Talk:Islam in the United States/Archive 2

message: 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 <g>. 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)
thread_title:  Zora's copyedits 

message: 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)
thread_title: top image

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: The inserts are from right-wing hate sites that have no relevance to this article. Yuber(talk) 07:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV sections

message: === 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)
thread_title: I added a new section and of course Yuber launched a revert war over it

message: 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)
thread_title:  Muslim disafection and disloyalty towards the United States

message: 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)
replies: text: The new section seems verifiable and cited. It should stay.--72.144.221.223 14:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Muslim bigotry 

message: 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)
thread_title: Semi-protection

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Personal attacks by [[User:Anonymous editor|Anonymous editor]]: meatpuppet of [[User:Yuber|Yuber]]

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

message: 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)
thread_title: One of the issues of contention is the following section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  An anon feels the article is too modern 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  More of the same 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Culture Clash 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  New edits

message: 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)
thread_title:  Contested section

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: No you are not. It was just a gotcha , thats all.--CltFn 01:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Protection 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Zora procrastinates, productively 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States#Cultural_Clash Cultural Clash] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: But they were not committed by people who can be considered American Muslims. BhaiSaab talk 18:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: Another thing is that you should aviod making such personal remarks against CltFn. -- Karl Meier 08:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will go through everything in the list shortly if you don't mind. BhaiSaab talk 17:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Instances of Islamic terrorism

message: 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)
thread_title: Conflicts with American Muslims

message: 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)
thread_title: Report Data

message: 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)
replies: text: OK on the alleged muslims part  but the rest is correct--CltFn 20:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Zogby survey  FACT CHECK

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I agree with her. BhaiSaab talk 16:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No gratuitous Muslim-bashing, please 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Persecution of Muslims in the U.S. is a real phenomenon. BhaiSaab talk 21:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Yet another rewrite 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Oh, and the first para 

message: :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)
thread_title: Wrong version

message: 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)
thread_title:  Demographics, CltFn's favorite links 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Yes, do indeed check it out , nothing like a reality check to put things in perspective.--CltFn 23:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Demographic surveys 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Public Opinion Surveys 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  So which editor were you before this? --CltFn 03:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: under certain screen resolutions there is.--CltFn 05:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CltFn Please Respond Unless you Intend "Bad Faith" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fixing references 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Book sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Right wing conservatives 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Getaway 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hajj demographics wizardry does not belong