In the syntax literature, it is commonly assumed that a constraint on linguistic competence blocks extraction of "wh-"expressions (e.g. "what" or "which book") from embedded questions, referred to as "wh-"islands. Furthermore, it is assumed that there is an argument/adjunct asymmetry in extraction from "wh-"islands. We report results from two acceptability judgment experiments on long and short "wh-"movement and "wh-"extraction from "wh-"islands in Danish. The results revealed four main findings: (1) No adjunct/argument asymmetry in extraction from "wh-"islands. (2) Long adjunct "wh-"movement is less acceptable than long argument "wh-"movement, and this difference is attributable to matrix verb compatibility and factivity, not D-linking. (3) Long movement reduces acceptability, but is more acceptable than island violations. (4) Training effects reveal that island violations, though degraded, are grammatical in Danish. Since the standard assumptions cannot account for the range of results, we argue in favor of a processing account referring to locality (processing domains) and working memory.