Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 2

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

Why locked with image on top?

I've just read this whole talk page, and I'm a little confused about the decision to lock the page with the image "above the fold." It seems like the overwhelming majority of sensible voices advocated either linking the image, or moving it "below the fold." It seems clear that wikipedia should not be in the business of telling people which images they should or should not see. Having the image above the fold is offensive and hurtful to many, and appears to me as inappropriate editorializing by wikipedia on the issue. Putting the image behind a link or down the page just seems more non-pov to me. Why was it locked otherwise? --Camipco 23:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The article is about that image. To put it anywhere but the top is illogical. --Xiaphias 00:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Camipco, the majority you assert does not exist. Thparkth 23:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Why not a vote on this? At least that's one way to assert one way or the other what the consensus is on this. Sol. v. Oranje 23:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of freedom: Freedom is not the power to do what one wants. Freedom is the power to do what is right." Pope John Paul II "Before you seek one’s freedom, you must assume that any individual, in and of itself, has that quality called freedom, meaning that he can act according to his own free choice." Yehuda Ashlag "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains" Jean-Jacques Rousseau "Man is free at the moment he wishes to be" Voltaire "Freedom means the freedom to say two plus two equals four. All else follows from that" George Orwell "Freedom is participation in power" Cicero "In the truest sense, freedom cannot be bestowed; it must be achieved" Franklin D. Roosevelt

I think that some has to remind others of their limits words can lead to war and destruction your freedom ends when you step in others or interfer in others life or their busness. I hope the world learn to apologize because it is vertue to say sorry and I am wrong, lets see how your wife will react to a caricature of her body in front of others, do not tell me you are going to say to her I am free, I am sure you will spend your night out, so next time do not talk about freedom of speech.
Is this some kind of threat? That war and destruction will come because a bunch of freaking Danish cartoons and whether or not Wikipedia posts them on their site? Are you out of your mind?
No, we will not apologize to people who stand against the cause of free of information and speech. I don't care what caricatures one could draw anout any important figure in my life...because, duh, they are _caricatures_. And yes, caricatures, satire. and unplesant humor are a part of modern life and expanding one's mind. Clearly yours is closed and obsessed with revenge and notions of making other people grovel for being free. For shame. Why are you even on Wikipedia if all you mean to is to cripple free information? Sol. v. Oranje 06:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

My 2 pence

I think that Wikipedia should include the images.

One of the wonderful things about the internet is that there is no censorship (at least, unless the government of a particular country forcibly blocks content, like in China). It is currently the largest forum for free speech on the planet.

Among all the world's 6 billion people, there are an uncountable number of beliefs and traditions - and, naturally, some are going to be in direct conflict with others. Offence WILL be caused at some point, when someone talks who advocates a certain belief, which goes directly against that of another person. There's no way to avoid this.

My personal belief is that it is wrong to pander to one group of people in particular. To censor images of Muhammad for fear of "offending" hard-core Muslims can be seen as offensive to those advocates of free speech. As long as no-one is directly, physically harming someone else, then it is not wrong to let people speak. EuroSong Flag of England.svg 01:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, we cannot start censoring ourselves to save the feelings of some random minority group. From there, it's only a short step to "oh, the Scientologists are offended by the article on Xenu", "the fundamentalist Christians are offended by the articles on atheism, evolution, and biblical criticism", etc etc.
We must not let one minority dictate what we may or may not publish here on Wikipedia.
Lankiveil 11:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC).
You know, I always thought censorship meant suppressing information so that people who wanted to obtain it couldn't do so (at least without difficulty). Do you really think "scroll down if you want to see the picture" is suppressing anything? It's possible that you have no idea what real censorship is. Phr 11:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to move it to the bottom to begin with. People might get offended by it. So what? You can't avoid being offended in life.Kittynboi 14:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Slippery slope, my friend. Read my last sentence that I wrote. If we start making considerations for one minority, where will it end? Offending people for the sake of offending people is bad, of course, but why should we subvert and change our normal procedures because someone's feelings might get hurt? Next thing you'll be telling us that we have to hide the images in penis, Jesus, and cauliflower as well. You know, because somebody's feelings might be hurt (although its okay if we hide it, porno-store style, and hope that nobody complains about that). Lankiveil 12:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC).
For a while I was considering to support the people who wanted to move the image "down". But then I read Lankiveil's post and I have to agree, we can't start catering to certain people because then we'll have to cater to everyone to be fair. And the most fair and objective way to be about this is display the image prominently because the article is certainly about the image. Hitokirishinji 22:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate to Take Down the Cartoons

Posting the cartoons are, I believe, fundamental to understanding the entire controversy; how can one make an informed opinion vis-a-vis the offensiveness-vs.-free speech/satire of the works without visually seeing them (with appropriate explanation of some of the more obscure Danish personalities and idioms expressed in the works)? Furthermore, if Wikipedia takes down the images, then it will have succumbed to anti-free speech demands and would compromise any hope of using this site as a wide-ranging source of information on every topic, no matter how "controversial" or political. Sol. v. Oranje 01:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Posting the cartoons is not fundamental to understanding the controversy: the text descriptions are perfectly adequate, and the Danish version of the article, like most of the other language versions, doesn't have the cartoons (maybe because of copyright) but I'm sure its readers understand the controversy perfectly well. 2. The current revision battle re this article isn't about taking down the pictures; it's about moving them from one part of the page to another.
I just don't see it as that big a deal. Insisting on keeping them in a particular spot on the page has nothing to do with keeping the info available; it's more of an insistence on making a political statement and/or punishing an adversary. Moving the picture tones down the confrontation while keeping the info available. Phr 11:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
If we follow the "text descriptions are perfectly adequate" rationale, then why have any images on Wikipedia? --Guppy313 04:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia needs to lock this article to stop people from removing the image. You're right. Understanding the issue is impossible without actually seeing what it is that has so many people upset. Kittynboi 06:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm ok with removing the inline cartoon and replacing it with a link saying "click here to see the cartoon". The page was like that for a while last night and it seemed to mollify the most vociferous opponent of including the image. Phr 02:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm ok with reminding the naive user (in the caption, perhaps) that using the image doesn't constitute endorsement of its message, and as such shouldn't be construed as racism on wikipedia's part. M0nkey 03:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Several prominent Danish imams have stated publicly that the ban on depicting Muhammad does not apply to non-muslims (no more than the ban on eating pork does). The offence lies not in depicting Muhammed, which has been done many times before, but in doing so in a provocative way. Also, I have not heard of a ban for muslims on seeing depictions of Muhammad. Therefore, I strongly support posting the image in this encyclopedia. Wikipedia is neither muslim, nor christian (though some authors tend to forget that); it is just informative. One of the causes of the controversy over the drawings is that "false" Muhammad drawings have been shown in Arabic media - drawings even more offensive than the ones that actually appeared in Jyllandsposten. Therefore, the actual drawings are important information.--Niels Ø 10:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC) PS. The heading of this section contains the word "Asanine"; I find that unneccesarily harsh. Would it be OK to change it into "Inappropriate", say?
OK, I changed the heading. Let me try to answer your other question. I think it's important that people can see the picture if they want to see it. A bunch of others here (let's call them "pro picture") all said approximately the same thing as that, while some "anti picture" people wanted the picture gone, and kept removing it. There was a confrontation between the sides, feeding on itself. Then the picture got moved to the bottom of the page; it was still there to see, but moving it toned down the confrontation, and the anti-picture side stopped removing it. Then, (some of) the "pro picture" side changed their demand: they insisted that the picture be on top of the page, because dammit, freedom, blah, blah. See: it was not really about information to the pro-picture side either; they wanted a political statement in the form of the picture's placement, and they wanted confrontation against whoever didn't like the picture. (That's supposed to be a no-no: WP:NOT, wikipedia is not a soapbox). I don't think the edit war is about the picture being present or not present; it's about confrontation and each side trying to punish the other. Moving the picture downward doesn't suppress the info but it does make a gesture to tone down the confrontation, which appeared effective even with the most extreme "anti" editor (who only rv'd when it was at the top).
Those insisting on having it at the top really should ask themselves whether it's really an issue of consistent presentation across Wikipedia (and notice Oak's only pictures of oak trees are at the bottom: the top only has oak leaves), or whether it's from some need to dominate the opponent? If the latter, that's not really a wikipedia goal.
Look a little further too: do you really think thousands of Muslims marching in the street and boycotting Danish products really give a damn about some picture in a Danish newspaper? The cartoon is a trivial thing; but there was huge tension in that population already because of middle east conflicts, thousands of Muslims imprisoned in Guatanamo without being charged, etc.; the cartoon was simply a spark that set them off. It's just a spot where much larger forces are colliding. Again, it's best to look for ways to de-escalate. Phr 11:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, but there was no reason to even change the heading. It is indeed "asinine" to remove the cartoons from an article specifically _about_ the cartoons and the controversy/debate they have spawned. Now we're getting offended over adjectives? Grow up, people. Furthermore, it's offensive that you promote censorship under the cause of "de-escalating" this tension; you suggest nothing more than kowtowing to the demands of fundamentalists who would deny free speech, debate, and information and destroy the very reason for Wikipedia in the first place. Should we remove the image of "Piss Christ" from its article because it offends Christians or shunt it to the bottom of the page in obscure miniature? Hell no. Let the cartoons remain, prominently, in the article, or surrender your right to freedom of speech and information. Sol. v. Oranje 20:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sol perhaps we could change it from asinine and you could stop telling people to 'grow up' toward the end of civility. Discuss the article. I agree with you but how do you plan on convincing other people if in the same sentence you argue their point and abuse their person?

It is more than a little frustrating dealing with this issue when it appears many would willingly censor an article that is on its basis an exercise in free speech. I suppose I have let my temper flare a bit too much. It's hard to resist my Irish temper in matters like these, but I agree, allowing my anger to surface will do nothing but alienate people from the position I advocate. Sol. v. Oranje 22:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that it should be moved to the bottom of the page, not because of right and wrong, but because as civilised people we should always do our best to make others as comfortable as possible, without sacrificing our principals. Having the image at the top of the article is not necessary to make a point, but keeping the image is central to the tenants of free speech. Surely no one here is so petty as to object to moveing the image, and thus making others fell belittled, just to prove a "point". It is not about right and wrong, it is about manners. I for one do not fell that "manners" is a dirty word. It is reluctance on all sides to accomidate the beleifs and sensibilities of others that has lead us the sorry state we are in. Christian and muslem alike. Now....let's play nice and put the image at the bottom.

That's wierd...I thought the purpose of Wikipedia was to educate and inform people, not to make them feel comfortable. Shows what I know, I suppose.-- 00:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
What is the difference between the top and the bottom of the page? If one wants to be offended by clicking a link to this article, is it really "being polite" to require that that person then scroll down to be offended (or not, depending on their religious persuasion)? No one can honestly claim being uncomfortable because an image they must have sought out in the first place is "hidden" by being nearer the end than nearer the start of the "uncomfortable" article. A totally bogus point to even argue - Marshman 00:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Well you know, the whole debate about moving the image up or down the page is beside-the-point right now as vandals are now re-continually removing the image entire from the article to begin with. We're back at square one, folks -- either support the inclusion of the image in whatever location, or bow down to the suppression of freedom of information. Sol. v. Oranje 07:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


The issue itself can be debated here Danny 02:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think the two options provided are a little biased? A simple "Keep the Picture" / "Remove the Picture" would have worked. joturner 02:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I would like people to discuss the issue itself, not in reference to Wikipedia. Danny 02:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Danny, the cartoons aren't a "racist insult" since race has nothing to do with anything over here..a better poll would be: "keep the pictures" vs "lets all do as islam says and bend over backwards and become mohammed's harem girls" Hellznrg 08:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Anyways, here, i've created the poll to end all polls!!! Vote NOW!!! Hellznrg 09:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

What does (da) mean?

In the References section (da) appears several times. What does it mean? Too Old 03:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It means the link is to an article written in Danish. de would be German, etc. Phr 03:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
dansk. BlueShirts 03:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Why can't we follow the Bahaullah example?

Bahai adherents object to an image of Bahaullah appearing on the page, so it was agreed to put the image at the bottom of the page, "below the fold", so that people who don't want to see the image can avoid scrolling all the way to the bottom. Why can't we do that here? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

No. Information should be free, not subject to the whims of censorship, "repsect" multiculturalism, and religious fervor.Kittynboi 06:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I think this article should not follow that becaise it's a bad decision. Information should be free.Kittynboi 07:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how scrolling down a page to see the image makes the information nonfree. 10:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Because its still an attempt to hide it, just a really pathetic one. ITs hiding relevant info for delicate sensibilities, which is something that has no place anywhere. Kittynboi 10:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I like that. Phr 03:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Would that not be more analogous to putting a drawing of Muhammad below the fold in the Muhammad article? This doesn't really seem comparable. The cartoons are much more central to this topic, methinks. Babajobu 04:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I dunno. I went ahead and moved the image, let's see what happens. I was perfectly happy with removing the image and letting people click a link. Phr 04:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
We should wait to see if consensus develops before implementing the switch. Babajobu 04:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Why wait? WP:BRD. I'd say make the change and see if anyone has big problems with it. There is obviously no consensus to leave the image at the top of the page, since it keeps getting removed. Putting it at the bottom can't be any worse. Phr 04:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
For one, I don't like it there. This article is about the images in a way that the article about Muhammad or Bahaullah are not about images of those people. I think, as jotourner says, the fact that the article is titled "cartoons" is enough of a warning as anyone should need. What else could they be expecting? Babajobu 04:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what they're expecting, but I do know they keep removing the image and the revert war is getting ridiculous. It's time to look for another solution. Most people wanting to keep the image want it on the (reasonable) grounds that people should be able to see it if they want to. I don't see how moving it to the bottom fails to satisfy: scrolling down is no big deal. Phr 04:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I think It's a good idea to move it to the bottom or have it accessable by a prominent link. That way it's easily accessable, but easily avoidable. Having it at the very top would be akin to if I wanted to read an article about, say, a new child pornography law, and found myself face-to-face with an example of what the law was trying to stop. While I am not muslim, blasphemey in any religion is a serious offense, and there is certainly no point in offending a large fraction of the world population for the sake of convenience. (Ghostofgauss 04:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC))
Okay, seems like there's a lot of support for this. Leave it and see how it does. All I asked was to wait and see if support emerged. Babajobu 04:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the point of moving it down; it is still there, so we still break the muslim ban on depicting Muhammad. There is as far as I know no ban prohibiting muslims from seeing depictions of Muhammad. If someone wants not to see the drawings for fear of being emotionally disturbed by them, that person should stay away from this article. If someone visits the article in order to know more about its subject matter, the actual drawings are essential (although the description giving of each of the 12 drwaings is even more useful).--Niels Ø 10:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Niels is right on the money. The pictures should stay, at the top, where they belong. If people vandalise the article, they should be reverted, and if they keep vandalising it, blocked. If they have a good reason for them not to be on their page (and much as I respect Islam, religion isn't a valid editorial reason), they can take it here, to the talk page. That is how Wikipedia works. Consensus means not caving in to vocal and disruptive minorities. Otherwise we've got a lot of work to do on pages like 'vulva', 'penis', 'nudity' etc (didn't wikilink those because I don't want to encourage this nonsense to spread). --Malthusian (talk) 10:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd go with Ghostofgauss on this matter, at the very least could the thumbnail be smaller (100 pixels for example) so that people will find it and those who want may see the whole image by clicking on it. Current affairs are clearly not working as there is an edit and revert every five minutes and make constructive editing more difficult as the article keep changing. Scoo 15:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that it should be moved to the bottom of the page, not because of right and wrong, but because as civilised people we should always do our best to make others as comfortable as possible, without sacrificing our principals. Having the image at the top of the article is not necessary to make a point, but keeping the image is central to the tenants of free speech. Surely no one here is so petty as to object to moveing the image, and thus making others fell belittled, just to prove a "point". It is not about right and wrong, it is about manners. I for one do not fell that "manners" is a dirty word. It is reluctance on all sides to accomidate the beleifs and sensibilities of others that has lead us the sorry state we are in. Christian and muslem alike. Now....let's play nice and put the image at the bottom.

Images gone

I just noticed that the images of Mohammed are gone, Was it decided that they were too controversial for Wikipedia, or did someone just remove them due to personal belief? (Caesar89 04:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC))

They have been moved to the bottom of the page, so people who don't want to see the images can still read the article. Phr 04:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Some of us disagree that this is an appropriate solution for this particular page, Caesar, but for now there seems to be a consensus that this is a good idea. Babajobu 04:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
...and once again, any pretense Wikipedia ever had to being a serious provider of knowledge disappears beneath the juggernaut of fanatics and POV-pushers. Let's see. We have an article about a series of images. Not an article about artistic or religious concepts in the abstract, but about a very particular group of identifiable images. So where's the images that are the very subject of the article? That's funny, they don't seem to be here. What's that you say? Oh there they are - reduced to magnifying-glass size and banished to the bottom of the page. And why is that? Oh right - because some readers of this "encyclopedia" feel that some knowledge shouldn't be made known. And a craven group of editors decides, well, there's a few wheels squeaking out there, and gee, we wouldn't want to offend their sensibilities just in the name of "knowledge" as we in the West understand that term, so gosh, there seems to be "consensus" for this suppression of information, so sure, let's hide the material that uniquely, and irreplaceably, illustrates the subject of this article. Unbelievable. 04:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I kind of get the feeling, that as technology progresses, deletion of data will replace book burning, as the primary method to prevent the spread of contraversial knowledge.--M4bwav 04:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Agree that the present solution, with a tiny clickable image segregated at bottom of page, is kind of ridiculous considering that the images are the topic of this article. Babajobu 04:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The images are not really the article's main topic. The controversy over the images is the topic. The edit war IMO was mostly due to people feeling that their POV was being disrespected. This solution shows some respect to everybody, I think. (I do believe the extra shrinkage was unnecessary since the Bahaullah picture wasn't shrunken.) Phr 05:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, some people get itchy about censoring Wikipedia, about making it a poorer resource in order to cater to the pieties of random groups everywhere and anywhere. Babajobu 05:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Some POVs do not deserve respect if this project is to be taken seriously as an encyclopedia. 05:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Does that include batshit fascists? Because it should.
The title of the article is "Jyllands-Posten Muhammed cartoons," not "Jyllans-Posten Muhammed cartoons controversy." So it would seem that either the pictures are the subject of the article, or the article needs to be renamed --Guppy313 04:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think someone already gave the example of the Child pornography article not being illustrated with an image showing it. Please don't misunderstand: I'm not comparing this image to child pornography, merely pointing out that there are already some existing exceptions to the general rule about putting a medium-size thumbnail in the top right (the Bahaullah article is another such exception, already cited). Some want to view the image and some don't, but people who don't want to view the image might still want to read about the controversy and contribute to the article. Why can't Wikipedia meet the needs of both sides? A neutral point of view isn't served if one side can't edit because it feels a need to stay away from the article entirely. So you take two seconds to scroll and click... this is equated to book burning? -- Curps 05:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Curps, child pornography is illegal in the state of Florida. Lolicon is not, and there are above-the-fold images of it in the article. Check out Wikipedia's content disclaimer. Babajobu 05:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually there have been debates about whether an academic book that talks about the problem of child pornography can display child pornography. At one time in America, it was ok to do so because no one had any idea what child pornography was, and the only way to help people understand it was to display pictures taken from convicted child pornographers. Of course, we can't show it now, because it's against florida law. But it is not unprecedented, and some would argue that it is not even immoral to show something like child pornography if your intent is to prevent or study for the purposes of preventing it. So I think that I would make a mild challenge at even that perspective. --M4bwav 05:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

But the fact remains that the images, which are the center of the debate discussed in the article, have been reduced in size and moved to the botten of the page- hardly objective. Wikipedia is meant to be an objective encylopedia and, as mentioned above, the article details not a theological debate, but a social-political one. Instead of moving the images, which are central to the debate and thus central to the article, why not just stick a message at the top of the article saying that images contained within may be offensive to some readers- the muslims who do not wish to see the images will be notified of their presence in Wikipedia, and the objectivity of the article will be preserved. (Caesar89 05:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC))

OK, but if you put a message at the top of the page and the image at the top of the page too, the message is kind of moot. That's kind of like putting "don't look at this image if it offends you" in the caption of the image. -- Curps 05:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Caesar89, the article is titled "Muhammad cartoons" one will actually be surprised to find cartoons on Muhammad in the article, I don't think. I'm not sure what this is all about, but it's certainly not about protecting people from getting surprised by the images. Babajobu 05:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
No, that's entirely what it's about. To some observant Muslims, this is goatse. Babajobu, above you appeared to acquiesce to putting the image at the bottom [1]... have you changed your mind and reverted to your original point of view? Even at the original thumbnail size, you needed to click... it was too small to show any meaningful detail for those that want to view it, but large enough to show unwanted detail for those that don't. So you need to scroll and click... but earlier you had agreed to the scroll, and you already needed to click before. So you aren't worse off than what you already agreed to. -- Curps 05:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the illustration where it belongs. This is not goatse by any rational analysis. We are not going to kowtow to ignorance and superstition in this encyclopedia. 05:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope you arent offended if I honestly wish for your death. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .
Please reread your last sentence. You are equating a major world religion (or perhaps all religions) with ignorance and superstition. -- Curps 05:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Go to the head of the class, Curps. 06:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Haha, file that one under rude-but-funny. Babajobu 06:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Curps, unless you are willing to combat all the mockery of ID and fundamentalist Christianity that we all tolerate every day throughout wikipedia, your remark sounds exactly like you want to cater to the ignorance and superstition of a major world religion and your pose of moral superiority here is hypocritical, bigoted, and offensive to many of us. No more please. Dalembert 05:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Curps, I didn't agree with the decision, I agreed to accede to the community consensus. I thought then, and think now, that Wikipedia should not be censorored. If the community disagrees, and determines that censorship is good for Wikipedia, then I will not fight the implementation of that consensus. But I will not pretend to like it or agree with it. Babajobu 05:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Curps, and as I've stated, I think Bahaullah is not an useful or accurate analogy for this article. They are entirely different topics on every level. Babajobu 05:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
How so? The situations seem comparable. -- Curps 05:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Because this article is about the images and the impact they had...the articles on Muhammad and Bahaullah are about the men themselves. To me, that's a self-evident and significant difference, and makes the sequestering of the cartoon at the bottom of the page seem pretty silly, and Wikipedia seem a less serious and formidable resource for keeping it there. Babajobu 05:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Can you clarify further? The Bahaullah article is about Bahaullah; this cartoons article is about the cartoons. I don't understand what you are saying here. -- Curps 05:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, state the same thing another way: cartoons are a visual medium, and when writing about cartoons, to omit a picture or a reproduction of the cartoon drastically reduces the informativeness of the article. On the other hand, a human being's appearance (except perhaps in the case of a professional model) is a less fundamental aspect of their notability than is the case with a cartoon. Babajobu 05:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia is an objective enyclopedia 2. Wikipedia should not censor articles based on the opinions of a single group. 3. Wikipedia is based in the United States which, like most democratic countries, has laws that protect Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press- Wikipedia has no obligation to base its articles on the beliefs of a single group.

As a Catholic Christian I see a number of articles in Wikipedia that could be taken as blasphemous or heretical by both Catholicism and Christianity it general- BUT, I do not wish to see them taken away as they provide excellent, objective information. As long as this article with the images of Mohammed remains objective there should be no problem. (Caesar89 05:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC))

Yes, for example should the image be removed or hidden from the Piss Christ article? Until today I would have said of course not, but so long as we're respecting the pieties of various religious or ideological groups, I don't know how I could argue for keeping the image there. Babajobu 05:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
You couldn't. That is why we are not going to start down that road in this article. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors, Muslims, minor Muslims, major meanies, or anyone else. 05:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me Mr. or Ms., but who are you to dictate what road we're going to start down or not start down? You are not in charge of Wikipedia. We're trying to reach a consensus that everyone can live with (even if they're not completely happy). If we don't reach one, as we might not, then the end result will be a page that somebody finds intolerable so they go away mad, but that's too bad for them. Now, what makes you so special that you think that the somebody might not possibly be you? We've been going back and forth on this for over a day. If you want to discuss possible ways to reach consensus, great. (That may mean expanding your notion of "tolerable", usually a good strategy for reaching consensus). If you're going to make high-handed pronouncements like a wannabe deity, well, you deserve no more respect than the fundie loons who kept removing the picture. So, fix your attitude: see, for example, WP:DBF section on zeal. You do not get to decide these things unilaterally. Phr 06:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Who am I? Why, I'm an editor (tonight using an IP address and not my account login, since I gave up on this project a month or so ago for accumulated reasons well exemplified by this debate), expressing my opinion on how this article ought to be structured, and doing so on the discussion page and in edit summaries, as appropriate, per policy, blah blah blah wikicakes. And you? who are you? Let me see ... you are another editor, expressing an opposing opinion, part of a minority of two expressing that opinion. Pleased to meet you. Fix your own attitude. 06:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Erm, my attitude is fine: 1) I'm trying to reach accomodation with other people whose views differ from mine; you are not. 2) I'm ok with a reasonable range of possible outcomes; you insist on dictating to everyone else that your preference is the only acceptable outcome. 3) There may end up being an RFC that ends with an outcome I don't like. If that happens, I'll shrug my shoulders and do something else. You seem to have stalked off in a huff and now come back as an IP address. Chill out, dude/dudette. Phr 07:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

When it comes to religion I believe there is a differance between being offensive and presenting the facts. For example, I am offended every year when the Orange Parade goes down my street (although I respect their Freedom of Expression- but that goes into the question of where do we draw the line), but when I see an article in Wikipedia on the Orange Order I see it as an objective presentation of the facts.

Same principle applies here- if I went to Iran and put up a big billboard depicting the Mohammed Cartoons, that would be offensive (and I probably would be killed on the spot), but this article is a presentation on the facts of a Social-Political debate over the right to show images of Mohammed even if it is offensive to Muslims. (Caesar89 06:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC))

Curps, I think it's clear that this proposed solution does not, in fact, enjoy the support of the community. I think you should just leave the pic where it was. Babajobu 06:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Babajobu, we already know that there's no solution that can enjoy the support of the community; we're looking for one that the community finds tolerable. It looked like we found one until swooped in and pronounced like a mini-dictator that "we are not going to start down that road in this article" regardless of what anyone else thinks. The picture-advocates initially only said that they wanted people to be able to see the picture; once they got that (and the removal advocates did NOT object to the thumbnail), the picture advocates escalated their demands. They are being more fanatical than the removal advocates. WP:DBF. I'm gradually turning into a removal advocate, just on the grounds of opposing fanaticism. Phr 06:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Phr, it wasn't just the IP...check the edit history, there were several editors who reverted. The fact is that numerous editors feel that a compromise here would be a compromise with censorship, and they're not interested in doing that. I think it's a dangerous prospect as well. Wikipedia has loads of content that is offensive to various groups. Do we want to send the message "kick up enough of a fuss, and you can get Wikipedia censored for your beliefs"? Do you want Christian fundamentalists to learn that lesson about Wikipedia, for example? Babajobu 06:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
1) I checked the edit history and it looks like rv'd the thumbnail three times, and nobody else rv'd the thumbnail even once. The pic did get restored a few times after the page was vandalized by a different IP when the pic was already at the top. When the pic wasn't at the top, there was no vandalism. 2) I don't think there is censorship if the pic isn't removed, but only moved to a different part of the article. I'd like to rv back to the thumbnail unless you no longer find that acceptable (or if someone else speaks up that it's unacceptable). Me, I just don't find it important that the picture be there (as long as the article tells people where to find it), since I see the article as being more about the controversy than about the picture. 3) If xtian fundies want the Piss Christ photo moved to the bottom of that article, I'm ok with that. Phr 07:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
"Fanatical" is a bit inflammatory isn't it? I don't see any fanaticism on this page on either side. You should reread the article itself, remind yourself what murderous fanaticism really is, and refrain from insulting those of us who see the importance of this article differently than you do. Dalembert 06:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Fanatical in the sense of WP:DBF. Obviously there are degrees of fanaticism. Phr 07:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to revert unless I think someone is making a change that is in clear breach of consensus. I will respect the consensus on this issue, whether I agree with it or not. My own vote and position is that Wikipedia should not be censored, and that reducing the image to a ridiculously small, segregated thumbnail at the very bottom of the page is equivalent to censoring this article. I could support a normal sized thumb "below-the-fold", though, as in below the initial screen but within the body of the article. Babajobu 07:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Babajobu, do you have a specific suggestion for where to put it inside the article? Do you not think it's simpler to put it at the bottom, so that people wanting to see it can just scroll directly there instead of having to search for it, and people not wanting to see it can read the whole article before they get to it? Does Curps object to a normal sized thumb? (Actually, "normal size" would mean not specifying a size, which I think would give a 120px default unless overridden by a user preference. Babajobu, is that what you're suggesting? The old picture was around 170px, i.e. purposely made larger than the default. 120px is about halfway between the old picture and Curps's shrunken thumbnail). Anyway, if you want to move it or resize it or whatever, that would be great. Or I'll do it if you have a specific suggestion and don't want to do it yourself. Phr 07:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
"Consensus" is of course a notably slippery concept, but my quick review of the participants in this discussion (limited to this particular section, where the substantive conversation has taken place) shows: For a tiny picture down at the end of the article - Curps, Phr; for a regular-sized picture at the top or in the body of the article - Caesar89, Babajobu, M4bwav, Dalembert, me. My recollection of the lengthy discussion before Jimbo blanked it was that the distribution of views was similar, though I'm not going to go back and count it. To me, that says that consensus is to have a regular-sized image of the picture in question right up where you would expect to find the primary illustration if this article were about elephants or Mars or Franklin D. Roosevelt or any other normal topic. Quite seriously, Phr and Curps, and meaning to be neither rude nor funny, what is the justification for tempering the contents of the encyclopedia to match the sensitivities of the loudest or most sensitive reader, particularly when those sensitivities are rooted in a worldview that is antithetical to the spirit of free inquiry that underlies an encyclopedia? Why do the superstitious get a heckler's veto here over the proponents of knowledge? 07:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
1) I don't think consensus is a slippery concept: it means something specific, namely reaching a solution that everyone finds acceptable, even if nobody actually /likes/ it. Right now we have this rv war going on because the image is linked from the front page. Once it's no longer there, things may calm down. 2) I'd /like/ the picture at the top of the page, but it looks like that's not a possible consensus solution (i.e. it keeps getting removed). A consensus solution will necessarily be one that I don't like so much. That's life, I'm ok with it, the next question is what would I find acceptable (as opposed to "like"). 3) I'd find acceptable : a) having it at the top; b) having it elsewhere on the page and/or smaller; c) having it removed entirely leaving a link that people can click if they want to see the picture. I'd find unacceptable: removing it AND having no link. Even the worst vandals persistently removing the picture last night didn't insist on that. 4) Only one person as far as I can tell, really found the thumbnail unacceptable, and that person acted unreasonable in other ways too, no better than the deleters. That person did 3 reverts and then skipped out, so is no longer a factor. We're left with the thumbnail (or various other approaches) as possible consensus. Does that make sense? Phr 08:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I think consensus has become impossible at this point between people who want the most informative possible article, and those who are afraid of offending the muslim faith. Only a small minority are in the middle on this issue, so it seems that either you show it or you don't show it. I think erroring on the side of information over censorship, makes sense in that this is an encyclopedia, not a religious text. If people of the future do not have information on the contraversies of the Islamic religion and world politics, (like the information available for other religions and global contraversies) we will be doing a disservice to the human race. --M4bwav 13:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
How does moving an image from one part of a page to another remove information? Please try to show some comprehension of what real censorship is. Phr 15:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't you agree that any attempt to reduce the availability of information is at least mild censorship? I mean you are trying to intentionally prevent people from being exposed to information.--M4bwav 15:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Censorship means trying to make information unavailable or inaccessible. "Click here to see the image" doesn't remotely qualify. Sorry. 16:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
While I agree that it is only a small degree of information, the intent is to prevent people from being exposed to the information. That's censorship, maybe to an extremely small degree, but still censorship nonetheless.--M4bwav 17:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I think that it should be moved to the bottom of the page, not because of right and wrong, but because as civilised people we should always do our best to make others as comfortable as possible, without sacrificing our principals. Having the image at the top of the article is not necessary to make a point, but keeping the image is central to the tenants of free speech. Surely no one here is so petty as to object to moveing the image, and thus making others fell belittled, just to prove a "point". It is not about right and wrong, it is about manners. I for one do not fell that "manners" is a dirty word. It is reluctance on all sides to accomidate the beleifs and sensibilities of others that has lead us the sorry state we are in. Christian and muslem alike. Now....let's play nice and put the image at the bottom.

Violation of 3RR in attempts to censor the image

The IP who is attempting to censor the images has now reverted four times. Babajobu 07:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a safe bet that is User:Qatarson who was blocked last night. I will request an IP block if I can figure out how. Phr 08:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I would block him myself, but I don't use admin privileges on Islam-related articles. Hold on. Babajobu 08:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Look at User:Qatarson's recent edit history, obvious vandalism; if you can check that his IP is the same, then he's evading a block, calls for sanctions against the user independent of the article IMO. Phr 08:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The IP has been blocked.Geni 08:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It's an open proxy though so don't be supirsed if the user comes back from another IP.Geni 08:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Well done but I suggest you should think of way how you stop people of contacting the authorities about violation the laws in florida.Qatarson 12:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
What laws in Florida have been violated, specificially? BinaryTed 15:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
This guy is a joke! obviously he doesn't have an inkling of how the governments of western countries operate Hellznrg 21:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Please respect yourself and dont talk about me,I'm working on this case and soon you will hear new news.Qatarson 07:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we await the news stating how Florida is going to reverse the first amendment right to speak out on unpopular subjects. Go read the Constitution unless you've already burned your "offensive" copy of it. Sol. v. Oranje 07:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

External links

Can anyone provide a link to the place where Die Welt has published some of the cartoons? (see timeline section)... I can't find them (of course I can't speak german), and that piece of news is not in any Danish media. I think it would be nice with a reference here. --Lassefolkersen 12:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks --Lassefolkersen 12:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone able to connect to The one time I seemed to get through, there was absolutely no content on the page. On all other attempts, I got a can't find or some other message. I'm sure that zillions of people are trying to go there; I'd imagine that there are also people trying to take them down, permanently. Which makes me wonder whether it would even be a good idea to put up any other links to sites that might have the cartoons on them (if such sites exist). --Tygerbryght 09:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

There's a slight lag when I try to access it, but I can. Its probably just slowing down from all the traffic.Kittynboi 10:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
There's a blogspot page that has them. Lemme try to find it. Blogspot has tremendous bandwidth. Phr 09:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I would imagine it will cost them a ton of money to have their link here. Their bandwidth use will likely go straight through the atmosphere, heading for the Moon. <ouch!> Does Blogspot charge for excess bandwidth? If so, I hope they're prepared! If not, those objecting will get their wish - nobody'll get through. --Tygerbryght 09:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think Blogspot charges anything. If page hits go up, their advertising revenue goes up and pays for the bandwidth. Phr 09:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think many links in the References section ought to go into the External links section instead - can someone help?--Niels Ø 10:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Rumours and misinformation

Does anyone know if BBC World has retracted their misstatement? I went to the site and searched, but couldn't find anything. It seems to me that, in a situation so explosive, and with their penetration of Islamic regions, that they would recognize the responsibility they have to let listeners know - repeatedly, even - that they blew it. --Tygerbryght 09:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It's silly to hide the image at the bottom

Would you move the image on any other article for any reason? No, of course not. Wikipedia has a given style, and it is expected that we will stick to that. Have images of Jesus been moved to appease ultra-Protestants and Puritans? Of course not.

Wikipedia is a source of relevant, factual information, and that is all. The information must be as easy to access as possible, and hiding pictures where nobody will see them unless they actively search will make that not possible. The images are what this article is all about, and their use here does not imply an attack on Moslems, either by Wikipedia or an individual editor (although it would be quite provocative and unnecessary to actually post it on the Mohammed page.) If some people are offended, that is unfortunate, but it is also irrelevant.

MichelleG 12:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC).

Michelle, have you followed this at all? Moving the image to the bottom was inspired by the Bahá'u'lláh article which does exactly the same thing: Bahá’í adherents don't like to see photographs of Bahá'u'lláh, but others wanted that article to included a photo, so the agreement was to put the photo at the bottom of the page where Bahá’í can avoid it. So the answer your first question is: yes, it's been done and found to be a workable solution at least on that other article. As another example, see the ariticle on oral sex which for a long while contained an explicit photo of someone getting a blow job (apparently replaced by a drawing, at least for now), fairly far down in the article (and the article still has a long debate sort of like this one on its talk page about the photo). Do you think THAT photo should be at the top of that page? Should it be restored? Do you begin to understand? Phr 13:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I have. The difference with the oral sex article is that the article is not about the pictures themselves, the pictures are just used to illustrate a point. Here, the entire article is about the pictures in question. Although, personally, I would not have a problem with the oral sex article having an 'explicit' picture, because what do you expect when you go to an article called "oral sex"? Presumably the same thing you get going to an article called "Muhammed cartoons" ;-)
The Bahá'í solution, is, I think, a poor solution, and I would support the picture being moved back to the top on that page too. Would you support scrubbing the pictures of Jesus off Jesus if aniconist puritans objected? Or would moving everything down to the bottom to appease a vocal minority be an "acceptable" compromise?
Even so, the Bahá'u'lláh reasoning is invalid here, as even that article is talking about the person, not the picture of the person. A better analogy would be if somebody complained about a swastika appearing in the article "Swastika". That symbol is offensive to some minorities, so obviously shifting it off somewhere where you can't see it is an acceptable compromise, right? Ease of accesss to information be damned, because a very shrill minority doesn't approve!
MichelleG 13:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC).
Well, I bumped into the oral sex picture in a more or less inadvertent way, via an article about a former Watergate figure who was in the news a few months ago (ok, I did idly click a link from the Watergate article, and therefore asked for it). And while I didn't have a problem with the picture per se, I saw the motivation as the same, that it was there more to provoke than to inform, so I felt it didn't belong in wikipedia. (I didn't get involved in that debate though, just left it alone). Yes, if there were a big aniconist contingent in christianity that had problems with pictures of jesus on the jesus page, I'd hope people working on the affected pages would work out some kind of compromise. See WP:POINT and WP:DBF. The idea is to resolve conflicts, not inflame them. Finally, what you're referring to as a "shrill minority" has millions of people participating in anti-Danish boycotts etc., so it's not a lone couple of nutcases. Phr 14:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
A "shrill minority" of wikipedians, i believe she means, and it really does seem to have been a case of a minority + apologists vs the wikipedia public en masse. Also, MichelleG is my new hero!

Senor Muffo del Wook

The image is gone. Again. And it's not at the bottom.Kittynboi 13:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has been moving it to the bottom. It was on the bottom for a while several hours ago, and someone moved it to the top. Nobody has been reverting it back to the bottom. You can tell that by checking the history. Does it have to be explained so much? Phr 14:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)