Jump to content

Talk:Didsbury Mosque

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone know when this Church was changed to a Mosque ? One link points towards 1965 http://www.manchester.gov.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?categoryID=448&documentID=464&pageNumber=17 and the other to 1962 http://www.manchester.gov.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?categoryID=448&documentID=506&pageNumber=25 . Aa2-2004 (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Didsbury Mosque. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced

[edit]

Right now this article is mostly about the terrorist attack carried out by one of its worshippers. It could probably do with chopping down somewhat. Aiken D 18:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is on the public record that the bomber and two of his family (now arrested) attended the mosque. This is a reason why 'Didsbury Mosque' is notable. I don't think it needs 'chopping down'. Magpiepb (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If reputable secondary sources are covering Abedi's connection to the mosque it is completely appropriate that Wikipedia documents the relevant facts here. Betty Logan (talk) 00:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's 3 in support, 0 against. It's in. It's the consensus as far as anyone can tell.El cid, el campeador (talk) 05:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The mosque has a Salafi profile, condemning ISIS by one of their Imams, doesn't mean condemning the religious-ideology that al-Qaeda, ISIS and other such fundamentalist Sunni groups follow. Saudi Imams also condemn al Qaeda and ISIS, whilst preaching basically the same ideology. It should be noted on the page, that he attended this mosque. Let's be honest, if he would attend Sufi, Shia or Ahmadiyya mosque, nothing would of happened in Manchester. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.72.109 (talk) 05:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that's very unbalanced. If the only reason the mosque is notable is for the Abedi, then this article shouldn't even exist and material should be merged into the 2017 Manchester bombing. There's lots of people who go to a mosque or a church. We don't devote half the article to them.VR talk 14:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear! When more than half the article is about this one person then something needs to be done. The single line mention is fine. Aiken D 17:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is unbalanced to arbitrarily cut encyclopaedic material when a predominance of the WP:RS precisely cover the fact the terrorists attended the place. Just because someone does not like that the WP:RS predominantly cover the mosque from this angle, does not justify censoring out half the article. XavierItzm (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to the alleged 'censoring', this event took up more than half of the article length. There has been a place of worship in the space since Victorian times; there will surely be something else to say about it. If not, then I don't think this warrants its own article, and should be redirected to Didsbury. Aiken D 21:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article should reflect why the mosque is notable. If the reason for its notability is that it was the operational base of an ISIL terrorist cell then that is what the article should cover. If it is only notable for its link to the bombing then perhaps there is no need for an article because all the relevant details can be added to 2017 Manchester Arena bombing; however, if that is the case the article should be redirected there, and not to Didsbury. While the article exists the WP:WEIGHT of content should be proportional to coverage by reputable sources. Betty Logan (talk) 00:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The investigation about the bomber shows that even his closest friends/family were unaware of what he was planning. Also the alleged bomber spent his final years mostly in Libya - given we now know this it seems unreasonable to write extensively about the attacker in this page. Linking the mosque's page to the bomber would be akin to linking Salford Uni's page (which he attended) to the MEN attack.--الدبوني (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

Are there any third party reliable sources that give this mosque significant coverage? If we don't have, at least, several of them, this mosque wouldn't be notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article.VR talk 14:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google books reveals nothing much, and at the moment it's tricky to see news what with the recent events. Aiken D 18:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Google does allow one to search for sources by filtering by date. So users can still search for sources on this mosque before May 2017.
I'm thinking that given the lack of sources that give this topic significant coverage, it might be worth nominating this page for deletion.VR talk 08:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about deletion, but certainly a merge or a redirect. Aiken D 09:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

[edit]

Per WP:ONUS, the onus to prove a source is reliable is on the one seeking its inclusion. The "Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Watch" doesn't look reliable to me, and the onus to prove its reliable is on the one who wants to include it. If you can't show this source meets the WP:RS criteria, then this source must remain out of the article.VR talk 21:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The the sentence removed. I can not find any reference to / discussion of, within Wikipedia to the 'Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Watch' not being a reliable source. globalmbwatch.com is cited within 12 9 articles in Wikipedia. Recommend the sentence is reinstated. Magpiepb (talk) 22:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
None of the other articles are GA rated so it is likely this source has never been seriously reviewed. It is proper that it is kept out of the article until its credentials are established i.e. Who owns the site? Does it have editorial oversight? Do other reputable sources which we count as reliable also use this site as a source of information? Betty Logan (talk) 01:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the controversies section as it is sourced from The Sun, Daily Mirror, Daily Mail and Youtube. All of these sources fail WP:IRS and WP:PUS. Please do not insert them again without first finding reliable sources. MontyKind (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there might be a problem with the The hijacking of British Islam: How extremist literature is subverting mosques in the UK as according to the Guardian "the report's author is Denis MacEoin, a pro-Israel campaigner who says he has "very negative feelings" about Islam." I have left it in the article but it too may fail WP:RS.[1] MontyKind (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
McEoin looks more than qualified to write in this area (a Honorary Fellow in the Centre for Islamic and Middle East Studies at Durham University), probably more so than the average Guardian hack. It must be pointed out that The Guardian firmly takes an anti-Israel stance and it is typical of them to denounce anybody who does not align with their beliefs. If this man isn't to be regarded as a reliable source then I think we should wait for the academic community to come to that decision as it did with David Irving. Betty Logan (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Its not Guardian that makes this claim. Its McEoin himself who says he has "very negative feelings" about Islam. Although, that Durham is definitely a plus point.
A separate issue with the material I removed is that it is tangential to the topic of the article. Didsbury Mosque did not publish "The special problems of females". Mosques typically have hundreds of pieces of literature (books, booklets, pamphlets etc) and most don't have any sort of strict control over this.VR talk 21:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concern about Islamic Radicalization - all references removed

[edit]
  • At a macro level: MI5 opens inquiries into missed warnings over Manchester terror threat
  • At a micro level: Didsbury-Mosque-related-references to prior Concern about Islamic Radicalization were all removed, with the reason given the (cited) organizations have a history of Concern about Islamic Radicalization.
  • Question: Would a self-identified, Muslim Wiki editor, who removes all Didsbury-Mosque-related-references to Concern about Islamic Radicalization, have a WP:COI?

Magpiepb (talk) 00:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Salafi - Ikhwan"

[edit]

This is pretty ridiculous - Salafi and Ikhwan are not the same thing and can actually been seen to be on opposing sides. Lumping them up as one shows that the reference is simply uninformed and not reliable.--الدبوني (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

two reliable sources say "Salafi" Magpiepb (talk) 05:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are quite simply wrong - for the same point I made earlier. E.g. the guardian article states "the mosque preaches a Salafi fundamentalist form of Islam", but the paragraph before it it quotes someone who says it is "run by the Muslim Brotherhood" aka Ikhwan. The fact that the sources contradict themselves suggest the best we can do is describe it as a "Sunni" mosque, assuming we have to mention denomination at all (which we do not necessarily have to).--الدبوني (talk) 09:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is WP:OR, unsupported-by-any-citation. However, conceding the 'Ikhwan' issue - despite it being supported by two citations, the RS citation says unequivalently, "Muslim activists opposed to militant Islamic ideologies . . say the mosque must bear some responsibility for Abedi's radicalization because of the conservative Salafi brand of Islam it espouses". Magpiepb (talk) 05:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not OR - I am simply pointing out the contradictions in the sources you provided. Why did you decide the mosque is Salafi and remove the Ikhwan label? It does not make sense.--الدبوني (talk) 09:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another point I would add is that mosques differ from churches. Churches tend to say which denomination they are but mosques generally do not - and placing mosques into groups is not a straightforward task (as the contradictions in the sources show). Wikipedia is about stating facts and not about labelling things based on poor references.--الدبوني (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All of the above is a combination of OR, Opinion and Obfuscation. RSs here & here say Salafi - Ikhwan. Leave article as is. Ptr ptr913 (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Didsbury_Mosque&oldid=1206967199"