Talk:Muslim Association of Canada

message: In today's newspapers, the RCMP note that the Muslim Association of Canada provided money to a terrorist organization from 2001 to 2010, and that the Association has been under police surveillance for financing terrorists, as of March 6, 2014. Information related to this should be added to the article, but we should find additional sources (the Toronto Sun is a tabloid), and be careful in the wording. From a quick search, the information I found shows that the group that MAC was donating to was not listed as a terrorist organisation at the time of the donations. --Yamla (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple of other people added this information, along with information from a press release acknowledging this support but indicating that financing stopped at some unspecified point in the past, prior to IRFAN-Canada's delisting as a charitable organization. This issue (adding the information) is now resolved. --Yamla (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorism links 

message: Are MAC donations to IRFAN before IRFAN was designated a terror group even a controversy? AFAIK, only QMI agency reported this and this was copied by tabloids like the Toronto Sun. If you read their article, its fairly clear that last allegation of MAC involving itself with IRFAN is March 2014. IRFAN wasn't designated as terrorist until April 2014. How is this controversial or worthy of reporting?VR talk 15:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The Muslim Association of Canada claims that all donations stopped after IRFAN was delisted in 2011. However, the allegations (and sworn statements) are that the donations continued until 2014. I think that's incredibly relevant. I mean, I think it'd be relevant even if the donations stopped in 2011, before IRFAN was delisted, given that IRFAN turns out to have ties to a designated terrorist group. Note that there's no claim in the article, and I most certainly make no claim here, that the Muslim Association of Canada was deliberately funding a terrorist group. But worth mentioning this funding of IRFAN in the article? Most certainly. --Yamla (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that this "controversy" is sourced entirely to the Toronto Sun, which is a tabloid. Are there any other sources that talk about it?VR talk 20:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this even a controversy? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Muslim Association of Canada. 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/20150130034511/http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2015/01/20150128-090519.html to http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2015/01/20150128-090519.html
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) 09:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: An anonymous editor has concerns about the article discussing the link between Dr. Jamal Badawi and the Muslim Brotherhood. By request, I have reintroduced the content with a reliable source meeting WP:RS, showing the controversy. I want to be clear, though, I'm open to discussion and to a consensus against me for this piece of information. I think it's relevant, the Edmonton Journal appears to think it's relevant, but it may not be. --Yamla (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no issue with the use of the Edmonton Journal at all. However, the use of "Investigative project" is problematic because it seems to be a partisan, agenda-driven organization with no reputation for accuracy or fact-checking. Furthermore, the source you provided is a primary source, and articles on Wikipedia should largely be based on secondary sources. You include a reliable source for Badawi's assertion denying any links to Muslim Brotherhood, then provide a primary source in response to his assertion (his name being in the directory). I find that problematic in light of WP:NOR because you are making an original argument with a primary source. We don't know why the primary source included his name. For example, the Muslim Brotherhood might as well have made a hitlist of sorts with certain perceived enemies on it. Imagine then that a Wikipedia editor uses the primary source to suggest that the targeted individuals are instead affiliates of the organization. I'm not saying that that is what the directory is, but I am making the point that the use of this primary source is problematic, particularly in regards to a living person, without further information from a reliable secondary source. 2601:243:903:3F5B:254F:CE78:74E5:1209 (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

text: On second thought, the Edmonton Journal does not discuss this within the context of the Muslim Association of Canada. This Wikipedia article, as currently written, on its own accord then proposes an argument about the link between the Muslim Association of Canada and the Muslim Brotherhood that is not attributed to a reliable secondary source. 2601:243:903:3F5B:254F:CE78:74E5:1209 (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's an article from the Toronto Sun establishing and explaining the link, too. I think that's significantly better than the Investigative Project, a site I have substantial concerns about (as you clearly do, too). Note that the Toronto Sun is owned by the same publishing network as the Edmonton Journal but is not, in my opinion, as high quality. --Yamla (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I would never use a tabloid in a Wikipedia article, particularly when it comes to assertions about living people. The entire section is really problematic. The first citation is to an opinion piece in the WSJ. While the WSJ does have a reputation for fact-checking, newspapers generally do not hold editorials written by guest writers to the same standards as an article (non-opinion piece) written by its own staff. Then the section goes on to cite a primary source, Canadian Senate testimony. I can appreciate your drive to establish the truth in this article, but you understand that Wikipedia is not about establishing the truth; instead, it's about presenting to its readers what is verifiable through reliable secondary sources. 2601:243:903:3F5B:254F:CE78:74E5:1209 (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

text: 2601:243:903:3F5B:254F:CE78:74E5:1209, it would also be helpful if you pointed out if you had any conflict of interest here. Please understand, I am not saying you do. My concern is that we have had to block a number of editors who had undisclosed conflicts of interest; most recently, . Even if you have a conflict of interest, you are still more than welcome to participate in this, and other, discussions here on the article's talk page. --Yamla (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no conflict of interest and am not affiliated with this organization. 2601:243:903:3F5B:254F:CE78:74E5:1209 (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

text: Your proposal regarding the Toronto Sun is entirely fair. In your inquiry, I would specify that you are considering using the Toronto Sun to make a claim about a living person since Wikipedia policies tend to emphasize even higher sourcing standards for living persons. 2601:243:903:3F5B:254F:CE78:74E5:1209 (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. I'll make the request later today. --Yamla (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I think it would also be helpful to clarify that the Sun Post article is an op-ed as well. I point this out because op-eds are subject to different editorial standards and (as far as I know) a lower-level of scrutiny. 2601:243:903:3F5B:254F:CE78:74E5:1209 (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Your post was fair. Thanks. I did find some additional guidance at WP:NEWSORG that may be relevant here. 2601:243:903:3F5B:254F:CE78:74E5:1209 (talk) 21:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion moved to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Toronto_Sun_a_reliable_source?. I noted WP:NEWSORG there, too, though I expect the people who patrol that noticeboard are more familiar than you or I. :) --Yamla (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Director Jamal Badawi 

message: An op-ed in the Wall Street Journal is cited (paywall) to support the assertion that the Muslim Association of Canada "was identified in Canadian Senate testimony as a front group for the Brotherhood" and is also used to cite the motto for the Brotherhood, for whatever reason. Full copies of the WSJ op-ed are available here and here. There is not a single instance of the "Muslim Association of Canada" being mentioned in the op-ed. 2601:243:903:3F5B:254F:CE78:74E5:1209 (talk) 23:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  WSJ Citation 

message: I do not see any reliable sources connecting the MAC to the Muslim Brotherhood. Most of the allegations come from unreliable sources. Unless any can be found, it should be removed. TFD (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There is this source, but it doesn't explain anything at all. All it says is  That sounds more like a smear than an allegation backed with evidence.VR talk 20:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslim Brotherhood 

message: Idk 2001:569:7EEB:8600:9D47:240B:EB52:87C (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  How old is this masjid