Talk:Nørrebro

Immigrants in Nørrebro

I have removed the sentence fragment "with many immigrants living there." First and foremost, its a very relative statement not befitting an encyclopedia. Many compared to where? London? New York? Randers? Hedehusene? Tripoli? Cairo? It says nothing as a statement. If the information is worth anything, perhaps it can be stated in the form of a percentage of population in the area, with a good qualification as to what "immigrant" means (and of course, a citation as to where you get your information from). Perhaps it can even be compared to other areas to show why it is so relevant to make note of it here in this article. --SFDan 13:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added figures. In general believe that the picture that is commonly drawn about Nørrebro as "Nørrebronx" with a predominantly Muslim and non-white migration is just a myth. Fact is that only on sixth of the population has a non-Danish passport (this is very low compared to "migrant boroughs in London or New York), and most of them are EU citizens, mainly from the three neighbor countries: Sweden, Norway and Germany and NOT from Somalia as is often written in newspapers and was even written in this article before. There might be some streets where certain other groups prevail though. 62.44.134.193 (talk) 06:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed most of the section on the March 2007 riots

Because there's already a wikipedia article that deals with the subject March_2007_Denmark_Riots. --Dcfleck 13:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

The picture is correct - in that it shows a view of Nørrebro from across the lakes - but it is not, on its own, at all representative of Nørrebro as a whole. Does anyone have more images?Gordoncph (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reliable source available

I am not arguing for the inclusion of this particular piece of text per se, however I would like to point out that the Gatestone Institute article here - that was written by Soeren Kern, a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute, who is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos (Strategic Studies Group) - was also published in The Jewish Press newspaper here --IIIraute (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources that seem to share the same viewpoint. Both have an axe to grind and it's the same article, so not a 2nd source making this claim. Dougweller (talk) 06:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, the article was published by a reliable secondary source; see WP:RS. --IIIraute (talk) 06:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant, it's the same article. It's not two sources, it's one published in two different places. Dougweller (talk) 09:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, as IIIRaute, a third party, has pointed out, the source is reliable. The information is neutrally worded. What other problem apart from WP:IDONTLIKEIT do we have? Typical Dougweller. Sources can be as good as one gets, in case they dare criticize holy cows such as far-left and Muslim immigration, these have to go [1]. And a user like that is a sysop! Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 10:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Putting in another way, 3 editors have reverted you. No one has actually said that the text should be reinserted. What makes Soeren Kern a reliable source for stating that "Nørrebro is also known for Muslim gangs that are extorting shops and bars in Nørrebro and threatening business owners with violence in case they refuse to pay protection money for operating in "Muslim territory." If this is correct, it shouldn't be hard to find a source who isn't a known anti-Muslim, anything like this would get publicity outside the anti-Muslim press. I wouldn't use an anti-Jewish source as a source for Jewish activities either. Dougweller (talk) 11:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the proof that this scholar I cited is ″anti-Muslim″? Simply because he openly writes on taboo topics does not make him anti-Muslim. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 11:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source is WP:UGC, content based on it would fail WP:FORUM, and it has a solid track record of being WP:BIASED. For these claims to stand, we need a more reliable analysis than one guy on his soapbox drawing conclusions from a set of well-reported events. For example, just because we've seen a lot of murders committed by Danish people and reported in reliable sources, doesn't mean that journalists making claims like "Danes are murderers" on one or two secondary source sites are therefore credible and should be included in an authoritative article on Denmark. Please, see WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and WP:NEWSORG for what would make this analysis more credible in an encyclopedia. Leondz (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. In response to Lokalkomopolit, there are no taboo topics. As for Kern, just look what he writes. Eg [2] where he supports the anti-Islam Politically Incorrect website.[3]. Dougweller (talk) 13:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, you linked this article [4]. How does it show Kern in a bad light? He merely summarized a few very interesting surveys, which reveal following thing: Islam is seen as a negative thing by an overwhelming majority of German people. Kern did not say who is right, he simply pointed out that such studies exist. Nay, he should have falsified those data to paint all Germans eagerly waiting for Sharia law to be inacted, amirite? Now, let us consider the following paragraph:

The study shows that only 34% of the West Germans and 26% of the East Germans have a positive view of Muslims. Fewer than 5% of the Germans think Islam is a tolerant religion. [...] 79% of the Germans believe Islam is "the most violent" religion

Now this nicely rebuffs the attempts of the small corrupt establishment to paint criticism of Islam as fringe far-right racist thinking. It is the fact that the PC view of Islam is supported by mere 5% (!) of people, despite all the propaganda to the contrary. Apart from the small group of brainwashed people, no-one in Germany believes in the myths of tolerant Islam. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 13:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And there you go again. People who disagree with you are PC, brainwashed, small corrupt establishment, etc. You called me and others "commies" and compared me to bin Laden. On your user page you write " Furthermore, topics like Islamic mass immigration are owned by tag-teams that can violate in impunity all Wikipedia rules because it is very politically correct these days to hate our Western way of life." That's all nonsense. I repeat, if Kern is correct, then you should have no problems finding neutral sources that make the same claims. Although I'm not sure that you believe there are neutral sources. I will however agree that racism in Europe is becoming an increasing problem, as those polls show. Dougweller (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, you are not opposing the additions because they violate the policy of sourcing, but because you don't like the content. What would be the point of giving other sources if you equally erase Peter Tatchell or James Bloodworth of The Independent if they show things you don't like?Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS. ″Racism in Europe is becoming an increasing problem″ - may-be yes, may-be no. The source you brought up didn't deal with races or even ethnicity. It's not racism, when practically all people of a country (as we've seen) don't want some odious cult to spread in their countries. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we stick to this article please. And you are misrepresenting what I said at the other article. And I guess it wasn't racism when so many Germans wanted to get rid of the Jews. Or when you call Islam an 'odious cult'. Dougweller (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

79.1%? I think it's too late to stop odius cults from spreading! Religion in Denmark Leondz (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Nørrebro. 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:

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) 07:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]