Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

factors contributing to escalation

guys, please stop thinking one-dimensionally. 1.) we are different from you. Just because you're not offended by a jesus picture doesn't mean that we're not offended by a muhammad (pbuh) picture. 2.) these pictures come in a certain context. This is what we perceive as an islamophobic background in many western countries & the publication in a conservative mainstream newspaper. For this reason we think the generalisation that Muslims are terrorists is dangerous to us. Much more dangerous than a picture of Jesus, Lassie, etc. would be to you. Rajab 11:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

That generalisation would be very dangerous. But you are doing that generalization. I am not. Oh, and , I would never be insulted by a picture of Lassie :). I was suggesting that you might be. Maybe I was wrong :) DanielDemaret 11:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

DanielDemaret 11:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It's the cartoonist who makes the generalisation: Muhammad (pbuh) himself has a bomb in his turban. He meets suicide bombers at the gates to heaven... The prophet is the essence of islam & stands for all Muslims. In fact, he's the proto-typical muslim Rajab 11:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The details of the picture that you describe are clearly obvius. Here I agree with you. But I have seen about five different interpretations in these discussion about how to interpret that picture, and your interpretation is not the one that the editor says he meant. So you are saying, 1. Yours is the only possible correct interpretation. 2.The editor of Jyllandsposten is lying. I disagre with you on these points. DanielDemaret 11:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but many Muslims DO interpret Islam to be that way - that Mohammad DOES support terrorism. And the rest of the Middle East quietly supports it. Does every Middle Easterner support it? No. But many (far too many) do. It was a charicature of the way many Muslims interpret Islam, and was entirely fair. You may not support terrorists, but others do (and burn down embassies over it, thus proving the point). Titanium Dragon 20:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The main mistake here is that the artist or the journal claimed that is prophet Muhammad , if they make critics from islamic Extremists or islamic religion-men , I,m sure u wouldn,t hear any complains but by saying that Muhammad u make all muslims moderate and extreme concern about that , islam is also linked to terrorism and historical understanding obviously in these pics , and many muslims protest now for depicting all muslims as Extremists ... that is why wee say that these pics is full of Hate and racism .I tried to express what many muslims think , and u should understand this sensitivity to understand the reaction --Chaos 11:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This should be in the article Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 11:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately my edits get vandalised / reversed extremely quickly Rajab 11:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It is one-dimensional thinking to suggest that muslims have the only and correct view of things. Please, accept everybody has a right to an opinion, but not to force others to share it.

I'm not forcing you to do anything, I'm just trying to explain the reason for the escalation of this controversyRajab 11:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Rajab. You and I are both trying to explain the reason for the escalation. I think we are both helping here. DanielDemaret 11:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, we understand people might be offended. But many things are offensive: ID is offensive to me, religious violence is offensive to me, people forcing me to live according their rules is offensive to me, evolution is offensive to ID proponents, atheism certainly offends believers, homophobia is offensive to homosexuals, et cetera. If we were to limit our words and deeds to what is inoffensive to the entire world we could not say anything. Furthermore, just as other religions have had to learn that things change, also muslems need to accept that freedom of speech only means that we need to be less sensitive and, as Einstein discovered, thaqt everything is relative.-- Nomen Nescio 11:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me advise you: trying to teach us that "everything's relative" is not helpful. Furthermore, I don't want you to limit your words - I'm trying to explain to you the reason for the escalation of this controversyRajab 11:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

For the love of the Standard Model of Particles, let us stop babbling about generalisations and cheap views of the world which interest no one, and focus on the article ! Rama 11:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Nomen , we know the relativity very well , but who begins the generalization is ur artists , we know that some muslims gove bad representation of islam is denmark and netherlands , and the crime of killing Van kock is one of manythings could be done by stupid muslims , but at last u generalize by using the person who is most important to all muslims and u links him to these bad examples , that is against the spirit of understanding and relativity that call for , u have to understand also that this anger is complex anger and doesn,t represent one event , and u should understand that most refuges in ur country has escaped from tolitarist regimes which leads to this appearance of Extremism .... understanding all of that can give u more rational view of teh status . --Chaos 11:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

As I said, Life of Brian is similar, but everybody accepts that it should be allowed. Please, don't try and regulate bad taste. If I could stop everybody saying things that I think are offensive or in bad taste, there would be silence for decades to come. Let's not start a competition on what is most offensive. There is no objective way of determinig who is offended more.-- Nomen Nescio 11:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's focus on the article. Stop critisizing muslims in general for trying to "regulate bad taste", that has nothing to do with the article. Here we just try to explain the background of the controversyRajab 11:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You miss the point. This entire controversy is about muslims not accepting other ways of thinking and thereby imposing their view of the cartoons.[1] This has everything to do with the article since it is the principal reason for the uproar, as it also was with Salman Rushdie.-- Nomen Nescio 13:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I have included the following paragraph under a new subheading:

Pictorial surveys of Islamic religious art can be found at [6], [7], and [8]. Note that the last site also contains some extremely and intentionally offensive modern depictions of Muhammad.

Most contemporary Muslims now believe that portraits and photos, films and illustrations, are permissible. Only some Salafi and Islamist interpretations of Sunni Islam have condemned pictorial representations of any kind, consistent with their emphasis on strict observance of Muslim law. Offensive satirical pictures is somewhat different to the situation discribed above; disrespect to Islam or to Muhammad is considered blasphemous, or even sacrilegious. According to the BBC "It is the satirical intent of the cartoonists, and the association of the Prophet with terrorism, that is so offensive to the vast majority of Muslims."[9] As Muhammad is considered the proto-typical Muslim the association with terrorism is percieved as a generalisation to all Muslims. Furthermore the cartoons were published in a conservative mainstream newspaper in the context of what many Muslims perceive as an islamophobic mood in many of the western countries involved. In this context the Jyllands-Posten cartoons are viewed as considerably more dangerous to Muslims than comparable cartoons of Jesus would be to a Christian living in the west.

Please let me know what you think Rajab 11:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It dramatically lacks sources and precise figures. I am very sceptical of all these "many Muslims", "is considered", "are viewed", etc. These tend to induce the impression that a vast majority of all Muslims share the viewpoint that burning embassies is a good idea, which I strongly doubt. My impression is that the media are saturated by a very vocal and impressive tiny minority; I might be wrong, but I would like to be proved wrong, rather than suggested wrong. Rama 12:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

please improve the points that you have critisized :) Rajab 12:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

In addition to these points the escalation was probably also fueled by the authorities in countries like Syria (e.g. by not decisevly stopping protesters from getting close to the embassies). This should also be included as a reason for the escalation, but I can't do that right now... Rajab 12:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Kill the passive verbs. "are considered" and "is viewed" et cetera are no good. Controversial articles suffer from a surfeit of them, and the unnamed agent of the verb usually is just the writer...unacceptable. User:Babajobu 12:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

According to the BBC "It is the satirical intent of the cartoonists, and the association of the Prophet with terrorism, that is so offensive to the vast majority of Muslims." As Muhammad is the proto-typical Muslim this association with terrorism is comparable to a generalisation to all Muslims. Furthermore the cartoons were published in a conservative mainstream newspaper in the context of what many Muslims percieve as an islamophobic mood in many of the western countries involved [2], [3], [4] [5]. In this context the danger of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons to Muslims differs significantly from the danger presented by comparable cartoons of Jesus to a Christian living in the west. Another reason for the escalation is that the controversy appears to have been fueled by autocratic regimes. Rajab 12:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I am responding to you, Rajab, about what I think about the BBC article. It is a good article, and as far as it goes, I agree with all of it. I am afraid, however that the part: "It is the satirical intent of the cartoonists, and the association of the Prophet with terrorism," might lead you to read instead: "It is the satirical intent of the cartoonist to show that the Prophet is a terrorist". Is it? This is not what the author writes, and I don't think the author would have been allowed to write that without first checking and then referring to either the editor or the cartoonist as a source. DanielDemaret 12:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I take your point Daniel, we cannot make conclusions about the author's intentions. Irrespective of his intentions however, the cartoons do create a clear association between Muhammad (pbuh) and terrorists - and I think that's where the problem is Rajab 12:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I find this section and its heading "reasons for escalation" to be POV. 1. The intent of Jyllandsposten was to put a question-mark on freedom of speach, not to forward islamophobia. 2. Jyllandsposten is not a particular "conservative" newspaper. Where does that come from - and what is the relevance to the issue? 3. The section changes the meaning of the most disputed drawing from something like "terrorists are often Muslims" to "Muslims are terrorists" which is of course absurd. 4. The reasons for escalation of the conflict are certainly many, including interior policy in the Arab world, none of which is covered by the heading. --Sir48 13:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

"terrorists are often Muslims" - this generalisation that you make (or the stereotype that you use) is exactly part of the [islamophobic] attitude that the article refers to, Sir Rajab 13:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sir .. plz understand that tehre is two sides of POV .. Danish ppl see that Muslims' view point is POv and Muslims see that ur viewpoint is POV --Chaos 13:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sir .. please add the factors (including interior policy) that you mentioned to the article. Also please feel free to suggest where in the political spectrum JP actualy stands. Rajab 14:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

1. My viewpoint is not POV but reflecting the stated purpose from Jyllandsposten in bringing the cartoons. I used the expression: "terrorists are often Muslims" to illustrate the erroneous tranformation into "Muslims are terrorists". Unfortunately, the expression is not a stereotype. However, I would rather clarify the meaning of the cartoon to be: "Muslim terrorists misuse Mohammad to legimitate their evils." This does not change the fact that the issue for Jyllandsposten is freedom of speach and not to insult Muslims (which would have been an offence according to Danish law - fortunately). 2. Jyllandsposten is a mainstream newspaper not adhering to any particular political party. Point is that this is irrelevant to the article. 3. Reasons for escalation are hypothetical and speculative (political motives, disinformation etc.). That's why the section should be deleted and that I refrain from adding to it. --Sir48 14:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

just read the rest of this section, all this has been answered before.Rajab 16:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, someone has just deleted the whole section.Rajab 15:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

the vandal was Azate [6] . He deleted the first part of the section saying the BBC quote was inaccurate. A few minutes later he deleted the rest of the section saying that it doesn't justify a whole section. However I double checked it & found the exact words in the article. Therefore I have re-inserted the article.

What to discuss?

This is quite similiar to Bush's proposal where "annoying on the internet" would be punishable. C'mon, I know you can be boiling mad, but you shouldn't be so silly to think that everyone is the same person and thinks that the exact same things are offending. Therefore, the pictures should stay. They're only for the sake of clarifying, too. Although, if this is really an issue, someone could put a link to the picture rather than thumbnailing it on the first paragraph.--84.249.252.211 11:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)?

Events

Surely under events we should have the embassy burning and the attempt at U.N. sanctions? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally I agree, although even thinking about editing this topic makes me feel insignificant. -ChaosEmerald 10:45 5 Feb 06

Keeping up with the events arising from this is going to be very complex. There have now been protests in Auckland New Zealand after a paper there ran the cartoons as "an expression of solidarity" or somesuch.

Arabic Speakers - Request for Translation/Summary

Continuing a discussion, requesting translation or English summary of the pages of the document scanned here: [7]

Spiegel (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,398624,00.html) and others have written about Ahmed Akkari's tour of muslim nations, spreading a "43-page dossier" discussing their grievances about the Danish cartoons.

Has anybody here seen this 43-page document? 70.89.39.158 06:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It can be found here, [8]. I do not speak arabic, nor danish, so I cannot tell you what is in it and/or if it is real. This article is also used as a source in the rumors and misinformation section of the article AlEX 08:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much - the scans look pretty credible. Are there enough arabic-speakers here that we might be able to hope for an English translation of this document? This part of the story seems like a key piece of the timeline: it probably is the most detailed explanation grievances by the danish muslim group that is talking to the press the most, yet is still opaque to us non-Arabic speakers. I think a translation would be enlightening to all and might help bridge gaps. Any Arabic-speaking volunteers? -- 70.89.39.158 13:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I just gave these a quick skim, I do speak Arabic. They look quite genuine as a text (although the image resolution makes them a pain to read), I would note that it would take some time to translate, summarising would be more reasonable on a voluntary basis. I was amused by the brief intro on Denmark though. I would note that page 12 closes with an ident of the author as Sheikh Ra'id Halihil (sp unclear to me, could be Halimil), dated 4 Oct 2005. Also the last scan page (image 43) is a table of contents. (Collounsbury 10:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)).

Sounds absolutely fascinating. What is the title of the document? Perhaps we should start a wiki page about the document, with space for people to contribute summaries or partial translations of individual pages -- 70.89.39.158 12:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately the images seem to be down at the moment, at least when I try to access and I did not save them, so I can't give my own translation. See note below, however. (Collounsbury 02:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)).

[9] Maybe we should, atm it's still pretty pointless, but as soon as parts of the document have been translated we could do it. AlEX 17:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

There is what claims to be an inexpert translation into English of a Danish translation of the document, mixed with editorial commentary by the translator, at [10]. Not exactly the best possible source but it's a start.. --Sommerfeld 19:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the translation seems (based on my memory of looking at the images earlier) reasonable although rather, shall we say, prejudicial in framing; regardless it gives what my memory seems to be a pretty good rendition of the commentary letter I noted above. The editorial commentary is also, well, a bit bombastic (e.g. problems building mosques, called a lie - I know in the French context that while it is not illegal to build mosques, getting permits appears to be rather difficult - data not being clear. It is not hard to imagine that Danish Muslims face some degree discrimination in this area. Does that make the statement as translated a lie? Well I would say an inflammatory exageration.) Also note, for example, the bit equating respecting Muslim Holy things is following Sharia is again more than slightly an editorial distortion. I would not say that the editorial comments are particularly helpful or even accurate. Also it seems to omit some final text, but my memory (again the images are not presently accessible by myself at least) may be off. Nota bene, the text supports the Imams' contention they did not claim the extra images were published, but were rec'd separately; although the end text (which I don't recall reading) indicates this is a post-facto compiation. (Collounsbury 02:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)).

the pics are scanning of messages and letters between the some muslim organizations and JP and danish goverments with details of meeting and response of islamic goverments and international islamic organzations --Chaos 15:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I am pleased that wikipaedia has shown this information, not because I am for or against it, but because If I am going to have a view on the topic, I believe the cartoons being discussed shoud be available to those who want to look for them. Mostother news outlets have not shown the cartoon, which rather takes the value out of their reports if the reader can't see for themselves what is being discussed.

I speak arabic fluently. However the links to the scanned pages at the site you were taking about are all broken [[11]]. Am I missing something? --130.111.19.110 18:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Bashar

In my browser (Mozilla), they render as popup pages consisting of a single .jpg file; do you have a popup blocker int he way? --Sommerfeld 19:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No, the links are all dead now. AlEX 20:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

They were available earlier. Possibly a hack or overload. (Collounsbury 02:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)).

Merge "disinformation" sections?

Shall we merge the Rumours and disinformation and Rumours and disinformation regarding the images sections? They sound confusingly similar, and I'm not sure what the difference between them is. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 17:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Done (I was thinking of doing it yesterday, but waited for somebody else to say the same thing). I also took the opportunity of improving the headings of this section. Noel S McFerran 17:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Thats odd! Merging the two sections is in itself adding to the confusion and disinformation. MX44 18:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Jyllands-Posten response

Jyllands-Posten published two open letters on its website, both in Danish and Arabic versions, and the second letter also in an English version. [1] [2] The second letter was dated 30 January.

Could someone put a sentance or two together explaining the jist of these letters? I went to the link to read them, and they're not remarkable. A few words explaining what they are would save others from having to read them themselves.

The Original article

The article in which the cartoons first appeared in Jyllands Posten is available here in Danish. If anybody could provide an English translation, it might help to put things into context. The images aren't there, just the text.

Liam Plested 19:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The face of Mohammad.

The comedian Frank Hvam recently admitted that he "wouldn't make fun of the Koran, because he fears what might happen". A cartoonist, who is to depict Mohammad in a childrens book, wants to remain anonymus. So does westerneuropean translators of a islamcritical essaycollections.

A leading museum of art removes a work of art due to the reactions of the muslims. In this season, three acts are being made with satire against Bush, but not one about bin Laden and his allies, and during a meeting with prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, a imam encourages the government to make their infuence towards muslims more forcing, so that they can make a more positive picture of islam.

The mentioned examples gives reason to concern, whether the fear is based on fake asumptions or not. The fact is that it exsist and that it leads to selfcensorship. A intimidating of the public room arises. Thus, artists, writers, cartoonists, translators and playwrights avoids the important cultural meeting of our time, the one between islam and the sekularized, western society based on christianity.

The stultification The modern, sekilarized is being dismissed by some muslims. They require a exceptional position, when they insist on a special considaration for their own religious feelings. That can't be united with a temporal democarcy and freedom of speech, in which you have to accept scorn, mockery and stultification. It is not definently not always a sympatethic sight, and that doesn't mean that religious feelings should be made a fool of at any cost, but in the context, it is subordinate.

Thus, it is not accidental that people in totalitarian societies goes to jail for telling jokes or depicting dictators with critisism. Usually that happens with a reference that it hurt the fellings of the people. In Denmark, it hasn't reached that level, but the above mentioned examples shows that we're entering a slide of selfcensorship that noone knows where will end.

12 cartoonists For the stated reasons, Jyllands-Postnen has encouraged the members of the carotoonists union to depict Mohammad in the way that they think of him. 12 out of the ca. 40 have responded to the request and we are showing their drawings with their names attaced to their drawing. They are: Arne Sørensen, Poul Erik Poulsen (PEP), Rasmus Sand Høyer, Erik Abild Sørensen, Franz Füchsel, Peder Bundgaard, Bob Katzenelson, Annette Carlsen, Lars Refn, Jens Julius Hansen, Claus Seidel og Kurt Westergaard.

Only 25 out of the 40 are active and some of the active have a clausule. A few have reasoned their no to the request, others have said that they were busy doing other drawings, while others didn't responded at all.

(Authors comment: Sorry for the bad english, but I was in a hurry, if you want, correct the spelling. I'd like to emphazize that noone should take the translation literally, as I havent translated it word-by-word!) 80.62.172.74 19:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. If you speak Danish, you might want to give the link to the Danish Wikipedians, too.

Liam Plested 19:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted comment

I deleted the following sentence from the article, then Peripatetic restored it: "A number of Muslim commentators, such as Ehsan Ahrari of the Asia Times, have also noted that offensive imagery regarding the Jewish religion and the Jewish people is no longer tolerated in the media in post-Holocaust Europe, which has voluntarily curtailed their freedom of expression on such a sensitive matter; nonetheless, similar attacks on the Islamic faith remain acceptable." This is a POV piece of original research. To say that these people have "noted" this is to suggest that it exists, and they have simply observed it. Many people would utterly disagree that "offensive imagery regarding the...Jewish people is no longer tolerated...". If you look at the New anti-semitism article, many people believe (though I don't really agree with them) that anti-Jewish imagery is alive and well in the European media. Secondly, it asserts that freedom of expression has been "curtailed" by the alleged decision not to run anti-Jewish imagery; thirdly it asserts that it "remains acceptable" to attack Islam in the European media. Where? Which corners? In The Guardian? In the Independent? In Le Monde? If these three arguments are to be presented, each of these points must be clearly set forth as the argument of a particular writer. As of now, the first one is "noted", and the second two follow as facts underlying what he noted. Babajobu 18:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, though, Peripatetic preemptively addressed those concerns when he reinserted the content, so I'll leave it. Babajobu 18:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Another deleted comment

I've deleted the phrase "...because religions do not enjoy the same protections in Europe as homosexuals do. Indeed, a number of Muslim and Christian clerics have been jailed in Scandinavian countries for stating their religious belief that homosexuality is a sin. Attacking people on the basis of religion, on the other hand, is seen as "fair game" in Europe." This is unencyclopedic, barely verifiable, it violates npov and it reeks of original research. If edited, it might be usable, but in this wording it's not. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 18:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

To stop the edit war before it breaks out, I propose the following wording: "The Islamic prohibition on depictions of Muhammed is not considered an appropriate basis for the limitation of free speech, since it involves a religious affair, not a secular affair. According to critics, attacking people on the basis of religion is therefore "fair game" in Europe." Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 19:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

- :What would be a better wording that actually mentions the hypocrisy?? It is absolutely verifiable that Muslim and Christian clerics are jailed in Scandinavia, if they dare suggest that homosexuality is a sin. But "hate speech" when directed against religion is protected as "free speech", and is not punished. This is seen as part of the hypocrisy. Help me edit out pov wording. Blockinblox 19:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite some sources? Do also note that Scandinavia is three separate countries, so care must be taken when making such statements. Weregerbil 19:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not up to wikipedia, or to any other wikipedia, to say whether something is hypocritical or not. What matters is whether a substantial and relevant group perceives something as hypocritical. And in that case, wikipedia should mention that that group sees it as hypocritical, without saying whether that group is right or wrong. I think the following sequence would be a solution: some claim bans on freedom of speech are hypocritical --> examples (Holocaust denial, etc.) --> distinction between secular affairs and religious affairs --> Mohammed and Islam fall in the latter category --> critics say that religion is fair game. In words, that would be something to the extent of: "Some critics have claimed that Western prohibitions on freedom of speech are hypocritical, protecting groups like Jews or blacks while allowing attacks on Muslims like the cartoons. Typical cited examples of this are bans on Holocaust denial or hate speech. However it should be noted that Western counties typically draw a sharp distinction between secular matters of race or humanist ethics and the purely religious. Thus the Islamic prohibition on depictions of Muhammed is not considered an appropriate basis for the limitation of free speech, since it involves a religious affair, not a secular affair. According to critics, attacking people on the basis of religion is therefore "fair game" in Europe." Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 19:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The whole point of the comment is that many people feel there is hypocrisy because anyone who says "Homosexuality is a sin" will be prosecuted and cannot use "freedom of speech" as a defence. If you don't believe me, just go to Europe and try it. Thisis hypocrisy because all the laws about "hate speech" only cut one way: they don't offer everyone equal protection, they only offer protection to certain groups that are privileged. This privileged status is derived from engaging in certain sexual activity, ie, a man lying with a man, etc. Now if you are saying this is not true, then I guess Muslims in Europe will now be free to respond to homosexuals in the same way these cartoonists have insulted their faith, and say it is "freedom of speech"... Blockinblox 19:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite references to your claim that "anyone who says...will be prosecuted"? I live in Northern Europe (not Scandinavia though) and I have never ever heard of such a thing. Weregerbil 19:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I live in western Europe (the Netherlands), and we've had one case of a muslim who was prosecuted for such opinions. Imam Khalil El-Moumni from Rotterdam had said that gays were less than pigs and dogs, and some other things (I can't remember exactly what he said). He was prosecuted, but acquitted. According to the judge, El-Moumni used his freedom of speech. Other cases didn't even make it to court. Furthermore, what you are saying here is a point of view, and they do not belong in encyclopedic articles. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 19:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Saying that a group of people are "less than pigs and dogs" is not the same thing as saying that a certain sexual act is a sin. I would interpret the "pigs and dogs" remark as hateful, but not a statement that such-and-such is a sin. This is a fine distinction but an important one. Rooster613 23:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Rooster613

Rubbish! Blockinblox don’t speak of things you know nothing about. I can say all the shit I want, including Homosexuality is a sin. There must be the first ten cases of Christian clerics taking this stance in Denmark just last year. The debate comes up in the papers every so often here. That the public largely ignores it, cause the simple do not believe it, it what it is. I would very much like you to source that Muslim or Christian cleric are jailed in Denmark! Name me one religious leader (or just a speaker) that has been jailed in Denmark for his religious belief? Denmark do punish hate-speeches, it is a defined criminal act in the Danish penalty law, latest in the case of Radio Holger. Twthmoses 19:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Most civilized nations with freedom of speech will only jail you for "hate speech" if you're actually inciting violence. Saying homosexuality is a sin is quite legal in Europe, Australia, and the US and Canada. You can be very nasty to them. But if you say they don't deserve to live, that could be construed to be a threat. If you encourage people to kill them, then you're far more likely to be jailed. But people say derogatory things about homosexuals all the time. You should probably listen to the free media more often, rather than the very poor and highly controlled propaganda which passes for news in the Middle East. Even Fox is better than pretty much anything there is in the Middle East. Titanium Dragon 20:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

An example from Scandinavia (Sweden), pastor Åke Green said that homosexuals are "abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society". He was freed from the accusations in the supreme court - not because it was not considered hate speech under Swedish law, but because it wouldn't hold in the european court - the Swedish law was indeed trying to limit the freedom of speech. Actually, there was quite a lot of debate in the public about it, as it would mean that anyone doing preeching would be free to say anithing - including obvious rasistic hate speech... TERdON 22:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

A fine contrast with this story re: "Freedom of Speech"

Okay, I'm doing some research now to find examples, here's one I've got so far: Ake Green

--Blockinblox 19:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but I cannot allow you to spread disinformation. Have you tried reading the article you are referring too? As a service I will quote it for you: “Åke Green (born 3 June 1941) is a Pentecostal Christian pastor who was sentenced to one month in prison under Sweden's law against hate speech. On February 11, 2005 an appeals court, Göta hovrätt, overturned the decision and acquitted Åke Green. On March 9, the Prosecutor-General appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, which on November 29 also acquitted him. In their opinion, while Åke Green had violated Swedish law as it currently stands, a conviction would most likely be overturned by the European Court of Human Rights, based on their previous rulings regarding Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.” Now, I dont want to make any assumptions about the country you live in, but here in Scandinavia “acquitted” means that the courts clear you of all charges. That’s pretty bad research so far…20:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Systematic persecution of minorities, incitement to violence against them, and hate mongering can be punishable offences. Drawing "everyone who says homosexuality is sin is will be prosecuted" from that is just plain incorrect. Those laws are there to protect minorities, such as muslims. If I were to start systematically preaching that all muslims in my country are an abomination and should be hunted down, I would be quickly jailed under those exact same laws. You are reading way too much into what happened to one systematic hate mongerer. Weregerbil 20:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Blockinblox try to understand the difference here. This is a religious figure delivering a very borderline close hate-speech. He was not jailed for a month (later acquitted btw) for his religious belief, but for the hate–speech. "abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumour in the body of society", this is a hate-speech, not a simple religious belief that homosexuality is a sin. If he had said just “homosexuality is a sin”, nobody would have said a thing, and I can guaranty you that. And btw he is from Sweden. Twthmoses 20:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

- ::Okay, let's make a closer hypothetical paralell. Let's just say some right wing newspaper in Europe published some cartoons showing homosexuals in a rather bad light (similar to what Muslims are perceived.) - Use your imagination what kind of cartoons they might draw. What would happen to them?? Or are they free to do so?? Blockinblox 20:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

They're free to do so. Titanium Dragon 20:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure they are free to do so. It's called freedom of speech. We have it. Weregerbil 20:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

If you mean like a homosexual with a bomb in his head? Or a homosexual greeting suicide homosexuals in heaven, then nothing would happen, not in Denmark at least. If you mean like a “kill all homosexuals” style drawing, then they probably would be charged with hate-crimes.Twthmoses 20:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking something that might be similarly offensive, but not calling for them to be murdered... Something like, I don't know, maybe a cartoon showing some people laughing at a homosexual dying of aids in a wheelchair, or something tasteless like that... Would that be allowed as "free speech"? Blockinblox 20:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Weregerbil 20:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the controversy is about freedom of speech. Jesus on the front page with an M-16, planting a flag on oil wells would probably cause less of a stir, but be more fitting imho. The controversy is really the kind you get when the class clown throws a water balloon at the stodgy old professor, and gets expelled. This was little more than a prank to get a rise out of people, and surprisingly, for the paper and in turn everyone else, succeeded. Freedom of speech is great, but you are still responsible for what you say, and if you were to say, mortally insult a person or group of people, who aren't known for their great sense of humor when it comes to religion, you probably shouldn't expect everyone to laugh and pat you on the back for your cutting wit. Bill Doe 21:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

To take

Very true, however one single image of the twelve demonstrates exactly why these cartoons were published in the first place, and the debate that is meant to be highlighted, the drawing of the cartoonist shaking looking over his shoulder while drawing Muhammad. Radical Muslim in the ME has amber demonstrated the correctness of this drawing, and why the debate should be held in the first place. Self-censorship on account of one groups violent behaviour, well demonstrated these past days, is not something to bend to, ever.

It is not ok for a group of people to shout, threat, burn, or even kill as response, because other people, that does not in any way share the same beliefs, is trying to debate a subject that is holy to that other group. Those that are fanatical Muslims, should not be to concerned with the printing of the cartoons, but rather that at least one of them have undisputed were proven correct. Those that are not fanatical Muslims (the majority) should be VERY concerned about the image those fanatics Muslims are carving for you right now. Twthmoses 22:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You hit it on the head, Twthmoses. It is extremely ironic that the violent reactions to the cartoons are, in fact, acting out the negative images portrayed in the cartoons. The way to prove these cartoons are not true representations of Islam would be for Muslims to refrain from responding with violence. To their credit, there have been some Muslim leaders who have condemned the riots. But they should also think about the fact that these images DO represent how many Westerners see Islam. I know enough about Islam to know that terrorism is not true Islam, but when terrorists evoke the name of Allah for their deeds, it does present that image to the world. Rooster613 23:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Rooster613

Danish Tradition

I deleted this section because it was nothing but a POV written like an editorial, with no sources at all. (Cloud02 19:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC))

I have readded it, with references. It was not meant as a POV, but as a description of our liberal traditions, which are a lot more liberal than the ones seen in countries like Norway, Germany, France, USA or others. I have lived for 10 years in Germany, and the difference in mentality and tradition is huge. Dybdahl 20:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Since when is Socialism an "extremist opinion"?

I was shocked to see that Socialism has been counted as an extemist ideology alongside Nazism and "Islamism" (whatever that may be). Surely there are no grounds for this? If this label were replaced with Stalinism or Maxist-Leninism then the association would be fairer but I tend to think that these positions are so disparate that any association risks being cause for confusion. Socialism is a widely accepted and respected political philosophy that bears none of the negative connotations of the two other ideologies. To my knowledge, the label "socialist" commonly refers to individuals with moderate political views that do not call for the violent and lawless toppling of democratically elected governments (unlike islamists and nazis). This urgently needs to be rectified.

I agree with you, and I've removed it. "Extremist" is a pov qualification, and we should be very careful about when it can be used and when not. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 19:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Socialism has been an extremist ideology since its inception. Have a look at Josef Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Adolph Hitler, and Pol Pot for examples.

I did removed this comparison, which was rather difficult as the article seems to be constantly edited. gidonb 19:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

More people were killed by socialism than by nationalsocialism (which is often named by it's shortcut "nazism"). Socialists, that agree with the first paragraph of the wikipedia article about Socialism, are not much different than Islamists. Many islamists are non-violent, and so are many socialists. If you read the first paragraph of the wikipedia article about extremists, you should recognize that socialism deserves the label "extremism" more than islamism or nationalsocialism. However, I acknowledge that people might think otherwise, and I acknowledge that it really doesn't matter much for the article, so let's stick with "..other opinions". Dybdahl 20:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Fundamenatalist Islam is probably one of the most dangerous belief systems on the planet right now. Socialists aren't extremists. Fundamentalists are by their very nature extremists. Titanium Dragon 20:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not entirely true, as the terrorist group ETA is Socialist (Partido Socialista de las Tierras Vascas). Don't confound them with spanish moderate socialists, which renegade straight socialism in 1980. DrJones 01:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Anti-muslim backlash in Denmark?

Why isn't there a section dedicated to racist attacks against muslims and muslim property in Denmark and Europe as a result of this episode? So far, the article seems only interested in acts of violence perpertrated by muslims.

It will be added as soon as someone adds it... I have not heard of any attacks against Muslims in Denmark, and the only messages from ordinary Muslims in Denmark is, that the boycott should be stopped. As soon as someone reports about attacks against muslims, that haven't been in the article yet, and I see it, I'll add it. Dybdahl 20:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Scandinavians don't tend to do stuff like that... Let's hope they don't start torching embassies in this incident either. We could add a section "Violent backlash against muslims in Scandinavia" and write "none" under that — but I'm sure the joke would be lost for many... Weregerbil 20:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Scandanavia, Sweden in particular, has one of the highest concentrations of neo-nazi groups and activity in Europe. Racial tensions between white swedes, and the enormous influx of arab immigrants has been growing for years, especially with the growing strain on their socialist welfare system, with attacks on muslims and other non-white nationalities becoming commonplace. Just saying, it's different than you'd think. Bill Doe 21:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's dangerous to do any jokes, and besides it's also a violation of wikipedia policy. But you are absolutely right, I would be very ashamed of our Danish society, if just one Muslim was harmed because of this. Dybdahl 20:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The only case I can think of is Danish Muslims attacking a critical or moderate Danish Muslim, but I can't find the source for the story. --Maitch 20:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I found the story. [12]. Sorry it's in Danish. --Maitch 21:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Most Danes interviewed on Television are simply shocked about the whole situation, but since the constitution forbids any intervention into the media by the government and the parliament etc., there's nothing we can do. If the prime minister of Denmark would excuse anything, he could (theoretically) risk a new thing from a Danish Newspaper the next day. Therefore, the only parties in this are Jyllands-Posten and the angry Muslims. The Prime Minister and the Danish populations are basically just innocent bystanders and not able to do anything. Personally, I hope that the Muslims in Denmark, and the religious leaders in all countries, are able to convince the Muslims in other countries, that Denmark is a nice and peaceful country, that doesn't want to insult anybody. Dybdahl 21:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The piece of information about how the danish constitution specifically FORBIDS the government to interfere seems to not be very obvious from the article. Could some one add the facts from the above, as I think they seem to be very non-obvious to some of the muslim protesters, and for scandinavians, they are really obvious? Actually, saying you want to limit freedom of the press (and human rights in general) would, I think, be THE ONLY thing at all that possibly could cause a similar outcry in Scandinavia. And then it would have to be done by Fogh Rasmussen, the danish government or some one actually IN Scandinavia. Not some one thousands of miles away... TERdON 22:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is a loose translation of the short article from 'Politiken'.

"Although the Saturday demonstration on Raadhuspladen was peaceful, it was dented, when a couple of the demonstrators recognized the polemical Pakistani author and journalist Mohammad Rafiq. A couple of years ago, Mohammad Rafiq wrote a polemical book about arranged marriage, and has since been unpopular in the extreme Islamic environment. Today, while standing on the Raadhuspladens and photographing the demonstration, 3 second generation emigrants [a direct translation of this Danish’m] attacked him, breaking his mobile phone. The Pakistani author was taken to the ER and received stitches on one eye.

"I have tried to encourage a dialogue, and then I get clobbered [loosely translated] says Mohammad Rafiq, who in the today’s Politiken expresses concern that the network of moderate Muslims instigated by Naser Khader [a moderate Danish Muslim politician with Syrian background] will only increase the polarisation of the Muslims in Denmark, and therefore encourages reconsiliation." Mila82.26.164.194 23:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Al Ghad cartoon blanked out Kåre Bluitgen's face instead of Mohamad's face.

The Jordanian newspaper Al Ghad printed a cartoon [[13]] which shows the caricatures originally published by Jyllands-Posten albeit blanked out Mohammeds face because that can't be shown.

Did anybody else notice that they blanked out the journalist Kåre Bluitgen's face instead of the stick drawing of Moammed in his hand? (lower left hand corner of the Jordanian cartoon)--Soylentyellow 20:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The culturel gap is more like a interplanetary void. Its a drawing of a man, drawing Muhammad and fearing what (some) muslims will do to him. It seems like the newspaper does not understand it at all. And it isnt Bluitgen, its the guy who drew it. 192.38.4.198 21:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we're talking about the picture with the apple on the turban? That's Bluitgen alright. Azate 21:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

ohh Now I see it. Ups! Apupunchau 01:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

JP "right wing" newspaper?

Currently, JP is labelled "right wing". Before it was "centre right". JP (on its own page) calls itself »et af private, erhvervsmæssige, organisationsmæssige og partipolitiske interesser uafhængigt liberalt dagblad.« That is: »private, commercial, independent of political parties and other organisations, liberal daily newspaper.« Isn't "right wing" too judgemental? It reeks of fascism. I think "centre right" was fair. Azate 21:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

A better translation: »A liberal daily newspaper, independent of private and commercial interests, and of the interests of organizations and political parties.« In a Danish context, »liberal« refers to an economic theory (center-right rather than right wing, I guess), and »organizations« probably means trade unions, occupational unions, employers' confederations, etc.--Niels Ø 22:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I would say that this article shouldn't label JP in any way - they should only be labelled in the article about JP. However, the word "liberal" means different things in different countries, and JP is basically a mainstream newspaper, that started as a newspaper for west Denmark. It has since merged with a left wing newspaper from Copenhagen (Politiken), but the two newspapers still appear as separate newspapers.Dybdahl 21:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd say take the label away since it says independent, or go back to "centre right" - some googling suggests there is some opinion for "centre right" in the media. "Right wing" only if there is genuine verifiable NPOV evidence for that. Unqualified "right wing" may too easily invoke incorrect images of skinheads in leather pants doing nazi salutes. Weregerbil 21:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Added opinion of the Danish queen

The section still needs a bit of work... It would be nice if an Arabic speaking person would find the original quote for the article in Al-Hayat. Kjaergaard 21:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

In addition to that section being somewhat vague about the actual and accurate statement of the Danish queen, the reference links to whatever site those quotations came from aren't working either. Barring the correct links being edited in, I think this section should be deleted so as not to further spread disinformation. AscendedAnathema 21:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The disinformation is already out there in the Arabic press. I think the explanation should stay. Kjaergaard 22:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Links fixed. Kjaergaard 21:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Publication of images in the US

So far, I have not heard of any of the images being published by a major American newspaper, and the story is more or less being put on the back burner by the mainstream media, for bettor or worse. Yet, the first paragraph states that the images have been printed in the US. Does anyone have a source for this? I removed the US from the list of countries whose press had published the images yesterday, but specifically said that if someone can show that hey had indeed been printed to provide a souce and immediately revert my edit. I am unable to find a citation for this, and I have to wonder at the motives for placing the US in the list when that may not really be the case. AscendedAnathema 21:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It has been published in the "Philadelphia Inquirer", the oldest Newspaper in the U.S.A. that is still alive. Search the article for "Philadelphia" and you will find the relevant link and more. In the Phil.Inq.'s article, the list several other news outlets in the US that have published some or all of the pictures, ABCNews among them, as far as I remember. Please re-insert the USA. Azate 21:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for providing that information. These[14] and [15] state that the Philadelphia Inquirer has been the only US paper to publish the cartoons as of 02/05/2006, and it printed only one at that. I did not edit the article lately, the US has remained. AscendedAnathema 21:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It states there is another--the New York Sun--a couple of days ago. Lotsofissues 22:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is this still protected?

I thought this new policy was not supposed to apply to current events that require frequent updates and participation by many users. The July bombings in London, for example, benefited greatly from the lack of protection. It also hurts users of other European Wikipedias, like the Danish, who may want to edit English Wikipedia on this occasion. Tfine80 22:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's because sombody kept inserting huge penis-photos at the very top of the page every minute or so,until it was protected... Azate 22:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is the discussion I had with an administrator from the section "2.15 Block IP range 212.138.47.xx"

I have range blocked 212.138.47.0/30 (which is the same as 212.138.47.xx) for 5 minutes due to the huge amount of vandalism coming through on those IP's but a longer block cannot be implemented due to the fact that blocking that range cuts an entire country off. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 06:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand how cutting an entire country off, no matter how great the proportion of vandalism coming from it happens to be, is unacceptable. What I don't understand is why this article isn't simply protected from editing by new or anonymous users. There has to be a reason for this considering the incomprehensible amount of vandalism this article has been subjected to. AscendedAnathema 06:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I find it rather funny that General Electric gets 254^3 IP addresses (all of 4.*.*.*), while Saudi Arabia only gets 254. How did they get that crappy end of the deal? How annoying (and application-breaking) must it be to share your IP address with hundreds of others in your country? --Cyde Weys 04:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The policy is that articles linked from the main page may not be protected. The idea is that users should be able to edit the articles which we advertise there. However, given the circumstances we have to choose between our evils: I have semi-protected the page, and left a note at WP:AN to see if any bright sparks there have other ideas. Physchim62 (talk) 06:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It just seems like in order for this article to retain some degree of integrity, standard policy may have to be compromised due to extraordinary circumstances. AscendedAnathema 22:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually it isn't protected, it is sprotected (semi-protected). Anonymous users can't edit it, logged-in users can. Sprotection was was useful earlier due to some edit wars — there were a couple of polls, and some anon users failed to respect their outcome. Right now it is past midnight in the Middle East so maybe sprotection could be lifted as an experiment... Weregerbil 22:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Location of image - currently at top of the page

It's unclear to me why this image is located at the top of the page of the article. Typically in Wikipedia, when people have objectede images that some may find offensive are further down the page, if they are on the page at all. For example the articles penis, breasts. It seems to me that a significant minority of people are quite genuine that they find these images offensive. Personally I don't get it, I can't see anything any more offensive here than in a children's comic - they are only satirical cartoons. However as there are those that are genuinely very offended, I don't understand why there would be opposition to at least moving the images further down the page. I realise that there was already a vote on this, however I think the vote was ended prematurely - and it would appear my last comments on this subject were archived within minutes of me making them! Nfitz 22:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see the archived talk; this has been extensively discussed and polled. Plenty of good arguments for and against in there; little need to re-hash everything. Weregerbil 22:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. See the old polls here. 82% of the voters felt that the article should contain the cartoons, and 70% of the voters believed that it should be at the top of the article. There's no need to go through that again. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 23:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Should there be something like a "sticky" concerning recurring topics in this talk, like whether anything was agreed on or is still disputed or what were the outcomes and reference to the whole discussion? Such "stickies" are usually prevalent in web-based forums (such as bbforums and the like). Perhaps even a table on topics discussed and what was the outcome as of today or smth. I think this would help in avoiding people new to the discussion rehashing some topics.

-Mardus 23:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

As I referenced in my original post, I did see (and contribute) in the original polls. My concern is that the poll on location was ended prematurely. I don't think that a debate on the location of the article should have been held in concert with the debate on removal, as I don't think it yielded a fair result. I don't think we obtained consensus on it, despite the 70% in favour, as the vote was not held over a long enough period of time - it was open for less than 48 hours, yet 7-days is more typical on Wikipedia. While I think the issue of whether the image should be on the page or not, has been clearly resolved, I think the location issue should be subjected to further debate, and perhaps a new poll. But, rather than open the poll, I was looking for dicussion first. And none of the responses to my comment have entered discussion. So the question is given that many people appear to be genuinely offended by the image, why would we not at least show some sensitivity and move the image further down, in the same manner that we have done on other pages? Nfitz 02:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Childrens book

Should we include the front cover of the book (Koranen og profeten Muhammeds liv)? Or perhaps one of the other images from it?Geni 22:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a need for that here. It might be relevant in Kåre Bluitgen, though.--Niels Ø 22:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Done.Geni 23:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

That would certainly be a surrealistic confirmation of the cleverness of a couple of the cartoons ! (a nice degree of additional advertisement :-) Mila

I think everyone needs to stop, calm down ...

and look at this rationally. The problem is that some people are getting worked up over the cartoons and others are getting worked up that the first group of people are getting worked up. I respectfully suggest that EVERYONE needs to calm down.

The showing of the cartoons is not unreasonable. BUT their position is. And NOT because I am saying it is offensive or anything of that nature. This article is currently titled "Jyllands-Posten Muhammed cartoons controversy". This article is NOT supposed to be about the cartoons, but the controversy surrounding the cartoons. Therefore the introductory picture to this article should be a picture of the resulting controversy. Such as some flag burning, or embassy burning or pictures of various marches or whatever. THAT is what the article is about, so THAT is what the introductory picture should be. But there is a problem that whenever someone tries to suggest moving it people cry "Freedom of Speech!" and think that ends all arguments. It DOES end SOME arguments about the presence of these cartoons in this article but it doesn't justify their presence at the top of this article, because as I pointed out this article is not about the cartoons themselves. If another article is created that IS about these cartoons then yes I would agree that the cartoons belong at the top of THAT article.--Stenun 22:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC) (edit: sorry, forgot to add my sig)

Personally, I don't care if it's on top or middle as long as its in a relevant position and, you know, not deleted, if you can find a picture of protestors and put them up there while placing the cartoons down in the discription section, go for it, I won't stop you, but the problem is many people will, what your saying does seem like a good idea, but you'll have to tell that to people to get some consensus on it. Homestarmy 23:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Do the cartoons portray Muhammad?

There is little in the cartoons themselves to suggest that the figure satirized is the prophet from the Koran. All that the caricatures share in common is the depiction of a bearded man in turban. Is there an iconographical tradition that I am missing which definitely narrows the subject down to the religious prophet? Even considering the context of the JP article ("Muhammeds ansigt"), who is there to say that the cartoons do not portray another Mohammed, perhaps one directly associated with terrorism, e.g., Mohammed Atta? It seems one interpretation of the cartoon is being tacitly assumed at the expense of all others. --KCargill 22:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Get real. The excellent descriptions of the twelve drawings in the article state quite clearly and uncontroversially which of the drawings appear to have the intention of depicting the prophet, and which not. Some of them perhaps depict a depiction of the prophet, if that distinctions makes any sense.--Niels Ø 22:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The world has decided it is Muhammad. We can't change their minds. This page is (should be) for discussing the maintenance of a Wikipedia article, not the topical events behind the article. Please let's try to keep this tangential discussion to the minimum. Weregerbil 23:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

About the Catholic Priest

"Die Welt has recently reported that the murder of a Catholic priest in Turkey is believed to be at the hands of protesters of the cartoons."

The above section I wrote after consulting welt.de, but it has been removed twice. I believe this is in good faith, but the user who has done it isn't able to reply so I will give anyone who can read german a chance to decide for hisself. Chooserr 23:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

A direct link is here Chooserr 23:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The article says that it is not clear whether the murder has anything to do with the cartoons ("Ob das Verbrechen im Zusammenhang mit den gewaltsamen Protesten gegen Mohammed-Karikaturen steht, ist noch unklar"). I therefore agree with its removal for now. First it has to be clear that the murder is related to the cartoons. We shouldn't speculate. If it does turn out to be related to the cartoon, then it should obviously be added to the article. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 23:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well we can reword it... Chooserr 23:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It's still a developing story, and at this point there is not much more to it than newspaper speculation. I think it's best to hold off on this for now, and add it when there is more information, provided the murder is related to the cartoons. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 23:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the priest thingy because there was no source, except a link to the homepage and I couldn't find the article. Now, having been provided with the correct link, I second Aecis' stance. This is a just a wild speculation on "DIE WELT"s part. Azate 23:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I doubt they'd make remarks that are, dare I say, inflammatory on wild speculation. I can't read the whole article because my German isn't good enough, but I can at least translate the headlines a bit. Chooserr 23:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

"Die Welt" is not beyon inflammatory remarks, belive me. I do speak German, at all they say is: "If there is any connection to the Mohammad cartoons is unclear". They don't even kow yet who shot the priest. Jeez, they could also say: "If there is any connection to the Pope's recent death is unclear" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Azate (talk • contribs) .

Die Welt is indeed a credible and serious newspaper. However, journalists do have a tendency to be desperate for interesting news in the initial stages of new stories. The pages have to be filled, and the papers have to be sold (I'm a journalist myself). So the source may be credible, the message is still too unclear to include, I think. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo}

^risin' 23:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't mean to contradict anyone, or upset anyone the true reason why I read it is that they use "in house" spellings instead of those that happen after the spelling reform. Not for the politics...I also glance at sueddeutsche.de for the same reason. Chooserr 23:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll wait for a few days to see how it pans out. Until there is confirmation one way or the other I won't re-add the section. Chooserr 23:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I also read German and I agree this should wait. All we know now from this article is that a young man shot the priest at the end of a Mass. They haven't arrested him yet and nobody has claimed the deed, so how do we know the motive? Rooster613 00:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Rooster613

typo@last paragraph of 'Freedom of speech v. blasphemy'

Reads: "Western counties typically"
Should be "Western countries typically..."

Also, many references should be attached to their text, such as

text[ref#] or

text.[ref#] New sentence

-Mardus 23:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Fixed the countries typo, will look into the references shortly. Thanks for noticing! Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 23:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, this seems really minor, but since Wikipedia has been referenced so extensively everywhere, I think that newcomers might be a bit confused as to whether a reference belongs to the previous sentence or the next one.

-Mardus 23:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Claims of Double standard of Jyllands-Posten

Could anyone put a reference for that section? Even though there are references to pictures, there isn't any reference to the actual claim. Who claims it? Where is it claimed? etc.

There are currently two references in that section. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 04:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

My personal view: The controversy in a nutshell

Moved to Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments#My personal view: The controversy in a nutshell

Decision of the community on Serbian Wikipedia

I am copying conversation with one anonymous Muslim person from Serbian Wikipedia. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 23:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for English

Showing the figures of Mohammed is disturbing muslims. And it is a insult to Islam. In Islam making and also looking the figures of Mohammed is forbidden. Every time I enter the page I click as fastly as i can to the "discussion" to dont see the cartoon. That is raping the holy things of Islam. And putting this cartoon in the article is like "show the movie of a raped woman to her husband". And it is not about "freedom". If you want to show the cartoon you can give a link to Magazine site. That dont disturbs the muslims and people can see the cartoon if they want.

Hello. We were talking about this issue (the page about page/image deletion). Even I think that offensive content should be showen in the manner that you suggest, principle decision of the community is not to care about any kind of content which can be treated as offensive to some religion. This includes relation to other religions, including Orthodox Christianity, which is the major religion of Serbs. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 23:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

However, as the content of this comics is offensive toward Muslims, we moved the comics down, as well as we will make a note about offensive content. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 23:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

In other words, if someone wants to talk about this issue on Serbian Wikipedia, (s)he should not worry about seeing the picture inside of the first part of the article. I suggest that English Wikipedia (as well as other Wikipedias which have the picture) should do at least the same which we did (I mean moving the comincs down, on the second page in the resolution 1280x1024; the text is big enough to do that.). --millosh (talk (sr:)) 23:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

We got that same guy here I think, (the raping things of Islam is the tip off) he might of spammed many of our userpages, but I think I gave him quite an admirable reply personally. If the Serbian Wiki wants it down the page, then by all means, they should have it down the page. But you've got to admit, the English Wiki is not the same community as the Serbian wiki, as, well, most of us probably are not living in or near serbia. Homestarmy 23:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The tip off for me was "making and also looking the figures of Mohammed is forbidden" and "Every time I enter the page I click as fastly as i can to the "discussion" to dont see the cartoon." I wonder if he's been on other wikipedia's. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 23:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Found what looks like his brand of English on the Finnish wiki, asking to remove the picture. Looks like a glutton for punishment, going round wikis he knows contain a picture that causes him mental anguish. Weregerbil 23:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The English wikipedia has repeatedly come to an overwhelming consensus to NOT change the cartoons, NOT move the cartoons, NOT remove the cartoons. This is a dead horse, let it enjoy its afterlife already. Kyaa the Catlord 23:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The content of Wikipedia should not be altered in any way to pander to the religious sensitivities of a small minority of Wikipedians. As mentioned above, the overwhelming majority of people do not want the image altered for important philosophical and ethical reasons over how content is presented on Wikipedia. I believe it would be extremely detrimental to Wikiedia as a whole to establish a precedent of removing content on the basis of compromising relevant material to accommodate religious mandates. Wikis in other languages are free to establish their own preferences, but the consensus of the English Wiki has been firmly established by multiple polls. AscendedAnathema 00:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Fear of Democracy and Freedom of Speech

I unfortunately realized that, Poll 3 is killed. I think some people among the admins here has some fear of democracy and freedom of speech, while they are talking about 'freedom of speech'. I do not know Danmark, haven't been there, but I can certainly say that, there is no freedom of speech -even in a discussion page- and democracy in our very Wikipedia based on my experiences. I am saddened and very dissapointed for it.

• The poll is not even properly archived so that people can see the result. There were 7 votes already for having just one cartoon. The number was apperently increasing. Is that the reason of your fear: Do you think people may consider to change the cartoon? Do you insist on a version you prefer without any rational reasoning?

• Set the poll aside, even the discussion section is protected. So noone, except the protecter, can add comments. Thanks to democracy!

• I would like to ask the community here to help me to activate the poll again, at least for the sake of democracy if you do not feel as I do. The first two polls were active for much longer than Poll 3. I want to see the result!

• I am sure there are some democrats among admins too. I would like to raise the issue to their attention as well.

I believe that Wiki community will stop these subjective actions and support the democracy and freedom of speech which we all for them, at home. Resid Gulerdem 23:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh give it up already. You only support freedom of speech when it protects your POV. Quit whining and beating a dead horse. Kyaa the Catlord 23:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Since you have the claim, it is your responsibility to prove it. Otherwise it will be a cheap slander. Resid Gulerdem 23:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Hear, Hear, There may have been 7 votes in favour of your proposal but there was at least 45 votes (and increasing) against your proposal. The reason why it was killed (i think) was because we had already covered it in polls 1 and 2 and the results were clear. There was no need to rehash the same poll in the vain hope that the result would change. How may polls do we need until you accept the result User:slamdac23:52 February 2006 (UTC)

We could only know about the result if the poll is active... The poll 3 is toally different from the previsous ones as explained 100 times above. I ansered that I respect the decision made by Wikipedians before per your question. Do not the same old stuff and be honest! Resid Gulerdem 23:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The option of the poll (replacing the cartoons) was already made impossible by the answer to the main poll: keep the cartoons. It was a wrong poll from the beginning, and it's because of the admins' kindness that so many people managed to cast their votes. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 23:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I closed the debate because we had a definitive result. If you look at the archives for polls one and two, you will see that I previously voted against these horrid cartoons being used at all on Wikipedia as they offend Muslims. However, too much polling is a bad thing, not recommended on Wikipedia.--File Éireann 00:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

What is your definition of too much? 1? NO!, 2? NO! 3? YES! Isn't it a little subjective. Did you protect the discussion section too, for being too much? And was it too much if the poll be archived properly among others so people could review? I ask you to reactivate it, and let the people decide, please... Resid Gulerdem 00:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Regrettably, I must politely refuse. Almost everyone who commented felt that this poll was inappropriate. You are free to comment here. I am certain that Wikipedians in general want the cartoons to stay. I personally dislike this greatly as I voted to delete them. However, the polling is now finished as the majority has spoken.--File Éireann 00:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The people have already decided, Resid, and the people have decided to keep the cartoons. Not to remove them, not to replace them, but to keep them. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 00:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

That is where your mistake is. Noone talked about replacing the collection of cartoons with one - maybe one among them... Resid Gulerdem 00:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

So what? We don't vote over every change made to the article. Wikipedia is NOT a democracy. The image, containing the original artwork in the original format it was published, is the proper way to present it and the majority of users have repeatedly made this clear. This horse is so very dead. Kyaa the Catlord 00:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

To repeat the same mistake doen't make it correct, twice or more than that. For one who use his mind and heart, the difference between the polls appearent. I am sure there are some democrats among the admins and I want they hear my voice. Resid Gulerdem 00:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Then what is the difference between the polls? Please do not refer me to the previous discussions, I wanna hear it from you. You can copy-paste it from the previous discussions, but I just wanna know what the differences are. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 00:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It is ironic that you say "To repeat the same mistake doen't(sic) make it correct". If you want to make an impression on the "admins", I'd suggest not behaving badly. Repeatedly. Kyaa the Catlord 00:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I do not care much about making an impression on admins. I do not need it. When I say mistake, I meant your mistake of keep saying: there was no difference. By the way: One cannot make a good impression if s/he doesn't worth it! Resid Gulerdem 00:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I closed polls 1 and 2, and I think closing poll 3 was a reasonable decision. However, I think it would be fair to archive poll 3 under Old polls. Could someone perhaps find it in the history and archive it properly?--Niels Ø 00:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Done.--File Éireann 00:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do not you let the pople can get access to the poll and vote in that seperate page? We can put a link for it. Resid Gulerdem 00:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

If you didn't understand from theearlier discussions, it might be hard for you to comprehend now. You should both your mind and heart, a little bit. Nevertheless, I will give it a try: The older polls were about, the existence and placement of the cartoons. The nature of the cartoons however was not an option, up untill Poll 3. Yes we should have a cartoon, but isn't that wise to have one which is not considered an inslut by billion of people, yet summarize the whole point. The cartoon 'an artist drawing Mohammed' is a good example: We can see what the artist is doing, his fear because of what he is doing, etc. An ensiclopedia article is not collection of cartoons. The article is just about the controversy! One pic is enough to that end. Resid Gulerdem 00:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It is clear that, unfortunately, the Wikipedians were insisting on keeping the cartoons. In my opinion, that was a very bad decision. But the result of poll 3 was also clear.--File Éireann 00:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Can't we put a link and let people vote for it even in a different page? Resid Gulerdem 00:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No. The results are clear. I think we should concentrate now on convincing people in other ways that the cartoons are crude caricatures and offensive to Muslims and should be removed. Polling is not the way to do this. --File Éireann 00:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Nobody will stop you from trying but I don't see why you people who want the images entirely removed can't understand that this entire concept of a wiki is based off freedom of speech and including any images relevant to this article and that censorship (or attempts at censorship in this case) aren't well regarded. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Democracy doesn't mean to repeat voting until you receive the answer YOU would like to have, but respect the decisions made in the previous cases. 2. The third Poll you are talking about, was about 7 against and 45 to keep the current cartoons so again about 85%, so whats the problem? it was done and now its closed again...So where is you point/problem? RapaNui 02:23, 6 February 2006 (CET)

There seem to be a number of new users here recently singing the praises of Muhammad. I have an inkling if the polls were redone the result could be made bit less clear. The demands to re-open the polls might continue for a while. Weregerbil 01:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Please, if at any point anyone wants to set up a new poll here, do not do so till a reasonable degree of concensus has been reached about the options and format of the poll. Otherwise, drawing conclusions from the poll will be difficult, and people will not feel bound by the conclusions. As for poll 3, here is why it was inappropriate at this point: A clear majority voted "Keep" in poll 1, and it is evident that most did it because they believe people should be enabled to see the object of this controversy, and perhaps form their own opinion of it. Showing only those drawings that were not the object of the controversy would not really satisfy that need; it would be a bit like just showing the logo of Jyllandsposten. Of course, a couple of the drawings are (quite amusing) comments on the whole affair, rather than actually drwaings of the prophet. They might well serve as illustrations near the top of the article, even if the rest of the drawings had been voted out or hidden somewhere else. But the vote from polls 1 and 2 was to keep articles at top, and therefore, the result of poll 3 was given from the start - unless a significantly different voter population could be mustered.--Niels Ø 02:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Somebody please add this external link

• Picture series - burning of the Danish consulate in Beirut

Will do.

Please also add this link of how muslims have been Cartooning Jews for many years, and nobody ever got outraged:

http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/ArabCartoons.htm

Ehhh, that seems really POV and beyond the scope of this article, besides, I think we've debated that already. Homestarmy 02:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

rot13 for images?

Is there an equivalent to Rot13 for images? In that way, those that wish to view controversial/offensive images can. Those that don't, won't. This method has been used by Usenet for decades. -- Rwcitek 01:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a filter set up for people who don't want to see the images, but they need to know how to use the filter to do so. Kyaa the Catlord 01:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Audio link in intro

Rexnl twice removed my insertion of the audio pronunciation of Jyllands-Posten. He says it is distracting.

Most readers are English speakers and will be clueless trying to pronounce that newspaper, which is a principle party in this matter. If the link is removed, readers can still click to find out more, but 99%+ of readers will pass by because there is too much to read to go looking at derivative articles. Arguments against are weak. How is linking once in the intro "distracting"? No harm and its helpful. To avoid a dumb revert war, a couple of ppl agree with me please. Lotsofissues 01:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I sooo totally agree with you. Apupunchau 01:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you too. Remember, if he reverts it four times he could be blocked for 24 hours. -Maverick 01:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

After further looking at it, I do believe that he is acting in good faith. I'm gonna stay outta this one, as I don't really have an opinion on it anymore -Maverick 01:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Just use IPA. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 04:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your suggestion. IPA is relatively unknown (unusable). How is it a proper, helpful substitute. Lotsofissues 07:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Compliments

Just wanted to say that this is probably the most informative, complete and balanced article I have found on the subject. My compliments and thanks to all those that have contributed.

Gilraen

Wowzers! I wish we got more comments like these! Ashibaka tock

When you read it from an outside POV, it is really quite well done! Everyone here who has been contributing should be quite proud of what has been accomplished, in the midst of all the uproar!!! Nfitz 02:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I want to add my compliments too. This is without a doubt the most comprehensive source of non biased information. It is only because of everyone's hard work here. Congratulations and thank you. A special thanks to those who have tried to add calm when emotions started to take over --Mmmsnouts 03:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Add language for Latina

[la:Jyllands-Posten_ob_illustrationes_Mochameti_%28Muhammedi%29_controversia]
-Mardus 02:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. Ashibaka tock 02:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Move Latina between Italiano and Lëtzebuergesch, too, so it would be in an alphabetically correct position.

-Mardus 03:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Qur'an burnings

Added this under the Rumours and Misconceptions section, but it was edited away:

Public burnings of the Qur'an - Saturday the 4th of February it was rumoured that neo-nazi groups in Denmark would gather in public plazas and burn copies of the Qur'an, which is considered sacrilege. Although several disjunct demonstrations took place, encouraging tolerance, respect for freedom of speech, anti-racism, there have been no reports on any burnings of the Qur'an. Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Møller declared on international TV that "No Qur'ans have been burned and the police have been instructed to prevent any occasions of the Qur'an being burned."

I don't have a source, but I know for a fact that it is true. Even though there is no citation I still think it is an important enough controversy to mention, as there are people thinking that books were burned with government consensus.

I deleted the reference because the initial rumor and Møller's statement were unsourced.--Jbull 03:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Please refresh yourself with WP:V. We can't take it on your word; you must provide citations. Which you have admitted that you cannot. --Cyde Weys 03:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Depictions of Muhammad throughout time

As fast as this page goes, I'm not sure if this has been linked, but it gives a good history of images of muhammad. [16] Arkon 03:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

That site is included in the main article. I agree that it is a good source of info. AscendedAnathema 03:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, excellent. Glad others are more motivated than I. :D Arkon 03:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)