Talk:Park51/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Typical example of an edit

Did people notice the recent edit where information about how most Americans support the right to build at Ground Zero was eliminated from the lead because there was no citation to support it? The poll information supporting this is down in the section on "Polls", but this was either ignored or not noticed by the editor making the change. I wonder if people now are willing to understand why there are so many citations in this article. If we don't cite, people will delete and make it look like it's our fault the deletion occurred. The next time people are tempted to go on about "quote farms", could they remember this? We're citing because of the constant challenging on baseless grounds of every little point we add. Zachary Klaas (talk) 16:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone has restored the comment, presently. I don't understand why citations appear to have been removed from this paragraph. Looks weird. The issue with the "quote farm" is not one of too many citations, but one of too many quotes. Fletcher (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The "quote farm" issue is not just too many quotes, it is (IMHO) the utter lack of any meaningful identification of, let alone organization for, the issues about which the quotes (presumably) refer. TSteichen (talk) 23:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Citations aren't required in the lead per WP:LEADCITE assuming the content is backed up by a source elsewhere in the article. I've added a hidden comment below the statement that its backed up further down the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Not sure I agree with your reading of that guideline. An article about, say, plant fertilizer may not need citations in the lede section, but this article counts as "[c]omplex, current, or controversial", does it not? Besides, it looks odd to have some statements cited, others not. I do think we can avoid jamming in multiple references for the same statement. I bet that practice makes the page load more slowly, too. Fletcher (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

RFC Response

Hello! I saw an RFC for this article so I thought I'd come in and give my two cents. I see that there's some discussion about the term "Ground Zero Mosque." I understand that it's a controversial term that may not be technically accurate, but it is probably the most widely-known name for this structure. For that reason, I think it should be included in the article, but the article could also include a rebuttal. Maybe something about Park51 being widely known as the Ground Zero Mosque, but (some person/group/whatever) disputes this title as the building is not only a mosque and it is not built directly on Ground Zero. This presents the situation fairly, acknowledges the reality that it is commonly called this, and allows for the opposing view to be displayed as well. Readers can make up their own minds as to what they want to call it, this is just providing them information. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Deep Purple Dreams. By this point I think we've finally reached a consensus solution, knock on wood. It's not exactly what you propose, but similar. Fletcher (talk) 01:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah, okay, excellent. I hope it goes well! Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 05:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Condensing the lead

I don't think we need sources for the fact that people have weighed in on this until we start quoting them. We don't need to name the political figures who have taken public positions, because this is all done later in the article. We don't need a whole paragraph of polling data from several sources covering various geographical areas, because this is done later. The reference to a "conservative" supporting the project was pretty shaky so I removed that as well. The source for this was CNN (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1008/17/acd.01.html) but all that is referred to is a snippet from a Fox News clip that says "LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS: I can't find many people who really have a problem with it." This is a 3rd or 4th hand source anyway and nobody actually says they support it, let alone states their political affiliation. I'm trying to shorten this article, and starting at the beginning. Jcc1 (talk) 09:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You know that happened. If you're dissatisfied with the source being second-hand, find the first-hand source. In what you say above, you acknowledge that this did in fact air on Fox, and it strains credulity to imagine you haven't heard this story reported, as it has been all over the media. This is another instance of "it's true, but I'll find some tiny reason to delete it". Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Also, bear in mind that I used the CNN report because the reporter did more than just run the Fox clip of Ingraham saying "I can't find many people who really have a problem with it". The reporter also interpreted this fact in terms of a larger issue, namely, that conservatives utterly ignored this issue before some far-right, Muslim-bashing bloggers stirred this up into a major issue, and all of a sudden now conservatives are all obsessed with the topic. I used this source because of the reporter's interpretative comments, and specifically because I had routinely been challenged to find reputable sources that made this argument (otherwise it's WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:COATRACK or whatever, right?) So if you want to use the first-hand Fox clip source, could you add it to the existing CNN source, so I don't have to go through all that nonsense again... Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Can you name the conservative who supported the project? It isn't in the source. Even if you could, I don't see why this statement is even here, or even relevant. It's already been established who started all the controversy, and it was never established that "all conservatives" are against it now or ever. Jcc1 (talk) 07:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
It is in the source, it's Fox's Laura Ingraham. What she said was:

INGRAHAM: Let's talk about the Islamic center at Ground Zero. Questions -- I can't find many people who really have a problem with it. Bloomberg for it. You got rabbis in New York saying they don't have a problem with it. Why near Ground Zero? Why did you choose that space?

Now either she's just a really, really bad journalist, or she was saying that, at the time, she really could find no one, conservatives included, who had a problem with this "Islamic center at Ground Zero". And she's saying this on the Bill O'Reilly show, a show known for its conservative leanings, and on Fox News, a network known for its conservative news coverage. I'm sorry, but expecting people to believe that this doesn't demonstrate that the issue was not on the conservative radar less than a year ago is treating them like they're brain dead. Zachary Klaas (talk) 15:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
You're synthesizing in order to single out conservatives. The issue is only that these two bloggers started the controversy, and they happen to be conservatives. It has already been established who made this a big deal, and those INDIVIDUALS are named. Stop politicizing this any more than it already is. In addition, you are, like the news agent who reported this, changing the original statement that nobody has a problem with it to "a conservative supports it" which is once again altering the fact. The only fact established is that NOBODY HAD A PROBLEM WITH IT. Their political affiliation, the political leanings of the reporter who claimed to have established this, etc. is all irrelevant. Please leave your conservative smear campaign off the encyclopedia. Jcc1 (talk) 23:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Apparently Zachary Klaas keeps reverting my removal of this statement. Can someone else please back me up on this? The only thing relevant is who started the controversy, and even if the statement WERE relevant, it is false. The quote does not consist of "positive coverage." Even if the statement WERE relevant and WERE true, the political leanings of the commentator (who simply said that most people didn't have a problem with it) is irrelevant to this article. It seems pretty clear from this constant reversion and others that Zachary Klaas has ulterior motives than creating a factual and informational encyclopedic presentation of the Park51 project. I'm not even a conservative. Jcc1 (talk) 03:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree. This guy's agenda is quite clear (and, for the record, I'm not a conservative either). He is so obstinate, obsessive and argumentative that he discourages me, for one, from trying to improve this article (which is badly in need of improvement). Unfortunately, this article will probably remain in its depressing state indefinitely, mainly because of this one guy (who probably feels very proud of what he's doing - just like zealots of all stripes). It seems as if other editors are giving him a degree of deference that makes no sense - maybe they're just hoping he will go away. TSteichen (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
The two sources say "positive coverage" and "thumbs-up" to describe Ingraham's coverage of Park51, and Ingraham's own words were "I can't find many people who really have a problem with it." And she's a conservative commentator for Fox News, by most accounts a conservative-leaning news bureau. So if she "can't find many people who really have a problem with it", that means most conservatives at the time didn't have a problem with it. People besides you are leaving this sentence alone because they know that the characterizations of Ingraham's coverage are those of reputable source reporters, and that they both brought Ingraham up expressly to make the point that conservatives were not only not in opposition to Park51 at the time, but in one fairly obvious case, even provided positive coverage. I realize you guys think assassinating my character is enough to get this reversed, but the WP rules are clearly on my side here. Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Just to clarify your argument, you are saying that Fox News carefully researches all claims made by its commentators, so if a commentator working for Fox News makes a claim about what certain people believe, it's safe to assume that claim has been extensively fact checked? Fletcher (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't have to make any such assumption. She said it, on a news channel disproportionately watched by conservative Americans, and there was nothing approaching a public outcry from other conservatives. The sentence illustrates that the issue was not on the conservatives' radar, and this is the point that both of those sources are documenting. The reporters at both CNN and Time in the sources used clearly are presenting Ingraham as an illustration of how this issue was not on the conservatives' radar as late as November 2009. Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I can't find anyone else who thinks this sentence should be here. You are, by inserting this sentence, leading the reader to conclude that A> It is a "conservative" controversy, rather than a controversy started by 2 people who happen to be conservatives and B> Someone claiming that there isn't much objection to something implies that they support it. Ironic that the sentence we are trying to remove "at least one conservative commentator" can't seem to find a single wikipedia editor that supports this being here, save for Mr. Klaas. What is your reason for so badly wanting an unnecessary sentence in this already long article anyway? We have enough problems with vandalism ("Al-Qaeda headquarters") that we don't need to quibble over this. You can't even find a quote from the so-called conservative commentator that actually says she "supports" the mosque, and as mentioned above, IT IS IRRELEVANT. The mosque wasn't a controversy, and then it was. How it got there is explained. What else does the reader need to know? Jcc1 (talk) 06:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You're the one that started an edit war over this topic, and I don't see any of these other editors removing the sentence. They're not doing that because they know the sentence is properly sourced, that the connection of this to the controversy is that of the reporters, and that it is the reporters, not just lovely little slanted old me, that believe Ingraham's comment is relevant to how the controversy developed. I will continue to replace this as long as you delete it, and the onus is properly on you to demonstrate why the status quo of the article is being changed. Zachary Klaas (talk) 06:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Please be clear on this. I am not "implying" anything about the conservative coverage around November 2009. The two reporters say it outright. Randi Kaye of CNN says it was "positive coverage" for Park51. Bobby Ghosh of Time says Ingraham's coverage was a "thumbs-up" for Park51. Neither of them mince words or subtly imply anything. They saw the whole interview and they judged, as reasonable reporters, that the interview indicated conservatives were clearly not bothered by Park51 at that time they way they seem to be now. Zachary Klaas (talk) 06:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

So you are using a quote from a reporter about a quote from a reporter who is actually, in the quote, restating background information (that there is not yet a controversy, which we have already established was true at the time) and was in the process of asking a question (which is what reporters do during interviews)? What does your politically charged statement actually add to the article? Do we also need to note that at least one liberal is against the project, at least one libertarian is neutral, and at least one socialist wants Donald Trump to fund it? "In an interview of the Imam by a member of the whig party, a question was phrased in such a way that it may have in fact supported the building of the mosque, as confirmed by a comment made by a competitor's news program's reporter commenting on the report by the original news reporter, reportedly. So at least one member of the whig party supports Park51." Do I need to point out that your smear campaign of conservatives really isn't this difficult, and that simply quoting ridiculous statements made by some of them, in a relevant place is effective enough?
The goal here is to provide RELEVANT FACTS about PARK51. This phrase you so desperately want to keep is neither relevant, nor a fact. To be relevant, you need to establish that Laura Ingram's opinion about Park51 does not qualify as undue weight. Did she start this controversy? Is she an expert about it, involved directly in the project, or have some special knowledge? To be a fact, we need a source of their opinion (a 2nd hand opinion of their opinion is questionable). Even if Ingram's opinion about all controversies prior to them becoming national news IS notable enough for wikipedia, AND we have a direct quote of her saying she personally wants the mosque built there, does this belong in the LEAD? Jcc1 (talk) 07:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
CNN and Time are major news organizations. If they comment on Laura Ingraham's coverage because they thought it was central to understanding how this controversy got started, it's because their reporters felt it was relevant. On Wikipedia, it's their judgment we're supposed to be following, not yours, however enlightened you think your judgment is. They didn't quote any liberal, libertarian, socialist or Whig commentators because no one from their sides of the political spectrum had any part in whipping this controversy up, and because there was no obvious, turning-on-a-dime, contrived conversion from not thinking there was a problem with Park51 to utter shock that the project could even be considered. The reporters found this relevant because they believed it reflected on the hypocrisy of the conservative wing of the media. I happen to share that view, but it is nevertheless their view. The analysis of the reporters is what we go with on Wikipedia, not your own personal view. Zachary Klaas (talk) 07:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
This article is not about the media, it is about Park51. You are giving Laura Ingram undue weight. Perhaps you should send her a love letter instead. Jcc1 (talk) 07:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree, Zachary Klaas is politicizing it too much. The party ideals that the journalists identify with are irrelevant. It is pretty clear by your disdain for conservatives that you aren't exactly a non-partial commenter. As Jcc1 just said, this article is about Park51, not about the media or their own interpretations of another member of the media. That is too much of a political debate, and that should be minimized here on this article. Vrinan (talk) 10:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
It remains my view of this page that people are trying to chip away at its objectivity by lading it down with conservative spin. You flatter yourselves with the thought that you're centrist and neutral, but you howl whenever one of the Right's most sacred lies is broached. The sacred lie in this case is that the Park51 controversy (which this page is about) was not manufactured by the political Right specifically to attack Barack Obama and the Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections. When reputable sources (CNN and Time, not lefty blogs) raise the issue (in news articles, not opinion pieces) that conservatives had no idea that anything might have been inappropriate with the Park51 project until this year, even providing positive coverage to the project until late last year, you pretend you don't hear it. The reason you don't want to challenge this sacred lie is because you want to believe that Americans are not being manipulated on this issue; it punctures your pride to think that ordinary Americans are being played by extremists who only have to yell "9-11" to get them to support a smear campaign backed by an agenda of intolerance and hatred. Even if I lose on this particular line, I will keep coming back at this page to document the links between the opposition to the project and right-wing spin. I will not accept a whitewash. Zachary Klaas (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
By the way, as you know, Fletcher has edited the line in question, changing the wording from "conservatives" to "at least one conservative"...even he, who has excised more than a few of my contributions from this article, recognized that the sentence is fully sourced and represents the analysis of the reporters. Zachary Klaas (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Seriously buddy, I think you should be the last guy trying to exercise some sort of logical debate here. Your opinions about other peoples opinions are false. The way it is written suggests that the conservatives have some nasty plot at hand, conspiracy theory level statements. I think there is no question that that does not belong on this site, especially in a controversial issue. Vrinan (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Zack, start a blog... don't use this encyclopedia entry to further your agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcc1 (talkcontribs) 15:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, my terrible agenda to ensure people know relevant facts. Zachary Klaas (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You've made your agenda quite clear. Now you've apparently decided that you are going to keep adding this back despite having a 3rd opinion against it. Jcc1 (talk) 07:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I have because I think most people can see that I am following the rules and you aren't. The reasons you've given thus far for taking this off the page are spurious and mine are following both the letter and the spirit of the WP rules. Zachary Klaas (talk) 13:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I tried compromising, since I think it is relevant that until the blog campaign there wasn't any negative coverage. I'm guessing that you will revert this since it doesn't fit your conservative bashing agenda. Jcc1 (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not lack of negative coverage, it's "positive coverage" (Randi Kaye of CNN) and a "thumbs up" (Bobby Ghosh of Time) and "sounded quite sympathetic" (Cathy Young in Reason magazine). If you have an example of positive coverage that isn't related to the Ingraham thing, cite it after that sentence and change it back to "many media sources provided positive coverage". Otherwise this is about conservatism. Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Re Matt Sky and this edit

I'm not super sure Matt Sky passes WP:NOTABLE. Does including a mention of him really add to this article? NickCT (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You didn't raise a notability claim in what you originally said when you reverted my edit. What you said was that I had to provide a citation in this article, even though all the citations you require are in the linked Matt Sky article. I thought that, in the time you spent telling me that, you could have gone and copied over the citations from the Matt Sky article to this one...but for some reason you wanted to make a big show of calling me out. I think that was showboating and I think you ought to apologize for that.
As far as the notability claim is concerned, you may be right. Everything basically hinges on the claim that he is a "community activist". I judged from an admittedly quick look at the RS sources that he was being identified as one (the TriBeCa Trib, which is a widely distributed paper in Lower Manhattan, identifies him as such). That suggests that he speaks for some segment of the population in Lower Manhattan and is not just a lone voice. And we do have some indication that Manhattanites are somewhat supportive of the Park51 project (as the poll section shows).
Anyway, I could see this being deleted, but for the right reasons, not just because you don't like me and want me to do every bit of legwork rather than do it yourself. I'm very annoyed that people think they're good Wikipedia editors because they can hit the "undo" button without even bothering to properly explain why they did it or suggest alternatives. Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Just received a comment from NickCT on my personal talk page saying it was my job to add the references in the first place rather than referring people to the Matt Sky page which has them. I didn't do this because, as anyone who reads this Talk page knows, we have constant complaints about the number of citations already added to the page. Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Zachary Klaas - An IP correctly deleted the Matt Sky bit as unreferenced and YOU hit the "undo" button without fixing the issue. This was your mistake. It would have been a courtesy had I chosen to reference the material myself; however, I wasn't obligated to do so. Please don't get angry with me for correcting your overly hasty use of the undo button.
As far as I'm aware WP:CITE doesn't make exceptions for pages that have a lot of citations already. Perhaps if there are too many citations it's an indication that a split would be appropriate?
I was initially solely worried about referencing. After reading into it, now I'm a little worried about notability. Anyway, I'm mostly ambivelant, but would somewhat prefer that Matt Sky material were removed. NickCT (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to continue this conversation, which seems solely aimed at demonizing me rather than fixing a Wikipedia article. Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Zachary Klaas - Yes. We're all against you Klass. Everyone is seeking to demonize you. Go grab your tinfoil hat dude. NickCT (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

(*sigh*) How is that not proof of what I just said? Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

(*chuckle*) So my saying "Klaas, you're paranoid. We're not all against you" is infact proof that everyone is against you? NickCT (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
"YOU hit the the undo button", "Go grab your tinfoil hat." Just quoting here. I don't know how anyone could slightly say either of those comments were attempts to demonize me. </sarcasm> :) Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I made that first comment to make a point after you said "I'm very annoyed that people think they're good Wikipedia editors because they can hit the "undo" button without even bothering to properly explain why they did it or suggest alternatives". The second comment was mostly in jest. I didn't mean to imply that you actually owned a tinfoil helmet. If it caused offense I apologize. NickCT (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like Zachary can dish it out but can't take it. Naturally though, the better solution is for all to be civil, and not, say, accuse your fellow editors of whitewashing or censorship after a difference of opinion as to the proper scope of the article (just a hypothetical example, of course ;-) Fletcher (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, we're all being buddies now. Sorry, I must have missed that somewhere. Oh well. I guess as long as NickCT apologized (looks like he did there) and Fletcher is done with his "hypothetical example" (I hope that he is), I can play nice too. :) Zachary Klaas (talk) 03:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
This Matt Sky character is non-notable, despite his cool name. He's apparently just a guy with a sign. Take the existence of the Matt Sky article with a grain of salt: it is a recent article created by a single purpose account, so doesn't reflect notability. I've removed. Fletcher (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the TriBeCa Trib would have called him a "community activist" if he represented no one, but it may not, I admit, be good enough for this article. (I guess I don't think people should call him completely non-notable, as it may offend people who actually live in the neighborhood and find the guy plenty notable. We can just settle it by saying he represents, perhaps, a slice of community opinion which may not be sufficient for a mention in the article.) Zachary Klaas (talk) 03:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
If an extra in a movie can have their own mention in an article (and it's not because they are notable, it's because no one cares enough to cross their article and put a 'marked for deletion' tag on the page), then I believe Matt Sky can have his own article because at this moment, he IS notable. I agree with Zachary that he does represent the opposition and has provided a face to this conflict and has been identified as so by notable media. Once the controversy is resolved, he might not be but at this time, I do think he is and I do not think that his specific article should be marked for deletion. How do we contest that? I've seen discussion pages on proposed deletions and mergers but I don't see one there. WiiAlbanyGirl (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
It looks like that page is still on Wikipedia, with a tag indicating that people want to delete the page, but no action taken yet. If you're concerned about the issue, the tag that's on the page tells you what you should do next. You're allowed to edit the page to take off the tag (says so right on the tag), but you're supposed to indicate on the talk page for the Matt Sky page (rather than this one) what your reasons for taking the tag off are. People may battle you about this, but if you think there is a case to be made for keeping the page, I'd say go for it (but then, I say things like that). :) I think the TriBeCa Trib article is enough to keep the page. The minute they said "community activist" instead of "some guy with a sign", I think they invalidated the argument against keeping the page. The Trib is an RS source for that neighborhood, widely distributed and known throughout TriBeCa, and if they say he represents the community, who are we to argue with that? (He may still not rate a mention on this page, though.) Zachary Klaas (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Cordoba House

Cordoba House is the official name of this building project according to Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf on CNN's Larry King Live. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilowattradio (talkcontribs) 09:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, in Rauf's recent Op-ED in the NYT, he refers to it exclusively as Cordoba House. But the website is still called Park51. Certainly not very clear. Fletcher (talk) 10:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
"Some of my friends say one thing, some say another. I agree with my friends."- Abraham Lincoln. You're all correct - just not completely. I added the September 8th statement by Park51, and also a ref to Rauf's NYT op-ed on the 7th. The building is Park51, and Cordoba House is within it. Hope this clarifies things. (Personally, I'd rename the article Cordoba House at Park51.) Flatterworld (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I thought the same thing. But Rauf refers to Cordoba House as if it were the whole facility, e.g.: "At Cordoba House, we envision shared space for community activities, like a swimming pool, classrooms and a play space for children." Fletcher (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Please notice my silence on this issue. :) Sounds like Rauf needs to hire a new PR person. That's a serious mistake on his part. Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I can't believe your efforts to confuse this (simple) issue. This article is about Park51. The statement (I've now re-added) is from Park51. Rauf has always referred to Cordoba House because that's what he's running. NOT Park 51. He's always been clear on that. btw - this isn't the first time this clarification has been made in the news, just the first time I updated the article and linked to what should be the determining source. But for you to delete the link to Park51's statement because it upsets your preconceived opinion - that doesn't make sense, imo. Flatterworld (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I see the infobox lists only Rauf under 'Leadership'. According to Park51: Park51: Leadership Structure: Park51 is an independent project led by Muslim Americans. This project will be separate from The Cordoba Initiative and ASMA. Imam Feisal Abdul-Rauf and Sharif El-Gamal are serving as the project managers until the Executive Director solicitation and selection process is completed.
I've made the naming section more clear to address your concern. But I disagree Rauf has been clear; he has muddied the issue by referring to the whole project as Cordoba House (linked above). He explicitly refers to the community center as Cordoba House, including amenities such as classrooms and the swimming pool under that name. You were non-responsive on this point. He does not reference Park51 at all. The blog post at the Park51 website appears to be a clarification in response to Rauf not being on the same page as his partners. Your wording in the lede seems unclear (it can't be assumed the reader knows what a "Cordoba House" is). I think we should keep the earlier version that reached consensus, and allow minutia about the name to be explained in the Naming section below. Fletcher (talk) 03:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Then let me repeat what Park51 stated: "Imam Feisal Abdul-Rauf and Sharif El-Gamal are serving as the project managers until the Executive Director solicitation and selection process is completed." The Imam is head of Cordoba House. He is 'temporary co-project manager of Park51. Of course he's going to talk about BOTH Cordoba House and Park51 because right now he's working on both. I was going to update the infobox, but I expect you'd just revert it and come up with yet another excuse that Park51 knows nothing about their own project, which a bunch of Wikipedians know the facts. What exactly is your point in that? Flatterworld (talk) 12:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The talking point the political Right has about "Cordoba" is that the use of the term is a deliberate reference to the point in history when an Islamic caliphate occupied territory which is today a part of Spain (i.e., "the West", "Christendom", whatever one's fevered mind might like to describe this territory as...) In other words, the argument goes, the use of this term is meant as a provocation against the West. Now, it could just as easily be that the use of the name "Cordoba" is meant to imply a place where "Islam meets the West" - a more peaceful connotation, as today's Cordóba, Spain is a "Western" city with "Islamic" cultural influences. I personally think this is what was meant. Regardless, towards the beginning of this controversy, the Park51 developers made a conscious decision to downplay the Cordoba name because people were drawing the other conclusion, that the name implies something along the lines of "Islam conquering the West". That is what I think they should have done, as "Park51" doesn't draw any claims of Muslim triumphalism. But if Imam Rauf continues to use the Cordoba name, despite all, to refer to the entire project - as it seems he is doing - I think he's making a really big mistake. This is basically handing the Right a stick to hit him with. His intentions will be much easier represented as being malevolent, even if it should be clear to people that they weren't. Zachary Klaas (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I think we're all well aware of that particular 'talking point' here, but it's of no relevance to my point. I want you to explain why you won't list the co-managers of the project according to the project itself, and why you continue to insist the project itself doesn't know the difference between Park51 and Cordoba House. This is (purportedly) an article about Park51. You continue to list state rumors and opinions as facts, and ignore the facts. Look at the coverage of Terry Jones. He (and the media) seemed to think the only decision-maker on location is Rauf. He's not. As Daisy Khan said in her interview awhile back, there are many 'stakeholders' who would have to decide together. Beyond that, the implication is that an imam would of course have a 13-story mosque as opposed to a 13-story community center which also includes prayer space. Do you see the difference? I don't like that Wikipedia is misleading readers who trust it to present the whole picture, as opposed to a few cherry-picked facts, assumptions and rumors. Flatterworld (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think I've said anything about the issues you're raising above. If you feel you have the story straight and have good RS sources to back that up, make the change. I do stand by my argument that the decision to name any part of this project after Cordoba, when it just gives the Right a stick to hit people with for no reason, is probably unwise. But you're right, that doesn't have a bearing on what you were just talking about now. Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Flatterworld, I have trouble understanding your concern or disagreement. What do you mean "list co-managers of the project"? El Gamal's role is discussed under Purchase and investors. Is this about the Infobox? A little while ago I removed SoHo Properties/Gamal from a field for General Contractor. A general contractor hires subcontractors like electricians and carpenters and coordinates work among them. Gamal is not a general contractor, but more a developer or sponsor of the project, as explained in the article. He or his partners will have to hire a general contractor if the project moves forward. Fletcher (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Zach, I see no point to spending a lot of time researching, making footnoted changes, and the watch your lot revert them and go off on this wild goose chase of a purported 'discussion' of them. Fletcher, I'm sorry you can't be bothered to read any of Park51's statements on who is what, but in that case there's really no way to have a reasonable discussion. I assume good faith until proven otherwise. See above. Flatterworld (talk) 03:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, but there's no lack of good faith on my part. I didn't see anything to indicate that I personally would find the edit you plan to make inappropriate. From what Fletcher said, I don't see any lack of good faith on his part either, he seemed to be trying to understand your point, not shooting it down. (And I've seen Fletcher shoot things down, you'd know it if it was happening. :D) Zachary Klaas (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor about Obama's middle name

This edit was spot on.[1] "Barack Obama" is the most common name for him, and the addition of "Hussein" seems inflammatory. Further, I checked the two cited sources and neither include his middle name. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
+1 to A Quest for Knowledge. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Don't really agree that using his given middle name is inflammatory, but I see where you're coming from. WiiAlbanyGirl (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

So called "negotation" to move the mosque

Does anyone think that this dumbass pastor's claim that he is negotiating with the Imam to move the mosque warrants inclusion? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11255366 Jcc1 (talk) 00:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I do, but I'm waiting until I have a clearer picture of what exactly is going on. The minute he said he was having the negotiations, he became relevant to this page. Whether there were any negotiations or not, though, is unclear at the moment. I suspect there weren't, but his attempt to link the Koran burning protest plans in Florida to the Park51 controversy is highly interesting to me, especially since I had been fighting in the past to link information about other anti-Muslim protests to Park51. No one can doubt now that the Koran-burning controversy has a link to the Park51 controversy (though I expect we may fight over what exactly it is). Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
There is no rush to include the strange Pastors claims in the article, although Geller has gone off the rails today. Kilowattradio (talk) 00:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, interesting response - I think she just discovered that some of the Muslim-haters she's unleashed also hate Jews too (she is one, and the good pastor is apparently an anti-Semite). Her blog attacks Pastor Jones for burning Korans while at the same time saying that everyone is over-reacting to it because Muslims, y'know, really are bad and all that. It must be tough for an extremist to have to say something moderate to cover the ol' posterior. :) Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what's going on, but since Park51 isn't the same thing as Cordoba House (see above) it's possibly someone other than the Imam was involved. (Much more likely, the promise was made to 'discuss the possibility' of moving Park51. And then we have Donald Trump dealing with an investor in exchange for moving it. Flatterworld (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article be using template: current? This is an example; even if it weren't for Pastor Jones, the controversy about the mosque suggests it's a current event. Kimera757 (talk) 02:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No, see the guidelines for that template. Fletcher (talk) 03:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me like the "we're getting the mosque moved" comment was made so that he didn't lose too much face by cancelling the Qu'ran burning under such national/international pressure. I think it means nothing. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I added the 2010 Book Burning controversy article in the SEE ALSO section. Jcc1 (talk) 10:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Did I Miss Something

Why so few comments and edits today?

I thought that there was something wrong with my watchlist. For the first time in weeks, there seems to be relatively few entries about Park51. There is just as much "new" about this in the news as ever. There are quite a few people out there who have made comments which have not been commented on yet. Isn't there a prize for making hash out of all the re-hash? Get back to work you guys! -- Komowkwa (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

POV check

This article should probably be POV checked, we can't take any chance of being embroiled in this mess by having a POV page. Ronk01 talk 04:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:POV-check <-- please read. If you're the person who put the tag on, you have to give the reasons for it. Otherwise take it off. Zachary Klaas (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Zach, use of the tag has not been supported. WP:NPOV defines neutral point of view as "presenting fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" The article already describes various significant points of view. The weight and proportionality of opinion swings back and forth slightly from one view to another at different times, but that is the way it always goes on Wikipedia -- that is the nature of the project. In an article which is as well developed as this one, the POV tag can actually be POV itself. Rather than wasting time debating whether the article deserves a POV tag, at any and every given point of time, and rather than dissuading readers from actually reading the article or even reading the lead, I think we should all work on improving the content of the article -- balance it out here and there, eliminate and summarize the trivia, correct the grammar, but don't trash the article with a sign at the top that says, in effect, that it's not worth reading. KeptSouth (talk) 06:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more, KeptSouth. Zachary Klaas (talk) 13:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I am not accusing the article of bias, I am just saying that an extremely controversial topic like this needs to be watched, and doing a POV check every once in awhile helps. Ronk01 talk 13:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Read what I asked you to read above. If an editor places this tag on the article, the editor must state on the talk page why the article is not at present neutral. "Somebody needs to watch this" is not a good enough reason for the tag. You have to state for the record what's so unneutral about it. You have to. Not someone else. The editor who puts the tag on must do so. It says so in the documentation I asked you to read. Zachary Klaas (talk) 15:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with Zachary. There has to be just cause to put a POV tag (which is a big claim that needs significant backup, in my opinion, not just a cleanup tag or something) and I have to say that I am more than amazed at the significantly neutral POV of this article. I think there are enough people watching this, enough wikiproject members with their eyes on this and enough people interested in this that it will not go astray. Thank you though, Ronk. WiiAlbanyGirl (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

What a mouthful title

what about, Islamic cultural centre, Manhattan - more logical and follows common trend. Peaceworld111 (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

or Islamic cultural centre, other closer location Peaceworld111 (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Islamic cultural centre, Lower Manhattan? Peaceworld111 (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm okay with the title as long as this isn't a shortcut way to get people to agree to calling the page "Ground Zero Mosque". I gather the "near Ground Zero" part of the title is a good faith attempt to represent both the "Ground Zero sensibilities" part and the "it's not actually located there" part to the arguments associated with the controversy. But I could see people saying "hey, as long as changing the title is in play, let's push to get this called Ground Zero Mosque, it has the most Google hits, yadda yadda...", and I will resist that, as I hope would others. We've rejected that route before and we should continue, as that name is very misleading. Zachary Klaas (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
No one but project opponents would ever "agree" to call it the GZM; it's simply not a neutral title. I was perhaps too "bold" to rename the article without prior discussion, but I had a brain flash and acted on it. Whether it sticks or not, one thing is for sure: it is neutral, and accurate.
  • There is indeed a proposal to build it, but it's still just a proposal
  • It will be an Islamic cultural center - it's not primarily slated to be for interfaith, althought that is one intended usage
  • It is near (rather than "at" or "on") ground zero
It's important for the title to be neutral, and also to catch the reader's eye. No one who didn't already know the latest name of the (proposed) building would have a clue what Park51 means. Almost everyone would know that it is Proposed to build an Islamic cultural center on a building site that is near Ground Zero.
The only thing left which could possibly be disputed is whether it's "just" a cultural center or whether it's "really" a mosque. And that's what the body of the article is for: to describe all POVs about this and related matters fairly. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Ed, can you organise a move proposal please? I quite like the old name as its short and to the point. But I do want to here what everyone has to say. Maybe there is another name that is better. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Re Ed - "No one but project opponents would ever "agree" to call it the GZM;" [citation needed]. I'm not an opponent. I call it the GZM.
Re Zachary Klaas - Your argument against GZM seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. WP:COMMONNAME pretty clearly dictates what the name should be here.
Frankly, I don't see the lack of WP:NPOV in saying a Mosque near Ground Zero should be called "The Ground Zero Mosque".
I think ultimately an RfC may be needed to clear this titling mess. Whatever happens, title changes should NOT BE MADE UNILATERALLY on contraversial subjects of this nature. NickCT (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Although we don't have to defer to the official name, it's tricky to come up with a title that's accurate, widely recognized, and neutral enough to achieve consensus. I'd suggest "Mosque near Ground Zero" as perhaps the most widely known, neutral formulation, although admittedly there is debate as to whether it's properly termed a mosque. Unless we can agree to that, I'd prefer to go back to Park51. Ed's proposed title is much too wordy and makes it sound like we have no idea what it's called. Fletcher (talk) 22:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The issue with GZM is that outside the US people don't call it that without an immediate disclaimer. And I don't think it meets WP:NPOV. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The argument for GZM is a search engine test as called for by WP:COMMONNAME. I think ultimately, I'm OK with using Park51 b/c 1) It is the 2nd most WP:COMMONNAME & 2)As Eraserhead1 notes, many sources that use GZM do so with a "disclaimer" in the form of quotation marks or a note that the mosque is actually situated away from the site. NickCT (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm okay with Fletcher's approach, frankly. Yes, there are relevant qualms about calling it a "mosque" since that's not all the planned center would be, but there would be facilities for holding prayers and services, and really the distinction between mosque and prayer room in this sense is a semantic distinction. If there were a line in the first paragraph of the lead qualifying that it's not solely a mosque project and perhaps even the word "mosque" isn't strictly correct, I'm okay with the use of that word in the title. But it has to say "near Ground Zero". NickCT's comment about how WP:COMMONNAME should be the sole arbiter of this matter I think doesn't recognize that there is a spirit to the rules that trumps the letter of the rules. Wikipedia is not a place to spread misinformation. Calling the page "Ground Zero Mosque" despite the fact that the term misrepresents where the mosque facilities will be, and despite the fact that reputable sources are choosing not to use the term because it misrepresents where the mosque facilities will be, flies in the face of the idea that we're supposed to be reflecting what the WP:RS sources are saying. Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Re Zachary Klaas "misrepresents where the mosque facilities will be" - Really? I can't see how this is the case. The place is relatively near ground zero. I'm just not sure GZM explicity states the mosque is AT ground zero.
Re "doesn't recognize that there is a spirit to the rules " - Of course I recognize the spirit of the rules, which is why I ackowledged that most RSs qualify the use of the term GZM and hence WP:COMMONNAME may not strictly apply. NickCT (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
In fairness, since you prefer the "Park51" name to "Ground Zero Mosque", I must give you that - you're not blasting the "WP:COMMONNAME or the highway" gospel. I do think the "Ground Zero Mosque" name, however, substantially misrepresents the site. A prayer room used often is enough like a mosque that I don't quibble about that. But a mosque that is two New York City blocks away from the site of the World Trade Center is far enough away from the site that "Ground Zero" is a misrepresentation. It conjures up the image of Muslims building on top of the ruins themselves and doing a little jig on the graves of the deceased. It's beyond non-neutral, it's inflammatory. Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Re "WP:COMMONNAME or the highway" gospel - I think there is a case to be made for GZM w/ WP:COMMONNAME and we should at least acknowledge that even if we don't move forward with it.
Re It's beyond non-neutral, it's inflammatory. - Zach, I don't disagree with you here, but you must acknowledge that this is your POV which might not be shared by others. Writing your POV into an article is against the spirit of WP.
Sometimes something can be both my point of view and true. This is one of those cases. Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
You have an RS that would back you up? Whether or not something is inflammatory is subjective. One cannot talk about "truth" in such cases. NickCT (talk) 23:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the behavior pattern of Terry Jones in Florida makes the case pretty well. Consult 2010 Qur'an-burning controversy for more examples of how Park51 set all that off. Jones himself proved the link by claiming he had made a deal with Imam Rauf to not burn Korans in return for moving the mosque "from Ground Zero". Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I think what initially stuck me about "Park51" is that the name is sorta ambiguous. I mean, the title doesn't really relay any information does it? Now I think I've grown to like it as a relatively WP:COMMONNAME and one that avoids WP:NPOV issues.
P.S. This debate reminds me greatly of the effor to move Climatic Research Unit email controversy to Climategate. NickCT (talk) 23:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Well in reality, the entire thing is sadly inflammatory, it exposes both the insensitivity (or unawareness) of the planners, and the intolerance of the American people towards Islam. I would support the continued use of the current name. Ronk01 talk 23:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
So the planners should have been aware of American intolerance? One would hope they wouldn't have to be. Anyway, per WP:NOTAFORUM I suggest we close this discussion and agree to keep the current name. NickCT (talk) 23:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed recommend that the section be closed. 23:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Movement of "Ground Zero Mosque" term from first lines of lead

I was asked by Hauskalainen to take my concerns to the Talk page about moving the term "Ground Zero Mosque" from the lead to the Talk page, so I'm doing that. After seeing a bit more clearly what he's trying to do with the lead, I'm okay with the move. The "Ground Zero Mosque" term is still prominently debunked quickly, and the debunking doesn't get lost (as I feared) in the verbiage of a long lead. So I withdraw my objection. Now the lead has been split into a smaller lead and a "Background" section, and it appears to me that this works well. Good work. Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Good efforts Hauskalainen, although I think you should seek consensus as to whether we want to remove the term mosque when referring to this project. It has been referred to as a mosque by sympathizers and by the project itself (until they changed it). Removing the term, or associating it exclusively with the project's critics, is not accurate and seems too deferential to the latest PR. Fletcher (talk) 00:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC) UPDATE: I have restructured things a bit so that everything relating to the controversy is grouped under a controversy section. As a result, GZM had to go back in the lede under a more or less consensus phrasing. Fletcher (talk) 04:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I missed these comments somehow, Anyhow, I don't need consensus. I am following the Manual of Style which says that the article name is on bold text. Trying to inflate the rejected article title is just trying to carry on the argument in another way.--Hauskalainen (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Opposition to other mosques section

I tagged this section as possible OR. I am not sure we can blankly claim that the opposition to the GZM has "spread" or directly caused other bigoted acts against other planned mosques around the country. I didn't read the cites yet but will look at them with this in mind. Thanks, --Threeafterthree (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I read the cites. They seem to indicate that there hasn't been a real change in anti-Muslim attitudes recently, but at least one of the protest had a Tea party tie in. As the quotation in the section pointed out, the "heat" has been turned up and this "issue" is definitely receiving wide coverage and attention.--Threeafterthree (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, but the tag is inappropriate because both articles lead off (either in the title or the first few sentences of the article) by noting that there are mosque controversies elsewhere than ground zero. That means the reputable sources (not Wikipedia editors all on their lonesome) are making the connections between these mosque controversies and the one about which this page is written. The section is clearly not OR and needs to stay. Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
What I think we have to be careful about, and what would be OR, is making the statement that opposition in other places is caused by the GZM or is for the same reasons until that has been clearly made by RS. Hope that makes sense.--Threeafterthree (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the wording about this is better now. But the connection to the controversy is made very, very evident by both of the cited RS sources. Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Zachary, please leave the OR tag for now so others can comment here as well, there is no rush or need to remove it asap. It seems like the articles make the point that anti-Muslim hasn't changed all that much, so that is why these other protest/oppositions are noteworthy. Again, please let get others involved, and not just us going back and forth.Thanks, --Threeafterthree (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, the tag stays, though I find that there is nothing in the section as it stands which justifies it, and I think others will see that. To respond to your point, in the lead it is pointed out that Stop the Islamization of America (SOIA) has been a part of numerous of these campaigns against mosques elsewhere in the country. That's what makes this entire section noteworthy of inclusion, that the activists who stirred all this up in New York City, claiming insensitivity because of 9-11, are also stirring up similar controversies in other places, where 9-11 sensitivities are presumably not in play, and hostility to a mosque is more directly an expression of hostility to Muslims. Zachary Klaas (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

After rereading the first sentence, I think it could use "help". I am sure there was opposition to some mosque projects before this controversy, but how many and how widely covered they were is another thing as well as OR unless we have RS that discuss that specific aspect.--Threeafterthree (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
If it's OR then why bring it up? Zachary Klaas (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Because the first sentence reads like there were no protests until the GZM "sparked" them, and that's why it's possibly OR and could use a rewrite. --Threeafterthree (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
How would you rewrite it, then? I'd probably accept a rewrite, but to delete the entire section is a whitewash, because these are obviously related and are being treated as related by the RS sources. Zachary Klaas (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
This whole section is too general for the Park51 article. Tensions between Muslim and non-Muslim Americans should be covered in different articles, such as Islam in the United States or perhaps Islamophobia. I don't understand why this is here. Fletcher (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, of course, tensions between Muslims and non-Muslims couldn't have anything to do with this story. I don't know how I could have doubted that. </sarcasm> Zachary Klaas (talk) 02:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
"This story" is Park51, not Pamela Geller. Muslim/non-Muslim tensions should be covered as they relate to Park51, not in general throughout the United States. Fletcher (talk) 03:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so now we have one person on record saying we should solve the alleged OR problem in this section by deleting the whole section and pretending there's no link. Threeafterthree, does this respond properly to your concerns? I thought you wanted the section to be fixed, not censored. Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Zachary, using the terms "whitewash" and "censored" really don't help. Since this section does seem to be a synthesis of sorts, yes, I would leave it out for now. I was just trying to work with you however. This section would be more approriate for an article about anti-Muslim sentiment/attitudes ect. The first sentence makes it read as though there were no protests against any mosques until the Park51 controversey arose, and this has ignited/increased those other protests. I am not saying that couldn't be possible or isn't even the "truth", but providing RS that specifically make that point seems difficult at best. Anyways, what do others think? --Threeafterthree (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't count as "working with some one" to pretend you're going to fix the language while planning to cut the entire section out anyway. Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I tagged the section so hopefully others could comment. I don't think the section really belongs, but I did not delete it since you objected and there is no rush. If it is/was going to stay, I was just trying to get the wording better. Your acusations don't really help. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I've attempted to follow what the tag says, to edit wording and to add references. You've done...oh, let me see...jack. Never mind my "accusations", you tend to doing what you yourself claimed you would do. Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

My sense is this section could be distilled into a sentence noting Park51 is part of a pattern of worsening relations with Muslims. It doesn't merit a dedicated sub-section where we describe other controversies in other states (as I've said, this article is about Park51). Fletcher (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Fletcher, it would go a long way to establishing your good faith in these matters if instead of me proposing something and you disposing it, maybe you should propose a specific solution and implement it. My suggestion is to write one sentence that you think sums this up, place it someplace where people will read it (i.e., not buried in a footnote), and I would strongly suggest retaining the Time magazine citation (which I think makes the point I'm keen to ensure is in the article). I think the other mosque controversies should be listed (the Time article does that as well, and links those controversies with the Park51 controversy), but they pretty much are listed in the lead as it stands currently. Up to the challenge? Obviously I'll be watching to see that it's done right, but I'd be willing to let you have a go at it. Zachary Klaas (talk) 03:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Fletcher, just saw your change. Good work. Zachary Klaas (talk) 04:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I attempted to rewrite this to say "The controversy over the project has coincided with prominent media coverage of mosque projects in other states facing opposition and the deterioration of relations between Muslims and Non-Muslims in the United States," since it isn't an objective fact that relations have worsened nor that the park51 project caused the other protests. Zachary's reason for reverting my change was that "Fletcher wrote this" as if Fletcher's version automatically supersedes all future attempts at improvement. Jcc1 (talk) 00:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

As Fletcher knows from our previous dust-ups, I hardly regard his word as the ultimate definitive version all of the time. :) The reason I said that here is that I asked Fletcher, above, to rewrite the sentence his own way, with some things I wanted in there represented, and he did. That's the product of a compromise, Jcc. When people agree on the wording, it ceases to be particularly "controversial". You seem to be fixated on portraying me as someone who can't agree with anyone, when it's just you I'm disagreeing with. Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Sources have documented the worsening of relations, which is germane to the Park51 controversy. We have to be careful about attributing causation to complex social phenomena; I agree with your skepticism there. Fletcher (talk) 03:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Other sources claim otherwise: "While the amount of anti-Muslim sentiment hasn't shifted much since a spate of homegrown terror attacks and the furor over the mosque, Muslim American leaders worry that it could. They accuse the bloggers of fueling religious hatred." That's from the same article that claims Geller and Spencer made the controversy into a national spectacle. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/18/AR2010081802582_2.html?sid=ST2010082606477 Jcc1 (talk) 10:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
It sounds as though poll results of attitudes toward Muslims haven't changed, but the tenor of debate has worsened and there are fears Americans' attitudes may be changing in the near future. Perhaps it needs a slight rephrasing.Fletcher (talk) 11:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I said this below as well, but I want to make sure you see it. :) Fletcher, you've dismissed as "irrelevant" before the documentable fact that Geller and Spencer are active supporters of the anti-mosque campaigns in the other states. There is a clear connection, you've just got it in your head that somehow that point doesn't matter. Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
And you have it in your head that "supporting" something means you can take credit for it. That's only true for sports fans. ;-) Fletcher (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect Assumption of Statistics Claim

I wanted to call into question a quote towards the introduction/beginning of the article that states that most individuals (NYS residents [non-Manhattan] and Americans) DO support the building of the mosque. Clearly in the section discussing statistics (below the landmark status denial), there is not a majority in regards to support. Even though this original claim in the introduction is supported by one article, it is apparent that according to many different academic polls and sources, there is not a clear majority and more often than not, there is not support for the mosque. Can we discuss this and possibly reword the beginning to clarify this? I am just concerned because individuals using this page as a resource will undoubtedly read the beginning and not read deeper into the article to see the 'breakdown' of statistics. This just sets an incorrect tone for the article. Comments? (PS. I know I'm new here, but I'm not a radical about either side. I'm just a statistician) WiiAlbanyGirl (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

No such claim is made in the article. In the "Polls" section of the article, we have two separate polls identifying that Americans and/or NYS residents believe that the Park51 developers have a legal right to build on the site (whatever people may think about whether it's a good idea or whether they should actually make use of this legal right to build the development).

Notably, opposition to the location of the project at the proposed site does not always entail opposition to a recognition of the developers' legal right to locate the project at the proposed site. The Quinniapac University poll of New York State residents released August 31, 2010 notes "By a 54 - 40 percent majority, voters agree 'that because of American freedom of religion, Muslims have the right to build the mosque near Ground Zero,'.".[132] A Fox News national poll taken August 10–11, 2010 found that 61% felt that the project developers had a right to build a mosque there[11] (a majority of Democrats (63-32%), Republicans (57-36%), and Independents (69-29%).[133]

If you think people are not getting this point, you certainly can suggest rewording. However, the claim you make in your statement above is not correct. Nothing in the article as written portrays Americans or NYS residents as supporting the building of the mosque. It portrays them as recognizing that, whatever they think about the wisdom or sensitivity of doing so, the developers have a legal right to do so. I would point out that both Barack Obama and Sarah Palin have the same position on the question of the developers' legal rights. Zachary Klaas (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I changed the words "support the legal right of the Park51 developers to proceed" to "believe the Park51 developers have a legal right to proceed" so that this is not confused with supporting the developers' choice to build. Is this responsive to your concern? Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
WiiAlbanyGirl -- Welcome! I think it will be of great value to have a statistician here since as you know statistics can be interpreted many different ways and our goal is to create as an objective a source as possible for information. Thank you for contributing. Jcc1 (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
First off, let me thank you all for welcoming my claim and my contribution so willingly. I am a doctoral student in applied statistics (as it applies to public health) and I know first hand that the wording of a poll result or a statistic can invariably and (unfairly) frame an argument or an article for the lay person in ways that a trained eye may be able to spot. The wording of this article is supposed to be in such a way that an individual does need to have knowledge of an applied statistics course to understand the wording of a variable poll. I have written a couple papers and a thesis that would make Tolstoy scared (from its thickness) and I still got confused when looking at the beginning 'summary' of the current opinion statistics in comparison to the breakdown and explanation of what popular opinion is. If something is worded in such a way, people may use this article as a resource for them showing a majority opinion towards support of the mosque, when it actually is the right to proceed. I understand your explanation, but the rewording (and I appreciate your doing that, JCC) brings the tone to a new level in the understanding of what people do support and where opposition still lies.

May I also say that I applaud the usage of multiple statistical polls (that are widely respected) as well as poll results from various time periods to show trends? I appreciate that as a researcher and statistician because quite often, a couple 'biased' news sources are used and it is great to see an unbiased, mathematical approach to the popular opinion on this subject. Have a great week, everyone! WiiAlbanyGirl (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

For the record, WiiAlbanyGirl, I was the one who changed the wording. Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

coincidence with othersmosques

[2] An earlier edit originally changed th wording (i forget which) but "The controversy over the project has coincided with a generalized deterioration of relations between Muslims and non-Muslims in the United States" suggests that the 2 issues are seperate and purely coincidental, however this is causation because there was no such controversy about mosques coming out in other places (even expectedly more controversial places like the south (FL?)). We should reword this somehow, perhaps re-reword it?Lihaas (talk) 08:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd support that, but be aware that there are a few editors who have been systematically trying to challenge any such connection being drawn. If you do want to attempt a rewrite, you'll have to prepare yourself by finding some more sources to bolster the point that there are more mosque controversies after the Park51 controversy than before, otherwise you'll be told that this is irrelevant because there's "no evidence" there's any relationship between Park51 and the other controversies. Now, connections between Park51 and the would-be Koran-burner in Florida are explicit because the pastor there specifically chose to involve himself in the Park51 controversy, and it may be worth trying to add that connection at this point. But as for the other mosque controversies, you need sources with "smoking gun" kinds of connections, otherwise people will challenge you (despite the common sense obviousness that these controversies are, in fact, related). Zachary Klaas (talk) 13:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Good example of post hoc ergo propter hoc. It's possible the Park51 controversy caused other mosque protests, but the fact that other protests followed Park51 hardly proves Park51 caused them. The same underlying social factors that caused Park51 to blow up may well have ignited the other protests if Park51 didn't exist. The Washington Post article we use as a source, for example, is suggestive there's a connection, but the author doesn't make direct claims she can't prove. She goes as far as saying the tone of debate shifted after Park51, but overall attitudes toward Muslims haven't changed much since the controversy erupted. She offers other factors such as the Fort Hood shooting and the Times Square bomber as events that increased public distrust of Muslims. To what extent public attitudes toward Muslims caused the Park51 controversy or the Park51 controversy shifted attitudes toward Muslims is an extremely complicated question! My wording was intended to take an agnostic tone rather than to suggest there is no relationship between the two.Fletcher (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
We do know that Geller and Spencer have been equally active in promoting the mosque controversies in the other states. But this demonstrable fact didn't meet with your approval as "relevant" somehow, as you'll recall, Fletcher. Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"Ground Zero mosque" scare quotes

Could we remove the scare quotes from "Ground Zero mosque" in the lede? I don't see the "point" of them.  Chzz  ►  13:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The point is that "Ground Zero Mosque" is a misnomer. To show it in anything but scare quotes is to give legitimacy to an incorrect term. Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy says we should use the terms that things are most well known by. That may not always be the politically correct terms. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Political correctness is not the issue. Misrepresentation is the issue. Zachary Klaas (talk) 04:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Creeping delegitimation of previous lead material

Fletcher just moved a section which was originally in the lead from its place just after the lead, in a new section called "Background", to the first subsection of the "Controversy" section. I accepted Hauskalainen's change to split the lead into a smaller lead and this new "Background" section because the new section immediately followed the lead. I will not accept Fletcher's use of this change to embark upon a campaign of progressively burying the information contained in that section deeper and deeper into the article. If this persists, I will insist the material is put back into the lead. Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Background is not really what this is. It would be more adequately titled "Controversy" since that is what it is describing. You may as well move the whole "Controversy" section up there because it should all be together. I'm sure Fletcher resents your personal attack, and I don't appreciate your threatening and hostile tone. Jcc1 (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious he did this to bury the information. I call 'em like I see 'em. Zachary Klaas (talk) 04:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Zachary has my number. To the naif who assumes good faith, it might seem like I was just putting the Background section in the Controversy section where it logically belongs, seeing how it gives the background to the controversy. In reality of course Zachary can document my "connections" to Pamela Geller, the Tea Party, the Koch brothers, Halliburton, and the Illuminati. I don't know if he has the video or just the minutes from our latest meeting in a cavern beneath Fox News headquarters, but it was clear that Mr. Murdoch was concerned with Wikipedia's article, which made it seem like the mosque furor was less than purely spontaneous. Whipping up hysteria about Muslims is essential, as we need a convenient scapegoat when we begin testing atomic bombs in the national parks. Nevertheless, Chairman Nixon (yes, that Nixon) cautioned against outright deletion of the wiki text, as the appearance of a cover-up could be troublesome. It would be better to move the text, "bury it", if you will, farther down in the article. Readers won't realize they can click to it from the Table of Contents, and will become so tired after reading through the first section that they will skim past Zachary's revelations of how we orchestrated the whole controversy. Yet it will be there in the text, plain as day for anyone to see. It's all about plausible deniability. Lessons have been learned, my friends. Fletcher (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
That was amusing. Well, I laughed, anyway. :) Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
The thing is, what's in the "Controversy" section hinges around what people "on the two sides" are saying. The Polls section, for example, shows how many people there are on the two sides. The Funding Sources section has politicians on the two sides arguing about where the funding is coming from. Then we have the Opposition and Support sections, documenting who are on the two sides. Anything that isn't about documenting the views on the two sides doesn't belong here. (Hey, funny how the section I added about the controversy being a recruitment tool for radical Islamists also ended up tacked to the very, very end of this section. But hey, good faith and all that.) Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Article name

I just checked and "ground zero mosque"[3] yields 25,300,000 hits whereas "park51"[4] only 1,550,000. So it seems like the article should be called "Ground Zero Mosque," by a factor of 20-something. Apologies if this has been done to death already. What other searches could be used to validate or invalidate the hypothesis? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia titles are not governed by google hits. The title must be neutral, and the term GZM has neutrality problems as we have seen discussed on the talk page here. (Interestingly, a non-neutral title can be allowable if supported by a consensus of sources, but here we specifically have disagreements among sources). Fletcher (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
The term "Ground Zero Mosque" seems to be counter-productive to the current Wiki policy of neutrality. Of course, my conclusion assumes the proposed structure wouldn't be called "Ground Zero Mosque", so the title of the related Wiki article should reflect the name of the actual project.HBCALI (talk) 23:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, is a 2 block distance from ground zero still considered "ground zero"? I'm not from New York and need a better idea of the city. The media provides the impression that the Mosque would be constructed on the very foundation where the twin towers once stood. If that was so, then the term "Ground Zero Mosque" would be entirely accurate. Otherwise from my neck of the woods, 2 city blocks equates to nearly a half mile. How far away from the towers does "ground zero" extend? Please clarify.

It's a very subjective judgement - based on people's feelings. When people feel strongly enough, the entirety of NY State is connected with Ground Zero. twilsonb (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
World Trade Center Site 9-23-01 with Cordoba House location.jpg
I think the NOAA image we have in the article is very helpful. Click on it to enlarge. You can see it's two blocks north from the northern edge of the site, but in the middle of the block so a bit farther. However, the north-south Manhattan blocks are very short (264 feet or 1/20 mile). The blocks in lower Manhattan are more irregular so I'm not sure they conform to this standard, but you can see they are short blocks. If want to count 7 World Trade Center as part of Ground Zero, it's even closer, because that building was offset just to the north of the main site (you can see its rubble in a gap between two buildings that didn't collapse). But no one died at 7 WTC so it doesn't have the same emotional effect. The actual twin towers were in the southwest corner of the site and so were somewhat farther than 2 blocks, maybe the equivalent of 4 or 5. When you go down there, you don't really see ground zero until you are right on it, because there are so many high rises in the way. It's a bustling city and nothing seems particularly sacred about it until you hit the WTC site, and even that is now a train station and huge construction site. Fletcher (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I think WP:COMMONNAME is, frankly, quite often a turkey of a policy. It says right in the policy that the names are allowed to, essentially, fly in the face of the neutrality otherwise so assiduously cultivated by Wikipedians. In practice, however, people often don't do this because they're actually committed to writing a fair article. My favorite example of this is the article entitled Battle of Jenin. The most popular name, by the Google test, for what happened in Jenin is "Jenin massacre". This is, however, a blatantly loaded term because unlike most massacres, not only did a comparative few people die rather than many, but people died on both sides, rather than simply one side offing people on the other (as was true for the "Boston massacre", for example, often cited as an example of the WP:COMMONNAME policy). The Battle of Jenin article debunks claims that were made by interested parties to the conflict on the side of the Palestinians that hundreds or thousands of Palestinians were killed and notes that in addition to the 52 Palestinians (mostly gunmen) that were killed, 23 Israeli soldiers were killed in the same exchange. The decision not to call that page "Jenin massacre" was judicious, because the reason the Google hit number is higher for that phrase is that pro-Palestinian propaganda sites were pitching this spin as disinformation about what happened, and because more reputable sources spent some time evaluating whether or not there had been a "massacre"...to do this in an article involves speaking the words in the article. It would have been, after all was said and done, irresponsible to give the page that name. I think this page is similar. The people who invented this "Ground Zero Mosque" term are themselves right-wing propagandists anxious to frame the conflict in an anti-Muslim context. News bureaus have cautioned against the use of the term, or at least against the uncritical use of the term (i.e., put it in quotes, always explain it's not exactly accurate). WP:COMMONNAME, again, proves itself a turkey of a policy in this case. Zachary Klaas (talk) 05:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
User:Zachary Klaas, there is much to what you say. And you have a POV about this, as we all do. I largely agree with you, but note that (1) not all users of the term "GZM" are right-wing propagandists, and (2) more importantly, please keep in mind that "news bureaus" have their own distinct POV and (usually liberal) slant on things, and may be anxious to frame things for their own purposes. I can accept some of your logic, but I think you are elevating the media's POV a bit much. Kaisershatner (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Regarding statement (1), I agree, but most of those people seem not to have much insight into how no one called it that until after Geller and Spencer's disinformation campaign began, and I think Wikipedia should reflect that. Regarding statement (2), are you suggesting people be able to delete a reference from the news section of the New York Times because "those Times reporters are so liberal"? I would hope Wikipedians will not follow your lead in that direction. (Or do the same thing the other way with, say, the Chicago Tribune or the Los Angeles Times, which are widely known as more conservative newspapers...just anticipating the responses about Fox News I'm about to get. Fox is different because it has shown itself willing to bend or break facts to satisfy its hard-right constituency. It doesn't count as "reputable". But many other "conservative" media sources do.) Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Of course I am not suggesting that. On the other hand, the fact that you are suggesting "Fox is different" is telling. I'm only pointing out you might want to read about Walter Duranty and Eason Jordan before concluding that the other media outlets present some kind of sacrosanct font of neutral information. Again, what "news bureaus" call the GZM is relevant, but not sufficient in itself, to answer the question. Kaisershatner (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, like I'm the only person in the world who notices when Fox lies its posterior off. Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Article size

WP:Article size means at 130k its way too long for readility and load times, we need to discuss a page split at this point.Lihaas (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, some would say 130 k is not too long by today's standards, but prior to splitting the article, I suggest that we do some other, and somewhat easier things to improve loading such as -- switching to vcite, removing unnecessary pics of people who are only very tangentially involved in the controversy and cutting some of the unnecessary details from the text.-- Regards KeptSouth (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 DoneI changed cite format to vcite and it seems to load very fast now. Will be removing the tag. KeptSouth (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I think something to keep in mind would be that once the situation on Park51 is resolved (whether or not it will be built, when ground will be broken, etc.), then specific details on the opposition and support should be put on another page. It's what is making this article huge and once a concrete decision is made, I don't think that the opposition or support for its initial approval and construction will be anything but its own slice of history and because of that, it could be proposed as its own article in the future. WiiAlbanyGirl (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Discussions are underway (sporadically) to rewrite the controversy section more concisely. The article is too big because we have failed to summarize the issues. It is easy to copy and paste quotes from the news into wiki. It's hard to summarize in an intelligent and neutral fashion. So we get more of the former than the latter. Splitting the article doesn't solve the problem; it is 96KB with just the Controversy section alone, and people add new quotes every day. You might end up splitting it twice, and at some point you have to wonder how this helps the wiki. Are we just a collection of quotes indiscriminately culled from the media? (What about WP:NOTNEWS?) Do articles that are mostly just quotes get to be Featured or Good Articles? I think the goal should be to improve the quality of the article by making it more succinct. Fletcher (talk) 03:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, did you mean TSteichen's periodic thing about reorganizing the page according to this scheme he wants to work up for dividing the question into issues? I didn't think there was much going on there. Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Article Outline

Can't explain this in the edit summary. We have discussed in the past that the Controversy section is flawed because it presents a one dimensional, pro or con, view of the arguments. I have tried to restructure the article to reflect that there are various aspects of the Controversy, for example the Polls and Funding questions are part of the controversy. This is sets the stage for redoing the Controversy section in a way that summarizes the arguments rather than becomes a dumping ground for repetitive quotes. Zachary objects in his edit summary that the section about the Taliban using the controversy for recruitment doesn't fit into the pro/con delineation of the Controversy section. I agree. But I specifically don't want to force it into that format; I want different aspects of the Controversy to stand on their own within that section. The Controversy as a recruitment tool for radical Islamists just is not a Level 1 heaving; look at the Table of Contents and see how it stands out like a sore thumb. It is about the controversy, as stated in its own heading and in the text, and belongs under the Controversy section, even though it doesn't fall precisely under pro or con.Fletcher (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, now that it's been heaved, I guess it was a "Level 1 heaving". :) Sorry, couldn't resist the typo joke there. My problem with relegating anything to that Controversy section is that it seems to be where people like to put facts to make them look as if they're opinions. Especially if you put something under the "Opposition" and "Support" sections, because this is where everyone's different "points of view" are represented. You put something after that and people are in the "here's another opinion" mindset. The part about the controversy being a tool for recruiting radical Islamists isn't opinion, unless we're in the habit of dismissing the professional view of counterterrorism experts as mere opinions. So I complained pretty loudly when that section was moved there. It's not quite as bad where it is now, because people treat the poll information as objective. If we could write the section on funding sources so it was reasonably objective too (based on actual knowledge of funding sources rather than back-and-forth claims about funding sources between the two sides), then having the stuff about radical Islamist recruitment would be fine where it is. Then we can get into people's opinions in the "Opposition" and "Support" bits. I'm not thrilled about the decision to put the recruitment section where it is, but I'll accept it for now - presuming the reasonably factual character of the stuff before the "Opposition" and "Support" sections is not greatly compromised. Zachary Klaas (talk) 03:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
There, just made changes to the ordering of the information in "Funding sources" so that the section begins by stating the established facts about what Rauf is saying now about where he is seeking funding, then introducing the facts about what he said in the past that contradicted this position, and then the opinions follow after that. This way, instead of reading like an opinion section with some facts in it, it reads like a factual section which includes some representation of people's opinions. If the section reads like this, then I would have no problem with the counterterrorism information being in the section immediately following. Zachary Klaas (talk) 04:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Just as "Funding sources" is a sub-topic of "Controversy", so could "Designation as a mosque", be under "Controversy", with citations to notables who feel it's important, or not, with "Recruitment center..." possibly under reasons for those who feel it's important and, say, the First Amendment, freedom of religion, separation of church and state, and Thomas Jefferson for those who feel it's not. -98.69.171.170 (talk) 03:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, that's a good point. :) Fletcher, TSteichen, et al., are you listening there? Zachary Klaas (talk) 03:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

FAQ-in-progress

I've created Talk:Park51/FAQ to eventually help answer any questions editors commonly have on this page. After it's been fleshed out to my satisfaction I'll transclude it here with the help of the {{FAQ}} template in the article's header. Any help from other editors would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. elektrikSHOOS 22:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Another Controversy Example

The authors of the article "socialized medicine" handled the (rather contentious) controversy associated with that topic, by first identifying the points of dispute, and organizing them into a relatively few dispute (seven, to be precise) themes. They then cited references that discussed the nature of each such theme. Relatively little emphasis was put on quotes of individual persons and/or politicians; but when mentioned, tended to focus on WP:N sources. That approach explains the associated controversy in a way that is, IMHO, much more readable than is the description of the controversy in this case, which consists of little more than an unorganized listing of unfiltered quotes (aka, "quote farm") that purports to describe the controversy in this case. Maybe we should follow its example. TSteichen (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we currently have an "unorganized listing of unfiltered quotes". As I said before, you can't have a page where people are constantly told to document their sources and then turn around and complain the page is top-heavy with documented sources. I'm also very suspicious of any method proposed for reorganizing this page which might involve cutting out the documentation the page is (finally) starting to have of the numerous connections between the Park51 controversy and right-wing demagoguery. Zachary Klaas (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Did you actually look at the socialized medicine I cited as the example? There's no lack of documentation there that I can see. Do you see something wrong with that article? And, do you really believe that it's incorrect to characterize the controversy sections current Park51 article the way I did, as "an unorganized listing of unfiltered quotes?" TSteichen (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I did look at the article. I didn't think anything was wrong with it. I do believe it's incorrect to characterize the controversy sections in the current Park51 article as an "unorganized listing of unfiltered quotes". And I am suspicious of how you intend to "filter" these quotes. Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
If you did look at the article, and you see nothing wrong with it, can you see how differently it treats the description of a controversy than does the Park51 article? That you are suspicious comes as no surprise, given the tenor of your comments. But, your suspicions notwithstanding, I am not proposing to do anything to "filter these quotes." I am simply saying that this article is terribly constructed. If you think that the present structure of the Park51 controversy sections is fine, then we have nothing more to discuss. If your view represents the collective view of Wikipedians that Park51 is an acceptable article and needs only minor tweaking, then so be it. I assure you that I have plenty of other things to do, if that indeed turns out to be the case. TSteichen (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Then I suggest you tend to those other things. Zachary Klaas (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Once again, smart-alec riposte rather than substantive response. Very tiring. Any one else out there interested in this article, or does this clever-talker have homesteading rights and own the space? The lack of adult contributions to this article is surprising (and appalling - and, I admit, discouraging vis-a-vis Wikipedia). TSteichen (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Really? I thought I was the only person you would characterize as not offering adult contributions. Are you saying this about everyone else, too? Consider yourself before accusing others of being smart alecks. Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I have no disagreement that the article needs a lot of work. Probably the Oppose/Support sections should be rewritten into a more compact Controversy section, using sources from the existing text. It could start describing the background, when there was little knowledge or protest of the mosque, then describe the controversy's escalation, with subsections for the major arguments for and against, then the controversy's (future) conclusion. Fletcher (talk) 03:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely agree. Now: how does that get done? TSteichen (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Rough draft for a "controversies" section (modified from TS original concept):

1. Islam is anti-American/Muslims are responsible for the 9/11 attacks (Islam itself, peaceful/moderate muslims dont exist, 9/11 responsibility, committed in name of islam) vs freedom of religion, islamophobia

2. ulterior motives [may need to be its own list] (Rauf views, victory mosque, Cordoba name/conquest, funding, use as a recruitment tool terrorists, why he chose THIS spot?, a step towards muslim takeover/sharia law in the USA, aggressive/provocative act by building it) vs Imam's stated goals and lifelong work that the project promotes religious diversity and interfaith cooperation.

3. Offensive/Inappropriate location (hallowed/sacred ground, the building itself being "ground zero" since it was damaged in the attacks, sensitivity, "honoring" terrorists) vs private property + the fact that there will be a 9/11 memorial on the site + this is a local matter, and the appropriate local process already approved it.

4. The effect of Park51 will be negative (Muslim/Non Muslim relations will suffer, demonstrations against it will result in violence) vs rauf not expecting the backlash that has ensued -- to block it at this point would further assist terrorists and radicalize more Muslims against the U.S. + it shows a healing attitude among Muslims and refutes the radical element. Jcc1 (talk) 09:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Two other issues relevant that should be included are the size of the center relative to Manhattan's Muslim population (as well the presence of multiple other mosques in the area), and the effect that the construction of super-mosques or 'Islamic Community Centers' have had in many European communities (lack of integration/isolation of the Muslim community, as opposed to the regular process of integration typical of most immigrants). AllesJetzt (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Are people working on this proposed reboot of the "controversies" section aware of the concept of framing? The way you decide to set up the issue can influence the way it is seen. I think it's telling that your six examples all start with the conservative/non-Muslim perspective and then respond with the liberal/Muslim rebuttal. Liberals have introduced issues into this controversy as well, and I think you know this. In particular, the issue that right-wing propagandists have created a controversy where there previously had been none, and suspiciously just before the midterm elections, is something that liberals and Muslims have been repeatedly advancing and clearly constitutes one of the "controversies". I'd like to think you're open to including this, but I know from previous exchanges with most of you that you're trying very hard to ignore this. As long as you do, I will strenuously resist your attempt to frame this in a way that makes only conservatives and non-Muslims seem like they're being "reasonable" about the Park51 debate. Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Park51/Archive_4&oldid=387890208"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Park51/Archive_4
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Talk:Park51/Archive 4"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA