Talk:Islam in Europe/Archive 1

Archive 1

Muslims before the Europeans?

The historical explanation at the beginning of this article seems bent on showing that the Muslims conquered Europe before the current Europeans. This should be studied seriously and appropriates dates and citations brought for every region. The historical part should deal with which nations were conquered. The Muslims were not conquering empty territory.

There is a lot of stress on whether Islam conquered a country before Christianity did, which seems very tendentious. This article should be bringing facts, not being biased in any specific direction.

Misheu 15:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• The current Europeans"? What do you mean? Funkynusayri (talk) 07:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of weasel words

I rewrote the part about early Muslim history in Europe. This includes removal of all unrelated data. For example:

Sicily and Constantinople were already attacked by Arab Muslims even before the Bulgarians reached the Balkans

They were attacked before Spain became Muslim, before Columbus discovered America, and before man got to the moon. The fact that Bulgarians got to the Balkans is unrelated to the issue. All such statements were removed.

Removal of unreferenced material:

• "a first Muslim community already existed inside Europe´s center of Orthodoxy" - No source, and does not appear in Constantinople

• the first Muslims, who were Bogumils (ancestors of the present Bosnians) migrated and settled in the Eastern parts of what is today Romania before the Romanian principalities were mentioned - The Bogumils who found refuge in Bosnia became Muslim after the Turks conquered the area. It is unclear when and if they came to Romania and whether those who did were Muslim. The link brought as reference does not state that the Bogumils were Muslim at all.

Misheu 05:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not mention the Bogumils, in my mind there were Nogay Tatars in the Dodrudja since 1300 (Romanian principalties not before 1330) but anybody else added the Bogumils. Of course this is not the same but it is not my fault. And that a small muslim community was already inside the city while the Muslim armies attacked an from outside, is interesting. More relevant that they established themselves there on the Balkan long before the then neigbhoured Bulgarians became Christians. They even established their community inside the city before the Bulgarians created the first state on the Balkans but today the Muslims are seen as intruders and the Bulgarians as autochthon??? --Roksanna 21:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

About Bulgarians - I do not follow the logic. Please explain more. The local Bulgarians accepted Christianity, so why should they be seen as intruders? The Muslim population came in with the Turkish invasion, and were not local (except for converts). where and when did Muslims establish a community in Bulgaria? The original article talked about Muslims in Sicily before Bulgarians reached Bulgaria. I see no connection between the two.Misheu 18:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Article expansion

There are several things to be added:

1. Find references for unreferenced claims
2. Fill more information about history of Islam in Eastern Europe. Tatar and Turkic forces pushed into Eastern Europe in the middle ages, but need to verify if they were Muslim at the time.
3. Review the major battles between Muslim and European forces.
4. Add information about cultural influences - architecture, art, science

Misheu 08:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I mostly agree. I think that this article lacks focus. The article should focus on Islam in Europe. (1) Islam is a religion. So the article should mostly be about the religion in Europe over history and the relationships of Muslims with other people in Europe. The historical part of the article goes mostly about wars and conquests - which should be less relevant than how the religion was practised in Europe, what influence the religion had on culture and thinking in Europe, etc... (2) The article should go about Islam "in Europe". The crusades and colonization parts are no longer "in Europe", making this article a de facto article about the "Relations between (non-Muslim) Europeans and Muslims". Such an article is in my opinion valid, but then this article should be renamed accordingly. Additional comments include: (3) language and art and architecture have little to with Islam (except when it would be about specific religious terms or religious art) as these things are not related to Islam, but to the specific cultures. Such content should be included in articles, named like: "Arabic influence on European cultures/architecture/science/... The mentioned Venetian Gothic and Moorish Revival for instance have little or nothing to do with Islam, but with Arabic and Moorish architectural influences. Arabic non-religious texts have also nothing to do with Islam... Etc. (4) Little or no attention is paid to the specific nature of Islam in Europe. For instance European Muslims are less practising than their counterparts elsewhere in the world, and researchers are currently suggesting that an European Islam is emerging. (5) This article should also mention - besides the obvious discrimination that exists in many countries - on things like the recognition of the religion by most European governments, the open attitude towards the religion (no restrictions on conversion efforts, etc.), etc. Sijo Ripa 13:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Why remove the languages affected by the Muslim conquests and not the architectural styles? I don't see the difference. Though I agree that all those things have more to do with Arabic culture, you cannot ignore the fact that Arab and Islamic culture are intertwined. That is, they were brought by Berbers and Turks (who were not Arabs).

I don't think it is right to say that one is not born a Muslim. Of course, a kid can always break away from his family's religion, but this is not the point of those statistics. It is the only way to talk about future demographics, and it is done by serious researchers.

I agree that this article needs a lot of work. I think the first contacts between Europeans and Muslims are important to mention, though. What can you, it was mostly wars and conquests. As for how Islam is changing in Europe, there's a whole article about it European Islam. Misheu 20:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

(1)Concerning the architecture, I wasn't sure whether to remove it or not. I gave it the benefit of the doubt because it is called "Islamic architecture" and because the example was a Jewish temple build in the style of a mosque. The rest of architecture I did remove. (2) And I don't deny that Europeans mostly came into contact with Arab Muslims and Turks, but there are many points of contention to equalize or interwine them in this article. Islam is a religion, Arabian/Turkish is a ethnicity/culture. Less than half of Muslims are Arab, even less are Turkish. Arab/Turkish culture and mythology also precedes Islam and in many Arab countries there is a significant minority of Christians (e.g. 40% of Lebanon, 5-10% of Egypt, etc.). (3) Concerning whether one is born with a religion or not, I only made a minor change: changing "Muslim birth rates" to "birth rates in Muslim communities". I don't think this formulation is a point of discussion or contention. (4) I do not think that wars should be removed, they are necessary to explain a lot of things. They should however not dominate the history section. There are many interesting topics about the relations in Europe between Christians and Muslims (e.g. Poland, Albania, ...), the conversion in two ways, etc. (5) I'm a contributor to the European Islam article. Nevertheless it should be a good idea to put one or two paragraphs about that topic in this article as this is one of the most important current topics of "Islam in Europe".Sijo Ripa 20:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

1. then I suggest you remove it all

2. I don't agree. Islam is a religion, but it's also a culture, and it's a culture that Turkish/Moroccan/Pakistanis etc brought with them into Europe. It does not matter how many Christians there are (in Lebanon there are much less than 40% btw)

3. I did not see that, sorry. Wiki comparisons are not the best

4. Please add.. About the two way conversion, there are other article talking about European influence on Islam (both in Europe and elsewhere).

5. Me too. There are a couple of paragraphs, and there was a link to the full article, which you removed. You say this article lacks focus, but you can't turn it into another existing article. "European Islam" talks about how Islam (the religion) has changed and adapted in Europe. "Islam in Europe" talks about Muslims and Islam came to Europe, how Islam affected Europe and what's the current situation in terms of demographics. Those two are related, but not the same.

Misheu 06:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

1 & 2. Islam is not a culture, it would be a huge mistake to confuse the two. Just like Christianity is not a culture. It is a religion. I don't object to certain additions, such as the typical Islamic architecture or typical Islamic books (Qu'ran) in this article, as they are strongly related to the religion. But if you wish to remove them, I won't oppose it.

4. I'm afraid that while I know a bit about it, I lack the expertise and the books.

5. I removed the link, because (a) there was already a link in the text to that article; and (b) because the section could have given the impression that everyone agrees that European Islam is the future of Islam in Europe (i.e. by using a ":Main article"-link it could seem so). Many think so, but there is no consensus.Sijo Ripa 13:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no such thing as Islamic culture?

There is a link to European Islam, but it should be understood that what we have here is just a small intro. If you don't agree with what it says please change it, but I think there should be a 'main article' link. Objections to European Islam should also appear in that article. Misheu 13:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

(1) The article Islamic culture deals with religious practices, religious festivals, islamic architecture (mosques), marriage in islam and religious music. Only the language section and martial arts section seem to be filled with unsourced nonsense (i.e. not related to Islam). So I think that article proves my point more or less: if topics are strongly related to the religion, they can be added. (2) A main article reference to European Islam (EI) and by merely putting objections to EI in this article or in the EI article it could give the impression that EI is the evolution that has gained most attention and acceptance. I think this would constitute OR. So I'm not fond of a main article reference.Sijo Ripa 14:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Bernard Lewis and the future of Islam in Europe

Someone who has more time than I do should find good sources for the future of Islam in Europe. Bernard Lewis isn't exactly disinterested.

Also, there should be a section about the backlash against Muslim immigrants. Mr Lewis's commentary belongs there. Chip Unicorn 21:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted the section about Future of Islam (or more specifically what Bernard Lewis thinks of it) due to its lack of information and singular viewpoint. It also generalizes even what Bernard Lewis actually says! Until a more substantial and sourced section can be maintained this section is a detriment to the article. Makwy2 16:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Sharia in Greece or elsewhere

The article suggests Islamic law is implemented in Greece:

"In Greece, Sharia is applied by the state-appointed muftis of the Muslim minority of Greece who are also recognized as judges in family law matters.

While I am not familiar with Greek law, this seems to relate to dispute resolution in civil arbitration, ie, out of courts, where two parties agree on rules to settle a dispute, should they be religious in nature. If, as likely, that is the case, that's a very far cry from having Islamic law implemented and superceding greek law as suggested here. I have read similar claims about other countries before (see here for instance about Canada: http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0810/p01s03-woam.html), where confusion regarding arbitration tribunals is exploited (voluntarily or not) to support impending doomsday theories of civilization falling to the Islamic hordes. I'll add a tag for now 82.231.41.7 (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Women's right

This section doesn't speak about the Islamic perspective about women's right, it rather speaks about how certain Muslims males act. Needless to say that Islamic laws are one thing and Mulims acts are another thing. Yamanam (talk) 10:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ukraine

The map in this article shows Ukraine shaded as though it has a 1%-2% Muslim population, yet it is not listed in the text below. The Islam in Ukraine article states that only 0.65% of its population is Muslim. Therefore it would appear that the map is wrong. Can someone confirm and/or fix this please? Bazonka (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Fox News

I am removing the unreliable source tag from Fox News. Fox News does have a conservative slant to it, but it does not just make stuff up. The fact is if Fox News is an unreliable source, then so is a left wing slanted news outlet such as MSNBC. Fox News may report more on stories that will interest conservatives, without putting a liberal counterpart to it, but the information contained in the story is still true. As long as an article uses enough other sources, then Fox News is a reliable source. Gtbob12 (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

population projections

I find this section to be completely ridiculous, especially when the estimates are about a distant future, it is based on unreliable data, since no one can know the birth rates of the future, these are pure specualtions, and most of the time are made to serve political and ideological propaganda, so they are far from neutral, let alone reliable, they only remind me of the Nazi propaganda of the 30s and 40s on how the jews would quickly breed 'like rats', 'infest' and control the whole of Europe (and the whole world) if not stopped.

Then, we should remember that islam is an ideology and not a people , it is not something genetic that is transmitted automatically by birth , religion is above all personal , a personal choice and a personal feeling , how many of the people who are born to muslim parents will actually be muslims and believers themselves ? and how many will be atheists or follow other spiritual paths? no one knows , because it is all personal . So the statistics about religion based on demography are inaccurate , to get accurate statistics on religion one has to make large scale polls on the topic. People should not be labeled as "muslims" or "muslim immigrants" without their conscent , you cannot call someone "Muslim" without him telling you that he is actually a Muslim, the very act of attributing a religion to someone based on his ethnicity, origin or race is a prejudice and is a form of abuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jekker (talk • contribs) 06:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Terrorism

The paragraph about terrorism has nothing to do with Islam in Europe. It should be a part of some terrorism related artical. It should be removed from here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.190.224 (talk) 11:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

And the Holocaust had nothing to do with Nazism and Hitler either right? If you think that's true I understand your logic. -GabaG (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the anonymous IP have a point, a list of suspected muslim terrorists is unwarranted here. For example, we don't have tendentious lists of the terrorist Stern's groups arrested members in the Judaism in Israel article although religious Zionism and as such Judaism had lot to do with the groups actions. Islamic terrorism in Europe is better discussed elsewhere, such as it is already done in Islamic terrorism#Europe. And Islam has very little to do with terrorism in general so it is WP:UNDUE. Steinberger (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

the islamic terrorism'europe should at least have a see also link(dont know how to do that).No autoaim (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

this isn't the article about "Islam in general", it is the article about Islam in Europe as it exists today, and as such its scope also includes radical Islamism (including Islamist terrorism) and "it's-not-in-the-Qur'an" practices such as female circumcision, dress codes and honour killings. This isn't a theological debate, it is about a real demographic which has problems, and causes problems, that are not primarily of a theological nature. --dab (𒁳) 19:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolute tripe

"Various Europeans have been threatened after voicing their criticism of Islam. " This whole bullshit racist frightened article is garbage. There is no European/Islam difference. Many Europeans are Muslim, except in the view of a bunch of cowardly racist scumbags. The scumbags are invariably protestant and most of them come from the US or the so called UK, both countries famous for torturing religious and racial minorities.

Obviously no one cares what a bunch of terrified racists and religious bigots think which is why this rubbish is still on the net. Wikipedia will have to address this hate speech crap soon either voluntarily or by law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.206.7 (talk) 06:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

some1 doesnt like facts :D i couldnt care less what you think of my country. insulting people on the internet does take bravery you know?(your doing it) No autoaim (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Racism? Hate speech? Whatever. Do you want Muslims from third word countries come to your country and commit majority of crimes, force their own ways on to you, bring their conflicts to their new countries etc etc. How many times it happened that a groups of muslims have raped Scandinavian women and they claim that they deserve it just because they dress normally? If you think that is racist then you probably support the idea of women being raped. Norum 05:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Factcheck

This article needs a thorough factcheck. Only looking at a few sources, I have spotted some wrongs where they really don't support what they are used for. For example [source 19] is not written by Don Melvin and does not even mention Islam or Muslims - it is solely about immigration. The map, File:Islam_in_Europe.png, is wrong to its given source Islam by country in at least two cases, Sweden and Germany. I think it is worrisome as this wrongs can be interpreted as a anti-muslim POV. Steinberger (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC) your response is overtly argresive and niave.I think you need to calm down aangry man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.55.252 (talk) 08:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The so-called List of countries by Muslim population is terribly wrong in many places. Rather see the different "Islam in [insert country]" articles. -TheG (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

change of line 47

The previous form had no relation to the reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.16.49.91 (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

native and foreign Muslims

This article needs to differentiate more clearly between native Muslims, such as those in the Balkans, and foreign Muslims, like immigrants, with different sections and such. Now they're treated almost as one monolithic group. This is not a valid source, but it could be a springboard to research: http://europeans.ws/ FunkMonk (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This is probably not feasible. Is a French Muslim "native" or "foreign" if he is descended from Algerian immigrants who were naturalized in the 1960s? What about German Muslims descended from Turkish immigrants naturalized in the 1980s? And who is supposed to draw the line? Third generation? Fourth? Fifth? --dab (𒁳) 15:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That is besides the point, the source FunkMonk points to states that the 35 million indigenous Muslims (of Eastern Europe) out-number recent immigration from North-Africa and Asia (to Western Europe). They can't be called immigrants, as they converted to Islam. Steinberger (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Foreign policy

The following phrase is far too vague and unclear: "Muslim and Asian minorities in Europe tend to favor a more balanced EU foreign policy in the Middle-East and North Africa.| For one, there is no reference provided. For another, what are Asian minorities supposedly not subsumed in the Muslim category doing in an article about Islam in Europe. The views of Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Hindu Indians immigrants are important, but not as part of this article. "tend to favor a more balanced...policy" is neither here nor there. All what this sentence does is to present EU foreign policy which is a vague enough one, as unbalanced. Finally, the alleged bias of the EU in regard to the Middle East cannot even be challenged because no specific issues have been raised. Is the author of these lines referring to Spain's contested sovereignty in Ceuta and Mellila? to Morocco's occupation of the Western Sahara? To European allegations of human rights abuses in Libya, Egypt and Saudi Arabia? To European NATO members involvement in the war in Iraq? To the backing some European countries grant to Israel? To the EU's refusal to allow Turkey entry in the EU? To the EU's position on the Iranian nuclear program? To the Hague's arrest warrant issued for Sudan's president?

Clearly this sentence does not add anything to article except for an unreferenced sense of lack of European balance on Muslim issues. I will therefore remove it. A more serious overview of foreign policy through the lens of Muslim Europeans is definitely a good idea and ought to merit its own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.229.189.116 (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

FRANCE muslim population wrong

There is something wrong : FRANCE, the country muslim population is not over 10% so not between 10/20% but between 5-10%. According to most of statistics, French muslim population is about 8% of the total population. Around 5-6millions in the country, not more, concentrated in urban areas such as Paris, Lyon, Marseille or Lille. Thanks to change it.

Thanks to have change it. You should turn the country color into light green too like Austria, Belgium etc etc. It gives a wrong image of what France is for real. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.12.62.48 (talk) 09:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, unsigned anonymous person, for changing the official census statistics of the Republic of France on behalf of the other unsigned anonymous person in order to ensure that Wikipedia has the most accurate and up-to-date figures. Mardiste (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

is appropriate?

..caricature like this http://caricatura.ru/list/parad/url/parad/korsun/17214 in wiki-article or morality taboo is deny it?--C mobile (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion this picture would be great in wikipedia. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

content dispute

user claviere has just reverted my edits primarily regarding the "controversies"-section. the section is not well-sourced. several claims are made without any references to back them up. the "honour-killing"-section is a clear example of wp:coatrack as honour-killings are perpetrated by people of other religious backgrounds as well. honour-killings are not specific to islam nor any other religion. i will remove the whole section if no reliable secondary sources proving the link between islam and honour-killings are provided. in addition, fadime sahindal was not a muslim either.-- mustihussain (talk) 09:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

There are good sources in that section, so at least, you have no justification for "removing the whole section" if there are parts that are inadequately sourced. Its trivial to find reputable sources that make this link and I'm happy to add those to the section. Claviere (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

you did not add a single reliable secondary source proving the link between islam and honour-killings. no reputable secondary sources make this link (statements by individual muslims and others are not reliable sources). this section is an wp:coatrack attempt and has to be deleted.-- mustihussain (talk) 12:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies, I thought you were interested in improving the article and may have wanted to read the sources provided. Since you did not, or don't believe that the Boston Globe, BBC and MSNBC constitute reliable sources, its obvious you have no interest in anything except pushing your own point of view, so there's no having a rational discussion with you. Please read WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V. Whatever your personal views, you need to stick to Wikipedia's rules if you want to edit here. Claviere (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

i have read the sources. no reliable link between *islam* and honour-killings is provided. in addition, you need secondary reliable sources to prove this "link". controversial claims need to be backed up by reliable secondary sources in order to establish verifiability. statements by non-experts in newspaper articles are *not* reliable secondary sources. furthermore, there are honour-killings among hindus, sikhs, christians as well...this is not a islam specific crime. hence, the section violates wp:nor and is a wp:coatrack attempt.-- mustihussain (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course they make the link, read them again, all three explicitly describe honour killings as a specific problem within the Islamic community in Europe and explicitly link them to beliefs about the role of women within Islam. Newspaper articles are the very definition of reliable sources. Please read WP:RS again, the very first paragraph gives the New York Times as an example of a reliable source, note this is also given as an example in WP:V. WP:RS says "Mainstream news reporting is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact" you don't get much more mainstream than the BBC, the Boston Globe or MSNBC. None of the cited sources are opinion pieces. Wikipedia clearly considers these sources reliable. If you don't, that's your problem, not Wikiepdia's. For the purposes of editing this encyclopedia these are reliable. And to your final point, of course there are honor-killings in other communities. That doesn't mean there aren't honour killings in the Islamic community, nor does it mean its not a valid part of this article. In Europe, there is a disproportionately large number of honour killings in the Muslim community. In your personal life you can kid yourself that this isn't true if you must, but you can't edit this article from that point of view. Claviere (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with mustihussain here. The inclusion of a section on honour killings in an article on Islam in Europe rests on the premise that this is something specific for Islam. The section even states that honour killings are not founded in religion ("It is for this reason that countries which practice a less "Arabized" version of Islam report far fewer honour killings than others"). If the problem is not specific to Islam as a religion, what is it doing in an article on the religion? This smells of WP:coatrack Anyway, there is a link to honour killings in the section "Women's rights". Henrik.karlstrom (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

yes, in addition, the sources used to prove this supposed "link" are highly inadequate as reliable *secondary* sources are needed. also, as noted by henrikkarlstrom, honour killings are already mentioned in the "women's right"-section. hence the "honour-killing"-section is wp:undue as well-- mustihussain (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Newspapers are secondary sources, and these newspaper meet the basic requirements for a reliable source. Please review WP:SECONDARY and WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

opinions of non-experts are not reliable, they need to be treated by secondary or tertiary sources. the section also indirectly states that there is no connection between islam and honour-killings. this is a clear case of wp:coatrack.-- mustihussain (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

"Modern incidents"

I was recently subjected to aggressive behaviour by user Mustihussain, who first claimed he was reverting "vandalism" (my edit), and after I reverted him once, threatened me to "discuss or get banned". My edit was to trim down the "Modern incidents"-section, which includes the overtly detailed descriptions of a few non-notable, undue examples of some attacks against some Muslims. I do of course not advocate to remove the section, but rather just to trim it down to a more summarized view of the issue that are more appropriate for an encyclopedia. —Filippusson (t.) 09:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

due to infinite amount of time-consuming work, here is temporary short answer: i disagree with your "assessment". i doubt you comply with wp:npov....... -- mustihussain (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with pov or npov. The only thing this concerns is WP:DETAIL and WP:UNDUE. —Filippusson (t.) 23:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

i'm moving mustihussain's comments from my talk page here so that everyone can participate in the discussion, for which i'm creating a template below so that each of the three disputed additions can be discussed separately. s/he left me this message:

regarding the edit war with User:Filippusson there is no consensus and he is violating wp:brd, not me. he is the one who also added the "undue"-tag on the modern incidents-section which clearly states that discussion is needed... still he goes on with his edit war. in addition, please note the tone of User:Filippusson in this comment here [1]. i find this comment quite disturbing.-- mustihussain  06:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

one more thing, the Marwa El-Sherbini-case is extremely notable and should be added, as well as the 2011 Norway attacks that were perpetrated by an islamophobe. the section is incomplete without these two incidents.-- mustihussain  06:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

it is my feeling that these three excerpts are at too great a level of detail for an article on islam in europe in general. they fit well into the two main articles linked to from this section, and we ought to leave them out of here. the marwa el-sherbini case has its own article, which is also linked to from the persecution article linked to in this section. i'm not trying to minimize the importance of any of this material, but it seems to me that in an article about close to a thousand years of history, much of it of world-changing importance, including even short lists of particular incidents of anti-muslim violence in the last few years, or even the last few decades, is giving undue weight to that material.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 06:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

well, in that case we should remove the controversy-section all together as it's about incidents from the last decade or so.-- mustihussain  07:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

i more or less agree with you. it's far, far too long for this article. since most of the sections already have articles covering them, we could do here with a kind of expanded "see also" section.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 07:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

yes, that is a reasonable compromise. suggest to remove the controversy-section, and expand the see also-section, that should include wikilinks to "women's rights and islam", "islamophobia", "persecution of muslims", and "islamic dress controversy in europe". that will improve the article immensely, and we'll avoid idiotic sections like "halal meat".-- mustihussain  07:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done

i think the article is a lot better for your just wiping all that stuff out. myself, i might have waited a few days to see if interested parties would discuss. we'll see what happens.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

first incident

The Islamophobic incidents it described include: "Neil Lewington, a violent extremist nationalist convicted in July 2009 of a bomb plot; Terence Gavan, a violent extremist nationalist convicted in January 2010 of manufacturing nail bombs and other explosives, firearms and weapons; a gang attack in November 2009 on Muslim students at City University; the murder in September 2009 of Muslim pensioner, Ikram Syed ul-Haq; a serious assault in August 2007 on the Imam at London Central Mosque; and an arson attack in June 2009 on Greenwich Islamic Centre."

threaded discussion of first incident

suggest to summarize to the following:"the islamophobic incidents it described include arson attack, bomb plot, gang attack, and murder".-- mustihussain  06:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

second incident

Other Islamophobic incidents mentioned in the report include "Yasir, a young Moroccan," being "nearly killed while waiting to take a bus from Willesden to Regent's Park in London" and "left in a coma for three months"; "Mohammed Kohelee," a "caretaker who suffered burns to his body while trying to prevent an arson attack against Greenwich Mosque"; "the murder" of "Tooting pensioner Ekram Haque" who "was brutally beaten to death in front of his three year old granddaughter" by a "race-hate" gang; and "police officers" being injured "during an English Defence League (EDL) march in Stoke."

threaded discussion of second incident

suggest to summarize as above.-- mustihussain  06:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

third incident

On July 1, 2009, Marwa El-Sherbini, who was heavily pregnant, was stabbed to death in a courtroom in Dresden, Germany. She had just given evidence against her attacker who had used racist insults against her because she wore an islamic headscarf.

threaded discussion of third incident

a notable incident. i suggest to keep it.-- mustihussain  06:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

daily mail article discussion

my removal of the daily mail article was the result of discussions first at  mustihussain 's talk page and then at mine:

---

at  mustihussain 

i'm sorry i reverted you uncautiously, you're absolutely right about the freedom of religion section and the esther pan stuff. it's just that it appeared that you removed the wikileaks story from the daily mail, which i think needs to be in there, and is supported by the source. maybe i got mixed up in the series of diffs. anyway, i'm sorry, and thanks for taking care of that.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

the daily mail story was removed by User:John.stevenson3. the center for social cohesion (csc) is clearly not a neutral source [2], and wikileaks are not reliable.  mustihussain  17:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

agreed that wikileaks isn't reliable, but the daily mail reporting on wikileaks is reliable. anyway, i'm sorry i got mixed up about who removed what, and thanks for fixing it.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

no problem. mustihussain  17:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

at mine

as i suspected, the daily mail wikileaks - story is not reliable [3]. in fact, it's utter misleading.-- mustihussain  17:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks for removing the misleading content.-- mustihussain  19:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks for checking the sources of the source! nice work.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

---

sorry for the confusion, and we'll continue the conversation, if any, on this page here.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

islamophobic incidents level of detail

regarding this diff and the others like it. i agree with Filippusson that this level of detail is out of place in this article. the section seems about the right length for what it describes.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 06:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Misleading

The fact removed here can indeed be considered misleading cause its 3 years old. We need to replace it with the Muslim population growth rate today if we want to keep the fact in a section called "Projections". The source does not say that Muslims are projected to grow at 10 times the rate of the general pop. in UK.VR _talk 00:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

exactly.-- altetendekrabbe  08:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I had not realised the source was so old, but see no reason to remove it until a newer source is found, just amend it to say in 2009 the pop was projected to grow at ten times the rate of everyone else. That seems more logical than removing it. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit war

Really, five days of edit war and not a single post on the talk page? Anyway to encourage discussion I've protected both this page and Islam in Germany. In the interests of fairness, one page is protected with the poll data included and the other protected without it. – Steel 12:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

In my view the repeated removal of the poll is no more than a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

1. The poll is representative ("Ergebnisbericht zu einer repräsentativen Befragung von Türken in Deutschland", p. 1), not random. And it is recent, from July-August 2012, not outdated.
2. The pollster is notable: Liljeberg Research International, is a subsidiary company of Info GmbH, the oldest public opinion research company in eastern Germany.
3. The results of the poll are notable: its results were reported and discussed in a number of leading German press, online and TV media. A selection:

1. Der Spiegel, one of the two leading political magazines: 1
2. Die Welt, one of the four leading daily newspapers: 2
3. Heise online: 3.
4. ZDF, one of the three largest TV stations: 4.

All in all, its polling results of the largest Muslim minority in the largest EU country are clearly relevant for this article as well as Islam in Germany. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The material seems reliably sourced and relevant. I have no objection to its inclusion. Athenean (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

no, it does not belong here. as noted by other editors "turks in germany" is a more appropriate page.-- altetendekrabbe  19:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

"the largest Muslim minority in the largest EU country" (Gun Powder Ma) The Islam in Europe page is not about Muslim minority or largest EU country or Muslims in Germany or Muslims in EU. Deals with it. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

"the largest Muslim minority in the largest EU country" (Gun Powder Ma) According to Pew Forum 2011, in 2010 there were 4,119,000 Muslims in Germany. Two thirds of 4,119,000 is 2,746,000. According to Pew Forum 2011, in 2010 there were 2,869,000 Muslims in the UK, 4,704,000 in France, 16,379,000 in Russia, 44,100,000 in whole Europe. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The mentionned answers of the poll are a few answer among several decades/dozen in the poll. The poll is one poll among likely several dozen or hundred polls about the same subject during the last 20 years. The Turks in Germany, for those who are also Muslims, are a few part of the Muslims in Europe (a few millions among several dozen million), so the Muslims Turks in Germany are not representative of Muslims in Europe. One § about that is WP:UNDUE (and maybe cherry picked) in Islam in Europe. As wrote Ceddyfresse, this has "nothing to do here. Put it at Turks in Germany". Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

There are a number of factual errors and misunderstandings in your summary:

1. Factual error: Germany is the largest EU country and the Turks are the largest the largest Muslim minority in Germany, accounting for two thirds of the Muslim population according to the German Ministry of Interior (see Zusammenfassung "Muslimisches Leben in Deutschland").
2. Germany is in Europe, the Turks in Germany are Muslims and the poll asked specifically for attitudes related to Islam, hence the poll is directly relevant for a topic called "Islam in Europe". This is logical.
3. This poll received wide media coverage. It is not "among likely several dozen or hundred polls about the same subject" in Germany. If so, prove your point.

What you are trying to argue is that this poll is relevant for Islam in Germany, but not Islam in Europe, which is absurd, given that Islam in Europe includes Islam in Germany. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

To who are you talking? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Obviously to you or did altetendekrabbe provide any kind of argument which could be addressed? :-p Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

"Obviously to you" No, not obviously. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

"to you" To which part of my writing is this a reply? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

"Factual error: Germany is the largest EU country and the Turks are the largest the largest Muslim minority in Germany" (Gun Powder Ma) I don't get it. Are you claiming that "Germany is the largest EU country and the Turks are the largest the largest Muslim minority in Germany" is a factual error? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

"What you are trying to argue is that this poll is relevant for Islam in Germany" (Gun Powder Ma) I am not. Actually, I removed the poll 4 (four) time from Islam in Germany ([4] [5] [6] [7]). Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't get it either. What exactly do you critize in my statement that the Turks are the "largest Muslim minority in the largest EU country". This's correct, they are. They represent two thirds of the Muslim population in Germany according to offial data from the Ministry of Interior.

For the sake of peace and simply moving on to more important contents work, I offer the following compromise. I agree to the removal of the poll from Islam in Europe and we keep it in Turks in Germany and Islam in Germany, where it is immediately relevant given that its findings extend to 100% respectively 66% of the group of persons with which these articles are concerned. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Gun Powder Ma, his suggestion is very reasonable--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

"They represent two thirds of the Muslim population in Germany according to offial data from the Ministry of Interior." (Gun Powder Ma) That is < 7 % of Muslims in Europe according to Pew Forum 2011. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

" I offer the following compromise. I agree to the removal of the poll from Islam in Europe and we keep it in Turks in Germany and Islam in Germany" (Gun Powder Ma) This is much better. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is only like 7% but in view of the continued lack of transnational polls for Muslims in Europe my take has been that some data is better that no data. Anyway, I consider our dispute then resolved and will ask the admin to unblock the article under the agreed conditions from my post at 20:01, 19 September 2012. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

“The poll is representative” – yeah, it is a representative poll of Turks living in Germany. But it is NOT a representative poll for Islam or muslims in Germany. „Grundgesamtheit für diese Studie waren ca. 2 Millionen Türken in Deutschland“ “Das ist ein Ergebnis der neuen repräsentativen Umfrage des Instituts Info GmbH unter insgesamt 1011 Deutsch-Türken“ The statistical population for this poll were 2 million turks in germany, of whom 1011 german-turks have been regarded precisely. Just have a look at the original poll. This poll starts with regarding the situation of turks:

1. Length of stay
2. reason of immigration
3. which state they regard as homeland
4. return to turkey
5. reasons for return to turkey
6. german language skills

their attitude toward

1. turkish and german language
2. turkey and germany
3. social system in turkey and germany
4. politics in turkey and germany

After that, there are 21 questions regarding social issues in germany, 3 of whom are “islam related” and 3 are related to the attitude toward other religions followed by at least 40 questions regarding other social issues – none of these are “islam related”. In the end, there is a questions about their religious affiliation, followed by "how religious you belive to be" and "how often you pray on one day".

Now, a neutral person would put such a poll in turks in germany, because the main purpose of this poll is the life of turks in germany.

@ Gun Powder Ma: You cite Zusammenfassung "Muslimisches Leben in Deutschland", but you didn’t mention that this is “die erste bundesweit repräsentative Studie, die Personen aus 49 muslimisch geprägten Herkunftsländern einbezieht und somit einen umfassenden Überblick über das muslimische Leben in Deutschland gibt”. If you really are interested in including a representative poll that has something to do with the article “Islam in Germany”, you would take this 764 paged poll, the first representative poll about muslim life in germany. But I think, that is not your purpose… --Ceddyfresse (talk) 16:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

What you say is neither correct nor relevant (nor free of ad hominem). Please make yourself acquainted with Wikipedia:Notability, particularly where it says the common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. This poll has received significant attention from independent sources: it has been discussed in a number of national top media in Germany (see links provided above), and in particular the three answers I cited have been discussed by these independent sources, therefore its findings are notable for Wikipedia. In other words: the answers to be included in the WP are not at all a random sample from the poll, but are those which have also been intensively discussed by national media which makes them notable. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

A question: If a poll mentioning the beliefs of the Turks in Germany is undue weight, how is this [8] not undue weight as well? The poll only applies to French Muslims, i.e. it is the same exact situation. I would also remind Ceddyfresse to remember to abide by WP:NPA. Athenean (talk) 10:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Removed. The user apparently wanted to make a WP:point, ignoring his own line of argument in the process... Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Orientalism

Section of this article uses ref's and quotations from orientalists and their theory, despite the fact that orientalism, it's authors and ideologues shouldn't be used as objective (neutral), reliable, and basic source of informations, particularly not inflammatory quotations such as this example in section of this article.--Santasa99 (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes

Are obviously a violation of WP:LEDE. the lede is meant to summarize the article, not give a history lesson on demographic changes. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted Contributions

I have also posted this to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents Please continue the discussion there to resolve the problem.

I am trying to contribute to history and size of population of Muslims in articles such as Islam in Asia. I have several peer-reviewed articles in scientific conference proceedings and journals and a recent 600 page book [Kettani, Houssain (2014). The World Muslim Population, History & Prospect. Singapore: Research Publishing Service. ISBN 978-981-07-7244-4.]. So I added some results in Islam in Asia and other continent and cited by book. Interestingly, some editors such as AndyTheGrump, Jreferee and Dolescum keep reverting my contribution (basically deleting all of it and the source). They keep citing COI or self-publishing, none of which applies here. When I refute their allegations they come up with another excuse and keep threatening of blocking my account. Such "referees" or "editors" may have other motives that they are not disclosing. The job of an editor or contributor is to make the article better, not deleting all sources and information. Better means: checking facts, better reference, etc. Hkettani (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

My contribution was as follows (but got all deleted, either by an ill-informed editor or ill-intention):

Europe was the third continent; after Asia and Africa, to which Islam has entered. Muslims crossed the Gibraltar strait in 711AD, conquering all the Iberian Peninsula by 715AD. They kept going north and conquered half of current France, reaching 100Km southeast of Paris in725AD, until they were defeated in the Battle of Tours (Balat Ashuhada) in 732AD. They were driven out of France by 759AD, but returned and conquered the Mediterranean coast of France from 891AD to 973AD. In the ninth century Muslims controlled south of the Italian Peninsula for forty years and briefly controlled western coast of the Italian Peninsula. Muslims remained in control of southern Spain until the fall of Grenada in 1492AD. Muslims also controlled East Europe under the Golden Horde Empire in 1313AD. They remained in Crimea, in southern Ukraine, until 1796AD, when the Muslim Crimean Khanate was captured by the Russian Empire.

Muslims controlled the Balkan Peninsula for several centuries, starting with the conquest of Istanbul in 1453, under the Ottoman Empire. They kept going north until they besieged Vienna in 1528 and 1683. Muslims were defeated in the second attempt and kept retreating south since then. However, there are several Muslim majority countries that remain in the Balkans today: Albania, Bosnia, East Thrace (Turkey) and Kosovo. All Mediterranean Islands were under Muslim control at some point: The Balearics (903 – 1232), Crete (827 – 961, 1645 – 1897), Corsica (806 – 930), Rhodes (653 – 658, 717 – 718, 1522 – 1912), Sardinia (809 – 1015), Sicily (831 – 1091), and Malta (870 – 1091). As for Cyprus, it was listed under Asia, and controlled by Muslims 647 – 965, 1426 – 1460, 1518 – 1914, and the northern third of the island is under Muslim control since 1974.

Thus, the Muslim population changed from 24,000 or 0.1% of the total European population in 700AD, to 0.90 million or 2.5% in 800AD, to 1.87 million or 5.2% in 900AD, to 2.4 million or 6.6% in 1000AD, to 2.7 million or 6.0% in 1100AD, to 2.9 million or 5.3% in 1200AD, to 3.0 million or 4.7% in 1300AD, to 2.7 million or 3.7% in 1400AD, to 2.7 million or 3.2% in 1500AD, to 3.1 million or 2.9% in 1600AD, to 3.4 million or 2.8% in 1700AD, to 4.0 million or 2.2% in 1800AD, to 9 million or 2.1% in 1900, to 37 million or 5.1% in 2000, to 46 million or 6.2% in 2020, and is projected to reach 68 million or 10.7% by 2100, then 96 million or 14.1% by 2200, and then 124 million or 17.0% by 2300.

Hkettani (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Look one post up buddy. I gave a valid reason for the revert, I have no problem with the content being in the article, it just has to be in the right place. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Self-citations are allowed per Wikipedia:SELFCITE#Citing_yourself. May be mis-understanding is promoting such ill-informed editors to go to war! Someone needs to stop this as it degrades the content of articles. Experts like me will not put up with this and will give up easily (they are busy doing real research and real publications). However, bloggers and those who know less, in the long term will control the quality and content of WP articles. Something that no one wants for WP. Hkettani (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I never said anything about self cites, I reverted per WP:LEDE. Add the content to the appropriate section of the article, not the bloody lede. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, I beleive it was at the right section. If you believe otherwise, you could have moved it to another section. What you have done is you deleted all the contribution, which is unethical and does not serve the quality and content of the article. Please fix. Hkettani (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Obviously it was not, else I would not have reverted would I? Go read WP:LEDE, then come back here. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

So you think the current is a better lede "This article deals with the history and evolution of the presence of Islam in Europe."?? Come on!Hkettani (talk) 08:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Note that there is a discussion concerning Hkettani's edits going on at WP:ANI. [9] This article is part of a broader dispute, and is best discussed there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Virtually all muslims in Europe outside of the Balkans are not native to Europe. They are Pakistanis, Arabs or North Africans. Islam is as native to Europe as Christianity is to the Aztecs... 107.222.205.242 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Western sources are not alpha and omega

If Russian official data state that there is certain percentile of Muslims in Russia then this should be quote here instead of what BBC and western sources think. This is really incredible. All your sources are western. 76.169.235.63 (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Well then provide us with some non western sources.

E.g. do you expect a Saudia Arabian organisation to carry out a census in France wrt. the Muslim population in France?

As for Russia, what is your point? Are you questioning the accuracy of Russian census data because you think their claimed Muslim population is being misrepresented or understated or overstated for some or other reason. Surely you must realise that any data quoted by the BBC/west must have come from Russia in the 1st place.81.107.245.123 (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Western sources are not alpha and omega

Duplicate of above thread. GABHello! 16:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If Russian official data state that there is certain percentile of Muslims in Russia then this should be quote here instead of what BBC and western sources think. This is really incredible. All your sources are western. 76.169.235.63 (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Albania

Isn't 80-90% too high? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.37.51 (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Albania: 80-90 %?

That is completely wrong,statistics in Albania in 2011 showed that 57 % of the population identify as Muslims,this map is wrong.I propose to change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euripides ψ (talk • contribs) 11:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Islam in Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110209094904/http://pewforum.org/The-Future-of-the-Global-Muslim-Population.aspx to http://www.pewforum.org/The-Future-of-the-Global-Muslim-Population.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080407192916/http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk:80/country/?CountryID=103 to http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/country/?CountryID=103
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081108085143/http://www.prb.org/Articles/2008/muslimsineurope.aspx?p=1 to http://www.prb.org/Articles/2008/muslimsineurope.aspx?p=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Islam in Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/1204/17muslims.html to http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/1204/17muslims.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Politico article

I found a Politico article that seems critical of Muslim immigrants in Europe:

• De Winter, Leon. "Europe’s Muslims hate the West." Politico. March 29, 2016.

Would this be of use? WhisperToMe (talk) 08:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: Is that a serious question? Leon de Winter wants to sterilize Palestinian people. See Eugenics#Nazism_and_the_decline_of_eugenics. Rong Qiqi (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Rong Qiqi: I did not know who the author was until then (Politico is a serious magazine). I didn't know he had an article. I also notice nobody had placed that information on Leon de Winter. Would focusing on that info in his article comply with BLP?

I actually wonder if, now, the correct places for both that article and the PowNed one (the basis of the Electronic Intifada article) would be on winter's article to document his stances and controversial statements.

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: Ah, ok. In most cases it would be a good idea to add this information to the article. But Leon de Winter is the kind of person who just says stuff like that jokingly. He understands why this is a despicable thing to say, but he also knows he will make the newspaper headlines if he says it, which helps with his book sales. Rong Qiqi (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Isn't the fact that that opinion piece is unsuitable for an NPOV encyclopedia obvious based on the fact that the title is: "Europe’s Muslims hate the West"? I mean, you know that that is not true, right? We are also not going to use an opinion piece titled "Europe’s Jews hate the West" in the article History of the Jews in Europe. Rong Qiqi (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Rong Qiqi: If he is the type of person to say stuff just jokingly, it's a good idea to get documentation of that for BLP purposes and to give information to future Wikipedians who are considering using articles written by him or about him.

AFAIK opinion pieces can be used on Wikipedia to source information about opinions, but they're generally unsuitable for sourcing facts. Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Statements of opinion gives more information about that.

Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Biased or opinionated sources states that "Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context." - biased pieces may be useful in certain contexts, but they should be attributed, such as "So and so said..."

WhisperToMe (talk) 08:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Croatia on map

Please check: The account of Muslims in Croatia does not correspond with the color that is used on the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.90.227.172 (talk) 12:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Introduction Islamophobic- Deserves Rewrite

I believe the introduction to this article sets a tone that indicates the existence of Islam in Europe as inherently invasive presence. While this narrative can be legitimately established for the spread of most any major religion historically it does not reflect what is perhaps the bulk of experience by and with Muslims in Europe which occured in the last century and of which will be of most interest to readers. I direct you to the article on Christianity in Europe whose introduction is far more present day sociologically and theologically interested which should be the standard for this article. 2A02:8084:4EE0:6900:F525:F934:86B4:58B (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, this article is far from neutral. It probably needs to rewritten based on neutral sources. Rong Qiqi (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this article could be much more neutral. Kamalthebest (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

References

1st one does not link to required page. Mellk (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Islam in Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cliohres.net/books/3/Dalli.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761569000_17/Russia.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120323024339/http://www.pewforum.org/The-Future-of-the-Global-Muslim-Population.aspx?print=true to http://www.pewforum.org/The-Future-of-the-Global-Muslim-Population.aspx?print=true
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110209094904/http://www.pewforum.org/The-Future-of-the-Global-Muslim-Population.aspx to http://features.pewforum.org/muslim-population/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081108085143/http://www.prb.org/Articles/2008/muslimsineurope.aspx?p=1 to http://www.prb.org/Articles/2008/muslimsineurope.aspx?p=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160115132325/http://fowid.de/fileadmin/datenarchiv/Religionszugehoerigkeit/Religionszugehoerigkeit_Bevoelkerung_Deutschland_2014.pdf to http://fowid.de/fileadmin/datenarchiv/Religionszugehoerigkeit/Religionszugehoerigkeit_Bevoelkerung_Deutschland_2014.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Introduction NOT islamophobic, Updates, Improvement list

I fail to see the Islamophobia present, they are simply describing the events of how Islam first interacted with Europe, which was through INVASION as the primary goal of the Umayyad Caliphate was Jihad, or religious subjugation, and that is an indisputable fact. I like many others, are failing to understand exactly how that is islamophobic, the tone could be seen as biased, though honestly, I see this as simply descriptive of the events that did occur. The invasion of France, was an invasion, they didn't meet up and have tea and crumpets. They fought because the Christians were the dominant religion in Europe. And Islam challenged status quo. The evaluation that Islam is commonly dominated in discussions in press with stories of terror attacks and the rise of islamophobia (which kinda shows the writer acknowledges it!) would be correct. As most stories are indeed on terror attacks, whether that's justifiable is a different story BUT IT IS WHAT IT IS. You can't rewrite history to suit a politically correct agenda, you need to stay impartial, and that means calling it a damned invasion. Sure, later immigration of Muslims by CIVILIANS is not an invasion, and tone should be changed accordingly on that. But don't try and change the article so that the INVASION BY MEN ON HORSEBACK is simply deemed Islamophobic. Stop using Islamophobia as a cover story for your agenda please.

- I have begun working on a revised, beefier introduction with more citations and a more in depth look at the virtues and vices of the Caliphate early on instead of complaining. Feel free to format it into more manageable subheadings and paragraphs. I will be covering the period of 700 to 1450 in far more depth, as this period is unmentioned. I will also be looking for other gaps as well

- Several improvements that can be made 1. "Islamic dress" "cartoons affair" etc. can all do with citations 2. Longer, more proficient description of history of Islam in Europe. This is actually far larger than I expected, in its detail, perhaps it is deserving of its own article? 3. Less bias when talking about Muslim civilian Immigration. 4. citations for Cultural influences. There are zero Citations here! 5. None for European Islam Either. 6. None for Balkans during Ottoman empire 7. More for second paragraph of Russia and Ukraine 8. Hungary? One line? No Citation? Heresy. Fix. 9. Scilly· section more obviously outlined. 10 scant citations for Al andalus, some improvements can be made. Please add more to this list, if we create a comprehensive list, it should be easier on where to focus efforts on such a large article Additionally, if we create more country subheadings, lets avoid undue weight. See Wikipedia policy. Factsoverfeelings (talk) 11:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Switzerland's migration

Since my edit was deleted:

The article gives a very wrong impression about Switzerland's migration process. The muslim migration of guest workers is rather insignificant for Switzerland unlike in Germany with its "Gastarbeiters". The workers class consisted mostly of Italians during the 60-70s. So why is it named that there are were contradicts with muslims?

The majority of muslims are from Balkan (Kosovo, Albania, Bosnia, Macedonia) and migrated during the Balkan wars (Bosnian & Kosova wars). There were some contracts for muslim Gastarbeiters (mostly Turks) but even for the Turkish case it is not entirely true, since many came during the 1980s coup in Turkey. I think this should be different in the text. Especially for the Kurds.

It even says on the Islam in Switzerland page that most muslims came during the 80s/90s wars on Balkan territory.

Also there is no source saying that these guest workers are any relevant for the muslim population in Switzerland.

Here is some source regarding migration: https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/de/home/statistiken/bevoelkerung.html

Tensorproduct (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Islam in Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9377080/Roger-II
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130605131551/http://www.econ.hit-u.ac.jp/~areastd/mediterranean/mw/pdf/18/10.pdf to http://www2.econ.hit-u.ac.jp/~areastd/mediterranean/mw/pdf/18/10.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170326091156/http://www.instat.gov.al/media/177358/njoftim_per_media_-_fjala_e_drejtorit_te_instat_ines_nurja_per_rezultatet_finale_te_census_2011.pdf to http://www.instat.gov.al/media/177358/njoftim_per_media_-_fjala_e_drejtorit_te_instat_ines_nurja_per_rezultatet_finale_te_census_2011.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090323072942/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080920.wreckoning20/BNStory/International/home to https://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080920.wreckoning20/BNStory/International/home/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Islam by country

I oppose the idea to add data on muslim meberships by country in Europe. The added data seem to be carefully elaborated and reasonable sourced. However there is already an article islam by country. It is always a pain to sync and update data refering to the same subject in different articles. Hence I prefer a link to the islam by country article rather than a duplication of data here. Any thoughts? --Nillurcheier (talk) 09:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

The table is very helpful and relevant for this article, and exactly the right place for this kind of information. All population data in any article needs to be updated, that's not a reason to delete it. Jeppiz (talk) 11:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Changing sourced content into unsourced content?

@Zoupan: I'm not entirely sure why you keep changing:

• "Through the Muslim conquest of Persia, Islam penetrated into regions that would later become part of Russia"

into...

• "Islam began significantly expanding in the Caucasus after conquests by Persian dynasties since the early 16th century."

...while deleting the existing source?[10]-[11] Best, - LouisAragon (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi LouisAragon, the Muslim conquest might have introduced Islam to Caucasus, but its expansion is more relevant to the article intro. On another note, those territories may not be regarded Europe. No idea why the intro should be riddled with refs (it shouldn't); there is still a section on Russia where information should be added, but summarized — the theme is big. I think '7th-century Caucasus and Bulgaria' is undue weight in the intro. Cheers.--Zoupan 08:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

On the Caucasus, Islam in introduced via missionaries in Daghestan early on. Circassian regions only become Muslim in the 18th and 19th century to get assistance of the Muslim Ottoman Empire to fight Russia. If some of this needs to be added i can via some sources like Jaimoukha, Richmond, etc.Resnjari (talk) 09:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

American editors insist, against all evidence, that Moscow is full of Muslims

I'm from Moscow, Russia and was amused to read that my city is "home to 1,5 Muslims". This sentence was plain inaccurate, so I corrected that, providing a (Russian-language) realiable source, but had my edits reverted twice by editors from the United States, who think they understand my city's demographics better than I do.

I understand that Wikipedia is an American website, so long-term I cannot win this edit war, but this only means that quality of Wikipedia content, already pretty low, will continue to suffer. 37.147.226.243 (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

How about finding academic sources that support your position. Wikipedia works on principles of wp:reliable and wp:secondary. Google scholar and google books would be a good place to start. Best.Resnjari (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Russian state does not collect information on religious affiliation, so all we have is various estimates. Saying that Moscow is "home" to millions of Muslims has become a cliche in Western press. The reality is quite different. To quote Moscow mayor:

It has turned out that the praying Muslims are not at all Russian citizens and they are not Moscow residents. They are labor migrants. There are only 10 percent of Moscow residents among them and building mosques for everyone who wants it – I think this will be over the top,” Sergey Sobyanin said in an interview with Moscow's Echo radio.Link

Here is how labor migration works in Russia: a bunch of men of Uzbekistan work to complete construction project. Then they go home to their families in Uzbekistan, while the next batch of workers comes to replace them. Moscow is hosting a large Muslim population, but it's not their "home". Only a small fraction of them manage to settle here and obtain a permanent residence.37.147.226.243 (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The source you added makes no mention of religion and/or ethnicity. You know that's WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, right? - LouisAragon (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

North Macedonia

It's North Macedonia now Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 06:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Islam in Europe

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Islam in Europe's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "pewforum.org":

• From Islam in South Asia: "The Future of the Global Muslim Population". Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project. 2011-01-15. Retrieved 2017-05-24.
• From Christianity in Asia: http://www.pewforum.org/2011/12/19/global-christianity-exec/ Pew

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Fastest-growing religion in Europe

I don't exactly doubt that statement but the source provided [12] was 22 years old and didn't use the word Europe once. In addition, this statement is vague (do you mean fastest-growing in percentage or raw numbers?) and impossible to verify - in some countries like France and Belgium, it is illegal for anyone to record statistics on religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.238.98 (talk) 01:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I found that the "citation" was added as a one-off from an IP in Carmel, Indiana in 2018 despite having an access date that said July 2015. This would suggest that somebody keeps trying to restore their edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.238.98 (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Biased or ignorant source

The quoted http://www.globalreligiousfutures.org/ sees Muslims as one group. They are radically divided. The same source accepts the division of European Christians. Presenting the Christians as one community is biased, POV.

I find comments by Nillurcheier abusive. Xx236 (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

please be more specific: which comment? --Nillurcheier (talk) 13:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

regarding your baised claim of the source: if we talk about religions, it is christians, muslims, Hindus and jews. Regarding denominations it is Roman catholics, protestants, sunnis, shias, liberal, orthodox etc. This article is about religions, hence Muslims, christians count as one unit. --Nillurcheier (talk) 13:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Islam is the second-largest religion in Europe after Christianity

The phrase in controversial. Islam is divided and Christianity is divided. During WWII Orthodox and Uniate Ukrianians killed about 100,000 Roman Polish Catholics, which was much more than the whole Islamic anti-Christian terror after WWII in Europe.Xx236 (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Theabove text has been removed as allegedly "no contribution to improve the article". If the first phrase of the article is at least controversial, please don't expect that I correct it myself. Naming a problem is contribution.Xx236 (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Similarly the Breakup of Yugoslavia caused wars between Orthodox, Catholic and Islam people.Xx236 (talk) 06:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Nillurcheier you can't delete talk page comments by other users, fairly sure there are guidelines which forbid it. Instead, refer to WP:NOTFORUM.

Xx236 if you think the article should say something else, this "something" must be backed up by sources. Which source do you propose to change the article? What is your proposed text? AadaamS (talk) 06:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

First demographic data about Shia and Sunni in Europe has to be collected. I don't have such data. Xx236 (talk) 06:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

There are already Category:Shia Islam in Europe, Category:Sunni Islam in Europe.Xx236 (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The source is Shia, so may be biased http://shianumbers.com/shias-in-asia--europe.html Xx236 (talk) 06:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The Euro-Parlament has a series of texts http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/da/document.html?reference=EPRS_BRI%282016%29577963, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_BRI(2015)568339, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_BRI(2016)573914 Xx236 (talk) 06:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Contributions in Talk can be deleted, if not contributing to the lemma. Refering to WP:NOTFORUM is also a valid reason to delete something, but a bit misleading here. To sum up: Xx236 said "the phrase is controversal". No argument beyond that was provided till now. --Nillurcheier (talk) 07:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The page lacks basic informations about Shia and Sunni in Europe, doesn't link such pages listed in cathegories listed by me. It proves that the page should be rewritten. Xx236 (talk) 07:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I have told much more - please read. But if the first sentence (of any page) misleads, it's a big problem. Xx236 (talk) 07:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

A lead should summarize

Please show me the part of the page summarized by Islam is the second-largest religion in Europe after Christianity. So either such part has to be written or the phrase removed. Xx236 (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

This sentence summarizes the demographics paragraph. If you see a part missing, feel free to add it. --Nillurcheier (talk) 11:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

No, the demographics paqragraph doesn't say anything about Christianity.

There is still the problem of different groups inside Islam, so the sum of apples and oranges doesn't help.

I'm doing what I decide to do. I don't accept your orders. Xx236 (talk) 12:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

"feel free" is a motivation, nothing else. Without a substantial proposal from your side, it is likely that there will be no change in the article.--Nillurcheier (talk) 12:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree with User:Xx236. Having looked at the source (which doesn't actually seem to show the year 2019, but maybe it's on some other page that's not referenced), it actually shows that the "unaffiliated" group is considerably larger than Islam. The sentence is also badly phrased: it should read something like "Members of the Islamic faith represent the third-largest religious group in Europe, with Christians being the largest." Deb (talk) 09:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Islam in Europe needs updating

The material within Islam in Europe leans towards the negative connotation of radicalism more than the progressive trends of Islam in Europe. The topic needs to get updated and show the economic and sociopolitical opportunities and threats to a wider, more diverse Muslim demographic in Europe for the next couple of decades. From a dispassionate perspective, it should include pros and cons in an objective way rather than just showing cons and negative traction Islam gains due to a very small percentage of the Muslim population that practices radical forms. For example, while populism is creating divides within religion and Muslim sentiment, it is also creating opportunities for Muslims to unite and gain traction from millennial outsiders that are more welcoming than earlier generations. We need to be more cognizant of the fact that this news drives people's sentiment towards Islam and because of that, editors have a social responsibility to provide a fact-based and neutral perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juntsuru98 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Honor killings

Main article: Honor killing

According to a study investigating 67 honor killings in Europe 1989-2009 by Phyllis Chesler, 96% of honor murder perpetrators in Europe were Muslim and 68% of victims were tortured before they died.

Muslim girls and women are murdered for honor in both the Western world and elsewhere for refusing to wearing the hijab or for not wearing it strictly. Allegations of unacceptable "Westernization" of a Muslim woman accounted for 71% of the justifications of honor killings in Europe.

---

even though the methodology of the study conducted is ambiguous and that we cannot just consider everyone's studies as sources otherwise Wikipedia's crucial policy of neutrality of thought would be critically undermined since everyone can use any sources he sees fit , the first paragraph is not the source of objection

• the second paragraph is clearly a mere thought ,and cannot by any means be considered an objective conclusion , it says honor killings in ( the western world and elsewhere) so this is an assumption , since his study was said to be made in ( Europe ) in the first paragraph

• also he said for (wearing the hijab or not wearing it strictly) which questions the methodology of his study , since even in the middle east women don't wear hijab or remove it and no such honor killings happen for this specific reason , it commonly happens due to adultery - unaccepted marriages according to official sources which you can find plenty of here https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Honor_Related_Violence_(Egypt))

• why does this has to be included in Islam in Europe , why not ( Arabs in Europe ) or ( Middle Easterns in Europe) for two reasons

- according to Muslim culture Islamic scripts promotes that no forcing should be conducted regarding any religious affair { (2:256) There is no compulsion in religion.}

most of these honor killings were conducted by middle easterns while European converts rarely conducted this , it's a cultural aspect rather than a religious one including this in [ Islam in Europe] in this context doesn't help , wikipedia English should be a place to make people understand each other and spread peace between peoples not to spread stereotypical Islamophobia

Thanks for your post. I think that you should find sources that state what you wrote here, and put them in the article. At the moment it is only OR. About Islam, the problem is that there is not only one view of Islam, but there are many, exactly as happens for the christian religion. Alex2006 (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Majority Muslim areas in Europe - map

Hi,

first of all i want to apologize if this is not correct reason for starting topics. This is the first time i am doing this.

I wanted to let you know that the mentioned map is not correct, at least regarding Bosnia. Here are few reasons: 1) Muslims are majority in Brčko district in northern part of Bosnia Herzegovina: not included in the map. 2) Muslims are majority in Srebrenica municipality in eastern Bosnia Herzegovina: not included in the map. 3) Muslims are majority in Vukosavlje municipality in northern Bosnia Herzegovina: not included in the map.

They might be more, but this is what i noticed right away.

I kindly ask someone, more experienced then me, to fix the map.

P.S. Is there any reason why Muslim majority areas in Romania and Crimea are not marked?

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FKS1946 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Moschea 00497.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Juntsuru98.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Edits to "Attitudes Towards Muslims" Section

Hello, I have added a change to the "Attitudes Towards Muslims" section mentioning the attitudes of both citizens and the government towards Muslims. I wrote about hate crimes against Muslims in France in 2013, and recent laws surrounding Islam, and other things adding to anti-Muslim rhetoric. Thank you. Cheers, Freezeeverybodyclapyourhands Freezeeverybodyclapyourhands (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Discrimination is a "small part" of unemployement

I know the difference between muslims and "the other" in unemployement is roughly 1-2 % but it makes one 20 % likely to be unemployed. There were some newspaper articles saying that muslims had to roughly send 5 times more resumés, to get any job. I'm doubtful, it's a bit doubtful when it says in the end that discrimination from employers caused "a small part" of unemployement.....also unemployement rates for them are higher even with diplomas. 2A01:E34:EC12:36C0:F5CC:5AD4:A1F5:2FD3 (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

probably contentious but well sourced edit that has been reverted

I added this well sourced content, but it has been reverted. give your suggestions and reinstate:

Generally the perception is taken negative, which arise due to several factors like 9/11 attacks or other terror attacks, rapes and forced conversions of non muslim population by muslims.RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

My suggestion is that you take note that Wikipedia takes a very dim view of contributors who misrepresent sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

References

WP:UNDUE additions to the lead section

@Communist Aristocrat: You keep deleting a reliable source (www.globalreligiousfutures.org) to fit this narrative about Islam promoted by CNN that you keep trying to add to the lead section ([13], [14]), as a religion which allegedly keeps winning converts in Europe (even if that was the case, where is the evidence of that?) but Wikipedia is supposed to represent a neutral, encyclopedic point of view on politics and religion and this claim that you borrowed from a CNN article is totally WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE.

Moreover, you have replaced a reliable source already cited in the article and changed the wording of the lead section to your own liking without consensus ([15], [16]), so please stop doing that as well. That's not the way Wikipedia works.

Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our WP policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page, which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. GenoV84 (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Communist Aristocrat: I just checked the CNN article that you have tried to cite in the lead section, which you claim is an allegedly reliable source, but really it is not ([17]). It is an April 14, 1997 report about the annual Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca written by CNN correspondent Gayle Young in Cairo, which totally looks like an hodge-podge presentation of Islam as a religion, without references or any evidence of the alleged number of adherents of Islam. Moreover, the claim that you were presumably referring to doesn't even talk about converts, nor does it talk about Europe, and it is completely unsourced: "The second-largest religion in the world after Christianity, Islam is also the fastest-growing religion. In the United States, for example, nearly 80 percent of the more than 1,200 mosques have been built in the past 12 years." This looks like a CNN mirror website, which has been detected by my browser as a non-safe network; I suggest you to avoid websites like this one and instead focus on secondary, academic, reputable, and reliable references which are fully in accordance with the WP policies and guidelines. GenoV84 (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@GenoV84 I am sorry for the inconvenience, I may not have read the source correctly and misjudged it as being reliable, however my intention was not to Vandalize and my edits were done in Good faith and i have learned from my actions. Communist Aristocrat (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Communist Aristocrat: Thank you for understanding that. We all make mistakes here, and I'm sure that you meant to do well. Unfortunately, many newspapers and other media outlets present themselves as "authoritative" or "reliable" when in fact they aren't, especially once you have learnt to carefully examine them in a critical way. Wish you all the best. GenoV84 (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Unneeded excessive links.

Excessive links in this section disrupts the article's flow and overwhelm readers. A concise summary with a link to a dedicated article on Islamic terrorism in Europe is a more efficient approach. The current writing style appears to be intentionally provocative. 182.183.0.254 (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

section on "honour killings"

Why is this here? All it is is a single article written by someone who's openly and rabidly anti-Muslim, who supports the "Eurabia" conspiracy theory, whose cited work is published in what amounts to a propaganda outlet run by a pro-Israel hack (Daniel Pipes)?

This minor paragraph seems very out of place and considering the author and the source is extremely biased. Bingusbungus12345 (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. This makes Wikipedia look more like that hateful troll site Conservapedia. 182.183.0.254 (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Religion in Albania

The percentage of Albania is wrong. Albania must be included in 50%-70% with Bosnia and Herzegovina. Albania is about 59% muslim. 188.172.108.202 (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)