Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 15

message: In the article you write "Although Jyllands-Posten maintains that the drawings were an exercise in free speech, there are both Muslims and non-Muslims in Denmark and elsewhere who view them as offensive, blasphemous and Islamophobic. "
For the sake of honesty and completion you should add that there are also Danish Muslims WHO DO NOT FIND THEM OFFENSIVE.  People who have been in Denmark long enough to understand  freedom of speech, and simply chuckle or move on and does not feel threatened on their faith.
 
80.196.176.94 13:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

message: Talk page was getting way too long. If anything is still being discussed please cut-and-paste the individual section back from /Archive 9. Ashibaka tock 04:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) These cartoons are "disseminated" through wikipedia because it has been decided that readers have a right to know what the controversy is about. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 17:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I would like to point out that non-publishing is just as much a point of view as publishing, given the nature of the controversy.. Skleinjung 18:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It would be "neutral" to publish only empty pages so as not to offend anyone. But that's not really what neutrality means in this context. Neutrality means representing views fairly and without bias (taken from WP:NPOV.) Please see the archived talk pages for extensive discussion and polling on the placement of the images to avoid needless repetition. Weregerbil 19:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New archive

message: I agree.  I found this to be extremely informative and helpful.  I was searching around the web for opinions in Denmark and this had all the links I needed.  Thanks everyone!
Just wanted to say that this is probably the most informative, complete and balanced article I have found on the subject. My compliments and thanks to all those that have contributed.
Gilraen
:Wowzers! I wish we got more comments like these! Ashibaka tock
:: Since you ask for  more comments like these, I sincerely "second" that compliment.DanielDemaret 15:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compliments 

message: I think we should put a warning about explicit content and leave the cartoons forever. As for words "fuck" in Russian etc. (they have a special kind of warning)
And no censorship etc. No one is forced to go here. Accept our rules or piss off! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.84.191.39 (talk • contribs) .
:We don't have a special warning. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some anon remarks

message: The phrase "one billion" muslims, and other such numbers, keep getting thrown around. Where does this number come from? do you have any kind of census information, or is it just a random number? How many of those people live in denmark? How many have the internet? How many come to Wikipedia? Cos yeah, i am just wondering. Ps. I am assuming we are using the american count of billion, not the english which is 1,000,000,000,000 and is hundreds of times the amount of people on earth. WookMuff 05:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The number is confirmed here Major world religions. The number of muslims in Denmark can be found in Denmark. DanielDemaret 07:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: so the wiki says so and thats proof? cool. WookMuff 09:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would be cool if it were so, would'nt it? :) . I think "the wiki", as you call it, works with references and concensus instead of the idea of "proof". There are a few references in those articles, at least. It is the first time I have heard anyone question those numbers, however, so I thought there was already consencus. Perhaps someone should investigate and add better references? Or do you have other suggestions as how to get better numbers? The CIA Fact book and the UN Statistics books are frequently updated sources if you would care to start improving the validity of the numbers.DanielDemaret 09:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  So how many Muslims do you think there are? 12? 1000000? 3.1416? Let me know, and please cite a reliable source. Sorry, mate, but you are pursuing a loopy argument here. Arno 09:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, thats right, i think their are 12 muslims in the world, and all of them are here vandalizing this article. Idiot. WookMuff 20:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  You're all tied up in how many muslims there are.  The fact is, it doesn't matter.  This is about right & wrong for wikipedia (NPOV), and exists no point at which wrong becomes right, or right becomes wrong, after you add enough people. 128.135.36.151 16:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Go out and find some sources then.  Stop complaining, thinking that someone else will do the work that you want done. Vanessa kelly 09:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1,000,000,000

message: These links are from the only two English language newspapers in Yemen. 
http://www.yobserver.com/news_9384.php
http://www.yobserver.com/news_9396.php
http://yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=917&p=front&a=3
Worldbound 06:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is rather ironic. Jacoplane 16:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yemen participating in protests and boycotts

message: Could not the part in there that has to do with Aniconism could be left entirely to the article on aniconism? Some in the west have tried to attribute the rage to the aniconism, but the BBC quote below makes it clear that aniconism is not what is objected to. Might it not be enough to write a line saying something like "Some in the west have tried to attribute the rage to the aniconism, but the reactions have been about the assumed intended insult against islam of depicting mohammed as a terrorist"?DanielDemaret 07:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I was the one who rewrote that section. Maybe it's just ego, but I think it's important that non-Muslims understand that the "no images" is not in the Qur'an and was not universally observed. I have seen so many articles, posts, etc. that conflate the situation that provoked the cartoons (no illustrator wanting to draw what were presumably going to be straightforward, non-mocking images) with the cartoons (some of which were mocking). Can we let this sit for a few days, until some of the furor has died down, and then trim it a bit if it still seems necessary? Zora 08:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Absolutely. I agree that if there are still people who think that there is a "no images" clause in the Qu'ran then nothing should be removed. DanielDemaret 09:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that section is very good - it helped me understand the issue. Well done, Zora. there does seem to be a lot of confusion about the source of offense, and it is useful to have it explained. As I understand it, the strictest Muslim interpreters would be offended even by the picture of Mohammed walking in the desert, but there is a separate and wider source of offense in the other ones linking him with terrorism. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since that is the case, I totally and unreservedly retract my previous suggestion, just to make sure that everyone understands that there is concensus here. :)) DanielDemaret 11:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The section on islamic tradition could be shorter?

message: I propose a compilation of a list of the newpapers and TV media who have showed the cartoons. Evidently, some Italian newspapers have recently chosen to show the cartoons as well. I think that such a list would be important to emphasize the development of things.maasha 08:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Compilation of media showing the cartoons?

message: Rexnl twice removed my insertion of the audio pronunciation of Jyllands-Posten.  He says it is distracting.  
Most readers are English speakers and will be clueless trying to pronounce that newspaper, which is a principle party in this matter.  If the link is removed, readers can still click to find out more, but 99%+ of readers will pass by because there is too much to read to go looking at derivative articles.  Arguments against are weak.  How is linking once in the intro "distracting"?  No harm and its helpful.  To avoid a dumb revert war, a couple of ppl agree with me please.  Lotsofissues 01:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too, I actually clicked it when it was there. Argyrios 17:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't understand your suggestion.  IPA is relatively unknown (unusable).  How is it a proper, helpful substitute.  Lotsofissues 07:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28pronunciation%29 - Pronunciation is indicated in the Wikipedia using the IPA. This is SOP. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please restore the audio. I listened to it as soon as it was available, and appreciated the opportunity to do so. I'm certain that others will feel the same way. Babajobu 08:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't remove the audio. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, fair enough. Babajobu 10:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audio link in intro 

message: I cannot but notice that this talk page keeps being polluted by personal political speculations of all sorts, which have nothing to do with the process of editorial improvement of this article. I normally dislike harsh measures, but given the situation, perhaps it is time to let administrators remove any off-topic discussion on sight. Rama 09:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current "policy" is to move them to Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Arguments instead. Many people will feel a need to comment on this controversy, and while wikipedia is not meant for that, it's probably better if the discussions take place on the daughter talk page than here. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 16:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policing this talk page 

message: I moved the cartoon image to the section that is actually about the cartoon, and put the Danish Embassy fire in Damascus at the top, because it's the most shocking and recent event. My reasoning is that this article is not about the cartoons, but about the controversy, and given that the image is offensive to many people (including regular editors), it seems gratuitous to leave it at the top of the page. I believe at least one editor has left because of it too, which is a great pity. Editorially, I believe the fire image is far and away the most pertinent to the story, which is about reactions to the cartoons. I hope people who disagree will give this some consideration before reverting. Thank you! SlimVirgin (talk) 09:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: hundreds of people have VOTED, and the consensus is to KEEP the image at the TOP of the page. no one is interested in pandering to the WHIMS and FANCIES of a TINY, CRAZY, and DELUDED MINORITY. now read the preceding sentence again, slowly, and pause a couple of seconds at every word in caps to reflect and ponder. thank you. now go and REVERT Hellznrg 09:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please Be civil. There's no need for insults just to proove your point. CG 11:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This has been discussed multiple times already. There have been polls about this here, and there has been CONSENSUS (defined by Wikipedia as > 75%) that the image should be at the top, because it it the root of the story. Moving the image is considered vandalism! Pls. revert! Azate 09:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: reverted twice, once grabbed wrong version. Ooops. Kyaa the Catlord 09:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Excuse me, Kyaa, if you want to revert the image, fine, but will you please not also revert the several changes that were made in the interim? Please restore them, thanks. Babajobu 09:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Baba, I had an edit conflict with you when I was moving the images, and because it was so fiddly, I overrode your changes. I then went back to restore them, but couldn't find where they were on the page. I could see them in the diff but otherwise not. So their disappearance may be my fault. Sorry! SlimVirgin (talk) 09:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Slim, it wasn't you, the only diff you overrode was a change of hyphens to mdashes, which is fiddly and unimportant. Kyaa reverted numerous changes, several of them substantive. Babajobu 09:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anyway, I'll just restore them myself. Babajobu 09:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'm an idiot. At least I know better than to move the image when its got HUGE WARNINGS not to do that. Kyaa the Catlord 09:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hang on, Kyaa. The warnings say not to remove the image. I just moved it lower down the page, which I see as a good compromise and, more importantly, editorially sound, given that the article is not about the cartoons per se. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Had you perused the talk pages and archives before messing around with the main page, perhaps you'd have realized that consensus on the placement of the "main" image has been argued and met. As it stands, I'm not touching the article again, not worth the fucking bother. I'm starting to wonder why I bother at all, actually. Kyaa the Catlord 09:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Arno, it may be that there is now (or will later be) a solid argument for moving the cartoon lower in the article. However, according to the vigorous participation in--and results of--poll two, I think it's clear that the community does not think there is anything spurious about the argument over positioning of the picture. Babajobu 09:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ahem. I repeat. the issue here is not where the cartoon exists, It's that it's here at all. It could be upside down in lower right-hand side and it would not make a jot of difference to the situation here. Arno 09:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "existance" argument is such a dead horse. Let's not go there AGAIN. Kyaa the Catlord 09:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Arno, ahem, perhaps it wouldn't make a bit of difference to you, but to all the many people who voted in poll two, clearly it does make a difference. Babajobu 10:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I shall say this one more time and then I give up on you.  the issue here is not where the cartoon exists, It's that it's here at all. Arno 01:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I think anyone familiar with the sort of insanely minor squabbles the Israel/Palestine conflict have produced (e.g. font size and positions of names on maps) would agree that the position arguments here could easily not be so "spurious". Soultaco 20:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image position

message: Despite my firm stand that the cartoon's existance is an act of absolute bull-headed stupidity, I have not attempted to remove it. There are two reasons for this. 
The first reason my corrections will be lucky to last a few minutes before it comes backs back again, having been restored there by some self-righteous individual. 
The second reason is less obvious and of greater interest - by deleting it , I would actually be duplicating it. I wonder how many persons who have removed the cartoon have realised this. When you delete it from the article, it does not just vanish. It gets duplicated in the history portion of the article, each copy being as much an antithesis to Muslim teachings as the current one. In short, you are duplicating the cartoon every time you delete it. 
Arno 09:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Self-righteousness" apparently being the desire to implement the very clearly expressed will of the community... Babajobu 09:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: So we can't delete it because it will be duplicated in the page history, but we can't keep it because it causes offense? Please, be reasonable! What exactly do you want us to do? You aren't seriously suggestion we purge it from the page history are you? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You actually answered your own question below as to what you could do about it. However, You also said that you will not do it, desite  this policy. In the meantime, the irony of deletions causing duplications remains. That was my point. Actually, I had thought that you would have welcomed it, given that this may see a reduction in the number of deletions. Arno 06:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Babajobu, many (including I assume yourself) of those signed it would have non-Muslim backgrounds and whom I therefore doubt if they realise the fully offensive nature of the cartoon. Arno 09:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: And the point of this is? Remember, we're supposed to be NPOV. Kyaa the Catlord 09:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your failure to see the point illustrates mine about a failure to "realise the fully offensive nature of the cartoon".You have managed to completely contradict yourself in two sentences. A pity, you were convincing me that you had some sense in this matter.Arno 01:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: See Piss Christ, et cetera. Wikipedia reproduces and discusses a great deal of hardcore blasphemy directed toward various belief systems. As said before, clamoring for censorship does not become more persuasive as it gets louder. No special deference for any one group. Babajobu 09:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The purpose of the Wikipedia is to inform. By having the cartoons posted we are not presenting a point of view, but we are merely giving the world an opportunity to see the cartoon for themselves and hopefully make an introspective opinion, instead of just assuming a stance due to peer pressure and whatnot. GSchjetne 17:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I fully realise the offense this cartoon has caused among many people. I just don't think it matters. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Another oxymoronic observation. Arno 01:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is oxymoronic about it? Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 09:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, if we delete the image it won't be shown even in the page history. That's not going to happen though. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: What are you talking about "duplicating" the image? The only thing in the history of this article is a link to the image, look at the div. Nothing ever gets deleted or duplicated, unless the actual image is deleted. Jacoplane 02:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  What I mean is that people can still see copies of the said cartoon by looking at past copies of this article in the history section. Arno 06:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Cartoon - warning - duplication occurs

message: I don't think that the incident with the Satanic Verses is so comparable to this incident.  Although there are some similar elements, Rushdie's depiction of Islam was an inside job -- thus, the offense was between him and fundamentalist Muslims.  Also, I haven't read the Satanic Verses, but it's a long book and I'm guessing that it has some literary merit, or at least aspires to.
On the other hand, the cartoons published by the Danish paper are not packed with socio-political or artistic merits -- the one with the bomb-turban is the visual equivalent of a religious epithet.  Also, the criticism of Islam comes from an outside source at a time when there is great tension between Euro-Christians and Euro-Muslims.
I think that comparing Rushdie to the Danish paper serves to shore up the argument the newspaper would like to make ("this whole argument is about press freedom!") while seriously downplaying the perspective of offended Muslims ("these cartoons are the equivalent of hate speech").Katsam 09:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They, like any other political cartoons, are brief yet powerful. Of course they aren't as deep as Rushdie's work, but as they say "a picture is worth a thousand words". Kyaa the Catlord 09:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Just for the record. The cartoons were accompanied with an article about freedom of speech and self-censorship relating to the illustrations of a childrens book as well as in general. This article gave them sufficient merit to be printed on page three in the culture section. I will not recite the article here but just offer my own PPOV that the reactions to the cartoons have shown without possible doubt that the article was indeed packed with socio-political merits. Martix 11:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparable Incidents section

message: Does this one hold that record?--Greasysteve13 09:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk:George W. Bush is currently at 42.  Something might have more than that, but I don't know what.  Ral315 (talk) 12:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Terri Schiavo has 43. Bush's are more K apparently. Marskell 12:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Talk:Main Page has at least 50. So that one wins. --Mark J 21:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This one?--Greasysteve13 04:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probabaly.Pope Benedict XVI Was probably the previous record holder.Geni 11:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course, if you are like User:Marskell, you could let your emotions rule you and destroy my efforts to organize the information and just keep on fighting with each other in your ignorance. -- Pinktulip 14:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the record amout of talk page archives for an article? 

message: Since I can't edit the main article, someone else will have to fix the typo: "the place of muslims in the West, and the West in Muslim counties" (presumably should be "countries") - from anon.
:Fixed. Kyaa the Catlord 10:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling errors 

message: Is there any important reason for having the cartoons twice in the articel? Meaning can't the second one be deleted? -- Nomen Nescio 10:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Already deleted second instance, it was left over from a revert war over positioning. Babajobu 10:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It must have been there three times, cause I just found another copy of it. :D Kyaa the Catlord 10:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image twice

message: The discription of the image of Muhammad flanked by two women is not quite right yet. He is actually smiling (self confidentially?), and any impression of his possible mood arises in the viewers imagination only, since the expression of his eyes is censored. 
MX44 10:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I always wave around my sword when I'm happy. :D Kyaa the Catlord 10:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And The Three Musketeers were only really happy while wawing their swords ;) So is angry the right word to use? (and yes, I was the one who put it there) MX44 11:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, I don't think that comparing TTM with this image really does it justice. Its a serious apples to oranges comparison. :D Kyaa the Catlord 11:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Point taken, but to paraphrase your previous comment: -"I always smile when I am angry.", doesn't make a lot of sense either, does it? To me, the smile suggests a more balanced and well prepared mood as in "Make my day", rather than blind furiosity. MX44 11:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image descriptions

message: I decided to change "were meant" to "were purportedly meant" earlier to improve NPOV compliance. But I flagged it as a minor edit. Then I changed my mind and decided it wasn't a minor edit after all - so I decided to revert it and resubmit my edit without the minor edit flag. Unfortunately, I accidentally reverted a few other edits made since. So I tried again - and reverted a few more! Whoops. The edits are coming way too fast for me to keep up with right now, so I'm going to back off for a bit and check it over later.
Squashy 10:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with this change. I don't think that this change does anything except weaken the sentance. JP's claims should be taken as fact while we define the controversy, then show their opponents stance to show NPOV, not make a sentance meaningless by adding weasel words. Kyaa the Catlord 10:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  multiple edits 

message: Does this need to be in the article? Perceived blasphemy and denying historical facts are not comparable. Religion by definition is based upon unverifiable and subjective notions about the world. To claim that ridiculing religion or pointing out the myriad discrepancies between what religion says and what science says, is identical to denying historical facts seems a stretch.-- Nomen Nescio 16:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that they are both instances of "offensive speech". They are totally dissimilar in other respects, of course. Babajobu 16:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Telling people they are ugly is offensive too. Should we include that also?-- Nomen Nescio 16:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If telling people they are ugly is of hotly contested legality in Europe, and constantly cited by Muslims as evidence of a free speech double standard, then yes, we should. If not, we shouldn't. Babajobu 16:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you agreed these examples are not identical, in your own words there can be no double standard. Hence, the request to delete. Or else we can insert homophobia which also represents double standard IMHO. Or better yet, the numerous anti-senetic and anti-catholics stories and pictures in the Arab media without raising a storm like this. Why are anti-semetic pictures acceptable but a picture of the prohet not> That is both offensive and evidence of double standard by muslims.-- Nomen Nescio 16:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nomen, you and I are not having a debate about what is or is not analagous to the prophet situation. All that matters is what is notable to the story. Muslims around the world are focusing on Holocaust denial as evidence of what they see as a double standard. You and I can think that's bollocks, but the point is that the connection is notable because they are making it. As for your IMHO, well I have plenty of IMHOs, I think the most relevant comparison here is the state of sodomy law in southern U.S. But that could not go in this article, because my personal thoughts are immaterial, as are yours. Babajobu 17:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I understand, but is it possible to mention that Europeans view that argument as hypocritical, based on the points I advanced earlier.-- Nomen Nescio 17:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, in fact I think that should be inserted, but it would need citations. Apparently Ian Duncan Smith just said something along those lines, so that could be it. Babajobu 17:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will try and find sources for it. In the mean time I suggest these as arguments: 1 Muslims themselves use very confrontational articles and drawings (anti-semetic, anti-christian), 2 No muslim said the suicide bombers claiming to act on Allahs will are abusing their faith, most prominently the support for the 9-11 attacks.-- Nomen Nescio 20:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Holocaust denial

message: It is an OUTRAGE that you depict his holiness, the Flying_spaghetti_monster in images on this site. One billion Pastafarians demand that you take it down or suffer the wrath of his noodly appendages!! Spazm 17:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Death to the infidels! Allaaaaaah-Alfredo! Haizum 17:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I share your outrage, brother. One small irony: I'd bet good money that the initial "Al" in "Alfredo" is originally from Arabic, probably via Spain during halcyon Arab rule (711-1492). So the phonetic handiness of "Alfredo" in the above formulation is no coincidence. Babajobu 17:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to BehindTheName.com, the name Alfred comes from the Old English words ælf (elf) and ræd (counsel). HTH. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 17:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Shit. Right, King Alfred and all that. BTW, what does "HCH" mean? Babajobu 17:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  HTH. HTH :-) Weregerbil 18:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  I saw many hundred depictions of His Holiness recently in a Tesco store. Clearly the only course of action is to organise protests outside your local supermarkets. Maybe burn one or two down. Liam Plested 18:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The streets will flow with the marinara sauce of the infidels for depicting our noodly and merciful God!AscendedAnathema 20:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL "marinara sauce", I love it. Haizum 20:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It's fine to depict Him.  As long as He isn't dressed as a pirate.  --JGGardiner 07:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This is easily the best response to all of this gobbeldygook. Allu-Alfredo. Slimdavey 18:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flying spaghetti monster 

message: Rajab, you simply cannot represent "increasing Islamophobia" as an objective fact. Surely you know this. Babajobu 17:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, yes - someone already corrected that sentence :) Rajab 17:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: relax, I will add to it when I get the time Rajab 17:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rajab and Islamophobia