Talk:Islam in the United States/Archive 3

message: We need to find the references to the demographics estimates so we can fix this section.  The CIA figure, that I keep on reverting, cannot be listed as 3 million, because to arrive at 3 million original research, in terms of a reverse extrapolation is necessary.  The CIA world factbook presents the figure as 1% of the US population only and NOT in terms of raw figures.  Also noo one knows how rounded this 1% may be.  If other figures listed here have likewise been extrapolated from a percentage they should also not be presented in terms of raw numbers.  The referenced estimates are presented in terms of raw numbers, so they are clearly fine.  What about the unreferenced ones?  We need to check on them.  I am going to revert the CIA number again due to the fact that it is original research.  Present the 1% in another way please.PelleSmith 14:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics, Extrapolations and References 

message: "Another said that tattoos, armbands and other identifying markers such as crescent marks on driver's licenses, passports and birth certificates did not go far enough. 'What good is identifying them?' he asked. 'You have to set up encampments like during World War Two with the Japanese and Germans.'"  BhaiSaab talk 19:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That article is far too anecdotal for an encyclopedia article.  There are useful polls about this which should be used. gren グレン 23:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It is also factually incorrect because the US only locked up the Japanese-Americans (Executive Order 9066) and not the German-Americans (nor Italian-Americans) as far as I know but that isn't the issue as it is verify that is key and the caller is non-notable and very much unknown. If we can use this unknown caller it sets quite a low-bar for other quotes in Wikipedia. Ttiotsw 03:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In U.S., fear and distrust of Muslims runs deep" 

message: If you follow the link to religioustolerance.com you will see a list of demographic estimates in the US as well as references to them.  I hope it is helpful.  ReligiousTolerance Demographics Estimate List.PelleSmith 14:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of demographics estimates 

message: Zora removed my comments about CAIR's BS study.  You can review her edit right here: .  Zora, removing comments of other people from the talk page is violation of Wikipedia policy.  Once again, I request that you stop.--Getaway 17:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both of you, stop making personal comments toward each other and stick to discussing article edits in a neutral and non-melodramatic manner.  Your comments on the talk page and edit summaries, as well as your edits, should be neutral. Both of you are taking a clearly hostile tone toward each other. Wiki is a cooperative project. Yes, please do not remove comments made by other editors unless they violate WP:NPA, however that would be less likely to occur if you restricted your conversation to a civil discussion of the article.  Both of you need to review WP:CIVIL. --Strothra 17:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't remove any contents. I INSERTED a comment in the middle of his  commentn, as is frequently done on talk pages. His content resumes right after the interpolated comment. Zora 18:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are correct.  Either way, please go back to discussing the article and do so with civility.--Strothra 18:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of other editors' comments 

message: Once again, the section that claims to discuss the number of Muslims in the U.S. has more faults that I will be correcting.  I removed this line from the flawed section:
* 2.8 million (2003) The World Almanac and Book of Facts [0.9% of national population]2003. The World Almanac and Book of Facts. pg. 635. New York, NY: World Almanac Books 
Why?  Well, where do I start?  Let's see.  I actually purchased a copy of the most recent World Almanac and I went to the libary to review the previously yearly issues of the World Almanac.  And just as I expected my comments about this flawed section were completely and totally verified.  To begin with the World Almanac makes this statement about the estimate listed above: Adherents of All Religions by Six Continental Areas, Mid-2004 Muslims, Northern America, 5,109,000, Source: 2006 Encyclopædia Britannica Book of the Year; figures rounded (Zoë Kashner, Editorial Director, The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2007. pg. 712. New York, NY: World Almanac Books) 
Well, is that a fine mess? Let me the count the ways that this is wrong:  (1) It was the same in every issue for many, many years, one source quoting another source which is quoting another source. (2) The number listed is for all of Northern America
as defined by the UN, which includes not only the U.S. (the subject of the article) but Canada and part of the Caribbean. (3) This number obviously duplicates the Britannica number and it was added into the ludicrous "mean" and "median" calculations that we spent so much time fighting over.  Those mean and median numbers are simply flawed because the underlining input is flawed.  Garbage in, garbage out. (4)  Since it is a repeat (duplicate) of a high number we are giving false information to the reader, sending the message that there is way more Muslims in the U.S. than there really is. (5) Yeah, I call something BS if it is BS. I'm going to review the Britannica numbers next and I will probably remove them to because they are probably based upon another study somewhere else or a duplicate of one already listed or just simply a 
misquote.--Getaway 17:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The World Almanac would be considered a reliable source by most people. You can't just throw out a source because you don't like it. You certainly shouldn't remove Britannica numbers. I should say that there's some information value in the fact that both the World Almanac and Britannica accept the figures. Zora 20:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, my dear Zora, as always, you missed the point entirely.  I wonder, do you do that on purpose or do you simplY not understand?  I removed the World Almanac numbers because they are a direct repeat of the Britannica numbers.  It is simple as that.  Having them both listed gives the reader the false impression that there are two studies with the same number.  I did not throw out a source simply because I didn't like it.  That comment is just silly.  However, I brings a smile to my face on this Christmas day.  The World Almanac number has been permanently removed. Enjoy the Holidays!--Getaway 13:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again your patronizing tone is not appreciated and I'm going to keep on pointing it out until you make an effort to be more civil on this talk page.  There was never a "direct repeat of the Britannica numbers".  For that to have been true 2.8 million would have to have been listed twice on the page.  I see a Britannica listing of 4.1 not 2.8.  So your explanation above is quite confusing.  You may want to note that the World Almanac number has not been "permanently" removed.  Is the issue that Britannica was the source for the World Almanac in 2003?  Nothing you have explained initially above deals with the 2003 addition, which is what was referenced on the page.  Are you trying to make a case against using the World Almanac at all with this display of reasons to distrust it?  I am still a bit confused.  Can we somehow resolve this matter once and for all?  Is it possible to get rid of all of these population estimates.  To simply write a statement about the lack of consesus and give a range from the smallest to the biggest?  I don't really understand why its such a big deal.  Do Muslims want us to think there are more of them, and do isolationist right wingers want us to think there are less?  Serioulsy what's the big deal?  Personally I think listing all of these estimates is completely unecessary, but if they are going to be listed I don't like the idea of one partisan group whittling them down to conform with their POV.  Anyone else like the idea of cutting this section down to size?PelleSmith 00:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You did not respond to the bottom line issue.  The World Almanac quotes the Britannica number.  So the World Almanac number is a duplicate.  It has been removed. --Getaway 01:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh by the way, I'm not going to change anything about my tone because there is nothing wrong with my tone.  I would suggest that your change yours.--Getaway 01:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please clarify this issue.  You stated that that the number is a duplicate.  What other figure listed on the page does it duplicate?  Don't say Britannica because there is no 2.8 million Britannica figure listed--there is a 4.1 million Britannica figure listed on the page.  Also is anyone else in favor of getting rid of all of these estimates for a concise statement and the mention of a range?PelleSmith 03:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of more duplicate so-called estimates

message: This section below keeps getting taken out of the article by what I suspect are probably the same people using a number of different accounts:
The public displays of fringe Muslim groups like the Islamic Thinkers Society in New York City have served to project negative images of disaffection not representative of the wider Muslim community in the eyes of witnesses. 
*Video of Muslims in the US pledging disloyalty and desecrating of the US Flag
*Video of Muslims promising a holocaust for the US
I think these links are the most telling about the fringe elements of Islam in the US and deserve to be part of the article.--CltFn 04:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are representative of fringe elements and thus not notable enough for inclusion. --Strothra 05:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just because they can be called fringe does not mean they are not notable , Bhaisaab, Those so called "fringe elements" are at the root of the negative perceptions suffered by muslims in the US. They are extremely notable--CltFn 05:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Zora, you read the muslim blogs, ok but if you peer through the counter-terrorism blogs you would see that the "fringe" groups like the Islamic thinkers society and others makes a big impact there in the perception of Islam in the US. Might I suggest you bookmark JihadWatch and read it over some weeks to get the flavor of the impact of these fringe groups.--CltFn 05:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, the organizations themselves are a dime a dozen.  The actions of some of those organizations have made those individual organizations notable - but not all of them.  Further, you cannot generalize groups by assigning any single variable to the causes of such perceptions. --Strothra 05:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well actually I would argue that there is a single variable at the root of the negative perceptions of Islam: it is the so called fringe groups. --CltFn 05:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you implying that your version reality trumps the Jihadis and Jihadwatchers' version? In the encyclopedia we should be able to include all version should we not? I believe that the core problem we face in writting articles as this one is that there are so many different versions of reality that are being advanced that editors wind up in perpetual tug of war over the content of the article. I think it would be much easier if we simply agreed to let the various versions be featured in the article as originally intended by Wikipedia so that the reader could make up their own mind. How about it?--CltFn 13:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The censored Islamic Thinkers society links