between us are quite small at this point.

5) Once again, I encourage you to sign your edits properly and please be careful. In your last edit, you signed my name.

Sgmiller 09:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC) sgmiller

Peacock Terms

I also refer you to Wikipedia policy on "Peacock Terms":

" that merely show off the subject of the article without imparting real information. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tareq_Al-Suwaidan&action=edit

That is why I have edited out terms such as "pioneering" and "unique" because they appear to meet this definition. I am also removing the terms "eminent" and "influential" from the opening because they are listed by Wikipedia as examples of such terms. I have made other small changes in language to improve neutrality.

However, we also need some references to backup Al-Suwaidans criticism of Qtubism. I will leave this section alone assuming that such references will be made available.

Sgmiller 14:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC) sgmiller

Response

Don't tell me there is no agenda and that you are being only neutral it insults my intelligence. I agree that I am positively biased but every single one of your many edits has a negative bias. Several that I have needed to correct. I am not accusing you of anything, I understand people don't see things from the same perspective but don't insult me by saying my lenses are positive and yours are neutral. I think it is fair to say that I am positively biased and you are negatively biased and together our edits are reaching neutral ground. If you want to claim neutrality you should write at least one neutral or positive sentence. Again nothing against you as a person. I'm sure you are a decent person, and you are entitled to your views but don't give me this imperial-minded rant about you being neutral.

Having said that I apologize for signing your name in the last edit I assure you I did not intend and have no reason to. I don't know how to make my name show up in red like your does in the edits.

M. Al-Saleh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.99.141.180 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed statement on Qutbisim

I have removed the statement on his views within the Muslim Brotherhood as there are no English Language references. I assure you they are true though, I have heard him mention this several times in Arabic, but I am following the Wikipedia translation consensus

M. Al-Saleh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.99.141.180 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again

I don't know why I have to keep saying this but I will try one more time to explain how this works. I never said I was neutral because nobody is neutral. I only said that I believe my edits/additions enhanced the neutrality of the article. As it was originally written, the article read like a press release written by Al-Suwaidan or somebody working for him. I am not saying that is the case but that is what it read like. Do you really think that the article needed more of this and that I should have come up with even more glowing statements about him? I have agreed with you that he is complicated, "relatively liberal" and that he sometimes praises the West and the United States. I have also shown that he is sometimes more negative about the West, promotes the idea of a religious war against Israel, and manages a TV station that sometimes has content that is anti Western and anti-Semitic. None of this should be surprising given that all these currents exist with the Brotherhood itself. I am sorry that you think showing this side indicates a "negative bias" but I would say rather that any negativity I have about Al-Suwiadan is because of this side not the other way around. In other words, I would have negative feelings about anybody or any institution that is associated with anti-Western, anti-Semitic, and pro-religious war ideas. I don't start out with a negative idea about somebody like Al-Suwaidan and then invent things about him to justify my ideas. In fact, I would happy for you or somebody to prove me wrong by showing that he never said any of those things. I have tried to work together with you and think that we have a far more balanced article than as it existed originally. So, I have to say I have no idea where you come up with the idea of an "imperial minded-rant." I challenge anybody to read this page a find any place where I have ranted, insulted, or claimed that I was the only neutral party. I only asked that you stop insulting me in line with Wikipedia policies on the editorial process.

Sgmiller 19:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC) sgmiller

I guess what it all comes down to is that while it is impossible to be neutral, it is possible to be fair.

Sgmiller 00:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Claims to neutrality

Two examples of non-neutrality.

1- From the 2006 interview on TBS that you added only one quote that showed Al-Suwaidan as anti-Western 2- When you added the information on Richard Clarke you did not add that he was never implicated.

If you don't want to call it a negative bias, you should at least call it an anti-Islamist bias

M. Al-Saleh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.99.141.180 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Since you seem to want to carry this on indefintely and force me to admit to something that I do not acknowledge, lets look at the Wikipedia definition of bias:

A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense for having a preference to one particular point of view or ideological perspective. However, one is generally only said to be biased if one's powers of judgment are influenced by the biases one holds, to the extent that one's views could not be taken as being neutral or objective, but instead as subjective.,

Yes, I have a preference for democracy in the Western Liberal sense of the term and since Islamism is based on the idea that Shariah is the basis for law in a society, I am opposed to it. However, in order to be characterized as biased, I would have to be unable to be objective about Islamists because of this preference. However, I think I have demonstrated that my "powers of judgement" are not so influenced by this belief that I am not objective about the subject. I think my objectivity is is obvuious in my willingness to work with you to produce a fair article and in what I would described as an objective characterization of Al-Suwaidan that I provided above. As for the incidents you mention, in the case of the TBS interview, I was specifically looking for something more about the banning of Al-Suwaidan from the U.S. As I have said about 1000 times, I believed we had enough quotes already showing his positive views of the West. As for the Clarke testimony, I agreed with you that the qualification need to be made. If my "powers of judgement" were impaired about Islamists, I would have tried to fight you on this and just about every other edit you amde instead of agreeing that the article should be fair to Al-Suwaidan.

I don't think you understand the Wikipedia editing process which is based on the idea that people, often with different points of view, can come together and produce a neutral article. As Wikipedia says:

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral; that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.

Having a point of view is not bias. Insisting that your point of view is the only one is bias. The original article only had favorable, actually glowingly favorable, things to say about Al-Suwaidan. I thought there was another side to him that was not being represented in the article. As I have said, it is that side which is the cause of any negative feelings I may have but do you really think that I insisted that this be the only side of Al-Suwaidan represented by the article?

So, thats my last last word on this subject. I would ask you not to carry this part of the discussion any further since we have said all that can be said on it I think. If you want to continue to edit the article fine, lets talk about this but enough of the accusations. I think I have been patient so far, but it is starting to feel a bit like harassment. Sgmiller 08:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Holy Land Case

Since Al-Suwaidan has just been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Case as well as a member of the U.S Muslim Brotherhood, I have added this to the both the opening section as well as the section on Views and Ideology. If and when, he has a response to this action, it can be added as well.

I also deleted the one sentence on his association with the AWARE group because I was unable to confirm that he was the chairman of this group and also because it seemed out of place now in the front section compared to his major affiliations. Perhpas a section should be added for all of his more minor affiliations or maybe it should be added in the section on his pro-western views.

Sgmiller 18:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Corrections to allegations section

Thanks for the new information, however I believe it fits more into an Allegations section rather than an intro. I have adjusted the article to reflect this. I have also clarifyed the meaning of the allegations, because as you can see in the original document he is not accused of anything other than being a member of the US muslim brotherhood. I think the reader of this article has a right for this to be crystal-clear.

Also with regards to be a chairman of AWARE. This is a major affiliation of his and is evident clearly on the AWARE website. If you browse through the photo albums there are several photos of him speaking with the caption of (chairman of AWARE). Also confirming this is as simple as emailing AWARE through the 'contact us' links and asking whether or not he is the chairman.

M. Al-Saleh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.99.141.180 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Addendum

With regards to labeling section allegations

allegation- noun 1. (law) a formal accusation against somebody (often in a court of law); "an allegation of malpractice" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.99.141.180 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the allegations section is a good idea. However, the meaning of "unindicted co-conspirator goes beyond the allegation that he was a member of the U.S Muslim Brotherhood. According to the Federal Courts Law Reviw:

The term "unindicted co-conspirator" refers to any person who allegedly "agreed with others to violate the law but who is not being charged with an offense and who, consequently, will not be tried or sentenced for his criminal conduct."(24) The law permits admission of unindicted co-conspirators' statements and acts performed during and in furtherance of the conspiracy as evidence in determining the guilt or innocence of the indicted conspirators.(25) Prosecutors often have enough evidence to indict these individuals, but instead name them as unindicted co-conspirators for a variety of strategic reasons.(26) fclr.org

In other words, by naming him as an undicted co-conspirator, the prosecutors are saying that they believe Al-Suwaidan was part of the criminal conspiracy against Holy Land and not just that he was a member of the Brotherhood. Therefore, I have reverted the parts about the action which make it clear that the allegation is that he was alleged to have been involved with the case itself. Also, it is not necessary to state that he was not indicted because it is clear from the term itself. Ideally, this would be explained in a WP article about the term, but unofrtunately there isn't one yet on this subject.

I will add more about Al-Suwaidan's history in this regard later based on some testimony I found from a government agent.Sgmiller 08:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite of Allegations Section

1) I renamed this section "U.S Allegations of Support for Terrorism" because this what the allegations are all about. I also did an extensive rewrite of this section adding material from a U.S Customs agent and background on the organizations with which Al-Suwaidan was involved. I think this now is a concise and verifiable background of the events leading to the naming of Al-Suwaidan in the Holy Land case.

2) I also did some editing of the Views section using this new material. I replaced the sourcing on Al-Suwaidan's comments about spilling blood and Jews with a more credible source and re-arranged a couple of the paragraphs so that they read better.

3) I also moved the part about AWARE to the Media/Management section. I think it fits better there and leaves the opening for the major points about Al-Suwaidan.

Sgmiller 12:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Reformating

I agree with all your changes. But I don't think the U.S. allegations belong in the intro. Also if you read the sentence it is repetitive saying twice he is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. I will correct the intro appropriatly. I don't think the allegations section needs any change for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.160.1 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Intro

Again agree with your changes but not with the intro. Otherwise why not put every major and minor view, allegation and affiliation in the intro. I suggest if you want to put the allegations in the intro than we also add to the intro that he is a media personality, a founder of an American school, and a chairman of AWARE. I think lets leave everything in each section and let the reader see for themselves.

M. Al-Saleh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.160.1 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Problem is that the intro no longer reflects the complexity of the article and is a mix of description, bio details, etc. I am going to take a stab at re-writing it based on all the new information but a bit later. Sgmiller 16:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Re-writing intro

Sure I agree with you that is a good idea that we can take a stab at colloborating on. Lets look at an article with a well-written intro such as "Bill Clinton". There it is sort of chronological and brief. It mentions that his second term was marked by impeachment proceedings but goes into details later on in the article. This actually may mean we will need to move a lot of things in the intro to the subheadings.

M. Al-Saleh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.160.1 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Created Bio Section

I created a section for biographical details and moved his education stuff there. However, we need references for this as well as more detail. It says he lived and worked in the U.S. Where did he live and what exactly was he doing and when was that? What about other details of his life?

Also, I rewrote the introduction slightly to be more of a summary and I think it fairly represents both his position in the MIddle East as well as his Muslim Brotherhood ties and what the U.S has alleged about him. I also changed "scholar" to "thinker" because he doesn't meet the Western definition of a scholar nor is h part of the Ulema in Islamic terms.

Sgmiller 17:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Follow up

Looks good although I have concerns about the last sentence of the intro it states that the US government alleges he has supported terrorism. I dont think it is accurate to say the US government because it is all court cases and allegations by agents. Also Richard Clarke is no longer a member of the US government. I think this should be rephrased.

I couldn't find any reference to stating that he worked in the US in the article it says he lived and studied. It is evident where he lived. Obviously in Penn and Oklahoma based on his university study. It also says he lived in Dubai which (as far as I know) is not true and there is no reference for this, so I will remove that. How relevant are other details of his life. We don't have all the details on everyones life in every biographical wikipedia article and also it may be difficult to find accurate information. I could ask him, but how would we reference that?

I agree with the change from scholar to thinker. That is actually what he considers himself.

M. Al-Saleh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.160.1 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed the intro to read "U.S prosecutors" instead of U.S government as it was before as it is more accurate. The lawsuits are less important since they are civil lawsuits and they are covered later. I think this section is good now. As for the biography, I had read that he lived in Dubai for a time but it probably is not so important. No, not every article has to have extensive bio information, but it doesn't hurt if the information is available. Sgmiller 20:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Follow Up:

Good changes, I just slightly restructured the sentence to improve the accuracy but I did not change the info at all. I could get some more bio info, but any suggestions on how to reference it? Actually he has his entire CV on his website but it is in Arabic...

M. Al-Saleh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.160.1 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the sentence again about the indictment because it was confusing. It should be clear now. As for his bio, can you provide the link to his CV? I wll run it though a translator and then see if I can confirm anything interesting with English language sources. Sgmiller 21:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Bio details

I added some information I read on his arabic CV on his website re: being married and having 6 kids. I know I am translating this myself and it needs an official translation, but seemed like a minor point to me that has no reason to be falsified. If anyone doesn't agree I don't mind if you remove it, it is not a mafor point.

M. Al-Saleh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.160.1 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

CSM description

I added Ursula Lindsey's description of Al-Suwaidan from the CSM article. I believe I placed it in the right section, I think it reads well, but open to other suggestions where to place it.

M. Al-Saleh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.160.1 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I deleted this quote as it didn't belong in the Ideology section and adds no useful information. We already know that he speaks fluent English and that he is a mangement consultant, etc. Maybe the part about shaking hands is ok but in reality, he is not a religious figure so I don't know how relevant that is. We already have information on his views on women. In any event, its a personal impression based on one meeting, so I think it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article.

Can you provide the link to his Arabic CV. I will translate it and then try to confirm anything interesting in English. :I rewrote the sentence again about the indictment because it was confusing. It should be clear now. As for his bio, can you provide the link to his CV? I wll run it though a translator and then see if I can confirm anything interesting with English language sources. Sgmiller 21:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Follow Up:

I agree with the deletion of Ursula Lindsey's quote. I am deleting Stephen Schwarz's speculation that Al-Suwaidan is excluded from the US. In his article he provides no reference for this and it seems like a personal impression that also does not belong in an encyclopedia article.

The link to the cv is http://www.suwaidan.com/cv.jsp from reading it myself there is not much interesting information re: bio apart from being a former assisstant professor of engineering at the Kuwait Institute of Technology. The rest is names of courses he presented, books he wrote and committes he has headed, very tangential and detailed and in my opinion way to much for this article. Also it seems it is last updated in 2004 or 2005. I will ask him to post an updated version next time I see him at a lecture or event.

M. Al-Saleh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.160.1 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Problem is that Al-Suwaidan is saying that he was treated unfairly but never says what the "action" taken by the U.S was. In light of his remarks and history of associations with terrorist entities and his recent naming, it is very likely that he was excluded for those reasons. The statement about his exclusion was published in a fairly reputable, if ideological, publication and stand unchallenged. Until we have better information, it seems important but I will change the order of the quotes to let Al-Suwaidan speak first. Also, there is some very important stuff in his CV but I won't have time to start working with that until later but I think it is ok to use it as a reference for his education even though it is in Arabic because there is nothing else and it is straightforward info that can be machine translated.Sgmiller 08:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Changes to Al-Suwaidan Wiki

In a recent review of wiki guidelines I have come across to compelling sections which I have pasted below:

First:

[edit] Presumption in favor of privacy Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy.

In case of doubt, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. When writing about a person who is only notable for one or two events, including every detail, no matter how well-sourced, can lead to problems. In the best case, this can simply lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, this can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.

Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia.

– Jimbo Wales [5]

Second:

Reliable sources Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable, third-party sources, a biography will violate our content policies of No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims.

Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material found in self-published books, zines, websites and blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject (see below). These sources should also not be included as external links in BLPs, subject to the same exception.

Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers that print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating, that does not mean it has a place here. Before repeating such gossip, ask yourself if the information is presented as being true, if the source is reliable, and if the information, even if true, is relevant to an encyclopedic article on that subject. When these magazines print information they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the magazine doesn't think the story is true, then why should we?

The Chicago Sun-Times in the wikipedia article on it is considered a tabloid. Stephen Schwarz's article would be considered a partisan website and whats more it is unrefrenced. In your frequent rewrites you have violated the first wikipedia guideline I have quoted above with regards to "doing harm", titallating claims and including every detail even if true and have made this the focus of the article. In a recent edit you removed Al-Suwaidan's photo with no reason and you have also rewritten a sentence to make it misleading with no explanation by saying In a 2006 interview, Al-Suwaidan says he refuses to return to the U.S. because of unspecified action taken against him.

Due to these grievances I am radically rewriting the article to make it more encyclopedic and have emailed the help desk of wikipedia with regards to your "agenda" at best and "vandalism" at worst. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.160.1 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite of Al-Suwaidan Article

In light of reviewing the wikipedia criteria for an encycopedic, fair and neutral biography, and given recent malicious attempts at sensationalizing this article and have its focus around one topic that the individual is not notable for despite having sourced references, I have decided to have a drastic rewrite of this article. In the mean time I am removing the entire article as it stands.

M.A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.160.1 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This is Impossible

I have tried to keep this away from being personal despite your repeated attacks on me. Complain to whoever you like, but this subject is not your personal domain to rule over as you see fit. Your rewrite is disingenuous because it tries to say that "critics" have accused Al-Suwaidan of supporting Jihad when in fact, his own statements as sworn to by a U.S Customs agent verify this. Also, its simply misleading to say that he was "mentioned" in the Holy Land case when he was named as an unidicted co-conspirator. You may not like it, but is a fact and needs to be reported.

However, I have to say that I actually like the fact that you have condensed the article because it got out of hand with our attempts to deal with the new material. I added back the fact that he support Jihad in Israel because, as I noted, this is testified to in a sworn affadavit. I did add back the Holy Land material because it is important and you can't just write it out of history. I also cut out a few sentences and also eliminated the introduction because it was redundant and just repeated what is in the article.

If you would refrain from any more hysterical accusations, I think we are very close to something we can agree on but you have to control the personal attacks if you are capable of doing so.

87.187.88.250 00:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Follow Up

I apologize for becoming passionate and emotional. I will continue to work with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.54.212 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

M. Al-Saleh

Apology accepted. As I said, I really like what you have done by condensing the article and I think we should stay pretty much with the this format. Clearly it needs referencing. I will add references for the material I have contributed and mark the places where you need to supply referencing but leave the actual reference blank. I am also going to add Al-Suwaidan'views on women to the Islamic views section. I may also add another line to the controversy section, but as it stands, I am not going to do anything major. Lets see how it goes.

For the record, I think you misunderstood the WP article on the Sun Times. Yes it is a "tabloid" in the sense of the format of the paper (not a "broadsheet") but it is not a tabloid the UK sense of the word. If you look at the online edition, you will see that they do serious news and they are capable of doing a credible piece on a meeting held in Chicago. In addition, their story on the meeting was both backed up and cited by Customs Agent David Kane in his sworn affadavit.Sgmiller 10:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Done

Ok. I am finished with my editing. I think the article is now well written, fits the spirit of an encyclopedia article, covers all aspects of the subject, and contains solid references (although the blank references need to be added.) I also changed the sentence about the Holy Land case to make it clear that Al-Suwaidan was part of a large group of people named as unindicted conspirators which is more fair to him and doesn't make it sound like he was the only one. Please let me know what you think and hopefully we can finish this work up in the very near future. I continue to believe we are very close to doing that.

Sgmiller 11:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, just to keep everything clear, I took the links from the "External Links" section and used them for references instead. I then deleted this section because there is no need to list the same links twice.87.187.73.57 12:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Continuing to edit

Good edits. I have a few more minor points in keeping with the following two wikipedia policies:

1- Presumption in favor of privacy Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy.

In case of doubt, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. When writing about a person who is only notable for one or two events, including every detail, no matter how well-sourced, can lead to problems.

2)Criticism

The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association.

When linking to the wikipedia defenition of guilt by association one sees the following:

An association fallacy is a inductive formal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association. The two types are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and honor by association. Association fallacies are a special case of red herring, and can be based on an appeal to emotion.

Examples Some syllogistic examples of guilt by association are:

Knut attracted people who took pictures. The people also took pictures of Pan Pan, killing him. Knut killed Pan Pan. The Nazis supported eugenics. Nazis are evil. Therefore eugenics must be evil. Hitler was a vegetarian, and Hitler was evil. Therefore all vegetarians must be evil." Bill Clinton is a Democrat. Clinton was unfaithful to his spouse. Therefore all Democrats are unfaithful to their spouses. Osama bin Laden is opposed to the invasion of Iraq. Osama bin Laden is a terrorist. Therefore anyone opposed to the invasion of Iraq must be a terrorist. George W. Bush supports the invasion of Iraq. George W. Bush is a Republican. Therefore all supporters of the invasion of Iraq are Republicans.

Based on these two policies I am proposing the following:

1- We should side on the favor of Suwaidan's privacy with regards to the details of the court cases especially that no court decisions have been concluded.

2- With regards to being named an un-indicted co-conspirator I looked this up and the definition varies in different views on law. Many websites (I will not reference them all they are some of the first hits on google let me know if you cant find them) are claiming that some US prosecutors are using this as a catch all phrase to put peoples and organizations names on lists. For example recently both CAIR and ISNA have been named as unindicted co-consipirator organizations despite the fact that both these organizations continue to meet at the highest of levels with american government officials.

3- Furthermore I believe that no matter how many referenced reliabe sources and documents there are they all appear to rely on Suwaidan's guilt by association. As in the above examples BMI may have financed terrorism. Suwaidan has buisness dealings with BMI, therefore Suwaidan is a terrorist. The US muslim brotherhood may have supported terrorism. Suwaidan was a member of the US muslim brotherhood, therefore Suwaidan supported terrorism.

Due to this I am rewriting the criticism section. In the case that something conclusive comes out in th July 2007 trial we can rewrite again, but at this time I think there is enough reason to stay on the side of privacy, especially since this is not his main area of notability.

With regards to the statement saying he supports Jihad in Palestine. I agree with it, however I am rewriting it to make it clearer. Please see what you think of the rewrite.

With regards to references I am adding a few now and researching the rest and will add soon. With regards to conservative muslim criticism I have sources in Arabic but for now will reference the CSM article as it includes some of that.

M. Al-Saleh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.160.1 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I am glad that we are now down to attempting to resolve only one section as opposed to the entire article. As for your edits:

1) I moved all of the discussion of terrorism to the Allegations section so we can deal with it there.

2) I re-wrote the sentence about his criticism of terrorism and support for jihad. Unless you want to go back into discussing "defensive jihad", we had better just leave it simple. I am aware that not everybody thinks Jihad against Israel is terrorism but we won't solve that problem here. Criticising 911 while supporting Hamas is characteristic of the Muslim Brotherhood, but as I said, I think we should keep it simple.

3) As for your arguments about privacy, there is no presumption of privacy on an issue of this magnitude. This is not some irrelevant side-detail but a major part of the environment that Al-Suwaidan is part of. The information is now in open court documents which have beeen widely circulated so we are only repeating what is already well-known. There is no "guilt by association here." Al-Kadi and BMI are very well-known figures associated with the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Suwaidan is part of that environment as I have said. If this was the only allegation against him that would be something else but he is associated with numerous entities connected to terrorism. That alone does not make him guilty but it is important information relevant to who he is and who he claims to be. We have already put this into a section on Allegations, said that there was no prosecution, and explained what "uninidicted co-conspirator means. If Al-Suwaidan says something about all this in a public forum that can be referenced, we can include it as well as well as the eventual outcome of the Holy Land Trial. Otherwise, as it is written, it is very clear that these are allegations, that he has not been prosecuted. However, these are public allegations made in court by the U.S government and need to be reported.

4) As for the term "un-indicted co-conspirator", I am aware that it has been criticised and that discussion should go into a WP article on the subject. However, as it stands, it is an accepted part of the American legal system and as we he have already discussed, everything associated with this subject is criticised. The fact that CAIR/ISNA have worked with some parts of the U.S. government is does not mean anything with regards to being also named. Both organizations themselves have been criticised for their own links to terrorism as well as the government for dealing with them. I am not going to agree to put the term "often criticised" here because then it would have to go in front of every statement.

The bottom line for me is that the are big, important, and public events and Al-Suwaidan is a public figure that plays/played a role in organizations that are part of these events. The information in this section would be reported by any reputable newspaper as they simply summarize facts that are known. The article as it is now has many "positive" things about Al-Suwaidan. In fact, the only "negative" things are in the Allegations section and clearly labled as such. Everything in this section is a matter of public record and I think the reader can make up his or her own mind about what they mean but people need to have information. That is why they they are looking in Encyclopedias.

87.187.73.57 17:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I can say this in another way. Al-Suwaidan is Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas Is Muslim Brotherhood. Al-Suwaidan supports Jihad against Israel as does Hamas. Al-Suwaidan, in other statements not referenced, says he supports Hamas. He was a business partner with a guy who funds Hamas as well as an officer in a charity which also financed both AQ and Hamas. He was named as a co-conspirator in a case involving another charity which is alleged to have funded Hamas. When you added it all together, it goes w beyond simple "guilt by association"but actually that discussion is irrelevant.nThe article is not saying he is guilty, it is reporting allegations made in public court documents. It is, however, an explanation for why the government is interested in him and perhaps why he was banned from the U.S although we don't really know what "action" they took against him (which is why I deleted that whole discussion." What I think it comes down to as that his business relationships are the background for the governments allegations against him and the article reports them as just that-allegations but important allegations. I guess what it all comes down to is whether or not these allegations should be reported. I say yes because they are important and relevant in the case of a public figure who is already on record as supporting Hamas.87.187.73.57 17:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Allegations Section

1- You stated: As for your arguments about privacy, there is no presumption of privacy on an issue of this magnitude. This is not some irrelevant side-detail but a major part of the environment that Al-Suwaidan is part of.....The information is now in open court documents which have beeen widely circulated so we are only repeating what is already well-known.

Wikipedia Policy: It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. When writing about a person who is only notable for one or two events, including every detail, no matter how well-sourced, can lead to problems. In the best case, this can simply lead to an unencyclopedic article.

I agree that these are major allegation and this issue is large but it is not one of the things Al-Suwaidan is most notable for.

2- You stated: The information in this section would be reported by any reputable newspaper as they simply summarize facts that are known.

Wikipedia Policy: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.

As such I am editing the allegations section to make it more concise you can add the information re: the affidavits and may 2007 allegations to the external links section or a for further reading section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.160.1 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

1) I don't think you understand the WP policy you are quoting. It means that if a person is relatively minor then including too much detail is inadvisable. It doesn't mean excluding important details. The fact that Al-Suwaidan is alleged to have played a role in terrorism financing is hardly minor nor is it, in any sense of the word, "sensationalistic" or "titillating" and you need to check the definitions of these terms.

2) Also, you keep rewriting the Holy Land part and once again, its just wrong. The prosecutors did not allege "that Al-Suwaidan is one of a large number of individuals and organizations who have had past associations with supporters of terrorism." That seems to be your interpretation buts its not accurate. The named him as one of a group of unindicted co-conspirators. Thats a fact and we need to report is as a fact and that is how it is stated in the court document.

3) I am not sure what you mean by what Al-Suwaidan is notable for. As you quoted above:

"The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. "

The allegations are not "views of critics", they are part of legal documents filed by federal prosecutors so what does the above passage have to do with it? The fact that Al-Suwaidan is alleged to have been involved with terrorist financing is directly relevant to his role as a Muslim Brotherhood leader and as somebody who is on record as supporting Hamas.

Based on this, I am going to revert the section back .I have stripped everything out of this section except for the facts themselves as contained in the documents. The only item under dispute is whether or not these facts should be reported. I see no argument against such facts being reported in an article about an individual who, among other things, is a leader in the Muslim Brotherhood. 87.187.73.57 19:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You may also be interested to know that Wikipedia has 70 articles identifying individuals as unindicted co-conspirators:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=unindicted&go=Go

and all the ones I looked at simply reported the fact with no qualification including the one I inserted --"believed by prosecutors to be guilty but not charged" so I am removing it. Anyway, it doesn't belong because it is my characterization instead of one by a legal scholar. So, I am removing this qualification and let the statement just report the fact as all of the other articles have done.87.187.73.57 20:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Follow Up

You Stated: I don't think you understand the WP policy you are quoting.

Reply: It is abundantly clear to me. Why is it you can quote policies, but when I do suddenly I don't understand them?

You Stated: It means that if a person is relatively minor then including too much detail is inadvisable. It doesn't mean excluding important details.

Reply: So now you can interpret wikipedia policies.

You stated: The fact that Al-Suwaidan is alleged to have played a role in terrorism financing is hardly min

Reply: Nowhere is he alleged to have played a role in terrorism financing only in having past associations with individuals and financial institutions who are accused or charged with supporting terrorism. If we know that the term unindicted co-conspirator is controversial than it should not be included in the text of the article. I don't care if 70 other wikipedia articles have it, they should all be changed. The link should be provided and the reader can read for themselves.

You Stated:The prosecutors did not allege "that Al-Suwaidan is one of a large number of individuals and organizations who have had past associations with supporters of terrorism." That seems to be your interpretation buts its not accurate. The named him as one of a group of unindicted co-conspirators. Thats a fact and we need to report is as a fact and that is how it is stated in the court document

Reply: First of all, so you can interperet but I can't? Secondly you say this is a fact that has to be reported. It is the job of newspapers to report not encyclopedias. Concise info should be given and links should follow for people who want to read more. And that is not how it is stated in the court document. In the court document it states that the following is a list of unindicted etc. etc. then it has people under specific categories according to the nature of their connection. This is also evinced by the astriks stating some individuals appear in more than one category.

You also continue to start the sentence about his calling for Jihad in Palestine with the word "however" as well as the sentence about MEMRI. This is listed in wikipedia guidelines as a word to avoid because it suggests that the article is arguing for a specific point of view. I am changing it thus, see below:

However, although, whereas, despite These words can imply that one alternative is less favored than another. Structures where two alternatives are contrasted are more likely to have this problem than situations where the word is used to emphasize a notable change.

Dubious use implying preference:

"Some people think Bin Laden is a terrorist. However, others think he is a misunderstood freedom fighter." "Homeopathy says that dilute solutions can be therapeutic, although science says this is incorrect." "Various paranormal theories are widely accepted, although these all violate Occam's Razor." In general, "A asserts Y. However, according to B, Z." can suggest that the latter assertion is truer or better than the former one. Avoid this construction in favor of simply stating: "A asserts Y. Others, including B, believe Z." Acceptable use:

"Before <event> <this>. After <event>, however, <that>."

1) I said I don't think you understand the policy because you are using it to justify removing something when it does not apply. We can argue about whether or not Al-Swaidan is a "minor figure" but the stating some facts about the allegations against him is not "minor detail", The color of his house or where he eats dinner are minor details. His inclusion in a terrorism indictment is not minor.

2) By naming him as an uninidicted co-consprirator, the prosecutors are indeed saying his was somehow involved with the conpsiracy not just "associated" with those involved. This is your interpretation. I already cited a legal scholar who says the terms means that prosecutors consider him guilty but have decided not to bring charges. The term itself is not controversial. There are those who have criticised the legal action itself but there are those that have criticised everything about this subject. Trying to eliminate the term and describing the action against him with your own interpretation is misleading. If you want the reader to make up their own minds, then report the action accurately as it is described in the court document. The fact that the term is included in so many articles simplyis evidence that its use is accepted widely in WP so why not here? I did rewrite the sentence to be more clear about the category in which he was included, but I am not going to agree to exclude the use o

3) I will agree to exclude the word "however"from the part about jihad. I will also then rewite this section to provide a simple juxtopostion of his postions.

4) You claim that the meaning of his business dealings is not clear but it is clear that he was a partner with Al-Qadi in a company that had a consultancy contract with BMI so I included those details. You can't have it both ways. First you claim there is too much details then complain there is no detail. Ok, now its clear. Sgmiller 22:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Allegations section disputed

1- wikipedia policies state that not every single detail has to be given, I think my version is concise enough

2- your references cannot be viewed. The only one I could find was Richard Clarke's testimony with regards to Suwaidan having "financial transactions" with BMI

3- wikipedia policies state that the criticism section should not be given undue length as compared to the rest of the article even if it is true. You can read the policy for yourself. Im sick of referencing it is the wikipedia guideline on criticism in biographies.

4- I did not remove the details that there are allegations against him only the details about "sworn affidavit" etc.

5- You gave no reason for removing the following sentence "a stance which he has repeated in a recent interview, where he took a harsh position against the acts of 9/11."

6- you removed the accurate statement "but the exact meaning of these past business dealings has never been clarified."

Again the section is still disputed. I do not believe your edits are adding to the neutrality of balance of the article. On the contrary every edit you make has an undertone of accusing Suwaidan. Even the subtleties of your previous word usage such as "however" or "in addition". I am insisting on this version and will not accept any version where you are publishing allegations against Suwaidan when he has not been charged in a court of law. Again this is an encyclopedia article that gives a broad overview. For details allegations and flat out gossip the internet is only a click away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.99.141.180 (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The court document was available online but it not anymore but the standard for Wikipedia is not "viewability" but whether it can Verified. For example, a library book is acceptable but obviously it canot be viewed online and WP is not only an online reference source. This document is a public court document which is part of a public file. I have a copy ad would be glad to send it to you or to any person or place of your choosing. I have done everything I know how to do including repeated rewrites to try and present the court documents fairly but you just don't want them in there. Fine, but you are not the last word. Call in the moderators if you like but As I said, you do not get to choose what and what does not get put into this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.11.67.250 (talk) 04:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I am now stating for the record that I am finished dealing with you because of your repeated, sustained, and acknowledged personal attacks on me. I have said to I am blue in the face that I added material to this article that you consider "accusing" because it was written as an advertisemet for somebody which you have ready said is a "role model" for you whose reputation you do not wish to see damaged.

From this point foward, I will place important material in the article if it can be solidly referenced and neutrally presented. If you also have the same material, then please include it. I will only delete material if it is unreferenced or it is redundant but as I said I will no longer carry on this discussion with you because of your inability to stop making personal accusations. Sgmiller 04:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Follow Up:

I am following wikipedia procedures and will ask the moderators step in for your repeated vandalism of this wiki. As well, I will replace it with this entire full version each and every time you make an edit like the last one you did without reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.99.141.180 (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to make a fool of yourself as vandalism is defined by WP as:

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities to pages, page blanking, or the insertion of bad (or good) jokes or other nonsense. Fortunately, these types of vandalism are usually easy to spot. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated.

I have documented each and every one of the edits I have made including the reason I made them and any references that were necessary. You are now reverting the article for no other reason than you don't like it. I will once again make the changes, document and document why they were made.Sgmiller 07:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Edits Again

1) I removed the characterization of Al-Suwaidans thought because there have never been any references provided about it being liberal, that he had pro-democratic views or its similarity to the Islamic thinkers identified. As such, it was an opinion with nothing to back it up. Please see the WP on verifiability. As soon as there is a reference on his thought, I would like to include it and I will search for something later. Until then, it should stay out,

2) The Ruwad center also has no reference so I am removing it until there is a reference.

3) I added the material on the recent court document indentifying Al-Suwaidan as an un-inidicted co-conspirator because it is a fact reported by a court document with references provided. It is relevant to his role as a Muslim Broterhood leader in Kuwait and in the US which supports Hamas, an organization which Al-Suwaidan also supports.

4) I added more description about his business relationship with Al-Kadi for the same reason and it is backed up in public court documents which, are available to anybody who accesses the court file. Please see the WP policy on verifiability which says that the references must be able to be checked but does not require that they be online. However, to be helpful, I have found a link where the file can in fact be download and changed the references to include this link.

5) I deleted the statement that Al-Suwaidan is "frequently consulted" because there is no reference. We have no way of knowing how often he is consulted or by whom so I simply left it as a identifying him as a CEO. If I can find a neutral article about his compay, I will use it.

Sgmiller 07:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

3rd Opinion requested

I have requested a third opinion which is the WP policy on two-editor disputes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:3O —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgmiller (talk • contribs) 10:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Who gets to chose the person who gives a third opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.160.1 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• 3O Keep - The remaining statements in the Allegations section can be verified against the sources cited.
  My only concern here is that sources hosted on an upload site may appear less reliable and also hinder accessibility as such sites rely heavily on client-side scripting techniques that cannot be performed by all browsers. Some might also object to the amount of advertising. Sgmiller, you mentioned elsewhere that the original court documents are no longer available, do you know where they came from? Obviously the best solution would be to link to the originals if possible, then an archive site, then to a direct download from a third party site as a last resort. If this is not possible ther are also a variety of other sources available on Google which should suffice. ^{SkyIsFalling 06:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)}

Continuing to edit

I have made some minor changes all signed. Hope we can come to an agreement on the article. I am happy with the way it reads now. Please explain any changes you make as I haven't made many or significant changes to your edits. I will add the referenced needed plus info on Ruwad soon with references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.160.1 (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I have added a few sentences all well refereced. See history of changes, they are all signed and explained. Please do not remove them without explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.160.1 (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please Do Not Change Substantially Anonymously

Two of us worked very hard and long with mediation to get the article to where it was in June. Now somebody came along and hacked out the sections we worked so hard to agree on. Clearly, only material that was not "positive" about the subject was deleted.Since everything was sourced, please do not do this without coming to discussion first and reaching consensus. For example the Allegations section was completely removed without explanation. So, I reverted back to 11 June even though there were also some edits that might have been helpful. If this persists, I will request that anonymous edits to this article be locked outSgmiller 23:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again, somebody is anonymously adding material. If changes are to be made, please come to the discussion and explain why you feel it is necessary to do this. The "Criticism" section that was added is filled with unsourced material, opinions, and "original research" and presents a non-neutral point of view of Suwaidan's statements. I have reverted to the consensus version once again and will continue to do so in the absence of discussion. Sgmiller 09:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet again, the same person is anonymously editing this page without participating in the discussion. In good faith, I have changed "Islamist" to "Saudi religious establishment" although I believe these individuals fit the concept as explained in the WP article on Islamism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgmiller (talk • contribs) 13:34, August 25, 2007 (UTC)