Daniel R. Tobias schrieb:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:42:34 +0100, wikien-l-request@lists.wikime wrote:
Eugene van der Pijll schrieb:
Daniel R. Tobias schreef:
Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran: http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-236/0802179464180019.htm
Note that this is unrelated to the online petition discussed in the other thread; this is about the Danish Muhammad cartoons at [[Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy]], where there is no question if the image is encyclopedic or not.
Is that a reliable reference for adding Wikipedia's [[Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy]] to the list of [[Islamophobia]] incidences? They don't even write about how many Muslims have been blocked from editing Wikipedia, because they removed the cartoons from [[Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy]].
I wouldn't think so, given that "Islamophobia" is an inherently POV designation, and is Original Research when applied to a situation where the word wasn't actually used directly in the original source.
"He urged officials of Iranian and other Muslim states to restrict their citizens' access to the website and take action against the desecrating, divisive and Islamphobic move."
The link is probably a reliable reference for an assertion that some officials claiming to speak for some Muslims are still critical of Wikipedia for the cartoon controversy issue (in addition to the current flap over Muhammad images), but that's still a long stretch from declaring Wikipedia to be "Islamophobic".
It is a source for an assertion that an Iranian cultural official considers the inclusion of the Muhammad cartoon images a desecrating, divisive and Islamophobic move.
Incidentally, the set of Muslims who are disturbed at Wikipedia including the cartoon images and the set of Muslims disturbed at Wikipedia including the Muhammad images are different sets;
Different sets with a large intersection I assume.