Talk:Jyllands-Posten

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
 Jyllands-Posten falls within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a project to create and improve Denmark-related Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, all interested editors are welcome!

Satellite Image of Denmark
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jyllands-Posten article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Requested move

"Jyllands-Posten" is the most commonly used name used to refer to the newspaper. — Peter L <talk|contribs> 19:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

I originally tried moving the article myself, but since Jyllands-Posten currently has a nontrivial history in addition to being a redirect here, the move was refused. — Peter L <talk|contribs> 21:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the name: it was originally called Jyllandsposten from the beginning in 1871, changing to Jyllands-Posten (note hyphen) in 1945, and changing again to Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten in 1969, which has been the official name of the newspaper since then. [1] But I'd say "Jyllands-Posten" is the clearly predominant form, and it should be noted that it would probably be more appropriate to comment on their website (which is not "Morgenavisen") in an article called "Jyllands-Posten". — Peter L <talk|contribs> 22:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Result

Moved. WhiteNight T | @ | C 00:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Moved from article page:

Why does the paper seem to have a yellow Star of David as its logo? What is the history behind that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darianb (talk • contribs) .

Stars are a commonly used log for all sorts of companies, I think calling it a Star of David is reading a little too much into it 80.166.182.88 21:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

My best guess would be that it represents the morning sun. They have an Aurora award (given for outstanding ads) which includes a sculpture suspiciously similar in shape (Aurora is the Roman goddess of dawn). The fact that "Morgenavisen" ("the morning newspaper") was added to the name specifically to emphasize its early morning delivery probably supports this, especially given that the star is placed in connection with it. It is also interesting to note that "the dot over the i" is a Danish idiom meaning "the finishing touch". — Peter L <talk|contribs> 23:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

What does the star in the logo of Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten symbolise? The yellow star seen in the logo of Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten is a stylised representation of a sculpture symbolising Aurora, the Roman goddess of dawn. The sculpture is the work of Henning Koppel, a Danish artist, who created it in 1971 in connection with the 100th anniversary of Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten. The graphic representation of the sculpture, which has come to be known as the Aurora Star, is an integrated part of the graphic identity of the newspaper. The symbolism is obvious: The goddess of dawn symbolises the fact that Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten is a morning paper. The first word in its name is Danish for "morning paper".

http://www.jp.dk/udland/artikel:aid=3564748:fid=11328/ Sorry I don't know how to put this in properly. I tried to find a pic of the sculpture, but could not.

The number of starts on the frontpage represents the edition of the newspaper. News might change doing the printing process. --CableCat 13:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Right-wing history

How relevant is it to be discussing a view the paper held in 1920-1933 as a guide to what the paper currently is? Abhorrent as its previous editorial position was, that was over 70 years ago, and the paper certainly appears to have taken a far more liberal line in recent years. I think that particular paragraph should either be made smaller, or something should be added to mark the shift in editorial position. — Impi 09:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

An article here is not only about the current situation of the subject, but also about its history. I believe JP's controversial standpoint in the inter war period is indeed a relevant part of its history. I agree that that there should be something about its shift in editorial position - it is however not clear for me if the paper if the paper slowly moved away from its pro-fascist positions and tries to repress it or if they made a clear settlement. According to one of the sources [2] the paper published later on a supplement regretting these opinions. I have searched quite alot, including on Infomedia, for further documentation for these regret, as it should be mentioned, but have not been able to find anything. If some can find more about, or know about, please add it. Bertilvidet 09:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, though I didn't intend to suggest that we remove the section, only that it be made smaller or a counterpoint added detailing the paper's later shift. After all, it's a huge leap to go from being a pro-fascist paper to one that values freedom of speech... Unfortunately, I understand no Danish, and so the source material's pretty impenetrable for me, so I'll repeat your call for someone to add more about this particular point. Thanks for responding. — Impi 14:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I have added some more on the history of the newspaper. Though i personally dislike the newspaper, I found it unfair, that the only historic information about it says that it was a nazi paper. ---- Rasmus (not user) 6th february
I must say that I really dont see the need for mentioning its grim past in the thirties in this unproportionally big amount. It is a newspaper strongly defending democracy and personal freedom. I suspect people want to paint a wrong picture on purpose. -Rasmus (Not User) 6th February 15:18 (CET)
I just reentered the deleted part of 20's 30s. I believe this site should give a balanced view of every entry, thus that some point is grim is no argument for leaving it out. If you want the history the paper wants to tell today you can see their version on their website. Now that the historical chpter is expanding I find it indeed not NPOV to leave out the noteworthy position the paper took against democracy. Bertilvidet 12:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


I agree.--Per Abrahamsen 12:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I really think its wrong to put such an emphasis on its grim past and to use questionable reports and clearly political anti-everything organizations like the Torch to prove ones points. It makes people think of the newspaper as some sort of nazipaper(I had to remove a picture saying Fuck off Nazis the other day) which it is defintely not.

I had to write that the newspaper is no longer a nazi-paper, because so-called BALANCED users saw no need to. I dont really care anymore, since the whole case fortunately is no longer being paid so much attention to, but I find the article as such still way too POV. I am really tired of fundamentalists, not only religious but also political.--Rasmus81 14:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure the article should not give the impression that the paper is a nazi-paper.But I dont think this is the case. In the introduction it is clearly stated that it considers it self as a liberal paper. The section about fascism and anti-democratic ideals is clearly in a historical chapter.This part is documented with quotes from the paper itself. But please if you can find anything about its change in the view on fascism during the occupation of Denmark or afterwards please, please insert it! Bertilvidet 14:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry, but do you really have doubts wether the paper of today has no sympathy for fascism...I am stunned. --Rasmus81 17:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
No, I have no doubt that the paper today is moderate right wing without any sympathy for fascism. Sorry if I didnt express my self clearly...What I have not been able to find information on is how and when the paper changed its line towards democracy. They started to critizie Hitler for the pursuit of jews and I believe they did not support the German occpuation of Denmark (along with most Danes previously positive towards nazims). I have no doubt that their views changed, but I must admit that I have not been able to find sources about how and when it occured - the paper itself doesnt speak much about that period.Bertilvidet 17:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "A fact"

User:80.108.250.170 added this to the article:

Neverthless, what enraged the world's Muslim populatiuon is that in their style, the caricatures resemble the racial stereotyping used by the Nazis against Jews (mean looking eyes and bloodthirst and hyperboled racial features) in form of propagandist editorial cartoons and caricatures before and during the WWII, which is just another point in continuation of the publications documented sympathies for the Nazi cause.

I need to ask: have you actually seen the cartoons? Even the "worst" of them (the one with the turban resembling a bomb) doesn't really have "mean looking eyes". Rasmus (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That paragraph is nonsense, and is a clear attempt to unjustly adopt victim status. As you say the criticism only applies to one of the cartoons at most. 194.72.92.36 13:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

How about the fact that some of the cartoons are anti-Jyllands-Posten, anti author Kaare Bluitgen, and anti right-winger Pia Kjærsgaard? Most people have either not seen the cartoons, or do not understand them.

[edit] Blatantly anti-Islamic

I removed this sentence from the article:

The newspaper has published blatantly anti-Islamic articles in the past.

Any sources for that? Rasmus (talk) 12:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is the winning paper : http://journalistaward.stop-discrimination.info/fileadmin/pdfs/Europ_ische_Inhalte/Journalist_Award/DA_artikel__bers..pdf not linked to in the section about the papers stands on immigration issues ?.

[edit] Removed POV (use of nickname)

I removed the following sentence:

Thus, the popular Danish nick-name Morgenfascisten Jyllandsposten (the Morning-fascist Jyllandsposten).

It's not a that popular nick-name, and its obviuosly POV... Kjaergaard 21:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is used nearly as often as the official name where I live in Copenhagen, but the name does of course contain a common POV. So, point taken.

Claush66 22:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The nickname is usually rendered Morgenfascisten Jyllandspesten, and it is in general use. --Palnatoke 16:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Which would be "the morning fascist the Jutland plague" (direct translation). The name is common enough that it could be mentioned in a trivia section, or in context of describing how it is received by left-wing Danes.--Per Abrahamsen 15:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
And quite a lot of centrists, too. --Palnatoke 15:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Agree this degrading slang nick name is so wide spread, among critics of the paper on the lefter and centre of Danish politics, that it is worth mentioning, of course not endorsing, as a trivia. Bertilvidet 18:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Well if it is "wide spread, among critics of the paper on the left and centre" why don't you just edit the trivia section to say JUST that? I think it's a "Copenhagen thing" as I have NEVER heard the phrase before and makes the article too POV.

[edit] Cartoon image

That image is aleady well displayed in the sub-article about the controversy. I don't see any reason why it should be here as well? It is an important image, and should be shown on the sub-article, but why show it here as well? Nfitz 03:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

  • With no objections, or comments, I have removed the image, that is already in the sub-article. Nfitz 23:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

--Rasmus81 20:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with the article in general

I must say I am having problems with this article in general. I think the grim past of the newspaper is worth mentioning, but it should be mentioned also that the newspaper has dealt with its past properly by critizising its own past. Unfortunately I cant find sources. Help me. The sentence "Several journalists covering parlamentary and governmental politics were subsequently employed as spin doctors of his government" wrongly paints the paper as having direct ties to the paper. Where is the source? The word several is exagerating at the least. Greetings Rasmus (Not User) 6th February 14:40 (CET)

Agreed. This article is starting to smell like it is trying to paint JP as the "epitome" of Danish racism. While they frequently publish editorials critical of immigration, things like this are too POV to me:
A 2004 report by the European Network Against Racism, funded by the EU, concluded that the Danish media devoted an excessive proportion of their time to the problems posed by immigrants, and most often Islamic immigrants, while often ignoring the problems that these immigrants face. They hold newspapers such as Jyllands-Posten to blame for the rise of the anti-immigrant right-wing in Danish politics.
Huh? Many people in Denmark have become sceptical of immigrants/Muslims over the last years, but with all due respect, I don't think JP is to "blame" — it is a much more complicated social issue. The discussion of JP's "attacks" on immigrants does not give any details on any potential factual merit in the editorials in question, nor does it attempt to address the allegations by various anti-racist/left-wing groups. Bringing a country to "the brink of violation of international and European conventions on human rights" is also a serious accusation which strongly needs to be supported by more than some statistics on the proportion of editorials/op-eds negative to immigrants in order to seem relevant. I'm putting the {{POV-section}} tag on it. — Peter L <talk|contribs> 23:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
To uncritically cite an organisation so political like "Faklen" is like citing the right wing party Dansk Folkeparti. I really think that the part should be removed. --Rasmus81 10:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. The only part of the "2000s" section I do not consider highly dubious is the sales figures — their supposedly "crucial" role in the 2001 election is probably speculative (for crying out loud, it is a right-wing newspaper). I support dumping the whole section; however, the statistics on the views on immigration might be useful for a new section on the political position of the paper. Just for clarity, Rasmus81, are you the "non-user" Rasmus above? — Peter L <talk|contribs> 11:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I am the abovementioned not-user. The organization Enar mentioned seems not to be funded by EU. That organization is called EUMC. I have just seen some of the reports of ENAR. According to them all European countries will turn into nazi-regimes in very few years. I think they are unbalanced, cherrypicking quotes and so on. --Rasmus81 11:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The Eu-funded organization EUMC has made a more balanced report on Danish integration. It can be seen herehere. I am new here. How are the rules for removing things from an article? Not only is it POV. Some of it is blatantly wrong, and the quotes being used are not mentioning Jyllandsposten in the context. I really think the user should start his own article naming it Danish integration, or something like that --Rasmus81 11:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


You delete it, and write why here. If someone restore the text, you try to build a concensus here before deleting it once again (to avoid an edit war).--Per Abrahamsen 15:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I am responsible for including the ENAC report. I am not trying to push an image of the newspaper as right-wing biggots or racists, but I thought that it was quite interesting what that report concluded. Unless you have some real reason to doubt their credentials, we should include it. Wikipedia tries to represent all opinions in a neutral way. If there are other, less critical reports, by all means include them. Peregrine981 16:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


I thought I had already made my case. Let me reiterate. Firstly, Enar is not funded by EU as stated in the article. You are confusing Enar with EUMC. EUMC´s report has a BALANCED view on the danish integration. Secondly the quote "The seeds of xenophobia, or cultural and religious intolerance have in fact been sown by a range of political, cultural and media elite for several years which have brought Denmark to the brink of violation of international and European conventions on human rights." [1] is not used on Jyllandsposten specifically as it is being purported, but on Denmark in general.

Thirdly, the reports of this ENAR really are a joke. Try read them. All european countries are nazi-regimes according to them. Totally unbalanced. The daily BT is Extremely Right according to this junk-report. I can also find some neo-conservative sources and cite them uncritically. We can just go on and on with this, it will be a lot of fun, but people will not be properly informed.--Rasmus81 16:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the part saying that ENAR is funded by EU, because its wrong. I also removed the part saying that Jyllandsposten will print the Holocaust-Pictures, because they apparently wont do it anyway. Hope thats ok. I still think the disputed part is POV. --Rasmus81 20:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
On the ENAR report it says: "This report is funded by the European Commission, DG Employment and Social Affairs and the Compagnia di San Paolo. " We can include criticisms of the enac article if you like.; Peregrine981 15:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links between the newspaper and NeoCons

I erased a link to a bizarre website that paints a picture of a neo-con conspiracy with Flemming Rose. The website is a collection of paranoid ramblings that even quotes obvious satire (the Cobert Report) as proof of a great US CIA conspiracy to take over the world by staging 9/11. The website has no scholarly value.

[edit] SORRY, but I had to remove a lot

I cant believe that I am defending the newspaper, which I have always disliked, but this smearing has to stop. Jyllandsposten is not a nazi-paper, it is a right-wing/liberal paper, and I understand that anti-globalist and others may think the worst of it, but I honestly dont see the point in smearing. Stop using these ideologically blinded pages to support your questioinable points. I removed some pretty irrelevant pictures and some of the POV sections. You are welcome to disagree. --Rasmus81 22:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2001 election

There is a long paragraph basically giving JP credit for the 2001 election result. While I'm sure the newspaper would be flattered (no question that they prefer the current government over the previous one), I believe it is giving the newspaper way to much influence. The readers of JP is most likely voting for one of the ruling parties anyway. The paragraph seem to be based on a American student paper, which again is based on English language articles in the popular press, written right after the election. At the time, the coverage was somewhat sensationalist. Basically, the paragraph is a fourth hand account, where each "hand" have had their own angle to the story. The end result is not something I, as a Danish voter, can recognize.

I'm going to remove the paragraph if nobody protest.--Per Abrahamsen 09:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I wont protest. --Rasmus81 12:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Documented case of racism by Jyllands-Posten

In a case brought to the Council of the Press by Dokumentations- og rådgivningscentret om racediskrimination (DRC) against Jyllands-Posten the council decided the following:

(My translation may be a bit inept, so please correct, or add)

Decision by the Council of the Press, Copenhagen Mach 20th, 2002:

"Regardless the current debate about crimes committed by refugees and immigrants we find that in the concrete case it is irrelevant to mention the nationality of the two [Somali] sisters. In publishing this information the newspaper has violated good press ethics, according to section C. 4 in the guiding rules for good press ethics, and therefore the council finds a basis for stating criticism of the newspaper. Section C 4. states: "Any mention of family relations, occupation, race, nationality, faith or relationship to an organisation ought to be avoided, unless this has a direct relevance to the case."

http://www.retsinfo.dk/_GETDOC_/ACCN/W20020910125-afgrTARGET=

Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen subsequently criticized the council for limiting the freedom of speech and engaging in political correctness.

http://www.cfje.dk/cfje/Lovbasen.nsf/ID/LB02452340

I am not sure how representative this is, since other newspapers have perhaps also been hit on the head by the section C 4, and thus I don't want to be unfair to Jyllands-Posten, but I think the Prime Ministers comment on the verdict is interesting and put things in a clarifying light.

86.52.36.140 19:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


I will add this piece soon (in an editorialized fashion) unless someone say I should not. I think it has historical value. If someone has something to add, then please do.86.52.36.140 01:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Example from the UNACCEPTABLE ENAR-report

Since the ENAR-report is still being used as a source, I will now give people the chance to value the report. These are just examples. The Report is full of this unsubstantiated crap.

"4.4 Sports Many ethnic youth take part in sports like martial arts, boxing, basketball and football on local club level and in national teams. There have been discrimination cases during matches between Danish and ethnic teams, but such problems are solved locally. The bigger problem is when black players on A teams play and score goals. They are subject to racist shouts and monkey sounds. The football union has taken quick action to stop such actions but it is very difficult to patrol large crowds, especially those who go to these matches for the sole purpose of causing trouble."

"4.6 Public services Taxis and bus services are areas where many ethnic drivers have jobs but which also discriminate against many groups out of a single experience. In buses people often admonish ethnic minorities for talking loudly or elderly people pushing women with head scarves with chants like; “Go home” or “Do not stand in my way”."

Just because it is a report, doesnt make it trustworthy. --Rasmus81 17:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Here are their views on the Danish media

"There are very few systematic monitoring mechanisms for the media’s coverage of racism and discrimination experienced by ethnic minorities in Denmark. Media Watch is the only regular source of information available which gives a clear picture of the media landscape concerning ethnic minorities. Media Watch No 18, 19 and 20 covered the period of 2004 and analysed the Danish media’s coverage of ethnic minorities in Denmark. The media used in this survey are: · Berlingske Tidende (Berl) – Denmark’s oldest conservative newspaper · B.T. – tabloid. Extremely right wing · Ekstra Bladet – tabloid; attacks and insults everybody except Royalty · Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten (JP) – Denmark’s largest far-right paper · Politiken (Pol) – the closest to a progressive mainstream paper in news print"

I hope there are some Danes, who will agree when I call this report a bunch of ideological crap. --Rasmus81 18:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

4.4 and 4.6 are simple facts, don't know why you bring those up. The media section depend on your viewpoint, the only clear error I see is the claim the Ekstra Bladet doesn't attack Royalty.--Per Abrahamsen 20:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, I brough back the text. The text make no direct claims about JP's stance in immigration, it does cite three different (and conflicting) claims by third parties, with clear attribution to who made the claims.
Last time I brough back the text, I reformulated it to make it clear that the claims are from the three sources, not from Wikipedia.--Per Abrahamsen 20:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

According to the statistics in the report, Jyllandsposten is NOT statistically different in their coverage of immigrants than other Danish newspapers and not really particularly negative overall, but off course that doesnt fit in to the idea of Denmark as a racist-country. According to the crap-report out of 382, 212 articles were negative. It is off course no where mentioned what goes for negative and what not --84.160.121.57 18:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not the ENAR-report is acceptable as a source, claiming that "Jyllands-Posten was singled out as one of the most anti-immigrant of all Danish papers", is seriously misrepresenting the report. The report only presents the statistics without drawing any conclusions from them, and while the statistics might be high, they are not statistically distinguishable from the rest of the newspapers, except perhaps Politiken. Also, looking at table 11.1 (the sentiment in the actual articles), JP has markedly lower negative coverage than the remaining Danish media (except for Politiken, that has similar coverage). Rasmus (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a count of racism against another newspaper?86.52.36.140 03:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that JP is not much worse than the other papers studied, except poliken. (although there obviously are papers that have not been counted in the study). ENAR represents ONE opinion about the paper. We should make that clear. Others may have different opinions about the alleged racism of the paper. Peregrine981 05:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] number of subscribers <> circulation

If the number of subscribers is about 150.000, I'm quite sure, there must be additional papers at the news agents. How can we adjust the two numbers in the article? --Adornix 20:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess the second number you refer to (apart from the intro) is in the chapters 40s-90's. I checked the source, and corrected the text. The mentioned number is the circulation, not the number of subscribers Bertilvidet 20:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] distancing itself from its past in the thirties

does it?? I ask because I dont know. Are you sure the paper not simply represses its past? If you have any knowledge / sources please add it. If not i suggest we delete that phrase. Bertilvidet 20:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

They once puplished a special edition, where they critizised and described their past. I am not able to find sources for it. But wether they have openly admitted their past or not, I think it is unfair not to state clearly, that it is no longer a nazi-paper. --Rasmus81 15:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I have searched for that special edition on Infomedia (Danish equivalent to Lexis Nexis). In the introduction JP is described as an "independent newspaper that is liberal". So I can not see how the article can give the impression that JP today is a nazi paper! I am not sure if the paper distances it self from the pro-fascist past - the topic is not mentioned on the paper's web site, so I have the impression they rather repress it. I will delte this paragraph, and urge all of you not to insert it before the issue has been clarified. Its better to keep it out as long as we dont know. Bertilvidet 15:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Dear Bertil. Its ok to mention its grim past, but why dont you understand my point.

"I am not sure if the paper distances it self from the pro-fascist past". I dont care if they have explicitly distanced itself from its past or not. The main point is, that it is NOT a paper with sympathies to fascism today. Why cant I write that, when it is common knowledge? I think you are being unfair to Jyllandsposten and you have some weird views on balance. You are misusing the grim past of the paper to further your personal view, that Jyllandsposten is a nazi-paper. Come on!!!--Rasmus81 16:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Rasmus. No one in one's senses will claim that JP today is a fascist or nazi paper! And I would never defend such a ridiculous view! It is stated in the article that the paper today is liberal and independent - so how can you get the impression that the paper is pro-fascist??? The chapter about its sympathy for fascism is clearly limited to a historical chapter, and includes its publication of a critique of the nazi pursuit of jews. As far as I know the paper have not distanced itself actively from its past - so if it is not the case, obviously we cannot state it! If I am wrong, and you can find the documentation, please reenter it. But so far none of us can find the proof / any source confirming it. Obviously its editorial line has changed since 1933, but I believe that is clear from the article. Bertilvidet 16:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias in the article

There's seemingly a lot of complainign about this page villifying JP, which is a fair criticism, but all I can say is stop bitching about it, and DO something in the article. If you don't like the anti-JP sources, find some pro!! If you don't like the emphasis on the 20s, 30s and muhammad affair, then do some research and fill in the gaps. The main problem is that this article totally skips over all of the intervening time, so that the unfortunate parts of the history are highlighted. Somebody in Denmark should go and find a book dealing with the history of the paper, or the media in DK, or something, and fill in the gaps. Sorry, I can't help but I have no access to any libraries of any kind at the moment. Peregrine981 05:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I wont bitch so loudly anymore. The article seems fine to me now. I think I was just being desperate, because of the huge amount of lies and misinformation, which is being spread in world medias (especially arabic) in the moment, and I really dont like it, when people on purpose distort information. Greetings --Rasmus81 12:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


I understand. I feel the same way, with many people characterizing the paper as some sort of unltra-nationalist mouthpiece, which is a slight exaggeration. That's why we should try and make this article as complete as possible. Peregrine981 15:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Circulation

Exactly what is the deal with the circulation? I read that both bt and ekstra-bladet have larger circulations. Do they not count because they are in tabloid format? Peregrine981 15:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

JP has now a bigger circulation than both tabloids EkstraBladet and BT. See the figures here Bertilvidet 16:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The free newspapers in the larger cities and towns have hurt the tabloids much worse than they hurt the morning papers.--Per Abrahamsen 08:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Per Abrahamsen, you are completely right. The free MetroXpressen newspaper is thus the Danish newspaper with the highest circulation. However, JP is rightly stated in the article as being the largest selling newspaper. Bertilvidet 17:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intellectuals and Publishing House

Maybe it would be relevant to mention that currently two members of the Jyllands-Posten's board of directors are David Gress ph.d, author of "From Plato to Nato - The Idea Of The West And Its Opponents" and Bent Jensen, professor in History at Odense university and a critic of Danes who have supported communism and Danish immigration policy. They are both well known and highly vocal rightwing intellectuals in Denmark.


Maybe it should also be mentioned that Jyllands-Posten has its own publishing firm. One publication includes the satirical comic book "Disguised as a Dane - a commentary to the current migration of peoples." (1994) The frontcover shows a man dressed in Arabic attire, shocked by his mirror image which shows him in Western dress.

Other published books include Ayaan Hirsi Ali "I Accuse". The well known Somali dissident who was officially recieved by the Prime Minister during the build up to Mohammed cartoon crisis. And Irshad Manji's book "The Problem with Islam" (2005)

86.52.36.140 20:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Irshad Manji are considered heroes by the entire Danish (and I suspect European) press. That JP published the books and not Politiken (centrist) or Information (left-wing) probably just shows that JP's editor was faster. Moslem dissidents of moslem heritage are loved by both the secular left and the xenophobic right. The xenophobic right loves them because they critizise Islam. The secular left loves them becuase they remind the left of its own (mostly historic) fight against the stranglehold of Christianity on society.
So that part is not interesting.
I don't know the comic book.
That David Gress and Bent Jensen are on the board of directors deserve mentioning. Who are on the board of directors is always of interest, especially when some of the members are public figures.--Per Abrahamsen 20:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Per. However, I must admit that I find it a bit complicated to figure out how the ownership of the paper works. For the stock board (think its more adequate term for the Danish 'fondsbestyrelse') see this site this site. BTW, it irritates me that the information about the publishing house JP/Politiken is mentioned in the very first paragraph. I dont find that information so crucial, and believe it should be moved to a paragraph about ownership. Bertilvidet 21:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Satirical Novel about Jyllands-Posten

Former jounalist at Jyllands-Posten from 1965 to 1999, Flemming Christian Nielsen wrote a book "Stasiland" (published in 2001) which is widely percieved to be a satirical account of Jyllands-Postens editorial policy. The title is a reference to the infamous East German domestic intelligence service. The publishing house wrote in its appraisal: "The newspaper views its mission to praise democracy and freedom, but are they mere words meant to hide that the newspaper's reporters are the victims of a creeping totalitarianism?"

In April 2005 he gave an interview to Danish State Radio reiterating his criticism of Jyllands-Postens totalitarian tendencies.

86.52.36.140 23:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You probably should try to find space for some of this stuiff in the article page. I'm not sure how or where it would fit in though.--Per Abrahamsen 08:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe a short entry in the Trivia section? What is the english word for "nøgleroman"?

[edit] MetroXPressen centrist?

Is it? I'd say "apolitical". It mostly consists of unedited bulletins from the news agencies, with very little journalism of their own.--Per Abrahamsen 08:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I probably should find a source for the claim that it is centrist. The problem is that the left-right axis is rarely used in denoting a newspapers political stance. Instead the most often used device is the socalled gallup compass, but that would become too technical. However, their choice of columnists (anti-war/pro-integration and so on)made me think it was to the left of Urban, published by Berlingske, and JP gratis.

From their stance on Corporate and Social responsibility, they seem to be social-liberal. http://www.metro.lu/corporate/index.htm 86.52.36.140 16:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Both Urban and MetroXpress make a virtue of being non-political (in contrast to most payed papers - JP labels it self right wing), which is reflected inter alia by not having editorials - and the fact that most of their articles are from agencies. I believe their choice of columnists reflect a broad specter (within the hegemonical discourse). I am sure one can make extensive analysis and find some kind of bias in all newspapers - but for MetroXpress and Urban it is not as obvious as with JP. I will therefore argue that we should not label MetroXpress as anything political in the short reference of this article. Bertilvidet 16:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. It might also look as if the journalists left the paper for political reasons, which there is currently no indication of. 86.52.36.140 16:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ownership in introduction

Will anyone object if I remove the following paragraph from the introduction? It is already mentioned in the article, and I cannot see why this point is so important that it deserves to be in the very beginning: Since 2003, following a merger with Politikens Hus, the paper has been published by JP/Politikens Hus, although Jyllands-Posten and Politiken continue as separate newspapers.Bertilvidet 22:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree. But someone also has to clean up the main article. For instance the headline 1940-90s is wrong since it also now involves "controversies" in this millinium (2000s). In fact the whole piece needs a rewrite. There are too many instances of mentioning the name of the paper. It is cool that there is this technical stuff, since it shows that Jyllands-Posten is a a "modernist" newspaper, but a streamlining would be apropriate. Maybe a "Cold War history" headline should be there. Jyllands-Posten was after all staunchly anti-Communist.

I btw think it is relevant to include that Jyllands-Posten does not have an online debate forum. They did have it but removed it in 2002-2003. Why did they remove it it?

I would like to have this fact reintroduced.

Also why was the strike in 1954 removed?

86.52.36.140 23:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

No problems for your changes. I don't know about the strike in 1954, but it was written as being a minor evet. Bertilvidet 14:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Faklen "Cultural Relativist"?

Faklen has in one editorial promoted the idea of cultural relativism. Yet the word "kultur-relativist" is now somewhat derogatory. The now defunct Faklen has always described itself as humanist. I propose that the term cultural-relativist is replaced by the word humanist. This in the spiriet that organistaions are named after how they describe themselves and not how they are described by other people.

They used to have the word "relativist" in their tagline, and they did spring from an cultural relativistic academic tradition (which Erwin Neutzsky-Wulff was popularizing in Denmark). Everything they did was some kind of "applied cultural relativism". However, I haven't followed them appart from the first years, they may have a broader basis today, and they do seem to distance themself from their academic past.--Per Abrahamsen 13:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. I will revert it back to cultural relativist.86.52.36.140 16:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not sure I had a point to be taken. Basically, I don't know what happened to the magazine after they broke their ties with Erwin Neutzsky-Wulff, many years ago.--Per Abrahamsen 07:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article is POV

This article has a lot of material, but the history section is of dubious quality. One of the references (no. 5) is from a Communist year book, which looks very much like an internal document. This does not live up to NPOV standards. The long references to Communist nick-names for Jyllands-Posten (from the 1970s) are presented as if these names are pretty much everyday speech. Sorry, but this is not good enough. --Valentinian 15:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The nicknames makes it clear that Jyllands-Posten was/is an anti-Communist newspaper. Naturally that stance would raise ire amongst communists and leftwingers.

One can remove the reference nr 5, but then the Jyllands-Posten editorial on the Krystallnacht should be included instead:

"When one has studied the Jewish question in Europe for decades, the animoisty towards the Jews is to a certain extent understandable" Jyllands-Posten den 15. november 1938

Source: Gerhardt Eriksen: ”Hvis De vil vide mere”, Viby J., 1996, p. 114-115

This quote might also have greater relevance. 86.52.36.140 15:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not find the current article POV, but I believe it would be POV if we only presented the positive aspects of the paper and did not present a balanced view of the history. Reference # 5 is a collections of quotes from Jyllands-Posten, all indicated with date and heading. These information can be checked at any public library in Denmark. The political stand point of the messenger does not make the substance POV if the facts are correct!
I don't bother about wether the nicknames are introduced or not - it is Trivia. However I do not know the history of the nicknames, but Jyllands-Komposten is used by the satirical colum ATS of the not really Communist daily [Politiken] Bertilvidet 16:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd not noticed that Politiken still uses the "Jyllands-Komposten" remark. It was "Morgenfascisten Jyllands-Pesten" (without its context) that caught my eye. --Valentinian 18:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
NPOV is not the same as factual accuracy. It may very well be possible to find a ton of references saying JP is Nazi/racist/whatever and attribute the claims reasonably, but it is also crucial to make a sane judgement about the relevance of those accusations, otherwise it still isn't balanced (yes, I do agree JP's former fascist sentiment is relevant); the article may still give the wrong impression to the reader. I think there is quite some anti-JP bias in the article, even if the information is not wrong as such (though I'm not really sure what exactly should be done about it). — Peter L <talk|contribs> 17:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I am quite aware that the newspaper was and is anti-Communist, but facts should be presented in a politically neutral way (like in the pre-1920 paragraph, although I've made a number of edits there for other reasons). If the newspaper expressed its support of Mussolini and Hitler in 1922 and 1933, so what? Italian politics were a chronic mess, and many people hoped for anything that could change that situation. This context should be taken in mind, when judging about the comment on Mussolini's takeover of power. In the German example, the Weimar Republic had lost all legitimacy in the eyes of millions of Germans because of its failure to reduce Germany's gigantic level of unemployment, in a time without a welfare system. And Germany's hyperinflation in the 1920s had destroyed the life savings of millions of ordinary people. An average German (or Dane) would probably be more a lot more interested in Hitler's promises of jobs for everybody rather than his revanchist agenda. After all, many other German political parties had nationalist and revanchist policies, and this agenda had already been persued by several German governments. An example is Stresemann, who tried to force Poland into chaos and submission by blocking the German-Polish border in 1926, hoping that the result would be a total Polish economic collapse, leading to Poland becoming more favourable to German demands for border revisions. It is extremely dangerous to write history "backwards". We all know how the story ended, but very few people in the early 1930s had any idea what Hitler's regime would end with. I very much doubt that the editors of Jyllandsposten had any insider information about the megalomanic dreams of Hitler and Mussolini. The comments from 1922 and 1933 should be viewed in their historical context. --Valentinian 18:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe that it is stated in the article that Jyllands-Posten followed the line of many other rightwing papers in the 30s. So the stance of the paper is indeed put into a historical context. Then it is up to Wikipedia to document the coverrage by the papers across Europe of the rise of fascism in the 30s, and make an article about that subject on the wikipedia. It also has to be found out on what excact date Kaj Munk's oppositional article was written - before or after the publication of the Jyllands-Posten editorial.

How should one make a reference to a written source not published on the internet?

86.52.36.140 21:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

See e.g. WP:CITET --Valentinian 22:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I have also some problems with the article. I still think that some sources, e.g. The Torch and the Enar, used for the article are questionable. I also find it strange to use a specific quote made 70 years ago, without having quotes from later times, where the newspaper distances itself from the past. I know that it is of historical interest, but I cant help but suspect that people still want to see the paper as affiliated with fascism, which is certainly not the case. --Rasmus81 22:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

If you are in posession of the book about Jyllands-Posten, you can surely find some quotes, where the newspaper distances itself from the views in the thirties. Should´nt be that hard ´eh? --Rasmus81 22:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

If it printed Kaj Munks article on the front-page then that is an indication that it did distance itself from the effects of fascism. It is stated that many european papers had the same stance. (source lacking) It is no use simply refering to Jyllands-Postens own site solely as an objective source, since that is clearly also POV. It is also stated later that it became more liberal (in the European sense of the word)(source lacking). 86.52.36.140 23:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
If you believe there are too many negative facts, please balance the article by adding more positive facts. Not by removing the negative facts. And neither Faklen nor ENAR is used as sources anymore. Personality I find it quite balanced, but I'm not a fan (and not living in Jutland). --Per Abrahamsen 10:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, let's work on the article until we agree on finding it NPOV. But it is not clear for me how the critics of the current article want to make up for the alleged POV. So far a quote from the paper has been removed - on the only critics that some of the users dont like the political stance of the website citing the paper. And most of the history part is actually based on JP's own presentation. I dont believe it will be appropriate to present comprehensive analyses of the historical backgroud for different eras on the article of a newspaper. But please, come up with concrete ammendments and feel free to add more positive aspects. Bertilvidet 10:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC) (Jutlander in exile)
I'm currently working my way through the article, and I believe the history sections are somewhat better now. It is quite correct that the paper expressed its support of stable authoritarian governments rather that unstable democratic governments. But the main word here is stability / instability, and the critique of the German Weimar Republic, the French fourth republic, Italy, and pre-1926 Poland was voiced in tons of newspapers and by countless politicians around Europe. From a historical point of view, democracy made a very poor performance in several countries. Jyllands-Posten's evaluation is nothing remarkable in this respect, it would only have been surprising if a conservative newspaper had not made these comments. Winston Churchill expressed his admiration for Hitler on several occations - as late as in 1938 - for the same reasons as Jyllands-Posten. That didn't make Churchill a Nazi. If somebody applauded George W. Bush as he entered office, it does not mean that the same people automatically supported his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I still don't quite get why these particular quotes should be relevant.
Besides, I'd very much like to see the rest of the text regarding the Kristallnacht. It is pretty relevant to know if the paper in fact stated why it considered some of the resentments towards the Jews to be justified. --Valentinian 23:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti Christian stance

Jyllands Posten have previously printed anti-christian cartoons. Here is an example from 2002:

http://www.filtrat.dk/sandbox/images/uploads/Hvem20sagde20hvad.jpg

That cartoon is not anti-Christian, is is anti-Clinton. Or rather, makes fun of adultery (which is considered a "lesser sin" in Europe compared to how it is viewed in USA). What you can say it indicates is that using religous icons in a humourous context is in general acceptable in Danish culture.--Per Abrahamsen 10:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
It makes fun of Joseph and Mary, remember? It don't see much difference between this and a number (not all) of the Muhammad cartoons. --Valentinian 17:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
It is not making fun of Joseph and Mary. It is using Joseph and Mary to make fun of Clinton (and adultery). Whether or not it is different from the Muhammed cartoons is irrelevant to the (false) claim that the cartoon is anti-Christian.--Per Abrahamsen 18:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I am following your logic. The drawing of Muhammed with a bomb in his turban is making fun of suicide-bombers and using the Prophet for this purpose. In both cases no respect is shown for the religion. I think indeed there are similarities. --84.160.126.1 16:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
The cartoon where Mohammed tells suicide bombers that Heaven have run out of virgins is making fun of the beliefs of the suicide bombers. The one with a bomb in the turban I don't believe is intended to be fun at all. The claim here was that a specific cartoon was anti-Christian. If you want to argue by analogy that the Mohammed cartoons are not anti-Moslem, you should probably do so in the talkpage about the cartoons. No claim is made on the present article that the cartoons are anti-Moslem. The only claim made here is that they are satirical, which I hope everyone can agree on.--Per Abrahamsen 18:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

But the cartoon illustrates, that there is no double-standard. Surely it makes fun of the holy spirit !

[edit] Editor sacked because of bogus article

Two days before the national election in 2001 Jyllands-Posten broke a story concerning alleged asylum fraud by resident Palestinians. It turned out that the newspaper was unable to document its claims. This resulted in the sacking of the editor-in-chief. 86.52.36.140 10:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You should add all this stuff to the article, not the discussion page.--Per Abrahamsen 18:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "The Newspaper war"

Jyllands-Posten had been a regional newspaper until 1997 when it launched what one commentator described as a "parachute attack" on the Danish capital by issuing a Copenhagen issue of its newspaper. This escalation in hostilities between the tree big ones, Jyllands-Posten, Berlingske Tidende and Politiken was financed through the advertizing boom in the early 90s. Berlingske retaliated by buying up the stock majority of Århus Stiftidende in 2000 - a local competitor to Jyllands-Posten, which JP had previously tried to take over. At the same time the newspapers engaged in a war of attrition, offering newspapers to costumers at increasingly lower prices. In order to gain more readers they also became increasingly similar in content as they sought the widest possible costumer base. The quality of the newspapers decreased as the hiring of new journalistic talent was put on hold.

Source: Dansk Mediehistore Bind 4 (2003)

86.52.36.140 11:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe Politiken ever considered itself much part of the war, its social-liberal stance and strong link to Copehagen. Berlingske-Tidende had to respond though, being less Copenhagen-centric than Politiken and more similar in polical leaning to JP.--Per Abrahamsen 12:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
From the article as it is written it seesm as if Berlingske started the newspaper war. That is not the impression I get from reding Dansk Mediehistorie Bind 4. Jyllands-postens own site is not a reliable source when it comes to answering the kriegsschuldfrage.86.52.36.140 16:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bild Zeitung

I don't quite understand the "See also" section. How is Bild Zeitung and the Washington Times relevant in this article? --Valentinian 00:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Removed.--Per Abrahamsen 12:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Disagree with removal. They are prominent examples of other rightwing newspapers with controversial histories.86.52.36.140 16:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Bild Zeitung is a tabloid, different kind of animal. Much closer to Ekstra Bladet (dk) or The Sun (uk) in spirit. I know less of Washington Times. I gather it kind of exists as a mouthpiece for any organization that want to plant stories that gets some credibility by comming from a source with a name that sounds like somecross between Washinton Post and New York Times. During the cold war I saw it described as a favorite tool of the USSR.
JP in general doesn't have more "controversial stories" than the other Danish morning papers. The tabloids (especially Extra-Bladet) live for them. --Per Abrahamsen 20:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, the Bild-Zeitung entry says it is now published in broadsheet. It has also entered a deal with McDonalds "to sell the newspaper at its 1000 fast food restaurants in Germany." It has a history in the 70s of raising fear of Communism. I have noticed that McDonalds in DK only have JP free edition (which is a tabloid) at their restaurants, although there is no indication that is a business deal.
I have never seen JP in McD. Anyway both being anti-communist and having possible business deals with McD hardly warrent a link. If it did, you should link Disney as well.--Per Abrahamsen 12:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Council of The Press

Also why is it not interesting that Anders Fogh Rasmussen after the verdict by the Council of The Press re. the Somalis saw it fitting to criticise the verdict? Is is highly unusual that a prime minister should comment on such an issue by a supposedly politically independent council. 86.52.36.140 22:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it is also a point to make, that the Imams travelling to the middle-east did in fact not bring the cartoons to the Council of The Press, before starting their campaign. http://www.mja.dk/default.asp?visritzau=210932

[edit] Pro-immigrant?

That section is not very good. Jyllands-posten has recieved one obscure second price - plus some of its supportes say it is pro-immigrant. The latter has no source, and is extremely POV.86.52.36.140 16:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The text got mixed up when someone split it into pro- and contra. I removed the unsupported claim, and moved pro below contra since the pro statistics is from the same organization already introduced in the contra section.--Per Abrahamsen 20:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Quite funny to hear an official prize from the EU being described as obscure. The ENAR-Report is obscure, but it fits into your premade-minds about Jyllandsposten, alas is that a reliable source.--84.160.126.1 16:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually the heading is not consistent with the content of the chapter, which advances arguments for Jyllands-Posten basically being neither better nor worse than the rest of the Danish media landscape. Couldn't come up with a better alternative offhand. Bertilvidet 08:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I delete the two sub headings. Pro-immigrant seems misleading, when the main point of the paragraph is that the articles in the newspaper did not appear to be any more anti-immigrant than other Danish papers. In that case I believe it is better to just have it all in one balanced paragraph. Feel free to come up with amendments. Bertilvidet 21:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Labelling JP political orientation in one word

I have changed the political orientation of JP to liberal-conservative, as a compromise, which I aknowledge is not very idiomatic. The term liberal has another connotation in English, especially in North America, than in Danish, which seems quite far from where JP actually stands. This issue was extensively debated on the article of the cartoons, please check the archive Bertilvidet 19:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"Right-of-centre" was suggested at the talk archive, which I believe sounds suitably moderate while still making their position clear. "Classical liberal" might be another possibility. — Peter L <talk|contribs> 18:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I think Libertarianism is the best translation of the Danish word Liberal. --CyberPolymerase 17:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
The US label "libertarian" is much stronger than the European "liberal". --Per Abrahamsen 05:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
http://www.enar-eu.org/en/national/Denmark2004_enOK.pdf report tells that "Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten (JP) – Denmark’s largest far-right paper" so I'm changing the political position to "far-right" and please provide a resource at least as reliable resource as I do to change that field. Individual Wikipedia users should not assign political position randomly when there is a reliable organization doing it. Regards.
"Reliable source"??? Ok, somebody has used a POV term in a report, to describe what his / her opinion is on something which is not easily definable term. This is not science but POV, and rather unprofessional conduct. Reverting no a less POV position. And please sign your comments next time, btw. --Valentinian (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, you don't cite any resources at all so how come do you see yourself more reliable than ENAR? As regards to POV, I don't quite see what you mean by less POV, both of them are political stands. There is no point of using a mild political stand for a paper, if the paper doesn't have that line at all. So if you can't find any resources defending your opinion, we have to use the most reliable resource that we have. This is a simple principle in science and in finding out the truth in controversial cases. --Electroshock
I actually read that paper, and many Danes have already commented on this issue before. The word "right-wing" is not an easily definable word (as discussed before). Did you notice e.g. that Jyllands-Posten, on several occations, have called for unrestrained immigration to Denmark? That position is usually located on the left end of the political spectrum.
The short story is: the paper is not "right wing" in the international connotation of that word. This is a U.S. encyclopedia, and Jyllands-Posten is surely more left-wing than the U.S. Republican Party. In the Danish sense of the word, the word would be more correct, but it is still pretty far from the Danish People's Party. But this is an international (U.S. based) encyclopedia, so we should use the international yard-stick.
At the moment, the paper's headline (12 March 2006) is : (quote) "Dark-coloured people harrassed at the job. Dark-skinned Danes, working e.g. in at-home nursing care, are among the more invisible victims of the crisis associated with Jyllands-Posten's cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. Several have been harrassed and almost made personally responsible for the anger of the entire Muslim World against Denmark ..." (unquote) This story is a Ritzau telegram, but it is placed at the top of the J-P website. --Valentinian (talk) 14:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, unrestrained immigration is typically a Libertarian (which fit one definition of far-right) stance. Kim Benke and Anders Fogh Rasmussen both argued for unrestrained immigration when they were young and liberal.
But I agree, the political label for JP has been discussed extensively here and in the cartoons subpage, and "liberal-conservative" is the consensus. If that should be changed, you must create a new consensus first. --Per Abrahamsen 14:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I've read the previous discussions and I couldn't see a consensus being reached at all. Bertilvidet puts those two contrasting words (liberal conservative) as a compromise. First of all, those two words don't say anything about the political stand of the newspaper because readers can't know in which fields they are liberal and in which fields they are conservative. So at the worst case, that should be explicitly stated.

An organization like ENAR labeling the newspaper as "far-right" guarantees that newspaper is certainly "right-wing". An individual is not the one to decide on this, neither a newspaper itself can be trusted in this issue. Nazis labeled themselves as National Socialists so should we call them leftists then? Venstre means left, does that make the party leftist?

It is really unreasonable to think that "Morgenfascisten Jyllands-Pesten" joke is without any reason. Anyway, I don't think that we should write "fascist", "nazi" or "racist" for the political orientation but people shouldn't try to hide that this newspaper is a "right-wing" or "far-right" newspaper. Considering the current right-wing government in Denmark and a far-right party (the Danish People's Party) getting 13.3% of the votes show pretty much the current political situation in Denmark. So what I mean is that, "center" seen from a Danish perspective might be already "right-wing" (e.g. from Swedish or international perspective).

As noted in the article itself, Faklen also lays out the real face of Jyllands Posten by simply quoting from their own publications. http://www.faklen.dk/en/doc/somalia.shtml .

Also, if some Wikipedians are willing to distort the reality then one option is that we can explicitly specify that a couple of Wikipedians see the newspaper as "liberal-conservative" and a reliable organization such as ENAR see it as "far-right". Common people can easily see who to trust.

-- Electroshock 19:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Any opinion from Faklen should be taken with not a pinch but a much larger amount of salt. I've read a few of their first issues and I've never felt my intelligence more insulted. I consider that magazine as pretty much a mouthpiece for the most extreme left wing forces in Denmark (this is a POV statement). I really can't take anything from that publication seriously, and it is not cited in tv, radio, or Danish newspapers. Either this is all one giant conspiracy, or these editors just might have a good reason for doing so. Consensus so far has been that "Conservative-Liberal" (or something similar) was a correct description. If you disagree, you can start a poll. If you wish to change the one-word description again, I'll add a "NPOV" warning to the article. --Valentinian (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
It is difficult to ensure the reliability of resources for sure. I haven't seen that consensus but if you say so I believe even though I still think that "liberal conservative" is an oxymoron as long as it is not explicitly specified which fields are taken as liberal and which fields are not.
Ok, then I would like to start a poll but I don't know how to do it. Could you start a poll for me? I propose a middle way and a more clear expression than the current one: "right-wing". Electroshock 21:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not really an expert on that, but why not ask some of the other contributors to this site? One of them probably knows how to do it. --Valentinian (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that "right-wing" is even less clear than the current one, since "right-wing" could mean that they are Social Liberals, Classic Liberals, Conservatives, or (if we go to the far right) Fascists. If we go strictly by ideology, then it wouldn't be wrong to say that they are "Liberals" (Borgerlig Liberale), but it gives a problem in (American...?) English (See top-level) --Hekatombe 00:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
An additional commen to your notion about Venstre: The reason that the political party Venstre (Left) is called Venstre is historical. Back when Venstre was founded there was a political party by the name "Højre" ("Højre" means "Right", as in "Right" or "Left") it doesn't take a lot of imagination to figure out why Venstre ended up calling them self Venstre and furthermore, we also have a Political party which is called "De Radikale Venstre" (The Radical Left) and they are a moderat parti. (and yes, when Venstre was founded they were to the left of Højre) --Hekatombe 07:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Hekatombe, I will think about this issue a bit more, make a proposal and open a poll. Meanwhile you and others are welcome with your suggestions and explanations why we should change the policital orientation to your suggestion. -- Electroshock 10:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I do not have any good suggestions as to how we can describe JP in one word. However, in the 'main' article we could get around it by stating the fact that the majority of JP's readers normally votes for either Venstre (Denmark) or Conservative People's Party (Denmark), but it is also worth noting that they are not the only readers of Jyllands-Posten. Jyllands-Posten is read by people all over the political spectrum. (Source: Politiken "Kend dig selv: Jyllands-Posten" from September 28 2002. I am trying to find a more recent source.) --Hekatombe 11:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


JP described itself as liberal in an english language article clearly addressed to an American audiance. Additionally, the context of the rest of the "who we are" article implies a mix of liberarian and classicaly liberal ideals. http://www.jp.dk/udland/artikel:aid=3564748:fid=11328/

[edit] JP Explorer

I think Jyllands-Postens biggest ever editorial success (until the drawings) should be mentioned in the histroy section. http://www.galathea-explorer.dk/default.asp?nid=526 Can someone add this in the article somewhere ?.

I have no idea what you are refering to.--Per Abrahamsen 14:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newspaper's name in English

Could a Danish speaking Wikipedian please place in the article an English translation of the name "Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten"? I'm guessing that it means something like "The Morning Advice / Jutland Post". --Humehwy 13:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

"avis" is "newspaper", otherwise you are right.--Per Abrahamsen 14:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Double Standards.....?

I've remove the follow from the article:

In April 2003, the newspaper didn't publish Jesus cartoons of Christoffer Zieler on the ground that they will provoke an outcry. The double standards applied in this case has weaken the newspaper's stand on free speech.

Reasons:

  • To me it seems to conclude, without mention a source, that there was talk about double standard, which shouldn't be Wikipedia's place to draw such a conclusion
  • From what I've been able to gather, Jyllands-Posten haven't comfirmed that they refused because it "would provoke an outcry" and therefore shouldn't be stated as fact, but as who said it. (Please correct me if I am wrong)
  • (A minor thing) I also think it should be mentioned that there was talk about unsolicited cartoons.

Hekatombe 22:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok but first of all, some Wikipedian Danes trying to hide dark corners of Jyllands-Posten starting to become a tad annoying.
Anyway here is the source: http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1703500,00.html . It clearly indicates that editor used the "provoke an outcry" in his email.
You can see the pictures here: http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/02/05/456857.html and I think that there is nothing offending in these pictures. So if you're stressing a minor issue such as cartoons being unsolicited, I would like to stress this point.
About the double standard issue, yes you're right maybe we shouldn't draw a conclusion but we can write Ahmed Akkari's (spokesman for the Danish-based European Committee for Prophet Honouring) opinion then. You can find it in the same Guardian article.
I hope that pro-Jyllands Posten sentences are all checked against sources this carefully as well, just to avoid the infamous "double standards". -- Electroshock 22:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Looks fine to me now. --Hekatombe 23:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Electroshock, bad-mouthing every Dane who disagrees with you is not particularly constructive. I (whom I presume must be nothing but a stupid Dane whose opinion doesn't count) am a bit fed up with foreigners trying to present a false image of the average Dane as a Fascist / Nazi or whatever. Jyllands-Posten is *not* Der Stürmer; try *reading* the paper! BTW, Jens Kaiser was / is the editor of the Sunday edition, not the editor in chief; that is Carsten Juste. The most logical conclusion might be that Carsten Juste simply held a different opinion than Jens Kaiser? --Valentinian (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear Valentinian, you're right. I'll try to be more constructive :). I think that we can add to the article that the editor deciding the Jesus issue was different from the one who decided the Mohammad issue. But I also think that newspapers usually have a standard in these kind of issues in order to not to see the editors for the sole reason for the newspaper's orientation. -- Electroshock 05:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
So far, we're in agreement. Yes, it should be added that it was not the same editor making both decisions. Regarding the "one-word description" you're still welcome to do a poll, but I'm not very knowledgeable in that respect, so you should ask others regarding that one. --Valentinian (talk) 11:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe the JP editorial board is a bunch of old nazis, but I don't see any hypocracy in this instance. JP rejected an unsolisticated cartoon that was not related to any current news story, and they solisticated cartoons from 40 other cartoonists in order to illustrate a specific story about self censorship. They don't want to pointlessly insult their readers. They have a very specific point in mind. The point was, if you assume good faith, that the JP editors are moronic enough to believe that relations with the Moslem minority is helped by insulting them. If you don't want to assume good faith, their point was to deliberately increase tension between the Moslem minority and the majority of Danes. Either in order to increase the political power of the far right (which is what has happened until now), or, if they believe popular conspiracy theories, to save Denmark from the Moslem invasion planned in in a pan-Islamic metting in Bagdad, where immigrants are front runners. These theories are considered "sober" by the Danish mainstream press, and it was a minor scandal when an organization working for freedom of press and multicultural understanding rejected a membership application by a proponent of the theories. This rejection was condemned by several members of the government and most of the press "hypocracy" and against freedom of speech. Maybe this will help foreigners understand the strange "explanations" from our prime ministers. "Freedom of speech" in Denmark these days means that you are not allowed to argue for a respectful tone towards other cultures, just like "democracy" in Denmark means that you are not allowed to have an opinion diverging from the parliamental majority.

Anyway, I don't believe the rejection of the unsolisticated cartoons demonstrate hypocracy. The already demonstrated stupidity and/or evilness is enough to explain the actions of the board. So I'm going remove it from this article. It belongs to the Cartoon controversy subpage, where there is more space to elaborate on it.--Per Abrahamsen 09:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the level of debate just dropped pretty low. How about citing references for your allegations? Do you know how many people work on that paper??? You are very close to calling all of them members of a Nazi conspiracy! And last time I checked, Denmark was still a democracy. It is actually one of the strongest democracies in the world. The easy solution is sitting on the fence crying about the terrible state of the world. If you actually want to make a difference - no matter your political point of view - then argue your case in public and join a political party (or form your own, but Denmark has so many political parties that new ones rarely make it). I've been a member of one for almost 10 years, and the world is a lot more complex than what you're describing. In any case, I'm removing this page from my watch list, you guys may abuse it anyway you see fit. Valentinian (talk) 09:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I would not write any of the stuff in the main page, here I thought it was important to demonstrate to Electroshock that I'm not just a JP apologist. NPOV does no apply to talk pages. And no, I'm not lowering the tone of the debate. In Denmark we have a party whose chief ideologist run a crusade against human right, whose leader argue against the division of power, and which in national wide advertising potrait all members of a religious minority as potential gang rapist. And that party is considered a serious partner by the vast majority of the parliament. That is the problem with the debate. The double standard that applies to the Danish Peoples Party and those who critize it. --Per Abrahamsen 10:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Three comments: 1) The Danish people decides who represents them in Parliament, nobody else. That's democracy, and MP's have a wider freedom of expression than ordinary citizens. This has been tradition since the founding of Danish democracy. 2) Your description of the Danish People's Party, well, I'm not going to comment on that. I'm not a member of that party, and I couldn't care less. But before anybody plays the "they are not a real / acceptable party", well, they're are certainly not the only ones with skeletons in the cupboard. I for one clearly remember leading members of the Social Democratic Party praising the wonders of Communism and denouncing democracy back in the 1980s. But I'm not adding references about the wonders of "Samba Socialism" to the page about Mogens Lykketoft, because muckraking is not very constructive. And the comments he and other politicians made back then have rather little relevance now, but I felt the same way about him back then as many people do about the Danish People's Party now. 3) If you don't like the debate, join a political party and become active in changing things. My personal POV is the following saying incorrectly attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." In my own case; I am a declared Liberalist, but I have friends among our rivals. That's actually quite common, but many people outside of the political world don't understand it ("you're supposed to hate each other, remember" would be a frequent comment). My point is that no matter the rhetoric, Liberalists, Conservatives, Socialists and others can easily become friends, since they speak the same language, and all work with the same topics. They just don't reach the same conclusions, but once that's accepted, many people become friends. And the resulting debates cast new light on each other's point of view, for the benefit of all involved. Lily Gyldenkilde from the Socialist People's Party and Kirsten Jakobsen from the Progress Party were best friends in the world, although they denounced each other politically. Tolerance does not mean that only one opinion is allowed in the public space. Tolerance means that even Abu Laban is allowed to say his piece, but everybody defends his own position and beliefs. Valentinian (talk) 11:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
You answer illustrate my point, I dare to criticise the current government and its parliamental base, and you attempt to teach me about democracy and free speach. It is exactly the same thing that happen in the cartoon case. --Per Abrahamsen 12:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind you critizising the government, feel free to do so. I agree, that "tolerance" and "respect" are words meaning different things for different people. I simply added what it means to me (I accidentally removed that line making that post). But I respect that you have a different opinion that my own. Valentinian (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if the newspaper is that much extremist but I would worry about Denmark if it is because it is very popular there. How about integrating your ideas to the article if you can base them with good sources then? At the moment, people are trying to represent the newspaper as a moderate, average Danish newspaper who is battling for free speech. I'm putting back the Jesus case because it's a fact and it's heavily related to the newspaper's position. It will help common people to see the newspaper's real aim because many innocent Europeans mistakenly believe that the newspaper is defending free speech which obviously is not the case. Even independent from the Mohammad case, Jesus case needs a mention in this article because the cartoons are turned down with the reason that they might provoke an outcry so it has nothing to do with being unsolicitied. Moreover, the cartoon really don't have anything offensive at all. Please respect the facts and don't try to hide them whatever your motive is. It also occupies just two sentences so definitely it doesn't bloat the page. -- Electroshock 09:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
In two lines, it misrepresent the case. It is very easy to lie, by telling only part of the truth. I'll expand it now. And stop calling me a vandalist, just because you disagree with my edits. That is a sign of kook. Look at my contributions to this page, they have all been towards moderation and NPOV.--Per Abrahamsen 10:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
(added later because of edit conflict) The problem is that (talk) is right, JP is pretty much mainstream in Denmark these days, and too few of the right people can see the problem with that. Well, maybe they can. The former leader of the prime ministers party and long time foreign minister has, together with other previous foreign ministers (from opposition parties), tried to explain how this could be handled more elegantly. So has a large number of retired ambassadors. A number of prominent leaders from international oriented Danish companies, part of the traditional foundation for the government parties, have tried to share their experience with how to work across cultures. All of these have been brushed aside by our prime minister as unwilling to defend free speach, and the population is with him. I believe JP, back when I read it regularly 15 years ago, was rather extreme (in the editorials, the news articles have always been pretty good and non-partisan). Now mainstream has moved, and those of us who still believe in the old fashioned ideals (human rights, division of power, respect across cultural boundaries), are now considered left wing extremists.
And no, none of this can be written in an encyclopedia. At least not now, maybe in 50 years when it is history.--Per Abrahamsen 11:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
A few decades of hindsight have a wonderful way of clearing things up :) Valentinian (talk) 12:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The last form is quite good now. I called it vandalism because you basically removed the facts without having any good reason behind it. I removed "unrelated to any current newsstory" part because it is not said anywhere. If you can prove it, feel free to edit it. You didn't tell where you got "The Muhammed cartoons was solicited for a specific newsstory, about self-censorship springing out of fear of Moslem extremists, after the author of a Children's book about Muhammed had to use an anonymous illustrator" either but I'm using good faith there even though that might be just a cover for the bad aims for the newspaper. Anyway, I see a virtue in that sentence and that might be their real aim as well.
And please don't make personal attacks. -- Electroshock 11:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The background for the cartoons is described in the subpage about the cartoons with lots of references. The subpage is suprisingly good a well-balanced, which is one reason I dislike going into such detail in this page. I believe the text before the Jesus cartoons gives an adequate overview for the main page, and with the expanded text on the Jesus cartoons we are going into details that are better served by the subpage. And if you don't call it vandalism just because you don't understand or agree with the rather long-winded reason given, I won't call you a kook for using such labels.--Per Abrahamsen 12:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The big difference in our approaches is that I see the Jesus case important to mention whereas you don't see. That's why your long-winded reason is not valid for me, not because it is complicated. So it's nothing to do with being a kook. The problem with what you have done was that there was a consensus already reached by three people and you just popped in, erased all the material and put some individual reasoning which I (and Valentinian) don't see valid. That I call vandalism. Should you first discuss and try to reach a consensus then it would be ok. -- Electroshock 13:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

How can you keep launching the double-standards argument ?. It was before Flemming Rose and Carsten Justes time on Jyllands-Posten. Jyllands-posten have on prior occassion posted anti-christian cartoons. They even had a whole page with anti-semetic cartoons recently. How is that double standard ?. Its a non-argument, and should be deleted from the article. Per A: Why dont you admit you have a political agenda ?. You are just as left wing as DPP is right wing !. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.81.128 (talk • contribs)

And if you are so into the double standard issue, what about Akkaris latests quotes about blowing up the danish ministryu of integration and Democratic muslim Naser Khader ?.

I agree. This "double standard" talk makes little sense ...That if you publish "A", then you are morally obligated to publish "B" too. It is an editorial choice. It is like saying, that media which feature photos of dead bodies from the Middle East, also should show us dead bodies from traffic accidents, because otherwise, they have doubble moral standards... Medico80 09:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Faklen - a reliable source???

I see that someone in their fierce attemp to label JP af fascist newspaper have quoted "research" from a now closed underground magazine called Faklen. According to their "survey" a great majority of all articles in JP are "negative on immigrants". Faklen is not a research institute, it's a political magazine written BY people on the far left TO people on the far left and cannot count as an objective source. In fact I believe that there is no such thing as categorizing articles as "negative/positive" on such large topic as immigration. Whatever standards Faklen has used to do so, only reflects their personal opinions. Medico80 00:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No comments? Then I delete the Faklen paragraph. Anyway, there still is a similar survey from this ENAR (I thought it was called ECRI?) which also concludes that most article are "negative" on immigrants. As Rasmus81 mentioned, those ECRI reports are known for containing lots of generalizing, undocumented claims. One may say they take a scientific approach in counting the positive vs. negative immigration aritcles, but still, what does it mean? Anyone here who would like to have his opinions on large, complex issues categorized into such crude black/white perception...? Medico80 09:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe you are thinking of ECRI's report on Denmark, which got quite a lot of attention in 2006 for criticizing JP's Muhammad cartoons and is not mentioned in the article. The ENAR report quoted is a bit older (2004), though they both seem rather opinionated. Also, it seems absurd to me to pick out JP for causing "the rise of the anti-immigrant right-wing in Danish politics" if its articles are no more "anti-immigrant than other Danish papers". What's the point, besides a rather pathetic attempt to shoot down JP? (not a criticism of your comments) — Peter L <talk|contribs> 17:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] NPOV still compromised

I think this article as a whole still has serious problems. Is there a any chance, that a person not familiar with JP and Danish media in general, will read this article and get a positive/neutral perception of this newspaper? The way JP is presented here, it is hard to think it is the bestselling newspaper in a democracy, and that their news are also being read by people not from the political right.

All facts in the article seem to be correct and carefully quoted, ok. The problem is the disproportional emphasis on certain topics, especially its "stance on immigration" and political line in the past. Some editors here have done a great job finding quotes that may give the impression of af pro-nazi/fascist newspaper. I strongly believe, that there is no basis for thinking that JP was more/less approving of the political development in Germany, Italy and Spain in the 30's, than West European media and academia in general.

Why is there a "Stance on immigration" section? There are no sections about JP's stance on labour market, real estate tax and EU agriculture subsidies. One may get the impression that immigration comprises a huge part of JPs daliy news coverage. It doesn't. And then this bold claim that a fraudulent story in JP was responsible for the change of government in 2001... come on, be serious! Besides, the anti-immigrant accusations from certain grassroot movements are given more weight than necessary.

Finally, the "Trivia" section is biased. Trivia should be a list of less important but curious facts that aren't mentioned in other sections. Here trivia mostly looks like criticism of JP. Unless anyone has any actual trivia, I suggest we delete it for now.

In conclusion, I think this article needs a serious revision. Medico80 15:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Medico80 is correct, its not right to focus on immigration if its not a major concern of the paper. I can imagine having two sections here:

  1. "Stances" ought to cover those issues where the paper commonly holds a specific stance.
    At present, there is one significant anti-immigration case mentioned and one pro-immigration case mentioned. So the "stance on immigration" will need to be reported as unclear or debated, with a note to see the contraversies section.
  2. "Controversies" can contain subsections for each major controversy.
    I'd say the false reports about immigrants clearly qualifies. However, that information's current presentation is quite clearly POV aginst the paper. For example, the article presents this information as if it was a known false report used as a political tool, while making it fairly clear that sources don't support this conclusion.

I'd also move the ownership section down, but not realyl sure. JeffBurdges 12:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Fix is slightly more complex than I thought, but I tonned down some of the langauge just a tad. Needs much more. JeffBurdges 12:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. Will noone else participate in this discussion?? I will do something wp:bold soon. Medico80 16:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll be happy to chip in; this article has been annoying me for several months, though I haven't got myself pulled together to do much yet. A quick suggestion: adding a section on style, i.e., a basic walkthrough of JP's characteristics (priorities of different kinds of content, format and layout, comparison to other Danish papers etc.) in addition to its political line. I've been telling myself that I'll do it the next day for quite a while now - let's see if it'll be this time :) — Peter L <talk|contribs> 17:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I've been looking a bit around for high-quality Wikipedia articles on newspapers, and the one on The Guardian looks really well set-out, though a bit heavy on lists. It is also a former FAC; I would highly recommend it as inspiration to anyone interested in improving this article. — Peter L <talk|contribs> 21:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

How is Jyllands-Posten pronounced in standard or conventional English? I am sure most anglophones (my self included) could not pronounce, [ˈjylænsˌpʰʌsd̥n̩]--Greasysteve13 03:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There's an audio file linked at the top of the article containing a spoken "Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten"; "Jyllands-Posten" is pronounced like that without the "Morgenavisen" (heh). Anyway, an English approximation would be "YEE-lans-puh-styn" (the "yee" is stressed but short, like the "Yi" in "Yiddish"); please check with the audio file if you're in doubt. — Peter L <talk|contribs> 15:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay thanks. Did you mean "stin" when you said "styn"?--Greasysteve13 00:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Possibly, I'm not a native English speaker :) It is in any case closer to "stin" than "steen" or "styne"; in informal Danish, that last vowel is usually mumbled into obscurity anyway, so the name ends up something like this: "YEE-lans-puhs-dn" (for clarity: the a is pronouced like that in "cat", and the u as in "cut"). — Peter L <talk|contribs> 09:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. But y is a confusing letter in english. :)--Greasysteve13 08:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Call for German ban of the Qur'an!?

I've removed this claim from the article:

On March 7, 2006, the newspaper published an article urging the government of Germany to ban the central Islamic text, the Qur'an.

(These sources are given.) However, this claim is simply wrong. Read the article: it is a news story by their correspondent in Germany, not an editorial piece, which describes how some people in Germany have reported the Qur'an to the authorities. Those German people, unsurprisingly, happen to support the publication of the well-known cartoons, but the article is not an endorsement of their cause on JP's part. — Peter L <talk|contribs> 20:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy Page

Unrelated, but the controversy page linked to this has no options on it e.g. editing, but it doesn't say that it's locked or anything. Is there a reason for this? Everytime 18:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind it's working again. Very strange, that page alone wouldn't work (repeatedly) but I could navigate freely to other pages! Everytime 18:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liberal?

Should'nt "Liberal" be changes into "Libertarian" since Liberal means Left-Winger in English, unlike in danish where it means right wing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.239.178.165 (talk) 14:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)