Talk:Park51 controversy

[Untitled]

I created this in accordance with Wikipedia:Summary style. It's not a POV fork, because it has the same proportion of pro-Park51 content and anti-Park51 content as the main Park51 article.

If I should have waited a lot longer before being bold, than I'll understand if anyone just reverts the whole thing. But I thought it makes it easier for the reader to have a summary in one place, and a really long article in another. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this page

Please delete this page as the subject covered is NOT on "Ground Zero". Thank you. Hcobb (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What if we could think of a name for he page which DID NOT imply that the subject covered was "Ground Zero"? Like Controversy over proposed Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero? Or something shorter? --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Park51 controversy Hcobb (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

Per discussion above, the page can't keep its current title. I agree with Hcobb's suggestion. Let's move it to Park51 controversy. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current title is bad, but most readers don't know what Park 51 is. I suggest using the more recongizable title: Ground Zero mosque controversy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that as a redirect, but not the main article title. Hcobb (talk) 02:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? You neglected to provide a reason why we should ignore WP:COMMONNAME. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the perfect move target - you'd have to get an admin to move it over a redirect. --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with moving to Ground Zero Mosque controversy - that's what most people are likely to look for. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the page to Park51 controversy. 'Ground Zero Mosque controversy' is completely unacceptable. It was never proposed that a mosque be built at Ground Zero. Calling it such serves to perpetuate a misperception. — goethean ॐ 22:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and generally agree with the reasons for the page renames, but one of the end results right now is that "Ground Zero controversy" redirects to "Park51 controversy." Since there are other topics of controversy at and around Ground Zero which have nothing to do with this topic, this doesn't seem like a good redirect. For example, there has recently been a lot of news of the controversy over the NYPD security plan for the Ground Zero "campus." Can this redirect be broken without messing up too much else? Any thoughts on whether the redirect should be broken? Qwirty (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. A "prayer room" can mean a mosque, and the proposed site is either near "Ground Zero" or part of it, depending on definition (the building was badly damaged in the attacks). So it's not necessarily an inaccurate, bad-faith, or inflammatory description. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 11:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is completely false. There is a definition of a mosque, and a prayer room does not qualify as a mosque. Calling Park51 a mosque is about as accurate as calling a YMCA a cathedral. — goethean ॐ 13:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cute analogy, although there really isn't a Muslim equivalent to either the YMCA or a cathedral. But if an Islamic "prayer room" for 2000 people isn't a mosque, many people would regard this fine distinction as hair-splitting, rather than "completely false." Hence the reasonableness of "Ground Zero mosque controversy." ProhibitOnions ^(T) 09:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy lifting

A lot of references didn't get copied from the Park51 article. So we have red text in the footnotes. Can anyone help me copy and paste these? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Rich did it. Thanks! --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- AnomieBOT did take care of this end. Rich Farmbrough, 11:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Daniel Pipes

Daniel Pipes seems to have rather mixed opinions on the issue. Pipes differs from most of the critics when he says he's ok with a moderate Muslim center near Ground Zero. He criticizes Islamist institutions in general (he says "anywhere"), but never says if Park51 is Islamist. I don't feel that Pipes is necessarily an "opponent".VR _talk 12:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Ground Zero Mosque

Under the Wikipedia policy of using common names, should not this article be called “Ground Zero Mosque Controversy”? The name could be “politically incorrect/insensitive” to some readers, but Wikipedia is not about to please offended people — for example, to call the late “Emperor Showa” as “Hirohito” can be offensive for many Japanese people, but the title of the article about the World War II-era monarch has the title “Hirohito” because this is the most used form in the Western World and English-speaking nations within it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.226.220 (talk) 03:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there could be some kind of link - from a disambig page? to a page section called "Ground Zero Controversy". I just don't think there's anyone (at least not a casual reader) who would recognize "Park51 controversy" as having anything to do with establishing a mosque or a cultural center containing one near the site of the former WTC. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible

How can some of the 911 victims be in favor of the Park 51 project. Aren't they dead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.107.2 (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]