Talk:Sudanese teddy bear blasphemy case

message: I disagree with this tagging so please can you bring any arguments re this to the talk page. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a typo, as the creator of this article FOR ME disagree is where its at. Doh. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: And as a new page patroller myself your argument is spot on. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recentism

message: Any particular reason for the mixed transliterations of the name? BigBlueFish 01:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any reason why not? 91.108.225.161 23:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The class that named the bear used a particular version of the name. People who have been following the case will notice that the name is actually quite a big deal, so it would make sense for the article to actually contain the right one.--AlexCatlin 14:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Arabic), which recommends Muhammad.  The guide is essential reading for any Wikipedia article dealing with Arabic language.  Incidentally, it is currently only a proposed standard for a particular transliteration method - as you may notice from reading the news, there are so many inconsistent transliterations of common Arabic words that one sometimes feels as if they don't have a spelling in English.  If Wikipedia can nail down a sound and logical policy, it could spread to journalists at large and break down a major barrier of understanding between English and Arabic speakers worldwide. 70.15.116.59 20:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muhammad/Mohammed 

message: Should we include a wikilink to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy in the See also section of the article, another case involving an allegation of blasphemy involving Muhammad? AecisBrievenbus 13:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, should remain IMO. --Brand спойт 19:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  JP cartoons in See also? 

message: I added more news that Gibbons returned home to Britain after a pardon.  See this link here. --Angeldeb82 20:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And here's another one: Teacher jailed over teddy bear returns to U.K. Well? --Angeldeb82 18:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More news

message: I removed the "See Also" links to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy and The Satanic Verses controversy, but someone added them back.  I removed them because I do not believe there is a parallel between those two events and this one.  Satanic verses is a book written for the purpose of "exposing" Islam as "evil." It was a purposefully confrontational jab at Islam.  The other article is about a group of cartoons, some of which directly mock Mohammad.  I fail to see how either of these articles link directly with this one...a story about a teddy bear whose "naming" was not a purposeful affront or critique of Islam.  I feel the inclusion of the links to these two articles is inflammatory.  ++Arx Fortis 16:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest this material is not reinserted without reliable sources. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed unless a reliable source is connecting these incidences then we should not either. 1 != 2 16:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't believe anyone in this section used the word "offending."  The word I used was "inflammatory."  There's quite a difference.  Aside from being purposefully confrontational, the subjects referenced by the links were meant to be highly visible to the public (book and newspaper).  This incident is quite the opposite.  Using the links to compare/contrast this incident with the other two should not be done unless reliable sources can be provided showing the same.  ++Arx Fortis (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not censored. Those topics are similar so the see also section makes sense.--Svetovid (talk) 11:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has nothing to do with censorship.  Saying it does is simply trying to discredit the opposite position by drawing upon hyperbole. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting that those topics do not have enough similar or common features to be mentioned together? If it is so, what does it have to do with being 'inflammatory'?--Svetovid (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with the majority that the Muhammad-cartoon incidents should be included in the See Also section.  Clearly, the two events are part of the same on-going and ever-evolving culture rift between the sacredness of the prophet of Islam and the freedom of speech of Western society.  Suggesting that it's inflammatory to include it, in my opinion, does by default imply a need to censor the relative information.  The point is that it's RELATIVE information.  It's related.  Obviously. -Laikalynx (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also 

message: Should say "born 1953", not just the year by itself. Thanks Redrocketboy 18:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit protected 

message: This article said only 400 protested, but according to The Guardian protesters numbered 10,000. I've updated. As the following photograph proves there were a lot more people protesting than 400. --Ibn Kaafir (talk) 12:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Protest numbers

message: Have added a small wiki commons image to lighten the page slightly and a referenced comment from one party involved.Cpsoper (talk) 06:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Image and comment from school council chair