# Talk:Cologne Central Mosque

The main problem with this article is the title. For one, we do not have a name for the mosque. Second, this article mentions very little about a "controversy," so "controversy" may not belong in the title at all. The article should be titled the name of the proposed mosque.--SefringleTalk 04:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

there is a lot of controversy relating to this mosque and much information on it online.  (why change without first talking about it?)  I will be adding more on that soon Misheu 06:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If there is an architectual design proposal image, that should be added to this article.--SefringleTalk 08:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sefringle, after your comment, I spent the past hour rewriting the article, but now I see that you completely rewrote it yourself.  It will take me even more time to put in my changes without stepping over yours. Misheu 08:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, you were the one who decided to rename the article so there would be no mention of "controversy", so I didn't realize it was a neutral word.  The problem is that the "controversy" section is now POV - it lists only anti-mosque opinions.  That's why I called it "resistance", but if you can think of a better word, even better Misheu 08:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversy will naturally present the views of the opposition, and if there are notable views for the mosque, they can be added. Maybe controversy and criticism might be better.--SefringleTalk 08:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the height of the spires is important to the article, eurabia has no connection. bless sins - eurabia has to do with muslims, not arabs.  other edits i'm rephrasing.  'muslim penguins' has nothing to do with the topic. Pro Cologne has ties to (extremist) right wing parties in europe, but parties which are nonetheless in parliament. Misheu 05:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
"racist demagoguery" - I stand corrected.  I had made a mistake and not checked the source text.

Misheu, the source does talk of racist demagoguery. I didn't make that up. Secondly, the "human penguin" comment was made in relation to burqa. So long as the article talks about burqas, it shoudl also talk of the "human penguin" comment the writer made. Also, one of the sources suggest that neo-Nazi parties are invovled in the opposition to mosque as well.Bless sins 15:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I fixed the quote.  Neo-Nazis are involved, but I'm not sure it's correct to accuse Pro-Cologne, which is how it was phrased before. Misheu 16:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Last revert - Karl Meier, what was the problem with the article? Misheu 06:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is the neo-nazi reference. It implies that somehow the opposition to the mosque is somehow neo nazis or racist. It is basicly a POV issue.--SefringleTalk 07:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
But neo-nazis are involved in opposing the mosque.  I would add that paragraph back, and also add that many "normal" Germans are opposed to it. There was a survey somewhere that could be added.  Misheu 09:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I have seen no real evidence from any source that any Nazi's are actually involved in opposing the Mosque. What organization that identify itself as neo-Nazi has been actively opposing the mosque? -- Karl Meier 18:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
It depends if you call Vlaams Belang and the Freedom Party 'neo-nazis'.  I tried looking up any other mention but didn't find anything.  Misheu 12:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The telegraph article (the link to which seems to be disfunctional) states "...is part of a curious coalition of protest that has united Jewish intellectuals and neo-Nazis."Bless sins 15:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Here is the full text:Bless sins 15:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

However, others believe that the mosque in the city's Ehrenfeld district, just two miles from the Gothic spires of Cologne Cathedral, will foster, rather that heal, divisions. 
"It's not a popular plan," said Joerg Uckermann, the district's deputy mayor. "We don't want to build a Turkish ghetto in Ehrenfeld. I know about Londonistan and I don't want that here."
Mr Uckermann is part of a curious coalition of protest that has united Jewish intellectuals and neo-Nazis.(emphasis added) Leading the charge is Ralph Giordano, a prominent Jewish author, who wrote recently that Germany was witnessing a "clash of two completely different cultures" and questioned whether they could ever be reconciled.
Stating that he had received death threats for his opinions, he added: "What kind of a state are we in that I can face a fatwa in Germany?"


### Giordano
Giordano is NOT a Jew. Even according to the Nuremberg "Race" laws he would be (and was) considered a "half-Jew". He is not religious, never was, and considers himself an atheist. He has never referred to himself as being Jewish either. As the epithets "Jew" ior "Jewish" are inaviably used to either, depending on the user's own stance, discredit a person's point of view or give it more credibility, its usage is intellectually dishonest. Giordano being a Jew or not has NOTHING to do with his views regarding the Ehrenfeld mosque. I do nor intend to start a fruitless "war of deletion". However, I strongly suggest that Giordano is NOT introduced as "Jewish" here (or anywhere else, for that).
Tiritomba (talk) 10:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Giordano is as much a Jew as Henryk M. Broder, both are jewish as jewish can be. --89.204.137.190 (talk) 11:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


### Karl Meier's question
Hi KM, please ask your question here. Also please clearly state what objection you have against my edits.Bless sins 21:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Bless sins. My question has already been asked above, but I of course don't mind repeating it: What organization that describe itself as neo-Nazi has actively been opposing the construction of the Mosque? If you can't mention a name of any such neo-Nazi organisation, then I must remind you that we are not here to mindlessly parrot the opinions of a journalist from the Telegraph, especially not regarding very controversial issues, such as calling anyone "Nazis". We are required to write our articles according to NPOV. The Journalist and the Telegraph are not. -- Karl Meier 06:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi KM. Thank you for asking that question. But please note that WP:V says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Thus, wikipedia cares more about whether something is sourced, than whether it is the truth.Bless sins 01:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Could you please just answer my question? Which organization are we talking about? Also, be aware that if we are to include any such allegations, which could perhaps be seen as libelous by the organization and the individual members, then we need to include some very strong and very reliable sources to do that. A single remark by some journalist won't do it. Anyway. To make it clear who and what we are actually discussing, please mention to me, what is the name of the organization? -- Karl Meier 07:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Libeling is precisely the reason why I don't want to name the organization. But just satisfy your curiosity, I think the newspaper refers to Vlaams Belang.Bless sins 01:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
We are here to present reliable information, not sneaky accusations against unnamed organizations, based on one journalists single comment. -- Karl Meier 08:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. So you are saying that my sources are unreliable? I thought you were just curious about the name of the organization. The Daily Telegraph has a higher circulation than the The Times or The Independentor or The Guardian.Bless sins 12:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I am saying that if you can't even mention the name of the organization that you are referring to, then you haven't made enough research in order for us to include such potentially biased and libelous material. -- Karl Meier 18:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
KM, this is sourced to a reliable source, right? What's the problem now?Bless sins 21:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
If you want to include accusations that are both potentially libelous and POV, then you'll have to be specific about who you are accusing and use a better source than what we have now, which is just a single remark from one journalist. You yourself mentioned that you believe that the journalist is referring to Vlaams Belang, and to claim that they have anything to do with Nazism is of course both biased and libelous and plain ridicules. Also, Wikipedia is here to present reliable well-research facts and information. It is not a soapbox for insinuations and potentially libelous attacks against unnamed organization. -- Karl Meier 06:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, with your latest edits you are misrepresenting your source, and engage in original research here: "Many residents reject the mosque, because they beleive that Cologne is a "Christian city". Tom Hundley, however, draws attention to the fact that "Pasha", Europe's largest brothel, is also located in Cologne, but with little criticism or controversy." -- Karl Meier 06:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not making libelous attacks on anyone. The reason I named Vlaams Belang is solely to entertain your curiosity. The source of course doesn't say that.Bless sins 16:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Bless Sins, I must agree with Karl. If you have a reason for not naming the organisation the same reason would prevent us from using the epithet. Especially such a contentious one that is probably not descriptive of the organisation. Furthermore, the epithet appears only once in the article (and remember, this is the Telegraph, a paper that is not known for being very accurate on German affairs) and seems more like a hyperbolic accusation being thrown back and forth. We should report serious countercriticism, not name calling (Nazi, medieval), silly games (the "brothel" issue) or hardly intelligable stuff (what the Ditib spokesmen said). Str1977 (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Edits such as these ([1]) remove sourced content. Can someone explain this?Bless sins 03:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

you added attacks calling the opposition "racist dogma."  This is clearly libelous attacks against the opposition to the mosque, and it certianly isn't appropiate in an encyclopedia article.--SefringleTalk 04:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
It'd help if you quoted the entire passage. This is what I added:
According to Bekir Alboga, leader of interreligious dialogue of DITIB, the line between frank debate and racist demagoguery is not so clear. "This is like thinking from the Middle Ages,” he said, “and it is sending the racists to the barricades.
And this is true and accurate, reported by mainstream news sources. Note (in this case) I have attributed the claims to Bekir Alboga and not treated it as fact.Bless sins 04:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your poorly sourced libelous material. Also as mentioned above, please stop misrepresenting your sources. -- Karl Meier 10:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Why is the opinion of the inter-faith director of DITIB considered irrelevant? If its sourced to an RS, and notable, we don't worry about libel. Hornplease 13:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
It is further relevant because DITIB is building this mosque. DITIB certainly has the right to respond back to allegations leveled against it. Removing DITIB's point of view from an article about a DITIB project is simply ridiculous. Bless sins 00:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Name calling is not encyclopediac, whether it is said as a response or otherwise. Find a way to present their POV without using a synnomym for racism, and I'll have no objection to its conclusion. But labels of racism do not belong.--SefringleTalk 02:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't belong? Why not? We don't censor content, right? And this is clearly relevant, right? If it was a random op-ed, then, of course, we don't need to mention it. If it was a long ranting quote, then it shouldn't be there in full form. But a short quote from the interfaith director of the people building the mosque? Errr. Hornplease 15:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Unless you believe the quote is used out-of context? or is unrepresentative? Hornplease 16:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Sefringle, as you very well know, wikipedia is not censored. Then why are you removing sourced content?Bless sins 19:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Arrow740, you ask others to join talk, how about you did that yourself? Please present your objections here.Bless sins 18:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yahel Guhan can you explain this revert of yours?Bless sins 01:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem is a lot of the sources contradict each other. [2] does not say "DITIB tried to lower the height of the minarets as a compromise." It actually says "Plans to reduce the height of a planned mosque in the cathedral city of Cologne were dropped on Wednesday after objections by the architects." In addition, this source: [3] states: "DITIB has rejected suggestions that it lower the mosque's minarets, planned to rise 55 meters, or its dome. Alboğa said: "It's a fact that fear of Islam has risen by 20 percent in the last two to three years... The churches no longer enjoy credibility and are losing many members. Both of them have portrayed Islam as an enemy in order to gain some control over their flocks." As for your lower edits, they are just name calling; you seem to have tried to stick the words "racist" or "neo-nazi" as many times as possible after all objections to the mosque. First of all, that is just POV. Second, it is not accurate according to the sources. Yahel Guhan 03:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You are concerned about subtle differences. Nevertheless I'll take them into account. I'll replace the objectionably parts with : "DITIB planned to shorten the height of the minarets, a compromise welcomed by Cologne mayor Schramma" sourced to "Cologne Mayor Fritz Schramma had originally welcomed plans by Ditib to consider shortening the height of the minarets' as a "first and an important step." He said many city residents still had difficulty accepting the size of the mosque's domed roof in Cologne's Ehrenfeld inner-city area. Ditib said the mayor was happy with the latest compromise." As for the other, it is attributed and factually accurate. Do you dispute that?Bless sins 16:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
No. The reason is that is a factual inaccuracy. DITIB did not plan to shorten the height. they refused to shorten the height. That is what the sources say (as I already pointed out in my comment above). The other, I do dispute.  The first sentence, sourced to [4] is not verifiable. It doesn't say the protesters are "neo-nazis" The second part, which reads: "According to Bekir Alboga, leader of inter-religious dialogue of DITIB, the line between frank debate and racist demagoguery is not so clear. "This is like thinking from the Middle Ages,” he said, “and it is sending the racists to the barricades" is unverifiable, as the source [5] doesn't say that, as well as about half of your other POV additions. The "christian city" comment is also unverifiable, because the link doesn't work. Yahel Guhan 01:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Response:

"DITIB did not plan to shorten the height." According to the sources: "Fritz Schramma had originally welcomed plans by Ditib to consider shortening the height of the minarets"[6]
"It doesn't say the protesters are "neo-nazis"" According to the sources: "...a curious coalition of protest that has united Jewish intellectuals and neo-Nazis."[7]
"The second part... is unverifiable, as the source [8] doesn't say that" Actually the source does say that. It says "For Mr. Alboga, though, the line between frank debate and racist demagoguery is not so clear. “This is like thinking from the Middle Ages,” he said, “and it is sending the racists to the barricades.”"http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/05/world/europe/05cologne.html?pagewanted=2]
Bless sins 02:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

you are resorting back to your old habits of making up quotes which don't exist again. Nono of the sources actually say what you claim they do. Yahel Guhan 03:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a serious problem indeed. The fact that you can't read what is is blatantly obvious suggests maybe you should get your computer fixed. Before I contact an admin over this, do you honestly suggest that the quotes I've provided don't appear in the respective publications?Bless sins (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
My bad. In that case we have a new problem; contradictory sources. One source says DITIB avoided lowering the heights; the other said thy refused to lower the heights. As for the nazi quote, it is a bit WP:UNDUE to put words like racist ant nazi in the article so many times. The accusation has been mentioned once, and that is enough. Yahel Guhan 06:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a BIG relief (that you can see what is obvious and blantant). With regards to contradictory sources: the two sources have different dates. Thus, in June/July, DITIB refused to lower the height.[9] But in August, DITIB, as a compromise, changed its mind and asked the architects to lower the height.[10] There is no contradiction.
Regarding WP:UNDUE. No the words haven't been mentioned that many times (only twice in my version, and zero times in yours). Each time they are mentioned, they are properly sourced and attributed.Bless sins (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
sources are pretty clear and ditto as Bless sins responded above. there should clearly not be blame for "making up quotes" ~atif Talk 06:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll fix the date issue, so it covers both sources now. Yea, the words have been mentioned too many times in your version; practically every other view is saying the opposition is nazis; that is very POV. Yahel Guhan 02:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
No the word Nazi and racist are bieng only introduced in one paragraph.Bless sins (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem with the Alboga statement is that in the way it is presented in the NYT, it is not intelligible what he actually means

According to Bekir Alboga, leader of interreligious dialogue of DITIB, the line between frank debate and racist demagoguery is not so clear. "This is like thinking from the Middle Ages,” he said, “and it is sending the racists to the barricades.
What does "so clear" mean? That's not clear in the Times piece, it doesn't become clear in our article. The same goes for the actual quote: "This is like thinking ..." What is like thinking ...? What is sending the racists to the barricades? (That the Middle Ages have nothing to do with all this, is just an aside.) The problem is that the NYT piece is notoriously uninformed (as it wrongly calls the atheist Giordano a victim of "religious persecution"). I will look whether I can find the quote in context and in German and get back with what I find. Str1977 (talk) 09:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"So clear" means that it is easy for the mainstream to distinguish "racist demagoguery" from "frank debate". "What is sending the racists to the barricades? " The mosque project ofcourse. "The problem is that the NYT piece is notoriously uninformed" Again you attack th integrity of a reliable source.Bless sins 02:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
PS. It is also unclear what the passage is supposed to do: this section is about the controversy and it should include not only the opponents of the project. But why in this place? Why only this?
Also the reply to the "Christian city argument" (unreferenced, unsourced, unattributed) seem overly argumentative on the part of Wikipedia (endorsing Hundley's point). In other words: a straw man is built up only to be knocked by this clever argument. Finally, the link to Hundley#s article is also dead. Str1977 (talk) 09:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
(unreferenced, unsourced, unattributed) To me unreferenced and unsourced mean the same thing. I'm not sure why you think "unreferenced" is different from "unsourced". The argument is sourced/referenced to the Chicago tribune. It is also attributed to the Tom Hundley. The link is covered in the next section.Bless sins 02:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The link to the Chicago tribune story "Mosque project stirs concerns about the integration of Islam in Germany" appears to be defunct (as is often the case with newspaper websites). Part of the story can be found at this reliable source, and more can can be found at various not so reliable sources:[11], [12].
Bless sins (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be a snide remark by the author, not a serious fact worth reporting. Str1977 (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
It is infact a serious argument worth reporting. Please cite a wiki policy that allows to you judge this as a "snide" remark, and ultimately remove it.Bless sins 02:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
It is a snide remark as it appears only as a introductory remark. The remark also plays NO part in the actual discussion, therefore I removed it. Str1977 (talk) 08:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
There are many remarks in an article that appear only once. No author is obliged to repeatedly make the state the same facts in the article.Bless sins 15:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain why you are removing the reference of neo-Nazis?Bless sins 15:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, Yahel Guhan, what's the problem?
We discussed the exact same issues here, and I explained everything to you. Yet you are now going back to the same old reverting, despite the fact that the issues were settled.Bless sins (talk) 06:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, up there, where you tried to bias the article by adding the word "neo-nazi" everywhere you could. Yahel Guhan 06:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Respond to the question: why are you removing reliably sourced content, even though I have provided you with the quotes from the sources before?Bless sins (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
It is excessively bias, and probably misquoted. Yahel Guhan 06:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
But it is not! In the section here I have provided for you the quotes. You can't simply come after two months and forget the discussion we had and try to drag articles into edit-warring. This is not how wikipedia works. The content is relaibly sourced. If you don't like it, its another issue.Bless sins (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
What has been censored out? The only thing was the word "neo-nazi" was removed (which was clearly added for shock value). In fact the articles are relatively the same size. Yahel Guhan 06:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Yahel, you must understand that whether you censor some words out, or some sentences out, censorship is censorship.
Secondly, your revert removes quite a bit of content. Look more carefully, your version is shorter than mine.Bless sins (talk) 06:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand exactly what censorship is (you do it all the time). This is about NPOV and shock words, something you enthesize in your edits. Secondly, tell me exactly what content (not weasel words) I removed. Yahel Guhan 06:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you have trouble seeing the red content in your own edit Yahel? Look at this revert and you'll see what you removed. Did you not remove the reference to "neo-Nazis"? This has all alredy been discussed before. You're udnoing long-standing edits, that were a result of a previous dispute and subsequent comrpomises. You need consensus before you do such things.Bless sins (talk) 07:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I can read perfectly fine. The content is red, because the order of the sentences was changed, but no content was deleted. I want the neo-nazi reference removed, I think I made that as a clear necessity for the purpose of NPOVing this article. Yahel Guhan 08:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean for the purpose of censoring this article. How would it be if I removed references to "terrorism" on Al-Qaeda? Ofcourse that'd be censorship too. You have also deleted parts of Alboga's comments. If you indeed only refuse to accept "neo-Nazis" then simply remove that, not change the order.
Remember, you are undoing long-standing edits.Bless sins (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Neo-Nazis are a voter demographic within Europe and Germany. I don't believe Germany uses a two party system like the United States, so mentioning Neo-Nazis doesn't seem like a problem (assuming the source is reliable). Nazis don't fall under the Christian vote or the right wing vote, but they still have parties in Europe, so I don't see why this is wrong. In the 1920s, the KKK was a political party; wouldn't it be censorship to remove any mention of their political activities during that decade? The only way this could be "POVing" the article is if you believe in Ad hominem fallacies (e.g. Neo-Nazis are opposed, therefore anyone opposed is a Nazi). -Rosywounds (talk) 07:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cologne Mosque project/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
This article is tagged as a future building. I would wait till it is completed then renominate. Tom (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is a justified reason to fail it for GA status. GA status is based on the article's quality and not on the subject matter. The notability of the article's subject matter derives not from its completion, but its proposal.
Secondly, what if the mosque is never completed? It will still have been notable, and there still will be sufficient content for a GA article.Bless sins (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
There was discussion here Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)/1 about whether articles on buildings under construction presented a GA stability issue, particularly in late stages of construction. Construction on Cologne project hasn't even started yet.  You're always welcome to go and ask another editor their opinion e.g. one of the people in the discussion i've linked to.  The article's sources all need to have titles rather than just the hyperlink path and also publishers and accessdates.  Need to check external links can use [13].  Kind regards Tom B (talk) 10:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I have to say that I would concur with the editor above. The article cannot be expected to be stable until the mosque has actually been built. MSGJ 13:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
According to whose crystal ball? Note that the article is about the project and the controversy, as well as the proposed building. Geometry guy 14:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Yet it has been stable since March, which is a period of 8 months. Infact nothing notable has happened. Suppose this mosque was never built, i.e. it just disappeared from news stories. Would this mena this article could never become a good article?Bless sins (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Also the example of "Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)" was brought as an example of a building under construction. Yet this article is today a good article, is it not?Bless sins (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Secondly, there is no guarantee that this mosque topic will be stable once its built. What if it is attacked? Or maybe shut down? This isn't unusual considering other mosques in Europe ([14], [15]). Does this mean this article should never be a good article? I'd like to think not.Bless sins (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Bless sins is quite correct. There is nothing in principle preventing this article attaining GA status, and it should therefore be given a proper review. The stability criterion (It is Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute) is clearly satisfied. See WT:Good article nominations#Rejecting_an_article_on_its_subject_not_merit. Geometry guy 14:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
The real problem is the whole crap of this building!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.33.233.173 (talk) 09:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC) 

There appears to be no informaton on if prayer calls from the minaretts are going to be amplified and if yes, how loud. I think that plays a role in acceptance or rejection. How many metres or kms will they travel? Info is always more important than POV. 
On another level, I wonder if the mosque controversy has contributed to the cicrumcision decision. Can judges be so neutral to disregard such a big and long debate if not controversy? 144.136.192.18 (talk) 04:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Cologne Central 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/20070930211236/http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=115950 to http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=115950
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ksta.de/html/artikel/1209912089325.shtml
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928104945/http://www.ksta.de/ks/images/mdsLink/umfrage_moschee.pdf to http://www.ksta.de/ks/images/mdsLink/umfrage_moschee.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080929101150/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gbiH7ZVJQrR07iXn160OBd63xnNQ to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gbiH7ZVJQrR07iXn160OBd63xnNQ
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 05:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

It is absolute nonsense to qualify this mosque as "neo-Ottoman" in style. Nothing, absolutely nothing about it is neo-Ottoman. It is a modernist building that one may or may not like, but to qualify it as neo-Ottoman is absurd. The Çamlıca Mosque is neo-Ottoman, for example. The Şakirin mosque in Istanbul and Dalokay’s mosque in Islamabad are modernist, as is this one. 71.233.135.2 (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)