Talk:Islam in the United States/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

September 2007 issues

I have reversed CltFn's edit of the "Muslims in early America" section. I'm not entirely happy with the section name, but "Early Muslims hypotheses" is not an improvement. I do not agree with putting Cleve Hallenbeck's name in the text, especially when the footnote refers to an article by Rayford W. Logan. CltFn's edit also reintroduced a number of spelling errors, including the spellings "Nuiiez" and "Nufiez" for Núñez -- who is referred to anyway as Cabeza de Vaca. I hope we can work together on this rather than reversing one another.

Sefringle removed two lines from the Article Issues notice I placed. Here are my concerns:

• Insufficient context: The article should begin with an overview of the whole topic. I think one reason we are having difficulty here is that the article is still headline-driven and lacks good coverage of everything from the early 1600s to about 1965. (What we do have is episodic and not as good as it should be.) Muslims were a tiny minority in North America during these years, but this article ought to have something intelligent to say about them. We'll have to read books and historical articles.

• The opening paragraph should not include sentences that paint a portrait of Muslims as some kind of fifth column. The leap to Islam in prisons is tendentious, and the line about most U.S. Muslims placing their religion ahead of their nationality is completely inappropriate. Consider how it would seem if applied to U.S. Catholics (as was done in the 1800s) or Jews (as was done through most of the 1900s). This speaks to the unbalanced nature of the article as well as lack of context.

• I do consider the article to be a quote farm. Too often it reads like a blog rather than an encyclopedia article. We should not be relying on ephemeral journalistic sources about this month's trends in public opinion of Muslims, or last season's headline blizzard about what somebody said or didn't say, or should have said. One consequence of the tit-for-tat approach to editing is that there are some important questions this article does not ask, or buries in trivia:

• What have Americans thought of Muslims over the whole course of U.S. history?
• When did "Mohammedans" become "Moslems" become "Muslims," and why?
• Do most Americans still confuse Arabs with Muslims? (Does this article help them understand the distinction?)
• Was 9/11 really a watershed in American interest in and concern about Islam and Muslims?

All we have to say about this last question is that a Muslim politician supposedly insulted the president, and a large minority of Arabs in the U.S. don't think Al-Qaeda is responsible for the attacks. This is petty point-scoring against a minority group. It makes for a weak article that is not much of a contribution to Wikipedia or its readers.

I am not pointing fingers at any individual.

Looking ahead, I am interested especially in helping with Muslims' history in the Americas through about 1900. It will be important to deal with reliable info and e.g. to fend off legends about Turkish explorers in the Carolinas, or a Chinese Muslim having tea with the Cherokees 70 years before Columbus sailed. (I came to this article via Zheng He.)

Anyone else? What are you interested in that's missing or needs work? -- Rob C. alias Alarob 22:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I see that concern about setting context is not exclusive to me: See Keep the Lead Clean and Lead on this page. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 23:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The edits you reverted were referenced and specified the source of the hypothesis. You cannot take a hypothesis and turn that into a certainty. If you read the source you will see that this is the case. Ask yourself if a Muslim presence in early America was real , then why has no mainstream historical expert like John Esposito or Karen Armstrong or even Bernard Lewis ever mentioned such an event in their histories. YOu cannot say that these authors are biased against such a concept, on the contrary , people like Esposito are likely to pursue that line of research , yet they have not done so. The reason for this is that we are dealing with the conjecture and hypotheses of some fringe authors who have no evidence to support their contention. That is why they are called hypotheses. Now , in all fairness these perspectives can be presented in the article , but they should be labelled for what they are , just hypotheses. Asd far as Cleve Hallenbeck it is Rayford W. Logan who attributes the theory to him in his book, and I put that in the referenced paragraph. Having explained my edits , I will revert back to them now --CltFn 03:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alarob, can you please explain why the sourced statement was removed from the lead? Since its sourced from a well-known source, it would not be appropriate to remove it like this? Don't you think?

As for your comment about the previous issues about the lead, it has been resolved. The issue was because the previous statement about the muslim inmates was sourced from Washington Post which some user did not agree with. Also there was no mention about the issue in the article elsewhere according to WP:LEAD. I resolved that issue by putting the statement from Congressional testimony and writing a section on Prison Islam. It is evident that immigration and mass conversion of prison inmates are the two main sources of Islam's growth in the US and they should be adequately covered in the article and mentioned in the lead. Anyway, after cleanup and rewrites the issue has been resolved.

Just to clarify, I am sure none of us want to score "petty-points" over a minority. Some people here may themselves be from minorities. We just want to mention facts from good sources. And as I see now, most of the article looks decently sourced. Lets just mention facts and not judge them. The readers will make their own judgement about 'Islam in United States' based on the sourced facts and their intellect. P.S. i am reverting the sourced statement you deleted from the lead. I think since the article is about American Muslims, the statement is important as it presents a fact about them. Thanks NapoleansSword 20:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Estevánico paragraph

CltFn, let's take this a step at a time.

1. Your revert restored the spelling errors I described above. Please do us the courtesy of fixing them in the footnote. Also note that subsequent references to Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca should be to "Cabeza de Vaca," not to "De Vaca" or "Núñez." Cleve Hallenbeck may name him incorrectly, as English-speaking historians in the 1920s often made errors with Spanish names.
2. You seem to be concerned about discrediting a hypothesis of a Muslim presence in early America. I share this concern, as I mentioned just above. There are a lot of historical myths about Muslim (and Chinese, and Welsh, etc.) discoverers who arrived in America a zillion years ago, and I agree that we must keep myths out of the article. On the other hand the presence of enslaved African Muslims in North America since the early seventeenth century is accepted by historians. They were in the minority, but there is no doubt that they were here. You cite an absence of evidence for this in Armstrong, Esposito, or Lewis, but these writers are concerned with Islam in the Middle East or throughout the world, not in the Americas. Consult historians such as Alan Taylor, Michael A. Gomez, or Sylviane Diouf and you will find that there were Muslim slaves in the Americas, with Spanish, French, British, and American masters. Evidence is especially plentiful for the period from the American Revolution to the Civil War, and at least one Muslim served in the Union Army during the latter war. As I said, Muslims have been a tiny minority, like the Basque-Americans, but they have been here a long time. (This is not just my opinion, nor is it original research.)
3. You are concerned about the question of whether Estevánico, the servant of Cabeza de Vaca, was a Moor. You wish to mention Cleve Hallenbeck, who published in the 1920s, and you cite an article that appeared in 1940. Unless Hallenbeck had something in particular to do with Islam in the United States, I think the article would benefit from more recent reliable sources. And I don't see how dropping the names of historians into the text improves the article.
4. I am not sure what to make of the passage about the spanish world "negro alarabe" ( black arabe or uncivilized or brutal"). Is everything spelled correctly? Negro is Spanish for "black," of course, but alarabe makes no more sense in modern Spanish than it does in English (although árabe is the adjective "Arab" or "Arabic"). So if we are going to call the word "Spanish," we had better be able to say whether it is archaic, regional dialect, or what. Maybe we should leave it out.
5. As for the section title, "Muslims in early America" is appropriate for the article, and "Early Muslims hypotheses" is poor English. I hope you will waive your objections to "Muslims in early America." As for the content of the section -- at the risk of offending someone, I think the claim made by Amadou Mahtar about Morisco settlers is highly unlikely and could be deleted. The incident in South Carolina in 1790 is significant, but lacks context. Then we jump ahead to the 1870s and the first known Anglo-American convert to Islam. The "Slaves" section could be improved, and should not seem to suggest that half of all African slaves in America were culturally Muslim. There is a lot missing from this article. As time permits I'll look up some sources for a more coherent narrative. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 04:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

OK , I will try to answer the points you make here :

1) Agreed

2) I have not seen any conclusive evidence anywhere beyond the conjecture of a fringe group of theorists that try to draw theories that "there may have been" or "its not impossible that there could have" been Muslims amongst the slave population. What is lacking is historical evidence, which none of these authors can provide. In the case of Estevanico of Azamor , the whole argument presented that he could have been a moor is based on 2 words in a journal describing him as a negro alarabe. In this case the reader is asked to buy into the idea that this is enough evidence to conclude that he was a Muslim , even though there is far more evidence that the was not , such as his name and his conduct when he was free , Even these theorists that you list as historian like Michael A Gomez write in hypothetical tones, calling upon very weak circumstantial logic , like , "Islam existed on the African continent at the time of Early America , slaves came from Africa , therefore it is not impossible that some of them were Muslim."

3) Hollenbeck is the source of the claims for Estanvico per RAYFORD W.LOGAN's article on him.

4) alarabe is a Spanish word that can mean either Arab or uncivilized or brutal. Estevanico could be described as any of these definitions. The Indians killed him on charges that he was uncivilized or brutal towards their women.

5) The title Early Muslims hypotheses is honest , as it clearly labels the section for what it is , while the title Muslims in early America is misleading and would suggest the existence of accepted historical evidence. What the section contains are the hypotheses of a small group of theorist.User_talk:CltFn —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

1. I'm leaving it to you to actually make the corrections, including "world" for "word." If you don't wish to do it, please say so.
2. With respect, the fact that you have not seen evidence does not mean that no evidence exists. There is nothing "fringe" about the historians I named. Also, on examining the source you cited, I find that you have not represented it with the greatest accuracy. This article should reflect the consensus of qualified experts -- not your opinion, and not mine.
3. Hollenbeck is the source of the claims for Estanvico per RAYFORD W.LOGAN's article on him. That is not what I have found on reading Logan's article. I cannot find a single reference to Cleve Hollenbeck. Please check to see whether I have overlooked something. Then please explain why it is important to include Hollenbeck's name, or any historian's name, in the article. That seems too much like WP:OR to me.
4. I discuss alárabe (sic) and Estevánico below.
5. I disagree, for the reasons stated above. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 04:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

About alarabe

CltFn writes that alarabe is a Spanish word that can mean either Arab or uncivilized or brutal. Estevanico could be described as any of these definitions. The Indians killed him on charges that he was uncivilized or brutal towards their women. This is not exactly correct.

The phrase quoted by Rayford W. Logan is from Cabeza de Vaca's Relación of his adventures in North America. He writes of Estevánico: es negro alárabe, natural de Azamor. In discussing the phrase, Logan is concerned with establishing the ethnic identity of Estevanico as African ("Negro") rather than Arab. Keep in mind that Logan was writing at a time when most professional historians still held racist views and tended to explain away any evidence of distinction in black men. Logan would have been aware of John Fiske's dismissive description of Estevánico as "silly little Steve" (Spanish Estevan == English "Stephen") in his Discovery of America. W.E.B. DuBois makes the point very clearly in a later issue of Phylon: "[B]ecause men like ... Estevanico ... were of Negro descent, it is unlikely that any American journal would care to publish their biographies." Logan is out to show that Estevánico was both a significant historical actor and "a Negro in the North American sense of the word." I think it's safe to say that historians today agree with Logan on both counts.

Note that Logan does not discuss Estevánico's religious identity, but only his ethnicity. First he explains that every other reference to Estevánico calls him negro only. Cabeza de Vaca called him negro alárabe. The meaning of alárabe is essentially the same as modern árabe, i.e., "Arab," and that was enough to persuade some racist historians that Estevánico was not really a "Negro." Logan seems unsure how to interpret negro alárabe, but he notes that alárabe can also have the figurative meaning hombre inculto o brutal ("uncouth or brutal man"). This definition comes from a 1929 Larrouse dictionary of Spanish, which may or may not accurately reflect the word's usage in the mid-1500s. Logan's point is that Cabeza de Vaca's single use of alárabe is not enough to disprove Estevánico's "Negro" identity.

I looked for other sources published since Logan's 1940 article. It appears that the consensus is that Estevánico was probably an African Muslim, or Moor -- leaving aside the question of whether he was observant. It would explain why his master, Cabeza de Vaca, called him alárabe, conflating "Arab" with "Muslim." If he meant by this that his servant was "uncouth" or "brutal," it is hard to understand why he kept him at his side for at least nine years, or why Estevánico did not take advantage of Cabeza de Vaca's desperate circumstances by either deserting or attacking him. It's possible that Cabeza de Vaca actually meant "brutal," but unlikely. There is some circumstantial evidence: Fernando Alarçón gives a physical description of Estevánico as a black man with a beard. Kenneth W. Porter cites a description of him as a "Barbary Moor," i.e., a North African Muslim. Estevánico's religion has not exactly been a burning issue among historians, but most either call him a Muslim or say nothing on the matter. John Francis Bannon, an eminent historian of the American Southwest, considers Estevánico a "Moor." Carroll L. Riley assumes that Estevánico was at least a convert to Christianity, but he also reports that Azamor, his place of origin, was in western Morocco. I have not had a chance to consult the authoritative 1999 translation of Cabeza de Vaca's relación, but I saw a review of the book in which Estevánico is described as a Moroccan. I suppose it's possible that Estevánico was not at least a nominal Muslim, but it's about as far-fetched as suggesting that Shakespeare was a Muslim. (It's been done.)

I hope this is enough to show that we can identify Estevánico as a Muslim, or Moor, with as much certainty as one can reasonably expect for sixteenth-century North America.

About Estevánico's character: Logan does not agree with your estimation of Estevánico as "Arab" or "uncivilized" or "brutal," nor does he accept the official story that Estevanico was killed for lusting after Indian women and turquoises. Logan concludes that "fear of Estevánico and of those who sent him forward was the principal reason that led the Indians to kill him." More recent sources tend to agree.

Again, I hope we can work together on an accurate account of, yes, Muslims in early America, written from a neutral point of view. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 04:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is Logan's quote

Few writers, however, have gone as far as has Cleve Hallenbeck. This most recent writer states: "Several writers call Estevanico a Negro, for the reason that Nunez refers to him as a 'black'. Others call him a Moor or Arab, and Bandelier says that he was an 'Arab Moor'. Nunez's plain statement that he was an Arab leaves no room for argument." In fact, however, Nunez does not make a plain statement that Estevanico was an Arab but that he was a negro alarabe. Mr. Hallenbeck then adds: "The Spanish word 'negro' means a black person; and in Nunez's time was applied to people of Hamitic and Malayan blood as well as to negroes. Diego de Guzman, who saw Estevanico at Sinaloa, says that he was a moreno-a brown man. [Historia archivo general de Mexico. Vol. 308.1 Mr. Hallenbeck "proves" that Estevanico was not a Negro but a Moor by leaving out Cabeza de Vaca's word negro in front of alarabe; he "proves" that negro does not mean Negro by saying that other peoples were so designated; and he "proves" finally that Estevanico was not even black because, over against the repeated use of the word by many contemporaries, one man said that he was brown.

This is just one person's conjecture against another , bottom line its quite inconclusive and my hope is that we can agree to that. And no I do not see that we can identify Estevánico as a Muslim , that would be a leap of faith in my view, at best we could mention who has hypothesized that he could have been a Moor and we might also disclose that this inference is based on meager and ambiguous evidence. User_talk:CltFn —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Clt,Fn, thank you for helping me locate the reference to Cleve Hallenbeck on p. 308 of Logan's article. In the future, please put specific page numbers in your footnotes and put quotes around direct quotations.

You have answered the most trivial of my questions and ignored the rest. It seems you may have assumed that dismissing the theory that Estevánico was Arab is tantamount to proving he was not Muslim. If so, I can see why my comments above may not have made sense. Please reread them while bearing in mind the distinction between Arab (a member of an ethnic or linguistic group) and Muslim (an adherent of a religion). One can be a Muslim and not be an Arab. "Moor" has often been an ambiguous term, both ethnic and religious. Hallenbeck and Logan were not concerned about Estevánico's religion, only his ethnicity. Most historians now living consider Estevánico an African Muslim. No historians, to my knowledge, insist that he was not an African Muslim.

I will go ahead and edit the passage in light of the points made above. Please have the courtesy not to revert without discussion here. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 17:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I've made changes to the passage. I am still unsatisfied with it, and I suppose we have that in common. Again, I hope we can work collaboratively on improving the passage. Feel free to comment on my talk page. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 17:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Secret Pentagon papers not relevant to this entry.

In regards to my recent revert please read this and respond before simply edit warring: This entry is about Islam as a religion and as it exists "in the United States." Of course some amount of information about the non-Muslim American views of Islam belongs there, especially when it comes to issues that pertain to the form of Islam found "in the United States." That type of information is already represented. What I deleted is a completely WP:UNDUE, not to mention a very partial and supposedly "secret" view of one institution on the link between Islamic scripture and Islamic militancy. It has nothing directly to do with Islam in the United States at all. Sure the institution that has supposedly expressed these views internally is an institution of the U.S. government, but again it has nothing to do with Islam in the United States. It is even more ridiculous that someone would try pushing this into the entry when both of the partisan sources referencing it state that this information isn't public and can't actually verify its authenticity. So we have 1) non-pertinant information that is 2) completely unreliable. Please attend to these issues before reverting me. Thanks.PelleSmith 14:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"again it has nothing to do with Islam in the United States" - how come? What does this title "Islam in the United States" mean to you? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice try. Ask an affirmative question. What does it have to do with Islam in the United States? Also, mind that the verifiability question looms in the background, as does WP:UNDUE. But please do answer the affirmative question, and do so for the specific information you wish to include and not generically for something like "American views of Islam" because we already have those and these supposed findings of a some pentagon researchers are hardly "American" views of Islam.PelleSmith 15:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Simple answer. The article is about Islam in the United States. The Pentagon is an arm of the Government of United States, so in a way the representative of Americans since America is a democracy. So the view of the Pentagon is important to this article. You say that, "some pentagon researchers are hardly "American" views of Islam." Arent the researchers Americans? They are in fact scholars who have conducted a scientific and thorough research and made their conclusion. Such a conclusion is much more valid than a layman's random conclusion like "Oh Islam is the most beautiful religion" or "Islam is the worst of all". These facts must stay.

On a side note, I would just like to respectfully pointout that it would be better if we all contribute to the articles and improve the material rather than deleting sourced data. Last time you had resorted to name calling by starting a section "Amateur Hour" implying that all others are amateurs. Also I remember that you were removing some statements and citations. Please do not consider this an "attack" on you. I am just pointing out that such a behavior can hardly be considered civility and would request you to be more co-operative and friendly in the future. Enjoy editing wikipedia!!!NapoleansSword 21:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see the statement below for another iteration about why, even if these statements were verifiable (which they are not) they have no relevance in this entry. Also these are not "facts." They are unsourced statements. It doesn't matter if they were printed in those two publications because the are not attributable to any real source. BTW the reason we have the poll data on "views" is because those represent views held by more than a handful of researchers. Again, this entry isn't about various institutional views on the relevance of Islamic scripture to Islamic militancy which is what the supposed views in the sources are about. Please actually answer this claim. If I'm not lying (which I am not) then how can you reconcile this? Should we print every opinion by every American about every facet of Islam in this entry? Also, you say this isn't an attack on me (btw I wouldn't care if it was), but if you want to make that point clearer next time then try not to comment on my unrelated commentary from the past. Cheers.PelleSmith 00:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue here is perspective, right? Who (or what) is being described, and from where (or by whom). In this case, the article is working on describing how Islam exists and functions in the United States. This is a phenomenological effort. Issues regarding how people feel or what people think (including the US government) about Islam in general is not particularly pertinent to a description of how Islam exists in the US. It would be better suited to an article entitled "U.S. view on Islam", or something like that. Tho, I don't suggest that as an article. The point is, unverified "reports" that only cast a negative light on one subject by another doesn't seem to serve much purpose. This is a specific article regarding a specific phenomenon (or, phenomena). Quoting negative unsourced opinion about a general phenomenon doesn't add anything useful to this specific article. Does that mean the information is not somehow useful? No. Just not here. Otherwise, it just looks like Islam bashing. Really.--Jonashart 22:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Quoting you:

Issues regarding how people feel or what people think (including the US government) about Islam in general is not particularly pertinent to a description of how Islam exists in the US.

Really? So, why didnt you say we should get rid of the whole 'Controversy and Criticism' section? How is that section justified but the views of the Pentagon on Islam are not? There are a lot of statements in this section which according to your view should be taken out. Dont forget about the "American populace's view on Islam" section, telling how Muslims view the US. If Muslims can be shown telling their view on the US, the US government can definitely be featured telling its view on Islam. There you go. And please dont shoot down anything that criticises Islam. Maybe Criticism of Islam is an Islam bashing article too according to you so lets get rid of that one too since its "Islam bashing". Also your last edit was 3 weeks ago. Maybe Pelle asked you for help on this, is that right? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The controversy and criticism section could, now that you mention it, use some editing. However, it contains information about criticism of Islam in the United States and not just simply criticism of Islam. As you so admirably point out we have an entire entry on Criticism of Islam and we also have one on Islam ... this one (gasp) is about Islam in the United States. How many times does one have to point that out?PelleSmith 03:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to think about this one for a bit. Arrow740 05:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Relax a bit, eh? No, Pelle has not asked for my help. Your "research" into my editing habits doesn't do much to counter your clearly defensiveness in all this. The "Criticism" sections appears fairly well documented. You know: surveys, that sort of thing. Ok, let me put it this way: what it contributed by including some vague "studies" by the government? Unless you're suggesting some thesis about how the U.S. government treats Muslims (or the religion of Islam) relative to these "findings", the "data" would seem to serve little purpose. Your vast oversimplification of my point aside, I think the burden is on you to justify inclusion. Oh, and be sure not to conflate "the U.S." and the "U.S. Government". Those are two very distinct entities. This isn't about "well, they said something, so the other side's opinion should be there too." That's not even remotely what this article is trying to do. No one here is "defending" Islam. The purpose of this and every article is to illuminate and help define. Random agenda-laden "data" from my government rarely seeks the same goal.--Jonashart 03:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Clearly there are sections about "American views about Muslims" and "Muslim view about US of A", so the Pentagon view is very relevant. It has been put in the correct section of "Controversy and Criticism" (which it clearly is). So I dont see a point of removing this part. Again, PelleSmith has asked how one person or organization's view can be considered as a "representative" of American view about Islam. So we should remove the "Reesponses to Criticism" section too. Certainly Peter Bergins views or Louis Safi's views would be irrelevant. The Islamophobia article also has many people claming perceived Islamophobia. Their views would be irrelevant as they are not a representative of all Muslims either. So as you can see this logic is completely flawed. As long as we attribute the views to the correct source, it is fine to put those views up in a wikipedia article. The Pentagon is a well known organization and there views are completely relevant here. And just to make it clear again, they also apply to Islam in the United States. The Pentagon doesnt say that Islam in the US or American Muslims is exempt from these views. Again since the Pentagon is an American organization, the entry is valid just like "American view of Islam" and "Muslim view of the US". Your argument would have made sense if the entry was say about the UK Home office view of Islam. NapoleansSword 07:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

AGAIN. The examples you cite all relate to Islam in the United States or to AMERICAN Muslims. They are not simply VIEWS ON ISLAM!!!! How many times does someone have to point this out to you? How many times are you going to ignore it? Please explain how the supposed Pentagon paper is about Islam in the US. I have asked you at least twice already to tell me I'm wrong when I say that the supposed paper is about the connection between Islamic scripture and Islamic militancy. The supposed brief is about Islamic terrorism not about Islam in the United States. The critics, counter-critics and American opinion polls you mention above all present views on American Muslims and Islam in the United States. Are you trying to drive me mad? Don't answer that last question answer the ones about the CONTENT!PelleSmith 11:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. We need to keep the context clear. Also again, the US Government's "response" to a world religion is not the same as public American reaction to that religion in America. That's what makes those opinion polls different. Further: just because someone said something, and someone else wrote it down, doesn't make it a "valid" piece of data. If that report were investigated, explained, and then printed by an organization different from "Frontpage Magazine", it might stand a better chance here. Just adding a citation doesn't validate information. We can find all sorts of things printed that say things we like to hear. If you want, I can fill this article with all sorts of "data" that claims all sorts of things. But I doubt it'd stand up against legit scrutiny. And that's all we're doing here.--Jonashart 14:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: I plan on removing the material once again if no one is capable of explaining how it actually relates to Islam in the United States. As it stands, the only such attempt at an explanation has come from NapoleansSword. That explanation doesn't make any sense however sine it amounts to this: The Pentagon is part of the U.S. government so hence its supposed views on aspects of Islamist ideology belong in an entry about Islam in the United States. No one is claiming that this type of research is valuable or that it wouldn't, if it actually exists, have something to say about Islam, about Islamist militancy, etc. What it doesn't say anything about, for the last time, is Islam in the United States.PelleSmith 17:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It is an opinion of an AMERICAN organization about a religion practised by American Muslims, about a book that American Muslims consider holy and about a person American Muslims try to emulate. So yes, it is a view of American Organization and is relevant to Islam in US. It may not be relevant in say Islam in UK.

I'm going to leave this alone, for now. You and others appear adamant to push a questionably-sourced (Frontpage Magazine) report, seemingly in order to highlight something that has not been proven to be particularly relevant. Relevance is more than just having proper nouns in common (Islam, US, etc). Perhaps Pelle and I are making too academic a distinction here. It's not one commonly understood, so perhaps that's our mistake. The goal, as always, has been to create an article free from (overt) bias. My view is that the addition of this blurb works against this. That said, perhaps with better sourcing, better context, and more writing around it, it'd be worth keeping. But as it stands, it reads something to the effect of: "here's a picture of what Islam in the United States looks like, generally. Oh, and the US Gov't supposedly said it's a bad religion." To be clear, unless an articulatd relatinship between the "opinion of the Pentagon" (a fairly ambiguous concept) and the practice of Islam in America is made, the "report" is not relevant. Really. It seems like there's an assumption of relation, but it is certainly not evident. Really. As only a few of us have been debating this, it would see to benefit from more readership/opinion. I'll hope for that in the meantime.--Jonashart 02:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Pelle, once again I want to refer you to WP:civility and WP:AGF. Your behavior is just not civil. You have made a personal attack on me on Matt57's talkpage saying that "I do not have a problem making absurd arguments". On requesting you to maintain civility you gesture that until I stop making arguments which YOU do not agree with you will continue your behavior. Now you are accusing me of trying to drive you mad. You have done this in the past too and has happening and is happening time and again. Please do not disrupt the cordial and community editing we do here. Please take your personal attacks and anger elsewhere. Thanks. NapoleansSword 00:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If I made that comment on Matt's talkpage then why do we need to discuss it here? Isn't this the talk page for the entry Islam in the United States, where we discuss entry content and not the comments made by editors on other talk pages? There are appropriate venues for discussing my comments and this isn't one of them. Please take the appropriate actions (e.g. report me to an administrator, take out an RFC, etc.) because this talk page is not the appropriate forum. You've repeated the same point over and over again now and it simply isn't relevant. Should we publish every opinion by every American individual and/or institution that relates to Islam? If the Pentagon made comments about British Muslims then those comments would be relevant to Islam in the UK, and if the Pentagon made comments about American Muslims it would be appropriate here. They have not however, and again we don't even know if they really made these comments. So in reality we have a story written by an American journalist in a partisan online publication about a supposed paper written by Pentagon officials about Islam yet not about Islam in any particularly American sense.PelleSmith 02:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Because you ONCE AGAIN accused me of trying to drive you mad right here in your comment. Yes, Pentagon's opinion is very relevant. We have opinions of "Peter Bergins" and "Loui Safi" who are no way as big or well known as the Pentagon. I dont want to drive the same point over about WHY its relevant. Read my comments. NapoleansSword 02:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

OK lets look at the two examples you just brought up because they illustrate the nature of the problem here. Here they are:

• Peter Bergen claims that Islamism is adopted by a minority of US Muslims, saying that a "vast majority of American Muslims have totally rejected the Islamist ideology of Osama Bin Laden".[114]

• International Institute of Islamic Thought Director of Research Louay M. Safi has questioned the motives of several noted critics, alleging that members of what he terms the "extreme right" are exploiting security concerns to further various Islamophobic objectives.[115]

Peter Bergen is directly commenting on American Muslims and not on Islam generally. Safi is commenting on the critics of American Muslims mentioned just above in the entry. Again they relate directly to Islam in the United States and not simply to Islam. When will you acknowledge the difference here?PelleSmith 03:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

We need to clean up the lead

After surveying the other Islam by country entries it has become clear to me how awkward our lead is. As per WP:LEAD we need to be concerned with avoiding "lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions." I'm going to start. Please help.PelleSmith 12:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I just finished editing the lead. Please note that NO information was deleted from this entry. For the most part I simplified sentences and removed "over-specific descriptions." I deleted one or two sentences but made sure they were placed or already existed in specific content sections. As a last order of business I removed all the citations. The lead should not contain any novel information. As a summary of the entry itself it doesn't need citations. These are for the specific content sections. Any thoughts?PelleSmith 12:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The lead needs citations. Yes, a lead is a summary, but the citations still belong, else it is still WP:OR, or at least it appears a OR even if it may not actually be. Most good wikipedia articles do have citations in the lead. And second, you did remove a lot from the lead. You removed every opinion/data which might be considered critical of Islam or islamic organizations and any evidence of criticism of islam or islamic organizations out of the lead, only leaving the part about assimilation. This is not an appropiate rewrite of the section, so yes, you did remove much from the lead which should be restored. Yahel Guhan 03:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If you have an issue with the citations you could easily have put them back. I purposefully removed them in one edit at the end of editing the lead and made it clear in the edit summaries so that if it were an issue they could be easily restored. The information in the lead you say I removed is another issue. Lets put both versions of the lead here for comparison. Then we can discuss what has been removed and what hasn'tPelleSmith 12:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC):

Lead comparison

Old Lead

The history of Islam in the United States starts in the 18th century, with the first Muslim inhabitants.[1] Once very small, the Muslim population has increased greatly in the last one hundred years: How much it has increased is unclear; there is much controversy over recent estimates of the Muslim population in the U.S. Much of the growth has been driven by immigration. Up to one-third of American Muslims are African Americans who have converted to Islam during the last seventy years, first into the Nation of Islam and then into mainstream Sunni Islam. 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."[2] Only 28% of American Muslims choose to be identified as Americans first while the rest choose to identify with their religion. [3]

According to a 2004 telephone survey of a sample of 1846 Muslims conducted by the polling organization Zogby the respondents claim to be more educated and affluent than the national average, with 59% of them claiming to hold at least an undergraduate college degree.[4]. Muslims in the United States are generally believed to be more assimilated than Muslims in Europe. [5] However, a Pew Research Center survey also found that some subgroups of America's Islamic community -- specifically, younger Muslims and African-American Muslims -- are somewhat more likely than the group as a whole to be open to extremism. African-American Muslims also were far more likely to feel alienated from the culture and suspicious of the government.[6]

There are many political, charity and other Islamic organizations in the United States such as American Society of Muslims (ASM), Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Council on American-Islamic Relations(CAIR), Muslim Student Association (MSA) etc. Some of these organizations especially ISNA, MSA and CAIR have been criticized by conservative media outlets for Wahabbism and supporting terrorism.[7][8][9]

In 2005, according to the New York Times, more people from Muslim countries became legal permanent United States residents — nearly 96,000 — than in any year in the previous two decades.[10] [11]

Edited Lead

The history of Islam in the United States starts in the 18th century, with the first Muslim inhabitants.

Once very small, the Muslim population has increased greatly in the last one hundred years, yet how much it has increased is unclear and there is much controversy over recent estimates of the Muslim population in the U.S. Much of the growth has been driven by immigration. Up to one-third of American Muslims are African Americans who have converted to Islam during the last seventy years, first into the Nation of Islam and then into mainstream Sunni Islam. Conversion to Islam in U.S. prisons has significantly contributed to this aspect of growth.

Muslims in the United States are generally believed to be more assimilated and prosperous than Muslims in Europe. However surveys also suggest that they are less assimilated than other American subcultural and religious communities. There are many Islamic political and charity organizations supporting this community. Some of these organizations have come under considerable criticism for supporting Islamist agendas.

Discussion

Here is why I take issue with your wholesale revert. I doubt you will disagree with the following points:

1. The figure from the New York times about 2005 doesn't belong in the lead and should have been moved.
2. The listing of actual Islamic organizations is not necessary in the lead itself (perhaps you prefer different terminology than the one I employed but that is an easy change ... Islamist, Wahhabist, whatever you prefer).

I could also imagine you'd agree with these points but may be wrong about that:

1. We don't need to quote anybody in the lead nor should we.
2. We don't need to go into exact demographic figures of the prison population, especially since we don't go into any other demographic figures in the lead. Nor should we. General statements about demographics are fine in a summary of the entry.

I assume these are the issues you are particularly in disagreement with:

1. Getting rid of the detailed write up on the the opinion polls in favor of the line "However, surveys also suggest that they are less assimilated than other American subcultural and religious communities." Now I am clearly in favor of the edit I made but there is no reason why we can't discuss it and reach a compromise. I don't think we need all that information in there however. And contra to what you said I condensed and didn't remove either the more assimilated than European Muslims part OR the survey part. I just edited out more detail than you liked. Again we should discuss this and not just revert.
2. Getting rid of the citations. As I mentioned above an easy fix and perhaps a bad edit on my part.PelleSmith 12:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

keeping the footnotes in the lead, I have no objection to this new proposed lead at this time. Yahel Guhan 04:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Demographics

The references cited under demographics have an error. The references 39 and 43 are the same. The research reported by Council on American-Islamic Relations - The Mosque in America: A National Portrait (43), was conducted by the Hartford Institute for Religious Research in their 2000 effort referenced under (39) here. [Bashir A. Shaikh - July 15, 2008 @ 12:56 PM]

I have made several edits involving the demographics section. I moved mosque information to the mosque section, streamlined the controversy over various estimates and made subsections. There is no reason why readers need to read detailed and selective arguments about the demographics. If someone wants to start a new entry (not section here--but Wiki entry) on "Controversies over the Muslim population in the United States," then detailed information is pertinant there. I have summed up the opposing viewpoints and kept all the references intact. Cheers.PelleSmith 16:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This is obviously going to be disputed by different organizations. Which is why I find it ironic that you just outright removed half the views on what the demographics of muslims are. We should present all notable reliable views on the demographics, and let the readers make their own conclusion. The views are relevant, and belong where they are. There is no need to stuff all views under a section entitled "controversy." Yahel Guhan 03:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do views on population estimates belong here? As it is this section is much to large. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which is here to present factual information about things--in this case about Islam in the United States. The controversy and disagreement about the size of the population is itself rather insignificant to Islam in the United States. Let me repeat the ... the actual controversy adds nothing to our knowledge of Islam in the United State. Since it exists, and since it means we can't present one good consensus data set it should be mentioned. What we don't need is ... CAIR says this, such and such researcher says this. The gist of it all is presented in what is actually probably too much space even now. Please tell me why we need the actual information I removed. It isn't helpful when you generalize. Thanks.PelleSmith 11:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia presents factual information and prospective controversies about the information. Especially with something as heavily disputed as the demographics. The controversy does add something; the views and explanations as to what the actual demographics are, and the problems with certian demographics; thus it allows the reader to make a choice based on the arguements as to what they believe is most likely the correct demographic data. Yahel Guhan 04:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

ALSO please note that I reorganized the section for clarity and structure as well as moved information more pertinant to the mosque section to that section. What I was trying to do was to get rid of the excess arguments pro and con various population estimates. Those would be more appropriate in an entry like "Controversies over the Muslim population in the United States."PelleSmith 12:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Why does everything need to be in the controversy section? The demographics already have their own section. Why divide it into two totally different areas of the article? Prehaps it would be better if there was a subheader entitled "controversy" in the demographics section? Yahel Guhan 04:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying. It doesn't belong in this entry at all. The details would belong in an entry, not a section of this entry, but an entry of its own called "Controversies over the Muslim population in the United States." All we need in this entry is a basic outline of the controversy. That's my point.PelleSmith 15:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

But why doesn't it belong in the entry? It is clearly relevant to the demographics. Why make this as basic as possible when doing so will involve removing viable relevant content?Yahel Guhan 20:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The amount of detail we provide about the controversy is completely WP:UNDUE. As I have tried to say several times and as I tried to do in my edit of the section, a good summary of the debate is all we need.PelleSmith 21:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

What should we do with this information?

The following was removed from the criticism and controversy section here for review and discussion. Some of this can be edited down, but there is an issue as to where to place the information. It seems like it made its way into the section I took it out of because when someone looks at it it seems like it should be controversial. However, it is not for us to make those judgments. We need to report on controversies that arise out there in the public sphere. For instance if this poll data has created a controversy then what we need to do is to reference the controversy not just the poll data. In fact we can condense the poll data significantly as well. Thoughts?PelleSmith 17:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If it hasn't created a controversy, the solution is to put it in the article outside the controversy section. It shouldn't be removed though. Give it its own section. Yahel Guhan 03:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well then lets work with it. I'm not saying that its irrelevant. I do think it can be paired down a bit. I also do think that unless it can be cited as an actual controversy then it doesn't belong in that section. So where can we put it?PelleSmith 11:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Excerpt

A 2006 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, it was discovered that 26% of American Muslims under the age of 30 supported suicide bombings against civilian targets often or at least in some circumstances. Among those over the age of 30, 13% expressed their support for the same. (9% of Muslims over 30 and 5% under 30 chose not to answer). Based on these findings, Fox News and Yahoo News have reported that one out of four young U.S. Muslims believe homicide bombings against civilians are OK to 'defend Islam,'.

Yahoo News further reports that the same poll has also uncovered other disturbing findings. It has been discovered that only 40 percent of U.S. Muslims believe that Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks. Another 28 percent don't believe it - and 32 percent said they had no view. Among 28 percent who doubted that Arabs were behind the conspiracy, one-fourth claim the U.S. government or President George Bush was responsible. Only 26 percent of American Muslims believe the U.S.-led war on terror is a sincere effort to root out international terrorism. Five percent of those surveyed had a "very favorable" or "somewhat favorable" view of the terrorist group Al-Qaeda. Only 35% of American Muslims stated that the decision for military action in Afghanistan was the right one and 12% supported the use of military force in Iraq. It was also discovered in the same poll that only 28% of American Muslims identify themselves as American first. Others choose to identify themselves as Muslims.

I think its very relevant. Again it was discussed before and this was the compromise that was arrived at by the editors. So it should remain. I do think it has created a controversy to some extent, I have myself heard some of it being discussed on CNN and Fox News and being criticized by some experts/hosts etc. Since it has been criticized, it should remain in 'Controversy and Criticism'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NapoleansSword (talk • contribs) 22:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well then provide references for the controversy. Also, simply saying that this was a compromise in the past doesn't really help us much. A lot of "compromises" on this page amount to pro and anti Islamic editors allowing the other group to put equal amounts of POV in to somehow balance the entry. That's not what NPOV is about or how one determines relevance of information. That said, I again think some of this is relevant. However, until someone references an actual controversy we need to find it a new home within the entry.PelleSmith 02:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This has definitely been criticized althought it may or may not have created a controversy. the section is titled controversy AND criticism. Hope you get the idea. NapoleansSword 02:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

References and sources are needed however you slice this. Criticized by whom?PelleSmith 02:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

How about we just read the source? From Fox News: "It is a hair-raising number," said Radwan Masmoudi, president of the Washington-based Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, which promotes the compatibility of Islam with democracy." So does it sound like an "appreciation"? Just a search on google shows a lot of people who have criticized this. But I really dont think that we should be mentioning like A,B,C,D,E,F has criticized such and such a thing because this would lenngthen the article unnecessarily. Many of those issues in that section have been criticized by multiple people. I do not see the necessity of mentioning each persons name with a citation. I honestly dont know/understand what you intend here. NapoleansSword 03:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue is with how we, as an encyclopedia, present information. We can't present information about something someone has done or said as "controversial" unless we show how it is controversial ... unless we cite a real controversy. Otherwise we are simply passing judgment on what was said or done. We are not supposed to pass judgments but to present facts. Again, the information itself is factual ... that is the poll was conducted and these are the results, but it isn't up to us to deem them controversial. Either we show how they have been considered controversial, maybe by using some of these references that you have found, or we put it into another section. What other option do we have?PelleSmith 03:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

PelleS, I repeat....there is no need to show any controversy. The above statements have been criticized and that is enough to warrant their inclusion in controversy AND criticism section. The section has controversies AS WELL AS criticism. I feel I was clear in my last post about this. Please do not make me repeat same things again and again. Thanks. NapoleansSword 20:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, by whom? You are not an authority we can reference. If it is controversial we need to be able to prove that. "It has been criticized" is a meaningless generalization. Tell me by whom. Just provide some references here and this will be done.PelleSmith 01:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Prison section again

Pelle, you completely removed the prison population demographics. The fact that thre are 350,000 muslim Americans in jail is very relevant to this article. This censorship is not appropiate. Yahel Guhan 04:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Calling it censorship is not appropriate, especially when I never removed the figure. I'm looking at my edited version right now and it reads:

"In addition to immigration, the state, federal and local prisons of the United States may be a major contributor to the phenomenal growth of Islam in the country. Although America has around 1-2% Muslims in all, official estimates suggest that the percentage of Muslim inmates is 15-20% of the prison population. Roughly 80% of the prisoners who "find faith" while in prison convert to Islam. The population of Muslim inmates has reached approximately 350,000 (in 2003) with 30,000-40,000 added each year. These converted inmates are mostly African American with a small but growing Hispanic minority. According to the testimony of Dr. Michael Waller before the US Senate radical Islamist groups dominate Muslim prison recruitment in the U.S. and seek to create a radicalized cadre of felons who will support their anti-American efforts. Waller claims that the growth of the Muslim population in prison is mostly due to their efforts. . [33][34]"

I've added the boldface so you can see more clearly. Please explain what you meant by your comment? I only removed the figure from the lead, and I have also opened a thread about that above in the lead section. Thanks.PelleSmith 12:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

Pelle, besides clearly removing relevant content, you will have to explain what you were trying to do here. Yahel Guhan 04:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I "moved" content to the talk page (above) and was hoping you and others would discuss where it would more appropriately fit in the entry. I didn't "remove" any content. Otherwise I did two things:

1. Reorganize and parsed content so that each paragraph has the same type of information in it. A) the cashier and cab driver bits were about views and behaviors which are contrary to those held by mainstream Americans, B) the airport and university bits were about Non-Muslim institutions accommodating Islam at the expense of taxpayersn, C) the bit about CAIR was about alledged connections to terrorism (btw I didn't remove any other such information ... that really was the only example in the original), D) the bit about the congressman stands pretty much alone as controversial statements made by prominent (?) Muslim Americans.
2. I merged sentences to get rid of excess language. See for example the merging of the airports and the universities. The issue is the same across all places, so there was in my view no need for several separate sentences.

That covers my edits of this section. Again I want to discuss the placing of the content I "moved" to the talk page but otherwise I didn't remove any content. If I did please tell when what content I removed and we'll go from there.PelleSmith 12:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

'moving it to the talkpage' clearly implies removal of content from the article. The person who reads the article might not really read the talkpage. such a removal without discussion is totally unwarranted. Also I saw that bits and pieces were either 'removed', moved to some other section or 'desensitized' in a manner to suit a certain agenda. Please discuss before any such edits. It is clear that there is no consensus on this and we shouldn't be making changes until there is. NapoleansSword 14:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, if the move, removal or whatever you want to call it was a problem then why not just put the information back and engage the ongoing discussion? Again my issue is with the wholesale revert of many many edits. Also, generalizations are not helpful. I have started some pretty detailed discussion about my edits (which I think covers most if not all of them). Why not talk about specific edits, about specific "removals," moves or "desensitizations?" Unless you point out what or where the problems are it isn't really proper to call them problems. Anyone can sit around saying ... "uhm your edits are against consensus, your edits are POV, your edits whatever." Unless you show how this is the case you're not really working with good faith to deal with "contested edits", nor instilling any confidence that what you claim is anything but a tactic to tarnish another persons edits. Lets see the substance of what you're saying. Please join the conversation above or start a new thread. Tell me which edits are bad and why. BTW, the idea that no edits should be made at all without establishing consensus on a talk page first is not how wikipedia works ... you not only know this but you embody it too. We all do. Now please help us all out here and move beyond the generalizations and talk about the actual edits. Thanks.PelleSmith 21:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well yes you can edit without consensus...but when reverts are made and the editors have voiced their concerns about your edits, it becomes clear that there is a controversy/problem with those edits and its better not to put them back in until a consensus is reached. this is what I meant. I am going to take a look at the stuff one by one...since its a lot. I already commented on one of your concerns above. One thing which I notice at the first look is that most of the stuff in this article has been well attributed and sourced and as I had read the article before it seemed that most of the stuff seemed pretty relevant. The editors have done a pretty good job on this article in that aspect. Anyway since you seem to be having concerns, I (and other editors) will take a look at it.NapoleansSword 22:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok but that's not what you initially said. Initially you said "please discuss before any such edits." If there is a problem with an edit then again I invite comments on the problem with the actual edit. So again, lets hear them and lets discuss.PelleSmith 02:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Masjids

Airport terminals in the United States are generally self-supporting government operations, funded by user fees imposed upon air traffic, such as landing fees and Passenger Facility Charges, along with lease payments and concession revenues from terminal tenants. There is no specific evidence to support the assertion that "tax-payer dollars" were used to pay for the installation. Furthermore, we need more than a single quote from the fringe blog "Jihad Watch" to support the assertion that there has been any sort of generalized criticism of the installation of foot-baths for Muslim taxicab drivers. FCYTravis 20:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not sourced from jihadwatch. I did not know about the funding and I have accomodated your concern by removing the "tax payer dollars". However it is not proper for you to have removed other content that I had added in addition to the airport statement without discussion and with a edit summary specifically showing concern about the airport issue. NapoleansSword 20:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The only source for the criticism is "Jihad Watch." Find someone besides that, please. The other changes were similarly objectionable. FCYTravis 20:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

here are more sources:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57784

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070917/NEWS02/709170423/1025

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/14185308/detail.html

In fact here its saying that ""It is absolutely unconstitutional and positively discriminatory," Hillenburg said. "We're here to address the unconstitutional use of public property and use of taxpayer monies to support … and promote a single religion -- that religion in this case being Islam."

This makes me feel that even the use of tax payer dollars is appropriate. I will still wait for a response. NapoleansSword 20:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The Courier-Journal article is the IndyStar article, reprinted via AP Wires. Oddly, the WorldNetDaily article particularly points out that the KCI benches were not paid for with tax dollars, but rather via a one-dollar-per-trip fee imposed on cab drivers. The other source is... one minister at one local church, who wrote something in his church newsletter. Are you getting the picture here as to how far you're having to stretch to find anyone who's criticized the foot-washing installations? It is giving undue weight to a fringe opinion to claim that these sinks have sparked any sort of broad controversy, when the only complainants are a blog and a local church newsletter. FCYTravis 21:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, most major airports already have religious facilities - interfaith chapels are often built in terminals, to allow traveling adherents of all religious groups to find a quiet place to pray or meditate. FCYTravis 21:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Foot-baths for 'wudu' a Muslim prayer ritual is not an inter-faith facility. thats like calling a holy water fountain or a synagogue an inter-faith facility. NapoleansSword 21:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone asked to build a holy water fountain in restrooms, and been denied the ability to do so? FCYTravis 21:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe because other people may realize the seperation between church and state and not make such demands? In any case its useless to speculate as it never happened. Lets look at what has happened and it has clearly violated the seperation between church and state. Whether they ask for it or no, giving a prayer space for ANY particular religion is unconstitutional for a public facility. NapoleansSword 22:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That's false. Prayer spaces have been built into major publicly-operated airports for years. I'm as strict a believer in the separation of church and state as you'll find, but I have no issue with a public place installing reasonable facilities to allow worshippers of all faiths to conduct their particular rituals. If the local Catholic Church has requested a holy water font in the airport and been denied, then you've got a case for religious discrimination. FCYTravis 22:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

FCYTravis, there is no need to specifically mention taxi drivers as first of all it is a muslim ritual not a taxi driver ritual, and second there is no evidence that other Muslims will not be using the footbaths. I have shown the sources. They have been criticized by different people. Again Robert Spencer is an author and a valid critic on Islam and there is no reason why his criticism should not be considered. Other articles on Islam here on wikipedia have his criticism. In fact the airport criticism was in the controversy and criticism section here and was moved to other section by a user. It was put here with consensus for a long time. Most other stuff on this article has been discussed and compromises have been reached. Your removal of these statements with claims such as Jihadwatch blog criticism are just inappropriate because it has NOT been sourced from jihadwatch. I do not want to engage in an edit war with you so I would suggest that you look at the previous discussions, and then discuss each point here and wait for consensus before reverting. You have reverted other changes unrelated to the airport giving reasons like "similarly inappropriate". Unless you can bring sources which prove that those statements are inaccurate, they will remain since they are already sourced. Thanks. NapoleansSword 21:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course there's a need to mention taxi drivers. The news stories clearly mention the reason for the footbaths' construction - most taxi drivers in America are Muslim. Hence, the airports are providing facilities for the taxi drivers who serve the air traveling public. To omit that rationale leaves their construction without context, and acts to deny the role that Americans of the Muslim faith play in our country. It's nonsensical to say they're building footbaths and not say why. FCYTravis 21:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I am going to assume you didnt understand what I said. By saying that the footbaths are for accomodating muslim prayer rituals is enough to show the REASON for its construction. They are for taxi drivers as well as other Muslims who might want to use them. These are clearly not "inter-faith" structures. It is clear from the news that they are built to accomodate the prayer rituals of Muslims. I have removed the tax payer part. So what is your objection on including these statements? This issue has nothing to do with denying what Muslims do for America. We have to include all facts related to a subject as long as they are well-sourced. Just because you think that this might put down the role of American Muslims is your personal opinion and doesn't imply that we should censor all statements to achieve that end. NapoleansSword 21:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course I read what you said. But you're making no sense. The sources clearly state the specific reasons for the construction of the foot-baths - they're to serve the large contingent of Muslim-adherent taxicab drivers. This gives their installation context within the broader perspective of Islam in the United States. Why are you arguing to include fringe criticism of their installation, yet arguing to exclude the specific reason for their installation? FCYTravis 21:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I am going to leave this issue open for other editors to give their opinion. But other reverts that you made with this "airport" revert needs to be put back in as some of them were already discussed before and all of them were sourced. NapoleansSword 21:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine how about Foot-baths for Muslim taxi drivers and other Muslims. Just muslim taxi drivers imply that other Muslims will not use it when its clear that all believing Muslims perform Wudu. Also we will have to include criticism since 2-3 different sources have criticized it. Also it needs to be included that the airport has crossed the line between church and state since they do not make special concessions for any other religion. What do you say? NapoleansSword 21:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that point is true - we should mention that the specific reason was the taxicab drivers, but that it is useful to all Muslims. As for the church and state issue, absolutely not. Again, you have presented absolutely no evidence that any other religion has requested and been denied similar facilities to aid worshipping. FCYTravis 22:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend that you read up on seperation of church and state. It does not imply that all religions should be given equal representation and worship facilities in a public place..it implies that NO religion should be given such facilities. So if ANY religion is given such a facility (Islam in this case) it is a violation of church and state. On a side note, Robert Spencer is a mainstream author of several books including 2 bestsellers about Islam. He has had several TV appearences on CNN, Fox etc. So his view about this is valid and should indeed be in the criticism section. I strongly oppose this content move. This content should be moved back to its original place and reworded to show the violation of church and state (or mosque and state or temple and state ...just to be politically correct)NapoleansSword 16:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a topic that often needs to be examined with some scrutiny. "Church and state", as 'concept' doesn't actually mean anything. If you're talking about the separation of the federal government from a national religion, it's a far more subtle and complex debate than just saying this is a "church and state" violation. People often cite the Constitution in claiming that such a violation has occurred. As I'm sure you know, there no is wording in the Constitution of "(separation) of church and state." The Constitution speaks about making sure the state does not create a national religion (by supporting one religion over another, spending money on one over the other, etc.) As important, it also says the state cannot PROHIBIT exercise of religion. So, the 1st Amendment works in two specific ways on the matter of religion: establishment and free exercise. So, in order to make the claim the the addition of footbaths, prayer rooms, etc. in an airport violates some conflated view of "church and state", you have to show how it violates the FIRST part of the Amendment and doesn't at the same time hold to the SECOND part of the Amendment. And let's be clear: to do so would be a POV argument. Unless the courts say so too, there is no violation. If the footbath were truly paid for by the state, the state is still not therefore obliged to provide an "equal" facility for other religious groups. If others want facilities, they would certainly have an argument to have those facilities included, but unless they complain: no harm, no foul.--Jonashart 17:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I have mentioned the sources above and the sources are saying its a violation. This is not my personal opinion. I dont understand why we want to "think" about the views other than just mention facts from the sources. I would be okay with saying that "some critics say that its a violation of church and state".NapoleansSword 17:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but here's the problem with that: as with other issues in this discussion list, we can always find opinions. We could fill every inch of Wikipedia with various opinions. It's just not helpful. Either the footbaths are a violation, or they're not. And perhaps the middle ground of "it's being debated" by the courts. So, to make this a NPOV issue, for every opinion we add that it might be a violation, we need to add one that says it not. You can see what a train wreck of an article this would become if we did that. These more sensitive topics need to be treated as dispassionately as possible. It's certainly difficult, but thats the job of Wiki editors. Now, in the grand scheme is it important to understand that people don't agree that the footbaths should be there? Of course. I don't dismiss that importance at all. It's part of the landscape, right? However, the article isn't about how people feel. Its about describing that is in the world, as neutrally as possible. Riddling topics with opinions skews neutrality. Or at least, the attempt for neutrality.--Jonashart 17:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

However Jonashart, please look at what the headline in the source is saying. Its says "Foot-Washing Sink Proposal Causes Stir". This clearly implies that its a controversy. Also you can read in the article that this has been criticized. Thats why I had put this in controversy and criticism section but it was stubbornly moved and this discussion is taken to a tangent like "is there any evidence that other religions have been denied this facility". I dont understand why it is so unclear from the source and the headline that this is a controversy. It wouldnt be in the news if its just there...like you dont hear newspapers announcing that the airport has bathrooms. This is clearly a controversy and needs to be in the appropriate section. Putting it in assimiliation section is just twisting the facts and that is what all these new edits are trying to do. This is just one example. I am tired of this discussion honestly because the source is so clear that it needs no "discussion" NapoleansSword 21:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

But did it really cause a stir? Our job is not just to regurgitate what newspapers print, because their job is to sell papers, and creating controversy does that. Our job is to distill an encyclopedic article from the facts available. We have a policy which says that we ignore fringe views. It is my contention that if the only opposition to be found are a few right-wing bloggers and a local church minister... then the opposition is utterly unencyclopedic. Can you provide evidence that the so-called controversy goes any deeper than that? Have there been lawsuits filed, motions made in local governing bodies or newspaper editorials published opposing their installation? Is there really a widespread debate over these footbaths being installed, or is it just a tiny fringe complaint? FCYTravis 14:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

In that case if there arent widespread protests and law-suits all controversies and criticisms should be ignored. For starters lets remove all of controversy and criticism section and also remove the responses to criticism (since its a fringe view of 2 respondents). You see where this is going?

We are here to report facts according to the sources. Not research into whether those sources are writing the news to 'make money' as you claim. In fact unless you prove that all these 3-4 news sources have reported the controversy just to 'sell news' this could be taken as questioning the reliability of all those news sources. "Did it really cause a stir" is redundant. The answer is YES IT DID if the news says so. We are not journalists or investigative reporters and are not expected to be.

I have heard these stories on CNN, Fox News and from talk hosts too but again you will say that they are twisting this into a controversy just to make money. Do you not see anything controversial in airports using userfees(like you say) to give preference to a particular religion with regards to the American constitution and society? I honestly think that I am being driven to the wall. I do not have anything more to say. Other editors can give their comments. NapoleansSword 15:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone still saying that the foot baths are not a controversy when I showed that the source headlines are making it clear that it is? NapoleansSword 18:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I will say it. Let's take a look at what is actually said: the 'uproar' and 'stir' is the issue being taken by one guy. One guy who, as a reverend of a different faith, is more likely have specific and biased opinion against Islam. Let alone that the guy's kid was killed in the current war. Thus, defining one guy's opinion as a "controversy" is stretching the definition. Now, one of the articles does mention another issue at the university as well. If there were a pattern of "controversy" as indicated by lots of these kinds of issues, that would be different. But one guy with an ax to grind a controversy does not make. We're talking about a national phenomenon. In this case, isolated and minor issues like this don't make a legitimate example. Moreover, "I showed the source headlines" doesn't mean anything. 1) These are local news reports. 2) Because the t.v. tells us something, it must be true? Yikes!! If we took every news headline (local, regions, national) and used that to describe our world, we'd all be stereotypes. And even if this particular story were covered internationally, that doesn't make it a national reality that corresponds to the national phenomenon described in this article.--Jonashart 19:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The sources are reliable as per WP:RS. Here we mention facts as per sources. I repeat we are not investigative reporters to see if the sources are reporting correctly. If you bring additional sources which points out that the footbaths have been welcomed by americans then we can discuss this point.

Also the faith of the person has nothing to do here. In that case the only person eligible to talk about Islam would be a Muslim. Then most Americans views will be considered biased since they are not Muslims. If the news say something whether you believe it or not is irrelevant. It is applicable to put on wikipedia. Its your personal opinion if you believe in the news or not. Wikipedia guidelines tell us to believe the newssources. Please...stick to the point. NapoleansSword 19:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me put this another way. Let's get religion and the US out of the picture. If this were an article about growing apples in, say, South Africa, do you really think it would be appropriate if we added something to the article about a report that one pear grower complained about people liking to eat apple pie in his home town? Would that be a controversy? Or would it be one guy's opinion that the local news decided to cover? The real question: does labeling this pear grower's problem a "controversy" help us better understand apple growing in South Africa? Your logic says it does. Many of us say: not a even close. If perhaps the pear growers association decided to rally and protest, then you'd have a controversy. But one guy? Nope.

How is this issue different? If town after town, airport after airport began to debate this issue, then it'd be a controversy. Not one airport, one guy, one news report. And suggesting that the guy's faith (HIS BIAS!) doesn't have everything to do with this supposed 'controversy' is astounding. You really believe it was his constitutional obligation that drove him to complain? Would those news channels had any story if a Christian prayer room was built, upon request? Not likely. The point here is that just because 2 local news channels label it that way, doesn't make it so. Couldn't possibly have anything to do with news agencies desire to attract readership or viewership, could it? We need to be a bit more critical than to believe everything we see or read on face value. If nothing else, this particular issue is one of scale. If we define controversy as an issue that is contested, everything is a controversy. You're taking a very micro situation and suggesting (by its inclusion) that it reflects something about the entire phenomenon of Islam in the United States. It doesn't. Those news spots suggest one guy is mad. It also suggests there really isn't a controversy because the airport is dealing with it, and that's the last we'll hear of it. Is this a controversy in a very basic, simple sense? I guess. But we're talking about a much, much larger scale. So what we have is the making a mountain out of a mole hill, nothing more. Might the mole hill become a mountain? Sure. But until it does, it's not the mountain you're suggesting it is. And by doing so, unfairly biasing the whole article. That is, and has been the point all along.--Jonashart 21:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Clashing views

This article is a battleground. Because of that, it is of poor quality from beginning to end, and it neglects important aspects of its topic that are not "sexy" to partisans.

There is also a mood of crisis around this article. Some editors plainly feel justified in suppressing edits that don't support their strongly held opinions. I guess they believe the article relates to a threat to the survival of our civilization, so insisting on "balance" is absurd. Paul Revere didn't worry about being balanced!

Yet these editors have to continue to use the rules and rhetoric of Wikipedia in order to continue to have access to this semi-protected article. Probably these editors assume that there can be no reconciliation between their views and those of other editors -- who insist on writing an article rather than alerting the public to a threat.

Here's a crazy idea. Suppose the entire article were blanked and replaced with the following paragraph:

Islam in the United States is a foreign religion associated with anti-American terrorists, their extremist sympathizers, and incarcerated African Americans. Islam played no significant role in American history until the 1960s, when the number of Arab immigrants to the United States increased enormously. Many black radicals also turned to a form of Islam at this time and incorporated it into their violent, anti-white ideology, as popularized by Malcolm X. In September 2001, Islamist terrorists killed thousands of innocent Americans in a sneak attack on multiple targets, including the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. American Muslims did not immediately condemn these attacks, so the isolated acts of retaliation against Muslims by a few Americans are understandable. Like other Muslims throughout the world, most American Muslims hate Jews, oppress women, and despise the freedoms and prosperity of the Western nations. They have been at war with the West for fourteen centuries. Muslims believe that the whole world must be united into a single Islamic state. Their long-term goal is to exploit American multiculturalism in order to demand special accommodation of their beliefs, until they are in a position to seize power and reduce all non-Muslims to second-class dhimmi status. They also want to destroy America’s No. 1 ally, Israel, the only free country in the Middle East. While liberals and leftist academics continue to turn a blind eye to the threat posed by most Muslims to the American way of life and to Western civilization, the majority of real Americans are justifiably alarmed about the rapid growth of Islam and understand the need to be vigilant. They haven’t hit us again, but it’s only a matter of time.

I'm not trying to be funny. This is my stab at summarizing the convictions of Matt57, NapoleansSword, and a few others. Maybe I've got you all wrong. If you guys can see anything wrong with this paragraph, I'd love to hear about it. (Use my talk page if you prefer.) -- Rob C. alias Alarob 04:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This article as all other Wikipedia articles ought not to be a battleground of clashing editors bent on subverting rival perspectives but should be a place of creative collaboration. Sadly the reality seems to be otherwise as you point out. Are you also planning on satirizing the pious religious edits to this article as well or is there only one bad side to this in your view? --CltFn 05:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I am not trying to be funny, nor satirical. I tried to capture a sense of urgency and crisis that I think may be informing some edits. I know people who would take what I wrote quite seriously, every word of it. I do not agree with them, but I do not think of them as idiots, either. That is why I presumed to write that paragraph. I am wondering whether I am near the mark or missing it, and would like some feedback on that. Is that clearer? -- Rob C. alias Alarob 06:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"I am not trying to be funny, nor satirical" Well I'm quite amused by your summary, and must say it is borderline as to whether it is a WP:CIVIL violation. Yahel Guhan 04:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a violation, and another will likely be grounds for a block. Arrow740 04:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

How so?PelleSmith 16:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

See WP:BLOCK#Protection. Could qualify as a personal attack. Also WP:BLOCK#Disruption. (persistent gross incivility is listed) Yahel Guhan 20:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

For your assertion to be correct it requires that he has violated WP:CIVIL and/or WP:NPA which I just don't see, nor do I see anyone pointing out (from those policies) how he has. Cheers.PelleSmith 23:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me add that I'm not trying to entrap anyone, get anyone labeled a "bad editor," or get anyone thrown out. I am trying for understanding. (OTOH if anyone ridicules the views of another editor, I may try to get them labeled or thrown out.) -- Rob C. alias Alarob 06:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Alarob, what makes you think that this is my conviction? Not once and I repeat NOT ONCE have I put in anything that is not sourced. A sourced entry is NOT MY VIEW. I regret to say that I am offended by this personal attack that you have made on me. It is clear that it is an attack because you say that you are NOT being funny or satirical. I can write a similar paragraph about your 'convictions' but I would refrain from doing so because I want to adhere to wikipedia policies. I do not understand why users here jump on to personal attacks when they dont agree with other editors. Further when pointed out, they say something on the lines of "I'll do whatever I want to until you act the way I agree with. Go complain to the administrators if you like." Is this really a constructive way of community editing? I dont agree with some of your edits either, especially when you take off sourced statements because you dont like them..but I have never made a personal attack on you as far as I remember.

Alarob says that "OTOH if anyone ridicules the views of another editor, I may try to get them labeled or thrown out." - Ironic isnt it? Because this is exactly what you are doing. Ridiculing our views. NapoleansSword 16:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Arrow. These editors making personal attacks need to be blocked if we want to maintain a civil atmosphere here. NapoleansSword 16:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Alarob was suggesting anything about sourcing (he was commenting on content), and again I fail to see how this is a violation of any policy. Could someone explain this? To be fair Alarob also asked for criticisms of his summary, and suggested that maybe he got it wrong. On another note maybe a summary of his convictions would be helpful here. Maybe if you explain how you disagree with the hypothetical paragraph written above and then write that sums up his (or maybe my) "convictions" we can start to understand each other. What do you say? Alarob has communicated to you how he is reading your perspective why not offer us a taste of how you read his (or again mine if you prefer). I think it might only help reconcile our perspectives so we can move onto more productive matters. Cheers.PelleSmith 17:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Making a personal attack and then asking for "a view" about the attack from the attackee doesnt make any sense. NapoleansSword 17:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how it was a personal attack? Cite one aspect of the WP:NPA policy that makes it a personal attack. He simply said--this is how i read your perspective, am I right or am I wrong? Alot of accusations get flung around this talk page and they are rarely substantiated. Thanks.PelleSmith 17:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

NOTE Everyone here could use a refresher of WP:NPA, especially the parts that says: "Do not respond on a talk page of an article"--personal talk pages are the appropriate initial response site and if nothing comes of this action it should go to ANI. On top of this some may want to note as well that: "Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack." The reason why some editors have suggested that you take up the matter of personal attacks elsewhere is because policy actually suggests so. If it is substantiated then appropriate sanctions would be taken by ANI. Cheers. Either way commentary on personal attacks doesn't belong here.PelleSmith 17:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

pelleS, you have already made personal attacks on me. I have pointed them out already. So with all respects, you should be the last person defending someone else's personal attacks. This is a classic example of a veiled personal attack like "XYZ, I believe that you are a ********. I might be wrong, please correct me if I am" NapoleansSword 17:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see the statement above and please at least quote policy if you are going to continue this line of discussion despite it not being appropriate in this forum. Cheers.PelleSmith 17:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[Resetting indents] Reasons why my summary above was not intended as a personal attack:

• I explained that it was not intended as satire.
• I composed it on the basis of conversations I have had with friends and neighbors, people whom I respect. (I tried to explain this in reply to CltFn).
• I tried to write sympathetically, not mockingly, about the sense of crisis that I believe some editors may feel.
• I stated my intention: to find some understanding between editors of clashing views.
• For what it's worth, NS, I was planning to ask someone to try summarizing my views as well, and to invite me to comment on the summary. Even if the summary looked like a parody of left-wing terrorist coddling, I would not take offense, but would distinguish my views from the parody. Does that help explain where I was going with this?

I called it a crazy idea, but it is a sincere attempt at bridge building. I am disappointed that the replies have all assumed malice on my part.

I accept my share of the blame for the misunderstanding. I began by criticizing, then tried to lighten the mood and shift focus. I probably should have omitted the criticism, which had been made before anyway.

Any chance of moving this discussion to someplace other than mutual recriminations? -- Rob C. alias Alarob 21:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this discussion is getting too long for a entry on this talkpage..but since its already here, i would give a last short comment. You have made this paragraph based on the conviction you have of me and others and the paragraph is mocking me of having close to 'nazi' views. When you further says that you are not being funny implies that you are serious in implying that I have neo-nazi views (although you didnt say it explicitly your paragraph implies that). I would say again that I did not put any of my own views in the article, they were all sourced. Now many of my sourced statements have been moved or rewritten to twist facts. Not really appreciable. NapoleansSword 21:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I'll reply at User talk:NapoleansSword. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 21:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The new mass edits

I have to say that the new mass edits made to this article has tilted this article towards a particular POV. Many sourced statements have been removed or modified in such a way that a lot of facts are being censored or desensitized in a way to imply that they are unimportant. I strongly voice my opinions against these edits. I suggest that the article should include many of the statements that were there prior to these edits to make it more NPOV and factual. It could be rewritten but the facts must be there. NapoleansSword 16:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

If you believe this is the case then you believe that the removal of specific content is problematic. This means you should bring up what content changes you take issue with and why so we can discuss them. Generalizations are highly unproductive because there is no way of knowing 1) what you find problematic and 2) on what grounds. Please tell us more more.PelleSmith 17:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

For starters revert warring in order to remove a very relevant American opinion on Islam, in this case Pentagon's, makes it seems that NapoleansSword makes some very valid points about PelleSmith's editing and intentions on this article. -- Karl Meier 08:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That opinion on Islam is not about Islam in the United States, therefore it doesn't belong here. We're writing a specific history of the Islamic faith within the U.S., and even if that section did have better sources than two heavily-slanted right-wing media outlets, it belongs over in Criticism of Islam as it makes absolutely no specific references to Islam in the United States. FCYTravis 10:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It is applicable as its an opinion of a highly influencial and respectable American organization consisting of Americans about the religion practised by American Muslims. Thanks Karl for standing up to these one-way POV edits. Again the sourced fact about '1 in 4 young Muslims supporting suicide bombings against civilians was removed. It was sourced from 2 different news sources, Yahoo and Fox News. here is additional source from MSNBC: [1]. The statement from congressional testimony about Muslims was also removed as someone didnt like it. Again, the statement about airport footbath controversy has been forcibly moved and a argument is been made when its clear from the title of the source that its a controversy (see above). These mass edits have many such examples. These kind of edits and removal of sourced content really make me question the intention of the editors. NapoleansSword 14:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You keep not getting it. That piece was generalized criticism of Islam, not about Islam in the United States - which is the title of the article you're editing, if you hadn't noticed. What we're creating is an encyclopedia article about the way Islam is practiced in the United States, and how its American adherents have affected our culture, society and political landscape. Demonstrate how an article entitled "The Motivations of Muslim Suicide Bombers" has anything to do whatsoever with Islam in the United States, please. FCYTravis 14:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That paper is written by Americans and an American Organization. Those Muslim suicide bombers are inclusive of and not exclusive of American Muslims. NapoleansSword 15:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

NS, the article is Islam in the United States, not The United States and Islam. Do you see the difference? The information is not a good fit. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 17:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Since when did any American Muslims commit suicide-bombing attacks? FCYTravis 20:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That is immaterial. I dont understand why we have to debate when the source talks about their "motivations". In any case, another sources have shown that 1 in 4 young american muslims believe that suicide attacks are justified at least sometimes. So there you go. (But this discussion is not supposed to go on this tangent, just like the footbath one where you started discussing the profit-making ideology of newssources for printing that news. All these things are irrelevant here). This clearly applies to ALL adherents of Islam including American Muslims. NapoleansSword 20:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Aboslutely not. Have you read the sources? It applies to specific readings of Islamic scripture and to Islamist agendas. It clearly does not apply to "ALL adherents of Islam including American Muslims." Please justify your statement by using your sources. What at least 4 separate editors have tried to point out now is that this information is completely tangential and almost entirely irrelevant to an entry about Islam in the United States, instead belonging rather specifically to entries like Criticism of Islam. Again you are producing statements that just don't add up to aiding your efforts. The sources you use don't adjudicate the stance you take about the relevance of this material to Islam as a whole even, and certainly not to Islam in the United States.PelleSmith 21:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

PelleSmith: Fact is that all relevant information from important sources should be mentioned in this article. That the information or views might be seen as critical towards Islam doesn't mean that they have to be removed and/or transfered to the Criticism of Islam article. -- Karl Meier 20:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Only criticism which specifically addresses issues relating to Islam in the United States belongs in this article - such as the very valid criticisms of American Muslims who unlawfully excluded people from their taxicabs based on their personal religious biases. The section in question is not directed at Islam in the United States, does not address any issue of substance relating to the article and thus does not belong. FCYTravis 21:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I had an edit conflict, but I was writing exactly what FCYTravis wrote in essence, just more convoluted. The information isn't relevant to Islam in the United States, but only to Islam in general and to Criticism of Islam more specifically.PelleSmith 21:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It does relate to Islam in the United States. It is a relevant opinion on Islam expressed by an important United States government agency, and it also apply to Islam in the United States. I believe it should be obvious that the governments opinions on a specific religion, is very relevant to an article about that religion in that country. Do you also believe that for example the German governments position on for example Scientology would be irrelevant to an article with the title "Scientology in Germany"? Or how about if we are going to write an article on "Christianity in Saudi Arabia"? If important government agencies have important opinions about a religion, then it is highly relevant to that religion in that country. -- Karl Meier 11:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If it were simply a matter of the German government's "opinion" of Scientology or the Saudi government's "opinion" of Christianity then it would not belong in those entries either. Such opinions would lose even more relevance if they aren't publicly held, or broadly held for that matter (as in this case even within the Pentagon one institution within a very large governing body as the sources even specify about this particular "opinion"). If such "opinions" can be related to policy decisions or to how such a perspective effects the actual practice of the religion, or the experience of the believers then yes it would be relevant. In both the German and Saudi cases we would be dealing with broadly held, public views about these "religions" that very drastically relate to actual policy implementation and certainly to the practice of these religions in the country in question. This is a classic apples to oranges comparison that simply does not apply to our case. A good place to start would be by leveling the views themselves--a supposed report of a fringe theory within the governments of Saudi Arabia and/or Germany, but not publicly held by anyone within these same governments, about any given religion would not be relevant to the entries about those religions in their geographical and national context, just as this information is irrelevant here.PelleSmith 12:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been making the same point as Karl. This material must stay. NapoleansSword 18:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) And you have been making the same point that we find to be invalid. FCYTravis 20:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing

Having three or four different, simultaneous debates center on sourcing within this greater discussion, I think it would behoove those of us working on this to take 10 minutes, take a step back, breathe, and read Reliable_sources. This needs to be understood and followed for this to continue. As I've said, any article can be filled with quotes from all sides of all issues. That doesn't mean we should do that. Unless content additions use a reliable source (ideally, more than one), they are likely to continue to be nixed. This is not an issue of antis-vs.-apologists. This is about making an encyclopedia. Wiki is under constant scrutiny for not being accurate, reliable, etc. We should be here to fix that, right?--Jonashart 02:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC

As an example, using Paul Sperry as a "source" is really questionable. Clearly, he has an agenda. When I visit http://www.sperryfiles.com/ and see that not only does the guy have a book called "Infiltration", but that the lead interview was conducted by "Frontpage Magazine", there's no chance of that being a credible source. Sorry. There limits to acceptable bias, and this crosses the line more than once. Paul Sperry's opinion regarding Islam in general (or, even in the United States) comes no where near passable in light of Reliable_sources.--Jonashart 13:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

So whoever the FrontPage Magazine interviews is not a reliable source? First of all, you must realize that all theories includingFringe theories are acceptable on wikipedia. That being said, its inaccurate to say that Paul Sperry is involved in fringe theories..HE IS NOT. Also a sources are reliable unless a violation is shown with respect to WP:RS NapoleansSword 18:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You'll note that I've not said anything about 'fringe theories'. I'm saying that a guy who's book entitled "Infiltration" that has picture of a star an crescent on it probably isn't trying to present a neutral argument. Further, that he was interviewed (you know, as an 'expert') by an organization (FPM) that seems also to have an agenda, leads one to conclude that as a source, this is far too biased to be considered reliable. As I've said before: I could litter this article with all sorts of pro-Islam rhetoric. Would anyone find that acceptable, even if I used citation? Nope. So why should this article include opinions of people who clearly have something to say that's not NPOV?--Jonashart 19:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

As a third party note, Jonashart is correct in identifying that Paul Sperry's book is, of course, bias (I've not read it. Never heard of him. And neither do I have any ties or opinions on Islam) if he is putting his own slant on it. Unless he specifically cites referenced sources inside his book (That can be readily verified) then I wouldn't use the book as a reference here on Wikipedia unless it points out blatant facts. Scarian^Talk 19:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Lets not get into Sperry's book because it has not been quoted/cited here. I have also not read it. NapoleansSword 19:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Paul Sperry is a valid critic of Islam. So is Robert Spencer and others. Just because you dont agree with his views do not mean that others don't and that they arent valid on wikipedia. If you want to go this way, the only person who is putting in a unbiased argument is the one who shouts 'Allah Akbar' or writes a book like "Greatness of Islam". All views have to get represented here. NapoleansSword 19:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

In this, you have conflated a couple of issues. "All views" (ie, all opinions) do not in fact have to be represented. The current debates regarding sourcing have to do with just this: we're not here to express opinions, but facts. Question: is the footbath issue a "controversy"? Answer: no. Why not? Doesn't fit the criteria, given the nature of the article. Question: does Paul Sperry's opinion count as fact. Answer: We don't know. There's no proof, just his word. So, as it is not verifiable fact, it doesn't make the grade as a credible source. But, be very clear about this: I concede that he might be right!! But, that doesn't matter. What matters is there has to be consensus, support from other experts, before we can take his opinion as fact. Until then, it smacks of bias, and does the article no good.--Jonashart 19:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Paul Sperry may in fact be a valid "critic of Islam," but that only makes the case against using him as a source of "news" or "facts."PelleSmith 22:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Editor's whom are/were in support of using Paul Sperry as a source are being a little naive. I do not know of this man but if he is a political commentator then he is, of course, bias. I would recommend against anyone citing him as a source. And I notice inside the article that he has been cited. What are others' views on using him as a source? Scarian^Talk 20:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm still confused as to how a reading of the first five paragraphs of Reliable_sources does anything other than completely delegitimized Paul Sperry and 2 news articles. They are almost exactly the opposite of what's being described. Once again, the burden of having other people believe this not to be the case is on those wanting to use the sources.--Jonashart 16:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Slanted? Yeah, I think so

This is an interesting diff. I invite readers to examine the news story it is based on. It's about a local school which is considering eliminating holiday celebrations. In NapoleansSword's version, the evil Muslims are destroying our American traditions, and only Bill O'Reilly can stop them. In reality, the news story quotes an Arab parent as saying she was opposed to eliminating the holiday celebrations, and only wanted the school to broaden the celebrations to include Arab/Muslim cultural holidays as well. This makes eminent sense, especially considering that nearly half the school's students are Arab-American. Gee, maybe they should be included too, huh?

Elizabeth Zahdan, a mother of three District 122 students, says she took her concerns to the school board this month, not because she wanted to do away with the traditions, but rather to make them more inclusive. "I only wanted them modified to represent everyone," she said. Nixing them isn't the response she was looking for. "Now the kids are not being educated about other people," she said.

It was the school superintendent who sent a letter requesting that his principals "tone down" non-academic activities, stating that parties and fund-raisers were already taking too much time away from classes.

That was a textbook example of propaganda writing, distorting the truth and selectively omitting facts to paint a demonizing picture. Well done. But because this isn't Conservapedia, I've rewritten the passage to reflect the news story's neutral and factually-written reality. FCYTravis 05:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

He is referring to this diff, not the one he linked. He removed sourced content without discussion, so I restored it. I'll check the source. Arrow740 06:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No, actually this section is about the diff above, which relates to an entirely different passage :) FCYTravis 06:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

My mistake; I haven't seen someone label his own diff "interesting" before, and was confused. Note that 75% of Arab Americans are not Muslim. Arrow740 06:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No one said evil Muslims were destroying American traditions. Please keep this useless rhetoric out of mainspace. Arrow740 06:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that the article title includes the claim that Muslims found the holidays "offensive" but then the news report itself says nothing about that at all. Sounds like a bad editorial decision to me. Either way the title is misleading since the story has no mention of this and we all need to read the sources we use before we use them.PelleSmith 12:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

1. To make an analogy: In my home state of Alabama many schools have stopped celebrating Halloween and have switched to a "fall festival" in response to concerns from Christian parents who are convinced that Halloween is a satanic festival or a vestige of paganism. Even though not all parents share this view, and some would rather see Halloween celebrated, it would be inappropriate to skew this fact in such a way as to cast aspersions on Christians -- or to make the displeasure of the other parents the focus of the text. Never mind adding a wikilink to a celebrity critic of the Christian parents.
2. I don't see why this single incident is in an encyclopedia article. We ought to be writing at a higher level of generalization about the kinds of conflicts that arise between Muslims and non-Muslims -- not dwelling on the details of a single one. This is not Wikinews. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 01:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ellison passage

You said that in the story, it is stated that Ellison blamed Osama bin Laden for the attacks. On the contrary, it says he was "apparently comparing President George W Bush to Adolf Hitler and hinting that he might have been responsible for the September 11 attacks." That was the whole point in bringing up the Reichstag incident. Arrow740 06:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Telegraph piece speculates what the nature of the comparison in the speech was but then states emphatically: "After his speech was reported, Mr Ellison said he accepted that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. But his demagogic comments threaten to plunge him in controversy."PelleSmith 12:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

He contradicted himself. He doesn't seem to be a very eloquent person. His final word on the subject seems to have been that he accepts that OBL was responsible, so we'll leave it at that. Arrow740 22:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.PelleSmith 02:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus sought on FrontPageMag.com

Please discuss whether David Horowitz's FrontPageMag can be admitted as a reliable source for this article. I admit that it is daunting to consider resourcing and revising each of the article passages that cite it, but I have grave reservations about its reliability. It appears to me to be an extremist opinion journal that seeks to persuade. Comparisons of Muslims with Nazis appear to be routine, as well as the use of the term "Islamo fascism." (See Godwin's law.) Citations of fact are not done in such a way as to allow the reader to easily find the source. But I may be judging his site too harshly. I would appreciate hearing the reasoned assessments of other editors (not just "I like it" or "I hate it"). Is FrontPageMag a reliable source? -- Rob C. alias Alarob 02:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I asked a question about FrontPageMag on the reliable sources noticeboard. See the discussion here. I was hoping to get more comments before I brought it up here but given your question I figured I'd bring everyone's attention to it. Hope that it helps.PelleSmith 03:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

In the discussion started there seems to be consensus around agreeing with this statement:

• "WorldNetDaily has a reputation for publishing fringe theories. FrontPage magazine is essentially one big editorial that pushes a conservative political agenda. Neither site has a reputation for accuracy, nor high standards of journalism. In the example above, there is no way these would be reliable sources. Try the Washington Post or Wall Street Journal. If the Pentagon took such a position, it would be reported widely."

According to those responding to the noticeboard those two sources are not good sources for news, in other words.PelleSmith 11:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Application

Is there any objection to using those two sources only as primary sources of criticism, and not as news reportage or for the sourcing of facts?PelleSmith 14:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The contents of FrontPageMag and WorldNetDaily are clearly fictitious. It would be akin to using the Onion or the World Weekly News as a primary source. I object to it. Macduff 20:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you missed my meaning. My suggestion is that the only appropriate use of either publication is if a notable critic, lets say Spencer, writes an editorial criticizing something then his criticism, attributed to him, could be sourced to the editorial he has written. But we would never use either publication to source anything resembling a fact, or a piece of news. That's what I meant by "primary source of criticism." In other words we would not use either publication as a secondary source of criticism, as in the case we had been fighting about. Neither FrontPageMag or WorldNetDaily are reliable sources for the "Pentagon" in other words, but they would be reliable sources for the editorializers whose editorials they print. Are you still opposed? Should we never use them for anything?PelleSmith 22:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that these sources should only be used in this way. In fact, where the quoted critic is widely published or has his/her own website (e.g., Daniel Pipes), I would prefer that we cite that website rather than FrontPageMag or WorldNetDaily. On the same grounds, I object to citing leftist opinion sources such as CounterPunch. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 00:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course I can live with not using these sources at all, in fact I would prefer that, but I suspect there are others who wont like it. In terms of a view presented in an editorial attributed to the writer I see no distinction between the reliability of that view coming from one of these two magazines and coming from a personal website. The real issues with using such "views" is notability and relevance. Let me rephrase the original question in a way that sets aside this issue for now.

• Does everyone accept that these two sources are not to be used for news, or as reliable sources of "factual" information?PelleSmith 01:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Aye.--Jonashart 14:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, -- Rob C. alias Alarob 16:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. -- As a side note, I did understand your original question. My, perhaps extreme, opinion is that these sites should not be used for anything. -- Macduff 02:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Moved Mosque information

I have moved the basic information about mosques previously found in the demographics section to the mosque section. In doing so I also removed two sources neither of which were reliable for factual information (see edit summaries). These sources may not be useless or unreliable in another capacity, and that's not what I'm saying here. One was an editorial, and the second was a self-published internet outline that cited the same editorial. I'm not sure this move merits a talk page comment but since the environment here has been so charged and since I tried making a similar move earlier and it was reverted along with all of my edits to to the page at the time I figured I'd specify what I did here.PelleSmith 12:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"Muslims in early America" and "Slaves"

I would like to reorganize and perhaps merge these two sections, while bringing in better references. Questions:

• The "Slaves" section is tagged "The factual accuracy of this section is disputed." I have not been able to find the diff to determine who placed it or why, and I haven't noticed a discussion in archives for this page. Will someone please explain their concerns? Have the additions to this section addressed those concerns?
• I do not think the following is a reliable source: M'Bow, Amadou Mahtar; Kettani, Ali (2001). Islam and Muslims in the American continent. Beirut: Center of historical, economical and social studies. Several statements are based on this work (evidently, a single page of this work), including the highly unlikely tale of a Morisco expedition to the Great Smokey Mountains. Unless someone explains why I should not, I will remove all these statements and look for better sourcing for colonial Muslim history.
• The first sentence in the article seems to be historically inaccurate: "The history of Islam in the United States starts in the 18th century, with the first Muslim visitors." It references The Encyclopedia of American Religious History. I'll try to check the reference, but I invite anyone else with ready access to this work to go ahead and don't wait on me. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 05:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I have another possible source, tho I've not read it. Sylviane Diouf's Servants of Allah: African American Muslims Enslaved in the Americas (1998). It's sitting here in front of me, if there's something with which I may be able to help. Let me know...--Jonashart 01:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Great, that's one I was hoping to track down. A good source. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 02:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

What would you like me to look for? Let me know, and I'll see if it's covered.--Jonashart 13:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

2nd paragraph of article

I made a change to the 2nd paragraph that was amended by Arrow 740. I contacted him about my concerns here, but now that two other editors have made changes to the same passage, I'm raising the question here on the talk page.

• The passage initially read: "There are many Islamic political and charity organizations supporting this community. Some of these organizations have come under considerable criticism for supporting Islamist agendas."
• My revision of the 2nd sentence: "Some of these organizations have been accused of supporting Islamist agendas." (Don't assert controversial statement as fact. That's not neutral.) As I wrote to Arrow740, I don't know whether some U.S. organizations have Islamist agendas, but I do know that it is a disputed fact, with arguments on both sides. Therefore, we cannot take sides in the article by asserting that "these organizations" are "supporting Islamist agendas."
• I had also removed the three footnotes cited with this sentence, which linked to FrontPageMag (twice) and WorldNet Daily. (See prior discussion and the last bullet point below.)
• Arrow740's revision: "Some of these organizations have come under criticism for supporting Islamist agendas." (Mostly a revert; reliable for criticism.) The three footnotes were restored. The comment leads me to think that the footnotes were the main thing on Arrow's mind. My main concern is that this edit (unintentionally, I assume) takes sides in a controversy instead of describing the controversy from a neutral point of view. I left a message for Arrow740, who's been offline.
• After 11 hours, Bless sins revised the sentence: "Some of these organizations have been accused by conservative media outlets for supporting Islamist agendas." (attributing the claims) I'm not sure the claims need to be attributed at this early stage in the article, especially by characterizing the sources of the claims ("conservative media outlets"). The description may also be too narrow; didn't the federal government make accusations against an Islamic charity? (I came to this article to write about history, not current events, so am going on my recollection here.) Bless sins removed the footnotes.
• Yahel Guhan's revision: "Some of these organizations have come under criticism for supporting Islamist agendas." (doesn't need to be specified) I support removing the specific attribution to "conservative media outlets." Unfortunately, we're now back to asserting that some U.S. Islamic organizations really do have an Islamist agenda. This is a controversy, not an agreed-upon fact. We need a sentence that describes the controversy without taking sides. (Yahel Guhan also restored the footnotes.)
• Alarob's proposal: "Some of these organizations have been accused of pursuing Islamist agendas." We can refine the wording ("covertly pursuing"?), as long as we keep it neutral with regard to the controversy.
• About the footnotes: I removed the links to citations from FrontPageMag and WorldNet Daily. Arrow740 restored them on the grounds that they are "valid for criticism." I agree, but my concern is that, first, there is no need for a footnote to that broad statement, and second, if we do footnote it, it should be to a more general, neutral survey of criticism, not to three examples of partisan criticism. Finally, placing links to biased opinion sources in the second paragraph of the article may tend to give them undue prominence. Unsophisticated readers may take them for reliable news sources as a result. I hope this is a position we can unite on. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 20:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Accused is fine. I mainly intended to restore the references. Arrow740 21:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's talk about the references. I won't repeat the points made in the last bullet point above, but will again ask for comments. In the meantime I will change the sentence as suggested above, but not the references, for now. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 22:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

References

Here are the references used for that sentence. I will open up discussion under each reference. Feel free to follow this format:

1. Editorial in FrontPageMag by Stephen Schwartz

• This is the only reference of the three that follows the logic that the source is OK since it is being used for "criticism." It is an editorial written by a journalist who is known in part for this particular kind of criticism, Stephen Schwartz (journalist). That said, FrontPageMag seems to be the worst source for this "particular kind of criticism," since Schwartz has books published on the topic, and in fact this very editorial seems to have been ripped from The National Review, which is also a partisan magazine, but one much more notable than FrontPageMag. At the very least we need to find the original column, but better yet this could be sourced to a book.PelleSmith 12:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

1. "News" article in FrontPageMag by Frank J. Gaffney Jr.

• This source is unacceptable based upon the consensus we have been establishing both here, and at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard because it is not a "criticism" but a supposed news piece. On top of this the focus of the piece is on the prison system and not on these organizations. Only editorials, views, or "opinions" are even remotely acceptable from this source (and in fact the jury is still out even on that concession).PelleSmith 12:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

1. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43805 "News" article in WorldNetDaily by Art Moore]

• This source is also unacceptable on the same grounds, that it is a news piece. However, it is also irrelevant to what it references because it reports on indictments of people associated with a Muslim association and not the association itself. The criticism that we are trying to source is directed towards Islamic organizations and not to individuals who work in them. This is a pretty important distinction. Either way as a news story it isn't reliable.PelleSmith 12:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• I support removal of all three. To repeat, "if we do footnote [the sentence], it should be to a more general, neutral survey of criticism, not to three examples of partisan criticism." -- Rob C. alias Alarob 00:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice Article

This is a great article. Well researched without containing any visible original research. Short of Pokemon articles, these types are the second most important type of articles in Wikipedia! 69.143.236.33 22:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

articles on controversial topics generally are better sourced than non-controversial topic articles. Yahel Guhan 22:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Estevánico again

I am adding to the record a user talk discussion between CltFn and me that follows on a previous discussion on this page. Estevánico of Azamor is a minor figure in this article, but CltFn seems to have a major hang-up about calling him Muslim. I am out of patience at the moment and will not attempt to describe the controversy further. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 22:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If you recall our earlier discussions , you will note that I pointed out to you that all the business about Estevanico religious background is purely conjecture. There is a big jump from taking conjectures and presenting that as though it was a fact. Now unless you are able to present solid evidence that someone actually has proof that Estevanico was a Muslim then lets see it. Until that time , as I have suggested before we should simply disclose that the people who have advanced the notion of a Muslim identity have done so out of conjecture , which they admit themselves in their writings. What this article needs Mr Alarob is intellectual honesty , something which is in short supply on these types of article.--CltFn 03:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have read through your correspondence. CltFn you are not asking for intellectual honesty but for the undue inclusion of a fringe theory which goes against what Alarob has established as consensus among historians. The only point of argument you have against this consensus is one historian who actually makes no arguments at all about religion but only about ethnicity. Logan argues that Estevánico was an "African" and not and "Arab." In other words, your fringe theory isn't even sourceable, while Alarob's historical consensus is. CltFn your argument is with the assumptions that the historical community is willing to make based upon the evidence they have and not with Alarob. I think Rob has settled this quite well and I would ask you to please stop trying to manipulate the wording to present something other than the academic consensus. Cheers.PelleSmith 12:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have examined nearly every reference that I could find on the subject of Estevanico and all of the ones Alarob listed himself and there is simply no evidence in existence that can conclusively establish what Estevanico's religion was . There has been some conjecture on the part of some authors , particularly authors who write in the line of making claims of an early muslim presence in the United States. There is no such claim from even mainstream established historians like John Esposito , Karen Armstrong or Bernard Lewis. That is why I listed the claims under the category of hyptotheses, these are not facts that are being presented . The phrase you use , "fringe theories" , applies to the one advanced by people who claim an early muslim presence in the absence of any evidence. If you want to challenge my edits, Pellesmith, then backup your changes with your "academic consensus" references. --CltFn 12:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, everything in that section is not an "hypothesis." Also, your edit, which you made without engaging the talk page despite past disputes between you and another editor, does a whole lot more than simply alter the portrayal of Estevanico. Lets deal with the other change it makes first so we can clear it from this discussion.

• You moved the 1790 piece to the slaves section although the Moors in question were not slaves. On top of this you changed the language to completely misrepresent the Moors Sundry Act of 1790, which ironically you also linked to. These Moors were not under the "legal control" of the Ambassador, but instead were granted the legal rights of citizens of the United States as opposed to slaves, despite their African heritage. If you don't find the original wording in this entry precise enough then change it within what is factually accurate, but don't move this to the wrong section and misrepresent the facts. BTW, I'll admit that it could be more precise than simply "community of Moroccans," so lets be precise.

Now back to the issue of Estavanico. Why don't you do a review of the literature and post it here. Alarob should do the same. If there isn't historical consensus in the present day then we have a problem. I will say up front however, that I don't think your present wording will ever be considered balanced, especially since you have chosen to add this type of content: "Estevanico was eventually killed by the Indians who blamed him for commiting atrocities on their women." What on earth does that add to a short mention of Estavanico? That's just pandering to scandal for some reason I wont hypothesize about.PelleSmith 14:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The statements are sourced in the article if you care to read them. If you are going to mention Estevanico's story in the article you should also mention the circumstances of his demise which caused a debacle with the Indians. Furthermore there is ample circumstancial evidence in the various chronicles that describe Estevanico's activities that he was a Christian, as he was travelling with Catholic Friars , fresh off the spanish reconquista and was involved in Christian activities like carrying a huge cross --CltFn 09:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Here are the sources and refs —Preceding unsigned comment added by CltFn (talk • contribs) 10:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That's your evidence for him being Christian? That's ludicrous. Also, thanks for providing the references, but doing a review means explaining how each are relevant to the contentious question. Thanks.PelleSmith 19:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Islam in the United States

I do not agree with your introduction to this page, i.e. "Islam came to the USA in the 18th century...." please read AH Quick, Deeper Roots, published in Cape Town S Africa. Islam actually arrived in the Americas in the 10th century when the Muslims of Al Andalus (present day Spain and Portugal) successfully crossed the Atlantic (Ref Al Mas`udi) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.145.212.231 (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The 10th century arrival is only a legend, and A. Hakim Quick is not a reliable historian. (This is not meant to disparage his attainments as a notable religious scholar and lecturer.) Still, you are half right in that Islam almost certainly existed in North America before "the 18th century," at least by the mid-1600s. But as that statement in the introduction is sourced to an encyclopedia article, I have not made any effort to change it until I have the opportunity to verify the source (in case it's misquoted) or find a more authoritative source. If someone else wants to do it, be my guest. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 19:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Nation of Islam

While the addition of a section on the Nation of Islam was clearly well over due, the current version seems completely unbalanced, especially if one takes as a point of comparison the parent entry. I mainly take issue with the inclusion of the following things, for a variety of reasons:

"(Fard) provided three main principles which serve as the foundation of the NOI: 'Allah is God, the white man is the devil and the so called Negroes are the Asiatic Black People, the cream of the planet earth'."

• Is it appropriate to essentialize NOI ideology to these points? The main entry does not present the basic tenets of the Nation of Islam in this clearly intended to seem abhorrently racist fashion. Why is that? Why should we do so here? It seems particularly problematic that later in the blurb we say: "But Louis Farrakhan reestablished the organization under the original Fardian doctrines." So despite whatever changes the NOI has made they are still definitely Fardian racists. Is that correct? Again, why isn't that clear in the main entry?

"The Nation of Islam has recieved a great deal of criticizim for it's anti-white, anti-Christian, and antisemetic teachings."

• The main entry again seems to contradict this claim ... at least it contradicts the undue weight it is given in this short paragraph that has presented virtually no information about the organization except that it is racist, "nationalist," and "separatist." Is it appropriate to discuss criticism and or praise at all in such a small snipit of information? The criticism section on the main entry is counterbalanced ... should we now add praise and counter-criticism here as well?

"It is listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center."

• The inclusion of this seems entirely WP:UNDUE. Why is this notable at all in this short paragraph? Again, we've said barely anything of substance about this organization but have managed to saturate this paragraph with criticism and claims of racism.

How can this paragraph be at all seen as appropriate here? I would appreciate something other than the usual "please don't try to whitewash history" arguments, because the undue muddying of history is just as problematic when what we are trying to do is create a balanced and accurate encyclopedia.PelleSmith 19:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

i agree that information about NOI is pertinent here. despite being considered virtually a different ideology to Islam itself- it clearly seemed to play a role in being for many Americans their first encounter with Islam - and also indirectly served as a stepping stone towards more orthodox strains (i.e. the case of Muhammad Ali, Malcom X). so some information regarding its impact in 1950's America might be valuable. i have to agree though that it currently reads a bit like a defamatory tract. ITAQALLAH 23:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The Nation of Islam is notable for being a black supremacist organization, and is widely accepted as such. SPLC's entry, as well as their anti-white, antisemitic stance is important to the article. I think something needs to be said about their racism/antisemitism, and I don't see how mentioning it violates WP:UNDUE, considering it comes from reliable sources. As for the first section, what is your suggestion to fix it? Yahel Guhan 23:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"Reliable sourcing" is one of the most overused excuses for including information of that is not notable or representing an undue weight in an entry even though it has nothing to do with the problem caused by undue weight. All sources, for any claim, should be reliable. The problem here is that half of the paragraph you put in either presents criticism or highlights unflattering aspects of the NOI. This isn't the NOI entry, so we don't need a bunch of criticism. Of course the NOI entry itself does not have this percentage of critical and unflattering information in it -- another fact that should tell us how unbalanced this particular portrayl is. The NOI entry also does not essentialize NOI's fundamental ideology to the racist quote you added here. By the way, all of your additions are not reliably sourced at all. In fact this paragraph, which does not reflect the NOI entry, is rather poorly sourced. The only pieces that you sourced where the weaseley part about receiving "a whole lot" of criticism and the part about the Southern Poverty Law Center. The fact that those parts are sourced does not make, for instance, the Southern Poverty Law Center part notable in the present contenxt--a small blurb about the NOI in a larger entry about Islam in the United States. Wouldn't it make sense for our paragraph here to reflect the lead of the NOI entry instead? Wouldn't be safe to say that the lead of that entry would be the best representation of a neutral and consensus formed summation of basic info on NOI?PelleSmith 03:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Mini Cab Drivers?

just look at this sentence "Muslim cab drivers in Minneapolis, Minnesota have been criticized for refusing passengers for carrying alcoholic beverages or dogs including disabled passengers with guide dogs" I dont want to sound arrogant but which right minded twat seemed it was necessary to state absurd facts like these with or without sources. Theres alot of cab drivers that dont take on dogs, and completey drunk passengers, its got nothing to do with the religion they adhere too!86.136.18.81 (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats true. Tell that to the neo-cons. Madhava 1947 (talk) 04:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)