Talk:Nihad Awad

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Nihad Awad. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070311011746/http://www.mndaily.com:80/daily/gopher-archives/1992/11/18/Bosnia-Herzegovina.txt to http://www.mndaily.com/daily/gopher-archives/1992/11/18/Bosnia-Herzegovina.txt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060221032632/http://www.mndaily.com:80/daily/gopher-archives/1992/11/18/Bosnians_fight_with_empty_hand.txt to http://www.mndaily.com/daily/gopher-archives/1992/11/18/Bosnians_fight_with_empty_hand.txt

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nihad Awad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120503035244/http://kyl.senate.gov/legis_center/subdocs/091003_epstein.pdf to http://kyl.senate.gov/legis_center/subdocs/091003_epstein.pdf

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

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

White House disavows CAIR after Nihad Awad Oct 7 Remarks

This is a significant development and NY Times is a reliable secondary source. The question is how to succinctly state it, and which quotes to include. Some editors argue for including Awad's fullest quote from NY Times others argue for shortening it to avoid undue weight. What is the best way to proceed? Badabara (talk) 16:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Currently it is way too long and is totally WP:UNDUE here. And yes I realize I'm part of the problem as I decided to give the full quote to avoid misquoting a living person. The best way possible is to pick the most relevant part of the quote, give his clarifying response, and include the fact that the White House condemned it.VR _talk 17:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Would you like to give it a shot on the page or test it here first? Badabara (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Its tricky. Awad's statement says he condemned antisemitism in the very speech he made those remarks[1], and that deserves to be mentioned too. Awad also says he's always condemned Hamas's terrorist attacks, even dating back to the 90s (and gives this evidence[2]) Awad also says MEMRI spliced and edited his video, and that's also true as can be seen here[3].

What do you think is the most controversial part about his remarks? From the NYT article it seems "was happy to see Palestinians break out of Gaza"[4]. We can then build the paragraph around that.VR _talk 20:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is it's a long quote, and the context is longer. There are two parts to his quote:

1. "I was happy to see people breaking the siege"

2. “And yes,” he continued, “the people of Gaza have the right to defend themselves, and Israel as an occupying power does not have that right to self-defense.”

Then would come his defense:

1. his comments were taken “out of context” to distort his meaning.

2. In another part of his speech he said he denounced hate against Jews and called antisemitism “a real evil”. Badabara (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Has there been significant controversy over his assertion that Palestinians have the right of self-defense or Israel does not having the right self-defense in the OPT? If not, I suggest we omit that for brevity and focus on his comment regarding breaking the siege on October 7.VR _talk 03:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there has been significant controversy with both parts of his statement. Most media outlets include both.

If we want to strive for brevity, then we should simply summarize and not quote.

For example:

"Awad came under scrutiny when he gave a speech at the 16th Annual Convention for Palestine in Chicago on November 24, 2023. Awad stated that he was happy to see people "break the siege" on Oct 7, and that Gaza has the right to self-defense, while Israel as an occupying power does not. The Biden administration condemned his remarks and ended its work with CAIR on crafting a national antisemitism strategy. Awad later stated his words were taken out of context and misconstrued."

What do you think? Do you want to give something like this a try, or still try for direct quotes? Or somethings else I'm not thinking of? Badabara (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I feel your suggestion is very misleading for some of the reasons I stated above. It is inappropriate to omit the fact that Awad condemned both antisemitism in general, and terrorist attacks against Israel in particular, both during that speech, before that speech, and after that speech? VR _talk 02:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you share some sources that specifically condemned either "Palestinians have a right to self-defense" or the "israel doesn't have the right to self defense in the OPT" (not to be confused with Israel's life to self-defense within the 1967 borders). VR _talk 02:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking.

Why don't you make a suggestion for how you would like to word this.

Please keep in mind the NYTimes article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/08/us/politics/white-house-cair-nihad-awad.html Badabara (talk) 06:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm asking if there are any significant sources that have directly criticized his two statements about right of self-defense? If not, then we can omit this. VR _talk 14:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to do primary research to investigate exactly which words the White House is criticizing.

If you want to demonstrate that Nihad Awad was disavowed by the White House for a different statement than that quoted in NY Times, WSJ and other major news sources then that responsibility falls on you...

We can paraphrase or shorten Awad's statement or keep it as a full quote. We can also paraphrase the White House response. We can not omit, unless you have burden of proof.

BusterD is it possible to get a referee or a 3rd editor involved at this point? I feel like we are about to go around in circles. Badabara (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I never asked to omit entirely either Awad's statement or the White House's. What did I say is indeed to shorten Awad's statements, which necessarily implies omitting some parts. If the self-defense part is not relevant to the criticism, then lets drop that and keep this strictly about Palestinians breaking the siege on Oct 7, which is what the NYT article puts at the top.

Finally, please keep in mind this is a BLP article, as opposed to an article about an organization. Here if we err, we must err on the side of the living person. VR _talk 18:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:Dispute resolution is thattaway! If I make myself WP:Involved, I'm not helpful with any disruption. BusterD (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

apologies Badabara (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

VR I don't see why we need to err at all. NYTimes is a reputable newspaper that quoted Awad. Awad made the statement that you don't want to include.

His words are in every major newspaper. This is not poorly sourced, not self published, not without author, not circular reporting, not gossip.

This reminds me bit of a wikipedia page where a basketball player was suspended for too many fouls. Family members created an account to ask editors if they could please take information in the headlines off wikipedia.

I understand you don't want to victimize Awad, however this is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. He is a co-founder and Executive Director of CAIR. This is entirely related to his field. Badabara (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not related to Awad at all, nor have I ever communicated with him ever in my life, and I don't appreciate the insinuation. VR _talk 02:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• So I went ahead and added everything. The problem with this version is that it now takes out of 289/565 words, meaning >50% of the entire article! This is definitely way WP:UNDUE. It gives the impression that Awad is mainly only notable for his remarks during the war. This is why we have policies like WP:VNOT: "not all verifiable information must be included."VR _talk 02:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  I was't insinuating that you know Mr Awad. No intention to insult you. I was only pointing out that his comments are related to his field and career.

  Yes, I understand the problem your new edit creates. I also understand why you put it in to create balance. Perhaps it's the best we can do for now? Perhaps we leave this article for other editors to chine in, and eventually develop a longer page for mr Awad? Badabara (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  Sure we can leave it for now and revisit it at a later date. VR _talk 00:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

  For what it's worth... thanks for co-editing. Thanks for your service on wikipedia. Badabara (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks and happy holidays! VR _talk 02:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• The longer quote here seems an improvement over the paragraph in Council on American–Islamic Relations. You might make more prolific use of either a blockquote, or full quotes in footnotes and summary in the text where appropriate. (Having a long blockquote in a short bio is not unheard of, and feels less out of place if it's for a primary quote that the person is known for.) – SJ + 18:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)