Talk:Islam in Denmark

ii

This part - "In 2009, the U.S. Department of State released a report on religious freedom in Denmark. One finding was that there were a few isolated incidents of discrimination against immigrants, which included desecration of graves" - is of highly questinable use in this context. The referenced report does not specify which religion is targeted the most - newspaper articles from the period report of several Jewish graves being desecrated and Jews leaving areas in Copenhagen, and avoiding using Jewish kippahs. If there are any reports of attacks on Muslims, Muslim graves being desecrated, this must be substantiated by the author - otherwise the reference to this US governement report is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blingladen (talk • contribs) 17:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

After reading this report, I agree that the comment on the desecration of graves is questionable. I did not find any incidences of Muslim grave desecration within the report, nor have I found any other reports that support this claim. I assume whoever edited this section misread the article, assuming that the incidents pertaining to minority graves included Muslim graves. All the source seems to claim is that "Reports continued of incidents of desecration of ethnic and religious minority gravesites.," but it does not elaborate upon which minority groups, so one cannot assume that this applies to Muslims.Kheyde610 (talk) 20:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Kheyde610

No Reliable Source Yet

"The Qur'an, the holy book of Islam, is required reading for upper-secondary students in Denmark."

sounds like quite a claim. Can someone from Denmark independently confirm this? Alex.tan 10:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't confirm it (being from Denmark) and I'm extremely sure a certain party in Denmark would make it big news, if it was so. We do have religion classes and the like, but it's up to the teacher to stuff in what ever the teacher likes. I do however vaguely recall some kind of requirement that the classes should cover major religions. 83.88.250.31 03:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I added the statement. I'm fairly certain that Robert Spencer stated it as a fact. I can confirm within a day or so when I get around to it. Pepsidrinka 04:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Because an anon removed it, I have added the claim back, with a second citation verifying it. I don't know the background of the author of the second author, he may or may not be as anti-Islam as Robert Spencer is. Pepsidrinka 06:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

After reading the entire piece I cited from, it turns out he is another anti-islamic writer as well. Pepsidrinka 06:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I've checked around and found the specific law, and there is absolutely nothing in the law that requires reading of the Qur'an. If you can read danish try http://us.uvm.dk/gymnasie/almen/lov/bilag28.htm?menuid=150555 - so the statement that the Qur'an is required reading is simply false. 83.88.250.31 17:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be much appreciated if you could find me the English version of the law. Or at least the name/number of the law so that I could do some independent research to verify your claim. And it is quite possible that the law you found is not the law that is referred to in the two citations I provided. Pepsidrinka 17:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is another link verifying the claim. The source is the DY Nyheder, what looks to be a newsource in Denmark. Pepsidrinka 17:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well then it is so :), guess I didn't take note of that when it was news. BTW. lthe linked I dumped here earlier today is for 1999, so that explains that.83.88.250.31 23:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link for the regulations of religious studies in Danish education (in english): http://us.uvm.dk/gymnasie/almen/lov/bek/supplement28.html - it does say anywhere that the quran is a required subject. IF one of the two of the religions studied besides christianity is islam, it is mentioned as a primary source of information. Jdonnis 16:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Not quite sure what your trying to say (I think you forgot a few words), but nonetheless, this is dated May 1999 and every source I provided was at the earliest, 2002 or 2003. So chances are this is a compartively new rule/regulation by the Education Department in Denmark. Pepsidrinka 17:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not required to read the Qu'ran. Why? Because the religion class isn't a /required/ class. It's an optional class, therefore it can't be required. However, if you choose the religion class, parts of the Qu'ran is required reading. http://us.uvm.dk/gymnasie/vejl/religion_b_valgfag/2.htm#22 is from april 2005. 83.88.250.66 19:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not provide non-english sources as proof that other claims are not true. If you provide me with a english source, it would be acceptable. Your non-English source will not cut it. Pepsidrinka 20:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

An anon keeps removing that sentence from the article despite the fact that it is backed up by mulitiple sources. Be on the lookout. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Robert Spencer and David Pryce-Jones both coauthored anti-Islamic books together. The third link to supposed claim that Qur'an is required reading in Denmark schools is not working link. The claim doesn't make any sense. There is just one Muslim (at best) in Denmark parliament .. why would the qur'an be required reading in schools? What's the logic behind it? The one sentence (even if true) needs more sources and explanation. 72.129.170.249

Actually there are two, Naser Khader (R) and Kamal Qureshi (SF). Anyway I nicked the sentence since the class isn't required. 83.88.250.66 19:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's a cached version of the link from google [1]. Pepsidrinka 20:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Your link also says this: "But Education Minister Ulla Tørnæs said that it was only natural to make Islam part of the core curriculum as many upper-secondary pupils had friends who were Muslims and as students were required to learn about all world religions. "

That just confirms the point. The students are required to learn about other world religions. If you actually read the law, it outlines this pattern in optional religion class: Christianity + Islam + (Hinduism or Buddhism). Study of Islam and Christianity is required yes, but also either Hinduism or Buddhism. 72.129.170.249 03:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Quran is not required Reading

http://us.uvm.dk/gymnasie/vejl/religion_b_valgfag/2.htm#22

Parts of the Qur'an are required reading (just other religious text) in a RELIGION class. Religion class is optional. The student doesn't have to take the religion class.

That makes far more sense than exaggerated sensational one-liner by anti-Islamic authors "the Qur'an is required reading in Denmark schools" with no context -- and the claim makes absolutely no sense. 72.129.170.249

I will respond in a similar fashion as I did on the above section. You cannot verify something on an English wikipedia with a non-English site. Please provide me with the reference in English. At the very least, at least tell me what this site is. Is it the Danish Constitution. If so, what article and/or amendment. Is it a Danish statute? If so, what statute name and/or number. Providing a site that isn't English doesn't cut it here. Pepsidrinka 20:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me just say, I have no agenda in saying whether the Qur'an is or is not required reading. The only sources I see show that it is. The newspaper article, which seems to be down at the moment (I have provided a cached version on this talk page), and two journals, which so far no one has questioned. The only questionable issues are the authors of the two pieces. Nonetheless, this is not some agenda I want to push. I found it while researching so I added it. Pepsidrinka 20:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You can translate Danish from English using

http://www.tranexp.com:2000/InterTran

It's not good translation but does give some idea about is being said. There is stuff about other religions like Buddhism and Hinduism too

In any case, the claim makes no sense at all. Denmark is a secular country. Muslim population is a tiny minority (3%). Why would the Quran be required reading in schools? Just some critical thinking and the ability to be skeptical is needed to immediately see that the claim by Spencer is completely bogus. Parts of the Quran (and other religious texts) are required reading in a religion class (an optional class). 72.129.170.249 21:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Your link doesn't work. Furthermore, your arugment violates WP:NOR. You can't say that it doesn't make sense or isn't rational. If you can find a verifiable source, than that will suffice. Until then, your argument doesn't hold. Pepsidrinka 22:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The link sure works for me. In any case, we have used a lot of Danish sources in the cartoon article. Want me to start deleting those sources (following your logic?)

Here is part from the site (using web translation -- the link that I gave)

"That that vigorous developmentå from lreplanensæ part 2.2 Kernestof, is there på B- level demands about, that the pupils examinationå kristendommen, islam and either hinduismen or buddhismen"

In other words, (in a religion class) students are required to study Christianity and Islam and (either Hinduism and Buddhism).

Since Islam is required, (unlike Buddhism and Hinduism where you have a choice to choose one) Spencer probably used that to further his phobia thesis in articles.

More from the site on what is required in religious class

• kristendommen noted to globally perspective, notably to its europiskeæ and danish fremtrdenæ; to the employment clamp-downå documents from That Old and That New Testament, documents from kristendommens business and contemporary documents
• islam noted to globally perspective amid suspension from its europiskeæ and danish context; to the employment clamp-downå documents from Koranen and contemporary documents
• buddhisme or hinduisme, below here documents from that parent and from present
• religionernes central processor fnomeneræ and religionsfaglig terminology and method
• religionsvidenskabelig theory
• hovedværkslæsning: a lngereæ document from religionø or religionsfaglig mark

That should be clear enough on what is required reading in the religion class (which is an optional class). It's not just quran .. but also Bible (OT, NT) and either Hinduism and Buddhism. 72.129.170.249 22:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The above paragraph after you said "More from the site..." is so filled with non-English characters that I have no idea what it says. Pepsidrinka 22:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

http://www.tranexp.com:2000/InterTran

kristendommen == Christianity -- hinduisme == Hinduism

The main points are clear enough to me. Christianity, Islam and

Hinduism or Busshism are required in the religion class. parts

of the OT, NT, and the Quran are required reading. It's pretty

clear. 72.129.170.249 22:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected regarding the foreign citations. I guess you can use them to verify claims. I shall defer until I find a more "reputable" source (if one exists) proving the so-called "claim". However, just to comment on your last point, saying its "clear enough to [[you]]> isn't saying much when evidently you could read the original site and so this translation does not do much but to attempt to prove to me, or any other English speaker. Nevertheless, I am not going to start an edit war, or if one has started, I am not going to continue it until more, if any, sources are found. Pepsidrinka 22:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm not trying to sniff out a fight, just that I'm a native dane, and well it's exceedingly clear to me, that's it's not required. But I understand your POV though. This is indeed the english part of Wikipedia, but nevertheless I'm not going to let it through, when I can read the law which tells me otherwise. Hope you understand my POV. Let's just hope one of us finds an english source then :).83.88.250.66 00:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Well ... it wil be a bit difficult finding danish law texts in english. I can assure you that "islam set i globalt perspektiv under inddragelse af dens europæiske og danske kontekst; i arbejdet indgår tekster fra Koranen samt nutidige tekster " does mean "Islam seen in a global perspective with the inclusion of Islams european and danish context. In the process will texts from the Qu'ran as well as texts from today, be used". Texts of the Qu'ran is part of the pensa, and therefore required reading for upper-secondary students of Denmark. And it is required for the C level [2] of religion and for taking the exam at the moment. The rest of the law states that it is important for the pupils to get aqquainted with Islam and it is specified which part of the Qu'ran could be used (Hadith). To be able to "redegøre for væsentlige sider af yderligere to verdensreligioner, hvoraf den ene skal være islam" (explain important parts of two more world religions, in which one of them has to be Islam) is one of the main goals of the education in religion --87.72.52.192 12:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually ... wouldnt it be a bit weird if one could avoid reading part of the qu'ran at any level of education in religion, Islam being one of the three major religions of the western world? 87.72.52.192 13:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

If I may jump in there, I've got a few comments to this discussion. Everything that's been said so far is based on the assumption that an upper-secondary education is one provided by the Danish gymnasium (this education is commonly abbreviated STX). Which is wrong; the cached DR article I saw earlier in this discussion was correctly translated, yet misleading or written with an incomplete knowledge of the Danish educational system. Upper-secondary education is also offered, for instance, as HHX or HTX (same levels but commercially or technically oriented, respectively). Neither of these has religion as a mandatory course. In short, HHX and HTX are upper-secondary educational lines which only provide access to vocationally relevant courses. STX students may or may not be required to read the quran, but this in itself does not mean that all upper-secondary school graduates even heard the word "Quran" whilst in school. For info, have a look at: http://eng.uvm.dk/publications/factsheets/fact4.htm?menuid=1520 Btw Pepsidrinka, I think you asked at some point, the uvm.dk addresses belong to the Danish ministry of education and are, as such, current and undisputed fact. Unfortunatly, not all of the information on the website is available in an English translation. TerminusEst 13:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed said statement from the article. TerminusEst 11:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

92 per cent are Christian?

I'd be willing to bet that it is nothing like 92 per cent, because there would be a considerable percentage of people who are atheists, agnostics, undecided what they believe, etc. The 92 per cent figure must surely be a figure of people who are in some sense nominal Christians, or deemed to be Christians. Is there a way to find and source a more accurate figure? Metamagician3000 11:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

2005: 83,5 % of the danish population was members of "Folkekirken" the christian church. [3]. In 1990 the percentage was 89,3 [4] EyesAllMine 23:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. So we have a current figure of 83.5 per cent ... and even that seems like a nominal figure based on membership in the church, rather than a figure based on a census or poll of actual beliefs. The article should reflect that fact in some way. Metamagician3000 00:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It is rather ordinary for people to be members of "Folkekirken" without being particulary religious, since "membership fee" will be drawn automatically over the tax if you don't actively reject your membership. For instance, I am a member of the Folkekirken myself, and I am a convinced atheist.

From a poll done by Kristeligt Dagblad (a Danish newspaper) the 15th of June 2000, people were asked the question "Do you consider yourself religious or religiously seeking?", and 43% answered yes, 53% answered no. So, all self-acclaimed religious people are less than half of the people in the country.

From the Gallup millenium poll in 1999, you get that only 10% of the Danish population goes to church every month. I'll translate a few passages from that poll ([5]): 16% believe in a personal God, while 51% believe in some sort of higher entity (like a soul or a life power). 15% can be called specifically atheist, while 16% can be called agnosticist. 49% pray, meditate or something similar from time to time. 10% believe that there is one, and only one, true religion, while 67% believe that there are truths in more than one religion. Furthermore, Danes are generally in the low end of the world when it comes to the importance of religion. The graphs from that examination can be seen here: [6]. --Jakob mark 01:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The 92% needs to be sourced, and that sentence needs to reflect that they are not actively Christian, but merely members of a church. I would be in favor of moving that sentence altogether, since it misreflects the religious beliefs of Danes. (The polls generally place Denmark as a low scorer on general belief).--Jakob mark 02:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. I have just changed the info in the article, based on a Eurobarometer servey. Alfons Åberg 13:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Since this information was included in the article over a decade ago, I am unsure if this statistic is still an accurate reflection of the religous demographics of Denmark. I would try and update these figures with survey results from recent years because just as Islam has grown in Denmark, the percent of Christians is likely to have changed as well. For example, this 2015 Gallup survey states that around 50% of the Danish population identify as atheist, which leads me to question the current validity of this claim Kheyde610 (talk) 03:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)Kheyde610

Keep the old numbers in the article and give a year for them, then add new figures also with year. Historical data becomes part of the changes over time in the article. A Thousand Words (talk) 07:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Conflict

The Danish Queens' statement about that "We have to show our opposition to Islam" is not right. Several Danish newpapers have informed that it was the British newspaper,The Daily Telegraph, who had translated the word "opposition" wrong. The right word in the Queens book was the Danish word "modspil" which mean counter-balance. Kasper Holl 15:22, 5 March 2006 (CEST)

• A danish article about the misunderstanding.
• We need a counter-balance to Islam, says Danish queen
• The Daily Telegraph statement about the misunderstanding

Changed anti-muslim to anti-immigration in the description of the policy of the ruling coalition. Even though the laws have been criticized as being anti-muslim, members of the ruling coalition have denied this, and no Danish law would be allowed to specifically target out muslims. So, not NPOV. It could be argued that the entire section on immigration policies should be moved. Also changed the sentence "Violent protest caused by..." to something closer to the original intention. The word "by" had been inserted later, to make an entirely different, and incorrect, meaning. --Ntwo 20:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Denmarks good history with religious minorities

The article should mention that Denmark was the only European nation to save the vast majority of its Jewish population during WWII, as virtually the entire population collaborated to smuggle them out of the country in an extremely short period of time. This is perhaps the single greatest altruistic act of one population towards another in the history of the world, and it speaks volumes for the Danish culture. JeffBurdges 20:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

See Rescue of the Danish Jews

I have to disagree with you here. There is a great deal of Danish national mythology involved in the remembrance of the rescue of the Jews. Note the following excerpt from the article you linked to:

"On 28 September 1943, Georg Ferdinand Duckwitz, a German diplomat, after secretly making sure Sweden would receive Jewish refugees, leaked word of the plans for the operation against Denmark's Jews to Hans Hedtoft, chairman of the Danish Social Democratic Party. Hedtoft, in turn contacted the Danish Resistance Movement and the Jewish community, whose head was C.B. Henriques and whose acting chief rabbi was Dr. Marcus Melchior. At the Rosh Hashanah services on 29 September, Danish Jews were warned of the German action and advised to go into hiding. [...] Some of the fishermen assisting in the rescue charged money to transport Jews to Sweden, while others took payments only from those who could afford passage. Some profiteers took advantage of the confusion and fear during the early days of the escape, but as time passed, the Danish underground movement ousted them and took an active role in organizing the rescue and providing financing, mostly from wealthy Danes who donated large sums of money for the rescue.".

Danish does not equate hero, and German does not equate murderer. Indeed, in some instances the roles were switched. So let's stay away from promoting post 1945 selective remembrance. Alfons Åberg 12:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"Islamophobia"

The articles claim that there is rising "islamophobia" in Denmark is not neutral and it isn't even supported by a single referenced that we can attribute the claim to. Until a source is provided I belive the claim should be removed. Another thing is that for the recond, I am the anonymous user that reverted Irishpunktoms revert. It happend because didn't notice that I wasn't logged in. -- Karl Meier 18:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It claims folks believe there is a rise, its about opinions and perspectives. --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Again. Do you have a source that make that claim? -- Karl Meier 16:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a source that claims after your nationalist movement flops and you are detested by the world, you will be able to repatriate to Argentina ;-) I think I read it in scholarly work by Daniel Pipes or Rush Limbaugh. Seriously -- where are your sources about unemployment? Don't worry -- I hear Argentina is quite nice and the wine is just fabulous... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.204.114 (talk) 05:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why the burden of proof is only required for claims that make Danes look intolerant. The lack of citations for allegations of unemployment, prison population, etc. are OK? I notice that the right-wing nationalist movement in Denmark, as well as discredited "adacemics" like Daniel Pipes don't seem to know what a citation is.

I am remaining anonymous due to the fact that right-wing nationalists have become militant and are threatening people. I am not a Muslim. I do not live in Denmark. I have been to Denmark many times and as the years go by, people warn me that I may be harmed by nationalists who hate anyone who is not an ethnic Dane. It seems like you haven't learned much from the 1930s-40s, Bosnia, or any sort of tolerance for multi-culturalism. My point is -- my anonymity is out of fear of physical retaliation from nationalists, and (obviously) not out of academic dishonesty. Check my citations.

I think the facts need to be discussed. Nationalists -- please try to find some citations for your quotes on unemployment, or I will replace them with citations from your own PMs who claim that these were fabricated, and no one really knows the exact numbers, because statistics in Denmark do not record religion. I guess that was back in the more tolerant days.

I will be adding a political analysis section (comparative politics) detailing the volatility of proportional representation (PR) democratic systems compared to Single Member Simple Plurality (SMSP) systems. SMSP systems tend to not oscillate between liberal welfare states and nationalist movements.

I would like to advise any potential propagandists that I save archives of each of my posts, and if you delete my contentions and replace them with your unfounded beliefs (where are YOUR citations? Where's the beef?) I will just repost my scholarly endeavors. I don't know what is more dissapointing about the Danish nationalist movement -- the hatred or the lack of academic discipline.

I see a lot of run-on sentences. I imagine that a fair amount of the content has been generated by non-native English speakers (that includes the ethnic Danes). I would advise taking a course in the paramedic method of writing. The bureaucratic style of writing is obsolete, bloated, and indirect. It is very difficult to edit this piece with 1930s-era writing conventions. Heuristically, any sentence that is 100 words is probably a run on sentence. Can we please make an attempt to communicate efficiently?

It seems that "Islamophobia" is proven when you say that Danes have passed anti-immigration policies due to Muslim immigrants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.204.114 (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

2 - 5 per cent are Muslims?

I am not saying that this claim (2 - 5 per cent are Muslims) is wrong. It just (de facto) isn't sourced, so i tagged it "citation needed". There were two sources until I removed them - the CIA World Factbook and the United States State Department. However, the CIA World Factbook is in itself unsourced, and it also claims that 98 per cent of the population are Christians, which is most definitely wrong (According to a Eurobarometer survey only 31% of the population reply in the affirmative when asked whether they believe in God). The other source is just a mirror of the initial source (one piece of info does not become more reliable just by duplicating it). Alfons Åberg 14:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"2-5" per cent is a wide range. Isn't there a more precise statistic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.243.15 (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No, that's the problem. Denmark doesn't have official statistics on this sort of stuff, at least not to my knowledge. ko268 March 25, 2008, 1:27 —Preceding comment was added at 05:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The correct percentage of Muslims in DK, according to the State Department's most recent information, is 3.7%. However there is a tendency amongst Danish right-wingers to say they are 5%. There is a lot of evidence that Danes consider anyone who is non-white to be a Muslim, regardless of religion. It's intellectual dishonesty that goes beyond the bigotry of pre 1960s U.S. culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.204.114 (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Islamic party wants to take over Denmark

Click here: http://damp.mono.net/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.243.15 (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Extremely poor quality, biased article

This is one of the most biased wikipedia articles I have ever seen. A political party is referred to as a "hate group", cartoons are denigrated for their supposed lack of artistic merit, sources link to random blogs by unknown individuals, and the whole thing (particularly the abysmal conflict section) reads from a shamelessly biased perspective. It is clearly designed to denigrate those who have raised objections to the presence of Islam in Danish society. Wikipedia isn't a free internet hosting service for you to upload your personal political views. This is supposed to be an impartial website, where information is presented from a neutral perspective. That means it shouldn't read as an argumentative essay. 220.253.113.144 (talk) 07:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed this article and removed lots of text that was either blatantly irrelevant to Islam in Denmark, violating WP:POV or violating WP:OR. Should the text be inserted again just delete it again. -TheG (talk) 05:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"It is clearly designed to denigrate those who have raised objections to the presence of Islam in Danish society."

You should, perhaps, check out the articles from the U.S. Dept of State. There is one on human rights in DK and one on religious freedom. This is factual, academic work, and it is far more damning than anything I have written (yet). I will soon be incorporating some of these new findings provided by the U.S. Dept of State and the U.S. Ambassador to DK into this Wikipedia article.

If DK has a policy of religious freedom, yet officially have a program of harassing immigrants, that will not gain any favor in terms of international relations. It is virtually impossible to have an article that is factual and also presents a view that the Danes are victims of Muslim invaders, because the facts do not support this. You have a bias towards a sanitized version where the DPP is just a conservative party, and then you and your co-horts choose to delete their racist statements made in Parliament and just about every fact that makes Denmark look bad. It's unfortunate that the truth and facts make DK look bad, but it is what it is... The U.S. Dept of State reports are far more damning, and if you think that is biased, it is in fact you who are biased. Please keep your opinions between your underground "conservative" groups. We want facts and citations here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UCLAcdemic (talk • contribs) 21:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for giving me your IP address. I have run a whois query and forwarded who "you is" to the Southern Poverty Law Center, a U.S. organization that investigates hate groups worldwide. BTW, they sued the "imperial wizard" of the IKA and have virtually bankrupted them... Good luck! I hope you look good dressed in a barrel and suspenders... [7]

You can be the first barrel wizard, after Morris Dees gets through with you... —Preceding unsigned comment added by UCLAcdemic (talk • contribs) 21:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The political party was referred to as a hate group based on their language in Danish Parliament. This has been noted and backed up by citations, which seem to disappear because some right-winger keeps on deleting it. The Souther Poverty Law Center, a U.S. based organization that targets hate groups, has noted that Black Metal groups in Scandinavia are associated with some of the same groups that the DPP has allowed into their fold. There is ample evidence and citations that show the DPP are a hate group, including statements by their own members in official dialogue.

The cartoons are not criticized for a lack of artistic merit. Leaders around the world, including G.W. Bush and both U.S. Ambassadors to DK (under Bush and Obama) have condemned the cartoons as offensive. It is clear that you are inventing false criticisms of my work. I never wrote that they lacked artistic merit. They are in poor taste and are offensive.

Of course, as right-wingers, you chose to replace my facts with a section that does not have one single citation. You are crude, uneducated, racist rednecks and you don't belong on Wikipedia. You delete any facts that prove that Muslims are working hard to fit in, hold on to jobs better than Danes, and that the rest of the world (please visit the U.S. Ambassador to DK's web site, and read the two reports on religious freedom and human rights in DK -- they are FAR more damning of DK's intolerance than what I am writing, and I will include some of their facts in this article). The fact is, beyond the Wikipedia world, the rest of the world, including the U.S. State Department is well aware of who the DPP really are and what they are up to. The facts are on my side. The largest and most powerful nation in the world is on my side. You are just a bunch of homogeneous kooks that can't tolerate anyone who doesn't do things the "Danish way". This is why Danes couldn't assimilate into the U.S. in the late 1800s. Everything had to be done the Danish way, but they didn't mind making a living on rich American soil. They only wanted to marry Danish women, and this is a proven fact by the University of Chicago. Have you even been to college? Have you ever written an academic paper? I don't think so.

You delete the facts -- statements in Parliament by the DPP members themselves, that show they are intolerant of anyone who is not white. You delete the facts that the notion of a "Muslim rape epidemic" was invented by a fraudulent academic who has been admonished by the U.S. government and academics around the world. Daniel Pipes is a well known liar. You delete the facts that the DPP digitally alters photographs of mosques to make them seem militant -- they photoshop crossed swords on top of the mosque (it's a really bad photoshop job too -- totally hacky. They're really bad at it!).

I see you are replacing facts with your conjecture. I will continue to replace what you write with facts. Note that this section is about conflict, and conflicts involve both sides. If we are to discuss conflicts between Danes and Muslims and claim that Muslims have a hard time assimilating, it must be mentioned that Danes have also not assimilated in the U.S. They have not assimilated in Patagonia, but this is not well documented, so I do not post this in the article. Most ethnic groups have problems assimilating, however, well documented Danish intolerance makes it virtually impossible. If we are to document these issues in detail, the facts must be known.

Please allow for a complex discussion of all areas of immigration, including some that may make Danes look intolerant. What you continue to post is biased towards the notion that Muslims are particularly problematic when integrating into society. What I am presenting, with citations from Harvard and the University of Chicago, demonstrated that Danes and other Scandinavians did not integrate into American society.

I am really getting annoyed to see my facts replaced with some third-grade "book report" level of academic work. You should probably post your opinions on a blog or Conservapedia. Wikipedia is for scholarly work, which isn't biased towards the left, right, Muslims, or Christians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UCLAcdemic (talk • contribs) 21:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

So summing up you want to show to everyone how terrible and bad Danish people are on an article about Islam in Denmark? It is utterly irrelevant. If you want to post WP:POV you should rather create a blog, not edit an encyclopedia. -TheG (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You deleted facts that were backed up by citations and evidence and replaced them with conjecture. I am going to report this to the Wikipedia staff. Many things -- such as the problems Scandinavians have had immigrating to the U.S., were backed by solid citations from academic work by Harvard and the University of Chicago. It is not irrelevant to point out that Danes and Scandinavians in general had many problems assimilating in the U.S. and Danes and Scandinavians themselves had an intermarriage rate of almost 70%.

I have a complete backup of everything I posted, and I will keep on reposting it every time you delete it. You are not scholars and most of what you post has a lack of citations. It makes me wonder if you even wrote a research paper in high school.

I suspect this is more work from under-educated right wingers who will delete anything that makes Danes seem intolerant.

You cannot delete things that are backed up by scholarly work, simply because they do not back up your point of view. If you wish to do this, please focus your efforts on Conservapedia, which seems like a more appropriate venue for right wing lies and censorship of the truth.

It is your narrow interpretation that these violate Wikipedia policies. Your narrow minded views are very obvious, but you will not stop me from posting facts backed up with data, even if it makes your culture look intolerant or bad -- or say, tolerant of drug abuse, but intolerant of religion. These are very salient to the discussion of Islam in DK. DK tolerates drug abuse, but not religious freedom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.204.114 (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The worst thing is that you deleted 70% of a section that had citations and evidence, and replaced it with your opinions and conjecture. Wikipedia is about facts and backing up points with evidence. The truth may not coincide with your right-wing nationalist agenda, but it will be posted here. If you delete it again, I will repost it.

I am also in the process of reporting you to Wikipedia. You are not an academic and have no business writing entries in an online encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.204.114 (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Why do you keep deleting facts!

This is a fact, backed by evidence. This is data from the Danish government that shows that immigrants, most of them Muslims, actually hold on to jobs better than Danes, and you continue to delete it. You say this is poor quality and biased? It's facts! You can't handle the truth. You are just another Fox news distortionist.

"Integration consultant Hans Lassen told public broadcaster DR that immigrant workers were ‘highly motivated’ to enter the labour market and hang on to their jobs, and it was something other Danish workers could learn from. ‘Here we have some people [non-ethnic Danes] who want it and want to hang on to it. There’s no doubt that it could maybe inspire some ethnic Danes,’ he said."

THIS IS A FACT! THIS IS DATA FROM THE DANISH GOVERNMENT. I WILL KEEP REPOSTING THIS AND I AM REPORTING YOU FOR ABUSE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.204.114 (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

These comments are so clear abuses of WP:POV and complete irrelevant for an article about Islam in Denmark. You fail to understand that this is an encyclopedia, not a blog to present "bad" or "good" things. -TheG (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It is completely relevant to discuss these issues in a section about conflict between Danes and Muslims. You and some community college guy (Cadamon) repeatedly replace facts and evidence (that may make some extreme right-wing Danes look bad) with a section that does not attempt to discuss the conflict at all and has very few citations. If we are to discuss the conflict, we must look at historical evidence (Scandinavian immigration to the U.S.) as well as the DPP -- what they say, prima facia, unaltered, and direct from their mouths. Sorry if it makes them look bad. I do not say it is bad or good to be an extreme right-winger. It is, however, quite true that the DPP is an extreme right wing party that is against immigration and immigrants, and this deserves some evidence and discussion, so we have some details. I think quotes from members of the DPP are fitting, and if you can find one where they say "we really love immigrants" or something that makes them look less extreme right-wing (not "good" or "bad" -- Gabagool, you are the ONLY ONE using these terms!), you are free to add these. I will not delete them. If the DPP are really "good", I'd love to hear some of the "good" things they say and do, backed by evidence. I don't opine on their values at all. I am simply stating the facts. Some people may actually think their views on minorities are "good". I never say they are "bad". You assume my political ideology based on this evidence, which you consider "damning". I should tell you, the U.S. Dept of State is far more critical. It's never a simple "good" vs. "bad". However, a discussion of policy and statements in the media is warranted, and if you think the facts make Danes look bad, you are editorializing this piece by sanitizing the facts -- these are many of the same facts that the U.S. Dept of State has brought up -- the extreme right-wing nature of the DPP, crimes against immigrants, denial of opportunities to immigrants, DK not enforcing laws on hate speech when it comes to Muslims, etc. This is what the (as you would say) "biased" U.S. Dept of State has concluded. And we are to assume that you are fair and balanced, with your Fox-news like diatribe?

The following need to be discussed to understand the conflict between Danes and Muslims. This is not a book report or a third grade "show and tell" assignment -- we need to go into history and present day facts to understand why Muslims are having problems in DK (uh, the "conflict" part of a section about, uh, conflict). There are 8 million Muslims in the U.S., and we don't have these problems. I am wondering -- what is it about Danish society that is unwelcoming to immigrants. I researched this thoroughly and provide scholarly evidence from Harvard, the University of Chicago, SPLC, and the U.S. Dept. of State. Looking at their own immigration problems in the U.S. in the 1800s, their culture can be considered "homogeneous". That is, they do not want or welcome a multicultural world. There is some blogosphere evidence that Danes, amongst other groups, are doing the same thing in the Patagonia region of Argentina. It is now 95% white and they have a similar right-wing movement to displace non-white people. There are 100,000 Danes in Patagonia. So you see, there is strong evidence that Danes have a culture of resisting assimilation and multiculturalism. This is neither good nor bad. It simply is. Because this is only blogosphere talk, and I couldn't find any decent evidence of this, I did not publish this in the article.

If I were to editorialize this or make it biased, I would say it is bad that they do not want a multicultural world. I never say it is good or bad. Good or bad, globalization is going to create a multicultural world. This need not even be stated. It's the obvious future of the world.

1. Danes having problems integrating into late 1800s U.S. society. This shows that Danes are not accepting of other cultures. The fact that a political party with elected officials say intolerant things and try to pass intolerant policy may have it's roots in Danish nationalistic tendencies.

2. Muslims and immigrants are hard working and keep their jobs better than Danes. This is data from the Danish government. You seem to have a problem with any facts that may make immigrants look "good" (I favor the term "productive"). Sorry, but that's a fact, and one that pertains to Islam in Denmark, yet you continue to delete it (claiming it is not salient or biased -- really? Govt stats on unemployment are biased and what you say is fair and balanced? Conservapedia is probably a better venue for your conservative view point.). I have seen your profile, and you are a "common sense" right winger, akin to Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh. I see that you resort to the same tactics -- wipe out the truth and white-wash it with a sanitized version. After all, we don't want to make an extreme right-wing party that openly states their dislike of Muslims, Jews, Sri Lankans, and Asians to, uh, look "bad". I don't think facilitating the sanitization of extreme right-wing rhetoric, which is the crux of this discussion, belongs in an encyclopedia. You are implicitly serving your political agenda when you sterilize the facts and replace facts with a façade.

3. Daniel Pipes should be noted as a discredited academic, as his falsifications have been used as evidence by the DPP and other right-wing groups. The whole reason I got into this is because I was forwarded an email from a Danish group in America, who wanted to warn me about the growing Muslim problem (so we don't make the same mistake here -- uh, that genie is out of the bottle, we have 8 million Muslims, acc'd to Obama). I was sent a repackaged Daniel Pipes article, and on first glance, the statistics he cites are contradictory (in one paragraph, he states Muslims are 5% of the population, in another 4%... The truth is 3.7%, if we are to believe the State Dept. data from Oct 2009) Since Pipes' Harvard degree and affiliation with Stanford's Hoover Institution have given him some clout, it is important to realize that he is considered a fraud by most academics and the U.S. Dept of State has distanced themselves from Pipes. Gabagool -- this is your opportunity to provide us with all of the crimes and terror that the Muslims have caused -- all of the rape, etc. You can mention the 2 Muslims that tried to kill Kurt Westegaard. The thing is -- 2 people is not representative of 1.2B, and the tactic of Pipes and the DPP is to make it seem that Muslim extremism is the norm, which is a paradox in and of itself! They DPP (backed by Pipes' "evidence") suggest that Muslims are rapists. I have yet to find evidence of this, and I would appreciate it if you could find this. All of the data I see (which I will post) from Interpol shows crime decreasing in DK. We have a similar problem in the U.S. -- as crime rates decrease, people's fear of crime increases. It's due to media distortions. Sociology of crime, taught from an "appreciative" or "ethnographic" perspective has produced volumes on this subject.

4. The DPP have made statements in Parliament and in the news media. If this "looks bad" for Danes, I should remind you that these are their own words as said in Parliament and the media. I don't think it's either bad or good, but it is indicative of right-wing extremism. Many people (perhaps even Gabagool?) seem to like and defend right-wing extremism, so it can't be universally "bad". To that extent, I never say it is bad. I say that they seem to be against *any* immigrants, and what they say in Parliament and the media support this.

5. The DPP have used propaganda to sway Danes (who I personally know most are "good" people) into believing Muslims are militant and bent on conquering the world. They digitally altered photos of mosques to put crossed swords on top. This is evidence of an extreme right-wing Danish political party, doing what you claim to dislike -- making [fill in the blank group] look "bad". It is, however, a fact that they resort to propaganda in order to create conflict and to serve their right wing agenda. Furthermore, they use the work of a discredited and fraudulent academic to create the myth that Muslims are criminals bent on taking over the world. Other Danes produced the work where they compared DPP statements in govt. and media to 1930s anti-semetic rhetoric. These statements are true and fact, yet you choose to sterilize them, on the false pretense that it is "biased". Facts cannot be biased. What you seem to object to is that the facts and truth make these extreme right-wingers look bad. I find that it's quite common that right-wingers look bad, much like the tea party people who call African American congress members "niggers". They really do say these things, and it is in the media. They are part of the tea party movement. I don't need to try to make right-wingers look bad. Merely presenting their statements, without any judgement, will have the affect of appauling most people, and charming a few people. Some people actually like the fact that the DPP are bent on framing immigrants. Some people like the fact that a segment of the tea party movement doesn't like African Americans and wish we were back in the first half of the 1800s. I simply state the facts.

6. The "cartoon incident" is also sanitized by you. You mention that the Muslim world was so upset and burning down embassies, but you continually delete the admonishment from the U.S. government, calling the cartoons offensive. This, again, is the crux of the conflict, yet you choose to sterilize it to portray a negative image of Muslims and their intolerance. There is actually a law in DK limiting the freedom of speech if it offends religious groups and minorities, but the DK govt. chose not to enforce it in 2005 and again in 2008. The paper on human rights in DK from the State Dept. covers this and points out this contradiction in Danish policy. I will be adding some more to the conflict section, leaning heavily on the papers from the U.S. Dept. of State. The problems with right-wing extremism in Denmark have put them under surveillance of the State Dept. Sorry if it makes them look bad, but the facts don't support your notion of what the DPP is, which I would love to see -- if you have any evidence. Let's see all the quotes where they love Jews, Sri Lankans, Muslims, Asians... Whether they love immigrants or hate them isn't the point. The point is -- this is what they say in parliament and in the media. These are their positions. Their political positions and policy advocacy are very much about white supremacy, and they openly admit it. I don't think the facts make them look "bad" per se. There is no "good" or "bad". If the majority of Danes pass policy that is anti-immigrant in nature, it just is what it is. If the U.S. govt. comdemns some of this action, then they are the biased ones, and I am just reporting their view. I never said the Danes are good or bad, or that homogeneity and anti-mutliculturalism are bad. What I am doing is explaining why the Danes are having a hard time accepting immigrants -- they themselves had a hard time assimilating in the U.S. Their culture is very much one of pride and nationalism, which aren't good or bad. It just is what it is...

Gabagool, I don't know your level of education, and this is not an ad-hominem attack, but based on your editing and writing, I would assume you are not very educated. This seem to be the common ground that "common sense" conservatives share -- a lack of education in social science. For all I know, you're an awesome coder or engineer or accountant. But you are not familiar with social science and academic discource. Cardomon seems to be some community college graduate, so his education is slightly above average. You should perhaps read some more academic material before you condemn what I write as "biased" and then replace it with a sterilized puff piece bent on sanitizing the statements that the DPP have made themselves.

I apologize for being unprofessional and resorting to some ad hominem attacks, however I continually see facts and evidence replaced by a sterilized and sanitized cover-up of the truth. "Good" or "bad", the DPP are clearly anti-immigrant and the extent to which they are is well documented and deserves a place here.

This is not a threat, but if this continues, I will have to bring CAIR into this discussion, because there is a clear bias amongst a few under-educated individuals and "rocket scientist" administrators with conservative leanings to sanitize the truth about a nationalist movement and just how extreme their nationalism is. If it makes them "look bad", that's not really what I tend to discuss. You seem bent on covering up facts on unemployment, Danish immigration to the U.S., verified use of propaganda, and the admonishment of the Danish govenment over the infamous "cartoon" incident (they do, after all, not have free speech in DK, and it is illegal to print anything that religious groups find offensive, yet they chose to ignore their own laws twice.) These are facts, and if you delete them, I will replace them.

What I find unfortunate is that you make no attempt to incorporate anything I and others have written. This is beyond me -- others are expanding on this and providing me new and solid information. Others are volunteering to keep the facts posted. If you read the "conflict" section, you will see that the content others have written is completely incorporated. I am simply expanding on the content and providing quotes, citation, and evidence. You seem to want to keep this as a little 3rd grade report without a citation or quote. You are academically dishonest when you refuse to edit what I and others have written, and steamroller it. I have not done this -- the content you keep posting (by undoing) is already incorporated in what I and others have written. If you have a problem with some parts, you are free to edit them. But when you delete it all, especially some very salient facts and data relating to Islam in Denmark and their conflict, you follow in the footsteps of Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly -- keep it simple, stupid, and misleading... That, my friend, is bias. Facts are not biased.

It is not appropriate to turn this article into some kind of coatrack for attacks on Scandinavians. It is not appropriate to jump to probably false conclusions about contributors to Wikipedia, and then make personal attacks on them based on the conclusions jumped to. And, it is not appropriate to use IP sockpuppets to evade a block. Cardamon (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Ive cut down some of the statements that I felt were irrelevant to the article and/or supported with unreliable references. Im open to discussing any of the edits Ive made. Please understand however that even if something is true, that doesn't mean it's relevant to the article. —Soap— 23:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Gabagool and Cardamon should be banned from Wikipedia. They keep on steamrollering this Reader's Digest cum Rush Limbaugh version of the conflict, which has 2 citations for the whole section. Only 1 of 3 paragraphs has any sort of evidence, and the citations are from right-wing publications. If one reads this, it seems that the Muslims aren't successful and just got so upset about some cartoons. It is important to give some background as to the dialogue and actions of the DPP. This, combined with some offensive racist caricatures (which the U.S. ambassadors have called offensive, along with other Western world leaders), would explain why a small percentage of radicals resorted to violence. The way you present it, by covering up the rhetoric of the DPP -- their own words, because you find it makes them look "bad", is propaganda. The few references are from a right wing online newspaper in England (today they had an article about Obama snubbing Netanyehu, without mentioning Israeli's recent move -- it's another Fox News/Rush Limbaugh "common sense" thing, where they hide 70% of the facts that make them "look bad"). You basically need to delete 70% of the facts, so that Danes, who are oppressing a minority population, don't "look bad". Why is that? You're Norwegian or of Scandinavian decent? So does that make you an authority on Islam in Denmark? Or is that your high school + trade school education at work? I am also of Scandinavian decent. I have been to Denmark several times. I also live and work in the U.S, and have worked for Muslim managers, who are far more fair than many other people I have worked for. Covering up this sleazy smear campaign against people who have a lot of integrity and a few bad apples, is just acting out of fear -- "they will take all the welfare money" "they will rape our grandchildren". None of this is true. However, you delete any evidence that would counter this notion. Let's put it all on the table here -- the conflict is that the DPP are saying Muslims are a drain on society and criminals. The facts simply do not support this, and one someone tries to present the facts, they get steamrolled...

It's gotten to the point that I have contacted CAIR and will be contacting other Muslim groups. I am not a Muslim, but I don't want to see any group slammed and persecuted because really old people are worried about their pensions and read biased newspapers. The DPP truly cater to geriatric Danes who are worried that Muslims will bankrupt their pensions (read the Wiki on Pia Kjærsgaard -- she also just has a high school + trade school education). The tactics of bringing up the mythical "Muslim rape epidemic" are very much the same tactics that were used against African Americans in the Re-constructionist South. This is why Daniel Pipes should be included -- the DPP use him as an authoritative source that Muslims are rapists. Believe me, the quotes I include from the DPP members are the tip of the iceberg. What they say in Parliament sounds more like a Klan meeting. It's disgusting and the world needs to see it. The fact that you need to cover this up just shows that, at best, you are enabling white supremacists. At worst, you are one yourself (I suspect this to be the case, give your vehemence).

I have recommended that they (CAIR and other Muslim groups) watch this page and undo the changes (or really, redo them). Gabagool: you are ignorant and immature. In this case, it is necessary to admonish him for this behavior, because the administrators at Wikipedia are allowing vandalism, so long as it agrees with their own political views. Let's face it, George William Herbert is some military nut with right-wing leanings. That's why he doesn't delete Gabagool or Cardamon's accounts and lets their Glen Beck "common sense" and sanitized version of the truth persist. I am recommending that outside groups monitor this page and also put pressure on Wikipedia to ban Gabagool and remove administrator privileges for George William Herbert. He has a clear conservative bias and allows Gabagool and Cardamon to steamroller facts and replace them with farce. I don't mind Soap's edits to this page. SineBot also restored the version with facts, quotes and citations.

I still think that one must mention Danish immigration to the U.S. It is fundamental evidence of their unwillingness to accept other cultures, which is why immigrants have such a hard time. I also think Daniel Pipes should be included. That said, any facts are better than the Rush Limbaugh distortions done by under-educated people with high school + trade school education. I think it's appalling that they have such uneducated people in their government. I can't do anything about it, but I can do something about the representation of immigrants on Wikipedia. This is not over... Unfortunately, this will have to go outside of Wikipedia for a final resolution. The conservatives are too stubborn and crying wolf (this is biased! No, it must say Muslims freak out over a cartoon) and you have some dungeons and dragons playing military conservative freak n' geek admin who supports you. That will end.

The thing that makes it obvious that you have a right-wing bias, is that you continue to delete information that immigrants, the majority of whom are Muslims, hold on to jobs better than Danes. This data, from the Danish government, contradicts your unsubstantiated point that they "have failed to achieve the economic and political power proportional to their population." You don't let anyone explain why this is. According to the U.S. State Dept and members of the Danish government, this is due to discrimination. But you deleted those facts. You need to sweep the truth under the rug to make your fellow brownshirts look like white shirts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.204.114 (talk) 05:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"Ahmadi cult"

I noticed that the Ahmadi are mentioned as a cult in the Religious issues section, and that their link lead to the "Qadiani" article, which claims that this is a pejorative term. I don't know anything about the Ahmadi, but unless more knowledgeable people objects, I will change this to "Ahmadi faith" and the link to the "Ahmadiyya Muslim Community". --Martcx (talk) 10:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Seperate article for Ahmadiyya

There should be a separate article called Ahmadiyya in Denmark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.86.101 (talk) 12:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Islam in Denmark. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060208030036/http://www.um.dk/Publikationer/UM/English/Denmark/kap1/1-14.asp to http://www.um.dk/Publikationer/UM/English/Denmark/kap1/1-14.asp

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) 08:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Islam in Denmark. 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://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,USDOS,,DNK,,4cf2d0a2c,0.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010701053158/http://www.islam.dk/content.asp?art_id=28 to http://www.islam.dk/content.asp?art_id=28
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,USDOS,,DNK,,4cf2d0a2c,0.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090306123413/http://www.humanityinaction.org/docs/Goldberg__Krasner,_2001.pdf to http://www.humanityinaction.org/docs/Goldberg__Krasner,_2001.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516235043/http://www.ungemuslimer.dk/ to http://www.ungemuslimer.dk/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110124063239/http://www.sappho.dk/de-demokratiske-muslimer-hvor-blev-de-af.htm to http://www.sappho.dk/de-demokratiske-muslimer-hvor-blev-de-af.htm

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) 07:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)