Jump to content

Talk:Park51/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

subtle POV pushing

Someone has added these words (which I show in bold) which to me is a subtle form of POV pushing.

The majority of the center will be open to the general public and its proponents have said the center will promote interfaith dialogue.

As most people will realize, there is a subtle difference of tone between "my wife will give up smoking" and "my wife says she will give up smoking. The second version has an implicit suggestion that it may not be true. There may be reasons for saying the latter (based on past statements and actions) but Wikipedia should not employ linguistic tricks to push doubt, especially in controversial subjects, unless that can be justified.

The editor who inserted this claimed this is needed to avoid WP:CRYSTAL, but this project is going ahead and we have no reason to doubt the intent. WP:CRYSTAL also says that it is "not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses" and subtle POV pushing by implying doubt through subtle changes in the text are NOT appropriate. I have reverted the addition. --Hauskalainen (talk) 11:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

(chuckling) "The editor who inserted this" was me. But a quick correction. I didn't insert it, I restored it after Soxwon removed it without explanation.
Personally, I'm for keeping it in. To use your smoking analogy, if your wife says she will give up smoking, WP should report "Your wife says she will give up smoking". Saying explicitly, "Your will give up smoking" somehow suggests that you know for sure your wife will do what she says she will do. That's why it strikes me as a WP:CRYSTAL violation.
You're right we shouldn't doubt your wife's intent, but WP should trust her intent either. Hence, simply saying "this is what she says she will do" is the most WP:NPOV.
Finally, if you read above, you'll note that the lead has been extensively discussed. Please do not make major overhauls to the lead without achieving consensus. Thanks, NickCT (talk) 12:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Soxwon probably agreed with this. We have been here before.Hauskalainen (talk) 12:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Support NickCT to maintain neutral, consensus-built lead. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
How is the text with the attribution its proponents have said more neutral than when those words are omited? Of course the cabal operating here does want a consesus so long as it is a consensus within the group. No consesus can override policy and that is that we write neutrally but reflecting all opinions. As I say, those extra words lead the reader to perhaps cast a distinction between words and deeds and THAT IS POV. Hence we should avoid it.Hauskalainen (talk) 12:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The current lead is OK (if not too "pro-mosque"), but the one suggested above is better. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
This is not the issue. Answer the substantive point please.Hauskalainen (talk) 12:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
@NickCT So why not say thar the planners SAY they will build a community center? If we had to do this this as reported speech everywhere in Wikipedia where we are talking about the future, then this is bonkers. WP:CRYSTAL does not insist that everything has to be in reported speech. No, the reason you want it RIGHT IN THAT SPOT is that YOU want to sow doubt in the mind of the reader that the users of the center might use it for nefarious purposes other than interfaith dialog. As they might. Or might not. We cannot exercise the crystal ball But if you want that in the article you will have to have a reliable source who has thas doubt. Doing it by subtle wording just will not do. If you were really serious about this you would put every reference to a future event in the article as a piece of reported speech. Let's see if you really do want this.--Hauskalainen (talk) 11:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
re "hy not say thar the planners SAY they will build a community center" - In my mind we do this when we say "Park51, originally named Cordoba House, is a planned 13-story Muslim community center". If we had said "Park51 will be a 13-story Muslim community center" that would be a WP:CRYSTAL violation b/c it assumes the place will be built.
re "he reason you want it RIGHT IN THAT SPOT is that YOU want to sow doubt in the mind of the reader" - WP:AGF please. Read my contrib history. You will note that I take many pro-muslim positions. NickCT (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Question about semi-protected status of Park51

I submitted a minor edit yesterday, to fix a typo (replace "told told" with "told"). The edit didn't take effect. Was it blocked?

I see from the Special:Log/protect that the Park51 article is semi-protected [edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) due to vandalism. However, I believe my account meets the criteria for autoconfirmed status.

Two requests:

1) If the edit was blocked, please briefly explain what criteria might not have been met. I don't mind that the article is protected, but I'd like to better understand how this aspect of Wikipedia works.

2) Please consider using your greater access to fix that little typo (replace "told told" with "told"). It's a trivial improvement, but hey, why not? :)

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthias Fischer (talk • contribs) 14:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Corrected the typo; I have no idea about why your edit didn't work though. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Major problem with Lede

The lead states that Park51 (aka the Ground Zero Mosque) is TWO blocks north of the former World Trade Center site. This is false, as the WTC site included WTC Building 7. Park51/GZM is ONE block north of the WTC. Park51 is, approximately, at least two blocks north of the former Twin Towers, which is what many people think of when referring to Ground Zero, but GZ is very inexactly defined. For many people GZ is the location in lower Manhattan where the WTC buildings collapsed, though they may not necessarily recall that there were more than two WTC beuildings which collapsed or severely damaged by the Twin Towers falling down on them, with people trapped inside. But to be properly accurate the lede should read that Park51 is one block north of the WTC site. Walterego (talk) 07:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

So Called Ahmaddiyyah are NOT Muslims

They are not Muslims. They should not be under the Muslim section. They have been declared as non-Muslims by Islamic states and their beliefs are in fundamental opposition to essential Islamic beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.248.2 (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello anonymous, thanks for commenting.
Generally Wikipedia uses "self-identification" as its standard when talking about religious classifications. In other words, in Wikipedia's eyes the Ahmaddiyyah are Muslims if they say they are Muslims. Do you think there is some reason the "self-identification" rule shouldn't apply here? NickCT (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Similarities in religions

In the article it states that Muslims, Jews, and Christians have the same God. This is inaccurate. Muslims and Jews do not believe that JESUS is part of the trinity that is God, so the three faiths do NOT have the same God. Christians would say Muslims and Jews believe in a false God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.125.54.136 (talk) 11:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The statement is part of a direct quote expressing an opinion, so your personal views on its accuracy aren't particularly relevant. Fat&Happy (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The design has a spider web

No where in the article it has been mentioned that the building facade is designed with a spider's web or cobweb look, which seems to be derived from the folklore about Muhammad being protected by a spider's web, which it webbed to hide him from his enemies. I suppose it is so to represent protecting of traditional Islam in the modern world with a web of illusion of modernization. "Beautiful building outside, protected Islam inside!" Lbharti (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

That may be true, but we can't include it without a source. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Here are a few sources for the story:

Lbharti (talk) 07:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't seem to find any references to Park51 in any of those sources. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
This pattern bears quite some resemblance to the style of geometrical pattern that can be found in 'Muslim' or 'Arabic' art from ages ago, see Islamic interlace patterns. IMHO, this would provide a more obvious explanation for the style of the facade than the 'cobweb connection' - unless all these visual motifs from centuries ago are supposed to be cobwebs as well (but the reasoning behind that would then be rather unclear). The speculative remarks on the reasoning behind the alleged 'cobweb look' appear to be just that: speculation. 132.229.236.12 (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that the "spider Web" also looks a bit like a decimated and crumbling building (note the 'impacted crack' at the top edge). Does this not lend itself to a dangerous double interpretation of the facade, whether conscious or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baiter33 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Baiter33, 22 September 2011

Under the subsection on Rauf add "On January 14, 2011, Park51 developer Sharif el-Gamal surprised Rauf by unilaterally announcing that Rauf would no longer speak for or raise money for Park51, replacing him with Imam Abdallah Adhami. The split was attributed to a number of differences in vision for the project—Rauf had wanted a larger interfaith center named Cordoba House, but el-Gamal had changed the name to Park51, wanted it to primarily serve Muslims, and wanted it to have a local rather than global scope." This is a direct quote from the wiki page on Rauf. The fact seems relevant to the controversy.

Baiter33 (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Partly done: I noted that he has been replaced, but the rest doesn't have anything to do with the controversy. — Bility (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

bias

There is heavy political correctness bias even in the opening paragraphs, this should be fixed.--24.171.6.27 (talk) 00:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Such as...? Fat&Happy (talk) 00:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
What on Earth is "political correctness bias"? Language that is biased towards not being offensive? Please.173.166.110.9 (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Article split

The article will be easier to read if we split it into:

  1. Stuff about the actual proposal, the land bought for it, who's behind it, etc.
  2. The controversy over whether it's "okay" or not to build it

I think Proposed Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero is a nice, neutral title for the controversy.

If we take a look at WP:Summary style and put our heads together, I think we can come up with something. We need to move the bulk of the article into another page, and leave a summary section here.

Currently the controversy section is 75% of the article. If the summary were 1/3 as big, it would still be 50% of the article. So maybe we can boil it down to 25% of the article? Readers who want the details can follow the {{main}} link at the top of the Controversy section (which currently just redirects here).

This is not the same as a POV split, but if consensus is that it looks like one, then forget it. I was just trying to make it easier to read - including easier to find our well-balanced and neutral account of the controversy. --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Ed, you seem to be repeating the mistakes which led to your second arbitration case. I'm thinking specifically about creation of POV forks and making controversial edits out of the blue. There's no sense in having two articles on exactly the same subject. I expect your edits will be reverted shortly. Raul654 (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

  1. Why did you wait till I did it to say this?
  2. This is not a POV fork, since it does not (a) deliberately evade NPOV rules or even (B) evade NPOV at all
  3. It's not out of the blue, because I have been talking about it for 3 days.

If you think I should have waited a month, I can understand, but calling it a WP:POV fork is ridiculous. Did you even read it?

Have I followed Summary Style correctly?

  • When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own article, that text may be summarized within the present article. A link should then be provided to a more detailed article about the subtopic.
  • The length of a given Wikipedia article tends to grow as people add information to it. This cannot go on forever: very long articles would cause problems. So we must move information out of articles periodically
  • Do not put overdue weight into one part of an article at the cost of other parts. In shorter articles, if one subtopic has much more text than another subtopic, that may be an indication that that subtopic should have its own page, with only a summary presented on the main page.

I felt that overdue weight was on the controversy, but maybe this only applies to shorter articles. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read the new article and since I have not, for the moment I'll even conceed that it's not a POV fork. But suffice it to say, I don't see any reason to split this article. It makes no sense to have two articles on exactly the same subject (And I don't really see any meaningful distinction between Park 51 and Proposed Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero). Second, I didn't respond to your comment earlier because I didn't see it. You made it recently just a couple days ago and it got zero responses. That should have been a warning sign that people weren't paying attention; it is not a green-light to go ahead and make huge changes. Raul654 (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
In my haste, I didn't give the split-off article a distinct name. I'm calling it Ground Zero controversy now; I had intended to put "controversy" in its title.
Anyway, this is not creating a new article that was deleted, and I won't lift a finger (or make a mouse click) to stop anyone who puts it back the way it was. If there's no consensus (a bright shining green light), then I'll let it go. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Quick note, I saw the Ground Zero controversy article get created --- if it doesn't include "mosque" in the title, this doesn't make a lot of sense. A "ground zero controversy" could be lots of things, like 9-11 truther bunk. To be clear, Park 51 is not at Ground Zero, but I do understand that's what the opposition claimed and called it. Frankly, I'm not sure the split is a good idea.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome to join the page-move discussion at talk:Ground Zero controversy. All 3 of us there want to rename the article; the question is what's the best new name. See you there? --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

As promised, I've notified that the dozen-or-so people who have edited this article in the last three months and pointed them towards this discussion. Raul654 (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'm the first of the dozen-or-so to respond. Bear in mind that my edits consisted of a few links, so I can't really be said to have a POV. My 2c: there is bound to be a certain amount of crystal-gazing associated with a proposal like this. If the centre is built as planned, then it is likely to be notable in its own right, in a similar way - if not to the same extent - as St. Patrick's Cathedral, for instance. In that case, it would be unfair to have an article about the centre dominated by the controversy over its construction (or rather, over the announcement of its construction). I think a split at this time would be a good idea, as it would be more difficult to split it at a later date. Postponing the split would very likely lead to a controversy - possibly lasting years - over when would be the right time to do the split. Doing it now will obviate that difficulty. Of course, if the plan is eventually scrapped, then the two articles will probably need to be merged again, but that ought to be relatively unproblematic. There are two things that I think ought to be done soon, however: the "Controversy" section needs to be edited down a lot - to a single, medium-sized paragraph with no subsections - and a hatnote should go on the top of the article saying "For the controversy surrounding the initial proposal to build the center, see Ground Zero mosque controversy", this in addition to the "main" template on the "Controversy" section. Scolaire (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I oppose splitting the article. It was fine as it was. I dont think its too long either Pass a Method talk 19:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

But Now You Know?

The first reference is to the blog "But Now You Know" written by a fellow (or gal) named Kaz. As I understand the matter, personal blogs are not appropriate references in Wikipedia. Has this been discussed on the talk page? I'd like to know what the editors were thinking. Jason from nyc (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Gone. 04:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and the rest follows. Jason from nyc (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Missing refs

Thanks, Rich. I did a poor job when I split the article, leaving behind many orphan references. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Welcome. AnomieBot usually picks these up, but it's busy duplicating what Helpful Pixie Bot does.... Rich Farmbrough, 11:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC).

Undue weight

It seems to me that explicitly citing the center's proximity to the World Trade Center site in the very first sentence puts undue weight on the controversy surrounding its construction. I don't think the actions of 19 foreign radical Muslims, and those who supported them, constitute a valid reason to place such heavy emphasis on the criticism of the American Muslims this mosque will serve. I understand that this position may be perceived as taking sides in the controversy debate, but don't get me wrong--- I fully support the inclusion of a controversy section and understand why some may object to its location, but I believe the prominence of the statement of location, without any context for the significance thereof (such as "...which has been the subject of controversy due to its proximity...") places undue weight on criticism of its construction that does not befit a leading section, let alone a leading sentence.173.166.110.9 (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Why not highlight some of the controversies around Faisal Abdul Rauf?

In the "controversy" section why not give readers the information about the skepticism regarding Faisal about rauf, the imam of that Mosque? There is plenty going around him. Why not give a glimpse of that? Then we may direct readers to the main article about that imam. I think that's a key piece of information if we are gonna talk about controversies about that Muslims Community center. Oh! trust me there are plenty of valid concerns about him(Click here). Brendon is here 08:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The controversy around the cultural center is well-covered in both articles. Additional controversies are extraordinarily thoroughly covered in Faisal Abdul Rauf and are not relevant here. Our personal opinions of his views, and whether we think concerns about him are valid, are not relevant at all, since we must take an objective, dispassionate, neutral approach to all articles.--Trystan (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Foundation Text=Ethics=Ideas=Motivation

"..false notion that Islam, rather than Islamic radicals, is responsible for the terrorist attack."

Islam is a Foundation Text defining the nature of humans’ relationships.

If as it does Islamic Foundation Text contains extensive vitriol and justification for 'grievous harm' and 'severest penalty' against Other, which is exactly the same construct against Other found in Mein Kampf is not Islam to blame?

The Islamic Quran defines the nature of the Islamic radicals as the Nazi Mein Kampf defines the nature of Nazi radicals. Nazism is not to blame?

Or should we blame Other for saying it is so despite continuing evidence of human cognitive development of bias and related outcomes?

If the Quran did not exist would Islamic Radicals who (and if you check validly) utilise the Quran to justify their terror exist?

Logically they would not. Therefore?

Foundation Text=Ethics=Ideas=Motivation=Action for and against Other. It has always been that simple ask Plato. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markjuliansmith (talk • contribs) 00:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

A piece of advertising

Is that what this article about the (project of the construction of) “Park51” seems, mainly in the first paragraphs.

And anyway, if the convention WP:COMMONNAME has to be respected, few people knows this project as “Park51” but as the “Ground Zero Mosque”. Some could argue that this name is “offensive to the sensibilities of others” or “islamophobic” or whatever, but we must remember that what the Japanese refer as “Emperor Showa” has the article here in English-language Wikipedia with the title of Hirohito.--201.81.226.220 (talk) 02:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

"Ground Zero Mosque" is neither accurate nor neutral, two reasons for not using it mentioned in the first paragraph of WP:COMMONNAME. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
JUST GOOGLE IT! And see how many “Park51” you’ll get and how many “GROUND ZERO MOSQUE” you’ll get! We could argue about neutrality forever, but I really think “Park51” is a name that only few people beyond the builders (and some editors here in Wikipedia) use. To the rest of the Americans and English-speaking peoples, THIS IS GROUND ZERO MOSQUE. And this is not ISLAMOPHOBIA… THIS IS FACT!--177.32.130.81 (talk) 09:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Remove Speculative Topics

Much of the information about Park51 is based upon speculative assumptions rather than credible, factual information. May I suggesting using this article to find verifiable facts about the building of Park51: http://indylaw.indiana.edu/ilr/pdf/vol45p249.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.99.110.156 (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Amount of discussion of Park51 controversy

Park51 controversy has its own wikipedia page. So, does this article on Park51 need 1,500 words (or about a third of article) devoted to the Park51 controversy, with much of the language a duplicate of the other article? 21:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we need two articles. The only reason Park51 is notable is because of the controversy, so to separate that aspect out does not make sense to me. Having two parallel articles has resulted in a WP:POVFORK: for example, Park51 controversy calls the centre a mosque throughout, while this article indicates it isn't a mosque. Also compare Park 51#Purchase and investors to Park51 controversy#Funding sources.--Trystan (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Removing Quinnipiac "Support" Statement

Okay, so I guess the article is locked, but would someone who has editorial power please remove this? I have done my research here, you can verify with a quick Google search and a 5 minute read of the reference that supposedly showed public support for Park51, but actually did the opposite. Jjpr2121 (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)jj

I am removing the first statement that cites a Quinnipiac University poll as demonstrating public support for Park51. First, the URL/link to that reference is broken but, more importantly, if you find the correct link to the article it is an article that actually demonstrates that the public (at least those polled) was NOT in support of Park51, and the 54 - 40 "vote" (with 7% undecided and some margin of error) was that those polled thought that the had a legal right to build Park51 due to the U.S.'s stance on freedom of religion, but the same group polled overwhelmingly voted 71 - 21 (8% undecided) that the Park51 developers should not build there and should voluntarily build elsewhere due to the sensitivities involved. The same group also responded, in a somewhat contradictory fashion, 53 - 39 that (8% undecided) that Muslims should not be allowed to build a Mosque near Ground Zero, even though they had earlier admitted that they thought they had a legal/constitutional right to do so that should be upheld. In any case, the statement that those polled supported the building of Park51 in that location is 100% false, and is quite obviously false if you read the Quinnipiac article that was entitled "9/11 FAMILY CONCERNS OUTWEIGH MUSLIM RIGHT TO MOSQUE, NEW YORK STATE VOTERS TELL QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY POLL; 71 PERCENT SAY CUOMO SHOULD PROBE MOSQUE FINANCES" 173.3.109.197 (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)jj

What is so difficult to understand here? A majority of Americans recognize that Muslims have a constitutional right to build an Islamic community center near Ground Zero, but don't think that they should. That part of the article looks fine enough as it is.Shabeki (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Inflated "Opposition" section

I have moved Zuhdi Jasser's, Reza Aslan's & Feisal Abdul-Rauf's comments from the "Opposition" section to the more general "Controversy" section because well, they don't appear to be directly opposing the Park51 project. Jasser & Aslan are merely providing advice on how the organizers should go about the project. And Rauf was the guy in charge of the project and has made no statement opposing the project since being removed from being in charge of it. It seems to me that some people with a bias against the center were putting their comments in the wrong section. Shabeki (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Ron Paul incorrectly paraphrased and footnoted

A paraphrase of Ron Paul is misstated, and connected to the wrong footnote. In the article at footnote 157, Mr. Paul makes a statement which could be paraphrased "Moreover, he criticizes those who blame Islam itself for the September 11 attacks", rather than what is given in the article, "Moreover, he criticizes those who blame Islam alone for the September 11 attacks". This paraphrase is incorrectly footnoted 156; in that article, no statement of this nature is made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.35.85 (talk) 06:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request: "Feisel Abdul Rauf, Ex-Imam Of Debated NYC Mosque, Sued Over Misused Gifts"

This needs to be mentioned: www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/06/feisel-abdul-rauf-ex-imam-sued_n_2629826.html "Feisel Abdul Rauf, Ex-Imam Of Debated NYC Mosque, Sued Over Misused Gifts" 02/06/2013

"The suit, filed in a Manhattan state court, deepens a financial feud between Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf and Robert Leslie Deak, a businessman who for a time backed Rauf in efforts to foster public understanding of Islam. Rauf has been pursuing his own claims against Deak in a federal court since 2011. The legal fight between Rauf and Deak concerns Rauf's own organizations, chiefly the Cordoba Initiative. Deak, in the new suit, says Rauf bought himself real estate, took trips with a woman other than his wife and bought gifts with $167,000 that Deak provided for an education project intended to combat anti-Islamic sentiment.The $20 million fraud suit says Rauf also misused $3 million the Malaysian government gave Cordoba. The Malaysian embassy had no immediate comment Tuesday evening. Deak and his wife, Moshira Solimon, "are shocked and disappointed that their generosity and philanthropy have been preyed upon by Rauf and that their gifts were used for his own personal enjoyment," said their lawyer, Jonathan B. Nelson. Rauf's lawyer, Paul L. Knight, said the imam and his groups deny the allegations.

Rauf, in turn, says in his lawsuit that Deak and Solimon gained his trust during a more than five-year friendship, but then ripped him off in the 2010 purchase of a Washington apartment that was to be used as a base for Cordoba's activities in the capital. The couple told him the condominium was worth more than $1.3 million when they had bought it months before for $567,000, the suit says. Not knowing that, he wired them $1.5 million to buy and furnish the apartment – money they used to buy a different apartment, according to the $1.5 million suit, filed in federal court in Washington. The couple has denied those claims."--63.3.5.132 (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Merge proposal

(nac) merged; no objections; I will trim it later. Epicgenius (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

PROPOSAL: There are two articles that cover the same ground and this is creating versioning issues and makes it impossible to track changes on this controversial issue. There are lots of links to the Park51 article and almost no non-user links to the controversy article. It has not been demonstrated that the building is notable other than the mosque issue.Americasroof (talk) 23:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

(First, a clarification: this is a proposal to merge Park51 controversy into Park51.) -- Dan Griscom (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Support This topic doesn't need two articles, and fewer people will find Park51 controversy than Park51 -- Dan Griscom (talk)
Support and ask for action now. For all the reasons stated above. Time for an administrator to move on this as it has been open 9 months for discussion.--63.3.5.132 (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Neutral - Unless the controversy article is severely shortened, I can't see how it could ever be merged into this article which is already too long for a WP entry. As a separate article exists, I have removed most of the section contents in this article. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Support. The controversy article is currently something of a quote farm. The content there needs to be condensed into encyclopedia-style writing. The overall result should fit in one article.--Trystan (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Support – The controversy article is long, but it seems relevant to merge these two, as the controversy can basically be summed up in the main article. I've started merging the two. Epicgenius (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is Park51 still active?

Their website has basically gone inactive. The headline is still signups for spring 2012 classes. The last event listed in the calandar was back in July 2013. Does anyone know any sources to say if they are still in operation? 209.163.167.156 (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

New plans have been announced for a 3-story museum. See article. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

This page should be split into at least 2 topics

There is a topic that makes this project controversial, which is mostly what this page is about. However, there should be a page that would be non-related to the controversy surrounding the issue, and should focus more on the architecture, the design, the place, etc. The page that is there currently is mostly about the controversy.

Do you mean how 9/11 the attack is separate from the buildings? I think it would have to mention the controversy but have a 'see main article, Park51 controversy' or something, I think that may be appropriate to split the physical building and actual controversy and debate into a second page, they are two separate issues and like the twin towers and 9/11, someone may be wishing to learn about one not the other, however the page would be small and I can see why some would oppose it, leave it to better men than us I guess to decide 70.69.172.92 (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Bloomberg speech

In Park51#Politicians, after the following sentence: "That's the wonderful thing about the First Amendment – you can say anything you want."

Please add:

Years later, at a May 2014 commencement speech at Harvard University, the now-former mayor recalled the Park51 controversy as part of a "disturbing trend of liberals silencing voices deemed politically objectionable":<ref>{{cite web| title= Bloomberg: Universities becoming bastions of intolerance| first=Ray |last=Sanchez | publisher= CNN| date= May 30, 2014 |url= http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/29/us/bloomberg-harvard-speech |accessdate=2014-05-30}}</ref>

"We protected their right to protest, but they could not have been more wrong. And we refused to cave in to their demands. The idea that government would single out a particular religion, and block its believers—and only its believers—from building a house of worship in a particular area is diametrically opposed to the moral principles that gave rise to our great nation, and the constitutional protections that have sustained it."

Thanks. 72.244.204.36 (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: I don't see that claim in the source. While speaking at the commencement, he spoke of that disturbing trend, but I think he using the example of the protests at the mosques as an example of the right way to deal with differing opinions. The reference is only tangentially about the mosque. Does it make sense to expand the content about Bloomberg's support for Park51 to include "The idea that government would single out a particular religion, and block its believers—and only its believers—from building a house of worship in a particular area is diametrically opposed to the moral principles that gave rise to our great nation, and the constitutional protections that have sustained it."? Regards, Older and ... well older (talk) 00:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
The following is from my user talk page: HGilbert (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey, just FYI, the change was supported by the citations that were already there. I simply reworded the sentence, and there was neither any new text added or any text removed. Epic Genius (talk) ± 15:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Where do these contrast residents outside the city with those inside? HGilbert (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

(moved from User talk): The sentence before the one that I changed reads: Polls have shown that most Americans, including most residents of New York State and New York City (though not most residents of Manhattan), oppose it. Before my revision, this next sentence was: Most Americans and residents of New York State do, however, believe the Park51 developers have a legal right to proceed with the project. Now, the text reads, However, many Americans outside of New York City believe that the Park51 developers have a legal right to proceed with the project. The original revision is basically saying the most American residents, state residents, and city residents, but not most borough residents, oppose the idea, but implied that most American and state residents, but not most city and borough residents, think that the developers legally have the right to proceed. It was confusing to read, so I reworded the sentence to make it easier, at least from what I understood from what the sentence said. Epic Genius (talk) ± 16:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Epicgenius There is no indication in this text or elsewhere that NYC or Manhattan residents believe that there is no legal right to proceed. The citations discuss the careful distinction in people's minds between their support (or more often, lack of support) for the project and their belief that there is a legal right. Your edit is conflating the two. HGilbert (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
@Hgilbert: The text that you reverted to states: Most Americans and residents of New York State do, however, believe the Park51 developers have a legal right to proceed with the project (emphasis mine). What I said was However, many Americans believe that the Park51 developers have a legal right to proceed with the project (emphasis still mine). What I did not say was that many Americans supported the project, or even that most Americans did. Also, the text now says Most Americans and residents of New York State, but doesn't mention New York City or Manhattan residents, despite the fact that New York State residents are Americans, so this is redundant anyway. Epic Genius (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of the actual wording, that polling language really ought to be reworked. All the references cited say that most Americans didn't want it built. Presenting the "legal right" part of the polling without the "shouldn't be built" part lacks neutrality.
Frankly, I'd probably just delete the line all together. If we don't delete it, it should be heavily qualified and illustrate all aspects of the polls cited. NickCT (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Burying the lead

Since I can't put this in the main article due to page protection, I'm putting it here:

A sizable portion of the article is about the controversy surrounding the proposed location of the building, and the lead should reflect this. 24.130.189.187 (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2016

The ref to https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/373982_re-ct-untangling-the-bizarre-cia-links-to-the-ground-zero.html is a dead link and should be changed to https://search.wikileaks.org/gifiles/?viewemailid=373982.

As a safeguard against this becoming a dead link again, here is an archive link: https://web.archive.org/web/20160117203906/https://search.wikileaks.org/gifiles/?viewemailid=373982

2601:644:101:9616:CCD5:82DA:290B:A018 (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Done /wiae /tlk 22:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Park51. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Park51. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

In the interest of complete historical accuracy...to the extent that is possible.

The second sentence in the article should begin, "The developers claimed that they hoped...", instead of, "The developers hoped...". Their movtives were widely suspected to be otherwise, as the author probably already knows. "They claimed", as in testimony in court. What a witness says is never automatically given as truthful, especially when there is evidence to the contrary. We use the same standards of evidence in establishing a historical account as is used in a court of law. Unless of course we are incompetent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.51.146.6 (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2017

Please revert this edit, adding "victory mosque" to the lead (without any support from a source or from the body) is a pretty clear violation of DUE. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! -165.234.252.11 (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Park51. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Park51. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Park51. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Park51. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Park51. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2017

Under the History section, there is a reference to " Italian Renaissance palazzo style". Currently this links to "Italian Renaissance" and also to "Palace." Rather, it should link to the architectural style page, here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Palazzo_style_architecture

Thanks! Darkmatter186 (talk) 12:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Done  — Ammarpad (talk) 13:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Park51. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Park51/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Iazyges (talk · contribs) 17:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Criteria

GA Criteria

GA Criteria:

  • 1
    1.a
    1.b
  • 2
    2.a
    2.b
    2.c
    2.d
  • 3
    3.a
    3.b
  • 4
    4.a
  • 5
    5.a
  • 6
    6.a
    6.b
  • No DAB links checkY
  • No Dead links ☒N:
    Ref 25: "Simone Baribeau; David Levitt; Nicholas Johnston; Stacie Servetah & Mark Schoifet (August 3, 2010). "Ground Zero Mosque Plans Move Forward After Key Vote". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved August 4, 2010."
    Ref 40: ""Democrats split over ground zero mosque". Hürriyet Daily News. August 17, 2010"
    Ref 108: "Notice of Petition" Archived 2010-12-03 at the Wayback Machine., Brown v. New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission, Supreme Court of the State of New York, August 4, 2010. Retrieved August 9, 2010."
    Ref 129: "Caruso, David.AP Exclusive: Backers of NYC mosque appear divided Archived 2010-09-12 at the Wayback Machine., Associated Press. Sep 8, 2010."
    Ref 164: ""61% Oppose Muslim Cultural Center; But, Majority Willing to Listen" Archived August 15, 2010, at the Wayback Machine., Dr. Don Levy, Siena Research Institute, August 5, 2010. Retrieved August 9, 2010."
    Ref 186: "Daniel Halper (August 6, 2010). "Three Senators Oppose Ground Zero Mosque". Weekly Standard. Retrieved August 12, 2010."
    Ref 209: ""Gatestone Institute". Retrieved 8 August 2016."
    @Iazyges: Thanks for taking up this nomination, as well as the five others. I have fixed some of these issues, but Refs 108, 129, and 164 are already archived. epicgenius (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Prose Suggestions

Site use
  • 23 had been deemed landmarks and 6 (including 45–47) were pending as of August 2010. suggest 23 had been deemed landmarks and 6 (including 45–47) had applications pending as of August 2010.
  • New York City has more than 11,000 landmarked buildings. suggest removing as the sentence alone is unnecessary.
  • Muslims had a presence in Lower Manhattan for many years prior to the September 11 attacks. At least two mosques existed near the World Trade Center,[8][69][70] and several designated Muslim prayer rooms existed within the World Trade Center buildings.[71] suggest moving this to before the section on 9/11.

Controversy

  • As a recruitment tool for radical Islamists suggest changing this section title to Opposition as a recruitment tool for radical Islamists, as the section is much more about how people opposing the building is offering the recruitment tool, rather than the building itself being one.
  • @Epicgenius: That is all my suggestions, passing now. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Bad claim and sourcing in Abdul Rauf's views of the project section

The claim that Stratfor identified Rauf as an FBI asset, and that the project was "undertaken for political reaseons", are not borne out in the source. The leaked email is simoply one Stratfor employee emailing another about an magazine article he read. This article has no proof for its claims (and the reason given is an Islamaphobic conspiracy theory), the Stratfor employee has none as well (and makes no claim about the article’s trustworthiness), and the employee isn’t any sort of spokesperson for Stratfor or otherwise able to speak for the organization’s views. It’s irresponsible to use this to make those claims. Ergative rlt (talk) 01:48, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Park51/Archive_7&oldid=1237023854"