Lies, Damned Lies . . . And Reporters

One would think we have far more than enough real issues on our plates in battling jihadism, as well as with the perpetual worries about causing “offense” — “Royal Air Force chiefs have told pilots in Afghanistan to paint out sexy pin-ups adorning their Harrier jets in case they offend Muslims…” — without the likes of The Times’s and Agence France-Presse’s shabby distortions:

Mohammed will likely become the most popular name for baby boys in Britain by the end of the year, local media reported on Wednesday, citing government data.

Though official records from the Office for National Statistics list the spelling Mohammed 23rd in its yearly analysis of the top 3,000 names given to children, when all the different spellings of the name are taken into account, it ranks second, only behind Jack, according to The Times…

…In total, 5,991 baby boys were given some version of the name Mohammed, with 6,928 baby boys named Jack…

…According to The Times, if the growth of the name Mohammed continues — it rose by 12 percent last year — the name will take the top spot by the end of this year.

‘Ang on a minute.  ”12 percent” more of not very much . . . is still not very much.  That report does not mean what it seems meant to imply at first glance: that more boys named “Mohammed” are about to be born each year in Britain compared to “non-Mohammed” boys.  

Context!  Context!  (Sorry, I forgot momentarily that I am talking about reporters here.)  True, “Mohammed” is by far the most popular name for Muslim boys.  However, it is far more common than any single Christian boys’ name, so to compare the names and the numbers properly, one must bear in mind that if Christian (and even ostensibly those who are Christian) British parents trended mostly also towards naming their sons any of a dozen versions of “Jesus”, there would be tens of thousands’ more boys named “Jesus” born every year than “Mohammed”. 

Indeed, that fact is clear enough to any sensible observer just from looking at how The Times lays out 2006’s “Top 20″ boys names . . .

1 Jack 6,928, 2 Muhammad (all spellings) 5,991, 3 Thomas 5,921, 4 Joshua 5,808, 5 Oliver 5,208, 6 Harry 5,006, 7 James 4,783, 8 William 4,327, 9 Samuel 4,320, 10 Daniel 4,303, 11 Charlie 4,178, 12 Benjamin 3,778, 13 Joseph 3,755, 14 Callum 3,517, 15 George 3,386, 16 Jake 3,353, 17 Alfie 3,194, 18 Luke 3,108,19 Matthew 3,043, 20 Ethan 3,020

. . . for when one does some basic math one discovers — eh, guess what?! — that while “Muhammed” was used a total of 5,991 times, the total of the other 19 top baby “non-Mohammeds” added up to . . . 80,936.  (And remember, there are quite a few other “non-Mohammeds” that didn’t make the top 20, but did make the top 100 and beyond.)  

Providing supposed background though, The Times tells us how dramatically the religious demography is suddenly a-changing:

…It first entered the Top 30 in 2000…

Again, ‘ang on a minute. Given the propensity of Muslims to name their sons “Mohammed”, is The Times telling us that virtually none did so prior to 2000?  Presumably not.  So what this individual name statistic provides us in a larger sense is little more than a study of novelty value, for there is not much of a gulf in absolute figures from year to year between Number 1 and, perhaps, Number 31 — just a difference of a couple of thousand namings.

Anti-Muslim “shock value” (”Mohammed will be Number 1!”) is probably why this issue is light years’ far more important to “local media”, AFP and The Times, than it was to the actual Office For National Statistics back in December 2006.  (By the way, nothing like up to the minute media coverage.)  For the “every variation of Mohammed” point raised by AFP and The Times is mentioned exactly nowhere in the Office’s web statement on all babies’ names for 2006  (”Olivia – she is the one you want!“  Who says statisticians lack a sense of humor?).  The noting of “Mohammed” at all came only in the actual news release, and was placed probably about where it best belonged in a purely statistical context sense.  

Back to our media’s often lack of sense.  So, what about this year?  We are still only in June, remember — or as we have been learning seasons suddenly fall differently in the Gregorian calendar than we had always thought they did, is media now telling us calendar years themselves end in June? — but if “Mohammed” does in the end total a few more than all of the others put together in 2007, based on the above in statistical terms that fact still means very little.  Only if there were suddenly, say, 30,000 “Mohammeds” and still roughly 80,000 “non-Mohammeds” put together in 2007 would that then matter statistically, for that would clearly be a dramatic “Mohammed” uptick worth remarking upon.

Interestingly, although The Times does make a small reference (near the end) to them, no mention at all is made by AFP of Muslim girls; but this next, though, should be a good “source” for that.  According to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s “News” Agency, in 2006:

…Among baby girls, the most popular Muslim name last year was Yasmine, listed overall at 31st, up from 41st last year, but down from 28th in 2002.

The second most common was Alisha, which moved up to 56th in the general list. The variant of Zara was also included at 82nd, up from 85th, while entering the top 100 for the first time was Layla at 96th…

As we had all suspected: Zara Phillips . . . Muslim. Err, um, insofar as we know, not quite yet anyway. Indeed, as its own stellar reporting on the namings in 2006 indicates, The Times apparently also has a rather different take on what constitutes a Muslim girl’s name, informing us only in the very LAST line that:

…The leading name for girls born to Muslim parents in 2006 was Aisha, in 110th place. Its meaning is “wife of the Prophet” or “life”.

Where’s The Times’ headline ”Aisha nearly breaks into Top 100!”? 

Confused and aggravated enough yet over this reportorial rubbish?  Sorry, but just one final observation: One can only guess what the existence of the American “Layla Gonzalez“ might happen demographically to demonstrate to the geniuses at The Times.