Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

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.

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

• Please divert comments having to do with the timeline of the incidents to Talk:Timeline_of_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy.

• Please divert comments having to do with international reactions to Talk:International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.

• Please divert comments having to do with various opinions on the controversy to Talk:Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.

• Please divert comments having to do with any aspect of displaying the cartoon images to Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments/Image-Display.

Any irrelevant discussions can be removed without notice. Aucaman^Talk 00:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Archives
01	02a	02b
03a	03b	03c
04	05	06
07	08a	08b
09a	09b	10
11	12a	12b
13a	13b	14a
15	16	17
18	19
Arguments Archive
Poll 1, 2, 3 & 4 Results
Arguments regarding all aspects of Cartoons Display

Article takes a major left turn

Folks, I go away for a day or two and I come back and now opinions are back on the main page ... There is so much speculation there now, that the article is starting to become rather jokeish. I have to properly review these edits but I'll be frank from the get go and say that this new direction for the article does not appear to be very agreeable. Netscott 07:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

To leave us this off-handish dismissal without any tangible crticism before your departure is just great! At least you promise to "review" it next time, before passing judgment. Azate 07:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Well to start with, why are opinions back on the main page? Weren't we making efforts to get away from a very long article? Netscott 08:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I proposed this course of action in great detail above ("Conflicting traditions" section --> "Issues of the conflict" section) a couple o'days ago. Your answer was "This idea/plan appears well developed and logical and I agree with it as well. Netscott 16:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)" Azate 08:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

What I generally agreed to was the Analysis of the conflict idea... again I need to properly review your edits to have a full awareness of them... but when I think of Analysis I must admit I'm more inclined to look for neutral analysis as opposed to the extremely difficult to believe (imo) idea of a Jewish conspiracy as analysis (for example). Netscott 08:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The Jewish conspiracy is a widely held POV, and presented as such. Nobody except proponents of that view asks you to believe it. I'm surprised that this distinction has to be pointed out at all. Azate 08:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Well Azate, I tend to highly respect you and your edits so I will properly review them and then after such an analysis give some proper review of them. Netscott 08:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Don't comment on stuff you haven't even read. Just serves to piss off the author. Have a nice trip, anyways...Azate 08:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Such civil language from you? Maybe my respect is a bit misplaced. Netscott 08:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Your attempt to have the last word when I have you in two corners simultaneously is pretty ambitious... Azate 09:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Well I realize that English isn't your monther tongue but unless your intention is to insult you might refrain from using the word piss. Netscott

Replace "serves to piss off the author" with "serves to infuriate the author (of the text you did't read, i.e. me)" then, if it's ideomatically wrong. Azate 09:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

:-)! Netscott 09:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

At least we have now the "Holocaust Cartoons" in context of a not enterily non-sensical hypothesis (not that I agree, but thats beside the point ...) MX44 08:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Zionist conspiracy? Introduced in such as way as to imply that WP believes that there is one? This is NUTS. Totally POV. I'm too tired and cranky to rewrite now, but this is not the kind of thing we do. Zora 10:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Again: the Zionist conspiracy is a widely held POV, and presented as such. Nobody except proponents of that view asks you to believe it. There is a difference between describing the existence of a widespread opinion, and postulating its veracity. I'm surprised that this distinction has to be pointed out at all. This knee-jerk reaction is just very, very odd. Azate 10:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

And just for the record: I will oppose the classification of a description that anti-semitic theories exist as in itself antisemitic, just as I oppose the classification of a documentary reproduction of a Mohammed cartoon as in itself anti-Islamic. Damned zeal. Azate 10:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better as "Zionist conspiracy" but that would look ugly. :D Kyaa the Catlord 10:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Despite the unfortunate direction this article has taken over the last 24 hours, I will continue to adjust personal agendas that seem to creep into their supoosedly objective presentation. Netscott is right and so is Zora. Let's not turn this once-brilliantly crafted documentation into a cartoon unto itself. JasonWilson 16:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

This is absurd. That some people believe there is a Zionist conspiracy does not mean that there is one. Reporting that some people believe there is a Zionist conspiracy likewise does not mean the reporter believes there is one. Should The Protocols of the Elders of Zion article be deleted as well, for being "totally POV"? To resolve this, I suggest inserting "Alleged" or "Perceived" in front of the Zionist conspiracy heading. ViewFromNowhere 17:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I don’t think anyone is saying that reporting that some believe there is a Zionist conspiracy means the reporter believes it as well. But when phrases like “Jewish cunning” and “Jewish lies” which do not only defy definition, but are used to generalize about an entire religion – and worse, are communicated without quotes or italics to reflect that those are the opinions of someone else, then yes, it not only looks as though the Wikipedia article is asserting the existence of a conspiracy, but one in which we are a part. I know this section is supposed to present “Opinions” but opinions of others, not of Wikipedia. This is a Journalism 101 protocol. JasonWilson 22:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Then I agree with you. I think the problem is the way it was presented. I think Azate inserted "Jewish cunning" and "Jewish lies" not because s/he believes so, but because s/he was putting words into the mouth of Ahmadinejad and others to make them look worse than they are. The idea that the article has taken a "left turn" because of this is laughable, though. ViewFromNowhere 00:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

About the "alleged" or "perceived" business: a) Rice says that the regimes in the middle east are to blame. She doesn't offer proof. It's reported in reputable sources (BBC, guardian, wherever). Lots of people subscribe to that view. WP includes that. Fine, as it should be. b) Khamenei says that the Zionists are to blame. He doesn't offer proof. It's reported in reputable sources (BBC, guardian, wherever). Lots of people subscribe to that view. WP includes that. Fine, as it should be. c) This is reporting notable opinions, not "alleged opinions", not "perceived opinions". That's just muddying the waters.

About the "Jewish lies" business. That used to be a quote, before sombody complaind about the accompanying footnote not having enough to do with the cartoon affair, and removed the footnote. Suddendly it's en vogue to call me antisemitic , leftleaning or jokeish. I replace the (now orphaned) quote "jewish lies", first with the generic jewish cunning (without quotation marks, because the footnote was kicked) paraphrasing the people who put forward these allegations. Still complaints about antisemitism. I replace that one with a quote from Ahmedinejad: "'myth' used to justify the creation of Israel". But it still ain't enough: Somebody removed "Zionsts", and replaced it with the generic "conspiracy theories", so totally obscuring who is blamed:

4 parties are being blamed by somebody in the 2 sections: the Islamists, the regimes in the Middle East, the pro-war West, the Zionists. And NOT: the Islamists, the regimes in the Middle East, the pro-war West, the conspiracy theory. Therfore, I reverted that last change: Because it calls a horse a horse, not for nefarious reasons that some presuppose, like "my personal agenda creep", as JasonWilson puts it.

The "blame the Zionists" stance is shared by tens of millions of people, as dozens of opinion polls about every conceivable topic (like 9/11, the Dahab bombings, or Bird flu in Egypt) will tell you. Therfore, it's a notable POV, because this is politics, where it's about created realities, not truth. This is why this phenomenon cannot be excluded from this article. It's an article about politics. If this was an article about tangible, physical natural sciences, arguments would have to be assessed by their merit, or truth if you will. Since it's not, arguments will have to be assessed by the realities they create, having been put forward by notable individuals, and being held by loads of people. This will not go away "because it reeks of Antisemitism", just as the cartoons will not go away because they reek of whatever it is somebody feels they reek of. Azate 11:42, 4 May 2006

(UTC)

The interesting thing about, and the reason why I included the Teheran holocaust conference, is that Ahmedinejad voiced the idea first on 9 january, in Mecca, at the very same conference that the Danish Imams' dossier was first widely distributed among Muslim leaders. the OIC went on record as a co-sponsor of the conference, too. If that's not a connection to the cartoon crisis, I don't know what is. Of course I can't prove that the idea was born because of the cartoon affair, so I don't say as much. But I thought that hinting at the possibility was in order.Azate 16:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

ViewFromNowhere, I agree. I was beginning to doubt my ability to discern left from right!

Azate, I think part of the problem lies in you taking this a little too personally. This is a collaborative effort, with countless hours of thought and effort by many. No one was calling “you” left-leaning, anti-semitic or jokeish, but people were referring to the way that the article was coming across, inadvertantly or not, for the worse. Your distinctions between politics and truth may have merit, but Wikipedia is about presenting facts and yes opinions of other, as accurately and as objectively as possible. While I still think that the article is worse off than it was before, it’s at least beginning to read better than before. JasonWilson 17:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I take this personally because you (singular) accuse me personally: "Wikipedia isn't about spinning an agenda. The fact that one Iranian made a comment linking the cartoons to Zionism is hardly worthy of an entire Azate-created sub-header" and "personal agendas that seem to creep into their supoosedly objective presentation". Hiding behind a collaborative effort won't fly. 100% of YOUR contribution to this article [1] was either accusing me on this talk page, or deleting stuff from the "zionist" section. Your only additive contribution has been a link to "annoy.com" [2], and complaining at my talkpage that it was removed (repeatedly, and not only by me, for obvious reasons). Azate 18:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

My contributions to this page are based upon my desire to have the article be as fair, balanced and informative a documentation as possible. I believe in the quality of the contributions rather than the quantity, and don't feel compelled to edit things just to ratchet up a high edit count. What may be obvious to you is not necessarily obvious to everyone. I have no idea what you are talking about in this regard. If you have something to say, please say it. JasonWilson 19:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

"that in a democracy it is permissible to offend Islam"

Written by Azate, I assume:

Regimes in the Middle East have been accused of instrumentalizing and adding to the crisis to demonstrate their Islamic credentials, distracting from their failures by setting up an external enemy

, and to show "that in a democracy it is permissible to offend Islam"[3].

However, this is where the quotation comes from:

Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said the caricatures were damaging attempts to blend the Muslim faith with democracy.

"It sends a conflicting message to the Muslim community: that in a democracy it is permissible to offend Islam," the U.S.-educated leader wrote in a commentary that appeared Saturday in the International Herald Tribune.

The Indonesian President says this in criticism of the Danish caricatures themselves. He is not making an accusation about Middle Eastern regimes. Instead, he is accusing the cartoons of sending the message that "in a democracy it is permissible to offend Islam," which damages attempts to blend Islam and democracy. ViewFromNowhere 00:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

"It sends a conflicting message to the Muslim community: that in a democracy it is permissible to offend Islam," is not by the editor, it's a quote by Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. And it nicely summarizes one aspect why undemocratic regimes in the ME had an interest fanning the flames of the cartoon controvery, namely that they asuume the populace would prefer undemcratic regimes and no offending Islam, to democracy and offense to islam. Why remove it? Azate

Because although the quote could refer to what Middle Eastern regimes are trying to do, in this case, it does not. It refers to the message of the Danish cartoons, according to Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. This is a Wikipedia article, not a persuasive essay. ViewFromNowhere 00:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. Maybe this (from the WallStreetJornal[4]) will serve better: "as Sari Hanafi of the American University in Beirut told the New York Times, these autocracies made use of the cartoons (the most offensive of which were fabrications) as a way of showing that the expansion of freedom and democracy in their countries would lead inevitably to the denigration of Islam.". I just found SMY's way of putting it very eloquent and concise. Azate 00:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Much better. ViewFromNowhere 01:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Scare quotes

Can anybody please point out to me why Zionists should receive scare quotes ("Zionists")? After all, this is what the members of the zionist movement call themselves. Azate 00:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It happens once in the article: "Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei blamed a "Zionist conspiracy" for the row over the cartoons." I guess it's between quotation marks because these were Khamenei's words. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 10:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

That's as it should be, of course. I was referring to the section headline: Alleged campaigns by the West and alleged "Zionist" conspiracy, or previous variations of it. Azate 11:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposition of “Muhammad’s Seminar/Festival” fuels disillusionment with multiculturalism?

The section "Islamism and xenophobia" states, that the proposal for a three day (actually 1-3 days) celebration fuels disillusionment with multiculturalism. Why is that? Is it original research? Raphael1 13:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I pulled this example from the "opinions" sub-page. Their proposal was headlined "Multi-cultural interaction" so the context is sound. The universities who were to host the events refused to partake, beacause they don't 'do' religion, so I think the interpretation isn't farfetched. A couple of years ago, they'd probably have accepted the offer. If you don't like the example as is, go find more references for it, or delete it. Azate 16:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it, because I think Det Islamiske Trossamfund actually had a great idea to support multiculturalism. Raphael1 16:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ehm, I meant you should research the example first, and see how the idea was received in the domestic context, or pull it if nothing turns up - not that you should delete it immediately because YOU think "it was a great idea". Azate 17:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Political correctness

The political correctness is contradictory, because it starts with a sentence, which implies, that there are currently no laws limiting freedom of speech. Please see this UN resolution on that matter. Raphael1 14:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

What? The sentence says absolutely no such thing. It says actually quite the reverse. And the link you supplied hasn't anything to do with limits to freedom of speech: It's about "right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" Azate 15:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It says "attempts to codify concepts like respect, tolerance and offense judicially" which could be read as if there are no laws restricting freedom of speech. It seems, you didn't read long enough. Later on there is this sentence: "Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law." Raphael1 16:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Your link is to Article 18. You quotation seems to come from somewhere else. No that it matters much, because this UN resolution is not relevant under the section header. And your reading of the first sentence is simply erroneous. Azate 16:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC),

"Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law." Hey, that rules out most of the Muslims such as the qu'ran is interpreted today :-D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.46.15.143 (talk • contribs)

12 men sent to kill cartoonists

According to Politiken may 4th 2006, 12 young men are on the way to Europe to track down and kill the cartoonists. The threats are mentioned in "Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin", which allegedly have the information from Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir, who is known for interviewing Osama Bin Laden. Link: http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=451923 This piece of information should somehow go into the article - or not ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.52.81.128 (talk • contribs) 2006-05-11 01:04:13 UTC.

That would go to the Timeline_of_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy; at least as long as nobody is actually killed or arrested. An English language source would be much prefered, but is not strictly necessary. Azate 16:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Danish Imams under investigation

Azate: Please don't deleted whole sections without clarifying why. That it "had little impact" is way too vague. Little impact according to whom? The fact that the men were not charged, the very notion of a widely reported investigation could have an enormous impact in terms of shaping people's positions.

Further, there will always be elements of an article this controversial that some agree with and some don't. At the end of the day, one compromises and learns to live with one or two questionable points, links or interpretations. But when a position is contentious between only two people, your position is not necessarily the ultimate one. You don't respond to specifics, but wait a few days until you think people will have forgotten, and delete or amend as you see fit. Frankly I think it's a bit cowardly. If you want to have a conversation about what I choose to edit or what I have chosen to link to and why, I'd be happy to engage in a dialog. But please don't delete things simply because you don't like them. There's room for many points of view here. JasonWilson 08:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Let the section go: No real impact - as azate said. There has been so many direct threaths in this conflict, that an indirect, implicit, vague one by a young uneducated imam from Denmark - has no real bearing. --Anjoe 11:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

To claim that I "don't respond to specifics" is bizarre. Look at this talk page. And to call me "cowardly" is just over the top. You violate WP:NPA. But let's look at your recent edits one by one:

# [5] "External links - added relevant cartoon series removed/vandalized)": The link to annoy.com is misleading. While the site does indeed reproduce the JP cartoons, the main cartoon on the page is one of their own, and presented in a way that it may deceive the visitor into thinking this was one of JP's. That a bunch of cartoonists call themselves "the arab-european league" is kind of misleading, too. One would expect some political orgamization behind this title, not a group whose mission statement is: "It’s about stigmatizing a whole population of more than one billion Muslims through portraying their symbol as being a terrorist, megalomaniac, misogynic and a psychopath. This is Racist, xenophobic and calling for hatred against Muslims". This link is junk. Moreover, your whole raison d'être on WP appears to be pushing links to annoy.com: You inserted them here (repeatedly)[6][7] [8][9], into Tucker Max[10], and into Clinton Fein[11]. That's putting annoy.com into every single article you ever worked on. WP is not for pushing links to sites you are involved in, or a fan of (WP:NOT, WP:EL). This my even warrant an RfC.

# [12] "reverted back to appropriate header" : This section says that insulting Mohammad has historically been seriously prohibited, even to the point of some still arguing for a death sentence. How then, is the headline "Prohibition to insult Muhammad" inappropriate, and "Islam and violent responses" appropriate? This is not about some unspecified 'violent responses'. It'a about how Sharia did and does deal with the specific charge of insulting Mohammad.

The “prohibition to insult Mohammad” is taking one piece of a broader context related to Islam and violence. Not all of the violence stemming from this controversy was related to Shariah and the prohibition to insult Mohammad. Condoleezza Rice commented that "Iran and Syria have gone out of their way to inflame sentiments and to use this to their own purposes, and the world ought to call them on it." [13] JasonWilson 19:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. And then there is the section "Alleged campaigns by Islamists or Middle Eastern regimes" that does just that. Let's keep seperate stuff seperate. Azate 20:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

# [14] "less sensationalist": This edit misses the point. Islam, unlike "most religons", has some sort of code of law of its own. In Islam, blasphemy itself (or insulting M.) is a crime. This it unlike western or most other juriprudence, where blasphemy itself is not criminal, only disturbing public order (by blashemy, among other things) is. This is an important distinction. And: "Like most religions, blasphemy is considered egregiously offensive": What's that supposed to mean? Sneaking a little joke into the article or what?

Many religions have codes of laws, but those, including Shariah, are not legally binding on everyone. “Criminal” seems to be incorrectly applied, since a crime suggests punishable consequences by an authority of appropriate jurisdiction. Islam is a belief system, not a state or sovereign nation. I was not joking about many religions considering blasphemy egregiously offensive. Look at the most recent furor over the DaVinci Code. I don’t know what you think is amusing about that.JasonWilson 19:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Re-read your sentence. It says that most religions are considered to be as offensive as blasphemy. Azate 19:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I see where it could be interpreted ambiguously. What I meant was: "As is true with most religions, blasphemy is considered egregiously offensive."JasonWilson 19:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I still believe that a broader exploration of Islam and violence is in order. If you insist on confining your approach to the specific prohibition in Muslim societies, I will create an additional section that looks at the broader issue. JasonWilson 19:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Go ahead and do that. Add a sentence or two about the arab street's love for rumour & conspiracy, too. [15]

# [16] "removed strained point. Ahmadinejad began 'questioning the veracity' of the Holocaust long before the cartoons": How is this a 'strained point'? The coincidence is quite striking, or not? The sources explicitly commented on A. beginning to question the Holocaust at this Mecca conference. You say he did before, but don't provide sources. Shall we just take your word for it, and discard the observations of published sources?

Azate 12:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

What I meant by strained, is that stating that “Ahmadinejad started voicing doubts about the veracity of the holocaust,” somewhat sugarcoats what he actually said, and ignores the extreme reactions that “voicing of doubts” evoked worldwide. You’re right about not sourcing data about his position before this, and while I doubt his position towards the Holocaust was only formed at the time of the OIC Holocaust conference, I should not present those assumptions as fact. JasonWilson 19:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you misread my intentions here. I'm not trying to "sugarcoat" holocaust denial. The section tries to point out that A. expliots the hypocrisy that holocaust denial is punishable in some countries that are "pro-free speech" as pertains to cartoons, by basically saying: "Either we can deny the holocaust and you can have your cartoons, or you keep your denial prohibition and prohibit mohammed cartoons, too". That is, he uses the moment to press for either relaxation of holocaust denial prohibition, or for the introduction of stronger blasphemy laws. Azate 19:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately though, despite your intentions, none of what you describe above is pointed out at all. Nothing in the way it reads right now suggests the kind of ultimatum you reference above. It's all about the Holocaust as a myth, and not in the context of an "either/or" or a double standard relating to prohibitions of Holocasut denial in countries in Europe.JasonWilson 20:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The 2 sentences we're talking about here come with 5 footnotes. Anybody who bothers to read them, will come to this conclusion. But since we don't know if these are really A's intentions, it would be OR to claim as much. All that can be done is to point out the coincidence in location, timing and argument. Azate 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Usually a footnote is something related to but of lesser importance than a larger work or occurrence, generally used to validate or offer evidence of a point being made. To extrapolate this either/or scenario you do, even from someone who "bothered" to read the footnotes, is a bit of a stretch. The nebulous wrenching of these sentences to reveal a supposed "coincidence", in the grand scheme of things, seems kind of picayune. JasonWilson 06:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, because YOU claim that the imagery on Annoy.com’s publication is “misleading” doesn’t mean that it is. Yes, I have reinserted it here on numerous occasions – every time you have taken it upon yourself to remove it. No one else but you, despite your comments to the contrary has ever even commented on it.

Yes, the first article I ever wrote on here was on Clinton Fein, an artist I happen to think is important, as do the multitude of newspapers, magazines, and other media that have written about him and his work [17] [18]. Including information about Annoy.com in an article about its founder would be an obvious one.

The reason I chose to include the link to Annoy.com’s publication is because:

1. As a site that has fought two federal free speech cases in the United States, one before the US Supreme Court [19], their approach to the publication of the cartoons is interesting and relevant. You may not, but this article is neither for you nor about you.

2. That an American printer admitted to the San Francisco Chronicle[20] that they purposely destroyed two of Fein’s works that included images of Christ and Abu Ghraib prior to an exhibition opening, even reported by Arab News[21] makes it clear that this is not just a random link thrown up with no consideration.

3. That the site includes related content, such as James Kirkup’s poem, Nick Berg’s beheading etc. and have contextualized it in a way that I happen to think is interesting and adds value to the links in this Wikipedia article.

With regards to my supposed raison d'être on Wikipedia, you either are deliberately attempting to mislead people here or have conducted some half-hearted, shoddy research to support your contention. In fact, the piece I did happen to write on poet James Kirkup, (which easily could have led to Annoy.com, who published the poem, had I been so agenda-driven to that end), does not. Nor do my contributions to the First Amendment – also highly relevant – point to Annoy.com.

Annoy.com has been around for nearly ten years, and has commented on almost every pop cultural phenomenon. If my so-called agenda was to push Annoy.com, there are thousands of places I could do it.

So your accusations are not only factually inaccurate, but deliberately malicious.

Despite my having discussed my reasons before, you have insisted on trying to strong-arm your decision on the matter. Some of the most contentious arguments in this article have included you, and for someone who appears to have only contributed to one article, your projections about my agenda are just that. Projections. I did not call you cowardly. I called the act of sneaking in and removing edits after justifications for their re-inclusion had been given in good faith was a cowardly act. How would you characterize it?

You have ignored Wikipedia’s policy to avoid making personal attacks or sweeping generalizations, let alone unequivocal untruths. If I have come across as attacking, its because of my frustration at your unilateral decisions to dismiss the viewpoints of others, but I still apologize.

You, however, appear to have violated the 3RR and have posted misleading information regarding your editorial decisions on more than one occasion. As the Wikipedia pillars point out, I contribute because the “joy of editing” is rewarding and “although it should be aimed for, perfection isn't required.”

Please stop vandalizing my contributions. I believe an apology is in order.

JasonWilson 17:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, your contribution to First Amendment (diff: [22]) didn't include an annoy.com link. Apologies for claiming it did. Instead, you included a link to thefirstamendment.org. Now, Clinton Fein, who runs annoy.com, is also the president of the board of directors of thefirstamendment.org (see here: [23]). Surprise, surprise! And, yes, your contribution to James Kirkup was sober. (except that it "easily could have led to Annoy.com, who published the poem", quoting you, above). Even your defense does nothing but reveal your infatuation with annoy.com and the guy who runs it. Oh, did I mention that your contribution to Conduct Unbecoming: Gays and Lesbians in the US Military (diff [24]) also inserts a ref to Clinton Fein, the guy who runs annoy.com? Last but not least, the fact that you chose to solely defend the annoy.com link, and none of the other 3 edits that I pointed out above ([25] [26] [27]) , speaks volumes about your not really being concerned about this article, but single-purposely about your annoy.com link, which you added once again [28]. Azate 18:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You can make as many insinuations as you wish regarding my "infatuations". I will address each of the points you raised. I was first defending myself from your attack, if that's okay. JasonWilson 19:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Annoy.com link straw poll

The "images" subsection of the "External links" section of the article contains this link:

• The 12 Jyllands-Posten images and response in cartoons by the Arab-European League, published on Annoy.com

Should it be kept or deleted? Please vote below:

keep

1. keep As a site that has fought two federal free speech cases in the United States, one before the US Supreme Court [29], their approach to the publication of the cartoons is interesting and relevant. You may not, but this article is neither for you nor about you.

That an American printer admitted to the San Francisco Chronicle[30] that they purposely destroyed two of Fein’s works that included images of Christ and Abu Ghraib prior to an exhibition opening, even reported by Arab News[31] makes it clear that this is not just a random link thrown up with no consideration.

That the site includes related content, such as James Kirkup’s poem, Nick Berg’s beheading etc. and have contextualized it in a way that I happen to think is interesting and adds value to the links in this Wikipedia article. JasonWilson 19:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, but make clear that it is part of the Western Views where it obviously belongs. MX44 07:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

delete

1. -delete - The link to annoy.com is misleading. While the site does indeed reproduce the JP cartoons, the main cartoon on the page is one of their own, and presented in a way that it can deceive the visitor into thinking this was one of JP's. That a bunch of cartoonists call themselves "Arab-European League" is kind of misleading, too. One would expect some political orgamization behind this title, not a group whose mission statement is: "It’s about stigmatizing a whole population of more than one billion Muslims through portraying their symbol as being a terrorist, megalomaniac, misogynic and a psychopath. This is Racist, xenophobic and calling for hatred against Muslims". Azate 18:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
2. -delete - Per Azate's logic. It is based upon similar reasoning that I remove the occasionally added Muhammad Image Archive from this article (and others). Netscott 20:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
3. -'delete' Varga Mila 20:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
4. -'delete' - Wikipedia should not recommend such a crap by linking to it. Raphael1 23:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
5. delete - hmmm...if one set of offensive cartoons wasn't enough on this article there's a link to a whole website of worse, more vile, decadent and obscene images (and content). Please do the right thing and delete. Wikipidian 03:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
6. delete – I don't think this particular site has anything special to add to the article. There are tens of thousands of commentaries on this conflict out there, to pick a random one like this seems a bit odd. (And what's Clinton Fein got to do with anything?) --Anjoe 13:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I seem to have lost this one fair and square. (Not really sure how a poll works in this context. Is it based on a certain number? A twenty four hour period? A Saturday/Sunday? A random determination that it's over?) Have to admit I'm a little disappointed. Thought people would be more open-minded towards an atypical presentations of the dispute. And as Azate himself pointed out once before. Because something is offensive, doesn't mean we refrain from talking about it (or, I imagine, linking to it).

Anjoe, if you read some of the stuff above, I gave reasons for why I thought it was a worthwhile link. Namely, I think, this article has numerous points of view, and rich related content. The related content, from poems to beheadings offer an interesting exploration of free speech, including all major religions, not just an attempt to insult or defend one. The link is not added to promote a site, which, given the placement of this link on the page, would probably not mount to much in terms of a promotion. No products or services are being sold on the page in question. There is no advertising on the page in question. No payment is required to view anything, nor special technological applications. It is not a blog or social networking site.

And the Clinton Fein connection has nothing to do with anything other than a somewhat bizarrely intense focus that Azate seems to think exists between me and Fein (other than the openly written article I wrote about him), to the point that he finds something "sinister" in a link I made to the First Amendment Project (www.thefirstamendement.org), a non-profit organization that provides pro-bono legal counsel to journalists, artists and activists who run into trouble related to First Amendment issues. Where did I place this offensively, agenda-driven link? Under the First Amendment resources. And because Clinton Fein is President of the Board of that organization, which is not surprising given his own free speech battles, somehow I exist only to promote Annoy.com (albeit for those with a penchant for conspiracies and an inordinate amount of time on their hands). Bland as it may be, as it happens, it was through that organization that I first became familiar with Fein which led me to discover and appreciate his art, and later write an article on him. Nothing more vanilla than that. However, that, for reasons perhaps Azate can explain, is my big sin. It's as if to say that someone who writes about an item they are educated on or passionate about, say Islam, in more than one article, has an insidious agenda to promote Islam. I have been preparing to write about other artists I find noteworthy, but I'm not sure now if this might constitute an "infatuation," and if so, if that precludes me from making valuable contributions to Wikipedia.

To be frank, I'm surprised at the flavor of discourse behind the scenes here.JasonWilson 06:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, in the spirit of open disclosure, you should have mentioned that you actually work for annoy.com (link: [32])? That would have made things easier, because there's nothing wrong with that. Just for the record: I, personally, wish annoy.com, you and Fein all the best. You're part of a good fight. But that link was (as I outlined above) misleading, and annoy.com can't claim special significance in the JP cartoon affair. I realize that you may at the moment not be particularly inclined to take advice from me, but here it goes anyway: Pick your battles more carefully. Don't pretend you're a disinterested party when you're not. Don't push links for outlets you work for. And don't call me names. Other that that, let's put this stuff behind us and move on, ok? Azate 22:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Lahore

http://www.tagesschau.de/video/0,1315,OID5521186_RESms120_PLYinternal_NAV_BAB,00.html Man killed him self in german prison, after he was arested, because he tried to enter the Spinger building with a knive. Springer papers printed the cartoon. Anybody there with mor info than the new tagesschau.--217.185.17.173 21:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC) --217.185.17.173 21:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC) http://www.newsroom.de/news/display/print.cfm?id=339468 --217.185.17.173 21:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This has been in the Timeline_of_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy (March 20) for a couple of days now. Azate 21:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Less than neutral image link

I'm finding the current larger image link (under the main cartoons image) rather spammish and quite a bit less than neutral. I'm currently searching about for a more neutral link and I was wondering if anyone else might have a better link to swap this one out with? Thanks. Netscott 09:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have, but I want to remark, that Image:Jyllands-Posten-Muhammad-dr.png is in fact not a simple scan from the original article, but some kind of collage-recontruction using cartoon images probably found on the net combined with a very low-res version of the article - maybe taken from the free preview of Jyllands-Posten's internet-edition. The most obvious give-away being the english text to the virgin-cartoon. I think this is a little lousy considering the amount of trouble the showing of this image has cost us. --Anjoe 11:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well spotted man... that most definitely needs to change as obvisouly that particular version is verifiably not the original. Amazing how much difficulty still there is with that image. Netscott 11:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

In case you want the version which was in the article before, the deep link is here; I'm not happy about the montage either. The linked image comes straight from JP's website, so it should be pretty much as original as possible. If it should be in higher resolution (should fair use allow), I would suggest running the full-res PDF (available to subscribers) through gs. — Peter L <talk|contribs> 13:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I have the original PDF (grandma subscribes to JP.) If you need a copy for reference, send me an e-mail. There is a bug in my pdf-reader, preventing me from doing the thumbnailed screenshot myself -->MX44 13:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Sending e-mail now. Netscott 14:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Jyllands-Posten-Muhammad-dr.png is not a scan, yes, but it is the preview of the relevant page on Jyllands-Posten's internet edition. Besides selling ordinary newspapers, Jyllands-Posten also sells access to an archive of old editions, and this image is taken from that archived version of the paper. So it is not simply made of "material from the net", it is made by Jyllands-Posten the way they make all similar examples. The previews used on the archive are reconstructions of the actual pages in the paper (probably to make it "feel" as close to the real thing as possible) and this image is very very close to the original page. Regards. Valentinian ^(talk) 21:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

We thank you for explaining to us the concept of an internet edition :-). Image:Jyllands-Posten-Muhammad-dr.png was not a scan nor taken from the archive-preview. Go compare the montage with the preview with the digital subscriber's version. Maybe you can spot the difference. Hint: Beside the non-danish launguage, look out for the names of the cartoonists under the drawings. --Anjoe 10:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

If you can find those 12 high resolution pictures at a different site then you could change the link, if not though it should stay. This link allowed me to study the cartoons and learn alot more about what the each artist was saying with each of these cartoons.Hypnosadist 13:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Blutgein image.

What is that image of Kåre Blutgein doing in the article? He is already twice in the cartoons themselves :) and furthermore neither responsible nor famous for any of the controversy. Flemming Rose, Akkari/Laban and Anders Fogh Rasmussen are the ones we might want to see! (If any?) MX44 09:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No one's stopping you from removing it. Netscott 09:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Changed to the image of the book, a project which seems pertinent to the article. MX44 10:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It'll be interesting to see how that stands. Netscott 10:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Gone by now! Somebody in San Diego deleted it, so that was two weeks. MX44 08:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"Misinformation"

The article states, "It [the dossier] also contains misinformation such as ... if you say they [the Danes] are all infidels, you are not wrong."

Is it NPOV to say this is misinformation? This is a judgment, not a statement of fact. I don't think the "neutral" voice of the article can stand up an say it's false. The other referenced item of "misinformation" includes "the lack of right to build mosques," which is verifiably false if there are mosques in Denmark.

Perhaps the second bullet under "misinformation" should move down to the "statements" section. As an Anonymous Coward, I don't want to make this edit myself.

Currency

The Overview section states, "For weeks, numerous huge demonstations [sic] and other protests against the cartoons have taken place worldwide." This phrasing implies they are recent or current events. Considering how far this topic is from the headlines today (June, 2006), I think the article could be edited to put the events in the past. Also, the word "demonstrations" is misspelled. (Same Anonymous Coward reticence as above.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.42.184.35 (talk • contribs) .

Indeed currency in articles happens as a result of editors suffering from recentism. By all means edit away (and there's no need to discuss spelling mistakes save differences between American and British English norms. ) Netscott 01:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Notable Precursor

I added what I thought was a notable precursor to the list of precursors, Mohammad's Believe It Or Else by Abdullah Aziz which I had been under the impression was available at http://www.islamcomicbook.com . I was surprised to find that (a) it has been deemed not notable by some member of Wikipedia and removed, and (b) that it is no longer available online at http://www.islamcomicbook.com due to some complex story that one can read at http://www.islamcomicbook.com/faqs.htm (although I have found a place online where one may find an online version of it, specifically http://www.faithfreedom.org/comics/comics.htm ).

I believe the accusation that Mohammad's Believe It Or Else by Abdullah Aziz is indeed a notable precursor of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoon controversy. According to the website http://www.islamcomicbook.com : "After the original webmaster published the printed comic book Mohammed's Believe It or Else! on line as the Islam Comic Book, it received nearly 1,000,000 page views. "

Perhaps nearly a million page views is not notable enough by Wikipedia standards. If someone can point me to some such regulation or guide for Wikipedians that indicates that at least a million page views are required for some online cartoons depicting Mohammed published prior to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoon controversy for the precursor to be considered notable, I would appreciate it.

If there is no such regulation or guide, then I would humbly suggest that the reference to Mohammad's Believe It Or Else by Abdullah Aziz be re-inserted into the article about the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Not only that, but I would respectfully request that registered Wikipedians produce a Wiki article for the booklet. I was surprised when I did not find it mentioned on Wikipedia because the quality of the cartoons drawn by Abdullah Aziz are so much higher - more informative and funny - than the ones published in the Jyllands-Posten newspaper.

~Anonymous 11:13 AM Eastern Time, 13 July, 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.136.43.94 (talk • contribs) .

I actually agree that this site isn't notable and not worth inclusion in this article. Is it just must me or does http://www.islamcomicbook.com just seem to be a sockpuppet site of http://www.faithfreedom.org/comics/comics.htm ? Virtually identical layout, and design no? Netscott 16:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Netscott, for your response to my concern. I was hoping for something more supportive of my position, but anyhow, it's good to talk about these things.

Now, to respond to your points, Netscott. First, your perception of origin is an understandable error. The layout and design is quite similar, but http://www.faithfreedom.org/comics/comics.htm is actually a mirror of what used to be available at http://www.islamcomicbook.com but was changed due to the complex chain of events that I referred to earlier and pointed to http://www.islamcomicbook.com/faqs.htm for anyone who wanted more details about the various matters of disagreement that went on.

Second, it is not the site that is or is not notable that is in question, but Mohammad's Believe It Or Else by Abdullah Aziz. I think it, the comic book itself, is notable partly because of the large number of people who visited the page. There is also another, more important, reason why it is notable. I did not mention it before because I didn't think to do so, but now that it comes to mind I shall. There is a war on Islam happening, and it is being waged by many people, most notably by ex-Muslims, of whom Abdulla Aziz is one. While the war against Islam has been going on since the inception of Islam fourteen centuries ago, only recently have we seen so many ex-Muslims working on exposing the fallacies of Islam. The creation of the comic book by Abdullah Aziz is a notable battle between the religion of the sword and the countervailing force of the pen. This notable battle deserves to be recognized here at Wikipedia even more so than the publication of cartoons in the Jyllands-Posten newspaper because it happened not at the behest of some people who never were muslims to begin with, but by a person who was a muslim to start and saw things wrong with it and dared to criticize it in a manner that was clever, informative and humourous. As you can read for yourself - at http://www.islamcomicbook.com - there is probably going to be a new comic book created by Abdulla Aziz and it will be published online at http://www.islamcomicbook.com when it is ready. When that happens, Abdulla Aziz will become more notable, and the original book, an even more interesting item. ~Anonymous 12:55 PM Eastern Time, 13 July, 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.136.43.94 (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia is not going to be involved in any War on Islam outside of presenting a neutral point of view on it as a phenomenon. I appreciate the time you've spent in explaining your position on the inclusion of this reference but I still believe it isn't notable relative WP:Notability. Another issue that I wonder about is who's a former Muslim and who's not? But that issue generally doesn't apply to this article. I'm curious do you have a user name that you edit with as well? The topics you edit on and your style reminds me of another editor. Netscott 17:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, I agree with you Netscott, about Wikipedia only presenting a neutral point of view on the War on Islam as a phenomenon. The initial entry I made was simply adding the names of this book and author we are talking about to the list of precursors to the Jyllands-Posten Mohammed cartoon controversy. That's about as neutral as one can be, isn't it? :) Thank you for your complimentary statements about my explication of positions. Thank you also for your pointing me to WP:Notability. There I read that there is no official policy on notability, but there are guidelines for various matters. Specifically for "books" I read at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28books%29#Note_on_notability_criteria that "there is no dictum against any book that is reasonably spread or otherwise well-known or remarkable." With almost a million viewings of the book online, and an unknown number of copies of the hardbound version sold on top of that, on that basis alone I think the book is notable. From the perspective of a historian considering what skirmishes (in the war on Islam) preceded the battle of Jyllands-Posten, Mohammad: Believe It Or Else has to count as notable as well. Briefly wrt the two other points you mentioned, who is an ex-Muslim is a big question and I agree it is not appropriate to delve into here. It could take place, like it did for Ali Sina in the Discussion Page for the author in question, in this case Abdullah Aziz, when (not if; as I'm sure he'll eventually get one) an article about him is set up; and, yes, I've given out initials for someone to refer to me by one time during a discussion, but no, I have not an official username. I'm flattered to be mistaken for a notable editor. I am not so. ~Anonymous 2:14 PM Eastern Time 13 June, 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.136.43.94 (talk • contribs) .

I started an article about this website of the Islam Comic Book, but apparently it was not for someone's liking and was deleted. This comic book is pretty much unique and was posted on few other websites critical of Islam. At first, the person who apparently deleted my article also deleted the mentioning of this comic from the Jyllands-Posten page claimimg the comic book is unsourced, but after I reverted it, with a link to the site of the comic book, the same person deleted it again. -Politicallyincorrectliberal 17:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Politicallyincorrectliberal, thank you for taking the steps you did to help the notable book and author get their fair due here at Wikipedia. I am unhappy with the actions of Azate for what he has done seems to be WP:Bad faith. ~Anonymous 2:24 PM Eastern Time 13 July, 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.136.43.94 (talk • contribs) .

Wrong, and the policy you're probably referring to is assume good faith. I'd remove this unnotable reference in good faith myself. Netscott 18:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Netscott, I might be wrong that Azate deleted the work of Politicallyincorrectliberal and I out of bad faith but it was and remains at present my opinion that he has done so. Do I need to provide evidence that Azate has allowed his POV to influence his actions here? As for what you would do, I'm not sure if you are correct in assuming that you would remove what Politicallyincorrectliberal and I both consider to be a notable book written by a not very well known, yet notable author. I fear you are under the influence of Azate, whom I think is biased and someone whom you might have worked with in the past and therefore might have some feelings of affection and loyalty towards, and hence, with all due respect Netscott, you may not be thinking purely logically and giving my arguments their fair due. ~Anonymous 2:50 PM Eastern Time 13 June, 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.136.43.94 (talk • contribs) .

I see, and you might be a sockpuppet. Did you want to make any other questionable statements about my character and/or motives? Netscott 18:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

While you may be correct in your utilization of the word notable as an adjective relative to Abdullah Aziz (ie: one's appearance in a crowd might be notable because they are wearing a bright neon orange zoot suit) but he doesn't fall under the defintion corresponding to the noun: "A person of distinction or great reputation. See Synonyms at celebrity.". Netscott 19:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Netscott, thank you for reading what I wrote about my opinions. I wrote them without any intention of drawing offence from you. Perhaps it was a mistake for me to post such thoughts and rather it would have been wiser for me to simply ask you "why" you would "remove this unnotable reference" yourself. I guess I was getting too emotional about the matter. I hope you have no hard feelings about what I wrote. Anyhow, I appreciate your specifying your definition of the word notable. With all due respect, you seem to have confused notability with fame, and if you re-read the page you previously pointed me to, WP:Notability, I trust you will see that while fame certainly connotes notability, it is clearly stated that not all that which is notable is a result of having fame. Netscott, if the Muslim riots against the Jyllands-Posten Mohamhed cartoons had not occurred, then Mohammad's Believe It Or Else would not have been notable because it would not have been a precursor to anything notable. However, the riots did happen. I find it interesting that there had not been riots orchestrated against the publishing of Mohammad's Believe It Or Eles when the cartoons in the Jyllands-Posten were mild in comparison with the things written and illustrated about Mo in Abdullah Aziz's comic book, such as when Abdullah Aziz quotes Mo as saying that the heads of people from southern and central parts of Africa looked like raisins (in other words, Mohammad was a racist). It certainly is a notable historical fact that this comic book was published many months before the Jyllands-Posten cartoons and yet was not subject to riots. Don't you agree? Why were there no riots against this comic book? Maybe for the same reason that Azate has, in my opinion, tried to squelch any reference to the book. The goal I believe both he and the people who orchestrate such activities as Muslim riots share, is to suppress the information in the book from getting out. Even if it is true that Mo was a racist, no one should even hear such an accusation, according to people with a certain reverential POV about Mo. From a NPOV, it's just something that people might want to wonder about, and perhaps learn more. That is why this historical document should be included in Wikipedia. I have no doubt it will be sooner or later. At this point, I think I have said everything I need to say about the matter and my intention now is to stand back (or if I'm a sockpuppet, get lifted back up onto the shelf) and let matters unfold as they inevitably will. If need be I shall return with another post, but I hope that my services to Wikipedia in this regards are sufficient. ~Anonymous 3:36 PM Eastern Time 13 June, 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.136.43.94 (talk • contribs) .

Your referring to Muhammad as "Mo" does anything but lend credence to your arguments. The mere fact that there were no riots relative to the cartoons by Aziz supports the reasoning for their preclusion from mention in this article. Niether they nor Aziz are at this point notable enough for inclusion. I agree with you that may change but until it does you'll see my view not change. Also, I wouldn't question User:Azate's motives as you have done my own. He has been one of the more balanced editors relative to this article (and others) that I know. Netscott 19:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Netscott for your advice. ~Anonymous 4:04 PM Eastern Time 13 June, 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.136.43.94 (talk • contribs) .

You're welcome. Thanks for taking the time to explain your views on this rather than just engaging in edit warring over it, such civility is appreciated. Netscott 20:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The ultimate question that should be asked is what is there about Abdullah Aziz's comic book that makes it unworthy of an article on Wikipedia? For example, the cartoons from the blog of Cox and Forkum also featured almost exclusively on the net, but they have their own article and I don't understand why was my artilce about Aziz's comic book deleted, along with the reference from Cartoon controversy article. -88.153.87.83 21:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for being late to this thread. I deleted the link to "Mohammad's Believe It Or Else by Abdullah Aziz" because both links were red, and so totally useless. Then the link re-appeared, now with a functional wikilink to "Mohammad's Believe It Or Else. I clicked it. The page contained only a link to the bookshop. I went there. The book wasn't even for sale. I turned back, deleted the link in this article again an put up the "Mohammad's Believe It Or Else" for speedy deletion, because a) is was empty, except for the url, and b) it's only an advertisement and c) the book itself appeared to be not notable, because it wasn't even on sale. And the bookshop looked amateurish. How anybody can read into this that I "try to suppress the book" or "have a mindset like the people who orchestrate muslim riots", is absolutely beyond me. Azate 22:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What's this?

The article now contains this sentence under the "human and economic costs" header: "A recent study by http://www.ifka.dk/ has shown that the danish export on a global scale has gone up by 14 percent compared to last year. [33]". When I looked up that footnote, I predominatly was reminded that my Danish is not too hot, but I couldn't even find even the number 14 or the word "percent". What does the link say? Azate 23:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It is correct, there is no mention on neither 14 nor percent. Here is my quick translation:

The Muhammad-affair is a trade advantage - The turmoil following the affair regarding the Muhammad drawings has not hurt Danish exports, the opposite might even be the case, is the opinion of Jørgen Thulstrup, who is a senior researcher at the Institute for Market Trends. - The relatively uninteresting decrease, we have felt in the Arabic countries, have been outweighed by far by our reputation in the important markets in the rest of the world, says Jørgen Thulstrup to I Dag - Daily magazine of the Industry. - It is reflected in the expectations of the industry towards employment progress. - They are on the highest level during the past four years, shows an analysis from the institute.

Quick translation. There is no mention of any study in the link, just as there is no mention of the study at the webpage of the institute http://www.ifka.dk. So the footnote cannot be used to source any study of percentages. Iafrate 08:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Correction, there is reference to an analysis in the footnote, but the analysis concerns employment progress expectations, not export figures. Iafrate 08:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed it from the main page and changed the entry in the "economic and human costs" subpage to : "Another study has shown that Danish export losses due to the boycott were overcompensated by gains in other markets. The Danish export to the Arab world is less then 2% of GDP."

GA

I promoted this last time.. it hasn't changed. Nominate for FAC soon please. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 20:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yay! :D Homestarmy 22:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Article removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because it seriously violates WP:NPOV.

According to Wikipedia:Good_articles/Disputes I've still got veto-power, which I'm using hereby. To follow the neutral point of view policy, the article would need to fairly present a "Muslim points of view":

1. Instead of displaying the aniconistic Muslim tradition as baseless prohibition, the article should explain why (according to Muslim scholars) Islam generally forbids any pictorial representation of Muhammad.
2. Why do we let BBC journalists explain what insults Muslims instead of presenting Muslim (authorities) views on their anti-cartoon stance?
3. Instead of restricting on reporting the legislation regarding an insult on Muhammad, the article should at least mention the issue of advocating religious hatred by insulting a prophet.
4. The chapter "Islamism and xenophobia" misses to present the views of Multiculturalism proponents.

Furthermore I fail to see the coherence between Ahmadinejads Holocaust denial and the JP cartoon controversy, but maybe its still more relevant than the 700 years old Muhammad image. Raphael1 01:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Your lack of sight makes the concept no less vivid. Haizum 05:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you please elaborate on what I'm not seeing and what concept you are referring to. Raphael1 11:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Those madrassa POVs You (or that emabassy next door?) are advocating can hardly be considered NPOV ... but if you are worried about old material being irrelevant because of its age, think about the quran and the hadiths. They are really getting old by now! :-D (And if you missed the Iranian cartoon contest, you must have been sleeping in class.)

BBC interviews real muslims in the real world having realistic points of view, and therefore we quote the BBC. The random ramblings of extremist religious zealots and self proclaimed leaders are entertaining, but maybe not so very important.

The Multiculturalist proponents went out of fashion when the boycotts of 3rd party dairy farmers started. But it could very well be an interresting study! There is a lot of political vote-fishing nonsense and deception buried there ...

MX44 13:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• To achieve NPOV the "madrassa" POV, as you call it, needs to be fairly presented just as well as the "Jyllands-Posten/freedom of speech" POV is presented right now. Old material can be relevant as well. I.e. that 700 years old image is relevant for Depictions of Muhammad, but it can hardly be relevant for illustrating Islams contemporary aniconism.
• Where is the coherence between Ahmadinejads Holocaust denial and the Iranian newspapers (Hamshahri) cartoon contest?
• I don't want to present the views of extremist religious zealots, but the views of popular accredited religious leaders.
• Whether favouring Multiculturalism is modern or not is irrelevant. If we present the views of those who are disillusioned with multiculturalism, we need to fairly present the views of Multiculturalism proponents as well to reach NPOV. Raphael1 15:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• We would also need to represent the views expressed in "Muhammed, You better believe it ..."
• The Hamshari Contest was in response to the JP cartoons.
• Popular? You mean like this?
• They were disillusioned ...

MX44 16:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've just found a statement regarding the cartoons signed by many Muslim leaders.[34] It's not even listed in external references let alone is their view presented in the article text. Raphael1 16:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• There is room left in the 'Muslim Views' section. Please add your link. The more, the merrier ...MX44 19:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• One cannot correct the bias of this article by merely adding a link to the External links section. Raphael1 19:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• To those taking extreme point of views, the neutral sanity of this article appears to be far off. MX44 19:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Why are the views of popular religious leaders around the world more extreme, than the views of that Danish newspaper? Do you see it that way, because you are biased towards one side of this controversy? Raphael1 12:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Biased? If you are looking for bias, try this article. MX44 14:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• The link you added to the article (apart from being rejected in a recent poll) is not only biased, but wrong too: "Until people stop, in Allah's name, stoning woman to death, killing homosexuals, cutting the hands off children stealing food to survive, flying passenger planes into skyscrapers, car-bombing innocent people, forcing their religious convictions onto others, and other such atrocities, and until Muslims loudly and clearly reject and condemn the violence perpetrated by those who have hijacked and perverted their religion, the likelihood of cartoonists depicting Muhammad as a gentle, olive-branch carrying dove is not particularly high." Muslims around the world indeed loudly and clearly reject and condemn the violence perpetrated by those who have hijacked and perverted their religion, but it seems, that Clinton Fein didn't care to pay attention to that. Raphael1 14:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• It was decided the link was not fit as a source for the images. As a freestanding opinion piece by CF it has its merits. Netscott?
• When you say that muslims loud and clearly condemns violence, does this include: We will not accept less than severing the heads of those responsible," one preacher at Al Omari mosque in Gaza told worshipers during Friday Prayer, according to Reuters. ... That's pretty loud. And clear! MX44 16:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• I consider it very unfortunate, that you rather listen to a preacher in war-torn Gaza than to 42 Muslim clerics who reject "attacking foreign embassies or innocent people and other targets"[35] or 72 Muslim clerics who affirmed the Commitment to Global Peace. Raphael1 23:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• That certain clerics after the fact realizes that violence as a response to criticism of violence is counter productive, does not mean the events never took place or that other clerics are not still holding much more radical point of views. Both positions are part of the greater picture, the violent position being so well known, it even forms the basis of internal Muslim jokes. MX44 06:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, that both positions are part of the greater picture, therefore I wonder why only one of those positions gets displayed in the article.Raphael1 08:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• That the silent majority of the Muslims remained silent regarding the cartoons is a non-event. You want to have a mention of: Those who couldn't be bothered, did not bother ... Hey, after all the title suggests that we are talking about a controversy. Earlier attempts of defining more narrowly exactly what groupations were causing the riots, have been blocked. I am not sure that was the wisest thing to do, since it appears that this strategy of victimizing ALL Muslims have played in the hands of neo-Nazi groupations. Letters like this is now in circulation. But that could change. Recently the riots in Afghanistan have been identified to be ignited by a small group of Pakistani workers employed by one Saudi entepreneur ... And the theory of the Syrian governments involvement in the embassy torchings is already in place. MX44 09:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• We are reporting other non-events as well, such as "Sunni Muslims allowed depictions of Muhammad 700 years ago", "any insult to Muhammad warrants death according to Salafis" or "disillusionment with multiculturalism is widespread in Denmark" or voicing the views of critics of political correctness. OTOH we do not report for example, that those cartoons and the following events damaged the interfaith dialog and (as you've found) played in the hands of neo-Nazi groupations. Raphael1 09:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• I said that the self-pittying, pretentious (self-)victimisation of ALL Muslims (even those who do not wish to participate) is playing in the hands of the Nazis. (These events are taking place right now, as we speak, and I have no idea how they will evolve.) The death threats actually happened, so that is not a non-event. I suppose you meant to say, that you wish it was ... And I do not understand why you would want to strike the reference to the Salafis here? More moderate Muslims would certainly like to keep some distance, as also evidenced by the declarations you yourself is pointing to. Or are you trying to say that these declarations are not to be fully trusted? Now, that would be a bit odd .. MX44 09:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know, why you assume a self-victimisation of Muslims. Even the JP-newspaper apologized for indisputably offending many Muslims. Furthermore I never denied that death threats happened. But how Salafis interpret the Shariah is obviously a non-event, which you suggested are not worth mentioning. Even if we mention the Salafis, why don't we mention other Muslim groups too, who contacted the UN in order to criminalize any insult not only to Muhammad but all revered prophetic figures (incl. Jesus and Moses). Raphael1 12:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• You would like to hide the Salafi POV being an exception? You would like it to appear as if chopping heads of editors playing with crayons is a natural response, that no sane Muslim should or would object to? Me thinks you are confused, perhaps looking for a united Muslim POV which simply does not exist. MX44 13:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• It seems to me, that you deliberately misinterpret my text. Of course I know, that there is no united Muslim POV, therefore I wonder why the article focuses on displaying a lunatic fringe POV.Raphael1 09:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, is that so ... You are now saying that displaying more than one POV is bad because at least one of those views is a bit off, on the far side. In the same sentence you also admit that there is not a unified single POV to focus on. Now who is it then that you want to represent? I suppose it can not be those Danish imams who are joking about sending suicide-bombers along to blow up parliament, since, as I understand it, you do not like people disrespectfully joking about violence and Islam? OTOH, those are the very imams who were complaining about the JP cartoons in the first place. They are representing a fringe minority POV, so the fringe POV stays! MX44 11:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• No, I am not saying, that displaying more than one POV is bad. I am saying, that displaying only one fringe minority POV is bad. I plead for adding a fair display of a more generally accepted Muslim POV.Raphael1 21:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• I added OIC's POV on death-penalty for cartoonists to Prohibition to insult Muhammad, along with a quote: "This is not a joke to go and say kill this and that. This is a very serious matter and nobody has the authority to issue a ruling to kill people." That should balance out the hardliners notion of sharia somewhat. MX44 05:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Is there a special reason, why you've chosen to quote this particular statement of Prof. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu? How about these quotes: "The blasphemous cartoons published by the Danish Jylland-Posten newspaper clearly meant to demonize Islam and its Prophet, to insult its values and principles and to incite animosity and hatred to the adherent of this religion in a way to provoke serious prejudices against them, thus endangering their safety and demeaning them. This is the real issue that the authors of this outrage tried to obscure under the guise of freedom of expression. Maybe the reasons behind the cartoons could be better understood if we remember that the Danish author Jan Hjarno said in a recent book that “there is a tendency among many politicians and media circles to make Islam the explanation of all problems”" [36] And why don't we mention the visit of the Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Bernard Bot, to Prof. Ihsanoglu, where he stated, that "the issue was not a matter of challenging the freedom of speech or that of the press in the West. It was rather that the un-dignifying cartoons had injured the feelings of Muslims as they caused prejudice to their beliefs, values, and most sacred symbols, which points to the need to have a media code of conduct established such as to emphasize that freedom must be founded on the spirit of responsibility and that the notion of freedom of speech must be correlated with that of respect for beliefs, religions and sanctities."[37] Raphael1 11:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• No other reason than that I thought he meant what he said at the time. But after reading the above hateful statements, it is pretty clear that he must have later changed his mind. MX44 12:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• What is it, you consider hateful in those statements? Raphael1 12:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• He is propagandizing for a reasoning behind the drawings which never existed. He is denying any problem with the radical Islamist violence the cartoons commented on, thus legalizing the violence, to the point of provoking it to happen. MX44 12:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• The OIC is certainly not denying radical Islamist violence, as they repeatedly "strongly condemned the perpetrators of these heinous terrorist crimes, who pretend to act in the name of Islam or under any other pretext." and stated, that "Islam is innocent of all forms of terrorism which involve the murder of innocent people whose killing is forbidden by Islam, and rejects any attempts to link Islam and Muslims to terrorism because the latter has no relation whatsoever with religions, civilizations, or nationalities." [38] Therefore your claim, that the OIC would legalize the violence is wrong. Raphael1 13:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• If I am wrong, and that may be so, then perhaps they should start looking for some other speach-writer, who can better reflect what they intend to get across. MX44 13:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe it's not due to the speach-writer but the reader, who considers the cartoons to be comments on radical Islamist violence, but overlooks that they incite animosity to the majority of peaceful adherents of Islam. Raphael1 13:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• ... and therefore we should write some flaming speaches, calling for arms of all Muslims and prove that Islam really is as violent as we would like to communicate that it is not? Throw in some blatant lies about the intentions of Rose et al for good measure and credibility? Yah, that should work! MX44 14:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Who is calling for arms? Do you think, that Jan Hjarno from the Danish Centre for Migration and Ethnic Studies was lying, when he wrote, that "there is a tendency among many politicians and media circles to make Islam the explanation of all problems"? Raphael1 11:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Ihsanoglu is calling for arms. He is using the Goebbels style of propaganda to implant hatred within the Muslim community towards JP, giving Zawahiri (and others) a free ride to extend this to the whole nation.
• Hjarno never postulated that there do not exist any problems with Islam. Once again Ihsanoglu is using manipulative, deceptive wording to victimize the Muslims, this time generalizing and extending the target to: "many politicians and media circles." MX44 12:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• I guess that you are aware, that Goebbels used stereotypes to propagandize hatred towards a religious group. If any Goebbels rhetoric can therefore be compared to the cartoons published by JP. Furthermore the words "many politicians and media circles" are Hjarnos words, which get cited by Ihsanoglu. Raphael1 16:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Raphael, You are a good soldier! But so where the heroic Hitler-Jugend defending Berlin against the Communists ... It is my firm belief that you are truely trying to fight a good cause, but the quote we are dissecting here is not going in to the article. It would be counter-productive to showing that there exist sanity within Islam. MX44 08:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• There's a connection between the Hamshari Contest and the JP cartoons, but where is the connection between Ahmadinejads Holocaust denial and the Hamshari contest? Raphael1 16:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Holocaust denial is wrong. He is pointing to (minor?) excaggerations by Zionist zealots, putting the whole affair under dispute. This is (deliberately?) misunderstood in the West. I for one interprete his actions not unlike those of a medieval 'Joker', challenging the kings of this world (George W?), setting up a magnifying mirror. His ultimate agenda is that Israel was set up under false premises. If you like, we can discuss why the Jews were not simply given back their properties in, say Austria? I bet that inquiring minds in Palestine would also like to know. MX44 19:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• I wouldn't mind discussing that issue, if it were not off-topic here. (See: Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#What_talk_pages_may_be_used_for) You still haven't explained, what Ahmadinejads remarks on the Holocaust have to do with this article. Raphael1 19:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• You are not listening. Thanx for playing. Insert coin! MX44 19:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Yes I am listening, and I agree that Ahmadinejads remarks from October 2005 are relevant regarding world politics, but I see no relevant connection to the following cartoon controversy. We might as well discuss the Iraq war in this article. Raphael1 12:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• If we want to include a quote from Ahmadinejad, how about including this statement instead, since it directly refers to the cartoons: "Now in the West insulting the prophet is allowed, but questioning the Holocaust is considered a crime. We ask, why do you insult the prophet? The response is that it is a matter of freedom, while in fact they (who insult the founder of Islam) are hostages of the Zionists. And the people of the U.S. and Europe should pay a heavy price for becoming hostages to Zionists."[39] I'd say this quote should go one section up to "Alleged campaigns by the West and alleged Zionist conspiracy". Raphael1 23:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again. Back to the disputes page with ye, there's no excuse for this not passing by now. Homestarmy 16:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

GA vs. FA

I want to inform people about the current discussion about the veto-provisions in the GA-project. It seems that Raphael1 and one other person (no one knows if there is anybody else) is blocking for some sensible changes to the rules. I am myself getting pretty tired of the endless discussion without even a possibility for a decent vote. But note that the Featured Article project ironically does NOT have a built-in veto provision as the Good Article project have, which means that Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy could go straight after FA since GA-status is no requirement for FA-nomination. Just informing about the possibilities given the sad situation. This article definitely deserves recognition somehow. --Anjoe 19:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't you worry, it has recognition ;-) MX44 19:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Err, yes, there was a recomendation by a neutral party that it go to FA. Why doesn;t someone list it was FA, thus skipping the GA controversies.--Irishpunktom\^talk 16:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Eh, consensus seems to be forming to relist this on the GA disputes page. Homestarmy 22:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If this gridlock continues, aiming directly for FA seems like the logical choice. The content is clearly of good quality. Valentinian ^(talk) 18:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think an attempt to FA list this article would be a very good thing. Obviously my careful GA dispute page listing of its panoply of inadequacies has had no impact whatsoever on the hardcore "stay on message" advocacy of its champions; perhaps rejection by FA will snap some of you out of your illusions. &#0151; JEREMY 06:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Zawahiri mentions cartoons

In his latest statement Zawahiri said "It was also preceded by insults to the holy Koran in Bagram and Guantanamo and by the Danish, French, and Italian peoples' mocking of the most noble Prophet, God's peace and blessings be upon him. Yesterday's incidents were also preceded by Clinton's and Thatcher's honouring of Salman Rushdie, rewarding him for offending the Prophet, may God's prayers and blessings be upon him, and his holy household." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5106330.stm 217.39.11.210 23:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Good, the more honors people like Salman Rushdie get, the better. Politicallyincorrectliberal 10:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

"It would be counter-productive to showing that there exist sanity within Islam." (MX44)

Well I'd say, that the above statement by MX44 deserves a new thread. If this is an opinion shared by the other editors of this article, there's no question that this article violates WP:NPOV. Raphael1 09:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh MX44 just try and leave ole Raphael1 alone now and just focus your time on something a bit more productive. Netscott 12:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Sir! Will do! I obviously have too much unattended free time floating around. MX44 13:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The way things are going this article might got some peace soon. Netscott 14:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The latest quote from Raphael1 in the article demands of the Muslims to continue to show their intolerance [by legal means ...] because Islam is tolerant! :-D Can somebody dig out another quote, having a litle more consistency?

I also wonder what excactly he means by legal means. Is this to be understood so that he demands a change of the laws to better reflect the ideals of the Ummah? Afterall, the case was thrown out of court. MX44 04:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, this kind of "intolerance" is probably a daily event since newspapers get sued quite frequently for publishing controversial cartoons. How far goes your tolerance? [40][41][42][43]

Ihsanoglu probably meant the filing of an appeal since the press release was issued on January 28 and the final court decision was given on March 15.

Why don't we mention the Alliance of Civilizations meeting in Doha on February 25, where the UN, OIC and EU discussed the cartoon controversy? [44][45][46] Raphael1 16:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Cartoons protest: Four in UK court

From Cnn.com news. Needs to be integrated on one of the JP cartoons pages. Netscott 15:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Reinstated GA

As per the discussion on the GA disputes page this article has been reinstated as GA Gnangarra 09:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Does JEREMY and I no longer have veto-power? Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes still reads "everyone has veto power". Raphael1 11:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny, general consensus says that the article should be listed... and yet you want to go against that? Netscott 11:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The full statement is Wikipedia:Good articles is an unbureaucratic system to arrive at a quick consensus set of good articles: everyone can nominate good articles, and everyone has veto power. However, sometimes editors disagree whether an article reaches the good article criteria. This page is for dealing with such disputes.

GA dispute page has debated the subject, 14 editors have stated that this article should be reinstated as GA. 2 editors disagreed. The original reasons for delisting are unable to be addressed, without deleting this article. Gnangarra 11:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Raphael1 if you think that this article doesn't belong on wikipedia why try to delist it from GA when you could have just nominated it for deletion. Gnangarra 12:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think, that this article doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I just think, that it needs to display "sanity within Islam" to achieve neutrality. Raphael1 12:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

When consensus is based on ignoring clearly defined and commonsense criteria for Good Articles, consensus is wrong. &#0151; JEREMY 12:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Most people who said it should be relisted seem to feel that this article clearly meets defined and commonsense criteria for Good Articles, unless your definition of common sense is not the same as everyone else's. Good Articles are not the same as perfect articles, they only have to be good, not perfect, and not having to be perfect means that sometimes not everyone gets everything into an article they want. Homestarmy 12:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, this is the third listing and delisting of this article. The GA system definitely needs revamping in that those who have not contributed (either in editing on the article or discussing it on it's talk page) should be disqualified from having unilateral veto power. Netscott 12:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

We tried to change the rules, but the mediation failed. Homestarmy 13:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The mediation failed to have the result you would have liked, you mean. If you read the way it wrapped up, you'll see that everyone who bothered to participate seems to have been relatively happy with the way it went. &#0151; JEREMY 13:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression Anjoe simply dropped the issue because he was too busy, and it seemed like most participants just stopped because you and Anjoe sort of had that long discussion with each other. The rules should be changed because we are still having this argument, why would a system which can create such stalemating arguments even be considered good, the Good Article system would have to be delisted :D. Homestarmy 14:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

We are still having this argument, because Jeremys and my critique gets ignored. If you'd help us to work on our issues, we wouldn't oppose the Good Article status. Raphael1 18:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, most of the issues can either be seen as non-issues or seem to present an overall message of "Change the whole direction of the article", which I don't really have the time or the inclination to do, nor do I suspect most editors have that sort of time either, this is a very extensive article. The article has seemed to me to always have reflected GA criteria ever since stability stopped being a problem, so I don't see the point in re-writing it just to basically make it give Islam a more favorable look and make changes which may or may not have any need to be made. Homestarmy 18:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You might not see it that way, but I think the article is very much in need to balance the display of Islam. As if the prominently displayed offensive cartoons aren't enough, the article text promotes negative stereotypes of Islam and Muslims too. We don't need to rewrite the whole article, but some key issues definitely need to be addressed to reach neutrality. Raphael1 18:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I have reinstated (again 1st revert occured after only 3 hours) the GA status of this article in line with the GA dispute comments. GA requests that major contributors to article don't review the article for GA status. The first edit by JEREMY , occured on the 13th Feb 2006, the first edit by Raphael1 was on the 8th May 2006. If you see fualts with the article as editors of the article why not just spend productive time fixing instead of continuing this shamozzle. Gnangarra 14:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to fix this article, but unfortunately MX44, who considers it counter-productive to display a more generally accepted Muslim POV, reverts my edits. Raphael1 18:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Article removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because

• Criticisms of the cartoon are restricted to weak or strawman arguments. Why is there no mention of critics' suggestions that the cartoons were "Childish. Irresponsible. Hate speech. A provocation just for the sake of provocation. A PR stunt." or "unnecessary, insensitive, disrespectful and wrong"?
• "Supporters of the cartoons claim they illustrate an important issue" — Again, this kind of uncited generalisation demonstrates the inherent bias in this article. The claim is entirely unsupported by the Economist ref provided.
• "Several death threats and reward offers for killing those responsible for the cartoons have been made, resulting in the cartoonists going into hiding." — What, all of them?

Yes! 80.216.124.251 17:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Note the "Publication of the Drawings" is followed immediately by "Jyllands-Posten response", without the apparently inconvenient requirement for an intervening discussion of the Muslim reaction, which would have made some sense of the section titles.
• "It concluded:" — What concluded? The Muslim ambassadors?

The letter from the ambassadors, see footnote ... 80.216.124.251 17:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• "The ambassadors maintained that they had never asked for Jyllands-Posten to be prosecuted" — No cite. And did they maintain this in chorus?

Turkey backed out. Egypt backed out, although their ambassador did not. She tried to take credit for the affair instead and was moved to South-Africa. I do not recall who else, but definately not "all in chorus." MX44 21:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• "A group of Danish imams, dissatisfied with the reaction of the Danish Government and Jyllands-Posten" — This construction implies motives to the imams without so much as a cite.

Ehrmm ... You want more motives and cites? Read your next objection :-D MX44 22:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• In the bloated and unwieldy "dossier" section (what is it about {{Main}} that's so difficult? You worked it our fine for the "Economic costs" section) Hirsi Ali's interview which so offended the imams is not described. Instead, it is immediately excused by the statement "who had just received the Freedom Prize 'for her work to further freedom of speech and the rights of women' from the Danish Liberal Party represented by Anders Fogh Rasmussen."

The interview was about what you mentioned above, what else? Fashion and cooking? The statement is about what the Muslims disliked and accused her and Fogh Rasmussen for. MX44 22:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• The article only gets around to mentioning the names of (some of) the imams in the "Danish Imams under investigation" section; apparently they only merit identification once they're being linked to terrorism.

Actually from, when they are linked to making jokes about Islam and violence. Their names are in the even more bloated and unvieldy Akari/Laban dossier MX44 22:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• "Contemporary majority Sunni Islam" — What is the "Contemporary" meant to imply? That there was a time when Sunni Islam was the minority?

No only that interpretations change over time. MX44 22:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Of the 18 "Comparable references", all but 3 seem to be entirely OR (ie. they are uncited).
• At least some of the few references I've bothered to check are mislabelled (eg. ref #87).
• The whole shemozzle is rounded out with a liberal smattering of misspellings (eg. "Mgazine", "Jylland-Posten"/"Jyllands Posten"/"Jullands-Posten", and the non-standard "Muhammed" and "Shariah"), homophonic word substitutions (eg. "diffusion" for "defusing"), miscapitalisations (eg. "explained his intent further In the"), introduced redundancies (eg. "We urge you [recipient of the letter or dossier] to - [...] - to give us"), missing spaces, redundant wikilinking, misquotations like "the number of Muslims expanding like mosquitoes" (that would be "is expanding"), a link to the "Bad Democracy Award for March 2006" slipped in as an "online petition" and the unmissed opportunity to include yet more depictions of Muhammad by irrelevantly including the cover of the Kåre Bluitgen book and a 14th century Persian illustration, as well as a "gotcha" link to the entire Wikicommons archive. And this is even without getting started on the cartoons themselves.

The above commentary was inserted using the GA delisting template, which for some reason doesn't see to require a signature. &#0151; JEREMY 14:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this is all Raphaels, his was the last name I saw in the contrib summary :/. Homestarmy 14:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

no as stated it was JEREMY Gnangarra

Balanced article? Then write it

Instead of complaining about the article being imbalanced, why do you not just go ahead and put the changes you see fit in? --mboverload@ 21:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I've suggested as much myself already. Netscott 21:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I mean, I'm not trying to be a hard-ass here, but I'm completely open to balanced changes. In fact, I WANT some Islamic views in there! People in the west are extremely confused and hurt that some cartoons would cause deaths. We can't understand it. Help us understand it. Just don't deface the article. It's Wikipedia, after all. =D --mboverload@ 22:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is my input towards balance. I've just replaced the IMHO rather weak "Associating Islam with terrorism" section with those two sections. Cyde reverted me and suggested I discuss them here first.

Cartoons incited hatred

The enormous resentment that Muslims feel towards the west generally is not fully understood or appreciated in the west. It is driven not only by the blind hatred or religious zealotry of extremists but also by frustration and anger with U.S. foreign policy among the mainstream in the Muslim world. That resentment runs deep, and it is accompanied by a feeling of victimization that calls on memories from the crusades to colonialism. The West's espousal of freedom, democracy, and human rights is often perceived as a hypocritical "double standard" when compared to its policies. For instance, the military actions by the U.S. and European allies in Afghanistan and Iraq is another inflammatory issue, which critics perceive as a neocolonialist military endeavor in order to implement unpopular authoritarian regimes who comply with U.S. foreign policy objectives, especially with respect to Israel and Palestine. This long litany of grievances stretching over many years feeds the anger of many mainstream Arabs and Muslims, as well as extremists. This resentment and deep sense of grievance has been accumulating like a dangerous store of combustible fuels. The Cartoons provided a spark that triggered the explosion of anger and the ensuing fires on a global scale. There were also those who actively fanned the flames to advance their own political agendas. But on the whole, it is a misunderstanding by the west to try to measure the result to the size of the spark, but ignoring the accumulation of fuel.

Double Standard

In Europe it is probably easier for people to make cartoons of Moses, Jesus or even an anthropomorphic God, than to make anti-Semitic cartoons showing Jews with crooked noses and bent backs, and promoting once again the stereotypes that led to the monstrosities of pogroms and the Holocaust.

To Muslims that is another example of double standards. Why is it possible to pass legislation that would ban attacks against Jews and forbid denial of the Holocaust and consider it compatible with free speech, but defend offense to Islam and Muslims in the name of free speech?

If indeed the overwhelming majority of western society, including its political leaders, would have condemned the cartoons, without necessarily having restricted the right of the newspaper to publish them, the same way as they would have condemned an anti-Semitic paper for its attacks against Jews or a racist paper for its attack against blacks, then it is likely that this would have gone a long way towards establishing trust and de-escalating the issue.

Raphael1 23:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)