Talk:Islam in the United States/Archive 2

Zora's copyedits
I made another copyediting pass over the article. Either I missed some of the verbiage earlier, or someone, in the flurry of edits that succeeded mine, restored some of the verbiage. A few observations: watch out for capitalization. Capitalizing most of the words in a phrase is against Wikipedia style, and it looks pompous. Watch out for circumlocution. If there's a shorter and plainer way to say something, use it. Being short and brief is hard; I don't always achieve it myself. It's a lot easier to see someone else's circumlocution than it is to see one's own . As is true of so many negative things ...

I don't think I altered any of the meanings or assertions in the article. All my edits were made with an eye to a more readable article. Zora 05:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

top image
Does anybody have a better image that that horrible cut and paste job that we currently have? Please replace if so. Sdedeo 20:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

POV sections
They are racist and xenophobic sections which I consider vandalism and which I will keep removing. Your inclusion of right-wing hate sites as sources and your POV titles are also inappropriate. Yuber(talk) 06:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Your opinions are irrelevant and of no consequence to Wikipedia. The inserts are sourced and credible.And by the way, there is a lot more material on this topic that ought to be included--CltFn 07:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The inserts are from right-wing hate sites that have no relevance to this article. Yuber(talk) 07:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Muslim disafection and disloyalty towards the United States
A number of counter terrorist analysts such as Daniel Pipes, Steven Emerson and Robert Spencer have reported that a segment of the US muslim population exhibit symptoms of disaffection and disloyality towards the US as is demonstrated in numerous Muslim related events captured on video .Video of Muslims in the US pledging disloyalty and desecrating of the US Flag. --CltFn 06:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Muslim bigotry
I think there's something to be said about mixed loyalties on the part of some US Muslims, as well as the anti-Muslim passions displayed by some USians in the wake of 9/11. The screed that our new editor is trying to insert puffs up the former, and tries to paint the latter as a rational response to danger. It is simply not encyclopedic. It is trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox -- for some ugly passions at that.

I'll try to write a more balanced presentation. Like, in a day or two. Christmas looms. Zora 08:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The new section seems verifiable and cited. It should stay.--72.144.221.223 14:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Revert war concerning muslim slave entry
Users 70.156.143.25 and 24.7.210.91 have been at this revert war for a little while now. Can you two please discuss the matter here instead of constantly reverting back and forth? My two cents: The information in question might be better put, if accurate (considering it is a tertiary reference), by saying what it says in the article "7 to 30 percent." But until we can find a source better than "some historians say," I'd say we should leave it out of the article. JHMM13 (T | C)  03:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Has nothing to do with slave entry. 24.7.210.91 is vandal  who is currently blocked under that ID.--70.156.143.25 04:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This little revert experiment proved how far Yuber is willing to go to go to cheat in Wikipedia. It also proved that Yuber will change IP addresses to disguise his identity. It also provides an interesting look at the true mentality of this type of editor.--70.156.143.25 04:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * and u are some random person who just found this article?


 * No, just someone testing the depths of irrationality that editors such as yourself will fall to. You are a prime example of a culture that believes that the end justifies the means and that you will resort to anything if you think you can get away with it.I deduced that you would behave this way but had to test it to see if it was really true. It was-- 04:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)70.156.143.25 04:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC) merry christmas to you too clitfan 201.6.252.42 04:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Says the person who asked to be blocked for the 3RR specifically so he could win a revert war, lol--172.142.133.250 04:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Were I an administrator, rather than an oddly insightful anon, I might warn you that such deception is worthy of a much longer ban, if I were an administrator that is--172.142.133.250 04:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I changed it to "Islamic historians estimate that between 7 to 30 percent of the slaves brought to the U.S. may have been Muslim" as suggested above. -- Megamix? 04:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help, JHMM13 (T | C) [[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|25px| ]] [[Image:Flag of Germany.svg|25px|  ]] 05:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Semi-protection
The page is now semi-protected to stop this edit war. The page will be fully protected if registered users pick up where the IP editors left off. --bainer (talk) 04:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Compromise
I'll agree to leave in the section about the speech about Wahhabism if you stop removing the source regarding the percentages of slaves that were muslim and if you stop adding back the bigoted section about "Muslim disloyalty". Yuber(talk) 15:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It has nothing to do with a compromise . Either the information is true and sourced with credible information or it is not. A student blog is not a credible source for the citation on 30 % of the slaves were muslim. There is no historical evidence of this assertion. The section on disloyalty is sourced, even with a video which shows it .--65.10.133.167 15:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * One can source alot of right-wing racist hatred. That doesn't make it fit for an encyclopedia. Yuber(talk) 15:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The only hatred I see is the one from the Muslim group in the video --CltFn 15:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Your sources are filled with hatred. Right-wing hate site  is founded by former Mossad officers and Israeli army colonels.  Are you trying to say that these people are totally neutral when it comes to the topic, or would they perhaps have some other motives in painting American Muslims as traitorous and trying to turn the American public against them? Yuber(talk) 15:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually the ideological inclination of the site is irrelevant, the video is the item that is being referred to. The video could be hosted in a number of sites of a variety of ideological inclinations. Wikipedia is only presenting facts , the readers can form whatever conclusions they wish . These statements are fully sourced and verifiable and belong in the article. How long are you planning on censoring wikipedia of information that does not meet your CAIR talking points?--72.144.246.175 16:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The whole section reeks of racism and hatred and is full of original research, starting with its title. Please go to Islamist terrorism to vent your anger. Yuber(talk)
 * Is this original research ? Video of Muslims in the US pledging disloyalty and desecrating of the US Flag?? The only hatred is visible in the video itself, it is not about racism, its about a fact about some Islamic groups in the United States.
 * What is so special about that video? Should we also place links to a video of the two towers being knocked down? Yuber(talk) 17:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? I usually don't take sides in an argument on Wikipedia, but you're kidding, right? Your logic is non-existent. JHMM13 (T | C) [[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|25px| ]] [[Image:Flag of Germany.svg|25px|  ]] 18:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Recommendation
Could both sides look into finding better sources? The effort spent reverting / arguing could be much better spent. gren グレン 06:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Nathan W. Murphy is apparently an "accredited genealogist" by International Commission for the Accreditation of Professional Genealogist. The site is certified by the BBB which says it shouldn't be outright fraud... however, it doesn't make them not hacks.  One would think that if the 30% figure was true then it would be in some scholarly publication and that would be much better to source.  The site feels dubious to me... but I really don't know.


 * "Muslim disafection and disloyalty towards the United States" -- firstly... what is disloyalty and why can it be called that? It also goes into the greater issue of is there a certain defined way to act if you are loyal.  There is far too much debate on this issue in itself for it to have any real meaning.  I am for removing that word.  Disaffection makes sense.  It's a protest and I'd say many Muslims are disaffected. However, disaffection does not include the violent or revolutionary undertones of disloyalty.  Some better word used in the scholarly discussion of this is necessary.  Also some breadth of sources... I think Good Muslim, Bad Muslim might provide an decent counter balance to the likes of Spencer and Pipes.  These people cannot be represented as neutral just like Micheal Moore isn't neutral.


 * The video serves no purpose... if anywhere it belongs in external links. It adds nothing to the article because nothing shows that this isolated event is notable.  Look at how EB includes video and other media content.  If it's not a specifically notable incident (beating of Rodney King-like) then there's no reason to give it special treatment in text.  We are citing sources that are supposed to be looking at the population of Islam as a whole.  If we individual events as representative that is no good.  This is another problem with the sections debated.  Nothing has been said about if the monitoring of Muslims is because of specific threats or because the government find Muslims to be suspicious in themselves.  Normative judgments must be very well sourced and the ambiguity must be made known.  No one really knows for sure what the truth is here.  We should present the various arguments and state that there is ambiguity on the issue. gren グレン 06:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * We are simply stating that there is a segment of the Muslim population in the US that is exhibiting disafection and disloyalty with the country. We have provided sources to back up this claim. The video is an additional piece of evidence that demonstrates the claim visually.
 * As far as the slaves being muslim, that is definitely a bunch of nonsense , for the simple reason that those slaves were captured and were sold into slavery by Islamic slave traders and they did not sell Muslims into slavery , especially not to the infidels. That is another topic called Islam and Slavery which goes into that but which as you well know it is one that has been heavily suppressed by the Mutaweens that roam wikipedia. Furthermore, had they been muslims , they would have at least left some evidence of their faith in the historical period of Slavery in America . There is no historical record that mentions anything about any trace of Islamic practice with the slaves.--CltFn 16:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You may very well be right in your conclusion but saying they couldn't have been Muslim because it was Islamic slavers is faulty in two ways. Firstly... Islamic slavers can sell Muslims.  Look at the sectarian divides now... legalistic Muslims don't respect folk Islam and there are enough Islamic / indigenous melds that they might not have viewed nominal Muslims as Muslims.  Nothing says this couldn't have happened.  Also, there were Christian traders and indigenous traders... the countries of West Africa and west-central Africa are by no means solely Muslim.  I really don't know what's true and I do agree they are going to need to show some better sources.  Also, if some genealogists do make this claim I'm sure some have tried to counter it.  Legitimate sources above all.
 * You must give a balanced to the section. A segment is too ambiguous and rings of trying to make Muslims look bad.  A segment could be a million for 4,000.  Big difference.  We can't also have a section only representing pundits who aren't very friendly towards Islam in any way.  We aren't going to represent Jamal Badawi as the truth... so let's not pretend that those three are the authorities on this issue. Balance... neutrality... What is disloyalty... that's not answered... it's too loaded of a word and in many ways meaningless.  America is not a unified entity to be loyal to.  With the war some say it's disloyal to not support the war... and to the other side it's the utmost loyalty to disagree with it.  So, we can represent their view... but it is... their view. gren グレン 19:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Gren, the story of America's slavery began with Islam as the source. Islam ---> Islamic slavery of captured enemies and infidels ---> Islamic slave traders sell infidel slaves to infidels slave traders --->> Slaves brought to the Americas.>>


 * It is absolutely asinine to buy into the arguments of some modern day Muslim polemists that some of these slaves were Muslim. They were not and could not have been as it is unislamic to sell muslim slaves to infidels. It just cannot be done and would be met with severe penalties for anyone muslim doing so.


 * Secondly lets not get caught on the linguistics of the meaning of the word "segment" . Segment means a portion, a sub-set. Lets not complicate this by trying to match numbers to that. CltFn


 * American Muslim Declares Fatwa against United States section by Walid Phares


 * I am not buying into anything. That site is not well sourced and what you are telling me is all hearsay.  Where are your soruces about the slavery? I don't know this subject well and I don't exactly trust your neutrality on the issue.  Segment is very important.  If this is about a small number of Muslims then to be ambiguous about the size of the problem is... well, problematic.  Most likely people on different sides of the issues view this differently.  ^_^ Merry Christmas in any case. gren グレン 20:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * As far as sources you could start here Race and Slavery in the Middle East. Merry Christmas to you and a happy new year.--CltFn 04:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Anonymous editor: meatpuppet of Yuber

 * Mistress Selina Kyle: "rv Yuber/Anon editor who it seems was earlier on reverting this article with an anonymous IP while a banned user (see edit history)"
 * Anonymous editor: "rv edits by sockpuppet"
 * Mistress Selina Kyle: "Reverted personal attack by Anonymous Islamonazi, meatpuppet of User:Yuber"
 * Anonymous editor: "rv, no one has attacked you in the article so why use that as an excuse to revert."

Puhleeease. Take your bullshit elsewhere. If you're going to try to insult me at least don't try deny it afterwards. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  16:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I warned anonymous editor... I'm not exactly sure that meat puppet and Anonymous Islamonazi are really less personal or less attacking. So why don't you all stop. gren グレン 18:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Unprotection
I hope the protection period proved productive. I am prepared to unprotect now. Any objections? El_C 02:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I ojbect. I see no signs that the main users in this have agreed on anything. gren グレン 11:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * OK to unprotect, it is clear that a certain group of editors wish to censor this page, but time has come to resume editing of this page.--CltFn 17:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If you unprotect CltFn will just keep on reverting, so please don't. Yuber(talk) 17:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Object. Agree with Gren and Yuber. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 17:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your comments and for your patience. I am going to leave this page protected for a while longer as per gren. I do, however, wish to see the respective participants in this dispute work toward and arrive at a tentative formula in the near future. Thanks again. El_C 01:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

One of the issues of contention is the following section
Ok then to get the discussion rolling here is one of the issues: The section below is sourced and accurate, even has a link to a video for those who would not believe the assertions in the source. I see no reason why this section is being blocked by a certain ideological group of editors.--CltFn 02:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Muslim disaffection and disloyalty towards the United States
A number of counter terrorist analysts such as Daniel Pipes, Steven Emerson and Robert Spencer have reported that a segment of the US muslim population exhibit symptoms of disaffection and disloyality towards the US as is demonstrated in numerous Muslim related events captured on video .Video of Muslims in the US pledging disloyalty and desecrating of the US Flag.

In June 2003 analysts have reported to the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary a growing radical Islamic Wahhabi influence in US Mosques financed by Islamic extremists groups.

The US government has began to take precautionary measures by monitoring the US Muslim population for their possible participation in terrorism.,.

Gren's proposal
Since there was no discussion may I make a proposal at a compromise? Remove all of the stuff about African slaves being Muslim. The source isn't the most spectacular and I'm sure if it's true it can be found in some scholarly publication at some point. Remove the video. Maybe to external links or a footnote but it definitely doesn't belong in the text. Nothing shows that the video is representative... an article is meant to analyze trends from scholarly source not give anecdotal evidence. Try to give a balance towards the section about Robert Spencer, etc. It is a notable view but they are known for opinions highly critical of most things Islamic. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be represented since they do have an audience... but it shouldn't be taken as the only view on the issue. That means that probably users like AE, Yuber, etc. are going to have to find sources unless CltFn and Mistress want to represent the other view. Scholarly sources... we don't need some random website. Disloyalty should probably be in a quote from one of the authors since it needs specific connotation since disloyalty is different things to different people. That's a much more complex subject than disaffection. Can we agree on at least some of these things? The video and the Muslim immigrant population seem like things that obviously need to go. gren グレン 03:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that the ref to African slaves can go. It's not sourced and I'm not sure that I believe it. As for the part to be added: it's extremely POV to describe Pipes, Emerson, and, um, that other guy as "counter-terrorism" experts, or whatever wording was used. They're bloggers and journos and writers. Describing them as "experts" is POV. It would be accurate to say that "some immigrant and second-generation Muslims have identified with the so-called "global struggle" of Islam, against the U.S. government" and list cases -- preferable link to articles on Wikipedia. Then perhaps link to some opinion surveys (wasn't there one that showed a majority of US Muslims disapproving of US govt policies in the Middle East?), then articles describing mainstream Muslim behavior, and perhaps a link to a current article by Muqtedar Khan in which he describes realizing just how good American Muslims have it, and how happy he is to be an American. Give all sides and allow that there is debate and uncertainty. The para as written hints that all US Muslims might be traitors, which is neither fair nor verifiable. Zora 03:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Gren and Zora, your points are as usual well taken, but here are my views:


 * First of all the section mentions a SEGMENT of the muslim population, it does not say all. Wanted to make that clear for those who did not notice that.


 * The video should stay perhaps we can be more specific about it, stating that it is a video of the Muslim thinkers group of New York City voicing their particular views . The text already states that we are describing a segment of the Muslim population and thus we are not making any statements as this being representative to the whole population. Why should we be able to state that the Muslim thinkers stated such and such and not show it in multimedia?


 * As far as the word disaffection in the section title it simply means the loss of affection or loyalty so I don't understand why you seem to imply that disaffection is a stronger word than disloyalty as these two word are related in meaning and of similar strength. But since they mean similar things, we only really need to use one of he words , probably disloyalty as this is what various sources mention.
 * the label you want to give Pipes, Spencer or Emerson is a moot point. Editors have been arguing about this forever, we could settle it by stating their names without labels. --CltFn 04:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Disloyal implies a lack of faith to a certain American essence. What is that essence?  That's a huge debate and why if the word disloyal is used it must be a quote from one of those writers.  Disaffection is from the point of view of the Muslim... they don't like something about the U.S.  That can be taken by opinion poll... but disloyal means that Muslims do or believe something that is against what America stands for and if we as an encyclopedia think we can define what America stands for then something is wrong.  There is a huge difference between the terms.  I completely agree with Zora and opinion polls.  They would be great if we could find some reliable ones.
 * Is the group from that video a widely known Muslim group? If it was the NOI marching against America or whatnot that would be notable... but it's not.  That video is for entertainment purposes only.  It does not illustrate a greater movement in America.  There is nothing to lead us to believe it is representative on a large enough scale to be useful.  That is the issue.  "I go to school with a Muslim.  He is a great guy who loves America."  I could probably get a video of our MSA saying America is a great country and they are happy not living in Pakistan.  It's only anecdotal.  Now, linking everything together with... "every MSA has only good Muslims who love America" (Good Source #1). has meaning because it shows trends in the American Muslim population.  That video has no meaning whatsoever in the text.
 * Segment is just too vague and misleading. A segment of the American population is setting in a chair in my basement.  A segment of the American population is Christian.  One is like 0.0000001% and the other is 80+%.  Both are segments.  What is the segment we're talking about? gren グレン 09:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * How about then saying something like this,


 * The public displays of fringe Muslim groups like the Islamic Thinkers Society{video reference} in New York City have served to project negative images of disaffection of the wider Muslim community in the eyes of witnesses.--CltFn 14:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Islamic Thinkers Society... nothing on that page shows they are notable and by all rights it seems to be CSD material... hmm. Can we get the size of the group?  I don't mind if you do footnote three style and cite it as anecdotal evidence.  However, if we try introducing it as normative evidence well, it just isn't.  If you are going to cite what you just said you'd need to link to at least a news source of some not mentioning ITS. gren グレン 15:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

An anon feels the article is too modern
Please add the following links to the Islam mainpage:

www.sunnipath.com [] www.livingislam.org  []  www.masud.co.uk  []  www.sunnah.org  []  www.islamic-awareness.org (unsigned)


 * Anon, this page is for Islam in the US. Take your complaints to Islam. But you're not going to get any satisfaction there, as we are linking only to directories. Those sites are in the directories. Zora 09:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Unprotecting
Hopefully it'll be quieter this time. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

More of the same
It seems we are still in a revert-o-rama. I have talked about this and asked for compromise but it appears there has been none between you despite what I think are rather good points. CltFn I was slightly annoyed that you said "agreed upon" about the removal of the African slaves. If that was agreed upon then so was removing of some of the more critical stuff. So, let's not portray this as Yuber breaking consensus when the fact is that no one here is really trying to get consensus. I will now personally attack you with motivation to figure this out. Or at least wish a pox on your ISPs if you don't. gren グレン ? 06:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I was refering to Zora's statement above, which I took to be a point of consensus . I did tone down some of the critical stuff, did I not? As for the rest of your comment regarding wishing a pox on the ISPs, I am afraid I do not know what that means though that sounds like a nasty reference to biological warfare.--CltFn 03:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Culture Clash
I've tried to adopt the earlier proposal about the culture clash section. Like it or not, the views of Pipes, Spencer et al are part of the Muslim experience in the US today. Just look at the Boston Mosque controversy, led in part by Emerson. So it is important that it remain there. I have tried to add both the positives (sourcing a WSJ Opinion Journal article and Pew Trust report), as well as dissenting views to Pipes et all, such as those of Karen Armstrong. I didn't have time to find other dissenting scholarly views, but if someone does, it might be worthwhile to strengthen that part.

I removed the Islamic Thinkers point - we need to have a verifiable source for the point, not just a link to an inflamatory video. I have no objection putting it back if we can insert the source. --Yalto 05:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The video itself is only evidence of the event, not of the impact of the video on general public opinion in the US. I don't know, but I would hazard a guess that 90%+ of people have never heard of the group or event, and that many of those that saw it (the witnesses) just thought it was a bunch of kooks - as supported by the number of people who just walked by them in the video without stopping to comment or even take notice. If there is an article or something that discusses the impact on general public opinion in the US, it becomes applicable to the article, I think. Otherwise, it is largely irrelevant. Clearly, though, it is very relevant to the Islamic Thinkers article, and possible even on the articles of people who have exlicitly discussed the article. But without a source talking about the general impact on US public opinion, I don't think it fits here. --Yalto 20:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, folks, let's try to be reasonable about this. There is NO reason to change factual reporting of a survey about Muslim Americans, and spin it to emphasize the negative. If we need a guide, report it in the way that it is reported in the survey. That is, in the order of Favorable, Unfavorable, No Opinion. And include all three.

Removing the quote from the WSJ is uncalled for - it is a legitimate quote from an opinion article in a highly respected (conservative) newspaper.

I have no issue with the Cornell study also being mentioned, btw - there was just too much undoing that needed to happen, so I reverted it all together. Please re-add if you think it belongs. I think if it is re-added, it would be interesting to also point out the partisan divide between them - i.e., Republican vs. Democrat. That really would lead to pretty good understanding.

I don't agree with the renaming of the section either. Culture Clash is all about whether Americans think there is one, and what exactly they think of it. And the opinion surveys are one way of telling that. Certainly more valid than the opinions of a handful of folks like Schwartz, whose opinion, by the way, I think is very valid. I want to see it stay, but this is just going to start a revert war that is uncalled for. I think the Culture Clash section was actually pretty balanced - it showed the positive viewpoints (I have no objection to spelling out the 39% number, just leading with it is wrong), as well as the counter views. trying to eliminate the positive is wrong, as would be removing the negative (which you will notice I left in).

I removed the Islamic Thinkers piece not because I think it doesn't belong, but because we need a source so that it is not just the opinion of CtrlFN. If we can find a source, let's add it back in. I think it is important to show the positives and the negatives, to really help people who are trying to understand the issue.

Please, let's be reasonable here. --Yalto 07:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The information is documented, you may not like the implications but it is far more accurate than the version that was there before . If you want to challenge specific points with sources you are more than welcome to do so. --CltFn 13:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

New edits
Please do not blindly revert, information that is sourced and verifiable. Just because we do not like the implication of facts does not grant one the right to erase them. If you want to discuss them, then go ahead , lets discuss it. --CltFn 14:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * CltFn, you've been reverted by over 5 people since you started editing. Please stop because we have already compromised enough by removing the sentence about slaves and by letting the "counter-terrorism analysts" opinion be shown.Yuber(talk) 14:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have inserted sourced and verifiable information, these are legitimate contributions. Wikipedia is not about compromising or negotiating , or making deals about what will go on a page. Its about providing factual and verifiable information to the reader, its about abiding by Wikipedia editorial policy. What you seem to be doing repeatedly is simply going around and erasing information that you would wish did not exist. What are the specific sentences that you would challenge as non factual or unveriable?--CltFn 14:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I am a little lost about what we're talking about, so let me make two points and hope they are relevant:

1 - I completely agree that the Cornell study is worth including. It is valuable insight into the way that Americans think, it is a factual, verifiable (and respected) source. I would provide the full context - i.e., more details about the conclusions of the study - but I don't think it should be summarily removed.

2 - The Islamic Thinkers video is the part I objected to. There is no doubt that the video itself is sourced. The problem is the assertion that it has had a significant impact on the impression of Islam within the US. I don't think that the vast majority of people have heard of it, and the group is a very marginal fringe. Unless there is a well documented source talking about how this video itself impacted public opinion (and not just people like Pipes and Spencer, whose point is made in the article), it should not be included. If there is a well documented source (e.g., if the Cornell study showed that 30% of people have seen that video and think oh gosh, I dislike Muslims more now) then by all means it should be included. As it stands, there is nothing to back up the assertion of IMPACT (not disputing the video itself exists).

My $0.02. --Yalto 21:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

To clarify point 2, the section reads as follows: "The public displays of fringe Muslim groups like the Islamic Thinkers Society in New York City have served to project negative images of disaffection of the wider Muslim community in the eyes of witnesses Video ". The video is sourced. There is no source at all for the assertion that it has "served to project negative images... in the eyes of witnesses of the video". I saw the video, hence am a witness, and think yes, there are some crazy Muslims on there, but I bet they are a fringe and not reflective of the majority. --Yalto 21:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Contested section
Apparantly some editors contest the section below, yet it is totally supported by evidence. Presenting statistical information of a single year only is misleading, you have to see the information in the context that offers the possibility of comparison. For example if you say that 45% of Americans like Microsoft without any other comparison it is misleading. If you say that 45% of Americans like Microsoft while in the prior year 90 % of Americans liked Microsoft, then a whole different conclusion emerges. In any case I have presented verifiable information so it should be included in the article unless of course the agenda is to mislead the readers of Wikipedia.--CltFn 20:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Opinion Surveys A nationwide survey conducted in 2003 by the Pew Research Center and the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life reported that the percentage of Americans with an unfavorable view of Islam increased to 37 percent, up from 33 percent in 2002. The percentage responding that Islam was more likely than other religions to encourage violence nearly doubled, from 25 percent in March 2002 to 46 percent in July 2004. In July 2005, showed that the percentage of Americans holding an unfavorable view of Islam rose to 39% since 2003 that 59% of American adults view Islam as "very different from their religion". 55% had a favorable opinion of Muslim Americans down from 59 % post 911.  The December 2004 Cornell University survey shows that 47% of Americans believe that the Islamic religion is more likely than others to encourage violence amongst its believers. 

The misleading part is altering the facts presented or order to emphasize the negative; as shown above. All opinion surveys being referenced present in the order of with Positive, Negative, Neutral. They should be presented in that order in the article. Sure, if you want, present all three - no objection there. But changing the order puts a bias into the article that is against the spirit of NPOV. Also, if we are going to show trends over time, then we need to use the same time periods and reports, not ths 2002-2004 in one case, and 2002-2005. In all cases, the most recent, i.e., 2005, should be used where available. Anything else is just manipulation of the data. Also, I think the above messes up the sources - I am not positive, but I think the "doubled from 25%" part is from the cornell study, while the study being referenced is the Pew one. --Yalto 21:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha`at Islam Lahore Inc. U.S.A. represents The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement in The United States. Their stated mission is to present “Islam as peaceful, tolerant, rational, inspiring.”

Someone keeps deleting my addition of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement USA under organizations. Even if you do not agree with their theology, they are a Muslim group within the United States. Perhaps some individuals are intolerant of them because they are famously tolerant? They should be included. They represent an important thread in the fabric of the American Muslim community.

Numbers
The article cited by CltFn does not support his ascertation that a Zogby poll in 2004 put the Muslim population at 1.1 million. Firstly, the references to the Zogby poll does not mention any overall number of Muslims. Secondly, there is no mention of a figure of 1.1 Million anywhere in the article at all. --Irishpunktom\talk 22:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Read the page carefully and do the math. Its really an extration based on their numbers, I will let you figure it out , unless the math is too difficult for you.--CltFn 22:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The only way of arriving at that figure is by using original research. It is not a figure published by Zogby. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Irishpunktom & cltfn - I see where the 1.1mm number comes from, but CltFn, your analysis is very flawed. Specifically, you cannot take three separate statistical samples, from different sources and different years, and do the math to arrive at an aggregate number. That's just very unsound methodology that would not be accepted by any statistician. Also, if you read in the SAME PARAGRAPH, you see the following sentence: "Yet all independent surveys put the real figure at no more than three million, while the most credible study to date, by Tom Smith of the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center, estimates total Muslim population at 1,886,000." If you are going to quote an article as a source, it is disingenuous to quote what you thnk is the most convenient number. Quote the one the source actually says is the most credible - i.e., 1.9mm. Actually, think it is alread in the article, but I am not 100% sure. --Yalto 07:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It's not statistical in the least to derrive it the way you're trying to.  Please don't try to portray it how you are CltFn.  From what I've read it seems that the CAIR numbers and all are hugely off... but, trying to make that editorial into Zogby's numbers isn't correct either.  That is not a reliable way to get poll data.  We should try  to see how Britannica got their numbers since they should be a decent source.  Not to say that they are. gren グレン ? 15:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes it is an infererence or estimate by extending or projecting known information ,I used the numbers from the Census 2000 with the Zogby percentages of 2004, that gives you a ball park figure of where the number is approximately. This presents a reality check which is useful in debunking the false number claims by the likes of CAIR and company. Another one was the ealier statement of mass migration in the US since 1893 but hardly any mosques in the US until 1960. Oh well sorry , shouldn't do that , reality check is a very bad thing in an encyclopedia, we do not want to do that.--CltFn 16:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It was Original Research, not a "Reality Check" it is Policy to exclude all Original Research. Further, assigning your original research to Zogby could be interpreted as a lie.--Irishpunktom\talk 17:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Reality checks are things like the UChicago study. Mixing sample pools and dates and the like only creates problems.  I don't see any good reason to believe those really high numbers but adding such a low number made from untenable inferences doesn't make it any better.  I see where you're coming from and to an extent what you did puts the high figures into question.  But, that doesn't make it a statistically decent population estimate.  gren グレン ? 17:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The line referring to how many US Muslims made the Hajj in 2006 is disingenuous. The Hajj is a once-in-a-lifetime pilgrimage required upon all Muslims who are physically and financially able to make the journey. Saying that "only" 20,000 Muslims made the Hajj in 2006 implies that many more should have gone if higher estimates of the US Muslim population are to believed. It fails to take into account that the Saudi government limits the numbers of pilgrims to Mecca annually to about 3 million, making it impossible for a large percentage of US Muslims to attend the Hajj each year.


 * I think it is of interset. I think we could temper it because it it purely anecdotal (and one year) not a conclusive study but it is of interest to the debate. If you have suggestions for how to word it feel free to discuss that... but, I doubt it will be removed. gren グレン 23:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I also made this comment below, but estimating total US Muslim population based on annual US pilgrims to Mecca is like estimating total population of the US based on number of people who visited Disneyland. It doesn't represent an accurate cross-section of the Muslim population, especially since many Muslim immigrants are poor and cannot afford to make the hajj. Using the number of annual US hajjees as a basis for estimating total US Muslim population is grossly innaccurate and misleading.

Protection
This has been going on for too long. Talk about it now. I don't know which version I protected but if whomever's version it is doesn't come to talk but the other does then you lose out. So, both sides talk. I tried to discuss these issues so you could come to some kind of consensus but you haven't and it doesn't seem like you've tried to compromise. So please, do it. gren グレン ? 10:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, my version includes a few sections which discuss the result of surveys which indicate changes in the perception of Islam in the United States and the activities of radical groups within the United States. These statements are sourced and verifiable. This counter balances the ridiculous version that is trying to say that Islam is conquering the world and everybody and his brother is running to a mosque to convert .--CltFn 12:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Look, I've been trying to mediate here and I don't really want to start pushing versions for you (well, I can't since then I'd become involved in the dispute instead of trying to mediate it and then I shouldn't have put on protection, etc.) ...but, it's not good when neither of you will compromise. Since this started the dubious claims about Muslim slaves percentages have been removed...  One problem I have is that you can both tell each other that they need more neutrality and better sources but you are both leaving in the Daily Show as a source?  Really, even if he says something we don't use him as the source (he is not a scholar) we find the source that he used for it.  Which is why I'm not sure why you remove the wall street journal piece.  It's as well sourced as as most of the other stuff there.  Could you start be explaining why that is not worthy of inclusion but the videos which is anecdotal is?  Or is that something we can compromise on if we discuss it in a way you can all agree on? gren グレン ? 17:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: I had unprotected an unprotected page last time... I suppose nobody tried to edit when they saw the tag until an anon editor just did. This time I actually did protect it. Yes, I am an idiot. gren グレン ? 01:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No you are not. It was just a gotcha, thats all.--CltFn 01:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Does the lack of response mean that everyone has agreed? (I would doubt it... but...) gren グレン ? 05:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I dount it too, I think it just means that Yuber, has not presented a valid case for his reverts , and as usual he just reverts because he does not like the implications of the materials.--CltFn 12:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

There was no real talking so I assume people have agreed on something? Unprotected and we will see what happens. Please don't go back to reverting. gren グレン ? 13:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Muslim Population Based On Hajj Figures
The article says

In 2006 only 20,000 Muslims made the Hajj to Mecca from the United States. A very small number compared to the high estimates given by some sources for the size of the Muslim population in the United States

which is totally incorrect if you do the math right

Total Muslim Population in world 1.3 billion (can be checked by independent sources like CIA worldfract book)

Total Number of pilgrims 2.1 million

So this means in 619 Muslims go to hajj each year. (using number for 2006)

Total Number of American Muslim gone to Hajj 20,000

So if you multiply it 619 The number of American Muslim becomes more then 12 million!

so it is not a "small number" compared to "high estimates" given by some sources, instead it is very high number compared to some sources who show less population of Muslims.

Although wikipedia is not edited by experts but at least it should not have such incorrect statements.

So I believe this should be corrected immediately.
 * Your math eludes me, but anyway at the current rate 90 % of Muslims will never make the Hajj in their lifetime. What are the ramifications of that?--CltFn 05:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Because Hajj is not a an absolute compulsion for every Muslim it depends on many factors but this is another topic. Point is figures show that if Hajj figures are used following statement needs correction.

'In 2006 only 20,000 Muslims made the Hajj to Mecca from the United States. A very small number compared to the high estimates given by some sources for the size of the Muslim population in the United States'


 * The point is 20,000 is a hard number unlike the figures which are thrown around about the Muslim population in the US. But with that 20,000 number you can see that relative to the numbers quoted about the Muslim population that is a very small percentage and that is what the statement is saying.--CltFn 15:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You are correct that 20,000 is a hard number, but it's like estimating the total US population based on how many people visited Disneyland - not everyone can afford it, not everyone does it, and assuming that those who go accuately represent the total population is foolish.
 * 20,000 is a very high percentage --- given only 3 million muslims out of 1.4 billion perform hajj. That statement should be changed to indicate  that 20,00 pilgrimages from USA indicate that muslim population must be very high in USA like 10 million. 72.129.170.249

All this arguing is silly, in that you can't generalize from hajj figures to general population. People have to be able to AFFORD the hajj. On the one hand, you could argue that USAians tend to be well-to-do, hence able to afford hajj, hence 20,000 hajis implies a low Muslim population. On the other hand, you could argue that most Muslims here are poor immigrants who can't afford the hajj, or are here illegally and can't afford to leave the country, hence 20,000 hajis implies a large Muslim population. The hajj figures tell us nothing except the number of people who made the hajj. Zora 06:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Church attendance by Catholics would be a horrible way to estimate their population. They're supposed to go every Sunday (like one is supposed to go on Hajj) but... are they not Catholics if they don't?  I think we need to accept that the population of Muslims in America is quite ambiguous. gren グレン ? 12:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Beyond the fact that many Muslims can't afford to go to Hajj, even wealthy Muslims are only obligated to go to Hajj once in their lifetime. A solid number? It's only solid if we agree to presume that all the Muslims who were pilgrims to Mecca in 2005 are no longer Muslim in 2006, and those who will make the pilgrimage in 2007 aren't Muslim now. That, of course, would be laughable. His Excellency... 21:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Zora procrastinates, productively
I should be doing RL stuff, so instead I rewrote the article. I reorganized, redid the headings in the usual WP style, and put all the terrorism and opinion stuff towards the end of the article. I hope that the treatment of the "terrorism" issue will be seen as sufficiently neutral by all sides of the controversy. Zora 09:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You did some good things but messed a few other things, I fixed that now.--CltFn 23:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Fix? You mangled it. A great many of your edits are extremely POV. Just the re-organization is POV. I started with the neutral stuff (how many Muslims are there, etc.) and you want to open with "Muslims are terrorists". I am too tired to work on it now, but I will later. Zora 02:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Zora, lets not exagerate too much OK ? The introductory neutral stuff is still in the first part of the article. --CltFn 04:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Cultural Clash
This section does not cite an adequate amount of sources or represent the American Muslim population as a whole in an accurate fashion. For example where does all of this come from: "They regard the U.S. government, and the prevailing U.S. culture and customs, as Jahiliyyah, unbelief, which is to be overthrown by force. Some of these Islamists (who have included immigrants, second-generation immigrants, and even converts) have traveled to train in Islamist camps overseas or even joined Islamist jihadi campaigns in places like Afghanistan, Chechnya, Bosnia, etc. A few of these Islamists have even engaged in terrorist conspiracies or actions on U.S. soil." BhaiSaab talk 05:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The title should accurately reflect the content. The content has more to do with Muslims than with "Islam". How about making it "Islam and Muslims in the United States", or just "Muslims in the United States"? More needs to be added regarding the cultural diversity of American Muslims (not statistics). Maybe a few discussions focusing on major Muslim neighborhoods in the US. His Excellency... 19:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Instances of Islamic terrorism
Why are the Beltway Snipers and Armanious family massacre mentioned in this section? Is there any evidence that the Beltway Snipers where motivated by Islam at all? Doubly for the Armanious case, it seems their (Non-Muslim) neighbours are being tried for the crime which is believed to be motivated by a robbery. Ashmoo

Also, all the Al-Qaida incidents are not relevant to "Islam in the United States." BhaiSaab talk 18:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see the relevancy of listing every crime that was possibly commited by a Muslim. What exactly does that have to do with Islam? BhaiSaab talk 16:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You will note that these thigns are associated with Islam in the U.S. in the media, right? Also, because Muslims are minorities violence in the name of Islam is--rightly or wrongly--see as a reflection, or at least a relevant issues in regards to the American Muslim community.  Look at Muslim writers just post 9/11.  It's not like they ignored the issue but they addressed it.  Muqtedar Khan, and many of the Muslim political scientists wrote about this.  Also, the attacks of sept. 11, 2001 did start an American interest in Islam.  Jihad, Hijab, Hajj, all entered common parlance because of the attack.  Some Muslim even talk about how they have led to greater interest and thus higher conversion rates (whether or not that is true I don't know).  I agreewith the Beltway Sniper being irrelevant because that did not cause an American reflection on the connection of Islam and violence but the 9/11 attacks are inextricably tied to the Muslim community in America. gren グレン 02:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But they were not committed by people who can be considered American Muslims. BhaiSaab talk 18:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

These are not relevant, they have origins outside the US 24.211.192.250 00:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 24.244.192.250: What an original contribution to this discussion you provide us with there. Please, tell us more about you thoughts!! Or maybe you should just go back to the Armenian Genocide article with your denialist opinions, instead of following me around the Wiki. -- Karl Meier 22:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * BhaiSaab: That is your opinion. Nothing more. What matters is the facts, and in this case the facts are that these people are living in the United States and consider themself to be Muslims. -- Karl Meier 22:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well you also have to show relevancy to the article, whether it's factual or not. A listing of every crime committed by a Muslim is not encyclopedic, NPOV, nor relevant. BhaiSaab talk 00:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We are not trying to show every crime commited by Muslims, only terrorist related incidents which is a topic that needs to be covered in this article. It has to do with the presence of Islam in the United States. --CltFn 00:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It certainly looks like you're trying to show every crime. Some of the incidents don't seem related to terrorism, and how can you prove all of them have some relation to religion in general? BhaiSaab talk 00:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well if you were sincere in your dispute then you would challenge the specific ones that you disagree with. Do you challenge that 911 was an act of terrorism? If not then why did you take it out? Why don't you focus your energies on developing material for the encyclopedia instead of continually obstructing sourced encyclopedic material?--CltFn 01:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I took it out for reasons I already stated here. Why don't you focus your energies on something worthwhile instead of trying to alienate the Muslim community with every one of your edits? BhaiSaab talk 02:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry if you feel that way, I try like many other wikipedia editors to develop articles which meet the requirements of being encyclopedic, sourced, accurate and verifiable. I do not see why any one in the Muslim community should take it personally since the material is not about them. --CltFn 17:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * BhaiSaab: Going through what is currently in that section, all the cases of terrorism listed there seems to be quite notable, and with 13 incidents mentioned it is surely not an attempt to list every crime commited by Muslims in the United States. -- Karl Meier 08:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Another thing is that you should aviod making such personal remarks against CltFn. -- Karl Meier 08:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I will go through everything in the list shortly if you don't mind. BhaiSaab talk 17:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think part of the problem is that it is unclear whether the article is about Islamic culture, people and institutions IN the US or the larger relationship between the US and Islam in general. The intro seems the indicate the former, while later parts of the article mention the later (ie Al Qaida & WTC etc). If the article is to be about the (broader) latter topic, the intro should reflect this. Ashmoo 01:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Conflicts with American Muslims
What is the factual dispute about this section? Is the tag stating there is a factual dispute ready to be removed? Johntex\talk 00:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Report Data
I removed the 2004 CAIR report, because it linked to a 2001 Washington Post article. The obvious date problems aside the questions over CAIR's accuracy is raised below that table anyway. Hokiefan 03:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Zogby survey FACT CHECK
The assimilation section was indirectly refering to the 2004 survey, cited by a wall street journal opinion piece. I have added a direct link to the survey which in my opinion is highly misleading based on the methodology used. You cannot call people up based on their last name and ask them what their income is, of if they have a degree and accept that as the truth without verification. People can say whatever they want in telephone surveys.--CltFn 16:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you are obviously misrepresenting the poll. Page 4 of the poll states that "Zogby International conducted interviews of 1,846 persons, 18 years and old, nationwide who identify themselves as Muslim. From Thursday, August 5 to Wednesday, September 15, 2004, phone interviews were conducted. All calls were made from Zogby International headquarters in Utica, N.Y. The telephone list was created by matching the zip codes of 300 randomly selected Islamic centers, against their respective local telephone exchanges. Listings of common Muslim surnames were then identified from the local telephone exchanges and called." So these people identify themself as Muslim; it's not just Zogby alleging that they're Muslim. BhaiSaab talk 19:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK on the alleged muslims part but the rest is correct--CltFn 20:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Charitable Projects
Clinic video. BhaiSaab talk 05:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No gratuitous Muslim-bashing, please
CltFn restored much of his favorite prose, accusing American Muslims of being extremists and terrorists. I went through the article and tried to NPOV it as much as I could. The section on CAIR was particularly egregious. There was an attack, a disclaimer, and a renewed attack, and all but one of the attacks were unreferenced. I'm not an admirer of CAIR myself, but fair is fair. I also removed the list of Muslims -- there is already a List of American Muslims. A list of names does not belong in this article. Zora 05:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Zora, I am not the author of the CAIR information thank you very much and I do not believe that your snide comments are appropriate either.--CltFn 06:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with her. BhaiSaab talk 16:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yet another rewrite
It's the criticism and response to criticism material that seems to be giving us the most trouble. I rewrote again, combining various materials into one section. I also added a new section on persecution of Muslims. I don't have the time this morning to look up all the names and references for the instances I cited, and I'm sure that there are more I missed. I hope the other editors will fill this out.

It's not right to talk about criticism of American Islam as if it were something that happens only in the media. It is expressed on the ground by people shooting Afghan-American mothers to death as they walk their children to school. Also, it's only fair also to mention those Americans who refused to be bigots. Again, we need references.

I hope CltFn won't wipe out all this material on the grounds that it isn't referenced. Give us some time, man! Zora 20:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't have a problem with that, my whole point is to keep this article balanced with multiple views, not just the sanitized CAIR version.--CltFn 21:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have now re-organized the article a bit .As far as the criticism, it needs to be presented clearly as it is a maajor isssue with Islam in the US. The section of persecution of Muslims is slightly dubious since Muslims have more rights and freedoms in the US than in any other Muslim country--CltFn 12:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Persecution of Muslims in the U.S. is a real phenomenon. BhaiSaab talk 21:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * CltFn, your reorganization of this article made little sense. For example, incidents of persecution were under "organizations." I prefer Zora's organization of the article. BhaiSaab talk 22:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * BhaiSaab - Once again you are engaged in a revert warring situation . Look I added material and enhanced the article, you have mostly just reverted back. I hope you will come to realize that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and not just the exclusive domain of a small group of editors who keep reverting what they do not like. You have to respect the contributions of others and work with them , not just against them, though you may not always like them.--CltFn 22:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I feel that your goal in this article is to present Muslims very negatively. Considering your work at Hagarism, this does not come as a surprise. I have replied on your talk page regarding the videos. BhaiSaab talk 22:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No my goal is to present topics honestly, the good and the bad. When you present the facts, the reader can then make up their own mind. But that being said, regardless of how you interpret my edits, you must still respect sourced and cited entries in articles and the collaborative process. --CltFn 23:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

As usual, CltFn's "copy edits" was a veiled revert, as you can see from this diff. Please be aware of his misleading edit summaries. BhaiSaab talk 05:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

demographics
The majority of Muslims are from South Asian, African-American and Arab backgrounds.

Is there a source for this generalisation? I think it is better if we do not put this in the introduction and instead provide a demographic section with detail on the ethnic makeup of Muslims in US. If I am not mistaken, Arab Muslims are a very small minority of total Arab population in U.S. so it does not make sense that they would be included in the Muslim majority. Actually by strict numbers probably black peoples are the majority, so listing others seems an error. Khorshid 18:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, take it out of intro, make a new section, and add refs. Very good idea. Zora 19:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have put a "fact" tag next to it for now so we can encourage people to bring sources and then we can put those in the right section. I also have another question: Many black "Muslims" are members of Nation of Islam which is a heretical sect, so cannot be considered part of Islam. I have a suspusion that the demography includes them as "Muslim". Also South Asians who are Ahmaddiya are part of a heretical sect and cannot be part of Islam (not sure about this??), and there are a lot of them I think in U.S. So how do we approach these things? Khorshid 10:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

WP tries not to take sides in sectarian disputes. Count Ahmadis -- are there that many? We can mention that many other Muslims don't accept them. As for the Nation of Islam -- most of the followers eventually followed the founder's son in adopting a traditional form of Islam. They're orthodox Sunni. There's only a small group left in the Nation of Islam. We could just mention them in passing and say that they're not accepted by any other Muslims as fellow-believers. Unfortunately, the WP article on the group doesn't give membership statistics. I'm not sure that they're counted as Muslims in religious surveys, so they might not matter. This needs more research.

We don't say who IS or who ISN'T, we just say who accepts who. Otherwise things start getting sticky, with Salafis and Shi'a takfiring each other. Zora 10:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Salafis are crazy. They dont consider anyone except themselves to be Muslims. Only a group like them could produce Osama bin Laden. They have humilated Muslims and only bring to Islam nothing but hatred and contempt. They are actually doing the work of anti-Muslims (like rich mullahs in Iran). But this is my POV. I am not sure I know what you mean by Nation of Islam being orthodox Sunni now?? This is the Louis Farrakhan group or is another group that you are talking about? This article looks like it got quiet suddenly. Khorshid 12:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The founder of the Nation of Islam died and was succeeded by his son, who proceeded to embrace Sunni Islam and ask his followers to do so as well. Most of them did. The current Nation of Islam is the remnant that refused to go over. I agree that they're a difficult lot to categorize. They use the terms Islam and Muslim, but their beliefs and practices are, um, not standard. But it would be wrong to say that they are NOT Muslims, since WP can't take sides.

I should add re Salafis that there are a great many Salafis who believe that Osama bin Laden is wrong, wrong, wrong. I know because they periodically attempt to expunge his name from the Salafi article :) It's the same sort of distaste that I would feel at being told that Aum Shinrikyo represented all Buddhists -- don't confuse me with those homicidal nuts! I'm not Muslim and if I were a Muslim, I'd probably be a Sufi, not a Salafi. But I have to be fair to the non-violent Salafis. Zora 07:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Zora the version you edited was a wrong one. Zoro25 took alot of things out for no reason. Also I think the anons statement should be included under persection (but made accurate and neutral according to the news source):
 * Mosques have been subject to radiation testing by the FBI in an effort to stem any possibilities of terrorism.

Khorshid 00:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

New section
I thought it was a bit lopsided to have only a section on the persecution of American Muslims and no section on the few American Muslims who have engaged in terrorism or possibly treasonous activities. So I added a section, which needs a great many references.

I don't think any American Muslim would deny that these things happened. I hope I made it clear that the argument is whether these people represent a strong and growing strain in American Islam, or whether they're just unrepresentative nutcases (or possibly confused young men who are not being given the benefit of the doubt). I hope that the Muslim editors here won't see my action as necessarily anti-Muslim but will instead channel their energies towards presenting evidence re the general state of affairs in the US Muslim community. I myself think that the evidence would support the conclusion that the vast majority of American Muslims believe that they can be both good Muslims and good citizens.

If all this debate re the political attitudes of American Muslims looks like it's going to overwhelm the article, we could move it into a breakout article. But let's see how much it grows first. Zora 00:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and the first para
We don't need a citation showing that most US Muslims are African-Americans, South Asians, or Arabs -- the info is right there in the article, in the demographics section. So I removed the citation tag. Zora 00:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong version

 * Zora the version you edited was a wrong one. Zoro25 took alot of things out for no reason. Also I think the anons statement should be included under persection (but made accurate and neutral according to the news source):
 * Mosques have been subject to radiation testing by the FBI in an effort to stem any possibilities of terrorism.

Khorshid 00:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed that bit re radiation testing, as I thought it was an anti-Muslim slur. If you want it to be an example of persecution, it's going to have to be presented differently. Have any prominent US Muslims commented on this policy? A quote from someone like Muqtedar Khan would put the policy in perspective. Zora 00:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh dang, I just checked. I only looked at Zoro's last diff, not the one before it. He did remove a lot of stuff.

I'm exhausted and I have a Hawaiian test tomorrow. Do you think that you could meld my version with the pre-Zoro version? If not, I'll have to do it after the test. Zora 00:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Demographics, CltFn's favorite links
I tried rewriting the first para again. I should explain that I find the term "background" to be just too hazy; origin or ethnicity is more exact. However, other wording might be better. Suggestions.

I rearranged the demographic estimates in order of size. That makes it easier to see where they cluster. A bar chart would help, if someone could produce one.

I removed CltFn's favorite links again. CltFn, one of those is DEAD. How about some new research? We need names and cites for the people who HAVE been successfully prosecuted. I'm blanking on the names -- the Hispanic shoe bomber guy? The Pakistani from California? The upper New York State guys? Zora 10:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Demographic surveys
The population survey estimates should be listed in chronological order, not in size order. The reason they should be in chronological order is that this shows trends in the Muslim population over time, which is not clearly visible otherwise. If were are to assume the accuracy of these surveys, we notice a marked decrease in the Muslim population since 2003 --CltFn 01:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I very much doubt that there's been a decrease. The problem is defining Muslim (mosque attendance? assertion that one is a Muslim? immigration from Muslim majority country?) and conducting a statistically sound survey. There has been so much criticism of the accuracy of the surveys that we cannot assume a trend. I'll try to find links to some criticism of various surveys. Zora 02:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Why not a decrease? The mosques are empty, Islam is despised by the US population ( as confirmed by CAIR ) and no real muslim would in clean conscience would want to live in the US society. How do I know this? because I make it a point to check it out myself and go watch how many people turn up for friday prayer as major mosques. I would agree that a lot of high population surveys such as CAIRs are simply laugahable in their methodology, they are literraly pulled out of thin air. One overlooked aspect of the demographic surveys is also how many muslims apostasize in the US. In any case these surveys are presented as reliable in this article so one should be able to make some sort of conclusion from them and the conclusion is that Islam is on a decline in the US. In my opinion it is only being propped up from outside the US ,particlulary from Saudi Arabia who have purchased many properties to build mosques in the US so that one could then say, "see all those mosques, Islam must be growing". Trouble is they are empty. But then I could be wrong and it is just a theory of mine.--CltFn 12:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What do your "theories" have to do with the factual accuracy of this entry? None of the surveys prove any decreases (even the post 2003 figure that you mentioned above).  What they all show is how different methods come up with very different data.  The variation here is staggering, but that's all anyone can tell.  A chronological listing makes no sense at all because there is no consistent methodology here.  The best way is what existed prior to the change because its easier to digest.  All we have is a huge degree of variation and the numerical ordering shows that better than the disjointed chronological listing, which I will repeat doesn't show anything given that none of these demographic surveys are consistent and comparable to each other.PelleSmith 02:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Chronological entry makes no sense? Of course it does, nearly every encyclopedia use chonological order to present information tied to different years.--CltFn 23:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That is not true at all. If you have studies that replicate the same methodology then chronology makes sense, if you don't you get the kind of ridiculous variation we have on Muslim demographics in the United States.  Your generalized comment does not in any way address the actual issue.  Please address the presentation of disperate population surveys in terms of chronology.  Also do not revert several edits if this is the one edit you are disagreeing with.PelleSmith 23:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I understand that the Islamic Center here in Honolulu is growing. I really must visit there sometime. I read a fair number of progressive Muslim blogs (definitely non-Salafis) and none of them are talking about decreasing mosque attendance. They do kvetch a lot about existing mosque governance and policies, however :) Zora 02:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, do indeed check it out, nothing like a reality check to put things in perspective.--CltFn 23:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Public Opinion Surveys
I recently corrected some serious missinformation from the Pew survey, which I guess no one really bothered to check until now--which I have to admit is a bit disheartening. Its not a long document at all, linked directly on this page, and I suggest that those interested look it over. For instance there is some interesting data about the variation of opinions regarding Islam and Muslims based upon, among other factors, educational background. It might be valauble to present this type of information so people get the full picture. Just a suggestion.PelleSmith 17:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

CltFn Please Respond Unless you Intend "Bad Faith"
I have made a series of edits, all of which I explained in the edit summaries. Your recent edit reverts them all without any explanation. Some of these edits were corrections of fact as per cited materials, others were style edits and yet others copy edits. Unless you wish your edit to be construed as in bad faith please discuss here. If there are particular edits you disagree with then lets here it, but don't destroy a lot of different improvements in one sweeping revert.PelleSmith 23:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You were messing the article by cutting out a bunch of stuff and taking the chrono order of the demographics, etc.. Are you a new incarnation of some former wikipedia editor?--CltFn 23:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Petty accusations wont work here. I'm not interested in the kind of POV pushing I see going on on both sides of issues related to Islam.  Address the problems.  I'm going to revert and then you need to explain each edit of mine that you have a problem with not just one and revert them all.  Thanks.PelleSmith 23:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And if you intend on reverting any of the edits done to correct the presentation of Pew Research findings then you better account for those changes. Incorrectly citing research studies is alot more than just unethical.PelleSmith 23:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So which editor were you before this? --CltFn 03:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously going to continue that? I have never edited Wikipedia under any name other than PelleSmith.  Did you bother to even look over the edits I made?  I did not drastically alter the entry, nor did I delete any information.  The only information I removed was incorrect information attributed to the Pew survey.  For instance, there where figures from 2004 when Pew didn't even conduct a survey in 2004, not to mention several bad figures.  Its all there in the pdf that has been referenced here for who knows how long.  Of course you object to the reordering of the demographic estimates because you are the person who tried to change them to chronological order.  I think I've adequately explained that but there is no reason why we can't discuss that further.  For now why don't you explain what else may be wrong with my edits instead of trying to insinuate that I'm someone other than myself.PelleSmith 05:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ADENDUM: I'm not 100% sure anymore that Pew didn't conduct a survey in 2004 since there is a reference to a Pew survey from 2004 in the Cornell survey writeup. However, I have not been able to locate such a survey and the 2005 survey which is the only one that has been linked to this page only included data from 2002, 2003 and 2005.  I would happily add in data from 2004 if someone can produce the survey results.  (Note: a secondary reference, as in the Cornell survey is not an accurate citation).PelleSmith 23:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Pelle was not messing with the article. Those were good copyedits. Checking references, making sure that everything is organized and there's a good narrative flow -- all essential to a good article. He/she caught things that I missed. Please do not revert without talking about the issues. Zora 00:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Your darn good edits are darn good in your own mind, and are so well organized that there is a huge blank space in the middle of the article --CltFn 03:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What huge blank space? I don't see any blank space. Zora 04:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * under certain screen resolutions there is.--CltFn 05:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixing references
This page needs better references for the various Muslim organizations than their "official websites". I don't know what the official policy here is, but in an entry on Islam in the United States we shouldn't be referencing "facts" about any party (person, organization, etc.) directly from that party. I'm not questioning the facts themselves, but suggesting that anyone could do so as long as they are linked only to those websites. Also could people familiar with the demographics estimates please provide citations for them. Thanks.PelleSmith 14:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Book sources
I'm reading a book I bought recently called "Muslims in American History: A Forgotten Legacy" by Jerald F. Dirks, a professor who converted to Islam. So far it's pretty interesting and I'll try to add what I can after completing the book. It should allow me to expand the history section considerably. BhaiSaab talk 21:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Right wing conservatives
Pelle, I'm not so sure we should be using the term "right wing" and especially not capped. I think that's pejorative. I think that they would use some other name for themselves. Is there a Wikipedia article on "right wing"? That would probably tell us the terms in use.

I read some right-wing stuff, through Salon and AL Daily, but I'm not sure that I know how THEY define themselves. Zora 21:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah I changed it. But I think the "Right Wing" issue is not clearly pejorative or POV.  The only reaoson it was Capped was because that's how it is on Right Wing.  But its gone.  "Extreme" is in because that's what the referenced article says.  The problem I have is that the criticism is clearly not of just "conservatives" but of a segment of conservatives.  It should be exact.  I hope the problem is solved.PelleSmith 21:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In part the issue arises from the removal of the name Spencer, which I think on some grounds is justified, though it provided a more specific point of reference. Readers need to understand towards whom the criticism is directed clearly.  Does that make sense?PelleSmith 22:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And on a third note: The editor objected to the use of the word "radical", as POV, but no one is objecting to its use in front of "Islamist", just sentences above. If we had any "radical Islamists" editing here would that become an issue?PelleSmith 22:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Getaway
I removed the fact tags on Sikh (of course they're not Muslims, as you'd find out if you read the Sikh article) and the shooting of Sikhs (the linked article gives all the details). I also rewrote the intro. As it stood, the intro was merely about demographics. I tried to rewrite to give a more nuanced picture of American Islam. I don't have cites, at the moment. All that comes from just reading American Muslim blogs and news sites for the last few years. I am not a Muslim; I'm just interested. I'll supply refs when I have time, which I don't right now.

You seem to me to be interested in painting a black picture of American Muslims. Perhaps this would spur you to do some research on the Disaffected Muslims section? It's just a matter of googling and getting references. There was one young man from Lodi, California, convicted on charges that he had attended a jihadi training camp in Pakistan and lied about it. There were also a few people from upper New York state convicted on similar charges. Also, we need something about the US shoe bomber guy -- Padilla? You might also track down Islamic Thinkers Society and Anwar al-Awlaki. In fact, if you want to scuffle with Islamists, that last article would be a good place to start. Right now it's hagiography. Zora 22:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Dear Zora: I'm glad that you made this misguided comment:  "You seem to me to be interested in painting a black picture of American Muslims."  It points out many, many things, which I won't go into, but to keep the discussion relevant to this article I will point out that you do not know me personally.  I have only become acquainted with your editing in the last week. You do not know anything about my politics, my religion, my race, my age, my family, where I live, where I went to school, how many children I have, how many dogs I might own, etc.  You really don't anything.  However, you have felt the need to comment on what my motivation is concerning my editing of the article.  I want to thank you for this misguided comment because it provides me an opportunity to enlighten you.  I made a series of edits to the article.  That's ALL you know about me.  You do not have enough information about me to make a comment on me personally or ANY of my motivations in life.  Also, as a Wikipedian you are supposed to comment on the edits, comment on the article, comment on improvements to the article.  You are NOT supposed to comment on me or my motivations.  This is a Wikipedia policy for many, many but two are common sense.  One:  we are colaboratively working on the article, we are not commenting or discussing your misguided analysis of my personal motivations.  Two:  you really don't know a single thing about my motivations are quite honestly my motivations are irrelevant and your analysis of my motivations are also quite irrelevant, but at least comical.  Now that we have dealt with that issue (please don't make me waste everyone's time going forward by having to repeat myself), let's talk about the edits to the article.  You don't like my edits obviously.  But Wikipedia is not all about you.  You will make changes and others will come along and make others changes, wiping out your previous work.  If you are not happy with that then Wikipedia might not be right for you.  Now I made several changes to the introduction.  I don't know who originally wrote it and frankly I don't care.  It was a mess.  The article is entitled, "Islam in the U.S." but all the intro did was ramble on about there might be 1 million American Muslims or there may be 2 million Amer Muslims or there might be 7 million Am Muslims, etc.  It was a certifiable mess.  I tried to clean it up.  Now you did not like me taking out that info.  But it had to be done.  It was a complete mess.  I tried to sum up the topic of demographics by focusing on the only real fact that we know:  WE JUST DON'T KNOW how many Am Muslims there are.  I was trying to leave the numbers for the body of the article.  That is the way that the intro is now written and it has earned a grade "C", which is better than before when I first read it and it deserved a failing grade.  Now to sum up.  Don't comment on me or my motivations.  You don't know what you are talking about.  Focus on the article because damn well don't know a damn thing about me or what motivation me.  Try to focus on the article, not me.--Getaway 19:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok can we agree on not making inferences on the motivations of others, as well as not using profanities ("damn") here? Also I believe that personal communications are what the user talk pages and emailing options are quite specifically for :).  This talk page is for entry content.  Lets open up a discussion on the intro, amongst other things, so we can work towards improving it.  It definately needs to be more generally about Islam in the United States (something the entire entry needs to get closer to as well) or the article title should/could be changed as suggested below.  What is preferable?  Getaway is right, this is a group project, so lets work together in a productive manner.PelleSmith 19:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Article Title
Just an observation on this article. This article is more about Muslims in the US than it is about Islam in the US. This article's title should be changed or the content of the article be changed to better reflect the title. There's a difference between presenting the demographic group than studying the way Islam is unique in the US, if it is at all. I believe that Islam in the US is much more progressive than in many other countries, but that's just an assumption. Again, why an article on Islam in the US is needed. Unfortunately, this article's content does not deliver. It's quite awkward to lead the article with demographics when the article is supposed to be about the nature of the faith in the US, not solely its adherants. --Strothra 02:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "If it is at all." It might be taking on a distinctly American hue, but at the moment it seems (to me) to be a collection of what are essentially foreign congregations. If there's anything distinctive about it, it would be that US Muslims are much less likely to be bitterly anti-Western than Muslims in Europe. (Muqtedar Khan wrote an essay about this recently.)


 * I'm a Buddhist. Buddhism has been settled in the US for more than a century, and it's still congregations of ethnic minorities, to a great extent. American converts to Zen, Vipassana, and Tibetan groups still follow rituals and use terminology imported from the point of origin. It takes a while for a tradition to become acculturated. Zora 03:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm referring to distinctiveness such as in the sense that certain liberalizing trends occur here which may have an impact elsewhere. For instance, this NYTimes article  discusses the event in NYC where a woman led Muslim prayer - supposedly the first time this has been done. The even received wide press attention eventhough many Muslims in NYC and abroad protested this event. There is also an NPR story . This sort of thing points to the fact that Islam in the U.S. has a major potential for uniqueness among American Muslims and for change in Islam abroad. --Strothra 20:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have the time to look into this, but if I can find the sources I will provide them. But I think this is a step in the right direction.  Among other things, I've also read about how mosques have altered functions in the United States, and how daily practices tend to change for the average Muslim immigrant because of practical constraints.  These are aspects, in which the religion "Islam" may be changing in uniquely American ways ... but like I said I need to look through some of the literature I once read on these things.PelleSmith 20:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sources would be the group blogs States of Islam, alt.muslim, and progressive.islam. Zora 00:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hajj demographics wizardry does not belong
We need to keep this original research suggestion about what American participation in the Hajj implies about the number of Muslims in the United States, out of the article. It is original research pure and simple, and it is probably bad original research at that given several factors. A majority of Muslims live in South East Asia and probably very low percentages of these Muslims participate in Hajj. This would bring the world average down quite a bit. Conversely, given the relative affluence (and hence resource availability) of American Muslims, the percentage here is probably inflated. In other words the percentage of the American Muslim population partaking in Hajj is probably much higher than the world average. Of course, nothing I've said here should be put into the article either, since it is also conjecture and original research. However, it should be noted because it casts even more doubt onto this idea that we can extrapolate a figure for the number of American Muslims from the amount who go on Hajj.PelleSmith 13:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)