Talk:Religion in United States prisons

message: This entry was created from material that had been at Islam in the United States, but was too detailed and specific to be kept there in entirety.  This, however, is also why the entry isn't balanced, because it wasn't balanced there either.  Please help edit this entry and expand it to adequately reflect the history of Islam as a religion in U.S. prisons.PelleSmith 14:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Created page

message: This article should be merged with Prison religion perhaps?Vice regent 16:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: no. This is specific to Islam, and then only in the united States. If anything, it should be merged back to Islam in the United States, but other than that, it is OK at its current title.--SefringleTalk 02:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merger

message: This is pretty biased stuff. It just assumes that all muslim converts in prison are wahabi extremeists. THIS IS WHAT THE GOVERNMENT WANTS YOU TO THINK MAN! 911 = inside job etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.146.208 (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: This is pretty biased

message: I moved "Islam in the United States' prisons" to Religion in the United States' prisons.  The former page was split out of Islam in the United States because it consisted mostly of the biased testimony of one conservative harping on the connection between Islam, prison and the radicalization efforts of terrorists (the latter oddly being unsupported by the other sources).  Anyway, this is a notable topic and I hope people work to expand it, beyond this not so reliably sourced material on Islam.PelleSmith (talk) 11:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved entry

message: I happened to see a link added over at Religious discrimination against Neopagans, and thought I'd pop over here and suggest changing the article name from "Religion in the United States' prisons" to Religion in United States prisons. This is, I believe, somewhat more grammatically correct (in terms of article naming), and I believe would be easier for readers to remember.  Just a thought. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you feel about Prison religion in the United States?  I'm not entirely sure how accepted "Prison religion" is, but I have seen it used by relevant academics, and we do have an entry here already.  This was originally a completely UNDUE entry about Islam that I spun out of Islam in the United States because the material didn't belong there and that was the best solution I could think of.  Originally it was titled "Prison Islam in the United States," which someone changed to "Islam in the United States' Prisons."  Upon expanding the article recently i did the minimum and changed Islam to Religion.  Maybe we should brainstorm better titles, but I agree that your suggestion is better than the present one.PelleSmith (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would work, though I chose "Religion" as the first word as that is the base-topic...Akin to "Religion in the United States", "Religion in Denmark", etc.  Most all I can find use the "Religion in" format. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I'll make the change, and it can always be moved again later if needed.  Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 02:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed article name change

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The source only gives data for all prisoners. From that we cannot infer any data regarding any subsets; it is probable, even likely, that the religious affiliation numbers for subsets will be similar to that of the set as a whole, but the source doesn't say that. Furthermore, mention of any one subset would be WP:UNDUE, and breaking it down for all of them would drown the article in trivia. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed so i will search for surveys on sex offenders perhaps due in other articles Testant (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  On subsets