This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
This phrase - 'some 9/11 families found the proposal deeply offensive because the terrorists who committed the September 11 attacks were Muslim' - does not make sense. It has been copied and pasted from the NY Daily News article referenced, in which the sentence, despite lacking internal logic, has its meaning made clear via quotations that reveal the thinking behind the sentiments of the families. I suggest that the sentence is either expanded, or ends at 'offensive' (and cut 'deeply', it adds nothing). As it stands, it sounds it's saying there is some self-evident truth in the soi-dissant offensiveness of the proposals. Joshua Mostafa ( talk) 01:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
this page needs a controversy section due to the fact that, according to CNN, 52% of New Yorkers are against the construction of the Mosque due to the fact that they see it as and Insult to Injury. the "injury" refering to the 9/11 attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emigdioofmiami ( talk • contribs) 23:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
The article says Soho Properties is "Muslim run" but provides no source substantiating that claim. Also, the language "Muslim run" seems to suggest that it is operating as a division of an Islamic religious organization, rather than that it just happens to be owned by a Muslim individual or family. Could you imagine an article on Wikipedia that said Viacom was "Jewish run" because Sumner Redstone is Jewish? Or NYC is "Jewish run" because Michael Bloomberg happens to be Jewish? It's ludicrous and offense and definitely not NPOV. Mobius1ski ( talk) 16:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The section entitled "Academia" refers to the opinion of Stephen Prothero, a professor of Religion at Boston University. The article says that he opposes the mosque -- but this is incorrect. He supports its construction, as can be seen in his article on the CNN website, which was called "Ground Zero mosque is good for America and New York".
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/19/my-take-ground-zero-mosque-good-for-america-and-new-york/
195.229.237.43 ( talk) 01:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest that some 9/11 photo be added, as the 9/11 event is integral to this article.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 01:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
hi there,
I took some images of the old factory building, however some of the images I uploaded still need to be stitched into panoramic shots, which would give nicer views of the whole building. I put in the request in the Commons a while ago, unfortunately months later still nothing has happened, I don't know why. If you know anyone who can help, please let them know. cheers. Gryffindor ( talk) 21:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Kudos again to Fletcher. As you can see here, the Economist just used the pic of the Cordoba House site that you helped me with, and put in the article!-- Epeefleche ( talk) 00:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
One of Newt's quotes that's been widely covered (that's actually available through links in the article; just not included in the article itself) is There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia.
Even ignoring the fact that a prominent politician is declaring that members of some demographics have different rights than others, based on their background... it's been covered by numerous news agencies (in addition to all the major talk show hosts; by some as inspirational words, and by others to demonstrate their opponents).
Not trying to ruffle any feathers on what's already a touchy subject. I just think the article could include quotes that show how strongly people feel about it (particularly when they're so well-documented, including in the links already provided). Not doing it myself because I prefer suggesting potentially controversial edits on discussion pages instead.
209.90.134.192 (
talk)
03:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
The that the article is already overtly biased against the mosque, and any further additions of content supporting this viewpoint will further unbalance the article. I'm against the addition of this quote as I can't see any particular benefit to the article as a whole with its addition given the above. Perhaps editors should spend their time fixing the blatant POV issues in this article instead of continuing to make it an attack page on the building. elektrik SHOOS 07:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Am I the only one who finds it strange that some of the news reports and books indicate an uncertainty as to which plane the plane parts that landed on the building came from?-- Epeefleche ( talk) 19:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that the article is way too long for its, I suppose, "Number of sections". Specifically, the "Opposition" and "Support" sections are way too long for what they're trying to say. Yes, I realize that it's important to quote the opinions of people personally or otherwise involved with the mosque thing, but I get the idea that a whole lot of people are on either side of the issue after reading the dozenth firefighter's say. -- Bozwaldo ( talk) 23:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I have just deleted all the quotes from random people, please don't add anymore.-- Endosentric ( talk) 01:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I indicated above why it was not appropriate for you to delete material that is highly relevant to the article, and RS-supported (as well as in controversy). Thanks.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 02:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
OK everyone, sorry that I've caused this bother. So I just read WP:QUOTE, and see that just a lot of quotes don't themselves cause any reason for their removal. I still would personally prefer if there weren't as many, but now that I've read the relevant material, I'm Editor-ly OK with them being there. Bozwaldo ( talk) 02:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
File:World Trade Center, NY - 2001-09-11 - Debris Impact Areas.svg
is not much use on it's own, it needs to clearly show where cordoba house is located in relation to the WTC site.-- Endosentric ( talk) 23:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
It is important to not just eliminate words and footnotes that we do not like and to add at the same time blogs that aren't reliable. I am adding info back. Please discuss before removing it again.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 02:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Here's a useful news item for this article. Use it if you can. Kingturtle ( talk) 19:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
there is a trace of violence and symbolism in every religion. this is not about opinions, and your remarks clearly are opinions.the imam and people behind the project clearly indicate their reasoning behind the "cordoba" name. and FYI , the church you are speaking of was purchased and remodeled into a mosque,not "built on the ashes of a church"
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)
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)
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)
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)
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) |
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)
Sorry about the accidental rollback; just a result of trying to browse my watchlist on my phone. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
About 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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. elektrik SHOOS 19:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
However, if one RS states how it knows what it knows (with a direct quotation from the party in question), and another RS stating the opposite does not, that represents a clear difference in the credibility of the two claims. -- Mr. Billion ( talk) 18:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, we should include the fact that Khan said that the claim of a 9/11 timeline for the building is "absolutely false" because that is clearly germane to the issue of whether or not there is a 9/11 timeline for the building. -- Mr. Billion ( talk) 18:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
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: [3] (In a May 5 WSJ Blog, she was also quoted as expecting the project to take three years: [4]) 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: [5] 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. -- TheOther Bob 03:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [11] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
OK, Zachary Klaas, a step-by-step discussion of what you call "specious changes":
Fat&Happy ( talk) 20:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
This phrase - 'some 9/11 families found the proposal deeply offensive because the terrorists who committed the September 11 attacks were Muslim' - does not make sense. It has been copied and pasted from the NY Daily News article referenced, in which the sentence, despite lacking internal logic, has its meaning made clear via quotations that reveal the thinking behind the sentiments of the families. I suggest that the sentence is either expanded, or ends at 'offensive' (and cut 'deeply', it adds nothing). As it stands, it sounds it's saying there is some self-evident truth in the soi-dissant offensiveness of the proposals. Joshua Mostafa ( talk) 01:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
this page needs a controversy section due to the fact that, according to CNN, 52% of New Yorkers are against the construction of the Mosque due to the fact that they see it as and Insult to Injury. the "injury" refering to the 9/11 attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emigdioofmiami ( talk • contribs) 23:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
The article says Soho Properties is "Muslim run" but provides no source substantiating that claim. Also, the language "Muslim run" seems to suggest that it is operating as a division of an Islamic religious organization, rather than that it just happens to be owned by a Muslim individual or family. Could you imagine an article on Wikipedia that said Viacom was "Jewish run" because Sumner Redstone is Jewish? Or NYC is "Jewish run" because Michael Bloomberg happens to be Jewish? It's ludicrous and offense and definitely not NPOV. Mobius1ski ( talk) 16:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The section entitled "Academia" refers to the opinion of Stephen Prothero, a professor of Religion at Boston University. The article says that he opposes the mosque -- but this is incorrect. He supports its construction, as can be seen in his article on the CNN website, which was called "Ground Zero mosque is good for America and New York".
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/19/my-take-ground-zero-mosque-good-for-america-and-new-york/
195.229.237.43 ( talk) 01:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest that some 9/11 photo be added, as the 9/11 event is integral to this article.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 01:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
hi there,
I took some images of the old factory building, however some of the images I uploaded still need to be stitched into panoramic shots, which would give nicer views of the whole building. I put in the request in the Commons a while ago, unfortunately months later still nothing has happened, I don't know why. If you know anyone who can help, please let them know. cheers. Gryffindor ( talk) 21:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Kudos again to Fletcher. As you can see here, the Economist just used the pic of the Cordoba House site that you helped me with, and put in the article!-- Epeefleche ( talk) 00:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
One of Newt's quotes that's been widely covered (that's actually available through links in the article; just not included in the article itself) is There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia.
Even ignoring the fact that a prominent politician is declaring that members of some demographics have different rights than others, based on their background... it's been covered by numerous news agencies (in addition to all the major talk show hosts; by some as inspirational words, and by others to demonstrate their opponents).
Not trying to ruffle any feathers on what's already a touchy subject. I just think the article could include quotes that show how strongly people feel about it (particularly when they're so well-documented, including in the links already provided). Not doing it myself because I prefer suggesting potentially controversial edits on discussion pages instead.
209.90.134.192 (
talk)
03:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
The that the article is already overtly biased against the mosque, and any further additions of content supporting this viewpoint will further unbalance the article. I'm against the addition of this quote as I can't see any particular benefit to the article as a whole with its addition given the above. Perhaps editors should spend their time fixing the blatant POV issues in this article instead of continuing to make it an attack page on the building. elektrik SHOOS 07:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Am I the only one who finds it strange that some of the news reports and books indicate an uncertainty as to which plane the plane parts that landed on the building came from?-- Epeefleche ( talk) 19:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that the article is way too long for its, I suppose, "Number of sections". Specifically, the "Opposition" and "Support" sections are way too long for what they're trying to say. Yes, I realize that it's important to quote the opinions of people personally or otherwise involved with the mosque thing, but I get the idea that a whole lot of people are on either side of the issue after reading the dozenth firefighter's say. -- Bozwaldo ( talk) 23:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I have just deleted all the quotes from random people, please don't add anymore.-- Endosentric ( talk) 01:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I indicated above why it was not appropriate for you to delete material that is highly relevant to the article, and RS-supported (as well as in controversy). Thanks.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 02:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
OK everyone, sorry that I've caused this bother. So I just read WP:QUOTE, and see that just a lot of quotes don't themselves cause any reason for their removal. I still would personally prefer if there weren't as many, but now that I've read the relevant material, I'm Editor-ly OK with them being there. Bozwaldo ( talk) 02:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
File:World Trade Center, NY - 2001-09-11 - Debris Impact Areas.svg
is not much use on it's own, it needs to clearly show where cordoba house is located in relation to the WTC site.-- Endosentric ( talk) 23:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
It is important to not just eliminate words and footnotes that we do not like and to add at the same time blogs that aren't reliable. I am adding info back. Please discuss before removing it again.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 02:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Here's a useful news item for this article. Use it if you can. Kingturtle ( talk) 19:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
there is a trace of violence and symbolism in every religion. this is not about opinions, and your remarks clearly are opinions.the imam and people behind the project clearly indicate their reasoning behind the "cordoba" name. and FYI , the church you are speaking of was purchased and remodeled into a mosque,not "built on the ashes of a church"
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)
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)
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)
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)
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) |
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)
Sorry about the accidental rollback; just a result of trying to browse my watchlist on my phone. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
About 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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. elektrik SHOOS 19:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
However, if one RS states how it knows what it knows (with a direct quotation from the party in question), and another RS stating the opposite does not, that represents a clear difference in the credibility of the two claims. -- Mr. Billion ( talk) 18:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, we should include the fact that Khan said that the claim of a 9/11 timeline for the building is "absolutely false" because that is clearly germane to the issue of whether or not there is a 9/11 timeline for the building. -- Mr. Billion ( talk) 18:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
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: [3] (In a May 5 WSJ Blog, she was also quoted as expecting the project to take three years: [4]) 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: [5] 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. -- TheOther Bob 03:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [11] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
OK, Zachary Klaas, a step-by-step discussion of what you call "specious changes":
Fat&Happy ( talk) 20:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)