Jump to content

Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

Results of Archived Poll 4

In the Poll entitled "Special-case Labelling"

  • 5 votes in support
  • 21 votes in opposition

Therefore special-case labelling will not be adopted concerning images on the WikiPedia Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article.

Netscott 01:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

POLL 3 and POLL 4

Poll 3 and 4 are closed earlier then necessary, especially compared to Poll 1 and 2. If you still want to vote on the nature of the cartoon posted in the article (Poll 3) or having a template (Poll 4), please do so in the archive above. Resid Gulerdem 23:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Poll 4 is reopened, so you can vote here, below too. I do not want to bring Poll 3 here because intolerant people vandalize it quickly. So you can [vote for Poll 3] if you like in the archive above! Resid Gulerdem 23:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
This is ridiculous, it's been brought up FOUR TIMES in small, almost unoticeable differences. You are ignoring the fact that it has failed every single time, not by a small percentage, but by a large margin...overwhelming for that matter. I did not close poll 4, as I was going to let it ride out till whenever, because it was quite obvious it was not going to succeed. People also keep insisting it's going to pass if worded "slightly" differently. It's not. In fact, poll 4 shouldn't have even been allowed to go up considering most EVERYONE told him not to do it again. Let it rest, let it die, stop throwing it around like if it passes once it'll stay up forever (I give it 10 seconds flat before administration kicks in and re-instates it even if it DOES "succeed"). As I've said before, 1 out of 4 polls succeeding quite obviously does not constitute majority on the insanely off chance it does win. -Moocats 01:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Fatwa

I added a fatwa from Sistani. Please dont take it away, i not there are those that hate seeing it. --Striver 01:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

That seems pertinent to me. I added that he's in Iraq and corrected some grammar. Netscott 01:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it's definitely relevant. Babajobu 05:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I've integrated this addition into the Islamic tradition section... this addition was previously a bit of an 'orphan'. Netscott 16:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

extensive reference to Al-Hayat Al-Jadida cartoon controversy

This information didn't appear on the Internet in the past hour, Netscott, which means it was available when you commented out the link "until more information is available". Have you tried Google as a research tool? It's sometimes almost as good as letting others do your research, and it can help avoid embarassing reversions.

Below is a short list of vicious cartoons appearing in the last three years in the major Palestinian Authority (PA) newspaper, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (Palestinian Media Watch, January 7):

  1. Jan. 7, 2006 – An evil-looking caricature of a Jew depicted wreaking havoc beneath the Temple Mount and thus threatening the Dome of the Rock above.
  2. Sep. 3, 2005 - Text: "Israel" penetrates Pakistan – Israel in scare quotes, depicted as devious vermin trapping Pakistan in to its orbit.
  3. Apr. 10, 2005 – A Magen David shape is depicted turning the Dome of the Rock and an Arab in front of it in a prison.
  4. Feb. 5, 2005 - An Israeli soldier depicted as a Nazi, complete with helmet, shaking a blood-soaked hand with a clean-handed Palestinian.
  5. Dec. 10, 2004 – An Israeli flag, flying from the devil's three-pronged spear and with a corner of its Magen David symbol transformed into a blood-soaked claw, wrapped like a coil around an injured dove of peace.
  6. Dec. 1, 2004 – Text: "The search for terror is still ongoing" – A figure representing the UN is seen wasting his time looking with a magnifying glass for terrorism while ignoring the figure of a monstrous ape with a caricature of Ariel Sharon's face as the devil.
  7. Aug 2, 2004 - Jews in Judea Samaria are depicted as a Medusa-like serpent threatening an Arab.
  8. July 14, 2004 – An anti-Semitic stereotype of a hideous, hook-nosed Israeli soldier, with a uniform and helmet pattern of human skulls.
  9. April 20, 2004 – Ariel Sharon depicted as a wild bull, pierced with the spears of different Palestinian terror groups.
  10. March 22, 2004 – Ariel Sharon depicted eating Palestinian children from a bowl of children's corpses.
  11. Oct. 11, 2003 – A European diplomat is confronted by Israel depicted as an enormous snake.
  12. Oct. 11, 2003 – An Israeli is depicted as a caveman dripping with blood.
  13. Oct. 9, 2003 – Israel is depicted as a crocodile about to devour a Palestinian.
  14. Oct. 4, 2003 – Israel is depicted as a wolf about to devour the Palestinian government.
  15. Oct. 4, 2003 – The world is depicted as an apple consumed from within by two worms – Israel and the United States, with the text on the apple: Arab world Israel to the USA: "Be strong-we've got a lot of work to do."

PaxTerra 03:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

At this point your link goes to an essentially blank Wikipedia page. Are you planning on putting those references on the Al-Hayat_Al-Jadida page? If you are planning on doing that, might I suggest in the future that you add the references first to the pertinent article and then add the 'comparable ref' link? Netscott 03:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless you're going to add that info promptly you might as well re-uncomment out the Al-Jadida link to help WikiPedia visitors avoid going to an empty resource. Netscott
The term is "stub" Scott, and no I don't intend to extend the stubby Palisinian newspaper article unless I find time to conduct adequate research. No, I don't intend to slant the stub with a hasty contribution primarily about Israeli oppositon to the paper's editorial doctrines and I advise you not to damage contributions to this article by removing informative content that readers can easily extend with their own research or by contributing to the relevant article if they have sufficient information.
If you do choose to censor in the name of editing, I suggest you limit your meddling to unwikifying the resource, though to do so is not consistent with widely accepted practices at Wikipedia to leave stubs and links to stubs in place until they have an opportunity to grow. To unwikify the link would deprive readers of an explanation of an otherwise unintelligable Arabic phrase.
Further, I consider myself to have acted promptly to have posted within five minutes of uncommenting your deletion of meaningul content this reference to 16 cartoons. I suggest you sit back and watch what happens, or use your internet connection to gather information before striking out against others' knowledge. In the Hebrew press, the Al-Hayat Al-Jadida cartoons are probably the most widely mentioned controversy raised in rebuttal to complaints about the danish cartoons, with the possible exception to dialogue about Iranian opinion. None of the other items on that list contain references to contexts in which they were discusses vis-a-vis the Danish cartoons, many are only marginally relevant, discussed perhaps among the world of avante garde artists who advocate absolute freedom to slander anyone in the name of comedy, and other links on the list point to topics that only minimally explain how those conroversies are relevant to this one.PaxTerra 04:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
The title of that section is "Comparable references" a simple link to stub article does not a 'comparable reference' make. As a visitor, if I were to click on your reference I'd be inclined to just think, "hmm, that was a pointless link", unless someone comes along and adds something of note to that stub I suspect another editor will just remove that 'reference', I'd uncomment it out again now if I wasn't already at my 3RV limit. Netscott 04:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
as an original reader, I parsed the term "reference" to imply others had mentioned these incidences in reference to current events, not that they are references to a categorization of similar events listed in this opus. Either way, I have now included sufficient citation in and out of Wikipedia to support what is one of the major comparisons in popular diaglogue worldwide. If you feel readers need more information about the Palestinian newspaper, I suggest you offer readers more, not less information. PaxTerra 05:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

has anyone noticed that the tag "Palestinian Anti-Semitic Cartoons[64](newspaper, 2006, Palestine) leads to a section with a cartoon, that ISN'T from a palestinian newspaper ?196.204.158.245 21:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


and on Sambos

The widespread Sambos restaurant controversies I cited, documented in lawsuits, newspaper articles, petitions and activists writings was a flashpoint for controversy over use of the term "Sambo", derived from a childrens book widely used in elementary schools of the era and on which which the nationwide restaraunt based its marketing images. Mention of the term in reference to the current controversy can be found in the title of an essay by well-known conservative writer Michelle Malkin -- "Ragheads and Sambos and Gooks". Malkin says she sees no comparison with the cartoon, but states that several of her readers have drawn parallels with well-known US racial epithets by a national leader. Malkin extends the reference to "ragheads" to include "sambos". We could add ragheads and gooks to the list, but there was never a campaign to make anybody stop publishing those terms, and such a campaign has not been mentioned in this context.

Since all current discussion of this emerging topic is taking place in blogs, letters to the editor, editorial columns and other transient venues, it is fair to take Malkin's mention of several readers drawing the parallel between a reference to ragheads and the cartoons, and her extending the reference to controversy over the term Sambos as typical of more widespread discussion I am seeing in those venues. I suggest readers unfamiliar with this dialogue are not in touch with current dialogue in the South. The list in this article isn't "A list of events that are just like this cartoon controversy". It is a list of refernces to similar controversies that have been mentioned. The Sambos controversy is a particularly interesting comparison that has been mentioned because it too arose from ostensibly benign caricatures related to a childrens book, and because public pressure led to change in publishing activities. PaxTerra 07:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Focus on judicial remedies

MX44 offers no argument or evidence to support the assertion that there is "too much focus on old nazis". The sentence Mx44 reduced focuses on judicial responses, not on nazis. A generalized reference to "crimes against humanity" denies readers immediate access to otherwise readily available explanatory information. Few younger readers likely have any experience to reference when, where or why anyone was executed for a crime against humanity on evidence that they drew cartoons. Perhaps to balance reference to old nazis we need to include some examples of new nazis who were prosecuted for hate speech. A list alone is insufficient when judicial remedies can be mroe precisely summarized and cited in a a few short phrases. PaxTerra 05:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

We can also reference architects who got punished by the allies after the war for dreaming up castles for the old nazis ... which is equally relevant MX44 05:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
And how about the foundation for all modern TV-commercials? Nazi propaganda maker who was hung after the war.MX44 06:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree with your history of television advertising. It started before WWII. Castles:cartoons --- not a strict comparison. "Nazi propaganda maker who was hung after the war. can you please explain this sentence frag? Striecher was executed for publishing a newspaper and cartoons that were very similar to the ones in this topic. His activities are discussed in the context of these events. Unless you want to start documenting where, on the limited inventory of available Web publications, each of the named incidences are mentioned in this context, I suggest you focus on contributing, not deleting content. PaxTerra 06:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Similar? I beg to differ ... You seriously suspect Denmark to have orchestrated a plot to conquer the world? And the cartoonists at JP is taking part in this? MX44 06:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
The point isn't whether I think certain cartooonists are conspiring to take over the world. I'm not writing about my opinion. Striecher is relevant because the name often comes up in discussing the propriety of demeaning editorial cartoons, including those that are the subject of this article. Those who draw the comparison have sound reasons, whether you or I agree with them or not.
Julius Streicher didn't conspire with Hitler nor was he in the employ of Nazis, he independently contributed to an ideological environment that, according to an international tribunal, permitted genocidal xenophobia. Those who draw a comparison cite a disproportionatly negative portrayal of ethnic minorities in Danish media, as there was in German media of that time. In the generalized view of Westerners held by many on the "Arab street" Danish and European anti-Muslim sentiment is affiliated with a Western occupation of their territories. Among that that some oh, billion or so, there are widespread suspicions that yes, the West, including Europe, Denmark and the United States, is conspiring to take over the world. And, some Muslim clerics are asking that the artists be executed under Islamic law. As recently as 60 years ago, a cartoonist was legally executed. Granted, Islamic law isn't the international law we might prefer, but the call for judicial execution is not unique.
Reference to this historic lawful execution of a cartoonist is appropriate context for readers who have not thought further than to demean "those backwards Muslims" for not understanding our modern system of free speech. Streicher shows that, even with our modern system of free speech, we sometimes choose to legally execute cartoonists for crimes against the peace. 06:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Compared to Streicher, who was so annoyingly over the top, only Hitler tolerated him, the JP-cartoons are either extremely mild or not even on the topic the muslim propaganda machine have made people believe. I guess the cartoonist at Disney will have to go as well MX44 07:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not about our opinions of the comparison. What you call the Muslim propaganda machine comprises people, whose perspectives are to be refelcted in this context. This isn't an article about how dumb we think they are. PaxTerra 07:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Not about being dumb but about deception. I have put Streicher in the context you mention above. I assume it is backed up, an external reference would be nice. Else the whole Streicher thing is hearsay. MX44 08:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I support the inclusion of Julius Streicher as an item in the list. I oppose elaborating on it with several sentences (even if I find the angle interesting), because none of the other list items gets such preferential treatment. Azate 08:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
AGREE with Azate. Preferential treatment to one case over others is POV and there is a separate article for the purpose of discussing freedom of speech vs. blasphemy. Furthermore, the description "publications that disturb the peace" is an inaccurate representation of Streicher's work, which consisted of blatant and sustained incitement to violence and oppression over a 25 year period. The passage also makes no mention of the other crimes for which his sentence was handed down other than describing "publishing" as the primary reason for he sentence. Omar Bakri's view of the punishment needed properly belongs on the opinion page, not on the main page. For these reasons I have reverted to Jdonnis's last version.
Der Sturmer did publish cartoons which have been referenced, and I do not object to leaving Der Sturmer as a link in the comparisons section. Richard 129.244.23.111 15:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
(Indenting more to the left so that comment is more readable) IMO text on Omar should be retained, as there are other places in this article where we do mirror text from the "sub-articles". And the one sentence about him is within context. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 17:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Conspiracy against the peace is not at all innaccurate. It is yet another exact citation of the crime for which he was executed. It seems the problem is not with the content of the article, but with a history MX44 would prefer to revise. T0 claim the Streicher thing is hearsay is yet more hysterical holocaust denial. Streichers prosecution is documented in Wikipedia to the typically scant standard to satisfy whomever wrote that article and is thoroughly documented in the archives of the Nuremberg Tribunal, by the Weisenthal center and in many Mass Communication law or ethics texts. The issue is not freedom of speech vs. Blasphemy, the issue is prosecution of crimes against the peace, putting the also deleted-without-explanation-call of a muslim cleric for prosecution under islamic law in context of the range of judicial relief granted in recent history for crimes against the peace. PaxTerra 16:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
To begin with, "Conspiracy against the peace" is NOT the description I objected to. So your first two sentences are meaningless in context of this discussion. Second, Streicher's punishment is not more relevant than the fate of the others examples on the list who have deeply offended religious as well as cultural and social sentiments, and should not have a more thorough description. The deletion of the call by the Muslim Cleric WAS explained in my post, as OPINIONS on the proper amount of prosecution and punishment to be leveled at the cartoonists should be posted to the OPINIONS page. Not to a list of incidents with which this controversy has been compared. Richard 129.244.128.134 17:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

To offer that people have been prosecuted for hate crimes, then to cite the call for execution by a muslim cleric is point of view pushing, because it establishes a likely standard and then describes the cleric as outside that standard with no point of reference. I have omitted Streicher's name from the passage, which seems to be the criminal most anti-mention editors seem troubled by when they advance their POV that the cartoons are all just good fun, and replaced I it with a simple citation of the extreme range of responses that have been offered under various laws. This tends to resolve both motives -- to not focus too much on Streicher but a clear description of what the human race has in the recent past done in related circumstances. In this manner, I continue to develop the article without reverting and with reluctant tolerance to those who say opening ones eyes comprises having a POV while they deny their own obvious point of view. PaxTerra 17:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You seem immune to the idea that I object not to the inclusion of the Cleric's POV but to your obstinant refusal to post it where it belongs, on the opinions page. You continue to post this particular set of ideas in the wrong place in the article where it has no perspective nor alternative viewpoints readily available. The Cleric's POV in that section only serves to upset the NPOV tone of the article. Richard 129.244.128.134 17:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I've expressed no interest in the Cleric's views. my interest is to cite the range of judicial relief that had been administered in response to symbolic acts involving breaches of peace. Since I have no opinion whatsoever about what is appropriate in this circumstance, I am indeed immune to the concept that it has to do with opinion. One has to read the menu before they form an opinion about what they might like to eat. My citation of capital punishment is in response to claims of "Censorship" and references to "hate crimes." if we're going to list appetizers, let's list the entrees. Then we can deal with opinions as to whether this is a cocktail party or a dinner party.
I have already stated I consider the entire block of text introducing the list out of context except the one sentence precedine the list. But the blank section "opinions" is not the place for a neutral reference to the historic range of judicial relief. Move the whole section detailing similar responses as "Censorship" and "hate crimes" -- along with capital punishment. I created this talk section titled "focus on judicial remedies" because that is the focus of those paragraphs, and that is what I would title that seperate section. I would loose the blank "opinions" section and move it to a "related topics", but there seems to be some other unsettled conflict that resulted in that section remaining solely for a "main article" link. My interests are a. to be inclusive in listing documented comparisons, which seems settled until the night crew shows up again, and b. to assure that the list representing historic judicial remedies is comprehensive aka NPOV. Is that too much to ask? PaxTerra 18:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
No, what you've done with transferring to a new section seems fine, although it probably also needs to include some examples where the accused wasn't executed for balance. I'm still not sure the whole thing shouldn't be transferred to opinions as it seems a little like speculation to discuss what their sentence could be, as to my knowledge the cartoonists have not been arrested, but I'll hold off on judging for now.
My only other real problem has to do with the subtle yet still present reference to Streicher as a legal precedent. Please read this carefully and all the way through before passing judgement. As I stated earlier, Streicher had other crimes besides publishing, but more pertinently I do not recall the actual authors of the various cartoons and articles he published being given the death sentence. It seems to me that while Streicher's case could be construed as a legal precedent for executing the publisher and perhaps the editor of the Jyllands-Posten, I'm not sure you can use it for punishing the cartoonists themselves. Richard 129.244.128.134 19:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Richard, I've read this entire talk section carefully several times while reviewing those two paragraphs in the article. I think it is important not to represent one extreme or the other as opinion, because it is not anyones opinion -- certianly not mine -- and should not be represented as such. Again, the section as I found it talked bout "have been censored. In other cases offending artists have been aquitted". That opened the door to describing the range of responses found in history. Streicher isn't precedent for this case, it is precedent for a reference to judicial killing in response to symbolic acts. But without surveying the range of opinion, the survey of relevant laws tended to favor one end of the spectrum while painting the other as extreme. Now, the cleric seems to be opinion -- but it serves as a reference to Islamic law, which is appropriately considered in the context of other legal systems.
For that reason, I cautiously trimmed out the copy posted just below this comment as it deals with extrajudicial killing. And here is the most important distinction this section draws -- judicial v. extrajudicial remedies. We need not fear someone might form an opinion on the wrong end of the scale of legal remedies -- the evidence you cite defining differences might speak for itself, if we provide readers access to the information. By reducing the reference to a footnote, we make clear that it is not about Streicher, but simply a marker of one end of a scale and if we omit all opinion from this section and stick with a forensic review of legal traditions that shape responsed to matters such as this. Of course, there are the other legal traditions --- protections of speech --- that are probably amply defined elsewhere, but if we find them under represented, we can develop that in the context of general discussion of legal aspects.
Also, there is a bit of a difference of a precedent -- any precedent -- of judicial killing when hate speech mestasticizes in the extreme, and references "mentioned in comparison in popular dialogue", which is why the der sturmer comparison ended up in the comps section but we still are stuck with that reference to a precedent in the legal category, which somebody is asking for even when I try to omit it.

And one more thing, one reason I am passionate about the demonstrating the worst end of the scale is that it speaks to any person contemplating events such as this -- which is why I was careful to include the widely recognized references to the palestenian cartoons. the prosecutor at nuremburg, as quoted from the source now linked talked about "poison that he has put into the minds of millions of young boys and girls goes on". To fully appreciate the tension in this, we need to fully appreciate barriers to free expression, and we need to appreciate expression mestasticized into poison -- they are elements of the discussion, but we can't draw a parallel-- we have to let others do that. but only when we have glanced at the precipice at eiher end are we prepared to contemplate opinions. For that reason, I would not be as concerned that responsed to hate crimes misdemeanors are underrepresented, but perhaps that we expound briefly on why soem people so covet free expression. Where we say "Freedom of speech was abandoned temporarily only during the German occupation of Denmark during World War II ...." we could use a reference to the consequence that forged a deep appreciation of free expression. "they had their tongues cut out" or somethign as such, not fictional as I offer here, but in reality. How can we make real -- for readers on all sides --the dutch experience that shaped this sentiment? 23:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Parking this copy here for a moment. It was contributed to the Legal traditions section, but it is not specificly calls for judicial execution. Also in that section, the same editor asked for a citation of capitol punishment so I found one and put it there, while maintaining a link to explanation of how that jurisprudence developed in minimizing reference to the particular case to one footnote. See further explanation here PaxTerra 23:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Though this may be seen an extreme view, there are those among those currently protesting who agree, as evidenced by the placards they hold[1] [2] [3] [4].

Perigrine falsely accused?

I found the perigrine edit, but I don't see any vandalism. PaxTerra 05:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at the bottom of [Peregrine's edit].. see anything wrong? Netscott 05:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
No. [1] I see what appears to be a dutch language reference to a dutch language article that seems to babelfish into content that is consistent with what Perigrene represents. Perigrene's edit history evidences continued good faith editing. I advised Perigrene of your accusation. Perhaps you can exlpain your allegation to the accused. PaxTerra 06:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah you're right [2] but he failed to close his ref> so the El Fagr image showed up at the bottom of the page... fortunately my comment was "Vandalism?" and not "Vandalism!"... LOL! Netscott 06:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, sit tight a minute and I'll fix it. Stevenj removed it for being misformated, but the lack of dutch readers to verify the source is not pertinant to the misformating. Perigrine seems to be a Dutch reader. PaxTerra 06:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The link Peregrine added seems to have been to a Danish language article, not a Dutch language article. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC) (A Dutch wikipedian)

Regarding Image removal/relocation and warnings

I've just removed a warning about the images inserted by Jeremygbyrne. There should be agreement by all editors working on this that no such changes shall occur until a vote decides whether or not to adopt them. Netscott 06:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Babajobu 06:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
These would be special new wikipedia rules you've just thought of now? — JEREMY 07:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Jeremy, a warning at top of page WAS one of the options in poll two, and it attracted fewer than ten votes. Regardless, in an article about which so much community input has been received, eastablish consensus for major changes before making them! Babajobu 07:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
According to the poll archive, the options in the second poll were:
* 1.2.1 Move to body of article with a link directly to the image on the top (Hipocrite's idea)
* 1.2.2 Have picture lower down the article
* 1.2.3 Have picture at top of article
* 1.2.4 Don't care
* 1.2.5 Comment
As I have said, this option has not been offered before. Please vote in the poll. — JEREMY 07:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Keyword here is 'Should' as what Babajobu so succintly stated above, "determine that there is consensus to override old consensus before making the change, Jeremy." is particularly valid. Netscott 07:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Jeremy, option 1.2.1 was intended to place an "alert" at top of page, warning people of potentially offensive content lower in the article. It was essentially identical to your solution, except that yours is rather more obtrusive in using a template rather than a simple bolded comment. And again, Jeremy, please take a look at how previous polls were formatted. In addition to presenting the options in a neutral manner (which you fail to do), they created a place where people could vote support or oppose. Moreover, the poll was placed where people would see it, rather than starting off buried in the middle of the talk page. I'll vote oppose in your poll, but think a large majority of users will vote oppose as well as being annoyed by an attempt to repropose an option that was voted down in a previous poll. People don't take kindlt to repeated polls addressing the same issue in precisely the same way. Babajobu 07:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
It looks to me like 1.2.1 has nothing to do with labelling, but specifically involves moving the cartoons down the page and linking to them from the top. 1.2.2 does include some comments calling for labelling (or "warnings", which are clearly not well supported, based on wikipedia's disclaimer policy). If you think there'd be general support for doing so, I'd be happy to move the poll to the top of the talk page. Thanks for agreeing to vote, and you may well be right about the eventual result. I can only try. — JEREMY 07:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey... no more polling til "my" poll so :P WookMuff 08:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

As long as vandalism of the image can be contained, the image should stay where it is. Azate 08:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
No more polls PLEASE !! We can't keep repeating the polls simply until the opinion of Resid, JEREMY et al. (with all due respect) is met. I, personally refuse to vote in anymore polls on this same issueVarga Mila 08:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I certainly respect the right of people with "poll fatigue" not to vote (and I expect their opinions might be well over-represented in the results in any case). And again, just to be clear, the image will stay where it is (as per the results of Poll #2); this is about supplementing the article and enhancing wikipedia by adding information. — JEREMY 09:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Warning people that on the very same screen as the warning is the image itself? Anyway, should your poll ever appear on this page, I'll vote oppose, and express my irritation at the pollcruft and your refusal to accept consensus, as I suspect a large majority of voters will do. Babajobu 09:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the label will attract attention first (ie. before the images), and that its presence alone indicates our intent to provide a higher level of service to our readers. Again I reject your persistent claims that this issue has already been dealt with and that your viewpoint somehow represents consensus, but I'll be pleased to see your vote. — JEREMY 10:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
In fact, my viewpoint on how the images should be managed is not the same as the consensus. However, consensus having been expressed, I feel the need to protect it from people who attempt to unilaterally override that consensus by inserting obtrusive templates without any communal mandate whatsoever. As for my vote, there is no poll on this page, no oppose or support sections in which to place a vote on any issue. Babajobu 10:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
If a reader hits this page, it's highly likely they were looking for the image. An encylopedia with a warning, is not an encylopedia, it's a newspaper. It's great and all that you want to "protect" these people, but it doesn't stop here, it would START here. First this, then every image on wiki would have to have a warning of some type...to protect those that don't like it of course. -Moocats 14:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Why is only the ICCPR included here? There's no shortage of International Law. Also applicaple may be:

  • Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action
  • United Nations Millennium Declaration
  • Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities
  • Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief
  • Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity
  • Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
  • International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families
  • Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals Who are not Nationals of the Country in which They Live

and, depending on your point of view:

  • Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons
LOL :D But is this relevant to the Danes, the Muslims, the Pope or ... All? MX44

Singleing out one treaty because some articles sound nice just makes no sense. 1000 things could or could not be applicable, could or colud not be supplantable or being overriden by national law, or European Law. This field is just nuts. Let's not even try to wade into it. (unless one of you is a specialist in the field, of course). Azate 14:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

And, no, I didn't make these up. Azate 16:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


Anonymous Editor commenting against the omission of internationally accepted norms:
So instead of providing more lights and unbiased and internationally accepted concepts and standards into the underlying legalities of the dilemma, you chose to delete the entire part!? Why not mentioning those additional legalities that you mentioned as reference points for sound judgments in the page? Why do you think they are irrelevant?
Just to figure out if, say, article 14 of the ICCPR is any any way applicable to this case would require a full-blown legal team and many, many weeks. You'd get 100 different opinions. International law is a minefield. Who has a right to make a claim to the courts against whom? Which courts must have frustraded the applicant beforehand to qualify, or to make then non-applicable? It isn't even established if the ICCPR applies to individuals making a claim agains other individuals within the same jurisdiction. Hell, it isn't even clear if it applies to individuals at all. The legal status of all the above coventions is totally opaque. It all sounds very dandy, but in the real world - it just doesn't have teeth. Azate 22:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Anonymous Editor commenting against the omission of internationally accepted norms: It is a matter of principle. ICCPR excerpts are are more "informational" "solid" and "factual" than what appears now in the front page. It is a relevant reference to be cited. Remember that we are not hare to issue judgments, gauge whether something could be enforceable, is dandy or whether it has “teeth” or not. These are internationally accepted concepts. It is a matter of "all-time" reference points.
That's just my point: These are not "internationally accepted norms". Only half of the countries in the world have signed the ICCPR. Of those who did, many (including denmark) added all sorts of caveats and footnotes. As it stands now, the ICCPR (and all the others) is no more than a blueprint of what the UN would like to see in national law, it's not a law that you can bring up in any court. Azate 02:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Anonymous Editor commenting against the omission of internationally accepted norms. I did not suggest bringing it up at any court. I think we both agree that these are concepts prepared in the UN by the experts in the spirit of creating a sound universal Civil and Political Rights. I find it very appropriate and relevant to mention these concepts and norms. I wonder if I have brought my own judgment/prejudgment in our argument.

Hate Speech and Blasphemy

In the Comparable references section of this article we currently have the following

While the majority of these references seem appropriate from the blasphemy angle there are four of them that appear to deal with hate speech. Of those four the following refs seem out of place (with Snow White seemingly appropriate)

These seem to take the hate speech angle, but are these examples of hate speech really Comparable in the context of this controversy? They don't seem so to me (or perhaps through a highly tenuous link). The only possible ref is Dieudonné due to his reported anti-semitic statements. In terms of hate speech I see two primary angles that are being reported in the news over this controversy, one is that some muslims are claiming that the cartoons are a form of hate speech directed at Islam (ie: overly broad accusation of terrorism) and the other has to do with the proliferation of hateful anti-semitic cartoons that come from certain islamic media sources in comparison to the Jyllands cartoons. Can we please add more specific and neutral references that better correspond to these two angles and in the mean time remove these tenuously linked references? Netscott 15:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Straw man argument, Scotty. You and you alone established hate speech as a standard. Who told you western hate speech laws are the standard by which people are asking for relief? Sharia isn't a hate speech standard, so your narrow comparison is false. The standard is laws under which people have been punished for insightful comments. Also, you are picking on the Sambos link again. I asked you yesterday if you would agree to the list as it stood and you are still whining about any entry that doesn't fit your narrow POV. Where's the good faith? PaxTerra 06:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The other false construct you are arguing scott is comparability. The standard is not whether you think they compare, or whether Malkin thinks they compare, but whether they have been mentioned in comaparison. Violating the standard of whether others have compared them violates neutrality by imposing your own judgement of what is comparable. Also, that Malkin said she doesn't think they compare isn't the point. Malkin said others have drawn the comparison, and extended the comparison. Obviously she finds it relevant enough to title an article around, even if only to deconstruct the comparison others hold.
Further, you have already admitted ignorance to events surrounding Streicher's publishing activities, so why do you consider yourself qualified to compose statements about why he was executed? Are you a German reader? Have you read Streicher's publications, the Neuremberg trial record or reports of it? Do you know that he was executed for directly advocating murder or for inciting hatred which led to murder? Unless you know and can cite an example of the former, please refrain from adding misinformation based on your imagination of how things might have happened. PaxTerra 06:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


I tried to add a link to the Skokie,Ill. Nazi and KKK protests. Skokie, IL resulted in a famous court decision affirming the American Nazi's free speech rights to have a protest march through a neighborhood with a large population of Holocaust survivors. It was commented out: "offense based upon faith does not equal offense based upon historical facts, alphabet best order any other way is too subjective." I think the obvious parallel with weighing offending a religious group vs. free speech is important. I think this is also way more relevant and comparable than Sambo's Restaurant. --Calmarc

did somebody tamper with your entry, Calmarc? Please name them. there are a couple people here pushing POV and bullying away any edits that don't fit their viewpoints. PaxTerra


I have tried to adapt the introduction to the list to the current content. It is still kind of psychedelic though ... Giving it up for now. MX44 18:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


Hey, Scott! Leave it for a second and lets see how this works out MX44 23:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good my linux developing collaborator! LOL Netscott 23:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Sambo and Streicher are good against each other representing hate speech
The Chief is finally gone!
Your move! MX44 23:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Representation of Muhammad drawings throughout history

I believe the article should contain references of the different representations of Muhammad throughout history. I am sure that this is by far not the first one. It should be included, as the Muslims reacted also to the the representation itself of Muhammad. --landroni 17:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

We had references to historical and current pictures of Muhammed. Did they disappear?DanielDemaret 18:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
No. They are in the section "Islamic tradition". Three foootnotes, same as it ever was. Azate 23:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
THanks Azate :) Reading this article with a gazziollion permutational versions due to edit skirmishes has made me blind. I should give this article a rest a few months and rest my eyes.:)DanielDemaret 08:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
OK guys. Thanks. It was me who wasn't attentive. --landroni 09:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

A more general image solution

Please have a look at a proposal I've made over at Wikipedia Village Pump (technical) about giving Wikipedia visitors simple 'user definable' user experience options relative to images and WikiMedia. Netscott 20:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Link from front page

Why does the front page thing concerning the controversy not link here? It should link both to this article as well as to the "response" entry, and particularly the response one should actually link to the relevant part of the "response" sub article. 129.59.93.57 22:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Warning Template!

These cartoons are obviously offensive to some. Okay, then thats agreed. And we're not removing the picture from the site. Okay, thats agreed as well. How about we create a warning template, similar to the warning about a plot spoiler, that the contents of this site can be offensive to some, and that we move the picture down below the average vertical screen height that browsers reach. Since I am a novice wikipedian, and I can't really contribute by writing a template like this, but hope to in the future, I beckon upon you to follow through on this, and hopefully, it can resolve some issues. Thanks Mkaycomputer 22:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


Uh, how about we don't. M'Kay? Netscott 22:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
But seriously, sorry for my earlier sarcasm...and welcome to WikiPedia. This issue is truly a deceased horse, well beaten and those of us who've been editing this for a bit are showing the strains of re-encountering that horse. Netscott
Our job is to inform, and the pictures provide that. If it offends, people should not click. The name of the article warns enough. James Kendall [talk] 00:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

That template would still kick ass. Mkaycomputer 00:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a current poll in progress calling for the additional of an informational template to the page. Please see above. — JEREMY 02:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

El Fagr editor Adel Hamouda has left Egypt

According to the Sandmonkey blog, the editor of El Fagr, Adel Hamouda, has left Egypt for an undetermined length of time on a journalistic investigation mission. I know this isn't a NPOV source, but he gives the link to El Fagr's current front page. Is there anyone who could translate the page and confirm this? Richard 129.244.128.134 23:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

SCOTUS Great Lawgivers frieze

I found this PDF on the SCOTUS website which is apparently from the official tourist brochure. It might be a good idea to include it in the reference to the freize in the article as it provides a more comprehensive overview then the current newspaper articles. Might even be a good base for an article on the subject if someone is interested in doing that. -Loren 01:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I simply missed where this was discussed, but is there a reason there is an "Islamic views" category for links on the main page but not one for Danes/Those supporting the freedom of speech argument? And secondly, why are these links on the main page, instead of on the page specifically for differing opinions on the controversy? Richard 129.244.128.134 06:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't wait for reason to exclude mere links to external resources that balance other points of view in an article about controversial viewpoints. Be bold in editing. The reason they're not there is because you've not added them yet? Go for it. PaxTerra 18:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comparable refs need for a vote?

Well it seems that myself (and I believe MX44) seem to not be able to agree with PaxTerra regarding the Comparable references section. This has been going on now for last day or two with with differing points of views having been expressed on both sides. It seems like this issue needs a larger view to get this settled and I'm wondering if a vote on what should be in the comparable references needs to be called? Unfortunately PaxTerra in his blind desire to have his views expressed has already reverted a perfectly good edit made by MX44 that changed an outside link to the 'Law Givers' reference to a wikilink (with more pertinent info). My contention (and I believe MX44's) is that the following references don't belong in the list.

While PaxTerra thinks they do.

I'm curious... what are other editors opinions on the above references being in this article? Netscott 06:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Regardless my effort to presume to the contrary, Netscott's good faith did not show in accusing competent editor Perigrine of vandalism, then laughing out loud at his own idle accusation, nor does good faith show in Netscott citing a temporary change in a link that I then fixed as evidence of my poor contribution. As the record shows, I also repaired the typographically broken markup Netscott accused Perigrine of vandalism about. And, I repaired Netscott's uninformed fabrication about the facts of Streicher's trial in this article and in the Streicher article after Netscott admitted having no knowledge of the matter. It seems Netscott is persistently reverting after above participating in a consensus process then continuing to complain about edits entered by others that were addressed in a concensus discussion. Regardless Netscott's effort to speak for other editors, the discussion on this page shows MX44 has resigned from the matter, or at least claimed to. What's more, Netscott falsely speaks for myself in claiming I have expressed any interest whatsoever in the Dieudonné M'bala M'bala reference.
There seems to be a complaint by another user above that someone deleted from the page a comparison that doesn't satisfy an editor, when editor appreciation of comparisons drawn in public discussion is not the standard here. I suggest that Netscott, instead of creating a device to exagerate attention to matters that don't suit his preference, correspond substantively with editors involved in the article and then wait to see if anyone else considers his arguments worthy of attention. A start would be to offer some citations for the items he claims have been mentioned in comparison. In the section below, I cite basis for my contributions. PaxTerra 07:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comparisons need citations, not vote

Meeting the standard -- the standard established in the text is that the references have been "mentioned in comparison" in public discourse. The standard is NOT whether netscott likes the mention or the comparison. I suggest Netscott focus on finding citations for the comparisons he likes to draw that so far have found no basis in anything besides an assertion here of an apparent similarity. Wikipedia is not a democracy...Wikipedia is not a soapbox... Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought

Der Sturmer:

  • The Toronto Star reports the following comparison being made by Ruth Mas, a lecturer in Islamic studies at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo:

A prominent German Islamic leader said the cartoons were reminiscent of the caricatures of Jews in the Nazi propaganda sheet Der Sturmer. "Press freedom shouldn't be used to insult people. We Germans need to know our history," Michael Muhammad Pfaff, of the German Muslim League told Britain's Guardian newspaper. [3]

that's about as direct a mention of comparison as we can ask for, and from a published newspaper article, which by the way, is being repeated as the subject of debate in other venues

Sambos In light of the following 11 references, I am going to change the reference to the more widely cited Little Black Sambo (-- nix -- there is an article on Sambo (ethnic slur) that best explains current discussion cited in links below (-pt) -- ) which is more direct than a reference to the restaraunt that was caught up in the referenced controversy. In addition to above Malkin citation: "There is no parallel between the Danish cartoons and Piss Christ; a more accurate analogy would be between the Danish cartoons and Sambo drawings." [4] Others: [5][6] [7] [8] [9][10] [11] [12] And if Netscott is going to complain about to many Web sources, this one cites The Telegraph: [13] and Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune:[14]

Chief Illiniwek (as I've stated above, a general reference to Indian mascott controversy is consistent with the more usual comparison I've encountered in my reading, but the following documents the Illiwinek comparison in Robideau's article about the cartoons.) Counterpunch Feb. 10, 2006, Robert Robideau [15] (this printed reference from a nationally circulated magazine in which Robideau specifically cites teh UofI mascot should suffice. Numerous on-online links cites omitted) PaxTerra 08:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (ibid)[16][17][18][19][20][21][22]


A poll? Well ... As far as I can see, PaxTerra's vote is for linking to empty references like Al-Haryat and underwhelming news about high-school mascots, so I can't take him seriously. My vote is for NetScott which makes it two against one. Problem solved and democracy wins MX44 08:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you're only joking. Surely a broader appreciation is gained from more information, not less. Leave the extra links in. — JEREMY 08:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The link that MX44 and Netscott have persistently deleted with little argument other than personal attack and personal opinion also includes a link to an offsite reference that extensively documents why Al-Hayat Al-Jadida's caricatures are compared across Israel with the Danish cartoons. PaxTerra 09:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
... and the offsite (and lonely) reliable NPOV refernce is: The Zionist Organization of America. BTW, the date of the controversy is again fiddled with. MX44 09:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Going to have to agree with MX44 on this last point here... I originally removed the Al-Hayat reference because it originally only pointed to a stub (and it still does) which seems pointless.. but I too noticed that the final reference that PaxTerra added was anything but NPOV. Netscott 09:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
This is an article about cartoons that express a point of view. Of course the link to Zionist Organization of American refers to their point of view. That's what the section is about, contrasting points of view -- not mine, but those represented in popular discussion. Get Real. PaxTerra 09:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The extra links can stay there, no problem! We'll just have to rename the section to incomparable references, which is a reasonable small change given the current state of the list. MX44 09:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
On second thought: Leave it like it is ... as a parody in its own right :D
Well I will concede one thing in PaxTerra's arguments that is absolutely true and that is the definite need for citations for the Comparable references in this article. Netscott 08:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Netscott's accusations

PaxTerra are you now in violation of 3RR? Netscott 09:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

09:38, 16 February 2006 PaxTerra (→Comparable references - include reference to legal control of incitement and hate speech, restore summary introducing list)

09:28, 16 February 2006 PaxTerra (consensus was to order sequencially by most recent volatile discussion of issue)

08:59, 16 February 2006 PaxTerra (→Comparable references - restore another widely cited comparison repeatedly deleted by Netscott) <-- this revert wasn't in fact over an edit of mine but MX44's.

06:37, 16 February 2006 PaxTerra (→Comparable references - restore to consensus version or 12./15)

04:59, 16 February 2006 PaxTerra (→Comparable references - restore as per 02/15/06 concensus)

Isn't that the third time you have edited this page so that it extends to 1600px? And deleted other comments along the way? I've explained below what is the problem with your formatting, and fixed your idle accusation so you can rest assured anyone who cares can read it. PaxTerra 10:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter 3RR does not apply to editing one's own edits which you were forcing me to do by breaking the list layout for my citations. Netscott
It would seem so. Netscott 09:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
"Yet another false allegation, Netscott. Two of those are duplicate links to one edit. Each of the other four links Netscott cites plainly refer to different edits to various parts of a section, to edits being repaired during a flurry of of conflicting edits, and to maintaining the article consistent with discussion that has developed on this page, for the most part in response to edits by Netscott and MX44 who edit regardless efforts to discuss edits. When is the last substantive edit you have contributed to this article, or any other Netscott? Have you nothing better to contribute? Didn't you express some interest in documenting the comparisons you consider relevant? That would be constructive.
What exactly is it about me, besides apparently my being an intelligent presence who has introduced material you are not otherwise familiar with, that so threatens you, Netscott? Have you fallen into a simple need to win something? I certainly feel entrenched in a motivation to accurately support and defend meaningful, neutral, informative and relevant content I have contributed in a charitable spirit. PaxTerra 09:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I happen to not agree with some of your edits/references along with others it seems. Netscott 10:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Not sure why you are disrespecting me by referring to me by the nickname Scotty (which I absolutely detest)... but such disrespect and saying "some of us over 30 years old" as though I was a kid or something doesn't put you in a very favorable light. Netscott 11:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
AND you might do a little research to find out that I've been contributing to this article on a daily basis since Feb. 6th before you question my contributing! Netscott 11:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I am well aware of your edit history. I am referring to your history in the past few hours. Maybe you've run out of content to add? As to the nick, it's common and probably a typo. When I try to type netscott it comes out as netscape, so I do scott. And yes, those of us over 30 -- i could add some more decades, but Streicher is very much a part of 20th century history and that is why he is so much a part of world discussion on this subject. I think we could do a gallup poll and find younger readers perceive the conflict as free-speach vs. zealotry and they would associate it with recent conflicts involving poop er pop art whereas more older readers view the conflict in terms of events involving racial incitement. Not my opinion, just social science or at least a well informed huerestic take on why different understandings of the conflict are advanced among different social groups. So you are more concerned about my personal opinion of you than you are about the credibility of my very few contributions that I have spent way too much time explaining? PaxTerra 11:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Fine. But for some of us over 30 years old, Streicher is the benchmark that describes the extent of human responses to speech perceived as some to be extremely provacative. It is part of standard mass communication curricula in academies around the world, which is probably why it is so widely discussed in teh context of the recent contoversy. It doesn't mean I want the cartoonists executed -- it means that people calling for their punishment do so in a context that can be studied. And people have referenced Streicher extensively -- maybe it is people around the world who are discussing it in terms of Streicher you disagree with. I am simply citing facts, which is the purpose of this project.
On the second reference, I don't quite understand why you don't think the most popular response in the Jewish press that compares the Dutch cartoons with Palestenian cartoons they have been aware of for years is not relevant. Are you arguing that facts that expose Jewish perspectives on this matter should be excluded from this article? I have carefully documented that the matter is discussed in such terms in the Jewish press. Or is it just that there wasn't much information in the original Al-Hayat Al-Jadida link? You fixed that by pointing it toward what appears to be a more substantive reference. Or is it that the link to ZOA publication represents a point of view? Isn't that what this article is about -- conflicting viewpoints? I don't hold those views, but I don't understand how an encyclopedic presentation can exclude major documented views pertinent to the matter. PaxTerra 11:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Reason for formatting errors explained

Netscott, when you start a line one space away from the left margin, on many operating system/browser combinations it renders as the loose equivilant of a < `pre /> tag -- causing those lines to extend with no breaks, including to 1600px. Your's isn't the only computer in the world scott. This is a large networked environment. Think about that a while, pleez.

Another note, you inexplicable added the date "2006" to the Rushdy item. We discussed sequence yesterday -- you didn't do your 1/3 of the items as per our discussion so I did them all. Whatever -- it would be better if you could explain to readers what happened in 2006, but I'm not going to mess with it. PaxTerra

Sorry what was that about my 1/3? Notice the time...of that post? You're the only one around here that seems to be spouting off false accusations. Netscott 11:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Tehran reissued the Fatwa this week, or rather stressed that it was never withdrawn MX44 10:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Very good. Guess what. I beleive you. But could you please offer a citation, and update the Verses article. I word searched The Satanic Verses for "2006" and found notta. PaxTerra 10:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
There is an external link at the bottom of our Salman Rushdie article which includes a newspaper report about the confirmation of the fatwa. Or you can go directly here. I have updated the Verses article.-- Avenue 12:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
"The Verses" are so far very healthy and doing quite well, unlike the empty stub you referenced regarding "The Haryat" (which I have kind of fixed now)!
And your point was? MX44 11:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
My request was very clear. Please document your edits. It's not a matter of comaparing, but if that is the case, I documented my edit, and am currently helping to document other's edits. Keyword: helpPaxTerra 11:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Help? Well ... Authoring and editing is not only about drowning the reader in a mess of unrelated information, but also about cutting out the crap! I have repeatedly done so! Now would You? MX44 11:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Collaborative editing is about communicating in increasingly precise language. Scatological generalization fails to rise to that standard. I have carefully documented the reason and context for the fewer than 40 words I have contributed. Something like 40,000 words on talk explaining to you and one other editor who seems to have a problem with those 40 well-compose, well-documented non-controversial words that you have very aggresively opposed. Try to focus on contributing, if only by contributing to our understanding of why you don't appreciate the difference in language and feces. PaxTerra 12:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that sure sounded very impressive MX44

Reason for opposition

User at 209.247.158.52 changed the lead to remove reference to cultural insensitivity and insulting nature of cartoons, saying the opposition was strictly a matter of religious ideals. Maybe for FOX news listeners it is. I suppose we must now document to the contrary. First I offer this survey coming from a Harvard Law forum summarizing discussion observed in the MidEast. "That subject took the world by storm; some for and some very against the depiction of the Prophet of Islam not only in a graphical form, which on its own is regarded by Muslims as blasphemous, but the representation was seen as obscene, callous and culturally insensitive." [23]

Peoples Daily headlined an article "Hamas condemns Danish daily for insulting cartoons".[24]

Zaman Daily Newspaper: Protests in Jakarta over Insulting Cartoons [25]

Gulf Daily News (Bahrain):Insulting cartoons 'are unforgivable' [26]

Turkish Weekly: Insulting Cartoons Crisis [27] etc. etc. etc. PaxTerra 11:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Syrian Arab News Agency, aslo Arabic News: Syria Recalls Ambassador In Copenhagen Over Insulting Cartoons [28][29]

Candian Broadcasting Company: Anti-Danish protests flare in the Middle East over insulting cartoons[30] PaxTerra

Well, I guess I should step up and defend my word choice since I originally added the term culturally insensitive. I'm ok with insulting being in the list, although an "insult" is in the eye of the beholder while describing something as being "culturally insensitive" seems to be less biased. Kyaa the Catlord 13:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
You have no reason to defend the word choice. 209.247.158.52's clarification between cultural and religious issues seems off base; in terms of Islamic countries, isn't the religion part of their culture?
Regardless of whether or not it is, the sentence in question deals with the views of the cartoons' opponents, who DO view the cartoon as insulting and culturally insensitive. NPOV is maintained. --Marco Passarani 14:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


Just a picture from a swedish server

A while back I mentioned that they closed down a server showing some muhammed cartoons in Sweden. I think this was the picture shown: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mu_mirror.JPG It is not terribly interesting, but I seem to recall someone here wondering what the picture looked like, and I like the fact that this discussion contains a lot more side-info than the article itself, since it might become relevant later. It is relevant only in as it relates to the note on "govenrnment-induced self-censorship" in swedish media. DanielDemaret 20:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I asked for it, thankyou for digging! I find it interesting that it is so ... how to say, unprovocative? At least compared to what I had expected. As a cartoon it is only funny because their server was shut down because of it. Illustrates the panic there must have been in Sweden, risking to loose the skyrocketing telecom business in Muslim countries. It was apparently mirrored in Finland by Suomen Sisu (Finnish Power) for an hour, or some such ... MX44 02:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Court of law vs. Extrajudicial Sharia?

While the reference to Julius Steicher in this article may be interesting it is not entirely pertinent.

The one citation that is used to justify this linkage is the word of one Islamic extremist. This extremist in citing precedent for justification for the call to kill the cartoonists cites acts that were carried out not by courts of law but primarily individuals[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1570348/posts].

To compare the legal one time publication of 12 cartoons by Jyllands-Posten concerning a religion to the illegal crimes against humanity of 25 years publishing hateful racist propaganda in Der Stürmer that Julius Streicher did inciting Germans to exterminate Jews, truly belittles Streicher's criminal acts. Based upon this logic I have moved all references to the case of Julius Steicher in Legal traditions to this talk area.

In the current controversy, at least one cleric has advocated a view seen as extreme even among many who oppose publication of the images that the cartoonists from Jyllands-Posten should be executed under Islamic law. While killing those responsible for symbolic acts is an extreme response, there is a precedent in 20th Century international jurisprudence of capital punishment for crimes related to publication of literature that incited hatred. [31]

As others have suggested this would tend to fall under Opinions about the topic of this article. Netscott 03:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, Omar Bakri Muhammad is talking about the Extrajudicial killing of the cartoonists. His own site (via google) alghurabaa.co.uk goes so far as to effectively admit this.
  • "The Islamic verdict on individual or individuals who insult any Prophet needs to be passed by an Islamic Court and implemented by the Islamic State, rather than individuals carrying out the verdict themselves. However, sadly we find that we live in an era where there is not one country in the world implementing the Shari’ah, rather the 55 Muslim countries in existence today all implement non-Islamic law..."

If we follow this logic of citing an extremist who claims Sharia... then the London protestors who displayed signs saying, "Behead those who insult Islam", "Kill those who insult Islam", "Slay those who insult Islam" (see [32] for photos) should factor in as well into Legal traditions because it could be argued that they were displaying their signs in accordance with Sharia. Netscott 01:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

PaxTerra, the Judicial traditions section seemed to make sense. What about tracking down specific death penalty cases regarding free speech and Sharia law? Here is an example of a Sharia court having issued a death sentence by stoning against Amina Lawal for acts of adultery... now if the same thing could be found for a speech issue then the section you have about International jurisprudence could be re-integrated into the front page of this article. What do you think? Netscott 06:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Having read your input on this page, it seems important to remind you, N, that articles here are not based on what "could be argued" but what has been said by others. Items are excluded from these articles when they represent a point of view of an editor here, but they a necessary part of an article about rhetorical topics when they represent represent someone esles point of view See the difference? Would you argue an article on a Constitution would exclude the views of those who wrote that Constitution? Rolano 17:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah not sure why you've changed your name PaxTerra to Rolano (is there something to hide?) but the fatwa angle is good. Have any fatwas comparable to Khomeni's calling for death been called for the Jyllands cartoonists? Netscott 17:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  1. ^ [33]
  2. ^ [34]
  3. ^ [35]
  4. ^ [36]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Archive_21&oldid=1054107946"