Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 5

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

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)

Jeez, this page is way too big. Someone needs to archive it (but keep the poll on this page, and the comments directly related to the poll). I don't know how to archive a talk page. Titanium Dragon 05:22, 3 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?
  • Semi-protection means random IP members (Also called "anons") and new members (I think it's like a few weeks old maybe? Im not sure) cannot edit the article. Full protection means only admins and Jimbo Wales can edit it. Homestarmy 22:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not "only admins and Jimbo Wales", it's "only admins". Jimbo Wales is also an admin. --cesarb 23:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, but barely qualified to be one. ;-) --Jimbo Wales 02:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No cartoons untill the pool ended

I propose to not post the cartoons untill the pool ended. Resid Gulerdem 21:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Also, when does the "pool" end?Valtam 21:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The poll is over. It has 36/2/0. This is demonstrative of a strong consensus to keep the image. If this changes in the future, we can get rid of the image. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Not it is not. It should last at least 2 weeks. Resid Gulerdem 21:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Says who? -Maverick 21:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I'd say 24 hours. Not everybody is awake right now. Guppy313 22:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd say 48 hours minimum. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I think 24 hrs is quite sufficient for an article which is getting so much attention. If it lasts too long one side or another will organize a mass vote of otherwise-uninterested people. (Of course, maybe that's OK. But I'd rather just count the "honest" votes). Thparkth 03:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


No, for two reasons. One: the disputed item should not be altered or deleted during the resolution process. Two: I know you can read. There two users who want it removed thus far, compared to about 20 who want to keep it. --Maverick 21:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not that difficult. As soon as the majority want it gone, it goes. As for now, the majority want it there, it stays. AlEX 22:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus - the oxford english dictionary defines consensus as: Agreement in opinion; the collective unanimous opinion of a number of personsRajab 21:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
It also defines it as "general agreement or accord," which is what we have here. The picture stays. -Maverick 22:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
That is an incorrect characterization. The definition to which you are referring is a physiological one. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
"Consensus" as used on Wikipedia does not require unanimity... and neither does your proffered definition if you read it carefully. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
My "proffered" definition does - unanimous is unanimous. Rajab 22:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok. When you get consensus to remove the image we'll do that. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
If Rajab's definition requires unanimity to remove the image, I hereby vote against removing the image, thus making it impossible for there to be a unanimous decision to remove the image. Consider this vote to apply to all future polls regarding this matter. Valtam 22:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Unanimity of a group of persons... not ALL PERSONS EVERYWHERE. A group of persons has a unanimous opinion to keep the images. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I just filed a WP:RfC. We should wait untill some more contributions from other people who are not aware of this discussion. Resid Gulerdem 22:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
If they agree with your position, we'll remove the image then. Delaying tactics should not favor the side delaying. It is becoming difficult to believe you are operating in good faith. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Well he just deleted the picture again, I guess that answers that one. Rajab... go away. You are nothing but a troll and a vandal in my eyes -Maverick 22:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Is it standard practice to file a WP:RfC after a poll has ended? I'm not that familiar with Wikipedia customs...Valtam 22:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


The poll didn't end at all! How long was it running - one hour? a day??
Could you please post a link to the RfC you filed. I'm having trouble finding it right now and would like to keep track of the happenings. Thanks. --StuffOfInterest 22:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I can't find it either AlEX 22:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
WP:RFC/REL It's just on the list of RfCs, there isn't a new page created for it, which is probably why there are people showing up here just to vote etc.--Anchoress 05:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I propose at least 2 weeks. We sohuldnt have the cartoon on untill the pool ends. I wouldn't try to read anybody's intensions. That is not an objective argument. Resid Gulerdem 22:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately you and your buddy are alone in this one. I do not oppose a longer poll, however customs dictate that the picture stays until the dispute is resolved. Please try to work with us, as you are now acting in bad faith here. -Maverick 22:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
There is a clear overwhelming majority here. Until we get at least a simple majority from the crew in favor of removing the picture (which I really doubt will ever happen), the image should remain in the article. joturner 22:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:Consensus is very clear that in Wikipedia "consensus" doesn't require unanimity. Generally a supermajority is regarded as consensus, though Wikipedia is not a democracy. There is not doubt that as of now, there is consensus to keep the image. But the poll will continue, and we'll see. Babajobu 22:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There are some people who are never going to change their opinion. Therefore it would be impossible to ever reach a majority. This is about as consensus as consensus can get. We should leave the poll up a little longer, but I wouldn't get your hopes up for a come from behind win from the Remove crew. joturner 22:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


I filed it at [1]. Resid Gulerdem 22:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


Do not overestimate polls. Among many other things Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is not a democracy. See WP:NOT -- 129.13.186.1 08:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Image of Protest?

How about adding a proper image of the protest under international consequences? say one with them burning the Danish flag, just to bring the controversy of the whole article to it's full potential. (Cloud02 22:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC))

agreed --KimvdLinde 22:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
No, that will offend Danish nationalists.</sarcasm> Fredrik Johansson - talk - contribs 22:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
exactly my point (Cloud02 22:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC))
example AlEX 22:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Another protest image that could be added, but I find the one present to work well enough. The article can be found here AlEX

Oh, and lets at least have some general consensus before someone just smacks in the picture (Cloud02 22:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)) Support: add second image showing some sort of demonstration over the cartoons, but add below the image of the actual cartoons.--ChrisJMoor 02:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Editorial selection

It says that 40 artists were asked and there are twelve drawings. I think an important question arises then... were there only twelve submissions? Did the editor choose which he thought were best? or what was representative? If so, were they representative? I think these are important in relating to how much the newspaper chose to display. gren グレン ? 23:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Those 12 where the only ones to respond out of the 40 Jyllandsposten asked. (in danish) http://www.aiu.dk/avisnet/show.php?id=812 The.valiant.paladin 23:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
... and the time to deadline was extremely short! MX44 23:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Good, I see it has been changed. I think that's really important because it makes a huge difference if the editor of the paper used his own discretion in choosing or not. The story would be a lot different if he got 30 submissions and thew out 15 that had Muhammad with a halo. gren グレン ? 04:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Add this to page

somewhere in this paragraph: "Akhmad Akkari, spokesman of the Danish Muslim organisations which organised the tour, explained that the three drawings had been added to "give an insight in how hateful the atmosphere in Denmark is towards Muslims." Akkari claimed he does not know the origin of the three pictures. He said they had been sent anonymously to Danish Muslims. However, when Ekstra Bladet asked if it could talk to these Muslims, Akkari refused to reveal their identity. These images had however never been published in Jyllands-Posten."

I think it's crucial for making sense of this story. Images can be found:

pig-muhammad http://ekstrabladet.dk/grafik/nettet/tegninger38.jpg
muhammad screwing a dog http://ekstrabladet.dk/grafik/nettet/tegninger39.jpg
evil pedo-muhammad http://ekstrabladet.dk/grafik/nettet/tegninger40.jpg

--cokane 2 Feb 2006

If you had read the article you would have seen the pictures had been brought in the paragraph just before. (Cloud02 00:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC))
These pictures are the ones erroniously televised by BBC and al-Jazeera. I am not convinced they need even further attention? MX44 00:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Controversial newspaper caricatures section

What on earth is the basis for the inclusion of this section, or the selection of items mentioned in it? Most of them seem utterly irrelevant. Palmiro | Talk 00:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

contribution of مبتدئ

First of all i understand fully and truly the point of view that is conserned about the liberty of expression or liberty in general. I want just to mention some points wich i may develop later:

  • haven t we to distinguish between the liberty of expression and the liberty of offensing other peoples (over the fifth of mankind) or between liberty and hurting others?
  • haven t we to assure some balance between this liberty and the right of others (let me mention here that these others are not dogs or animals they are even american citizens or european)?
  • where do the liberty of each one of us ends? (may be where the right or liberty of other peoples begins?)
  • why are people who are adherent of this point of view always discredited as terrorist or against the liberty of expression or stupid etc... such in some contributions here? does such a priori assumption not descridit the assumption makers more than the assumption object?
  • is reducling the queen (1 person) accepted in denmark (or norway i dont remember wich of them) or is it penalized by the law and offending people? i think it s penelized so why a huge community (i think the second religious community in europe) have to accept this offence?
  • Does an ethic of journalism and publishing exist or not? if yes is it consistent with republishing the picture? i hope that wikipedia and the wikipedian will be the leaders on showing the attachment to this ethics
  • is republishing the pictures consistent with antiracist laws and penal laws in general?
  • is the publishing of the image really necessary? one can dicribe the picture by words (note i m not saying the article has to be deleted. one can put some related pictures but not those -for example of the boycott-).

so this is my first contribution. I hope we can discuss in respect of each other and without prejudices. thanx مبتدئ 01:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

مبتدئ - this will probably be deleted as being inappropriate for this discussion page, but let me respond briefly to you. Please understand that in a western country, any person or any newspaper can ridicule the king, queen, prime minister, president, any politician, any religious leader, and generally anyone they want. It happens all the time. It is totally legal. They don't suffer any consequences from this. That is why many westerners feel Muhammad should be just the same - a valid target for the type of humour called satire. Thparkth 01:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
"between the liberty of expression and the liberty of offensing other peoples". In no democratic society is there a right not to get offended. To the contrary, intrinsic to the freedom of speech and freedom of the press is the freedom to say REALLY offensive things, to ridicule their religion, to mock their prophets, to belittle their beliefs. It's not always wise to do so, but that's for each individual to decide. And of course it's legal to insult the queen, are you kidding? Babajobu 01:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
You have to understand that wikipedia is a encyclopedia not a journalist. A encyclopedia just states facts and does not censure anything and lets the readers decide. It is up to everyone for themselfs to decide if it was right or wrong originally published in the Danish newspapers Chaldean 01:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue! - Barry Goldwater --UltraSkuzzi 02:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

God, those pakis are unbeleivable. any little reason to have a little party and get the booze flowing.

Moderation is part of justice. Plato

ok thanks to all of you. i did not expect that someone will answer so fast. first of all i apologize for my bad english:
  1. for Mr Thparkth: thank you for explaining how the "west" or "western" socity work. fisrt of all i want to inform you that i m a part of this western socity (i dont like to use this term because it s too much connoteted to clash of west and east or in opposition to east). Mr Thparkth i m a european citizen and i know what i m talking about. it s not allowed to defame peoples and i think this holds without consideration of skin coulour or religion or function or sexual orientation or whatever. so what you are saying is not true. i can even tell you the exact paragraphs of the law. So summa summarum thank you for introducing me to democracy and liberty but i think i can say that i m good informed about this subject. the second point is: i hope that my contribution will not be deleted because i will understand it or it will be undemoctratic and illegal (in sense of wikipedia laws and ethics) and against the liberty of expression that is claimed here (i think what i wrote is related to the subject-in fact who decide if it s relevant or not?-). onother point is that you sayed that they dont have to be affraid of consequence; that s not true too. Mr i remember that a newspaper apologized for a politician just because the newspaper sayed the politician colors his hairs. onother example comes from uk where it was enforced by a court that the dayly mirror i think dont publish the document of bobing aljazeera otherwise they will have to encouter penalities. I hope yopu bleave what i m telling you if not just google a little or if have time i will provide you the urls.
  2. Mr Babajobu: first of all thank of saying: "It's not always wise to do so". Secondly you sayed there is no rhigt of not being offended: please see what i wrote above. thats not true at all!! one check anti deffamition laws two check anti racist laws three check antisemitism laws. these are all laws wich exists i m not lying or inventing them. i m sure 100% of it. ok the laws are made for individual case of deffamation somehow but they surly apply for a group of person and may be in a more strong way. i forget laws relative to social freedom wich are also integrated in some eu legislation and wich penalize every act that puts the social freedom in danger. i agree that these laws are applicated more or less strongly and that some of this laws only take effect if one makes a plaint but nevertheless they exist. in the legislation of my contry the second paragraph in the 1st section says the dignity of human beeing is untouchable for example (i dont remember now the exact words of antidefamation laws thats why i put a more general statement). such picture offend me in my dignty as a citizen (and a lot of other human beings) so they are anticonstitutional. concerning the queen i dont know of wich queen you are talking about (notice uk is not the only kingdom on the world and i v seen Mr been too :-)) anyway thats not the point.
  1. Mr Chaldean: thank you Mr for explaining what Wikipedia is. I m a sysop in wikipedia so i have a little idea of what wikipedia is :-) thanl you anyway for your comment. Mr i dont ask for censoring just be a little bit more responsable that s all. if you speak in terms of was it right or not to publish them by danish newspaper the answer is the newspapers apologized and admitted (may be in a not clear way) that they have doen a mistake by doing this. so the question is already answered. where is the problem in describing the picture by words for examples  ???? or / and putting pictures of the boycott (thats what maked the picture famous and mediatize the hole story???)
  1. Mr UltraSkuzziyou cite plato and Barry Goldwater but the 2 statments dont fit together somehow. but ok i will ignore this. "Moderation is part of justice": thats why laws are not always applicated or some laws (but almost it has nothing to do with moderation but with ignorance or that you dont have enghoug mony to pay an advocate :-). "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice": may be yes may be no. but i tend to no. thats another topic your talking about here or it will lead us to offtopics like the absolutism of liberty etc... and as babajou sayed (in an other way) i think that liberty is equivalent to resonsability or translate in rsponsability. if you have liberty you have a choice if you have a choice you have to assume the consequences of your choices.... anyway thank you too. and i apologized for thinking i can have a better idea than plato or whom else :-) (for all plato fans)

i want to say it again i m not against liberty of expression, there is really no need to be affraid of an attac against liberties or to feel (in this situation) that you are in the obligation to defend liberty of expression. I think the hole story is a mix of racism (racisme is not the approtriate word because of the word: race ==> racism but let s ignore i think you understand what i mean) and a search of publicity... so thats why ethics (wikipedia is build on ethics for example the free circulation of infos) tells us to be responsable in our beeing as a free person. مبتدئ 04:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I Didn't write the Plato comment, just the Barry Goldwater one. I respect early philosophy, but I think it bears little into this conversation.--UltraSkuzzi 12:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
You say: "check anti racist laws check antisemitism laws." There are no laws in any Western country against saying racist or antisemitic things. In the U.S., for example, people publish anti-Jewish and racist newsletters all the time, and Mein Kampf (Hitler's book) is available in bookstores everywhere. I don't know where you get your information about the West, but it's simply wrong. Babajobu 04:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I get my information from my constitution and the laws of my country wich is a western country (to take your jargon) and wich is not the us (thanks god :-)). I gave you a litteral translation of the most famous article of my contitution:" the dignity of human beeing is untouchable". I m not speaking about the US. there tey are discussing wehther torture is leagal or not etc... so may the constitution and awareness about human rights their is not so well developped as here??? I think (but im not sure :sure to 80%) that the divulging of Mein Kampf leads to juridic consequence. I know the law so it s really useless to try to say that these laws dont exist and even if you repeat it 100000 times. I can only tell you i m saying what is written in the 2nd paragraph of my constitution and i think the 13 pragraph of the penal law. I didnt mention here international law wich can be interpreted in this sense :-). I know judgments where policemans was suspended because of racist comment. I dont Know Us very good but i think if you can judge a Mcdonald because you became fat or because your dog is dead while you tried to dry it in the microwave i think there is surly a law wich prohibit racism (or still the Blacks have to sit in a section a part in the bus: i dont think!!:-)) مبتدئ 05:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Aside from your spelling issues, مبتدئ, you lost so much credibility with this- "wich is not the us (thanks god :-))." Regardless of traditions, respect, sedition, the second paragraph of your constitution or whatever, you have just failed the Wikipedia's NPOV test. And no, I don't own a copy of Mein Kampf, but it's kinda nice to know I could if I wanted to.

althouhg i dont know who wrote this lines (it s not signed) i will answer it because i will answer it because i dont feel superior to others in the opposite to who wants to judge over me. Mr X i dont want to have deep discussions of what neutrality is etc... this will lead to other large topics. fisrt of all i did not ask you if you have Mein Kampf or not i just sayed here in my land it s prohibited to divulgate it since it s prohibited to divulgate racist litterture. why does these 2 small words descredit me and all the other hundreds of words i hve sayed? because i m outing my self as religious or because i m expressing that i prefer living here then in the US? If you feel offensed through this no problem I apologize i have no problem admitting mistakes offensig others is the mistake here). please consider it as a bad joke if you think i havent the right on personal preferences. besides, notice that i put it in brackets with a little smily. again if you feel offensed i m sorry it wasnt my goal. but please dont try to start a personal attack against me because of it or dont pick on or rag on me because of my spellings. i didnt say that i m anglophone or living in an anglophone country. Dear Mr X i m trying my best and even apologize for torturing your language (may be) but i do my best. and i invite you if you want to discuss in whatever language you want; and as an open minded and educated person you surly can express your self in other languages. with best regards مبتدئ 06:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

if it s babajou who wrote the comment: i v seen your personal page, it explains why you did this comment. it s ok its your point of view, i only hope i can correct it some day :-). best regards. مبتدئ 06:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

A better *caugh* split idea

Everyone is forgetting that these images didnt start the whole controversy. The paper commisioned them in response to Danish artist's fear of reprisals from Muslims for Islam related work. The article that the cartoons surround speaks to artist's fear for their own safety after the murder of Theo Van Gogh etc. Here is how the story should be broken down in my opinion.

 Islam Vs. West
   Islam Vs. Denmark
      Islam Vs. Danish Artists
          Islam Vs. Muhhomad Cartoons
             The cartoon itself

Oo7jeep 02:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

why dont you put a section Islam Vs. evrithing??? what you write is not correct. In fact the title Islam Vs. West suggest a clash between Islam and the west wich is not true. Notice that islam is the second religion in the "west" in the number of adherent. Notice too that those muslims are integral parts of their societys and citizens like all other western citizens. I heve no problem by mentioning how things began but specialy the main section Islam Vs West and the Section Islam Vs danish Artist can only be set in the frame of someone who is adherent of the theory of the clash of civilisation and the superiority of one side on the other. Sorry that dont sound serious and is not a perspective for me and it is intolerant. Islam has nothing against West (the proof is that islam is established in the West) it has also nothing again artist or danish artist or whoever. Dont people have the right to defend themselfs from beeing defamated and insulted? you know the use of the word Vs west means a thinking in a frame of West against (east or middle east or warsau or urss or what ever) please stop we dont need new concept of enemy. with best regards مبتدئ 04:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

CNN: "Gunmen shut EU Gaza office over cartoons"

[2]. We need to add this. Hmmm...where will they dispense all the aid money from, then? Babajobu 02:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

anyway they will not recieve anything since the democtratic choice of the palestinian was not the right one. مبتدئ 04:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

People can vote in whichever leaders they like, but they can't assume other countries will love the leaders and want to give them money. Democracy means the right to vote for people who other countries will despise. Anyway, this is off-topic. Babajobu 04:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

ok you right (and your right this is off topic anyway here) مبتدئ 06:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Added in. Swatjester 07:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Islamic extremists respond to cartoons with violence

I think that, even while maintaining a neutral point of view, this article should point out the irony of the violent response to these cartoons, which make fun of Islam's violent fringe.

Interpretation is best left to the reader. This isn't an editorial. Guppy313 02:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
That's the foul stench of hypocracy you are detecting. --Vagodin Talk 02:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
It assumes that the outrcy is over satirical artwork depicting Muhammed that implicate him with violence, however many Muslims seem to be unhappy over satirical artwork depicting Muhammed, period. There's also the fact that the vast majority of the Muslims are protesting in peaceful ways (such as the widespread boycott) and the worst most have participated in is flag desecration (which is even legal in the United States, if only for the moment).
Heck, you're assuming that most of the protesting Muslims have seen the pictures to begin with. Guppy313 02:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


Your intended audience wouldn't get it. MX44 02:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Muslim pictures of Muhammad

in the past there have been non-satirical depictions of Muhammad by Muslims.

Can someone please provide a citation for this statement (last part of opening paragraph). Pepsidrinka 02:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed that unsourced sentence and someone replaced it. But in Shia countries there are some pretty portrait-like images of Muhammad, no doubt. I have one. He looks like a superhero, Mr. Clean in a turban. Babajobu 02:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
There are two on the Muhammad page. Although I believe there was only one this morning. Both veiled. --JGGardiner 02:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there are pictures on the Muhammad page. But those pictures don't claim to be made by Muslims, and whether they are or not has no bearing. This statement is a very loaded claim in light of the world situation today, and its truthfullness should be cited. Pepsidrinka 02:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The captions for the pictures claim that one is Ottoman and the other implies that it is Ottoman or Persian. --JGGardiner 03:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I stand corrected. I probably should have read the captions, seeing how I was just over there moving pictures around. Nonetheless, I still hold that a citation be included in the article to justify the point in order to show the casual reader that Muslims in the past have created pictures. Pepsidrinka 03:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikimedia I think has a bunch of non-satirical pics of Muhammad under the Muhammad name, they were all created mostly long ago and by many different nations, maybe one was Islamic? Homestarmy 02:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Jordan Paper Publishes Cartoons

Just read this at the BBC:

"In Jordan, an independent tabloid, al-Shihan, reprinted three of the cartoons on Thursday, saying people should know what they were protesting about.

In a separate article, the newspaper's editor, Jihad Momani, urged the world's Muslims to "be reasonable" in their response to the drawings.

The paper's publishers sacked him hours later over the "shock" he had caused, Jordan's official Petra news agency reported."

Is this worthy of inclusion? Until now I had not read of any Arab newspaper, even a "tabloid," reprinting any of the cartoons (or suggesting that Muslims "be reasonable"). 209.51.77.64 02:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought this was already mentioned, if it isn't it should be added if we can find that exact hyperlink on the BBC to cite this. Homestarmy 02:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Al Jazeera published the pics, although we're looking at them over someone's shoulder. [3] Babajobu 02:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I should have checked Al Jazeera. Still, I think the fact that any Arab papers are publishing the cartoons, even if they are over someone's shoulder, should be included in the article (once the protection is taken down). 209.51.77.64 03:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


Al-Jazeera published the fakes from the private collections of imam Abu Laban & Co. BBC did too. MX44 03:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Also Yemen Observer. Jacoplane 03:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

IP Ban

Can an admin ban 209.11.82.24? They switched out the image with a penis and this IP has a history of vandalism. Hitokirishinji 03:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

He's already blocked, not by me. Babajobu 03:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Islamic extremists respond to cartoons with violence

I think that, even while maintaining a neutral point of view, this article should point out the irony of the violent response to these cartoons, which make fun of Islam's violent fringe.

Interpretation is best left to the reader. This isn't an editorial. Guppy313 02:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
That's the foul stench of hypocracy you are detecting. --Vagodin Talk 02:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
It assumes that the outrcy is over satirical artwork depicting Muhammed that implicate him with violence, however many Muslims seem to be unhappy over satirical artwork depicting Muhammed, period. There's also the fact that the vast majority of the Muslims are protesting in peaceful ways (such as the widespread boycott) and the worst most have participated in is flag desecration (which is even legal in the United States, if only for the moment).
Heck, you're assuming that most of the protesting Muslims have seen the pictures to begin with. Guppy313 02:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


Your intended audience wouldn't get it. MX44 02:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

sprotected

I have reprotected the article due to the massive amount of vandalism that is still being directed at this page. I realize it is an unusual and regrettable need due to the fact that it is a high traffic article and is an on again off again main page article but at least sprotection is really necessary to stop the vandalism and add a small amount of stability to the article. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 03:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, even after a consensus, sadly, the page will still probably be vandalised. 209.11.82.24 was from a corporate address, I wonder if that company has any interest in an employee who likes to post pictures of penises rather than actaully working. Hitokirishinji 03:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
If they're like most of the ISP's home users vandalize from I doubt it. Of all the times I have heard of a vandal being reported to their provider only 7 or 8 to my knowledge have ended in any favorable response, now it's not even really worht trying, we just have to keep our eyes open and revert it as we see it and if the vandalism continues then block. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 03:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that's actually more or less the opposite; companies pay people to work, while home users pay ISPs to use the internet. Reporting them to the company might actually get some response (namely, that person being fired). Titanium Dragon 03:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


Example of unintentionally offensive dipliction of Mumammad in Serbian Wikipedian article on Muhammad that you all may find interesting:

[[4]]--Greasysteve13 03:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That image is from Iran. As I've said above, Shi'ites have produced those sorts of images over time, their attitude to religious iconography is different from that of Sunnis. Thanks for the link. Babajobu 03:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Does this explain a lack of any Iranian response?--Greasysteve13 03:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I've been curious about the attitude of Shi'ites in all this, and I've heard nothing about it. I believe the pic you link to is from pre-revolutionary Iran, and it's very possible that the mullahs are more strict about this thing today than they were under the Shah. But we haven't heard much from them, and Shi'ites definitely have different historical approach to iconography than do Sunnis. I don't know, keep your ears peeled. Babajobu 03:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Iranians are still diplicting him today ([5]).
I was under the impresssion that Iran is too busy being angry at Europe for other reasons. What's Tehran going to do, put the EU under Double Secret Probation? Heck, I as an American am beginning to feel left out here, all we're getting is second-hand hate. Guppy313 04:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
the pakces aI have heard troubles from are primary sunni --KimvdLinde 04:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Well for starters 75% of Muslims are Sunni.--Greasysteve13 04:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
And here a several more pictures of Mumammad (Warning:Big Link)[6]--Greasysteve13 04:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia contigency planning

In all seriousness, is this an appropriate place to wonder whether Wikipedia (its systems and key personnel) have appropriate security measures or precautions in place? 203.198.237.30 04:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean...? WP as a terror goal...? Kjaergaard 04:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Are you threatening me? As far as systems go, given that Wikipedia's traffic is so substantial, it would take a heck of a lot to make a dent. Also, it wouldn't be anything new, since WP is down a lot anyway... --Interiot 04:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, launching a denial-of-service attack on Wikipedia would be like spitting on someone in the rain. Wikipedians wouldn't even know that something special had happened. Babajobu 04:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Kjaergaard: Let's start by asking ourselves whether it would make more or less sense than any other attack. Interiot/Babajobu: Call me old fashioned, but I was thinking more along the lines of a firebombing or other violent physical attack on systems or key personnel. 203.198.237.30 04:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry, I'm well protected, as is my laptop. And I'm the only really key player on this site, so we're fine. Babajobu 04:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm relatively unimportant, so don't worry about me. And Jimbo has his fembots to defend him [link removed]. As far as firebombing silicon, well... make sure you download a recent backup, and we should be relatively okay. --Interiot 04:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Heh. But this is less about whether any particular thing or person gets bombed...and more about the fact of possible occurrence, and whether appropriate preventative measures and precautions are in place. I feel much better now, knowing there's no need for any real concern. 203.198.237.30 05:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If you are really concerned about this bring it to the village pump. But, it has nothing to do with this article so please don't continue this here. gren グレン ? 06:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Apologies all 'round. 203.198.237.30 06:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Al-Arabiya interview with Danish PM

We should have a link to the transcription of the Al-Arabiya interview with the Danish PM... : http://www.statsministeriet.dk/Index/dokumenter.asp?o=2&n=0&d=2508&s=1

Any opinions on where to put it.....? Kjaergaard 05:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by user 216.248.124.126

User 216.248.124.126 has repeatedly vandalized this article by removing the top main image. This is the 3rd time, at least, despite being warned. Can an admin temp block his IP or something to prevent this from reoccuring please? AscendedAnathema 06:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

reported in violation of 3RR, just waiting for an admin to block this person.--KimvdLinde 06:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
216.248.124.126 has been blocked by Gamaliel for the 3RR violation. NoSeptember talk 06:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

7 times now... Valtam 06:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Best reason to leave the cartoons...

In my opinion, the best reason for posting the cartoons is to show EXACTLY what was printed by the newspaper in question, and as such to show what was NOT printed. This relates to claims that various unpublished (and allegedly more inflammatory) pictures have been misrepresented as the cartoons in question. WookMuff 3rd feb 2006

12.221.139.214

This user has vandalized the Arabic language article twice, such as here. Not sure if that gets a person banned over here as well but it wasn't just a simple blanking; this usually results in an automatic ban over here. Mithridates 07:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Poll deletion

For a brief period of time, a large part of the poll was deleted by user:212.138.47.24, a user who (if it is in fact one user) is responsible for several frivolous edits. I have now removed some lines that user:Slamdac added to the discussion in that connection as they are no more relevant.--Niels Ø 12:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this shows part of the problem. Just because you don't like a poll rusult you shouldn't sabotage it. That's not how things work in the Western World. .--User:slamdac

Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press in Denmark

I made a first attempt on writing an article on Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press in Denmark (rather unwieldy title, I am afraid). It might be of interest for those who don't know about the law in Denmark, and those who do might want to help improve it. Rasmus (talk) 09:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"Vision", and not "Face" - title of Danish article

I think, the translation of the Danish "Muhammads ansigt" should be "The Vision of Muhammad" and not "The Face of Muhammad". ("ansight" means both)

(1) The pictures show the supposed vision (not so much the face): a vision of using bombs (and not a face using bombs), a vision of violently controlling women (and not a face violently controlling women), etc. The pictures depict this as the supposed vision by Muhammad.

(2) Also, the pictures themselves are a vision on Muhammed. The subject of the article is these pictures about Muhammadism, not the face of Muhammad.

"Vision" is therefore the best litteral translation.

It is also the most comprehensive translation, since the anger of Muslims is not about drawing the face of the prophet (true, it is not done to draw the prophet's face), but about the mockery of Islam. Many of the discussions above are completely pointless: they focus on the minor thing of drawing a face, while the major issue here is the mockery of the whole of Islam. (Even the few Muslims that are very well accostumned to drawings of the prophet are insulted by these Danish pictures)

-- ActiveSelective 09:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid that "ansigt" really only can be translated as "face". "Vision" would be "syn" in Danish. Rasmus (talk) 09:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, "ansigt" means "face". Besides the literal meaning, it has a figurative sense, which is not "vision", but perhaps "surface", "appearance", "image", "what is shown to the world".--Niels Ø 09:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
How about the figural "the face of evil"? It is not about 'the face' of a devil or demon or... But "the face of evil" is about what evil (murder, war, torture) envisions. It is about the vision of evil. This is the way "face" is used here. Not litteral a face. -- ActiveSelective 10:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
"Vision" puts focus on how others see something; "ansigt" puts focus on what there is for others to see. Thus, "image" is a much better translation for the figurative sense of "ansigt".--Niels Ø 10:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Does not the word "face" have that same connotation, almost to the same degree as "ansigt"?DanielDemaret 10:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I am Danish, not native English speaker, and I am not sure, but I think you are right: The literal translation "face" is best as it has both the literal and the figurative sense of "ansigt".--Niels Ø 10:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Depicting the Prophet Muhammad

Q&A: Depicting the Prophet Muhammad, BBC, 2 February 2006
This BBC article gives a good NPOV description of Islamic rules on the depiction of Mohammad that may be helpful in considerations of whether to have the image. Its interesting to note that Islamic tradition not only prohibits images of Allah and Muhammad but also all the major prophets of the Christian and Jewish traditions, which makes me wonder why no there hasn't been a fuss kicked up at the Jesus page. I don't think we should censor for reasons of religious sensitivity but I do think that we should show some consideration in the way we present an image that can be seen to promote religious hatred and racism. (I have voted to keep but move down)--JK the unwise 10:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)