Talk:Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

message: Please divert general talks to Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Thank you. AucamanTalk 01:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

message: Reference 10 should be re-titled (I don't know how to do this):  We need a counter-balance to Islam, says Danish queen. The title that is currently listed was a misquote and was changed.--Jlefort 07:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are multiple ways to interpret this particular drawing though, for example that some Muslims are putting violence into the religion by using bombs, or that Islam is a bomb waiting to go off. Can some one give a source for this statment? --Tarawneh 01:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: "This view leads to the unfortunate conclusion that violent conflict between the West and jihadist elements is both inevitable and uncontrollable." I cannot work out which view is referred to by the words "this view", so I find the whole sentence puzzling. Could whoever wrote this passage please reword? I can't copyedit it myself because I might change the intended meaning. Actually, the sentence looks like an editorial comment, so perhaps it should just be deleted. But maybe it is meant to convey the view of someone being talked about in the previous sentences. Metamagician3000 00:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ambiguity

message: I'd hate to flare this up like on Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, but the cartoons are the subject of the title, so I think it should be included. I'm not that bothered to be honest, because this is quite a pointless article IMO, so if it's gonna cause massive arguments, then it may as well be left out.--Nathan (Talk) 01:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's necessary to put the cartoons on this page as well. As long as they're on the main page about this topic, with clear cross-references, I'm happy. I'd only have been unhappy if wikipedia had censored itself by not providing the photos at all. Metamagician3000 02:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Include title

message: Many of the cartoons allegedly showing anti-Semitic cartoons in the Arab world  are not anti-Semitic, although some of them are. Caricatures of Ariel Sharon killing Palestinians are not necessarily anti-Semitic. Ariel Sharon is not free from criticism because of the mere fact that he is Jewish, or that he is the prime minister of Israel. However, the stereotypical portrayals of Jews are anti-Semitic. ViewFromNowhere 05:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then add a note that only some of these cartoons are anti-Semitic.--Greasysteve13 05:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first picture is of a concentration camp. How is that not anti-Semitic? Sill, even if not all publications are anti-Semitic, there would be enough pictures left to make the argument stand. There are anti-Semitic and anti-Christian publications, which makes the current outcry an example of double standard.-- Nomen Nescio 17:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: All history is full of violence, killing, invasion, and racism. Please stop the madness; the madness must end.--Greasysteve13 02:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Are there really anti-semitic cartoons in the arab world? As far as I know, the arabic people is a semitic people. Battra 00:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the redundancy of the term is noted in the article about anti-semetism (See Anti-Semetism)--Greasysteve13 06:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of Israel does not equate to Anti-Semitism

message: in Deutsch : Die Welt's Interviw --Chaos 21:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet you were already told  here that this is from 2002.--Wasabe3543 20:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  u havn,t read it even , it is new link --Chaos 22:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion of Guenter Grass 

message: How is
:There are multiple ways to interpret this particular drawing though, for example that some Muslims are putting violence into the religion by using bombs, or that Islam is a bomb waiting to go off.
not original research?--Striver 21:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, See my point, a week ago with no answer --Tarawneh 01:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: uncoursed

message: The following was posted in the fox news article used as a reference is this article ref.(16)
:In Iraq, the country's top Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, decried the drawings but did not call for protests.
:"We strongly denounce and condemn this horrific action," he said in a statement posted on his Web site and dated Tuesday.
:Al-Sistani, who wields enormous influence over Iraq's majority Shiites, made no call for protests and suggested that militant Muslims were partly to blame for distorting Islam's image.
:He referred to "misguided and oppressive" segments of the Muslim community and said their actions "projected a distorted and dark image of the faith of justice, love and brotherhood."
:"Enemies have exploited this ... to spread their poison and revive their old hatreds with new methods and mechanisms," he said
No statements were issued in English regarding such events. The only language used for such a statement was Arabic. That statement translation was not accurate, and the wrong idea was given by FOX NEWS, I can't argue that it was intended to mistranslate the statement, but it is certain that such a translation gave the wrong idea, and wrong the conclusions. And by the way it was a posted on Monday 1st Moharam 1427H, not Tuesday. 
And then, wikipedia writes reinterpret the above statements from Fox news into:
:Al-Sistani suggested that militant Muslims were partly to blame for distorting Islam's image.
Well, I only presume good faith in the writers. --Tarawneh 02:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, Wikipedia must follow a "no original research" policy, and we can't take an editor's word as to what a non-English text says if they're contradicted by a reliable source (FOX is as reliable as any popular news medium, which is to say largely accurate but makes a lot of mistakes).  If you can find another reliable source's translation, or demonstrate that there's a substantial opinion among Arabic speakers that the translation was inaccurate, then you can note that in the article in addition to FOX's translations. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FOX NEWS story is not that accurate 

message: In the Internation Opinions section, reference 5 (in Norwegian) does not seem to actually substantiate the text, which this is more like opinion. Reference 6 in Swedish requires a paid registration; surely not a great reference (and I don't know whether it's a good one as I don't have an account).  Even if real references can be found, the sentence still needs untangling to be easier to read; here it is:
:Some Muslims have stated in interviews that much of the reaction is because it was unexpected and that many Muslims consider Europe, and especially the Scandinavian countries, as more friendly towards the Arab world than for instance USA.
Suggestions? amertner 22:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion rather than fact? 

message: I am putting in one muslim who refers to the muslim media in general, if it's ok:
http://www.khader.dk/flx/in_english/commentary_i_feel_insulted/
DanielDemaret 21:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslim media 

message: :Image:Arabcartoon.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Arabcartoon.jpg

message: If this is about free speech, why is this cartoon deleted? 
Please take a look at the deletion review of :File:Arabcartoon.jpg. 
--Raphael1 15:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free speech? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070927002447/http://www.information.dk/InfWebsite/FremvisningPHP/Webavis/WAvPrint.php?pWAvVis=1241 to http://www.information.dk/InfWebsite/FremvisningPHP/Webavis/WAvPrint.php?pWAvVis=1241
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060308010647/http://www.isna.ir:80/Main/NewsView.aspx?ID=News-667116&Lang=P to http://www.isna.ir/Main/NewsView.aspx?ID=News-667116&Lang=P
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=83985
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.isna.ir/Main/NewsView.aspx?ID=News-667116&Lang=P
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130625133913/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/787/cu4.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/787/cu4.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060219131234/http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=18582 to http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=18582
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060208023117/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/686/op5.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/686/op5.htm
*Added  tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1138622571922&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
*Added  tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1138622571842&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: An idea which has not, I think, ever been advanced, is that the "Muhammad" depicted in the cartoons might simply be as an archetype of an Everymuslim figure. I quote from a Wikipedia article on Muhammad as a name: According to the sixth edition of The Columbia Encyclopedia (2000), Muhammad is probably the most common given name [in the world], including variations. It is estimated that more than 150 million men and boys in the world bear the name Muhammad.
Surely it can't be blasphemous to depict all of them? Nuttyskin (talk) 05:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Name of the Archetypal Muslim