Talk:Islam in the United States/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Correction: Cite from World Almanac

Various editors keep removing the World Fact Book figure, on the grounds that the number was taken from Britannica, and it's therefore a "duplicate". The World Fact Book has some authority. It's used by the NY Times and it has its own article on WP. If it supports an estimate, that's noteworthy. We don't remove opinions on WP because they're "duplicates." It is perfect fine to say, "Theory X is accepted by scientists A, B, and C. It is rejected by D, E, and F." It is information that multiple people or sources accept something.

IF we still had the mean and median calculations that were here at one point, yes, it would be wrong to cite a data point twice. But since those are gone, there's nothing wrong with saying that multiple organizations support a certain number. Zora 18:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, that is NOT the way that the information has been presented. Both World Almanac and Britannica were presented as INDEPENDENT studies, which they are NOT. So your argument is incorrect. Now, if you believe that your most recent argument, in a long string of ill-conceived arguments, makes sense then we should cite the Britannica study and then AS A FOOTNOTE point out that the World Almanac also agrees with the Britannica number. But as I have pointed out--with great, unfounded opposition--the way that the information was presented it gives the impression that the World Almanac and Britannica were independent studies which as I have pointed out over and over again that they are not.--Getaway 16:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It is NOT the "World Fact Book" that keeps getting removed. It is the World Almanac. Now, I have scanned two different years of the World Almanac and they both clearly are quoting Britannica--making them duplicates. They can be reviewed here:Adherents of All Religions by Six Continental Area, Mid-2004 and here: Mid-2003 It is duplicate information and it gives a false and misleading impression that there are more studies than their really are and they distort the size of the Muslim population in the U.S.--Getaway 19:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, the notes to these pages make it clear that the estimates cited refer to the number for ALL of North America, including Canada, Greenland, etc., according to the guidelines set down by the United Nations. So, for this reason alone, it is incorrect to argue that the United States has a certain number of Muslim adherents, when the number cited includes other countries.--Getaway 19:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note the source listed on both documents: Encyclopaedia Britannica Book of the Year; figures rounded.--Getaway 19:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, the definition of what the "Northern America" is as the United Nations defines it and as the Britannica/World Almanac refers to can be reviewed here: United Nations World Population Prospects, 2000. So all of these documents set aside any arguments that both the World Almanac and Britannica should be quoted when they are quoting the same exact thing. What these documents do is raise the question about whether the Britannica estimate is useful at all for this article because it clearly refers to ALL of North America and not just the United States. I believe that it is time to remove ALL references to BOTH the World Almanac AND Britannica since Britannica is CLEARLY referring to North America.--Getaway 20:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, I purchased a subscription to Britannica just make sure that my work has been consistent and, of course, it was. Britannica wishes that its article be cited as so:

Religion." Britannica Book of the Year, 2004. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 6 Jan. 2007 [1]. Have a good day!!!--Getaway 20:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If the above citation to Britannica does not work for you then try this one:

Religion--Getaway 20:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Now that ALL discussion about World Almanac being just a duplicate of the Britannica article is over, dead and gone. I think we need to use the proper Britannica number. The number currently quoted in the article as the Britannica number is: (1) out of date and (2) incorrect because it estimates the number of Muslims in North America, not just the United States. So this will be fixed because as it currently stands it is just flat out incorrect. The most recent Britannica estimate for Muslims in the United States is a separate number from the Britannica estimate for the number of Muslims in North America. The correct Britannica number is NOT listed in the article regardless of the copious, incorrect comments of other Wikipedians above. The correct number is 4.7 million Muslims in the United States as of mid-2005. That will be updated.--Getaway 21:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No mention of "minority"

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

BIAS!!

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)

NATIVE AMERICAN MUSLIMS

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)

I am not trying to bring any conspiracy, but the following site is a reliable site. According to this site, a research carried out by Harvard University Professors suggested that there were a community of Native American Muslims. [2] From the site: - "A sum of 565 names, 484 in America and 81 in Canada, of villages, towns, cities, mountains, lakes, rivers and etcetera, are etymologically Arabic, designated by locals long before the arrival of Columbus. Many of these names are in fact the same as names of Islamic places; Mecca in Indiana, Medina in Idaho, Medina in New York, Medina and Hazen in North Dakota, Medina in Ohio, Medina in Tennessee, Medina in Texas, Medina and Arva in Ontario, Mahomet in Illinois and Mona in Utah, are just a few noticeable names at the outset. A closer analysis of the names of native tribes will immediately reveal their Arabic etymological ancestry; Anasazi, Apache, Arawak, Arikana, Chavin, Cherokee, Cree, Hohokam, Hupa, Hopi, Makkah, Mohician, Mohawk, Nazca, Zulu, and Zuni are only a few." -- alif.

Source: http://www.fountainmagazine.com/articles.php?SIN=8923baf5b1&k=823&266534073&show=part1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsalif (talk • contribs)

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)

American Muslims after the September 11, 2001 attacks

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)

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)

Anti-American? Please do explain how it is anti-American. Please, please do.PelleSmith 02:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

After the September 11, 2001 attacks, there were attacks on Muslims living in the U.S. Muslim women who wore distinctive hijab were harassed; some women stayed home, others abandoned hijab temporarily. In 2006, one California woman was shot dead as she walked her child to school; she was wearing a headscarf and relatives and Muslim leaders believe that the killing was religiously motivated.

Lets ignore the unsourced part, since it is WP:OR. Considering what is left, it gives off the impression that muslims are discriminated on a national scale in the United States, and that somehow the U.S. is against Islam. This is very bias and makes America seem like some kind of terrorist state that is against muslims, or at least that the general American public is. It also gives off the impression that it is unsafe to be openly muslim in America, and that somehow the muslims are treated as badly as the blacks were. Both of these are not the case at all; muslims do not have life that badly in america, and this is just a major exagguration. Not to mention most of the sources are not that great.--Sefringle 03:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Can we at least remove the part about the murder, since the case has not been solved and the actual motive behind the murder has not been determined? (all made perfectly clear within the source.)--Sefringle 01:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Islamist terrorism

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)

Because there is connection between the relationship between muslims in the United States and Islamic terrorism.--Sefringle 03:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

First Mosque Contradiction

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)

Criticism

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)

This IP address added the same info to the Arab American article. Smells pushy so I'm deleting it. -- Macduff 21:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

- Why is it 'pushy'? Is it not referenced with credible sources? Are you trying to say that the news regarding minneapolis taxi drivers, grocery store clerks and cair is false? If you are saying its false then prove with references. If not, then its staying because its relavant to this article. This is an encyclopedia and the articles are supposed to be balanced with accurate facts. I have just cited the facts and not passed any judgement based on the fact as anyone can see. If you want this article to be all goody goody propoganda or public relations campaign, sorry to say so but this is an encyclopedic article. No distortions of reality by using selective statements to create a certain impression are acceptable. Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.88.104.194 (talk • contribs)

Expanding the criticism section

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)

2007 survey by the Pew Research Center

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 [3] . 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)

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)

Why do you say it seems to be the most accurate? -Doright 06:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia

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)

Converts

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)

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)

Washington Post is a reliable source for wikipedia.--Sefringle^Talk 00:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sefringle. I had added that piece of information and made sure that it was reliably sourced. I have also mentioned the number of converted inmates (excess of 250000) as cited in the washington post.—Preceding unsigned comment added by NapoleansSword (talk • contribs)

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)

Edit war over

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)

That's what I did. It took most of a day before he was blocked. Arrow740 01:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Lead Section

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)

i agree. some good points mentioned. ITAQALLAH 02:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[Removed Material]

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 [[4]]. 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)

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)

I had to restore the sources, and the actual number. We shouldn't just remove sourced content like this.--Sefringle^Talk 06:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Suicide bombings

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)

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)

- The bold paragraph is about people saying that certain portions of this article like convicts being muslims and 1 in 4 muslims young muslims showing affinity towards suicide bombings is negative about US muslims. I just said that 'negative' is a persons point of view. The same statement can be considered by others as positive. NapoleansSword 03:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Graph

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.--Sefringle^Talk 02:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.--Sefringle^Talk 03:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

It would be much better if the actual numbers were also presented in the graph somehow. - Merzbow 03:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The graph has been edited as suggested. Thanks! RSimione 03:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for the graph when we have actual numbers. it doesnt really improve the page.NapoleansSword 03:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

What about concerns raised in this thread? RSimione 03:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Amateur hour

The figure of 250,000 Muslim converts in prison is still not reliably sourced. If anyone bothers to actually read the text of the editorial that remains such a person can clearly see that the author never intended to present the figure as fact in the first place. Please read the ENTIRE paragraph the figure comes up in below:

• What's more, the group within the African American Muslim community that is experiencing the most explosive growth is probably the least assimilated: black inmates. Good statistics are hard to come by, but one estimate places the number of Muslim converts in prison above 250,000. What brings them to Islam? Survival? Acceptance? Rejection of Christianity? Spiritual transformation?

The author admits that there in fact are no reliable statistics but that one statistic, which we have to take his word on because it remains unsourced in any way by the author himself, makes the claim of over 250,000. In an editorial it is OK to do this, because there is no expectation of sourced factuality, especially when presented like this, in an explicitly non-factual manner. In an encyclopedia this is simply amateur hour.PelleSmith 13:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

i have found one more article with the same estimate. I will however cite that article too and change the wording so that readers know that its an estimate and not an actual statistic based on a census. thanks. NapoleansSword 20:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Amateur hour redux

The "article" you found is an even worse source than the previous ones because it is a self published editorial which makes the same sourceless type of estimation (in fact for all we know either one based their so called "estimate" of the other one). To top it off, the text now attributes the estimate falsely to the Washington Post--please stick with the editorializer. Neither the Washington Post, any of its editors, or Mark Silverberg are demographers, sociologists or any other type of expert capable of making a reliable estimate either. Why does this continue? Lets put an end to this amateurish defense. Find a reliable source please. By the way ... who even is Mark Silverberg (in terms of being a known expert on Islam in the United States or demographics) and where are his so called "articles" (aka editorials) published? Please do not re-add these sources or any other unreliable ones.PelleSmith 11:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I had changed the wording to accomodate your concern that it is an "estimate" and not a demographic. Since it was in the Washington Post, which is a reliable source, I think it is safe to assume that the estimate the author is referring to is not just taken out of thin air. The second article I put in, is just to reiterate the point that two different people have arrived at the SAME estimate so there is some sense to it. When you take out the source and just put "citation needed" it implies that that statement is just unsourced and one of the editors just pulled it out of his mind. This isn't true. In anycase there is a NPOV and additional sources tag on the article. So I would appreciate if you understand this and put the citation back. You might not agree that it is the right figure and I am not saying it is. It could be more or less and hence the use of the word "estimate". But just removing the sources and putting a "citation needed" tag by saying that your patience is wearing thin is just inaccurate. Thanks NapoleansSword 19:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop calling this a reliable source. The Washington Post is not simply, en toto, a "reliable source." I'm not simply unilaterally pointing this out either. Re-read above, what I will quote here:

• "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)."

I've quoted this for you so you don't think I'm doing this unilaterally, and so you can understand that the Washington Post is a reliable source, FOR SOME THINGS, and IN SOME INSTANCES, but not all the time. Thanks.PelleSmith 19:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The editorial specifically quotes a number. Until you can prove that WashPost editorials aren't fact-checked like all other content, it's a reliable source, sorry. - Merzbow 21:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to prove anything of the sort. In the encyclopedia universe that editorial "quotes" nothing as long as it doesn't attribute its source. We have no way of knowing that any source even exists. Again, as Proabivouac astutely pointed out, the Washington Post is only a reliable source in terms of news coverage, not in terms of unattributed bits of information that pop up in their editorials. Besides this very basic premise, if you reread the quoted passage from said editorial, you will see that even the author questions the accuracy of any estimate. Finally please note that slinging around terms like "well-poisoning" willy nilly to condemn the edits of others shows a serious lack of respect for the process here.PelleSmith 22:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Also please note that this particular editorial is a column, which is not attributable to the paper but to the columnist. You can read about the difference between editorials (which have no "author") and columnist or op-ed editorials at editorial. Both kinds, however, express opinion (the former of the paper and the latter of the columnist or author) and are not concerned with reporting facts.PelleSmith 22:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed you do. I have no reason to believe that facts specifically mentioned as such in editorials in major newspapers are not checked by the newspaper. Their reputation is as much on the line as the reputation of the columnist. - Merzbow 22:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

And if you're going to throw around accusations of "lack of respect", you might want to start by not creating sections titled "Amateur hour". Just a suggestion... - Merzbow 22:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You are simply wrong. An editorial expresses the "opinion" of the newspaper, and a column the opinion of the columnist. Please show me where there is even the slightest intimation that these opinion pieces are "fact checked." Your assumption is completely unfounded. I have every reason to believe they are not fact checked because they are explicitly opinion pieces and not news coverage--this is in fact common knowledge. At the Washington Post the section online that contains these columns is called "Columns and Blogs" which is a subheading under "Opinions." On top of this when an opinion writer comes out directly and says, "good statistics are hard to come by, but one estimate ..." are we not being told point blank that this estimate has little to no reliability? Especially when there is no attribution at all. Its not like he said, "good stats are hard to come by, but the Pew forum estimates ...", which would have given us a reliable authority. Lastly, even if the Washington Post put its stamp of approval on every word in this opinion piece, the Washington Post is not a "known expert" in demographics or the sociology of Islam in the United States. And that's a fact.PelleSmith 22:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Partially true. The author of an editorial in a reputable newspaper such as the Washington Post expresses his opinion BASED ON FACTS AVAILABLE TO HIM. An editorial on new york times or washington post is not a blog. Washington post is not a "known expert" on anything. Its a news source. However, to allay some users concerns I have removed that source and put in information from a testimony before the US senate by experts. This is definitely a reliable source. It appears that users here have an intentional agenda of knowingly distorting or hiding certain facts to present the article in a way which satisfies their agenda. However, I would appreciate if we leave aside our agendas and present facts. Again like Merzbow pointed out creating sections like Amateur hour and accusing users with regards to clearly sourced statements really shows who is the so called "amateur". Forcibly removing sources and unciting sourced statements and AGAIN asking for citations doesn't really help in improving the article and making wikipedia a better place. Thanks NapoleansSword 01:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You are right we need to leave bad sources in their places. That will improve the encyclopedia sure fire!!PelleSmith 17:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Like some user already said, if you can prove that washington post doesnt stand behind their editorial, I would have accepted its a bad source. However that point is moot now as I have changed the source to reflect the most accurate facts (which again you seem to have problems with)NapoleansSword 18:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Layout

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)

Keep the Lead Clean

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)

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 [[5]]). 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)

I strongly feel that the said lines are important to be present in the lead as they are fundamental in giving the reader a summary of the presence and demographics of islam in the US. If someone feels that this is a new material and should also be introduced in the demographics, I would agree to that. We could mention that in the demographics too. As of now, its already been taken care of by a editor. If need be it can be expanded in the demographics section. As for the consensus, it is apparent that quite a few users are opposed to removing the statement (Many different editors have restored those lines in the lead). So its really not silence = consent in my opinion.NapoleansSword 19:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

I agree. You raise a very good point. Padishah5000 21:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Two proposals

The issue of Islam and conversion to Islam in American prisons could, or perhaps should, have its own entry. Most of the text that is being developed here should be moved there with summary information only left in this entry with a link to the main entry. Ontop of this the information on this entry should be split and moved in two directions--into Demographics, and into Disaffected American Muslims. Here is what I'm proposing then:

1. Create a seperate entry about Islam in American prisons and move all but summary information into this entry. Clearly, also expand the entry because there seems to be descent material available (and not just from the conservative blogsphere).
2. Move the information in the entry about the population figures into the section on Demographics and a summary amount of information about radicalization into the Disaffected American Muslims section.

The biggest concern I have is that the section that was created on its own encompassing this information seems to be WP:UNDUE as its presented in this entry. Any thoughts?PelleSmith 13:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: My proposal is not to create some pseudo OR entry that itself WP:UNDUE's the aspect of radicalization in prison but one that deals with the whole phenomena in all of its aspects, not just the radicalization part. Just to be clear.PelleSmith 13:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources

In case anyone is interested in this proposal here are some other sources to look at (please add):

1. Crime, Punishment and Justice Among Muslim Inmates

I feel that the line in the lead is apt. The lead should mention the source of islam in the US and rightly so it does mention immigration. However we also need to mention the 2nd main cause inmate conversion. half a million (350,000+50k*4) American Muslims in prisons out of avg 2-3 million total # of american muslims is not a small number. The section about Islam in Prisons is also justified for the same reason. There are 2 main sources for "phenomenal" growth of Islam in America, immigration and inmate conversion so I feel that both of them should be discussed here as this article is clearly about 'Islam in United States'. So this section must remain. However I do agree that a new article must be created with a title "Islam in Prisons". This article must cover not only America but other countries. It appears from various sources that a significant number of Muslims in europe and america are prison inmates. (in france 50% of inmates are Muslim according to the doj report) so such an article is clearly warranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NapoleansSword (talk • contribs) 10:17, 6 July 2007

The "phenomenal growth" of Islam in America is not something that deserves its own section at all--in fact the title of that section is OR if you ask me--but even if its not OR its clearly weasely. If its an issue of population growth then the information goes under DEMOGRAPHICS. On the other hand the radicalized nature of some prison conversions is not a matter of demographics at all but of disaffection amongst American Muslims and/or Muslim converts, which already is a section in its own right. The information needs to be parsed a bit more realistically as well. As it stands we are lead to believe that most or all of these converts are radicalized, because of how you have based almost all of your information on reports geared towards the threat of radicalization in prison by law enforcement officials and anti-terrorist watchdog groups. How many of these prisoners even are thought to be radicalized? How about some clearer information here. I stand by my suggestion wholeheartedly because we are dealing with information here that already has appropriate places in this entry. This new section, like the lead information, simply seeks to grandstand the information.PelleSmith 16:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Those are not my words but the words of an expert who has TESTIFIED before the Congress. If its apt to be used before the US Congress in an official testimony, it is okay to use it here, including the lead. I don't understand why someone would want to take off the fact from the lead that the concerned individual is a Doctorate and he has said it in a testimony before the US Senate? It seems that some people especially AFTER THEY WERE PROVEN WRONG AND WERE UNSUCCESSFUL in their clandestine efforts of hiding the fact of a huge growth of islam in the US prisons are now hell bent on undermining the issue to show that its insignificant. I would like to say that IT IS NOT. Islam in the US is driven by immigration and conversion of inmates in prisons and this is not my opinion. I have just stated facts. So the section should remain. Also since its an important fact about the islam in addition to immigration, it should also be mentioned in the lead (immigration is already mentioned). What makes you think that a radicalized person is dissatisfied? Thats your personal opinion. There is no reason to believe that all radicals are dissatisfied or all dissatisfied people are radicals in this or any other case. I have presented information from reports from the FBI, Homeland security and US Senate (whom you are calling anti-terrorist watchdogs). The FBI and testimony before US Senate says that a large number of these converted inmates are radicalized. Hence they have expressed a serious concern about the issue and I think most readers would believe that this is a good enough source. Clearer information? If this information is clear enough for US Senators and FBI officials, I think its clear enough for most readers. For the same reason it is also realistic. Again, the new information and section IS a very important aspect for the growth of islam in the US and its "grandstanding" is justified. Arent we grandstanding issues like assimiliation, organizations and history? so whats wrong in presenting clearly the reasons for growth of Islam in america? isnt the article about that anyway? It just seems that some users here have an agenda of distorting or hiding facts to present the article in a way that satisfies their agenda. The forcible removal of citations of reliably sourced statements related to this very issue and then again asking for citations, clearly points towards this. However, when I proved the very point using other reliable sources, they seem to have started using other tactics. I would appreciate if we all leave aside these agendas and present facts without being judgemental. Remember, what one person thinks is positive, the other can find negative and vice-versa!NapoleansSword 16:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

So you're accusing others of having an agenda? That's at least mildly amusing. I never argued that there weren't over 250,000 Muslims in American prisons, but that the source was no good. No one has proven that the original source was adequate, and in fact you've shown a much higher estimate being accepted in front of Congress. I expressedly accepted from the beginning that there are clearly many such Muslim converts in the beginning but that we need good sources. This is, in fact the very point of leaving information in the text and putting the {{Fact}} tag next to it--so that a good reference can be produced. Again, please don't confuse this issue, it is very important. I have not been hellbent on hiding the figures, but hellbent on seeing some good sources put into the entry. Also you are missreading my post in regards to "dissatisfied." The word is "disaffected" and not dissatisfied. Read the entire entry here as well. Look at the information in the section entitled "Dissafected American Muslims" and tell me in all honesty that the information about the radicalization of inmates does not belong there. If it is such an important issue, that it deserves its own section, you will need to explain why. We don't even know yet how many of the 350,000 inmates are radicalized. Why don't you answer this? Again, the fact that 350,000 inmates are Muslim, or that 350,000 of America's Muslims are inmates is clearly an important aspect of the DEMOGRAPHIC makeup of America's muslims. The fact that some of them are being radicalized is clearly an important aspect the radicalization (to what ever degree it exists) of America's Muslim population (which is COVERED IN DISAFFECTED AMERICAN MUSLIMS!!). The only agenda I have is to see a well balanced, well referenced entry here, so stop dishing this political rhetoric and answer my points.PelleSmith 17:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, like I said I would support another general article about "Islam in Prisons" where we mention detailed facts about the overwhelming presence of islam among the prison inmates world over (especially in Europe and America). I might work on that article in the future.NapoleansSword 16:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well have fun with it. I should never have come back to this entry. Editing here has been like this from day one. Its just a POV war in which no sense can ever be injected because you can never do anything without being seen as being on one side or the other (e.g. the politicized accusations levied above). This entry remains one of the worst on Wikipedia and I doubt that will change anytime soon. Have fun with it, undo any and or all of my changes I am not wasting any more time with this crap. I should have known better.PelleSmith 17:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

PelleSmith, you must understand that you are dealing with a active base of Wikipedia editors that idealogically do not even recogize the existance of anti-Islamic sentiments or views. One need only check the Wikipedia article on Islamophobia to see what I mean. The very existance of prejudice against Muslims is actually contested there, and heavily reflected in the article. There no longer exists a category of "anti-Islamic sentiment", and the likes of Ann Coulter are seen not as a bigoted individual who views to Muslim-Americans as "ragheads"(her own words and writings, many a time), but as a "critic of Islam". In other words, how can one expect to argue with those that hold such singular and preset prejudicial views and beliefs? The answer is that you cannot, and there is little point in trying. I admire your efforts to remove bias from the article, but it is sadly in vain. Padishah5000 20:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

PelleSmith's edit

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)

Assume good faith This could have been much more easily solved via email or a note on my talk page. This is from page 8 of the referenced report. Enjoy.

• "The BOP Muslim chaplains stated that some inmates are radicalized in prison by other inmates. Numerous other BOP staff members also told us that the real threat of radicalization comes from inmates, not chaplains, contractors, or volunteers."

If you read the document around that page you will see more of the same. The FBI believes they are radicalized by outsiders, as your references tell us (and so does this document reiterate that the FBI believes so), but prison staff and chaplains do not. BTW the study was based upon interviews with chaplains and prison staff--just because they aren't hiring any more doesn't mean there aren't some remaining. In fact some identify the problem exactly in the fact that there aren't more such chaplains around to teach mainstream Islam as opposed to radicalized Islam--see the paper I have listed above for instance. In the future you may want to ask me personally first before wasting space here like this. Thanks.PelleSmith 16:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. The reason I ask here is that I feel everyone involved should know whats going on. I went through the article and it seeems that some of the prison staff and the 10 interviewed chaplains think its the inmates who are responsible for radicalizing other inmates while the BOP officials and FBI have a different view. I will incorporate those portions to make it a bit clear (maybe tomorrow). thanks NapoleansSword 16:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

Your continued incivility here (and in response to good-faith queries to boot) needs to stop. - Merzbow 17:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Very true. It is "authority by association", as opposed to authority by information. Padishah5000 20:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Islam in US Prisons

• 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)

This nonsensical POV will not be included. "Radical" seems to fit the section well. Arrow740 02:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

It still says radicalism.--Sefringle^Talk 03:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

Lead

• 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)

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)

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)

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--Sefringle^Talk 03:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

Not all of the sources invoked in this article qualify as "scholarly" by any means. It would be helpful to exclude ephemeral punditry about the "Muslim menace," as long as we're addressing the quality of sources. I am tired of Wikipedia articles in which lefty and righty sources are lined up like opposing debating teams. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 21:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was History of Islam in the United States‎ was merged.--Sefringle^Talk 06:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

As the newly created history article discusses content that is basicly the same as the topic of this page, I suggest merging.--Sefringle^Talk 04:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

The reason I created the article is to discuss in detail the history of Muslims. I think if you guys give it some time, I can definetly make it larger.Vice regent 22:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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.--Sefringle^Talk 06:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The history article already was "unmerged" out of this one, purportedly in order to expand upon the history within an environment that isn't as restrictive since, for instance, here "history" can only be allotted so much space. The move to "merge" the two entries is disingenuous because its effect will not be to add any information to this entry but simply to delete the history entry before it takes off with more information. The whole point of having a "main entry" is to provide more detailed information and the creator of the entry seems both to have had that intention and the desire to follow through with it. If anyone wants to PROD or AfD the History entry then they should do so outright and not go about it in this back door fashion. As an actual merge this suggestion is baseless, especially given how little time anyone has had to expand the other entry.PelleSmith 12:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

(Reset indents) I am not trying to kill the article History of Islam in the United States. Even a redirect back to Islam in the United States can be easily changed when the time comes to break out an article. My reasons for supporting the merge:

1. There is not yet enough information to support a full article.
2. The merge is appropriate for now, and is not permanent.
3. A reason not yet stated: The main article would benefit from a broader historical perspective, rather than being headline-driven and op/ed-driven. In other words, this would be a stronger article if it were more encyclopedic. I intend to contribute more historical information, from reliable sources, and am not eager to see that information moved out of the main article. Not yet, anyway. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 16:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Support merge: Recreate later if there's enough material for a separate page but right now it should be merged. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unrefereneced claim in the History of Mosques in The US, or a deletion dilemma

Going over this issue of Time Magazine from 1937 available online at the following address: [6] 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)

--->If the claim is unreferenced and you find information which is contrary to the statement, I think its a valid reason to remove it. If someone feels that the statement was correct, they can bring a reference for that and then it can be reinserted. I would support the removal in this scenario. On a side note, I find unreferenced material in the History of Islam section. I am going to add a {{Fact}} tag to it and give some reasonable time for people to bring references for those statements. If not then I am going to discuss about their removal. NapoleansSword 04:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

POV of Islamic Society of North America

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The compromise you did sounds good to me. thanks. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Disputed materials -- Another shot at Discussion

I'm moving the disputed materials here for discussion:

• "In his testimony before the US Senate, Dr. Waller told Senators: “The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) refers Muslim clerics to the U.S. Bureau of Prisons. The Islamic Society of North America is an influential front for the promotion of the Wahhabi political, ideological and theological infrastructure in the United States and Canada." Established by the Saudi-sponsored Muslim Students Association (which has hundreds of chapters on U.S. college campuses), ISNA seeks to marginalize leaders of the Muslim faith who do not support its ideological goals. Through sponsorship of propaganda, doctrinal material and mosques, ISNA is pursuing the Islamofascists’ strategic objective of dominating Islam in North America."[54]One ISNA member, Siraj Wahhaj, was named by U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White as one of the “unindicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirators” in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Wahhaj also has been accused of urging his followers to overturn the U.S. system of government and set up an Islamic dictatorship.[55]"

Please discuss the relevance and accuracy of this material below.PelleSmith 20:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The use of quotation marks in the original makes it hard to follow exactly what is supposed to be read as a quote and what is not. Here is the actual text (the entire text) from the source regarding the ISNA:

• "Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)

The Islamic Society of North America is an influential front for the promotion of the Wahhabi political, ideological and theological infrastructure in the United States and Canada. Established by the Muslim Students Association, ISNA seeks to marginalize leaders of the Muslim faith who do not support its ideological goals. Through sponsorship of propaganda, doctrinal material and mosques, is pursuing a strategic objective of dominating Islam in North America.

ISNA provides ideological material to about 1,100 of an estimated 1,500 to 2,500 mosques in North America. It vets and certifies Wahhabi-trained imams and is the main official endorsing agent for Muslim chaplains in the U.S. military.

Politically, ISNA has promoted leaders of the American Muslim Council (AMC), the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC)."

Here is the entire paragraph from whence the text comes for the second source in the contentious material:

• "In addition, several ISNA board members have been accused of supporting or having ties to terrorism. One member, Siraj Wahhaj, was named by U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White as one of the “unindicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirators” in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Wahhaj also has been accused of urging his followers to overturn the U.S. system of government and set up an Islamic dictatorship. Another ISNA board member, Bassam Osman, is Chairman of the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), which allegedly owns the Islamic Academy of Florida (IAF) and many other Islamic organizations. In a federal indictment handed down in February 2003, the IAF was accused of raising funds and providing support for the terrorist organization Palestinian Islamic Jihad."PelleSmith 20:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

PelleSmith's Comments

Comment 1: The term Islamofascist isn't in this source at all, nor are the parts about the MSA being Saudi sponsored and being in thousands of college campuses. Those two latter facts, clearly have no bearing here since the MSA has its own entry. The first issue is deplorable given that the testimony doesn't even use that contentious term. Also note that this is all from the testimony of one individual. Why should we quote selectively, and even falsely, from one individual about one organization of many? Why not, again, simply state in one neat sentence that the organization has been criticized for actively spreading Wahhabist interests?PelleSmith 20:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment 2: Regarding the second source of material, quoted above, I find it odd that the mention of an organization in a larger entry requires that we quote materials about allegations against one or two of the organizations members. These are members of an organization that is but a small mention in a larger entry, and what we are talking about are "allegations" at that. Why on earth should we waste the space on that kind of material ... allegations about one or two members of an one organization of the many mentioned here? Again I do not understand how one sentence can't just do the trick. Something like: The ISNA has been criticized for its Wahhabist leanings and alleged connections to terrorism. What is wrong with that?PelleSmith 20:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Prison Radicalization

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)

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.--Sefringle^Talk 06:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

paragraph removal

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)

Sounds like a good edit.PelleSmith 11:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Fair enough. Cheers, BanyanTree 00:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Addition of Islamic Organization One Nation

Hi,

I tried to add an entry for the American Islamic Organization One Nation, and it was removed. Can I get clarification on why it was deleted, and why others felt it wasn't appropriate to include?

The entry was:

• The Group One Nation (Organization - Islam) is a is a not-for-profit, philanthropic collaborative that aims to bridge cultural divisions in the United States by integrating the voices and viewpoints of the American Muslim community into the national conversation.

If there's any doubt about the organization, please see www.onenationforall.org as a reference.

Wikirica 23:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Wikirica. I don't think there is any doubt that the organization exists, but we need information (other than from the organization's website) that verifies its notability. Please see WP:V on verifiability, and WP:RS on reliable sources. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 06:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Rob, so to clarify, by citing a third-party source we can restore the One Nation entry to the list of American Islamic organizations?

Thanks!

Wikirica 21:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not up to me. If other editors agree that there is enough evidence that the group is notable, then it will be written up here. Is it a membership organization with a documented number of members? If not, can you point to news coverage about them, or notable achievements, publications, etc.? Is there something that distinguishes it from innumerable other organizations? You get the idea. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 21:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6