Talk:Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland

message: I have removed an irrelevant political tract from the article. Do not accuse me of vandalism; you are in breach of WP:CIVIL and failing to WP:AGF. Discussing the political views and associations of people linked to people running the ICCI (but having no official function in it) is simply adding political commentary. Should we be able to list information about the Spanish Inquisition in every Catholic-related article or refer to Cromwell's massacres or prominent British War-criminals (ie the Government of the UK) in every article about a Church of Ireland building? One more revert and you get blocked for 3RR. Sarah777 (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is not about a building, but about an Islamic cultural centre. It contains a primary school that is affiliated to the ICCI in that the imam is Patron of the school (superior to the Board of Management) and chooses the muslim teachers, and the school is located in the ICCI. And you don`t object to it being included in the article. The same goes for the European Council for Fatwa and Research: It is headquartered in the ICCI, it regularly meets there, the ICCI imam is ECFR general secretary and the ICCI publishes ECFR fatwas. It is very obviously important for the theological/political orientation of the ICCI and the ECFR must be mentioned in the article. Another brainchild of al-Qaradawi is the IUMS/IAMS, founded in 2004. There is discussion whether this union/association is in fact an organization or rather a network with a website. But it is headquartered in the ICCI, according to an interesting explanation of the IUMS general secretary because it was refused in two Arab countries (Egypt and Lebanon), and it held its inaugural meeting with 200 participants there. In an article on the ICCI belongs which organizations act out of the ICCI with which agenda and what kind of beliefs the ICCI does propagate (Harun Yahya Conference) or what kind of speakers does it invite (Salman Al Awda). Your analogy with the Catholic Church i.a. was really besides any point, THAT was a political rant. Stick to the topic: The ICCI. I ask you to reintroduce the paragraph in whole or propose a constructive formulation that we can both agree on. So far I don`t see you have made a valid point. BTW, I see that you have a rather impressive block log, which is not really surprising... --Shengyi (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The ICCI is a building or complex of buildings. A political run-down on the views of some of the people associated with some of the organisations based there is not appropriate to this article. The Church of Ireland analogy is rather good I think; should we include the views of it's more warlike members in the article on Christ Church, Dublin? Nonsense. Such statements should be confined to articles about the people and organisations mentioned. And don't worry about my block record - I don't. It was all for speaking the Truth to Power using an overly sharp tongue. But I'm gone all WP:CIVIL now so I'd strongly advise you keep WP:NPA in mind. Sarah777 (talk) 09:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The ICCI is not just a building, it is not just a mosque and it certainly is not a church. It is an Islamic Cultural Center and it houses a couple of organizations. I have explained those close links repeatedly and have provided references. I have asked you repeatedly to give valid reasons for you reverts and deletions, I have asked you for a constructive formulation of the paragraph - all to no avail. I will therefor reintroduce the paragraph, because those organizations are headquartered in the ICCI. --Shengyi (talk) 12:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I glanced over the request at WP:ISLAM and at the one recently posted on my talk page. I've had a brief look at the disputed content. It's tangential at best, and some areas do seem quite unwarranted IMO. This isn't an article about IUMS or ECFR, nor is it about the controversies associated with al-Qardawi , so there shouldn't be any real focus on those issues. I'm not really sure how significant Ruth Edwards' op-ed is... if there's any real controversy surrounding ICCI then I'd probably expect it to be corroborated by other sources which aren't opinion pieces. ITAQALLAH 23:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ruth Edwards op-eds are zero on the significance scale! Either way; the ICCI is not the place to put this stuff. Should we discuss the Iraq war in the St Patrick's Cathedral article because of the British military associations of several of the clerics based there? Sarah777 (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm essentially in agreement with Itaqallah here, though I admit I'm not entirely familiar with the subject of this Centre and I was simply asked to have a look and comment here. I think a "see also" reference to ECFR and the other orgs would be appropriate, but I don't think an extended discussion would be warranted here. However, it's also a bit extreme to claim that Ruth Edwards's op-eds are "zero" on a significance scale; there's nothing wrong with citing her writings as criticism in the appropriate context. It's just probably not appropriate in this article, in my opinion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So we are in general agreement? It might help if someone actually bothered to write a fully researched and verified article on the people/organisations they wish to discuss here. Then a few Wiki-links would solve the problem. Edwards is a complete fluff-brain who's confusion is harmonised with that of the Sindo tabloidists; - never to be mistaken for a serious commentator. IMHO.  And I doubt she wrote/researched the piece about the ICCI - outside her...eh... ambit. But that's only my opinion, again. Sarah777 (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing political POV from article about the ICCI

message: I'll agree that some of the current page is a little heavy handed, but it's written in a pretty neutral tone. I'm not sure it should be in the Organization section, though; perhaps the criticisms could be moved to a separate Criticism section. Since I started writing this, it seems that the page has been reverted again, so I'll remind you both of WP:3RR. Admittedly, I'm not really sure how this sort of article is supposed to be written, so I've listed it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam to try to get some more people here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I glanced over the request at WP:ISLAM and at the one recently posted on my talk page. I've had a brief look at the disputed content. It's tangential at best, and some areas do seem quite unwarranted IMO. This isn't an article about IUMS or ECFR, nor is it about the controversies associated with al-Qardawi , so there shouldn't be any real focus on those issues. I'm not really sure how significant Ruth Edwards' op-ed is... if there's any real controversy surrounding ICCI then I'd probably expect it to be corroborated by other sources which aren't opinion pieces. ITAQALLAH 23:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ruth Edwards op-eds are zero on the significance scale! Either way; the ICCI is not the place to put this stuff. Should we discuss the Iraq war in the St Patrick's Cathedral article because of the British military associations of several of the clerics based there? Sarah777 (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm essentially in agreement with Itaqallah here, though I admit I'm not entirely familiar with the subject of this Centre and I was simply asked to have a look and comment here. I think a "see also" reference to ECFR and the other orgs would be appropriate, but I don't think an extended discussion would be warranted here. However, it's also a bit extreme to claim that Ruth Edwards's op-eds are "zero" on a significance scale; there's nothing wrong with citing her writings as criticism in the appropriate context. It's just probably not appropriate in this article, in my opinion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So we are in general agreement? It might help if someone actually bothered to write a fully researched and verified article on the people/organisations they wish to discuss here. Then a few Wiki-links would solve the problem. Edwards is a complete fluff-brain who's confusion is harmonised with that of the Sindo tabloidists; - never to be mistaken for a serious commentator. IMHO.  And I doubt she wrote/researched the piece about the ICCI - outside her...eh... ambit. But that's only my opinion, again. Sarah777 (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland. 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/20071119002842/http://www.nccri.ie//pdf/spectrum9.pdf to http://www.nccri.ie/pdf/spectrum9.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: View of Muslim academic on FGM 'highly dangerous', obstetrician says (Prof Chris Fitzpatrick criticises views expressed by Dr Ali Selim in RTÉ interview.) | Elaine Edwards, Aine McMahon | The Irish Times, Feb 9, 2018 https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/view-of-muslim-academic-on-fgm-highly-dangerous-obstetrician-says-1.3386909 - - Trinity lecturer says female circumcision should be permitted (Ali Selim, a Trinity lecturer in Arabic, made the statements to the Medical Independent.) | By Ciaran Sunderland on Friday, February 9, 2018 http://trinitynews.ie/trinity-lecturer-says-female-circumcision-should-be-permitted/ 2003:74:4E61:7D97:B145:72A8:97AD:9138 (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  January 2018 - Controversial remarks of the spokesman of ICCI about female genital "circumcision" = female genital mutilation, FGM aka gooter-clipping