Talk:Remarks at the Islamic Center of Washington

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 00:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Bush delivering the speech

• ... that George W. Bush, an Evangelical Christian, quoted from the Quran in a speech he delivered (pictured) as president of the United States? Source: Denise M. Bostdorff, "George W. Bush's Post-September 11 Rhetoric of Covenant Renewal: Upholding the Faith of the Greatest Generation", Quarterly Journal of Speech 89, no. 4 (2003): 301–302: President George W. Bush; and an evangelical Christian like the president; and Likewise, in a highly visible speech at the Islamic Center of Washington, the president stated, "Let me quote fromthe Koran itself: 'In the long run, evil in the extreme will be the end of those who doevil. For that they rejected the signs of Allah and held them up to ridicule.' "
  • ALT1: ... that George W. Bush, an Evangelical Christian, quoted from Muslim scripture in a speech he delivered (pictured) as president of the United States? Source: Same as ALT0; just a different way of phrasing it
  • ALT2: ... that George W. Bush's remarks at the Islamic Center of Washington (pictured) on September 17, 2001, were not the first time he had publicly complimented Islam as president? Source: Ahmed H. al-Rahim, "Islam and the White House: American Presidential Discourse on Establishing Official Islam, 1993–2013", Middle East Journal of Culture and Communication 9, no. 1 (2016): 96: President George W. Bush’s first official statement on Islam was made in early 2001, wherein he emphasized the shared values thesis and the role of Muslims in American life and (quoting Bush), The variety of nations and cultures represented by those who travel to Mecca each year, and the varied ways in which Muslims contribute to American life across the United States, are powerful reminders that ethnic and racial differences need not divide us when we share common values and purposes.
  • ALT3: ... that Democratic president Barack Obama said he was "very proud" of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, for what he said in his 2001 remarks at the Islamic Center of Washington (pictured)? Source: Josh Lederman, "On Muslims, Democrats Find an unlikely Ally: George W Bush", PBS NewsHour (December 25, 2015): "I was very proud after 9/11 when he was adamant and clear about the fact that this is not a war on Islam," Obama said recently.
  • Reviewed: Talk:Evgenia_Semenovskaya#Did_you_know_nomination
  • Comment: Second QPQ: Talk:Grigorii_Nikolaevich_Maksimov#Did_you_know_nomination. Evgenia Semenovskaya and Grigorii Nikolaevich Maksimov were two articles in a 5-article nomination that I reviewed.

Created by Hydrangeans (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 20 past nominations.

Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 09:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article is new and long enough. Two QPQs good to go. Earwig returns false positives based on a large number of quotes, of which 80-90% are fine, but 10% could easily be replaced with paraphrasing, but that's up to the nominator to decide. When I read through the article, the overuse of quotations when paraphrasing should suffice stood out to me, but it wasn't necessarily a dealbreaker; there is a good argument that one should rely more on quotes when dealing with hot topics, as it preserves the intent of the author that could otherwise be altered due to unintentional bias. The hooks are cited and interesting, but my personal preference is for ALT0 without mentioning Bush is an evangelical Christian, due to the less is more principle ("...that George W. Bush quoted from the Quran in a speech he delivered as president?") I find that far more interesting, with the understatement doing the heavy work. Also, most of our readers know Bush is Christian, so it's somewhat redundant and unnecessary to me, and further, the Bush family has had a long working relationship with the Saudis, as documented by Craig Unger, so it's not as surprising as you make it out to be. Viriditas (talk) 11:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Fair point on the quotations; while not a DYK dealbreaker, I've gone ahead and changed some of them to paraphrases. I'd also be fine with your trim of ALT0; less is usually more, as you point out. My worry was about the hook landing with a global and not necessarily American audience, but Bush (and every American president) identifying as Christian probably falls under reasonably widespread knowledge. And true that the Bush family and the Saudi Royal Family have had long interactions, though I think that's starting to get into territory of what a particularly well-informed reader knows, and not necessarily one who's only superficially familiar with Bush or American political history. In any case, thanks for reviewing and approving the nomination! Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Title?

Why is this called "Remarks at the Islamic Center of Washington" instead of "George W. Bush's Remarks at the Islamic Center of Washington" or (my preference) "Islam is Peace"? Consulting WP:CRITERIA, it seems obvious that this is not precise enough given that presumably many people have given remarks at the Islamic Center of Washington. lethargilistic (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

While there are hypothetically others who have spoken at the Islamic Center of Washington, only Bush's speech on September 17, 2001 is widely and consistently called remarks at the Islamic Center of Washington. See the thread Talk:Remarks_at_the_Islamic_Center_of_Washington#Lead_sentence_link_vs_bolding for several reliable sources that all mean this speech when they say remarks at the Islamic Center of Washington. Far fewer were the sources that called the speech "Islam Is Peace" (the Brennan Center for Justice called it that). The current title is most recognizable and natural, and it's precise enough. Precision is not required to be perfect precision. For example, there have been other speeches at Cooper Union and at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, yet only Lincoln's speeches are known as the Cooper Union speech and Gettysburg Address. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Lead sentence link vs bolding

It is not correct to describe or treat the term "remarks at the Islamic Center Center of Washington" as the proper name of the event. For one thing, the term "speech at the Islamic Center Center of Washington" is just as common. See also the concern raised by lethargilistic above. The bolding is thus superfluous.

But most importantly, a prompt link to the article Islamic Center of Washington is far more useful to readers than any boldface might ever be. They should not be forced to look for it around the article if they encounter the term, as they should, in the first sentence. Surtsicna (talk) 09:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

While it was not an official title, it is a commonly accepted name of reference for the speech, similar to names like the Cooper Union speech or the Des Moines speech, also not official titles which are nevertheless common terms of reference for those speeches. If you search the phrase "remarks at the Islamic Center of Washington", you will see that an overwhelming majority of hits are for George W. Bush's 2001 speech.

Also see the following sources, which all call this specific speech remarks at the Islamic Center of Washington:

• al-Rahim, Ahmed H. (2016). "Islam and the White House: American Presidential Discourse on Establishing Official Islam, 1993–2013". Middle East Journal of Culture and Communication. 9 (1): 87–122. doi:10.1163/18739865-00901008. ISSN 1873-9857. (see page 115)
• Ching, Bruce (2020). "Echoes of 9/11: Rhetorical Analysis of Presidential Statements in the 'War on Terror'". Seton Hall Law Review. 51: 431–459.: President George Bush, Remarks at the Islamic Center of Washington (page 454)
• "Remarks at the Islamic Center of Washington", American Presidency Project (given as title)
• "U.S. Presidential Visits to Domestic Mosques", White House Historical Association: calls the speech President George W. Bush's Remarks at the Islamic Center of Washington
• "George W. Bush Needs to Speak to His Party", Slate (November 20, 2015): President George W. Bush gave brief remarks at the Islamic Center of Washington
• "Trump's Proposal to Keep Out Muslims Crosses a Line for Many in Both Parties", Washington Post (December 8, 2015): remarks at the Islamic Center of Washington six days after 9/11

As such, remarks at the Islamic Center of Washington is not a "purely descriptive title". It is a widely accepted name for the subject. MOS:FIRST states, If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence. As such, it should be bolded. This un-bolding was well meaning but mistaken.

As for a link to Islamic Center of Washington, that is visibly provided in the infobox directly adjacent to the first paragraph, so I don't think a reader is left wanting for such a link. It is promptly available at the very start of the article in the infobox.

Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

You are disregarding the evidence that the term "speech at the Islamic Center Center of Washington" is just as widely accepted. You may also find it called "address at the Islamic Center Center of Washington" and a myriad of other equally descriptive names. As WP:BENOTBOLD says, bolding the title gives undue weight to the chosen title, implying that it is an official term, commonly accepted name, or the only acceptable title; in actuality, it is just a description and the event or topic is given many different names in common usage.

And still most importantly, the reader should not be denied an essential link for the sake of some boldface. A link in the infobox does not suffice; an infobox (per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE) is supposed to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article ... an article should remain complete with its infobox ignored. A link to an essential article in the lead sentence benefits the reader. Boldface does not. Surtsicna (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

You've demonstrated that speech at the Islamic Center of Washington is another common term for the topic, but address at the Islamic Center of Washington seems to appear in only one book (Securing the Sacred: Religion, National Security, and the Western State). This means speech at the Islamic Center of Washington should be included as a bolded alterantive name, per MOS:BOLDSYN (and I have since done so).

WP:BENOTBOLD is ultimately an essay, but even if we heed its good point, it specifically discourages bolding in the event that the event or topic is given many different names in common usage. remarks at the Islamic Center of Washington and speech at the Islamic Center of Washington are just two different names, not many (even including "Islam Is Peace", a much less common name, only brings it to three).

Finally, I'm not seeing the applicability of WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. It states that an infobox is not meant to supplant key facts that appear in an article. A link is not a 'fact'; it's a navigational aid. Even if it were a fact, Islamic Center of Washington is linked elsewhere in the article, so the article still remains complete with its infobox ignored. Citing this tenet from the Manual of Style feels more like a bureaucratic technicality than an actual boon to readers. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)