Talk:Islamic Association of Long Island

Close paraphrasing
I'm afraid that this article follows too closely on the language of its sources. The most obvious examples of copyright concerns that I see are in the first two sentences:


 * Example one
 * From the article:
 * Imam said the mosque would hire counselors to interview children and parents to check for other possible victims
 * From this source:
 * Imam said the mosque will hire counselors to interview children and parents to check for other possible victims.

Only one word has been changed here.


 * Example two
 * From the article:
 * On the other hand, a former FBI counter-terrorism official said "there could be a person in the mosque who has some radical thoughts and ideas who the imam knows nothing about," and that suspected extremists had in fact been identified at the mosque.
 * From the source:
 * On the other hand, a former FBI counter-terrorism official said suspected extremists had been identified at the mosque. "There could be a person in the mosque who has some radical thoughts and ideas who the imam knows nothing about," he said.

A quote has been moved into the middle of this sentence and the words "in fact" added, but otherwise the sentence is the same.

Other material also follows closely. Consider the following, from the article:
 * Ibrahim was charged with first-degree sexual abuse and third-degree aggravated sexual abuse following a one-month investigation.
 * From the source:
 * Cops charged Niamatullah Ibrahim, 53, with first-degree sexual abuse and third-degree aggravated sexual abuse following a one-month investigation.

While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation - including both structure and language - are. So that it will not constitute a derivative work, material that follows too closely on these sources should be rewritten. The essay Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism".

Alternatively, if the material can be verified to be public domain or permission is provided, we can use the original text with proper attribution. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Let me know if your concerns were addressed.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Coatrack
This article was created simply to add POV negative information. Ridernyc (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous. Your assertion as to the reason the article was created is a) false, b) not something you could know, and c) not an appropriate reason for the tags you added, which I will accordingly remove.  The article properly and in proportion reflects the information on the masjid that appears in RSs.  The fact that that information is negative to the extent that it is negative is not reason to apply those tags.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The article is a coatrack. The vast majority of the article ahs nothing to do with the oranization.  You have created the article to coatrack your POV issues.  You have a long history of doing this,  I recommend you leave the tags in place and let others remove them if they feel my points are not valid. Ridernyc (talk) 02:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. You have failed to provide a valid response. Ignoring your inappropriate and untrue ad hominem remarks, this article is not at all a coatrack. It fairly reflects coverage of the mosque, its leadership, members, and employees, as reflected in RSs, in proportion to such representation. You have completely failed to demonstrate otherwise. You have to make a valid point for the tags to remain, which you have certainly failed to do. Simply throwing around wiki-terms such as coatrack without there being anything supporting your claim is not enough -- otherwise, you could traipse around wikipedia making untrue assertions and tagging articles willy nilly with nothing more to support your view than you have evidenced here. Btw, please do not improperly tag my talkpage, as you just did. That is not appropriate, and is a second error by you in a very few minutes, which at minimum is uncivil. --Epeefleche (talk) 02:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The former attendee section has little or nothing to with the organization, in other words a large section of the article has nothing to do with the organization and is being used by you as a POV coatrack. Ridernyc (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. The former worshiper information is completely appropriate, and a large percentage of discussion of the mosque comes in RS articles relating to him, his regular attendance at the mosque, the possibility of radicalization at the mosque (and, I note, as to that different views are expressed, not just one, as would happen in a POV article).  That assertion is baseless, and not a valid reason for a tag.  If you can't supply a valid reason, it will be removed.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Coatracking has nothing to do with RS, it had to do with using an article to push POV and talk about something other then the articles subject. This article is about the organization not it's former member.  He has little to with the history of the organization.  You are giving undue weight to something that has nothing at all to do with the articles subject. Ridernyc (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Article is obviously a coatrack. The Islamic Association of Long Island is not the subject of any of the sources, and appears not to meet notability criteria. If nothing can be done to address this issue, the article should be listed at AfD. wjemather bigissue 19:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Found a source that confirms date founded and that it is the oldest chartered mosque on Long Island, which should be enough to establish the notability of the subject. Source may also be useful in creating a history section. Coatracking issues remain however. wjemather bigissue 11:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Wje -- are you wikihounding me again?--Epeefleche (talk) 09:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Response left at user's talk page. Requested that user addresses the problems with the article instead of trying to discredit other editors. wjemather bigissue 11:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Gents. The last time I got involved in a personal spat where Ridernyc and WJE had issues with Epee’s contributions to Wikipedia was over on Lloyd R. Woodson. We had one week of discussion and debate over whether the article was properly titled before I finally actually read and quoted the Wikipedia guideline governing the point (*sound of audience gasp*). I see that this thread has been inactive for over one month. Any time a tag is slapped on an article to invite community discussion, it doesn’t seem that there is really much interest in discussing anything if those responsible for putting the tag and raising the issue in the first place don’t even bother to discuss the issue for over a month. So… To Ridernyc (or WJE): There seems to be a guideline governing just about everything on Wikipedia. I suggest that if you have a concern, please A) cite not only the blue-linked guideline but, B) also quote the relevant text supporting your position and also, C) precisely lay out your logic explaining how the cited policy applies in this case —just like I did in my 17:38, March 26, 2010 (UTC) post on Talk:Lloyd R. Woodson. As I mentioned in that venue, it would save the rest of the community a great deal of time (and result in much less wikidrama) if those who slapped tags on articles over various concerns were quite a bit better versed in Wikipedia policy than the rest of us. Greg L (talk) 00:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Islamic Association of Long Island. 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:
 * Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:BaNY5_LkCeoJ:www.seldenmasjid.org/+%22Islamic+Association+of+Long+Island%22&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us with https://web.archive.org/web/20090805183014/http://www.seldenmasjid.org/ on https://www.seldenmasjid.org/
 * Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:BaNY5_LkCeoJ:www.seldenmasjid.org/+%22Islamic+Association+of+Long+Island%22&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us with https://web.archive.org/web/20161011053050/http://seldenmasjid.org/ on https://www.seldenmasjid.org/

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) 09:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Islamic Association of Long Island. 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/20090806082922/http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/FeaturedDocs/US_v_Vinas_guiltytranscript.pdf to http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/FeaturedDocs/US_v_Vinas_guiltytranscript.pdf
 * Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:BaNY5_LkCeoJ:www.seldenmasjid.org/+%22Islamic+Association+of+Long+Island%22&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us with https://web.archive.org/web/20170526154354/http://seldenmasjid.org/ on http://www.seldenmasjid.org/

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) 08:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)