| Revision as of 16:04, 15 November 2010 editNickCT (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers17,943 editsm →RfC - Is it a "Muslim" community center?: expanding← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 19:03, 27 July 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,533 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Park51/Archive 7) (bot |
| (284 intermediate revisions by 93 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|action1=GAN |
|
|
|action1date=21 February 2018 |
|
|
|action1link=Talk:Park51/GA1 |
|
|
|action1result=not listed |
|
|
|action1oldid=821141825 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action2=GAN |
|
|
|action2date=19 March 2018 |
|
|
|action2link=Talk:Park51/GA2 |
|
|
|action2result=listed |
|
|
|action2oldid=829660355 |
|
|
|
|
|
|currentstatus=GA |
|
|
|topic=Art and architecture |
|
|
|dykdate=17 August 2010 |
|
|
|dykentry=... that while Mayor ] said it was a "very appropriate place" to build it, 64% of polled Americans felt it was wrong to build the ''']''' mosque near ]? |
|
|
}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Talkheader|noarchive=yes}} |
|
{{Talk header|noarchive=yes}} |
|
{{calm talk}} |
|
|
{{controversial}} |
|
{{controversial}} |
|
|
{{Round in circles|search = no}} |
|
{{pbneutral}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|1= |
|
{{Round In Circles|search = no}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject New York City|importance=low}} |
|
{{WPBS| |
|
|
{{WikiProject New York City|importance=low|class=B}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Mid|911=yes|911-importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject September 11|class=B|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Islam|class=B|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Architecture|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Architecture|class=B|importance=Low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Merged-from|Park51 controversy}} |
|
{{dyktalk|17 August|2010|entry=... that while Mayor ] said it was a "very appropriate place" to build it, 64% of polled Americans felt it was wrong to build the ''']''' mosque near ]?}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|counter = 6 |
|
|counter = 7 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|algo = old(21d) |
|
|algo = old(21d) |
| Line 21: |
Line 37: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|target = Talk:Park51/Archive index |
|
|target=Talk:Park51/Archive index |
|
|mask = Talk:Park51/Archive <#> |
|
|mask=Talk:Park51/Archive <#> |
|
|leading_zeros = 0 |
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|indexhere = yes}} |
|
|indexhere=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
{{archives |
|
{{archives |
|
|auto= long |
|
|auto= long |
| Line 33: |
Line 50: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Changing title of this article to 45 Park Place == |
|
== How many stories? == |
|
|
|
|
|
We say it's 13 stories tall. I've been seeing some sources give a higher number, like 15 or 16 stories. I'd update the article if I had a clue what the right number is. ] (]) 00:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:I know, I've seen different numbers too...] (]) 05:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
In this article the author states it is 13 stories as well. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== RfC - Which lead is appropriate == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'''IMPORTANT NOTE to editors. This is the subject of an NPOV dispute. Editors ARE STRONGLY ADVISED to read first the issue in its full context at ] before giving their comment below ''' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question - |
|
|
|
|
|
What is the appropriate introductory sentence for this article? |
|
|
|
|
|
:'''a)''' (current version) |
|
|
:'''Park51''', originally named '''Cordoba House''' and controversially referred to as the "Ground Zero mosque", is a planned 13-story ] to be located about two blocks from the ] in ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
:'''b)''' |
|
|
:'''Park51''', originally named '''Cordoba House''' and controversially referred to as the '''"Ground Zero mosque"''', is a planned 13-story ] and mosque to be located about two blocks from the ] in ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
:'''c)''' |
|
|
:'''Park51''', originally named '''Cordoba House''', is a planned 13-story multi-faith community center in Lower Manhattan. It would replace an existing 1850s Italianate-style building damaged in the September 11, 2001 attacks. |
|
|
|
|
|
Issues surrounding the question - |
|
|
:1) A number of editors are objecting to the use of the term "mosque". Editors on both sides of the debate claim that RS supports their view that Park51 is a "mosque" or a "prayer-space". Both sides make ] claims. |
|
|
:2) A number of editors have objected to the use of the term "Ground Zero Mosque" as inflammatory and lacking ]. Others have countered the term is a ] for the site, and ought to be included in the first sentence. |
|
|
|
|
|
Previous discussions - |
|
|
See ] |
|
|
and ] |
|
|
|
|
|
Please reply in following format |
|
|
*'''Support A or B''' - (comment) |
|
|
Example |
|
|
*'''Support B''' - It ought to be described as a mosque b/c that's what it is! GZM is a notable alternative name! ] October 14th, 2015 |
|
|
*'''Support A''' - See ]! ] October 14th, 2015 |
|
|
::Earlier I mentioned that there should be an example of what "Support A" looks like. Ask and I shall receive! The addition of an example "Support A" has been provided. And look, it was done with the utmost respect for my suggestion! ] (]) 05:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks in advance for everybody's time and attention! As always, let's keep the debate ] and ] please. ] (]) 14:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
------ |
|
|
|
|
|
* '''TOO SOON''' This is not an issue about your alternatives A B or C. The key issue of WP neutrality is fully explained at ] and editors brought to this page should instead comment on the issue raised there. Only when we have a clear view on the neutrality issue raised at ] can we decide whow to move forward. --] (]) 08:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*::Strongly disagree, the NPOV noticeboard has served it's primary purpose of educating people on the core issues and bringing in new uninvolved editors. While I would rather the RfC had run to a more traditional proposal-opinions-proposal-opinions structure, thus allowing additional options to be seamlessly added, I think this is going well to find a consensus neutral approach. ‒ ] 08:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Support A, Weak Support B''' - The term "Ground Zero mosque" is a very common name. It may have ] issues but I think we qualify it enough by surrounding it in quotation marks and saying "controversially". Not sure about the "mosque" thing, but it seems that at least a few main stream RS refer to it as a mosque. ] (]) 14:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''RfC comment'''. I came here from the RfC notice, and have not previously watched the page. Per NickCT just above, I also support A, with weak support for B. I'm sympathetic to the concern that use of the word "mosque" is problematic. However, I think that putting the phrase in scare quotes, as well as labeling its use as controversial, clearly alerts the reader to the fact that there are issues about the wording. Given that it is, indeed, widely used (or misused) as a name makes it encyclopedic to include it, and it would therefore be wrong to in effect censure it. --] (]) 15:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Following a message at my talk page, I have read the postings at the NPOV noticeboard. In my opinion, they do not change what I said just above, because the wording in A and B already indicates that the use of the word "mosque" is controversial. There is no need for the lead sentence to also include an extended essay on all the reasons why it is controversial; labeling it as such and letting the reader read on is entirely sufficient. I've also read about option D, below, and that would be fine with me too. --] (]) 19:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*Provisionally '''support A'''. I agree that per various naming conventions both precision and common name should be involved in this decision, and this looks like the best compromise. However, I think that if this is the lead sentence an explanation about why it is "controversially" called a Mosque is required. As long as this is in place I support A.] (]) 15:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support A'''. I've stated my opinion on this matter before on this talk page. Park51 will undoubtedly host activities characteristic of a mosque. (Have a look at how Misplaced Pages presents what a ] actually is, by the way.) Not only will prayer go on in the "prayer space", but there will be services led by an imam every Friday, which is characteristic of mosques (and the more specialized "Friday mosques" at that). I personally believe it counts as a mosque. (I also, for the record, think that the "non-denominational chapel" at the Pentagon also counts as a mosque - for the same reason, because it is regularly used by Muslims for the activities for which a mosque is used, and because it too has Friday services, as only the more specialized "Friday mosques" do.) Having said all of that, the fact that this point is not generally conceded is noteworthy. There are definitions of "mosque" which Park51 does not meet. One I've seen repeatedly, for example, is that a mosque has an architectural definition - it has to have minarets, and presumably a place thereupon from which the ] call the faithful to prayer. I'm not sure Park51 fits that kind of definition of a mosque. For this reason, I think this article needs to present this as if it were an open question: some people think it's a mosque (reasons why) vs. some people don't (reasons why). I am confident those who think it ''is'' a mosque will be able to identify the reasons why people think this. Likewise for those who think it ''isn't''. ] (]) 16:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:The article currently states that two mosques existed near the World Trade Center. If you check the locations of these mosques they don't have minarets. Rauf's does not; Masjid Manhattan's address is harder to pin down as they got evicted from their space, but they are described as renting a basement so it's doubtful they have been able to erect a minaret. Since you find it dubious either of these are mosques, should I delete the reference to two mosques being in the vicinity? ] (]) 02:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::I think they're mosques, so I have no objection to your keeping those references as is. I'm just saying that's one criterion people do use. Another is whether the building was built specifically to be a mosque (i.e., given the name "Masjid" or "Mosque" outright). That's the one I think Hauskalainen is playing upon. By that standard, the Pentagon "mosque" wouldn't be one, but Park51 wouldn't be either (as its developers do not currently support calling it that), and the argument turns around whether at one point the developers floated the word "mosque" to describe it - but that's a lot more sketchy. Anyway, my point was that there are different opinions both on what defines a mosque and on whether Park51 satisfies the conditions for the definition being employed, and we should be open to all of them. ] (]) 05:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support A'''. This is no more a mosque than the ] is a synagogue, or the ] is a church. The body of the article is where the discussion of its ''mosqueness'' (or lack thereof) belongs. ] (]) 16:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support A'''. Prefaces the Ground Zero Mosque meme, avoids referring to it as an unprefaced mosque. --<small><span style="border:1px solid orange;background:#A6D785"><font size="1" color="9E0508">]</font></span></small><font color="#B13E0F"><strong>M</strong></font><font color="#A9A9A9">]</font> 18:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*<s>'''Support A'''</s> '''Support D'''. <s>It mentions the GZM name but doesn't emphasizes it with bolding as it is not the actual name, just a given name by the media and public.] (]) 23:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)</s> |
|
|
:D is actually much better. ] (]) 19:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*<s>'''Support A, weak support B'''</s> except to add that it's explicitly not just a community centre, and if it doesn't say 'and mosque' it should say something like 'and Muslim prayer space'. ‒ ] 00:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*::per "and Muslim prayer area". I can't support A because it '''fails to mention the prayer area''', which the official site states is separate from the community centre ‒ ] 05:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support B''', which describes the project more accurately than (A), which fails to account for the religious aspect of the center. Why would you call a community center a Ground Zero Mosque? You wouldn't. The sentence looks odd. But if it's acknowledged the project includes a mosque within it, it's clear that's what is being referred to. However, if editors prefer (A), then I would suggest calling it an Islamic community center or Muslim community center which better reflects usage in sources. ] (]) 01:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*:To make a note, while I categorically reject B, i would not be opposed to an edit to phrase it as an islamic community center after we feel enough time/voices have chimed in the RfC should consensus be A. Im hesitant to mess with a current version quoted as a current version during an RfC however, rest assured you'd face no resistance from me after it runs its course. Saying its called the ground zero mosque by opponents is something that self evidently should be in the article, however we should avoid referring to it as a mosque within editorial voice article prose itself. We have firm RS's stating it is not a mosque, and referring to it as such in prose amounts to endorsing a POV. Prayer Room is the islamic analogue for chapel in christian societies- often embedded in large, somewhat transient-customer orientated affairs like airports, hospitals and hotels while the word mosque is more analogous to a church. --<small><span style="border:1px solid orange;background:#A6D785"><font size="1" color="9E0508">]</font></span></small><font color="#B13E0F"><strong>M</strong></font><font color="#A9A9A9">]</font> 07:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::What do you mean by "'''it'''" is not a mosque - the whole building, or the prayer area within it? I agree with the former, but not the latter, as many sources for and against have described the prayer area as a mosque. And it sounds like original research to say "prayer room is the islamic analogue for chapel" do you have a source for that claim? Prayer room is a vague English phrase, not an Islamic term. For Muslims the step below a mosque (or masjid) is the musalla, but from my reading the musalla is more of temporary or informal space (might even be outdoors); this project seems intended to create a dedicated worship space for Muslims living in lower Manhattan; it is not akin to prayer rooms in "transient-customer orientated affairs like airports, hospitals and hotels." Also consider that it appears the ] is being held at Park51, which is led by an ] (see ). So it is not just a place for Muslim individuals to pray, but for formal worship services to be held every Friday. I don't think that meaning is captured by the term "prayer room" or "prayer space". ] (]) 13:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::You can try . I own the volume it's from. 'From Chapel to Prayer Room' is about public religious spaces changing in the last 30 years to accommodate a growing muslim population, and destroys your subjective idea that it doesn't capture the meaning. --<small><span style="border:1px solid orange;background:#A6D785"><font size="1" color="9E0508">]</font></span></small><font color="#B13E0F"><strong>M</strong></font><font color="#A9A9A9">]</font> 18:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Fletcher, Fletcher, Fletcher...where to begin? When we were debating about the "Pentagon Mosque", I pointed out that Friday services were being conducted by an Imam at the Pentagon "non-denominational chapel", and you held that to be irrelevant. If it was irrelevant in judging whether ''that'' site is a mosque, why is it suddenly ''the most'' relevant thing in establishing that ''this'' site is a mosque? ] (]) 01:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support B''', with one caveat. The term Ground Zero Mosque shouldn't be surrounded by parenthesis. This goes for '''A''' too if it wins in the end.] (]) 01:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support B''', with the same suggestion -- The term Ground Zero Mosque shouldn't be surrounded by parenthesis. This goes for '''A''' too if it wins in the end.--] (]) 03:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support A''' Option A best describes Park 51. Park 51 is considered both a community center and a mosque. Within Park 51 they will build a mosque for people to worship. Park 51 is also controversially called “Ground Zero Mosque” because it is so close to ground zero. I think option A best describes Park 51 and gives adequate information. ] |
|
|
===Option D=== |
|
|
* '''Park51''', controversially referred to as the '''"Ground Zero Mosque"''', is a planned 13-story building containing a nonsectarian ] and a Muslim prayer area, also incorporating '''Cordoba House''', a center for multifaith dialogue and engagement to be lead by Imam ]. It will be located about two blocks from the ] in ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
This is my attempt to follow the language of the official site at park51.org, while in no way downplaying the Islamic nature of the initiative. ‒ ] 10:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::The official site also says that along with the prayer area is "a monument to honor all those we lost on 9/11". Should that go into the lead sentence as well? The official blurb does not mention Cordoba House on the other hand.] (]) 12:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The monument is part of the community center as I understand it. Cordoba house is clearly described on the park51.org site. If we are mentioning Cordoba House in the lead we should do so accurately. Cordoba House, and the prayer area / mosque, are separate from the community center, other facilities are part of it. ‒ ] 01:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I really don't think we are under any obligation to follow the wording of the official site; it seems clear both sides of the debate try to frame the language in a way that favors them, and we should try to be as neutral as possible. Just as we shouldn't call it the Ground Zero Mega Mosque, we shouldn't also adapt the PR-speak of those promoting the project. Words like "prayer space" and "multifaith" are designed to tone down the fact that it will include a center for Muslim worship, commonly referred to as a mosque. ] (]) 13:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I agree that we don't need to follow the official website, and that was my point. However, I don't understand how you can suggest that in the realm of PR speak or more bluntly political propaganda, that "mosque" is a neutral term. The reason there has been such an effort not to use the term is exactly because it was co-opted in this case in order to foster certain sentiments for political gain. Your more general argument here shoots itself in the foot so many times over it can no longer walk on its own.] (]) 14:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::No, the term "Ground Zero Mosque" has been used as propaganda, but the term mosque by itself has been used widely, by sources for and against, and even by the owner of the project (). Mosque is hardly a loaded term; it is the common English word to refer to Muslim places of worship. As far as I can tell, the only people who refuse to use the word mosque are the project backers (''currently'') and a few of those defending them because they want to spin the project to make it seem totally non-sectarian. See for example, "," a New York Times article '''defending''' the project, which refers to it as "a mosque and community center". Or see the Economist, , also referring to the project as a "community centre and mosque." I am simply arguing that our article should reflect how it has been predominantly described by sources and how most readers would recognize the project; it is you guys who want to ignore ] and ] and adopt the PR-speak of one side of the dispute. ] (]) 15:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::To be clear, there is no ''obligation'' to use the official text; but as a planned thing that doesn't yet exist, there is an argument that the people planning it are best placed to know what their plans are. Otherwise, we risk moving into territory like "described by the project as a Muslim prayer space but commonly referred to in the media as a mosque", or whatever. |
|
|
<br> |
|
|
'''Support Option A ''or'' D'''. Where Option D is concerned, I would only change the "is a planned 13-story..." to "is a planned 13-story building comprising a..." for a bit more clarity of expression. Otherwise, I'm firmly behind what people are trying to accomplish there. ] (]) 18:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Tweaked as suggested ‒ ] 01:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I think '''option D''' is an improvment on option A. It is the clearest description out of them and doesn't use any overly controversial terms or any terms that may be percieved as biased. I also think zachary klaas's amendment clarifys it further. Just steer clear of calling it a mosque because that isn't what it is. ] (]) 18:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Also support D''', with Zachary's tweak as well. --<small><span style="border:1px solid orange;background:#A6D785"><font size="1" color="9E0508">]</font></span></small><font color="#B13E0F"><strong>M</strong></font><font color="#A9A9A9">]</font> 19:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Support D''' but prefer '''A''' to '''B''' and '''C'''. However I think the word mosque needs to be used instead of 'muslim prayer space' as a multitude of reliable sources use the term mosque to describe it - including the international sources I found when looking at how Ground Zero Mosque was included. I'd be prepared to change my mind if multiple reliable sources can be found which refer to it as a muslim prayer space or similar (in addition to the Guardian column given here previously). -- ] <]> 19:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
: not to go against your vote, but the term "muslim prayer space/area" is used by both park51 ( http://blog.park51.org/?page_id=6 "...interfaith spiritual center along with a Muslim prayer area and a monument to honor... ") and the cordoba initiative site ( http://www.cordobainitiative.org/?q=content/frequently-asked-questions "Strictly speaking, it will not be a “mosque,” although it would have a prayer space on one of its 15 floors." ) I think the news has just used the word to follow other earlier news reports and the campaigns naming it a mosque(for or against)] (]) 19:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::That's all well and good, but I'd need to see some reliable third party sources to back the point. High end reliable sources - such as the Economist, who call it a mosque - can be trusted to do their own research on the matter. -- ] <]> 19:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::, despite the headline: "A tentative sketch of the project shows the prayer space, whose construction cost is estimated at $17 million, in the basement. (Technically, it would be a musalla, because its construction would not meet religious rules required to sanctify a mosque; it is not uncommon for a Muslim congregation to pray in such a space but call it, colloquially, a mosque, or, in Arabic, masjid)." ‒ ] 21:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::That's interesting - we came to the same conclusion about the "Pentagon mosque" after finding an imam that was quoted on a fact-checking site who said that the best term for it was a mussallaah (same word from Arabic, although transliterated a different way). Go to the page for the Park51 article and search for mussallaah and you'll see that word is ''already used'' in the article to describe the "Pentagon mosque". Interesting that it would come up here as well. ] (]) 02:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Thinking about this further, it occurs to me that we ended up using this term mussallaah because Fletcher (with whom I was principally arguing at that point) would not accept my calling the "Pentagon mosque" a mosque. It seems like if he's going to require the downgrading of a religious site used regularly and often by Muslims from a "mosque" to a "mussallaah" at the Pentagon on the word of the St. Petersburg Times fact-checking reporters, we should encounter no resistance when the same information is available in the New York Times with respect to Park51... ] (]) 02:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::It would be nice for there to be another source, but mussallaah sounds reasonable if we have the New York Times and Guardian saying it isn't a mosque. Possibly a footnote could be added to clarify it. -- ] <]> 17:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::It seems to me that the usual English for "mussallaah/musalla" is "Muslim prayer space/area/room" ‒ ] 23:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support D'''. I voted for A at first, but this is much more in line with the info given by park51.] (]) 19:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support D''' This seems to make sense. One option for improving it further would be to say "incorrectly referred to as" instead of "controversially referred to as". --] (]) 16:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Re several points |
|
|
::1)'''@Jaymax''' - You should ask an uninvolved admin to close an RfC before you act off it. |
|
|
::2) There is not clear consensus between A and D. Roughly 6 people support both. |
|
|
::3) Personally, I '''oppose D''', for several reasons. a) poor english, b) unsure about "incorporating cordoba house" vs "originally Cordoba house", c) use of "nonsectarian" is a little misleading, d) "a center for multifaith dialogue and engagement" sounds a little advertismentish. e) Mention of ] is probably ]. ] (]) 18:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Wrong on several fronts - (1) an RfC does not override ], particularly when the consensus is clear. But please, given the lack of recent input other than your own, go ahead. (2) you neglect the timestamps - not one editor has supported A since since D proposed. (3) (a) fix the grammar then (b) fact outweighs perception (c) how is it misleading, auth source supports, you need to provide source showing otherwise (d) agree; feel free to propose better words (e) absurd. ‒ ] 10:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Complicated=''' Prefer '''A''' first, '''D''' second, and '''B''' last. I'm come to see '''C''' as a mistake. ] (]) 01:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Observation''' - One of the strengths of Misplaced Pages is that reading this discussion has given me more information on the Park51 project and it's background than any of the official media have done. Can I ask why the ] article isn't linked from any of the (currently) 303 uses of the term on the Park51 page? It might help the neutral reader to make up his or her own mind. (Disclaimer: I've currently been through only about half of the extensive archives to this page and so may have missed where this was discussed). ] (]) 16:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Lead length == |
|
|
|
|
|
Per ] the lead should be around 3 ish paragraphs, now its barely one. This seems rather short. -- ] <]> 23:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:And virtually nothing about why it's notable. That's not good. <font color="green">]</font> 01:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that a lot of material was accidentally removed. ] (]) 01:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:No it is not barely one paragraph and the detail was not accidentally removed. It was put in the right place. The MOS style says "The lead should establish significance, include mention of notable criticism or controversies, and be written in a way that makes readers want to know more. The appropriate length of the lead depends on that of the article, but should be no more than four paragraphs." |
|
|
|
|
|
:So the right length is anywhere from 1-4 paras and normally I would suggest 1-2. The MOS establishes that the info box is part of the lead section so it is already running at 3 paragraphs (one of which could easily be split into two). I would suggest that the text that is there now very easily and neatly establishes significance of this project and properly mentions its notoriety. The rest of the article is almost entirely devoted to the criticism so it cannot easily be summarised. The best thing is for the lead paragraphs, including the info box and the section index to guide the reader way through the content. I think the current version is excellent and a great improvement.--] (]) 01:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::An infobox is not a paragraph, and the lead should be a precis of the article. It isn't, now. <font color="green">]</font> 02:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::The MOS says clearly that navigational boxes ARE part of the lead. I am also puzzled why you should think it does not precis the article. It clearly says what it will be, where it will be, and why it is controversial. That is basically what the rest of article expands on. What more is there to say? The details of the controversy are easy to navigate to thru the section index.{{unsigned|Hauskalainen|03:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)}} |
|
|
:::::Does the MOS say that navboxes are paragraphs? I haven't looked. And the lead, AFAICT, has now gone from bad to laughable. The majority of the article is about the controversy. Indeed, the place would barely be notable without it. The lead does not really deal with this. That's bad writing, and bad thinking. <font color="green">]</font> 02:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Can you point at a featured article which follows that "rule"? -- ] <]> 23:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Is this directed at me? <font color="green">]</font> 02:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::No its directed at Hauskalainen. I don't think the lead includes the infobox. -- ] <]> 18:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== "Muslim community center" or just "community center" == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hey all, |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm changing the lead from "community center" to "Muslim community center" for two reasons. |
|
|
:1) The proponents of the project self-describe as "Mulsim community center". (see their website ]. |
|
|
{{cquote|Park51 is the name of the planned '''Muslim community center''' being built in lower Manhattan. }} |
|
|
:(bolding for emphasis) |
|
|
:2) A refer to it as such. |
|
|
Can anyone provide a reason to not call it "Muslim"? |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, ] (]) 12:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:As an afterthought, I realize there was just an RfC on the lede, but I don't think it specificly addressed this issue. ] (]) 12:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::In answer to the question "Can anyone provide a reason to not call it "Muslim"?" Yes because it is loose lexically. A Muslim" is a person of the faith of Islam and used as an adjective it relates to persons of that faith. But the center is for people of all faiths. It is, probably confusing two issues. Who is building it? ... and who will use it? The answer to the first question is clearly Muslims... and the answer to the second question is clearly people of all faiths because it is multifaith and will have prayer space for Christians as well as Muslims. So yes, on the one hand I can see your point but on the other hand it could be misinterpreted. Saying it is to be built by Muslims for the the community of all faiths would be more honest and less punchy. But I don't see why you need to add the word Muslim to Community Center at all. Is it not clear from the article that it is being built my people of the Islamic faith for the whole community? I think "community cnter" alone without the attribute avoids any confusion. --] (]) 02:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Hauskalainen, appreciate the point, but you are basically arguing here that if I were to take a Christain community center and put a room in it where anyone of any faith could worship, it would no longer be a Christain community center. The fallacy of that seems obvious to. If it's built by, run by, and used primarily by Christains, it is Christain period. I think the same logic applies here. |
|
|
:::Anyway, calling it "Muslim" is ] & ], which trumps your concerns about whether the term is technically accurate. I guess we could possibly call it an . Would that be better? ] (]) 16:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I would object to Islamic community center... Maybe its just be, but that wording sounds more restrictive. To me at least the words Muslim community center imply the same thing you mentioned, built by, run by, mostly used by, muslims but not restricted to them. Islamic community center seems much more exclusive. I get the same vibe from Christian Business (a coffee shop with bible verses on the wall but they dont really care what you are) versus Catholic or Lutheran Business (a business venture associated with the church, usually to generate a revenue stream for that church, and catering to members of that church) --<small><span style="border:1px solid orange;background:#A6D785"><font size="1" color="9E0508">]</font></span></small><font color="#B13E0F"><strong>M</strong></font><font color="#A9A9A9">]</font> 00:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Well I don't have my heart set on "Islamic" over "Muslim". To be honest I'm not 100% what the difference would be. You say "it sounds more restrictive" but I'm guessing that's just your impression? If I had to say something for "Islamic" it's that if you do a search engine test (see the link I provided above) it seems more common. ] (]) 15:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::It is my impression, but it stems from how linked a word is to, well, an official body, for lack of a better word. Christian versus Anglican, for example. One seems to be 'the people', and the other 'the church'. The general feeling from Muslim and Islamic seems to be similar. Muslims are the practitioners, Islamic would be one of the larger groupings such as the NoI or what have you. As far as I know this was done by private parties and charities and it's not administered by the religion, just set up and run by members of that religion. Of course, this might just be all in my head. --<small><span style="border:1px solid orange;background:#A6D785"><font size="1" color="9E0508">]</font></span></small><font color="#B13E0F"><strong>M</strong></font><font color="#A9A9A9">]</font> 00:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
I appreciate this being brought to talk instead of an edit war. I have no opinion on the addition, just wary of changes without discussion so soon after the rfc. I have no objections if there's substantial support and or apathy. --<small><span style="border:1px solid orange;background:#A6D785"><font size="1" color="9E0508">]</font></span></small><font color="#B13E0F"><strong>M</strong></font><font color="#A9A9A9">]</font> 03:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Muslim community centre is definitely the way to go. -- ] <]> 17:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: I would have to disagree with calling it a Muslim community center. Park 51 is a community center open to everyone and to all religions, not just the Muslim religion. However, the mosque located inside the community center is only open to the Muslims because it is their place of worship. Park 51 should just be called a community center ] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 02:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:::::So non-Christians can't go to Christian community centres? -- ] <]> 11:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Not scientific I know but for fun I Googled "Christian community center" and "getting lucky" I was transported as if by magic to this web site http://christiancommunitycenter.net/. On the "ABOUT US" page it says (with my emphasis)" We are called to establish a multi-cultural/multi-racial church where the '''diversity has one common denominator the love of Christ''' that transcends into the demonstration of love for one another. Actually Muslims would I am sure love Christ because he too according Islam is one of God's prophet and thus undoubtedly there from God to be loved.... but I am not so sure that Christians would accept Mohammad in the same way and for that reason I doubt that that Walter & Antoinette will be anticipating many Muslims coming through their doors... :) I do think that the Park51 peolpe have been as clear as they possibly can that this is community center for the whole community and not just those whose faith is Islam. So I do not accept ]'s arguments.--] (]) 19:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::We don't want to get into a religious debate here Hausk. I think the simple fact remains that if a "community center" is opened, owned & operated by Christians, and has some kind of Christian "prayer facility" it can rightfully be called a "Christian community center" regardless of the fact that its facilities may be open to general public. ] (]) 14:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
(outdent) I was not being funny or getting religious. If the organizers say it is multi-faith then we should decribe it as a multi-faith community center and not a Muslim community center. I have shown that at least one Christian community center could not call itself multifaith. For that reason Mulsim community center could be misleading to meany.--] (]) 19:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Dude. Read the top of this thread. The organizer's own website calls it a "Muslim community center". ] (]) 19:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Can the link be fixed - at the link given I don't see that text. Ta. ‒ ] 07:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Woops! Lol. See . ] (]) 16:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
I think sources have to govern here. If the people spearheading the project call it that, I don't see why we wouldn't. <font color="green">]</font> 16:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Thanks ]. Really, only on WP would there be argument about whether an organization that calls themselves Muslim, is or is not in fact Muslim. Time to put this thread to rest I think. ] (]) 17:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::If "sources have to govern here," the article should track the full official description ("About Park51" rather than a short, imprecise reference in a public statement. ] (]) 17:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::@] - Please propose your rewordings before making them. We aren't just looking park51.org but also at a whole slew of RSs on this matter. See the above regarding our "search engine test". If you want to state that the community includes a non-sectarian component, that's fine, but I think its ] in the lead. ] (]) 17:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Nonsense. The consensus here is to use the sponsors' own description, which the text I added does. Your cherry-picked phrase turns up in public discussions, but there are no identified RSs which contradict the identified official description. ] (]) 18:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I strongly agree with NickCT. The undo made by Hullaballoo should be changed back. There are lots of problems with the edit. There is a difference between what organizers sell something as and what something actually is. What the place actually is should go in the lead and how the place is advertised can go below so long as its described in the context as the organizer's describe the place as such and such.] (]) 18:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
@] |
|
|
|
|
|
Here are RSs calling it a . |
|
|
|
|
|
Here are RSs calling it a |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello there all, if any of you could change the tile of this article to 45 Park Place, there is work for a 50-story skyscraper with the given name, again, if any of you can change the title and subject of this article to the current 45 Park Place, edits for this article have been made to state the current condition of the site, thanks. |
|
Note the lack of RS calling it a |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 23:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
Kindly revert yourself and cease this edit war. ] (]) 05:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:I agree with NickCT too, and given the clear talk page consensus I've reverted the change. -- ] <]> 08:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
: This is primarily about the canceled mosque, so it's unlikely that such a move will be done without a consensus of editors. ] (]) 14:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
: {{re|Hydromania}} Why did you remove the updates from this article? I added them to resolve this talk page message. I don't think this page should be move, but nevertheless, these new additions were about the current condition of the site. Also, Park51 as originally planned is no longer being considered, as the plan is going forward for a 3-story cultural center in the new 45 Park Place building. ] (]) 13:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Regarding the lede? == |
|
Nobody has addressed the fundamental issue that I raised earlier other than in a glib way... It is bad English and ambiguous. If Misplaced Pages describes it as a "Muslim Community Center" an person reading that would take it to mean a community center for Muslims. But that is clearly not the case. As the web site says |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey all, wanted to modify the head of the article to more accurately reflect why the proposed building was so controversial. It seems like the article is stepping around the subject. The head reads like this: |
|
<blockquote> |
|
|
Park51 is a nonsectarian community, cultural and interfaith spiritual center along with a Muslim prayer area and a monument to honor all those we lost on 9/11. Park51 enriches lower Manhattan in body and spirit, with ecologically conscious design and operation. Our goals are pluralism, service, arts and culture, health and healing. A group of downtown Muslim-Americans envisioned a sanctuary where everyone is welcome to learn, experience the arts and culture and explore their relationship to faith. |
|
|
</blockquote>http://blog.park51.org/?page_id=6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'''Park51''' (originally named '''Cordoba House''') is a development that was originally envisioned as a 13-story ] ] and ] in ], ]. The developers hoped to promote an ] within the greater community. Due to its proposed location two blocks from the ], it was widely and controversially referred to as the "'''Ground Zero mosque'''". |
|
We are not here to mislead out readers but to inform them. "Pluralism", "non-sectarian" and "everyone welcome" indicate to me that this is not a place for Muslims alone. And we do have references from quality sources describing it as multi-faith and inter-faith... The Huffington Post for example. So it is disingenuous of NickCT to claim otherwise. On the grounds of accuracy I think it misleading to claim that will be a "Muslim community center". Parts of it surely are, but not the whole. Which is why I will remove the word Muslim in this context. "A community center for all funded by the Muslim community" would be accurate linguistically and precise. "Muslim community center" simply is not (despite the press announcements).--] (]) 18:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:I've reverted your change for now, can you please give time for others to discuss the matter before making changes? -- ] <]> 19:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
And I for now reverted your changes. This discussion has gone on for many days. The points I made just now were made by me before and it seems that they have been largely ignored. We are not here to mislead the reader. My edit makes clear that it is Muslim funded and for the whole community (the Muslim prayer being for Muslims). What can possibly be objectionable about that??? --] (]) 19:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Maybe you need to clarify your arguments then. -- ] <]> 19:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::My arguments are clear. Try reading them again. If there is something that you don't understand please let me know what I said that you find incomprehensible.--] (]) 19:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::] - You're getting tiresome. Consensus is clearly against you. If you like, start an RfC. Otherwise, cease your edit warring. ] (]) 03:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::You seem to have a misguided notion of consensus. After the RFC, where no one suggested the now-disputed language, you added it in unilaterally and without waiting for consensus. Now, although expressed opinion is equally divided, you claim consensus support. That's groundless to the point of being ridiculous. ] (]) 04:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::If consensus is divided it should remain how it was at the start. Otherwise an RFC should be started. -- ] <]> 07:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From an international perspective, it doesn't really seem clear to me why it's controversial. I would submit the following for review: |
|
::::@] "Consensus is clearly against you." Really? I see no consensus and opinions expressed that range from pro "Muslim Community Center" (mostly you and Eraserhad1), to neutral, to views comletely the other way (Hauskalainen, Lindsrog. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, and Chhe). So, my friend, it is you that is tiresome here. Look I nade an edit that makes very clear that it is Muslim funded, that it has an exclusively Muslim prayer space, but that it has many multicultural features. That is surely more accurate that "Muslim Community center" which leaves it to the reader to guess what "Muslim" means in this context. Our purpose as writers is to explain and not mislead. To me it seems that you do want to mislead. --] (]) 08:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::You've put Chhe in the wrong category... -- ] <]> 08:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Yes, sorry to Chhe and everyone else for my mistake. But it doesn't really change much. There have been opinions on all sides and my point is that we should not be misleading. Chhe's point, now that I re-read it was that there is a difference between what the planners say it is versus what it ''really'' is. How POV is that? I suspect the building owners would need further planning permission if they wanted to change the use away from the use obtained at the planning stage and to me Chhe's words above seem to reflect spite and prejudice and not informed knowledge. I have ended up making the lede longer than it needs to be but only because some editors seem intent on misleading the reader into thinking the space is for Muslims.--] (]) 12:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::All right. Well, I've started an RfC. Let's see if we can get a clear answer on this. Please refrain from edit warring while the RfC is ongoing. ] (]) 14:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'''Park51''' (originally named '''Cordoba House''') is a development that was originally envisioned as a 13-story ] ] and ] in ], ]. The developers hoped to promote an ] within the greater community. Due to its proposed location two blocks from the ] of the ], which were perpetrated by the ] group ], the proposed building was widely and controversially referred to as the "'''Ground Zero mosque'''". |
|
== RfC - Is it a "Muslim" community center? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I get that the subject of this article is controversial as hell, so I'm asking other editors for thoughts. Appreciate it! <4 |
|
{{rfctag|reli|pol|media}} |
|
|
|
] (]) 05:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Work not yet started on Islamic Center as of end of 2020 == |
|
RfC Question - Is park51 a "Muslim community center" or just a "community center"? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: https://newyorkyimby.com/2020/11/construction-on-45-park-place-remains-stalled-in-tribeca.html |
|
There is a low grade edit war occurring in this article over whether Park51 should be described as a "Muslim community center" in the lead. If editors could read over the debate above and comment briefly as to whether they '''Support''' or '''Oppose''' the use of the phrase "Muslim community center", I would be most grateful. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Park51 == |
|
Thanks, ] (]) 14:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Should be labeled “Ground Zero Mosque” - I have nothing against Muslims but you’re supposed to label placed by their most commonly used name ] (]) 21:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
*'''Support''' - Per the discussion above, there are plenty of mainstream RS that describe the place as a "Muslim community center". The editors who previously opposed inclusion seem to be doing so for POV reasons. ] (]) 14:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Places not placed - Misplaced Pages won’t let me edit my own post ] (]) 21:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
*'''Strong object''' - Per the arguments made in the previous section. The center is planned by Muslims but is open to the whole community. Only a very small part of the center is exclusively for Muslims. The editors who have opposed inclusion of the term "Muslim community center" in the lede did not do so for POV reasons as ] wrongly claims. They did so because it is open to misinterpretation to a particular POV . a POV that the center is by Muslims for Muslims when clearly that is not supported by the evidence.--] (]) 14:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::'''PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ] IS DELIBERATELY MIS-STATING THE ISSUE.''' The discussions in thprevious e section above (which editors making comments should read thru first) has pointed out that the center itself is mostly multi-faith and open to the whole community. We are objecting to NickCT's claims in edits such as this one http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Park51&diff=394863817&oldid=394825354 or this one http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Park51&diff=396542941&oldid=396541971 made nine days later. I attempted to resolve the issue with this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Park51&diff=396751115&oldid=396669353 which attempted to clarify which aspects are for Muslims and which are not. But even this has not satisfied NickCT and his partners "in crime" in seeking to undo this clarification. The issue is NOT whether or not the center is just a community center or a Muslim community center as he puts it. The issue is whether we tell the truth about this center or obscure it.--] (]) 14:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Hmmmmm.... ], again, I find your comments a little hard to understand, but I'm not sure your "DELIBERATELY MIS-STATING" comment is really in the best spirit of ]. |
|
|
:::No one denies that Park51 is open to the general community. But, as I said earlier, if one has a community center which is opened, run, and operated specifically by Christians, and also provides a forum for Christians to worship, it might right be called a "Christian community center". Similarly, Park51 is a "Muslim community center". More importantly though, "Muslim community center" is ]. ] (]) 16:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
Hello there all, if any of you could change the tile of this article to 45 Park Place, there is work for a 50-story skyscraper with the given name, again, if any of you can change the title and subject of this article to the current 45 Park Place, edits for this article have been made to state the current condition of the site, thanks.
Hey all, wanted to modify the head of the article to more accurately reflect why the proposed building was so controversial. It seems like the article is stepping around the subject. The head reads like this:
From an international perspective, it doesn't really seem clear to me why it's controversial. I would submit the following for review:
I get that the subject of this article is controversial as hell, so I'm asking other editors for thoughts. Appreciate it! <4
Kobentori (talk) 05:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Should be labeled “Ground Zero Mosque” - I have nothing against Muslims but you’re supposed to label placed by their most commonly used name 47.185.231.7 (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
