Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 26

message: Sorry to reopen debate, I just want to make a comment about part of the Aniconistic traditions section.  The three references to "Sunnis, who represent 90% of the worlds muslim community[83], generally consider any pictorial representation of Muhammad blasphemous[84][85][86]" are very poor.  Two are about images in general and one has as a side link some thing which simply restates that such pictorial representations are blasphemous.  I don't wish to question whether it is blasphemous, I would just wonder if some better links couldn't be found to support the statement, [84][85] and [86] (as they are currently numbered) seem to provide only weak support?  --Richard Clegg 16:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it. I've found, that it's not so easy, because there aren't that many websites about Islam written in english. Raphael1 17:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am certainly no expert (or even knowledgable) on the subject.  Perhaps, for now, we could delete the two weakest references (which are just to general discussion of representations and do not mention Muhammad)?  That way the statement would still be attributed?  --Richard Clegg 17:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't recommend that. This fact was very disputed for many days, but no sources could be provided to prove there are Sunnis, who accept Muhammed images. Raphael1 19:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not suggesting that.  My point is that two of those links have nothing to do with images of Muhammed.  I do not intend to dispute the fact, merely that those links are relevant to it.  Surely it would be better to have one link which is relevant rather than three of which two are not?  --Richard Clegg 19:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You've made a good point here Rgclegg, Raphael1 was the original individual who added those references... and unfortunately some of his previous references have been less than optimal. That said however, I'm inclined to believe such a contention as it applies to today which is probably why I (an editor who's edited heavily in that section) haven't scrutinized those refs. But you are correct, valid, verifiable (and preferrably unbiased) sources should go there. Netscott 19:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have removed the two references.  I hope this offends nobody and I believe the page contains sufficient references to prove the point already.  --Richard Clegg 20:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  90% of the World's Muslim Community... 

message: Is this in the article?--Striver 23:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's here. jacoplane 23:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thx. --Striver 23:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Link

message: ::* I have tried to keep the timeline up to date with the new events, but is nobody keeping the wikinews-Table inside the main article up to date with cartoon-related events from wikinews? DanielDemaret 11:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TimeLine 

message: I added a brief statment of JP's reasons for the publication to the intro, as some short statment clearly belongs there.  Netscott has removed my addition claiming that I removed information for the intro.  To my knowedge, I removed no information, merely added a short statment.  So, Netscott, you need to explain your false edit summery.
Now you may take issue with the length of the statmeny I added, it was mostly cut&paste from the timeline page, but *some* such statment clearly belongs there.  Do people have feelings on what that stamtnet should be?  JeffBurdges 21:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, I apologize ... I quickly looked at the diffs and noticed what appeared to be a large removal of info (text in red) without properly scrolling down lower on the diff to see that it was merely shifted. Still as far as adding the logic for why JP published the cartoons in intro is concerned, it is covered in the overview. Netscott 22:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, I believe it is not a good idea to try to explain the background or supply answers in the short intro blurb. This is supposed to raise questions in the mind of the reader and persuade him to read the whole article. MX44 00:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Netscott's stated reversion reason is false 

message: There is an active mfd on the Arguments subpage of this page (to which people are still being directed by a notice at the top). Those interested in preserving the history of this discussion would do well to express their opinions here. — JEREMY 11:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current attempt to delete talk history

message: I'm getting really tired of all the pointless edits ending up in this article's history... isn't there a way to protect this article from being edited by people who're not signed in? It's not like people who aren't signed in are positively contributing to this article currently. --DarkPhoenix 22:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From following the pattern of the latest series of vandalism I can say with a high degree of confidence that it is the work of one individual best known as Vkasdg. Although annoying to have to deal with, the current amount of vandalism imho doesn't warrant semi-protection. Netscott 02:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protect from anonymous edits? 

message: Hi Azate!
I see that you moved the Doudou report ... Probaly better like that.
It appears to be an inofficial "leak" to the press. He has never been to Denmark, have not read the accompanying article in JP and apparently have not even seen the cartoons himself ...
I have an inofficial translation here (No official translation exists?)
* http://agora.blogsome.com/2006/03/22/translation-of-doudou-dienes-report/
Investigating further --MX44 21:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There IS an official version out now, and in English, too. The report is certainly strange... The man has clearly never seen the cartoons. Also, he has the kid's book story all mixed up: He is apparently under the impression this is some propaganda effort: "The fact that children were the intended readership of the biography indicated a desire to shape the attitude to religion of a particularly sensitive and vulnerable age group". The report certainly makes for weird reading in some parts. Azate 22:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Link does not work! MX44 22:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Odd. Works for me. Alternatrive link:  3rd row, the "E". Azate 22:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK the alternative works. A little inconvenient having to scroll? MX44 22:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: That's not what he said. You're taking the quote out of context. What Samuels meant was, anti-Zionism wants to deny sovereignty to the Jewish people, but not to any other group. Clarinetplayer 02:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, he doesn't say, that "anti-Zionism wants to deny sovereignty to the Jewish people". He rather writes, that "Anti-Zionism argues for the denial of sovereignty only to the Jewish people" Raphael1 02:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Clarinetplayer is clerly correct. Wiesenthal's meaning is very clear in English. The only way I can imagine anyone to misinterpret his clear statements so extremely, would be if they were somehow translated to another language and then back again. In English, there is no logical path I can see to such a gross mis-understandning.DanielDemaret 08:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mmmm ... I think Doudou intended to go after something like the Israeli/Zionist landgrabbing, but his writings somehow didn't work out that way, which Samuel then objects to.  MX44 08:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  Well, done. Quite so. This issue is peripheral to the article. Just in case "this Simon guy" even remotely suggests that that you have not heard of him, here is a small article Simon Wiesenthal.DanielDemaret 13:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I said "this Samuels guy", not "this Simon (Wiesenthal) guy"... Azate 15:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  sorry :) I need more sleep :) DanielDemaret 22:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doudou Diène 

message: The Good article nomination for  has failed
:The article is not stable. There is still an ongoing edit war regarding the removal of the cartoon images,
even though the article has a comment, which states that removal, hiding,
relocation or resizing of the cartoon image is considered vandalism
and may result in blocking. But WP:VANDAL actually states, 
that any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia,
even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. 
Therefore any threat of blocking a user for good-faith edits, 
is against that policy and will reduce the quality of the encyclopedia.
There are many muslim Wikipedians who argue, that the showing of the cartoon 
images 
* constitutes a personal attack
::*It could only have been a personal attack to those who consider themselves to be Muhammad, the Prophet. But actually, the disputed cartoons are more commonly viewed as an attack on those who commit crimes in the name of god! MX44 19:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find Raphael1's arguments distinctly dubious and question his removal of the article from the candidates list. R wrote that the article "has failed" but what this appears to mean is that in R's personal opinion it has failed. Where is the discussion? Note that R submitted a distinctly partial 3RR report regarding the recent edit war  William M. Connolley 08:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Furthermore it appears like it was Raphael1 who did the GAfailed? Since he is major contributor himself to previous editing wars, this is so wrong that I am without words ... Raphael, go undo that ... NOW! MX44 10:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If you had cared about procedures, you would have known that neither you or me are eligible to judge in this matter. Be a man and undo your mistake! MX44 10:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Good articles states that any editor can delist an article. Raphael1 10:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In your dreams: If you see an article below under "Nominations" that you haven't significantly contributed to' MX44 10:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the history. Anjoe tried to change the policy to keep this article nominated. Raphael1 10:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not trying to change anything. Just making clear what is meant. I could in all circumstances just renominate, and we could be having (another) nice editwar sanctioned be the rules (as your also view them). --Anjoe 10:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you disagree with the objections, you are supposed to seek a review. Disagreements should be resolved on the disputes page not by de- and relisting the article over and over again. Raphael1 10:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and I see that you tried to change the rules as well ... :-D This is approaching comedy :-DDD MX44 11:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look again you can find out, that I never tried to change the rules, instead I reverted the changes of others. Raphael1 11:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, lets have our little "brief discussion" once and for all to "establish consensus" on whether the criteria are met then. (This is really approaching comedy)... --Anjoe 11:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your suggestion about comedy. Since it has been absurd for a long time, comedy is a wonderful way of looking at it that relaxes the nerves.DanielDemaret 15:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, you are right ... I should calm down. MX44 11:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I have now posted Wikipedia:Good_articles/Disputes#Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Please everyone: go there and make your comment and let us get this over with (before some of us go crazy). --Anjoe 11:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Been there now. Critiszed Raphael1 as much as I dared to still keep within wiki limits MX44 12:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually saw a post there first, responded there.  My judgement is that the page is not stable, which is one of the GA standards.  17:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Good articles|Good Article]] [[Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations|nomination]] has failed 

message: User:Cyde protected this due to anon vandalism. But there was only 1 anon, since blocked, so I've venttured to unprotect in the hope that things are OK. William M. Connolley 08:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am afraid that we need that anon-protection back - and fast. --Anjoe 14:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection? 

message: This is an immediate warning to everyone involved to stop the pointless bickering over disclaimer text in the article.  I've already blocked one editor for 3RR and a few others are a hair away from being blocked for sheer outright disruptiveness.  --Cyde Weys 18:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disruption 

message: What's with all the recent vandalism to this article, consensus is to keep the image so removing the image can be constituted as vandalism so stop removing the image in violation of consensus. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 00:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Moved to Image Display Arguments. Netscott 09:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Systematic bias

message: Actually, Abu Laban do live in Valby, is married and have seven kids (although probably not the one in the cartoon ...)
Here is an interview in english:
*http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2006/01/30/131707.htm
You can check him out on www.eniro.dk as well:
 Ahmed-Sami Mohamed Abu-Laban
 Tlf 36 46 05 53
 
 Carl Jacobsens Vej 4 E 5, tv, 2500 Valby
 Vis detaljer · Send blomster
If the above adress looks suspiciously identical to the one of Islamic Center, you would be right.
::: We can only describe whats seen in the drawing - the intention of choosing Valby will remain pure speculation. My own POV would be something as the illustrator using Frem as one of the truly positive integration projects, and to remind us that the immigrants children also is going to form the future - thats why the t-shirt states fremtiden - and not merely Frem. But lets not put nonverifiable speculation in the desciption of the drawings. EyesAllMine 14:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Explain why the cartoonist chose Valby and did not choose Sydhavnen then? Why did he choose any place at all from the beginning? MX44 14:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He might have chosen it because (as I can understand) the club Frem is located in Valby, and he had to use 'Frem' in the (fairly unhumoristic) pun concerning 'fremtiden'. There might not be anymore to it.  If the choice of Valby-skolen is bugging you that much go obtain a statement from the drawer of the cartoon. In my opinion it would be the only way to establish if Abu Laban or anything else got anything to do with it. In the meantime please delete the Abu Laban-speculation. --Anjoe 14:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And the pick was obvious because ... Valby has (or had at the time) an intgration problem, which circles us back to Akacieparken as well as Abu Laban ... and while we are at it, why not mention Hizb-ut-Tahrir handing out islamofascistic flyers outside the mosque MX44 14:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abu Laban in Valby 

message: As the article is not stable, contains unrefrenced statements, and cites sources which do not support the claims made, it has been removed from the GA nom list. Please improve on this and then try again - Good Luck! --Irishpunktom\talk 11:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who failed it? Much like User:Raphael1 who earlier falsely attemtped to fail the GA nom, you've worked on this article extensively so if you're the one who failed it then it should be resubmitted immediately. Netscott 14:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it not stable? And the GA standards call for references, not perfect references or really even good references :/. Homestarmy 14:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Irishpunktom (talk • contribs), who has attemtped to fail this nomination has contributed significantly to this article is not qualified to do so. I have reverted his false attempt at failing the article and re-listed it. If he reverts my re-listing I invite others to revert out his unqualified de-listing. Netscott 15:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I most certainly have not "contributed significantly" to this. I addded some Muslim info, and few words to the intro and an internal wikilink - that is not a significant contribution! --Irishpunktom\talk 15:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You had a significant number of edits at the beginning of March and have been a presence on this talk page. Your contribs betray you. Kyaa the Catlord 16:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you view the content of the contributions you will find that they are not exactly significant in the context of the editing, and nomination to Good Article, of the article as a whole. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: There is a Review process, do not decide that you can overturn the failure because you do not like the Wikipedian who failed it. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Much like the Raphael1 (talk • contribs) who repeatedly attempted to falsely de-list this article from the "Good Article" nomination and was blocked for it, you  are not qualified to delist it. I'm sure others will agree with me and revert out your false attempts at de-listing. Please be mindful of the 3RR violation limit while you attempt to falsely de-list this article lest you face the same consequences that Raphael1 (talk • contribs) endured. Netscott 15:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   it's a bit personal attackish to say that I don't like you when in fact I've never made such a statement. What is true however, is that I don't like some of your edits and occasionally your editing style but I suspect that is a mutual feeling. Netscott 16:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I have no made significant contributions to this article, and my feelings toward you are of apathy verging on pity, but that is completely irrelevent in relation to this. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Irrelevant, so true. Too bad you're the inidividual who initially mentioned feelings having to do with liking which necessitated a response. Perhaps in the future you'll refrain from introducing such irrelevant nonsense regarding feelings into a given talk page. Netscott 16:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What I stated was a statement of fact.  The GA article was nominated, I reviewed it, and now because it was I who reviewed it you are refusing to accept the decision. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong, only those who have not contributed significantly are qualified to remove nominations.... this is why I re-listed the article.  Don't falsely remove it again. Netscott 16:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article

message: Moved to Image display argument page. Netscott 16:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was not a bad-faith move but given the previous propensity for similiarly proposed ideas having completely dominated (ie: taken over) the talk page to the detriment of all other discussions relative to improving the article, doing so is simply a good idea. Netscott 17:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Supermajority vs Consensus

message: Third time's the charm, this article has healthy references, content and tagged images (I am stunned). No, where does this go?:P Highway Rainbow Sneakers 17:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your neutral and fair estimation of this article's Good status Highway. Netscott 18:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Pass

message: Greetings fellow editors. Due to the previous highly repetitive and overwhelming nature of discussions regarding the display of the cartoons images themselves, a seperate Image Display Arguments talk area was created on March 8, 2006 at the suggestion of User:Varga Mila and has ever since never endured any protest about its purpose or its existence. According to the logic of User:Varga Mila's suggestion, a seperate page was needed so that editors who wanted to discuss other aspects of article improvement outside of questions concerning image display would not be further forced to have to repetitively navigate through the reams and reams of image display talk. With the latest discussion about image display seeming to further verify the logic of having this seperate area of talk User:Jeremygbyrne wonders if such Image Display talk should be again permitted to occupy space in this the main talk area. It appears that the logic for the seperate area still applies but what of the views of other editors concerning this? Should discussions regarding any particular aspect of the display of the images again return to the main talk space? At this point this is not a straw poll and voting is not encouraged... please share views on this. Netscott 06:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, the dispute page seems to be moving much slower than it did say, 2 months ago. I don't think i'd want the discussion back here just yet though, but in the future, sure. Homestarmy 13:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image Display Talk Page Question

message: See  but more importantly the histories of :Image:Pig_person.jpg and :Image:Page-1-of-El-Fagr.org-egyptian-newspaper-Oct-17-2005.jpg. Sadly I have to go now (that's why this is so brief) -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 02:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I see User:Cyde has blocked the account so nevermind! -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 02:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible vandalism by [[User:Wikipidian]]? 

message: These two sections seem to be related. Can they be collapsed into one topic? ViewFromNowhere 03:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer them not to, because the "islamism" section kind of 'balances' the "xenophobia" section, and the "campaign by islamists" balances the "campaign by the west" (and the "zionslt conspracy" the "involvement of ME governments"). Merge them, and somebody is bound to complain about bias and more sections blaming one or the other side. A more reasonable route of argument could be that "Islamism in Europe" is about policies, and "Islamism in Europe" about politics. Azate 03:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no "Multiculturalism" header, only "Islam in Europe" deals with it. If you follow the links, I think one can see that they are dealing with different things. PC and multiculuralism usually share proponents, but not in this case.Azate 04:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As a silent observer, I can only concur: Excellent, clear-headed and unbiased work, Azate. Varga Mila 07:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  I cut the loong sentence in parts for the benefit of you loserly English speakers. Here in non-Anglophone Europe we like our sentences long! I don't know abot the heading collapse either. Maybe having "zionism" under the wing of the "west" will reduce accusations of antisemitism, that the isolated heading seems to provoke? ;-> Azate 07:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Islamism in Europe" and "Alleged campaign by Islamists"

message: I think this article now has the dubious pleasure to be called not only "Islamophobic", but "Anti-semitic", too. For those who entertain the latter view: The section makes is quite clear that this is is widely-held opinion in the Middle East, and is copiously backed up by sources. I repeat that slowly: Saying that some claim that there is is jewish conspiracy is not the same thing as saying that there is a jewish conspiracy! Azate 04:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "zionist conspiracy" has garnered major media attention in connection with the JP cartoon controversy, and has AT LENGTH been brought up here on the talk pages as witnessed by the Archives. It belongs here, as is is a major part of the controversy. THe "International reactions" subpage is predominantly about what governtments mostly uninvolved with all this business have said about it (Ireland condemned X, Indonesia condemned Y, etc.) Azate 04:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The source was right there before you deleted it: "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's president, prompted international anger when he said the Holocaust was a 'myth' used to justify the creation of Israel." In circle sypathetic to this stance, it's called "Jewish lies". Azate 05:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: JasonWilson, these sorts  of edits are bad. You make generalizations where there was a clear distinction before, as witnessed by the footnotes, which you also deleted. Being opposed to the prohibition of holocaust denial, and calling the holocaust a myth are different things. A reasonable person can easily defent the first view without holding the second one.Azate 05:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't get it: a) of course "many" view holocaust denial legislation as evidence of european hypocrisy related to free speech. I cited one or two major newspapers who raised that question. Could cite many,many more. b) of cause "many" are into zionist/jewish conspiracy stuff, and have been for quite some time. I linked one publication that dealt with the prevalence of the phenomenon in the egyptian press even before the cartoon controversy, and one about the Ahmediejad holocaust myth stuff. What else do you want? I think you just cry "Anitsemite!" because I used the words "Jew" and "lies" (or 'cunning' in a previous version) in one sentence, and didn't even bother to read the linked sources, judging from the speed of your deletions Azate 07:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, it "reeked". I was extrapolating the sources. "jewish lies" is common parlance in circles that deal in zionist conspiracy stuff. You don't have to create a "Muslim paranoia" section. I've got one prepared already. You can then complain about it in due course. Azate 07:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: ViewFromNowhere, you can't first remove the footnoted source from a sentence and replace it with , and then com back an hour later to delete the sentence, because it has no source. Azate 04:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I did that, I apologize. I thought I had waited a lot longer. Still, sometimes phrases can never be sourced because they have no source. What's the policy on those cases? ViewFromNowhere 18:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: We could as well say it was designed to "expose" the zionist conspiracy. But it can reasonable go in either section Azate 01:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section "zionist conspiracy"