Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

90% of the World's Muslim Community...

Sorry to reopen debate, I just want to make a comment about part of the Aniconistic traditions section. The three references to "Sunnis, who represent 90% of the worlds muslim community[83], generally consider any pictorial representation of Muhammad blasphemous[84][85][86]" are very poor. Two are about images in general and one has as a side link some thing which simply restates that such pictorial representations are blasphemous. I don't wish to question whether it is blasphemous, I would just wonder if some better links couldn't be found to support the statement, [84][85] and [86] (as they are currently numbered) seem to provide only weak support? --Richard Clegg 16:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. I've found, that it's not so easy, because there aren't that many websites about Islam written in english. Raphael1 17:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I am certainly no expert (or even knowledgable) on the subject. Perhaps, for now, we could delete the two weakest references (which are just to general discussion of representations and do not mention Muhammad)? That way the statement would still be attributed? --Richard Clegg 17:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't recommend that. This fact was very disputed for many days, but no sources could be provided to prove there are Sunnis, who accept Muhammed images. Raphael1 19:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I am not suggesting that. My point is that two of those links have nothing to do with images of Muhammed. I do not intend to dispute the fact, merely that those links are relevant to it. Surely it would be better to have one link which is relevant rather than three of which two are not? --Richard Clegg 19:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
You've made a good point here Rgclegg, Raphael1 was the original individual who added those references... and unfortunately some of his previous references have been less than optimal. That said however, I'm inclined to believe such a contention as it applies to today which is probably why I (an editor who's edited heavily in that section) haven't scrutinized those refs. But you are correct, valid, verifiable (and preferrably unbiased) sources should go there. Netscott 19:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the two references. I hope this offends nobody and I believe the page contains sufficient references to prove the point already. --Richard Clegg 20:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Link

Is this in the article?--Striver 23:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's here. jacoplane 23:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thx. --Striver 23:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


TimeLine

  • I have tried to keep the timeline up to date with the new events, but is nobody keeping the wikinews-Table inside the main article up to date with cartoon-related events from wikinews? DanielDemaret 11:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Former art

I just saw this and thought it should be added to the story: http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/log/OI02042005.gif

It's a danish cartoon (translated to english for this website) that was in a danish newspaper (politiken) way before jyllands postens cartoons on April 2nd 2005. It includes a picture of mohammed and it had no reaction as far as i've noticed.

We got banned in Pakistan!

According to this, the Muhammad cartoon controversy article caused a brief country-wide Wikipedia block. I don't know if I should feel proud or embarassed. --Kizor 14:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It gave me a little chuckle, I don't generally like pride and I don't really care if Pakistan doesn't like us heh. Homestarmy 02:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Pffft, if they want to censor access to a great source of information with over a million articles because of a single picture, that's entirely their problem. --Cyde Weys 02:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Can my fellow editors please remain civil in their commentary? Netscott 02:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Well Cyde, the problem is the Pakistani government doesn't necessarily represent the views of Pakistan, there are probably Pakistani people out there who might actually want to use Wikipedia on a regular basis :/. Homestarmy 02:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Well then, good luck to them overthrowing their government and installing a modern, enlightened state in its place. We should no more censor this article, than we should remove the article on the tienanmen square massacre.
On a related subject, whats up with this article on Urdu? To these eyes it looks as if it was taken verbatim out of Uncyclopedia MX44 09:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


We should block Pakistani govt from accessing WP. Let's see who would blink first! __earth (Talk) 11:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

* Falls off his chair * --Kizor 13:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


In the words of Sheik Raed Hulaihil:

4) This dictatorial way of using democracy is completely unacceptable.

MX44 15:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


Can My fellows Wikipedians please remain civil. Many different cultures exist. We should all learn to understand and respect them. CG 15:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


I am not surprised, but it is sad.... KimvdLinde 15:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


wikipaedia banned in pak ? There is nothing strange After China , probably pak has maximium blocked domains. But unlike the chinese , the pakis cant enforce these bans. Most techies know how to bypass these. Pakistan cannot arm twist international players to enforce blocking. Kartik.nanjund 09:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, a note. In the UK at least "paki" is extrememly offensive as a term for Pakistanis. Perhaps it isn't in other places, but i thought i shoudllet you know in case you accidentally offended soemone. ora 08:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
It's a same for those in Pakistan who want to read Wikipedia that they have such an oppressive regime that blocks us for no reason. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 13:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Netscott's stated reversion reason is false

I added a brief statment of JP's reasons for the publication to the intro, as some short statment clearly belongs there. Netscott has removed my addition claiming that I removed information for the intro. To my knowedge, I removed no information, merely added a short statment. So, Netscott, you need to explain your false edit summery.

Now you may take issue with the length of the statmeny I added, it was mostly cut&paste from the timeline page, but *some* such statment clearly belongs there. Do people have feelings on what that stamtnet should be? JeffBurdges 21:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You are right, I apologize ... I quickly looked at the diffs and noticed what appeared to be a large removal of info (text in red) without properly scrolling down lower on the diff to see that it was merely shifted. Still as far as adding the logic for why JP published the cartoons in intro is concerned, it is covered in the overview. Netscott 22:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, I believe it is not a good idea to try to explain the background or supply answers in the short intro blurb. This is supposed to raise questions in the mind of the reader and persuade him to read the whole article. MX44 00:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, fine, I knew the issue was well covered, but I somehow didn't realize there was a seperate overview section. I was never suggesting that the intro should explain why they did it, as that is a debated point itself, even within the comics themselves! However, I do feel that their stated reasons for doing it is important, and often ignored. So a very short blurb seemed appropriate to me. OTOH, I now realize that the two sentences I inserted is too much. It could probably be done in half a sentence beginning "... ostensibly to create dialong about ...", although that would turn the first sentence into a run on.

Hmm, on closer inspection, the second intro paragraph actuallly does contain their reasoning, just attributed to "supporters" in general, so maybe its fine as is. I think maybe I didn't see that part of the intro the first time since its part of the critics paragraph, and becomes less visible for cursory glances at some screen widths. So maybe nothing needs to be done. JeffBurdges 10:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

200 Jobs lost in Denmark, that deserves a mention

Thanks to the boycott, Danes who have to relation to the cartoons whatsoever have lost jobs. This should get a mention in the article. Source: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/811 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shooeymooey (talk • contribs)

That would go in the Economic and human costs of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy section. Netscott 14:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
But yet the export is now almost back to normal. In certain areas of business there has even been an increase compared to May last year fx. medical products. http://www.jp.dk/erhverv/artikel:aid=3724988/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.52.81.128 (talk • contribs) 2006-05-11 01:10:00 UTC.

Should the real victims be mentioned too:

The number of Western European vacationers to Egypt has fallen noticeably...
...estimating the drop at between 20 percent and 25 percent.
The tourism sector is of vital importance to the local economy, bringing in some $6.1 billion in revenue in 2004, according to the Central Bank of Egypt. What is more, the industry employs an estimated 2.5 million citizens, in a country locked in mortal combat with chronic unemployment and an exploding population. [1]

Google should find more of that. Of course these are guesstimates so maybe it is too early and speculative? The cost of the violence to Egypt alone is going to be many many times the cost to a cheese company, and the money is away from people who can ill afford it. Memo to self: burning embassies - not a smart move. Weregerbil 14:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It is hard to estimate how much of the decline is because of previous terrorist bombings of tourist-resorts, and how much is because of the Cartoon Wars. It is a safe assumption though, that any marketing dollar spent at this time will be a complete waste. MX44 15:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Current attempt to delete talk history

There is an active mfd on the Arguments subpage of this page (to which people are still being directed by a notice at the top). Those interested in preserving the history of this discussion would do well to express their opinions here. — JEREMY 11:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Meaningless descriptions

A picture says more than 1000 words. I can't see the point in having a "description" of the cartoons; given the fact that relating to the manner in which mohammed was depicted only makes sence if one can see them for one self. If informing about the core of the fight is important, show the pictures, if caving in to religious fanatics is important, don't show them. But assuming a "description" of the cartoons will make those who haven't seen them any wiser is deluding. They make an excessive article even longer, I say remove them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.203.90.95 (talk • contribs) .

There are in fact Wikipedia users who come to the article with the "image loading" capability of their browsers turned off. The descriptions allow such users to know what is in the cartoon images. Netscott 12:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


Even if we are not all blind as yet, some of us have difficulties with the Farsi language:
A 7th grade Arab-looking boy in front of a blackboard. Sticking out his tongue, he points to the Farsi chalkings, which translate into "The editorial team of Jyllands-Posten is a bunch of reactionary provocateurs".
I suppose you did not? Or maybe you decided to delete first, read later? MX44 14:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Protect from anonymous edits?

I'm getting really tired of all the pointless edits ending up in this article's history... isn't there a way to protect this article from being edited by people who're not signed in? It's not like people who aren't signed in are positively contributing to this article currently. --DarkPhoenix 22:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

From following the pattern of the latest series of vandalism I can say with a high degree of confidence that it is the work of one individual best known as Vkasdg. Although annoying to have to deal with, the current amount of vandalism imho doesn't warrant semi-protection. Netscott 02:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Doudou Diène

Hi Azate!

I see that you moved the Doudou report ... Probaly better like that.

It appears to be an inofficial "leak" to the press. He has never been to Denmark, have not read the accompanying article in JP and apparently have not even seen the cartoons himself ...

I have an inofficial translation here (No official translation exists?)

Investigating further --MX44 21:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

parking a few links here temporarily

Wiesenthal center considers him a racist (or antisemite from their POV)


There IS an official version out now, and in English, too.[2] The report is certainly strange... The man has clearly never seen the cartoons. Also, he has the kid's book story all mixed up: He is apparently under the impression this is some propaganda effort: "The fact that children were the intended readership of the biography indicated a desire to shape the attitude to religion of a particularly sensitive and vulnerable age group". The report certainly makes for weird reading in some parts. Azate 22:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Link does not work! MX44 22:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Odd. Works for me. Alternatrive link: [3] 3rd row, the "E". Azate 22:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
OK the alternative works. A little inconvenient having to scroll? MX44 22:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Another letter from the Simon Wiesenthal Center states:

Samuels explained, "Anti-Zionism argues for the denial of sovereignty only to the Jewish people, which is, ipso facto, an act of racism. It is also a violation of the UN Charter in its singling out of one member-state for extinction," suggesting "Mr. Doudou Diène should thus include 'anti-Zionism' among the forms of racism listed in his report."

IMHO Samuels got somthing wrong. If Zionism stands for sovereignty only to the Jewish people, than Zionism violates article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ("freedom of religion") resp. article 2 which states, that "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status." Raphael1 00:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not what he said. You're taking the quote out of context. What Samuels meant was, anti-Zionism wants to deny sovereignty to the Jewish people, but not to any other group. Clarinetplayer 02:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, he doesn't say, that "anti-Zionism wants to deny sovereignty to the Jewish people". He rather writes, that "Anti-Zionism argues for the denial of sovereignty only to the Jewish people" Raphael1 02:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Clarinetplayer is clerly correct. Wiesenthal's meaning is very clear in English. The only way I can imagine anyone to misinterpret his clear statements so extremely, would be if they were somehow translated to another language and then back again. In English, there is no logical path I can see to such a gross mis-understandning.DanielDemaret 08:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Perhaps if you were to translate the text, so I can follow where the error in logic occured, I might be able to help to find in what step of logic the error in the chain might have occured.DanielDemaret 08:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Mmmm ... I think Doudou intended to go after something like the Israeli/Zionist landgrabbing, but his writings somehow didn't work out that way, which Samuel then objects to. MX44 08:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh, just in case: I removed the Doudou Diene piece from the article (where it was under the header "judicial investigation") because it's not a judicial investigation, or even part of one. It's an opinion piece of a UN official with a very long job description. So I put it into the "international reactions" sub-page (it was aleady in the timeline). I did NOT move it because I thought he was an anti-zionist or whatever, and I don't think a prolonged discussion about zionsm, race, Palestine and this Samuels guy is terribly beneficial for the article... Azate 10:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, done. Quite so. This issue is peripheral to the article. Just in case "this Simon guy" even remotely suggests that that you have not heard of him, here is a small article Simon Wiesenthal.DanielDemaret 13:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC) I think that, if one were to count the amount written about Simon in different papers over the years, by that measure, he is probably bigger than these cartoons are.DanielDemaret 13:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I said "this Samuels guy", not "this Simon (Wiesenthal) guy"... Azate 15:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
sorry :) I need more sleep :) DanielDemaret 22:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 19 has failed, for the following reason:

The article is not stable. There is still an ongoing edit war regarding the removal of the cartoon images,


even though the article has a comment, which states that removal, hiding, relocation or resizing of the cartoon image is considered vandalism and may result in blocking. But WP:VANDAL actually states, that any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Therefore any threat of blocking a user for good-faith edits, is against that policy and will reduce the quality of the encyclopedia.

There are many muslim Wikipedians who argue, that the showing of the cartoon images

  • It could only have been a personal attack to those who consider themselves to be Muhammad, the Prophet. But actually, the disputed cartoons are more commonly viewed as an attack on those who commit crimes in the name of god! MX44 19:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • is disrespectful to them
  • advocactes religious hatred that constitutes an incitement to hostility

Raphael1 07:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I find Raphael1's arguments distinctly dubious and question his removal of the article from the candidates list. R wrote that the article "has failed" but what this appears to mean is that in R's personal opinion it has failed. Where is the discussion? Note that R submitted a distinctly partial 3RR report regarding the recent edit war William M. Connolley 08:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Considering as a fact that Raphael1 bundles unpaid UNHCR volunteers unresearched opinion pieces together with juridical investigations, I for one take it as my right to questionize the credibility of Raphael1's point of view. MX44 09:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore it appears like it was Raphael1 who did the GAfailed? Since he is major contributor himself to previous editing wars, this is so wrong that I am without words ... Raphael, go undo that ... NOW! MX44 10:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

'Ongoing edit war' is mainly waged by IPs. There are many wikipedians otoh arguing that removal of the image consitutes bigotry. Don't you remember, rafael, that wikipedia is not censored? -- tasc talkdeeds 09:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Please follow the recommended procedures. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review. Raphael1 09:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If you had cared about procedures, you would have known that neither you or me are eligible to judge in this matter. Be a man and undo your mistake! MX44 10:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Good articles states that any editor can delist an article. Raphael1 10:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
In your dreams: If you see an article below under "Nominations" that you haven't significantly contributed to' MX44 10:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Please see the history. Anjoe tried to change the policy to keep this article nominated. Raphael1 10:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Not trying to change anything. Just making clear what is meant. I could in all circumstances just renominate, and we could be having (another) nice editwar sanctioned be the rules (as your also view them). --Anjoe 10:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
If you disagree with the objections, you are supposed to seek a review. Disagreements should be resolved on the disputes page not by de- and relisting the article over and over again. Raphael1 10:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and I see that you tried to change the rules as well ... :-D This is approaching comedy :-DDD MX44 11:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
If you look again you can find out, that I never tried to change the rules, instead I reverted the changes of others. Raphael1 11:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, lets have our little "brief discussion" once and for all to "establish consensus" on whether the criteria are met then. (This is really approaching comedy)... --Anjoe 11:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion about comedy. Since it has been absurd for a long time, comedy is a wonderful way of looking at it that relaxes the nerves.DanielDemaret 15:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


Yes, you are right ... I should calm down. MX44 11:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

To get back on the subject, Raphael1's main objection seems to be the cartoons themselves. But the cartoons are not a point of view, they are the fact the whole article discusses. Without them it is near impossible to rebut the fantasies emerging in peoples minds about what they may or may not have depicted (Read Doudou's article mentioned above for an example) MX44 11:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


Raphael1? MX44 11:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


I have now posted Wikipedia:Good_articles/Disputes#Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Please everyone: go there and make your comment and let us get this over with (before some of us go crazy). --Anjoe 11:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Been there now. Critiszed Raphael1 as much as I dared to still keep within wiki limits MX44 12:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually saw a post there first, responded there. My judgement is that the page is not stable, which is one of the GA standards. 17:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Raphael1? MX44 13:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Protection?

User:Cyde protected this due to anon vandalism. But there was only 1 anon, since blocked, so I've venttured to unprotect in the hope that things are OK. William M. Connolley 08:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid that we need that anon-protection back - and fast. --Anjoe 14:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Immigrants in Valby

According to this 2005 pdf-rapport from Copenhagen Statistical Office, the part of immigrants in Valby is 17-18% of the residents there. This only amounts to a 8. place among the 15 cityparts of Copenhagen dealt with in the rapport. Therefore I vote to strike "Valby is a district of Copenhagen known for having a concentrated population of immigrants." from the description of the images. --Anjoe 12:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

That would be for the whole of Valby. Some areas have densities of 90% or more, which is often used in media to provide the backdrop for "problematic immigrants area." In Odense you have similar areas in Vollsmose ... MX44 13:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Well some areas like my neighbours house is 100% inhabitant by foreigners (it's an embassy btw.). Raphael1 14:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Read th article I supplied in a footnote. It is a rebuttal that the real situation is not as bad as the one perceived through media. Nevertheless, for the cartoon it is the perceived situation that matters MX44
What should probably be mentioned is that where the article states "immigrants" it might be more on target to say "predominantly muslim immigrants" with huge families ("Somalian breeding factories"). Perhaps mention that Abu Laban lives there? There is also a mosque in Valby. MX44 16:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Please, do not use that kind of rhetoric ("breeding factories") here nor in the article. --Anjoe 17:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


Valby known from media?

"Valby is a district of Copenhagen known from media for its concentrated populations of immigrants." This is not a true statement. Valby is not known in the media for its percentage of immigrants. The Media in Denmark, is focusing much more on areas as Nørrebro, Ishøj, Gjellerup-parken and Voldsmose etc. The citated repport is probably true, but the statement "known in the media" isn't. EyesAllMine 18:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm ... Abu Labans son made the news, preaching dooms-day Islam at school out there MX44 18:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about that - can't really see what it has to do with anything - but it is a fact that Valby is NOT known in the media for its percentage of immigrants. Unless you verify that statement, I will remove it from the article, as it is a false one EyesAllMine 19:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyway ... I'll remove the media thing and rephraze to reflect that this is but one area MX44 19:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You can, as Raphael1 above put it, find areas ALL over Denmark with 100% immigrants. It's only a question of definition. Valby is not significant at all. So theres no need to mix the population percentage of immigrants into the description of this drawing. EyesAllMine 19:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with EyesAllMine. In all cases the description of certain of the illustrations tend to become intrepretations to wrestle some meaning out of them that maybe just isn't there. We should avoid this and keep it as minimal as possible. --Anjoe 20:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
The quoted report mentions that there have been much sensationalist press on the areas of Lykkebo, Vigerslev and Akacieparken in the summer of 2004. All of them are burdened with powerty, drug abuse and other social problems. The 90% quote would be for Akacieparken where we also find a dispropornately high amount of inhabitants in the 400 individual households. More than half of the immigrants in Valby lives here. Akacieparken is also considered "those the other kids don't want to play with." All these factors of course plays together in their own cruel logic. MX44 20:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

...and have absolutely nothing to do with the drawing EyesAllMine 20:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Except that the kid lives there ... MX44 21:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe ... Frems shirt is normally red and blue striped ... EyesAllMine 21:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Ehrmm .. The kids shirt is red and blue striped?

Okay ... its not easy to see here, as the picture is quite small. But it is probably a Frem shirt EyesAllMine 05:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  • You may prefer to use one of the fullsize images available offsite? A high resolution pdf is also available to JP subscribers. MX44 08:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
However, the cartoon appears not to be that well reseached. After reading some 46 pages now, I haven't seen any reference to Iran or Afghanistan (the farsi writings on the board.) Mostly Somalia ... There are football fields surrounding Akacieparken though. MX44 21:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Berligske writes in 2004: Akacieparken i Valby er én af de ghettoer, regeringen har udpeget som et problem, der skal gøres noget ved. Akacieparken is one of those ghettoes, the government has pointed out as a problem, which should be dealt with.[4]
Keywords: ghetto, problem, government ... MX44 00:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The only thing we need to tell in the description then is, that the boy is wearing a Frem T-shirt. Frem is a positive project in general, and it fits well with the rest of the drawings tone to promote some of the better aspects of integration. And it has always been seen as the fotball-team for the working man (arbejderenes fodboldklub). It is also not only the football team for valby, but also for Sydhavnen and the south-western parts of Copenhagen[5].EyesAllMine 05:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It is definately a Frem-shirt. Note the words on it: "Frem-tiden". In danish meaning "The future".

It is relatively safe to say that Frem is a traditional workers club, with alot of immigrants active members. Frem is also one of Denmarks oldest cricket clubs.

The text as it stands now (whoever wrote it, it wasn't me) tries to explain why there is a sign in the drawing saying "Valby Skole". Note that it does not say "Sydhavnen" or anything else. In yesterdays research we found that one area in Valby (specifically Akacieparken) was one of six ghettos in Denmark considered in 2004 to be a problem to be handled at government level.[6] This kind of gives away the reason why the cartoonist chose Valby (as opposed to Sydhavnen), no? Promoting the better aspects of integration is all very noble, but there seems to be some serious problems in and between the different districts of Valby as well as the rest of Copenhagen. It should also be mentioned though, that the yellow sensationalist press seems to have blown this out of proportion, even to the point of false accusations.
Finally, the school actually named "Valby skole" appears to be situated in one of the better, well integrated areas of Valby. The school nearest to Akacieparken would have been "Ålholm skole". I don't know if the cartoonist was aware of this, or if it matters at all? As it happens, Valby skole was (re?)opened in 2004, incorporating a nearby former factory into its premises.
MX44 07:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Valby is a mixed region, spanning from rather rich inhabitants to Akacieparken. Stating that "Valby is one the districts in Copenhagen known for concentrated populations of immigrants." Is simply not correct. And as the drawing does not at all point to Akacieparken, I think we should remove that sentence from the description. EyesAllMine 10:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  • According to the Danish government Valby is known for having problems! Maybe you should open your eyes somewhat, just slightly ;-) Rephrazing to: Valby is known for one of the most problematic immigrant ghettos in Denmark wouldn't exactly go your way either, but would still be true. MX44 11:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Known to who? I dont know where you live, but I actually live in Copenhagen, and Valby is not "known for one of the most problematic immigrant ghettos in Denmark" at all. Valby is known for the Zoo and Carlsberg. Where do you have that information from? EyesAllMine 11:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The Ministery of Refugees, Immigrants and Integration. The program was decided upon in 2004, implemented in 2005 as of this publication.
MX44 11:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
PS: Regarding Carlsberg, wouldn't that be was known ...

Carlsberg byggeriet (the buildings) are still there, and is an architectural and historical site. So it IS known for that. The repport you have linked to only mentions Akacieparken. And it does not state that Valby is especially known for.... whatever. Actually Valby is not mentioned ONCE in the repport. Now 'nough said, I'm going to remove the false statement. EyesAllMine 12:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Akacieparken is in Valby, right? But go ahead and edit, your revisionist POV is fairly minor :-D MX44 12:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Disruption

This is an immediate warning to everyone involved to stop the pointless bickering over disclaimer text in the article. I've already blocked one editor for 3RR and a few others are a hair away from being blocked for sheer outright disruptiveness. --Cyde Weys 18:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

What's with all the recent vandalism to this article, consensus is to keep the image so removing the image can be constituted as vandalism so stop removing the image in violation of consensus. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 00:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Systematic bias

Moved to Image Display Arguments. Netscott 09:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Abu Laban in Valby

Actually, Abu Laban do live in Valby, is married and have seven kids (although probably not the one in the cartoon ...)

Here is an interview in english:


You can check him out on www.eniro.dk as well:

Ahmed-Sami Mohamed Abu-Laban
Tlf 36 46 05 53

Carl Jacobsens Vej 4 E 5, tv, 2500 Valby
Vis detaljer · Send blomster

If the above adress looks suspiciously identical to the one of Islamic Center, you would be right.

We can only describe whats seen in the drawing - the intention of choosing Valby will remain pure speculation. My own POV would be something as the illustrator using Frem as one of the truly positive integration projects, and to remind us that the immigrants children also is going to form the future - thats why the t-shirt states fremtiden - and not merely Frem. But lets not put nonverifiable speculation in the desciption of the drawings. EyesAllMine 14:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Explain why the cartoonist chose Valby and did not choose Sydhavnen then? Why did he choose any place at all from the beginning? MX44 14:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
He might have chosen it because (as I can understand) the club Frem is located in Valby, and he had to use 'Frem' in the (fairly unhumoristic) pun concerning 'fremtiden'. There might not be anymore to it. If the choice of Valby-skolen is bugging you that much go obtain a statement from the drawer of the cartoon. In my opinion it would be the only way to establish if Abu Laban or anything else got anything to do with it. In the meantime please delete the Abu Laban-speculation. --Anjoe 14:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I did above - because he wanted to refer to positive integration aspects (Boldklubben Frem is contributing to integration), and remind us that the immigrants children also is our future (Fremtiden). But again I can only speculate on that - as can you. And he took the most obvious pick: Valby/Frem EyesAllMine 14:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

And the pick was obvious because ... Valby has (or had at the time) an intgration problem, which circles us back to Akacieparken as well as Abu Laban ... and while we are at it, why not mention Hizb-ut-Tahrir handing out islamofascistic flyers outside the mosque MX44 14:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

And it is still speculations that it has anything to with this drawing. EyesAllMine 15:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Last time I checked, Abu Laban was convinced he had something to do with this drawing ... MX44 15:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I will remove this sentence again. It is your burden to prove with a proper verifiable source, that this was the Illustrators intention. Personally I didn't know where Abu Laban lived, until today. If you put the sentence back in without proper citation, I will consider it vandalism. EyesAllMine 15:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Your choice! Have fun with the militant Muhammedans. I am out'a here. MX44 18:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • One last word: Do not confuse ignorance with wisdom! 80.216.124.251 22:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Good Article

As the article is not stable, contains unrefrenced statements, and cites sources which do not support the claims made, it has been removed from the GA nom list. Please improve on this and then try again - Good Luck! --Irishpunktom\talk 11:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Who failed it? Much like User:Raphael1 who earlier falsely attemtped to fail the GA nom, you've worked on this article extensively so if you're the one who failed it then it should be resubmitted immediately. Netscott 14:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
How is it not stable? And the GA standards call for references, not perfect references or really even good references :/. Homestarmy 14:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Irishpunktom (talk • contribs), who has attemtped to fail this nomination has contributed significantly to this article is not qualified to do so. I have reverted his false attempt at failing the article and re-listed it. If he reverts my re-listing I invite others to revert out his unqualified de-listing. Netscott 15:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I most certainly have not "contributed significantly" to this. I addded some Muslim info, and few words to the intro and an internal wikilink - that is not a significant contribution! --Irishpunktom\talk 15:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
You had a significant number of edits at the beginning of March and have been a presence on this talk page. Your contribs betray you. Kyaa the Catlord 16:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
If you view the content of the contributions you will find that they are not exactly significant in the context of the editing, and nomination to Good Article, of the article as a whole. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
There is a Review process, do not decide that you can overturn the failure because you do not like the Wikipedian who failed it. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Much like the Raphael1 (talk • contribs) who repeatedly attempted to falsely de-list this article from the "Good Article" nomination and was blocked for it, you Irishpunktom (talk · contribs) are not qualified to delist it. I'm sure others will agree with me and revert out your false attempts at de-listing. Please be mindful of the 3RR violation limit while you attempt to falsely de-list this article lest you face the same consequences that Raphael1 (talk • contribs) endured. Netscott 15:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Irishpunktom (talk · contribs) it's a bit personal attackish to say that I don't like you when in fact I've never made such a statement. What is true however, is that I don't like some of your edits and occasionally your editing style but I suspect that is a mutual feeling. Netscott 16:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I have no made significant contributions to this article, and my feelings toward you are of apathy verging on pity, but that is completely irrelevent in relation to this. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Irrelevant, so true. Too bad you're the inidividual who initially mentioned feelings having to do with liking which necessitated a response. Perhaps in the future you'll refrain from introducing such irrelevant nonsense regarding feelings into a given talk page. Netscott 16:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
What I stated was a statement of fact. The GA article was nominated, I reviewed it, and now because it was I who reviewed it you are refusing to accept the decision. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Wrong, only those who have not contributed significantly are qualified to remove nominations.... this is why I re-listed the article. Don't falsely remove it again. Netscott 16:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Supermajority vs Consensus

Moved to Image display argument page. Netscott 16:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This was not a bad-faith move but given the previous propensity for similiarly proposed ideas having completely dominated (ie: taken over) the talk page to the detriment of all other discussions relative to improving the article, doing so is simply a good idea. Netscott 17:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

GA Pass

Third time's the charm, this article has healthy references, content and tagged images (I am stunned). No, where does this go?:P Highway Rainbow Sneakers 17:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your neutral and fair estimation of this article's Good status Highway. Netscott 18:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Image Display Talk Page Question

Greetings fellow editors. Due to the previous highly repetitive and overwhelming nature of discussions regarding the display of the cartoons images themselves, a seperate Image Display Arguments talk area was created on March 8, 2006 at the suggestion of User:Varga Mila and has ever since never endured any protest about its purpose or its existence. According to the logic of User:Varga Mila's suggestion, a seperate page was needed so that editors who wanted to discuss other aspects of article improvement outside of questions concerning image display would not be further forced to have to repetitively navigate through the reams and reams of image display talk. With the latest discussion about image display seeming to further verify the logic of having this seperate area of talk User:Jeremygbyrne wonders if such Image Display talk should be again permitted to occupy space in this the main talk area. It appears that the logic for the seperate area still applies but what of the views of other editors concerning this? Should discussions regarding any particular aspect of the display of the images again return to the main talk space? At this point this is not a straw poll and voting is not encouraged... please share views on this. Netscott 06:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. What's needed is a sixth pillar, WP:ICON - no iconoclasm.Timothy Usher 07:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What has changed? We continue to see the usual suspects vandalizing the page. We should not bow to their bad behaviour and reward them by granting them another poll. Consensus was reached. Yes, there are a few lingering dissenters, but consensus allows for dissent. Please let us reject this request! This is for discussion of the article which grows off the images, not discussion related to the showing of the images, if they wish to discuss the images themselves and the political reasoning behind showing/not showing them, there are suitable forums for that. This is not one of those. Thanks. Kyaa the Catlord 07:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, the dispute page seems to be moving much slower than it did say, 2 months ago. I don't think i'd want the discussion back here just yet though, but in the future, sure. Homestarmy 13:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Article removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because it is not at all stable and probably never will be until the Image-Display issue get's addressed. If you regard that article as stable, I'd like to remind you, that it is again protected for 2 days now. The above edit was by our good friend Raphael1. Kyaa the Catlord 12:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks like it was only protected because Raphael tried to put in some linkimage thing, hardly a reason for semi-protection i'd think. One bit of link-imaging of one picture might blow out an FA nomination, but the GA system was never meant to be so strict and legalistic as to nitpick on everything. If it was, it would just be the FA system with a few less criteria. Homestarmy 13:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to point out, that the page was semi-protected for an edit by Raphael101 formerly known as Vkasdg. Raphael1 13:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, semi-protect wouldn't do anything against a registered user, as im sure you yourself discovered: [7] Homestarmy 13:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Sure, but you still can't call an article stable, if it needs to be protected from anonymous edits. Raphael1 13:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Sure you can, any article can be vandalized. Unfortunately for this one, the vandalization has become systemic. Kyaa the Catlord 13:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Please stop calling it vandalism since WP:VANDAL clearly states that edits against an alleged consensus is not vandalism. Don't you think, that a systemic content disput is a hint for a neutrality defeat? Raphael1 13:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • rolls eyes* You rolled out that again. How many times does this make it? This horse has been beaten to death again and again. Now do us all a favor and just give up, your childish vandal-like actions stopped being amusing long ago. Kyaa the Catlord 14:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
There's no reason for protecting Wikipedia from a discussion by using ad hominem arguments or pressuring me to go away. Raphael1 14:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Dear Raphael1: I am for one not pressuring you. I am trying to appeal to those good intentions you profess and that intelligence you display: Please, *please*, go out into the world and use your time to do some good to somebody instead of just wasting it here. All you will ever achive on this article is to drive people crazy and eventually be blocked again. I am also sure there are other articles on Wikipedia where your effort and intellect is needed, but kindly leave this one (for a while at least). Please consider this for everybodys good. Sincerely yours/--Anjoe 14:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry Anjoe, but I won't follow your plea. The only argument you seem to have is that people can't bare my IMHO good arguments and go crazy when they read them. Raphael1 15:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't stand for such nonsense! Raphael1 (talk • contribs)'s reasoning is false. This article's Good status was determined by a completely independent and neutral party and since it achieved that status, absolutely nothing has changed. Until such time as a signifcant negative change has occurred to the artilce relative to how it was the day it was given Good status, I invite my fellow editors to point blank refute Raphael1's nonsense and re-list the article as Good. Netscott 14:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Well i've been involved in this article for quite a long time, I shouldn't re-list it :/. But also, blanking is indeed considered vandalism, and since most of the vandalism is to blank the picture, it is indeed vandalism we're experiencing here. Whether people feel like their bravely thrusting against a consensus of infidels or not really doesn't matter at all. Homestarmy 14:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
There's no base for calling the change of an on-page image to a linkimage blanking, when not even removing images from articles generally can be called blanking. Raphael1 14:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean the linkimaging, most of the vandalism is just blanking it seems. The linkimaging just seems annoying, im not sure if its outright vandalism.Homestarmy 14:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
That's not how GA works, Netscott. I've delisted it again because the issue of the way images are displayed has not reached a consensus position. You may be able to ignore a widespread viewpoint in the course of normal editing, but higher standards are required for GA and FA. — JEREMY 14:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Please do like User:Irishpunktom did and seek the input of a completely neutral and independent party to make a determination of this article's "Good" status. Netscott 14:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Why are you supporting the efforts of vandalistic and disruptive editors Raphael1? Even the Muslim editor User:Joturner agreed that such editing should not block the article recieving "Good" status. I have so far seen two editors completely independent from this article express that it merited Good status (plus Joturner). Netscott 15:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I've seen three editors User:Tobyk777, JEREMY and User:Irishpunktom, who don't seem to agree, that this article merits Good status. If everyone has veto power even one editor should be enough. Raphael1 16:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, only one of those editors appears independent. While the other two are not independent. I've given two independent editors (and an editor who one would ordinarily think would have a bias against it) who support Good status. How is that an equitable comparision? Netscott 16:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • GA status is not achieved through a majority decision. Instead everyone has veto power, which means that a single editor, who feels that it fails the GA criterias is enough to delist it from the Good articles page. Raphael1 16:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
well, seeing that this clause is being abused, I predict it will be scrapped, then. instead, the GA procedure should be by "wiki-consensus" like everywhere else (viz., an 80% majority; an axiom: given a large enough pool of editors, there will always be dissent, no matter how obvious the proposition) dab (ᛏ) 16:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Abused, I couldn't have put it better myself dab. Thanks for your insightful commentary here. It seems that we'll have to contribute to the development of the "Good Article" project accordingly. Netscott 16:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • What other policies do you want to change to make this article the way you like it? So far you changed resp. reinterpreted:
  1. WP:VANDAL Changes opposed by everyone else becomes vandalism, when that change means removing the cartoon images. Alternatively removing the cartoon image is considered blanking, whereas removing other images is not.
  2. WP:BP Editing against two months old poll result is considered disruption, whereas WP:NBD states otherwise. And "inserting material that may be defamatory" is not considered disruptive, if the defamed community is a religious minority.
  3. WP:3RR doesn't count for people, who revert edits against two months old poll results.
  4. Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations gets changed to push that article on the Good article list, even if there are editors opposing it.
  5. Wikipedia:No personal attacks suddenly doesn't count on article pages, even if it states "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia." in bold letters.
  6. Wikipedia:Etiquette should not be followed, because it says "religious epithets" not "blasphemous cartoons".
It seems, that this article is changing most of the Wikipedia rules to make the incitement of religious hatred against Muslims possible. Raphael1 17:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
this is an article about the incitement of religious hatred, by and against Muslims, and it is reasonably detailed, so, good as an encyclopedia article. Saying this article is "good" doesn't say the cartoons were "good", or the ensuing hysteria was "good". GA should be no big deal, but it is not the idea of the GA project to serve for petty revenge or ventilation by users who didn't get their way somewhere. dab (ᛏ) 17:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
This article is so detailed, that it doesn't even distance itself from the incitement of religious hatred against Muslims by (for example) linkimaging the cartoons. Raphael1 18:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
that's pure nonsense, you know it is nonsense, and nonsense that has been debunked countless times on this page. If you removed the GA status on this basis, that was indeed done in bad faith. dab (ᛏ) 10:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • So far User:HighwayCello and User:Natalya (here) both independent of editing on it have expressed that this article merits Good status. You and Jeremy's de-listing of the article was not done in good faith. Netscott 16:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I can't speak for Raphael1, but I most certainly believe — in good faith — that this is not a Good Article, and is very unlikely to become stable enough to be regarded as a GA while the views of a significant number of editors are consistently ignored, belittled and dismissed. It seems obvious to me that it is such wikiloveless behaviour that is keeping this article (which otherwise appears, to the casual observer unfamiliar with its history, to be a detailed and well-referenced piece) from GA. — JEREMY 16:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
According to certain interpratations of the hadiths, NO article having pictures can be considered good. This is of course in conflict with the definition of GA, which should therefore be rewritten in order to not belittle any Muslim. MX44 08:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from using polemical straw man arguments. Nobody ever suggested, that WP should have no images at all. People complain about defamatory images and they have every right to do so. Raphael1 10:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
If you do not follow the hadith to the letter, you can hardly be considered a good Muslim ... MX44 10:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
1. I am not a Muslim. 2. Why would you want to decide, who is a good Muslim? 3. I suggest, that you rather watch your own actions and try to be good yourself. Raphael1 10:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
1. Yes, we know ... 2. I am only defending the Muslim point of view, just like you do. 3. Allah have provided the hadith to make it easy for mankind to be good. MX44 10:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
OK I will assume good faith and pretend, that you truely just want to defend the point of view of a radical traditionalist, who doesn't watch TV and closes his eyes every time he walks past one of those larger-than-life images, the rulers like to present themself in Arab countries. How comes, that you are still surfing with a graphical browser? Wikipedia renders pretty well in text-only mode. - Your misrepresentation of Muslims, who are not offended by all pictures, but definitely by pictures mocking their prophet, uncovers your argument as a Straw man argument. Raphael1 16:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I basically support relisting as GA. Stability is not a primary requirement: a single stubborn editor can make an article unstable, that doesn't affect the article's quality. Nor is the tone on talk: if some editors walk away hurt and angry, but the article is still a showpiece of encyclopedicity, the procedure may have been sadly unwikilike, but the article is still good (get it, we rate the product, not the process). However, this article is getting insanely long. Consider shortening it to below 60k (in view of Wikipedia:Recentism) before relisting. dab (ᛏ) 16:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this all really be on the GA dispute page? :/ And yea, changing the rules without consensus is bad.... Homestarmy 19:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Indeed; this is getting way out of hand. I have alerted the Village Pump to the situation. With luck, this might finally attract some outside attention to this dispute (where a three-month-old RfC has failed). — JEREMY 20:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Straw Man portrayal of opponents of cartoons

The main article frames the debate as Freedom of Speech versus the Islamic Tradition Forbidding the Portrayal of Muhammad. This dichotomy was most likely set up by proponents of the cartoons, who believe that non-Muslims should not be required to follow Muslim tradition. This is of course true, but this is not why the majority of the opponents oppose the cartoons. See Straw man. Shouldn't the opinions of Muslims be relevant in the main article, instead of what the cartoon-proponents think of as the clash of traditions? ViewFromNowhere 15:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

View your claim to read the minds of all the "proponents of the cartoons" is irrellivent due to is absurdity. Not being forced to follow the rules of islam in the UK or on the net at Wikipedia is exactly why i support the rights of the cartoonists and all who publish them.PS you do not state what you think i really support the cartoons for, please do.Hypnosadist 16:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Uh, what? I meant that the dichtomy was likely set up by some proponents. I don't think that all proponents have the same reasons. ViewFromNowhere 21:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Might I suggest that you familiarize yourself a bit more with the article prior to doing such massive editing on it? All verifiable and notable opinions have a completely seperate article for their inclusion relative to this one. Netscott 15:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The part that I inserted was taken from the Opinions article, so I am aware of its existence. The issue here is the "Conflicting traditions" section. What purpose does it serve? ViewFromNowhere 19:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • What purpose does it serve? Honestly that seems like a rather strange question coming from an editor who appears to have never previoulsy contributed to this article (perhaps you did under another user name). Rather than explain what purpose that section serves I would sooner ask what is the problem you perceive with it? After the contributions of hundreds of individuals on this article since that section has existed, it appears that you are the first to take issue with it. Netscott 06:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I have contributed to this article in February, but I became frustrated at the biased, one-sided edit wars. I went off Wikipedia for a while, but now that the article has become more stable, I hope that I can contribute to it. It's true that that section has remained stable after hundreds of contributions, but the fact that the majority of Wikipedians editing this article find no problem with it doesn't mean that it's NPOV. Perhaps the voices of the minority opponents of the cartoons such as myself were drowned out by the early edit wars. For example, in that section, the Danish journalistic tradition is portrayed as "good", while the Islamic tradition is portrayed in a very bad light that lacks sources:

Throughout the history of Muslim societies, to insult the Islamic prophet Muhammad has been seen as one of the most serious crimes anyone could commit. In many cases, such as those of the Martyrs of Córdoba, this led to the death penalty. Some interpretations of the Shariat, in particular the Salafi (Non-Maddhab), follow that any insult to Muhammad warrants death.[65]

This makes a very general statement about the history of Muslim societies based on extreme cases, and portrays Muslims as irrational. Anyway, the problem I find with the section is what I already stated. "The main article frames the debate as Freedom of Speech versus the Islamic Tradition Forbidding the Portrayal of Muhammad. This dichotomy was most likely set up by proponents of the cartoons, who believe that non-Muslims should not be required to follow Muslim tradition. This is of course true, but this is not why the majority of the opponents oppose the cartoons. See Straw man. Shouldn't the opinions of Muslims be relevant in the main article, instead of what the cartoon-proponents think of as the clash of traditions?" ViewFromNowhere 15:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
conversely to your statement though, just because some people don't want to offend people and thus remove the image because it may offend doesn't mean that we should remove the image just due to people's various sensibilities, also I agree with you about that quote, it does portray muslims badly and should either be removed or should be qualified to the fact it's only applying to a tiny minority of radicals and not to the muslim population in general, probably the best choice is just to remove it. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 15:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Of course you should not remove something just because it offends someone. However, the cartoons are perceived by most opponents as hate propaganda. Caricatures of blacks and Jews are unacceptable not just because blacks and Jews are offended, but because they are unjustified and perpetuate harmful stereotypes. In any case, this [perception of hate propaganda] is a more accurate description of the opponents, instead of the Straw Man position that Muslims want to execute anyone that doesn't follow their religion. ViewFromNowhere 00:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The very text you cite was added by Irishpunktom (talk • contribs) who according to his user page is Muslim. Based upon this fact it seems to be unfortunate that you have not been editing on the article all along for you would better understand how that section came into existence and has evolved. The only thing counter to this previous sentence that I can say in your defense is that User:Irishpunktom has been known to edit in nonsense and as such you may be correct in your estimation of what you are citing. Netscott 15:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't help your case when you make such an Islamophobic prejudiced statement. I assume you are saying that Irishpunktom is Muslim, that Irishpunktom "edits in nonsense", and that I am correct only insofar as he represents the opinions of Muslims, i.e., nonsense. I don't know how else I was supposed to interpret that. Anyway,

There seems to be a confusion between two issues: the Islamic ban on any pictorial representation and respect for the character of Muhammad. It is the satirical intent of the cartoonists, and the association of the Prophet with terrorism, that is so offensive to the vast majority of Muslims.

[8]

Why is the insult so deeply felt by some Muslims? Of course, there is the prohibition on images of Muhammad. But one cartoon, showing the Prophet wearing a turban shaped as a bomb with a burning fuse, extends the caricature of Muslims as terrorists to Muhammad. In this image, Muslims see a depiction of Islam, its prophet and Muslims in general as terrorists. This will certainly play into a widespread perception among Muslims across the world that many in the West harbour a hostility towards - or fear of - Islam and Muslims.

[9] Lastly, there is this article by Tarek Fatah (the director of the Muslim Canadian Congress) which originally appeared in the Globe & Mail. ViewFromNowhere 00:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
ViewFromNowhere, looking at the Feb. 8, 2006 version of this talk page where all of your comments that you refer to here can be found, I don't see where you appear to be protesting much. Netscott 16:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I firstly objected to having the cartoons displayed prominently at the beginning of the article, although my opinion on that might have changed. The answer I got was essentially "we already had a vote, so don't bring it up again". I did not protest then, but back then there were many, many problems. I didn't have the time and energy back then to protest much, as I was busy with other things. In any case, whether or not I protested or contributed to this article previously is irrelevant to whether or not I have the right to do so now. ViewFromNowhere 00:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I refuse to deal with anyone who falsely utilizes the very abused neologism Islamophobia when discussing criticism related to Islam. Until you refrain from using such ridiculous terminology you can just forget about my interacting with you and just try to edit from the appearingly blind position that you have now. Netscott 03:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
All right. I apologize for using that word. I'll rephrase: It doesn't help your case when you make such a prejudiced statement. I assume you are saying that Irishpunktom is Muslim, that Irishpunktom "edits in nonsense", and that I am correct only insofar as he represents the opinions of Muslims, i.e., nonsense. I don't know how else I was supposed to interpret that.
Note: Your implication that "Muslim opinion is nonsense," is not bad because it's a criticism related to Islam. It's bad because you came to that conclusion by observing one individual, Irishpunktom (whom you believe "edits in nonsense"), and generalized to the whole group. (I don't know if Irishpunktom edits in nonsense for other articles, but it doesn't matter, since the section is decent enough and is corroborated by outside sources.) You also volunteered that comment when it had no relevance to the discussion. ViewFromNowhere 04:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Your apology is accepted and appreciated. I'm not sure why you have extended my comment about Irishpunktom being Muslim to mean that as such his Muslim contributions are to be discounted, nothing could be further from the truth. You may simply want to familiarize yourself with Irishpunktom's editing style and history of numerous editing conflicts and corresponding blocks to better understand my comment relative to using the word nonsense in reference to him. With that said though, I do believe I see your point that in the context of this talk that particular comment was misplaced.
Here's what you said that I took issue with:

For example, in that section, the Danish journalistic tradition is portrayed as "good", while the Islamic tradition is portrayed in a very bad light that lacks sources:

Throughout the history of Muslim societies, to insult the Islamic prophet Muhammad has been seen as one of the most serious crimes anyone could commit. In many cases, such as those of the Martyrs of Córdoba, this led to the death penalty. Some interpretations of the Shariat, in particular the Salafi (Non-Maddhab), follow that any insult to Muhammad warrants death.[65]
This makes a very general statement about the history of Muslim societies based on extreme cases, and portrays Muslims as irrational.
  • In the context of your contention that this particular section sets up a false dichotomy I merely wanted to clarify to you that it was a Muslim contributor who added that given passage and therefore not the work of anti-Muslims trying to portray Muslims negatively by citing such historical extremes. Netscott 05:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
There might be some reasons for this notion of irrationality. Allow me for a moment to focus only on Salafi
  • The non-violent Salafis insist that the violent groups are not really Salafis.
  • Those who believe that violence is necessary, as it was in the days of the first Muslims, believe that the non-violent Salafis are not accepting their full responsibility as Muslims
As you can see, there is not even in this relatively small group of Muslims a clear consensus on the road ahead MX44 05:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
This cartoon from the Jordanian newspaper Al Ghad expresses the fear of many Muslims that the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy exemplifies a perceived advancement of Islamophobia in the West. Clockwise: "This one is racist", "this one is anti-Semitic", "and this one (bottom) falls under freedom of speech"
This cartoon from the Jordanian newspaper Al Ghad expresses the fear of many Muslims that the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy exemplifies a perceived advancement of Islamophobia in the West. Clockwise: "This one is racist", "this one is anti-Semitic", "and this one (bottom) falls under freedom of speech"

Okay. Let me clarify the part about the "false dichotomy". My example of the Islamic tradition section was a side comment that the longevity of content does not guarantee a NPOV. The "false dichotomy" I see is the portrayal of the controversy as a "clash of traditions": journalistic versus Islamic. This may be how the controversy is seen for supporters of the cartoons as well as some Muslim extremists including Salafi extremists (where the Salafi constitute less than 1 percent of Muslims worldwide [10]). However, for a majority of Muslims and a majority of opponents of the cartoons (these groups overlap), the issue is about racist or religiously-prejudiced propaganda. See the Al Ghad cartoon on the right. Here, the issue is not Islamic tradition, but something similar to the offensiveness of caricatures of blacks or Jews. Opponents of the cartoons see them as "racist".[11] (Edit: This is not literal racism as in stereotyping by race, but rather stereotyping by religion. Perhaps a better word is "ethnic prejudice"?) The "clash of traditions" dichotomy is how the majority cartoon-supporters and minority cartoon-opposers see it, but it does not represent the majority cartoon-opposers. For the majority of cartoon-opposers, Islamic tradition is irrelevant; it is socially unacceptable to demonize minority groups just because you can. Of these majority cartoon-opposers, some believe racist propaganda should not be free speech, while others believe that racist propaganda should be free speech but is nevertheless socially/morally unacceptable and should not be praised. ViewFromNowhere 04:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Odd, your NPR link only mentioned racism in terms of what the student muslim protestors compare the cartoons to. They did not say that the cartoons were themselves racist. That's very much a false argument as Muslims as a group are essentially composed of every ethnicity on the planet. As far as this cartoon you've added, unless you've got some verifiable information to back up that it discusses Islamophobia, such a contention is sooner an example of original research. Without meaning to be dismissive, I am percieving most of what you are saying as being original research and sooner see what is on the article as being a more accurate representation of the facts surrounding this issue. Perhaps you can provide references to previously researched documentation in support of what you are saying? Netscott 06:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
What are the significant reasons for the outrage over the cartoons?
  1. Percieved racism? – clearly no serious reason, I think.
  2. Percieved demonization of a minority? – might have been a factor before the conflict became international, but now it needs qualification.
  3. Percieved insulting content – in my view, probably the main reason.
  4. Aniconism-tradition – might be a factor to why the reaction to the percieved insulting content above has been so strong, but needs qualification as being a reason in its own right.
Any more candidates to evaluate? In any case it wouldn't hurt to get some empirical basis. --Anjoe 08:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  1. Being pissed of with the West in general - not a sufficient, but a necessary reason. A big one. Big article in biggest newspaper of the biggest Arab country:[12]. Recommended, no, required reading!!! Azate 10:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
"Racism" here doesn't mean racism literally, but instead of stereotyping by race, it's stereotyping by religion. The closest term I can think of that would describe this is perhaps "religious prejudice". However, as religion has a voluntary aspect, some cartoon-supporters would say in response that no religion is free from criticism. But that's not the point. The point is that not all Muslims are terrorists, so painting all Muslims with the same brush is unjustified; terrorism is not a necessary aspect of Islam. It is not the case that anyone who does not convert away from Islam is implicitly condoning terrorism. Perhaps instead of "racism", a better word is "ethnic prejudice"? (Sorry for the confusion. I really don't mean to blur the issues. It's just that there isn't an available term to describe this, so the word racism is being overextended. Let's stick to "ethnic prejudice" from now on.) ViewFromNowhere 15:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
What you are talking about is cultural bias leading to stereotyping by membership of a foreign religion or homish subculture. 'Ethnicity' refers to being a member of an ethnic group, which usually specifies a group who identifies both by a common culture and an at least percieved common genealogy or ancestry. Better go with your "long" description ('stereotyping by religion') than to blend race into it at all. – You know, if you haven't noticed, it's a sensitive issue... :-) --Anjoe 17:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article is a bit problematic. In cultural anthropology, an ethnic group [13] is a

Group distinguished by cultural similarities (shared among members of that group) and differences (between that group and others); ethnic group members share beliefs, values, habits, customs, and norms, and a common language, religion, history, geography, kinship, and/or race.

It doesn't necessarily require a perceived genealogy or ancestry. Even the Wikipedia article is not self-consistent. Anyway, 'stereotyping by religion' is fine too. ViewFromNowhere 19:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

You give statistics for Salafi worldwide? I can agree with that, but that percentage would be higher in Denmark. Also, this (still relatively small) group is making themselves very visible, demanding the right to speak for all "true Muslims", forcing the majority to denounce the surrounding society and giving the majority a bad conscience if they do not support their extremist interpretations of the teachings of Muhammad. It is this supremacist group that is the target of the "anti-Muslim" cartoons. That they have succeeded in turning the issue of Militant Islamism, to point at peaceful citizens is an unfortunate, but cunning manipulation.

The racist POV blurres the discussion somewhat, although it is true that it is being brought up frequently. Professor Hagop Kevorkian recently tried, in an otherwise well researched article, to prove this theory by pointing to the shape and size of the noses in the cartoons. Well ... the biggest nose of them all, is the one of Blutgein (and the rest is no different from what you see on Al-Jazeera.) What is at work here is that the truth is believed to be known ahead, therefore whatever the evidence is, it must be proof of that belief.

A point of view that can be defended is that the cartoons also represent a supremacist view. The view that secular law should somehow be superiour to Sharia, and I believe that many Danes would like to keep it that way, at least in Denmark? But when this local discussion gets blown up on a screen the size of the planet, people of the Muslim World are bound to be offended. The history and current state of Western Imperialism makes this all sound very fishy, and the local situation in Denmark is neither known nor understood.

So I'll add to anjoe's list:

  • Perceived supremacism

MX44 10:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

massive quoted sections

Just as a matter of display I was wondering if there is overquoting and if it hinders the ability to understand what's going on. Quotes are definitely helpful when used strategically but huge chunks of some of these sections are nothing but block quotes. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 19:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, - but has those quotes not grown very recently. I can't seem to keep completely up, but doesn't it strike as odd, how good this article was before it was nominated for Good Article not long ago... --Anjoe 20:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I've chopped away on quite some sections, mainly by concatenating blockquotes, removing duplication, reducing the number of examples quoted, or deleting some minor quotes (while retaining them as footnotes) and examples. Moving the "descriptios" section to a subpage has also helped in a major way. Azate
You dropped a part I was working on to give a historical perspective on why this all blew up at this point in time (the perpetual oil wars as well as the creation of the state Israel.) Any suggestions on where that might fit in? MX44 01:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Ew. You got me on that one for a second or two.Azate 02:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Eh? I dropped some of the strong language and putted it in a proper context (which the sponsors of the translation, memri, would surely have hated)MX44 02:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Whatever ... There is more to the cartoons than some ink on paper. The Gulf area has been under western control since ... ehh, a hundred years or so? This is, to put it mildly, annoying to the inhabitants of the area. To portray Islam as the bringer of terrorism (even given Osama et al) sounds dischordant to people who are bombed on a daily basis by equipment made in the US of A as well as EU. It is in this context that the cartoons are viewed from the outside. MX44 03:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
We're talking about this[14] blockquote section in "Prohibition on Insulting Muhammad", or aren't we? Azate 11:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and the conspiracy theory do have its merits in a historical context that is unclear to westerners in general. Most certainly not to the culture editor of JP. It's a verbatim minefield he stepped into, closely related to the control of energy resources. If you like we can extend this notion to the riches of Sudan as well: Oil firm's exit: The first crack? MX44 12:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Apropos crack... Are you on drugs? Oil cmpanies exits from Sudan, Iran after WW II, and the founding of Israel will certainly not go into the section "Prohibition on Insulting Muhammad"! Azate 13:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Crack? No :-D The section to put it in may be different ...
One more from Sudan. The Red Hand of Lundin. Compare the initial quote from Amnesty:
  • There were reports from some villages, north and south of Bentiu, such as Guk and Rik, that soldiers slit the throats of children ...
to the words of Al-Shater to the Danish students:
  • They are destroying schools. They are destroying churches and mosques. They violate our honor. They rape women and slit open the stomachs of pregnant women.
This is a current ongoing war he is talking about, believed to be financed by western interrests. I am trying to set a different, more understandable stage where the strong reactions to the cartoons may not be that irrational at all. There is a political reality beyond chanting the hadith in the workings here as well. A reality where a bomb in the turban appears to those involved, as the opinion of an ignorant person who got it all turned on its head. MX44 13:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you want a section that points out the widespread perception that the JP-cartoons are part and parcel of an ongoing aggression by the West (and the jews) that it is all about oil and may have been going on since the post WW I - protectorates, or even Napoleon's Egypt-campaign, or the crusades. Fair enough. This is certainly a widely held, and easily defensible position, and coming up with good sources will be easy. The challenge is to keep it short - we can't rehash 100, or 500 years of historical context. Starting with the detail level of "Guk and Rik" and a speech of a student delegation is most certainly the wrong approach, as is putting that into the section "Prohibition on Insulting Muhammad".

How about that: This is what we've got, prensently:

Critics of the cartoons argue that they are culturally insulting, islamophobic, blasphemous, and intended to humiliate a marginalized Danish minority. Supporters of the cartoons claim they illustrate an important issue regarding self-censorship and their publication exercises the right of free speech. They also claim that similar cartoons about other religions are frequently printed, arguing that Islam and its followers have not been targeted in a discriminatory way.

Could become:

Critics of the cartoons argue that they areislamophobic, blasphemous, intended to humiliate a marginalized Danish minority, and are another episode in the history of western imperialism, from the crusades to the conflicts in the Middle East. Supporters of the cartoons claim they illustrate an important issue regarding self-censorship in the age of Islamic extremist terrorism and their publication exercises the right of free speech. They also claim that similar cartoons about other religions are frequently printed, arguing that Islam and its followers have not been targeted in a discriminatory way.

Azate 15:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

not good idea at all, unless you could provide reference for each adjective. -- tasc talkdeeds 16:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I didn't insert any adjective at all. You mean I should cite a reputable source that holds the view about Imperialism, crusades and ME conflict? I can't imagine that the attribution of this view to "critics" should even be controversial. This is such a long-established and widespread pattern of thinking and arguing that is hardly merits a source. It's about as controversial as saying: "Critics of France claim that they always surrender". Azate 16:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
If it such a widespread opinion, than citation will not be a problem. -- tasc talkdeeds 16:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
How about this one [15] or [16]Azate 17:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I like the Western Imperialism part. This puts some of the anti-american and anti-local-government slogans in perspective. I am not convinced that the crusades are the right starting point though. The sentence becomes overly broad, looses focus on the current situation. MX44 16:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Kill this section?

I propose to kill the section "Danish Imams under investigation", because there wasn't any legal followup ,and the stuff in in sufficient detail on the pages about Ahmed Akkari and Ahmad Abu Laban already. Azate 19:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

There was no followup because they were "only joking" ... Hey, this is the cartoons controversy, so that part is most pertinent! :-D
Mmmm ... it is kind of long though. If you manage to shorten it and keep the pun I wouldn't mind. For starters, drop the reference to the sillyness of the chief of PET perhaps?
MX44 01:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
It got a lot shorter now without loosing information. Shall we wait a day or two to see if somebody can come up with a more inspired flow? MX44 05:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
One missing bit: The Danish Peoples Party asked the Minister of Justice to interfere directly in this matter, who then downturned the request and again explained the running order of the juridical system.
One would have thought this to be known by MPs by now? MX44 10:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Possible vandalism by User:Wikipidian?

See [17] but more importantly the histories of Image:Pig_person.jpg and Image:Page-1-of-El-Fagr.org-egyptian-newspaper-Oct-17-2005.jpg. Sadly I have to go now (that's why this is so brief) -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 02:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

And I see User:Cyde has blocked the account so nevermind! -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 02:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

"Conflicting traditions" section --> "Opinions and issues" section

I reckon that a lot of people are unhappy about this section. I certainly am. As Anjoe, MX44, ViewfromNowhere and others said above, the section unduly narrows everything down to the "freespeech vs. aniconism+insulting Mohammed" angle. A valid one, to be sure, but is that the best we can do? There is the "Opinions" sub-page of course, but frankly, that page sucks. It's chaotic, hardly readable, and full of minor factlets. And it's not going to change much, because this page - the main article - is where the action is, and where the discussion is, not on the subpage. Proposals:

  • 1) Rename the "Conflicting traditions" section into something broader, like "Analysis of the conflict" or whatever, and broaden its content to match the title.
  • 2) shorten the present content (danish journalistic tradition, aniconistic tradition, insulting mohammad) further.
  • 3) Add more sections that deal with issues that are so far neglected, but keep them short. Find really first-class articles from reputable sources, to use them copiously as footnotes. Beforehand, they can be collected below (A already added two of my pet sources). Sections that I think are required may include:
    • a) Percieved racism/demonization of a minority in DK[18][19]
    • b) Percieved muhammad/islam/muslim-insulting content (already present)
    • c) Aniconism-tradition (already present)
    • d) Danish free-speech tradition (already present)
    • e) Free speach under threat/self-censorship problem (very, very short, since it's sufficiently covered)
    • f) Percieved threat of Islamization/radicalization in DK / failure of multiculturalism [20][21]
    • g) Gerneral being-pissed-of-ness about the meddling of the West in the Middle East / siege mentality
    • h) 'valve function' of the mass protests in the ME exploited by the regimes in the ME[22]
    • i) propaganda stunt by Islamists to further their causes in Eur. (concessions to sharia) and ME (regime change)
    • j) propaganda stunt by western conservatives to stem muslim immigration (DK) / make aggressive policies in the ME more viable [23][24]
    • k) "the-jews-did-it"-perception+ holocaust denial prohibition hypocrisy[25][26] (jp's "star of david":[27]
    • l) perception that this post-modern talk about "respect, tolerance and offense" is to blame[28][29]
    • m) perception the arab street's love for rumour and conspiracy theories (fueled by the absence of free press and the actual presence of a lot of conspiracy there) is to blame
    • n-)...???
  • 4) After this has been achived, dump the present sub-page "Opinions" (but mine it for good stuff beforehand) and replace it with the "Analysis of the conflict" section, which will probably be too long for the main page then. (or, ideally, it will not, and can stay on the main page)

Lately, way too much energy had to be expended to deal with all the reverting of image removal, and the arguments surrounding that. Now that a certain key proponent of that line has been banned, there may be some breathing space. Whaddayathink? Azate 12:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. ViewFromNowhere 16:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • This idea/plan appears well developed and logical and I agree with it as well. Netscott 16:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Having seen the new "Analysis of Conflict" section as now introduced by User:ViewFromNowhere, I have concerns regarding original research relative to that section heading. Hopefully I'm being redundant in the minds of my fellow editors but under no circumstances is this article to provide analysis but merely provide the previously researched analysis of verifiable and notable sources. Netscott 07:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • ViewFromNowhere's last edit does not make any sense. 1) To provide new headlines without changing the text is just confusing. 2) The headline "Perceived demonization of a Danish religious minority" does not go with a quote on how disrespectfull the cartoons was to Islam or muslims in general. Before, the section at least made sense. --Anjoe 12:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • And what is more, you don't have to be 'proponent' of the cartoons to argue free speech. You can disagree with the editor's decision to publish the cartoons, while on the other hand defending his right to do it. A proponent/opponent divide is oversimplifying things, which is excaltly what we wanted to avoid. I have deleted the headings and changed the "Perceived demonization..." heading. --Anjoe 13:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for fixing it. It makes more sense now. ViewFromNowhere 16:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • [ ... ]
    • n) Perceived threat of becoming an accidental victim of Muslim revenge. [30]

This n'th perception is a bit peculiar. At first it looks like Hirsi Ali was defeated by her neighbours ... But then what emerges, is that the judge was in effect justifying Islamophobia with the reasoning that "you are not really paranoid, if they really are out to get you!" MX44 08:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that a subset of (f)? Azate 17:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Justifying islamophobia by recognizing that people who claim to be islamic are actually out to get you, hmm, I don't see a problem there. Homestarmy 17:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"Islamism in Europe" and "Alleged campaign by Islamists"

These two sections seem to be related. Can they be collapsed into one topic? ViewFromNowhere 03:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer them not to, because the "islamism" section kind of 'balances' the "xenophobia" section, and the "campaign by islamists" balances the "campaign by the west" (and the "zionslt conspracy" the "involvement of ME governments"). Merge them, and somebody is bound to complain about bias and more sections blaming one or the other side. A more reasonable route of argument could be that "Islamism in Europe" is about policies, and "Islamism in Europe" about politics. Azate 03:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, can the political correctness and multiculturalism issues be collapsed under one heading? ViewFromNowhere 03:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no "Multiculturalism" header, only "Islam in Europe" deals with it. If you follow the links, I think one can see that they are dealing with different things. PC and multiculuralism usually share proponents, but not in this case.Azate 04:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The loong sentence in the 'Islamism and Xenophobia'-section (should be little 'x') doesn't make sense as it is now. I don't know what the intention is (Azate?) so I don't want to rearrange it myself, if you can sort it out. I am not sure that I specially like collapsing of the headings, - but on the other hand there were maybe too many. Anyway: Thanx for the good work Azate! Nice to see that someone still can keep their cool and balance. Please ignore the usual POV-groups drive-by-shootings (if you can). :-) Regards/--Anjoe 06:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

As a silent observer, I can only concur: Excellent, clear-headed and unbiased work, Azate. Varga Mila 07:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I cut the loong sentence in parts for the benefit of you loserly English speakers. Here in non-Anglophone Europe we like our sentences long! I don't know abot the heading collapse either. Maybe having "zionism" under the wing of the "west" will reduce accusations of antisemitism, that the isolated heading seems to provoke? ;-> Azate 07:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

"Alleged", "Perceived", or nothing?

It doesn't look accurate to have "Issues of the conflict" and then underneath it "Zionist conspiracy". It's more clutter, but I suggest:

  • 4.1 Danish journalistic tradition
  • 4.2 Perceived xenophobia in Denmark
  • 4.3 Perceived rise of Islamism in Europe
  • 4.4 Aniconistic Muslim traditions
  • 4.5 Associating Islam with terrorism
  • 4.6 Perceived campaign by the West against Islam
  • 4.7 Perceived campaign by Islamists
  • 4.8 Alleged Middle Eastern regimes' involvement
  • 4.9 Perceived Zionist conspiracy
  • 4.10 Perceived political correctness

ViewFromNowhere 03:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

What can I say? It's just clutter and weasel words. The context makes it quite clear that this is a subjective viw, and not carved in stone. By the same token, we could also rename
  • 4.4 Alleged Aniconistic Muslim traditions
  • 4.5 Alleged Associating Islam with terrorism

and so on... Azate

They are not weasel words. They are there to clarify any possible confusion. ViewFromNowhere 00:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Section "zionist conspiracy"

I think this article now has the dubious pleasure to be called not only "Islamophobic", but "Anti-semitic", too. For those who entertain the latter view: The section makes is quite clear that this is is widely-held opinion in the Middle East, and is copiously backed up by sources. I repeat that slowly: Saying that some claim that there is is jewish conspiracy is not the same thing as saying that there is a jewish conspiracy! Azate 04:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the cartoons. It is full of "citation needed" quotes and attributes and seems a little like a desperate attempt to add fuel to an already raging fire that really adds nothing of value to the article.

The criminalization of denial of the Holocaust in parts of Europe received renewed interest (among whom? when?)

Demonstrate "Jewish cunning?" All that's missing is the word "evil" from before the word Jewish.

An objective, less agenda-driven approach would be to state that this unsubstantiated "renewed interest" in criminalization of denial of the Holocaust has been thought by some to be hypocritical from a free speech standpoint.

Wikipedia isn't about spinning an agenda. The fact that one Iranian made a comment linking the cartoons to Zionism is hardly worthy of an entire Azate-created sub-header. It belongs in International Reactions along with the misguided reactions of all the other countries.

JasonWilson 04:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The "zionist conspiracy" has garnered major media attention in connection with the JP cartoon controversy, and has AT LENGTH been brought up here on the talk pages as witnessed by the Archives. It belongs here, as is is a major part of the controversy. THe "International reactions" subpage is predominantly about what governtments mostly uninvolved with all this business have said about it (Ireland condemned X, Indonesia condemned Y, etc.) Azate 04:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Please answer the questions. Or remove the sentences that are simply offensive, unsubstantiated and reflect badly on Wikipedia. What is a "Jewish lie"? JasonWilson 05:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The source was right there before you deleted it: "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's president, prompted international anger when he said the Holocaust was a 'myth' used to justify the creation of Israel." In circle sypathetic to this stance, it's called "Jewish lies". Azate 05:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
JasonWilson, these sorts [31] of edits are bad. You make generalizations where there was a clear distinction before, as witnessed by the footnotes, which you also deleted. Being opposed to the prohibition of holocaust denial, and calling the holocaust a myth are different things. A reasonable person can easily defent the first view without holding the second one.Azate 05:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The way you had written it implied that Wikipedia held that criminalization of holocaust denial led "many" to view it as evidence of hypocrisy related to free speech or evidence of Jewish lies/cunning etc. Your footnotes did not support that assertion at all. JasonWilson 06:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it: a) of course "many" view holocaust denial legislation as evidence of european hypocrisy related to free speech. I cited one or two major newspapers who raised that question. Could cite many,many more. b) of cause "many" are into zionist/jewish conspiracy stuff, and have been for quite some time. I linked one publication that dealt with the prevalence of the phenomenon in the egyptian press even before the cartoon controversy, and one about the Ahmediejad holocaust myth stuff. What else do you want? I think you just cry "Anitsemite!" because I used the words "Jew" and "lies" (or 'cunning' in a previous version) in one sentence, and didn't even bother to read the linked sources, judging from the speed of your deletions Azate 07:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh I bothered to read allright. The way it was written reeked of anti-semitism. Was it because of your use of phrases like "Jewish lies" or "Jewish cunning"? Perhaps, but the speed of the deletions reflected my strong desire to remove what looked like a barely veiled attack on an entire religion. As if, somehow, all Jews lie and think collectively. Imagine if I was to create a section Muslim Paranoia. See how ridiculous it sounds? JasonWilson 07:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it "reeked". I was extrapolating the sources. "jewish lies" is common parlance in circles that deal in zionist conspiracy stuff. You don't have to create a "Muslim paranoia" section. I've got one prepared already. You can then complain about it in due course. Azate 07:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
ViewFromNowhere, you can't first remove the footnoted source from a sentence and replace it with {{cite}}, and then com back an hour later to delete the sentence, because it has no source. Azate 04:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
If I did that, I apologize. I thought I had waited a lot longer. Still, sometimes phrases can never be sourced because they have no source. What's the policy on those cases? ViewFromNowhere 18:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Azate, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Holocaust Conference is not a campaign by the West or Zionists, it's a campaign by Islamists or Middle East regimes. Nothing was deleted, as you allege, but simply moved to a more appropriate location. JasonWilson 18:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

We could as well say it was designed to "expose" the zionist conspiracy. But it can reasonable go in either section Azate 01:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)