Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No Surrender To Jihad!

You can periodically delete messages, but you can't delete the truth: you are hypocrites.

Who's talking about whom here? :-) 12.16.126.34 09:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Here will be no Sharia!

We Europeans refuse to submit under Sharia law. This is OUR land, Europe, and we are Europeans. Arabia is YOUR land, Arabs, and you have any rights to set up any laws there accepted by you. You may introduce censorship, medieval inquisition or even jungle's law in YOUR home. But here you are GUESTS, and we are HOSTS. We have Constitution here, not Sharia. Our laws do forbid "honour killings" and allows freedom of speech, including the right to critisize a religion. Here is Europe religions take a strictily determined place in the society, and not more. If any religion refuses to accept this, if it proclaims itself "more tham a religion", then it must be put out of religion protection, and treated as a regular political ideology, UNDERSTAND?

For Your Information

DEPICTING, SPREADING and STUFFING any parodies, caricatures about Muslim Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) IS CONSIDERED A BREACH OF RESPECT towards His IDENTITY.

I think we've figured that out already but it won't change the outcome of the poll. Should I remove this comment? It seems totally useless. Hitokirishinji 22:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I think this statetement tells not only Drawing Caricatures, but also Spreading and Stuffing of those images is considered dis respect and bring some light in what way the pictures to be discussed intimidate people.
Could someone please tell me what STUFFING is? It sounds sexy. Kyaa the Catlord 22:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • STUFFING means Storage


List of Vandals

I suggest that a list of some users and IP addresses who vandalize the image be created so that they may easily face consequences for their violations.

  • 163.121.171.245 (Giza, Egypt)
  • 212.138.47.17 (Jiddah, Saudi Arabia) (2 times)
  • 212.138.47.22 (Jiddah, Saudi Arabia)
  • 212.138.47.24 (Jiddah, Saudi Arabia)
  • Rajab (2 times)
That's wrong. Not 2 times. One was the 3 conversion rule, the second one was vandalism. Rajab 15:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • 203.162.2.133 (Hanoi, Vietnam) (5 times; blocked for 24 hours)
  • Rgulerdem (I lost count, blocked for 24 hours)
  • 85.101.15.247 (Ankara, Turkey) (at least 6 times)
  • 70.30.62.9 (Mississauga, Toronto, Canada) (at least twice)
  • 62.135.119.179 (Cairo, Egypt)
  • 65.66.219.77 (Houston, USA)
  • Anston35 (placed large image of a penis on the top of the article)
  • 212.138.47.21 (Jiddah, Saudi Arabia) (blanking)
  • 212.138.113.16 (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia) (blanking)
  • 212.138.47.17 (Jiddah, Saudi Arabia) (blanking)
  • 212.138.47.15 (Jiddah, Saudi Arabia) (twice, obscene nonsense)
  • 212.138.47.23 (Jiddah, Saudi Arabia) (blanking image)
  • 212.138.47.29 (Jiddah, Saudi Arabia) (blanking image)

updated by:


Related Topics

Something to consider; note that in 325 cartoons were not big but songs were; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism has a good story on early Christianity's experience in snuffing out humorous or populist messages that it did not like, i.e. Arius' song and his Thalia. Arius himself was apparently assasinated as well. Common denominator?

[Removed by European in Europe]

(Just what was removed??)

[I removed a "Piss Christ" message of an unshaved one.]

wiki-stupidity

I'll say this about this matter. Writing about this controversy is one thing that's quite fitting and right, publishing the idiot cartoons that caused it is quite another. It is an act of sheer provocative stupidity to all Muslims.

This is not freedom of speech, as the thoughtless twits who have been publishing those cartoons say, its an abuse of that prnciple. That's as much relevance as that concept has here. Publishing those cartoons here is holding a red rag to a bull, and needlessly and pointlessly so. By adding its name to the list of venues that have shown them, Wikipedia has further fanned the flames of this controversy.

Wikipedia is (at least in principle) an ENCYCLOPEDIA, we publish NPOV facts. That's NPOV. This is nothing neutral about an act like this.

To just what extent this will help al-Qaeda I don't know, but this kind of thing suits the purposes of al-Qaeda recruiters just fine.

Incidentally, I am not a Muslim. Arno 03:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, if you're so concerned with al-Queda'a opinion of this article, then maybe you should spend your time working on al-Queadapedia instead. --136.142.124.174 17:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I suspect you have deliberately misunderstood what I said, beyond that, your un-wikilovely comment does not merit a reply. Arno 03:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree, I'd like to point out that the pirate article is blasphemy toward the Flying Spaghetti Monster religion, the Israel article promotes a pro israeli agenda and the child porn article promotes views for people who dont accept sex with 5 year olds! How dare they! GraphicArtist 04:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to even bother answering this. The implication that you equate not publishing this picture with pro-pedophilia is reason enough not to. Arno 04:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
You're missing his point. He's saying that we can't take off a picture just because it offends one group of people. Reporting that the pictures exist is NPOV; commenting on the pictures wouldn't be. There's no crime in putting the pictures up.69.141.107.202 16:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
In order to present facts about the controversy, you actually have to cite the actual inflammatory material. People are not babies. Wikipedia isn't touting these images as its viewpoint, either. It's not stupid. QED. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 04:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
On this issue, it's being extremely stupid. It's as simple as that. I wouldn't care less if that picture was published because Venus entered Leo. It was published and that is provocation enough. Just by publishing that picture, wikipedia has involved itself in this controversy. Arno 04:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia's underlying philosophy regards the value of free exchange of information as axiomatic. If the controversy involves the free exchange of information - in this case, the display of controversial material - then Wikipedia can't not take a side in the controversy, if only implicitly. 216.162.217.132 05:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I second 216.162.217.132's motion. One of Wikipedia's fundamental principles is that of free information. Other groups have other goals, be they espousing the word of their lord, or protecting minorities from getting their feelings hurt, or discussing a common interest. When I wanted to view the cartoons that were in question, I went to Wikipedia first. I believe there are others like me who recognize wikipedia as a bastion of free thought. To limit that thought, even when the fear of retribution is real, is to betray that principle. I support the image, as the image is what the controversy is about. We are not Orwellian, we are allowed to know & see things that aren't "approved." Zenosparadox 06:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I came to Wikipedia first also. Regarding the "prohibition" of depicting Muhammed, it's not as total as the modern Muslim fundamentalists might have us believe. Muslims in past centuries did occasionally draw Muhammed. Here's a link to a whole collection of such depictions many painted by Muslims Zombietime.com's Muhammed Image Archive. I suggest adding this link as a reference. Also, if you read the discussion boards on this issue on Yahoo and elsewhere, over and over you see messages asking, "Where can I see the cartoons?" Given that, I think Wikipedia should have this info in order to be complete. Putting the original page from the original paper publishing them is, to me, the best way to handle this as historical info. However, I would also vote to move the images below the fold so they do not immediately grab the eye of the viewer. Rooster613 19:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Rooster613
Let us suppose that we follow the logic of removing the pictures. We travel back in time and completely censor the cartoons. They no longer exist. Anger from some muslims no longer exists now because the cartoon don't exist. The whole debate over the cartoons has also been destroyed. This is the paradox of censorship. People cannot argue over things they cannot see! Accountable Government 05:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Check out the Wikipedia article on Anti-Semitism. The fact is, people can and have written articles that include very offensive images while maintaining a neutral point of view. I'm sure that there are some people who don't like to see these things, but ultimately they shouldn't be looking up the topic in an encyclopedia if they can't endure what they're going to find! More to the point, freedom of speech is our cultural value. Maybe free speech really is inconsistent with Islamic law, just as it is now often so sorely abused by copyright law. Still, as surely as the Wikipedia servers will be forced to capitulate when the local apparachniks decide to ban insults to Islam, so just as surely they should resist imposing such censorship so long as it remains legal to discuss such issues in an adult fashion. Perhaps these cartoons are already becoming illegal, not under federal, state, or local law but by Islamic lynch law backed by cash bounties on the heads of cartoonists and editors --- but if so then those surrendering to it should at least do us the courtesy of being honest about their motivations, in the hope that an armed resistance to this invasion might someday be mustered. Mike Serfas 05:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


Not a syllable of the above replies has changed a syllable of what I have said: Those cartoons was published and that is provocation enough. Just by publishing that picture, wikipedia has involved itself in this controversy. Furthermore , publishing that picture is an act that has now been condemned by many governments and organisations, including the United Nations. Of course, people like whoever it was who wrote the above paragraph always know better..... Arno 02:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC) .

Yes Arno, wikipedia has indeed taken a stand. A stand for information proliferation. As I say above, I came to wikipedia to see the image, so I could judge for myself. Others will do the same. Zenosparadox 06:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for confirming that a deplorable desire to use this wikipedia to "take a stand" rather than for craeting an encyclopedia article is playing a part in all this. Arno 08:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This "raging debate" is an example of a whole new breed of computer virus. It's spreading like wildfire and will end up doing far more damage than any computer virus we've known before it. The genius behind this virus is that it feeds off what people demand as consumers on one hand, and what people believe in on the other. Incubation in both groups of "carriers" results in wave after wave of either more sites publishing the images or acts of violence in the streets. It's only a matter of time before Muslims in direct response start glorifying new images offensive to non-Muslims, and non-Muslims take their turn in the streets with their own acts of violence -- and not necessarily in that order. Right now, the old statement that "I will fight to the death for your right to say it" is certainly not being shown at street level yet (the Muslims are overwhelmingly dominating there), but counter demonstrations are sure to break out when people start getting hurt. A clash-of-civilizations pandemic seems inescapable, judging from the inflexible stands taken on this page and despite the pleas of even the founder of Wikipedia to show reason and compassion. 12.16.126.34 11:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You'll excuse me if I'm compounding a felony by responding to something that is not directly on-topic, and may not deserve to be on a talk page. However, to 12.16.126.34, you will note the quote you gave ("...defend to death your right to say it." was from François-Marie Arouet, (Voltaire). Voltaire was a child of the enlightenment. I will offer another quote from a great child of the enlightenment, an American in spirit if there ever was one (the practical philosopher) Benjamin Franklin: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security."
If I can relate that back to the topic at hand, this issue, this picture, is one of vital importance to wikipedia--it is about whether or not we are willing to corrupt wikipedia's nature to alleviate hurt feelings, and the natural response to hurt feelings, anger. The existence of the picture on the page is integral, I feel, to wikihonesty & wikintegrity. Zenosparadox 16:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
My answer to this never did arrive, it seems. I'll return to it later.To paraphrase Ben Franklin above, what is the price of the whistle here (of showing that cartoon)? An absolutely useless one at that? And who did just invite this wikipedia in taking part in the worlds' affairs? Arno 03:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely not Arno! Your "answer" wasn't found because you never posed a question (the difference between a rant and a question is often (but not always) drawn by a question mark). What is the value of showing this cartoon? How can anyone judge the offensiveness of something without seeing it? Fundamentally, the purpose of gaining information as individuals is to be able to judge as much as we can for ourselves. To that end, wikipedia displays these cartoons to further information dissemination. Any description of the cartoon is going to be more biased than showing the cartoon itself. A picture is worth one thousand words--in this case, it's the basis of many, many more--the entire article. We show the cartoon in the interests of information dissemination. That precisely, is the price of the whistle (in this case, the price of deleting the picture -- the freedom to make up one's own mind. Zenosparadox 04:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Actions speak louder than words. Angry Muslims burned down Danish embassies and ran the Danes out of their countries. Even if some individual perpetrators are brought to justice in those countries, they will always be heroes to many Muslims everywhere. They are the ones who got in the last word, relishing the fact that Denmark has no legal right to respond in kind.12.16.126.34 08:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I had an answer here that I thought that I'd posed but which never arrived. I think I neglected to push the save page button, and I was under some pressure to finish quickly at the time. Arno 08:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This controversy involves free speech and censorship. Wikipedia must be involved in it. Who cares if it's provocative? It needs to be published. The purpose of this encyclopedia is to keep a living historical record. By not publishing the cartoons, we would be omitting them from the historical record.--Osprey39 23:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This 'don't care' attitude is precisely what this wikipedia can do without. Arno 03:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Then let the record show that when these pictures were published, the right-wing publisher knew they would offend over 1 billion Muslims, and that thousands of these Muslims responded peacefully, and hundreds of them responded by burning down several embassies, and that no country has been able to defend itself against these burnings or to respond to the burnings with any military force, and that in spite of this, Wikipedia is deciding to not only publish the photos, but to provide a permanent archive for them, thus making them freely distributable worldwide in perpetuity.12.16.126.34 03:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Hear, hear! People like Osprey seem utterly unable to grasp this point ( Though I hesitate to call Jimbo 'right-wing'....) Arno 03:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
To call a spade a spade, I'm quite sure they will have plenty of permanent archives for these cartoons. (Every good University library, for instance, on microfilm, microfiche, or a host of other media). It's permanently archived on wikipedia anyway--it'll always be in the archives. The only point is to make the information contained in this picture easily available. My question is just this--what is the price of keeping them (the price of removing them is self-censorship in the interests of not hurting feelings--a noble goal perhaps, but one that is fundamentally unacademic (on an adult level)). Zenosparadox 04:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Since you are such an apostle of human rights, may I point out to you that the USA also guarantees freedom of religion? This cartoon is in breach of that right. Arno 09:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok look, I understand your point Arno. But my point is that these cartoons were published, that's what happened. If we are to document what happened, we have to show what it is that they published. We can't have an article about a controversy and not show the reader what the controversy surrounds. Many people get offended by Nazi Swastikas. Should we then not show the reader what a Nazi Swastika looks like? As Zenosparadox points out, it's unacademic. The image in the main article isn't even that large or detailed.--Osprey39 05:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
"If we are to document what happened, we have to show what it is that they published." No.You.do.not. Furthermore, your analogy about brandishing a Swastika and those cartoons is a false one. The Swastika is not a sacred, forbidden image. You are only demonstrationg what seems to be a poor understanding of the nature of showing those cartoons, one of which plainly links Mohammed with Al-Qaeda. Arno 08:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be antagonistic here, no need to get so riled up. Perhaps the best other example I can come up with is Whitehouse v. Lemon. It deals with "The Love That Dares To Speak Its Name," a clearly blasphemous poem. The article at the very least provides a link to the poem, and I would contend that it would not be improper to include the entire text of the poem or excerpts in the article. And I think the same should be done here. At the very least, there needs to be a link to the cartoons, if not the actual cartoons themselves.--Osprey39 20:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Offence and Soothing

Lotsofissues made a very good point before. If somebody uploaded a porn picture of your sister wouldn't you remove it too? Even if it's only a minority who are strongly offended by the pictures they should never the less be removed / or at least a warning given! That's the essence of don't_be_a_dick Rajab 12:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well i have no problem with the images being moved down to lower inthe article. You could then have a warning at the top of the page to people who don't want to see the cartoons. Then people could choose whether or not to look at them. (prehaps put them at the bottom of the article)User:slamdac 12:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Slamdac, that would already be a great step forward. At the moment any Muslim who casually clicks on the front page will get here, become offended & engage in the edit war. I believe that if the picture was further down (just like you said) then much less Vandals would be attracted to this site. Unfortunately there are probably too many people from your side who fall under WP:DBAD to achieve this. We tried it a few days ago but it didn't work... Rajab 12:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
The intentions are very important: the article does not use the image as mockery of islam (unlike some of the Danish cartoonists) but exmplains to (mostly) non-muslims why it is seen as a mockery and how people react to it, with other cartoons for example. Showing something is not the same as promoting something. My sister was modelling nude for a medical encyclopedia, is quite different from an insulting picture of my sister in a sadistic newspaper. This is scientific wikipedia, not the Daily Telegraph. -- ActiveSelective 12:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
It has been done, but quite a few people put the image back on top. If the image gets moved down, we should certanly put up a warning, and let people on the talk page know that it should stay there. AlEX 13:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Now, frankly, if we have to discuss these drawings, how can we do it without presenting them ? And if someone does not want to see these drawings, can't he go somewhere else than on this precise article ? This is exactly the sort of discussions that were going on, and on, and on, and on, and... on autofellatio, and frankly, I believe I am not the only one to be tired of that. Rama 13:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

go on, discuss & show your drawings as much as you like. But put a warning on the top of the page & put the cartoon in the middle. That way they cause a lot less offense: WP:DBAD Rajab 15:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I second Rajab's comments above. I think sticking the images at the top could be seen to be rubbing the muslims noses in it User:slamdac 15:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Avoiding offense is a ridiculous suggestion. Since every opnion will cause somebody to feel hurt it in effect means opinions are prohibited. Adopting that idea would result in deleting the evolution article (undoubtedly offensive to ID proponents), atheism would also be deleted, et cetera.
Furthermore, I would like to point out that those taking offense are miraculously silent when it comes to the anti-semitic and anti-christian cartoons and articles being presented in the muslim community. Also we should be discussing the homophobic and anti-female remarks. I am not even reacting to the curious part of Islam where killing other people apparently is acceptable, but a drawing of the Prophet is not.--Holland Nomen Nescio 17:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • What an idiot! How do you know there is "antisemitism" and "antichristian" cartoons in "muslim" media? Do you read them? Can you even read Arabic/Turkish/Urdu/Farsi/etc...?—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
No, I don't read these languages, but I know a stereotyped drawing of a Jew when I see one, even without translation -- and there are plenty of these on Arab sites. Plus there is an example of an offensive depiction of the Star of David as twisted snakes, taken from an Arab pub, on the Anti-Semitism page. For that matter, the same page has a whole section on antisemitism in the Muslim world. Not to mention that Muslim leaders keep publishing and circulating that libelous, hateful forgery, the Protocols of Zion, as if it were the "truth" about Jews. Rooster613 23:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Rooster613
But Nomen, the thing is that not all Muslim bash the Semitic (Semitic also Arabic people), bash women (in like Malaysia and other place, women have a lot of right too,) and homophobic, but all Muslim hate people bashing their saints. And yes, im not muslim, but i dont like that either because i dont like people bashing other in the public. Keep those junk in the garbage.
I do not say they all are anti-semetic or other things. Yet they are silent about it, as opposed to the uproar over the cartoons. You either oppose satire against every religion and people, or you do not say anything. It is highly selective to only protest lampooning the Prophet.--Holland Nomen Nescio 02:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Bashing others are crap, it is as simple as that. I suffered racism and prejudice and thus i know how that feel, even thought time in my live, I wanna scream out those hate word, but I won't because I know if I do, i will hurt their feel, and it is not right.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
This is not bashing, being oversensitive to things is what we are talking about. Everything should be possible to discuss even if to some it might be hurtful. If everything that might hurt could not be said, in effect all opinions are prohibited.--Holland Nomen Nescio 10:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Wut if i said something that is insult your country, your religion??? If you get upset over it, can I call you a sensitive then????? Put yourself in their POV!!!!!
Choosing one POV over another is a crime against NPOV policy. And, since you asked, these sort of "slights" are done regularly in the West against a multitude of countries and religions, but do we start riots, burning embassies and inciting murder? No. Kyaa the Catlord 21:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Members of Islam possess absolutely no argument of merit when demand that these depictions or their artists be censored. The fact that no Muslim head of state or political/religious leader has ever publically stated without condition that the blowing up of civilians is wrong proves that this among other illegalities are condoned by the Muslim religion. Muslims have to understand that as mad as they are, burning down other people's embassies is the incorrect response. Their religious taboos cannot and should not be enforced on those not subscribing to their religion. The outspoken Muslim critics should instead voice their concerns towards the radical members of their own religion whose actions have formed the global impression of Islam today.

AE/BE standardi(z/s)ation

I don't know if we want to wait for the furor to die down, but someone needs to make sure that we're using only one form of English in this article. My guess would be BE. I'm assuming that's the variant that's in use in Denmark? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

According to the MoS, American English only applies to the US and British English only applies to the UK, IIRC. In all other cases, I think the first edit is to be used as a reference. The article was created by User:Cloud02. He used the word centre (instead of center). Centre is Commonwealth English, so I believe that according to the MoS BE should be used in the article. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 19:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with your reasoning, but come to the same conclusion. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
The MOS is more complicated than that. BE would apply to Irish articles, for example. But I don't think there's any reason to think any particular form is more popular in Denmark, to the extent of being the 'standard' English in use there. So the only rules that seem to apply are the 'first major edit' rule and the 'proper noun' rule. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 15:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The first major edit was probably the article's creation, since it was quite large for a new article. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 17:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter. British and American English are so similar that anyone who can read one can read the other. Also, I'm sure pretty much everyone has been exposed to both of them. I don't even notice anymore when words have an extra "u" in them, for example. --Cyde Weys 19:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Consistency is important. Right now we have both "organization" and "organisation" in the same article, for example. This is unprofessional, unacceptable, and against our policies. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Variety is the spice of life. Maybe organization and organisation isn't perfect but it's not unprofessional nor unacceptable. --Cyde Weys 23:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd say the burden of proof is on you to show a professional situation in which that would be considered non-problematic. As for unacceptable... well, I suppose that's a matter of opinion, but it's undeniably against policy. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 05:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Claim that anti-Semetic cartoons are not found in European news-media

There should be something in the article discussing the fact that anti-Semetic editorial cartoons are indeed found in European news media, with little public outrage. See: The Volokh Conspiracy. Jacoplane 00:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Find a credible source and then we'll talk. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
the difference is that the Jyllands-Posten is a (conservative) mainstream newspaper, not some neo-nazi publication. It exemplifies that islamophobia has become acceptable Rajab 10:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't claim it was a credible source, but the fact that the UK's Political Cartoon Society awarded the Sharon cartoon the first prize in its annual competition for best cartoon is well known. Some sources [1] [2] [3] [4] [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35842]. I definitely agree that a blog doesn't meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources, but I was just trying to start a discussion ;) Jacoplane 00:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Except that the Sharon cartoon was not anti-semitic. Someone put in a false description of it claiming it was printed on Holocaust Memorial day (it was not). The cartoon is no more anti-semitic than a cartoon of George Bush looking like a monkey and attacking somewhere is racist against white people. GoatSe 19:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
That Sharon cartoon is hilarious. It's a good thing he is a politician and not a prophet. Isn't it?209.124.118.32
The point is that it is based of the Goya painting. From Volokh: "The cartoon invoked two of the most heinous and longstanding themes in European anti-Semitism: Jews lusting after the blood of non-Jewish children, and Jews as demonic beasts". So this cartoon is more than just a political statement involving Sharon, and definitely anti-semitic. Jacoplane 01:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, you mean Cronos eating Zeus? No, that has nothing to do with jews. Just that Sharon is a monster of a politician209.124.118.32
Um, the original painting is called "Saturn Devouring His Son". While that original painting has nothing to do with Judaism, the symbology clearly invokes the accusation of Jewish blood libel. The depiction of Jews as demons was also a common practice in Medieval times. See: Judensau, Judeophobia. Anyway, my main point is that the accusation that some made that European news media would not show anti-semitic cartoons is surely discredited by the fact that this cartoon won the 2003 UK "cartoon of the year", and the article should reflect that. Jacoplane 01:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
There is a seperate article dealing with Blood libel against Jews. An interesting excerpt: "On December 20, 2005, in a discussion with Iranian political analysts aired on Jaam-e Jam 2 Iranian TV, the author of the book The History of the Jews who works for the Tehran Times Dr. Hasan Hanizadeh said in particular: "Unfortunately, the West has forgotten two horrendous incidents, carried out by the Jews in 19th-century Europe - in Paris and London, to be precise. In 1883, about 150 French children were murdered in a horrible way in the suburbs of Paris, before the Jewish Passover holiday. Later research showed that the Jews had killed them and taken their blood. ... A similar incident took place in London, when many English children were killed by Jewish rabbis. ..."[5]". Jacoplane 00:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
And while I, as a Jew, was offended by the steretypical imagery used in the Sharon cartoon (which does indeed evoke some ugly antisemitic themes), I would not try to censor it, nor would I riot over it. And if it were posted here for some valid historical reason (it did, after all, win a prize), I would not want it removed. Rooster613 19:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Rooster613
Can you really not distinguish between anti-semitism & anti-sharon? Rajab 10:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
You can if the imagery used stereotypes Jews. Rooster613 19:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Rooster613
Did you even read what I wrote? Jacoplane 11:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
On a related note, the Arab European League has started posting cartoons on its website. Jacoplane 19:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
More: [6], [7] Jacoplane 00:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
How significant that the first one they post is about Holocaust denial. Offensive? Yes. But will I riot or issue a fatwa to kill the cartoonist? No. Rooster613 23:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Rooster613
On a related note: 6,150,000 web pages for your enjoyment. Weregerbil 00:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
it is the context in which the muhammad (pbuh) cartoons appear. They imply that muhammad himself was terrorist / supports terrorism and come at a time when Muslims perceive increasing islamophobia in the west.Rajab 10:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


What do Jesus cartoons prove? That (we) westerners have lost absolutely any respect for anything holy and sacred? I think muslims are disgusted by Muhammad and Jesus cartoons all the same. A prophet is a prophet.209.124.118.32
It shows an ability to maintain context. Your religion is in your heart and your head, not on a newspaper page half a world away. If your belief is strong then no image will harm you. If your belief is weak then you will see an enemy in every event that surrounds you. --StuffOfInterest 02:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Once again, claiming jesus was "merely" a prophet is highly offensive to christians and your saying it clearly proves you have no respect for others. WookMuff 03:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not 'highly offensive to christians'. I think most Christians would just think you were *wrong*, and perhaps tell you that. It's not *offensive* any more than saying 2+2=3 is 'offensive'. 163.1.167.7 08:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

SOMEONE PLEASE POST the following paragraph after the first paragraph; My UserID doesn't have rights; see my new name for the reason.

Demands of critics of the cartoons, including demands for boycotts, punishment, censorhship, apologies, the making of death threats-including Fatwas, etc are seen as highly hypocritical by many, considering the frequent, widespread, and unjustified depiction of Jews in even more Arab media as blood-drinking, baby-eating, etc., which contrasts with the well documented quotes from Islam's Koran that show that Mohammed endorsed the type of violence that the cartoons depict.[1] TIA. IReceivedDeathThreats 19:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Muslims point of view

Moved to Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments#Muslims_point_of_view

One cartoon might be enough

Yesterday, I started a new poll (Poll 3). Unfortunately, it is vandalized by some people. I would like to post it again. I ask your contribution and attention on this important issue. Thanks 216.248.123.62 01:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the poll. This is getting out of hand. We're literally averaging one poll every 12 hours. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 02:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry, there will be plenty more. One thing I learned during a trip to Turkey is that they deal is never done. A hanshake, money exchanged, promises made, yet the shop keeper will still come back demanding more. This article is likely to be a battleground for a very long time to come and random vandalism/removal will never go away because some out there have no concept of consensus or finality. --StuffOfInterest 02:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The ones above are different from what I am asking. I assume that you are able to understand what you read. Please read the begionning of the poll.
I can't see how you attempt to delete my discussion. You cannot do it. It is called vandalism! 216.248.122.166 02:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Wiki Should Respect sacred figures

If including this picture is purely for democratic and informational reasons why do the pictures come from an anti-islam site (who's author hates islam), can you find any self respecting site that still holds this outrageous insult to muslims. Now I do respect all people opinions about keeping the picture but do you rally approve of cartoons that portray lets say the late pope or mother teresa or any religious figure in a shameful way, if you do then I have to ask why dishounering them is so neccessary to you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.165.138.98 (talk • contribs) .

Because the articles about the late pope or mother teresa are not about showing people making satirical drawings, this article details the situation when some people were making satirical drawings (Of a non-sacred figure to boot) of a person, so thusly, the drawings are highly important to display. Homestarmy 02:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

So i take it you don't believe that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is a prophet and because of that your opinion is the one that counts (although you should be clear by now that this insults our religion), ignoring all us muslims. Ok what about the source of pictures as i mentioned above, do you really want to make wiki appear as a biased unrespectable source of information.--Khalil

Khalil, rail against these images all you want. That's a civilized response to a percieved insult. However, be prepared to deal with the fact that the world is not yours to command, and that others will not submit to a demand. Mohammed may be sacred to you, but freedom is sacred to me.
Showing people what the world is about is only disrespectful to those who want to tell others what to do and what to think. Sensitivities do not warrant (self)censsorship. Demanding respect would be better understood if people did not threaten to kill or burn buildings. --Holland Nomen Nescio 10:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Censoring something that happened is, well, censorship. Ignoring the pictures doesn't make them go away, it just makes Wikipedia seem like a site that panders to the greater good. That leads to Fahrenheit 451. As for him being a prophet, that's a matter of opinion. 69.141.107.202 16:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Technically speaking, my own private opinion shouldn't affect Wikipedia unless it is consensus. However, it apparently is, furthermore, as has been pointed out many times already, this isn't Islamopedia. Homestarmy 14:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Like I've said above in poll 3, it is not the purpose of wikipedia to respect/disrespect anything. What "is", is what you'll get. Nothing else. Just the facts. Some of us just don't seem to get that when wikipedia displays this graphic, it's sole intention is not to dishonor, but just to offer an impartial account of events and things. In other words, don't shoot the messenger just because it upsets you. If we were to alter or remove this graphic, we would be catering to one group's specific opinion, and in effect, subjecting the rest of the wiki community to their censorship. In my opinion, that would be unacceptable. --Psotau 19:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Since the cartoons were drawn by infidels, why are they even relevant to and being discussed by Moslims?22:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Horrible prose

Does Wikipedia ever freeze an article and let some editors rework these tangled sentences and fix the style errors? The phone book reads better.--217.34.54.228 02:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope
Although they could, especially after this calms down - there are tags asking people not to edit while someone refactors.

You cannot close a poll I started!

Poll closed. Image kept.Archived. See Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Poll3--File Éireann 03:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

fire (don't FIRE!)

The article mentions that, regarding the burning of embassies, that the chilean and swedish embassies had nothing to do with it. What does the norwegian embassy? WookMuff 03:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

  • They probably thought the flag looked similar. Jdcooper 05:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
They were the first to republish the cartoons Cacophobia (Talk) 08:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The flags don't match in any way; the Swedish and Chilean embassies were located in the same building as the Danish. The Norwegian was burn because the Christian newspaper Magazinet was among the first to reprint the cartoons.

I live in Norway, and I feel quite annoyed that Muslims believe this newspaper represent Norway in any way. I hadn't even heard of it before they reprinted the cartoons, and Norway is the country in western Europe with the smallest per cent Christians. Sorry if I'm too off-topic. Turbogooner 18:17, 5 February 2006 (GMT+1)

Why was the edit stating that Magazinet was a right-wing Christian paper removed? As it stands now, one should believe it was a paper representing most Christians in Norway, which is not true. If you read Magazinet you will quickly observe that they politically identify themselves with the right-wing Progress Party, if not further to the right. --129.177.30.18 23:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Please see the Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#JP_.22right_wing.22_newspaper.3F discussion. The words "right wing" have a meaning, and there was no independent NPOV confirmation that the paper fits that description. In fact, evidence to the contrary was found. Please cite credible verifiable sources if you have different information. Weregerbil 00:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking for a democrat...

I cannot ask a question to the community. My discussion has been continiously vandalized. Is there any democrat around here, to support me for asking feedback from users? 216.248.124.114 03:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

are you the guy that keeps trying to open a new poll to refute the previous polls? WookMuff 03:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I am the one who is asking to the users about the nature of the cartoon. (Pool 3 (Vote For Just One Cartoon without the Image of Mohammed)). Previous polls were about if we should have the cartoons. My question is what kind of cartoon should we have? 216.248.122.197 03:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

What is the purpose of a poll if no one else wants it? — TheKMantalk 03:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

That is not true. Just a few vandalls...
Let us say noone wants it. They they just ignore it... Why some people do not let the users see my question? Do they fear if something may change? 216.248.125.12 03:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Then post your question. There is no need to make another worthless poll out of it. — TheKMantalk 03:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
That is not the point. The point is, how come some people set a barrieer if I want to post a poll. If I want to discuss it in the form of a poll. If people do not like it, they can just ignore it... Isnt that right?

The question is this:

It is enough to have just one cartoon without the image of Mohammed. It doesn't include any insult as claimed and enough to represent the dispute. This might lead to a comprimise and worth to try!

In other words, what is asked in this pool is: Instead of putting a cartoon whcih is found offensive by many, can we put another one without the image of Mohammad, but still give the idea about what is happening (an example; the artist drawing a cartoon!)

So, the previous ones was about should we keep the cartoons, this pool is about what should we post there!

What is wrong if I want to have a poll for it? 216.248.125.12 04:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


I'm a Democrat and I support freedom of speech, as do most of us, I think. If you're looking for sympathy in your arguments from Democrats you're not going to find it. --Cyde Weys 04:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Bravo, here is the freedom of speech. You are not different from J-P editors! 216.248.125.12 04:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

maybe you need to look for support more from a dictatorial theocrat? WookMuff 04:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't need support from a dictator. Thanks.... 216.248.125.12 04:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

until it comes time to raise a fuss, then its lets get the theocrats to weigh in, calling for violence and revenge WookMuff 04:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


I have no freedom of speech here. Can anybody see it? My contribution in a 'discussion page' continuously been vandalized. Some of thees vandals are admins.

Can anybody tell me according to what rules or regulations of Wiki, a poll I started can be deleted? 216.248.125.12 04:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Voting is evil. m:Don't vote on everything. The first and second polls were needed. This one is not, since it clearly is in opposition to consensus. There is no need to keep this poll. — TheKMantalk 04:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The poll is nothing to do with consensus from the previous polls. Cant you see it, or prefer not to see it?

  • Please do not miss the point that, the poll I started completely different form the previous ones. Please read the beginning of the poll, there is enough explanation. 216.248.125.12 04:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Let the people show their preference. What you are deleting it? If they do not like it, they just ignore... Two poll were active here, nobody closed them in the middle. To delete the poll is also not respectful to the people who voted

The poll you started is completely in line with the previous polls. The main image poll came to the resounding consensus that the cartoons should be kept in the article. If you decide to keep a cartoon, you automatically decide not to replace it. There already is an answer to your poll from the main poll: no, the image won't be replaced, the cartoons stay in the article. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 17:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I did not participate on the previous polls and belive there are many other people who have not. If previous polls resulted with majority being in favour of keeping any depiction of caricatures on pages of wikipedia I will vote to remove them completely from any type of information media. DEPICTING, SPREADING and STUFFING any parodies, caricatures about Muslim Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) IS CONSIDERED A BREACH OF RESPECT towards His IDENTITY. Consequently the identity of every Muslim. If Wikipedia maintenance organisation continues to publish it, in what way it is different from those, who having made cartoons failed/refused to show respect towards human beliefs and sacred values.

Scales

Merge "reactions" and "opinions"?

Methinks it would be beneficial to rip out chapter 5 "opinions" and move it to the sub-page "reactions" (which used to be chapter 4) because 1) there are lots of duplicates between these entries. 2) there is lots of superfluous stuff, e.g. the vice president of country X stating something, then a day later the president of country X stating somthing quite similar, only a day later. I say, let's keep the one from the boss, unless the two disagree. 3) this will give a chance to better tell apart opinions to the initial danish publication from those to the re-publication, from those to the recent escalation. 4) It will give a chance to better seperate, say, opinion polls from comments of those involved, from voices of those not really involved, but considered important, from accounts of who is presently torching which embassies. 4) this has been proposed elsewhere on the talk page already and ssen no opposition

the reactions/opinions page sees little "attack" at present. This will facilitate consolidation. At some point, when this whole unfortunte affair is kind of over, chapters 4+5 can possible be merged with the main article again.

Comments? Azate 04:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


You cannot close a poll someone else started for no reason

(poll snipped) The polls are over. You don't get to run as many polls as you want until you obtain the desired result. Anon, continue re-adding this silly nonsense and you will be facing WP:3RR and a block. --Cyde Weys 06:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Who said it is? This is a different idea, worth to try! Resid Gulerdem 06:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Block IP range 212.138.47.xx

Multiple IPs in this range have hit already 12 blanks of the page. Can an admin block that range of IPs? Hitokirishinji 05:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Or, if that is not possible, here are all of the specific IPs that have been vandalizing the article:
  1. 212.138.47.21 (blanking)
  2. 212.138.47.17 (blanking)
  3. 212.138.47.15 (twice, obscene nonsense)
  4. 212.138.47.23 (blanking image)
  5. 212.138.47.29 (blanking image)
  6. 212.138.47.17 (2 times)
  7. 212.138.47.22
  8. 212.138.47.24

AscendedAnathema 06:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that this range is the window on the cyberworld for Saudi Arabia: all internet traffic from Saudi Arabia comes through either 212.138.47.0/255 or 212.138.113.0/255 (which has also been blanking). We certainly cannot block for an extended period, although I did hit some of the range for five minutes earlier on. Physchim62 (talk) 06:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
It seems like the 212.138.113.00 through 212.138.113.30 would be an appropriate range to block if that is possible or becomes necessary. Also, why is the article not simply protected from edits by anonymous users? It had been briefly a day or two ago and it was quite effective.AscendedAnathema 06:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I have range blocked 212.138.47.0/30 (which is the same as 212.138.47.xx) for 5 minutes due to the huge amount of vandalism coming through on those IP's but a longer block cannot be implemented due to the fact that blocking that range cuts an entire country off. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 06:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I understand how cutting an entire country off, no matter how great the proportion of vandalism coming from it happens to be, is unacceptable. What I don't understand is why this article isn't simply protected from editing by new or anonymous users. There has to be a reason for this considering the incomprehensible amount of vandalism this article has been subjected to. AscendedAnathema 06:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The policy is that articles linked from the main page may not be protected. The idea is that users should be able to edit the articles which we advertise there. However, given the circumstances we have to choose between our evils: I have semi-protected the page, and left a note at WP:AN to see if any bright sparks there have other ideas. Physchim62 (talk) 06:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Tact is not censorship

If material is offensive to a significant portion of our readership, we should be tactful and put a warning at the top of the page, and keep the offensive material "below the fold" if then possible. The example of Oral sex given above is a straightforward analogy; an even closer one is Goatse.cx. For what possible reason should the Goatse image be remote-linked from the Goatse article while these cartoons should be at the very top of this article? (For those who don't know what Goatse is, here's a link—it's pretty gross.)

Tact is not censorship. It's acknowledging that Wikipedia doesn't want to disgust its readership more than is necessary to convey the information it's meant to convey. Nothing whatsoever is lost from the article if a warning is added to the top and the image moved down. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, just passing by to say that I strongly agree with this. algumacoisaqq 04:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the above. Several other editors have tried to make this point above but have all tired of being shouted down. Tempshill 03:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
As I said elsewhere, adding a warning solves nothing if you go ahead and show the picture anyway. Those who are angry, aren't angry that they saw the picture, they are angry simply knowing Jyllands-Posten printed the picture. Hiding the picture may spare some the hurt of seeing it, but you're still showing it and therefore you're still violating the taboo against iconic representations.--Snorklefish 16:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
As a practical matter, it was noted earlier that several times when the picture was moved "below the fold", the revert war stopped. Some value is therefore evidently added. Tempshill 20:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Snorklefish, of course many Muslims would still be offended. However, it might be possible to reduce the offensiveness of the article if a warning is put on top of the page, so that at least Muslim viewers wouldn't have to look upon the sacrilege if they chose not to. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
You know, as gross as that pic is, I think the original goatse one was even worse. Are you sure they're the same? The original is something I try hard not to remember. 71.141.251.153 05:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I also agree with the above. Wikipedia should respect people; telling people to fsck off if they are offended is a complete lack of respect. Samboy 06:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe Wikipedia should tell things as they are, without hiding people from stuff they may find "offensive" -- otherwise, how will anyone, on either side of the issue, get the full facts of the case. To deny any aspect of the visual representation of this article or to shunt it down to obscurity within the doldrums of the article is an insult to people who don't have to abide by the laws of one religion, no matter how large. Sol. v. Oranje 07:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
im not sure however how many 'people who don't have to abide by the laws of one religion' are actually insulted by a lesser visual representation of an image. nothing in this world is absolute, having complete free speech or anything for that matter without having a counterbalance is unwise. Chensiyuan 17:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Then you do think the Goatse picture should be at the top of Goatse.cx (or, in fact, in the article altogether), Soldaatvanoranje, or am I misunderstanding you? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Simetrical, more apropos here than Goatse is how Wikipedia has handled images that are obscenely offensive to other religious communities. For the umpteenth time, see Piss Christ for an example for how Wikipedia deals with the hysterical anger of Christians: the answer is we ignore it, because their religious freak-outs are irrelevant to the project of building an encyclopedia. We keep the Piss Christ image right up at the top where everyone can see it. We do that for Christians and for Jews and for Scientologists and for every other such community...should we really make a special exception for Muslims, show them a deference we show no other religious or ideological or political group? My vote is no. Babajobu 03:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
religious freak out??? irelevant to the project??? let me inform you that religious people are not necessarily freak-outs. arabic wikipedia where the majority of peoples are moslems build the encyclopedia and reached over 10000 articles in a very short time. I m a little bit desappointed: i thought you understand the correlation between liberty and responsability. that you vote with no thats you right; but i consider that it s not ok to vilify or debase every one who defend himself or his beliefs. I think seeing the encyclopedy like you do is not the best angle of view. Mr babajou you surly know the main idea of wikipedia wich is the free circulation or the equality in chances of access to informations. this idea one can put it in a ethical frame this will induce or let you see some other ethical issues or evidences or related topic in the same larger frame...(call it as you like). i think thats the right angle to look to things. about you question "...special exeption for muslims...politicalgroups?": it suggest that there is no difference on the theortical level between us!!?? that means if you find a way of not making exception for all other so there will be no problems in deleting the pictures??? (you answer is surly no :-)) so it s a practical problem :-). I understand your idea and i have to be aware and to apply it as sysop in the arabic wikipedia but i always have to keep in mind the duality of liberty and responsability and where the right of the other begins (this surly a process wich is not only controlled by me) try to find a kind of balance or moderation as mentioned somewehre here. In your work in the enciclopedy try to be minimal restrective (too much rules or ristrections leads in the loss of liberty. and the exrcise of liberty has many aspects so if the people decide to practice their liberty in this way why restricting them ??). last but not least i will copy your end of the message my vote is TO DELETE THE PICTURE and replace it by approriate discriptionمبتدئ 05:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
How do you feel about this? Freedom of speech gives everyone an absolute right to blaspheme any religion. Valtam 06:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and state that I'm one of the people that believes hello.jpg belongs somewhere in the article on goatse.cx, but ultimately I think the comparison is disingenuous. Goatse.cx, as the entry says in the first paragraph, is an internet shock site whose only purpose is to shock, to trigger a gut reaction and not much more. There's no real attempt at a message there beyond "Hey, look at me!"
However, each and every one of the charicatures tried to have some deeper meaning; some perhaps meant to offend, but most generally trying to get the audience to think. In other words, they're not the grainy photographs that were claimed to be a part of the original comics (which, as I've seen, have been remote-linked). For better or for worse, they seem intended to incite debate (which they certainly have here) rather than just stick with the initial "ZOMG!!!11!!1!!!". Guppy313 04:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Regardless, as I say the more analagous examples are ones in which we've dealt with images extremely upsetting to religous, ideological or political groups. Wikipedia hasn't bent to accommodate their demands, and it shouldn't do so here, either. Babajobu 04:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The question is not the reason for the offensiveness, it's the degree of the offensiveness. Very, very few things are this offensive to only a specific political, religious, or ideological group; generally, things that are that offensive are offensive to pretty much everyone. Piss Christ was nowhere near as offensive to Christians as this is to Muslims; there were no death threats, no economic sanctions, not even any large-scale protests AFAIK. There's not even any mention on Talk:Piss Christ of removing the image, because no one found it that offensive. You can't compare them.

The fact is, most Westerners are very laid-back about people insulting their views, are reconciled to the fact that others may strongly disagree with them, and therefore aren't particularly offended by political, religious, or ideological attacks. If almost no one is offended, there's no reason to remove anything. If a significant portion of our readership is offended, we should be considerate and give them fair warning at least. This is not "bending to accomodate their demands", it's basic decency. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not pass judgment on what it's okay to be offended by. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The question becomes: what are the people who profess to be the ones harmed most offended by? Is it the fact that they might see the image, or that the image exists at all? If Wikipedia purports to be an encyclopedia, then the image needs to be retained for use by future researchers. I personally find many of the images reprehensible -- however, future researchers should be able to see the object of the anger of many in the Muslim world is, and if you keep it at all, you're not going to satisfy the people in the latter group (those who don't want to image to exist at all). Yaztromo 07:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah, but atheists are a significant portion of Wikipedia; I'd actually bet money that there are more atheists who contribute to it than Muslims because of the bias of the internet towards the weatlthy, well-educated whites, who are the most likely group to be athesists. Do you see us wanting warnings on various religious articles? The answer, of course, is generally no - I'm one of the more extremist ones, admittedly (I'm pretty adamantly antireligious) and even I don't say that we should censor pages about religious views or Creationism (I -do- believe we should present them as they really are, but I don't advocate censoring them). In any event, I can find things by wandering around religion articles which insult me regularly. I don't vandalize those pages, though, and I only try and change things when things aren't NPOV (such as the whole pope-his holiness thing). This is something which is entirely different - the standard for articles like this is to have the image at the top, and to have the most relevant image at the top.
As for what constitutes a reasonable number - I'd say you'd need at least 50% of Wikipedians to be insulted by something for it to need to be moved down. And that might be a low estimate, even. Thing is, this does not offend even 50% of the world population, much less than of Wikipedia. As such, the image should remain at the top. And given that something on the order of 80%+ of users who visit this page agree with me, I'm fairly certain that the image staying on top would, under normal circumstances, be entirely accepted. But instead, much like with a small number of other articles with very POV contributers, a few users have been disruptive here and have been leading a miniature crusade against this picture's placement. Give up; you've already lost. I'm sure there's other places you can go and other articles you can edit which do need the help, rather than being counterproductive on this one. Titanium Dragon 09:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
While I’m not partially in disagreement with you user:Simetrical, one very soon arrives at the question: How many people does it take to be offended, before wiki has to place a warning on a page? 1-2-100-1000-million, a billion? How many is a significant portion enough that wiki has to make special requirement available for that group? My feeling is that, if wiki does it now, any group can point to this page, and rightful do so, claiming special treatment because a “significant portion” fells this and that. We will then multiply times have to deal with how many people does it take to be able to call on special treatment on wiki. This is a can of worms that is hard to close once opened. Thus my personal opinion, which is irrelevant to wiki, is that no group gets special treatment ever! Twthmoses 06:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


The images in question that have sparked these protests appeared on page 3 of the original Danish newspaper, and yet people have still decided the proper way to express their dismay is to burn down buildings. And it is my understanding that the vast majority of these protesters haven't even seen the images in question. In light of this, will simply moving the image down the page truly solve anything? Yaztromo 06:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I've avoided this dispute for a while, but I thought I'd finally add my two cents: Those removing the image are wrong. Those arguing against warning about offensive images are wrong, too. (Honestly, we warn about plot spoilers but not about images that people are willing to commit arson over?) I think the best solution is to add a warning ala {{spoiler}} and move the image below the fold. It might not help (we don't know for sure; some evidence indicates it will), but I can't see how it'll hurt. It's not like those of us who aren't Muslim will suddenly be unable to view the image. Johnleemk | Talk 06:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Again, we are discussing taking into account in our editorial policy the arbitrary phobias of third parties, third parties who are not forced to read our content in any way. I understand that some people would be shocked to see particular images, but then, why on Earth do they have to come right to the places where they are certain to find them ?
I find the suggestion commandable, but personally, I am not disposed to taking account of the people who want to check everything and see nothing that upsets the arbitrary restrictions that they put on their lifes.
Confronted to such tartufes, I doubt that warnings and moves to the bottom of the article will solve the matter – at best it will solve nothing, at worse it will just be the finger in the machine that takes your arm away. Rama 06:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Simetrical says "Piss Christ was nowhere near as offensive to Christians as this is to Muslims; there were no death threats, no economic sanctions, not even any large-scale protests AFAIK." Au contraire. All hell broke out in the U.S. over Piss Christ. There were protests, Congress debated cutting the funding of the National Endowment for the Arts ("economic sanctions"), et cetera. It picked up the same sort of steam as the Muhammad drawings, in that it became a symbolic issue about which Christians said "this is where we draw our line, they cannot continue to mock us in this way". The only aspect of your equation that Piss Christ did not produce was death threats. Regardless, I reject the idea that the amount of noise made by a particular party is a good or helpful way of gauging how offended they are. Hysterical clamoring for censorship does not become more persuasive as it gets louder. Babajobu 08:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, this is mostly because Americans are less prone to do that sort of thing, though it probably helps that we don't have a bunch of people screaming about getting 70 virgins by being a martyr here so much. We also don't burn down foreign ebassies over imagined slights. And indeed, hysterical clamoring for censorship becomes all the less convincing the more it is shouted, and I lose all the more sympathy for the Middle East and Islam; it has become my least favorite religion. Titanium Dragon 09:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
In other words, "NO CENSORSHIP OMG". The point is that the image is offensive to a rather large number of people (I don't think anybody disputes this). People have burned down embassies over this image. (Again, a point of fact.) Therefore, we should recognise the potential offensiveness of this image and at least *try* to warn readers. A movie plot spoiler is a minor inconvenience, and besides, how many people care about the plot of a movie or book they haven't read/seen? Nevertheless, we warn readers of such spoilers. Why should an image people are willing to commit arson over be any different? Johnleemk | Talk 09:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Arson? Have you checked the news lately? These people are willing and not just willing, would be quite happy with genocide. When they hold up placards like "Europe will get your 9/11" or "Prepare for the real holocaust", you can bet that we need to stand firm against this kind of outrageousness. The arguments have all been made once again, no special censor for anyone. If there's an article about it, you should expect to see the cartoons and take extra precautions. Hitokirishinji 09:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Muslims are willing to kill members of other religions; does that mean that we should put warnings up in front of any page containing a religious issue? No. Sorry, but just because fundamentalists don't have a sense of humor doesn't mean that we need to censor ourselves on their behalf. Besides, we don't put up warnings for numerous other articles that have caused a great deal of trouble; Muslims are not a special group and we aren't about to censor Wikipedia for them. This isn't a spoiler, this is an image some find offensive. I find the very idea of religion offensive, but I'm not on a crusade to hide the religion pages on Wikipedia. Titanium Dragon 09:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Tone down please. The overwelming majority of Muslims do not kill anybody, and are not burning embassies. Furthermore, your personal ranking of religions is quite irrelevant. We are here to discuss factual improvements to this precise article, not to engage into el cheapo philosophy of religions. Thank you for your understanding and for sticking to the issue. Rama 09:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
You're obviously being unreasonable. Movie spoilers are okay; but a simple warning isn't? Jeez. Johnleemk | Talk 10:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the pictures?

There were many good and illustrative pictures on this page, including pictures of the ensuing riots. Why are they all gone now? The article now only has the original cartoons and some sort of rebuttal cartoon. I don't understand the rationale for removing the images. --Cyde Weys 06:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

They got moved onto one of the many subpages. You can put them back. Ashibaka tock 06:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

They are AFP and AP pictures. Lotsofissues 11:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

A Modest Proposal

Now that we have divorced the fallout page from the controversy page, I would suggest that the controversy should be the main page. I think that most readers are more interested in hearing about the boycotts, threats of violence, embassy burnings, and the like rather than the precise details of what was printed in a newspaper in “south-west Denmark”. I don’t think many people care much about the Jyllands-Posten or Kare Bluitgen. That should all be preserved and discussed – I would include the cartoons there – but that isn’t what most readers are looking for. Look at how it reads on the main page. It doesn’t generally say “Muslims and Westerners have different interpretations of blasphemy in the context of free speech”. It is more likely to include the word “rioting”.

As a side benefit this will mean that visitors can see the important page about the conflict and only see the cartoon on the sub-page if they want to know about the precise origins, which I feel most do not.

Perhaps the time hasn’t come for this yet but perhaps a day or two more of violence will make Mr. Bluitgen seem rather remote. --JGGardiner 07:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah. No; the comics are what spawned it; they need to be on whatever page, at the top, unless and until WWIII comes of it because they are the most relevant image. This is censorship at its finest. Titanium Dragon 07:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Not at all. If you look at the history, you’ll see that I voted to keep the image in the first poll (I’m duration). I just don’t think it is very important any more. Nobody cared about the image in the West (at least my little corner of it) in December when it was out there. It was the boycotts and violence that made them take notice. --JGGardiner 07:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, there needs to be a paragraph or so about the fallout in this actual article, with the link to the "main" fallout article above that paragraph. Titanium Dragon 07:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
That was my real point. When you come to this page it says very little about the conflict that is alluded to on the main page. We cut it off and hid it away. --JGGardiner 07:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Which is a bad thing. It needs that paragraph or two. Someone obviously cut it out in an attempt to make the article shorter, but the standard procedure is to leave in a paragraph or two at the least. And wikinews still should link here, because this -is- the page. Titanium Dragon 08:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

New Userbox:--Greasysteve13 07:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

{{User uncensor}}

  • Note: Fair use images are not allowable on user/talk pages. — TheKMantalk 07:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Somebody took the liberty of removing the fair use image. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 08:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


The independent

The independant (of London) has shown cartoons from arabic papers showing anti jewish cartoons. Prehaps we should have a part in the article about the hypocrisy of the arabic papers. They can give out satire and jokes but they can't take it when the joke is on them. Special:slamdac 09.05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


Response to the cartoons as an Editorial Cartoon

Last night I happened to pass by and found the wiki apparently vandalized; the collage of images were removed as I think has been happening a lot, only this time someone replaced them with what I think is actually, probably an important point of view to be made:

This cartoon from the Jordanian newspaper Al Ghad expresses the belief of many Muslims that the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy exemplifies how islamophobia has become acceptable in the west. Clockwise: "This one is racist", "this one is anti-Semitic", "and this one (bottom) falls under freedom of speech"

does anyone agree that this perhaps actually DOES help to explain why people are protesting? and that since it is also in the same editorial cartoon, makes it work as a response and should be placed somewhere on the page?

THIS RESPONSE IS NOW INCLUDED .. PLEASE DISREGARD MY COMMENTS ABOVE Dwxyzq 09:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is very interesting. Not only does it concretely illustrate te point of view often repeated by some of the protestors (one drawing is worth 1000 words...), but it is also quite interesting in itself: for instance, the figure of Mahomed has been covered in white in the small reproductions of the original cartoons that we see on the third case. I am quite favourable to including this in the article. Rama 09:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. It's an interesting, informative explanation of the point of view of the protestors. MMad 18:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I was personally perplexed as to why there appeared to be one drawing portraying Australia in the picture, until I went back to the original cartoons! Dainamo 14:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I saw that as a mere blob -- until I compared it to the cartoon of Muhammad with the bomb turban (which it is, with the face whited out.) Which only goes to show that unless you can see the original images, responses like this won't make much sense. Rooster613 22:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Rooster613

Interdict in South Africa amounts to Censorship: Opinion expressed on SABC, not by user

The granting of the interdict amounts to censorship by the courts and this issue has been raised by black editors who were represented in a news carried by the SABC. This is of particular interest given the history of censorship in South Africa and the progressive Constitution of South Africa. Given the fact that the previous Minister of Justice in South Africa the late Dulla Omar was a Muslim from Cape Town, one wonders how he would have handled the matter.

I have inserted my "opinionated contribution" which was removed so that it can be re-worded by an experienced Wiki Regards, Greg Gregorydavid 10:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


The core controversy: The interpretation of the cartoons

I, as well as the cultural editor at Jyllandsposten, see some of the cartoons are intended as an insult to suicide bombers who use islaam as a pretext to kill. The cartoons where not intended to insult the prophet, nor his religion, nor do people who protest against the cartoons protest against the depictions per se.

So therefore, even if I *know* that people who take away the picture do it because they interpret the pictures differently, I *feel* that they are supporing the violent bombers.

This difference in interpretation is at the core of the controversy. These cartoons are different from many others referred to precisely because they are not *obvious*. They are interpreted differently by different people. One proof of this is that in the beginning, many, including me, thought that the controversy was about aniconism. Some still do.

I could not find this point in the article, and I think it might improve the article by being included. DanielDemaret 10:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

these pictures imply that all muslims are terrorists - by targeting the very essence of Islam, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) Rajab 10:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I think this Issue has too many sides and sticking to one or two factors is hard to explain it , firstly i wanna assert that every muslim felt insulted and attacked by these pics which are obviously racist and islamophobic . the problem in the pictures are two-sided : firstly they depicts the person of Person Muhammad (PBUH ) which is forbidden in islam to avoid Idolatory and making persons holy by depicting then giving them a holy nature , so it is opposite to what some europeans say , muhammad isn,t God of muslims and he is not with holy nature , he is totally human but preferred by god and
so he was chosen as Prophet .
Thing is, unless your name happens to be "Every Muslim" or you know a man named "Every Muslim", you can't really assert that every muslim was insulted. I'm sure some were not, and did not interpret it to be an attack onto Islam. Europeans don't say Mohammad is the God of Islam (though one could of course he often occupies a somewhat similar postion of veneration) in general; most understand Islam at least far enough to know he was supposed to be a prophet, not a god. They aren't "obviously racist and islamophobic"; I do not interpret them as such, and the publisher of the paper didn't either. You need to relax and realize that free speech protects such things, and you have the right to complain, but not to act violently - they are and should be free to mock your and any other religion, and in reality they weren't mocking your religion so much as many Muslim's reactions to negative portrayl of Islam. A few were more nasty (such as the one of Mohammad with a bomb in his turban) but it certainly was symbolic of something which is symptomatic of fundamentalist Islam. Titanium Dragon 20:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

for this reason islam try to limit the depiction of any living thing which is called as aniconism , but still some shiite parties have another understanding and they depict muhammad rarely and commonly Ali .

so the major factor was the insulting nature of the pics for the muslims which all moderate and extremists felt angry and upset >

apart from that feeling of anger , the Expression of anger as street protests hasn,t happened untill the noewegian journal re-publish teh pics again and many trials to take condemnations of the danish journal has failed and the danish goverment declared that it has no right to limit freedom of speech , some muslims say that contradicting with some events happened in Europe when some ppl is charged because anti-semitism or anti-racism . the Protests happen anyway with approvment from arabic goverments and islamic goverments which don,t represent the ppl's will already to keep away from this anger and to use this anger against international pressure as what happened in syria today . The anger fromf Westeren Goverments' bias in Israeli-palestenian conflict and iraq invasion and also war against terrosism has been all expressed in these protests by butning flags , and u know when u r in such protest and with such anger u cannot recognize between danish or norwegian or french flag . The Boycott was also a puplic choice to express their condemnation.--Chaos 10:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I think also that most muslims thinks that representation of Prophet muhhamd as terrorist and criminal is representation of all muslims as terrorists . --Chaos 10:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
This is about one group forcing the rest of the world to adopt their interpretation of how we should see the cartoons. Interpretation is in the eye of the beholder, therefore instead of censoring other views, the offended group might try to be less sensitive just as other groups have had to learn through history.--Holland Nomen Nescio 10:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I would agree with this analysis. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
that is like when u tell an afro-american : when i call u Niger i mean Buddy , and if he got angry u ask him to keep less sensitive and understands theother's viewpoint , there is great anger in middle east about everything : about iraq invasion , about biasing in the Policy n arab-palestenian conflict , and recently their Prophet is depicted as terrorist and criminal and u ask them to be civilized and less sensistive , forgetting that ur society spends centuries to be secular , actually ur logic forgets all historical and sociological and political factors in the issue and u don,t look except that we wanna censor ur freedom of expression in issue that is related to muslims only ... That is unwise abslutely and unacceptable . --Chaos 11:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
You must have missed the myriad of satires about the Catholic church. Maybe you heard of Life of Brian? Yet no muslim objects to that.--Holland Nomen Nescio 11:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

A picture needs to be interpreted to be an insult. I do not interpret any of the cartoons as meaning anything else than an insult to a few bombers. I do you know what? Neither do a lot of other people. If I show you a picture of Lassie, this picture would not be an insult to a westerner. But you are saying, Chaos, that a picture of Lassie would be an insult if it appeared in that article in Jyllands-posten, since you would *interpret* it to mean that mohammed was a dog. Are you claiming that your interpretation is obviously correct, and everyone with another intepretation are obviously wrong? DanielDemaret 10:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I can think of a number of pictures which are obvious insults Rajab 11:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


I agree there with you. So can I. But this picture can not be one of them, since you and I interpret it differently.DanielDemaret 11:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

factors contributing to escalation

guys, please stop thinking one-dimensionally. 1.) we are different from you. Just because you're not offended by a jesus picture doesn't mean that we're not offended by a muhammad (pbuh) picture. 2.) these pictures come in a certain context. This is what we perceive as an islamophobic background in many western countries & the publication in a conservative mainstream newspaper. For this reason we think the generalisation that Muslims are terrorists is dangerous to us. Much more dangerous than a picture of Jesus, Lassie, etc. would be to you. Rajab 11:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

That generalisation would be very dangerous. But you are doing that generalization. I am not. Oh, and , I would never be insulted by a picture of Lassie :). I was suggesting that you might be. Maybe I was wrong :) DanielDemaret 11:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

DanielDemaret 11:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It's the cartoonist who makes the generalisation: Muhammad (pbuh) himself has a bomb in his turban. He meets suicide bombers at the gates to heaven... The prophet is the essence of islam & stands for all Muslims. In fact, he's the proto-typical muslim Rajab 11:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The details of the picture that you describe are clearly obvius. Here I agree with you. But I have seen about five different interpretations in these discussion about how to interpret that picture, and your interpretation is not the one that the editor says he meant. So you are saying, 1. Yours is the only possible correct interpretation. 2.The editor of Jyllandsposten is lying. I disagre with you on these points. DanielDemaret 11:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah, but many Muslims DO interpret Islam to be that way - that Mohammad DOES support terrorism. And the rest of the Middle East quietly supports it. Does every Middle Easterner support it? No. But many (far too many) do. It was a charicature of the way many Muslims interpret Islam, and was entirely fair. You may not support terrorists, but others do (and burn down embassies over it, thus proving the point). Titanium Dragon 20:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The main mistake here is that the artist or the journal claimed that is prophet Muhammad , if they make critics from islamic Extremists or islamic religion-men , I,m sure u wouldn,t hear any complains but by saying that Muhammad u make all muslims moderate and extreme concern about that , islam is also linked to terrorism and historical understanding obviously in these pics , and many muslims protest now for depicting all muslims as Extremists ... that is why wee say that these pics is full of Hate and racism .I tried to express what many muslims think , and u should understand this sensitivity to understand the reaction --Chaos 11:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This should be in the article Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 11:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately my edits get vandalised / reversed extremely quickly Rajab 11:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


It is one-dimensional thinking to suggest that muslims have the only and correct view of things. Please, accept everybody has a right to an opinion, but not to force others to share it.
I'm not forcing you to do anything, I'm just trying to explain the reason for the escalation of this controversyRajab 11:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you Rajab. You and I are both trying to explain the reason for the escalation. I think we are both helping here. DanielDemaret 11:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Clearly, we understand people might be offended. But many things are offensive: ID is offensive to me, religious violence is offensive to me, people forcing me to live according their rules is offensive to me, evolution is offensive to ID proponents, atheism certainly offends believers, homophobia is offensive to homosexuals, et cetera. If we were to limit our words and deeds to what is inoffensive to the entire world we could not say anything. Furthermore, just as other religions have had to learn that things change, also muslems need to accept that freedom of speech only means that we need to be less sensitive and, as Einstein discovered, thaqt everything is relative.--Holland Nomen Nescio 11:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Let me advise you: trying to teach us that "everything's relative" is not helpful. Furthermore, I don't want you to limit your words - I'm trying to explain to you the reason for the escalation of this controversyRajab 11:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
For the love of the Standard Model of Particles, let us stop babbling about generalisations and cheap views of the world which interest no one, and focus on the article ! Rama 11:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Nomen , we know the relativity very well , but who begins the generalization is ur artists , we know that some muslims gove bad representation of islam is denmark and netherlands , and the crime of killing Van kock is one of manythings could be done by stupid muslims , but at last u generalize by using the person who is most important to all muslims and u links him to these bad examples , that is against the spirit of understanding and relativity that call for , u have to understand also that this anger is complex anger and doesn,t represent one event , and u should understand that most refuges in ur country has escaped from tolitarist regimes which leads to this appearance of Extremism .... understanding all of that can give u more rational view of teh status . --Chaos 11:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

As I said, Life of Brian is similar, but everybody accepts that it should be allowed. Please, don't try and regulate bad taste. If I could stop everybody saying things that I think are offensive or in bad taste, there would be silence for decades to come. Let's not start a competition on what is most offensive. There is no objective way of determinig who is offended more.--Holland Nomen Nescio 11:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Let's focus on the article. Stop critisizing muslims in general for trying to "regulate bad taste", that has nothing to do with the article. Here we just try to explain the background of the controversyRajab 11:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
You miss the point. This entire controversy is about muslims not accepting other ways of thinking and thereby imposing their view of the cartoons.[8] This has everything to do with the article since it is the principal reason for the uproar, as it also was with Salman Rushdie.--Holland Nomen Nescio 13:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I have included the following paragraph under a new subheading:

Pictorial surveys of Islamic religious art can be found at [6], [7], and [8]. Note that the last site also contains some extremely and intentionally offensive modern depictions of Muhammad.

Most contemporary Muslims now believe that portraits and photos, films and illustrations, are permissible. Only some Salafi and Islamist interpretations of Sunni Islam have condemned pictorial representations of any kind, consistent with their emphasis on strict observance of Muslim law. Offensive satirical pictures is somewhat different to the situation discribed above; disrespect to Islam or to Muhammad is considered blasphemous, or even sacrilegious. According to the BBC "It is the satirical intent of the cartoonists, and the association of the Prophet with terrorism, that is so offensive to the vast majority of Muslims."[9] As Muhammad is considered the proto-typical Muslim the association with terrorism is percieved as a generalisation to all Muslims. Furthermore the cartoons were published in a conservative mainstream newspaper in the context of what many Muslims perceive as an islamophobic mood in many of the western countries involved. In this context the Jyllands-Posten cartoons are viewed as considerably more dangerous to Muslims than comparable cartoons of Jesus would be to a Christian living in the west.

Please let me know what you think Rajab 11:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It dramatically lacks sources and precise figures. I am very sceptical of all these "many Muslims", "is considered", "are viewed", etc. These tend to induce the impression that a vast majority of all Muslims share the viewpoint that burning embassies is a good idea, which I strongly doubt. My impression is that the media are saturated by a very vocal and impressive tiny minority; I might be wrong, but I would like to be proved wrong, rather than suggested wrong. Rama 12:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
please improve the points that you have critisized :) Rajab 12:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
In addition to these points the escalation was probably also fueled by the authorities in countries like Syria (e.g. by not decisevly stopping protesters from getting close to the embassies). This should also be included as a reason for the escalation, but I can't do that right now... Rajab 12:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Kill the passive verbs. "are considered" and "is viewed" et cetera are no good. Controversial articles suffer from a surfeit of them, and the unnamed agent of the verb usually is just the writer...unacceptable. User:Babajobu 12:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
According to the BBC "It is the satirical intent of the cartoonists, and the association of the Prophet with terrorism, that is so offensive to the vast majority of Muslims."[2] As Muhammad is the proto-typical Muslim this association with terrorism is comparable to a generalisation to all Muslims. Furthermore the cartoons were published in a conservative mainstream newspaper in the context of what many Muslims percieve as an islamophobic mood in many of the western countries involved [9], [10], [11] [12]. In this context the danger of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons to Muslims differs significantly from the danger presented by comparable cartoons of Jesus to a Christian living in the west. Another reason for the escalation is that the controversy appears to have been fueled by autocratic regimes. Rajab 12:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I am responding to you, Rajab, about what I think about the BBC article. It is a good article, and as far as it goes, I agree with all of it. I am afraid, however that the part: "It is the satirical intent of the cartoonists, and the association of the Prophet with terrorism," might lead you to read instead: "It is the satirical intent of the cartoonist to show that the Prophet is a terrorist". Is it? This is not what the author writes, and I don't think the author would have been allowed to write that without first checking and then referring to either the editor or the cartoonist as a source. DanielDemaret 12:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I take your point Daniel, we cannot make conclusions about the author's intentions. Irrespective of his intentions however, the cartoons do create a clear association between Muhammad (pbuh) and terrorists - and I think that's where the problem is Rajab 12:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I find this section and its heading "reasons for escalation" to be POV. 1. The intent of Jyllandsposten was to put a question-mark on freedom of speach, not to forward islamophobia. 2. Jyllandsposten is not a particular "conservative" newspaper. Where does that come from - and what is the relevance to the issue? 3. The section changes the meaning of the most disputed drawing from something like "terrorists are often Muslims" to "Muslims are terrorists" which is of course absurd. 4. The reasons for escalation of the conflict are certainly many, including interior policy in the Arab world, none of which is covered by the heading. --Sir48 13:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
"terrorists are often Muslims" - this generalisation that you make (or the stereotype that you use) is exactly part of the [islamophobic] attitude that the article refers to, Sir Rajab 13:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sir .. plz understand that tehre is two sides of POV .. Danish ppl see that Muslims' view point is POv and Muslims see that ur viewpoint is POV --Chaos 13:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sir .. please add the factors (including interior policy) that you mentioned to the article. Also please feel free to suggest where in the political spectrum JP actualy stands. Rajab 14:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
1. My viewpoint is not POV but reflecting the stated purpose from Jyllandsposten in bringing the cartoons. I used the expression: "terrorists are often Muslims" to illustrate the erroneous tranformation into "Muslims are terrorists". Unfortunately, the expression is not a stereotype. However, I would rather clarify the meaning of the cartoon to be: "Muslim terrorists misuse Mohammad to legimitate their evils." This does not change the fact that the issue for Jyllandsposten is freedom of speach and not to insult Muslims (which would have been an offence according to Danish law - fortunately). 2. Jyllandsposten is a mainstream newspaper not adhering to any particular political party. Point is that this is irrelevant to the article. 3. Reasons for escalation are hypothetical and speculative (political motives, disinformation etc.). That's why the section should be deleted and that I refrain from adding to it. --Sir48 14:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
just read the rest of this section, all this has been answered before.Rajab 16:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, someone has just deleted the whole section.Rajab 15:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

the vandal was Azate [13] . He deleted the first part of the section saying the BBC quote was inaccurate. A few minutes later he deleted the rest of the section saying that it doesn't justify a whole section. However I double checked it & found the exact words in the article. Therefore I have re-inserted the article.

What to discuss?

This is quite similiar to Bush's proposal where "annoying on the internet" would be punishable. C'mon, I know you can be boiling mad, but you shouldn't be so silly to think that everyone is the same person and thinks that the exact same things are offending. Therefore, the pictures should stay. They're only for the sake of clarifying, too. Although, if this is really an issue, someone could put a link to the picture rather than thumbnailing it on the first paragraph.--84.249.252.211 11:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)?

Events

Surely under events we should have the embassy burning and the attempt at U.N. sanctions? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally I agree, although even thinking about editing this topic makes me feel insignificant. -ChaosEmerald 10:45 5 Feb 06

Keeping up with the events arising from this is going to be very complex. There have now been protests in Auckland New Zealand after a paper there ran the cartoons as "an expression of solidarity" or somesuch.

Arabic Speakers - Request for Translation/Summary

Continuing a discussion, requesting translation or English summary of the pages of the document scanned here: [14]

Spiegel (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,398624,00.html) and others have written about Ahmed Akkari's tour of muslim nations, spreading a "43-page dossier" discussing their grievances about the Danish cartoons.

Has anybody here seen this 43-page document? 70.89.39.158 06:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It can be found here, [15]. I do not speak arabic, nor danish, so I cannot tell you what is in it and/or if it is real. This article is also used as a source in the rumors and misinformation section of the article AlEX 08:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much - the scans look pretty credible. Are there enough arabic-speakers here that we might be able to hope for an English translation of this document? This part of the story seems like a key piece of the timeline: it probably is the most detailed explanation grievances by the danish muslim group that is talking to the press the most, yet is still opaque to us non-Arabic speakers. I think a translation would be enlightening to all and might help bridge gaps. Any Arabic-speaking volunteers? -- 70.89.39.158 13:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I just gave these a quick skim, I do speak Arabic. They look quite genuine as a text (although the image resolution makes them a pain to read), I would note that it would take some time to translate, summarising would be more reasonable on a voluntary basis. I was amused by the brief intro on Denmark though. I would note that page 12 closes with an ident of the author as Sheikh Ra'id Halihil (sp unclear to me, could be Halimil), dated 4 Oct 2005. Also the last scan page (image 43) is a table of contents. (Collounsbury 10:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)).
Sounds absolutely fascinating. What is the title of the document? Perhaps we should start a wiki page about the document, with space for people to contribute summaries or partial translations of individual pages -- 70.89.39.158 12:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately the images seem to be down at the moment, at least when I try to access and I did not save them, so I can't give my own translation. See note below, however. (Collounsbury 02:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)).
[16] Maybe we should, atm it's still pretty pointless, but as soon as parts of the document have been translated we could do it. AlEX 17:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
There is what claims to be an inexpert translation into English of a Danish translation of the document, mixed with editorial commentary by the translator, at [17]. Not exactly the best possible source but it's a start.. --Sommerfeld 19:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, the translation seems (based on my memory of looking at the images earlier) reasonable although rather, shall we say, prejudicial in framing; regardless it gives what my memory seems to be a pretty good rendition of the commentary letter I noted above. The editorial commentary is also, well, a bit bombastic (e.g. problems building mosques, called a lie - I know in the French context that while it is not illegal to build mosques, getting permits appears to be rather difficult - data not being clear. It is not hard to imagine that Danish Muslims face some degree discrimination in this area. Does that make the statement as translated a lie? Well I would say an inflammatory exageration.) Also note, for example, the bit equating respecting Muslim Holy things is following Sharia is again more than slightly an editorial distortion. I would not say that the editorial comments are particularly helpful or even accurate. Also it seems to omit some final text, but my memory (again the images are not presently accessible by myself at least) may be off. Nota bene, the text supports the Imams' contention they did not claim the extra images were published, but were rec'd separately; although the end text (which I don't recall reading) indicates this is a post-facto compiation. (Collounsbury 02:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)).

the pics are scanning of messages and letters between the some muslim organizations and JP and danish goverments with details of meeting and response of islamic goverments and international islamic organzations --Chaos 15:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I am pleased that wikipaedia has shown this information, not because I am for or against it, but because If I am going to have a view on the topic, I believe the cartoons being discussed shoud be available to those who want to look for them. Mostother news outlets have not shown the cartoon, which rather takes the value out of their reports if the reader can't see for themselves what is being discussed.

I speak arabic fluently. However the links to the scanned pages at the site you were taking about are all broken [[18]]. Am I missing something? --130.111.19.110 18:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Bashar

In my browser (Mozilla), they render as popup pages consisting of a single .jpg file; do you have a popup blocker int he way? --Sommerfeld 19:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
No, the links are all dead now. AlEX 20:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
They were available earlier. Possibly a hack or overload. (Collounsbury 02:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)).

Merge "disinformation" sections?

Shall we merge the Rumours and disinformation and Rumours and disinformation regarding the images sections? They sound confusingly similar, and I'm not sure what the difference between them is. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 17:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Done (I was thinking of doing it yesterday, but waited for somebody else to say the same thing). I also took the opportunity of improving the headings of this section. Noel S McFerran 17:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Thats odd! Merging the two sections is in itself adding to the confusion and disinformation. MX44 18:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Jyllands-Posten response

Jyllands-Posten published two open letters on its website, both in Danish and Arabic versions, and the second letter also in an English version. [1] [2] The second letter was dated 30 January.

Could someone put a sentance or two together explaining the jist of these letters? I went to the link to read them, and they're not remarkable. A few words explaining what they are would save others from having to read them themselves.

The Original article

The article in which the cartoons first appeared in Jyllands Posten is available here in Danish. If anybody could provide an English translation, it might help to put things into context. The images aren't there, just the text.

Liam Plested 19:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The face of Mohammad.

The comedian Frank Hvam recently admitted that he "wouldn't make fun of the Koran, because he fears what might happen". A cartoonist, who is to depict Mohammad in a childrens book, wants to remain anonymus. So does westerneuropean translators of a islamcritical essaycollections.

A leading museum of art removes a work of art due to the reactions of the muslims. In this season, three acts are being made with satire against Bush, but not one about bin Laden and his allies, and during a meeting with prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, a imam encourages the government to make their infuence towards muslims more forcing, so that they can make a more positive picture of islam.

The mentioned examples gives reason to concern, whether the fear is based on fake asumptions or not. The fact is that it exsist and that it leads to selfcensorship. A intimidating of the public room arises. Thus, artists, writers, cartoonists, translators and playwrights avoids the important cultural meeting of our time, the one between islam and the sekularized, western society based on christianity.

The stultification The modern, sekilarized is being dismissed by some muslims. They require a exceptional position, when they insist on a special considaration for their own religious feelings. That can't be united with a temporal democarcy and freedom of speech, in which you have to accept scorn, mockery and stultification. It is not definently not always a sympatethic sight, and that doesn't mean that religious feelings should be made a fool of at any cost, but in the context, it is subordinate.

Thus, it is not accidental that people in totalitarian societies goes to jail for telling jokes or depicting dictators with critisism. Usually that happens with a reference that it hurt the fellings of the people. In Denmark, it hasn't reached that level, but the above mentioned examples shows that we're entering a slide of selfcensorship that noone knows where will end.

12 cartoonists For the stated reasons, Jyllands-Postnen has encouraged the members of the carotoonists union to depict Mohammad in the way that they think of him. 12 out of the ca. 40 have responded to the request and we are showing their drawings with their names attaced to their drawing. They are: Arne Sørensen, Poul Erik Poulsen (PEP), Rasmus Sand Høyer, Erik Abild Sørensen, Franz Füchsel, Peder Bundgaard, Bob Katzenelson, Annette Carlsen, Lars Refn, Jens Julius Hansen, Claus Seidel og Kurt Westergaard.

Only 25 out of the 40 are active and some of the active have a clausule. A few have reasoned their no to the request, others have said that they were busy doing other drawings, while others didn't responded at all.

(Authors comment: Sorry for the bad english, but I was in a hurry, if you want, correct the spelling. I'd like to emphazize that noone should take the translation literally, as I havent translated it word-by-word!) 80.62.172.74 19:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. If you speak Danish, you might want to give the link to the Danish Wikipedians, too.

Liam Plested 19:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted comment

I deleted the following sentence from the article, then Peripatetic restored it: "A number of Muslim commentators, such as Ehsan Ahrari of the Asia Times, have also noted that offensive imagery regarding the Jewish religion and the Jewish people is no longer tolerated in the media in post-Holocaust Europe, which has voluntarily curtailed their freedom of expression on such a sensitive matter; nonetheless, similar attacks on the Islamic faith remain acceptable." This is a POV piece of original research. To say that these people have "noted" this is to suggest that it exists, and they have simply observed it. Many people would utterly disagree that "offensive imagery regarding the...Jewish people is no longer tolerated...". If you look at the New anti-semitism article, many people believe (though I don't really agree with them) that anti-Jewish imagery is alive and well in the European media. Secondly, it asserts that freedom of expression has been "curtailed" by the alleged decision not to run anti-Jewish imagery; thirdly it asserts that it "remains acceptable" to attack Islam in the European media. Where? Which corners? In The Guardian? In the Independent? In Le Monde? If these three arguments are to be presented, each of these points must be clearly set forth as the argument of a particular writer. As of now, the first one is "noted", and the second two follow as facts underlying what he noted. Babajobu 18:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, though, Peripatetic preemptively addressed those concerns when he reinserted the content, so I'll leave it. Babajobu 18:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Another deleted comment

I've deleted the phrase "...because religions do not enjoy the same protections in Europe as homosexuals do. Indeed, a number of Muslim and Christian clerics have been jailed in Scandinavian countries for stating their religious belief that homosexuality is a sin. Attacking people on the basis of religion, on the other hand, is seen as "fair game" in Europe." This is unencyclopedic, barely verifiable, it violates npov and it reeks of original research. If edited, it might be usable, but in this wording it's not. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 18:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

To stop the edit war before it breaks out, I propose the following wording: "The Islamic prohibition on depictions of Muhammed is not considered an appropriate basis for the limitation of free speech, since it involves a religious affair, not a secular affair. According to critics, attacking people on the basis of religion is therefore "fair game" in Europe." Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 19:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

- :What would be a better wording that actually mentions the hypocrisy?? It is absolutely verifiable that Muslim and Christian clerics are jailed in Scandinavia, if they dare suggest that homosexuality is a sin. But "hate speech" when directed against religion is protected as "free speech", and is not punished. This is seen as part of the hypocrisy. Help me edit out pov wording. Blockinblox 19:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite some sources? Do also note that Scandinavia is three separate countries, so care must be taken when making such statements. Weregerbil 19:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's not up to wikipedia, or to any other wikipedia, to say whether something is hypocritical or not. What matters is whether a substantial and relevant group perceives something as hypocritical. And in that case, wikipedia should mention that that group sees it as hypocritical, without saying whether that group is right or wrong. I think the following sequence would be a solution: some claim bans on freedom of speech are hypocritical --> examples (Holocaust denial, etc.) --> distinction between secular affairs and religious affairs --> Mohammed and Islam fall in the latter category --> critics say that religion is fair game. In words, that would be something to the extent of: "Some critics have claimed that Western prohibitions on freedom of speech are hypocritical, protecting groups like Jews or blacks while allowing attacks on Muslims like the cartoons. Typical cited examples of this are bans on Holocaust denial or hate speech. However it should be noted that Western counties typically draw a sharp distinction between secular matters of race or humanist ethics and the purely religious. Thus the Islamic prohibition on depictions of Muhammed is not considered an appropriate basis for the limitation of free speech, since it involves a religious affair, not a secular affair. According to critics, attacking people on the basis of religion is therefore "fair game" in Europe." Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 19:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The whole point of the comment is that many people feel there is hypocrisy because anyone who says "Homosexuality is a sin" will be prosecuted and cannot use "freedom of speech" as a defence. If you don't believe me, just go to Europe and try it. Thisis hypocrisy because all the laws about "hate speech" only cut one way: they don't offer everyone equal protection, they only offer protection to certain groups that are privileged. This privileged status is derived from engaging in certain sexual activity, ie, a man lying with a man, etc. Now if you are saying this is not true, then I guess Muslims in Europe will now be free to respond to homosexuals in the same way these cartoonists have insulted their faith, and say it is "freedom of speech"... Blockinblox 19:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Can you cite references to your claim that "anyone who says...will be prosecuted"? I live in Northern Europe (not Scandinavia though) and I have never ever heard of such a thing. Weregerbil 19:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I live in western Europe (the Netherlands), and we've had one case of a muslim who was prosecuted for such opinions. Imam Khalil El-Moumni from Rotterdam had said that gays were less than pigs and dogs, and some other things (I can't remember exactly what he said). He was prosecuted, but acquitted. According to the judge, El-Moumni used his freedom of speech. Other cases didn't even make it to court. Furthermore, what you are saying here is a point of view, and they do not belong in encyclopedic articles. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 19:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Saying that a group of people are "less than pigs and dogs" is not the same thing as saying that a certain sexual act is a sin. I would interpret the "pigs and dogs" remark as hateful, but not a statement that such-and-such is a sin. This is a fine distinction but an important one. Rooster613 23:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Rooster613
Rubbish! Blockinblox don’t speak of things you know nothing about. I can say all the shit I want, including Homosexuality is a sin. There must be the first ten cases of Christian clerics taking this stance in Denmark just last year. The debate comes up in the papers every so often here. That the public largely ignores it, cause the simple do not believe it, it what it is. I would very much like you to source that Muslim or Christian cleric are jailed in Denmark! Name me one religious leader (or just a speaker) that has been jailed in Denmark for his religious belief? Denmark do punish hate-speeches, it is a defined criminal act in the Danish penalty law, latest in the case of Radio Holger. Twthmoses 19:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Most civilized nations with freedom of speech will only jail you for "hate speech" if you're actually inciting violence. Saying homosexuality is a sin is quite legal in Europe, Australia, and the US and Canada. You can be very nasty to them. But if you say they don't deserve to live, that could be construed to be a threat. If you encourage people to kill them, then you're far more likely to be jailed. But people say derogatory things about homosexuals all the time. You should probably listen to the free media more often, rather than the very poor and highly controlled propaganda which passes for news in the Middle East. Even Fox is better than pretty much anything there is in the Middle East. Titanium Dragon 20:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
An example from Scandinavia (Sweden), pastor Åke Green said that homosexuals are "abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society". He was freed from the accusations in the supreme court - not because it was not considered hate speech under Swedish law, but because it wouldn't hold in the european court - the Swedish law was indeed trying to limit the freedom of speech. Actually, there was quite a lot of debate in the public about it, as it would mean that anyone doing preeching would be free to say anithing - including obvious rasistic hate speech... TERdON 22:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

A fine contrast with this story re: "Freedom of Speech"

Okay, I'm doing some research now to find examples, here's one I've got so far: Ake Green

--Blockinblox 19:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but I cannot allow you to spread disinformation. Have you tried reading the article you are referring too? As a service I will quote it for you: “Åke Green (born 3 June 1941) is a Pentecostal Christian pastor who was sentenced to one month in prison under Sweden's law against hate speech. On February 11, 2005 an appeals court, Göta hovrätt, overturned the decision and acquitted Åke Green. On March 9, the Prosecutor-General appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, which on November 29 also acquitted him. In their opinion, while Åke Green had violated Swedish law as it currently stands, a conviction would most likely be overturned by the European Court of Human Rights, based on their previous rulings regarding Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.” Now, I dont want to make any assumptions about the country you live in, but here in Scandinavia “acquitted” means that the courts clear you of all charges. That’s pretty bad research so far…20:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


Systematic persecution of minorities, incitement to violence against them, and hate mongering can be punishable offences. Drawing "everyone who says homosexuality is sin is will be prosecuted" from that is just plain incorrect. Those laws are there to protect minorities, such as muslims. If I were to start systematically preaching that all muslims in my country are an abomination and should be hunted down, I would be quickly jailed under those exact same laws. You are reading way too much into what happened to one systematic hate mongerer. Weregerbil 20:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Blockinblox try to understand the difference here. This is a religious figure delivering a very borderline close hate-speech. He was not jailed for a month (later acquitted btw) for his religious belief, but for the hate–speech. "abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumour in the body of society", this is a hate-speech, not a simple religious belief that homosexuality is a sin. If he had said just “homosexuality is a sin”, nobody would have said a thing, and I can guaranty you that. And btw he is from Sweden. Twthmoses 20:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

- ::Okay, let's make a closer hypothetical paralell. Let's just say some right wing newspaper in Europe published some cartoons showing homosexuals in a rather bad light (similar to what Muslims are perceived.) - Use your imagination what kind of cartoons they might draw. What would happen to them?? Or are they free to do so?? Blockinblox 20:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

They're free to do so. Titanium Dragon 20:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Sure they are free to do so. It's called freedom of speech. We have it. Weregerbil 20:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
If you mean like a homosexual with a bomb in his head? Or a homosexual greeting suicide homosexuals in heaven, then nothing would happen, not in Denmark at least. If you mean like a “kill all homosexuals” style drawing, then they probably would be charged with hate-crimes.Twthmoses 20:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking something that might be similarly offensive, but not calling for them to be murdered... Something like, I don't know, maybe a cartoon showing some people laughing at a homosexual dying of aids in a wheelchair, or something tasteless like that... Would that be allowed as "free speech"? Blockinblox 20:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Weregerbil 20:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the controversy is about freedom of speech. Jesus on the front page with an M-16, planting a flag on oil wells would probably cause less of a stir, but be more fitting imho. The controversy is really the kind you get when the class clown throws a water balloon at the stodgy old professor, and gets expelled. This was little more than a prank to get a rise out of people, and surprisingly, for the paper and in turn everyone else, succeeded. Freedom of speech is great, but you are still responsible for what you say, and if you were to say, mortally insult a person or group of people, who aren't known for their great sense of humor when it comes to religion, you probably shouldn't expect everyone to laugh and pat you on the back for your cutting wit. Bill Doe 21:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
To take
Very true, however one single image of the twelve demonstrates exactly why these cartoons were published in the first place, and the debate that is meant to be highlighted, the drawing of the cartoonist shaking looking over his shoulder while drawing Muhammad. Radical Muslim in the ME has amber demonstrated the correctness of this drawing, and why the debate should be held in the first place. Self-censorship on account of one groups violent behaviour, well demonstrated these past days, is not something to bend to, ever.
It is not ok for a group of people to shout, threat, burn, or even kill as response, because other people, that does not in any way share the same beliefs, is trying to debate a subject that is holy to that other group. Those that are fanatical Muslims, should not be to concerned with the printing of the cartoons, but rather that at least one of them have undisputed were proven correct. Those that are not fanatical Muslims (the majority) should be VERY concerned about the image those fanatics Muslims are carving for you right now. Twthmoses 22:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
You hit it on the head, Twthmoses. It is extremely ironic that the violent reactions to the cartoons are, in fact, acting out the negative images portrayed in the cartoons. The way to prove these cartoons are not true representations of Islam would be for Muslims to refrain from responding with violence. To their credit, there have been some Muslim leaders who have condemned the riots. But they should also think about the fact that these images DO represent how many Westerners see Islam. I know enough about Islam to know that terrorism is not true Islam, but when terrorists evoke the name of Allah for their deeds, it does present that image to the world. Rooster613 23:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Rooster613

Danish Tradition

I deleted this section because it was nothing but a POV written like an editorial, with no sources at all. (Cloud02 19:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC))

I have readded it, with references. It was not meant as a POV, but as a description of our liberal traditions, which are a lot more liberal than the ones seen in countries like Norway, Germany, France, USA or others. I have lived for 10 years in Germany, and the difference in mentality and tradition is huge. Dybdahl 20:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Since when is Socialism an "extremist opinion"?

I was shocked to see that Socialism has been counted as an extemist ideology alongside Nazism and "Islamism" (whatever that may be). Surely there are no grounds for this? If this label were replaced with Stalinism or Maxist-Leninism then the association would be fairer but I tend to think that these positions are so disparate that any association risks being cause for confusion. Socialism is a widely accepted and respected political philosophy that bears none of the negative connotations of the two other ideologies. To my knowledge, the label "socialist" commonly refers to individuals with moderate political views that do not call for the violent and lawless toppling of democratically elected governments (unlike islamists and nazis). This urgently needs to be rectified.

I agree with you, and I've removed it. "Extremist" is a pov qualification, and we should be very careful about when it can be used and when not. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 19:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Socialism has been an extremist ideology since its inception. Have a look at Josef Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Adolph Hitler, and Pol Pot for examples.
I did removed this comparison, which was rather difficult as the article seems to be constantly edited. gidonb 19:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
More people were killed by socialism than by nationalsocialism (which is often named by it's shortcut "nazism"). Socialists, that agree with the first paragraph of the wikipedia article about Socialism, are not much different than Islamists. Many islamists are non-violent, and so are many socialists. If you read the first paragraph of the wikipedia article about extremists, you should recognize that socialism deserves the label "extremism" more than islamism or nationalsocialism. However, I acknowledge that people might think otherwise, and I acknowledge that it really doesn't matter much for the article, so let's stick with "..other opinions". Dybdahl 20:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Fundamenatalist Islam is probably one of the most dangerous belief systems on the planet right now. Socialists aren't extremists. Fundamentalists are by their very nature extremists. Titanium Dragon 20:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
That's not entirely true, as the terrorist group ETA is Socialist (Partido Socialista de las Tierras Vascas). Don't confound them with spanish moderate socialists, which renegade straight socialism in 1980. DrJones 01:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Anti-muslim backlash in Denmark?

Why isn't there a section dedicated to racist attacks against muslims and muslim property in Denmark and Europe as a result of this episode? So far, the article seems only interested in acts of violence perpertrated by muslims.

It will be added as soon as someone adds it... I have not heard of any attacks against Muslims in Denmark, and the only messages from ordinary Muslims in Denmark is, that the boycott should be stopped. As soon as someone reports about attacks against muslims, that haven't been in the article yet, and I see it, I'll add it. Dybdahl 20:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Scandinavians don't tend to do stuff like that... Let's hope they don't start torching embassies in this incident either. We could add a section "Violent backlash against muslims in Scandinavia" and write "none" under that — but I'm sure the joke would be lost for many... Weregerbil 20:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Scandanavia, Sweden in particular, has one of the highest concentrations of neo-nazi groups and activity in Europe. Racial tensions between white swedes, and the enormous influx of arab immigrants has been growing for years, especially with the growing strain on their socialist welfare system, with attacks on muslims and other non-white nationalities becoming commonplace. Just saying, it's different than you'd think. Bill Doe 21:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it's dangerous to do any jokes, and besides it's also a violation of wikipedia policy. But you are absolutely right, I would be very ashamed of our Danish society, if just one Muslim was harmed because of this. Dybdahl 20:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The only case I can think of is Danish Muslims attacking a critical or moderate Danish Muslim, but I can't find the source for the story. --Maitch 20:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I found the story. [19]. Sorry it's in Danish. --Maitch 21:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Most Danes interviewed on Television are simply shocked about the whole situation, but since the constitution forbids any intervention into the media by the government and the parliament etc., there's nothing we can do. If the prime minister of Denmark would excuse anything, he could (theoretically) risk a new thing from a Danish Newspaper the next day. Therefore, the only parties in this are Jyllands-Posten and the angry Muslims. The Prime Minister and the Danish populations are basically just innocent bystanders and not able to do anything. Personally, I hope that the Muslims in Denmark, and the religious leaders in all countries, are able to convince the Muslims in other countries, that Denmark is a nice and peaceful country, that doesn't want to insult anybody. Dybdahl 21:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The piece of information about how the danish constitution specifically FORBIDS the government to interfere seems to not be very obvious from the article. Could some one add the facts from the above, as I think they seem to be very non-obvious to some of the muslim protesters, and for scandinavians, they are really obvious? Actually, saying you want to limit freedom of the press (and human rights in general) would, I think, be THE ONLY thing at all that possibly could cause a similar outcry in Scandinavia. And then it would have to be done by Fogh Rasmussen, the danish government or some one actually IN Scandinavia. Not some one thousands of miles away... TERdON 22:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is a loose translation of the short article from 'Politiken'.

"Although the Saturday demonstration on Raadhuspladen was peaceful, it was dented, when a couple of the demonstrators recognized the polemical Pakistani author and journalist Mohammad Rafiq. A couple of years ago, Mohammad Rafiq wrote a polemical book about arranged marriage, and has since been unpopular in the extreme Islamic environment. Today, while standing on the Raadhuspladens and photographing the demonstration, 3 second generation emigrants [a direct translation of this Danish’m] attacked him, breaking his mobile phone. The Pakistani author was taken to the ER and received stitches on one eye.

"I have tried to encourage a dialogue, and then I get clobbered [loosely translated] says Mohammad Rafiq, who in the today’s Politiken expresses concern that the network of moderate Muslims instigated by Naser Khader [a moderate Danish Muslim politician with Syrian background] will only increase the polarisation of the Muslims in Denmark, and therefore encourages reconsiliation." Mila82.26.164.194 23:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Al Ghad cartoon blanked out Kåre Bluitgen's face instead of Mohamad's face.

The Jordanian newspaper Al Ghad printed a cartoon [[20]] which shows the caricatures originally published by Jyllands-Posten albeit blanked out Mohammeds face because that can't be shown.
Did anybody else notice that they blanked out the journalist Kåre Bluitgen's face instead of the stick drawing of Moammed in his hand? (lower left hand corner of the Jordanian cartoon)--Soylentyellow 20:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The culturel gap is more like a interplanetary void. Its a drawing of a man, drawing Muhammad and fearing what (some) muslims will do to him. It seems like the newspaper does not understand it at all. And it isnt Bluitgen, its the guy who drew it. 192.38.4.198 21:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we're talking about the picture with the apple on the turban? That's Bluitgen alright. Azate 21:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

ohh Now I see it. Ups! Apupunchau 01:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

JP "right wing" newspaper?

Currently, JP is labelled "right wing". Before it was "centre right". JP (on its own page) calls itself »et af private, erhvervsmæssige, organisationsmæssige og partipolitiske interesser uafhængigt liberalt dagblad.« That is: »private, commercial, independent of political parties and other organisations, liberal daily newspaper.« Isn't "right wing" too judgemental? It reeks of fascism. I think "centre right" was fair. Azate 21:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

A better translation: »A liberal daily newspaper, independent of private and commercial interests, and of the interests of organizations and political parties.« In a Danish context, »liberal« refers to an economic theory (center-right rather than right wing, I guess), and »organizations« probably means trade unions, occupational unions, employers' confederations, etc.--Niels Ø 22:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I would say that this article shouldn't label JP in any way - they should only be labelled in the article about JP. However, the word "liberal" means different things in different countries, and JP is basically a mainstream newspaper, that started as a newspaper for west Denmark. It has since merged with a left wing newspaper from Copenhagen (Politiken), but the two newspapers still appear as separate newspapers.Dybdahl 21:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd say take the label away since it says independent, or go back to "centre right" - some googling suggests there is some opinion for "centre right" in the media. "Right wing" only if there is genuine verifiable NPOV evidence for that. Unqualified "right wing" may too easily invoke incorrect images of skinheads in leather pants doing nazi salutes. Weregerbil 21:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Added opinion of the Danish queen

The section still needs a bit of work... It would be nice if an Arabic speaking person would find the original quote for the article in Al-Hayat. Kjaergaard 21:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

In addition to that section being somewhat vague about the actual and accurate statement of the Danish queen, the reference links to whatever site those quotations came from aren't working either. Barring the correct links being edited in, I think this section should be deleted so as not to further spread disinformation. AscendedAnathema 21:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The disinformation is already out there in the Arabic press. I think the explanation should stay. Kjaergaard 22:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Links fixed. Kjaergaard 21:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Publication of images in the US

So far, I have not heard of any of the images being published by a major American newspaper, and the story is more or less being put on the back burner by the mainstream media, for bettor or worse. Yet, the first paragraph states that the images have been printed in the US. Does anyone have a source for this? I removed the US from the list of countries whose press had published the images yesterday, but specifically said that if someone can show that hey had indeed been printed to provide a souce and immediately revert my edit. I am unable to find a citation for this, and I have to wonder at the motives for placing the US in the list when that may not really be the case. AscendedAnathema 21:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It has been published in the "Philadelphia Inquirer", the oldest Newspaper in the U.S.A. that is still alive. Search the article for "Philadelphia" and you will find the relevant link and more. In the Phil.Inq.'s article, the list several other news outlets in the US that have published some or all of the pictures, ABCNews among them, as far as I remember. Please re-insert the USA. Azate 21:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for providing that information. These[21] and [22] state that the Philadelphia Inquirer has been the only US paper to publish the cartoons as of 02/05/2006, and it printed only one at that. I did not edit the article lately, the US has remained. AscendedAnathema 21:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
It states there is another--the New York Sun--a couple of days ago. Lotsofissues 22:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is this still protected?

I thought this new policy was not supposed to apply to current events that require frequent updates and participation by many users. The July bombings in London, for example, benefited greatly from the lack of protection. It also hurts users of other European Wikipedias, like the Danish, who may want to edit English Wikipedia on this occasion. Tfine80 22:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's because sombody kept inserting huge penis-photos at the very top of the page every minute or so,until it was protected... Azate 22:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


Here is the discussion I had with an administrator from the section "2.15 Block IP range 212.138.47.xx"
I have range blocked 212.138.47.0/30 (which is the same as 212.138.47.xx) for 5 minutes due to the huge amount of vandalism coming through on those IP's but a longer block cannot be implemented due to the fact that blocking that range cuts an entire country off. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 06:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I understand how cutting an entire country off, no matter how great the proportion of vandalism coming from it happens to be, is unacceptable. What I don't understand is why this article isn't simply protected from editing by new or anonymous users. There has to be a reason for this considering the incomprehensible amount of vandalism this article has been subjected to. AscendedAnathema 06:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I find it rather funny that General Electric gets 254^3 IP addresses (all of 4.*.*.*), while Saudi Arabia only gets 254. How did they get that crappy end of the deal? How annoying (and application-breaking) must it be to share your IP address with hundreds of others in your country? --Cyde Weys 04:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
The policy is that articles linked from the main page may not be protected. The idea is that users should be able to edit the articles which we advertise there. However, given the circumstances we have to choose between our evils: I have semi-protected the page, and left a note at WP:AN to see if any bright sparks there have other ideas. Physchim62 (talk) 06:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
It just seems like in order for this article to retain some degree of integrity, standard policy may have to be compromised due to extraordinary circumstances. AscendedAnathema 22:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually it isn't protected, it is sprotected (semi-protected). Anonymous users can't edit it, logged-in users can. Sprotection was was useful earlier due to some edit wars — there were a couple of polls, and some anon users failed to respect their outcome. Right now it is past midnight in the Middle East so maybe sprotection could be lifted as an experiment... Weregerbil 22:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Location of image - currently at top of the page

It's unclear to me why this image is located at the top of the page of the article. Typically in Wikipedia, when people have objectede images that some may find offensive are further down the page, if they are on the page at all. For example the articles penis, breasts. It seems to me that a significant minority of people are quite genuine that they find these images offensive. Personally I don't get it, I can't see anything any more offensive here than in a children's comic - they are only satirical cartoons. However as there are those that are genuinely very offended, I don't understand why there would be opposition to at least moving the images further down the page. I realise that there was already a vote on this, however I think the vote was ended prematurely - and it would appear my last comments on this subject were archived within minutes of me making them! Nfitz 22:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see the archived talk; this has been extensively discussed and polled. Plenty of good arguments for and against in there; little need to re-hash everything. Weregerbil 22:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. See the old polls here. 82% of the voters felt that the article should contain the cartoons, and 70% of the voters believed that it should be at the top of the article. There's no need to go through that again. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Should there be something like a "sticky" concerning recurring topics in this talk, like whether anything was agreed on or is still disputed or what were the outcomes and reference to the whole discussion? Such "stickies" are usually prevalent in web-based forums (such as bbforums and the like). Perhaps even a table on topics discussed and what was the outcome as of today or smth. I think this would help in avoiding people new to the discussion rehashing some topics.
-Mardus 23:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
As I referenced in my original post, I did see (and contribute) in the original polls. My concern is that the poll on location was ended prematurely. I don't think that a debate on the location of the article should have been held in concert with the debate on removal, as I don't think it yielded a fair result. I don't think we obtained consensus on it, despite the 70% in favour, as the vote was not held over a long enough period of time - it was open for less than 48 hours, yet 7-days is more typical on Wikipedia. While I think the issue of whether the image should be on the page or not, has been clearly resolved, I think the location issue should be subjected to further debate, and perhaps a new poll. But, rather than open the poll, I was looking for dicussion first. And none of the responses to my comment have entered discussion. So the question is given that many people appear to be genuinely offended by the image, why would we not at least show some sensitivity and move the image further down, in the same manner that we have done on other pages? Nfitz 02:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Childrens book

Should we include the front cover of the book (Koranen og profeten Muhammeds liv)? Or perhaps one of the other images from it?Geni 22:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a need for that here. It might be relevant in Kåre Bluitgen, though.--Niels Ø 22:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Done.Geni 23:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

That would certainly be a surrealistic confirmation of the cleverness of a couple of the cartoons ! (a nice degree of additional advertisement :-) Mila

I think everyone needs to stop, calm down ...

and look at this rationally. The problem is that some people are getting worked up over the cartoons and others are getting worked up that the first group of people are getting worked up. I respectfully suggest that EVERYONE needs to calm down.

The showing of the cartoons is not unreasonable. BUT their position is. And NOT because I am saying it is offensive or anything of that nature. This article is currently titled "Jyllands-Posten Muhammed cartoons controversy". This article is NOT supposed to be about the cartoons, but the controversy surrounding the cartoons. Therefore the introductory picture to this article should be a picture of the resulting controversy. Such as some flag burning, or embassy burning or pictures of various marches or whatever. THAT is what the article is about, so THAT is what the introductory picture should be. But there is a problem that whenever someone tries to suggest moving it people cry "Freedom of Speech!" and think that ends all arguments. It DOES end SOME arguments about the presence of these cartoons in this article but it doesn't justify their presence at the top of this article, because as I pointed out this article is not about the cartoons themselves. If another article is created that IS about these cartoons then yes I would agree that the cartoons belong at the top of THAT article.--Stenun 22:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC) (edit: sorry, forgot to add my sig)

Personally, I don't care if it's on top or middle as long as its in a relevant position and, you know, not deleted, if you can find a picture of protestors and put them up there while placing the cartoons down in the discription section, go for it, I won't stop you, but the problem is many people will, what your saying does seem like a good idea, but you'll have to tell that to people to get some consensus on it. Homestarmy 23:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Do the cartoons portray Muhammad?

There is little in the cartoons themselves to suggest that the figure satirized is the prophet from the Koran. All that the caricatures share in common is the depiction of a bearded man in turban. Is there an iconographical tradition that I am missing which definitely narrows the subject down to the religious prophet? Even considering the context of the JP article ("Muhammeds ansigt"), who is there to say that the cartoons do not portray another Mohammed, perhaps one directly associated with terrorism, e.g., Mohammed Atta? It seems one interpretation of the cartoon is being tacitly assumed at the expense of all others. --KCargill 22:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Get real. The excellent descriptions of the twelve drawings in the article state quite clearly and uncontroversially which of the drawings appear to have the intention of depicting the prophet, and which not. Some of them perhaps depict a depiction of the prophet, if that distinctions makes any sense.--Niels Ø 22:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The world has decided it is Muhammad. We can't change their minds. This page is (should be) for discussing the maintenance of a Wikipedia article, not the topical events behind the article. Please let's try to keep this tangential discussion to the minimum. Weregerbil 23:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

About the Catholic Priest

"Die Welt has recently reported that the murder of a Catholic priest in Turkey is believed to be at the hands of protesters of the cartoons."

The above section I wrote after consulting welt.de, but it has been removed twice. I believe this is in good faith, but the user who has done it isn't able to reply so I will give anyone who can read german a chance to decide for hisself. Chooserr 23:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

A direct link is here Chooserr 23:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The article says that it is not clear whether the murder has anything to do with the cartoons ("Ob das Verbrechen im Zusammenhang mit den gewaltsamen Protesten gegen Mohammed-Karikaturen steht, ist noch unklar"). I therefore agree with its removal for now. First it has to be clear that the murder is related to the cartoons. We shouldn't speculate. If it does turn out to be related to the cartoon, then it should obviously be added to the article. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Well we can reword it... Chooserr 23:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
It's still a developing story, and at this point there is not much more to it than newspaper speculation. I think it's best to hold off on this for now, and add it when there is more information, provided the murder is related to the cartoons. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the priest thingy because there was no source, except a link to the homepage and I couldn't find the article. Now, having been provided with the correct link, I second Aecis' stance. This is a just a wild speculation on "DIE WELT"s part. Azate 23:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I doubt they'd make remarks that are, dare I say, inflammatory on wild speculation. I can't read the whole article because my German isn't good enough, but I can at least translate the headlines a bit. Chooserr 23:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
"Die Welt" is not beyon inflammatory remarks, belive me. I do speak German, at all they say is: "If there is any connection to the Mohammad cartoons is unclear". They don't even kow yet who shot the priest. Jeez, they could also say: "If there is any connection to the Pope's recent death is unclear" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azate (talk • contribs)
Die Welt is indeed a credible and serious newspaper. However, journalists do have a tendency to be desperate for interesting news in the initial stages of new stories. The pages have to be filled, and the papers have to be sold (I'm a journalist myself). So the source may be credible, the message is still too unclear to include, I think. Aecis Mr. Mojo

risin' 23:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't mean to contradict anyone, or upset anyone the true reason why I read it is that they use "in house" spellings instead of those that happen after the spelling reform. Not for the politics...I also glance at sueddeutsche.de for the same reason. Chooserr 23:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll wait for a few days to see how it pans out. Until there is confirmation one way or the other I won't re-add the section. Chooserr 23:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I also read German and I agree this should wait. All we know now from this article is that a young man shot the priest at the end of a Mass. They haven't arrested him yet and nobody has claimed the deed, so how do we know the motive? Rooster613 00:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Rooster613

typo@last paragraph of 'Freedom of speech v. blasphemy'

Reads: "Western counties typically"
Should be "Western countries typically..."

Also, many references should be attached to their text, such as

text[ref#] or
text.[ref#] New sentence

-Mardus 23:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Fixed the countries typo, will look into the references shortly. Thanks for noticing! Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, this seems really minor, but since Wikipedia has been referenced so extensively everywhere, I think that newcomers might be a bit confused as to whether a reference belongs to the previous sentence or the next one.
-Mardus 23:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Claims of Double standard of Jyllands-Posten

Could anyone put a reference for that section? Even though there are references to pictures, there isn't any reference to the actual claim. Who claims it? Where is it claimed? etc.

There are currently two references in that section. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 04:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

My personal view: The controversy in a nutshell

Moved to Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments#My personal view: The controversy in a nutshell

Decision of the community on Serbian Wikipedia

I am copying conversation with one anonymous Muslim person from Serbian Wikipedia. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 23:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for English
Showing the figures of Mohammed is disturbing muslims. And it is a insult to Islam. In Islam making and also looking the figures of Mohammed is forbidden. Every time I enter the page I click as fastly as i can to the "discussion" to dont see the cartoon. That is raping the holy things of Islam. And putting this cartoon in the article is like "show the movie of a raped woman to her husband". And it is not about "freedom". If you want to show the cartoon you can give a link to Magazine site. That dont disturbs the muslims and people can see the cartoon if they want.
Hello. We were talking about this issue (the page about page/image deletion). Even I think that offensive content should be showen in the manner that you suggest, principle decision of the community is not to care about any kind of content which can be treated as offensive to some religion. This includes relation to other religions, including Orthodox Christianity, which is the major religion of Serbs. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 23:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
However, as the content of this comics is offensive toward Muslims, we moved the comics down, as well as we will make a note about offensive content. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 23:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

In other words, if someone wants to talk about this issue on Serbian Wikipedia, (s)he should not worry about seeing the picture inside of the first part of the article. I suggest that English Wikipedia (as well as other Wikipedias which have the picture) should do at least the same which we did (I mean moving the comincs down, on the second page in the resolution 1280x1024; the text is big enough to do that.). --millosh (talk (sr:)) 23:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

We got that same guy here I think, (the raping things of Islam is the tip off) he might of spammed many of our userpages, but I think I gave him quite an admirable reply personally. If the Serbian Wiki wants it down the page, then by all means, they should have it down the page. But you've got to admit, the English Wiki is not the same community as the Serbian wiki, as, well, most of us probably are not living in or near serbia. Homestarmy 23:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The tip off for me was "making and also looking the figures of Mohammed is forbidden" and "Every time I enter the page I click as fastly as i can to the "discussion" to dont see the cartoon." I wonder if he's been on other wikipedia's. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Found what looks like his brand of English on the Finnish wiki, asking to remove the picture. Looks like a glutton for punishment, going round wikis he knows contain a picture that causes him mental anguish. Weregerbil 23:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The English wikipedia has repeatedly come to an overwhelming consensus to NOT change the cartoons, NOT move the cartoons, NOT remove the cartoons. This is a dead horse, let it enjoy its afterlife already. Kyaa the Catlord 23:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The content of Wikipedia should not be altered in any way to pander to the religious sensitivities of a small minority of Wikipedians. As mentioned above, the overwhelming majority of people do not want the image altered for important philosophical and ethical reasons over how content is presented on Wikipedia. I believe it would be extremely detrimental to Wikiedia as a whole to establish a precedent of removing content on the basis of compromising relevant material to accommodate religious mandates. Wikis in other languages are free to establish their own preferences, but the consensus of the English Wiki has been firmly established by multiple polls. AscendedAnathema 00:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Fear of Democracy and Freedom of Speech

I unfortunately realized that, Poll 3 is killed. I think some people among the admins here has some fear of democracy and freedom of speech, while they are talking about 'freedom of speech'. I do not know Danmark, haven't been there, but I can certainly say that, there is no freedom of speech -even in a discussion page- and democracy in our very Wikipedia based on my experiences. I am saddened and very dissapointed for it.

  • The poll is not even properly archived so that people can see the result. There were 7 votes already for having just one cartoon. The number was apperently increasing. Is that the reason of your fear: Do you think people may consider to change the cartoon? Do you insist on a version you prefer without any rational reasoning?
  • Set the poll aside, even the discussion section is protected. So noone, except the protecter, can add comments. Thanks to democracy!
  • I would like to ask the community here to help me to activate the poll again, at least for the sake of democracy if you do not feel as I do. The first two polls were active for much longer than Poll 3. I want to see the result!
  • I am sure there are some democrats among admins too. I would like to raise the issue to their attention as well.

I believe that Wiki community will stop these subjective actions and support the democracy and freedom of speech which we all for them, at home. Resid Gulerdem 23:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh give it up already. You only support freedom of speech when it protects your POV. Quit whining and beating a dead horse. Kyaa the Catlord 23:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Since you have the claim, it is your responsibility to prove it. Otherwise it will be a cheap slander. Resid Gulerdem 23:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Hear, Hear, There may have been 7 votes in favour of your proposal but there was at least 45 votes (and increasing) against your proposal. The reason why it was killed (i think) was because we had already covered it in polls 1 and 2 and the results were clear. There was no need to rehash the same poll in the vain hope that the result would change. How may polls do we need until you accept the result User:slamdac23:52 February 2006 (UTC)
We could only know about the result if the poll is active... The poll 3 is toally different from the previsous ones as explained 100 times above. I ansered that I respect the decision made by Wikipedians before per your question. Do not the same old stuff and be honest! Resid Gulerdem 23:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The option of the poll (replacing the cartoons) was already made impossible by the answer to the main poll: keep the cartoons. It was a wrong poll from the beginning, and it's because of the admins' kindness that so many people managed to cast their votes. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I closed the debate because we had a definitive result. If you look at the archives for polls one and two, you will see that I previously voted against these horrid cartoons being used at all on Wikipedia as they offend Muslims. However, too much polling is a bad thing, not recommended on Wikipedia.--File Éireann 00:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
What is your definition of too much? 1? NO!, 2? NO! 3? YES! Isn't it a little subjective. Did you protect the discussion section too, for being too much? And was it too much if the poll be archived properly among others so people could review? I ask you to reactivate it, and let the people decide, please... Resid Gulerdem 00:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Regrettably, I must politely refuse. Almost everyone who commented felt that this poll was inappropriate. You are free to comment here. I am certain that Wikipedians in general want the cartoons to stay. I personally dislike this greatly as I voted to delete them. However, the polling is now finished as the majority has spoken.--File Éireann 00:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
The people have already decided, Resid, and the people have decided to keep the cartoons. Not to remove them, not to replace them, but to keep them. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 00:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
That is where your mistake is. Noone talked about replacing the collection of cartoons with one - maybe one among them... Resid Gulerdem 00:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
So what? We don't vote over every change made to the article. Wikipedia is NOT a democracy. The image, containing the original artwork in the original format it was published, is the proper way to present it and the majority of users have repeatedly made this clear. This horse is so very dead. Kyaa the Catlord 00:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
To repeat the same mistake doen't make it correct, twice or more than that. For one who use his mind and heart, the difference between the polls appearent. I am sure there are some democrats among the admins and I want they hear my voice. Resid Gulerdem 00:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Then what is the difference between the polls? Please do not refer me to the previous discussions, I wanna hear it from you. You can copy-paste it from the previous discussions, but I just wanna know what the differences are. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 00:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
It is ironic that you say "To repeat the same mistake doen't(sic) make it correct". If you want to make an impression on the "admins", I'd suggest not behaving badly. Repeatedly. Kyaa the Catlord 00:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, I do not care much about making an impression on admins. I do not need it. When I say mistake, I meant your mistake of keep saying: there was no difference. By the way: One cannot make a good impression if s/he doesn't worth it! Resid Gulerdem 00:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I closed polls 1 and 2, and I think closing poll 3 was a reasonable decision. However, I think it would be fair to archive poll 3 under Old polls. Could someone perhaps find it in the history and archive it properly?--Niels Ø 00:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Done.--File Éireann 00:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Why do not you let the pople can get access to the poll and vote in that seperate page? We can put a link for it. Resid Gulerdem 00:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
If you didn't understand from theearlier discussions, it might be hard for you to comprehend now. You should both your mind and heart, a little bit. Nevertheless, I will give it a try: The older polls were about, the existence and placement of the cartoons. The nature of the cartoons however was not an option, up untill Poll 3. Yes we should have a cartoon, but isn't that wise to have one which is not considered an inslut by billion of people, yet summarize the whole point. The cartoon 'an artist drawing Mohammed' is a good example: We can see what the artist is doing, his fear because of what he is doing, etc. An ensiclopedia article is not collection of cartoons. The article is just about the controversy! One pic is enough to that end. Resid Gulerdem 00:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. It is clear that, unfortunately, the Wikipedians were insisting on keeping the cartoons. In my opinion, that was a very bad decision. But the result of poll 3 was also clear.--File Éireann 00:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Can't we put a link and let people vote for it even in a different page? Resid Gulerdem 00:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
No. The results are clear. I think we should concentrate now on convincing people in other ways that the cartoons are crude caricatures and offensive to Muslims and should be removed. Polling is not the way to do this. --File Éireann 00:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Nobody will stop you from trying but I don't see why you people who want the images entirely removed can't understand that this entire concept of a wiki is based off freedom of speech and including any images relevant to this article and that censorship (or attempts at censorship in this case) aren't well regarded. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
1. Democracy doesn't mean to repeat voting until you receive the answer YOU would like to have, but respect the decisions made in the previous cases. 2. The third Poll you are talking about, was about 7 against and 45 to keep the current cartoons so again about 85%, so whats the problem? it was done and now its closed again...So where is you point/problem? RapaNui 02:23, 6 February 2006 (CET)
There seem to be a number of new users here recently singing the praises of Muhammad. I have an inkling if the polls were redone the result could be made bit less clear. The demands to re-open the polls might continue for a while. Weregerbil 01:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Please, if at any point anyone wants to set up a new poll here, do not do so till a reasonable degree of concensus has been reached about the options and format of the poll. Otherwise, drawing conclusions from the poll will be difficult, and people will not feel bound by the conclusions. As for poll 3, here is why it was inappropriate at this point: A clear majority voted "Keep" in poll 1, and it is evident that most did it because they believe people should be enabled to see the object of this controversy, and perhaps form their own opinion of it. Showing only those drawings that were not the object of the controversy would not really satisfy that need; it would be a bit like just showing the logo of Jyllandsposten. Of course, a couple of the drawings are (quite amusing) comments on the whole affair, rather than actually drwaings of the prophet. They might well serve as illustrations near the top of the article, even if the rest of the drawings had been voted out or hidden somewhere else. But the vote from polls 1 and 2 was to keep articles at top, and therefore, the result of poll 3 was given from the start - unless a significantly different voter population could be mustered.--Niels Ø 02:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Somebody please add this external link

Will do.


Please also add this link of how muslims have been Cartooning Jews for many years, and nobody ever got outraged:

http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/ArabCartoons.htm

Ehhh, that seems really POV and beyond the scope of this article, besides, I think we've debated that already. Homestarmy 02:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

rot13 for images?

Is there an equivalent to Rot13 for images? In that way, those that wish to view controversial/offensive images can. Those that don't, won't. This method has been used by Usenet for decades. -- Rwcitek 01:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a filter set up for people who don't want to see the images, but they need to know how to use the filter to do so. Kyaa the Catlord 01:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Audio link in intro

Rexnl twice removed my insertion of the audio pronunciation of Jyllands-Posten. He says it is distracting.

Most readers are English speakers and will be clueless trying to pronounce that newspaper, which is a principle party in this matter. If the link is removed, readers can still click to find out more, but 99%+ of readers will pass by because there is too much to read to go looking at derivative articles. Arguments against are weak. How is linking once in the intro "distracting"? No harm and its helpful. To avoid a dumb revert war, a couple of ppl agree with me please. Lotsofissues 01:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I sooo totally agree with you. Apupunchau 01:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


I agree with you too. Remember, if he reverts it four times he could be blocked for 24 hours. -Maverick 01:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

After further looking at it, I do believe that he is acting in good faith. I'm gonna stay outta this one, as I don't really have an opinion on it anymore -Maverick 01:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Just use IPA. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 04:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your suggestion. IPA is relatively unknown (unusable). How is it a proper, helpful substitute. Lotsofissues 07:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Compliments

Just wanted to say that this is probably the most informative, complete and balanced article I have found on the subject. My compliments and thanks to all those that have contributed.

Gilraen

Wowzers! I wish we got more comments like these! Ashibaka tock

When you read it from an outside POV, it is really quite well done! Everyone here who has been contributing should be quite proud of what has been accomplished, in the midst of all the uproar!!! Nfitz 02:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I want to add my compliments too. This is without a doubt the most comprehensive source of non biased information. It is only because of everyone's hard work here. Congratulations and thank you. A special thanks to those who have tried to add calm when emotions started to take over --Mmmsnouts 03:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Add language for Latina

[la:Jyllands-Posten_ob_illustrationes_Mochameti_%28Muhammedi%29_controversia]
-Mardus 02:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. Ashibaka tock 02:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Move Latina between Italiano and Lëtzebuergesch, too, so it would be in an alphabetically correct position.
-Mardus 03:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Qur'an burnings

Added this under the Rumours and Misconceptions section, but it was edited away:

Public burnings of the Qur'an - Saturday the 4th of February it was rumoured that neo-nazi groups in Denmark would gather in public plazas and burn copies of the Qur'an, which is considered sacrilege. Although several disjunct demonstrations took place, encouraging tolerance, respect for freedom of speech, anti-racism, there have been no reports on any burnings of the Qur'an. Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Møller declared on international TV that "No Qur'ans have been burned and the police have been instructed to prevent any occasions of the Qur'an being burned."

I don't have a source, but I know for a fact that it is true. Even though there is no citation I still think it is an important enough controversy to mention, as there are people thinking that books were burned with government consensus.

I deleted the reference because the initial rumor and Møller's statement were unsourced.--Jbull 03:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Please refresh yourself with WP:V. We can't take it on your word; you must provide citations. Which you have admitted that you cannot. --Cyde Weys 03:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Depictions of Muhammad throughout time

As fast as this page goes, I'm not sure if this has been linked, but it gives a good history of images of muhammad. [23] Arkon 03:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

That site is included in the main article. I agree that it is a good source of info. AscendedAnathema 03:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah, excellent. Glad others are more motivated than I. :D Arkon 03:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.secularislam.org/articles/call.htm
  2. ^ "Cartoon row highlights deep divisions". 4 February 2006. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |firstname= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lastname= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |org= ignored (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Archive_13&oldid=1087481202"