Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 3c

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

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)


[1] [2] ``A few of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons link the prophet to terrorism, said Tyge Trier [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1566979/posts ] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

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. [9]. 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 [10], 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 [11]], 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