Talk:Park51

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Park51. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714094514/http://www.militaryinfo.com/news_story.cfm?textnewsid=75 to http://www.militaryinfo.com/news_story.cfm?textnewsid=75

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Park51/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Iazyges (talk · contribs) 17:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Criteria

GA Criteria
GA Criteria: 1 1.a 1.b 2 2.a 2.b 2.c 2.d 3 3.a 3.b 4 4.a 5 5.a 6 6.a 6.b

• No DAB links Y
• No Dead links N:

  Ref 25: "Simone Baribeau; David Levitt; Nicholas Johnston; Stacie Servetah & Mark Schoifet (August 3, 2010). "Ground Zero Mosque Plans Move Forward After Key Vote". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved August 4, 2010."

  Ref 40: ""Democrats split over ground zero mosque". Hürriyet Daily News. August 17, 2010"

  Ref 108: "Notice of Petition" Archived 2010-12-03 at the Wayback Machine., Brown v. New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission, Supreme Court of the State of New York, August 4, 2010. Retrieved August 9, 2010."

  Ref 129: "Caruso, David.AP Exclusive: Backers of NYC mosque appear divided Archived 2010-09-12 at the Wayback Machine., Associated Press. Sep 8, 2010."

  Ref 164: ""61% Oppose Muslim Cultural Center; But, Majority Willing to Listen" Archived August 15, 2010, at the Wayback Machine., Dr. Don Levy, Siena Research Institute, August 5, 2010. Retrieved August 9, 2010."

  Ref 186: "Daniel Halper (August 6, 2010). "Three Senators Oppose Ground Zero Mosque". Weekly Standard. Retrieved August 12, 2010."

  Ref 209: ""Gatestone Institute". Retrieved 8 August 2016."

  @Iazyges: Thanks for taking up this nomination, as well as the five others. I have fixed some of these issues, but Refs 108, 129, and 164 are already archived. epicgenius (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Prose Suggestions

Site use

• 23 had been deemed landmarks and 6 (including 45–47) were pending as of August 2010. suggest 23 had been deemed landmarks and 6 (including 45–47) had applications pending as of August 2010.
• New York City has more than 11,000 landmarked buildings. suggest removing as the sentence alone is unnecessary.
• Muslims had a presence in Lower Manhattan for many years prior to the September 11 attacks. At least two mosques existed near the World Trade Center,[8][69][70] and several designated Muslim prayer rooms existed within the World Trade Center buildings.[71] suggest moving this to before the section on 9/11.

Controversy

• As a recruitment tool for radical Islamists suggest changing this section title to Opposition as a recruitment tool for radical Islamists, as the section is much more about how people opposing the building is offering the recruitment tool, rather than the building itself being one.
• @Epicgenius: That is all my suggestions, passing now. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Changing title of this article to 45 Park Place

Hello there all, if any of you could change the tile of this article to 45 Park Place, there is work for a 50-story skyscraper with the given name, again, if any of you can change the title and subject of this article to the current 45 Park Place, edits for this article have been made to state the current condition of the site, thanks.

Loveroftheworld14710 —Preceding undated comment added 23:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

This is primarily about the canceled mosque, so it's unlikely that such a move will be done without a consensus of editors. epicgenius (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Hydromania: Why did you remove the updates from this article? I added them to resolve this talk page message. I don't think this page should be move, but nevertheless, these new additions were about the current condition of the site. Also, Park51 as originally planned is no longer being considered, as the plan is going forward for a 3-story cultural center in the new 45 Park Place building. epicgenius (talk) 13:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Bad claim and sourcing in Abdul Rauf's views of the project section

The claim that Stratfor identified Rauf as an FBI asset, and that the project was "undertaken for political reaseons", are not borne out in the source. The leaked email is simoply one Stratfor employee emailing another about an magazine article he read. This article has no proof for its claims (and the reason given is an Islamaphobic conspiracy theory), the Stratfor employee has none as well (and makes no claim about the article’s trustworthiness), and the employee isn’t any sort of spokesperson for Stratfor or otherwise able to speak for the organization’s views. It’s irresponsible to use this to make those claims. Ergative rlt (talk) 01:48, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the lede?

Hey all, wanted to modify the head of the article to more accurately reflect why the proposed building was so controversial. It seems like the article is stepping around the subject. The head reads like this:

Park51 (originally named Cordoba House) is a development that was originally envisioned as a 13-story Islamic community center and mosque in Lower Manhattan, New York City. The developers hoped to promote an interfaith dialogue within the greater community. Due to its proposed location two blocks from the World Trade Center site, it was widely and controversially referred to as the "Ground Zero mosque".

From an international perspective, it doesn't really seem clear to me why it's controversial. I would submit the following for review:

Park51 (originally named Cordoba House) is a development that was originally envisioned as a 13-story Islamic community center and mosque in Lower Manhattan, New York City. The developers hoped to promote an interfaith dialogue within the greater community. Due to its proposed location two blocks from the World Trade Center site of the September 11 attacks, which were perpetrated by the Islamic terrorism group Al-Qaeda, the proposed building was widely and controversially referred to as the "Ground Zero mosque".

I get that the subject of this article is controversial as hell, so I'm asking other editors for thoughts. Appreciate it! <4 Kobentori (talk) 05:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Work not yet started on Islamic Center as of end of 2020

Source: https://newyorkyimby.com/2020/11/construction-on-45-park-place-remains-stalled-in-tribeca.html