Jump to content

Talk:Park51

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Newsboy85 (talk | contribs) at 18:42, 19 August 2010 (name is fine). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"working hard to appear sensitive to the concerns of those who remember 9/11" Pffffft!! This is all about using controversy to raise money from donors in the Gulf Arab states. According to Cordoba House's 2008 tax return, they had only $18,000 in the bank at that time. Construction costs are estimated at $110 million. So they are counting on rich Muslims overseas to get excited about the controversy and pony up a whole lot of cash. Developer El-Gamal was working as a waiter as recently as 2002. Do you think Rauf is worried about the controversy, busy trying settle things down? Of course not! He's on a fund raising trip to the Gulf, paid for with $16,000 from the U.S. State Department.[1] Kauffner (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The article currently contains the following links:
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:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This issue is likely already put to rest -- but I wanted to add that I think I know where the 9/11/11 date came from. In a May 6, 2010 article in the New York Daily News, Khan was quoted as hoping to begin construction before that date: [2] (In a May 5 WSJ Blog, she was also quoted as expecting the project to take three years: [3]) In a May 13, 2010 opinion piece in the New York Post, Andrea Peyser had changed things around a bit. No longer would construction simply begin sometime before 9/11/11 and take three years. Now it was to open on exactly that date: [4] It appears to have been repeated from there. How to handle it in the encyclopedia is...something I'll leave to better angels. But I just wanted to provide that background, in case it's helpful. --TheOtherBob 03:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Well, there's 3 of us and one of him. Let consensus reign. Newyorkmuslim (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Agree w Brew and Iron, for reasons they state.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Perhaps at some point in the future. Right now, the controversy is what makes the subject notable. IronDuke 20:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Self-evident. The article focuses on what the RSs focus on. As it should.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

bus ads

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Agree completely with Fletcher's well-articulated comment.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • I lean towards Islamist (to distinguish Islamists from non-Islamist Islamics), but of course defer to whatever the consensus may be on this. Completely agree with the comments that we don't have to say both AQ and Islamist. We may have children of all ages reading this, so the focus between the two should be Islamist (or Islamic) terrorists, as that is the issue here -- the controversy does not relate to which specific terrorist org is involved, just that they are Islamist terrorists.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, we describe the 9/11 attackers as a "militant Islamist group." If the decision is between calling them that or an 'Islamic terrorist group,' I think the former sounds much less controversial and altogether more appealing. However, if you look at the 'Islamic terrorism' page and compare it to the 'Islamist' page, it appears the Islamic terrorism page much more closely relates to the motives/actions of Al-Qaeda than the Islamist page. The Islamist page focuses very broadly on Muslim movements aimed at creating Muslim political governments, parties, etc. As the page describes, even many Islamist militant groups don't engage in the uniquely violent type of militancy represented by 9/11-i.e., terrorism. Meanwhile, the Islamic terrorism page focuses on groups that engage in mass attacks on civilians for the purpose of achieving political goals and details Al-Qaeda's motivations and goals, some of which relate to Islamism and many of which did not. It seems a reader would be better-informed by clicking a link to the Islamic terrorism page than the Islamist page. --24.98.20.31 (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.[5] 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)[reply]

Per Wikipedia, the great mosque of Cordoba was built on the site of Christian Church. This is consistent with the conversion of the Hagia Sohpia, in Constantinople into a Mosque after its capture and the Construction of the Dome of the Rock. Bin Laden also explicitly linked the Reconquest of Andalusia with the 911 attacks.
Interesting as this is, I think it (and any responses by me or others) would stray into the notaforum area. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's an excellent article on the relevant history of Cordoba at http://gotmedieval.blogspot.com/2010/08/professor-newts-distorted-history.html Might be good to add something from this next to Gingrich's view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.2.1.16 (talk) 10:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link you have provided is a blog, which is generally not considered a reliable source, and thus shouldn't be used as one (especially given the controversial topic of this article). elektrikSHOOS 10:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would The Catholic Encyclopedia be an acceptable source on the history and symbolism of Cordoba? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.2.1.16 (talk) 07:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fox News poll

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)[reply]

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.[6] 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)[reply]
Kauffner, Saint Nicholad Greek Orthodox Church was right across the street from the WTC [7], 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 [8] 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)[reply]
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."[9]Jemiljan (talk) 08:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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).[10]Jemiljan (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it seems that there is no legal way to block construction, at least not according to this analysis. But of course that makes the PA's treatment of St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church even more shabby. After all, its not as if the PA has statutory authority over building heights. Kauffner (talk) 11:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good catch by NW adding it to the article. Very, very good insight, in just a short poll. I'll avoid getting into the "why", interesting as it is, so as not to make this a forum. Will just mention that the community board involved avoided carefully touching on the mosque aspect of the issue, as did the Landmarks Commission. This isn't Port Authority land, so they would not be involved. A state commission may be involved, however, in the sale aspect, as the article reflects.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I believe this format works quite well.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to agree with the original poster. Per WP:CRITICISM, editors should exercise extreme caution when the article is split into pro/con sections as this can jeopardize the neutrality of the article. This obviously is something that's up for debate, however.
In my opinion, given the controversy this currently is in the US, splitting this article into for/against sections seems to turn it into an ideological battleground. (Reflecting the current status of the nation on this issue, really, but Wikipedia should be a neutral source, not a mirror.) elektrikSHOOS 02:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Agree that that is tangential at best. We could also relate it to all the other mosques in the country as to which there is controversy. Tangential. Does not belong. Will delete, per comments in this string.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, good for you, but do you and the other guy posting here = consensus? The reason the Pentagon matters and the other mosque sites do not, for this article, is because the Pentagon is the other "Ground Zero" site...did that escape your notice? I worded this in a fairly clear way in the article. Anyone else feel we _do_ need this in the article? Zachary Klaas (talk) 04:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I assume it's obvious to people that conservatives will go to revert war over this comparison because it's embarrassing to their ideological worldview. But it is a factual comparison, and it is explicitly related to the Park51 project because it's the other "Ground Zero" site and Muslims have been welcome to worship there well after 9-11. If we let them win this, we should just rebrand this as an annex to Conservapedia... Zachary Klaas (talk) 04:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The content has been retained without edit warring plus I think it's fair to say that, despite its faults, this article does a better job than the Conservapedia article... Sean.hoyland - talk 08:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The content is still being edited out. I've just replaced the content again. What I want to see at a minimum is that no one, including the conservatives, disputes that Muslims have repeatedly held religious services at the Pentagon. This is the point that exposes their hypocrisy on the issue. The opponents claim that NYC's Ground Zero is hallowed ground that would somehow be tarnished by the presence of a Muslim mosque...but the other Ground Zero site has repeatedly had Muslim religious services, of the type that are performed in a mosque, and accommodating a number of people characteristic of what would be served by a mosque. Whether we call it a mosque or not, the site performs the functions of a mosque. The repeated holding of these services at the Pentagon, on site, not two blocks away, is is an uncontested point and must be represented as factual, not a matter of opinion. It's a non-negotiable, as far as I'm concerned. Zachary Klaas Zachary Klaas (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Fox News article says nothing about the motivations of the opposition to the center being due to the name being a reference to the conquest of Cordoba. It was used as a reference to describe the motivations of the opposition to the center. It therefore fails verification as a source for that statement. That is why I have removed it as a source from that sentence and why it should remain that way. — goethean ॐ 21:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Onesbrief, for reasons he stated. The article and the articles with on the internet are replete with such statements--as to the lede, Goeth or others need not look only at its refs, but can look in the article. In fact, you are welcome to move refs up and repeat them in the lede, though that is a matter of style and not generally required. Goethaean -- hiding the ball from the readers is not good form.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not only are the arguments of Fox News et al EXTREMELY dubious from a historical perspective, but they effectively argue (in the absence of any objectively convincing evidence) that the name "Cordoba House" is indicative of some sort of anti-Western conspiracy on the part of the project sponsors. Regardless of however popular this conspiracy theory may be among certain quarters, it remains an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory and its presence in the lede is directly analogous to dedicating a paragraph of the lede of the article on the September 11 attacks to the position of the 9/11 Truth movement. Ultimately, we have to ask ourselves: is this article intended to be an objective resource for the building in question or is it intended to be a vehicle for all sorts of unsubstantiated rumor and innuendo? It seems that there is substantial disagreement within this page about the role of the article.Leo Caesius (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Description of center in lede

Okay, here, User:Epeefleche edit wars and insists that we falsely describe the center as consisting only of a mosque, because the article is only about the controversy. This is doubly or perhaps trebly wrong. Someone please revert him. — goethean ॐ 21:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is untrue. I believe that we should mention in the very first sentence that it is both a community center and includes a mosque. At the same time, per wp:lede and wp:undue, as mentioned in my edit summaries, it is not appropriate to laden the lede with facts about its swimming pool and other features. Those are in the article (I actually had added them to the article myself, so I'm happy of course for it to be reflected in the article). But that is not the focus of the notability, so for the lede it is appropriate to say that it is a community center with a mosque. Furthermore -- your effort to suggest that the controversy is about the community center aspect is not borne out by the articles. Clearly the locus of the controversy is the mosque. It does the readers little good for you to hide that from them. This has previously been discussed on this talk page.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we should describe the center accurately rather than merely repeating Republican talking points. — goethean ॐ 23:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is doing so (nor would I be inclined to). Nor is your comment even facially plausible -- Bloomberg's main focus is on freedom of religion relating to the fact that it is in fact a mosque that the controversy relates to. He is a democrat. He is not pretending, as you are, that the notability and controversy are about the book store and swimming pool. We are following wiki policies. We focus on notability. That is measured by what the RSs report on. The bookstore is not the high point of interest about the mosque. Thus there is no need, because Goethean would like to stress it and sundry other non-notable facts in the first sentence, to feed him.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Describe the subject accurately and fairly, regardless of the locus of the controversy. To do so is not to 'pretend' anything. Contrary to Republican talking points, the center consists of more than a mosque. — goethean ॐ 01:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You miss the point. You could accurately and fairly describe the existing wallpaper in the building, go into detail about the columns, describe the color of it, describe how many steps it has. You could also seek to stick that in the lede, and even in the first sentence. The fact that it is accurate and fair is not the end of the story. Relevance is key. As is wp:undue. It's true that experienced POV warriors sometimes wikilawyer with "but it is accurate". So what. We focus here on notability, which is measured by RS coverage. There is no question that the RS coverage here (and comments by all manner of notable persons) does not focus on the bookstore, etc. That's a "king has not clothes" argument. Just as your "calling it a mosque is a Democratic ploy". Balderdash. The focus of those in favor of the location of the mosque focus on freedom of religion as their number one point. That relates to the mosque -- not to the swimming pool. These points are, I would have thought, sort of obvious.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is surprising that people get so bent out of shape over the addition of a few extra words, even ones which they admit are completely accurate. "Mosque" is more inflammatory than "community center". Unfortunately for those who want to inflame, the proposed building is a community center, not just a mosque. Please describe the proposed center accurately. — goethean ॐ 02:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bloomberg is not a Democrat; he is an Independent. Furthermore, a prayer space and a mosque are two very different things, even if they serve the same function. Technically, a mosque is a type of building, not an individual room, which is oriented towards Mecca and usually (though not always) possesses at least one minaret.Leo Caesius (talk) 00:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other lede issues

An editor or two seem intent on skewing the lede from what is reflected in the notable RSs and in the statements of notable persons. Among the efforts: make it seem that the protests related to the swimming pool, bookstore, etc.--and drown out mention of the mosque in mentions of that. To delete references to the fact that some commentators have mentioned the Spanish city reference as the locus of Islamic soldiers defeating Christian soldiers. Pretending that only two have raised that issue. Etc. All IMHO is classic POV editing. Folks -- let's accurately say what all sides here say -- not disrupt the article by concealing it.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. It is sticking to exactly what the supplied sources say,. and nothing more. There is no provided source which says that opposition to the mosque is because of its name --- only two op-ed authors who state their opposition. They are primary sources, not the secondary sources that policy says that we should rely upon. If you want to expand the claims, supply sources which make those expanded claims. Thus far, you have failed to do so. — goethean ॐ 01:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Opaque balderdash. See my above comments. Plus, many commentators have spoken as to the name of the mosque. And the efforts to have the discussion of its pool and bookstore drown out mention of the mosque is not appropriate. To put it mildly.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Drown out"? Is that an attempt at humor? I don't think that anything is going to drown out the screaming heads on CNN, with whom you are unfortunately in unison. — goethean ॐ 02:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, is this supposed to be an article on Park51 itself or specifically an article on the 'controversy' surrounding Park51? If the former, then mention of the swimming pool, culinary school, bookstore, et al. are not only relevant but appropriate in the lede. If the latter, then you can concentrate on the prayer space or mosque to your heart's content. My own impression, however, is that the focus of the article should be the building itself, not necessarily the controversy surrounding it.Leo Caesius (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the same token, rumor-mongering and unsubstantiated innuendo on the part of some commentators about scenarios of Islamic conquest have absolutely no place in the lede of an article on the project itself, as they are merely a side-note to the controversy surrounding the project. Leo Caesius (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the mini-history of Cordoba should be removed from the lede. — goethean ॐ 00:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it should not, as the (alleged) connection to Islamic conquest is a big part of the controversy surrounding this project, which is what attests to its notability. Further, the amenities of the community center (swimming pool et al) are listed under Planned Facilities, and do not need to be in the lede. Now if in five years they have a world renowned culinary school at the site, by all means put it in the lede, but currently these amenities have little notability compared to the controversy over the mosque. Fletcher (talk) 00:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this, then, an article about Park51 or the Park51 Controversy? If the former, then the amenities are definitely notable. If the latter, then the conspiracies about Islamic conquest are arguably notable as well. I was under the impression, though, that this article is about the whole community center itself, not merely about the mosque/prayer space within it or the controversy surrounding that space. Honestly, I can't believe that we're at the point where we're eliminating basic information about the structure to make room for unsubstantiated conspiracy-mongering.Leo Caesius (talk) 02:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little frustrated that you replied but did not seem to read anything I said: as noted, the various amenities are listed under the Planned facilities section, so we're not "eliminating basic information." It is a question of whether some details like the swimming pool, which have not attracted any controversy or discussion that I can see, belong in the lede. According to WP:LEDE, the information in the lede should reflect its importance to the topic. As for what the topic actually is, it is Park51 and all significant aspects of it, which would include the controversy. Although the controversy dominates the article, that is what gives the article most of its notability. But there is no reason other aspects of the project can't be addressed in greater depth as more information becomes available. As for "unsubstantiated conspiracy-mongering" I again can't tell what you are complaining of because you are speaking so generally. Are you saying the views of mainstream Republicans like Gingrich and Lazio should be excluded as fringe theories, or that statements by 9/11 families should be excluded? Those opinions seem like they're relevant to the controversy (even if one agrees they are misguided). Fletcher (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "inaccurately referred to as the Ground Zero mosque" is itself inaccurate. The adverb should be "imprecisely"; the mosque is in fact a feature of the community center but not the only one. MikeLHenderson (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is acceptable. Wikipedia cannot editorialize about it. Fletcher (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Not sure who changed the name to Park 51. But that is incorrect. No space between the two. If someone could fix it, and the redirects, that would be great.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note (User talk:Zachary Klaas#moved article) at the editor's talk page. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 22:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I'll be fixing it right now. Sorry for any temporary double redirects; I'll be fixing them as soon as possible too. elektrikSHOOS 22:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was a redirect left at Park51 to this page, so that needs to be deleted to make way, but I've tagged it with db-g6. An admin should get to it shortly. elektrikSHOOS 22:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tx ... were I to attempt to address, I would no doubt make it worse. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Jujutacular talk 02:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I did attempt to make it the no space version of the name but encountered difficulties...was hoping someone else would pick this up and complete the task. Zachary Klaas (talk) 04:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 Families

Why is the anti-Mosque organization of 9/11 families (appears to be about half a dozen) broken out seperately and given several paragraphs but the larger pro-Mosque organization of 9/11 families (over two hundred) lumped in with other random groups and given one line.70.108.241.211 (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say we should cover it as it is covered in the RSs. Last I edited those sections, it did so.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this (or does it contain) a mosque?

Keith Olbermann's commentary on MSNBC earlier this evening indicated that 'mosque' is an inappropriate term for all or any of this proposed center; as he states, 'mosque' refers purely to a building completely dedicated to worship, whereas this building will be primarily for community use for education, recreation, and other aspects, with only the top two floors being 'prayer space'.

I can't state any more familiarity with the terminology myself, but could anyone else weigh in on this? If Mr. Olbermann does have his facts straight, should the word 'mosque' be used at all to describe this project? Radagast (talk) 03:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keith, the sports anchorman? Anyway, check the footnotes. Check the ELs. Check the arguments (e.g., religious freedom). The mosque aspect of this is the locus of commentators, for and against.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the place to question the merits of TV journalists. In any case, I'd agree with Epefleeche. If it has 'prayer space' and nearly every source mentioned says it includes a mosque, it includes a mosque. As much as I'd love to agree with Olbermann, in this case he's downplaying the impact of the word 'mosque' by calling it a 'prayer space'. Many Christian-run hospitals contain a 'prayer space' which is called a chapel, but that doesn't mean that the entire hospital is called a church, nor that we shouldn't call the chapel what it is. elektrikSHOOS 04:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Log this comment in your memory, folks...because when conservatives start insisting the mosque at the Pentagon is just a prayer space, you call the chapel/mosque what it is. Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By definition, a mosque is a structure. Keith is correct in saying a prayer room in a larger structure isn't by definition a mosque. Newyorkmuslim (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the project's own website says it will include "a mosque, intended to be run separately from Park51 but open to and accessible to all members, visitors and our New York community". So there is some ambiguity about this. And even if they delete all references to a mosque, it won't be clear if that's because it truly is not a mosque, or if they are just trying to soften their image. So the word must stay; it isn't Wikipedia's role to manage public relations for them. Fletcher (talk) 00:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's pretty obvious that this page (as currently written) is crafted to do the exact opposite: it is a one stop source for unsubstantiated rumors and innuendo, presented alongside the odd fact as if they were all of equal value. Leo Caesius (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if some opinions expressed are not rational, it is necessary to provide some coverage of the controversy, without which this article likely never would have been created. I do think it is too long and gives too much weight to the opinions of politicians, including minor figures I've never heard of. The basic arguments for and against could be conveyed without so many quotes. However, it is very important that any trimming must be done in a balanced way. The controversy seems to be a big jumble of people sounding off, and it's not our role to imply that one side or the other is wrong. Fletcher (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not all criticisms of the project are of equal legitimacy. Conspiracy-mongering ("It's clearly a victory mosque funded by al-Qaeda to commemorate the defeat of Spanish Catholics and pogroms against Jews!!!") should not be presented in the same light as straightforward objections ("Many people believe that the location of the mosque is insensitive...").Leo Caesius (talk) 02:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree any WP:FRINGE claim can be removed (unless there is a specific justification to include it), but I do not see that particular claim appearing in the article. I searched for mentions of al Qaeda, but don't see any instance where someone claimed al Qaeda was funding the project, nor do I remember such a claim in the article. The word pogrom also does not currently appear in the article, so I'm not clear exactly what you are complaining of. The term "victory mosque" does appear, but this is a quote from one of the 9/11 families, which is likely worth including to explain some of their perspectives. I'm sure we can discuss any other specific concerns you might have. Fletcher (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a church that I have often passed by which includes an XBOX game room, an exercise room, a tanning bed room and other activities, but it doesn't change the basic fact that it's primarily a church even though it doesn't call itself as such. Do we go through Wikipedia and change article for all the churches that call themselves "worship centers?" This NYC building's primary purpose is to be a mosque, thus it should be called such. 64.184.253.134 (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, although I don't think we can say if it's primary purpose it to be a mosque - I don't think anyone can be sure how big the mosque will be relative to the other facilities - but certainly many reliable sources and the project's own website have described the project as having a mosque, so we should refer to it as such. Fletcher (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
it doesn't change the basic fact that it's primarily a church even though it doesn't call itself as such
What does it call itself? — goethean ॐ 00:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentalist

I removed the word "fundamentalist" from the description of Al-Qaeda. If you check out its article you would see that this word refers, in its original sense, to a person's view of his religions scriptures. Nothing to do with terrorism, etc. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing 'mosque' to 'project' etc

Since the correct term for the project is a matter of controversy, I have replaced some instances of the term 'mosque' with neutral terms such as 'project' or 'facility'.

Earlier I was warned of a 'merge text' situation, but I tried again later and my changes were saved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.2.1.16 (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supports and Criticism

I'm going to move some of Fareed Zakaria and Michael Bloomberg statement to the support section --Thundera m117 (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the word "mosque" in this article

I'm bringing this here for discussion, since it would be a fairly substantial change. This was previously mentioned two headers above, but it was more of a "I'm going to do this" and not a dedicated section for comment on the issue.

I think that the use of the word "mosque" to describe the building is misleading. Park51 is, as described in the article and elsewhere, a "community center." It contains many spaces including a 'prayer space' which we'll call a mosque per my argument above. But that doesn't also mean the whole center should be called one either. Use of that word in the article outside of the context of describing that prayer space is just editorializing due to the impact of the word. However, I recognize that this may be up for debate so I'm bringing this issue here for feedback before I decide to change it anyway, given the controversial nature of this topic. elektrikSHOOS 19:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Later material on the promoters' website may be distinguishing the planned 'prayer space' from a 'mosque'. http://cordobainitiative.wordpress.com/2010/07/06/what-is-prayer-space/ What is Prayer Space? Among the questions we have heard regarding Cordoba House is what is the definition of a prayer space, and how is that different than a mosque. .... Prayer space does not signify a mosque. Certain aspects of Cordoba House disqualifies it as a mosque, including space for musical performance or a restaurant, which are not allowed to be in a mosque. However, additional prayer is necessary as the existing nearby mosques are no longer able to tend to the need for prayer space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.2.1.16 (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is partly covered under Planned facilities where it is shown they have said both that it is a mosque, and it isn't. We have to balance between two things:

  • Calling it only a mosque is POV because it places all the weight on what opponents are objecting to, even though other facilities are planned besides the mosque.
  • Calling it only a community center is POV because it elides the main source of contention - the mosque - making the article seem like it's been airbrushed to be politically correct.

I recommend we use the word mosque when describing what people are objecting to (as long as that's accurate in context), and use neutral words like "the project", "the center", and so forth other times. But remember these words lose their neutrality when they don't describe what people are objecting to.Fletcher (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In some contexts, neutrality may be increased by changing 'opposing the mosque' to 'opposing a mosque'.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.2.1.16 (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Citation needed"

"in his post attack video release, Osama bin Laden explicitly designated the attack as revenge for the loss of Córdoba and Andalusia to the Spanish in the 15th century." [citation needed]

This is seriously inflammatory, and I don't think it can stand without a citation... -- AvatarMN (talk) 00:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably incorrect. A post attack video said that the attack was in protest for the US support of Israel in a current land dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.2.1.16 (talk) 00:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this is the Bin Laden quote that is being referred to: "Let the whole world know that we shall never accept that the tragedy of Andalusia would be repeated in Palestine. We cannot accept that Palestine will become Jewish."[11] Andalusia means Spain. This quote doesn't mention Cordoba, so I don't think it is relevant to this article. I see no implication that 9/11 was revenge for something that happened in Medieval Spain. In his 1998 fatwa, Bin Laden explained that the Koran requires Muslims to kill Americans because we are a bunch of infidels. The revenge/blowback theories make the motive issue more complex than it needs to be. Any America-specific motive does not explain why the jihadis also attack Britain, France, India, Indonesia, etc, etc, etc. Kauffner (talk) 07:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other Buildings/Businesses within the Same Distance from Ground Zero

Could someone verify the claims and photos on this blog? http://daryllang.com/blog/4421 218.166.192.84 (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google Maps/Street View might be someplace to start. It includes labeled markers for businesses (though they are sometimes a teensy bit off on the exact locations). 64.184.253.134 (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remember we can't add original research based on blog posts to the article. Fletcher (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New poll

I am not a regular contributor here but just saw this new TIME poll that may improve the article more with a national view.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Title ?

Hey all,

I'm a little concerned about the title. It doesn't strike me that Park51 would pass WP:COMMONNAME. Two questions for the community;

1) Does anyone agree we need retitling?
2) Does anyone have suggestions for a new title?

Thanks all! NickCT (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it needs a renaming because all of the more "straightforward" names are listed as redirects to this page, and each of those "straightforward" names has some problems. A straightforward name from the perspective of the Wikipedia user would be "Ground Zero mosque", but that would be an inappropriate name for the article (it's not at Ground Zero, but two blocks away, it's only partially a mosque, etc.) Likewise, Cordoba House would also be inappropriate (I changed the name from this myself) because the people who are sponsoring this project have stopped using this name to describe the project, in response to criticism of that name. Park51 is the only realistically neutral name for the page, because this is what the people promoting the project are calling it themselves. I fear if the name is changed in order to be more "straightforward", it would probably also be changed to something slanted and biased instead of respectful of the facts. Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Zachary Klaas - I appreciate your argument and agree with a lot of what you're saying. The issue is though, that your position might clash with WP:COMMONNAME. While I'd agree that "Ground Zero Mosque" might not be "accurate", if it is the most commonly used name, it is the correct name (as dictated by WP:COMMONNAME). I can only find a few RS referring to the site as Park51; hence this appears to be an uncommon name and should be changed.
Neutrality is less of a consideration in titling than is WP:COMMONNAME NickCT (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree strenuously. If the article is entitled "Ground Zero Mosque", it empowers people who believe that a project partially including a mosque which is actually not located at Ground Zero is properly so called. People who log on to Wikipedia to get reasonably unbiased information on the building and the controversy will instead be subjected to an article which already delivers the right wing's view in its very title. If they type "Ground Zero Mosque" into the search box, they will get this article, so I think the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME is clearly observed - but it would be a huge victory for hyperconservative hypocrites if the actual article was retitled to fit their ideological biases. Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Naming this article "Ground Zero mosque" would be akin to renaming "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" as "Obamacare" or renaming "Republican Party (United States)" as "The Party of No". In alll three cases, there's already a redirect, and that's plenty to send people searching using a colloquial/politicized name to the correct page. Newsboy85 (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

s versus z

Just a quick note...in British English, "organisation" and "Islamisation" are spelled correctly in that form. In American English, these words are spelled with a "z". Please note that thus, these words are not spelled incorrectly on English Wikipedia and should not be "corrected". Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Park51&oldid=379825311"