Daniel R. Tobias schrieb:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:42:34 +0100,
Eugene van der Pijll schrieb:
Daniel R. Tobias schreef:
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
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.