Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Poll 1 Comments

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

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

/incivility removed/

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

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

Ideally, this would be handled through an RfC. Unfortunately, given the volatility involved I doubt there would be any hope of enforcing the consensus reached through an RfC short of a total lockdown on the article. --StuffOfInterest 20:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I think at this point we just need to take a straw poll regarding the fate of the image itself; after that is established, we can move on to where in the article it should be (assuming people vote to keep it) Sol. v. Oranje 20:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Babajobu 20:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
If we have that kind of poll, there needs to be a neutral side, personally, I don't really mind between at the top or in the middle, I just think it needs to be in here at a relevant position.Homestarmy 20:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Some people have specific opinions about where the image should go, but first we should address the fate of the image itself. If there is a consensus to keep it in article, then we should address where to keep it. But most edit warring has been over whether or not to keep it at all. Babajobu 20:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I've been keeping up with the thread, and I disagree. I would say there's been an equal amount of vitriol over simply moving the image down on the page, and I think it's important to structure the straw poll so people don't think their votes will be misinterpreted. Tempshill 20:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
There will be another poll, and there's no reason it can't include Link to Image as one of the approvable options. Voting to keep the image now is not a vote for its present size or position; that will be later. Septentrionalis 20:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Pam, and I don't think anyone's votes will be misinterpreted. Voting to keep the image in the article is not an assertion that it belongs at the top, the bottom, the middle, or anywhere else. More than one editor also said that the picture should be removed until we determined that consensus preferred it in the article. We need to get that simple issues sorted. If there turns out to be a consensus to keep it in the article, then we will need to address where it should go. But I don't think a two-step process to determine consensus is too elaborate a method for an issue that has caused this much warring and disagreement. Babajobu 20:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't like the current poll, whose questions are slanted to produce a preselected result. The correct first poll question is "be hardass / be flexible". If the answer is "hardass", then no 2nd step is needed. If "flexible", then go to a 2nd step and figure out what to do next, no longer insisting on keeping the pic the way it is. 21:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, because those poll options aren't loaded at all...The current poll is fine as step one of a two-step process, as has been discussed on this page already. Skleinjung 21:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • On Bahá'u'lláh, we have the photo at the end of the article. This prevents religious offense while still keeping the photo for its encyclopedic value. Maybe that would work here. I am strenuously opposed to removing the scan entirely; how can one understand the controversy fully without even seeing the purportedly offensive material? Crotalus horridus (TALKCONTRIBS) 20:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Um, by clicking on a link, if needed. 21:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, but Bahá'u'lláh was not about that photo, this is. Those images ARE the article. This doesn't mean they should stay on top, but placing them all the way down seem a little drastic. I'd say, put them somewhere beside the descriptions of the cartoons. AlEX 21:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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

It's four now

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

The current poll does not state that or mean that. Numerous editors have claimed there is no consensus to keep the image at all. We need to address that issue before addressing where to put it. Babajobu 21:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
No, the current poll is about whether to allow the image of the cartoons in the article in _any_ form, and says nothing about whether it should be at the top, bottom, middle, thumbnailed, enlarged, or any other variation therein. It is a poll about its _existence_ and value to the article. The options are: 1) No, remove the image entirely, 2) Remove the image, but provide a link to it, or 3) Allow an image of the cartoons in the article, with the placement of it up for later debate. Sol. v. Oranje 21:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment In my opinion it is against the principles of Wikipedia to delete an image that is fundamentally important to an article, therefore the vote that demands the deletion of the image does not make sense, IMO. -- Trollkontroll 08:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

users and contributions

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

  1. Maverick 19:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. User:slamdac 20.01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Sol. v. Oranje 20:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Valtam 20:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Discus2000 20:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neim 20:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. AlEX 20:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. --Ridethecurve 20:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

I am not accusing any one. I just noticed that some people just appeared after long vacations. Others just signed just for the sake of this talk page? Is that wrong?????? Or are people offended when some one notices something about the poll? It is only talk, how can it heart any one; after all this is what we are here to talk about!!! --Tarawneh 23:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
It's true...we noticed that hordes of IPs showed up to remove the image multiple times, so it's okay for him to notice that a few editors haven't been editing much recently. What conclusions he draws from that, I haven't a clue. Babajobu 23:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not "wrong" but it is kind of rude to assume that these users, including myself, are just "mysteriously" appearing in this discussion page. So what if some of us aren't on Wikipedia every day? I've been using Wiki on and off for two years now and don't need to edit articles every day to make my opinions heard on this article or the cartoons. I can't speak for the inspiration of the other users, but please keep in mind that randomly accusing people of suspicious behavior is not exactly kind and welcoming Sol. v. Oranje 23:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I do not understand, why do you insist on making this personal? I am not accusing you. It is only your POV regarding my words. Will, it seems that both of us agree that some actions could be miss judged as rode, or aren’t we?--Tarawneh 23:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Considering you were the one who brought up these suspicions about the above list of users, the onus is on you to back up your claims with evidence and an assertment of what we've done wrong (other than to note that most of the users above support using the image of the cartoons in the article). Sol. v. Oranje 00:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello Mr Soldaatvanoranje, permit me to ask you how can you know what Mr Tarawneh assumed or think ??? and permit me also to say that i dont see any accustions in the words of Mr. Tarawneh .Just a little suggestion or proposal: make a user check and the onus will be on no one. مبتدئ 00:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
All I know of Tarawneh is that he listed my name under the vague accusation that somehow I have done something "strange" -- how am I supposed to respond to that, silence? Sol. v. Oranje 01:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Um Tarawneh, dude, you should know that earlier this afternoon an editor added this talk page to the RfC list, so undoubtedly there are people who watch that list who came to this page specifically to respond to the request of the editor who added it.--Anchoress 04:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I've used Wikipedia for years, but neither edited nor registered. Why did I register? Because I think this is one of the pivotal issues of our time. Specifically, what how does the right to express oneself intersect with the myriad religious laws to the contrary? Secondarily, how does the right to express oneself intersect with the need for restraint in the name of civility? Perhaps, Tarawneh, we (the long-lost and the newbies), are simply guilty of caring?--Snorklefish 20:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Well to everyone new and old let me just say welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. --JGGardiner 23:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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

It may have been unfortunate to translate into English doggerel. But English daft does mean "crazy", or at least "eccentric" . Could you translate word for word? Septentrionalis 20:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
"knald i låget" means "To have a tile loose", "kuk i låget" would be translated similarly--Discus2000 20:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. I too think "dumb" is too negative a word. Dumb is not what is said in Danish. Daft is fine, though. So - anybody up for a poetic retranslatation? It needs some word like daft or crazy or eccentric - preferably one that fits the "rhythm" --Lassefolkersen 20:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
"holder kvinder under åget" means "subjugating women". "Prophet! With a loose tile and subjugating women"... which should then be turned into a colloquialism or an idiom--Discus2000 20:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
It is hard to accurate translate into English and still stay poetic. "Prophet! daft and dumb, keeping woman under thumb", while I agree a little to negative, is a very valid try. “Daft” is actually a translation for the entire part of "kuk og knald i låget", and no other word is really needed.
A more true translation would be "Prophet! daft and keep woman under yoke" (as in under the yoke of a tyrant), but it does not sound poetic anymore. Twthmoses 21:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I think 'Prophet with a screw loose' would be a fair equivalent, but (although I'm a published poet), I'm having trouble with the second part. 'Prophet with a screw loose, keeping women in your noose' might not be the best wording.--Anchoress 21:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Probably, but does anyone know where the translation "daft and dumb..etc." actually comes from? I have seen it a couple of times already. So maybe it should be the one "accepted" in the english media that is shown here.--KingCarrot 21:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I don’t know where the daft and dumb comes from. This is the word for word translation; maybe some English poets can wrap it up to sound poetic? - "Profet! [Prophet!] Med [with] kuk og knald i låget [see below] som [who] holder [holds/keeps] kvinder [woman] under [under] åget! [yoke!]".
The phrase [kuk og knald i låget] describes a person with a screw lose / mental unstable / crazy / daft / a tile lose. The actual word for word is, tho the meaning will be lost: "kuk [cuckoo] og [and] knald [bang] i [in] låget [the lid]" Twthmoses 00:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
KingCarrot - I have no idea where the original translation came from, but as international media is actually starting to cite this page (fx the The Dominion Post - see timeline) I think that a correct translation is by far the most important. Dumb has nothing to do with "kuk og knald i låget", and there is no point in adding insults to an already volatile case. I have deleted the "dumb" from the article but hopefully an english poet will soon add a more catchy translation. --Lassefolkersen 12:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
How is "prophet you crazy bloke! Keeping women under yoke", for a cathcy translation? --Lassefolkersen 14:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, that is actually pretty good. Maybe "crazy" should be switched to something a little more light. Afterall "kuk og knald i låget" sounds more like something from Donald Duck or Shu-Bi-Dua. Wacko maybe? Definitely not psycho. --KingCarrot 14:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Archive 4

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

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

Yo Danish speakers

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

Lotsofissues 19:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The Newspaper -
, whats the name you want? Cacophobia (Talk) 10:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, the other name was Kåre Bluitgen. Lotsofissues 14:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Dont know how to pronouce his last name correctly sorry Cacophobia (Talk) 15:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
How about "Islamisk Trossamfund"? Thanks. 20:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Dude, i hate to point this out but i think even if the american media were interested in the story you would still need proper pronunciation guides ;) WookMuff 05:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Ouch. But perhaps, Touché. --Deville (Talk) 17:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Picture Size

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

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

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

I agree wholeheartedly with this, in hindsight. As long as there is a thumbnail of the picture i am happy... if people want to click on said thumbnail to get the larger version, so be it, but i think the option should as least be represented with a thumbnail. WookMuff 05:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

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

do you understand the phrase? WookMuff 05:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Other comparable incidents section

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

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

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

US condems Denmark

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

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

They didnt condem denmark... Would be very od if they did, dont forget that the US, UK & denmark are allies in iraq. The dane

The US did NOT condemn Denmark, but I guess people are allergic to the facts on Wikipedia. BlueGoose 07:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually it almost did, I saw it on MSN, was something from the state department or something :( Homestarmy 16:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Opinion in the muslim world


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

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

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

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

Ha, they cut out the face of the cartoonist, who is drawing a stick figure of mohammed. Is depicting artists a sin now? More to the point, I see no reason why not to include this AlEX 23:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC) But a source should be present AlEX has been blocked for 24 hours. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure it should be read clockwise? Wouldn't you read a comic strip from upper right in Arabic? 10:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in principle you are right, but it is not of importance. The translation is still okay. -- ActiveSelective 11:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Great picture! Thank you for uploading. -- ActiveSelective 11:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :)Rajab 15:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apupuchau, can i make fun of your name since u dont mind makeing fun of black people in Denmark, its ok to deny Holocaust, and its ok to have the comic strip ?! Just out of curiosity???? PersonX

Ban the people who keep removing the images

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

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

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

While I definitely agree that we have reached consensus on the picture, banning people for a first removal of the image is contrary to wikipedia policy, (I believe you get 4 screwups according to the test4 template), and permanent bans are by and large against Wikipedia policy unless you have made some personal or legal threat or defamed someone. All a permanent ban will serve to do is antagonize a large subset of the Wikipedia editors who may be Muslim. Not that some right-wingers on here wouldn't have a problem with that. BlueGoose 15:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Because we shouldn't treat Muslims differently from how we treat other religious communities. See Piss Christ. See anti-semitism. See Xenu. There should be no special treatment at wikipedia for any community. Babajobu 23:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
the difference here is how strongly the offense is to Muslims. Rajab 23:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll make it really clear for you here Rajab. I find your existance on this earth and on wikipedia very highly offensive to my race and people. I guess you should remove yourself from this earth to make sure that I am not offended! How much sense does that make? And if you are going to say "that's rediculous, I have a right to exist" then it's the same logic, people have a right to free speech. Regardless. Hitokirishinji 00:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
That's ridiculous, why do you think your offense is greater than the offense of other communities when their prophets are insulted and degraded? How arrogant and obnoxious! Do you think only Muslims have beliefs? It's true, though, that fewer members of those groups have demanded that Wikipedia be censored for their benefit, that's true. I guess they just understand the concept of a free press. Babajobu 23:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you denying that we are more offended? Please, read the news Babajobu. This insult goes directly against us (implying our prophet (saw) is a terrorist) and what we believe in. See this in the context of islamophobia after 9/11 & you see why it's incredibly awful Rajab 00:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Who cares who is more offended? It isn't important; what is important is whether or not it is encyclopedic to include the image at the top of the article. It is, so the picture is there, regardless of whether or not it offends people.
And besides, Mohammad is a symbol for Islam, so it isn't so much saying that he is a terrorist as that his religion supports it in some way (and, to be fair, many people say that it does, including many of the terrorists). This isn't islamophobic anyway. Part of the point of publishing the satirical cartoons (all 12 of them) is that Islam is overly sensitive to criticism, as is the Middle East. Religions can and should be insulted; it is a part of free speech, and religions inherently are blasphemeous to one another (though I must say I don't see too many Buddhists blowing up weddings). If the Middle East was not such a hotbed of anti-Westernism and the spawning ground of so many terrorists, it probably would not recieve as much criticism as it does.
Moreover, the entire point of the article being published was to illustrate that it is OK to criticize Islam - and it is! But the Islamic world overreacted, thus proving they are irrational. This article wouldn't even exist if they hadn't overreacted. 01:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
They are cartoons! Drawings, stick figures. The Piss Christ article has figure of Jesus (to christians not even a prophet, but God himself) submerged in urine. If the offence is stronger to muslims, then muslim are overreacting, alot. Now tell me, how strong do you think the offense should be. Think about a statue of muhammed submerged in urine, what would the muslim world do? I dread to think. AlEX 23:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Go right ahead and put the explicit image at the top of the Janet Jackson article. I don't mind. --Aaron 00:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I just did. -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 00:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

3 revert rule

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

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

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

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

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

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

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