Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 13

message: You can periodically delete messages, but you can't delete the truth: you are hypocrites.
:Who's talking about whom here? :-) 12.16.126.34 09:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Surrender To Jihad! 

message: I suggest that a list of some users and IP addresses who vandalize the image be created so that they may easily face consequences for their violations.
*163.121.171.245 (Giza, Egypt)
*212.138.47.17 (Jiddah, Saudi Arabia) (2 times)
*212.138.47.22 (Jiddah, Saudi Arabia)
*212.138.47.24 (Jiddah, Saudi Arabia)
*Rajab (2 times)
:: That's wrong. Not 2 times. One was the 3 conversion rule, the second one was vandalism. Rajab 15:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Vandals

message: I don't know if we want to wait for the furor to die down, but someone needs to make sure that we're using only one form of English in this article. My guess would be BE. I'm assuming that's the variant that's in use in Denmark? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the MoS, American English only applies to the US and British English only applies to the UK, IIRC. In all other cases, I think the first edit is to be used as a reference. The article was created by User:Cloud02. He used the word centre (instead of center). Centre is Commonwealth English, so I believe that according to the MoS BE should be used in the article. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 19:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your reasoning, but come to the same conclusion. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The MOS is more complicated than that. BE would apply to Irish articles, for example. But I don't think there's any reason to think any particular form is more popular in Denmark, to the extent of being the 'standard' English in use there. So the only rules that seem to apply are the 'first major edit' rule and the 'proper noun' rule. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs)  15:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first major edit was probably the article's creation, since it was quite large for a new article. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 17:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Consistency is important. Right now we have both "organization" and "organisation" in the same article, for example. This is unprofessional, unacceptable, and against our policies. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Variety is the spice of life.  Maybe organization and organisation isn't perfect but it's not unprofessional nor unacceptable.  --Cyde Weys  23:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say the burden of proof is on you to show a professional situation in which that would be considered non-problematic. As for unacceptable... well, I suppose that's a matter of opinion, but it's undeniably against policy. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 05:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AE/BE standardi(z/s)ation 

message: Poll closed. Image kept.Archived. See Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Poll3--File Éireann 03:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  You cannot close a poll I started! 

message: The article mentions that, regarding the burning of embassies, that the chilean and swedish embassies had nothing to do with it. What does the norwegian embassy? WookMuff 03:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They were the first to republish the cartoons Cacophobia (Talk) 08:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Why was the edit stating that Magazinet was a right-wing Christian paper removed? As it stands now, one should believe it was a paper representing most Christians in Norway, which is not true. If you read Magazinet you will quickly observe that they politically identify themselves with the right-wing Progress Party, if not further to the right. --129.177.30.18 23:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#JP_.22right_wing.22_newspaper.3F discussion. The words "right wing" have a meaning, and there was no independent NPOV confirmation that the paper fits that description. In fact, evidence to the contrary was found. Please cite credible verifiable sources if you have different information. Weregerbil 00:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  fire (don't FIRE!) 

message: Methinks it would be beneficial to rip out chapter 5 "opinions" and move it to the sub-page "reactions" (which used to be chapter 4) because 
1) there are lots of duplicates between these entries.
2) there is lots of superfluous stuff, e.g. the vice president of country X stating something, then a day later the president of country X stating somthing quite similar, only a day later. I say, let's keep the one from the boss, unless the two disagree.
3) this will give a chance to better tell apart opinions to the initial danish publication from those to the re-publication, from those to the recent escalation.
4) It will give a chance to better seperate, say, opinion polls from comments of those involved, from voices of those not really involved, but considered important, from accounts of who is presently torching which embassies. 
4) this has been proposed elsewhere on the talk page already and ssen no opposition
the reactions/opinions page sees little "attack" at present. This will facilitate consolidation. At some point, when this whole unfortunte affair is kind of over, chapters 4+5 can possible be merged with the main article again.
Comments? Azate 04:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge "reactions" and "opinions"? 

message: (poll snipped)  The polls are over.  You don't get to run as many polls as you want until you obtain the desired result.  Anon, continue re-adding this silly nonsense and you will be facing WP:3RR and a block.  --Cyde Weys  06:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who said it is? This is a different idea, worth to try! Resid Gulerdem 06:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  You cannot close a poll someone else started for no reason  

message: Multiple IPs in this range have hit already 12 blanks of the page. Can an admin block that range of IPs? Hitokirishinji 05:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Or, if that is not possible, here are all of the specific IPs that have been vandalizing the article:
# 212.138.47.21 (blanking)
# 212.138.47.17 (blanking)
# 212.138.47.15 (twice, obscene nonsense)
# 212.138.47.23 (blanking image)
# 212.138.47.29 (blanking image)
# 212.138.47.17 (2 times)
# 212.138.47.22
# 212.138.47.24
AscendedAnathema 06:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that this range is the window on the cyberworld for Saudi Arabia: all internet traffic from Saudi Arabia comes through either 212.138.47.0/255 or 212.138.113.0/255 (which has also been blanking). We certainly cannot block for an extended period, although I did hit some of the range for five minutes earlier on. Physchim62 (talk) 06:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like the 212.138.113.00 through 212.138.113.30 would be an appropriate range to block if that is possible or becomes necessary. Also, why is the article not simply protected from edits by anonymous users? It had been briefly a day or two ago and it was quite effective.AscendedAnathema 06:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I have range blocked 212.138.47.0/30 (which is the same as 212.138.47.xx) for 5 minutes due to the huge amount of vandalism coming through on those IP's but a longer block cannot be implemented due to the fact that blocking that range cuts an entire country off. JtkieferT | C | @  ---- 06:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand how cutting an entire country off, no matter how great the proportion of vandalism coming from it happens to be, is unacceptable. What I don't understand is why this article isn't simply protected from editing by new or anonymous users. There has to be a reason for this considering the incomprehensible amount of vandalism this article has been subjected to. AscendedAnathema 06:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The policy is that articles linked from the main page may not be protected. The idea is that users should be able to edit the articles which we advertise there. However, given the circumstances we have to choose between our evils: I have semi-protected the page, and left a note at WP:AN to see if any bright sparks there have other ideas. Physchim62 (talk) 06:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Block IP range 212.138.47.xx 

message: There were many good and illustrative pictures on this page, including pictures of the ensuing riots.  Why are they all gone now?  The article now only has the original cartoons and some sort of rebuttal cartoon.  I don't understand the rationale for removing the images.  --Cyde Weys  06:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They got moved onto one of the many subpages. You can put them back. Ashibaka tock 06:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to the pictures? 

message: Now that we have divorced the fallout page from the controversy page, I would suggest that the controversy should be the main page.  I think that most readers are more interested in hearing about the boycotts, threats of violence, embassy burnings, and the like rather than the precise details of what was printed in a newspaper in “south-west Denmark”.  I don’t think many people care much about the Jyllands-Posten or Kare Bluitgen.  That should all be preserved and discussed – I would include the cartoons there – but that isn’t what most readers are looking for.  Look at how it reads on the main page.  It doesn’t generally say “Muslims and Westerners have different interpretations of blasphemy in the context of free speech”.  It is more likely to include the word “rioting”.
As a side benefit this will mean that visitors can see the important page about the conflict and only see the cartoon on the sub-page if they want to know about the precise origins, which I feel most do not.
Perhaps the time hasn’t come for this yet but perhaps a day or two more of violence will make Mr. Bluitgen seem rather remote.
--JGGardiner 07:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blah, blah, blah. No; the comics are what spawned it; they need to be on whatever page, at the top, unless and until WWIII comes of it because they are the most relevant image. This is censorship at its finest. Titanium Dragon 07:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all.  If you look at the history, you’ll see that I voted to keep the image in the first poll (I’m duration).  I just don’t think it is very important any more.  Nobody cared about the image in the West (at least my little corner of it) in December when it was out there.  It was the boycotts and violence that made them take notice.  --JGGardiner 07:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, there needs to be a paragraph or so about the fallout in this actual article, with the link to the "main" fallout article above that paragraph. Titanium Dragon 07:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my real point.  When you come to this page it says very little about the conflict that is alluded to on the main page.  We cut it off and hid it away.  --JGGardiner 07:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Which is a bad thing. It needs that paragraph or two. Someone obviously cut it out in an attempt to make the article shorter, but the standard procedure is to leave in a paragraph or two at the least. And wikinews still should link here, because this -is- the page. Titanium Dragon 08:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Modest Proposal

message: *Note: Fair use images are not allowable on user/talk pages. — TheKMantalk 07:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody took the liberty of removing the fair use image. JtkieferT | C | @  ---- 08:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Userbox:--[[User:Greasysteve13|Greasysteve13]] 07:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC) 

message: Last night I happened to pass by and found the wiki apparently vandalized; the collage of images were removed as I think has been happening a lot, only this time someone replaced them with what I think is actually, probably an important point of view to be made: 
does anyone agree that this perhaps actually DOES help to explain why people are protesting?
and that since it is also in the same editorial cartoon, makes it work as a response and should be placed somewhere on the page?
----
THIS RESPONSE IS NOW INCLUDED .. PLEASE DISREGARD MY COMMENTS ABOVE Dwxyzq 09:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is very interesting. Not only does it concretely illustrate te point of view often repeated by some of the protestors (one drawing is worth 1000 words...), but it is also quite interesting in itself: for instance, the figure of Mahomed has been covered in white in the small reproductions of the original cartoons that we see on the third case. I am quite favourable to including this in the article. Rama 09:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It's an interesting, informative explanation of the point of view of the protestors. MMad 18:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I was personally perplexed as to why there appeared to be one drawing portraying Australia in the picture, until I went back to the original cartoons! Dainamo 14:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I saw that as a mere blob -- until I compared it to the cartoon of Muhammad with the bomb turban (which it is, with the face whited out.)  Which only goes to show that unless you can see the original images, responses like this won't make much sense.  Rooster613 22:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to the cartoons as an Editorial Cartoon 

message: The granting of the interdict amounts to censorship by the courts and this issue has been raised by black editors who were represented in a news carried by the SABC. This is of particular interest given the history of censorship in South Africa and the progressive Constitution of South Africa. Given the fact that the previous Minister of Justice in South Africa the late Dulla Omar was a Muslim from Cape Town, one wonders how he would have handled the matter. 
I have inserted my "opinionated contribution" which was removed so that it can be re-worded by
an experienced Wiki
Regards, Greg Gregorydavid 10:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interdict in South Africa amounts to Censorship: Opinion expressed on [[SABC]], not by user 

message: This is quite similiar to Bush's proposal where "annoying on the internet" would be punishable. C'mon, I know you can be boiling mad, but you shouldn't be so silly to think that everyone is the same person and thinks that the exact same things are offending. Therefore, the pictures should stay. They're only for the sake of clarifying, too. Although, if this is really an issue, someone could put a link to the picture rather than thumbnailing it on the first paragraph.--84.249.252.211 11:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to discuss? 

message: Surely under events we should have the embassy burning and the attempt at U.N. sanctions? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Events 

message: Continuing a discussion, requesting translation or English summary of the pages of the document scanned here: 
Spiegel (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,398624,00.html) and others have written about Ahmed Akkari's tour of muslim nations, spreading a "43-page dossier" discussing their grievances about the Danish cartoons.
Has anybody here seen this 43-page document? 70.89.39.158 06:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be found here, . I do not speak arabic, nor danish, so I cannot tell you what is in it and/or if it is real. This article is also used as a source in the rumors and misinformation section of the article AlEX 08:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much - the scans look pretty credible.  Are there enough arabic-speakers here that we might be able to hope for an English translation of this document?  This part of the story seems like a key piece of the timeline: it probably is the most detailed explanation grievances by the danish muslim group that is talking to the press the most, yet is still opaque to us non-Arabic speakers.  I think a translation would be enlightening to all and might help bridge gaps.  Any Arabic-speaking volunteers? -- 70.89.39.158 13:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just gave these a quick skim, I do speak Arabic. They look quite genuine as a text (although the image resolution makes them a pain to read), I would note that it would take some time to translate, summarising would be more reasonable on a voluntary basis. I was amused by the brief intro on Denmark though. I would note that page 12 closes with an ident of the author as Sheikh Ra'id Halihil (sp unclear to me, could be Halimil), dated 4 Oct 2005. Also the last scan page (image 43) is a table of contents.  (Collounsbury 10:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds absolutely fascinating.  What is the title of the document?  Perhaps we should start a wiki page about the document, with space for people to contribute summaries or partial translations of individual pages -- 70.89.39.158 12:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unfortunately the images seem to be down at the moment, at least when I try to access and I did not save them, so I can't give my own translation. See note below, however. (Collounsbury 02:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text:   Maybe we should, atm it's still pretty pointless, but as soon as parts of the document have been translated we could do it. AlEX 17:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: There is what claims to be an inexpert translation into English of a Danish translation of the document, mixed with editorial commentary by the translator, at .  Not exactly the best possible source but it's a start.. --Sommerfeld 19:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, the translation seems (based on my memory of looking at the images earlier) reasonable although rather, shall we say, prejudicial in framing; regardless it gives what my memory seems to be a pretty good rendition of the commentary letter I noted above. The editorial commentary is also, well, a bit bombastic (e.g. problems building mosques, called a lie - I know in the French context that while it is not illegal to build mosques, getting permits appears to be rather difficult - data not being clear. It is not hard to imagine that Danish Muslims face some degree discrimination in this area. Does that make the statement as translated a lie? Well I would say an inflammatory exageration.) Also note, for example, the bit equating respecting Muslim Holy things is following Sharia is again more than slightly an editorial distortion. I would not say that the editorial comments are particularly helpful or even accurate. Also it seems to omit some final text, but my memory (again the images are not presently accessible by myself at least) may be off. Nota bene, the text supports the Imams' contention they did not claim the extra images were published, but were rec'd separately; although the end text (which I don't recall reading) indicates this is a post-facto compiation. (Collounsbury 02:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: In my browser (Mozilla), they render as popup pages consisting of a single .jpg file; do you have a popup blocker int he way? --Sommerfeld 19:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, the links are all dead now. AlEX 20:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  They were available earlier. Possibly a hack or overload. (Collounsbury 02:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arabic Speakers - Request for Translation/Summary 

message: Shall we merge the Rumours and disinformation and Rumours and disinformation regarding the images sections? They sound confusingly similar, and I'm not sure what the difference between them is. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 17:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done (I was thinking of doing it yesterday, but waited for somebody else to say the same thing).  I also took the opportunity of improving the headings of this section. Noel S McFerran 17:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thats odd! Merging the two sections is in itself adding to the confusion and disinformation.  MX44 18:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge "disinformation" sections? 

message: The article in which the cartoons first appeared in Jyllands Posten is available  here in Danish. If anybody could provide an English translation, it might help to put things into context. The images aren't there, just the text.
Liam Plested 19:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Original article

message: I deleted the following sentence from the article, then Peripatetic restored it: "A number of Muslim commentators, such as Ehsan Ahrari of the Asia Times, have also noted that offensive imagery regarding the Jewish religion and the Jewish people is no longer tolerated in the media in post-Holocaust Europe, which has voluntarily curtailed their freedom of expression on such a sensitive matter; nonetheless, similar attacks on the Islamic faith remain acceptable." This is a POV piece of original research. To say that these people have "noted" this is to suggest that it exists, and they have simply observed it. Many people would utterly disagree that "offensive imagery regarding the...Jewish people is no longer tolerated...". If you look at the New anti-semitism article, many people believe (though I don't really agree with them) that anti-Jewish imagery is alive and well in the European media. Secondly, it asserts that freedom of expression has been "curtailed" by the alleged decision not to run anti-Jewish imagery; thirdly it asserts that it "remains acceptable" to attack Islam in the European media. Where? Which corners? In The Guardian? In the Independent? In Le Monde? If these three arguments are to be presented, each of these points must be clearly set forth as the argument of a particular writer. As of now, the first one is "noted", and the second two follow as facts underlying what he noted. Babajobu 18:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, though, Peripatetic preemptively addressed those concerns when he reinserted the content, so I'll leave it. Babajobu 18:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted comment

message: I deleted this section because it was nothing but a POV written like an editorial, with no sources at all. (Cloud02 19:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have readded it, with references. It was not meant as a POV, but as a description of our liberal traditions, which are a lot more liberal than the ones seen in countries like Norway, Germany, France, USA or others. I have lived for 10 years in Germany, and the difference in mentality and tradition is huge. Dybdahl 20:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danish Tradition 

message: Why isn't there a section dedicated to racist attacks against muslims and muslim property in Denmark and Europe as a result of this episode? So far, the article seems only interested in acts of violence perpertrated by muslims.
:It will be added as soon as someone adds it... I have not heard of any attacks against Muslims in Denmark, and the only messages from ordinary Muslims in Denmark is, that the boycott should be stopped. As soon as someone reports about attacks against muslims, that haven't been in the article yet, and I see it, I'll add it. Dybdahl 20:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scandinavians don't tend to do stuff like that... Let's hope they don't start torching embassies in this incident either. We could add a section "Violent backlash against muslims in Scandinavia" and write "none" under that — but I'm sure the joke would be lost for many... Weregerbil 20:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scandanavia, Sweden in particular, has one of the highest concentrations of neo-nazi groups and activity in Europe. Racial tensions between white swedes, and the enormous influx of arab immigrants has been growing for years, especially with the growing strain on their socialist welfare system, with attacks on muslims and other non-white nationalities becoming commonplace. Just saying, it's different than you'd think. Bill Doe 21:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's dangerous to do any jokes, and besides it's also a violation of wikipedia policy. But you are absolutely right, I would be very ashamed of our Danish society, if just one Muslim was harmed because of this. Dybdahl 20:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only case I can think of is Danish Muslims attacking a critical or moderate Danish Muslim, but I can't find the source for the story. --Maitch 20:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I found the story. . Sorry it's in Danish. --Maitch 21:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most Danes interviewed on Television are simply shocked about the whole situation, but since the constitution forbids any intervention into the media by the government and the parliament etc., there's nothing we can do. If the prime minister of Denmark would excuse anything, he could (theoretically) risk a new thing from a Danish Newspaper the next day. Therefore, the only parties in this are Jyllands-Posten and the angry Muslims. The Prime Minister and the Danish populations are basically just innocent bystanders and not able to do anything. Personally, I hope that the Muslims in Denmark, and the religious leaders in all countries, are able to convince the Muslims in other countries, that Denmark is a nice and peaceful country, that doesn't want to insult anybody. Dybdahl 21:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The piece of information about how the danish constitution specifically FORBIDS the government to interfere seems to not be very obvious from the article. Could some one add the facts from the above, as I think they seem to be very non-obvious to some of the muslim protesters, and for scandinavians, they are really obvious? Actually, saying you want to limit freedom of the press (and human rights in general) would, I think, be THE ONLY thing at all that possibly could cause a similar outcry in Scandinavia. And then it would have to be done by Fogh Rasmussen, the danish government or some one actually IN Scandinavia. Not some one thousands of miles away... TERdON 22:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-muslim backlash in Denmark? 

message: :The Jordanian newspaper Al Ghad printed a cartoon [] which shows the caricatures originally published by Jyllands-Posten albeit blanked out Mohammeds face because that can't be shown. 
:Did anybody else notice that they blanked out the journalist Kåre Bluitgen's face instead of the stick drawing of Moammed in his hand? (lower left hand corner of the Jordanian cartoon)--Soylentyellow 20:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al Ghad cartoon blanked out Kåre Bluitgen's face instead of Mohamad's face. 

message: Currently, JP is labelled "right wing". Before it was "centre right". JP (on its own page) calls itself 
»et af private, erhvervsmæssige, organisationsmæssige og partipolitiske interesser uafhængigt liberalt dagblad.«
That is: »private, commercial, independent of political parties and other organisations, liberal daily newspaper.«
Isn't "right wing" too judgemental? It reeks of fascism. I think "centre right" was fair. Azate 21:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A better translation: »A liberal daily newspaper, independent of private and commercial interests, and of the interests of organizations and political parties.« In a Danish context, »liberal« refers to an economic theory (center-right rather than right wing, I guess), and »organizations« probably means trade unions, occupational unions, employers' confederations, etc.--Niels Ø 22:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I would say that this article shouldn't label JP in any way - they should only be labelled in the article about JP. However, the word "liberal" means different things in different countries, and JP is basically a mainstream newspaper, that started as a newspaper for west Denmark. It has since merged with a left wing newspaper from Copenhagen (Politiken), but the two newspapers still appear as separate newspapers.Dybdahl 21:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd say take the label away since it says independent, or go back to "centre right" - some googling suggests there is some opinion for "centre right" in the media. "Right wing" only if there is genuine verifiable NPOV evidence for that. Unqualified "right wing" may too easily invoke incorrect images of skinheads in leather pants doing nazi salutes. Weregerbil 21:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  JP "right wing" newspaper? 

message: The section still needs a bit of work... It would be nice if an Arabic speaking person would find the original quote for the article in Al-Hayat. Kjaergaard 21:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition to that section being somewhat vague about the actual and accurate statement of the Danish queen, the reference links to whatever site those quotations came from aren't working either. Barring the correct links being edited in, I think this section should be deleted so as not to further spread disinformation. AscendedAnathema 21:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The disinformation is already out there in the Arabic press. I think the explanation should stay. Kjaergaard 22:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added opinion of the Danish queen 

message: So far, I have not heard of any of the images being published by a major American newspaper, and the story is more or less being put on the back burner by the mainstream media, for bettor or worse. Yet, the first paragraph states that the images have been printed in the US. Does anyone have a source for this? I removed the US from the list of countries whose press had published the images yesterday, but specifically said that if someone can show that hey had indeed been printed to provide a souce and immediately revert my edit. I am unable to find a citation for this, and I have to wonder at the motives for placing the US in the list when that may not really be the case. AscendedAnathema 21:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thank you for providing that information. These and  state that the Philadelphia Inquirer has been the only US paper to publish the cartoons as of 02/05/2006, and it printed only one at that. I did not edit the article lately, the US has remained. AscendedAnathema 21:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It states there is another--the New York Sun--a couple of days ago. Lotsofissues 22:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Publication of images in the US

message: Should we include the front cover of the book (Koranen og profeten Muhammeds liv)? Or perhaps one of the other images from it?Geni 22:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a need for that here. It might be relevant in Kåre Bluitgen, though.--Niels Ø 22:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.Geni 23:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Childrens book

message: and look at this rationally.  The problem is that some people are getting worked up over the cartoons and others are getting worked up that the first group of people are getting worked up.  I respectfully suggest that EVERYONE needs to calm down.
The showing of the cartoons is not unreasonable.  BUT their position is.  And NOT because I am saying it is offensive or anything of that nature.  This article is currently titled "Jyllands-Posten Muhammed cartoons controversy".  This article is NOT supposed to be about the cartoons, but the controversy surrounding the cartoons.  Therefore the introductory picture to this article should be a picture of the resulting controversy.  Such as some flag burning, or embassy burning or pictures of various marches or whatever.  THAT is what the article is about, so THAT is what the introductory picture should be.
But there is a problem that whenever someone tries to suggest moving it people cry "Freedom of Speech!" and think that ends all arguments.  It DOES end SOME arguments about the presence of these cartoons in this article but it doesn't justify their presence at the top of this article, because as I pointed out this article is not about the cartoons themselves.
If another article is created that IS about these cartoons then yes I would agree that the cartoons belong at the top of THAT article.--Stenun 22:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think everyone needs to stop, calm down ... 

message: There is little in the cartoons themselves to suggest that the figure satirized is the prophet from the Koran.  All that the caricatures share in common is the depiction of a bearded man in turban.  Is there an iconographical tradition that I am missing which definitely narrows the subject down to the religious prophet?  Even considering the context of the JP article ("Muhammeds ansigt"), who is there to say that the cartoons do not portray another Mohammed, perhaps one directly associated with terrorism, e.g., Mohammed Atta?  It seems one interpretation of the cartoon is being tacitly assumed at the expense of all others.   --KCargill 22:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Get real. The excellent descriptions of the twelve drawings in the article state quite clearly and uncontroversially which of the drawings appear to have the intention of depicting the prophet, and which not. Some of them perhaps depict a depiction of the prophet, if that distinctions makes any sense.--Niels Ø 22:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The world has decided it is Muhammad. We can't change their minds. This page is (should be) for discussing the maintenance of a Wikipedia article, not the topical events behind the article. Please let's try to keep this tangential discussion to the minimum. Weregerbil 23:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do the cartoons portray Muhammad? 

message: Could anyone put a reference for that section? Even though there are references to pictures, there isn't any reference to the actual claim. Who claims it? Where is it claimed? etc.
:There are currently two references in that section. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 04:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims of Double standard of Jyllands-Posten 

message: * Picture series - burning of the Danish consulate in Beirut
:Will do.
Please also add this link of how muslims have been Cartooning Jews for many years, and nobody ever got outraged:
http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/ArabCartoons.htm
Ehhh, that seems really POV and beyond the scope of this article, besides, I think we've debated that already. Homestarmy 02:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somebody please add this external link 

message: Is there an equivalent to Rot13 for images?  In that way, those that wish to view controversial/offensive images can.  Those that don't, won't.  This method has been used by Usenet for decades. -- Rwcitek 01:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a filter set up for people who don't want to see the images, but they need to know how to use the filter to do so. Kyaa the Catlord 01:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  rot13 for images? 

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: 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)
thread_title:  Audio link in intro 

message: 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
When you read it from an outside POV, it is really quite well done!  Everyone here who has been contributing should be quite proud of what has been accomplished, in the midst of all the uproar!!! Nfitz 02:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compliments 

message: Added this under the Rumours and Misconceptions section, but it was edited away:
Public burnings of the Qur'an 
-	Saturday the 4th of February it was rumoured that neo-nazi groups in Denmark would gather in public plazas and burn copies of the Qur'an, which is considered sacrilege. Although several disjunct demonstrations took place, encouraging tolerance, respect for freedom of speech, anti-racism, there have been no reports on any burnings of the Qur'an. Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Møller declared on international TV that "No Qur'ans have been burned and the police have been instructed to prevent any occasions of the Qur'an being burned."
I don't have a source, but I know for a fact that it is true. Even though there is no citation I still think it is an important enough controversy to mention, as there are people thinking that books were burned with government consensus.
:I deleted the reference because the initial rumor and Møller's statement were unsourced.--Jbull 03:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qur'an burnings 

message: As fast as this page goes, I'm not sure if this has been linked, but it gives a good history of images of muhammad.  Arkon 03:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That site is included in the main article. I agree that it is a good source of info. AscendedAnathema 03:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, excellent.  Glad others are more motivated than I. :D Arkon 03:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Depictions of Muhammad throughout time