Talk:Park51/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Word describing the usage of 'ground zero mosque'

It keeps getting edited; usually between "Incorrectly referred to as the Ground Zero Mosque" or the current status of simply mentioning it's been called that. I've seen about 90 different adverbs used to describe it's usage.

Two things; 1) It's not "incorrect" at all. The building was directly destroyed by an airplane on 9/11. To many, many, many interpretations, that makes the building itself "ground zero" 2) Considering the controversy over that name, not mentioning that it's use is heavily objected to by some doesn't paint the full picture.

Therefor, I propose that the current sentence "Sometimes referred to by the media as the ground zero mosque" read "Sometimes controversially referred to by the media as the ground zero mosque". It could be accompanied by links not only to the term being used, but a link of someone arguing for the name usage and another arguing it's inaccurate -- this would serve to show that it is, indeed, a point of contention. I think the word controversial is the best one, because regardless of personal opinion what virtually 100% of us can all agree on is that there is, indeed, controversy and contention over whether or not that term is accurate. It's as unbiased as they come. 99.22.51.202 (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It's too wordy. It's fine to say "sometimes referred to as the "Ground Zero mosque". The lede sentence should be neutral and straightforward; we don't need to keep adding verbiage to try to please everyone. Even if it is controversial, or incorrect, to call it the Ground Zero Mosque, it is still called that by some sources. Details of the naming can be discussed later in the article.Fletcher (talk) 01:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm okay with the "sometimes referred to as..." solution to this. It is called that, for whatever reason. The fact that this is a disputed term, however, means it must not be the title of the entire article. It can be in the article, though. Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep "controversially", which it clearly is, and if we are looking for cuts drop "by the media", since it's actually by some of the media and some (most?) opponents, but saying that is probably POV and would be a major sourcing problem. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree the name is controversial; I just don't see the need to say so in the lede. I left it in, but did take out "in the media." Fletcher (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm also okay with the "sometimes referred to as..." solution to this. 58 million times qualifies it. If people want to discuss in the body any controversy, that's fine as well, but we don't need to start our POV editing so early. It's factual.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's see. The Associated Press says not to use the term because it's not precisely accurate. Sarah Palin blasts them for the decision. It's controversial, and for that matter it's inaccurate, and those are facts. Saying "inaccurate" may be a bit picky for the lead, but "controversial" is not POV, it's simply true. And now, thanks to Ms Palin, it's even easily sourced. Fat&Happy (talk) 06:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this (or does it contain) a mosque?

Keith Olbermann's commentary on MSNBC earlier this evening indicated that 'mosque' is an inappropriate term for all or any of this proposed center; as he states, 'mosque' refers purely to a building completely dedicated to worship, whereas this building will be primarily for community use for education, recreation, and other aspects, with only the top two floors being 'prayer space'.

I can't state any more familiarity with the terminology myself, but could anyone else weigh in on this? If Mr. Olbermann does have his facts straight, should the word 'mosque' be used at all to describe this project? Radagast (talk) 03:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Keith, the sports anchorman? Anyway, check the footnotes. Check the ELs. Check the arguments (e.g., religious freedom). The mosque aspect of this is the locus of commentators, for and against.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the place to question the merits of TV journalists. In any case, I'd agree with Epefleeche. If it has 'prayer space' and nearly every source mentioned says it includes a mosque, it includes a mosque. As much as I'd love to agree with Olbermann, in this case he's downplaying the impact of the word 'mosque' by calling it a 'prayer space'. Many Christian-run hospitals contain a 'prayer space' which is called a chapel, but that doesn't mean that the entire hospital is called a church, nor that we shouldn't call the chapel what it is. elektrikSHOOS 04:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Log this comment in your memory, folks...because when conservatives start insisting the mosque at the Pentagon is just a prayer space, you call the chapel/mosque what it is. Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

By definition, a mosque is a structure. Keith is correct in saying a prayer room in a larger structure isn't by definition a mosque. Newyorkmuslim (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Except that the project's own website says it will include "a mosque, intended to be run separately from Park51 but open to and accessible to all members, visitors and our New York community". So there is some ambiguity about this. And even if they delete all references to a mosque, it won't be clear if that's because it truly is not a mosque, or if they are just trying to soften their image. So the word must stay; it isn't Wikipedia's role to manage public relations for them. Fletcher (talk) 00:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's pretty obvious that this page (as currently written) is crafted to do the exact opposite: it is a one stop source for unsubstantiated rumors and innuendo, presented alongside the odd fact as if they were all of equal value. Leo Caesius (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Even if some opinions expressed are not rational, it is necessary to provide some coverage of the controversy, without which this article likely never would have been created. I do think it is too long and gives too much weight to the opinions of politicians, including minor figures I've never heard of. The basic arguments for and against could be conveyed without so many quotes. However, it is very important that any trimming must be done in a balanced way. The controversy seems to be a big jumble of people sounding off, and it's not our role to imply that one side or the other is wrong. Fletcher (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Not all criticisms of the project are of equal legitimacy. Conspiracy-mongering ("It's clearly a victory mosque funded by al-Qaeda to commemorate the defeat of Spanish Catholics and pogroms against Jews!!!") should not be presented in the same light as straightforward objections ("Many people believe that the location of the mosque is insensitive...").Leo Caesius (talk) 02:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree any WP:FRINGE claim can be removed (unless there is a specific justification to include it), but I do not see that particular claim appearing in the article. I searched for mentions of al Qaeda, but don't see any instance where someone claimed al Qaeda was funding the project, nor do I remember such a claim in the article. The word pogrom also does not currently appear in the article, so I'm not clear exactly what you are complaining of. The term "victory mosque" does appear, but this is a quote from one of the 9/11 families, which is likely worth including to explain some of their perspectives. I'm sure we can discuss any other specific concerns you might have. Fletcher (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a church that I have often passed by which includes an XBOX game room, an exercise room, a tanning bed room and other activities, but it doesn't change the basic fact that it's primarily a church even though it doesn't call itself as such. Do we go through Wikipedia and change article for all the churches that call themselves "worship centers?" This NYC building's primary purpose is to be a mosque, thus it should be called such. 64.184.253.134 (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, although I don't think we can say if it's primary purpose it to be a mosque - I don't think anyone can be sure how big the mosque will be relative to the other facilities - but certainly many reliable sources and the project's own website have described the project as having a mosque, so we should refer to it as such. Fletcher (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

With Muslims praying several times a day, with this building having an enormous "prayer space" for thousands of Muslims, with Muslims placing ultimate importance on their mosques, do you really think the mosque portion will take a backseat to the swimming pool, gym, food court, or anything else they may put in there? I don't see it happening. The mosque won't be anything like a chapel off to the side in a hospital. It will be the centerpiece of the building and the most used area. 64.184.253.134 (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

it doesn't change the basic fact that it's primarily a church even though it doesn't call itself as such

What does it call itself? — goethean ॐ 00:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

A "ministry outreach" -- something as silly as calling the building in this article a "community center." 64.184.253.134 (talk) 01:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

picture, subtitle under the picture

the subtitle under the picture says: "A building now occupying half the site of the proposed Islamic community center." That leaves out the fact it will be also be true mosque that can have both the 5x/day Mecca prayers AND Friday sermons holding 1-2000 people. How can you leave that out? That is at the heart of the controversy. Also, the picture should show the FULL site of BOTH buildings which will be made into the Park51 building if the plan goes thru. You can clearly see that two buildings will be knocked down for this http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2010/05/06/amd_wtc_mosque.jpg as the building on the left of the proposed Park51 in the artist's rendering is two buildings left of the building shown in the current picture. Tallicfan20 (talk) 06:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Poll results in the intro

I think specific poll results belong in the criticism section, not in the article header. I removed them, but it was reverted. The intro really only needs a brief explanation of the fact that there is controversy regarding the proposed construction, rather than detailed measurements of how many people are on each side, what their demographics are, etc. which belong in the body of the article. We need to condense things as much as possible because this is getting out of hand. Jcc1 (talk) 01:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

AP Fact Check refs

Just to explain, two of us had added the Calvin Woodward fact-checking article from the Associated Press, but as published on different sites. When I consolidated them, I chose the Newsvine version rather than the ABC News version (a choice I had originally made reviewing the dozen or so sites carrying the article) for a couple of reasons. One is that I've had fairly good success in the past finding AP content on Newsvine after it's been deleted from hosted.google and TV network news sites; the other is that the Newsvine version is all on one web page, allowing for greater ease of reading and searching. Newsvine does have the disadvantage, however, of lots of contentious reader comments, but those can be ignored. If anyone believes one of the other works hosting this piece is a better choice, feel free to respond. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay thanks. — goethean ॐ 15:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Section 'Criticism of Rauf's views'

It doesn't look neutral to me, there is no content defending his views. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That section should be moved to the article on Rauf. — goethean ॐ 15:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll do that if there are no objections within the next couple of days. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That seems reasonable; some of it is already there. Given that this criticism has become part of the debate on the project though, it is probably appropriate somewhere (not under either "Opposition" or "Support", sections we really need to consolidate and shorten anyway) to keep some mention that Rauf himself is a controversial figure, possibly with a stronger referral ({{main}} or {{see also}}) than a plain wikilink. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest including the statement that he has been seen as controversial, and move the rest to his bio page. — goethean ॐ 16:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added a see also link to his bio page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

External Links

I've largely cleaned these up - there are only a few left which I believe probably meet WP:EL and cover both sides of the "debate" reasonably. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I've removed a couple more I've turned into references. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Snopes

I'm not sure where it would belong, but addressing the 'email rumor campaign' would be good. See Snopes piece. Flatterworld (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"Islamic prayer space for 1,000–2,000 Muslims"

In other words, "a mosque." Right? "Christian prayer space for 1,000-2,000 Christians" would unabashedly be called "a church" on Wikipedia, so why isn't this "Islamic prayer space" called a mosque? 64.184.253.134 (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Quoting the article: "We insist on calling it a prayer space and not a mosque, because you can use a prayer space for activities apart from prayer. You can't stop anyone who is a Muslim despite his religious ideology from entering the mosque and staying there. With a prayer space, we can control who gets to use it.".

As for other possible reasons we can but speculate. Perhaps they are scared of outside threats and hate attacks, perhaps not. If you have the time and patience, you could watch the following video (till the end). Flamarande (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

01:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Opposition - 9/11 Families

The last "sentence" of the section:

"In addition to expressing opposition over the building of the mosque, Ms. Basnicki claims that during her visit to New York with Raheel Raza to attend a recent town hall-style meeting with the developer, Sharif El-Gamal, and Daisy Khan, wife of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.

is not a complete sentence. The phrase is a subject with no predicate at all. "Ms. Basnicki claims that...(??)."

Friendoftoto (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I got rid of it. But it is a wiki, you know - anyone can edit. Fletcher (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Article needs context

has anything like this ever happened? as in- such strong opposition erupting against the building of a structure related to a group who committed a terrorist act? quite a strange, irrational concept.. can't find much about something like this having happened on this scale in the past. ie, something like people protesting building catholic churches near the Oklahoma city bombing site or in the vicinity of Eric R Rudolph's bombings? or any of the other hundreds of similar terrorist incident history in u.s. from all groups of people. I think similar reactions in history could help put the situation in context in this article, if any one knows of any? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lerikson (talk • contribs) 19:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The article brings up a situation where some nuns opened a convent near Auschwitz, which attracted protests and it was moved. I'm not aware of a similar situation in the US. People here are are more familiar with Christianity than with Islam, so are less likely to associate acts by particular Christian terrorists with all of Christianity. Fletcher (talk) 20:07, 22 Augus 2010 (UTC)

9/11 families in support of the mosque

A couple of reliable sources offer the opposing viewpoint that some 9/11 victims are offended by the hate towards the mosque, and not offended by the mosque itself. These views are important prevent bias, especially because most cite the victims' interests to justify their point of view.

The names of those who have no problem with the mosque in these articles are: Herb Ouida, Marvin Bethea Charles Wolf, Talat Hamdani, Liza Murphy, and Theodore Olson. Many of them agree that this controversy is stirring up far more hate than the mosque itself, and that blaming 9/11 of Islam is a mistake.

http://blog.nj.com/njv_bob_braun/2010/08/mosque_near_world_trade_center.html http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2010/08/tedolsonmosque.html http://www.wtop.com/?nid=104&sid=2031925 http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion/july-dec10/groundzero_08-10.html http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/9-11-families-speak-out-on-ground-zero-muslim-center/19581141 68.10.196.158 (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. that's why there's a sub-section titled "9/11 families" under the "Support for the location" section. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops. thank you.68.10.196.158 (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Support and opposition sections

Why are there massive support and opposition sections. These should be combined. An encyclopedia article isn't a debate format. Were straws drawn to see which side would go first? Freakshownerd (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe this format works quite well.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with the original poster. Per WP:CRITICISM, editors should exercise extreme caution when the article is split into pro/con sections as this can jeopardize the neutrality of the article. This obviously is something that's up for debate, however.

In my opinion, given the controversy this currently is in the US, splitting this article into for/against sections seems to turn it into an ideological battleground. (Reflecting the current status of the nation on this issue, really, but Wikipedia should be a neutral source, not a mirror.) elektrikSHOOS 02:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that these make the article way too long. If we split the article and make new articles such as "Supporters of Park51" and "Critics of Park51" perhaps full quotes and attributions of those opinions could be included, but as it is now there are just long lists. A summary of support positions and criticisms would be much more concise. Jcc1 (talk) 23:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Or better yet, "Park51 Controversy" article separate from a description of the proposed structure. Jcc1 (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Neither are a good idea, see WP:POVFORK. What this article really needs is a good trim; there's too much trivial information and unnecessary quotes. elektrikSHOOS^{(editing from a public terminal)} 14:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Intersting that the opposition part comes firts then the support..usually it's the other way round. Both sections should be rewritten (perhaps re organized?) as it seems too much like a debate column, instead of an objective entry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.75.77.217 (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

New Title ?

Hey all,

I'm a little concerned about the title. It doesn't strike me that Park51 would pass WP:COMMONNAME. Two questions for the community;

1) Does anyone agree we need retitling?

2) Does anyone have suggestions for a new title?

Thanks all! NickCT (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that it needs a renaming because all of the more "straightforward" names are listed as redirects to this page, and each of those "straightforward" names has some problems. A straightforward name from the perspective of the Wikipedia user would be "Ground Zero mosque", but that would be an inappropriate name for the article (it's not at Ground Zero, but two blocks away, it's only partially a mosque, etc.) Likewise, Cordoba House would also be inappropriate (I changed the name from this myself) because the people who are sponsoring this project have stopped using this name to describe the project, in response to criticism of that name. Park51 is the only realistically neutral name for the page, because this is what the people promoting the project are calling it themselves. I fear if the name is changed in order to be more "straightforward", it would probably also be changed to something slanted and biased instead of respectful of the facts. Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

@Zachary Klaas - I appreciate your argument and agree with a lot of what you're saying. The issue is though, that your position might clash with WP:COMMONNAME. While I'd agree that "Ground Zero Mosque" might not be "accurate", if it is the most commonly used name, it is the correct name (as dictated by WP:COMMONNAME). I can only find a few RS referring to the site as Park51; hence this appears to be an uncommon name and should be changed.

Neutrality is less of a consideration in titling than is WP:COMMONNAME NickCT (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree strenuously. If the article is entitled "Ground Zero Mosque", it empowers people who believe that a project partially including a mosque which is actually not located at Ground Zero is properly so called. People who log on to Wikipedia to get reasonably unbiased information on the building and the controversy will instead be subjected to an article which already delivers the right wing's view in its very title. If they type "Ground Zero Mosque" into the search box, they will get this article, so I think the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME is clearly observed - but it would be a huge victory for hyperconservative hypocrites if the actual article was retitled to fit their ideological biases. Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Naming this article "Ground Zero mosque" would be akin to renaming "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" as "Obamacare" or renaming "Republican Party (United States)" as "The Party of No". In alll three cases, there's already a redirect, and that's plenty to send people searching using a colloquial/politicized name to the correct page. Newsboy85 (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

@Zachary Klaas - Again, I appreciate the argument. Trust me, I'm the last person to want to give ground to religous bigots using WP to WP:BATTLEGROUND. The fact remains though that WP:COMMONNAME explicity states that if "Ground Zero Mosque" is the name used in the majority of RS, the article should be titled "Ground Zero Mosque".

We should do a search engine test as called out by WP:COMMONNAME to determine the best title. Perhaps, if the most common name is "Ground Zero Mosque" we can reach compromise by making the first line of article something like "The Ground Zero Mosque, which is actually several blocks away from Ground Zero,.......".

As a personal note Zachary Klaas, while I appreciate your POV, and happen to mostly agree with your assessments, but your attitude seems a little WP:BATTLEGROUNDish. Perhaps you want to take it down a notch?

@Newsboy85 I think my notes to Klaas address some of your points. Additionally, you can't workaround WP:COMMONNAME with redirects. NickCT (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You clearly can. I didn't even know the official name of Obamacare until I looked it up. If we're going to be citing policy, this seems like the perfect situation for WP:IAR Newsboy85 (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure Obamacare is a valid analogy. As far as I know, the term "Obamacare" is used solely in a pejorative fashion by critics of the program, and not by neutral RSs. In the case of "Ground Zero Mosque", I believe a number of mainstream sources uses this term.

While I respect WP:IAR, I think both the spirit and letter of WP:COMMONNAME would tell us to seek a more common name here. NickCT (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Calling it the "Ground Zero Mosque" is not workable. This term is more associated with critics of the mosque, and so it has POV problems. (E.g., this NYT article explicitly says it is called that by critics). This Salon article uses "Ground Zero Mosque" in scare quotes and associates the term with fear-mongering. Sources which are neutral or supportive of the project often say something like "mosque near ground zero", or describe it as a community center. Opinion is split; there is not currently any widespread, generally agreed upon name for the project. We can mention "Ground Zero Mosque" in the lede sentence, but should not adopt that term as our own. I would have preferred sticking with "Cordoba House" as the title, as that name is more widely known and does not have POV issues, even if it isn't the official name any longer. Fletcher (talk) 02:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's some google results - "Cordoba House" - 957 "Ground Zero Mosque" - 3,450 "Park51" - 1,140 "Monster Mosque" - 10

Frankly, while I appreciate there could be some POV issues with "Ground Zero Mosque", I still prefer it b/c

1) The POV issues don't seem overly serious. I mean, after all, it is a Mosque, and it has become notable because it is close to Ground Zero. Just b/c WP readers might mistakenly take the title to mean that the mosque is actually at ground zero doesn't seem to me sufficient grounds to say the title is unacceptable for POV issues. As I mentioned before, we can mitigate this issue by calling out in the first sentence that the mosque isn't actually at ground zero.

2) WP:COMMONNAME v. clearly points to "Ground Zero Mosque" as the appropriate name. I think the clear direction offered by WP:COMMONNAME trumps minor WP:NPOV concerns. NickCT (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The POV issue goes both ways. Supporters have called it a "mosque" (at Ground Zero) to spin the debate into being about religious freedom, instead of victims' rights, architecture, and so on. Quigley (talk) 02:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to "spin" it as being about religious freedom; it patently is about religious freedom – or more accurately religious intolerance, an anathema to religious freedom. That's why some of the same people opposing this project also manage to get themselves in a froth about a mosque in Staten Island, or a mosque in Tennessee, or a mosque in California, and probably a mosque at Point Barrow if anyone wanted to build one there. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

"The Cordoba House" search brings up 1,850 results for me. I don't think WP:COMMONAME is nearly as clear cut as you say, as there is no "single obvious common name". As I said (and linked), the project is labeled differently by opponents and supporters. Endorsing the title used more by opponents is a POV problem, even if it gets more google hits. COMMONNAME also says to avoid "ambiguous or inaccurate" names, and I think it's true that "Ground Zero Mosque" is ambiguous. If we were to consider "Mosque near Ground Zero", that term gets about 5,600 results. I would actually be ok with that, my main objection being that it sounds a little clunky. Fletcher (talk) 03:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled with Park51, but it's at least official. I strongly oppose renaming to Ground Zero mosque as completely POV. And we're warned not to put all that much stock in Google counts. This would be especially true with blogs hysterically pounding out the most attention-getting deprecatory name available.

BTW, as an afterthought I just googled Lower Manhattan Islamic Center. Not sure about your numbers for the othere; I'm guessing they're for "News" hits only. As a quoted phrase, I only got 4 hits, but without the quotes it was 2,750, many having "Lower Manhattan" and "Islamic Center" as separate phrases in the same sentence. Seems like an accurate, recognizable, NPOV alternative. Lower Manhattan mosque might also work, and is also more NPOV with fairly good accuracy. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would satisfy NickCT (perhaps it would, but it's not a phrase particularly often used to describe the site). But it is NPOV and I'd accept it on that basis. Zachary Klaas (talk) 05:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

These just in, and possibly worth considering in this discussion:

• "AP Standards Center issues staff advisory on covering New York City mosque"
• "Palin to AP: It's 'Ground Zero mosque'"

Fat&Happy (talk) 05:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The AP Standards Center - good guidance for us in terms of a proper NPOV title for the article. Sarah Palin - a participant in the controversy and pretty obviously POV. Zachary Klaas (talk) 05:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

@Fat&Happy - Re "The Cordoba House" search brings up 1,850 results for me." - You're searching The Cordoba House and not "Cordoba House". The former might give you news stories about a house in Cordoba. Lower Manhattan mosque doesn't seem very specific.

@All - Ok. I can see I'm not getting much traction here, so I'm going to drop it. Ultimately Park51 isn't a bad title, it's just not the correct title. I maintain that WP:COMMONNAME pretty clearly indicates that "Ground Zero Mosque" is correct name here. If there were blazenly obvious WP:NPOV issue with the title (as there would be with say "Monster Mosque") I wouldn't support it. However, it seems to me that the WP:NPOV concerns raised here are that certain editors simply don't like the POVs of those who dubbed the phrase, and hence don't want to use it. In my mind this equates to WP:BATTLEgrounding. Anyways, thanks for the discussion. I'll drop the point unless some other editors chime in in support.NickCT (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The lede advances the POV that calling the proposed building the Ground Zero Mosque is controversial. This is not the case from the perspective of opponents of the project. I will change this to "referred to by critics as the Ground Zero Mosque" although it is also referred to as that by supporters; this is an objective fact and not a value judgment. Kaisershatner (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do have a bit of an attitude

I've been a bit combative on here, perhaps a bit WP:BATTLEGROUND-ish...on the other hand, I feel it necessary because WP:WIKILAWYERING is killing this article.

In my opinion, we have a responsibility to tell the truth. Wikipedia, unfortunately, often loses credibility in people's eyes because false and misleading statements end up being published because Wikilawyers get those statements off on a technicality.

We have no better example of this than the present article. People are discussing putting a misleading and politically loaded name at the top of the article, rather than a clearly neutral name, because the letter (not the spirit) of some Wikirule requires it. Statements that are uncontested by any party and massively evident are deleted from the article when there's no specific source ("Question: How many Wikipedians does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Answer: None, no reputable source has verified the existence of the lightbulb.") When a reputable source does speak to the issue, however, the evidence is rejected if the article happened to generally be about another topic, and the charge is cherry-picking and designing a WP:COATRACK. Obvious connections between this article's topic, the Park51 project mosque, where people will pray and hold religious services, and the Pentagon's quasi-mosque chapel, where people have been praying and holding religious services, are ruled "tangential", even though reputable sources are now publishing articles on the topic explicitly comparing the two as directly analogous cases.

It's Wikilawyering if you just spray rules at people without explaining what you would accept as evidence. The interesting thing about these exchanges is the one thing people have not told me is "that's not true". I'm getting lots of "you can't put that in", but no complaints of "what you've written is false". Why is that? Zachary Klaas (talk) 03:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You should closely review the examples given at WP:SYN: even if you provide factual, reliably sourced statements, you can still be adding original research if you use them to imply a conclusion that is not presented in those sources. You should be ok if the conclusion is actually stated in the source(s). The Pentagon issue is, however, tangential: the Pentagon is not the subject of this article. I encourage you to keep any discussion of the Pentagon succinct, as the article is already quite long. Fletcher (talk) 11:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

source — goethean ॐ 12:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Goethean, you fail to grasp what game these guys are playing. It's "tangential" because they don't like the conclusion, not because the conclusion isn't in the source. :D The entire reason anyone is interested in whether there is a "mosque at the Pentagon" is because it's directly analogous to the NYC mosque. This fact is laughingly obvious, but because they want to shield the conservatives, they pretend they can't see it, and that it doesn't motivate each and every one of the recent articles published on the topic. The only thing that would probably satisfy them is a journalist actually saying "I wrote this article because these cases are obviously analogous", at which point they would call it an opinion article and ignore it for that reason. We need to play more hardball here - this is sophistry to screen out facts, not concern for due Wikipedia process. Zachary Klaas (talk) 15:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and look, the source you've posted, Goethean, says that the Pentagon received "no complaints" about Muslim services being held regularly at the Pentagon. Not just "no complaints from 9/11 families and the military", but "no complaints". At all. Therefore my "synthesis" conclusion from earlier on that this included no complaints from conservative activists has been vindicated. Any apologies forthcoming about that from the people who said I was reading in between the lines? If not, what, pray tell, would the reason for eliminating this observation this time be? Zachary Klaas (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Like the evil conservative activists, you fail to assume good faith. Fletcher (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Guilty as charged on that one, because I lose good faith quickly when I see edits being made to conceal facts rather than clarify them. Zachary Klaas (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality check

I want to get a few outside editors involved in this as well, so any help to post somewhere useful (WP:RfF unless there's somewhere more specific) would be nice. There's not a current content dispute which needs resolving, so I'm not going to WP:DR. But anywho...

My ongoing concerns which have not yet been properly addressed (and previously mentioned here):

1. The article's ideological split (the for/against sides) is not appropriate, nor it is of an NPOV, in my opinion.
2. The information within both of the above sections is rapidly becoming a WP:QUOTEFARM. Given the above, and since the article is at 121kb as of this writing it might be appropriate to trim both sides a bit and combine them into a "Reactions" or "Reception" section. See WP:CRITICISM.
3. The use of the word "mosque" throughout the article to describe what is actually an Islamic community center (which contains a mosque), an issue I had previously raised. This depends on the context, obviously, but in most cases it's editorializing and inappropriate.

I'll go through and fix the mosque wording thing now, but as for the other points I would like an uninvolved editor or two with a solid understanding of previous consensus on these sorts of issues to take a look at this article and offer a few suggestions. If anyone has anyone in mind... elektrikSHOOS^{(editing from a public terminal)} 14:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Pamela Geller is mentioned by name in the lede, but not Imam Rauf? That's an oversight. Kaisershatner (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Elektrik Shoos on all points. For a start, we should definitely replace mosque with community center through most of the article - unless there's a reason not to that I'm unaware of. Further, we've got to find a better way to organize the Oppose/Support sections. --JaGa^talk 19:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

My view is that we should call it neither a mosque nor a community center exclusively, but choose the term based on context. Opponents appear to object to the mosque aspect rather than the bookstore, swimming pool, etc., so it does not make sense to portray them as objecting to a community center. OTOH, calling it exclusively a mosque would prejudice the views of the opponents, downplaying the fact that it is more than a mosque. 22:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Choose each in context. --JaGa^talk 09:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

More than just two sides, here

For there to be just two sides ("for" and "against") is too simplistic. I propose that we break it down into four positions:

1. Those who allow it, period. (i.e. the President)

This is a very typical fact-blind comment. The president is on record supporting the right to build the project, but also on record taking no position (for or against) on the wisdom of building the project. Given that this whole issue was raised by people who want to smear the president (amply documented on the page as it currently stands), it's vital to get his position down correctly. Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

2. Those who would allow it in the name of economic liberty, but who oppose it on moral grounds. (i.e. Sarah Palin) 3. Those who would allow it in the name of civil liberty, but who oppose it on public safety grounds and/or respect for popular sentiment. (i.e. Howard Dean)

Distinguishing Palin's opinion from Dean's here would be inappropriate. Both acknowledge the right to build the mosque/community center/whatever it is at the site, and both wish that those building it would take their project elsewhere. To break things down this way indicates that somehow Sarah Palin is more "moral" than Howard Dean, who is merely expedient, I guess. Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

4. Those who flat-out oppose it. (i.e. Pat Buchanan) 207.238.52.162 (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I could accept there being a category for this, though I'm not sure from what Pat Buchanan has written that he would not respect the legal right of the mosque to be put up (in other words, that his view differs from Sarah Palin's alleged shimmering respect for the right of the project to go ahead). He doesn't seem to speak to that issue. If it could be established that somehow he favors bypassing the First Amendment and property rights of the people sponsoring this project, then I could accept a category heading like this being created and him being placed under it. Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There are also at least two opinions currently lumped in with the Muslim Opposition which are not clearly in favor or opposed, but rather questioning the "wisdom" of the placement, particularly in terms of the possible future effects for the building itself and Muslims in general. These would include Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed and Lupe Fiasco (whose comment was deleted here), possibly others. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that two buckets is simplistic, but four buckets is only slightly better. The problem is that there are multiple shades of opinion in between your four "sides". Such as Roger Ebert, who thinks that although the opposition to the center is shameful bigotry, the decision to place the center in the proposed location shows a lack of judgement on Rauf's part. The fact is that the article should describe the debate chronologically, rather than dumping the quotations into a set of buckets. Also, the non-notable opinions (to my mind, this consists of anyone who does not have an article on Wikipedia) should be removed. Some editors are simply adding as many quotatons as possible in order to make the debate lop-sided one way or the other. — goethean ॐ 16:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Regeneration

Possibly - if sources can be found some mention should be made of the fact that the community centre will help regenerate a quite run down area. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Section on Muslims

There is no content in the article from Muslims who are for the project. So it isn't NPOV either. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's technically POV, but a section on the views of Muslims in favor of a mosque seems pretty worthless. If anything, a section on the views of non-Muslim religious leaders might be the appropriate NPOV offset.

Ideally though, I'd much prefer one "Reactions" section instead of the two we now have, with pro- and anti- views of each segment, significantly trimmed (say by 50% or more) from the current version. The whole article is becoming a quotefarm, even if it doesn't meet the technical definition of one. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

A reactions section would definitely be better. A comments from other religious leaders would be good too. However the article currently implies that most moderate muslims are against Park51, which isn't clearly the case at all. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't that mean a section on the views of conservatives not in favour of a mosque is pretty worthless too ? :) I'd support significant trimmimg of all of the reactions. There's far too much. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Possibly the reactions section could become its own article? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I favor trimming; the article is already too much of a quote dump. An encyclopedia should explain and summarize information rather than just compile excerpts from the news media. "Reaction to..." articles often have trouble with WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTNEWS and are sometimes put up for deletion. Judicious use of quotes is ok, of course. Fletcher (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why presenting the viewpoint of Muslims in favor of a mosque (or in favor of a building which contains a mosque), is worthless. Neutrality at Wikipedia requires a fair description of all sides of a controversy.

There are reasons in favor of the proposed building, and reasons against it. It's better to have both sets of reasons. And if we have too many quotes, we can create subarticles like Opposition to Park51 and Support for Park51 ... or one article with two big sections: Park51 advocacy. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

9/11 families

The article currently says "Many relatives of victims of the September 11 attacks said they found the proposal offensive..." but "Some relatives of victims of the 9/11 attacks expressed support for the project." Beyond the weasel wordishness of this, has there ever actually been a scientific poll of 'relatives of victims of the 9/11 attacks' (however that's defined) to determine if it is "many" for the opposition and "some" for the support? While it's true this would seemingly somewhat mirror the national and New York trends, the assumption cannot be made this is indeed the case without evidence. If there's no evidence, why are we implying there are more opponents then supporters among "relatives of victims of the 9/11 attacks"? Nil Einne (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That's definitely a weasel and it needs to be clarified. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess that's a mea culpa, and it's a bit of a fluke in the development of the article. At one time (2010-08-16), there was only one section on "9/11 families", which was under the "Opposition" main topic. It included a paragraph containing two brief quotes which could be read to show support for the project, but didn't explicitly state that, making it appear on a quick scan to be just two more opposition voices. I moved them to a new "9/11 families" under the existing "Support" topic, and added a few more examples from the same sources. As an intro, I chose "some 9/11 families", weasel word or not, because there was no available comprehensive count and "some" was patently obvious from the content. "Many" is certainly ambiguous (how many surviving relatives do the 2,752 victims have, and how many of them constitute "many"?), so I would support using "some" – or another semi-neutral term – in both sentences. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Some for both sides sounds fair enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Fletcher (talk) 23:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Another take that should be noted I think is that there were Muslim victims of 9/11. Most of the chatter seems to suppose that the only relevant aspects of the victims is if they are for or against the mosque. There is mention of various ideas of sacred ground but no mention of Muslim victims (I think). See [1] or it's references. Smkolins (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Three points:

1. Some people or organizations claim to speak for victims of the 9/11 attacks. We can distinguish between spokesmen and polls
2. It would be interesting, and not just for this article, to present viewpoints - whether from spokesmen or polls - about victims (and/or their families), both pro and con. Often the simple or (tacit) assumption is that "victims" are all non-Muslim, or that "victims" (i.e., their families) blame Muslims, etc.
3. In many ways, viewpoints about the proposal to build a new structure at 51 Park Place are proxies for one's feelings about the 9/11 attacks (and the attackers). --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Description of Rauf

In the "Criticism of Rauf's views" section, he is described as a "Kuwaiti-American Muslim Sufi". I have a question about this beyond its excessive length. Should it be "Muslim Sufi" or "Sufi Muslim"? It seems to me that the latter would be better, since as I understand it all Sufis are Muslims but not all Muslims are Sufis, but Sufism (and intricacies of Islam in general) are nowhere close to being my area of expertise, and I wonder if there is some understanding that Sufi can only be a noun, never an adjective, or anything like that. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Sufis are a subset of Muslims. That's why I removed the term "Muslim" from the sentence yesterday. Why my change was reverted, I don't know. — goethean ॐ 11:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it's like saying "Christian baptist" or something similar. I don't see why it says Sufi, though. If the fact that he is Sufi is relevant to the section, then use 'Sufi.' Otherwise, just use Muslim. elektrikSHOOS^{(editing from a public terminal)} 14:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Sufi isn't particularly well known IMO, which is why I left 'muslim' in after your edit was reverted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

When you say "Rauf", do you mean Feisal? And by which of his names is he generally known when not using his full name? (Reminds me of Latin American politicians who have considerably more names than the two or three than I'm familiar with seeing in US newspapers.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"Incorrectly" labeled...

Whether its 2 blocks or twenty or 200 blocks away, if folks, media, or whoever are calling it, or it has been decribed that way, as Ground zero mosque, then that is how the lead should read it seems. I am sure, but didn't see, that the article details its exact location to G zero, ect. --Threeafterthree (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Please express yourself more clearly. I can't figure out what you are trying to say. Is your claim that the non-Mosque which is not at Ground Zero is accurately decribed as the Ground Zero Mosque? — goethean ॐ 18:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

More that the project/building/whateveryouwanttocallit has been described as the G zero mosque, (rightly or wrongly). Not sure who added "misnomer" but that is better, but still not sure if that is needed/NPOV/ect. --Threeafterthree (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Its been removed. I think its probably fair enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

... and it's been put back. I agree with Threeafterthree; it is a misnomer, but is it worth pointing out in the lede? Ground Zero mosque is a heavily politicized term, and inaccurate to boot; how do we balance it without going POV the other way? --JaGa^talk 19:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably by just sticking with how it is refered to and maybe going into more detail further into the article, which seems like the case now. Talking about "inaccurate" and misnomer start towards POV. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources which point out that the term is inaccurate, and which call it a misnomer. I have to admit that lazy, brain-dead edits like this and this try my patience. — goethean ॐ 19:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Put me down as a "weak support" for keeping misnomer; we need to balance that politically charged term. When I first heard "Ground Zero mosque", I imagined minarets in Ground Zero itself. The truth is far less sensational, and misnomer would tell the reader to beware what you read into the term. --JaGa^talk 20:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose using 'misnomer' or 'incorrectly' to describe a POV of a group of people. People believe it is ground zero even if it's 600 feet from the fence. It's colloqially known as the Ground Zero Mosque as well as the Near Ground Zero Mosque. It's also known as 'Cordoba House' and Islamic Community Center. If people disagreed about whether it's a Mosque or Community Center, we wouldn't pick one and say the other is a 'misnomer' or 'incorrect.' Too much judgement involved. --DHeyward (talk) 20:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point, both of your arguments are persuasive IMO. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is the best source so far.

PolitiFact rated a claim that the mosque would be "at” Ground Zero” Barely True. This week, the Associated Press issued a memo advising staff to avoid the phrase "Ground Zero mosque.”

Would the AP press release be a reliable source?

The site of the proposed Islamic center and mosque is not at ground zero, but two blocks away in a busy commercial area. We should continue to say it’s “near” ground zero, or two blocks away. — goethean ॐ 20:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Put in both. Don't label one side or the other as "incorrectly" or "misnomer". That's too much POV. "Sometimes refered to as the 'Ground-Zero Mosque' or the 'Near Ground-Zero Mosque'. It captures both sides without picking one. --DHeyward (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)But who has been calling it the "near ground zero mosque"(crap, see above, there goes that)? Misnomer gets 14 google hits vs 14,000 for plain ol "ground 0 mosque". Again, I would stick with how its been commonly refered(correctly or incorrectly) to in the lead, and then go into painful detail further into the article like it currently does. The project could be 20 blocks from GZ, and if it was being refered to as the GZ mosque/project, so be it. That would not make it necessarily "incorrect".--Threeafterthree (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Including "Ground Zero Mosque" without noting that it is inaccurate is using Wikipedia to further propagate spin. That the phrase is inaccurate is verifiable. There is no valid reason not to point out its inaccuracy in the lead. — goethean ॐ 21:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, the "two blocks" mantra is the counter to "at". The main article does a better job at describing what 2 blocks is in Manhattan (600 feet). 2 blocks has no reference and is used to obfuscate just as much as "at ground zero" is used to obfuscate. --DHeyward (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason to suddenly decide that in 327,582,921 references the Associated Press is a reliable source, but for this one it's not. "Inaccurately" is that rarity in Wikipedia – a description both true and reliably sourced. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree we should be taking a POV in the lede. Our goal is verifiability, so it is sufficient to say it is "sometimes referred to as the Ground Zero Mosque." That doesn't mean we endorse the label; it is just sometimes called that. Although you can find sources disputing the accuracy of the label, the issue is thoroughly polarized, and we should not be giving undue weight to sources that happen to agree with our personal viewpoint. Later in the paragraph we explain exactly how far it is from Ground Zero, so the reader can make up his own mind about whether "Ground Zero Mosque" is a misnomer. Fletcher (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Say a mosque was built 5 blocks from the Empire State Building, and everybody refered to it as the "Empire Mosque" in a ton of RS. Would that be "inaccurate/wrong" if the lead said that sometimes this mosque is called the Empire Mosque? If everybody called this project the Ground zero vacinity mosque, that would then be more "accurate"? Like I said, it doesn't matter that this project is not located within "ground zero", what matters is how the project has been repeatidly refered to as in the media("rightly" or "wrongly"). --Threeafterthree (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

ps, the citations also do not support that it has been refered to as the "near ground zero mosque". The citations point out that the mosque is not located within ground zero, which most folks who are following this probably know at this point. Again, that it isn't located within GZ is not the point. The point is how the project has been refered to most commonly. --Threeafterthree (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Our readers are not only "most folks who are following this". — goethean ॐ 23:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Goethean, that is why I was being swayed to possible using "misnomer" and thought that was "better" than using "incorrectly" which didn't make "sense". --Threeafterthree (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree we should be taking a POV in the lede.

Excuse me. Agreeing with the Associated Press and the St. Petersburg Times that the term is deliberately misleading is not "taking a POV in the lede". It is exactly the opposite: NPOV. On the contrary, having Wikipedia propagate right-wing spin is "taking a POV" in the lead. — goethean ॐ 23:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand - I'm not saying we should generally refer to it as the Ground Zero Mosque, just that that is one term people have used to describe it, to help identify the subject of the article. We shouldn't editorialize about whether that label is correct, pronouncing one side of the debate to be in the wrong (even if they are in fact in the wrong). We should present the facts and allow the reader to decide if GZM can only imply "on" Ground Zero rather than "near". Fletcher (talk) 00:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The verifiable facts are the the Associated Press and the St. Petersburg Times find the phrase to be misleading. The AP finds it so misleading that they have instructed their reporters not to use it. It is our duty to report these verifiable facts to the reader when using the misleading, deceptive, demagogued phrase. To do otherwise is to mislead. — goethean ॐ 00:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Correction: we are not using the phrase ourselves, but reporting that it is commonly used, which is not disputed. Even the AP itself has used the phrase (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100814/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_ground_zero_mosque_obama here, for example). The fact that some sources may now say the term is misleading doesn't mean we should be endorsing that viewpoint in the lede. However, it could be appropriate to mention how people have argued over what to call it. Fletcher (talk) 01:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

My parenthetical does not endorse any view, but merely reports that the AP has instructed its employees not to use the deceptive phrase. It is misleading and POV to imply that the deceptive phrase is a perfectly suitable one, as the lead without the parenthetical does. — goethean ॐ 01:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason what the AP thinks should be reported in the first sentence of the article! This is not an article about the AP. And there is no implication that the phrase is suitable, just that it is sometimes used (and later we can address what people have said about it). I have tried to accommodate your concern, in adding the comment to the end of the paragraph. Please stop editing tendentiously. Fletcher (talk) 01:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It is you who is being editing tendentiously. The phrase is verifiably inaccurate and misleading and needs to be labelled as such. — goethean ॐ 01:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree. There is a group of people that clearly refer to this as "ground zero mosque." And while this phrasing upset a different group, it is still used. Just calling out what the mosque has been called is the neutral version. Native Americans are still called Indians. That is way more inaccurate than "ground Zero Mosque" yet its colloquial use governs its treatment. Everyone knows what the "Ground Zero Mosque" is and it is a subgroup with a POV that finds that term unacceptable. The AP appeased that subgroup without compromising accuracy. Wikipedia should present viewpoints accurately, not try to decide which viewpoint is more accurate. This is a political issue and is subject to wide interpretation. --DHeyward (talk) 03:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Please note that in diametrical opposition to your idea of how Wikipedia works, the article on Native Americans is not at Indian. Neither does the article blithely assume that all names for them are equally accurate or suitable. Unlike this article. — goethean ॐ 04:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the consensus at the time was almost neutral between using "Native American" or "American Indian" for the title of that page (see Talk:Native American/Archive03#Finalizing the US version). I don't think this is at all relevant to this article, though, because "Indian" in this sense is a very well-established expression with a history of centuries. All those hundreds of years gives a misnomer special status.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 04:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we do need, as early on in the article as practicable, a clear statement that the "Ground Zero mosque" will not be located physically at the Ground Zero site. Any elimination of this essential information from the lead is, as goethean suggests, clear subterfuge by a politically-interested group of editors to ensure that people continue to think the site is at Ground Zero (in the same way that people believe that Obama's a Muslim). Having said that, I think calling the site the "so-called Ground Zero mosque" would be a more neutral phrasing. It is "so-called". That's a verifiable fact. Also, the use of that specific term clearly indicates that the reader should continue on in the paragraph to find an explanation about why what it is "so-called" may not be accurate. Zachary Klaas (talk) 02:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Any elimination of this...information...is, as goethean suggests, clear subterfuge by a politically-interested group of editors to ensure that people continue to think the site is at Ground Zero...

I made no such claim. No editor is intentionally misleading readers. They are doing so unintentionally, however, by uncritically relaying in this article the vocabulary of the bigots. A prominent disclaimer referenced to reliable sources is necessary. — goethean ॐ 02:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess I mistook you when you were suggesting someone was editing tendentiously. That word suggests the problematic editing was done on purpose, not because a person is merely being uncritical. But you are entitled to your own opinion, of course, and I hope you feel you have now made it clear. For my part, I think the tendentious editing is being done on purpose. Anyway, I think what we've been seeing play out on here is the following pattern: (1) A statement is made that "rain is wet"; (2) the claim is raised that this is irrelevant or tangential, and the information is deleted, leaving Wikipedia readers free to believe in their popular crackpot theory that "rain is dry"; (3) a new spate of reputable sources do fact checks, establishing that rain is in fact wet and explicitly linking the resolution of this question to the topic of the article "Rain", so no one can doubt that this is both relevant to the matter at hand and non-tangential; (4) no one apologizes for cutting the information in the first place and allowing people to believe falsehoods they clearly want to believe. Zachary Klaas (talk) 02:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I sense a continuing failure to grasp the basic differences between an encyclopedia containing verifiable, neutral information and a blog. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say, considering we have two refs establishing its "misleading" status, we should put back misnomer (unless someone has a better term) and attach the AP/Petersburg refs to misnomer. --JaGa^talk 08:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm satisfied you've documented "misnomer", but the reality of it is, people will come up with one WP convention or another to shoot it down because it's embarrassing to conservatives that it is verifiably a misnomer. Incidentally, I want people to understand that if the Left played fast and loose with facts like the Right is doing on this article, I'd be just as mad. Ask anyone who edited the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis page. Left-leaning editors continually screened out anything that argued against their premise that Manuel Zelaya was unjustly unseated as the President of Honduras, to the point that they ignored evidence from the constitution of the country and decisions by the country's Supreme Court. I protested this, and people called me a right-wing dupe (in their nicer moments) and the moral equivalent of a Holocaust denier (in less nice moments). So you can intimate all you want that I'm a lefty partisan here, but what I am is someone who wants respect for facts. Zachary Klaas (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The last sentence in the first paragraph discusses the term in light of its accuracy. That is sufficient. Please see Native American vs. Indian for similar comparison. It is what it is whether the exact language is accurate or not. To some "Ground Zero Mosque" is a proper noun describing it. To others, it is a geographical location that is inaccurate. Neither is incorrect in their interpretation. Nor should we state that. It is enough to say that news organizations have decided to compromise and call it "mosque near ground zero" --DHeyward (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The current version is even worse than without any use of the word misnomer at all with far too many different forms at the top, can we just go back to 'misnomer' I'm sure multiple reliable sources can be found to back that up. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps its proximity to Ground Zero is enough to label it the GZM, perhaps it isn't. How close in your opinion does something have to be? The point being, the your opinion or mine about how close is irrelevant, along with "some in the media." This POV has no place in the intro. Kaisershatner (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

To present highly partisan, verifiably misleading political rhetoric as simple fact is to actively mislead our readers. — goethean ॐ 18:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite, the only proximity that would be acceptable would be if this community centre was in the new building being built at ground zero or directly surrounding block. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if the media is embracing "mosque near Ground Zero" as DHeyward says, why not remove "Ground Zero mosque" and leave "mosque near Ground Zero"? We still have the redirect. "Obamacare" is not in the lede of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, although it is in the article and Obamacare redirects there. "Ground Zero mosque" is a POV term, so let's get POV out of the lede. --JaGa^talk 19:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It is objectively true that "Park51" aka "Cordoba House" is widely referred to as the "Ground Zero Mosque." Including that common name for this proposed building in the lede is neither partisan nor misleading. The fact that there are editors, or media groups, or human beings, who strongly agree or disagree with the accuracy of the label is secondary to the lede sentence. The intro takes specific note of the actual location and whether or not the building would be visible from Ground Zero; it is for the reader to decide if one of the popular labels for this project is accurate or not - not for wikipedia's editors. Kaisershatner (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think people are getting confused with using "Ground Zero Mosque" as a proper name vs. using it as a descriptive reference. People could argue that "Cordoba House" is a misnomer as Cordoba never generated this much controversy and division. However, it wouldn't change the fact that people refer to it as "Cordoba House" and it's use is as a proper name for the structure. The most common names of this structure are in the lede because various people will recognize them. The last couple sentences in the lede clearly indicate where the planned structure is and it's relationship to ground zero. The faction of people who created this controversy have name named it "Ground Zero Mosque" and it's the only reason there is a controversy, and quite franky, the reason it should even be an article. The faction of people who wish the controversy didn't exist are trying to discredit them by pointing out inaccuracies in the name, in the structure (mosque vs. prayer center) etc. All of that is spiffy but the Encyclopedia doesn't need to declare one side "correct" and the other side a "misnomer". Seriously, it's like St. Paul going to St. Peter's page and claiming "peter" is a misnomer because he isn't a "rock" and is soft as a bag of feathers. Point out the various names. Point out which groups use which names and why. Don't take a position or POV on whether they are valid or correct. The AP has a position, Fox news has a position, TEA party members have a position, FAIR has a position, etc, etc. Please stop trying to get the encyclopedia article to agree with your position. --DHeyward (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's step back a second. WP:NPOV is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. Giving a list of alternate names in the lede, by comparison, is not a cornerstone of Wikipedia. It is verifiable that "Ground Zero mosque" is a POV term. Putting an unqualified "Ground Zero mosque" in the lede is an implicit endorsement of a point of view term. So we should take it out. This is not unprecedented; "Obamacare" is not in the lede for Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, nor should it be, even though the law is popularly called that. People who search for "Obamacare" will still find the correct article, without the implicit endorsement of placement in the lede. --JaGa^talk 20:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Saying that "Ground Zero Mosque" is another term for the community center and leaving it at that is taking a position — it is endorsing partisan rhetoric. There are multiple reliable sources which call it a misnomer. Some of us want to report on the fact that the phrase is misnomer, others want to bury that coverage. See also: Death panels. On your argument, who are we to tell our readers that death panels don't actually sentence someone to death? Sure, there are reliable sources which point out that the phrase is partisan rhetoric, but referring to those sources is taking a side, and that's not neutral. So according to your argument, we must bury the objections to the phrase "death panels". Of course, to do so would be highly misleading to the reader, but oh well. Our job isn't to inform the reader, it's to remain "neutral". — goethean ॐ 20:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The "Ground Zero Mosque" is another term for the community center. A substantial number of people refer to it that way, just as a substantial number of people refer to Native Americans as Indians. That's simple fact. Not endorsing and not dismissing it. There are plenty of references that use the term. I don't really care who is right. It's a name. They can call it the "Twinkly, Shiny Building for Muslims" and it would be presented without judgement. For "Death Panels" it's easy: "'Death Panels' is a term coined by Sara Palin to describe the organizations/panels chartered with deciding levels of care in the Health Reform Legislation. Palin expressed concern about 'care rationing' and how these panels may ultimately decide who gets care and who doesn't. The legislation does not specifically refer to any 'Death Panels'. The term has sparked controversy." That's all it needs to say. Doesn't need to point and say 'Wrong!', just needs to provide context in a neutral fashion. That's all we are doing here. We don't put 'misnomer' in front of the Defense Intelligence Agency in the lede though we may point out failures. We don't point out that the Pentagon is a misnomer because it's actually 5 Pentagons. It's petty partisan nonsense to dismiss someone else point of view with a derogative label to make them appear wrong or foolish. --DHeyward (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

A POV term like "Ground Zero mosque" has no place in the lede, period. It's contrary to WP:NPOV and there's no requirement to list synonyms in the lede. --JaGa^talk 21:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I see that the lead now reads "opponents have called it" ect. and the "near GZ mosque" has been removed (which I always thought should happen). This dosen't seem too bad. Again, Wikipedia is not "endorsing" or saying that this is "correct" or its NPOV or whatever. It is simply reporting how this project has been refered to in the media. Thats all. --Threeafterthree (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It's petty partisan nonsense to dismiss someone else point of view with a derogative label to make them appear wrong or foolish.

It is also petty partisan nonsense to enshrine as neutral fact in an encyclopedia a phrase which we all know was manufactured in order to allow bigots to more easily demagogue race issues in the United States. — goethean ॐ 21:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

When something is labeled, often the label is attached to make a point. I'd prefer our article not to make any point, but rather to describe the points which the various advocates have been making. So do not call the structure the "Ground Zero Mosque", but rather indicate that news source A or Opponent B called it that.

Now, sometimes, the media will adopt a catchy sounding term and use it without trying to make a point of their own. For instance, a tabloid newspaper whose publisher is hoping increase circulation would not say "Cordoba House", let alone "Park51", as that would mean nothing to prospective readers.

But I hope we can distinguish between usage aimed purely at jogging someone's memory, and usage designed to score points.

Opponents call it "Ground Zero Mosque" for two reasons: first, to emphasize its proximity to Ground Zero; second, to imply that the proposed structure, taken as a whole will be a mosque. Both reasons are used in an argument, not generally made explicit, that Muslims intend to follow up their destruction of the WTC by building a thereabouts, much as in centuries past Muslims would destroy a Hindu temple and build a mosque in its place - thus asserting their supremacy. (I think Hindus did the exact opposite, razing mosques and building temples in their place; their are cycles of this kind of tit for tat in history, I've heard.)

I neither want to exalt nor repudiate this POV. I only want to make it as explicit as possible, based purely on published remarks and statements. No WP:OR, please. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the lead doesn't "push" a POV since it does say it is sometines referred to as rather than calling it that outright or having the article titled that, ect. I think alot of reporters(pro and con) did call this the ground zero mosque, but I don't watch alot of tv so I am not sure or know if folks are now calling it Park51 or what. I think folks are reading way to much into a name. It seems that news likes catchy, too the point describers, right or wrong, and this did the "job". --Threeafterthree (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead, in its current form, says sometimes referred to by opponents as the "Ground Zero mosque". This is still a problem. It places the POV term in the lede without pointing out that it is neither on top of Ground Zero nor solely a mosque. I'm sorry, but I don't think such a loaded term should be in the lede at all. But I could be over-reacting; I don't claim to be an expert on NPOV. Would anyone object to a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard? I would like to get a sanity check from uninvolved editors. --JaGa^talk 22:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

But it is also a POV that the term is inaccurate. Article titles are supposed to be descriptive rather than prescriptive, and GZM is a term people have used to describe the project. However, I noticed WP:LEDE#Alternative names has some advice to create a Naming section when there are multiple names or further discussion of the names is warranted, which seems to be the case with this article. We already have a naming section that discusses the official name, which I think that could be moved up and discussion of unofficial naming could be added to it, GZM then being removed from the first sentence. Fletcher (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I just went ahead and did so. Not sure if it will stick, but we need some new ideas instead of endless bickering about it. Fletcher (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully it will stick - I think it's the best solution regarding NPOV policy. --JaGa^talk 08:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Rewording, if not for NPOV, then at least for the sake of grammar

"Muslims died in the attack of 9/11 - from those that worked in the towers to emergency responders - hundreds of Muslims died there." This sentence is grammatically confusing and not encyclopedia like. "Muslim women with unborn children died in the attack.[194] Some had sought religious freedom in the West.[195]" - I would hate to see another NPOV discussion start here (This talk page is long enough), but this seems irrelevant to the subject. Considering the high number of fatalities, it is likely that pregnant women of various religions died.

My question is: Do we need these sentences? Could we perhaps express the fact that Muslims died in 9/11 in a more neutral manner? Alexguitar594 (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually I'd say the whole paragraph should go. Looks like some WP:OR on why people should support it. --JaGa^talk 20:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for taking care of it. Alexguitar594 (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Funding section needs to be rewritten

The section on funding needs to be evaluated. Several of the references and the official Park51.org state that the $100 million dollars has not been raised. Therefore, this section must reflect that and should clearly explain that the debate is over where the money will come from. (yes, i ended a sentence with a preposition. But that's ok)

The Park51.org website should be included as it states:

"We will hire security consultants to assist us in the process of reviewing potential financiers and philanthropists. We will refuse assistance from any persons or institutions who are flagged by our security consultants or any government agencies. "

SuperBeav (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Some of these references are regarding Imam Feisal and only loosely related to the Park51 project. SuperBeav (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Also note that the reference 29, "nytimes3," going to http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/mosque-near-ground-zero-clears-key-hurdle/ was incorrectly used as a citation for funding issues. The article does not state anything regarding funding. Another reference from the funding sections should be used SuperBeav (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised that there's no mention of the group possibly taking from the government of Iran and the government of Saudi Arabia. See here. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 22:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Rendition of the Mosque

We are currently using Park51Rendition.jpg While this is satisfactory, would it be possible to obtaina free use version of the same thing (from another artist)? Or would it be possible to contact Park51 and ask them to release a free image version? Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if an artist rendering of an artist rendering is workable: the copyright of derivative works still belongs to the original artist. I don't see any reason you couldn't ask them for a free image, but they have to understand that releasing it "for Wikipedia" is not the same as a free image, which must be reusable by others. More information on the process at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:OTRS

Split proposal

A few points:

• This article is getting huge (129k at present)
• The arrangement of the article is problematic; the Oppose section is so large, the Support section is effectively buried.
• The Oppose/Support sections have grown to a size out of proportion to the rest of the article, overwhelming an otherwise pretty good article.

For these reasons, I propose invoking WP:SPLIT and moving the content from Park51#Opposition to the location to Opposition to Park51 and Park51#Support for the location to Support for Park51. In place of that content, use a {{main}} template to point to the new article and give one or two paragraphs summing up the positions, but few or no quotes. --JaGa^talk 10:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The split should not be done in such POV fork per WP:CFORK. Anothee split approach is needed. A better POV balance (less oppose and more support) should be done within this article per WP:WEIGHT. --Kslotte (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Could we have a discussion before you rip out the split template? If the summary left behind sums up the oppose and support positions, and leaves out the quotefarm, how does that violate WP:CFORK? Perhaps it would be better to move the Oppose/Support content into a single article? --JaGa^talk 10:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:CFORK: "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts". I have replaced it with "very long" template to get attention. --Kslotte (talk) 10:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What about "Park51 location reactions"? --Kslotte (talk) 10:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks for the template improvement. A single "reaction" article is absolutely fine with me, and you're right, more in line with POV policy. What do others think? --JaGa^talk 11:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the single "reaction" article idea, with my usual caveat that we need to see facts distinguished from opinions. Far too much factual content in the article right now is represented currently as if it were mere "liberal opinion", to be lumped in with opinions that are clearly partisan rather than statements of uncontested truth. Zachary Klaas (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Could be split into "Park51" and "Park51 Controversy" without POV fork --DHeyward (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd second DHeyward's proposal. NickCT (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd Third. "Park51" should consist of objective facts concerning location, project details, etc. and "Park51 Controversy" the rest (which is guaranteed to be at least double the size of "Park51"). This should also make cleanup of each article much easier. Alexguitar594 (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose split: Looks like I'm in the minority, but splitting the article is like sweeping trash under the rug. It just moves the problem around, the problem being we have failed to stop indiscriminate addition of quotes. Per WP:NOTNEWS, just because something is quoted in a reliable source doesn't mean it needs to be included here. Creating a "Reaction" article will make the new article harder to clean up, because every quote is ostensibly more "encyclopedic" (because it's about the controversy). I don't see any featured articles or good articles that are "Reaction to..." articles. By contrast, see Abbey Mills Mosque or Cologne Mosque project, both Good Articles about similar controversies, but which are more concise. In lieu of moving the quote farm to a new article, I would suggest: 1) eliminating the use of block quotes; 2) summarizing the major arguments instead of quoting so much; 3) removing repetitive quotes, which seem more than abundant. A clean up will not be easy, but a split doesn't solve the problems and the new article will soon approach 100KB if no effort is made to stop the quote bloat. Fletcher (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Needs a heavy trim, not a split. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm OK with that. But it will not be easy. --JaGa^talk 09:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Where to begin? Considering the 9/11 families Oppose/Support sections, I would cut out everything but the first paragraph in the Oppose section and build a similar paragraph for Support. We definitely don't need a quote from every person; we should just summarize the arguments the members have put forth. --JaGa^talk 23:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There are three arguments I see advanced in Opposition/9-11 Families: the vague appeal to "sensitivity", the "sacred ground" argument, and the more aggressive "victory mosque" type of argument. We can trim quotes but don't want to lose the arguments presented. The first paragraph sounds like it just addresses "sensitivity". Do you wish to keep any quotes or paraphrase everything? Fletcher (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say "sensitivity" and "sacred ground" are just different parts of the same argument – "everybody needs to be sensitive to our pain and not disturb the sacred ground where our loved ones are buried". "Victory mosque" is a meme invented by Islamophobes and politicians; I can't believe it's an original thought/feeling on the part of many 9/11 family members, but rather a parroting of what they're hearing screamed at them. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree the first two are similar concepts. I thought both could be mentioned, as common representations of the arguments, but I suppose they could be stated as one. The victory mosque meme may be unpleasant, but if the quotes are accurate we have to presume they represent what some people think. It would be OR to suggest they are unable to think for themselves; there's no reason they are forced to parrot what someone else screams at them if they don't agree with it. And indeed some of the families support Park51. Fletcher (talk) 02:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying it shouldn't be mentioned. But there is some evidence that the concept originated with Newt Gingrich; if there are reliable sources supporting that conclusion, the origin should be properly attributed. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Facts are facts

I've been hit over the head a few times with the view that Wikipedia only cares for verifiability, not truth. Yet, in WP:NPOV, we have this statement: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. A fact is a statement about which there is no serious dispute among reliable sources. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No reliable source seriously disputes either of these statements, so Wikipedia articles can simply assert them. Facts can be simply stated in Wikipedia's voice (e.g. "Mars is a planet."), but remain subject to Wikipedia's policy on verifiability and may require citation." I thoroughly agree with this. It is also a fact that a Ground Zero site has been used for Muslim services since the time when the US was governed by a conservative president, and yet said conservative president did nothing about it, nor did any conservative activists. Yet it was conservative activists who raised the NYC mosque issue in the first place, so there's an obvious relevance to how conservatives behaved in the case of the Pentagon. But we're not allowed to say that out loud? Nonsense. We need the sentence to say "no one said anything about the Pentagon, including conservative activists." Nothing less will establish that conservative misrepresentation of the truth is factually documented here. Likewise, we need a link to the Laura Ingraham "I like what you're trying to do" interview with Daisy Rauf on the hard-core conservative Fox News channel, which shows that Fox News conservative talking heads had no problem even with the "Ground Zero mosque" itself as recently as 2009. Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Please try harder to distinguish your opinions from facts. Fletcher (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I realize that was meant as a drive-by because you've taken all of 5 seconds to consider what I've said there. But the point is exactly the opposite. You take documentable facts to be my opinions. Zachary Klaas (talk) 04:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I read your comment, but my response is simple: you are not separating subjectively formed assumptions from objective, indisputable facts, like “Mars is a planet.” The notion that Park51 and the non-denominational chapel at the Pentagon are comparable projects is a conclusion to be reasoned, not an indisputable fact. The notion that conservatives object solely to the presence of Muslim worshipers and not other aspects of Park51 is also a conclusion to be reasoned, not an indisputable fact. You state these conclusions as assumed facts, yet both are eminently disputable.Fletcher (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

And yet, the RS media have been making the comparisons. That's the point where real Wikipedians should be saying "Why are these connections being made?" and concluding "because the facts are connected". And conservatives, generally, did not object to Park51 at all until neo-McCarthyist bloggers started to stir things up. Anyway, these facts are starting to filter into the article because the media is talking about them and making the connections. Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if some of you would split up an article on Watergate into "the anti-Nixon opinions" and "the pro-Nixon opinions" instead of addressing the fact that Nixon authorized the break-in to the hotel, because this would not seem to show a "neutral point of view" between the Democratic Left and the Republican Right? This is very similar. Right-wingers have staged a media event, and we're treating their actions with kid gloves, despite ample documentation of what they did. Zachary Klaas (talk) 04:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

All media "stages" media events; if they didn't have anything large or controversial to report about they wouldn't be profitable. If Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia, then it will write about mainstream events, regardless of its mainstream source and its source's political agenda. I think the reason people are resisting your changes is that they are too loaded with political stance. It's neutral to say that "a Ground Zero site has been used for Muslim services..." but the moment you bring in the political background of the context marker (since President Bush), you give it political charge, thus conflicting with WP:NPOV. Those sentences are criticisms of a political party, and shouldn't have a place in an article about a Community Center, and perhaps not even in a section of its criticisms. It seems as though you're trying to use this article to criticize a different subject, the way one might when they are WP:COATRACKing. 161.231.132.16 (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The point I've been making consistently is that the article has been taking right-wing spin to be NPOV. The entire suggestion that politicians are "allowing a mosque to be built at Ground Zero" is meant to be a smear on those officials. It is restoring NPOV to point out that those making the criticisms seem to be very active with those criticisms during a liberal administration, but were largely silent about similar issues during a conservative one. It is restoring NPOV to point out these conservative critics held entirely different opinions about the NYC mosque last year, before a neo-McCarthyist blogger managed to scare everyone into opposing the mosque in order to prove their loyalty. My opinions are beside the point, there is a factual record of these changes, and the mainstream news media are making these connections as well as I am. Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)