Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 22

message: What is the stance on uploading larger versions of the specific pictures? There are version online that give a better view and also translate some of the captions. These are going on and offline all the itme, though. I think it's fair to the topic to view the cartoons as they are up close. Gabbahead 15:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the amount of trouble we've had keeping the image we already have on the front page, I doubt adding additional high-res versions of the cartoons would go over well. Also, keep in mind JP is a commercial content provider who (presumably) profits from the material therein, and substantially higher-res versions of the images could cause "fair use" problems. I don't really see a compelling reason to change from what we have now, honestly. --BinaryTed 18:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Larger copies of pictures? 

message: This is from the timeline on December 2:
A Pakistani political party, Jamaat-e-Islami apparently offers a roughly $10,000 reward to anyone who kills one of the cartoonists[3]. It was later discovered that this was a considerable exaggeration, based on a small note in a local newspaper, citing Jamaat-e-Islami as promising a reward up to a million rupees for the deaths of the cartoonist. Jamaat-e-Islami claims to be wrongly cited, having merely suggested that the Pakistani government could promise such a reward. On its way through the Danish ambassador to the Danish media, this fact is blown up as involving multiple papers and flyers with the reward.[10]
From today there is now a new semi-official  bounty (described in the Danish newspaper Politiken : :http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=439073). The following is a translation:
Mohammed Yousaf Qureshi, an imam in Peshawar, Pakistan offerers a bounty of 1,5 mill rupees and a car to the person who kills one of the Danish cartoonists. The declaration was made in front of 1,000 peopole outside a histoircal mosque in Peshawar. "All islamic imams have unilaterally decided that, he who insults the prophet, shall (DA=skal = will/must/shall) be killed".
Sirajul Hag, a minister of the Pakistani government, said, at the same occasion, that the Pakistani government, should demand the cartoonists to be extradited, so that they could be tried at a Pakistani court of law.
Doesn't this warrant entry into the timeline ?
Varga Mila 14:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pakistani bounty - new car anyone ? ;-)

message: The AP is reporting a new twist. Mohammed Yousaf Qureshi of the Mohabat Khan mosque in Pakistan has offered 1.5 million rupees, 1 million dollars and a car to whoever kills a cartoonist. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060217/ap_on_re_mi_ea/prophet_drawings_262. PhatJew 23:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bounty 

message: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1422027.cms
MX44 10:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian Bounty and Fatwa 

message: Anonymous editor, please do not remove the image. See this poll. There was overwhelming support for including it. Unless you have a good reason for removing the image that has not yet been considered, please do not remove it. Doing so will be reverted as vandalism, and you will achieve nothing. Thank you! --Ashenai 14:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, but having a poll about the rights of a minority is stupid. Yes, 1.3 billion muslims are still a minority, because only few of them have access to the internet. Is it OK to be homophobic on wikipedia, if a majority wants to mock gays? Raphael 62.116.76.117 20:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No Raphael, mocking is not ok. So please stop mocking people by calling them stupid just because you have not read, or alternatively not understood, the 14+ archives of discussions before and after the poll regarding the reasons for the cartoons still being shown here. DanielDemaret 21:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I have read almost all of the 14+ archives of discussion and therefore I know, that there has been NO GENERAL CONSENSUS about showing the cartoons. BTW I did not call anybody stupid, but I regard having polls about minority rights as stupid. Raphael 62.116.76.117 17:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This talk page is provided by the wikimedia foundation for discussing the article. If you want a philosophical debate there are plenty of other places on the web to go for  that. But here is not the place I'm afraid. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please do not remove the image 

message: Opinions are one of the basic instruments of law. Every Supreme Court "decision" is based on an opinion. Opinions in US appeals courts are written by a single judge and signed by a majority, and minority opinions are entered by one or many judges.  http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=legal%20opinion. Netscott argues that legal opinions he does not prefer should be relegated to a section comparing them to rhetorical opinions. To do so would not be a neutral representation of Sharia as appreciated by certain fundamentalist practitioners as documented  http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/2005/11/not_just_omar_s.html in the content Netscott hopes to remove from this page. As I understand Wikipedia, efforts are made to explain matters in terms consistent with the understanding of those involved. Also "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV#Undue_weightSurely, there would be no controversy if Sharia was not a prominant viewpoint, albeit not in Western countries. The viewpoint in so far as it is relevant, no matter how offensive, must be represented in a sympathetic tone.
Assertion of a fact is not to offer an opinion. "It's worth observing that scholars are trained so that, even when trying to prove a point, counter-arguments are included, so that they can explain why the counter-arguments fail." Rolano 17:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PaxTerra, aside from these arguments , why are you using the sock puppet name of Rolano to contribue now? Netscott 18:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In debate, most traditions involve presenting evidence and counter arguments relevant to the topic at hand. Rolano 19:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  True, but if the moral standing of a contributor is in question then their edits will be questionable as well. Please answer the following question so that we may proceed to address your arguments. Are you denying that the username Rolano is in fact PaxTerra?  Netscott 19:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opinion vs. Law

message: I am concerned that Rolano's recent edits have introduced a strong POV into the article. Opinions, please? --Ashenai 18:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As explained above with references to Wikipedia's fundamental policies, factual representation of points of view is a part of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. Omitting significant viewpoints from an article about viewpoints is where neutrality begins to degrede. Could you respond substantively to what personal viewpoints you allege I am advancing? Or could you explain why widespread views of Sharia as held by Muslims are not relevant to a section that discusses what "believers" have "demanded"? Surely you don't think that I hold these views? Rolano 19:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ashenai, thank you for bringing this up. While many of the edits that PaxTerra (aka Rolano) does seem good there do seem to be POV issues in some of them. Netscott 19:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  This is exactly what I was talking about when I told PaxTerra I wasn't sure this shouldn't go in Opinions. I don't think it's a good thing to describe a section entitled 'Legal Traditions' as "a section that discusses what 'believers' have 'demanded'?", but that description certainly fits the current 'Legal Traditions' section in this article.  Incidentally, this is the Richard from past discussions, I decided if I was going to keep getting involved in this article I might as well sign up. :) RichardRB 22:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here's my 'official' welcome on board to you Richard with your official wiki user name! A number of people have expressed some reservations about some of PaxTerra's (aka Rolano's) edits in terms of POV and while myself and a couple of others have been doing our best to limit this, we've had mixed results... I totally agree about what you are saying regarding 'believers' even the fatwa links provided about mosul etc. seem rather 'blogish' and less than NPOV (with the site being called 'jihadwatch' as a source)... the legal traditions needs seriously trimming and/or revising as well 'legal traditions' seems out of place under the heading 'conflicting traditons'. Netscott 03:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I could be wrong. Either way, I think it's useful to get at least a rough consensus on contentious issues before engaging in what could easily end up as an edit war. --Ashenai 21:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section says believers have "called for" On whom did they call? That is what defines this as different than a section about believers who lynched, beat or boycotted those they disagree with. It is not about who called for something (I changed it to "sought") but about of whom they sought relief. When they call on mobs to riot, or consumers to boycott, that is one kind of response. When the seek legal relief, no matter the system of law, that is fundamentally a different approach. Rolano 07:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Hmmm, interesting Azate... that you along with MX44, Richard, Jdonnis, and myself (among other transient editors who've essentially edited out the same thing) should come to the same conclusion... while PaxTerra (aka Rolano) doesn't seem to be able to understand this. Netscott 17:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concern about recent additions 

message: Should the following paragraph remain in the article?
:Also of note, it has also been reported that in Iran when people are looking for a sweet flaky dessert at the bakery they now have to ask for "Roses of the Prophet Muhammad".
   Cake shop owner Ahmad Mahmoudi has been quoted as saying, "This is a punishment for those who started misusing freedom of expression to insult the sanctities of Islam". This marks the first time a food item has become a symbol of protest since Capitol Hill cafeterias changed their menus to advertise "freedom fries" instead of french fries.
I had added it yesterday, but it was removed later. Should it be placed back into the article? Sysrpl 03:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  hehe... I had actually added essentially the same bit of info back with Iran announced the name change of Danish to Muhammadan but the link I provided was too funny and the bit I added got cut... now I'm inclined to think that this act by Iran is a bit smallish relative to the rest of what has occurred (and is occurring) and as such should probably be on one of the support pages. (like timeline, etc.) Netscott 03:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to the Freedom Fries article, the people who renamed French Fries later admitted they were wrong and what they did was silly. Will this happen with the people who renamed the Danish, or will they rename the cheese to Muhammed Bimbo, every street to Muhammed Way and change every town's name to Muhammedabad? --Tokachu 17:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most Danes are extremely informed about the names of pastries in Arab countries. We are all very distraught by this turn of events. Celcius (Talk)  Wiki be With us! 20:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, I guess renaming the pastry is too non-violent for us. We only want to focus on the violent acts and the body counts so we can pit one side against the other better! Hey, get a grip! After picking a fight, we say that the fight itself was the very reason we picked a fight. Admit it. Renaming the Danish to "Rose of the Prophet Muhammad" was an ingenious form of non-violent protest, a cultural put-down in response to a barbaric insult. A hundred years from now, Muslims everywhere will be enjoying their roses of the Prophet Muhammad, and the Jyllands-Posten cartoons will be so "yesterday's newspaper." Wikipedia should have the foresight to publish now the origin of this tradition-in-the-making.12.16.126.34 23:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not ingenious. The so called "Danish" has nothing to do with Denmark - so nobody cares. It's like when some Americans renamed "French Fries" to "Freedom Fries". I'm sure the French were really hurt seeing they have no clue what French Fries are as they themselves call it Belgish/Belgium Fries. But of course it shows quite nicely to what level the debate has sunk - the lowest possible Celcius (Talk)  Wiki be With us! 03:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Renaming Tasty Pastries

message: 72.129.170.249 inserted this in 'Danish traditions':
"Shortly before the publication of the Muhammad cartoons, Jyllands-Posten ran a headline reading, “Islam is the Most Belligerent.” The newspaper ran an exposé about an alleged Muslim death-list of Jewish names—until it emerged that the whole thing was a fabrication. ."
I hope I'm not being blind to my blindspots. Although I generally find little to agree with J-P on, in terms of their editorial and political line, I find it highly unlikely that JP 'fabricated' the story about the death-list. That however, is the most immediate interpretation of the sentence (though I admit, there are several).  
Furthermore, I haven't heard of this before. Are there any cross-references ?? Varga Mila 21:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes there is. If you google for: "jøder" "dødsliste", you will find quite a few references to this story. It was on the frontpage of JP 11. august, 2005 MX44 13:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ... ehrm, that should have been: 11. august, 2002 MX44 23:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What ? Cross-reference please

message: Does the image have to be so big, what's wrong with the standard thumbnail size, and let users click for the larger version, as is the norm? I don't want to censor it, it just looks bad when it’s so big. Gerard Foley 21:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do find that the image is WAY to big for those of us with lower screen resolutions. It was just fine at 250px in my opinion. — TheKMantalk 22:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: (Edit conflict) I just remembered I have a wide screen monitor, I resized it to a "standard size" and it takes up half the space. It looks even worse then before. Gerard Foley 22:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a little small for me. Septentrionalis 22:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks fine to me now. However, the image to which it links (i.e. the enlargement) ought to be bigger! As it is now, it is nearly impossible to 'decipher' e.g., the cartoon in the left hand corner furthest down (a cartoonist looking nervously over his shoulder).  Varga Mila 22:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Although the 400px version seems to portray the correct amount of detail and although I despise people who insist on keeping resolutions below 1024x768, I must say that 200px closer to the standard. If someone wants to see a larger image, they can click on the thumbnail or the link to the larger picture. joturner 22:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Since I've been contributing on this article from the Feb. 6 I've noticed the occasional changes in the image size but frankly on my higher resolution screens it's never been an issue for me, that said there are those who do use lower resolution and with that in mind the image should be set to 250px. Netscott 22:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: To me, this seems childish. Leave it at 200px as context for the article, and so that it is viewable by a majority of users. Let people click the thumbnail to view the image in full. Can we leave the issue?  James  Kendall  [talk] 22:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, didn't realise it was 250px. To me it looks small as I have a high-res laptop screen, but it looks fine, and I expect its quite large on smaller resolutions. We are meant to be creating the world's best free reference material, not a bitchfest over pixels.  James  Kendall  [talk] 22:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "A bitchfest over pixels" - I'll have to remember that one. joturner 23:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Try to click on it, can you? Resid Gulerdem 23:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully wikipedia won't be targeted if it is enlarged :/ --SeanMcG 23:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it should be left at 250px and I apologize for the resizing... I forgot that some people use smaller screens and that it could cause issues. JtkieferT | C | @  ---- 08:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: "it is a low-resolution image; the full details of the drawings cannot be seen, nor can the text of the article be read (and thus should not inhibit Jyllands-Posten from selling their newspaper)". Netscott 04:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image Size

message: "Among Muslims, the Shi'a Muslims have been generally tolerant of pictorial representation of human figures including Muhammad to the point that a fatwa exists given by Ali al-Sistani, the Shi'a marja of Iraq, stating that it is permissible to make pictures of Muhammad, if done with the highest respect"
Although whoever wrote this does cite an a fatwa by Ali al-Sistani, I'm fairly certain that it is only acceptable if there is a veil placed over the Prophet's face. In many Persian miniature paintings, Muhammad is depicted with a blank unpainted face. Personally, I've never seen any Modern pictorial representations of Muhammad, doing so is still considered taboo in the Islamic world. Thus, I don't know if the article should state that Shia Muslims are generally tolerant of images depicting Muhammad; it is still rare. --SeanMcG 23:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means edit it... but be sure to leave in the very critical bit about the fatwa. Netscott 23:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images of Muhammad in Shi'a Islam 

message: Do you think it is necessary to provide page protection? This article is one of the most prone to vandalism on Wikipedia and IMO it should be fully protected.
--Mvent2 23:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, as it is a current event. Just my 2c.  James  Kendall  [talk] 23:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, thanks for your opinion. --Mvent2 23:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It does get sprotected from time to time... if there's active vandalism occuring then it's best to report it to Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress. Netscott 23:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page needs protection 

message: The controversy is regarded as Denmarks worst international crisis since the Second World War.
In my opinion, that is an unverifiable fact (or rather opinion) that, at the very least, does not belong in the opening paragraph. Instead of violating the three-revert rule by removing the statement again, I decided to simply add the  tag. Any input on the statement? joturner 23:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, it is not a fact. But it is regarded so, bu both politicians, the media and scholars. Think it is important in order to understand the importance this controversy has for Denmark. Bertilvidet 00:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I altered the sentence a bit to specify the parties that hold that opinion. joturner 00:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I found a source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,25689-2041723,00.html It was the Danish PM Anders Fogh Rasmussen who said that. Mvent2 00:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry, but I really don't think it can be controversial to state it is the worst international crisis for Denmark since WWII. Denmark has usually had a rather low-profile foreign policy. How many of the non-Danes here can mention any other international crisis Denmark has been in??? Bertilvidet 00:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I actually do agree with the statement, but it's still an opinion. I'm okay with the statement as it stands now, mentioning that it is Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen who holds that opinion. joturner 00:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, it is actually widely redarded to be so. But of course it is not hard fact, why I from the beginning wrote "is regarded as". Bertilvidet 00:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denmark's Worst Crisis Since WWII? 

message: What is the purpose of this ? Can I hide the picture using my CSS page? If so, how? Gerard Foley 03:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you open your monobook.css and add this:
 #mi{display: none;}
And it removes the picture. Haven't used CSS in a long time so it may not work. If not, tell me. Mvent2 03:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No problem. Glad I still have some CSS knowledge in my thick skull LOL :) Mvent2 03:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, Wikipedia has a help page for user styles. Anonymous Islamic users: If you want to hide the picture using this method you need to sign up for an account. Mvent2 03:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do the span tags do? (READ THIS if you want to hide the picture!!)

message: Resid Gulerdem
I tried to suggest a poll, to be set up once the controversy had settled down, where people could have one last look at all the options and vote with some degree of finality, without feeling that their previous votecasting had been ignored or overridden.
I feel that you have, with your constant whining and poll-mongering, ruined any chance of that. On your head be it. WookMuff 04:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry that I cannot read your intensions... And I am surprised that, you think your poll will be welcomed... Resid Gulerdem 08:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dear Resid... 

message: He's not trying to change the size of the image at all. The closest thing he did was to edit the whitespace in the warning. 
Darn, that causes the article to be protected again as I write this. Just for essentially trivial formatting changes. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 09:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Not trivial... along with date formatting the first four edits done by Riveraz changed the image size specified for the main cartoons image... which no doubt triggers everyone's whistles and bells to do automatic reverts. Netscott 09:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You'll see from the diff you just listed that his changes noticeably reduced the image size which went against the talk page discussions on the image size which was agreed upon to be kept at 250px.  JtkieferT | C | @  ---- 09:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What's wrong with Riverraz's changes?!

message: According to Google, it appears like the most relevant link between "Sambo" and "Jylland-Posten" is ... Wikipedia! Note that "sambo" is also a danish (or scandinavian) word, denoting a person with whom you live together with, which is totally unrelated to this article.
The link between "Mohammad" and "Carlsberg" appears to be somewhat more relevant :) MX44 15:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *It appears that comparisons on the internet between Sambo and the Jyllands-Posten Cartoon controversy are virtually non-existent ... upon searching Google news I came up with an African judge named Sambo involved in the controversy . If there was a warranted comparison, I think it's safe to say that there'd be more examples of both reputable news organizations and web sites publishing the link. As such this isn't the case and due to the fact that for the searching the terms "Sambo" and "Jyllands Posten" on Google wikipedia is the #1 site, it appears safe to say that Wikipedia is pushing a POV. For this reason I'm removing the Sambo reference. Netscott 19:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sambo 

message: The site www.cartoonbodycount.com is currently down, as it has returned either a 412 Precondition Failed or 509 Bandwidth Exceeded error today. As far as I can tell, web sites that actually have a reputation to hold don't do this. Therefore, this link should be temporarily removed or mirrored until the administrator of www.cartoonbodycount.com learns to stop preaching their narrow technological beliefs. This is actually very ironic.
Anyway, bad server = bad link. --Tokachu 18:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked it and it appears to be back up.  Even the best of sites has downtimes sometimes. JtkieferT | C | @  ---- 19:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Still down with a "412 Precondition Failed" error. --Tokachu 20:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Error 412 comes from Apache's mod_security, which tries to stop various types of attacks and spam. In this case, it might be that mod_security was incorrectly marking the incoming link as referer spam -- this has happened a couple of times with sites I have hosted at a provider who uses it, generally when terms like "sex" or "poker" appear in the referer URL. But anyway, I'm not seeing this problem, so it's moot. Ubernostrum 03:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not having any problems, must be something on your end. JtkieferT | C | @  ---- 20:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I run the site.  We are not even experiencing heavy traffic at the moment. The domain name is pretty new though so people on certain networks might not have the correct DNS (though it is unlikely, it's been more than 48 Hours.)  I am a journalist applying a journalistic ethic to the collection of this data.  UPDATE: I think your error is being caused by some anti-spam software I am using to protect the site.  What is your browser?  69.113.207.99 20:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You know it's really not fair to attack a site because they have hosting issues.  Do you remember the hours of downtime Wikipedia was experiencing as little as a month ago?  What's ironic is saying "bad server = bad link" on Wikipedia.  --Cyde Weys 20:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not attacking the server. I'm just saying that the link doesn't work over here. And for 69.113.207.99, I'm using Mozilla Firefox, which is exactly what the error message asks to use. --Tokachu 21:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Okay, it works now. That was very odd. --Tokachu 21:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad link (cartoonbodycount.com) 

message: The "Opinions" sub-article article is a mess. As it stands now it is a leftover of a past ongoing discussion that more or less stopped when "Opinions" was forked from the main article. I propose to:
* order arguments not by country but by POV. There may be 5 or 6 different stances, on the whole.
* leave out excessive detail.
* find links to high-quality editorials that are exemplary for the different POVs. These will usually have been written latter in the controversy, whereas the links now present are all from early stages.
* Order by : 
**Initial Publication: needless/ill-intentioned provocation or addressing a real grievance
**Initial Publication:: legal or illegal
**Inital Danish Reaction by Muslim Groups and Danish Government correct or overblown or fair or provocative
**Internationalization of the Issue via the dossier: justified/overblown/desperate/aggressive
**Reaction of arab (M.E:) states: defenging the faith/playing the issue for domestic gain/international conspiracy/miscalculation
**Wave of republications: more provocation/ taking sides / attempt to inform
**unrest: spontaneous/controlled(by whom?)/ill-informed(rumors)
**prcendents/similarities to past conflict
Azate 20:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support, see my post on Opinions talk. RichardRB 03:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call for Cleanup of  "Opinions" sub-article 

message: I want to congratulate Joturner on his map, which is more accurate, more neutral and more informationdense than any I have seen (ex. : compare it to the partisan one at http://face-of-muhammed.blogspot.com/). That being said I think that MegaYachts alternate color chart above would make an improvement for readability. Yours truly, --Anjoe 14:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New color chart

message: Will recent JP apology in the Arap Newspapers be included in the article?  Resid Gulerdem 05:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Got a link Resid? Netscott 05:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I have read an article about it, cannot find a link at this point. Maybe the one below suffices! Resid Gulerdem 22:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know if this has been touched upon elsewhere, but the apology placed in the Arab newspapers, were not placed there by JP, but by a farmer from Jutland (the place mentioned in on the cartoons, incidentally).  It is apparently the exact same apology that has been on the JP website for while.  (While it is a bit dubious for an individual to do this, it seems obstinate of JP to only have published the apology on the internet). The apology, btw, is again, 'not' an apology for having published the cartoons, but for having hurt the feelings of some people.
http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=439321
Varga Mila 08:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will recent JP apology in the Arap Newspapers be included in the article?  

message: There is no point in offending others in this way.  Many people have died over this issue.  Clearly the images are hurtful to others.  Many images are illegal in Canada (e.g. child pornography, hate speech) and other Western nations, and it would be in bad taste for anyone to hurt others by violating our norms.  Why do we have no respect for others and intentionally hurt and degrade them? [some IP] --- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.84.40.22 (talk • contribs) 05:45, February 20, 2006. --- tagged as unsigned by JtkieferT | C | @  ---- 07:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With logic we should delete all religious pages!--Greasysteve13 02:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: There have been numerous polls regarding this issue, and still an overwhelming majority agree the image should stay. The image is an integral part of the article. If you don't want it displayed by all means read the censorship instructions at the top of this page. Everyone please stop your whining, the image is here to stay whether you like it or not. -- Mvent2 06:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It makes me sick to see terrorists and arsonists do the dirty work of intimidation while fellow whiners do the rest of the work, using the perpetrated crimes as pretext, ...pretending to have hurt feelings on top of that. --tickle me 06:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I can only assume that you have not seen the large blueish box at the top of this page that says loudly, "How to censor the images for your own browser". If you do not like the image, you can stop it from displaying on your computer. Can anyone say "equine necroflagellation", again? — Kimchi.sg | Talk 06:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: * Yes another case of Hipponecromastigosis. heh Netscott 07:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are a user, then you can run the monobook test, but since you are an anon, I think you can't. There is a giant box up there, read it. There was a poll by the community that the image should stay, and we are only showing one out of all the cartoon images. --Terence Ong 07:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm just happy to see my box is helping. :)Gerard Foley 18:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please delete the cartoon image 

message: If nothing else, this should definitely be posted in the Opinions section. Of particular interest is the assertion that Jyllands-Posten has indeed published cartoons about Jesus Christ and Judaism before. RichardRB 14:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should remove the accusation of a double standard regarding the unused unsolicited cartoons now from the main article. Jyllands-Posten has printed cartoons of Jesus and I don't see why any newspaper has to use unsolicited material. The information is already in the timeline. --Maitch 16:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Although the accusation is flawed, it seems important to include it in the article, as the double standard of the media in this respect - and of JP in particular  - is  common and much repeated. In this way, the reader can cast his or her own judgement on the validity of the accusation. Feel free to rephrase it, but in my view, it should be included in some form.Varga Mila 18:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "double standard" is beside the point, anyway. If JP has double standards, don't buy it, or write angry letters to the editor, don't torch embassies or boycott Danish products in general (JP != Denmark). Denmark is just protecting their right to be pricks. dab (ᛏ) 18:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, if you could give me a verifiable source for the common and much repeated double standard, then we should include it. This however is a false accusation and should have no place in the main article. I'm going to remove it. --Maitch 22:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If it's mentioned in the main article, it should be removed as it has been proved a demonstrably false accusation.  The perception of a double standard, on the part of Jyllands-Posten or Europe in general, is an opinion and belongs on the opinions page. RichardRB 14:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This will depend on what you mean by "perception". Surely the angry mobs "perceive" the cartoons as being islamophobic, except that they have never set eyes on them :) dab (ᛏ) 14:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jyllands-Posten Editor speaks out on his reasons 

message: Found this french article  on IRNA.ir (Iran's primary news source... sometime propaganda machine and not the most NPOV source).
Not sure why but the same story doesn't appear in English on their site but the main message translated from the story above, says:
:"Foreign Minster Manouchehr Mottaki on Monday called for the end of the violent protests in the Muslim world against the Muhammad Cartoons."
Netscott 20:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is an english language link for this, if you still need one. RichardRB 23:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Today Iran's Foreign Minister called for an end to violent protests  

message: The map shows the cartoons as having been reprinted in the British media, but I keep reading in the UK press that no newspaper there has so far printed them. Does anyone confirm either way. Thanks.  20:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bloomberg reported that the BBC has shown the cartoons on television. While I haven't found any reports that it was "printed" in British media, it is apparently safe to say that it has at least been "redistributed" there at least in part. --BinaryTed 21:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I have read, British television only showed the cartoons very briefly. If they are not in print, so that one can calmly study what the fuzz is about, I would consider them unpublished. MX44 22:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  The list of newspapers mentions the UK because of this abortive attempt to publish the cartoons in a university student newspaper.  If this is the closest anyone's come to publishing the cartoons in the UK, I suggest that the UK be pulled off the map, as the cartoons have not, in fact, been published there.  I think the notation for Gair Rhydd should remain in the list of newspapers, though. RichardRB 13:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that without some more substantive redistribution of the images, UK should be removed. While the images have appeared on UK media in some form, the "redistribution" here can hardly said to be on the same level as the other countries which have reprinted the cartoons in a "permanent" form. --BinaryTed 14:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Publication 

message: The article on the Akkari-Laban dossier provides English translations of the Jyllands-Posten article and editorial published in conjunction with the cartoons.     The translated passage in the article on the controversy  differs somewhat from the translation of the Akkari-Laban dossier.
Does anyone know of a reliable source for translations of the Jyllands-Posten article and editorial, and of the Danish words in the cartoons themselves?  I think that a link to such translations would be appropriate for the article on this controversy.  Alternatively, a link to the relevant portion of the Akkari-Laban dossier translation could suffice with respect to the Jyllands-Posten article and editorial.
-- Scottwiki 08:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translations of Jyllands-Posten material 

message: Why is this removed?--Striver 13:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not removed, it is on the Opinions page.  I would hazard the guess that since this cartoon is primarily useful as an illustration of many Arabic-Muslim views on the matter, it was moved to Opinions. RichardRB 14:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: but in saying so, shouldn't it be attached in the main page as an explanation of sorts of what the Muslim viewpoint is?196.204.158.245 21:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *This picture has been on the Opinions sub page for some time now... it truly does express an opinion on the situation... if would be less than NPOV to have this one opinion (expressed with the image) on the front page without corresponding opinions (as currently found on the Opinion page). Netscott 00:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it should be included - it's the main argument of many opponents of the cartoons and serves to explain some of the anger. Celcius (Talk)  Wiki be With us! 04:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The main argument seems to be "don't defame our prophet"...claims of inconsistent application of freedom of speech are a distant second, I would think. Regardless, we've moved all opinions ot the "Opinions article". Doesn't seem right to retain just one. Babajobu 04:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough - as long as it's universal. Celcius (Talk)  Wiki be With us! 04:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not exactly universal, for some reason we have a links section called Islamic views on the main page.  I brought this up a while ago but didn't get any answer beyond a suggestion to 'be bold', and I felt it would simply end in a revert war if I did it unilaterally.  IMO, we should either create a section for "Danish/Free press views" to maintain NPOV, or integrate the links into the Opinions article. RichardRB 06:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Agreed it does seem strange that there's no counter-balance...as well, the whole article needs a general going over and a grand 'unifying' edit... I just did a cursory read of it.. and it reeks of fragmentism. That said, it might be too soon for the grand unification edit due to this article's continued movement. Netscott 06:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Can't you read? This image is already on the "opinions" page. This is so because it illustrates an opinion. Reviewing this section here, there is (contrary to your claims) absolutely no consensus favouring its inclusion on the main image at all. Quite the opposite, in fact. Again: This picture represents ONE opinion. There are numerous others. None of them gets a cartoon on the main page, either. This is the job of the "opinions" page. Get it? Azate 13:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  The cartoon does not belong on the main page. It is a very good match on the opinions page though. Just like this one would be: http://www.muhammaddrawings.com/20060204.gif Jdonnis 14:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Second Jdonnis' point. Netscott 15:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pic

message: German political leaders and Jewish community representatives have demanded the boycott of a hit Turkish action movie that casts US soldiers in Iraq as villains. Bavarian Premier Edmund Stoiber and the Central Council of Jews blasted ‘Valley of the Wolves - Iraq’ (Kurtlar Vadisi - Irak) as anti-American and anti-Semitic and called on German cinemas to stop showing the picture. The film is based on an actual event - the arrest of 11 Turkish soldiers by a US military unit in northern Iraq in July 2003 on grounds of ’suspicious activity.’ The men were held for two days, their heads bagged, before being released without explanation. The film features a ‘Rambo’-like Turkish intelligence officer who exacts revenge for the episode, and depicts sadistic violence against innocent Iraqi civilians at the hands of the US troops. The GIs are also seen running a trade in organs extracted from prisoners at Baghdad’s notorious Abu Ghraib prison under the guidance of a Jewish US military doctor for rich buyers in New York, London and Tel Aviv. ‘Valley of the Wolves’ is an adaptation of a popular Turkish television series and the most expensive Turkish feature film to date with a EUR 8.4m budget. It has become a blockbuster in Turkey since its release this month. (Deutsche Welle, February 21, 2006)
Enjoy --Chaos 15:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling for people not to see the movie and asking cinemas in your own country not to show the film is a perfectly acceptable form of protest in a free country (though I personally think they should chill and think about something else). Calling for governments to punish artists in their country, to apologize on behalf of the media in their country, putting bounties on the heads of cartoonists, calling for their beheading, et cetera, is rather different. The situation isn't comparable at all. In fact, the fact that some people can't see the difference between these two responses is part of the problem. Babajobu 16:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Edmund Stoiber calling for the movie not to be shown banks on censorship. Then again, Germany has a rather strict criminal code regarding hate speech. The question of what kind of speech is tolerated in western societies is relevant. jacoplane 16:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Is anyone boycotting it then? And is it a good movie? Can I buy the DVD?DanielDemaret 16:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The movie has got to be available online with bittorrent, I would think. If you find it, let me know. I don't personally think calling for a movie not to be shown is wrong; just as I think it's fine for Muslims to ask European newspapers not to reprint the pictures. People are entitled to ask for these things, and the publisher/theater/etc. is entitled to tell them to get lost. Babajobu 16:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, yes, Edmund Stoiber's involvement is problematic. I suppose he's allowed to express his opinion, but it'd be much cleaner if the head-of-state kept his mouth shut, and if he's going to comment he should make clear he's stating his opinion as a German citizen, rather than as minister-president of Bavaria. Still, messy. Babajobu 16:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The short-sighteness (not to mention weak rationalism and -humanism) of some people. Stoiber's call is going to have the exact same effect on everyone else, as it does on us. I want to see that movie ! Its assured successVarga Mila 17:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  First, they are calling for a boycott of the movie, not Turkish products in general.  Second, as far as I can tell there have been no mass street protests, no riots, no consulate burning, no deaths, and no calls for the death of anyone involved in the film.  The only way the event is comparable is to show the stark contrast between two reactions which had a similar amount of initial provocation.  Piss Christ and a few of the other "comparable events" already do that, and more effectively IMO, but if you want to add another I don't really have an objection. RichardRB 21:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Stoibers timing is smart: His calls to stop showing the film come two weeks after the film's start, when cinemas are taking it off the screens in big numbers anyway. The the cinemas made their buck, all the turkish youth have seen it already, and it appears like what he says has had impact, when it really didn't. Stoiber is big on calling for things to stop: game boys, ego shooters, rap music, and anything else that is suspicious for his clientele of aged, rural Bavarians. Azate 06:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *This movie's trippy... it's got some fairly well known American actors in it like Billy Zane and Gary Busey... the production looks pretty good for the money they made it with (1.8million £). Netscott 06:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Hadn't considered that, you're right. Using the movie as a precedent for this event wouldn't make any sense. Edit: Oops, wasn't signed in. >_< RichardRB 22:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New comparable Event 

message: Genlemen, please! If a Turkish movie happens to boycotted at this stage, it cannot be included in the section of compareable incidents explaining the cause and lead-up to the JP-controversy. If you want to make a comparison it should either be in the article on "The Wolves" (whenever that will happen), or if you feel that both of these incidents have a common lead of racism or imperialism (or whatever), then by all means write it into one of those articles. MX44 21:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hadn't considered that, you're right. Using the movie as a precedent for this event wouldn't make any sense. Edit: Oops, wasn't signed in. >_< RichardRB 22:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  keyword: New 

message: Christians in Nigeria rioted in apparent retaliation for the deadly anti-cartoon riots on Satuday, causing more deaths. RichardRB 21:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *At this point that seems destined for the timeline... but if this escalates... Netscott 21:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christians in Nigeria retaliate for Saturday riots

message: Fresh archive...14a ... if there were active subjects from the areas archived please don't hesitate to pull them back in here. Netscott 22:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive [[Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Archive_14a|14a]]

message: A refreshingly light hearted take on the Jyllands-Posten controversy;
Cartoon furore puts Mohammed's guest role on 'The Simpsons' in doubt
If only the extremists could have a sense of humour. Although the Jyllands-Posten cartoons weren't actually funny. Veej 00:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no, they weren't. But it does go to show that there is cencorship in fear of reactions from extremist islamic communities - in that sense it's a fairly interresting link as that was the whole point of the cartoons in the first place Celcius (Talk)  Wiki be With us! 04:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not real censorship, the linked article is parody. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Goes to show - never drink and Wiki :-| Celcius (Talk)  Wiki be With us! 18:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Have you seen this? 

message: The BBC reports that OIC denounces cartoons violence. 
Netscott 00:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Now added to the timeline. Netscott 01:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finally! 

message: I've created a poll to review the decision here in light of the potentially contradictory decision made at Talk:Goatse.cx/Vote. See Wikipedia talk:Censorship/Shock images poll At this point, it's probably preferable to discuss in the comments section there isn't of just voting.--Fangz 01:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NO! -Moocats 02:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Another poll?  What an original idea.  NO.--Jbull 02:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cripes. This poll isn't just about the cartoons. It's to formalise the decision and correct a previous result if neccessary. Unless you want to go through the bother of the previous 4 polls *EVERY* time this sort of thing happens again, I suggest you at least participate in the discussion on the page I linked and outline some criteria that make the two cases different.--Fangz 02:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mitigating circumstances surround each individual article.  It's like when bush said kerry was flip-flopping on ideas, when kerry was really interpreting new information and making different choices based on that info.  I'm with the group that feels each case should be handled on an individual basis, lots of work or not, it's the right thing to do.  Making blanket policy regarding this isn't something two pieces of the wikipedia community should do anyway.  If it were to be set as a global policy, it would have to go on the front page. -Moocats 12:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Keep situation, not comparable. No need for a subgroup of editors to set criteria for all of wikipedia. --KimvdLinde 03:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I dislike polls, but ok I will vote. --Terence Ong 08:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shock images poll - please vote! 

message: I welcome comments to Talk:Goatse.cx#Having_the_pic.2C_and_on_the_top --Striver 12:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Goatse pic on top

message: FYI to editors of the page: the American cable channel, the History Channel, will air a 2-part special, "Secrets of the Koran" on March 2 and 9, 2006, at 21:00, EST.
From the New York Post:
"Koran" executive producer Dolores Gavin says she and her colleagues were extremely mindful of the recent rioting - and that there are no images of Mohammed in the show. ... Gavin says that by telling the history behind the Koran, she hopes people might understand why Muslims are so offended by the cartoons.
The show, which has been thoroughly vetted by Islamic scholars - many of whom appear in the special - aims to explain the history of the Muslim holy book and its meaning.
I, for one, will be watching this special!  Valtam 22:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  I'll record the shows on my Tivo, and we'll see... Valtam 19:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally the term "vetted" is just another word for censored, it means going through the material and taking out the bits that you do not want circulated in the general public.--CltFn 03:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The History Channel is airing a special, "Secrets of the Koran" 

message: In the section "danish journalistic tradition you this is written :"Shortly before the publication of the Muhammad cartoons, Jyllands-Posten ran a frontpage story about an alleged Muslim death-list of Jewish names [59] —until it emerged that the rumours could not be confirmed."
First of all the story was not run "shortly before" but is from 2002. Secondly although the rumours about a specific death-list could not be confirmed, an islamist group (Hizb-ut-tahrir) spokesman Fadi Abdullatif, in october 2002 was sentenced to 60 days in jail, for a breach of the act against racism. He was inciting the killing of jews, and the organisations homepage had the same message. 
http://retssal.dk/nyheder2.php3?side=398
This fact should also be mentioned in the section about danish journalistic tradition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.81.128 (talk • contribs) 
:My wrong, will fix the date! Hisb-ut-Tahrir is mentioned in the reference link. I think that will do for now MX44 02:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand Hizb-ut-Tahrir used quran quotes to incite violence? Do you have any source in support of this? MX44 12:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Relevant it is, just the fact that Denmark at the top of the rsf freedom-of-speech list:  http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=554. DanielDemaret 14:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  rsf has interesting articles regarding press freedom in each country. A quote from one of the articles from October "It is unbelievable that one can make death threats against cartoonists in Denmark, one of the countries in the world that shows most respect for press freedom," said the worldwide press freedom organisation." This then, would seems to be the official stance of the the international press, if there is such a thing. DanielDemaret 16:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Wouldn't it also be relevant to mention that on Febuary 4 2006 Jyllands-Posten, chose to print 14 Middle-Eastern cartoons, which could be seen as anti-semitic? JyllandsPosten said in a small 6 line 'article': Many muslims claims that Morgenavisen JyllandsPosten 'would never dare to publish antisemitic cartoons'. It is hereby done. I am trying to see, if I can find a better link than this one, (since that link requires subscription if you want to zoom in closer) Hekatombe 14:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danish journalistic tradition 

message: :In February 2006, the Cardiff University Student Newspaper Gair Rhydd (which means free speech) became the first organ in the United Kingdom to publish the images. Shortly after publication, the decision was taken to pulp the edition and approximately only 200 copies were distributed. The editor was fired for the decision to publish. (ref> Pulp fiction; Gair Rhydd 13 February 2006 Paper withdrawn over cartoon row BBC 13 Feb 2006(/ref>
I find the fact that the issue was suppressed fascinating, and the apology, in the links, is groveling. Septentrionalis 05:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's ok though... as long as it's their editorial line to not offend any religious community. Celcius (Talk)  Wiki be With us! 14:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, clearly that's their line now. Septentrionalis 16:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What a pathetic stance.  Why should religions get a free pass on criticism?  You know what happens when religions get a free pass on criticism?  The Crusades, priest molesting children, and now this ... a huge controversy with hundreds of deaths over a cartoon.  I find it ridiculous that people are saying we should just unconditionally "respect" all religions.  That's patently absurd.  --Cyde Weys 06:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's OK to be disrespectful against a religious community, is it OK to disrespect a race, nation or gender? Raphael 62.116.76.117 17:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we would be repeating old discussions by going into the nature of the word 'disrespect', but in terms of the relevant difference between "race", nation and gender on the one side and religion on the other, the crux of the argument is, as I understand it, that the latter involves choice, whereas the former do not.   Varga Mila 17:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't choose to get baptized, since I've been a child. Raphael 62.116.76.117 22:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are trying to say you were baptized as a child and had no choice in the matter - that is really not relevant.  You can still chose to follow or not to follow any religeous path.  Johntex\talk 22:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Still I cannot unbaptize in any way. Anyway there is no reason to not follow a religious path, because people of another faith are mocking about "my" religion. Raphael 62.116.76.117 01:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cardiff

message: I am aware that the Local Prosecutor in Viborg (Statsadvokaten i Viborg) said that he sees no basics for a trial, however according to this (Danish link, under: "- Har Jyllands-Posten overtrådt loven?") the local Prosecutor's decision have been 'appealed' to the Crown Prosecutor (Rigsadvokaten). Does anyone know whether or not he has made his evaluation of this case yet?
:I don't think so, but I find it unlikely that the Crown Prosecutor will decide differently though. Consider that when a leading Islamistic extremist was sentenced according to the very same law a few years ago, it was because he was openly advocating genocide. JP is not telling anybody to kill anybody. At most one could argue they are expressing a fear of being killed.
:So in short, you'll need a much stronger case to bring this forward. MX44 22:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that important for me, but I just think it should be mentioned that there still is a (slim) chance that the case would be brought before a court. Hekatombe 11:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prosecutors decision pending? 

message: Are there any Danes who might know what usage rights apply for media from Danish governmental sources?
In the U.S. virtually all media produced by the government is considered "public domain" whereby the usage right are essentially free.
There is some imagery content on a Danish governmental site that I'd like to include with this article, but I'm unsure of the right vis-a-vis WikiMedia to do so.
Thanks!
Netscott 21:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is easier to determine if you can be a bit more specific about the 'media'. Any links ? Varga Mila 22:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Om wwww.um.dk (In Danish) says that all pictures from www.um.dk is owned by Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark and may not be used without explicit permission. It is safe to assume that the same thing goes for the other Danish goverment sites. Hekatombe 22:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: * I suppose the same thing would apply for video then. I  guess I'll just have to write them. Netscott 22:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: * I've written them and hopefully I'll get a response tomorrow but this is the video: http://www.dr.dk/downloads/udenrigministeriet/statement_from_the_Danish_foreign_minister_low.wmv Netscott 22:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Just for reference, the answer to the original question is: There is no law in Denmark automatically releasing all material produced by the government as public domain (as there is in the US). Thus material produced by Danish governmental sources is as a rule under copyright, similar to material from any other organization. Material like the video might very well be part of a press kit with free license to distribute, but it will have to be investigated on a case by case basis. Rasmus (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ... except for actual laws and regulations of course, which are excerpt from copyright 
MX44 23:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, you are right about that. You are also free to publish decisions from the courts and meetings of elected bodies (except for collections of a single persons works). Rasmus (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danish law regarding rights for governmental media 

message: I happened to stumble on this blog by one of the worlds most referenced Political Scientist, R. J. Rummel  http://freedomspeace.blogspot.com/ .
referring to  "Why I Published Those Cartoons" by Fleming Rose 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499.html
It this already in the article?  DanielDemaret 02:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is a quite important article. As with the opportunity to experience the drawings rather descriptions of them, this article is 'from the lions mouth' so to speak, giving a presentation rather than representation of Rose's motives (at least as he likes to see them). It should be under 'Publication of the Drawings'. Varga Mila 12:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done as you suggested. Added a quote I thought was important. It took about 20 minutes to save. Most articles take seconds. DanielDemaret 16:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well captured!  What does it mean that the article takes so long to save ? That it is big or that the page (or Wikipedia) busy ?Varga Mila 16:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good Question. Does anyone know how to measure how busy a page is?DanielDemaret 17:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's just the whole site being slow. Secretlondon 17:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference to the WashintonPost article shouldn't carry a (Danish) -tag  [sorry, the reference list editing page seems a bit of a maze - 'n I don't have time navigate through it right now].Varga Mila 18:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you kindly, Mila. I just removed it. I wondered for an instant what the ""-text that I copied from the previous reference did :p. 18:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Flemmings POV - again. But a bit fuller

message: JP today brings a interview (in Danish & unquestionably tainted by post-rationalisations) with the guy who drew the most controversial of the cartoons. http://www.jp.dk/indland/artikel:aid=3579530/
Should it be linked to the description of the particular cartoon ?
Here's a translation of the first part:
What was the message in your drawing of the prophet Muhammad with a bomb in his turban?
The cartoon is not about islam as a whole, but the part that apparently can inspire violence, terrorism, death and destruction. And thereby the fundamentalist part of islam. I wanted to demonstrate that terrorists get their spiritual ammunition from islam.
Why was it important for you to get that message out ?
If a religion develops into religious fanaticism we are faced with totalitarian tendencies, as we have been in the past, such as facism and nazism. It is the same situation, where humans have to [ hmmm... basically the translation is 'bend' , da= bøje nakken] and do as demanded by the rulers [da=styret]. I think we should fight against that [da=bekaempe] and the weapon of a cartoonist is this pen or pencil and then a certain degree of indignation.
Do you feel that your drawing has been  misunderstood?
There are interpretations of it that are incorrect. The general impression among muslims is that it is about islam as a whole. It isn't. it is about certain fundamentalistic aspects, that of course are not shared by everyone. Bu the fuel in the terrorists acts stem from interpretations of islam. I think there is no escaping that. That doesn't mean that all muslims are responsible for terror. It is about demonstrating a connection, from where the spiritual fuel comes. There are some interpretations of islam, according to which you become a matyr if you die for islam, and you can therefore 'with a calm mind' [da=med sindsro] kill the infidels, and you will be be rewarded in 'the beyond'.
Your indignation has resulted in millions of muslims feeing insulted [kraenkede]. Does your cartoon show appropriate [da=tilstraekkelig] respect for islam?
It does not respect the version of islam, that provides the spiritual fuel for terrorists. I have nothing against islam or muslims. They should have their freedom, but if parts of a religion develops in a totalitarian and aggressive direction, then I think you have to protest. We did so under the other 'isms. Under communism thousands of satirical drawing and other satire were made that revealed and spoke against it [da=vendte sig mod den]. etc etc.Varga Mila 09:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Wow, that's excellent Varga.... some of that info should definitely be incorporated into the main page. I'm guessing that you've translated that... I'm not sure what Wikipedia's policy is on user translated entries but if ever there's a problem maybe you can find an 'official' translation? Netscott 09:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: * Well done Varga Mila! I copied the appropriate wikipedia policy here: 
'Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources of equal calibre. However, do give foreign-language references where appropriate. If quoting from a foreign-language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it.' 
As you can see, there is no requirement as to an "official" translation. Go for it, Mila! Also, I can verify the translation. DanielDemaret 12:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But mentioning in the article that it was "post-rationalisations" would be your POV, so I don't think that part should go into the article. People will have to make their own mind up on that detail. DanielDemaret 12:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to worry, I've curbed my general dislike for JP : ) I've put parts of the interview under 'Description of Drawings'. It is wordy (especially with the Danish original, which means that it takes up a lot of space), and elaborates on the cartoonist's justifications for drawing it, which may not be suitable for the location. The justifications however seem important, and go some way to explain the meaning of the cartoon - though, as said, perhaps parts are better somewhere else? Varga Mila 14:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interview with the creator of the notorious 'bomb in turban cartoon

message: These four references that came after the line:
Critics say that the cartoons are culturally insulting, blasphemous, and intended to humiliate a marginalized minority 
seem to set up an POV imbalance in the intro. As it stands now with the exception of the prime minister talking about the controversy relative to WWII, there are no other references cited in the intro. 
To avoid this introduction of POV from the outset it seems logical that in the intro only the intial facts of the case and the opposing views are presented. Then the facts of the story are further developed and then views and opinions/critcisms are further developed with proper references. To correspond to this logic I've removed the above references to the talk page here.... until a final decision about where they'll be included is determined. 
Netscott 09:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  An intro should be as short as possible. Perhaps the minister part should also be moved further down? I have looked at the intro several times to see if an even shorter intro could be valid. DanielDemaret 12:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we want newspapers to be our only source for the pro-opinions if we ever find them for consistancy purposes, or what sort of things should we look for? Homestarmy 19:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A reliable source.  This might be a good guide ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources . Weblinks to well-known newspapers are popular, but books, and even web-blogs if the blog is by a very well established figure. These are rare, but exist. If the newspaper is not well-known, a big enough circulation number is helpful. These are only guidlines, so if you are unsure, place questions here. DanielDemaret 20:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's just so far all we've done in this particular instance is cite newspapers :/. Homestarmy 21:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV refs in intro

message: I have searched and looked in the archives, but I can not find it. Was there not an area where one started to discuss a potential new policy regarding censorship? I need to see if Resids and Babajobus claim that there is double standard against all religions is in the discussion on censorship. If not, it should be.DanielDemaret 23:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also asked above to Babajobus about the place where this 2*standard towards religion is discussed... So, I am not aware of such a discussion here or elsewhere... Resid Gulerdem 02:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's a proposed policy page being built at Wikipedia:Censorship. Babajobu 02:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship debate