Talk:Organisation of Islamic Cooperation

Sony Pictures Animation's Untitled Organisation of Islamic Cooperation Film

Two official links for the member states 1 2

The official press release. -ZeroFuzion 02:13, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

When was the "Palestine state", that is mentioned here as a member in the orgnaztion from 1969, found?

Flag

What does the writing mean.....what does it represent?

Allahu Akbar, though the calligraphy is rather ornate, and the person who devised the SVG file was apparently not experienced in the Arabic alphabet, so it's rather hard to read off the image shown on this page. See http://flagspot.net/flags/int-oic.html for a better pic... AnonMoos 15:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought Lihaas (talk) 10:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

the article says 'written in modern Arabic calligraphy.' This is wrong. The style is a well-established one; not something devised recently. I recommend removing the word 'modern.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.175.40.242 (talk) 08:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Member states

Article states "It groups 57 mostly Islamic nations..." But the membership includes Guyana and Suriname, which aren't "mostly Islamic" at all.

• I think it means "57 nations, most of them Islamic", not "57 nations, all primarily Muslim" Pure inuyasha 00:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• • I noticed the same thing. Since it had been discussed here and there was nothing to suggest otherwise, I made that change. JodyB 14:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

From 57 members of Organization of Islamic Cooperation, 50 are muslim majority countries,6 are christian majority countries(Uganda,Cameroon,Mozambigue,Surinam,Guyana,Republic of the Congo) and 1 is half christian and half muslim(Nigeria).The article say that 53 members of Organization of islamic Cooperation have got muslim majority.Please change thhis wrong and edit the page.

Timeline

I'm a bit sad that the timeline i created does not allow that many rows, maybe there is somebody who can make it work? :p immeëmosol (talk) 11:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• According to the official website of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Syria is an official member of this organization and this article should be corrected.Mohammadreza20780 (talk) 13:00,13 May 2023 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought Lihaas (talk) 10:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Relation to Al Qaida

The introduction refers to Al Qaeda - what exactly is the relationship in question? (I'm not disputing, just the language is confusing.) Peter Grey 17:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:OIC-Flag.jpg

Image:OIC-Flag.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"Immigrate Populate Dominate"

The article asserts:

In 1982, the foreign ministers of the OIC adopted the controversial plan to Immigrate, Populate, Dominate to serve as a guidance for the member states in the matters of Islamic presence in other non-Muslim countries.

But there is no source, and I can find no references for it. Nor does it seem likely that such an explosive plan would have escaped the notice of right-wingers and the media worldwide.

Could someone please verify this?

-- 99.226.23.121 (talk) 05:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Tanzania

I think Tanzania should figure somewhere on this page. --Thecurran (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Tanzania is closer to Saudia Arabia than member state, Mozambique, has more Muslims, and has a higher percentage of Muslims, but it is not even an observer state. This is quite intriguing. :)--Thecurran (talk) 16:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

But ZANZIBAR is. Zanzibar is an autonomous part of Tanzania and contains most of the nations Muslims... so... yeah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalmatianfan52 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Kosovo

Somehow someone added Kosovo to the "observer" status of this organization. Kosovo is not an observer as the official website http://www.oic-oci.org/oicnew/page_detail.asp?p_id=179 will point out.

Members

It seems as though many of the listings in the "members" are anachronistic; it states that the "Islamic Republic of Afghanistan" joined in 1969, yet that legal entity did not exist at the time (in 1969, Afghanistan was officially the "Kingdom of Afghanistan"). As many of the countries listed have undergone significant changes in government status, I recommend that this section be reformed to reflect the admission of each government into this organization, not each country. --Goon Noot (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

International Islamic University Malaysia

It is related to OIC, as said in [1]. Mention it here please.

P.S:Someone please show me how to make a proper link. I tried the way that is revealed to me in a tutorial not long ago but it doesn't turn out well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azar2804 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

percentage of muslims in india and russia

what a hell is that muslims in russia are no more than 10%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! yes the percentage of under20 years old muslims in russia maybe!!its undeniable that muslims in russia are from15%(according to presedential speech):20% of the russian population and 13% of indian citizens are muslims!!!i dont know from where u get this kind of information muslims in india are from 20%:25% in wikipedia most of muslim satistics are extremly understated!!!

military section

excuse me where the hell is the military section that was merged with economy section?!?!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spike monotheist (talk • contribs) 03:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Issues

This article is in an extremely bad shape and has several problems. To name a few:

1. I couldn't find even one credible source noting that India had officially applied for an observer status.
2. Apart from Pakistani newspapers, there are no other sources that indicate Pakistan exclusively blocked India's application even if it was made.
3. The reasoning for block is not backed by sources again. And seems pretty illogical given that Russia has lower % of Muslims compared to India and yet has observer status.
4. The map in this article marks countries blocked from entry. I think this is the only such map on an international organization.

Unfortunately, there is no place for nationalism in Wikipedia. So, I urge those who regularly watch this article to make appropriate changes. And I say this because the only thing being compromised here is this article's credibility. Thanks --Incidious (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

OIC reject Universal Declaration of Humans Rights

The article states

The Organisation of the Islamic Conference rejected [5] the Universal Declaration of Humans Rights [6] as not being consistent with Sharia Law.

The article cite one of most Islamophobic and unreliable site: http://europenews.dk/en/node/3847 I am willing to put this one if someone can cite a reliable source. Tarikur (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the problem with the source? The text cites authoritative works, gives an objective outline of the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights and holds a balanced tone throughout. EuropeNews represents the midstream interpretation of human rights and is concerned about the challenge from islamism. This is not the same as islamophobia.

By the way, is the statement quoted above controversial in any way? To me, it seems that any one who has read the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights can draw the conclusion that it was formulated as a Sharia-compatible alternative to the UN version. --Jonund (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the statement is, it is not factually accurate. OIC never rejected the Universal Declaration of Humans Rights and all OIC members signed the Universal Declaration of Humans Rights and still no OIC member withdrew it's signature. The problem with the source is that it is extremely bias and very unreliable. They have articles on how to attack Islam using facebook. I known the site for sometime, they always put anti-Islamic materials from different right-wing commentary sites. Every organizations/countries have their own prescribed rights that is little bit different from the Universal Declaration of Humans Rights. According to your logic, USA reject the Universal Declaration of Humans Rights because USA has the Bill of Rights, where the Bill of Rights is little bit different than the Universal Declaration of Humans Rights. Tarikur (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If the CDHR is incompatible with the UDHR, the adoption of the first means a rejection of the latter. Signing the latter is not proof of accepting it, since political motives often make states act inconsistently. All too many states have signed the UDHR, while at the same time rejecting it in their official ideology (for instance, the communist states) or in their behavior.

The two alternative declarations seem to be incompatible:

• The statement in CDHR "There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Sharia" runs counter to the principle of religious freedom, insofar as non-muslim legislators are free to legislate in contradiction to the Sharia.
• The notion of associating the freedom of expression with "a manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Sharia" is alien to the UDHR.
• "The right to assume public office in accordance with the provisions of Shari'ah" is another limitation, which the UDHR doesn't recognize.
• According to the UDHR, freedom of expression is a fundamental right. Though it is, arguably, a reasonable qualification that this freedom should not be misused to "undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society", it is certainly not, in the UDHR:s understanding, legitimate to forbid "exploitation or misuse" of information to "weaken [society's] faith" - Muslim or other.
• Article 18 of CDHR, "Everyone shall have the right to live in security for himself, his religion, his dependents, his honour and his property", is rendered an unacceptable meaning by article 24, which says: "All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah", and article 25 which excludes other sources than the Shari'a from the interpretation, given that the Shari'a stipulates capital punishment for those who convert from islam to another religion

These contradictions are quite different from the differences between the US Bill of Rights and the UDHR. (The latter two are, by the way, different categories, the Bill of Rights defining some of the rights owned by US citizens, the UDHR proposing rights that allegedly follow from being a human.) Id somebody claims that the United States Bill of Rights contradicts the UDHR, that would be interesting material for the respective articles.

If you claim that EuropeNews is "extremely biased and very unreliable", you have to back up the statement, since private opinions are not relevant. I didn't find any articles on how to attack Islam using Facebook. --Jonund (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

To the contrary, according to WP:RS, the burden of proof is on you to prove this source is reliable. To give an example, I could myself create a website and then write articles, and it could be hard to prove I am unreliable simply because most of the academia hasn't even taken notice of me. From my overview of the website as well as research on it, it doesn't seem to have much place in the academic world, which is mainly what Wikipedia is based upon. It seems (slightly) polemical in my opinion, but outside of that, I don't see anything distinguishing it as reliable. We should refrain from using sources from this website and instead use BBC (if you want a news source) or academia. If you want to delve into criticism about the issue, I believe HRW might have some material. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 08:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, simply saying it is "obvious" one contradicts the other is breaking WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH, be careful. I am very sure you can find secular unbiased publications stating the two are incompatible with one another. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 08:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the point, you need to understand. All the points that you mention above are very debatable of how Cairo Declaration on Human Rights contradict UDHR. Even if Sharia law or cairo declaration on human rights contradicts UDHR as you say, you can not conclude OIC reject UDHR because that would be original research and NPOV. The only way that statement would be factual and you can put this on wikipedia is that if you have a quote of OIC secretary general actually saying OIC reject UDHR. Another way to put that statement on wikipedia is to quote a scholar saying how Cairo Declaration contradicts UDHR. Otherwise, if you put the statement, then it is not factually accurate because OIC never rejected UDHR. Tarikur (talk) 07:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Tarikur, I think your use of the word "Islamophobic" being NPOV on its own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.92.11.162 (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, how we cannot agree with you? The magnificent site just points out: "No tolerance for intolerance - Not apology for being free". For sure is a neutral source, not islamophobic at all...

I do not agree with Tarikur, who wrote en 2009 that all OIC members signed the "Universal Declaration of Humans Rights". When ? Where ? He does not give any reference about it. Moreover it his completely not possible because only 48 states signed it in 1948 altjough there are 57 OIC members ! According to the reference 7) all the OIC members signed an agreement to respect the Charter of the United Nations dated 1945, but never the Universal Declaration of Human Rights dated 1948. En 2008, in their new deklaration if they "forgot" the Universal Deklaration of Human Rights in Islam" de 1990, they also "forgot" the Universal Declaration of Human Rights de 1948. The corresponding paragraph has to be corrected. DidCORN (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Correction done mentioning the Charter of the United Nations, but not the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). DidCORN (talk) 11:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Five tags?!

This article carried FIVE tags that all essentially said "This article sucks" at the top. After some thought, I left the NPOV tag, which essentially encompasses all of the issues concerned. Let's try to keep it that way. --AStanhope (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

rename

The organisation has recently indicated that they have changed names to "Organisation of the Islamic Cooperation"[2] Their website has not been updated. I think we should wait a few days before renaming this page, as there aren't any detailed stories about this yet. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Changed it before I read your note. The organization's page reflects this as well, so it seems "safe." Student7 (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Yea, thanks for making the change when you did. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Map

There is no reference for India being blocked by Pakistan or India being defined as a block state. Someone please update the map. Thanks --

04 July 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.214.255.62 (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

OIC's attempts to criminalize free speech

Jonathan Turley wrote a very good article about the OIC's attempts to criminalize free speech, speech that is critical of religion that is http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/12/opinion/la-oe-turley-blasphemy-20111210 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

OR

Every fact about an OIC member country doesn't belong in this article. In fact, most wouldn't, unless the context of the source was relevant to the OIC. This looks like complete OR, and this doesn't even have sources.VR _talk 21:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

By contrast this is totally relevant and appropriate because it discusses the facts about OIC members, after acknowledging them as such.VR _talk 21:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this edit. It's sad that some users have resort to such a low level. Anyways, please drop a comment here before reverting me.VR _talk 00:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The article is about the organization, not about the muslim world. Hence, data and characteristics of the member states do not automatically fit in the article. Maybe we could find a title for an article that deals with the member states collectively.

Facts about freedom — referred in a serious contribution — as well as about economy, military etc., would fit in such an article, but not equally well in an article about OIC. --Jonund (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

This article reads like a advertisment for Human Rights Watch

My question is why Human Right Watch is mention so many times in this article. Human Right Watch has nothing to do with this article. and Who is human rights watch to be held as an example of the only truth. MohammedBinAbdullah (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Four times makes it an advertisment? CMD (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch is a notable organization. There is a reliable citation. Credentials may be questioned, but we shouldn't be censoring material because WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Student7 (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

HRW's opinions are definitely notable for this article. I do agree that they should be balanced out with other opinions, and should not be given WP:UNDUE weight. But at this point they seem to be fine.VR _talk 05:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

All organizations are subject to criticism. OIC should be no exception. I have replaced wholesale censorship of cited material. Student7 (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

And I have reverted. Find reliably sourced criticism of the organization itself and we can discuss whether it is noteworthy/due weight; coatracking in every criticism of individual member nations is totally unacceptable. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

All organization are subject to criticism. The problem with the article is that it is all criticism. 177.19.54.97 (talk) 06:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

LGBT issues

I note that User:Student7 added a clarification tag and explanatory ES to this section. Shortly after the section was added, I made a few minor technical changes, but also noted that the section needs a rewrite. I deferred doing so at the time because it had just been trimmed back by another experienced editor, and I wanted to see if there was any undue weight issue to resolve, since a rewrite would probably expand the section a bit.

As I read the source, the OIC was not responding to the joint Brazil – South Africa statement. In March, the OIC states – along with Russia, China, and some African countries – had responded to a UN Human Rights Council discussion of LBGT rights by saying LGBT issues were not a proper subject for UNHRC consideration, with the OIC (states?) further demanding the subject not be raised again. The Brazil – South Africa statement in July appears to be a delayed response to the March OIC (and others) actions, not the other way around as currently written.

Like Student7, I am a bit confused by the reference to the OIC in the source Pink News article; was there an official statement by the organization, a joint statement by (some) members, or something else? Also, though I accept the broad strokes of the story as sourced, I'd like to see details from another less partisan source.

Any suggestions on how this should be presented (or comments on my inability to read the source correctly)? Fat&Happy (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I assumed it was some statement in the UN, as the OIC has a delegation there. A similar section was added to United Nations#History (because somehow one statement makes is relevant to an overview of UN history?), which gives slightly more context. Perhaps rewrite and shift it to the already existing human rights subsection? CMD (talk) 06:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

So what Chipmunkdavis is guessing is that the OIC was making the statement based on its status as (what we would call in the US) a "caucus" under UN auspices, rather than in its capacity as a separate organisation? And this was issued by whoever is spokesperson for the OIC and not the OIC delegates to the UN?

I would feel better about a stand-alone statement by the OIC on LBGT issues, rather than some give-and-take in the UN, which could be somewhat less than official IMO. And, from what I read above, the OIC was not alone in this issue. Student7 (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Syria suspended

Syria has been suspended from the OIC, so the article should be changed to reflect this:

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/08/13/232088.html

48Lugur (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It was decided in the 4th exceptional summit and covered in the related article. Egeymi (talk) 03:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Flag 2

Why was the flag removed? Was it officially rescinded? CMD (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

India

This page claims India has 35% of the world Muslims, while this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country) has it at 10.9%. Also, to have 35%, India would have to be about half Muslim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.133.171 (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Evidence that 'new charter' removed references to Cairo declaration and showed support for Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

The link given to supposedly give evidence of this (as referred to in History and goals) doesn't do so. It doesn't show that the Cairo declaration was abandoned or the universal declaration was supported. Orlando098 (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

"Second largest intergovernmental organization"

An IP has been attempting to add the claim that the OIC is "the second largest intergovernmental organization after the United Nations", citing this from the OIC's website. Beyond the fact that this is a WP:copyright violation of the source, a WP:PRIMARY source is not really a wp:reliable source for it's own notability, given that it has a vested interest in selfpromotion. The claim is demonstrably false. The OIC's 57 members are easily topped by for example the 168 IAEA members and the 162 WTO members. TDL (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Infobox map

Hello, what do the blue states in the infobox map represent? A key for the blue color is needed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.171.130.160 (talk) 09:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

THIS STATEMENT IS EMPHATICALLY FALSE

• • • • • Within the revised charter, the OIC has chosen to support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international law. . *****

The first reason is that UDHR is NOT A TREATY and the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Charter does not explicitly include UDHR , rather the UDHR is a presumptive document of reference by the UN ( constitutive document ) .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights While not a treaty itself, the Declaration was explicitly adopted for the purpose of defining the meaning of the words "fundamental freedoms" and "human rights" appearing in the United Nations Charter, which is binding on all member states. For this reason, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a fundamental constitutive document of the United Nations.

The second reason is that MENTION of UHDR by the OIC is NOT INCLUDED in its charter and consistency with UN Charter is the only element included : http://www.oicun.org/2/24/20140324031549266.html " to uphold the objectives and principles of the present Charter, the Charter of the United Nations and international law as well as international humanitarian law while strictly adhering to the principle of non-interference in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State; "

1. All Member States commit themselves to the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter;

9. To strengthen intra-Islamic economic and trade cooperation; in order to achieve economic integration leading to the establishment of an Islamic Common Market;

6. As mentioned in the UN Charter, nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the Organisation and its Organs to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State or related to it;

GeMiJa (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I regret GeMiJa,we cannot considerr that all OIC members signed the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights". Look at art.1 sect. 7 of their Charter of 2014, which refers only at the Charter of the United Nations of 1945; if the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is binding (this I am not even quite sure, it is a declaration of intention, not explicitly incuded in the constitutions of all ONU member states) only those who signed it at that time are forced to. Moreover it is completely not possible that all agree because only 48 states signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, while there are 57 OIC members today ! According to the reference 7) of the article all the OIC members signed an agreement to respect the Charter of the United Nations dated 1945, but never the Universal Declaration of Human Rights dated 1948. In their new declaration if they "forgot" to mention their Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam de 1990 (which is not denied therefore), they also "forgot" the Universal Declaration on Human Rights de 1948 (which is not explicitly agreed). The corresponding paragraph has to be corrected. DidCORN (talk) 16:24, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 June 2019

change in x to y format. (3.3)Cartoons of Muhammad. Please write Hazrat Muhammad PBUH in place of (3.3) I shall be very Thank full to you. 39.36.195.86 (talk) 10:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: we do not add honorifics, per MOS:PBUH Danski454 (talk) 11:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Update required in "See Also" section

"See Also" sub-topic can use some more links as shown below:

Main article: Outline of Islam

{{Wikipedia books |1=Abrahamic religions |3=Islam }}

• Glossary of Islam
• Amman_Message
• International Islamic Unity Conference (Iran)
• Madhhab
• Islam and democracy
• A Common Word Between Us and You
• Hindu–Muslim unity
• Muslim world
• Islam by country
• Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 06 August 2019

The map of the OIC countries within the infobox of the article has Northern Cyprus colour coded as as a member state rather than an observer state. Can Northern Cyprus' colour be changed from green to blue on the map, to reflect their actual status within the OIC? The sources for this change are already self contained within wikipedia; in the article and in the observer state section of the member states page for the OIC, however, the OIC website's member listing is here if required. Maranello10 (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

 Note: This request cannot be fulfilled here. The map is hosted on Commons and used by several other Wikimedia projects. To request update, please do so at Commons:Graphic Lab/Map workshop – Ammarpad (talk) 06:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 August 2019

Please add under the title ‘Human rights’, under the paragraph:

“In December 2018, the OIC raised the issue of China's Xinjiang re-education camps and human rights abuses against the Uyghur Muslim minority.”

the following sentence:

In March 2019, he OIC has produced a document which “commends the efforts of the People’s Republic of China in providing care to its Muslim citizens.”

to reflect the sudden change in position that the OIC took in the Xinjiang matter. Thank you. 145.133.94.176 (talk) 12:57, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: The source used is highly questionable and, as this is a sensitive article, I'm not comfortable with doing the edit without a better source. Sceptre (talk) 23:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

References

O.I.C. meeting in The Gambia?

There was some talk about the O.I.C. having a meeting hosted by The Gambia. Is there any news regarding this?

The Gambia is an Islamic majority country, but it has a secular constitution. - (101.98.104.241 (talk) 08:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC))

Ask Google: https://www.oicgambia.org/banjul-summit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.174.190.23 (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Turkey

Turkey is a European and Asian state. It should be included in the Europe section too.

Member states

Europe

• Albania
• Turkey

Muslim majoirty countries

From 57 members of Organization of Islamic Cooperation, 50 are muslim majority countries,6 are christian majority countries(Uganda,Cameroon,Mozambigue,Surinam,Guyana,Republic of the Congo) and 1 is half christian and half muslim(Nigeria).The article say that 53 members of Organization of islamic Cooperation have got muslim majority.Please change thhis wrong and edit the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PentecA (talk • contribs) 13:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

UN, NATO, Council of Europe & EU Joining European Nation Turkey: Request to Return to the Europe Category: Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on July 3rd 2020

I'm a Geography Teacher & Historian and I request the European Nation that is 5-10% in Europe in the Balkans, in the UN, NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, COE Council of Europe, EU European Union "Accessing" Member Nation called "Turkey" should Also be RETURNED BACK to her Original Europe Category with Albania. To Summarize European Turkey's Right to be Returned Back to be listed Next to her Balkan Neighbor Albania on this Page is Listed Here: The Republic of Turkey is a White European Nation with a Secular Constitution.

The Turkish Republic is a Member Of the UN United Nations, NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organisation since ‘1952 (The 1st European Nation the Original Founding Members accepted, followed by Greece on the same day) (But Russia 85% in Asia and Asian Armenia have never been invited to join, even Germany joined years later and then Spain only join in 1982, 30 years later!) Continuing, Turkey is a member of the Council Of Europe since '1949 (Again the 1st European Nation the Founding Members accepted, followed by Greece on the same day) (But Russia 85% in Asia was only let in, in 1996 and Asian Armenia in 2001) Turkey has a European Latin Alphabet too is also...an EEC European Economic Community Associate Member since '1963 and EU European Union Joining Member in Accession,

G20 Industrial Nations, WTO World Trade Organisation, OECD, the Western Europe Branch of the WEOG Western European & Other Groups, also in the OSCE Organisation for Security & Cooperation In Europe, EU Customs Union, EFTA European Free Trade Association, Black Sea Economic Cooperation Business Council with it’s Russian & Ukrainian neighbors, UEFA Union Of European Football Associations, Eurovision Song Contest & European Travel Insurance Listings, GPS Giant TomTom European Listing plus too many more to list here?

The Secular, Balkan & Black Sea European Republic Of Turkey is home to St. Paul the Turkish Born Inventor of Christianity.

Christian Teachings state that the Citizens of Turkey are descendants of Japheth: The Father of the European Race via Gomer. The Germans are also descendants of Gomer. German Historian Stefan Ihrig’s Book: “Aryan Ataturk In The Nazi Imagination” even documents that the Nazi Party’s Office Of Racial Policy classed Turks, Hungarians, Finns, Estonians, Moldovans as Aryans and part of the White European Race in 1936 because all 5 have the same bloodline & linguistic origins.

Wikipedia itself states the birthplace of the Turks is the Belukha Mountains in Siberia, Russia.

Turkey's West is in the Balkans 5-10% and Rest in Byzantine Anatolia Home Of The East Roman Empire that only reaches the European Caucuses of the Former USSR.

Turkey was founded by the Blond Haired & Blue Eyed WW1 Hero "Ataturk" as a European & Western Nation.

As for the people, the White European Citizens of Turkey are made up of many various White Europeans. The descendants of the Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire, Ottoman Empire including the Original Siberian Turks whose DNA has practically vanished plus Bosniaks, Albanians, Greeks, Armenians, Azeris, Georgians, Kazakhs, Circassians, Assyrians, Russians, Slavs & Turkified Anatolians. Rockwell the founder of the American Nazi Party also stated in his book & manifesto that Turks are part of the White European Race Ref: Hate Crimes Volume 3, Google has many references to the NSDAP’s & ANP’s facts. The United Kingdom’s Metropolitan Police Authority lists Southern Europeans: Portuguese, Spaniards, Italians, Sicilians, Sardinians, Greeks, Turks, Greek Cypriots, Turkish Cypriots & Armenians all under their Identification Code: IC2. The Freemasons Grand Lodges of the World list it’s Istanbul, Turkey Lodge under it’s European Category with Russia and all other European nations. The DNA Ancestry Research Lab: “23 & Me” have both Turkey & it’s White European Citizens in their European DNA pool. According to American Journal of Physical Anthropology (2008), today's Turkish people are more closely related with Balkan populations than to the Central Eurasian populations East of Russia’s Ural Mountains,[136][137] and a study looking into allele frequencies suggested that there was a lack of genetic relationship between the White European Turks and their Siberian ancestors, despite the historical relationship of their languages (Both the Turks and Germans were equally distant to all three Siberian populations).[138] Multiple studies suggested an elite cultural dominance-driven linguistic replacement model to explain the adoption of Turkish language by the White Anatolian indigenous inhabitants.[130]k[›][134]

A study involving mitochondrial analysis of a Byzantine-era population, whose samples were gathered from excavations in the archaeological site of Sagalassos, found that the samples had close genetic affinity with modern Turkish and Balkan populations.[139]

Another studies found the Peoples of the Caucasus (Azeris, Armenians, Georgians, Chechens, Circassians) are closest to the Turkish population among sampled European (Italian, French) populations.[141][142][143][144][145][146]

The Secular Democracy founded in 1923 is a European & Western Nation with a European Penal code founded by the “Father of the Turks” their Blond Haired & Blue Eyed WW1 Hero Ataturk

> 1. The United Nations Official Website Page Titled "The Economic Commission > For Europe" lists Turkey, Cyprus & Russia in Europe http://www.un.org/Depts > /Cartographic/map/profile/ece.pdf > > 2. The Official Website for NATO states in Article 10 states that > membership is open to any “European State in a position to further the > principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North > Atlantic area” http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_52044.htm > > 3. The Official Website for The Council Of Europe includes Turkey in Europe > http://www.coe.int/en/web/about-us/our-member-states > > 4. The Official Website for the EU European Union states that Membership > criteria – Who can join? The Treaty on the European Union states that any > European country may apply for membership & Turkey is already in accession > negotiations http://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/p > olicy/conditions-membership_en Thank You David Davewikifan2020 (talk) 08:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC) Davewikifan2020 (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. I get the sense that this is a controversial suggestion because you seem to be going to great lengths to convince someone answering the edit request that this change is correct. Edit requests are for edits that already have a consensus or are uncontroversial, and are not a form of dispute resolution. Please discuss this change with other editors on this talk page first. Thanks. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 16:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 September 2020

Request to have the Republic of Turkey returned to it's original listing next to Albania in Europe.

The Turkish Republic is a Member Of the UN United Nations, NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization since ‘1952 (The 1st European Nation the Original Founding Members accepted, followed by Greece on the same day) Continuing, Turkey is a member of the Council Of Europe since '1949 (Again the 1st European Nation the Founding Members accepted, followed by Greece on the same day) Turkey has a European Latin Alphabet too and recognized as European by the UK British Government’s Official website www.gov.uk ...Also an EEC European Economic Community Associate Member since '1963 and EU European Union Joining Member in Accession, G20 Industrial Nations, WTO World Trade Organization, OECD, the Western Europe Branch of the WEOG Western European & Other Groups, also in the OSCE Organization for Security & Cooperation In Europe, EU Customs Union, EFTA European Free Trade Association, Black Sea Economic Cooperation Business Council with it’s Russian & Ukrainian neighbors, UEFA Union Of European Football Associations, Eurovision Song Contest & European Travel Insurance Listings, GPS Giant TomTom European Listing plus too many more to list here. Turkey's West is in the Balkans 5-10% and Rest in Byzantine Anatolia Home Of The East Roman Empire that only reaches the European Caucuses of the Former USSR. There are more Turks in European Turkey than the entire population of Belgium. > 1. The United Nations Official Website Page Titled "The Economic Commission > For Europe" lists Turkey, Cyprus & Russia in Europe http://www.un.org/Depts > /Cartographic/map/profile/ece.pdf > > 2. The Official Website for NATO states in Article 10 states that > membership is open to any “European State in a position to further the > principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North > Atlantic area” http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_52044.htm > > 3. The Official Website for The Council Of Europe includes Turkey in Europe > http://www.coe.int/en/web/about-us/our-member-states > > 4. The Official Website for the EU European Union states that Membership > criteria – Who can join? The Treaty on the European Union states that any > European country may apply for membership & Turkey is already in accession > negotiations http://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/p > olicy/conditions-membership_en Davewikifan2020 (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Specifically, please provide reliable sources for this organization./ I have no idea what the disorganized assertions about Turkey's membership in numerous international organizations is supposed to demonstrate about the OIC but it has little to no relevance to this edit request. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Breakup big edit into smaller edits

This looks like a really big edit TheBirdsShedTears. What are you trying to do here? Can I suggest you undo this edit and then repeat this edit into several smaller edits with clear edit summaries? It will be easier for others to follow. Courtesy ping to @Mccapra:.VR _talk 15:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I noticed some unsourced and unsupported text, so I've reverted the changes and then restored some text adjusted to match the new sources. These edits were alongside the creation of a number of sub-articles, and I have added some back as mains. Others, such as new ones on Demography, Economics, and Education, seem to be non-notable intersections of OIC states against various global statistics. CMD (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, Could you please point out or indicate which text was unsourced and relevant to combined tex? TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, Please address my previous comment. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

For example, "The OIC has maintained various universities at different geographical locations which are financed by the local government as well as the OIC. These universities provide education on various subjects, and Islam in particular." was sourced to a WP:PRIMARY source that says none of this. The whole paragraph on cybersecurity is sourced to a conference calendar note. CMD (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 August 2022

I would like to complete the list of summits and add the 15th to be held in Gabon

Mohammadreza20780 (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I want to complete the list of summits and add the 15th to be held in Gabon. Mohammadreza20780 (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Observer States and Organizations

Are clearly named here, https://www.oic-oci.org/page/?p_id=179&p_ref=60&lan=en , the official internet site of the OIC. Therefore there is no need to use an unsourced, speculative sentence in the section about Members. Thank you for correcting. 212.174.190.23 (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Chipmunkdavis, are you in charge of this or will someone else take care of it? Thanks.

No-one is in charge, but I have added the full list. CMD (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.174.190.23 (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 January 2023

add https protocol to the link that directs users to the official website of OIC. The lack of this can make some users with certain browsers unable to reach the page. Innitiative.35 (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Colonestarrice (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! :) Innitiative.35 (talk) 07:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 May 2023

I want to resolve the citation needed for the 2011 change of logo, at the bottom of the history section. This is covered by source 11, as it clearly states that the name alongside the emblem was changed. At minimum I would copy past ehte reference in place of the citation needed marker, or reword the last paragraph so it only needed one reference marker. MMichkov (talk) 02:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 12:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Remove population/GDP/territory statistics

The info box for this currently reads as if the OIC is a national entity - which it most certainly is not. It is an intergovernmental organization, as it self-describes. While it does have member states, they are members of an organization, not a confederation of United States with a total applied population.

Recommending removal of those elements from the infobox, as they are misleading and not appropriate for this article. Mistamystery (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Majid Al Aqsa

Please help Palestine people.if Allah give you power please use it 43.245.93.68 (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

OIC is a a joke. Members of this organizations is obviously biased heavily with foreign power and claiming to be passive in order to keep peace among countries. Sounds stupid, this organization existed 50 years already and they can't even solves the problem that cause this organization existence in the first place. 2001:D08:2086:2364:1:0:AC24:F324 (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)