Talk:Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Denmark Low‑importance

	Denmark portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comics: Strips / World Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Related work groups:
/
	This article is supported by Comic strips work group.
	This article is supported by World comics work group.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Der Spiegel#Spiegel Online|Spiegel Online]] Anchor Der Spiegel#Spiegel Online links to a specific web page: Spiegel Online. The anchor (#Spiegel Online) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Muhammad or Muhummad

The main article uses Muhammad, the timeline reads Muhummad. Could this be moved? Al3xander 18:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Jdcooper 19:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nestlé supporting terrorists???=

An entry under February 7 states that Nestlé is supporting terrorists. What is that all about??

it's just User:Lumidek adding his POV to the news. (Cloud02 14:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Al-Aqsa

The storming of the EU building is described here as happening on Feb 2, but elsewhere in the Wikipedia (sourced via BBC) as happening on Jan. 31 (or 30, depending on time zones). Can anyone confirm? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found this (Danish) source saying 30th as the date, I'll move it. Poulsen 20:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ack, looks like they RE-occupied it on the 2nd... let me change that. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Since The timeline is now being brought in a seperate article, i'd encourage every event to be cited. (Cloud02 22:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Why is this a seperate article?

--Greasysteve13 01:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because the parent article was exceeding the recommended length. --GunnarRene 02:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

..by rather a lot. Jdcooper 02:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't as long a the religion article was it?--Greasysteve13 03:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, but that one should be broken out as well. As and when the situation calms down, the stuff that isnt as historically important can be weeded out and everything else put back in. Jdcooper 15:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do it--Greasysteve13 03:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do the trimming at least a few days later? This page is a great reference now. I'm trying to gain some general understanding and need these raw data. thanks. --Vsion (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the trimming will be done when this whole thing is over (Cloud02 11:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I think the survivors will envy the dead.--Greasysteve13 10:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are talking about.--Greasysteve13 09:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should not be part of the time line

Wikipedia publishes the cartoons in the context of an article about the controversy, How can wikipedia be biased if it was part of the controversy? --Tarawneh 02:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, that should not be there. Wikipedia should be retrospective, even during the event (yes this is possible!) and not part of the news. Jdcooper 02:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The picture has the right to be there, people viewing this page deserve to see what started this controversy. Kazuhite 20:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is one of the media who published this, and it could quickly become heavily involved in the conflict, too. I believe that it is important to know, at what time Wikipedia started to publish the pictures. Dybdahl 09:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

De Standaard and Het Nieuwsblad

* The Belgian newspapers De Standaard and Nieuwsblad publish the cartoons ^[1]

I just read that article, But did they really publish the cartoons? De Standaard has them somewhere on the website, but I can't find anything about Het Nieuwsblad.

I can only speak for "De Standaard". That newspaper published all ten cartoons in the paper version. --Donar Reiskoffer 16:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ten -> twelve? Poulsen 16:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added Het Volk and removed Het Nieuwsblad, it can be readded as soon as a source is found. AlEX 19:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this is now more correct: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_that_reprinted_Jyllands-Posten%27s_Muhammad_cartoons

References

^ (in Dutch)"Commentaar". 2006-02-03. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |org= ignored (help)

News Only

Of course most everyone knows this, but as a reminder please try to keep everything posted here strictly factual and not opinionated. We don't need comments about Hamas or any other such nonsense in the article. There are far, FAR too many forums for such discusisons. :)

Danish references

What is the policy on foreign language reference material? IMO it doesnt really help all that much, seeing as most of the people reading this wikipedia will be English speakers. I suppose a Danish reference is better than no reference, but it would be nice to have references that at least some people would be able to read. (This comment born particularly out of frustration with not being able to read about the Jordanian newspaper editor being arrested). Jdcooper 20:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that :) Here are some english articles, feel free to change the reference in the timline. Danish, BBC, The Brussels Journal, JP AlE X 20:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jdcooper. You're right, reference material should be english in english wikipedia as far as possible. But the foreign references are definetly not useless. It enables some of us (the "lucky" danishspeaking danes ;-) to be able to correct mis-interpretaions from sources. They are quite numerous, actually. Just writing this, to say better a foreign-language reference, than no reference at all. --Lassefolkersen 15:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double entry? (Cancelling of contracts)

There are two entries that have almost the same content:

The President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, proposed to cancel all trade contracts between his country and all countries where the depictions have been published.[65]
The president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has ordered to cancel contracts with all countries where media have published the cartoons[71].

The only difference is threat of cancelling vs. order to cancel. Is this refering to the same thing, with divergent reports of the same statement, or are these two different statements, one following the other? --Kvaks 09:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i removed the second entry (or first taht would be) since he ordered it. (Cloud02 11:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Date Format

I took the liberty of changing the date format and cutting it up in smaller chunks which are easilier editable. (Cloud02 11:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks a lot!!! :-) Dybdahl 09:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wrong date + peaceful demonstration

The incident with the attack on the steward of a hot-dog stand happened friday - not today (according to the source given). Today there was a peaceful demonstration for dialog and understanding in Copenhagen. People from both sides in the conflict was present to show the world that many danes are very sad that the conflict went this far. The demonstration was legal and arranged by a group of danish artists. They think it is important to state that we want to maintain trust and dialog and protect democracy ([1]). Would someone with a better written english put this in the article? Regards Malene 17:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I tryed to write it, hope it is ok english. --Malene 20:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German Cultural Center

04.02.06 German Cultural Center and the office of the EU-Commission in the Gazaarea was attacked and devastated by the mob! My english isn´t the best so please edit this! Netzzeitung ZDF

Done. Dybdahl 12:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss flag burned

Somebody told me, that demonstrators burned a Swiss flag somewhere instead of a Danish flag. Does anybody have a reference for that? Dybdahl 16:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that on TV too, but then again, the swiss flag resembles the danish one alot. (Cloud02 23:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

That is correct - I don't consider it very important either, but I consider it funny. The swiss flag contains the cross of the red cross, and the Danish flag contains the Christian cross. Both are strong international symbols. Anyway, burning a flag is the most decent way to get rid of it, according to Danish culture. Dybdahl 08:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think they care whether it's a christian cross or not (Cloud02 21:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Manifestations in Algeria

Anybody got more information on the riots and manifestations in Algeria? Only info I got are from french news websites. Silver Derstin

French info is better than no info at all(Cloud02 23:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Please provide your french language references. We are several people who can translate to English. Dybdahl 08:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full List of Newspapers who Have Printed 1 or More Cartoons

The table with the full list is now on the main article page with update tables and info on the discussion page

Therefore I have removed my old list from here to save space. Hephaestion 10:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English Sources

I noticed that when I go to google news there are plenty of english language news articles for the foreign language ones posted here. I am suggesting that maybe see if we can replace(or add new ones) some of these foreign languages articles, so that more material will be accessible to more english speakers.--M4bwav 18:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

feel free to do so. The reason there's so many danish news references is because the news isn't on any other sites at the time it's posted on Wiki, and no one bothers to edit the reference. (Cloud02 19:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Croatia

Croatian weekly Nacional published the pictures on 6 February --TheFEARgod 20:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 8, Croatian flag burned in Sarajevo. [2] -> the thing spreads to the Balkans.--TheFEARgod 22:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article Summary

Summary at tome of page should include running total of deaths, injuries, building burnt, etc. This is essential information to understand the scope of the controversy. -Mr.Logic 15:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

17 OCTOBER 2005 EL- FAGR FRONT PAGE - NEED HELP

Hey somebody links in the article, as the fourth reference, to the 09-02-06 Front page of egyptian newspapper Al Fagr website , but it Seems, that they removed the image. Adress : http://elfagr.org/ed_21.html

The front page of 08-02-06 is still available, and the front page of today 10-02-06 is available too.

I tried to reach "the Google Cached", but it doesn't work, and The wayback Machine of www.archive.org doesn't give results.

Maybe somebody download-copy the image of the front page? In that case please contact me and upload. I think It's a BIG ISSUE.Oe kintaro 08:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SORRY, it was not the front page of Today, bt the front page of 17 octobre 2005.Thus : CENSORSHIPOe kintaro 11:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Large resource of arab cartoons

Did you see this :[3]. It has collected all kinds of cartoons from arab newspapers for years.

Removing irrelevant TURIN reference

seems someone from Denmark, thinks that there is a competitive between Denmark and Muslim counties; he re-entered text that was irrelevant to the current event as noted by this quote from the external link he provided.

"There were concerns that Muslim outrage over cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed printed in a Danish newspaper had put the IOC members in a difficult position to vote for Copenhagen, but Rogge had insisted the vote would have no relation to the International situation. He said, “we are speaking of a sporting session in 2009 and it will not have an impact. If Copenhagen wins it will be from membership that is absolutely universal from 70 countries". "

The fact that the IOC president talks about it precisely makes it relevant, even if it is to say it is irrelevant. I challenge any reader to find a piece of news where the victory of Copenhagen is mentioned and where it is not alluded to the controversy.Hektor 06:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with links

Thirteen links (most at the end of the article) need to be edited so that they are listed in the notes section at the bottom and do not directly link to a webpage.XQ fan 09:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference section

Its disappeared somehow! I have no idea how that section of the article is supposed to be formatted, can someone more capable than I sort it out? Jdcooper 16:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TOC and formatting

Can someone replace the TOC with a clickable calander. I think there is a template that can be used if not I will try and work somethign up. The TOC is pretty much usless as it is very very long and the heading numbers interfear with the date display anyway. Without looking closly it just look liek February listed over and over. Dalf | Talk 09:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wrong date

British Islamist group Al Ghurabaa publishes an article entitled Kill those who insult the Prophet Muhammad (saw), justifying such action using the Qur'an and Hadith, and applying its argument primarily to Jyllands-Posten, Magazinet and to the Danish and Norwegian governments. [54] This was actually published before the 31 jan. see al Ghurabaa call Muslims to protest for all the links. Veej 20:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gross overdose of information

This article is horribly over-long. Do we really need everything that is listed here? Sure, it is the timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhummad cartoons controversy, but some of the detail is unnecessary. For example:

There is a separate page for international response to the cartoons. Do we need therefore to have everyone Tom, Dick and Harry in the political world's largely similar opinions listed separately? These bits can surely be moved over that page, easing a lot of the stress on this article?
There is also an article detailing exactly which newspapers have reprinted the cartoons, and when. To me, this renders the timeline entry "The City Herald in Fooland prints the cartoons" unnecessary. Can't these be removed, as long we make sure the corresponding info is kept in the other article? Exceptions would be the newspapers in Russia and Belarus that were closed down for printing them, or the Jordanian one where the editor got fired.
Do we really need every single instance of protest listed here? The protests are now widespread and throughly worldwide, entries that say nothing more than "Muslims protested peacefully in Fooland, marching on the Danish, Norwiegan and Fooish embassies" are surplus to requirements.

These three aspects, when removed, would go some way to making the article vaguely palatable (though it would probably still be very long). Arguments against this kind of thing usually consist of "We can easily do it when the situation settles down", and in general i agree, but exactly how useful is it it to have a 107 kilobite article with repetition of the same phenomena over and over again? Jdcooper 16:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the cartoonists daughter sought out by 12 muslim men at her school

There is some errors where it is stated as fact, that 12 muslim men sought out a daughter to one of the 12 cartoonists. Please see Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy. The statement is NOT confirmed by PET (Police Intelligence Agency). All it is, is a statement by the MP Jens Rohde. Secondly the chairman of Dansk Journalistforbund (Danish Journalists Association) accuses Rohde for having distorted the facts in this case and says that he has exaggerated. Would anybody mind if I removed it from the timeline? (Futher more, according the chairman it happended several weeks ago) Hekatombe 02:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boycott vs Consumer Boycutt.

On this timeline, it is stated that Kuwait and Sudia Arabia boycotts danish products, from what I've been able to gather that is not entirely correctly since it isn't (wasn't...?) an official boycott, but a consumer boycott. Does anyone has any information that might contradict this? [4] [5] [6]. Hekatombe 18:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This link specifically says "The boycott of Danish goods called by Muslim countries", although it could simply be poor phrasing. However, based on your first link, I would say that if any governments had officially sponsored the boycott, action would have been taken with the World Trade Organization. I would concur in changing it to 'consumer boycott'. You might also change the wording so the countries besides Kuwait and Saudi Arabia mentioned in your links are included as having consumers in their countries participate in the boycott. RichardRB 15:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voltaire play incident relevant?

This incident is listed in the timeline, I am unsure of its actual relevance to the Jyllands-Posten controversy. The incident happened in early December (not March as stated currently in the article), well before the Jyllands-Posten controversy became well known. Other than Muslims protesting the performance of the play, it has little in common with the actual controversy, and IMO should be removed unless a further connection with the controversy is found. RichardRB 04:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there doesn't seem to be any direct connection nor does it seem to be relevant --Hekatombe 17:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support getting rid of it, there is far too much superfluous information in this article anyway. Jdcooper 10:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split?

This will probably be a very unpopular suggestion, but I think it's time to split this article. It's getting hugely long. There are well over 200 references. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments above under the heading "Gross overdose of information". There is far too much information here that belongs on other pages, i reckon if that was taken out no split would be necessary. Jdcooper 12:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Failed Good Article

This was denied good article status because the article is not "compelling prose" as outlined on Wikipedia:What is a good article. Fixing that may be an issue I admit as this is a timeline after all. joturn e r 04:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pardon me, what exactly is not readable in this article? -- tasc ^talk_deeds 05:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anything was not readable. joturn e r 19:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the Feature Article standards have their own "Featured list" standards which replaces prose with something, shouldn't that be kept in mind somehow? :/ Homestarmy 15:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any Updates?

Anything new with the cartoon controversy? 199.200.252.17 20:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Chechen bomber arrested in Copenhagen in the weekend of 9/11 2010, Molly Norris goes into hiding and Publisher Flemming Rose is planning to release his new book [he Tyranny of Silence] on 30th September 2010 Shrinkbcoz (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TV2 Airing the Muhammed drawings

In a documentary tonight the national Norwegian TV channel, TV2, will be airing the drawings as part of a documentary about the reactions to them. The Norwegian forgien ministry has warned embassyes previously attacked because of the drawings appearing in Norway. I will be adding this to the timeline after the documentary has aired. I am sorry if this is insignificant, but at least the Norwegian media have been making quite a big deal of it. If someone thinks it isn't significant, just remove it. Clq 18:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy failing GA

This article is a list and lists are not reviewed by the GA system, per WP:WIAGA. Please consider submitting this article into featured list candidates. — Indon (reply) — 09:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Text of the Danish judgment

Is it available somewhere on the web (in any language)? Apokrif 16:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

missing refs

I noticed that there are two of those dreaded "Cite error 8; No text given." messages in the ref section. I could find the original full refs in question, but they are both dead links, so someone should probably find alternate sources. Here are the original refs (removed April 29, 2006).

<ref name="udvikling">{{in lang|da}}{{cite news|date=[[2006-01-30]]|title=Sådan har Muhammed-sagen udviklet sig|url=http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=433427|publisher=Politiken}}</ref>http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=433427

<ref name="tidslinie">{{in lang|da}}{{cite news|publisher=TV2|date=[[2006-01-30]]|title=Muhammed-tegningerne: Tidslinie|url=http://politik.tv2.dk/article.php/3563747.html}} </ref>http://politik.tv2.dk/article.php/3563747.html

J. Spencer 20:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Syria embassy fire.jpg

Image:Syria embassy fire.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Page-1-of-El-Fagr.org-egyptian-newspaper-Oct-17-2005.jpg

The image Image:Page-1-of-El-Fagr.org-egyptian-newspaper-Oct-17-2005.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://hurryupharry.org/2007/04/18/cambridge-backs-off/
Triggered by \bhurryupharry\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 17:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060203033552/http://www.forbes.com:80/home/feeds/afx/2006/02/01/afx2490632.html to http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx/2006/02/01/afx2490632.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] (in Dutch)"Commentaar". 2006-02-03. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |org= ignored (help)

[1]