Talk:Dar Al-Hijrah/Archive 1

Archive 1

Terrorist Mosque?

two 9/11 hijackers attended services as well as the Fort Hood shooter. this should be mentioned. caesarscott (talk) 03:04, 9 November 2009 (UT)

This would WP:COATRACK the mosque. Just because some people may have attended this mosque does not mean that the mosque is responsible for any of their behavior. kgrr ^talk 05:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's not too surprising that a Northern Virginia native and a couple of hijackers attempting to blend in while staying in the D.C. area would all choose to attend one of the largest and well-known mosques in the area. It's just a numbers game. It has not been demonstrated that the mosque has any responsibility for these terrorist acts. Ketone16 (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed two paragraphs from this article because they attempt to WP:COATRACK the mosque with two events. Imagine if what was reported was that the terrorists both attended a sporting event. Should the article about the sports arena be tied with circumstantial trivia? No. In the same way, these two statements don't belong here. There is currently no proof to tie the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center with any of the terrorist acts. There is no proof of any terrorist training or other illegal activity by the Islamic Center. Most of its attendees are not terrorists. The primary purpose of these two paragraphs is to disparage the Islamic Center and Muslims in general.  kgrr ^talk 12:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The imam there was the spiritual leader of these people, and has come out supporting the recent shooting, and the FBI was investigating him, and he was communicating with the recent shooter. Much more than attending a sporting event. I think it should go back in. I would guess that most mentions of this mosque are w/regard to this event or 9/11--it is an essential aspect of its notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The imam in question was only there for a few months. I think making an reference in his article is more appropriate than making a reference in the mosque's article. Also, I believe that FBI investigators found that the shooter's communications with the imam were within the scope of his duties at Walter Reed, didn't they? Although they're probably reinvestigating that now. Ketone16 (talk) 12:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, this mosque has been mentioned in the news a great deal based upon the ties of one of its former clerics to Islamic militancy, as well as the attendance of several Islamic militants. As of now, this article has absolutely no mention of it. Whether other editors are happy about this or not, this aspect of the mosque is a widespread, notable, and citable, and blocking all mention of it because in the view of some editors, the attention is too negative is POV. In my opinion, the danger of WP:COATRACK would be if the article's coverage of terrorist allegations takes up undue weight or is heavily slanted toward one side or the other. Peter G Werner (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted in the two paragraphs in dispute, done some slight rewrites and wikification, and added an "unbalanced" tag. This material needs presentation in a balanced way, but complete elimination is defensive, POV, and uncalled for. Peter G Werner (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to roll-back your coatracking. WP:NPOV There is no proven tie between Hasan and the hijackers.[1] Furthermore, there is nothing to prove the Mosque is responsible for their behavior. In fact, the mosque has officially rejected acts of terrorism. Do not hang these acts of terrorism on the mosque or the Muslims that attend there.  kgrr ^talk 16:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not coatracking to identify notable people who attended the mosque. It is common practice on Wikipedia.

For example, the 101st Airborne Division article lists Eric Rudolph among its noted members. That's the way it's been done here for years. There is no reason to make an exception here.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

In the same vein as what I just said, it might help to do some research and list other notable people who attended this mosque. That should help soften the inference you're thinking about.

Either that, or ask that the guidelines be changed to remove Eric Rudolph from the 101st Airborne Division article.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that may be a good compromise. Keep the mention of Hasan and the hijackers, keep it factual (no inference about the mosque being the source of the terrorism without reputable sources), and add some other notable mosque members who presumably made more positive contributions to society. Ketone16 (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that your attempt add only suspected terrorists as "prominent" members of the mosque is coatracking the mosque. Why don't you go and coatrack the Christian church that Seung-Hui Cho (the shooter of the Virginia Tech massacre) attended?  kgrr ^talk 19:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. I'd be happy to list other prominent members.

To my knowledge, Cho didn't attend a church that was notable enough for Wikipedia. But I did mention Eric Rudolph and the 101st Airborne Division in my example. It's the same thing. As I said, listing prominent members is common practice on WP. Why do you want this article to be an exception?

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

There are currently two redundant paragraphs relating to Hasan and the 9/11 hijackers. I kept the one that I thought was more clear and to the point and deleted the other. Ketone16 (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

QUIT WP:COATRACKING the article. Why don't you list all the mass-murderers that shop at Walmart? It's completely irrelevant. Walmart is not training people to mass-murder people. In the same way, this mosque does not train terrorists.  kgrr ^talk 19:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am sympathetic to your point in general (see my original comments) but I think your analogies aren't quite apt. The 9/11 hijackers were motivated by religion and there is a resonable suspicion that the Fort Hood shootings were as well. Therefore the religious instruction of the individuals may be relevant in a way that the Walmart affiliation of mass murderers (or even the religious affiliation of Seung-Hui Cho, who didn't commit particularly religiously-motivated murders) is not. What would be the problem with mentioning the 9/11 hijackers and Hasan attended the mosque without attributing any responsibility for their actions, and also mentioning other well-known mosque members? Ketone16 (talk) 19:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The last change was a second violation of WP:3RR after a previous warning in the edit summary.

I suggest kgrr revert it himself, as is the proper thing to do.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

First of all, WP:COATRACK is an essay. So repeating the term and citing it as guideline/policy is rather ineffective. However, I think there is a compromise here: simply state that the three notables attended this mosque, as it is properly sourced, but limit the description of their activities. There is no need to have more than one sentence about the 9/11 hijackers and one sentence about Hasan. Angryapathy (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

My suggested addition, attempting to stay NPOV: "Major Nidal Malik Hasan, who is currently the sole suspect in the November 5, 2009 Fort Hood shootings, attended the Dar al-Hijrah mosque, as did Nawaf al-Hazmi and Hani Hanjour, two of the September 11 hijackers. Angryapathy (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds okay to me. It would be nice if an expert could fill out that section with a few other notable mosque members. I can't believe that the only notable people from a mosque that size are terrorists so the article would be a bit unbalanced as it stands. Ketone16 (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not OK. For example, where in the St. Patrick's Cathedral, New York article do you see prominent people listed? Why is it not mentioned that both Al Capone and Lucky Luciano worshiped there at one time? Was the Cathedral a mafia training ground? No. Exactly. It would WP:COATRACK the church.—Preceding unsigned comment added by  kgrr ^talk 22:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. I think it would be perfectly okay for the St. Patrick's Cathedral article to list prominent members. This is at least the third or fourth faulty analogy you've used. I don't believe it is a WP:COATRACK to put in a list of prominent members even if some of those prominent members did something bad. It becomes a coatrack when you do more than provide a factual list and go on and on about how the mosque produces terrorists. It is not a coatrack to list the 9/11 hijackers and Hasan in a single sentence simply stating that they were members of the mosque, especially if other prominent mosque members are listed. Ketone16 (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Go look at the "What is not a coatrack" section of WP:COATRACK. It is clear that the article only becomes a coatrack if the ostensibly POV statement dominates the article. A single sentence does not make a coatrack out of any reasonably-sized article. Ketone16 (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll also reiterate that like your flawed Seung-Hui Cho and Walmart examples, the St. Patrick's Cathedral analogy doesn't work because there is no evidence that Al Capone and Lucky Luciano's mafia activities were acts of religiously-motivated political terrorism. I agree with your basic point that there is no evidence that the mosque had anything to do with these acts (and I personally believe that it did not), but I don't think I can oppose those who propose adding a single factual sentence about these three people who attended the mosque. Lots of articles have "notable persons" lists associated with them. Ketone16 (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Werner. The mosque is clearly most notable because of the 9/11 and Fort Hood shootings connection (as measured by RS references), and proper reference to them should definitely be re-inserted.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it may be a little extreme to say that the mosque is "clearly most notable because of the 9/11 hijackers and Fort Hood shootings." The mosque is quite large and has been well-known for some time on its own merits; it is just getting attention recently because of the Fort Hood shootings. Prior to that event the article never even mentioned the 9/11 hijackers, as far as I can tell. What is notable are the shootings and hijackings themselves, not the mosque, which appears to be connected peripherally at best and coincidentally at worst. Ketone16 (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

See, for example, WP:NTEMP. Ketone16 (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Really? What do you base that statement on? If you search the mosque you get 36,300 Ghits, and 2,508 Gnews hits. If you run that same search excluding 9/11 and Fort Hood, you get 155 Ghits and 1 Gnews hit.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems that you did not read what I wrote. I'm not saying that the mosque has more non-terrorism-related news citations than terrorism-related news citations (media outlets aren't the only reliable sources in existence, by the way), I'm saying that just because a sensational event gets picked up by the news wires doesn't mean that the most notable aspect of every sub-topic of that event should automatically become that event itself. For example, if Hasan had murdered a distinguished physician with a long career, I wouldn't say that the physician is "clearly most notable" for being murdered by Hasan just because the Fort Hood shootings got sensationalized in every media outlet in the planet. Go read WP:NTEMP. The Fort Hood shootings get so many news hits because they are sensational; the mosque is just a footnote to that story. It is not central to the story and I don't think it should be rated as "clearly most notable" for the shootings and 9/11 attacks simply because it is piggybacking on the notoriety of those events. The piggybacking may make the connection (if you can call it that) to Hasan and the 9/11 hijackers notable enough for inclusion in this article, but I object to the "clearly most notable" language. Ketone16 (talk) 02:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

WP measures notability by significant references in RSs. In this case, nearly all of such references related to the 9/11 hijackers and/or the Fort Hood Shootings. Therefore, they should be reflected. WP:NTEMP does not lead to a different conclusion. As it says, a topic needs to have had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline, but it does not need to have ongoing coverage from news sources (though you can rest assured that that will be the case here, as it was for the 9/11 hijackers). This is not what this guidance is protecting against -- "routine news coverage such as announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism".--Epeefleche (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Look, if Google came up with 36,000 hits on articles that were mainly about the mosque's connection to the Fort Hood shootings or the 9/11 hijackings, then maybe you would have a point. But it doesn't. It generally comes up with articles where the mosque is mentioned in a sentence or two out of a much larger article. At any rate, my point was not that the references to the 9/11 hijackers and Hasan are not notable enoguh for inclusion here; my point was that I don't think they are "clearly the most notable" aspect of the mosque. It appears that for the purposes of notability you would give the same weight to a reference that mentions the mosque in one sentence as you would to a reference that is entirely about the mosque. Ketone16 (talk) 03:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion here was about coatracking, not Notability of the mosque. Now you are pulling a red herring on me. The mosque is notable on its own without either association. But to say it's notable due to the 9/11 hijackers is completely ludicrous. The fact that two 9/11 hijackers briefly worshiped there is mentioned in this [2] article. But it was never the focus of any article before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by  kgrr ^talk 03:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I found another notable former member of the mosque: M. A. Muqtedar Khan

Unfortunately, he's a critic:

M.A. Muqtedar Khan, an expert on Islam and a political scientist at Adrian College in Michigan, said Dar al-Hijrah is not a typical American mosque and Mr. Elsayed is not a typical American imam.

"Shaker Elsayed is more like a political figure than a religious figure," said Mr. Khan, who worshipped at Dar al-Hijrah for several years while attending graduate school at Georgetown University. "Dar al-Hijrah is a very Arab-centric mosque, very much centered on Arab politics."

I don't have time to figure out how to add it now.

BTW: Kgrr still needs to put back his last change after violating 3RR.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Kgrr has any intention of overturning the revert. Ketone16 (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to undo the revert. You knew at the time that you reverted my change that you were insterting POV. Otherwise, there would not be any need for the warning banner.

The hijackers Nawaf Al-Hazmi and Hani Hanjour attended the mosque *once* in April of 2001. That does not make them notable members, does it?

Imam Johari Abdul-Malik, outreach director at Dar al Hijrah, said he did not know whether Hasan ever attended the mosque but confirmed that the Hasan family participated in services there. Abdul-Malik said the Hasans were not leaders at the mosque and their attendance was normal. Just because Hasan's family attended the mosque, does not make Hasan a member. Certainly there is nothing that makes him a notable member.  kgrr ^talk 06:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's a good point about the hijackers only attending the mosque once (assuming that it's true and you can provide a source). Can one really call someone who attended the mosque once a "notable member"? Ketone16 (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to WP:3RR, it doesn't matter what you or I think about the subject. You're in violation of the rules. Had we wanted to, we could have reported you for it.

Had you wanted to show good faith, you'd have reverted it yourself.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 06:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You show no intention of good faith on your part. You don't even make an effort to even try to balance the content of the article. It's all about pushing your point of view. I have opened up a neutrality dispute so that we can get to the point with this issue. I at this point really don't care what you think.  kgrr ^talk 15:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Kgrr, your behavior during this dispute has been appalling. You've gotten into revert wars in violation of Wikipedia policy, you labeled one user's short and extremely factual (and sourced) addition as vandalism during a revert, you tried to get the article semi-protected because other users disagreed with your viewpoint, and you've almost utterly failed to respond to legitimate criticisms on the talk page (referring again and again to WP:COATRACK, which clearly does not apply to one-sentence additions to moderately sized articles). Randy2063 has no obligation to provide balance to the article. If someone adds a notable and factual statement to an article and you don't like it, then you provide the balance. Randy2063 himself suggested that users add other notable mosque attendees to the article, so I don't think he's necessarily POV-pushing. Ketone16 (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

What Ketone16 said. You're immediate response to my input, stating that you were "roll[ing]-back [my] coatracking" and accusing me of trying to "hang these acts of terrorism on the mosque or the Muslims that attend there" was kneejerk and accusatory. Its pretty clear to me that you view anybody who disagrees your bowdlerized version of this article as being basically motivated by racism and lash out accordingly. Try assuming some good faith, please! I'll note again, this content is WP:NOTABLE and merits inclusion, albeit in a more NPOV manner than the material was originally published. I hope after the intervention of other editors that this is now a settled issue, and we can set about working this material into the article, in a neutral, carefully cited, and duly weighted manner. Peter G Werner (talk) 03:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Notability?

Why is this a notable mosque?  kgrr ^talk 05:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Because it's one of the largest mosques in the United States? 75.76.213.106 (talk) 01:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's Virginia's largest and one of the largest in the world. There are plenty of references for Dar al-Hijrah since 1990 [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by  kgrr ^talk 03:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV - Neutrality dispute

The Background and Leadership sections have become a WP:COATRACK for anti-Muslim sentiment.

Nothing much is being said in the background section about the 3-5000 regular members that are not militant and believe in a peaceful society. Many dignitaries (congressmen, county officials, diplomats, and scholars from different religions) visit the mosque every year. But one half of the text in the Background section is devoted to terrorist suspects that may have visited the mosque on a few occasions in 2001. In the section above, the debate centered around the notability of these few visitors. Nothing is said about the group denouncing terrorism [4] I see undue weight given to several terrorism suspects over thousands of peaceful members and visitors. Nothing has been said about Dar al Hijrah being one of the first mosques if not the first mosque to open up for non-Muslims.

The leadership section makes no attempt to show a history of Imams that have preached at the mosque. The section begins with a short discussion of the executive committee and then an out of context quote from the current imam. No mention is being made of the women's committee. I think undue weight is being given for text nearly copied word for word out of Anti-Defamation League's Backgrounder for Muslim American Society [5]. If you keep going, the Leadership section will look just like a copy of this propaganda from global jijad dot net. Frankly, the section is all about slandering the Islamic Center and Mosque and not about representing what is really there. Perhaps the article could be balanced out with input from this Washington Post article [6].

As an Agnostic, I am neither Christian nor Muslim. I believe I can remain fair and objective about this article. I find that this article has become a hitching-post for anti-Muslim sentiments. There is no place for it in Wikipedia. We should be writing an unbiased encyclopedic article about this Mosque and Islamic Center.  kgrr ^talk 12:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed one statement in the Leadership section about Dar al-Hijrah being an openly militant mosque since that is clearly a POV statement (and in fact contradicts the message posted to the mosque's website). I am leaving the rest for discussion for now. I do agree that with recent additions to the article it has become unbalanced, although I submit that removing material is not the only way to provide balance to an article. One can also add balancing material. Perhaps you should add some of the material you described above, as long as it's sourced. Ketone16 (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute about additions to article in wake of Fort Hood shootings

I'm trying to sort through some of the recent additions to this article regarding possible connections of the mosque to terrorists, in light of the extensive discussion above. I am a little unhappy with the recent additions because I believe many of them are (perhaps unconsciously) POV-motivated attempts paint the mosque as an incubator for terrorism. With the possible exception of Anwar al-Awlaki's tenure as imam at the mosque I think that, at best, many of these additions represent potentially coincidental associations of terrorists with the mosque (remember that thousands of people have attended the mosque who have not become terrorists) where no causal link between the mosque and the terrorist activities has been demonstrated. At worst, some of the additions have been POV-pushes. I will bring up three possible additions to the article for discussion: 1) mention of Anwar al-Awlaki's tenure as a former imam there, 2) mention of two of the 9/11 hijackers who attended the mosque, and 3) mention of Nidal Hasan (the alleged Fort Hood shooter).

1) Anwar al-Awlaki. I think that this is probably an appropriate addition to the article. He was once an imam at the mosque and he is notable, even though he has not been portrayed positively. Since he was an imam, I think we can infer that the mosque administration did not have a major problem with his publicly-stated views at the time he was hired (if not later). If users think it is unbalanced to add al-Awlaki, perhaps it would be appropriate for them to add other imams at the mosque who are notable for good works.

2) 9/11 hijackers. The 9/11 Commission Report [7] suggests that the two hijackers only attended the mosque on a single occasion and it has not been proven that they intended to meet with al-Awlaki, although the FBI suspects it. I don't think that under any reasonable common English understanding of the word "notable" the hijackers can be considered to be "notable members" of the mosque on the basis of a single visit there. It's like some spy being considered a "notable visitor to Dupont Circle in D.C." because he may or may not have met with his handler there once. Now, the hijackers did have confirmed contacts with al-Awlaki outside of the visit to the mosque, but I think that's worth noting in al-Awlaki's article, not the Dar al-Hijrah mosque's article.

3) Nidal Hasan. I am less certain of how to proceed here, since I couldn't find a good source that verifies that he was a member of the mosque as opposed to a sporadic visitor. His family seems to have been members, however, so perhaps we can presume that he was a member. At the same time, Hasan is notable because of his alleged terrorist act, and no one has demonstrated any connections between the mosque and his actions. There have been articles that associate Hasan with the mosque [8] but they include a lot of speculation and it is unclear to me whether this association is worth calling out in an article that is primarily about the mosque (as opposed to being about Hasan himself).

Ketone16 (talk) 16:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• 1) Agree.

2) The 9/11 report only mentions one visit, but that doesn't mean it says there was only one visit. The 9/11 report suggests that the visit to the mosque, at which the hijackers met a fourth man who was at the mosque, was set up by the imam, who tasked the fourth man to aid the hijackers. That fourth man ends up meeting with two additional hijackers, and driving to Connecticut, leading the four of them, then to New Jersey and back to Connecticut.

You also have the fact that the Washington Post reports that a partially declassified investigation by the joint Congressional Committee on Intelligence indicated: "Awlaki and the conspirators moved from San Diego to Falls Church in 2001 and became associated with Dar al-Hijrah mosque. The report said that German police discovered a phone number for the mosque in the home of self-described hijacking mastermind Ramzi Binalshibh after the attacks."[9] That should probably go in the article as well.

And I think if you read through the books referenced the connection also comes through more clearly.

3) I don't have the cites at my fingertips, but I believe I saw refs to Hasan and his family attending the mosque for 10 years, and there is this one to him having his mother's memorial service there in May 2001.[10]

And the religious Moslem aspect of the attack is raised of course by the gunman shouting "Allahu Akbar!" during the attack.

Reminiscent of this ... After 9/11, the FBI released a handwritten 4-page hijackers' letter found in three separate copies at Dulles, the Pennsylvania crash site, and in Mohamed Atta's suitcase. It included a practical checklist of final reminders for the 9/11 hijackers. One notable excerpt: "When the confrontation begins, strike like champions who do not want to go back to this world. Shout, 'Allahu Akbar,' because this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers." --Epeefleche (talk) 09:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't like removing any kinds of valid data, but I understand the concerns. I think part of the solution could be to briefly let the readers know what the connection was. If it's not known that a terrorist attended more than once, then we should say it so that the reader understands.

As Epeefleche says, there is an obvious religious aspect to their acts. It would be ridiculous to avoid noting where they went to pray. I can't think of any other subject on WP where this would be avoided.

If we ever think the section is getting too long, we can shorten some of it. It doesn't have to be too verbose.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I also don't like removing valid data but I think there remains a question of what is relevant to the article about the mosque. I don't think that the article for every mosque that a particular religiously-motivated terrorist ever attended necessarily needs a mention of the terrorist. I think it's worth mentioning only when the mosque can be demonstrated (through reliable sources) to have contributed substantially to the terrorist's militant views or in some way directly facilitated the terrorist activities. Furthermore, I believe that the religious aspects of some of these events are less clear than have been portrayed. Regarding Epeefleche's comment above, the utterance of "Allahu Akbar" is consistent with religious terrorism, but does not prove it. Those in the Western world primarily understand that phrase to be associated with jihadist attacks but it is my understanding that it's a fairly common phrase in the Middle East and I think that Hasan uttering that phrase would also be consistent with the hypothesis that he (a pious Muslim) just snapped and was not conducting politically motivated terrorism. Furthermore, I think that it would be consistent with him expecting to die, regardless of his motivations for the attack. I don't think that most of the people adding these statements to this article are experts in Islamic culture. I would rather wait for a more direct and potentially causal relationship between the Fort Hood shootings and the mosque in question to develop from the investigation before adding Hasan to the mosque article. It seems a bit libelous (and unencyclopedic) to associate the mosque with terrorist events based on nebulous "connections." Ketone16 (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that some data is not even valid. For example, the book Prisoners: A Story of Friendship and Terror by Jeffrey Goldberg does not have references for its research. I'm not convinced that Goldberg was there at the mosque to claim original research. There are no references on p286-288 which deals with the Mosque. This leads me to believe the book is either largely plagiarized works of others, personal opinion, hearsay or a work of fiction. As a staff writer for The Atlantic and the New Yorker, he should know better. None of these types of references are acceptable as an Wikipedia reference.

In places, balancing details are left out. This is called cherry-picking. For example. "The Washington Post also reported that the mosque is closely affiliated with the Muslim American Society, which has been linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.[26]" Balancing sentences like "Although the Brotherhood favors establishing Islamic law in predomiantly Muslim countries, many of its members say they see no conflict between Islam and democracy." "Although the Brotherhood favors establishing Islamic law in predominantly Muslim countries, many of its members say they see no conflict between Islam and democracy." "Those who founded the society (MAS) felt that we should cut relations with the Brotherhood (Muslim Brotherhood) abroad and regard ourselves as Americans." "Some U.S. government officials say the Muslim Brotherhood has dangerous links to terrorism, while others argue that most of the movement is moderate and should be enlisted as an ally against Islamic radicalism." ... etc. These balancing statements must be summarized in order to not quote the article out of context.  kgrr ^talk 06:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that now, taken as a whole, the article is balanced (or, if anything, balanced away from what the mosque is notable for, as reflected in RSs). If anything, some of the sources for the beginning of the article seem to link to non-RSs, but I personally am not troubled by that (though others may be). I would like to take out the tag taht is now in the article. Also, I think that we might consider adding a sentence or two to the top lead, regarding why the mosque is notable, as reflected in RSs. I'm happy for someone to try to work out what that might be, and discuss it, on this page.

As to the discussion about the battle cry above, I find that as convincing as I would find the battle cry "Remember the Alamo" while shooting the Mexicans really just being about the Texians mentally snapping and ... being Texian ... shouting out that phrase. When one couples the battle cry with the shooting, it's a duck (if I may mix metaphors).--Epeefleche (talk) 07:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Disagree It's not balanced enough to remove the tag. I think the controversy section is just a jumble of NPOV statements right now. The items don't fall into a timeline. I think these statements need to be organized and in some cases presented with balancing points.

1. I'm quite convinced that Anwar al-Awlaki was a radical Imam. The evidence does point that there are several ties between him and the WTC plot. But we don't need to re-write a whole essay on each Imam. We'll leave the individual biography to do that and we can present a small summary here in this article. kgrr ^talk 10:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

   I think we're there. He is only mentioned in 3 sentences, and only one of those is only about him. And one of them is about the mosque distancing itself from him.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

   The point I'm trying to make is since this article is about the Islamic center and the mosque and not the imam, we don't want to duplicate material in two places. Each section about the imams should be a short introduction, but the main article should be a separate biography. kgrr ^talk 22:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

2. The phone number found in Ramzi bin al-Shibh’s apartment in Germany happened under al-Awlaki's tenure. It ties the mosque, someone at the mosque to the 9/11 plot, most likely al-Awlaki. kgrr ^talk 10:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

   Just a short sentence treatment here, which I think is fine.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

   Many people have the mosque's phone number in their homes and possession. This fact ties al-Shibh to the mosque. It could have been used to call the two hijackers or the imam at the time - al-Awlaki. So to prevent duplication of efforts, this fact needs to be in the al-Shibh article and not in this article. kgrr ^talk 22:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

3. The Ahmed Omar Abu Ali connection is nothing new. Abu Ali was recruited in Saudi Arabia. But did the mosque cause this? No. This needs to be discussed in Ahmed Omar Abu Ali's biography. kgrr ^talk 10:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

   Again, just one sentence on him here. Can you point me to where it says the mosque didn't cause it, but he turned in SA? The source I read said it was unclear between the two.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

4. The Imam prior to al-Awlaki was also quite a radical. But I don't think that Jeffrey Goldberg's book is a valid reference. From what I understand, the mosque looked for a younger, English speaking imam to replace him. They recruited al-Awlaki. kgrr ^talk 10:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

   First, I can see no reason why the Goldberg book is not an RS. Second, your "understandings" here--are they based on RS, conversations, independent research, something else?--Epeefleche (talk) 11:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

   It's my feeling that the Goldberg book is probably a reliable source for a statement of opinion but not for a statement of fact. The article presently identifies Goldberg as the originator of the opinion so it's probably fine. Does anyone dissent? Ketone16 (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

   Yes. Since the chapter on the Mosque is not original research and it's not referenced, it *has* to be treated as opinion. al-Awlaki is a live person. (and yes, he may be a radical) We can end up defaming his character by writing the article as if Goldberg's book was fact.  kgrr ^talk 22:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

   Umm, so just to be clear, you're agreeing with me and not dissenting. The cited statements from Goldberg's book represent his opinions and are identified as such in the Wikipedia article, so this part of the article is presently okay. Ketone16 (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

   Ketone, I agree with you. Goldberg's book cannot be treated as fact. It's insufficiently sourced. Thus, it only qualifies as opinion. And, yes, his opinions must be identified as such in the Wikipedia article.  kgrr ^talk 02:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

5. The overall feeling I get is that more recently the mosque has really been trying to distance itself from radical Islam. I find nothing wrong with the Islamic center being politically active. But we need to let the facts speak for themselves. kgrr ^talk 10:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

   Same question as to your "overall feeling". I don't think there is anything wrong with them being politically active either. I agree--let's let the facts speak for themselves. BTW, there is more on this--their imam as a self-appointed spokesman for yet another fellow convicted of terrorism. But I haven't (as yet) seen fit to bring that in. By the way, this article suggests to me that the newest imam hasn't been consistent at distancing himself from radicalism.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

   If you find reliable evidence to support this like the Washington Times article, it's worthwhile adding to the article. kgrr ^talk 02:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

6. I don't think the current mosque membership and Imam have anything to do with the Fort Hood controversy. Thus I don't understand the section. I do believe that former Imam al-Awlaki does have something to do with it. You really can't paint that on the mosque though. Am I making sense? This part of the controversy needs to be discussed in the al-Awlaki article, not here in this article about the mosque. kgrr ^talk 10:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

   Well, there is a new imam there. But otherwise, I'm not aware whether the membership (or, in fact, the other leadership) has changed. And the mosque is still the mosque. Anyway, we're just reflecting what's reported in the RSs. I don't know if you, as I have, have taken a look through all the articles and books that mention the mosque, but frankly its all in the context of this material that has been squeezed down and shunted to the very bottom of the article, below the "you can get a group tour at the mosque" information.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

7. What does the battle cry of Hasan have to do with the mosque? I'm afraid very little. The battle cry needs to be discussed in the article about Hasan, not this article. kgrr ^talk 10:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

   The battle cry obviously isn't in the article. Its only relevance is to the question "why is it relevant that H was Muslim, or that he went to this mosque, which a number of terrorists went to at the same time he attended?" But really, the answer is that RSs report it, and we reflect what the RSs report. Do you want to try your hand at the sentence or two I mentioned to augment the lead?--Epeefleche (talk) 11:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

   It's not up to us to try to guess whether the attacks were religiously motivated. We can't guess Hasan's state of mind. I think we should stay away from that issue until the investigation comes up with some definitive evidence that appears in reliable sources. Ketone16 (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll put my comments below each of yours above, since there are so many. I hope that's ok (I also had to change the formatting).--Epeefleche (talk) 11:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I intentionally separated the concerns so that we could discuss each one as a separate issue. (Divide and conquer)  kgrr ^talk 21:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• BTW--I don't know how to do this, and perhaps you do. Can you change the official name that appears at the top of the page so that the "A" in "Al" is capitalized? That's how it should be. If you can, then thanks much.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I moved the Dar al-Hijrah article and talk into Dar Al-Hijrah.  Done  kgrr ^talk 21:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have time to add detailed comments right now, but I just wanted to mention that I'm taking out the sentence that says the two 9/11 hijackers were regular attendees at the mosque. The only reference that is provided appears to be a self-published book by Harry Helms, who appears to be some kind of conspiracy buff. He cites no primary sources, and the statement appears to be inconsistent with the 9/11 Commission Report, which only gives evidence of one instance of the hijackers attending the mosque. I don't think this qualifies as a reliable source. I don't feel that this statement about the hijackers should be included; at least, it should not be presented as fact. Ketone16 (talk) 15:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable sources. I agree, Helms' book may be dubious. I don't see that he could have been there at the mosque while things were going down. So you know he's not a primary source. But a good secondary source will reference the sources for their information. If the book does not give reliable references, I'm sorry, it's fiction or opinion.  kgrr ^talk 02:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

In reponse to Epeefleche's comments on the "Allahu Akbar" phrase, with all due respect, I don't think you understand the cultural aspects here. For a pious Muslim, I believe that "Allahu Akbar" is a pretty common phrase and is not at all restricted to use in jihad. For example, if Hasan thought he was going to meet his maker (sort of a suicide-by-cop thing) regardless of whether the attacks were religiously motivated, I think that phrase would be appropriate. I would expect that phrase to be used for all types of momentous events, not just jihadist ones. I think you're conducting original research based on a lack of knowledge of the Islamic culture and that we need an expert in Islamic culture to weigh in. I contend that shouting that phrase does not prove a religious motivation for the attack; it only proves that the attacker is religious. Ketone16 (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what Epeefleche's wrote. Although Allahu Akbar is routinely sounded as part of the muslim prayers in mosques, outside mosques it's pretty rare to hear a person shouting it outside of Jihadic context.--Gilisa (talk) 07:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is an article that suggests otherwise: [11]. Ketone16 (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that source would not even stand the standards of WP:RS. In any case, it mark takbir play part in many religious activities. It does not suggests, or refute the notion that it's very very rare to hear someone shouting of it in the middle of the street without a Jihadic purpose.--Gilisa (talk) 09:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

What Gilisa said. Its all about context. How many shootings/bombings/hijackings/beheadings involved the perp shouting "Allahu Akhbar" without jihadist intent (as best we can determine intent). Yet we have many examples of the opposite--it was even written, with an explanation, into the 9/11 to-do list.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Epeefleche, you are engaging in original research to insinuate connections between the shooter and jihadism and between the shooter's actions and the mosque. I think the standard for inclusion in this article should be to have a reliable source that says the Fort Hood attacks were religiously motivated, otherwise your speculation about the meaning of Hasan's use of "allahu akbar" is just that. Furthermore, for the purposes of this article, the standard should probably be that a reliable source says that Hasan was motivated (at least in part) to conduct the attacks because of teachings at Dar Al-Hijrah. Otherwise, why do the attacks have any bearing on an article about the mosque? Ketone16 (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Gilisa, the article I provided cites several examples of Muslims using the phrase in a non-Jihadist context, including Muslims who were expecting to die. What proof do you have that is is "very rare to hear someone shouting it [sic] in the middle of the street without a Jihadic purpose"? If you want to play the reliable source game, I will be happy to assign your opinion zero weight. Ketone16 (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary section break

We're not associating the mosque with terrorist activity. We're just saying who went there. If the 9/11 Commission only knows the two hijackers attended once then we should say that. We should also have a link to the Commission's report.

Let's keep in mind that these names are just a small part of the article. I was going to suggest making it less verbose, but the entire section is still only two short paragraphs.

The mosque is now more notable for its interesting connections than for its religious activities. That's what's in the a Google news search right now.

Anwar al-Awlaki wasn't the only extremist. Whether they want to dissociate themselves or not, there are obvious links to the Muslim Brotherhood. They do believe the same sorts of things that Hasan is known to believe.

Let me put it this way: When the U.S. fights the Taliban, our troops fight alongside other Muslims who've been fighting the Taliban since long before 9/11. And back when the Taliban controlled the Afghan cities, they were executing Muslim women in soccer stadiums. And yet, for religious reasons, Hasan thinks it is wrong to fight the Taliban after 9/11. It is in that sense that it doesn't really matter what Hasan meant by "Allahu Akbar." His position on these things has a religious basis.

Kgrr's complaints about Jeffrey Goldberg are rather weak. Not every RS has references. If anyone wants to accuse Goldberg of plagiarism then write a letter to The Atlantic's editor. That'll make big news.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

A few comments. The 9/11 Commission report was less clear than I remembered it. It merely states that Hazmi and Hanjour made their way to the mosque sometime in early April 2001; one of the imams (not "the imam") of the mosque at the time was al-Awlaki (Aulaqi), who denied meeting them in Virginia; and Hazmi and Hanjour met a Jordanian there, apparently at the conclusion of services. That implied to me that they went there only once, but it's not clear. The timeline in the report also implies that they had moved on to New Jersey by around the end of May. It doesn't sound as if they were regular attendees of the mosque, and absent any more definitive contrary evidence I don't think we should imply that they were (one of the previous edits to the article used a weaker reference to imply that they were). If anyone wants to take a crack at crafting some wording that incorporates the information in the 9/11 Commission Report, feel free.

I understand that the comments make up only a small part of the article, but short loaded comments can carry a lot of weight.

Somewhere earlier in the talk page I already expressed my discontent with using Google News searches as a judge of notability. The mosque will show up in a Google News search even if it is mentioned in a trivial way in a single sentence. The mosque is getting thousands of hits in these searches because it's mentioned in a single sentence or so in larger articles about the Fort Hood shootings. The shootings are what's notable, not the mosque. Now, there are some articles arising out there that focus more exclusively on the mosque connection, but I don't know whether that makes the mosque "more notable" for its connections to these events. Furthermore, per Wikipedia policy notability is not temporary. I'm not sure that the mosque being mentioned a minor point in a bunch of articles that have been disseminated through the wire services necessarily overshadows its long history as a major Islamic religious center in the United States.

For the purposes of this article, it doesn't matter what Hasan's position on such things is. That belongs in an article about Hasan. For the purposes of this article, it matters whether the mosque had any influence on Hasan's actions. For that to be known or even inferred, we need to know why Hasan committed the attacks. If the mosque had no influence on the attacks, then I don't think the attacks should be mentioned here. Otherwise we'd be in the position of adding the attacks to articles about every institution that Hasan ever attended. If Hasan is only notable for his attacks, then he should only be mentioned here if the mosque was associated with them.

Yeah, yeah, there are second-order "links" to the Muslim Brotherhood through the mosque's connection to the Muslim American Society. My only point is that it's probably not appropriate to play the link game in an encyclopedia article. Just about anyone can be "linked" to anyone else. If someone has evidence of the mosque supporting militant policies of the Muslim Brotherhood then go ahead and present it; otherwise, don't play the link game.

Well, the issue is not entirely whether Goldberg has references; his characterization of the mosque's sermons as being "bracingly militant" is obviously his subjective opinion. If that material is going to be included then it needs to be identified as his opinion. Presently it is identified as such in the article.

Ketone16 (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Randy, you claim that "Not every RS has references." True. Some information is witnessed first hand such as a reporter attending a meeting or happens to be there. Newspaper articles may be gathered up from first hand witnesses by reporters and thus what is published in the newspaper is second hand information. The reporter has notes for his sources. Jeffrey Goldberg was not there first hand in 2001 and does not cite any references for the whole chapter. I'm sorry, the book is not very scholarly and at best can only be considered to by Jeffrey Goldberg's opinion.  kgrr ^talk 02:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Ketone16, I don't think we should suggest anything that's not true either, but, again, I only want to say that they were there -- just as I said about the 101st Airborne Division article mentioning prominent people. I think we can do that while making sure that the wrong impression isn't given. Would you be more comfortable if we had that part of it in list form, with names and a more brief description?

Regardless of whether or not the mosque had an influence on Hasan's actions, it did have an impact on Hasan himself. The mosque is described as "political" by M. A. Muqtedar Khan, and its sermons as "militant" by Goldberg.

Kgrr, The author's note says it's from his notes, as well as contemporaneous interviews with people in the book. It may not be fit for publication in The Lancet but it fits the standard we have here.

I don't see that you have much of a case anyway. Goldberg says pretty much the same thing that M. A. Muqtedar Khan said in an excerpt I cited above.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

What Randy said.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to summarize my concerns.

I feel that ever since the Fort Hood shootings, a number of the additions to the article, while being verifiable through reliable sources, constitute insinuation. Although it may be true that Nidal Hasan, Nawaf al-Hazmi, Hani Hanjour, and Anwar al-Awlaki all had been to the mosque, I feel that the statement that they were at the mosque at the same time is an insinuation of some kind of conspiracy, even if it is factually true. (Actually, has it been proved that they literally were in the building at the same time or were they merely there in the same timeframe in the spring of 2001?) Furthermore, the statement that the phone number of the mosque being found in the apartment of Ramzi Binalshibh is an insinuation that the mosque was somehow involved in his plots, which hasn't been proven. Perhaps he was just looking for a D.C.-area mosque for Al Qaeda operatives to attend to blend in with the local community and no one at the mosque ever knew that he was a terrorist. In that case the connection is so trivial that it would not warrant being included in an article about the mosque any more than the article about the Clairemont neighborhood of San Diego warrants mention that two of the September 11 hijackers stayed in an apartment complex there. The bottom line is that we must be particularly careful about insinuation because most of the new material deals with living people, and thus is subject to WP:BLP. Improper insinuation also harms the reputation of the mosque, of course.

I am undecided whether the material would be better presented in a list. On one hand, lists are probably less subject to insinuation. I am mindful, however, that Wikipedia is not a directory. The prevailing guidance for stand-alone lists is that the list entries are notable because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic. I'm not sure whether the same guidance holds for embedded lists (some additional guidance is here and here), but if so, that would restrict entries in any list. Actually, the same standards would apply to the prose presently in the article. Right now, I think the only individuals who are notable because of their association with the mosque are listed in the leadership section, such as the current and former imams who were known (or occasionally infamous) nationally or internationally. I suppose we could go back to the 101st Airborne Division example, where you would article that not all of the members were famous because of their association with the division. I could argue that two ways: maybe they shouldn't be included in that list either, or maybe they should but there still should be some threshold for inclusion. For example, I would argue against including someone who was only in the division for a few weeks before being transferred out, even if he is famous, simply because the connection was not notable and he barely could be called a "member" of the division. My point is that I don't think that just any random and trivial connection of a notable person to the mosque warrants mention in this article. When you add to that the fact that certain editors seem to be focused on establishing terrorist connections to this mosque, the set of people mentioned in this article (whether in prose or list form) begins to suffer from balance problems. As a result we've started to see sort of a proliferation of "good mosque member" and "bad mosque member" edits in a war over the balance of the article, which I feel is somewhat awkward. Perhaps a way to get around this is simply to include people who are notable because of their association with the mosque, good or bad.

Regarding Hasan, do you have a reliable source that says the mosque had a significant impact on Hasan? I haven't been following the news about him recently. At any rate, even if that is true, I think that fact is more germane to an article about Hasan than it is to this article. Only if the mosque had an influence on Hasan's actions at Fort Hood (the incident for which he is notable) would I think that Hasan is worth mentioning in the article about the mosque.

Just to jump in for a moment on the discussion about the Goldberg book — as I've said before, Goldberg seems to be a respected journalist and it's probably fair to include his opinion of the mosque in this article as long as it's identified as an opinion. I think the comparison of his opinion to Muqtedar Khan's opinion is inapt, however. Goldberg's opinion about the mosque is almost an offhand comment in a personal memoir about another topic; I don't get the sense that he's trying to make any kind of well-researched statement about the mosque. Khan is actually a scholar of Islam and is probably in a decent position to make an informed assessment of the mosque. Furthermore, there is a huge difference between being "political" and being "militant." I think that probably even Dar Al-Hijrah's leadership would agree with the statement that their mosque is "political." Many religious institutions within the United States have a political agenda, and this is for the most part welcomed within the American tradition. Militancy, however, implies the use of violence to achieve political goals, which is quite another thing altogether. So I think that it's unfair to characterize Khan's and Goldberg's opinions as reinforcing each other.

Ketone16 (talk) 03:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I think that if we reflect what the RSs say, and our balance reflects the balance in the RSs, we have followed WP guidances. You I gather dislike the result. You fear that people reading the WP article -- same as people reading all the RS articles that mention the church, no doubt -- will engage in synthesis. It's not our job to prevent them from doing so by distorting the balance that appears in the RSs. In fact, to do so controverts the guidances. Even now, this article is imbalanced in that the vast majority of RS coverage of the church relates to material now shunted to the bottom of the article, below the invitation to come tour the church. A first step in the right direction would be to flesh out the material that the RSs cover.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree strongly, as I have before, with your contention that the content of a Wikipedia article should simply reflect whatever is in the reliable sources that are out there. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and has its own policies, including ones about neutral points of view, which I have laid out above. Wikipedia is not a news aggregator. If it were, the role of human editors would be minimal. Ketone16 (talk) 04:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, your statement about "balance in the reliable sources" is misleading. Virtually all of the sources that have led to the recent edits were not articles about the mosque at all, they were articles about other people that (usually) incidentally mentioned the mosque. Only in the case that we start to see a proliferation of reliable sources that deal with the mosque in general weight the alleged terrorist connections as being the most prominent aspect of the mosque would your suggestion that we feature that aspect more prominently in this article be an accurate reflection of the "balance" in the reliable sources. Ketone16 (talk) 04:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia does have policies about presenting material in a way that influences readers toward a particular synthesis that represents a contentious point of view, particularly when the material involves living persons. Ketone16 (talk) 04:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• We have a significant divergence in understanding here. My understanding is that we are required to have articles fairly represent significant viewpointspublished by reliable sources in proportion to the prominence of each. Do you really disagree with that? If so, we have very different views of our roles as editors.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree with your understanding. It is my understanding that material should be weighted according to its importance to the topic of the article. In fact, this is just a common-sense definition of an encyclopedic article; I challenge anyone who disagrees to pick up an actual encyclopedia. You are misinterpreting the policy on reliable sources. That policy is intended to ensure that if contentious material is included in an article (which in turn must be important enough to the topic of the article to be included in the first place), the opposing viewpoints are represented in the article in proportion to their representation in the reliable sources. That proportional representation may be in terms of the amount of text devoted to each viewpoint, or in terms of the strength of the statements. It is absolutely absurd to claim that the content of an article should reflect the content of reliable sources related to the topic. Many of the sources may not have anything important to say at all about the topic of the article. Just because some fact is included in a reliable source does not mean that it should be included in a Wikipedia article, let alone included with lengthy exposition.

I appreciate all the hard work you've done on this article, particularly in terms of hunting down sources, but I think many of the edits made in the past couple of months have decreased the quality of the article. I am finding it hard to read, as it has large sections of material that are only tangentially related to the mosque. I believe that the article is starting to have serious insinuation and balance problems and is coming into conflict with WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:COATRACK, and other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It should probably be tagged as such. I have noticed that when I raise these issues, your responses don't usually seem to address the cited policies and guidelines, so I suggest that you read them if we are to have a serious discussion about the content of this article (I have included six wikilinks for you). They are good examples of overarching policies that may override the inclusion of factual, reliably-sourced information in an article, or provide constraints on how that material may be presented. I would also challenge you to think seriously about what your standard is, if any, for not including a piece of information in an article, or for providing overall balance to an article. Right now, due to improper balance (undue weight), the article reads as if the mosque is mainly defined in terms of its ties to Islamic militancy, which is a case that you and others have largely compiled through insinuation. Ketone16 (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

References

Picture

A picture of the mosque, and pictures of the mentioned imams, would IMHO make this a better article.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I included a picture of the mosque, although it's not great. I think the article may become a bit cluttered if we added a picture of every imam. Ketone16 (talk) 05:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Imams Section

I think that this section has grown too long. There is no need for an article about a mosque to have 60% of its text devoted to its imams (more if you include the section on the board of directors and executive committee), particularly when all of the cited imams have their own Wikipedia articles. The use of extensive quotations also bloats the article. I am going to try to reduce the size of this section to make it more concise and read more crisply. I will try to preserve most of the factual content for now, but I believe that some of the content should probably be reduced because it's not particularly important to the article about the mosque (it may be more important to the articles about the individual imams). I also find it odd that most of the content of this section has to do with militant Islam (another case of undue weight in the article), apparently including the choice of imams. Overall, I would support a return to the original "Leadership" section that combined information on the imams and on the board of directors and executive committee, and included information on the imams only as bullet points supported by a few sentences. Ketone16 (talk) 05:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The imam's are the leaders of the mosque. The building (though I thank you for the picture) does not make statements -- it is the mosque's leader's statements that are important. The article is by no means near the size that there is a need to truncate it. Not even close. Feel free to look for other statements by the imams that are of note (I've looked myself), and add them as well. As to the picture, you may wish to consider trimming it -- it far more needs trimming than the article. The picture would be far more flattering, for example, if you would crop out the slush, etc, in the foreground.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If you can find (I tried, but could not) a pic we could use of Johari Abdul-Malik, I think that would be helpful to the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—66.147.188.90 (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I've emended the coordinates. Thanks for pointing out that they were incorrect. Deor (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)