Talk:Park51/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Organizing opinions

I very much agree with several comments suggesting that the quote farm collection of opinions doesn't do much to help readers get any kind of realistic context for this controversy. And I'm skeptical that the well-meaning suggestions of consolidating them will work, because there's no evidence that the quotes attributed (probably accurately) to the 9/11 families represent anything like a majority view among those of a similar mind, let alone a majority of all views.

If it helps, here's an attempt I made to list all the points of view on this controversy: http://www.topiccentral.com/topics/mosque_topic_simple_issue_list.pdf

In developing the list I used an IBIS-type notation, parsing the various positions (from media reports and position papers) into an issue (question), viewpoint (answer) and argument triad, and then consolidated them. In addition, I organized the type of people taking these positions into four groups (and there are others, which I'm working on), according to their general perspective:

• civil libertarian (http://www.topiccentral.com/topics/mosque_profile_civil_libertarian.pdf ),
• libertarian (http://www.topiccentral.com/topics/mosque_profile_libertarian.pdf ),
• progressive (http://www.topiccentral.com/topics/mosque_profile_progressive.pdf ) and, for lack of a better label,
• Christian extremist (http://www.topiccentral.com/topics/mosque_profile_christian_extremist.pdf ),

For each perspective, I assigned them the viewpoints their positions seemed to reflect. If this is helpful you're welcome to use any or all of it without restriction. TSteichen (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

For the most part it seems helpful, though I think the parallels to the Pentagon chapel not appearing on this list might contribute to the phony argument that such parallels are irrelevant. Reputable sources treated that as a serious issue associated with the "Ground Zero mosque" controversy. Why is it left off your list? Zachary Klaas (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

No particular reason, and it's easy to add: How would you phrase it? TSteichen (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

"Were critics of the "Ground Zero Mosque" demonstrating bias in opposing Muslim religious facilities two blocks from Ground Zero in New York City when Muslims have held prayers daily and religious services weekly in the chapel of the Pentagon, the other site successfully attacked on September 11th, 2001?" and "Is it significant that criticism of the "Ground Zero Mosque" has been raised by conservative activists during the administration of a liberal US President, while no similar criticism of the Pentagon facilities were raised during the administration of a conservative US President?" Zachary Klaas (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

There is already a similar question:

• Should the fact that the Park51 site has been used for over a year as a Muslim prayer center without incident, have any bearing on this controversy? (Issue 59)

an appropriate phrasing for an additional question might be some variant of:

• Should the fact that the Pentagon, another target of terrorist attacks, has an area which has been used for worship by Muslims and others since 2002, without incident, have any bearing on this controversy?

Rephrase if you like, but this rephrasing makes it seem like it's not clear that it does have a bearing on the controversy. We have RS sources reporting on the "Pentagon mosque" issue because they have deemed it does have a bearing on the controversy, as you darn well know. You rule them irrelevant because you think they are, but that doesn't mean that the sources haven't made an explicit connection between the two things. It needs to say the word "conservative" somewhere because conservatives trumped up this issue and it's the behavior of conservatives that is the relevant issue. Anyway, lambaste me if you like, but at last this article is starting to reflect the facts on this matter, largely because it's painfully obvious the RS media is making this connection. Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations. Mixed in with your personal attack, misrepresentations of my comments and opinions, and continuing POV attack on conservatives, there is a glimmer of hope that you are at last beginning to realize the correlation between the ability to include something in Wikipedia and its verifiability in reliable sources. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I love how you throw in the implication that I, hopeless newbie, must be finally learning from you, Great and Wise One. I have included verifiability links for my changes since we first encountered each other on here. You call my sources irrelevant and delete the references I provide for them. That's a straw man argument against me and you know it. Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

To Zachary - You are completely misunderstanding (or misconstruing?) my intent - completely. I absolutely agree that the "Pentagon mosque" issue is very relevant, as is the fact that the Park51 site - both of which have been used by Muslims for years, without incident. The reason for including this issue is to (indirectly) confront those who claim that there's something unique about the new proposal. If they object to the new Muslim prayer centers, why have they not raised them over the years both in NYC, and, of all places, the Pentagon. I'm not sure how I can make that more clear to you. And it's not reflecting any point of view of me personally - I just don't get what's ticking you off so much.TSteichen (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I've already said on here what I think of the argument that I'm one-sidedly pursuing conservatives here. I think people who would say that might very well have said in 1974 that pointing out Nixon was involved in a cover up is one-sidedly pursuing conservatives. It is factual, not a matter of opinion, that conservatives brought this issue into greater discussion (via Pamela Geller - a point which has been recognized by a consensus and made part of the article). Since it was conservatives who generated this issue, it is relevant that they did not react when a very analogous situation at the Pentagon arose. It is especially notable because a conservative President was in charge at the time. Factual, relevant, notable. But for some reason unspeakable on Wikipedia. Soft-pedaling on Nixon would not be neutral, and neither is this. Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The factual genesis of the controversy can be addressed in the article. Broader arguments about conservatives' behavior or lack of consistency are your synthesis, and are not appropriate or even relevant to the article. Fletcher (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Also to Zachary - You seem to want the issues to be phrased so they contain an internal opinion (criticizing conservatives, in your case). I have no particular love of conservatives, but it's quite improper as a matter of form and fairness to insert that kind of conclusion (however cleverly done) to make the issue a clearly leading question. Why is that so hard for you to understand/accept? Think of it as making each issue NPOV. TSteichen (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

"The grand jury also secretly named Nixon as an unindicted co-conspirator." <-- from the Wikipedia article on the Watergate scandal. This is factual, but also fits in nicely with my opinion that Nixon was a crook. Should it be deleted because my opinion happens to fit the verifiable facts? Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

You're making me dizzy trying to follow your train of thinking. Delete what? From what? (Oh, and a small point: indictment doesn't equal guilt - though I don't disagree with your opinion of Nixon) TSteichen (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

If you agree that it's merely an opinion that Nixon was a co-conspirator, then you should be willing to delete it, because it reflects poorly on a conservative. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. It's also a fact that conservatives manufactured this controversy and were evasive on why they did not raise similar questions about a clearly analogous case. (And he was an "unindicted co-conspirator", which means that others were punished for the Watergate conspiracy, and he was identified as participating in said conspiracy, but not charged with it as a crime. This means he was legally identified as a lawbreaker, so "crook" stands...but that's an argument for another place, I suppose.) Zachary Klaas (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I asked you a couple of simple questions (Delete what? from what?) which you didn't answer. (I guess rants are much more fun.) Until you do answer, have fun talking to yourself. TSteichen (talk) 00:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete what? The reference that Nixon was a co-conspirator in Watergate. From what? The article called "Watergate scandal". You will see if you reread the above that this is what I was answering. My point was that Nixon's being a co-conspirator in Watergate is an embarrassing fact for conservatives. It's a fact though, and I think it should be represented on here. (Just waiting for someone to say "Yes, but it's an irrelevant point to this discussion" just to bait me, despite the fact that I've laid out exactly why I'm raising the point as an analogy here.) Zachary Klaas (talk) 13:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding leading questions about supposed biases, political or religious, of some opponents focuses the debate not on the issue but on the debaters. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I neglected to comment on this point earlier - I emphatically agree with you.TSteichen (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Glad you both agree. As far as the article itself is concerned, I'm getting most of what I was after. We now have clear indications that Geller started this mess, that Laura Ingraham gave Park51 positive coverage, and that the "Pentagon mosque" is a mussallaah, used daily by Muslims for prayer and weekly for services, and no one on the political Right gave a crap about Muslims praying and holding services at the other Ground Zero site. I'd like the article to say even more strongly worded stuff in this vein, but it is now reflecting (after days of me complaining) that conservative spin is all over this topic. As it should. Zachary Klaas (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(BTW, Jews, like Catholics, were "born" in a country, not "borne"...} Fat&Happy (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the typo catch TSteichen (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

To Zachary Klaas and Fat&Happy - The first of Zachary's proposed issues can be most seamlessly handled by integrating it with Issue 59, since, as Fat&Happy says, they're similar. The second one isn't a valid issue in its present form, though it could be rephrased as a more specific timing issue. This would need some careful wording, however, because (a) we're not at the start of Obama's administration (so that linkage gets fuzzy), (b) some would argue that Obama's not factually a liberal (so it becomes unnecessarily argumentative), (c) there may well have been earlier objections, which would throw off the implied linkage, and (d) there's no clear linkage yet been shown between the president's political leaning and the objectors. On top of this, quite frankly, I don't think the second idea adds any useful context - but I'm open to different thoughts.

One of the rules of my system is that each statement of an issue reflect, in effect, an internal NPOV. That eliminates, among other things, what Fat&Happy refers to as a "leading question."

If I don't hear more suggestions, I'll make the proposed change to Issue 59.TSteichen (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

While I find the issues you list to be relevant, and undoubtedly an aid to someone in evaluating the topic, I'm a little unclear on:

• your methodology for evaluating opinions of, and assigning positions to, each of the sub-groups;

To Fat&Happy: The underlying issue map shows the questions, alternative viewpoints and (optionally) arguments supporting the associated viewpoint. I don't "evaluate" anything. Each participant (usually representing some point of view) is free to pose whatever questions they desire to be included, subject to a couple of rules which work out to roughly: it has to be a non-leading question, it has to be relevant to the topic, and it shouldn't duplicate others. And the biggie rule: no direct deletes of issues created/edited by others. Alternative viewpoints are fairly non-controversial - they're just alternative ways to answer the question posed by the parent issue. There are rules too, but they're simple - I can expand if you like. As to assigning viewpoints to particular entity, that's also the responsibility of the entity itself.TSteichen (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• why there are three groups that could be considered "liberal" or "permissive" in nature, but only one, labeled "extremist", more conservative group;

To Fat&Happy: The limitation is because I couldn't think of other discrete categories of stakeholders that were of a more conservative orientation. I mean, I could add a profile for "Tea Party," but it's hard to find a representative spokesman for that point of view. And, I don't know how to differentiate the views of such a group from those I identified as "Christian extremist." (I'm not saying you can't - I just don't - yet - know enough to generate profiles that distinguish between them.) There are other players, of course, such as neoconservatives, Muslims (moderate and extremist), Jewish groups (moderate and extremists), and so forth. Eventually, I hope to engage representatives of each of these groups to take "ownership" of their profile and maintain it themselves. (For the moment, I've done role-playing for each of the four groups so-far included, doing my best to take positions they would probably take. If any such group objected to some assignment, I'd probably defer to them and make the change.)TSteichen (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• more specifically how this list of 70-some questions/issues could be used to develop a reliably sourced, NPOV, encyclopedic summary for this article.

To Fat&Happy: It's not designed for that - it should complement Wikipedia, not compete with it. What's important for my system is assurance that the key stakeholders have been taken into account, and that their views (which I assure you are not NPOV) are accurately captured. It is not my objective to provide an encyclopedic topic summary - indeed, in most of the articles on my system, I have links to let my viewers who want background, access the corresponding background article on Wikepedia. My objective is to describe, as completely as possible, the various points of view, warts and all. Pure, unadulterated POV (but within a structure and subject to the constraints imposed by competing POVs). TSteichen (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I should spend more time browsing your entire site, but clarifying the above would be helpful. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's a page that gives some details on my system: http://www.topiccentral.com/Wiki.jsp?page=DocsTSteichen (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

My regrets for not being very familiar with your site, but my first thought is that you are doing your own sociological research, which would have to be excluded from Wikipedia under WP:OR. I'm a little confused where the data is coming from, who are the participants answering these questions? Anonymous web users? How is it known the results are statistically representative? Although our WP article full of random quotations has its problems, it's better than presenting a dataset that looks statistical in nature, but is not in fact statistically rigorous. It's possible something like this would need to be brought up on the Village Pump to get a broader opinion if it is at all compatible with WP. Fletcher (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm still trying to digest this, and particularly to figure out how, as a post on a Wikipedia article talk page, it relates to improving the article under discussion. You said above:

• "For each perspective, I assigned them the viewpoints their positions seemed to reflect." and
• "For the moment, I've done role-playing for each of the four groups so-far included, doing my best to take positions they would probably take."

Excuse me if I completely misunderstand the process, but could that not be fairly accurately paraphrased as:

• "I did my best to guess how each of the groups I defined would respond to the questions I posed, which I felt they would consider relevant."?

Fat&Happy (talk) 02:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

---

If you don't mind, let's step back just a moment. My offer of this information was based on my perception that the present Wikipedia Park 51 article provides, at best, very misleading information. All of the elements of the controversy are broken down in a way that implies (quite incorrectly, IMHO) that there are only two "sides" to this controversy.

The random quotations in the current WP article have no information (1) on who selected them, (2) on what basis they were selected, (3) whether they're based on any rationale or not, (4) whether they were taken out of context or not, or (5) whether they represent anything other than a personal view (not shared by others). There's no indication about whether the numerical quote totals for each side represent anything meaningful. IOW, whatever rules this information may or may not satisfy, it simply doesn't communicate anything meaningful about this (trivial-sounding, but very significant) controversy. For the life of me, having dealt extensively with such sharp controversies, I don't see any conventional way to accurately capture what's going on on this topic. (But then, I'm not experienced in Wikipedia, so maybe you have ways to resolve such matters that I'm not aware of.)

The information in my system (TopicCentral.com) is based on huge amounts of concrete input data (probably multiples of the information referenced in the WP article), but the processed output is indeed original. It does not exist elsewhere, which is the reason for TopicCentral's existence in the first place. If you do not feel that this will be of help in dealing with this controversy, so be it. I offer it in the event it is of some help, not to push it on you. If using it violates some WP policy, then, of course, it might not be useful or acceptable. (I would point out, however, that if you do succeed in consolidating the cited quotes - as several of you said needed to be done - you'll necessarily end up doing essentially the same thing I've done, only without a deliberate opinion consolidation process. This effort would generate information that is just as much "original research" as the information in my system might be described.)

But to elaborate just a bit, the TopicCentral information on the particular positions of stakeholders is collected from public sources (or from the stakeholder themselves, from whatever sources they use), and is then dissected (by either the stakeholder or my organization) into the issue/viewpoint/argument structure. Care is taken in this process to minimize or eliminate translation errors. Thus, the output represents, not some personal opinion of myself, but the processed results of well-documented or asserted positions of the key players.

In many cases, it's very hard to find a specific person who would be acknowledged as the spokesman for some broad point of view (like civil libertarian, libertarian, etc.). So, unless and until we are able to identify, contact and obtain the participation of, such an individual, we necessarily rely on constructing a conceptual perspective from the available material.

The ultimate test, IMHO, is how those who identify with each particular point of view, react to the characterization of that point of view in the profiles. If they object (which is relatively rare) and their objections seem based on some decent reasoning, their suggested changes will be adopted.

Over the years I've noticed what seems to be increasing difficulty within Wikipedia in dealing with truly controversial topics. Not only is the description of the controversy often incomplete, but the in-house overhead of dealing with the editing by those of different points of view seems large and growing. But again, you'd know that better than I. It seems to me that giving a truly useful description of a highly controversial topic with a pure NPOV approach is very difficult to do while at the same time producing an informative and useful article.

It maybe useful to think of TC as a process, rather than a repository. Through it the various participants in a controversy voice their points of view, constrained by the TC structure and rules, and by the competing interests of opposing participants.

Sorry for this very long-winded response, but I wanted to make sure we understand each other. Bottom line: if you would like me to withdraw my offer, I will certainly do so. TSteichen (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I realize that consolidating the quotes here may be similar to what you do on TC. But the process here is transparent - you can click the page history tab up top to see all changes made, and use the watchlist feature to see new changes on an ongoing basis. Disagreements are hashed out here on the talk page. The methodology on TC still seems fairly opaque to me; it's unclear how the viewpoints noted in each perspective are arrived at.

I accept that TC content may not be accepted under WP criteria as you describe it. No problemo. Seriously. But, that said, I think you will find that the process (which I think is essential to make this a useful description of the GZM controversy) of consolidating and organizing opinions, to be much less transparent than you're imagining it to be. The history tab will show the bottom line changes, for sure. Disagreements will (probably) be reflected here, in the talk page. But that leaves the process of doing the actual work unspoken for: (a) analyzing all the opinions (pro and con) and figuring out what four to ten (for example) points of view they collective represent, (b) breaking each of the opinions in a POV into the issue it involves (so readers can reasonably compare them), (c) expressing each of these opinions in a way that links them to a particular viewpoint on an issue, to say nothing about (d) coming up with a clear comparison between the POVs. Of course, you don't have to do any of these things - but IMHO you won't end up with a quality description of the GZM controversy. It's the absence of such quality representations of alternative POVs on important controversies that caused TC to be developed in the first place.TSteichen (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, I'm not arguing with you. But the TC process is straightforward, as I briefly described earlier in this section. It consists of a few steps: (1) Research the controversy to identify the key players, (2) identify all the public positions of each said key player, (3) break these public positions down into the implied issue, viewpoint and argument(s) they contain, (4) consolidate the issues into a single list, and (5) revisit the public positions of the key players and map them (or a position that would be logically consistent with them) back into the appropriate viewpoints on issues in that list. Do I map the original individual position references into the consolidated points of view? No. Why don't I do it? Because it would be very difficult to do, and completely useless even if I did it. When/if you (and other Wikipedians) do the consolidation of issues (to convert the present quote farm into something useful), I assure you that you'll run into precisely the same situation. (PS: The other thing to keep in mind that if any of the stakeholders on a TC managed controversy disagree with anything, they're free to change it. There's no central control on TC either.) TSteichen (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

But the main difficulty with your suggestion is that TC doesn't appear to meet criteria for a reliable source. Wikipedia has a bias, which seems almost hypocritical, against user-generated or experimental sources, preferring instead to rely on established media and academia. Blogs, webforums, or personal websites are not normally usable, no matter how good. If TC gains a reputation for the accuracy and utility of its synopses, based on citations appearing in other reliable sources, then it could be usable. It's this need for external confirmation that is the sticking point, which will take time if your site is relatively new. This is just my opinion as someone with two years' experience on Wikipedia; you're welcome to try the Reliance Sources Noticeboard or perhaps the Village Pump to get a wider perspective. Fletcher (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I very much appreciate your comments. I will look into the references you mention. I would, however, like to leave you with a repeat of my earlier statement: Wikipedia is not structured to handle truly controversial topics. The admirable wiki-based, verified content, NPOV for the article, etc. simply does NOT work to capture the important details of a controversy. Original effort is necessary to do the processing. If the controversy is only a minor part of a topic, then WP does very well; if not, .... (Take a look at the abortion topic(s) if you doubt what I'm saying.) If you agree, then it might be helpful if you passed this along to your Wikipedian colleagues and see if they too see the problem I do. If so and there's interest, I'll be more than happy to help. If not, so be it. No hard feelings in the slightest. TSteichen (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop removing the neutrality tag

If there are daily discussions on this page about how the article isn't of an NPOV, then there is a neutrality dispute. Please stop removing the tag as not having it on the article will mislead readers into thinking the version of the article they're reading is of an acceptable quality. This tag shouldn't be removed until there is consensus that there are no longer NPOV concerns with the article. Thank you. elektrikSHOOS 00:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a need for the tag, as there currently isn't any legitimate POV problem that needs addressing. Thus, I am inclined to remove the tag. But if you have a specific concern in mind please bring it up. Fletcher (talk) 00:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Er... specific concerns? Look at this page. The whole thing is full of concerns. Not to mention that I've consistently maintained on this page that keeping the article split into for/against sections is not of an NPOV, but this hasn't garnered much of any discussion or edits. I'd do it myself but I'd likely get reverted within seconds for some reason or another. elektrikSHOOS 00:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a large article that has undergone rapid development. Of course there are concerns. Particularly due to its controversial nature, the article will never satisfy everyone. That doesn't mean it should be permanently tagged for neutrality. I don't think it should be tagged unless there is a specific issue that can be discussed and resolved. We have slowly been trimming down the number of quotes, and I welcome any ideas you have on how to better structure it. Fletcher (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is beginning to (finally!) be neutral. I'm fine with the tag being removed. Zachary Klaas (talk) 13:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Geller publishes lies. We need to ensure people see this.

I cut-and-pasted some info from the Pamela Geller page because I think people can come to this site and read about Geller's role in this controversy without ever getting a clue that the woman publishes lies for a living. It's already been reverted once, and I imagine that while I'm writing this, it will be reverted again. The charge is "infocreep", which, if that means what I think it means (that this information already exists on another Wikipage), is a correct charge. I don't need all the things I copied to be in this article. But I need more than we have now. The list of scurrilous attacks on President Obama clearly identifies her as someone who sees it as her job to smear the President. That's not synthesis, it's painstakingly documented fact. We need more than just that she's an anti-Islam blogger. She's an anti-Obama blogger. Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and anyone who posts a rebuttal who does not go to the Pamela Geller page to see what I'm talking about is proving my point that people won't do it, so we need to put the info here. Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that its not a reliable source connecting Geller's other, admittedly distrubing views to her opposition to the mosque, it's you doing that via a synthesis of material copy-pasted from another Wikipedia page. If we saw an article in USA Today saying "Geller's vocal supporters ought to be aware of her views on X, Y, Z...", then that would be different.

Another issue with this sort of infrocreep is that where does it end? Obama has said some pretty controversial things about Islam, Muslims, Christianity, and Christians, must we include a list of controversial things from him when we mention his name? Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The idea that you could even come close to equating anything Obama's ever said to the swill that comes out of Pamela Geller's mouth on a routine basis is insulting. But, let's leave that where it is and take up your other claim, that it would be sufficient for me to find a reputable source saying "Geller's vocal supporters ought to be aware of her views on X, Y, Z..." Let's see if you conveniently change your mind when I present such sources. Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

One has just been added to the page. I can do more.  :) Zachary Klaas (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You ought to drop your negative, deeply hostile tone. It's very unhelpful for what is a simple content dispute that we should be able to talk about like adults. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Geller's efforts to publicize the controversy can be added to the article. Criticism of her character, past statements etc. are not appropriate to this article, which is about Park51, not Geller. Such criticism can be added to Geller's article if it's acceptable under BLP. Fletcher (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't give a fig about Geller's "character". It's relevant that she's in the smear business. She is not only willing to tell lies to promote hatred against Muslims, she is also willing to tell lies to promote hatred against President Obama and his supporters. Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

None of which is relevant to Park51. As long as the article doesn't rely on her testimony, her credibility doesn't matter. (In fact I just noticed we had a quote from her farther down in the article, and decided to remove it). This article is only about Park51, not about Geller, conservatives, Nixon, Obama, or whatever else you think it might be about. Fletcher (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, some clarification about what makes a "mosque"

This article seems to respond quite well to our discussions about what makes something a mosque. Like most of you, the article concludes that the Pentagon site is not a mosque - but unlike any of you, it cites a Muslim religious scholar who defines what needs to be present for the term "mosque" to be appropriate. The scholar argues that it must be a site where people pray five times a day...at the Pentagon prayer sessions are "only" held one time a day (I put that in quotes to illustrate my personal opinion that this is actually a lot of times, but I digress.) At any rate, this undercuts my earlier-expressed view that in some sense the use of the term might be appropriate. If we go by this definition, it is not. However, the article also points out that the chapel could be referred to as a kind of a "sacred space" in the Islamic tradition known as the "mussallaah". This supports my earlier-expressed view that the chapel is more than just someplace Muslims are allowed to pray if they want to - it's someplace used repeatedly for prayer purposes, someplace used when one "does not have access to a mosque", and that's what qualifies it as a "mussallaah". The argument here is it's someplace that serves as a substitute for a mosque, but is not itself a mosque.

I would like to add this to the article. I'm writing about it here first because I suspect it will be immediately deleted because it ultimately makes the point that Muslims have had a substantial religious presence in the chapel, analogous to that it would have at the NYC mosque. But I think it should be in the article somehow. Suggestions about wording are welcome. Zachary Klaas (talk) 06:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

For a word definition, you consult a dictionary, not a Muslim scholar. Merriam Webster says, a building used for public worship by Muslims. Kauffner (talk) 07:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Then the Pentagon site contains a mosque, no? By that definition it is one. I linked this source to the talk page because people here insist the Pentagon site is not a mosque. This shows the opinion of an actual religious Muslim on the subject. Zachary Klaas (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed that last edit to the section we're talking about here by Fat&Happy ... I consider it a supportive edit which helps brings the facts out, rather than the kind of edit I had been criticizing. You want a demonstration of good faith, I can at last give one. That was good to see. Thanks. Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

http://web.archive.org/web/20070330202640/http://www.utulsa.edu/iss/Mosque/MosqueFAQ.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.101.170.135 (talk) 05:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I totally missed this - too bad this source is no longer on the internet and has to be dredged up from an archive, because it's quite interesting. According to the site, the mussallaah (transliterated from Arabic a little differently on this site, but still clearly the same term) is best translated as a "prayer hall", and every mosque has one. Anyway, I think what we have written on the page where this is concerned will do, but I learned something, so thank you anonymous person for posting this  :) Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

first it's not relevant and then it's synthesis?

Muslims died from the 9/11 attacks and it's not relevant and synthesis? How this so? Smkolins (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If you added original research to the article then someone probably removed it. Fletcher (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand the idea. I'm saying show me. See [1]. Smkolins (talk) 09:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey -JaGa pay attention here. You asked for talk. Let's talk. Smkolins (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not JaGa, but I agreed with his decision to remove the passage. What's your opinion? 161.231.132.16 (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, forgot to login. Sorry. Alexguitar594 (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

As to why I think it's synthesis, the tone alone quickly reveals that this statement is being used to passionately imply that those who think that the Community Center should not be built are narrow minded and ignoring the fact that Muslims were victims as well, and that this ignorance almost demonizes them. Yes, it is a fact that Muslims died in 9/11, but it is WP:OR to say that support for the Community Center can come from this fact. Alexguitar594 (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• There's certainly been reliable coverage of the fact that muslims died in the 9/11 attacks in the context of whether park51 should be built. See, e.g., [2], noting that the mother of Sal Hamdani, a muslim EMT who died at Ground Zero, was present when the local community board in manhattan overwhelmingly approved the project.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Smkolins. First, please assume good faith. I am not trying to suppress your point of view, but if you look at WP:SYNTHESIS, you'll see this is a clear violation: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Everything in your paragraph is true and properly cited, but it is arranged in a fashion to get the reader to come to a conclusion that is not stated in the refs themselves. --JaGa^talk 20:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference between presenting a bunch of facts, each relevant to the article, and having the reader draw the (obvious) conclusion - which is in-bounds - and presenting a bunch of facts and then delivering the conclusion, which is out-of-bounds. Pretty clearly the point of this rule is "don't make the sources say something together they're not saying as separate sources". But you can present each of the sources separately and an intelligent reader will realize what that adds up to. Realize the strategy that's being employed here, folks. Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It's still synthesis if the "obvious conclusion" is not in the source. If it is in the source, it's ok, but in the Support/Opposition sections it makes more sense to state who is saying what, rather than trying to reconstruct the source's argument in Wikipedia's voice. That what struck me as funky in what Smkolins' added: it seemed out of place to use Wikipedia's voice in a section where we are presenting one side of the argument. Fletcher (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Glad the discussion finally got started. I aware the sources didn't take sides (of course the question didn't exist, though implications of the issues are in the articles - that Muslims were being targeted and etc.) and I said I was open to moving the content but that simply deleting was inappropriate in my view. Assume good faith goes in my direction too. It is clearly relevant to the discussion as a fact. I'm aware there is a larger discussion about the development of the article and I see the roll of this fact among the collage of facts ebing part of whatever happens. When I looked at adding the facts it wasn't obvious to me where to put it. So I put it in commenting that it might need some adjustment. But deletion was heavy handed though perhaps not surprising considering the heat on the topic and people taking drastic actions back and forth. I'm not trying to get into that. But it is relevant. I'd love to the article re-written without support/oppose but just a discussion of facts myself. But I'd hate for the society to arrive at a judgement about the sacred ground by ignoring who's bodies are there. Smkolins (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• BTW - thanks, Milowent - the reference you offer appears to make the fact that Muslims died in 9/11 and the rescue operation appears to have been central to the verbal exchanges. If that's true perhaps more references you substantiate and extend the role. Smkolins (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

So.... any comment on the overall usefullness of the references? Smkolins (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Sophistry Continues

Okay, so somehow it's irrelevant that Pamela Geller has a blog full of "unfounded" claims about President Obama (the New York Daily News said this, not me), when we're discussing a project that is being used by conservatives as a wedge issue to attack President Obama. Unfounded, for those of you unclear on the terminology, means with no basis in fact. But that's irrelevant.

I'm going to keep on this. Sooner or later, RSes will appear that you can't deny without looking utterly foolish, unless the media is just completely asleep. Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

This has gone on way too long. Is it possible to cut this, uhm..., 'person', off, at least temporarily? He's making my head ache. AFAIK, he's talking to himself only, but he's using up WP bandwidth. TSteichen (talk) 00:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Posted something here. Not sure what effect it will have. Hopefully it will get the message across. Fletcher (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I've said what I needed to say, and I will continue to make edits to this page. Zachary Klaas (talk) 12:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Property taxes

I added the following to the article:

"According to city records, as of August 2010, Sharif El-Gamal, the leading organizer behind the proposed project, owed $224,270.77 in back property taxes on the site."

Eraserhead1 erased it, and commented, "unclear what has actually happened all 'reportedly' - a more reliable source needed."

But it is clear what happened, and the New York Post is a reliable source.

The info should be put back in the article.

Holy Haleakala (talk) 13:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I have two thoughts. One, even if true, what is the relevance of that to the Park 51 controversy? I could imagine hundreds of peripheral facts that could be linked to the project, but I think it's important to use only those that have relevance. Two, the lead sentence in that cited source is: "The mosque developers are tax deadbeats." I'm not an expert in WP sourcing, but that hardly seems like a credible source to use (at least by itself). TSteichen (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

When I Googled it the other sources I found were all saying "reportedly" and weaselling about it - which is why I felt it needs further backup from another source. Whether its relevant is another issue, but the sourcing appears to be the main one IMO. Additionally the New York Post isn't exactly in the same league as say the New York Times or Wall Street Journal in terms of reliability. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Park51 building would not be visible from World Trade Center site

Based on a referenced article in the New Yorker at http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2010/08/16/100816taco_talk_hertzberg, which says in part...

Ah, the “Ground Zero mosque.” Well, for a start, it won’t be at Ground Zero. It’ll be on Park Place, two blocks north of the World Trade Center site (from which it will not be visible).

... as well as maps of the relative position of the Park51 building, the building which will be replaced by Park51 will NOT be visible from any portion of the World Trade Center site. (It's possible that the planned height of Park51, or the height of buildings to be built on the World Trade Center site, would make the building visible over the intervening blocks, but I've seen no statements to that effect.)

I've twice modified the initial paragraph to reflect the lack of visibility, but it has twice been rewritten to state the much milder "it would not be visible from the future memorial". To avoid an edit war, I'll ask the obvious question: why?

If more supporting information is needed, then http://ohmygov.com/blogs/general_news/archive/2010/08/24/13-Views-of-the-Ground-Zero-Mosque-site-location-MAPS.aspx shows a number of maps of the Park51 location, including a Wall Street Journal map which makes the lack of a sight line clear (I can't find the original source of the WSJ map, which would be preferable). On a separate but closely related note, it should be made clear in the article that the building does NOT occupy the whole block (as many news maps imply) but only a portion of it. Looking at the Park51 architectural rendering, plus the photo of the building to be replaced, plus Google Maps, it looks like it will occupy the central third of the SW edge of the block (although this detail probably counts as "original research", there ought to be a source for it somewhere).

-- Dan Griscom (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I also would have said not visible from the WTC site/Ground Zero. It is the whole site that is considered sensitive, not just the location of the memorial, so it seems relevant if you can see Park51 from anywhere on the site. Critics call it the Ground Zero Mosque, not the WTC Memorial Mosque. But I'm sure someone else has a different view.... Fletcher (talk) 02:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

How would you organize this article?

This follows up TSteichen's comments above, with which I don't really disagree, but want to focus the discussion on this article rather than Wikipedia's process in general. Right now, I like the beginning sections of the article which address the relevant aspects of Park51. But then we get into the quote farm in the Oppose/Support sections.

Basically, we've organized the controversy by source - starting with oppose/supports and then broken down among 9/11 families, politicians, etc. Is this how it should be organized? It's logical to categorize who is saying what, but the result is we repeat arguments (e.g., how many times do we need to repeat the argument that it's a matter of religious freedom?). This adds to the volume of the article, and the prevalence of quotes may encourage editors to pile on more quotes as they see them in the news.

Should we organize by idea? For example, summarize the argument for religious freedom, using Bloomberg and Obama's comments as references. Summarize the argument for "sensitivity," using statements from 9/11 families as references. Or should we keep the same structure, but just try to trim it down so the article isn't as long? Fletcher (talk) 01:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

To start with, I believe the focus should be the Park51 controversy per se, rather than the Park51 development plan. The latter, from my perspective, is not significant enough to have its own page. In any case, the controversy is far more prominent. Yet, the description of the controversy benefits significantly from the presence of a historical context. So, one thing that I think should be done is to shift the focus to the controversy, and then significantly slim down the factual background and move it into a clear supporting role.

Secondly and far more important, the pro-con section needs to be changed in a major way. There are, as an earlier commenter noted, more than two positions, suggesting that four might be more appropriate. However, an examination of the positions of those concerned reveals a larger number of discrete positions, including: A) Some oppose the center as a larger position opposing Muslim places of worship in general (as part of a general anti-Muslim attitude). B) some oppose the center because of (misguided, IMHO) feelings of patriotism, that the center is an insult to Americans. C) some reject the opposition because it violates fundamental property rights. D) some reject the opposition because it violates basic civil liberties. E) some promote the project because it will foster religious and cultural understanding. F) some promote the project because they want more places in which to pray. G) some promote the project because it will provide a Muslim-friendly atmosphere where Muslims can relax better.

Then there is the matter of how to identify the involved parties by some grouping, instead of referring to them as individuals. As an example, there is a section under opposition pertaining to 9/11 families, which lists a number of opinion-related statements by different individuals. And there is another similar section under support. The obvious question is this: Is there an overall position of the 9/11 family community on this matter? If not, what's the value of the listings as they stand? And if so, what's the value of the listings as they stand? IOW, the current listings make no sense no matter what.

I could (and later will) describe other problems I see with this article, but I will pause and see if any of the foregoing concerns resonate with other members of the community. TSteichen (talk) 13:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I would oppose big cuts to the history section; it's pretty well done and provides important context. But the Oppose/Support needs a deep cut; everyone seems to more or less agree the quotefarms should be trimmed. I would support listing the arguments, as TSteichen has done, and mention who's supporting/opposing, instead of organizing by group. --JaGa^talk 18:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree the history section is well done. But I think the pending development project known as Park 51 has no independent significance, beyond being the focus of the Park 51 controversy. So, I'd like to see the article focused explicitly on the controversy, which means that the factual material should stay (though I think in less detail), but as a clear background, supporting the main focus, the controversy. TSteichen (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I'd say the Oppose/Support mess is in the most immediate need of attention. Let's tackle that and deal with the history section later. --JaGa^talk 20:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Now, how to proceed? Let's say that we all (miracle of miracles) agree on seven or so discrete points of view (POV), which collectively capture all the relevant views. Could we do that (with all the judgments involved) without getting in trouble with WP:OR? Let's say that we then select individuals' and/or organizations' positions to associate with each such POV. Would that be consistent with WP:OR? IOW, I can readily see what needs to be done, but I'm not how to do it properly with WP policy. TSteichen (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hurm. How do other articles tackle this? Surely we aren't the first to have to present contentious for/against arguments. --JaGa^talk 22:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There aren't many Featured Articles with Controversy in the title - and some seem to be about scandals rather than ideological disputes - but I did find the Nature fakers controversy. Its major sections are organized chronologically, with sub-sections summarizing the major viewpoints expressed during each phase. It's liberal with quotes but they are well integrated into prose. A little odd to imagine how public figures quarreled a century ago. Fletcher (talk) 03:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that Fletcher's observation on the the rarity of controversial articles in the FA category is evidence of the problem I'm describing. WP simply doesn't have a means for producing a really complete, useful definition of a controversy (and in particular, an on-going one) within the normal article policies. I'm not sure how/if the policies need to be changed or interpreted to do this in general. But I do agree with JaGa that we should focus on this article and see if we can do a good job, and then, maybe, extrapolate that into a general approach to controversies. Does that make sense? TSteichen (talk) 12:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

"Critics" of Islam?

The article as currently worded says that Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer are "critics" of Islam. This seems to be an appropriate description of Spencer, who, for all that I might find wrong about his thinking, at least identifies some category of faithful Muslim that is not, by virtue of being so, a jihadist bent on destroying America. Pamela Geller, as her Wikipedia page makes clear, on the other hand, believes that the people who attacked the WTC and the Pentagon on 9-11 are "pure" and "original" practitioners of Islam. Here's how it was said on the Geller Wikipedia page, you can consult there for the reference cited:

When asked in an August 17, 2010, interview on CNN whether she agreed "that the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 were practicing a perverted form of Islam, and that is not what is going to be practiced at this mosque", she responded "I will say that the Muslim terrorists were practicing pure Islam, original Islam."

I think that this requires different terminology than "critic of Islam", in her case. It seems to me a more neutral phrasing might be the two of them are "opponents of political Islam". Both Geller and Spencer are certainly that. Zachary Klaas (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam is not necessarily something that makes one a opponent to Islam. Indeed, someone who- say- disputes the Christian community's view of LGBT people can legimately call himself or herself a "critic of Christianity" and be described as such even if he or she is a devout Christian herself or himself. I specifically believe that we have some Muslims described as "critical/critic of Islam" in their articles all over Wikipedia. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, criticism of Islam is not the same as being an opponent to Islam. Geller is not a critic, though, she's an opponent. Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of Geller

In my opinion ZK's recent edit noting Geller's claim about the opening date of Park51 comes closest to being on point. Since it may be a keeper, I have edited it a little bit for style. But if it were reverted I could understand why. M.boli (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This article isn't about Geller - it's about Park51. We don't need to delve into all she's said about it. And it's not clear if the claim was false or not (that is, if she lied, or if Park51 abandoned its original opening date after the backlash began). Per WP:CRYSTAL we can't predict if statements about the future are true or not. Fletcher (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

M. Boli, are you saying there is a point to additions like I've been trying to make?  :) Incidentally, I've had a lot of "keepers" on this page, starting with the name of the page itself (I changed it to Park 51...admittedly with a space in the middle, which had to be fixed, but the name stuck because it was more neutral than Cordoba House), and going through to the bit about the "Pentagon mosque" being regarded by clerics as a mussallaah (someplace Muslims pray when a mosque isn't available), and the bit about the conservative coverage being positive (modified by Fletcher to read that "one" conservative gave the positive coverage, but the issue would not have been raised were it not for me). The thing is, I find myself wondering why I am the only one trying to cover these issues, while other people sit back and casually make decisions about whether I've succeeded or not? I'm glad you consider me "close to on point", and am appreciative that you did what you could to help me be "on point". But why aren't more people trying to make the points? The evidence is out there. Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Fletcher, do you have any evidence that the Park51 project ever said to anyone that the opening date was September 11, 2011. In the US, people are innocent until proven guilty. If they said it, to anyone, then it's a debatable point. Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Zachary, you'll never get anywhere with this combative attitude. Please try to keep a civil tone. That she uses unfounded claims to attack Obama is relevant to the Geller article, but not this one. --JaGa^talk 22:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

How would you say "that is an unsupported statement" in a way that doesn't sound combative? Whatever you come up with, could you say it for me?  :) Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

@JaGa: (I wish I could package up this guy's energy and sell it.) He's struggling with grasping a rather simple idea, that an article is not in the business of evaluating each source (which I would suspect would run afoul of WP:OR). Wikipedia is not about ascertaining truth, but ensuring verifiability. As you (and Fletcher) tried to explain, maybe you could (legally) do some of that in an article about Geller, but certainly not one that merely references Geller. (BTW, this is probably getting Geller a lot of notice, which seem hardly what this guy would want.) TSteichen (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Early reports had the groundbreaking date as 9/11/11 (http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/05/06/2010-05-06_plan_for_mosque_near_world_trade_center_site_moves_ahead.html). These may have been confused as the opening date. Don't see any reason to mention this, and we can't imply certain knowledge as to claims made about future events. Fletcher (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

So what are you contending, that Geller just got a fact wrong, and it's not intentional? How is it that she is still pitching the date on her blog as being valid then? Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If this article is "not about Geller and her antics", as you put it, are people who use this unsubstantiated claim about deliberately opening on September 11, 2011 to make up their mind about what they think of this controversy going to find information setting them straight somewhere on Wikipedia? If not in this article, where? Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't clarify the matter because it's not clear at all when it will open, or who said what about when it will open. It's certainly not appropriate for the introduction. Geller's blog is currently referring to groundbreaking rather than opening dates, which as far as I can tell is backed by reliable sources. Fletcher (talk) 23:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Such as? The one you provided said "by" 9/11/11, not "on". Who are these reliable sources? Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Or see USA Today, which says: "The Muslim organizations plan to announce the groundbreaking later this year, possibly to coincide with the 10th anniversary of the attacks, Khan said." (I presume she misspoke or someone transcribed it wrong, as the 10th anniversary would be next year.) I don't think we need to debate the preposition in the first source I gave: although you're right that "by" means it could be any time before 9/11/11, she wouldn't have mentioned the 10th anniversary of the attacks unless she wanted to convey it as symbolically special. She could easily have said "within two years" or "by fall 2011" if she didn't want to signify the 9/11 date. Fletcher (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll buy that argument. You know, I don't think what you've just demonstrated is irrelevant to the article. If you want to add it, I'll back that. Clearly the Right is continuing to run with this even though no formal announcement either of groundbreaking or opening dates were made, but I can accept that people might have been reasonably rubbed the wrong way by Khan's USA Today comment. (Hopefully this is me demonstrating good faith instead of opening myself up for demonization...) Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Granted I do think they saw what they were doing as paying respect to the Ground Zero victims and not as doing a dance on their graves. But people can reasonably interpret that for themselves. Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

My two cents: Geller's made-up 10 year anniversary claim seemed to be an example of an inflammatory, controversy-sparking act. Thus in the paragraph where they lived, ZK's sentences that I edited explained and supported the narrative of how the controversy was sparked. So they could have been on point. But they may have been unnecessary detail, especially in the article's lead. And the idea has been demolished in any case, so this point is moot. M.boli (talk) 04:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. It's no problem to discuss Geller's role in the controversy, but addressing specific claims takes a lot of care, and it is unnecessary detail for the article's lead.Fletcher (talk) 11:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I note that someone else has restored my addition about the September 11, 2011 thing - and Fletcher, you removed it suggesting that we have "resolved" the issue. I don't think that's true. Please re-read what I said above: "Clearly the Right is continuing to run with this even though no formal announcement either of groundbreaking or opening dates were made..." I am, as I suggested, open to you clarifying the matter by pointing out places where Khan and Rauf appeared to suggest there might be a groundbreaking on 9/11/2011; however, no one associated with the Park51 project is currently planning to do this, they have now repeatedly denied that they will do this, and yet Pam Geller and company continue to claim that they are going to open on that date. I think it's obviously relevant that Geller is organizing a protest explicitly promoting this canard and this sentence should be restored to the article. Zachary Klaas (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, but defineately not in the lead. Maybe further down where we go into greater detail, ect. --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

While you were here suggesting that, I made the change you seem to be asking for. Agreed the info can go here? Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that discussion of the opening date can be later in the article. In fact it already seemed to be there. However you seem to want to give Geller much more prominence than she deserves in relation to this article. Whether Geller's protest invite should have taken into account Khan's apparent disavowal of what she is reported to have said in May seems seems much more apposite to Geller than to this Park51 article. We don't need to delve into this minutia - it can be hashed out on blogs and webforums, not here. Fletcher (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

So basically what we have here is that no evidence that Geller, whom we acknowledge to have started this controversy, lies to stoke this controversy further is appropriate for a page covering this controversy. I really, really hope there are other people who have a problem with that out there. Please, if you have a problem with this, speak up, people. Now's the time Zachary Klaas (talk) 03:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not all about Geller. She had a role in starting it, but it's bigger than her now. It's like if a child starts a house fire by playing with lighters, you can blame the child, but spraying him with water isn't going to put out the house fire. There's too much focus on Geller and dissecting her propaganda. The date of groundbreaking/opening issue can be mentioned, but isn't all that important. Fletcher (talk) 04:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting analogy, except that, if we were to properly represent Geller in this analogy, it wouldn't be a child, it would be an adult arsonist. Children don't know what they're doing. Geller is in the smear business. She knows exactly what she's doing. Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Another 2 cents. A) Identifying Geller and Spencer as "opponents of political Islam and founders of" etc. adequately establishes their role as anti-Islamic agitators. The recently-added-on description their other anti-Muslim activities in the lead section contributes nothing and reads as non-neutral. B) How scummy they are or how ginned-up their dudgeon does not explain much. Considering how many people have latched onto anti-Park51 sentiment, the controversy would have occurred anyway. This material's place is a political, social, or historical analysis section. (Oops, I guess that was 4 cents.) M.boli (talk) 07:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I can accept it being elsewhere in this article. If you want to do it this way, I'm okay with that. Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"not visible from the memorial"

The "it would not be visible from the future memorial" statement to me reeks of POV as the site would be visible from the WTC tower. One could make the argument also that it is "visible from the 1 WTC replacement tower but not from the future memorial which is mostly below ground". Pointing out that it will not be visible from the memorial itself is making a specific argument in favor of the mosque. Jasonid (talk) 05:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? All of Manhattan would be visible from the WTC tower. Are you suggesting that could be reasonable grounds for making Manhattan a Muslim-free zone? Zachary Klaas (talk) 11:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The "visible from Ground Zero" argument was initially raised by Park51 opponents in order to bolster claims that the project would be "too close" to the World Trade Center site. The (very prominent) argument merits inclusion, just as the fact that it is not true also merits inclusion. Both, together, informs on the character of some of Park51's opposition.

As to whether or not it would truly be visible, the World Trade Center site clearly does NOT include the World Trade Center, nor does it include planned buildings. So, stating that Park51 would not be visible from the World Trade Center site is accurate and clear.

Stating, instead, that Park51 would not be visible from the National September 11 Memorial & Museum is clearly evasive, damning with faint praise, and does not effectively balance the "visible from Ground Zero" argument. I do not see it as a suitable alternative. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

the World Trade Center site clearly does NOT include the World Trade Center is that worded correctly, becasue I certainly don't get that or understand that??--Threeafterthree (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I meant that the phrase "World Trade Center site" is well-understood not to include the no-longer-existing World Trade Center towers. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 11:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

What did the initial poster in this thread mean by "WTC Tower"? I understood him to mean what Daniel Libeskind is going to be building. If people could be clearer, perhaps we could come to a consensus on this. If he did mean the new Libeskind project, then I remain appalled at the suggestion that anyplace visible from a building that will obviously be able to see all of Manhattan and parts of a few other boroughs as well is off limits to practitioners of Islam. That would be, if this is what the poster meant, an example of exactly the kind of religious intolerance that supporters of Park51 believe underlies opposition to the project. If something else is meant, perhaps that might be a neutral claim, but I, for one, would need that explained better. Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

religious intolerance that supporters of Park51 believe underlies opposition to the project is a strawman argument that is pretty offensive, imho. --Threeafterthree (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, there are a lot of people out there looking for ways to be offended. Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The source given, an article in the New Yorker, said it won't be visible from the WTC site. Given the controversy over the proximity to Ground Zero, it's relevant to explain this fact. Fletcher (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Ground Zero Mosque

I would like to add that I think it is ludicrous that the term "Ground Zero Mosque", which has 36 Million google hits, is not mentioned in the lede. It is, for better or worse, the popular name for this proposed project. At minimum, the signpost Ground Zero Mosque redirects here should appear above the lede sentence, but IMO the boldface term GZM should be in the introductory paragraph. As has been noted above in another context, readers are capable of analyzing for themselves the appropriateness of this common name. Kaisershatner (talk) 02:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't against this, but some number of editors insisted the term is incorrect (and there are some sources repudiating the term) and that it should be noted as incorrect in the lede. That, in turn, introduces POV problems because not everyone agrees the term is incorrect. And that in turn led to some editors muddling the lede sentence with awkward disclaimers trying to be more precise. After some research, I found that WP:LEDE suggests, in cases where the naming is complex or otherwise merits discussion, to add a Naming section specifically discussing the naming complexities in a neutral way. I did so, and this approach has remained stable the last few days. I'd rather not go through all that again. I wouldn't object to your signpost idea; can't say if anyone else would. Fletcher (talk) 03:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Kaisershatner and never understood the controversy on naming. As he mentions, the whole world (sans Wikipedia) labels this the "Ground Zero Mosque" controversy. The argument that it's really not at Ground Zero (true) and that it's really not a mosque (true) - the idea that these arguments represent some kind of POV is silly. Who is taking a POV that centers on these two (definitional) arguments? As near as I can tell, virtually no one. So who is going to be offended? If you capitalize all three words (and maybe surround with quotes), I think you make it clear that this is a title, not a description. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the world as it is, not to try to make it more politically correct. I just don't get why we turn ourselves into a pretzel for such things. TSteichen (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi TSeichen, Fletcher gives a pretty good recap above. I hear and agree with your analysis, but....you have 20 edits to this project? For better or worse, this is the Wikipedia world we live in :). Anyways, if you go back through the archives, lots of fun :), you can read alot about this. I to was in the camp that "its just a common name, whether its correct or not is different, ect" but here we are. Anyways, cheers and welcome :) --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to say that this kind of kind of talk page debate on names isn't common on WP articles on controversies. But it's still pretty useless and distracting. I wish there was some way to keep our energy better focused on article areas that mean something (without being authoritarian, of course). TSteichen (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It's true there was no debate about whether we could say the project is not at Ground Zero, or is not (entirely) a mosque. But there was debate about whether we could say that the term Ground Zero Mosque is false, incorrect, a misnomer, or similar phrasings that imply people who use the term are wrongheaded. Those who use the term, however, believe it is close enough, or that the landing gear that hit the building somehow blessed it as sacred ground, or that the mosque is objectionable even if there is a community center planned as well. So there are different perspectives. In this diff for example it's clear what a mess the lede was becoming when people fought over the "correct" perspective. The most consensus based solution was to move the term out of the lede and allow the controversy over the term itself to be discussed. If you wonder why Wikipedia turns itself into a pretzel over things like this, it's because it is consensus based. But now you've just made me hungry. ;-) Fletcher (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The solution I proposed, and inserted, was much simpler, something along the lines of Park51, formerly called Cordoba House, and sometimes referred to as the "Ground Zero Mosque," is a...This is all objectively true. It is "sometimes" referred to as the GZM (this is a huge understatement, it is basically always referred to as the GZM in the media). I don't see what is not neutral about pointing out the simple fact that people call it that, whether it is accurate as a term or not. Kaisershatner (talk) 02:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm just pointing out it wasn't pretty when tried. What I tried has held up for a few days. Fletcher (talk) 03:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

@Kaisershatner: Actually, it isn't "always referred to as the GZM in the media". The AP has abandoned that loaded term, for one. The problem is the term has built-in POV, crafted to manufacture outrage. To put it in the lede as a synonym is to partially endorse the term's validity - could you imagine putting also referred to as the Victory mosque in the lede?. At the time, people were strongly opposed to any attempt to qualify the term, so the only solution was to take it out of the lede altogether. If we wanted to use a phrase like and often referred to as the Ground Zero mosque (although its site is not at Ground Zero and is not solely a mosque) ... [but worded better than that] I would not oppose. But if the goal is to put GZM in the lede without qualifiers, I will oppose. WP:NPOV and WP:LEDE trump the desire to have a list of synonyms in the lede. --JaGa^talk 10:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I hate to belabor this point, but it has broader implications, so here goes: I, for one, do not agree that the term GZM has a "built-in POV." While I agree that opponents of the project prefer to use this term, their position (as well as that of proponents) does not hinge on the definitions implied with that phrasing. IOW, there's not one side arguing GZM that's opposed by another arguing near-GZ, almost-M. That's a false controversy, IMHO. Anyway, that's the last I intend to say on this already way-over-emphasized aspect. TSteichen (talk) 12:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

None of the sources I have seen which have talked about it have used the term "Ground Zero Mosque" - I'll admit that I've been reading high quality non-US sources (such as the Economist and Guardian) but still. Calling it Ground Zero Mosque without clarification is fairly clearly POV as its a) not a mosque, and b) not at ground zero. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised (well, I guess I shouldn't be) that this article isn't named Ground Zero mosque. I did a rough search of reliable sources and it seems "Ground Zero mosque" is running at 3:2 margin versus "Park51". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

RFC

The term "Ground Zero Mosque" is the most common name for the Park51 project that has sparked a recent controversy in New York and the United States. Some editors feel that it is literally a misnomer, due to the actual location and design of the building, and have argued that using this term in any context in the introduction of the article advances a particular POV. Other editors feel that failing to mention the most widely used term for the project, which has 39 million google hits, is in itself adopting a POV. Kaisershatner (talk) 00:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

@Jaga, thanks for your reply. I do understand where you are coming from, but two points. First, "could you imagine putting also referred to as the Victory mosque in the lede?" My answer to this is, "Yes, if that were the most common term for this project, and, I would qualify that by stating who refers to it as this." My goal being to report the objective facts: that people are calling it X and Y. However, much more importantly, (2) "At the time, people were strongly opposed to any attempt to qualify the term, so the only solution was to take it out of the lede altogether." My solution, which was deleted from the lede, was to state Park51..."frequently referred to as the GZM..." or "...commonly referred to as..." and at one point I even advocated or tolerated "referred to, primarily by its critics, as the GZM." All of these IMO are neutral statements of fact. And all of these have been stripped from the lede, despite their factual accuracy. If you are willing to meet me there, I am glad to hear it. NB even my good faith attempt to add "GZM redirects here" was deleted. Kaisershatner (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Since this has been referred for "community-wide attention", I'd like to comment on this issue for the benefit of the community. I have no objection to the phrase "Ground Zero Mosque" appearing in the article. I also have no objection to a redirect page called "Ground Zero Mosque" being established (as it has been) to direct people to this page. If the term appears in the lead without any clarification that the term has been criticized as an obfuscation of facts, however, that's a problem. I also have a problem with the admittedly good faith change of writing "'Ground Zero Mosque' redirects here" at the top of the page because this appears to give an endorsement to the idea that the term is appropriate. It is a non-neutral term and should not appear in any form that leads people to believe Wikipedia endorses the term. Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)alone

I go along with Zach on this one. The redirect is quite enough for people to find the article and to discover that the center is not just a mosque and it isn't at ground zero. Putting the term in bold would be to give legitimacy to a term that is, frankly, politically charged. The article Guantánamo Bay is about the geographical place and not the detention camp or the naval base, despite common usage. Wikipedia has quite well established rules for this kind of thing. --Hauskalainen (talk) 02:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

"Ground Zero Mosque" is such a common appelation that I would say it needs to appear in the lede. I would suggest that it be handled in a separate sentence, along the lines of "It is often referred to as the Ground Zero Mosque, [insert qualification here]", either as the second sentence or the final sentence in the first paragraph. The qualification could perhaps point out that sources such as the AP have decided this is inaccurate.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 03:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy for Ground Zero Mosque to be in the lead as long as its appropriately qualified - that name is deliberately partisan. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Right. Only if properly qualified. To say opponents like to call it GZM does nothing to explain the name. Fact: People refer to it as "Ground Zero mosque". So, they're going to build a mosque in Ground Zero? That's exactly what the name says. Well, not exactly. Fact: It's a community center, not solely a mosque. Fact: It isn't going over or along the edge of the Ground Zero pit - it's to be 2 blocks away. Why put Fact #1 in the lede and omit crucial facts #2 and 3? I couldn't possibly support putting this name in the lede without explaining it. --JaGa^talk 09:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Where proper nouns are concerned, Wikipedia articles should use the most common name as evidenced in reliable sources. Proper nouns which incorporate non-neutral terms such as Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Edward the Confessor, Jack the Ripper are legitimate article titles when they are used by a consensus of the sources. Please see NPOV and Article titles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have an example of a most common name that is misleading but accepted as the proper name for the article? In Boston, people were massacred. Teapot Dome was a scandal. Edward was a confessor (see the Edward the Confessor article to see what this term was considered to mean, and that he was one), Jack was a Ripper...and so on. The "Ground Zero Mosque" is not at Ground Zero and is only partially a mosque. I think this point has been made enough that everyone gets it by now. Zachary Klaas (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, how does it count as a "consensus of sources" when many sources bring up the name just to comment on the fact that it's an inappropriate name? Zachary Klaas (talk) 11:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, Great leap forward. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You have a point there. I don't see any evidence on their discussion page that people fought over this name, possibly because the article makes it so very clear that the "Great Leap Forward" describes a set of policies that led to a massive famine. If "Ground Zero Mosque" were clearly described in the lead to be something not at Ground Zero and only partially a mosque, that would be similar. Personally, I think "Great Leap Forward" should be in quotes in the title, otherwise it lends to the idea that it actually was a great leap forward for China, something straightforwardly contradicted in the lead text. Similarly, if you want to change the name to "Ground Zero Mosque" here, I'd want that in quotes. Zachary Klaas (talk) 12:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for helping to work this out. I realize the lede is a bit awkward, but referred to by opponents with the misnomer GZM is more accurate and neutral than "incorrectly." Kaisershatner (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This whole "misnomer" thing is shenanigans. If we want to state definitively that GZM is a "misnomer" I'm going to need a RS that explicitly states that "The term GZM is a misnomer". NickCT (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you User:NickCT, which is why my preference would be for "literal misnomer," since it is not merely a mosque, and even better, "commonly referred to as the GZM," which is the most accurate, but we haven't been able to establish a consensus for that, and I am skeptical that I can persuade User:ZacharyKlaas that an unqualified mention of GZM is somehow not advancing an anti-mosque POV. I am much happier with this version than with the previous ones that didn't even have GZM in the lede. Kaisershatner (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Calling it a "misnomer" is not neutral; it is taking sides in the debate, saying people who call it that are mistaken. But their interpretation is that it is too close to ground zero (it's common to name things after nearby landmarks, even if they're not right on the landmark), or that the landing gear struck the building making it part of ground zero. Our job is to show, not tell; to that end, User:KeptSouth made a good change moving the statement of how far away it is from GZ up into the first sentence. That does the same job as "misnomer" but allows the reader to decide if the term can still be properly used. Fletcher (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok so, you have me, Fletcher & Kaisershatner against the "misnomer" language. Zachary Klaas is for. Anyone else on Klaas's side?

As a side-note; frankly I think "GZM" is a pejorative misnomer, but I've edited long enough now to know that I shouldn't be inserting my POV into articles. NickCT (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sure there is going to be a Ground Zero Gentleman's Club, that won't be at GZ, nor have gentleman attending. --Threeafterthree (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it comforts you to think that I was the one who put "misnomer" in there in the first place - demonizing me is so much easier than thinking. But it was Kaisershatner that did that. I was supporting him. Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Zachary Klaas, who are you talking to with that comment? --Threeafterthree (talk) 01:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

NickCT, specifically, since he implied that I was the only one who supported the change using the word "misnomer". But also anyone who prefers to demonize me rather than think about the issues I'm raising. Zachary Klaas (talk) 11:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I also didn't put that word in the last time someone put it in the lead. So at least one other person must agree. Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the term 'misnomer' is required, and I'm sure with a bit of time I could find multiple reliable sources to back it up. Its only parts of the US media which calls it the Ground Zero mosque, I don't believe anyone else's media who meet the reliable source criteria is doing so. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Lets take a look at the worlds press - its fairly clear I was wrong with the above however:

• The Economist only calls it the ground zero mosque in quotes.
• The Guardian explains it away in the subtitle "Millions of Americans are furious about the 'Ground Zero mosque'. But it doesn't exist.",
• the Telegraph does use the term in its title however it clarifies the name in its subtitle "Controversial plans to build a Muslim community centre and mosque near Ground Zero can go ahead after a conservation agency cleared the way on Tuesday for the demolition of the existing building on the site."
• de Speigel states "the planned construction of an Islamic cultural center and mosque room near Ground Zero".
• Sydney Morning Herald is a bit more anti-mosque, as says its "just blocks away" in the first paragraph and uses the term in the headline- but it does quickly explain it with "Obama had remained silent over plans to build an Islamic cultural center, which includes a mosque, two blocks away from the gaping Ground Zero hole".
• Times of India uses the term 'Ground Zero Mosque' in the headline, but they clarify it in the first paragraph by saying "proposed Islamic centre and a mosque near the ground zero".

Based on these sources I suggest that the term Ground Zero Mosque is used in the lead, but that the projects role and location is explained in the next sentence. Maybe the stuff on how much the project costs etc could be moved to a later point in the lead. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm okay with what you say here, Eraserhead, and if that's a way we can proceed, then let's do it. But it is a misnomer, and it's crazy that, given what you've just shown, that anyone would have a problem with the term. All these RS sources specify how calling the site a "Ground Zero Mosque" distorts the truth, and correct the distortion either by putting the term in quotes or putting in a huge disclaimer. It's crazy that we actually have to find someplace that uses the word misnomer when functionally, you've just demonstrated major media are treating it as a misnomer. I did manage to find that the St. Petersburg Times fact-checking site considers the notion that there is a "Ground Zero Mosque" as "barely true", which may be an indication of the kind of thinking people use to avoid the obvious conclusion that this is a misnomer. "Again," says the site "we realize many politicians and media figures are using the phrase the 'Ground Zero Mosque' -- or as Lazio did, 'a mosque at Ground Zero' -- as shorthand to describe the controversial project. It's nearby -- close enough to carry symbolic value to those who oppose it, and even to those proposing the project. But we think those characterizations often give the misimpression that the project is either on the old World Trade Center site or immediately next to it. And that's not right. And so we rate the claim Barely True." (The site also does evaluate the "mosque" part of the claim: "While we're considering the term 'Ground Zero Mosque,' we also wondered whether it was proper to call the project a mosque. A mosque is, in fact, planned there, but it's part of a plan for a much larger, $100 million cultural center.") So, this site says everything I would contend qualifies the term as a misnomer, but then arrives at the conclusion that there is some tiny, tiny shred of truth to the term. I think that's stretching a huge bit...but if you want to take this as your RS that the term is in any sense true, I suppose you can. I would not mind at all seeing the characterization "Ground Zero Mosque" described as "barely true" in the article. Zachary Klaas (talk) 11:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I do think the above international sources do show that the use of the term 'Ground Zero Mosque' is pretty widespread, so that it does also show that the term is in widespread use - so I think to remove it from the lead completely would be bad. Otherwise I think that is a nice summing up. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The sources listed above, and most others I've seen, strongly suggest we should not use GZM for general use. But they hardly suggest it needs to be explicitly repudiated when it is mentioned, as some of those sources are confident enough in GZM to use it in their headlines without quotes. We should use it in a cautious fashion, in quotes as some sources do, and make note of its actual location in the same sentence. Fletcher (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to post that I agree with Fletcher, just to prove that it's possible for me to agree with Fletcher. :D Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good compromise, well summed up. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Quotation marks seem fair and balanced. I like compromise. NickCT (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Zach you're right about the 'by some' I cut it as I didn't want the sentence to be too long, but you're right it should be there. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Rewind

Right now we have an article that (printed) is 17 pages long. The first 3.5 pages cover the background, and the material they contain is largely factual. The last 7 pages are references. The remaining 6.5 pages consist of a list of quotes (aka, "quote farm") associated with people expressing an opinion about the controversy.

With respect, that's a Catch-22. We can't have people saying "that's not true, document that" and then have them turn around and say "what's with all these references?" Zachary Klaas (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the most useful thing a WP article focused on this controversy could do is to clearly describe the different attitudes (versus quoted people) behind the contention. From my research on this topic, when I attempt to peer beneath the slogans and other rhetoric, there appear to be two motivating reasons (as opposed to surface reasons) given for opposing the project moving forward as planned (by either stopping, relocating or delaying it):

1. Muslims are directly or indirectly responsible for the 9/11 attacks and it's wrong to have a Muslim presence nearby. (9-11 responsibility)
2. Islam is a movement that's intrinsically anti-American and should not be accepted in this country. (Islam)

On the other side, beneath the rhetoric there appear to be a mixture of seven reasons given for allowing the project to move forward as planned:

1. Muslims enjoy the same freedom of religion as does everyone else. (civil liberty)
2. Private property owners should be free to do what they want. (libertarian, property rights)
3. Muslims need a place of their own to worship and play. (pursuit of happiness)
4. The project promotes religious diversity and interfaith cooperation. (peace-seeking)
5. To block it would further assist terrorists and radicalize more Muslims against the U.S. (pragmatic)
6. It shows a healing attitude among Muslims and refutes the radical element. (peace-seeking)
7. This is a local matter, and the appropriate local process already approved it. (federalism)

Perhaps the most useful additional thing we could do (if we could agree to a structure like this) is to map the positions of the various (notable, probably) people and organizations who have expressed a position, to the argument(s) that most closely resemble their point of view, and just leave it there.

Just how to do this in compliance with the various WP policies, I'll leave to those more expert than I (though I'll be glad to assist as I can). TSteichen (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

On the support side, what about the view that defending the mosque is resistance to an organized campaign of bigotry, not just aimed at stopping the Park51 project, but mosques all across the US? Zachary Klaas (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I would think that view would fall under the first (civil liberties) reason. A defense against bigotry usually takes the form of an affirmation of the right of the target of the bigotry to be treated the same as everyone else, not in a discriminatory way. And, I think that the two reasons I list for opposing the project, do indeed differentiate between opposition to this project in particular, and opposition to mosques in general (which I think addresses your point). TSteichen (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it does. Muslims are being attacked just for being Muslims through such campaigns. That's not just a civil liberties issue, that's a resistance to oppression issue. I do recognize that not everyone who has a problem with Park51 is a bigot (I myself would not think it would be terrible if the project developers voluntarily moved a bit farther away from the Ground Zero site), but the people who stirred this issue up had more in mind than just that when they started this campaign. Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

not everyone who has a problem with Park51 is a bigot well that's a releif! Unfortuneately, that is the strawman argument used most often. I worked in WTC4. I have no problem with the GZM. I also have no problem with the majority of people who oppose it who are not bigots. --Threeafterthree (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Spare me, please. People who turn a blind eye while people run mosques out of town and out of their country (not just out of a few square miles of "hallowed ground") are bigots. People who would deny legal and constitutional rights to build a mosque to a group because they practice the "wrong" religion are bigots. And a majority of people in the US also support the legal and constitutional rights of the Park51 developers to build there. Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Spare you what? There are bigots out there, who said there aren't? Are you saying that the majority of people who oppose the mosque are bigots? You seem way to emotional about this, which is fine, but that doesn't help in trying to have a rational discussion here or in editing in a NPOV way. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

There are bigots out there, and they need to be covered by this article. And editors who want to stick their heads in the sand and pretend that the people who brought you this controversy don't view it as a first step in chasing mosques out of the entire country. Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think WP is a place for us to outline the points and counterpoints of warring factions in contraversies like these. It is sufficient to mention the main arguments. I don't think we ought to discuss TSteichen's points in the article. NickCT (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

And what, pray tell, do you consider to be "the main arguments?" Moreover, if you don't identify the "points and counterpoints of warring factions", as you argue we should not, what exactly is the point of the article? TSteichen (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed since they are his personal research/opinion and off the mark, imho. --Threeafterthree (talk) 01:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

They indeed are my personal views, and I thought I made it clear I wasn't pushing these points per se, but the need to somehow summarize what's going on. Not clear what you mean by the statement that my points are "off the mark?" Could you clarify? TSteichen (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I don't really agree with the two reasons you gave for why folks are opposed to the center/mosque. Those might be "true" but not sure if those are the primary reasons or reasons at all. Anyways, this is obviously a very difficult topic/debate to get "right". I also didn't really mean any offense and apologize if it can across as such. Cheers, --Threeafterthree (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not at all offended, and sorry if I implied otherwise. But I'm curious: if you disagree with the two reasons I suggested were behind the opposition, what do you think is behind the opposition? TSteichen (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I think that is so hard to say/generalize about. The first point is the closer, ie Muslims were involved with 9/11, so we don't want anything Muslim related nearby the site/memorial. The second point is further off, since most Americans support the right to worship, ect. It seems like it's more a gut reaction to the appropriateness of the building local. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 01:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)