Jump to content

Talk:Park51

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 67.180.35.85 (talk) at 06:33, 19 September 2013 (→Ron Paul incorrectly paraphrased and footnoted: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Pbneutral

Remove Speculative Topics

Much of the information about Park51 is based upon speculative assumptions rather than credible, factual information. May I suggesting using this article to find verifiable facts about the building of Park51: http://indylaw.indiana.edu/ilr/pdf/vol45p249.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.99.110.156 (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amount of discussion of Park51 controversy

Park51 controversy has its own wikipedia page. So, does this article on Park51 need 1,500 words (or about a third of article) devoted to the Park51 controversy, with much of the language a duplicate of the other article? 21:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we need two articles. The only reason Park51 is notable is because of the controversy, so to separate that aspect out does not make sense to me. Having two parallel articles has resulted in a WP:POVFORK: for example, Park51 controversy calls the centre a mosque throughout, while this article indicates it isn't a mosque. Also compare Park 51#Purchase and investors to Park51 controversy#Funding sources.--Trystan (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Merge proposal

PROPOSAL: There are two articles that cover the same ground and this is creating versioning issues and makes it impossible to track changes on this controversial issue. There are lots of links to the Park51 article and almost no non-user links to the controversy article. It has not been demonstrated that the building is notable other than the mosque issue.Americasroof (talk) 23:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(First, a clarification: this is a proposal to merge Park51 controversy into Park51.) -- Dan Griscom (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This topic doesn't need two articles, and fewer people will find Park51 controversy than Park51 -- Dan Griscom (talk)

Removing Quinnipiac "Support" Statement

Okay, so I guess the article is locked, but would someone who has editorial power please remove this? I have done my research here, you can verify with a quick Google search and a 5 minute read of the reference that supposedly showed public support for Park51, but actually did the opposite. Jjpr2121 (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)jj[reply]

I am removing the first statement that cites a Quinnipiac University poll as demonstrating public support for Park51. First, the URL/link to that reference is broken but, more importantly, if you find the correct link to the article it is an article that actually demonstrates that the public (at least those polled) was NOT in support of Park51, and the 54 - 40 "vote" (with 7% undecided and some margin of error) was that those polled thought that the had a legal right to build Park51 due to the U.S.'s stance on freedom of religion, but the same group polled overwhelmingly voted 71 - 21 (8% undecided) that the Park51 developers should not build there and should voluntarily build elsewhere due to the sensitivities involved. The same group also responded, in a somewhat contradictory fashion, 53 - 39 that (8% undecided) that Muslims should not be allowed to build a Mosque near Ground Zero, even though they had earlier admitted that they thought they had a legal/constitutional right to do so that should be upheld. In any case, the statement that those polled supported the building of Park51 in that location is 100% false, and is quite obviously false if you read the Quinnipiac article that was entitled "9/11 FAMILY CONCERNS OUTWEIGH MUSLIM RIGHT TO MOSQUE, NEW YORK STATE VOTERS TELL QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY POLL; 71 PERCENT SAY CUOMO SHOULD PROBE MOSQUE FINANCES" 173.3.109.197 (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)jj[reply]

What is so difficult to understand here? A majority of Americans recognize that Muslims have a constitutional right to build an Islamic community center near Ground Zero, but don't think that they should. That part of the article looks fine enough as it is.Shabeki (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inflated "Opposition" section

I have moved Zuhdi Jasser's, Reza Aslan's & Feisal Abdul-Rauf's comments from the "Opposition" section to the more general "Controversy" section because well, they don't appear to be directly opposing the Park51 project. Jasser & Aslan are merely providing advice on how the organizers should go about the project. And Rauf was the guy in charge of the project and has made no statement opposing the project since being removed from being in charge of it. It seems to me that some people with a bias against the center were putting their comments in the wrong section. Shabeki (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul incorrectly paraphrased and footnoted

A paraphrase of Ron Paul is misstated, and connected to the wrong footnote. In the article at footnote 157, Mr. Paul makes a statement which could be paraphrased "Moreover, he criticizes those who blame Islam itself for the September 11 attacks", rather than what is given in the article, "Moreover, he criticizes those who blame Islam alone for the September 11 attacks". This paraphrase is incorrectly footnoted 156; in that article, no statement of this nature is made.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Park51&oldid=573602179"