Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 31

message: Dont you think it is equally bad that Muslims are rioting and destroying property over this. Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. these acts of violence are equally reprehensible to Islam as the cartoons. REALIZE WHAT YOU ARE DOING. the world is watching act like muslims, not like undisciplined individuals.
--130.108.185.198 03:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

message: Ironically, the boycott of ALL Danish goods would hurt everyone, regardless of whether or not they wanted the cartoons published.  
Accountable Government 07:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what boycotts do. Ta bu shi da yu 08:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boycott in Paragraph 3 

message: --User:dtii
I cant wait for their reaction when South Park does there Muhammad episode!!!
:Are they going to?  That would be sweet.  Kittynboi 07:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a talk page for the article, it's NOT a forum or discussion board for non-related topics Cacophobia (Talk) 15:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: They will probably at least do something similar to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy without involving Mohammad, but, then again - there is always Super Best Friends.
Well thanks Pyoungberg, I did not mean to reference it, but as there is quite a detailed article (including all the medical/religious findings ;-) good you pointed it out. --Richard 01:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Park 

message: Okay, so now we're watching embassies being burned to the ground (including offices for countries not even involved in this 'dispute').  Does true Islam support this behaviour, or is this the behaviour of fundamentalists? Budgiekiller 21:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *This is not a forum to discuss such issues. We should only be discussing the article. There are plenty of outlets for this sort of discussion. Try http://talk.guardian.co.uk --bodnotbod 21:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies.  You are completely right.  Silly me.  So why this discussion?  This article (not this Talk) is purely here to report the facts (i.e. some cartoons were published and lots of people got really, really annoyed).  Nothing else.  So why all the heat?  Wikipedia is here as an historical document, not as a political, religious soap-box.  Let's all try to remember that.  Budgiekiller 22:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: * Well, unfortunately, even limiting ourselves to discussion related directly to the article, it is still quite possible - as we are seeing - for there to be a great deal of heat ;o) It's interesting to think that if the controversy involved an audio file, which of necessity would have to be clicked and downloaded by choice, we almost certainly wouldn't be having such a big argument. --bodnotbod 22:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *Uh huh!  That's probably the key.  One step of separation and we wouldn't be here at this time... at least the Wikipedia community should be capable of coming to a reasonable agreement, all fundamentalism aside... Budgiekiller 22:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is violence justified? 

message: More than a decade back when I read Samuel P. Huntington's article about "Clash of Civilizations" then I was really surprised about his theory. The question for me was to ponder as to why would Islam and Christianity fight? I couldn't comprehend the scenario which was to unfold later on. I am a Muslim and have great respect and affection for Lord Jesus Christ (which we fondly call as Yaso Maseeh or Hazrat Essa) and I believe this is the case with every other Muslim. Any provocative remarks about Hazrat Essa or Jesus Christ are as disturbing to a Muslim as they could be to a Christian. So why would a bunch of people (in the name of freedom for expression) try to play with the emotions of more than a Billion Muslims of the world. If something is considered categorically disturbing to this huge bunch of people then Wikipedia should recognize this fact as well. I don’t say that the article should be removed but as a Wikiholic I can see that the reproduction of these offensive pictures will do no good to the reputation of our favorite Wikipedia. It will just hasten up the unnecessary hate war between Muslims and Christians. My request to you Jimbo, will be to provide a link to these pictures as they are easily available on other controversial pages and try not to contribute in this Clash of Civilizations. The world is a global village now and whether we (as Christians, Muslims, and Jews) like it or not but we cannot compartmentalize ourselves. So that now we have to live together then we have to respect the religious values of each other. (Nigar 14:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please! Save yourself and us a lot of wasted time and energy, and walk through the dicussion page archives where you can read what people have discussed about this before. You'll find your answers there. -- ActiveSelective 14:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clash of Civilizations 

message: Wow. Someone draws a cartoon offensive to Muslims and how does the Muslim world respond? Some with peaceful protests, some with violence. 
I am a gay man. Many muslim countries (including Saudi Arabia, home of Islam's holiest places) have laws on their books prescribing exactly how I would be executed if I ever decided to visit one of these countries. That's a little more offensive than a cartoon. But are gay men buring down Saudi Arabian embassies? No. 
Sir, the reason gays don't burn down embassies is because most embassies are beautifully decorated with satin and greek pillars and most people in there are well-dressed. Don't ever think is it because gays are "good" people!!! Huramath 03:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Beautifully said. 69.141.107.202 17:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well put.--220.238.40.100 02:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Hehe... not to make light of your statements, which are all very valid. I just had this image of a whole bunch of (stereotypical) gay guys burning down an embassy. WookMuff 05:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that's a funny image!! Valtam 18:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I understand it's pretty bad for gays in some of these countries.  Our debate in the West is about gay marriage, while the debate in some of these countries is over the proper way to execute gay people: hang them by the neck, throw them off a building, or knock a wall over onto them...  It's pretty scary... Valtam 18:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's funny that you say the article is not about homosexuality and then tell some random story about homosexuality.  Hmmm.  This article is not about video games.  There was this video game I was playing last night - it was pretty cool! Valtam 16:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Exactly why these stupid anti-hate speech laws should be repealled.  There is nothing worse for hateful ideas than to be tried in the court of public opinion.  By the way, look up Brandenburg v. Ohio sometime and read footnote 1 in the Majority Opinion to see just how far this protection goes.  Alas such protection is not as substantive in Europe. --206.130.134.147 07:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Double Standards

message: Can we find place for the story that an Imam living in Denmark told an arab news channel that the danes would burn the Koran in Copenhagen Saturday. Noone eventually did, but the rumours seem to have been spread all over Middle East. 
Rasmus (danish Not User) 02:49 February 6th (UTC)
:I believe it is not substantiated that it was in fact an Imam who started the rumour. As far as I'm aware it was a rumour carried by SMS throughout the Middle East. Only Odin knows who started it. Wiki be With us! WanderingWiki 05:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rumours of Koran-burnings in Copenhagen started the riots in Damascus

message: The Western idea of Freedom of Speech evolved over hundreds of years.  If piss Christ came out in colonial America, the artist would have swung from a tree.  Now in the United States people can protest the funerals of its fallen soldiers without government interaction.  Try that in the Middle East.  Basically the West has grown calluses to people’s opinions.  For the most part peaceful protest has replaced violent reaction.  
The internet and mass media have kicked in the front door of the Muslim homes and delivered the Western idea of Free Speech into their homes.  This has been an insensitive shock to the Islamic Identity.  The reactions to these cartoons, although extreme, could have been predicted.  Westerners see this reaction as a weak position.  Strong ideal beat weak ideals.  Violence beats strong ideals, or at least tries.  I see it has a culture that has not (or possibly will not) adapted.
This is a culture shock pure and simple.  I understand that Muslims are offended.  People DO deny the holocaust everyday.  People DO use racist speech everyday.  They are wrong, but have the right to do it.  The reaction to these situations is more words.--Thunder 05:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture Shock 

message: I'm sorry to speak here in English on Wikipedia (how do you pronounce this in arabic?).
I'm French and i don't understand the needless radicalism of some people i saw on TV.
France-soir is a very bad paper !
This paper is really worst, they search money and celebrity with idiot provocation... I didn't forget that they were near the bankruptcy two months ago !
France-soir is a paper writed by bastards for bastards, but this DOESNT'T MEAN that French people are bastards too !
So, if someone can tell me - if possible in English, i don't understand arabic (yet - i hope) - what is is sense of these French flags' conflagrations (i have never seen this  in my life!) ?
(Systran automatic translator) ... French Lady
Sorry Lady ... I think this Issue has too many sides and sticking to one or two factors is hard to explain it , firstly i wanna assert that every muslim felt insulted and attacked by these pics which are obviously racist and islamophobic . the problem in the pictures are two-sided : firstly they depicts the person of Person Muhammad (PBUH   ) which is forbidden in islam to avoid Idolatory and making persons holy by depicting then giving them a holy nature , so it is opposite to what some europeans say , muhammad isn,t God of muslims and he is not with holy nature , he is totally human but preferred by god and so he was chosen as Prophet . 
for this reason islam try to limit the depiction of any living thing which is called as aniconism , but still some shiite parties have another understanding and they depict muhammad rarely and commonly Ali .
so the major factor was the insulting nature of the pics for the muslims which all moderate and extremists felt angry and upset >
apart from that feeling of anger , the Expression of anger as street protests hasn,t happened untill the noewegian journal re-publish teh pics again and many trials to take condemnations of the danish journal has failed and the danish goverment declared that it has no right to limit freedom of speech , some muslims say that contradicting with some events happened in Europe when some ppl is charged because anti-semitism or anti-racism .
the Protests happen anyway with approvment from arabic goverments and islamic goverments which don,t represent the ppl's will already to keep away from this anger and to use this anger against international pressure as what happened in syria today .
The anger fromf Westeren Goverments' bias in Israeli-palestenian conflict and iraq invasion and also war against terrosism has been all expressed in these protests by butning flags , and u know when u r  in such protest and with such anger u cannot recognize between  danish or norwegian or french flag .
The Boycott was also a puplic choice to express their condemnation .
i think the globalization could bring more serious events if we don,t learn how we respect the special cultural and religional differences and if we couldn,t define kind of international rules and law to control such cases . 
--Chaos 10:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but it works both ways. Have you seen the anti semitic cartoons published in certain Islamic countries? Where was the outcry over those? Ryanuk 11:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But to me, as a Jew, the cartoons in the Arab world ARE anti-semitic.  They are just as offensive to me as a Jew  as the Muhammad cartoons are to you as a Muslim.  Yet you think it is perfectly OK for your magazines to publish images of Jews that are stereotyped and hateful because they are "anti-zionist" (political)?   But the Muhammad cartoons were ALSO political.  So maybe it is YOU who have a double standard?  Rooster613 01:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Thankfully, I have the right to humiliate others...Valtam 21:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A French point of view 

message: Several postmodern satirists have highlighted the point that -- since no one really knows what Mohammed looked like -- any image could be said to depict him. To that end, they have captioned photos of their thumbs or rudimentary stick figures as "Mohammed."
What if Muhammad actually looked like a set of floating letters that looked like M U H A M M A D or محمد? Haizum 12:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What if Mohammed were a philosopher dreaming he was a butterfly? More to the point, what if Mohammed was a butterfly dreaming he was a philosopher?! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: But Cordula, that IS the point: what if Muhammad were a butterfly dreaming of being a philosopher? What if? Babajobu 15:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Here is a thought: According to my understanding of Islam, human beings are not to be depicted because it may lead people to equate these humans being depicted with Allah (see Idolatry, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idolatry; and Anacrosnism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniconism). So, according to my understadning, the original reason for not depicting Muhammad would have to be in order not to equate him with Allah. (Muhammad was a human being, see Muhammad, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad.) But since the purpose of the cartoons in question was not to glorify Muhammad in any way, the danger of having people equate him with Allah would reasonably be non-existent. Thus, it is hard to see how these cartoons could be regarded as idolatry/aniconism. Furthermore, some Muslims believe that no human beings at all are to be depicted. According to the article in question, Sunni Muslims believe so. But according to the article Islamic Art, "...only the most orthodox Muslims oppose protraiture." (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_art). Thus, by allowing the depiction of human beings and not Muhammad seems to me to be to put him in the same category as Allah, which would be idolatry/aniconism and blasphemy according to Islam. PJ 17:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Depiction 

message: Two wrongs definitely do not make a right.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.139.254.170 (talk • contribs) .
:This page is for discussing changes to the encyclopedia article, not debating the news. Ashibaka tock 05:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: god how stupid are some Arabs? "oh man, they're implying we're all terrorists, let's ATTACK them!" 134.69.166.132 05:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not discussing the article is it? That aside "The Arabs" did not burn any diplo buildings. Some Syrians did. (Collounsbury 06:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Syrians are Arabs--Greasysteve13 09:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These political catoons may have given advantage to groups who want to dis-stabelize political bonds and relations between Muslim countries and Other Nations.Muslim World and other people. The subject in cartoons is volatile enough to be used in any way.10.69.166.100
Radiant, I have noticed from my amateur studies of world history that religion and politics are often so entertwined that it's practically impossible to determine where one begins and the other ends. Take the current War on Terrorism. How much of it is political? How much of it is religious?  Or the whole matter of Israel. Is the Israeli-Arab conflict relious or political? Looking backward, was the Caliphate political or religious? Or the Vatican? Or the Byzantine Empire? Is there any matter which exists that is purely religious with no political undertones, or purely political with no religious ones? Even political entities that have loudly claimed they are atheistic have established personality cults that function as de facto religions.To refer to the two concepts as distinct is like concieving of the mind as a separate entity from the body. All's well and good until you study the brain, and then it gets fuzzy, doesn't it?67.50.32.67
Haha, Pwnd! YHBT!
I'm not Islamic, but I don't think the cartoons should've been published. If the Muslims are going to burn down diplomatic buildings over a few cartoons, a good way to keep them quiet is to wrap some pork in a Danish flag and send it to a mosque.  13:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burning embassies over political cartoons? 

message: First of all, I denounce the cartoon as racist. I agree with the other cartoon in the main article saying if the target were Blacks or Jews, there would be a different argument regarding free speech. I'm all for free speech if it doesn't incite hatred. It seems to me that the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons do incite that kind of hatred and we should take a stance against it.
--Ian.desouza 20:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia should not take a stance. Period. We are an encyclopedia, not an op-ed weblog. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences or similarities 

message: Only one paper has published the images so far but there is a debate on whether or not they should be. An Islamic leader in Melbourne has requested the Australian media to not publish them. Here is a quote from a journalist in the Sydney Morning Herald which I think sums up the pro argument rather well:
"I accept that to the genuine believer, there can only be one truth and in a pluralist democracy you must be free to proclaim it and to seek willing converts. But others must be free to debate and even disparage your beliefs.
It is simply not enough to declare your faith to be holy and inviolate and therefore off limits to criticism, however puerile the criticism might be. Anyway, if your beliefs are firmly and sincerely held, and if they are a divine revelation from God, surely they will not be shaken by a cartoon? And God will certainly not need protection from those you consider infidels."1
SilentC 22:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting viewpoint from Australia 

message: It's time to reconsider. The proposition is for Wikipedia to permanently archive the Muhammad cartoons and make them freely distributable in perpetuity. I beg you to reconsider this. Please don't put Wikipedians in harm's way, the way Denmark put Danes in harm's way. The Danes are getting royally spanked for being associated with Jyllands-Posten, who timed their publication of these cartoons with the first day of Ramadan. Now the Danes are unable to do anything about their burned down buildings except solicit letters of sympathy from other countries. They don't dare wear their own flag now on their military uniforms. And nobody can adequately shield them from more consequences to come. Why put Wikipedia through the same stress? Instead of claiming freedom of the press and rubbing people's noses in it, why not say we are not showing the cartoons out of respect for Islam? What's not to love? 12.16.126.34 21:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's Time To Reconsider 

message: so why are we even entertaining the propagandist view that some how anti-terrorist cartoons qualify as "rascism"Call me ishal dummy 23:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, ishal dummy, "we" don't. Some people just can't keep their cool or have some reason to try to fan the flames. Ignore them, or at most politely ask them to be civil if they persist. (That "ishal dummy" is a joke of course, it's so obvious someone has to say it so let's get it out of the way :-) Weregerbil 00:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Islamofascism? Not a race

message: There are far more non-Muslim internet users in the world than Muslim ones (the former having plundered the latter over hundreds of years of colonialism and post-colonialism and having superior technology). The articles here are biased in favour or secularism. I would urge everybody to read Nadeem Azam's article How the West is Killing Voltaire.
:No Greasysteve13 04:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No Junathans 20:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No Greasysteve13 08:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I did, the article is rubbish, the guy hasn't read voltaire.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.133.3 (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles here are biased - need more balanced approach  please 

message: The issues surrounding free speech and censorship have been debated for
centuries, although mainly in societies in which such a notion is
accepted. Therefore, for example, in the US, in the Supreme Court and elsewhere,
many useful and relevant principles have been elucidated. Some of these are highly 
pertinent to the Jyllands-Posten controversy, both in general, and in the 
Wikipedia context.
Those who are not from the US or not of western cultural valules should 
make no mistake here: Do not jump to the conclusion that any person from 
the US has no sensibilities and cannot be offended. There are many 
publically accesiible exhibitions, works of art, books (both fiction and 
nonfiction) as well as matters of criticism and opinion, that many US 
citizens have found to be highly offensive or even unethical, but which have 
circulated anyway. Examples abound in art that has depicted Christian icons
and holy images in disregard, ridicule, or even filty contexts. I will not 
attempt a reference list here. In addition, ideas and activities that are 
strictly forbidden by major religous groups are publlically advertised in the
US. Examples are found in commerical adverisement for abortion, or the open 
promotion of homoesxuality as an accepted alternative lifestyle. 
Anericans have come to a relatively stable arrangement regarding these clashes
of personally-held values with public discourse and open publication of ideas. 
I believe that the basic principles can be summarized by these two:
     
  1) If something offends you, whether it be an idea, or an image, or a 
     written page, or a TV program, then you can and should choose to not 
     expose yourself to it. Turn the page, do not but the newspaper, do not 
     attend the stage production, stay way from the museum -- if these
     media are purveying the content that you find revolting.  
   
The above notion allows us to protect ourselves from offense, provided that 
the society (government) protects people from a forced exposure -- and this is 
not too difficult, as in general there are choices. People are not forced to go 
to see the offensive art exhibit. But what if somehow the offensive material is 
thrust upon us anyway? This leads to the second guideline:
   2) Things that are blatantly offensive and that have no other purpose
      should in fact be limited by society. There can be age limitations, 
      warning signs, or prohibitions agaist wide circulation by mass media. 
      The government has a delicate role here, because something can be outright
      banned or, more likely, strongly discouraged, only if it has no 
      "socially redeeming value" or no "legiotimate purpose" other than to 
      produce offense.
Let us analyze the Jyllands-Posten ruckus in these perspectves. First, we can 
appreciate that Muslims, especially strict Muslims, maye take offense at 
forbidden depiction. These people should not buy or read such newspapers, or 
provide viewers to TV stations that show material offensive to them. In places 
where there are many Muslims, this can be a powerful economic push towards 
respecting these values. But that is a secondary effect, the primary one is 
that the individual avoids being offended, while those who are no so offended 
have access to the information, or art, or criticism that they wish to see.
In this regard one must wonder how the masses of people in Afganistan came 
to have such awareness of what is being published in a Danish newspaper. This
seems to be the opposite effect -- people are seeking out, or being provided with,
that which offends them, even if in the normal course of events they would have no 
possibility of exposure to the offending material. 
In the opinion of many, and of this author, at least sdome of the 12 cartoons 
published by Jyllands-Posten had some conceivable purpose, especially in the 
context of the story about the childern's book author who could finds no 
illustrators.  However the supplementary three images - the pig picture, and
the dog picture especially, strike me as not only purely offensive and without 
purpose, but also out-of-place. It is not diffficult to imagine that some one 
with a political purpose added these to the "portfolio", and I have seen no 
evidence that those pictures were ever intended to be included with the 12 in the 
Jylands-Posten collection.  It is not the present purpose to analyze the clearly
manipulative purposes in promoting this disgustingly "augmented" collection 
anti-Western propaganda, althoug that seems to be surely the case. However, 
I believe that many people would find the supplementary three pictures to 
warrant condemnation as inflammatory and intrinsically offensive. Still, I believe
that most societies would not place an outright legal ban on the publication of such 
pictures. Instead, it could permit them to be regarded as "hate speech" or "obscenity" 
and thereby make it too risky from the perspective of most media outlets to 
widely publicise them.
In the ways outlined above a free society and its citizens can permit free speech
while also protecting people from constant exposure to blatantly offensive material.
The Danes would not have published the pig and dog pictures in a major 
newspaper. Likewise, religious Muslims may well want to decide to stop buying that 
newspaper just on the basis of the 12 that were published. But I cannot imagine that 
any thinking person could view the Paris Soir front-page cartoon as intrinsically 
offensive, even if some reasonable Muslims might choose to not but that day's issue
because of a technical violation of a Muslim tradition.
Including any material in Wikpedia that might be offenmsive to some should be done 
carefully, with appropriate labels and warnings. But material shuld not be 
excluded only because it offends some people, provided that those people have the 
ability to avoid seeing it.
88.38.89.137 22:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A suggestion of basic principles, for these pages, and others 

message: Moved from Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy joturner 20:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what happens to people when they are doped up on fundamentalism.  They value their imaginary gods and prophets more than tangible human life.  That should basically be the definition of lunacy. --Vagodin  Talk 20:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or die for anything that is made up, for that matter, like e g  a "nation", or any other imaginary land units enclosed by imaginary borders. DanielDemaret 21:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, it is not even about cartoons :). The people that are getting killed have, from what I read in many sources, not been allowed to see the cartoons. If they had actually seen the cartoons, they might well have gone to a movie instead. DanielDemaret 08:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lunacy of the Issue 

message: Who the hell deleted the vast majority of my comments from this thread? And why? Yes, I'm using bold. Haizum 00:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably they have been moved to Arguments/Image-Display. Raphael1 01:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reason? Haizum 18:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Excuse Me

message: Does anyone even know what they look like like?--143.92.1.33 06:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are cartoonists in hiding?! 

message: What a mess!! Dozens of warning templates, fork pages, contless archives, it looks like Catrina paid a visit here! Can't something be done to bring this talk page up to a less cluttered appearence? Loom91 11:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its Katrina for starters....--Greasysteve13 06:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This talk page is in a sorry state!!!