Talk:Manipulation alleged in the "Mohammad Cartoons" affair

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search


EkstraBladet has translated their article into English, so I updated the link. from: "Viste pædofil Muhamed" to:

This article only cites partisan blogs and a tabloid, so rather unreliable sources. I tried to write it in a way that does not suggests that the allegations are true; yet it it very probably wise to wait until some serious media checks these allegations before doing anything with this article. Rama 07:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are some references to this in Wikipedia under Jyllands-Posten Muhummad cartoons controversy in the section Additional Images. That's a locked article in Wikipedia, so I wonder why they approved it if it was really not verified. Maybe you could talk to the editors of that to find out where they got their information. Zero 13:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added 1 real source and 1 blogger source, so the documents the article references are verified as being in existence. So, I have removed the tag. The story needs great expansion and more credible sources; but I also have been wondering why there was such a delay in reaction and this may be part of the reason...inflammatory tabloid media? Neutralizer 14:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Difficult to sort out. The newspaper is apparently the worst sort of tabloid; on the other hand, these sort of tabloids actually do sometimes come up with an actual scoop (in a sea of non-sense). I am eager to see a counter-investigation on this matter by a "real" newspaper. Rama 15:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can a "blogger" really be a "reliable source"? I think that if its not a source that can be trusted and or verified, then it should not be a source. A blog , in my opinion is not a source because who knows if what is being said is true. Blogs are often a POV 90% of the time. Jason Safoutin 11:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct; there is a bit of a connundrum because the bloggers' sensationalism is actually part of the topic; so, if the story is to ever be published, perhaps the blogs could be given "external links"? I don't know how to handle this? But I think you are correct; a blog should NOT be a primary source. I'll remove it now. Neutralizer 12:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how to display it. I suppose an external link would work, but I am not sure. I think we should get more of an opinion on that first. Jason Safoutin 12:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a Mediawatch article that seems to corroborate. Though again they don't give sources. Zero 14:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
EkstraBladet is indeed a tabloid with a nude girl on page 9. Never the less they have done a lot of footwork in this case. The story can no longer be doubted. BBC has apologized for airing the cartoons (and attributing them to JyllandsPosten although the apology is well hid away (you have to scroll down)[1]. On this blog you can see video clips from the Danish television [2] and one of the images have been identified as a French pig caller (I kid you not) [3]

Info box?[edit]

I am wondering if this issue is deserving of it's own "info box" yet? Neutralizer 13:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is (assuming you mean the whole "Mohammed Cartoons" issue). -- Avenue 07:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WSJ, Uploads[edit]

Apprently the WSJ is covering it (haven't checked the story - subscription required). The dossier has also been uploaded in full to the English WIkipedia, see Image:Akkari-report-1.jpg to -43.jpg.--Eloquence 19:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]