Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 5

additions to "external links" section

I think that this link http://face-of-muhammed.blogspot.com/ should be added to the list of "external links" at the bottom of the news article page.

L33th4x0r 01:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Some of the translations of captions are different in that page, maybe there's information to correct? Homestarmy 01:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I spent ages trying to find decent images of the cartoons and these are definitely the best. Furthermore I don't understand the hooha on this talk page about a 29kb image which isn't sufficiently big to see any detail. --Tatty 02:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Link added! L33th4x0r 03:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Meeting With 11 Ambassadors

This seems to be an important point that isn't quite clear in the article, or in many other newsarticles. What EXACTLY did the 11 ambassadors write in their letter of the 19th of October. Did they discuss other issues as well as this one? Here it says they did, but I have never seen that anywhere else. In most newsarticles it implies that they simply wanted Rasmussen to distance himself from the cartoons, but here we have "take legal action against". This is quite a central point as to AFR's handling of the issue. Peregrine981 02:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The letter is in the external links section, or here: [1] (PDF) Poulsen 08:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! That helps a lot. Peregrine981 15:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Deletion?

We should delete this, since we haven't gotten anywhere. WikieZach 02:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Tact is not censorship

If material is offensive to a significant portion of our readership, we should be tactful and put a warning at the top of the page, and keep the offensive material "below the fold" if then possible. The example of Oral sex given above is a straightforward analogy; an even closer one is Goatse.cx. For what possible reason should the Goatse image be remote-linked from the Goatse article while these cartoons should be at the very top of this article? (For those who don't know what Goatse is, here's a link—it's pretty gross.)

Tact is not censorship. It's acknowledging that Wikipedia doesn't want to disgust its readership more than is necessary to convey the information it's meant to convey. Nothing whatsoever is lost from the article if a warning is added to the top and the image moved down. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Several other editors have tried to make this point above but have all tired of being shouted down. Tempshill 03:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere, adding a warning solves nothing if you go ahead and show the picture anyway. Those who are angry, aren't angry that they saw the picture, they are angry simply knowing Jyllands-Posten printed the picture. Hiding the picture may spare some the hurt of seeing it, but you're still showing it and therefore you're still violating the taboo against iconic representations.--Snorklefish 16:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

As a practical matter, it was noted earlier that several times when the picture was moved "below the fold", the revert war stopped. Some value is therefore evidently added. Tempshill 20:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You know, as gross as that pic is, I think the original goatse one was even worse. Are you sure they're the same? The original is something I try hard not to remember. 71.141.251.153 05:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with the above. Wikipedia should respect people; telling people to fsck off if they are offended is a complete lack of respect. Samboy 06:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia should tell things as they are, without hiding people from stuff they may find "offensive" -- otherwise, how will anyone, on either side of the issue, get the full facts of the case. To deny any aspect of the visual representation of this article or to shunt it down to obscurity within the doldrums of the article is an insult to people who don't have to abide by the laws of one religion, no matter how large. Sol. v. Oranje 07:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

im not sure however how many 'people who don't have to abide by the laws of one religion' are actually insulted by a lesser visual representation of an image. nothing in this world is absolute, having complete free speech or anything for that matter without having a counterbalance is unwise. Chensiyuan 17:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Pic deleted- more vandalism?

It seems someone has deleted the pictures- is this more vandalism or actions on the part of Wikipedia? I just want to know before I revert the article to include the images. (Caesar89 03:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC))

Aniconism plug

For those interested, time to take the opportunity to plug the article Aniconism, which is this very subject and is nearly a stub. I put a request to expand tag on the article a bit ago. Tempshill 03:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Comparable incidents

Would this qualify as a similar incident? A Russian art Gallery that organized an exhibit “Beware: Religion!” (“Осторожно, религия!”) has been vandalized by religious zealots. The vandals were acquitted and lauded by Russian Orthodox clergy, while the organizers of the exhibit were put on trial and prosecuted for offending the feelings of the faithful. Link at http://asf.wdn.com/ --EugeneK 04:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

That is definitely a good example of similar aggressive actions by counter-"blasphemous" forces; please do include this is the main article. Sol. v. Oranje 07:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Better pictures?

It's really hard for readers to make up their mind about the "photographs" when there's no picture of them. The picture in the article is way too small, and there's only one picture in the links (the one with the bomb). Can someone find better pictures or links? Thanks. Aucaman^Talk 04:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Here [2] bigger images of the cartoons. WARNING don't enter if you're offended by the cartoons, bla bla bla --62.57.93.138 04:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is the picture removed from the article? This picture has exquisite informatic value, and I don't see any reason for removing it. Only reason would be to pay tribute to the fight against freedom of speech and thought. -- Obradović Goran (ta^lk 04:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

If we agreed to remove this picture, only because someone didn't like it, and he pressured us enough, then I honestly belive that we do not have the right to use any of the fair-use images on Wikipedia anymore.. ever! When we use the copyrighted image, we say: "Yes, it is copyrighted, but the importance of this picture is so great that people need to have access to it no matter what, in order to...". Well, boys and girls, if we fall back against Islamist threats, we don't have the moral right to advocate against evil corporations anymore -- Obradović Goran (ta^lk 04:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think all people (on every side of this issue) should want to see the pictures. How else can they make up their minds? I'm going insert the link above under the "External links" section. Aucaman^Talk 04:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protect this.

Could we semi-protect this? it is needed now. --Vsion (talk) 04:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

can't, it's in the main page --62.57.93.138 04:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I see, thanks. --Vsion (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The page should not be semi-protected since semi-protection is only for vandalism, and the image deletions are POV edits (and often improper ones at that), but not vandalism. [[WP:Vandalism] makes a careful distinction. If protection is absolutely necessary it should be full protection and not semi-protection. 71.141.251.153 06:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

See Also

What exactly is the justification for having Robert Mapplethorpe and Andres Serrano in the See Also section... They are provocative, sure, but does this justify linking to them from this page.... Kjaergaard 05:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I just took out "Robert Mapplethorpe". Yes, i feel "Andres Serrano" should be removed too. --Vsion (talk) 06:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There can be no reconciliation

I appreciate the impulse behind Mr. Wales's message at the top of this page, but there is no real way to debate whether or not the drawings should be in Wikipedia without going into far flung issues like Koran citations, differences between Sunni and Shi'a belief... and from there it's an inevitable hop to "philosophy". The very edict against depicting Muhammed's face is philosophically (theologically) grounded, so there is no escape from these questions in this debate.

The sad truth is that "the line it is drawn, the curse it is cast". Nearly all of us working on Wikipedia are deeply against fundamentalist Islamist teaching and there is simply no way to smooth it out. I remember an ultra liberal college professor of mine saying "All culture is good". Well, the culture of those who are so offended by the Jyllands-Posten drawings calls for the death of anyone who creates (or disseminates) an image of Muhammed. We here can twist and turn, writhe into every possible contortion, but we'll never fool ourselves or anyone else into thinking we hold such a culture, or such a central aspect of such a culture, to be good. Face it, my friends. We are enemies of people who want our deaths. Just by reproducing these drawings on this site, we are their mortal enemies. Once we digest that unmodifiable truth, where do we go? How do we act? Do we run scared and try at every turn to appease these enemies (in this case, remove the image from this article) or do we hold to our own principles at the peril of our lives? I'm for defying the fanatics. Thank goodness the Muslims simply lack the power to ignite a world war. The non-muslim world is going to have to band together against this deluded culture and I'm afraid its violence will yield to only one thing: greater violence. Most of you will rail against this. No matter. When it's them or you you will choose yourselves. JDG 06:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You know, it is just possible to be offended by these drawings without calling for anyone's death, which is of course the overwhelming Muslim reaction.--Pharos 06:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Considering someone has already posted "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" in this discussion thread, then yes, it's possible for people to call for people's death over this issue. Speak against this now, or continue apologizing for the extremism that is increasing on display over this article in these efforts to crush freedom of speech and information. Sol. v. Oranje 06:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, from what I know about Muslim beliefs, there can indeed be a reconciliation. I just can't find any place, on or outside the web, where anyone is interested in reaching it.DanielDemaret 08:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Err, actually Pharos, from some of the things i've been reading about on the news about this, many muslims are implying that they should of killed the people who have insulted them in the past in a manner similar to this, then we wouldn't be in this situation, according to them. I'm not saying all muslims share this kind of view, but there appears to be enough of them so that the overwhelming reaction is not calling for nobody to die. Homestarmy 14:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Darn it, the page is once again unprotected allowing sockpuppets to blank content against consensus...protection policy is very clear that we can do so for front-page linked articles when this is necessary. The only time this article has some stability and relief from socks is when it is semi-protected. WHY, OH WHY was it unprotected? Babajobu 06:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Even with semi protection, there was an edit war going on. I explained my reasoning. And I wasn't the first to remove the semi protection btw. As I said, it's the general policy. Not trying to pull rank, but I've done 400 protections and unprotections. I know the general policy on articles linked from the main page. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 09:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Lock this page!

Once again vandals are removing the cartoons from the page. This is ridiculous and clearly this page needs to be protected from further vandalism.

There has not been a single demonstrable incident of vandalism on this page. There have been immense numbers of improper POV edits, 3RR violations, sockpuppets, etc., but Wikipedia policy carefully distinguishes those from "vandalism" (please read WP:Vandalism before making accusations of vandalism). The page has been semi-protected twice, with good intentions, but improperly, since semi-protection is supposed to only be invoked for cases of vandalism, and this isn't one, it's a POV edit war. If page locking is needed for this type of dispute, the appropriate locking is full protection, not semi-protection (WP:SEMI). Full protection means NOBODY can edit, which de-wikifies the page, so it should be avoided if at all possible. That means the "enlightenment" extremists should look for other ways to tone down the dispute. Any further semi-protection of this page is a policy violation and should only be applied after careful consideration and clear evidence that all reasonable compromise attempts have failed. Right now we have a bunch of logged-in POV pushers calling for semi-protection to lock out the non-logged-in POV pushers while avoiding being locked out themselves. Policy calls for full protection and not semi-protection precisely to prevent that--if POV pushers can't stop squabbling and the page needs to be locked, it should be fully locked so that neither side can edit. Locking is bad and is a last resort, and there's much greater incentive to avoid it if those calling for it also have to face its consequences. 71.141.251.153 08:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Numerous IPs repeatedly blanking content against consensus is absolutely cause for semi-protection, and that semi-protection would absolutely not be a violation of policy, it's not even borderline. Babajobu 08:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Where is the consensus? I don't object to the image being removed from the page, as long as there's a link people can click if they want to see it. I also don't see how to make the policy case for semi-protection, other than WP:IAR. It may come to that, but IMO it's not time for that yet. 71.141.251.153 08:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

These is a majority in support of maintaining the cartoon image ON the page. In fact, the majority of the debate was regarding which part of the page (top or middle or bottom) the image was supposed to be located at. But then, vandals started repeatedly removing the cartoon image entirely, which is totally NOT the consensus; and YES only providing a link to an outside page with the cartoons is both 1) censorship because you're too afraid to actually host the images here, and 2) prone to link failure in the future, which is a convenient way for these cartoons to vanish in the first place. There is a total legitimate case for semi-protection, also, because of numerous 3RR+ violations on the article page within the last 24 hours. Sol. v. Oranje 08:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

1) Majority is not consensus. 2) The link would be to the wikimedia image server and the image would still be hosted on wikimedia. 3) As far as I can tell, nobody ever removed the image from the page when it wasn't at the top. It was never in the middle. It was at the bottom a few times, but people put it back at the top and then it got deleted from the top. 4) The semi-protection policy (WP:SEMI)does not list 3RR violations as grounds for semi-protection. 5) Calling "click here to see the image" censorship trivializes the notion of censorship and disrespects people who have had to deal with real censorship. Is there a "demi-Godwins law" on wikipedia (miniature version of Godwin's law), that says anyone who doesn't get their POV desires 100% satisfied will eventually start screaming "censorship"? 71.141.251.153 08:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, get an account with a name so that you don't appear to be hiding under some random IP address. Secondly, a majority in favor of keeping the images on the page, no matter where they are, certainly should warn against removing the images from the page at all, "consensus" or not. Thirdly, when people removed the images, they provided no link whatsoever, and to be honest, why the heck should we trust you, an anonymous commentator, to ensure that such links will be provided in the future AND that they wouldn't be removed wholesale like the cartoons have repeatedly over the last few hours. Fourthly, I am totally not trivializing censorship; and you are in fact the one who is trying to ramrod removing the images and shutting down debate to begin with. Get an account, and deal with the very serious censorship issue at hand here. Sol. v. Oranje 08:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, none of the admins are enforcing the 3RR. 62.135.95.179 just hit his 6th revert and going strong. Babajobu 06:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

So, how do we get the admins to get moving on this and start re-blocking these repeat vandals? C'mon, people, where the hell is any desire to stand up for freedom of access to information here. Is this some kind of Google effect on Wikipedia? Sol. v. Oranje 07:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm an admin, but I don't like to use my admin privileges on Islam-related articles. But this is outrageous, we have numerous IPs reverting six, seven, eight times, and the admins on this talk page are doing nothing about it. AND WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR UNPROTECTING THIS PAGE?? Babajobu 07:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Why are you hesitant to use your admin privleges on Islam-related articles? I don't understand, are certain topics now verboten to protect or use admin priviledges on to begin with? What kind of free encyclopedia is this? This is freaking crazy, LOCK THIS ARTICLE NOW! Sol. v. Oranje 07:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I've placed a message on the administrator's notice board (WP:ANI) saying someone has to restore the semiprotection of this article. I'm not willing to do it, I've gotten into content disputes on Islam-related articles and it's not appropriate for me to use admin privileges for these articles. Violation of 3RR is pretty judgement-free, though, and this article is absolutely plagued by socks and IPs reverting half a dozen times, so maybe I need to start blocking for 3RR violations. Babajobu 07:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked 62.135.95.179, who reverted 4 times by my count, for 24 hours.--Pharos 07:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking that IP address at the least; he was the largest vandalizer by far within this most recent period of article attacks. Sol. v. Oranje 07:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

That IP originated from Egypt if anyone is interested.Hitokirishinji 08:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

How surprising! (rolls eyes) Sol. v. Oranje 08:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the image should be removed, or at least left here as a link. Muhammad has no images because they would be offensive, so these caricatures should definately not be here. Each one is described in detail in the "Publication of the drawings" section, so there is no reason for them to be here. Not to mention that the image is copyrighted and not a free image. -- Astrokey44|talk 09:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think there's a revert war going on. Semi-protect the page or lock it possibly. I've not been able to see a non-vandalized version in the past hour.Kaushik twin

Qatarson or Muslims in General

I saw many editors & some admins who writing about me or sending emails to my email address please stop abuse me you didn't save anyway to abuse my rights start from banned me till racism emails this article also has many racism words specialy discussion page which is part of it & posted by wikipedia registered users , I see this article becomes a black point in wikipedia history because there people dont knew that their freedom stops when other freedom is begin.Qatarson 08:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Qatarson, no one's freedom is infringed by including the cartoons in the article. No one is obligated to read an article entitled "Muhammad cartoons" if they don't wish to see such cartoons. And incidentally, your legal threats re: Florida are laughable. Reporting the news is not illegal in the U.S. First amendment and all, I know it's frustrating. Babajobu 08:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Qatarson, I've done a search of your name on this discussion page and the only thing anyone has ever said about you is that you continously keep deleting the images and reverting the articles. No one has said anything bad about you and in fact on your talk page, people have even encouraged what you have contributed and gave you fair warning about vandalism. That is certainly far more tolerance than I would give. (which is probably the reason I'll never become an admin) Please don't send us fake threats, most wikipedians are sensible folks and so far your actions have only hurt your reputation even further. Hitokirishinji 08:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

read carefuly the discussion page and you will find it also there some posts is deleted i'm not a joke as some admin said also they forced me to stop writing & banned my proxy which it the same proxy for Internet users in State of Qatar for more than 24 hours i'm one of wikipedia users I have the right to edit in any arctile also any muslim in Denmark or florida have same right if they found anything abuse their rights wikipedia is open encyclopedia for everyone and shouldn't have any kind of hates or racism we should work together not making war.Qatarson 08:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Qatarson, you violated the three-revert rule and were blocked for 24 hours, as any other Wikipedia editor would have been. Being treated like everyone else is not "racism", in fact it's the opposite. In fact, we've been especially tolerant of you, what with your legal threats and so on. Most Wikipedians would have been indefinitely blocked for this, so in fact you are getting special treatment, and you should feel privileged that Wikipedia is being so delicate and kind with you. Babajobu 09:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This is where you are very very wrong. A user does NOT have the right to remove content which will in essence promote censorship. The image does not violate your rights. It is merely offensive to you and being offended and having your rights taken away are two very differnet things. It is merely your own fault for abusing the free edit privilege of wikipedia that prevented your entire state from editing wikipedia. No muslim has the right to remove images he or she deems offensive that while to others serves as informative and in fact, no one has that right. Ever. And another things, last I checked, the UN didn't outline "right to edit wikipedia" in their list of human rights. I consider editing on wikipedia a very honorable privilege that was given to me. If you violate the rules, that privilege is taken away. And if you doing so causes others to be prevented from editing wikipedia, the blame lies on you solely.Hitokirishinji 09:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, Qatarson, explain to me how wikipedia can be possibly "abusing your rights"? Wikipedia is literally of group of computers transmitting an electronic signal that displays information on the screen. What you interpret from it is your opinion. It does not "violate" or "oppress" you in anyway. Hitokirishinji 09:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

lol I will give example when I was banned I was'nt able to edit any articles the admin who banned me gives himslef the right to stop me of editing whole articles in the encyclopedia not only this article that a point also the public proxy i'm using used by all wikipedia users from State of Qatar which mean they all was'nt able to edit any articles for 24 hours one more thing of my abused rights I was'nt able to talks even with any other users or who using my talk page I can list more than 10 things if you want ;) I donno these users think they only have the right to edit articles.Qatarson 09:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Qatarson, see my above comments, you have been treated with special gentleness and kindness, given privileges that other Wikipedia editors do not have, e.g. the right to make legal threats without being blocked for it. You were only blocked for violation of the three revert rule, as any other Wikipedia would be. But in general you should feel very special and fortunate to have been treated so delicately. And still you complain! Babajobu 09:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I would explain to you these cartoon images the reason of all what happened and when I remove it I did this because it is abuse Muslims & i'm one of them and we are users at wikipedia too and removing these cartoons not abuse other wikipedia users and everyone can check the history of the article and will find that i was only remove the cartoons not the article or hidden facts as some people said and on the other side you can check what happen in discussion page and there was realy bad posts one of them called muslims terrorist and killers before it removed anyway I was for while will stop writing in wikipedia by myself after all what happened but there users who asked me to stay & keep writing, by the way there some users suggested to link the image only and they ignored and we did'nt do anything to these users/admins who forced me & some other wikipedia users by banned us and keep the way they choosed of how to place this image after that everyone blames me beacuse I was want to save what happened here or what maybe happen when the news reach to arabic world & the media or the Islamic community in west countries.Qatarson 10:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Qatarson, that was a terrifying run-on sentence, you have to use periods or people will not be able to decipher what you write. Secondly, no matter how you have "hurt feelings", you and all other Wikipedians are still required to abide by the three-revert rule. Even though we have been so gentle and tolerant with you, we still ask that you obey that rule, as all other Wikipedians are required to do. And when we ask that you obey Wikipedia rules, this is not "racist", and it is offensive and gives us "hurt feelings" when you say so. Babajobu 10:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Qatarson will always complain because he believes it is his right to do whatever best fits his definition of "abused rights". Wikipedia is privately run and owned. You do not have a "right". It is a privilege to work on this encyclopedia. If it were up to me, until you get that through your head, you'd be banned from editing anything again. Fortunately for you its not up to me, but I doubt anyone will continue to have the extended patience Babajobu has mentioned with you for very long. You used a public domain to deface an article repeatedly. The admins had no choice but to block you. And preventing you from talking on your talk page is NOT an "abused right" regardless of what you may think. Hitokirishinji 09:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Could someone archive the page again

it's gotten very large. 71.141.251.153 08:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Let not do anything drastic while this is in the wikipedia front page. FWBOarticle

Archiving the top half of the talkpage wouldn't be "drastic", it would just help readers who are working from a dial-up connection. Babajobu 09:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Anti-hate speech law

Does Denmark have any anti-hate speech law, similar to UK, Australia, and other countries? --Vsion (talk) 09:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Short answer: yes. There are rules against racism, as well as against libel and blasphemy. The rules against racism are set down in § 266b of the Danish "Straffeloven" (Penal code). However, it needs to be "[...] a group of persons is threatened, derided or degraded because of their race, colour of skin, national or ethnic background, faith or sexual orientation [...]", so it is questionable whether it would apply to deriding someones faith directly. Rasmus (talk) 09:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow thanks, I didn't expect such a clear and precise response. It's really helpful. Cheers! --Vsion (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

A Totally Pointless Debate

So, we have twelve cartoons, all different, but all supposed to be Mohammed. Surely only one at most can remotely resemble the man. If I draw a smiley and write 'Jesus' under it, is that an image of Jesus?. Ridiculous.

dude, i totally made this arguement already :P wookmuff

If we are not supposed to visualise him, why is this:......

""Muhammad (pbuh) was of a height a little above the average. He was of sturdy build with long muscular limbs and tapering fingers. The hair of his head was long and thick with some waves in them. His forehead was large and prominent, his eyelashes were long and thick, his nose was sloping, his mouth was somewhat large and his teeth were well set. His cheeks were spare and he had a pleasant smile. His eyes were large and black with a touch of brown. His beard was thick and at the time of his death, he had seventeen gray hairs in it. He had a thin line of fine hair over his neck and chest. He was fair of complexion""

....in the Quran???160.84.253.241 09:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Süddeutsche Zeitung

"On July 21, 2004, German daily "Süddeutsche Zeitung" published a cartoon depicting a Jew demolishing a French Café. "

Can anyone give more information about that?--129.13.186.1 09:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This controversy reminds me of one of the earliest advocate of freedom of expression, the great Rabbi Gamaliel who replied to those demanding censorship and incarceration of the Apostles. The Rabbi said:"Its advisable to leave them alone for if they are truly from God Himself no one can stop them besides the gravest risk of standing against the will of God. But on the other hand if they are not from God they and their teachings would perish"

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

Were you reading my mind? Babajobu 09:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks__ G.M.

move the image down

There is a big diference betwen censorship and respect. deleting the image would be censorship in my opinion. however moving the image to the bottom of the page having a warning is not censorship, and its respectful to muslims. many people want the image at the top , not because of free speech, but obviously to offend muslims and bash islam - --193.136.128.14 09:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Nobody wants to "bash Islam", anymore than we want to "bash Christians" by prominently displaying the image in Piss Christ, or "bash Jews" by including the Hebrew lettering for the name of God in some of our articles. We just think that Wikipedia's Content disclaimer is enough. Wikipedia does not follow your religion, Wikipedia does not share your hang-ups, Wikipedia is not your mother who protects you from things you don't like. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Babajobu 09:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

1.im not muslim.

2.' Nobody wants to "bash Islam" ' , thats not true. many ppl want the image on the top simply to hit at muslims.

3. and still whats wrong with moving the image down? other than it does not *not* offend muslims.... --193.136.128.14 09:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say you were Muslim, I was paraphrasing the content disclaimer. One problem with moving the image down is that we are setting a dangerous precedent. Anytime someone shows up and says "I am a political conservative and I find this content offensive", or "I am an evangelical Christian and I find this content offensive", or "I am a Scientologist and I find this content offensive", or whatever else, we have traditionally directed them to Wikipedia's content disclaimer. If we make an exception for Islam and Muslims, what will then say to any other group of people who want Wikipedia changed to reflect their preferences? Babajobu 10:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

As said below, we already don't include pictures that other groups find offensive. The criteria surely has to be how offensive they are, not to whom they are offensive. Zocky | picture popups 10:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

how do you precisely do that? how do you define how ofensive something is without thinking about the "whom"? many things are offensive to a culture but not so much to another culture. for muslims caricatures of mohamed, jesus or any other "prophet" are unthinkable, they are offensive. but most of us westerns dont understand that now do we? on the other hand some images are offensive to us westerns specially if we are americans like for example a behaded mans head: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Berg , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nick_Berg#This_is_an_encyclopedia_-_let.27s_keep_it_this_way.2C_shall_we.3F (as far as i see anyphoto or video link were removed, talk about NPOV criteria....) - --193.136.128.14 10:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

A precedent for hiding the image already exists. See how the totally innocuous (imo) photograph in Autofellatio is presented. So there is no reason not to follow 193.136.128.14's suggestion. David Sneek 10:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You mean the drawing of a man sucking his own pee-pee? Why, it's prominently displayed at top of article. The click-here-for-picture template exists ONLY for that article, and for no others, and was implemented by Jimbo himself. There was no community consensus to do so. Babajobu 10:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The photograph, Babajobu. Anyway, it wasn't Jimbo's decision; he initially removed it. There was a 63% majority to present it as a link [3]. David Sneek 10:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, people thought that the autofellatio pick had no informational value--I disagree with them, and would have voted to keep it inline. Regardless, I don't think anyone here is actually arguing that the picture is not informative. Anyway, as you say, putting the autofellatio pic as a link had 63% support, and still needed Jimbo's intervention to do so. If we had a vote here (and I'm starting to think we do), there's no way removing the image would get anywhere near a majority. People just have never been impressed by "against my religion!" as a reason for removing material from Wikipedia, whether that religion is Evangelical Christianity, Judaism, Scientology, or Islam. Babajobu 11:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Again you misrepresent what happened, Jimbo thought the picture was "completely unacceptable" [4], but it was kept anyway. Islam is not my religion and I do not advocate removing the image, I only think that making a very small concession to readers who might consider the image blasphemous - by moving it a bit down the page or placing it one click away - should be no problem. A simple matter of good manners, that's all. David Sneek 12:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Babajobu: there is a very similar debate in the goatse.cx article which is protected right now, over whether to put the goatse picture right in that article. Where do you stand on that? Calling for inlining the (OMG) autofellatio photo is something I'd have to label as extremist.

FWIW, in the French version of this article someone removed the Geert Wilders link, calling it "spam de lien, merci de ne pas le rerajouter. L'important dans l'article ce n'est pas les caricatures elles-mêmes mais la réaction qui a suivi." ("link spam, thank you for not putting it back. What's important in this article is not the cartoons themselves but the reaction that followed"). I'm not so supportive of the link removal but I think the person assigned the correct priorities to the article. 12:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, do you guy realise that some islamic sect consider photograph of person or animal to be halam. If someon is that sensitive, they can simply set the option of his or her browser so it won't load image. There is absolutely no point in trying to make exception to different taste, ideology or faith. Look at Europe where race hate is a crime while faith hate is not. It is just damb. FWBOarticle

Why this picture should not be in the article

Let me start by debunking some bogus arguments used above:

First of all, these cartoons are clearly not offensive only to Muslim extremists. All religious Muslims are likely to be offended by the religious implications involved in depicting Mohammad, and even secular people who grew up in Muslim cultures are likely to be offended by a Western newspaper publishing a caricature of Mohammad with a bomb up his turban.

Second, free speech and censorship arguments are misguided. Neither free speech nor freedom from censorship require that we publish every piece of info we have or can get. We already pick and chose which images to put in articles, and even have a tool to prevent some pictures from being put in articles. Including or not including the picture is an editorial decision, not a question of censorship.

This is a major political and news event. Several governments, including fully democratically elected European ones, have expressed their disapproval of the publishing of these cartoons. No government or a major political party has said that publishing them is a good thing. Virtually all world media, including those in Muslim countries, have published a story about it, yet only a handful have re-published the cartoons themselves. Those that have are rare enough to be news themselves, and are doing it explicitly as a political statement.

The article is not about the cartoons themselves. They're hardly worth a mention by themselves. The article is about the controversy. surrounding their publication. If we publish the picture in the article about the controversy, we are making the statement that publishing the picture is the right thing to do, and that those who say it isn't are wrong. That's hardly NPOV.

Some people are claiming that not publishing the picture is just as much a political statement. This would be true only if we otherwise published all pictures, regardless of sensitivites involved, and singled this one out for different treatmant. But that is not the case. AFAIK, we don't have, and shouldn't have, pictures of burnt bodies of American contract workers in Fallujah, nor Muslim extremist posters of Sharon's head on a pig's body. Both were major news events, and I'm sure we could find pictures if we tried.

The only valid concern that those who argue for the inclusion of the cartoons have brought up is access to information. We should provide a way for readers who want to see the cartoons to find them. This can be accomplished by providing a link to an image page or to another site that carries them. Nobody will be denied access to information by not seeing the actual cartoons in the article itself.

Can anybody provide a principled counter-argument that (a) does not try to claim that we should always publish all relevant pictures, regardless of the sensitivities and political implications involved, and (b) does not include reasoning like "them being offended by this is more dumb than me being offended by that." Zocky | picture popups 10:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Zocky, you have strung together a collection of strawman arguments. No one has argued "we should publish all pictures of everything, because we can", so why have you wasted your time "refuting" such a bogus argument? Also, according to today's Telegraph, as the story has gotten bigger the pictures have now been published in newspapers all over Europe, so many that it is no longer sensible to name all of them, and our own article now also only says "and many other European newspapers". One concern I have is that, as I said to the IP above, Wikipedia contains tons of content that is offensive to various groups. Piss Christ is an example offensive to Christians. In numerous articles we publish the Hebrew lettering of the tetragrammaton, which religious Jews believe should only be published in scripture, prayerbooks, et cetera. We have a horde of content and pictures that Scientologists find objectionable. The list goes on and on. In the past we have always referred people to Wikipedia's content disclaimer when they've said that Wikipedia should remove content they and their religious/ideological group find objectionable...if we make a special exception for Muslims and Islam, what will we tell such groups in the future? Babajobu 10:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

We wouldn't be making a special exception for Muslims. We would be doing exactly what we already do with other pictures that other people find offensive. It's simply not true that we don't censor images other groups find offensive, in addition to those I mention above, we also don't do explicit porn. The question is, is this picture offensive in itself, and is our publishing it offensive. It depicts the prophet of a major world religion with a bomb up his turban, so yes, it's offensive in itself, and European right-wing newspapers are reprinting them to provoke Muslims further, so yes, joining them in that is offensive too. Not because some people find it offensive, but because it's meant to offend. Zocky | picture popups 10:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You're being silly. Most of the newspapers who republished the cartoons, did it in order to DOCUMENT what was going on. As long as they don't explicitly share the opinions that may be transported through this images, you can't say, they did it to offend. They did it to document and so should we.--129.13.186.1 10:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The same papers don't use documentary pictures their users would find offensive, so claiming that they did it to document is naive. Some of them did it to offend, and other did it to increase the sales, none of which should be our motivations. Zocky | picture popups 10:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

the newsapapers republished the cartoons to "defend" "the right to free speech", ie they republished the cartoons as a political statement - --193.136.128.14 10:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

How do you know the motivation of all the many newspapers that have now published the cartoons? Some surely did it as a statement, especially early on, but at this point is it inconceivable to you that many newspapers actually want to document the events in a growing news story? And Zocky, sure we do "explicit porn". We had a picture of a woman performing a blowjob in oral sex for over a year, before it was deleted for not having source info. And we still have the autofellatio picture, though by Jimbo's fiat it is not inline. Finally, we absolutely would be making a special exception for the Muslim religion: the image displayed at Piss Christ is mortally offensive to many Christians, the images of Xenu are supposed to be private for scientologists, the tetragrammaton lettering in a secular encylopedia is heresy to many religious Jews, as are the utterings of "Jehovah" in our spoken articles. If we're not willing to remove content for any of those groups, then we really can't show special reverence for Islam. Babajobu 10:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"French and German newspapers republished caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed yesterday in what they called a defense of freedom of expression, sparking fresh anger from Muslims." - Boston Globe

"German's Die Welt printed the bomb-turban picture on its front page, with the others inside, and an accompanying commentary defending freedom of expression and the "right to blasphemy" in an open society." - CNSNews.com

"The drawings, which first ran in a Danish paper in September and have riled the Muslim world, were reprinted Wednesday in France Soir and several other European papers rallying to defend freedom of expression." - CNN - --193.136.128.14 10:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The tageszeitung reprinted the caricatures because it sees itself - according to the tageszeitung editor - obliged to the "duty to document" (Dokumentationspflicht).--129.13.186.1 11:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I would absolutely agree with you if we were talking about a picture of an Islamic depiction of Mohammad, or indeed about a Western depiction of him in art. But we're talking about a set of cartoons that are anywhere between making fun of and ridiculing the prophet of a major world religion, and by extension its followers. It's not a question of whether people are offended, it's whether the picture is meant to offend, and I thinkg this one is. Zocky | picture popups 10:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

" They did it to document and so should we" (they didnt to document but anyway) even so, no one (or at least im not) is saying that we shouldnt document, i dont agree the cartoons should be removed for the article. however moving the pic down to the bottom of the page (with a link on top) would both respect muslims and document. - --193.136.128.14 10:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"Offensive" is not really a good word here. "Disrespectful" might be a better word to describe my problem with it. Zocky | picture popups 10:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should seek neither to respect or disrespect anyone. It should seek to provide all relevant information on notable topics. When I edit I think about how the writing can be accurate and well-written, I don't think about how I can perform gestures that show special "respect" for whoever I am writing about. Babajobu 10:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Surely we should be respectful of everybody, otherwise any information will be lost in the vitriol. I'm not talking about any "special" respect for anybody. Zocky | picture popups 10:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure you are. There is a lot of content in the Wikipedia that might be offensive to several different groups. But if someone is offended by the documentation of reality, an encyclopedia can't help him.--129.13.186.1 11:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

---

To recapitulate, nobody has answered why the inclusion of this picture should be judged by different criteria than other pictures we could have but don't because many people find them offensive (burnt bodies in Fallujah, Sharon's head on a pig's body posters, people jumping off the twin towers, etc.). Repeating that we don't censor pictures based on sensitivities isn't going to make it so.

Also, nobody has presented any arguments that not including the picture is a political statement, while there are plenty of arguments above for the view that including them is.

Have I missed something? Zocky | picture popups 11:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and the latest renaming is just silly. Zocky | picture popups 11:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Zocky, people have answered your question ad nauseum, including before you even asked them. We have loads of offensive content, which we have refused to remove to honor people's religious sensibilities...just because you have come up with a few pics we happen not to have, that doesn't mean we censor offensive content, we absolutely don't. The simple fact is that you are arguing that we should show more respect for Muslims than we do for Christians, Jews, Scientologists, et cetera, and many of us disagree. We don't think an encyclopedia should "surely be respectful of everybody". That's not an encyclopedia's job, it's job is to include all relevant info in comprehensive articles on notable topics. End of story. Babajobu 11:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

If you trully believe that, try to include any of the images I mentioned above and go check after a few days to see the talk page. When it gets removed, see if you find the same people who are screaming "free speech" here screaming "free speech" there.

Zocky | picture popups 11:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Zocky, that's preposterous, these cries of "oh, you are hurting Muslims and no one else" are totally disingenuous and contradicted by the evidence. I have provided multiple examples of content that is MORE offensive to those groups than the examples you provide, and you simply repeat, "yes, but what about MY examples, see, people really don't care about free speech." If we were to stick your pretty innocuous examples into an article (which would be fine) you could just come up with some other random example that happens to not yet be included in Wikipedia. The fact is there is no image that has caused as much upset among Christians in the past decade than Piss Christ...and Wikipedia sticks that image right at the top of the article, where it belongs, because we have not yet chosen to truckle before demands for censorship. You are asking for special treatment of Islam and Muslims. End of story. Babajobu 12:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Double-edged sword. Just as "nobody has answered why the inclusion of this picture should be judged by different criteria than other pictures we could have but don't," nobody has answered why the picture should be judged by different criteria than other pictures we could have taken down but haven't.

In my opinion, the pictures serve as important documentary evidence, offensive or otherwise. They are not extraneous but ultimately the core of the controversy, and nobody can truly make an informed decision about the controversy without seeing for themselves what caused it. Whether some readers feel offense or not is not as important as the reader being able to decide for themselves whether to be offended, and whether they feel the reactions we're seeing are justified, and by removing the pictures the editors would be doing little more than making that judgment call in the place of the reader, and that would (in my opinion) be an insult to the intelligence and sensibilities of the readers; again, I do not believe a sensible person who does not want to see the pictures would come to this article, at least not before disabling images in their web browser.

I am not saying that the pictures are or are not offensive (clearly some are and some aren't), but removing or otherwise obfuscating them would be supporting the POV that they are offensive, while including them does not necessarily assume offense but rather lets the reader decide their own point of view. --Guppy313 16:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Pic

I moved the picture to the same location where the picture in Oral sex is. --Striver 10:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The article about Oral Sex is not a good place for cartoons about Muhammad.--129.13.186.1 10:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Keep Muhammad out of the Oral sex article, please, his relevance there is tenuous at best. Babajobu 10:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Think you got it all wrong there, Striver moved the image down in the article, under the TOC, a bit like my proposal for a compromise. Scoo 10:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why Oral Sex should be material to this article.--129.13.186.1 11:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, pictures of oral sex are not relevant to this article. Babajobu 11:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not following, no one has implied that content from Oral sex should be added here or vice-versa. What Striver did was changing the layout by moving the image down a bit. Scoo 11:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that. But the layout of the article of Oral Sex is not relevant for the layout of this article.--129.13.186.1 11:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

...and why is that? For my stance in the matter, please scroll up. Scoo 11:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Scoo, stop equating Muhammad to a woman performing a blowjob, you're giving me hurt feelings. Babajobu 11:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to derail this convo, but IMO the fellatio pic is of a man giving another man a blow job.--Anchoress 18:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agreed with Striver's move, it's the sensible thing to do for reasons that have been discussed many times, and it doesn't hurt anything with regards to "documenting the truth". --Vsion (talk) 11:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Since when do I equate Muhammad to a woman performing a blowjob? I say that the article on Wikipedia about Jyllands-Postens cartoons/caricatures controversy is a controversial one, and that the Oral sex article and similar are that too. The difference is that this article show the image at the very top of the page, thus everyone accessing it are bound to see it. A better way would be to inlude the image at a more sensitive place, for example below the table of contents that anyone may navigate the article, without having to be exposed to the image. Scoo 11:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the image in Oral sex as controversial and I don't think that the position this image has was chosen because some people could feel offended by the image. The image just fits there very well. Furthermore the image in Oral Sex is just an illustration, but the cartoons are the very given reason all these protests, boycotts and threats were made.--129.13.186.1 13:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The salient point here is that you are hurting my feelings, and you should remove evidence of your argument from this page, because it hurts my feelings. Babajobu 11:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No need to include pictures of oral sex in this article, it's about cartoons from an article in Jyllandsposten which included no such thing. Passw0rd 11:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No-one equate Muhammed with a woman performing a blowjob. Scoo implicitly compared the offence of showing Muhammed with a bomb in his turban, to the offence of showing a woman performing a blowjob. I think that makes sence.--Niels Ø 12:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't you get it?? It doesn't matter!! You hurt my feelings!!! Retract the argument! Babajobu 12:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok Babajou, we get the point :P Jacoplane 12:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Renaming

Let's rename this article to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, to better describe what this article is about. Can we have a quick "vote" to see if there's consensus for this move? --Vsion (talk) 10:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me. Zocky | picture popups 10:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

That's five nouns with no other parts of speech, no offense but it's a textbook example of nightmarish headline writing. Babajobu 10:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Possibly so, but we don't keep John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy at John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography either. The title should be what the article is about. Any ideas for a better name? Zocky | picture popups 10:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I assume that those who moved the article are working on fixing the double-redirects, right? Also, I would prefer that the article stayed at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons, since that actually is the topic of the article: The cartoons, the history behind their publication and the controversy that occured. That is unlike John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy which only concern the controversy itself (the biography is at John Seigenthaler Sr.). Rasmus (talk) 11:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

STOP!!! "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons (satire) controversy" is not an acceptable title!! At least cut out the psycho parenthetical "satire". Babajobu 11:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The original proposal Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy would do in my humble opinion. Scoo 11:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Ha ... just after I've done the double-redirect for the first move, someone move it again. That's not very considerate ... Is the second move ok for everyone? --Vsion (talk) 11:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the current title. --Sheeo 16:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Use the title of the publication in question: "Muhammids ansigt" controversy. --Guppy313 16:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting analysis of the bomb in the turban image

The cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, Flemming Rose, was on Danish tv (on DR1 in the program Profilen) yesterday where he explained and discussed the pictures. He had an interesting analysis of the image with the bomb in the turban where he said it was not meant to equate Islam with terror but to show that some people used religion as an excuse to execture terrorism.

I think that analysis was quite good, and probably more likely than the drawing is trying to equate Islam with terror. --Snailwalker | talk 10:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

OH! Just like Jyllands-Posten used the Freedom of Speech excuse to publish these pictures in the first place?

FACT: Islam = Terror.

move the image down?

ok, so why not move the image down, maintaining a warning and a link on the top of the page? 1. it would still serve documentation purposes 2. it would be more respectful to viewers (which may not include just muslims actually) 3. i dare say it would actually be more neutral, it wouldnt offend anyone, it wouldnt be deleted (which would be "censorship" acording to some), it would still serve encylopedic purpose.

- --193.136.128.14 11:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Because every time it's been tried, somebody screams "censorship!" and moves it back to the top. 71.141.251.153 11:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

yeah, "its censorship!" its the excuse, but we already seen its not about that - --193.136.128.14 11:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This topic has been discussed in ten other talk threads than this one. If you'd read them, you would see that just some of the reasons most believe it should be at the top is:

* Wikipedia style

* Importance of image to the article

* Freedom of speech and expression

* Better for them to find the image on Wikipedia than go looking for it on Google, finding a large number of anti-Islamic sites

* etc, etc

-- Utopianheaven 12:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes as Utopiaheaven said, censorship is NOT the only topic and argument here. Many of course are against removal of the image on the grounds of censorship which I agree with. Moving the image down however, has rather to do with pandering to a group of people. Wikipedia is NOT here to make people feel good about themselves. It is NOT here to alleviate religious tensions by making special provisions for a group of people. Wikipedia is about information. If we start making concessions to not "disrespect" and "offend" muslim readers, then what about everyone else? Shouldn't we then start making sure christians, jews and just about every other major religion could not /possibly/ be offended by wikipedia content? and then where will it end? What if an ethnic group finds something offensive? Then what? Who's to say North Korea doesn't find everything on here about it offensive and disrespectful? I suppose we should give into them to cause we don't want to scare away what few propaganda police from NK are looking on here. Simply put, we should not make any special arrangments for anyone. As someone said before this isn't Christianopedia or any of its religious equivalents. Hitokirishinji 14:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This debate is damb. If some muslim want to come to this page, they can switch off image loading function of the browser. It is same as switching channell when you see some TV program you don't like. Leave the discrection to each readers. Wikipedia is censorship free zone. FWBOarticle

The POLL

Polls are evil...but it seems like it's time to figure out where consensus lies on this issue. Babajobu 11:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

sorry but this not help realy and if there voting I will vote to keep it in top this will not solve the conflict.Qatarson 11:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

why will u vote to keep it on top - --193.136.128.14 11:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

because it is like who says ( should we shot him in the head or in ...) & both way are same.Qatarson

? give me a real logical reason - --193.136.128.14 11:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

logical reason !! simplest one why open a door in wikipedia for troubles and take risk of losing millions of muslims of wikipedia visitors.Qatarson 12:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please keep all doors and windows closed. Passw0rd 12:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Qatarson, I think you are understimating the maturity and intellectual sophistication of our Muslim readers. They know this is not "Hallalopedia", just as our Christian visitors know it's not "Christopedia", Jews know it's not "Judeopedia", et cetera. For people who can't handle plurality and the uncensored flow of information, perhaps Wikipedia is not the right place, anyway. Babajobu 12:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep the image, the piss christ image is on top, and come on guys, this article is about the image, removing it whould not work. Moving it a down a bit would still work, but apparently some people don't want it anywhere at all, and keep removing it even when moved down. But I'd say leave it op top. Al3xander 12:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Well put, Babajobu. I'd be scared to see a Judeopedia, Christopedia, Hallalopedia, or whatever. Especially after seeing how this has played out during the past 72 hours. (And if it's not totally clear: I strongly believe the image should be kept at the top as it is currently.) Utopianheaven 12:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, wikipedia should not make special concessions to one group of people. As someone pointed out before, one should not be shocked to see the cartoons in an article about them and they should be displayed in the correct wikipedia format. Muslim readers who realize they may see the image and find it offensive can simply turn off "load images" on their browsers and in doing so may even score some extra points with the man upstairs in taking a proactive effort into avoiding violating islamic law. Hitokirishinji 15:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I am really beginning to resent this discussion. The sequence of the discussion goes:

• Person A: This image is calculated to inflame. Let's move it down.

• Person B: Give me one good reason.

• Person A: Because even though it's newsworthy, if we moved it down, it would not be the very first thing someone sees, and would not be quite as much of a slap in the face.

(HERE COMES THE PART I RESENT)

• Person B: Don't you realize Wikipedia is supposed to be uncensored? Why are you embracing censorship? If people can't handle the uncensored flow of information, maybe they should go somewhere else.

Well, for @#$%^&*( sake, I'm not talking about censorship. I'm talking about m-o-v-i-n-g t-h-e i-m-a-g-e. There is a difference between asking that the image be deleted and asking that it be moved. Again, compare Oral sex. What we're suggesting is not without precedent, not radical, and certainly not censorship. Could you all please stop lumping us together with the people who (mostly anonymous socks) who are insisting that the image be deleted? BYT 12:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Moving it down is OK, putting it somewhere beside the Publication of the drawings, where it even works better imo. Al3xander 12:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Uh, Brandon, I'm not lumping you in with anyone, but I was responding to Qatarson, who is part of the contingent of editors who want the picture REMOVED, not moved down. Babajobu 12:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay -- it was a confusing exchange, my apologies. However, this has been the basic response from other editors pretty much every time I've brought this up. BYT 12:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the whole thing has gotten messy and confusing. For my part, I acknowledge that there is a significant difference between removing the image and placing it elsewhere in the article. Babajobu 12:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the vote here is somehow unstructred and chaotic. I have great problems to find an appropriate place to vote and to find a clear formulation for what i vote for. I hope my Vote will be taken in consideration: I vote for deleting the picture مبتدئ 14:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

THE POLL IS AT Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons. Go there to vote. Babajobu 14:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Muslim viewpoint

I,m muslim and I think these these Pics is silly and full of Hate and Racism , for this reason and cause this article is talking about these Pics I think the Pics should be at the top not the Bottom . instead of that it should be explained the real viewpoint of Muslims about these pics and why they consider them racist and islamophobic . --Unfinishedchaos 13:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Bravo, Unfinishedchaos. I for one would fully support a strong statement from a Muslim point of view shown next to the image. That is true freedom of speech. Thparkth 13:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Um...isn't all of this supposed to be NPOV? --Happylobster 16:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I find it perfectly reasonable to have an explanation of the muslim viewpoint. However the text written by Unfinishedchaos needs a great deal of corrections in the language. I am not at all capable of doing that but would like to see it included if someone proficient in english could correct it. Martix 17:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Which Muslim point of view should it be, chaos? The extremist, the moderate, the in-between, the Danish Muslims', the Saudis'... you ARE aware that there are different opinions between muslims as to whether or not these drawings are actually full of hate and racism, just caricatures trying to generate debate, or something in-between? So, with your view point (hate/racism), would you be capable of providing a REAL viewpoint, or just one that'll support YOURS? IMO, if you can't look at the article as encyclopediac information, but attach some sort of subjective meaning to it, you will not be able to produce information that reflects the objective reality - at least not on your own.--Discus2000 18:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

well Discus200 I think I could say majority of muslims are not happy with these pics , and u know why ? cause they make them Exremists ... it is nice of u that differntiate between Extreme , moderate , in-between , ... but u havn,t noticed that u have made majority of muslims at least feel upset by insulting their prophet and consiquently insulting them --Unfinishedchaos 18:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

chaos, please don't speculate as to what my opinion about the drawings is or what I may or may not have noticed about their impact. Can you or can you not distance yourself from your own, personal opinion about the drawings (hate/racism) and provide an accurate account on how muslims, be they moderate, extreme or in-between, have been affected by the publishing of these drawings? Can you or can you not, give an objective account of the discourse attached to the publishing of the drawings?

And chaos, I didn't publish the cartoons, I'm not an employee of Jyllands-Posten, and as such I haven't insulted the prophet in any way - please don't make the allegation that I have.

Question about showing the images in the Middle East

From the article:

"When the organisation Islamic Society in Denmark toured the Middle-East to create awareness about the cartoons..."

Presumably the Islamic Society showed people the images in question, if only to say "look how offensive these are!"

If that was OK according to Islamic law and tradition, why is it not OK for this article to do the same?

Thparkth 12:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Thparkth ... the issue of position of the Pics or should be included or not , shouldn,t be important .. we have to discuss the real subject (the article)--Unfinishedchaos 12:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hear,Hear... Al3xander 13:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The Jordanian tabloid newspaper al-Shihan has published 3 of the images today. Complementing the pictures is the following text: "Muslims in the World, be reasonable! What hurts Islam the most, these drawings; or pictures of a kidnapper, who in front of a camera cuts the throat of his victim, or a suicide-bomber, who blows himself up at a wedding in Amman?--Discus2000 13:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, several Arabic websites have featured the images prominently within their news stories. See: Aljazeera, Yemen Observer. Jacoplane 13:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Depictions of the Prophet are common even in Islamic history. I don't see the big deal. 82.93.70.118 14:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The quality of Article

I don,t wanna to discuss the issue of the pic anymore , but I think we have to discuss more important issues related to the articles itself , I will mention some sides of the Article or in the Issue itself , that muslims consider it unacceptable :

• it should be assured that those pics are totally imagninary and doesn't represent the true shape of Muhammad simply because there is no way to know the True shape , and muslem refuse these pics .

• majority of Muslims : including Liberal and Extreme fundamentalist Muslims think that these pics carry bad racist ideas about Islam and Muslims .

• many muslims refuse the anger campaign against Denmark , but still think that the Journal use the "Freedom of Speech " to express bad intentions , Islamophobia , Racism .

• Considering the Islam is the only religion that has borders for Freedom of speech , is totally wrong , and they give the Example of Catholic Churce and Galilieo case .

The understanding of Freedom in islam should be dicussed deeply and expressing the different schools of islam about this issue , i,m working about that with other muslim editors .

• the Comparison of this case with other cases like critics of the Woman roles in Islam , isn't totally true ... Personally I accept any one to critisize some bad woman rules , cause I consider these rules Epression of a islamic school not for Islam , but when the Insulting is directed towards teh major Character of Islam , then that is attack against all muslims and not against Fundamentalists .

and that make majority of muslims feel upset and they are descriped as Terrorists as their Prophet himself is Terrorist , so they descripe the Cartoons as racist and islamophobic , they are not against Fundemntalism but against Islam itself as they represent all muslims by the Prophet of Islam .

• this issue represent one of the critical cases that face the new world order , or what is called Globalization . when rules of different countries contradicts . How could we gather rules of Blasphemy in Islamic countries with rules of Frredom of speech in secular countries , that gives new challenges for formulating kind of rules suitable for the Whole world not for small region or country ... It is big challenge .

• The muslim Anger has other side doesn,t been taken into account : they feel anger from disputed use of Law in Western Countries , as they complain and that is related to new Expression of Islamophobia after 11/9 and to the past history of competition between islamic Impire and Roman Catholic Empire .

They give an Example by the Anti-semistic rules , that condemns any deny of Holucost or review of number of the Victims , and they consider these laws contradicting with Freedom of speech . so when the matter is related to Blasphemy about Muhammad , westerners claimed that is freedom of speech . as some user here said tehre is no anti-semistic law in Denmark , but u know when u talk about ppl they don,t differntiate between denmark and Holland and Us .

• it is so important to assure that anger against picturing muhammed generally or in this way is hurting for all muslims , and couldn,t be critics for islam . and that what most ppl ask for .

I personally a liberal muslim and i can agree with u about some critics relating fundemntalist muslims and some ancient explanation of Islam but there is no chance to make a musllim happy with seeing this Insult of Whole Islam by picyuring Muhammed . This recognization is so important .

I Think i have summarized most points that muslims Complain against , if we could formulate this view point in the article , it would be perfect . Peace --Unfinishedchaos 12:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You should not generalize about "the muslims" or "the majority of the muslims". In fact only a very small number of muslims protested actively against those cartoons. But we don't even know whether those muslims we're sincerely angry or were just happy to find a pretense to make some row.--129.13.186.1 13:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

maby not all muslims protest , but i can assure that most if not all muslims feel upset and feel that they r attacked , offcourse the reaction if defferent from person to person , but u cannot picture the prophet of islam as terrorist and u wanna them to be happy .. this thing should be understood ... this pics carry an idea of generalization that all muslims are terrorism and criminals --Unfinishedchaos 14:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No one would like to see their God/Saint/National Hero/Prophet/Deties/Idol, or just somebody important, got insult in the public irrtionaly, while every one support the insults and said its their freedom to make fun of whoever they like. This is the abuse of freedom of speech and violation of Denmark's freedom of religion. 66.225.141.5 18:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

to the last part... according to the ruling from the district attorney, it's not a violation (I think the plaintiffs are appealing, though, so we'll have to wait for a final ruling)--Discus2000 20:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you direct your anger at the extremists who are giving the great faith of Islam a bad name? 1 billion Muslims in this world, the vast majority of which must honest decent people just like billions of other people on this planet - imagine what they could do if they acted together and demonstrated their outrage against the extremists from the middle ages that are terrorizing us all? I think the cartoon portraying Muhammed as a terrorist a wake up call for you. Was he really a terrorist? I know little about him, but I really doubt it. I would imagine he carried a moral message like Christ or any other prophet. That's just it - here I am displaying my ignorance of your religion for all to see. It's up to you to inform us ignorant people. What is Islam about anyhow? Is it really about murdering anybody that offends you? I am sure it isn't. There must be messages about peace and love and brotherhood and that sort of thing, but that's just the problem - your aren't getting the message out. You need better PR managers than Bin Laden and the like.

All this controversy about a few cartoons drawn by a few individuals who don't represent anyone but themselves. Muslim laws are for Mulims, and don't apply to anyone outside of their religion.

Comparable?

What do Galileo, Larry Flynt, the American flag and emperor Akihito have to do with anything? Is this article supposed to be an index for all famous "free speech" incidents and issues?

I think Wikipedia should stick to the directly relevant issues, not broaden the scope artificially. "Comparable incidents" starts off well but quickly degenerates into things that are hardly "comparable". 81.58.51.131 13:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I would agree, this article deals with outrages as perceived by Muslims. Free Speech is a principle, but the Flint et al examples aren't that pertinent to a Muslim vs non-Muslim argument. They should be withdrawn. (Lipatden 13:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC))

Probably the part "Controversial newspaper caricatures" would be enough.-- 129.13.186.1 13:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

That was my initial reaction also. Anyboy wanna be bold? Eixo 15:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Personnally, I believe those issues are important to look at the global attacks on freedom of speech in the ages, which are amplified by this article.

I agree totally. It seems to be ok in many Muslim nations to defame images of all other religious icons, not to mention their portrayels of Jews, but god f**king forbid you show a picture of their 'Prophet' and now all of a sudden everyone is supposed to forget Islams degredation of NON Islamic religious figures?

Lets stop being so PC here ok? Its just a bunch of cartoons about a man who married and had sexual relations with a 9 year old CHILD. No big deal. get over it. TruthCrusader

Offensive but important

I think it matters, whether some image is offensive or not, only in the case, that the image itself is not important for the respective article. If an unimportant image is offensive, you can delete it. But if an image is important (like the cartoons in this article), it doesn't matter anymore whether it is offensive or not.--129.13.186.1 13:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hadithspam!

Let's not start that again! Babajobu 13:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Which images are actually offensive?

Since we've obviously got some serious flaming going on, can anyone say whether the objection is to ANY drawing of Muhammed, or merely the turban bomb, no-virgins etc pictures...?

I personally think the cartoonist drawing the Prophet while looking over his shoulder is the best, and the one most pertinent to the discussion, it's not overtly offensive and represents exactly what was meant to be discussed by Jyllands Posten (and everyone else who's jumped on board), which is:

Why are we so scared of this? (Lipatden 13:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC))

Good Point. I also think the picture of Muhammed calming down the 2 muslims going crazy is quite a good one. It highlights my view that Muslims are being oversensitive about this and they need to grow up and stop being so insecure about their religion and be more tolerant of the European Culture.

Any depiction of Muhammad, whether imagined to be "positive" or "negative" in nature, is considered by Muslims to be not merely offensive, but a crime against Islam.

This is the point some of the editors seem to be overlooking. You know how the Kennedy family kind of drew the line at public circulation of JFK's autopsy photos, as being WELL out of bounds? Well, that's sort of what we have on our hands here, except for "Kennedy family," read "One Billion Muslims" and for "privacy rights of the family" read "eager desire not to go to hell."

No, there is nowhere that those standards are connected to WP. Yes, they are a part of the larger world in which we live. BYT 14:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree with that. Would also point out, though, that the Kennedy family is SOL, because in the age of the internet anyone who is interested can check out the Kennedy autopsy photos at their leisure. And if Al Jazeera is now showing pics of the cartoons, how is it possible that Muslims are worried that the publication of these cartoons in Wikipedia will cause the Muslims to be sent to hell? Babajobu 14:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The pictures are not only offensive because it's Muhammad in them but because they are satire. Also Aljazeera hasn't shown them and I don't know what "Muslims going to hell" has to do with this? You would get the same reaction with any religion that is being offended but each is offended in different ways. In this case it's the picture. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Al Jazeera has indeed shown them, the link is on this page, I followed it and saw the picture. Brandon was the one who mentioned "an earnest desire not to go to hell" as one of the issues here...I was as surprised by it as you are. Babajobu 16:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

To clarify about the going-to-hell business: Disobeying the Prophet is a sin for Muslims, period. Two prominent teachings from the Prophet are about a)avoiding making or circulating images of living things (one hadith describes imagemakers as in the front rank of hellfire, or something like that) and b) specifically, not making or circulating an image of the Prophet himself. That means that creating a flattering commemorative painting is generally regarded as a sin. I'm pretty sure it's a major sin, but can't swear to that. Where does a snarky caricature fall? Where do ten or twelve of them fall? Someplace I don't want to be. BYT 17:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Brandon, yes, I get that Muslims must not make or be involved in the circulation of images, and particularly images of Muhammad. What I don't understand is how inadvertantly viewing Wikipedia's image would cause them concern about being consigned to the hellfire. I also think Anonymous Editor was confused by that notion. A Muslim who accidentally saw (and was revolted by) a cartoon of Muhammad surely wouldn't get in trouble with his maker. Babajobu 17:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There is two points should be clarified :

firstly any picturing of Prophet Muhammad is forbidden in islam and unacceptable for muslims .

secondly : when u make critics of some islamic ideas or even of some "islamic" behaviour (and such behaviour is different according to the different scools and sects of islam ) , when make this critics using a picture with name (Muhammad) , then u generalize ur rules and critics and maby ur hate to all muslims not to small group of islam , that what explain that popular anger .

actually , if ur critics or ur pics represent some islamic religoun-man or some fundamentalist without saying that is muhammad , then surely i won,t make any effort protesting aginst these pics , but when u say that muhammad learns muslims Terrorism by his behaviour as the pics say , then it is natural to see such anger ... I,m with freedom of speech but simply that is speech of Hate --Unfinishedchaos 14:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Depicting Muhammed is offensive to Muslims, so now Muslims want all kafirs to abide by their law? Jyllands-Posten is not a Muslim publication, neither is Wikipedia.
• Calling for punishment for expression of fundamental democratic freedoms is unacceptable to most educated westerners, especially since even the discussion (and drawing can be discussion) of the topic that requires pictorial references is offending you. It's a self-confirming delusion
• Calling for an execution of someone for violating your laws in your country, (even then most countries don't have these laws, they're merely moral norms) is plainly absurd in International Law.

You offend me with your response to my freedoms. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (or draw it). (Lipatden 14:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC))

Not a fan of Voltaire are ye Lipatden? :D Homestarmy 14:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité! No, I'm not French, but I take freedom of expression, and most of all freedom of thought very seriously, which is what is being suppressed here. (Lipatden 15:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC))

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" Excuse me Lipatden , but I wanna complete ur quote : I will pay my life for your Freedom , but please don,t use ur freedom to insult me " .

actually noone tries to make some eefort to understand the other's viewpoint , i,m supporter of freedom and i fight to bring freedom laws into middle east , but wait a minute ... in my opinion it is not : Islam vs. Freedom as the westerners represent the Issue ... it is muslims vs. Hate and Disrespect .

I don,t deny ur freedom to express ur opinions and ur critics for islam and fundametalist muslims , but why should JP draw silly pics saying that is muhammad , cannot they use muslem religion-man to do that critics .

another point is when u represent muhammad as terrorist and criminal , u say that all muslims r terrorists and criminals , which obviously message of Hate . can u use ur freedom in America to express ur hate for jews and afro-americans . or Expression of Hate is only allowd against muslims --Unfinishedchaos 15:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, American media is replete with critical and/or offensive discussions or images of Jews and Afro-Americans. In a free media, everyone is fair game, and for the most part, communities in the West have learned to live with it, because they know life is better with a free press. Babajobu 16:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

People in America DO have the right to express their disgust for others. You can call someone a racial slur even but that doesn't get you arrested. And as a person who is NOT muslim, the cartoons hardly incite "hate" in me for muslims. What I do "hate" is people who think that their rules apply to everyone else and those who do not follow should die. That is probably the single most issue I have found any disgust for so far in this whole debacle. And last I checked, the newspapers were European weren't they? Why did you not say "are you allowed to express hate for a group of people in every single truely free nation out there?" Why single out America? You know in Japan they blatantly discrminate against foreign people. Hitokirishinji 16:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

And just so you truely know, maybe you've heard about the Ku Klux Klan? They MARCH in America on a regular basis (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/121604.stm). And there is NO other group more well known for being racist and seeding hate. But we haven't censored them. We all just grew up learning that there is a such thing as extremist groups and those are best ignored. Hitokirishinji 16:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hitokirishinji said : " What I do "hate" is people who think that their rules apply to everyone else and those who do not follow should die. " Exactly the same thing i hate and refuse but simply these pics say that all muslims behave in this way by representing thier prophet criminal and terrorist . i,m against this generalization which makes all muslims feel angry and hated ... and day by day the number of Extremists increase . that is what i,m worried about and that is why i wanna you condemn such hate messages . --Unfinishedchaos 16:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm against generalizations too but that does not mean I have the right to take them down or "hide" them from folks. My own ethnic group has had its own problems with generalization but you learn to deal with it and by least of all, removing images. It is one thing to condemn images and I certainly will agree that this does not help the Muslim population but I do believe it does harm the rest of the world and freedom of speech by hiding them. So I will condemn the images as you say but I will not agree to their removal. Hitokirishinji 16:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop discussing the bomb

Please look at my first post in this section. I'm not advocating the offensive images, (but I should be free to acquire them if I want to) I'm asking why even the intelligent ones like the cartoonist looking over his shoulder is causing outcry. Stop talking about the blatantly offensive images and answer my first question: Why are we so scared of this?

Exactly where are you attributing the remainder of the quote to? I certainly didn't cite a source, because it is my own belief, I just like the way those words convey it. Don't imagine I subscribe to any of the new words you've put on as "complete ur quote".

Your desire to suppress my right to question, discuss and display my thoughts and those of others, which I do to understand them better (that's you and me), is as abhorrent as your apparent disgust over these images. Again, I'm talking about any image, especially intelligent ones, and definitely not the blatantly offensives.

Lastly, the first reply indicated a crime against Islam. No problem, I'll make sure all Muslims I come across know this, but why do you want me to stop? I've got a picture I just doodled on my desk, I've put a big M above it. Can you imagine it? Have I offended you? I certainly haven't shown it to you, have I still commited a crime against your god? (Lipatden)

Hey Lipatden .... I don,t wanna u to stop , u r free to make what u want to do , I just discuss the whole thing trying to make the two sides understand eachother , u r free to offend my prophet and my god personally but when u make that in puplic I think u should be responsible . i think it is ur proplem if u hate me but i think it is wiser not to make generalizations and describing a religion with many schools and sects in just few words. --Unfinishedchaos 16:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

WP isn't the author of the images, they're just telling everyone what's happened. Are they not allowed to do it? Given a page without the image, I'm relying on someone else's interpretation of the images to feed my curiosity, and how do I know that person isn't over- or underdoing it? If I don't substantiate a claim against someone, that's defemation of character. If I do (in this case by showing the image to help the discussion), I'm now the one offending you.

Why is WP to blamne because they're trying to explain how someone else caused someone else offence? Again, they're not Muslim, so why follow Islam codes?

How exactly do we debate this without the images? Do you want it debated?

(Lipatden)

WP should put the Pics , at the Top also ..That is my opinion ..read my other comments --Unfinishedchaos 17:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Putting figure of Mohammed is an attack to Islam. In Islam showing the figure of Mohammed is forbidden. Painting a image of Mohammed is a big sin in Islam. That is very important thing and that disturbs the muslimsç —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.144.205.23 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC).

I hardly constitute these figures as an attack. They were hardly made to "assult" islam and its beliefs. I suppose when the cartoons literally jump off the page and seige an Islamic city I will agree with you. And while were at it, everytime your mouth is open, you kill thousands of anaerobic bacteria. That is an attack on bacteria and I stand up for bacteria rights everywhere. Hitokirishinji 18:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)