Talk:Park51/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Park51. 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 3

Apologies

Sorry to Bless sins for deleting your earlier change...I thought you had cut the O'Hare quote, which would have bothered me because it was a well-known and forceful defense of Park51 from a religious liberty point of view. Apparently you just separated it out into a different paragraph. If you look at the edit summary you'll see why I got that impression - it looks like you cut the info about the other two theology profs because it isn't highlighted in red... Zachary Klaas (talk) 03:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This is good faith? I wonder what bad faith looks like.

"Non-dropframe (talk | contribs) (Reverted good faith edits by 206.174.169.32; Removing user's opinion. AGF. (TW))"

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Park51&diff=next&oldid=384994832

This is vandalism, not a good faith edit. It was also the latest addition after this same IP user created a string of numerous and obviously bigoted vandalism entries and had them taken off by the reviewers who are now watching this page for that sort of thing.

Please, however much you would like to concede good faith to everyone, please do not call edits like this "good faith" edits. Zachary Klaas (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I was just checking up on the perpetrator of some more bigoted vandalism to this page (see User talk:Eddyychmn). Wikipedia is now apparently blocking this person indefinitely from using the site for replacing the entire content of the page with "racist rantings/death threats" (an appropriate characterization). What he replaced the entire content with was "I hope this place gets bombed. Death to Muslims! Death to Islam! Muhammad was a perverted and demented pedophile, and Arabs are primitive barbarians." Though Wikipedia ultimately made the correct decision in blocking this person, at first here's what was said to the person who wrote what I just quoted: "Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Park51 has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary." Use the sandbox for testing? Did people really think that was a typo? "Oopsie, hit the wrong button and spewed vitriolic hatred instead of respectfully quoting something from CNN..."

Here's something else that was written to edify our vandal about what's expected: "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Park51. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing." At least that one recognized it was vandalism...but again with the "take it to the sandbox" advice. Why, was it ineffective vandalism? Would it have been better after testing? Maybe a focus group could fine-tune the vandalization into something really spectacular?

This kind of "neutral" response to a fire-breathing hatemonger is really discouraging. I'm glad, at least, that at least they had the common sense to block this person. Zachary Klaas (talk) 03:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

perhaps {{uw-vandalism3}} would have been a better warning for the guy since it assumes bad faith Dayofswords (talk) 10:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Please identify which quotes you intend to delete before doing so.

The "quote farm" tag seems to me to be a declaration of intentions. We've seen certain editors raise this "the page is becoming a quote farm" point over and over again on the talk page, and I imagine they have specific quotes they want off the page - probably the vast majority of them will be cut from the "Support" section. In order that this be a transparent and fair process, I request that any editors intending to follow the instructions of the "quote farm" tag please identify which quotes they wish to cut, and whether they intend to transfer the information somewhere else, and why.

I think all the quotes we have are necessary for people to get a good idea of what was involved with the Park51 controversy. But maybe a convincing argument can be made. Please make these arguments here. Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

We have our first example of how the quote pruning is going. Fletcher wants to cut a quote by Deval Patrick because he's a (current, liberal) governor (in nearby Massachusetts). He defends including Sarah Palin, though, because she's...um...well, someone who was once nominated to be Vice-President, and who is no longer governor of (very remote) Alaska. But hey, she's conservative, so good enough, right? Zachary Klaas (talk) 02:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not worth troubling ourselves too much over these quotes the controversy section really needs a rewrite, rather than just pruning. But compare the Sarah Palin article vs. Deval Patrick. Palin may not deserve the attention, but gained a national platform through her VP candidacy and is considered a possible presidential candidate. I don't think Patrick is very well known on a national level, which is what I meant by noting the coverage of his statement was from a local source (agreed, calling the Globe a "local paper" had the wrong connotation, which wasn't what I intended) . You also seem to be reverting even minor non-controversial edits I make. Please remember it's not personal; we're trying to improve the article here. Fletcher (talk) 03:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not personal, agreed. I thought numerous edits you made were problematic, though, and I'm going to challenge them when I think they're baseless. I'm sure you're also aware that one of the elements of this story has been that stray bloggers and radio shock-jocks with extreme right-wing ideas are given national platforms for their views about the Park51 controversy (Pam Geller, Robert Spencer, Mark Williams, Glenn Beck, etc.), no matter how little of a "mandate" they've received for those views. How is it that the elected and current governor of another northeastern state would not have standing to speak about this? Also, if memory serves, the flights that hit the WTC buildings took off from Boston. Zachary Klaas (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't decide who gets a platform. We observe".

I observe that Deval Patrick was given a platform by voters in the state of Massachusetts. I further observe that the media have given stray bloggers and radio shock-jocks a platform for no good reason. And obviously no one has fought harder to get the opinions of those stray bloggers and radio shock-jocks into this article than I have, as they as germaine to how this controversy got started, so if you're suggesting that I'm getting Patrick represented rather than those people, that's obviously not true. Zachary Klaas (talk) 11:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

We're not here to complain about the media or right their wrongs. Patrick is not a prominent national figure at the moment, and as you note, his platform is relegated to Massachusetts. However, there are some quotes in the Opposition section from not well known figures. I'll look at that later. Fletcher (talk) 12:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, we're not here to complain about the media. I am here to complain about this article's presentation when you pull stuff like this. Patrick is the current elected official representing the government of another northeastern state, specifically, the northeastern state from which two planes took off on September 11th to hit the World Trade Center. If anyone is entitled to speak about events relating to Islam and terrorism, it would be someone who represents the state containing Logan Airport, from which those planes took off. Massachusetts is therefore involved in this, and he has standing to be represented in this article. The comments of the Governor of Massachusetts do have relevance - again, far more relevance than those of the former vice-presidential candidate of the national Republican Party (she was defeated in that election, remember?) who resigned as the governor of a state which is, in any case, remote from New York and not remotely involved with the events of 9-11. I can see my way clear to allowing that Palin is part of this controversy despite all that and deserving of representation in the article. Why can't you concede the same to Patrick? Do you have some kind of political problem with him, perhaps? Zachary Klaas (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a complete non-sequitur to say that Massachusetts leaders have some special expertise or prominence on matters of Islam and terrorism because the planes that hit the WTC took off from Logan. The two concepts are not logically connected. Taking off from Logan was just an operational detail, very minor in importance compared to the devastating outcome of the attack. Likewise, we don't need the opinion of the CEO of American Airlines, just because AA was involved in the attacks. Despite the connection of the company (or the state) there is nothing that makes the CEO (or Deval Patrick) a notable commenter on the mosque. What makes them notable is if they can substantially shape or contribute to the debate, which would include local leaders in New York, and national leaders or experts whose comments are reported nationally or internationally. But you don't have to believe me - it's really an empirical question: do reliable sources give Massachusetts leaders special prominence because of the planes taking off from Logan? I see no evidence this is the case. If you're worried about bias, you will note I've left the Bill Clinton quote in, since Clinton is a prominent national figure (not in the news as much these days, but still). Fletcher (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

CBS News reported Patrick's support of Park51. Is that better than that "local paper" they have in Boston? Patrick is enough of a national figure to be reported about, with respect to this specific controversy, by the national news. Zachary Klaas (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's another CBS news page reporting on Deval Patrick and his lowly Massachusetts governor's opinion on this national controversy. Note that the Park51 topic is introduced by the second of many questions asked to Patrick in the video interview, but the headline on this page is "Gov. Deval Patrick on NY Mosque: 'Stand Up For Religious Freedom'": that was the big story in this interview in CBS News's eyes. Zachary Klaas (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, my earlier point was (as I think you probably know) that if sufficient screening were done at Logan, there would have been no Ground Zero in New York City. So issues about how to handle terrorism and what to do about Islamic radicals have a special relevance in Massachusetts. Zachary Klaas (talk) 02:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Fletcher, if you insist on deleting one of the references for the Bill Clinton quote, is it fair game for me to remind you of this edit if someone comes along and cuts the quote later because it's "poorly referenced"? Zachary Klaas (talk) 03:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

By all means. But in my experience here it is not usually necessary to add multiple sources for one claim. If the claim is complicated different sources could needed to support each part of the claim, or if the claim is controversial different sources could be used to show a broader spectrum of opinion on the topic. But if it's a factual matter of what someone said, one should be enough. Fletcher (talk) 04:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Sarah Palin or Deval Patrick should be here. If we come up with a better "controversy" section and their view fits a particular argument or section then perhaps a mention of their name might be appropriate (without a full quotation). Other than Obama, Rauf, and a few others I don't see how anyone else needs to be quoted. The article is about PARK51. We could include eloquent opinions from hundreds of notable people but it doesn't improve the article. Jcc1 (talk) 07:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you won't be satisfied until the Controversy section contains no clues as to why people found this to be a controversy. If you cut, for example, Sarah Palin's outrageous and incendiary Twitter comment (as you just tried to do), it makes the debate over Park51 appear like a genteel discussion of reasonable alternatives, instead of the right-wing hatefest and media circus it often was (and is). Zachary Klaas (talk) 13:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Note, I also resisted an attempt by Fletcher to delete a quote by a Hamas leader - so don't try and portray me as slanted because I say this. Hamas is also an organization with no real connection to this controversy (just like Sarah Palin), but what the Hamas leader said was obviously relevant to this debate because actors in the controversy routinely cast Park51 as a defender of Hamas (and the quote demonstrated that Hamas sees Park51 establishing in its proposed location as consistent with its own aims, so that's an important statement...even if my alleged "hidden agenda" is to defend Park51 at all costs, I can see that's a relevant quote to the controversy, and a comment which stoked the fires of this controversy as much as Palin's idiotic "refudiate" tweet.) Zachary Klaas (talk) 13:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a point of order. Zachary Klaas, can you please try to tone the rehtoric(sp) down a notch in here. Folks are more likely to take your suggestions seriously since this is not a forum for expressing your opinions, but how to improve the article. Thanks, --Threeafterthree (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

At this point, I'm the one who's largely defending the article in its current form. It's a group of editors who have expressed a desire to prune out quotes from the "quote farm" and do a "rewrite" to the Controversy section that are trying to make these "improvements", and I am trying to alert editors to the biased nature of some of these "improvements". I'm all for making legitimate improvements to the article, but I don't think that's what's at issue here. The plan, as comments by other editors on this Talk page have made clear, is to do a recasting of the Controversy section in order to present the controversy according to a number of topics understood by them to be the legitimate topics. The topic of how right-wing propagandists have used Park51 as a political tool to manufacture a controversy is rejected as one of their legitimate topics for consideration. The topic of how the media has covered this controversy is rejected as one of their legitimate topics for consideration. Right now, the article reflects both the role of right-wing propagandists and the depth of coverage by the national media (including reports on what Deval Patrick thinks about this controversy by the national media). I think this plan to cut out several highly relevant topics from this article does the article as a whole a disservice, and is part of an agenda on their part to portray opposition to Park51 as somehow the epitome of middle American reasonableness rather than one side out of many in this controversy. Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

ah, ok. Not sure how that relates to not using rehtoric or overly expressing your opinions in here, but I sort of hear you. When you talk about "defending" an article, and a group of editors and part of an agenda on their part, ect, that concerns me. For better or worse, this project works by consensus. Sometimes consensus is on our side and sometimes not. I am actually surprised that this talk page isn't more populated, maybe this really isn't that passionate a deal :). Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Zachary seems to continue to "defend" this article -- resisting any changes and keeping it as is (except perhaps by adding MORE quotes). Including some aspects of politics and the media is fine, but it needs to be concise and not contain OR. Editors are so frustrated with Zach and his agenda that they are leaving the page alone, so it remains an unorganized slew of quotations by various people and a false dichotomy of "support" vs "critics" (when in fact most people agree with the rights of the property owners but also think it should not be built). Jcc1 (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

May I just point out that umpteen editors on this page have told me at various points that the onus of making the case for a change falls on those making the change? It's hypocritical to suddenly have a different value system about that when the points that are in the article already are the ones you want to change. And your frustration does not make your case - you could just as easily be frustrated that your biased view of this controversy isn't prevailing as you are with me. I do leave edits alone when they are properly justified. Many of yours haven't been. That's the issue. Not confronting that and continuing your ad hominem attacks on me is not useful to your cause. Zachary Klaas (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, excuse me if I'm wrong about this, but I believe I was the one who added the language to this article pointing out that the majority opinion of Americans is that there exists a legal right to build - before I did so, the article one-sidedly portrayed the viewpoint of Americans as being that of unqualified opposition to the project. So now all of a sudden discovering this "false dichotomy" is kind of rich, if you ask me. Zachary Klaas (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Sic

It looks like the use of "sic" is our latest political football on this page. I remind people of what the sic article has to say about the usage of this term:

It is used when writing quoted material to indicate that an incorrect or unusual spelling, phrase, punctuation or meaning in the quote has been reproduced verbatim from the original and is not a transcription error (i.e. it appeared thus in the original). It is normally placed within the quoted material, in square brackets and often italicized—[sic]. Alternatively it can appear after the quote in parentheses (round brackets)—(sic).

There are two choices for how to do this. Yes, the first is more popular. However, I believe the second is more reasonable on this page because if we include [sic] inside the quotation marks, this leaves the impression that Sarah Palin corrected her own English in this tweet. She did not, and presenting "sic" in this manner would probably be interpreted by many Wikipedia readers as if she did.

Please note, the quotation from our Wikipedia "sic" article specifically says that it may be used in parentheses and after the quote rather than within the quote. Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok Zach. A cogent argument. If you want to do the "alternative" way, go ahead. A couple counter points though -

1) Re "Yes, the first is more popular." - I would say it's hugely more popular. I can't think of the last time I enountered the "alternative" usage.

2) Re "presenting "sic" in this manner would probably be interpreted by many Wikipedia readers " - Frankly, I'm not sure we have to be considerate of WP readers who don't have a basic grasp of notations of this manner.

On another point Zach, in this edit summary you suggested I was purposely trying to mislead the reader. That seems like a serious lack of WP:AGF. An apology would be nice. NickCT (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Nick, when people accuse me of bias, not just on particular editing points, but overall as a person, that seems to be considered okay by a lot of people here, but when I suggest that maybe your edit carries with it a bias, you get bent out of shape and demand an apology. Anyway, having said that, I can certainly extend an apology in this case. You clearly are taking my argument seriously now (which didn't appear to be the case before this point), so my suspicions were in error and I apologize sincerely for having had them. Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok Zach. Accepted. Thanks for the maturity. 1 or 2 quick points -

Re "which didn't appear to be the case before this point" - I don't think you really clearly expressed your argument before this point. We probably could have avoided rancor by taking this to talk_page immediately. I'd point out that I was trying to use sic the "normal/popular" way and you were arguing for the less common alternative, which really put the onus on you to explain why.

Re "bias" - If you are human you probably contain some bias. There's nothing wrong with being biased, and in a lot of cases it's probably a good thing. It's rarely a good thing though to be confrontational.

You seem to really like this particular article. I'm not lodging an accusation here, but you might benefit from reading WP:OWN. NickCT (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

There are numerous editors in here who "like" this article as much as I do, Nick. They're here, as I am, because they feel strongly about this particular topic being covered fairly. And (when they're in a mood to work together with me and others) those editors have made fine and lasting contributions to the article. As far as "confrontational" goes, I think "You seem to like this particular article, I'm not lodging an accusation here..." is pretty thinly skating on the line of confrontational discourse. Also, "thanks for the maturity" implies I wasn't being mature before. To my knowledge, I have never made any similar claim about other editors on Wikipedia. Zachary Klaas (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, I made the point about what it said on the Wikipedia sic article numerous times in my edit summaries. It's not my fault if you didn't go to read the page as I advised several times in those edit summaries. Things seemed to get resolved only when I copied the text of the sic article in here for you to read on the Talk page. I don't know what that says about the state of our discourse, but there you go. Zachary Klaas (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Re - "is pretty thinly skating" - Mate, this is almost comical. Continuously interpretting everything I say as being a confrontation is itself confrontational. Sit back, relax, smell the flowers. Do you really think it was entirely unfair of me to cite WP:OWN? If I said "Thanks for the maturity", is it not possible I meant just that?

Re - "feel strongly about this particular topic being covered fairly" - Well at least you're willing to admitt you're editting with a particular POV.

Re - "Things seemed to get resolved only when I copied the text of the sic article " - Citing the exact text you're reffering to is helpful. Saying "Just read this policy. It supports my position", is sometimes unreasonable.

Anyway, this discussion has strayed from the article. We could probably collapse it. NickCT (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Nick, you're saying a concern with fairness means straying from neutrality? I thought we were concerned with neutrality because we want to be fair. That comment really says a lot to me - do you really see neutrality as something different from being fair? If so, that really confirms a lot of what I've been saying on here for a while about how this article is sometimes edited. Zachary Klaas (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, how is "Continuously interpretting everything I say as being a confrontation is itself confrontational" not something which applies equally well to you? And how is calling me "comical" not confrontational? You know damn well what you're doing, and should apologize for it. Zachary Klaas (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that suggesting you "feel strongly" about something being covered neutrally, means you have a strong POV about what the "neutral" position is.

"not something which applies equally well to you" - It does! Absolutely. Note though, I'm not continually suggesting that comments like "thanks for the maturity", have somekind of hidden meaning intended to insult.

Did I call you comical? Or did I call the way you continuously percieve confrontation comical? NickCT (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Skirt that line, Nick. Skirt that line. "Or did I call the way you continuously percieve confrontation comical?" (Emphasis added.) Zachary Klaas (talk) 16:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read WP:CIVIL. Zachary Klaas (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Zachary Klaas - You have me hitting my head against a wall here. You simply don't seem to be getting the point, and you continually prove that fact by getting hyper-confrontational about everything. I think I'm done with this conversation. NickCT (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

History of Muslims Building Mosques in Conquered Cities

Islam has a history of building new mosques in conquered lands and/or converting religious temples of conquered lands into mosques. Examples of this are the Hagia Sofia in Istanbul (formerly the St. Sofia Church), the Mezquita in Cordoba (once a Catholic church) and the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount where the Jewish Holy of Holies once stood. The Cordoba House is yet another example of this. Imam Rauf wants to build the Islamic Center on the site of Islam's biggest success to date in its attempt to conquer America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.15.194.174 (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggest we close this section per WP:FORUM. NickCT (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Nick has a tendency to not want to discuss something whenever it appears someone might have an opinion, no matter how based in facts it may be...he's just horrified by the concept of an opinion, and believes the having of them always compromises neutrality. You'll see other instances of that attitude on the talk page, no doubt. I have a different perspective - I don't mind discussing opinions, but I'm concerned that they should be based on facts. The opinion you've expressed, our anonymous IP editor, is certainly one which the editors of this page have come across many times. You shouldn't be under the impression that we're unaware of this argument. This "victory mosque" argument has been present in discourse relating to Park51 since the beginning of the controversy. We represent this on the page, in fact, especially where Newt Gingrich's comments are concerned.

My concern is not that you have an opinion, but rather that it seems selectively based on only certain facts. You're saying that Islam has a problem with conquering and converting religious temples, but there are notorious examples of Christians conquering and converting Muslim mosques into churches. In particular, during the Crusades, the Knights Templar took over the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and converted the Dome of the Rock to a church (not back to a synagogue...the Christians claimed it for themselves), erecting a gigantic cross on the site (as well as adding new construction to the site). The Knights Templar remained at al-Aqsa for 88 years, at which point Saladin's troops retook the site and made the Dome of the Rock again into a mosque.

Here's a book reference which explains that Muslims at that time saw the conquering of this site by Christians as a "exceedingly humiliating and painful experience for the conquered."

In 1992, Hindu nationalist rioters also destroyed the Babri Mosque, which had been located in its location in Uttar Pradesh since the 16th Century, because they believe it is located on the site of the birthplace of one of their deities, Lord Rama. Despite a commitment from the Supreme Court of India that the mosque would not be destroyed, Indian officials looked the other way as roughly 150,000 rioters demolished the mosque. Hindu nationalists have suggested replacing the mosque with a Rama Temple (see this for an example of that demand being made).

In short, what I'm suggesting is that Muslims are certainly not alone in that sort of behavior. Even if it were possible to connect that kind of extremist Islam with Imam Rauf (which I don't think we have any basis for doing), there seems to be little more cause for branding Islam as a religion which "conquers and converts to mosques" than there is for calling Christianity a religion that "conquers and converts to churches" or Hinduism a religion that "conquers and converts to temples". Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

While the NOTFORUM policy isn't always strictly enforced, there's no call for a personal attack on Nick. I doubt he is "horrified by the concept of an opinion" - maybe he even has opinions of his own! - but he realizes the talk pages are for discussion of the article, not the topic of the article. It is not about neutrality but preventing the talk pages from being endlessly sidetracked by flame wars about the topic. You can believe if this were tolerated the flame wars would dominate the talk pages. Besides, your argument forgets that Hindus and Christians don't convert Burlington Coat Factories into religious sites; only Muslims do this. It's 20 degrees on Park Place in January, you better pray for the warm embrace of Allah, because you ain't getting no coat. Just sayin'. Fletcher (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It seemed to me the initial IP poster was intending to add some content to the article on this topic, and I'm trying to convince that person not to do this, because we've confronted the issue before, there are some words about "victory mosques" in the article already, and the argument that only Muslims do this is shaky. That's on the topic of what to do about the article, not just shooting the breeze about the topic.

As for your unbelievable comment that only Muslims convert "Burlington Coat Factories" into religious sites, I'll just let Google do my talking for me on that topic. Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It seemed to me you responded at much greater length than was necessary to point out the article already discusses the subject, and were rude to Nick. And your search results fail to show any Burlington Coat Factories converted by non-Muslims. The Coat Factories have mind numbing deals at unbelievable prices. But not on Park Place. Not anymore. Fletcher (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

There was a small clothing store by my house that was torn down and replaced with a small Baptist church. I can't provide a source for this (being utterly non-notable, local and trivial) but it still happened. But I suggest we close this thread down entirely now as it will not end anywhere with improving the article. elektrik SHOOS 02:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you know that Fletcher's comments were designed to show how little he thinks of the points I made, or even of the necessity of making the points. Only he and his friends know what points need to be made, and they're ready to shut anyone down, any time, if they have the audacity to make those "unnecessary" points anyway. They're not here to meet argument with reasoned argument. They're here to tell people why Wikipedia has a rule about folks like them. I took our IP poster seriously, in a way they are unwilling to take people generally, and they're mad at me because I did. Don't pretend this is about the discussion being unproductive for "improving the article". The article won't even begin to improve until people make an effort to understand the subject of the article. Zachary Klaas (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

About the conquered land thing "Islam has a history of building new mosques in conquered lands", i recently watched a video that was in response to an attack ad very similar to what OP is saying [1](yes it's a liberal show, but the point in it is logical), it explains that they aren't victory mosques and as with most religions, they need a place of worship so they build some thus mosques in conquered lands, just as every other religion has done. another video [2](go to 9:20) about how religious buildings have been destroyed(or basically converted) to build the new occupying religion's houses of prayer and various religions have done this, again, this makes sense that they would build mosque in where they now live.(one building was in your example was mentioned in the second video). Nothing indicates those were victory mosques. Furthermore this is very forum-ish as there is nothing that can prove this, nothing been suggested to add to the article and i kind of think, OP being an IP, just a soapboxing passerby voicing their opinion Dayofswords (talk) 04:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think WP:AGF means that we assume the point was made in order to improve the article. I disagree with the content of the proposed improvement. Nevertheless, to assume that someone who takes the time to post a point on the talk page criticizing the existing tone of the article is not interested in improving the article is to make a judgment about their motives which isn't appropriate. I think it's rich for some editors on here to constantly suggest I'm impugning their good faith, but then turn around and come up with "neutral" reasons to actually impugn the good faith of someone else. Zachary Klaas (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

AGF only requires we not assume the IP was willfully disregarding policy; it's entirely possible he or she was simply unaware of the policy, entirely understandable of someone who has not yet been sucked in by the wiki-vortex. I don't see any expressed proposal to change the article so this discussion should be closed per Dayofswords. Fletcher (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the fact that I took the time to respond to this person was not wholly without its uses - I note that a legal decision about the Babri Mosque has just been handed down in India. The decision is that Hindus and Muslims must share the site, with two thirds of the site being given to the Hindus for the construction of their Ram Temple, and the remaining one-third being given to the Muslims for the reconstruction of mosque facilities. I note that someone besides me has already linked the Babri Mosque controversy at the bottom of this article, presumably because it's a similar "hallowed ground" controversy involving Muslim religious facilities, but reasonably also because it's an example where non-Muslim fundamentalists were involved (as opposed to Muslim moderates in the Park51 controversy), and because arguably the Ram Temple will be, if/when constructed, a "victory temple" of sorts built on the site of a previously existing mosque. Zachary Klaas (talk) 11:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously

I would like to point out that the use of the word "mosque" in this article has been discussed several times before on this page. To wit:

I backed away from this article previously because I thought I was getting a little too WP:BATTLEGROUND-y, but the one thing that bothers me on talk pages more than anything is repeated discussions without any apparent regard to past decisions. I'd ask all of you to at least browse over these previous sections, where consensus appeared to be created regarding the use of the word "mosque" in this article. Thanks. elektrik SHOOS 16:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It is annoying, but people do arrive late to the discussion, and some people are new to Wikipedia and don't know there are past discussions to check or how to go about that. Perhaps a more genteel suggestion to the newcomers might be in order. (We seem to be able to give those genteel suggestions to hardcore right-wing vandals who try to wreck the page, you'd think we would be able to be nice to well-meaning newcomers as well.) Zachary Klaas (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

We do have the {{roundincircles}} template already at the top of the page, so the 'genteel suggestion' has already been made. We can't be made responsible for people who ignore the header. elektrik SHOOS 22:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

So it is. There's a lot of stuff up there...it may have gotten lost in the shuffle. :) Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Come to think of it, a FAQ would be helpful for this page as well. If someone wants to help build it, this would be great. elektrik SHOOS 22:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Electrik, we've just reached an argument (made by Hauskalainen, see the most recent point above) which is not a restatement of earlier points. Just to make sure you're aware that the mere fact that we've previously discussed something does not mean a new and important point can't be made. Zachary Klaas (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you. I just think that precedent should be taken into consideration when rediscussing it. elektrik SHOOS 04:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Move proposal

Calling the proposed building "Park51" isn't helping our readers. It's just skirting the issue.

There's a proposal to build an Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero, and the article title should help the reader understand that this is the subject of the article.

Of course, we do need to clarify why there's opposition to the proposal. We also need to report on the various names the project has had.

We can at least try to figure out whether the building is intended is an interfaith center, an Islamic cultural center, or something else. I think we won't have too much difficulty determining whether the building as a whole should be called a mosque; but if there is dispute over that, then it should be really easy to describe that dispute fairly.

So I suggest we give this article a longer, more descriptive title such as Prosposed Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd recommend you search through the archives, as there have been move discussions before that have not gained consensus. Not expressing an opinion either way, but recommending for insight as it's been discussed at least twice before, and this page has already been moved twice (once without consensus). elektrik SHOOS 23:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, see here where Uncle Ed argued for the same move. My suggestion was to use "Mosque near Ground Zero" but the discussion closed keeping the status quo. Fletcher (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

We've debated this before. Park51 seems like the best compromise between policies WP:NPOV and WP:COMMONNAME. Prosposed Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero would be wildly counter to WP:COMMONNAME. NickCT (talk) 01:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Stay - "skirting the issue"? i don't see how.. 1. Park51 is the current name of the building, if it changes, we'll change it. 2. the page isn't hard to find(google found it as a top result[3]. 3. Ground zero is an actual term, it's not limited to the former location of the world trade center, so that too ambiguous if you ask me.

"We also need to report on the various names the project has had" See first sentence, it has only had 2. as to clarify why there's opposition to the proposal, it's in the article, a page title should not cover this. and it believe it's already approved, it just needs funding. last thing, wikipedia is for spreading information to everyone, we're not trying to bring them in with the title of the articles Dayofswords (talk) 03:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Strongly oppose the new name is too long, and not used in sources. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Actual Ground Zero mosque

Shouldn't this term be reserved for the mosque that was inside the WTC and demolished on 9/11? Hcobb (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:COMMONNAME, & WP:COMMONNAME again. On wikiepdia we don't assign terms to subjects as we see logically fit. We assign terms based on how they are used by the majority of reliable sources. Anyone who know how to do a basic search engine test will quickly like that GZM is overwhelmingly used to refer to Park51. NickCT (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

protection

I upped the protection level to PC for all but reviewers. I assume there are enough reviewers here that this won't be a problem for legit & consensus edits.

I'm not taking a position on whether the appellation "Ground Zero Mosque" should or should not be in the first line, but if it is, I think we should point out that it's inaccurate. Scare quotes don't quite do that, as they could be used for any nick name. — kwami (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not a mosque...and the illogicality of calling it a mosque needs to be explained

The proponents do not call the center a mosque. A mosque is a place specifically constructed for prayer; this center is not being built for that purpose though it will contain a place for prayer. But having a place for prayer does not make a building a mosque. My local hospital contains a chapel but nobody in their right mind would call the hospital a church.

Given (a) the very logical difference between a mosque and a cultural center, (b) the fact that a building containing place of prayer is not necessarily a mosque, and (c) that the center's own backers do not call it a mosque, I regard it as quite appropriate for the article to expose explicitly the misuse of language.

I added a small piece of text to this effect yesterday but someone deleted it.

What do other editors think? --Hauskalainen (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The proponents do not currently refer to a mosque. They previously did refer to a mosque, but changed the wording to "prayer space." Many reliable sources, including ones that support the project, have referred to a mosque. For example the Boston Globe, known as a more liberal paper, references a "mosque and cultural center" in a recent report. We should not censor the word mosque just because the project's current spin has eliminated that term. But I agree with you we should not refer to the entire project as a mosque, just as we would not call a hospital a church because it has a chapel. We can say it is a cultural center (or community center?) and mosque, which reflects how most sources use the term. Fletcher (talk) 03:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think someplace used very often for Muslim prayer and services is functionally a mosque. I said this when we were all arguing about the "Pentagon Mosque", which people were saying was a "non-denominational chapel" as if this blunted the point that the chapel was used every day of the work week for Muslim prayers and on Fridays for full services. Mysteriously no one thought that a place where all this Muslim religious activity was going on was a dangerous thing to have at a location not just "near" Washington's Ground Zero, but actually at the Ground Zero location. We agreed to call it a mussallaah because it was obviously more important than a broom closet where people unaccountably go to pray, but for some reason it isn't agreed that it rises to the level of a full mosque. But I thought then that "Pentagon Mosque" is an accurate description of such a place, and by that logic, I should also accept that Park51 involves a mosque...so I pretty much concede the point, though I do get why people argue the point. If we follow the convention we set in the "Pentagon Mosque" discussion, however, we should fully describe that the site involves religious facilities which will be used quite often for many of the same functions that a mosque would be used for. We also put "Pentagon Mosque" in quotes, so I would assume that the quotes will stay firmly around "Ground Zero Mosque". Zachary Klaas (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I was not following any discussion earlier but I would strongly argue that you CANNOT in all sincerity term a non-denominational chapel as a "mosque". It just isn't one. I am not saying that we should not reflect what people are saying... merely that the article should point out that, despite the label that has been attached by "the outraged" and now in the media, what is planned for Park 51 is a prayer space and NOT, in fact, a mosque. Moslems pray several times every day and often it is in the same place (at work, at school, at home) and I I think we can definitely say that these are not mosques or even "functional mosques" as you put it. It simply is not true. --Hauskalainen (talk) 11:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The level of usage and purposes of usage of the facilities at the Pentagon were so high that I really think you're not right about this. And I think the level of usage and purposes of usage of the facilities at Park51 would also be so high that I think you're not right about that. What people are objecting to is that Muslims have some place dedicated for regular and extensive religious usage proximate to Ground Zero. I thought (and think) that there is considerable hypocrisy in this claim, because a similar site dedicate for regular and extensive religious usage existed at the Pentagon (not near it) and because, as it also turned out, a site of regular and extensive religious usage existed at the World Trade Center itself before the attacks (not near it). I've made every effort to document both of those things. In both cases, we're not talking about places that one or two Muslims were merely allowed to get that darned praying out of their system every once in a while before going back to work - they were both places where it was acknowledged a large number of Muslims held regular and coordinated prayer sessions. Anyway, if you want to fight to get the word Park51 "mosque" changed to "prayer room", I won't oppose you. I do see where you're coming from. I think, however, the main issue remains that people in Washington damn well know Muslims use the Pentagon for regular and extensive religious gatherings and had no problem with it, and people in New York City damn well knew Muslims used the WTC for regular and extensive religious gatherings and had no problem with it. That's what's relevant to the controversy. Zachary Klaas (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, look at mosque as Wikipedia currently describes that term. Point in favor of not calling these examples mosques, the entirety of these buildings (in all of these cases) is not dedicated to religious worship. Point in favor of recognizing that functionally, all of them are mosques, such buildings are described as places where people would pray five times a day (pretty clearly true for all the cases), and a subset of buildings described as mosques - not all of them - have Friday religious services (which the "non-denominational chapel" at the Pentagon had and has). Another definition floating around out there is that mosques usually have minarets. It may be worth mentioning that Park51 as planned would not have one. Zachary Klaas (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record...anyone who's been paying attention at all knows it's been modeled on the JCC and YMCA all along. If you want to call those a 'church' and a 'synagogue, go ahead. This article is incrediby misleading, imo, but clarifying edits are consistently reverted. Flatterworld (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Are the JCC and YMCA places where one does what is done in a synagogue or in a church, and as often as one does it in a synagogue or church? If so, I'd agree. If, for example, a YMCA had a room in it where every Sunday, a minister gives a sermon and people come to hear it, get on their knees to pray at a certain point in the liturgy, and sing a bunch of hymns, I'd have no compunction saying there was a church in that YMCA. Same thing if a cantor sang and a rabbi opened up a big Torah scroll, etc. If people do what they do at a synagogue in a room at the JCC, I'd call that room a synagogue. Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so basically it's called a "Community Center" by its advocates and a "Mosque" by its critics. We all know the structure boasts a "prayer room" as part of it community fuction. What sort of prayer room? For instance, if I wanted to rent the space on Sunday mornings for Protestant Christian services, would that be OK? What if it was rented by a local community group for a Passover Seder? Maybe I'm a Mormon and want to hold a community outreach at the facility - is that acceptable? Or does the "prayer" taking place inside the center need to strictly accomodate the beliefs of Islam? Is it intended to teach and proseletize Islam to it's vistors? Eiether of the latter would indicate a place for Muslim meditation and prayer (i.e. a Mosque). I think an example of a hospital chapel was sourced earlier. Keep in mind, hospital chapels (at community facilities) generally promote plurality. Rarely are they more than an ornante room with a few seats and colorful candles. No specific religion is generally assumed or implied. Is the same true with the Park 51 "Community Center"?HBCALI (talk) 23:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. Do you? Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think most of America, especially non-Muslim New Yorkers might want clarification. If it walks like a Duck, quacks like a duck, then... HBCALI (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The duck standard is fine by me, but are you applying it to the JCC and the YMCA? Are religious facilities there open to anyone who wants to use them? They provide non-denominational chapels, these creations of the Jewish and Christian communities? Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

And bear in mind what I said above - I'm a critic, but I think we can call these sites "mosques". That suggests I agree with the "duck" standard. :) Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Most stories I read indicate the "prayer space" would be dedicated to Muslims, while the larger community center would be non-denominational. Interestingly, the NYT has an article today which suggests a compromise may be in the works that would make add a non-denominational prayer space in addition to the Muslim space. This idea was proposed by Julie Menn, chairwoman of the community board, at the end of August. You'll note that Menn, who voted in favor of the project, repeatedly refers to the project as including a mosque. Fletcher (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm certainly more of a critique of Park 51 than an advocate. As such, my reservations haven't been completely addressed. The media reports that the project is terribly under funded with a multi-million dollar price tag. So why New York? Why the fight to build where real estate prices are among the highest in the nation, especially if you can't afford it? The Imam could propose a "center" in Montona or Idaho for half the price - while still accomplishing his goal of promoting tolerance and education. So if his motive was truely peace and tolerance, why MUST the center be built on "ground zero"? Why would it "inflame" the Muslim world if it was moved to another location? The article should address if alternate sites have been selected. And if no alternate exists, then that should openly be indicated in the article. To me, without alternate location options, it truely appears to be a very political and theologicaly motivated issue. The veil seems to be getting increasingly thin. HBCALI (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It could be that people would like their church to be in their own neighborhood. Do you go to church? How far do you travel to get there? If someone wanted to move the church closer to your house, would it be helpful? If they had to move it to another state than the one you live in, would that be a problem for you? Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Understood and your point is well taken. However, we're talking about a proposed "community center" - not a church that's attended regulary by the faithful. On the contrary, the developers of Park 51 have never intended the project to be a "Mosque" dedicated to the teachings of Shia Islam (or have they). That's the whole point of our discussion. So to answer your question, if my church couldn't afford to rebuild a bigger facility in my area (and relocated to where it could serve the community better), then I would be part of the greater good by finding another church around the corner. I think anyone of any faith (with sincere motives) would echo that sentiment. A persons faith is not defined by the structure they gather in. So unless you have other deeply rooted motives, is it worth dividing the community you intend to serve?

You see, by definition a pluralistic community center would benefit ANY community regardless of location. Thats my prior point when I mentioned Montana or Idaho. In other words, if Park 51 is not intended to be a soup kitchen for homeless Christians, or designed to offer affordable after school care for young Jewish children, then what is it? What segment of the non-Muslim New York community does it aim to serve through it's "community" function? Look, truthfully I don't really care if the real estate is used for a Mosque or a Wallmart. I just think (along with greater America), that the developers need to be sincere about the backing for the project and it's ultimate purpose near the ground zero location. HBCALI (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC).

You should read the article before commenting because your comments contain many factual misconceptions. The project is both a community center and mosque where regular worship would take place. It is not on ground zero. The project's leader is a Sufi not a Shia. He is imam of another mosque in lower Manhattan and claims there is not enough prayer space in the existing facility. One can debate their choice of location on Park Place, but notion that people should have no attachment for the community they have been living in, and should just move away, is bizarre. If someone came in to your community from out of town and attacked your faith and motivations, this is what you would do? Run away to Idaho? Fletcher (talk) 22:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey Fletcher, I'm just trying to understand both Park 51 the Wiki project better. You stumbled across a previous conversation I was having with Zachary Klaas and took the entire substance out of context. Please read our previous threads in context before jumping defensively into the discussion with guns blazing. I would also request that you allow Zachary Klaas to respond (assuming this not a Wiki Sock puppetry incident). If I have misconceptions about Park 51, this is appropriate forum to discuss those prior to editing. Amature Wiki editors would have made those changes to the article prior to discussion. Also, assuming the ajoining article is entirely "factual" is presumptious. This is a highly charged issue open to several points of view. In effect, rhetorical arguments aimed at specific users are not germane to the development and understanding of the project. Let's work together on this. Thanks. HBCALI (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Fletcher is right about a few things he said there. Imam Rauf is definitely Sufi, not Shia. It's also pretty clear that the site is intended to be used pretty regularly and extensively for religious purposes, as much as any church would be. The point about running away to Idaho also sounds like one I'd make. But I'm not sure he addressed the points you made above, though.

If you're asking what I think here, I agree, moving "around the corner" might not be out of order - but that makes it sound like, say, just moving farther away than the next nearest mosque to Ground Zero would be enough for people. The Masjid Manhattan mosque is two more blocks away (four blocks from Ground Zero). So suppose the Park51 project gets moved to be five blocks away from Ground Zero. Good enough? Crisis averted? I'm going out on a limb to guess probably not. Okay, ten blocks? Twenty? A hundred? Brooklyn? New Jersey? Do we have to get as far away as Idaho?

For me, the litmus test of reasonable opinion about this controversy is "if the Park51 project needs to be moved, how far away is far enough away?" Reasonable people will consider that question. People who are in it to slam Muslims will just say "I don't care, just not there" because they want to continue the controversy, not to find a peaceful resolution that protects the rights of Muslims to practice their religion. Zachary Klaas (talk) 05:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to have to repeat myself but all I am asking is for the article to recognize quite early on in the running order that there is a difference between a mosque and a prayer space (or what Christians might recognize as a "chapel") which reflects a significant difference between what the proponents call it and what the opponents call it. I am NOT calling for the the word "mosque" to be wiped from the article (or anything close to that), nor to imply that it will not be used by Muslims for prayer. Zachary Klaas needs to cool it a bit.--Hauskalainen (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool what? You and Fletcher are the ones insisting on your way on this issue. I said I'd leave your edit alone if you made this distinction between a mosque and a prayer room, but that I don't think it's a great distortion if Park51 is referred to a mosque because it will function as if it were one, and that I wouldn't interfere with edits changing the article back to say that either. As I see it, it's you vs. Fletcher here, you're the ones who are taking sides. I'd prefer it if you can come to some kind of agreement that reasonably satisfies each of you, and I think that's possible on this topic. Zachary Klaas (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this may have been touched on already in the extensive discussion that has preceeded, but I think the key fact here is that, according to my understanding, the "prayer room" does not fit the technical definition of a "mosque" in that it is not a single building dedicated strictly to Islamic worship, non-muslims will be allowed in the building (which is not permitted in mosques), and it will not be build with a dome and minaret in the prescribed fashion of a mosque. That said, in this instance "mosque" is a convenient, albeit misleading, shorthand because, as I understand it, the prayer room is for muslim prayers. The purpose of the prayer room is to make up for the lost room that was placed in the WTC before they were attacked, which resulted in the overcrowding of other nearby mosques and Islamic prayer centers. The defining point, I think, is that the term "mosque", is defined by muslims, and if they say it is not a mosque, then we must defer to their definition.

It's possible that it was referred to as a "mosque" early on by the developers because it *was* convenient shorthand and they did not expect the backlash, given that it's not even on ground-zero, since it can neither it be seen from ground-zero nor can ground-zero be seen from the building, and there as a prayer center already in place significantly closer. But given the reception, it's also quite possible that the foundation that is funding the community center changed the wording to the longer, but more technically correct, "community center and prayer room" from the previous "community center and mosque". Given that the term "mosque" (a la "ground-zerp mosque") has such an incendiary meaning within the curent cultural climate in America, I feel that is it responsible to portray this information in as non-biased a manner as possible. As such, I recommend doing away with the term "mosque" (and especially "ground-zero mosque") in exchange for the more cumbersome yet accurate "Park51 community center and prayer room close to ground-zero". Unless I have misread or misunderstand the definition of "mosque", I don't see why that conclusion is incorrect or in any way unacceptable. 204.86.148.225 (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Lucius

1. A mosque is "a place of worship for followers of Islam." There are various interpretations of Islam and I have seen no "technical definition" that draws a precise line between a prayer space and a mosque. I have seen no evidence that a mosque must be a freestanding structure devoted entirely to Muslim worship. Presumably you have sources to back up this opinion.

2. It's not true that non-Muslims are forbidden from mosques. That may be true in some schools of thought, but not all. See mosque#Non-Muslims in mosques.

3. I see no evidence domes and minarets are the "prescribed" fashion of mosques. They may be common and customary but that doesn't prove they are required.

4. It's not "possible", but rather certain, that the backers referred to it as a mosque before the controversy made that term unpalatable (see my sourced response to Hauskalainen below).

5. On Wikipedia we go by what the spectrum of reliable sources say; we do not defer to what adherents of any one religion, or other "official" sources, say about a topic (assuming they can even be sourced, which you have not done). We may indeed consider such sources, but we have no obligation to them. Further, I should note that what the particular Muslims behind this project label it is not necessarily what Muslims in general would label it. Indeed, Park51#Muslims has many quotes of Muslims referring to a mosque.

6. While we should avoid bias, many reliable sources have described the project as including a mosque. It would be just as biased to censor the word mosque because the project backers stopped referring to it that way. Note also, the article does not refer to the project as the "ground zero mosque", but notes that some people have referred to it that way. There is a difference. Fletcher (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that the developers originally referred to it as "a mosque"?--Hauskalainen (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC).

See here where El Gamal refers to the mosque ("With respect to the mosque, which will take up only a small portion of the final space, it's a question of meeting a need.") The Park51 website also referred to a mosque here, but the website has been revamped and it now says" prayer space". I anticipated this change and if you would like I can email you a screenshot of the prior wording (you would have to email me your address first, as I can't send attachments directly through the wiki mail system). Fletcher (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Really is that the best you can do? The second article as you rightly say does not refer to a mosque and the first one ís a reported interview by an un-named writer. We have no way of knowing if the word "mosque" was used as description for the building or as a shorthand for the function of the Muslim prayer space. Personally Í do not see anything wrong with a Muslim prayer space and if one person called it a mosque, so be it. But that does not detract that the vast majority of the developers output does not use the word mosque and for good reason. The building is not dedicated to the function of prayer which a mosque mostly is. The overwhelming evidence is that it is the detractors calling it a mosque. Hence the article really must point out that this is NOT, by definition, a mosque. I see that another kind editor has pointed out that there have been similar objections from other editors to the article giving credence to the idea that it is a mosque. Most of the article is dedicated to the controversy and a tiny piece up front (even if it is encapsulated by just the adverb "inaccuraately" and a note to sourcing does not seem unreasonable. In fact deleting that is UNREASONABLE. I am quite prepared to take this to dispute resolution but please do not try to keep deleting reference to this in the lede.--Hauskalainen (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the way it is currently written ("controversially referred to as the GZM") is sufficient. Perhaps if we are ever able to evolve the controversy section into a list of issues instead of an ever growing stream of quotes, we can add "is it a mosque?" and show all sides of that element of the controversy. In the mean time, since there is some doubt over whether or not it is technically a mosque, the description remains accurate and objective, and not taking a point of view. I appreciate your effort to improve this article so please don't take my reverting your change personally. Jcc1 (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

1. You complain the interview with El Gamal is by an unnamed writer. Not true: The byline at the top of the article clearly says it is by Aziz Poonawalla. The interview presents El Gamal in his own words. You might question if the Beliefnet site counts as a reliable source, but unless you have reason to suspect it is fabricated, for purposes of discussion here it should be good enough to prove that El Gamal considers the project to include a mosque. "With respect to the mosque, which will take up only a small portion of the final space, it's a question of meeting a need." It is clear he is not referring to the building, but to the prayer space as a mosque (the "small portion of the final space").

2. You say the Park51 website does not refer to a mosque, but what I said was that it previously referred to a mosque, then changed the wording to prayer space. Do you doubt me? I said that I could provide screenshots of the previous webpage, but it would be nice if you would assume good faith. When you review the web page, it is clear the "prayer space" (formerly "mosque") is treated as one of various amenities planned for Park 51.

3. You must not confuse the idea that X has a Y with X is a Y. The building may not be a mosque, but it has a mosque within it. So, it may be true that "the building is not dedicated to the function of prayer", but the prayer space or mosque within the building is dedicated to the function of prayer. (I have seen nothing to indicate the prayer space would be used for other things).

4. It is a matter of opinion and point of view whether the term mosque is accurate. Much of the disagreement seems to arise from people interpreting language in a casual fashion, not paying attention to whether the entire structure or a space within that structure is being referred to. From what I have read, the word mosque itself can be interpreted quite loosely, as Muslims have adapted mosques to their local conditions. Mosques can be in grand structures or within cramped basements. This article should keep to a neutral point of view and should not editorialize as to which interpretation is correct (even though sources can be found arguing one way or another). Fletcher (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hauskalainen - though I'm not persuaded by your arguments myself, I think bringing this to dispute resolution is not a bad idea if that's what you think you should do. Having outside editors look at this probably would not be so terrible. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that tempers get pretty short on these talk pages, and perhaps fresh eyes from outside of these disputes would be able to help fashion a real consensus on how to present this (rather than the my-way-or-the-highway approach you've encountered on this issue thus far). Zachary Klaas (talk) 02:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Whose my-way-or-the-highway approach? I'm not the one issuing commands in my edit summaries. Fletcher (talk) 12:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yours in particular, Fletcher. You've been the most adamant that the site is without question a mosque (or has one in it so that's pretty much the same thing). We had a similar dispute over the "mosque-ness", if you will, of the "Pentagon mosque" and the two of us managed to find a way to portray that fairly - I'm wondering why something similar can't happen here. Obviously Hauskalainen has a problem with the term being there and you have a problem with it not being there. But what is it the page really needs to represent? On your side, lots of Muslims will use it for religious services on a very regular basis, and I have not yet heard that prayer room facilities will be open to other faiths (which was different in the "Pentagon mosque" case). On Hauskalainen's side, Park51 as a whole is clearly meant to be accessible by the general public and not just Muslims. Is there a way we can represent this without getting into the "mosque-ness" or "non-mosque-ness" of the site? Also, I have been reading lately that people are pushing the developers to make it so prayer facilities would be equally accessible by all faiths...though it would be crystal-ballish to say anything about that on the page at present, I wonder if the word "mosque" would definitively have to come off the page if the developers agree to this, given that this was the reason given by so many editors previously why the "Pentagon mosque" was not a mosque. Anyway, I'm just saying that maybe the isolation of Hauskalainen as a non-consensus editor, with the mark of Cain for not agreeing with us, could be a tad unreasonable. Zachary Klaas (talk) 02:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I have not said it is "without question a mosque". I have only said it is reasonable to call it a mosque. I said, above, "There are various interpretations of Islam and I have seen no "technical definition" that draws a precise line between a prayer space and a mosque." And: "It is a matter of opinion and point of view whether the term mosque is accurate." Why do you construe this as some kind of gung-ho my-way-or-the-highway approach? I'm saying that we should not editorialize in Wikipedia's voice, that we should not take the point of view of one side of the controversy. Further, I think it is important to distinguish the project from the mosque within it; it is not "pretty much the same thing". It's important that we not refer to the project as entirely a mosque. It is inaccurate to refer to it that way. I'm just astonished some folks lack the reading skills to distinguish between what something is, and what it contains. I've also heard noises about making it an interfaith prayer space (this was Julie Menin's suggestion a while back) and if that were to happen I would support removing the word mosque. I don't know if Islamic law allows an interfaith space to be a mosque, but even if it does, it wouldn't make sense to singularly call it a mosque when it is no less a church or synagogue. To date, however, the prayer space is described as being dedicated to Muslim worship. Hauskalainen gets the mark of Cain for his edit warring, not for having a different viewpoint. He stopped posting to talk (since 9/24) but continues pushing the same change after being reverted by multiple people. Fletcher (talk) 03:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

But you seem to have no concern about whether, say, the 92nd Street Y (Jewish) or YMCAs of Greater New York (Christian) allow other faiths to use their space. I did a web search on the 92nd Street Y site and found that hits for "prayer" only led me to Jewish programming - are people up in arms that other groups are not praying there? There were no hits for "prayer" at the YMCA's site, but "church" produced several links to a Lutheran Church that does "Y After School" programming, suggesting a pretty strong link with Christian churches. No matches on the YMCA site for "synagogue" or "mosque". The most "interfaith" thing I found about these other community centers sponsored by non-Muslim religions was that an employee who works at a synagogue associated with the 92nd Street Y also works at the "Old Church Community Center" in New Jersey. But somehow here the salient point is that Park51 hasn't opened its prayer room up. That's undue weight. Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there any controversy about the location of those facilities? If not, why would anyone suggest they make themselves interfaith? Fletcher (talk) 22:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Only when people irrationally cook up a controversy about those other locations should people be allowed to demand interfaith space at community centers sponsored by a particular religion. Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If you are one of those who thinks that calling this building a "Mosque" is perfectly legitimate, I would like you to show me another example where a building containing a prayer space but used mostly for other purposes has EVER been referred to GENERALLY as a Mosque, a Church or a Synagogue. So far I have seen NO EVIDENCE for this being legitimate use of language and every evidence that it is being used cynically. --Hauskalainen (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, we do not refer to the building generally as a mosque. When we refer to a mosque, it is in context where specifically the mosque is being addressed. For example, it would be misleading to say "some people objected to building the community center" when in fact they were objecting to the mosque. So far as I can tell, no one has objected to the community center per se. Our usage parallels what we see in reliable sources: for example, see a recent New York Times article which refers to a "mosque and community center" or this Washington Post article which refers to a "mosque near New York's Ground Zero". These are both mainstream, left-of-center sources that no one would think of as cynically using the word "mosque" to inflame controversy. Fletcher (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If your argument is true that they are talking about a part of the building and not the whole building then the article then GZM cannot be an alternative name for Park51. These two are not synonymous and GZM then should not be in bold letters.--Hauskalainen (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with that last argument of yours, Hauskalainen. By bolding "Ground Zero Mosque", we're giving the impression that this is a reasonable name for the entire building. Fletcher, I don't think that your argument that there is a mosque in the building, which I basically accept, extends to cover this kind of a change. The bold is generally used on Wikipedia to indicate an accepted alternative name for the subject of the article. The whole point is that this is not an accepted alternative name (or, to put this better, that only one POV in this controversy accepts this as an alternative name.) Zachary Klaas (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the edits Hauskalainen just made are perfectly appropriate. The prayer space is referred to, controversially, as the "Ground Zero Mosque", the whole building is not a mosque, and "Ground Zero Mosque" is debolded. Those are perfectly reasonable changes and I support them 100%. Zachary Klaas (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm ok with this except for a small change as shown in my edit. I've never been insistent that we include the term GZM in the first sentence, only that we be neutral about how we describe it if we do use that term. Fletcher (talk) 01:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hauskalainen please stop removing the word mosque from the lead, if you wish to make the claim that supporters aren't calling it a mosque please bring some reliable sources to the table. Cordoba House themselves alone aren't enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Hauskalainen's behavior constitutes edit warring. NickCT (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Look, we are going round an round in circles. I have no objection to the word "mosque" from appearing in the lead. Only that it should not be in bold (because it is NOT synonymous with the article title and that it should NOT represent that the building is a mosque because that is clearly a controversial attribution and incorrect attribution. The edit that I took out twice implies that this is a non controversial attribute for the project. The reference I added back clearly shows that the project backers do not regard the building as a mosque. They say it is wrong. We have journalists that say it is wrong. And we have others who call it a mosque anyway. Thus it HAS to be represented as a controversial attribution right up front. I am quite prepared to take this to dispute resolution. I am definitely NOT being a disruptive editor as you have claimed. --Hauskalainen (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It's widely reported as a mosque by reliable sources. That they themselves say it's strictly not a mosque and that a few journalists criticise the use of it doesn't override this. Not sure what you mean by things being in bold; Ground Zero mosque is no longer bolded. There may be worthwhile content that could be added to the naming section. You don't seem to understand how to source properly; you can't, for example, use the Hossain piece to source that the building is being named incorrectly--it's just an opinion piece. Also, your edit messed up NickCT's signature. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

"Ground Zero Mosque" is not used in bold. Neither is it used as an article title or subtitle. I've have no freaking clue what Hauskalainen is talking about. He seems to be reading another article or something. I agree that it would be a very bad idea to use it in bold and/or to use it as an article title and/or to use it as an article subtitle. But none of those are in the article currently. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 03:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It was in bold once but we shanged it because, as you say, that was wrong. The issue is that the ONLY source I have seen where the project proposers are supposed to have called the prayer space "a mosque" is actually in one piece of reportage which may just have got it wrong. It is disingenuous to claim that the proposers called it a mosque when the evidence for that is so tenuous and they for sure do not call it a mosque now. To say that the BUILDING is a mosque (which is what the article says currently) is flat out wrong. It is NOT going to be a mosque because a mosque is a building dedicated for the purposes of prayer and collective worship. If you want to be at all accurate you would have to say it contains a muslims prayer space which some have termed "the ground zero mosque". That would be a much more accurate statement. The building itself is not primarily dedicated to the functions of a mosque. Ergo it is not a mosque. --Hauskalainen (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

When "Ground Zero Mosque" was discussed previously I went and took a look at the international media's coverage of Park51, and 5 out of the 6 reliable international sources I found call it a mosque, only the Guardian clarifies that it isn't a mosque. Given the Guardian are saying that it isn't a mosque its not WP:FRINGE and would probably be reasonable to discuss that whether its a mosque is disputed, but I think that is too much detail for the lead. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree, those sources correspond with how we are labeling it here: a community center and mosque. Hauskalainen keeps repeating that the whole building is not a mosque, but we don't say this. Fletcher (talk) 02:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

[4] Can you explain what issue you have with the info about calling the building a mosque? Also, it's the building that's referred to as the GM mosque, not just the prayer space. Again, having an opinion piece that like to source such a statement is problematic; that's why I shifted it down and properly attributed it. Christopher Connor (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Also not sure what "too inflammatory" has to do with anything. No issue with moving the phrase to the end of the first paragraph. Christopher Connor (talk) 03:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

As proposed, the mosque would occupy two floors of the approximately 13 story building, so it is inaccurate to describe the whole building as a mosque. The mosque is just one part of the project, albeit the most controversial part. In the discussion thread above, Hauskalainen's concern was that the term Ground Zero Mosque in the lede sentence implies the whole building is a mosque, even though that's not what we want to say. I agreed to moving GZM out of the first sentence on those grounds. When I read critics of the project, they don't seem to pay any attention to the community center parts of the project, but focus solely on the mosque part. I haven't seen any specific opposition to the community center as such. So I think it makes sense to interpret the critics as objecting to the mosque within the building, rather than the building itself, even if they don't make an explicit distinction. Fletcher (talk) 04:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

This debate is getting cumbersome. Fletcher - I appreciate your point and your personal crusade to get this material removed, but frankly GZM is such common usage that it really deserves to be mentioned in the first sentence. I think we qualify it enough when we say "referred to by some as". If you really are against this, RfC it.

People have been trying to remove this thing for months now, and for months its been put back. We need to get somekind of stability here. NickCT (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. El Gamal himself has referred to the space inside the building as a "mosque". You can also find multiple news sources saying a similar thing. GZM is such a common usage that there's no reason not to mention it in the lead. Mentioning it is different then making it an official title/subtitle... a distinction that should be noted. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Also agreed. I'm just saying the pattern here is that someone finds GZM very offensive and begins adding things like "incorrectly called the GZM, falsely called the GZM, called the GZM by raving right wing fascist pigs," and so forth. Then someone else notices that WP:NPOV requires that Wikipedia only describe disputes rather than participating in them. And we go around in circles again. But if you, Nick and Christopher Connor think this way is workable I won't revert it again. Fletcher (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Allowing "Ground Zero Mosque" in the currently qualified fashion seems to have NPOV to me. Anyone disagree? NickCT (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

People fail to realize that simply because it serves functions other that a place of worship does not mean it is incorrect to label it a mosque. In fact, it is a supermosque, a term that refers specifically to buildings like this one, similar to a 'megachurch'. If you do some research, you will find that there are churches that serve similar purposes for Christians, yet they are still churches, because they cater to a specific religion which they serve to promote, and offer worship services. The people behind the construction have stopped referring to it as a mosque in an attempt to quill the current controversy. AllesJetzt (talk) 04:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

In the lede, change "The proposed facility's design includes a..." to "As inspired by the Manhattan Jewish Community Center, the proposed facility's design includes a ...". That would help clarify what it is and isn't. The head of the JCC has worked closely with Khan, because the goal has always been to create something similar - same as the JCC was based on the YMCA (Young Men's Christian Association). Flatterworld (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Where do visitors remove their shoes?

The Park51 plans are apparently out,[5] so now it should be easy to determine how much of the building is actually a mosque. Where did they put the space where visitors remove their shoes? To my very limited knowledge, you can't wear shoes in a mosque, right? Wnt (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your implication. Are you saying you expected them to produce architectural renderings of the cubbies for Muslims to store their shoes, and that it's therefore not a mosque because there are no drawings of the shoe cubbies? That's a pretty silly argument, if that's what you're saying. Fletcher (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

What I think he is saying, is that areas with a no-shoe policy would be consider mosque-like. But those are architectural renderings, they imply no finalized version of the internal placement of facilities or really any sure detail at all for where things inside will be. Yes you are correct you must remove your shoes when entering a mosque. I believe they already stated there will be a 2-story multifaith(i think that was said) prayer room, weather they will have a shoe policy has not been said(you'd probably have to visit it yourself and find out that when it's done anyways to find out such infomation) Dayofswords (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Rightly or wrongly, I was assuming that for a large number of people to take off and put on shoes during a fairly short interval (before and after the service) requires a fair number of benches, a storage area ... I suppose there should also be a hand-washing station of some sort ... it seems like it would be big enough to show up on the plans. But if the plans don't show the rooms then obviously this won't work. Wnt (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, there aren't any released internal plans yet. Dayofswords (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a nitpick, the multifaith prayer room is considered to be in addition to the mosque, not a replacement. ("The developer, Sharif el-Gamal, has since said he would be amenable to setting aside one prayer space for non-Muslims, as long as it does not mean reducing the size of the mosque." [6]) Fletcher (talk) 02:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The official site states: "a prayer space, intended to be run separately from Park51 but open to and accessible to all members, visitors and our New York community" in its list of facilities - there is nothing there to suggest this is not the 'mosque', and the 'run separately' would tend to suggest it is. Time will tell I guess. ‒ Jaymax✍ 06:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Mosque

To describe Park51, the word mosque should only be used in quotes and then attributed to a source. By any common definition, this building is not a mosque. It is an Islamic community center. Let's please be accurate, regardless of personal religious or political beliefs. Wikipedia is supposed to be much better than Fox News. Jehochman ^Talk 18:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. Many sources and even the owner have described as including a mosque (see interview here where he says "With respect to the mosque, which will take up only a small portion of the final space, it's a question of meeting a need. This mosque will be open to all.") But the whole project is not a mosque, only part of it is a mosque. Fletcher (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Fletcher. I hate FoxNews, but our job is actually try to be fair.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)