Talk:Islam in the United States/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Demographics, Extrapolations and References

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

Mosques as storefronts

The article states "However, many mosques are storefronts[23]" the referenced blog states "There are several mosques in the Chicagoland area, also. Many began as and remain as storefront structures." A more accurate citing would be: On Ray Hanania's blog, he states that there are several mosques in the Chicagoland area, and that "many of those began as and remain as storefronts."

'== Demographics == The section on demographics needs work. It is a listing of various studies that may or may not exist. There are some listed, for example a mysterious Cornell study, that have absolutely no information on how to learn more about the study. The Cornell study is listed as flatly stating that there are 7 million Muslims in the U.S. There is no link to the study. There is not even a journal entry reference. I'm not even sure that it exists. It is not the only one with this lack of information. I would ask that someone point me in the right way to find this study, I have done a Google search on it and I have not found a thing. If after a reasonable time, there is no confirmation of this study then I am going to remove any reference to it. Also, it very difficult to believe a large part of this information because all of the estimates are all over the place and they are always round numbers, e.g., 3 million exactly, 6 million exactly, 7 million exactly, not a range, but a nice round number. It sounds fake. And another issue is: How helpful is a list of studies with fake sounding numbers and no reference to where the find the original work?? I don't find the information helpful at all. I think the information confuses the reader more than just being honest about the debate that is going on concerning the size of the Muslim population in the U.S., point the reader in the direction of the studies themselves and then let the reader decide. Wikipedia is NOT a primary source, it is NOT a seconday source, it is a teritary source and we need to keep that in mind.--Getaway 18:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes the section needs to be referenced, which is why there is a templete at the top of the section. As far as I can tell those figures were added over time, by several different editors. If any of you are out there please help us find the references. However, given that the templete is up and that we are discussing the matter here, I think we should also give people time to find the references, assuming that they were put up in good faith. Also, lets not assume that a number is fake just because it is a nice old round number. An editor may have rounded it, an editor may have reverse engineered it from a percentage and then rounded it in which case it should be removed (see above regarding the Hajj figure), the insitution conducting the research may have presented a round number with a large margin of error as opposed to a range, it may actually be fake as Getaway has suggested, etc. etc. In other words there are many possibilities. Lets try to find these studies and if we don't we'll have to get rid of them because they cannot be sourced.PelleSmith 18:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I have been waiting for someone to show me in good faith where this mysterious Cornell University study is that claims there are 7 million Muslims in the U.S. I have been waiting since 5 Dec, it is now 12 Dec, one week. No one has pointed me in the right direction--especially the person who put the silly study in there. I'm being unbelievably patient. But time is running out and its removal is getting closer.--Getaway 01:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I tracked down the edit where this mysterious Cornell Univ study was jammed into the article. It was done by a anon Wikipedian. You can review the edit here: [1]. I have waited a week to hear where this propaganda is published but I have not received an answer and now I find out that it is an anon Wikipedian. It shall be removed.--Getaway 01:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
So why not look yourself? I found this citing it in 30 seconds. <<-armon->> 01:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Really, Armon, you shouldn't take a wiseacre attitude, but especially you shouldn't take a wiseacre attitude when you are dead wrong. You are completely and totally wrong. First of all, in your failed attempt to be a wiseacre, citing a secondary source. You have cited a website that is citing other ESTIMATES of population and the lame website that you linked does NOT even refer to the Cornell University study that I have been talking about. So your link is incorrect, you attitude is wrong and basically your whole response was an attempt to make me look like I should not be stating the things that I have been saying, but all you accomplished was pointing out how completely and totally wrong your link and your attitude is. Have a good day. Oh, by the way, the Cornell University study that was cited will stay out of the article because your lame link does not in any way back up the existence or veracity of the mysterious Cornell University study. Have a good day!--Getaway 17:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
You know what, I missed your statement at the top "I have done a Google search on it and I have not found a thing" so I apologize for that. I've noticed plenty examples in the past of people demanding cites, or claiming they exist to support their edits, but not making the effort to do the grunt work and find them. This is not what you did, so again, sorry, and you're right, I shouldn't have been a wise-ass about it anyway.
Two points about the actual issue though, secondary sources are actually preferred on WP, (not saying the link I offered was a particularly good one), and if we can't find the actual Cornell study to verify (which seems to be the case) then I suggest we use this cite and phrase it like "CAIR states that no scientific count of Muslims in the U.S. has been done but that six to seven million is the most commonly cited figure." <<-armon->> 01:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent additions to "Disaffected Muslims in the US"

These recent additions don't really seem to belong in this article. Lets say, for the sake of argument, that all the facts are right, that there are 168 Muslims who have been arrested since Sept. 11th terrorism or terrorism-connected investigations (overlooking the possible issues of just wahat "terrorism-connected" means and/or how many have actually been convicted). So lets say that CltFn's information is correct. Does it belong in an entry about "Islam in the United States"? No, these examples do not belong in this entry. If someone wants to start and entry or a list on "Muslims arrested in connection to terrorism in the United States" then please by all means clutter the pages with these kinds of examples. However, it adds nothing to this entry. If you disagree, please enlighten us. What existed prior to the addition was plenty on the subject. Even if, and this is a big if, the information is presented accurately and clearly it comprises a miniscule aspect of and has a miniscule relation to "Islam in the United States" and as such only adds undue weight. If you disgree please make your case before someone reverts. Thanks.PelleSmith 03:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course now that I read your reference I have to strike that. The 168 figure was not about Muslims at all, but about terrrorism in general. Sloppiness or bad faith? Come on. All entries here deserve both good faith and attentiveness. I stand by the rest of my comment. Please respond.PelleSmith 03:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
All the parties listed are muslims no matter how that fact gets excised from wikipedia articles and are thus included in the section where they belong. Are you planning on arguing that although they are convicted of aiding Al-Qaeda that they not are militant Muslims or the fact that they are Muslim is irrelevant? As you can see I only listed a few notable examples to substantiate the section topic and not the whole list which I consider reasonable. I outright disagree with your premise that this information is a miniscule aspect in relation to Islam in the United States, it is highly relevant to the saga that every person living in the US has been experiencing since 911 , including Muslims themselves who also experience the adverse effects of those disaffected Muslims in the US.
Might I request that you please refrain from personal accusations of bad faith or sloppiness which only serves to make the discussion more difficult and debate the merit of content instead. --CltFn 05:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that we write a long, full section on U.S. Islamists and also perhaps a section on the US government's treatment of Muslims since 9/11, and then make some breakout articles. Giving undue attention to the actions of a few unjustly smears two million other Muslims. We can develop the sections here, perhaps, because then we can write summaries and make a link to the breakout articles. However, if folks want to make the breakout articles first and then tweak the summaries, that would be fine too.

Saying that 168 have been charged doesn't tell the whole story. That doesn't say how many Muslim immigrants were grabbed after 9/11 and held in jail for months, without charges, before being deported for things like visa violations, with no terrorist intent ever being proved against them. That doesn't say how many of those 168 cases were convictions, acquitals, dismissed, etc. See this interesting Atlantic article about a possible miscarriage of justice in Lodi: <http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200610/waldman-islam>. I think that we're just starting to make sense of all that happened under G.W. Bush's watch and that in retrospect, this is all going to seem as bizarre as putting Japanese Americans in concentration camps, or prosecuting childcare employees for child abuse. It's mob hysteria. Yes, there ARE groups like Islamic Thinkers. Instead of linking to Little Green Footballs, which is NOT the most reliable of sites, we could link to the Islamic Thinkers homepage, which is frightening enough in itself. Or would be frightening if they were anything more than a handful of nutcases distilled from the large Muslim population of the New York area. Nutcases, moreover, who are probably being followed by an FBI team with twice as many members. They aren't any danger. Concentrating on a few malcontents as representing all US Islam is as unbalanced as presenting Fred Phelps as a typical American Christian. Zora 05:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Zora: The talk pages are to be used for discussing the article, not your comical, overwrought diatribes about Bush off of the talk page and focus on how to make the article better. If I wanted to read a circular, nonsensical diatribe about Bush then I would be reading the website of the Democratic Underground and that is where your misguided political comments should be place. Now, as to Little Green Footballs, it is just as much as a reliable source as Islamic Thinkers. Let me see the word oxymoron comes to mind. Seriously, who wants to read your political rants? I don't. (He holds up his hand.)--Getaway 00:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Zora, the link to the Little green footballs site is only a link to where the Islamic thinkers'own video is hosted. Thus I have restored the links.--CltFn 13:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Please Answer these points and edits SEPERATELY

Again I have edited seperately so to make this easier and again an editors has tried to sweep all edits under the same rug and revert wholesale. Lets look at these edits seperately and then at the larger issue.

  • The lead into the list of examples isn't just questionable it is FALSE. Zora please read it as well, since you have also unwittingly quoted this 168 Muslim nonesense. This is what the source says, with no mention of Islam to this point and no mention of it afterwards: "Since the Sept. 11 attacks, and as of Aug. 31, 2006, 288 defendants have been convicted or have pleaded guilty in terrorism or terrorism-related cases arising from investigations conducted primarily after Sept. 11, 2001. In addition to these convictions, there are approximately 168 other defendants who have been charged since Sept. 11, 2001, in connection with terrorism or terrorism-related investigations. Those cases are either still pending in federal courts, have not resulted in criminal convictions, or involve defendants who are fugitives or are awaiting extradition." How on Earth can this be re-written as "To date over 168 Muslims in the US have been charged since Sept. 11, 2001, in connection with terrorism or terrorism-related investigations"? Are you seriously going to tell me, that this obviously false representation of the source used is not either sloppy or in bad faith? What other options are there?
  • Why should we wikilink each of the Lackawanna Six, NONE of whom actually have an entry in Wikipedia, all of whom link to the Lackawanna Six entry already linked? In fact most of them were linked to that entry by CltFn and not even by redirect. This is a matter of style, and it is sloppy and unconventional to link the same entry more than ONCE. Even if you were to keep the example, that was as seperate edit and how wasn't it a good one?
  • In terms of including the Lackawanna Six in the article at all, how can we do so without a referenced link between these individuals and the article topic "Islam in the United States"? What we know from the wiki entry and from the CITED SOURCE PROVIDED BY CLTFN is that these six men are of Yemeni descent and that they provided "material support" to al Queda a FOREIGN terrorist organization with claims to militant Islamism. The connection to the entry is dubious at best. We can't go running around naming every Muslim connected to al Queda everytime the word Islam comes up in a Wikipedia entry. It is senseless. I'll not revert this again.
  • Iyman Faris, seems even less connected to Islam in the United States. Again, here is someone providing "material" support to Al Queda, but when we read his Wikipedia entry we don't learn about Islamic extremism but about a man who was suicidal and psychologically disturbed. His own religion seems almost immaterial in how it is presented. At least the Lackawanna six went to an al Queda training camp. In both this case and the Lackawanna six, there is a notable lack of reference to Islam in the references provided. Perhaps you should establish a little better of a connection here than the simple equation al Queda = Islam.
  • Just as a statement of fact, 5 of the 6 cases mentioned in CltFn's reference now appear here in the entry (one was already here). It is deceptive to claim that you didn't quote the "whole list that you consider reasonable". Do you think I'm not actually reading these references? What even is this "whole list"?

That said I'm going to make the bare minimum changes mentioned above--getting rid of the false lead into the exmaples and dewikifying the six members of the Lackawanna Six.PelleSmith 08:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again you are making a very odd case that these people are not provenly Muslim, but they are and I find it strange that you would pursue this line of argumentation. There is plenty of evidence freely available that establishes these people as militant Muslims.If you would rather that we go through a tedious process of listing the 168 names and their connections to Islam in the article then that would be an option. The fact that in the Lackawanna Six article all references to Islam have been excised is simply the result of various editors purposefully removing such references in many articles that are uncomplimentary to Islam.

"In U.S., fear and distrust of Muslims runs deep"

"Another said that tattoos, armbands and other identifying markers such as crescent marks on driver's licenses, passports and birth certificates did not go far enough. 'What good is identifying them?' he asked. 'You have to set up encampments like during World War Two with the Japanese and Germans.'" [2] BhaiSaab talk 19:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That article is far too anecdotal for an encyclopedia article. There are useful polls about this which should be used. gren グレン 23:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
It is also factually incorrect because the US only locked up the Japanese-Americans (Executive Order 9066) and not the German-Americans (nor Italian-Americans) as far as I know but that isn't the issue as it is verify that is key and the caller is non-notable and very much unknown. If we can use this unknown caller it sets quite a low-bar for other quotes in Wikipedia. Ttiotsw 03:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

More Slippery Numbers in the Population Section

There is a strange, yet wonderful, piece of information in the population section that looks like it is factual: "The mean of all the estimates is 3.2 million. However, the median of all estimates is a lower figure, 2.0 million." However, upon closer observation it is simply is hogwash taking the shape as something scientific. What are these numbers based upon? Was the BS Cornell study of 7 million Muslims added into these number? If so, then the numbers are now wrong. However, I attempted to do the math with old propaganda Cornell study number of 7 million added in and the sentence still does not compute. I'm looking for someone, in good faith, to explain to me these numbers. Unless there is a cogent argument on what they are based upon and what they mean then I'm either going to modify them or remove them. I have not made up my mind, but I don't know they are high and wrong and mostly just propaganda of some type.--Getaway 01:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If you clicked the links, you'd find an introduction to statistics. When you have a scattering of data points (as these estimates are), you can make sense of them by taking the mean (commonly called an average) but means are skewed by dubious figures on the far ends of the bell curve. The median is a better number for making sense out of the numbers. You wanted precision, I gave you precision. It's not propaganda. I'm not a Muslim and I have no reason to give a high figure for the US Muslim population.
If we can't get any sources for the Cornell study, then we can drop the 7 million number. That is going to affect the mean, but probably not the median. Let me run the numbers ... umm ... the median doesn't change at all, it stays at 2.0, the mean drops to 2.5 instead of 3.0. Zora 03:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I was reading this article and went to check the talk page and noticed this topic, so I did a little research. Both of the following websites here and here cite an April 2002 Cornell University study for the 7-8 million figure. Unless one of you guys wants to contact the CAIR or Al-Jazeerah's media people about the citation, I will send out a couple emails tonight to see if I can dig up the study that put forth that figure. If anyone here is going to do so, drop a message on my talk page so I know my efforts won't be wasted. The number sounds high to me, so I am unsure of the veracity of the claim, particularly when neither article provides any more specific details that can be verified. Either way, we should soon know if this can be verified or not. Hope this helps. --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, my old friend, Kuzaar. You have stumbled on to another one of the articles that I have decided to work on! How interesting! That makes seven or eight? As for the Cornell University study, once again, as I pointed out to Armon above a reference to another website that references another website is NOT a verifiable source. This process violates the Reliable Sources rules of Wikipedia and as such the Cornell University will stay out of the article until there is some real link or information to verify the over-the-top claim that there are 7 million Muslims in the U.S. As to Zora's slippery math, well, that will have to be removed also because her methodology would not cut it in high school statistics, extrapolating from the estimates of several studies (and some dubious ones at that) then drawing a mean and median!!!! First of all, it simply bad math and second it is original research, no matter how flawed it is. Calling it original research makes it sound like it is really something unique, but all it a convulted attempt to place more weight on one study over the others. That is also against Wikipedia rules. Just because her flawed calculations come with 2.5 and 2.0 does not mean anything, but unfortunately the way the flawed original research is presented it gives the impression that either 2.5 or 2.0 is the real number. Once again, as Wikipedians we don't know what the real number is we just know that there is a debate. It is NOT our place to re-calculate numbers (as Zora badly attempted to do), or place more weight on one study over another, etc. It is our place to make a decision on what goes in the article and what doesn't, i.e., be editors, not writers, not researchers, but editors. And Zora's extremely poor math skills do not fall within the terms of what as Wikipedians we are allowed to do.--Getaway 17:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're implying- that we both like to edit political articles? Anyway, I'm trying to help here- I'm good at digging out sources and original claims, and it looks like that's exactly what you guys need here (to know whether or not there's actually a Cornell study that gave those results). Other than those two sources, I was unable to turn up any reliable sources that asserted the 7-8 million figure. As I said above, I have sent several emails out to the original authors inquiring as to the source that they cited regarding the figure. If my good-faith efforts here are unwanted, just say so. I spoke up in this section because I saw there was a question that needed to be answered and I have the capacity to help answer it. --Kuzaar-T-C- 20:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
You're good faith efforts are applauded by those who want to see the accuracy of this article increase, but not by those who would rather just delete information they don't like. Keep up the good work.PelleSmith 20:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words. While I'm still looking, I should mention that I found another source that may refer to the same survey. In a story run by CNN: "American Muslims are far more educated than their British counterparts. More than 42 percent are college-educated, according to an April 2002 Cornell University study." available here That's another link i'm going to try to look into as far as the inclusion of this one is concerned. Incidentally, as a secondary source, the above links are appropriate, but in a gesture of good faith, I'm going to see if I can't find the original for the users interested in this one. --Kuzaar-T-C- 20:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Getaway, exactly what study am I accused of favoring over the others? Mean and median figures don't anoint one study as correct, they just point out that estimates cluster around a certain point. I should have thought that you'd approve of a calculation that discounted the highest estimates, as median calculations do. As for the bad math part -- I checked my figures, discovered that I'd left out one data point, and recalculated. The calculation takes at most a couple of minutes and anyone else would have done it exactly the same way. That doesn't constitute original research, any more than adding a column of figures does. Zora 18:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Zora, set aside the two issues that you comment right now, simple math mistakes and placing undue weight on one source over another. And let's get some other things out of the way. In one of your edit summary comments you stated, "I'm not a Muslim." My response: So? I never called you a Muslim. Don't assume that I did. Ok, now let's talk about what you are using for your mathimatical calculations. You originally based it upon a Cornell University study that may or may not exist. That's wrong. Next, I have looked at the list and another so-called "study" on the list is a "study" by CAIR that there are six million Muslims in the U.S. However, if you go to the website and look at the link given to back up this study all you find is a CAIR website that states, "six to seven million Muslims is figure used the most." That is a study???? NO. I'm going to remove that little piece of propaganda. And it will stay out until there is some kind of scientific study provided to back up such nonsense. Now, these are the numbers that you are using to back up your so-called simple mathimatical calculations. Now, let's go back to what I stated before. It is not up to you to do any calculating you are a Wikipedian, not a researcher. Your calculations will be eliminated from the article and I will remove them each and every time you put them in because they are your numbers based upon studies that may or may not exist. If you can find an independent third party that has published a study which calculates the number of Muslims in the U.S. based upon the studies available then I will agree to let THAT in the article, but your math, based upon studies that may or may not exist, is original research and as such will be removed over and over again.--Getaway 18:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually Zora was not calculating the number of Muslims in the U.S. at all. You are quite mistaken. She was providing a mathematical mean and medium for a range of numbers presented on this page. As such they don't say anything about the actual Muslim population but do provide a mathematical mean and medium for the range of population estimates provided above. As such, your accusation of orginal research is a bit fuzzy. If she were to claim anything affirmative about the Muslim population, then it would clearly be original research. However if the math is done correctly, then the mean and median for any given range of numbers is a verifiable fact. Given that we have the numbers in front of us it is just as easily verifiable. Granted she made this calculation, but as I stated as long as she is simply saying, what anyone can see on the page, that the mean and median relate to population estimates provided by other institutions, I hardly see how this is a clear case of original research.PelleSmith 19:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
PelleSmith, you need to get your arguments straight with Zora. Today, further down in the this thread she provides her analysis--which of course contradicts your comments of yesterday posted here.--Getaway 19:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
It is also possible that the section should be re-written altogether. The way in which it is written now, actually, makes Getaways deletion of the CAIR estimate highly problematic. It isn't based upon a study, but it is the low ball figure taken from Bagby's estimate (the research on the Mosque study). That is immaterial, however, becaue the section only states that Institutions have provided varying estimates ... it says nothing about those estimates being based upon any scientific research or specific methodology. That might be a problem however.PelleSmith 19:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

On a seperate note, Getaway would you please tone down the language and the accusations, as well as the personal banter. I would tell you this on your talk page, but you have explicitly forbidden me to use it, so here it is. Please be civil, and stick to the topic. Thanks.PelleSmith 19:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear PelleSmith: I will respond to this comment first. I will respond how I see fit. My responses have been in direct proportion to the nastiness thrown at me first. If you remember, and I do, that Zora engaged in a silly game of trying to personally attacking me. Unfortunately the Golden Rule states treat people as they want to be treated. Try applying that rule to this. Now, don't give me any more lectures on civility until you work to improve your own.--Getaway 03:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, why haven't you ever tried to remove any of the other unsourced population statistics? If your concern is verifiability, and accuracy then how can you leave the National Opinion Research Center, the American Jewish Comittee (two figures), the Hartford Institute, and the American Society of Muslims in the entry? Is this because somehow you just know these figures aren't "BS"? If so is that a standard we use here at Wikipedia? I don't think so. (My appologies again to other editors, b/c this should probably go on Getaway's talk page, but I'm trying hard to respect his wish and not post there). My own response, initially was to go looking for some of the sources and to put the tag on the section hoping that others would do the same, which has produced at least a couple of citations. What are you doing, other than just making excuses to get rid of things you don't like? I think we would all be a bit more comfortable with your claims about sources, if, for instance, you were attacking all unsourced population studies even handedly.PelleSmith 13:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm working on the section one item at a time. I just having had time to verify if all of these so-called studies exist. Now, once again you are questioning my motives which is a violation of Wikipedia policy. What is your motive to leave in clearly redundant and sloppy information. You keep defending Zora's sloppy math. If you go back to her original numbers they have change tremendously since I began asking reasonable important questions about the underlining so-called studies that she has been using to defend her sloppy math. My original claims about her work as being sloppy and sophmoric have been shown to be accurate. She has had to adjust her so-called math at least twice now and both times in downward direction. What is your motivation to defend such clearly sloppy work??? What is your hidden motive??? I have now forced you to go through the list of so-called studies and justify why these so-called studies are in that list if they cannot be verified. The current revision is 180 degrees different than when I started asking these simple verification questions. Why can't you handle some simple verification questions. In the scientific world, real scientists are forced to justify and explain results all day long. Why are you so offended if I ask simple forms of same types of questions? Do you have an ulterior motive or is it just a matter of ego and you don't want anyone to question or change your work? I have pointed out to Zora and now I will point out to you that you don't own any article, you don't own this article and I am going to make changes to your work. Now, if you can't handle that fact then maybe Wikipedia is not for you. I don't want you to post on my talk page because the things that I am saying to you belong right here on the talk page for this article. That is what we are supposed to be talking about. We are supposed to talking about why you are so offended that I am asking why so-called studies are listed in the article but there is NOT one shread of evidence that these so-called studies even exist. Take for example the Cornell University study. I did a Google search and I could not find a citation for it. I asked others, especially the person who put it in the article, to point me to it. If someone had given a citation then it would have stayed in. No one came forward with a real citation to it. I took it out. I waited a week for someone to find it. Now, you did not like that I took it out of the article and you have not provided a good reason why it should have stayed and you were simply mad that I took it out. This work is NOT about your ego, but it IS about creating a quality article. Now, let's focus on the article and not me. You want to talk about me--like so many Wikipedians that don't have the facts or reasoning on their side--instead of the article. Should we have kept the so-called Cornell study in the article??? NO. If you disagree give a substantive reason for keeping it in. But you have not done that you have merely focused on me and my motivations. My motivation is irrelevant. Focus on the article. I have accomplished quite a bit with my questioning. I have forced Zora to recalculate her sloppy, irrelevant, redundant math. I have forced you to go through the list and see if these studies even exist or if there are duplicates and of course I have found duplicates and mysterious ones that don't exist. I have brought serious improvements to the article by my questioning why studies that don't exist are listed in the article. Now, Jimbo has pointed out recently that Wikipedians need to focus more on quality instead of quantity. I have been focusing on quality and unfortunately that has meant that I have stuck some scared cows in the process. You and Zora don't like it and based upon your constant focus on my motivations instead upon substantive reasons why certain things (e.g., sloppy math, nonexistent so-called studies, studies mentioned twice) must remain in the article. Since your focus has been me and my motivations instead of outlining what the reasoning was behind these clear mistakes and sloppiness, I can only conclude that your ego has been hurt because I have been editing the work of you and Zora. Stop talking about me and give me reasons why studies should be listed twice, why studies that cannot be verified (like the Cornell study), and why sloppy, irrelevant math must stay in the article. I want substantive reasons, not just attacks on me and motivations. Can you do that?? Huh???--Getaway 16:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I've never defended the inclusion of any of these estimates. In fact I brought up the issue of references, see above on this talk page. I also added the tag to the section. My concern is with verifiability and accuracy. The trail of comments you have left on this talk page, show quite clearly how in your own language you are getting rid of "BS" and "propaganda" which you judge as such by some standards that elude many of the other editors on this page. My appeal above was that if you are going to concern your self with Wikipedia standards then do so wholesale not just when you like it. BY THE WAY. The math is 100% sound and those figures are 100% factually accurate as means and medians of the estimates presented on the page, as of my edits. I am not sure myself if we should include them, but please stop using unfounded reasons for deleting them and pretty pretty please stop insulting and demeaning people on this talk page. I understand that you want to edit "as you please" and probably use this talk page "as you please", but can we agree to do so and still abide by Wikipedia standards of civility? Thanks.PelleSmith 18:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Once again, those who live in glass houses should NOT throw stones. You, of all people, are NOT in any position to lecture me on civility. You have made a series of snide comments. Keep your lectures about civility to yourself. It is just an attempt to minimize my contribution and somehow shame me into stopping the questioning of sloppy, misleading work. Focus on the article instead of me and we will get along just fine. Don't lecture me on civility again or I will be right back her on the talk page pointing out that you have not been civil towards me and I will ignore your lectures, considering you are the worst offender about being civil. Focus on the article, not me.--Getaway 18:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
One of my comments here was removed, but my question was largely unanswered: I ask you, Getaway, to jsutify your accusations of PelleSmith of incivility. I do not see any instance in which she has, but I do clearly see some of your edits above written in an inflammatory, uncivil style. So what I am asking is for you to show where PelleSmith has been uncivil or unjustified in reminding you to be civil. --Kuzaar-T-C- 17:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Myself, I think the point of presenting those numbers, and linking to the relevant statistics pages, is that our native intuitions re statistics don't work very well. (A point which has been well-demonstrated in recent years.) If you give me a range of experimental results from 1 to 6.7, and ask me to estimate the average value of the results, I'd probably say 3.5. I'd think of that as the point around which the results were clustering, and one that might represent the real value. But when we actually run the numbers, we get a lower average -- and a much lower median. Statisticians usually see the median as a closer approximation to a useful "average", because it drops anomalous values that distort the average. The usual example used is Bill Gates walking into a bar. The minute he enters, the mean wealth of everyone in the bar goes up a few million dollars. The median wealth would barely budge. Getaway objected to a sentence that used to be in the article, saying that the values centered in the 2-5 million range. I think he was right to object to it, because it was a mere impression. Actual calculations give much lower figures for mean and median.

Given that users are not going to be able to make any kind of sound judgment re the clustering of estimates, and indeed, would naturally make a misleading one, I think it's useful to insert the figures. They tend to discount the high estimates. Zora 18:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The above comments of Zora make my point about original research. You make a good point about the true number is potentially somwhere closer to zero than 10 million. But whatever the real number is you don't know and I don't know. Now your explanation about sounds wonderful, but at the end of the day the point of your explanation is to justify putting in the mathematical calculation to convince the reader that the mean and median are much lower than the 6.7 number or twice as high as the 1 number. But as a Wikipedian that aint your job. You are an editor, not a research, not a commentator. Now, if someone who is third party and they publish the information you wrote above then it will go in the article. And as a matter of fact Dr. Thomas W. Smith has already done just that. You need to quote him, not you and your simple math on studies that may or may not exist. He has spent innumberable hours going over in detail about 20 different estimates and he has sliced and diced the numbers all day long. Sorry, but if the analysis you cite above wants to stay in the article then it needs to come from him, an acknowledged expert in the field, not a Wikipedian.--Getaway 19:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

List of demographics estimates

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

Statistical inaccuracies

This sentence has been removed by me: "The mathematical mean of the population estimate figures cited above is 2.8 and the mathematical median is 2.0." This sentence was removed for several reasons. The reasons include, but are not limited to: (1) it is misleading, (2) It is sloppy, fuzzy math, (3) It is irrelevant, (4) It is redundant, and (5) it is originial research. Now, the sentence is misleading because it becuase it gives the impression that the two numbers calculated are somehow more important or more accurate the numbers given in the various studies listed. The studies listed required enormous amount of work and effort and they have been reduced in our article down to one single number. If you read even one of these studies they do NOT give one single number, but a range. Now Zora's fuzzy math is based upon a single number. This leads the reader to a misleading conclusion that anyone can just take a bunch of studies off of the shelf calculate the mean and median and boom you have the number. It is misleading and fraudulent. The studies are much more complex than that and as Wikipedians we should not in anyone put our own personal spin on the numbers. It violates Wikipedia policy as original research and misleading information. It is irrelevant because what does it actually tell a reader, anything of substance? No. There are probably ten other studies in the world that we are not aware of and they are not included in Zora's fuzzy math problem. Why are these studies sacred? Next, there are two so-called studies which are probably throwing off the Zora's fuzzy math even further. They are the World Almanac "study" and the Britannica "study". Well, quite simply World Almanac and Britannica do not conduct studies. They report the work of other people. They are also secondary information sources just like Wikipedia. We do not know who World Almanac and Britannica are quoting. We don't even know if we are quoting World Almanac or Britannica correctly because these so-called studies are not availabe on the Internet so that they can be verify or at least find out who did the studies. As far as we know the World Almanac could be quoting one of the other studies on our list!!!! In that situation we would have another duplicate study situation which I have pointed out before. Zora's math is based upon a faulty, incomplete numbers. It will be removed over and over again. And besides, why do we need it??? It does tell anyone anything other than we put a few numbers down on a page (which may or may not be accurate) and then we did a couple of elementary school mathematical calculations on them. How silly is that?--Getaway 18:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Follow up: I have done some digging on the World Almanac and Britannica so-called studies. They are based upon non-scientific estimate, guesses. Dr. Thomas W. Smith, author of the American Jewish Committee, study has stated:
Six were from general reference works (Britannica - 3, World Almanac - 2, and Atlapedia Online- 1). The Britannica Book of the Year estimates were prepared by David B. Barrett and Todd M. Johnson, but they do not explain how their figures are derived in the Britannica and have not responded to requests for information on the basis of their calculations. One source citing the World Almanac claims that the World Almanac’s figures came from the Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches. While most church figures in the World Almanac do come from the Yearbook, the Muslim estimate and several others were instead “based on reliable estimates; figures from other sources may vary” (World Almanac, 1998). The Atlapedia also gave no basis for its estimate that Muslims were 2 percent of the population.
So this makes my point stronger. The Almanac and Britannica estimates are NOT based upon scientific study, just crazy estimates, which Zora then adds into her fuzzy math and then slaps a meaningless number in the article. Quality does matter and Zora's fuzzy math does not belong in a quality article.--Getaway 18:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
As to your points
  1. How does it give the impression that these numbers are more important? That is a pretty narrow jugdement of one editor. It is not fraudulent because all it does is present people with a mean and median of the numbers presented.
  2. It is not fuzzy math, because it is based upon numbers present on the page. They are right there. If the studies present ranges then put ranges on the page, remove the mean and median comment, and there you're done.
  3. They may be irrelavent, and this is the point that we should be focusing on, in my own estimation. What, if anything, do they add to the entry?
  4. I'm not quite following the redundancy argument. If they are redundant then how are they inaccurate? That is if the mean/median are redundant to information on the page, then I don't understand how they are fuzzy, sloppy, or wrong.
  5. This part is fuzzy, because it is not clearly original research at all. Mean and median are well established and simple mathematical procedures which produce self-referentially given a data set, factual answers. In other words, no one will disagree, given a closed set of data, that the mean is ONE number and the median is ONE number. It is fact. But, again lets focus on why we would or would not want to include the numbers.PelleSmith 18:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The numbers are completely misleading. If I were to issue a advertisement to potential investors that my oil and gas company might produce 30 million barrels, but in the same ad say it MIGHT be 50 million, but in the same ad say it MIGHT be 80 million and then in the same ad total the numbers and divide by three!!!! Whoa! Am I providing the investor solid information? Heck, no. I'm just adding another layer to the BS. The first three numbers were BS and then I did a mathemathical calculation to my first BS numbers, creating a fourth BS number (mean) and then later a fifth BS number (median). Mathematical calculations applied to BS equals more BS. It reminds me of the meaning of PhD, piled higher and deeper.--Getaway 18:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Getaway is correct, calculation the mean of the estimates is performing new analysis for WP and is therefore WP:OR. I think we need some citations regarding the controversy over the figures, so I've added in a couple of {{Fact}} tags where appropriate. <<-armon->> 01:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC) Particularity the Tom Smith claim. <<-armon->>

One would think so at first glance that it violates OR, and so did I. Also I think the numbers are unecessary. They don't add to the entry. Lets leave them out. However, for future reference, the aspect of OR that this may fall under states: "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source". This is the fuzzy part. A mean and a median of a given, closed set of numbers, is itself a fact. Is it "established"? I'm not entirely sure if a mathematician would call it that, or if it would simply be called indisputable. In essence this is no different from stating, there are seven demographic estimates listed on the page. In order to claim that we have to first count them. Is that original research? If this count isn't referenced somewhere else? Now people may think I'm splitting hairs here, but really where do you draw the line? A mean and median aren't very far removed from simple counting (they are that basic of mathematical operations). And in general where does, indisputable and simple math fall? Again I think its a fuzzy issue. A moot point in this case, from my perspsective, because I now feel certain that the figures are unecessary, but I just don't think they should have been dissmissed so readily as WP:OR. That's all.PelleSmith 12:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Good source, I don't have time to work it into the article

I should have thought of this earlier. Adherents.com is frequently consulted for WP articles re religious demographics. They have an overview of the US Muslim controversy at [3], with links that look like they'll supply many of the missing citations. I don't have time to meld this with the article now.

Getaway, your comments seem to suggest that you find the NORC survey the only one that's acceptable, and think the rest of them bogus. (Right? Wrong? Let me know without calling me names, please.) It seems to me that if adherents.com thinks that the other surveys are worth mentioning, we should mention them here too, rather than throwing them out as "unreliable". If Muslim groups consistently over-estimate Muslim numbers in the US, that's information, and shouldn't be thrown out. I should add that there might be some question about the NORC study in that it was commissioned by a group that explicitly wanted low estimates. I'm not saying that the goal influenced the survey, but it might have, and critics are going to point that out. Zora 01:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Zora: I have never ever called you a name. That is simply not true. Please do not put words in my mouth. That violates Wikipedia rules. If you remember correctly you personally attacked me earlier and attempted to analyze my motivations without a scrap of evidence and that was and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. I can only assume that you are now attempting to save face by putting words in my mouth to justify your earlier behavior. Why don't you just work on the article? I’m not going to go away. And I am going to continue to ask questions about different aspects of the article. Now, once again, I have never stated that the NORC survey is the only one acceptable. That is an assumption on your part. I think a lot of problems between us would end immediately if you could jumping to conclusion and assumptions about what I think and who I am before you even ask a question. I have asked you before and I am now asking for the second time. Don’t talk about me or my motivations. Talk about the article. Frankly your continued attempts to put words in my mouth or comment on my motivations, etc. is getting quite boring. Can’t you just stop it?? Seriously stop. For the love of all that is good and decent in the world, just stop commenting on me, putting words in my mouth, making up motivations about me, etc. It is boring. You are putting everyone to sleep. I never, ever called you a name. I have never, ever stated that the NORC study is the other acceptable study. That is just a figment of your wild imagination. It is annoying. Really! Please for the love of Mary, Joseph and all of the little animals, please stop it!!!!--Getaway 03:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Now, as to your comments about the Muslim over-estimates: yes, they should be in the article. But they should not be presented, as the article currently does, as scientific studies. For example, the CAIR so-called study is in the article and I put some perspective around it so that a reader get a full picture of it. I made was attempting to make sure that it was presented for specifically is: the non-scientific opinion of a biased, self-interested group with a overtly political agenda.--Getaway 03:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Getaway, you can't set yourself up as the judge of what is scientific and what isn't. It is fair to note the sponsors of the studies and the methodologies used; I think readers can draw their own conclusions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zora (talk • contribs) 05:47, 15 December 2006
Zora, yes, that is what being an editor is. You make judgements. You decide what goes in and what stays out. You also decide what is given more weight than other things. That is a fact and that is what I was doing. I was NOT providing my opinion. There is NO WHERE in the article that I have provided my opinion, just editing. Yes, editors make these types of decisions all the time. For example, an editor can decide to give more time and space to Darwin's theory of evolution than the Biblical creation theory. That is an editor's right. Another example, an editor can decide to give more time and space to Charles Cook's explanation of why Bush won the 2004 election than a blogger for the Democratic Underground. That is what we are Wikipedians are doing all the time. So stop the lectures. I think that scientific studies should be given more time and space in the article than "estimate" pulled out of the thin air and the "estimator" is unwilling to provide information on how the estimate was made. That is a call that I can make and you can make. So stop the lectures. You just don't like the editing decisions that I have choosen. That's your opinion and that's all it is.--Getaway 17:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
For example, the CAIR so-called study is in the article and I put some perspective around it so that a reader get a full picture of it. I made was attempting to make sure that it was presented for specifically is: the non-scientific opinion of a biased, self-interested group with a overtly political agenda.--Getaway 03:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
That's your belief about them, it is not a fact. Actually, I personally agree with you that CAIR has an interest in inflating numbers, but I don't think our beliefs belong in the article. Let the readers draw their own conclusions. Zora 05:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Zora, I have never ever put my beliefs in the article. You don't know what my beliefs are so don't assume that you do know.--Getaway 17:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Zora, that cite looks good to me and illuminates the controversy, but just to anticipate objections, is adherents.com considered a WP:RS and why? And to clarify, I agree with Getaway's point re:OR, I don't agree with the name-calling. <<-armon->> 02:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Armon, Adherents.com has been used for a number of other articles and hasn't been challenged. They function mainly as an aggregator of other studies; they don't do their own research. They don't seem to have any agenda other than collecting data.
Also, please don't pile on me. I'm trying to keep my cool. Zora 05:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
To defent Adherents.com as a reliable source, it is worth noting that in the page in question, the information was drawn from a Pew Research Center study on the subject, which is one of the most reliable religious study centers I am aware of. Additionally, they appear to fall in line with the more common estimates shared by similar surveys. --Kuzaar-T-C- 18:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of other editors' comments

Zora removed my comments about CAIR's BS study. You can review her edit right here: [4]. Zora, removing comments of other people from the talk page is violation of Wikipedia policy. Once again, I request that you stop.--Getaway 17:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Both of you, stop making personal comments toward each other and stick to discussing article edits in a neutral and non-melodramatic manner. Your comments on the talk page and edit summaries, as well as your edits, should be neutral. Both of you are taking a clearly hostile tone toward each other. Wiki is a cooperative project. Yes, please do not remove comments made by other editors unless they violate WP:NPA, however that would be less likely to occur if you restricted your conversation to a civil discussion of the article. Both of you need to review WP:CIVIL. --Strothra 17:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Also please note that when you (Getaway) attempted to rectify the problem of someone else inadvertantly deleting your comment, you deleted several other comments by other users here. I couldn't figure out where one of my postings from this morning went. These things can happen quite easily in heated discussions, and I wouldn't think either of you did it on purpose.PelleSmith 18:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Although evidently it was an even bigger mix up initially, since Zora never removed your comment (see below).PelleSmith 23:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Sourcing controversial statement

I have repeatedly been sourcing this statement:

There is one openly anti-American Muslim group in the U.S. The Islamic Thinkers Society ,found only in New York City, engages in leafleting and picketing to spread their viewpoint. [5] [6].

However it has been unsourced for some reason. I am going to re-insert the reference shortly since it supports the statement being made.--CltFn 06:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The first clip isn't clearly one of the Islamic Thinkers Society (it's a bunch of guys, filmed from the neck down, ripping up a US flag) and the second is a propaganda film, with ads for some anti-Islamic group at the beginning and end, and a clip from a martyr video added for extra crunchy goodness. The sound quality of the second clip is so bad that it's very hard to understand what those guys are shouting over traffic noise. Neither is particularly good evidence of anything; they're just clips chosen with an eye to whipping up anti-Muslim fervor. The Islamic Thinkers website is the best source for what they believe. They're pro-jihad, pro-Taliban, pro-suicide bomber, and anti-US. Please don't try to add the videos again, they're just not good evidence. Still photos of the group waving signs or destroying flags would be more useful.
My own impression is that these guys are typical American young males being as offensive as they possibly can (but with Islam rather than tats and piercings) and glorying in their displays of aggression. If they really wanted to harm the US, they'd be keeping their mouths shut and infiltrating some sensitive part of the US government or infrastructure. Zora 09:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
For your info those videos came from the the Islamic thinkers website , but they took them down as soon as they realized the controversy they had brough on. However their videos had by then been downloaded and hosted on other sites, thus the links. By the way , being from the Islamic thinkers group is not the point , the point is that these guys in the video openly admit that they are muslims and keep yelling the usual Allah Akbar calls as they tear up the US flag and call shout that a new holocaust is on its way--CltFn 14:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Or maybe the point is that these videos are not adequate sources for anything. I'm sure there are plenty of real references in newspapers, journals, etc. And by the way, no one is disputing the inclusion the Islamic Thinkers Society in the entry, so why is there even talk about sourcing the statement?PelleSmith 16:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of more duplicate so-called estimates

Once again, the section that claims to discuss the number of Muslims in the U.S. has more faults that I will be correcting. I removed this line from the flawed section:

Why? Well, where do I start? Let's see. I actually purchased a copy of the most recent World Almanac and I went to the libary to review the previously yearly issues of the World Almanac. And just as I expected my comments about this flawed section were completely and totally verified. To begin with the World Almanac makes this statement about the estimate listed above: Adherents of All Religions by Six Continental Areas, Mid-2004 Muslims, Northern America, 5,109,000, Source: 2006 Encyclopædia Britannica Book of the Year; figures rounded (Zoë Kashner, Editorial Director, The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2007. pg. 712. New York, NY: World Almanac Books) Well, is that a fine mess? Let me the count the ways that this is wrong: (1) It was the same in every issue for many, many years, one source quoting another source which is quoting another source. (2) The number listed is for all of Northern America as defined by the UN, which includes not only the U.S. (the subject of the article) but Canada and part of the Caribbean. (3) This number obviously duplicates the Britannica number and it was added into the ludicrous "mean" and "median" calculations that we spent so much time fighting over. Those mean and median numbers are simply flawed because the underlining input is flawed. Garbage in, garbage out. (4) Since it is a repeat (duplicate) of a high number we are giving false information to the reader, sending the message that there is way more Muslims in the U.S. than there really is. (5) Yeah, I call something BS if it is BS. I'm going to review the Britannica numbers next and I will probably remove them to because they are probably based upon another study somewhere else or a duplicate of one already listed or just simply a misquote.--Getaway 17:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The World Almanac would be considered a reliable source by most people. You can't just throw out a source because you don't like it. You certainly shouldn't remove Britannica numbers. I should say that there's some information value in the fact that both the World Almanac and Britannica accept the figures. Zora 20:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, my dear Zora, as always, you missed the point entirely. I wonder, do you do that on purpose or do you simplY not understand? I removed the World Almanac numbers because they are a direct repeat of the Britannica numbers. It is simple as that. Having them both listed gives the reader the false impression that there are two studies with the same number. I did not throw out a source simply because I didn't like it. That comment is just silly. However, I brings a smile to my face on this Christmas day. The World Almanac number has been permanently removed. Enjoy the Holidays!--Getaway 13:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Again your patronizing tone is not appreciated and I'm going to keep on pointing it out until you make an effort to be more civil on this talk page. There was never a "direct repeat of the Britannica numbers". For that to have been true 2.8 million would have to have been listed twice on the page. I see a Britannica listing of 4.1 not 2.8. So your explanation above is quite confusing. You may want to note that the World Almanac number has not been "permanently" removed. Is the issue that Britannica was the source for the World Almanac in 2003? Nothing you have explained initially above deals with the 2003 addition, which is what was referenced on the page. Are you trying to make a case against using the World Almanac at all with this display of reasons to distrust it? I am still a bit confused. Can we somehow resolve this matter once and for all? Is it possible to get rid of all of these population estimates. To simply write a statement about the lack of consesus and give a range from the smallest to the biggest? I don't really understand why its such a big deal. Do Muslims want us to think there are more of them, and do isolationist right wingers want us to think there are less? Serioulsy what's the big deal? Personally I think listing all of these estimates is completely unecessary, but if they are going to be listed I don't like the idea of one partisan group whittling them down to conform with their POV. Anyone else like the idea of cutting this section down to size?PelleSmith 00:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
You did not respond to the bottom line issue. The World Almanac quotes the Britannica number. So the World Almanac number is a duplicate. It has been removed. --Getaway 01:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh by the way, I'm not going to change anything about my tone because there is nothing wrong with my tone. I would suggest that your change yours.--Getaway 01:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Please clarify this issue. You stated that that the number is a duplicate. What other figure listed on the page does it duplicate? Don't say Britannica because there is no 2.8 million Britannica figure listed--there is a 4.1 million Britannica figure listed on the page. Also is anyone else in favor of getting rid of all of these estimates for a concise statement and the mention of a range?PelleSmith 03:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, we could do a breakout article, and go into the estimates in detail there. This controversy is unbalancing the article. I think Getaway has made one good point, re estimates from mosques as being prone to inflation, whereas phone surveys conducted in standard fashion are more likely to be accurate. I have personal experience of this; I did research on religion in Tonga for the dissertation I failed to finish, and I saw how church organizations inflated their figures. So just giving a range might skew the numbers high (and confuse readers who will assume that the "real" figure is exactly in the middle of the range). I don't agree with removing citations, however; the World Almanac is so well-known that it has its own article here on WP and if it vouches for a figure, that imprimatur is worth mentioning. I just haven't had time to focus on this; I'm editing too many articles and doing Christmas (spent about six hours today cooking). I need to visit the State Library downtown and check their run of World Almanacs. I'll try to do that within the next week -- I have other books I need to get. Can we hold off any major moves till then? Zora 06:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

World Almanac

I've done the research. I have a copy of the most recent World Almanac and clearly it quotes Britannica. That is enough said on that topic. I will scan a copy of the page that I refer to above and put it on Wikipedia, but in the meantime I taking out the duplicate reference. World Almanac refers to Britannica and Britannica refers to another source. These are duplicates. It provides the reader with a false sense of the real size of the Muslim population in the U.S. Have a good day!--Getaway 19:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Look, you've thrown out my calculations of means and medians, so the fact that these aren't separate data points doesn't matter any longer. The fact that the World Almanac thinks the Britannica number is solid is in itself noteworthy. We can add the World Almanac imprimatur to the Britannica cite. "That is enough said on the topic" assumes that you're the authority and can tell everyone else to shut up. You can't, you know. Zora 05:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Besides which you are throwing out a World Almanac figure from 2003 based upon the most recent issue. Why not look at the 2003 edition, since that is the one which was sourced on the page? On the other hand is anyone else a proponent of just getting rid of all these estimates once and for all? Just provide a range and a short paragraph about the controversy, or lack of agreement in estimating the population?PelleSmith 13:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The problem with providing a range is that, as I previously noted, people naively assume that a figure in the middle of the range is correct. Let's not get rid of anything, but a sub-article might be in order. That often diffuses hostilities, because it gives everyone room to lay out his/her arguments. BTW, I found a new link, that looks interesting: [7] I also found out that Ilyas Ba-Yunus, the author of one of the high figures, is a former president of ISNA, a Ph.D., and a professor of anthropology and sociology. He may have been biased, but he also has expert credentials. It's wrong to throw out his work just because the results aren't agreeable. Zora 05:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
No one threw out his work. Please do not make things up. Once again, you have not responded to my basic contention, the one that I will repeat over and over again until you respond to it: World Almanac quotes Britannica and Britannica quotes someone else. These are duplicates and will be removed.--Getaway 11:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
You have failed repeatedly to show that the figure is a duplicate. It is clearly not a figure duplicated on the page as anyone is able to see. Are you trying to say that Britannica Book of the Year is used, and that also, in a different year World Almanac used Britannica Encyclopedia as their source for an estimate that is in fact millions of people different from the Britannica Book of the Year figure quoted here? Since the figures are not the same, I'm assuming that the sources are not the same. How could they be? No one study, or estimation could possibly produce either 2.8 or 4.1 million. A range I could see, but either or is ludicrous. For there to be a duplicate on this page the numbers would have to be the same. Clearly these are two seperate estimates since they express drastically different estimations. This brings up another question, because you keep on refering to the current World Almanac Book of the Year and not the one from the quoted year (2003). Does the one from the quoted year use the same source as the Britannica Book of the Year from its quoted year (2001)? Highly unlikely given the 1.3 million people difference in the estimates. Again I ask, please explain how on earth these are duplicate figures, or duplicate sources?PelleSmith 23:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Assuming Getaway to be correct that the World Almanac cites Britannica, I can't see why there would be any dispute about removing the World Almanac figure. Am I missing something?Proabivouac 00:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Absolultely. The World Almanac cited was from (2003). The World Almanac Getaway keeps on referring to is the most current ... which has a much different numerical estimate. It is all in my comment. He has yet to prove that the cited figure originally came from Britannica--that is World Almanac Book of the year 2003. For all we know World Almanac picks different sources as they update their editions. The base source (whatever that may be) for the estimates, is clearly not the same since the estimates themselves are not the same. How can someone repeatedly claim that one figure is a duplicate of another, when anyone can plainly see that 2.8 is no duplicate of 4.1. This just doesn't make sense. Also, I highly doubt that either World Almanac or Britnnica have ever commissioned studies that estimate this figure. I'm sure they both originate somewhere else in the first place. Initially, the estimates were provided on this page to show that various different organizations and front line sources disagree on how large the population is.
I still fail to see why listing any of these individual estimates does anything to enhance the quality of this article. I also however, do not agree that picking on some of them does anything by selectively create a POV bias. My personal opinion, which I'll state again, is that we should get rid of all of them.PelleSmith 17:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I've clearly made the argument beyond a reasonable doubt below that the Britannica and World Almanac estimates are one and the same. All the facts are outlined below. Please review the FACTS below. --Getaway 00:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The censored Islamic Thinkers society links

This section below keeps getting taken out of the article by what I suspect are probably the same people using a number of different accounts:

The public displays of fringe Muslim groups like the Islamic Thinkers Society in New York City have served to project negative images of disaffection not representative of the wider Muslim community in the eyes of witnesses.

I think these links are the most telling about the fringe elements of Islam in the US and deserve to be part of the article.--CltFn 04:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

They are representative of fringe elements and thus not notable enough for inclusion. --Strothra 05:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Just because they can be called fringe does not mean they are not notable , Bhaisaab, Those so called "fringe elements" are at the root of the negative perceptions suffered by muslims in the US. They are extremely notable--CltFn 05:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It's fringe elements based outside the US that are notable, CltFn. I've been reading Muslim blogs for a long time and no one ever mentioned the Islamic Thinkers Society. I never even heard of them until I started working on this article. The links you keep wanting to insert are of bad quality and really don't tell you as much about the group as their web page does. Or following the existing links on their web page. They think the Taliban had the right idea ... :( Zora 05:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Zora, you read the muslim blogs, ok but if you peer through the counter-terrorism blogs you would see that the "fringe" groups like the Islamic thinkers society and others makes a big impact there in the perception of Islam in the US. Might I suggest you bookmark JihadWatch and read it over some weeks to get the flavor of the impact of these fringe groups.--CltFn 05:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Right, the organizations themselves are a dime a dozen. The actions of some of those organizations have made those individual organizations notable - but not all of them. Further, you cannot generalize groups by assigning any single variable to the causes of such perceptions. --Strothra 05:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Well actually I would argue that there is a single variable at the root of the negative perceptions of Islam: it is the so called fringe groups. --CltFn 05:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The Jihadis and the Jihadwatchers feed on each other. The Jihadwatchers say, "Look at these nutcases; they're typical of Islam." The Jihadis say, "Ours is the correct version of Islam; everyone else is an infidel." Such a nice fit. However, this collusion distorts reality. Zora 07:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you implying that your version reality trumps the Jihadis and Jihadwatchers' version? In the encyclopedia we should be able to include all version should we not? I believe that the core problem we face in writting articles as this one is that there are so many different versions of reality that are being advanced that editors wind up in perpetual tug of war over the content of the article. I think it would be much easier if we simply agreed to let the various versions be featured in the article as originally intended by Wikipedia so that the reader could make up their own mind. How about it?--CltFn 13:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ 2003. The World Almanac and Book of Facts. pg. 635. New York, NY: World Almanac Books
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islam_in_the_United_States/Archive_3&oldid=390263134"