Jump to content

Talk:Canadian Islamic Congress

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

Cherry picking

[edit]

PLEASE: We would like the Canadian Islamic Congress (a mainstream, reasonable Muslim group) to send a letter to Dalton McGuinty telling him that Muslims do NOT find Christmas offensive, and to put the word "Christmas" back into our schools so that even the Muslim children can benefit from this great Canadian tradition. Thanks, Rob C.A.B. 613-276-2139


Sorry, but I want to get this important point across..

==> I don't mind having a representation of Muhammed, or a Hanukkah candle beside my Christmas tree. But I am not prepared to allow people to take my Christmas Tree away from me. I want a Canada where ALL cultures are represented, including MY culture.

Ever since I was a kid I remember we had "Christmas". Christmas trees, Christmas cards, Christmas lights, Christmas holiday from school, etc. And this had nothing to do with religion. It had to do with giving Christmas presents, for example. So rather than being the cultureless society that we are told we are, I now understand that Christmas IS my culture. So are BBQs, hot dogs, hamburgers, etc.

I am not prepared to allow other cultures to usurp MY culture. And worse than that are the Canadian politicians and bureaucrats (HR tribunals) who are actually helping them to do that. I want a Canada where ALL cultures are represented, including MY culture.

I don't want Holiday Trees. I want Christmas Trees.

PS - Now that I understand this, I can take POSITIVE steps to ensure that Christmas remains a Canadian tradition. And actually SHARE Christmas with the other cultures of the world, while at the same time learning about their cultures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.191.33.193 (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rob. C.A.B. Magazine 613-276-2139

IF YOU DON'T LIKE MACLEAN'S MAGAZINE, THEN START YOUR OWN MAGAZINE.. NO?

THIS IS WHAT FREEDOM IS ALL ABOUT.

Thanks - Rob. The ugly fish brigade. Protecting freedom in Canada.

613-276-2139

What we are seeing is an increase in the number of frivolous cases that are eventually dropped. Recently, a Muslim man submitted a hand-written suit against Ezra Levant. This cost the individual nothing, but cost Mr. Levant thousands of dollars in legal fees, and the suit was subsequently dropped. If I did not know better, I would think there is some kind of collusion going on here. The Muslim individual has a bee in his bonnet, The HR Tribunals are looking for job security, and the lawyers want their cut too.

==> Who is the loser in this equation? We all are. This kind of thing cheapens our public institutions, wastes our precious hard-earned money, and certainly leaves a bad taste in everybody's mouth about Muslims.

Not that all Muslims are like this. Of course they're not. But SOME Muslims seem to have the idea that they can force their views onto other people, and this is completely wrong. The HR Tribunals are completely wrong for helping them, and the lawyers are.. well, we all know about the lawyers already.

Sincerely, Rob. C.A.B. Magazine 613-276-2139

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.175.234 (talk) 06:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]



Yahel Guhan, cherry picking "remarks" is unacceptable. There are articles after articles of remarks made by CIC leaders. Should we quote all of them?Bless sins 03:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for example...Yahel Guhan 04:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The entire article.[1]. Or how about this article. And this recent one. Should, wikipedia become a mouth piece for CIC?Bless sins 04:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It is inappropriate (and actually inflammatory) to post a single quote from an entire organization like this. There isn't even an explanation behind the quote; the reader is not given a reason for its inclusion. It seems it was put there to subtly pass judgment on the CIC. Nojamus (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is/was a controversial remark, and the controversy was subsequently highlighted in mainstream press coverage (i.e: the Globe and Mail, a major Canadian newspaper). As such, it meets our notability requirements. Isarig (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who says this is notable? Secondly, why not quote the entire article? Why not quote several different articles?Bless sins (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Globe and Mail says it is notable, by definition, through its extensive coverage of the affair. We do not quote the entire article, becuase most of it was uncontroversial, and was not covered by TG&M. If other articles generated similar news coverage, by all means add them. I will add a section on the controversy generated by the CIC's chairman support of targeting Israeli civilians shortly. Please do not blank sourced material again, as that it considered vandalism. Isarig (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Should we reinsert the Awards section of this article, or was it not properly sourced? (Hyperionsteel (talk) 07:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

This article is about the CIC, not Elmasry

[edit]

I understand that there is a lot of press about Mohamed Elmasry, but the vast majority of that belongs in the eponymous article. This article is specifically about the CIC, and mention of any other persons should be restricted to how their actions reflect on the CIC. So while mention of the controversies around Elmasry may be appropriate, the detail and quotations that were brought here were only appropriate for the Elmasry article. I have re-written the controversy section to more accurately, in my opinion, reflect the article's subject, and any more detail about Elmasry should be sent to Mohamed Elmasry. -- Avi (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Elmasry made controversial statements while heading the CIC, then those statements should be listed in this entry. The leadership of an organization speaks volume about that organization, thus Elmasry's statements are completely relevant to this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.194 (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

selfpub

[edit]

This is self-published. I believe it violates WP:SELFPUB, or more specifically, it is "unduly self-serving" and involves "claims about third parties" (third party would be CIC, since this is published by Daniel Pipes). Can we get a more reliables source (like a newspaper)?Bless sins (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pipes article was published in the New York Sun and the apology was published on the CIC website. How is this not properly sourced? (Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

New York Sun? Is http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2782 a url link to the New York Sun?Bless sins (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the reference - it now links to an article in the New York Sun, and not to Pipes' website.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

In addition to the article in the New York Sun, I've also provided a link to the actual apology posted on the CIC website. I think that should be enough to justify this section's inclusion in this article.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Pipes op/ed on the apology was also published in the Jerusalem Post and the National Post so I think it's notable enough to merit a metion here. Reggie Perrin (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After, it was sourced to New York Sun, I agree it is notable enough. However, what Pipes says can't be considered as fact. For example, Pipes refers to this group as "radical" and "Islamist". that should make it clear that Pipes opinions can't be treated as fact. Thus, we include what Pipes says, and attribute it to Pipes.Bless sins (talk) 05:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BlessSins, first of all, stop edit warring. Get consensus for your change before you go on an edit war crusade. Explain your edit here as well. The quote your talking about, its already in quotes so its clear its him who said it. There's no need of starting chain reactions of the word "claimed". Thats what quotes are there for. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my original contribution, most of it is confirmed by the CIC apology posted on their website. I agree that the last sentence, in which Pipes makes comments on the CIC, is an editorial but that is why I put in quotes to indicate that this is Pipes' opinion, and not fact.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Undo

[edit]

I undid the vandalism by 64.26.167.4 206.21.162.177 (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with quotes

[edit]

If you are going to quote someone and use that quote as an example of that person apologizing for terrorism, then you shouldn't excise huge portions of that quote and then replace them with ellipses, thereby eliminating the context in which the original statement was uttered. The "quote" from Adom Aptowitzer is a perfect, and blatant, example of this. To make matters worse, the source that is cited for the aforementioned quote does not provide an external link, thus we are left with either having to search google for the real quote or taking the word of the editor. Editors changing the context and meaning of a quote by removing sections and inserting ellipses happens far too often on this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.194 (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Canadian Islamic Congress. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 08:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Canadian Islamic Congress. 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:

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

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) 12:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Canadian Islamic Congress. 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:

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) 02:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Canadian Islamic Congress. 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:

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) 19:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canadian_Islamic_Congress&oldid=1206528541"