Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:52, 2 February 2006

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Ahem. Timeout. I've blanked this talk page momentarily because although there is some good discussion here, there's a lot of very bad discussion. This is not the appropriate place for a general philosophical discussion about Islam, freedom of speech, terrorism, religious tolerance, etc. Not only is this talk page not the right place for it, Wikipedia is not the right place for it. Here, we are polite, thoughtful, smart, geeky people, trying only to do something which is undoubtably good in the world: write and give away a free encyclopedia.

Now, there are legitimate questions on both sides regarding this particular article, and I want to encourage a discussion of that. But please, do it with the very strong assumption of good faith on all parties to the discussion, and stick directly and purely to the editorial question at hand, rather than a general philosophical debate.

Now, please, with kindness, start the discussion over?

--Jimbo Wales 00:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archives
Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons/Archive 1 Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons/Archive 2 Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons/Archive 3

Polls - IN PROGRESS

Image Poll

Have picture in the article (size and placement TBD) Delete Move to separate page and link the image

Smapti 19:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maverick 19:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vagodin ^Talk 19:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:slamdac 20.01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Babajobu 20:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sol. v. Oranje 20:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
EuroSong 20:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KimvdLinde 20:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Valtam 20:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Septentrionalis 20:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discus2000 20:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neim 20:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
UltraSkuzzi 20:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AlEX 20:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Snailwalker | talk 20:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
StuffOfInterest 20:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nfitz 20:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fredrik Johansson - talk - contribs 20:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Homestarmy 20:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Carlossuarez46 20:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jaco plane 20:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Ridethecurve 20:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Candide, or Optimism 20:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DanielDemaret 20:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Lassefolkersen 20:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The.valiant.paladin 20:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thparkth 20:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zerak-Tul 20:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
gidonb 20:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Keep I believe that the initial publication of these images does not exhibit very good taste. Yet given that the images have been published and became a focus of international discussion and tension, the publication here has significant encyclopedic value.[reply]
— Peter L <talk|contribs> 20:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Tatty 21:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC) One needs to make a personal judgement about how controversial or offensive they might be. THE IMAGE SHOULD BE BIGGER.[reply]
Skleinjung 21:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC) - Keep: When I first looked at this article yesterday, the images were not present. I wasn't aware of the controversy at the time, but spent time searching for the images elsewhere, because I felt seeing them was necessary to understand what specifically was being discussed.[reply]
MartinHagberg 21:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC) - the image is extremely important in order to fully understand the article.[reply]
Astrotrain 21:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC). Wikipedia should never give in to religious fanatics.[reply]
Pat Payne 21:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC) STRONGLY in favor of keeping. They are central to the controversy, and must be seen to be understood.[reply]
--Anchoress 21:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jdonnis 22:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC) - Freedom of Speech is more important the religious feelings[reply]
joturner 22:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chaldean 22:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Phr 22:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC) The image should be somewhere in the article but should be moved and resized smaller. Main picture for the article should be something different.[reply]
tranquileye 22:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maprieto 22:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Denoir 22:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rst20xx 22:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia is generally neutral, but in one sense that it is not neutral is that it believes in freedom of speech. Clearly the image is relevent to the article, therefore putting it in would be sensible, and this coupled with Wikipedia's belief in freedom of speech means it must stay.[reply]
—Ruud 22:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the wub "?!" 22:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Tasc 22:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--The_stuart 22:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC) We should even have indepth descriptions of each cartoon![reply]
--Alvestrand 22:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC) keep[reply]
Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
abakharev 23:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. See the content disclaimer, linked to from the bottom of every page. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-- Vanky 23:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Jbull 23:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doesnt matter where in the article, but as big and legible as possible. The multiplication of rumors and introduction of additional pictures makes it imperative that the original images are accurately and legibly displayed. The reader needs to see just what trivial pictures someone is willing to kill over. Dalembert 23:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Nathan (Talk) 23:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--FRS 23:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-

Rajab 20:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Resid Gulerdem 20:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Cretanforever 23:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Cloud02 22:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Memty 23:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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". [[Kullanıcı:Ruzgar|Ruzgar]] 23:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ErdemsenolI am a Turkısh wikipedian.I WİLL DELETE THE CARTOONS IF YOU TAKE IT THE PAGE. OUR A FRİEND WİLL DELETE IT EVERYDAY, REGULARLY.WHO ARE WE? WE ARE FROM ADANA ,FROM REPUBLIC OF TURKEY .YOU ARE PLAYING THE FOOL.DEMOCRACY İSN'T A METHOD OF INSULT.ATATÜRK SAYS (THE FOUNDER OF REPUBLIC OF TURKEY) THAT: PEACE AT HOME PEACE IN THE WORLD.PLEACE CONTRİBUTE TO PEACE AND BE PEACEFUL.THIS IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA,ISN'T A POLITICAL AREA--81.214.118.128

gidonb 21:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC) second choice only, if inclusion here is not possible. see additional remarks at my first choice. first choice is keep[reply]
Showing a picture of Muhammed is extremely offensive to Muslims. There are no portraits at Muhammed and so they should definately not be shown here - provide a link to the image, thats all thats needed -- Astrokey44|talk 23:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poll 2 Position of image

Move to body of article with a link directly to the image on the top (Hipocrite's idea)

I feel we should move the image down to a lower part of the article to avoid causing offence.--File Éireann 22:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
(Cloud02 23:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Best solution to stop the few days of continuous revert wars and offence. The cartoon image will still be there + another link to it's main image page.[reply]
User:slamdac 23:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Phr 23:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC) The cartoons do not illustrate the controversy about the cartoons. The top picture should be one that shows the controversy. Move the cartoon pic.[reply]
BYT 23:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC), though I wish the images did not exist, or, failing that, were not publicized. BYT 23:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have picture at top of article

Leave it at the top. Valtam 22:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kittynboi 22:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sol. v. Oranje 22:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC), however, I'm for moving the cartoon image down to the middle of the page if we allow larger versions of a sample of the cartoons as some of them are hard to read in the current image format.[reply]
gidonb 22:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Keep this image up on top and include larger individual images in the body of the article, accompanied by text.[reply]
joturner 22:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC) The title warns the user about the picture; putting it some unknown place in the middle may actually surprise the reader.[reply]
Joturner the image will be linked right at the top. So the image will be shown in the middle and also have a link to the larger wikipedia image page at the top. The user will know.--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Tatty 23:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC) The controversy started with the cartoons, therefore it's logical to start the article with them. Individual, clear images of the more controversial cartoons should be further down as well (copyright permitting).[reply]
Fredrik Johansson - talk - contribs 23:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
—Ruud 23:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia is not censored and people who are offended by this image will still be offended if it is placed lower down.[reply]
Jacoplane 23:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Snailwalker | talk 23:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Keep the image at the top[reply]
the wub "?!" 23:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Anchoress 23:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The cartoons are the controversy, without the cartoon, the controvery would not exist, so at the top. --KimvdLinde 23:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
as per Jotourner, Babajobu 23:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Tasc 23:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-- Karl Meier 23:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why move it? Arkon 23:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Denoir 23:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC) The controversy is based around the cartoons, so they should have a prominent top position.[reply]
Vanky 23:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Jbull 23:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Keep it at the top.[reply]
— Peter L <talk|contribs> 23:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC), per joturner and anonymous editor ("the user will know").[reply]
--Nathan (Talk) 23:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't care

Whatever makes edit warring stop. I prefer the top but do not care enough to vote. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I second that, but I still voted for keeping the picture at the top as well. joturner 23:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I fail to see what moving the image further down the article will accomplish. Won't a moval mean that a person taking offence by the images will then necessarily have to skip the part with the image in it anyway? Poulsen 23:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything Else

Poll 1 Comments

This really should be an approval poll, with three entries: Link to Image; Image at head of article, Image in middle of article. I'm not sure if that can be arranged now. Septentrionalis 20:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, this would be handled through an RfC. Unfortunately, given the volatility involved I doubt there would be any hope of enforcing the consensus reached through an RfC short of a total lockdown on the article. --StuffOfInterest 20:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think at this point we just need to take a straw poll regarding the fate of the image itself; after that is established, we can move on to where in the article it should be (assuming people vote to keep it) Sol. v. Oranje 20:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Babajobu 20:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we have that kind of poll, there needs to be a neutral side, personally, I don't really mind between at the top or in the middle, I just think it needs to be in here at a relevant position.Homestarmy 20:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the outcome of this poll, it should only be used to point out consensus. Remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy. This should be treated as a straw poll. Jacoplane 20:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the neutral position is not to vote. Babajobu 20:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think people's opinions are a little more nuanced than that, and several additional options should be available: (3) Keep image in article, "below the fold" so readers with most computer monitors have to scroll down to see the iamge; (4) Keep image in article but as a smaller thumbnail to reduce legibility (and of course clicking the thumbnail brings up the large .jpg image page). Without these two options I can't vote. Tempshill

Some people have specific opinions about where the image should go, but first we should address the fate of the image itself. If there is a consensus to keep it in article, then we should address where to keep it. But most edit warring has been over whether or not to keep it at all. Babajobu 20:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been keeping up with the thread, and I disagree. I would say there's been an equal amount of vitriol over simply moving the image down on the page, and I think it's important to structure the straw poll so people don't think their votes will be misinterpreted. Tempshill 20:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There will be another poll, and there's no reason it can't include Link to Image as one of the approvable options. Voting to keep the image now is not a vote for its present size or position; that will be later. Septentrionalis 20:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Pam, and I don't think anyone's votes will be misinterpreted. Voting to keep the image in the article is not an assertion that it belongs at the top, the bottom, the middle, or anywhere else. More than one editor also said that the picture should be removed until we determined that consensus preferred it in the article. We need to get that simple issues sorted. If there turns out to be a consensus to keep it in the article, then we will need to address where it should go. But I don't think a two-step process to determine consensus is too elaborate a method for an issue that has caused this much warring and disagreement. Babajobu 20:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the current poll, whose questions are slanted to produce a preselected result. The correct first poll question is "be hardass / be flexible". If the answer is "hardass", then no 2nd step is needed. If "flexible", then go to a 2nd step and figure out what to do next, no longer insisting on keeping the pic the way it is. 71.141.251.153 21:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because those poll options aren't loaded at all...The current poll is fine as step one of a two-step process, as has been discussed on this page already. Skleinjung 21:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Bahá'u'lláh, we have the photo at the end of the article. This prevents religious offense while still keeping the photo for its encyclopedic value. Maybe that would work here. I am strenuously opposed to removing the scan entirely; how can one understand the controversy fully without even seeing the purportedly offensive material? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, by clicking on a link, if needed. 71.141.251.153 21:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Bahá'u'lláh was not about that photo, this is. Those images ARE the article. This doesn't mean they should stay on top, but placing them all the way down seem a little drastic. I'd say, put them somewhere beside the descriptions of the cartoons. AlEX 21:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

When did the poll become three categories?Valtam 21:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's four now

Poll is bogus: The disagreements here are less about whether to include the image, than whether it's appropriate to be hardass about its size and placement. Therefore, more options should be presented. I favor operating by "DBD". Replace the main picture with a different one and put the pic of the cartoons in a thumbnail in the article's interior. The current poll pretends that "keep the picture" means "keep the picture as it currently is". #71.141.251.153 21:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current poll does not state that or mean that. Numerous editors have claimed there is no consensus to keep the image at all. We need to address that issue before addressing where to put it. Babajobu 21:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the current poll is about whether to allow the image of the cartoons in the article in _any_ form, and says nothing about whether it should be at the top, bottom, middle, thumbnailed, enlarged, or any other variation therein. It is a poll about its _existence_ and value to the article. The options are: 1) No, remove the image entirely, 2) Remove the image, but provide a link to it, or 3) Allow an image of the cartoons in the article, with the placement of it up for later debate. Sol. v. Oranje 21:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

users and contributions

I do not judge anyone. Just something I noticed. Strange things happen when such polls take place, users just jump in polling, some where never here, some were away for over a year, and some just happened to...

And there are much more. --Tarawneh 23:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but what exactly are you accusing me of? Sol. v. Oranje 23:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Yeah, what is this supposed to mean? What did you notice, Tarawneh? Valtam 23:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not accusing any one. I just noticed that some people just appeared after long vacations. Others just signed just for the sake of this talk page? Is that wrong?????? Or are people offended when some one notices something about the poll? It is only talk, how can it heart any one; after all this is what we are here to talk about!!! --Tarawneh 23:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's true...we noticed that hordes of IPs showed up to remove the image multiple times, so it's okay for him to notice that a few editors haven't been editing much recently. What conclusions he draws from that, I haven't a clue. Babajobu 23:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "wrong" but it is kind of rude to assume that these users, including myself, are just "mysteriously" appearing in this discussion page. So what if some of us aren't on Wikipedia every day? I've been using Wiki on and off for two years now and don't need to edit articles every day to make my opinions heard on this article or the cartoons. I can't speak for the inspiration of the other users, but please keep in mind that randomly accusing people of suspicious behavior is not exactly kind and welcoming Sol. v. Oranje 23:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well to everyone new and old let me just say welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. --JGGardiner 23:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not have the drawings at near full size spread, in a relevant way, evenly across the whole article? Let's say we start with The Schoolboy (not a prophet) who writes in persian that JPs redacteurs are a bunch of reactionare provocatist. A joke origininally aimed at the newspaper itself for posing the question in a stupid way. Second, the drawing of the frightened cartoonist (which is what initiated this debate!). Third perhaps the beutyful one depicting The Prophet in the desert? The Bomb will have to go somewhere too .. Perhaps somewhere in the timeline along with all the current bomb threats?

You get my drift? MX44 23:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only sign in when i'm at home. When i've been at work i've doing it anon User:slamdac

Translation

"Profet! Med kuk og knald i låget som holder kvinder under åget!". In English the poem could be read as: "Prophet! daft and dumb, keeping woman under thumb"

This translation of "kuk og knald i låget" as "daft and dumb" is too negative.. i would say "kuk og knald i låget" means to be crazy.

It may have been unfortunate to translate into English doggerel. But English daft does mean "crazy", or at least "eccentric" . Could you translate word for word? Septentrionalis 20:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"knald i låget" means "To have a tile loose", "kuk i låget" would be translated similarly--Discus2000 20:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I too think "dumb" is too negative a word. Dumb is not what is said in Danish. Daft is fine, though. So - anybody up for a poetic retranslatation? It needs some word like daft or crazy or eccentric - preferably one that fits the "rhythm" --Lassefolkersen 20:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"holder kvinder under åget" means "subjugating women". "Prophet! With a loose tile and subjugating women"... which should then be turned into a colloquialism or an idiom--Discus2000 20:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to accurate translate into English and still stay poetic. "Prophet! daft and dumb, keeping woman under thumb", while I agree a little to negative, is a very valid try. “Daft” is actually a translation for the entire part of "kuk og knald i låget", and no other word is really needed.

A more true translation would be "Prophet! daft and keep woman under yoke" (as in under the yoke of a tyrant), but it does not sound poetic anymore. Twthmoses 21:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A more accurate translation: "FACT: Islam = Terror."

I think 'Prophet with a screw loose' would be a fair equivalent, but (although I'm a published poet), I'm having trouble with the second part. 'Prophet with a screw loose, keeping women in your noose' might not be the best wording.--Anchoress 21:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temp protect on Discussion page

The formatting on the last two sections was broken, and I had to temp protect this page in order to avoid edit conflicts. The total protection lasted less than one minute... during which I'm guessing 50-60 people couldn't post. ;) Sorry. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is great

If the artist can drive over a billion people to utter madness with a picture, he wins. Hands down. All the endless flame wars and trolling on wikipedia, fark, 4chan, and other big sites can't even possibly compare to a cartoon that results in crazy people taking over an embassy. It's over, everybody. This guy has finally Won the Internet.

Oh please. We had a bigger revert war over the Harry Potter movie. --DDG 20:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They were made by 12 artists heh, its more like Denmark has won the internet if that's the standard we're using :D Homestarmy 20:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which harry potter movie. i want to see

Snape kills dumbledoreKittynboi 22:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drudge

Matt Drudge has posted the bomb-in-turban Mohammad picture prominently on his high traffic website. Tempshill 20:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change the picture

As the current title notes, the article is about the controversy, not the cartoons. As one of the editors for the French version of the article put it when removing the Geert Wilders link to the large sized versions, "spam de lien, merci de ne pas le rerajouter. L'important dans l'article ce n'est pas les caricatures elles-mêmes mais la réaction qui a suivi." ("link spam, thank you for not putting it back. What's important in the article is not the cartoons themselves but the reaction that followed"). I'm not so supportive of the link removal but I think that person assigned the correct priorities to the article.

There was supposedly a protest in favor of the cartoons in Denmark tonight, and I think there have already been protests against them in the middle east. I'd like to urge that the picture at the top of the article (that's currently of the cartoons) be replaced by a photo of the protests (maybe two photos composited side by side). That is more appropriate for the article topic (i.e. the controversy) than the pic of the cartoons. The picture of the cartoons themselves, if included at all, should be a lot further down in the page and thumbnailed. The article's main photo should be something that depicts the controversy. The picture of the cartoons is secondary. 71.141.251.153 21:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Umm...the cartoons are the controversy!!--UltraSkuzzi 21:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that's not correct, the controversy is the controversy. Rajab 21:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can you understand the controversy without seeing the cartoons? Valtam 21:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even then I don't underestan them, but that is just my personal opinion... AlEX 21:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Not only are the cartoons the controversy, but ever since I saw the article title changed I've already assumed it was nothing more than a "salami tactic" to slowly but surely remove and censor the article of the cartoons in question (which are the whole entire reason for the controversy, and thus CRUCIAL to understanding it). Sol. v. Oranje 21:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. The change of title was to make the title more accurately reflect the article's topic. And seeing the cartoons is NOT crucial to understanding the controversy. I've seen them because I'm using a graphical browser, but I sometimes use text-only browsers and I'm confident that I'd still understand the controversy perfectly well from reading just the text descriptions. Do you really have to see a photo of the actual blow job to understand what the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal was about? 71.141.251.153 21:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, there's a straw poll above -- that poll will determine whether the drawings will stay or not. Go vote. Secondly, you have repeatedly compared the cartoons to photos of sexual acts and murder, which is surreal; sorry, but political caricatures are not even in the same realm as pictures of blowjobs, especially considering that political cartoons have the purpose of informing debate, crafting satire, and inspiring political change and discussion -- pictures of sexual acts rarely have that power, and can sometimes simply be tried for obscenity. There is nothing obscene about these cartoons, many of which don't even show Mohammed or even make fun of the entire newspaper in the first place. Removing these pictures is akin to saying "Yeah, there was this big surge of protest about 12 little cartoons, which have caused death threats, economic boycotts, counter-boycotts, embassy takeovers, kidnappings, and all sorts of wonderful extremism, but NO, you can't see them because we're too scared to allow you to make up your mind for yourself and we have to bow down to religious commands that most Wikipedians don't even follow." Sol. v. Oranje 21:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I didn't say (at least just now) the cartoons were obscene or even offensive, I simply said one could understand the controversy without seeing them. Second, I'm utterly contemptuous of the notion that having a link saying "click here to see the picture" somehow prevents people from seeing the picture. If you think providing a link where people can view something with a single mouse click is "censorship", then you have no comprehension at all of what real censorship is. (And I haven't even advocated changing the picture to a link). 71.141.251.153 21:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I'm comteptuous of your refusal to see that the continuing "salami tactics" that you advocate are nothing more than a slippery slope to suppression of information. Furthermore, you know nothing about me or my experiences with "real" censorship, so take your martyr complex elsewhere. Sol. v. Oranje 21:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the gist of the article is about the immense controversy which was caused by the publication. Understanding why this came about is an important secondary aim of the article, so this should be explained. But the first picture should definitely not be the cartoons themselves... Rajab 21:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the French version has the image on the page just like here. Jacoplane 21:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the gist of the article is WHY these cartoons have caused such chaos and extremism, and no reader could fully understand the rationale behind it without seeing the cartoons for themselves (just like no one would understand the Iranian fatwa against Salman Rushdie unless they read the offending book). Sol. v. Oranje 21:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

so you suggest putting Rushdie's entire book at the beginning of the article on the fatwa?? Rajab 21:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the book is 1) under copyright, and 2) is too large to include in a wikipedia article. These cartoons are now published widely and under fair use, and are small enough to be included in the article in their entire. Sol. v. Oranje 21:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about the position of the image in this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-semitism article? The.valiant.paladin 21:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any wiki-reporters on-site ready to take license-free pictures of those protests? --Vsion (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

now it's gone again from the french version...

Yes, but it was there when the anon posted his message, and has since been removed by another anon. Jacoplane 21:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found the idea of changing the picture acceptible. Yes, there is no reason to have them posted. The protests can be posted instead. I cannot understand what kind of reasoning can justify to have an insult posted in a wiki articel. That is against all rules and common sense. Resid Gulerdem 21:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archive again?

We should probably archive the debate again, it is getting quite lengthy --Snailwalker | talk 21:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do, and move the poll back down to the bottom. Protect for two minutes if necessary. Babajobu 21:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second that AlEX 21:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Finnish minister comment

What is the source of comment of Finnish foreign affairs ministry? I haven't heard it on the news?

copyright of cartoon image

i don't think the image can be kept in any case because one of the artists has explicitly asked for it not to be reproduced. This is the current state of the discussion on the German version of this article 20:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

As the discussion is about the controversy covered by the images, it is undoubtably covered by fair use. --DDG 20:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use is different than German copyright law in any event. Carlossuarez46 20:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The Wikipedia database is stored on a server in the State of Florida in the United States of America, and is maintained in reference to the protections afforded under local and federal law." Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

89 machines in Florida, 3 near Paris, 11 in Amsterdam, 23 in Yahoo!'s Korean hosting facility --Tarawneh 23:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing while protected

Please, let's avoid editing the article while it's protected, even if it's just minor edits. It's a potentially problematic slippery slope. --cesarb 20:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, apologies. Babajobu 21:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I agree. However, there is established precedent for fixing spelling, grammatical, and style/formatting problems even while protected as long as the edits are non-controversial and non-substantive. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed that the article is fully protected. I've been editing under the mistaken belief that it was semi-protected, as it has been on several occasions before. I've only wikified some dates, altered and augmented some references, and ensured that there are no bare external hyperlinks in the article. Uncle G 21:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've unprotected it. Articles that are linked from the main page should not be protected. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - For Jacoplane, who was unfamiliar with this policy, please see Wikipedia:Protection policy. --DDG 21:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am new to wikipedia, is there a reason for not editing while under full protection? And what is the diffence with semi-protection?

Semi-protection means random IP members (Also called "anons") and new members (I think it's like a few weeks old maybe? Im not sure) cannot edit the article. Full protection means only admins and Jimbo Wales can edit it. Homestarmy 22:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not "only admins and Jimbo Wales", it's "only admins". Jimbo Wales is also an admin. --cesarb 23:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no consensus

there is no consensus on the picture. The oxford english dictionary defines consensus as: Agreement in opinion; the collective unanimous opinion of a number of persons

I've taken the conservative option to remove the image until there's a consensus on this issue. Rajab 21:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, there is a strong consensus to keep the image. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

eh, I think the consensus is pretty darn clear. Babajobu 21:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also , since thie article is about the pictures. Removing them is unencylopedic. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No cartoons untill the pool ended

I propose to not post the cartoons untill the pool ended. Resid Gulerdem 21:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Also, when does the "pool" end?Valtam 21:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The poll is over. It has 36/2/0. This is demonstrative of a strong consensus to keep the image. If this changes in the future, we can get rid of the image. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not it is not. It should last at least 2 weeks. Resid Gulerdem 21:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? -Maverick 21:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd say 24 hours. Not everybody is awake right now. Guppy313 22:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say 48 hours minimum. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, for two reasons. One: the disputed item should not be altered or deleted during the resolution process. Two: I know you can read. There two users who want it removed thus far, compared to about 20 who want to keep it. --Maverick 21:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not that difficult. As soon as the majority want it gone, it goes. As for now, the majority want it there, it stays. AlEX 22:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus - the oxford english dictionary defines consensus as: Agreement in opinion; the collective unanimous opinion of a number of personsRajab 21:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It also defines it as "general agreement or accord," which is what we have here. The picture stays. -Maverick 22:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is an incorrect characterization. The definition to which you are referring is a physiological one. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Consensus" as used on Wikipedia does not require unanimity... and neither does your proffered definition if you read it carefully. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My "proffered" definition does - unanimous is unanimous. Rajab 22:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. When you get consensus to remove the image we'll do that. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Rajab's definition requires unanimity to remove the image, I hereby vote against removing the image, thus making it impossible for there to be a unanimous decision to remove the image. Consider this vote to apply to all future polls regarding this matter. Valtam 22:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unanimity of a group of persons... not ALL PERSONS EVERYWHERE. A group of persons has a unanimous opinion to keep the images. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just filed a WP:RfC. We should wait untill some more contributions from other people who are not aware of this discussion. Resid Gulerdem 22:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they agree with your position, we'll remove the image then. Delaying tactics should not favor the side delaying. It is becoming difficult to believe you are operating in good faith. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well he just deleted the picture again, I guess that answers that one. Rajab... go away. You are nothing but a troll and a vandal in my eyes -Maverick 22:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it standard practice to file a WP:RfC after a poll has ended? I'm not that familiar with Wikipedia customs...Valtam 22:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The poll didn't end at all! How long was it running - one hour? a day??

Could you please post a link to the RfC you filed. I'm having trouble finding it right now and would like to keep track of the happenings. Thanks. --StuffOfInterest 22:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find it either AlEX 22:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I propose at least 2 weeks. We sohuldnt have the cartoon on untill the pool ends. I wouldn't try to read anybody's intensions. That is not an objective argument. Resid Gulerdem 22:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately you and your buddy are alone in this one. I do not oppose a longer poll, however customs dictate that the picture stays until the dispute is resolved. Please try to work with us, as you are now acting in bad faith here. -Maverick 22:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear overwhelming majority here. Until we get at least a simple majority from the crew in favor of removing the picture (which I really doubt will ever happen), the image should remain in the article. joturner 22:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Consensus is very clear that in Wikipedia "consensus" doesn't require unanimity. Generally a supermajority is regarded as consensus, though Wikipedia is not a democracy. There is not doubt that as of now, there is consensus to keep the image. But the poll will continue, and we'll see. Babajobu 22:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are some people who are never going to change their opinion. Therefore it would be impossible to ever reach a majority. This is about as consensus as consensus can get. We should leave the poll up a little longer, but I wouldn't get your hopes up for a come from behind win from the Remove crew. joturner 22:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I filed it at [1]. Resid Gulerdem 22:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Botched archiving

It's considered poor form to archive ongoing conversations. The last few discussion sections ought to have been left here. Please fix this. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's considered poor form to wait less than 30 seconds before complaining whilst a complex process is being performed. Uncle G 22:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you should have used the In Use tag so that it was apparent that you were still doing the move or used edit summaries to make that clear. Do not fault me because your actions/intentions were not clear. I do not read minds. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm faulting you for not even thinking "Hmmm. It takes almost 30 seconds to render this page. Perhaps it will take longer than that to perform the complex process of archiving it.". You'll find that I did use edit summaries, moreover. Please think and check before complaining. Uncle G 22:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You DID use edit summaries, correct. If you read MY comments above, you'll see that I faulted you for not using your edit summaries to make it clear that the archival process was ongoing... which you did not. Aside from that, you STILL have not fixed the problem and there are many threads that were active that are STILL not on the current page. Perhaps instead of complaining that I called you out on doing a poor job of archiving, you actually finish the job? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've said it once already. You could have concluded that the archival process was ongoing, 30 seconds in, by simply thinking. And there is no problem to be fixed. This was not a poor job at all. Standard operating procedure applies: If there is a conversation that you wish to reactivate, pull it from the archive. Uncle G 22:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - {{sofixit}}. --cesarb 22:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I was giving him a chance of doing it himself, but since he didn't seem able or willing, I just did. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I had already pulled several things from the archive. If I hadn't had to keep responding to your continued complaints, which began, on two separate pages, even before the fresh page had rendered, I might have had the time to have done some more by now. You have only yourself to blame. Uncle G 22:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        People, let's calm down. --cesarb 22:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm completely calm. Uncle G is on the defensive because he failed to do the job correctly. It's understandable I suppose. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I've mentioned a lack of thought once already. Please think. Please think about what happens when you interrupt someone who is in the process of performing a complex job, 30 seconds into that job, and then repeatedly pester them thenceforth, in multiple places, falsely accusing them of "botched jobs" and "failing to perform the job correctly", and then have the gall to say that, because they've spent so much time responding to your interruptions that they haven't completed what they were doing, they were "unwilling" to finish it. And please think about what effect such a disruptive approach has on the willingness of other editors to accomodate you, or even to complete the task. Then think about what would have happened if you had just applied a little thought in the first place, come to the patently obvious conclusion that a lengthy job was in progress, and simply kept quiet and not interrupted the person doing the work for a couple of minutes. Or perhaps even helped. Uncle G 23:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although that is unusual, it was absolutely necessary. In the past two days alone, there have been over 200 new topics started. This talk page has become completely out of control and incoherent. I really don't understand why either, considering that the straw poll indicates a strong consensus towards keeping the picture. I suspect there are just a few dissenters and that many people in favor of the picture are taking advantage of the situation to express their views about Islam, censorship, etc, etc. If something has already been said, a simple "I agree" will do. We need to stop creating unnecessary new sections and adding unnecessarily long posts that simply restate what has already been stated. This is undoubtably the worst talk page I have ever seen. This is absolutely embarrassing that this conversation keeps turning into this war of words over one picture. Just vote in the poll. Add a couple short comments if you need to, but don't go overboard. joturner 22:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Church Bombings

Can somebody please mention about the Church bombings in Iraq that was rumered to be related to the drawings? Chaldean 22:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using the word "rumored" should be a red flag. Please wait until there is confirmation and/or citable sources. Guppy313 22:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Wikipedia:Verifiability should apply to every article. Jacoplane 22:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now their blaming Christians for this? If that's really true, then I think that would be something we really need to put in this article, once people start getting angry enough to destroy anyone and everyone, then you know things are going crazy. Homestarmy 22:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming it's true, please be sure to qualify who "they" are. Guppy313 22:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well small militant groups have claimed for it and said it was retaliation to the cartoons. This is what they are saying in the streets of Baghdad. I think its fair to at leats mention the event, dont you agree? Check out some articles about it. militants coordinate bombings near Christian churches: [[2]] Chaldean 22:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a citation to me directly relating the cartoons to church bombings, this should be able to go into the timeline and article with no problem, why was it removed for not being related to the pictures? Homestarmy 23:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't me, but reading the article, no claims of the attacks beign linked to the controversy are made. In fact, the bombings happened on Sunday (as the article mentions, the Christian day of worship and church attendance), and the coordination of the attacks suggest days of planning, so it seems it happened too soon for it to be a deliberate response to the images.

And in general, I find myself doubtful that churches would be attacked in response to this; it seems that Arab/Muslim vitriol aimed the West (or at least Europe) depict it as a bunch of godless heathens rather than Christian crusaders. Guppy313 23:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

compromise

I've put the image into the *middle* of the article. Let's leave it there until the issue is resolved Rajab 22:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's does not have a religion, so its not against its beliefs to censur Mohammed's pics. So what are you doing? Chaldean 22:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a *compromise* Rajab 22:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC) - now the picture is twice in the article (I put it in the middle, someone else "reverted" my edit & put it in the beginning) Rajab 22:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's what you get for ignoring the poll, dismissing others' opinions, and not following rules of procedure. If (and when) the poll on whether to remove or have the image closes, we will have _a second_ poll to determine it's location. Your "compromise" just elided that second step, which is wrong Sol. v. Oranje 22:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

now you're just trying to annoy. There's no consensus on keeping the picture. But until that is found let's at least agree somewhere in the middle & move the picture from the very beginning of the article Rajab 22:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but you're the one who keeps altering the article and ignoring the fact that while the poll remains in progress, the cartoon will remain at the top of the page where it began before this brouhaha started to begin with. After the poll concludes there will either be another poll determining where in the article the cartoon image should be posted, or if it should be shrunk or enlarged, etc; or no further polls if the majority conclude the image should not be included. In the meantime, leave the image where it is at the top of the article page. Sol. v. Oranje 22:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out ad nauseam, other unrelated pages have also had relevant pictures moved down from the top (e. g. Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy). While others have not (Piss Christ is the popular example), the fact that it has been done before in numerous articles that have little (if anything) to do with Islam seems to show that this isn't kowtowing, appeasement, a double standard, or anything of the sort. If you insist that the picture be displayed prominently at the top, then all similar articles about a controversial image should be changed (which would probably start the Queen Mother of All Edit Wars in the process). Until Wikipedia's precedent on the matter ceases to be "either/or," so long as the picture is displayed in the article it really doesn't matter where it is placed.

If you load the page, the image has been downloaded by your web browser whether you choose to scroll down that far or not; the decision whether to view it or not is placed solely in the hands of the reader. IMO, you'd be hard-pressed to call that censorship. Guppy313 22:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

let's be sensible

The two people (Rajab and Rgulerdem )who objected to the pictures have agreed to put them in the middle. Isn't this a sensible compromise. slamdac

Until there is a real consensus & a real poll running for longer than just a few hours the picture should certainly stay in the middle. After we've found a real consensus we can still change that... 22:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Rajab 22:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

42 vs 2 implies strong consensus for keeping the pictures. (Cloud02 22:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I think we're close to a consensus now. I suggested putting the picture in the middle as a compromise but it sounds as like Rajab are going to wait for the situation to calm down and then remove the pictures anyway. I think the pictures should stay in the middle permanently.

slamdac

Moving the picture from it present location should be forestalled until after this initial poll at which time we will be able to focus on the placement of the photo (presuming consensus remains to keep the image). Babajobu 22:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, attempts to place the image at the top of the article should be forestalled until after consensus emerges about where it should go. BYT 22:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Thanks :) Rajab 22:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why should they be forestalled? Why not leave the article as it was before the poll, until the poll is complete? What's the reason for moving the image? Valtam 22:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't mind where the image goes as long as it's somewhere in the article. If moving it to the middle stops the edit war then I'm all for it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issues with someone enforcing image in the midle and a link to the image at the top via IAR use of the block button, and I doubt any other responsible editor does either. We can reach position consensus only after the revert war ends. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we put the picture on both the top and the middle? Then everyone can have their favorite position :D Homestarmy 22:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like this compromise! Everyone is happy! Valtam 22:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continued revert warring

Theresa Knott removed the article protection because the article is linked from the main page at this time. This is reasonable. However, following the removal of protection, the revert warring erupted afresh. This will not be tolerated. The protection was to prevent individuals from being blocked, and instead stop the revert warring. Since protection can not now be used, blocks will have to be used instead. If anybody continues to revert war over this, and they have been previously warned, they may be blocked. Stop the revert war. Now. --Durin 22:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We could always de-link it from the Main page... I'm not saying we SHOULD, but we COULD. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or we could just block those who are disrupting the encylopedia. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa -- I couldn't agree more.
Question: Can you see how some might feel that assuming that there's consensus to place the image at the TOP of the article constitutes "disrupting the encyclopedia"?
There ISN'T any such consensus, and the people who are pretending that there is such consensus are basically using the image to provoke a reaction. BYT 22:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody please block Ragal and Rugelmen. They will continue to remove the picture until they are blocked.

Muslims' Viewpoint

The following text is by User:Unfinishedchaos, the bracketed, caps text is comments added by User:Babajobu.--Anchoress 21:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many Muslims were offended by the publication of the Muhammad cartoons. This anger has been expressed in public protests in Arabic and Islamic countries. Muslims claim [[MUSLIMS AS A WHOLE DO NOT CLAIM ANYTHING; NO GROUP SPEAKS IN ONE VOICE] that this anger isn't directed against freedom of speech [WHO CLAIMS THIS?] - as the western media represent the issue [THE WESTERN MEDIA DOES NOT SPEAK IN ONE VOICE EITHER, AND DIFFERENT MEDIA OUTLETS HAVE REPRESENTED THE CONFLICT IN DIFFERENT WAYS] - but rather against an insult to all Muslims, since the cartoons represent their Prophet [DO NOT CAPITALIZE PROPHET, AS PER NPOV] as terrorist and criminal [THE ARTISTS DENY THEY WERE REPRESENTING MUHAMMAD IN SUCH A WAY; CITE SOMEONE WHO HAS ASSERTED OTHERWISE, YOU CANNOY SIMPLY ASSERT THAT THEY HAVE REPRESENTED HIM AS "A TERRORIST AND A CRIMINAL"]. According to Muslim opinion [AGAIN, NO SUCH THING AS A MONOLITHIC "MUSLIM OPINION"], the drawing of Prophet Muhammad [[CALL HIM MUHAMMAD IN A SECULAR ENCYCLOPEDIA, NOT "THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD", JUST AS WE DO NOT CALL THE MORMONS' PROPHET "PROPHET JOSEPH SMITH", EVEN THOUGH THEY DO] is not acceptable (actually, pictures of all prophets including Jesus and Moses are forbidden in Islam) [APPARENTLY SOME SHI'ITES BELIVE DIFFERENTLY; ISLAM IS DIVERSE]. Additionally they object the way in which ~~Prophet~~ Muhammad has been represented as a terrorist [AGAIN, ARTISTS CLAIM OTHERWISE], which means in their opinion that all Muslims are terrorists [ATTRIBUTE THIS OPINION TO SOMEONE]. For Muslims a message of Hate is sent by those cartoons, and they frankly express the modern Islamophobia spreading in the western world [YOU CANNOT ASSERT THAT THERE IS "ISLAMOPHOBIA SPREADING IN THE WESTERD WORLD". HERE YOU ATTRIBUTE IT TO CLINTON, BUT CITE HIM AS AFFIRMING THE TRUTH OF THE NOTION, RATHER THAN JUST STATING THAT HE SAID IT. STILL, A STEP IN RIGHT DIRECTION], as President Clinton said .

Many Muslims think that the Jyllands Posten should be punished by the Danish Government, and make comparisons to the charges that have been made against writers descriped as anti-semitic in Europe [WHAT GOVERNMENT CHARGES? THE DANISH GOVERNMENT HAS NOT PUNISHED ANYONE FOR "ANTI-SEMITISM". WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT SPECIFICALLY?]

Most European and American media supports the newspaper and considers the issue to be one of Freedom of Speech, which is one of the most important traditions in the Western, secular world. For them Muhammad should dealt with as any other religious figure - even in satirical cartoons, just like Jesus and Buddha. They believe that Muslims have no right to enforce censorship of the media. Most European and American media supports the newspaper and considers the issue to be one of Freedom of Speech, which is one of the most important traditions in the Western, secular world. For them Muhammad should dealt with as any other religious figure - even in satirical cartoons, just like Jesus and Buddha. They believe that Muslims have no right to enforce censorship of the media. Line 1344: Line 1350: For some Muslims, the publication of these pictures is seen as racist. For Many muslims there is no problem with criticism of Islamic belief, rules or behaviour, and there is no prolem either with making fun of religious people, but presenting the prophet Muhammed - who is an ideal for all Muslims - as a terrorist, suggests that all Muslims are fundamentalists and extremeists. They believe that this is a message of hate and intolerance and therefore that goverments shouldn't accepted such behaviour from the media . For some Muslims, the publication of these pictures is seen as racist. For Many muslims there is no problem with criticism of Islamic belief, rules or behaviour, and there is no prolem either with making fun of religious people, but presenting the prophet Muhammed - who is an ideal for all Muslims - as a terrorist, suggests that all Muslims are fundamentalists and extremeists. They believe that this is a message of hate and intolerance and therefore that goverments shouldn't accepted such behaviour from the media .

could u edit it to suit ur criteria ??? --Unfinishedchaos 18:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfinished Chaos, I put bracketed notes in the first two paragraphs of your essay. Take a look, if you are interested. Babajobu 18:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunently, someone is editing this talk page so quickly I can't get in a word edge-wise :/ Homestarmy 18:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nice notes Babajobu ... firstly about the Charges from Danish goverment ... I just express ideas that puplic protests said ... I understand fully the situation of Danish goverment which is in critical position .

about other important note , [ THE ARTISTS DENY THEY WERE REPRESENTING MUHAMMAD IN SUCH A WAY; CITE SOMEONE WHO HAS ASSERTED OTHERWISE, YOU CANNOY SIMPLY ASSERT THAT THEY HAVE REPRESENTED HIM AS "A TERRORIST AND A CRIMINAL"].

that is really unreasonable , when u picture muhammad with a Bomb and when picture it saying we have no virgins , and when u picture him with two veiled women ... u frankly say that muhammad learns muslims how to kill and make terrorism .. isn,t that obvious .

u say that all islam sects and schools say that women must cover all her head and she should stay in home ... ya that is the understanding of group of muslims , but i find it historical and ignorant understanding , but now ur artists come to make all muslims terrorists and ignorant and uncivilized ... the POV is in the pics themselves . have i clarified that ?

other notes is accepted and i can work to make them better --Unfinishedchaos 19:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning "Most... American media supports the newspaper and considers the issue to be one of Freedom of Speech," I haven't seen a major US newspaper come out emphatically on the side of the JP, and I don't see, say, the Washington Post or New York Times publishing these pictures; I doubt any paper that did not publish Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" would publish these drawings (it'd be a double standard if they did, IMO). If there's an example of a major newspaper in the US publishing the pictures or otherwise taking a strong stance in favor of the publications, I'd like to see the sources. --Guppy313 20:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry Guppy ... the text will be reformulated according to the notes here --Unfinishedchaos 22:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will put the resources in the text later --Unfinishedchaos 22:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC):[reply]

"In (the West) it is considered freedom of speech if they insult Islam and Muslims," Mohammed al-Shaibani, a columnist, wrote in Kuwait's Al-Qabas daily Monday. "But such freedom becomes racism and a breach of human rights and anti-Semitism if Arabs and Muslims criticize their religion and religious laws."

Emirates Justice and Islamic Affairs Minister Mohammed Al Dhaheri called it "cultural terrorism, not freedom of expression," according to the official WAM news agency. "The repercussions of such irresponsible acts will have adverse impact on international relations."

In Tunisia, the head of the Islamic world's counterpart to UNESCO called the drawings "a form of racism and discrimination that one must counter by all available means."

"It's regrettable to state today, as we are calling for dialogue, that other parties feed animosity and hate and attack sacred symbols of Muslims and of their prophet," said Abdulaziz Othman Altwaijri, president of the Islamic Organization for Education, Science and Culture,

Jordan's largest circulation daily, government-run Al-Rai, said the Danish government must apologize. [3]

In this backdrop the secretary general views that how far it could be called a civilized democratic behavior when a newspaper invites publicly to draw pictures of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), which blatantly purge his personality by showing him terrorist with a bomb over his turban, most wanted criminal, fond of women, dagger carrier, etc; need no further mentioning due to reverence for him.

These are all reprehensible and deeply sick notions portrayed by individuals who have no knowledge about the personality of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

It is evident that the intention of Jylland Posten was motivated to incite hatred and violence against Muslims. By exposing the level of understanding of Islamic religion and its symbols the dailies have seriously damaged their credibility in the eyes of Muslim world and harmed democracy, freedom of the press, violated decency and civilized norms. Iran-The General Secretariat of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC)

Ok, you've made your point heh. Homestarmy 22:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Muslim nazis" image

WTF is this image being re-added? It is obvious vandalism. Fredrik Johansson - talk - contribs 22:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone can come with a proper news source that has used this image, this cannot be brought related to this article! (Cloud02 22:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Another suggestion to comprimise

Let us have just the link in the article, untill the pool ended?! Resid Gulerdem 22:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not. Valtam 22:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Nazi" picture

I agree with Cloud and Fredrik about that picture of the Nazi salute. the image and name seem calculated to do little but stir an already boiling pot. That one should be removed, IMHO. Pat Payne 22:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I restored that image thinking it was the other one. I have no idea what this image even was. Sorry about that. Babajobu 22:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies as well as I was trying to revert the article back to one with an image of the cartoons and didn't see the Nazi image within the article. Of course, now I am locked out from editing the article at all because an admin assumes _I_ was one of the people trying to remove the cartoon image -- this whole thing is ridiculous and surreal. Sol. v. Oranje 22:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ain't it the truth... Pat Payne 22:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss

Why can't the article have the bold link at the top and the picture in the middle? Will that stop revert warring? Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would certainly make it seem a lot less like the apocalypse around here, yes, IMHO. BYT 22:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree very much with this. It's a good idea and no one should be complaining about "censorship". --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a perfectly reasonable interim solution. However, an adminstrator has reverted the page to a pictureless - linkless version that does not indiciate the picture can be found anywhere whatsoever, and then protected it, without notice, while it was on the front page. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pic's in the middle. Hoping everyone agrees to linking at the top. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please do this. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with that as a compromise. Whether consensus proves to be behind it, we'll see. Babajobu 22:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a sensible comprimise for the times being. —Ruud 22:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go try that then. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did it. Let's see if it sticks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HI-RES Version

I'm considering the possibility of adding a thumbnail of the following HI-RES picture:
http://cryptome.org/muhammad.htm
Placement would be under the section called "Publication of the drawings" after "Each of the twelve drawings portrays Muhammad in a different fashion. In the clockwise direction:"

When clicking on the thumb the user should be taken to a new Image-page similar to the picture on the top of the article. This is NOT ment to be a replacement of the picture currectly present in the article but as an addition.

Why should this picture be added:
1. It's impossible to study the cartoons in the origial scan. Most Important.
2. Adding a link to a HI-RES version would facilitate a discussion on the cartoons.
3. Some of the cartoons are not critical of Muhammed. Some are funny and some are neutral. When the picture first surfaced in Denmark this was a significant part of the debate but the press and various fundamentals have later botchered this discussion and chosen to view the issue as either a "free-speech-issue" (good IMO) of a "clash-of-civilizations-issue (not so good but not irrellevant IMO). A HI-RES vesion should in theory, since more information is avilable enrich the discussion.
4. A HI-RES version is consistant with free speech and fair use.

I've been reading Wikipedia for four years but this is the first time I have posted anything, so I guess I feel pretty strongly about this one.)

(because of work etc I might not be able to do this because of time constraints so if someone wants to be bold they have my consent. Sorry for my bad English)

MrEH

That would be a copyright violation and wikipedia could be sued. The image is fair use at a low resolution only. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

besides the copyright violation, there are already external links to the images and on top of that, the images content is explained quite clearly throughout the article. (Cloud02 22:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

They have been posted all over the internet in the last couple of day, so I don't think we should worry about wikipedia being sued. But there is no need, for indeed there are external links leading to these images. AlEX 22:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

At this point, tho, does the 'fair use' standard apply? Maybe we could leave the image of the newspaper publication of the 12 images together on the main page, and have a link to a second page with high-res versions of each picture. Valtam 22:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there's going to be a hi-res version, it should be a scan of the original JP page/article that caused all this, in its original context (I think you begin to leave the field of "fair use" otherwise). And it shouldn't be translated from Danish (or Farsi); we can fix translation flubs in our articles, but editing pictures is a bit more complex. Guppy313 23:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Below the fold

I was initially against moving the image "below the fold". I think the only reason to change an article for taste is if someone is truly offended and I'm not sure if most of those offended by the image would be satisfied with a movement of inches. However, I think at some point, which may not have happened yet, this story will be more about the boycott and protests than the actual cartoon itself. I was actually happy to see the version with the dairy case boycott notice on top and the cartoon just below. --JGGardiner 22:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well put. Compare Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005, which this event strongly resembles. That article, too, was the subject of bitter controversy. Came out all right in the end. BYT 22:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block the vandals

Why are we so hesitant to block people who consistently remove the image? When they've received several warnings already and continue to remove it they are not going to stop unless they are made to stop. --Vagodin ^Talk 22:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There have already been several blocks relating to removal of the picture in violation of 3RR. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what's 3RR? 3 reverts rule? (Cloud02 22:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

WP:3RR Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rajab has violated 3RR and had already been warned. I posted a note at WP:ANI/3RR, and hopefully someone will now block him. I agree that the 3RR rule has been woefully enforced in this article, and that the removers have been given unbelievable latitude to try to force their will onto the article. Babajobu 22:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI/3RR does not cover a page --KimvdLinde 22:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then what is the point of the rule if it doesn't cover article pages? Sol. v. Oranje 22:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She meant that the link was broken. I've fixed that with a redirect. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She is gratefull for that --KimvdLinde 22:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that one. ;) Fixed the gender. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no offence, happens al the time....--KimvdLinde 22:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Protest?

How about adding a proper image of the protest under international consequences? say one with them burning the Danish flag, just to bring the controversy of the whole article to it's full potential. (Cloud02 22:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

agreed --KimvdLinde 22:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that will offend Danish nationalists.</sarcasm> Fredrik Johansson - talk - contribs 22:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

exactly my point (Cloud02 22:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

example AlEX 22:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and lets at least have some general consensus before someone just smacks in the picture (Cloud02 22:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Edit summaries

AE, in future if you change the size of the image, which is obviously a very substantive change with which many people will disagree, please don't hide it behind an edit summary that mentions something else. Thanks. Babajobu 22:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's absurd to suddenly change the size of the image without even first mooting the idea on the talk page. I'm annoyed by the resize, annoyed by the way you did it, and I, personally, want the original size back. 250 px at least. Babajobu 22:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that original. I was about to come back on talk and discuss experiencing only edit conflicts about a proposal for a disclaimer. However, I think Karl needs to respect the 3 days of arguments and not just revert. I am fine with Hipocrites version that we discussed above. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't try to change the image size without discussing it on talk page or even in an edit summary, please. Babajobu 23:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but this is one of those cases where you gotta type fast and discuss right after to see if people agree. Now back to discussion. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second poll comment

I added a second comment to the page directing people to the second poll at the top of the talk page instead of edit warring; unfortunately, I got so many edit conflicts I had to force the issue and override whatever placement the image had at the moment (the warning only makes sense next to the image, and I had to go fast to squeeze in the tiny time window between one edit conflict and the next). Sorry about that. --cesarb 23:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lets keep the picture at the top until the poll closes..... when DOES the poll close? (Cloud02 23:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Usually, when the issue has calmed down (for instance, no new votes for a full week). Some polls (like the infamous diacritics one) never end. But it doesn't matter; the law of large numbers tends to make the results converge. --cesarb 23:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial selection

It says that 40 artists were asked and there are twelve drawings. I think an important question arises then... were there only twelve submissions? Did the editor choose which he thought were best? or what was representative? If so, were they representative? I think these are important in relating to how much the newspaper chose to display. gren グレン ^? 23:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those 12 where the only ones to respond out of the 40 Jyllandsposten asked. (in danish) http://www.aiu.dk/avisnet/show.php?id=812 The.valiant.paladin 23:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split the article

Almost all the text in the article is about the controversy over the cartoons, not about the cartoons themselves. The current title reflects that. But some people (e.g. Sol v. Orange) claim that changing the title from "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons" was a "salami slicing" tactic to change the article's former topic, rather than to more accurately reflect what the topic really was. Obviously there is not consistent agreement on this question.

Proposal: Revert the title change, so the title is again "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons", and split off the part of the article that's about the controversy. The "cartoon" article's content should be the detailed description of the cartoons (taken from the current article and maybe expanded), a nice big picture of the cartoons if the article's editors desire that, and a very brief description of the controversy, with a link to the separate "controversy" article. The "controversy" article would contain the stuff from the current article that's purely about the controversy, with a brief description of the cartoons (no picture of them), plus a link to the "cartoons" article, described as "article describing the cartoons, including a large picture".

The front page link would be to the "controversy" article since that's what its current text refers to. Yes, that would have the effect of getting the cartoon off of a direct front page link. But it's obvious that the front page link is there because of the controversy and refers to it. Phr 23:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would still keep the cartoons at both pages, as the controversy is about that. It is to easy to see the controversy as something completly seperate --KimvdLinde 23:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with a whole new article on the cartoons themselves, with detailed images of them and descriptions and translations; however, an image of the cartoons would also have to remain on the controversy page itself since the cartoons are the entire catalyst for the controversy. Otherwise, yes, it's "salami tactics" as you're removing the entire basis for the controversy from the controversy page and moving the images solely to an article on the cartoons which could easily be removed or deleted because some might feel it is un-encyclopedic. Sol. v. Oranje 23:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well OK, there would have to be further discussion on the "controversy" article's talk page about whether the "controversy" article should include the picture, but splitting the article would be intended to remove the argument that the controversy article is about the cartoons. The controversy article is intended to be about the controversy, its main pictures (if it has any pictures) should be related to the controversy (e.g. pictures of protests or boycotts), and any picture of the cartoons themselves should be at most an interior thumbnail. Phr 23:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the entire reason for the controversy is the cartoons and what they depict. Just showing pictures of the protests and violent acts spawned by the cartoons and reducing the actual cartoons to a small image within the article would be obscuring the catalyst for the controversy. Sol. v. Oranje 23:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That idea sounds reasonable to me. I considered suggesting something similar myself. However, the reason that I did not, is that avoiding the image itself on the controversy page would have the effect of implying that protests and boycotts are not directly related to the cartoons themselves. I was concerned that this might seem as if it were suggesting that those outraged were taking steps that were not proportional their genuine offence. --JGGardiner 23:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add this to page

somewhere in this paragraph: "Akhmad Akkari, spokesman of the Danish Muslim organisations which organised the tour, explained that the three drawings had been added to "give an insight in how hateful the atmosphere in Denmark is towards Muslims." Akkari claimed he does not know the origin of the three pictures. He said they had been sent anonymously to Danish Muslims. However, when Ekstra Bladet asked if it could talk to these Muslims, Akkari refused to reveal their identity. These images had however never been published in Jyllands-Posten."

I think it's crucial for making sense of this story. Images can be found: pig-muhammad http://ekstrabladet.dk/grafik/nettet/tegninger38.jpg muhammad screwing a dog http://ekstrabladet.dk/grafik/nettet/tegninger39.jpg evil pedo-muhammad http://ekstrabladet.dk/grafik/nettet/tegninger40.jpg --cokane 2 Feb 2006

@@ Line 91: / Line 91: @@
 # Keep. Doesnt matter where in the article, but as big and legible as possible. The multiplication of rumors and introduction of additional pictures makes it ''imperative'' that the original images are accurately and legibly displayed. The reader needs to see just what trivial pictures someone is willing to kill over. [[User:Dalembert|Dalembert]] 23:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 #--[[User:N.MacInnes|Nathan]] ([[User_talk:N.MacInnes|Talk]]) 23:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
+#--[[User:FRS|FRS]] 23:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 -
 | valign="top" |