Talk:Islam in the United States/Archive 4

message: To those wishing to keep the term "minority" in the sentence about Pipes, Spencer and Emerson please read these sources before simply reverting.  I just had the displeasure of reading through them to check and neither the Pipes or Spencer articles say anything about such a "minority" (I could not read the whole Emerson piece, but that isn't even necessary).  So if we stick to the sources then lets leave this qualification out please.  Especially since both Pipes and Spencer seem to be suggesting something quite different--that the amount of Islamists in our midst may be even higher than we would suspect.  I do not agree with them, of course, but if we are to be true to the sources then so be it.PelleSmith 20:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With regards to Pipes, you are incorrect. What he says is 'While most Muslims are not Islamists and most Islamists are not terrorists" - IOW, Islamist Terrorist are a minority within a minority. Isarig 03:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your quote from Pipes is irrelevant to our discussion and it proves nothing about the accuracy of my assertion.  Please reread the segment in this entry under scrutiny.  Here it is: "a [minority] segment of the U.S. Muslim population exhibit hate and a wish for violence towards the US".  The Pipes quote is 1) generically about Muslims, certainly making no explicit claims about the US population, and 2) it does not cover Muslims who "exhibit hate or wish violence towards the US" but as you yourself say above, "Islamist terrorists".  The phrasing in the entry is not about terrorism but hatred.PelleSmith 11:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, the Pipes quote is very relevant to this discussion. In the cited Pipes article, he makes the point that the segment of US population that is violent to the US are what he calls 'Islamists' (as distinct from Muslims) - and he clearly says Islamists are a minority. Isarig 15:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From the entry: "exhibit hate and wish for violence".  Again, the disputed text does not describe those who "are violent" -- e.g. Islamist terrorists.  Maybe it all needs to be reworded but the quote you pulled from Pipes and the wording of the entry sentence in dispute are clearly separate things.PelleSmith 15:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of "minority" 

message: Yet other Americans have expressed their rejection of such prejudice in various ways. In one city, women of various faiths all started wearing headscarves, so that Muslim women could not be singled out.[citation needed] In several cities, concerned neighbors patrolled mosques to prevent arson and vandalism.[citation needed] Many Americans have spoken out against anti-Muslim prejudice.
HOW BIASED IS THAT?
How about:
Some Americans have spoken out against anti-Muslim activity. In one city, various non-Muslim women wore headscarves in protest. In other cities, people tried to prevent vandalism by patrolling mosques.
And in the paragraph before it, it painted all people who aren't exactly comfortable with Muslims in American culture as prejudiced murderers; I thought ths was supposed to be neutral? The Person Who Is Strange 22:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BIAS!! 

message: I found some websites on Native American Muslims:
* http://www.themodernreligion.com/ht/before-columbus.html 
* http://almunzir.blogspot.com/2007/02/tale-before-columbus.html
* http://utah.indymedia.org/news/2002/10/2996_comment.php
These websites state that Islam had already reached the Native Americans for a long time, and notice the Cherokee men with their turbans - very much unlike other Native American tribes. It's interesting to note statements of - a Cherokee chief called Ramadhan Bin Wati, records of the State of Carolina having the Moors Sundry Act of 1790. involving Native Americans, some places, such as Tallahasee (according to the sites above it actually means," Allah will deliver you sometime in the future."), has Arabic/Turkish roots.
Furthermore, these are Native American sayings that suggests linkage to Islam:
"Our belief is that the Great Spirit has created all things. Not just mankind but animals, all plants, all rocks, all on earth and amongst the stars with true soul. For us, all life is holy. All of nature is within us and we are part of all nature." Chief White Cloud 
"What is life? It is the flash of a firefly in the night." Crowfoot 
"In the life of the Indian there was only one inevitable duty- the duty of prayer - the daily recognition of the Unseen and the Eternal." Ohiyesa 
Would anyone here like to elaborate on the information about thr Native American Muslims and their history?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fantastic4boy (talk • contribs) 
:keep in mind those are not reliable sources--Sefringle 02:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, it's funny how every civilization on earth sent someone to the Americas before Columbus. The methods used in this linked article (above) are absurd, and would allow one to prove almost anything. For example, I live near the Chattahoochee River. I think I'll tell people it got its name from bootleggers in the 1920s, because they liked to sit on the banks and talk about moonshine whiskey (i.e. chat about hooch). What further proof could you want? -- Rob C. alias Alarob 23:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NATIVE AMERICAN MUSLIMS

message: It seems that the above-named section of the article is currently the subject of a revision war.  Could the person who is deleting it please explain why they are doing so.  Thanks.  --Macduff 23:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is POV pushing because it is very anti-american, and it gives undue weight by exaggurating the issue. Not to mention it is poorly sourced.--Sefringle 23:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anti-American?  Please do explain how it is anti-American.  Please, please do.PelleSmith 02:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: To imply that 9/11 had no impact on Islam in the U.S. is ludicrous.  9/11 had a large impact on Islam in the U.S. so a section on those effects is completely relevant to this article.  The section as it stands now is really just the tip of the iceberg.  Not just how 9/11 effected being a Muslim, but also how the Muslim community has reacted to it.  Immediately after 9/11, there was a lot of anti-muslim fear, paranoia, and attacks; the government used a lot of racial and religious profiling and examined many Islamic organizations - but then efforts were quickly made to halt and correct the public backlash, and to prevent the "war on terror" from becoming a "war on Islam." The President went out of  his way to state that Islam is "a religion of peace;" a great PR boon. There have been numerous books and articles about Islam published, that would not otherwise have been.  TV specials on Islam and Muhammad.  There are more non-Muslims examining the religion and converting to it who would not otherwise have even thought about it.  Also consider the good relations programs of ISNA and the election of Ingrid Mattson to its presidency.  Islamic, Christian, and Jewish organizations joining forces to work for religious tolerance and respect.  All of these are results of 9/11.  I think deleting an entire section because portions of it may or may not be biased, or worded in a POV-ish manner, is even more POV-ish.  Efforts should be made to improve and expand the section, not delete it.  If you don't like it, fix it and/or make sugggestions. -- Macduff 15:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will change the language so that Sefringle's ludicrous issues with the section can't even the imagined anymore.  Macduff is 100% correct about the notability and importance of the section and Sefringle is grasping at straws here.  There is nothing anit-American about acknowledging the fact that there were people and institutions within our country who reacted negatively against Muslims after 9-11.  In fact I would say such a reaction is unfortunate but natural in any nation.  Lets not whitewash history so that we can feel better about our country.   The only exaggeration I see is in Sefringle's claim about section and not the section itself.PelleSmith 17:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Muslims after the September 11, 2001 attacks 

message: Why was Islamist terrorism added to the see also list?  It seems less than tenuously informative.  Can anyone explain?  Sefringle?PelleSmith 03:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there is connection between the relationship between muslims in the United States and Islamic terrorism.--Sefringle 03:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For that to make any sense there would have to be something in the Islamist terrorism entry that at least so much as mentions this connection and I cannot find any such mention whatsoever.  Why don't you do us a favor and as a bare minimum make sure that some such mention exists before providing such a link.  Before that is an actuality all you are doing is insinuating confusing connections inappropriately.  If you think the section on "Disaffected Muslims in the US" bares the fruits of such a connection then you can surely work the link in there appropriately.  As of now I'm going to remove the link from the "see also" section with these issues in mind.  Cheers.PelleSmith 04:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Islamist terrorism]] 

message: If you look on the Cedar Falls, Iowa page (directable under the 1st mosque site), it says the first mosque was built in 1914. However, on this page it says that it was built in 1915. A bit of a contradiction here
-Roy Zheng (SeigeTank2000) 22:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Mosque Contradiction 

message: I think the new "Criticism" section is more POV-pushy than the murder in the 9/11 section was, except in the other direction. -- Macduff 21:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is improtant to include in order to balance the discrimination section, as it offers a justification. But to quote you in the earlier section, "Efforts should be made to improve and expand the section, not delete it. If you don't like it, fix it and/or make sugggestions".--Sefringle 21:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: I have observed that there was just a 'response to criticism section and a lack of criticism section and added a couple of relevant points. I still think that it needs to be expanded. There is a lot of valid criticism from various sources which should be included to make this article more comprehensive. I would appreciate if fellow editors follow up on this. Please note I do not imply propoganda. Please post news/articles/statements without passing judgements. Thanks—Preceding unsigned comment added by  201.88.104.194 (talk • contribs) 
:I agree. It needs to be expanded.--Sefringle 18:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding the criticism section 

message: I agree that the 2007 survey by the Pew Research Center is relevant to this article.  However, we can not cite it in the article's first paragraph as though it is the only research estimate on the subject.  Please see  .  There are many such estimates. "There is an on-going debate as to the true size of the Muslim population in the US. Various institutions and organizations have given widely varying estimates about how many Muslims live in the US." -Doright 19:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As of late, it seems to be the most accurate, and infact contradicts other cites sources in the article. Padishah5000 01:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you say it seems to be the most accurate? -Doright 06:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007 survey by the Pew Research Center 

message: With all the Sauds are doing, it looks like they are part of the problem, not the solution of militant Islam. Islam is a great religion, and it is sad to see it being  warped by fundamentalists, like the Saudi regime.--Lionheart Omega 22:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saudi Arabia  

message: Re:"A significant number of American Muslims are in fact convicted inmates who converted to Islam in various state and federal prisons."
Please explain why the source for this is reliable. And where the article says "A significant number of American Muslims..." --Aminz 08:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither that nor the following sentence are reliably sourced in the least.  Even if they were one wonders why such a statement has made it into the lead.  However, as stated, they are not reliably sourced and we have no way of knowing if the figures are even close to correct.  I have removed the statements about prison converts in the lead.PelleSmith 16:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Washington Post is a reliable source for wikipedia.--SefringleTalk 00:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Washington Post is a reliable source for news, but this is not a news story, it's an op-ed.Proabivouac 19:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Converts 

message: I have blocked Benizer for 24 hours. In the future try slow reverts, quick warnings, and a report to WP:AN/3RR. Turning it into an edit-war is pointless and may expose you to a 3rr block, which would be a shame.--Chaser - T 00:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I did. It took most of a day before he was blocked. Arrow740 01:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war over 

message: I don’t agree with the some of the material in the lead section (see WP:LEAD).  The lead section is supposed to be a summary of the article, not include additional information that is not in the article or simply restate the information included in the article.  For instance the passage "Backed by money from Saudi Arabia, Wahhabis have built or taken over hundreds of mosques in North America and opened branches of Saudi universities here for the training of imams as part of the effort to spread their beliefs, which are intolerant of Christianity, Judaism and even other strains of Islam" doesn’t even appear in the article.  It should be removed from the Lead and included under the Controversy and criticism section.
In addition, the passage “A significant number of American Muslims are in fact convicted inmates who converted to Islam in various state and federal prisons. According to the Washington Post, the number of converted inmates is in excess of 250,000. Most of these converted inmates are African Americans” is also only included in the Lead.  It should be moved to the main article. 
Also, I have to take issue with using AIM as a reliable source.  It seems as if it is more of a conservative blog than a source whose opinions should be taken at face value.  In any event, the article is cited in conjunction with the passage, “A significant number of American Muslims are in fact convicted inmates who converted to Islam in various state and federal prisons” when in fact I couldn’t find any such claim in the article. This should be completely removed.
Also, there are five separate references attached to the passage "Backed by money from Saudi Arabia, Wahhabis have built or taken over hundreds of mosques in North America and opened branches of Saudi universities here for the training of imams as part of the effort to spread their beliefs, which are intolerant of Christianity, Judaism and even other strains of Islam."  However, when I checked these references, only one of them included this quote, although the rest did have the same general point.  However, I think it would be appropriate to include only the reference tat includes the direct quote.  More importantly, this is another example of a passage that has been included in the Lead, without the proper foundation in the main article.
On top of that, much of the information in the article has been excluded from the lead.  For instance, information from the sections on History, Demographics, Variety of Islamic Traditions, Assimilation, Organizations is virtually absent from the article while the section on Controversy and Criticism is emphasized (see WP:UNDUE).
Umer Al-Amerikee 02:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree. some good points mentioned. ITAQALLAH 02:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: While it's true that banned editors should not be allowed to edit, I've looked through a lot of Wikipedia policy pages and I haven't found anything that suggests deleting comments from banned editors. In fact, most of the policy I've read indicates that users comments should 'not' be removed. The closest I've found is striking through in appropriate comments. In fact, when a similar situation came up on Talk:Islamophobia, that is precisely what was done. See []. I don't want to re add the comment under my own name because I'm not sure I agree with it. Perhaps some other editors can comment. Umer Al-Amerikee 01:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: According to Pew, which is a reliable (though hardly unimpeachable) source for such demographic information, the majority of native-born American Muslims are African-American. This article has hardly anything about the Nation of Islam, which merits a very prominent section (at least). Yes, we all know they're not really Muslims, but we're counting their numbers and so does everyone else. The prison material refers to a real phenomenon (e.g. Malcolm X,) but I'm uncomfortable with asserting that this represents "a significant number" without reliable sources, and, as you say, the lead shouldn't include points which aren't covered elsewhere in the article.Proabivouac 06:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had to restore the sources, and the actual number. We shouldn't just remove sourced content like this.--SefringleTalk 06:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead Section 

message: First of all I would like to mention that PEW RESEARCH CENTER and Fox News are considered to be reliable sources on wikipedia. Any reverts saying 'unreliable source' is totally unwarranted. Secondly, I observed that there was a problem with the interpretation of the fox news report. So I chose to use the DIRECT QUOTE from Fox News from the lead of the article which is highlighted in bold. A direct quote from the lead of a news report from a reliable source which is highlighted in bold is apt and should end the controversy. There should be no room for personal interpretations and the judgment must be left to the reader's intellect.  Again, interpretations like "3 out of 4 young muslims think that suicide bombings are never justified" are inaccurate. Some people in the poll choose not to answer or say they are not sure. That doesnt mean that they think its never justified.
Now in the context of the edit war let me say the following:
Saying that the article is shows negativity towards Muslims or Islam is your personal opinion which has no place in an encyclopedic article. For example, if you think that 1 in 4 American muslims thinking that suicide bombings against civilians are justified is a bad thing, thats YOUR PERSONAL OPINION. There could be an equal number of people who think that its a good thing. I saw the same issue with the convicted inmates thing. A significant number of Convicted inmates being Muslims is a FACT as per reliable sources. That being a good or bad thing has no value here. It could be a positive or negative thing depending on various readers' personal judgments. So its better that we do not shove our own judgments down someones throats and just highlight the facts. 
Again, I saw someone deleting the sentence saying that a large number of native born American Muslims are blacks. This sentence has been deleted. I am pretty sure that I have read it somewhere and i am going to put it back after I get sources. Deleting this sentence citing negativity just shows your own personal judgment and racism. Just my 2 cents. NapoleansSword 18:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that after some careful editing by several people, and an image I constructed for the data, the issue has been resolved. The main problem with the Fox News article was that it was referencing the data in two contradictory ways. Unfortunately this is not unheard of. However, using the Pew Research Center's actual research should provide for a good source of information. And I don't really know what your bold paragraph was all on about. RSimione 01:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suicide bombings 

message: :Image:Suicide Graph.PNG has several problems with its inclusion, notably that it is making light of the 25% of muslims who think suicide bombing is at least justified at some times. It is making light of the numbers by trying to make them look small.--SefringleTalk 02:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm open to suggestions as to how to make the image more useful to the article. However, at the moment it is a a comprehensive way to read the results of the Pew Research Center's May 22 2007 Report on Muslims in America. The image only represents numbers, if there is a better way to represent them graphically please discuss it here before deleting the image. RSimione 03:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I should also note that my original purpose in creating the image was to show a good comparison of older and younger Muslims in the U.S. RSimione 03:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about no image, and instead we just present what the data says. The image really doesn't improve the section, and seems more it just is trying to push a viewpoint that 1/4 of american muslims who think suicide bombing is not a big percentage. It might have been better if it just included never and sometimes. The other categories just seem to attempt to make the somethimes section smaller.--SefringleTalk 03:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree "rarely" is not "never", rarely is also very different from sometimes/often. Anyway, thats the way the information is presented in the research, and I feel that presenting it any other way is misleading. Also, the wikipedia article's data does not talk compare the two age groups. It compares the average to the younger group, but not the older group to the younger group. RSimione 03:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is somewhat misleading, the scale makes impossible to determine the percentages of the three other categories with any accuracy (is it 15%? 10%? 5%? You need to squint). Please let the numbers speak for themselves. - Merzbow 03:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this is a concern. I could label the percentages on the graph itself. I would just put the 30+ numbers into the article, but, I ask you all, what method would be most appropriate for comparison? I feel like writing something like "...3%/6% for 30+/18-26 year olds, respectively..." would be hard to read and unencyclopedic. RSimione 03:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be much better if the actual numbers were also presented in the graph somehow. - Merzbow 03:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The graph has been edited as suggested. Thanks! RSimione 03:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: What about concerns raised in this thread? RSimione 03:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well my point is, what's the point of this graph and why have a graph for this particular issue? There are so many statistics mentioned on this very page and there are no graphs for them. You dont see tons of graphs around on wikipedia wherever there are statistics. If this be the case, editors will start making graphs for all statistics and start cluttering the page. We already have numbers mentioned here. I suggest that this graph has no utility over here and doesnt improve the page at all, so it should be removed. If not just to be consistent you may want to make graphs for all the statistics on this page (which I dont recommend by the way).NapoleansSword 04:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The report represented by the graph is very detailed and very eye opening. It will merit careful analysis and perspective for readers interested in it! And please consider, that if your logic would be applied to this article, all pictures would be deleted or every statement would need a picture. It is only my hope that this graph can be sized responsibly to fit well in to this article. RSimione 04:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't understand why you are singling out this particular issue for a "detailed and eye opening" graph. You misunderstood my point. The pictures generally pertain to something central to the idea of an article. This graph would be warranted if the article was about say Suicide Bombers among American Muslims or somthing like that. clearly this isnt the case and the article is about islam in the united states. Again as you can see, there is no consensus among users to use your image. In fact from what it seems a majority doesnt support it. Still it appears that you are reverting the article to include your graph. I would like to politely remind you that doing this constitutes vandalism. It would be nice if you understand the opinion of a majority of editors and refrain from including your graph.NapoleansSword 04:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to point out that WP:VANDALISM states "Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable—you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such."Umer Al-Amerikee 01:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: now I see that the graph has been made larger so much that it is the first thing that attracts a readers attention on this page. it really makes one wonder what is the article about 'Islam in United states' or 'Suicide Bombing among american muslims' I would appreciate if the graph is removed atleast until some consensus is reached. in fact like i said before the graph is totally unnecessary as there are no graphs for other statistics on this page and this page is full of statistics!NapoleansSword 04:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still stand by my points which I made on 3rd July (above). The user has still not clarified why he needs to single out this particular issue for a "detailed and eye opening" graph according to him. Like I said there are many statistics around wikipedia and even in this article which do not have such graphs. I feel that graphs or images are only warranted if that is a central point of the article. So, I am removing the graph. If anyone has different ideas, please feel free to discuss. Thanks NapoleansSword 20:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Graph

message: hi guys,
it appears that the layout has been getting messed up in the last few edits. If you see the article now (and during the last few edits) a huge chunk of the article has gone below the references (notes) section. I tried to restore it but whenever someone reverts back to a version prior to mine, the layout gets messed up again. I am going to revert the article to a proper layout and then add changes after that. To keep the proper layout of the article I would appreciate if you revert it to my "Proper Layout" edit and then make your changes/edits. NapoleansSword 20:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Layout

message: There are probably similar problems with the lead, but since this particular text has been controversial it is a good example to start with.  The prison demographic does not in any way belong in the lead as per WP:LEAD.  The lead is meant to sumarize the text to the entry and not to introduce unique and specific pieces of information that do not reflect information existing in the main body of the text.  Please read the guidelines.  Here is the introduction (or lead) to WP:LEAD:
*The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article.
I think this matter is clear, and one editor at least has been citing WP:LEAD in trying to move the text, but has been repeatedly shot down on dubious grounds.  "Consensus," for instance, has nothing to do with this issue whatsoever.  Of course, where is the consensus anyway?  Are we to believe that there is a consensus here to fly in the face of the rather fundamental WP:LEAD guidelines?PelleSmith 12:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't have said it better myself.  I would also like to point out that consensus is a very tricky thing.  While there may be no consensus for moving the prison demographic, I would also say that there is no consensus for leaving it there either.  The issue of what information to include in the lead was brought up previously (see []).  If anything, a consensus existed for moving the material since the only response to my post was positive (see WP:CONS: " "Silence equals consent" is the ultimate measure of consensus — somebody makes an edit and nobody objects or changes it. Most of the time, consensus is reached as a natural product of the editing process").  In any event, the consensus over the article has obviously broken down.  I seems the best way to proceed is for the user(s) opposed to moving the material to state their case here. Umer Al-Amerikee 16:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review the WP:LEAD guidelines again because there is no reason to include that information in the lead.  Even without it this lead is much too long and unruly.  And consensus simply isn't relevant here.  If there is a faction of editors active on an entry all of whom agree to violate policy or to disregard guidelines their tacit agreement is of no use to the project.  In fact it is simply a detriment in that it feigns unanimous support for a specific agenda.PelleSmith 19:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. You raise a very good point. Padishah5000 21:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: IN FACT, the shameful part of all of this is that clearly there are a significant population of converts to Islam in prison, and clearly their story is part of the one we want to tell here in Islam in the United States.  However, instead of trying to find accurate verifiable information about this population, and about the role it plays in Islam in the United States, several editors are content with quoting newspaper editorials in order to play up some angle on the situation.  Keeping this information in the lead, is likewise coming across less as an attempt to build a good entry and much more as an attempt to display specific pieces of information above others.  Those interested in this type of writing should take up blogging and editorializing, because Wikipedia at least pretends to be a project dedicated to presenting accurate verifiable, and balanced information.PelleSmith 19:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could not agree with you more. Unfortunately, there are many folks here with a less than sincere agenda and interest in Islam, and that religion's existence in the United States. As a result, the accuracy of the encyclopedia suffers. The purposeful inclusion and linkage of biased editorial opionion such has been presented and defended is proof enough. Padishah5000 21:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Padishah, I would respectfully disagree. In fact, it appears that there are some people here who have a sincere agenda to distort the truth and facts regarding the issues you are mentioning. The facts that were presented were reliably sourced and it was clearly mentioned that it was an estimate. However, with some editors still not agreeing and forcibly removing the sources on well-sourced statements, I had to take the initiative to hunt for facts. I have now changed the article to the new found facts according to a testimony before the US Senate by experts. The reason for bolding those words is to stress the point that a testimony made before the Congress is a reliable source. So I would appreciate if all the users help in presenting facts and help make the article better. Thanks NapoleansSword 00:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with you. There are some sincere Islamophobes here on Wikipedia. Oh, and nice work finding the congressional transcript. Those can be tricky. My only wish is that someone would come up with a statistic showing how many prisoners actually REMAIN a Muslim once leaving prison. Now, that would be a very interesting number to add to the article. Padishah5000 09:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with including statistics about how many Muslims there are in US prisons is that this is the only demographic information provided in the lead.  It gives the impression that most American Muslims convert when they are in prison and ignores immigrant Muslims and other converts.  There is definitely a problem with WP:UNDUE here.  If these statitistics are given in the lead, others should be as well. Umer Al-Amerikee 01:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep the Lead Clean  

message: PelleSmith has written "However the Office of the Inspector General of the United States Department of Justice has been reassured by prison officials and appointed Muslim chaplains that other inmates, and not outside volunteers, are the main cause of inmate radicalization. In light of this, the chaplains they interviewed express concern for prison facilities without adequate Islamic resources leaving religious services in the hands of inmates." I tried to check the source but I didnt come across this thing? Did I miss something? Can someone point out where the prison officials agree that its other inmates and not chaplains? The reason I am expressing this concern is because the same report says that the Bureau of Prisons (prison officials) "has not hired a Muslim chaplain since 2001. The Chief of the Chaplaincy Services Branch stated that around the summer of 2003 the BOP stopped accepting ISNA-endorsed chaplain candidates." I havent removed that edit but these two things appear to contradict. Why would the BOP feel that its not the chaplains and then stop hiring chaplains?NapoleansSword 16:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all the FBI's position is already stated.  The whole point of adding this information is to balance the fact that some people on the ground don't agree with the FBI's assessment as to the causes of radicalization.  Please don't try to spin this back into the FBI point of view.  Also, you mistake my point about good faith--the point is that if you think I'm claiming something exists that you can't find the first step is to ask me in good faith instead of saying basically "i think PelleSMith is liar, what do you think?" on the talk page here.PelleSmith 16:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your continued incivility here (and in response to good-faith queries to boot) needs to stop. - Merzbow 17:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, do not make unbased accusations against editors. PelleSmith has been very polite and civil. I would ask you to do the same. Disagreement with a position does not equal incivility, in any sense of the notion. Padishah5000 20:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Merzbow for pointing it out. I never claimed he was a liar hence "did i miss something?" Its surprising that some people who forcibly remove the citations of reliably sourced statements and further ask for sources for the same statements accuse others of "not showing good faith" In response to the query: Yes, that information is fine, but I feel it is important to add the information that although the 10 chaplains who were interviewed and some prison staff feel what you mentioned, the FBI, BOP officials and homeland security (who are obviously more important and have access to intelligence information unavailable to those 10 chaplains) have a different view. I have incorporated your edit to balance the point you mentioned and still made sure that the article properly mentions facts. I feel this is the way of making wikipedia better rather than removing a person's qualification (Dr. Waller), removing statements claiming they are redundant, removing sources from statements, making charges like sourced information is unrealistic and unclear, starting sections on talk like "Amateur Hour" to attack others and calling sources like US Senate, Homeland Security and FBI anti-terrorist watchdogs. It really doesnt help. Again you keep on stressing "good sources" and disagree with other people's sources but it would be more helpful if you bring good sources to disapprove those points.  Now I can see that you seem to have issues with congressional testimony and FBI as source too. Dont mean to offend but just my 2 cents. enjoy NapoleansSword 18:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI--those sources fall under "law enforcement."  Anti-terrorist watch dog groups include, for instance, frontpage magazine.  Also, the US congress never certified anything you have sourced.  You have a PhD terrorism and information warfare expert testifying under oath in front of congress.  Sounds like a good source, but the source is NOT the US Senate itself.  For the record.PelleSmith 20:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true. It is "authority by association", as opposed to authority by information. Padishah5000 20:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: PelleSmith's edit

message: *The problem with calling this section ‘Radical’ Islam in US Prisons is that it implies that radicalism is a problem in US prisons, something which is in dispute.  Also, the section includes a general discussion of Islam in US prisons and using the term radical in the title implies that all Muslims in prison are radical which is also in dispute.  The term radical should be eliminated.
*The passage “Dr. Waller states "These inmates mostly came into prison as non-Muslims. But, it so happens that once inside the prison a majority turns to Islam for the fulfillment of spiritual needs… It is estimated that of those who seek faith while imprisoned, about 80% come to Islam”” needs to be included.  Without it, the section implies that the alleged 350,000 Muslim prisoners are all radicals, while it’s clear that even Dr. Waller agrees that they are simply trying to fulfill their spiritual needs.Umer Al-Amerikee 02:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This nonsensical POV will not be included. "Radical" seems to fit the section well. Arrow740 02:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not really a response. You should take the time to outline why you think it's nonsensical and why radical fits.  This is just name calling. Most of the section is POV if you ask me.Umer Al-Amerikee 02:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's accurate. POV means "point of view." We distinguish between POV's and facts. Why should a quote you found on the internet conveying the opinion of a professor of "international communication" be included in an encyclopedia? Information he conveys is a different story; it is very different from his own opinions. Further as the section makes multiple mentions of Saudi funding and radical Islam in US prisons, the "radical" is appropriate. Arrow740 02:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not accurate.  Some sources say that radicalism is a problem, others say it's a potential problem (I think Dr. Waller is in this category), and others say it's not a problem (Harley G. Lappin, Paul E. Rogers).  These are not facts in the sense that they are the consensus of all the authorities, they are opinions and they are disputed.Umer Al-Amerikee 02:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It still says radicalism.--SefringleTalk 03:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire testimony held before the US Senate which I have quoted from AND which Umer-Al has quoted from is titled "TERRORIST RECRUITMENT AND INFILTRATION IN THE UNITED STATES: PRISONS AND MILITARY AS AN OPERATIONAL BASE. " All of this discussion was held to discuss the radical Islam in US Prisons. So the point of Islam being radicalized in US prisons is not being disputed. If any of you want I can bring in more sources to prove that but I felt that these sources are enough and reliable. As for Umer-Al's point of including "These inmates mostly came into prison as non-Muslims. But, it so happens that once inside the prison a majority turns to Islam for the fulfillment of spiritual needs… It is estimated that of those who seek faith while imprisoned, about 80% come to Islam” I had already included "Official estimates suggest that roughly 80% of the prisoners who "find faith" while in prison convert to Islam and that the percentage of Muslim inmates is 15-20% of the prison population." Including that figure again in the same paragraph is repeating the information. As for "spiritual needs" it needs to be noted that all people seek religion for spiritual purposes only so this point is redundant unless the user wants to imply that Islam has a different purpose.NapoleansSword 04:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Islam in US Prisons

message: *The passage “According to the testimony of Dr.Michael Waller before the US Senate, the conversion of convicted inmates in American prisons "is a major contributor to the phenomenal growth of Islam in the U.S." He has testified that "there are approximately 350,000 Muslim converts in Federal, state and local prisons - with 30,000-40,000 being added to that number each year."” Should be removed in accordance with WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD.  It places too much emphasis on one aspect of the Muslim American experience.  These are virtually the only statistics included in the lead.  Why are these so important? Why not include the others?Umer Al-Amerikee 02:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since so much of the growth in Islam in this country is due to prison conversations, it deserves some mention in the lead. Maybe not that much, but something. - Merzbow 02:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is disputed. It is one opinion among many.  It's legitaimate to mention in the lead that it's an issue but opposing opinions need to be included as well.Umer Al-Amerikee 02:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What other opinions? If there are other opinions, they should be added, but it shouldn't be removed just because you don't like it. If you can find a scholarly source that disputes it, then we can discuss other opinions. BUt if there are no other scholarly sources which dispute it, there is no violation of any policy or guideline with its inclusion--SefringleTalk 03:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are 2 main reasons for growth of Islam in United States, immigration and Prison inmate conversion (according to reliable sources). Immigration had already been mention and this also needs to be mentioned. In the lead of an article titled "Islam in United States" the reader MUST know outright what are the main sources of the philosophy in the country and the reason for its growth. Like Sefringle has noted, these are scholarly sources and if any other sources that are equally or more reliable than the current source exist which dispute this issue, we can discuss. NapoleansSword 04:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: The result was History of Islam in the United States‎ was merged.--SefringleTalk 06:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. If the account of the history of U.S. Islam becomes more substantial later, we can consider a separate article then. For now, it only weakens the main article. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 13:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the merge, but I just noticed that the new article as well as the history section in the current article is completely unsourced. I think it should be either sourced or rewritten. NapoleansSword 21:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The ultimate issue is whether there is enough article to warrent moving it into a new article. If there is, it can always be un-merged later, but for now, I think it should be merged.--SefringleTalk 06:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: I don't accept the assumption that the proposal to merge was disingenuous. While some of the work on this article has strained my capacity to assume good faith, and the article is bound to attract editors with fringe POVs, I do not think it appropriate to evaluate the merge proposal as if you can read the proposer's mind. Once the History section is extensive enough to merit a separate article, we should have one. We're not there yet. (Also, there is no reason the History article can't be developed in a sandbox in User space. I have been doing this with another article that needs revising, but which I haven't had time to develop immediately.) -- Rob C. alias Alarob 14:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The separate history entry should not be judged on the basis of how much the history section has been developed here because the history section here has been developed in a limited capacity due to the fact that it is but a part of a larger article.  You can criticize the language I use as much as you want but that doesn't change the fact that the only outcome of this merge would be to delete the history article before anyone has had much of a chance to expand on it.  I don't know what Sefringle's motives are, but the merge itself is disingenuous because it masks a deletion under a merge.  If what you want to do is to delete the history entry and redirect it here then just come out and say so, if not then don't support this merge because that's the only effect it will have.  If the History article merits deletion, then I suggest it go through a deletion proceeding instead of the merge.  My personal opinion is that the creator of the entry took information from here to make a stub that could be expanded upon, and that at least some period of time should be allotted for the expansion of the entry before suggesting this kind of merge, or outright deletion.  Ideally the entry would be much more detailed than the section provided here.PelleSmith 15:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As an aside, while I don't have a negative opinion about the use of sandboxes to develop articles, I most certainly don't think that doing so is the best way to use the resources of a wiki to expand upon an entry because it limits the amount of possible editors by virtue of where it resides.  What is wrong with the traditional way of working a stub into a good entry, especially when the stub has already been created?  Also, if you feel that having the link to the "main entry" is detrimental to this entry then remove the link, however I would imagine that having the link only increases editor traffic on the "main entry" and thereby increases the chances of getting work done there.PelleSmith 15:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Rob. Doesn't every article start off bieng a small one, with not a lot of info? Eventually, the articles attract writers each of whom contributes something. Why can't we have historical information on both articles (the main one, and the one that you want to be merged)? The historical information in this article would be a summary, and the other article would go in more detail.Vice regent 21:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is certainly the objective. It doesn't make much difference to me how we get there. I did not propose the merge and will not comment further. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 23:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge

message: Going over this issue of Time Magazine from 1937 available online at the following address: 
I have come across the following statement about a Mosque in Brooklyn:
"For two hours one evening last week, these prayers sounded in a brick building in Brooklyn, only full-fledged Moslem mosque in the U. S. It was the eve of Ramadan, to Mohammedans the holiest and most rigorous month in the year."
In the article on Mosques in America, there is an unreferenced claim that the first functioning mosque in the US was set up by Albanians in 1915.  I could find no reference to it.  What should we do?--Orestek 03:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unrefereneced claim in the History of Mosques in The US, or a deletion dilemma

message: The section on the Islamic Society of North America seems to have some serious bias. Half the parapraph is a very negative assement. The word "Islamofacist" is there, for what purpose? Shouldn't these criticisms be moved to the criticsim section of Islamic Society of North America. If it is felt neccessary, a brief description of controversy could remain remain in this article, but 4 sentances is excessive. Not to mention none of the other organisations have a detailed critique in this section.  Homersmyid 09:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds more than logical.  If the organization has its own entry then you should go ahead and make those changes.PelleSmith 12:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is this information continually readded?  Can someone please explain here why we need to have detailed statements employing highly POV terms like "Islamofacist" in the description of one of the many Islamic organizations in the United States?  The organization has its own entry.  Please don't keep on readding it with edit summaries that don't deal with the issue here.  No one is arguing that the information isn't sourced, in fact I edited it down to a brief sentence and retained the source.  The issue is that, again, the ISNA has its own entry, and there is no reason to get into the nitty gritty of such accusations on this page.  In fact its entirely un-encyclopedic.  Maybe my phrasing wasn't perfect, maybe one of you wants to try rewriting it but the entirety of that content clearly doesn't belong here.  Please engage in this discussion, since it has been ongoing before the reverts started, instead of just engaging in edit warring.  The reason I am not reverting myself is that I'm not going to get suckered into 3RR, even if those who keep on readding the information would rather not discuss it here.PelleSmith 03:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it seems like an edit war is happening. So far noone has provided the reason why they believe it fits POV to have over half the paragraph of negative assement and not one word of positive. It is also againt Wikipedia standards to use power words like Islamofacist. Again there is a proper place for this in the Islamic Society of North America criticism section. Homersmyid 04:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even a short introductory paragraph should mention the most notable features of these organizations. If they were involved in crime, that should be mentioned otherwise what you are doing is a POV problem since you're trying to put an organization in a positive light only. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 11:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If only that were the case.  If you think that my version, seen here before it was reverted as if it never existed, doesn't do the exact issue justice then by all means edit it like I suggested.  I have yet to hear any argument for the existence of all that information, and again I will repeat that what I am promoting isn't removing any mention of this but paring it down to a consice statement because this isn't Islamic Society of North America but Islam in the United States.  Cheers.PelleSmith 14:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The compromise you did sounds good to me. thanks. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV of Islamic Society of North America 

message: I moved the entire section "Radical Islam in US prisons" to be part of an entry on Prison Islam in the United States.  I also added pertinant information and references from that section to others in this entry like "Demographics" and "Disaffected American Muslims."  As it stood this was way to detailed and exhaustive to describe a phenomenon that effects a very very small minority of American Muslims.  In fact it probably effects a small minority of Muslims in prison as well, and it should be noted here that the materials provided never discussed what percentage of the prison population was radicalized.  To that effect it insinuated that it was the entire prison population of Muslims (patently false) and kept throwing around those numbers instead as if we had thousands of anti-American Muslim radicals in our prison system.  Those types of issues will have to be dealt with in the main entry. I think that a shorter and more balanced section could also be created on "Islam in US prisons," to which more information could be added.  However, such a section should treat Islam as a Prison religion and be NPOV and balanced.  Clearly radicalization was (and perhaps still is) a problem, but a vast majority of Muslim inmates are not budding terrorists but simply religious criminals.  Also there is a history of Islam as a prison religion that would be an interesting addition to this entry.  That said by all means lets edit the changes I made, but I don't see what justification there is in keeping the previous detailed section intact.PelleSmith 11:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: per WP:SUMMARY, you forgot to leave a short summary. I restored the first paragraph, so that the article has at least a little information on this topic.--SefringleTalk 06:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll get to editing it later but the whole point here is to have a section "Islam in U.S. Prisons" from a NPOV perspective that would contain this material.  As you have readded it is still heavily unbalanced.  The main entry isn't simply about this POV but about Prison Islam in general.  I hope it gets filled out as well.PelleSmith 20:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prison Radicalization 

message: I have removed a paragraph on the Pew Research Center report, specifically that reporting on attitudes toward suicide bombing.  In the first case, it repeats the content found in "American Muslim life after the September 11, 2001 attacks".  In the second, it uses secondary sources and quotations from the secondary source, rather than the easily available primary report.  Third, it cites both Fox and Yahoo as two separate sources, rather than noting that the content is repeated from the Asian News International news service.  Fourth, it notes the name of the Pew report as "Poll: 1 in 4 U.S. Young Muslims OK With Homicide Bombings Against Civilians", which is not the name of the report.  I think I am justified in being concerned about the general quality of the contribution. - BanyanTree 06:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good edit.PelleSmith 11:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It has been restored by NapoleansSword. She/He justifies it on the grounds that it is "sourced data." I put a note on his/her talk page. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 04:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks guys for leaving me a message on my talk page to discuss this over. Okay, apologies, I didnt read the entire paragraph which was deleted. I just saw a huge chunk deleted and a couple of lines which are not present in the other parts and reverted it. Now that I read the whole thing, I agree that the info shouldn't be repeated. But some parts that are in "American Muslims after 9/11" are more appropriate for "controversy and criticism." The reason is that those findings deal with controversial matters which have been criticized. I am going to re-structure those parts to incorporate all the info so that the article looks better and the info isnt repeated. NapoleansSword 06:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Cheers, BanyanTree 00:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  paragraph removal