Talk:Islam in New York City

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

New York City

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Muslim proportion vastly overstated?

A 2018 study estimated that there are over 750,000 Muslims living in New York City, the largest population of Muslims by city in the United States. Approximately 9% of New York City residents are Muslim, constituting 22.3% of American Muslims, with 1.5 million Muslims in the greater New York metropolitan area, representing the largest metropolitan Muslim population in the Western Hemisphere—and the most ethnically diverse Muslim population of any city in the world.

This does not seem to be supported by other sources. For instance:

Public Religion Research Institute claims 3% of New York City (i.e. county) is Muslim
[https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/metro-area/new-york-city-metro-area/ Pew Research claims 3% for the metro area

The latter would put the total number of Muslims in the metro area at about 600,000 – quite far from 1.5 million. 63.118.185.98 (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Mosque crawler" a contentious label for NYPD informants?

@Kleuske reverted my use of the term Mosque crawler. This term is used by some pretty mainstream sources. The New Yorker [1], CBS [2], NPR [3], PBS [4], AP [5]. It's also found in academic writing [6]. Are you sure this is contentious? These mainstream sources don't give me the impression that the term is problematic. Does anyone else have an opinion about this? Thanks! Ironic sensibilities (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the chapter in www.taylorfrancis.com you cite, does not mention the term, nor does the npr.org reference. The New Yorker only uses it in quotes, as does CBS. PBS also uses t in quotes and in an interview. Not a term to use without any explanation, replacing the neutral "informants". The "crawler" bit firmly places it into contentious territory (cf. bar-crawlers, gutter-crawlers, etc). Kleuske (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I used the wrong NPR link. Meant this one [7]. The chapter on taylorfrancis does use it. You must not have the full text. It's true that it's frequently used in quotes. Would you feel better about it if we had it in quotes? I'm just using the words that the sources use. Washington Post has it in quotes [8]. Al Jazeera uses it in quotes [9]. Ironic sensibilities (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would feel happy if you did not send me on wild goose chases and responded to the arguments in more substantial ways than "Nuh-uh!". You are not exactly making a wonderful first impression, here. Kleuske (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting a little weird. I did respond. You said the sources used the phrase in quotes. I agreed and asked if you would feel better about having it in quotes. That's a response. You pointed out that I used the wrong NPR link, and I gave you the correct link. That's a response. You mentioned that the sources were interviews, and I provided additional sources that are not interviews. All of these are direct responses to your arguments. I didn't respond to your argument that "crawler" makes it firmly contentious by association with bar-crawlers and Gutter crawlers, mostly because it didn't seem like that argument merits a response. I don't think that association is obvious, and I think people actually celebrate Pub crawls. (I've never heard of Gutter crawlers, but watch out for Organ crawlers! They're a motley crew!). I actually assume it's associated with Web crawlers as an information gathering method.

You, on the other hand, haven't responded to my argument that "mosque crawlers" (in quotes) is used in several mainstream sources that I've provided. Here's one from the US Supreme court [10], by the way.

I'll confess my first impression of you isn't so great either, but I'm sure we both have redeeming qualities and can get through this discussion without too much stress. I'm sorry for getting the NPR link wrong and the few seconds it must have cost you to type Ctrl-F and "crawl" to discover my mistake. I hope you'll forgive me. Thanks Ironic sensibilities (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like some of your frustration about "wild goose chases" is that you don't have the full text of Islamophobia in Higher Education, so you don't believe me about the quote I gave you from that book. Maybe this will help? The quote is on page 13. That link should take you right to it. I hope. Works on my end anyway. That book is used as a textbook in college courses. It is also reviewed and cited in peer-reviewed journals. Ironic sensibilities (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My frustration stems from the fact that I was provided with multiple cites which do not support your claim and when I point it out, I get a "It's in there, somewhere, trust me bro" or a "Sorry you're so frustrated, bro. Not my fault, it must be you." kind of response. We have a perfectly neutral term ("informants"), which you replaced by one that is obviously not neutral and all I get is walls of text ("there's a point in there, somewhere. Trust me bro!"), without you addressing the elephant in the room: WP:NPOV and MOS:LABEL, which you completely and utterly fail to address, apart from going "Nuh-uh!".

There's a big difference between "Johnny said Jimmy is an asshole" and "Jimmy is an asshole" or even "Jimmy is an 'asshole'". If you are using Wikipedia's voice, you had better be aware of that difference. Kleuske (talk) 10:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Haha you are making up stories bro. I provided cites that DO support my claim and are verifiable. You didn't believe me, so I provided a direct quote. You still didn't believe me, so I provided a direct link to that quote. You apparently didn't hear that, so you continue to argue that I've provided you with "multiple cites which do not support [my] claim", in spite of clear evidence to the contrary.

2. You still haven't responded directly to my question about putting it in quotes, although I think I can infer you don't like that idea. For clarity, I propose modifying the existing sentence to say that "In 2002, the NYPD's Intelligence Bureau began surveilling Muslim communities across the New York metro area and beyond, recruiting informants known as 'mosque crawlers' to spy on mosques and Muslim student groups".

3. I HAVE addressed NPOV by pointing out that multiple mainstream sources use this term, so it is WP:DUE. I HAVE addressed WP:LABEL by saying that "crawler" is not clearly contentious and pointing toward Web crawler as the most comparable use of the word. And also, while irrelevant, that people actually like pub crawls, although you apparently disapprove. Maybe you should try one? Lighten up a little? Ironic sensibilities (talk) 15:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. WP:V isn't the issue
Putting it in quotes does not make any difference
Many publications use the ord "nazi", "terrorist" and such. That does not make it WP:NPOV. I once more remind you this is a core policy, in fact, it is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia.

Please add WP:IDHT to your required reading list. Kleuske (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]