![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The call to prayer may be one of the main contentious issues with Islam in Western countries.
why? Isn't terrorism one of the more contentious issues? freedom of speech? the Islamic dress controversy? Misheu 07:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
First, this seems to be supporting this opinion, and is largely written as if it is an original thought. Though I'm sure its not, it needs to be reworded to make this clear. Second, it sort of devolves into non sequitors at the end. "...by allowing minarets, it would have to allow muezzins." What? Why is there a problem with muezzins? Then it goes on, "Thus the minarets are instruments to eliminate other religions." How? Because they refuse to give up muezzins (which they have to give up because..?) unless the church bells are given up? so by forcing their evil freedom of religious agenda on this and demanding equal rights, they are eliminating other religions? This whole section just doesn't make sense. Atropos 08:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
There is also a mosque with a (little) minaret in the city of Winterthur. [4]. Besides, the minaret in Wangen was built in the meantime.[ [5]] Primusinterparem ( talk) 21:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems to be reasonable to add the following passage to the chapter "Opposition - The Swiss Government":
The Swiss government (Swiss Federal Council) and both chambers of Parliament are opposed to the initiative and have recommended that voters reject it at the voting polls. Press release „Federal Council opposes building ban on minarets“, August 27th 2008 [1] Both chambers of the Swiss Parliament treated the initiative between March and June 2009. [2] The National Council recommended in its final voting with 132 to 51 votes (with 11 abstentions) the rejection of the initiative, the Council of States with 39 to 3 votes (with 2 abstentions).
The Swiss government believes that a ban on the construction of minarets would represent an inadmissible restriction of the right of members of the Muslim community to openly profess their religious beliefs In the view of the Swiss government and of Parliament, a prohibition on the construction of minarets would not be compatible with the values of a free and democratic society.
In its official press conference of October 15th 2009 the Swiss Federal Council emphasizes [3] that acceptance of the initiative would constitute a violation of the freedom of religion, the freedom of conscience, as well as the right to equal treatment under the law and thereby endanger religious peace in Switzerland. [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.5.216.100 ( talk) 14:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
In the current state of the article, arguments and views are described against the proposal with 4x the amount of space and text as for the proposal. The proposal however won the majority vote, which raises some questions about bias:
- Have nobody who is for the ban spoken anything which can be quoted? If so, why isn't it quoted? If pretty much nobody is for the ban, how come that the majority of the population is for it?
- The views of the people who are for the ban are responded to and commented in-line by those who are against the ban. But the views of the people who are against the ban where they are described are not responded to or commented by those who are for the ban. Does this mean that in the reality of Switzerland, no such comment has been made? Or is it just that it hasn't been quoted and incorporated into the text?
- "The Society for Minorities in Switzerland calls for freedom and equality." - is this a view or an authoriative statement? I am sure that the Egerkinger committe also would describe itself as calling for freedom and a good society. Should I therefore add this to the Egerkinger section: "The Egerkinger Commission calls for freedom and a good society"?
- The quotation "it appears that the material content of popular initiatives is subject to ill-considered draftsmanship because the drafters are affected by particular emotions that merely last for snatches" is included. This quotation effectively says nothing that 'the proposers are evil idiots'. If I source interviews and quotes from newspapers where people who are for the measure describe the organisations against, such as the Red Cross, Amnesty, the Bishops etc. as evil idiots, is that a relevant view to include? What determines if a quote which contains nothing but scorn and derision is relevant and notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.133.35 ( talk)
Why? Why is this even an issue? The article says next to nothing about the motivations of the people seeking a ban. 68.14.133.151 ( talk) 00:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I was looking for a /reason/ as to why this was done. Can no one find this out? -Ottoo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.36.123 ( talk) 13:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree as well. What is the basic contention? Who's for the minaret ban and why? Who's against the minaret ban and why? 198.151.12.10 ( talk) 13:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I post my reply here again after it was oddly removed by user Rama.
Maybe having a foreign language being blasted through loudspeakers was a nausiance. I mean some people complain when church bells go off all the time. 70.190.32.185 ( talk) 04:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
from that article's lead: "...may refer to beating, torture, confiscation or destruction of property."
While many people are offended by this initiative, no mention of any of the above here. I will remove the link. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I am curious exactly how the ban defines a minaret. Is it by size and shape only, or is the religious context taken into account? If a Christian church were to erect a steeple that looks just like a minaret except for the crucifix at the apex, would that be allowed?-- JWWalker ( talk) 03:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I've added the categories Anti-Islam sentiment and Islam-related controversies, but both were removed from the article. I'm adding them again because, needless to say, the banning of minearets is both controversial and relating to Islam, as well as the fact that minarets being an important symbol of Islam, the banning of their construction is an example of anti-Islam sentiment. I'm not going to add them a third time if they are again deleted, as I don't wish to break the three-revert rule, so please, just leave them be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.45.136 ( talk) 03:55, 30 November 2009
As a reader who are not familiar to the issue, I wish that the text (or if unavailable, some description), translated in English, of the initiative passed is added into the article.-- 203.192.187.2 ( talk) 04:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
In Simple English Wiki, it reads: The committee’s proposition reads: "The building of minarets is prohibited". It also include the fact that federal initiative cannot be reviewed. I think that is what I need.-- 203.192.187.2 ( talk) 06:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Shouldnt the picture in the Legal Dispute section be of the Wangen bei Olten mosque? Even tho it states that it is a picture of the Ahmadiyya mosque in Zürich one could wrongly assume its the mosque thats behind the controversy due to its placement in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.63.21.200 ( talk) 08:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Better now, but the picture box should probably more clearly state that it is the minaret that sparked the controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.63.21.200 ( talk) 13:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Why was the picture with the poster taken out and the file deleted? It is a significant element of the story. Alandeus ( talk) 12:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if there is a related infobox template but I assume an image would be good up top. Any suggestions on what to use? Cptnono ( talk) 23:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
"... was approved by 57.5% of the population ... The voter turnout was 55%." Do you mean 57.5% of those who voted? Peter jackson ( talk) 11:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Whether or not you agree with the principles of islam or not, it is just a little tower, if you are opposed to Islam, than state you are, if you support islam, the minerat is not really an important part of the mosque, in modern days it is more decorative than a set use, and isnt simplicity and avoiding useless decorations in a mosque a major point of islam. The ban is petty, and pointless really, it is just a tower. (Zachary Mullin) 4:12 Dec 4, 09 (MST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.128.235.134 ( talk)
I didn't even get to click save before someone had deleted the very paragraph I was responding too! 93.161.106.59 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC).
I don't understand why the title of this article is Minaret controversy. A political debate is not a "controversy", stop seeing controversies in everything. This article should be about the political debate and decision before being about a supposed controversy as presented by some medias.
This title is a total POV, see
Wikipedia:NPOV about the article naming. --
Rimkam (
talk)
14:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
the "controversy" title predates the referendum. [7] I appreciate that the term "controversy" is over-used on Wikipedia, but in this instance it is used with justification. The popular initiative and its outcome is just a sub-topic of this article. Note how de-wiki has de:Kontroverse um den Bau von Minaretten in der Schweiz (also using "controversy") and a section redirect for the popular initiative, at de:Eidgenössische Volksinitiative «Gegen den Bau von Minaretten» -- dab (𒁳) 16:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
That whole article is also much better... it actually lists both sides of the "controversy" if you will, this article here lists one side only... -- Jacina ( talk) 17:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
two users decided to remove see also section on their own. their rationale is that the ban is not related to persecution of Muslims since noone is beaten! such a Swiss rationale!
read and learn; from the article Religious persecution:
A situation in which religious persecution occurs is the opposite of freedom of religion.
this is the first sentence from the section titled as "Forms of religious persecution". the ban undoubtedly removes religious freedom of Muslims. many world leaders, the government of Switzerland and NGOs around the world emphesized the very opposite nature of the ban regarding religious freedom of Muslim Swisses.
i don't think useless Swiss nationalism helps building an encyclopedia.
-- 78.162.165.41 ( talk) 18:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
To repeat the supporters statements, and the governments current viewpoint: Mosques can be built, you can pray, and believe what you want, the only thing is: no minarets. However minarets are not a requirement of Islamic belief.
Having that in the article would slant it no?-- Jacina ( talk) 18:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
It is highly debatable whether
religious freedom is affected here, provided that by religious freedom you mean the freedom to practice any religion you like, in private. We are looking at "religious persecution" if you risk the police kicking down your door if you utter a prayer to the wrong deity.
The question is indeed controversial, and unlike the "persecution" cries above, it is also extremely easy to provide sources for both viewpoints. Which is exactly what we are going to do: present sources for every viewpoint that can be substantiated as quotable. For example, the freedom to sacrifice animals in any old way prescribed by your religion has been denied in Switzerland as well as many other countries for ages and yet we never heard of "persecution of Jews" or "persecution of Muslims" or "persecution of neo-Vikings" because of bans on their religious laws on slaughter. Whether freedom of religion includes the right to build towers is a matter of debate.
I am obviously aware that the minaret ban constitutes discrimination, seeing that the Muslims are the only religious group who get their towers mentioned in the federal constitution. However, discrimination isn't a synonym of persecution. In fact, the terms are about as close as "frown at" and "beat the hell out of". -- dab (𒁳) 18:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Banning is Persecution
for those who ask for "quotable source":
It is an expression of intolerance and I detest intolerance.
Leaders condemn Swiss minaret ban. (2009, November 30). BBC. Retrieved November 30, 2009, from [8]
... the ban [is] an insult to the feelings of the Muslim community in Switzerland and elsewhere.
Leaders condemn Swiss minaret ban. (2009, November 30). BBC. Retrieved November 30, 2009, from [9]
-- 78.162.165.41 ( talk) 18:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I thought that some of the content of the above sections started to heat up so I thought that I'd through in the keep a cool head banner up there in the top. Zul32 ( talk) 18:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Could we lock this article up for now? Too many edits by IP. Meishern ( talk) 19:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
support semiprotection. The IPs are mostly trolling. -- dab (𒁳) 19:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I vote "No" on this because it's still a very current event and things can change rapidly -- it's best if editors (including IPs) are allowed to edit without hindrance for now in order to keep the article up-to-date. Also there's a serious pro-Islamic bias in this article, so it's important that we don't hinder editors who may have contributions from the anti-Islamic side of the debate. That said, a semi-protect could be a good idea in the future. Clear skies to you all 146.74.230.105 ( talk) 23:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Apparently, according to Amnesty International, "The ban is expected to be rejected by either the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland or the European Court of Human Rights". [10]
This needs explication. Who "expects" this? The claim is just pulled out of thin air. Also, the Federal Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights are two rather different animals. Lumping them together like this is not permissible. As I discuss under the "Langenthal" heading, there is group which has announced they want to take this to both these courts. Now the Federal Supreme Court cannot rule anything contrary to the constitution. The constitution now says "no building of minarets", and there is nothing the Federal Supreme Court can do about that. This is also not "expected" by the group in question, they just want to argue that their particular project doesn't fall under the ban because it was submitted before the ban took effect. The European Court of Human Rights however is an entirely different matter. It is indeed quite possible that this court may rule the ban as in opposition to the European Convention on Human Rights. In this case, Switzerland will still be free to either change its constitution back the way it was, or else to rescind the convention. This falls under WP:CRYSTAL, and we at least need sources which speculate on this in a halfway informed manner. -- dab (𒁳) 19:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be fair to include Amnesty International's speculation that the ban will be overturned. It's cited and referenced. I changed the original paragraph: "[...]The Islamic community of Langenthal has announced their intention of taking their case to the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland and if necessary further to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg" to "[...]Amnesty International has speculated that the ban will probably be overturned by the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland or if necessary the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg." I think it's fair to include some reference to speculation/expectation of it being overturned, as this is relevant to the article as a current event. Amnesty International seems like as good a source as any to use for this purpose. I've cited the paragraph, and feel it's better than the previous (unless someone can provide a citation for the previous write up - I couldn't find one) since it is cited and well recorded while still being relevant to the Langenthal case. If consensus moves to remove, then feel free to, but I would recommend against a revert since the previous claim was uncited (again unless a citation can be provided). Saberswordsmen1 ( talk) 08:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Hm, once in a blue moon Switzerland is on the international stage, and we have a very poor article about it. Here's a proposed "to do" list:
... and probably more. Sandstein 21:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Why? Do we doe this about Church Towers in Switzerland?-- Degen Earthfast ( talk) 01:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
With the title "Minaret controversy in Switzerland", I'd like to expect some brief statement in the lede concerning what the controversy actually is. Currently, one has to read fairly deeply into the article before uncovering why some people consider minaret construction to be controversial. Steamroller Assault ( talk) 21:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I really don't get it after reading a good deal of this article, why do people not want minarets? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.202.205.138 ( talk) 22:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
There is no simple answer, only speculation. The fact is that people have expressed that they do not like minarets. The individual reasons are pretty much anyone's guess. The 57% majority has only been possible by combining several takes on Islam from people of vastly different political outlooks. Of course there is Christian religious conservativism. That gives you perhaps 10-15%. Then you have simple redneck xenophobia. That may buy you another 15%. Then you have the radical left feminists. Make that another 10%, some of that were "tactical" votes conting on the initiative's rejection. Then you have simple protest votes, directed not against Muslims but against the political elite and the unpopular Federal Council. Then you have the young voters, it appears that an overwhelming majority of the youngest segment of the voting population were in favour of the ban. This makes for the majorities or near-majorities in urban areas. The reasons here are probably the most significant, young people in urban areas being most exposed to the negative effects of mass immigration over the past 20 years. -- dab (𒁳) 10:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
May I add that many people may simply have agreed with the sponsors' arguments. Alandeus ( talk) 11:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
yes of course. That would be the argument that minarets are "unwanted and unusual projects", that "the minaret is a symbol of religious-political power claim" etc. I seriously would like to hear the opinion of some scholars of Islam on this. Also, these points should go to the minaret article, which is extremely stubby at this point. To my mind, the "argument" of the committee is "we don't want any minarets, hence we can bloody well ban them". They do not contain any rational explanation of the reasons for which they dislike minarets. Hence the common interpretation that the ban is actually just an expression of Islamophobia, without any particular reason why the expression should happen to pick minarets in particular. -- dab (𒁳) 17:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
But the lede section is still a vague mess, so here we are presented with a challenge to summarize the controversy in a few well-formed paragraphs. Pointing to WP:LEDE, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." So we've got a bit of a task in front of us. Surely the word 'Islam' belongs in the intro, and some measured statements describing the actual controversy belong there as well. Steamroller Assault ( talk) 20:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
i want to see a real reson for not alowing the muslims to build them. i see no real resons aganist it, as they dont seem to endanger anything. is it just that some racists dont want them? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.115.204.217 (
talk)
02:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
In the
Langenthal minaret section there is a mention of:
"The Islamic community of Langenthal has announced their intention of taking their case to the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland and if necessary further to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg".
The reference given
[12] is in German but I think it only refers to the later statement by Rainer Schweizer.
While I have no doubt that there will be some kind of legal challenges, I don't think that the European Court of Human Rights has jurisdiction on such mater. And if it does not, I doubt that the Islamic community of Langenthal would have made such an erroneous statement. Either way, I think we should have a reference. FFMG ( talk) 06:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for all the German-language references, but it lies in the nature of the topic that the most detailed coverage will be in either German or French.
The article linked does indeed substantiate the passage you quote. The relevant portion is
The European Court of Human Rights does have jurisdiction, but only after all legal options within Switzerland are exhausted. This means that the complaint needs to be taken to the Supreme Federal Court first even if it is clear that it is futile. This will take several years. After that, the European Court of Human Rights may very well (or even probably) rule the ban as violating the European Convention on Human Rights, after which Switzerland will find itself right in the pickles. However, this is several years off in any case, and there are several things that might happen before it comes to that.
Now we have the BBC reporting on the amnesty.org article, I agree it has become quotable [13] even if this is bad journalism. Amnesty is well qualified to criticize the ban, but it is quite apparently not qualified to speculate on the possible outcome of legal disputes taken to the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland.
-- dab (𒁳) 10:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Supreme courts are generally there to defend the constitution, this is their prime directive in Switzerland as well as the US. This does mean that as the change was made IN the constitution (and in a way that does not allow any misinterpretation) that the judges will HAVE to vote for the ban, even if they themselves disagree. If something is to be changed it will only happen if it comes to trial in front of a judge NOT bound by the Swiss constitution, which would be the European Court of Human Rights. Once it gets there things will get intresting... is building something a human right? How does this apply to nations where certain constructions are also forbidden due to religious reasons? When is a building defined as a "religious" building? (Minarets, it could be argued, are not required for the faith like mosques are) How far can democracy go? -- Jacina ( talk) 11:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
indeed. Nobody is going to ask the Federal Supreme Court to pass a ruling against a paragraph in the constitution. The court simply is not authorized to do that. The Amnesty comment is just that, a comment pulled off the web with no truth value whatsoever. As I said, the Strasbourg court is a different matter entirely, and the scenario of people taking this to Strasbourg very much does deserve discussion. -- dab (𒁳) 12:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
The most recent stroke is that the Langenthal Muslims now claim that they aren't building a "minaret" at all, they just want to adorn their mosque with a minarettähnliches Türmchen, a "minaret-like turret". They argue that since the turret has no facilities for a Muezzin, it cannot be described as a minaret proper. [14] I like this. -- dab (𒁳) 13:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I someone has the time it may be woth adding the UNs reaction. See for example UN-Rep Asma Jahangir warns Swiss over minaret ban
i sure know that only swiss nationalists, christian democrats and their pan-europeanist fellows are allowed to write in this article. so i'm putting the statements here. the references are provided.
UN statement from yahoo news [5]:
The United Nations called Switzerland's ban on new minarets "clearly discriminatory" and deeply divisive, and the Swiss foreign minister acknowledged Tuesday the government was very concerned about how the vote would affect the country's image.
another official UN statement from The Seattle Times [6]:
These are extraordinary claims when the symbol of one religion is targeted. [I am] saddened to see xenophobic arguments gain such traction with Swiss voters despite their "long-standing support of fundamental human rights.
— Navi Pillay, U.N. human rights chief
A referencing statement from Muslim Women's League [7]:
In France, over 500 hate crimes [against Muslims] were reported in 1996. Similar incidents have been reported, although not as widespread, in the Netherlan{{ds, Switzerland, Austria, Italy, Sweden, Spain and the United Kingdom. In Bulgaria and the Czech Republic, the victims of hate crimes which often includes murder, are members of the Romani population, many of whom are Muslim. Discrimination by government institutions against these minorities can be interpreted as a form of endorsement of similarly motivated prejudice, only expressed in a more extreme fashion.
That Switzerland, a country with a long tradition of religious tolerance and the provision of refuge to the persecuted, should have accepted such a grotesquely discriminatory proposal is shocking.
— David Diaz-Jogeix, Amnesty International's deputy program director for Europe and Central Asia
The simple truth is that Islam will grow and thrive in Europe over time. Even without minarets. If anything the muslims in Switzerland should accept the ban as a challenge and innovate mosque architecture to comply with the ban, and assert their Islamic and Swiss identities proudly. In this they might draw inspiration from their German counterparts, whose stunning and innovative mosque designs are a form of "confrontational architecture". Europe's long legacy of religious intolerance and oppression, is what gave birth to the freedoms that until now the Swiss nation had enshrined as core values; In much the same way, THIS MODERN PERSECUTION is the impetus that muslims in Europe must accept as a challenge to perpetuate and protect those very same values and freedoms.
The New York Times Editorial [10]:
Disgraceful. That is the only way to describe the success of a right-wing initiative to ban the construction of minarets in Switzerland, where 57 percent of voters cast ballots for a bigoted and mean-spirited measure.
Banning minarets does not address any of the problems with Muslim immigrants, but it is certain to ALIENATE and anger them.
In Switzerland, Muslims amount to barely 6 percent of the population and there is no evidence of Islamic extremism. If its residents can succumb so easily to the propaganda of a xenophobic right-wing party, then countries with far greater Muslim populations and far more virulent strains of xenophobia best quickly start thinking about how to counter the trend.If left unchecked, xenophobia spreads fast. Already right-wingers in the Netherlands and Denmark have called for similar measures, and others are bound to be encouraged by the success of the Swiss People’s Party.
as you see, now i have provided a referenced comment and many comments in parallel with this comment which EXPLICITLY and LITERALLY uses the word PERSECUTION.
-- 78.162.165.41 ( talk) 15:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
well, smashing, you were asked to look for references and you did. I see no reason for the bitching tone and the comments about "christian democrats". Now feel free to introduce the references you found into the article, within WP:DUE. As you seem to have an opinion in this "controversy", it may be best to avoid personal comment of the sort you feel called to place on the talkpage.
It may also be worth noting that the only comment containing the "persecution" allegation in your collection above is from a beliefnet.org blog, posted by one Aziz Poonawalla, and containing other hysterical soundbites ("All muslims are Taliban, Islamophobia is the new anti-Semitism etc. etc.") [16] So somebody in the blogosphere shouted "persecution". Quick, notify Wikipedia.
I grant you that the NYT opinion piece is harsh enough. "Disgraceful. bigoted and mean-spirited." I daresay it is undisputed that the ban is discriminatory, and personally I fully concede the "bigoted and mean-spirited". But let me point out this Tages-Anzeiger article which compares the most recent "outburst of xenophobia" in Switzerland, expressed at the ballot without a single pavement stone thrown in anger, to the normal expression of xenophobia in the countries that now take it upon themselves to chide the Swiss, including the 2005 civil unrest in France, the 2008 anti-Roma riots in Italy, the Mosque-burnings following the murder of Theo van Gogh in the Netherlands in 2004. So there is xenophobia in Switzerland. How "disgraceful", as the NYT, a newspaper hailing from the home of race riots, chooses to put it. Remarkable, but the way this sentiment was expressed (at the ballot) is at least as remarkable, and probably more characteristic of Switzerland than the mere fact that xenophobia exists. -- dab (𒁳) 16:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Don't you think we ought to be told? Peter jackson ( talk) 11:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Could you add voter counts for the referendum? Just percentages is not enough. -- Error ( talk) 02:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Rumor says the Vatican will disband the famed Swiss Guard and use italian bodyguards instead. That would be a strongly visible method of protest. 82.131.210.163 ( talk) 16:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
This statement is made "Many other religious organisations find the idea of a complete minaret ban as lamentable.[22]" followed by a sentence with a long list of religious groupings. There's no refs for the list. Can someone confirm that the entire list is supported by the ref (it's in German so I can't)? If it is, either move the reference or use the reference twice to make it clear it supports the list. Nil Einne ( talk) 17:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Don't direct me to minaret. I'm not so much asking a factual question as to trying to understand what the law means. I'm not that experienced with direct democracy but from reading the article, it appears to me that this ban has one of the problems that is common with refrenda of this sort in that while the question sounds simple, precisely what results from it doesn't seem clear. With normal laws by legislative bodies, it's common AFAIK (if they do their job properly) to give some guidelines as to the meaning of the law (unless it's purposely left ambigious) for example in this specific case what a 'minaret' is. If I understand it correct, this wasn't the case here since it was simply an amendment banning the construction of minarets but what a minaret is is not defined. I see someone mentioned above about a Turkish group planning to build a minaret like turret which was the obvious thing that occured to me. I.E. that groups could (try to) construct structures that look like minarets but argue they are not minarets. Presuming that doesn't work, the other obvious implication is whether people are going to challenge any structure that looks like a minaret even one that isn't being built by a Muslim group. If that doesn't work, to take it to an extreme what happens if a Jewish, Catholic or some other group constructs a community centre or something with a 'minaret like' structure and it's deemed not a minaret because the group isn't Muslim except the day after they finish they 'decide' they're going to sell it to a Muslim group... Just to be clear I'm not trying to use this page as a forum but it seems to me these are obvious questions that arise from this which may be addressed/discussed in reliable sources and if they are should be added to the article. P.S. I recognise that the actual law is not in English Nil Einne ( talk) 10:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I have added a paragraph about this problem in the Langenthal section, and renamed it to "Implementation and the Langenthal minaret". Hans Adler 17:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
According to #contentious issues and also #That's all very interesting, but..., none of the minarets in Switzerland are used for the call to prayer. I'm presuming then that this wasn't much of an issue at all in the referendum (you can of course ban the call to prayer without banning minarets). Currently our article doesn't mention it at all but given the discussions above and the association some may have, it's probably worth mentioning that minarets in Switzerland are not used for the call to prayer and it wasn't an issue presuming both can be sourced (in relation to the controversy) Nil Einne ( talk) 10:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
it's true that no minaret in Switzerland was ever even suggested to be used for the call to prayer. The call to prayer was nevertheless a major issue in the controversy. A lot of people voted against minarets because it was suggested to them that it is obvious that they would ultimately be used for the call to prayer. Christoph Blocher can be quoted as suggesting (issue 110 of his online video broadcast) that if the minaret ban failed to be implemented, he would need to get up to go jogging at five o'clock in the morning in the future if he didn't want to be bothered by the cries of the muezzins. I know. That's right-wing populism for you. -- dab (𒁳) 15:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted [17] the edits by an IP user, User:222.152.142.137, which introduce polemic material argued from the POV of the IP editor himself, as violating WP:OR and WP:NPOV. The IP keeps reinserting the same edit, so would somebody please keep an eye on this. I have also reverted the edit [18] by User:Manticore55, since the sentence that edit has introduced was grammatically malformed and its intended meaning unclear; also, the use of highly charged language such as "decried the hypcorisy of" should be avoided per WP:NPOV. Nsk92 ( talk) 21:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I will attempt to reform the sentence, however, your dual reversions implies I engaged in Original Research which I did not. Manticore55 ( talk) 22:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, we now have officials of Turkey and Iran(!) complaining about the ban. I ask you. This is involuntary comedy. I can see western countries criticizing Switzerland for falling short of western secularism, but to have an Islamic theocracy deposit official notes of protest over the minaret ban is simply absurd. -- dab (𒁳) 15:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Eh, hypocrisy is nothing new. Possibly there could be a see also for restrictions on building churches, or a category for building restrictions which could include religiously-motivated ones as well as secular like Height restriction laws. Шизомби ( talk) 14:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
CNN may report that the minarets in the poster are ″reminiscent of missiles″ but that doesn't make it a fact, just CNN's opinion. We don't need to repeat their opinion, especially since the poster in question is shown. Jzeise ( talk) 01:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
nonsense. This isn't Wikipedia's voice. The statement is linked to about five reports on the poster all of which are in agreement that they are reminiscent of missiles. Probably that's because they are, in fact, reminiscent of missiles. -- dab (𒁳) 15:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the “about five” reports that state the minarets look like missiles. I′m sure that was the intent. Nonetheless, our reporting that they do is giving Wikipedia an opinion as to their appearance. We may report that others think they look like missiles, but we shouldn't report that they do. Jzeise ( talk) 20:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Here's a video from European Journal [27] and a coule articles [28], and [29], that might be good to include. It was also featured on the Daily Show Thursday Dec. 3, if an American pop-cultural take is of any use. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 06:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the use of videos to cover this. A referendum and an amendment to a constitution isn't a very... visual topic. -- dab (𒁳) 15:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Why is this article called Minaret controversy in Switzerland? How is it controversial? Islamic state countries have banned the building of churches for hundreds of years.-- Rabka Uhalla ( talk) 19:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Minarets like church spires are architecture, they are fashion trends in building form. Neither the Christian bible or the koran that I am aware specifies that places of religious worship need to be a particular shape. It is very silly. Trying to pretend that international law or human rigths law applies to building styles is a bit retarded AntaineNZ ( talk) 03:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I see consensus to move the article to Minaret ban in Switzerland and restore my edits, and the only editors who disagree won't back up their claims yet still continue to revert anyway.-- Rabka Uhalla ( talk) 16:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Since bringing up the issue a week ago here, I have yet to see any improvement in the lede section adequately describing the article title "Minaret controversy in Switzerland". That there is a controversy is not the argument; rather, it is the collective inability (or inattentiveness) of the Wikipedia community to concicely describe the subject of this article as it is currently titled. According to WP:LEDE, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." If the article cannot be tailored to suit the title, then I believe a consensus vote for a page move is entirely appropriate. Steamroller Assault ( talk) 04:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry, Steamroller Assault, but I have the impression you are being coy. The "controversy" is that some people want to build minarets, and other people try to stop them from building them. This is what we mean by "minarets are controversial". I frankly don't see any other way to interpret the statement. This is the entire "controversy". Everything else comes down to documenting that the controversy exists and is notable. The article lead gives you the information that minarets have been the subject of controversy in Switzerland for about 10 years now. This is an actual piece of information, seeing that minaret were not actually controversial in Switzerland in 1980, or that they aren't controversial in, say, Algeria, even today. This is not the same as a "definition" of "a minaret controversy is a controversy surronding minarets" ("black bears are bears that are black").
This section doesn't serve any evident purpose other than filling the page and wasting people's time. The first post in this section (How is it controversial? Islamic state countries have banned the building of churches for hundreds of years) is obvious trolling. I don't see the point in going out of your way to dig up some possible meaning in a trolling remark.
The suggestion by User:ChildofMidnight amounts to {{ split}}ting Swiss ban on minarets from coverage of the wider (pre-ban) controversy. This is a different issue, and a suggestion that may be made independently, independent of the non-starter of throwing the word "controversy" in the article's title doesn't seem useful to me (the word controversy is there because the article discusses a controversy, not just a "ban"). The ban is covered in a single line of text. The controversy is epic. -- dab (𒁳) 18:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
From "words to avoid":
in other words, "controversy" tends to be used on Wikipedia in places where it should not. This has no bearing on instances where the topic is an actual controversy ("a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views"), as is the case in this article. I still fail to see any point to this section, sorry. -- dab (𒁳) 19:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
A question: If Wilders, Belang and Borghezio are successful in getting any press on their suggestions for similar referendums in Holland, Belgium and Italy respectively (granting they enjoy a snowball's chance in hell of even getting put up for a vote), could this feasibly morph into "Anti-Minaret initiatives in Europe?" or something? -- Aryaman (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
ok, the reaction to the Swiss referendum has been Europe-wide. This is beginning to take proportions of a European minaret controversy after all. The Swiss referendum appears to have served as a sort of catalyst. We can collect news sources on the European scope of this and eventually this may well grow into an article with a larger scope (or a new super-article to be split off). -- dab (𒁳) 10:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Myself and at least one other editor have over the last week or so posted two external links bloth have been deleted by others under WP:ELNO
Mine : The Swiss minaret law and its implications by Matthew Smith (IndigoJo), British Muslim convert, Islamist and blogger.
and the other by an IP editor : Tariq Ramadan on the Swiss 'Minaret Ban': "Islam Is a European Religion" Qantara.de
In the case of the IndigoJo posting, yes he is a blogger, however as I discussed with the editor who fist removed that link : You will see that the author of the blog is notable, the blog in question has been had coverage in The Spectator, Emel magazine and on the BBC to name just three main stream media outlets. It has won an independent award (Winner of the Best European Blog Brass Crescent Awards) two years on the trot (2008 & 9) and is listed in the Quranclub's State of the Muslim Blogosphere Report as being the third oldest active Muslim blog on the internet, so it meets the exception criteria. The blog is also referenced in numerous other Wikipedia articles. It was subsquently deleted by Rama and dispite a dicusssion here as to why it is not appropriate he has not given a fully satisfactory answer. I accept and concede that this one it is not clear cut, and if there had been 5 or 6 other links in the further reading section then I may not have added it.
I had decided it to leave it at that, however when I saw that User:Alandeus removed the second link with the edit summary of no blogs I was at a loss to see why as it does not appear to be a blog (or at least in the traditional sence) and if that is not acceptable then why is : Swiss minaret ban due to more than just xenophobia, an analysis of the vote in the Harvard Law Record. Which if you look is written by Swiss national who currently works in New York and if you look up his his practice areas list them as competition law, as well as banking and financial law.
So my observation and reason for commenting is there appears to be an inconstant approach to what is linked to in the Further reading and External links section of this article - is there a consensus, as I can’t see why the link to the Harvard Law Record is allowed and the one to Qantara.de is not and why the views of a Swiss national who currently works in New York are any more worthy than that of an award winning British Muslim blogger? Codf1977 ( talk) 13:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
This article doesn't need any links to radical opinion pieces. Neither radical Islamist ones nor radical anti-Islamic ones. There is plenty of mainstream coverage to choose from. -- dab (𒁳) 15:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Kindly note that the Stüssi thesis is not listed under EL but as published literature. -- dab (𒁳) 10:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
what is your problem? This is a citation. We could also cite it without the link. The presence of the citation does not rely on the presence of the link. -- dab (𒁳) 20:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
you can by all means raise concerns as to the relevance of the paper cited. Just as soon as you keep referring to WP:ELREG, which has nothing whatsoever to do with this question, simply because this isn't and has never been about the WP:EL section of this article. -- dab (𒁳) 13:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
I posted a link to the www.euro-islam.info analytical piece on this issue January 30, 2010. Feel free to contact me (my email is on our site) if there's any issue with this. Thank you. Lisa Baughn, webmaster, www.euro-islam.info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.66.22 ( talk) 07:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I see the article as more of a short analytical piece rather than an opinion. Could you please be more specific about why it doesn't meet the criteria? Thank you. -Lisa Baughn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.66.22 ( talk) 01:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Despite the majority result in favor of the ban, this section talks mostly about the votes against it. If you are going to enumerate the results in the cantons which opposed the ban, why not do the same for the canons which voted for it?
In fact every paragraph emphasizes the opposition to the ban, while the last para does not belong in this section IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.236.182.77 ( talk) 17:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
because the majority of cantons voted for it. What's the point of enumerating the majority? The cantons numbered are exceptional because they voted against the majority.
But I agree with your general point. The article is far too apologetic. This does reflect the tone in the Swiss mainstream press, however, the general view of this seems to be that of an accident or an irregularity that nobody expected to happen, and which is now analyzed so it will be possible to anticipate something like this in the future.
It is indeed very arguable that this majority is an artefact created by the mistaken advance polls. Many people who voted yes would not have done so if the polls had predicted an outcome close to or above 50%. -- dab (𒁳) 17:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Seeing that there have been no comments on this since February, I am removing the tag. -- dab (𒁳) 09:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
It appears the appeals are starting [33]. The article also raises the interesting point. Given the government is opposed to the law and thinks it's inconsistent with the basic principles of Swiss constitution and of course so does the appealant I presume, both will be on the same (or at least similar) sides. I presume other interested parties will be allowed to argue on behalf of the law. I've heard this happen before, in the US I think (e.g. it happened to some extent with the California Proposition 8 (2008)) but it's a fairly rare situation in general I guess. Or perhaps not so uncommon in Switzerland given that direct democracy is more likely to lead to cases were the government disagrees with the law? Nil Einne ( talk) 18:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
dab (𒁳) 14:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems the media have now virtually abandoned this subject. This result did show up, though. It also mentions a deadline till September 15 for the Swiss government. Darth Viller ( talk) 11:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The call to prayer may be one of the main contentious issues with Islam in Western countries.
why? Isn't terrorism one of the more contentious issues? freedom of speech? the Islamic dress controversy? Misheu 07:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
First, this seems to be supporting this opinion, and is largely written as if it is an original thought. Though I'm sure its not, it needs to be reworded to make this clear. Second, it sort of devolves into non sequitors at the end. "...by allowing minarets, it would have to allow muezzins." What? Why is there a problem with muezzins? Then it goes on, "Thus the minarets are instruments to eliminate other religions." How? Because they refuse to give up muezzins (which they have to give up because..?) unless the church bells are given up? so by forcing their evil freedom of religious agenda on this and demanding equal rights, they are eliminating other religions? This whole section just doesn't make sense. Atropos 08:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
There is also a mosque with a (little) minaret in the city of Winterthur. [4]. Besides, the minaret in Wangen was built in the meantime.[ [5]] Primusinterparem ( talk) 21:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems to be reasonable to add the following passage to the chapter "Opposition - The Swiss Government":
The Swiss government (Swiss Federal Council) and both chambers of Parliament are opposed to the initiative and have recommended that voters reject it at the voting polls. Press release „Federal Council opposes building ban on minarets“, August 27th 2008 [1] Both chambers of the Swiss Parliament treated the initiative between March and June 2009. [2] The National Council recommended in its final voting with 132 to 51 votes (with 11 abstentions) the rejection of the initiative, the Council of States with 39 to 3 votes (with 2 abstentions).
The Swiss government believes that a ban on the construction of minarets would represent an inadmissible restriction of the right of members of the Muslim community to openly profess their religious beliefs In the view of the Swiss government and of Parliament, a prohibition on the construction of minarets would not be compatible with the values of a free and democratic society.
In its official press conference of October 15th 2009 the Swiss Federal Council emphasizes [3] that acceptance of the initiative would constitute a violation of the freedom of religion, the freedom of conscience, as well as the right to equal treatment under the law and thereby endanger religious peace in Switzerland. [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.5.216.100 ( talk) 14:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
In the current state of the article, arguments and views are described against the proposal with 4x the amount of space and text as for the proposal. The proposal however won the majority vote, which raises some questions about bias:
- Have nobody who is for the ban spoken anything which can be quoted? If so, why isn't it quoted? If pretty much nobody is for the ban, how come that the majority of the population is for it?
- The views of the people who are for the ban are responded to and commented in-line by those who are against the ban. But the views of the people who are against the ban where they are described are not responded to or commented by those who are for the ban. Does this mean that in the reality of Switzerland, no such comment has been made? Or is it just that it hasn't been quoted and incorporated into the text?
- "The Society for Minorities in Switzerland calls for freedom and equality." - is this a view or an authoriative statement? I am sure that the Egerkinger committe also would describe itself as calling for freedom and a good society. Should I therefore add this to the Egerkinger section: "The Egerkinger Commission calls for freedom and a good society"?
- The quotation "it appears that the material content of popular initiatives is subject to ill-considered draftsmanship because the drafters are affected by particular emotions that merely last for snatches" is included. This quotation effectively says nothing that 'the proposers are evil idiots'. If I source interviews and quotes from newspapers where people who are for the measure describe the organisations against, such as the Red Cross, Amnesty, the Bishops etc. as evil idiots, is that a relevant view to include? What determines if a quote which contains nothing but scorn and derision is relevant and notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.133.35 ( talk)
Why? Why is this even an issue? The article says next to nothing about the motivations of the people seeking a ban. 68.14.133.151 ( talk) 00:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I was looking for a /reason/ as to why this was done. Can no one find this out? -Ottoo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.36.123 ( talk) 13:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree as well. What is the basic contention? Who's for the minaret ban and why? Who's against the minaret ban and why? 198.151.12.10 ( talk) 13:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I post my reply here again after it was oddly removed by user Rama.
Maybe having a foreign language being blasted through loudspeakers was a nausiance. I mean some people complain when church bells go off all the time. 70.190.32.185 ( talk) 04:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
from that article's lead: "...may refer to beating, torture, confiscation or destruction of property."
While many people are offended by this initiative, no mention of any of the above here. I will remove the link. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I am curious exactly how the ban defines a minaret. Is it by size and shape only, or is the religious context taken into account? If a Christian church were to erect a steeple that looks just like a minaret except for the crucifix at the apex, would that be allowed?-- JWWalker ( talk) 03:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I've added the categories Anti-Islam sentiment and Islam-related controversies, but both were removed from the article. I'm adding them again because, needless to say, the banning of minearets is both controversial and relating to Islam, as well as the fact that minarets being an important symbol of Islam, the banning of their construction is an example of anti-Islam sentiment. I'm not going to add them a third time if they are again deleted, as I don't wish to break the three-revert rule, so please, just leave them be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.45.136 ( talk) 03:55, 30 November 2009
As a reader who are not familiar to the issue, I wish that the text (or if unavailable, some description), translated in English, of the initiative passed is added into the article.-- 203.192.187.2 ( talk) 04:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
In Simple English Wiki, it reads: The committee’s proposition reads: "The building of minarets is prohibited". It also include the fact that federal initiative cannot be reviewed. I think that is what I need.-- 203.192.187.2 ( talk) 06:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Shouldnt the picture in the Legal Dispute section be of the Wangen bei Olten mosque? Even tho it states that it is a picture of the Ahmadiyya mosque in Zürich one could wrongly assume its the mosque thats behind the controversy due to its placement in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.63.21.200 ( talk) 08:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Better now, but the picture box should probably more clearly state that it is the minaret that sparked the controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.63.21.200 ( talk) 13:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Why was the picture with the poster taken out and the file deleted? It is a significant element of the story. Alandeus ( talk) 12:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if there is a related infobox template but I assume an image would be good up top. Any suggestions on what to use? Cptnono ( talk) 23:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
"... was approved by 57.5% of the population ... The voter turnout was 55%." Do you mean 57.5% of those who voted? Peter jackson ( talk) 11:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Whether or not you agree with the principles of islam or not, it is just a little tower, if you are opposed to Islam, than state you are, if you support islam, the minerat is not really an important part of the mosque, in modern days it is more decorative than a set use, and isnt simplicity and avoiding useless decorations in a mosque a major point of islam. The ban is petty, and pointless really, it is just a tower. (Zachary Mullin) 4:12 Dec 4, 09 (MST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.128.235.134 ( talk)
I didn't even get to click save before someone had deleted the very paragraph I was responding too! 93.161.106.59 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC).
I don't understand why the title of this article is Minaret controversy. A political debate is not a "controversy", stop seeing controversies in everything. This article should be about the political debate and decision before being about a supposed controversy as presented by some medias.
This title is a total POV, see
Wikipedia:NPOV about the article naming. --
Rimkam (
talk)
14:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
the "controversy" title predates the referendum. [7] I appreciate that the term "controversy" is over-used on Wikipedia, but in this instance it is used with justification. The popular initiative and its outcome is just a sub-topic of this article. Note how de-wiki has de:Kontroverse um den Bau von Minaretten in der Schweiz (also using "controversy") and a section redirect for the popular initiative, at de:Eidgenössische Volksinitiative «Gegen den Bau von Minaretten» -- dab (𒁳) 16:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
That whole article is also much better... it actually lists both sides of the "controversy" if you will, this article here lists one side only... -- Jacina ( talk) 17:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
two users decided to remove see also section on their own. their rationale is that the ban is not related to persecution of Muslims since noone is beaten! such a Swiss rationale!
read and learn; from the article Religious persecution:
A situation in which religious persecution occurs is the opposite of freedom of religion.
this is the first sentence from the section titled as "Forms of religious persecution". the ban undoubtedly removes religious freedom of Muslims. many world leaders, the government of Switzerland and NGOs around the world emphesized the very opposite nature of the ban regarding religious freedom of Muslim Swisses.
i don't think useless Swiss nationalism helps building an encyclopedia.
-- 78.162.165.41 ( talk) 18:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
To repeat the supporters statements, and the governments current viewpoint: Mosques can be built, you can pray, and believe what you want, the only thing is: no minarets. However minarets are not a requirement of Islamic belief.
Having that in the article would slant it no?-- Jacina ( talk) 18:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
It is highly debatable whether
religious freedom is affected here, provided that by religious freedom you mean the freedom to practice any religion you like, in private. We are looking at "religious persecution" if you risk the police kicking down your door if you utter a prayer to the wrong deity.
The question is indeed controversial, and unlike the "persecution" cries above, it is also extremely easy to provide sources for both viewpoints. Which is exactly what we are going to do: present sources for every viewpoint that can be substantiated as quotable. For example, the freedom to sacrifice animals in any old way prescribed by your religion has been denied in Switzerland as well as many other countries for ages and yet we never heard of "persecution of Jews" or "persecution of Muslims" or "persecution of neo-Vikings" because of bans on their religious laws on slaughter. Whether freedom of religion includes the right to build towers is a matter of debate.
I am obviously aware that the minaret ban constitutes discrimination, seeing that the Muslims are the only religious group who get their towers mentioned in the federal constitution. However, discrimination isn't a synonym of persecution. In fact, the terms are about as close as "frown at" and "beat the hell out of". -- dab (𒁳) 18:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Banning is Persecution
for those who ask for "quotable source":
It is an expression of intolerance and I detest intolerance.
Leaders condemn Swiss minaret ban. (2009, November 30). BBC. Retrieved November 30, 2009, from [8]
... the ban [is] an insult to the feelings of the Muslim community in Switzerland and elsewhere.
Leaders condemn Swiss minaret ban. (2009, November 30). BBC. Retrieved November 30, 2009, from [9]
-- 78.162.165.41 ( talk) 18:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I thought that some of the content of the above sections started to heat up so I thought that I'd through in the keep a cool head banner up there in the top. Zul32 ( talk) 18:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Could we lock this article up for now? Too many edits by IP. Meishern ( talk) 19:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
support semiprotection. The IPs are mostly trolling. -- dab (𒁳) 19:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I vote "No" on this because it's still a very current event and things can change rapidly -- it's best if editors (including IPs) are allowed to edit without hindrance for now in order to keep the article up-to-date. Also there's a serious pro-Islamic bias in this article, so it's important that we don't hinder editors who may have contributions from the anti-Islamic side of the debate. That said, a semi-protect could be a good idea in the future. Clear skies to you all 146.74.230.105 ( talk) 23:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Apparently, according to Amnesty International, "The ban is expected to be rejected by either the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland or the European Court of Human Rights". [10]
This needs explication. Who "expects" this? The claim is just pulled out of thin air. Also, the Federal Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights are two rather different animals. Lumping them together like this is not permissible. As I discuss under the "Langenthal" heading, there is group which has announced they want to take this to both these courts. Now the Federal Supreme Court cannot rule anything contrary to the constitution. The constitution now says "no building of minarets", and there is nothing the Federal Supreme Court can do about that. This is also not "expected" by the group in question, they just want to argue that their particular project doesn't fall under the ban because it was submitted before the ban took effect. The European Court of Human Rights however is an entirely different matter. It is indeed quite possible that this court may rule the ban as in opposition to the European Convention on Human Rights. In this case, Switzerland will still be free to either change its constitution back the way it was, or else to rescind the convention. This falls under WP:CRYSTAL, and we at least need sources which speculate on this in a halfway informed manner. -- dab (𒁳) 19:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be fair to include Amnesty International's speculation that the ban will be overturned. It's cited and referenced. I changed the original paragraph: "[...]The Islamic community of Langenthal has announced their intention of taking their case to the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland and if necessary further to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg" to "[...]Amnesty International has speculated that the ban will probably be overturned by the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland or if necessary the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg." I think it's fair to include some reference to speculation/expectation of it being overturned, as this is relevant to the article as a current event. Amnesty International seems like as good a source as any to use for this purpose. I've cited the paragraph, and feel it's better than the previous (unless someone can provide a citation for the previous write up - I couldn't find one) since it is cited and well recorded while still being relevant to the Langenthal case. If consensus moves to remove, then feel free to, but I would recommend against a revert since the previous claim was uncited (again unless a citation can be provided). Saberswordsmen1 ( talk) 08:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Hm, once in a blue moon Switzerland is on the international stage, and we have a very poor article about it. Here's a proposed "to do" list:
... and probably more. Sandstein 21:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Why? Do we doe this about Church Towers in Switzerland?-- Degen Earthfast ( talk) 01:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
With the title "Minaret controversy in Switzerland", I'd like to expect some brief statement in the lede concerning what the controversy actually is. Currently, one has to read fairly deeply into the article before uncovering why some people consider minaret construction to be controversial. Steamroller Assault ( talk) 21:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I really don't get it after reading a good deal of this article, why do people not want minarets? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.202.205.138 ( talk) 22:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
There is no simple answer, only speculation. The fact is that people have expressed that they do not like minarets. The individual reasons are pretty much anyone's guess. The 57% majority has only been possible by combining several takes on Islam from people of vastly different political outlooks. Of course there is Christian religious conservativism. That gives you perhaps 10-15%. Then you have simple redneck xenophobia. That may buy you another 15%. Then you have the radical left feminists. Make that another 10%, some of that were "tactical" votes conting on the initiative's rejection. Then you have simple protest votes, directed not against Muslims but against the political elite and the unpopular Federal Council. Then you have the young voters, it appears that an overwhelming majority of the youngest segment of the voting population were in favour of the ban. This makes for the majorities or near-majorities in urban areas. The reasons here are probably the most significant, young people in urban areas being most exposed to the negative effects of mass immigration over the past 20 years. -- dab (𒁳) 10:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
May I add that many people may simply have agreed with the sponsors' arguments. Alandeus ( talk) 11:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
yes of course. That would be the argument that minarets are "unwanted and unusual projects", that "the minaret is a symbol of religious-political power claim" etc. I seriously would like to hear the opinion of some scholars of Islam on this. Also, these points should go to the minaret article, which is extremely stubby at this point. To my mind, the "argument" of the committee is "we don't want any minarets, hence we can bloody well ban them". They do not contain any rational explanation of the reasons for which they dislike minarets. Hence the common interpretation that the ban is actually just an expression of Islamophobia, without any particular reason why the expression should happen to pick minarets in particular. -- dab (𒁳) 17:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
But the lede section is still a vague mess, so here we are presented with a challenge to summarize the controversy in a few well-formed paragraphs. Pointing to WP:LEDE, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." So we've got a bit of a task in front of us. Surely the word 'Islam' belongs in the intro, and some measured statements describing the actual controversy belong there as well. Steamroller Assault ( talk) 20:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
i want to see a real reson for not alowing the muslims to build them. i see no real resons aganist it, as they dont seem to endanger anything. is it just that some racists dont want them? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.115.204.217 (
talk)
02:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
In the
Langenthal minaret section there is a mention of:
"The Islamic community of Langenthal has announced their intention of taking their case to the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland and if necessary further to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg".
The reference given
[12] is in German but I think it only refers to the later statement by Rainer Schweizer.
While I have no doubt that there will be some kind of legal challenges, I don't think that the European Court of Human Rights has jurisdiction on such mater. And if it does not, I doubt that the Islamic community of Langenthal would have made such an erroneous statement. Either way, I think we should have a reference. FFMG ( talk) 06:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for all the German-language references, but it lies in the nature of the topic that the most detailed coverage will be in either German or French.
The article linked does indeed substantiate the passage you quote. The relevant portion is
The European Court of Human Rights does have jurisdiction, but only after all legal options within Switzerland are exhausted. This means that the complaint needs to be taken to the Supreme Federal Court first even if it is clear that it is futile. This will take several years. After that, the European Court of Human Rights may very well (or even probably) rule the ban as violating the European Convention on Human Rights, after which Switzerland will find itself right in the pickles. However, this is several years off in any case, and there are several things that might happen before it comes to that.
Now we have the BBC reporting on the amnesty.org article, I agree it has become quotable [13] even if this is bad journalism. Amnesty is well qualified to criticize the ban, but it is quite apparently not qualified to speculate on the possible outcome of legal disputes taken to the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland.
-- dab (𒁳) 10:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Supreme courts are generally there to defend the constitution, this is their prime directive in Switzerland as well as the US. This does mean that as the change was made IN the constitution (and in a way that does not allow any misinterpretation) that the judges will HAVE to vote for the ban, even if they themselves disagree. If something is to be changed it will only happen if it comes to trial in front of a judge NOT bound by the Swiss constitution, which would be the European Court of Human Rights. Once it gets there things will get intresting... is building something a human right? How does this apply to nations where certain constructions are also forbidden due to religious reasons? When is a building defined as a "religious" building? (Minarets, it could be argued, are not required for the faith like mosques are) How far can democracy go? -- Jacina ( talk) 11:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
indeed. Nobody is going to ask the Federal Supreme Court to pass a ruling against a paragraph in the constitution. The court simply is not authorized to do that. The Amnesty comment is just that, a comment pulled off the web with no truth value whatsoever. As I said, the Strasbourg court is a different matter entirely, and the scenario of people taking this to Strasbourg very much does deserve discussion. -- dab (𒁳) 12:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
The most recent stroke is that the Langenthal Muslims now claim that they aren't building a "minaret" at all, they just want to adorn their mosque with a minarettähnliches Türmchen, a "minaret-like turret". They argue that since the turret has no facilities for a Muezzin, it cannot be described as a minaret proper. [14] I like this. -- dab (𒁳) 13:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I someone has the time it may be woth adding the UNs reaction. See for example UN-Rep Asma Jahangir warns Swiss over minaret ban
i sure know that only swiss nationalists, christian democrats and their pan-europeanist fellows are allowed to write in this article. so i'm putting the statements here. the references are provided.
UN statement from yahoo news [5]:
The United Nations called Switzerland's ban on new minarets "clearly discriminatory" and deeply divisive, and the Swiss foreign minister acknowledged Tuesday the government was very concerned about how the vote would affect the country's image.
another official UN statement from The Seattle Times [6]:
These are extraordinary claims when the symbol of one religion is targeted. [I am] saddened to see xenophobic arguments gain such traction with Swiss voters despite their "long-standing support of fundamental human rights.
— Navi Pillay, U.N. human rights chief
A referencing statement from Muslim Women's League [7]:
In France, over 500 hate crimes [against Muslims] were reported in 1996. Similar incidents have been reported, although not as widespread, in the Netherlan{{ds, Switzerland, Austria, Italy, Sweden, Spain and the United Kingdom. In Bulgaria and the Czech Republic, the victims of hate crimes which often includes murder, are members of the Romani population, many of whom are Muslim. Discrimination by government institutions against these minorities can be interpreted as a form of endorsement of similarly motivated prejudice, only expressed in a more extreme fashion.
That Switzerland, a country with a long tradition of religious tolerance and the provision of refuge to the persecuted, should have accepted such a grotesquely discriminatory proposal is shocking.
— David Diaz-Jogeix, Amnesty International's deputy program director for Europe and Central Asia
The simple truth is that Islam will grow and thrive in Europe over time. Even without minarets. If anything the muslims in Switzerland should accept the ban as a challenge and innovate mosque architecture to comply with the ban, and assert their Islamic and Swiss identities proudly. In this they might draw inspiration from their German counterparts, whose stunning and innovative mosque designs are a form of "confrontational architecture". Europe's long legacy of religious intolerance and oppression, is what gave birth to the freedoms that until now the Swiss nation had enshrined as core values; In much the same way, THIS MODERN PERSECUTION is the impetus that muslims in Europe must accept as a challenge to perpetuate and protect those very same values and freedoms.
The New York Times Editorial [10]:
Disgraceful. That is the only way to describe the success of a right-wing initiative to ban the construction of minarets in Switzerland, where 57 percent of voters cast ballots for a bigoted and mean-spirited measure.
Banning minarets does not address any of the problems with Muslim immigrants, but it is certain to ALIENATE and anger them.
In Switzerland, Muslims amount to barely 6 percent of the population and there is no evidence of Islamic extremism. If its residents can succumb so easily to the propaganda of a xenophobic right-wing party, then countries with far greater Muslim populations and far more virulent strains of xenophobia best quickly start thinking about how to counter the trend.If left unchecked, xenophobia spreads fast. Already right-wingers in the Netherlands and Denmark have called for similar measures, and others are bound to be encouraged by the success of the Swiss People’s Party.
as you see, now i have provided a referenced comment and many comments in parallel with this comment which EXPLICITLY and LITERALLY uses the word PERSECUTION.
-- 78.162.165.41 ( talk) 15:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
well, smashing, you were asked to look for references and you did. I see no reason for the bitching tone and the comments about "christian democrats". Now feel free to introduce the references you found into the article, within WP:DUE. As you seem to have an opinion in this "controversy", it may be best to avoid personal comment of the sort you feel called to place on the talkpage.
It may also be worth noting that the only comment containing the "persecution" allegation in your collection above is from a beliefnet.org blog, posted by one Aziz Poonawalla, and containing other hysterical soundbites ("All muslims are Taliban, Islamophobia is the new anti-Semitism etc. etc.") [16] So somebody in the blogosphere shouted "persecution". Quick, notify Wikipedia.
I grant you that the NYT opinion piece is harsh enough. "Disgraceful. bigoted and mean-spirited." I daresay it is undisputed that the ban is discriminatory, and personally I fully concede the "bigoted and mean-spirited". But let me point out this Tages-Anzeiger article which compares the most recent "outburst of xenophobia" in Switzerland, expressed at the ballot without a single pavement stone thrown in anger, to the normal expression of xenophobia in the countries that now take it upon themselves to chide the Swiss, including the 2005 civil unrest in France, the 2008 anti-Roma riots in Italy, the Mosque-burnings following the murder of Theo van Gogh in the Netherlands in 2004. So there is xenophobia in Switzerland. How "disgraceful", as the NYT, a newspaper hailing from the home of race riots, chooses to put it. Remarkable, but the way this sentiment was expressed (at the ballot) is at least as remarkable, and probably more characteristic of Switzerland than the mere fact that xenophobia exists. -- dab (𒁳) 16:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Don't you think we ought to be told? Peter jackson ( talk) 11:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Could you add voter counts for the referendum? Just percentages is not enough. -- Error ( talk) 02:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Rumor says the Vatican will disband the famed Swiss Guard and use italian bodyguards instead. That would be a strongly visible method of protest. 82.131.210.163 ( talk) 16:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
This statement is made "Many other religious organisations find the idea of a complete minaret ban as lamentable.[22]" followed by a sentence with a long list of religious groupings. There's no refs for the list. Can someone confirm that the entire list is supported by the ref (it's in German so I can't)? If it is, either move the reference or use the reference twice to make it clear it supports the list. Nil Einne ( talk) 17:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Don't direct me to minaret. I'm not so much asking a factual question as to trying to understand what the law means. I'm not that experienced with direct democracy but from reading the article, it appears to me that this ban has one of the problems that is common with refrenda of this sort in that while the question sounds simple, precisely what results from it doesn't seem clear. With normal laws by legislative bodies, it's common AFAIK (if they do their job properly) to give some guidelines as to the meaning of the law (unless it's purposely left ambigious) for example in this specific case what a 'minaret' is. If I understand it correct, this wasn't the case here since it was simply an amendment banning the construction of minarets but what a minaret is is not defined. I see someone mentioned above about a Turkish group planning to build a minaret like turret which was the obvious thing that occured to me. I.E. that groups could (try to) construct structures that look like minarets but argue they are not minarets. Presuming that doesn't work, the other obvious implication is whether people are going to challenge any structure that looks like a minaret even one that isn't being built by a Muslim group. If that doesn't work, to take it to an extreme what happens if a Jewish, Catholic or some other group constructs a community centre or something with a 'minaret like' structure and it's deemed not a minaret because the group isn't Muslim except the day after they finish they 'decide' they're going to sell it to a Muslim group... Just to be clear I'm not trying to use this page as a forum but it seems to me these are obvious questions that arise from this which may be addressed/discussed in reliable sources and if they are should be added to the article. P.S. I recognise that the actual law is not in English Nil Einne ( talk) 10:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I have added a paragraph about this problem in the Langenthal section, and renamed it to "Implementation and the Langenthal minaret". Hans Adler 17:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
According to #contentious issues and also #That's all very interesting, but..., none of the minarets in Switzerland are used for the call to prayer. I'm presuming then that this wasn't much of an issue at all in the referendum (you can of course ban the call to prayer without banning minarets). Currently our article doesn't mention it at all but given the discussions above and the association some may have, it's probably worth mentioning that minarets in Switzerland are not used for the call to prayer and it wasn't an issue presuming both can be sourced (in relation to the controversy) Nil Einne ( talk) 10:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
it's true that no minaret in Switzerland was ever even suggested to be used for the call to prayer. The call to prayer was nevertheless a major issue in the controversy. A lot of people voted against minarets because it was suggested to them that it is obvious that they would ultimately be used for the call to prayer. Christoph Blocher can be quoted as suggesting (issue 110 of his online video broadcast) that if the minaret ban failed to be implemented, he would need to get up to go jogging at five o'clock in the morning in the future if he didn't want to be bothered by the cries of the muezzins. I know. That's right-wing populism for you. -- dab (𒁳) 15:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted [17] the edits by an IP user, User:222.152.142.137, which introduce polemic material argued from the POV of the IP editor himself, as violating WP:OR and WP:NPOV. The IP keeps reinserting the same edit, so would somebody please keep an eye on this. I have also reverted the edit [18] by User:Manticore55, since the sentence that edit has introduced was grammatically malformed and its intended meaning unclear; also, the use of highly charged language such as "decried the hypcorisy of" should be avoided per WP:NPOV. Nsk92 ( talk) 21:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I will attempt to reform the sentence, however, your dual reversions implies I engaged in Original Research which I did not. Manticore55 ( talk) 22:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, we now have officials of Turkey and Iran(!) complaining about the ban. I ask you. This is involuntary comedy. I can see western countries criticizing Switzerland for falling short of western secularism, but to have an Islamic theocracy deposit official notes of protest over the minaret ban is simply absurd. -- dab (𒁳) 15:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Eh, hypocrisy is nothing new. Possibly there could be a see also for restrictions on building churches, or a category for building restrictions which could include religiously-motivated ones as well as secular like Height restriction laws. Шизомби ( talk) 14:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
CNN may report that the minarets in the poster are ″reminiscent of missiles″ but that doesn't make it a fact, just CNN's opinion. We don't need to repeat their opinion, especially since the poster in question is shown. Jzeise ( talk) 01:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
nonsense. This isn't Wikipedia's voice. The statement is linked to about five reports on the poster all of which are in agreement that they are reminiscent of missiles. Probably that's because they are, in fact, reminiscent of missiles. -- dab (𒁳) 15:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the “about five” reports that state the minarets look like missiles. I′m sure that was the intent. Nonetheless, our reporting that they do is giving Wikipedia an opinion as to their appearance. We may report that others think they look like missiles, but we shouldn't report that they do. Jzeise ( talk) 20:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Here's a video from European Journal [27] and a coule articles [28], and [29], that might be good to include. It was also featured on the Daily Show Thursday Dec. 3, if an American pop-cultural take is of any use. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 06:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the use of videos to cover this. A referendum and an amendment to a constitution isn't a very... visual topic. -- dab (𒁳) 15:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Why is this article called Minaret controversy in Switzerland? How is it controversial? Islamic state countries have banned the building of churches for hundreds of years.-- Rabka Uhalla ( talk) 19:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Minarets like church spires are architecture, they are fashion trends in building form. Neither the Christian bible or the koran that I am aware specifies that places of religious worship need to be a particular shape. It is very silly. Trying to pretend that international law or human rigths law applies to building styles is a bit retarded AntaineNZ ( talk) 03:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I see consensus to move the article to Minaret ban in Switzerland and restore my edits, and the only editors who disagree won't back up their claims yet still continue to revert anyway.-- Rabka Uhalla ( talk) 16:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Since bringing up the issue a week ago here, I have yet to see any improvement in the lede section adequately describing the article title "Minaret controversy in Switzerland". That there is a controversy is not the argument; rather, it is the collective inability (or inattentiveness) of the Wikipedia community to concicely describe the subject of this article as it is currently titled. According to WP:LEDE, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." If the article cannot be tailored to suit the title, then I believe a consensus vote for a page move is entirely appropriate. Steamroller Assault ( talk) 04:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry, Steamroller Assault, but I have the impression you are being coy. The "controversy" is that some people want to build minarets, and other people try to stop them from building them. This is what we mean by "minarets are controversial". I frankly don't see any other way to interpret the statement. This is the entire "controversy". Everything else comes down to documenting that the controversy exists and is notable. The article lead gives you the information that minarets have been the subject of controversy in Switzerland for about 10 years now. This is an actual piece of information, seeing that minaret were not actually controversial in Switzerland in 1980, or that they aren't controversial in, say, Algeria, even today. This is not the same as a "definition" of "a minaret controversy is a controversy surronding minarets" ("black bears are bears that are black").
This section doesn't serve any evident purpose other than filling the page and wasting people's time. The first post in this section (How is it controversial? Islamic state countries have banned the building of churches for hundreds of years) is obvious trolling. I don't see the point in going out of your way to dig up some possible meaning in a trolling remark.
The suggestion by User:ChildofMidnight amounts to {{ split}}ting Swiss ban on minarets from coverage of the wider (pre-ban) controversy. This is a different issue, and a suggestion that may be made independently, independent of the non-starter of throwing the word "controversy" in the article's title doesn't seem useful to me (the word controversy is there because the article discusses a controversy, not just a "ban"). The ban is covered in a single line of text. The controversy is epic. -- dab (𒁳) 18:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
From "words to avoid":
in other words, "controversy" tends to be used on Wikipedia in places where it should not. This has no bearing on instances where the topic is an actual controversy ("a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views"), as is the case in this article. I still fail to see any point to this section, sorry. -- dab (𒁳) 19:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
A question: If Wilders, Belang and Borghezio are successful in getting any press on their suggestions for similar referendums in Holland, Belgium and Italy respectively (granting they enjoy a snowball's chance in hell of even getting put up for a vote), could this feasibly morph into "Anti-Minaret initiatives in Europe?" or something? -- Aryaman (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
ok, the reaction to the Swiss referendum has been Europe-wide. This is beginning to take proportions of a European minaret controversy after all. The Swiss referendum appears to have served as a sort of catalyst. We can collect news sources on the European scope of this and eventually this may well grow into an article with a larger scope (or a new super-article to be split off). -- dab (𒁳) 10:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Myself and at least one other editor have over the last week or so posted two external links bloth have been deleted by others under WP:ELNO
Mine : The Swiss minaret law and its implications by Matthew Smith (IndigoJo), British Muslim convert, Islamist and blogger.
and the other by an IP editor : Tariq Ramadan on the Swiss 'Minaret Ban': "Islam Is a European Religion" Qantara.de
In the case of the IndigoJo posting, yes he is a blogger, however as I discussed with the editor who fist removed that link : You will see that the author of the blog is notable, the blog in question has been had coverage in The Spectator, Emel magazine and on the BBC to name just three main stream media outlets. It has won an independent award (Winner of the Best European Blog Brass Crescent Awards) two years on the trot (2008 & 9) and is listed in the Quranclub's State of the Muslim Blogosphere Report as being the third oldest active Muslim blog on the internet, so it meets the exception criteria. The blog is also referenced in numerous other Wikipedia articles. It was subsquently deleted by Rama and dispite a dicusssion here as to why it is not appropriate he has not given a fully satisfactory answer. I accept and concede that this one it is not clear cut, and if there had been 5 or 6 other links in the further reading section then I may not have added it.
I had decided it to leave it at that, however when I saw that User:Alandeus removed the second link with the edit summary of no blogs I was at a loss to see why as it does not appear to be a blog (or at least in the traditional sence) and if that is not acceptable then why is : Swiss minaret ban due to more than just xenophobia, an analysis of the vote in the Harvard Law Record. Which if you look is written by Swiss national who currently works in New York and if you look up his his practice areas list them as competition law, as well as banking and financial law.
So my observation and reason for commenting is there appears to be an inconstant approach to what is linked to in the Further reading and External links section of this article - is there a consensus, as I can’t see why the link to the Harvard Law Record is allowed and the one to Qantara.de is not and why the views of a Swiss national who currently works in New York are any more worthy than that of an award winning British Muslim blogger? Codf1977 ( talk) 13:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
This article doesn't need any links to radical opinion pieces. Neither radical Islamist ones nor radical anti-Islamic ones. There is plenty of mainstream coverage to choose from. -- dab (𒁳) 15:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Kindly note that the Stüssi thesis is not listed under EL but as published literature. -- dab (𒁳) 10:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
what is your problem? This is a citation. We could also cite it without the link. The presence of the citation does not rely on the presence of the link. -- dab (𒁳) 20:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
you can by all means raise concerns as to the relevance of the paper cited. Just as soon as you keep referring to WP:ELREG, which has nothing whatsoever to do with this question, simply because this isn't and has never been about the WP:EL section of this article. -- dab (𒁳) 13:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
I posted a link to the www.euro-islam.info analytical piece on this issue January 30, 2010. Feel free to contact me (my email is on our site) if there's any issue with this. Thank you. Lisa Baughn, webmaster, www.euro-islam.info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.66.22 ( talk) 07:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I see the article as more of a short analytical piece rather than an opinion. Could you please be more specific about why it doesn't meet the criteria? Thank you. -Lisa Baughn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.66.22 ( talk) 01:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Despite the majority result in favor of the ban, this section talks mostly about the votes against it. If you are going to enumerate the results in the cantons which opposed the ban, why not do the same for the canons which voted for it?
In fact every paragraph emphasizes the opposition to the ban, while the last para does not belong in this section IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.236.182.77 ( talk) 17:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
because the majority of cantons voted for it. What's the point of enumerating the majority? The cantons numbered are exceptional because they voted against the majority.
But I agree with your general point. The article is far too apologetic. This does reflect the tone in the Swiss mainstream press, however, the general view of this seems to be that of an accident or an irregularity that nobody expected to happen, and which is now analyzed so it will be possible to anticipate something like this in the future.
It is indeed very arguable that this majority is an artefact created by the mistaken advance polls. Many people who voted yes would not have done so if the polls had predicted an outcome close to or above 50%. -- dab (𒁳) 17:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Seeing that there have been no comments on this since February, I am removing the tag. -- dab (𒁳) 09:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
It appears the appeals are starting [33]. The article also raises the interesting point. Given the government is opposed to the law and thinks it's inconsistent with the basic principles of Swiss constitution and of course so does the appealant I presume, both will be on the same (or at least similar) sides. I presume other interested parties will be allowed to argue on behalf of the law. I've heard this happen before, in the US I think (e.g. it happened to some extent with the California Proposition 8 (2008)) but it's a fairly rare situation in general I guess. Or perhaps not so uncommon in Switzerland given that direct democracy is more likely to lead to cases were the government disagrees with the law? Nil Einne ( talk) 18:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
dab (𒁳) 14:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems the media have now virtually abandoned this subject. This result did show up, though. It also mentions a deadline till September 15 for the Swiss government. Darth Viller ( talk) 11:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)