Talk:Cologne Central Mosque

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Problems with this article

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

message: 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)
thread_title: rewriting

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: controversy

message: 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)
replies: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: KM, this is sourced to a reliable source, right? What's the problem now?Bless sins 21:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: editing

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Giordano

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: KM, this is sourced to a reliable source, right? What's the problem now?Bless sins 21:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Karl Meier's question

message: 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:, .
Bless sins (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be a snide remark by the author, not a serious fact worth reporting. Str1977 (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Chicago tribune

message: 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)
thread_title:  Prayer calls, amplified or not? 

message: 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  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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Neo-Ottoman