Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:35, 9 May 2006

Can you e-mail me ?

Zeq 17:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

retry.

AfD

Hi, I thought you might be interested in these votes for deletion:

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Islamic Vedic studies
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Thomas McElwain
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Muslim Christianity scholars

Cheers, Pecher 16:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I need your help

While I have some problems with your frequentations in Misplaced Pages(religion related), I need someone helping me with evidences, check my evidenve page, I need help accumulating as much evidences as could it be found. I am not involving you into this and I don't wish any involvement since this time it is only between me and Coolcat and it has gone much too personal with what he has done. You can use my evidence page and add the evidences there. I am not emailing you this since I want Coolcat to know what I am up to and for matters of transparency. Regards. Fad (ix) 21:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh another thing, while I have not added a big deal of the evidences I have accumulated and I have to go out for now, know that there is no doubt in my mind that Coolcat is Karabekir and that both are Nafriz, I have also evidences in Turkish language that will come in the last part of my documentation. Fad (ix) 21:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

regarding revisions

This is what I'm thinking; I would revert everything before and after the Turkish side of the page. For the Turkish side; I believe there are three points, fadix has problems with. I think it is best to let him develop those sections as he will delete them any way.--OttomanReference 20:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hope this will satisfy your position. The disputed section is moved out, after the tag is removed that section can be merged back. Thanks.--OttomanReference 20:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I have posted this on the talk page: Karabekirs additions on the Turkish position is moved to the "Position of Turkey" page. Please give your position on its talk page, as soon as possible so that we can unite the section to the main page. --OttomanReference 20:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing mediation

Your presence is requested in an ongoing mediation regarding the contents of several Islam-related articles. Thank you for your understanding. --Cyde Weys 02:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfC

Hey hey, some folks are preparing an RfC against me, and I'm guessing they'd appreciate your additions, for there are several - User:Dbiv/RFC on Irishpunktom --Irishpunktom\ 14:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Srebrenica massacre

Karl, your edit at Srebrenica massacre is not going to stick, unless you manage to convince some of us that it is a good idea. I suggest you make your case on the talk page, because edit wars just cost everybody time and do not yield results. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Kurdish lands 92 cropped.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kurdish lands 92 cropped.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Misplaced Pages because of copyright law (see Misplaced Pages's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Misplaced Pages are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Shyam 21:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Karl Meier, thank you for the response, but I am really sorry for reverting the image because without knowing the copyright information, it is not fair to edit in the image of any kind. Once copyright information is known, please revert the image to the version which you have uploaded according to copyright information. Regards, Shyam 06:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, you can revert the image to its earlier version which was uploaded by you. Please use the tag {{PD-retouched-user}} and make the source available on the commons page, if you revert the image. If you are happy with this version, then it can be deleted. Cheers, Shyam 20:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

'Dear Muslims, we are so sorry'

You are entitle to declare whatever POV you wish on your userpage. Links are also permitted some degree of leaway. However, luring people to click on an offensive link with a misleading tag is a clear breach of WP:CIVIL, and could be interpreted as racist trolling. I am assuming this was not your intention, and this is just a mis-placed attempt at humour without intending offense. So, I'm asking you nicely to remove the link, or st least to make it clear what it links to. Thanks. --Doc 15:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added a warning, that the contents of the webpage that I link to might hurt the sensitivities of some people. I hope these changes sufficiently addresses your concerns. -- Karl Meier 20:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the website you are linking to is clearly inflammatory, and can only serve to harm this project. Please remove the link. --Doc 21:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That's your opinion, which you are entitled to. However I think differently, and I am sorry that I'll have to tell you that I will not remove the external link. It's my userspace, and if you don't like what is there, then please don't visit it. -- Karl Meier 21:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the material an reported my action on ANI. --Doc 21:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stop trolling

The new link you have put up is no better. It's one of the most virulently anti-muslim websites I've ever seen, and cannot possibly enhance your prospects of working alongside other editors, many of whom may well be muslims. Please remove it and stop using Misplaced Pages as a platform to attack Muslims. --Tony Sidaway 22:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I am guilty of a wiki-thought crime. Criticism of Islam is obliviously very wrong, and can always be described as trolling. I have now replaced the link with a new one to disneyland.com. -- Karl Meier 22:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Much better :) --Doc 22:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

But is it enough? Since my thought-crime is against Muhammad and Islam, maybe I should actually get executed? What do you think? -- Karl Meier 22:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well if you think you should, be my guest. 216.165.12.100 22:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If you ask me, then I would say no. I do not believe in violence and murder. How about you? -- Karl Meier 22:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

An eye for an eye. 216.165.12.100 22:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

That would require that the society should allow itself to go down to the level of even the most brutal and sadistic criminals. I can't support that. Anyway, how do feel about critics of Islam? Do you support their freedom of speech, or do you believe they should be censored and/or punished ? -- Karl Meier 22:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

My "eye for an eye" philosophy is for criminals. As for criticism against Islam - if one plans on doing it, one better make sure one is in a secular country. 216.165.12.100 02:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is for criminals, but still I do not believe that is it correct to go down to their sometimes very low level, as it would be required if we truely follow an "eye for an eye" philosophy. Regarding criticism of Islam, it doesn't always help that you live in a country where the state is secular. See what happend to Theo Van Gogh. Another thing is, that you didn't really answer my question, about how you feel about critics of Islam? Do you believe they should be censored or punished in any way? -- Karl Meier 06:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Depends. I form my opinions on a case by case basis, but I'm generally against critics of Islam such as Salman Rushdie, etc. 216.165.12.100 14:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Vote Rationale?

Can you explain your vote rationale on my RfA? joturner 23:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I am not convinced by the neutrality of your edits. -- Karl Meier 00:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

He didn't support you because you're Muslim. BhaiSaab 18:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia

Please tell us, why you want your changes on the talk page, before changing Islamophobia again. Raphael1 10:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edits on Islamophobia

Thanks for tidying up your userpage. My answer to your question is no, using your Misplaced Pages userpage to invite Scientologists to visit a site dedicated to attacking Scientology isn't an appropriate use of Misplaced Pages, either. Same for Catholics or Jews or Danes or Nazis. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia--a work of reference. Put the facts into the articles, presented from the Neutral point of view, and then if people want to know the truth they will find their way their through the articles.

I don't think NPOV apply to userpages, but nevermind... The issue is not important to me, and it'll also be more than difficult for me to resist the will of a crowd of admins, with nothing better to do around here. It would be a waste of my time. -- Karl Meier 07:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This brings me to some recent edits you have made on the Islamophobia article.

1 19:44, 29 March 2006 edit summary: "how about some more neutral/useful sources? Don't try to present their opinions as "facts"."

Along with the text, you removed some links. In particular, the removal of the following two links surprised and worried me:

• http://www.fairuk.org/introduction.htm
  • The Forum Against Islamophobia and Racism, a registered UK charity.
• http://www.runnymedetrust.org/publications/pdfs/islamophobia.pdf
  • The Runnymede Trust, a registered UK charity

The Runnymede Trust is not some fly-by-night organization. From 1990-1998 its Deputy Chair was Valerie Amos, now Baroness Amos, currently leader of the House of Lords.

FAIR is no hole-in-the-corner outfit either. Its patrons are Baroness Pola Uddin, Lord Amir Bhatia, Lord Patel of Blackburn, Sir Cyril Townsend and Sir Sigmund Sternberg. These people are all prominent in building interfaith understanding in Britain.

Why did you remove those links?

The sources that was used are as mentioned clearly not neutral. That is of course not a problem, as long as the information from them is presented as opinions and not as facts. If you want to re-add the information from these links then please do so, but make sure to present them in a NPOV way. -- Karl Meier 07:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Okey. I just NPOV'ed it. Now it's presented as opinions , and that is of course acceptable. -- Karl Meier 07:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

2 19:46, 29 March 2006 edit summary: "Possible examples of Islamophobia - says who? rm OR."

You removed the following:

• 2005 Cronulla race riots
• The views of Pim Fortuyn regarding Islam and Muslims.
• The views of Ann Coulter regarding Islam and Muslims.
• The views of Ayaan Hirsi Ali regarding Islam and Muslims.

What worries me mostly here is that you don't seem to have gone to the talk page to explain your removals in detail. Cronulla, Fortuyne and Coulter certainly seem to belong here; there others I'm not so familiar with. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to describe some of those as possible instances of the phenomenon described by the Runnymede Trust and termed "Islamophobia."

What I need is a source, that allege that these are examples of "islamophobia". Without a source its OR, but if you provide a source, then I will leave them. -- Karl Meier 07:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

3 19:48, 29 March 2006 edit summary: "Alleged examples of Islamophobia - source doesn't mention "islamophobia". rm OR"

This doesnt seem acceptable to me. The BBC report makes it plain that this was part of a wave of anti-Muslim (or Islamophobic, if you prefer) mob violence in the wake of terrorist attacks of September 11. The Muslims, it appears, were being attacked because they were associated in the minds of the attackers with the attacks on Washington and New York.

4 Revision as of 19:51, 29 March 2006 edit summary: "Alleged examples of Islamophobia - again source doesn't mention "islamophobia""

Again I think you're straining. There is no original research, here. The attacks on religious symbols appear to be deliberate.

Really? Does the fact that the attacks on the religious seemed to be deliberate make them "islamophobic"? Maybe that is true, but according to who?

5 19:53, 29 March 2006, edit summary: "Alleged examples of Islamophobia - again source doesn't mention "islamophobia": rm OR"

Well the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, on Fox Television, was described here in the terms: "defended Pat Robertson's recent claim that Muslims are "motivated by demonic power."" I don't think any reasonable person would see this as other than a de facto accusation of anti-Muslim statement (it was anti-everybody-who-isn't-Christian, too, but that's beside the point--he was defending an anti-Muslim attack by a popular Christian clergyman and broadcaster).

Yes. But is it "islamophobic" to make or defend an "anti-islamic" statement? According to you it is, but is of course not enough -- Karl Meier 07:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Karl, I think almost anybody looking at the above would think that you're engaging in biased editing ("pov pushing", if you prefer the jargon). The tactics vary but the intent seems to be consistent: for one reason or another you seem to have a problem with the idea that we should be recording the phenomenon of ideological attacks on Muslims, and you're doing your best to hamper this process.

But maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps there is some other explanation of your apparently systematic attempts to remove good references from the Islamophobia article.

So what's up? --Tony Sidaway 00:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I am not engaged in biased editing. The title of the article is "islamophobia" and it should of course provide the readers with examples of how this term has been used in the media, and what opinions and actions that has been described as such, by sources outside Misplaced Pages. We are not here to "record the phenomenon of ideological attacks on Muslims" or anyone else, and it's not our job to decide what is "reasonable" to describe as "islamophobic" or not. If something has been described as "islamophobic" by a noteable source, I will of course not resist that it is included. However the fact that some editors there insist on making their own research, and want to describe the views of politicians such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Pim Fortuyn as "Possible examples of Islamophobia" based on nothing but that research, is not acceptable. -- Karl Meier 07:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Karl, I think even you would have to admit that in the recent past you have placed links to virulently anti-muslim websites on your userpage. Now it appears to me that you have also been pursuing an overtly anti-muslim line on that article, particularly by removing reasonable sources. I am only asking you to stop abusing Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway 09:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it appear to me that you are wrong. As I already told you, the sources was used to include unacceptable POV material in that article. The sources are obviously not neutral and the information from them was presented as facts, and not as they should, as opinions re the articles subject. I have now tried to NPOV that specific part of the article, and if you have any concerns re this, I suggest that you change it or mention your concerns on the articles talkpage. -- Karl Meier 09:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

In your opinion, which points of view must be excluded from a neutral article? --Tony Sidaway 10:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The point of views that are not noteable enough to be mentioned. -- Karl Meier 11:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia

OK, I will look at it. I created Islamophilia as well. Which, of course, was nominated for deletion by our islamist friend Irishpunktom immediately. Please take a look, also at the delete vote and inform others. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 10:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA Results and Thanks

Karl Meier, thank you for your constructive opposition in my recent RfA. Although it did not succeed as no consensus was declared (final: 65/29/7), I know that there is always an opportunity to request adminship again. In the meantime, I will do my best to address your concerns in the hope that when the opportunity for adminship arises once again, you will reconsider your position. If at any time I make any mistakes or if you would like to comment on my contributions to Misplaced Pages, you are more than welcome to do so. Regardless of your religious, cultural, and personal beliefs, I pray that whatever and whoever motivates you in life continues to guide you on the most righteous path. --- joturner 05:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia

You readded "scare quotes" to Islamophobia in this edit, which did not contain an edit summary. I have started a section on the talk page, and invite you to justify your addition there. savidan 21:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I am having second thoughts about that specific part of my edits to that article. When it's unprotected I'll remove it again. -- Karl Meier 17:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Islamic wiki encyclopedia

Hi,

I wondered if you could add to this article as I think it is important for wikipedians to know what wikipedia would be like were it subject to Islamic law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Islamic_wiki_encyclopedia

I don't think such an article would be a good idea, and I am sure that it would be deleted right away. It would be against policy. I suggest that we instead spend our Wiki-time making sure that the articles re Islam is NPOV and that islamic pov-editors will not influence them in any way that are not according to policy. -- Karl Meier 17:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion (Excellent to my mind :D )

I think RFC is not a good idea since we are not sure both articles may have some problems. I have a suggestion: All editors involved in this mediation nominate a few editors(not among themselves). They are better to be administrator or at least experienced editors(e.g. Zora) and concede their editing right to their nominated editors. These people will form the editor committee. All the editors have to promise not to edit the articles directly anymore, but just try to convince the editor committee if they want to make any change to the article(The articles can be blocked from editing). The final decisions are however made by the editor committee(maybe voting). I hope that concensus could be achieved easier there. How is my idea? --Aminz 03:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Karl, I have made an slot for you on the mediation page. Please post your opinion there. thx--Aminz 07:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Removing pertinent info on Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi

Unless you can find unbiased and reliable sources to back up doing so, please do not remove nor revert out the addition that Muhammad_ibn_Musa_al-Khwarizmi was muslim. According to Encyclopaedia Britannica (and a number of other reliable sources -see bottom of talk section-) he indeed was. Thanks! Netscott 15:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Reading the article's bio section, it seems that the claim that he was a Muslim is disputed. -- Karl Meier 17:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

In the bio section it mentions the unplausibility of his having been an orthodox muslim. A person can still be a muslim but not be orthodox. Was there some other reliable source in reference to his religious beliefs that you are aware of that refutes the reliable sources mentioned on the article's talk page? Netscott 22:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Danish People's Party

Karl, if you want to avoid having your edits reverted on the Danish People's Party page, you might want to actually participate in the discussion pages - for instance, I have no idea why you consider "blunt arguments" to be POV. I can see that your edit on the cutback issue make sense, the vidence seems far less conclusional than Enhedslisten would like to make it seem. I'm sure we can both contribute to making the article better, but since the DPP article quite easily can become an edit war, I urge you to argue for your points on the discussion page instead of just reinserting. --Jakob mark 08:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think members of DPP would describe their arguments as "blunt", and to call them that is about as POV as it can get. -- Karl Meier 06:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

What DPP would call themselves is not really the concern. What they are is, however, a concern, and when you say things like Muslims on "a lower level of civilisation" bringing "primitive and atrocious traditions" (Pia Kjærsgaard ) and that Islam is something that should "be fought, ..., like the Nazism and the Communism" (Jesper Langballe in Folketinget, May 5 2002), you are blunt. Ghent 17:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

According to your dictionary-link, 2nd meaning of "blunt" is "Abrupt and often disconcertingly frank in speech", and it would be very hard not to agree that that is the case when regarding DPP. Being blunt in that sense can be seen as a compliment, even. Besides, the 1st and 3rd usages are not related to speech, and the 4th (lacking in feeling, insensitive) could be applied to DPP without much trouble - I translated the following quotes from Danish:

• "All the countries in the west are infiltrated by the Muslims - some of them speak to us nicely, while they wait to become enough to kill us" (Mogens Camre, 2001)
• "It has been mentioned that 9/11 became the cause for a 'clash of civilizations'. I don't agree. A clash of civilizations would require two civilizations, and that is not the case. There is only one civilization, and that is ours" (Pia Kjærsgaard, 2001)
• "He wanted to gloat over his colleagues. He wanted to credit himself as a pakistani. With his egocentric, contrary and self-promoting demonstration right in front of the queen, he became able to blow his nose in the country, that gave him birth right and a membership of the parliament. He really hates Denmark" (Søren Espersen, 2004, about Kamal Qureshi who wore a shervani at a party with the queen).

If you have strong arguments against these statements being "lacking in feeling, insensitive", please feel free to share them. --Jakob mark 18:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, forgot to tell you that I copied this to Talk:Danish People's Party, just to give everyone a say on the matter. --Jakob mark 23:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia

Please keep to your words. You've agreed on the talk page to the current amount of critique mentioned in the intro. Raphael1 11:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

What is in my version is essentially the same as what I agreed to on talk. So I do keep to my words. I just made it more accurate, and nothing really new is introduced. -- Karl Meier 11:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Karl Meier, prior to doing any more reverting, please join Talk:Islamophobia and discuss the article further. Netscott 11:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Of course. I'll make a new section on the talkpage, with my thoughts regarding the neutrality of the lead section, within the next two or three hours. -- Karl Meier 11:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I hope you've noted my comment on talk page and working hard to fix problem. -- tasc _deeds 08:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I read it, and I understand what you are saying. I expect that I'll work on it later today, properly this evening. I am afraid that I'll have to leave the computer for the next few hours though. -- Karl Meier 08:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad(pbuh) as a warrior

I do it for the same reason the other editor is doing it. 216.165.12.100 02:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Without having an opinion on this debate, please be advised that this user currently editing with the above IP address is a sock puppet of User:Vkasdg. Netscott 06:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, do you realize how many people use this IP? Karl Meier, the other version is just better. 216.165.12.100 14:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The other translation is better. 216.165.12.100 21:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You are anti-Islam. Therefore I oppose your edit to the article because I know you're trying to push your agenda. 216.165.12.100 22:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Please respond to my question, and avoid any personal attacks. I've repeated these questions on the articles talkpage, so let's continue our discussion there. Just remember to aviod any personal remarks, as you are just wasting our time. -- Karl Meier 20:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Islam

Why do you hold such antagonistic views against Islam and Muslims? BhaiSaab 18:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:User pilgrim

Greetings Karl, would you kindly self-revert? I was only reverting on that because I had concerns about pilgrimage but I've since edited that article and now no longer have those concerns and actually agreed with User:Irishpunktom (if my edits on pilgrimage are reverted though I will again be inclined to revert User pilgriim). Thanks! Netscott 13:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Done. -- Karl Meier 13:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Netscott 13:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah you called my attention to the fact that Irishpunktom had changed the template's image (I hadn't noticed earlier). I've just reset it to the original image that the template was created with. At this point the image does need to change though to be more religiously neutral due to the fact that there are soooo many different religions which have their own pilgrimages. Netscott 13:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please stop this:

• Muhammad_as_a_warrior:
• Islamophobia:
• The Farewell Sermon:

If you try to continue I'll have to stop you. --Tony Sidaway 19:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure. For now I'll not revert. I'll post some more questions and comments to the talkpages of these articles instead. However, if I don't recieve any reasonable responses and only reverts, then I will of course insist on the needed NPOV changes. Also, if you are concerned about my changes to these articles your comments are very much welcome on the talkpages on these articles. -- Karl Meier 19:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not the content that concerns me, but your behavior and that of IrishPunkTom and some others. --Tony Sidaway 20:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Well then, you are welcome to watch the developments. I am posting a few questions to the talkpages now, and maybe some more questions tomorrow. -- Karl Meier 20:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

What else is one to think?

Karl, thats the only logically possible explanation for your decision to add that to your front page. --Irishpunktom\ 09:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Karl, a Muslim is a believer in Islam. The tirade you posted was an arbitrary attack on foreigners, and the "rent,phone,internet,car and school for 10 kids" that apparently you provided. With the exception of the line about Mosques in the "Christian" (not secular anymore, apparently) land, it was an ignorant and igdigangt rant that would make the NF squirm in embarrasment.--Irishpunktom\ 09:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Karl, re-read it! there was no mention of "the islamic world", no mntion of a "violent campaign of hate against freedom of speech and Denmark", no mention of "islamic aggression against your country and your democratic rights" - it said: "We´re sorry we never forced you to learn our language after staying 30 years" - "from all Danes to the entire Muslim world,we just wanna say;FUCK YOU!!" - "We´re sorry we gave you almost FREE rent,phone,internet,car and school for your 10 kids" - "We´re sorry we gave you shelter when war drove you from your home country". And, clearly, is about Foreigners. I, a Muslim, never left my homeland - But it's not about being Muslim, is it, its about being foreign, and thus alien to you. --Irishpunktom\ 10:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Karl, are you seriously trying to convince yourself that this has nothing to do with Immigrants and refugees?? --Irishpunktom\ 11:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Karl, its about people who were Driven from their Home Country, taken in when rejected, given an oppurtunity to be educated, gvien food and shelter, given family patriation, subsidised welfare ... Karl.. this has nothing to do with the islamic world, and is entirely an ignorant tirade against immigrants, and more specifically it seems, refugees. --Irishpunktom\ 11:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

because its got nothing whatsoever to do with the Islamic world! Its the authors, and your, dislike of Foreign nationals! It bemoans there refusal to speak the language, it mocks the benefits the welfar state provides. Its not about the islamic world, its an ignorant rant against foreigners! --Irishpunktom\ 11:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)