Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 19

This is an archive of past discussions about Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

→

Rumours and Misinformation

The ‘Rumours and misinformation’ section was deleted by Azate earlier today:

(cur) (last) 12:16, 9 February 2006 Azate (_Rumours and misinformation - deleted. this has been much shortened and put into the timeline (try to look for hot dog e.g.))

It seems quite an important section and ought to be reinserted. All the information is there to be reinserted (go to History and the time and date noted above), however, I don't know how to do this! Perhaps someone else could do the honor?

Furthermore, the following misunderstandings / misrepresentations (which were not included in the ‘Rumors and Misinformation’ part of Wikipedia article were mentioned on the Danish Radio website this evening: http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Temaer/Oevrige_temaer/2006/Tegninger/Artikler/201343.htm

Below is a rough translation:

1) There were 120 drawings of the prophet Muhammed.

On the third of January the media (amongst this DR Nyheder Online http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Udland/2006/01/03/113630.htm) reported that a researcher at the Dansk Ægyptisk Dialoginstitut by the name Hanna Ziadeh in a one hour interview on Egyptian television had had to clear up several misunderstandings regarding the Muhammed-drawings in the Danish newspaper JP. Ziadeh, amongst other things, denied, that it concerned 120 drawings, but could confirm that it concerned 12.

2) The Danish government is considering deleting parts of the Quaran.

In Berlingske Tidende on the 12th of January (http://www.berlingske.dk/grid/indland/artikel:aid=681128) it is mentioned that part of the material presented by the Imams during their travel claimed that Denmark would publish a censored version of the Quoran.

3) The Danish government wants to make a film about Muhammed.

According to Berlingske Tidende the 13th of January (http://www.berlingske.dk/grid/indland/artikel:aid=682188), Mahmoud Bakri, the editor of the paper Al Usbu (“the week”) in Cairo related that the Danish delegation of Imams has claimed that the Danish government, following the Dutch film ‘Submission’ (which was critical of Islam) is planning to pay for a new film turned particularly against the prophet Muhammed [the writing is a bit intransparrent here, presumably they mean simply critical of Muhammed].

4) The prime minister refused meeting the ambassadors, as it was a matter of ‘freedom of speech’.

Fahmi Howaidi, a journalist on Arabnews, writes on the webpage Al-Jazeera.info, Islam and the West: Who Hates Whom? The Danish Case, that 11 Arab ambassadors were refused by prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, as they wished to meet with the purpose of making him registerer their protest against the insult against Islam. The reason given for the refusal was that the government could not interfere in a case concerning freedom of speech. The prime minister himself, explained the matter as follows in TV2 Nyhederne on the 30th of January (http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/article.php?id=3564679): “They had written a letter [demanding …sic] that the government take legal steps against the JP. But there we have to say: It is impossible in a democracy such as the Danish, which has freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Because of this, I wrote a cordial letter to the ambassadors, for the exact reason, so as not the escalate the matter.

5) Muslim children are indoctrinated in Danish kindergartens

According to JP (http://www.jp.dk/indland/artikel:aid=3530022/), the Imam Mahmoud Fouad al-Barazi, told an Egyptian newspaper, that Muslim children in Denmark are indoctrinated in the kindergartens. The imam thinks that this – in conjunction with other social acts is intended to "rob the Islamic communities of their religion and identity". The assertions about indoctrination were repeated on the Arabic television station Al-Jazeera in January.

MilaUser:86.139.123.36 00:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Have translated the missing words. --Sir48 01:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, Sir. I'm afraid that I don't have the time to edit it for the Rumours & Misinformation section, nor to reinsert the section itself as such. Anyone ...? MilaUser:86.139.123.36 02:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

How far back did you go to dredge that up? I don't mind parts of it being there, but some of that needed to be trimmed out. Kyaa the Catlord 09:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

HOLY CRAP. You brought back a version from like the VERY BEGINNING. I'm being bold. Try again with something less... ancient. Kyaa the Catlord 09:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed above for a while under the section Translations of the Imam's 43 page dossier are available. -- Avenue 09:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem bringing it back. But... find a more recent copy. The one you brought back was missing changes I made to it nearly four days ago now. Kyaa the Catlord 09:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken. I inserted precisely the text that Azate deleted in a single edit, less than 24 hours ago. Comparing my version with the one immediately preceding his edit shows no differences in that section. If your changes were missing, they went missing before that. -- Avenue 09:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That would be my mistake then, i reinsterted an older one which he deleted again. :P (Cloud02 10:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC))

Ah, then I was mistaken about Azate's conduct. He or she deleted the content in a series of edits, most recently around 16:30-17:00 on 8 February 2006, and discussed some of the earlier deletions on this page under "Remove some sections" and "Rumors and Disinformation". So I was a bit hasty - my apologies.

I still think the possible contribution of rumors and misinformation to the situation is not covered well by our article at present, but I'm no longer sure that reinserting old content is the best approach. -- Avenue 11:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time find this, Mila! Btw, should'nt you get a real signature :) ?

Here you go Varga Mila 10:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you :) Something is strange. When I click on your link, I do not get to a normal user page. Click on mine, and then on yours, and you will see the difference. Did you have any problems when you registered your name or when you logged in? DanielDemaret 12:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think she just hasn't added any content to her userpage yet. She should at least edit it once so her talk page is activated. :D Kyaa the Catlord 12:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok ok. I just got lost looking and laughing at all the userboxes. Varga Mila 12:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Please Wikipedia, Respect Amish Ordnung

Why do we have Pictures of People! The Pennsylvania Dutch plain folk don't allow for pictures of people. So please respect Amish Ordnung and not be Amishophobic. You're freedom of speech must respect our right not to be insulted by your graven images! Just Kidding. long live free speech and the right to critique. Afterall, if the media is going to follow Islamic law, it must also follow the Ordnung. Stetlerj 01:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

As much as i appreciate your point, and though i am not arguing on the side of "remove the pictures" the difference is that islamic people can own computers and use the net... amish, not so much WookMuff 04:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Stetlerj was being facetious. Also Amish practice regarding photos is not universal http://www.amishnews.com/amisharticles/amishand%20photos.htm just as Muslim practice regarding aniconism is not either. Schizombie 21:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, i got that thanks :P WookMuff 23:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply: Pictures are not taboo for Muslims. Only a picture of Allah(SWT), otherwise known as God or Prophet Muhammad(PBUH). This is done to avoid idolatory. The Muslim protest is not based mainly on insulting cartoons, its based less on the pictorial representation.

Should we remove images of women with their faces uncovered? Women with their heads uncovered? Women with their arms and legs exposed? User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Comparable incidents... POV?

"Throughout history, believers from a multitude of faiths have called for boycott, arrest, censorship or even murder of critics, artists and commentators whose works they considered blasphemous. Some of these have been jailed, censored or killed, others walked free. There are also many examples of conflicts where a group of people have been offended, but did not resort to violence and resolved the matter with discussion."

Does this seem to have POV undertones to anyone else, particularly the last sentence? Like it's saying some people managed to resolve the matter in a civilised manner, whereas the Muslims didn't? --Nathan (Talk) 02:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the paragraph is a bit editorializing. I happen to think it is perfectly true, but that doesn't make it NPOV, it just makes it MyPOV. Weregerbil 03:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

i think that its ok, except for the last sentence which is absolutely judgemental. WookMuff 04:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, the last sentence stinks. I'll remove it. Azate 13:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

template

I cant edit the page, can someone add {{Muhammad_cartoons}} to the top of the article?

Reprinting in other newspapers beginning of February

This would be closer to the reality:

( Reprinting in other newspapers

   Further information: List of newspapers that reprinted Jyllands-Posten's Muhammad cartoons

)

In 2005, the Muhammad cartoons controversy received only minor media attention outside of Denmark. Six of the cartoons were reprinted by the Egyptian newspaper El Fagr on 17 October 2005[24][25][26] along with an article strongly denouncing them, but publication did not provoke any reactions nor condemnations from either religious or government authorities. January 2006 saw some of the pictures reprinted in Scandinavia. The first days of February, when international attention raised, many big newspapers within Europe, with the exception of Great Britain, started printing the cartoons in support for free speech.

Please see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4673908.stm and the link "Further information... " self.

Danish reaction

I've removed the inclusion of the full text of this minor internet petition. First of all, if it belonged anywhere, it would belong in the opinions article, not the main article. Secondly, characterizing it as the "Danish reaction" is totally disingenuous. Thirdly, a small website launched with a couple thousand alleged signatures probably doesn't warrant mention at all, and certainly doesn't warrant inclusion of full text of what is written there. But if you want to try to push for a reference to it to be included, put it in the opinions article. Babajobu 03:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I will put it back. It is as importtant as couple of Imams touring the muslim countries... Resid Gulerdem 03:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't. The Imams helped to spark the protests in the Muslim world. The petition... well, it did not. gren グレン ^? 03:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is. There is no evidence at all that the imams did that, just a speculation. These gorups in Denmark force JP pull the cartoons back and apologize, as important. Resid Gulerdem 04:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Resid, you are the only one who has identified this little petition as being of such fundamental importance to the event as requiring inclusion in the main article. If you want to put it in the opinions article, it might survive here, but it will never make it in the main article. Babajobu 04:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

And everybody else think it shouldn't be there? Where and who are they? It looks you and I talking here... I am not sure that if you and Grenavitar are everybody... Resid Gulerdem 04:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Resid, it does not matter whether you, Gren, and I believe the small poll is notable. All that matters is that it is treated as notable by reliable sources. No such source has argued that the poll expresses a notable and important opinion, and so to include it in Wikipedia would amount to original research. And regardless, even if notable it is totally inappropriate in the MAIN ARTICLE. Push for it to be included in the OPINIONS article, where it would belong if notable. Babajobu 04:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that the news-media have covered the Imams going to the Middle East extensively... no major source has mentioned that petition (if the BBC, or NYT, or CNN mention it then do tell us). Read about Wikipedia:Reliable sources gren グレン ^? 04:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you need a source for it. The link is there I provided. Wouldn't you include this before main media? Resid Gulerdem 04:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You need a non-primary source to say that the poll is important. That is why you need the BBC or CNN or someone to say "this poll is notable" otherwise it's like the millions of other petitions online. Petitions are not inherently notable. That is what I mean. gren グレン ^? 05:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Going to have to agree that your addition Resid, doesn't belong on the main page... I was thinking maybe in the 'Reconciliation' area... but the letter doesn't really seem to be about reconciliation. Going to have to agree the with others and suggest 'Opinions'.. Netscott 04:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Should it be mentioned Denmark's 3rd largest and one of the most influential parties is pure and clear Facist?--Ezeu 05:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hehe. Ultra-Extreme right-wing, Xenophobic and an insult to everyone: yes. Fascist? You may have to go and redefine fascism first.DanielDemaret 09:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

At the core of fascism is the idea that it the use of violence is legitimate. Danske Folkepartiet uses nasty words against those who use violence, so in this respect they could be termed anti-fascist. If you insist in giving the term "fascist" to any group in this controversy, you should attribute it to any group that has used violence. I would advice against attributing anyone of that term altogether in this discussion, since it seems irrelevant to me.DanielDemaret 10:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No, this is not an article on the political parties of Denmark. I'm sure one exists and if you wish to note that the third largest party is fascist there, it would be on topic. It isn't here. Kyaa the Catlord 09:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Dansk Folkeparti already has an article, see Danish People's Party, but calling them Fascist is completely off the mark. They are extremely nationalist but Fascist??? I am aware that particularly one member of the Swedish cabinet likes calling Danes bad names - which looks rather interesting when these messages are broadcasted here as well - but a remark like this is completely off the mark. I'll be monitoring that page, just in case. BTW, yes, Denmark has a small Nazi party. They too have a page, see National Socialist Movement of Denmark. They ran for the regional elections on Zealand, and got 0.1% of the votes. Nobody takes them seriously. --Valentinian 09:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Nazism still exists?? I thought it doesn't exist after 1945. This is a party that is more of a joke. The Danish People's Party are not facist, they are nationalist. Moving the reaction to a sub-page is better, and a summary at the section. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 12:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree - I think the fascist groups are the ones who are violent. In addition, look at the Wikipedia entry on fascism: Fascism is also typified by totalitarian attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life: political, social, cultural, and economic. You tell me which group wants to impose control over all aspects of life... Valtam 17:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sarawak Tribune Update

Just got some info from a source in Malaysia that the Sarawak Tribune, the paper that re-printed one of the cartoons, and running since 1945 is now gone. Their license has been revoked, and it looks like their websites are no longer active.

Koguma 04:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I read that they shut down the Newspaper as well. (AP) Accountable Government 07:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Wookmuff's edit

In one of Wookmuff's recent edits to this talkpage he inadvertantly (I assume) deleted a very lengthy section of talk. Wookmuff (or someone else) please restore it. Babajobu 04:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I just did, before I saw your call. gidonb 05:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

it wasn't inadvertant, but in hindsight it was a mistake... thanks, but i will readd my poll choices WookMuff 22:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

New Event: Campus Police SEIZE Papers With Cartoons

I think this information should be added to the article.

"Issue Invades Canadian Universities"

The international furore over Danish newspaper cartoons lampooning the prohet Muhammad has flared at two Canadian Universities, where officials say public safety fears are forcing them to crack down on efforts to publicize the drawings.

In Charlottetown yesterday, security guards raided the offices of the University of Prince Edward Island student newspaper in an effort to confiscate 2,000 copies of The Cadre before they could be distributed.

At Saint Mary's University in Halifax, a philosophy professor is vowing to fight a university order issued Tuesday that forced him to take down the copies of the cartoons posted on his office door.

Dr. Peter March has filed a grievance with his teaching union, saying his academic freedom is under threat.

Ottawa Citizen. Tuesday, February 9,2006. Accountable Government 05:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

wow. sounds pretty noteworthy.--Alhutch 07:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there an online edition of this? That SHOULD be included, but probably in the international response article. Kyaa the Catlord 07:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

One professor lost her job in in Saudi for similar reasons ... MX44 09:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a link directly for that story. But some of the newspapers are related through the Canada.com site. Here's a link to the story. http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=7b7d851d-a9d9-49fd-8963-fbc665baa637&k=72181

Halifax Herald story: http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/483219.html Thparkth 13:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The current events section on this story was changed to "the administration halted the publication of.." as opposed to the fact that campus security raided the office of the student paper and seized 2000 copies of it. There is no mention of this story in the main article, but it's found on a link. The linked article also makes no mention of the fact that they took the papers. Students actually hid some of the papers before they could get them. Accountable Government 16:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The entry in the timeline article was changed by me, because it had no citation. After checking multiple publications I changed the entry so that it matched the information that was consistently reported; none of them actually reported the seizures having occurred, or the other details now seen. I've updated the timeline article with the details given above now, along with the articles as appropriate citations. — digitaleon • talk @ 21:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Amir Taheri

Does anyone think that this should be added? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not exactly the The Times. Can anyone corroborate that this is a solid publication? And is the contents little more than just speculation? DanielDemaret 08:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a subscription to the online NY post but the start of it is here at the Post. Also I'm not at home so I can't sign up for the free subcription. Here's the full version Canada's National Post. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

A site closed down today

Swedish media just reported that after talks between the swedish foreign department and the swedish security police, the ISP that hosts the web site for "SverigeDemokraterna" have chosen to close down the a site containing pictures of Mohammed. http://www.dn.se/ http://www.sr.se . SverigeDemokraterna is very very small, extreme right-wing party that has no seats in parliament. The picture was, one of Mohammed looking in a mirror, not one of the JD pictures. This happened after several papers in the middle east decided to publish the report that "a major swedish publication" had published caricatures of Mohammed. Their web site is defintely not major, it is miniscule. If the ISP was pressured, it would be against the swedish constitution, but it seems that they decided to do it on their own accord to protect swedish lives abroad. DanielDemaret 08:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Depends ... Those guys are not known to stay witin the law. Now if we coul have a look, /then/ we could comment. Do you have a more detailed textual description? MX44 08:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Pretty boring picture it seems. A man look at himself in the mirror, is all. I see no reason to include the picture here. I was more concerned with the possibility that the government might break its own constition over it. DanielDemaret 09:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Like this one http://islamcomicbook.com/images/mirrorsite.jpg ? MX44 09:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The Swedish Chancellor of Justice , Göran Lambertz, says that he does not spontanously see that the pictures come under the swedish law "hets mot folkgrupp" (appox: provocation to violence against an ethnic group). Despite this, Richard Jomshof (editor of SD-Kuriren) will report those other papers in sweden that have previously published the JP cartoons. He is also going to report the Swedish National Encyclopedia, since it does indeed have a picture of Mohammed. He says he wants the matter clarified. DanielDemaret 08:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I just thought I would give a resume, since the links are in swedish. DanielDemaret 08:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

We aren't based in Sweden, and are not liable to Swedish law, as far as I know, Wikipedia is only governed by laws of the state of Florida and federal United States law. NSL E _(T+C) 09:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If anyone cares to delete this section, feel free to do so. The more I read about the matter in different swedish newspapars, the more boring it gets. Everyone seems to be behaving here :) DanielDemaret 09:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Pic http://hodja.wordpress.com/files/2006/02/060202muhammed400.jpg

Believe It or Else

Here is one comic book, 24 pages. Published 2001. These guys have obvious issues with POV. You have been warned.

http://islamcomicbook.com

The publisher appears to be Davidson Press

http://davidsonpress.com/islam/

MX44 09:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ooookay, but what do we do with this? --Kizor 08:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure yet. Perhaps we could show that all of this is really a conspiracy of the christian race against the muslim race. (joking) Seriously I wonder how Muhammad's Believe It or Else have managed to stay unnoticed for so long. It blatantly redicules Islam on every single page, but I have yet to hear any protests. MX44 01:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, the authors seem to be 1. Christian and 2. not exactly NPOV so it's not particularly balanced. By the way, I think most religious scriptures could be made to look exactly as evil and ridiculous by taking citations out of their context. 惑乱分からん 19:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Describing the paper

Several times I have added "right wing" in despcribing JyllandsPosten in the introcuction of the article. Some people seem to remove this constantly. Is it not relevant briefly to present what kind of paper it is? We discussed this issue previously, where one or two US-citizens argued that the notion right wing in the US is perceived as far right. If this is the case I suggest you take that discussion on the right wing page....According to the definiton on right wing it is obvious for anyone - opponents as well as supporters - that JP is a right wing paper. Bertilvidet 12:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree - It is a rather important distinction to make, however only with the caveat that these views are in someway divergent from the "mainstream" Danish press. -- Scaife 12:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that JP is NOT divergent. It is the largest paper in Denmark, regardless of Bert's wish that it was some sort of fringe view. If it was a whacko fringe newspaper, I'd be more willing to let it be labelled, but the facts speak otherwise. It is the mainstream paper and reflects the mainstream view of Danes. Kyaa the Catlord 14:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the previous discussion on this? Apparently not. This has come up EACH time you've labelled the paper. Each time people have remembered that previously we'd discussed this and decided NOT to label the paper. If you want to know about the paper, go to the JP wiki entry not the Muhammed controversy. Kyaa the Catlord 12:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually I initiated the previous debate after several reversions. Even though you objected we did not decide anything. Several users argued - like me - that labelling the paper is relevant. Pls not that noone disagrees that the paper is right wing. Bertilvidet 13:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Just because noone argues that the paper is right wing does NOT make it relevant to this article. It was argued once and people decided that even weakening the loaded phrase "right wing" to "centre-right" wouldn't be correct. It was decided to remove it altogether. Then you added it again, and again people decided to NOT INCLUDE it. Then you added it again, and started a talk discussion. You are inserting loaded words and inserting POV into the article unnecessarily. I will NOT remove it for a third time but this is a dead horse. Kyaa the Catlord 13:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

JP is the largest paper in Denmark. Almost by definition it cannot said to be deviating from the mainstream. Remove the "right wing" stuff. NONE of the other papers, organizations or individuals on this page have such qualifying adjectives. If you want to find out about JP, read the wiki article about it. Azate 13:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No decision was taken previously - however agreement seemed to be reached that right wing is a more correct description than centre-right, eventhough Kyaa argued against labelling the paper. It is a fact that JP is a right wing newspaper, which they dont hide, and it thus not loaded to state it. Being right wing is not in contrast to being mainstream - especially not in Denmark which is being ruled by a right wing government. I believe the aim of this site is to give correct and relevant information. Is not correct that JP is right wing? is not relevant to state the nature of the newspaper initiating an international crisis or should people think that this is just an ordinary Danish newspaper as it appears now? Please argue the case instead of just reverting! Bertilvidet 13:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

To maintain NPOV, the article should remain politically neutral. JP is a normal Danish newspaper. To claim it to be otherwise is inserting POV. Kyaa the Catlord 14:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, couldnt find the previous debate. Guess it is archived somewhere, can someone link it? Bertilvidet 13:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Archive 9b Header 14 and archive 10 header 22, why do other people have to look that up, when you can just as easily do that yourself? Azate 14:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Link to archive Thank you, Azate, helpful of you to find the way to the archive. The direct links are [1] and [2]. OPbviously no agreement have been reached. Once again..PLEASE tell if it is irrelevant or incorrect to label the paper right wing!!!!Bertilvidet 14:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's both correct and relevant. However, I also think it should not be here, because it's only one _opinion _ among many. People who whould try to change the "group of Danish Imams" into "group of leftwing/rightwing/extremist/pious/whatever Danish Imams" have seen these adjectives shot down, too.Azate 15:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Where is the source allowing to label JP as "right wing"? Who says it is? What leads you to this conclusion? You may find it strange but I think labeling JP as "right wing" is not only POV but OR. If JP is not declaring itself as "right wing" or there are'nt some very good sources which do so, this label has not to be in this article. And: many people not only in the US but in Denmark and Germany too have a very clear view of what "right wing" means. It is perceived as "right from the center", "biassed" or even "racist". That is the POV you are inserting in this article if you label JP as "right wing". --Adornix 14:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I did a search on goog for " danmark "højreorienteret avis" " (Denmark "right-wing newspaper") and look at the bottom [3] (Cloud02 16:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC))

The paper has been described in the media as right-wing since this started, you really just discovered the google bomb Nichlas 18:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Only two of those links on the googling that you refer to, make a direct link between JP and being right-wing. And they are both from the same blog ! That hardly makes a strong case. My impression is that JP is conservative paper. It is a pretty much on par with the government, which means very conservative and right of the political centre. 'Right wing', as such, bears connotations of extremeitism, which would definitely be incorrect in this case. Varga Mila 17:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Adornix, thank you for arguing substantially for your case. With such disagreements we need to understand our co-writers, as I believe we all want to ensure a balanced NPOV entry. None of you seem to be vandals, so its important to argue for any view - even if it appears natural. Nichlas 18:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

In Denmark the paper is usually described as "borgerlig", a term that has no clear equivalent in English - but usually is translated as either right wing or conservative. JP also defines it self as 'borgerlig´ [4]. Stating this in the article, I do frankly not see as POV! Try to Google "jyllands-posten" and "borgerlig" - or jyllands-posten and right-wing - you will see a wide range of sources - right wing and scholar sources all connecting the two. How can it be POV to label a paper as right wing when both the paper itself, supporters, opponents and scholars call is so?? Bertilvidet 18:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"Borgerlig" can hardly be translated to "Right Wing". It is more like "slightly conservative", and is used for all the parties at the right of center. "usualy translated" in this case must mean "wrongly translated". Nichlas 18:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know the english language and as far as I know the perception of the terms right-wing and conservative, I would say that they are not synonymous. I would have no objections against labelling JP as conservative because this term is much less devaluating. But the self definition of JP I found on their homepage is not only "borgerlig" but "liberal borgerlig", what may be a bit different. I'm not sure if "borgerlig" is usually read as "right wing" in Denmark. In Germany you have to be quite leftist to find "bürgerlich" identical to "rechts" (right-wing). The only good english translation of borgerlig I found is actually french: bourgeois, but I'm not absolutely sure this translation gets the point. Conservative may be better.

If we can reach sort of consensus about labelling JP at all, conservative would be the best choice, I think. "Liberal" would irritate most american readers, I fear.

As you may have thought, I'm not entirely against a political label for JP, because most newspapers in the western world have an explicit political self definition which it is sometimes helpful to know when you first hear about a specific one. But we have to be very careful not to label JP in a way that can be seen as deprecatory. So we should be very close to JP's "liberal borgerlig".

I hope my point is clear now, despite the fact I had to use my german-english dictionary and may not always have chosen the most appropriate terms. --Adornix 20:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

So if they call themselves "liberal borgerlig", should we call them a "liberal conservative" paper? Or do they mean "liberal" in the sense many Europeans mean it: libertarian? Valtam 20:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"liberal" is somewhere between "maximization of individual liberties" and a simple "free market" philosophy, I think, probably more the latter. --Adornix 20:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The old translation of "borgerlig" is "bourgeois". The problem with the term is that "right wing" has no easy definition, and consequently the term has different meanings for different people. E.g. this is an international encyclopedia based in the United States. Consequently, I define right wing as e.g. the Republican Party in the U.S. In this context, Jyllands-Posten is clearly a centre-based newspaper. A former U.S. ambassador once commented on the Danish People's Party is "in America they'd just be a centre party". In a Danish context, I'd define right wing as the part of the spectrum ranging from the Danish People's Party on one hand, to the Nazis and "Stop the Immigration" one the other. Jyllands-Posten is surely more left-wing than this. In both cases, centre-right / right of centre seems to be the best description. --Valentinian 19:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

IMHO "borgerlig" in Danish implies two things, both of which could be defined negatively, namely "non-socialist", and "non-extremist". "Liberal" in the Danish sense refers mostly to "individualism" as opposed to conservative "centralism" regarding the role of the state and government. The last label for the newspaper is "uafhængig", meaning "independent" of any particular group or policy. I support to avoid labeling the newspaper in this article, since short labels will be interpreted very differently in different countries. We are talking about the biggest Danish newspaper and its attitudes are - I hope - described in needed detail in its article. --Sir48 20:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)::

'Borgerlig' is actually a funny word with lots of different meanings, deriving from the meaning 'bourgeois'. However in contemporary politics it should be translated as 'rigth wing' or conservative'. I am hesitant about using the term 'liberal', because it has so different connotations around the globe (esp. diff. betw. US and Europe). Just stating [Right wing] it is neither centre right nor far right. I find it clearly misleading to lead the paper centre-right - according to the Danish political landscape it is clearly not. And I dont see how the paper is to be placed left of the Republicans. Using the term 'conservative' seems adequate, if you believe right wing gives wrong connotations. Bertilvidet 20:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If you think the similarity between Jyllands-Posten and the U.S. Republican Party is so clear, I will respectfully suggest that you read more about the Republicans. From what I've read, I see clear differences. E.g. the importance the religious right plays in the Republican party. Another example: Jyllands-Posten is often critical of Israel, as well as being critical of the Palestinians. I believe this is a clear case as well. The feeling towards "big business" is another difference. Jyllands-Posten has - on a number of occations - argumented for free immigration to Denmark, provided that immigrants - on the other hand - should not be able to receive government benefits for the first eight or so years in Denmark. On this issue. they differ quite clearly from the government, the newspaper being more left-wing. In comparison, I have not heard the GOP call for free immigration to the United States. --Valentinian 21:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It could be observed that we differ rather much, Bertilvidet, which adds to the argument that our differences in opinion can not be boiled down to a two-word label.--Sir48 22:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I see now that it is far more controversial than I initially considered it. Thank you for presenting your arguments in civilized way! Bertilvidet 12:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way - just to add to the fuel and confusion (fundamentally it is utterly irrelevant) - JP is often known as 'Morgen facisten Jyllands-Posten' (The Morning facist, the Jyllands-Post), which is a (quite bad) play on the words (the morning news Jyllands-Posten, which JP 'calls' itself) [it is probably a historical derivative]. ;-) Varga Mila 08:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

"It is the mainstream paper and reflects the mainstream view of Danes." Kyaa the Catlord; What gives you the idea that newspapers, no matter how common they are, reflect the mainstream view of a certain group of people? Does the bible reflect the mainstream view of the Earth's human population, as it is one of the most read/published/translated literary works? Not necessarily. It is also possible that Pravda, for e.g., did not reflect the mainstream views of citizens of USSR, isn't it? --HJV 20:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, HJV, the comparison with Pravda is flawed at best. Pravda was pretty much the only allowed newspaper in the USSR, and was run by the Soviet government (this is where its name lost any connection to its original meaning. I should add that I don't know a thing about how Pravda has been run since the fall of the USSR.) Jyllands-Posten is a privately owned newspaper; it operates in a democratic country and people can choose to buy the paper or a number of others as they see fit. Most supermarkets have at least 4 newspapers on the stand, all costing virtually the same. So if Jyllands-Posten performs well on the market, it is probably because its readers - generally - support the paper's line. Just my 2 (euro)cents. --Valentinian 13:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Thanks for putting that into words. Kyaa the Catlord 13:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

All true. In any case, the fact that JP is the best-selling newspaper in Denmark is more apropos and verifiable than its being "right-wing", a term which is very open to misintepretation, as users from different countries are clearly interpreting the term differently and Wikipedia is not Denmark. Finally, the lead sentence of the article is just not the place to hazard a sloppy attempt at characterizing the politics of the paper...people can click on the link if they want to learn about the paper. Give it up: your assessment of the political disposition of JP does not belong in the lead sentence! Babajobu 16:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

JP themselves put their political position (liberal) in their one sentence (taken from their foundation) description of themselves[5]. This is a political discussion I cannot see how this can not be important. Nor can I see how best-selling somehow conflicts with their position, as they belong to the same political wing (the right wing) as the ruling government. --Per Abrahamsen 09:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

tidbit to include to article

The editor of Jyllands-Posten, the newspaper which first published the cartoons, is sent on leave for an indefinite period, as the editor of a Norwegian magazine that reprinted them apologises. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4699716.stm

'The editorial staff has told Flemming Rose that he ought to go on holiday. No one can imagine the incredible amount of pressure he has been under,' said Jyllands-Posten's editor-in-chief Carsten Juste.' http://www.jp.dk/english_news/artikel:aid=3549984/ MX44 12:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This issue is frighteningly simple. Muslim prohibitions apply only to Muslims, not to non-believers - unless someone can tell me where in the Quran or the Hadith it says otherwise. I respect the right of Muslims to practice their religion and their beliefs, and I want the same respect from them for mine. Les Raphael212.219.240.201 15:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC), 10 February 2006

Errors

Why is this not mentioned? JeffBurdges 14:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Who is this David Warren fellow? Does the article add NPOV content?DanielDemaret 14:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Err, no, his article should not be linked! But much of its content is sourceable and should be mentioned. i.e. that the comics many protesters saw is much worse than the content actually printed. JeffBurdges 21:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree with JeffBurdges. By the way: our article isn't NPOV either, I'm afraid. I'm sure the arabic article, which should also be NPOV, and which I am unable to read (can't even do OR :-) on that) describes the whole controversy rather differently. And a hypothecical NPOV article written by muslims living in Denmark/Europe would differ in many other areas, I suppose. --Sir48 21:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

supermarket photo

I tried to figure out what country Image:Dm product.jpg is from. I'm moderately sure that the "al-Tamemi Markets" mentioned at the image talk are the al-Tamimi Markets of Saudi Arabia. Thoughts? - Banyan Tree 15:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems logical to me. Arabic has only three vowels, A, I, and U, and translitteration regarding "E"s differ. I think it is a pretty safe match. (If somebody has some red hot insider information on this issue, feel free to correct me.) --Valentinian 22:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I've made a note on the original image at Commons. Thanks, Banyan Tree 03:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Negligence on the part of Danish prime-minister

When I read the current article, I notice that the fact that the Danish prime-minister did not want to meet with representatives from the Arab League have been left out. Isn't this one of the more escalating points in the developement of the story, and it has to be mentioned in order to understand both sides? MX44 16:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I Agree. One or two senteces should be there. It's covered in detail in the timeline Azate 16:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It is /almost/ in the introduction. A single well aimed sentence will do it MX44 16:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Then I also think the reason to as why the prime minister refused to meet with the representatives, because of their demands that the meeting should be about discussing the punishment the danish government should give Jyllands-posten. The.valiant.paladin 16:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see the quote from the prime minister under Rumours and Misinformation above. What is the status on that, by the way ? Will someone incorporate some of the stuff mentioned there in the article ? Varga Mila 17:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It IS in the article (in the timeline, as is everything else that used to be in "Rumors an Disinformation"), it's just not on the frontpage anymore. I think we agree that the stuff with the hot dog stand or the koran burning that didn't happen doesn't deserve mention on the main page. THose rumors that did turn out to be more than that, and that had a major impact (esp the pig picture thing) are still on the main page. We can't really be in the business of debunking stuff like "Danish government to issue new version of Koran" here. People how believe this sort of stuff usually don't look it up in Wikipedia fist, I suspect. What I just said does obviously not apply to the ambassadors not being received by the PM. This is in the timeline, and it should see short mention on the frontpage. Azate 18:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake Varga Mila 19:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree Should be mentioned in the introduction. The fact that the PM refused to meet with the ambassadors is one of the corner stones in the critique of his handling of the case Bertilvidet 18:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

As I remember the case, television reported in advance that the imams wanted to meet the PM to demand that he re-introduced censorship. He might be critized in the Arab world, but he still has no legal rights to close / regulate newspapers (or as the term was coined: "to guarantee that this never happens again" / "influence JP".) It is not really surprising that he refused to meet them given this pretext, cf. § 77 in the Danish constitution. Point no. 2 is that the PM does not recognize the imams as leaders of the Muslim community in Denmark, so he didn't wish to lend them any special authority. By all means include a refence to this event, but include why he refused to do so. If not, the article will become biased, and people will just read the course of events as "he probably just hates foreigners". --Valentinian 20:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ambassadors, not imams. Of course the PM had arguments for refusing to meet the ambsassadors, but in the Danish debate this refusal has sparked a lot of criticism towards the PM. Bertilvidet 20:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Azate, I noticed you just added a paragraph (nice, balanced). But where do you have the stuff about the imams from?? Its not in the reference. As far as I know no imams where involved in the letter from the ambassadors. Let me know if I am wrong Bertilvidet 21:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're wrong ;->. Look up the "letter to the amabassadors" which predates their request for meeting Rasmussen in the "Dossier" artice Azate 21:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The order was: The imams wish for a meeting with the PM -> the PM rejects (citing the reasons above) -> the imams turn to the Muslim ambassadors -> the ambassadors now wish for a meeting with the PM (to ask for the introduction of censorship) -> the PM rejects this meeting as well. --Valentinian 21:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. Just ignore my two previous posts :$ Bertilvidet 22:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Just for clarity: The order was: The imams wish for a meeting with the PM -> the PM rejects (citing the reasons above) -> the imams turn to the Muslim ambassadors -> the ambassadors now wish for a meeting with the PM (to ask for the introduction of censorship) -> the PM rejects this meeting as well -> the imams go to court -> the court says the cartoons are ok -> weekend avisen and Ali hirsi -> the imams go international Azate 22:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Minister! :-) --Valentinian 22:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

See, that's the sort of remark that'll help you in life ;-> Azate 23:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

How do you read "to ask for the introduction of censorship" out of the paper they sent to Fogh? 1) They bring up a number of derogatory remarks, not just JP 2) they urge Fogh to "take all those responsible to task under law of the land" - which would be the Danish law and constitution, right? This might not be the place to start a debate, but your representation of the ambassadors seems pretty one-eyed. Poulsen 23:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The Imams first went the route via the courts. The courts said the publication was not illegal. Afterwards, they lobby the ambassadors to "communicate this account of the regrettable situation and this population segment's indignation and irritation to their governments and to the relevant authorities in their countries with the needed haste, to at least express their protests".

Whatever that means. Lots of Islamic countries' (19?) governments issue a communique (at the IOC conference) that asks Rasmussen to "reign in the press" and "punish those responsible" to "ensure that such things never happen again" (quotes from memory. You can read the IOC report, too). Then 11 countries dispatch the 11 ambassadors. Azate 02:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The ambassadors requested a meeting in October 2005, the OIC was in January 2006 (if what you are refering to is this [6]) - your timeline is a little wrangled. Poulsen 02:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I'm tired, I mixed things up. Fortunately the page is sound. Azate 03:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but do you still see it as "asking for the introduction of censorship"? As I see it, it was part of Fogh's political spin, to play down the unfortunate part (for him) of his own cultural minister and others, while citing that he did so because the ambassadors "want me to break the freedom of press", even though that was not the exact words of the letter he received, or at least his active interpretation of it. Poulsen 10:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I wrote that line in the first place. It seems that our memories differ. I clearly remember a group of imams demanding that the PM should "guarantee that this never happens again" / "stop the newspaper" etc. (there was a number of such remarks.) Any such actions can only be accomplished through the re-introduction of censorship. The letters were written in a polite tone, but I can't see any other logical conclusion. --Valentinian 13:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

So what you're saying is: as Imams called for censorship, the ambassadors implicitly did so as well? How do you make that coupling, at least it is not mentioned in the one letter to Fogh. I think writing "the ambassadors apparently wanted Rasmussen to punish the newspaper" is bordering on npov as it ignores what is written in the letter, and takes Fogh's explanation as the only side in the matter. The original text, which quotes sources on both sides, is now placed in the "International reactions" sub-article under, oddly enough, "Burning embassies", and I think it would be better suited on this page, replacing the current section. Poulsen 17:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It is based on my memory for one thing. I remember the Egyptian ambassador as very active in calling for the PM to "intervene" / guarantee that this did not happen again, or some similar remark. I'm still not able to draw any other logical conclusion ([7] [8]) Please see the last reference: "Baggrunden for min afvisning er, at de sendte et brev til mig, hvor konklusionen var, at jeg - som statsminister - skulle tage retslige skridt i forhold til pressen. Det kan jeg ikke. Det vil jeg ikke. Og hvis jeg gik ind på at holde et møde om samme sag, så var det det samme som at acceptere, at her var der en relevant problemstilling, der kunne føres dialog om ..." (the background for my rejection was that they sent a letter to me in which the conclusion was that I should take legal steps in relation to the Press - in my capacity as PM. I can not do that. I will not. And if I had accepted holding a meeting about this topic, it would mean the same as accepting that they (the ambassadors) had a relevant case which could be debated ..." Ekstra Bladet quoting Anders Fogh Rasmussen, 21 December 2005). Regards. --Valentinian 10:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

pig person picture

I think it is poor taste to put it in a section that is headlined "danish imams tour the middle east". It looks like a wilfully evil association, like this was a picture of one of the imams. It's on the same wink-wink level as the imams putting it in the dossier in the first place. I realize this has been disussed before, but that was when the section was much longer and it apperead midway down, where the picture itself was discussed. The picture is of course still in the "dossier" article, wher it of coure belongs. Azate 16:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Now that was quite a new angle :) :) :D ... MX44 16:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The article mentions the picture. Therefore would showing the picture be relevant to the article. --Maitch 16:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

keep, The additional images that the Danish imams added are probably at the core of why this whole thing got so blown out of proportion... as such, there should be a visual on the main page to better highlight that probability. Netscott 17:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You got to wonder what the guy in the picture must be thinking right now... "Muslims? I was just trying to be a pig!" Hitokirishinji 17:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The 'Hirsi' reference skews the whole part into some whining crap. They were dissatisfied, so they went on tour. MX44 17:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I don't feel it's very relevant, too. But apparently THEY did. Did you read the newly translated dossier? Azate 18:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No I haven't. Can you somehow boil it down to the essence without reiterating the same statements over and over again? MX44 18:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no reference to Hirsi Ali in Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy_43p_dossier. So tidy up I would say MX44 18:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes there is: Quote:

"Several conditions increased our pain and torment:

1. The ridicule of Islam and its followers has become an easily distributed commodity, when an almost extinct newspaper published images stronger and more offending on 11 November, probably to regain its popularity; this paper is "Weekendavisen".

2. Muslims received during this period of time - most notably those taking part in the actual protest against the images - letters whose tone differed between direct threats and mockery of Islam itself through attacks on the Qu'ran, when these people claimed that it was a fabrication, and they took part in the attack on the Prophet (PBUH) by sending animated images, that were stonger and fiercer, and which come from a deep hatred to Islam as a religion.

3. Denmark received the Dutch author of Somali decent, who is the author of the film, that degrades Islam, and whose producer was killed recently in Holland. The reception for her was a consequently a continuation of the confrontation, particularly since she gave an interview to Danish television in which she talked about Islam in a degrading way. And the strange is, that the Prime Minister, who had rejected meeting with the ambassadors, received her and presented her with an award, like he stated that he appreciated her brave positions and her free opinions. So now you se how it is....

This is why the organizations again called to an urgent meeting, in which it was decided to create delegations, who could visit the Islamic world with the intent of informing them on the danger of the situation and make them take part in the defence and support of our prophet (PUBH)." Azate 19:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, Couldn't find her name. The Dutch parliament then? Shouldn't that be a murdered Dutch producer? MX44 20:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

She's a member of the Dutch parliament mostly occupied with womens' issues and immigration. How, precisely, she ended up producing Van Goghs film, I don't know. Probably she also heads some lobbying groups/organitations that provided (some) funding for the film. Azate 21:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Her bio is linked, so all that and she is Somalian and has father ... and then prizes too. But the imams objected against her affiliation with the Submission_(film) project, not that she is an MP MX44 21:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

In twisted turn of fate, the reason for Hirsi Ali coming to Copenhagen at this inconvenient time, instead of a year earlier, was the death threats and the murder of Van Gogh. I think I'll leave it to Roald Atkinsson to wrap that one up ... MX44 23:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There is now a fine textual description of The 43p Dossier :) How about lightening it up slightly with a picture of, say a Chair? Or would that be too offensive? (to Jyllands Komposten, that is.) MX44 03:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The pig-person picture illustrates how the dossier could have inflamed sentiments more than the original 12 Jyllands-Posten cartoons, which I think is an essential part of this section. So if we are going to replace the pig-person image, I believe we'd need to use an equally inflammatory image, such as one of the dog or pedophile pictures. The pedophile image is probably the one that is least likely to be perceived as implicitly representing one of the imams.

But I also think that the original source of the pig-person photo, which has nothing to do with Muslims in Denmark, makes it less objectionable in wider terms. -- Avenue 09:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It also illustrates that one reputable and arguably disinterested party, BBC World, believed at one stage that this picture was published in Jyllands-Posten as a result of its inclusion in the dossier. This strengthens the case that the dossier could have misled some of its intended audience. -- Avenue 09:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The original caption (true face of Muhammad) is missing from the pig-picture. The others (from the three) have their offensive nature described MX44 09:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I support replacing the current pig-picture with a version that includes the original caption. -- Avenue 10:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I would rather keep the french connection with the picture and focus on the ill-will in the text. BTW, this picture is getting waay too much attention MX44 12:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

El Fagr

How big is this Newspaper? From what i read it has somewhere around 50.000 made each day. And it's an extreme right-wing paper, that brings very controversial stuff. And besides that I also read (on politiken.dk, cant find the article now), that the paper CRITISIZED Jyllands-posten in the article when they brought the pictures alongside.(Cloud02 16:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC))

that's what the article says: "Six of the cartoons were reprinted in the Egyptian newspaper El Fagr in October 2005[21][22][23] along with a highly-critical article". As of "right wing" I don't know, and it doesnt matter anyway. All I gather from various souces is that it is not state owned, or owned by the governement party or their affiliates, which, in an Egyptian context, is a rarity and qualifies it as an opposition newspaper. Azate 17:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, it is really NOT "an extreme right-wing paper". Boring, conservative, and reactionary, no doubt ! But nothing 'worse' than that. Varga Mila 17:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

In the political context of the Arab world, the word "right-wing" is absolutely meaningless. Tells you nothing at all. Babajobu 18:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the division is rather between "vocal" and "silent" Ruby 22:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Controversial Image placement in Wikipedia entries (is there an informal policy?)

Having just read Jimbo Wales' Talk page regarding the Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy entry I noticed that he discusses the placement of the main Jyllands-Posten image on the top part of the page:

" I see no particular editorial reason for keeping it at the top, when in other (but not all) similar cases, we have moved such images to the middle or bottom. "

and it got me wondering about that. Maybe we should move it down lower on the page and have a small disclaimer at the top so that those coming to this entry will have a choice to continue down the page. Prior to reading his talk page, I didn't really think that the image should be lower on the page... but afterwards, the idea of placing the image lower doesn't seem so wrong. His talk page made me curious to know what have other Wikipedia entries with controversial images done relative to image placement? Does anyone know of other entries that have controversial images? I'd be curious to see at least one entry where the controversial image has been left at the top and another entry where the controversial image was placed lower. I must admit though... that part of me thinks that if these images have been used to manipulate people without good faith reasons (nefariously) then to move them would be in a sense giving into that dark side.

Netscott 00:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Curiously, as the affair commences, it's less and less about these 12 cartoons, and more and more about the OTHER images, lobbying and power politics. As witnessed by the El-Fagr publication, it's those that saw the dossier of the Imams (or nothing at all, that is, the 10,000s of demonstrators), rather than those who saw the pictures, that are really inflamed about them. This has at least been the case among the Muslim people I know (Turks), whose anger (everybody had heard about this stuff, mostly from Turkish papers) quickly gave way to "This is all?" comments once they saw the actual cartoons in German papers or on TV. I see no need for these 'disclaimers', nobody appears to drop dead from exposure. Azate 00:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Wales is a sensible person, and it's not unthinkable that we could move the image down. However, consensus have been reached on the position on the image, and with several other controversial articles having images that *could* be offensive to *some* people in the same position, and with the image being a central part of the whole story, I think that consensus is quite defendable.

Now, I also think that a lot of poeple voted as they did out of a sense of "defending freedom of speach". In an ideal world, Wikipedia should not be about that, just simply be an encyclopedia, a place where you can find knowledge. However, with supposedly "liberal" countries like Sweden caving in to radical muslims demands and excerting governmental pressure on ISP's to take down sites that show pictures of Muhammad, it seems like the world do in fact need Wikipedia to take a stance for free speach.The.valiant.paladin 01:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

hello

this is my first ever post at wikipedia and dispite risking makeing my self look noobish I would like to make a suggestion about this article:

Is it possible to link this artcle with the article of islamophobia?

Reasons:

The cartoons may or may not have been a product of islamophobia considering they were made specifically to provoke —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dubdub 80 (talk • contribs) .

First, let's not try to guess why the pictures were made. None of us are mind readers. A large part of the deadly violence around the world is likely to be caused by reckless speculation about other peoples' motives. Second, as you say, "may or may not". Wikipedia is not a place of speculation. We should keep guessing and speculation to the minimum. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog. And welcome to Wikipedia, I hope you'll have fun here! Weregerbil 01:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

There are many interpretations. For example, they could have published them to make patent the hypocrisy of several european media, which have a long tradition of making fun of christianism (because freedom of speech), while at the same time showing their most sincere respects to muslims (because religion is sacred, and such). Many people in Europe think they have this double standard just because they know that christians don't react violently, as (some) muslims do. Under this interpretation, provoking muslims would have been a call to either stop the media for provoking christians everyday, or stopping the extremists from censoring the media (you know, when they call suicide bombers rebels instead of terrorists, because it could offend all those people that see them as heroes). DrJones 02:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Now that we've all taken a stand and shown that Wikipedia isn't going to be cowed by demands for self-censorship, is it perhaps time to heed Jimbo's words and concede that the image doesn't actually have to be at the top, and we can combine non-censorship with a measure of sensitivity by moving it a least a screenful down (maybe leaving the one with the schoolboy, i.e. the one which doesn't show the Prophet himself, at the top)? I know we're all sick of the question, but do we have to be bound for ever by votes taken in the heat of battle? At what point do we allow wiser, calmer counsels (e.g. Jimbo's) to get a look-in? Vilcxjo 21:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

As he himself indicates, that is Jimbo's view as a common editor, not as our beloved leader. And because of that, his views should be given equal weight to the views of other users. And they have expressed a desire to keep the image on the top of the article. Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 11:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Map final?

Is everyone satisfied with these colors? (including the color blind) I'd like to get this down finally so I can really start working on it. Hitokirishinji 03:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Shouldnt Jordan, Yemen Egypt and Malaysia also be blue? they printed the cartoons as stated in the article -- Astrokey44|talk 04:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

As I stated above, it is NOT done yet. This is merely a sample so I can get some direction and consensus on the colors. Hitokirishinji 05:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not color blind, but the colors look good to me. Do you expect trouble from large demonstrations in tiny countries? --Kizor 08:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Go to the list of newspapers table as you are missing half the countries that have printed it including Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Lithuania etc etcHephaestion 05:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The discussion is getting a bit heated, please stay cool. Anyway, a world map will be better and include all the countries. I hope its not too hard to create a large map. --Ter e nc e Ong 09:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The colors look good. The way you are able to show both blue and red is a good idea too! (The other people in this room applauded, by the way= DanielDemaret 13:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I'm not done. This map is not complete yet. I know there are countries missing, I chosen not to fill them in yet until I get some direction on the colors from everyone so I don't have to remake the map everytime a new color is decided. Anyways, it looks like I'm not getting many comments on the colors so I'm going to assume most folks are satisfied with them. Hitokirishinji 14:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

What color is to be used for countries (ie Hong Kong, China) who disallows protesters to rally? MX44 00:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

From aside of what people said, I think the map is too "simple", and I'm not sure if you should color Greenland: I consider them quite a seperate territory, like Costa-Rica, where they have their own distinctive culture, people, language and media. You also missed lots of Canadian soil, be careful with those kind of places =) --84.249.252.211 03:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

If you would please read the list of papers printing the cartoons, you will see that Greenland's largest daily did print the cartoons in support of Free Speech and in support of Denmark. So it should definitely be coloured!!!!Hephaestion 06:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Whenever you feel that the map is ready, I strongly support its inclusion into the article, since easy-to-see-overviews improve articles tremendously.DanielDemaret 08:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Great Work! I would like to add it to French WP! Don't forget the egyptian issue, the 17 october 2005, by El Fagr.

Message to Idiots: muslims are not a race!

--Greasysteve13 04:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all don't call other people idiots, it's unecessary and it violates Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy, secondly it's brought up more than a few times that Muslims are not a race. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 05:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. The fact that it's brought up more than a few times that Muslims are not a race is the reason I snapped.--Greasysteve13 05:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Ebook about this article?

Check [9] this link: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate: A War Of Ideas.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

This is funny. Pretty soon we will have to make an article about this talk page, or rather these pages. The link to the PDF files is here [10], but there is nothing in them, other what can already be found here in the archives, plus the short introduction written by John Simmons of the Iraq Museum International. Twthmoses 08:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm in a book! :-) --Kizor 08:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I, too, am in a book... sadly i am probably mostly in the book typoing and making an arse of myself with "witty" comments... damn, i started my poll discussion too late! WookMuff 08:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Yup, having thoroughly and rather egomaniacally searched both pdfs purely for instances of my own nick, i have to agree i come off both as a provocateur and a smartarse... OUCH. But on the upside, i do have my poll discussion in there so thats good. Also, someone called me sarcastic. Hitler DID make the trains run on time, its why he had such good supply lines and part of how he managed to consolidate his holdings following blitzkreig. Call me sarcastic, will you 70.49.166.186... WookMuff 09:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I think that's really awesome. Babajobu 11:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Got my awesome vote too. Kyaa the Catlord 13:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope. I checked. Their copyright notice and accompanying text is exactly what is spelled out in the GNU GFDL. We couldn't ask for better compliance (although they did take some liberties with our cherished logo that we all worked so hard on :-|).12.16.126.34 15:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Missing Archive?

I was looking around for my last comment, and it seems as though it got archived here [11], but there is no corresponding archive that got created at that time. Is there a hidden archive 11 somewhere?--Rayc 06:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It's there now. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply to requests for removal on HelpDesk-l.

The Wikipedia HelpDesk mailinglist is regularly getting requests for the removal of the cartoons. Can someone please suggest a short and respectful reply? -- Jeandré, 2006-02-11t06:46z

Version 4:

Wikipedia is not censored, and its editors think that the best way to inform people who choose to learn about the nature of the cartoons and how they are causing offence, is to give people the opportunity to see the cartoons themselves.

Looks good, you might also consider pointing them to other articles on controversial items such as Piss Christ to demonstrate that Islam is not being singled out in this case. -Loren 07:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that "In Islam, Jesus (called Isa) is considered one of God's most beloved and important prophets, a bringer of divine scripture, and also the Messiah." (from Jesus), so that may make things worse. I was thinking of noting the nasty images at Anti-semitism, but I'm not sure. -- Jeandré, 2006-02-11t15:09z

And tell them that we respect their concerns, but... Babajobu 12:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You could use the wording of {{Mohammed}} for inspiration (except for the warning to block, which would be inappropriate in this case). Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 12:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The best answer would be: OK we are removing them. As I tried to explain below: The argument that everyone should see the cartoons which the debate is about is meaningless. To have all those cartoons is pointless. Because: A Westerner will hardly find anything wrong with the cartoons, on the other hand, a Muslim will be ofended and feel insulted with them. The verbal discriptioon of the case much more important and strong in this case. Please note that this article is not explanation of the cartoons, it is about the controversy around them... Resid Gulerdem 23:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Resid, the pictures cannot be removed because there is a consensus to keep them. They contain important information. gidonb 03:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Resid, your statement that a verbal description of the cartoons is better than the cartoons themselves is ludicrous. No description of an item will ever be as good as the item itself.Robovski 01:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

If those requests happen to come from muslims, you can add that Wikipedia's stance in this case is actually in parallel with (but not necessarily in accordance with) one of the hadith: "Say what is true, although it may be bitter and displeasing to people." Every muslim must know this hadith[12] and should remind them that Islam supports the freedom to speak the truth (as opposed to Western's freedom of speech). madyasiwi 12:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The Definition of Encyclopedic Knowledge

The cartoons simply cannot be removed from an ENCYCLOPEDIA. The very word "was chosen as the title of a reference work covering ALL knowledge." SOURCE: Dictionary.com

—metavalent 07:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

All Knowledge—Except Rubbish

Dear metavalent,

Does it mean that we must, for example, feature pornography on encyclopædia in order to cover our knowledge about it?

Similarly: does one have to consume excrements (shit) to learn about excrements?

Everyone will have his answer to such questions.

One matter of fact is that, theoretically, it’s always possible to learn about things (and even learn things) without participating in them, even if to do so would sometimes be extremely difficult. Admittedly, in practice, to learn such, for example, arts as gymnastics or piano playing borders with impossible without performing them.

My opinion is that we should try hard to avoid including offensive samples on encyclopædia, unless no clever transfer of knowledge can be done without doing so. I would see it as a matter of taste and great-spiritedness. Do we want cheap sensationalism to pervade this website? Shouldn’t we wish to apply imagination and intelligence for cognitive purposes in such a place as Wikipedia, rather than offend some of us in cases when providing explicit samples will do so? We may often desire knowledge even at a big cost, but is this one picture worth of this cost, which is trampling the dignity of each other amongst Wikipedia users? Does this picture itself represent significant knowledge?

Or maybe we want to test the sovereignty of Wikipedia in terms of free speech by attempting to go nasty, in the fashion of Jyllands Posten. Well, I don’t think that we need to fear about free speech issues on Wikipedia at this moment in history, not at least on its English edition. Let’s face it that, to many of us, insisting on publishing the picture here is an exercise in freedom of knowledge, a more or less conscious anti-jihad, rather than actually valuable contribution. I consider this exercise redundant at best. After all, Wikipedia is no political tool, no matter how big its potential to challenge political issues is. It can be politically powerful as a side effect of its mission. Probably the following statement will be not trivial to grok: I think that Wikipedia should resist distortion to knowledge induced by political pressure, but it should avoid becoming a field of war with any such pressure. I propose that Wikipedians should play wars and propaganda outside Wikipedia, to leave it unaffected by them and as objective as ever. For Wikipedia is the goal of freedom, not the means to get it ;-). (Alt.: Freedom is the means to get Wikipedia and not the reverse.)

Said this all, I don’t have this sense of absolute certainty which often accompanies me on other occassions. Therefore I’m reserving here my right to be wrong. Use my statements as a material to develop your own opinions rather than as what I want you to think. Maybe someone else can recompute them to a point where they’ll deserve greater judgemental certainty. I’m always hesitant to attempt making any intervention in Wikipedia, because, as far from its full potential as it may still be, its quality as a whole puts to shame all my individual creations ever performed.

One least thing, that I’m nearly sure about, that we should do—if to take the assumption of our good faith seriously—is to always conceal offensive content behind warning messages, so that only those of us, who want to see them, will see them.

—6birc, 19:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to read the previous two million discussions before repeating this yet again?--

Nomen Nescio 19:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Nomen Nescio,

Admittedly, it’s difficult to read two million discussions ;-). Do you honestly think that reading these should become an unconditional prerequisite to participating in any discussions on Wikipedia?
It’s all too easy to lose mind to suggestion of circumstances in everyday life affairs, in general, and in such political affairs like this, in particular. As a result, frequent repetition of obvious truths is indispensible when circumstances become critical. (They became so.) This reassures people that old truths remain valid in new context and teaches them to appreciate these more universally. On top of that, many of us never learn ;-).
Maybe we’re duplicating the information present in the “necessary crap” space, that talk is, but at least we’re doing this with a virtuous purpose in mind: to preserve the “quality” space that article (intendedly) is ;-).
...which statement are you referring to? ;-).

—6birc, 20:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

El Fagr word is spreading!

As of the writing of this entry the Arabic Wikipedia Entry on Jyllands-Posten Cartoon controversy has added the El Fagr image:

*El Fagr's Headline Page for Oct. 17, 2005* - One of the controversial cartoons of Muhammad, as it appeared on the first page of the Egyptian Newspaper *El Fagr*.

As well as The serbian version. It would be good to have this image spread around.... to highlight this previous publication, so if there are other wikipedia editors who edit in other languages maybe you could help add it to the other language controversy pages as well?

Netscott 10:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

NO! Thanks... Resid Gulerdem 23:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

Does anyone think this requires serious consideration: internationalist world govern conspiracy theory? Yeah, I thought so. Weregerbil 10:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Most certainly some of the riots in e.g. Lebanon involve radical groups that want to take power undemocratically (ie conspire themselves to power). However, I doubt that conspiracy theories really suit this article now...--HJV 20:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Guenter Grass's Interview in Die Welt

Gunter Grass opinion --Chaos 13:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Say what? This is from 2002 and about something else altogether. Azate 15:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, fpp is in no way a useful source: it's David Irving's holocaust denial outfit. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 19:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

the original article in Deutsch : die welt --Chaos 21:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Layout

The layout, as it is right now, it awful: There is a gaping white hole right at the top of the page, apparently because the introduction has been split and a new section "Background" inserted, probably with the laudable intention to move the table of contents upward. I propose the following: 1) Re-merge "Backgroud" (which is a bad name to begin with) back with the introduction 2) Have the Table of contents at the side of the introduction. It should be at the top, really. 3) (I hardly dare say that, after all the fuss) Move the 12 cartoons down to "publication of the drawings",because ther is not enough space for both the picture and the TOC. Azate 19:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I fixed the big space? -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 19:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Dunno, maybe it's got to do with screen resolution and font size and whatever. For me, 1/4th of the width is the TOC, 1/2 is blank white space, 1/4th is the pic. There must be a better solution. I'm no good at this xml-layout thing, so I won't touch it. Azate 20:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)