This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cologne Central Mosque article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Cologne Central Mosque has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The main problem with this article is the title. For one, we do not have a name for the mosque. Second, this article mentions very little about a "controversy," so "controversy" may not belong in the title at all. The article should be titled the name of the proposed mosque.-- Sefringle Talk 04:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
If there is an architectual design proposal image, that should be added to this article.-- Sefringle Talk 08:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sefringle, after your comment, I spent the past hour rewriting the article, but now I see that you completely rewrote it yourself. It will take me even more time to put in my changes without stepping over yours. Misheu 08:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Sefringle, you were the one who decided to rename the article so there would be no mention of "controversy", so I didn't realize it was a neutral word. The problem is that the "controversy" section is now POV - it lists only anti-mosque opinions. That's why I called it "resistance", but if you can think of a better word, even better Misheu 08:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, the height of the spires is important to the article, eurabia has no connection. bless sins - eurabia has to do with muslims, not arabs. other edits i'm rephrasing. 'muslim penguins' has nothing to do with the topic. Pro Cologne has ties to (extremist) right wing parties in europe, but parties which are nonetheless in parliament. Misheu 05:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
"racist demagoguery" - I stand corrected. I had made a mistake and not checked the source text.
Last revert - Karl Meier, what was the problem with the article? Misheu 06:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Here is the full text: Bless sins 15:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
However, others believe that the mosque in the city's Ehrenfeld district, just two miles from the Gothic spires of Cologne Cathedral, will foster, rather that heal, divisions. "It's not a popular plan," said Joerg Uckermann, the district's deputy mayor. "We don't want to build a Turkish ghetto in Ehrenfeld. I know about Londonistan and I don't want that here."
Mr Uckermann is part of a curious coalition of protest that has united Jewish intellectuals and neo-Nazis.(emphasis added) Leading the charge is Ralph Giordano, a prominent Jewish author, who wrote recently that Germany was witnessing a "clash of two completely different cultures" and questioned whether they could ever be reconciled.
Stating that he had received death threats for his opinions, he added: "What kind of a state are we in that I can face a fatwa in Germany?"
Giordano is NOT a Jew. Even according to the Nuremberg "Race" laws he would be (and was) considered a "half-Jew". He is not religious, never was, and considers himself an atheist. He has never referred to himself as being Jewish either. As the epithets "Jew" ior "Jewish" are inaviably used to either, depending on the user's own stance, discredit a person's point of view or give it more credibility, its usage is intellectually dishonest. Giordano being a Jew or not has NOTHING to do with his views regarding the Ehrenfeld mosque. I do nor intend to start a fruitless "war of deletion". However, I strongly suggest that Giordano is NOT introduced as "Jewish" here (or anywhere else, for that).
Tiritomba ( talk) 10:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi KM, please ask your question here. Also please clearly state what objection you have against my edits. Bless sins 21:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Bless sins. My question has already been asked above, but I of course don't mind repeating it: What organization that describe itself as neo-Nazi has actively been opposing the construction of the Mosque? If you can't mention a name of any such neo-Nazi organisation, then I must remind you that we are not here to mindlessly parrot the opinions of a journalist from the Telegraph, especially not regarding very controversial issues, such as calling anyone "Nazis". We are required to write our articles according to NPOV. The Journalist and the Telegraph are not. -- Karl Meier 06:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Edits such as these ( [1]) remove sourced content. Can someone explain this? Bless sins 03:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
According to Bekir Alboga, leader of interreligious dialogue of DITIB, the line between frank debate and racist demagoguery is not so clear. "This is like thinking from the Middle Ages,” he said, “and it is sending the racists to the barricades.
Arrow740, you ask others to join talk, how about you did that yourself? Please present your objections here. Bless sins 18:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem is a lot of the sources contradict each other. [2] does not say "DITIB tried to lower the height of the minarets as a compromise." It actually says "Plans to reduce the height of a planned mosque in the cathedral city of Cologne were dropped on Wednesday after objections by the architects." In addition, this source: [3] states: "DITIB has rejected suggestions that it lower the mosque's minarets, planned to rise 55 meters, or its dome. Alboğa said: "It's a fact that fear of Islam has risen by 20 percent in the last two to three years... The churches no longer enjoy credibility and are losing many members. Both of them have portrayed Islam as an enemy in order to gain some control over their flocks." As for your lower edits, they are just name calling; you seem to have tried to stick the words "racist" or "neo-nazi" as many times as possible after all objections to the mosque. First of all, that is just POV. Second, it is not accurate according to the sources. Yahel Guhan 03:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Response:
Bless sins 02:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem with the Alboga statement is that in the way it is presented in the NYT, it is not intelligible what he actually means
According to Bekir Alboga, leader of interreligious dialogue of DITIB, the line between frank debate and racist demagoguery is not so clear. "This is like thinking from the Middle Ages,” he said, “and it is sending the racists to the barricades.
What does "so clear" mean? That's not clear in the Times piece, it doesn't become clear in our article. The same goes for the actual quote: "This is like thinking ..." What is like thinking ...? What is sending the racists to the barricades? (That the Middle Ages have nothing to do with all this, is just an aside.) The problem is that the NYT piece is notoriously uninformed (as it wrongly calls the atheist Giordano a victim of "religious persecution"). I will look whether I can find the quote in context and in German and get back with what I find. Str1977 (talk) 09:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The link to the Chicago tribune story "Mosque project stirs concerns about the integration of Islam in Germany" appears to be defunct (as is often the case with newspaper websites). Part of the story can be found at this reliable source, and more can can be found at various not so reliable sources: [11], [12].
Bless sins ( talk) 18:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain why you are removing the reference of neo-Nazis? Bless sins 15:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, Yahel Guhan, what's the problem?
We discussed the exact same issues here, and I explained everything to you. Yet you are now going back to the same old reverting, despite the fact that the issues were settled. Bless sins ( talk) 06:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I can read perfectly fine. The content is red, because the order of the sentences was changed, but no content was deleted. I want the neo-nazi reference removed, I think I made that as a clear necessity for the purpose of NPOVing this article. Yahel Guhan 08:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:Cologne Mosque project/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. This article is tagged as a future building. I would wait till it is completed then renominate. Tom ( talk) 21:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
The real problem is the whole crap of this building! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.33.233.173 ( talk) 09:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
There appears to be no informaton on if prayer calls from the minaretts are going to be amplified and if yes, how loud. I think that plays a role in acceptance or rejection. How many metres or kms will they travel? Info is always more important than POV.
On another level, I wonder if the mosque controversy has contributed to the cicrumcision decision. Can judges be so neutral to disregard such a big and long debate if not controversy? 144.136.192.18 ( talk) 04:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Cologne Central Mosque. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ksta.de/html/artikel/1209912089325.shtmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
It is absolute nonsense to qualify this mosque as "neo-Ottoman" in style. Nothing, absolutely nothing about it is neo-Ottoman. It is a modernist building that one may or may not like, but to qualify it as neo-Ottoman is absurd. The Çamlıca Mosque is neo-Ottoman, for example. The Şakirin mosque in Istanbul and Dalokay’s mosque in Islamabad are modernist, as is this one. 71.233.135.2 ( talk) 23:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cologne Central Mosque article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Cologne Central Mosque has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The main problem with this article is the title. For one, we do not have a name for the mosque. Second, this article mentions very little about a "controversy," so "controversy" may not belong in the title at all. The article should be titled the name of the proposed mosque.-- Sefringle Talk 04:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
If there is an architectual design proposal image, that should be added to this article.-- Sefringle Talk 08:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sefringle, after your comment, I spent the past hour rewriting the article, but now I see that you completely rewrote it yourself. It will take me even more time to put in my changes without stepping over yours. Misheu 08:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Sefringle, you were the one who decided to rename the article so there would be no mention of "controversy", so I didn't realize it was a neutral word. The problem is that the "controversy" section is now POV - it lists only anti-mosque opinions. That's why I called it "resistance", but if you can think of a better word, even better Misheu 08:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, the height of the spires is important to the article, eurabia has no connection. bless sins - eurabia has to do with muslims, not arabs. other edits i'm rephrasing. 'muslim penguins' has nothing to do with the topic. Pro Cologne has ties to (extremist) right wing parties in europe, but parties which are nonetheless in parliament. Misheu 05:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
"racist demagoguery" - I stand corrected. I had made a mistake and not checked the source text.
Last revert - Karl Meier, what was the problem with the article? Misheu 06:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Here is the full text: Bless sins 15:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
However, others believe that the mosque in the city's Ehrenfeld district, just two miles from the Gothic spires of Cologne Cathedral, will foster, rather that heal, divisions. "It's not a popular plan," said Joerg Uckermann, the district's deputy mayor. "We don't want to build a Turkish ghetto in Ehrenfeld. I know about Londonistan and I don't want that here."
Mr Uckermann is part of a curious coalition of protest that has united Jewish intellectuals and neo-Nazis.(emphasis added) Leading the charge is Ralph Giordano, a prominent Jewish author, who wrote recently that Germany was witnessing a "clash of two completely different cultures" and questioned whether they could ever be reconciled.
Stating that he had received death threats for his opinions, he added: "What kind of a state are we in that I can face a fatwa in Germany?"
Giordano is NOT a Jew. Even according to the Nuremberg "Race" laws he would be (and was) considered a "half-Jew". He is not religious, never was, and considers himself an atheist. He has never referred to himself as being Jewish either. As the epithets "Jew" ior "Jewish" are inaviably used to either, depending on the user's own stance, discredit a person's point of view or give it more credibility, its usage is intellectually dishonest. Giordano being a Jew or not has NOTHING to do with his views regarding the Ehrenfeld mosque. I do nor intend to start a fruitless "war of deletion". However, I strongly suggest that Giordano is NOT introduced as "Jewish" here (or anywhere else, for that).
Tiritomba ( talk) 10:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi KM, please ask your question here. Also please clearly state what objection you have against my edits. Bless sins 21:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Bless sins. My question has already been asked above, but I of course don't mind repeating it: What organization that describe itself as neo-Nazi has actively been opposing the construction of the Mosque? If you can't mention a name of any such neo-Nazi organisation, then I must remind you that we are not here to mindlessly parrot the opinions of a journalist from the Telegraph, especially not regarding very controversial issues, such as calling anyone "Nazis". We are required to write our articles according to NPOV. The Journalist and the Telegraph are not. -- Karl Meier 06:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Edits such as these ( [1]) remove sourced content. Can someone explain this? Bless sins 03:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
According to Bekir Alboga, leader of interreligious dialogue of DITIB, the line between frank debate and racist demagoguery is not so clear. "This is like thinking from the Middle Ages,” he said, “and it is sending the racists to the barricades.
Arrow740, you ask others to join talk, how about you did that yourself? Please present your objections here. Bless sins 18:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem is a lot of the sources contradict each other. [2] does not say "DITIB tried to lower the height of the minarets as a compromise." It actually says "Plans to reduce the height of a planned mosque in the cathedral city of Cologne were dropped on Wednesday after objections by the architects." In addition, this source: [3] states: "DITIB has rejected suggestions that it lower the mosque's minarets, planned to rise 55 meters, or its dome. Alboğa said: "It's a fact that fear of Islam has risen by 20 percent in the last two to three years... The churches no longer enjoy credibility and are losing many members. Both of them have portrayed Islam as an enemy in order to gain some control over their flocks." As for your lower edits, they are just name calling; you seem to have tried to stick the words "racist" or "neo-nazi" as many times as possible after all objections to the mosque. First of all, that is just POV. Second, it is not accurate according to the sources. Yahel Guhan 03:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Response:
Bless sins 02:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem with the Alboga statement is that in the way it is presented in the NYT, it is not intelligible what he actually means
According to Bekir Alboga, leader of interreligious dialogue of DITIB, the line between frank debate and racist demagoguery is not so clear. "This is like thinking from the Middle Ages,” he said, “and it is sending the racists to the barricades.
What does "so clear" mean? That's not clear in the Times piece, it doesn't become clear in our article. The same goes for the actual quote: "This is like thinking ..." What is like thinking ...? What is sending the racists to the barricades? (That the Middle Ages have nothing to do with all this, is just an aside.) The problem is that the NYT piece is notoriously uninformed (as it wrongly calls the atheist Giordano a victim of "religious persecution"). I will look whether I can find the quote in context and in German and get back with what I find. Str1977 (talk) 09:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The link to the Chicago tribune story "Mosque project stirs concerns about the integration of Islam in Germany" appears to be defunct (as is often the case with newspaper websites). Part of the story can be found at this reliable source, and more can can be found at various not so reliable sources: [11], [12].
Bless sins ( talk) 18:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain why you are removing the reference of neo-Nazis? Bless sins 15:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, Yahel Guhan, what's the problem?
We discussed the exact same issues here, and I explained everything to you. Yet you are now going back to the same old reverting, despite the fact that the issues were settled. Bless sins ( talk) 06:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I can read perfectly fine. The content is red, because the order of the sentences was changed, but no content was deleted. I want the neo-nazi reference removed, I think I made that as a clear necessity for the purpose of NPOVing this article. Yahel Guhan 08:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:Cologne Mosque project/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. This article is tagged as a future building. I would wait till it is completed then renominate. Tom ( talk) 21:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
The real problem is the whole crap of this building! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.33.233.173 ( talk) 09:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
There appears to be no informaton on if prayer calls from the minaretts are going to be amplified and if yes, how loud. I think that plays a role in acceptance or rejection. How many metres or kms will they travel? Info is always more important than POV.
On another level, I wonder if the mosque controversy has contributed to the cicrumcision decision. Can judges be so neutral to disregard such a big and long debate if not controversy? 144.136.192.18 ( talk) 04:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Cologne Central Mosque. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ksta.de/html/artikel/1209912089325.shtmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
It is absolute nonsense to qualify this mosque as "neo-Ottoman" in style. Nothing, absolutely nothing about it is neo-Ottoman. It is a modernist building that one may or may not like, but to qualify it as neo-Ottoman is absurd. The Çamlıca Mosque is neo-Ottoman, for example. The Şakirin mosque in Istanbul and Dalokay’s mosque in Islamabad are modernist, as is this one. 71.233.135.2 ( talk) 23:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)