Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
Important notice: Prior discussion has determined that pictures of Muhammad will not be removed from this article, and removal of pictures without discussion at Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments/Image-Display will be reverted. If you find these images offensive, it is possible to configure your browser not to display them; for instructions, see the FAQ. Discussion of images should be posted to the subpage Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments/Image-Display.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Good article Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
Censorship warning

This topic may attract censorship. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not censored.

Articles may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Images or details contained within this article, in particular, may be graphic or otherwise objectionable in order to ensure complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to our content disclaimer regarding objectionable content.

Any irrelevant discussions can be removed without notice. AucamanTalk 00:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Archive
Archives
01 02a 02b
03a 03b 03c
04 05 06
07 08a 08b
09a 09b 10
11 12a 12b
13a 13b 14a
15 16 17
18 19 20
21
Arguments Archive
Poll 1, 2, 3 & 4 Results
Arguments regarding all aspects of Cartoons Display



Contents

[edit] costs burried?

Why is the economic & human costs sub-section burried in the Timeline section? The human costs 1 property damage were the major point of interest in the west. Can we bring this part forward & promote it to a real section? Timeline is an appropriate place for other stuff, like the list of specific violent events & such. fyi, I don't see the link to the list of specific violent demonstrations. Where did that go? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.214.156.15 (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

Buried? It's right on the main page, about 30-40% down. [1] Azate 19:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Also the intro should mention that the cartoonists are still in hiding.

That could be done with a slight change of wording. Not that I doubt you, but do you have a recent reference to back it up? MX44 03:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cartoon crisis

Since I found that "cartoon crisis" "Jyllands Posten" gave a googlehits at about a rate of only 2½ times less than "cartoon controversy" "Jyllands Posten" - I have inserted a "or crisis" at the top of the article. --Anjoe 13:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The_Jyllands_Posten_Cartoon_Controversy_or_Conflict_or_Crisis_or_Intifada_or_War_or_Jihad
-D MX44 10:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

How about delete the picture? May be sent to the MediaWiki:Bad image list Azmi1995 06:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abu Laban dead

Abu Laban yesterday died from cancer. MX44 13:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a random fact to mention. Please cite this the next time you mention something like that. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 08:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV pushing in the lead refs.

An editor added the word "racist" (rightly so) but also added ten references simulateously in support of that ref. This appears as POV pushing as it is the very first reference link to click and has all of these articles that speak of the condemnation of the cartoons. Unless there is some disagreement I will be paring this down soon. (→Netscott) 16:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I for one, would not rv such an effort ... See critique of racism above. MX44 09:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I added the 10 refs. Not to push a POV, but to back up an obvious ommission noticed in passing. At the time the fact was removed from the article, and there appeared to be 4 or 5 editors refusing to accept its reinstatment, hence the refs were necessary. You are correct to pair the refs down now this issue appears to be resolved. Incidentally, my only other contribution to this article - a copy edit of the poor second paragraph - has been tinkered with within hours and, in my view, devalued. Being a prolific copyeditor here at wikipedia, I'm fairly unused to having my writing tinkered so soon after the event - so I'll have another go and then let other editors decide which version is preferable.-- Zleitzen(talk) 16:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Your copyedit do not reflect the cause and order of events. The protests were not only an effect of the republications but at least as much an effect of the Akkari/laban dossier, reports by Al-Jazeera like "the Danes want's to burn the Quran" as well as the political circus backstage including malformed diplomatic notes leading towards a total meltdown of relations between Denmark and the Arab World.
For unknown reasons you have also omitted the more spectacular events, ie the burning of Danish as well as Norwegian embassies and focused on "peaceful protests." Hey, come on, what kind of dog-bites-man non-event is that? Fix your revisionist POV pushing and your edits will not be altered or reverted. MX44 12:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
That's the second time I've been accused of "POV pushing" (lazy term) on a page where I don't have a particular "POV". Believe what you want, but the laundry list of hyperbolic incidents: "murder", "bounties on the heads of.." read like the blurb on the back of airport crime novel. By summarising the events in four words "peaceful and violent", we retain a factual summary lead, but cut out the tabloid-style forced drama. One thing I noticed in the previous lead was the assertion that Muslim groups "ignited the controversy". Given that the publication took it upon themselves to print the knowingly provocative series of cartoons in the first place, it would seem to be the publication that "ignited the controversy", not those objecting. Perhaps you view that as "POV pushing", but to view it otherwise seems to me to involve a contortion of cause-and-effect that serves to mislead. Responding to Netscott - who questioned the addition of the word "attempted" - someone else took issue with the deliberate use of that word before on a different page in the past. The justification for its usage is because it changes the focus and "shows" rather than "tells". We know that they attempted to raise awareness of the cartoons with initial protests. Whether the subsequent heightened awareness was the sole result of their actions is not known. Hence the qualifier.-- Zleitzen(talk) 13:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a reason for "the tabloid-style drama", which is: The events actually evolved that way. We do have some 139+ in casualties from rioting. This kind of protest is not only violent but rather ultra-violent. We do have burned embassies (and I can't recall anything like that since RAF blew up the German embassy in Stockholm.) It would of course have been nice if we could have had the redacted Disneyresque childrens version you seem to be so fond of, except that was not what happened. The response to a cartoon describing muslims as violent was ... Violence! Without that element, this entry in Wikipedia would probably have been much smaller, perhaps something like this passing mentioning of a cartoon depicting Sharon eating babies. (More about that one here) MX44 14:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Protests and objections to the cartoons were raised all over the world by hundreds of thousands of people. Only a small proportion of those became violent. As to what constitutes "ultra-violence", perhaps we have a different view as to what that means. On some of the articles I regularly scan and edit, which feature wars, terrorism, mass genocide and so on, an embassy building burning down is not a particularly spectacular episode. More death and destruction occurred in ten days of English football in 1985 than occurred throughout the world after weeks of mass protests against these cartoons. More violence and destruction occurred in Argentina after the economy collapsed in 2000. Perhaps the size of this article, which with its daughter articles is far larger than our sorry Rwandan Genocide article, reflects the motivations and interests of certain media, rather than the scale of the violence itself. -- Zleitzen(talk) 14:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Getting burned alive, as happened in Nigeria, fits the definition of ultra-violence quite well. Football hooliganism hasn't quite elevated to that level yet.
Anyway, I see that you are approaching some kind of understanding of the order of events and their causality. Can you now also implement that understanding and rephraze the lead-in to reflect some of that? MX44 15:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Without meaning to labour the comparisons of violence - on May 11 1985 in England a 15 year old boy was murdered during a riot of more than 1,000 by rival fans at a football game. Meanwhile 56 people were being burnt alive at another match on the same afternoon. A week or two later 35 innocent Italian fans were killed at a stadium after having been attacked by rival Liverpool fans, etc etc. You would think such statistics should make people reconsider the scale of the destruction by the Islamic protesters, and would make indigenous Europeans less willing to label others as inherently violent. Your new lead fails to acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of protests were peaceful. The previous lead acknowledged that protests were both peaceful and violent. Which is true.-- Zleitzen(talk) 19:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Peaceful protests are (or should be) the expected default. Stressing the point that there actually are Muslims that do not tend to blow up things is kind of surreal. Hey, we do not mention that Saddam did not invade Saudi-Arabia either although it is equally true. Actually, Saddam did not invade the majority of countries in the world. MX44 20:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Either there were significant notable and numerous peaceful protests - or the protests were entirely violent. Which of these statements is correct? There is nothing surreal about noting that peaceful protests took place. These reliable sources that meet WP:ATT mention that there were peaceful protests, often in the headline;

Therefore to remove that notable fact - which is backed up by reliable sources - from the lead is not "surreal". Nor is it comparable to your Saddam Hussein analogy, which wasn't reported by notable sources and hence is not applicable to any article. The protests were "both violent and peaceful", as borne out by sources. Therefore that point should be added to the lead.-- Zleitzen(talk) 21:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not POV-pushing to describe the proportion of protests which were peaceful or violent. Intial reaction to the cartoons was total silence for several months. Then suddenly there were 'demonstrations'. Whether these were grassroots manifestations representing public opinion, or astroturfing by goverment or community organizers, is an interesting question.

Also, I recall that some criticism of the riots was that:

  1. The cartoons portrayed Muslims as violent fanatics who claim a mandate from Muhammad to suppress criticism of Islam.
  2. The riots proved the point that the cartoons made, by their blatantly intolerant and menacing reaction to the cartoons.
    • Blogger David S. wrote, "By threatening to kill those who insult them, the terrorists are demonstrating the vicious reality behind the caricature of Mohammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban better than any cartoonist ever could." [2]

I think readers would like to have some information to help them decide if Muslims really do tend to overreact to criticism, as the cartoons charged. --Uncle Ed 03:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Linkimage

Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Given that there was an attempt to utilize Template:Linkimage on this article towards censorship ends I was actually thinking of adding a notice about its TfD here myself. (→Netscott) 23:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opinions - Religion more important than opinion?

I was wondering whether it would be ok to add that many people hold the view that this is perfect example of religious people ASSUMING they deserve more respect because of their religion. Many people hold the opinion that religion is simple opinion, so why should a picture of Mohammad with a bomb be any worse than a picture of George Bush riding like a gung-ho cowboy (a popular cartoonist theme in the UK not too long ago). The only difference is that Muhammad is a religious leader/icon, George Bush is a political one. Personally I can't say I'm a supporter of either, so please don't accuse me of bias. Another example: Why is it ok to portray Americans as being dumb and fat but not ok to portray a Muslim as being a violent terrorist? These double standards caused by peoples fear of insulting religion should be mentioned in this article (and should be debated more in public, IMO). Dead passive 12:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

can you find a notable person who has such opinions and source it? It so, I think it would be acceptable.--Sefringle 05:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Brian Leiter addresses the issue in this article: [3] Martg76 (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
if it is an open debate then why do you post these cartoons again and again
you just put your article over the page if you published these cartoons on site no Muslim will read or post in the forum and the debate will be limited to the anti-Islamic views.... let Muslims join this debate and i will recommend you to do not post these cartoons
in Islamic views in is strictly prohibited to publish any cartoon on illusion of any prophet not even for Mohammd (SAW) and not even for any other prophet like Jesus.....
(Restoring previous content and merging in added content from User:Kbukhari)
--RenniePet (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Original Research

This latest edit adds the disclaimer "although the cartoons depict only light-skinned people" to the sourced "Kuwait called the cartoons "despicable racism,". In fact it was actually added to the source note itself. This is obviously original research and must be removed, but out of interest, how is a cartoon depiction of a generic Semitic character not potentially racist on the basis that the characters depicted "are light skinned"? These new extraordinary proclamations and rigid rules asserting what is and isn't racism is a recurring theme on this page. Perhaps these editors would argue the same point if depictions of Jah Rastafari included bones through his nose and bananas sticking out of his mouth, on the basis that it "only depicted dark skinned people"? This obvious and well sourced observation by many that the cartoons were racist does not need unsourced disclaimers from individual editors.-- Zleitzen(talk) 09:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Jah Rastafari was known for having "bones through his nose and bananas sticking out of his mouth" ... MX44 01:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Nor was it written anywhere that Muhammad had a hooked nose, bushy beard and eyebrows, a scowl and a bomb in his turban. So presumably the artists had other targets in mind and other ideas they wanted to project. Civil society normally rejects such ideas out of hand as crude racial stereotypes and to defend or propagate them would be to sacrifice any pretense of serious discourse. In this instance, such depictions were published in mainstream outlets and defended by many, which would appear to be the root issue of this article. -- Zleitzen(talk) 15:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand. Is it by some definition bad to have a crooked nose? Are you arguing that we should all get a facelift and look like Michael Jackson?
Oh, and after 9/11, Muhammad is indeed known for carrying bombs in his turban. This is not to say that just because your mother was born muslim, then you are also automatically supposed to support bin-Ladin and his merry men. Actually to the contrary; after visiting Denmark just recently and sharing a beer with one turk, I get the impression that muslims in Denmark are sick and tired of all this religious bull that they involuntarily have been forced to put up with. MX44 13:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freeze

I would like to keep at least one incarnation of the article that is not too biased on eather side in a secure place, an incarnation which is also easily accessible to the casual user.

Regarding illustrations; I think that after the contemprary calligriphy was added above the historical persian miniature in the "Aniconism" section, that section reads much clearer.

Regarding text ... I dunno, so much bull have been written here. Perhaps an admin can guide to a version that wasn't reset or rewritten for a few weeks?

References

Free online access to newspaper articles expires. That does not mean the incident never happened. Please stop deleting stalled links to articles having date of publish etc, just because they are not freely accessible anymore. We do not delete links to books referenced by ISBN just because they cost money either, do we?

Perhaps we need a gathering of editors that can confirm that the mentioned newspapers indeed carried articles to corrobate what is included here?

MX44 13:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, references to this article were at the time peer-reviewed on an hourly schdule way byond anything I have ever seen previously and discussed. The probability of correctness regarding quotes is very high, approaching 1.0

MX44 13:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Egyptian Reaction?

Was there any reaction to the cartoons being published in Egypt? It would be interesting to find out given that Egypt is a muslim country and that would be against their teachings.

No, the initial publiction wasn't noticed anymore than any sensationalist article you'd read on a daily basis in say, http://thesun.co.uk/ MX44 23:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
(At the time of writing, The Sun carries an article about a death-threath to one cute little icebear baby "Knut" from Berlin Zoo. This is of course outrageous, but ...)
There was no initial reaction anywhere, just as MX44 writes. However, once the web site of El Fagr, October 17, 2005 edition was noticed in other parts of the world, then that particular edition was completely wiped from the site within a day, presumably by the editors of El Fagr. Later, the common reaction in Egypt , as far as I have read, was that the very idea that those images had ever appeared in any Egyptian paper was a lie. I am beginning to suspect that we use the word "lie" differently in different parts of the world. DanielDemaret 09:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terror plots

Should all terror plots claiming it is a 'response to the Muhammad Cartoons' be listed here? Misheu 09:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Descriptions of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons

Can we add the picture, Image:Jyllands-Posten-pg3-article-in-Sept-30-2005-edition-of-KulturWeekend-entitled-Muhammeds-ansigt.png to that article, nothing has been resolved on talk:Descriptions of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons.--Steven X 09:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope! One of the reasons for that article was to service those who are not allowed to look at the picture. MX44 05:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
not ALLOWED to look at the picture? according to who not allowed? some book from the 7th century written on account of a peverted pedophilic warmonger named Muhammad?--81.68.98.95 16:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Or because actual descriptions of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons made the original article too big so they had to split it?--Steven X 09:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

Their should be more specific subcategories under the External Links, since political views of the cartoons aren't strictly separated in terms of the religion of the reviewer.

For example (their are many), an essay by Sven Lütticken of the New Left Review:

Idolatry and its Discontents [4] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a3/Prophetmuhammed.JPG

Description:

Amid rhetorical dust-storms over purported Islamist threats to Western values, Sven Lütticken finds antecedents for contemporary struggles over the image in Judaic and Protestant bans on idolatry. Multiple meanings of the veil and varying forms of iconoclasm, under the aegis of the spectacle.


--Kitrus 09:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bremner's article absurdly unencyclopedic

"Get real" department. Lead of the piece argues that, because two unidentified teenaged hoods attacked a young woman, Islam itself is incompatible with Europe. Presumably Christianity is incompatible with North America because Eric Robert Rudolph bombed the Atlanta Olympics? BYT 10:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] BrandonYusufToropov

Please refrain from removing the part about fundamentalist islam from the section "Islamism and accusations of xenophobia". The statement is well founded from the articles it cites, and it is presented in a NPOV way with both sides of the issue represented. The.valiant.paladin 15:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Hvam takes a leak

Comedian Frank Hvam has stated in an interview that he litterally meant taking a leak on the Bible/Quran and not the Danish expression "take a piss on" (to make a joke.) In said interview he also stated that he did not see how this could be funny, hence the previous hypothetical qualifier. Referencing some other random people without any idea what was going on at the time, does not an encyclopedia make.

http://zulu.tv2.dk/klovn/article.php?id=2909459

MX44 11:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

  • ... There STILL seem to be a problem on whether Mr. Hvam meant urinate or make fun of. To make this ab-so-lut-ly (and horribly) clear, let me cite in Danish and translate to English a quote from a commentary written by Mr. Hvam himself:

Hvis Brian Mikkelsen vil citere mig, vil jeg foretrække, at han gør det korrekt og i citatets ånd. Jeg har både i Information og i Jyllands-Posten brugt følgende formulering: »Jeg tør ikke pisse på Koranen for åben skærm!« – og det har jeg ment bogstaveligt. Jeg tør ikke lave en sketch, hvor jeg hiver min kødelige penis frem og urinerer på en autoriseret Koran.

From: Debat: Bangebuks versus Kulturminister, Weekendavisen 2005-10-07.
...which roughly translates to:

If Brian Mikkelsen wants to cite me, I would prefer, that he does it correctly and in the spirit of the quote. I have both in Information and in Jyllands-Posten used following formulation: »I dare not piss on the Quran on television!« – and that I've meant literally. I dare not make a sketch, where I pull out my fleshly penis and urinate on an authorized Quran.

As I view it, this should close the debate. Further nonsense-edits on the subject should be deleted. -Anjoe 19:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nerikes-Allehanda Muhammad cartoons controversy

Hello everyone, I need some help on this article, pronto. — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:31 01 Sept, 2007 (UTC) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a3/Prophetmuhammed.JPG —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigUpstoJesus (talk • contribs) 19:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Image:Pig person.jpg

This image was nominated for deletion on 9 Dec. 2007, and was deleted today (22 Dec. 2007), despite two three persons voting "keep", and nobody (other than the nominator) voting "delete". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_December_9#Image:Pig_person.jpg

In my opinion it was incorrect procedure that no information about the nomination for deletion was posted on this talk page. I don't know if it's possible to reverse the deletion, but if so I would suggest that others who agree with me that the image was of significant value to the article post their objections to the deletion. --RenniePet (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC) --RenniePet (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, RenniePet. Comments (+ strong keep position) posted on the [update of images for deletion; 23 Dec. 2007]. Regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

During the new deletion nomination process (which fortunately resulted in a keep result) it was pointed out by User:Avenue that a better-quality picture is available here.
Should the current picture be replaced with that one? If so, I'm willing to do the technical work. --RenniePet (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The better quality image would reflect the original dossier more closely. (There's a copy here temporarily if you want to see it without downloading the full 11MB dossier.) However, MX44 argued during the deletion debate that "The n'th generation photocopy we have on display illustrates how the original dossier - which wasn't produced in that great amounts - was distributed." Which approach should we take in our article? I would prefer to use the better quality image unless there is some evidence that most of the copies distributed would have been of much poorer quality, like the one we show now. -- Avenue (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
If the picture is to be updated, then I would suggest that we use a capture that includes the Danish type-written text and the Arabic hand-written text too.
--RenniePet (talk) 13:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion it was incorrect procedure that no information about the nomination for deletion was posted on this talk page. Wrong. If you have an interest in whether or not a page is deleted, add it to your watchlist. It would be a hassle to expect everyone who nominates something for deletion to post multiple notifications. Lurker (said · done) 16:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be much interest in doing anything about this. --RenniePet (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead problem

I have an issue with this sentence:

' including "Buy Danish" campaigns and other displays of support for free speech in Denmark '

the Free Speech part is not proven, I would have thought these organisations that proposed these programs were not all concerned about Free Speech, but many of them were also bigotted organisations that wished to insult muslims. Since it is not sourced anyway it is speculation.R.G.P.A (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If you look at sites like http://supportdenmark.com/ you'll see that free speech is very much the issue for the various organisations that initiated the "Buy Danish" campaigns. The.valiant.paladin (talk) 02:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

So your trtying to tell me this has nothing to do with xenophobia? Get real... Ill try find u a hate site advocating the buy Danish campaigns, but its been a while since the contorversy so i dont know how successful ill be.86.143.98.33 (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Im the IP of R.G.P.A

Ok this isnt what I would call a hate-site exactly, but its a well-visted internet journal and its main reason for advocating the buy Danish campaign is anti-islamic anti-immigration, rather than pro free-speach. At least evidence that not everyone who was supporting Buy Danish onlyn was intrested in free-speach.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/735

86.143.98.33 (talk) 13:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Also giving me that 1 source, dosent count for all sites, by stating 'displays of support for free speach' you are satiting that ALL internet supporters who took part in buy Danish were supporting Free Speach. That is quite a claim to make, and it cannot be and is not supported by one source, that supported Buy Danish for liberal reasons, especially as I gave you a source supporting the campaign from at least some anti-islamic* sentiment.86.138.116.141 (talk) 13:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

R.G.P.A, why don't you log in? Anyway, whether or not you can find so called "hate-sites" attacking islam do not alter the fact that the main issue was free speech, and that the vast majority of the "Buy Danish" movement were motivated by the free speech issue. Trying to label that movement as "xenophobic" smells awfully a lot like pushing POV. Futhermore, I see nothing "xenophobic" or "racist" in the link you've provided.The.valiant.paladin (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
As a proposal, I've simply removed the words "for free speech in Denmark", so now it says "Various groups, primarily in the Western world, responded by endorsing the Danish policies, including "Buy Danish" campaigns and other displays of support."
In my opinion it should simply say the support was for "free speech", without the "in Denmark", as those supporting were probably mostly defending free speech in their own country, seeing the writing on the wall.
But it may be true that some of the support was an expression of anti-Islam thinking.
Anyway, my proposal removes any problem related to motives. And makes the introduction slightly shorter, which must be a good thing. :-) --RenniePet (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Allright, for the sake of shortening the lead then let's keep the lead as it is per RenniePet's edit.The.valiant.paladin (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Want to add section of comments from former Muslims

I want to add a section where former Muslims express their opinions of the cartoon issue.

Opinions of former Muslims
A number of former Muslims have supported the publishing of the cartoons. Ayaan Hirsi Ali has stated that the cartoons should be published everywhere.[1] Supporting freedom of speech, Ibn Warraq said that we should show "unashamed solidarity" with the Danish Cartoonists.[2] Wafa Sultan said that she doesnt "see any negative" aspects of publishing the cartoons adding that publishing the cartoons again and again will "push Muslims to take a deeper look at their religion". [3] Taslima Nasreen, Salman Rushdie and human rights activist Maryam Namazie were part of a 13 member group who signed a political statement made in response to the violence surrounding the cartoons issue.[4]
References
  1. ^ 'Everyone Is Afraid to Criticize Islam' - Spiegel interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali
  2. ^ Democracy in a Cartoon - Ibn Warraq
  3. ^ Syrian-American: Islam needs transformation - Ynetnews (see video of same interview)
  4. ^ Writers issue cartoon row warning - BBC

Any opinions on this? I would like to add these here instead of to the separate Opinion article but either is ok. Or, we can make a short mention here and a detailed one on the Opinion page. Any one who opposes this? At this point, niether the main article or the Opinion article makes any mention of what former Muslims have to say about the topic. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and put the stuff in the Opinions article [5]. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
What makes former muslims special (and which former muslims are notable)? It looks POV. Secretlondon (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
What makes Muslims special? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Where has Ayaan lied about anything, in that which is relevant to the comments here? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
i've removed the previous comment- policies on libel apply to talk pages, too. Lurker (said · done) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, did the right thing. Yup, its PR at work again. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I have to suppose that Hirsi Ali is a hero to a lot of people. But it can hardly be for her considered opinion on Islam (well, except, frighteningly, for a few people for whom calling Islam "destructive, nihilistic cult of death" indeed makes her a hero). There's no secret that Hirsi Ali made up large portions of her past, including her name and age, she's confessed it on television. She's blamed Islam for her problems living in two different African societies, then Germany - and then proceeded to have serious problems in a super-secure residence in the famously tolerant Holland. Then apparently been unable to settle "safely" in the US and is back in Holland. Now, none of that should affect our appreciation of her as a singularily brave member of the human race. But it's bound to make her opinions on the cartoon controversy look right off the wall. PRtalk 21:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's an unnecessary, ideological edit. Moreover, the "former Muslim" tag seems as though it ought to give more credence and reputability to her opinions, which are otherwise known as polemical rants and, often times, flat out fabrications of her life and history. The opinions article was created for a reason; we cannot include highly specified opinions in both articles, unless we intend to merge them. -Rosywounds (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ayaan Hirsi Ali's opinions on the controversy are certainly relevant. It sounds like Matt put them in the correct side article (not this one). So what's the problem? I don't see why "former Muslim" is any different from "former Christian" or "former Communist". These are usually people who've thought enough about something to reject it.
Of course, you'd almost always put the opinions of "former X" *after* the opinions of "current X", and then have some response from the "current X". That's just how the NPOV formula would normally look. All this would be separate from the opinions of some other non-X groups, which would probably be completely different and have completely different responses.
Alternatively you might segregate the opinions by profession, i.e. Salmon Rushdie and Ali might go together under former Muslims, but she is a politician and he is an author, so they'd be seperate under that system, which is also fine. Of course here you might still label her as "former Muslim". (shrug)
Anyway, there is a lot of material here so some subdivisions seem natural. JeffBurdges (talk) 11:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC) ps, Should this chat be moved to the talk page of the Opinions article where these edits are actually occurring?

[edit] Number of deaths

The number of deaths directly due to these events is sourced to a site that is little more than a blog [6] - and it's difficult to even find the number claimed (139) there. Some of the sub-pages look a bit more reliable, but they're still far below the standard of what we should be using. Surely there are better sources and/or tallies out there? If not, it's questionable whether we should be offering any "total number". PRtalk 22:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the source lists links to notable newssites with deathcounts from all the various demonstrations. As such I'll say that the source is credible and useful enough. Besides, there's no "total number" in the article, just an estimate that the number of deaths exceeded 100. The.valiant.paladin (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure don't look like verifiability from reliable sources to me. The number of deaths as a result of these events is highly significant, if we don't have good sources for it, then we should not give the impression that our project knows of, or is quotable for, the number of deaths. Leave that stuff to bloggers, and don't give them credibility. PRtalk 17:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
So BBC, CNN and other newsagencies arn't reliable sources?The.valiant.paladin (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
If you have references to the BBC, CNN or other recognised reliable sources that give us the total number of deaths as a result of this affair, then by all means put them in the article. If you only have some blog that claims to have added up all the figures, then don't include it. The principle of verifiability is not all that difficult to understand. PRtalk 21:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
PLease look at the source; You'll see that it links to credible newsagencies. Then you can check if the source manages simple arithmetics. Or if you find that the very notion of people killing each other over simple cartoons to be too absurd to be true (and that's a understandable thought) please look at all the other sources that report of people killed over simple cartoons:[7][8][9]. :::::If anything, this shows that the estimate on Wikipedia is a very conservative one indeed. The.valiant.paladin (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
What you've linked to are first-rate primary sources. Unfortunately, the project tries to avoid using primary sources - and has already set out on this course, The project lets itself down when it links to the blog that is a secondary source for our headline figure. Without a good secondary source that presents a "total death figure", then we should not pretend to know or quote any such figures. PRtalk 22:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Come on, you're grasping for straws now. It's obvious that the total death toll is more than a 100, it's obvious that the source the article links to itself links to credible sources, and the estimate of the number of deaths can be confirmed from other sources than the one the article links to. You have in no way proved the source in question to be inaccurate or unverifiable. I'm sorry, but you have no case. The.valiant.paladin (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
If we don't have any policy-compatible reliable source for the total number of deaths, then our article should not most certainly not pluck a figure from an apparently unreliable source. We can and should say something like "Judging from reports of deaths XX in XXXX[x], XX in XXXX[x], XX in XXXX[x] and XX in XXXX[x], at least 100 people died as a direct result of this affair, with some estimates up to 139[x]". That way, people can improve on the work we've done, without them seeing our efforts and going "Huh?". Which I'm afraid is what I thought as soon as I started checking references. Using bad references (like this one) damages our own work and everyone elses. PRtalk 19:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm having a hard time seeing the difference between what you propose and how the article already is. The source is as credible as it's own sources, ans since we both agree on those to be reliable I fail to se the benefit of mentioning those sources in the lead. It will just lenghten an already lenghty lead and make the article poorer for it. The source as it is is a collection of links and thus serve as a way to reduce unnecessary clutter in an already cluttered article. The.valiant.paladin (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Feb. 2008 death threats

nyt & /. articles. JeffBurdges (talk) 11:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really belonging to this article but rather any article with depictions of Mohammad. This article - just in today - might be something to add though. Says two Tunisians and on Dane has been arrested for planning to murder KW. Danish authorities have decided to expel the two Tunisians on grounds of security of the state. MX44 (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
(it seems to be all over the place by now, here in English from the Beeb: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7240481.stm) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MX44 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Apparently this has lead to a reprint of the cartoons in most Danish newspapers, which drew protests from the Muslim community.Link Something to keep an eye on. RichardRB (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Several Danish newspapers, including the largest ones, Politiken and Berlingske, and Jyllands-Posten itself, all reprinted the one cartoon drawn by Kurt Westergaard. Latest news is that the two Tunisians may not be expelled after all, due to their risking being tortured in Tunisia (that's apparently how they treat fundamentalist Islamists in that country). --RenniePet (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The most controversial of the drawings isn't KW's though. Judging from the front-pages from the time - of JP as well as El-Faqr - it is "the Niqaab" that takes the cake for drawing most attention (Assuming that the editors of both newspapers choose to publish on their respective front-pages whatever they think is most likely to raise an eyebrow.) MX44 (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Canceled trip as result of reprinting/threats/demands

This popped up: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3507426,00.html

Might be worth mentioning in the section on reprinting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M1rth (talk • contribs) 21:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Danish Imams tour the Middle East

The links from Ref. #30, #31, #33 and #37, do not work. Also, Ref. #34 has two links. I think the one to the BBC article is sufficient to make the point and three links (including #35) about this small side, issue seems to start being POV. If no one objects with a reason not to do it, I’m going to delete the part of Ref. #34 to the Neandernews. By the way, the BBC article in #34 could be used as the reference in place of #33 (they admit “being caught out”).
The worst of all this, is that it leaves the article with no reference in either English or Danish for the two lists of complaints by the imams. (Considering the placement of the broken links, I’m not sure they were intended for this anyway.) It would be great if someone could find them in English.--Another-sailor (talk) 10:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

#37 works alright, #31 and #33 fixed now. 30 replaced. As for English, we have this (partial) translation of #30: [10], but it was slammed as a COPYVIO (the translation was done by several Danish wikipedians), and subsequently deleted. I got almost banned for defending this translation on that page, but I won't try again. Azate (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused. Did you already remove links? I'm trying to analyze the ones that were problems and see why they died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M1rth (talk • contribs) 22:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I replaced #30 with a different link which serves the same purpose, and #31 and #33 with archive.org versions of the originals. The numbering scheme is unchanged. Azate (talk) 12:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Azate for fixing so much of this. I’m sorry I got one of the numbers wrong. It was (and still is) #36 that does not work. I still don’t like the two links from #34. Shouldn’t there be separate references? My preference, as I said before, would be to delete the Neandernews link. It isn’t necessary since the BBC article credits them and explains better without the perception of bias. The MSNBC link (#35)shows the original source of the picture (probable) without commentary. I’m not sure that is necessary either but am sure that with all three, it does seem POV. Thanks too for moving my comment to where it belongs in the list…I’m new at this.--Another-sailor (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
#36 link may not be permanently lost: It looks like a database error, maybe they'll fix it. I agree about the Neandernews link: It offers no extra value on top of the BBC one, so I zapped it, and moved #34 a few words upward for clarity. #35 should be kept, since it's not about the confusion of the images in the context of the cartoons, but rather the original item about the French squealing contest. Azate (talk) 13:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The economic impact seems way off

Quote from article: "On September 9, 2006, the BBC News reported that the Muslim boycott of Danish goods had reduced Denmark's total exports by 15.5% between February and June. This was attributed to a decline in Middle East exports by approximately 50%. "The cost to Danish businesses was around 134 million euros ($170m), when compared with the same period last year, the statistics showed.""

While the qoute is right, the numbers seems way off. The yearly danish exports is $93.93 billion, according to Economy_of_Denmark. So how can a monthly loss of $170m ($2040m in yearly terms) be 15.5% of danish export? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.59.212.98 (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The one number is gross exports, the other net damage to business. In between are a couple layers of economic analysis that the BBC has done or had someone else do. If (or when) other figures are available it might be worth changing but for now I think it is reasonable and, of course, a reliable source. [If annual exports are $93.93 Billion, 15.5% of one month is about $1.21 Billion loss in gross export. $170 million net loss to business seems plausible.]--Another-sailor (talk) 08:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] YouTube Videos and Pakistan Routes

The youtube and other flv hosts' mangling of the original video to avoid copyright by "defacement" is very upsetting, but watching "What is Love" might just resolve that ;)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=5S3OA3nJRBQ http://youtube.com/watch?v=HIHDqZLTK5Y

multiple "Danish Cartoon Parody" and "Geert" or "Forbidden Trailer" searchable.

http://thepiratebay.org/tor/4047508 http://thepiratebay.org/tor/4047509

We'll see how filterable a specific migratory stream / http url is... It takes a VERY large packet filter device to pull that scale of censorship off on multihoned isps.

Mirror FLV stream backup http://wikileaks.bluenorway.org

Cnet's article on the routing effects http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9878655-7.html?tag=tb

http://BlueNorway.Org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.59.193 (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category

{{editprotected}}

N Not done No consensus for this change. Happy‑melon 17:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone add this to the Category:Anti-Islam sentiment, seems pretty (obviously) relevant. Here are some reliable sources making the connection if needed:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=060130151546.v8vrasnt&show_article=1 http://www.signandsight.com/features/782.html

There are many others, but I think these are enough. thestick (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The article's already in Category:Islam-related controversies, which seems to be a more neutral statement; I'm not entirely comfortable appending the category suggested, as that seems to imply a sentiment on Wikipedia's part that the cartoons are inherently anti-Islamic. A reader interested in reading about Anti-Islam sentiment might be interested in reading this article, but I'm not sure if that overrides the POV problem inherent to such a category. Open to other comments, of course. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Numerous news reports, articles and public statements (ie WP:RS) called the cartoons anti-islamic. I thought NPOV meant it would include the different views on the story - Objectively calling something what it is isn't necessarily a POV. Anyway, it is obvously -very- relevant to the category. Even the description of the category states that the the contents are articles only related to anti-islamic sentiment, it doesnt make any judgements. For a parallel, The iranian holocaust cartoons competetion was included in antisemitism. thestick (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
You're making a rather diffuse argument -- "we have to call it anti-Islamic because it is" doesn't readily gel with "the category doesn't mean it's anti-Islamic." Categories on another page can be addressed on that other page, if needed. Of the two sources you've mentioned, I'll concede Clinton seems relevant when calling the images "appalling" and describing some reactions to the controversy surrounding the images as anti-Islamic; I'm not seeing the direct relevance of the Rose essay, just yet. There are some who would consider this anti-Islamic, and some who do not -- the Islam-related controversies category sidesteps a need on our part to support either side of the argument. As you've mentioned, though, navigational relevance can favor categories such as this. I won't oppose this too strongly, I just want to see a positive consensus that it should be included. Hope that makes sense. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
This article is already in the category :Category:Jyllands-Posten_cartoons_controversy, which is a very specific one. Policy says that general categories should replaced with more specific categories wherever possible. Thus, the :Category:Anti-Islam sentiment should go on the :Category:Jyllands-Posten_cartoons_controversy-page. And so should every single category on _this_ page except :Category:Jyllands-Posten_cartoons_controversy. Some are already there, others that are there are (correctly) no longer here - like :Category: Islam in Denmark for example. Azate (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the information Azate, I added that page to anti-islam sentiment. However, there is still no direct way for someone interested in anti-islamic sentiment to look for similar topics from this page.
@Luna Santin - I didnt say we have to call it anti-islamic, I said several reliable sources which talk about anti-islamic sentiment (or islamophobia if you want to be google friendly) cite this as an example/related development. So obviously this topic is connected to Anti-Islam sentiment, so what's the harm in including it in the category. Azates solutions seems reasonable though, and why not include a Islamophobia link in the "See Also" ? thestick (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand the reluctance to add just one word or a category to this page. They are obliviously backed by reliable sources, verifiable, and neutral. Yet, here we are discussing with giant slabs of text. Shall we conduct a straw poll? thestick (talk) 11:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
What you don't understand is that when you add a category, you make an implication that the subject is of that category. An anti-Islam category would therefore imply that the subject is islamophobic, and making such a POV statement is obviously POV. Yahel Guhan 20:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Is this not at the core of the controversy? The publication was not intended as anti-islamic, and yet it was perceived anti-islamic by many. If wikipedia puts that category on this article, then suddenly wikipedia would take sides ( POV ). The original intent had to do with speaking up for freedom of expression. DanielDemaret (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The category clearly states: "This category indicates that the article in question discusses or refers to the topic of Anti-Islam sentiment. Adding this category to an article is in no way intended to imply that the subject of the article is opposed to Islam or Muslims."

Included in the category are subjects like the Runnymede Trust that is in no way Islamophobic. Thus, I repeat, including the category "is in no way intended to imply that the subject of the article is opposed to Islam or Muslims."Bless sins (talk) 06:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood my meaning. I just think that that there are several more relevant categories. DanielDemaret (talk) 10:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
If the, “Category:Anti-Islam sentiment” is actually a category for “About anti-Islam sentiment” shouldn’t it be named that? Otherwise, to the reader of Wikipedia it could be misleading. Until that is made clear, I don’t think this article should be labled “anti-Islam” – no matter what the fine print says.--Another-sailor (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Not including this article in the category and calling these cartoons 'not anti-islamic' is an even more deviating and unbalanced POV than calling them anti-islamic, anyway since there seems to be some argument about it, I'll discuss at a later time thestick (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The cartoons are not islamophobic, which it seems your intent in editing recently is to label various organizations that criticize islam as Islamophobic with the anti-islam category (Faith Freedom International, Jihad Watch, this article, etc.) Pushing your personal POV about these websites in this manner is not neutral or going to occur. Yahel Guhan 19:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of whether the implication is intended, it's clearly made by including such a category. How is the current controversies category insufficient? – Luna Santin (talk) 08:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. I feel the "controversy" catogory serves as a much better descriptor here. The "anti-islam" category would, in my opinion, leave the reader with a POV'ish taste in the back of the mouth. Controversy is a much more accurate word here, I think. TerminusEst (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Please tell me what you think of the contents of this category then. There are many kinds of 'controversies', if something is controversial and related to islam , it doesnt mean it doesn't have anything to do with islamophobia. thestick (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
If something is controversial and related to Islam, it doesn't automatically imply islamophobia either. Are the drawings really "anti-islam", or simply just "pro-freedom of speech"? If you eat a pork chop, does that show your anti-islam views as well? I firmly believe that the current category is the less biased choice. TerminusEst (talk) 10:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
This is beginning to sound more like a set theory and logic problem. I don't think we have to decide whether the cartoons are anti-islam or 'pro-freedom of speech' - I have no interest in general discussion about the subject. Reliable sources have described them as anti-islamic. Why argue about whether they're""anti-islam", or simply just "pro-freedom of speech"",because it can't be both? Also, if these cartoons are 'pro-freedom of speech' and not 'anti-islam', can you provide an example of a cartoon that IS anti-islamic according to your viewpoint. ? thestick (talk) 20:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, in a roundabout way, that's my point. Everything stands and falls with the motive behind the cartoons, doesn't it? It's been stated alongside the drawings that they're intended to provoke debate on self-imposed censorship. That some sources regard this as being "anti-islamic" - isn't that basically drawing a conclusion and lending a POV here? TerminusEst (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
So if this paper for some reason prints " ___ are ugly, stupid, primitive and inferior to ___" and later says it was to provoke debate on self-imposed censorship, that comment can't be called discriminatory? thestick (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Some of the cartoons such as the "usual suspects" one arn't even anti-islamic by any discription, the problem is can islam be criticised at all in your view? Many say it can't but that is unfair and unworkable. Would a serious debate be better than cartoons, yes but when any tries to debate thier called racist. (Hypnosadist) 17:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I find your comparison questionable, as it already implies the cartoons are in fact malicious in nature. If the cartoons are anti-islamic, then we should probably call Danish newspaper cartoons "anti-everything", as they have already mocked basically every aspect of life. Our newspaper cartoons illustrate ongoing events; I see them in the paper ever day. Now, if publishing a drawing makes an artist fear extreme repercussion - as it turned out in this case, rightfully so - isn't that exactly why drawings of this kind have to be shown? Danes are not subject to Islamic laws. Under Danish law you're allowed to disagree whether Muslims like it or not; that it has come so far can only be described as tragic. But does this necessarily make the drawings anti-Islamic? If you disagree with the death penalty, does that make you anti-Islamic? If you believe in women's rights, does that make you anti-Islamic? Heck, does that make Muslims anti-feminism? Or does it just mean that you don't agree? Maybe it's me who doesn't understand the anti-islamic category, but if everything that disagrees with the Muslim way of life is anti-Islam, then that category certainly could become quite expansive. TerminusEst (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, nevermind then... What about the next discussion. thestick (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] See Also - 'Islamophobia'

{{editprotected}}



Can someone add Islamophobia to the "See Also" links. ? thestick (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

N Not done Please establish some consensus for this change. Happy‑melon 20:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
N Not done Again. I still do not see any consensus for this change below. Please do not keep re-adding the {{editprotected}} template without a genuine consensus. If you want a second admin opinion, please request it. Happy‑melon 14:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I think this has been discussed several times. Danes, and most others who are in favor of free speech, do not think that what has happened here representes any kind of "phobia" on the part of Danes. "Phobia" is a negative word implying that the person who suffers from it has a sickness or problem. Danes (and I agree with them) are of the opinion that what happened was not due to the Danes suffering from a problem, but from certain Muslims refusing to accept other people's right to determine that free speech is an important cornerstone of their society. Seen from that point of view it is the Muslims who were the problem, not the Danes. Seen from that point of view, attaching a label of "islamophobia" is an attempt to turn the situation upside down.
This is obviously a very controversial problem, and rather than descending into a debate of, "I'm right, you're wrong!", "No, I'm right, your're wrong!", it should be Wikipedia's job to simply present the facts clearly, without attaching value judgements.
Personally, I think that what has happened has now made Danes, and many others, aware of how seriously Muslims believe that it is not proper to make fun of their prophet. What many Muslims still do not seem to grasp is how seriously believers of free speech believe that the media must make fun of everything and everybody, that the media must criticize everything and everybody, for a free democaracy to thrive.
There also seems to be a strange lack of appreciation for the fact that free democarcies have shown themselves to be more successful and prosperous and have more satisfied citizens than Muslim-run countries, in general.
Enough ramblings for now. :-) --RenniePet (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

..mkay, but I think this place is to discuss the article, not the subject, do you have any input on including Islamophobia in the "See Also" links? thestick (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Same issue as before. Adding the category would add/imply undue relevance when there isn't any. Yahel Guhan 19:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Who's talking about adding categories here? It's just a link in the "See Also" section. thestick (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
And very similar arguments apply in either case; consensus does not appear to support such a change at this time. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
If Islamophobia should be included in the "See Also" section, then should we also add Islamofascism? No? Why? Because it would be inflammatory? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
There is already "Islamist Terrorism", and Islamophobia is much more relevant to this article. thestick (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Adding the Islamophobia link under "See also" would, imo, suggest that islamophobia is the root of the problem. Obviously there are Islamophobes in Denmark. But does this necessarily relate to the cartoons controversy? If so, how? I see nothing to suggest that putting the drawings in the newspaper was an effect of phobia. As a Dane I have indeed become very aware of the anger felt by Muslims when confronted with this kind of satire. However, this is hardly about offending Muslims - that would classify as a quite unfortunate side effect of the debate. This is about demonstrating that we will stick to our right of free speech. That free speech will not be denied because some may find what you have to say offensive. That people should be allowed to draw whatever they want without fear for their lives. What offends Danes is that certain Muslims believe Islamic law applies to Denmark. TerminusEst (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Adding islamophobia under "See Also" wouldn't apply anything but "Also take a look at the Islamophobia article". Going by your argument - is "Internet censorship in Pakistan" one of root causes of this controversy too? thestick (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, unless I'm totally missing the point here, the "see also" articles are supposed to be in some way related to the article they're listed under? As for the "Internet censorship in Pakistan" link, that's absolutely relevant as both articles are about censorship issues. Perhaps instead you could explain why you want Islamophobia included? TerminusEst (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The cartoons have been called anti-islamic/islamophobic in several places. So it's relevant - and neutral too, if someone thinks they're islamophobic or not, let them check out the article and confirm for themselves. thestick (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you provide us with examples of these "several places"? Relata refero (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with others before me, I find the arguments here would be quite similar to the category discussion above. That said, I'm less opposed to this sort of change than the suggested "anti-islam" category revision. However, the inclusion of the "islamophobia" link would definitely leave me with a POV'ish feeling. If Islamophobia does indeed need mention in this article, I feel it would be far better to briefly discuss it (as is already done with Xenophobia) and link from there. How does that sound to everyone else? TerminusEst (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I always prefer a brief, referenced discussion to a See Also. Relata refero (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
For those who wanted sources, google points to many reliable sources, http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Muhammad+Cartoons+%2B%22Anti-Islamic%22+-blog&btnG=Search&meta= . Even the newspaper index link to the images of the cartoons mentions the UN inspection of whether the cartoons were racist or not. Also from a navigational point of view, one is most likely to go another page after reading the article. @TerminusEst - PLEASE put your 'feelings' and 'tastes' aside and look at it objectively (NoPOV), it's just a 'See Also' link, it will only imply something if you want it to. thestick (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I am attempting to do exactly that, which is why I'm opposing the inclusion of a link that - in my opinion - will push the reader towards automatically associating the subject of this article with Islamophobia. As to my use of the word "feel", I'm merely trying to vary my use of words rather than stating "I think". TerminusEst (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the first couple of hits from your Google search gives a mixed bag of "support" for your case. Hit no. 1 talks about the "pigface picture", which was not one of the cartoons, but was deceitfully labeled as such by lying Imams. Hit no. 3 is a quote of Usama bin Laden. :-)
As for asking your opponents to put aside their feelings and tastes, it's not easy when you're indirectly accusing us of suffering from a phobia, an ailment we strenuously deny being afflicted with.
Anyway, TerminusEst's suggestion of a textual reference is OK by me, as long as it includes the information that Jyllands-Posten, the cartoonists, and Danes in general all strongly deny that Islamophobia is involved here, and that we strongly believe that anyone applying that term to this situation is trying to avoid facing up to the real issues. The real issues being a lack of tolerance for freedom of speech and a lack of respect for societies who consider freedom of speech to be a very important aspect of their society and wellbeing. --RenniePet (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
While I think we agree on the approach suitable for this article, may I point out that an editor who claims to be speaking for his entire country sets off a lot of people's alarm bells. Relata refero (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Point taken, although I did say "Danes in general", i.e., most Danes. And Denmark isn't really my country, although I live here. --RenniePet (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, withdrawn. I spent a little time researching the internal reaction, just now and got a little quote from Tim Jensen, who is indeed Danish and something of an expert on this stuff, one supposes: in the New York Times, he says "There has been a very marked xenophobia and Islamophobia, not only because of Sept. 11, 2001. That was just the culmination." And goes on to talk about the DPP etc. So there are differing views everywhere. FWIW, externally, it seems there is a consensus that intercultural relations are more strained in Denmark -and were so even before the cartoons - than in most other parts of Western Europe. Relata refero (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
There is absolutely no doubt that xeno/islamophobia is on the rise in Denmark, I don't think anyone is disputing that. But reviewing the situation at hand - a man writes a children's book which illustrators are at best reluctant to work on out of fear for their lives, in the end an illustrator agrees to do it under terms of anonymity. Self-censorship is suddenly the subject of public debate. Cartoons are published. Is it per definition a sign of contempt of Muslims to demonstrate that freedom of speech is guaranteed by law and that law in Denmark is not dictated by - any - religion? Unfortunatly, the extremes of both sides can use this situation to further their own ends, that much is true. But there are two sides to every story, and driving home the Islamophobia point is just much too easy. TerminusEst (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I changed the google link, and now it gets more 'relevant' results. anyway I think I need to make some things clear here since there seem to be some misconceptions:
1) I'm not debating whether the cartoons are should have been published or not
2) I'm not accusing anyone of islamophobia
3) Never considered TerminusEst as an 'opponent' [Since some people are very concerned about words]
4) Not debating whether the cartoons are islamophobic or not
Since when did Jyllands-Posten become an international representative of the danish people, it's just a newspaper - and like any other, people can still discuss it's contents etc. I'm saying, one would be interested to see the "Islamophobia" article too after reading this article since it's relevant. Why would that cause someone to believe it's 'indirectly accusing danes of islamophobia' ? To you it may be 'someone exercising free speech', to someone else it could be an 'anti-islamic joke' etc.(Please look at my userpage for what's my opinion), NPOV should take into consideration of both issues, but that doesnt even matter here - it's just a 'see also' link. Plus this seems to highlight the cause of the whole controversy a bit - to some it's just a 'see also' link, to others it's an accusation of islamophobia. thestick (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, so let's discuss it in the article instead of going with blind links TerminusEst (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
hmm ok, so no matter what I say, you'll still not want to include a link to Islamophobia article, am I correct? Also, adding a discussion to the article (which is too long already) about the topic would be rather inconvenient considering it's protected. (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit: Ok, if we include a discussion about the relation of the cartoons and islamophobia, would you be OK with including a link to it in the 'see also' section? However, adding a discussion to the article about the topic would be rather inconvenient considering it's protected. thestick (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not completely bent on excluding the link, not at all. I'm just afraid of undue weight here. Islamophobia is already mentioned in the article. The question I'm raising is basically whether or not this criticism is a valid point? Why must people in the media give Islam (compared to other religions) an extra-wide berth? Why can you criticise other religions without suffering from phobia? When a Middle Eastern country, say, Iran executes a person, does that also mean that people in the Iranian government suffer from a phobia towards Christians adhering to the words "Thou shalt not kill"? I doubt that. All I'm saying is - it's a negative word that I find is thrown around far too much and far too easily these days. Criticism does not equal phobia. TerminusEst (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Incoming users may want to review previous discussion on this issue -- I generally think RfCs are best used to resolve deadlocks, but current consensus on the issue seems pretty clear to me. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Responding to the request for comment: I haven't time to read the whole discussion right now, but Islamophobia is linked to in the article. To add it to See Also would be POV, as it would imply that the cartoons were Islamophobic. St. Jimmy 22:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The link is acceptable, either within the article or as a See Also link; see this article where a notable political figure, Bill Clinton is quoted suggesting there is anti-Islamic feeling behind the cartoons. There is no reason to suppress the relationship, which whether peripheral or central, whether a matter of perception or essential, is clearly present. Hgilbert (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Outside opinion- I'd say leave it out. Including it would, as others have suggested, imply that the cartoons came to be from a fear of Islam, which could only be verified if the author made that statement. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Police harassment of ethnic minorities"???

From the article:

"Other sources close to the origin of the riots in the Nørrebro district of Copenhagen said that the riots, which started before the arrests, were wholly unrelated to the cartoons controversy and were rather set off by police harassment of ethnic minorities in areas of Copenhagen"

This gives a very distorted image of events. What has really happened is that the Copenhagen police has had to establish "zones of perquisition"(? Danish: "visitationszoner") in certain areas of Copenhagen where they can search people they suspect are carrying knives without any hard evidence. This is a result of the escalating number of knife assaults that has been carried out in recent months, predominantly by young descendants of immigrants.

One of these areas was Norrebro, where the riots started. From what I understand from the media, many of the youth in the area are also involved in drugsales and other kinds of more or less organised crime. Some of the youths claim that they have been searched several times a day, sometimes even strip searched, and this is what infuriated them, causing the ensuing riots. The police denies these allegations.

The incident that is mentioned in the note (concerning a police investigation of police brutality against immigrants) is about ONE incident, where police officers have allegedly used unnecessary force against a senior immigrant.

Isn't there a Scandinavian (or somebody else who can read the Danish press) with writing privileges who can clarify this so as to make the article more acurate? At the moment readers are likely to get the impression that the Danish police are constantly running around bashing immigrants, and that doesn't really seem fair to me.

Cheers LR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.157.137.62 (talk) 06:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I second that, some clarification is needed here. There has indeed been much speculation as to what was the cause of the riots. The media here generally agree on a number of things that may or may not have contributed to the unrest, such as:
1) The already mentioned "search zones".
2) The reprint of the cartoons.
3) The plans to deport two Tunisian men plotting to assassinate cartoonist Kurt Westergaard.
4) Old fashioned boredom during the winter holiday.
In the end, it's going to be all but impossible to give a definitive answer as to the cause, but we can at least attempt to elaborate. TerminusEst (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Is it me, or could the article be perceived to speculate that the unrest might have been caused by the cartoon reprint/deportation of Westergaard's would-be assassins? It reads:
"Other sources close to the origin of the riots in the Nørrebro district of Copenhagen said that the riots, which started before the arrests, were wholly unrelated to the cartoons controversy and were rather set off by police harassment of ethnic minorities in areas of Copenhagen, and indeed some disturbances had occurred even in the days preceding the arrests."
"Some disturbances" does seem to make it sound like slight problems. Yes, things did escalate after the 12th, but nevertheless firefighters in Nørrebro were being met by people throwing cobblestones on February 9th, 10th and 11th - this on a scale such that the police were forced to employ tear gas to disperse and arrest troublemakers on the 11th. Hardly a trivial thing in our (mostly) quiet little corner of the world. Whether or not the unrest would have spread to other places if not for the cartoon reprint is a good question, the answer to which will never be anything but guesswork. It is certain, however, that the reprint didn't start the fire. TerminusEst (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Osama bin Laden Audio Tape

A new Osama bin Laden audio tape has surfaced threatening Europe over the re-publication of the subject cartoons. This important development (which is mentioned here) also needs mentioning in this article, despite its current protected status. --Art Smart (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editprotected

Please correct the Islamist terrorism see also link to the article by its current name: Islamic terrorism. Yahel Guhan 03:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Jmlk17 03:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Danish Freedom of Speech and advertising

Might it be worth including that despite their "far reaching Freedom of Speech," Denmark has specific laws to ban advertising construed as sexist? [11] - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

this isnt sexist though, sexisim and religious views are diffrent and is counted as freedom of speech in the danish constitution —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.60.57 (talk) 03:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Not just sexual discrimination. You're not allowed to for instance lie or print false allegations in a commercial. Like in many other countries "commercial freedom of speech" is more restricted than other kinds of freedom of speech. Although this too has been moving towards greater freedom. Rune X2 (talk) 09:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Lying or printing false allegations in non-commercial media is called libel, and I'm pretty sure it's illegal in Denmark just as it is most everywhere else on earth. Many countries also have "false news" crimes, and use it to prosecute holocaust deniers, when holocaust denial isn't explicitly illegal. Using images deemed "sexist", however, is not illegal in most of the western world. I'd say Denmark and Norway are rather exceptional in this case, which makes it quite interesting. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. However, sexist images are not per se illegal - trying to make a profit of them is. I'm fairly certain that if someone was to try the same thing with religious images, it would be outlawed in a heartbeat. If it isn't already. TerminusEst (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
It’s not illegal to make a profit out of sexist images. The whole porn industry is pretty much based on that. You are also allowed to make a profit out of religious images. What is not always permitted is to use sexist images in commercials for other products. The Muhammed Cartoons might very well also have been deemed illegal (although I doubt it, as they’re really quite harmless compared to what else is routinely used for Christianity) if used in a commecial for say jeans or a car or something. Rune X2 (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Point 1: This is WP:SYNTH which is not allowed in Wikipedia, and so shouldn't be in the article. Point 2, like many others, you misunderstand what freedom of speech is. Have a look at the Danish constitution in English. The article that ensures freedom of speech is this: "Any person shall be at liberty to publish his ideas in print, in writing, and in speech, subject to his being held responsible in a court of law. Censorship and other preventive measures shall never again be introduced." In other words, everyone is free to say whatever they want, but there are things you can say that may cause you to be imprisoned, fined, or similar. So everybody is free to make sexually discriminating commercials, but this doesn't mean that they're automatically freed from being prosecuted in a court of law for doing so. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 18:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Point about WP:SYNTH taken. That's a good thing to keep in mind on hot topics like this one. As per point 2, Danish law makes explicit censorship illegal, but gives the state the right to imprison you, fine you, and otherwise effectively remove your ability to publish your thoughts? Not a very broad definition of freedom of speech, is it? - TheMightyQuill (talk)
Actually, this is perfectly common. Have a look at article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It reads:
“ 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

 ”
As you can see, having certain restrictions on freedom of speech is perfectly normal. Indeed, if you read the freedom of speech article, you'll find that this is the case in many, if not most or even all, countries. That said, some Danish laws have been criticized by some (but certainly not all) politicians and commentators for being too widespread in what expressions may lead to receiving a fine - for instance, the racism law. But I'm not sure if this belongs in this article either. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 19:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The restriction mentioned above is very likely based on experience from Danish history. When freedom of speech was introduced in Denmark by Johann Friedrich Struensee (late 18th century), one of its results was the publication of a large number of smear pamphlets against Struensee and other officials who found themselves unable to stop such publications although many of these publications contained half truths or complete lies, since the publishers in question would cite that they simply excersied their right to free speech. Struensee later fell from power and censorship was reintroduced. When freedom of speech was reintroduced later - now as part of the constitution - the provison mentioned above had been added. In short; you may print your thoughts about any topic and publicise them or stand in the street saying what you want. The police won't try to stop you from spreading your views about society. However, individuals personally attacked by you may hold you responsible. So if you stand on a soapbox accusing X of being a criminal, X has the possibility to take you to court and demand that you prove your allegations against him or that his name is cleared. The important distinction is that the police won't try to stop you from saying what you want, but if you accuse a specific person of being e.g. a murderer / corrupt or similar, he/she may take you to court and demand that you prove your allegations in front of a judge. 89.239.209.99 (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)