Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 16

message: HTH
Lotsofissues 19:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah we should cut it down. Perhaps not write about the torchings but just give an short intro what the cartoons are about? --Snailwalker | talk 20:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro expanding out of control. 

message: I personally am not religious but think the following are very good articles (historically and otherwise).
*Abraham
*Jesus
*Muhammad
:Yep. It's a good idea to do some background research to gain a better understanding of the roots of this article. (specifically on Muhammad) — TheKMantalk 06:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting reading 

message: I was just wondering if anyone can point to - or offer here - comparisons between the speeds with which Talk pages "exploded". I realize the record is probably held by some huge event like 9/11, but I would still appreciate a way of putting this Wikifrenzy into perspective.
On an unrelated note, I'd like to commend those who are working on this article without acting on on their personal beliefs regarding religion, free speech, and other related issues. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.20.237.11 (talk • contribs) .
: --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 9/11 didn't generate this much activity. Have in mind that Wikipedia has orders of magnitude more readers and editors today than it did in 2001. Fredrik Johansson - talk - contribs 22:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: On 7.7.2005, odds were extremely good you'd cause an edit conflict at any given time. --Kizor
See  for "50 most edited articles" (includes talk pages) and other things. The most edited talk page, it says, is the Main page talk page with 16345 edits. WAS 4.250 13:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query regarding quickly developing talk pages in general 

message: I've noticed one user whose entire Wiki existence is devoted to doing nothing but edit this article.  What constitutes "recent" wikipedia membership for purposes of blocking on this article? Dogface 21:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is nothing wrong with that. Editing only one article only goes against them if they vandalise or get engaged in an edit war. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 21:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Got a problem with that? -- Plem11738 08:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Users who exist only to edit this article? 

message: Although South African newspapers have been banned from printing the cartoons, one newspaper, the Mail and Guardian (which has a Muslim editor), had already printed one of the cartoons before the ban. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4685040.stm
The French newspaper Libération deserves a mention as a major newspaper to carry two of the cartoons.
Also - why does the International Opinion section focus on Britain?
I like the quote from Nicolas Sarkozy: 'I prefer an excess of caricature to an excess of censorship'.
p.s. excellent article, though.
198.54.202.18 22:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other papers

message: Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that have caused a storm of protest throughout the Islamic world, refused to run drawings lampooning Jesus Christ, it has emerged today.
The Danish daily turned down the cartoons of Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny.  --203.206.177.171 23:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in the article. See the section "Claims of double standard of Jyllands-Posten" Ashibaka tock 23:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let's face it. Looking at it dispassionately, and irrespective of one's own faith (or lack of faith) and whether they caused offence, some of the cartoons were funny. Others were 'scraping the bottom of the barrel' and the cartoonists commissioned were clearly struggling to come up with something. I have seen cartoons depicting Jesus Christ and aspects of Christianity - some of which were extremely funny, and others which were not at all. Claims of 'double standards' ignore the fact that the definition of a good cartoon is not 'does it offend anyone?', but simply: 'is it funny?' Bruce, aka Agendum | Talk 23:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the risk of going off-topic: I disagree with you on that. I don't think the level of the humour automatically defines the quality of the cartoon. Tellingness (?) can also be a measure of quality. There are many cartoons that are not funny but that stand out and become icons of a time. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  satire Vanessa kelly 09:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Some muslims in Canada (an every day Joe, a leader, a comic) thought several of the comics were funny... they were interviewed on the Current, a show on CBC Radio 1 on Friday February 3.  Not all muslims think its not funny, and it appears that a lot of people on both sides are making judgments about the comics without having seen them.   The audio is here http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2006/200602/20060203.html WayeMason 00:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why isn't this here?

message: Should this be incorporated to the article? CJK 02:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, my! And I think, yes, it should. But perhaps only as "other reaction" or something, until they actually print it. Azate 02:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Iran

message: Ordered Alphabetically by Country
{| class="wikitable"	Country                       	Source             	Number Printed   	Print Date
Australia     	Brisbane Courier Mail         	1 cartoon          	5 February 2006  	
Belgium       	Brussels Journal              	12 cartoons        	22 January 2006  	
Belgium       	De Standaard                  	12 cartoons        	3 February 2006  	
Belgium       	Het Volk                      	?? new cartoons    	3 February 2006  	
Belgium       	Le Soir                       	2 cartoons         	2 February 2006  	
Belgium       	De Morgen                     	                   	                 	
Belgium       	Het Nieuwsblad                	                   	                 	
Bulgaria      	Novinar                       	12 cartoons        	2 February 2006  	
Bulgaria      	Monitor                       	6 cartoons         	2 February 2006  	
Czech Republic	Mlada fronta Dnes             	12 cartoons        	4 February 2006  	
Denmark       	Jyllands-Posten               	12 cartoons        	30 September 2005	
Fiji          	Fiji Daily Post               	12 cartoons        	5 February 2006  	
France        	France Soir                   	12 cartoons + 1 new	1 February 2006  	
France        	Le Monde                      	1 new cartoon      	1 February 2006  	
France        	Liberation                    	2 cartoons         	2 February 2006  	
France        	Le Parisien                   	                   	                 	
Germany       	Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung	1 cartoon          	7 November 2005  	
Germany       	Die Tageszeitung              	2 cartoons         	31 January 2006  	
Germany       	Berliner Zeitung              	12 cartoons        	1 February 2006  	
Germany       	Die Welt                      	12 cartoons        	1 February 2006  	
Germany       	Tagesspiegel                  	                   	2 February 2006  	
Greenland     	Sermitsiaq                    	3 cartoons         	2 February 2006  	
Hungary       	Magyar Hirlap                 	                   	1 February 2006  	
Hungary       	Nepszabadsag                  	                   	                 	
Iceland       	Dags og Viðskiptablaðsins     	6 cartoons         	31 January 2006  	
Indonesia     	PETA Tabloid                  	10 cartoons        	6 February 2006  	
Ireland       	Daily Star                    	1 cartoon          	2 February 2006  	
Israel        	Jerusalem Post                	12 cartoons        	6 February 2006  	
Italy         	La Stampa                     	12 cartoons        	1 February 2006  	
Italy         	Libero                        	12 cartoons        	3 February 2006  	
Italy         	La Padania                    	12 cartoons        	3 February 2006  	
Jordan        	Al-Shihan                     	3 cartoons         	2 February 2006  	
Jordan        	Al-Mehwar                     	3 cartoons         	2 February 2006  	
Malaysia      	Sarawak Tribune               	1 cartoon          	4 February 2006  	
Netherlands   	De Volkskrant                 	12 cartoons        	1 February 2006  	
Netherlands   	NRC Handelsblad               	12 cartoons        	1 February 2006  	
Netherlands   	Elsevier                      	12 cartoons        	1 February 2006  	
New Zealand   	National Business Review      	1 cartoon          	2 February 2006  	
New Zealand   	The Dominion Post             	12 cartoons        	4 February 2006  	
New Zealand   	Christchurch Press            	                   	4 February 2006  	
Norway        	Magazinet                     	12 cartoons        	10 January 2006  	
Norway        	Dagbladet                     	12 cartoons        	10 January 2006  	
Poland        	Rzeczpospolita                	12 cartoons        	4 February 2006  	
Portugal      	Público                       	1 cartoon          	1 February 2006  	
South Africa  	Mail and Guardian             	2 cartoons         	3 February 2006  	
Spain         	El Periódico de Catalunya     	12 cartoons        	1 February 2006  	
Spain         	El Mundo                      	12 cartoons        	1 February 2006  	
Spain         	El Pais                       	                   	2 February 2006  	
Sweden        	Expressen                     	2 cartoons         	7 January 2006   	
Sweden        	Kvällsposten                  	2 cartoons         	7 January 2006   	
Sweden        	GT                            	2 cartoons         	7 January 2006   	
Switzerland   	Blick                         	                   	1 February 2006  	
Switzerland   	Tribune de Geneve             	2 cartoons         	1 February 2006  	
Switzerland   	Le Temps                      	2 cartoons         	1 February 2006  	
Switzerland   	24 Heures                     	                   	                 	
United States 	New York Sun                  	2 cartoons         	2 February 2006  	
United States 	Philadelphia Inquirer         	1 cartoon          	5 February 2006  	
I'm thinking the chronological one is more informative. I'll see if I can find a place to put it. joturner 06:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the table to the article. It's huge, but I tried to make it take up as little space as possible. I'll leave it up to the rest of the Wikipedia community to do what it thinks is right. However, I do believe it provides important information, even if it goes on a separate page where it would be eating up a lot of space. joturner 06:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I assume you meant www.rsf.org, i e reporters without borders.DanielDemaret 10:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full List of Newspapers who have Printed 1 or more  Cartoons 

message: PUBLISHING MUHAMMAD
Some of the newspapers and magazines across Europe that have published caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad:
Denmark: Jyllands-Posten
Italy: Libero, La Padania Hephaestion 13:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More newspapers

message: We are trying to find the name of the Brazilian newspaper that published the cartoons.  I've looked through the databases, and I wonder if this Feb 7. article in a Brazilian newspaper has the answer.  Here's the excerpt:
"Curiosamente, veio do Brasil talvez a melhor síntese da crise da charge, tendo como pano de fundo a disseminação da baixaria, sob todas as formas, na chamada "civilização do espetáculo". Falando ao Estado, o xeque Jihad Hassan Hammadeh, radicado em São Paulo, tocou no nervo da questão. "O Ocidente perdeu o valor do sagrado", constatou. "Se os ocidentais não respeitam os seus valores, imagine os dos outros." De fato, a permissividade midiática e a aversão do jornalismo de tablóide a educar o público se entrelaçam para embotar a capacidade do homem comum ocidental de entender as diferenças culturais que se manifestam especialmente em relação ao "valor do sagrado" em outros ambientes.
Na sexta-feira, o dinamarquês Posten afirma que "subestimou o sentimento de muitos muçulmanos sobre seu profeta" e que, se soubesse das conseqüências, não teria publicado a charge revoltante. O argumento é pobre. Ela não deveria ter sido publicada, mesmo que não fosse previsível a reação que provocou. Primeiro, porque não cabe a um jornal criticar - muito menos escarnecer de - valores culturais com os quais não comunga. Segundo, porque a publicação embutiu a intenção de ofender toda uma parcela da humanidade que se identifica, acima das etnias que a compõem, com um credo religioso. À deliberada profanação de um valor alheio somou-se a estigmatização da cultura que o abriga - quando a islamofobia cresce a olhos vistos na Europa."
Lotsofissues 15:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm portuguese. That excerpt is about a muslim cleric going on and on about how the west has lost its values, and doesn't respect those of others, blah, blah, blah... Btw, the portuguese newspaper Público didn't print just one cartoon, I've seen at least 4 there. Could you update that, please? 82.155.196.84 17:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Portugues translator needed

message: In the description of the cartoon with the schoolboy it states that the text of his shirt reads: "Fremtiden" (the future). This may be overinterpreted a bit, wanting the cartoon to be  prophetic. I think it is more like to be a play with words. His shirts is clearly the uniform of the local football (soccer) team from Valby: "Frem". Should we change the description to capture this.... ? Kjaergaard 05:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - I didn't notice that, and most other people certainly neither. I don't have a suggestion as to what should be written instead, though. Dybdahl 09:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It should remain just like it is written right now. Anything else is speculation, thus original research, thus not valid for wiki. Only the authors comment that it means something else would be valid. I too is fairly sure who the two “generic” characters in the seven man line-up is, however I can’t proved it for sure, thus they remain generic. Twthmoses 10:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schoolboy picture 

message: Is there a Cliff's notes version?  I've been away for a bit.  Any new polls?  --JGGardiner 06:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say little of significance has happened since the two (...or three...) original polls closed. No new polls, thank His Noodly Appendage. Fine tuning the article, adding recent developments, the occasional tangential shouting match in talk. Weregerbil 09:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 14 Archives?

message: Several television and newspaper editorials suggested some orchestrating of events. More to the point, it has been noted that in Syria and other less democratic countries, it is almost impossible to demonstrate, especially against the government. But now, without any problems buildings are burned. Commentators think this is a not-inconveniant distraction for Syria, which is in the middle of the Hariri investigation. Has anybody heard this too, and should it be mentioned? -- Nomen Nescio 07:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was mentioned on the Canadian (CBC) news as well that some in Lebanon suggested that Syria was behind the violence there.  --JGGardiner 07:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Last weekend I read in "Sydsvenska Dagbladet" a researcher from the swedish military suggested the same, and on a BBC talkshow, the DOHA Debates, last weekend, Abdallah Schleifer the said the same. None of them suggest that Syria orchestrated it, but rather that it could not have been done without the tacit approval of the government there. The swedish researcher suggested that Syria had so many internal problems that they were happy to let anger vent in another direction for a bit. Did I not read that the Grand Mufti promise to rebuild all the embassies, for free, even nicer than before, somewhere?  DanielDemaret 08:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added this commentary to article, please look if you agree. Or else, rewrite it?-- Nomen Nescio 17:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other reasons?

message: I've been going through and de-wikifying terms which have been previously wikified in the article. I'm human so I believe I'm missing a few. I'm not sure which ones though. This article is huge! (Way too many things are wikified too, I think that will be my next task.) Kyaa the Catlord 08:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning Up 

message: The current Lead section is not doing its job. Rather than giving a brief introduction to the subject, it is cluttered with snippets of information like:
 On 5 February, Iran announced that it was severing all trade with Denmark, effective on 6 February.
Most of this is already in the article or in the timeline. I will try to clean it up radically, if there aren't too many objections. Eixo 09:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it, most of the vandalism has stopped and I'm thinking its time to clean this baby up while we can. :D Kyaa the Catlord 09:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did some editing, though it could probably need an even stricter diet. Eixo 09:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, I'm going to be bold. Hold on tight! Kyaa the Catlord 10:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Eixo 10:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleaning up intro

message: To rehash an earlier dicussion, this article should be standardized (hey, it's a talk page and I'm from the US) to use BE. Please keep that in mind when editing. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 09:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an international encyclopedia. There is no need to use an artificial US standard. --Valentinian 10:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Val? Dante was suggesting we change it to BE (British English) so it is more internationalized. Attacking makes the Kyaa sad. Kyaa the Catlord 10:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Terribly sorry, Kyaa and Dante. I read BE for CE (Common Era; the AD / Common Era thing again), and I've just seen too many revisions back and forth because of supporters / opponents of that standard. I was afraid that that dispute would now be mixed into this article (history sections) and I really don't think that it needs any more controversy :-) I have absolutely no problems with Dante. --Valentinian 10:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: V, no problem. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Mrow. Yeah, thank god we're being reasonable. Well, for the most part. :D Kyaa the Catlord 10:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice to see some decent discussion for a change :)--Sir48 11:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that it's pointless to try and strongarm it at the moment, what with the high frequency of edits. Still if people are reading the talk pages and would OTHERWISE be inclined to use AE, please use BE as much as possible. We'll probably have to go through and give it a thorough look-see in a few weeks. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AE/BE standardi(z/s)ation 

message: I removed the following sentences from the article:
"...although some smaller newspapers do receive government subsidies in order to maintain operations. These newspapers have sometimes had funding cut when expressing overtly hateful views."
Living in Denmark, I have not heard of anything like that for the past 50 years. So it needs a citation to remain there. --Sir48 10:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I stuttered over this for a while also. I think it’s a ref. to Radio Holger, which indeed had its funding cut. However this is a radio, thus the text should be about media in general and not only newspaper. Twthmoses 11:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Danish journalistic tradition

message: Description of section 140 and section 266b of the Danish Criminal Code is found both under the "police investigation of Jyllandsposten" and under "Danish journalistic tradition". Somebody may contribute to a needed shortening of the article by removing this redundancy. --Sir48 11:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: why don't you do it then? ;) Rajab 11:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Danish criminal code

message: Does anyone have the skills to draw a map of:
# the countries where protests have occured
# the countries which have re-published the cartoons?
Reading long lists is quite cumbersome, it's much nicer to look at a picture :)
Rajab 11:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a great idea. Unfortunatly I cannot help you here, but hopefully someone else can. AlEX 12:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  maps 

message: Wouldn't it be amazing if there were an additional "editor's" version of each article where we could highlight individual passages / words in an article & give it thumbs-up or thumbs-down? The overall opinion would then be shown as a colour spectrum from very green (excellent) to very red (crap). Ppl who edit would then immediately know if they edit against the general consensus or not... for example I've seen lots of great passages that are supported by many of us removed (in good faith though) by rogue editors who happen to have a different opinion...
The reason why I thought of this: I'd like to give the word "pervasive" many thumbs up!! But I'm sure it will be removed again sooner or later without trace by an editor who's not thoughtful...
Rajab 12:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They have been talking about instituting a review process for a while.  Not sure how exactly... I don't think we could (or should) implement it on just one article.  But, something like that may come along. gren グレン ? 12:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  no, no - I didn't mean just this article. It's an idea for the whole of wiki :) Rajab 13:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See: m:Article validation feature. Jacoplane 17:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  how to improve wikipedia 

message: I'm so very hesitate to get into this fray, but I've been looking over this article and I now question whether this "Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, with a lit fuse and the Islamic creed written on the bomb" description of that cartoon is accurate. Is anyone certain that the man drawn there is Muhammad? Might the artist be saying that the bomb with lit fuse and creed represents Muhammad? Without explicit explanation from all the cartoonists involved, I think the article needs to be very cautious about how it interprets the drawings. Wouldn't a better description of this one simply be "a man with a turban..... etc? " J. Van Meter 13:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the name of the game was "caricatures of Muhammed", so it's quite safe to assume the man depicted is, in fact, Muhammed. Just my 2pence. --DerHerrMigo 13:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about one cartoon's interpretation

message: The childrens book that started it all is selling well, and has had no negative reactions, only kind words, despite the drawings it contains. Isn't that nice? 
http://www.jp.dk/kultur/artikel:aid=3542250/
DanielDemaret 14:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm....not very nice as it stills contain the cartoon. Everything is in Danish, I don't understand it. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 15:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "the cartoon"? Which specific cartoon are you referring to?DanielDemaret 15:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  like I said, it's all about the context ;) Rajab 18:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  or maybe not all but at least 80% Rajab 18:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The book sells well

message: Does anyone agree that the section is too lengthy? It's a duplication of the main page.  Every other section with a derivative main article is summarized neatly.  I propose it be cut down by at least half.  When I tried though, I was reverted.  Any other input.  Lotsofissues 13:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparable incidents section 

message: I think this should be included  --Chaos 13:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: this surely won't be difficult. They only have to look at arab newspapers from the past years. These anti-semetic cartoons are numerous.-- Nomen Nescio 13:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the Belgian AEL has put some anti-semetic cartoons on their website, including one that denies the Holocaust. But Holocaust denial is illegal in Belgium. AlEX 14:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK, it was the Dutch branch of the Belgian organisation. And there is no Dutch law against Holocaust denial, although there is jurisprudence against it. The Amsterdam-based Centrum Informatie en Documentatie Israël (CIDI) has now sued the AEL. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 15:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The AEL link is dead at the moment, Bandwidth exceeded. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iran paper plans Holocaust cartoons 

message: The intro states that the cartoons "were intended as satirical illustrations." There are then repeated references to their "satirical" nature in the rest of the article. Is not this a matter of interpretation rather than fact? Who says they were "intended as satirical"? (Some clearly are, e.g. the notorious "bomb-in-the-turban" - others, most obviously the one of Mohammed in the desert, are surely not.) Has the commissioning editor at JP admitted that that was the intention? Without a source to clarify the intention, it is factually incorrect as well as, in the circumstances, irresponsible to make such a loaded claim. Vilcxjo 14:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What the cultural editor at JP, Fleming Rose, has said and written was that they were not intended to be any insult to islam, and that he did not view them as insults. Personally, I believe him.DanielDemaret 14:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  JP had a competition amongst its cartoon-drawers to make a cartoon of Muhammad (pbuh) in order to highlight the fact that no illustrator could be found to make pictures of Muhammad (pbuh) for a children's book. They then printed the cartoons of those cartoon-drawers who responded. So I agree - the intention wasn't sartirical. The stated intention was to highlight the fact that no illustrator could be found to make pictures of Muhammad (pbuh) for a children's book. Rajab 14:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying that, Rajab - am removing the phrase in question. Vilcxjo 15:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: they asked all their cartoon-drawers to submit a cartoon about Muhammad (pbuh). The idea was to print the best of those who responded. In the end they printed all Rajab 18:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satirical? 

message: I created tempalte Template:Muhammad cartoons and placed it in two article already. Remove the "see also" or "main article" and replace it with this template.
: that's amazing - we have a huge discussion on how to avoid insulting readers by showing the cartoons (e.g. putting a warning before showing them etc.) & now you come up with a way to show them on each & every article Rajab 15:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We were not having a discussion on that, you (plural) were talking to us about that. That does not constitute a dialogue towards avoiding offense. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 15:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  that's interesting - you don't consider Muslims as equal on wikipedia? Of course *we* (wikipedians) had a discussion about that. Just have a look at the 9 archives Rajab 18:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What? Where on earth did you get that from? Where have I ever said anything that remotely resembles this nonsense? There has been no discussion on how to avoid offense. There have been only requests by you (plural) towards others to please consider moving the image. Requests do not constitute a discussion/dialogue. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 20:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Article 9 of the Fair use criteria: "[Fair use images] should never be used on templates". /Djonn 15:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree that including the image in a template would have been a bad faith effort to "rub it in". I think it would have been a perfectly appropriate image for a template relating to the cartoons controversy. However, the point is moot, because we can't place fair use images in templates, as mentioned above. Babajobu 11:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template

message: Ekstra Bladet imply in their editorial January 12 that they can now reveal that three additional pictures were shown in the 43 page report. user:liftarn have written in the article that "According to TV4 Nyheterna 2006-02-06 the primary source for the information was Dansk Folkeparti". I removed this sentense because I doubt that Dansk Folkeparti as a political party would be the first to dig up the story, the cited broadcast from the Swedish news is much more recent and I find it more likely that TV4 was informed about the story by Dansk Folkeparti, who read it in Ekstra Bladet.
If user:liftarn really know that this is wrong, please explain feel free to change the citation accordingly. Claush66 15:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary source of story on additional (fake) images 

message: Time Magazine just printed commentary both for and against the cartoons, written by people from all different perspectives.  You can link to it here (there are three pages worth).--Magmagirl 16:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: An external link

message: "One thing I gleaned from the internet - thanks, tomgrossme-dia.com and Wikipedia- is that Islamisk Trossamfund, the Danish Muslim group which has spent the past few months fomenting unrest about the cartoons, has supplemented the ones which were originally published by Jyl-lands-Posten, with three additional cartoons of unknown origin: one shows Mohamed with a pig's snout, one shows the Prophet as a dangerous paedophile and the third shows a Muslim at prayer being buggered by a dog. If indeed such cartoons are being circulated throughout the Middle East by European-based Muslim groups then it becomes easier to understand the level of popular outrage - and to understand the real motives of those leading it." — The Independent, February 7, 2006 Lotsofissues 16:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Woo! Thank you Independent! Kyaa the Catlord 17:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Speaking of which, there was a box on this page earlier that stated that we were quoted earlier. It is gone now, though... Kyaa the Catlord 17:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, someone must have archived it. Babajobu 17:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''The Independent'' cites this article 

message: According to Danish newpaper Politiken today, a new organisation, Danes against Blasphemy has asked the Public Prosecutor, who initially rejected any foundation for a charge, to make a new charge, so that the issue can be given a decision by the court instead.
One of the founders of the organisation is Jacob Erle, whose Jewish father fled to Denmark in 1939 as a result of Nazi persecution. The same year the law against derision of etnic or relgious minorites was adopted by the Danish parliament.
He states "Jyllandsposten has directly challanged the law we have regarding the protection of minorities, and that is made clear by what it wrote on September 30th." 86.52.36.140 17:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New charge will be made

message: There is 2 lines for "Belgium" and two for "France" too. Why don't regroup them ?
 Because they are in a chronological order Azate 18:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Countries Table: multiples lines for one country 

message: Wow: "Muslims and Non-Muslims from Denmark and other places in the world...". Thats quite a way to put it. Azate 18:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh god. I hope noone minds me tearing that apart and rebuilding it, bigger, better, faster, stronger. Kyaa the Catlord 18:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  As Politically Correct as it gets. 

message: Please try not to add to the introductory paragraphs. They are HUGE as it is and adding multiple line quotations, albeit sourced, is not helpful. Add those quotations in the body of the article where they logically fit. We spent hours last night streamlining the introductory paragraphs and now they are once again bloated to hell. Kyaa the Catlord 18:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Polite Request

message: i cannot wait until Iran newspaper prints off the Holocaust competition cartoons...then we will test the double standards of wikipedia..
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060207/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_cartoons_2—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.1.138.17 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They will probably be posted as well. People will be interested in seeing what the big deal is about those cartoons, as they were about these cartoons. — TheKMantalk 18:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: What double standards? And sign your posts!Valtam 18:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I assume Wikipedia will include those pictures, as well. The IPs can wail as much as they like about a Wikipedia double standard, but there isn't one; the truth is that Wikipedia is extending the same guidelines to Muslims as it does to all other communities, and this is what has produced such fury from the IPs. Babajobu 18:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I hope the cartoons are well drawn and funny. It would be sad to have to make an article with low quality art.DanielDemaret 19:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean another article with low quality art, we already have one! :D Kyaa the Catlord 19:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand corrected, Catlord.DanielDemaret 19:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, when a state-run media declares that it's going to make a rhetorical point about free speech, it's hard not to roll your eyes. Babajobu 19:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Assuming the controversy over those cartoons is even a fraction of what we're seeing now, I fully expect them to be published on wikipedia. I'm not sure exactly what "double standard" you're alleging wikipedia has, but I'm fairly certain it's nonexistent here. BinaryTed 19:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It is a pity I wont dare show the coming "holocaust denial"-cartoons to my mother. It would bring back too many bad memories from when she had to treat those few poor undernourished survivors.DanielDemaret 19:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: putting holocaust denial on the same shelf as drawing a cartoon is itself bad faith and lack of categorization (as was pointed out repeatedly). "Piss Christ" is a valid comparison in terms of blasphemy, and yes, we do have that image. Those Iranian papers will only manage to make themselves look like sad morons, and I hope the civilized world will make a point by rolling its eyes and by notable absence of riots or embassy torchings. dab (ᛏ) 20:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: it would be, if muslims (and probably jews after these new cartoons are published) didn't react to said cartoons WITH violence WookMuff 08:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Heh, if Jews reacted with riots and violence every time antisemitic images were published in the Muslim world, they'd never stop rioting. I think the chances of this new set of images provoking such a reaction is slim to none. Also, if they didn't respond with violence when the Iranian head-of-state said the holocaust was a myth, they're unlikely to be much more exercised about the cartoons. Babajobu 08:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I CANNOT WAIT!!!!!!!!! 

message: I normally say away from hotly contested articles, but I think I'll make an exception on this one.  I saw yesterday on dailykos  they were talking about why there was such a delayed reaction to the pictures and the author of the link above stated that it was because Saudi Arabia was trying to distract people from the Hajj stampedes.  The author noted about the same time people started to complain that Saudi Arabia hadn't fixed the problem that caused the stampedes, Saudi Arabia started to push the controversy.  I couldn't find anything relating to this in the article, and wondered if this was just some tin foil hat theory or if Wikipedia was just missing it because to much stuff was already put into the article.  Anyway, looks good, if not a bit long.  Normally current events get chopped up into sub-articles after they stop occurring, so I wouldn't worry about that.  --Rayc 18:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there's a simpler potential explanation: As per David Conway's blog,  the next country to head the U.N. Security Council, which may impose sanctions on Iran for its nuclear program, is.... Denmark!  What better way to put the pressure on Denmark than this entire controversy? Valtam 18:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So we now have two politics based reasons for the riots.  Where would be a good place to put "Other possible causes" and who is bold enough to do it whlie maintaining NPOV? --Rayc 18:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should probably have a "wing-bat conspiracy theory" subhead. But I don't hold my breath on how long it will last. Some people get upset over the SILLIEST things (like editorial cartoons). Kyaa the Catlord 19:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Hell, one of Iran's figureheads said the publishing of the images was an israeli plot in retaliation of the win by Hamas in Palestine. Never mind that the images were published before the elections. Conspiracy theories are fun! Kyaa the Catlord 19:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Saudi Arabian influence 

message: What is the problem with providing references to those calling for anti-boycotts in the introduction?
Netscott 18:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your sources aren't reliable. See: WikiPedia:Reliable_sources Kyaa the Catlord 18:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Netscott: It stands to reason that a consumer and/or govemtnment organized boycott of Danish products THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS is not on the the footing as a call for a retributional boycott from some obscure blog that has had no impact whatsoever. You can mention it in the appropriate part of the article, but not in the introduction. Please quit adding it over and over again. Azate 18:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Balanced Boycott Info

message: I have removed the following from the page as it does not give adequate sources.--File Éireann 18:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The original source was: www.information.dk/Eksport/Temapakker/Tema55.html (from 12 jan. 2006). Azate 19:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ownership of ''Jyllands-Posten''