Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Larger copies of pictures?

What is the stance on uploading larger versions of the specific pictures? There are version online that give a better view and also translate some of the captions. These are going on and offline all the itme, though. I think it's fair to the topic to view the cartoons as they are up close. Gabbahead 15:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Considering the amount of trouble we've had keeping the image we already have on the front page, I doubt adding additional high-res versions of the cartoons would go over well. Also, keep in mind JP is a commercial content provider who (presumably) profits from the material therein, and substantially higher-res versions of the images could cause "fair use" problems. I don't really see a compelling reason to change from what we have now, honestly. --BinaryTed 18:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Meeting with Arab Ambassadors refused by Danish Prime Minister

I’ve made three small changes to the section, that I hope not will be controversial: 1. Clarifying, with a quote from the letter, that the request for a meeting was about wider issues than just the cartoons. 2. That is was the interpretation of the gvt, that the ambassadors wanted the PM to take legal action against the paper. It is not at all explicit in the letter [[1]] 3. That the refusal was a major point of criticism from the opposition Bertilvidet 10:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Would someone mind to please clarify for me, as a non-native English speaker, the exact meaning of 'taking someone to task' ? (as per "...urge Your Excellency's government to take all those responsible to task under law of the land..."). Thanks Varga Mila 10:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
"make them pay" I would say. what "law of the land" is alleged to have been broken is not made clear however. I take this to be an explicit enough call for legal action. Can somebody explain why this letter is in English rather than Danish, seeing that these are all ambassadors to Denmark? You would expect it to be an essential job qualification of an ambassador to be fluent in the language of the host country? dab (ᛏ) 12:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
The letters in the Akkari-Laban dossier seem all to have been written in Arabic. Ekstra Bladet published some of them stressing that the newspaper has translated the material into Danish. [2] I've been looking for originals written in Danish, but I've found none so far. --Valentinian 12:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
There isn't a Danish original, because the original is in English. Amabassadors in EU countries can hand in notes in any of the working languages of the EU (English, French, German), or in the language of the country in question. And anybody who thinks that ambassadors speak the language of the country they are dispatched to, is living in a dream. Azate 12:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
The letter is about the general development in Denmark, mentioning the cartoons along with several other incidents. Afterwards, "...urge Your Excellency's government to take all those responsible to task under law of the land..." is stated. At least it is not an explicit call for legal pursuit of the paper. And nope, ambassadors are not expected to learn the language og the country they work in, usually they serve in many countries during their career, so they are not expected to know all the local languages - and indeed not to use the local language when dealing with other foreign representations. Bertilvidet 13:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the real reason the Danish were miffed by the ambassadors' demand was that it's against normal procedure to want to see the head of government. This is normally only done when you are really pissed and insistent, such as when declaring war or so. In all other cases ambassadors speak tp the Foreign Office. (which Rasmussen told them they should go do, and they did). And "...urge Your Excellency's government to take all those responsible to task under law of the land..." is REAL strong language in diplomatic circles. Azate 14:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
The Ambassadors are in effect asking Rasmusen to bypass current Danish laws and regulations. MX44 15:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The article wrongly states that Foreign Minister Per Stig Møller met the ambassadors to discuss the matter. Yesterday it was revealed that, yes, the Foreign Minister did have a meeting with 8, not all 11, ambassadors. And the subject was not the Mohammad cartoons but another matter, some UN issues I think. The Palestinian ambassador said that it would be impolite to raise the issue, when that was not what the meeting was about. The Foreign Minster has admitted he made a mistake when he informed the parliament that he had a meeting. The majority of the opposition accepted the apology. However Frank Aaen of the far left party Enhedslisten stated the Foreign Minsiter had deliberately issued misinformation. Source: P1 Orientering 14 feb.86.52.36.140 15:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

..

Yet the 8 embassadors had the chance to raise the issue at that meeting, if they found it to be so urgent as described in their letter. Besides it is also very clear from their letter, that they want the primeminister to take legal actions on the matter. First of all it was not a letter to the foreign minister but the primeminister. Secondly more experts have concluded (Professor Ditlev Tamm in Information 08/02-2006) that the demand raised in the letter were inappropriate, and that the prime minister reacted in an according diplomatic manner. Also bear in mind that the Prime Minister did reply to the letter. Here is his reply http://gfx-master.tv2.dk/images/Nyhederne/Pdf/side3.pdf Now if the letter from the ambassadors was about something else, they had all the chance in the world to approach him to clear up any misunderstanding he would have had about their motives. I think Wikipedia is very one-sided on this issue. The 11 ambassadors broke all normal rules of diplomacy with their letter to Fogh. He responded diplomatically.

..

Is there a link for a source ? Azate 16:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Here is a link to the radio program in Danish.

http://www.dr.dk/P1/orientering/indslag/2006/02/14/175715.htm

! Not all of them are ambassadors. And not all of the ambassadors are from Arab countries. madyasiwi 17:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You are right. Perhaps 'representatives' is a better word ?
It is very peculiar, I can't seem to find anything in writing about this what is mentioned in the radio program. The only newspaper that mentions it (and it does so only indirectly - i.e. it doesn't work as a reference) is Information (a small'ish paper catering for the left-wing, government-critical inteligensia): http://www.information.dk/InfWebsite/FremvisningPHP/Common/Information.php?pShow=Webavis/WAvVis.php&pWAvVis=1309 Varga Mila 17:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
That is strange, since according to the Radio Program the Prime Minsiter sent a statement to the press claryfing whether or not a meeting with representaives/ambassadors concerning the Mohammad Cartoon crisis had taken place. A State Radio Program (DR P1) cannot be used as a source?86.52.36.140 22:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I finally found something in English. User:86.52.36.140 is completely right. Azate 23:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Btw. I didn't dispute 86.52.36.140 - It was on the news last night. Link would be great. Varga Mila 00:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Why isnt it written anywhere that the Egyptian ambassador in Denmark went on Egyptian TV telling the lie that Islam is not a recognized religion in Denmark, despite the fact that there are 19 kinds of islam acknowledged here ?. http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=439141

If you find the exact date at which she apparently said so (the article that you link to, simply says 'the beginning of February'), we can surely add it.Varga Mila 15:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do you need the exact date now ?. You can just add. "The beginning of february". Furthermore, you write that the government have been critizised. This is correct, but why dont you write that alot of the critizism was based on a false letter, not the original ?. See this link: http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=439519

Please feel free to add those points to the article. Varga Mila 16:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

4 "incidents" are mentioned in the letter from the ambassadors:

With regards to Radio Holger, it had its broadcasting license taken away for 3 months. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4159220.stm

With regards to Louise Freverts homepage, she claimed that she had not written the articles. Her webmaster (Ebbe Talleruphuus) was sacked after the incident, and is charged under the racism act. http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/article.php?id=2964675 This information ought to be mentioned in the section concerning the letters from the ambassadors.

"The Egypt Minister of Foreign Affairs, Aboul Gheit, wrote several letters to the Prime Minister of Denmark " Is there any source for this statement?.

Which letters are you referring to ? As I'm listening to the radio, there seems to currently be quite some disagreement about 'who did what, when', and who is presenting the least bent version of the truth.Varga Mila 16:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
"I løbet af efteråret gjorde Egyptens udenrigsminister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, Danmark i flere breve opmærksom på, at det ikke var et retsligt indgreb over for Jyllands-Posten [..."]
"EU og FN modtog brev"
"Det er ikke rigtigt, at den egyptiske udenrigsminister har kontaktet mig adskillige gange. Han har ikke ringet en eneste gang, siger udenrigsminister Per Stig Møller."
I do not know about you, but I am confused :) Hekatombe 16:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Ditto. Given that the article seems to be a frequent reference point for papers with very large publication rates, might it not be wiser to leave this out of the article until it becomes a bit clearer ?  :-) Varga Mila 17:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Pakistani bounty - new car anyone ? ;-)

This is from the timeline on December 2:

A Pakistani political party, Jamaat-e-Islami apparently offers a roughly $10,000 reward to anyone who kills one of the cartoonists[3]. It was later discovered that this was a considerable exaggeration, based on a small note in a local newspaper, citing Jamaat-e-Islami as promising a reward up to a million rupees for the deaths of the cartoonist. Jamaat-e-Islami claims to be wrongly cited, having merely suggested that the Pakistani government could promise such a reward. On its way through the Danish ambassador to the Danish media, this fact is blown up as involving multiple papers and flyers with the reward.[10]

From today there is now a new semi-official bounty (described in the Danish newspaper Politiken : :http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=439073). The following is a translation: Mohammed Yousaf Qureshi, an imam in Peshawar, Pakistan offerers a bounty of 1,5 mill rupees and a car to the person who kills one of the Danish cartoonists. The declaration was made in front of 1,000 peopole outside a histoircal mosque in Peshawar. "All islamic imams have unilaterally decided that, he who insults the prophet, shall (DA=skal = will/must/shall) be killed". Sirajul Hag, a minister of the Pakistani government, said, at the same occasion, that the Pakistani government, should demand the cartoonists to be extradited, so that they could be tried at a Pakistani court of law.

Doesn't this warrant entry into the timeline ? Varga Mila 14:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Bounty

The AP is reporting a new twist. Mohammed Yousaf Qureshi of the Mohabat Khan mosque in Pakistan has offered 1.5 million rupees, 1 million dollars and a car to whoever kills a cartoonist. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060217/ap_on_re_mi_ea/prophet_drawings_262. PhatJew 23:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


Indian Bounty and Fatwa

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1422027.cms MX44 10:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove the image

Anonymous editor, please do not remove the image. See this poll. There was overwhelming support for including it. Unless you have a good reason for removing the image that has not yet been considered, please do not remove it. Doing so will be reverted as vandalism, and you will achieve nothing. Thank you! --Ashenai 14:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but having a poll about the rights of a minority is stupid. Yes, 1.3 billion muslims are still a minority, because only few of them have access to the internet. Is it OK to be homophobic on wikipedia, if a majority wants to mock gays? Raphael 62.116.76.117 20:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
No Raphael, mocking is not ok. So please stop mocking people by calling them stupid just because you have not read, or alternatively not understood, the 14+ archives of discussions before and after the poll regarding the reasons for the cartoons still being shown here. DanielDemaret 21:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I have read almost all of the 14+ archives of discussion and therefore I know, that there has been NO GENERAL CONSENSUS about showing the cartoons. BTW I did not call anybody stupid, but I regard having polls about minority rights as stupid. Raphael 62.116.76.117 17:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

NP, although seeing as I did post this on here, a point in the right direction would've been nice :) -Moocats 15:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This talk page is provided by the wikimedia foundation for discussing the article. If you want a philosophical debate there are plenty of other places on the web to go for that. But here is not the place I'm afraid. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Opinion vs. Law

Opinions are one of the basic instruments of law. Every Supreme Court "decision" is based on an opinion. Opinions in US appeals courts are written by a single judge and signed by a majority, and minority opinions are entered by one or many judges. [1]. Netscott argues that legal opinions he does not prefer should be relegated to a section comparing them to rhetorical opinions. To do so would not be a neutral representation of Sharia as appreciated by certain fundamentalist practitioners as documented [2] in the content Netscott hopes to remove from this page. As I understand Wikipedia, efforts are made to explain matters in terms consistent with the understanding of those involved. Also "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. " [3]Surely, there would be no controversy if Sharia was not a prominant viewpoint, albeit not in Western countries. The viewpoint in so far as it is relevant, no matter how offensive, must be represented in a sympathetic tone.

Assertion of a fact is not to offer an opinion. "It's worth observing that scholars are trained so that, even when trying to prove a point, counter-arguments are included, so that they can explain why the counter-arguments fail." Rolano 17:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

PaxTerra, aside from these arguments , why are you using the sock puppet name of Rolano to contribue now? Netscott 18:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
In debate, most traditions involve presenting evidence and counter arguments relevant to the topic at hand. Rolano 19:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
True, but if the moral standing of a contributor is in question then their edits will be questionable as well. Please answer the following question so that we may proceed to address your arguments. Are you denying that the username Rolano is in fact PaxTerra? Netscott 19:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

PaxTerra, there in nothing inherently wrong about using sock puppets but from an editorial standpoint what benefit does your doing so allow for here? Netscott 19:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Concern about recent additions

I am concerned that Rolano's recent edits have introduced a strong POV into the article. Opinions, please? --Ashenai 18:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

As explained above with references to Wikipedia's fundamental policies, factual representation of points of view is a part of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. Omitting significant viewpoints from an article about viewpoints is where neutrality begins to degrede. Could you respond substantively to what personal viewpoints you allege I am advancing? Or could you explain why widespread views of Sharia as held by Muslims are not relevant to a section that discusses what "believers" have "demanded"? Surely you don't think that I hold these views? Rolano 19:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Ashenai, thank you for bringing this up. While many of the edits that PaxTerra (aka Rolano) does seem good there do seem to be POV issues in some of them. Netscott 19:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
This is exactly what I was talking about when I told PaxTerra I wasn't sure this shouldn't go in Opinions. I don't think it's a good thing to describe a section entitled 'Legal Traditions' as "a section that discusses what 'believers' have 'demanded'?", but that description certainly fits the current 'Legal Traditions' section in this article. Incidentally, this is the Richard from past discussions, I decided if I was going to keep getting involved in this article I might as well sign up. :) RichardRB 22:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Here's my 'official' welcome on board to you Richard with your official wiki user name! A number of people have expressed some reservations about some of PaxTerra's (aka Rolano's) edits in terms of POV and while myself and a couple of others have been doing our best to limit this, we've had mixed results... I totally agree about what you are saying regarding 'believers' even the fatwa links provided about mosul etc. seem rather 'blogish' and less than NPOV (with the site being called 'jihadwatch' as a source)... the legal traditions needs seriously trimming and/or revising as well 'legal traditions' seems out of place under the heading 'conflicting traditons'. Netscott 03:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Ashenai, as an editor on equal footing with all of the other editors here what is stopping you from editing that which seems overly POV? Netscott 19:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I could be wrong. Either way, I think it's useful to get at least a rough consensus on contentious issues before engaging in what could easily end up as an edit war. --Ashenai 21:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
The section says believers have "called for" On whom did they call? That is what defines this as different than a section about believers who lynched, beat or boycotted those they disagree with. It is not about who called for something (I changed it to "sought") but about of whom they sought relief. When they call on mobs to riot, or consumers to boycott, that is one kind of response. When the seek legal relief, no matter the system of law, that is fundamentally a different approach. Rolano 07:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The "Legal Traditions 4.3" part, freshly reintroduced by Rolano, makes no sense, I think. I can see the use of 4.1 and 4.2 which briefly showcase the conflicting traditions of making or not making cartoons (of prophets etc.). I CANNOT see why this article needs a discussion about the legality and tradition of fatwaing cartoonists or hanging a publisher in Nuremberg. These are certainly interesting parallels, and some people will use them in arguments. However, in the JP-Moh-Cartoon controversy, they have no place, because the legal question has been settled. The cartoonists/publishers didn't violate Danish law. Now making an argument that certain imams are entitled to fatwa cartoonists, because they always did, and because the Aliies hanged Streicher and set a precedent of sorts, is just bizarre. Not because the reasoning is unsound, but because there are as many chains of reasoning thinkable as one would like, and we can't possibly list them all. Azate 09:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting Azate... that you along with MX44, Richard, Jdonnis, and myself (among other transient editors who've essentially edited out the same thing) should come to the same conclusion... while PaxTerra (aka Rolano) doesn't seem to be able to understand this. Netscott 17:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


Mosques banned in Denmark?

I heard a contention on the radio last night that Denmark has refused to allow Muslims to build mosques. Is this true? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Why would Denmark even consider that? Sounds stupid to me. James Kendall [talk] 00:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
That is not true. If the Muslims in Denmark want to build a mosque they can just buy some land and build it. The story is that they want the city of Copenhagen or Denmark to build a mosque for free. --Maitch 01:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about that. But I know for sure that the Danish Islamic community is so fractured that a single group so far couldn't muster the money to build one from scratch, with minaretts and all the bells and whistles, and that coalitions of serveral groups that tried to pull this off together, have floundered due to infighting. There are all sorts of mosques in Denmark, usually in rented property, that look quite like small mosques do in Islamic countries. There are only no huge, spectacular mosques of the kind you'd find in Cairo or Mekkah. Azate 02:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
The only problem I can think of, with regards to mosques in DK is that the call to prayer might be interpreted as a 'disturbance of the peace' by some people. The mosques present are small and AFAIK fairly representative of the fractured moslem community in DK. If enough moslems want to build a mosque somewhere and can get the local city council to approve of the plans, there are no problems. This is scandinavia, not Saudi Arabia....
In the US, the call of prayer is not announced to the air. I'd imagine the same thing is applicable to DK' situation. __earth (Talk) 08:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
This is not entirely true. In Hamtramck, Michigan the Al-Islah Mosque announces calls to prayer from 06:00 to 22:00 (6 a.m. to 10 p.m.). See [3] and [4]. Netscott 18:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Many mosques in the United States do broadcast the adhan, but not loud enough for neighboring residences and businesses to hear. It is rare that you will find a mosque in the United States that broadcasts it that loudly (especially outside the Detroit metropolitan area). At my mosque, for example, the adhan is broadcast on loudspeakers but you can't even hear it many places on the property. joturner 22:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: If Denmark ever ban mosques, I bet there will be riots, and this is kind of stupid to me. I never heard about this before. --Terence Ong 10:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
If any country bans mosques that will be curtailing a freedom, you will see people like me on the other side of the debate then Aniket ray 17:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Moslems should not be allowed to build mosques anywhere until they allow temples/churches/satanic & wicca covens, etc in Mecca & medina. QED Hellznrg 06:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There have been mosques in Denmark since 1967. The "Nusrat Djahan" Mosque, was built in 1967 (actually it was the first mosque in scandinavia) and is open to everyone [5] [6]. Other mosques exist but are not built to the explicit purpose. It is not forbidden to build mosques or any other religious buildings in Denmark, but nobody can build what they want on a piece of land. There are strict building regulations. Finding a piece of land has proved difficult, mostly because of economic aspects. --87.72.52.192 12:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

There are very strict zoning laws ind Demark. Once piece of land has been reserved for a grand mosque near Copenhagen, but financing is not settled. It could easily be financed with saudi money, but then it would become an Arab mosque, and most moslems in Denmark are not arabs (but turks, kurds, and bosnians).--Per Abrahamsen 19:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Renaming Tasty Pastries

Should the following paragraph remain in the article?

Also of note, it has also been reported that in Iran when people are looking for a sweet flaky dessert at the bakery they now have to ask for "Roses of the Prophet Muhammad".[4] Cake shop owner Ahmad Mahmoudi has been quoted as saying, "This is a punishment for those who started misusing freedom of expression to insult the sanctities of Islam". This marks the first time a food item has become a symbol of protest since Capitol Hill cafeterias changed their menus to advertise "freedom fries" instead of french fries.

I had added it yesterday, but it was removed later. Should it be placed back into the article? Sysrpl 03:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

hehe... I had actually added essentially the same bit of info back with Iran announced the name change of Danish to Muhammadan but the link I provided was too funny and the bit I added got cut... now I'm inclined to think that this act by Iran is a bit smallish relative to the rest of what has occurred (and is occurring) and as such should probably be on one of the support pages. (like timeline, etc.) Netscott 03:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
According to the Freedom Fries article, the people who renamed French Fries later admitted they were wrong and what they did was silly. Will this happen with the people who renamed the Danish, or will they rename the cheese to Muhammed Bimbo, every street to Muhammed Way and change every town's name to Muhammedabad? --Tokachu 17:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Most Danes are extremely informed about the names of pastries in Arab countries. We are all very distraught by this turn of events. Celcius (Talk) Wiki be With us! 20:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I guess renaming the pastry is too non-violent for us. We only want to focus on the violent acts and the body counts so we can pit one side against the other better! Hey, get a grip! After picking a fight, we say that the fight itself was the very reason we picked a fight. Admit it. Renaming the Danish to "Rose of the Prophet Muhammad" was an ingenious form of non-violent protest, a cultural put-down in response to a barbaric insult. A hundred years from now, Muslims everywhere will be enjoying their roses of the Prophet Muhammad, and the Jyllands-Posten cartoons will be so "yesterday's newspaper." Wikipedia should have the foresight to publish now the origin of this tradition-in-the-making.12.16.126.34 23:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not ingenious. The so called "Danish" has nothing to do with Denmark - so nobody cares. It's like when some Americans renamed "French Fries" to "Freedom Fries". I'm sure the French were really hurt seeing they have no clue what French Fries are as they themselves call it Belgish/Belgium Fries. But of course it shows quite nicely to what level the debate has sunk - the lowest possible Celcius (Talk) Wiki be With us! 03:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

What ? Cross-reference please

72.129.170.249 inserted this in 'Danish traditions': "Shortly before the publication of the Muhammad cartoons, Jyllands-Posten ran a headline reading, “Islam is the Most Belligerent.” The newspaper ran an exposé about an alleged Muslim death-list of Jewish names—until it emerged that the whole thing was a fabrication. [7]."

I hope I'm not being blind to my blindspots. Although I generally find little to agree with J-P on, in terms of their editorial and political line, I find it highly unlikely that JP 'fabricated' the story about the death-list. That however, is the most immediate interpretation of the sentence (though I admit, there are several). Furthermore, I haven't heard of this before. Are there any cross-references ?? Varga Mila 21:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes there is. If you google for: "jøder" "dødsliste", you will find quite a few references to this story. It was on the frontpage of JP 11. august, 2005 MX44 13:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
... ehrm, that should have been: 11. august, 2002 MX44 23:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks MX44. I found a summary (http://www.journalisten.dk/sw224.asp [danish]).Varga Mila 23:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

POLL 3 & POLL 4 vs. bigger cartoons

Unfortunately some people do not want to see a different opinions here. Poll 3 could survive only one night after being vandalized 100 times, now Poll 4 is closed. In both cases the Poll owners are not the ones who closed them. Isn't that strange? I think they have a strong fear that a better idea which is closer to a comprimise may win!

I would like to ask people who believe in the freedom of speech here to vote for the polls 3 and 4 at the corresponding pages in the archives above.

Another thing is that: the cartoons are getting bigger and bigger every day... Now descriptions are also added... Hopefully soon the pic will be big enough to cover to whole page so that we will need to carry the text to another page. That way we can put a link to the one with text. That would be a real comprimise!

Maybe we should just post the cartoon to all wiki articles? Only then some people here would feel rested and feel some comfort! Resid Gulerdem 21:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It's very normal on wikipedia that polls and discussions are closed by another person than the one who started it. Noone on wikipedia owns anything, besides Jimbo. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 22:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
One may think that it is normal. But is is definitely better if the poll owner close it at least for the sake of kindness... It doesn't mean that poll owner owns wikipedia all together! How about having one poll 3-4 days open, but the others a night or a day? Resid Gulerdem 22:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Polls 3 and 4 were basically discussing whether or not the cartoons should be put on the page or not. They all overwhelming supported leaving the cartoon where it is. Perhaps we should start a fifth poll where we ask if we should add this warning:
The Wikipedia lawyer has informed us that we need a warning... so, if you find this picture offensive, please do not look at it. Thank you!
I sincerely hope you understand that the pictures are there to stay, and that creating more and more polls will not make anyone switch sides. --Tokachu 22:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
What is that again?!... Did you read what I wrote before writing a response? Resid Gulerdem 22:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't recall poll 4 being 'officially' closed... I see where another editor archived it but I don't see where anything's preventing anyone from bringing that poll back out of the archive onto this discussion page. The reality of that poll however is that it was a bit ill-organized. Jeremy should have set a date for the end of the poll so that it's archiving wouldn't have been too big of a concern. Remember that WikiPedia is designed to work through consensus. While I wouldn't argue that there was consesus as to when the poll should have been archive there did seem to be a decent percentage of people who seemed to express irritation that another poll was even called. Netscott 22:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
What is 'oficially close'? Was Poll 3 officially closed? It could survive only a night after been vandalized 100 times... Resid Gulerdem 22:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Resid, I brought it back out... but a day ago Jeremy said he would like to see it go a couple more days... so tomorrow at this time we'll archive it. Netscott 23:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Why you didn't brought Poll 3 too? Thanks for Poll 4 and please do not delete my talk here on this page. How come you are deleting what I wrote? Resid Gulerdem 23:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
one poll at a time... and as far as I can tell Poll 3 truly is dead As well I was not involved with Poll 3 and do not intend to involve myself with it. Sorry about deleting your text... I can bring it back out if you'd like (of course you could to). Netscott 00:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I remember Polls 1 and 2 were active together?!... Resid Gulerdem 00:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Size

Does the image have to be so big, what's wrong with the standard thumbnail size, and let users click for the larger version, as is the norm? I don't want to censor it, it just looks bad when it’s so big. Gerard Foley 21:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I do find that the image is WAY to big for those of us with lower screen resolutions. It was just fine at 250px in my opinion. — TheKMantalk 22:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I just remembered I have a wide screen monitor, I resized it to a "standard size" and it takes up half the space. It looks even worse then before. Gerard Foley 22:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The image does seem to change size a lot! Right now, it is slightly larger than the version that one gets to after clicking the thumbnail. The 'normal' (smaller) thumbnail size, however roughly matches the 'norm'.Varga Mila 22:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I did go bold now and changed the image to size 200px (calculated so for 800x600 only take ¼ width). I hope this is ok for you all. →AzaToth 22:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a little small for me. Septentrionalis 22:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a very silly thing to start an edit war with, to me 200px seams to me to be the standard size of images in articles, this one should be no different. Gerard Foley 22:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks fine to me now. However, the image to which it links (i.e. the enlargement) ought to be bigger! As it is now, it is nearly impossible to 'decipher' e.g., the cartoon in the left hand corner furthest down (a cartoonist looking nervously over his shoulder). Varga Mila 22:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Although the 400px version seems to portray the correct amount of detail and although I despise people who insist on keeping resolutions below 1024x768, I must say that 200px closer to the standard. If someone wants to see a larger image, they can click on the thumbnail or the link to the larger picture. joturner 22:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Since I've been contributing on this article from the Feb. 6 I've noticed the occasional changes in the image size but frankly on my higher resolution screens it's never been an issue for me, that said there are those who do use lower resolution and with that in mind the image should be set to 250px. Netscott 22:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

250px is a little bigger them normal, but not so big as to take most of the space for itself. However, far worse then the size of the image, it the constant changing of its size. Gerard Foley 22:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

To me, this seems childish. Leave it at 200px as context for the article, and so that it is viewable by a majority of users. Let people click the thumbnail to view the image in full. Can we leave the issue? James Kendall [talk] 22:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I say leave it at 250px, because that is what it is now. This is childish. Gerard Foley 22:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realise it was 250px. To me it looks small as I have a high-res laptop screen, but it looks fine, and I expect its quite large on smaller resolutions. We are meant to be creating the world's best free reference material, not a bitchfest over pixels. James Kendall [talk] 22:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
"A bitchfest over pixels" - I'll have to remember that one. joturner 23:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it is much too small now- I can't read the cartoon as is --SeanMcG 23:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Try to click on it, can you? Resid Gulerdem 23:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully wikipedia won't be targeted if it is enlarged :/ --SeanMcG 23:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Folks this shouldn't be an issue... the main page image isn't meant to be the image that one examines closely (that's why it's clickable) and even though the clickable one is still a bit small the reason for this has to do with image rights. Please stop the bickering and just leave it at 250px... Netscott 23:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it should be left at 250px and I apologize for the resizing... I forgot that some people use smaller screens and that it could cause issues. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 08:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Even the large version now is unreadable. Was this a compromise? HiS oWn 00:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


This line from the actual image page explains the reason for it's lack of clarity:

"it is a low-resolution image; the full details of the drawings cannot be seen, nor can the text of the article be read (and thus should not inhibit Jyllands-Posten from selling their newspaper)". Netscott 04:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Images of Muhammad in Shi'a Islam

"Among Muslims, the Shi'a Muslims have been generally tolerant of pictorial representation of human figures including Muhammad to the point that a fatwa exists given by Ali al-Sistani, the Shi'a marja of Iraq, stating that it is permissible to make pictures of Muhammad, if done with the highest respect"

Although whoever wrote this does cite an a fatwa by Ali al-Sistani, I'm fairly certain that it is only acceptable if there is a veil placed over the Prophet's face. In many Persian miniature paintings, Muhammad is depicted with a blank unpainted face. Personally, I've never seen any Modern pictorial representations of Muhammad, doing so is still considered taboo in the Islamic world. Thus, I don't know if the article should state that Shia Muslims are generally tolerant of images depicting Muhammad; it is still rare. --SeanMcG 23:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

By all means edit it... but be sure to leave in the very critical bit about the fatwa. Netscott 23:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Page needs protection

Do you think it is necessary to provide page protection? This article is one of the most prone to vandalism on Wikipedia and IMO it should be fully protected. --Mvent2 23:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

No, as it is a current event. Just my 2c. James Kendall [talk] 23:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your opinion. --Mvent2 23:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
It does get sprotected from time to time... if there's active vandalism occuring then it's best to report it to Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress. Netscott 23:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Denmark's Worst Crisis Since WWII?

The controversy is regarded as Denmarks worst international crisis since the Second World War.

In my opinion, that is an unverifiable fact (or rather opinion) that, at the very least, does not belong in the opening paragraph. Instead of violating the three-revert rule by removing the statement again, I decided to simply add the {{fact}} tag. Any input on the statement? joturner 23:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it is unverifiable as such. However, it is exactly what is repeatedly said by various Danish Politicians (including the foreign minister) when interviewed on the news. Varga Mila 00:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Right, it is not a fact. But it is regarded so, bu both politicians, the media and scholars. Think it is important in order to understand the importance this controversy has for Denmark. Bertilvidet 00:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I altered the sentence a bit to specify the parties that hold that opinion. joturner 00:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I found a source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,25689-2041723,00.html It was the Danish PM Anders Fogh Rasmussen who said that. Mvent2 00:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I really don't think it can be controversial to state it is the worst international crisis for Denmark since WWII. Denmark has usually had a rather low-profile foreign policy. How many of the non-Danes here can mention any other international crisis Denmark has been in??? Bertilvidet 00:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I actually do agree with the statement, but it's still an opinion. I'm okay with the statement as it stands now, mentioning that it is Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen who holds that opinion. joturner 00:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, it is actually widely redarded to be so. But of course it is not hard fact, why I from the beginning wrote "is regarded as". Bertilvidet 00:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The last comment was moved to the arguments page. joturner 20:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

What do the span tags do? (READ THIS if you want to hide the picture!!)

What is the purpose of this <span id="mi">? Can I hide the picture using my CSS page? If so, how? Gerard Foley 03:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you open your monobook.css and add this:
#mi{display: none;}

And it removes the picture. Haven't used CSS in a long time so it may not work. If not, tell me. Mvent2 03:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does, thank you. Gerard Foley 03:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Glad I still have some CSS knowledge in my thick skull LOL :) Mvent2 03:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Btw, just a note of reference to open up your monobook.css file (you need to have an account) go to User:USERNAME/monobook.css where username is of course your username. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 03:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia has a help page for user styles. Anonymous Islamic users: If you want to hide the picture using this method you need to sign up for an account. Mvent2 03:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

That box is gigantic. OMG. Kyaa the Catlord 09:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Resid...

Resid Gulerdem

I tried to suggest a poll, to be set up once the controversy had settled down, where people could have one last look at all the options and vote with some degree of finality, without feeling that their previous votecasting had been ignored or overridden.

I feel that you have, with your constant whining and poll-mongering, ruined any chance of that. On your head be it. WookMuff 04:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry that I cannot read your intensions... And I am surprised that, you think your poll will be welcomed... Resid Gulerdem 08:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with Riverraz's changes?!

He's not trying to change the size of the image at all. The closest thing he did was to edit the whitespace in the warning. [8]

Darn, that causes the article to be protected again as I write this. Just for essentially trivial formatting changes. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 09:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Not trivial... along with date formatting the first four edits done by Riveraz changed the image size specified for the main cartoons image... which no doubt triggers everyone's whistles and bells to do automatic reverts. Netscott 09:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
You'll see from the diff you just listed that his changes noticeably reduced the image size which went against the talk page discussions on the image size which was agreed upon to be kept at 250px. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 09:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Sambo

According to Google, it appears like the most relevant link between "Sambo" and "Jylland-Posten" is ... Wikipedia! Note that "sambo" is also a danish (or scandinavian) word, denoting a person with whom you live together with, which is totally unrelated to this article.

The link between "Mohammad" and "Carlsberg" appears to be somewhat more relevant :) MX44 15:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

  • It appears that comparisons on the internet between Sambo and the Jyllands-Posten Cartoon controversy are virtually non-existent ... upon searching Google news I came up with an African judge named Sambo involved in the controversy [9]. If there was a warranted comparison, I think it's safe to say that there'd be more examples of both reputable news organizations and web sites publishing the link. As such this isn't the case and due to the fact that for the searching the terms "Sambo" and "Jyllands Posten" on Google wikipedia is the #1 site, it appears safe to say that Wikipedia is pushing a POV. For this reason I'm removing the Sambo reference. Netscott 19:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Bad link (cartoonbodycount.com)

The site www.cartoonbodycount.com is currently down, as it has returned either a 412 Precondition Failed or 509 Bandwidth Exceeded error today. As far as I can tell, web sites that actually have a reputation to hold don't do this. Therefore, this link should be temporarily removed or mirrored until the administrator of www.cartoonbodycount.com learns to stop preaching their narrow technological beliefs. This is actually very ironic.

Anyway, bad server = bad link. --Tokachu 18:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I just checked it and it appears to be back up. Even the best of sites has downtimes sometimes. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 19:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Still down with a "412 Precondition Failed" error. --Tokachu 20:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Error 412 comes from Apache's mod_security, which tries to stop various types of attacks and spam. In this case, it might be that mod_security was incorrectly marking the incoming link as referer spam -- this has happened a couple of times with sites I have hosted at a provider who uses it, generally when terms like "sex" or "poker" appear in the referer URL. But anyway, I'm not seeing this problem, so it's moot. Ubernostrum 03:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not having any problems, must be something on your end. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 20:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I run the site. We are not even experiencing heavy traffic at the moment. The domain name is pretty new though so people on certain networks might not have the correct DNS (though it is unlikely, it's been more than 48 Hours.) I am a journalist applying a journalistic ethic to the collection of this data. UPDATE: I think your error is being caused by some anti-spam software I am using to protect the site. What is your browser? 69.113.207.99 20:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
You know it's really not fair to attack a site because they have hosting issues. Do you remember the hours of downtime Wikipedia was experiencing as little as a month ago? What's ironic is saying "bad server = bad link" on Wikipedia. --Cyde Weys 20:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not attacking the server. I'm just saying that the link doesn't work over here. And for 69.113.207.99, I'm using Mozilla Firefox, which is exactly what the error message asks to use. --Tokachu 21:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, it works now. That was very odd. --Tokachu 21:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Call for Cleanup of "Opinions" sub-article

The "Opinions" sub-article article is a mess. As it stands now it is a leftover of a past ongoing discussion that more or less stopped when "Opinions" was forked from the main article. I propose to:

  • order arguments not by country but by POV. There may be 5 or 6 different stances, on the whole.
  • leave out excessive detail.
  • find links to high-quality editorials that are exemplary for the different POVs. These will usually have been written latter in the controversy, whereas the links now present are all from early stages.
  • Order by :
    • Initial Publication: needless/ill-intentioned provocation or addressing a real grievance
    • Initial Publication:: legal or illegal
    • Inital Danish Reaction by Muslim Groups and Danish Government correct or overblown or fair or provocative
    • Internationalization of the Issue via the dossier: justified/overblown/desperate/aggressive
    • Reaction of arab (M.E:) states: defenging the faith/playing the issue for domestic gain/international conspiracy/miscalculation
    • Wave of republications: more provocation/ taking sides / attempt to inform
    • unrest: spontaneous/controlled(by whom?)/ill-informed(rumors)
    • prcendents/similarities to past conflict

Azate 20:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Support, see my post on Opinions talk. RichardRB 03:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)



Map Visualization is Very Amateurish

The map in the article showing where the cartoons have been published will become a classic example of how visualizations can distort the truth. Come on, Wikipedians! Show us how intelligent you are! In your present mapping system, if one paper publishes the cartoons, then the entire country turns yellow. One picture tells a thousand lies! If you really want to convey accurate information, then the map should use more colors, like a "heat map." The colors should be just a few in number, easily discernible as part of a spectrum, and should be determined by meaningful factors such as total readership of the papers that published the cartoons in a particular country, total number of readers of all the leading papers in that country, and total population of the country. A color scheme based on this kind of math would better suggest the relative impact of publication. Other factors that are cloaked by your present visualization include: publication date, political leaning, and reader response. Your current map reeks of ridiculous either-or labeling driven by the various motivations of publications that are only very loosely related. It is so unprofessional that it brings down whatever integrity the rest of the article was striving for.12.16.126.34 23:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Who stops you from doing exactly that? --Lucius1976 23:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, first the present map should come down until a better map is drawn. It's too misleading to be up by default. If it comes down, I will propose some algorithms, including a time-lapse solution, like an animated map showing the spread of the bird flu virus. A quick compromise using the current map would be to add a color to the rest of the world, and relabel the map as showing countries where there has been no publication of the cartoons at all. That's the more meaningful factor in this 2-color map because it's an absolute. The colors selected should be distinguishable from each other if printed in black-and-white.12.16.126.34 00:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Your idea with a color scheme is interesting, and i think you should make such a map; it will probably replace the current one. But until you do, the map sould stay, because it gives a quick overview over wich countries the cartoons where published.The.valiant.paladin 00:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't like the map either, and I'm sure it could be improved in many ways. However, I can't see how adding a color to countries without any republishing of the cartoon will make any difference. Isn't that already the case right now, and that color for these countries is grey? If you can draw a better map, with more distinctive shading, or even animate it, great! To propose that the current map should come down before you agree to draw a better one is - well - very odd. Azate 00:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Quick overview is exactly what's dangerous about it. It's quickly misleading. It's like an election night map in a 2-party race. But here it gives the wrong visual impression, that entire countries are behind isolated instances of these drawings being published. Why should Montana be colored in for something published in Pennsylvania? Bad design shouldn't be included just because it was created. We're not under deadline to fill up space here. The current map is biased because it only visualizes one side of the issue. You say there are 2 colors, but you know very well that there is only one color here. Look at the caption: "Countries where the images were published in some form." Anybody reading that will have to assume that you are referring to the countries in yellow and not in grey. To be correct with this map you have to properly label both colors and clearly state that the first color shows countries where the images have not been published at all.12.16.126.34 01:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
You are asking us to prove a negative which is imposible without an exhaustive search of each and every newspaper in each and every country. For unknown reason Mexico temporaryly fell out and was left uncolored. Stating at that time that the images had NOT been published in Mexico would have been wrong. As the map is defined now it reflects the current state of publishing to the best of our knowledge. We can not prove that the images are unpublished but we can prove that they are MX44 02:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Doing a complicated map for an current issue like this would be difficult because it would go out of date very quickly. The current map was updated three times in four days. Perhaps if/when the issue settles down a more detailed map can be shown. I like MX44's statement that we can prove that the images are published since you can never be sure some local paper hasnt published it somewhere - thats really all we can show at this stage. -- Astrokey44|talk 02:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
We don't need this map. It's not NPOV. It's propaganda. It says, "Look at the march of social progress as one country after another asserts freedom of the press!" One newsletter in Antarctica and suddenly another huge part of the world has hopped on the bandwagon. The map is one-sided. It monitors only one side of one issue. By your own admission it's inaccurate to boot. Imagine if you used this mapping concept for your bird flu article. One person dies in Russia, so you color in all of Russia. That'd scare the heck out of everybody! With this map about the drawings you are visually telling your readers (including your Muslim readers) that there is a huge world population that supports the publication of the drawings. Telling me that, oh no, that's not what this map says at all! is hypocrisy. Illustrations like this one get their message across in the first nanosecond and here that message doesn't speak the truth.12.16.126.34 02:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
It appears to me that you do not have any difficulties realizing that the map is a course represntation. Why would the next person? MX44 03:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Because understanding the map shouldn't require a dawning realization of what it's not actually saying.12.16.126.34 03:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Would it make you happier if we accentuated those places where there have been death-tolls and/or torching of buildings? Or would you consider that to be propaganda because those hotspots all fall within the grey zone. MX44 03:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
It is not Propaganda, it is a fact. To my knowledge, the map makes no other statement than "the cartoons have been published in these places." Like the list of newspapers that have published the cartoons, it is simply a record. You assign any further meaning to it yourself. There are a great many details it would be helpful to add to the map, and I seem to remember a discussion (it may be archived now) where a better map was indeed being put together. This is still a developing event, and as such, many of the facts contained are wrong, or will require adjustment. We will make those changes as we become able to do so, but removing a map that does successfully comunicate what countries have and have not printed the cartoons isn't a good idea. If you wish to present an improved map, by all means do so, but don't demand that the current one be taken down first. RichardRB 03:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
All right, then let me make another proposal. I propose a second world map, created with the same toolset you used for the first map, and positioned together with the first map. This second map would show all countries where there has been an organized protest against the publication of the cartoons.12.16.126.34 03:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like an excellent idea to me. If not a second map, we could certainly combine the two. Why don't you see if you can construct an introductory list of countries that have held protests? If you need a starting point, I would try going through the timeline. RichardRB 04:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Good idea everyone. I'm currently working on a combined image. joturner 05:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
From the Wikipedia timeline, I'm getting a good introductory list of countries, but it doesn't include either the United States or Canada, where there have indeed been protests. See The Conservative Voice Also missing is China, home of 21 million Muslims. There was a protest in Hong Kong. See The New York Times Russia should be colored in, too. There are 20+ million Muslims there. See Monsters and Critics France is missing from the timeline, but mention of a protest in Paris is found on the international reaction page. Iraq should be added to the list as well. See the AP story at CBS47 The timeline page does include (or points to articles that do include): Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the West Bank, Qatar, Oman, Morocco, Indonesia, the UK, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Belgium, Austria, Iran, Afghanistan, Somalia, Egypt, Pakistan, Niger, Nigeria, the Philippines, Finland, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bangladesh, India, Kenya, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Egypt, Jordan, East Jerusalem (Israeli police were involved), Libya, Tanzania, Turkey -- and Denmark. Please note that this list might be longer if the caption read: all countries where there has been an organized protest or action taken against the publication of the cartoons.12.16.126.34 11:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The protests in Hong Kong were cancelled. Authorities disallowed the protesters to rally MX44 12:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
There was also a protest in New Zealand. [10]
The last combined map that was posted seemed confusing. I would vote for two separate maps for simplicity. -- Avenue 12:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I attempted to make another composite. One has uninvolved countries in light grey while the other has uninvolved countries in dark grey. I'm undecided on which I like better, but both are available for your perusal.

Image:Cartoonmap-combined.png
Brighter blue countries had more newspapers that printed the cartoons. Brighter red countries had more major protests and boycotts. Especially bright red countries had deadly protests. Purple countries both printed the cartoons and hosted major protests and boycotts. Grey countries had neither.
Image:Cartoonmap-combined-dark.png
Brighter blue countries had more newspapers that printed the cartoons. Brighter red countries had more major protests and boycotts. Especially bright red countries had deadly protests. Purple countries both printed the cartoons and hosted major protests and boycotts. Dark grey countries had neither.

You can read the captions of the above images or the summary on the individual image pages for information on the meanings of the colors. I hope this is less confusing than the first image but more informative than the second. Comments are welcome. joturner 13:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, ignore my last comment about not liking combined maps. I like these two, especially the first. At least on my screen, using dark grey for uninvolved countries in the second map seems to risk confusion with the dark blue for light re-publishers.
The descriptions of colouring are quite lengthy. How about a legend? E.g. a square with redness increasing from bottom to top, and blueness increasing from left to right, with appropriate descriptions. -- Avenue 13:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
DarkGrey/DarkBlue looks samish on this (admittedly very old) monitor too. My vote is for LightGrey for neutral countries MX44 13:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Well done ! However, what about the countries in which the cartoons have NOT been published, but there HAVE been casualties ? Apologies if I'm reading your map superficially, but I really can't read that from it. If that is not evident, then the map surely is 'distorting'. In my opinion, it is complicated to merge these two kinds of information without the use of two different kinds of denotation (e.g. colour for publication and stripes for casualties). I would prefer two maps; one with shades of blue to denote publication (e.g. per capita), another with red to denote casualties and perhaps, on that map, another colour denoting protests of varying degrees of intensity (e.g. beginning at yellow [peaceful demonstrations] to dark red [multiple casualties]. Varga Mila 14:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The purely bright red countries have had casualities but no printings. The not-so-bright red countries have had protests and boycotts but no countries. Essentially, the more red there is, the more protests and boycotts. Extremely red countries have had deadly protests and boycotts, regardless of the number of protests (although those countries tended to have had many protests anyway). And yes, I agree that the dark colors can be confused. It seems like the light grey version is the better one. joturner 14:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
And when/if there are publications in a country currently coloured dark red, it will become... purple ? For clarity and simplicity, my vote :) is on two separate maps. Varga Mila 15:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I have uploaded a new version with a key:

Involvement in the controversy:Hosts of cartoon printings (blue), major protests (red), both (purple), and neither (grey) are shown.
Enlarge
Involvement in the controversy:
Hosts of cartoon printings (blue), major protests (red), both (purple), and neither (grey) are shown.

Comments again are welcome. joturner 15:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

OH NO!! Your map puts the United States and Germany together at one end of the spectrum! You guys trying to start WWIII??12.16.126.34 15:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Nice but complex and confusing. I still think that two maps would work far better. Cf. Edward Tufte! Varga Mila 15:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
12.16.126.34, I hope you're just kidding. Both the United States and Germany have had many newspapers reprint the cartoons with no major protests. They, therefore, should be categorized very closely (there is a slight color difference between the two, by the way). joturner 15:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The title of the article is not, "We Are All Danes Now." It's about "controversy." The spectrum should reflect that. It should go from "no publication - silent" to "wide publication - bloodbath." Instead, you've made it go from "no publication - bloodbath" to "wide publication - silent." What's up with that?12.16.126.34 16:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The map is simply meant to map the facts. However, if you, 12.16.126.34, interpret the current map as POV, others presumably will too. The 2 map solution should minimize such misinterpretations.Varga Mila 16:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe that we should produce two maps, because there are countries where the drawings have been published and where there have been protests. They map over the reprints should use colours to show how many of the drawings have been published in that country. I also think that we should only count daily newspapers and not weekly magazines. --Maitch 16:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
This is becoming very frustrating. Maitch said because there are countries where the drawings have been published and where there have been protests. I understand that; that is reflected on the map with the purple (mix of red and blue). However, the idea of creating a map that shows the number of cartoons printed per country is a good idea. I'm curious how that will add to the article though because that kind of map most likely won't show which articles are printed. We can use other means to indicate that. If you are suggesting that the data presented in my map be split into two, that would create a total of three different maps. Overkill? I'm not asking everyone to be okay with my map; I'm simply asking that people be clearer about their issues with it and be clearer with how it can be changed. In addition, I want to clarify the misinterpretations before people make judgements. I understand that misinterpretations by a large number of readers may be a problem, but I am confused about how they are arising considering there is a key on the map. This is a standard dual-spectrum map; it's not something I invented. As I will repeat, you do not have to agree with this map, but please be clearer in your issues with it or create one of your own for comparison. joturner 17:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't seem to understand what you are talking about. There are no "wide publication - bloodbath" regions because they don't exist at the moment. The "no publication - silent" regions, however, are clearly visible in the map. I believe the above shows the "no publication - no major protests", "no publication - major protests", and "publication - no major protests" regions very clear. I hope it's not that you're misreading the map; the key is supposed to make the two spectrums very clear. More red = more major protests; more blue = more publications. When you mix red and blue together you get purple, which explains why regions that have hosted both are in a shade of purple. If you think the amount of blue present in the picture indicates a "We Are All Danes Now" feeling, that is your opinion. That is what you get when you interpret this map. But I didn't distort any facts; there are really that many countries that have printed the cartoons. If you are still dissatisfied with this map, you are free to create one (or two) of your own. joturner 16:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I see, the result of the map discussion so far is that a) the map is better that the orange one b) it's still far from perfect. So I took the bold step to replace the orage one with the new one. OK? Azate 00:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the whole idea of a map of this form is POV. Example: When maps show population density, they use a colour spectrum and different numbers map to different points on the spectrum. People don't say "Hmmm, France, that's slightly less dense than the UK, so lets make it slightly lighter." But what you are effectively doing is just that. And different people would judge the differences in colours differently. Therefore, POV. --Nathan (Talk) 05:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

2-factor controversy key:cyan color group and red color group separated by a greyscale, which makes it easier to distinguish colors and to guess where a color would be on this chart.
Enlarge
2-factor controversy key:
cyan color group and red color group separated by a greyscale, which makes it easier to distinguish colors and to guess where a color would be on this chart.

Joturner's 2D color key is a method of data compression. But the tricky thing about any 2D key is that we're tempted to take 2 of the 3 primary colors and fit them like a bed sheet onto the 4 corners of our chart. I submit here an alternate color code, a color chart based on subtracting colors rather than adding them. The primary spectrum goes from white (lower left) to black (upper right), representing the intensity of the controversy by looking at it in 2 different ways -- from little activity either way to heavy activity both ways. This greyscale on the long diagonal is the only part of the chart devoid of hue, so the eye knows it lies between 2 distinctive color groups. Using the "Netscape-safe" RGB increments, we incrementally subtract red going up, and we incrementally subtract the other 2 primary colors, green and blue, in unison going across. This creates a cyan family above the greyscale and a red family below the greyscale. RGB color logic dictates that red and cyan are true opposites. Thus, I believe the greyscale along the main diagonal would make it easier for the naked eye to guess the coordinates of any particular color here without having to match it on the chart. It makes any of the 36 colors here more self-describing. MegaYacht 05:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi all,

If anyone remembers, this was the map I created earlier.

Enlarge

I made my map color-blind friendly but the current map might be more difficult for those who cannot distinguish suttle color differences. Perhaps we should create two maps, one with a more gradual gradient like Joturner's and one with mine that color-blind people can easily distinguish? Anyways I know mine isn't up to date simply because the events are happening too fast for me to keep up. I was hoping by now things would have calmed down and i could really get to work on it but I suppose not.

Also, if anyone can find me an even LARGER blank map, I would consider redoing only with cities to give a more accurate representation. The current map is too small for such things. Hitokirishinji 15:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


If the maps show things in different lights, the more maps the merrier :) Things do seem to be calming down. I hope. DanielDemaret 16:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

New color chart

I want to congratulate Joturner on his map, which is more accurate, more neutral and more informationdense than any I have seen (ex. : compare it to the partisan one at http://face-of-muhammed.blogspot.com/). That being said I think that MegaYachts alternate color chart above would make an improvement for readability. Yours truly, --Anjoe 14:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Will recent JP apology in the Arap Newspapers be included in the article?

Will recent JP apology in the Arap Newspapers be included in the article? Resid Gulerdem 05:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Got a link Resid? Netscott 05:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I have read an article about it, cannot find a link at this point. Maybe the one below suffices! Resid Gulerdem 22:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't know if this has been touched upon elsewhere, but the apology placed in the Arab newspapers, were not placed there by JP, but by a farmer from Jutland (the place mentioned in on the cartoons, incidentally). It is apparently the exact same apology that has been on the JP website for while. (While it is a bit dubious for an individual to do this, it seems obstinate of JP to only have published the apology on the internet). The apology, btw, is again, 'not' an apology for having published the cartoons, but for having hurt the feelings of some people.

http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=439321 Varga Mila 08:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Please delete the cartoon image

There is no point in offending others in this way. Many people have died over this issue. Clearly the images are hurtful to others. Many images are illegal in Canada (e.g. child pornography, hate speech) and other Western nations, and it would be in bad taste for anyone to hurt others by violating our norms. Why do we have no respect for others and intentionally hurt and degrade them? [some IP] --- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.84.40.22 (talk • contribs) 05:45, February 20, 2006. --- tagged as unsigned by JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 07:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

With logic we should delete all religious pages!--Greasysteve13 02:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The images did not cause people to get murdered, people caused people to get murdered. Your definition of respect is many people's definition of censorship and pandering to a religion to avoid being attacked by them, most people don't appreciate taking actions which could concievably be viewed as bowing down to the threat of terrorism. Homestarmy 06:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

There have been numerous polls regarding this issue, and still an overwhelming majority agree the image should stay. The image is an integral part of the article. If you don't want it displayed by all means read the censorship instructions at the top of this page. Everyone please stop your whining, the image is here to stay whether you like it or not. -- Mvent2 06:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
It makes me sick to see terrorists and arsonists do the dirty work of intimidation while fellow whiners do the rest of the work, using the perpetrated crimes as pretext, ...pretending to have hurt feelings on top of that. --tickle me 06:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I can only assume that you have not seen the large blueish box at the top of this page that says loudly, "How to censor the images for your own browser". If you do not like the image, you can stop it from displaying on your computer. Can anyone say "equine necroflagellation", again? — Kimchi.sg | Talk 06:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes another case of Hipponecromastigosis. heh Netscott 07:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
If you are a user, then you can run the monobook test, but since you are an anon, I think you can't. There is a giant box up there, read it. There was a poll by the community that the image should stay, and we are only showing one out of all the cartoon images. --Terence Ong 07:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm just happy to see my box is helping. :)Gerard Foley 18:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could explain to me, that if it is the images themselves, that lead to so much violence; then how come there was no reported violence (I haven't even heard of a fiery letter to the editor) when the cartoons were published in Egypt in October 2005? I don't understand the need for violence over this issue. Why not just write a letter to the editor? Nfitz 20:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

What appears to of happened is this time some guys went into a bunch of Islamic countries waving the pictures to everyone, while inserting some made-up pictures of their own which definently were overly harsh attacks on Islam, so I guess people bought into it and assumed that this newspaper was making nasty things that wern't it's fault, so now the whole middle east is involved or something I think. Homestarmy 23:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


The cartoons did not kill anyone. From several sources, I have seen and heard that the people who were killed were never allowed to see the cartoons. Had they seen the cartoons, they might have gone to a movie instead. And lived. Imaginary cartoons and imaginary insults are a lot more powerful and damaging than real ones. This is an important mission for an encyclopia: To show all the relevant facts, to dispel wild fantasies, superstitions, false attributions on ethic groups. Superstition lead to irrational fears. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to irrational violence. (What? Don't you like Yoda?) When all the facts are calmly shown, the most common tendency is for anger to dissappear. It is when there are a lot of unknown, or not belived facts, as there obviously still are in this event, that people get angry. Piling more and more or less relevant facts into the article, discussing the article, is good for now. But I, for one, hope that there will be enough facts here to calm people down one day.DanielDemaret 10:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Jyllands-Posten Editor speaks out on his reasons

If nothing else, this should definitely be posted in the Opinions section. Of particular interest is the assertion that Jyllands-Posten has indeed published cartoons about Jesus Christ and Judaism before. RichardRB 14:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we should remove the accusation of a double standard regarding the unused unsolicited cartoons now from the main article. Jyllands-Posten has printed cartoons of Jesus and I don't see why any newspaper has to use unsolicited material. The information is already in the timeline. --Maitch 16:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Although the accusation is flawed, it seems important to include it in the article, as the double standard of the media in this respect - and of JP in particular - is common and much repeated. In this way, the reader can cast his or her own judgement on the validity of the accusation. Feel free to rephrase it, but in my view, it should be included in some form.Varga Mila 18:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
"double standard" is beside the point, anyway. If JP has double standards, don't buy it, or write angry letters to the editor, don't torch embassies or boycott Danish products in general (JP != Denmark). Denmark is just protecting their right to be pricks. dab (ᛏ) 18:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you could give me a verifiable source for the common and much repeated double standard, then we should include it. This however is a false accusation and should have no place in the main article. I'm going to remove it. --Maitch 22:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the issue is so much whether J-P uses a double standard. The issue is whether J-P is perceived to use a double standard. If they are, it should be included; if they're not, it shouldn't be included. It is not important whether the perception is based on reality. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 22:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If it's mentioned in the main article, it should be removed as it has been proved a demonstrably false accusation. The perception of a double standard, on the part of Jyllands-Posten or Europe in general, is an opinion and belongs on the opinions page. RichardRB 14:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
This will depend on what you mean by "perception". Surely the angry mobs "perceive" the cartoons as being islamophobic, except that they have never set eyes on them :) dab (ᛏ) 14:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Today Iran's Foreign Minister called for an end to violent protests

Found this french article on IRNA.ir (Iran's primary news source... sometime propaganda machine and not the most NPOV source). Not sure why but the same story doesn't appear in English on their site but the main message translated from the story above, says:

"Foreign Minster Manouchehr Mottaki on Monday called for the end of the violent protests in the Muslim world against the Muhammad Cartoons."

Netscott 20:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is an english language link for this, if you still need one. RichardRB 23:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

UK Publication

The map shows the cartoons as having been reprinted in the British media, but I keep reading in the UK press that no newspaper there has so far printed them. Does anyone confirm either way. Thanks. 20:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Bloomberg reported that the BBC has shown the cartoons on television. While I haven't found any reports that it was "printed" in British media, it is apparently safe to say that it has at least been "redistributed" there at least in part. --BinaryTed 21:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
From what I have read, British television only showed the cartoons very briefly. If they are not in print, so that one can calmly study what the fuzz is about, I would consider them unpublished. MX44 22:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The list of newspapers mentions the UK because of this abortive attempt to publish the cartoons in a university student newspaper. If this is the closest anyone's come to publishing the cartoons in the UK, I suggest that the UK be pulled off the map, as the cartoons have not, in fact, been published there. I think the notation for Gair Rhydd should remain in the list of newspapers, though. RichardRB 13:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that without some more substantive redistribution of the images, UK should be removed. While the images have appeared on UK media in some form, the "redistribution" here can hardly said to be on the same level as the other countries which have reprinted the cartoons in a "permanent" form. --BinaryTed 14:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

New Yorker article first to make sense of saga! Probably heavily dependent on Wikipedia

article

El-Fagr, the 43-p dossier--it's all mentioned! We made her job so easy. Lotsofissues 21:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

More likely everybody has caught up with Wikipedia on their own by now. Well, almost: I'm still puzzled that no newspaper appears to mention the 12 cartoons from "Weekend-Avisen" which the Imam's clearly thought of as "even more offending" that JP's cartoons, or the TV-apperance from Ali-Hirsi, who it the enemy #1 of European extreme islamists. Azate 00:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Which 12 cartoons from Weekend Avisen? I've never heard of this. Do you have a link? --EyesAllMine 09:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Try page 25 -33 here: Akkari-Laban_dossier

A usual Europian hypocrisy: David Irving case! Nice to Jews, harsh to Muslims...

Moved to Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments#A usual Europian hypocrisy: David Irving case! Nice to Jews, harsh to Muslims...

Free Press ??

Moved to Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments#Free Press ??

Translations of Jyllands-Posten material

The article on the Akkari-Laban dossier provides English translations of the Jyllands-Posten article and editorial published in conjunction with the cartoons. [11] The translated passage in the article on the controversy [12] differs somewhat from the translation of the Akkari-Laban dossier.

Does anyone know of a reliable source for translations of the Jyllands-Posten article and editorial, and of the Danish words in the cartoons themselves? I think that a link to such translations would be appropriate for the article on this controversy. Alternatively, a link to the relevant portion of the Akkari-Laban dossier translation could suffice with respect to the Jyllands-Posten article and editorial.

-- Scottwiki 08:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

David Irving

Moved to Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments#David Irving

Pic

This cartoon from the Jordanian newspaper Al Ghad expresses the belief of many Muslims that the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy exemplifies how islamophobia has become acceptable in the west. Clockwise: "This one is racist", "this one is anti-Semitic", "and this one (bottom) falls under freedom of speech"
Enlarge
This cartoon from the Jordanian newspaper Al Ghad expresses the belief of many Muslims that the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy exemplifies how islamophobia has become acceptable in the west. Clockwise: "This one is racist", "this one is anti-Semitic", "and this one (bottom) falls under freedom of speech"

Why is this removed?--Striver 13:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It was not removed, it is on the Opinions page. I would hazard the guess that since this cartoon is primarily useful as an illustration of many Arabic-Muslim views on the matter, it was moved to Opinions. RichardRB 14:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
but in saying so, shouldn't it be attached in the main page as an explanation of sorts of what the Muslim viewpoint is?196.204.158.245 21:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think it significantly increased the value of the main article as a stark visual representation of the Muslim viewpoint, and its readdition to the main article could cause more to click over to the Opinions article. TransUtopian 00:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

  • This picture has been on the Opinions sub page for some time now... it truly does express an opinion on the situation... if would be less than NPOV to have this one opinion (expressed with the image) on the front page without corresponding opinions (as currently found on the Opinion page). Netscott 00:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe it should be included - it's the main argument of many opponents of the cartoons and serves to explain some of the anger. Celcius (Talk) Wiki be With us! 04:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The main argument seems to be "don't defame our prophet"...claims of inconsistent application of freedom of speech are a distant second, I would think. Regardless, we've moved all opinions ot the "Opinions article". Doesn't seem right to retain just one. Babajobu 04:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough - as long as it's universal. Celcius (Talk) Wiki be With us! 04:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not exactly universal, for some reason we have a links section called Islamic views on the main page. I brought this up a while ago but didn't get any answer beyond a suggestion to 'be bold', and I felt it would simply end in a revert war if I did it unilaterally. IMO, we should either create a section for "Danish/Free press views" to maintain NPOV, or integrate the links into the Opinions article. RichardRB 06:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed it does seem strange that there's no counter-balance...as well, the whole article needs a general going over and a grand 'unifying' edit... I just did a cursory read of it.. and it reeks of fragmentism. That said, it might be too soon for the grand unification edit due to this article's continued movement. Netscott 06:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


I added the picute. Remeber the name of this article: Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy --Striver 12:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

user:Azate removed the pic, i reverted him, he is welcomed to comment here. This is a bout a controversy, its pov to leave out one party of the controversy.--Striver 13:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Can't you read? This image is already on the "opinions" page. This is so because it illustrates an opinion. Reviewing this section here, there is (contrary to your claims) absolutely no consensus favouring its inclusion on the main image at all. Quite the opposite, in fact. Again: This picture represents ONE opinion. There are numerous others. None of them gets a cartoon on the main page, either. This is the job of the "opinions" page. Get it? Azate 13:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The cartoon does not belong on the main page. It is a very good match on the opinions page though. Just like this one would be: http://www.muhammaddrawings.com/20060204.gif Jdonnis 14:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Second Jdonnis' point. Netscott 15:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

New comparable Event

German political leaders and Jewish community representatives have demanded the boycott of a hit Turkish action movie that casts US soldiers in Iraq as villains. Bavarian Premier Edmund Stoiber and the Central Council of Jews blasted ‘Valley of the Wolves - Iraq’ (Kurtlar Vadisi - Irak) as anti-American and anti-Semitic and called on German cinemas to stop showing the picture. The film is based on an actual event - the arrest of 11 Turkish soldiers by a US military unit in northern Iraq in July 2003 on grounds of ’suspicious activity.’ The men were held for two days, their heads bagged, before being released without explanation. The film features a ‘Rambo’-like Turkish intelligence officer who exacts revenge for the episode, and depicts sadistic violence against innocent Iraqi civilians at the hands of the US troops. The GIs are also seen running a trade in organs extracted from prisoners at Baghdad’s notorious Abu Ghraib prison under the guidance of a Jewish US military doctor for rich buyers in New York, London and Tel Aviv. ‘Valley of the Wolves’ is an adaptation of a popular Turkish television series and the most expensive Turkish feature film to date with a EUR 8.4m budget. It has become a blockbuster in Turkey since its release this month. (Deutsche Welle, February 21, 2006)

Enjoy --Chaos 15:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Calling for people not to see the movie and asking cinemas in your own country not to show the film is a perfectly acceptable form of protest in a free country (though I personally think they should chill and think about something else). Calling for governments to punish artists in their country, to apologize on behalf of the media in their country, putting bounties on the heads of cartoonists, calling for their beheading, et cetera, is rather different. The situation isn't comparable at all. In fact, the fact that some people can't see the difference between these two responses is part of the problem. Babajobu 16:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, Edmund Stoiber calling for the movie not to be shown banks on censorship. Then again, Germany has a rather strict criminal code regarding hate speech. The question of what kind of speech is tolerated in western societies is relevant. jacoplane 16:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Is anyone boycotting it then? And is it a good movie? Can I buy the DVD?DanielDemaret 16:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
The movie has got to be available online with bittorrent, I would think. If you find it, let me know. I don't personally think calling for a movie not to be shown is wrong; just as I think it's fine for Muslims to ask European newspapers not to reprint the pictures. People are entitled to ask for these things, and the publisher/theater/etc. is entitled to tell them to get lost. Babajobu 16:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, yes, Edmund Stoiber's involvement is problematic. I suppose he's allowed to express his opinion, but it'd be much cleaner if the head-of-state kept his mouth shut, and if he's going to comment he should make clear he's stating his opinion as a German citizen, rather than as minister-president of Bavaria. Still, messy. Babajobu 16:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
The short-sighteness (not to mention weak rationalism and -humanism) of some people. Stoiber's call is going to have the exact same effect on everyone else, as it does on us. I want to see that movie ! Its assured successVarga Mila 17:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
First, they are calling for a boycott of the movie, not Turkish products in general. Second, as far as I can tell there have been no mass street protests, no riots, no consulate burning, no deaths, and no calls for the death of anyone involved in the film. The only way the event is comparable is to show the stark contrast between two reactions which had a similar amount of initial provocation. Piss Christ and a few of the other "comparable events" already do that, and more effectively IMO, but if you want to add another I don't really have an objection. RichardRB 21:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Stoibers timing is smart: His calls to stop showing the film come two weeks after the film's start, when cinemas are taking it off the screens in big numbers anyway. The the cinemas made their buck, all the turkish youth have seen it already, and it appears like what he says has had impact, when it really didn't. Stoiber is big on calling for things to stop: game boys, ego shooters, rap music, and anything else that is suspicious for his clientele of aged, rural Bavarians. Azate 06:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Ironically a lot of American movies features German villains.

  • This movie's trippy... it's got some fairly well known American actors in it like Billy Zane and Gary Busey... the production looks pretty good for the money they made it with (1.8million £). Netscott 06:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

keyword: New

Genlemen, please! If a Turkish movie happens to boycotted at this stage, it cannot be included in the section of compareable incidents explaining the cause and lead-up to the JP-controversy. If you want to make a comparison it should either be in the article on "The Wolves" (whenever that will happen), or if you feel that both of these incidents have a common lead of racism or imperialism (or whatever), then by all means write it into one of those articles. MX44 21:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hadn't considered that, you're right. Using the movie as a precedent for this event wouldn't make any sense. Edit: Oops, wasn't signed in. >_< RichardRB 22:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The controversy and its effect on self-censorship in arts and music

It think it is relevant to include the result of the cartoon controversy on self-censorship, since this is connected to the reasons for publishing the cartoons, stated by Flemming Rose.

Cartoon furore puts Mohammed's guest role on 'The Simpsons' in doubt http://www.chaser.com.au/content/view/2998/26/

CD-album postponed http://www.freemuse.org/sw12187.asp

Danish stand-up-comedian Omar Marzouk changes reptoire due to self-censorship http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/baggrund/article.php?id=3609266

Do you know of any other examples ?.

There was one danish album delayed or put off, a month or so ago since the artist wore a Burka. I think I saw it here in these discussions somewhere.DanielDemaret 17:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
That is the one mentioned here. Varga Mila 17:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Varga. I had a different album cover in my memory. It is amazing how a picture (or cartoon for that matter) can be twisted in ones mind if one does not see it before ones eyes.DanielDemaret 17:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Scientific mission re-routed http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=439671
Arla logo removed from national danish soccer team on trip to Israel http://www.dbu.dk/news/newsShow.aspx?id=115231
Regarding the Jomi Message album cover, you are right, it was different from that shown at freemuse.org above. If I remember right, she was wearing a burka made of a Danish flag (an interesting point to make:) Varga Mila 17:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Danish DJ boycutted from Morocco http://www.freemuse.org/sw12203.asp

Egyptian female singer Deeyah is forced to hire bodyguards for UK tour, after death threaths - http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article346376.ece —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.52.81.128 (talk • contribs).

  • Not having yet followed the link, this bit above about the Egyptian singer begs the question... are the body guards needed for protection from Islamic extremists or is it needed relative to another sector of the UK population? Netscott 20:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • "US-based Deeyah is due in London next month to promote a new single and video, released tomorrow. But the track "What Will It Be?" has already outraged hardline Islamists here as it promotes women's rights." well that explains that... although I'm not sure why this link has been added under 'self-censorship'. Netscott 20:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Please don't insert section on holocaust denial

To User:Waqas.usman:

As this article is not about David Irving or holocaust denial itself, please refrain from inserting material on these topics in the article. Thank you. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 18:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The article is about Freedom of speech, that is why I wanted to give a reference to this incident. I have inserted it under "Conflicting traditions" where the tradition of freedom of speech was mentioned. Since the whole deal is about "Freedom of speech", I believe this incident deserves a mention. Do you think it should be under a separate heading? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.81.201.7 (talk • contribs) .
User:Waqas.usman, if you can provide citations that Muslims find this an example of hypocrisy re: freedom of speech, then you are welcome to add something on this to the Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article. Because there is no law against Holocaust denial in Denmark, it cannot possible be cited as an example of "Danish tradition". Babajobu 18:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Babajobu, first of all, how can you say that THAT is the criteria on which you'll decide whether to include it or not?

Secondly, you can find several of them on a few strokes on google: Compliance To Zionism: Is It The Ultimate Criterion For Free Speech? Danish editor confesses to thought crime WESTERN FREEDOM OR HYPOCRISY? Denying The Holocaust: Free Speech Under Scrutiny [13] [14] Now will you allow a little bit of the Muslim perspective on this wikipedia article or would you remove the text again? After all, we're talking about freedom of speech here.Waqas.usman 17:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Norway's perhaps most famous defence attorney, John Christian Elden, has precisely made this argument: [15] (Norwegian). It is not only Muslims that view this as an example of hypocrisy. --Cybbe 20:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, well, regardless, it needs citations and it needs to be put in the Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article rather than this one. Babajobu 20:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Is this Moslem perspective compatible with WP:NPOV?
Does NPOV mean only things which a neutral observer would agree on, are a balance of views?
In my experience there are many Moslems who claim to know the Truth, but disagree as much as any other group on what the Truth is - see the recent Moslem/Moslem slaughter in Iraq for an example. So I don't acknowledge there is necessarily a single Moslem perspective. Stephen B Streater 18:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

We fell for the same mistake as JP, abusing freedom of speech.

Freedom is anything but inciting hatered. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.121.222.2 (talk • contribs) .

Dear Waqas.usman. I had to remove your part about holocaust. I understand completely if you feel humiliated and frustrated about the publication of the cartoons and more generally the West's policy towards the Muslim world. However, the case of Irving has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this article. He has been judged in Austria under a legislation that does not exist in Denmark. Please help expanding and correcting the information concerning the topic instead of inserting irrelevant opinions. Bertilvidet 18:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Christians in Nigeria retaliate for Saturday riots

Christians in Nigeria rioted in apparent retaliation for the deadly anti-cartoon riots on Satuday, causing more deaths. RichardRB 21:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

  • At this point that seems destined for the timeline... but if this escalates... Netscott 21:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Archive 14a

Fresh archive...14a ... if there were active subjects from the areas archived please don't hesitate to pull them back in here. Netscott 22:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Where do I ask a question?

Could someone direct me, please? I want to ask a question that I feel is related to this event, but I dare not ask it, since I can see that it might be interpreted as provocative by some, even if I do not intend it that way. I can find no guidance in Wikipedia procedures about how to go about this. DanielDemaret 23:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Intriguing. How about your talk page?Varga Mila 23:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Daniel - do you feel that you are censoring yourself? If you do, that would be ironic, considering the motivations behind the creation of the cartoons... Valtam 23:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Ask it here; if it's inappropriate, someone can/will remove it. Babajobu 01:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
In several blogs that I have read, people are saying, in different ways, approximately this: Some christians do not understand the strong muslim reaction to the cartoons, until they realize that muslims love and admire Muhammed more than christians worship Christ. But such a strong love and admiration should, by christian reference, then be labelled worship, and muslims should then be labelled muhammedans, despite protests from muslims. This is of course a horrible accusation, but when I tried to think of a way to refute them, I came up with nothing that would hold water. Is there a simple explanation? Perhaps a simple one about semantics? The possible relevance to the article: It may give one reason to why some are insensitive to the feelings of muslims: "If muslims do not worship Mohammed, then they should not be upset about a cartoon of Mohammed, so lets print it."? From my point of view, it is just a question that I can not seem to answer myself, but would like to. Please delete this fast if it is inappropriate. DanielDemaret 15:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a Muslim, so I'm not the best judge of appropriateness, but I think this is a very valid question. Here's how I understand these things: The Koran prohibits images of Allah, as there is a fear that Muslims will engage in idolatry and worship the images themselves, and not Allah. There is no such prohibition in the Koran regarding any other images, except perhaps a general prohibition on depiciting any living things at all. In some Muslim communities, there arose an oral tradition of Muslims not depicting any of their prophets, out of respect for these prophets. My understanding is that this is a prohibition on Muslims, and not on the non-Muslim community.
I can see your point. From a Muslim standpoint, in my opinion, the attitude should be: "Based on our oral traditions, we Muslims will not create any images of any prophets, out of respect for them. However, of course, our traditions do not bind non-believers." The strong love and admiration you describe seems to be the result of a transfer of the prohibition on depicting Allah to a prohibition on depicting Mohammed. But that would equate Mohammed with Allah, which would itself be idolatry. So I think there is an inherent contradiction in the level of 'upsetness' (to coin a phrase) regarding the cartoons. A Muslim may not be allowed to draw a cartoon of Mohammed, but the oral tradition (as far as I know) does not stop a non-believer from drawing him. However, if a Muslim becomes as upset over a picture of Mohammed as he would over a picture of Allah (or even more upset), he may be crossing that line into idolatry. Hmm... Interesting question, Daniel. Valtam 16:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Your question touches upon a very old schism: The role of the hadith (basically, the sayings and doings of Mohammed). For hundreds of years, there have been unsuccessful minority attempts to "downgrade" the importace of the hadith vis-a-vis the Koran, sort of a Islamic reformation. The Lutheran reformation was (among other things) about abolishing the cult of Mary and all these saints, this stillborn Islamic reformation is (among other things) to get rid of the cult of Mohammed and his lifestyle. So far, it hasn't gained much traction. (btw., it's got nothing to do with the Shiite-Sunni schism.). The reason that Islam is strongly aniconic has nothing to do with scripture (although it's usually claimed), and more with the fact that Islam appeared at a time and place where Syriac chritianity was in a phase of violent iconoclasm. Christianity rebouded from that quickly (until the reformation, when they had a second one), but Islam froze that moment in time. So, christianity's reformations go hand in hand with iconoclasms and back to the 'core' of the bible, which is instinctively sound, even to Muslims, because the core is 'written'. On the other hand, islamic reformation, and a move toward the 'core' of the Koran, and away from the hadith, would engender the reverse: more liberal iconography of Mohammed, because he's only a prophet, not a god. And this goes against most people's instincts, not only Muslims'. This is probably one of the reasons there hasn't been an Islamic reformation: A reformation, by definition a minority movement, has historiccally always been a purists movement first (more permissiveness comes only once the reform is successful, e.g. allowing priests to marry), because that position is defensible even within the old dogma. A reformation, whose purity would reqire realxation of rules is a dissonnance, and is quelled quickly by the old dogma, before it gains steam. Azate 17:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
>>>>>>>"Want to tease an imam? Go ask him what "Quor'an" actually means. 95% won't know, and will tell you that it's the holy name of the text of the revelation, just like "Bible"."<<<<<<<<

Wait a minute, how many Imams have you asked that question from? And by the way how many average Joe's do you know from Pakistan? I'm an ordinary Muslim and not a scholar or Imam, and I know that the word Quran means. But I was afraid I might be wrong, so before boasting about my knowledge of the word, I asked a couple of friends of mine who confirmed it. And then I used google: "The Arabic word 'qur'an' is derived from the root qara'a, which has various meanings, such as to read, [Sura 17: 93.] to recite, [Sura 75:18:17: 46.] etc. Qur'an is a verbal noun and hence means the 'reading' or 'recitation'. As used in the Qur'an itself, the word refers to the revelation from Allah in the broad sense [Sura 17: 82.] and is not always restricted to the written form in the shape of a book, as we have it before us today." http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/Denffer_uaq/Ch1S2.htm] Now I'm not judging your motive, but what you've said above is not true. You should be careful when you say give any statement, especially when declaring 95% of all the Imams as ignorant about such a basic word. It is better to say nothing rather than spreading false "knowledge". Waqas.usman 18:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for this information, Azate. I don't know much about the theological history of Islam, and your description above is very helpful. I have two questions for you:
1) I am a Protestant Christian (a Lutheran), and can identify with the desire for an Islamic reformation. However, I read an opinion piece some years back, by a Catholic author, who argued that Islam needs a Pope more than it needs a reformation. His logic was that Islam would benefit from one central authority who would resolve differences between different traditions in Islam. If I understand it correctly, at the present, each Muslim interprets the Koran and hadith for himself, based on his own logic and reflection, with some guidance from religious leaders, and presumably, Allah. Isn't this practice similar to that of Protestant Christians, who believe they do not need employ a priest (or other authority) as a middle-man between themselves and God, but talk directly to God, and decide for themselves what their religion means for them. Do you think a Mulsim religious leader in a similar position to the Pope for Catholics could bring change to Islam, in a positive way? (Granted, the Catholics, have it "easy" as they consider the Pope to be unquestionably legitimate, as he is directly in line with Saint Peter, in a theological and organizational sense.)
2) Would it not be dangerous for a Muslim to call for a reformation of Islam, as those who disagree with him could accuse him of apostasy, which can be punishable by death? Is there a way for a potential Muslim reformer to not run this risk?
As I said above, I am not a Muslim, but I have a growing interest in the theological side of Islam. Your comments, Azate, and those of any knowledgable others, are appreciated (and if this discussion has grown too cumbersome for the talk page, please let me know where to move it). Valtam 20:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

upon request some more musings on the very good original question:

1) The average Joe in Pakistan or wherever, having little exposure to media, is of course only outraged because somebody told him to be, and he dearly loves Mohammed, whereas he only fears Allah. People just relate better to people than to invisible entities. It's normal, and it's why catholizism made so many converts, and judaism didn't. The question you pose would baffle him, because he is not used to think about religion. Islam is about performing rituals, not about introspection. He has never read the Koran, and when it's read to him during prayertime he will understand maybe 10-30% of it (if Arabic is his mother-tongue, less otherwise), depending on the Sura, because the text is very, very difficult Arabic, and beyond the means of all but the smartest imams.

re: "And Judaism didn't" -- please use your own advice, and do not speaa of somebody else's religion unless you are sure of your facts. Judaism does not seek converts in the same way and Christianity, so comparing it to Christianity is bogus. Those who do convert are required to observe the Sabbath, dietary laws, circumcision, etc. and these are not easy to follow, they mean major lifestyle changes. I would venture to say that this strict way of life "discourages" more converts to Judaism than a prohibition on images. In Greco-Roman times, the main discouragement was about circumcision, which the Greeks saw as a form of mutilation, etc. Rooster613 16:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Rooster613

2) The majority of imams worldwide will do a little better, let's say they can understand 50% of the text (but they may well know 100% by heart), and that only after years of training in a madrasa. For him the problem is not (only) a lack of Arabic skills, but also that the text is totally cryptic. It's totally unlike the bible, which everybody can read and understand (in his language). That's why it is common (and correct) to hear Muslims tell Westerners that there is no point in reading an English translation of the Koran "to see what is written there". Much of the Koran is ambigous and opaque in so many ways, and translations only capture one of the meanings. Many of the words in the Koran appear only in the Koran, and their meaning cannot be grasped by somebody with even a very good command of Arabic. (because many of them are actually Syriac, a dead language now, and even at the time the "official" Koran was written down), and a meaning was just shoehorned into them ex post (but you'd have to look it up somewhere. For ar nice western equivalent, look up what Abracadabra means). Want to tease an imam? Go ask him what "Quor'an" actually means. 95% won't know, and will tell you that it's the holy name of the text of the revelation, just like "Bible". Then you tell him that "Bible" is a vulgarized form of a Latin word "biblio" that means "book". This sort of thing drives them nuts. These Imams know (or at least feel) that they can't even penetrate the core of their religion themselves. That's why they are so fond of the hadith: It's just so very much easier. Mohammad says: this is ok, stone him for that, take half of this, be this and that, do this and that. Allah's word freightens the Imam, too - and to escape his wrath, the safe thing is to emulate Mohammad as closely as possible.

3) Then there's the real scholars (maybe a few hundreds worldwide), who spend their lifes with exegesis and commentary, reach conclusions about new facts of life (say, what's the Islamic view on airtravel or computers?) from first principles and communicate the results to the Imams who follow them. Now, not all major scholars come to the same results, and this wasn't a big problem in the times before travel and media, bercause nobody really noticed. Now everybody notices, and it freaks people out. Who do I follow? The local Super-Imam, or another one, whose interpretations I like better? All this leads to fragmentation, or at least fear of fragmentation. And unity is central to Islam. The answer is, again, Mohammed: He said this, he did that, etc.... He's the lowest common denominator of a community that is totally adrift and fragmented, and that hasn't evolved structures of authority like the pope, who can effectively act top-down. Does that make sense? Azate 20:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


Thank you very much indeed. It makes absolutely perfect sense. You have served us with an entire banquet of food for thought, and clearly it goes a long way in answering or elaborating on, my original question. *Daniel throws away his english translation of the Quran* DanielDemaret 21:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow. That makes a lot of sense! I read the Koran in college and they told us: "You're really reading an English translation of the Koran - to truly understand the Koran, you have to read it in its original form." I didn't really understand then, but your explanation above makes a lot of sense.

So in other words, average Muslims don't pick up the Koran, choose a verse, and discuss it with each other, like people in Christian bible studies do. I didn't realize it was so inaccessable, even to believers. Which, of course, puts such great emphasis on the hadith - you can't go wrong with the hadith. If Mohammed did it, it must be right. And don't make fun of Mohammed! You've really educated me here, Azate. Thanks. Valtam 21:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The irony is of course, that ordinary Muslims don't possess any of the hadith. You can't just get them in a bookstore. They are huge, expensive works, full of generations of scholarly comment. They're strictly for the professionals. Everything everybody but good Imams knows about Islam is orally transmitted in Koran school and mosque. Ordinary believers are actively discouraged from reading this stuff for themselves. Azate 21:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The implications are astounding. It may not refute the claim raised in the blogs, but it certainly explains them, and it suddenly feels as if I understand the reactions. But if the average muslim is not used to thinking about religion, communication can get scary. How can those of us who are not muslim ever know what will or will not offend? DanielDemaret 22:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Azate Utterly fabulous. My Danish translation of the Quran follows your English version, Daniel. Varga Mila 22:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


Hi Azate .. I just wanna say some comments about ur great analysis .. firstly the question that u have asked isn't hard at all .. what is the meaning of quran word? simply it is derived from the arabic verb Iqra which means "read" ..that makes much sense when we know that the first word from quran which comes to Muhammad by Jibreel is " read , read in the name of God " ... so that is what makes many islamic thinkers including Iqbal explains Quran as it is invitation for reading or in other words searching for truth without giving it simply . to be more precise , Quran is not cryptic ..it is not just secrets that none can understand as it could be understood from ur speech , rather than that it is full of what is called in arabic (Majaz) -I,m sure there is english word describe this writing but i will search for it - so it could be understood in many manners and that depends on knlowledge and culture of the reader ..through teh long history of islam < quran has been explained in manny ways and according to many aspects , so u can find sufist Explanation of Quran , lateral Salafi Explanation , shiite Explanation , philiosophical explanation , even it has been used for political reasons and to support political viewpoints . i want to agree that : yes many muslims find it hard to understand every word and even the whole idea if they r not educated and know arabic lang very good , meanly they enjoy the musical rythm of Quran reading which forms another side of Quran . we still have to mention that Quran always draws the broad lines of Islamic religion , the Sharia part is so little part of quran and even when quran talkes about sharia he doesn't explain it in details , that is why muslims depends in sharia especially on Hadith , which is the real application of sharia by Muhammad himself . and there is also here a critics science of hadith to distinguish the true hadith from the false hadith . so what about reformation of islam ..u can recognize two direction of invitation for reformation the first invites to reform islam by depending on Quran only and explaining it in secular way so it will suits the modern state of civilization , the other invitation says that islam should reform but it should remain unique , the reformation should be internal structural new explaination and not accepting all the results of modernism ... cause the modernism has already failed and this failure is expressed in the Post-modernalism . about fear of fragmentation , I thing that fragmentation has already happened many times in history and the sunni-shiite split has happened only 40 years after Muhammad's death so i don,t think it is direct reason but rather than that it is expression of deep anger from whole situation and feeling of western goverments' bias in supporting israel ... they consider themselves the real victims of 11/9 as 11/9 was the excuse for iraq invasion and many other american attacks ..additionally they consider these pics as hate speech depicting them all as terrorists and extremists . last note ..any depiction of a central charcter will surely introduce a bias ... look for example for the current depiction of Jesus ..why should we think that jesus is white man not bownish or black man . u cannot depict someone general and keep him general ..look to the these cartoons of Muhammad , it depicts him really like terrorist or old-fasion or dictator without kindness .. after all muslims know exactly how to recognize between loving someone like prophets and worshiping teh God ( who is totally absolute and shapeless ) like Energy or Power . the decentralizing nature of sunni Islam is the most important property and i think there is noway to bring upper authority in it in spite some extremeist's explanation gives the caliphate full political authority and many sufi explanations gives al Awliya strong spiritual authority . at last Sorry if my english doesn,t serve me alot in such issues ... and maby we discuss some issues out of the scope of this page --Chaos 15:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to answer one of your points, that "Qur'an" derives from Arabic iqra (read). This is just what I mean, an ex-post reading. The word "qur'an" predates the existence of the word "iqra", and is the source for it. Probably, qur'an derives from Syriac qeryānā, a technical term from the Christian liturgy that means "lectionary". Furthermore, the Arabic-Syriac lexica which preserve several pre-Islamic variant readings of Arabic words, give for the Syriac word qeryānā both qur’ān as well as quryān. Azate 19:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


I disagree , I will answer you in ur talk page --Chaos 11:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen this?

A refreshingly light hearted take on the Jyllands-Posten controversy;

Cartoon furore puts Mohammed's guest role on 'The Simpsons' in doubt

If only the extremists could have a sense of humour. Although the Jyllands-Posten cartoons weren't actually funny. Veej 00:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, they weren't. But it does go to show that there is cencorship in fear of reactions from extremist islamic communities - in that sense it's a fairly interresting link as that was the whole point of the cartoons in the first place Celcius (Talk) Wiki be With us! 04:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not real censorship, the linked article is parody. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Goes to show - never drink and Wiki :-| Celcius (Talk) Wiki be With us! 18:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Finally!

The BBC reports that OIC denounces cartoons violence. Netscott 00:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to be cynical, but it's almost as if they waited for most of the damage to be done before issuing their "denouncement". The cartoons were first published last year and now they wait several weeks into the rioting before saying anything? It's almost as if they felt pressured into it, or that it's not something they would say on their own. This reminds me of Iran's leader waiting six or so months after calling for the destruction of Israel to "take back" his remarks. --Cyde Weys 01:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


Shock images poll - please vote!

I've created a poll to review the decision here in light of the potentially contradictory decision made at Talk:Goatse.cx/Vote. See Wikipedia talk:Censorship/Shock images poll At this point, it's probably preferable to discuss in the comments section there isn't of just voting.--Fangz 01:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

NO! -Moocats 02:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Another poll? What an original idea. NO.--Jbull 02:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Cripes. This poll isn't just about the cartoons. It's to formalise the decision and correct a previous result if neccessary. Unless you want to go through the bother of the previous 4 polls *EVERY* time this sort of thing happens again, I suggest you at least participate in the discussion on the page I linked and outline some criteria that make the two cases different.--Fangz 02:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Mitigating circumstances surround each individual article. It's like when bush said kerry was flip-flopping on ideas, when kerry was really interpreting new information and making different choices based on that info. I'm with the group that feels each case should be handled on an individual basis, lots of work or not, it's the right thing to do. Making blanket policy regarding this isn't something two pieces of the wikipedia community should do anyway. If it were to be set as a global policy, it would have to go on the front page. -Moocats 12:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep situation, not comparable. No need for a subgroup of editors to set criteria for all of wikipedia. --KimvdLinde 03:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

If people are interested in this you can go to Wikipedia:Censorship. It's still in its early stages. Gerard Foley 03:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I dislike polls, but ok I will vote. --Terence Ong 08:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Goatse pic on top

I welcome comments to Talk:Goatse.cx#Having_the_pic.2C_and_on_the_top --Striver 12:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Blasphemy is not a kind of apostasy

Someone needs to get a dictionary. Blasphemy against a religion by someone who is not a member of that religion is not apostasy by any definition of the word. Apostasy means rejecting, converting away from, abandoning or opposing one's own religion or former religion. That's what the Apostasy article says, that's what the Apostasy in Islam article says, that's what dictionary.com says. Someone couldn't commit apostasy against someone else's religion any more than they could commit treason against someone else's country or cheat on someone else's spouse. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.180.243.15 (talk • contribs).

Yes and no. Blasphemy by a non-Muslim is not apostasy (from Islam). Blasphemy by a Muslim is apostasy. The section you are referring to (Islamic tradition) deals, as I understand it, with Muslim tradition in general, not as applicable to Danish cartoons in particular. In that context, blasphemy is apostasy. As a footnote: There is a vocal minority opinion is Islam that says that blasphemy (against Islam) IS apostasy (from Islam), even if the blasphemer has never been a Muslim. This is so because, by definition, everybody is a Muslim at birth, only that some people (namely, everybody but lifelong Muslims) fail to realize that. This failure does not yet qualify as apostasy. When, however, a non-Muslim blasphemes (against Islam), this failure becomes manifest apostasy. Azate 14:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Would this interpretation, that everyone is a Muslim at birth, mean that blasphemy/apostasy by a non-Muslim would be punishable by death, as described in the Apostasy in Islam article? Valtam 16:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty confident that you'll find Islamic scholars who hold that view. Of course, you'll also find scholars who hold a dozen different views. One of the beauties of decentralized religion... Azate 16:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The Apostasy in Islam doesn't say anything about such a belief, but this article seems to imply that "blasphemy against Islam by anyone = apostasy" is the majority belief in most Islamic sects. Can someone cite a source? Also, doesn't Sharia law explicitly deal with blasphemy against Islam by dhimmis? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.180.243.15 (talk • contribs).
This is by no means a dhimmi situation. A dhimmi situation would be if Jylland Posten were a newspaper from the Christian minority in Afghanistan, or any other place with sharia law in place. In a dhimmi scenario, a very severere punishment would be a certainty. In the situation at hand, with ordinary infidels without special dhimmi rights, the question at hand is certainly not one of the scale of punishment (death, for sure), or about any qualms about the applicability of sharia law (sharia is very outspoken in this regard, it applies universally). There are two sources of possible disagreement in the qustion: 1)Is this a blasphemy or an apostasy situation? 2a) If it is an apostasy situation, the death sentene is a duty. 2b) If it is only a blasphemy situation, the death sentence may be dispensed with if it is unwise to enforce it (because of a possible backlash against Danish Muslims, or even an aggression by Denmark against the state that sent the executioner). Azate 00:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I know it's not a dhimmi situation, I just thought that it would be more likely for Sharia law to explicitly deal with blasphemy against Islam by dhimmis than with blasphemy against Islam by non-Muslims in a country that's not under Muslim rule and Sharia law can't be enforced. In fact I'm pretty sure that almost all religious law is focused primarily on members of the religion in question or people under the rule of members of the religion in question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.180.243.15 (talk • contribs).
What is blasphemy? Is it blasphemous merely to state any negative opinion about a religion? Is there even such a thing as blasphemy? As far as I'm aware blasphemy is only relevant in countries with official state religions. In the USA there's no such thing as blasphemy because everyone has a right to free speech and there is no official state religion. --Cyde Weys 00:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
We're talking about Islamic law here, not about U.S. law, or the secular laws of most countries with majority Muslim populations. Azate 00:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Blasphemy is also relevant in secular countries. It's not going to get you in jail, but it might piss some people off. For example, wearing a blasphemous t-shirt to work has a pretty good chance of offending someone. Sinead O'Connor got protests and boycotts when she tore up that picture of the Pope, and I'm guessing Anne Rice has gotten boycotts or protests for some of her books. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.180.243.15 (talk • contribs).
Blasphemy is "illegal" in the UK - but only against the Christian religion, and not generally enforced as the UK has the highest percentage of atheists of almost any rich country. As this is "unfair", people keep trying to extend this absurd restriction on freedom to other religions, despite the obvious inconsistencies.
An Iranian student I was at University with shortly after their revolution said that Allah gave everyone (including non-Moslem's) one chance to convert to Islam and if they rejected this, they rejected him, and it was the duty of every Moslem to kill them for Apostasy.

The History Channel is airing a special, "Secrets of the Koran"

FYI to editors of the page: the American cable channel, the History Channel, will air a 2-part special, "Secrets of the Koran" on March 2 and 9, 2006, at 21:00, EST. From the New York Post:

"Koran" executive producer Dolores Gavin says she and her colleagues were extremely mindful of the recent rioting - and that there are no images of Mohammed in the show. ... Gavin says that by telling the history behind the Koran, she hopes people might understand why Muslims are so offended by the cartoons. The show, which has been thoroughly vetted by Islamic scholars - many of whom appear in the special - aims to explain the history of the Muslim holy book and its meaning.

I, for one, will be watching this special! Valtam 22:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see it myself, though it sounds very suspicious that it is "thoroughly vetted" by Islamic scholars, it sounds like they wrote the thing. I'd think that generally, this means the most favorable views they reasonably can project, which pretty much brings content value down to 0. Homestarmy 22:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I'll record the shows on my Tivo, and we'll see... Valtam 19:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Normally the term "vetted" is just another word for censored, it means going through the material and taking out the bits that you do not want circulated in the general public.--CltFn 03:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Danish journalistic tradition

In the section "danish journalistic tradition you this is written :"Shortly before the publication of the Muhammad cartoons, Jyllands-Posten ran a frontpage story about an alleged Muslim death-list of Jewish names [59] —until it emerged that the rumours could not be confirmed."

First of all the story was not run "shortly before" but is from 2002. Secondly although the rumours about a specific death-list could not be confirmed, an islamist group (Hizb-ut-tahrir) spokesman Fadi Abdullatif, in october 2002 was sentenced to 60 days in jail, for a breach of the act against racism. He was inciting the killing of jews, and the organisations homepage had the same message. http://retssal.dk/nyheder2.php3?side=398 This fact should also be mentioned in the section about danish journalistic tradition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.52.81.128 (talk • contribs).

My wrong, will fix the date! Hisb-ut-Tahrir is mentioned in the reference link. I think that will do for now MX44 02:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
As I understand Hizb-ut-Tahrir used quran quotes to incite violence? Do you have any source in support of this? MX44 12:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The Danish freedom of expression is quite far-reaching, even for Western standards. Despite official German protests, Denmark has for long been a safe heaven for printing of Nazi propaganda. Do you think this is a relevant information for this page, in order to put the Danish tradition of freedom of expression into perspective? Bertilvidet 13:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Relevant it is, just the fact that Denmark at the top of the rsf freedom-of-speech list: http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=554. DanielDemaret 14:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
rsf has interesting articles regarding press freedom in each country. A quote from one of the articles from October "It is unbelievable that one can make death threats against cartoonists in Denmark, one of the countries in the world that shows most respect for press freedom," said the worldwide press freedom organisation." This then, would seems to be the official stance of the the international press, if there is such a thing. DanielDemaret 16:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't it also be relevant to mention that on Febuary 4 2006 Jyllands-Posten, chose to print 14 Middle-Eastern cartoons, which could be seen as anti-semitic? JyllandsPosten said in a small 6 line 'article': Many muslims claims that Morgenavisen JyllandsPosten 'would never dare to publish antisemitic cartoons'. It is hereby done. I am trying to see, if I can find a better link than this one, (since that link requires subscription if you want to zoom in closer) Hekatombe 14:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You are making a very good point indeed. This should kill off all the arguments about double standards, with regards to being protective of Jews (or other religions). Also notice that Buddah and Jesus are in fact portrayed in one of the "muhammad-cartoons": The police line-up. The double-standard argument is rubbish !.

Cardiff

In February 2006, the Cardiff University Student Newspaper Gair Rhydd (which means free speech) became the first organ in the United Kingdom to publish the images. Shortly after publication, the decision was taken to pulp the edition and approximately only 200 copies were distributed. The editor was fired for the decision to publish. (ref> Pulp fiction; Gair Rhydd 13 February 2006 Paper withdrawn over cartoon row BBC 13 Feb 2006(/ref>

I find the fact that the issue was suppressed fascinating, and the apology, in the links, is groveling. Septentrionalis 05:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It's ok though... as long as it's their editorial line to not offend any religious community. Celcius (Talk) Wiki be With us! 14:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, clearly that's their line now. Septentrionalis 16:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
What a pathetic stance. Why should religions get a free pass on criticism? You know what happens when religions get a free pass on criticism? The Crusades, priest molesting children, and now this ... a huge controversy with hundreds of deaths over a cartoon. I find it ridiculous that people are saying we should just unconditionally "respect" all religions. That's patently absurd. --Cyde Weys 06:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
If it's OK to be disrespectful against a religious community, is it OK to disrespect a race, nation or gender? Raphael 62.116.76.117 17:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I think we would be repeating old discussions by going into the nature of the word 'disrespect', but in terms of the relevant difference between "race", nation and gender on the one side and religion on the other, the crux of the argument is, as I understand it, that the latter involves choice, whereas the former do not. Varga Mila 17:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't choose to get baptized, since I've been a child. Raphael 62.116.76.117 22:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
If you are trying to say you were baptized as a child and had no choice in the matter - that is really not relevant. You can still chose to follow or not to follow any religeous path. Johntex\talk 22:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Still I cannot unbaptize in any way. Anyway there is no reason to not follow a religious path, because people of another faith are mocking about "my" religion. Raphael 62.116.76.117 01:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

ENAR-report

I removed this sentence from the article:

"Although the Danish press is free to satirise, a 2004 report by the European Network Against Racism concluded that a disproportionate amount of editorial space is devoted to negative reporting on ethnic minorities. ENAR Shadow Report 2004 Denmark"

The report doesn't make this conclusion. It only lists the amount of editorial space used to report negatively without concluding anything about it. Someone else might argue that this amount is disproportional (to what?), but we shouldn't attribute this to ENAR. Rasmus (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Read from page 40 and forwards ... MX44 15:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I already did. Can you point out where they are supposed to conclude the above? In 11.4 they argue that "Media focus on terror attacks is out of proportion". They also title chapter 11 "Media Coverage is the cause of prejudice" (without substantiating that position, however). I can't find anywhere that they write the above conclusion, however. Rasmus (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
In the statistics and in the text in 11.3 (11.4 continues on that theme.) Also in the conclusion on page 49 - 50.
Mind you, the report starts out saying it is not a scientific study! (Not that I know of any absolute way of measuring racism ...) MX44 21:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Displaying statistics is hardly the same as concluding anything. 11.3 doesn't talk about editorials at all. Page 49-50 is mostly taken up by an essay by Karen Wren. Are we reading the same report? To use language like the above, the report would have to actually make the conclusion. Otherwise it is us making the conclusion on their behalf, which would constitute original research (and be deceptive, if we attribute the conclusion to the report). I won't rule out that I am missing something in the report. Can you give a quote where they actually write that "a disproportionate amount of editorial space is devoted to negative reporting on ethnic minorities"? Rasmus (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The last few words on page 50, after the essay is: One needs not say more, effectively buying the essay and its opinions wholesale. If you want to throw it out, then that'll be just fine with me. I wasn't the one who brought it in :D MX44 00:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

NetScott, the European Laws (against holocaust denial) should be mentioned

The controversy is about freedom of speech, and it was the reprinting of the caricatures in other countries of Europe that provoked all the anger of Muslims. The passage I added was reflecting that, and it should have been left there. Do you not see that? Why do you not allow a little bit of Muslim perspective on the article? You say it is POV, I say the rest of the article is also POV. The whole debate is because of conflicting POVs, the Western POV has been mentioned there, why not allow the Muslim POV? Waqas.usman 18:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Waqas.usman, first know that I didn't agree with Bertilvidet's editorial message 'rvv' when he reverted your addition out here... because what you added wasn't "vandalism". This idea of a double standard is an opinion that is in fact already represented in the opinions sub page of this article. By all means add the Irving info to that section relative to that opinion. Netscott 18:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I regret writing 'rvv', I did it too fast and clearly it wasn't vandalism. Sorry about that. Please see my arguments for removing the section above [16]. Bertilvidet 18:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Waqas.usman, I agree that in terms of this controversy both Danish and Islamic views should be expressed equally on the front page and it seems fair to say that this article covers them fairly accurately under the traditions sections. Netscott
While the VIEWS should indeed be expressed equally, I do agree entirely with Bertilvidet, Holocaust denial does NOT belong on the front page - for the reasons detailed above.Varga Mila 19:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wagas, you wrote "it was the reprinting of the caricatures in other countries of Europe that provoked all the anger of Muslims". All the anger? Really? So you are saying that nobody would have been angry if only Denmark had printed the cartoons, are you? Would you care to elaborate on this fascinating new point of view? DanielDemaret 23:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Or perhaps just rephrase that slightly? Perhaps you just meant "most" anger.

the "holocaust argument" is a red herring anyway. This is not so much about "Muslim" views than "manipulated angry Muslim mob" views. I am sure there are just as many reasonable Muslims rolling their eyes at this. Actual "Muslim views" go as far as finding the cartoons offensive and in bad taste, an opinion which it is possible to hold in a civilized manner. dab (ᛏ) 11:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


Replying to Daniel , well if we really notice the timeline of the events we can realize that there were no puplic protest except after the repuplishing by the Nerwegian Newspaper ... so it is realtively true that the protests begins after the repuplishing ...anyway we still need re-studying the real sequence of events to be sure what make the situtaion explode at late January and first of February --Chaos 17:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Prosecutors decision pending?

I am aware that the Local Prosecutor in Viborg (Statsadvokaten i Viborg) said that he sees no basics for a trial, however according to this (Danish link, under: "- Har Jyllands-Posten overtrådt loven?") the local Prosecutor's decision have been 'appealed' to the Crown Prosecutor (Rigsadvokaten). Does anyone know whether or not he has made his evaluation of this case yet?

I don't think so, but I find it unlikely that the Crown Prosecutor will decide differently though. Consider that when a leading Islamistic extremist was sentenced according to the very same law a few years ago, it was because he was openly advocating genocide. JP is not telling anybody to kill anybody. At most one could argue they are expressing a fear of being killed.
So in short, you'll need a much stronger case to bring this forward. MX44 22:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Some more information The case was appealed on January 8, 2006. His final evaluation has not yet been made. The Crown Prosecutor is the final authority on this matter and no further appeals are possible when he has made his decision. If it is very important for you, I can call his office and ask when they are going to make a final ruling...Apupunchau 22:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not that important for me, but I just think it should be mentioned that there still is a (slim) chance that the case would be brought before a court. Hekatombe 11:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Danish law regarding rights for governmental media

Are there any Danes who might know what usage rights apply for media from Danish governmental sources? In the U.S. virtually all media produced by the government is considered "public domain" whereby the usage right are essentially free. There is some imagery content on a Danish governmental site that I'd like to include with this article, but I'm unsure of the right vis-a-vis WikiMedia to do so.

Thanks!

Netscott 21:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It is easier to determine if you can be a bit more specific about the 'media'. Any links ? Varga Mila 22:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Om wwww.um.dk (In Danish) says that all pictures from www.um.dk is owned by Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark and may not be used without explicit permission. It is safe to assume that the same thing goes for the other Danish goverment sites. Hekatombe 22:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I suppose the same thing would apply for video then. I guess I'll just have to write them. Netscott 22:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If you gave a direct link or some other information it would be more easy to tell.Apupunchau 22:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Just for reference, the answer to the original question is: There is no law in Denmark automatically releasing all material produced by the government as public domain (as there is in the US). Thus material produced by Danish governmental sources is as a rule under copyright, similar to material from any other organization. Material like the video might very well be part of a press kit with free license to distribute, but it will have to be investigated on a case by case basis. Rasmus (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
... except for actual laws and regulations of course, which are excerpt from copyright

MX44 23:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right about that. You are also free to publish decisions from the courts and meetings of elected bodies (except for collections of a single persons works). Rasmus (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

from-the-slashdot-department

Found this in one in one of those silly .sig files

~0:-{= A funny picture for an eye leaves the whole world... err...

And this one is supposedly "a smiley with a danish on top"

@:-)

Flemmings POV - again. But a bit fuller

I happened to stumble on this blog by one of the worlds most referenced Political Scientist, R. J. Rummel http://freedomspeace.blogspot.com/ . referring to "Why I Published Those Cartoons" by Fleming Rose http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499.html It this already in the article? DanielDemaret 02:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It is a quite important article. As with the opportunity to experience the drawings rather descriptions of them, this article is 'from the lions mouth' so to speak, giving a presentation rather than representation of Rose's motives (at least as he likes to see them). It should be under 'Publication of the Drawings'. Varga Mila 12:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Done as you suggested. Added a quote I thought was important. It took about 20 minutes to save. Most articles take seconds. DanielDemaret 16:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Well captured! What does it mean that the article takes so long to save ? That it is big or that the page (or Wikipedia) busy ?Varga Mila 16:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Good Question. Does anyone know how to measure how busy a page is?DanielDemaret 17:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it's just the whole site being slow. Secretlondon 17:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
The reference to the WashintonPost article shouldn't carry a (Danish) -tag [sorry, the reference list editing page seems a bit of a maze - 'n I don't have time navigate through it right now].Varga Mila 18:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you kindly, Mila. I just removed it. I wondered for an instant what the "(Danish)"-text that I copied from the previous reference did :p. 18:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Why different results?

Moved to Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments#Why_different_results.3F

Interview with the creator of the notorious 'bomb in turban cartoon

JP today brings a interview (in Danish & unquestionably tainted by post-rationalisations) with the guy who drew the most controversial of the cartoons. http://www.jp.dk/indland/artikel:aid=3579530/ Should it be linked to the description of the particular cartoon ?

Here's a translation of the first part: What was the message in your drawing of the prophet Muhammad with a bomb in his turban?

The cartoon is not about islam as a whole, but the part that apparently can inspire violence, terrorism, death and destruction. And thereby the fundamentalist part of islam. I wanted to demonstrate that terrorists get their spiritual ammunition from islam.

Why was it important for you to get that message out ?

If a religion develops into religious fanaticism we are faced with totalitarian tendencies, as we have been in the past, such as facism and nazism. It is the same situation, where humans have to [ hmmm... basically the translation is 'bend' , da= bøje nakken] and do as demanded by the rulers [da=styret]. I think we should fight against that [da=bekaempe] and the weapon of a cartoonist is this pen or pencil and then a certain degree of indignation.

Do you feel that your drawing has been misunderstood?

There are interpretations of it that are incorrect. The general impression among muslims is that it is about islam as a whole. It isn't. it is about certain fundamentalistic aspects, that of course are not shared by everyone. Bu the fuel in the terrorists acts stem from interpretations of islam. I think there is no escaping that. That doesn't mean that all muslims are responsible for terror. It is about demonstrating a connection, from where the spiritual fuel comes. There are some interpretations of islam, according to which you become a matyr if you die for islam, and you can therefore 'with a calm mind' [da=med sindsro] kill the infidels, and you will be be rewarded in 'the beyond'.

Your indignation has resulted in millions of muslims feeing insulted [kraenkede]. Does your cartoon show appropriate [da=tilstraekkelig] respect for islam?

It does not respect the version of islam, that provides the spiritual fuel for terrorists. I have nothing against islam or muslims. They should have their freedom, but if parts of a religion develops in a totalitarian and aggressive direction, then I think you have to protest. We did so under the other 'isms. Under communism thousands of satirical drawing and other satire were made that revealed and spoke against it [da=vendte sig mod den]. etc etc.Varga Mila 09:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Wow, that's excellent Varga.... some of that info should definitely be incorporated into the main page. I'm guessing that you've translated that... I'm not sure what Wikipedia's policy is on user translated entries but if ever there's a problem maybe you can find an 'official' translation? Netscott 09:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


  • Well done Varga Mila! I copied the appropriate wikipedia policy here:

'Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources of equal calibre. However, do give foreign-language references where appropriate. If quoting from a foreign-language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it.' As you can see, there is no requirement as to an "official" translation. Go for it, Mila! Also, I can verify the translation. DanielDemaret 12:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

But mentioning in the article that it was "post-rationalisations" would be your POV, so I don't think that part should go into the article. People will have to make their own mind up on that detail. DanielDemaret 12:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Not to worry, I've curbed my general dislike for JP : ) I've put parts of the interview under 'Description of Drawings'. It is wordy (especially with the Danish original, which means that it takes up a lot of space), and elaborates on the cartoonist's justifications for drawing it, which may not be suitable for the location. The justifications however seem important, and go some way to explain the meaning of the cartoon - though, as said, perhaps parts are better somewhere else? Varga Mila 14:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

POV refs in intro

[17][18][19][20] These four references that came after the line: Critics say that the cartoons are culturally insulting, blasphemous, and intended to humiliate a marginalized minority seem to set up an POV imbalance in the intro. As it stands now with the exception of the prime minister talking about the controversy relative to WWII, there are no other references cited in the intro. To avoid this introduction of POV from the outset it seems logical that in the intro only the intial facts of the case and the opposing views are presented. Then the facts of the story are further developed and then views and opinions/critcisms are further developed with proper references. To correspond to this logic I've removed the above references to the talk page here.... until a final decision about where they'll be included is determined.

Netscott 09:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

An intro should be as short as possible. Perhaps the minister part should also be moved further down? I have looked at the intro several times to see if an even shorter intro could be valid. DanielDemaret 12:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Do we want newspapers to be our only source for the pro-opinions if we ever find them for consistancy purposes, or what sort of things should we look for? Homestarmy 19:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


A reliable source. This might be a good guide ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources . Weblinks to well-known newspapers are popular, but books, and even web-blogs if the blog is by a very well established figure. These are rare, but exist. If the newspaper is not well-known, a big enough circulation number is helpful. These are only guidlines, so if you are unsure, place questions here. DanielDemaret 20:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
It's just so far all we've done in this particular instance is cite newspapers :/. Homestarmy 21:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


Censorship debate

I have searched and looked in the archives, but I can not find it. Was there not an area where one started to discuss a potential new policy regarding censorship? I need to see if Resids and Babajobus claim that there is double standard against all religions is in the discussion on censorship. If not, it should be.DanielDemaret 23:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I also asked above to Babajobus about the place where this 2*standard towards religion is discussed... So, I am not aware of such a discussion here or elsewhere... Resid Gulerdem 02:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
There's a proposed policy page being built at Wikipedia:Censorship. Babajobu 02:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/y/l/Talk%7EJyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy_Archive_15_fb1d.html"