Image talk:Jyllands-Posten-pg3-article-in-Sept-30-2005-edition-of-KulturWeekend-entitled-Muhammeds-ansigt.png

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives for deleted clone's talk pages: /Archive, /Archive2

[edit] Helpme

Could an admin please move the talk from here to this talk page? Netscott 15:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  1. This seems like a ridiculously long file name.
  2. Weren't those comments that you want moved made about the other image?--Commander Keane 15:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
This file name spells out a very clear source for this image. The comments made for the other image are in fact the same that correspond to this image. To better understand this change please see: this "Less than neutral image" talk. Thanks. Netscott 15:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
That link doesn't mention using a different file name. The file name is too long. Also, since the discussion pages were about a different image they should not be moved. If you like, you could add a link to top here saying "there is discussion about a similar image here. I (and {{helpme}}) am done with this issue. The image should be deleted due to its disruptive file name.--Commander Keane 00:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you read the history the discussion pages mentioned were actually about a third picture, the now deleted Image:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings.jpg looking like this. They were moved on the 7. of May 2006 to their current location. About the titel of this picture being too long - I don't think so: It is precise. In any case it is Image:Jyllands-Posten-Muhammad-dr.png which should be deleted because it isn't what it purports to be, and is not - nor will be - in use anymore. (And what's with you proposing to delete a picture if you only want it moved?). --Anjoe 13:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
It's true that the name of this file is long... but given the extremely contentious nature of this particular image it is fully warranted. Netscott 13:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I said delete because images cannot be moved, a quirk in Mediawiki. I meant that the image should be re-uploaded under a usable filename, then this file would be a duplicate and could be deleted.--Commander Keane 14:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Essentially, I chose this extra long file name so that when it would/might be transmitted to others, the file name alone would give enough details for an average person to be able to easily and fully research the origins of the image. I still hold this view but I'll propose a compromise file name between what it currently is and what it was previously:
Jyllands-Posten-Sept-30-2005-KulturWeekend-article-Muhammeds-ansigt.png
Netscott 14:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request to remove image

This obtrusive comment was put on the image page. I removed it, and in the interest of fairness I have posted it here:

[Please Remove this picture to not be among those who didn't care about billions of peoples fellings. Thanks]

Эйрон Кинни (t) 09:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't the image totally offensive billions of Muslim viewers who see it? It's not just Muhammad being made an image that's forbidden, but also slanderous to say that he is a suicide bomber because it's not him that did all the bombings, but rather those savage Muslim extremists today, and some other images there that is considered defamatory. Just put yourself in a position where someone makes an exaggerated story about you that includes a number of points that is not even true. Of course, you would want to sue the person who makes defamatory remarks about you - so it's better that such stories to do not the public's ears and eyes. Therefore, I would kind ask the downloader of this image to please ponder upon this matter and consider it's removal. --124.183.101.164 13:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This image will NOT be removed (see the licensing, it all checks out) thank god Hereitisthen (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It is sad but true: If Muslims didn't made so much fuzz about the pictures, it wouldn't be so important as it became world news (it wouldn't be even noted worldwide). As it is now, the cartoons are too damn important (for news and historic value) to be removed out. Anyway these pictures don't have anything illegal in it. About the Muslims who get offended by that, I suggest you take some lessons of tolerance and humility on Christians, who seems to be a lot more tolerant to people who wrongly depict Jesus in cartoons. You shouldn't try to impose your religion into others, that's very POV of you. SSPecter Talk|E-Mail ◆ 13:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC).


It is very sad to know this happened again that these images printed in all newspapers in europe. What benefit being gained to print these images. there is lack of responsibility and respect towards Islam,Muslims and Prophet of Universe. Printing these images shows the enmity of the west towards Islam and Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. Do good and have good is the policy we can prevail all over the world. to make this world peaceful please do good work that can benefit all of us'People who work for newspapers should be fair and wise not ignorant, by printing the bad images of the Prophet you are making more Muslims in the world, Islam is one of the fastest religion of the world. Islam is a complete code of life, Islam is not a book of words.So please do understand by printing these images one can not damage the image of the prophet pbuh, for sure he will get the real place in hell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.195.31 (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that is between the cartoonists and Allah. Anyway, welcome to the freedom of speech. SSPecter Talk|E-Mail ◆ 21:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC).
Agreed, if the image upsets you, then have a cry. The fact that so many Muslims retaliated by using violence validates the purpose of the image in the first place. - 211.30.227.30 (talk) 09:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Higher resolution image?

Given the rationale for our fair-use use of it, would it be appropriate to use a version with higher resolution for the cartoons but stretched out/blurred text? Yarkod 23:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it is always most approrpiate to use the lowest resolution that is still easily veiwable. That's how fair-use policy works FinalWish (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


--Muslims don't make or have pictures of any of the Prophets!!! So you should delete this wrong picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.232.89.160 (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Muslims may be forbidden but that doesn't mean the rest of us should be forbidden. This image is relevant to recent events and is too important to remove. Feel free to find it offensive, but it will not be removed because Wikipedia respects free speech. It does not violate Wikipedia's policies on images as far as I know, so I see no valid reason myself for removing it, and apparently nor do many other people here.--85.211.228.119 (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
They have: --84.166.61.102 (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)