Talk:Islamic Society of Baltimore

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Islamic Society of Baltimore 2007.jpg

Issues
I see there's a content dispute. One issue with this article is use of unreliable sources. Per WP:RSP, Washington Times may not be reliable, especially about living persons. Similarly, Fox News isn't a great source on politics (and controversies surrounding the mosque are definitely political).

Another issue is that some of the material appears to be WP:COATRACK-y. This article is about the mosque and its ok to mention those who have preached or visited the mosque, but going into their entire lives may be too much detail. If a person is notable, then make an article about them and put the details in that article. This article should remain about the mosque.VR talk 22:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, please discuss your concerns here.VR talk 22:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * the only concern I had was wholesale removal of content with no discussion on the talk page. Equine-man (talk) 07:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It is clear that the controversies began only because Obama visited the mosque, so should it be still mentioned? On the other hand, they are indeed controversies, but it appears tangential as the news outlets focuses on only a single individual. I think section must remain but it has to be edited to point out the two things i told. As of now those 2 are very undersold in this paragraph--LostCitrationHunter (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think its better to integrate "controversies" into the rest of the article. And yes, going off on a tangent is what leads us to WP:COATRACK issues. I encourage you to be WP:BOLD and just implement what you think is best; then someone might revert it and we'll follow the WP:BRD cycle until the article looks good.VR talk 13:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * did it! could you review my changes in the controversy section. I editted the controveries to address it more appropriately but i still think its a bit tangential. I think we need a bit pruning--LostCitrationHunter (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)