Jump to content

Talk:Rashad Hussain

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Question

[edit]

What is revamping? Simon de Danser (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proper Credit

[edit]

It seems clear that the publication that first reported this story, including the infamous deleted sentences, was the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report which ran it on Sunday, February 14. I have changed the relevant section to note this.

Sgmiller (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I also deleted Fox News because they simply were repeating what had already been carried in the GMBDR, CNSNews, and POLITICO. This story appears to have originated and been carried through entirely by Internet-based blogs and news services. I cannot see any original work that FOX actually did nor any credit they gave the publications that really did the reporting.. I also deleted the JTA report as it added nothing new to the story. Sgmiller (talk)

Weight

[edit]

Not really appropriate for 60-70% of this article to be about Sami al-Arian.Prezbo (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having a separate article about this issue would probably be worse. It just needs to be edited down.Prezbo (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's about as much text about this issue in this article as there is about Van Jones' controversies in his article--and that article is much longer, and Hussain isn't going to resign. I don't feel like figuring out what to cut here but something really needs to be cut.Prezbo (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to be rewritten, based on chronology, and with each event being cited with a reliable sources. I'll do a rewrite shortly that should make it more concise, and will discuss my edits on this talk page. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of reliable sources

[edit]

Here is the compromise I propose:

Some commentators contend that Hussain was accurately quoted in 2004 as calling the treatment of Sami al-Arian as an example of “politically motivated persecutions.” Others contend that the transcript shows that according to the transcript, Hussain used the term "prosections," not "persecutions," and that he did not say that the prosections were "used to squash political dissent." Hussain acknowledged that some of his statements on the panel were "ill-conceived or not well-formulated." After Hussain's statement, the White House stated that it "is expressing its confidence in Hussain, despite his concession last week that he made ill-considered statements in 2004 about Bush-era terrorism prosecutions."[21]"

I think this acknowledges both sides of the argument. Is it possible to restore this version of the page? The current version is Ism Schism's version of the events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idahoprov (talk • contribs) 02:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ism Schism - please do not assert false claims about Hussain's press release. While he acknowldged making controversial statements, he did not make the ones you cite. your citation dies not support these assertions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idahoprov (talk • contribs) 23:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The citation provided does in fact support those statements. I don't think it's that hard to read this article — it clearly contains the quotes in Ism schism's revision. Goodvac (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source sited is an unreliable right wing blog that has attacked Muslims working in government and has claimed that president Obama is a Muslim. Read the transcript of statement that Hussain released. Ism Schism's characterization is biased and slanted. Even other conservatives, such as Daveed Gartenstein-Ross have concluded that Hussain did not say "persecution." The phrase he used - and it is in the Politico transcript - is "persecution." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idahoprov (talk • contribs) 02:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide reliable sources to back up your statements. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - please take a look at this analysis by conservative counter-terrorism expert Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, who goes through the transcript carefully: http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2010/02/did_rashad_hussain_lie_about_h.php

also see: http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2010/02/did_rashad_hussain_lie_part_2.php

and this article by professor Marc Lynch: http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/02/23/the_despicable_smearing_of_rashad_hussein —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idahoprov (talk • contribs) 18:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not remove it because of the source, I removed it because it is an outdated info. I do not think that writing in a story-development style is appropriate for an encyclopedia. We should write what we know now, regardless of how the story developed. Sole Soul (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Outdated info," that does not apply, or exist to my knowledge. Also, this is still very much a current event, i.e. the Washington Post article on this subject written just a few days ago. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rashad recognize now that he said those things, not Laila. I know it is a current event but we are not a news site. Sole Soul (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We can not rewrite history... this article will evolve, but past events and their chronology are part of his bio. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chronology of his life is part of his bio, chronology of how a current event unfolds is not. Again, this is an encyclopedia. Sole Soul (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not continue to delete relevant material to this subject. This is not the intro to the article, this is a subsection, and this material is relevant to this subsection. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) We have 2 options:

  1. Remove your addition
  2. Keep your addition.

The second option is bad because:

  • As already mentioned, it is not suitable for an encyclopedia per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM
  • It is without context, leaving it unbalanced. It is not explicitly mentioned in the article that Rashad had later changed his statement. In the Politico's story, there is an indication that he did not see the recording before. Also, he said that the event was six years ago (implying that that was the cause for his first statement)
  • Adding context will solve the problem of imbalance, but will give undue weight to a minor event.

Because this is a BLP article and because generally, onus is on the party seeks to include content, to justify and achieve consensus for its inclusion, this info should be removed until consensus is established. Sole Soul (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ism schism is reverting without addressing the issues I raised above, and yet asks others to disscuss first, something Ism does not do. Ism asks to keep unbalanced, misleading info in a BLP until Ism make it balanced, and the execuse is that there is underconstruction tag. Sole Soul (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Posting this here as requested, the issue is being given far to much coverage in the article, it is not a big issue, at least no to be given a daily reporting. Off2riorob (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


On February 16, 2010, CNSNews reported that the WRMEA News Editor and Executive Director Delinda Hanley had responded to their inquiries by initially saying that the comments attributed to Mr. Hussain had actually been made by Sami al-Arian’s daughter, Laila al-Arian and that an intern” who attended the event and wrote the story had made an “error.” When this was discovered, the quotes were deleted, she said. Shereen Kandil, the author of the original article, was contacted by CNS News and denied that she had made any error stating "“I have never mixed my sources and wouldn’t have quoted Rashad Hussain if it came from Laila al-Arian.” “If the editors from WRMEA felt they wanted to remove Rashad Hussain from the article, my assumption is that they did it for reasons other than what you’re saying,” she said. “They never once contacted me about an ‘error’ they claim I made." After being contacted by CNSNews about Ms. Kandil's reply, Ms. Hanley said that she may have made a mistake, but denied that there was a cover-up although she ocntinued to insist she had contacted Ms. Kandil about the alleged error. Ms. Hanley told CNSNews a few hours later that the WRMEA Web master thought the archived story had been altered on Feb. 5, 2009, although it was also possible that the change had been made “when our Web site began an ongoing redesign.” Asked whether either Hussain, or anyone else, had approached the WRMEA to ask for the story to be altered – and if so, when this had occurred – Hanley told CNSNews she could not remember the circumstances. Ms. Hanley continued to maintain that Mr. Kandil had made an error in her reporting stating "I would guess it’s a writer’s simple error and not a big cover-up...I’d be very curious to find out if I had said this or another non-Muslim speaker or commentator, would this be such an issue?” Hanley said. “Seems like this article is evidence that Muslim Americans are facing serious discrimination in our post 9/11 country.” [1]

On February 19, 2010 The Politico reported that when confronted with a tape recording of his remarks at the conference, "Rashad Hussain, changed course Friday — admitting that he made sharply critical statements about a U.S. terror prosecution against a Muslim professor after initially saying he had no recollection of making such comments." Politico also reported that it was Hussain himself who contacted the publication to complain about the story stating “When I saw the article that attributed comments to me without context, leaving a misimpression, I contacted the publication to raise concerns about it. Eventually, of their own accord, they modified the article,” Hussain said of the article in the Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs. Politico reported that in the recording, "Hussain’s indictment of the government’s legal practices toward Muslims goes further than Al-Arian’s case, leveling a detailed critique of more than a half-dozen prominent anti-terrorism cases and several key provisions of the Patriot Act."[2] Although the transcript [3] of the audio recording shows that Hussain made neither of the remarks originally attributed to him the WRMEA article, Hussain recognized the controversial nature of his panel discussion and said in a statement: “As a law student six years ago, I spoke on the topic of civil liberties on a panel during which I responded to comments made about the Sami Al-Arian case by Laila Al-Arian who was visibly saddened by charges against her father. I made clear at the time that I was not commenting on the allegations themselves. The judicial process has now concluded, and I have full faith in its outcome.” [4]

Ism schism- I've changed your characterization of the el-arian comments based on the transcript of the Hussain comments. Please check the Hussain statements against the transcript. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idahoprov (talk • contribs) 02:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Please allow a few days to place all relevant material into context and chronology. This is the purpose of the underconstruction tag. Since there has been no reasons given for the deletion of reliable sourced material, I will undelete it. No info has been provided, or even discussed, on how it might violate BLP; this has yet to be shown. Please respect an underconstruction tag in good faith. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 06:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ism Schism - Please do not continue to delete reliable sources such as the White House statement on the al-Arian matter or quotes from the New York Times. Thank you,

References

  1. ^ Goodenough, Patrick (February 16, 2010). "Publication Denies Cover-Up on OIC Envoy, Implies Anti-Muslim Bias Lies Behind Story". CNSNews. Retrieved February 23, 2010.
  2. ^ Gerstein, Josh (February 19, 2010). "Islam envoy retreats on terror talk". The Politico. Retrieved February 22, 2010.
  3. ^ Gerstein, Josh (February 19, 2010). "Islam envoy retreats on terror talk". The Politico. Retrieved February 22, 2010.
  4. ^ Gerstein, Josh (February 19, 2010). "Islam envoy retreats on terror talk". The Politico. Retrieved February 22, 2010.

references

[edit]


Ism Schism - please not that Hussain ackknowledged making ill conceived statements, but did not concede that he made the statements you cite. in fact, the used to squash dissent statement is not in the transcript. and the transcript shows that he said "politically motivated prosecutions," not persecutions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idahoprov (talk • contribs) 23:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Obama’s Envoy to Islamic Bloc Admits Controversial Statements About Supporter of Terror Group. The first paragraph states, "(CNSNews.com) – President Obama’s envoy to the Islamic bloc acknowledged Friday that he was accurately quoted in 2004 as calling the treatment of activist Sami al-Arian, then facing trial for supporting a Palestinian terrorist group, an example of “politically motivated persecutions.” Rashad Hussain made the admission after Politico.com obtained an audio recording of the Muslim Students Association (MSA) event in Chicago where, as a Yale law student, he made the remarks." Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


ism schism -please refer to the statement and transcript puvlished by politico. hussain did not concede that he made the statements you cite. in fact, the used to squash dissent statement is not in the transcript. and the transcript shows that he said "politically motivated prosecutions," not persecutions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idahoprov (talk • contribs) 00:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place for POV. Again, please see Obama’s Envoy to Islamic Bloc Admits Controversial Statements About Supporter of Terror Group. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ism Schism - Please do not delete well-sourced information, such as the White House statement on the al-Arian matter.

OR and POV

[edit]

Not sure which section this proposal belongs in - I've added above as well: Here is the compromise I propose:

"In 2004, Hussain was on a panel discussion on civil rights at a Muslim Students Association conference in Chicago. With him on the panel was Laila Al-Arian, a daughter of Sami Al-Arian, who on March 2, 2006, entered a guilty plea to a charge of conspiracy to help the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a "specially designated terrorist" organization, and was sentenced to 57 months in prison, and ordered deported following his prison term.[17][18] During the panel discussion, and following Laila Al-Arain's comments, Hussain made critical statements about the U.S. terror prosecution of Sami Al-Arian, as well as other Muslim terrorism suspects, characterizing them as "politically motivated persecutions."[19]

Some commentators contend that Hussain was accurately quoted in 2004 as calling the treatment of Sami al-Arian as an example of “politically motivated persecutions.” Others contend that the transcript shows that according to the transcript, Hussain used the term "prosections," not "persecutions," and that he did not say that the prosections were "used to squash political dissent." Hussain acknowledged that some of his statements on the panel were "ill-conceived or not well-formulated." After Hussain's statement, the White House stated that it "is expressing its confidence in Hussain, despite his concession last week that he made ill-considered statements in 2004 about Bush-era terrorism prosecutions."[21]"

I think this acknowledges both sides of the argument. Fair? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idahoprov (talk • contribs) 04:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, BLPs have a higher standard for references. Commentary blogs are not reliable sources for info directly concerning a BLP, and as such are removed. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

[edit]

As this is a BLP, all OR and POV will be removed. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed POV/OR
"The audio recording shows that Hussain made neither of the remarks originally attributed to him the WRMEA article. He did not make the "used to squash political dissent" statement and he said "politically motivated prosecutions," not "politically motivated persecutions," as WRMEA originally reported. [1]. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on the edits, I think we should always guard against OR and POV. Which can be reflected in deletions as much as in additions.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree... which is why OR/POV has to be removed from BLPs, per Wikipedia policy, as quickly as it is added. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 06:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Gerstein, Josh (February 19, 2010). "Islam envoy retreats on terror talk". The Politico. Retrieved February 22, 2010.

BLP Noticeboard Post

[edit]

FYI - I have opened a discussion here on the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard to solicit additional input regarding the issues surrounding the recent edit war. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of quote and ref

[edit]

First, even if you think a quote should be removed, you should not remove the relevant references.

Second, I'm not quite sure what you mean by your edit summary:

  • removed quote because white house quote supporting hussain was removed. I don't have a problem with having both the one sentence he actually said that got him in so much trouble and the white house statement, which I don't remember seeing off hand, but I got here only recently. I think they are both notable.
  • Including language that hussain was just a law student. Not sure what that's about either.
  • Also, an entire page exists with hussain quotes on this subject. I personally think the whole article is absurd and should be AfD as WP:Undue right wing smear campaign WP:Attack page and against WP:BLP. Instead add maybe two more sentences here to show that the couple more reliable sources expressed some concerns. CarolMooreDC🗽 05:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Rashad Hussain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Professorship?

[edit]

I'm not sure if I'm missing something or not getting it, but it is stated that Hussain is a professor but I can't find anything in regards to academics being a career area of his in the past. Moreover, I can't seem to find any other mention of his professorship other than the one source in the introduction. Do let me know if I have a misunderstanding of what one needs to do to earn the title of professor or of what it entails (namely an academic career). Sour789 (talk) 06:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rashad_Hussain&oldid=1205909574"