Talk:Park51

"1,000-2,000"

This is not supported in the reference given. "space for Friday prayers for 1,000–2,000 Muslims.[6]" The footnote here is [6] which links to ^ a b c d e f Jacoby, Jeff (June 6, 2010). "A mosque at ground zero?". The Boston Globe. Retrieved August 1, 2010. I have read all the way through the Globe article and its 157 comments, and there is no mention of the size or capacity of the prayer space or how much of this 13 story center will be the actual 'mosque'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.2.1.16 (talk) 05:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Good catch; the correct source was given after the following sentence and I have fixed it now. Please note that you did not have to read through 157 comments - a user submitted comment to a news story would not be considered a reliable source, in any case. I have read user comments to Boston Globe stories, a punishing experience. Fletcher (talk) 11:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment

This phrase - 'some 9/11 families found the proposal deeply offensive because the terrorists who committed the September 11 attacks were Muslim' - does not make sense. It has been copied and pasted from the NY Daily News article referenced, in which the sentence, despite lacking internal logic, has its meaning made clear via quotations that reveal the thinking behind the sentiments of the families. I suggest that the sentence is either expanded, or ends at 'offensive' (and cut 'deeply', it adds nothing). As it stands, it sounds it's saying there is some self-evident truth in the soi-dissant offensiveness of the proposals. Joshua Mostafa (talk) 01:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the unnecessary word 'deeply', and replaced the journalese phrase '9/11 families' with the clearer 'relatves of victims of the September 11 attacks'. I'm not sure this sentence needs any further elaboration, though; as it stands, it's factually accurate. Robofish (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

needs a "controversy" section

this page needs a controversy section due to the fact that, according to CNN, 52% of New Yorkers are against the construction of the Mosque due to the fact that they see it as and Insult to Injury. the "injury" refering to the 9/11 attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emigdioofmiami (talk • contribs) 23:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"Muslim run"?

The article says Soho Properties is "Muslim run" but provides no source substantiating that claim. Also, the language "Muslim run" seems to suggest that it is operating as a division of an Islamic religious organization, rather than that it just happens to be owned by a Muslim individual or family. Could you imagine an article on Wikipedia that said Viacom was "Jewish run" because Sumner Redstone is Jewish? Or NYC is "Jewish run" because Michael Bloomberg happens to be Jewish? It's ludicrous and offense and definitely not NPOV. Mobius1ski (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Well spotted - I've removed this description. It isn't supported by the sources in any case. Robofish (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"Park51" vs "Cordoba House"

http://www.park51.org/

What's the relationship? Is Cordoba House simply part of Park51? I'm guessing Park51 is the building, which contains a mosque, Cordoba House. —Ashley Y 06:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it sounds like Park 51 is the building and community center. "Cordoba House will be a center for interfaith dialogue and engagement within Park51's broad range of programs and activities." http://www.park51.org/cordoba.htm Fletcher (talk) 13:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

They're all the same ... the rename appears to be a reaction to the negative feedback on the initial name, with its connotations of Islamic conquest of non-Islamic territory.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

See http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/07/ground_zero_mosque_gets_lets_m.html .--Epeefleche (talk) 05:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Something You should know: in the year 1011 there was a massacre ("pogrom") of jews in Cordoba when muslims killed nearly all jewish families living there. Location: Ground Zero 10 years after 09/11, Name: Cordoba Ho 1000 years after the pogrom. Nothing more to say then pure muslim provocation! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.81.152.101 (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

OK but thats only one instance in the history of Cordoba. there were only 2 pogroms of Jews carried out by Muslims on in granada in 1066 and Cordoba in 1011 what can't be denied is over 700 years of Islamic rule in Cordoba, including the pogroms, was a lot fairer on the Jewish community of Al-andalus than the ghettoisation and mass murder in the rest of Europe at the time or the Spanish Reconquista. Still Park51 and Cordoba House are both what are being debated about nationally so maybe its best having both names up. Ground Zero Mosque is just a propaganda term in my opinion --Omar418 (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Muslims act on symbolism. The original Cordoba mosque was built on the ashes of a Christian church and 1148, the Almohades conquered Cordoba, which ended all delusions of "el Andaluz". http://www.andalucia-andalusia.com/Historic-Cordoba.html -- Skowronek The Lark (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Error in description of Stephen Prothero opinion

The section entitled "Academia" refers to the opinion of Stephen Prothero, a professor of Religion at Boston University. The article says that he opposes the mosque -- but this is incorrect. He supports its construction, as can be seen in his article on the CNN website, which was called "Ground Zero mosque is good for America and New York".

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/19/my-take-ground-zero-mosque-good-for-america-and-new-york/

195.229.237.43 (talk) 01:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Addressed.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Picture

I would suggest that some 9/11 photo be added, as the 9/11 event is integral to this article.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

But also likely prejudicial to a neutral point of view, given how evocative those images are. What is badly needed is a photo of the building as it stands now. I regret I couldn't get one last time I was in the city. Fletcher (talk) 01:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a consideration that I mulled about. But it is the elephant in the room, and would IMHO be proper next to the para (for example) on the reactions of the families of 9/11 victims. Plus -- the RSs are replete with such photos accompanying their articles on this. And yes -- agree that a photo of the building as it now stands would be excellent, as well as an aerial or map photo showing proximity to GZ (and that it is not actually in GZ).--Epeefleche (talk) 05:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Note, as well, it is in here and here ... but I'm not adept at putting in an arrow ... And it may be in the left here as well and where the top of the red crane is here. You can see a map of the area here and here ... the references in the article to it being two blocks from GZ are a bit misleading, as the building destruction was clearly closer.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for linking to the aerial view. Amazing high res photo. The Cordoba House site is not visible in the last two photos you linked: the classical looking building is the US Post Office at 90 Church Street; to the north of the Post Office is an unidentified high rise; the Cordoba House site is then behind that high rise. I think it is two blocks away as reported - Park to Barclay is one, Barclay to Vesey is two, although the north-south blocks are indeed short in Manhattan. Ground Zero is normally interpreted as the former WTC footprints and plaza, even though many buildings in the area were damaged. Fletcher (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice work! The reason that I say that the reference to "two blocks" is misleading, is that the GZ destruction was not so neatly circumscribed by the streets, as is suggested by that description. Yes -- the streets there are short because they are among the earliest in Manhattan. The streets in the south, being early, were not planned out as the streets were as one moves north on the island.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I imagine that this doesn't have a place in the article, but it is interesting neertheless.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

A great link. Both interesting and informative, it would seem appropriate to include a reference to it in the article in some manner. I felt very sad in going through the material in the link and thinking about all the time I have spent in the area covered by that graphic, the horror of the event, the insensitivity involved with the planning of a Muslim Center in this location and the hateful rhetoric being strewn by its opponents. This is really a very good article and the effort involved in trying to keep it well organized with a neutral point of view is appreciated. --Komowkwa (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• The diagram is now reflected in the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"Construction is due to begin on September 11, 2011"??

The first paragraph contains the statement "Construction is due to begin on September 11, 2011", or ten years to the day after the attacks. Yes, it is contained in the referenced Daily Mail article from last May, but even so this seems extremely provocative, and unlikely given that the builders want to avoid controversy when possible. There seems to be no other source for this.

I looked elsewhere, and on several extremely anti-Cordoba page found a statement that the complex was due to OPEN on 9/1/2011. Given that, to me this sounds like a canard spread by the anti-Cordoba crowd in order to inflame opposition.

Can this be confirmed elsewhere, especially from a neutral or pro-Cordoba source? -- Dan Griscom (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It is sourced to an RS. That is our standard. You have to leave your POV at the door, and your guesswork at the door. Stick to what the RSs say. The goal is verifiability. Whatever you personally view as unlikely, or provocative, or what is in non-RSs is irrelevant. Tx, though. I see you are a new editor. Feel free to pose any questions. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This isn't my POV, this is my rationality. We now have two "RS"s, one of which states that groundbreaking will start in "late 2010", while the other states that construction will start on "Sept 11, 2011". Is this contradiction permitted because both statements appear in newspapers? And why is the former date so loose, while the latter is so precise? The answer can only be that the latter was chosen by someone who wanted to highlight any possible connection with 9/11.

This article involves a controversial topic, where the facts are in dispute, especially as regards details linking it to 9/11. Given this, and given that there are known incorrect (and inflammatory) statements in newspapers linking points in the construction schedule to 9/11 anniversaries, don't you think that some level of skepticism is warranted? -- Dan Griscom (talk) 04:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, groundbreaking precedes construction. Also, your "the only answer" is certainly not the only answer. That is your POV. Another answer might be that that is in fact the intended date.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that the date must have been made up by anti-Cordoba agitators. I said that the date must have been chosen for its 9/11 significance. By whom is an open question, but we can (and must) consider the possibilities when we are trying to accumulate an encyclopedia of facts rather than rumors.

If you do a bit of looking, you can find an article titled Why is Fox pushing a falsehood to fuel outrage over NYC Muslim community center? by Media Matters for America, which talks about Fox News repeatedly and falsely citing September 11, 2011 as the opening date for the center. (This includes, by the way, this NY Post article. Should this be added to the Wikipedia article as another fact?) The Media Matters article includes a clear statement from a leader of one of the organizations driving the project that the date is "absolutely false", and "the timeline has yet to be determined".

So, now, let's consider what we know. First, the Cordoba House organization is clearly cognizant of possible 9/11 links to their project, and is working hard to appear sensitive to the concerns of those who remember 9/11. Second, a number of statements in the media have linked various construction milestones with various 9/11 anniversaries. We cannot and should not put all of these contradictory dates into the article, so we need to think about what the truth is. (Are you with me so far?)

I see two explanations. The first is is that the Cordoba House organization has a secret construction schedule that deliberately includes one or more important milestones on 9/11 anniversaries. They must be keeping the schedule secret, otherwise they wouldn't be able to deny it. The connections must be deliberate, since they are aware of and sensitive to 9/11 links, and it would be trivial to move the milestones a week forwards or back to avoid the connections. This means that they are planning to trample all over 9/11 sensitivities once the project is far enough along that it can't be stopped. But there's a big problem with this: if it is true, then those publishing these connections have stumbled on a major scoop that if publicized would garner an enormous amount of attention. But they don't publicize it. (Why?)

The second explanation is that the construction schedule is indeed still being determined, which makes sense since only recently has the process surmounted a significant obstacle. This "fact" is in truth a rumor that was started by someone in the anti-Cordoba crowd. Someone put it in a blog, and then it got copied into the tabloid newspapers. The motivation is clear: it inflames anti-Cordoba sentiment, and sells papers. Now the "fact" has been copied into Wikipedia.

Occam's razor: we must choose the explanation that requires the fewest new assumptions, which is clearly the second.

Now, you may not think that I've proved that this "fact" is false. You must agree, however, that I have raised serious and legitimate concerns, and that it is very possible, if not likely, that it is false. Given that, we must remove it from the article. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm pressed for time as I have to sign off in a moment, so haven't read all the above. But enough to point out yet again, what perhaps I did not say sufficiently clearly. 1) Our job is verifiability, not truth. If the RS says it (as is the case here) we reflect it. 2) Your observation that the date must have been chosen for its 9/11 significance is your POV/OR, and quite possibly true. But no -- if that is the date reported in the RS, it certainly isn't our job to treat it as a rumor. There is nothing to suggest that the developer didn't pick that date for its 9/11 significance. The "9/11 significance" argument does not, as you suggest, lead to the conclusion that it is a rumor, or not true, by any stretch of the imagination. Frankly, you're straying from what is clearly the wp approach, to wit -- stick to the RSs, reflect them, and avoid OR and POV.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

OK: I've taken my best shot, and integrated all of the various 9/11-linked construction dates into the article. Note that I followed the verifiability dictum, in particular 'Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation.' -- Dan Griscom (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The article currently contains the following links:

• http://beta.wnyc.org/blogs/azi-paybarah/2010/aug/04/paladino-raises-islamic-center-hits-young-cuomo/
• http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/peter_worthington/2010/08/04/14926731.html
• http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/26172

The Wiki article text misleadingly calls these opinion pieces "reports." They're political commentary which mention the 9/11 construction meme in passing. An opinion piece is not a reliable source.

There's also a Daily Mail article which re-asserts the 9/11 timeline, but the article gives no indication of how the author knows of this date.

There IS one link which actually names the source for its information on the construction schedule:

• http://mediamatters.org/research/201007200004

In this article, Daisy Khan, a leader involved in the project, says that claims associating the building's construction with 9/11 are absolutely false.

So we have several unsourced claims of a 9/11 construction timeline. (just because you can give a URL for a Web site doesn't make it a source. If somebody knows something, they ought to be able to explain HOW they know.) And we have one sourced claim from the builders in question that there is no 9/11 construction timeline.

The opinion pieces making the baseless claims should be noted in the article, but they should not be credulously referred to as "reports". --Mr. Billion (talk) 09:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I find the current text well-written and balanced. It no longer includes the bald statement that "Construction is due to begin on September 11, 2011", which is what I was objecting to in the first place. Thank you. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I've worked on it, and will work on it more. We certainly don't have to restate who Kahn is every time she is introduced in x words -- that's the sort of thing that makes editors' eyes glaze over. Opinion pieces making baseless claims need not be noted in an article, especially if not an RS or not a notable author. As to articles mentioning sources, sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. That's why we have RS cats -- we find those papers that are RS to be reliable and trustworthy in regard to whether they in turn use appropriate approaches. Not even the best non-scholarly RS footnotes every sentence (as this article does, more or less). There certainly is no requirement in wp that -- especially in a non-BLP -- the RS must indicated how it knows what it knows.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

However, if one RS states how it knows what it knows (with a direct quotation from the party in question), and another RS stating the opposite does not, that represents a clear difference in the credibility of the two claims. --Mr. Billion (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, we should include the fact that Khan said that the claim of a 9/11 timeline for the building is "absolutely false" because that is clearly germane to the issue of whether or not there is a 9/11 timeline for the building. --Mr. Billion (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Panoramic views

hi there,

I took some images of the old factory building, however some of the images I uploaded still need to be stitched into panoramic shots, which would give nicer views of the whole building. I put in the request in the Commons a while ago, unfortunately months later still nothing has happened, I don't know why. If you know anyone who can help, please let them know. cheers. Gryffindor (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you upload the images at the original size? You have only uploaded downsized versions, as far as I can tell. Typically, some pixels may be lost in the stitching process or while correcting distortions. Higher resolution also helps the computer line up each frame more precisely, so the more you have to start with, the better. Fletcher (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Addendum Well, I took a stab at it even with the small images and added to the infobox. I saw you had a couple pictures taken at an angle that showed the whole site, but I had trouble getting decent results from those. Larger sizes might help, I'm not sure.

I'd also be curious if anyone can explain why the site seems to be two buildings. There are both in the Italianate architecture style and both have signage for the Burlington Coat factory, but the facade is different in each, e.g. one has the ornate columns in front. The signage is more prominent in Google street maps view - it's been mostly removed in Gryffindor's pics. I would assume both buildings are planned for demolition. Fletcher (talk) 03:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, technically it appears that there are two buildings involved. One is 45-47 Park Place. The other is 49-51. And they have been connected on the inside.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hm, yes that is something I don't quite understand as well, so it's two buildings that take up the plot? Both are to be demolished I assume? The resolution is what it is, I didn't reduce it when I uploaded it. I suppose I could go back there and try to get better shots of both buildings in higher resolutions. Gryffindor (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep -- though referred to variously as 47-49, 49-51, and 47-51, it appears that the purchased real estate is that which is covered by the first two, which are connected internally. Some of the discussion is about one, the other, or both, which of course is a bit confusing--and not always made clear in the sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I just uploaded a new version of the aerial view with a thicker red circle so it is hopefully a little more visible at thumbnail size. Gryffindor, since I was able to get a decent stitch of the facade I don't think a reshoot is needed unless you really want to. But, as I said, I didn't have much luck with the shots taken at an angle which showed both buildings. As a general rule, it's a good idea to shoot at your camera's maximum resolution if you plan to stitch the images or significantly post-process. But that's ok... mostly I'm just glad we have a good pic for the infobox, thanks to you. Fletcher (talk) 04:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Here we have further information (now reflected in the article) on the second half of the parcel ... 49-51 Park Place.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Kudos!

Kudos again to Fletcher. As you can see here, the Economist just used the pic of the Cordoba House site that you helped me with, and put in the article!--Epeefleche (talk) 00:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall that once upon a time there was a template to indicate on the article talk page that a wp article had been mentioned in the press ... perhaps if someone could find it, it would be appropriate to post here in this regard. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Template:Press, but it seems intended for articles being mentioned, not just images being used. Fletcher (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I decided to be bold ...--Epeefleche (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't Newt's quote be here?

One of Newt's quotes that's been widely covered (that's actually available through links in the article; just not included in the article itself) is There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia.
Even ignoring the fact that a prominent politician is declaring that members of some demographics have different rights than others, based on their background... it's been covered by numerous news agencies (in addition to all the major talk show hosts; by some as inspirational words, and by others to demonstrate their opponents).
Not trying to ruffle any feathers on what's already a touchy subject. I just think the article could include quotes that show how strongly people feel about it (particularly when they're so well-documented, including in the links already provided). Not doing it myself because I prefer suggesting potentially controversial edits on discussion pages instead. 209.90.134.192 (talk) 03:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Your comment is a fair one. I'll give thought as how best to work it in. I've been striving for some balance, and already have a Newt block quote in there, which relates more specifically to the mosque (its name). But I recognize that he also said that, as part of his statement, and it has also received coverage. In part, this is complicated by the fact that it is part of a longer thought, which is a) the financing has not been revealed; b) some suspect Saudi financing, as the Saudis have financed other mosques; c) etc. And, if we open this discussion up, there are the responses of some along the lines of -- since Saudis don't allow women to drive, should we do something parallel, etc. It could lead us down a somewhat less-focused discussion than what we have, less to do with the mosque than with the related but slightly more related issue of tit-for-tat ... when we don't even have confirmation as to whether the Saudis are involved in the financing at all. Having said that, I'll give it thought. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Newt's comment is irrelvant - we don't set the standards for our actions on other countries and Saudi Arabia is not one any should emulate. This ariticle is already heavily biased as it is. Sorry, but this is only pretending neutrality with token opposing statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.131.73.215 (talk) 04:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That his comment may be seen as distasteful by some doesn't make it irrelevant. He is a senior member of the Republican Party and a former Speaker of The House, a position that is only a few steps down from President of the United States. His view on the matter is certainly important and noteworthy. The words you quote are the first words and the central argument of his first letter expressing his view on the matter, and it's a view that's been repeated since by others. Newyorkmuslim (talk) 02:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I replaced a quote from the "oppositions" section that I could not find Gingrich to have actually said in either of the two sources cited. I replaced it with the quote stated above. It is a better statement to include regardless as it was the opening paragraph of his letter, as published in the Washington Post, and thus summarized his position which the rest of the letter then elaborates. Newyorkmuslim (talk) 03:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The attack of the like-minded SPAs continues. I see you have five total edits. Welcome. I've responded already on your talk page -- you first deleted material saying you could not find the RS ref support, and were therefore deleting the material and replacing it (w/material discussed, that lacked consensus for inclusion). When I supplied an additional couldn't-be-clearer ref, you then deleted it again. That calls into question whether the reason for your first deletion was at all the one you indicated. You're also making the same argument as your fellow IP, who is also an SPA with few edits -- is that just a coincidence?--Epeefleche (talk) 05:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You've deleted my responses on your talk page. I take that to mean you are addressing this with some hostility. The original content which I replaced couldn't be found in either of the two sources cited. There can be no debating my intentions or reason for deleting it then - consensus or not, a quote with no source has no place in the article. You undid that, I re-did the replacement because the facts remained as they were. Then you introduced an NY Times source that clearly points out he didn't WRITE those words in the letter that the two paragraphs in question were referring to, but said them in an unidentified speech. I find his REASON for objecting to the mosque - that he feels Muslims shouldn't be allowed to build there until Saudi Arabia builds churches, to be far more notable than the pallid content you feel the need to protect.

The quote mining and incorrect referencing begs the question as to whether or not your interests lie more with providing an accurate account based on reliable sources and notability, or projecting a view that isn't exactly a fair representation of the (verifiable) truth.

No harm done though. I've retained the content you've added and corrected relative to the source you've now cited, and added what I feel is notable and more relevant, and actually can be sourced to those two sources originally cited. Newyorkmuslim (talk) 06:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The that the article is already overtly biased against the mosque, and any further additions of content supporting this viewpoint will further unbalance the article. I'm against the addition of this quote as I can't see any particular benefit to the article as a whole with its addition given the above. Perhaps editors should spend their time fixing the blatant POV issues in this article instead of continuing to make it an attack page on the building. elektrikSHOOS 07:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Which plane

Am I the only one who finds it strange that some of the news reports and books indicate an uncertainty as to which plane the plane parts that landed on the building came from?--Epeefleche (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Newton's first law is not something they teach in journalism school. Fletcher (talk) 01:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Ha. Well, turns out some sources do point to which plane it was, and none seem to disagree, so I've made the appropriate revision. Also found a diagram that reflects how it happened, which I've added.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Article is too long

It seems to me that the article is way too long for its, I suppose, "Number of sections". Specifically, the "Opposition" and "Support" sections are way too long for what they're trying to say. Yes, I realize that it's important to quote the opinions of people personally or otherwise involved with the mosque thing, but I get the idea that a whole lot of people are on either side of the issue after reading the dozenth firefighter's say. -- Bozwaldo (talk) 23:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

When we get to 100K, let's discuss what to separate out. Given the amount written on this subject in just the past week in the media, the article does a fairly good job distilling the more notable information. Also the headers are simply an aide to the reader, and especially helpful here. We don't view an article as too long because of number of headers, but rather because of actual size. I know that you are a newbie (with only 63 edits), so pls just take my comments as helpful, and not as harsh. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I have just deleted all the quotes from random people, please don't add anymore.--Endosentric (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Hello. Another newbie, I see, with all of 6 edits. Only 2 before this article. Welcome.

I indicated above why it was not appropriate for you to delete material that is highly relevant to the article, and RS-supported (as well as in controversy). Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

OK everyone, sorry that I've caused this bother. So I just read WP:QUOTE, and see that just a lot of quotes don't themselves cause any reason for their removal. I still would personally prefer if there weren't as many, but now that I've read the relevant material, I'm Editor-ly OK with them being there. Bozwaldo (talk) 02:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 04:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

diagram

File:World Trade Center, NY - 2001-09-11 - Debris Impact Areas.svg

is not much use on it's own, it needs to clearly show where cordoba house is located in relation to the WTC site.--Endosentric (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it states where 45 Park Place is, and has an arrow going from the indicated plane's impact to 45 Park Place. If you would like to, as well, add a circle, similar to the one on the GZ photo (which did not have the building name reflected, and thus required the circle), feel free. But under the circumstances, I find your statement somewhat less than accurate.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

The article lacks objectivity and appears to be engaging directly in the greater dispute over Cordoba House. The language used is extremely loaded ("the plan is to raze an existing 1850s Italianate building" instead of something like "the owners of the Burlington Coat Factory building plan to demolish it and replace it with a Muslim community center"), includes quite a bit of weaseling ("Many were upset...") give undue weight to unsubstantiated allegations ("Some politicians questioned the project's source of funding") and to the objections of marginal figures like Suleiman Schwartz, Hossein Kamaly, and particularly Zuhdi Jasser. That's not even counting the foregrounding of the debate over the name "Cordoba House" in the introduction, which gives undue attention to unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. That debate is worth a side note, if even that.

I also note that in the sidebar the "Architecture Type" of the building is still listed as "Mosque," which is not only inaccurate, it's meaningless. The whole article needs to be stripped down and rewritten in NPOV. Leo Caesius (talk) 06:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree completely. There is plenty of quote mining. Newyorkmuslim (talk) 06:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I tried deleting the quote-farm but User:Epeefleche, the one who is responsible for the article in it's current state just keeps reverting me and adding warnings to my page. He seems to think that just because it's in the news, it should be included in the article, completely ignoring WP:NOTNEWS & WP:NOTDIRECTORY.--Endosentric (talk) 06:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, User:Epeefleche is the one who deleted my POV tag within three minutes of my posting it as a "baseless and unsupported tag bomb", just as I was posting my objections in Talk. He's behaving as if he is personally invested in the POV represented by the current page. Leo Caesius (talk) 07:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's 3 of us and one of him. Let consensus reign. Newyorkmuslim (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

tagging is not a constructive way of building an encyclopedia. if your edits are reverted, bring your issues to the talk page, where it can be discussed by other editors. but please don't use the tag to hold the article hostage. in general, the controversy surrounding the mosque belongs in article about the mosque. if there are specific concerns about the lack of NPOV, please discuss them here. thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The reactions, pro and con, are what makes this subject particularly notable. I would also add pace Newyorkmuslim, that two very fresh accounts dedicated to this topic do not a consensus make. Wikipedia would be easily manipulable if we allowed that sort of thing to happen. IronDuke 20:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine, then I'll go ahead and start changing the language myself, since it's obvious that constructive criticism isn't "a constructive way of building an encyclopedia".Leo Caesius (talk) 11:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree w Brew and Iron, for reasons they state.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is simply not neutral in tone. If the purpose of the article is to describe the Controversy, then it should be more balanced in presenting the arguments. In its current state, it gives undue and excessive attention to the architectural features of the existing building, and overall, gives much greater weight to arguments against the proposed mosque than arguments for it. Example: Polls showed ... whereas Michael Bloomberg, 5 vs. 1.5 sentences. The History section, in particular, needs to be completely re-written for neutrality. 9/11: Don't need to reiterate the minute by minute events of 9/11 here. The section gives undue attention to questions on sources of funding and Rauf's views; not mentioning the speculative and motivated nature of the questioning. Since anti-Muslim bigotry is a large part of the current controversy, there should be a section for it in the History section: The anti-mosque protests occurring across the U.S. would help provide understanding of the context in which this current controversy is taking place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Art thomas (talk • contribs) 19:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the wrong page, all of this content belongs on a "Cordoba House Controversies" page

A proper article for "Cordoba House" would outline the location, the projected purpose and cost, etc. The size of the content dealing with controversy would be restricted to a suitable proportion. This article has virtually no neutral content explaining the plans for the structure in terms of purpose or archetecture, but rather mines details from articles focusing on the controversy, for the purpose of promoting controversy. This page has the wrong title. Newyorkmuslim (talk) 06:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps at some point in the future. Right now, the controversy is what makes the subject notable. IronDuke 20:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Self-evident. The article focuses on what the RSs focus on. As it should.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Islamophobia/Anti-Muslim Bigotry

There have been many responses to the opposition of this mosque, claiming the motivation behind the anti-mosque position stems from xenophobia, "islamophobia", and anti-Muslim bigotry. That view needs to be included, whether in the body of an existing section or in a section of its own. Reviews of Newt Ginrich's comments, for example, the fact that Fareed Zakaria returned the ADL's award to him because of their position, etc. Newyorkmuslim (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, a review of the article indicates that it is in fact already reflected. As the article reflects, Ibrahim Hooper, Communications Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, charged that the controversy was "manufactured" by "bigots". As the article further reflects, the Anti-Defamation League denounced what it saw as bigoted attacks on the mosque. Its head opined that some of those who oppose the mosque are "bigots". This article is chock full with direct comments on the mosque. If you want to create a new article, with "comments by third parties on comments that others have made directly on the mosque", that's certainly a possibility. But, given the size of this article already, I think it would be far too much to laden this article with that now--especially, as any such discussion would be quite large, the commentary on the commentators having consisted of many comments by many observors of those comments.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's a tip: when quoting people, wrap the entire statement in quotation marks. I know it's more fun to use scare quotes, but it's against wikipedia policy to do so in articles, and it's unseemly on talk pages. Though, thank you for being so open with your personal opinion about the subject of this article. --72.215.55.178 (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Unexplained IP's removal sourced info

It is important to not just eliminate words and footnotes that we do not like and to add at the same time blogs that aren't reliable. I am adding info back. Please discuss before removing it again.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Polls

Polls show both support and opposition for the mosque, and as such shouldn't only be in one section.142.76.1.62 (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Issues

The article should really be based around issues that are part of the debate and not simply who opposes it and who supports it. Issues include, sensitivity to 9/11 families, freedom of religion, etc.Bless sins (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Those are discussed in the article, at some length.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

bus ads

Here's a useful news item for this article. Use it if you can. Kingturtle (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

islam ist/ic + militant/terrorists lameness

Regarding this and similar previous edits, the September 11 attacks article's lead says 'al-Qaeda terrorists'. Any reason we can't go with that or something similar ? I assume they discussed it and edit warred furiously for several years to arrive at that formulation. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The sentence in question is explaining the motive for opposition to the mosque. Does "al Qaeda terrorists" explain the motive? The mosque is not being constructed by al Qaeda, so the sentence would appear as a non-sequitur. The motive for opposition appears to be what al Qaeda and the Cordoba Initiative have in common -- their religion, Islam. Opponents either do not mentally distinguish among variants of Islam, or do distinguish but fear this mosque, due to its location, will prove a haven or symbol for extremists. Therefore it seems logical to note the religion of the terrorists, to provide the connection that is the basis (whether rational or not) of opposition to the mosque. Fletcher (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree completely with Fletcher's well-articulated comment.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, that's why I said 'or something similar'. Are readers unaware that al Qaeda are an Islamist group ? Where have they been all these years ? My concern is more that the slow burn edit warring over the terminology needs to stop and there needs to be a consensus on the talk page. I would say 1) it was al Qaeda so lets says that in the lead, 2) they are described as terrorists to a sufficient extent that it renders WP:TERRORIST irrelevant, 3) if we need to make the Islamist connection clearer then lets say that => how about "al Qaeda Islamic terrorists" ? I prefer Islamist but I also think it doesn't matter. Is there any sensible policy based reason why anyone would object to that and try to edit war it out of the article ? Sean.hoyland - talk 07:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer the use of "al Qaeda Islamist terrorists" to describe the 9/11 perpetrators. I do not think we should present the "Islamic" commonality between the 9/11 perpetrators and the Cordoba Initiative as factual. Indeed it is the heart of the controversy. Some who oppose the mosque believe that this commonality exists, while many supporters of the proposed mosque believe that the perpetrators and their acts were precisely un-Islamic. I agree with Fletcher that some opponents "do not mentally distinguish among variants of Islam", but as authors of a neutral article, I believe that we should do so. In other words, it is one thing to point out that the terrorists purported to be Muslims or to act in the name of Islam, or that some associate (rightly or wrongly) Islam with terrorism. It is another thing to actually use language that suggests that the terrorists were in fact Islamic (many disagree). Art thomas — Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely, however the relevant main article is called Islamic terrorism rather than Islamist terrorism. Article titles should (in principal) be policy compliant and so we should be able to use them directly without bypassing/tweaking the title locally in other articles like this one where they are linked. I favour cross-article terminology inheritance in that respect. The policy compliance issues are discussed and the naming decisions are made in the main article and that should be enough in my view. Other articles inherit that decision so that you don't have to have the same battles all over the place. It's all very well to argue that Islamist is better than Islamic in some sense here in this article but to me it's no different from someone arguing that 'disputed territories' (a term favoured by the likes of CAMERA and various right wing groups) is better as a link name in a particular article than 'Israeli occupied territories', the standard policy compliant term used by the likes of the ICRC etc and the title of the main article. The right place to make a case for a change in terminology is on the talk page of the main article rather than here. That's how I see these issues anyway for what it's worth. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Newt and the name "Cordoba House"

Gingrich is quoted as saying that the name "Cordoba House" is a because Muslims destroyed a church in Medieval Cordoba. But it's not like this church was famous before Gingrich started making a fuss about it. The Catholic Encyclopedia has a lengthy account of Cordoba that doesn't even mention it.[1] Britannica doesn't mention it either. Cordoba is best-known as an intellectual center in Medieval times, home to rabbi Maimonides and other scholars. Cordoba is mentioned in Lawrence of Arabia, so it's not just Medieval history fans who would know this: In the Arab city of Cordova, there were two miles of public lighting in the streets when London was a village. Kauffner (talk) 10:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

long article

WP:Article size means this page is almost in line to be split somehow. Perhaps by reactions or background?Lihaas (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Fox News poll

• http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/081310_MosquePoll.pdf

30% of Americans think it is appropriate to go ahead with the establishment of Cordoba House, but 61% of Americans think that the group building the House has a right to go ahead. That fact should be mentioned in the article, I think. NW (Talk) 16:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This strikes me as an odd thing to believe. As a practical matter, you can't build anything in the U.S. without the city's approval. Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church is in the same area as Park51 and is also on a site damaged in 9/11, but the Port Authority is refusing permission to rebuild.[2] The PA told the church officials that the steeple couldn't be taller than the proposed 9/11 memorial. Kauffner (talk) 03:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Kauffner, Saint Nicholad Greek Orthodox Church was right across the street from the WTC [3], and will be very much visible from the site of Ground Zero unlike the site for Park 51, which is two blocks away and not visible from the site. Secondly, the Port Authority hasn't "refused permission" as the Human Events article states. Check the site for the Church itself [4] for confirmation of this. The central problem is that the Church is just one of 26 rebuilding projects in the immediate vicinity of Ground Zero. Finally, The attempt to manufacture outrage by comparing the two sites as being located "in the same area" is more than a little obvious. Still, you've brought up a point of criticism that should be addressed within this article.Jemiljan (talk) 06:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding to the above, Mayor Bloomberg's response to Demos' criticism: "It's been a bone of contention [between] the church and the Port Authority. And I've gotten involved mainly because the archbishop lives directly across the street from me, and he comes out with his staff and we chit-chat. He doesn't come over to borrow a cup of coffee, but that's okay. And I think they're very close [to] working with the Port Authority to find a location down there. There was one, I think the church wanted it, but it didn't fit in with the Port Authority plans because it would have interfered with other things, but there will be a new church built down there. And Chris Ward, the executive director of the Port Authority, I know is working with the Greek Orthodox Church to try to find some ways to get this done."[5]Jemiljan (talk) 08:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Added to the article. As for why people believe this: it seems a good number of people respect the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment even when they disagree with the actual plan. NW (Talk) 13:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Religious buildings have no special status in law. They are expected to follow the zoning ordinance as well as all the other construction-related rules. If most citizens of NYC don't want Park51, they should able to exercise their democratic rights. If Bloomberg thinks he was elected by bigots, what does that say about his own legitimacy? Kauffner (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Kauffner, religious buildings very much are protected according to our Federal laws, specifically the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, which was passed unanimously by both Congress and the Senate. It was also, rather ironically, championed by none other than Peter King, and has been consitently cited by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ).[6]Jemiljan (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Support and opposition sections

Why are there massive support and opposition sections. These should be combined. An encyclopedia article isn't a debate format. Were straws drawn to see which side would go first? Freakshownerd (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Sex segregation

This page is not for general discussion of Cordoba House. Factual questions should be directed to Wikipedia:Reference desk. Thank you.
The following discussion has been closed by Elektrik Shoos. Please do not modify it.
To what extent is the mosque sex segregated?--98.88.82.107 (talk) 05:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Mosque On Site At The Pentagon

Re: this edit that restored the 'Mosque On Site At The Pentagon' section compared to this edit that treated it as just another statement of support by a politician, what is it about this particular observation by Nadler amongst all of the other sentences in this report that indicates that WP:DUE compliance requires a separate section and the stating of Nadler's view in Wikipedia's unattributed narrative voice ? Sean.hoyland - talk 14:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It requires a separate section because it's not just Nadler's opinion that there is a mosque at the Pentagon. It is a factual matter that there is one, and a factual matter that there has not been a similar outcry for its removal. Treating a factual matter as if it were a matter of partisan opinion gives aid and succor to those who would turn all truth into a mere partisan opinion. This would reduce Wikipedia to a repository of partisan "truthiness". Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is already a repository of partisan truthiness as this article clearly demonstrates but I was unaware that it had introduced an apartheid policy of segregating media sampled factoids from media sampled opinion soundbites in their respective truthiness bantustans. The issue for me is that as wiki source-monkeys we're meant to determine the appropriate weight to assign to a piece of information based on how much weight reliable sources give it. I don't think we're doing that if we put this soundbite in its own section although I guess there might be more sources covering this interesting difference between the 2 sites. Anyway, I'm happy to let consensus prevail. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I feel like I'm doing the "due weight" evaluation here - given that one side of this debate is premised on the idea that the political Right is manufacturing the Ground Zero mosque controversy for political gain, it's obviously important that the Right did not raise a similar alarm when Islamic religious services were being held at the other "Ground Zero" site at the Pentagon...possibly because a conservative was President at the time. So the crisis gets manufactured to embarrass a liberal president, while no one says anything during the term of a conservative one. You'll note, I've also referenced the original 2007 story in the Washington Times (the more right-wing of Washington's daily newspapers, by the way) about Muslim religious services being held at the Pentagon itself. The story has legs and I think a consensus will see that. Zachary Klaas (talk) 15:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

Sorry about the accidental rollback; just a result of trying to browse my watchlist on my phone. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

About the name "Cordoba" in reference to the muslim caliphate of Cordoba

About this sentence, and to stop people (user:Goethean) to change it to their own point of view or to delete it:
"Those who opposed the proposed center cited its proximity to Ground Zero (...). They also cited the name of the mosque, Cordoba, in reference to the Spanish city of Córdoba, a Christian city which was conquered by the Moors and became the capital of the Muslim caliphate."

This is the position of people who oppose the project as cited in the sources:

• Fox News: "Originally titled "Cordoba House" -- a reference to the Spanish capital where Muslim conquerors vanquished Spanish Catholics in the 8th century"
• Toronto Sun: "Cordoba House, named after the capital of the Muslim conquest of Spain centuries ago. And let’s make it a headquarters for Dawah, the Arabic word for promoting sharia law."
• Accuracy in Media: "In order to understand just how deliberately abrasive the construction of Park51 – or, as originally intended, The Cordoba House – in the shadow of Ground Zero actually is, we must come to understand its inferred meaning and to do that we must understand a period of violent Muslim aggression, circa 711AD, that established the Emirate and Caliphate of Cordoba."

Their positions and their terms are that Cordoba is a reference to the "muslim conquest of Spain", the place where "muslim conquerors vanquished Spanish Catholics", to the "violent Muslim aggression that established the Emirate and Caliphate of Cordoba".

The article just has to give their position, whether you agree with it or not you don't have the right to change it to your own, Wikipedia just give everybody's position.--Onesbrief (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)