Jump to content

Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27→Archive 30

Comma Usage and Factual Error

There is no comma before that in "It does not respect the version of Islam, that provides the spiritual fuel for terrorists." And Jyllands-Posten is NOT a conservative paper. "conservative daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten" In fact, Jyllands-Posten is a liberal newspaper, and self-identifies as such. http://www.jp.dk/udland/artikel:aid=3564748:fid=11328/ 69.118.222.77 18:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Conservative and Liberal have different meanings in Europe and the United States. The Jyllands-Posten paper may easily be conservative according to American terminology and Liberal according to European terminology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.33.176 (talk • contribs)
Labeling Jyllands-Posten's Political orientation is a problem, you might want to see the discussion at Jyllands-Posten's Talk page: Labelling JP Political orientation in one word --Hekatombe 04:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The terminolgy might differ, but in thier own words they describe themselves as liberal, and from the context we know this to be in within the American construct. Either way it is still clearly misleading to label them "conservative." 69.118.222.77 06:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that "Conservative" is the wrong word to use. Would anybody mind if we removed the word "Conservative" as a description of Jyllands-Posten. (And then let those at Jyllands-Posten figure out how it can best be described) --Hekatombe 10:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Halo/horns

We need to come to some sort of agreement about the crescent moon halo. People have been going back and forth, adding and deleting the reference to it looking like "horns". The fact that the middle is obscured is a very common way in which people with halos are commonly portrayed ([1]). The "floating above the head" style is more common in popular culture (like with all the angel "art" around nowadays [2]). In any event, the people pushing the "horns" assertion don't even offer any evidence that there has been any sort of public outcry about the "horned Muhammed". Perhaps they are conflating this issue with the old Biblical misreading that led to depictions of Moses with horns? Even then, it was not a negative connotation. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The horn connection could be
  • A danish Muslim (with Viking attributes)
  • A representation of Islamophobia or dualistic nature of Islam (with morphing horned devil in hiding)
  • A coincidence (stereotypic contemporary "angel art")
It looks like horns though. Could be:
  • A reference to Salman Rushdie, The Satanic Verses (Gibreel Farishta gains an angelic halo while Saladin Chamcha finds horns growing on his head. )
MX44 17:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh come on... there are even "glow rays" emanating from the halo. It's a halo. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
It's a halo that also can be seen as horns for some reason or no reason at all [me runs away] MX44 22:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
/me persecutes MX44 for his beliefs. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Well the artist have said it wasnt horns but a halo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.81.128 (talk • contribs)
OK! Your IP implies Århus so I suppose you know.
A halo it is! :) MX44 23:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Always trust and Århusjaner, buuuuut a reference would be nice. My initial interpretations were certainly more...well... interpretive :) Varga Mila 00:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Even if the artist said that, then I think it is still relevant to point out that the halo could also be seen as horns --Hekatombe 00:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the artist says now, it is POV to call the resemblance unintended. And there are many quotable sources advocating the horns interpretation. For example, this interview [[3]] with Flemming Rose:

Question: But you depicted Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, armed with a knife and with a broken halo that resembled satanic horns.

Rose: The cartoon with horns didn't arouse special criticism; it was the other two.

OK ... and your suggestion is to describe it as ... what? MX44 22:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Rose isn't the artist. All this proves is that Rose either saw the halo as horns himself or else was simply acknowledging the question with the same language that the question used. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I saw the horns and I think Varga Mila saw it too, this is not in dispute. Now combine that with reports of the artist saying it was a halo (only), without expanding into a small novel? MX44 07:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
One more question: Is this really that important to discuss ++~~
It's a shame we can't find a cite either for the assertion that some have found that cartoon offensive due to what appears to them to be diabolical horns, or any claim by the artist that any such effect is unintended. I find both assertions entirely plausble; I just wish we had a cite! — ciphergoth 13:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Taliban Buddha, and what not

As I've already said, the destruction of the Buddhas was not a simple case of Aniconism. Citing it without the Rasons and histories is an inaccurate portrayal. See here for more info.--Irishpunktom\talk 13:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • You are correct,however the citation is valid based upon Mullah Omar's own words on the matter as well as the advice of the Afghan Ulema that councilled the Sharia court who pronounced the verdict for their destruction. Netscott 13:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Your newfound contention for the removal of the reference to the Buddha statue reference being due to their already being destroyed is false when according to Islam-Online.net the Taliban militia itself said, "the Bamyan Buddhas are being destroyed with everything from tanks to dynamite.". Please refrain from reverting an entirely valid reference to this contemporary example of Muslims following an aniconistic tradition. Netscott 13:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
(¿) Didn't he say that the Talibans saw a risk of the faces being rebuilt? MX44 13:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Just a comment: The way I read the article, the point is that Hashimi claims that the statues were destroyed, not because of religious belief, but because the Swedes wanted to spend money on repairing the statues, rather than give the money "to feed the children". The relevant quote is this
When the Afghani head council asked them to provide the money to feed the children instead of fixing the statues, they refused and said, "No, the money is just for the statues, not for the children". Herein, they made the decision to destroy the statues.
However, I am not competent to judge whether Hashimi or Mullah Omar is the more reliable source. Rasmus
Mullah Omar is a fanatical theocrat, who sheltered terrorists and murdered his political opponents. He couldn't possibly a LIAR as well, could he?  ;-)

(talk) 14:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • While that is mildly relevant to this case the fact that an Afghan Ulema (a group of Islamic scholars) counciled the Sharia court that gave the final verdict for their destructions is much more relevant. Netscott 14:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The point behind including the Taliban was, to me, to give the examples of Aniconism. Teh examples are highlighted by the banning of simple photos (though non-Muslims were allowed.. and they had planned on tagging jews (all two of them) and Christians for identification), pictures in papers and television. Inclusuion of the destruction of the Buddhas cannot be added without the details I have recently added, though I'd rather it wasn't included at all. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry but those are all irrevelevant details when the ultimate reason cited by the Taliban in justifying their destruction at all was based upon the council of an Afghan Ulema against idolatry. Netscott 14:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Since we clearly cannot include each and every bit of information, and if it can preseve editing peace, I'd say we give The Great Buddhas back to the Buddhists and keep the otherwise impressive laundry list belonging to the Talibans. MX44 14:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • While I appreciate your sense of wanting to instill peace in the editing regarding this article, I respectfully disagree that the citation regarding the Buddhas should be removed. Netscott 14:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • We have two Cited points of view in relation to the destruction of the statues. One indicates one reason, the other another. It would be a breach of Policy to only include one, and not the other. YOu can further the first, but I still think the article would be better without it. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


The goal of illustrating aniconism is already met. The Buddha unfortunately introduces one more world wide conflict (which is not related to Jylland.) MX44 14:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If you *really* wanna talk about Muslim Aniconism destroying historical things, you could talk of the destruction of the tombs, and buildings from the era of the prophet by the incumbent custodians of the two holy Mosques. Thats far more clear cut than the Buddhas. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I definitely agree that we should not introduce further, unrelated controversies into this article. I am not an expert on this subject; I don't know whether Irishpunktom's example is a good one. If there's no problem with it, then I'd say let's use that one.
But for the love of <deity of choice>, let's try and keep the article focused. It's definitely starting to ramble. --Ashenai 14:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Unless a fellow editor sees the irrelevance of your further citation Irishpunktom I will not touch it. Besides if one is to believe the reasoning for what you cited (which I don't) it would mean that the Taliban were in fact not abiding by Sharia law but merely claiming so to justify their actions in the eyes of all of the OIC countries that denounced their decision to destroy them. Netscott 14:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Netscott, what is your take on Irishpunktom's alternative suggestion re: hthe destruction of the tombs and buildings? I find the current version totally unacceptable. Everyone, please try to remember WHAT THE ARTICLE IS ABOUT. --Ashenai 15:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Ashenai, from what I can make of Irishpunktom's edits he's trying to enhance the image of the Taliban for whatever reason. As an example he added the Taliban to the section on aniconism (an addition that is totally correct) but only mentioned minor aspects of how they demonstrated that aniconism. So I mentioned something a bit more significant and he's since taken issue with that as the additional citation I added showed what the OIC countries labeled a "savage" act by them. Netscott 15:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
There is a bit in wikipedia as well: Wahhabism#Early_history_of_Wahhabism MX44 15:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


  • If it's a fight about aniconism versus idolarism, then why don't you (pluralis) use that word once, cut the fat away and be done with it MX44 15:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I have tried to add another POV, thus making itNPOV. I have suggested a simpler example to use to further the point you are trying to make, but all you can do is attack me. If there are two points of view, Both, not the one you feel more accurate, but both, should be included. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the problem is that Netscott added a short one-sentence fact (something that actually happened), which was meant to illustrate a minor point in the article (I don't know whether it does illustrate that or not; like I sad, I'm not an expert on the subject). You, however, added a long and rambling opinion (something that someone said), that was at least three or four times as long as the fact, and far too long to be in the article at all about this subject. Let's not forget that aniconism is only related to the article's subject. And the specific example of aniconism should definitely not become the focus of a section. --Ashenai 15:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The fact that the Taliban destoryed the statues of Bamyan due to Aniconistic traditions is established, your citation is irrelevant in the context of aniconism. And who's attacking? You have an established pattern of this type of editing behavior. Netscott
  • Nescott, stop attacking me and focus on the article. Ashenai, that the statues were destroyed by the Taliban is clear and obvious fact, however, inclusuion in a section on aniconism is opinion of the fact. There are at leat two opinions (POVs) as to why these were destroyed, and including one but not the other is a breach of Wikipedia policy. Now we can either simply remove reference to it, and shorten the article, include the other opinion, or add a different reference - my example being the destruction of the tombs. Left as it is we have a POV inclusion. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • From WP:NPOV: To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.
Your addition was basically an avalanche of the opposing POV, which would only be justified if general consensus held that Netscott's example was not an example of aniconism. This does not appear to be the case. The way to a balance between POVs is not to expand a simple statement of fact with a much longer quote by an obviously non-neutral person with the opposing POV.
There are ways to balance Netscott's example (should such balance be needed, which I'm not yet convinced of), but I'm afraid your edit is completely inappropriate. --Ashenai 15:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not a significant minority view, it is the stated view by a member of the "government" who committed the action. That is why it warrants inclusion. There are two known POVs by members of the Afghan Taleban Government, and by including one and not the other is a breach of WP:NPOV. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oops, sorry Irishpunktom, no attacking here... just bringing the fellow editors up to speed with who we're all dealing with. Again, the irrelevance of the particularly long comments you've added don't warrant their inclusion in the article. Netscott 15:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Including one point of view in this concern immediately warrants the other. Why should your view of the incident be more relevent than a member of the Taliban government ? --Irishpunktom\talk 15:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Observing that it is blown up is not a point of view! The obsevation ends up in a link. Follow the link and fill in all the gory details. Why is that so hard? MX44 16:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • That they were blown up is not under contention. That there is one POV as to why this happened is. Being included in a section on Aniconism without reference to other POVs as to the cause is a POV inclusion. I have suggested other references to destroyed articles of historic importance, which are incontrovertible, but they have been dismissed, rather curiously, as a "Red Herring" - Inclusion of the destruction of the Buddhas without reference to the other POVs is a NPOV breach. --Irishpunktom\talk 17:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Irishpunktom, why are you refusing to recognize the authority of the Afghan Ulema that councilled the Sharia court that ultimately gave the verdict for the destruction of not only the Bamyan buddahs... but ALL 'idolatrous' statues? Why are you trying to give precedence to the comments of one individual? Netscott 15:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not, I'm not trying to remove one side and not the other - Thats you. I'd rather neither side was included, but to have one and not the other is a POV. Further, he is more than one individual, he is a member of that "Government". Further again, from the European Institute for Asian Studies: "Why should the Taleban resort to such action in the face of almost universal condemnation? Although, to all adherents of Islam, the worship of idols is sinful, the great Bamyan Buddhas, and many hundreds of smaller statues in Afghanistan, had already managed to survive well over a thousand years of Muslim rule over the region. Of course, the Taleban follow a particularly puritanical interpretation of Islam but, even so, they had not threatened the Buddhas before. Thus, it was almost certainly for other motivations." [4] --Irishpunktom\talk 16:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You're kidding right?? Already in October 1998 the Taliban had blown the head off of one of the statues due to it's 'idolatrous' nature. You're just making up excuses (entering major POV) trying to downplay the Taliban's destruction of the statues... let it go! Netscott 16:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Right, so now not only are you dismissing a member of the "Government" involved, you are also mocking the European Institute for Asian Studies (EIAS). Everyone is wrong but you, right? --Irishpunktom\talk 16:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Well this statement, "they had not threatened the Buddhas before." is a bit off considering that a head did go missing.... no? Judging by this one statement your citing it seems like (the Taliban government) was merely trying to find a save face after the fact... none of this info found in this statement was mentioned prior to the destruction of the statues... only the need to prevent idolatry. Netscott 17:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You say: The swedes would not give them the money so they blew up the buddha because ... the children eat stone? MX44 16:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Netscott: The latest link you supplied points at al-Qaeda, and downplays the Taliban! The Swedes are still not invited though MX44 16:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • But your earlier source says "it was under the increasing influence of Al-Qaeda that the decision to destroy the Buddhas was taken and that, in fact, local Taliban in Bamyan refused to have any part in it." --Irishpunktom\talk 17:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No, the source you provided says that. The more recent source says :"The Taliban claimed that the vandalism was the result of an unauthorized act by one of their soldiers and that the statutes were being protected by the Taliban from further harm"--Irishpunktom\talk 17:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Doesn't matter, that soldier was a member of the Taliban militia (and we're back to square one... the Taliban did it)... and besides that is merely what the Taliban 'claimed'.... Netscott 17:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Of course it matters! It was not Taliban policy to Destroy them in 1998, and the Taliban vowed to protect them then. That a sole Criminal member of the Taliban committed a crime does not mean that Taliban policy was in favour of that Crime. Now, two sources, both provided by you, disprove your contention.--Irishpunktom\talk 17:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • What my contention that the Taliban blew up the Bamyan statues... primarily for aniconistic reasons? What other POSSIBLE credible reason could they use to justify doing so in the first place??????? Netscott 17:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I am not trying to remove that contention, merely add another, the view of the Ambassador as stated in the source I had provided, and which matches the assesment produced by the European Institute for Asian Studies, both of which you have refused to even consider. --Irishpunktom\talk 17:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Mr Fisk ultimately blames Saudi Wahabbis for having created the Taliban (who destroyed ...) The dispute is not "why" but rather "why now" (not earlier or later) pagina 44 MX44 18:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe we agree that prior to the destruction of statutes the Taliban claimed they were to be destroyed to prevent idolatry. No? If your answer is yes then this citation is merely demonstrating their contemporary view of aniconism. They would never had the idea to destroy the statues in the first place if they didn't hold the anti-adolatry view that allowed them to rationalize doing so. Netscott 17:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hanafi, Taliban

Continued from discussion bove. Split for convenience MX44 11:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

According to Irishpunktoms source (Ebmar pg 48) Mullah Omar, who was brought to power by Al-Qaeda, on the 26th February "orders all the statues and pre-Islamic shrines in Afghanistan destroyed, so that they be not worshipped now or in the future." Inluding the Bamyan Buddhas.

The reasoning goes as: Because the world worship these statues more than our starving children, they are not harmless and must therefore be destroyed.

(A proposal to buy the statues and thus fund the starving children was rejected)

Conclusion: Taliban destroyed the Bamyan Buddhas because of fear of idolatry.

Alternative ending (From Netscotts source): Omar lost control and it was the bad guys from Al-Qaeda who did it. This is to say that Taliban government was only Al-Qaedas sockpuppet which is implicitly stated from the beginning anyway. This notion is also backed up by Mariam A. Nawabi (Commercial Attaché at the Embassy of Afghanistan):

The Taliban's harsh interpretation of Islam was largely based upon Wahhabism that emanated from Saudi Arabia, a form of Islam that was foreign to Afghanistan. The Taliban were supported by foreign elements and as institutions and the economy crumbled, the country became increasingly weakened.

Irishpunktom: Do you understand now why I object to describing the Taliban as Hanifi? The trail to the description of their (lack of?) maddhab ends here: Wahhabism#Beliefs.

MX44 10:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't really care why you object to it, because its clear you don't know what your talking about. Further, I dislike your attempts to mock me, when you clearly are wrong. The Taliban are hanafi, as much as you don't want it to be the case, it is. From Status of religious freedom in Afghanistan; "Traditionally, Sunni Islam of the Hanafi school of jurisprudence has been the dominant flavour of Islam in Afghanistan. This school counts the Taliban among its followers." - Though Wikipedia should not be self referencing so here this:
  • "The difference is because the Taleban follow the Hanafi branch of Islam, and the current administration adheres to the Shafee variant."[5]
  • "The Taleban Government in Afghanistan has implemented the Hanafi law." [6]
  • "The Taleban, belonging to a man to the Hanafi school of Shura, would be the first to contradict him"[7]
  • "The Taliban also adheres to the Hanafi school of Sunni Islam"
  • "The taleban were not wahahbis. They were sunnis with hanafi school following" [8]
  • "There is an ongoing conflict between the Taliban, who subscribe to a radical interpretation of the Hanafi school of Sunni Islam". [9]
  • "The Taliban interpreted Hanafi law to punish theft with amputation of hands and adultery with stoning." [10]
  • "The Deobandi School and the Taliban are strict followers of the Hanafi legal code" [11]
  • "The Taliban also adheres to the Hanafi school of Sunni Islam, making it the current dominant religion in the country" [12]
  • "And it should be stressed here that Taliban belong to a different Islamic school of law, ie the Hanafi" [13]
  • "In jurisprudence terms, Taliban is an extension of the Deoband (traditional Hanafi jurisprudence) which is widespread in Afghanistan." [14]
  • "In using their power to condemn violence (?) in the name of Islam, the Taliban have also taken a lead in reiterating the age-old position of Hanafi orthodoxy". [15]
  • "contrary to the Hanafi school of Sunni Islam, the school to which the Taliban claims to adhere" [16]
  • "The Taliban had taken much of their influence from the Pakistani Deobandis, which is an offshoot of the Hanafi Islamic school of thought and contains" [17]
  • "No Afghans have been involved in suicide operations before because the Hanafi school of Islam, to which most Taliban subscribe, forbids it." [18]

I could go on. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


I am convinced you could go on ... So when Wikipedia states:

The Hanafi school is considered to be one of the more liberal. For example, under Hanafi jurisprudence, blasphemy is not punishable by the state, despite being considered a civil crime by some other schools.
The Hanafi madhab is the largest of the four schools; it is followed by approximately 45% of Muslims world-wide.

... then this is consistent with your view of liberal Taliban rulings, and the number of Muslims who will agree to that?

Or can we agree that this notion might be in dispute? Alternatively: Wiki got it all wrong?

BTW: You didn't object to the Taliban government being controlled by Al-Qaeda. If that statement is OK with you then I can see a fair NPOV wording coming soon MX44 11:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone mentioned the Deobandi? As mixed up with Maududi? Zora 11:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I did, but Deobandi are still hanafi.. MX44 mocked me for making the statement. He seems to think that the Hanafi are a monolith. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Nope, I think that the Taliban rulers were an atypical abnormality! MX44 12:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't stop them being Hanafi. Do you deny that the Deobandi school is Hanafi? If not, does the Deobandi school fit with the description of Hanafi you have previously given? The Maddhab of the Taliban is not disputed, they were hanafi. Thats the Fiqh they governed with, thats the Madrassas they allowed operate, thats the Imam they spoke of.. why can't you accept this simple statement of fact, but instead resort to mocking me?--Irishpunktom\talk 12:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Eh ... I think you gave the wikilink to: "The Hanafi school is considered to be one of the more liberal," and this is what I object to. I find it misleading in this context (at best.) MX44 12:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Ahh, so you now admit that the Taliban were Hanafi!? --Irishpunktom\talk 12:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I maintain that hanifi is way overly broad and also that they were at mercy of Al-Qaeda, backed up by Mariam A. Nawabi. Nothing new here ... And I apologize for suggesting "mammals" which is of course even more overly broad :) MX44 12:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
So, what would you suggest? "Islamist Hanafi" - as it stands it come be construed that they were either Salafi or Wahabbi, which they were not - Al Queda are a violent offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood who were set up to act as Mujahids during the Soviet invasion - the name relates to the base from which Bin Laden opperated - They have no specific Maddhab, though it's not unfair to suggest bin Laden is salafi but Zawahiri is Maliki. This does not mean that Maliki are arch Conservative terrorists, and if you believe that including the Talibans Maddhab is overly broad, do you agree with removing all references to Maddhabs, and non-Maddhab systems? - Islam is not a Monolith, but neither are the internal Maddhabs, or the Salafis or Wahabbis.. etc. --Irishpunktom\talk 13:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually I think Taliban is the correct description. They were quite unique. MX44 14:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
<------------ CR-LF

I would suggest to drop the link to hanifi, and move the interresting parts of this discussion to the article on the Taliban. The Deoband School link might also need a touch-up? Reciting the quran day in and day out, in a language you do not understand, is not consistent with the more normal view of formal education (IMHO of course) MX44 13:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Every Muslim will recite from the Qur'an several times a day. It's part of Salat, and most need an education in Arabic to undersand what they are reciting. I don't really understand what your getting at here? Islam itself ? Do you want all reerences to schools or thought (or lack of) to be removed, or just the Taliban one? --Irishpunktom\talk 14:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
No, it is just the Deoband style of reciting the quran (all day) without knowing arabic I disagree with MX44 14:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

As for removing all references? The result would be an article pretending to speak for all Muslims with one unified, albeit inconsistent voice. People have objected to that. As it stands it is a simplification or approximation, but I do not see any easy absolutely correct solution in the light that there is consensus for shortening the article. MX44 14:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I can see 2 possible solutions for the disputed section here:
  • a) Use the broad quantitative brush (Most Muslims do/dont't, different views at different time, not monlithic, different interpretation/schools of different ahadith etc.) as pertains to aniconism/prophet pictures/prophet-mocking pictures respectively.
  • b) Fork a subpage (for the 'conflicting traditions' section, that is: including the Danish and the Islamic/Muslim view) and go into detail there, with all the "anti-wahhabi salafist and malikite influenced neo-deobandi old-school hanafi" adjectives you care to mention. And even juxtapositioning relevant verses/fatwas from opposite sides of the spectrum that underlie the aniconism/prophet pictures/prophet-mocking pictures topics.
I'll personally won't get involved right now (got rid of the plaster dressing on my leg, and can WALK again) but I'm confident there will be a solution, and this silly page full-protection will go away. Azate 14:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

There is one very easy solution though:

  • Since the goal of illustrating aniconism is already met,I'd say we give The Great Buddhas back to the Buddhists and keep the otherwise impressive laundry list belonging to the Talibans. MX44 14:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

A lot of things have to go into subpages anyway, and the Buddhas are already prominently mentioned in the Taliban ...

Netscott?

MX44 14:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Two suggestions for improved readability

Since I got support for this from Varga, Netscott and Bertil in "Archive 16" above, and I got no objections, I shall start moving some sections to new sub-articles tomorrow. DanielDemaret 18:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Äntligen!
translation: strong support.
I see that the page has been totally protected now. This is probably a good thing, but I shall have to delay the edits I suggested above.DanielDemaret 10:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

South Jutland; the middle of nowhere?

Is south Jutland the middle of nowhere? Is it considered so? I personally have never come across this sort of reference before and it seems remarkably like Original Research. Shouldn't it be removed? --The1exile - Talk - Contribs - 18:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That's the crux of the "joke" in the cartoon where the man is suggesting that his fellows calm down as the cartoonist is just "some guy from South Jutland". As I recall, this discussion took place more than once in the many archives of this talk page. You might want to check the very earliest archives, as I seem to remember it happening early on. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
It is the home of the artist MX44 19:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I can only with (some) shame say that it is how a large part of we (bigoted?) Copenhagen'ers denote South Jutland (Lars Tyndskid's marker). But jokingly so. It is the equivalent of the North-South jokes in the UK Varga Mila 19:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, my own ignorance then. Leave it in. I translated the cartoon slightly differently. --The1exile - Talk - Contribs - 19:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The middle of nowhere-thing is put *inside* the quotation of the translated text, and should be at least kept out. For me (I am danish) the reference to South-Jutland just got a provincial ring to it, with maybe a bit of self-ironi. It's not at all equal to 'the middle of nowhere' - I would say, and as it is too strong an interpretation, it really should be deleted. In any case: If this is something we at all can disagree on it should be kept out of the article, and be up to the reader to understand his or her way. --Anjoe 17:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Is it the connotation of being a yokel or a bumpkin perhaps? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
A Dane implying yokel or bumpkin would probably use the word "molbo" (i.e. a person from Mols). As the man depicted is dismissing the artist as not-worth-getting-all-worked-up-about because the artist is from South Jutland, the implication is more likely to be that South Jutland = provincial, unimportant, harmless, not influential, dismissable. So it's not exactly "... some infidel from the middle of nowhere", but rather "... some infidel from some backwater Danish province you probably never heard of anyway". Mcamca 00:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree fully with Mcamca's view above. Will someone with the rights please unprotect the article and correct this. --Anjoe 12:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I also agree. Please delete the phrase or find something that does not put more fuel the burning Danish East/West joke fire. As a South Jutlander (dog ikke sønderjyde, kun sydjyde - og det gør det jo bare endnu værre; generaliserende) I must certainly speak up. --Andreas Müller 20:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No ones's arguing insensitivity only bad translation, - but btw: you are displaying a fine example of danish irony there :) --Anjoe 11:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, else we will burn the Copenhagen embassy in Vojens and refuse to drink nothing but Thor..
Actually, I don't see the difference between "some backwater Danish province you probably never heard of anyway" and "middle of nowhere", I think it paints the same picture of (muslim) rage directed towards something you don't even know (the discussion of whether or not that is true is a whole different one, though). Poulsen 21:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see a significant difference between Mcamca's definition and "middle of nowhere". As a native English speaker, the connotation of "middle of nowhere" is provincial, unimportant, harmless, not influential, dismissable. The question about yokel or bumpkin was meant as an alternative to middle of nowhere, not as an explication of the definition of the phrase. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Another piece of the story

I don't intend to get particularly involved in this article, but it seems to me that one significant piece of the story is missing from our article. According to Gary Younge, The Right to Be Offended, The Nation, posted February 8, 2006 (February 27, 2006 issue):

In April 2003 Danish illustrator Christoffer Zieler submitted a series of unsolicited cartoons offering a lighthearted take on the resurrection of Christ to the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. Zieler received an e-mail from the paper's Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, saying: "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think they will provoke an outcry. Therefore I will not use them." … [T]he question has never been whether you draw a line under what is or isn't acceptable to publish, but where you draw it…

There is quite a bit else interesting in the Younge article; I recommend it to those working on the article. - Jmabel | Talk 04:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It is in Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#Danish_journalistic_tradition MX44 07:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Page protected

In light of the edit/revert war that was taken place, I've installed full protection to the article. Get an RFC on the article to get ouside views, edit warring is not conducive to building Wikipedia. NSLE (T+C) at 05:20 UTC (2006-03-15)

Is it still the conflict wheter the image should be shown or not? --Snailwalker | talk 11:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
No, see: Taliban Buddha and what not as well as other related threads. Some editors are using too much fantasy (IMHO of course) to push POV MX44 12:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
by fantasy, I imagine that you mean imagination?DanielDemaret 12:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, sorry. It could be doctored sources as well ... MX44 12:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Or, it could be using well cited sources. "Doctored sources"?!.. now who's engaging in "too much fantasy"! --Irishpunktom\talk 12:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

London Protest Update

Five arrested over London cartoons protest... could be worth an addition? CA-Bill 208.201.242.19 13:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Best part of that article, "The demonstration attracted widespread political condemnation and among those calling for prosecutions was the Muslim Council of Britain." CA-Bill 208.201.242.19 15:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

No prosecution in this matter

The Director of Public Prosecutors in Denmark agrees with the Local Prosecutor. They do not believe that Jyllands-Posten (editors...?) did anything criminal, you can see the reason for the prosecutors decision (in both Danish and English) here: www.rigsadvokaten.dk --Hekatombe 14:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I just want to add that the Chief Prosecutor delivers a very precise and in my opinion very good analysis of what Jyllands-Posten did. His last remarks are a reminder that freedom of speech is NOT unlimited in Denmark. Apupunchau 16:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Article Cleanup / Revision

Given that Demaret (here has offered to restructure the article, would it now be an idea to unblock it ? Varga Mila 11:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes please. Protecting this article is problematic in any case, because there isn't one contentious issue that can be hammered out; the lines of debate are constantly shifting. --Ashenai 11:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well-founded Dossier accusations - violation of convention on Racism

Once the article is unblocked, it may be worth including a note as to the following. The Imam's dossier spoke about the 'general tone' in Danish politics. I don't recall if it contained a specific reference to Pia Kjærsgaard, I but suspect they would have (and rightly so, IMHO). The UN says that Denmark violated the UN convention on racial discrimination by not vigorously pursuing a charge of racism against the leader of the Danish People’s Party, Pia Kjærsgaard, in 2003. The case itself began in 2003 when she in a letter to the editor criticised the Minister for Justice for subbmitting a proposed law against circumcision of girls to the Danish-Somalian organisation. The leader of the DPP compared it to asking pedophiles whether they objected to a ban on sex with children. http://www.jp.dk/indland/artikel:aid=3614196/

(While the logic, taken to its extreme, is not without merit, her general tone has, over the years, been extremely right wing and often racist). I wont have time to incorporate it, but it may be worth a note. Varga Mila 16:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

While the logic, taken to its extreme, is not without merit .. Comparing Somalians to paedophiles is not without merit? --Irishpunktom\talk 17:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I was referring to the logic. Varga Mila 17:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You're going to have to explain that, because it seems inherently racist to me. --Irishpunktom\talk 17:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The 'logic' of questioning the logic of 'asking the supporter of an act whether that act should be criminalized by law'. While PK is one of the last people in the world of whom I would submit any kind of support, I think that questioning the logic of the proposition (i.e. contentless, that is, as it stands in the preceding sentence is not without its merits. But all this is irrelevant to the article. Varga Mila 17:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah, so what you are saying is that Danish-Somalians love female circumcision as much as paedophiles who Sexually abusing children?--Irishpunktom\talk 02:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
He did not say anything about "love", please don't put words in other people's mouths. The logic of Pia K. is that you don't set the wolf to guard sheep - i.e. you don't let people who commit crimes "approve" the laws. That being said, what she says criminalizes all Somalis when she so readily imply they all object to the law, and also imply showing the law to them somehow puts the neutrality of that law into question. First off, a number of different interest groups are heard in the introductory lawmaking process ("høringer"), and secondly, as the government has shown through a number of cases, they are not afraid to go against what they have been told by such interest groups or independant experts. Taken to the extreme, she is right that wolves guarding sheep - bad idea, but applied to the case at hand she's manipulating by implying that there's something fishy when there isn't (not to mention her bad extremely taste in choice of words). Poulsen 16:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE, DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS! - —Preceding unsigned comment added by MX44 (talk • contribs)

translation

Is a translation of the text in the middle of the cartoon's page available, say on wikisource? If not, it should be created. If so, lets link to it from text describing the cartoon.

Many people don't understand that this is ultimately intended to provoke discussion about the fack that Kåre Bluitgen found most Danish cartoonists feared for their lives if the illistrated a children's book about Mohammed, and tha the presentation actually included a beginning to such discussion. JeffBurdges 17:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Jyllands-Posten Cartoon Controversy... style->ipod

Ce clip video me fait penser de cet article (et surtout cette page 'talk'). Rire.. Ce n'est pas si mauvais que ça mais quand même! (ie: Hanifi? Deoband?? .. dis donc! ) (sorry for not English, I better read.. write is not same). Jean-Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.123.232.194 (talk • contribs)

Ok, my french is not good, so can someone translate this? I think I might be missing the meaning because of grammar. Either that or there is actually missing words. --The1exile - Talk - Contribs - 18:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
This video clip reminds me about this article (particularly this talk page), and it makes me laugh. It's not too bad but nevertheless, what on Earth does Hanifi or Deoband have to do with anything?! (translation by Ted 01:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC))

I don't get the french either, but the video is pretty clear: It is a parody on the Microsoft way of overcomplicating amazingly simple concepts. Apparently we can do better than that ... :D LOL MX44 20:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Aniconistic Section Solution

Ok, to cover all of the aniconistic traditions (eg: 3d representations.. statues, etc.) is probably overly broad for this article and in effect would seem to constitute bloat. Since the Jyllands-Postens cartoons are pictorial, let's just focus on aniconistic traditions having to do with pictorial representations. Now while one might be inclined to think that this solution would equate with leaving the Bamyan Buddhas completely out of article, in fact there is still reason to cite them. What would be left out of the article would be the citation of the destruction of the Buddhas. Turns out that the monks who built the Buddhas also made frescoes in the caves surrounding where the Buddhas once stood. Well as part of the Taliban's following of their contemporary view of aniconism regarding pictorial representation they destroyed these frescoes. Comments? Netscott 11:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

My point of view is to stay focused on that aniconism is for real, and that the examples given (no TV, no pictures in newspapers) get the message across. No need to go further!
The gory details about the Talibans, the Buddha, the works ... should go to their respectively relevant articles (which will probably stay in demand for much longer time than this one!) MX44 12:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I support your proposal, I don't see the point in excluding highly relevant information, that can be included using less than 5 words. As has been lamented against Google's adventures in China, excluding information is tantamount to misinformation (even when the subject is a tightly written encyclopedia entry). But I've decided not to make any further comments or contributions to article (at least for some time), as I find the atmosphere accusative and, at times, uncomfortable. All the best, Varga Mila 13:07, 17 March 2006
Yes, but it is only "5 words" if we in some magical way manage to exclude Irishpunktom. I do not see that coming and, frankly, I think we have terribly failed if it came. MX44 23:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
It is of course also possible that Irishpunktom actually read those links he supplied in support of his notion of Taliban jurisprudence, then realize that they are inconsistent with cold facts and body-counts (and even between themselves), and then perhaps back off a little ...
Irish?
MX44 23:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
You will have to exclude me too, since I have many reasons to believe, that the destructions of the Buddhas was not founded on their religious believes. Like so many times religion got exploited again. Raphael1 00:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
It would be an advantage if you explained why they did that then? Simply stating that you do not believe in me is not new. We know that! Is my deduction and conclusion of Irishpunktums sources (way up above) wrong? I could have missed something so please point me to the page?
You say that religion got exploided again? Well yes, I think we can agree on that one. The funny thing is that this also happens to be the POV KW is pushing with "The Bomb in the Turban." So why would you then object to KW's drawing? This makes no sense.
MX44 10:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Sidenote: Why do you say You will have to exclude me too when I argue for proper argumentation rather than any kind of exclusion? Did you mean somebody else?
You can read on Buddhas of Bamyan why the Islamic government made its decision. "The Bomb in the Turban" is a very bad way to push KWs POV. Even if that was his intention, the drawing doesn't get that message across. Raphael1 17:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Huh? That link goes to quotes like: "We are destroying the Buddha statues in accordance with Islamic law and it is purely a religious issue". I believe that was not what you had in mind? MX44 18:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • So wait, they destroyed frescoes for some reason other than their views on aniconism? Also, when they sacrificed 100 cows in atonement because they didn't destroy the Bamyan Statues fast enough; that wasn't done because of their religious views? That's just nonsense! Netscott 00:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • 1. Yes. 2. They needed an excuse and obviously that sacrifice makes people believe their excuse.
  • My opinion is this. i have no problem with the Buddha destruction staying, providing a qualifier giving the alternative POV, held by a government representative.. not "my POV", is explained. I still think, if you want to show how a strict "Aniconistic tradition" can destroy historical item, you should visit the destruction of the tombs, etc, by the Sauds, as it is a more ongoing process, whereas the Talibans dstruction was a once-off thing - I included them, really, to show how Day-to-Day life was affected by the this.. no pictures extends to a ban on TV, Photos, Pictures in newspapers.. etc. The fact that the Swedes were about to Fix the faces of the Buddas right before they were destroyed can not be dismissed as conincedence. --Irishpunktom\talk 20:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • But the swedish argument was given by government as proof of idolatry, that the Buddhas (up to this point considered harmless) really were dangerous to Islam and therefore must be destroyed. I really don't see the alternative point of view here? Is it the difference between aniconism and the ban on Idolatry you are after? I can live without the Buddhas, TV and newspapers does the trick and people can click on the links to learn more. MX44 05:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Why don't we remove some bloat in the aniconsistic tradition section by removing historic information. The historic information is already covered on the Aniconism page and is completely irrelevant on the current controversy. I plead for removing the Ottoman story and the 700 year old persian image. Raphael1 12:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk moved. Netscott 20:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


On popular demand, the Grand Mufti of Egypt is now giving the subject of aniconism a rehash --MX44 10:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Sunnis aniconistic traditions

I'd like to change a sentence in section 4.2.2 Aniconistic traditions. Currently it says, that Sunnis have split on the issue of aniconism, though Sunnis generally consider any pictorial representation of Muhammad blasphemous. I consider that undisputed, since I've listed various sources, which support my claim and nobody could cite any religious authority which disagrees. Raphael1 12:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk moved to Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments/Image-Display#Copyright_infringement where it belongs. Netscott 19:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Swedish Foreign Minister resigns after having interfered with the freedom of media when they displayed the cartoons

I intended to keep out of this discussion for a week, but this was too big an event to leave out. I put this into the timeline:

The Swedish Foreign Minister Leila Freiwalds resigned today. There was indirect attempt at censoring a website from displaying the cartoons in the middle of February by a civil servant of the foreign department, which she denied any knowledge of. When it became clear that she was fully aware of the incident, the press pressured the government so far that she decided to resign. According to "regeringsformen", a part of the swedish constitution, the government is not allowed to interfere with the freedom of the press. [1]

There is a bit more to it than this, but essentially this is all that I think relates to the cartoons. DanielDemaret 10:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Just added this to the timeline: The process by which this was discovered is notable, since the lie was made clear and well known by an internal paper in the government called "Riksdag & Deparment" whose job is to read all internal writings of the government and departments. Sweden is unusual, perhaps unique, in that all writings of the state are publicly accessible according to "offentlighetsprincipen".

I wonder what "licence" swedish internal memos would go under? They certainly do not claim copyright due to the "offentlighetsprincipen".

The importance of this incidence is that it should make the meaning of freedom of the press clear to those claiming that the Danish Prime Minister or the Queen should punish JP. If the danish prime minister had even been suspected of interfering with JP he might have gone the way of the swedish foreign minister, mightn't he? DanielDemaret 08:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed, he would have been sacked. He is getting pretty close already,for publically voicing his private/semi-official opinions MX44 20:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

This article has been protected for a while now, and the debate seems to have cooled off. Since it is also temporarily linked from the Main Page in light of the associated Ministerial resignation, I've unprotected it. Edit congenially, and enjoy. -Splashtalk 22:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


Tro

Azate, you deleted the word "Religion" from the reference on 266b. I am afraid someone is going to have to reinsert it, or possibly find another English interpretation for the word "tro".

The word "tro" literally means "faith", but in this case it should, I think, be interpreted as religious, or possibly ideological beliefs. I don't mind changing it to "faith" or "beliefs", but it would probably be clearer if one wrote "religious or ideological faith". DanielDemaret 15:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC) or.. "religious faith or ideological beliefs"?DanielDemaret 15:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Working with knowledge from German and English, the whole paragraph is easy enough to understand, except "tro eller", which I thought meant "and also" or some such. I stumbled over "religious" in the first place, because it wasn't in the article's section beforehand for a rather long time, as far as I remember. Azate 15:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I put "religion" in after proofreading against 266b. "Faith" or "belief" might be better direct translations, with preference to the religios undertones in the word "faith" MX44 19:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Translations really are impossible aren't they? They are really all just interpretations. DanielDemaret 21:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Miniatures

In the section on aniconistim, I restored the miniature of Muhammad and the discussion that goes with it. I think it gives the reader an important historical perspective. I don't think an example and a couple of sentences are too much to include. Tom Harrison Talk 15:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any alternative suggestions on what bloat to remove? Raphael1 16:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the article is bloated, but the time line may be more detailed than it needs to be. Tom Harrison Talk 16:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Current Event?

This isn't quite meeting my standards for current event anymore. The template has been on this page for two months now, but the situation has clearly died down significantly to the point where it just isn't news. Maybe when intermittent events pop up, it should return. joturner 03:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Totally agree with that estimation of the "current event" status. Netscott 03:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I dunno. Not that the "current" tag changes anything of substance, but there is CURRENTLY a huge cartoon-crisis conference going on in Bahrein, with all sorts of major decision-makers plus Akkari, Laban and Hlayel in attentance. And the latter is on record saying "it is important to keep the pot boiling and to create a climate of hate". Plus, there is this new thing about Ahmed Akkari, making death threats of sorts. Azate 03:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Well the "current event" tag has been previously removed and another editor replaced it with the editorial comment of it being a "sleeper event"... by your logic Azate that sounds to be about the same reasoning. Netscott 19:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It is still considered a current event in Sweden and Denmark, at least. Not a day goes by without a related event popping up and is shown in media. It was only a few days ago that Foreign minister Laila Freivalds set a new record in scandals here.DanielDemaret 20:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC) And the Ahmed Akkari-event may end the minister career of Naser Khader before it even started.DanielDemaret 20:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC) ... speaking of which .. why is khader re-directed to Linux?DanielDemaret 20:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yup. Still current in Sweden. Today acting Foreign Minister Carin Jämtin was not made welcome in Darfur. According to the governor of Darfur due to the Swedish involvement in the Mohammed Cartoons according to press secretary John Zanchi.DanielDemaret 11:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Akkari got sacked: http://www.fyens.dk/article/618501 MX44 07:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC) Abu Laban to be interviewed by the police about knowledge of a possible terrorist attack http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=445292

I was just going to declare the even not current, since nothing had happened for a couple of days when this happened. url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4870954.stm DanielDemaret 14:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be mostly incidental. It has more to do with the Darfur crisis than with the cartoons. Sudan appears to be using the cartoons as an excuse to keep monitors out of the region. Definitely worthy of mention in the timeline, but I'm not sure if brings the overall controversy back into the news. --StuffOfInterest 14:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, Stuffofinterest. I just feel that the cartoons are being used, and have been used, as an excuse or even a smokescreen, and that in some way this may be at the core of the events. This single event in Darfur is, as you say, hardly enough to put it back into the news in force. Perhaps if the excuse is used enough times, by enough officials, it may evolve into a new topic. But not yet, as you say. DanielDemaret 14:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

This page was getting huge again, so I took it upon myself to archive most of the older discussions. Hope I didn't archive anything I shouldn't have. MiraLuka 22:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't cause any problems unless you accidentally hit an active thread and even if you accidentally did it's a simple matter to move back from the archives so no worries there. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 21:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Swedish foreign minister resigns after having been caught at trying to censur Mohammed Cartoons". March 21, 2006. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |org= ignored (help).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Archive_25&oldid=1136861410"