Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 3

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.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 3 article.
Article policies

Contents

Please, no more talk of "compromise"

There seems to be a lot of users who want to "compromise" on the issue of representing the images on the page. "Let’s move the image down", "let’s include a link". Neville Chamberlain was also in favour of compromise, but there are some things one simply doesn’t compromise about. Free speech is one of them. Certainly the image could be moved, but there is no earthly reason why it should be. On a page about an image, that image should be prominently displayed. If someone’s sensitivities are hurt by viewing any specific drawing, then we should respect that, but it is their own responsibility to avoid that happening. It certainly should not affect the rest of the world’s access to information.

Censorship is censorship, whether it consists in making information inaccessible or just less accessible. Wikipedia is about the opposite of both. Eixo 17:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox nor indiscriminate collection of information. You're not seriously proposing that any removal of information from Wikipedia is censorship. Zocky | picture popups 18:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
In this case, removal of the image is censorship. To have an article about a cartoon, but to not show the cartoon so people can make up their own minds about the issue, would be silly. --Alabamaboy 18:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, that's simply a bad argument. We also have articles about Da Vinci Code and Deep throat, but neither of those works is available at Wikipedia. Zocky | picture popups 18:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
No, its not. Those are full length copyrighted works, and cannot be posted in their entirety as that does not fall under fair use and they are not in the public domain.Kittynboi 18:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Removing "indiscriminate" information would not be censorship. Removing entirely relevant info (a picture of a cartoon, the very subject of the article) to honor someone's religious sensibilities is to place religion above the communication of information, and that's not Wikipedia's place. Again, would you support removing (or hiding below-the-fold) info on evolution or Hugo Chavez in order to protect the pieties of evengelicals and political conservatives? Babajobu 18:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not "info", it's a picture. I'm not at all expressing an opinion on whether this picture should be in this article, I'm just pointing out that "free speech" and "censorship" arguments are baseless. We should instead be talking about whether showing the picture in the article is NPOV. Zocky | picture popups 18:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
No one who was talking about compromise was talking about removing the image. Compromise was just better so as not to offend people but also show the cartoon at the same time. Obviously the same thing would happen if a cartoon or any other image was disrespectful towards Christianity, Judaism, communism etc. and some of the people here who are so blatantly "opposed to censorship" surely wouldn't be. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Please don't make the mistake of thinking that a substantial percentage of the people who want the image prominently displayed are doing so out of animosity towards Islam in particular. The cartoon is the very subject of the article, and not prominently displaying it is sheer lunacy. I would say the same thing about any image that is the subject of widespread controversy and media coverage, including ones that mock my own beliefs. Argyrios 20:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

One can argue that all religion is contradictory belief, but that's not the point here. This is an article about a controversy. One side thinks that pictures like these should sometimes be shown in media, the other thinks they should never be shown in media. Now, if we display the picture in the article, are we neutral? Zocky | picture popups 18:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless I've completely misunderstood the issue, this article is not solely about the image, but rather mostly about the controversy and outrage it sparked in the Islamic world (otherwise it would be enough to show Image:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings.jpg solely on its own). Please do not call suggestions for moving and rezising the image in the article censorship, as opposed to having it some other "ideal" way around. Scoo 18:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Anonymous Editor, in fact everyone arguing to keep the image at head of article seem to agree that articles should be censored for no religion. And Wikipedia has not censored itself for Christian or Jewish or Hindu sensibilities. See Piss Christ, where the pic has never been moved from head of article, even though it's Jesus suspended in urine. People are only saying that Islam should be treated in the same way as those other religions. Babajobu 18:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Who here said anything about removing the picture? We are talking about compromise. But just to answer you here, maybe something can be offensive in one religion but not in another? --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Babajobu, can you answer the other argument, that publishing pictures in an article about the controversy about whether these pictures should ever be published, is tantamount to Wikipedia taking the side of the side that says they should? Zocky | picture popups 18:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Can't you also say that not publishing it does the same thing for THAT view?Kittynboi 19:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Hehe, I made that really convoluted, but I trust you can decode it :) Zocky | picture popups 18:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Zocky, a compromise in the Evolution article would not mean treating equally the position that evolution is false, and creationism is true. Obscurantism is not a "position" with which an encyclopedia "compromises". Babajobu 18:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying this is exactly like the evolution issue? The evolution article talks about a different perspective and is a completely separate article than creationism. This is however one issue and its about a picture. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
anonym, this is not about 'a' picture, it's about 'the' picture. The article would not have been created, had these cartoons not been made and published. The image of the cartoons should of course be placed at the top, just as an image of Bill Gates has been placed at the top in the article about him. Surely, you would never suggest that his picture should be moved, would you? That information, whether in the form of text or images, may offend someone should not enter the equation when we discuss NPOV, especially if the text/image is the very SUBJECT of the information. As soon as you start discussion about whether something is offensive or not, you've moved from objective (or neutral) to subjective, and the knowledge or information you're trying to create/distribute cannot reflect reality.--Discus2000 19:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Well put. The null hypothesis for Wikipedia is inclusiveness. Removal should be based only on an objective basis. Here, the controversy created is solely a result of the subjective opinions of the reader. Any offense is the result of POV. Removal of the images out of respect for POV is an argument which knows no bounds. ----Snorklefish 16:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The analogy with evolution seems to be a good one. Many people (primarily in America) seem to think that giving equal time to evolution and creationism/intelligent design in classrooms is only fair. That letting both sides have their say is simply impartiality. I think most of us here agree that it is not, and neither is making an image less accessible to readers, to "compromise" with fundamentalists (or whatever term you would choose to use).

And by the way - in reference to the point many have tried to make - I can say for myself that there is not ONE thing - as a Christian or anything else - that I would object to having published on Wikipedia, as long as it accords with the applicable laws and Wikipedia policy.

Everybody with me here? Eixo 00:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


To be honest I'm in favour of keeping the pictures where they are as it seems the most logical/sensible place for them to be. However, as long as they are in there *somewhere*, to be honest i'm not massively bothered about where, as the stir about the pictures is more important than the pictures themselves and the constant edit war about their positioning is making it more difficult for the article to improve. So against my better judgement, I'd go with moving them if only to get past this issue and on to the main point of the article - to cover the situation in as NPOV a manner as possible. --Black Butterfly 16:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The picture needs to be on the front page of the article, at the top of it, exactly where it is right now. "Blah blah blah, it offends my beliefs" is not a reason to take it down. It is an informative image which is entirely relevant to the article. It isn't like the Darwin Fish on the evolution page; this is what the article is ABOUT. Thus, the image should be displayed. It doesn't matter that several Islamic countries are complaining about it; we have depictions of Muhammad in various spots in Wikipedia because they are informative. Wikipedia is about information, and displaying such things is information. The position of Wikipedia is to present the world in a neutral voice, not to be politically correct or to censor ourselves. It is the purpose of Wikipedia to inform, and not having the image up is to not inform. Titanium Dragon 19:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Source on the latest bomb-threat evacuation?

I see someone added that Jyllands-Posten was evacuated today again, can anyone confirm this with a source? I'll do it myself in the evening since I watch the TV news, and surely it's in there if it happened. I personally live a few miles from the JP HQ and I haven't heard anything yet though. --Sheeo 19:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

yup, here it is: http://www.jp.dk/indland/artikel:aid=3532030 --Discus2000 19:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Minor editorial quibbles

Can we have the adjective for natives of Chechnya ("Chechen", not "Chechenian") corrected by whichever powers-that-be have disabled edits on this page? The mistake is right at the bottom of the Timeline section, Feb 1st subsection. Polocrunch 19:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This has just become too stupid

Come on people- we have turned a little artical about a Social-Political debate into a madhouse with vandalism in the article and pressure on Wikipedia from muslims who dont want this to be talked about.

What is all the fuss about over a couple pictures of Mohammed? I know all about the Islamic beliefs that Mohammed's face cannot be shown, and I know that the pictures can be taken as negative by muslims, BUT COME ON PEOPLE- IT IS JUST A FEW SATIRACAL COMICS FEATURING A HISTORICAL PERSON!

For you it may be "just a historical person", for 1 billion muslims it isn't!

Wikipedia is not handing out any opinions on the pictures, just the cold, hard facts. I dont give a crap about freedom of speech here, or hate crimes- this is not about whether or not those pictures are derogatory to some people. This is about bringing readers of Wikipedia the facts on a current event. Nothing else. (Caesar89 19:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC))

I agree; this whole debate is plain silly. 204.52.215.107 21:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the comic strip should be in a link form not in a image and the reason for that is becuase I think people eventually have right to at that, but some people eventually don't even want to have a peek at it. Put this picture in the link would make sure people feel comfortable about, nothing deal with cencoeship, it just like a PG13 thing because this news IS case sensitive. That also state the seriousness of this case. Show this picture is somehow like speading the idea around. 142.161.94.69 01:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that most people who "don't even want to have a peek at it" are either unwilling or unable to come to Wikipedia at all. Wikipedia contains far too many articles that contain information that is considered insulting, slanderous, blasphemous, or otherwise dangerous to too many censorship regimes (be it the Great Firewall or NetNanny) for those regimes to allow or condone easy access to the wikipedia.org domain at all, especially because of its dynamic, unmoderated and unpredictable nature. Therefore, it is very difficult for me to see anybody in this discussion who claims to be a devout Muslim as anything but some sort of internet troll: either a non-Muslim claiming to be one to amuse themselves, or a person who really does consider themselves to be a true believer but came to this page for the express purpose of finding something to be offended by and complain about (think "Baptist flipping through Playboy"). --Guppy313 05:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I have to say this comment is rather off the mark. Wikipedia is lucky to have a lot of fantastic Muslim editors.--Pharos 05:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Have any of them participated in this discussion? I've browsed most of this discussion and the only posts I've seen from people against posting the picture in the article itself have either referred to Muslims in the third person, are unsigned, or Qatarson (who is setting off my Troll-O-Meter big time). A generally rational person who does not want to see the pictures would not come to this article (or, at the very least, come here only after turning off images in their browser); it can be "edited by anyone" and even if there is some sort of consensus to make the pictures click-through, there will always be internet vandals posting it back onto the main article. --Guppy313 06:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I only care baout the event, not the comic strip. I always come here to read any controversy stuff, but sometimes I would like to burn my eye to seeing the picture that is without my own will. I am not a Muslim (I dont have any religion so far), but I insanely hate people who bash Muslim (or other religion) even without thinking why. It already not right to insult a Prophet in a public then post it around the world, it is just like have a tape of a gang rape (or other violation), you know it about that, but you still put it on the site for like edvidence. Who would like that?!66.225.141.5 18:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Me? See, here's the thing: freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Everyone has the right to their opinion, and as religion is entirely a beast of opinion, people have the right to portray it however they want. It is totally alright to insult a "prophet". 100%. I know I do it all the time, as does everyone else on the face of the planet Earth, including Muslims (indeed, I would go so far as to say especially Muslims). A gang rape would be totally different, because that is about someone's right to privacy. Of course, if they were dead, I think that it'd be alright to display it. I bash religion, and with good reason. But this isn't the place to be bashing religion, this is the place to inform. And this article does just that; I found it very informative. Titanium Dragon 19:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Muhammed main article

Featuring the cartoons prominently is (inevitably going to be perceived as) a provocation

... and will inevitably be perceived as a conscious attempt to piss people off. There is nothing about being an encyclopedia that mandates that we try to piss people (or countries) off. We wouldn't run an image of a classified document, for instance, or run pictures of people as they step out of the shower at the local gym, blissfully ignorant of the presence of a cell phone with a camera function.

  • Just to recap the point someone else made: Did you notice how Oral sex does not feature images of this sexual activity in the top half of the article?
  • Does that decision mean the Puritans are running WP? I don't think so. It means someone made an editorial call somewhere along the line that a photographic image of this activity was not in the best interests of the article or the encyclopedia.
  • And here's another example: For what is Sharon Tate famous? Primarily as a victim of the Manson family killing spree, right. Does that mean that this picture belongs at the top of her article? Well, no. And if an editor insisted on including that picture at the top of the article, I would hope that someone would realize that the trauma and pain and disgust associated with placing it there outweiged any arguments about its "relevance" to the piece.
  • 'Are such editorial decisions a subversion of the integrity of WP? No. They are recognitions of the reality that certain images attract more negative attention and revulsion than their prominent inclusion justifies.
  • What people are failing to take into account here is that about one-fifth of the planet considers this cartoon image not merely offensive, but criminal. Is it possible we could serve this subject justice without tweaking their noses? Sure it is. Let's move the image down. BYT 20:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
"Just to recap the point someone else made: Did you notice how Oral sex does not feature images of this sexual activity in the top half of the article?"
In fact this one does: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oralverkehr -- 129.13.186.1 21:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
You yourself referred to Piss Christ in you edit summary on Muhammad. There the image is also prominently featured. Featuring this image is in no way an attempt to piss people off. It has however been established by consensus that this image deserves to be prominently featured on the article. Regarding your Sharon Tate comment, I would agree that having this image on the top of the Muhammad page would be inappropriate. However, this article is about these comics, so it's a totally different situation. Jacoplane 20:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Lets not and say we didn't. Displaying a classified document is different since that would be illegal under U.S. law, and Wikipedia is hosted in the U.S. Similarly, taking a candind photo of someone stepping out of the shower would create similar, real legal problems. Wikipedia does not exist to anger people, but it should not refrain from posting things just because they will anger someone. As for the oral sex comparison, and the sharon tate comaprison, those don't work exactly. Oral sex is a general practice and th aarticle is about that in general. The sharon tate article is about Tate in general. If it were about the tate murders, then you could easily make an argument for including the pic. However, in both your examples, oral sex and sharon tate, those are general things. This article is not about a general issue of depciting Mohammed. Its about a SPECIFIC image/set of images that do so, and therefore are not only relevant but central to the article. Just because some people CONSIDER it criminal does not mean it IS criminal, and it is not criminal in any meaningful sense in the nation that wikipedia is hosted in. Further, there are surely many things on wikipedia that some nation or another would find criminal, but we don't take those down either. Nor should we.Kittynboi 20:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not here be supportive of muslims are anyone else. It is here to provide the cold, hard facts. And to be honest, those images of Mohammed are central to the issue discussed in the article (wheras tthe Sharon Tate photo is just central to her death, not her entire biography). Keep the pics where they are and let people judge by the name of the article whether they want to view the pics or not ('Mohammed Cartoons' seems to suggest that there may be cartoons of Mohammed in the article).

It is not the job of Wikipedia to cater to any social or cultural group. If that was the case then we should get rid of pictures like Piss Christ. (Caesar89 20:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC))

Considering the very _existence_ of these cartoons is what is really encouraging this wave of fanaticism, I don't see any reason to debate moving the images up or down on the page. There will be "controversy" from some quarters until these cartoons are destroyed or removed from the world entire. Why compromise with that mindset? Leave the cartoons as a clickable image on the top-right of the page.
Furthermore, your comparison with Sharon Tate is meaningless; if this was a debate about the article on Muhammed, then it would be a comparible situation. However, we're talking about an article that is specifically about the cartoons in question -- the only comparison would be an article specifically about Sharon Tate's murder, in which case, yes a picture of her autopsy would be appropriate to the article in question on the top of the page.
As for the fact that a large amount of people are annoyed by these images -- tough. That's what free speech was made for: to support unpopular or controversial speech in the face of public "outcry". If Wikipedia doesn't stand with free speech and access to information, no matter how "politically controversial", than what purpose does it really serve at all? Sol. v. Oranje 20:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not at all sure we've got consensus for prominent inclusion of this image. Lots of shouting, though. BYT 20:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
There isn't consensus for anything right now.Kittynboi 21:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the points made above with the Bahai article example. Moving the image down would not make it "less accessible", and would not be censorship -- just a style thing. It would definitely make the article less offensive to some. If you think that this reason alone makes it into censorship, I think you're just suggesting that we act out of spite, rather than be more neutral, and that we become more a tabloid than an encyclopaedia. Just my personal opinion, of course. --BACbKA 20:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC) P.S. I could easier accept an "in your face" placement of the image in a wikinews article (however, this would make wikinews just a bit more sentationalist and a bit less rational in the eyes of a lot of readers, IMHO). In the main English WP space --- even more wrong. --BACbKA 20:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think moving the cartoon down would achieve anything. A great many people consider the very existence of the cartoon to be unacceptable, on a par with murder or rape (don't forget that denigration of Muhammad is a capital offence in many Islamic countries). How exactly does not having it at the top of the article limit the offence, if the cause of complaint is the very existence of the cartoon? -- ChrisO 21:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
ChrisO, that's a reasonable theory, but the limited experimental evidence we have is that moving the pic down made the erasures stop. The people who insisted on rv'ing the move were the "enlightened" side. IMO there is no way to keep it at the top without either dealing with endless revert wars or else locking the page (or section, if that's possible). Either one of those would be a disruption and therefore invokes WP:POINT. 71.141.251.153 22:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Fewer vandals would see it. BYT 21:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, which is why any debate about moving the cartoons up or down the page is silly and myopically misses the larger debate about letting the cartoons remain or succumbing to censorship. Talk of "compromise" shows a lack of understanding of the larger seriousness of this brouhaha. Sol. v. Oranje 21:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


"Censorship is fighting talk"

Censorship is fighting talk. Neither I nor AE are advocating censorship. Please read the posts. BYT 21:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
By suggesting that the image be moved, you are indeed advocating censorship by dint of putting the image/information under discussion in a less prominent place. In fact, what you're really doing is salami tactics of eventually removing the image entire by shunting it off into further obscurity.
Furthermore, may I suggest you refrain from moving the image under discussion from the top of the article's page -- there is _NO_ consensus whatsoever that the image should be moved from the top of the page; please stop changing the article to suit your own personal agenda. Sol. v. Oranje 22:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


  • With all respect, Sol, the only rough consensus that has emerged (among, um, actual editors) is that the images are germane to the article and deserve to be included.
  • There is no consensus whatoseover for placing the cartoons at the top of the piece -- to the contrary, this is the very point that is hotly disputed.
  • I don't get the "tactics" reference about my intent here, but if you check my posts about the recent (analogous) controversy at Qur'an, you'll see that I advocated retaining the controversial and potentially offensive image there, just as I am advocating retaining the controversial and defiantly offensive image here. Not sure that salami business adds up to assuming good intent. BYT 22:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
"Salami tactics" refers to the manner in which oppression is enforced through small baby steps; it may be more widely known as "the slippery slope", in which what starts out as a free situation is slowly turned into a despotic one through incremental restrictions ultimately ending in total oppression. By moving the image down the page, in my view, is to move the image closer to obscurity and ultimately destruction. It is in this spirit that I maintain it should remain at the top of the page, especially considering the article is itself about said cartoons. That's the reason why I haven't edited the article myself -- and also because I don't think there is consensus to change the article in the first place; I wait until agreement is had before making edits.
It's great that you've argued for including "offensive" imagery in the Qu'ran article; but was the image at question in that article the leading first image, or one farther down the page? Sol. v. Oranje 22:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
IMHO, the cartoons MUST stay. It's important for people who are trying to understand the situation to actually see the cartoons that started the fracas in the first place. Would you understand the Bill of Rights as much if you weren't allowed to see a text of it and therefore forced to rely on someone else's (possibly biased) description of it? It is NOT the same as oral sex as one can get a fairly good description of oral sex without having to see a picture of it. Pat Payne 21:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Who's saying the cartoons shouldn't stay? I'm saying move them down "below the fold" so we piss fewer people off, and have less cleanup work to do. We would be following precisely the same editorial example as Oral sex. BYT 21:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Below WHAT fold? There is no "fold" as has been pointed out, and at certain resolutions, it will show up even if its moved down because those reoslutions will show more of that page. There is no clear, distinct safe space where no one who will be offended will see it.Kittynboi 21:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It was a joke, Kitty. Relax. I know there's not a fold. BYT 22:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
How exactly will it "piss fewer people off" if the problem is the very existence of the cartoon in the first place? -- ChrisO 22:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I vote for putting the pictures a little bit down, as it really doesn't hurt anyone to scroll the wheel 3 lines to see them, and I believe people can live with taht "hassle" in trade for a little bit of respect. (Cloud02 22:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC))

lets stay rational and polite.

I would like to make three points/suggestions/rambling incoherent thoughts 1) Is Wikipedia a universal free encyclopedia for all thw world, or is it just for Westerners with laic western sensibilities? Keep the pictures ofcouse but put them below the fold. Having them up their when you open the page is a bit unnerving for Muslims. And I thought we Muslims are a part of Wikipdia too. Just swtich it with another picture that we have in the article. I mean its the polite thing to do. 2) Growing up in the UK and Italy and the US I have often faced anti-muslim prejudice (not in the US, Go US) but in the other two countries nasty pamphlets and graffiti were not uncommon in my place of worship. For European Muslims this isn't just a picture of a historical personage. That man with a bomb in his turban is upsetting in the way a man in black face is upsetting to an African America. Its not just an actor with paint on his face. Its a sign of hatred. I mean I really couldn't care less now but a couple of years ago looking at that would have been like a punch in the stomache. 3) And I agree the Danish Newspaper had the right to publish the photos. And crazy Middle Easterners have the right to boycott Danish cheese, just as neo-cons have the right to boycott ummmm oil (what else does the Mid-East export? I mean its all silly, but as long as no one is violent or destructive, right? Ahassan05 20:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)ahassan05

Wikipedia is FOR anyone who wants it, but it is made and hosted in a western nation, and will reflect that. Most of the people that edit the english language version of Wikipedia are from the West, primarily England, Canada, and the U.S. So western sensibilities are unavoidable, Further, it cannot please everyone. Nothing can. As many have pointed out, Wikipedia is not here to cater to Muslims. Just because its unnerving to Muslims is not reason to change the article. Many things on wikipedia may be unnerving to some, but thats just reality. Even if one of the images is a sign of hatred, comparable to a person in blackface, its still the subject of the article. I have no objection to it here, and I would have no objection to a photo of someone in blackface in an article about that.Kittynboi 21:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not "made" in one western nation. It is made throughout the world. It is hosted in Amsterdam, Florida, Seoul, and other locations. Jacoplane 21:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
However, its primary users, at least for the english language version, are from english speaking nations in the west.Kittynboi 21:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
What's a primary user? Does that make me a secondary user? Jacoplane 21:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Let's just take out the cartoon from the article, and put an external link to it. This is just being responsible and sensitive to the world-wide readership of wikipedia. It is also being pragmatic, so that the editing can focus on the facts and aftermath rather than wasting time arguing about the image placement. In my part of the world (southeast asia) no responsible person, regardless of their religion, will display the cartoon. And there are many editors and readers of wikipedia from this region. --Vsion (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
In your part of the world, no person regardless of their religion will display the cartoon OUT OF FEAR FOR THEIR LIVES Hellznrg 21:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
No, it is because we understand the sensitivity better, as most people have many Muslims friends, classmates and colleagues. Please study the history, lots of nasty things had happened in Europe not too long ago. Let's not repeat similar mistakes. --Vsion (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Just because it's insensitive does not mean the information should not be avialable. The same goes for the image. Do you think that it should not be available because it offends people?Kittynboi 22:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The goal of a source of information is to provide information, no matter how unnerving or offensive that information is. Further, in other parts of the world, it would be displayed. Why should all of wikipedia conform to what people would do in your part of the world?Kittynboi 21:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
And in my part of the world (Europe) newspapers all over the continent print thoose images. They are at the very heart of this story, and deserve the most prominent position. Remember, Wikipedia is not about not hurting peoples feelings; It's about showing the facts as objective as possible, and to stove this image away is to misrepresent the actual case out of fear for hurting other peoples feelings. It's simply natural that this image is at the top of this article.

The.valiant.paladin 21:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


Thank you. I don't see why all these arguments about sensitivity are being take so seriously.Kittynboi 21:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a _global_ source of information and is not beholden to Southeast Asian restrictions. It is meant to display the widest possible amount of information from across time and experience. The cartoons must remain to allow readers to decide for themselves what the cartoons mean and whether they are blasphemy/insult or legitimate satire. It is Southeast Asia's loss that local media publishers refuse to allow the discussion to even take place by restricting access to the cartoons. Sol. v. Oranje 21:27, 1 Febru0ary 2006 (UTC)
But does this mean Wikipedia has a "Western" sensibility? Thats what some seem to be implying. People seem to think that a global sensibility means nothing more than striving not to offend anyone anywhere. Thats not what this is about. And I think it important to remind people that Wikipedia, regardless of where other hosts are, did originate in the U.S. and its stance of legal issues will be largely affected by this, which means there is no obligation to remove the images.Kittynboi 21:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it means that Wikipedia -- as a global source of information beholden to Floridian/US laws regarding content -- has a mandate to incorporate as much of the global experience of knowledge as possible. In this sense, Wikipedia is perhaps creating a new transcultural sensibility of access to everything, no matter what one culture or another says about its offensiveness. The only restriction would be what is actually illegal to host under Florida/US law; however, if that ever becomes a serious problem in terms of censorship, then Wikipedia would move servers to a new country/state in order to continue its goal of providing the most information possible, inclusive of all controversial material. It may be currently dominated by "Western" writers and editors, but I do think we are moving toward a new form of Info-civilization that transcends old definitions of "West", "East", Old World and New. Sol. v. Oranje 21:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
But what is a trans"cultural" sensibility? It seems, from the words of some on here, that adhering to a global sensibility means nothing more than making a list of things considered offensive and avoiding them out of "respect". Is there more to global sensibility than just not offending people? I dislike this global sensibility idea because this discussion seems to be an indicator that the outcome would be a supression of information and knowledge based on "cultural" taboos.Kittynboi 21:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, in my view this global "transcultural" sensibility would seek to _not_ avoid topics just because one group or another found offense; one could also say it's a "universalist" approach in that it would seek to replicate information of all that exists, including controversial topics on the very basis that users who are not members of a culture that finds certain information offensive are free to upload whatever info they have on the subject with the purpose of perhaps enlightening all. Keep in mind that in no way am I suggesting that Wikipedia bow down to local "taboos"; in fact, it is in that specific spirit that I feel that grounding Wikipedia in a purely "Western" mindset would do nothing more but localize Wikipedia with its own set of Western taboos. By making it transcultural, we might be able to have the full breadth of human knowledge from all cultures. Sol. v. Oranje 21:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The problem is, it seems so many people, in this case especially, think that including the perspectives of other nations includes subjecting wikipedia to their own taboos.Kittynboi 22:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, then those people have a problem understanding that their own local taboos have no place in a transcultural information database. Because Wikipedia is of the world means inherently that it is going to include information on local taboos simply because other residents of Earth have no such problems discussing what is restricted by that one group. Sol. v. Oranje 22:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, its undeniable that some people want that. Just reading this discussion, its clear that some people here think wikipedia should be, to some degree or another, subject to Muslim taboos.Kittynboi 22:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The purpose of this article is to inform the reader about the cartoons. It is obvious and proper to head an article which is about an image, with a representation of that image. That's what we do, for instance, with the Mona Lisa and the Winged Victory of Samothrace and a thousand other articles about works of art. The actual image itself is central to the story. It's not a mere detail to be tucked away in some subheading. It's the whole point. To put the image anywhere else (or to get rid of it entirely) is to say; let's make the article less useful and less well written so we don't offend people who oppose freedom of speech. Furthermore, it's a waste of time. There is no "below the fold" on a web browser; you don't know what resolution or font size people ar browsing at. Thparkth 21:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
You know, I think Ahassan makes a good argument. There's no real reason why the cartoon has to be at the top of the article; the boycott photo could fit there just as well. To me, simple respect and politeness is a legitimate issue, and as long as the image isn't censored I have no problem with it being in some slightly less conspicuous position. We shouldn't be off-putting to our traditional Muslim readers and editors if it can be reasonably avoided.--Pharos 21:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
No, the boycott picture could not fit there just as well, because this article is not about the boycott. There's already an article about that. I still fail to see why wikipedia should go out of the way to not offend. The primary purpose is to make the information and material available, regardless of who it offends. IT's very ironic that anyone suggests this sort of thing, as the drawings were drawn BECAUSE of a debate in Denmark on the issue of self censorship. I find it troubling that the response of a website that seeks to provide free, easy to access information for all is itself being subjected to calls for similar self censorship. And no amount of semantics or linguistic acrobatics are going to remove the element of censorship. This is about censorship, regardless of what anyone says.Kittynboi 21:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I have read this entire page and must say that you, Kittynboi, are wrong. Does a book about a murder have to have a photo of the corpse on the front of the book? No. Do the authors censor themselves if they decide to put the photo on page 103? No. If there's a choice between communicating information in a way to be offensive or not, we choose the latter. We're still communicating the information. You have made it clear that you're taking your extreme position because you are offended by the implications of co-existing with aniconists, and at this point you're fighting for that, not really for where the photo should go. And I think your "best to rub it in their faces for spite" comment means you should immediately disqualify yourself from this discussion. Tempshill 21:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I find the idea of coexisting with anaxonists very troubling because its clear that they seek to dictate what I and others who do not share their beliefs can and cannot see. If you want me disqualified for discussion, then request that a moderator ban me.Kittynboi 22:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Tempshill, that doesn't make sense. Please find one significant article on Wikipedia about an artwork that doesn't have an image of that artwork, then we can talk. Thparkth 22:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Considering it's the aniconists who are the ones advocating censorship, I'd say they are the ones with an extreme position and who are intolerant to the rights that non-aniconists have to view whatever image they want. You're taking "offense" is nothing more than code words for trying to shut down discussion and debate, best exemplified by your advocating that Kittynboi "disqualify [himself] from this discussion". Sol. v. Oranje 22:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it is likely that this article may be doomed until the contraversy dies down some. Objective voices are going to easily drowned out by the massive agendas being thrown around here.--M4bwav 22:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
What qualifies as an agenda though? Many think the image should stay as that is in the spirit and intent of what wikipedia is supposed to be.Kittynboi 22:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

South Jutland

I think the translation of the cartoon with the "South Jutland" bit needs work. While the explanation of what South Jutland means is fine, the lead-up doesn't really seem correct. "Calm down, friends, all being said it is just a drawing made by an infidel South Jute".... this seems wrong to me. I've seen another source translate it as: "Relax folks it is just a sketch made by a Dane from the south-west Denmark." I suggest something along the lines of "Relax guys, it's just a sketch made by someone from South Jutland." and then a mention made of the "middle of nowhere" nature of SJ. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

A "Sønderjyde" is translated as "Southern Jutlander". "Sønderjylland" is "Southern Jutland".--Discus2000 21:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it'd have to be a loose translation literally to capture the spirit of the phrase. As for "Southern Jutlander" vs. "someone from Southern Jutland"... I don't think it matters much. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
agree, it doesn't really matter... To capture the spirit (I'm Danish), I'd go with something like "Relax guys, it's just a sketch made by some obscure Dane!" --Discus2000 21:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I changed the article... kept the bit about South Jutland so we can explain about the expression. Change it if it's no good. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The original text reads "Rolig, venner, når alt kommer til alt er det jo bare en tegning lavet af en vantro sønderjyde" - directly translated into "Calm, friends, when all comes to all it is just a drawing made by an infidel Southjute". While a workaround for a local Danish term is fine for me, I don't understand the omission of the word infidel. It should be: "Relax guys, it's just a drawing made by some infidel South Jutlander". Poulsen 22:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Correction made in article. I was suffering from an inability to speak Danish, so I didn't know that the word "infidel" was part of the literal text. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
As a Norwegian, I think the best translation would be "Relax guys, after all it's just a drawing by a unbelieving Dane." The "after all" should not be let out. "Southern Jutlander" looses all meaning when translated into English. Since Denmark is so small in global terms, I think just "Dane" fully captures the correct meaning and casual tone. Also, I think "unbeliever" is better than "infidel". That should be decided by an English speaker, but "infidel" seems to have strong negative connotations, but the original Danish text seems ironic with an extremely casual tone.

Islamic art and NPoV

I have issues with the section entitled "Islamic Art" from the Neutral Point of View perspective. The issue isn't Islamic art - the issue is aniconism, and Islamic art seems to me to be a western point-of-view argument against the Islamic aniconistic tradition. Also, I can think of at least one good reason why the Islamic world hasn't objected to historical depictions of Mohammed - as far as I can see, most of those depictions have been respectful, or highly respectful, towards Mohammed, thereby making it easy for the Islamic world to respect the tradition of religious iconography and/or free speech that generate the image in the first place.

Technically speaking, I believe that the second command means that Christianity is also supposed to be aniconistic, and indeed there have been iconoclastic periods in Christian history. Chrisobyrne 22:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this isn't a case of Islamic art but only Aniconism, and iconoclams (Cloud02 22:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC))
I think that if the issue is whether or not Mohammed should be depicted at all, and controversies over depictions of him, then including information about past depictions is relevent.Kittynboi 22:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes - so that, for instance, readers can compare and contrast the (mostly) respectful images of the past with the current offerings. Chrisobyrne 23:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The second commandment specifically refers to the creation of idols of anything, be it in heaven or earth. A drawing really isn't much of an idol unless you like go all out on decorating it with like plantinum or something and setting up an altar and stuff, i've made many sketches of things for geometry class, and it hardly seems reasonable that me drawing a bunch of triangles and squares is idol-creating. God then tells us that we shall not bow down to worship idols. These drawings are neither idols, nor are they being bowed down to...I hope, that would be wrong and kind of creepy. Homestarmy 01:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I find it sad to see such an extreme amount of vandalism being done on the article. And this doesn't just go for the "islamic fundamentalist" but for others as well, since there have been anti-islam vandalism as well. (Cloud02 22:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC))

free speech and tact

There is no contradiction between free speech and tact. Thats all I'm asking for tact. Don't rub it in people's face. I understand you think we religious people are silly, and we probably are. But why can't this article disseminate its message and respect the people for whom this image is hurtful?

And this is not just an artwork. For many people this is a racist caricature. Compare it to a burning cross not the Venus de Milo, or a minstrel show instead of a piece of theatre. You need to understand that this is hurtful, its like a punch in the stomache. I mean are 19th century caricatures of the blood libel art? Give me a break. Its not about anti-iconism or whatever the term is. All Muslims as terrorists is the racist image thats acceptable in this age. It took so long for Westerners to stop printing Sambos, Chinamen, and Shylocks in newsapers, I guess we'll have a couple of decades to wait. Ahassan05 22:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)ahassan05

sorry that you feel that way, ahassan05... but whatever you say, this cannot be an act racism - as far as I know, muslims are not a race. And while you continue to argue that the cartoons should not be there (for whatever reason you may have to say so), a lot of others will argue that it is their right as human beings (regardless of race, religion, belief, cultural (in)sensitivity, cross-eyedness or whatever label you may choose) to have unrestricted access to that information. In that sense, removing/moving the picture can, IMHO, only be seen as censorship, which (again, IMHO) is a lot worse than being subjected to cultural or religious insensitivity. You can choose not to view the information, but if the information is not available at all, I cannot choose to view it, i.e. you have a choice, I don't.--Discus2000 22:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Considering the Middle Eastern press often prints racist and anti-Semitic images in their own press, it seems inane to single out the "West" as the only instigators of intra-cultural tension. It seems we'll have a couple more decades to wait before _every_ culture grows up. Sol. v. Oranje 22:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Anyone who thinks this article is a racist caricature is simply wrong. Thparkth 22:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
When MiddleEastern newspapers print anti-semetic tripe the educated are revolted. Here it seems the educated are defending the racist tract. And the prophet with a bomb, and the prophet oppressing women is offensive to Muslims. It doesn't matter what you think. Its whats percieved by hundreds of thousands of Muslims. Ahassan05 22:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)ahassan05
I may be revolted, but that does not mean I think it should be censored or hidden away. If something offends me, I respond by arguing against it, by stating my views on it. Not by trying to censor it or make it less readily available.Kittynboi 22:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
^--what he said (Cloud02 22:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC))
I think you're confusing people advocating the inclusion of the cartoons with advocating their content; I do not think that is what's going on here. The inclusion of the cartoons, however hurtful, is necessary because it is fundamental to understanding the controversy in the first place -- and this is the same opinion I would have if there was a global controversy over the publication of anti-Semitic cartoons in the Middle Eastern press (and, funny, but I don't recall seeing so much uproar about those...), or if this controversy was about the "anti-Christian" Piss Christ, etc. Sol. v. Oranje 22:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)



To Thparkth:

You're not seriously suggesting that the cartoon isn't based on caricature?

Look, would we illustrate the ethnic slur Coon with [this image]? Of course not. Why not? Because it's hate speech. But this cartoon isn't hate speech because ... (Silence, crickets chirping).

We could illustrate the phrase "Jump Jim Crow" with a contemporary caricature of a white man blacked up for comedy purposes. Some people would find that highly offensive hate speech. But we could say it was necessary illustration for the article, and that the fact that we SHOW something doesn't mean we ADVOCATE something. Oh look, we did. Thparkth 22:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps because the word "coon" is not specifically linked with that image. But this is not an article about a racsit slur or caricature, its about the drawings themselves, and therefore we illustrate the page about the drawings with an image of the drawings.Kittynboi 22:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
And furthermore, not all the cartoons could even veer close to hate speech -- what, a cartoon about a Persian boy writing on a blackboard is hate speech? How about the one of the Danish editor symbolically representing "PR Stunt", or the one showing Mohammed in the desert or with a simply symbological merging of the crescent and star with his face? That's "Hate speech"? Get over your over sensitivity. Sol. v. Oranje 07:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

So fine, it's a major media event. Use it on the page. Just don't lead with it. Give people a chance to get some context before you whack them over the head with this. BYT 22:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

BYT: you need to read what I wrote a bit more closely. Thparkth 22:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we have freedom of speech, put no, freedom of speech doesn't include bashing other people's religion. And a purpose of a newspaper is tell the truth, but not include speading some random people's hatred.

This is making us all look like a bunch of 3 year olds

My idea was to put the pictures lower down in the article so that Muslims know that they are there and they can choose whether or not to see them. Slamdac

Hear, hear. BYT 22:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
That proposal has been discussed again and again above. There is still no consensus on it.Kittynboi 22:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
And the consensus for using the image to lead the article exists in that ... ? BYT 22:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
There is no consensus on using it to lead the article. There's no consensus on anything.Kittynboi 22:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
There doesn't need to be a consensus to put it at the top, because that's the normal thing to do. It's even the policy thing to do. If this was any other picture, nobody would say it shouldn't be at the top. Thparkth 22:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The article is about the image. The image should be obvious and prominent and no argument for "sensitivity" towards any group of people should be made. If we start being PC to one group of people, we have to start being PC to all of them to be fair. If offended Muslims want a muslim-friendly wikipedia, then someone should start one. Wikipedia is meant to be fair and free to all.Hitokirishinji 22:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed that it's SOP for images to be placed at the top of the article, and that it would require a "new" consensus to move them somewhere else in the article. Is there any particular reason why the call for a vote was denied? That might be one way to figure this out. Sol. v. Oranje 22:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I actually think we should make an effort to not offend. There is nothing "unfair" about say, using the boycott image at top and moving the cartoon down. We're an encyclopedia; it's our primary job to be informative, not provocative. As long as the image is not actually removed from the article, nothing is being lost as regards educational content. Simple courtesy is not censorship.--Pharos 23:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Fairness or not, theres no reason to put the boycott image at the top because the article is not about the boycott. Sometimes simply being informative IS being provocative.Kittynboi 23:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with being purposefully offensive. As someone else said, normal protocol says the images go on the top. We should not treat this any different because it "offends" a group of people. What I find all images in any shape size or form offensive? If we're going to move this one "down" we should move ALL images in every article down. The day wikipedia turns PC and starts to be "courteous" to appease people, then our mission of free information will have already been lost. Do you have any idea how many people would consider it "courteous" to remove the image in the anus section? Perhaps more than we would like. Hitokirishinji 23:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It can't go on like this. It's going to start world war 3. slamdac

The cartoons should be on the site. But not at the top. Prehaps in a tubnail sized box which you can click on to expand. This edit war is getting silly. Muslims need to stop being so sensitive and us europeans need to realise that free speech does not mean that you HAVE to put the pictures right at the top of the article. Slamdac

No, its doesn't mean we HAVE too, but many people are making arguments that we should for various reasons.Kittynboi 22:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to add that by clicking on a link that says "Muhammad Cartoons" one should not be shocked to actually SEE cartoons with Muhammad. As long as the article is named as it is I think that muslims have been given adequate warning.The.valiant.paladin 23:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, when I checked out the article on the anus. I actaully half suspected there would be a picture of a real one. I already knew myself and had adequate warning. Hitokirishinji 23:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This article will never ever be agreed. It's going to go on like this until the end of the world. slamdac

Then that makes the article just like everything else in the world. Nothing will ever be 100% agreed upon. Kittynboi 23:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that all day long today, Kittynboi has been the main person loudly saying there's no consensus to move the image down. 208.57.241.50 23:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Um, there are plenty of others who have also opposed moving the image down the page, including myself, The.valiant.paladin, Hitokirishinji, Thparkth, Discus2000, Lankiveil and numerous anonymous others. Sol. v. Oranje 23:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


Since there are a lot of strong opinions being voiced here this won't be an easy task. Anyway, I propose the following in an attempt to resolve the dispute about the image:

  • The top header section slightly trimmed down, the table of contents placed directly under it, with Image:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings.jpg placed beneath it.

This way we would satisfy the need to show the image in question while showing common courtesy. Anyone might access the article and move on to subsections via the TOC. Preferably could the image be shrinked to around 150 pixels as opposed to the current 250 (takes longer for non-broadband users to load, article itself quite large).

As for the reasons why, consider the following: "controversial" articles such as Oral sex do show images, but a bit down in the article. Anus does show a drawing at top, but keep a photo of the real thing a bit down. Piss Christ show the photo in question at the top (at 130 pixels), in part perhaps as the article is quite short.

Some say that the image must be at the top since this article is about the cartoons themselves, I'd like to expand on that, I'd say the article is mostly about the controversy and outrage surrounding it. Statements that "it is about the cartoon itself" seems more like an excuse not to deal with opposing views. The article might as well be called Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Scoo 09:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree to this, but only if in the process of moving the cartoon image down, we also provide larger, more legible versions of the cartoons next to their descriptions in the "Publications of the Drawings" section. I'm actually starting to believe that the image currently hosted by Wikipedia is too small to be truly readable or interpretable by the average viewer at such a small size. Moving them down the page but enlarging them might be a good balance. Sol. v. Oranje 09:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I could support that as a compromise. Babajobu 09:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Nice to see that we might have potential common ground in sight. Please keep the idea brewing, with more input from fellow editors we might keep a compromise from drowning in the verbal nukes that go off left and right here. Scoo 09:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I like this idea as a compromise - also where have the first three descriptions gone? this talk page is getting too long to find info 82.0.4.23 14:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Agree with providing larger image. But I don't agree with moving the cartoon image down on the page. --168.159.213.36 21:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


Putting the pictures down on the bottom would serve no purpose other than caving in. They belong on the top of the article. Why would a Muslim even WANT to look this entry up knowing that their 'Prophet' will be depicted?

--TruthCrusader

Top right picture is horns or halo?

Those look like horns to me, how do you know that it is a crescent moon? Homestarmy 22:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I personally never thougt of them as horns, always as a halo, but now you mention it, i don't really know Al3xander 22:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It does look a bit like horns, but the "glow" makes it clear (to me) that it's a crescent-shaped halo. Besides, that whole "horns" thing was for Moses, not Muhammad. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Well horns can also symbolize Satan, which is what the article said originally, so when it was changed I thought i'd bring up the subject. Is a crescent moon over the head really a popular symbol for Christ? Maybe it is referring to Islam, as in Muhammad starting it, and it kind of imitating a halo because of that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homestarmy (talk • contribs)
No, Jesus isn't often depicted with a crescent moon, but with a glowing halo. The picture (if it is indeed a crescent shaped halo) simply compares the Muslim Muhammed to the Christian Jesus, with they similar (to a certain degree) roles in the different religions. Poulsen 23:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The crescent-moon shape is a clear symbol of Islam. Jesus is never associated with a crescent-moon shape, his halo is always circular. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, I see the confusion now. I've removed the bit about him "looking like Jesus"... it was referring to the way he was standing, not to the crescent halo... and I don't agree about that point anyway. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I saw that 'horns' as a mix between the popular (though wrong) belief that the vikings wore horns on their helmets and a halo. Thus referencing a carricature of the Danish past with this cartoon. Jdonnis 15:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Where can I find an english translation of the cartoons?

I think the title explains it all ;) (Caesar89 23:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC))

That information should be in the article, it was when I last looked down into it :/ Homestarmy 23:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The vandals look like a bunch of 3 year olds

"ANDY. ANDY. ANDY. ANDY. ANDY. ANDY. ANDY. ANDY. ANDY. ANDY. ANDY. ANDY. ANDY. ANDY. " What is this nonsense? "Aisha." "This article has respectfully refrained from showing the picture." Will the inhabitants of this bedlam article please GROW UP already? gee whiz. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Oh yeah, and a revert war between someone who felt Muhammad looked like a devil with horns and another who felt he looked like Jesus. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't look at me, I took it to the talk page rather than deciding to revert it, I don't even see how a halo is necessarily Christ's trademark anyway, angel's have halo's traditionally too.Homestarmy

France soir chief editor sacked

The owner of France Soir Raymond Lakah declares that he has removed Jacques Lefranc as the chief editor. He states "We express our apology to the muslim community and to all the person that were chocked by the publication of the cartoons."

someone add this, i cannot edit the page atm. http://www.jp.dk/udland/artikel:aid=3532634/ Al3xander 23:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Was it for the cartoons or that nasty anti-all religions even thinking about touching the government even an inch comment? And i'll try to put it in, someone may of already. Homestarmy 23:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok I put it in, but were those typos with "persons" and "shocked" actually how he spelled it? I spelled them right but if he didn't....Homestarmy 23:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It was translated from the Danish text, so just correct those errors. thx Al3xander 23:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Loser frogs have no balls. Their country is getting over run with those savages and they do nothing to fight it.

I say France should boycot France Soir

We don't boycott newspapers in France. We read them and agree or disagree. -- daniel 2 feb 2006

     -that's the most sensable thing anyone's said so far, good work daniel:)
I have read conflicting reports whether Jacques Lefranc was the managing director or the chief editor. According to [1] he was the managing director and Serge Faubert is the Chief Editor. Can someone (perhaps we have a Frenchman here?) verify this fact? Rasmus (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Solution to the problem

I think maybe there is a solution to this problem. Though I'm sure some will disagree with me. Keep the image in its place but the link to the article should have some sort of warning and those who find such information offensive should be advised to turn off "load images" in their browser. Thus they may freely read the article without having to see the image.Hitokirishinji 23:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to that. But I don't know if it could be done.Kittynboi 23:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It's just an idea, if anyone could come up with an implementable version of this... Hitokirishinji 23:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
"Hiding" the picture solves nothing. Those who are angry, aren't angry that they saw the picture, they are angry simply knowing Jyllands-Posten printed the picture. It would have made no difference if Jyllands-Posten had put a warning on its front page and printed the pictures on the next. Hiding, warning, or linking doesn't avoid the controversy if Wikipedia chooses to include the picture somewhere.--Snorklefish 16:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


Sounds Sensible slamdac

How do we make EVERY link to the article in the WHOLE Wikipedia display this "warning"... and do we do it for ALL potentially "offensive" images? This doesn't sound workable to me. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Actaully I was thinking about just that and realized the easiest way is simply to put a warning at the front wikipedia page. "Wikipedia contains images that some may find offensive. Please remove "load images" from your browser if believe you may find some images offensive." Most browsers do contain a "load this image" option so people can pick and choose if they really are sensitive. Hitokirishinji 00:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
How about a warning on the whole internet, saying: "May contain freedom of expression"? Just a suggestion. Eixo 00:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Explanation to the Police line-up image=

Just an explanation to the centre image, the seven-man Police line-up image, if anybody would like to know what it means. It is a well-crafted image with multiply layers of information.

First the obvious meaning, the witness has to identify X (it does not really matter who X is), but cannot, alluring to that all seven people on the image have an agenda, not necessary similar.

2nd, the placement of the images is also important. It represents those people you should be cautious about the further you go out to the sides. In the centre you got Buddha (4), representing something like peace love and harmony. On easy side you got the prophets of two major religions, Jesus (3) and Muhammad (5), both with an agenda, they preach something to the people, thus be cautious. On these sides you got two political figures in Denmark, Pia Kjærsgaard (2) and Imam Fatih Alev (6), both with a clear agenda, they speak loud and can both be described as radicals on many subjects and have clashed numerous times in the Danish media long before these images, thus be more cautious. The last two, Imam Abdul Wahid Pedersen (1) and journalist Kåre Bluitgen (7), are the two to be most cautious about, but it is not immediately obvious. Abdul Wahid is usually described as a moderate Muslim always trying to get along and Kåre Bluitgen does not really have an agenda. However Abdul Wahid is also, by some (like Pia Kjærsgaard), described as one of the most dangerous Muslims in Denmark, because he never really takes a stand on a subject, never really condemns or approves various behaviours, and thus you never really know where you got him. Kåre Bluitgen likewise is a dangerous person, as he is prepared to initiate a stunt (PR stunt) like this to promote his book, painfully obvious by the author of the image slapping a sign in his hand saying, “Kåre's public relations, call and get an offer”, as to say they both work under the radar, thus be very cautious. Twthmoses 23:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your interpretation of that particular drawing; it's hard to honestly even parse what that one is about due to its small size in the image. Is there any way we could link to larger versions of the cartoons, with explanations of the Danish references within them? It might illuminate just what all these various cartoonists are saying in their works. Sol. v. Oranje 23:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
This sounds interesting, did you come up with this yourself or was it in that newspaper or what? Unfortunently, original works like this can't be submitted to a Wikipedia article, if that isn't from some source other than yourself that is :/. If there's like an explanation for all of them in that newspaper or some other sources, maybe we could put them all into an interpretation section or something. But what's to be cautious about when it comes to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ? :) Homestarmy 23:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the heads up, I know about original works, that is why you are reading it here on the discussion page and not in the article! I never intended to post it in the article. Just though some wanted to know what the image was about, it can often be hard for foreigners to understand humour in another country, especially not knowing, neither by face or politic, the persons involved. Twthmoses 23:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


The center image can not be Bhudda. Bhuddism is not central in the Danish Society nor in this conflict. It can (must?) be "Mother Denmark", a truely neutral deity. MX44 06:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

it's Buddha, regardless of whether or not Buddhism is central in Danish society, Buddha will still reflect the middle path (as Twthmoses states in his/her update)--Discus2000 07:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I just had a conversion with Annette Carlsen (the artist), who confirms that it indeed was supposed to be the Buddha. End of story. MX44 12:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Further (email) conversations with Annette Carlsen reveals: Number 1) A generic old hippie, and number 6) A generic Indian guru.

good precedent being set here

In fact, could someone please help upload an image for the article on Mammy_archetype, it's woefully lacking in images of mammy, those black appologists are just trying to censor things that they don't like!--64.12.116.10 23:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, considering there's plenty of images of Aunt_Jemima on that article's page, I'd say there's imagery of the Mammy archetype on Wikipedia. Sol. v. Oranje 23:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

There's now an image of an old ad for Aunt Jemima on the Mammy archetype page. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


While the article mentioned certainly would benefit from an illustration, I don't think this person deserves to be payed attention to, because his reasons for posting this are either to make a point, that doesn't quite work, by being inflammatory, about the present article, or he is just a racist idiot who has nothing constructive to contribute except by accident. ("black apologists"? He can't be serious.) --Brentt 23:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah you're probably right on this. I thought he was someone who was making a comparison on the nature of "offensiveness", but now I see he may have had a more sinister agenda. Sol. v. Oranje 00:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
It was clearly trolling. Nevertheless, the article DID need an illustration, which it now has. :) See, even jerks can be useful at times. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Comparable events

For the comparable events section; I recall an artist not so long ago displaying an artwork based around a Koran, I think it may have been torn. Pretty sure it was displayed in England and then taken down after concerns. Anyone know theartist/artwork? I think it would be apertinent addition to that section. --bodnotbod 00:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Ah, it's OK. I found it [2]. --bodnotbod 00:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


A similiar controversy occurred with the movie version of Muhammad (1976), a link to the wiki article should be included: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad%2C_Messenger_of_God_%28film%29 --66.185.164.2 20:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Russian Orthodox church condems publication of caricatures

Just saw this at http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php?id=127107&region=3.

__________________________ In Russia, the Orthodox church and the Mufti Council condemned those European newspapers which republished the cartoons.

"It's very dangerous to insult religious feelings, in so far as they are exceptionally deeply anchored in the human soul," said Mikhail Dudko, spokesman for the Moscow Patriarchate, according to the ITAR-TASS news agency. __________________________

I dont have sufficient priveleges to edit the article. Can someone put it in ? - Nix24 00:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Protection is down again because its on the main page once more, you should be able to insert it now. Homestarmy 00:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

We do NOT...

Protect pages linked from the main page. So please stop doing it. This is a long standing policy. the main page is our "welcome mat". What's the point of "anyone can edit" if the first page people see tells them they can't edit. I know it's a pain, but we just can't protect it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 00:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Well what happened was it dropped off page for a bit, that might of gone by a few people's notice. Homestarmy 00:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Demons

Hi Everybody,‎

Let me introduce myself. I am quite passionate Muslim in a sense that I strongly ‎believe fundamentals of Islam and entire Quran. I believe Islam has been ‎misinterpreted and misrepresented by Taliban, Al-Qaeda and the likes of them; ‎consequently Islam and its practitioners are suffering all over the world in all possible ‎ways.‎

Talking of freedom of speech, it is an outrageous joke. If somebody says “let's talk ‎about Nazis and Adolf Hitler and their positive impacts and influences on the ‎rest of the world”. A storm of condemnation and criticism will rise. For the sake of ‎exemplification let's say an average guy who works 9 to 5 to earn some living in this ‎‎humanity-eater world gets in trouble with law just by mistake. Police search his place. ‎They find out some books about Hitler and Nazis. They look into his computer and find ‎out in last few days he has been visiting web sites about Nazis and Hitler. No matter what ‎the intentions of that average guy were, he becomes the ultimate evil.‎

My point is when it comes to Nazis and Hitler, even free-reading becomes a sin and ‎crime and free-speech goes out of discussion.‎

Every nation has its own demons and nightmares. Today's conflict is between western ‎modern-conservativ-ism and Eastern Islam. In addition, Islam is constantly in the state of ‎war with extremism within itself.‎

Since 9/11 (another western demon), Islam and Muslims have been pushed into ‎confrontations against their own demons by western media.‎

In every culture, there are taboos; there are ultimate forbidden. Just touch these taboos, ‎and you are in trouble with that culture and its people. Same is true for both West and ‎Muslims.‎

Islam is not just a religion, it's a culture in which Muslims all over the world, share ‎certain traditions, rules, laws, taboos and ultimate forbidden. Drawing pictures and ‎cartoons of Allah (ultimate deity shared by Muslims, Christians and Jews) and ‎Muhammad or any other prophet (Moses, Jesus, Joseph or Adam) and other Islamic ‎religious personalities are strictly forbidden in Islam. Muslims don't mind drawings and ‎sculptures of Moses, Jesus, Joseph or Adam by Christians and Jews because Muslims ‎think that other two religious groups believe in these prophets as much as they do, and ‎Christians and Jews know what they are doing.‎

But when it comes to Allah and Muhammad, the people of dominantly western religions ‎don't know what they are doing. They define Allah as an alien deity created or ‎‎invented by Muslims and their leader. Why don't they believe in Muhammad, I don't ‎need to discuss.‎

Drawing Muhammad's cartoons has nothing to do with free speech; it is out right ‎journalistic aggression against a religious group of people.‎

These drawings were not a need of journalism and they did not add any thing positive to ‎journalism or the rest of the world.‎ These drawings are emotional assault and religious abuse against Muslims. Saying "fuck ‎you motherfucker" in somebody's face is not free speech; it is abuse. Knowingly insulting ‎somebody without any solid reason is abuse and assault.‎

Muhammad's cartoons were published knowingly and publishers were very well aware ‎that Muslims would be offended. Reprinting of the cartoon in other European papers is ‎another aggressive gesture and abuse against all Muslims indiscriminately.‎

The best way to deal with this is dragging all these newspapers and their publisher into ‎the court of law with jurors from all religious faiths.‎

Szhaider 01:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hitler made the trains run on time and apparently he was kind to animals. Nazi's had fashionable uniforms, were very disciplined, and had a strong sense of national pride. There, i said something nice about Hitler and will i be arrested or banned from wikipedia? I dunno, maybe. Let us wait for the storm of controversy and what not. WookMuff

Praising is something different from sarcasm. 70.49.166.186 21:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to say this as nicely as I can, as it appears to me you have very good intentions here. The definitions of God(Allah) and God in the Bible are different. I could go on a veritable rampage so to speak on the issue, but I don't think that's necessary. The Bible defines God as also being the Holy Spirit and as being Jesus while still all being God at the same time; the Qu'ran does not, simply because it says Christ was not God and I don't even think it has the words "Holy Spirit" in it. Even the Old Testiment paints God in a somewhat different light than from the Qu'ran, though that might take me a little while longer to really examine, I don't think it's necessary anyway to make my point here.

Moving on, according to the Danish newspaper at least, the reason they hired cartoonists to make those drawings wasn't to make as horrible an attack against Islam as possible, it was as a result of an observation by an article they wrote that many people are deathly afraid of insulting Islam, not just because the higher ups in Islan occasionaly issues "Fatwah's" ordering someone to murder someone who said something they didn't like, (Im thinking of that Satanic book or whatever it was, it's in the article)but simply because nobody could publish anything easily dealing with legitimitly created pictures of Islamic figures because the prevalent mood was that it was too sensitive a subject since all images of Muhammad and Allah were understood to "require" censorship so to speak. This newspaper decided to make a stand against this situation, and had cartoonists make up any image they wanted of Muhammad. Not all of them were necessarily mean, the middle left one with Muhammad with the star and crescent symbol on his face certainly wasn't really mean, and they certainly could of been far worse if that is the kind of cartoon they had been instructed to make. Furthermore, because Wikipedia is in effect an encyclopedia, we just plain have to tell it like it is. There is currently a crisis going around about this incident, so therefore, Wikipedia should report it, and showing the pictures is really quite good for this sort of article so people can see what its even about. And on other European nations, one person running a French newspaper who printed those cartoons together with a rather spiteful anti-religion comment was just fired, and many leaders have been speaking generally in favor with the Islamic position so far it seems, so its certainly not a big conspiracy of "let's offend all the Islamic people". Or, if it is, im not paying attention enough to see it, im not really involved anyway, I don't want to purposefully hurt the feelings of Islamic people if I can help it. Homestarmy 01:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as matter of showing the cartoons on this web site is concerned, I believe they ‎should not be censored because the intentions here are not bad and seeing is ‎knowing. By the way, anti-Muslim atmosphere is no conspiracy. It is blatantly open.‎
Szhaider 02:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
"My point is when it comes to Nazis and Hitler, even free-reading becomes a sin and ‎crime." Szhaider, I don't know where you heard this, but Mein Kampf is freely available in bookstores across the Western world, and other Nazi literature is available as well. "Free-reading" is simply not a crime. Babajobu 08:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Or for that matter, Szhaider, go into any Barnes and Noble or Borders and take a gander at both the German History and Political Science sections of those bookstores. The shelves are chockfull of every single aspect of the Nazi regime, from acrhitecture to eugenics programs to policy texts and their war plans as uncovered by the Allies. You are deluded if you think reading about the Nazis or their ideology is forbidden; in fact, it is often encouraged to read these works to discover the depth of the depravity of the Nazi regime and to ensure their crimes, and the crimes that lead to such villainy (like suppressing freedom of speech just because you or some religion doesn't like it), don't ever happen again. Sol. v. Oranje 08:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Moreover you are comparing a story, in a newspaper, about free speech. No, you're comparing an encyclopedia's coverage of that story and the drawings, to the most evil regieme ever to exist on the face of the earth.

I saw this news article on the front page and have only even see the drawings to judge them on this website. To remove them you threaten to create an atmosphere where the censorship could lead to escalation because people will be unable to see what actually was published and will instead be left to imagine, or worse be exposed to a few extra drawings like the ones the danish group took to the middle east. 146.163.218.221 18:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

additions to "external links" section

I think that this link http://face-of-muhammed.blogspot.com/ should be added to the list of "external links" at the bottom of the news article page.

L33th4x0r 01:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Some of the translations of captions are different in that page, maybe there's information to correct? Homestarmy 01:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I spent ages trying to find decent images of the cartoons and these are definitely the best. Furthermore I don't understand the hooha on this talk page about a 29kb image which isn't sufficiently big to see any detail. --Tatty 02:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Link added! L33th4x0r 03:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Meeting With 11 Ambassadors

This seems to be an important point that isn't quite clear in the article, or in many other newsarticles. What EXACTLY did the 11 ambassadors write in their letter of the 19th of October. Did they discuss other issues as well as this one? Here it says they did, but I have never seen that anywhere else. In most newsarticles it implies that they simply wanted Rasmussen to distance himself from the cartoons, but here we have "take legal action against". This is quite a central point as to AFR's handling of the issue. Peregrine981 02:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The letter is in the external links section, or here: [3] (PDF) Poulsen 08:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! That helps a lot. Peregrine981 15:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Deletion?

We should delete this, since we haven't gotten anywhere. WikieZach 02:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Tact is not censorship

If material is offensive to a significant portion of our readership, we should be tactful and put a warning at the top of the page, and keep the offensive material "below the fold" if then possible. The example of Oral sex given above is a straightforward analogy; an even closer one is Goatse.cx. For what possible reason should the Goatse image be remote-linked from the Goatse article while these cartoons should be at the very top of this article? (For those who don't know what Goatse is, here's a link—it's pretty gross.)

Tact is not censorship. It's acknowledging that Wikipedia doesn't want to disgust its readership more than is necessary to convey the information it's meant to convey. Nothing whatsoever is lost from the article if a warning is added to the top and the image moved down. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Several other editors have tried to make this point above but have all tired of being shouted down. Tempshill 03:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
As I said elsewhere, adding a warning solves nothing if you go ahead and show the picture anyway. Those who are angry, aren't angry that they saw the picture, they are angry simply knowing Jyllands-Posten printed the picture. Hiding the picture may spare some the hurt of seeing it, but you're still showing it and therefore you're still violating the taboo against iconic representations.--Snorklefish 16:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
As a practical matter, it was noted earlier that several times when the picture was moved "below the fold", the revert war stopped. Some value is therefore evidently added. Tempshill 20:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
You know, as gross as that pic is, I think the original goatse one was even worse. Are you sure they're the same? The original is something I try hard not to remember. 71.141.251.153 05:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I also agree with the above. Wikipedia should respect people; telling people to fsck off if they are offended is a complete lack of respect. Samboy 06:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe Wikipedia should tell things as they are, without hiding people from stuff they may find "offensive" -- otherwise, how will anyone, on either side of the issue, get the full facts of the case. To deny any aspect of the visual representation of this article or to shunt it down to obscurity within the doldrums of the article is an insult to people who don't have to abide by the laws of one religion, no matter how large. Sol. v. Oranje 07:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
im not sure however how many 'people who don't have to abide by the laws of one religion' are actually insulted by a lesser visual representation of an image. nothing in this world is absolute, having complete free speech or anything for that matter without having a counterbalance is unwise. Chensiyuan 17:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Pic deleted- more vandalism?

It seems someone has deleted the pictures- is this more vandalism or actions on the part of Wikipedia? I just want to know before I revert the article to include the images. (Caesar89 03:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC))

Aniconism plug

For those interested, time to take the opportunity to plug the article Aniconism, which is this very subject and is nearly a stub. I put a request to expand tag on the article a bit ago. Tempshill 03:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Comparable incidents

Would this qualify as a similar incident? A Russian art Gallery that organized an exhibit “Beware: Religion!” (“Осторожно, религия!”) has been vandalized by religious zealots. The vandals were acquitted and lauded by Russian Orthodox clergy, while the organizers of the exhibit were put on trial and prosecuted for offending the feelings of the faithful. Link at http://asf.wdn.com/ --EugeneK 04:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

That is definitely a good example of similar aggressive actions by counter-"blasphemous" forces; please do include this is the main article. Sol. v. Oranje 07:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Better pictures?

It's really hard for readers to make up their mind about the "photographs" when there's no picture of them. The picture in the article is way too small, and there's only one picture in the links (the one with the bomb). Can someone find better pictures or links? Thanks. AucamanTalk 04:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Here [4] bigger images of the cartoons. WARNING don't enter if you're offended by the cartoons, bla bla bla --62.57.93.138 04:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is the picture removed from the article? This picture has exquisite informatic value, and I don't see any reason for removing it. Only reason would be to pay tribute to the fight against freedom of speech and thought. -- Obradović Goran (talk 04:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

If we agreed to remove this picture, only because someone didn't like it, and he pressured us enough, then I honestly belive that we do not have the right to use any of the fair-use images on Wikipedia anymore.. ever! When we use the copyrighted image, we say: "Yes, it is copyrighted, but the importance of this picture is so great that people need to have access to it no matter what, in order to...". Well, boys and girls, if we fall back against Islamist threats, we don't have the moral right to advocate against evil corporations anymore -- Obradović Goran (talk 04:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think all people (on every side of this issue) should want to see the pictures. How else can they make up their minds? I'm going insert the link above under the "External links" section. AucamanTalk 04:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protect this.

Could we semi-protect this? it is needed now. --Vsion (talk) 04:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

can't, it's in the main page --62.57.93.138 04:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I see, thanks. --Vsion (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The page should not be semi-protected since semi-protection is only for vandalism, and the image deletions are POV edits (and often improper ones at that), but not vandalism. [[WP:Vandalism] makes a careful distinction. If protection is absolutely necessary it should be full protection and not semi-protection. 71.141.251.153 06:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

See Also

What exactly is the justification for having Robert Mapplethorpe and Andres Serrano in the See Also section... They are provocative, sure, but does this justify linking to them from this page.... Kjaergaard 05:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I just took out "Robert Mapplethorpe". Yes, i feel "Andres Serrano" should be removed too. --Vsion (talk) 06:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There can be no reconciliation

I appreciate the impulse behind Mr. Wales's message at the top of this page, but there is no real way to debate whether or not the drawings should be in Wikipedia without going into far flung issues like Koran citations, differences between Sunni and Shi'a belief... and from there it's an inevitable hop to "philosophy". The very edict against depicting Muhammed's face is philosophically (theologically) grounded, so there is no escape from these questions in this debate.

The sad truth is that "the line it is drawn, the curse it is cast". Nearly all of us working on Wikipedia are deeply against fundamentalist Islamist teaching and there is simply no way to smooth it out. I remember an ultra liberal college professor of mine saying "All culture is good". Well, the culture of those who are so offended by the Jyllands-Posten drawings calls for the death of anyone who creates (or disseminates) an image of Muhammed. We here can twist and turn, writhe into every possible contortion, but we'll never fool ourselves or anyone else into thinking we hold such a culture, or such a central aspect of such a culture, to be good. Face it, my friends. We are enemies of people who want our deaths. Just by reproducing these drawings on this site, we are their mortal enemies. Once we digest that unmodifiable truth, where do we go? How do we act? Do we run scared and try at every turn to appease these enemies (in this case, remove the image from this article) or do we hold to our own principles at the peril of our lives? I'm for defying the fanatics. Thank goodness the Muslims simply lack the power to ignite a world war. The non-muslim world is going to have to band together against this deluded culture and I'm afraid its violence will yield to only one thing: greater violence. Most of you will rail against this. No matter. When it's them or you you will choose yourselves. JDG 06:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You know, it is just possible to be offended by these drawings without calling for anyone's death, which is of course the overwhelming Muslim reaction.--Pharos 06:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Considering someone has already posted "I think that some has to remind others of their limits words can lead to war and destruction your freedom ends when you step in others or interfer in others life or their busness" in this discussion thread, then yes, it's possible for people to call for people's death over this issue. Speak against this now, or continue apologizing for the extremism that is increasing on display over this article in these efforts to crush freedom of speech and information. Sol. v. Oranje 06:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


Actually, from what I know about Muslim beliefs, there can indeed be a reconciliation. I just can't find any place, on or outside the web, where anyone is interested in reaching it.DanielDemaret 08:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Err, actually Pharos, from some of the things i've been reading about on the news about this, many muslims are implying that they should of killed the people who have insulted them in the past in a manner similar to this, then we wouldn't be in this situation, according to them. I'm not saying all muslims share this kind of view, but there appears to be enough of them so that the overwhelming reaction is not calling for nobody to die. Homestarmy 14:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Darn it, the page is once again unprotected allowing sockpuppets to blank content against consensus...protection policy is very clear that we can do so for front-page linked articles when this is necessary. The only time this article has some stability and relief from socks is when it is semi-protected. WHY, OH WHY was it unprotected? Babajobu 06:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Even with semi protection, there was an edit war going on. I explained my reasoning. And I wasn't the first to remove the semi protection btw. As I said, it's the general policy. Not trying to pull rank, but I've done 400 protections and unprotections. I know the general policy on articles linked from the main page. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Lock this page!

Once again vandals are removing the cartoons from the page. This is ridiculous and clearly this page needs to be protected from further vandalism.

There has not been a single demonstrable incident of vandalism on this page. There have been immense numbers of improper POV edits, 3RR violations, sockpuppets, etc., but Wikipedia policy carefully distinguishes those from "vandalism" (please read WP:Vandalism before making accusations of vandalism). The page has been semi-protected twice, with good intentions, but improperly, since semi-protection is supposed to only be invoked for cases of vandalism, and this isn't one, it's a POV edit war. If page locking is needed for this type of dispute, the appropriate locking is full protection, not semi-protection (WP:SEMI). Full protection means NOBODY can edit, which de-wikifies the page, so it should be avoided if at all possible. That means the "enlightenment" extremists should look for other ways to tone down the dispute. Any further semi-protection of this page is a policy violation and should only be applied after careful consideration and clear evidence that all reasonable compromise attempts have failed. Right now we have a bunch of logged-in POV pushers calling for semi-protection to lock out the non-logged-in POV pushers while avoiding being locked out themselves. Policy calls for full protection and not semi-protection precisely to prevent that--if POV pushers can't stop squabbling and the page needs to be locked, it should be fully locked so that neither side can edit. Locking is bad and is a last resort, and there's much greater incentive to avoid it if those calling for it also have to face its consequences. 71.141.251.153 08:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Numerous IPs repeatedly blanking content against consensus is absolutely cause for semi-protection, and that semi-protection would absolutely not be a violation of policy, it's not even borderline. Babajobu 08:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Where is the consensus? I don't object to the image being removed from the page, as long as there's a link people can click if they want to see it. I also don't see how to make the policy case for semi-protection, other than WP:IAR. It may come to that, but IMO it's not time for that yet. 71.141.251.153 08:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
These is a majority in support of maintaining the cartoon image ON the page. In fact, the majority of the debate was regarding which part of the page (top or middle or bottom) the image was supposed to be located at. But then, vandals started repeatedly removing the cartoon image entirely, which is totally NOT the consensus; and YES only providing a link to an outside page with the cartoons is both 1) censorship because you're too afraid to actually host the images here, and 2) prone to link failure in the future, which is a convenient way for these cartoons to vanish in the first place. There is a total legitimate case for semi-protection, also, because of numerous 3RR+ violations on the article page within the last 24 hours. Sol. v. Oranje 08:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
1) Majority is not consensus. 2) The link would be to the wikimedia image server and the image would still be hosted on wikimedia. 3) As far as I can tell, nobody ever removed the image from the page when it wasn't at the top. It was never in the middle. It was at the bottom a few times, but people put it back at the top and then it got deleted from the top. 4) The semi-protection policy (WP:SEMI)does not list 3RR violations as grounds for semi-protection. 5) Calling "click here to see the image" censorship trivializes the notion of censorship and disrespects people who have had to deal with real censorship. Is there a "demi-Godwins law" on wikipedia (miniature version of Godwin's law), that says anyone who doesn't get their POV desires 100% satisfied will eventually start screaming "censorship"? 71.141.251.153 08:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
First of all, get an account with a name so that you don't appear to be hiding under some random IP address. Secondly, a majority in favor of keeping the images on the page, no matter where they are, certainly should warn against removing the images from the page at all, "consensus" or not. Thirdly, when people removed the images, they provided no link whatsoever, and to be honest, why the heck should we trust you, an anonymous commentator, to ensure that such links will be provided in the future AND that they wouldn't be removed wholesale like the cartoons have repeatedly over the last few hours. Fourthly, I am totally not trivializing censorship; and you are in fact the one who is trying to ramrod removing the images and shutting down debate to begin with. Get an account, and deal with the very serious censorship issue at hand here. Sol. v. Oranje 08:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Moreover, none of the admins are enforcing the 3RR. 62.135.95.179 just hit his 6th revert and going strong. Babajobu 06:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
So, how do we get the admins to get moving on this and start re-blocking these repeat vandals? C'mon, people, where the hell is any desire to stand up for freedom of access to information here. Is this some kind of Google effect on Wikipedia? Sol. v. Oranje 07:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm an admin, but I don't like to use my admin privileges on Islam-related articles. But this is outrageous, we have numerous IPs reverting six, seven, eight times, and the admins on this talk page are doing nothing about it. AND WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR UNPROTECTING THIS PAGE?? Babajobu 07:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Why are you hesitant to use your admin privleges on Islam-related articles? I don't understand, are certain topics now verboten to protect or use admin priviledges on to begin with? What kind of free encyclopedia is this? This is freaking crazy, LOCK THIS ARTICLE NOW! Sol. v. Oranje 07:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I've placed a message on the administrator's notice board (WP:ANI) saying someone has to restore the semiprotection of this article. I'm not willing to do it, I've gotten into content disputes on Islam-related articles and it's not appropriate for me to use admin privileges for these articles. Violation of 3RR is pretty judgement-free, though, and this article is absolutely plagued by socks and IPs reverting half a dozen times, so maybe I need to start blocking for 3RR violations. Babajobu 07:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked 62.135.95.179, who reverted 4 times by my count, for 24 hours.--Pharos 07:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for blocking that IP address at the least; he was the largest vandalizer by far within this most recent period of article attacks. Sol. v. Oranje 07:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
That IP originated from Egypt if anyone is interested.Hitokirishinji 08:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
How surprising! (rolls eyes) Sol. v. Oranje 08:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


I think the image should be removed, or at least left here as a link. Muhammad has no images because they would be offensive, so these caricatures should definately not be here. Each one is described in detail in the "Publication of the drawings" section, so there is no reason for them to be here. Not to mention that the image is copyrighted and not a free image. -- Astrokey44|talk 09:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think there's a revert war going on. Semi-protect the page or lock it possibly. I've not been able to see a non-vandalized version in the past hour.Kaushik twin

Qatarson or Muslims in General

I saw many editors & some admins who writing about me or sending emails to my email address please stop abuse me you didn't save anyway to abuse my rights start from banned me till racism emails this article also has many racism words specialy discussion page which is part of it & posted by wikipedia registered users , I see this article becomes a black point in wikipedia history because there people dont knew that their freedom stops when other freedom is begin.Qatarson 08:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Qatarson, no one's freedom is infringed by including the cartoons in the article. No one is obligated to read an article entitled "Muhammad cartoons" if they don't wish to see such cartoons. And incidentally, your legal threats re: Florida are laughable. Reporting the news is not illegal in the U.S. First amendment and all, I know it's frustrating. Babajobu 08:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Qatarson, I've done a search of your name on this discussion page and the only thing anyone has ever said about you is that you continously keep deleting the images and reverting the articles. No one has said anything bad about you and in fact on your talk page, people have even encouraged what you have contributed and gave you fair warning about vandalism. That is certainly far more tolerance than I would give. (which is probably the reason I'll never become an admin) Please don't send us fake threats, most wikipedians are sensible folks and so far your actions have only hurt your reputation even further. Hitokirishinji 08:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
read carefuly the discussion page and you will find it also there some posts is deleted i'm not a joke as some admin said also they forced me to stop writing & banned my proxy which it the same proxy for Internet users in State of Qatar for more than 24 hours i'm one of wikipedia users I have the right to edit in any arctile also any muslim in Denmark or florida have same right if they found anything abuse their rights wikipedia is open encyclopedia for everyone and shouldn't have any kind of hates or racism we should work together not making war.Qatarson 08:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Qatarson, you violated the three-revert rule and were blocked for 24 hours, as any other Wikipedia editor would have been. Being treated like everyone else is not "racism", in fact it's the opposite. In fact, we've been especially tolerant of you, what with your legal threats and so on. Most Wikipedians would have been indefinitely blocked for this, so in fact you are getting special treatment, and you should feel privileged that Wikipedia is being so delicate and kind with you. Babajobu 09:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
This is where you are very very wrong. A user does NOT have the right to remove content which will in essence promote censorship. The image does not violate your rights. It is merely offensive to you and being offended and having your rights taken away are two very differnet things. It is merely your own fault for abusing the free edit privilege of wikipedia that prevented your entire state from editing wikipedia. No muslim has the right to remove images he or she deems offensive that while to others serves as informative and in fact, no one has that right. Ever. And another things, last I checked, the UN didn't outline "right to edit wikipedia" in their list of human rights. I consider editing on wikipedia a very honorable privilege that was given to me. If you violate the rules, that privilege is taken away. And if you doing so causes others to be prevented from editing wikipedia, the blame lies on you solely.Hitokirishinji 09:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
One more thing, Qatarson, explain to me how wikipedia can be possibly "abusing your rights"? Wikipedia is literally of group of computers transmitting an electronic signal that displays information on the screen. What you interpret from it is your opinion. It does not "violate" or "oppress" you in anyway. Hitokirishinji 09:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
lol I will give example when I was banned I was'nt able to edit any articles the admin who banned me gives himslef the right to stop me of editing whole articles in the encyclopedia not only this article that a point also the public proxy i'm using used by all wikipedia users from State of Qatar which mean they all was'nt able to edit any articles for 24 hours one more thing of my abused rights I was'nt able to talks even with any other users or who using my talk page I can list more than 10 things if you want ;) I donno these users think they only have the right to edit articles.Qatarson 09:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Qatarson, see my above comments, you have been treated with special gentleness and kindness, given privileges that other Wikipedia editors do not have, e.g. the right to make legal threats without being blocked for it. You were only blocked for violation of the three revert rule, as any other Wikipedia would be. But in general you should feel very special and fortunate to have been treated so delicately. And still you complain! Babajobu 09:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I would explain to you these cartoon images the reason of all what happened and when I remove it I did this because it is abuse Muslims & i'm one of them and we are users at wikipedia too and removing these cartoons not abuse other wikipedia users and everyone can check the history of the article and will find that i was only remove the cartoons not the article or hidden facts as some people said and on the other side you can check what happen in discussion page and there was realy bad posts one of them called muslims terrorist and killers before it removed anyway I was for while will stop writing in wikipedia by myself after all what happened but there users who asked me to stay & keep writing, by the way there some users suggested to link the image only and they ignored and we did'nt do anything to these users/admins who forced me & some other wikipedia users by banned us and keep the way they choosed of how to place this image after that everyone blames me beacuse I was want to save what happened here or what maybe happen when the news reach to arabic world & the media or the Islamic community in west countries.Qatarson 10:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Qatarson, that was a terrifying run-on sentence, you have to use periods or people will not be able to decipher what you write. Secondly, no matter how you have "hurt feelings", you and all other Wikipedians are still required to abide by the three-revert rule. Even though we have been so gentle and tolerant with you, we still ask that you obey that rule, as all other Wikipedians are required to do. And when we ask that you obey Wikipedia rules, this is not "racist", and it is offensive and gives us "hurt feelings" when you say so. Babajobu 10:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Qatarson will always complain because he believes it is his right to do whatever best fits his definition of "abused rights". Wikipedia is privately run and owned. You do not have a "right". It is a privilege to work on this encyclopedia. If it were up to me, until you get that through your head, you'd be banned from editing anything again. Fortunately for you its not up to me, but I doubt anyone will continue to have the extended patience Babajobu has mentioned with you for very long. You used a public domain to deface an article repeatedly. The admins had no choice but to block you. And preventing you from talking on your talk page is NOT an "abused right" regardless of what you may think. Hitokirishinji 09:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Could someone archive the page again

it's gotten very large. 71.141.251.153 08:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Let not do anything drastic while this is in the wikipedia front page. FWBOarticle
Archiving the top half of the talkpage wouldn't be "drastic", it would just help readers who are working from a dial-up connection. Babajobu 09:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Anti-hate speech law

Does Denmark have any anti-hate speech law, similar to UK, Australia, and other countries? --Vsion (talk) 09:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Short answer: yes. There are rules against racism, as well as against libel and blasphemy. The rules against racism are set down in § 266b of the Danish "Straffeloven" (Penal code). However, it needs to be "[...] a group of persons is threatened, derided or degraded because of their race, colour of skin, national or ethnic background, faith or sexual orientation [...]", so it is questionable whether it would apply to deriding someones faith directly. Rasmus (talk) 09:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Wow thanks, I didn't expect such a clear and precise response. It's really helpful. Cheers! --Vsion (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

A Totally Pointless Debate

So, we have twelve cartoons, all different, but all supposed to be Mohammed. Surely only one at most can remotely resemble the man. If I draw a smiley and write 'Jesus' under it, is that an image of Jesus?. Ridiculous.

dude, i totally made this arguement already :P wookmuff

If we are not supposed to visualise him, why is this:......

""Muhammad (pbuh) was of a height a little above the average. He was of sturdy build with long muscular limbs and tapering fingers. The hair of his head was long and thick with some waves in them. His forehead was large and prominent, his eyelashes were long and thick, his nose was sloping, his mouth was somewhat large and his teeth were well set. His cheeks were spare and he had a pleasant smile. His eyes were large and black with a touch of brown. His beard was thick and at the time of his death, he had seventeen gray hairs in it. He had a thin line of fine hair over his neck and chest. He was fair of complexion""
....in the Quran???160.84.253.241 09:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Süddeutsche Zeitung

"On July 21, 2004, German daily "Süddeutsche Zeitung" published a cartoon depicting a Jew demolishing a French Café. "

Can anyone give more information about that?--129.13.186.1 09:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This controversy reminds me of one of the earliest advocate of freedom of expression, the great Rabbi Gamaliel who replied to those demanding censorship and incarceration of the Apostles. The Rabbi said:"Its advisable to leave them alone for if they are truly from God Himself no one can stop them besides the gravest risk of standing against the will of God. But on the other hand if they are not from God they and their teachings would perish"

So lets us not presume to protect the prophets because they do not need our protection. What we can do is live according to the precepts laid down by them. Men tend to err but only God can forgive or punish. __ G.Manjooran.

Were you reading my mind? Babajobu 09:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


Thanks__ G.M.

move the image down

There is a big diference betwen censorship and respect. deleting the image would be censorship in my opinion. however moving the image to the bottom of the page having a warning is not censorship, and its respectful to muslims. many people want the image at the top , not because of free speech, but obviously to offend muslims and bash islam - --193.136.128.14 09:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Nobody wants to "bash Islam", anymore than we want to "bash Christians" by prominently displaying the image in Piss Christ, or "bash Jews" by including the Hebrew lettering for the name of God in some of our articles. We just think that Wikipedia's Content disclaimer is enough. Wikipedia does not follow your religion, Wikipedia does not share your hang-ups, Wikipedia is not your mother who protects you from things you don't like. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Babajobu 09:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
1.im not muslim.
2.' Nobody wants to "bash Islam" ' , thats not true. many ppl want the image on the top simply to hit at muslims.
3. and still whats wrong with moving the image down? other than it does not *not* offend muslims.... --193.136.128.14 09:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say you were Muslim, I was paraphrasing the content disclaimer. One problem with moving the image down is that we are setting a dangerous precedent. Anytime someone shows up and says "I am a political conservative and I find this content offensive", or "I am an evangelical Christian and I find this content offensive", or "I am a Scientologist and I find this content offensive", or whatever else, we have traditionally directed them to Wikipedia's content disclaimer. If we make an exception for Islam and Muslims, what will then say to any other group of people who want Wikipedia changed to reflect their preferences? Babajobu 10:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
As said below, we already don't include pictures that other groups find offensive. The criteria surely has to be how offensive they are, not to whom they are offensive. Zocky | picture popups 10:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
how do you precisely do that? how do you define how ofensive something is without thinking about the "whom"? many things are offensive to a culture but not so much to another culture. for muslims caricatures of mohamed, jesus or any other "prophet" are unthinkable, they are offensive. but most of us westerns dont understand that now do we? on the other hand some images are offensive to us westerns specially if we are americans like for example a behaded mans head: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Berg , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nick_Berg#This_is_an_encyclopedia_-_let.27s_keep_it_this_way.2C_shall_we.3F (as far as i see anyphoto or video link were removed, talk about NPOV criteria....) - --193.136.128.14 10:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
A precedent for hiding the image already exists. See how the totally innocuous (imo) photograph in Autofellatio is presented. So there is no reason not to follow 193.136.128.14's suggestion. David Sneek 10:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
You mean the drawing of a man sucking his own pee-pee? Why, it's prominently displayed at top of article. The click-here-for-picture template exists ONLY for that article, and for no others, and was implemented by Jimbo himself. There was no community consensus to do so. Babajobu 10:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The photograph, Babajobu. Anyway, it wasn't Jimbo's decision; he initially removed it. There was a 63% majority to present it as a link [5]. David Sneek 10:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, people thought that the autofellatio pick had no informational value--I disagree with them, and would have voted to keep it inline. Regardless, I don't think anyone here is actually arguing that the picture is not informative. Anyway, as you say, putting the autofellatio pic as a link had 63% support, and still needed Jimbo's intervention to do so. If we had a vote here (and I'm starting to think we do), there's no way removing the image would get anywhere near a majority. People just have never been impressed by "against my religion!" as a reason for removing material from Wikipedia, whether that religion is Evangelical Christianity, Judaism, Scientology, or Islam. Babajobu 11:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Again you misrepresent what happened, Jimbo thought the picture was "completely unacceptable" [6], but it was kept anyway. Islam is not my religion and I do not advocate removing the image, I only think that making a very small concession to readers who might consider the image blasphemous - by moving it a bit down the page or placing it one click away - should be no problem. A simple matter of good manners, that's all. David Sneek 12:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Babajobu: there is a very similar debate in the goatse.cx article which is protected right now, over whether to put the goatse picture right in that article. Where do you stand on that? Calling for inlining the (OMG) autofellatio photo is something I'd have to label as extremist.
FWIW, in the French version of this article someone removed the Geert Wilders link, calling it "spam de lien, merci de ne pas le rerajouter. L'important dans l'article ce n'est pas les caricatures elles-mêmes mais la réaction qui a suivi." ("link spam, thank you for not putting it back. What's important in this article is not the cartoons themselves but the reaction that followed"). I'm not so supportive of the link removal but I think the person assigned the correct priorities to the article. 12:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, do you guy realise that some islamic sect consider photograph of person or animal to be halam. If someon is that sensitive, they can simply set the option of his or her browser so it won't load image. There is absolutely no point in trying to make exception to different taste, ideology or faith. Look at Europe where race hate is a crime while faith hate is not. It is just damb. FWBOarticle

Why this picture should not be in the article

Let me start by debunking some bogus arguments used above:

First of all, these cartoons are clearly not offensive only to Muslim extremists. All religious Muslims are likely to be offended by the religious implications involved in depicting Mohammad, and even secular people who grew up in Muslim cultures are likely to be offended by a Western newspaper publishing a caricature of Mohammad with a bomb up his turban.

Second, free speech and censorship arguments are misguided. Neither free speech nor freedom from censorship require that we publish every piece of info we have or can get. We already pick and chose which images to put in articles, and even have a tool to prevent some pictures from being put in articles. Including or not including the picture is an editorial decision, not a question of censorship.

This is a major political and news event. Several governments, including fully democratically elected European ones, have expressed their disapproval of the publishing of these cartoons. No government or a major political party has said that publishing them is a good thing. Virtually all world media, including those in Muslim countries, have published a story about it, yet only a handful have re-published the cartoons themselves. Those that have are rare enough to be news themselves, and are doing it explicitly as a political statement.

The article is not about the cartoons themselves. They're hardly worth a mention by themselves. The article is about the controversy. surrounding their publication. If we publish the picture in the article about the controversy, we are making the statement that publishing the picture is the right thing to do, and that those who say it isn't are wrong. That's hardly NPOV.

Some people are claiming that not publishing the picture is just as much a political statement. This would be true only if we otherwise published all pictures, regardless of sensitivites involved, and singled this one out for different treatmant. But that is not the case. AFAIK, we don't have, and shouldn't have, pictures of burnt bodies of American contract workers in Fallujah, nor Muslim extremist posters of Sharon's head on a pig's body. Both were major news events, and I'm sure we could find pictures if we tried.

The only valid concern that those who argue for the inclusion of the cartoons have brought up is access to information. We should provide a way for readers who want to see the cartoons to find them. This can be accomplished by providing a link to an image page or to another site that carries them. Nobody will be denied access to information by not seeing the actual cartoons in the article itself.

Can anybody provide a principled counter-argument that (a) does not try to claim that we should always publish all relevant pictures, regardless of the sensitivities and political implications involved, and (b) does not include reasoning like "them being offended by this is more dumb than me being offended by that." Zocky | picture popups 10:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Zocky, you have strung together a collection of strawman arguments. No one has argued "we should publish all pictures of everything, because we can", so why have you wasted your time "refuting" such a bogus argument? Also, according to today's Telegraph, as the story has gotten bigger the pictures have now been published in newspapers all over Europe, so many that it is no longer sensible to name all of them, and our own article now also only says "and many other European newspapers". One concern I have is that, as I said to the IP above, Wikipedia contains tons of content that is offensive to various groups. Piss Christ is an example offensive to Christians. In numerous articles we publish the Hebrew lettering of the tetragrammaton, which religious Jews believe should only be published in scripture, prayerbooks, et cetera. We have a horde of content and pictures that Scientologists find objectionable. The list goes on and on. In the past we have always referred people to Wikipedia's content disclaimer when they've said that Wikipedia should remove content they and their religious/ideological group find objectionable...if we make a special exception for Muslims and Islam, what will we tell such groups in the future? Babajobu 10:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
We wouldn't be making a special exception for Muslims. We would be doing exactly what we already do with other pictures that other people find offensive. It's simply not true that we don't censor images other groups find offensive, in addition to those I mention above, we also don't do explicit porn. The question is, is this picture offensive in itself, and is our publishing it offensive. It depicts the prophet of a major world religion with a bomb up his turban, so yes, it's offensive in itself, and European right-wing newspapers are reprinting them to provoke Muslims further, so yes, joining them in that is offensive too. Not because some people find it offensive, but because it's meant to offend. Zocky | picture popups 10:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
You're being silly. Most of the newspapers who republished the cartoons, did it in order to DOCUMENT what was going on. As long as they don't explicitly share the opinions that may be transported through this images, you can't say, they did it to offend. They did it to document and so should we.--129.13.186.1 10:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The same papers don't use documentary pictures their users would find offensive, so claiming that they did it to document is naive. Some of them did it to offend, and other did it to increase the sales, none of which should be our motivations. Zocky | picture popups 10:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
the newsapapers republished the cartoons to "defend" "the right to free speech", ie they republished the cartoons as a political statement - --193.136.128.14 10:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
How do you know the motivation of all the many newspapers that have now published the cartoons? Some surely did it as a statement, especially early on, but at this point is it inconceivable to you that many newspapers actually want to document the events in a growing news story? And Zocky, sure we do "explicit porn". We had a picture of a woman performing a blowjob in oral sex for over a year, before it was deleted for not having source info. And we still have the autofellatio picture, though by Jimbo's fiat it is not inline. Finally, we absolutely would be making a special exception for the Muslim religion: the image displayed at Piss Christ is mortally offensive to many Christians, the images of Xenu are supposed to be private for scientologists, the tetragrammaton lettering in a secular encylopedia is heresy to many religious Jews, as are the utterings of "Jehovah" in our spoken articles. If we're not willing to remove content for any of those groups, then we really can't show special reverence for Islam. Babajobu 10:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
"French and German newspapers republished caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed yesterday in what they called a defense of freedom of expression, sparking fresh anger from Muslims." - Boston Globe
"German's Die Welt printed the bomb-turban picture on its front page, with the others inside, and an accompanying commentary defending freedom of expression and the "right to blasphemy" in an open society." - CNSNews.com
"The drawings, which first ran in a Danish paper in September and have riled the Muslim world, were reprinted Wednesday in France Soir and several other European papers rallying to defend freedom of expression." - CNN - --193.136.128.14 10:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The tageszeitung reprinted the caricatures because it sees itself - according to the tageszeitung editor - obliged to the "duty to document" (Dokumentationspflicht).--129.13.186.1 11:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


I would absolutely agree with you if we were talking about a picture of an Islamic depiction of Mohammad, or indeed about a Western depiction of him in art. But we're talking about a set of cartoons that are anywhere between making fun of and ridiculing the prophet of a major world religion, and by extension its followers. It's not a question of whether people are offended, it's whether the picture is meant to offend, and I thinkg this one is. Zocky | picture popups 10:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
" They did it to document and so should we" (they didnt to document but anyway) even so, no one (or at least im not) is saying that we shouldnt document, i dont agree the cartoons should be removed for the article. however moving the pic down to the bottom of the page (with a link on top) would both respect muslims and document. - --193.136.128.14 10:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"Offensive" is not really a good word here. "Disrespectful" might be a better word to describe my problem with it. Zocky | picture popups 10:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should seek neither to respect or disrespect anyone. It should seek to provide all relevant information on notable topics. When I edit I think about how the writing can be accurate and well-written, I don't think about how I can perform gestures that show special "respect" for whoever I am writing about. Babajobu 10:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Surely we should be respectful of everybody, otherwise any information will be lost in the vitriol. I'm not talking about any "special" respect for anybody. Zocky | picture popups 10:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Sure you are. There is a lot of content in the Wikipedia that might be offensive to several different groups. But if someone is offended by the documentation of reality, an encyclopedia can't help him.--129.13.186.1 11:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

To recapitulate, nobody has answered why the inclusion of this picture should be judged by different criteria than other pictures we could have but don't because many people find them offensive (burnt bodies in Fallujah, Sharon's head on a pig's body posters, people jumping off the twin towers, etc.). Repeating that we don't censor pictures based on sensitivities isn't going to make it so.

Also, nobody has presented any arguments that not including the picture is a political statement, while there are plenty of arguments above for the view that including them is.

Have I missed something? Zocky | picture popups 11:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and the latest renaming is just silly. Zocky | picture popups 11:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Zocky, people have answered your question ad nauseum, including before you even asked them. We have loads of offensive content, which we have refused to remove to honor people's religious sensibilities...just because you have come up with a few pics we happen not to have, that doesn't mean we censor offensive content, we absolutely don't. The simple fact is that you are arguing that we should show more respect for Muslims than we do for Christians, Jews, Scientologists, et cetera, and many of us disagree. We don't think an encyclopedia should "surely be respectful of everybody". That's not an encyclopedia's job, it's job is to include all relevant info in comprehensive articles on notable topics. End of story. Babajobu 11:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
If you trully believe that, try to include any of the images I mentioned above and go check after a few days to see the talk page. When it gets removed, see if you find the same people who are screaming "free speech" here screaming "free speech" there.

Zocky | picture popups 11:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Zocky, that's preposterous, these cries of "oh, you are hurting Muslims and no one else" are totally disingenuous and contradicted by the evidence. I have provided multiple examples of content that is MORE offensive to those groups than the examples you provide, and you simply repeat, "yes, but what about MY examples, see, people really don't care about free speech." If we were to stick your pretty innocuous examples into an article (which would be fine) you could just come up with some other random example that happens to not yet be included in Wikipedia. The fact is there is no image that has caused as much upset among Christians in the past decade than Piss Christ...and Wikipedia sticks that image right at the top of the article, where it belongs, because we have not yet chosen to truckle before demands for censorship. You are asking for special treatment of Islam and Muslims. End of story. Babajobu 12:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Double-edged sword. Just as "nobody has answered why the inclusion of this picture should be judged by different criteria than other pictures we could have but don't," nobody has answered why the picture should be judged by different criteria than other pictures we could have taken down but haven't.
In my opinion, the pictures serve as important documentary evidence, offensive or otherwise. They are not extraneous but ultimately the core of the controversy, and nobody can truly make an informed decision about the controversy without seeing for themselves what caused it. Whether some readers feel offense or not is not as important as the reader being able to decide for themselves whether to be offended, and whether they feel the reactions we're seeing are justified, and by removing the pictures the editors would be doing little more than making that judgment call in the place of the reader, and that would (in my opinion) be an insult to the intelligence and sensibilities of the readers; again, I do not believe a sensible person who does not want to see the pictures would come to this article, at least not before disabling images in their web browser.
I am not saying that the pictures are or are not offensive (clearly some are and some aren't), but removing or otherwise obfuscating them would be supporting the POV that they are offensive, while including them does not necessarily assume offense but rather lets the reader decide their own point of view. --Guppy313 16:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Pic

I moved the picture to the same location where the picture in Oral sex is. --Striver 10:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The article about Oral Sex is not a good place for cartoons about Muhammad.--129.13.186.1 10:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Keep Muhammad out of the Oral sex article, please, his relevance there is tenuous at best. Babajobu 10:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Think you got it all wrong there, Striver moved the image down in the article, under the TOC, a bit like my proposal for a compromise. Scoo 10:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why Oral Sex should be material to this article.--129.13.186.1 11:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, pictures of oral sex are not relevant to this article. Babajobu 11:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not following, no one has implied that content from Oral sex should be added here or vice-versa. What Striver did was changing the layout by moving the image down a bit. Scoo 11:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that. But the layout of the article of Oral Sex is not relevant for the layout of this article.--129.13.186.1 11:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
...and why is that? For my stance in the matter, please scroll up. Scoo 11:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Scoo, stop equating Muhammad to a woman performing a blowjob, you're giving me hurt feelings. Babajobu 11:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Not to derail this convo, but IMO the fellatio pic is of a man giving another man a blow job.--Anchoress 18:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agreed with Striver's move, it's the sensible thing to do for reasons that have been discussed many times, and it doesn't hurt anything with regards to "documenting the truth". --Vsion (talk) 11:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Since when do I equate Muhammad to a woman performing a blowjob? I say that the article on Wikipedia about Jyllands-Postens cartoons/caricatures controversy is a controversial one, and that the Oral sex article and similar are that too. The difference is that this article show the image at the very top of the page, thus everyone accessing it are bound to see it. A better way would be to inlude the image at a more sensitive place, for example below the table of contents that anyone may navigate the article, without having to be exposed to the image. Scoo 11:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the image in Oral sex as controversial and I don't think that the position this image has was chosen because some people could feel offended by the image. The image just fits there very well. Furthermore the image in Oral Sex is just an illustration, but the cartoons are the very given reason all these protests, boycotts and threats were made.--129.13.186.1 13:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


The salient point here is that you are hurting my feelings, and you should remove evidence of your argument from this page, because it hurts my feelings. Babajobu 11:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
No need to include pictures of oral sex in this article, it's about cartoons from an article in Jyllandsposten which included no such thing. Passw0rd 11:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
No-one equate Muhammed with a woman performing a blowjob. Scoo implicitly compared the offence of showing Muhammed with a bomb in his turban, to the offence of showing a woman performing a blowjob. I think that makes sence.--Niels Ø 12:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't you get it?? It doesn't matter!! You hurt my feelings!!! Retract the argument! Babajobu 12:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok Babajou, we get the point :P Jacoplane 12:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Renaming

Let's rename this article to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, to better describe what this article is about. Can we have a quick "vote" to see if there's consensus for this move? --Vsion (talk) 10:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

That's five nouns with no other parts of speech, no offense but it's a textbook example of nightmarish headline writing. Babajobu 10:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Possibly so, but we don't keep John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy at John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography either. The title should be what the article is about. Any ideas for a better name? Zocky | picture popups 10:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I assume that those who moved the article are working on fixing the double-redirects, right? Also, I would prefer that the article stayed at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons, since that actually is the topic of the article: The cartoons, the history behind their publication and the controversy that occured. That is unlike John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy which only concern the controversy itself (the biography is at John Seigenthaler Sr.). Rasmus (talk) 11:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
STOP!!! "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons (satire) controversy" is not an acceptable title!! At least cut out the psycho parenthetical "satire". Babajobu 11:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The original proposal Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy would do in my humble opinion. Scoo 11:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Ha ... just after I've done the double-redirect for the first move, someone move it again. That's not very considerate ... Is the second move ok for everyone? --Vsion (talk) 11:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I prefer the current title. --Sheeo 16:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Use the title of the publication in question: "Muhammids ansigt" controversy. --Guppy313 16:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting analysis of the bomb in the turban image

The cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, Flemming Rose, was on Danish tv (on DR1 in the program Profilen) yesterday where he explained and discussed the pictures. He had an interesting analysis of the image with the bomb in the turban where he said it was not meant to equate Islam with terror but to show that some people used religion as an excuse to execture terrorism.

I think that analysis was quite good, and probably more likely than the drawing is trying to equate Islam with terror. --Snailwalker | talk 10:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


OH! Just like Jyllands-Posten used the Freedom of Speech excuse to publish these pictures in the first place?


FACT: Islam = Terror.

move the image down?

ok, so why not move the image down, maintaining a warning and a link on the top of the page? 1. it would still serve documentation purposes 2. it would be more respectful to viewers (which may not include just muslims actually) 3. i dare say it would actually be more neutral, it wouldnt offend anyone, it wouldnt be deleted (which would be "censorship" acording to some), it would still serve encylopedic purpose.

- --193.136.128.14 11:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Because every time it's been tried, somebody screams "censorship!" and moves it back to the top. 71.141.251.153 11:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
yeah, "its censorship!" its the excuse, but we already seen its not about that - --193.136.128.14 11:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
This topic has been discussed in ten other talk threads than this one. If you'd read them, you would see that just some of the reasons most believe it should be at the top is:
* Wikipedia style
* Importance of image to the article
* Freedom of speech and expression
* Better for them to find the image on Wikipedia than go looking for it on Google, finding a large number of anti-Islamic sites
* etc, etc
-- Utopianheaven 12:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes as Utopiaheaven said, censorship is NOT the only topic and argument here. Many of course are against removal of the image on the grounds of censorship which I agree with. Moving the image down however, has rather to do with pandering to a group of people. Wikipedia is NOT here to make people feel good about themselves. It is NOT here to alleviate religious tensions by making special provisions for a group of people. Wikipedia is about information. If we start making concessions to not "disrespect" and "offend" muslim readers, then what about everyone else? Shouldn't we then start making sure christians, jews and just about every other major religion could not /possibly/ be offended by wikipedia content? and then where will it end? What if an ethnic group finds something offensive? Then what? Who's to say North Korea doesn't find everything on here about it offensive and disrespectful? I suppose we should give into them to cause we don't want to scare away what few propaganda police from NK are looking on here. Simply put, we should not make any special arrangments for anyone. As someone said before this isn't Christianopedia or any of its religious equivalents. Hitokirishinji 14:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This debate is damb. If some muslim want to come to this page, they can switch off image loading function of the browser. It is same as switching channell when you see some TV program you don't like. Leave the discrection to each readers. Wikipedia is censorship free zone. FWBOarticle

The POLL

Polls are evil...but it seems like it's time to figure out where consensus lies on this issue. Babajobu 11:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

sorry but this not help realy and if there voting I will vote to keep it in top this will not solve the conflict.Qatarson 11:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
why will u vote to keep it on top - --193.136.128.14 11:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
because it is like who says ( should we shot him in the head or in ...) & both way are same.Qatarson
 ? give me a real logical reason - --193.136.128.14 11:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
logical reason !! simplest one why open a door in wikipedia for troubles and take risk of losing millions of muslims of wikipedia visitors.Qatarson 12:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, please keep all doors and windows closed. Passw0rd 12:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Qatarson, I think you are understimating the maturity and intellectual sophistication of our Muslim readers. They know this is not "Hallalopedia", just as our Christian visitors know it's not "Christopedia", Jews know it's not "Judeopedia", et cetera. For people who can't handle plurality and the uncensored flow of information, perhaps Wikipedia is not the right place, anyway. Babajobu 12:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep the image, the piss christ image is on top, and come on guys, this article is about the image, removing it whould not work. Moving it a down a bit would still work, but apparently some people don't want it anywhere at all, and keep removing it even when moved down. But I'd say leave it op top. Al3xander 12:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Well put, Babajobu. I'd be scared to see a Judeopedia, Christopedia, Hallalopedia, or whatever. Especially after seeing how this has played out during the past 72 hours. (And if it's not totally clear: I strongly believe the image should be kept at the top as it is currently.) Utopianheaven 12:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, wikipedia should not make special concessions to one group of people. As someone pointed out before, one should not be shocked to see the cartoons in an article about them and they should be displayed in the correct wikipedia format. Muslim readers who realize they may see the image and find it offensive can simply turn off "load images" on their browsers and in doing so may even score some extra points with the man upstairs in taking a proactive effort into avoiding violating islamic law. Hitokirishinji 15:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


Hey, I am really beginning to resent this discussion. The sequence of the discussion goes:

  • Person A: This image is calculated to inflame. Let's move it down.
  • Person B: Give me one good reason.
  • Person A: Because even though it's newsworthy, if we moved it down, it would not be the very first thing someone sees, and would not be quite as much of a slap in the face.

(HERE COMES THE PART I RESENT)

  • Person B: Don't you realize Wikipedia is supposed to be uncensored? Why are you embracing censorship? If people can't handle the uncensored flow of information, maybe they should go somewhere else.

Well, for @#$%^&*( sake, I'm not talking about censorship. I'm talking about m-o-v-i-n-g t-h-e i-m-a-g-e. There is a difference between asking that the image be deleted and asking that it be moved. Again, compare Oral sex. What we're suggesting is not without precedent, not radical, and certainly not censorship. Could you all please stop lumping us together with the people who (mostly anonymous socks) who are insisting that the image be deleted? BYT 12:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Moving it down is OK, putting it somewhere beside the Publication of the drawings, where it even works better imo. Al3xander 12:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Uh, Brandon, I'm not lumping you in with anyone, but I was responding to Qatarson, who is part of the contingent of editors who want the picture REMOVED, not moved down. Babajobu 12:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay -- it was a confusing exchange, my apologies. However, this has been the basic response from other editors pretty much every time I've brought this up. BYT 12:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the whole thing has gotten messy and confusing. For my part, I acknowledge that there is a significant difference between removing the image and placing it elsewhere in the article. Babajobu 12:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, the vote here is somehow unstructred and chaotic. I have great problems to find an appropriate place to vote and to find a clear formulation for what i vote for. I hope my Vote will be taken in consideration: I vote for deleting the picture مبتدئ 14:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

THE POLL IS AT Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons. Go there to vote. Babajobu 14:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Muslim viewpoint

I,m muslim and I think these these Pics is silly and full of Hate and Racism , for this reason and cause this article is talking about these Pics I think the Pics should be at the top not the Bottom . instead of that it should be explained the real viewpoint of Muslims about these pics and why they consider them racist and islamophobic . --Unfinishedchaos 13:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Bravo, Unfinishedchaos. I for one would fully support a strong statement from a Muslim point of view shown next to the image. That is true freedom of speech. Thparkth 13:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Um...isn't all of this supposed to be NPOV? --Happylobster 16:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I find it perfectly reasonable to have an explanation of the muslim viewpoint. However the text written by Unfinishedchaos needs a great deal of corrections in the language. I am not at all capable of doing that but would like to see it included if someone proficient in english could correct it. Martix 17:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Which Muslim point of view should it be, chaos? The extremist, the moderate, the in-between, the Danish Muslims', the Saudis'... you ARE aware that there are different opinions between muslims as to whether or not these drawings are actually full of hate and racism, just caricatures trying to generate debate, or something in-between? So, with your view point (hate/racism), would you be capable of providing a REAL viewpoint, or just one that'll support YOURS? IMO, if you can't look at the article as encyclopediac information, but attach some sort of subjective meaning to it, you will not be able to produce information that reflects the objective reality - at least not on your own.--Discus2000 18:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


well Discus200 I think I could say majority of muslims are not happy with these pics , and u know why ? cause they make them Exremists ... it is nice of u that differntiate between Extreme , moderate , in-between , ... but u havn,t noticed that u have made majority of muslims at least feel upset by insulting their prophet and consiquently insulting them --Unfinishedchaos 18:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

chaos, please don't speculate as to what my opinion about the drawings is or what I may or may not have noticed about their impact. Can you or can you not distance yourself from your own, personal opinion about the drawings (hate/racism) and provide an accurate account on how muslims, be they moderate, extreme or in-between, have been affected by the publishing of these drawings? Can you or can you not, give an objective account of the discourse attached to the publishing of the drawings?
And chaos, I didn't publish the cartoons, I'm not an employee of Jyllands-Posten, and as such I haven't insulted the prophet in any way - please don't make the allegation that I have.

Question about showing the images in the Middle East

From the article:

"When the organisation Islamic Society in Denmark toured the Middle-East to create awareness about the cartoons..."

Presumably the Islamic Society showed people the images in question, if only to say "look how offensive these are!"

If that was OK according to Islamic law and tradition, why is it not OK for this article to do the same?

Thparkth 12:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


I agree with Thparkth ... the issue of position of the Pics or should be included or not , shouldn,t be important .. we have to discuss the real subject (the article)--Unfinishedchaos 12:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hear,Hear... Al3xander 13:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The Jordanian tabloid newspaper al-Shihan has published 3 of the images today. Complementing the pictures is the following text: "Muslims in the World, be reasonable! What hurts Islam the most, these drawings; or pictures of a kidnapper, who in front of a camera cuts the throat of his victim, or a suicide-bomber, who blows himself up at a wedding in Amman?--Discus2000 13:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, several Arabic websites have featured the images prominently within their news stories. See: Aljazeera, Yemen Observer. Jacoplane 13:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Depictions of the Prophet are common even in Islamic history. I don't see the big deal. 82.93.70.118 14:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The quality of Article

I don,t wanna to discuss the issue of the pic anymore , but I think we have to discuss more important issues related to the articles itself , I will mention some sides of the Article or in the Issue itself , that muslims consider it unacceptable :

  • it should be assured that those pics are totally imagninary and doesn't represent the true shape of Muhammad simply because there is no way to know the True shape , and muslem refuse these pics .
  • majority of Muslims : including Liberal and Extreme fundamentalist Muslims think that these pics carry bad racist ideas about Islam and Muslims .
  • many muslims refuse the anger campaign against Denmark , but still think that the Journal use the "Freedom of Speech " to express bad intentions , Islamophobia , Racism .
  • Considering the Islam is the only religion that has borders for Freedom of speech , is totally wrong , and they give the Example of Catholic Churce and Galilieo case .

The understanding of Freedom in islam should be dicussed deeply and expressing the different schools of islam about this issue , i,m working about that with other muslim editors .

  • the Comparison of this case with other cases like critics of the Woman roles in Islam , isn't totally true ... Personally I accept any one to critisize some bad woman rules , cause I consider these rules Epression of a islamic school not for Islam , but when the Insulting is directed towards teh major Character of Islam , then that is attack against all muslims and not against Fundamentalists .

and that make majority of muslims feel upset and they are descriped as Terrorists as their Prophet himself is Terrorist , so they descripe the Cartoons as racist and islamophobic , they are not against Fundemntalism but against Islam itself as they represent all muslims by the Prophet of Islam .

  • this issue represent one of the critical cases that face the new world order , or what is called Globalization . when rules of different countries contradicts . How could we gather rules of Blasphemy in Islamic countries with rules of Frredom of speech in secular countries , that gives new challenges for formulating kind of rules suitable for the Whole world not for small region or country ... It is big challenge .
  • The muslim Anger has other side doesn,t been taken into account : they feel anger from disputed use of Law in Western Countries , as they complain and that is related to new Expression of Islamophobia after 11/9 and to the past history of competition between islamic Impire and Roman Catholic Empire .

They give an Example by the Anti-semistic rules , that condemns any deny of Holucost or review of number of the Victims , and they consider these laws contradicting with Freedom of speech . so when the matter is related to Blasphemy about Muhammad , westerners claimed that is freedom of speech . as some user here said tehre is no anti-semistic law in Denmark , but u know when u talk about ppl they don,t differntiate between denmark and Holland and Us .

  • it is so important to assure that anger against picturing muhammed generally or in this way is hurting for all muslims , and couldn,t be critics for islam . and that what most ppl ask for .

I personally a liberal muslim and i can agree with u about some critics relating fundemntalist muslims and some ancient explanation of Islam but there is no chance to make a musllim happy with seeing this Insult of Whole Islam by picyuring Muhammed . This recognization is so important .

I Think i have summarized most points that muslims Complain against , if we could formulate this view point in the article , it would be perfect . Peace --Unfinishedchaos 12:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You should not generalize about "the muslims" or "the majority of the muslims". In fact only a very small number of muslims protested actively against those cartoons. But we don't even know whether those muslims we're sincerely angry or were just happy to find a pretense to make some row.--129.13.186.1 13:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


maby not all muslims protest , but i can assure that most if not all muslims feel upset and feel that they r attacked , offcourse the reaction if defferent from person to person , but u cannot picture the prophet of islam as terrorist and u wanna them to be happy .. this thing should be understood ... this pics carry an idea of generalization that all muslims are terrorism and criminals --Unfinishedchaos 14:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No one would like to see their God/Saint/National Hero/Prophet/Deties/Idol, or just somebody important, got insult in the public irrtionaly, while every one support the insults and said its their freedom to make fun of whoever they like. This is the abuse of freedom of speech and violation of Denmark's freedom of religion. 66.225.141.5 18:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

to the last part... according to the ruling from the district attorney, it's not a violation (I think the plaintiffs are appealing, though, so we'll have to wait for a final ruling)--Discus2000 20:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you direct your anger at the extremists who are giving the great faith of Islam a bad name? 1 billion Muslims in this world, the vast majority of which must honest decent people just like billions of other people on this planet - imagine what they could do if they acted together and demonstrated their outrage against the extremists from the middle ages that are terrorizing us all? I think the cartoon portraying Muhammed as a terrorist a wake up call for you. Was he really a terrorist? I know little about him, but I really doubt it. I would imagine he carried a moral message like Christ or any other prophet. That's just it - here I am displaying my ignorance of your religion for all to see. It's up to you to inform us ignorant people. What is Islam about anyhow? Is it really about murdering anybody that offends you? I am sure it isn't. There must be messages about peace and love and brotherhood and that sort of thing, but that's just the problem - your aren't getting the message out. You need better PR managers than Bin Laden and the like.

All this controversy about a few cartoons drawn by a few individuals who don't represent anyone but themselves. Muslim laws are for Mulims, and don't apply to anyone outside of their religion.

Comparable?

What do Galileo, Larry Flynt, the American flag and emperor Akihito have to do with anything? Is this article supposed to be an index for all famous "free speech" incidents and issues?

I think Wikipedia should stick to the directly relevant issues, not broaden the scope artificially. "Comparable incidents" starts off well but quickly degenerates into things that are hardly "comparable". 81.58.51.131 13:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I would agree, this article deals with outrages as perceived by Muslims. Free Speech is a principle, but the Flint et al examples aren't that pertinent to a Muslim vs non-Muslim argument. They should be withdrawn. (Lipatden 13:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC))
Probably the part "Controversial newspaper caricatures" would be enough.-- 129.13.186.1 13:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
That was my initial reaction also. Anyboy wanna be bold? Eixo 15:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Personnally, I believe those issues are important to look at the global attacks on freedom of speech in the ages, which are amplified by this article.


I agree totally. It seems to be ok in many Muslim nations to defame images of all other religious icons, not to mention their portrayels of Jews, but god f**king forbid you show a picture of their 'Prophet' and now all of a sudden everyone is supposed to forget Islams degredation of NON Islamic religious figures?

Lets stop being so PC here ok? Its just a bunch of cartoons about a man who married and had sexual relations with a 9 year old CHILD. No big deal. get over it. TruthCrusader

Offensive but important

I think it matters, whether some image is offensive or not, only in the case, that the image itself is not important for the respective article. If an unimportant image is offensive, you can delete it. But if an image is important (like the cartoons in this article), it doesn't matter anymore whether it is offensive or not.--129.13.186.1 13:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hadithspam!

Let's not start that again! Babajobu 13:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Which images are actually offensive?

Since we've obviously got some serious flaming going on, can anyone say whether the objection is to ANY drawing of Muhammed, or merely the turban bomb, no-virgins etc pictures...?

I personally think the cartoonist drawing the Prophet while looking over his shoulder is the best, and the one most pertinent to the discussion, it's not overtly offensive and represents exactly what was meant to be discussed by Jyllands Posten (and everyone else who's jumped on board), which is:

Why are we so scared of this? (Lipatden 13:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC))

Good Point. I also think the picture of Muhammed calming down the 2 muslims going crazy is quite a good one. It highlights my view that Muslims are being oversensitive about this and they need to grow up and stop being so insecure about their religion and be more tolerant of the European Culture.

Any depiction of Muhammad, whether imagined to be "positive" or "negative" in nature, is considered by Muslims to be not merely offensive, but a crime against Islam.
This is the point some of the editors seem to be overlooking. You know how the Kennedy family kind of drew the line at public circulation of JFK's autopsy photos, as being WELL out of bounds? Well, that's sort of what we have on our hands here, except for "Kennedy family," read "One Billion Muslims" and for "privacy rights of the family" read "eager desire not to go to hell."
No, there is nowhere that those standards are connected to WP. Yes, they are a part of the larger world in which we live. BYT 14:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Agree with that. Would also point out, though, that the Kennedy family is SOL, because in the age of the internet anyone who is interested can check out the Kennedy autopsy photos at their leisure. And if Al Jazeera is now showing pics of the cartoons, how is it possible that Muslims are worried that the publication of these cartoons in Wikipedia will cause the Muslims to be sent to hell? Babajobu 14:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The pictures are not only offensive because it's Muhammad in them but because they are satire. Also Aljazeera hasn't shown them and I don't know what "Muslims going to hell" has to do with this? You would get the same reaction with any religion that is being offended but each is offended in different ways. In this case it's the picture. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Al Jazeera has indeed shown them, the link is on this page, I followed it and saw the picture. Brandon was the one who mentioned "an earnest desire not to go to hell" as one of the issues here...I was as surprised by it as you are. Babajobu 16:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
To clarify about the going-to-hell business: Disobeying the Prophet is a sin for Muslims, period. Two prominent teachings from the Prophet are about a)avoiding making or circulating images of living things (one hadith describes imagemakers as in the front rank of hellfire, or something like that) and b) specifically, not making or circulating an image of the Prophet himself. That means that creating a flattering commemorative painting is generally regarded as a sin. I'm pretty sure it's a major sin, but can't swear to that. Where does a snarky caricature fall? Where do ten or twelve of them fall? Someplace I don't want to be. BYT 17:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Brandon, yes, I get that Muslims must not make or be involved in the circulation of images, and particularly images of Muhammad. What I don't understand is how inadvertantly viewing Wikipedia's image would cause them concern about being consigned to the hellfire. I also think Anonymous Editor was confused by that notion. A Muslim who accidentally saw (and was revolted by) a cartoon of Muhammad surely wouldn't get in trouble with his maker. Babajobu 17:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There is two points should be clarified :

firstly any picturing of Prophet Muhammad is forbidden in islam and unacceptable for muslims .

secondly : when u make critics of some islamic ideas or even of some "islamic" behaviour (and such behaviour is different according to the different scools and sects of islam ) , when make this critics using a picture with name (Muhammad) , then u generalize ur rules and critics and maby ur hate to all muslims not to small group of islam , that what explain that popular anger .

actually , if ur critics or ur pics represent some islamic religoun-man or some fundamentalist without saying that is muhammad , then surely i won,t make any effort protesting aginst these pics , but when u say that muhammad learns muslims Terrorism by his behaviour as the pics say , then it is natural to see such anger ... I,m with freedom of speech but simply that is speech of Hate --Unfinishedchaos 14:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Depicting Muhammed is offensive to Muslims, so now Muslims want all kafirs to abide by their law? Jyllands-Posten is not a Muslim publication, neither is Wikipedia.
  • Calling for punishment for expression of fundamental democratic freedoms is unacceptable to most educated westerners, especially since even the discussion (and drawing can be discussion) of the topic that requires pictorial references is offending you. It's a self-confirming delusion
  • Calling for an execution of someone for violating your laws in your country, (even then most countries don't have these laws, they're merely moral norms) is plainly absurd in International Law.

You offend me with your response to my freedoms. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (or draw it). (Lipatden 14:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC))

Not a fan of Voltaire are ye Lipatden? :D Homestarmy 14:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité! No, I'm not French, but I take freedom of expression, and most of all freedom of thought very seriously, which is what is being suppressed here. (Lipatden 15:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC))


"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" Excuse me Lipatden , but I wanna complete ur quote : I will pay my life for your Freedom , but please don,t use ur freedom to insult me " .

actually noone tries to make some eefort to understand the other's viewpoint , i,m supporter of freedom and i fight to bring freedom laws into middle east , but wait a minute ... in my opinion it is not : Islam vs. Freedom as the westerners represent the Issue ... it is muslims vs. Hate and Disrespect .

I don,t deny ur freedom to express ur opinions and ur critics for islam and fundametalist muslims , but why should JP draw silly pics saying that is muhammad , cannot they use muslem religion-man to do that critics .

another point is when u represent muhammad as terrorist and criminal , u say that all muslims r terrorists and criminals , which obviously message of Hate . can u use ur freedom in America to express ur hate for jews and afro-americans . or Expression of Hate is only allowd against muslims --Unfinishedchaos 15:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, American media is replete with critical and/or offensive discussions or images of Jews and Afro-Americans. In a free media, everyone is fair game, and for the most part, communities in the West have learned to live with it, because they know life is better with a free press. Babajobu 16:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
People in America DO have the right to express their disgust for others. You can call someone a racial slur even but that doesn't get you arrested. And as a person who is NOT muslim, the cartoons hardly incite "hate" in me for muslims. What I do "hate" is people who think that their rules apply to everyone else and those who do not follow should die. That is probably the single most issue I have found any disgust for so far in this whole debacle. And last I checked, the newspapers were European weren't they? Why did you not say "are you allowed to express hate for a group of people in every single truely free nation out there?" Why single out America? You know in Japan they blatantly discrminate against foreign people. Hitokirishinji 16:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
And just so you truely know, maybe you've heard about the Ku Klux Klan? They MARCH in America on a regular basis (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/121604.stm). And there is NO other group more well known for being racist and seeding hate. But we haven't censored them. We all just grew up learning that there is a such thing as extremist groups and those are best ignored. Hitokirishinji 16:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


Hitokirishinji said : " What I do "hate" is people who think that their rules apply to everyone else and those who do not follow should die. " Exactly the same thing i hate and refuse but simply these pics say that all muslims behave in this way by representing thier prophet criminal and terrorist . i,m against this generalization which makes all muslims feel angry and hated ... and day by day the number of Extremists increase . that is what i,m worried about and that is why i wanna you condemn such hate messages . --Unfinishedchaos 16:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm against generalizations too but that does not mean I have the right to take them down or "hide" them from folks. My own ethnic group has had its own problems with generalization but you learn to deal with it and by least of all, removing images. It is one thing to condemn images and I certainly will agree that this does not help the Muslim population but I do believe it does harm the rest of the world and freedom of speech by hiding them. So I will condemn the images as you say but I will not agree to their removal. Hitokirishinji 16:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop discussing the bomb

Please look at my first post in this section. I'm not advocating the offensive images, (but I should be free to acquire them if I want to) I'm asking why even the intelligent ones like the cartoonist looking over his shoulder is causing outcry. Stop talking about the blatantly offensive images and answer my first question: Why are we so scared of this?

Exactly where are you attributing the remainder of the quote to? I certainly didn't cite a source, because it is my own belief, I just like the way those words convey it. Don't imagine I subscribe to any of the new words you've put on as "complete ur quote".

Your desire to suppress my right to question, discuss and display my thoughts and those of others, which I do to understand them better (that's you and me), is as abhorrent as your apparent disgust over these images. Again, I'm talking about any image, especially intelligent ones, and definitely not the blatantly offensives.

Lastly, the first reply indicated a crime against Islam. No problem, I'll make sure all Muslims I come across know this, but why do you want me to stop? I've got a picture I just doodled on my desk, I've put a big M above it. Can you imagine it? Have I offended you? I certainly haven't shown it to you, have I still commited a crime against your god? (Lipatden)


Hey Lipatden .... I don,t wanna u to stop , u r free to make what u want to do , I just discuss the whole thing trying to make the two sides understand eachother , u r free to offend my prophet and my god personally but when u make that in puplic I think u should be responsible . i think it is ur proplem if u hate me but i think it is wiser not to make generalizations and describing a religion with many schools and sects in just few words. --Unfinishedchaos 16:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

WP isn't the author of the images, they're just telling everyone what's happened. Are they not allowed to do it? Given a page without the image, I'm relying on someone else's interpretation of the images to feed my curiosity, and how do I know that person isn't over- or underdoing it? If I don't substantiate a claim against someone, that's defemation of character. If I do (in this case by showing the image to help the discussion), I'm now the one offending you.

Why is WP to blamne because they're trying to explain how someone else caused someone else offence? Again, they're not Muslim, so why follow Islam codes?

How exactly do we debate this without the images? Do you want it debated?

(Lipatden)


WP should put the Pics , at the Top also ..That is my opinion ..read my other comments --Unfinishedchaos 17:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Putting figure of Mohammed is an attack to Islam. In Islam showing the figure of Mohammed is forbidden. Painting a image of Mohammed is a big sin in Islam. That is very important thing and that disturbs the muslimsç —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.144.205.23 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I hardly constitute these figures as an attack. They were hardly made to "assult" islam and its beliefs. I suppose when the cartoons literally jump off the page and seige an Islamic city I will agree with you. And while were at it, everytime your mouth is open, you kill thousands of anaerobic bacteria. That is an attack on bacteria and I stand up for bacteria rights everywhere. Hitokirishinji 18:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No deal

Look, as long as many Middle-Eastern (Muslim) nations are still using images derogatory of Jews, Christians, or anyone else they have no right to claim, nor should be given, special treatment for their prophet. For example, check out this article's section "Controversial newspaper caricatures".

And as far as I am concerned, the images should be at the top of the article because the article itself is about the very thing that someone would be coming to WP to read about--to see what the hubbub is about. If the Muslim community is offended....well, you can't please everyone...but I ask them to look their own inequities in the face and fix them before going on a censoring campaign. To repeat a statement that I've said before: their religion does not make them "special," it just makes them religious. No reason to bend over backward, to violate a code of law or ethics, or principles, to appease those who are undeserving of such preferential behavior.206.156.242.39 14:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


"Alleged" massacres of Armenians?

There is nothing alleged about the massacre, ethnic cleansing and forced exile by Turks of up to 2 million Armenianschrisboote 14:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

I've read the article, and I think it can be summarised as follows.

  • Children's book on Mohammed needs an illustration
  • Artists in fear of religious extremists
  • Debate on self-censorship
  • Cartoons depicting Mohammed
  • Angry reaction from the Islamic world

I understand every point of the above except the last. Unless, of course, I am supposed to link the religious extremists that are feared by the artists to the angry reaction. The only two glimmers of hope that this isn't the case is a very brief and quite qualified reference to aniconism, and some links hidden at the bottom of the page to articles on blasphemy and on the veneration of Mohammed in the Islamic world.

Can someone please explain to me (as if I were the proverbial two-year-old) why there has been this reaction? Note that I will not accept explanations along the lines of "because they are a bunch of evil *&%$@" - there has to be a better answer than that. Chrisobyrne 14:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Im no expert, but from what i've seen so far, the main objection is either coming from something in the Qu'ran which, in effect, bans the creating of, actually, ANY image of a person for apparently any reason, or it is coming from some big thing about 200 years after the Qu'ran was made where, supposedly a bunch of Islamic clerics got together and decided to set down some new policies, and if im remembering correctly, a similar ban on picturing people, especially allah or a prophet, was expressly outlined as extraordinary blashphemy. Another reason there might be an angry reaction is because many of the muslims stirring the islamic world up have been showing cartoons that were not actually printed with the original 12, and the people who are showing these pictures to rile up people apparently won't give their sources, they just claim they were sent from Denmark. One of the probably made up ones is supposedly a picture equating Muhammad to a pig, another features him doing something.....rather mean to a woman who is praying. If many in the Islamic world are thinking those two were actually among pictures that were printed, then that might be partly the cause of all the anger. Homestarmy 14:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

As I see it, the main thing in the build up from September 2005 to the outrage four months later, is the arrogance of the Danish government and Prime Minister. The eleven foreign ambassadors - the direct representations of their countries - wanted to discuss, not only the cartoons but racist and hateful speech other places in the Danish society - like the homepage of MP Luise Frevert which had some lunatic comparisons of muslims to cancer cells (not written by her, but her webmaster). The government had the opportunity to distance themselves, officially or personally from one or more of the statements but played it so cooly (arrogantly) that they more or less told the ambassadors to bugger off. The reason for this could be many things, among them that Louise Frevert is a member of the party that secures the Prime Minister's power (Dansk Folkeparti - DS) or that any softening line towards the muslims could strain his relationship with DS. The Prime Minister has later said he personally dsilikes the charicatures - well why didn't he just tell the ambassadors that months ago (along with the freedom of press which means he can't do jack about it), and maybe stop the muslim group's tour to the Middle East to rally support. It is just so hollow that the only thing that gets him out of his chair is when DI (Danish Industries) moan over lost revenue.
@Homestarmy - the three pics are one of Muhammad as a pedophile, one looks like Saddam Husein photgraph with a pig snout and one is of a dog humping a praying muslim, none of could ever be published in Denmark and as I understand it they were sent by email to muslims by some (Danish?) racists along with other idiocy. Poulsen 15:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Demonstration Tonight? (02-02-05)

I've seen posters around in Copenhagen, asking danes to join a demonstration for tolerance of religion, to be held at Rådhuspladsen. As far as I can see, its pro-freedom of speech, but saying that the JP drawings was indeed a bit "over the line", and doesnt contribute to anything meaningful in our society. Does anyone have a newssource on this? Cacophobia (Talk) 14:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


This talk page

Dear people who are insistent on the image remaining prominent: Here's the problem. You have editors like me, Muslims from a secular background, who are really trying to find some kind of common ground with you. And the only response we're getting is, "No leeway, no discussion, freedom of expression is always absolute, the article on Paul Reubens should ideally show a close-up of him masturbating, and by extension the only possible way to do this article about the Muhammad cartoons is to piss about a billion people off and degrade their sense of the sacred." We try to connect, and that is basically what we hear.

Now, this dynamic I'm talking about -- rejecting the opportunity for dialogue with conciliatory people -- this dynamic plays out all over, not just in this article, not just in WP, but in a larger sense as part of a deepening crisis where we (so-called) 'moderates' try to initiate a dialogue, try to find some way to communicate together about the importance of a given issue, try to find some way to bridge the gap in forums like WP, and end up defending assaults on Islam.

Personally, I don't think secularism has to result in hate speech, but lots of other people here apparently do. And the page is still way over the line to lots of Muslims, many of whom are, um, furious.

Now, I really don't know why you don't want to work something out with those of us in the middle, why you don't want to hear what we have to say. But you don't. You know what? Maybe we're wrong about the wisdom of trying to build bridges with you. We didn't draw the @#$%^&* cartoons. BYT 14:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't see how it should made a difference whether the image is on top (where it belongs due to its importance) or somewhere in the middle, if it is forbidden to show it at all (according to muslims). -- 129.13.186.1 15:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
And to your last sentence: Yes, it is right, "you" didn't draw "the @#$%^&* cartoons", but "you" did some other quite fucked up stuff - compared to which these cartoons are really nothing to whine about. I'm sure you know yourself, what I'm talking about. -- Powerpete 15:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Powerpete, that is a blatant inflammatory personal attack. Please stop. Jacoplane 15:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
No, it is not, since the "you" does not refer to him personally. -- Powerpete 15:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Of course not. Just to me as a Muslim. That's not personal at all. Again. Why do I bother?BYT
I was using your generalisation of the "us" (the Muslims) who didn't "draw @#$%^&* cartoons" and the "you" (the non-Muslims) who apparently did. I, personally, can't remember that I have drawn any cartoons at all, recently. -- Powerpete 15:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


Powerpete and to all others making personal attacks, just because wikipedia has an article on this image does not mean you can use it to make attacks or for racism. No personal attacks. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't mind if their on top of the page or in the middle, but hiding them won't solve anything. But I think the reason why many people don't want to work something out is because, well, of the type of talking in your last sentence. Yea, most of what you were saying was fairly straightforward, but people have a habit of concentrating on the smallest thing possible in whatever anyone says and blowing it out of proportion....that, and there's some Wiki policy against saying mean things to people on talk pages excessively or something :/ Homestarmy 15:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Brandon, the article on Paul Reubens needn't show a close-up of him masturbating...to argue that it does would be more akin to saying these Muhammad cartoons should be prominently displayed in the Muhammad article, and no one is saying that. However, one of the problems you are encountering is that most of the revert warriors, and some on the talk page, have been arguing strongly that the pictures should be removed. I think most of us can acknowledge a real difference between your position and theirs--I could accept a general Wikipedia policy that offensive images go below the fold--but it's inevitable that your more extreme coreligionists will steal the attention of some of the people with whom you are trying to build bridges. Whether it still makes sense to attempt to build bridges with secular Westerners is of course for you to decide. Babajobu 15:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I suppose then we should remove ALL articles on North Korea because I'm fairly sure a majority of them the NK government finds offensive and even "illegal". Or perhaps that group of people isn't important enough for us to not offend? Muslim readers have the ability to turn off "load images" on their browsers. I don't see why they can't take a proactive stance and actively avoid the image if it is truely so offensive to them. After all, vegans actively avoid meat or anything that even touches meat. I am firmly against Wikipedia making concessions to any particular group of people. Hitokirishinji 15:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I could support a site-wide guideline that offensive images go inline, below the fold. That would mean Piss Christ below the fold, Lolicon pics below the fold, Xenu below the fold, and anything upsetting to anyone else below the fold. What I can't accept is a unique exception for Muslims that hides or de-emphasizes only images that that particular group finds offensive, but not images offensive to any other group. Babajobu 15:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
In principle, I agree with you Babajobu. But this leaves the door wide open for any extreme religious/ethnic groups to label something offensive and move an image down. And probably by the time that is all done, there won't be any images left on wikipedia "above the fold". Hitokirishinji 15:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Hitokirishinji, yes, we would certainly wind up with a lot of images "below the fold" (by this I mean below the first screen in a given article). That would be annoying. But at least we would have site-wide policy to present to people who demand the removal of particular images. Of course, we already have Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, so maybe this wouldn't work, either. Babajobu 15:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe christianity doesn't find images like that as offensive as Islam does? Similarly maybe christianity finds something else more offensive than Islam does. Discussions on this page show that most people arguing for keeping the images don't understand the situation and instead are using the same censorship line to argue. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Uh, Piss Christ pissed off Christians more than any image or work of art in the past decade, in case you weren't paying attention. But Wikipedia has chosen to keep the Piss Christ picture prominently displayed at the top of the article, because, well, that's where it belongs in an article about Piss Christ. Wikipedia has never removed or de-emphasized a picture in order to avoid offending any religious or political or ideological group. But as I say, I, personally, would be willing to explore a site-wide policy of bringing such images below the fold. Others will disagree. You're assertion that people who disagree with you "don't understand the situation" isn't very insightful or helpful. Babajobu 15:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I fundamentally believe this has more to do with our principles as a free information source than anything else. As I have said again and again, no concessions to any particular group of people unless we apply it to ALL groups of people to be fair. If offending images should be removed, then they ALL should be removed from ALL of wikipedia. Hitokirishinji 15:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
On the Christianity thing, I sure do think that whatever image on that page is probably extremely offensive and mean, but that's why I didn't go there, and I am a Christian. Furthermore, the Bible affirms that people would do that kind of stuff against Christ and His name in general, so it's not like it's entirely unexpected. Though, if I may ask, what is the point of that **** Christ article, I keep seeing it popping up in the conversation, but I don't know what its about. Homestarmy 15:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Bravo Homestarmy. This is what I mean, people who truely find images offensive can actively take steps to avoid them. And again, one should not be shocked to find the cartoons on the page if the article is about them! The Piss Christ article is about a piece of artwork that is essentially a crucifix in a container filled with the artist's urine and possibly blood. I'm sure many fundamentalists groups found it quite offensive and if they had their way, would strike it from wikipedia. But no concession was made to them so why should any be made to anyone else? Again, I sincerely think that Homestarmy's actions are laudable. Hitokirishinji 15:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Home, Piss Christ is a picture of a crucifix immersed in urine. It was displayed in an American museum, and caused intense offense among American Christians. The Wikipedia article has the image prominently displayed at the top of the page, because Wikipedia does not take Christian religious sensibilities into account when determining whether and how to display information. People have been pointing to that article to show concerned Muslims that this policy does not target them, but is a general one. Babajobu 15:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
And I don't disagree with you there Hitokirishinji, I wouldn't mind if something that was so blatantly opposed to a religion was removed. But the point I was making before is that maybe images like these are seen as worse in one religion than in another. And I stand by what I said about not understanding the situation Baba. I am sure that as far as many people on this talk page know only one side of the issue, "censorship" and haven't researched the entire problem from the other perspective. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I do disagree with you here anonym. I think many of use do understand that many muslims find this incredibly blasphemous and offensive while most of the secular world finds it fairly mild and even harmless. And I think that's why we're fighting so hard for it. We do not want to give into one group of people when other parts of the world see nothing wrong with the images or believe there is reason to display them. Hitokirishinji 15:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
AE, for people to insist that Muslim sensibilities only be paid equal respect to those of other religions does not indicate that they "haven't researched the entire problem". If we are going to move or de-emphasize images that Muslims find gravely offensive, then we would have to do that for images that other groups find gravely offensive. That's not ignorance, it's simple fairness. Babajobu 15:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Good do it for the others. What I am saying here is that Muslims find these images more offensive than say a Buddhist would. And maybe Buddhists will find something more offensive than Muslims. Secular here doesn't have to mean that we have to offend all those who aren't. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with secularity. Wikipedia's policy is clear: Wikipedia is not censored to adhere to social norms: anybody's social norms. Wikipedia welcomes the whole world; but on the terms stated in policy. If some of the world that cannot accept those terms, that is deeply regrettable - and not just for Wikipedia; but it's a large Universe. There are other websites for those who prefer other policies; if they outshine WP, more power to them. Septentrionalis 15:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, AE, everyone understands that images of their prophet are more offensive to Muslims than images of other religions' prophets are to adherents of those religions. It's called aniconism, and we all get it. But pictures of a crucifix immersed in urine are wildly offensive to Christians, and the outing of Xenu is wildly upsetting to scientologists, and Wikipedia generally contains lots of images that ARE offensive to lots of groups, whatever their particular sensitivities are. The salient point, though, is that thus far in Wikipedia's history, NO images, no matter how offensive to members of any group, have been moved or removed to allay the anger of any group. So what we are asking for is a SPECIAL EXCEPTION for Muslims, and many of us are not interested in making special allowances for one group. But if you argue for a site-wide policy regarding offensive images, you're more likely to gain sympathetic ears. Babajobu 15:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
But our point isn't to offend, its to report on what is going on over this issue. The offense has already been done, Wikipedia hosting or not hosting the image isn't going to change that, all we're doing is telling it like it is....right? Homestarmy 15:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I think if we did, we'd be just entirely opening up a can of worms. Fine lets say down we take down every possibly offensive image for every possible religion: Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Daoist, Hindu, Seek etc. I could go on and on. And what if another religion finds an opposing religions existance an offensive? It could happen. Should we then proceed to strip every single religion from wikipedia? And why do we have to limit ourselves to religions? What about ethinc groups? Africans, Serbians, Chinese, Japanese, Portugese, Spanish....it could go on forever. Hitokirishinji 15:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Response to Hito...yes, it's very possible that some Christians would find images of the Quran or Book of Mormon upsetting or offensive...or that a Jew would find a crucifix upsetting or offensive, or whatever. If we had a site wide policy of moving offensive images below the fold, then in that case pictures of a Quran or Book of Mormon or crucifix would have to go below the fold. As you say, we'd have a whole lot of images below the fold. What I'm not talking about, though, is removing such images altogether. Babajobu 15:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Buy Danish!

Everyone, show your support to the Danish people by adding this userbox to your profile! Let Europe be free! --Candide, or Optimism 14:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No, please don't. That is a copyrighted images, and we do not allow fair use images on userpages. Jacoplane 15:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how that helps anything. We still have a no attack policy at wikipedia and the copyrighted image think makes it worse. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
What attack? What are you talking about? I removed the image from my profile because of the copyright whinning, but other than that, what's the problem? --Candide, or Optimism 15:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
You don't think that something that's clearly going against a fifth of the world's population is going to cause offence and seem like an attack? --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't care what you and that Jimbo thinks, okay? No censorship and total liberty! I know that this site is American, but if you go against us, Europeans, and our values, then you should make your own Wiki! This is important to us. --Candide, or Optimism 15:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Lotsofissues. This is not the place for that. And since you so kindly pointed out that this site is American and since you seem to be intent on dividing people into the American camp or European camp, this IS our own wiki. As lotsofissues said, this is not a place to put up your soapbox and rally people to your cause. Please respect that we are trying to create and article here, no "go against" a group of people. Hitokirishinji 15:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it's no attack on anyone to say "Buy Danish", but Annitas, this site absolutely does not "belong" to Americans and Europeans. "They" (I gather you mean Muslims) are as much Wikipedians as anyone else, so please do not suggest otherwise. Wikipedia has no nationality. Babajobu 16:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Hear hear! Hitokirishinji 16:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
That's just crazy. Is it racist now to support Denmark? -- Powerpete 15:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Candide, This is not the space to rally like minded ppl. This thread will explode into name calling. We are trying to write an encyclopedia article--this doesn't contribute. How about respecting those working in this space by moving this thread to your own space? Lotsofissues 15:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

If I may, there are a wide variety of userboxes which go against Christians, and that as I understand it is even more than a 5th of the world's population, yet nobody that I know says that those userboxes are attacks :/. Homestarmy 15:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
That's because a majority of the crusading Christian armies were left behind in the 16th century. But I'm sure some extremist out there probably believes that it is. Hitokirishinji 15:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
If only! Ever heard of [Fred Phelps]? Anon 15:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Well you don't need crusaders to go on a sockpuppeting revert/deletion campaign heh. Homestarmy 15:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Where's the "Boycott Danish" userbox? Why shouldn't the Muslim world be free to spend or not spend their money as they please? Why should I as an American get involved to compensate for some Danes' mistakes?
Sure they are. The Muslims can boycutt all they want, in their attempt to deny us our most basic rights - such as freedom of speech - here in Denmark. However, I, and all other Danish people are just free to boycutt all the Muslim businesses and products here in the country. I and many other Danes now boycutt all the muslim stores and products, and maybe there should be a userbox for that also. "Boycutt the Islamic democracy-haters!" would be a great title. -- Karl Meier 22:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Seriously, I'm already on record as supporting including the images in the article, but... no. Claiming to support free expression in Europe while simultaneously denouncing free expression in the Muslim world is hypocrisy. --Guppy313 17:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
You can boycott whatever you want. We don't care. It's not like your business is that profitable. The Danes made no mistake. --Candide, or Optimism 17:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Guppy, Americans are entitled to support Danish products as an expression of their support for the cartoons, just as Muslims are entitled to boycott Danish products as expression of their opposition to the cartoons. Both actions are an example of "free expression", and neither is an attack on it. Babajobu 17:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC) NO, i wont get the userbox thing. It is too stupid.66.225.141.5 18:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Kåre Bluitgen

In the original cartoons, two artists poked fun at Bluitgen's claims. Were there suspiscions in Denmark before the cartoons ran that Bluitgen was being dishonest about the extent of the Islmaic chilling effect?

Lotsofissues 15:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the insistence of having a childrens book with pictures of Muhammed despite the religious controversy was seen as a sort of pulbicity stunt (though personally I think it comes from an honest wish to give knowledge across cultures/religions), and with the Danish "Jantelov" in mind he was open to (innocent) ridicule himself. Poulsen 16:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Given reason for neutrality dispute?

Lotsofissues 16:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous_editor, please stop putting the neutrality tag on the article, or otherwise justify here why it is needed. While there is controversy over the image, I haven't seen anyone complain that the article is not NPOV. If there is anything you think isn't neutral in the text, fix it instead of putting the neutral tag on. You can't put the neutral tag on an article just because you don't like it. Thparkth 16:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Good Article status?

It seems to me that at this point, this article seems to meet the criteria for a Good article. It's pretty well-written, has an abundance of factual accuracy, is relatively NPOV, (That is, the only POV charge appears to do with showing the picture as opposed to not showing it.) the vandals seemed to of stopped for the most part suddenly and there are so many people to revert it that it is relatively stable, it has a huge amount of references, and of course, images. Should we self-nominate this at Wikipedia:Good articles/Self-nominations? Homestarmy 16:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Brint it on!! (Lipatden 16:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC))

Ban the vandals!

Ban the vandals that keep vandalizing the article! --Candide, or Optimism 16:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

WE WONT BE SILENCED! JESUS DIDN'T LAUGH AND NEITHER DID MUHAMMAD! Plus, it's a proven scientific fact that pictures steal your soul. THEY DO! CARTOONISTS WANT TO STEAL MUHAMMAD'S SOUL! AIIIIEEEEEEEEEE!

The Ten Revert Rule

IP 88.105.24.134 just hit ten reverts, if any admin happens to think that's too many. Babajobu 16:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!! --Candide, or Optimism 16:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Just a bit too many... Here's some info on the IP.

inetnum: 88.104.0.0 - 88.107.255.255 netname: DSL-TISCALI-UK descr: Tiscali UK Ltd descr: Milton Keynes descr: Dynamic DSL country: GB admin-c: TU935-RIPE tech-c: TU935-RIPE status: ASSIGNED PA mnt-by: TU935-RIPE-MNT source: RIPE # Filtered Hitokirishinji 16:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

We Are All Danes Now

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/740

Danish power! Go Denmark! I love Denmark! --Candide, or Optimism 17:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we should concentrate on the article... --Powerpete 17:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, Annitas, it's not that I disagree with some of the underlying sentiments, but this talkpage is absolutely no place for it. Babajobu 17:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Refer to Annitas: No I im not in Denmark! Im not Danes >.< (I support patriotism, but this is not a place for it. I'm sorry) 66.225.141.5 18:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfinished's Original Research

Unfinished's OR and personal POV essay needs to come out. A section like this would be fine, but it needs to be sourced and coherent. Babajobu 17:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


Babajobu , the section written by me has been removed twice , by excuses like badly-written or lack of resources . I think those r not reasonable Excuses to remove the Entire section ... I think u couldn,t get a perfect article if users here insist not to hear the other viewpoint . The section that i wrote contains general information known to most ppl in middle east , and u can find many resources to this speech in arabic media ... is that good if i bring u arabic articles talking about this subject ??!! --Unfinishedchaos 18:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

UnfinishedChaos, your addition had the appearance of a personal essay, and violated WP:NOR. Citations and attributions are crucial in an article like this, particularly in a section giving us a rundown on "what Muslims think". The article really was ridden with grammatical errors, misspellings, punctuation problems, and so on, so it would probably be best to paste something like that to the talk page first so that people can deal with the stylistic issues before we insert it into the article. As for the citations, people seem to have different opinions about whether English citations are necessary. My own opinion is that foreign language citations are fine, though of course English sources are preferable. But you made so many sweeping statements in your essay, it's hard for me to imagine a single Arabic source to which you could attribute all your observations, so it would probably require several sources. But if you want to try again, with citations and attributions, of course go for it! Babajobu 18:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Unfinished, if you can find some sources to back up what you say - which should be pretty easy since I'm sure it's true - I (and Homestarmy and no doubt others) will be happy to help you with any English language issues. Sources might include online newspaper articles or editorials which express some of the same points you made. Thparkth 18:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The funny thing was I was in the middle of correcting that paragraph's grammer and stuff and adding Citation needed marks, then I got halfway done, and then learned it had been deleted -__-. If you can get some citations for that thing i'll correct the grammer and spelling for you. Homestarmy 18:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

A Proven Uncensored Source

I heard the fuss about these cartoons and hunted around the websites of newspapers etc to see for myself without any luck. Then I though 'ah ha, Wikipedia will have this' and so it proved. Well done Wikipedia, you are coming of age! Philmurray 17:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This page is 63 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size.

It is getting rather long, a seperate timeline (or some other part of the article perhaps) sound good. Al3xander 18:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
A Timeline seems to jump out as the best candidate. Or how about also placing the two open letters on wikisource, leaving only the very relavant quotes? Jdcooper 18:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok right, i did it, but can anyone help me make it more prominent? For me the timeline was the most interesting bit of the original article, i think it should be more prominent than just a link in the See also section. Jdcooper 18:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

NAZI Picture

Whoever keeps putting the nazi picture on the article should either grow up or go home. slamdac 18:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

In a similar strain, should any contributor out there living in Germany (where displaying a swastika is illegal) wish to file a complaint with the ISP behind the address 212.202.233.2, here is the info:

Type: PERSON Name: The QSC Hostmaster Address: QSC AG Address: Mathias-Brueggen-Str. 55 City: Koeln Pcode: 50829 Country: DE Phone: +492216698000 Fax: +492216698009 Email: kontakt@qsc.de Changed: 2005-10-20T10:12:07+0200 Source: DENIC

Just an observation

Something I find interesting is that the prohibition against depicting Muhammad (or any religious figure) in Islam is tied with the desire to keep idolatry from entering into the hearts and minds of the people. While these cartoons may not have been respectful of the Muslim viewpoint(in fact, one ought to be clear on that - they weren't), it seems like the chance of anyone, Muslim or otherwise, worshipping these cartoons as graven images or idols, is pretty low, given their subject matter.

While it seems pretty clear that a good portion of the Muslim world is enraged beyond belief at these cartoons, something I would like to ask the Muslim readership of this page is: if the prohibition is meant to keep idolatry away, why such a ferocious controversy over these particular cartoons?

Faseidman 18:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


POV

it seems that the POV here is Expaining the muslim's viewpoint , so i will put the section just here , hoping it won,t be removed saying it is unsourced POV section , in spite all the article is POV :

Muslims' Viewpoint

The following text is by User:Unfinishedchaos, the bracketed, caps text is comments added by User:Babajobu.--Anchoress 21:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Many Muslims were offended by the publication of the Muhammad cartoons. This anger has been expressed in public protests in Arabic and Islamic countries. Muslims claim [[MUSLIMS AS A WHOLE DO NOT CLAIM ANYTHING; NO GROUP SPEAKS IN ONE VOICE] that this anger isn't directed against freedom of speech [WHO CLAIMS THIS?] - as the western media represent the issue [THE WESTERN MEDIA DOES NOT SPEAK IN ONE VOICE EITHER, AND DIFFERENT MEDIA OUTLETS HAVE REPRESENTED THE CONFLICT IN DIFFERENT WAYS] - but rather against an insult to all Muslims, since the cartoons represent their Prophet [DO NOT CAPITALIZE PROPHET, AS PER NPOV] as terrorist and criminal [THE ARTISTS DENY THEY WERE REPRESENTING MUHAMMAD IN SUCH A WAY; CITE SOMEONE WHO HAS ASSERTED OTHERWISE, YOU CANNOY SIMPLY ASSERT THAT THEY HAVE REPRESENTED HIM AS "A TERRORIST AND A CRIMINAL"]. According to Muslim opinion [AGAIN, NO SUCH THING AS A MONOLITHIC "MUSLIM OPINION"], the drawing of Prophet Muhammad [[CALL HIM MUHAMMAD IN A SECULAR ENCYCLOPEDIA, NOT "THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD", JUST AS WE DO NOT CALL THE MORMONS' PROPHET "PROPHET JOSEPH SMITH", EVEN THOUGH THEY DO] is not acceptable (actually, pictures of all prophets including Jesus and Moses are forbidden in Islam) [APPARENTLY SOME SHI'ITES BELIVE DIFFERENTLY; ISLAM IS DIVERSE]. Additionally they object the way in which Prophet Muhammad has been represented as a terrorist [AGAIN, ARTISTS CLAIM OTHERWISE], which means in their opinion that all Muslims are terrorists [ATTRIBUTE THIS OPINION TO SOMEONE]. For Muslims a message of Hate is sent by those cartoons, and they frankly express the modern Islamophobia spreading in the western world [YOU CANNOT ASSERT THAT THERE IS "ISLAMOPHOBIA SPREADING IN THE WESTERD WORLD". HERE YOU ATTRIBUTE IT TO CLINTON, BUT CITE HIM AS AFFIRMING THE TRUTH OF THE NOTION, RATHER THAN JUST STATING THAT HE SAID IT. STILL, A STEP IN RIGHT DIRECTION], as President Clinton said .

Many Muslims think that the Jyllands Posten should be punished by the Danish Government, and make comparisons to the charges that have been made against writers descriped as anti-semitic in Europe [WHAT GOVERNMENT CHARGES? THE DANISH GOVERNMENT HAS NOT PUNISHED ANYONE FOR "ANTI-SEMITISM". WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT SPECIFICALLY?]

Most European and American media supports the newspaper and considers the issue to be one of Freedom of Speech, which is one of the most important traditions in the Western, secular world. For them Muhammad should dealt with as any other religious figure - even in satirical cartoons, just like Jesus and Buddha. They believe that Muslims have no right to enforce censorship of the media. Most European and American media supports the newspaper and considers the issue to be one of Freedom of Speech, which is one of the most important traditions in the Western, secular world. For them Muhammad should dealt with as any other religious figure - even in satirical cartoons, just like Jesus and Buddha. They believe that Muslims have no right to enforce censorship of the media. Line 1344: Line 1350: For some Muslims, the publication of these pictures is seen as racist. For Many muslims there is no problem with criticism of Islamic belief, rules or behaviour, and there is no prolem either with making fun of religious people, but presenting the prophet Muhammed - who is an ideal for all Muslims - as a terrorist, suggests that all Muslims are fundamentalists and extremeists. They believe that this is a message of hate and intolerance and therefore that goverments shouldn't accepted such behaviour from the media . For some Muslims, the publication of these pictures is seen as racist. For Many muslims there is no problem with criticism of Islamic belief, rules or behaviour, and there is no prolem either with making fun of religious people, but presenting the prophet Muhammed - who is an ideal for all Muslims - as a terrorist, suggests that all Muslims are fundamentalists and extremeists. They believe that this is a message of hate and intolerance and therefore that goverments shouldn't accepted such behaviour from the media .

could u edit it to suit ur criteria ??? --Unfinishedchaos 18:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfinished Chaos, I put bracketed notes in the first two paragraphs of your essay. Take a look, if you are interested. Babajobu 18:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunently, someone is editing this talk page so quickly I can't get in a word edge-wise :/ Homestarmy 18:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


nice notes Babajobu ... firstly about the Charges from Danish goverment ... I just express ideas that puplic protests said ... I understand fully the situation of Danish goverment which is in critical position .

Concerning "Most... American media supports the newspaper and considers the issue to be one of Freedom of Speech," I haven't seen a major US newspaper come out emphatically on the side of the JP, and I don't see, say, the Washington Post or New York Times publishing these pictures; I doubt any paper that did not publish Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" would publish these drawings (it'd be a double standard if they did, IMO). If there's an example of a major newspaper in the US publishing the pictures or otherwise taking a strong stance in favor of the publications, I'd like to see the sources. --Guppy313 20:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

about other important note , [ THE ARTISTS DENY THEY WERE REPRESENTING MUHAMMAD IN SUCH A WAY; CITE SOMEONE WHO HAS ASSERTED OTHERWISE, YOU CANNOY SIMPLY ASSERT THAT THEY HAVE REPRESENTED HIM AS "A TERRORIST AND A CRIMINAL"].

that is really unreasonable , when u picture muhammad with a Bomb and when picture it saying we have no virgins , and when u picture him with two veiled women ... u frankly say that muhammad learns muslims how to kill and make terrorism .. isn,t that obvious .

u say that all islam sects and schools say that women must cover all her head and she should stay in home ... ya that is the understanding of group of muslims , but i find it historical and ignorant understanding , but now ur artists come to make all muslims terrorists and ignorant and uncivilized ... the POV is in the pics themselves . have i clarified that ?

other notes is accepted and i can work to make them better --Unfinishedchaos 19:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


[7] [8] ``A few of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons link the prophet to terrorism, said Tyge Trier [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1566979/posts ] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

The pictures are noting but the cartoonist POV

There would be no logic for the article without the pictures; the pictures are out there, and are the reason for some current events. The position is not a problem, top or bottom. For my self I understand the feeling of hundreds of millions of Moslems, but still the cold fact holds The Pictures Exist. All religions suffer the same, no need to put links for hundreds of offensive pictures for other religions to prove that. Yet, it could be easily miss understood that these pictures are actually Mohammad’s; THEY ARE NOT, the article should be clear that these are not an actual pictures or representations of Mohammed, and they reflect nothing but the cartoonist POV. The article in the current form, gives the wrong impression that they are so. And by such, we are manipulating the facts, and giving our own interpolations of the facts. We are not after a religion or a character, nor are we after the cartoonist, we simply after the cold facts. --Tarawneh 18:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


I have seen numerous claims that these pictures are considered considered racist? islam is a religion, not a race. --Neim18:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I find my 2 year child scratches artistic, but lets stick to the point; I am talking about misleading information in the article. --Tarawneh 20:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

how could make hating jews anti-semitism ...jew is religion not a race --Unfinishedchaos 18:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


Please Tarawneh , could u correct the last section grammatically and i will support it with refrences and resources later ..Thanks --Unfinishedchaos 18:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Jew's are considered both a race and religion, so you can be both an ethnic Jew and a Jew religiously, you could be a Jew ethnically but not be one religiously, or be one religiously and not ethnically. Homestarmy 19:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There is only one word for "jew", whether you are speaking of a practitioner of the religion or a member of an ethnic group. Muslims include many ethnic groups, from Arabs to Slavs, including Asians and Africans. So a statement pertaining to Islam cannont be categorically called "racist". -- anonymous


I find it hard to believe that jews of Europe and jews of Yemen can make one Ethnic group , if u make really scientific study you find that jews are ppl from different races and i cannot consider them a race , but anyway not to go away from our subject : u can name that anything instead of racism ..u can call it islamophobia or Hating of muslims .. or anything ..regardless of the Concept ... but don,t u feel that these pics carry this message ?! --Unfinishedchaos 19:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This issue makes for a very interesting theological discussion

What would Muhammad think about this satirical drawings? Would he laugh and deem them irrelevant? Would he get really angry? I think Muhammad would have laughed really hard at the cartoons, maybe throw a fart or two in the process and proceed to take care of more important issues.

Notes on why viewing the image could be considered sinful by Muhammad)

  • Baba and others -- thanks for your question. I think Muslims are now conflating the injunction not to make or circulate images of animate beings with the desire to at least speak out when wrong is done. (Both of these points are emphasized in Islam.)
  • Every religious tradition has stuff that's "off limits" -- satirizing the Prophet by means of a political cartoon would appear to score a bull's eye in that regard as far as Islam is concerned. I don't know of any specific ruling that equates viewing such an image with punishment in hell (and keep in mind that I was, above, merely trying to convey how seriously the ban on illustration of the Prophet is taken.)
  • However, note for comparison that the Prophet forbade the depiction of any human face, and ordered that such images be erased. [15]. So presumably intentionally viewing a drawing of a human face, rather than erasing it, would be considered a sin by some scholars. (I'm speaking only as a lay person here, certainly not as a scholar -- how these traditions get applied to contemporary situations is something for professionals, but I'm giving you my best take on this because you asked.)
  • Magazines purchased exclusively for the images depicting animate beings that they contain (even seemingly benign images) are regarded by at least one scholar as haram [16], which would suggest that staring at such images in a magazine would be haram as well. It's hard for me to see how an exception could be made for the case of staring at an image created expressly to ridicule and denigrate Islam.
  • Speaking personally, I am trying to steer clear of prolonged visual encounters with the controversial image for just this reason.
  • The more general fault of failing to speak out (or take action) when Islam is defamed might well be considered a sin, but I couldn't find anything on this.
  • Images of prophets or holy people are generally associated with shirk, the most serious sin of all [17]], and are thus shunned with particular intensity.
  • These are some of the reasons it seems to me that displaying or otherwise sudying disrespectful images of one of the Prophets would be, to this believer's way of thinking, anyway, "off the charts." As it were. Peace, BYT 18:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. That's very interesting. Is there not an additional taboo (perhaps only cultural) about depicting Muhammad over another Prophet? Would these images be worse than the offensive images of Jesus for example? --JGGardiner 19:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

Nobody can insult a person who is important for more tham 1.3 billion people ion the world. Insult is different from freedom of speech. I ask you be more consious about what you are doing.

Prophet Mohammed cannot be pictured as the cartoon suggested as he has no action which can be caricaturized that way.

Please note that this is taking us towards the clush of civilizations... Resid Gulerdem 19:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


Then how about I delete the entire section on Islam, as it inults a person who is important to 1 billion people in the world, because Islam does not claim Jesus as the Messiah. Your argument is ridiculous. Not to mention that a general consensus here says that the picture stays, so you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia customs and courtesies. Deleting information against the will of the community is considered vandalism. You have been warned. --Maverick 19:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
YOu do not know anything about Islam. Islam accepts Jesaus as Messiah! Resid Gulerdem 19:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Read more and learn being respectfull!
RTFA. Isa is considered a prophet, nothing less but nothing more. Guppy313 21:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not censored to prevent offending people. If we had to remove everything that offends, we'd have virtually no content. Wikipedia is not guided by the various parameters of the world's religions as to what is offensive and what is not. Instead, Wikipedia is guided by Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. We can talk about this, but engaging in revert warring is not the way to go about doing it. --Durin 19:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, not to seem too mean about it, but not only can people insult someone who is important for 1.3 billion people, but the entire point of this article is to detail the non-fiction situation in which people did do it. Furthermore, it seems the cartoonists disagreed that Muhammad has never done anything to warrent those characitures, as, well, they did the cartoons anyway how they wanted to do them :/. Homestarmy 19:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The illustrations themselves are only part of the story.

While the images are offensive to some people, the greater issue the origional newspaper was discussing was the self-censorship of Danish artists. Therefore the illustrations are only part of that story (and come on the heels of several other works that inpired similar reactions from the islamic world). Therefore, in my opinion, this article should stand, WITH the images, but only be part of a larger article detailing the history that brought about the newspaper article and the resulting boycotts etc. While these particular images are a big deal, the Theo Van Gogh film/murder are part of the same story... this is obvious if you read the article that accompanies the origional images.

So the argument that the images are integral to this article i see as correct, but this article is only part of a larger story. One that can be told on WP (and read by muslims) without neccesarily viewing the images.

Oo7jeep 19:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Eddie

Opinion i Arabic countries

Under opinions, there is a section about the international opinion and the opinion in Denmark. However nothing about the opinion in the muslim world... At the moment it seems like the arabic world speaks with one voice, however there must be differences in opinion. Could we elaborate on this... This probably requires someone who understands arabic (which is why I don't do it myself), to translate/quote articles from the arabic press... Kjaergaard 19:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfinishedchaos is working on it I think, we're trying to work on it together somewhat but we need sources, it's a few topics above this one. Homestarmy 19:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

One of the problems with Unfinished's essay was that it repeatedly asserted that the Muslim world DOES speak with one voice, which is poppycock, as evidenced by this very talk page. I left some notes in his essay here, hopefully we can get a good section on opinion in the Muslim world. Babajobu 19:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

ALERT: Constant reverts

The reverting to remove the contested image was earlier being done by anon-IPs. I then semi-protected the page against unregistered and new users. Now, the revert war has gone on to include non-new users. This issue should be discussed on this talk page. If the reverting keeps up, myself or someone else will be forced to protect the page. We don't work out differences of opinion here by revert warring. Please, stop. --Durin 19:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Durin, the problem is that there is a relatively solid consensus among users that the image should be kept. Some IPs were removing/reverting 8, 9, 10 times, and a couple registered users have reverted/removed, too, but reading the talk page and looking at edit history make clear that a large majority of editors prefer keeping the image. There's really not much left to "work out" in that respect. People just need to stop removing the image against consensus, and we need to be tougher on the IPs that do it a crazy number of times. A strawpoll would back this consensus up, if we took one. Maybe we need to, to make the consensus undeniable. Babajobu 19:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Short on time. How about you craft it up please? --Durin 19:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Due to ongoing revert warring despite repeated encouragements not to do so, The article is now protected for the time being. --Durin 19:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Freedom of speech meaning you can bash other peoples’ religion?!

I mean yes, we all have the right to say what we believe in, but no, we all have to respect other people’s feeling and be responsible for what we said. In a lot of Europe country, posting this comic strip as to seen without the freedom of speech, but without realizing this is a lot of insult to a lot of people regardless of being Muslim or not, and promote that all Muslim are like the Muhammad in the comic strip. They didn’t realize that in Muslim world people don’t have any figure or Allah or the Prophets as to avoid the worship of the idol (just like in some chapter of Holy Bible that God tell Moses that if Moses see god face Moses would die, and this is my assumption, and I need people who really know this kind of knowledge to correct that.) And yes, being a popular newspaper in Demark, Jylland-Posten do somehow representing the country as a lot Dane take the newspaper a resource. The is not only the problem of freedom and speech, but also how should work ethic in media to balance in the freedom of speech or how people should believe what they take in.
Another question: If people make the Christian God and make him look like porn actress or poo (as the say the Western world is all trash or equivalent) and try to post it into Time Magazine or Washington Post, do you think editor would even take it?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.225.141.5 (talk • contribs) .

Check the Piss Christ article, maybe Time Magazine doesn't take it, but wikipedia does! Al3xander 19:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I believe an American or European newspaper would publish such a thing. Most other cultures don't have such hangups and can keep track of the difference between satire and hostility. They don't see a need to go on rioting sprees and threatening everyone in sight every time they see something they do not agree with. --StuffOfInterest 19:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The issue of whether the WaPo or Time would publish such cartoons is beside the point; however, if they did, and there was a resulting controversy about those images, then I would think that Wikipedia would _of course_ show those images in the article page on it. Sol. v. Oranje 19:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
And check the Jerry Springer Opera...a homosexual Jesus in a diaper. Yes, once and for all, FREEDOM OF SPEECH MEANS FREEDOM TO BASH RELIGION! Babajobu 19:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree that it is pretty unreasonable to use freedom of speech simply to bash religion as it solves nothing, gains nothing, and only makes things worse pretty much. But sometimes when one religion addresses another, their not bashing the other religion, they are making legitimate critisisms. Of course, if it's a particularily angry opinion it might be hard to see these critisisms, but many times, they are there. Bashing religions with blanket statements which are false and make no sense and are only done out of hate and despisement are one thing, but lodging a complaint against, say, ancient Greek religions such as "There can be no Gods that exist solely inside the universe, since none of them could be infinitly powerful inside an environment constrained by universal laws and without infinite power they couldn't be immortal, therefore, no Gods can be on Mount Olympus, and Greek religion is compleatly fake". is quite another entirely, the premise might ultimately be false, (I don't really know, maybe its a straw man or something, it's just a famous Atheist argument and it's very useful against small-time tribal type religions.) but it is done earnestly and with a real argument, so then the end result should end up favorable. Like today, Greek religions with Zeus and all those weird ideas is thankfully compleatly destroyed as far as I know, though admittedly, much of that was because of Christianity moving in rather than secular critisism.


On the thing in the Bible, the reason Moses would of died was because if Moses looked at God's real face, it would of been so increadible Moses would of not been able to look at it and survive, sort of like epileptic seizures, except here you've got infinitly powerful force blasting your brain out. No chance of survival whatsoever. That might not be exactly what it said though, im pretty sure i've got the main idea right however. But im not sure what that has to do with idols, God's face is not an idol, it's God's face. Idols have been a problem in Christianity too, such as worship of statues of Mary or something, but simply making drawings is not the same thing as making an idol, and furthermore Muhammad's likeness in these cartoons just doesn't strike me as that increadibly great as to make anyone want to worship it. I know I sure won't, I don't like Islam very much personally and would never bow down before Muhammad or the Qu'ran definition of God, but that is an entirely different issue. Homestarmy 19:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, sometimes it is unproductive and dumb to bash religion. When people have freedom to speak their mind, sometimes they'll say unproductive, dumb things. Freedom of speech is not restricted to "freedom to say helpful things." Babajobu 20:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, yes. That's exactly what freedom of speech means. You can say anything you want without legal impunity. Unfortunately, no country on the planet goes by that definition.

I guess if so than if a person say "God ban sex and said we are so holy that we dont deserve sex" or "Juses promote people to be door mat" (as an example, this is a if), what would that person become????


people should learn that it's only sticks and stones that break bones, words and pictures will never hurt you.

Im not saying they can't literally bash religion with no reason, im just saying it's unreasonable, whether you have the right to do it or not :/. I dunno, it just seems to me that taking the time to make a rational argument would be more productive and be more helpful. Homestarmy 22:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

My Idea to solve the Problem

1. Move the picture to the Publication of the Pictures section 2. Provide a warning at the top of the page to say that the pictures will be lower in the article. 3. Make it clear that Wikipedia is not a muslim encyclopedia but a western one with different cultural standards that the muslim world may not like.

Therefore people could make an informed decision. (slamdac)

I seriously disagree with number three. We shouldn't take any sort of stand on this issue whatsoever, merely provide information in a neutral and unbiased manner. If anything, we should clarify that we don't have an opinion regarding whether these images are offensive or not, whether they should be banned or not, etc. We merely provide information for educational purposes, with the exception of being bound by the laws of Florida and the United States where the servers are hosted. —Gabbe 19:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

:I'm fine with moving the images down to the Publication section; however, I also feel we may need larger images of the cartoons (or a sampling of them) in addition to the small 26kb newspaper page scan. Sol. v. Oranje 19:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Your idea is thoughtful, but I fail to see how it is better than the position of the image as it is now. As I have stated elsewhere, the very fact that the article is named "Muhammad Cartoon" should be adequate warning that this article do, in fact, contain drawings of Muhammad. If those muslims who get offended don't get the message the first time around, why should they get the message the second or third time? Furthermore, IFAIK it's the very exsistance of those drawings that seem to insult those muslims that believe very strongly in prohibiting drawings of Muhammad, and therefore I fail to see how a new position, or hiding it behind a link, makes the "insult" less.
Therefore, I say that we keep the image where it is. It is in accordance with wikipedia style and tradition (AFAIK) and apropriate because those drawings are the very essence of this entire story. The.valiant.paladin 19:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The problem seems to be that precedent is inconsistent on whether to move a controversial/potentially offensive image "below the fold." Both sides so far have linked to articles where offensive images were at the top, others with the images moved down to the middle, and so far one example where the same subject has different picture placements depending on the language of the article. Before we discuss whether to move the picture down from the top, there should probably be a sitewide standard fixed on whether or not pictures should be moved down in any article. Guppy313 21:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Two questions: Racism and Islamic Tradition

In the first sentence of the second paragraph, the text states "many Muslims in Denmark and elsewhere view them as provocative and racist". But Islam is not a race. Isn't this an incorrect characterization?

Secondly, what is the source of the ban on depicting Islamic prophets? I can't find any sourcing for this. Is it in the Koran? If not, what is the source? Valtam 19:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, for my part, I just changed "racist" to "Islamophobic". I agree, Islam is not a race, just like Christianity or Buddhism is not a race, and the proper adjectives should be used. Sol. v. Oranje 19:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Whew. That was a quick change! Thanks, Soldaatvanoranje! Valtam 19:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
No problemo! Sol. v. Oranje 19:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
See Q&A: Depicting the Prophet Muhammad for clarity —Gabbe 19:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Gabbe. So if I understand it correctly, the Koran bans any images of God/Allah as well as the worship of idols. In addition, over the years, oral tradition has also led to the ban of the depiction of all Jewish, Christian and Muslim prophets. Dipicting any living creature is also discouraged.

What about different branches of Islam? I read somewhere that Shi'ites do not ban depictions of Mohammed, etc. And does the ban apply only to Muslims? Or does the ban mean that no human being may depict Mohammed, etc.? Thanks for the education, all! Valtam 19:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice find Gabbe! Homestarmy 19:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


Depends, Valtam - if the muslims in Denmark (and elsewhere) view it as racicm, they view it as racism. Whether or not they attach the 'correct' (e.g. a form of discrimination based on race, especially the belief that one race is superior to another) meaning to "racism" is a totally different thing - and would perhaps warrant an editor's note. What's the source on that statement?--Discus2000 19:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


Well, I do know a bit about Islamic law, but the specifics about illustrating God/The Prophet/People-in-general is not really my specialty :). All I can say is that with billions of adherants, Islam is not monolithic. There exists a plethora of differing and condradictory viewpoints on how to interpret religious law, just as there is in Christianity or Judaism. Someone with more in-depth knowledge should be consulted about this... —Gabbe 20:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Rgulerdem Continues to Remove Image of Cartoons]]

Rgulerdem continues to remove the images of the cartoons from the article, and inserts text claiming that showing these images will lead to a "clash of civilizations" with 1.3 billion Muslims. We need people to keep an eye on the article and make sure the image remains. Sol. v. Oranje 19:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually he said "clush". I will warn him about a potential WP:3RR block on his talk page. In the same vein, I will repeat that people should refrain from unnecessary insults, particularly in edit summaries. This edit war is ridiculously heated enough without it. --DDG
Apologies, but I had been dealing with these reverts all day yesterday and it's beyond frustrating trying to keep the article with the image _and_ dealing with seemingly bizarre (and mistyped, hehehe) threats against Western civilization. I'll be more diplomatic in the future. Sol. v. Oranje 19:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


Pictures

There is no reason to keep those pictures there. We can discuss without them as well. Why we dont discuss if they are insultt before posting them there?

Yes, I am saying that these pictures are a step toward a clush of civilization. We need understanding each other and emphaty. I ask you be more consious!

I am also saying that this is an insult. An insult cannot be placed into a wiki article. That is agains the rules and common sense. Resid Gulerdem 19:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


First of all, it's "Clash" of civilizations. There is no English word of "clush". Secondly, we _have_ been discussing the use of the cartoon image in this discussion page; however, you chose to ignore it and went on to remove the image from the article numerous times, way before any consensus had been achieved on the discussion page.
Wikipedia, furthermore, was not created to never "offend" anyone, and a lot of its content could be seen as controversial to people with all sorts of different religions, politics, and cultures. This is because Wikipedia's true culture lies in the distribution of _information_, not in reverting back to a Dark Ages where taboos were used to keep people in the dark and misinformed about the world. As much as you may personally find these images disturbing, the majority of the planet does not, and furthermore, they may wish to view the images to understand what the controversy is about. Who knows -- they may end up agreeing with you that the pictures are wrong, but if they never see them, they will never get to make that decision for themselves.
Lastly, please stop threatening some conflict between civilizations. That's a threat of violence, and frankly it has no place in Wikipedia and makes you look like an extremist. Which is, ironically, what the whole point of these cartoons was about. Sol. v. Oranje 19:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
But the insult was already printed from a separate source, we're just reporting it, that's different than Wikipedia or a member making up an insult. Also, what is a clush? Furthermore, considering what i've heard about the Muslim end-of-world view, basically, the hope is that the entire world will be 'united' under Islam, so I don't see what the new problems is here. Homestarmy 19:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering: is this a lot of edits on Wiki?

I mean 6000-7000 edits in 5 days on a single page, does that count as a lot on Wiki? Is that record suspect? I imagine that subjects like US election 2004 and the London bombing also have had that many? Is there a page on wiki that list such “over edited “ pages? Twthmoses 20:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Admins can find this out with database queries... I'm not certain that there's a running list anywhere. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I recall one of the most edited pages was the one about the previous Pope. Current event pages tend to be highly edited like that. If I recall correctly, there was an article about that on one of the editions of the Wikipedia Signpost. --cesarb 20:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe there were over 1500 edits to the Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince in a single day (July 16th). --DDG 20:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Misinformation

...Muhammad as a pedophile demon [6], the second shows Muhammed with a pig snout [7] and the third depicts a praying Muslim being raped by a dog[8][citation needed].

See (da) here and here AlEX 20:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Any objection to my adding this reference to the article whilst it is protected? Uncle G 21:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Not at all, and it is once again unprotected (for now). I am not sure which link to use, as the real one is in danish, but the english one links to it. AlEX 21:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Be more conscious!

Grown ups are aware of their responsibilities. They generally has some emphaty. Do you have those?

You are not aware of what you are serving to! Would you like the world be a better place or full of fights and wars.

We can have a livible place only if we can respect others. Let us not insult values of eachother! That is what grown ups do, or should do!

Those attempts only increase tension among the civilizations! If you are for peace in the world please reconsider where this discussion is going to. Not only here in Wiki, but worldwide!

Best. Resid Gulerdem 20:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Resid, I'll repeat what others have said, Wikipedia is not the AUTHOR of the images that you find offensive, it is DOCUMENTING a controversy. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

We should not report an insult, isnt this clear? Resid Gulerdem 20:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Resid, where exactly IS 'this discussion going to'? Valtam 20:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It is going unhappiness and discomport in our lives, everywhere. This kind of attemps founds a base for further terorrist attacs. We should be careful about the people selling themselve as representatives of West and freedom, or Muslims. THere are stupids among them and they will ruin our lives. Resid Gulerdem 20:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Unhappiness and discomfort are things everyone has to deal with. I'm confused about the rest of what you said. Valtam 20:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
We are dealing with unhappiness in our lives but we do not create them ourselves. We shoudln't, right? What I am trying to say is, I am afraid that, this kind of insults, can provide a reason for radical terrorists for their further attacks to Western civilization. In turn Muslims are being blamed for what terorrists do! Is that clear this time? Resid Gulerdem 20:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Resid. My opinion is that radical terrorists think they have enough reasons for attacking the West, with or without the cartoons. I also think that if Muslims do not want to be blamed for what terrorists do, the Muslim community should stop the terrorism. Valtam 21:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
And that is where you are completely wrong. Killing innocent peope is terrorism either pretending like you are fighting against the terrorism or not. Muslims are far from terrorism. Hitler was killing millions of Jews but never mentioned as a Christian terrorist. Sharon killed many people in Philistine but never named as Jewish terrorist. Can you see the point? When I say radical terrorist I do not mean Muslim, because they are nothing to do with terrorism. I mean terrorists who claim they are fighting for Islam. At the same time, I definitely include the terrorists in black costumes in some capital cities walking like great heros ot the time... Resid Gulerdem 21:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
We don't want peace with them. As this insanity proves, they're batshit crazy
Furthermore, they are not asking us to respect their beliefs, they are expecting us to adhere to them. --Vagodin Talk 20:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC

Yes we should respect eachother! Resid Gulerdem 20:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Please respect the rights of the artists and newspapers to publish these images. If you do not wish to view the images on wiki, use Alt-F4 to close your browser. Neim 20:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Noone has a right to insult others. That is the most fundamental point of democracy! Resid Gulerdem 20:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Insults are protected by freedom of speech. --Vagodin Talk 20:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Wrong, Resid. The ability to criticize and insult other is a much more fundamental point of democracy than "No one has a right to insult others."Valtam 20:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Resid, where on earth do you get that? Seriously, I'm very interested to know where you picked up the idea that the most fundamental point of democracy is freedom from insult. --Lukobe 21:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
As a mac user, I'm offended by that. --DDG 20:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Translation

"Profet! Med kuk og knald i låget som holder kvinder under åget!". In English the poem could be read as: "Prophet! daft and dumb, keeping woman under thumb"

This translation of "kuk og knald i låget" as "daft and dumb" is too negative.. i would say "kuk og knald i låget" means to be crazy.

It may have been unfortunate to translate into English doggerel. But English daft does mean "crazy", or at least "eccentric" . Could you translate word for word? Septentrionalis 20:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
"knald i låget" means "To have a tile loose", "kuk i låget" would be translated similarly--Discus2000 20:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. I too think "dumb" is too negative a word. Dumb is not what is said in Danish. Daft is fine, though. So - anybody up for a poetic retranslatation? It needs some word like daft or crazy or eccentric - preferably one that fits the "rhythm" --Lassefolkersen 20:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
"holder kvinder under åget" means "subjugating women". "Prophet! With a loose tile and subjugating women"... which should then be turned into a colloquialism or an idiom--Discus2000 20:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
It is hard to accurate translate into English and still stay poetic. "Prophet! daft and dumb, keeping woman under thumb", while I agree a little to negative, is a very valid try. “Daft” is actually a translation for the entire part of "kuk og knald i låget", and no other word is really needed.
A more true translation would be "Prophet! daft and keep woman under yoke" (as in under the yoke of a tyrant), but it does not sound poetic anymore. Twthmoses 21:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

A more accurate translation: "FACT: Islam = Terror."

I think 'Prophet with a screw loose' would be a fair equivalent, but (although I'm a published poet), I'm having trouble with the second part. 'Prophet with a screw loose, keeping women in your noose' might not be the best wording.--Anchoress 21:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Temp protect on Discussion page

The formatting on the last two sections was broken, and I had to temp protect this page in order to avoid edit conflicts. The total protection lasted less than one minute... during which I'm guessing 50-60 people couldn't post. ;) Sorry. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This is great

If the artist can drive over a billion people to utter madness with a picture, he wins. Hands down. All the endless flame wars and trolling on wikipedia, fark, 4chan, and other big sites can't even possibly compare to a cartoon that results in crazy people taking over an embassy. It's over, everybody. This guy has finally Won the Internet.

Oh please. We had a bigger revert war over the Harry Potter movie. --DDG 20:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

They were made by 12 artists heh, its more like Denmark has won the internet if that's the standard we're using :D Homestarmy 20:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Which harry potter movie. i want to see

Drudge

Matt Drudge has posted the bomb-in-turban Mohammad picture prominently on his high traffic website. Tempshill 20:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Change the picture

As the current title notes, the article is about the controversy, not the cartoons. As one of the editors for the French version of the article put it when removing the Geert Wilders link to the large sized versions, "spam de lien, merci de ne pas le rerajouter. L'important dans l'article ce n'est pas les caricatures elles-mêmes mais la réaction qui a suivi." ("link spam, thank you for not putting it back. What's important in the article is not the cartoons themselves but the reaction that followed"). I'm not so supportive of the link removal but I think that person assigned the correct priorities to the article.

There was supposedly a protest in favor of the cartoons in Denmark tonight, and I think there have already been protests against them in the middle east. I'd like to urge that the picture at the top of the article (that's currently of the cartoons) be replaced by a photo of the protests (maybe two photos composited side by side). That is more appropriate for the article topic (i.e. the controversy) than the pic of the cartoons. The picture of the cartoons themselves, if included at all, should be a lot further down in the page and thumbnailed. The article's main photo should be something that depicts the controversy. The picture of the cartoons is secondary. 71.141.251.153 21:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

   Umm...the cartoons are the controversy!!--UltraSkuzzi 21:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
that's not correct, the controversy is the controversy. Rajab 21:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
How can you understand the controversy without seeing the cartoons? Valtam 21:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Even then I don't underestan them, but that is just my personal opinion... AlEX 21:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Not only are the cartoons the controversy, but ever since I saw the article title changed I've already assumed it was nothing more than a "salami tactic" to slowly but surely remove and censor the article of the cartoons in question (which are the whole entire reason for the controversy, and thus CRUCIAL to understanding it). Sol. v. Oranje 21:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
No. The change of title was to make the title more accurately reflect the article's topic. And seeing the cartoons is NOT crucial to understanding the controversy. I've seen them because I'm using a graphical browser, but I sometimes use text-only browsers and I'm confident that I'd still understand the controversy perfectly well from reading just the text descriptions. Do you really have to see a photo of the actual blow job to understand what the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal was about? 71.141.251.153 21:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
First of all, there's a straw poll above -- that poll will determine whether the drawings will stay or not. Go vote. Secondly, you have repeatedly compared the cartoons to photos of sexual acts and murder, which is surreal; sorry, but political caricatures are not even in the same realm as pictures of blowjobs, especially considering that political cartoons have the purpose of informing debate, crafting satire, and inspiring political change and discussion -- pictures of sexual acts rarely have that power, and can sometimes simply be tried for obscenity. There is nothing obscene about these cartoons, many of which don't even show Mohammed or even make fun of the entire newspaper in the first place. Removing these pictures is akin to saying "Yeah, there was this big surge of protest about 12 little cartoons, which have caused death threats, economic boycotts, counter-boycotts, embassy takeovers, kidnappings, and all sorts of wonderful extremism, but NO, you can't see them because we're too scared to allow you to make up your mind for yourself and we have to bow down to religious commands that most Wikipedians don't even follow." Sol. v. Oranje 21:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I didn't say (at least just now) the cartoons were obscene or even offensive, I simply said one could understand the controversy without seeing them. Second, I'm utterly contemptuous of the notion that having a link saying "click here to see the picture" somehow prevents people from seeing the picture. If you think providing a link where people can view something with a single mouse click is "censorship", then you have no comprehension at all of what real censorship is. (And I haven't even advocated changing the picture to a link). 71.141.251.153 21:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Cool, I'm comteptuous of your refusal to see that the continuing "salami tactics" that you advocate are nothing more than a slippery slope to suppression of information. Furthermore, you know nothing about me or my experiences with "real" censorship, so take your martyr complex elsewhere. Sol. v. Oranje 21:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
the gist of the article is about the immense controversy which was caused by the publication. Understanding why this came about is an important secondary aim of the article, so this should be explained. But the first picture should definitely not be the cartoons themselves... Rajab 21:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Um, the French version has the image on the page just like here. Jacoplane 21:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
No, the gist of the article is WHY these cartoons have caused such chaos and extremism, and no reader could fully understand the rationale behind it without seeing the cartoons for themselves (just like no one would understand the Iranian fatwa against Salman Rushdie unless they read the offending book). Sol. v. Oranje 21:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
so you suggest putting Rushdie's entire book at the beginning of the article on the fatwa?? Rajab 21:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
No, because the book is 1) under copyright, and 2) is too large to include in a wikipedia article. These cartoons are now published widely and under fair use, and are small enough to be included in the article in their entire. Sol. v. Oranje 21:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
What about the position of the image in this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-semitism article? The.valiant.paladin 21:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Are there any wiki-reporters on-site ready to take license-free pictures of those protests? --Vsion (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
now it's gone again from the french version...
Yes, but it was there when the anon posted his message, and has since been removed by another anon. Jacoplane 21:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


I found the idea of changing the picture acceptible. Yes, there is no reason to have them posted. The protests can be posted instead. I cannot understand what kind of reasoning can justify to have an insult posted in a wiki articel. That is against all rules and common sense. Resid Gulerdem 21:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Archive again?

We should probably archive the debate again, it is getting quite lengthy --Snailwalker | talk 21:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please do, and move the poll back down to the bottom. Protect for two minutes if necessary. Babajobu 21:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I second that AlEX 21:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Finnish minister comment

What is the source of comment of Finnish foreign affairs ministry? I haven't heard it on the news?



copyright of cartoon image

i don't think the image can be kept in any case because one of the artists has explicitly asked for it not to be reproduced. This is the current state of the discussion on the German version of this article 20:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

As the discussion is about the controversy covered by the images, it is undoubtably covered by fair use. --DDG 20:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Fair use is different than German copyright law in any event. Carlossuarez46 20:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
"The Wikipedia database is stored on a server in the State of Florida in the United States of America, and is maintained in reference to the protections afforded under local and federal law." Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


Editing while protected

Please, let's avoid editing the article while it's protected, even if it's just minor edits. It's a potentially problematic slippery slope. --cesarb 20:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Yep, apologies. Babajobu 21:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • In general, I agree. However, there is established precedent for fixing spelling, grammatical, and style/formatting problems even while protected as long as the edits are non-controversial and non-substantive. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I've just noticed that the article is fully protected. I've been editing under the mistaken belief that it was semi-protected, as it has been on several occasions before. I've only wikified some dates, altered and augmented some references, and ensured that there are no bare external hyperlinks in the article. Uncle G 21:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I am new to wikipedia, is there a reason for not editing while under full protection? And what is the diffence with semi-protection?

no consensus

there is no consensus on the picture. The oxford english dictionary defines consensus as: Agreement in opinion; the collective unanimous opinion of a number of persons

I've taken the conservative option to remove the image until there's a consensus on this issue. Rajab 21:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, there is a strong consensus to keep the image. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
eh, I think the consensus is pretty darn clear. Babajobu 21:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Also , since thie article is about the pictures. Removing them is unencylopedic. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The consensus is pretty DAMN clear for keeping the pictures. TruthCrusader