Talk:Park51/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Where do visitors remove their shoes?

The Park51 plans are apparently out,[1] so now it should be easy to determine how much of the building is actually a mosque. Where did they put the space where visitors remove their shoes? To my very limited knowledge, you can't wear shoes in a mosque, right? Wnt (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your implication. Are you saying you expected them to produce architectural renderings of the cubbies for Muslims to store their shoes, and that it's therefore not a mosque because there are no drawings of the shoe cubbies? That's a pretty silly argument, if that's what you're saying. Fletcher (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
What I think he is saying, is that areas with a no-shoe policy would be consider mosque-like. But those are architectural renderings, they imply no finalized version of the internal placement of facilities or really any sure detail at all for where things inside will be. Yes you are correct you must remove your shoes when entering a mosque. I believe they already stated there will be a 2-story multifaith(i think that was said) prayer room, weather they will have a shoe policy has not been said(you'd probably have to visit it yourself and find out that when it's done anyways to find out such infomation) Dayofswords (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Rightly or wrongly, I was assuming that for a large number of people to take off and put on shoes during a fairly short interval (before and after the service) requires a fair number of benches, a storage area ... I suppose there should also be a hand-washing station of some sort ... it seems like it would be big enough to show up on the plans. But if the plans don't show the rooms then obviously this won't work. Wnt (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, there aren't any released internal plans yet. Dayofswords (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a nitpick, the multifaith prayer room is considered to be in addition to the mosque, not a replacement. ("The developer, Sharif el-Gamal, has since said he would be amenable to setting aside one prayer space for non-Muslims, as long as it does not mean reducing the size of the mosque." [2]) Fletcher (talk) 02:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The official site states: "a prayer space, intended to be run separately from Park51 but open to and accessible to all members, visitors and our New York community" in its list of facilities - there is nothing there to suggest this is not the 'mosque', and the 'run separately' would tend to suggest it is. Time will tell I guess. ‒ Jaymax✍ 06:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Mosque

To describe Park51, the word mosque should only be used in quotes and then attributed to a source. By any common definition, this building is not a mosque. It is an Islamic community center. Let's please be accurate, regardless of personal religious or political beliefs. Wikipedia is supposed to be much better than Fox News. Jehochman Talk 18:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. Many sources and even the owner have described as including a mosque (see interview here where he says "With respect to the mosque, which will take up only a small portion of the final space, it's a question of meeting a need. This mosque will be open to all.") But the whole project is not a mosque, only part of it is a mosque. Fletcher (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with Fletcher. I hate FoxNews, but our job is actually try to be fair.--Milowent • talkblp-r 21:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead section discussion

A fairly extensive discussion about possible lead text took place on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Park51 (the so called "Ground Zero Mosque"). Is first use of the word "mosque" appropriate without reflecting that the designation "mosque" is itself POV?. That discussion was initiated by Hauskalainen on October 8, near the end of the above discussion. Unfortunately not all editors here were aware of the discussion. Nonetheless it produced a draft text (some would call it a consensus text, but that consensus is no longer so clear):

Park51, originally named Cordoba House, is a planned 13-story multi-faith[5] community center in Lower Manhattan. It would replace an existing 1850s Italianate-style building damaged in the September 11, 2001 attacks. The proposed facility's design includes a 500-seat auditorium, theater, performing arts center, fitness center, swimming pool, basketball court, childcare area, bookstore, culinary school, art studio, food court, September 11 memorial, and a prayer space for Muslims that could accommodate 1,000–2,000 people.[6][7] The presence of a prayer space about two blocks from the World Trade Center site[6][8] has led some to refer to it as the "Ground Zero Mosque", though others have strongly objected to this. [9]

Views differed on the noticeboard concerning whether "Ground Zero Mosque" should be bolded, but the rewording is designed to address NPOV concerns about introducing the term Ground Zero Mosque without clarifying what it referred to ("the presence of a prayer space...").

Some rather extensive discussion about whether this use of the NPOV Noticeboard was appropriate or was inappropriate forum shopping. Regardless of that discussion, the above text is available for discussion here. If, as indicated by some at the other discussion, a Request for Comment is desired, it should be considered.--Carwil (talk) 01:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Carwil, I think the proposed text addresses the concern rather nicely. Hauskalainen took my previous advice on the talk page and brought this concern to a noticeboard, and I see that this has invited contributions from numerous uninvolved editors. The opinions on the noticeboard haven't accorded with the received opinions of certain editors active on this page, and that accounts for the exaggerated protests about "forum shopping". I think Hauskalainen pursued this through the proper channels and the other editors on this page should accept the decision with some grace. Zachary Klaas (talk) 02:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Hauskalainen failed to notify this talk page that another discussion was taking place, rendering any "consensus" in that discussion null and void until the excluded editors are given a chance to participate in the consensus forming process. It is that exclusion of us from the process that makes it look like forum shopping; I can't speak for NickCT, but had he chosen to notify us here, it would not have rubbed me the wrong way. It's outlandish to think we need to be accepting of some "decision", as if it were passed down from a judge, that occurred on another page that we were excluded from.Fletcher (talk) 02:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't passed down by a judge, it was passed down by several. Numerous uninvolved editors contributed to the discussion. You can't accept this because you think of this page as "your" page, not a community project. Zachary Klaas (talk) 13:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
As I just posted to User:Jaymax (giving sources) it is inappropriate to delete the word mosque from the lede. The prayer space within the building is reasonably described as a mosque by many sources, and the perception that it is a mosque and this fact is somehow threatening is what gives rise to the project's notability. We can't conceal this from the reader. "Multifaith community center" obscures the fact that the project is organized by Muslims primarily for Muslims (the original motive being insufficient space in other mosques), although some amenities will be open to the public. It is better to describe it as both a mosque and community center. This reflects the prevailing usage in sources. I believe that Hauskalainen considerably overstates the extent to which the word "mosque" is controversial (it may be controversial to him, but not to most). The word is widely used by sources. (AP: "Islamic center and mosque", CS Monitor: "mosque and Islamic center", TIME: "mosque and cultural center".) I do agree we should be careful not to describe the entire project as a mosque. Fletcher (talk) 02:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
NB: I corrected my username in comment above.
After reading Fletcher's comments, and considering another angle that occurred to me while seeking to demonstrate that 'prayer space' and 'prayer room' are much more common terms for such a space within a building which is not itself a 'place for worship' - namely that typically such places do not come with a leader such as an Imam - I'm opting out of the debate as to whether 'mosque' is an appropriate term. I do still have some concerns - particularly the suggestion that using a term such as 'prayer space' is an attempt at POV spin, when it is the common accepted term in non-controversial situations to describe such a place; and thus there is a rational basis to argue that pushing for 'mosque' is more clearly POV spin. But in the absence of a reliable definition that explicitly requires a mosque to be a building (although this is strongly intimated by almost all definitions), I'm not going to fight the issue.
Note also I removed the text 'multi-faith' from the top of the lede as unsupported in that context by sources, and put a sentence at the end of the lede that puts the term in appropriate context. ‒ Jaymax✍ 06:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Jaymax, please don't "opt out" of a discussion because it's controversial. This page obviously needs the contribution of outside editors. I, for one, appreciate what you've contributed so far. Zachary Klaas (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Cheers. ‒ Jaymax✍ 00:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

RfC Prep

I have started a draft RfC, at User:AKMask/park51rfc. Monday seems like a good day to post it here and put it up on the various RfC pointer pages. I would welcome someone with an opposing view from mine to work with me so both sides can present a statement, and hopefully the couple dozen more voices this brings to the page can bring an end to the content dispute one way or the other. -- ۩ Mask 13:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey "> ۩ M. Your RfC is put forward in a neutral tone. You shouldn't express an opinion within the RfC. I'm going to mockup a more neutral one that includes a poll. NickCT (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok. It's done. Let me know what you think. If you want me to edit it, please shoot a message to my talk page. NickCT (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Live RfCs should not be edited - absolutely not once people start responding. That is of course unless they are malformed. I object to you jumping the gun like this after you didn't like the way AK was formulating his RFC. It might have been nice to continue the discussion regarding which options it would be best to put forth in the RfC before going live, especially since AK was already working on it and was doing so in a collaborative way. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I think it ok to add a couple point to "Issues surrounding the question", if someone thinks I haven't fairly represented all points-of-view. AK's RfC was only partially formed, and wasn't really approaching from the right direction, so I thought I'd be bold. NickCT (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Two things. One, I usually have each side put up a statement, and then discuss points about it. I know mine was one sided, that's why It wasn't live. We had a weekend to collaborate, compare notes, and then put forward two statements and ask for outside input. I mentioned all that in my original post. And second, did you switch sides below? Option A seems to be what I'm proposing (Controversially called the ground zero mosque, and then identified as an Islamic Community Center. That's somewhat secondary though, my primary concern is the fact that you jumped the gun, and then say I put it forward malformed when I did nothing of the sort. I wasn't going to start this thing until you had come up with a persuasive, well thought out response. Thanks though. -- ۩ Mask 18:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

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. Fletcher (talk) 00:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I know, I've seen different numbers too...Dayofswords (talk) 05:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

In this article cato.org the author states it is 13 stories as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindsrog (talk • contribs) 03:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

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 WP:NPOV 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 community center to be located about two blocks from the World Trade Center site in Lower Manhattan.
b)
Park51, originally named Cordoba House and controversially referred to as the "Ground Zero mosque", is a planned 13-story community center and mosque to be located about two blocks from the World Trade Center site in Lower Manhattan.
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 WP:NPOV claims.
2) A number of editors have objected to the use of the term "Ground Zero Mosque" as inflammatory and lacking WP:NPOV. Others have countered the term is a WP:COMMONNAME for the site, and ought to be included in the first sentence.

Previous discussions - See Noticeboard#Park51_.28the_so_called_.22Ground_Zero_Mosque.22.29._Is_first_use_of_the_word_.22mosque.22_appropriate_without_reflecting_that_the_designation_.22mosque.22_is_itself_POV.3F and Talk:Park51#It.27s_not_a_mosque...and_the_illogicality_of_calling_it_a_mosque_needs_to_be_explained

Please reply in following format

  • Support A or B - (comment)

Example

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! Zachary Klaas (talk) 05:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks in advance for everybody's time and attention! As always, let's keep the debate WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF please. NickCT (talk) 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 WP:NPOVN 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 WP:NPOVN can we decide whow to move forward. --Hauskalainen (talk) 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. ‒ Jaymax✍ 08:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support A, Weak Support B - The term "Ground Zero mosque" is a very common name. It may have WP:NPOV 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. NickCT (talk) 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. --Tryptofish (talk) 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. --Tryptofish (talk) 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.Griswaldo (talk) 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 Wikipedia presents what a mosque 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 muezzin 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. Zachary Klaas (talk) 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 [3] 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? Fletcher (talk) 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. Zachary Klaas (talk) 05:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support A. This is no more a mosque than the JCC is a synagogue, or the YMCA is a church. The body of the article is where the discussion of its mosqueness (or lack thereof) belongs. Flatterworld (talk) 16:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support A. Prefaces the Ground Zero Mosque meme, avoids referring to it as an unprefaced mosque. -- ۩ Mask 18:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support A Support D. 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.Dayofswords (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
D is actually much better. Dayofswords (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support A, weak support B 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'. ‒ Jaymax✍ 00:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
    per vision "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 facilities ‒ Jaymax✍ 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. Fletcher (talk) 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. -- ۩ Mask 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 Jumu'ah is being held at Park51, which is led by an Imam (see here). 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". Fletcher (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
You can try this. 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. -- ۩ Mask 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? Zachary Klaas (talk) 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.Chhe (talk) 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.--Epeefleche (talk) 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. User:Lindsrog

Option D

  • Park51, controversially referred to as the "Ground Zero Mosque", is a planned 13-story building containing a nonsectarian community center and a Muslim prayer area, also incorporating Cordoba House, a center for multifaith dialogue and engagement to be lead by Imam Feisal Abdul-Rauf. It will be located about two blocks from the World Trade Center site in Lower Manhattan.

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. ‒ Jaymax✍ 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.Griswaldo (talk) 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. ‒ Jaymax✍ 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. Fletcher (talk) 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.Griswaldo (talk) 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 (this interview). 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 Mosque Maligned," a New York Times article defending the project, which refers to it as "a mosque and community center". Or see the Economist, Build That Mosque, 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 WP:RS and WP:UNDUE and adopt the PR-speak of one side of the dispute. Fletcher (talk) 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.


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. Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Tweaked as suggested ‒ Jaymax✍ 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. Daniel Benweathers (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Also support D, with Zachary's tweak as well. -- ۩ Mask 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). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 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)Dayofswords (talk) 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. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
New York Times, 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)." ‒ Jaymax✍ 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. Zachary Klaas (talk) 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... Zachary Klaas (talk) 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. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that the usual English for "mussallaah/musalla" is "Muslim prayer space/area/room" ‒ Jaymax✍ 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.Dayofswords (talk) 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". --Dailycare (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Re this edit 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 Feisal Abdul-Rauf is probably WP:UNDUE. NickCT (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Wrong on several fronts - (1) an RfC does not override WP:BOLD, 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. ‒ Jaymax✍ 10:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Complicated= Prefer A first, D second, and B last. I'm come to see C as a mistake. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 01:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Observation - One of the strengths of Wikipedia 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 Mosque 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). Blakkandekka (talk) 16:59, 2 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 [[4]].
(bolding for emphasis)
2) A a large number of RS refer to it as such.

Can anyone provide a reason to not call it "Muslim"?

Thanks, NickCT (talk) 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. NickCT (talk) 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. --Hauskalainen (talk) 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 WP:NOTABLE & WP:V, which trumps your concerns about whether the term is technically accurate. I guess we could possibly call it an Islamic community center. Would that be better? NickCT (talk) 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) -- ۩ Mask 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. NickCT (talk) 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. -- ۩ Mask 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. -- ۩ Mask 03:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Muslim community centre is definitely the way to go. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 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 User: Lindsrog —Preceding undated comment added 02:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC).
So non-Christians can't go to Christian community centres? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 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 Eraserhead1's arguments.--Hauskalainen (talk) 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. NickCT (talk) 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.--Hauskalainen (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Dude. Read the top of this thread. The organizer's own website calls it a "Muslim community center". NickCT (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Can the link be fixed - at the link given I don't see that text. Ta. ‒ Jaymax✍ 07:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Woops! Lol. See [5]. NickCT (talk) 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. IronDuke 16:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks IronDuke. 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. NickCT (talk) 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. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz - 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 WP:UNDUE in the lead. NickCT (talk) 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. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 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.Chhe (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

Here are RSs calling it a "islamic community center".

Here are RSs calling it a "muslim community center"

Note the lack of RS calling it a "interfaith community center"

Kindly revert yourself and cease this edit war. NickCT (talk) 05:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with NickCT too, and given the clear talk page consensus I've reverted the change. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has addressed the fundamental issue that I raised earlier other than in a glib way... It is bad English and ambiguous. If Wikipedia 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

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.

http://blog.park51.org/?page_id=6

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).--Hauskalainen (talk) 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? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 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??? --Hauskalainen (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you need to clarify your arguments then. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 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.--Hauskalainen (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Hauskalainen - You're getting tiresome. Consensus is clearly against you. If you like, start an RfC. Otherwise, cease your edit warring. NickCT (talk) 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. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 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. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
@NickCT "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. --Hauskalainen (talk) 08:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
You've put Chhe in the wrong category... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 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.--Hauskalainen (talk) 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. NickCT (talk) 14:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Adding back a controversial change that has failed to gain conbsensus, then preemptively attacking its removal as edit-warring is hardly consistent with good faith, reasonable editing practices. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC - Is it a "Muslim" community center?

RfC Question - Is park51 a "Muslim community center" or just a "community center"?

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.

Thanks, NickCT (talk) 14:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

With respect I feel that NickCT has mis-stated the issue. The discussions in the previous 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/w/index.php?title=Park51&diff=394863817&oldid=394825354 or this one http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Park51&diff=396542941&oldid=396541971 made nine days later. I attempted to resolve the issue with this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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.--Hauskalainen (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2010 (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. NickCT (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2010 (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 NickCT 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.--Hauskalainen (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Procedural comment - RfCs are for comments (Request for Comment), not votes. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment on Procedural comment - The requesting editor acknowledges the principles and guidelines set out by WP:VOTE. The requesting editor suggests that using the "Support/Oppose" methodology is for simplicity and clarity only. The requesting editor further suggests (in a good hearted fashion) that Scjessey is a stickler for the rules! NickCT (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment on comment on Procedural comment - Only when it serves my agenda!!!! -- Scjessey (talk) 19:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am indifferent, to be quite honest. I can see arguments for either case, but I lean toward just "community center" because the Muslim aspects of the center are explained in the following sentences of the lede. I would suggest additionally mentioning that funding sources are chiefly from the Muslim community, as described in detail in the article's body. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm uninvolved in this dispute. I did a Google search on "Park 51" and looked at the first 9 reliable sources to see how they describe this building. PBS:"Islamic center"[6] New York Daily News: "Islamic community center and prayer space"[7] Deutsche Welle: "Islamic community center and mosque" [8] FactCheck.org: "Islamic cultural center and mosque"[9] Note that this article is in a Q & A format. I looked at the verbiage in the answer. The Observer: "Islamic center"[10] Jeruselum Post "Islamic Cultural Center"[11] Fox News: "Islamic cultural center"[12] The Daily Green: "Islamic community center"[13] BBC News: "Islamic community centre"[14] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. The oversimplistic phrasing that NickCT has repeatedly pressed despite its failure to gain consensus is inappropriate; media catchphrases and shorthand should not substitute for more nuanced, more accurate text. I still prefer the text I suggested a few day ago,[15] which describes the center as "Muslim-sponsored" and includes a clear reference meeting WP:RS; but Hauskalainen's recent proposal, which meets the concerns mentioned by Scjessey, is certainly also adequate. (NickCT removed this version favor of his text, despite the fact that his text has failed to gain consensus support). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
You say "oversimplistic"? Are the slew of the news organizations that use this phrase being "oversimplistic"? Perhaps you'd better write letters to their editor. NickCT (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
That's not very helpful. News organizations are always oversimplistic and this is no exception. HW makes a valid point. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Then what sources do you want to go by? I doubt if there are any peer-reviewed academic journals on this article's topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Scjessey - Frankly, I think the gross burden-of-proof resides on anyone who says that wording in mainstream RS should not be used. The "oversimplistic" rationale could be applied to anything. You might find 100 hundred references for WWII starting in 1939 and I might say "Well the real fighting didn't start till later, so saying it started in 1939 is oversimplistic".
Obviously the "letters to their editor" comment was meant to be light hearted. Apologies should it have caused offense. NickCT (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
No burden of proof is needed for editorial decisions on how to phrase things, just consensus based on analysis by reasonable editors. The sources are for establishing facts, not deciding on the language used to describe them. This is not a question of fact as to what the center is, but rather a stylistic question on the words to use to say it. As an encyclopedia Wikipedia has a different aim, and in many cases higher standards of exactitude, than mass media. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
We're throwing around words like "exactitude" and "oversimplistic". Who's to say if something is exact?!!? Who's to say if something is "oversimplistic". No one. That's who. The whole point of WP:V is that if a group of reliable sources say something is so, it is so.... period. It doesn't matter if a bunch of editors don't like what the reliable source says. NickCT (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
While there seems to be some merit in explaining the term better, we are unlikely to find any sources not calling it muslim given that we could only find a couple of sources not stating that it contained a mosque. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Well I tried replacing a simplistic one word adjective "Muslim" which was open to misinterpretation with the two word phrase "Muslim funded" which is more accurate and less open to interpretation and which retained the word "Muslim" and STILL somebody had to ho back and write in "Muslim community center" to keep this nonsense going. --Hauskalainen (talk) 14:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Obviously "Muslim funded" is misleading as Park51 is funded,own,operated and primarily focused towards Muslims. Calling it simply "Muslim funded" seems like a another perverse attempt to mask the obvious for POV reasons. NickCT (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • An involved editor, but Support per a quest for knowledge unless a similar number of sources can be found showing the opposite result. I mean as a non-muslim you can go inside a mosque - aside from the "prayer space". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment It would seem that a Muslim community center would be a center intended to serve the Muslim community, just as Jewish Community Centers were intended to serve the Jewish community. "The JCC Movement started...to provide support for Jewish immigrants".[16] But Park51's sponsors say they are "developing the Lower Manhattan community, Interfaith Alliances and the growing population of New York".[17] Can one really speak of a Muslim community or is it fragmented, so that we would have for example Ismaili Centres? TFD (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I played raquet ball last night in a place that called itself a "Jewish Community Center" but was open to people of all faiths to use it's facilities. I think your supposition that "It would seem that a Muslim community center would be a center intended to serve the Muslim community" might not be universally held.
As to "fragmentation" - Aren't pretty much all the Abrahamic religions fragmented? Can we call anything Christian/Jewish/Muslim?
Additionally, could you clarify whether you support or oppose or are neutral to the inclusion of "Muslim"? NickCT (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
JCCs were set up to support the welfare of Jewish people who did not have access to the same services as other people, they continue to provide Jewish schooling and summercamps, and they call themselves "Jewish Community Centers". They have extended their services to people outside the Jewish community. But Park51 has not been set up to support the Muslim community, but the entire community. However no one has provided any sources that explain what a "Muslim community center" is. There actually are organizations called "Muslim Community Centers" in the U. S., which provide welfare services for Muslims, and like other faith-based organizations also provide services to the greater community. Here is a link to books that describe MCCs, but Park51 seems different. Anyway these are my comments, I do not wish to vote on this. TFD (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey TFD - Frankly, I'd think that a "Jewish Community Center" is the same thing as a "Muslim Community Center" but for the fact that they are run/operated by/and focused towards peoples of different faiths. But this is besides the point. Mainstream RS like the BBC know what a "Muslim Community Center" is, and mainstream RS say Park51 is a Muslim community center. That would seem to satisfy WP:V. NickCT (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment - there would seem to be a tension here between including a short, identifiable phrase of the sort used by the mass press to keep readers on topic, and a more careful encyclopedic statement. There's also the possibility that it started out as more of a Muslim cultural center with interfaith trappings, then broadened its stated scope in response to political opposition. Either way, why not use the broader term that encompasses what it is then give the qualification, rather than using a narrower term that doesn't quite fit? Something like "... is a community center proposed by xxxxx, an Islamic yyyyy". That would be of the best service to the reader's understanding, which is the point here. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
That could be reasonable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm a little confused by the proposed solution. Are you saying we attribute the word "Islamic" or "Muslim" to all the sources that use it? I'd oppose because 1) attribution is messy (particularly for the lead), 2) attribution is only appropriate when there is disagreement among RS. Here there is none. NickCT (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that that the planners did change their minds in the light of publicity but we certainly did modify the article to accommodate NickCT's clear preference for keeping in the word "Muslim" by using the broad term and then widening out as Wikidemon has suggested. This is the diff from the time that NickCT claimed (wongly) that he had consensus for "Muslim community center" following the discussion in the previous section to a version which kept plain "Community Center" but explained that it was Muslim funded and had certain features for Muslims but other features open to all. And this was the diff in the next edit. There is simply no pleasing some people... --Hauskalainen (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Saying something like Park51, originally named Cordoba House, is a planned 13-story Muslim community center to be located a couple of blocks from the World Trade Center site in Lower Manhattan. The center is funded by the Muslim community and is designed to promote inter-faith dialogue like the 92nd Street Y. would be good IMO. And given how short the lead is the extra words aren't a problem. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
@Eraserhead1You indented your comment under a proposal that said "why not use the broader term that encompasses what it is then give the qualification, rather than using a narrower term that doesn't quite fit?" but your suggestion is the absolute opposite! Did you just accidentally indent this suggestion under Wikidemon's comment? If you made a mistake you have my permission to delete these remarks of mine when you correct it. If it was not a mistake then your intentions are unclear to me. Muslim Community Center is not IMO encyclopedic because the it does not convey that the center is open to all. --Hauskalainen (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Hauskalainen - Reading your comments above I wonder if a compromise is possible here by calling it a "muslim community center", then qualifying it by saying that most of it will be open to the general public? NickCT (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
In which case lets remove the funding point and say: Park51, originally named Cordoba House, is a planned 13-story Muslim community center to be located a couple of blocks from the World Trade Center site in Lower Manhattan. The center will generally be open to the public and is designed to promote inter-faith dialogue like the 92nd Street Y. or something. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Eraserhead1 - I like it Eraser! Couple of issues with the second sentence, 1) I don't like the mention of 92nd St Y. It seems unrelated and confusing, 2) "generally be open" is awkward language, Proposed Revision "The majority of the center will be open to the general public and its (proponents/founders) have said the center will promote (an interfaith agenda/interfaith dialogue)". Surely this wording makes it perfectly obvious that "Muslim community center" does not mean "a center open to Muslims only"? NickCT (talk) 14:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I mentioned the 92nd Street Y as believe Rauf has said Park51 is based on that. If I can't find a couple of WP:RS's to back that up I'm happy to remove it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't doubt that what you're saying is right Eraserhead1. I just wonder whether it is too much information in too short a space. You get me? I'm saying that the reader is likely not familiar with 92nd Street Y and so mentioning it in the first sentence might be confusing. NickCT (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Good point. I agree. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • It is clearly Muslim in nature, I don't think it would be controversial if it weren't. But in any case, there seem to be a multiplicity of sources supporting that view. IronDuke 03:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • It is clearly a Muslim community center - i.e. a community center strongly associated with Muslims. They'll let anybody pray in St. Peter's. That doesn't make it a nondenominational center of worship. RayTalk 18:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support as explained above.Chhe (talk) 04:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support all the sources call it an "islamic center" or something to that effect, the article should comply with its sources. WookieInHeat (talk) 02:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Strongly Object. Citing the news coverage is not evidence in favor of the accuracy of calling it a Muslim community center. Those same sources still almost invariably refer to it as a mosque. I vote for something like "...is a planned community center which will host a Muslim prayer space", which is far more accurate. Ken (talk) 13:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead length

Per WP:LEAD the lead should be around 3 ish paragraphs, now its barely one. This seems rather short. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

And virtually nothing about why it's notable. That's not good. IronDuke 01:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe that a lot of material was accidentally removed. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 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.--Hauskalainen (talk) 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. IronDuke 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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hauskalainen (talk • contribs) 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. IronDuke 02:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Can you point at a featured article which follows that "rule"? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Is this directed at me? IronDuke 02:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
No its directed at Hauskalainen. I don't think the lead includes the infobox. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to make some updates to lead to more accurately represent what Park51 is right now and what it's planned to me. Every time I make the update, Its reversed. The updates I'm making are: (1) It's location "at 45-51 Park Place at the intersection of Church and West Broadway", (2) Within the Park51 building, there is a Muslim prayer space with a separate 501-3C, where Muslims are able to currently attend the daily prayers, and (3) Reorganizing it into three paragraphs to read more coherently. AlBaraa (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully, NickCT is unjustly editing out my updates to the Park51 lead where I've given accurate references. The lead inaccurately describes Park51 as a Muslim community center that will be when in fact it is functioning right now, serving the residents of Lower Manhattan. The lead should read in at least three paragraphs that describe it as what it is, accurately describing that the Muslim prayer space is a separate 501c3 from park51, that "Cordoba house" just like the prayer space is a seperate 501c3 from park51 - just that both are housed within the Park51 property at 45-51 Park Place. And finally that the 13-story building is the future proposed plan for the center itself which will feature an expanded prayer space, the Cordoba house and many other components. AlBaraa (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey AlBaraa. Thanks for coming to the talk page. If you read this conversation, you'll note that we have had a long conversation about the "community center" issue. Regarding your other changes, if you wish to make major changes to the lead, please post your new lead at the bottom of this talk page for comment. If no one objects, I'd be happy to see the lead change! Good luck, and again, thanks for coming to the talk page. NickCT (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome NickCT. I've posted the changes under a new topic at the bottom of this talk page. I hope that's fine with you. How long does one need to wait for an objection before it's okay to see the change take place. AlBaraa (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal of 'its proponents have said'

The following change was made to the lead which I have now reverted:

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

I don't think that is appropriate as there are a lot of people who oppose the centre and it isn't necessarily true that the centre will promote interfaith dialogue (though I definitely hope it will). I think removing the striked out section means it isn't neutral. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Eraserhead1's revert, although for different reason. It's a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to say that something will happen. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
And I disagree profoundly as it is WP:Weasel to say that "its proponents say that .." because it implies that they might say one thing and do another. WP:Weasel is there to prevent this kind of thing. --Hauskalainen (talk) 20:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @A quest for knowledge, I think that describes my uncomfortableness over the change than my own words. If multiple reliable sources could be found stating that it had promoted interfaith dialogue I'd have no issue removing the qualifier. Of course that cannot be done until the centre is opened. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
@Hauskalainen, they might say one thing and do another, yes. Rauf might leave the project, or the finished product might not be effective at promoting interfaith dialogue and effectively become a mosque with some fancy facilities. Now that doesn't mean it isn't a good project, but it that is why the comment is in the article.
To make an analogy I'm sure pretty much everyone who gets married plans to stay with their partner forever but about half the time, in reality, it doesn't work out. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead Reflecting Park51 now and leading into what its proposed to be in the Future

I understand that there's been a long conversation about how the lead would describe and summarize Park51. I don't disagree with the "Muslim Community Center" at the moment. I just want to make updates that more accurately reflect what Park51 is.

Here is the new lead i'm proposing:

Park51, originally named Cordoba House, is a Muslim community center located at 45-51 Park Place at the intersection of Church and West Broadway, two blocks from the World Trade Center site[1][2] in Lower Manhattan. Within the Park51 building, there is a Muslim prayer space with a separate 501-3C, where Muslims are able to attend the daily prayers..[3]
The center is open to the general public and its proponents have said the planned future center will promote interfaith dialogue. Of the components that the center will offer, one of them will be an expanded Muslim prayer space that has controversially[4][5] been referred to as the "Ground Zero mosque", though numerous commentators noted that it was neither a mosque nor at Ground Zero.
The proposed Park51 plan, a planned 13-story building, would replace an existing 1850s Italianate-style building that was being used as a Burlington Coat Factory before it was damaged in the September 11, 2001 attacks. The proposed multi-faith aspects of the design include a 500-seat auditorium, theater, a performing arts center, a fitness center, a swimming pool, a basketball court, a childcare area, a bookstore, a culinary school, an art studio, a food court, and a memorial to the victims of the September 11 attacks. The expanded prayer space for the Muslim community will accommodate 1,000–2,000 people.[1][6]

Let me know if anyone has any issues with it AlBaraa (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey AlB. I'm going to let other people comment on this, but I do have one quick question. I'm not sure I understand what "there is a Muslim prayer space with a separate 501-3C, where Muslims " means. Is that a typo? NickCT (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps it would read better if it said,
Let me know if that reads better AlBaraa (talk) 22:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I think this lead is a vast improvement over what is currently there. I do have a couple of comments, firstly 501-3C seems like a technical term, so if that can be avoided that'd be good.
Secondly the statement "numerous commentators noted that it was neither a mosque" while already in the lead is frankly a lie, when in fact the opposite is the case. To my knowledge the only sources not calling it a mosque is the New York Times (and pretty weakly too) and Charlie Brooker's column in the Guardian. These aren't enough to be "numerous" and override the large number of sources saying the opposite (such as 5 of the 6 international sources I found before.) -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps instead of saying "501c3", to avoid technical terms, just say "non-profit"
RE "numerous commentators" We can change it to read:
Since we're mentioning the prayer space aspect in the second paragraph, the first paragraph can read:
Let me know what you think AlBaraa (talk) 23:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)'

@AlBaraa I have a BIG problem with what you are proposing. I want you to explain what you think is wrong with the lede as it is now. I just do not see the point of what you are proposing. All I can see is that you have messed up the grammatical tenses and unnecessarily introduced the words Muslim prayer space twice in different locations. It now says "Within the Park51 building, there is a Muslim prayer space " and further down it says "Of the components that the center will offer, one of them will be an expanded Muslim prayer space that has "....... This is unnecessary duplication --Hauskalainen (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the lead right now is that it isn't accurately reflecting what Park51 is today. It's only talking about what it will be in the future. Park51, which is the cultural and community center currently has two organizations operating within the building. First organization is "Cordoba House" - a separate non-profit run by Imam Feisal Abdur Rauf operating within the brand of Park51, which focuses on interfaith events. The other organization is "PrayerSpace" (see prayerspacenyc.org) another separate non-profit that provides a place for Muslim to pray, NOT operating under the Park51 brand or banner.
Park51 itself is a cultural and community center that will have many components to it when its proposed plan is carried out> See http://park51.org/faq/ - however at the moment it IS active and offering interfaith events, intra-faith events, cultural events (organized under the Park51 brand) and its within the building itself (located at 45-51 Park Place) there is a place for Muslims to pray - the organization called "PrayerSpace" is taking care of that.
Let me know if that clears it up AlBaraa (talk) 08:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the web site says the project is already active and doing things now and that the building project will extend this. I have therefore amended the text in the lede to reflect this. We should not ignore what the project is doing now.--Hauskalainen (talk) 10:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is the lead the better reflects the discussed changes. Let me know what you feel needs adjusting.

What the Park51 is NOW
What Park51 will in the FUTURE organizationally
What Park51 will in the FUTURE structurally
The above is the new lead which more accurately reflects the contents of the wiki page and what Park51 is today. Let me know what you have a problem with. AlBaraa (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'm not 100% with the mosque sentence, but I was clearly confused and overreacted last night :o. If I can think of better wording I'll be WP:BOLD or discuss it here, but this wording is pretty good. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
1) Generally I like where this is going. I think it's good to note that the center is currently an active community center, which isn't clear from the current lead. 2) I have one concern. That is that Park51 is current WP:NOTABLE because of the planned construction. The new proposed lead changes the focus from the planned construction to the current structure.
I think overall the proposed lead is a move in the right direction. @AlBaraa - Would you mind if I had a try rewriting to move the focus back a little towards the planned construction? NickCT (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I understand WP:NOTABLE RE the planned construction and majority of the rewritten lead still talks about the planned construction. However, there is content online that fulfills WP:NOTABLE requirements which will need to be filled up in the project history/timeline section.
Some content online I've found:
PrayerSpace event series in December >> http://www.prayerspacenyc.org/2010/12/muharram-majalis-at-prayerspace-gatherings-lecture-series/
Park51 has a weekly interfaith and open house which they've been doing for a couple months now. I know some people have blogged about it. I just need to find the appropriate links.
With the recent announcement of Shaykh Abdullah Adhami as added senior advisor to the project, there has been mention of some events coming this and next month. I'll find the specific links.
Assuming I find the appropriate reference content either from the Park51 website, other blogs or press articles - will that fulfill WP:NOTABLE requirements? Also, NickCT what would your rewrite look like? AlBaraa (talk) 04:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
A question, is why is the word proponents being used? This word suggests to the reader that the builders may not be right, may be concealing something, etc, etc. I think a better and more neutral word is: owners. That way we are not suggesting anything and are being more neutral. Brothejr (talk) 12:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I dont think "owners" is the right word either. Perhaps "leaders" is a better word? What do you think? 67.81.107.13 (talk) 06:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference nydailynews2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference nytimes2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b http://park51.org/faq/ Park51 FAQ
  4. ^ Olbermann: There is no ‘Ground Zero Mosque’ MSNBC's Keith Olbermann questions Americä's religious tolerance
  5. ^ The Ground Zero "mosque" is not a mosque Huffington Post article
  6. ^ Blog.Park51.org. Proposed Facilities for the Community Center at Park51 [Retrieved September 13, 2010].
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Park51/Archive_6&oldid=1137070832"