Jump to content

Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

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

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

ATTENTION

Please read a few books about Islam traditions before VOTE.

ISLAM is not Usame Bın Laden

Because there is he in your subconscious.--Erdemsenol 04:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


As there are so many calls for public statements or even sorrow by whole nations, maybe other events and an act of fate (or God by whatever name people prefer to call him) could be a chance even caused by misery!?
Talk:Al-Salam_Boccaccio_98#Red_Sea contains my initial discussion on this. --Richard 02:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


"I do not agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it." Voltaire/Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Wikipedia is about disseminating information. Look here if you want to see how Wikipedia handled other controversial religious subjects. Tbeatty 05:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, umm, no, I'm not going to go read a few books before I vote. That's a ridiculous burden/requirement on voting. I already know all I need to know about this issue without having read any Islamic votes: freedom of speech. --Cyde Weys 01:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought this might interest some people. Don't really know how to fit it in to the article.

Maybe a reference. The judge threw it out of court. Going to European Court of Human Rights - maybe...


This is my translation

Danish Law: Criminal Code

Chapter 27: Offenses to peace and honour

§ 266b

Whomever publicly or with the intent of publication in a wider circle makes a statement or another message, by which a group of persons are threatened, defamed or humiliated because of race, colour of skin, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual preference, is punished with a fine or prison for up to two years.

2. When the punishment is measured it should be considered an aggravating circumstance, if the offense has the character of being part of a propaganda effort.

Polls - IN PROGRESS

Image Poll

Have picture in the article (size and placement TBD) Delete Move to separate page and link the image
  1. Chtito 18:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Keep of course! The very article is about these pictures![reply]
  2. KEEP KEEP KEEP! MAKE IT BIGGER!! EVERYONE WHO VISITS THIS PAGE SHOULD BE DEEP-THROATED WITH IT.. THANKS Hellznrg 16:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Keep Nobody disputes the existence of the images. There is no hypocrisy in showing this image here. Wikipedia has both an article for the Holocaust and the Holocaust Denial. Don’t sensor the images and let people judge the truth for themselves. --Thunder 12:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FWBOarticle 07:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC) People who don't like the image can simply off image loading function of their browser. Plus, use of image here is totally referential. Should we ban the use of word "nigger" in the article titled "nigger"?[reply]
  6. Smapti 19:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Maverick 19:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Vagodin Talk 19:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. User:slamdac 20.01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. Babajobu 20:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Sol. v. Oranje 20:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. EuroSong 20:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. KimvdLinde 20:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Valtam 20:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Septentrionalis 20:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Discus2000 20:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Neim 20:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User's only edits are to this talk page. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. UltraSkuzzi 20:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. AlEX 20:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Snailwalker | talk 20:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. StuffOfInterest 20:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Nfitz 20:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Fredrik Johansson - talk - contribs 20:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Homestarmy 20:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Carlossuarez46 20:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Jaco plane 20:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. --Ridethecurve 20:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. --Candide, or Optimism 20:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. DanielDemaret 20:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. --Lassefolkersen 20:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. The.valiant.paladin 20:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Thparkth 20:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Zerak-Tul 20:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. 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]
  37. — Peter L <talk|contribs> 20:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. --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]
  39. 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]
  40. MartinHagberg 21:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC) - the image is extremely important in order to fully understand the article.[reply]
  41. Astrotrain 21:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC). Wikipedia should never give in to religious fanatics.[reply]
  42. 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]
  43. --Anchoress 21:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Jdonnis 22:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC) - Freedom of Speech is more important the religious feelings[reply]
  45. joturner 22:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Chaldean 22:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. 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]
  48. Maprieto 22:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Denoir 22:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. 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]
  51. --Prospero74 22:28,2 February 2006 (UTC) Freedom of speech! Top, right-justified. Wikipedia is neutral and should not yield to hiding the central theme of the discussion. This is a global community, not an encyclopedia based on a certain creed.
  52. —Ruud 22:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. the wub "?!" 22:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. --Tasc 22:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. --The_stuart 22:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC) We should even have indepth descriptions of each cartoon![reply]
  56. --Alvestrand 22:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC) keep[reply]
  57. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. abakharev 23:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Definitely. See the content disclaimer, linked to from the bottom of every page. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. -- Vanky 23:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. --Jbull 23:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. 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]
  63. --Nathan (Talk) 23:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. --FRS 23:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Wikipedia is not censored. Not for minors, and not for religious beliefs. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 23:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Keep and enlarge--GeLuxe 00:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. --Cipher Pipe 01:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. --omoo 2 February 2006 (19:15 EST)
  69. --Keep, or redefine what Wikipedia is about. Eixo 00:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Second Cuiviénen Wynler 00:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. --Keep, but given the number of Muslims in the world and the potential size of the Muslim wikipedia community, we should maybe consider moving it to the bottom if Wikipedia is to not lose a sizeable chunk of its readership. L33th4x0r 00:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. --Tarawneh 00:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Well, the reason behind this dilemma is the pictures; it would be meaningless not put them in the top. But it should be clear that the Pictures are merely the POV of the Cartoonist.[reply]
  73. AllanRasmussen 00:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. --BACbKA 00:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC) bottom placement only, otherwise count me as Delete[reply]
  75. Hitokirishinji 00:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC) No kneeling to any one group of people to make them "feel" good. Truth and freedom.[reply]
  76. --Mido 00:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC) it should be in the article, at top, it's the main reason behind the problem and it's how they IMAGINED him.[reply]
  77. Zora 01:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC) The reason for the prohibition on images was prevention of idolatry; no Muslim would be tempted to worship those cartoons.[reply]
  78. --*drew 01:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. --MiraLuka 01:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Lenineleal 01:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Freedom of speech. Wikipedia should not abide by the laws of Islamofascism.[reply]
  81. Titanium Dragon 02:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Keep it where it is (at the top), it belongs there and is 100% relevant to the article.[reply]
  82. Keep at the top, it's relevant and a good illustration of the topic. That's all that matters.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 02:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Keep Wikipedia should never bow to religious fanaticism. 209.51.77.64 02:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Keep, as per many people above me. Jdcooper 03:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. KEEP. The right to free speech and freedom of the press is infinitely more absolute than any commandment of Islam. AscendedAnathema 03:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. --Greasysteve13 03:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Aarondude919 03:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. KEEP the image in the article, but not necessarily front and centre; and this poll has itself become a comment on "Islam, freedom of speech, terrorism, religious tolerance, etc" (doesn't the last comment in the ninth "no" vote just say it all). 203.198.237.30 03:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Has anyone seen him? How do you know he even looks like that anyway? SilentC 04:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Fufthmin 04:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. 146.163.218.221 04:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Lankiveil 04:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC). Wikipedia must not allow special interest groups to dictate what we may or may not see, and what we may or may not publish.[reply]
  93. Kjaergaard 04:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC) The article on the Invisible Pink Unicorn has a picture on the top too.[reply]
  94. Tbeatty 05:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Andrewseal 05:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC) On the condition that it is moved below the fold. If you're browsing Wikipedia, you're probably already in love with your scroll wheel. I think a bit of scrolling is worth keeping content accessible to the group that, in the main, this concerns.[reply]
  96. --God of War 05:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. KEEP. 郵便箱 05:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. --Sbatchu 06:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC), Wikipedia compromises it's purpose and principles if it sets a precedent of allowing itself to be bullied into concealing facts--the cartoons did exist and did get printed--because it hurts the sensibilities of a few.[reply]
  99.  — TheKMantalk 06:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Keep,same size , same placement.Waleeed 06:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Keep Your religion is no better than mine.
  102. You can't jihad wikipedia can you? Perhaps this shows the world that radical islam ISN'T the true way. Swatjester 07:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Cacophobia (Talk) 08:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. --OliverW 08:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. WP:NOT "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive." Acetic Acid 08:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Just keep it like it is. -- Trollkontroll 08:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. The Wikipedia is the obvious place to look for uncensored information. Keep it live and prominent.Philmurray 08:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. --Pmsyyz 08:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC) The image is the whole point of this article.[reply]
  109. --Kyaa the Catlord 09:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC) KEEP, it is common sense to keep the image which is the basis of the article.[reply]
  110. --Without seeing the image, we can have neither rational discussion nor informative artical so that people can make up their own mind. Also, trying to appease one religious group would open a can of worm, everybody from Atheists to Christian Fundamentalists will demand the same treatment. Mparthas
  111. Keep Should be on top because without it the article is almost useless. Pyro19 09:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Keep Only way rational discussion can make sense. Otherwise, people only see the two deliberately offensive images shown briefly in most media, not the whole thing. And Muslims do not insist that non-Muslims comply with Islamic law, surely? And there have been cartoons showing the Jewish and Christian God, despite the commandment, and nobody has threatened to kill anyone over them. And I give you Piss Christ, as an example of a Wikipedia article that you only go to if you are happy to see the picture. Skittle 10:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Keep and in as prominent position as possible. It's the very point of the article. Aris Katsaris
  114. Keep but be sensitive in presentation (i.e. do not have a top)--JK the unwise 10:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Keep. It's kind of necessary for the article. We're reproducing material that made the news–not endorsing it as a sign of freedom of speech like the newspapers. gren グレン ? 11:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Keep it is essential to the event. AdamSmithee 12:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Keep The pictures explain the article. But i agree that they shouldn't be on the top of the page. Hypnotical 13:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Keep (I also vote for moving to separate page, as I think that is OK too.)--Niels Ø 12:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Keep If there is a controversy, which there undoubtedly is, readers should be able to know what that controversy is about. The cartoons are vital to the controversy, and are therefore vital to an article about that controversy. Also, Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 12:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Keep Wikipedia is here to impart information - all information. People say we're being eurocentric, but if a cartoon were so offensive to Christians, it would surely not be removed. People say that we don't need to create a provocation to talk about a provocation, but the provocation is already created, and it garners a better understanding for one to know what the fuss is all about. They say that it shouldn't be printed because it's against Muslim law, but saying the true name of God is against Jewish law, and that's not censored. They say the site is already censored by Congress, but Congress has never stepped in, and if they did, there would be an outrage. The fact that this is even a debate is a sad reflection on our values, too afraid to offend to do what we're here to do. Twin Bird 12:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Keep It's not violating any rule of Wikipedia, neither violating any international law. Wikipedia is not standing under the Shariah. No Muslim is forced to open this page. RapaNui 14:39, 3 February 2006 (CET)
  122. Keep If someone says he's offended by my eating/drinking/breathing/living, etc., I'm not obliged to stop doing these things. I find this demand equally unreasonable. deeptrivia (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Keep Absolutely. Enlarge too, full page - people want to see this. Censoring an article because it is offensive to someone isn't in the best interests of an encyclopedia. What next? Maybe the evolution page should be deleted? corelog 14:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Keep At the top, in the current size as a sidebar to the first paragraph --Sommerfeld 14:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Keep --TheMidnighters 14:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Keep --Knio 14:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Keep, this is policy. User:Sverdrup 15:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Keep Firstly, this is policy. We have kept articles on the Iranian presidents remarks about Israel; which are orders of magnitude worse IMO. Secondly, have you seen these? http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/ArabCartoons.htm. The muslim world is guilty of more henious caricatures than this one. It stays. Avi 15:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  129. The cartoons are intentionally offensive...and we should keep them. "I disagree with everything you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it." Voltaire. "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. " Orwell.----Snorklefish 15:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Keep obviously per policy. Block any and all hypocritical POV-pushers that want to censor Wikipedia. jni 15:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Keep. 193.77.153.149 15:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  132. 'Keep No particular religious group's dogma should not dictate Wikipedia. (Entheta 15:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  133. Keep.--Eloquence* 15:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC) This is an article about the cartoons. Our purpose is to provide useful information. A fair use sample of the cartoons is useful information. That is all there is to be said; everything else is POV.[reply]
  134. Keep. Without it, why do we even have Wikipeida? Jsnell 16:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Keep--Donar Reiskoffer 16:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Keep. On top. Utopianheaven 16:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Keep. We shouldn't deleted it because it offends a select group of people. It clearly is of encyclopedic value.--Lewk_of_Serthic 16:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Keep. as per Entheta. Veej 16:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Keep. But perhaps move the image next to the full description as it reads easier, plus it would stop the complaints about the images being in such a prominent position.Logan1138 17:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Sure, why the hell not ? Darkoneko 17:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Keep. This is "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy" -- they are the cartoons. Although I would have them "below the fold". --JGGardiner 17:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Keep. Topical, crucial to illustrate the subject. I have to add that most of the arguments to censor this image are despicable, and that it is the honour and duty of any free man to stand against such things. Rama 17:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Keep. --NilsB 18:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Keep. The information is useful; if anyone likely to be offended by cartoons of Muhammad clicks on a link that says "Muhammad cartoons controversy," well, they're asking for it. I feel cheapened, however, by being forced to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with a whole pile of assholes who support the keep for confrontational or race-baiting reasons. MattShepherd 19:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Please point out where you see someone 'baiting' someone's race! Valtam 19:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Keep. Intrinsic part of the article which is very important for understanding the debate. Erudy 19:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  146. keep Poll should be closed Lotsofissues 19:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  147. keep as it is Poll should be closed Palmerston 19:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  148. BMF81 19:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Keep, of course. J-b 20:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Keep them, please ! Gérard 20:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Keep, definitely. 0836whimper 21:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Keep, There is plenty of content that discusses controversial issues, such as the Six-Day War article which includes an Arab cartoon of Nasser kicking the "Jews into the sea." Its presense in Wikipedia only documents such controversy, not supports one side or another. —Aiden 21:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Keep. English Wikipedia conforms to the freedom of the press ideals of the English-speaking world, which grows out of Western civilization. IMHO, Muslims are demonstrating the incompatibility of Islam with the Western world by their (hypocritical) outrage (they demand respect for their religion, but do not respect the religions of others). Godfrey Daniel 21:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Keep. Wikipedia is not censored, period, and displaying this image is absolutely necessary to establish illustrative context for the rest of the article. --Cyde Weys 21:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Keep -Semnoz 21:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Keep, Wikipedia is not censored to preserve the sensitivities of a few. This image will probably offend some, and I am sorry for that, but that does not mean that it should be covered up. Nobody has the right not to be offended. MichelleG 22:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  157. Keep - strong, most definite keep. The pictures are essential to understanding what this article is about. We should value freedom of expression above all else. There is far, far worse printed in the Arabian press on a daily basis.--Kalsermar 22:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Keep. Roby 22:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Keep- We can't move backwards to the dark ages, we must move forward--M4bwav 22:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Keep- We shouldn't tolerate censorship like this. It may be offensive to some, but is not to most people. The response of some of the people opposed to the catoons neatly sums up 'irony'. Tristanb 22:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Keep - We can't get perspective on the controversy without seeing the pictures. Paulb42 23:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Keep, Wikipedia is not censored. Should we next remove all images of women whose faces are not covered? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Keep per Lewk_of_Serthic. Actually, Keep per pretty much every prior voter in this column. --Aaron 23:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Keep the image as per many above. We need the image to see what the contoversy is about, and wikipedia is not censored. DES (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Keep. The image must not be censored, but neither is it necessary for educational purposes to place it at the top of the page where it's potentially offensive and off-putting.--Pharos 00:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Keep. If it is good enough for Piss Christ, good enough for here. We would not want to be inconsistent for the sake of political correctness. --Bletch 00:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Keep. Reasonable discussion requires information. How can one debate the issue without seeing what the issue is about? Coleca 01:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Keep. NPOV does not mean "nonffensive", particularly when one finds the very existence or acknowledgement of opposing views offensive. Furthermore, I suspect many of those objecting would have no problem with images considered blasphemous to other religions. Soultaco 01:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Keep. Anyone who has been Catholic knows the two New York "desecrations" of Jesus. I could care less, why should some ass bedevil me? Same here. People should realize religious stubborness is what leads to violence. This clearly depicts that. Explicitly showing the picture is important, it goes both ways baby.

JHerdez

  1. I love WikiPedia. Long live free speech along side with respect. Certainly nobody can be forced to be respectful. However one of the intrinsic mandates of Wikipedia is to be respectful among others. I am asking: how can you be "respectful and polite" by showing a cartoon that's exclusive intent is to point fingers to members of a particular religion by disrespecting and ridiculing a prophet! The publishers of these cartoons can choose to be disrespectful. I choose to protest them and respect everything that anybody thinks is divine or holy. And I would love to see Wikipedia to choose RESPECT. BuLenT
  2. Rajab 20:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is nothing but a usual Europian hypocricy. Can you say, for example, 'Holocost is nothing but a propaganda!' in your country? Where is your 'freedom of speech'? Jews were killed or not, that is a different story. My point is you cannot even say it in your countries!... Resid Gulerdem 20:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Your point is wrong. Period. Check your talk page. Hitokirishinji 21:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is valid! And very strong! I couldn't see anyting worth to mention in my talk page. I couldn't see a message from you, either. Do not discuss here, use the place provided below... In a wiki article, we cannot include an insult! It is not 'freedom of speech' and against any rules you can name and common sense! Insult is not a value to insist on or to support, it is a mental pathology which requires a professional treatment, caused by lack of ideas and lack of emphaty!... Resid Gulerdem 23:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Cretanforever 23:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. (Cloud02 22:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  6. Memty 23:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. 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. [[Kullanıcı:Ruzgar|Ruzgar]] 23:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Erdemsenol (threats against wikipedia deleted.)
  9. From an international understanding point of view, the cartoons are so upsetting to millions of muslims worldwide, that I believe this consensus to keep the cartoons is a wrong one. It is however, the decision of the body of Wikipedians, and I will protect the images in sorrow.--File Éireann 00:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. alimustafakhan I think Wikipedia should delete the picture immidietly. For two reason, first, it is an encyclopedia - not a place to redicule my Prophet (peace be upon him). Second in its own words "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." How can you be good, polite and thoughtful if you abuse the person loved and respected by over a billion over their own parents and everybody else in the world. I see this as insulting, rude and foolish thing to do. This is not fanaticism, this is basics of Islam. Something similar to "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." Say how would a Jew react if you drew a picture of His G-d? If Wikipedia does not remove this picture Muslim Wikipedians around the World would have another opinion of Wikipedia.
  11. Eşref 06:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC) There is no point in adding injury to the insult. Don't.[reply]
  12. Eric 07:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Is no added value 83.160.142.158
  14. Rustam 11:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Insulting Muslims by showing these pictures is not an NPOV at all. I love Wikipedia, but it's not uncensored as you think, since it's censored by US Congress. Muslims could boycott Wikipedia and then the key idea of its creation will be violated. Looking at the left column makes me think that all we have is the European POVs, not NPOVs.[reply]
  15. This is a POV, wikipedia should have none WikieZach 12:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I vote for deletion Wisesabre 13:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I vote for deletion too Qatarson
  18. I vote for deletion --Shafei 14:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. I vote for deletion too موهند
    Users only edit. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Delete --Ragib 16:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Immediatelt Delete the Picture because a respectable place like Wikipedia should not involve itself in the Picture Conroversy atleast. By publishing this Picture Wikipedia is doing no good to its reputation. Though the article is enough for generating information but reproduction of a picture places Wikipedia in the same line in which the Danish Newspaper stands right now. My appeal to Jimbo Wallis is to remove the picture immediately --Nigar
  22. Delete. I am agnostic myself, but many of our muslim users undoubtedly find the picture very offensive. Freedom of speech is one of my most important values, but it shouldn't be used to justify unnecessary insults towards some religion most of us even aren't very familiar with. The second best option would be to move the picture to a separate page with the proper warnings. It is quite central considering the topic of the article, after all. Hectigo 23:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Why to show these pictures that are shocking for muslims, while hiding those whith sexual content (I mean, no X pictures, but anatomic ones) ? They don't hurt me, so why should they be hidden ? I think that the same treatment should be aplicated to both. [Skippy]
  2. 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]
  3. 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]
  4. Whilst I'm a British, white athiest who would - actually - like a world in which religion didn't exist, it isn't at all clear to me that any non-muslims have taken the time to understand that the muslim community is telling us that any image of Muhammad is regarded as a blasphemy. Therefore, it is not at all clear to me why we would insist on stirring up strong emotions when we can leave the image, with a warning that it may cause offence, behind a link; leaving the responsibility of "choosing to be offended" with the muslim audience. --bodnotbod 00:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I'm in favor of a link, or at least placing it where it can be easily scrolled off the page, because I think that would increase readership of the article. Currently, a reader in a Muslim environment cannot read the article without seeing the image. If the reader is in a cybercafe, or a child using the computer in his/her parents' home, the reader may be unwilling to take the risk of being seen with the images. Geffb 01:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I don't see why the pictures can't be linked from the article page. Then no one will be forced to see them. As for showing them at all, I think they have to be available since without viewing them one cannot have an informed opinion. Zaslav 04:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I think this is the appropriate solution for this neutral Wikipedia. sentausa 10:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. We have Spoiler warnings so people do not see things they do not want to. How is this any different? Shen 10:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Move (I also vote for keeping at main page, as I think that is OK too.)--Niels Ø 12:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. This is what I think is a reasonable solution. Free Speech is great, but it is blatant that these images are causing more offence than anything on Wikipedia. It is without precedent. This will give access to the images for those who are interested, but allow those who are offended to learn about all sides of the controversy. Kouros 13:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I strongly defend Wikipedia's right to include the images. The anti-Semitism article displays numerous offensive drawings. Nonetheless, I believe it is proper for us to choose not to display this image in the main article, but to link to it instead. The information will be there for those who want to see it, while those who are deeply offended can at least read and edit the article. Speech that stops dialog dead in its tracks is best avoided.--agr 15:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Of the three choices in this poll, I guess i'll have to choose this one. The image is obviously offending muslims, however, as previously mentioned, the image does exist, so we should have the right to view it if we want. A link to it helps solve the problem.--dbalsdon 16:05, 3 Febuary 2006(UTC)
  13. If the picture isn't removed (at the moment) then at least put it at the end or shrink the thumbnailRajab 23:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. skrshawk The images add an indisputable capability for the viewer to objectively determine an opinion for themselves. Nonetheless, much like any objectionable content, a person should be given the choice to view it with full understanding of what they are about to view. Linking to them on a seperate page gives the prospective viewer fair warning. 23:28, 3 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)

  1. 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)
  2. (Cloud02 23:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  3. --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]
  4. User:slamdac 23:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 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]
  6. 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]
    so do i (Cloud02 00:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  7. L33th4x0r 00:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Link to the picture. So that Muslims won't see it. But those who want, could.[reply]
  8. Since the image is percived as offencive to a large body of people (due in my opion more to the ease with wich it lends itself to a racist interpreation rather then because it depits Mohammad), we should present it in a sensitve way. In doing this we are not censoring the image because it is still there.--JK the unwise 10:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Link--Niels Ø 12:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC) (I think the article is better with drawings at top, but if that provokes repeaed deletions, I can live with this silly compromise)[reply]

Have picture lower down the article

Why would that counter the alleged blasphemy? Instead of being offended in the lead paragraph, the article will be offensive at various places throughout its length. Poulsen 01:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Warning after the intro, image further on in the page, no link from the top Put a warning after the intro that the pictural material may be offensive to moslim users, have the complete image somewhat lower and after that individual larger images, each with some text. gidonb 22:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As per the Bahá'u'lláh precedent. See the archives of this discussion for more context. --BACbKA 00:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Warning after the intro, image further on in the page, no link from the top This image is extremely offensive to a large part of the world popultation, yet I want to see it. We solve this sort of situation with spoiler warnings in many articles or links to images (see for example autofellatio), by having a warning here would provide a great service to many people. Also note that the picture at the top of the Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime_show_controversy article is not the one showing Jannet Jackson's wardrobe failure and we have no images at child pornography at all. —Ruud 01:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As per images of child pornography, see Lolicon. Genuine child porn is illegal in Florida, however, where our servers are hosted. Babajobu 02:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Warning after the intro, image further on in the page, no link from the top I can agree with this. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Warning after the intro, image further on in the page, no link from the top. I would like to ask those below again whether they would advocate the Goatse image being put at the top of Goatse.cx, and if not, why not. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Placing the goatse image at the top of that article is possibly obscenity under Florida law (where the servers are hosted). This image is not obscene under that same law. Apples and oranges. MichelleG 22:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  6. Place just after the break, with at the top "Note: this page contains images some people (Muslims in particular) may find offensive. A mirror of this page, without images, is at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (no images)" --GeLuxe 03:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Warning or no warning. There is no consensus among other Wikipedia articles for us to make it "like all other articles," so in that repsect the decision is arbitrary. But considering the attitudes of those who insist on maintaining the image at the top, all too many show an air of open defiance, which is POV; this is an encyclopedia, not a manifesto, and so long as "top of the article" is associated with "in your face" the stance is tainted IMO. Placing it elsewhere on the page is not censorship: the image still loads in the viewer's browser regardless of where it is placed in the article. Top of the page is pro-secular and pro-Europe, removal is pro-Islam and pro-censorship, the middle of the article is the only tenable neutral ground. Guppy313 08:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Move image to end of article, add warning at top of article that image is to be found there, as per compromise solution in Bahá'u'lláh article. Whilst this image is not offensive to most readers, and we should avoid self-censorship, we should be aware of how just how offensive this image is to observant Muslims, and take care to avoid causing any unnecessary offence to roughly a sixth of the world's population. -- The Anome 10:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Agree with The Anome, and posibly GeLuxe's suggestion of offering a redirect to a pictureless article (as long as that article is stoped from being differnt to this one in any other way).--JK the unwise 11:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Agree with The Anome. Wikipedia shouldn't be censored, but we should be sensitive about upsetting people.Veej 17:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I would move the images “below the fold”. It is legitimate to have it on top but the story/article is no longer primarily about the cartoons but rather the boycott/protests/threats of violence. I would have the Saudi boycott note on top for now. --JGGardiner 17:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Move down, as per The Anome. David Sneek 21:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Move below the fold. Since this was my proposal originally, I'll have to vote for it. :) User:Zoe|(talk) 23:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Move to body of article per above, more or less. We're not losing any educational content by this and indeed we're gaining the better will of our diverse readership by a little courtesy.--Pharos 00:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have picture at top of article

  1. Leave it at the top... it's fine where it is and where it's supposed to be Hellznrg 16:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Leave it at the top. Valtam 22:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kittynboi 22:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 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]
  5. 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]
  6. --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]
  7. Fredrik Johansson - talk - contribs 23:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. —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]
  9. Jacoplane 23:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Snailwalker | talk 23:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Keep the image at the top[reply]
  11. the wub "?!" 23:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. --Anchoress 23:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. 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]
  14. as per Jotourner, Babajobu 23:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. --Tasc 23:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. -- Karl Meier 23:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Why move it? Arkon 23:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Denoir 23:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC) The controversy is based around the cartoons, so they should have a prominent top position.[reply]
  20. Vanky 23:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. --Jbull 23:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Keep it at the top.[reply]
  22. — Peter L <talk|contribs> 23:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC), per joturner and anonymous editor ("the user will know").[reply]
  23. --Nathan (Talk) 23:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 23:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Leave at top. Anything else is censorship. It's as easy as that. Eixo 00:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. The article is about the cartoons. For the sake of being informative, keep at the top. Cipher Pipe 00:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. The image stays at the top. Passw0rd 00:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Leave at top. In the style of ALL the other wikipedia articles. Wynler 00:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. StuffOfInterest 00:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Hitokirishinji 00:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Not everyone is offended and not everyone obeys Muslim law. No special treatment for any one group of people.[reply]
  31. Zora 01:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC) As above, no special treatment.[reply]
  32. Thparkth 01:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC) if this was any other image, nobody would want it moved. therefore to move it is to give special treatment.[reply]
  33. --*drew 01:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. --MiraLuka 01:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. It should stay at the top. That image is pivotal to the entire story. The.valiant.paladin 01:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. --Mmmsnouts 02:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Clearly a precedent has been set on wikipedia with Piss Christ, Anti-Semitism, and blackface. I would be against special treatment for certain groups because they are complain more, more loudly, or more violently.[reply]
  38. Titanium Dragon 02:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Leave it at the top, where it belongs. We shouldn't self-censor, and frankly, if people are really that disturbed, they should learn how to turn off images on their web browser, as Wikipedia will contain such things. As an aside, why are certain religious leaders' portraits not at the top of their articles? There are a couple, and honestly, they should be formatted the way everyone else's biography is. Titanium Dragon 02:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Jdcooper 03:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Fufthmin 04:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Lankiveil 04:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC). This article is about the images, it'd be silly to have the image anywhere but at the top.[reply]
  42. Tbeatty 05:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Article is about the images. Put it at the top and let the reader decide before he has to read the editors 'filter'/[reply]
  43. Leave it where it is. Would the image of central importance on any other article be placed anywhere else than at the top-right? Of course not, and this article should not pander itself to those trying to force their religious beliefs on the general style and format of a wiki article. AscendedAnathema 05:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Leave it where it is. The picture is relevant to the article. We DO NOT ever censor articles to keep someone from being offended.--God of War 05:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. AlEX 08:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC) There is no reason not to have it at the top, if the muslims themselves go on tour to show the cartoons, why should wikipedia hide them? Again, this article revolves around the image, and therefore the image should have a prominent position...
  46. Kaveh 08:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. It is fine just like it is now. -- Trollkontroll 08:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. The article is about the cartoons. They need to be shown at the top to provide context.Philmurray 09:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. WookMuff I know that a lot of us seem to be "getting our backs up", wanting the pics to be there just because "they" don't want them to be. But this article IS about the cartoon's and the controversy they have caused
  50. Keep it on top. Pyro19 09:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Should be on top. Aris Katsaris
  52. Article is about the cartoons, they should be on top. Maprieto 12:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Top right AdamSmithee 12:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. How many polls must we go through? Until Resid and Rajab get their way? Or is it a best out of three... or five... or seven... or... Discus2000 13:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Stays on Top For crying out loud, the article is about the pictures. They belong immediately up top, as any infobox would be as well. Avi 15:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. The article is about the drawings. jni 15:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. For obvious reasons. (Entheta 15:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  58. This is the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons' controversy page. Anyone navigating here should expect to see the images. Moreover, "hiding" the images out of "respect" shows a misunderstanding of the objection to them. "Hiding" still means showing them, which means Wikipedia would still violate the "law" against showing pictures of Mumhammed.
  59. Keep on Top, for some many reasons already listed above. Skleinjung 16:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Keep on top for obvious reasons and per Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of Muslims: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive." Peyna 16:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In response to comments above, how do those voting to hide the picture feel we should deel with Piss Christ, which contains a highly offensive image at the top of the article. Bear in mind that there are about 8 million more Christians than Muslims in the world. If we're going to worry about offending people, we had better worry about everyone we offend and not just a small group. Facts can be offensive, but so long as they are presented following WP:NPOV we should have nothing to worry about. Peyna 17:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Because, as we have seen in the past few days, for every article you name in which the relavent picture is shown at the top of the page, I can name one where it isn't (e. g. Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy). There is no "like all the other articles," the only guideline we have is that placement is arbitrary. Now, there is a difference between offending and deliberately seeking to cause offense, and too many editors want to keep it at the top in order to "shove it in their faces." If the decision of where to put the picture is arbitrary, what does it say about our POV when we arbitrarily decide to keep it in the place that obviously causes the most offense? Guppy313 19:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      To be honest Guppy, I haven't seen in the past few days how you have "tit for tat" shown an article with no picture at the top. But even if you have, I vote to keep the picture and the top and moreover, move pictures to the top of articles that have hidden pictures "below the fold". If I click on the Super Bowl Controversy link, I expect to see the moment that caused the controversy. Hitokirishinji 19:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      So you would go so far as to alter potentially dozens of otherwise unrelated articles on Wikipedia solely to justify keeping the picture at the top? How is that not POV? I would call that an agenda.
      Forget it, I have more satisfying brick walls to bash my head against. I wash my hands of this affair. Guppy313 20:07, 3 February 2006 (UT
    I would call that an assumption. It is not "justifying keeping the picture at the top" as you would call it. It is justifying NOT making any concessions regardless of whether pictures and I mean ALL pictures are offensive or not. I do not see wikipedia, as I have said earlier, as a platform to placate groups who should find such images offensive. The day wikipedia gives into one groups demands is the day we fail in our philosophy. Free information without bias and concessions. If we are to apply special consideration for one group, we are to do it with ALL groups Regardless if these groups may be religious, ethnic, racial or even simply social. So if you truely believe that this image should be "linked out" or "go below the fold" then I propose we do the same for all potentially offensive images. Anyways, I hope you use soap, bacteria are quite tenacious creatures. Hitokirishinji 21:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Keep on top for reasons described above --Donar Reiskoffer 16:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. — Dan | talk 16:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Keep on top for all the reasons already said. Utopianheaven 16:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Keep at top, it's what the article is about after all.--Lewk_of_Serthic 16:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Keep at top. I agree with Mmmsnouts, precedents have been set. Mess with this and what's next? If this article gets changed to pander to islamic beliefs, but other articles go unchanged, it would be an unfair bias imvho. Cal 18:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. This is what we do with all other articles. I see no valid reason to do otherwise here. Rama 17:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. BMF81 19:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Keep at top. Gérard 20:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Keep Astrotrain 20:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Keep —Aiden 21:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Leave it at the top. That's where it needs to be to establish illustrative context for the rest of the article. Remember, Wikipedia is not censored and we shouldn't care if people choose to be offended by cartoons fer chrissakes. --Cyde Weys 21:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Leave at the top since it is what the article is about. We should not censor it or "soften it up".--Kalsermar 22:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Leave the image at the top. Wikipedia's goal is to make the sum of human knowledge easily available. Putting the image anywhere but at the top is against that single, noble goal. The image may offend some people, and that is unfortunate, but it's placement there is not pointless, is not intended as an insult to Moslems, and helps the article. If a few Moslems choose to take it as an insult, that is unfortunate, but I think I'll be able to sleep at night. MichelleG 22:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  74. Keep at top - Puts the entire subject into perspective. Paulb42 23:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. keep at the top the image is the entire point of the article, it should come first. DES (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Keep at top per Peyna. --Aaron 23:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Keep at top - as per Peyna --Bletch 00:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't care

  1. 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]
  2. I second that, but I still voted for keeping the picture at the top as well. joturner 23:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Someone here said that simply moving down the pictures stopped the deletions. I don't mind, as long as the pictures are there somewhere. If it stops the deletion wars, then why not?
  4. As long as the pictures are in the article, and are in an appropriate part of the article. That can be the top, that can be in the "Publication of the drawings" section, that can be in another section, as long as it is directly related to the drawings (so not in the section about boycotts for instance, where the image of the notice is appropriate). Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 12:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I agree with the previous person, either at top or at a relevant section, as long as its not hidden in a hyperlink or down at the bottom or something. Homestarmy 14:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I don`t care where that particular image is placed, but it is my belief that at least ONE image should be placed atop, whether that be the grocery store image or a protest image. User:Αchille

Comment

  1. 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]
  2. Mirror at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (no images) with link from top, and have image below fold. --GeLuxe 03:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm in favour of GeLuxe's idea. There are spoiler warnings for those who want to read about books or films without being spoiled, and it's a similar situation here. Having a warning would be courteous. Shen 10:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything Else

Poll 1 Comments

i think image should not be placed no matter what.There are all other sites available and by now most pople would have seen it on other sites.The concept of Bahaullah image doesnt work here.Placing teh image here certainly means that wikipedia is taking sides....Shame on all those who started this controversial war in Denmark.....Naeem Qasai

No, shame on those who turned the publishing of a cartoon into a controversial war. Skleinjung 16:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

/incivility removed/

Knock it off, although I don't agree with him either, you can be more mature about it.--Lewk_of_Serthic 16:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Comment In my opinion it is against the principles of Wikipedia to delete an image that is fundamentally important to an article, therefore the vote that demands the deletion of the image does not make sense, IMO. -- Trollkontroll 08:28, 3 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...

  1. Maverick 19:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Contributions/Azmaverick623!!!!!
  2. User:slamdac 20.01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    Contributions/Slamdac
  3. Sol. v. Oranje 20:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Contributions/Soldaatvanoranje
  4. Valtam 20:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Contributions/Valtam
  5. Discus2000 20:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Contributions/Discus2000
  6. Neim 20:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Contributions/Neim
  7. AlEX 20:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Contributions/Al3xander
  8. --Ridethecurve 20:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Contributions/Ridethecurve

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]
I do not understand, why do you insist on making this personal? I am not accusing you. It is only your POV regarding my words. Will, it seems that both of us agree that some actions could be miss judged as rode, or aren’t we?--Tarawneh 23:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Considering you were the one who brought up these suspicions about the above list of users, the onus is on you to back up your claims with evidence and an assertment of what we've done wrong (other than to note that most of the users above support using the image of the cartoons in the article). Sol. v. Oranje 00:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Mr Soldaatvanoranje, permit me to ask you how can you know what Mr Tarawneh assumed or think ??? and permit me also to say that i dont see any accustions in the words of Mr. Tarawneh .Just a little suggestion or proposal: make a user check and the onus will be on no one. مبتدئ 00:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All I know of Tarawneh is that he listed my name under the vague accusation that somehow I have done something "strange" -- how am I supposed to respond to that, silence? Sol. v. Oranje 01:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um Tarawneh, dude, you should know that earlier this afternoon an editor added this talk page to the RfC list, so undoubtedly there are people who watch that list who came to this page specifically to respond to the request of the editor who added it.--Anchoress 04:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've used Wikipedia for years, but neither edited nor registered. Why did I register? Because I think this is one of the pivotal issues of our time. Specifically, what how does the right to express oneself intersect with the myriad religious laws to the contrary? Secondarily, how does the right to express oneself intersect with the need for restraint in the name of civility? Perhaps, Tarawneh, we (the long-lost and the newbies), are simply guilty of caring?--Snorklefish 20:07, 3 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]
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]

I did not understood what this translation has to do with the Topic (the republishing of pictures) but as someone who speaks arabic i can say that the translation of the word islam to terror is not true. Dont you feel some shame of saying something so descreminating and intolerant like that? do you know that it s even in contradiction with law and may lead to juridic consequences? and the most important it decridit you as a serious discussion partner!! I have a little challenge for you: try to find a poem written by muslim that insult jesus. If you dont find think about it why you did not found مبتدئ 01:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The unsigned comment (about Islam = Terror) was someone who was trolling and is not taken to be accurate by the users here at large. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are all missing the point. Dumb rhymes with thumb. It's artistic leeway. So long as thumb is accurate, it would seem that dumb has to work for the rhyme scheme. Obviously if it is, as some user suggested, "yoke", perhaps something that rhymes with that instead? (bloke?) Swatjester 09:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isnt it more important to have an accurate translation than having something that rhymes?

Probably, but does anyone know where the translation "daft and dumb..etc." actually comes from? I have seen it a couple of times already. So maybe it should be the one "accepted" in the english media that is shown here. --KingCarrot 21:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know where the daft and dumb comes from. This is the word for word translation; maybe some English poets can wrap it up to sound poetic? - "Profet! [Prophet!] Med [with] kuk og knald i låget [see below] som [who] holder [holds/keeps] kvinder [woman] under [under] åget! [yoke!]".
The phrase [kuk og knald i låget] describes a person with a screw lose / mental unstable / crazy / daft / a tile lose. The actual word for word is, tho the meaning will be lost: "kuk [cuckoo] og [and] knald [bang] i [in] låget [the lid]" Twthmoses 00:29, 4 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]
The "controversy" article would not be about the catalyst for the controversy. It would be about the controversy itself. The catalyst is the cartoons, and they would have their own article. The catalyst would not have to be very prominent in the article about the controversy, just like the Archduke Ferdinand (whose assassination was the catalyst for World War 1) is not very prominent in the article about WW1. Phr 23:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But Archduke Ferdinand remains in the WWI article because it was his death that sparked the war; thus the cartoons, which sparked the controversy, should remain in the article on the controversy itself (and in clear easy-to-view size, I might add, not obscured away like the fanatics want). Furthermore, the cartoons should probably also be inserted into articles regarding blasphemy and religious suppression of free speech as an example of images so "offensive" as to cause all this mess to begin with. Sol. v. Oranje 00:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Archduke Ferdinand is only briefly mentioned in the WW1 article and there is no picture of him there. There are several pictures of him in his biographical article but no picture of his assassination in that article. There is a separate article about his assassination that contains a picture of the actual assassination. And, the picture of the assassination is fairly far down in the article about the assassination (its top picture is of a memorial of the assassination). Finally, I think you're being disingeneous about the necessary size of the picture. Wikipedia contains many, many thumbnails of pictures where the thumbnails are too small to see important details. It assumes a minimal level of competence on the part of readers, namely the ability to click a mouse if they want to see a bigger version. They don't have to be spoon fed as some fanatics seem to think they do. The current picture (250px) is over 2x the pixel width (4x the area and download time) of the recommendation of the wikipedia style guide (WP:Style_guide#Pictures). Anyone arguing that its placement should follow customary wikipedia practices, should also be arguing to reduce it to 120px. Phr 00:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I think you're being disingenous about your motives to censor, obstruct, minimize, reduce, and obscurify these cartoons out of existence. Face it, these cartoons ARE the controversy; they are the fountainhead for everything that has followed. The fact thet that they are media images in and of themselves renders them more important to inclusion in any article on the controversy than a photograph of Ferninand from before the war, especially since other factors led to WWI. Here, the only factor that has created this uproar was the depiction of Mohammed within the cartoons. The matter of the size of the cartoon image will be determined after the second poll closes on where the image should be located to begin with. Sol. v. Oranje 00:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now I've added a painting of the assassination of Ferninand to the WWI article anyway, right where it begins to outline the reasons for the war. So much more illustrative of that "controversy" and its ultimate catalyst, I think Sol. v. Oranje 00:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The current poll is about where to put the picture in the current article. The placement and size of any picture in a hypothetical new article that's purely about the controversy is a completely different question. And you're being disingeneous if you claim people are too incompetent to click a mouse if they want to see a large picture. Phr 00:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, readers are not incompetent to click their mouse on an image to enlarge it. I just see no reason to reduce the image in size so much as to render its inclusion pointless to begin with Sol. v. Oranje 00:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that readers are not too incompetent to look up the whole controversy on google or muslimsearch.com or whatever.. so why don't we just delete the "jyllands-posten mohammed cartoons" page? you'd just love that wouldn't you? Hellznrg 16:46, 3 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]
Why split this and not Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy? By your logic, should we not also have a separate article entitled "Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show," both with a program schedule and a pixel-by-pixel analysis of Janet Jackson's right breast? After all, the argument could be made that "The controversy isn't about Janet Jackson's exposure but nudity on television in the United States and lax enforcement by the FCC of existing regulations."
Besides, reproducing it in the context of the controversy is fair use, but reproducing solely for reproduction's sake isn't. Guppy313 00:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would still be editorial use if it were accompanied by description, translations, interpretations of the individual cartoons, etc. And I'd have no problem with the idea of an article about FCC nudity regulations that linked to a separate article about the Janet Jackson incident. (Btw I'm going to have to attend to "real life" shortly, so if I don't respond further for a while, I'm not ignoring you.) Phr 00:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then you'd be stripping the pictures of nearly all context, leaving people wondering why they qualify as encyclopedic content ("Why are we saving pictures of a bloodthirsty starfish attacking a woman?"). Additionally, the pictures would become all the more offensive to some without the context of the discussion as there would appear to be little reason to host them other than shock value.
Additionally, you'd only be able to move most of the discussion of the comics themselves to the new comic-only article, not all of it; you'd still at least need text explaining what aspects of the comics offended so many, information that would then have to be repeated on the comic-only article to justify its own existence. And then you'd also require more text in this article describing the pictures, more than would be needed if the picture was present for the reader to view. This would result in a great deal of redundant information and the articles would be merged within a month of the split, at most. Guppy313 01:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the images be used at all? Most major newspapers are not printing them, why should we? CNN says "CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons in respect for Islam." [1]. I dont see pictures of the cartoons at the BBC article or the New York Times article -- Astrokey44|talk 00:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the NYT or CNN; in fact, we should strive to be _better_ than those media sources, and I do imagine a large amount of people who've heard of the story from those media outlets would come here to better inform themselves in depth on the controversy -- and that includes seeing the cartoons in question and deciding for themselves if these cartoons are worthy of sparking the tumult the media is reporting because of them Sol. v. Oranje 00:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CNN has existing precedent in witholding publication of offensive material, for their own reasons. Wikipedia has none, for different reasons. Guppy313 00:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does have its own precedent about offensive material. --cesarb 02:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: BBC television is airing the cartoons. --Aaron 01:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't see Ass-to-mouth at The New York Times or CNN. Wikipedia's coverage is much more comprehensive. Babajobu 00:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness that's a redirect. Although I would assume that CNN is also worried about it's journalists and ratings. Hopefully nobody is going into hotels looking for Danes, Norweigans and Wikipedians.



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]
You must not have read the latest? [[3]] I think their should be a section called "Christians in the middle east persicuted" That is fair I think 141.217.41.237 00:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BNL is a reputable source? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All you had to do is go to google and type in "church, palestinian, cartoon" Earlier, Manuel Mussalam, a priest of the Latin Church in Gaza, delivered an emotional appeal to Dr Zahar after the church received a fax that he said had come from "Fatah gunmen and the Soraya al-Quds". He said: " They threatened our churches in Gaza. We will not be threatened. We are Christians, yes, but Palestinians first." [[4]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaldean (talk • contribs)
How is that all I had to do to discover if BNL is a reputable source? Your link says nothing about BNL. Were you confused by my question? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, I thought you said reliable. Now can we add a section to this article under the title of "Middle East Christians Percicuted" Chaldean 01:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No hard feelings. I have no problem with a section on that in the article, assuming that we have a reputable source, which it appears we do. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about something like this: Middle East Christians Percicuted

Middle East Christians Persecuted

On January 29, 2006, six churches in the Iraqi cities of Baghdad and Kirkuk were targeted by car bombs, killing 13-year old worshipper Fadi Raad Elias. [5] No militants claimed to be retaliating for the pictures, but many Assyrians in Iraq claim "Westerners should not give wild statements [as] everyone can attack us [in response]" [6]. Also on January 29, a Muslim Cleric in the Iraqi city of Mosul issued a fatwa stating "expel the Crusaders and infidels from the streets, schools, and institutions because they offended the person of the prophet in Denmark." [7]In reply to the fatwa on the same day, Muslim Students beat up Christian student in Mosul University.[8] On Febuary 2, 2006, Palestinians in the West Bank handed out a leaflet signed by a Fatah militant group and Islamic Jihad stating "Churches in Gaza could come under attack". [9]


So is this fair? Chaldean 01:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. We need to build bridges with Muslims, this controversy is making things worse for the Christians in Iraq and other predominantly Muslim lands.--File Éireann 01:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
we need that not only because of our interest or the interest of christian minority there but because its a question of brotherhood of all human beeings even froma secular point of view. also because of world freedom: the chance is really given to achieve. tehre are people with whom one can discuss but if we continue this way and demonizing people may be it will not lead to nice things.(only for information the iraqi foreign minster Tarek Aziz was christian and the wife of arafat was christian i think the wife of Husni Mubarek to i think the ex un secretary butros butros ghali was egeptian and christian too. If there is any incident wich are mentioned here such things happend in netherland germany and france too. what i want to say please dont generalize like one can not generalise in the case of the mentioned countrys too). best regards مبتدئ 06:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "we"? Encyclopedias need to build bridges with Muslims? I think encyclopedias should focus on providing quality, comprehensive articles on notable topics, and leave the "bridge building" to civil engineers. Babajobu 02:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, since this is pretty much related to the cartoons in many ways, it should go in the article somewhere, it looks good so far to me. Homestarmy 14:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the section On January 29 six churches in the Iraqi cities of Baghdad and Kirkuk were targeted by car bombs, killing 13-year-old worshipper Fadi Raad Elias. An announcement by the Dutch religious rights group Open Door </ref> No militants claimed to be retaliating for the pictures, nor is this the first time Iraqi churches have been bombed; but many Assyrians in Iraq claim "Westerners should not give wild statements [as] everyone can attack us [in response]" Militants tend to be quite open about their motives, so if none of them listed this as a motive, then it's likely "just another Church bombing" Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 20:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second Paragraph

I don't like the juxtaposition of these two sentences in the second paragraph of the intro:

"Although Jyllands-Posten maintains that the drawings were an exercise in free speech, many Muslims in Denmark and elsewhere view them as provocative and Islamophobic. Two newspaper cartoonists have reportedly gone into hiding after receiving death threats, and the newspaper has enhanced its security precautions. [1] "

Presumably most of those who "view [the cartooons] as provocative and Islamophobic" do not advocate the issuance of death threats as an appropriate response or consider it "Islamophobic" to react fearfully when one receives a death threat.--FRS 00:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like it, it's perfectly OK for you to re-word it (assuming the page isn't locked), but I didn't make the assumption you fear the proximity implies.--Anchoress 00:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your concern, and I've reworded the 2nd sentence: "There have even been some extremists who have issued death threats, resulting in two newspaper cartoonists reportedly going into hiding, and the newspaper enhancing its security precautions." What do you think? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bad. Are these people really extremists? Extremist is a POV statement, and we don't even know who exactly issued the death threats. Thus, I think we should simply move the two sentences apart somehow, though honestly, I do find the juxtaposition somewhat ironic and probably rather fair, given that these people are themselves afraid of freedom. Titanium Dragon 03:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are extremists by definition. Death, as a consequence for this issue, is an extreme suggestion. The word has a definition, and can be used in a non-POV way. Now if you're asserting that the death threats are hoaxes, that's a separate issue. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blackface...and Antisemitism

Just to throw one more reason in why "the image" should continue to be included in the article, take a look at the feature article Blackface. This portrayal is considered highly offensive to many African-Americans, yet numerous examples are shown in the article. As with most things in life, it is the context as much as the content that determins if something is suitable for display or not. --StuffOfInterest 01:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same with Antisemitism, an image that is extremely offensive to Jews is right up at the top, because it's a good, informative example of the topic. And Jewish editors have made their peace with that, because that's how Wikipedia works. Babajobu 01:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet I suspect that you would not be happy with the cartoons being up under anti-Islamism, or whatever the term is. So the analogy doesnt hold. Hornplease 01:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then we're back to Piss Christ. The point is that Wikipedia is not censored to protect the sensibilities of any religious or ideological or political group. Is it really sensible to make a unique exception for Muslims? Babajobu 01:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a christian, but personally i have found Piss Christ offensive ever since i first heard of it. It brings up all kinds of questions of what IS art and its clearly just sensationalism in its most moneygrubbing form WookMuff who keeps doing his user tag wrong! 12:53 (AEST) 3rd of Feb, Ought Six
Yes, it is. And yet Wikipedia displays an image of Piss Christ at the topic of the article, because that's where it belongs in an article about Piss Christ. Should Muslim Wikipedians receive gentler, kinder treatment than every other group? That's the question we're addressing here. Babajobu 02:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The best example I can find on Wikipedia that relates to the image controversy here is this simple image: Image:YHWH.png. It's the vowelized form of the tetragrammaton, forbidden to be written in the Jewish religion and potentially highly offensive. And yet we haven't removed it. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 03:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The thing of it is, all those other articles are somewhat very different than this article. All those other articles are reporting on something which was intentionally designed to discriminate, offend, or otherwise do bad, while these cartoons were designed to simply stand out for free speech in the face of pro-Islam censorship in Europe. I would hardly call these cartoons on par with Blackface pictures, the **** Christ picture, or the anti-semitisim poster, the outrage over those pictures is highly understandable and, personally, if I was personally in charge of the **** Christ article, (Which I am not, and thusly do not plan to go near) then I would get rid of the picture. but with these cartoons, it is not designed to attack Islam directly. The other articles were all based on reporting events that were designed to offend, this article is reporting on people being offended at something not being designed to offend. Homestarmy 14:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BBC shows cartoons?

I've just heard a BBC radio report (on Australian ABC radio) stating that the BBC has shown the images briefly on British TV news. Can anyone confirm this? If it's true it should be added. --Tatty 01:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know they haven't. The Beeb still still stands firm as the paladin of political correctness (only when Muslims are concerned, curiously enough). Lenineleal 01:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to this (danish) http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/article.php?id=3581417 they actually did. The.valiant.paladin 01:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Responsible" "glimpses" see [10] --JGGardiner 01:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a significant development and should be added to the article. Surely it will add to the controversy? Anyone agree or otherwise? --Tatty 02:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's relevant - after all they only showed "responsible glimpses", i.e. almost nothing. Lenineleal 02:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside to the BBCs involvement or lack thereof, have a look at the standard of debate they are happy to host on their site- http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=904&&edition=2&ttl=20060203045131
I believe they are now embroiled in the controversy. Look at this http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2022442,00.html --Tatty 05:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is highly relevant to keeping the image on the article. Watching the BBC and Channel 4 news, they did show the images, briefly, being shown and spoken about by a very angry muslim. However, the only pictures they showed were the bomb one and the Muhammed-with-knife one. Thus, if I hadn't seen the pictures on the wikipedia article, I would be under the impression that they were all like this. Skittle 11:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ABC News in the US showed several of the images yesterday evening as well. --StuffOfInterest 11:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


There was also a large protest outside Television Centre last night because of the 6 O Clock news showing the images. Logan1138 17:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]








Mirror

I have created a mirror at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (no images), which will also need to be maintained, with the offensive image removed. Now, can we move the image down below the break on the page? Problem solved. --GeLuxe 03:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not allow these sorts of forks of articles. As for whether we can move the image down...well, take a look at the consensus demonstrated at the poll. Now what do you think? Babajobu 03:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What was the point of making the mirror? One article is enough. 209.51.77.64 04:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There was some code being used on a few articles which allowed for toggling pictures on or off... if people think that's a good idea... more or less... this whole thing mystifies me. gren グレン ? 05:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see AfD on Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (no pictures) --Descendall 08:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an AfD, it's a VfD. --cesarb 15:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]



A Usual Europian Hypocricy: Can you say, for example, 'Holocost was a propaganda' in your countries? Where is your freedon of speech? Jews were killed or not, that is a different story. My point is what the Europians are doing is nothing but a two-facedness!

I propose not to have the cartoons in the article untill the pool is ended.

I propose to keep the cartoons in the article until the 'pool' is ended. Valtam 06:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also propose you sign your posts - I'm responding to this heading; I didn't create it...Valtam 06:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The answer for the (non-European) country in which Wikipedia is hosted is "yes." But that also is moot: Wikipedia is not the place for "your point" (or the points of any editor, for that matter). Please save these points of yours for a different website. Guppy313 06:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not here? We cannot let an insult appear in a Wiki article. It is completely clear... --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.248.124.126 (talk • contribs)
As noted above, other fairly offensive yet encyclopedic articles exist on Wikipedia, see Piss Christ, Blackface, etc. Issues that are offensive should be treated with respect and tact, and that can be done while still keeping these images. --Interiot 06:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The holocaust is backed up by gruwsome FACTS, the cartoons are an opinion. I have no issue with the same in regard to Christain, jewish or whatever deity or prophet --KimvdLinde 07:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you are interested in matters of Freedom of speech in Europe, you can create an article about it. But you would have to stick to the facts, if you do. -- 129.13.186.1 08:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may deny Holocaust in Denmark. It is against the law in Germany and Austria (France?) because of their part in WW2 but not in Denmark Slup.

Holocaust denial is also against the law in Belgium. In the Netherlands, it is illegal by jurisprudence, but not yet by legislation (a bill to that end is currently going through parliament). Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 14:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IMO if we do have this Freedom of speech that so many people are arguing about then Holocaust denial should also be legal and not punished as racism. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, perhaps not, but that's not relevant to the article, so let's not go into it here and now. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 15:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's not relevant to the article. Just making sure that the people here realize that there are two same situations. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You ask if I can you say, for example, that the "Holocost" was propaganda?.... Yes I can. I can say lots of nasty, hateful things. I can say the Holocaust is a hoax, all Europeans are Nazis, Women are genetically inferior, Men are the sole reason for war, China is the yellow scourge, Africans have large penises and small IQ's, and Eskimos are born with fur... I can say all of that without legal consequence. I don't believe any of it, and I'm offended even seeing it, but I have the legal right to say it.--Snorklefish 16:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Europe in general don't have U.S. style freedome of speech so yep, accusation of hypocracy is well deserved. Wikipedia on the other hand is not Europe and thanks God for that. FWBOarticle

I think you're overgeneralizing a bit now. First of all, you have to keep the difference between de jure and de facto freedom of speech in mind (the specific application of those two types of freedom of speech in Europe and the US is another issue). Secondly, I think it's incorrect to use one label for all European countries. Poland is not Spain, and Italy is not Norway, to name but four countries. But please, we're digressing. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 16:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What you are doing is another form of hypocricy. It is the main issue here! These cartoons are in fact an insult. An insult cannot be considered as 'freedom of speech'. In fact, the point is: you do not have 'freedom of speech' in your (Europian) countries. A scientist, Roger Groudy was charged for saying that there was no Holocost! And the bottom line is this: When it comes to Jews, you cannot even speek. But for Muslims, you are insulting their beloved Prophet for the sake of freedom of speech! That is exactly what insincerity, two facedness, and a true hypocricy is! 216.248.122.218 19:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That reply was about as non-sequitur as it can get... Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 19:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Answer my question! Do not you have an answer for it? Be honest!
I honestly don't know if I've got an answer. I don't even think about responding to such ludicrous allegations. I'm sorry. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 20:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., of course you can deny the holocaust, or publish books or magazines saying the holocaust never happened. The IP has no clue what he's talking about. Free speech equals free speech. Babajobu 20:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why the IP calls it the "European" hypocrisy and not the American. In many countries in Europe you are not allowed to openly deny the holocaust or make the swastika. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 23:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can perfectly say that I dislike jews, or that they stink or whatever, but I can not deny FACTS. KimvdLinde 19:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is the whole point. I might think that your facts are not strong enough. I should be able to say it. Where? Not in Europe. Can one insult Muslim Prophet, Oh yeah...
I myself believe also that some of the Jews were killed. But what I am pointing out is different here. I hope you can see it! 216.248.122.218 19:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I think you make a false comparision. My argument if that you can not compare the denial of the holocaust (as the facts are overwelhming) with a personal opinion of a person. So, I can equally voice my opinion about god and allah (or prohets for that matter). So, is there in any western european county a law that forbids making cartoons about god and allows it about allah? KimvdLinde 19:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are trying to change the course of discussion. It is about freedom of speech, not about some stupid laws!... 128.255.45.117 20:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the facts are overwhelming, then there is no need for it. You might say a lack of evidence for god existence is overwhelming. But in Europe, you are not punished for being a Christian or an atheist. In fact, whether fact is overwhelming is irrelevant. Should people beig put to jail for practicing homeopathy? The main point is that these restriction is entirely "political". Then there is no reason, at least in Denmark or other European countries, to take "political" decision to legistrate anti blasphamy law for all religions. That is why the current state of law in many European countries are damb. I also hope that those offended by photos realised that this doesn't apply in wikipedia. Nigger is insult and offensive to people of african decent. But it would be damb to ban use of the word nigger or substitute it with "N word" in the page about the word nigger. FWBOarticle
(I think that this post was accidentally deleted earlier) Denmark in particular has allowed Holocaust-deniers free-speech. In Feb. 2004, David Irving gave several addresses there. --JGGardiner 19:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many of you are missing his point. He says holocaust denail is illegal, so insulting muslims should be, however, holocaust denial IS in this encyclopedia, so insulting muslims should be. There is also an article about the antisemetic conspiracy theory, islamophobia, flying spaghetti monsterism, and the counterstrike mod for half-life. There is no discrimination, this is not a christian european encyclopedia and neither is it an islamic mid-eastern one. 146.163.218.221 02:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what if

what if some newspaper printed a cartoon depicting Elizabeth II having sex with the Spanish King? with Voltaire? with Goethe? with Anderson? with Jesus? with Maria? will the editor be fired? will people hit the street to protest? My god are Eueopeans really full of themselves that they forgot how to respect other people? Do you say "you're a bitch" to your neighbours? You don't, even though you won't get arrested for it. It's called respect. The whole world knows freedom of speech in Europe is top notch. You don't have to prove this by insulting the Muslims. The Islam world is dangerously overreacting, but that doesn't justify your offence. Just out of curiosity, how arrogant can you be? --wooddoo [[User_talk:Wooddoo-eng|Eppur si muove]] 06:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sure, if such a cartoon was printed in any little arab newspaper, we sure would kidnap randomly chosen Arabs, burn your flags, demand terrorist attacks against Arabs etc. etc. ... (In case some didn't see it himself: This was Irony ) -- Trollkontroll 07:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

=That would be a funny cartoon!Valtam 07:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. In the film "Naked Gun", the main character "accidentally" ended up mounting on the Queen of England in missinary position, sliding along long dinner table, the queen of england screaming. The best commedic moment of the film. (^^) Yes, we are bunch of degenerates. FWBOarticle

And then the pictures should be posted on Wikipedia.... Just to get the picture right, which Anderson are we talking about...? Kjaergaard 07:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually something not too different from this happened in the United States. A magazine published a parody of popular Christian minister Jerry Falwell that depicted him losing his virginity with his own mother in an outhouse. Reverend Falwell sued the publisher and the case went to the supreme court, which decided unanimously in favor of the publisher. The West doesn't single out Islam. I've seen my own religion belittled on television comedy - and quite frankly I enjoyed the joke. My belief is strong enough to laugh off occasional disrespect. Durova 07:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Muslim and i can't figure out what your point here , I'm against the pictures , and I'm telling you they are the most stupid and horrible pictures i ever seen , but this article is speaking about the issue , so how we can explain it without the pictures ??? have you watched "last temptation of Christ" I watched it , and I'm telling you as a muslim i can't accept any person under any condition to insult any prophet and call it art , but if I'm going to make an article about the movie , and included some photos to explain the idea , should you consider me support the idea of the director ?? have you watched "al-resala" (the message), the message show some people worship stones , are you going to cut these scenes also , here we have different context and they are speaking about the event not to support the news paper.Waleeed 07:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By referring to Jesus Christ as "any prophet", implying he is not the son of God, is highly offensive to christians and i think you should apologize for that WookMuff
UMMMM , which reply is the best for you ??? Nothing , nothing had been said.Waleeed 22:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning Elizabeth II: God Save the Queen.
Heh :) We played that one on local radio, right after christian fundamentalist prayers, on easter friday ... So far, no death threats. MX44 12:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning what we say to our neighbors: Being miserable and treating other people like dirt is every New Yorker's God-given right.
Considering what happens in Europe, this ain't Europe.
But in general, this isn't the right website for your views. Guppy313 07:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim have valid case against some European countries. If race hate speech is banned why not ban faith hate speech. This is a valid issue to raise in this page. Wikipedia on the other hand is not Europe. So take the complaint elsewhere. FWBOarticle

It's only a valid issue so long as the editors aren't the ones raising it. Find a citable source in which an acceptably notable person (e. g. someone who already has a Wikipedia article about them) makes that case, then it can be included in the article (with the citation). Otherwise, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a debate club. Guppy313 07:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be blunt, if these are the worst pictures you've ever seen Waleed, then I cannot see how you'll like the internet, many times people are forced to look at disgusting pictures in ads whether we bally well want to or not, that's just how the internet works. At least these pictures don't pop up in the middle of your screen and dance around in your face like a pop-up or something. Homestarmy 14:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can change your religion; you can't change your race (and no, Micheal Jackson doesn't disprove that). France, for one, wouldn't like that idea anyway; they're pretty fed up with religion, one reason you won't be seeing a French Pope anytime soon. Titanium Dragon 16:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, the Queen and jesus - I doubt it would go down well in certain circles, but if it didn't contravene the law in the country it's hosted, then we'd just be told to "suck it up, princess." People need to lighten up. Imho, any belief system that makes you so furious that you turn to violence (over a cartoon) should not be pandered to. It's no arrogance to suggest we don't bend under pressure, it's simply retaining the way we do things. If someone of any race, religion or culture, even a nth generation Dane, doesn't like the way we do things in Europe, they're free to go somewhere more compatible with their ideology. Also, if someone is so mentally and emotionally fragile as to riot over a cartoon, they should avoid the internet, it's full of upsetting imagery. Cal 17:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of "Freedom of Speech and Hate Speech" section should be revived

I think the section should be revived. European do not adhere to freedom of speech seen in America so accusation of hypocracy is at least a valid topic of discussion. Secondly, given the section of "Islam and blasphamy", counter example of other religion or culture or political ideology is not only relevant but also fair to muslim. FWBOarticle

Um, care to elaborate? AFIK the media in Europe is far less prone to auto-censorship than its Americans counterpart. It's not a coincidence that these cartoons have been published all over Europe by mainstream media while their US counterparts have not. Also, things like nudity and sex are much more censored in US media. In legal terms, both the US and the European countries have two basic legal restrictions on free speech: libel and incitement to riot. The US has criminal libel, while the EU countries do not (although a private person can sue another private person for libel). The "incitement to riot" or "hate speech" restriction exists in both systems. Mind you though that the common European document is the ECHR, so the more elaborate wording of freedom of speech laws fall on the individual countries. --Denoir 08:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For example, in u.k. calling someone "nigger" would violate incitement of racial hatered legistration while calling someone "mohhamed freak" is legally kosher. There is an legistrative attempt to include faith hate speech, which failed just two days ago. This was listed in the section. Secondly, many countries in Europe, Holocaust denial is a criminal offence, example of which I listed in regard to David Irving, a known holocaust denier, who is currently in jail. Let just remember that, for muslim, Islam is patently true. I also listed legitrative attempt in u.s. to make flag burning a criminal offense. All these examples were wiped with section deletion on the basis that it has nothing to do with "Islam". I believe large part of criticism coming from islamic world is partially based on hypocracy of the West (Europe). So the section actually touch the core of the controversy. FWBOarticle
It is true that 7 of the 25 EU countries have holocaust denial listed as a crime, but it is a minorty. So speaking of it as a "European" policy is probably not correct. Plus, as things look now, those laws will probably be consolidated under a common framework - which won't have those restrictions. In any case, Denmark that was the origin of this controversy, does not have these restrictions. Further more, your example of UK law isn't correct. Calling somebody a "nigger" or a "mohammed freak" or a "frog" or whatever is not considered incitement of racial hatred. It's not even if you say "All limeys are worthless bastards". For it to qualify as incitement, you need to do it in a indiscriminately public medium, and you have to call for some action. So if you have a radio show and you say "All limeys are rotten thieves and bastards. Let's kick them out of Europe!", it would qualify as incitement on the condition that the intent of the message was really to incite hate against a race. As you can imagine, these things are extremely difficult to prove and categorize - and that's why very few people get charged and conviceted for such crimes. What these laws seem to be for is to keep some of the top nazis off the streets.
The point is that in any system you have some form of restrictions on free speech. You can't for instance divulge classified information, or falesly yell "fire" in a crowd. That doesn't mean it is hypocritical to stand firm om free speech in other areas. --Denoir 11:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are so wrong about the state of freedom of speech in u.k. here,here and here. Yes, in some case, you can't even say "grass". And in Denmark, the actually do have brashpamy and anti racist law. It just that they insist the photo doesn't fit the legal definition. So yes, many European countries are hypocratical. I'm personally on freedom of speech side, precisely because the law is so inconsistent. FWBOarticle
Well, I admit that the UK in recent years has had a tendency to implement some very questionable laws (questionable from a civil rights point of view). It is however too soon to tell the end result of it as they haven't been chewed by the ECJ and in some cases the EP. Both those institutions lean heavily towards freedom of speech (and civil liberties in general). It is a bit difficult to generalize on the European level, and will continue to be so until those laws are harmonized on Union level. And beside the laws, the actual implementation of them differs widely. For instance here in Sweden we have fairly strict "hate speech" laws but convictions are extremely rare. After the introduction of the laws, the supreme court squashed every single case as it violated the ECHR. The latest case was the gay-bashing pastor Åke Green who was sentenced to a month of prison for a hate speech, but was acquitted by the supreme court. So they do try now and then, but at least here the supreme court seems to deal with it directly, rather than wait for it to be settled on EU level. Ultimately, there's little legal ground for banning hate speech in any EU country, it's just that the ECJ is slow and the local national governments do their best to make questionable interpretations of the ECHR. I fully agree with you that the patchwork of laws in this area is quite inconsistent, but I would not say that it is hypocritical. There are always limits to free speech. In the US you can say that the president is an idiot, but you can't say that you want to kill him. Is it hypocritical to agree that threats against his life should be illegal while at the same time campaigning for the right to call him an idiot? --Denoir 21:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Threat of (credible) bodily harm is a felony. Child porn is a consequence of rape. Clasified information has serious consequence to national security. Trade secret is a part of intellectual patent which has immediate financial consequence. This doesn't apply to hate speech, holocaust denial, and blasphamy. Plus, without ratification of European Constitution, ECJ remains merely advisory status to each state court. Plus it is unrealistic to expect EU to overturn politically entrenched law in each members state. EU isn't sovereing institution though some pretend it to be. Plus, when EU do something stupid (such as common agricultural policy), it is near impossible to overturn it because it is so undemocratic. Idea that Brits and Romanian should be forced on the basis of the EU "consensus" is just stupid. FWBOarticle
I'd say that free speech is free speech regardless if you are Romanian or British. But you are right, why should we have common laws for Romania and Britain, or for England and Wales or for Nottinghamshire and Essex, or for Bob and Pete? That's clearly stupid. Anyway, the ECJ does not have advisory status - it's rulings are binding to the national courts. And in the case of free speech the rules are in the ECHR, specifically Article 10:

Article 10, Freedom of expression 

 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. 
 This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart
 information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless 
 of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing 
 of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 

 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and
 responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or
 penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, 
 in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, 
 for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, 
 for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the
 disclosure of information received in confidence,
 or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Bottom line on this is the national governments are getting away with it because the member states are always stalling. Usually when the ECJ comes with a ruling, the government of the member state twist the ruling and interpret it the way they like it to. And then it goes back and forth with the ECJ saying that they're doing it wrong and the national governments (or courts) finding new ways of misinterpreting rulings. Ultimately however, it's just stalling. It's just a question of time before the hate speech laws in EU states are history, because as every lawyer will tell you, they are a violation of the ECHR. --Denoir 02:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The thing of it is, im in America, and I think the reason these cartoons haven't been published as nobody really cares much. I told my class about this situation and no one had ever heard about it, so I guess it's just on the other side of the world to us for now :/. I've never even seen an article about this in the newspapers yet. Homestarmy 14:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[11] linked to from the front page of CNN. Note the last line CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons out of respect for Islam. --Denoir 21:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the fuss?

Ok, i can honestly admit that i am no muslim scholar... I tried to read the book once and gave up as it was too hard. My question is twofold. Isn't the point of not showing pictures of the prophet about stoppind the spread of idolatry? If so, how do cartoons mocking the prophet contribute to idolatry? Love that WookMuff

  • WookMuff, although many here have quoted the "spread of idolatry"-reason against the cartoons, as you phrase it, those who have been angry at the cartoons in this discussion have simply stated that it is disrespectful to the prophet, and therefore an insult to all muslims. I am beginning to think that you will not find the reason for this in any book, law or scripture. DanielDemaret 08:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Pictorial representation of animal including human is banned because inaccurate represenation of god's creation is offense to god. (Undoctored) Photo is controvercial because it is accurate. Most say it is o.k. but some say it is not. However, if say, photo is used for reverential purpose, such as a teenager having poster of "Nsync" in her foom, then the usage of photo is to divert the reverence of god to something else, so it is wrong. My mate (a muslim) got his poster of Imran Khan ripped by his dad. On top of all this, the disrespect to the messenger of God is also considered as blasphamous which many scholar say deserve death penalty. This is a separate charge. Then implying that he is a terrorist is offense to islam. Basically the photo is wrong in soooo many ways if you are muslim. oh, I'm not a muslim so I appreciate if someone correct whatever mistake I have made. FWBOarticle

for the newspaper case not this article case , the picture was seen as insulting, there is nothing relates it to idolatry !!!! as a muslim i see the picture very insulting , i respect their right in expressing their idea , but in the same time freedom doesn't equal insulting people icons, please note I'm speaking about the newspaper issue not this article issue.Waleeed 07:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh you mean like burning my icon, my flag? My flag means as much to me as Muhammad means to you. Respect is not a one-way road. I have watched this for like a week now on TV. Well most other western nations would say something like "welcome to the club" shaking their shoulders, cause we have all seen it 10.000 times on TV before, and quite frankly don't expect anything else. An appropriate response I guess. Just because most does not immediately run to the streets with banners, boycotts and such, does not make the act of burning my icon any less disrespectful. In fact it is exactly the same kind of disrespect as a Danish newspaper stand accused for.
One also has to realize that western culture use satire and caricatures to expression themselves. It is a part of our culture to do it this way, and no public person, regardless who it is, is excluded from this act. If Muslims (a bunch of Danish imams going campaigning in the ME) had not pushed this case; nobody in the world would even remember these images today. In western culture yesterdays satire and caricatures are dead and forgotten the next day, and rarely is part of some sort of a campaign, which is also not the case with these images.Twthmoses 08:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
YES like that exactly , can you tell me who started this nasty game ?? answer yourself, don't answer me.Unfinishedchaos 17:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This Sign is fake ... I have no idea about this comment --Unfinishedchaos 21:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you are right , who changed my sign to be yours ????!!!! Waleeed 23:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Can someone show us an actual verse in the Qur'an that forbids us showing those pictures (or any) of Mohammad on wikipedia.

And I don't want to see ambiguous verses either.--Greasysteve13 08:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not important for the article. Please don't use the talk page as a general discussion forum. -- 129.13.186.1 08:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know it isn't important that was one the points I was making, that censorship because of religious beliefs is unwise because there are so many religious beliefs and if we gave in to one we’d have to give in to all and that’s pretty hard to do since most of them contradict each other. Secondly, I brought up the Qur’an because I don’t even think there is anything in there relevant to the currant situation to begin with.--Greasysteve13 00:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Been discussed already. It's not in the Koran but derives from the teachings of Islamic scholars who came later. See aniconism for some info. 71.141.251.153 08:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not in the Qu'ran, and I have read a lot of supposedly related Hadith, and not even they actually forbid showing those pictures. This is one of the reasons not all muslims agree, and this is the reason that they have not been quoted in this discussion. The issue seems to be the disrespect to the prophet in general, not any particular verse anywhere. DanielDemaret 09:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's right. Most Muslims are not actually that rigorous in their religious observance (for example, many Muslims drink alcohol, in the same way that many Jews eat non-kosher food), and a great many are not, of itself, offended by depictions as such. However, a subatantial minority of the billion of so Muslims in the world are strictly observant of Islam as defined in the Qu'ran and Hadith, as well as by Islamic folkways, and will be strongly offended by depictions.
However, what is most offensive to Muslims in general, even the less-observant, is the deliberate provocation apparently displayed here, and the offense to Islam and the prophet which seems to be intended. -- The Anome 13:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use modified image - Muhammad's face blocked out

File:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings 2.JPG
The Face of Muhammed. - The controversial cartoons of Muhammad, first published in Jyllands-Posten in September 2005. The face of Muhammad has been blacked out because many Muslims see the depiction of the prophet's face as offensive. <sarcasm>The extreme mockery of the prophet (with or without face) is of course not the issue here.</sarcasm> For the original image see here

Showing Muhammad's face is forbidden in Islam, this way the original placement of the cartoon could be shown without showing the prophets face (similar to how some Islamic paintings [12] [13] show him with a veil) or a film about Muhammad does not show him at all. How about something like this as a compromise? -- Astrokey44|talk 08:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Its not censored since it gives you a link to the original image. The consensus seems to have already been reached not to use pictures of him on the Muhammad page. If the political cartoon was about any other subject other than specifically showing Muhammad's face than I would support its inclusion, but this is something which is almost always seen as 'off limits'. Seriously how many biographical movies have been made about people where the actual person the movie is about isnt shown at all?? -- Astrokey44|talk 08:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • this is nonsense of the highest order. I have been outspoken against non-Muslim images of Muhammad on the Muhammad article, since they are not relevant there. They most certainly are relevant to this article. WP is not censored, and WP is not an Islamic project, so there is really nothing to discuss except for legal points of fair use and copyright. No Muslim is forced to come here and look at these images, just like no Muslim is forced to buy Danish newspapers. dab (ᛏ) 08:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you all miss the point here. Of course, the original picture does not show "the face of the prophet". Muslims know it is not the face of the prophet. It is a cartoon! Therefore, it doesnt matter if it is blocked or not. The real problem to angry Muslims is that some people say it is the prophet, and then mock him this way - face or no face. Blocking the face doesnt make it less mockery! (maybe it is even worse... imagine, a hypocrit saying he 'respects' Islam by blocking a face only so he can push through the mockery of Islam) So, please leave the original picture the way it was. Stop putting black blocks on some pencil strokes. -- ActiveSelective 08:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this article included mockery (and I don't think it does), that should be removed (except for direct and sourced quotations) as POV. (The image, of course, is an exact and thoroughly sourced quotation.) Wikipedians cannot edit mockery elsewhere; in many countries that would be indecent and unlawful. Septentrionalis 15:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I'm muslim and i find that whole idea about hiding the pics or the face of persons in pics silly ..simply because these pics doesn,t represent prophet muhammad ... I find the question of some muslims to hide the pics silly ..cause they r not pics of muhammad in any way and noone can know the shape of muhammad or pridect it ... so keep the pics as it is . I think these these Pics is silly and full of Hate and Racism , for this reason and cause this article is talking about these Pics I think the Pics should be at the top not the Bottom . instead of that it should be explained the real viewpoint of Muslims about these pics and why they consider them racist and islamophobic --Unfinishedchaos 11:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So add it; please include sources to assist further research. Septentrionalis 15:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV dispute

In one of those long-delayed flashes of blinding obviousness, it only now occurs to me that the page is under an NPOV dispute of the highest order. I'm baffled that nobody has put up an NPOV tag already (at least I haven't seen one). I might put one up in a little while, unless somebody beats me to it. It really needs one.71.141.251.153 08:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<sarcasm>Yeah. We all know how NPOV tags magically improve articles.</sarcasm> How about trying to address the neutrality issues rather than fretting about whether or not to place a tag? What next? "This sentence could really use a period"?
If you think a tag is warranted, then just insert it, and explain the problem. This involves something more than assertion. 81.58.51.131 08:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, you're right, NPOV dispute may not be exactly the right description. The problem is that the page is under an intense edit war: One faction that thinks the picture at the top is blasphemous and must be removed. That this is an extremely POV notion should be very obvious (that same POV led a few hundred over them to storm the Danish embassy in Indonesia). The other faction insists that the picture must be stuffed down the throats of the first faction based on what I'll describe as a POV that those holding the first POV must be punished for their actions. That POV-ness should be illustrated with examples: I have a few in my post earlier against semi-protecting the page, but I might like to collect a few more (there are lots). So there are two different POV factions warring it out. Each side is demanding things that are non-NPOV (again I'll have to get around to listing some examples, but I'm doing other things right now). I'll refrain from putting up an NPOV tag til I put together more concrete cites but I hope this is enough to explain informally what I'm getting at. If I do put up an NPOV tag announcing a dispute in progress, the next step would be discussion of whether to ask the admins to lock the page. 71.141.251.153 08:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correctly or not, most people would interpret the NPOV tag to mean that the text itself has bias issues. They won't grok that it's about the placement of the image, at least not without reading this talk page first. That would be a bad outcome because the text itself is pretty incontroversial and seems well balanced. Thparkth 13:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, we would then need a meta-NPOV tag, as the bias is in the wikipedia policies and not text. Wikipedia is biased in that way that it chooses freedom of speech over adherence to religious principles. Any policy, including the no-censorship principle introduces by definiton a bias. And on that meta level, NPOV would be pointless. That however doesn't mean that there is an NPOV problem with the article text (and pictures). --Denoir 21:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions to muslims

Dear muslims. I am not a muslim myself (actually I am a non-religious Dane), but I would like to know what muslims think of the following analysis. Of course I realise that views among muslims will differ.

I think the offence caused by the Muhammed drawings works at several levels:

  1. Most current islamic traditions ban depictions of Muhammad, so the mere existence of any such picture, even a dignified one, is to some extent offensive to many muslims.
  2. Some of the pictures in question are obviously offensive, even without that ban.
  3. The way Jyllandsposten published the pictures - not as illustrations to a story, but as a deliberate act to challenge the ban - naturally prompts reactions from people supporting the ban.
  4. The way the Danish government reacted (until recently) was seen as an arrogant refusal to even discuss the matter.

I have these comments myself:

Ad 1., fundamentalists of all kinds may believe that everyone must obey the codex in their particular creed, but the rest of us (and I believe that includes by far most muslims) respect that other people live by other rules. For instance, I do not need to apologise for my eating pork, do I? So, yes, I understand that it is to some extent offensive to many, but in an open democratic world, we all have to accept such offences now and then. E.g., it offends me enormously when someone burn the Danish flag.

I wonder, do muslims who feel offended when told about these drawings, feel more so when they see the actual drawings from Jyllandsposten? Do muslims break any rules by, perhaps inadvertently, seeing the drawings?

Ad 2. and 3., the bomb-in-turban picture could be interpreted as the statement "Muhammad stands behind terror", which, although I suppose Osama bin Laden would happily agree, is an offence to many muslims. An alternative interpretation like "Terror is attributed to Muhammad" (which of course is true) is invalidated by the fact that the artist was commisioned to draw Muhammad, not to draw terror. - The anonymous pig-face picture was published by a Danish islamic organization, not by Jyllandsposten, so it is not relevant here.

For once I agree with the Danish prime minister, though I would like to state it more clearly than he does: Some of these drawings are stupid, but it is not up to the Danish government to decide whether they are blasphemous to a punishable degree; we have a legal system to deal with that. The drawings were published in Denmark, where an artist in 1984 painted a mural at a railway station depicting a nude Jesus with an erect penis. The painting was soon painted over (to the acclaim of Jyllandsposten), but he was not punished. So, it is not only when at the expense of other creeds or cultures that freedom of speach in Denmark is given more weight than respect for other's feelings.

Ad 4., I think it was a mistake when the prime minister refused to meet 11 diplomats from islamic countries 4 months ago, though I understand his reasons. They explicitly asked for the meeting to request that he punished Jyllandsposten, but the prime minister cannot punish anyone. I think he should have refused to meet them with that agenda, but at the same time invited them to a meeting with a different agenda, and I also think he back then should have expressed his dislike of some of the drawings publicly.

--Niels Ø 09:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Niels (/), how is this proclamation of yours of editorial use to the wiki-article? I dont see how. And I dont see why you publish it here. -- ActiveSelective 09:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am really trying to figure out what to think about the appearance of the drawings in the article. I honestly think they should appear prominently, and I try to understand the reasons why that is so strongly opposed by some. So my views may not interest you, but the comments (esp. from muslims) may interest me, and perhaps others too. My naive hope is that a clearer analysis of the offence may enable us to approach consensus.--Niels Ø 09:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appologize if I sounded rude. I hope you will find your answers! I advise you to add your questions to the many non-wikipedia discussion lists. What I meant, however, was that I believe that this wikipedia page can probably best do without such a discussion. These discussions are often endless, attract trolls, and doesnt help wiki-editing (which is the main purpose of this page). I wish you luck -- ActiveSelective 10:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize; I didn't make my intentions clear. I still think the discussion is relevant. Some vote to keep the drawings but move them down or to another page, hidden behind a sort of "spoiler warning" so that people not wanting to see them can avoid that. But who is it who visits this article with a strong wish not to see the drawings? I can imagine people who wish the drawings didn't exist in the world at all (I may be one of them, but they do exist and won't go away). I can also imagine people who think they should be removed from the wikipedia (I strongly disagree with them). But the people who want the compromise of having them "hidden" somewhere, do they do so for their own sake so they don't have to see them themselves, or do they do it because they think someone else may not mind so much that the drawings are there, as long as they can read the article without seeing them? Do such people exist? Perhaps they do, but that's really what I want to know. If they don't exist, we really should consider two alternatives, not three: Either we include the picture, accepting that they will be removed again and again, putting them back every time - or we accept that some other considerations are more important than freedom of speach and dissemination of neutral information. Those other considerations may be respect of religious feelings, or they may be to save the 99.9% of the wikipedia project that are rather uncontroversial, by accepting censorship in a few sensitive cases.
By the way, polls with three alternatives are difficult. If you are opposed to one alternative but can live with the other two, how do you vote?--Niels Ø 11:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, whatching the discussion develop for a while, I think I must acknowledge that there is another valid argument for "hiding" the drawings a little: As some people feel less provoked that way, they may leave it alone rather than remove it. I guess hot-headed muslims (like other hot-headed people) may click to read a page, but then be too impatient to scroll down. And after all, it is a small price to pay. So now I add my vote acordingly, and leave the discussion.--Niels Ø 12:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]




Reality check

I think I should clarify just how offensive this image is to many Muslims; perhaps the best comparison would be if someone were to wrap a Torah in bacon to prove a point about Judaism.

Wraping a Torah in bacon is not the best example. We are talking here about caricatures. And, as you can read in the article, plenty of caricatures insulting to Jews have been published, especially in Muslim media. That's what I call a "reality check". Neurino 12:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Jewish and frankly I wouldn't even be offended by wrapping a Torah in bacon. I'd say to myself, wow, that's interesting, I'd never even thought of that before. And I certainly wouldn't go out and riot and destroy things over it. But that's just me. --Cyde Weys 16:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As if that wasn't enough, the image of Muhammad as a terrorist, wearing a turban that appears to show the Shahadah ("there is no God but God, and Muhammad is His prophet") adds insult to injury. By displaying this image at the top of the article, we risk unneccessarily offending many observant Muslims who have come here to read about the controversy.

At the same time, I also believe both that the image is relevant to the article, and that Wikipedia should avoid self-censorship (I have, for example, consistently taken this position in articles containing anatomical images). In my opinion, the best way to resolve these conflicting goals is to move the image to the end of the article and to add a warning of the form:

Note: There is an image of the controversial newspaper page at the end of this article.

This was the solution reached in the similar Baha'i controversy, and seems to me to work very well.

Several of the comments insisting the image stay at the top of the article seem to have a distinct anti-Islamic slant, something I find quite offensive; we should try to respect other people's sensibilities as far as possible, even if we don't agree with them. -- The Anome 10:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you but could you point to the "Baha'i controversy" solution that you refer to?--JK the unwise 11:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No worries found it at Bahá'u'lláh. See no reason we couldn't do the same here?--JK the unwise 11:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See the whole talk section and its archives. It's been the subject of intense dispute for the past 2 days. The image has been moved to the bottom a few times, and the deletions have stopped when that's been done. But the "enlightenment" hardliners kept moving it back. (It's still blasphemous wherever it's placed, but for whatever reason the deleters backed off when it wasn't at the top). 71.141.251.153 11:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • The reason vandalism decreased when the image was moved down was that it then became evident we were not intentionally using the image as a provocation.
  • Is that a dangerous message to send, that we're not out to provoke people?
  • Why on earth we would want to send the message that we ARE using the image as a provocation?
  • Al Qaeda is not the only place you will find extremists, apparently. BYT 11:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Although most religions, strictly construed, consider the views of most other religions to be blasphemous; however, most religious communities manage get along together without yelling "blasphemer!" at one another. Similarly, although the image itself is, strictly construed, blasphemous to observant Muslims, it's using it as a provocation that really upsets them. Hence the stopping of deletions when the image is moved to the end. Provocation, from whatever side, is a bad thing. -- The Anome 11:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The (hypothetical) torah-in-bacon is interesting. I think any jew hearing about it would be offended (and so would I). But knowing that it had happened, would a jew be more offended by actually seing the bacon?--Niels Ø 11:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of the bacon thing I think... if an event like that happened and became newsworthy enough for us to have an article about it then a Torah wrapped in bacon could be our lead image. My problem is that I can't find a more appropriate lead image. If something happened because of this and that became the focal point then we could change the image. But, as of now the cartoons are the focal point. I know it may be offensive and some may view it as provocation but that's what this article is about. If you think some image is more important to the article than the cartoon then propose it as the new lead. Unfortunately I didn't see any picture that came close. gren グレン ? 11:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, Gren, I strongly disagree. The cheese image makes it clear that the boycott is an important movement in the Muslim world.
That image, or a comparable one, should lead this article.
And to all those who insist that the image of the cartoon is indispensable to any understanding of this story, let me ask: Are you all going to start howling at the New York Times now? Somehow it managed to get through its coverage of this major news story by using images of the boycott, and not images of the cartoons. BYT 12:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point BYT, but maybe NYT was being cowardly or politically motivated? This is WP, not NYT. Also, the cartoons are in the article's title, this is not Muslim boycott of Danish cheese yet :) If this escalates into a Yemen-Danish war, we will have an article about that, without the cartoon image, but so far this is still a controversy about these very cartoons and not an all-out "clash of civilizations" dab (ᛏ) 12:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Following the Torah-defilement analogy (yes, it is that offensive), since the public display of the depiction is what is causing offence here, the nearest analogy would be going down to the local synagogue and defiling their Torah too, just to show them what the first act was like. I don't think we need to lead with an image; the image is relevant, and should be in the article; it just does not need to be brandished at the top of the article. -- The Anome 11:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or, to put it another way, the article is about provocation, but need not of itself be a provocation. -- The Anome 11:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can buy or copy your own Torah and wrap it in a bacon. You may not wrap somebody else's Torah in a bacon. Besides Freedom of Speech, Denmark also has the notion of private property. dab (ᛏ) 12:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed you can. But the question is should you not only go and do so, but do so in public, in order to prove your point? As far as I can see, doing so would be likely seen to by Jews as a deliberate attempt to piss them off, on the basis that it is generally known that this would be offensive; they would also be likely to conclude (rightly or wrongly) nthat your motive for doing so would have been anti-semitism. I can easily see that many Europeans were unaware just how offensive depicting Muhammad is to many Muslims; this is probably no longer true. -- The Anome 12:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but here it's different: someone else did so in public, and you are presenting a picture of the act, while talking about it. --cesarb 14:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the umpteen millionth time, it doesn't matter why you find it offensive, nor does it matter that we understand why you find it offensive. This is not your blog, this is not the place to describe your personal feelings, explaining why you find the pictures offensive doesn't make deleting the pictures any more acceptable. Guppy313 17:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Anome just wrote: "The article is ABOUT provocation, but need not OF ITSELF BE a provocation"

  • ... and the distinction is important.
  • I would really like to hear some of the people who voted to place the image at the top of the article comment on the distinction that User:The Anome has set out for us.
  • the image is the subject matter of the article. Of course it should be placed at the top. If people want to be informed about the controversy, Muslim or non-Muslim, they have no choice but to both read about and look at the cartoons, otherwise they will not be informed, they will just be ranting about cartoons they have not even seen. dab (ᛏ) 12:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Have no choice?" Only because you're choosing for them. The reader has a right to be willfully ignorant. Moving the image further down the page doesn't change the fact that it will be downloaded onto their hard drive by their browser (i. e. people will still downloaded it, perhaps even more than if it was on top of the page), but it allows flexibility on the part of the reader whether or not to actually see it on their monitor. Guppy313 18:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


So for instance, the New York Times coverage of the story is deficient, in your view, because it doesn't even include the cartoon images? Never mind big or small, prominent or not prominent -- they chose not to piss people off. String 'em up from a lamppost in Times Square, I suppose? BYT 12:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

relax; I agree that some of the cartoons are in bad taste, and I don't suggest people should be lynched for lack of bad taste, so peace to the NYT from me; nor do I, apparently unlike the Muslim protesters, suggest people should be lynched for bad taste. dab (ᛏ) 12:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


What I asked about, though, was whether we could cover a provocation without ourselves being provocative. So far as I can make it out, your answer is "No," right? BYT 12:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RIP: The collaborative ethic

You're reading too much into the intentions of wikipedians and overreacting. The only one who is responsible for the reaction to the article is the one having the reaction. Wiki isn't supposed to guess at your reaction and censor itself to that possible reaction, that would be writing to your specific POV. We follow an NPOV policy, the facts are presented. If you don't like them, well.... Kyaa the Catlord 13:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well -- the "facts" here include the obvious one that other media outlets have chosen to take a different path than we have taken here...

Not unlike the way WP itself has chosen not to include a still from "Debbie Does Dallas" at Pornography. I assume we don't have such an image, and I'm not bothering to check. But I'm going to make that assumption based on the principle that a "collaboarative aesthetic" or "collaborative ethic" (for lack of a better word) would predictably preclude such an editorial decision. You just kind of know that a WP article that smart people put a whole bunch of work into is going to move toward the center.

Now here's my point. In other articles, like the Baha'ullah thing and the Oral sex article, we have in fact worked out ways to address the sensibilities of readers who are likely to be gravely offended by certain images. Here, in a much more serious case, we are unwilling to do so.

And the reason we are unwilling to do so is that ... ? (I honestly don't know. I'd like to hear your thoughts, though.)

The reason is simple. On Oral sex, a picture might be illustrative, and it might even be iconic. However, the article is not about a particular photograph of a sex act. This article is about a controversy surrounding a particular cartoon, and just like Piss Christ, the fact that that picture is offensive to people who will make a large, public outcry about it, is exactly why it has been pictured here on Wikipedia; not to offend, but to explain what it is that people are busy being offended by. Of course, no one is forced to read Wikipedia (I hope!) and if you are easily offended by those things that occur in the real world, and produce international news, then you almost certainly will be offended by Wikipedia.
One possible solution for such sensitive people is to download the database (which is made freely available) and strip out every article that offends you. Then you can present the "my POV-safe version of Wikipedia". Problem solved. -Harmil 22:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

Added sign. --Striver 11:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you do that? The only thing that's disputed is the excistance and placement of the image, not the text itself. The.valiant.paladin 11:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For a start: The article would be neutral if it didn't set out to insult Muslims and inflame an already potent dispute by waving this red flag in front of them. The article does in fact wave this red flag. It is therefore not neutral. BYT 12:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is about showing the facts objectively. You can hardly say that by just DISPLAYING an image central to the story that the story is POV. The.valiant.paladin 12:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you can. This is the perfect example. Certain extremists feel this image should be as widely distributed as possible BECAUSE it inflames Muslim sentiment and "teaches them a lesson" of some kind. That's a (political) point of view. As of this moment, WP is catering to that sentiment by featuring the image prominently. BYT 12:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • the image is the subject matter of the article. Of course it should be placed at the top. If people want to be informed about the controversy, Muslim or non-Muslim, they have no choice but to both read about and look at the cartoons, otherwise they will not be informed, they will just be ranting about cartoons they have not even seen. And yes you are free to roll a Torah in a bacon in Denmark (provided you are the rightful owner of both the Torah and the bacon) dab (ᛏ) 12:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The question in this case is not whether people should be free to do so, but whether people should do so. I would respectfully suggest that the answer to the second question is "no, don't be an asshole"; the first question is a whole 'nother issue. -- The Anome 12:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The disputation of the neutrality of this article is disputed. :P Kyaa the Catlord 12:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do anyone disagree with the *facts* of the story? The.valiant.paladin 12:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think a lot of people just have their panties in a wad over the picture being present on the article, not with the article in and of itself. Kyaa the Catlord 12:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems quite NPOV to me, the remaining controversy appears to be whether the image should be shown at the top, or lower down. -- 80.168.224.156 12:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I think the article misses the understanding of muslims' viewpoint wich i work on it --Unfinishedchaos 12:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be moving the article towards NPOV in and of itself. It would be writing for the enemy. Kyaa the Catlord 12:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which enemy is that, Kyaa? BYT 12:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*rolls eyes* Giving undue weight to one viewpoint draws the article to NPOV. This is what was suggested. Have fun storming those windmills, however. Kyaa the Catlord 13:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If people say the image should be available to the public, why not a link? Why post the image at top while risking that Wikipedia can get involved with this whole situation? Just because not a lot of Muslims are active on Wikipedia doesn't mean we can make it worse. 83.160.142.158 13:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's your standard, then you should not show any pictures on WP, except through a link. Otherwise, you are being inconsistent. Valtam 15:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I see a bit of POV intruding in the textual descriptions of the cartoons. The pictures are caractures of people in beards and turbans and arab/persian clothing, and it is up to each viewer to decide who each figure represents and what each figure believes. It seems that only one is objectively identified as "Muhammed", but he's a schoolboy, not a prophet. --Sommerfeld 21:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


suggestion: one cartoon

what about picking one of the self-ironic cartoons to show at the top, large? Either the "Mohammed Valloyskele" one where a kid named Muhammad is saying "Jyllands-Posten's journalists are a bunch of reactionary provocateurs", or else the one where the Islamists come running with scimitars and bombs (an anticipation of the controversy really) but their leader is saying "relax folks" (if only!). Both of these are not actually showing a caricature of Mumammad, but ironically refer to Jyllands-Posten's PR stunt itself. dab (ᛏ) 12:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vote++ MX44


Wouldn't that be slightly misleading?The.valiant.paladin 12:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it not misleading to suggest that all of the images are offensive? I am certain that nobody (who has stopped to think) is offended by the schoolboy cartoon which is blatantly in favour of the free speech with respect argument. And yet the cartoons are referred to as the 12 which have caused offence. I actually think that including that image, at the top, and the complete set at the bottom would be a reasonable compromise. 195.11.74.82 13:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It will also make the point that while everybody seems to assume these are a bunch of racist or islamophobe cartoons (the protesters appartently did not bother to look at them closely), more than half of them are not actually about stereotype views of Muhammad, but about the cartoonists' dilemma. All the more reason to make people look at the cartoons first and discuss later. If fair use permits, Wikipedia should show and discuss the cartoons one by one. Even the "bomb turban" need not be islamophobe, but a political statement about the abuse of Islam for the purposes of extremists. I must say that images like this (not to mention [14] [15]) are far more offensive, being a reflection of atavistic primate hatred untempered by satire or self-irony. dab (ᛏ) 12:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC) dab (ᛏ) 12:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - just one little picture is like being secretive about the other pictures. I find the number of pictures more impressive than a single one, because the full-page really shows the racist attack: manay attacks on Muslims and on Muslims only.

ActiveSelective 13:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Racist? Are muslims a race now? The.valiant.paladin 13:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
of course not; but islamophobe caricatures have a tendency to use racial stereotypes. dab
Point taken. However, I would like to point out that the drawings are an attack on censorship, not muslims or arabs. The.valiant.paladin 13:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(ᛏ) 13:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment As you point out, more than half of the cartoonists (wisely) chose not to take the bait. So far, we're not even that bright.
  • I have a feeling that if any steam built up here behind your wise proposal, the folks who are now screaming "the cartoon IS the story" would start screaming, "sorry, um, we meant the image of Muhammad IS the story." And I very much doubt your idea would carry the day. It probably should, though.
  • What's happening here is that people are looking for a reason - any reason - to cram down our throats the one thing to which we object. For our "own good" of course. File under: paternalistic excrementum tauri.
  • This surrealistic insistence on infuriating people at any cost has, I think, nothing to do with the First Amendment and everything to do with kicking a particular culture, one that has been persistently demonized in the mass media. What was it Hitler taught us about the wisdom of demonizing a whole culture? BYT 13:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I resent BYT's claim that Wikipedia is pulling a Hitler on Muslims. We are treating Muslims the same way we do every other religious community in Wikipedia, i.e. we are not censoring images they find upsetting. You are entitled to demand special treatment, but when the community chooses not to grant you that special treatment, please don't shriek "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!" Babajobu 13:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can still reach a point, though, where "not giving religions special treatment" becomes "promoting irreligion and secularism," something else Wikipedia isn't supposed to be doing. All too many editors now are on record in favor of putting the picture front and center in the name of the latter. And so long as there is no clear, consistent precedent in Wikipedia articles about where controversial pictures should, keeping it at the top of the page appears to be catering to those particular editors and promoting their secular ideals. Guppy313 18:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello? The article is "the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy". The controversy is the story. The image defines the basis of the controversy. If there was no image, there would be no story. You are not being objective in regards to what the controversy actually is and are, in my opinion, becoming part of the problem which the paper sought to illuminate. Kyaa the Catlord 13:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how dividing the image into several images helps the article become better and more informative; In fact, I think it would confuse more than anything else. And I don't see how it's going to mitigate the "insult" to the muslims. The drawings are still there. Finally if you don't want to see cartoons with Muhammad, don't click on a link that says "Muhammad cartoons". I don't want to see gay sex, so I don't click on links that say "Gay sex". That's just common sense. The.valiant.paladin 13:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So how come we don't see a picture of child pornography when we click on Child pornography? BYT 13:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because the production of child pornography involves abuse of children. Hence it is illegal. Hence Wikipedia do not show that kind of images.The.valiant.paladin 13:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brr. Sounds ominously close to censorship to me. Pretty sneaky. This whole "obeying the law" trend is actually a Trojan horse.
  • Did you realize that that seemingly harmless decision to obey the law actually limits (!!!!!!) your freedom of expression! You would actually be engaging in self-censorship!
  • Such a trend could, if we're not careful, be a slippery slope toward socialization, discretion, tact, and (shiver) acceptance of the fact that our words and actions do carry consequences in the real world.
  • Editors get to make judgment calls, and we are making the wrong one here, folks.BYT 13:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I shouldn't respond to you, since I feel that you are simply trolling. Please reread NPOV. Please. Kyaa the Catlord 14:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we *could* just go with the law. AFAIK, it's illegal to show child ponography where en.wikipedia's servers is. It's not against the law to show drawings of Muhammad. We could also look at it rationally; Do you really believe that there is no difference between child pornography and the drawings of Muhammad? No muslims were harmed during the production of these drawings, but children is harmed during the production of child pornography. Finally, this is not about tact; it's about presenting the facts as truthfully and effective as possible.The.valiant.paladin 14:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Is the New York Times part of the problem, too? They chose not even to use these images. Was their editorial decision somehow inimical to the job of covering the story? BYT 13:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia strives to be better than newspapers. The.valiant.paladin 13:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, it is failing in that objective. BYT 13:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my honest opinion, yes, they are. The New York Times bent to self-censorship in order to not offend a group and did itself a disservice by not presenting all the facts as fully as it could. However, comparing wikipedia to the New York Times is comparing apples to oranges. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, whereas NYT is a newspaper. There is a difference in the goal of each publication. Kyaa the Catlord 13:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok; so how about we describe the eleven cartoons, in words? dab (ᛏ) 21:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other controversial newspaper caricatures section

I have removed, and will continue to do so if necessary, three sentences User:Dogface has added to the Other controversial newspaper caricatures section. They are: "No Jewish groups fired upon a British consulate building over this matter", "No Jewish groups fired upon a French consulate building over this matter" and "No Jewish groups fired upon a German consulate building over this matter." I believe these sentences are unnecessary point-making and contrasting (an irrelevant we-they-like contrast). This article should not point at the current response to the cartoons and say "look at what they are doing, look how bad they are, and then see how group suchandsuch responded." I believe that my removal of Dogface's comments is similar to User:TheKMan's removal of the sentences "there were no mass riots, and gunmen did not fire upon a consulate over the matter" and "but nobody fired upon an embassy or consulate building over the matter." These are personal opinions that might belong on a blog, but not in an encyclopedia. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 13:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, obviously, those editorial comments had no place in the article. Babajobu 13:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westerners argument on this matter

I would like to state what some points of view I have heard in the media but not seen in the article. (Note No personal connection to this, just stating what I have heard in the media). User:Αchille

Roughly from memory: The Danish government can not condemn or impede on freedom of speech. The Muslim countries do not condone Anti Semitic cartoons or Op-Eds, and in fact some engage themselves in antisemitism.
This seems to be in contradiction with each other. Did you mean to say "condemn"? Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 13:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, thanks for noticing so quickly User:Αchille
The condone/condemn I was referring to was muslim countries and anti-semitic cartoons, not for the Danish government and freedom of speech. See [16]. I don't know if it's what you meant, but to me the sentence makes more sense like this: "Governments of some/many/whicheverisappropriate muslim countries do not condemn antisemitic cartoons or op-eds, and in fact some engage themselves in antisemitism." Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 14:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the timeline?

It was a very useful tool for those trying to get an overview of how this occurred and developed. Now it's gone an in place we have a lot of tangental and, frankly, weird "similar incidents." Some nutbar shooting Larry Flynt because of an interracial picture in Hustler thirty years ago has little to nothing to do with this, and the timeline was actually useful.

Whahoppen?MattShepherd 14:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the timeline was moved, due to the length of the article. Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy AlEX 14:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah announcement re: suicide attacks in Denmark and Norway

According to Brussels Journal, Hezbollah has said that it will conduct suicide attacks in Denmark and Norway in retaliation for publication of the cartoons. They say that the announcement is cited in this article in Jyllands-Posten. Anyone read Danish? [17]. Babajobu 14:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read danish and can confirm that, at least somewhat. The general secretary of Hezbollah didn't say that they would conduct suicide attacks, but said that if "rights of freedom" are absolute, then anyone is free to blow himself up in either Norway or Denmark. The.valiant.paladin 14:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The statement read: ”The international community should understand that any attack against our prophet will not go unpunished.” [18] See Google NewSearch for other stories. User:Αchille
In A.D. 2006, war was beginning......Homestarmy 14:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What you say?!

That wasn't a threat, Brandon was saying he's leaving Wikipedia. Check his userpage: User talk:BrandonYusufToropov. Babajobu 14:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's digusting that some people are using this article to bring their own racism here. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read it again, I know he said he was leaving. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Yes I do, but unfortunately I am not god in writhing English. But it is right as you say. I can translate the beginning: "Hezbollah is threatening with suicide attacks in Denmark and Norway… The Hezbollah - movement indicate/give a hint of/suggested* that the cries bye the cartons may led to suicide attacks I Denmark and Norway"

  • I locked it up in the dictionary so I did not get it wrong. It is not used the Danish word “si” with means say.

I can quote this Norwegian article http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article1213079.ece "- Vi har vært i kontakt med myndighetene i Libanon i kveld. Statsministeren i landet, og Hezbollah selv, avkrefter på det sterkeste at de har fremsatt trusler mot Norge, sier stats- sekretær Raymond til VG Nett."

"We have been in contact with the authorities in Lebanon to night. The prime minister and the Hezbollah it self, denies that there have been any threats towards Norway, says Parliamentary Secretary Raymond to VG news" For Aftenposten is very good newspaper I Norway, also some articles in English http://www.aftenposten.no/english/world/article1212624.ece


Huh? Well, I found the original article that Jyllandsposten got it's information from. It's in english, så judge for yourself if Hezbollah is threatening anybody here . The.valiant.paladin 15:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the legal term is incitement. Septentrionalis 16:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely suicide bombing is more offensive than these cartoons. User:slamdac

Depends on who you ask. --StuffOfInterest 18:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DIGRESSION WARNING (since everyone else is not talking about the article itself either)

Surveying and writing about these discussion pages would make for an excellent angle on the nuances and themes of the controversy. I'm talking to the reporters reading this. Lotsofissues 15:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images, drawings, illustrations, charicatures or cartoons?

What's the proper thing to call it?(Cloud02 15:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

What do you mean? Are you asking what to call all of those things? art. What to call this in particular? A political cartoon. (which is, technically also art) Swatjester 15:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The most common use is Cartoons. See a google news search for drawings OR images OR cartoons OR cartoon OR illustration OR illustrations OR caricatures hezbollah OR mohammad link ~ Cheers User:Αchille



Archive 4

I have just shaved 35k of the page by archiving all the discussions that didn't have a recent timestamp (recent defined as today — the amount of discussion here is impressive). The way I did (archiving section-by-section) can be annoying to some (section numbers shifting causing edit conflicts, spamming the recent changes); I'm sorry for the annoyance. A side-effect of the method is that it causes an irritant amount of whitespace where the removed sections were; if someone wants to fix it, feel free to (I think I have already abused enough of everyone's patience on this page for today). --cesarb 15:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's a great idea. Makes it more like a forum (which is really what talk pages should be like)
In fact, it's the way it's done on the administrator's noticeboard. The difference is that it's done there via a bot, which archives everything in a single move, and is much faster than me doing it by hand. --cesarb 15:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Perhaps someone could archive part of this again. The page is so huge that when I try to edit my computer starts to lag! Perhaps the polls could be moved to a separate page? (Entheta 18:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Unfortunately, too many of the sections have been edited recently, and it's bad to archive recently edited sections. Archiving after 12 hours is already a stretch. However, I'm planning on making another archive around midnight GMT, if enough sections are already mature. --cesarb 21:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And now for a comedic break

Because some of you REALLY need it.

You may now begin your regularly scheduled e-crusades and e-jihads against each other. Swatjester 16:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Yes I knwo this article is big. This is only what, 5 lines or so? It's not doing any harm, and may help calm someone down. Swatjester 16:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have worked... Here's some other things to do instead!

Template:Lighten up

Another picture of the prophet?

Does anyone remember that episode in South Park about the Super Best Friends? I remember distinctly they drew Mohammud and even showed him moving around and using the power of fire. In fact there is even a wikipedia article about it and I think he's even in the picture! Someone explain to me why there wasn't an enormous uproar over this? I think this is a pic of him standing next to Jesus! http://images.southparkstudios.com/media/images/504/superbestfriends.gif Hitokirishinji 17:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)</ref>[reply]

Thank you! I was trying to remember where that was from. Swatjester 17:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yep, that's surely Muhammad! Babajobu 17:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit weird indeed, it isn't exactly the first time cartoons like these are published. Asdfwtf 18:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because he wasn't attributed with a relation to terrorism, unlike one the depictions JP has publsihed (Cloud02 18:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
So it is ok to show pictures of Mohammud after all as long as it isn't in a negative light? Doesn't that just make this entire argument about "forbidden to draw the prophet" entirely moot? Hitokirishinji 18:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The depcition of Muhammad is not allowed by Islamic tradition (hadith). This however does not submit to non-Muslims, as they aren't muslims (duh). The strong reaction this issue has gotten is because one of the images shows him with a bomb on his head, with the creed written on it. Also this is regarded as being all the anger that has been built up in Muslims in the Middle East towards the wester world being brought out. (Israel-palestine, Iraq, pressure on Syria and now Iran) (Cloud02 18:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
You're missing my point. I know that this obviously doesn't apply to non-Muslims and of course the strong reaction is linked to the images associating Mohammud with terrorism. Someone made the argument above as a vote to not keep the image as
"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."
If this is truely so incredibly blasphemous and insulting to Islam, why isn't there a discussion on the page I indicated above? Why aren't there protest and bomb threats being sent to the makers of South Park? (Though I'm sure they've had their nasty run ins with other groups). I think it's absurbed that people are using this excuse as their cover for why they are truely offended. If they were vehmently against such depictions of their prophet, there would be a harder stance upon this rule and it would be applied unilaterally to all images. Hitokirishinji 18:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But if you read the commentary in this discussion by people who say they are offended by the cartoons, the vast majority of them are offended by all 12 of them, not just the bomb-in-the-turban cartoon. I think it is only the non-Muslims who are focusing on the bomb-in-the-tuban cartoon. Valtam 18:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hey guys ... u discovered many things alone ... actually no one will kill somebody only cause he draw a pic and he say that is muhammad ... it happen manytimes here in middle east that ppl say blasphemy in streets and between each other , but such things are not considered respectful behaviour , shiite says about some pics that they illustrate muhammad or ali , in spite there are no assertion at all about that ... but in this time the feeling of insulting and the explosive position in this area , the anger from goverments and usa politics ... all of that find a way to be expressed by this way of protesting --Unfinishedchaos 19:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

meta-meta-meta-controversy

The BBC's dilemma: http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4670000/newsid_4678100/4678186.stm (quite relevant) Thparkth 18:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed a very valid link. It the same discussion we are havibg here. Good read, good find, thanks. Twthmoses 20:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need to comment on the picture controversy

Let's keep this Wikipedia article encyclopedic instead of making it a debate. The article describes the controversy around the pictures and therefore, should show the pictures in order for the readers to understand what it's about and make up their own mind and form an informed opinion of their own. This is supposed to be an NPOV encyclopedia and not a debate forum so please, let not religious dogma dictate us (i.e. Wikipedia contributors) to consor ourselves (i.e. our encyclopedia). (Entheta 18:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)) And besides, it's up to everyone whether they want to click that thumbnail or not to see the larger version of the picture. It's not like the little thumbnail version can really offend anyone who doesn't really want to - and have decided in advance to - get offended. (Entheta 19:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I support keeping the image, but...

...a lot of you hopped-up race-baiting right-wing caricatures are seriously tempting me to change my vote to "delete" just to spite you. My god, people, step outside your heads for a second. Comments like "what are you going to do, bomb Wikipedia?" just make you sound like... well, hopped-up race-baiting right-wing caricatures. As stated.

You harm your cause more than you help it with braggadocio and chest-thumping jackassery.

There are serious, academic, intelligent reasons to keep the image, which I support. But my support forces me to stand next to some very shameful human beings. MattShepherd 19:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see examples of race-baiting? And why 'right-wing'? Why not 'left-wing'? Valtam 19:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm beginnning to think MattShepherd can't back up any of his 'chest-thumping' claims... Valtam 19:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And, now I know he can't... Valtam 21:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Being AFK for two hours doesn't exactly equal being "unable to back up my claims." And dude, have you actually READ this page? MattShepherd 21:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But upon reflection, "religion-bating" would have been a much more accurate choice of words than "race-bating." Implications of flat-out racism were not intended. Implications of "let's show them Muslims who's boss!" are very intended, and very, very sad. MattShepherd 21:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. You saw my point that Islam is NOT a race. On the other point, by my count, there have been more threats of violence from those who want to remove the images than chest-thumping from those who want to keep the images. It's just that the threats are removed very quickly and no longer appear on the page. Valtam
And now you know why I abstained in the first poll. Guppy313 19:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wisdom noted. I'll be bowing out from now on. This gets uglier by the minute. MattShepherd

Yo Danish speakers

The America television media has ignored this story. So American readers are counting on one of you to upload an audio pronunciation.

Lotsofissues 19:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need audio? I think that audio productions of things can only be done to featured articles, I tried self-nominating this to good article status a day or 2 ago I think, but nothing came of it so far, apparently nobody has looked at it :/. Homestarmy 20:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drats! I left out whole sentences in my request. I would like to hear the newspaper and original complainer pronounced. Lotsofissues 23:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Size

We seem to have a revert war brewing about the proper size of the image at the top of the article. It has been changed back and forth between "250px" and "thumb" several times now. I believe the size has been 250px for most of the past 12 hours (when I've been watching). Please comment here if you have issues with the picture size; let's resolve this by consensus. NoSeptember talk 18:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is that the image is far too small to be useful. Valtam 18:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular instance, "thumb" is obviously too small. 81.153.100.14 18:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All the other images on the page have not been changed in their pixel size, and simply use the "thumb", which is why all the images brought should be kept as 'thumb'. Too small to be useful?! It's on the page, and it's really not hard to click on it, if you want it enlarged. (Cloud02 18:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
An image link is also easily clickable, but that option is clearly not the choice of the image poll at the top of this page. I think we need a better reason to have a tiny image. NoSeptember talk 18:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The matter discussed in polls was whether to keep them or not. Not the size of the images. All i'm saying is that if the rest are thumbs, so should this one be (Cloud02 19:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
That is why we are discussing it here. So far most editors seem to prefer the larger image. NoSeptember talk 19:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I vote for the larger (and more legible) version GraphicArtist just put up. Valtam 19:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
in favour for 250 version KimvdLinde 19:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I belive it should be 250px, because it's a picture of a large newspaper page and is barely visible even at 250. Asdfwtf 19:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So we've agreed that the picture should stay. Lets not have an edit war about it's size. Were bigger than that. Why can't we just have the thumbnail and if people want to see the full size picture then they can do so. Otherwise it's just taking the piss. User:slamdac19:57, 3 February 2006

= Using 'taking the piss' about Mohammed might not help the discussion. Valtam 20:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It just seems to me that the only reason for having the big picture up is to incite the people who don't want the picture up User:slamdac20.07, 3 February 2006

I think it should be a full-size picture, not to 'take the piss', but because, although I've been an editor for a few months, I didn't know you could click on pics to see larger versions until today. As has been pointed out numerous times, there may be many new WP viewers coming to this article from the main page, and IMO we shouldn't assume that they will know to click to view a more legible size of the picture.--Anchoress 20:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The first I ever heard of the 'click-to-see-larger-version' option was when Cloud02 mentioned it at 18:51 above... It wasn't intutitive to me, for some reason... Valtam 20:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
250 pixels if there is a link to larger images, bigger if there is no link. No thumb. Babajobu 20:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact that I am not happy with having an inline link to an unabashedly anti-Islam website, the link used makes no clear distinction between the pictures that were published in the JP and unrelated art, and appears to segue into photographs of bloody street scenes.

Also, as much trouble as we seem to be having in translating the Danish text, I do not think it is a good idea to inline link to doctored images with an English translation added. Guppy313 19:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a better website, by all means let us know. Until then, it is impossible to see anything other than a 20x20 pixel squish of each cartoon from Wikipedia.

.jpg ->.png version

the low resolution .jpg images was replaced by GraphicArtist to a high resolution .png image [19] in violation with copyright restrictions KimvdLinde 19:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.png page is deleted KimvdLinde 20:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English WIkipedia = Judeo-Christian Forum

I was thinking that we are acting under the universal laws: objectivity, no insult, being verifiable, etc. I realized from the discussion here and from the pool that, the majority of editors here are on one side of the dispute; not on the side of Muslim view, I should add.

If even one person is saying that the cartoons are an insult to my belief, I believe the editors should change it or look for a comprimise. In this case it is about billions of people.

I lost great deal of my trust to the philosophy of Wikipedia, and I am totally dissapointed. 128.255.45.117 20:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I lost a great deal of my trust in readers like you. I am NEITHER JEWISH nor CHRISTIAN. Some of us do not associate with either religions and I still fight for free speech and freedom of information without bias. I find your comment very offensive but I will not ask you to remove it simply because offensive comments need to be seen so that others may understand how people truely biased people can act. Hitokirishinji 21:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I, on the other hand, will be disappointed and lose a great deal trust in Wikipedia, if the images are removed. That is our dilemma in this case. English WIkipedia = Muslim Forum, that also would not be fair either, right? Twthmoses 20:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And do you think the arabic language version of this isn't skewed the other way? Swatjester 20:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exacty AlEX
I think readers of Piss Christ would be surprised to learn that we have a Christian bias. Their concerns didn't get nearly the respect that Muslim concerns have gotten. Muslim concerns in this instance have gotten more consideration than those of any other community ever in Wikipedia, and still the IP shouts about racism and Islamophobia. Tiresome. Babajobu 20:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
replying to Swatjester ... we do our best in arabic Wikipedia to keep neutral and represents the two viewpoints --Unfinishedchaos 21:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to read a translation of the Arabic version for this article. It would likely provide some good first person insight into how people in the Middle-East feel about the situation. --StuffOfInterest 21:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
there are a ton of stuff on wikipedia that I take offense of....Or rather, I would take offence of if I saw it anywhere else than on wikipedia.The.valiant.paladin 21:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should use the rules allowed in court? Is the evidence wholly prejudicial or does it serve some value? BlueGoose 21:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is funny, in a sad sort of way. For the last couple of weeks I've been listening to some Christians complain that Wikipedia is controlled by Atheists. It seems that many groups want to believe that there is massive bias against them unless they control all of the levers. Sorry, Wikipedia doesn't work that way. --StuffOfInterest 21:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your are totally wrong! There is a bias here in English Wikipedia, and lack of empathy... An idea can be proposed without insulting people. Here it is not the case...
I would like the simple minded people see this: This kind of discussion cannot bring any benefit to anyone. It works well for terrorists. They already started to take anvantage of it. Eveybody should behave responsibly, for not driving the world to a caos. That is our lives, and we all responsible for it. Do not be a figure used in a large plan...
Who exactly are the 'simple minded people'? Valtam 23:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the ensiklopedia:
It is surprising that some people insist on not to understand the cristal clear, valid arguments. Let me summerize it for you:
  • An ensiklopedia cannot include an insult in an article by just claiming 'freedom of speeach'. What is hard to understand in this statement?
Why not? Valtam 23:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is clear from the Europian standards (as is discussed above) that they in fact do not have good standards in terms of 'freedom of scpeech'. They cannot deny 'Holocost' but they are insulting Islam's Prophet. That is hypocrisy! Insincerity! Two-facedness!
If common sense says we should not show these totally not evil pictures, then I say common sense must be highly over-rated. Homestarmy 22:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My only significant contribution...

...to Wiki namespace: Wikipedia:Recentism. This page is a joke and its unfortunate otherwise earnest contributors are wasting time on it. Marskell 20:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other comparable incidents section

I think a lot of the material in this section is not needed in this article and could perhaps be covered in some other article such as Blasphemy or something along those lines. It adds a lot to this article that is only loosely related to the subject of the article. Peyna 21:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was thinking something like that too. I think most of the subsections of "Comparable incidents" could be made into separate articles. (Entheta 22:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Agreed. There it a lot of material in that section that, IMO, is only remotly related to this incidend AlEX 22:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I moved the section "Freedom of speech versus blasphemy" to a separate article, Freedom of speech versus blasphemy. If that was wrong, just revert. (Entheta 22:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Indeed. The Flynt, Pamuk, and Irving cases don't have any obvious similarity to this one that I can see - apart from being high profile freedom of speech issues. -- Danny Yee 22:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also cut out the "Controversial newspaper caricatures" section and made that into a separate article. I think it's interesting enough to qualify to get its own article, but takes up too much space as off-topic in this article. (Entheta 01:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

It seems like I moved those sections, the footnotes didn't go along with the move, so those articles are now "Unreferenced". Anyone know how to fix that? (Entheta 01:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Include 1 cartoon

  1. 216.248.124.3 01:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Keep this version

More Comments

US condems Denmark

We at least should make the image small, and not on the top saying, "look at me!"! WikieZach 21:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we? Wikipedia is not censored. The entire article is about the cartoons and it makes no sense to start talking about them without showing them first. --Cyde Weys 22:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What does this have to do with the US condemning Denmark? As far as I know, only the State Department has pointed out that these pictures are "offensive to Muslims," and I would be ashamed if the US government suggested the Danish government or anyone else should apologize for exercising their right to freedom of expression or of the press. AscendedAnathema 22:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be pretty sad too, you'd think our government would realize those cartoons were in the interests of free, relatively inoffensive expression, not Islamophobia. Plus, honestly, I seriously dought the government would get much support from the people if they tried to condemn Denmark. Homestarmy 22:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aww, guess I was wrong, but I definently don't agree with that government person's assesment that anti-Islamic things are just as frowned upon and anti-jew or anti-Christian stuff, you see shows, MANY shows, and newspapers, and societies, formed up just to do stuff against Christianity, yet i've yet to see a single one get shut down or yelled at, especially when the ACLU and similar organizations protect their "rights". I wonder if the ACLU even has an opinion on this matter, i'd think they side with Denmark, that actually might be noteworthy if they make a statement. Homestarmy 01:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion in the muslim world

File:Arabcartoon.jpg
This cartoon from a Jordanian newspaper epitomises a feeling of discrimination amongst Muslims. Clockwise: "This one is racist", "this one is anti-semitic", "and this one falls under freedom of speech"

Why was the image of the jordanian cartoon removed again? Rajab 22:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page is being vandalised by 198.180.251.157 Neim 23:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, but you removed the jordanian cartoon as well Rajab 23:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, the vandalisim comes fast and furious. --Neim 23:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, they cut out the face of the cartoonist, who is drawing a stick figure of mohammed. Is depicting artists a sin now? More to the point, I see no reason why not to include this AlEX 23:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC) But a source should be present AlEX

198.180.251.157 has been blocked for 24 hours. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place to insult the values! Whatever its origin is!

Insult is not a value to insist on or to support, it is a mental pathology which requires a pfessional treatment, caused by lack of ideas and lack of emphaty!

I propose to delete the cartoons as it is an insult to the Prophet of Islam! Resid Gulerdem 23:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I have nothing against the picture because it sums up some of the absurdity of the story. Its ok to make fun of black people in Denmark, its ok to deny holocaust, its ok to say that sharon is a nazi AND its ok to draw profets...Apupunchau 23:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying, Resid, that those who wish to keep the pictures on the page have mental pathologies and require professional treatment? (Sounds like an attack to me...) Valtam 23:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean a particular person. It is general observation and idea! Whoever wants to go into it, s/he is wellcome! I would like you see that the cartoons are nothing but an insult!. Resid Gulerdem 23:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Except some of the stereotypes in these cartoons are actually somewhat historical, while equating Nazi's to Jews or saying that Blacks have humungous lips is not. Blind racism and anti-semitism is just stupid, but if Islam was always such a peaceful religion, then these pictures would of been widely condemned as just as stupid. Yet Islam has yet to prove itself to be able to be nice enough to save the world or anything. Homestarmy 23:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resid, if you don't accept western values regarding freedom of speech, the prehaps wikipedia is not the place for you. User:slamdac 23:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Western values? While you are burning people for insanity, in Islamic World they were being treated by music!!!! Who gave those values to you? Do not change the course of discussion: I am for freedonm of speach. What you are not understanding is, freedom of speech is different form insult! Resid Gulerdem 23:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rgulerdem has vandalised the page multiple times in a matter of minutes. --Neim 23:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt vandalized, just made a change. THey are different! Resid Gulerdem 23:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He has been advised that his actions are unwise on his talk page. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resid, you don't decide wikipedia policy or the policy of this article. You have closely followed the discussions on this talk page, judging from your many posts here. It should be very clear to you that there is an overwhelming consensus to keep the cartoon in the article. I cannot ask you to agree with that, but I urge you not to remove the cartoon from wikipedia. I can understand you have deep feelings about this controversy, but if you cannot respect the consensus on this talk page, then I would advise you not to visit this article. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of western countries burning people for Insanity. Anyway The Times (of London) has a very good editorial on the muhammed cartoons. It sums up my feelings exactly. I suggest everyone read it. It is on their website.

Basically what it says is (in my opinion) :- If muslims are so offended by 12 cartoons drawn by some danes then there is something terribly wrong with islam and they need to have a long hard look at themselves as they are being oversensitive. If they can't handle insults then they shouldn't read western media as it isn;t going to stop. User:slamdac 23:27, 3 February 2006

How about if the western media learn how to write an article without an insult? Actually they know, except if the object in question is Islam! Resid Gulerdem 23:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing the rules and standarts of WIkipedia in the first place! We cannot include an insult in an article. That is not how an ensiclopedia should be written! Resid Gulerdem 23:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These cartoons arn't insults (in my opinion). If they are deemed to be insulted by you then you are being oversensitive and i would advise you not to read western newspapers or watch western media as these are very tame compared to what is on show everyday of the week here. User:slamdac 23:34, 3 February 2006

This is wikipedia NOT islamopedia or shariapedia or muhammedopedia. If you can't deal with it go and start up and islamopedia or a shariaopedia or a muammedopedia. I won't go on it and vandalise it. This is because i know that it would be a eastern publication. You can;t take your values (eastern) and impose them on us (western) User:slamdac 23:41, 3 February 2006

Rgulerdem, it is not up to you to decide how an encyclopedia should be written. It's a community effort. The community has said (and I wholeheartedly agree with that) that the image should be kept in the article. Like I said, I cannot ask you to agree with that, but I would again like to ask you not to remove the image from the article. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Rgulerdem for 24 hours for violating the three revert rule. Rgulerdem, you are more than welcome to contribute the article, but you are not welcome to singlehandedly remove the cartoon. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ban the people who keep removing the images

It seems clear to me that the people who keep removing the images (we all know who they are) will not stop until they are banned. Can somebody please ban them. What does everyone else think? User:slamdac 23:22, 3 February 2006

Wholeheartedly agreed. Anyone who unilaterally removes the image should be instantly and permanently banned as a consequence. Until then, I doubt we'll see any decrease in the blanking vandalism. It also seems that many of the people who unilaterally vandalize the image have common IP addresses. I'm not familiar with IP addresses and how they work, but I'm guessing that since the first three numbers of all of the image vandals are in the 200s, it means they're coming from the Mideast. Perhaps it is possible to broadly but temporarily block IP addresses with this prefix, if it becomes necessary for Wiki to take that drastic of action.AscendedAnathema 23:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think at this point repeated removal of content, against the clear consensus of the community, is essentially simple vandalism. I think a semiprotect is necessary. Babajobu 23:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a similar proposal at WP:AN/I. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Babajobu - please define consensus for us. More than 10% are very strongly opposed to the pictures. Even if there's a majority in favour of the pictures there must be a protection of minorities Rajab 23:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently an 82% majority in favour of keeping the image in the article. Just under 11% believe it should be deleted altogether, and just over 6% believe it should be moved to a separate article. The 82% is much more than what is required to constitute a consensus. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, and does protecting a minority mean ignoring the majority's opinion? AlEX 23:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
It does if the minority is VERY strongly offended Rajab 23:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I don't think it would be fair to ban a wide IP range that might effectively ban a large number of people from certain countries or areas from editing Wikipedia, and there may be many legitimate Wikipedians i those areas. Please, no collective punishment. Just ban the IPs/people that in fact have vandalised the page. If you decide to say to people that "_You_ can't take part in this discussion because you live in such and such country and have IP such and such", that is, perhaps not by definition but anyway - dangerously close to racism. (Entheta 23:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
While there have been (sadly) some proposals (mostly from unknown editors) to block Saudi Arabia or the Mideast en masse, this is not a realistic possibility. Rest assured that the people who will be blocked are those who vandalize the article, those who violate the 3RR, those who make threats or personal attacks, and those causing disruption. There MAY be some small range blocks which *could* affect other 3rd party innocent editors, but it will certainly NOT be an attempt to exclude an entire geographic region. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. (Entheta 00:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

janet jackson's wardarobe failure doesn't show explicit photo either!

Please note that the first image on that article isn't actually the explicit one. Why can't we use a similar warning in this article here? Rajab 23:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because we shouldn't treat Muslims differently from how we treat other religious communities. See Piss Christ. See anti-semitism. See Xenu. There should be no special treatment at wikipedia for any community. Babajobu 23:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the difference here is how strongly the offense is to Muslims. Rajab 23:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make it really clear for you here Rajab. I find your existance on this earth and on wikipedia very highly offensive to my race and people. I guess you should remove yourself from this earth to make sure that I am not offended! How much sense does that make? And if you are going to say "that's rediculous, I have a right to exist" then it's the same logic, people have a right to free speech. Regardless. Hitokirishinji 00:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's ridiculous, why do you think your offense is greater than the offense of other communities when their prophets are insulted and degraded? How arrogant and obnoxious! Do you think only Muslims have beliefs? It's true, though, that fewer members of those groups have demanded that Wikipedia be censored for their benefit, that's true. I guess they just understand the concept of a free press. Babajobu 23:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you denying that we are more offended? Please, read the news Babajobu. This insult goes directly against us (implying our prophet (saw) is a terrorist) and what we believe in. See this in the context of islamophobia after 9/11 & you see why it's incredibly awful Rajab 00:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are cartoons! Drawings, stick figures. The Piss Christ article has figure of Jesus (to christians not even a prophet, but God himself) submerged in urine. If the offence is stronger to muslims, then muslim are overreacting, alot. Now tell me, how strong do you think the offense should be. Think about a statue of muhammed submerged in urine, what would the muslim world do? I dread to think. AlEX 23:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Go right ahead and put the explicit image at the top of the Janet Jackson article. I don't mind. --Aaron 00:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just did. -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 00:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at Wardrobe malfunction and it has the picture in question right at the top; no edits for several days, and the picture is at the top of the other edits I checked in the past couple of months. The picture was reprinted in prominent newspapers worldwide ... I saw it in my local papers, and The Economist. There were no complaints I'm aware of, of the newspaper publication - for the picture was by then the story. As it is here. Are we supposed to make an exception for this case? Surely Wikipedia is a secular document, and should not be bound by religious dogma! Nfitz 00:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz, can I cite you for the "Dogma is generally considered bad" paragraph in that article, I think it needs more examples, there's only really the one specific one I added :D. Furthermore, I think the reason that more people don't try to attack that **** Christ article is because that kind of garbage isn't really unexpected, the Bible tells us that many would hate on Christ for various reasons, and there isn't any direct order telling us to wage holy war against all those who defame His name. Of course, if we could, we probably would delete it, but we can't, so I don't see why we should try, it's not that horribly important, it's just a really mean picture :/. Not that it isn't a big deal or anything, it's just I can't think of any Biblical justification for raising Cain over it, there's better things to do with our time...like evangelize, it's really not easy to evangelize while deleting pictures on Wikipedia i'd think. Homestarmy 01:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 revert rule

Why doesn't the 3 revert rule apply to people who re-insert the offensive cartoon?

Because the reverts are done to undo blanking vandalism, to which 3RR doesn't apply. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, at this point I think it meets the definition of simple vandalism. Repeatedly removing content when the community has clearly stated it believes the article is better with the image, that amounts to "an effort to degrade the quality of an article". I.e., vandalism. Babajobu 23:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
what do you mean by clearly stated? 10% strongly feel against it. What exactly is your definition of consensu, Babajobu? Rajab 23:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the relevant articles in the wikipedia namespace, consensus is roughly 70 to 80 percent. There is a current consensus of over 80% to keep the cartoon in the article, which constitutes a consensus. Indeed, about 10% strongly feel against the cartoon. That means that 90% don't. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because the reversion of vandalism does not count as a 3RR violation. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One particular picture sums up the event, and should perhaps head the page?

This comment of mine is certainly POV, but still a suggestion about what might make the article clearer. That there is one single picture that sums up the event from the perspective of many. The one where a man is looking over his shoulder while trying to draw Mohammed. He draws the picture, in fear of muslims that will threaten to kill him. This very picture gets published along with the astounding suggestion that we do not have press freedom even in the land rated #1 according to http://www.rsf.org/. And then the the article is proven right by people threatening to kill the artists. Ignore this or give constructive critisism. DanielDemaret 23:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks interesting to me, but I don't see how we can fit it into the article, since it's not one of the apparently more popular targets for critism :(. Homestarmy

I would agree to keep that only cartoon instead! Resid Gulerdem 23:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that's a very interesting perspective as well. It's the least "offending" of the pictures, but probably the one that best examplifies the controversy because it's almost prophetic. (Entheta 23:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
at least that one doesn't depict the prophet muhammad (saw) - it only depicts the drawing of his picture %~( Rajab 23:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a nice attempt at compromise, but that single image is not generating the controversy, nor is it in response to the controversy... at best it predicts the controversy. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

protection of minorities

10% of people here feel very strongly offended by those pictures. Minorities have to be protected, even against a majority Rajab 23:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does protecting a minority mean ignoring the majority's opinion? AlEX 23:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
if the minority is VERY strongly offended then yes, it does mean just that Rajab 23:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that minority is so strongly offended by this article, that minority should not click the link to this article. I don't see how you can oppose majority rule but support minority rule. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 00:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Protection of minorities" - aparently there is no better word for this concept in the English language. The German wikipedia describes it quite nicely though [[20]]. Maybe someone who speaks German can put an article like this into the English wikipedia & explain it to people like Babajobu Rajab 23:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic: I think the closest thing in normal English usage would be Minority rights. That article would be a good place to translate the info from the German Wikipedia to.--Pharos 00:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I know about being minority. But if you are referring to the polls, the "losers" (for lack of better english word in my vocabulary) are not a minority people, they're just of a minority opinion. And I don't know what you mean they need to be protected against? Other Wikipedians? Wikipedia has freedom of opinion, and if any muslim or anyone else of the £10% of people here" that you refer to gets threatened or anything like that, I'm sure there are ways to report that to get the person who threatened him/her punished in some way, like being banned, or if very serious, reported to police. (Entheta 23:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Protection against being strongly & knowingly offended Rajab 23:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this is a source of some misunderstanding. In most Western cultures, people (minorities or majorities) do NOT have any protections against being offended. This is considered by many to be one of the cornerstones of a free society. The alternative (if people were allowed to stop anything that offended them) is said to be very undesirable. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
then why don't you try walking up to a policeman & calling him a "gay idiot"? Let's see how quickly you'll be fined Rajab 00:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually in the US you can do that and you won't be fined or arrested...However, that's not to say the policeman won't follow you around till you do something minor and actually arrest you for it. Hitokirishinji 00:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hitokirishinji is correct, Rajab... that would likely be considered protected speech. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's true. Even when I was in high school a policeman came to our class for government and talked to us about law and free speech. He said he sees people crossing the street and give him the middle finger but what can he do about it? Really nothing. It's protected by the Constitution. Hitokirishinji 00:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Slight digression. It hinges on whether the message is directed at the cop as an individual or as an Officer. When people flip the bird to the cops, it's pretty much a no-brainer that they're "really" flipping the bird to The Police (not the band), not to an individual cop. To call an individual cop a "gay idiot" (not something like "pig" or other standard derogatory term for cops) is to risk crossing into the realm of fighting words. It's STILL pretty safe, because the police tend to get held to a higher standard, but it's not absolute. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm not referring to the "loosers" of the poll - I'm refering to all Muslims who use WikipediaRajab 23:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Well, I think everybody should respect the outcome of the poll. It's how elections work. I am sorry if those pictures offend people, but Wikipedia is not obliged to answer to muslim law. In the article, there's just a small thumbnail with several pictures. You can't really see the pictures unless you choose to click on the thumbnail to get the large picture. If the pictures offend you or anyone else - don't click the thumbnail. I honestly don't think you can be upset by the thumbnail itself because it's just to small to see the actual pictures that would potentally offend you. (Entheta 00:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
What I'm saying is that minorities should be respected & protected. Just because there are more of you doesn't mean that our strong feelings count for nothing Rajab 00:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between protecting someone from PHYSICAL harm and EMOTIONAL harm. There are, in most Western cultures, separate sets of laws to deal with the two harms. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I respect you and I think most people here do. The purpose of having a poll or an election is to come to a solution that would please as many as possible. YOu can never please _Everybody_ on all issues. But we should respect eachother's opinions and I respect your opinion and feelings but I don't think the fact that some people choose to get offended by this should mean that we should censor wikipedia. As for your need for protection, I can't do any more than stand by my advice to report it if you would receive any threats. (Entheta 00:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Rajab, free speech is a provision that DOES provide support for minorities in that it guarantees them to speak their mind even if their opinions are disliked by the majority. The curtailing of free speech is a threat to minorities. Babajobu 01:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Put a link - Delete the picture!

For an ensiclopedia, the important things are the facts. In that sense there is no need to put a cartoon here. We can just put a link istead! If people wants to see it, they can go there... Resid Gulerdem 23:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And if the linked site is down? Or they want to pront the article? Or just want to be able to look at the pics as they read about the controvosy over them? Removing the pics makes the article worse. We are not in thebusiness of making articles worse. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked Rajab for an hour because he vandalised the picture again--File Éireann 00:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Block vandalism 212.138.47.*

There is a whole block (212.138.47.*) at the moment trying to get the image off line.... This is a SAudi Arabia based internet provider.....KimvdLinde 23:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 212.138.47.17 (2 times)
  • 212.138.47.22
  • 212.138.47.24
Why hasn't this article been semilocked yet? The amount of vandalism is simply incomprehensible. I've been watching this article for the past 10 minutes and it has been vandalized at least 3 times. AscendedAnathema 23:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
linked from main page, against the rules... Would be good for the moment... KimvdLinde 23:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a short range block. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Everyone knows who is vandalizing this article! Block IPs from Saudi Arabia and the Mideast and 90% of the vandalism will disappear. Imperator2 23:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Get off you high horse and don't be so stupid. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Get off my "high horse?!" Listen to you! Fuck you, you hypocrite! Imperator2 00:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't feed 'em. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<stamps foot> But it's fun! I'm never allowed any fun! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


These are the people who tried to vandalise the poll earlier. (you will see in the edit history) They tried to remove all the votes from the keep the images in pile. }[User:slamdac]] 23:47, 3 February 2006

It's obviosly only one person. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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
  • 212.138.47.17 (2 times)
  • 212.138.47.22
  • 212.138.47.24
  • Rajab (2 times)
  • 203.162.2.133 (5 times; blocked for 24 hours)
  • Rgulerdem (I lost count, blocked for 24 hours)

updated by:

Philosophical Question

One question to all the people who are offended by the image and keep coming back to remove it. Why? If you are so insulted by it why do you keep coming back knowing that it’s going to be there and will be out back as soon as you have tried to remove it? Why subject yourself to that hurt and anguish. (Removed as offensive) It’s insane. so why do it when you know your just going to get upset. Just let everyone else view it and get on with your lives? 

User:slamdac 23:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this is helpful. This behavior is not unique to this page. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

slamdac, that is not analogous! I do not have anything flattering to say about these edit warriors but I can understand their rationale. What if you found a porno of your sister on a popular site?--the porno wasn't voluntarily submitted or sold. Her rakish ex-bf taped it and submitted it to degrade her. If this site had a wiki delete feature, wouldn't you try to eliminate it?

Lotsofissues 00:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message to the Rajab and other Vandals

Nobody is forcing you to be here. If you don't like it go to a website which doesn't have the images. I'm sure there are a couple out there., At least then we can get on with making a good article rather than having to constantly watch out for vandalisim User:slamdac 00:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not helpful. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: rename to cartoon war

The wikipage "cartoon war" is redirected to this page whose name seems extremely complicated to me. What about using cartoon war as the primary name of this page? Best, LM --Lumidek 00:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to WP:V. Here at Wikipedia we don't get to make up names for things. We either use something descriptive, i.e. "Subject controversy" (this article), or we use a verifiable widespread and widely known name for something. You can't just make up the name "Cartoon War" for an article. --Cyde Weys 00:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please delete the copyrighted images?

The Jordan protest, EU gunman, etc. are copyrighted by the AP and AFP -- those pics can not be reproduced without permission but have been tagged as unrestricted. Lotsofissues 00:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I'll take care of it now. --Aaron 00:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per a quick discussion with Physchim62, I've decided it's best to just list the photos on WP:CP and let them deal with the copyright issue on their own. If anyone wishes to restore the images on this page in the meantime, I won't object. --Aaron 01:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They should not have been tagged as unrestricted use, but there is a prima facie claim for their fair use in this article. I'm not going to decide on my own as to whether fair use is completely justified: the point is debatable enough to keep the pictures here, and to discuss the copyright problems at WP:CP, as we would do normally for any other article. Physchim62 (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now that an admin has gotten involved in a less-than-tactful fashion, I'm walking away from this issue. Someone else can finish tagging the images in question and submitting them to WP:CP, WP:IFD or wherever else might be appropriate. I'm not going to risk a block over some pictures I don't even care about. I was just trying to edit in good faith. --Aaron 02:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh...what do you mean? You can feel free to override me. I don't block people I am in disputes with: that is my code of honour, a pledge I made in my RFA. I don't even think this is a dispute, not with me anyway, you have good reason to doubt fair use. I was being bold because I thought you had a misconception, so I didn't wait for discussion. Now that you contest it, feel free to proceed. You did edit in good faith, but I wasn't sure that you knew about the fair use issue (not everyone is a lawyer, anyway, you aren't to be blamed). Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 02:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archive 5

This one is 56 kilobytes. Again, sorry everyone who was bothered by the amount of noise the method of archiving I've chosen makes. --cesarb 00:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't understand is that when I click "Edit" on a section header, I'm taken to the edit box for some completely different header, so I have to edit the entire page, which makes it very difficult to find the discussion I want to reply to, and it also causes editing conflicts (Entheta 00:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I've had that problem on-and-off with this page, too. What's up with that? Babajobu 00:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Perhaps it was just too long. I single handedly without asking, moved the poll to a separate page (please don't stone me) because I thought maybe that would do some help. Perhaps, in combination with the new archive, it will (hasn't had that problem on my two latest edits). (Entheta 00:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Well I guess that wasn't the problem, thanks for clearing it up, Cyde and Dante. (Entheta 00:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
It's caused because the section you edit is selected by number, not by name. Oftentimes there are some caching/delay issues so when you click the Edit button you actually end up editing an entirely different section because the overall number or ordering of sections has been changed by someone else. --Cyde Weys 00:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When you get that sort of problem, try forcing your browser to update the page. This is done in different ways in different browsers, but holding down the Shift key while you click the reload button often works. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, that's why I'm saying sorry every time I archive using that method. It avoids forcing a twenty-minute pause in all conversations (as a "protect the talk page and do everything in a single pass" method would do) or temporarily erasing them all (as a "move the page and start fresh" method would do), but it can be pretty annoying too — edit conflicts, wrong sections appearing, and lots of Recent Changes spam. --cesarb 00:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HEY! Bring the poll back, that was totally inappropriate! Babajobu 01:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC) You didn't even provide a link to the new poll page. If we need to archive some of this page, let's do so, but don't archive the poll, please! It's still active! Babajobu 01:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. I saw clearly the link he provided to the poll subpage. --cesarb 01:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't. I'm concerned that the poll will be seen by far fewer viewers if it's not at the top of this page, but if others agree with Entheta that the poll should be on a subpage, then go ahead and put it back, and my apologies for (largely) demanding otherwise. Perhaps a poll on the best place for the poll? Babajobu 01:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American & British Media

Most American & British media did'nt republish the cartoon Images & only covered the evens without publishing these images in other side for first time we start hear about some Islamic countries boycott all european products while other suggest to cut the Oil on europ.Qatarson

And your point is ... ? The discussion page is for talking about how to make the article better. --Cyde Weys 00:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it is very clear we should mention to the political view of world countries there nothing about it.Qatarson 01:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've got away with it before:

--Greasysteve13 01:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dominion Post (Wellington) copies our article word for word

The Dominion Post (Wellington), a national paper btw, copies this article word for word, giving us half-credit--which is good enough for me! Congrats everyone. We helped an overwhelmed reporter meet his deadline.

link

Lotsofissues 01:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of sleazy on their part. Isn't Fairfax a giant media company? You can bet they'd have a big problem if we started copying their articles over here word for word. --Aaron 01:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Our articles are licensed under the GFDL. Their articles are not. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Um... the whole point of a free encyclopedia is that it's meant to be copied freely. Now technically, they should have included a GFDL notice as well, but in this case I don't begrudge them that as they fairly credited Wikipedia itself.--Pharos 01:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


There should be a template for this that says that this article was featured in a major newspaper, let me try to find it, this is relatively notable :). Homestarmy 01:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is one. Check the talk page for List of ethnic slurs. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find the part in the article where they admit it was taken from us, I think I can't finish adding the template unless they actually cite that they used us. Homestarmy 01:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If they're not citing their sources then they are plagiarizing. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From their article: "The following is a translated summary of the article and explanation of the cartoons published in the Internet encyclopedia Wikipedia." It's not GFDL-compliant exactly, but they clearly didn't mean to plagiarize.--Pharos 01:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's "good enough". Certainly not plagiarism. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well i've got the template typed out, but part of the template says "This article is cited in this article", and I can't very well lie and say it's cited when it is apparently not, even if it is pretty obvious it is parts of this article. Homestarmy 01:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it in there, but if you can, I guess i'll put in the template :/. Homestarmy 02:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia POV ? A comment on Wikipedia nature

Hello,

There's too much to read here. I won't read it all, so I don't know if this has already been discussed here.

Thinking "outside the box", showing the cartoon article in Wikipedia ultimately affirms that it has free speech in it's nature. This unconditional Free speech, however, is a convention of at most some parts of the world (although Wikipedia seems to be even more liberal than most legalities discussed here). Since there is a lot of people who consider that fundamentalisms are stronger than free speech, it seems that Wikipedia has adopted a point of view. Is Wikipedia intrinsically POV ? Would Wikipedia be nothing more than the synthesis of all the hypocrisy that is typically associated to the Western civilization ? Surely we have great knowledge here. But are they POV ? Stating that an article should not have a point of view is hypocrisy ? --Hdante 01:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Uh... this belongs on a blog, not a talk page for an article that has nothing to do with your question. -Maverick 01:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. --Hdante 01:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Tis ok, my friend. People make mistakes :) -Maverick 01:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New editorial cartoon available

File:ImageProblem.gif

The author(s) of this image have graciously consented to it being released for any use. It's been tagged as {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} and may be appropriate for inclusion in the article. The source page is already listed as (at last count) reference 34 in the article. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Include it. Babajobu 01:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be enough room in the appropriate section, and I'm loath to remove one of the other two images... although they BOTH are French. Thoughts? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I love it. Please tell me that it has appeared in outside publications. Unfortunatley, otherwise it would be original material and not appropriate for Wikipedia.

--StuffOfInterest 02:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has. Check the image source. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 02:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, France Soir were the first newspaper to print their own cartoon after Jyllandsposten. So, based on that, France Soir being the first newspaper to support Jyllandsposten with a cartoon, one could argue that we should keep France Soir and replace Le Monde, if we consider the new image as superior to Le Monde's (witch I do....Don't know about the rest of you).The.valiant.paladin 02:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Copies of the poll out of sync

The two copies of the poll (at Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Polls and here) have gotten out of sync (both have votes the other one doesn't). Could someone merge the changes of the two copies into a single copy? --cesarb 01:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly do we have two copies of the poll? That makes no sense. --Cyde Weys 01:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, wherever we keep the poll, kill the other version. People will always find their way to the other version and vote on it. Babajobu 01:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote For Just One Cartoon without the Image of Mohammed

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. I propose a vote below:

One Cartoon Without Image of Mohammad

  1. 216.248.124.3 01:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wikizach I may change, but it is better than keeping the whol pic

Keep this form

  1. Maverick 01:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kill this poll Babajobu 01:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kill this poll. This has gone on enough. --Improv 02:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  1. This poll is preposterous. Kill it. We have two well-factored polls on this page, no poorly thought out pollcruft, please. Babajobu 01:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all! It is totally different from the ones above and more closer to a comprimise. 216.248.124.3 02:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agreed. However, should the poll stand, my vote is in. --Maverick 01:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree. The poll at the top is reaching an overwhelming consensus. At some point the Muslims involved will have to grow up and realize they are living in a much, much larger world where everyone's opinions have to be respected and not just their own. --StuffOfInterest 02:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kill this poll. It's completely useless. The.valiant.paladin 02:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This pool and the ones above are totally different from eachother. This one is good for a comprimise! We should wait to see what others to say... 216.248.124.3 02:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(vote snipped) We already had a vote on this (still do, in fact), and consensus is very clear. Wikipedia is not censored. --Cyde Weys 01:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot delete a pool I started. This pool is different from the ones above! 216.248.124.3 01:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of Expression

Certainly something is rotten in the state of Denmark...Was there a violation of the freedom of expression...by and large NO except in the case of two cartoons (in the affirmative) where a corrective is needed. As to the matter of graven images, the matter is published within the sovereign territory of Denmark, Germany, etc... all of which are overwhelmingly non-Muslim in population and in fact the the Muslim immigrants live in those lands under the implicit understanding that they would follow the law of those lands, and in fact satire is a norm in these western countries as a humerous corrective force.

About the limits of freedom of expression one is reminded of one of the earliest advocate of the freedom of expression, the great Rabbi Gamaliel, who replied to those demanding censorship and incarceration of the Apostles. The Rabbi said: "Its advisable to leave them alone for if they are truly from God Himself no one can stop them besides the dire consequence of standing against the Will of God. But on the other hand if they are not from God then their teachings would perish along with them."

So lets us not presume to protect the prophets because they do not need our protection. What we can do is to live according to the precepts laid down by them. Men tend to err but only God can forgive or punish. __ George Manjooran, Kochi, Feb 4, 2006.

Wikipedia is not a blog. Please, people, understand that. WP:NOT --Maverick 01:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Islam/Muhammad Cartoons : a manipulation of the Muslim Brotherhood" says European Strategic Intelligence & Security Center

 Please insert a note about this sourced accusation.
 It's very important
 Additional note : Tariq Ramadan's grand father is Hassan al Banna, founder of the  Muslim Brotherhood

Some analysts don’t understand why it took so long to the Muslim street to react to the publication of the Muhammad cartoons by a Danish daily, on September 30 last year.

Today (4 months later) the crisis intensifies and hit the whole Muslim world. No one is asserting that four months ago, the publication of the litigious cartoons didn’t provoke any reaction: on October 14, 5 000 angry Muslims demonstrated in Copenhague; two weeks later, some Muslim countries began to protest. Egypt first (on November 2) and, a few days later, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). And then, all the story came down.

But, from the intelligence we collected this last days, we might conclude that this quietness was just an appearance. Those few weeks were used by the Muslim Brothers to mobilize their troops worldwide and to organize the global protest movement which began a few days ago. A movement which compelled many Muslim states to denounce Denmark, Norway and now Europe.

The crisis is now open and huge. That’s exactly what expected the Muslim Brotherhood. It helps them to kill several birds with one shoot. In Europe, the Brotherhood wants to go ahead with the project of a law against blasphemy. But it wants also to strengthen their position by infiltrating the traditional Muslim organizations. More: by using the street as a lever, the Brothers put the Arab governments under a high pressure, and they push them to react. So, they dig the gap between the Western world and the Muslim world.

This will help their own political agenda. In this particular context, the crisis will very likely deepen in the coming days, and a “terrorist” evolution is possible. We’ve seen such an evolution in the Satanic verses affair, years ago (publishers and translators were killed or wounded) , or, more recently, with the assassination of Theo Van Gogh, in Amsterdam in November 2004.

For the Muslims Brotherhood, it would be a good news as they want to impose the communautarism model vs integration. This plan is not exactly new. In November 2001, searching the house of the banker Yussef Nada (who admitted to be one of the Muslim Brotherhood leader in Europe), the Swiss police found some documents extremely interesting regarding the international strategy of the Brotherhood. A strategy of “entrism” and penetration aiming to target the most sensible parts of the immigration, the youth and the students, and to radicalize them.

http://www.esisc.org/print.asp?ID=842


Can any of this be verified? Is it anything else than speculation? The.valiant.paladin 02:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although it makes a lot of sense, it seems to be nothing more than idle speculation. 209.51.77.64 03:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy&oldid=38092364"