Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:35, 29 September 2007

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Islam This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. United States This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

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 Misplaced Pages 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: "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)

References

1. Rayford W. Logan, "Estevanico, Negro Discoverer of the Southwest: A Critical Reexamination," Phylon (1940-1956) 1 (4) (4th Qtr., 1940): 307.
2. Richard R. Wright, "Negro Companions of the Spanish Explorers," Phylon (1940-1956), 2 (4) (4th Qtr., 1941): 331.
3. W.E.B. DuBois, "Phylon: Science or Propaganda," Phylon (1940-1956), 5 (1) (1st Qtr., 1944): 7.
4. Kenneth W. Porter, "Notes Supplementary to 'Relations between Negroes and Indians'," Journal of Negro History 18 (3) (Jul., 1933)282-284.
5. John Francis Bannon, The Spanish Borderlands Frontier 1513-1821 (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1974), 13.
6. Caroll L. Riley, "Blacks in the Early Southwest," Ethnohistory 19 (3) (Summer, 1972):247-8. Riley refers to Estevánico as "Esteban de Dorantes." He quotes an early source that called Estevánico a "pagan," i.e., not a Christian.
7. James Axtell, Review of Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca: His Account, His Life and the Expedition of Pánfilo de Narváez by Rolena Adorno and Patrick Charles Pautz, William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 58 (2) (April, 2001): 475-479.
8. Rayford W. Logan, "Estevanico, Negro Discoverer of the Southwest: A Critical Reexamination," Phylon (1940-1956) 1 (4) (4th Qtr., 1940): 313.

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 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 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".

• 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.

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. 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." Only 28% of American Muslims choose to be identified as Americans first while the rest choose to identify with their religion.

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.. Muslims in the United States are generally believed to be more assimilated than Muslims in Europe. 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.

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.

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.

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)

Demographics

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. Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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. . "

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

1. "Poll: 1 in 4 U.S. Young Muslims OK With Homicide Bombings Against Civilians" (PDF). Pew Research Center. May3, 2006. Retrieved 2007-07-02. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
2. "Poll: 1 in 4 U.S. Young Muslims OK With Homicide Bombings Against Civilians". Fox News. May 23, 2007. Retrieved 2007-06-22. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
3. http://in.news.yahoo.com/070523/139/6g5pm.html
4. http://in.news.yahoo.com/070523/139/6g5pm.html

• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed Islam-related articles
• Unknown-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
• WikiProject United States articles