User:Jeremygbyrne/Cartoon Arguments Images

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page preserves a valuable page which is, at the time of creation of this page, in danger of being deleted.

#mi{display: none;}

This Discussion Contains Trolling Please do not feed the trolls

[edit] If we removed the cartoons we are letting the terrorists win

That would be the start of the end of free speech. If we apologize for the cartoons then we will become slaves of the fanatics. Then Islam will continue to tell us "Don't do this, don't do that.", and the west will soon be no longer a democracy.

The Danish MUST stand up for themselves on this issue and the west must support them. Shooeymooey 14:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You are right, the Danish must stand up for themselves. But if the danish NEED to reprint the cartoons everywhere, because there are Muslims who don't like them, they don't stand up for themselves. Instead they HAVE TO print them, because other don't want them to. That's IMHO very weak too. Imagine Osama would send another video message demanding the US not to attack Iran, and Bush would order the attack because of that video message. Raphael1 17:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't get you guys. Terrorists, Osama, Bush or even muslims got *nothing* to do with the argument, and I really hope it's not affecting anybodys motives in this debate. This is an article on Wikipedia in which we are trying to make available highly relevant material on a subject which irrelevantly happen to be very controversial. This is what matters (for most of us anyway). Please do not bring world cultural politics to Wikipedia, - it is a subject you can discuss on your own political blogs if you like. --Anjoe 09:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The cartoonist told newspapers himself the cartoons were inspired by terrorism eg Osama. Hence the drawing of Allah with the bomb shaped turban and lit fuse, perhaps a reference to all the suicide bombers. So terrorism is definitely relevant in this issue. Shooeymooey 09:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism is relevant for the controversy as a subject on which we are writing an article, but terrorism is irrelevant to the debate about whether we should write a good article on the subject (which includes the pictures as highly relevant material) or we should write a less good article without the pictures. Wikipedia is no vehicle to combat terrorism. Wikipedia is a vehicle to spread information, and in my opinion a vehicle to spread information whether the information is (subjectively) offensive or not. --Anjoe 13:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean, that you don't care whether Wikipedia is offensive and potentially inflames terrorism? Raphael1 13:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It is so utterly asinine to think only of "terrorists" winning if the cartoon images were removed. Don't forget that there are millions of peaceful Muslims who believe that those who made the cartoons did so as an insult and find such cartoons insulting. Netscott 13:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Showing the cartoons in the article violates Wikipedia policies

Moved to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments The.valiant.paladin 15:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Why did you move that? This is not a discussion on the underlying political and religious issues, but a discussion about changes to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy ARTICLE. Raphael 62.116.76.117 15:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I assume it was moved because your format was all over the place. Haizum 16:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Moved back below. Netscott 17:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Since there is no general consensus about showing the mohammed cartoons on Wikipedia and showing them is a violation of

• the Wikiquette ("Before you think about insulting someone's views, think about what would happen if they insulted your religion.") and
• the No personal attacks policy ("Religious epithets are not allowed even if the contributor is a member of a purported cult."), the cartoons should be removed.

Reporting a "personal attack" is not a personal attack. How hard is that to understand? Haizum 15:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not just a report, it's a repetition. Showing the cartoons is the "personal attack", describing the cartoons is a report. Raphael 62.116.76.117 15:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Dictionary.com, "Report: An account presented usually in detail." It isn't possible to fully report on a visual topic without presenting a visual. The cases where that actually happens are rare and extreme. Haizum 16:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

But it happens. For example when displaying the image is racist, sexist, etc. Raphael 62.116.76.117 17:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

No, there is coverage of KKK and Neo Nazi rallies all the time. And when a well known figure says something sexist, those comments are reported on word for word. Haizum 18:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Neither JP nor any of the cartoonists is a well known figure. The whole thing is just brought up, because islamophobia is popular in the west. Raphael 62.116.76.117 19:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Dick Cheney once told a colleague to "fuck off." There, I just reported on the incident, and by your logic I just repeated it. Anyone can see that your stance makes no sense. In fact, I believe it was a cleric in Denmark who sent the cartoons himself to the middle east, so by your logic, he repeated the insult. Haizum 16:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you want to play it down? It's not a report about someone saying "fuck of" to someone else, but a reprint of an insult to 1.3 billion people. And yes - also a cleric that brings the cartoons to the middle east is repeating the insult. Raphael 62.116.76.117 17:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It's called an analogy. Haizum 18:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I supposed when Muslims remember the cartoon in their minds they are repeating the insult. Haizum 18:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The argument against the display is flawed since Raphael is assuming that insulting a group of people constitutes a personal attack, a reason to deny all the right to information. I am offended, as are many, that information produced by another human is not available to me based on views from centuries ago. How could you possibly justify an action for your being insulted as opposed to mine. Religions have always tried to limit the spread of information, as have other dictators. Ultimatley, it is those in power, or with the need for it that deny its people information. Stop assuming the world will be uneducated and unintelligent forever. People do not need parenting from others across the globe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.230.197.101 (talk • contribs)

Your arguments are flawed for many reasons:

1. If an insult doesn't constitute a personal attack, why would I get blocked for insulting you?
2. I don't want to deny anyone the right to "information", because a link to the image would give everybody the possibility to view the "information" without taking away anyones right of not being attacked.
3. It is a current view, that picturing ones prophet as terrorist is offensive.
4. There is a lot of "information", as you call it, not available on Wikipedia, because it's unencyclopedic offensive crap without any informative content.
5. I didn't assume, that someone is uneducated or unintelligent.
6. People don't need parenting, but they don't need insults either. People need respect for each other.

Raphael1 09:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Please let me confute the "pro" arguments, I found on the discussion pages:

majority wants to show the cartoons (poll results)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, because polls give a falsely simplified picture. Please read Polls are evil on that matter.

Exactly, it's consensus based. Haizum 14:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

What consens? I disagree just as many others did before me. Raphael 62.116.76.117 15:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, not everyone has to agree, that's why it's called "consensus." Haizum

Dictionary.com, "consensus: An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole." Raphael 62.116.76.117 17:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, "group as a whole", that means a minority opinion does not override a general opinion. Haizum 18:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

If the majority can easily decide about minority rights, genocides are legal. Raphael 62.116.76.117 19:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The majority could make it legal by law - i.e.. banning all Wikipedes from Canada. That is why any democracy - and Wikipedia - has basic guidelines in the forms of constitutions - or Wikipedia policies - upon which all laws and regulations are based to avoid that exact "problem". Since these policies represent very fundamental principles it stands to reason that they will only be changed extremely rarely if ever. The Mohammad cartoons does not violate any Wikipedia policy and there is no consensus to either change or disregard them in this matter. Celcius 10:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

freedom of speech and no censorship is important

I value those rights very much, but we can't act on those principles alone. Do we have to publish child porn videos just because we don't want censorship?

Wikipedia can't publish child pornography because such things are prohibited by Federal law. Haizum 15:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Would you want to publish child pornography, if it wasn't prohibited by law? Raphael 62.116.76.117 15:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Child porn is a bad example (your example) because it involves minors. However, there are pictures of breasts and other sexual organs on Wikipedia that would offend conservative Christians and Muslims alike. However, they are there for the sake of information, just like the cartoons. Haizum 18:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Do we have to sacrifice freedom of expression for the sake of someone's feelings? Haizum 15:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's why Wikiquette doesn't allow any insults. Raphael 62.116.76.117 15:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia does not allow personal attacks. When one posts a Mohammed cartoon on WP, they are not directing it towards anyone in particular (keyword: personal). However, if someone was to post one of those cartoons on your talk page knowing that it would insult you and posting it for that reason, then it would not be allowed. Haizum 16:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you want to tell me, that it's OK to insult million people by a WP article, but it's not OK to insult one person on the talk page? Raphael 62.116.76.117 17:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

If a WP article does not intend do insult anyone (see WP:AGF) then no one can claim that the article is a personal attack. If someone is offended, that is unfortunate, but it is still not a personal attack. I'm offended when I see a swastika (I'm not Jewish), but my negative reaction is not directed toward the news or the encyclopedia displaying the swastika, it's to those that embraced and currently embrace it. The same applies to the cartoons; don't shoot the messenger. Haizum 18:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF says "The ideal is to make articles acceptable to everyone. Every revert (rather than change) of a biased edit is a NPOV defeat, no matter how outrageous the edit was." My changes have been reverted several times, which proves the article has no NPOV. You don't seem to understand, that the publication is an offend, not the drawing of those cartoons. WP (maybe unintentionally) is embracing the message of the cartoons by publishing them. Saying that WP is just the messanger is nothing but a cheap excuse. How easy would it be to republish hate speeches from all over the world every day? Raphael 62.116.76.117 19:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

You are arguing against yourself. If Wikipedia published hate speech from all over the world, then that would be very much NPOV, and therefore would be perfectly acceptable. However, if Wikipedia only published hate speech directed toward one particular group, then obviously it would either have to be removed, or hate speeches directed at the other side would need to be included. Hate speech is a bad example (your example) because it often promotes violence; such speech is not protected by The Constitution. Even so, nonviolent hate speeches may be published on Wikipedia so long as a critical response is included. Haizum 13:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

"removing images could concievably be viewed as bowing down to the threat of terrorism" respectively "We can't refuse to show something, because there is a fear of a criminal death threat"

This is the classical "an eye for an eye" way of thinking, which lead the US into the so called "War on Terror". Ghandi said "An Eye for an Eye makes the whole world blind", which should remind us, that the immoral acts of other people should not make us immitate them. Please let us act on our morality, not on those peoples moral values, we don't agree with.

Reporting on someone's "personal attack" does not implicate the reporter in the attack. You are treating those that post the cartoons like those that created them. Haizum 15:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

If the creators of the cartoons had no publisher, who printed their cartoons, nobody would have been insulted. The publishing of those cartoons is insulting, not the drawing thereof. Raphael 62.116.76.117 15:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Reproducing the cartoons for the sake of journalism is not publishing them, that's why "reproducing" is one word, and "publishing" is another word. Haizum 16:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The text under the cartoons says: "The Face of Muhammed - The controversial cartoons of Muhammad, first published in Jyllands-Posten in September 2005." That's why, I would say, that WP does actually "republish" the cartoons. Anyway I don't think that a discussion about words, leads to anything. Fact is, that the cartoons can be seen on Wikipedia. Muslims who want to read about the cartoon controversy don't necessarily want to see those cartoons respectively feel insulted by WP showing them. Raphael 62.116.76.117 17:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I think any Muslim with a decent level of intelligence would know that it was a small group of people publishing the cartoons and that Wikipedia has nothing to do with them. The swastika analogy applies here. Haizum 18:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The swastika is a bad analogy, because it's a historic nazi symbol. Those cartoons are a current political event and WP is taking position by publishing these cartoons. Raphael 62.116.76.117 19:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The cartoons belong to history as well. The photographs from the Abu Ghraib prison was offensive and a current event - did you oppose the publication of them? Do you feel Wikipedia is "siding" with the US when we republished these images? Celcius 10:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Muslims have no right to impose their moral values on others

True. Therefore we should think about our moral values. Let me cite the Wikiquette: "Before you think about insulting someone's views, think about what would happen if they insulted your religion."

This venue is consensus based, there is no one particular religion represented here. Your quotation refers to interpersonal relations, not establishing consensus. Haizum 15:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read the talk archives. Many muslims don't want the cartoons to be published on wikipedia, because they feel insulted. Showing the cartoons results in discouragement and departure of those people. Raphael 62.116.76.117 15:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

There are swastikas on Wikipedia and those are undeniably more offensive than any cartoon could ever be. The difference is, Jews that are offended by the swastika don't go complaining to those that want to educate others on what a swastika looks like, they take issue with those that present the swastika and stand by its message, implicit or explicit. The same goes for the Mohammed cartoons. Wikipedia does not stand by the cartoons as being justfied, it merely depicts/reports them. Haizum 16:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Anno 1938 should/would have WP reprinted Nazi propaganda? Without commenting that it is propaganda? I cannot find any disclaimer on the article that says: "WP does not stand by the cartoons"? Raphael 62.116.76.117 17:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure there is all sorts of reprinted propaganda on Wikipedia. To address your question, if only one type of propaganda was reprinted on Wikipedia, then yes, WP would need to distance itself from it. However, there is propaganda from all angles on WP, which satisfies the NPOV litmus.

By saying somthing is propaganda, WP does distance itself from it, but this is not the case here. Raphael 62.116.76.117 19:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Describing the cartoons is not enough to understand them.

Why not? What can't be described?

Dictionary.com, "Cartoon: A drawing representing current public figures or issues symbolically and often satirically." Haizum 14:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

So what? One can still describe them, without loosing any "knowledge". Raphael 62.116.76.117 15:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

If this is actually true, then they wouldn't be any less offensive. Haizum 16:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Depends on how you describe them. I think, that they can be described in a neutral non-offensive way. Raphael 62.116.76.117 17:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

If the cartoons are offensive, then how would describing them "non-offensively" be accurate? By logic, it wouldn't. Haizum 18:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

By that logic the WP article about anti-semitism is not accurate enough, because it is not anti-semitic by itself. Raphael 62.116.76.117 19:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Read WP:TPG. You aren't permitted to format your comments like you have been doing. Haizum 14:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, if I used too much bold text, but I don't know how I could structure my text differently. Raphael 62.116.76.117 15:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to observe how everyone else does it. Haizum 15:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

You've got to be joking. Showing cartoons is imposing no moral values whatsoever, nor is it insulting people, the people have to make up their own offense to these pictures, they don't generate it for them. Except maybe the bomb one, but come on, there's been worse cartoons of stuff, and I wish personal attacks were limited to such weak things as drawing cartoons. Homestarmy 14:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not joking. How can you believe, that the cartoons are not insulting people, when thousands of people are demonstrating around the world, because they feel insulted? Just because you don't feel insulted doesn't prove, that nobody does. Raphael 62.116.76.117 15:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The free world has the right to report that a large number of people were insulted. The free world also has the right to explain why. Haizum 15:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, but we don't need to repeat the insult to explain why. Raphael 62.116.76.117 15:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Demonstrating what someone else did is not repeating the insult unless it is done with the intent to insult. Haizum 16:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Nobody can read the mind of the author, whether insult is intended or not. Maybe there can be at least a disclaimer saying that WP does not want to insult any muslim by "reproducing" the cartoons? Raphael 62.116.76.117 17:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

See WP:AGF. You must assume all contributions are done in good faith. Haizum 18:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

A question to Raphael: are you personally offended by the cartoons? I mean personally offended in the most personal of ways. If so, can you explain why that might be? And why should we place your personal offense above the "right to know" of most people reading the article, who are not going to be personally offended, and are coming here mainly to understand what the situation is about? -- 18:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

At this point he has no logical justification to be personally offended by Wikipedia. He knows that cartoonists in Denmark created the images, he knows Wikipedia does not endorse the cartoons, and he knows Wikipedia is acting in good faith. I'm not saying he isn't offended, but he can't be offended with Wikipedia's actions now that he knows beyond a reasonable doubt that they are not responsible for the creation of the works in question. Haizum 18:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Believe it or not, but millions of people are personally offended by the cartoons, because they got hurt in their religious feeling, which is very personal indeed. I don't want to keep any knowledge from the people, and a simple description of the cartoons would be enough to explain what the situation is about. Raphael 62.116.76.117 19:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

How are you personally offended though? Isn't he a Prophet, with a connection to God? Can't he fight for himself? I don't think he needs mere mortals getting offended on his behalf. It doesn't make sense. He's powerful enough to start a huge religion but he needs his followers to go out and protect him from unflattering images? -- 16:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

A question to Cyde, is it your argument that putting these images on Wikipedia, but one link away from the main article (as I suggest in the section below), would somehow impede upon peoples "right to know"? Johntex\^talk 19:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

To answer the meat of your question: I'm not sure it would impede on a right to know, but it would impede on the rights of the 80+% who voted to keep the image in the article (and yes, I'm one of them). Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 00:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Certainly to change it against consensus would be bad. I am not suggesting that. I am working to change the consensus. Since you agree that putting the images on a subpage does not violate anyone's rights to know, I hope you will support this reasonable compromise. Johntex\^talk 00:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

@User:Aecis We are deciding about the right of a minority not to get offended. 80+% is the majority that does not seem to care whether that minority gets insulted because of their religious believes. Raphael1 02:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

@Johntex: No, I will not support moving the images to a subpage. An article about a controversy caused by cartoons should contain those cartoons, whether they cause some to feel insulted or not.

@Raphael1: Noone has a right not to be offended. Everyone has a right to be informed. And that right trumps all other considerations (except for copyright legislations). Wikipedia is not censored or edited to pander to religious sensitivities. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 09:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

If noone has a right not to be offended, why whould I violate the Wikiquette by personally attacking you? Raphael1 10:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

You have to look at the status: WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not censored is an official policy, the Wikiquette is a guideline. Furthermore, the Wikiquette is for interpersonal communication on wikipedia, "Wikipedia is not censored" deals with article content. And since this is a dispute on article content, the Wikiquette doesn't apply. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 10:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The WP:NPA is a policy too, as is the Key policies #5 Respect other contributors. If it's not even ok to offend muslim contributors, why should it be ok to offend millions of readers? Raphael1 11:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

NPA is indeed an official policy, and a very important one. But it's a policy on user-to-user behaviour, most importantly on talk pages and user talk pages. NPA does not apply to potentially offensive article content (unless ofcourse someone were to create an article "User <insertnamehere> is an asshole"). That is what the NPA about. This is all specified in the examples: accusatory comments, negative personal comments, racial, sexual, homophobic, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor, using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views, profanity directed against another contributor, threats of legal action, death threats and threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others (Italics by me). Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 11:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The cartoons in this article are a religious insult against not only one contributor, but many contributors. Raphael1 11:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

"Many" is not enough. The minority doesn't rule here. There are things on Wikipedia that will offend all religions. If WP only had criticisms of Christianity, then it would fail the NPOV litmus. Both sides of all stories must be told to maintain a NPOV, otherwise Wikipedia will no longer be a credible source of information. Haizum 13:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Even the personal insult of one contributor is enough to violate the WP:NPA policy. Raphael1 13:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

An insult is different than something that offends; they are not the same. An insult is a deliberate attempt to offend and demean, but something that is offensive is not always an insult. Haizum 14:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

These cartoons are both an offence and an insult to many contributors. Raphael1 14:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want to say they are an insult, then you need to prove that an editor/s contributed the cartoons for the purpose of offending others. No one is disputing the fact that some find the cartoons 'offensive,' but you have to prove it was intended as an insult to make a change. Even if you could prove that and have the cartoons removed, another editor could post the cartoons again but for the purpose of information, and that would be allowed. Haizum 15:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is a personal attack allowed in this case, if no important information would be lost by describing the cartoons instead of showing them, or at least putting them one link away? What could be the intention to show the cartoons, beside intended insult, if the information can be provided otherwise? Raphael1 16:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

1. I've already explained to you multiple times why contributing the cartoons is not a personal attack.
2. Your suggestion to describe the cartoon with detail equal to that of it being shown isn't possible. You might as well suggest, "You are free to describe the color blue, but it is against my religion to show the color blue, so don't actually show it, just describe it." That is exactly what you are asking. Sure, one could explain the specific wavelength of light and show all sorts of technical data, but it isn't the same as actually showing the color. And you would have no right to be insulted (but you could be offended) by someone that was doing a project on colors if the purpose of the project was to inform. You simply have no ground to stand on. Haizum 16:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

1. I've already explained to you multiple times why contributing the cartoons is a personal attack.
2. The cartoons are much easier to describe, than the color blue.
3. Your weak analogies (religion against color blue) only seem to be necessary, because you don't want to think about your real objections against removing the cartoons. Raphael1 16:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. They aren't a personal attack unless you can: 1. prove that editor/s contributed for the purpose of offense and/or insult, and 2. list the specific people by username that were the target. Haizum 16:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Wrong again. Obiously a single shade of color is easier to describe than an entire picture. Poll it. Haizum 16:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The analogy is weak only because it is analogous to your argument, which suggests that Wikipedia should describe something to ultimate detail but not actually show it. Haizum 16:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

religion against color blue Wrong. The analogy is between the cartoon and the color blue. If you can't understand that, then you have no business trying to argue with this mind. Haizum 17:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The color blue is very easy to describe.

[edit] tyranny of the majority

What we see here is a perfect example of tyranny of the majority: "If the majority wish to criminalise a section of society that happens to be a minority — whether a race, gender, faith, or the like — this may easily be done despite any wishes of the minority to the contrary."

If Wikipedia is not a democracy please let us try to find a consensus. For whatever reason User:The.valiant.paladin moved the discussion to the Arguments page. Please join the discussion so we can get more viewpoints. Raphael1 02:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. We've gone over this a myriad of times since this article was created. Please assume good faith amongst those opposing (re)moving the images. Please do not accuse others of tyranny. What has taken place, is a debate amongst established wikipedians, newbies and outsiders. The more than overwhelming consensus amongst all these good-faith contributors was and remains to keep the image in the article, on the top of the article. Please stop beating this dead horse. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 09:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read Consensus vs. supermajority, which states: "If there is strong disagreement with the outcome from the Wikipedia community, it is clear that consensus has not been reached." Please don't try to stop the discussion by calling it a dead horse. We've got all time in this world to discuss this issue to find a consensus. Not even a Supermajority has a right to insult a religios minority. Showing the mohammed cartoons on Wikipedia is a violation of the Wikiquette ("Before you think about insulting someone's views, think about what would happen if they insulted your religion.") and the No personal attacks policy ("Religious epithets are not allowed even if the contributor is a member of a purported cult.").

First of all, the Wikiquette and NPA do not apply here, since they are about interpersonal affairs (user-to-user communication), not about article content. The only thing that applies here is the WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not censored policy. Secondly, Wikipedia:Consensus also says that "the numbers mentioned as being sufficient to reach supermajority vary from about 60% to over 80% depending upon the decision, with the more critical processes tending to have higher thresholds." If you go to the poll results, you will see 81.8% in favour of keeping the image of the cartoons in the article, as opposed to 10.5% in favour of removing the image and 7.7% in favour of moving the image to a subpage, with a staggering 247 votes cast (normally polls are lucky to get 15 votes). That constitutes a supermajority by any definition of the word. And why should the feelings of that 10.5% weigh more than the feelings of the just under 82% in favour of keeping the image in the article, and the feelings of the 89.5% in favour of keeping the image on wikipedia? Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 11:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPA again. It starts with "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia." in bold letters. And if Wikiquette is just about user-to-user communication (I can't read that anywhere), why is there a subsection about Talk pages? Secondly, the feelings of the 10% weigh more, because the cartoons are personally attacking those 10% (muslims?) not the 80% (christians?), who are not affected. This is why I mentioned the tyranny of the majority article at the beginning. Raphael1 11:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Because (user) talk pages are just one way of user-to-user communication. Edit summaries and article vandalism are other means, to name but two. That is what NPA is about. It's about not attacking or flaming your fellow wikipedian on wikipedia, not about article content that some might consider offensive. And in wikipedia, the feelings of those offended by the cartoons are given equal weight to the feelings of those not offended by the cartoons. Not more, and not less. Finally, not everyone in the 10% is muslim. Many are, but not all. And it's impossible to determine whether the 80% are christians. They could just as easily be atheists, hindus or muslims. Or vegetarians, for that matter. Trying to derive any pattern from the statistics is impossible and absurd. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 22:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Unless you can... 1. prove that editor/s contributed for the purpose of offense and/or insult, and 2. list the specific people by username that were the target, then no personal attack was made. Haizum 17:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Censorship

I know people here are probably tired of them but a poll has started at Wikipedia_talk:Censorship#Poll to make Wikipedia:Censorship policy. Under the policy the Muhammad cartoons would stay where they are and cannot be moved except for editorial reasons. I know the question has been answered here (and the policy would not effect this page), but the policy (if passed) will mean that these polls should not have to held again for the next controversial image to come along. Wikipedia:Censorship doesn’t override other policies like WP:NOT etc.. Just for people who are interested. Thanks, Gerard Foley 02:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

One of the measures that would be outlawed under the proposed censorship policy is "making images smaller" to avoid offence. Since the image in this article is low-resolution and is displayed at a smaller scale than either the original scan or the page in Jyllands-Posten, this article might be affected by the proposed policy. This would depend on the intent behind resizing the image. -- Avenue 08:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to contradict, but under this policy, the cartoons would have to be removed imediately, because it states: "This is not an excuse to deliberately contribute content to offend members of a race, nation, gender or religion intentionally." This is exactly what is going on here. Raphael1 10:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

1. The keyword is "deliberately," Wikipedia is not deliberately trying to offend anyone though it is known that people may be offended by any number of things in the database. Haizum 11:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
2. Not all Muslims are offended by the cartoons. Haizum 11:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I second Haizum. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Censorship is still in the process of being proposed, so it has no standing. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 11:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Since the WP is still showing the cartoons after many protests from contributers, I would call this a deliberate action. Raphael1 11:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
2. There might be muslims who do not feel offended, but those who are, are offended because of their religious believes. Raphael1 11:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Stop cutting into threads, I know you've been doing this for some time now, so stop doing it. Your comments have been moved.

1. "Many" isn't enough to warrant complete removal. Everyone is free to edit, and the majority of editors agree that the cartoons should be hosted on Wikipedia to some degree (hidden or explicit), that is what matters because that is what the policy is. We've already gone over this.
2. I can assure you that the religious beliefs of every known religion on the planet are criticized on Wikipedia. In doing so, Wikipedia maintains a NPOV. If an article does not contain common criticisms, then it fails the NPOV litmus and needs to be worked on. Haizum 12:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
3. You must read WP:AGF before you can say someone is deliberately trying to offend. You must assume that information, written and visual, is presented for the sake of information. It is against policy to put words in someone else's mouth. Haizum 13:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the placement of my last comment. I just wanted to make it more visible, whom I'm responding to.

I think, that your reply is off-topic, because we were discussing, whether the cartoons should be removed, if the Wikipedia:Censorship incl. ("This is not an excuse to deliberately contribute content to offend members of a race, nation, gender or religion intentionally.") becomes a policy. Given that, "many" is definately enough to make this offense "deliberate". Secondly WP:AGF does not mean, that no offense can be made deliberately, otherwise the word "deliberately" would make the whole sentence superfluous, because no offense whatsoever can be made "deliberately". Raphael1 13:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

You aren't even reading what you quote. The keyword there is "to," meaning "for the purpose of." It is not acceptable to deliberately contribute content for the purpose of offending members of a race, nation, gender or religion intentionally. Haizum 13:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

So if you don't already understand my point, if a person contributes for the purpose of offending others, then it is not acceptable and not allowed per existing WP policy. If a person contributes for the purpose of informing others, then that is acceptable per existing WP policy; and you must realize and accept that some information (be it visual or text based) is offensive to some people. Haizum 14:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

If it's not the intention to insult, there are other ways to inform about the cartoons without being offensive. Raphael1 14:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Stop mixing definitions. An 'insult' is a deliberate act, but something that is offensive is not always deliberate; if it is, then it could be considered an insult. Editors are not allowed to intentionally insult, but they are allowed to unintentionally offend. If you don't understand what the difference is, too bad, it's not my problem nor anyone else's. Haizum 14:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Please answer my question: If the offense is not intended, why are the cartoons not described or moved one link away? Raphael1 16:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Raphael, and how do you suppose we inform about Der Sturmer or Anti-Semitism without using images that many Jews find offensive? Or Piss Christ with an image many Christians find offensive? We have tons of articles like this, and we expect that our readers will have the intellect and maturity to understand that in an encyclopedia insulting images are discussed and studied in a dispassionate and neutral fashion. Our content disclaimer specifically states that we include images that some people may dislike. Babajobu 15:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The article about Anti-Semitism is not anti-semitic by itself, and the caricatures of Der Sturmer are historic in contrast to the Mohammed cartoons, which are a current offense. Regarding Piss Christ: It's not the image but rather the title, that is offensive. Therefore it doesn't make sense to linkimage the Piss Christ foto, but WP:NPA requires to do so for the Mohammed cartoons. Raphael1 16:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

1. The article about the cartoons isn't offensive by itself. You yourself said a description would be fine so long as the images were removed.
2. You can't possibly claim that the outrage and violence because of the release of the cartoons isn't going to be recorded in history, and the fact that the story is ongoing makes it no less historical. See the definition: Dictionary.com - History Haizum 16:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
3. You can't say that the Piss Christ image isn't offensive at all. According to Wikipedia, it depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist's urine. Haizum 16:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA requires us to linkimage the cartoons? how so? when did Muhammad become a Wikipedian? dab (ᛏ) 16:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not Muhammed who got offended, but many muslim Wikipedians. Raphael1 16:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't matter (who is and is not offended). Unless you can... 1. prove that editor/s contributed for the purpose of offense and/or insult, and 2. list the specific people by username that were the target, then no personal attack was made. Haizum 17:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Please answer my question: If the offense is not intended, why are the cartoons not described or moved one link away? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raphael1 (talk • contribs)

If the offense is not intended, then the cartoons don't have to be removed/moved/linked. I am working on changing policy or working around it so that, as a courtesy to people who don't want to view offensive/objectionable material, images can be either moved down the page or linked. This way they will still be accessible and not suppressed, therefore they will not be censored. Haizum 18:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

At this point it's just rude to not sign your comments when you know you are supposed to. Haizum 18:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: For whatever reason, user Tokachu signed the unsigned comment above, not the creator, Raphael1. Haizum 19:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

What's the big deal? If nobody intents to be offensive, the cartoons can be (re)moved easily. Why is there such a strong objection to do so? The only reason I can make up, is that some Wikipedians intend to be offensive.

I did not want to be rude, I must have forgotten to sign my question. Raphael1 19:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, policy does not currently allow editors to move/link that type of content. One easy reason is the question of censorship/suppression and the other has to do with keeping article formats standardized. People are working to change/get around the issue of censorship, which is the main obstacle to creating articles that have all of the information (including offensive information) but are structured in such a way that people don't necessarily have to view the offensive information, though it will be clear that it is there. Haizum 19:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Raphael, what the heck are you talking about? "Regarding Piss Christ: It's not the image but rather the title, that is offensive"?? I have no clue where you got this from, but it's plain wrong. The image is of a crucifix submerged in urine. The picture infuriated American Christians quite apart from the title. And the anti-semitism and Der Sturmer images remain offensive to many Jews, in part because that sort of material is still published in much of the world, specifically the Muslim world. For this reason and others, many Jews continue to be deeply offended by such images. The point is that Muslims are treated in Wikipedia just like every other group, and Muslim Wikipedians and Muslim readers must simply learn to live with this. Babajobu 20:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Bar the mind-numbing repetitiveness, it is a rather surrealistic experience reading your exchanges. There is such an objection to understand and use certain established definitions, that once an argument has been made, it is re-clothed and repeated only a couple of sentences along. Discussing becomes an exercise in futility and endurance. Why don't you clarify your definitions? Bullet point a couple of the crucial concepts (encyclopdia, insult, offence, intent etc), and concisely define what they are - and most importantly - what they are not. Varga Mila 20:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL, don't forget "history." eg: The article about Anti-Semitism is not anti-semitic by itself, and the caricatures of Der Sturmer are historic in contrast to the Mohammed cartoons, which are a current offense. I was pretty good with my response, if I do say so myself. Haizum 20:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Piss Christ: You can't see on the image, that this liqid is urine. This is not an accident, but done intentionally by the artist. Regarding anti-semitic images: Would you want WP to publish every anti-semitic cartoon, that is published nowadays in the Muslim world? I don't want that, just as I don't want WP to publish these Mohammed cartoons. Raphael1 20:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok...but the crucifix is submerged in a liquid...and the title is "Piss Christ"...connect the dots. Oh, and I believe some of the Mohammed cartoons aren't explicitly Mohammed without their respective captions, so I could use your "you can't see on the image" argument there. Haizum 20:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

@Haizum Structuring the article in a way that people don't have to view the offensive cartoons is no big deal. I did it already by using linkimage, but my changes were rejected. Raphael1 20:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the inconsistencies come fast and tiresome. Raphael, you've now informed us that "Regarding Piss Christ: You can't see on the image, that this liqid is urine" and that therefore the image is not itself offensive, regardless of whether Christians are actually offended. Well that's fine, let's just extend the same logic to the Muhammad cartoons: you can't tell from the cartoons themselves that the turbaned gentleman is Muhammad the prophet of Islam. It could be any old Muhammad, or even any old turbaned gentleman. So the cartoons are not offensive. QED. Glad we sorted this out! Babajobu 20:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

That's because it isn't policy (allowable) yet; people will claim "censorship." Also, this type of comment should go on my talk page. I think it would be better if you moved it. Haizum 20:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Blast, you beat me to it, Babajobu! (see above) Haizum 20:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no inconsistency at all. I did not say, that the Piss Chist article is not offensive. I just said, that I would not consider the photo alone offensive. Therefore it doesn't make sense to linkimage the photo. Anyway, discussion about the Piss Christ should go there. It is not relevant at all whether Piss Christ is offensive or not. Please let us focus the discussion about the Mohammed cartoons. Raphael1 21:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The only problem is the part about a cartoon guy in a turban not being offensive unless "The Prophet Mohammed" is written with it Haizum 21:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Some Christians might consider the "Piss Christ" image offensive, it's still there. Some Muslims might consider the Mohammed cartoons offensive, it's still here. Whatever the topic, someone will always be offended. It's not Wikipedia's job to censor things for those people. -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 21:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The "Piss Christ" and "Dur Sturmer" articles are relevant because they are analogous. You would be more credible if you advocated removing those pictures are well; that would be the NPOV thing to do. Otherwise you just have an agenda, an agenda that no one is going to take seriously because it is so biased. Haizum 21:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

"I would not consider the photo alone offensive. Therefore it doesn't make sense to linkimage the photo." Okay, then how about "I would not consider the cartoons alone offensive. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to linkimage the cartoons." That's applying your logic, anyway. In real life, Wikipedia has long included material regarded as offensive by various groups, and will continue to do so, including the Muhammad cartoons. This is because Wikipedia is committed to the free flow of quality, uncsensored information, and will not diminish itself by kowtowing to various groups' religious or ideological demands. Cheers. Babajobu 21:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I slowly get more and more offended by all those Wikipedians who think they can censor Wikipedia because they are offended by some aspect and along the way trample fundamental rights that I hold dear. I used to say (borrowed from a great thinker and not literal): "Although I despise your opinion, I will fight for your right to express it!" And I will continue to say that, and as such, I will defend the right of expression and free speech, even when people are offended by it. --KimvdLinde 10:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Important! Proposed image deletion.

Please, note that image was proposed for deletion here by User:Raphael1. --tasc 20:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I just removed the image from Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 March 5, because I'm willing to accept the comprimise to linkimage the cartoon. I am asking the non-muslim majority to please show some respect towards the muslim Wikipedians. Raphael1 23:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to Islam. But in no way does reporting the image disrespect the Muslims. We show plenty of Nazi propaganda, we report them, in fact. It does not mean we "offend" Jews, or homosexuals by displaying their regalia, but rather, we are reporting history. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 23:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Be careful, it does offend, but as I have said before, it does not intentionally offend; meaning, offensive material is not posted for the purpose of offense, for obvious reasons. Haizum 23:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It is reporting history. If say, the Court were to prosecute a neo-Nazi in Germany for hate crimes, and used Nazi insignia as evidence, the Court admitting that into evidence and allowing the jury to see it does not mean that it offends the jury, but rather proof of the defendant's offense. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 23:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

In response to Raphael's request, I have some parallel requests. I request that Muslim Wikipedians who are offended by the images respect that Wikipedia is an uncensored encyclopedia that includes some images that are offensive to various groups. I request that you read the Wikipedia:Content disclaimer; really read it! I request that you not demand special treatment that we do not extend to any other community or group. Babajobu 23:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd call it an offense, because it is shown to the reader, without asking him whether he wants to see it. Nobody should be prohibited to see the image, if he chooses to see it. Putting a static Nazi-flag to the Wikipedia homepage definetly would be an intended offense, but putting it to the history article (where it belongs) is not. Please remember that the whole cartoon issue is an ongoing political event. I promise, that I will not protest, if you put the cartoon back on top of the article in the year 2066. Raphael1 23:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is forcing the reader to look at anything. Anyone who cannot deal with an uncensored encyclopedia, who cannot deal with the fact that Wikipedia contains some blasphemous images, who cannot deal with Wikipedia's content disclaimer, is welcome only to visit sites that will protect them from things they don't like. Reading Wikipedia is not compulsory for anyone. Babajobu 00:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; and that pretty much trounces all arguments...even though I've already defeated the argumentative position in question with oh so delicate logic. Haizum 00:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Raphael - please explain why this image is any different than other offending images - nazi propaganda, Piss Christ etc. Then explain how much and how many an image must offend, before it should be removed. When you have done this adequately I promise you your arguments will bear 10 times the weight. Celcius 09:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think, that the content disclaimer is an agenda to be as offensive as possible to drive away people from Wikipedia. The content disclaimer is necessary to legaly protect the Wikipedia. I think, that Wikipedia articles should avoid offense, if that is possible without loosing any information. Using a linkimage template does not prevent anyone from seeing the cartoon, but it allows muslims to read the article without insulting them. @Celcius I don't think it is necessary or even possible to have a gereral rule about what is offensive enough to linkimage. That question can and should be decided case by case. Raphael1 10:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Raphael1, the more muslims try to suppress freedom of speech with the argument it is offensive to them using extensive violence etc, the more determined the rest of the world will become to keep the cartoons as they are available at many places at the internet. Me, and many of my friends who normally think very nuanced about these kind of issues start to take more and more radical positions. These cartoons will not go away, if you really want to do something to prevent this from happening again, start to deal with your violent religious fellows. --KimvdLinde 11:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Raphael1, you are incorrect. The content disclaimer is not a legal disclaimer, it has no legal status, it was not produced by lawyers, it was not written with legal concerns in mind, and it is not "necessary to legaly protect the Wikipedia." It is a message to readers of Wikipedia that Wikipedia is not censored for their pieties or preferences. As for your claim that it is not "an agenda to be as offensive as possible to drive away people from Wikipedia", of course it is not, this is a strawman argument and a weak and transparent one at that. As has already been stated to you by numerous editors more patient than myself, Wikipedia makes no effort to offend, but nor will it purge informative content because someone finds it offensive. Anyway, all these concerns have already been addressed endlessly throughout these many talk pages, you are only repeating yourself again and again without appearing to make any effort to deal with the very clear and elementary points that have been posed to you repeatedly. I'm sorry that you have difficulty dealing with sources of information that are not censored for your religious beliefs. Fortunately for you, there still remain many sources of info in the world that are censored according to the demands of governments and/or religious clerics. Wikipedia just isn't one of them. Take care. Babajobu 12:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Please remove these pictures from your website. These are really very offensive for all the Muslims around the world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.83.174.28 (talk • contribs) .

Please remove all religious censorship from the world, it is very offensive to the rest of us. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jdonnis (talk • contribs) .

Your comment "really very offensive for all the Muslims around the world" is false rhetoric. One individual cannot claim to speak for everybody praticising one religion. Put forward your own opinion, and let others talk for themselves. (JoeBlogsDord 11:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC))

Dear JoeBlogsDord this is not a false rhtoric please see the media around the world. The protest and the strikes and the anger in the whole Muslim Community. We do not want to insult any religion and will never do this. We respect each and every religion and wish the same for us. Please remove these pictures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.83.174.28 (talk • contribs) .

@KimvdLinde please don't take on the moral standards of those people you don't like. Just because some of the offended people are responding with violence, does not mean that we have to respond "violently" by offending them even more. This is "an eye for an eye" way of thinking. Raphael1 12:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The pictures will not be removed until and unless there is a justifiable reason for doing so. The fact that the pictures happen to offend a great number of people is immaterial, we have a number of other pictures and drawings on this website that many would find offensive. This has been explained, in detail, more times than I care to count. The violent and deadly reaction of a number of muslims around the world only serves to make the cartoons more essential to understanding the subject, not less. Furthermore, removing the images sets a precedent that makes it impossible to discuss any but the most mundane of subjects, and would render Wikipedia a pointless exercise. RichardRB 12:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• • • The image could easily be moved slightly down the page, perhaps to where the images are discussed, and a warning given at the top. That Would be inoffensive and provide context to the images themselves. Demanding the image be right at the top seems like nothing other than Anti-Muslim/Religion bigotry. Yuo can show respect and still keep the images. --Irishpunktom\^talk 12:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It could be put down the page, but there is no policy to enforce it, so it isn't going to happen. Haizum 13:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. However, this is not the case. There are numerous other articles with offensive photos or illustrations at the top. It is not bigotry, it is standard Wikipedia practice. When there is an article that specifically concerns an image, that image should be placed at the top of the article, because it is central to and the subject of the article. Furthermore, providing a specific warning for something offensive is a bad precedent that has been addressed ad nauseum in the archives. RichardRB 13:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

@RichardRB You said, that "Wikipedia makes no effort to offend, but nor will it purge informative content because someone finds it offensive." Why don't you want to find a compromise between these two extremes? I don't demand WP to censor any information by purging the cartoons. But if WP makes no effort to offend, the cartoons can be linkimaged easily. Raphael1 13:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If anyone needs a policy that forces him to show some respect. Read WP:NPA Raphael1 13:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Because the latter is not an "extreme". It is a basic principle of uncensored media, and Wikipeda will not "compromise" with advocates of religious censorship. And your capacity to continue to misunderstand WP:NPA no matter how many times it is explained to you is mindboggling. In all my time in Wikipedia, I've never seen a conversation go in circles so relentlessly. The fact that you're now back to claiming that inclusion of the pictures represents a "personal attack" (against Muhammad, presumably) almost makes me weep. Goodbye, goodbye for real this time! Babajobu 13:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I said no such thing. You are (badly) paraphrasing my argument into one of your categories. In the future, please address my arguments, not what you would like my arguments to be. Moving on, Wikipedia does not make an effort to offend. No effort to offend is being made. Following a standard practice, an image central and the subject of this article has been placed at the top of the article. Its relative chance of giving offence was not a consideration, nor should it be. As a continuation of that, altering, moving, or otherwise changing the image because it is offensive to some should be reverted, because no consideration is given to whether the information in question is offensive. Contrary to your interpretation, the posting of a historical fact in an article dealing specifically with that fact is not a personal attack. That you take it as such is regrettable, but not a good reason to remove or alter the image. RichardRB 13:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't take much consideration whether the cartoons are offensive. Everybody who read the article knows, that they are offensive to many people. Placing the cartoons on top of the article is an effort to offend. If it wouldn't be an effort, the cartoons would have been linkimaged. Btw the cartoons are not subject of the article, but the controversy about them. Raphael1 14:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, and what is the controversy about? It's about the cartoons. Wikipedia readers are entitled to know what the controversy is about. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 14:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

But it does take some, and that is against Wikipedia policy. Offense is not and should not be a factor in decisions about whether or not to alter articles. No effort to offend has been made. The reasons the image has been put at the top were clearly stated. Your comment on the subject of the article is mistaken. The article is about the controversy, which is about the cartoons. Therefore, the subject of the article is the cartoons and the controversy surrounding them. RichardRB 14:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

(^^The two comments above by Aecis and myself got lost in a brief talk page shuffle, I am reinserting them where they belong in the conversation.) RichardRB 17:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It is only an effort to offend if you see it that way. Those who advocate keeping the image at the top do not wish to offend you, we merely wish to adequately illustrate the subject. Frankly, Wikipedia is the place for offensive images, but it is not the place for religious ideology of any kind. See Piss Christ, Nazism. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 15:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If those who advocate keeping the image at the top do not wish to offend muslim wikipedians, they could linkimage the cartoons, which would illustrate the subject just as well without bringing any religious ideology to the subject. Raphael1 16:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not within the purpose of the project to play to political/religious sensitivities. The only concern should be what makes for a good article/encyclopedia. Linkimaging would make the article worse, and should not be done. --Improv 16:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

no. If there are readers who lack the cognitive faculty to distinguish between an offense, and a report on an offense, we cannot help them. An encyclopedia reports. This entire discussion is about shooting the messenger. Let's not have it again every other day. dab (ᛏ) 16:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The "messengers" could not have offended anyone, if no newspapers would have published their "message". The "report" on this offense could be as well structured in a non offensive way. Raphael1 16:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

@Improv If it's not within the purpose of the project to play to political/religious sensitivities, then I suggest that WP shouldn't do so. Right now WP is playing with religious sensitivities. Raphael1 16:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

This topic has been discussed ad nauseum, and whether or not you feel that the article should display the image at the top, it is clear that Wikipedia policy allows the article in its current state. If you truly feel that this is inappropriate and should be removed, then you need to advocate for changing the policy. Here's a few relevant links:

WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored - Wikipedia policy on censorship

Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not - Talk page for said policy

Wikipedia:Censorship - A proposed policy that addresses censorship in greater detail

Wikipedia talk:Censorship - Talk page with active discussion of the proposed policy. This is where I would recommend directing your arguments on the issue of potentially offensive images. The policy is still being developed, and you may be able to advance your point of view there.

Again, it seems clear that current Wikipedia policy allows (and perhaps even encourages) the inclusion of the Muhammed cartoons in this article. If you feel that this should not be allowed, then work to change the policy. It will not be changed on this discussion page. --JerryOrr 16:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

it is clear that several Wikipedia policies do not allow the article in its current state:

1. Wikiquette ("Before you think about insulting someone's views, think about what would happen if they insulted your religion.")
2. No personal attacks policy ("Religious epithets are not allowed even if the contributor is a member of a purported cult.")
3. Wikipedia:Profanity ("Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not.")

Raphael1 16:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are misunderstanding some of the links you just cited:

1. Wikiquette - first off, the first thing the Wikiquette article states is that it is a guideline, not a policy. And if you read the page a little more closely, it gives a link to the policy what Wikipedia is not. Which specifically addresses censorship.
2. No personal attacks - you may want to look up the meaning of epithet, then reconsider the section you quoted. As for the rest of the policy, it is meant to address personal attacks, not posting material that may offend someone. They are two different things.
3. Wikipedia:Profanity - again, this is a guideline, not a policy. And I think the quote you provided only further reinforces that the inclusion of the cartoons is appropriate, as its "omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate."

I repeat, you will not get Wikipedia policy changed here. I recommend going to the discussion of the proposed Wikipedia policy on censorship. --JerryOrr 17:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

What is perfectly clear is that some Wikipedians insist on wasting space and time on totally off-topic subjects on talk-pages. I find this kind of rude and insensitive behaviour most offending, but am open to the idea that the trolls are just deliberately trying to discredit Muslims in general. MX44 17:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

(Reply mainly to JerryOrr) - yes, I agree with you that Wikipedia policy clearly allows the article in its present state. However, policy also clearly allows us to decide together to change it, which is as it should be. I suggest that keeping the images on an article sub-page, accessible by only one additional click, would be a great compromise. It would allow people offended by the pictures to have a nice NPOV article they could read without seeing the offensive images. Yet, the images are still available to everyone here with very little extra effort. What would be wrong with making this small change that would be a big help to a significant minority of people? Johntex\^talk 17:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again, because it sets a very bad precedent. To maintain NPOV, we would then have to do the same thing for every other group that finds an image on Wikipedia offensive. The effect on the whole would be disruptive and unsatisfactory. RichardRB 17:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and suggest people look at Wikipedia:Censorship and vote Wikipedia_talk:Censorship#Poll! Gerard Foley 17:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

We are not robots. We can use our intellect to decide each case on its merits. The proposed censorship policy Gerard points to is all about stripping editorial decision making from our editors, and enforcing editorial control by fiat. It is proposed censorship and should be opposed. Johntex\^talk 18:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. And the cartoon is pivotal to the entire story and as such there are good reasons to display it prominently - Anything else would be really odd, when the entire story is the cartoon.The.valiant.paladin 18:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you John, we are not robots. And I agree it should be left to the editors to consider the merits of where an image should go. I direct your attention to the FOUR polls that have been conducted on this issue here on the talk pages. In every case, the overwhelming majority of editors has voted to keep the image as it is, where it is. I myself was only here for the final one. If that is not a consensus among Wiki editors on the issue, the word has no meaning. RichardRB 18:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Valiant and Richard - I appreciate this discussion very much. I agree with Richard that prior consensus features keeping the images as they have been. I am just hoping opinions will have changed now that the deletionist furvor has subsided somewhat. Valiant, I disagree with you that it would be that odd given the circumstances, but I respect your opinion and I am glad you are making an editorial point, rather than some of the statements here that take such an extreme view about how making a tiny change is some vile form of censorship that will doom the entire project. Johntex\^talk 18:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case, you should know that people like Rafael are only making your task more difficult by irritating those already working on the project by endlessly bringing this up. Honestly, I think the best option would be to wait a month or two (at least) and let things really calm down, then see if people would consent to another poll. I don't think my own views will have changed, but maybe others will. What I do know is that the kilobytes upon kilobytes of rehashed arguments are only serving to harden opinion against you. RichardRB 18:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

DBachmann says "If there are readers who lack the cognitive faculty to distinguish between an offense, and a report on an offense, we cannot help them." I suggest someone create a bot that will post that comment to this talkpage, once a day, into perpetuity. Let the advocates of religious censorship argue with the bot. Babajobu 18:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I second the motion re: the bot. Valtam 19:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I 'third' the motion re: the bot. Varga Mila 19:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I fourth the motion re: the bot. Slimdavey

The cartoonists could not have offended anyone, if no newspapers would have published their cartoons. If you read the article, you will find out, that every "report" in a newspaper which republished the cartoons has been perceived as an insult. It's not the publisher, who can decide what is an offense, but the reader of a publication. The "report" on this offense could be as well be structured in a non offensive way. Raphael1 16:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Raphael, the actual cartoons are relevant to the article, as they're what the controversy is about. They make the article more clear, and the encyclopedia better. Whether the cartoons offend people by their being on Wikipedia is not important to us. You can try to change policy to disallow it, but your chances of doing that are negligible. If you're offended, it's unfortunate, but we're unlikely to change the way we do things around here to avoid offending people. --Improv 19:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[removed unnecessary unsigned repetition]

Improv, please clarify: Why is the offense not important to you? Why do you think it's unfortunate to offend me? Why don't you want to avoid offense?

@The.valiant.paladin Do you think it's pivotal for the article to be offensiv? Raphael1 20:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The offense will not enter into consideration as to whether it belongs in the article, and so it's not important in that context. Articles on wikipedia are written to be encyclopedic, with no considerations as to how offensive they may be. However, that being said, offending people is not something we exactly celebrate -- it is unfortunate in that light. Offensiveness is not a per-se aim; neither is being nonoffensive. The offence is incidental to the primary goal. --Improv 21:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Please leave out the primary goal for a while. Why don't you want to avoid offense? Raphael1 22:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The policy only makes sense in light of the primary goal. Other considerations don't enter into it. If this were not an encyclopedia, things might be different, but this *is* an encyclopedia, and as such, pictures of things like "Piss Christ" and these cartoons are appropriate in their articles. We should not sacrifice an ounce of encyclopedicness for even a hundred tonnes of avoiding offense. --Improv 23:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

DBachmann says "If there are readers who lack the cognitive faculty to distinguish between an offense, and a report on an offense, we cannot help them."

I just had some offensive thoughts, I'd like to report to you. But on the other hand you might lack the cognitive faculty to distinguish between an offense and a report on an offense, so I choose not to report my thoughts. Raphael1 20:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

A good choice, I think. Thank you. Valtam 22:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No longer any proposal for deletion

Hello, I'd like to point out that Raphael1 has withdrawn his request for the images to be deleted. I think this demonstrates a level of good faith on his part, and I wish to commend him for it. I certainly oppose deletion of the images, and I am happy that Raphael1 has said he can support a compromise to have the images linked on a sub-page. A few other users here have expressed support for this idea, and I hope others will consider supporting this as well. Johntex\^talk 21:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think most editors, as has been clarified by earlier straw polls, are for the curent situation. And as such, I am against changing the current situation. Retrackting the proposed deletion does not automatically result in the alternative he proposed, as the proposal would not have made it at all to start with. --KimvdLinde 21:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read about why Polls are evil: "Polling encourages groupthink: [...] When the vote is strongly unbalanced, those on the "losing" side feel marginalized, and those on the "winning" side will sometimes feel as though the results of the poll give them license to do as they wish without taking into account the views of the minority, though nothing has been resolved." Raphael1 21:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps polls are evil. But do you see any other way of establishing and determining community consensus on this issue? The fact is that there have been polls, and that an unprecedentedly large number of established wikipedians, newbies and outsiders decided that the situation was to be as it currently is. I won't ask you to agree with it, but I will ask you to respect that outcome, and to take it very seriously. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 21:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I for one believe Raphael1 is just advocating running Wikipedia according to one introvert version of Theocracy, popular in certain parts of the world, but which is simply unacceptable for the rest of us. I also find that his contributions to the article are restricted to off-topic subjects on this talk-page. Why do we continue to feed the troll? MX44 21:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I take that outcome very seriously and I'm very sad about it. I must confess, that I have big difficulties in respecting that outcome, because it shows all signs of groupthinking as there are:

1. Illusion of invulnerability
2. Unquestioned belief in the inherent morality of the group
3. Collective rationalization of group's decisions
4. Shared stereotypes of outgroup, particularly opponents
5. Self-censorship; members withhold criticisms
6. Illusion of unanimity (see false consensus effect)
7. Direct pressure on dissenters to conform
8. Self-appointed "mindguards" protect the group from negative information

Raphael1 22:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

So, we should instead all conform to the one and only true path: The Tyranny of Raphael1? Who is appointed to protect the group from negative information? MX44 22:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You're also ignoring that this page had been up for a few weeks with no consensus on the issue, and a personal intervention by Jimbo to stop the ideological pitched battle that was taking place on the talk page. The poll was the last resort to see if a decisive majority on the question, if not a consensus, could be reached. You persist in deluding yourself that somehow the vast majority of editors on this page have been brainwashed by...themselves. RichardRB 22:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] please support the linkimage compromise

In contrast to what most of you propably have guessed, I am a not a Muslim. Still I can feel empathy with the muslim Wikipedians, who must be offended by the rapid speading of these cartoons. I am sorry, that I am not conforming with the opinion of the majority, which somtimes heated up the discussion. I would prefer the cartoons to be deleted. I think that disrespect of many Wikipedians here already drove away most of the muslim Wikipedians, who could have helped to keep the article text balanced (NPOV). I know, that the majority here is not offended by the cartoons and would like that the article does not get censored by removing the cartoons. That is why I now support the compromise of linkimaging the cartoons (have them on a subpage here, with a prominent link from the main article). I feel this is a reasonable compromise to allow muslims to read the article without offense, yet also allow the images to be available to everyone. This would somewhat balance freedom of religion with freedom of speech. I don't want anybody to blindly follow "The Tyranny of Raphael1", instead I wish everybody would try to feel just for moment, how a Muslim might feel about the results of the polls. Raphael1 00:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how a Muslim might feel, from what i've seen, the Qu'ran doesn't expressly forbid viewing images of anybody, and furthermore from what i've seen, the Qu'ran was written in such an abstract language trying to make sense of it almost requires a few creative and personal interpretations. Although the Hadiths if I remember their name correctly do expressly forbid it, I don't recall Muhammad writing them or any sections on not making cartoons, nor any insistance that the Hadiths must be obeyed by all good Muslims, so basically, as far as I know, the people who are being offended by these cartoons aren't doing it out of conviction to a clearly defined religion, their doing it out of pure personal choice. Or the local mosque leader is purveying their own personal interpretation to everyone, either way, there's no way to get away with generalizations as to what a Muslim should and should not believe. Homestarmy 00:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Please try to avoid Rationalization, use your imagination, pretend you are a muslim and look at the cartoons. What do you feel? Raphael1 01:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

"If there are readers who lack the cognitive faculty to distinguish between an offense, and a report on an offense, we cannot help them."

I just had some offensive thoughts, I'd like to report to you. But on the other hand you might lack the cognitive faculty to distinguish between an offense and a report on an offense, do you want me to report my thoughts? Raphael1 01:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

A good choice would be not to air your offensive thoughts, I think. Thank you. MX44 01:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Against the compromise. No censorship. I can feel that they are offended, but I have my things here at wikipedia that offend me as well. I just do not look at them, as nobody forces me to look at them. --KimvdLinde 02:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

To Raphael1: Might not the article beef actually be offensive to hindus? - maybe. What about a compromise move of those pictures, that they should not offend hindus on wikipedia? I am indeed offended by just the sight of president George W. Bush, in fact I would like to ask - no demand - that the picture of his ugly face be removed from his article (or at least moved down). Actually I think the satanists are quite offended by the Jesus-article, and would like to have it removed all together or at least severly crippled. We can't offend the satanist, now can we - they have feelings too (god damn it)! To tell it like it is: There's crazy people everywhere. If you look long and hard enough you will be able to find someone taking offense to everything you possibly could mention or report. Do you think 'offense' is some kind of magic word, that get you somewhere if it's not aligned with the majority? The majority has already spoken it's been days and weeks, so: get over it - grow up - stop the neverending bitching, - please. --Anjoe 03:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

So far no hindu complained about the beef article, nobody reported to be offended by the GWB picture on the relevant discussion page und no satanist reported his offense on the Jesus article. I think, that this obviously disqualifies your arguments as Slippery slope arguments. Rather interesting is your comment "There's crazy people everywhere.". Generally I would not disagree, but in this context it could mean, that muslims who are offended by the cartoons are crazy. This probably unhides the true reasoning behind most people, who don't want the compromise. Raphael1 09:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Compromise? What are you talking about? Wikipedia is one big compromise! It really goes like this: YOU can report on any fact of the world that I hate, if I can report on anything YOU hate. - What you are trying to do is to destroy the big compromise that is Wikipedia. Fundamentalistic christians *are* in fact offended by the mere article on homosexuality, which in some minds are nothing more than manipulative education on how to become homosexual. I don't want you to rationalize this: I want you to feel in your own breast how it must be like to be such a poor christian when he stumples upon articles like that, and is forced to watch those digusting filthy pictures as Image:Love play in China.jpg (not my opinion of course) ... - Listen, in my mind YOU are the one that's offending muslims here. When you say that these cartoons are offensive to muslims in general you are in fact saying that every muslim is so weak in his faith as to care what some obscure newspaper publicizes. When you say to feel how it is like to be a muslim watching those cartoons are you taking into account the great sane part of the muslim world who actually couldn't care less about this "controversy"? Yes there really is crazy people all over the world and just because a few of them has decided to be crazy in concert in regards to this article it doesn't mean that their aren't crazy people still, - and still, mind you, a minority. - You don't like my arguments (calling them slippery slope)? I guess you must have some really good ones justifying why this one article obviously should be an exception. Or maybe we should just *feel* those arguments and you don't have to write them down. You think you are defending the middle here but you are kidding yourself. You are comming smack down on the totalitarian wingnutty side of this argument not attacking wikipedia for not reporting the facts, but attacking wikipedia because it really is doing so. --Anjoe 11:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we need a separate talkpage for Raphael's linkimage campaign. Poll 2 already offered this option as a compromise, and it was soundly rejected, as a supermajority voted for keeping the image at the top. The same result as in all other such polls. If Raphael wants to continue discussing ad nauseum an option that the community has already clearly rejected, that's fine, but how long can we be expected to repeatedly debunk the same points again and again on the main talkpage? Anyway, I'll leave the issue of a separate talkpage for other people; for myself, I'll just say that I feel like at this point we've heard each of Raphael's points ten times or more, and I'm no longer going to address them only to see them raised again in identical form 36 hours later. "I reject the linkimage option for all the reasons already explained on this talkpage, and all the reasons given by people who rejected it in Poll2." Let that sentence be a sort of silent autoresponse to all of Raphael's future comments on the topic. Babajobu 10:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Raphael, can you not see that your suggestion stands no chance of even a sizeable minority, not to mention consensus? So why continue spamming the talkpage about it? On the content side, which is more offensive to Muslim sensitivities, (a) the statement, in words, that a Danish newspapers mocked Muhammad, or (b) Image:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings.jpg? You guessed it, it is (a), and it was (a), viz. word of mouth, not (b), that caused all this violence. dab (ᛏ) 10:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

How do you think (a) would be possible, if (b) wouldn't have been published in the first place? Raphael1 15:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Like I've said before, I strongly oppose this proposal. An article about a cartoon controversy should contain the cartoons. If people feel offended by it, then so be it. Wikipedia is not censored. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 12:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

People keep saying Wikipedia is not censored, however the poll at Wikipedia_talk:Censorship#Poll suggests to me that people are in favour of "offencive" images being linked, or moved where the editors of an article decide to do so. Gerard Foley 15:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a pretty bold conclusion to draw from a poll where the current score is 10/11/4. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 16:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact is, I've seen "Wikipedia is not censored" used as an argument many times, but when we get a no censorship policy (WP:NOT reads more like a disclaimer) people are not supporting it. People who oppose want to be able to compromise, such as being able to link to images. Gerard Foley 16:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think one of the keys for a lot of people (including myself) is that we want editors to be able to make that call, if they choose. It seems pretty clear that there is no consensus of the editors of this page to use such a device at this time. That doesn't mean we should have a policy that outlaws such a choice for all articles going forward. Johntex\^talk 17:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I know you’re in favor of allowing editors to make the call on an article by article basis, but this is the result. Muslims get the image shoved in their face, but when we look up Goatse.cx we don't have to look at the images. There's something wrong there IMO. Something which the Censorship policy aimed to fix, by making us all equal. It's a shame people don't agree. Gerard Foley 22:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why not put the pictures on subpage?

What would be the big problem with putting the cartoons on a sub-page? This way, people who want to see the actual cartoon can knowingly click on the link and view them. People who might view the cartoons as offensive and insulting can still come here to read a great article without being unexpectedly confronted with offensive images? Johntex\^talk 18:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree and I think this method should be applied to a number of articles with questionable images. Unfortunately I don't think that is what this person takes issue with. Haizum 18:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to please this one particular anonomous poster. I don't know whether they would like this proposed compromise or not. What I am trying to do is to suggest something that I think would be of the most benefit to the most people. No compromise is perfect, I am just suggesting something that I think would be an improvement to what we do now. Johntex\^talk 18:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Because we're not in the business of hiding history here at Wikipedia. Even if some readers are temporarily offended by seeing the cartoons, I bet they can get over it. The entire article is based on the cartoons anyway, so it wouldn't make sense to hide them or make them harder to view for the majority of viewers who aren't going to be offended but are going to need to see the images to establish context. If you didn't see the cartoons and then read the article and the responses you might think the cartoons depicted the worse acts of vulgarity imaginable; instead, they're rather tame. That context needs to be kept in. -- 18:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Perhaps some Muslims would actually be less offended after seeing the pictures as opposed to assuming the worst when reading about them? Don't we have to assume that the whole truth is the ideal? I'm on the fence with this one. Haizum 18:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to give our readers more credit. Even if some of the Muslim readers who read this do get offended, the vast majority of them are not going to take to the streets and commit more acts of violence like the kind already in the article. Reading some of the Nazi stuff on Wikipedia offends me and the gas chamber stuff makes me sick to my stomach - but I'm not going to suggest that it be excised or cordoned off to a hidden page with a disclaimer. We're in the business of teaching history, in all of its unpleasant details, not dividing it up into neat little hidden chunks so that readers only have to learn about history what they want to learn. -- 18:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that what would be consistent with the idea of "giving readers more credit" would be to believe they can take one single click to view the images, if they wish. Johntex\^talk 18:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Both of you are correct. Some particularly offensive images should remain accessable on Wikipedia for the sake of information, but I see little harm in having subpages if their contents are described well enough and if the links are in clear view. Someone may need to do some research on gas chambers while trying to eat their lunch. Haizum 18:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

That is a great example Haizum. Someone may also hear the word autofellatio in conversation and click on it at work or at school without knowing what the word means. Why should we hit them with an image they may not be prepared to see. If they want to see it, it can still be one click away, and nothing will have been lost to them. Johntex\^talk 19:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I've taken issue with a number of graphic anatomy articles. eg, the article on breasts should have color cross sections and medical sketches visible on the page, but actual photographs, which are anthropomorphic in the sense that they are depictions of an actual person, should be in a subpage. I admire your ideal, Clyde, I just think that for more practical purposes subpages would be very helpful. Haizum 19:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking that subpages would help content regulated computers better avoid blocking useful material in school settings, and for adults, it would keep potentially NSFW content off of their screens. Haizum 19:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Tough I'd rather see the cartoons deleted, I can agree to Johntex compromise, if the link has an appropriate disclamer saying, that the cartoons are offensive to muslims and therefore put on a seperate page. @CydeWays I would not call that article history teaching. The cartoon issue is a current political event, and the question of publishing the cartoons is very political. Whether the cartoons are tame or not is everybodys personal decision. Raphael 62.116.76.117 19:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your flexibility in working towards a compromise. Johntex\^talk 19:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

A disclaimer should be standardized and shouldn't be any more specific than "some individuals may find this picture/drawing/etc offensive, viewer discretion is advised...yatta yatta." There is no need to be specific with regards to who might be offended. Haizum 19:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a good idea. A small modification might be to have a few standardized wordings. Such as "contians nudity", "contains violence", just a thought. Johntex\^talk 19:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Right, similar to what they do on TV. Haizum 19:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Eventually, a software improvement could easily auto-hide images based upon a individual user's preference. You could go into a preference tab and choose what you want to see as a reader. Until that time, we can let the user make the decision manually. Johntex\^talk 19:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I just made the chance we agreed on, but my changes got reverted again. This is really frustrating. Raphael 62.116.76.117 22:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I urge you not to get discouraged. The comments here so far represent a small portion of the number of people working on or watching this article. The may not even be watching this sub-page. I encourage you to post to the main Talk page and invite them to come over here and join the discussion. We need to get more viewpoints and more agreement before we can claim we have consensus. Johntex\^talk 00:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

This idea of a disclaimer goes directly against Wikipedia policy though. Wikipedia is not censored (for the protection of minors). Some parts of Wikipedia may well be not safe for work or not safe for school. If you want to try to change policy, go through the proper channels. You aren't going to be able to change policy by arguing on the talk page of one specific case, though. -- 19:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

That is not what WP:NOT is about. Please read WP:Not again. It says things like "may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive... Wikipedia cannot guarantee that..." This is primarily for legal protection in case illegal/objectional content is present. It is not saying that we can't give our readers the tools they need to have some control over their own reading here. There is nothing in my proposal that conflicts with WP:NOT, therefore, there is no reason I should go through any channels to have WP:NOT changed. We would still want to have WP:NOT as a legal protection for ourselves. Johntex\^talk 20:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, I'm thinking there may be a way to keep Wikipedia NSFW and NSFS while still having it be accessable to people at work and at school. Wouldn't that be nice? I'll joing the policy discussion soon. Haizum 20:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The cartoons should not be moved to a subpage, because wikipedia is simply not censored in any way, shape or form to console, comfort or accommodate to any sensitivities, whether they are religious, political, moral or anything else. If muslims are offended by these cartoons, they shouldn't come to this article. It's as simple as that. The image of the cartoons has been polled and discussed frequently, and the overwhelming consensus has been and remains to keep the image as it is: in the article, on the top of the article. The option of the subpage has already been polled, and received only a handful of votes, whereas the option of keeping the image in the article received hundreds of votes. It's already technically possible for users to hide the cartoon from view. Bringing all this nonsense up again is beating a dead horse. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 00:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully ask you not to characterize my suggestions as nonsense. As for bringing it up again, clearly there is room to reconsider our beliefs, now that the immediate furor is subsiding. I have a question for you. You say that anyone who is offended can simply stay away. Why do you deny to Muslims the chance to come here and read about this controversy without being confronted by the pictures? Johntex\^talk 00:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for my choice of the word "nonsense", which was uncalled for. As to your other point: I'm not denying muslims anything. I'm saying that noone visiting wikipedia has a right not to feel offended or insulted. Wikipedia may contain information that some find appalling. So it happens. If that's reason for some not to visit wikipedia, then so be it. We're in the business of writing an encyclopedia, not in the business of accommodating to the outside world. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 08:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I agree that we can't please everyone all the time. However, that doesn't mean we can't try to please more of the people more of the time. If we in-line the images, presumably there is a significant group of Muslims who would feel comfortable reading the article and learning a NPOV view about the controversy. That seems like a huge plus to me. On the other hand, the only downside is that everyone has to make one more click to see the image. It seems like a great trade-off to me. The point to Wikipedia is not to make an encyclopedia, it is to build an encyclopedia that people will read and trust. Johntex\^talk 21:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

What exactly are you referring to with "in-lining the images"? Btw, it's already possible to prevent the cartoons from displaying, as explained on the top of Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (in the blue box). It's true that someone has to be a registered user for this, but registering with wikipedia is about as easy as it gets. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 23:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

By "in-lining the images" Johntex probably means a linkimage template, which means that Muslims can read the article without being confronted with the cartoons and without having to fiddle with css-stylesheets. Raphael1 23:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Reading over this as the most recent series of objections to having the cartoons in the article, I noticed there was an argument that I have seen argued, and have argued myself, that was not mentioned in your list. Namely that removing an image because it is offensive sets a terrible precedent. If we allow the image to be changed or removed because it gives offense, we must allow such changes to every other article on Wikipedia. The cartoons are a historical fact, they happened, and they are historically significant because such a fuss has been created over them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it's function is to inform. The cartoons are at the top of the article, in a position of prominence, because they are the subject of the controversy. Removing them from that position detracts from the article and thus from Wikipedia. RichardRB 05:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

This would be no precedent, because the same thing happend before (i.e. the autofelatio article). Secondly the cartoon controversy is not just a historical fact, but an ongoing political event. Yes, it might be possible, that some people of the non-muslim majority get detracted from the article, if it is not offensive enough for them. On the other hand many people will be detracted, if it IS offensive. Raphael1 12:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You're wasting your time. Not only are you wrong, but your reasoning is full of holes. You are the only one that doesn't seem to think so. I suppose you think you are more intelligent? Please. Haizum 13:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

My intelligence is off-topic here. Why don't you prove your claims by showing some holes of my reasoning? You don't have to protect the group from a different opinion by pressuring me to go away. Raphael1 04:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there would be a precedent set. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but there is still a illustrative representation in your example. The photo was removed, IIRC, because of copyright restrictions, not because it was offensive. That has no relevance in this case. The cartoons are still a historical fact, the point that it is an ongoing political event does not change that. I am sorry it is offensive to some. The fact that it is offensive does not mean it should be changed. An encyclopedia should present the facts, however unpleasant they may be. RichardRB 13:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hide button added

Hi all,

I have added a show/hide link for the image. If you find the image offensive, just click the hide link. You don't need an account to do this. By default, the images will be displayed and this is beyond my control. So if you wish to read the article and don't want to see the images make sure you quickly click Hide as soon as it loads. Is this good enough for you Raphael? :)

PS have we gotten featured article yet?

Cheers, Mvent2 11:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort. Having a "Show" button by default, would be good enough for me. Raphael1 12:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice try Raphael1, still not convinced of the virtues of democracy? Do not forget that most editors hold a position opposite to yours. Nomen Nescio 13:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all I'd like to remind you, that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Secondly I'm well aware of the advantages of a democracy, but I also know some of its disadvantages. Thirdly I'm well aware of the position of many editors here. If all editors would share my position, there would be no debate. Raphael1 13:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

pure genius! If all people shared my opinions, I would never get in an editing dispute. Ha, and if all people shared a sense of humour or good grace, there would be no "cartoon riots". It's ok to have an opinion Raphael. It is not ok to spam talkpages with it, day after day, as if re-iteration made it any different. dab (ᛏ) 13:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI: Most editors here are well aware of your position too! MX44 13:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Which doesn't forbid me to argue my position, does it? Raphael1 13:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

And even do it alone. --tasc 13:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Resid 2.0? Netscott 14:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me? --tasc 14:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I consider that a crude try, to drive me away from this discussion. Don't worry. You don't have to protect the group from a different opinion by pressuring me. I'm sorry, if my arguments bore you. If you feel that I repeat myself, it might as well be, that your arguments get reiterated day after day. Raphael1 14:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Any chance that a sub-page could be created to discuss the absence, presence and form of the cartoon image? Attempts to address other (new) aspects of the article constantly turn into and drown in this repeated discussion. Varga Mila 14:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The feature you've added isn't a bad idea. However, could you fix it so that it is "inlined" (as it was before), instead of the intro text beginning after the bottom of the image? --JerryOrr 12:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Tasc and I have cleaned up the 'hide' formatting. It looks a bit better now. Netscott 16:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Works fine forme. --KimvdLinde 16:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, yeah, but people who burn down embassies because of caricatures they haven't even seen will still not be statisfied.129.13.186.1 17:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

(RfC here) A fine idea. Perhaps not enough to satisfy everyone, but expresses sensitivity. Good work. Durova 19:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for all your comments. :) I use Firefox and it works OK in that. My apologies to those who it doesnt work for. Also, as much as some want the images hidden by default, Wikipedia doesn't allow scripting in their articles so I can't do anything about that. To those who are offended by this image, this is the best you're going to get unless you use the monobook method.

Cheers, Mvent2 21:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent idea, but it doesn't seem to work in my browser. I don't know if others have the same problem. I don't see a hide button anywhere. If others have the same problem, I'm afraid we're back where we started. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 22:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It works fabulously in Safari. Varga Mila 23:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Great idea! As someone could have foreseen this is nevertheless not enough to satisfy some peoples sensitivities. I want to commend Mvent2 for this effort though. It gives us hope for a technical solution to the great problem of some users wanting to remove highly relevant material from articles. I hope that we may one day have a wikimedia-feauture which could function like a parental control-thing, where you could go to Special:Preferences and set your own level of censorship – say the values of 0 through 2. Then the picture in this article could be put as a level 1 offence and hidden if you had that level. A level two could likewise be aplied also to sexual explicit material and whole articles if they were generally in danger of being to the dislike of a sizeble minority. Everybody would win. --Anjoe 02:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Any similarity between the consequences of this and Google's economic adventures in China ?? Varga Mila 06:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with it, as long as the control is given to the individual. I think what you are refering to is the central censorship by a state and weak-minded companies caving in to that demand. --Anjoe 15:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

What about being able to disable images in certain categories? I would support that. Gerard Foley 03:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

That would maybe be an even better idea. Where can one suggest such a thing for the software developing people? --Anjoe 15:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I just figured out; the hide button will only appear once the entire article has finished loading. I'm sorry but there isn't anything I can do about this. --Mvent2 09:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is the defualt now HIDE????--KimvdLinde 15:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A question

Don't take me wrong, I'm glad that these discussions have finally paid off with the ingenius way of hiding the image (although, I'd prefer it hidden by default.). But I want to point out to a similar issue: in the article Bahá'u'lláh, the image of this prophet is located at the bottom end of the article (even after the references and external links) because the Bahá'í Faith forbiddens the display of the prophet's picture. Though it's impossible not to make a comparaison with what happened in this article, why the pictures of Muhammad are at the top of the page and the picture of Bahá'u'lláh is at the bottom? Is it because there is more Baha'is than "anti-Baha'is" in Wikipedia, while the opposite is true concerning Muslims in Wikipedia? CG 19:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident that any upcoming international controversy involving cartoons of their prophet will have the cartoons in question at the top of the article dealing with that controversy, too. Azate 20:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I know many of you want the images hidden by default, but unfortunately with the limitations of MediaWiki it can't be done. Cheers, Mvent2 21:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The consensus on the talk page of that article seems to be that the picture should be on the bottom of the article. I couldn't find the exact motivations for this, but I've seen some of the usernames involved, and they are very good wikipedians. I myself feel that the picture should be on the top of the article, but I'll respect the outcome of the discussion. I don't think that outcome has anything to do with Baha'i sentiments, just like I don't think the outcome here has anything to do with anti-muslim sentiments. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 22:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

But why has the Wikipedia community treated two similar issues differently. I think we should decide wheteher we keep all images at the top of the article (with the hide option of course), or we move them all down. CG 10:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

could you explain why hide option is of course now? --tasc 10:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't understand your question. CG 10:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should every single picture in Wikipedia have a hide option?

Futhermore. This isn't going to stop vandalism--Greasysteve13 03:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Futhermore again. The other Muhammad images on the page do not even have this hide option.--Greasysteve13 03:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

To be consistent - every picture in Wikipedia should have this, if any picture does. Any picture could be offensive to someone out there, so we might as well cater to everyone... Valtam 07:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

That was my point. Yes.--Greasysteve13 00:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree, hide option is excessive. --tasc 08:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it just slightly petty-minded to object a little hide option? Bertilvidet 08:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

isn't weird to single out particular picture out of thousands potentially offensive for someone on Wikipedia? --tasc 08:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It should be clear that this one is not potentially offensive, and its hard for us non-Muslims to realize how offensive they are. Is the hide-option really that offensive for you? Bertilvidet 08:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not offensive. It's ridiculous. Well, I guess it's hard for you realize that for example meat images might be not pleasant for vegetarians. --tasc 08:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Come on, by now it should be clear that this is not the issue....Bertilvidet 08:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

What is not an issue? --tasc 08:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

That the cartoons are not simply 'unpleasant' for Muslims, like seeing meat might be for vegetarians.Bertilvidet 08:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll tell you why. Cause some people just don't see world as white-black picture. Unfortunatelly, it's not the case for many muslims as protests's shown. --tasc 08:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's weird to single out a particular picture out of thousands, but this is the one that has been singled out and has been receiving a lot of attention. The issue isn't the weirdness of the singling out but what we do about it. --Kizor 10:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

But we are not a tabloid, we're encyclopedia! so, i don't think we should make any difference. --tasc 10:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not a Muslim, however I do know how sensitive Muslims can be about their faith. Vegetarians would not get offended by a picture of meat, they know its only a picture. Muslims are far, far more sensitive and serious about their faith than probably any other religion in the world. This is the most that can be done to cater somewhat for everyone. Also, arguing over a hide option is rather pointless since removing it will anger everyone who accepted it as a compromise. --Mvent2 09:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You call it seriousness, i'd say it's narrow-mindness. --tasc 09:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• As an editor I'm not thrilled about the hide button... Wikipedia users should have a blanket image switch on/switch off button available from every Wikipedia page. As well there should be a preferences option to allow images to be 'off' all the time for a given user. I don't know if the hide option would correspond to the editorial wishes of the super majority of editors who've previously expressed their views relative to that image. I wonder if there are other Wikipedia articles that have such a 'hide' option for their images? If not then for the sake of editorial consistency the 'hide' button on this article should be removed. Netscott 09:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I really really really don't recommend you remove the hide button since it'll just start more image removal edit wars and we're back to square one. Haven't you noticed how adding this Hide feature has settled down the Muslim users and we've had less and less reverts? Of course, this may be only temporary but I hope they have stopped removing the image. Consistency aside, it has done no harm to the article and most users won't care. Mvent2 09:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't ever seen such button for any image. --tasc 09:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Reverting the image is not a problem but editorial consistency is and no I haven't noticed any reduction of vandalism... what I have noticed is that the less the controversy is in the news (as is more and more the case), less the article is vandalized. Netscott 09:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the "show/hide" thing. It's wildly inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia. Other pages with far more offensive images aren't using it and I don't think this one should be either. Please, are we going to have to have another poll on this page? --Cyde Weys 09:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

To play devil's advocate, the reaction and publicity of this picture is wildly inconsistent with the rest of the pictures on Wikipedia. --Kizor 10:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• While this appears true, if WikiPedia is going to maintain semblance of neutrality then this article shouldn't be treated any differently. Netscott 10:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

devils_advocate++ MX44 11:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

In response to Other pages with far more offensive images aren't using it and I don't think this one should be either... maybe this button should be used on those images. Just because this is the first image to use the show/hide button doesn't mean it has to be removed. I think Mvent2 has made an excellent effort to appease both sides of this issue. And if you don't like the idea of images being hidden... don't click on the hide link! Isn't that the same argument the pro-image camp has been using to justify having the image (if the image offends you, don't look at it)? The hide/show button is harmless to those who don't want to use it, and it may appease at least some of the users who don't want to see the offensive images. I would support not only keeping it in this article, but expanding its use to other images that a significant contingent (not necessarily a majority) of users are offended by. --JerryOrr 12:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• JerryOrr, if you're for expanding it's use then please address the question of who would be the arbiter of what images are offensive and merit hide buttons? Your idea sounds an awful lot like the old "I know it when I see it." argument... I have just the opposite opinion and think this 'hide' idea should be nipped in the bud before it expands. Alternatively, if a 'hide' button were to be implemented then it should be implemented across all images indiscriminately. Netscott 13:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I will not know it when I see it; Wikipedia's editors will know it when they see it. Perhaps a guideline could be established on it; my feeling is basically that if a particular article has a potentially offensive image, and a significant number of editors are offended by it (or feel strongly that it is offensive to a group of users), then it gets the hide/show button. No majority, no "arbiter", just a simple change to prevent potential controversy. If nobody complains about an image, it doesn't get the button. What's the problem? It's not censorship, it isn't hiding content; it simply allows a user the opportunity to "self censor". --JerryOrr 13:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, so first it's implemented with the 'show' option as the default... but then later on there's an outcry that it should be 'hide' by default... is it not clear that this is a slippery slope towards WikiPedia censorship? Netscott 13:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • At least in its current form, the hide/show button is not at risk of the "slippery slope" you fear. As has been previously stated (including a message at the top of this page), the constraints of MediaWiki make it impossible to hide the image by default. --JerryOrr 15:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oh? You want to see it hidden? Really easily? Have a look now! The reality is that the regardless of the sensibilities of certain WikiPedia visitors the 'NavFrame' option was not meant for image hiding. Netscott 15:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• If all goes well by the time you read this above message the page will have already been reverted.... if so then look here to see what I was talking about. Netscott 15:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• JerryOrr, can you see the slippery slope now? Netscott

• I am myself very much againgst all kinds of censorship, and this cartoon-"controversy" has made me realize just how much. Nevertheless as long as the hide-option remains individually controlled (and that it is on 'show' by default) I see no problem in it being an option. It is true that it communicates that this image is somehow potentially more offensive than any other picture without the option, which is in principle wrong. That is why I indeed support adding this feature to all pictures. As it is now every picture contained in a thumb has an enlarge-option-button, I would have no problem with a non-noticeable hide-show-button next to that, allthough maybe there can be found some other technical solution to the problem. But in any case: if we assume that the hide-option some day will be standard for all pictures, I see no real problem in it being an exeption in this article temporarily. --Anjoe 15:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hide button on pics of meat

Hello, I'm returning briefly from my wikibreak to say one thing: obviously, I have argued strongly against the removal of the images on the grounds that Wikipedia should not censor informative images in order to cater to random groups' sensitivities. I am ambivalent about this new solution, the hide button...it does seem to be something of a middle ground. BUT...you may notice that for several months it has stated on my userpage that I am a vegetarian. Not only am I a vegetarian, but I'm the annoying kind of vegetarian: I think everyone else should be vegetarian, I despise the practice of eating meat and I find the sight of charred flesh on a plate to be both revolting and a moral affront. I have never campaigned for removal of pictures of meat from Wikipedia, because it never occurred to me that Wikipedia might offer to hide the pictures to suit my aversions. I absolutely reject that Muslims are more averse to satirical images of their prophet than I am to the ridiculous barbarism of flesh-on-a-plate. Animal rights activists are deadly serious about their cause...see the various campaigns in the UK if you doubt it. I am not violent, that's not my way, but you can be damn sure that if the "hide" option becomes established as a way of dealing with offensive images in Wikipedia, I am going to institute it for images of meat. Doing so will not at all be WP:POINT; I will not be doing it do make a point, but because if Wikipedia is willing to offer this compromise on offensive images, I will want it for those images, which I deplore. I am raising the issue here because I want to give the community a fair chance to consider whether they are serious about this before setting the precedent. Either way seems fair enough to me, the hide button (with the default status being "show") seems a decent middle ground. Anyway, I won't be doing anything for a while, as I'm on wikibreak. Take care. Babajobu 14:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

If there are a significant number of users (again, not necessarily majority, but more than 1 or 2) that feel images of meat are offensive enough to merit the hide/show button, then by all means, do it! I don't care... I can still see an image of a delicious steak, and you can hide the revolting charred flesh on a plate. Everybody wins! --JerryOrr 15:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, - and put a few on beef too as not to offend the hindus on top of it :-) But seriously, Babajobu: I may have no understandig whatsoever for your sensitivities, but I got no problem with you being able to hide the horrors of meat from your eyes as long as Wikipedia for the rest of us don't have to be cleanched for those pictures which in their visual way contains highly relevant information. But in any case I would still strongly oppose them (or any other highly relevant pictures) being hidden by default. - As you may do to? --Anjoe 15:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why stop with meat?

A believer properly dressed in a full body, eye covering Afghan burqa.

Is this starting to make sense?

Netscott 14:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you're right. How could you be right if you're using that barbarian language! Only wikipedia written on holy language of The Prophet may exists. And rest should go to hell :) --tasc 14:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• While I understand your humor (and to a certain extent appreciate it), I'm not really seeing this thread as the best venue for it. Netscott 15:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yah!! Death to the infidels! Rapes and plunder ... Oh wait that was the Vikings :) MX44 16:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• You guys are bad.... heh Netscott 16:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hide option: OK Default hided: WRONG!

Ok, we are getting the next edit war I am affraid, but I strongly disagree with hiding the image by default. This is equivalent as a linkimage. --KimvdLinde 15:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• REVERT! REVERT! follow the edit commentary to understand why. Netscott 15:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Actually leave it for awhile... let's see what other kinds of reactions it gets. Netscott 15:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

What you are doing is WP:POINT. --KimvdLinde 15:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• I understand why you'd point me to that... but in reality there's no disruption... by all means revert my edit... The main idea is that the 'NavFrame' code is not intended to do image hiding... it's is intended to hide/show Navigational information.... if a future editor would like to add further navigational code the same thing will happen as has happened now... I've just sped the process up. Netscott 15:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it is. Because you start deliberatly a edit war on this issue to prove your point. As such, I suggest you change this yourself back to the old situation. --KimvdLinde 15:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• I've just read the POINT page and I've not done that... additionally there's no edit war, my edit has not been reverted (and I've not subsequently re-reverted it). I'm inclined to change my edit though to add some actual Navigational code to better help visitors find the relative info concerning this topic (rather than hide an additional image -->El Fagr's paper). Netscott 16:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverting this yourself is the least you can do Netscott!! Who do you think you are!?!? Do not do this again! --Anjoe 16:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Calm down! I neglected to mention that I wanted to provide the 'hide' option for the El Fagr image.... but the "NavFrame" code doesn't seem to allow for that. Can't I provide the same 'hide/show' code for that image? It's the same logic... no? Netscott 16:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• To be ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, I never touched the code concerning the top image... I merely added an additional hide code for the El Fagr image... (in case anyone was wondering)... Netscott 16:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Show" link not working

With the current revision the "Show" link is not working for me using IE 6 on Windows XP. The box grows but the cartoon never displays. If you are going to use technical trickery to try and save the masses from pixels on the screen please at least do it in a form that works for everyone. --StuffOfInterest 16:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• The offending code has been removed. Netscott 16:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Two points: a) The reason why the cartoons don't show at first in IE6 is because of Netscott here has been messing with the code, and not being able to revert himself properly. b) Even if IE6 apperently *will* show the picture with the hide option at first (as here) it seems that when you once have hidden the picture, and then tries to show it again, the space is blank (this is at least how it works for me in my IE). The conclusion being that the hide-show-feature not working properly in IE (one major browser), maybe we really should remove the option for now. --Anjoe 17:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Anjoe would be mistaken for I was never 'messing with the code' but merely trying to apply the same code to a completely seperate image further down the page. In the end though I agree with Anjoe's conclusion above that the 'hide/show' code should remain off. If such a code is to be adopted by WikiPedia it should be universal and not merely applied *exceptionally* to this one article. Netscott 17:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• If there's a problem with the javascript-code or the browser, either fix the code or update the browser. We are discussing the article here. Technical problems should go to the authors of the javascript nav-code. Raphael1 17:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• "Technical problems should go to the authors of the javascript nav-code.", I completely agree Raphael1 but in the meantime the code should stay off until a better solution is available. Netscott 17:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• I've got the feeling, that you are just using a broken browser as an excuse to remove the hide option again. Raphael1 18:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Broken appearance in Opera. Option to be removed. --tasc 18:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Raphael1, honestly based upon the fact that this supposed 'Hide/Show' code is called 'NavFrame' (ie: NavigationFrame) it wasn't intended for image hiding but navigational link hiding. Netscott 18:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Neither for any other except navigation bars. --tasc 18:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Who cares, what it was made for?!? Fact is, that it worked very well (even for IE) until you Netscott added another hide button to the newspaper image, which probably confused the IE browser. Raphael1 00:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't add anything. Thank you very much for your politeness. --tasc 10:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was talking to Netscott. Raphael1 14:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It doesn't matter if the picture(s) was originally a personal attack.

For staters the man died before he could see them, it be like removing a bunch of ape cartoons. These picture(s) are now well known and have become symbols of both free speech and Islamophobia. Do deny these pictures existance on Wikipedia is to deny the existance of free speech and Islamophobia.--Greasysteve13 13:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning: Blasphemous content on most of these links

Netscott just removed my warning from the images link section. Since WP contains warnings on sexually explicit content links and most of these links are obviously blasphemous ("disrespectful of sacred things"), I think the warning corresponds to to this section. Raphael1 21:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Raphael1, have you seen WikiPedia's Content Disclaimer? People using Wikipedia abide by this. Netscott 21:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Other articles in the pornography section do have a warning too. We don't want double standards, do we? Raphael1 21:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

All links to the pictures are already clearly described as such! --Kizor 21:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The link descriptions don't warn about blasphemous content. Raphael1 21:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

There are no blasphemous links according to My Religions POV ... MX44 01:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It is a strange example based on flawed logic. The warning on those links are not there because the content is 'blasphemous'. Hence, the similarity you imply is fictitious.Varga Mila 21:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The point he is trying to make is that religion is like pornography: part of primal instincts. Nomen Nescio 21:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you want to say, that the content is not blasphemous? Why do you quote the word blasphemous? Raphael1 21:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Blasphemous is in the eye of the beholder. Nomen Nescio 21:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is a pretty subjective thing. What could be sacred for one religion isn't sacred for another. For some who don't believe in god, religion is just superstition. In my point of view the sexual warnings are unnecessary. But I believe according to US law that things is necessary. Because the English wikipedia is hosted in the USA, the law there must be respected. It is so easy to stop reading or seeing anything you don't like on the internet. It isn't so that anyone is forced to read or see anything on the net. Nobody is forcefully exposed to anything. The only thing anybody has to do is just to click elsewhere. That doesn't mean that illegal things should be available. But in cases like that in is often the case that something is illegal in one country, but the server is another one, where it is completely legal. Well, it is just something we have to live with. And I don't believe it is that a hard thing to do. For instances some people eat pork sausages for breakfast. I eat it too, but surely not for breakfast :-). That might be illegal in some countries or disgusting. Or killing dogs for food is in the west. But, as long as countries have different kind of laws. Well, that is something anybody has to live with. I find the latter disgusting while someone will find eating pork sausages. In my opinion the whole cartoons of mohammed is something the muslim world has to live with. If they can't, well thats their problem. Not mine. And not Wikipedias. --Lucius1976 21:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow Varga's reasoning there, but the links that lead to the cartoons say perfectly well what they'll show. Considering that this is a very well-known issue and the links are right at the bottom of an exhaustive article on the very subject, I don't think there's a need to explicitly point out the blasphemousness to Muslims. --Kizor 21:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Any religion that states cartoons are blasphamous but killing human beings is the way to heaven has its priorities wrong. A lot of soul searching has to be done! Nomen Nescio

Just a quick clarification: My point is that Raphael defined the word blasphemous as 'disrespectful of sacred things', and drew the conclusion that because some sexual images happen to be blasphemous (as well as, well, sexually explicit), that must be the reason why they have a warning attached to them; And therefore, if something is blasphemous, it is 'entitled' to carry a warning as well. My point is that they do not come with a warning because they are blasphemous. Therefore, one cannot, on the basis of these sexual images carrying a warning, draw the conclusion that being blasphemous is sufficient to receive a warning on WP. Therefore, a claim of "double standard" makes little sense. Whether the said link contains a warning is quite 'egal' to me, however the logic was flawed. Varga Mila 23:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I've said it before, I'll say it again: the nature of Islam is not an issue here. It's not relevant to the discussion. --Kizor¨

• • Folks, this talk page is not for philosophical discussions... but for editorial ones... please let us stay focused on that! Netscott 21:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, yes "Blasphemous is in the eye of the beholder", but offense is in the eye of the beholder, too. Maybe we should follow the advise of the Wikipedia:Profanity guideline, which clearly says, that it's not the mission of Wikipedia to be offensive. Kizor, it might not be needed to point out the blasphemousness, but it would be a gesture of showing respect. Raphael1 22:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

An interesting point. I agree with you if the warning was useful, but for the reasons mentioned above I don't think it is. --Kizor 22:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think it's useful to show respect? Raphael1 23:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that there is little need for a warning. As mentioned above the content is clear already. --Kizor 23:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not the mission of wikipedia to be offensive, but it's not the mission of wikipedia not to be offensive either. Neutral but mildly reluctant on the warning, btw. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 23:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe there's little need for a warning, but there is much need for respect. Raphael1 01:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Quite so, quite so. --Kizor 19:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Some find eating pork sausages offensive. Maybe we should describe pork sausages as well in the Wikipedia. --Lucius1976 22:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates Gerard Foley 23:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The links would only be blasphemous of Mohammed were a god. Since he is not, your contention is invalid. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Blasphemous is POV.--Greasysteve13 00:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pretend we are Muslims?!

"Please try to avoid Rationalization, use your imagination, pretend you are a muslim and look at the cartoons. What do you feel? Raphael1 01:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)"

I'm sorry but most (if not all) of your detractors are 100% right. But when you said this (the above) it was a new low. I was practically lost for words. So I gave in to your irrelevent request and came to the concusion that as a Muslim I find these pictures are not offensive, because:

1. They mock the Terrorists (which I find far more offensive to myself, my Allah and my Religion).
2. Muhammed was in NO WAY perfect as he was not Allah.
3. I can take a couple of lame jokes

And they should stay, because:

1. This isn't Islamipedia
2. The article's title mentions the specific cartoons in question.
3. Nobody is forcing me to look at it.
4. They are clearly not offensive to all Muslims anyway because they are not offensive to me.

--Greasysteve13 12:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

1. If you don't like my request, why do you follow it?
2. If the cartoons just mock the terrorists, why are they called "The Face of Muhammad"?
3. Wikipedians are forcing you to look at it, if you want to read up on the controversy.

-- Raphael1 16:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Every muslim I know would give me a different answer. I know since I have asked them. Should I deliberate on which particular muslim you want me to choose, or should I pretend one by one? You would probably be quite surprised at the spread of different answers, especially from the muslim indonesian ladies I know. DanielDemaret 12:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Greasysteve13, the above mentioned statement was a new low on this discussionpage, - and in fact it was exactly the same line that made me join in. --Anjoe 19:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to think, that it was a very good statement, because it addresses what you don't seem to have: empathy Raphael1 19:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, and trust in the fact that your fellow editors is just as much a human being as you are.The.valiant.paladin 21:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Questions

1. If you don't like my request, why do you follow it?
2. If the cartoons just mock the terrorists, why are they called "The Face of Muhammad"?
3. Wikipedians are forcing you to look at it, if you want to read up on the controversy.

Answers

1. To make a point how irrelevent the request was. I mean where do we draw the line? Why dont you pretend to be an advocate for free speech?
2. I realise they mock Muhammad but as I said above: He wasn't perfect. He isn't Allah. And I can take a couple of lame jokes. BTW: Muhammad has been deplicted in one way or another since he wrote the Qur'an. If we I were to get upset now I'd be a hypocrite.
3. I'd like some names please.

--Greasysteve13 02:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Of course it is also necessary to pretend to be an advocate for free speech sometimes. That's why I rejected my request for deletion.
2. Who says, that Muslims haven't been upset, when Mohammed has been mocked before? There are a lot of things coming together these days, so the cartoons are maybe just the last straw.
3. You can pick out the names from this talk page. All Wikipedians, who don't support the linkimage compromise, are forcing everyone, who wants to read up on the controversy, to look at the cartoons.

-- Raphael1 03:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

1. So you were only just pretending to be advocate for free speech?
2. Nobody is saying that Muslims haven't been upset. In fact the vast majority of upset people have been Muslims. But, I wasn't talking about other Muslims. I was doing what we all should do: speaking for myself! Besides, I was answering your question "If the cartoons just mock the terrorists, why are they called "The Face of Muhammad"?". Obviously people are offended (See: Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy). But the article is called “Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy” not the “Wikipedia Muhammad cartoons controversy”.
3. Lets linkimage all the pictures in Wikipedia then.

--Greasysteve13 04:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

1. I don't limit myself to be an advocate for free speech. There's a lot of speech, I disagree with.
2. My philosophy rejects the view, that there is a self (at least no immutable). So what should I speak for? There are many cases when one should not just speak for oneself, i.e. every parent will sometimes speak for his child. Speaking for a discriminated minority can be useful too.
3. The name of the article doesn't change the fact, that the article is offensive to probably 1 billion people.

-- Raphael1 23:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

1. I disagree with what you're saying but you have everyright to say it.... I think.
2. You have every right to think that.
3. It doesn't matter. Weather or not it is offesive isn't a NPOV. Welcome to Wikipedia.--Greasysteve13 04:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF states, that every revert (rather than change) of a biased edit is a NPOV defeat, no matter how outrageous the edit was. The many reverts, that have been done regarding the display of the cartoons, suggests that this article is NPOV POV. Raphael1 16:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The article (as should all articles) should have a NPOV. Which is why the picture should be there. Not having the picture would be giving in to a non-neutral point of new. Wikipedia does not stand for this.--Greasysteve13 03:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Having the cartoons in the article instead of linkimaging it, lets many people depart, who could help to give the article a NPOV. Raphael1 22:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Like I said above: "Lets linkimage all the pictures in Wikipedia then."--Greasysteve13 22:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It comes down to, are we ethical or not? If it is offensive to people, which it undeniably is, instead of saying "I have the right to do this," why not just do them a favor? If it is blasphemous to their religion, it doesn't matter if you are Muslim or not, we should not display them. Talk about rights and such if you please, but that is merely a defense for an immoral act. Just because it's legal doesn't make it right. Spacemanspiff 2006-03-17 21:48:26—Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacemanspiff (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your good summary of the whole issue. Raphael1 23:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Your comments offend me. Also, please assume good faith. Babajobu 05:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Ethical? Blasphemous? Immoral? All aren't a neutral point of view. For starters you assume the Hadith is correct when we have no proof one way or the other.--Greasysteve13 09:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

And if they are relevant to the article, it doesn't matter if you are a muslim or a qafir, we should display the cartoons. Just because it might offend some doesn't mean we should remove the cartoons. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 21:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Raphael1, i'm a muslim myself, so i didn't even have to pretend (like u asked). i looked at the cartoons and had a few laughs. i thought the one with the prophet at the gates of heaven saying we're running out of virgins to the suicide bombers was especially funny. you have to keep in mind the person who drew them is not a muslim and is not bound by our religion's laws and i'm sure he didn't even mean to insult muslims, but a group of nutty muslims that blow up innocent people because they think it's a shortcut to heaven. i have to say looking at the cartoons just made me feel angry at those muslims that are creating this impression of us in the world .... anyway, i don't want to get carried away and discuss issues that are not in the scope of this talk page. but i think we have to accept whether we like it or not, these pictures are part of history now and as an encyclopedia wikipedia has to include them in the page. i know some of our muslim brothers are very sensitive about looking at the pictures and eventhough i personally don't share that feeling, i think the idea of a show/hide function was a good solution. i'm not convinced that a consensus was reached to remove it. although, i repeat, personally and as a muslim i don't feel offended by the current revision of the article. Barnetj 19:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I certainly respect you view. But you will probably agree, that there are people who can't laugh about them. People who lost a relative in a suicide attack or people who lost a relative either by commiting a suicide attack or in a military air raid, probably won't find that cartoon especially funny. Raphael1 10:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright infringement

As far as I have been told, Wikipedia does not bring material, that could result in Copyright infringement. Has Wikipedia obtained permission from the twelve cartoonists or Jyllands-Posten to reproduce the twelve cartoons? Peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.163.102.162 (talk • contribs)

See WP:FAIR for the policy on using copyrighted items. These pictures are mentioned in the counterexamples section, but not AS a counterexample. "If photos are themselves newsworthy (e.g. Muhammad cartoons), low resolution versions of the photos may be fair use in related articles." I think this one counts as a related article ;) --The1exile - Talk - Contribs - 19:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I was going to add this before it got moved, but got an edit conflict. Nice to see some people doing good work. --The1exile - Talk - Contribs - 19:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving to the bottom of the page

If we can move the Bahaullah picture to the bottom of the article, why can't we do the same with the cartoons? Vkasdg 00:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia straw polls indicated that a super majority of editors wanted the images displayed the way they currently are. Please see the results of those polls. Netscott 00:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Please do not do this sort of thing again without seeking consensus to do so. Thanks! Netscott 00:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)