Wikipedia

Talk:Lars Vilks Muhammad drawings controversy/Archive 1

< Talk:Lars Vilks Muhammad drawings controversy
Latest comment: 2 years ago by 46.17.187.145 in topic The death of Lars Vilks
Archive 1

Notability

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

is this article necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.57.225.196 (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is. This is a heavily reported event, and it's probably going to get worse. International crisis. — EliasAlucard|Talk 10:25 02 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that it is, yet. If the protests get worse it might deserve its own article, but for the moment I'd say this fits better in the articles on Lars Vilks or Nerikes Allehanda (notice it's not spelled with an hyphen –). /Slarre 12:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
If you carefully read the sources in the article, you'll notice that they have stopped reporting about Lars Vilks and Nerikes Allehanda; it is now a world wide event, with Swedish flags (with green colour instead of blue) burning, governments interventing, Iran's president accusing zionists, etcetera. And yes, it will most likely, escalate. As for the hyphen, I added it because I wanted to do a total rip-off of the title of Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy :) — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:48 02 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest that we keep this with Nerikes Allehanda, which is not (and probably will never be) known for anything other than this story. MX44 16:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
This is an ongoing controversy, can we at least wait and see where it leads to? Also, this article already has a Swedish equivalent (and it was not created by me). Muslims are burning the flag of Sweden, not the logo of Nerikes Allehanda. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:57 02 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

I moved the article since the controversy does not only concern Nerikes Allehanda but mainly the artist Lars Vilks. The controversy actually started long before Nerikes Allehanda published the cartoons. /Slarre 02:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Death treaths from Al-Qaida

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article785829.ab Someone who cares to expand on this? — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:27 15 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

English translations of quotes can be found in The Local
"I suppose this makes my art project a bit more serious. It's also good to know how much one is worth," said Vilks.
"Of course you can't just brush off an organization like this. I'm not that irreverent. I'll have to look over my shoulder when crossing the street."
MX44 14:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but I meant expand, as in put it into the Wikipedia article :) — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:37 15 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
News bits are still dropping in on this one, so there is really no hurry. Tomorrow or the day after will be soon enough. Aand if anybody should happen to see a translation of the swedish quote in Aftonbladet where Vilks expresses his disappointment of not being worth more than $150K, make a note please :-D
MX44 14:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0918/p99s01-duts.html Looks like he's in hiding now. I think the article will require a significant rewrite. Alexwoods 17:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

What/why is it that needs to be rewritten? /Slarre 19:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't mean the content has to change drastically, just that I took a look at the article with a view to incorporate the information that he is now out of public life a la Rushdie, and it looks like there are a number of places where it could / should be mentioned. Alexwoods 19:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Image

Latest comment: 16 years ago13 comments7 people in discussion

The article is not about this particular image that people are now deleting and restoring, but instead about three other images looking a lot like this one. This image is - like I wrote in the corrected caption - a comment on the protests against the original images MX44 21:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyright

I have just now received an e-mail from Vilks: 

   From:     Lars Vilks <**********>
     To:     ********
Subject:     teckningar
   Date:     Fri, 7 Sep 2007 13:57:27 +0200
-------------------------------------------------------
Hej!

Publicera vad du vill i Wikipedia.

Lars V

Translation: Publish what you like in Wikipedia.

This should solve any copyright disputes, and we can, with permission from the artist, continue to use his material.


(How does that prove anything? Anybody could put together that mailer header.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.57.75 (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

MX44 12:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

English translation of editorial in Nerikes Allehanda:

Artist Lars Vilks has made three drawings ridiculing the prophet Mohammed. The prophet is portrayed as a “roundabout dog”. So far three art exhibitions have declined to publish his pictures. The Art Association in Tällerud said no. Then the school Gerlesborgsskolan in the county of Bohuslän said no. Now the Museum of Modern Art in Stockholm has also said no. [...] —Preceding unsigned comment added by MX44 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Collecting a few images here temporarily MX44 21:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Do such e-mails count as permission? With all due respect, what if you forged that e-mail?Bless sins 13:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

From what I've seen on dozen of other images, E-Mails are the new written equivalent. If the E-Mail says it's OK, then it is. If the message is forged, then the person who posted the fake E-Mail is liable for granting rights that he didn't have in the first place. Also known as copyright infringement. Ghostalker 18:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
How about that you start to cut back on the personal attacks and your conspiracy theories Bless Sins? That would be great. We are talking about an editor in good standing. -- Karl Meier 16:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The question was asked on Vilks own blog here on 2007/09/07 at 12:25:28 If you want to double-check the validity, contact me via e-mail from my user page
MX44 11:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to make a personal attack. Your allegations (Karl Maier), however, seem to. Does wikipedia allow personal e-mails as valid copyright permissions? MX44, can you point to a wiki policy that suggests this?Bless sins 14:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
You are wasting everyone's time. It's hard to believe that you are really interested in fair use here. Rather, it seems that your sole motivation is to remove any negative reference to Islam or Muhammed from Wikipedia. That is censorship. It won't work, because there are enough resposible editors watching this page, but it is still despicable that you are trying. Please give it a rest and do something constructive instead. Alexwoods 20:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
The argument is in any case irrelevant here. From fair use: In general, fair use should be used when the image itself is significant to the article, not merely what it depicts.. The article is not about modern art or the works of Vilks in general nor provocative depictions of religious symbols, but about these very drawings. MX44 05:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I have made the two images posted here as links. Fair use images should not be used on talk pages. Although Image:Muh-hund-original-rondellliten.JPG might be useful in the article itself. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:VilksMuhammad.jpg

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Image:VilksMuhammad.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 16:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy in description

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

How about trying to exercise some accuracy in describing the pictures Vilks made? One of his gags is peculiar descriptions, that if you read them clearly state that they do not depict neither the Prophet or a regular dog, as widely misunderstood. At least one of the original pictures is described as: "a Swede dressed up in fake-beard and turban with a tuft to pose as the Prophet Muhammed as a roundabout dog". I have carried on the play on this by putting my own face on the roundabout dog: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cjsveningsson/2318784678/ I understand that extremists nor the mainstream media are unable to even begin to communicate this artistic thought (since the drawings themselves don't carry much artistic merit... ), but I would appreciate if the wikipedia community could prove itself better than that CarlJohanSveningsson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC).

Ok, after sifting through Vilks' online publications ( http://www.vilks.net/?cat=16 ), I can conclude that I was wrong in that he always re-wrote the Prophet Mohammed's depiction like above, although he does several times. However it is (as already accurately described in wikipedia) always the matter of a roundabout dog, never a regular dog. Vilks has beside the easily graspable "the prophet as a roundabout dog" pictures also several warped or alternative versions, such as a picture of an art critic looking at a picture of the Prophet and a conventional landscape painting, Bin Laden dressed up as Mohammed, etc. etc ad nauseum. The artist is obviously taking a strategy of exhausting all existing playful (or offensive) ways of the topic regardless of anyone attempting to keep track or punish him for it. I have made a list from the publications above which I may provide in a bit... CarlJohanSveningsson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC).

Vilks attacked while lecturing today

Latest comment: 14 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

http://www.unt.se/uppsala/vilks-overfallen-i-uppsala-932728.aspx Two persons reportedly arrested. More details will probably come.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually I don't think that attack has anything to do with Lars Vilks Muhammad drawings. He exhibited a film with two homosexuals wearing Muhammad masks doing something that I don't wish to know. Unless it can be shown that those masks were constructed from drawings made specifically by Lars Vilks, I think that information and the section Uppsala University attack instead should be moved to the article about Lars Vilks. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 17:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I examined the links provided for that attack. Only one of them mentioned what Vilks exhibited. Most of them claimed that it was a "lecture", I believe it was an "exhibit". I find no reason why the section should be here, it should be in the article Lars Vilks. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 18:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I concur, and an IP another editor has raised the same point ([1]). I've gone ahead and removed without merging because it appears that the event is covered sufficiently already. I would urge any interested ediotrs to add further info over on the Lars Vilks page but not here. raseaCtalk to me 22:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be a better idea to include it here, and perhaps rename the article as it wasn't his art. Now there are some inconsistencies; the attack on his home is mentioned which were just days after attack in Uppsala, and there is a "Violent incidents" section under "Muhammad drawings controversy" in Lars Vilks. Also the Iranian artists Sooreh Hera should be mentioned in the main article since it was deleted here here . Maskros8 (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that information relating to wider controversies relating to Vilks (such as the Uppsala incident) would be better covered on the page relating to Vilks. This article regards a specific cartoon. I think that the threats and attacks section needs to be looked at and, unless these can be linked to this particuar cartoon, this section should be merged into the Vilks article. raseaCtalk to me 22:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Neither of the citations given reliably sources the claim that the attackers were Muslims and motivated by the cartoons. Unless this is clarified during a court appearance etc, it should be left out of this article and remain in Lars Vilks, where it is more suitable. Also, please discuss rather than risking a WP:3RR lockdown on this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Maskros8, please provide a source stating that the Uppsala incident was due to these drawings otherwise the section will have to be removed. We can then discuss merging any other sections that are potentially in the wrong article. Thanks, raseaCtalk to me 18:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC).

Now it is merged. Maskros8 (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Images removed/replaced

Latest comment: 9 years ago31 comments6 people in discussion

Wikipedia is not censored, but it also has no right to insult the beliefs of 1.2+ billion Muslims! The images published in this article touches the deepest belief and feeling of any Muslim and should really be removed. What is the benefit of publishing the images after all? Nothing but fueling a crisis! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Techana (talk • contribs) 18:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I moved this comment down here to maintain continuity and generate conversation on these images. I initially reverted the removal of some images here [2] with the reason being that it appeared to be one editor's opinion without any consensus attempted. I have no opinion on this topic and have no input, other than I was patrolling new users at the time. If these images are inappropriate (rather than offensive, I am sorry but we cannot censor this due to offensiveness otherwise we would not have an article on Nigger, etc.) will others please assert as such. Otherwise, the images are resulting in an edit war of removing/re-adding and a consensus needs to be reached.--12 Noon 17:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
For sure the three images are inappropriate. So, please remove them. The topic can be understood without showing the drawings. There is no benefit from posting them except raising and spreading hates all over the globe. If you don't believe in Mohammed (PBUH) message, then remember there are 1.2+ billion human-beings who do. Their beliefs should be respected and not to be insulted for shaky and irrational reasons. --Techana 21:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The user above has not given a good enough reason why the images are "inappropriate". I find the above user's actions to be inappropriate and offensive because the user does not respect the rules and procedures of Wikipedia as can be seen by the single purpose edit history and the user's talk page comments. The images are not illegal using any western style law. The images are appropriate for this article because the article discusses the images so the reader needs to be able to see them to reach their own conclusions. Fnagaton 20:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
So, you want to take the discussion away from the topic and start talking about my actions?
Your actions on this topic are at fault here. If you don't want them to be discussed then stop editing this topic. Fnagaton 06:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Who said I don't want to discuss them? I said if you want to discuss my actions then do it in my talk page not here. Don't try to influence the readers. --Techana 09:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Since your behaviour is localised to this topic then here is where your behaviour will be discussed. Fnagaton 10:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Anyone can see why the images are inappropriate and I have given many reasons why they are. The images insult the muslims beliefs and spread hate. They are not based on any facts nor have any value. In addition, these drawings have not attracted any attention and posting them here seems like pulling the wiki to join and to ignite a hate campaign and a crisis. I need to repeat that such images are considered more than personal offending for any muslim. --Techana 04:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Like I said above, your reasons are not good enough. I will show you why but first you must answer some questions with a simple yes or no response. First question: Do you accept there are other religions in this world other than the one you follow? Fnagaton 06:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
You see offending, spreading hate, and igniting a global crisis not good enough reasons. That is only your opinion and does not really make them not good enough. So please, stop influencing the readers of this page and taking the discussion away from the issue in question. I'm going to answer your question even though you are not in the position to ask questions and demand answers. The answer to your question is 'yes' and this will be the only question of this nature I answer here because I want to keep the discussion focused on topic. You can open another discussion page if you still have questions about Islam and I would be more than happy to participate. --Techana 09:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I said yes or no responses, do not try to influence people by using emotive language. My questions are directly relevant to this topic by the way, it is you who is bringing religion into this so you must answer questions based on that. So anyway, since you admit there are other religions here is question two: Do you accept that what is acceptable in one religion may be deeply offensive to another religion? Fnagaton 10:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I knew you would continue asking out-of-topic questions! See, this is not a debate between me and you about religions. So again, if you want to ask questions about Islam open another discussion somewhere else. We are here commenting about the images only. But let me ask you before you quit, what would you benefit from keeping the bad images after all? They are not even nicely drawn and 5-years kids can draw better than that. --Techana 13:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Like I said above: "My questions are directly relevant to this topic by the way, it is you who is bringing religion into this so you must answer questions based on that." My questions are relevant because you gave a religious reason for not wanting the images, so there is no doubt it is your initial reason that makes my questions about religion relevant. I'll give you a chance, if you want to retract your religious reason because you don't want to answer religion based question then do so now. I also refer you to the answer I gave (20:19, 28 October 2007) some moments ago because it answers your question, please do not ask questions to which you already have the answer. I must also point out that if you refuse to answer relevant questions then that can be seen as a refusal on your part to debate the issue, which means that you must then consent to not make the updates you have previously been making or risk being reported for violation of the rules. So are you going to answer the relevant question I asked or not? Fnagaton 13:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
You are going to "give me a chance" and I "must" answer! Are you serious?! Also, what are the "religious" reasons i gave? You don't believe in Islam, so I didn't give any religious reasons because that would be irrelevant. I gave reasons all rational people agree to avoid, which are offending, spreading hate, and initiating a crisis. --Techana 17:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
1. Don't pretend to assume what I believe in. I've read the Qur'an, Bible and the Torah. 2. From your earlier post:

it[ Wikipedia] also has no right to insult the beliefs of 1.2+ billion Muslims! The images published in this article touches the deepest belief and feeling of any Muslim and should really be removed.

"Beliefs of Muslims" "deepst belief and feeling of any Muslim" all religious reasons. So like I said, since you use religious reasons then religion is the basis for my questions. Unless you now want to retract the religious reasons you gave? Are you going to answer yes or no to my question at 10:09? Fnagaton 18:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
"[The images] touches the deepest belief and feeling of any Muslim" is the definition of insult in question. This is not a religious reason! --Techana 22:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
It is a religious reason because you use religion, to wit "beliefs of any Muslim", as the justification for your reason. You keep on asserting religous based reasons yet you refuse to answer questions put directly to you to test your assertions. To prove you are not using any religion in your reasoning you must make your case without mentioning these religious themed words such as belief, faith, Muslim/Muslims, Islam etc. Fnagaton 22:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I was hoping this would initiate more editors' responses, both pro and con. I am afraid both of you are on a slippery slope to personal attacks, so be careful and stay on topic. I did have a few comments. First, to reiterate, Wikipedia is an equal opportunity offender; some people would say the whole damn internet is offensive. But personal umbrage is not a factor in deciding content; context and verifyability is used when deciding content.
Techana has stated "[t]he topic can be understood without showing the drawings"; Fnagaton has stated they are necessary because "the article discusses the images so the reader needs to be able to see them to reach their own conclusions." Techana would need to provide a reason why the topic can be understood without the drawings to counter Fnagaton's reason they are necessary to see them since that is what the article is about (i.e., context).
Second, even if these images insult Muslims and spread hate, most likely 25%+ of the articles on WP insult and hate someone, but if the article is strictly from an encyclopedic POV (i.e., no opinions - just facts), then usually the consensus is to retain the content. So Techana would need to show that including the images creates bias and violates the neutral point of view policy.
Third, Techana stated that these drawings have not attracted any attention so posting them in the article is moot. I would argue that since there is an article about the drawings, then our verfiability policy suggests they have attracted attention. If you feel different, the I might suggest you feel the entire article should not exist (which may well be true, I am not knowledgable on this topic) - in that case you should nominate the article to be deleted. A consensus will then be debated on a much larger scale.
Lastly, Fnagaton, please do not draw out the questions, just ask them in one fell swoop and make your point. Otherwise, both of you please keep it civil and hopefully the matter can be put to rest. Regards.--12 Noon 19:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I cannot ask questions "in one fell swoop" because the next question relies on seeing the answer to the previous question. Or it would cause me to assume what the other user is likely to answer which would be quite rude. Fnagaton 19:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Here are my answers to 12 Noon questions:
1. The images can be described in words and any reader in normal mentality can visualize them. This methodology has been practiced in WP before.
2. The images represent pure religious biased opinion. This is a direct violation of WP' [WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]]
3. The WP is not a news channel website or a blog. The images in question have not drawn big attention to be in an encyclopedia. Regards. --Techana 22:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
1. If you really think then go and try to remove the picture of the Mona Lisa or the Sunflowers (series of paintings) then if you succeed then come back here and try the same thing.
2. Here you go again with your religious themed "reasons". You also do not understand WP:NPOV. Displaying the picture is in itself not a violation of WP:NPOV. What would be a violation of WP:NPOV would be to display the picture and write a biased commentary like "Here is a picture by the evil artist blah de blah who made the picture to deliberately cause harm to my own personal beliefs." For example.
3. Since notability of these images in itself causes the article to be here then your statement is illogical. Fnagaton 22:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
1. I'm asking for the removal of inappropriate images. Do not mix things up. 2. That was taking from the list of biased opinions of WP' neutral point of view. 3. The entire article should not exist, but the images are the priority now. --Techana 23:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
1. You've not shown why the images are inappropriate because your previous reasons are not good enough. You still have not answered the question put directly to you. You wrote earlier "The images can be described in words and any reader in normal mentality can visualize them. This methodology has been practiced in WP before." it is you who suddenly tried to switch to something else "mixing things up", not me.
2. Again, for the reasons already given you don't understand WP:NPOV. WP:NPOV does not mean that all articles are devoid of point of view what it actually means is that editors are not allowed to express their own opinion instead editors have to report the facts that somebody who is a reliable source has an opinion. It is perfectly within NPOV to say "XXX is the most prolific murderer" and provide sources to support that. It is against NPOV to just state "XXX is the most prolific murderer" when there are no facts to support it. In the same way it is within NPOV to show the pictures and cite reliable sources. Fnagaton 23:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
3. In your opinion, however as you have found out one person cannot act against consensus and expect those actions to remain for long. Fnagaton 23:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
1. You keep repeating "reasons are not good enough" and I've already mentioned that is your opinion only. I don't want to repeat myself, see above comments.
2. Would you accept if I wrote a biased article about the Holocaust and linked to biased sources?
3. "act against consensus"?! I think the first comment in this very page is "is this article necessary?" --Techana 23:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
1. No, you keep trying to use religious reasons yet you refuse to answer questions so you therefore refuse to participate in debate. That is one reason why your reasons are not good enough. The other reason will be obvious if you continue to answer the questions I put to you, yet you refuse. 2. That is not the same thing because you would be violating NPOV by writing your biased point of view. Obviously biased sources quickly get refuted here so your article would not be biased for long. The sources cited in articles get exposed to the full light of day and peer review. That is the way things work here. We do not censor just because one person claims they don't like something. 3. The first comment by an anonymous IP that only got used once and then refuted. Fnagaton 00:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

So where were you when people were discussing the picture on Bahá'u'lláh's page? Oh, wait, it doesn't matter as long as it's not your beliefs getting offended, right? JuJube 22:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I for one didn't even know about that page before you mentioned it, let alone that there was a problem with images. Fnagaton 23:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
FYI, the article, and the images, survived the AfD discussion, so it appears that any further debating will be beating a dead horse. Request breath be saved for more productive endeavors. Regards.--12 Noon 02:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

2015

Maybe what really needs to be discussed is What-is-art? Is it art because its creator says it is or because we say it is? Is the creator saying whatever he wants to say and by declaring it art eliminating all dissent/discussion? Is art only art in the eye of the beholder? ETC?--Degen Earthfast (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You can discuss it, only it has to occur anywhere but here, because this is not a discussion forum, but a talk page for discussing the improvements of a particular article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lars Vilks Muhammad drawings 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 09:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Lars Vilks Muhammad drawings 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lars Vilks Muhammad drawings 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The death of Lars Vilks

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Vilks just passed away in an apparent car accident, so this artice will be receiving renewed attention. Should it be locked, perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.17.187.145 (talk) 09:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lars_Vilks_Muhammad_drawings_controversy/Archive_1&oldid=1148274741"