Talk:Baitun Nur Mosque

On size

Despite an edit suggesting this is North America's largest mosque, it's not. Islamic Center of America is 120,000 square feet[1] compared to the 40,000 square feet [2] of this one (measuring whole complex in both cases).--Rob (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Importance

I changed the importance to Mid. The article Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is ranked high. So, just one mosque within the movement, should be ranked a step lower than that. --Rob (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Naming

I would like to discuss the related questions:

1. Is the correct name "Baitunnur", "Baitun Nur" or "Baitun Noor".
2. Are there mosques with this name that *warrant* an article and are likely to get one. If so, a disambig page is appropriate (see User:Ahmadi/disambig). If a mosque is non-notable (no independent coverage) than it wouldn't count for this.
3. Is any one of the mosques with this name much more famous than others, and therefore doesn't need the city as qualifier in it's article title. --Rob (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Meaning and separation

The meaning of the Name ist "House of Light", so this are three words "Bait = House", "un = of" and "Noor = Light".

So you can write "Bait´un Noor", "Bait-un Noor" or "Baitun Noor". I don't know, if where is a rule for it but I used to write "Bait" and "un" together "Baitun".

Spelling in english and german transliteration

"oo" in en.wikipedia (Masroor, Noor-ud-Din) is written "u" in de.wikipedia (Masrur, Nur-ud-Din), so I suggest "Baitun Noor" as the best solution.

Small thing at least: You may think "Baitun Noor" should be written "Baitun Nur" in de.wikipedia, but "nur" in german means "only", so "Baitun Nur" looks like "House of Only", so we spent in German double-u = "Nuur-Moschee" and "Baitun Nuur" to differ "Nuur = Light" from "Nur = Only". --Ahmadi (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Confusing detail

Official site of Mosque (http://www.baitunnur.org) is naming itself "Baitunnur", so this is the reason why the article was named "Baitunnur" too. --Ahmadi (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

To point 2

At the moment I see no need for a disambiguation page, because the other mosque I know seems only from local importants. --Ahmadi (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Religious affiliation

It seems obvious to say the religious_affiliation = Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. It makes sense to be specific. For instance Imam Ali Mosque appropriate says it's "Shia Islam", as that's a defining chracteristic. Other mosques may insist they are open to all Muslims, so can't be more specific than "Islam". But Baitunnur is rather open about being AMD. If you visit other mosque's web sites (example), you'll often see them refer only to the "Muslim community". But http://www.baitunnur.org/ is quite open about the fact the mosque is built by and for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. Any church or school affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church, would be so identified, and wouldn't list it's affiliation merely as "Christian". --Rob (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments.

see Wikipedia:No original research

2. Berlin Mosque was used by many muslim groups for example, also Shah Jahan Mosque and other mosques. --85.176.234.8 (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Addition: Why not discuss it here? --85.176.234.8 (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

So, what's your point? There are numerous reliable sources that explicitly state the mosque's religious affiliation is AMD. Do you contest this? --Rob (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

So, what's your point? The ritus in mosques built by the AMC is the islamic Salah. There ist no need for more specification. --85.176.234.8 (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It's better to be informative, rather than uninformative. It's best to use a term which implies all the facts, than just some. AMD indiates Islam, but Islam doesn't indicate AMD. "You can kill two birds with one stone". Telling people a mosque is Islamic, is not telling them very much. --Rob (talk) 04:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

POV doesnt care here. More information is given if you click Ahmadiyya Muslim Community link in the introduction part of the article. So all information is given and nobody remains uninformated. --Ahmadi (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I honestly am still not understanding your concern. Since the word "Muslim" is in the name "Ahmadiyya Muslim Community", using the full term, is making pretty clear that this is an Islamic mosque. I can see why you might object to "Ahmadiyya" without qualification. "Ahmadiyya Muslim Community" is not a prejoritive or insulting term. Like "Latter Day Saint" or "Roman Catholic", it's used by the adherents themselves, to self-identify. --Rob (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If the religious affiliation is Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, then that's what should be used in the infobox in the interests of specificity and precision. ITAQALLAH 19:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Clearly Ahmadiyya Muslim Community should be listed here. I think for the case of Islam which often has mosques associated with a group but talk about being a mosque of any Muslim that it might be best to do "Islam (Ahmadiyya Muslim Community)" but, we would need community wide agreement on this. Maybe this would help to make it clear that it's a mosque run by Ahmadiyya but for any Muslims? Which, I would say most mosques are open to any type... although, you have the exact same issue in Christianity but Christians aren't as self-concious about how they break themselves up. gren グレン 23:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Where is no pratice to specify at this point Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali or Ahmadiyya. I cant see the evidence to specify Shia Islam at this point, because the background of the mosque is esposed in the article text. --Ahmadi (talk) 08:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. So, accepting your comparison is correct, the solution would be to specify the affiliation in other articles. But also, I also think we have to differentiate a "school" of thought, from a formal organization. Like the Roman Catholic Church and the Latter Day Saints, there is a formal organization, with a particular leadership (Khalifatul Masih). As suggested, we could say both, with "Islam (Ahmadiyya Muslim Community)". But, to me, that's redundant, since the word "Muslim" in AMD makes it pretty obvious that it's Islam. Perhaps the infobox should have separate fields, one for "formal affiliation" (and it's equivelents) and one for "religion". --Rob (talk) 11:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

update: I put in "Islam (Ahmadiyya Muslim Community)" as an attempt at compromise. I don't want anyone to think we're saying the mosque isn't Islamic. A more consistent approach should be worked out elsewhere, probably on the the template's talk page. --Rob (talk) 11:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Naming (1 year later)

All the references I had access to used the name "Baitun Nur", not Baitunnur. Google searches also provide some evidence that Baitun Nur is used more than Baitunnur (by about 4x). The official website of the mosque also uses "Baitun Nur". As such, the article should be moved to "Baitun Nur". DigitalC (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Moved. DigitalC (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baitun Nur Mosque. 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/20081012145509/http://www.canada.com:80/calgaryherald/story.html?id=f8ba2aa4-6659-446f-8ddf-7400c0350935 to http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/story.html?id=f8ba2aa4-6659-446f-8ddf-7400c0350935

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 09:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)