Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 1

message: *I've restored solely the portions of the discussion prior to Jimbo's blanking that talk about writing an encyclopaedia article (pointers to sources, fact checking, wording and corrections, rendering the NPOV, and so forth). Uncle G 12:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jimbo's blanking

message: --User:dtii
I cant wait for their reaction when South Park does there Muhammad episode!!!
:Are they going to?  That would be sweet.  Kittynboi 07:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Park 

message: we really need to quit this argument. We're not a discussion forum, we're an encyclopedia. What any of us thinks is absolutely irrelevant here. - 211.28.79.52 11:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a discussion forum 

message: Well my main source for that paragraph was my religion teacher who showed us painting from Shi'a muslim books, but I can't remember the names of the books. I've tried to search the web and found some pages containing pictures of the Prophet Muhammad:
*Other pictures of Muhammad
*Pictures at Commons
I'll try to look up some more sources through the weekend...
Snailwalker 12:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muhammad paintings in historic perspective 

message: I think the name of the article should be something more specific. --128.214.205.4 08:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, where exactly does "Muhammad Drawings" come from?  Is this a translation of some term from the Danish media?  Perhaps we could go with something more precise, like Jyllands-Posten Muhammad caricatures.--Pharos 23:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Directly translated from Danish they're called Muhammad Drawings --Snailwalker | talk 23:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm, google search: caricatures - 10,700 hits, drawings - 12,800 hits. Jacoplane 11:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But if we are talking about the name of the controversy we should search: caricatures - 4 hits, drawings - 75, cartoons - 236. Not much to go on there, but since they really aren't caricatures (From caricature: A caricature is a humorous illustration that exaggerates or distorts the basic essence of a person or thing to create an easily identifiable visual likeness), I would argue that those that call them "Muhammad caricatures" are misrepresenting them. Rasmus (talk) 11:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Not much response. Can I take it that noone will complain if I move the page to "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons"? Rasmus (talk) 12:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The name of the article

message: "The case is now being brought to the International Court of Justice."
What case? What is the specific violation of international law that would be basis for a case before the ICJ and who would bring it? I'm removing this, probably just a part of this campaign of misinformation against Denmark. --Bjarki 12:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ICJ

message: I live in denmark, and first off I'd say it's hard to say that there is such a thing as a "General Oppinion" to be found among the public concerning this subject. I think that statement should be reconsidered.
Secondly, there is evidence that the online poll from Epinion for DR was manipulated, probably by muslims, but I won't draw any too fast conclusions. They received 20,000 votes between a saturday night to the next sunday morning, which is something never experienced before. Such a great number of votes online is highly unlikely, considering that the danish population count is below 5.5 millions.
That was another poll DR (Danish national broadcast) initated on their website, but that they cancelled due to manipulations  Bertilvidet 16:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Akuen, that will be really good if you translate the letter from Jyllands-Posten to English to document their position. However, they do not apologize the drawing - but basically say that they have been misinterpreted. Bertilvidet 19:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinions in Denmark 

message: Can anyone confirm that they showed 10 more drawings? --Snailwalker | talk 23:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just put in the links to later article on the issue (Cloud02 13:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The report put together by the islamic delegation contained copies of this article (as well as some much more offensive pictures of unknown origin). Ekstra Bladet's article here includes a copy of the report. The part about Weekend-avisen starts here. If anyone can read arabic, I would be very interested in a translation/summary of the latter parts of the report, btw. Rasmus (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weekend-avisen 

message: Ignoring the busted link for the moment, I can't find anything resembling the pictures mentioned here on BBC Online News, although they have given the story plenty of coverage. Should this heading be amended at least? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.8.165.18 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-31 01:29:07 UTC.
*I've looked for a BBC News article on this subject dated 2006-01-30, as the text claimed, and cannot find one.  The BBC has articles dated 2006-01-31 and 2006-01-29, but none in between.  I've therefore removed mention of the BBC from the rumours section.  Uncle G 15:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC disinformation 

message: The Islamic Society was not anonymously sent a thirteenth picture. This is a lie. It has three other pictures in addition to the original 12 and several members have been going on tv throughout the Middle East claiming these were by the Danish cartoonists. The Danish Prime Minister condemned them. Ill try and find a link - I think it might have been from Little Green Footballs. KI 02:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Little Green Footballs is not a very credible source.  A more reliable link would be better.  I also don't understand the importance.  If these other pictures weren't in the newspaper, they shouldn't be part of the controversy. 71.141.251.153 08:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anonymously sent is baloney

message: There seems to be removed information from this article constantly, by unknown users, without any reason given. An edit war. Given the controversial content of this article, wouldn't it be an idea to temporarily lock it - to registered users, if possible? I'm a completely newbie inhere, so I hope one of you will do what it takes if you agree with me. AllanRasmussen 07:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AllanRasmussen: Repeated vandalism can be easily reverted by any user.  If it becomes too intense then an admin can block anonymous page editing, or can block all editing.  Edit blocks are an extreme measure and are usually only put in place for an hour so everyone can cool off.  If this is occurring on this page (or any other) then the instructions for reporting it are at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. Tempshill 07:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporarily locking the article 

message: to the best of my knowledge, the saudi embassy in copenhagen has not been closed, though the embassedor was recalled.
* Jyllands-Posten apologize Qatarson 08:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  correction 

message: What exactly does it mean, the main article suggests that it means "good luck", but a Danish person i consulted suggested that it means that you have done somethign really well so as to be proud of it or something to that effect. So could someone clarify that?
The odds that you happend to walk by while an Orange (A rare item in older days - therefore valuable)falls down into your turban (ie. without you doing anything to get it) are slim - so if it happends you are lucky
The Danish prime minister has said more, he condemned the cartoon a few days ago; could someone who knows anything about this please edit it?
:The proverb is mostly used when something happens, which is in favor of the person whom the proverb is used abut. On Danish you would say: “it fell like an orange in his turban” or “it’s an orange in his turban” thereby applying that what happened was very fortunate for the person. In this case ‘the orange in the turban’ could refer to all the free publicity the author of the children’s book (Kåre Bluitgen) got due to the following debate about Islam and freedom of speech. Another interpretation could be that the artist behind the drawing felt that Kåre Bluitgen had an anti-Islamic and/or self-promoting agenda, and that the article in Jyllands-Poster further would promote this agenda, hence being an orange in his turban. But it is of course speculations, as I don’t know what exactly the artist meant by the drawing. But at least, that is what the proverb or phrase means :-) --80.164.16.222 23:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the 'Orange in the Turban' thing 

message: I am trying to find the exact place which forbids showing the face of Mohammed.
Could anyone please tell me exactly where to find it? Does anyone know of any exact reference to a book or website? If it does exist in the Quran, and I missed it, I would appreciate the line, so I can find it this time around.DanielDemaret 18:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the legal text against depiction 

message: I am curious as to the sign depicted in the Boycotts section. Is there any chance someone with the appropriate skills could put the translation into the caption of said picture? I'm sure others are curious as well. BinaryTed 18:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation of picture in Boycotts section 

message: For this edit. I am adding "extremist" back in there. because they are ones who kill people. matt kane's brain 19:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extremist 

message: "On October 19, 2005 eleven ambassadors from Islamic countries, including Algeria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Morocco, Pakistan, Palestine, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey sent a letter to Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen requesting a meeting and for him to distance himself from hate speech, including remarks by MP Louise Frevert, Culture Minister of Denmark Brian Mikkelsen, and nationalistic radio Radio Holger. Rasmussen declined, saying that the government could not interfere with the right to free speech, but said that cases of blasphemy and discrimination could be tried at the courts."
The cited article mentions nothing about Louis Frevert or Brian Mikkelsen or Radio Holger. Did they really roll all of these demands together? What exactly did the foreign ministers ask Rasmussen to do? Peregrine981 21:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Original meeting with foreign ministers

message: Perhaps it is time to start to split the article, it is getting quite lengthy? --Snailwalker | talk 21:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting the article up 

message: Someone recently added weasel words to the intro paragraph (changes shown):
:The drawings are were said to be satirical illustrations accompanying an article on self-censorship and freedom of speech. They were also allegedly meant to highlight the allegation by the Danish writer Kåre Bluitgen that no artist was willing to illustrate a children's book about Muhammad without remaining anonymous, out of fear of revenge from extremist Muslims because depicting Muhammad is prohibited in Islam (see aniconism). 
I don't think there's serious grounds to doubt that the drawings were satirical, or that they accompanied an article on self-censorship and free speech, or that the newspaper's intention in publishing them was different from what they stated.  So I'd like to rv the weasel words.  WP:AWW, subject to discussion.  71.141.251.153 22:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I noticed that too, but since I've reverted twice today, I wouldn't touch it myself. --Valentinian 22:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  weasel words in intro paragraph 

message: The ban on depictions of Muhammad is a central issue here, I believe, but the article doesn't treat it as fully as it deserves. In my understanding, the ban doesn't stem from the Qur'an itself, but is rather derived from the Old Testament, and can therefore be seen as a parallel to various waves of iconoclasm in Christian history. The article refers simply to "Islamic tradition", but what exactly is this, the Hadith? I am no Islamic scholar, and it would be appreciated if someone with better knowledge of the Qur'an and Islam could comment on this. Eixo 01:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Depiction of Muhammad