Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 8

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

protection of minorities

10% of people here feel very strongly offended by those pictures. Minorities have to be protected, even against a majority Rajab 23:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Does protecting a minority mean ignoring the majority's opinion? AlEX 23:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Dude, you are not a minority. No-one is a minority. Its a stupid word with no real meaning. Hi, i am an intelligent heterosexual white lower class white male between the ages of 26 and 29, I am sure there are less of us than there are muslims (A Whole lot less) ;) :P Saying that you need protection is admitting that your "minority" is weaker than the majority. Are you? WookMuff 05:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
if the minority is VERY strongly offended then yes, it does mean just that Rajab 23:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
If that minority is so strongly offended by this article, that minority should not click the link to this article. I don't see how you can oppose majority rule but support minority rule. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 00:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
"Protection of minorities" - aparently there is no better word for this concept in the English language. The German wikipedia describes it quite nicely though [[1]]. Maybe someone who speaks German can put an article like this into the English wikipedia & explain it to people like Babajobu Rajab 23:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Off-topic: I think the closest thing in normal English usage would be Minority rights. That article would be a good place to translate the info from the German Wikipedia to.--Pharos 00:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Look, I know about being minority. But if you are referring to the polls, the "losers" (for lack of better english word in my vocabulary) are not a minority people, they're just of a minority opinion. And I don't know what you mean they need to be protected against? Other Wikipedians? Wikipedia has freedom of opinion, and if any muslim or anyone else of the £10% of people here" that you refer to gets threatened or anything like that, I'm sure there are ways to report that to get the person who threatened him/her punished in some way, like being banned, or if very serious, reported to police. (Entheta 23:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC))
Protection against being strongly & knowingly offended Rajab 23:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps this is a source of some misunderstanding. In most Western cultures, people (minorities or majorities) do NOT have any protections against being offended. This is considered by many to be one of the cornerstones of a free society. The alternative (if people were allowed to stop anything that offended them) is said to be very undesirable. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
then why don't you try walking up to a policeman & calling him a "gay idiot"? Let's see how quickly you'll be fined Rajab 00:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
You could try talking to the guy in my city that parks his ute outside of our (public service) building, with numerous accusations that our democratically elected premier is a child molestor. He's been doing it for weeks, and nobody has lifted a finger, and a good thing too! Lankiveil 05:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC).
Actually in the US you can do that and you won't be fined or arrested...However, that's not to say the policeman won't follow you around till you do something minor and actually arrest you for it. Hitokirishinji 00:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Hitokirishinji is correct, Rajab... that would likely be considered protected speech. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I know it's true. Even when I was in high school a policeman came to our class for government and talked to us about law and free speech. He said he sees people crossing the street and give him the middle finger but what can he do about it? Really nothing. It's protected by the Constitution. Hitokirishinji 00:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Slight digression. It hinges on whether the message is directed at the cop as an individual or as an Officer. When people flip the bird to the cops, it's pretty much a no-brainer that they're "really" flipping the bird to The Police (not the band), not to an individual cop. To call an individual cop a "gay idiot" (not something like "pig" or other standard derogatory term for cops) is to risk crossing into the realm of fighting words. It's STILL pretty safe, because the police tend to get held to a higher standard, but it's not absolute. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. You can't physically attack someone for something they say verbally, unless it is a threat of some sort. Calling someone a gay idiot is not a threat. Saying "I'm gonna cut you up, pig" is. Though they'd probably just arrest you for it. 129.59.52.135 01:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
While you are correct that you cannot use the utterance of fighting words as a defense against assault charges, fighting words themselves are not protected speech, and therefore they can be legislated against. That is what is being discussed. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 05:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
And I'm not referring to the "loosers" of the poll - I'm refering to all Muslims who use WikipediaRajab 23:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Well, I think everybody should respect the outcome of the poll. It's how elections work. I am sorry if those pictures offend people, but Wikipedia is not obliged to answer to muslim law. In the article, there's just a small thumbnail with several pictures. You can't really see the pictures unless you choose to click on the thumbnail to get the large picture. If the pictures offend you or anyone else - don't click the thumbnail. I honestly don't think you can be upset by the thumbnail itself because it's just to small to see the actual pictures that would potentally offend you. (Entheta 00:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC))
What I'm saying is that minorities should be respected & protected. Just because there are more of you doesn't mean that our strong feelings count for nothing Rajab 00:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
There is a difference between protecting someone from PHYSICAL harm and EMOTIONAL harm. There are, in most Western cultures, separate sets of laws to deal with the two harms. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I respect you and I think most people here do. The purpose of having a poll or an election is to come to a solution that would please as many as possible. YOu can never please _Everybody_ on all issues. But we should respect eachother's opinions and I respect your opinion and feelings but I don't think the fact that some people choose to get offended by this should mean that we should censor wikipedia. As for your need for protection, I can't do any more than stand by my advice to report it if you would receive any threats. (Entheta 00:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC))
Rajab, free speech is a provision that DOES provide support for minorities in that it guarantees them to speak their mind even if their opinions are disliked by the majority. The curtailing of free speech is a threat to minorities. Babajobu 01:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Philosophical Question

Moved to Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments#Philosophical_Question

Put a link - Delete the picture!

For an ensiclopedia, the important things are the facts. In that sense there is no need to put a cartoon here. We can just put a link istead! If people wants to see it, they can go there... Resid Gulerdem 23:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

And if the linked site is down? Or they want to pront the article? Or just want to be able to look at the pics as they read about the controvosy over them? Removing the pics makes the article worse. We are not in thebusiness of making articles worse. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked Rajab for an hour because he vandalised the picture again--File Éireann 00:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello Theresa; I have much respect for your Wikipedia editing and administration but I would take you to task on your reasoning here. To address them one by one:
"If the linked site is closed down?" - the picture could still be hosted on Wikipedia. Just lose the thumbnail in the article.
"If they want to print the article?" - print the article, then print the picture. It is not that difficult.
"If they want to look andread?" - it is not hard to have two windows or tabs open.
"Removing the pics makes the article worse" - that's very subjective. Clearly those who are offended by the image would disagree.
"We are not in the business of making articles worse" - We are in the business of educating and informing, however, ifthe image were merely linked to, devout muslims could learn about this issue without being so offended that all thought of learning leaves them and they just hate Wikipedia, and learn nothing more from it. --bodnotbod 15:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I definitely have to agree with bodnotbod on this. By linking the pictures 1) you will most likley reduce the about of vandalism that is occuring on this page 2) not offend as many people and 3) still make the imformation avaliable to those that WANT to see it, not those who are simply looking for information. This cartoon certianly does not offend me, howvever, I can very much understand how seeing an image of the prophet is extremely offensive to muslims. It should not be a requisite to be forced to see this picture just because one wishes to learn about a relavant current event in the world. DragonFlySpirit 04:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree these cartoons are very offensive, but I would never know for myself unless I had seen them on wikipedia. I am in 2 minds about the pictures being placed here. (Khan 05:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC))

Block vandalism 212.138.47.*

There is a whole block (212.138.47.*) at the moment trying to get the image off line.... This is a SAudi Arabia based internet provider.....KimvdLinde 23:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

  • 212.138.47.17 (2 times)
  • 212.138.47.22
  • 212.138.47.24
Why hasn't this article been semilocked yet? The amount of vandalism is simply incomprehensible. I've been watching this article for the past 10 minutes and it has been vandalized at least 3 times. AscendedAnathema 23:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
linked from main page, against the rules... Would be good for the moment... KimvdLinde 23:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I've done a short range block. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


(UTC)
Get off you high horse and don't be so stupid. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Get off my "high horse?!" Listen to you! Fuck you, you hypocrite! Imperator2 00:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't feed 'em. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
<stamps foot> But it's fun! I'm never allowed any fun! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Whine, whine, whine. I'll go around pouting and spraying seltzer until you do something! Or else! 165.230.149.152 04:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


These are the people who tried to vandalise the poll earlier. (you will see in the edit history) They tried to remove all the votes from the keep the images in pile. }[User:slamdac]] 23:47, 3 February 2006

It's obviosly only one person. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Message to the Rajab and other Vandals

Nobody is forcing you to be here. If you don't like it go to a website which doesn't have the images. I'm sure there are a couple out there., At least then we can get on with making a good article rather than having to constantly watch out for vandalisim User:slamdac 00:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, not helpful. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
When you say "vandal" - do you simply mean someone who is of a different opinion than yourself? Rajab 12:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
No i did not mean that . If the majority of people didn't want the images up then i would accept that. User:slamdac 12:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
So anybody who's not of the same opinion as the majority is a vandal? Rajab 15:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Vandalism what constitutes vandalism on Wikipedia. Weregerbil 15:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: rename to cartoon war

The wikipage "cartoon war" is redirected to this page whose name seems extremely complicated to me. What about using cartoon war as the primary name of this page? Best, LM --Lumidek 00:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:V. Here at Wikipedia we don't get to make up names for things. We either use something descriptive, i.e. "Subject controversy" (this article), or we use a verifiable widespread and widely known name for something. You can't just make up the name "Cartoon War" for an article. --Cyde Weys 00:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I have seen the name "cartoon war" being used in the media. 129.241.107.139 01:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Did you not see the link to WP:V? Saying you saw the name used in the media is hearsay. We need verifiable links. --Cyde Weys 06:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please delete the copyrighted images?

The Jordan protest, EU gunman, etc. are copyrighted by the AP and AFP -- those pics can not be reproduced without permission but have been tagged as unrestricted. Lotsofissues 00:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I'll take care of it now. --Aaron 00:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Per a quick discussion with Physchim62, I've decided it's best to just list the photos on WP:CP and let them deal with the copyright issue on their own. If anyone wishes to restore the images on this page in the meantime, I won't object. --Aaron 01:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
They should not have been tagged as unrestricted use, but there is a prima facie claim for their fair use in this article. I'm not going to decide on my own as to whether fair use is completely justified: the point is debatable enough to keep the pictures here, and to discuss the copyright problems at WP:CP, as we would do normally for any other article. Physchim62 (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Now that an admin has gotten involved in a less-than-tactful fashion, I'm walking away from this issue. Someone else can finish tagging the images in question and submitting them to WP:CP, WP:IFD or wherever else might be appropriate. I'm not going to risk a block over some pictures I don't even care about. I was just trying to edit in good faith. --Aaron 02:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Uh...what do you mean? You can feel free to override me. I don't block people I am in disputes with: that is my code of honour, a pledge I made in my RFA. I don't even think this is a dispute, not with me anyway, you have good reason to doubt fair use. I was being bold because I thought you had a misconception, so I didn't wait for discussion. Now that you contest it, feel free to proceed. You did edit in good faith, but I wasn't sure that you knew about the fair use issue (not everyone is a lawyer, anyway, you aren't to be blamed). Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 02:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Archive 5

This one is 56 kilobytes. Again, sorry everyone who was bothered by the amount of noise the method of archiving I've chosen makes. --cesarb 00:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

What I don't understand is that when I click "Edit" on a section header, I'm taken to the edit box for some completely different header, so I have to edit the entire page, which makes it very difficult to find the discussion I want to reply to, and it also causes editing conflicts (Entheta 00:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC))
I've had that problem on-and-off with this page, too. What's up with that? Babajobu 00:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know. Perhaps it was just too long. I single handedly without asking, moved the poll to a separate page (please don't stone me) because I thought maybe that would do some help. Perhaps, in combination with the new archive, it will (hasn't had that problem on my two latest edits). (Entheta 00:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC))
Well I guess that wasn't the problem, thanks for clearing it up, Cyde and Dante. (Entheta 00:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC))
It's caused because the section you edit is selected by number, not by name. Oftentimes there are some caching/delay issues so when you click the Edit button you actually end up editing an entirely different section because the overall number or ordering of sections has been changed by someone else. --Cyde Weys 00:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
When you get that sort of problem, try forcing your browser to update the page. This is done in different ways in different browsers, but holding down the Shift key while you click the reload button often works. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, that's why I'm saying sorry every time I archive using that method. It avoids forcing a twenty-minute pause in all conversations (as a "protect the talk page and do everything in a single pass" method would do) or temporarily erasing them all (as a "move the page and start fresh" method would do), but it can be pretty annoying too — edit conflicts, wrong sections appearing, and lots of Recent Changes spam. --cesarb 00:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

HEY! Bring the poll back, that was totally inappropriate! Babajobu 01:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC) You didn't even provide a link to the new poll page. If we need to archive some of this page, let's do so, but don't archive the poll, please! It's still active! Babajobu 01:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Strange. I saw clearly the link he provided to the poll subpage. --cesarb 01:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't. I'm concerned that the poll will be seen by far fewer viewers if it's not at the top of this page, but if others agree with Entheta that the poll should be on a subpage, then go ahead and put it back, and my apologies for (largely) demanding otherwise. Perhaps a poll on the best place for the poll? Babajobu 01:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

American & British Media

Most American & British media did'nt republish the cartoon Images & only covered the evens without publishing these images in other side for first time we start hear about some Islamic countries boycott all european products while other suggest to cut the Oil on europ.Qatarson

And your point is ... ? The discussion page is for talking about how to make the article better. --Cyde Weys 00:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

it is very clear we should mention to the political view of world countries there nothing about it.Qatarson 01:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

We've got away with it before:

--Greasysteve13 01:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The Dominion Post (Wellington) copies our article word for word

The Dominion Post (Wellington), a national paper btw, copies this article word for word, giving us half-credit--which is good enough for me! Congrats everyone. We helped an overwhelmed reporter meet his deadline.

link

Lotsofissues 01:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Kind of sleazy on their part. Isn't Fairfax a giant media company? You can bet they'd have a big problem if we started copying their articles over here word for word. --Aaron 01:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Our articles are licensed under the GFDL. Their articles are not. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Um... the whole point of a free encyclopedia is that it's meant to be copied freely. Now technically, they should have included a GFDL notice as well, but in this case I don't begrudge them that as they fairly credited Wikipedia itself.--Pharos 01:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
This is not about the GFDL. It is a violation of journalistic ethics to just cut-and-paste someone else's work under your own byline. I think the way this reporter handled it is a little too close to plagiarism for my tastes. But whatever; I'm not going to be calling anyone in New Zealand to complain about it. --Aaron 18:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

There should be a template for this that says that this article was featured in a major newspaper, let me try to find it, this is relatively notable :). Homestarmy 01:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

There is one. Check the talk page for List of ethnic slurs. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I can't find the part in the article where they admit it was taken from us, I think I can't finish adding the template unless they actually cite that they used us. Homestarmy 01:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
If they're not citing their sources then they are plagiarizing. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
From their article: "The following is a translated summary of the article and explanation of the cartoons published in the Internet encyclopedia Wikipedia." It's not GFDL-compliant exactly, but they clearly didn't mean to plagiarize.--Pharos 01:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's "good enough". Certainly not plagiarism. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Well i've got the template typed out, but part of the template says "This article is cited in this article", and I can't very well lie and say it's cited when it is apparently not, even if it is pretty obvious it is parts of this article. Homestarmy 01:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't see it in there, but if you can, I guess i'll put in the template :/. Homestarmy 02:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia POV ? A comment on Wikipedia nature

This discussion thread is a candidate for speedy removal because it is not related to improving the associated encyclopedia article. In order to exchange opinions, please use a dedicated forum, not Wikipedia (see What Wikipedia is not).

Hello,

There's too much to read here. I won't read it all, so I don't know if this has already been discussed here.

Thinking "outside the box", showing the cartoon article in Wikipedia ultimately affirms that it has free speech in it's nature. This unconditional Free speech, however, is a convention of at most some parts of the world (although Wikipedia seems to be even more liberal than most legalities discussed here). Since there is a lot of people who consider that fundamentalisms are stronger than free speech, it seems that Wikipedia has adopted a point of view. Is Wikipedia intrinsically POV ? Would Wikipedia be nothing more than the synthesis of all the hypocrisy that is typically associated to the Western civilization ? Surely we have great knowledge here. But are they POV ? Stating that an article should not have a point of view is hypocrisy ? --Hdante 01:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


Uh... this belongs on a blog, not a talk page for an article that has nothing to do with your question. -Maverick 01:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. --Hdante 01:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
'Tis ok, my friend. People make mistakes :) -Maverick 01:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Why isn't his question valid? The answer is -- of course Wikipedia is biased to Western ideals. It's hosted in the USA and thus bound (and freed) by those laws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.89.38 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Talk pages are to be used for the improvement of the article it is attached to; it is not meant to be used for gathering opinions on any bias Wikipedia itself might have. -Maverick 07:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

New editorial cartoon available

The author(s) of this image have graciously consented to it being released for any use. It's been tagged as {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} and may be appropriate for inclusion in the article. The source page is already listed as (at last count) reference 34 in the article. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Include it. Babajobu 01:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
That will just make things worse. (unsigned comment)
There doesn't seem to be enough room in the appropriate section, and I'm loath to remove one of the other two images... although they BOTH are French. Thoughts? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I love it. Please tell me that it has appeared in outside publications. Unfortunatley, otherwise it would be original material and not appropriate for Wikipedia.

--StuffOfInterest 02:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It has. Check the image source. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 02:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I can't seem to find it. I personnaly thought this image was only posted on their website [2] AlEX 08:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
The image source is listed on the image page, but here's a short link for you: [3]. It's also appeared on and been linked to by a number of other blogs. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
IIRC, France Soir were the first newspaper to print their own cartoon after Jyllandsposten. So, based on that, France Soir being the first newspaper to support Jyllandsposten with a cartoon, one could argue that we should keep France Soir and replace Le Monde, if we consider the new image as superior to Le Monde's (witch I do....Don't know about the rest of you).The.valiant.paladin 02:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I've taken your suggestion. Now we have the Soir image (because it was first) and the Cox&Forkum image, to illustrate our line about Western "weblog" support. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Copies of the poll out of sync

The two copies of the poll (at Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Polls and here) have gotten out of sync (both have votes the other one doesn't). Could someone merge the changes of the two copies into a single copy? --cesarb 01:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Why exactly do we have two copies of the poll? That makes no sense. --Cyde Weys 01:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, wherever we keep the poll, kill the other version. People will always find their way to the other version and vote on it. Babajobu 01:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

"Islam/Muhammad Cartoons : a manipulation of the Muslim Brotherhood" says European Strategic Intelligence & Security Center

 Please insert a note about this sourced accusation.
 It's very important
 Additional note : Tariq Ramadan's grand father is Hassan al Banna, founder of the  Muslim Brotherhood

Some analysts don’t understand why it took so long to the Muslim street to react to the publication of the Muhammad cartoons by a Danish daily, on September 30 last year.

Today (4 months later) the crisis intensifies and hit the whole Muslim world. No one is asserting that four months ago, the publication of the litigious cartoons didn’t provoke any reaction: on October 14, 5 000 angry Muslims demonstrated in Copenhague; two weeks later, some Muslim countries began to protest. Egypt first (on November 2) and, a few days later, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). And then, all the story came down.

But, from the intelligence we collected this last days, we might conclude that this quietness was just an appearance. Those few weeks were used by the Muslim Brothers to mobilize their troops worldwide and to organize the global protest movement which began a few days ago. A movement which compelled many Muslim states to denounce Denmark, Norway and now Europe.

The crisis is now open and huge. That’s exactly what expected the Muslim Brotherhood. It helps them to kill several birds with one shoot. In Europe, the Brotherhood wants to go ahead with the project of a law against blasphemy. But it wants also to strengthen their position by infiltrating the traditional Muslim organizations. More: by using the street as a lever, the Brothers put the Arab governments under a high pressure, and they push them to react. So, they dig the gap between the Western world and the Muslim world.

This will help their own political agenda. In this particular context, the crisis will very likely deepen in the coming days, and a “terrorist” evolution is possible. We’ve seen such an evolution in the Satanic verses affair, years ago (publishers and translators were killed or wounded) , or, more recently, with the assassination of Theo Van Gogh, in Amsterdam in November 2004.

For the Muslims Brotherhood, it would be a good news as they want to impose the communautarism model vs integration. This plan is not exactly new. In November 2001, searching the house of the banker Yussef Nada (who admitted to be one of the Muslim Brotherhood leader in Europe), the Swiss police found some documents extremely interesting regarding the international strategy of the Brotherhood. A strategy of “entrism” and penetration aiming to target the most sensible parts of the immigration, the youth and the students, and to radicalize them.

http://www.esisc.org/print.asp?ID=842


Can any of this be verified? Is it anything else than speculation? The.valiant.paladin 02:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Although it makes a lot of sense, it seems to be nothing more than idle speculation. 209.51.77.64 03:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I found an article on a jewish website in french, that speaks about the documents alledgy found by the swiss police. [4]

New Protest Pictures

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004448.htm Maybe some should be used? Chaldean 03:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

A link to this page was added in the timeline AlEX 14:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

User warning template

I've created a warning template (Template:Mohammed) to place on the pages of people who remove the image, as a warning before a block is imposed. See WP:AN/I for a discussion on the appropriateness of blocking for this. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Are things that bad we need a specific warning template for this single article??? --cesarb 04:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I think semi-protection would be a better solution, but that doesn't seem to be accepted. On AN/I, several people said that users would be blocked for removing the image after 1 warning. This at least ensures that they get a reasonable notice before getting blocked. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
They aren't that bad. Because of the uselessness of the template, I have put it up for speedy deletion. joturner 04:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
It appears the template will be kept (I'm the only delete). One thing... make sure to subst it. Because, when this cools down the templat will be deleted I'd assume. gren グレン ? 06:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Good work on the template, everyone be sure to subst it! Babajobu 08:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Islam and/or the Western World

This discussion thread is a candidate for speedy removal because it is not related to improving the associated encyclopedia article. In order to exchange opinions, please use a dedicated forum, not Wikipedia (see What Wikipedia is not).

Those are, according to some proponents of this controversy about the Muhammad pictures, the agendas driving the conflict:

  • "THEY" want to take over "OUR" countries by violating "OUR" highly prized social values.
  • Therefore, "THEY" pull nonsense and thus attract attention.
  • Thus, "THEY" are dangerous to "OUR" highly prized values, and must be stopped at all costs.

In reality, this sort of thinking probably drives the conflict ahead, just as the Russian Tsar-generated "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" stoked the flames of Anti Semitism. 165.230.149.152 04:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The Grand Poobah

I pbuh'd Muhammad's name because this controversy is nothing but a bunch of silly whining, and we might as well try compromising a bit...165.230.149.152 04:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, please don't? We do not use such honorifics here. gren グレン ? 06:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Fine. And I won't use the detested template Template:Mohammed on my user talk, either. 165.230.149.152 06:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for all the edits

I know I'm clogging up the history, but I don't want to keep the edit window open too long cuz of version conflicts.--Anchoress 05:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Arabic speakers - a request for translation: Ahmed Akkari's 43-page dossier

Spiegel (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,398624,00.html) and others have written about Ahmed Akkari's tour of muslim nations, spreading a "43-page dossier" discussing their grievances about the Danish cartoons.

Has anybody here seen this 43-page document? 70.89.39.158 06:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


It can be found here, [5]. I do not speak arabic, nor danish, so I cannot tell you what is in it and/or if it is real. This article is also used as a source in the rumors and misinformation section of the article AlEX 08:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much - the scans look pretty credible. Are there enough arabic-speakers here that we might be able to hope for an English translation of this document? This part of the story seems like a key piece of the timeline: it probably is the most detailed explanation grievances by the danish muslim group that is talking to the press the most, yet is still opaque to us non-Arabic speakers. I think a translation would be enlightening to all and might help bridge gaps. Any Arabic-speaking volunteers? -- 70.89.39.158 13:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I just gave these a quick skim, I do speak Arabic. They look quite genuine as a text (although the image resolution makes them a pain to read), I would note that it would take some time to translate, summarising would be more reasonable on a voluntary basis. I was amused by the brief intro on Denmark though. I would note that page 12 closes with an ident of the author as Sheikh Ra'id Halihil (sp unclear to me, could be Halimil), dated 4 Oct 2005. Also the last scan page (image 43) is a table of contents. (Collounsbury 10:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)).
Sounds absolutely fascinating. What is the title of the document? Perhaps we should start a wiki page about the document, with space for people to contribute summaries or partial translations of individual pages -- 70.89.39.158 12:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I think this report, ans speciffically those images, are the main source of the whole outrage. I have seen comments from muslims, talking about cartoons displaying muhammed "playing with a lil kid in a sexual way" [6]. This was not published in newspapers! It would indeed be a great help to get it translated. AlEX 13:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
More about this report can be found here AlEX 20:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Help with editing please

The following paragraph contains sentence fragments I can't decipher:

The Justice and Islamic Affairs Minister of the United Arab Emirates, Mohammed Al Dhaheri, called it "cultural terrorism, not freedom of expression," according to the official WAM news agency. "The repercussions of such irresponsible acts will have adverse impact on international relations." In Tunisia, Abdulaziz Othman Altwaijri, president of the Islamic Organization for Education, Science and Culture (the Islamic world's counterpart to UNESCO) called the drawings "a form of racism and discrimination that one must counter by all available means." He said, "It's regrettable to state today, as we are calling for dialogue, that other parties feed animosity and hate and attack sacred symbols of Muslims and of their prophet," said also Jordan's largest circulation daily, government-run Al-Rai, said the Danish government must apologize. [53]

It's hard to check since the citations seem to be out of order. I'd fix them myself but I really, really, really don't know how.--Anchoress 06:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


that the source : [7] --Unfinishedchaos 14:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Refactored content

A poll was started as a suggestion to replace the cartoons from Jyllands-Posten with cartoons or other illustrations not depicting Mohammed. This idea, and the poll itself, were quickly rejected. The poll is archived here ("poll 3"). A "poll 4" was started to oppose "poll 3", which gathered some support, but also some opposition to polls and humorous comments.--Eloquence* 10:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Another look

I stated my opinion above, in the first poll, in favor of linking to another page at the top of the article instead of including the image itself. My question to the straight "keep" voters is: should cultural sensitivities of any kind influence our choices of images to include in articles? The most obvious other kinds of things I can think of are extreme violence and explicit sexuality. Obviously views differ, but don't most of us have a limit to what we would consider acceptable for direct presentation? I think in a controversial case you have to consider the degree of offense that may be provoked, and also the number of people who may be provoked. In this case, it looks like severe offense among a huge number of people.

Do we place the images in articles purely on the basis of how relevant they are, or do we also consider the effect of the image on a reader's emotions or beliefs? I think, if we're being responsible, there's no way of getting around giving a certain amount of consideration to that. Moreover, aside from the issue of moral responsibility—the importance of not forcing someone to view something that they would not want to see—there's also the practical perspective: doesn't a degree of sensitivity here make Wikipedia more inclusive, in a sense, by enabling people to read our articles without fear of what they might see? These are important issues which I think some of us are not properly considering. Wikipedia is made by people for people; when dealing with controversial images, it has take into account things aside from pure relevance. Everyking 09:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The most responsible comment I could ever see in this mess. I completely agree with you! What I am trying to do in the Pool 3 is similar to what you are suggesting in essence. If we are trying to have an objective account of the phenomena, we can do it without hurting some people's feelings. That would be a success, a great article. To impose some pictures that people consider ofensive makes no sense, neither relevant to the philosophy of Wikioedia. 216.248.124.210 09:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
"My question to the straight "keep" voters is: should cultural sensitivities of any kind influence our choices of images to include in articles?". No. The only case in which we should not use the image is where they are illegal under Florida law, or would open Wikipedia and/or the author to some form of legal liability. Lankiveil 07:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC).

Danish law on offenses to peace and honour

This was previously (anonymously) top-posted, I'm moving it here.--Eloquence* 10:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Just thought this might interest some people. Don't really know how to fit it in to the article.

Maybe a reference. The judge threw it out of court. Going to European Court of Human Rights - maybe...


This is my translation

Danish Law: Criminal Code

Chapter 27: Offenses to peace and honour

§ 266b

Whomever publicly or with the intent of publication in a wider circle makes a statement or another message, by which a group of persons are threatened, defamed or humiliated because of race, colour of skin, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual preference, is punished with a fine or prison for up to two years.

2. When the punishment is measured it should be considered an aggravating circumstance, if the offense has the character of being part of a propaganda effort. (unsigned)

The islamic community in Denmark brought the case before a judge, who dismissed it. You also need to take the Danish Constitution's §77 into account. Cacophobia (Talk) 10:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I started a pool (Pool 3) and is continiously being vandalized by some people. I want some admins take care of it. Please... 10:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I am an admin, and I have refactored your poll (not "pool"); see above (#Refactored content). The community has spoken quite clearly in preserving the image as it is; replacing it with a photo of the artist or a cartoon unrelated to Muhammad contradicts the stated opinion of the vast majority of the community. Furthermore, we do not start polls randomly, they should always be preceded by a discussion and a collection of arguments. Please make your case in this thread before starting yet another poll.--Eloquence* 10:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


The pool I started is totally different from the ones above. It is explained at the beginning. You cannot just delete it. You do not have the right for it. You are an admin and vandalising?!... Who should I talk to then? Stop vandalizing the poll! 216.248.124.210 10:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


The poll (not "pool") is not at all "totally different"; it merely restates removing the image that is currently present, an option which has already been widely rejected. I have removed the poll in accordance with normal editing privileges; however, I have now reverted you 3 times (WP:3RR), so I would advise others to remove the poll in my place. Should it continue to be removed, and should you continue to restore it, you can be blocked for edit warring (arguably, you could already be blocked for disruption, but I'm willing to give you a chance to participate constructively in the discussion).--Eloquence* 11:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
The poll is totally different! You cannot just delete it. It is against anything I know about Wiki. You cannot block me for starting a pool in a discussion page! The question I am asking is no way rejected! Be honest! Behave as an admin, not vandal! 216.248.124.210 11:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
The poll has been removed by another user now and yes, I assure you, you can and will be blocked if you reinstate it.--Eloquence* 11:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
   Yeah i was talking about ppl like this buffoon here... (see below).
This is not wikilove. Arno 02:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Consensus?!!! What consensus

Some pea-brained administrators on Wikipedia are touting the nearly 200 "votes" in favor of putting the picture in the article as CONSENSUS.....

Boy, im rolling over the floor with laughter.

200 votes==consensus?? since when?. Well first, poll on the Net is useless anyways, cuz anybody can fake an IP or hack his way through. Second, I higly suspect that some ppl are doctoring these polls. Even if not... then i think a fair "poll" should also consult the opinion of 1.79 billion ppl called "Muslims" on this planet... where would your pathetic "consensus" stand then?

I know my friends from Danes are really pissed off... please take heart. You wont die if Arla does not survive..... probably they are the ones behind this CONSENSUS...

And i thought Europeans were a smart ppl... Hamood Khan

I was impressed to see that there are "1.79 billion" Muslims in the world, when all reliable sources quote a number closer to 1 billion. But I was more impressed that even more people work for Arla! Because apparently, the Arla employees have outvoted the Muslims of the world.
In any case, Wikipedia is not a democracy. We cannot take into account the opinions of a billion Muslims or two billion Christians or any other religious groups when making editorial decisions. Polls are sometime held simply to find out what the consensus is among editors, but even these are just for guidance. In this case the question was whether an article about a cartoon should feature the cartoon, in my opinion such an obvious case that no vote should have been necessary at all.
Oh, and please sign your posts. Eixo 11:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Even if there were 1.79 billion muslims on this planet, the non-muslims totally outnumber them, like 3 to 1. 75% there, we win again. The great western conspiracy marches on!
Damn invisible Tildes! WookMuff 09:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC) i really thought i had signed it!