Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy ARTICLE. Please place discussions on the underlying political and religious issues on the Arguments page. Non-editorial comments on this talk page may be removed by other editors.
Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them == A Descriptive Header ==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions.	Talk page guidelines Please respect Etiquette, assume good faith and be nice.

Ahem. Timeout. I've blanked this talk page momentarily because although there is some good discussion here, there's a lot of very bad discussion. This is not the appropriate place for a general philosophical discussion about Islam, freedom of speech, terrorism, religious tolerance, etc. Not only is this talk page not the right place for it, Wikipedia is not the right place for it. Here, we are polite, thoughtful, smart, geeky people, trying only to do something which is undoubtably good in the world: write and give away a free encyclopedia.

Now, there are legitimate questions on both sides regarding this particular article, and I want to encourage a discussion of that. But please, do it with the very strong assumption of good faith on all parties to the discussion, and stick directly and purely to the editorial question at hand, rather than a general philosophical debate.

Now, please, with kindness, start the discussion over?

--Jimbo Wales 00:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Please divert comments having to do with international reactions to Talk:International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Thank you.

• Please divert comments having to do with various opinions on the controversy to Talk:Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Thank you.

WE NEED TO FIND A BALANCE BETWEEN RIGHT OF SPEECH AND OFENSIVE MATERIAL

I think it is not easy to define the line between the right of expression and the right to respect the religion factor in cases like this. I was trying to find the balance because I know that the future generations need to see and to know the facts of the history including the bads things like this. but too, I know how the muslims feel this. always there's a way to solve the things. we can keep the cartoons for history purposes in a way that the people only can see it by 3-4 clicks away and showing the rules for view it. but dont make people angry and die just for abusive use of the free of speech.

scaglietti, NJ

I'm glad WIKI is here for me

I'm glad Wiki has this article. After reading a few stories in the New York TImes, I wanted to see the cartoon that has created so much fuss. I looked all over the web and most sites I found were blogs on the topic with other editorial cartoons. Thankfully Wiki had the article and I was able to become better informed on the topic.

Thank you Wikipedia

this is the only site on the web i could even find these cartoons. pretty rough considering 1/2 the world is for free speech.

They are elsewhere. YOu just need to know where to look. 129.171.187.135 17:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Reliability of the Polls??

Is it how issues are resolved in wikipedia? The polls were created for a duration of time and closed without any relevant reason!!How could someone judge whenever a poll should be closed? specially that the article is still a current event, so closing it before is not a wise decision. Hence one can ask about reliability of those polls. Another thing is that we should respect religions, and showing such a picture is not the best way to calm things, and two cannot disargue that showing this picture is provoking others feelings, and that's not what wikipedia is about. the least thing is to put an external link (not internal) of the picture.

Again, right now we're trying to keep this article together. Now is not the time to reopen the polls, we're having enough trouble just keeping the page together without people blanking the whole thing. In terms of the polls, the votes to keep were so overwhelming, it would be futile to assume a hundred or so people would appear from nowhere and vote for a delete. Regardless, Wikipedia is not here to "calm" or "appease". It is here to inform about everything. We have gone over this before, once again please check the archives. Hitokirishinji 21:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Polls are not a usual way of deciding on article content, but they sometimes happen. In this case, it was deemed that the community had to speak out on the article. Consensus was found, with over 80% in favour of keeping the cartoons in the article. The closure of the poll was therefore within the closing admin's discretion. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 11:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The Power of Wikipedia

When most major newspapers faced significant wrath for publishing even a part of the cartoons, Wikipedia still stands high even after having all the cartoons in its page for more than a week. People could intimidate the editors of those newspapers and force them to resign, but nothing could be done against Wikipedia. I feel, this is a wonderful attribute of Wikipedia that is on exhibition at the time of this crises. The collective responsibility combined with civilized reactions, makes this as the best exponent of Free Speech.

Agreed. The power of the Internet and Wikipedia shows us that fundamental people (of different faiths and not just Muslims) are not able to ban or protest violently against controversial drawings or pictures. Siva1979 13:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite disappointed by the reactions I've read in the topics below, namely those arrogant and insensitive replies to those who were requesting the cartoons to be moved to another location, or to provide a link for it (e.g. Hitokirishinji and Kyaa the Catlord in response to Yosri). The original posts are very civil and humane, whereas it seems in the responses people have picked up a very proud and arrogant attitude for keeping the pictures up no matter what the others say. Replies such as "If you are mortally offended by wikipedia and western values then there is simply no reason for you to visit the english wikipedia, or indeed, any western site." (not sure who posted that one) definitely don't go together with the concept of responsibility when disseminating information. If wikipedia is just a place where the authors demonstrate their power over MSNBC or whoever else you've depicted as weak (which in my opinion would translate as more sensitive to those different from the mainstream readers they have) then I guess all that's on the page is justified. Otherwise I would really urge you to think twice before you post. I personally do not have a clear opinion if the small size images are still offensive to people or not. But if enough people say it is, I think this is enuogh reason to take it off. Trying to explain to them how they should feel or how in your world insulting them is completely normal will only fuel anger at your own world, and you'll be wondering why these muslims react the way they do. Think about it: it's the western media (in the true sense of the word, including internet and sites such as wikipedia) who disseminate information and pictures, the western readers who read it and form their opinion, and the topic in question is about people who for the most part don't even understand english. And when the few who can read english give their input, you tell them not to visit the english sites if they're offended. Doesn't this pave the way for the isolation of a group of people who don't speak your language, and yet you keep writing about?

Also think about this: not every post is about proving one's point over the others, or for the pure goal of winning over some debate, but sometimes just about someone's input on how they feel about or experience the topic in question.

212.201.44.249 16:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Serkan

Actaully, this has nothing to do with struggle and power over MSNBC. In fact, I really couldn't care less what MSNBC has to say about wikipedia. Wikipedia is created by a community of editors, many from every type of background imaginable. So explain to me how MSNBC and their poll has any accurate ability to measure the consensus of the Wikipedia community? I would be willing to bet the number of people who voted on that MSNBC poll have ever registered or logged onto Wikipedia. So, I'll be clear MSNBC is not Wikipedia and its opinion most likely has no bearing here.

Secondly, we have never said "go away if you don't like it". Instead, we have said "turn off load images" so as to avoid seeing the image at all. Check the archieves and stop trying to shove words into our mouths. By your logic "...still offensive to people or not. But if enough people say it is, I think this is enuogh reason to take it off..." we should remove the state of Israel from the map because its very existence angers and offends many Muslims. And we should remove Piss Christ and Lolicon. Again, we've been through this before, read the archives.

Lastly, these "non-english" speaking people who have an opinion. Why limit it to Muslims who can't read English? Why not give everyone a chance to express their opinion? Why do you feel that the people who are offended and cannot speak English only get a valid opinion? What about people can't speak English and are not offended, I suppose for you they aren't nearly important enough? So to be truely fair, we would have to poll the entire world practically and I'm sure the 1 billion ethnic Chinese and 1 billion Indians living on the eastern side of the world would have an opinion. One that shouldn't count any less than anyone elses.

I would hardly qualify my arguments as "arrogant" but more like "really frustrated that we have to go through this every single time and people keep making up false assumptions as arguments to remove the image that has been overwhelmingly supported to stay"

Hitokirishinji 18:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to say that these values are not 'Western' values, freedom is something valued by everyone.

What I said has nothing to do with other non-english-speakers, or the jewish state or jesus christ. taking israel off the map seems like a quite far fetched example to disprove my point. Would you agree that Hamas rules Palestine? (Freedom of speech, democracy, yeay). Even though few westeners would support hamas, you'd have to be consistant and deal just as legitimately with Hamas.

All I said was, that a few of the people whose opinion should be worth more on the matter (since i see no-one else that this directly affects) on the matter have expressed that it is an offense to their beliefs and religion. Who benefits from going against these people? I think one should really distinguish between freedom of speech in media so that the press may enlighten the rest of the public on things they should know (like some behind the scenes scandal, or whatever else you can think of, in which the media has played an important but positive role) and feedom of speech which just serves itself. Since I'm free to say what I want, I could make borderline comments about people, and claim it's freedom of speech. In any case, I don't want to rediscuss what's already been discussed many times over here. I just thought the two posts I read were quite arrogant including yours. Now that you've reworded this, I don't feel so bad about it any more. But the problem in the first place is not how I perceive things, but how the people you've responded to will feel like. I'm quite sure those muslims around the world who see defiant reactions from the western media (an example of which was also experienced here) will feel isolated and disliked. I'm just not sure who would benefit from a sarcastic, mean comment like yours (earlier). Thanks for the explanations though.

212.201.44.249 19:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Serkan

I disagree with you wholeheartedly. Someone's opinion should not be worth more. That's like saying, depending upon your importance/religion/knowledge/party affliation/place in politics/education you get extra votes so when you vote on it, we can take into account those things. Sorry, every American gets one vote when we vote for President or Congress. No one gets anymore because the believe more strongly than others. And I believe we are entirely harming ourselves by submitting to the demands of the offended. There are many things people can be offended by and just about anything. To be fair we would have to su~bmit to trying not to "offend" others as well. At that rate, we may as well throw the encyclopedia away because there are an infinite number of topics people will argue and be offended about. I'm guilty of being annoyed and letting that getting into my posts as anyone else is but my argument still stands and I think some will agree with me. About Hamas all I have to say is this, one other nation called for the extermination of the Jewish people, it was Germany under Hitler and as we have seen before, talking does not seem to work. Until violence is set aside, I doubt Hamas will be treated very well in international politics. Anways that is a digression, back to the article. Hitokirishinji 20:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say whoever believes more strongly should have more of a say. But maybe my question would be more clear if you tried to answer who else would be more closely related to this topic than muslims. That's like discussing about the effects of parent separation on kids and not caring about what the kid has to say. Also you have still not addressed how the caricatures would benefit anyone. The damage is way too obvious and the benefits I couldn't really find on this page. A principle is only a principle if it serves a purpose.

- We are fighting for the principle of freedom of speech.
- Ok, so what is your message?
- That Mohammed is a terrorist.\

This sounds like a southpark line to me. And I still fail to see the point of defending this caricature.

212.201.44.249 20:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC) Serkan

Actually I never drew the conclusion that Mohammed was a terrorist from the cartoons. It never creeped into my mind at all and as others have pointed out, this puts the whole thing into context as well as provides a chance to everyone to form their own opinion, especially not one like "Mohammed" is a terrorist. I doubt anyone here seriously got the message "Mohammed is a terrorist" from the cartoons. Our line of thought is not "We are promoting this image because it suggests Mohammed is a terrorist". You are making conclusions for us and assuming intent. Anyone here can back me up with that? Hitokirishinji 21:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I thought the "bomb turbin" image was quite rediculous. Explosives did not exist during the time period Mohummad lived so it seemed out of context and pretty absurd. Hitokirishinji 21:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

If you interpret the picture metaphorically you might consider it to mean, for example, "The religion founded by this guy promotes the use of bombs." Depending on the original context, the intent of the cartoonist might be something different - to suggest that this may be the case, or that it appears to be the case, or is believed by some to be the case, etc. Regardless, it serves an important purpose in stimulating debate, which is one of the reasons that we have freedom of speech. Wikipedia's inclusion of it, on the other hand, is motivated by a desire to provide full information about a topic of interest - in this case, the controversy the cartoons have caused. Neither wikipedia nor the original newspaper (probably) displayed this image to suggest that Mohammed was literally a terrorist.--144.136.180.2 01:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

More importantly, none of the opinions matter. If there were a cartoon that had George bush pointing a rocket launcher at an Iraqi school bus and Dick Cheney next to him saying "well, Osama could be inside after all" it would get protested, but it would get printed. The only reason it wouldn't get onto wikipedia is because there would be so little controversy over it being printed that there would be nothing to chronicle. Free speech is applied as evenly as possible. 146.163.218.221 19:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It's time to talk

Moved to Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments#It's time to talk

Ful jävel.

Vad sa du? Rofl, ursäktä, jag kan inte Danska. --84.249.252.211 13:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Adding "pig person" picture?

I think it would be a good idea to add the "pig person" picture to the article, under the "misinformation" heading. The article has a very low picture/text ratio as it is, and the picture would add to the understanding of the events because it is an example of how misinformation has increased the severity of the conflict. The copyright of the original photo probably belongs to AP, but given the low quality of the reproduction, it should be easy to claim "fair use". Since there seems to be concensus that the picture is of a French pig squealing contestant and not a religious personality of any kind, there should be no blasphemy issue. Still, I post the question here before doing any changes to the article. --PeR 21:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It is a quite good illustration of all the misinformation in this whole affair... Claush66 22:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I've translated the Danish text (see above) and repeated that this and two other images have never been printed by Jyllands-Posten. --Valentinian 22:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

My personal recommendation is not to add the "pig person" picture until we have a translation of the Arabic in the dossier that (may) put it into context. The picture may apear to be an attempt to deceive, but on its own the suggestion of deception it is again potentially misleading, without context. Let's take care not add to misinformation by adding our own. -- Vanitas 22:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. There are conflicting claims about it. --Kizor 23:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. However, I think the fact that the "43p dossier" contains 15 cartoons instead of 12 is interesting regardles of what the arabic text says. When confronted with a thick document, most people tend to just look at the pictures and draw their own conclusions. (In fact, this is the exact reason we're having this discussion. The potentially erroneous claim from the Brussels Journal is already in the article, in text form.) --PeR 23:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The "pig person" is the one aired by BBC and al-Jazeera just before the outbreak of this controversy. It was added to the dossier to illustrate the percieved general hostility against muslims in Denmark. It is supposedly send anonymously to an (as yet) unidentified person MX44 23:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If that is true, then the picture is very relevant, regardles of its original context. --PeR 23:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's the link in any case. --Kizor 03:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the pig snort picture was mad public at MSNBC back in August 15 (and possibly elsewhere) actually falsifies the "fact" in our article that "none of them [the additional images] had previously been published by Jyllands-Posten or any other mainstream media outlet". I dont know if it is worthwile to make this clear, or if it will complicate the paragraph unreasonably as it is contradicted a few lines below? Claush66 09:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The pig-person from the dossier is a derived work with an inscription: "The true face of Muhammad". It is in this context that the picture is unpublished. MX44 11:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yet that is not how the Danish media presents it today. The leading tabloid Ekstra-Bladet, has published the original picture in colour on the frontpage with the header "Imam Photo fraud" . Thus the context is lost on the public. Namely that the picture, apparently sent by an anonymous to a Muslim, in the dossier had the "The true face of Muhammed" comment. 86.52.36.140 16:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

And exactly /what/ did you expect from a tabloid. MX44 05:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, then Wikipedia is a tabloid. I see you have published the picture without the contextual message. That is manipulation on your behalf. Noted.86.52.36.140 13:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE from BBC: For an account of how another picture, allegedly of Muhammad portrayed as a pig but in fact a copy of a photo from a pig-squealing contest in France, played a role, see the end of this article The propaganda factor - the "pig" picture MX44 12:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

So the BBC themselves admit they erroneously portrayed this picture as one of the 12. This makes it highly noteworthy, and it should be included as per the above argumentation. Does anybody feel like doing the image preparation and uploading? --PeR 23:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This is an improvement from the side of BBC, sure. Unfortunately al-Jazeera also aired the footage, reaching a far wider audience. MX44 05:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I have uploaded the picture, and put it in the article. --PeR 08:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It's Time To Reconsider

Moved to Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments#It's Time To Reconsider

Please remove the offensive cartoon

Please remove those cartoons...It is making people more violent, this is a very sensitive issue. If freedom is the right to do anything then why do we needs law ? Article having information about this issue is sufficient enough and there is no need of images.

We as muslims strongly condemn this blasphemous act and demand to remove this cartoon from this site. Islam is a religion of peace and it gives respect to other religions therefore Islam must be respected as well.

Remove those cartoons straightaway.

Danish Hameed

Thank you for your input. We kindly disagree and will be keeping the image. Have a nice day. Kyaa the Catlord 12:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the term "freedom". Anyways, as Kyaa pointed out, we have already decided on this, please check the archives. The image will remain where it is. Hitokirishinji 18:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that the cartoon should stay. Just as few Muslims (even those upset an the initial printing) objected to the BBC publishing the cartoons in an obvious attempt to help people understand the controversy, it is important that these stay here today. It is impossible to understand the controversy without seeing the cartoons. --Einhverfr 00:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There has been a great deal of discussion about this. It's felt that Wikipedia is a reporter and a chronicler. The NPOV, Neutral Point Of View, principle is one of the cornerstones of the project - to the best of our abilities, the encyclopedia does not take sides. Therefore, it can use anti-semitic pictures (examples visible elsewhere on this page) to speak of anti-semitism's existence, instead spereading anti-semitism. Similarily, the cartoons are used here to give information about them and not to voice an opinion. --Kizor 01:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Danish Hameed, we indeed need laws to protect the society against some dangerous things. But if you actually study what the laws say, they definitely do not say that Wikipedia should hide the pictures that are essential for this whole story. On the contrary, the laws give the people freedom of expression, and protect them against those who want to cancel the freedom of expression. Please accept the fact that en.wikipedia.org is a server that follows the laws of the U.S. and the U.K. The Muslims who live in countries where it is not legal to publish pictures, like alqaeda.wikipedia.org, may succeed in erasing the picture. Here it does not work. It is not enough if Mohammed disagrees with being pictured here; Jimbo Wales and the Wikieditors would have to disagree, too. --Lumidek 01:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

alqaeda.wikipedia.org? Be nice, Lumidek. --Kizor 02:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason at all to remove the cartoon - whether anyone finds it offensive or not. Surely the central item of the debate should appear in the article, as there can be no more appropriate picture to explain what the 'issue' is. Robovski 01:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Please remove the offensive cartoon

Please either remove the cartoon or move it down. This cartoon is very offensive to Muslims and Islam worldwide and your polls are obviously biased. By publishing the cartoon you are putting more fuel over the fire already created by this cartoon.

By publishing the cartoon, Wikipedia is acknowledging that it is not offensive to publish this cartoon. There are many Muslims in the world and we need to be more considerate about this issue.

If ever highly controversial cartoons about other religions are published, will you publish them like this? I don't think so.

For knowledge purposes, a description of cartoon is more than enough.

Frank

Please be original and request that we blank the faces instead. Seriously, these cartoons are not more offensive than the work of Richard Wagner. The muslims are overreacting because they have been focusing so much about a kata (martial arts) (to avoid depictions of prophets) they learned, that they have lost the whole point (to avoid idolatry). This is a serious problem, and removing/hiding the picture does no good at all. Please inform yourself about phobias and systematic desensitization. DrJones 23:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, when the anti-jewish cartoons come out from Iran, I'll bet you wikipedia publishes them too. Who are youto tell me what is offensive or not. Our polls are biased? It's a petition. That's the amount of signatures. Westerners are just not offended by this. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should move this headline nearer to the top of the talk page, along with a link to a subpage for separate discussion of this topic. This is probably the most frequent posting, and it seems naïve to think that everyone is going to read the archives before reposting it. --PeR 22:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I actually don't think that the cartoons are the problem but this is not the forum for this discussion. One cannot understand what is making you so upset if we cannot see the cartoons. There is a difference between knowledge and understanding. --Einhverfr 00:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You need to better explain your case. You need to explain, in a secular society (and I'm sure you agree that Wikipedia, and the Internet as a whole, is secular) how an edict by a religious group, trumps freedom of the press. Several people here are doing what they can to avoid offence, and minimise the usage of the image to what is absolutely necessary. However surely given the prominence of the story, I don't see how a complete removal of the images is in anyone's benefit. Surely displaying the images in context, is better for everyone. And has already lead to some interesting results - such that the image that many were objecting to the most, that of Muhammad as a pig's face, was in reality just a poor-quality photograph from some pig-calling contest. By completely removing any images, such truths would never have become known. Besides, as far as I can tell, there is a long history of having images of Muhammad within Islam. The writing in the Koran seems quite vague to me. And interestingly quite similiar to the comments in the bible about having no idols of anyone but God - which given the number of Jesus and Mary statues doesn't seem to be taken very seriously. Nfitz 23:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Frank, we've already gone over this issue many times. This community has virtually unanimously decided to keep the cartoons in the article. Readers have a right to know what the controversy is about, and this right is more important than the right not to be offended. An encyclopedic article about cartoons needs the cartoons, whether they are offensive or not. We can't please everyone, we'll never be able to do that. Our goal is to neutrally and objectively inform and educate, and in order to do that, we need the cartoons. Wikipedia is not censored in any way, shape or form. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 23:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The poll as to whether to keep the image, delete it, or move it down resulted in MORE THAN 80% of respondents voting to keep the image at the top of the page. If you're going to make accusations of the poll being biased, you're going to need to provide some evidence if you want anybody to believe you. BinaryTed 00:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Let us keep the results from the first poll, but conduct a second, longer poll for about a week. We should have at least the following options:

• Muhammad images in article
• Muhammad images linked from article
• Muhammad images in article but blurred with link to unblurred images

ViewFromNowhere 00:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The first two options were already available in the first poll and 80% of the 240+ people who responded went with option 1. Blurred images serve no informative purpose; I honestly don't see how that's a legitimate option. 65.24.88.67 01:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Frank, I would take two issues with your reasoning.

First, I would not agree that the inclusion of any image in Wikipedia implies that the image is, itself, inoffensive. Wikipedia contains many articles which show images that are found to be offensive by some large group of people. I was personally offended by a set of images that used to be associated with the entry for Domestic Violence, (they have been removed, but not for offense, but because of concerns about copyright.) Other people might be offended by the image "The Ethical Jew" at Anti-Semitism, or Serrano's famous image entitled Piss Christ--bothe clear examples of cultures and revered religious figures being treated in a way that large groups of people find deeply offensive. Ergo, publication here does not imply "inoffensive." Let me be clear, I support, save for the copyright concerns, Wikipedia's inclusion of each of those images, in each case, I believe there was an important expository value to providing information the reader needed to make sense of this controversy.

Second, I would not agree that a description of the cartoon is sufficient, although I am a bit less firm on this second point. Descriptions of the cartoons that have appeared in US newspapers have been, quite commonly, inaccurate, even in terms of specific, objective measures (e.g., how many of the twelve published cartoons contain an image of Mohammad, etc.) Worse, many of these descriptions strayed from objective descriptions of the material into interpretation without attributing the interpretation. I, and many readers of news data, find descriptions of such material suspect, and in terms of having enough information to make our own choices about what to support, wish to have access to the cartoons themselves. --Joe Decker 03:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Please remove the cartoon from the page. Provide a link out for those who wish to see it. You are counting voting written in English, which is not relevent to a lot of Muslim. Putting it in is showing insensitivity, self centered. Free speech does not mean the right to insult others. It is not the picture which is offensive. If you put the cartoon title as Bush in Iraq, not many muslim care about it. It is the meanest of spirit behind it, publishing picture which is known will be insulting, and then ask why are you angry? Of course I am angry, and insulted. How can two civilization live together when one keep pushing and hurting physically and mentally the other. Muslim is being killed in Palestine, and Iraq. The western newspaper ignore it, or just show 1 or 2 officer under trial and claimed "Look we have punish them." Well there are thousand of other cases. This is no free speech. It's just selected coverage. Please remove the cartoon from the page. Yosri 13:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course we're only counting votes in English, this is the english language wikipedia. Why would non-english speakers/readers surf it? Please see the archives for more arguments related to your pleading to not be insulted. Thanks. Kyaa the Catlord 13:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

By that logic, I guess we should include the votes of all 1 billion Chinese and all 1 billion Hindus. And for once, those numbers are quite accurate. Wait, why stop there? Hell, we'll have the whole world vote. Who's going with me to North Korea? I'm sure they'll have an opinion. Hitokirishinji 22:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. I got it. If you don't speak English, you not human, your vote not counted. Your religious is irelevent. Your feeling not taken into consideration. Similarly, when American army officer killed a Iraq General, he is release because some instruction to him not clear, wonder what happen to Jerman Nazi officer if he do the thing he did because his life at stake, and if he did not folow instruction he is hanged because crime for humanity.... Thank you very much. Now I see what is western value, equality really is. The cartoon is commission because the editor know this will anger the muslim. It sole purpose is to provoke the muslim, now they asking why the muslim is angry. Of course the muslim is angry. Of course I'm angry and getting angrier with the western responce, and these kind of responce. This cartoon is designed to hurt. Those who support it, show they support this kind of thing. Then do not be suprise if there is retaliation. I do not asked the image be deleted, just no shown in the same page. Those who want to look at it can click at the link in side the article. Yosri 06:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think why anyone is asking why are Muslims angry. I think we're asking what justification is there to be burning builds and killing people over cartoons regardless of how offensive. I do not know any justifiable reason beyond self defense to commit violence and don't try to convince me this is some sort of "self defense". Death and destruction is not justified in this case and in most cases. Hitokirishinji 18:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. And this is how it should be. The fact that you are trying to show us some sort of injustice here merely demonstrates that you seem to be under some sort of delusion that things are, or should be, otherwise, when this is certainly not the case. If you are mortally offended by wikipedia and western values then there is simply no reason for you to visit the english wikipedia, or indeed, any western site.

May I suggest instead, that Yosri continues to visit these sites and think about the issue and consider the consequences that would follow if nothing could be written or shown if it hurt the feelings of anyone. Similarly, we who don't share Yosri's views could consider our own bias and then keep the dialogue going in a better, friendlier and more informed way.--Sir48 10:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

These values are not 'western', call them are human values. Everybody should value freedom.

---

Have a look at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11126728/#survey, 200 voters should not be allowed to insult 1/5th of the world population. These cartoons are simply blasphemous, offensive and contribute nothing to knowledge, and must be removed from the page.

Mumtaz.siddiqui 00:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Cause we all know the enormous amount of influence MSNBC has upon Wikipedia editors and how it entirely represents the Wikipedia community. I better shut up now before the chip implanted in my brain by MSNBC explodes and kills me for blasphemy. Did you happen to notice that little thing on the bottom that says "Not a scientifically valid survey"? Or did you find it convenient to ignore that? Hitokirishinji 00:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Your collective decision is also not scientifically proven as unbiased. Otherwise allow new users to join and participate in a fresh poll. I would request again that please keep the text but remove the blasphemous image. 08:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

And if we do that, what assurance do we have that someone will not use a sockspuppet and a few hundred bogus e-mails to create a few hundred bogus accounts to vote and severely tip the poll in his or her favor? I guess you would consider something like that unbiased. No our poll is not scientific but it reflects the opinion of the editors who have worked on Wikipedia for some time and contribute to it regularly. So I'll put it simply: Request denied. Check the archives. Hitokirishinji 19:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Read your response carefully and decide what does it proves? unbiased polls?

If our poll is biased towards people who actaully care about freedom of expression, Wikipedia, and its philosophy rather than personal, religious or racial objectives than I guess we're biased. Anyways, it's simple, we have decided, nothing you say will change that. Hitokirishinji 17:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

And an even less reliable MSNBC poll doesn't decide our collective position, which has already been decided. The cartoons stay in the article, as they do contribute to knowledge: they allow the reader to see what the controversy is about. And our task as an encyclopedia is to inform. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 00:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll believe that poll as much as I believe the "Wayne Rooney" redirecters here are all different people. Weregerbil 00:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the cartoons should be replaced with a link. At the very least they should not be on the top. Similar potentially offensive pages have pictures at the bottom and a warning at the top with a link. Cuñado - Talk 17:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you give an example? Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 10:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Ouch! I followed the link to this article from Wikinews:Protest against Muhammad caricatures in Paris. Yes, as I know it, Wikipedia is allowed to contain offensive content. However some readers, like myself, want to read about Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy from a neutral point of view without seeing the cartoons themselves. I might replace the image at the top of the article with a link to the "Image:" page, if I have time later. (I will not be burning embassies, wrecking cars, or vandalising wikis if Wikipedia chooses to keep the cartoons in their current position at the top of the article.) --Kernigh 05:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove the image. Doing so is considered vandalism. Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord 06:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Iranian Jew cartoons

So, CNN reported that Iran has put out a request that they'll pay people to make 12 Holocaust cartoons as a counter to free speech. Let me preface this by saying, I'm Jewish. I urge Wikipedians to publish those cartoons. Yes that's right, publish them. The world has a right to see the art (distasteful as I may find the term), and it would put to rest many arguments about THESE cartoons. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No urging is needed, if these "response" cartoons materialize, they'll be here. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure there would have to be a poll or two or three. --JGGardiner 22:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

yeah, I know, but I'm hoping that when these do come out (or if), that someone will remember this and put them up. Not that it won't be national news anyway. I'd find them offensive, but I respect the right for information to be shown. Hell, I'd make an active effort NOT to see them until I could see them first on Wikipedia! Hows that for advertising! ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The Iranians would be about 30 years too late. Several organizations have already printed such cartoons in the United States, and nobody stopped them back then. They won't be stopped now. --Tokachu 23:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope when these holocaust cartoons are published (which we should include on Wikipedia, for sure), the response is generally a big collective shrug of the shoulders and a 'meh, whatever'. It is the only proper response, and might just let those who have been offended by the Muhammed cartoons realise how much they are overreacting. As distasteful as making fun of the holocaust might be, we a) know that it's only a tit-for-tat provocation and b) we have the ability to recognise and accept satire for what it is.Graham 23:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone run across the image published by a Muslim group in Belgium of Hitler in bed with Ann Frank (sp?)? That one would be appropriate as well to show the type of reaction occuring. --StuffOfInterest 23:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well it depends who published it and whether anyone took any notice. An obscure muslim group publishing a provocative cartoon wouldn't be _that_ interesting - and there have been many stories about things happening that are related that turn out not to have happened or to have not been obviously related (the death of a priest comes to mind). Secretlondon 23:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It was good enough to make it on ABC news this evening. They showed the photo. Apparently there were two (both on screen) but the 2nd one wasn't described. Of course, in the next clip, an Imam being interviewed said these photos were no where near as bad as blasphemy against Muhammad. --StuffOfInterest 23:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but it may have been produced to get on the news this evening. It sounds like ABC News was shit stirring too from your description. The media loves sensationalist crap, alas. Secretlondon 00:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

What does the holocaust have to do with Denmark?--Greasysteve13 00:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Because people are being told it's part of a Jewish plot.. Secretlondon 00:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed see here :S AlEX 00:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, what does ANY of this have to do with denmark? Nothing. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 02:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

True. much less than 0.000002% of Danes are responsible for these cartoons.--Greasysteve13 03:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Missed my point Greasysteve13...the point is that This isn't about Denmark. This isn't about the cartoons. It's about dogma and domination, about enforcing one religious view upon the world, whether by conquest or by other methods. It's not about denmark. They're just an excuse. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thats also true but, I don't think the protesters themselves even realise whats going on. (See: irrationality) --Greasysteve13 11:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out several differences between showing the "Muhammad cartoons" and the "Jewish Cartoons" on Wikipedia.

The publishers of the cartoons in Iran do not expect any censorship in publishing the cartoons. They have nothing to risk by publishing. There is no issue of freedom of speech here or oppression from the government, when the President of Iran has called for the destruction of Israel, and publicly denied the holocaust. The newspaper itself maybe owned by a government municipality. Contrast this with the fear of relatiation and a climate of self-sensorship in Denmark.

Notice the difference between publishing anti-jewish and anti-muslim cartoons in Iran. Accountable Government 04:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, there are differences on a thousand levels: but assuming that the Iranian cartoons are notable (which I'm sure they will be), Wikipedia will run them. These kinds of cartoons have been published by various rags in the West (especially the U.S.) for decades, and people just usually don't pay them any attention. I echo the sentiments of Graham, above; I hope the Western reaction to the publication of the Iranian cartoons is a big, bored shrug, even if it's a hot news event in Dar al-Islam. Babajobu 07:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Somebody asked earlier for Anti-Semitic cartoons published in response to the Muhammed contraversy. The Arab-European League is one such organization, and are responsible for the publication of the Hitler/Anne Frank cartoon that was asked for. I leave it to you wikipedian regulars to decide whether to include it or not. Richard 129.244.23.160 14:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

WOW!! The AEL is posting some extrordinarily offensive pictures and yet there's calm in the "Western democracies." It's almost as if "Westerner's" believe in this freedom of speech crap.--64.251.0.102 15:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep the cartoons, we have the right to show the actual cartoon on the sight and we shouldnt cave in because a few muslims want us to take it down, do wew always have to be "sensitive" to others, next thing you know, to be "sensitive", we'll start removing the Jesus page, because little itty bitty muslims don't want to look at a false messaih... BTW im an atheist communist and i hate all religion, but the muslims take the cake, the ussr would have talked some sens into these muslim fanatics.Also i know the USSR didnt have freedom of press, which i support whole heartedly, its just the USSR didnt take shit from anyone, which is needed in these times. You should scare the shit out of these little embassy buring crackpots. If the USSR had invaded Afganistan, we wouldnt be having this discussion, the Mujahadin would have been rotting in some prison in Moscow and we all be happy and free on the shackles of religion, free of the opium of the people.

How are cartoons depicting a prophet analogous to cartoons depicting the slaghter of humans? Jewish orthodoxy says the image of God shouldn't (or can not) be illustrated. Maybe some illustrations of the Jewish God are in order. Opps.. there are already childerns' book with those images.. ----

Some thing that I could not understand so far, I will appreciate if you can make it clear. In the newspaper there are always certain limits as to how much of graphical content they can show e.g. a nude woman, a molested dead body etc. In Austria, for example, it is common to see that newspapers show women breasts but not the lower part. Why do we have these limits? I think its to protect those who should not or may not watch these pictures and these pictures can be offensive to them. Can we use the same analogy for these cartoons? Can we say that the newspapers should not print such pictures as they are offensive to a big majority?

One other thing I have noticed is the confusion between making a picture of Prophet Mohammad and making a cartoon of Prophet Mohammad. I have read it at so many places that Islam does not allow that pictures be made of God and Prophet Mohammad. While I agree, but beleive me if someone would have drawn a very nice looking picture of Prophet Mohammad then even though its not allowed and some people would still have objected, majority would have been quite. This issue is not JUST making cartoon, issue is making fun of the prophet and portraying him as a 'bad guy'. Prophet Mohammad is somone that is very dear to Muslims and whether or not they practise on what he has said, they are not willing to compromose on any thing that is disrespectful to him.

One other thing I would like to highlight is that every society has sacred cows. In Austria, law does not allow anyone to deny Holocost. Similary, anyone seen by the police raising his arm like the Nazis and saying Hi Hitler can be put in jail. In US, its a crime to burn the national flag. If such things exists in other socities then why people are surprised that Muslims are so conservative? Amir Hayat

You said "In US, its a crime to burn the national flag." By US, do you mean United States? Flag-burning has been ruled by the US Supreme Court to be constitutionally protected free speech. The US House of Representatives has passed amendments banning flag desecration in each of its last six sessions, however not one has made it through the US Senate, let alone completed the ratification process. For more information on how this issue has been handled in the United States, see Flag desecration and Flag Desecration Amendment.-- BinaryTed 21:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure people have twigged what's really going on here. As I see it, the main aim of the people most vocal in stirring up the righteous indignation against the cartoons is to enhance muslim solidarity and try and mend the cracks that have opened up between westernised moderate muslims and hardliners and the Shia-Sunni divide. They have done this at the expense of doing much to close the divide which had been opening up between Europe and the US. if you think about it there are three aspects to this cartoons that muslims find offensive. (1) the fact that they show pictures of Muhammad. This is in many ways the "official reason" for finding them offensive. Is it the real underlying reason? I don't think so. The idea behind having no pics of the prophet is to stop people from worshipping him rather than Allah himself (in the same way that Protestants got sniffy (well actually it was more murder and mayhem at the height of the dispute) about Catholics starting to worship statues of Jesus, the Virgin Mary, and the saints etc). From an islamic perspective there are not syupposed to be picstures and statues of the other prophets either but we've yet to see people blowing up statues of Jesus (though of course the tallibn did just that to the Big Buddhas). (2) The association of Muhammad and Islam with terrorism. I think this is the big issue for most Western moderate muslims. They are pretty hacked off with the fact that since al Qaeda started blowing things up, westerners have tended to be a little suspicious of them. The radical firebrands who have been stirring things up however and many of the people waiving Kalashnakov's in Afghanistan and Gaza of course don't have a big problem with associating Islam with terrorism as they see it as just a brave way of the underdog fighting a technologically superior force. However they have pretended to be very annoyed to get the moderates on side. (3) there is the issue that the drawings are cartoons and cartoons are supposed to be funny so in the mind of the muslim mobs in the Middle East, Afghanisatn that means the West is laughing at themand their religious beliefs, which in their culture is something which cannot be tolerated as muslim culture tends to be dominated by the concept of Shame rather than the Guilt of the JudeaChristian West.o modern science. The publication of the anti Holocaust pictures needs to be seen as a further attempt by those looking to unify muslims against the West (in this case in particular the Iranians who of course want united muslim support re their nuclear weapon plans) and isolate the moderate western muslims. Of course they know that the reaction of Westerners will be to shrug these images off and just think that it confirms their prejudice that all muslims are fact denying, racists. The main losers of all this are the many millions of moderate European muslims who just want to work hard and get on with their lives in Europe. They will suffer increasing alienation from their host societies as it becomes clear that the radicals have instituted de facto censorship in the name of all muslims through the use of terror. The main winners will be the Iranians who figure this may make getting nuclear weapons easier, the more right wing Americans who will be able to say a massive "I told you so" to liberal Europeans, The Syrians who may be able to recover from their recent troubles in Lebanon and the Chinese who will be figuring that this will strengthens their position as customner of oil and supplier of manuafcatured goods to the Middle East. All because of a few cartoons! WadeLondon 19:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted section

I've removed a section added by 65.96.9.239 (talk · contribs) ("It should be noted, however, that the thousands of Muslims engaged in the violent protests, bomb and kidnapping threats, etc. are not angered by one of the cartoons' implication that "all Muslims are violent terrorists" (or vice versa) since their reaction would otherwise lend some support to that very idea. Similarly, those violent protesters (who have made this issue the current event that it is) are not motivated by a universalist notion of respect of all religions and races. Rather, their reaction is an authentic, tribal anger.") as original research, barely verifiable, generalization (by claiming that they all act out of a tribal anger, thereby preemptively excluding any other possibilities) and perhaps pov. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 23:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Attack on hotdog stand

In the rumours and misinformation section there is a report of an incident in Copenhagen which apparently never took place. How many unimportant non-events should we have? I can fabricate as many as you'd like :D MX44 00:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

If people reading the Wikipedia article have heard of the report (which they may well have), it will be useful for us to debunk the rumor. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

But this incidence (unlike the rumour of quran burning) is of absolutely no consequence to the developement of the story. MX44 00:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's another vote for the removal of the 'Hot Dog' story... the whole thing does sound rather spurious. Netscott 01:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to inform about it since it has twice been on the front page of the Danish national TV station's news section. The background is that the owner of a hot dog stand reported an assault, however, the police now believe that the report was false and he has been charged with falsly reporting a crime. TH 19:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

What?! Somebody brought that? It wasn't even related to the cartoons >_< Apocryphite 02:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Please find a better link for larger versions of images

Currently, we link to www.faithfreedom.org for larger versions of the images. Can we find a different link (e.g. http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/698), please?

I'm not a Muslim myself, but I find www.faithfreedom.org to be hatefully inflammatory; sample quote: "Islam induces hate backed by lies. Muhammad was a terrorist by his own admission." Linking to such a site just to get a copy of images that are available elsewhere is unnecessary and unwise, in my opinion.

—Steven G. Johnson 00:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable ... though the ones in that brusselsjournal.com link are a bit more compressed, with the text not quite as clear. And also has other text as well. I spotted another source at one point, where you had to click through 12 slides, that appeared to be even clearer. Anyone remember that one? Nfitz 00:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

No the FF link is better , it is just image no text.--CltFn 01:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, we just use this instead. We don't link to the page. Most important is reliability of the site and NPOV of the site is a bonus because even though it is unlikely people will seek out more on the sites--if they do it's better not to bring them to the doorstep of partisans. If there is a more non-partisan site we use it. I choose faithfreedom for now because the compression is better on it. I hope you would agree that a site like CNN (if it had a comprable image) should be linked to over FFI. gren グレン ^? 08:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that www.faithfreedom.org is not desirable as a source, but I think that the most important thing is that we get a link to a version of the images which is as large, readable, and dependable as possible. Unfortunately, most "mainstream" outlets do not show the cartoons, but if someoen can find a mainstream link that is better than this one please feel free to replace it at will. I, however, was unable to do so as of this message. Savidan 21:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Full size (readable), in English images of the Muhammed cartoons can be viewed at, http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21127 The comic book, 'Mohammed's Believe It or Else!' can be viewed and downloaded at, http://islamcomicbook.com/ Both sites offer lots of interesting info about the reality of Islam. [User: PeterCurtis] 16:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Muslim reactions

Have taken out the following:

Other commentators have noted that Muslim requests for greater "sensitivity" in the Western press are spurious, given that (a) the cartoons themselves were not particularly offensive, well below the norm for editorial cartoons generally, and (b) the general lack of respect in Islamic state-sponsored press for other religions, as noted above, as well as the outright destruction by Islamic governments of other religions' landmarks. The real issue, according to these commentators, is not Muslim hypocrisy, but rather, Islamic supremacism.

This is already explained in the paragraph, but most of all the last part is a rather strong statement which it is not substantiated by sources. I think if we cannot provide a source it is too POV to include.-- Nomen Nescio 00:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I changed

However, this assumes that the because some Muslims publish anti-Semitic material, all Muslims are guilty by association. In addition, these critics are unaware that Muslims around the world have condemned terrorism [1].

into:

However, it is countered that this assumes that because numerous Arab countries sponsor publishing anti-Semitic material, there should be an equivocal denouncement by Muslims.[2]

The reasons are: 1 There is no logical fallacy since nobody claims all Muslims are guilty of anti-Semetism. They are merely silent on the subject. 2 Although some Muslims object to the anti-Semetism it is more than evident the general reaction by Muslims is not comparable to what they do when confronted with perceived anti-Islamic books-pictures-films-plays.

My version more accurately, and in less POV fashion, describes the mood I think.-- Nomen Nescio 01:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a completely different sentence. The statement was in response to this line:

Commentators find the reactions from the Muslim community hypocritical. They point to the numerous anti-Semitic and anti-Christian publications in Arab media. One website, Filibuster Cartoons pointed out this criticism in (oddly enough) a political cartoon.

This is the Filibuster cartoon. The argument seems to be that Muslims should not complain about material they find offensive when [Muslims] themselves create anti-Semitic images. ViewFromNowhere 01:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

No, since their media is abundant with anti-Semetic images. Not that they are making them. Please see this

they believe it is odd that cartoons are considered blasphemous when terrorist attacks in the name of Islam are not equally condemned by Muslims.

However, they clearly do not make as much objections as in this case.-- Nomen Nescio 01:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

1. The filibuster cartoon specifically seems to emphasize creation rather than lack of condemnation.
2. How do you measure the level of Muslim condemnation of terrorist attacks? There seem to be a lot. The problem is that the media tends to concentrate on interesting stories, so actual terrorist attacks would make front page news, while Muslim condemnations of terrorist attacks would not. Lack of media coverage of Muslim condemnation does not indicate a lower level of condemnation.

ViewFromNowhere 01:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thinking of the response to i.e. 9-11-2001, I remember few condemnations but many festive people in the Muslim community. Personally I have never seen Muslims react to terrorist attacks, anti-Semitism, killing of women that apparently harm the family name (marrying non-muslims, being raped, et cetera), as they are to perceived anti-Islamic cartoons.-- Nomen Nescio 02:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Still, we can't generalize from anecdotal experience, can we? ViewFromNowhere 02:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Give me some time and I will insert sources. Sincerely-- Nomen Nescio 03:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

All right. But Muslims in your area of the Netherlands do not represent all Muslims in the West. ViewFromNowhere 03:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice try, but you know in Gaza they also were elated.-- Nomen Nescio 04:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know Gaza was in the West.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I'm speaking of the Muslims I know who condemn terrorism. Let's try not to generalize people, okay? ViewFromNowhere 06:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not talking about Muslims in the west. Muslims means, the same people worldwide that today feel offended. So, I refer to Muslims in every country. And when we look at the Middle-East and Asia (Pakistan?) I remember many people supporting OBL and demonising Bush in stead of the current condemnation.-- Nomen Nescio 11:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete this sentence: "They believe it is odd that cartoons are considered blasphemous when terrorist attacks in the name of Islam are not equally condemned by Muslims." --Terrorist Attacks ARE condemnded by all non-fundamentalist moslem groups, first of all, so this statement is false and secondly it is unnecessary and superfluous. The point has already been made, and an encyclopedia should not contain vague persons known as "They..." making specific judgements about any group of people be they jew christian, moslem, gay straight, black or white. Madangry 20:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Last I checked, Muslims weren't burning down the Saudi embassy in their country based on funding supplied to terrorists by the House of Saud. And that's a case where the actual government is responsible. So no, Muslims as a whole don't condemn terrorists as much as they've condemned these drawings, assuming you accept massive protests and the like as a mark of condemnation (and to do otherwise would seem rather odd). Many subsets of the Muslims, of course, may do otherwise. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Topic needs RELOCKING

In the span of last 2 hours there has been several acts of anonymous vandalism... can we go back to having this topic locked now? Netscott 01:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. ViewFromNowhere 01:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Azate 02:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. There have been many instances of repeated vandalism over the past 12 hours. Vinkmar 19:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I only see 2 vandals in the last hour. One clearly was a child and did no damage. The other deleted content, but seems to be the usual pattern of vandalism on articles listed on the Main Page. Nothing really unusual going on here! Nfitz 02:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, the article is no longer linked from the front page. Babajobu 07:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Remove some sections

I propose to remove the following sections, because of very limited usefulness:

• 8.2 Bounty on cartoonists. Reason: there are enough documented death threats. if one of them was blown out of proportion is no longer significant.
• 8.7 Muslim organizations in Denmark. Reason: to refute one tangential statement on swedish tv about an organization that is not central to the debate is superfluous.

It is the organization who toured the middle east, but I agree SVTs comments are out of scope. MX44 05:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• 8.8 Confusion between editors-in-chief. Reason: This guy has been incorrectty identified, but the error appears not to have been spread.
• 8.9 Opinion of the Queen of Denmark. Reason: The mistranslation has not been widely covered or been commented upon.

The mistranslation was used as a headline in arabic press.MX44 05:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

(Btw., did you know the article links to a site where you can get a "live fatwa" online? [3]

Azate 02:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

support Lotsofissues 03:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

'Comparable incidents — "freedom of speech" versus "blasphemy"' should go, too. All the events listed there are covered in detail in Freedom of speech versus blasphemy, which is clearly linked. Azate 04:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I tried cutting but I was reverted. I'll support you if you try again. Lotsofissues 04:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Support. This article really needs to be shortened. "Freedom of speeceh vs. blasphemy" is a good example of content that is out of scope for this article, but which should be linked and briefly summarized. --PeR 07:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Support... to make this article better but text should be saved to be placed in a sub article if a relevant one arises. gren グレン ^? 09:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Support. I suspect that there will be a lot of good editorial article compression if the vandalism disappears. Too much vandalism/reversal makes it hard to edit well.DanielDemaret 09:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Opposed to the removal of 8.2. A ficticious story about a financial award or a bounty on a person's life from a named organisation is very different than a mere threat from an anonymous source. Relevance pertaining to the issue is a possible incident of misinformation by the press. 86.52.36.140 15:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Opposed On the gounds that the removals have not maintained antiquate sumeries! 8.2 should stay. 8.7 should stay as it cleared up *considerable* missinformation about the real prominance of this organization. 8.9 should stay too. 8.8 can go. JeffBurdges 22:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Opposed 8.7 and 8.9 clears up considerable misunderstandings that I've encountered several places.130.225.96.2 04:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

International laws related to the issue - section

This section just states the primary source of the treaty... not any real legal interpretation (which is necessary) or who and how scholars have related this to the current incidents. Unless someone can do that it should be removed. Likely there should be a sentence about how this situation relates to international law and the body text should be footnoted. gren グレン ^? 03:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Interpreting international right, or even judging what can be applicable, it one of the trickier problems around. Unless we happen to get a contribution from a top professional on this subject, putting a link to the treaty itself is maybe the smart thing to do. Azate 03:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I have not seen an outside source mention it. Take it out. Lotsofissues 03:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Noteworthy?

The editorial staff of the alternative weekly New York Press walked out today, en masse, after the paper's publishers backed down from printing the Danish cartoons that have become the center of a global free-speech fight.[4]

I think it is, and someone should put it in the article. Although NYP is a small newspaper, it is significant that the entire editorial staff of a newspaper has resigned over the decision not to publish the cartoons. Valtam 05:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Kizor 09:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust cartoons

Can someone confirm that Farid Mortazavi, graphics editor of Hamshahri, said the following:

"The Western papers printed these sacrilegious cartoons on the pretext of freedom of expression, so let's see [if] they mean what they say and print these Holocaust cartoons"

If so, wtf?! Exactly what does he hope to achieve? If they do that, wouldn't this then make the cartoons legitimate, as Muslims are doing the exact same thing to Jews, who did not write the cartoons? And why is he targetting Jews in the first place? I wasn't aware that the Jyllands-Posten chief editor was a Jew in the first place! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I find these things much easier to understand if I first assume everyone involved is an idiot. --Kizor 08:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

A lot of countries formerly occupied by Nazi Germany (including Germany itself, but excluding Russia) has anti-anti-Semitic laws. I assume they prosecute for it. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 09:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

CITATION:

World leaders rally round as crisis deepens;Cartoons Anthony Browne 677 words 7 February 2006 The Times

Lotsofissues 05:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Please -- what makes people think Wikipedia (or any western media) will be afraid to reprint their stupid cartoons? We have lots of Antisemitic imagery on Wikpedia, showcased as such, and we will showcase the holocaust cartoons as a testimony to the stupidity of Mortazavi or whoever within the minute they are available. Reporting that Iranian newspapers indulge in Holocaust denial does not amount to actual holocaust denial, just like reporting that Danish cartoonists makes fun of Muhammad does not amount to actually making fun of Muhammad. dab (ᛏ) 07:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Antisemitic poster (Germany 1937)
  Antisemitic poster (Germany 1937)
• Antisemitic poster (Germany 1938)
  Antisemitic poster (Germany 1938)
• KKK deny-in
  KKK deny-in
• Antisemitic caricature, Syrian newspaper Tishreen, 2000
  Antisemitic caricature, Syrian newspaper Tishreen, 2000

Agreed. State-run media in the Muslim world publish this sort of trash all the time...but since this particular publication will be notable, we'll be happy to include it. Babajobu 08:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see how we couldn't, since the project is essentially founded on the dissemination of information - not to mention the very strong precedent set by the prominent display of the cartoons in this article. --Kizor 08:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, this article here didn't set a precedent at all. We've always published "offensive images", including images offensive to Jews, without any problem. See the four images to the rightabove. Babajobu 09:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

True, true, though this would certainly be the instance most often invoked if we wouldn't publish the denial cartoons. --Kizor 12:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Probably so, but the only way we wouldn't publish them would be if they didn't attain notability, and that's extremely unlikely. Babajobu 16:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

How can this be rewritten?

Embarrassingly bad prose:

Criticism of Muslim reactions

"Commentators find the reactions from the Muslim community hypocritical.[3] They point to the numerous anti-Semitic and anti-Christian publications in Arab media.[4][5] One website, Filibuster Cartoons pointed out this criticism in (oddly enough) a political cartoon [6]. Furthermore, they believe it is odd that cartoons are considered blasphemous when terrorist attacks in the name of Islam are not equally condemned by Muslims.[7][8] Also, aniconism is not limited to Islam, yet violent outcry like this seems to be more frequent in Muslim society.

In addition, they think it is remarkable that in countries like Syria, where demonstration is short of impossible, riots could result in buildings being burned.[9] Considering the current Hariri investigation, this is not an inconvenient distraction for Syria.[10]

However, it is countered that this assumes that because numerous Arab countries sponsor publishing anti-Semitic material, there should be an equivocal denouncement by Muslims.[11].

In contrast, Muslims are angry that the cartoons portray the Muslim religion as promoting terrorism because of the actions of a few of its members."

Lotsofissues 05:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Great job azate

Much improved.

Lotsofissues 05:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Left opinion link

I think JuanCole.com should be cited under the "opinons of the left" comment on the main page; he has lots of good analysis of the topic. He makes the case against the Right reaction in the west pretty well.

http://www.juancole.com/2006/02/more-on-hypocrisy-of-west-and.html http://www.juancole.com/2006/02/caricatures-roil-muslim-world-beirut.html

I can write in a blog too. Yippee. Does he have some special credibility that Joe Coffee at Live Journal doesn't? Kyaa the Catlord 09:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

He is notable. David Sneek 11:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It still remains a blog. I'd avoid using a blog as a source if at all possible. Find someone who actually got published. I could find five hundred live journal or blogspot entries on this, but that doesn't make them a good source. Kyaa the Catlord 11:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Juan Cole is a professor at the University of Michigan. He has been published in The Guardian, The San Jose Mercury News, Salon, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Boston Review ,The Nation, Tikkun, The Journal of the International Institute, and others [5]. Technorati.com puts his blog among the top 100 most popular blogs.[6] Suggesting he is just a random blogger is objectively wrong.--Snorklefish 16:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Once his views are published in a periodical, I'd be happy to support their use as a source. Until then, blogs don't cut it. If you want to use The New York Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post, cool. But a blog is a blog, the credibility is questionable. Kyaa the Catlord 17:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Your argument seems to be shifting rapidly. Are you questioning the relative political prominence of Juan Cole on the left, or are you questioning he wrote what he wrote? The factual accuracy of what Juan Cole writes is inapposite to the issue of "OPINION" on the left.--64.251.0.102 18:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Snorklefish

There are many wikipedia articles that link to posts by notable bloggers. According to what guideline do you conclude "blogs don't cut it"? David Sneek 18:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

We refer to blogs for minor issues in which blog posts by a notable person are significant. For an issue that has made headlines worldwide for an extended period of time, publishing comments from a blog seems inappropriate. Babajobu 03:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Cole is notable enough as a ME scholar to link to his blog even here. But anyway, he reworked some of his posts for a Salon piece: [7] David Sneek 07:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Guardian linking to us

The Guardian is linking to our copy of the cartoons. Babajobu 09:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ooooh, quick, get one of those penis vandals back. :P Kyaa the Catlord 09:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

We can return the favour, although [All in all, you'd better not look at this.]

It seems a problem that the Guardian link is to the image page, where one has to perform several 'goal-dircted' clicks to get to the actual article. I imagine that many people who come via the Guardian link will only get to the image, and from thereon, to the discussion page. There ought to be a clear indication as to where to click to get to the article. 86.139.217.222 12:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Mila

Were the cartoons republished in Egypt back in October?

This blog post "Cartoons were Published Five Months ago in Egypt" claims that the Jyllands-Posten cartoons were republished in an Egyptian newspaper in October, without any great reaction. Can anyone confirm this report? -- Avenue 10:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about it, but I suspect this is a hoax. If this were published in October, then it will be a hot topic in October last year. Some people like to add fuel to fire. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 11:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

They were originally published in Demark on 30 September, 2005. This blog is claiming Egyptian publication on 17 October, 2005. Paper:Al Fager. However it's just another POV blog.. Secretlondon 14:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

An update: scans of the relevant pages of the paper are now posted on that blog [8]. Different scans of the paper have been posted in a separate blog. Admittedly both blogs have a strong POV, but this seems like enough confirmation for us to comment on it. -- Avenue 22:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell we can cite it just because it's a fact. Ignore their analysis and use their scans as a primary source. We can't analyze what this means yet... but we can say that they were published in Egypt a long time ago. gren グレン ^? 05:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The story have just been published/confirmed in a famous Danish paper citing the Danish ambassador in Egypt, Bjarne Sørensen. "Jyllands-posten:Muhammed-tegninger trykt i Egypten" Claush66 16:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The cartoons were published in the egyptian newspaper Al Fagr in October. The blog egyptiansandmonkey.blogspot.com showed this and suddenly changed the course of the events on Feb 8. If an egyptian newspaper published the pictures during ramadan and there were no protests... That's an indication that the later demonstations were not spontaneous but rather put in place by political and religious leaders. The blog egyptiansandmonkey.blogspot.com should be mentioned and be given appropriate credit.

Who demonstrated in Hillerød?

In "Burning the Qur'an" it was earlier stated (by me) that 40 extreme right wings and neo nazists did demonstrate in Hillerød. Kyaa the Catlord have changed this to "40 people did demonstrate..." noting that the right wings were mentioned above. But in the above paragraph, it was only mentioned that the RWs spread an SMS. If their relation is not repeated below, the connection is lost.

Actually several hundred people demonstrated in Hillerød that day, all but the 40 RWs in a counter demonstration against those. Hundreds of police officers kept them apart and took more than a hundred to the police station. I think it is plain wrong to state that only 40 people demonstrated in Hillerød. But the relevant information here is that (only) 40 RIGHT WINGS demonstrated in Hillerød. I suggest this detail is added back into the article. Claush66 10:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I removed your change. If you want to add that forty right wingers protested do it, just make sure you do so in a way that makes it apparent that these are seperate from the previous ones. It seemed like all the right wingers in that section were the very same right wingers. Your language was also very suspect you stated something like 40 "extremely right wing...." Tone that down please. Kyaa the Catlord 11:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I will insert "right wing". Anyway I think I originally wrote "extreme right wing", not "extremely". They ("Dansk Front") together with the nazis really do mark the outer edge of the political spectre in Denmark, (where btw nazisim is not illegal due to our now famous liberal free speech policy). Claush66 11:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

If they're wikified, why don't you put forty Dansk Front members? Or better yet, wikilink them, then create their article since they're not. :P Kyaa the Catlord 11:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

They are not wikified (I checked when writing about the demonstration). It is a rather small organisation, and I dont know much about them other than highly racist and provocative right wing propaganda from them and that they often appear with hailing Danish Nazis and someone calling themselves White Pride. I am not able to create a balanced wiki entry about them based on that, and I am not really that interested in them... But it would sure be nice if someone else could do the job. Claush66 12:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Footnote numbering

I would love to contribute something inflammatory to this discussion page, but this is all I can come up with: If I move my mouse over the numbers that link to the footnotes, the URL that appears does not correspond correctly, e.g.: footnote 69 links to Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#_note-65. Not very important, I know, but how to fix it? David Sneek 11:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is a bug. The links point to the right place. Footnotes are numbered in order, starting with one. Links are numbered starting from zero, skipping over named links, as in: <ref name="some_name"/> --PeR 11:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see it now. David Sneek 19:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

See also

Can editors limit the see also section to the really relevant links? Holocaust denial seems out of place. Otherwise I would suggest inserting racism, right-wing politics, anti-semetism, Islam, Holy figures in Islam, Holy figures in Christianity, the Bible, The Koran, The Thora, et cetera. You get the picture, it makes the list too long. -- Nomen Nescio 11:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, its really too long. I think we really need to shorten the list. --

Terence Ong(恭喜发财) 11:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

If you read the article you'll note it makes mention of so-called "Zionist Conspiracies"--Greasysteve13 11:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss adding these irrelevant links. Holocaust denial surely is not relevant. We are not comparing history with religion.-- Nomen Nescio 12:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You cannot honestly claim that IMMIGRATION is not relevant, can you ????? This is So sill, I dint know where to start!!!" Azate 12:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain what immigration has to do with this subject? -- Nomen Nescio 12:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Azate I understand you feel strongly about it but at least give some arguments. There could be links to similar incident (you remove them), but I do not understand why your links are related to this story. Please discuss. Just inserting your POV is not civil.-- Nomen Nescio 13:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

See also isn't a dumping ground for wikilinks - if it's linked elsewhere in the article we don't have it at the end as well. Secretlondon 13:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

(discussion inserted from editors talk page)

This is not related to the article so please remove it. I will observe the 3RR rule, but you could at least engage in the discussion I started. Furthermore, if you insist on this, than I insist upon inserting sociology, anthropology, racism, ant-semitism. This clearly is not relevant.-- Nomen Nescio 12:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The idea that IMMIGRATION has nothing to to with this article is is so absurd, I don't know where to start. Notice all these weird-looking brown people in Denmark, who are rumoured to pray to allah? I tell you a secret: they're immigrants! And btw: The Wiki links section is the last place in this huge article that needs to be trimmed. Azate 13:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you (plural) also removed CONTROVERSIAL NEWSPAPER CARRICATURES together with IMMIGRATION ( and 2 or 3 more) . Whazzup with that?? Azate 13:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The link is still in the article, so you are incorrect. As to immigration, please explain why you think it should be mentioned! You can do it here.-- Nomen Nescio 13:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's in the article because it put it back twice after you removed it (twice). If you can't figure yourself why immigration is related to this topic, I can't help you. Go ask sombody else. Azate 13:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, now you also removed the Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy link. Shall I exolain to you why this is related relevant to this article? Azate 13:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect: [9]and that's why you inserted it twice, which I had to correct.[10] The timeline is superfluous.

Let's try and stay calm. I am only asking you to discuss. That is all.-- Nomen Nescio 13:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I object to your calling 'correcting' what is nothing more that deleting relevant links, for unfathomable reasons. WHY did you delete CONTROVERSIAL NEWSPAPER CARRICATURES, for example? Oh, and IMMIGRATION, again? Azate 14:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Please, first look at the edit before repeating that accusation. It clearly shows it is present after my edit, and there was a second entry of it which I removed along with other duplicate edits.-- Nomen Nescio 14:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

A 3 day poll gives Wikipedia no right to promote racism

I draw your attention to this 4 part article (below) that goes into great detail about why these cartoons are highly offensive and promote racism.

By publishing these cartoons, Wikipedia is promoting racism. People who polled in your polls are obviously not sensitive to the feelings of Muslims worldwide. I believe its a highly biased poll.

The controversy has been going on since Sept 30 and all you did was a 3-day poll? That's not very fair. I didn't get to vote in that poll and hundreds of thousands of other people also didn't know that there was a poll going on.

Governments of many countries, including the US have come out and officially said that these cartoons are offensive.

A highcourt in Johannesberg, South Africa ruled to stop Sunday Times from publishing these cartoons.

Please take these images down ASAP or I feel Muslims will have no choice but to take the matter to the court of law.

Wikipedia is benefitting from promoting racism and hate against Muslims and Islam, something that is not very Wikipedian.

And to those Jews and Christians who say go publish cartoons about their religion, obviously don't respect their religion as much.

The issue is racism: http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8267 Freedom to Spread Hate? http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8243 Cartoon caricatures were designed to offend http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8274

Please remove the images immediately.

Frank --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankmash (talk • contribs) ^{Scaife 11:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)}

I think that society as a whole needs to rereview their ideas about racism if they feel that a few satirical images of Mohammed is spreading race hatred. Hey, colour me insensitive, but something seems wrong with this picture. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see the socialist worker going to bat for the sanctity of religious belief. Christian fundamentalists are also looking forward to your solidarity on a range of issues. Regardless, all the issues you raise have already been addressed ad nauseum on these talk pages. Go read them. We are not "promoting racism", we are providing a key image relevant to a major event. Babajobu 12:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Now away with all your superstitions ... No saviour from on high delivers. Its been a couple of years since I was at a Socialist Worker conference... do they still sing the internationale at the end? - FrancisTyers 14:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

'We are not "promoting racism", we are providing a key image relevant to a major event'.

Which means you are promoting racism. The image itself promotes racism, don't you get it? It tells the world that Islam is the source of terrorism and to get rid of terrorism, they should get rid of Islam.

Frank

• Last I checked, Islam was not a race. Kulturkampf is not the same as racism. In any case, Wikipedia is not endorsing the content of the image by displaying it. There is instead a general rule that, as an encyclopedia, we show relevant content for articles, regardless of how offended people might be. If that means a jesus made of feces on a toilet crucifix or trotsky on fire dancing to a fiddle, if it's relevant to an article, it should be included. --Improv 12:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I love those socialist worker party links. Maybe I can find something from New Republic or Fox News to counter them. :D Kyaa the Catlord 12:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Frank, Wikipedia includes a great many offensive images, some of which you might regard as promoting negative images of particular groups. For example, see images such as this one, one of several in Wikipedia that document Nazi propaganda against Jews; or see Piss Christ, which includes an image woefully offensive to Christians. As Improv says, the inclusion of images relevant to various stories does not equate to endorsement of those images. Likewise, including an image of burnt-out Danish embassies is not an endorsement of the burning down of those embassies. This is a pretty simple concept to grasp, and Wikipedia assumes the vast majority of its readers are capable of making it. Babajobu 12:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

what Babajobu said. Now let's hope people capable of complaining here are also capable of reading so we won't have to reiterate this simple argument every five minutes. dab (ᛏ) 14:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• As far the threat of Muslims taking this to the court of law... Wikipedia is subject to Federal laws of the United States, and the laws of the State of Florida. If you believe the publication of this image violates a specific Florida or US law, I'm sure many of us would be interested to know which law that is. BinaryTed 14:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make legal threats again Frank. It is against Wikipedia policy and will not be tolerated, especially since you cannot provide to me state or federal statute that it violates. See WP:NLT⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

In short: no way, Frank, no matter how many times you keep whining about this. Yes, this image may be offensive to some. So be it. We're here to inform, we're not here not to offend. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 22:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Is every third comment on this talk page going to be a post by Frank demanding the removal of these images? Give it up Frank, the cartoons stay. Slimdavey 00:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Can't we just create a daughter talk page for requests for removal...? It would save a lot of space on this page. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 11:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Can someone put a signature on "Frank"'s posts? He should be signing them with --~~~~. That's two dashes, four tildes. --Tokachu 17:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion its totally stupid to have a poll about minority rights. Do you think that a poll in nazi germany would have saved the jews???? Raphael 22:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

Once again the article's getting outrageously long, and once again I'm the one who has to do the dirty work. I'm moving the "Opinions" section to a new article, Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. People would have to move the appropriate references and talks to the subarticle. Aucaman^Talk 12:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I strongly oppose. This should remain in the article. If you have to edit something out remove the rumours. That clearly is not that important as discussion on the subject at hand. Could you reinsert the opinions and make a new rumours article?-- Nomen Nescio 12:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The idea is to retain the information and still have the head article be shorter. The article was extremely long. It's highly undesirable - both for readers and for editors. I've moved everything to the new article. You're free to move the important things back into the head article, but I recommend summarizing the whole thing into 3-8 paragraphs. I know this is a lot of work, but article size is very important. The "Rumors" section is already very short. The information is not enough for a new article. Aucaman^Talk 12:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand and support why you did it. However, there are less important parts to the page as I said. Clearly rumours do not need to be in the main page when commentary is removed? Personally, I think commentary should always be at the same page. People should not have to look for it. Otherwise, they can just as well search themselves on the Net.-- Nomen Nescio 12:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

We absolutely need a summary at least. No section should be moved without providing a summary of its contents in this, the main article on the topic. Babajobu 12:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I also made a subsection on "International reactions" last week. That was arguably more important than the "Opinions" section (In fact, back then I was asked why I'm not moving the Opinions section). Just don't panic. This is a routine procedure. If the section contains important information, people would rise up and summarize the information back into the article. Aucaman^Talk 13:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Good luck with writing that summary for "opinions"... Azate 13:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one who suggested it be moved in the first place. We'd be better off moving rumors out, and leaving opinions in, as Nomen suggests. Babajobu 13:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

We reinsert the opinions and exchange it for rumours!!!-- Nomen Nescio 13:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

What you're doing is counterintuitive. I said the reason I moved these information was because the article's getting too long. I doubt taking out rumors would help in any way. Aucaman^Talk 13:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, not terribly much since I moved some of them around to places they fit better. I'm considering the remainders and thinking about moving them somewhere where they make more sense. What does the membership claims of Islamisk Whatever have to do with this article anyways? Or right wingers acting out? They may seem, distantly, related, but I'm not sure this is the best place for them. Kyaa the Catlord 13:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Nomen is saying remove the "rumors and disinformation" section to a separate article before doing so with the "opinions" section, because the latter section is more fundamental to the article. I agree with him totally. Babajobu 13:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, since these rumors are mainly related to other subjects not to the controversy itself. Kyaa the Catlord 13:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You can do whatever you want as long as the article doesn't end up too long - the way it was. I don't really care about the content of this article - just the readability. When summarizing a section, the content are usually moved to a new article and then summarized back into the article. I can't think of any other way. Aucaman^Talk 13:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, there are a lot of Wikipedians working on this article alone. I'm trying to spread the work into several articles. The discussion section for this article has had to be archived almost on a daily basis. Again, highly inefficient. You're free to move the Rumors section, but taking back the Opinions would be a mistake. The section used to be short, but people read stuff online and start copy-pasting at random. If this continues I doubt we would ever be able to summarize it. By giving it it's own article, the management becomes easier (look at the "international reactions" article for example). Aucaman^Talk 13:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Opinions as to how to interpret the riots are highly pertinent to the main article. Once again, I say exchange for rumours. Also the reprinting does not have to be this long, it already has a seperate page.

Does this mean we agree opinions should be reinserted and rumours taken out?-- Nomen Nescio 13:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

No, the size of the article has to be taken into consideration. New articles will eventually have to be created the way this article is growing. As I said, a few days ago the Opinions section was much shorter. It's better to address these problems now than later. Aucaman^Talk 13:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Why did you not move rumours, and why is the elaborate discussion in timeline not shorter? There you can win space and I repeat: commentary should stay in the main article. It is important for readers to see not only the Mulim interpretation, but it should directly be placed in context. If not there would be a Muslim POV to this page.-- Nomen Nescio 14:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you read any of my responses? Like I said, you can do whatever you want as long as you don't make the article any bigger than it should be - 50KB for now. "Commentary should stay in the main article." Is this a Wikipedia policy? In the mean while, let me refer you to some Wikipedia articles to read: Wikipedia:Article_size and Wikipedia:How_to_break_up_a_page. Also, if you're saying that the Opinions section should never be put in a new artilce, that's just no possible considering how fast the article is growing. But if you do agree that it eventually has to be broken up, then it's better to do it now than later. Aucaman^Talk 14:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The point is, all the space you want can be found by moving rumours, shortening timeline and reprinting. However, this apparently is beyond debate. As to commentary, see Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles and WP:NPOV.-- Nomen Nescio 14:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I like I said, if you think you can do better, go for it. But the "Opinions" section would eventually have to be put in a seperate article. Aucaman^Talk 14:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Could it be considered anti-Islamic to call all Muslims part of the same race? What would be the term for this? I'm not really sure... Valtam 15:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The Opinions section is horribly unencyclopedic in tone, and should be completely rewritten. For instance, an encyclopedia should never use the word "you" (outside of an actual quote, of course). I'm not quite feeling up to rewriting it myself right now; is anyone interested in doing this? If not, I'll do it tomorrow. --Ashenai 16:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

---

I think that it is wrong to move out "rumours" and "opinions". They should be cleaned up and kept in the article. The main criteria for keeping things in the article should be wheter they are directly related to the event. The rumors probably had an important effect on the outcome of the events.

"Danish Journalistic traditions", however is an article that would stand well on its own. None of it had any direct consecuence on the course of events here. Making it a separate article and linking to it from both this one and Politics of Denmark would improve the quality of both articles.

Opinions cleanup: Basically, opinions should only be included if expressed by world leaders or people directly relevant to the conflict. What "some muslims" or "many people in denmark" may or may not feel is completely unencyclopaedic unless an opinion poll is quoted. Anything not related to the cartoons controversy is not for this article.

Also: Statements that the queen of Denmark made in April would only be relevant if those statements can be shown to have directly influenced the course of events in September when the cartoons were published. (Such statements may be relevant to an article on the queen herself or on "Islam in denmark" or similar. Personally, however, I think the queens statement only sounds racist after translation into English, not in Danish as she said it.) --PeR 19:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Sydney riots

Furthermore, the cartoons were published in a conservative mainstream newspaper in the context of what many Muslims perceive to be a pervasive bias against them in many western countries, exemplified by the French law on religious symbols in schools, the short film Submission, and the 2005 Sydney race riots.

This lacks a citation. Also, the listing of the 2005 Sydney race riots may be giving undue prominence to it. There are countless conflicts between Muslims and Christians that were more violent than the Sydney riots, and religion was largely a marker between "us" and "them" in this case. Then again, I'm from Sydney, so maybe I'm biased. Andjam 12:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think all of these citations are giving undue weight to them. Kyaa the Catlord 13:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Andjam. Sydney Riots link should not be there. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that the Sydney riots should not be included Stephen 05:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Well done, Wikipedia. It must be a near full time job undoing all the vandalism. 82.26.173.144 13:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be cluster-vandalism going on. Almost every wiki-article that I have surfed to that is connected to this article makes my eyes hurt as they their content blurs and changes with each refresh.DanielDemaret 14:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I second this. Well done to everyone who has been keeping a level head with this article, when so many others have not.--144.136.180.2 23:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection, please?

This is getting tedious. Could someone please semi-protect this page for now? --Ashenai 15:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I tossed his ip on the vandal list. Of course, he stops now.... Kyaa the Catlord 15:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I blocked him for 24 hours - hence the stop. Secretlondon 15:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yay! Thanks. Kyaa the Catlord 15:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I will then shut down every server and much more: e.g. the whole (AS)Autonomous System if wikipedia would come under a serious attack. Take it easy ... .

Oh no! Not the autonomous system!!! *chuckles* --Ashenai 15:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

What is the (AS)Autonomous System anyway? I've never heard of it! Valtam 16:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_system_%28Internet%29 Dmaftei 16:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Dmaftei! Valtam 19:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... our happy little vandal dude is now using sock puppets. I'm thinking we need a temporary IP-ban, or semi-protect. Anyone willing and able to do the honors? --Ashenai 19:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Support photos gone?

What happened to the protest and boycot photos that were in the article? The overall article looks rather stale now with just the cartoon image. --StuffOfInterest 16:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Some editors feel the article is too long and started subpages.-- Nomen Nescio 16:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense. OK, I brought one image forward to the main page for illustation. Picked the boycot photo rather than rioting and protesting ones. --StuffOfInterest 17:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

One fire would be relevant to show. The one we had before was just fine. MX44 17:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment

I do not understand what the big deal is about these cartoons. Muslims should be more tolerant about things just like christians and jews are. This is the 21st century, you cannot force the entire world to see things the way you do, or the ways you may deem as fit. It is very childish, grow up and civilize. Im sorry but its true. Starting riots and burning an embassy doesnt exactly help show a positive image for islam, especially when the entire western world is getting really sick of islam to begin with.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.168.169 (talk • contribs)

This needs to be moved to Arguments.--Jbull 19:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Just like christians and jews are? I don't think you live on the same planet I do. Madangry 20:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing like prejudice comments to show how tolerant about things you are... Slimdavey 00:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

These kind of images of God, Jesus, Buddha etc. occur all the time and yes you do see protests as is their right to do so (peacefully that is). However, rarely does their protest decent into riot and violence and if it does you can rely on the Pope or the Archbishop of Cantebury and almost any other Christian, Jewish or Buddist leader etc. to swiftly and unambiguously condemn the violence. You will also never see Christian, Jewish etc. protestors calling for the swift and brutal slaughter of blasphemors, baring placards calling for retribution on the west... or any other direction or country. --TedEBare 05:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Rhetorical questions, what do they add?

The following added text by Azate from the Opinions section doesn't seem to add anything... seems more like personal questions than questions being posed by parties significantly involved in this controversy...the sources for these questions should be cited.

What has caused the offence felt by many Muslims? Any pictoral representation of the Prophet, or satirical depiction, or sartirical association with terror, or genuine association with terror? Is it really about the Prophent, or Islam in general? Is there 'one Islam' so that every Muslim is offended by association, or is the offence in saying there is 'one Islam'? Is the tolerable amount of offence to be measured by the offence given or by the offence taken? How does one measure such a thing? Does protecting one group more than another mean you respect it more or less?

Is free speech only worth having when one can go to extremes, or is it exactly then not worth having? Is the tolerable amount of offence the same in speech and writing? Is it good manners to tone down your writing to the level of your speaking, or is the price for your good speaking manners that in writing anything goes? Is religious belief something inseperable from the self like race or gender, or is it an opinion you happen to hold? Is there something wrong with religious people, or are people not religious enough? When being offended, do you return like for like? What if the other one thinks you're escalating when you think he is? When you appease for peace or gain, are you smart or do you erode your principles? Or do you forego your advantage for priciple, and it will be worth it in the end (or is that just counterproductive)? Do you ever change your opinion?

Opinion leaders have applied these, and more pedestrian matters like politics, history, law, family, nation and economics, to create an almost indefinite range of what's right and what it all means.

Netscott 17:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

How about the important question: "Why Wayne Rooney?" Its been bugging me for the past couple of days. Damn vandals. Kyaa the Catlord 20:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

limits of free speech

A number of ppl have challenged me in this discussion & on my talk-page to find any real "taboo" that exists in western countries / or show an example where freedom of speech is limited in the west - I would agree with you that Europe is very liberal and that such an example is difficult to find. However one can construct a scenario quite easily (note that this is different from giving an example though) where a picture would be so offensive that it would be "taboo" to put it on wikipedia or publish it in a newspaper - quite equivalent to what Muslims feel about the Muhammad (pbuh) cartoons.

Consider for example a pornographic picture (e.g. involving ... animals? an extreme close-up? violence? blood?) that would be so offensive to most ppl that you wouldn't dare put it on wikipedia. If you can imagine such a picture then you'll realise how some Muslims feel when they see the controversial cartoons on this page. Less drastic might be a movie of vivisection or extreme animal cruelty - such a movie could also be so offensive that it couldn't be put on wikipedia. Similarly a picture of a human with gross disability or horrific disfigurement. Finally consider this scenario: a computer-generated, photo-realistic picture or movie (i.e. no real humans involved, thus no suffering, etc.) of child abuse. Equally one can easily imagine that this could be so extremely offensive to the general public that it would never be put on wikipedia, not matter what the surrounding circumstance or controversy.

Imagine seeing one of those "taboo" pictures / images described above to help understand how some Muslims feel about the Muhammad (pbuh) cartoons and why we try to delete them. Someone who doesn't believe that animals are sentient might not have a problem with movies of animal cruelty (in fact many indeginous ppl are extremely cruel to animals). A gynaecologist might have no problem with extreme close-ups of sexual organs. All depends on the the context Rajab 18:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Images of children having sex is treated in the modern western countries the way blasphemy is treated in Islamic countries. Even wikipedia shows this bias. Child sexual abuse covers behavior that is not considered "abuse" in other cultures [11]. We don't have a photo of a child being sexually abused in that article. Not even a drawing of such an event, even though such a drawing is legal under US law. WAS 4.250 19:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Incredible to see you insert such sections in the article, Rajab. You really know better than that. --Sir48 19:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Artistic depictions of child pornography are arguably now illegal under U.S. Law, Rajab, according the The PROTECT Act of 2003 (though many believe the U.S. Supreme Court will strike down this aspect of the legislation) There was a successful conviction under this law in December 2005. That's why our Lolicon article shows a drawing of a little girl with a dildo, but no drawings of actual pedophilic acts taking place. Babajobu 19:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I take back everything, just remove those japanese pictures! I have to say they are much much much worse than the controversial cartoons in this current discussion!!! Rajab 21:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I take back everything - those japanese drawings that baba pointed out are in fact even worse than the drawings we're currently discussion. Please consider removing those drawings & the drawings in this articleRajab 21:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's the difference, as I see it (from, of course, my admittedly biased, Western, non-Muslim perspective), Rajab. A picture of animal abuse, child abuse, or an extreme and incredibly offensive pornographic picture exists because a person or an animal was hurt in the real world. Even most people who don't believe animals are sentient admit the animals can feel pain and see animal abuse as cruel. Also, I can't think of an example where depictions of child or animal abuse would be as fundamental to an article as the cartoons are to this one—I suppose if there were a controversy over some very borderline photographs or drawings, it might apply, but I can't think of any current articles like that. If this were an article about the Islamic law that there be no drawings of Muhammad, I would probably agree that drawings don't need to be shown there to illustrate, but this is an article about the controversy surrounding certain drawings and I don't think it would be complete without those drawings. I happen to agree that the Jyllands-Posten acted in bad taste in publishing these cartoons in the first place, but this is simply an article about the controversy and it would be hard to claim we can fully educate people about it without showing them the cartoons. Polotet 20:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

baba has convinced me - I give up. There is no taboo on this website. Rajab 21:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Do we have a breakthrough?! That's what free speech means! No subject is taboo for discussion and information. Weregerbil 21:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

you probably guessed that I think that's a bad thing by the way...Rajab 21:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see you get what we finally mean Rajab :) Though some people have said the syphilis article has some pretty horrific pictures. Personally they don't bug me, I've seen worse. But then again, my profession requires so much... Anyways, I hope that you can finally help us convince other muslims who are intent on vandilising this page that wikipedia doesn't single out a group of people to offend, it's fine with offending everyone equally! Hitokirishinji 22:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Then what about the conspicuous absence of images of the subject matter of Goatse.cx? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This question already answered several times. Babajobu 03:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Results of Riots

This article needs at least a rough estimate of the people killed, buildings burt, and other property destroyed. This is essential information in understanding the scope of the controversy. We don't need to go into political commentary (x deaths in protests from cartoons that stated Islam promotes violence.) - just a basic statment of facts. -Mr.Logic 18:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Can someone add this link?

• " Reflections on the Mohammed Cartoons" tygerland, February 3, 2006.

No problem... if you can convince us that it's a notable blog. It's pretty well-written, but we should be wary of limking to non-notable personal websites. --Ashenai 20:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Rumors and Disinformation

Where did this section go? (Cloud02 20:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC))

Part of the events as they unroll

one part went into 'danish clerics tour middle east', the rest mostly into the timeline. Azate 02:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No, the rest isn't in the timeline (Cloud02 11:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC))

A great deal of the protetsts are exclusively due to rumours and disinfomation, and thus I think it is essential to keep that part. I see no reason as to why we can't keep it? 80.62.172.74 07:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing has been thrown away. It's all in the time line, even the small stuff: Look for "Hot dog" for example. except the 3 pictures stuff, which is still on the frontpage (clerics travel to...) Azate 12:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether they're on the timeline or not, they're still very relevant for the controversy. As they show what kinds of rumours and misinformation has been brought on both sides! (Cloud02 12:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC))

Yes exactly. That's why they are still there. In the Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy! Azate 13:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

What is the matter with putting them in a section of their own? 80.62.172.74 15:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you dont seem to get that i want them to be in the main article, as they're a part of the main event, and wat has triggered the stuff happening (Cloud02 15:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC))

tygerland

Understood. Well it's linked on a couple of other articles (Henry Jackson Society & Multiculturalism); but I guess any blog is only notable because of its content – so you can decide.

Well, Google isn't terribly fond of tygerland, and Alexa isn't helpful here. In my opinion, it's non-notable.

Please don't take this as a personal affront; I quite enjoyed that blog. As I said, it's well-written, and well thought out. But we're here to document noteworthiness, not create it. :) --Ashenai 14:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hacker attacks

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4692518.stm

Is Wikipedia prepared? I've no doubt some attempts will be made to sabotage the article, over and above common vandalism. --Tatty 21:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

To This Frank Guy

Why dyou feel the need to remove the cartoons? The article is just explaining what is happening, its not saying, "Oh, Muslims suck, who cares what they believe in, oh, and here are some cartoons!" It is just providing the facts (neutrally) for the people to know. Oh, and if there already isn't, I think I am going to make the Japanese article for this, does anyone object? Bert (^_^)

Yeah, I guess Japan, with their long tradition of image-based culture and rather liberal censorship would be as confused as the Western world by the controversy. 惑乱 分からん 22:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

So sorry, I see that there is a Japanese article for it....I may add to it then. And (just wondering) would the Arabic (if there is one) Wikipedia have this article, but be more leaniant to how its so "Horrible"? And here is what Muslims were chanting (as well as having signs with this written) in London (Quote from Chicago Tribune): "Massacre those who insult Islam" "Freedom of expression go to Hell" and "Europe, you will pay, Fantastic 4 are on their way" The Fantastic 4 refers to the 4 London suicide bombers (who were Muslim) that killed 52 people in July. I think that that is WRONG, and I highly doubt that Muhammad would like his followers to claim innocent lives. Bert (^_^)

Yes, the Arabic Wikipedia has this article, they include one cartoon, the cartoon of the schoolboy, i.e. the one that does not include the big Muhammad. Babajobu 02:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

PsyOps

Would it be relevant to make a reference to this concept in the "see also" section? 86.52.36.140 21:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

People should be aware that there are evil people from danish tabloids here seeking angles to new stories.

Jyllands-Posten cartoonists

Allegedly Denmark has about 40 cartoonists affiliated to the union of editorial cartoonists. After Kåre Bluitgen failed to find willing illustrators for his book, Jyllands-Posten sent out 40 invitations, but only got 12 responses, with 4 belonging to J-P's own staff. I think it would be interesting to know which cartoons were drawn by the J-P cartoonists, since these 4 cartoons probably are among the most anti-islamic of them. Needs some fact-checking, though. 惑乱 分からん 22:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll notice the cartoons are signed.--Greasysteve13 02:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do almost all the other major Wikipedias refuse to publish the cartoons?

Why do almost all the other major Wikipedias refuse to publish the cartoons? --Lotsofissues 22:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

They're all un-American and so they don't have our same ideals of freedom of speech. --Cyde Weys 22:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

They have made an autonomous decision not to publish them, probably because in their view the cartoons are too blasphemic to publish (AFAIK, most of the wikipedia who haven't published the cartoons are in the muslim world). Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 22:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

On the Danish Wikipedia we don't allow fair use images, so we didn't even have to discuss it. There are other Wikipedias that doesn't allow fair use images. --Maitch 22:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I was under the impression only en allows fair use. BrokenSegue 22:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I have read about 20 others to check that statement. Some have the pictures, some link to them. Some seem lazy, some seem to have stricter rules of copyright/fair use. And some of the articles have them, then they don't, then they are back, and so forth. We are not the only site language version with Edit Wars. I don't agree with "almost all refuse". DanielDemaret 22:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Maitch is right. I have never heard of a principle like "free use" outside of the United States. Most notably, it is not allowed by EU law. --Valentinian 23:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Just an idea, but if you want to publish the cartoons on the Danish version, why not call up the paper and ask them if you can publish the cartoons on Wikipedia? I'm sure they would grant you the rights, seing as other papers around the world have reprinted them. Accountable Government 00:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

More than 50% of the other Wikipedias include the images, I think. Babajobu 02:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

UA, note that we cannot use specific-permission licenses on Wikipedia -- the images must be reusable by our mirrors, including possibly commercial ones. --Improv 02:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Few other wikipedias are as comprehensive as English wikipedia, especially when it comes to images. For example, look at the article on World War II: tons of images. Look at its counterparts in other languages, some of them featured: very few images. Savidan 02:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

We have lots of Wikipedias, so all the images can't be uploaded hundreds of times to all the Wikipedias, as this is under fair use. This would take lots of work. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 08:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

EGYPT PAPER ALREADY PUBLISHED CARTOONS IN OCTOBER

Hephaestion 03:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)This story gets more strange as now it has emerged and Egyptian paper, Al-Fager, printed the cartoons on October 17th during Ramadan with no adverse outbreak of violence. http://freedomforegyptians.blogspot.com/2006/02/egyptian-newspaper-pictures-that.html

If this blog is not a fake, then this is astounding. This would suddenly make the the danish Imam who made a tour showing the fake pictures the MAIN reason for the strong reaction. http://www.neandernews.com/?p=54 .DanielDemaret 23:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

As claimed by Akkiri ,they were not faked but sent to him by an anonymous source. (The picture shown on Wikipedia is without the message, why?) You would have to show that any Egyptians he showed it to thought them to be from the newspaper Jyllands-Posten. As I recall it was originally the BBC which made the confusion. 86.52.36.140 13:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, see if we can get that verified. — TheKMan^talk 23:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

And it would also mean that the reason they are reacting so strongly is that this time around, months later, when public has not been shown the pictures in jyllandsposten, they suddenly react violently - indicating that the only way to stop the violence is to let them see the pictures for themselves. DanielDemaret 23:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

In any case, a lot of people are wondering who actually added the three most offensive images to the collection (the "pig man", the "pedophile Muhammad" and the "dog rapes Muslim" pictures, pages 34-36 in the dossier.) These images were not published in neither Jyllands-Posten, nor Weekend Avisen. Ekstra Bladet reached this conclusion on 12 January [12] (quote) "But when a group of Danish imams recently toured the Middle East to win support for their critique of the Muhammad illustrations and Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the cartoons were apparently not provocative enough to serve this purpose." (unquote) --Valentinian 23:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, as probably has been noted before, the dog and the pig are impure animals in Islam, as well. 惑乱 分からん 00:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't buy it. (Btw. although it's pronounced (in egyption arabic) al-fagr, it's spelled al-fajr). As far as I can tell, the rumour originated here: http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/ I think this a blog with an agenda. The photos of the paper with the cartoons in them (http://freedomforegyptians.blogspot.com/2006/02/egyptian-newspaper-pictures-that.html) look fishy. They may well be photoshopped. I take this down from our page (where is is WITHOUT SOURCE). If the story solidifies, there is ample opportunity to put it back up. Azate 03:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hephaestion 03:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Thanks Azate, Your action seems reasonable and if indeed that site is the source, it would be questionable, but I would like to see it left as a discussion item here, until there is firm evidence one way or the other as it could have a significant bearing if it were true. I was the one who started this thread but forgot to sign.

Wow! I retract. This is for real. Compare these two scans of the same page from two different sources [13] [14]. Look ot the black frame around the pic with the two women. In one, the green overflows the black frame, in the other they match nicely. This occasional overflowing is a typical artefact of a lousy printing press. I think this is enough to convince me to but it up again. Azate 03:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Man what a total Farce this whole freaking 'controversy' has been... I'm really starting to think that it was those 3 'additional images' that really got all of this crap rolling. As other websites are starting to wonder I too say, "when does the boycott of Egypt start?" So sad that so many people have been manipulated and that people have died because of this seemingly manufactured 'controversy'.

Netscott 04:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Could anyone who knows arabic ask nicely and politely about whether they can find anything that either substantiates or refutes this link? Just go to arabic link to the left of our english article in the box "other language" and ask politely?. DanielDemaret 07:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. After much bungling. --Kizor 10:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

If this blog and the french pig contest picture are correct, then people have died and houses burned because one Imam travelled around the arab world with misinformation. If true, then that Imam could be facing charges for causing these peoples death, could'nt he? DanielDemaret 08:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

There is information here: http://freedomforegyptians.blogspot.com/2006/02/cartoons-were-published-five-months.html

Specifically: Name: Al Fager الفجر Editor-in-Chief: Adel Hamouda عادل حمودة Edition/issuance no. #: 21 Date: 17 October 2005, Hijri (Islamic Calendar) 14 Ramadan 1425 Reporters: Youssra Zahran and Ahmed Abdel Maksoud يسرا زهران وأحمد عبد المقصود Pages: Front & 17 for details and images The headline in Arabic said : الوقاحة المستمرة. السخرية من الرسول وزوجاته بالكاريكاتير Translation: Continued Boldness. Mocking the Prophet and his wife by Caricature.

Does this help anyone to verify/refute the story? DanielDemaret 09:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[worldnetdaily.com] now runs this story on their front page as 'breaking news'. They are not exactly my favourite news source, but they've been around forever and are quite big. I hope somebody there did his homework and called somebody in Cairo to check out the facts. Azate 10:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I emailed the person who scanned the pages an hour ago, inviting him present more info here. I think he lives in egypt. DanielDemaret 10:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with all this. We're not a news agency. When sombody who can be trusted runs the story, it can be here. ALL the sites that carry this stuff so far (that I've seen) push an agenda. My gut feeling is that it's sound, but we should err on the side of caution and not help spreading rumours. Azate 10:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I got a prompt answer from the scanner: "....Here is the website of the newspaper http://elfagr.org/, and the cover of the issue that I have scanned http://elfagr.org/ed_21.html. I would say average size ciruclation, because this is a new Newspaper. I don't know accurate figures, because they never mention that in Egypt. Out of fear of getting evil-eyes I guess.

What exactly do you want me to write?"

So that is his question to us: How can he prove that such a paper exists and is reliable? DanielDemaret 11:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure how I could prove to you guys that the largest daily magazine in Sweden exists and is reliable, although I think it may have 1 million in circulation. What is needed?DanielDemaret 11:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that [[15]] is a reliable source, so I reverted. --Adornix 11:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hephaestion 11:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Someone keeps removing the Egypt reference on the main page on the section of Other Newspapers that have reprinted the Story

I'm not shure if it was me who mixed up the article unintentionally :-( Could someone please write in the Elfagr-Reference? Thanks! --Adornix 11:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

If we have consensus that it should be added, then that link should be added to

1. the timeline
2. the list of papers that has published it and
3. The introduction of the article, since it clearly changes everything

DanielDemaret 11:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

vote++ and asking again if the following quote (which supports the Cairo perspective) from nyt.com could be useful. "It was no big deal until the Islamic conference when the O.I.C. took a stance against it," said Muhammad el-Sayed Said, deputy director of the Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo. MX44 12:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I second the proposals from DanielDemaret and MX44. (And I want to thakn user:Rasmus_Faber for correcting my mistake. --Adornix 12:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome :) Also, just to placate the very paranoid among us, I checked whois, and elfagr.org and elfagr.net was created on 2005-05-24, so it seems unlikely to be a hoax site. This will probably get more press shortly, and we might want to replace/supplement the FreedomForEgyptians reference with a more mainstream one. Rasmus (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree to all above, I added it to both charts on the List of Papers (where I have tried to shepherd things along for a few days), when the story first broke this morning, and it is still there, so that's fine. The above quote seems reasonable as well. It all keeps changing so quickly it is hard to know what the final analysis will bringHephaestion 12:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I support inclusion into 1) timeline 2) list of papers 3) section about papers republishing. I oppose inclusion into the introduction. What if this story is true, but thae Al-fagr paper has a circulation of, say, 1000 only ? How significant is it then ? Azate 12:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

On the list of papers talk page I posted a question regarding including circulation information (well known) for those papers publshing the cartoons. It would help to establish context as to a paper being mainstream or fringe. It would also help to show frequency of publication such as "500,000/daily" or "1,500/monthly". --StuffOfInterest 12:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I finally have a circulation number here, and it would a very large paper indeed by swedish standars, but I am not going to bother publish it since they have censored the web page of that paper now, thereby elimitating the relevancy of any reference. I feel that they have by this, also eliminated the relevancy of any reference from that part of the world, but I only say that last part since I am at the moment miffed about the censorship that I have just witnessed before my eyes. I am not allowed to publish what my eyes have seen anyway. Lucky for me this particular page is merely a discussion. DanielDemaret 14:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe it. The http://elfagr.org/ed_21.html image has been taken down with no explanation I can see. The pages from the issue before and the issue after work just fine, but the one with the cartoons printed is missing. That was FAST. Richard 129.244.23.13 13:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Really Fast. I am glad I took a copy of it before it went down. But since we are not allowed "original research", only references to mainstream sources, and those mainstream sources remove all the evidence they can, then those rules the wikipedia use will need some serious ... amendments? DanielDemaret 14:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Taking an image out of your browser cache surely doesn't qualify as research, huh? Azate 15:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hehe. You are right of course. Not in the world outside wikipedia, it doesnt :) But I didnt say research. I used the phrase "original research", a special wiki-term, which has little to do with any real life research that I have done or seen any of my collegues do :)DanielDemaret 15:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems someone else copied that page before it was censored. http://derstandard.at/?url=/?id=2336429

The question is: Can anyone vouch for this paper as a resource?DanielDemaret 15:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Ooops. apparently they are discussing the blog, not the original paper.<sulks>DanielDemaret 15:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Nescott for adding the image to the article! US fair use is Good. DanielDemaret 16:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Story confirmed by danish ambassador Bjarne Sørensen, Egypt MX44 16:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Are there any references to this story from larger news organisations? Ryanuk 20:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't know how much this matters now that the ambassador has spoken out, but Jyllands-Posten just put up an article trumpeting the news and giving the Egyptian blogger sandmonkey credit for originally breaking the story. Richard 129.244.128.134 20:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Denmark's TV2 confirms that the Egyptian paper published these cartoons back in October. The station cites Ambassador Bjarne Sørensen as its source. TV2 is one of the two major tv stations in Denmark. [16] --Valentinian 20:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The item can be read here. It was picked up by the Danish news agency Ritzau:

• http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48746
• http://www.aina.org/news/2006029110300.htm
• http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=3401
• http://www.newhumanist.org.uk/more.php?id=1919_0_1_0_C
• http://www.andnetwork.com/app?service=direct/0/Home/$StorySummary$0.$DirectLink$1&sp=l17176
• http://www.israpundit.com/archives/2006/02/extra_e3xtra_re.php

and perhaps at other places. I located them through news.google.com gidonb 20:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism, diferent user

1. (cur) (last) 14:38, February 8, 2006 Islam Yusuf
2. (cur) (last) 14:35, February 8, 2006 MR SCOTSMAN 1000
3. (cur) (last) 14:31, February 8, 2006 Zinkao
4. (cur) (last) 14:28, February 8, 2006 Plough of the rake
5. (cur) (last) 14:16, February 8, 2006 D A B RADIO DUDE
6. (cur) (last) 14:13, February 8, 2006 Golbanes
7. (cur) (last) 18:59, 8 February 2006 Asolor
8. (cur) (last) 19:08, 8 February 2006 Helluroy
9. (cur) (last) 13:19, 8 February 2006 Cumbria Borders Runner

All have done the exact same type of (ie redirect to Wayne Rooney) vandalism. It is very likely they all have this IP, anyone agree with me here? We could consider banning this IP.

My mistake!!! I read the backlog wrong, 141.157.169.200 did not commit any vandalism! A sharp eyed admin caught my mistake and unblocked the user fairly quickly. Still, someone needs to check user on this list of people, I know these are right.Hitokirishinji 10:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Putting IPs into google sometimes brings up interesting results. [17] - FrancisTyers 02:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Was this done by CheckUser? I can't recall finding it on the page. Then it again, it has a massive backlog. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 02:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I did it just by checking what sort of changes were made. I hardly found it a coincidence that these all did the exact same type of vandalism to the page. I'm no admin so I have no special powers :) Hitokirishinji 10:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This must be sockpuppetry as it is using the same IP. Anyway, can normal users like myself use the checkuser function? --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 08:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Only Arb Commers have CheckUser. There is a page you can request to have it performed. NSLE _(T+C) 08:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Are these the most controversal/infamous cartoons in the history of mankind?

Because if they are it really should be stated in this article.--Greasysteve13 02:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think when Urrgg painted the image of an Ibex on the wall of his cave it caused outrage throughout the tribe. Depicting Ibex was forbidden you see, under the religious tenets of the Wuhgggg, the holy doctrine of the Gurggghh people. The tribe tried to torch Urrgg's cave, but fire hadn't been discovered, and caves don't burn, so in the end it all fizzled out. For a while though, it was pretty hairy back there. Graham 03:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I always thought that the [ox images] from Urrgg's tribe had a 'smoky' tint to them. LOL Netscott 03:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

We aren't really the ones to make that decision. — TheKMan^talk 03:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Who is?--Greasysteve13 03:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No one. This is personal opinion completely. joturner 03:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

What if I used the word noteworthy?.--Greasysteve13 04:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Saying they are the most noteworthy cartoons in history of mankind is sure to offend some Marvel fan boys. Also, this is still expressing a POV. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

What if I used the words widely known?--Greasysteve13 11:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Are they more widely known than, say, Garfield? Maybe. Maybe not. I don't know, and I suspect you don't, either... --Ashenai 14:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem isn't with the adjective—"controversial", "infamous", "noteworthy", "widely known" or anything else, it's with the adverb "most", because any adjective of that kind is unquantifiable in any kind of objective way. Vilcxjo 16:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia artciles use the word "controversal" all the time. I didn't think "most controversal" was any different.--Greasysteve13 03:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hack war

The article should mention the fact that there has been a global hacking war going on to deface websites. [18] Jacoplane 03:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• What do you expect from people like that? Free speech? they wouldn't reckognize it if it hit them in the face, as far as they're concerned, there's the islamic world and then they're all us infadels running around, making political cartoons of their leaders, when they deface and attack innocent people, do they ever stop to think that all non-muslims aren't all the same? that the people they're attacking have done nothing to them?--Hograin's heros 03:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I know what you mean, right now they're trying to use their "TFD" meeting page to have the image completly censored off of the encylopediaHiggercabin 04:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Not really, it's just that the image is Fair use, and there is a policy that such images cannot be included in templates. The image will remain in the article itself, just not in the template. Jacoplane 05:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

it's mentioned in the timeline (Cloud02 15:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC))

BBC copying wikipedia....?

The 8th BBC posted a page explaining the cartoons: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4693292.stm .

On this page they have the very same poetic translation: "Prophet, you crazy bloke! Keeping women under yoke."

In addition to this, one on Wikipedia described as:

Two angry Muslims charge forward with sabres and bombs, while Muhammad addresses them with: "Rolig, venner, når alt kommer til alt er det jo bare en tegning lavet af en vantro sønderjyde" (loosely, "Relax guys, it's just a drawing made by some infidel South Jutlander". South Jutland as reference would, for a Dane, connote the feeling of something like the middle of nowhere).

In BBC's version: "Relax guys, it's just a drawing made by some infidel South Jutlander (ie from the middle of nowhere)," the figure says.

As a Dane, I think the explanation of Southern Jutland as being in the middle of nowhere is far from obvious. It is definitely not an standard expression.

This explanation has moved back and forrt a few times. BBC used to quote wike exact, but have shortened it by now MX44 05:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is a bit of insider information: the cartoonist in question is actually from South Jutland. There is to the best of my knowledge no adage about South Jutlanders signifying being from the middle of nowhere. Voldmer

You're right, he's from Skærbæk. Now it makes sense. I'd never heard that expression before, and no hits when I tried looking for it. I'm updating this information. --Valentinian 21:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I started out school in southern Jutland. Our cousins allways wanted to "go back to Denmark" when they really meant Copenhagen :D ... MX44 03:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

A great compliment for wikipedia to be copied by a respectable media such as BBC.... Kjaergaard 05:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

What a pity BBC 1 decided it was acceptable to vandalise us. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed =) — TheKMan^talk 05:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

What vandalism? Tell me more MX44 06:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Try here — TheKMan^talk 07:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

As a good pedant, I feel the need to point out that it was BBC Radio 1, not BBC1 (television). Personally I'd not give a fig for the abilities or judgement of a Radio 1 DJ. Vashti 12:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

New news. Taliban offering death penalty for the cartoonist!!!!

05:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)~

About 1 hour ago BBC World had a headline running across the lower screen that stated Wikipedia reports that... or something similar. Is that not a problem? If BBC quotes us that must mean we are doing Original Research which is forbidden. Sad I was not fast enough to read what the headline stated. Did anybody? A human 07:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not a problem that we do original research. It is problem only if we publish our original research in our articles. Here in the discussion are it is safe. And if we manage to find references, then we can publish that. We should just probably not publish the a blog link in the article itself until we have some kind of consensus that we are all pretty sure it is fact.DanielDemaret 07:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

What was the subject? Did they *mean* Wikipedia, or something else like Wikinews? Vashti 07:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I was zapping and missed it. I think it was wikipedia. A human 07:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Congress made Wikipedia changes!!!!!!! [19]

And Wikinews investigates Wikipedia usage by U.S. Senate staff members

Apparently the individual who added this last bit of text failed to mention that this is what was being discussed on BBC.... how about some follow-through here next time? duh! Netscott 14:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Subarticle of this page has been nominated for deletion

The page about the Dossier of Danish Muslim clerics touring the Middle East has been nominated for deletion. You can opine on the issue here: [20]. Azate 05:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Question

Our article intro states that it is the publishing in more than 30 countries that has lead to the unrest, or at least that is how I read it. But the protests are still mainly against Denmark, so is this not a conclusion that is drawn just a tad further than we can substantiate? DanielDemaret 07:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Comparable Incidents

Should mention the 1992 Ayodhya incident (Babri Masjid).

The image - question

I'm definitely too lazy to go back and look through the archives, so I'm asking, has it been discussed if the image should be shown as a link (like at Autofellatio - NOT WORK SAFE!)? Example on the right. Template:Linkimage NSLE _(T+C) 08:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it has. Discussed, rehashed, masticated and regurgitated.DanielDemaret 08:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. I'd have thought this would've been a good compromise, so it slightly surprises me that a possible link as such on the right has been discussed and turned down. NSLE _(T+C) 08:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it would help. Apparently, the Muslims are angry at people who host the image at all, they are not so much afraid to be exposed to it (otherwise they could just not buy Jyllands-Posten and be done). So it won't matter to them if the image is linked or inline just as long as it is on Wikimedia's servers. dab (ᛏ) 08:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

If you take the time to read on in the discussion a bit up, under the heading,

EGYPT PAPER ALREADY PUBLISHED CARTOONS IN OCTOBER, you can see that there might be a dramaticly new turn of events. If allegations in that section turn out to be correct then these pictures was not what started the violence.DanielDemaret 09:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

If evidence of this can be uncovered, this would be an amazing scoop for Wikinews. Got a source? - Ta bu shi da yu 09:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Two independent weblogs have presented a set of scans. It changes the focus from the cartoons to the political mish-mash surrounding them. See previous discussion above MX44 09:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It surely explains why it took months for Muslims to get angry.-- Nomen Nescio 10:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Right, but what event was it that triggered the widespread protest? In the article from NYT I read "It was no big deal until the Islamic conference when the O.I.C. took a stance against it," said Muhammad el-Sayed Said, deputy director of the Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo.

Is this a useful quote? MX44 10:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems useful to me. Obsolutely. We now have a plethory of important probable causes, each of which would have been believed to be the truth if it were the only cause presented. The importance of the cartoons in Jyllandsposten seems to dimish by the hour. Whatever the end article, there is clearly a lot more to it than just those cartoons. DanielDemaret 11:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree to all above, I added it to both charts on the List of Papers (where I have tried to shepherd things along for a few days), when the story first broke this morning, and it is still there, so that's fine. The above quote seems reasonable as well. It all keeps changing so quickly it is hard to know what the final analysis will bringHephaestion 12:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Which brings us back to what I said earlier on this page. should the opinions part (in which this surely must be mentioned) not be included in the main article?-- Nomen Nescio 12:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleting comments from the talk page

Please don't do this. With the comment that was removed gone, the information it provided - that the BBC wasn't actually quoting us about the cartoon controversy - was also gone, leaving the discussion incomplete. Vashti 13:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Take the Cartoons off

I'm not Muslim, i'm catholic. But it seems to me that the muslims (where's frank?) have some justification for claiming that this site does not respect their religion. why? because

1) comparisons with showing anti-semitic or anti-christian paraphernalia are invalid, i think. the muslims are expressly forbidden - expressly - to have pictures of the prophet muhammed. i dont believe there is a christian equivalent to this, and if there was, it wouldn't matter, simply because its overwhelmingly ignored. and even if they are not forbidden to display muhammed images, as some have claimed, the fact that many people respect that, as a semi-religious duty, means that we simply have to respect that belief.

2) It could be just me, but it seems that we in the west look slightly down on muslim posters here, maybe subconsciously, maybe consciously. i think the problem is that we view muslims and islam as a group, as a unit, and not as one billion people with one billion opinions. therefore, we lump some half-witted imam called muhammed abu alim aziz bashir osama fahd muhammed muhammed muhammed bin muhammed muhammed and his dumbass fatwas with respectable muslims who know stuff and dont freak out over everything and anything, and if they write in, even if we dont say it out loud, we think, "oh, its just another muhammed abu alim... etc etc" and talk dumb to him (see kyaa the catlord's responses on this page).

a dumbass opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.154.110 (talk • contribs) 2006-02-09 15:03:32 +0100

False, false, and false. If you were a real Catholic, you would've studied the history of Christianity well enough to know that similar rules existed for pictures of Jesus, etc. until the Renaissance. We'd prefer that you use your mouth as the prefered orifice for talking out of. Also, we'd like it if you signed your comments. --Tokachu 16:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sir/Madame, if you have a personal problem with me, please use my talk page. I'd be willing to have a reasonable discussion on your view on my responses. Thanks! Kyaa the Catlord 14:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello! This idea is old news...please read the several comments about this previously posted... this is now a non-issue! Netscott 14:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Make it stop, make it stop!!! Sorry, your opinion is your opinion and your vote only counts once. 200 people happen to diagree with you. Read the results of the polls. Hitokirishinji 14:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

But what are they forbidden by? Apparently not the Qu'ran, just some stuff from some Hadith or something made by people a couple hundered years into Islam's existance, or extremely stretchy interps of the Qu'ran. If we simply have to respect this, I must of missed the memo, because I sure haven't so far. Nextly, personally speaking, I don't like Islam. Other people in this discussion probably don't like free speech suppression. Either way, people seem extremely convicted in their beliefs on the matter, so whether we really are lumping people together or not, it's unlikely consensus will be changed soon. Homestarmy 14:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

1) It's a little more complicated than that. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is here to document, not to judge. The cartoons are central to the contraversy that is still unfolding, and it is the view of the vast majority of Wiki editors that the images contribute significantly to one's understanding of the event.

2)I think the reason you may be getting that impression is that this objection has been brought up on numerous occasions, in many cases multiple times each, by a relatively small group of users, and those frequently on this page are becoming a tad tired of refuting the same reasoning over and over again. This is especially true when you consider that the people objecting to the image would see their objections answered if they bothered to read just a part of the archived pages, or even this page alone. Richard 129.244.23.13 14:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

One major reason that we get these objections over and over again, is that the lead to this article states that the main problem with the pictures is aniconism. People read this, believe it because it says so in wikipedia, and therefore object. Early on, I believed it had to do with aniconism since I naively so nothing offensive in the pictures per se. In fact, I was a bit surprised at how inoffensive they were. But I no longer think that the anoconism theory is true. I can buy a picture of Muhammed in shops in Teheran. I have not seen a single self-proclaimed muslim claim that the problem has to do with aniconism. We in the west are clearly inventing reasons for the pictures being offensive. The insults I have read muslims write and say are that: 1. They identify all islam with terrorists and 2. By portraying an arab in a cartoon we are looking down on them. Nothing about aniconism there. What references do we have that aniconism is the reason? Western references. Did they check this with muslims or did they just look it up in a dictionary? DanielDemaret 14:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• The images should remain for sure. It is relevant information, and removing them would be text-book censorship. Elfguy 15:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

DanielDemaret, early on in this debate, numerous Muslim editors complained about the image on the grounds that it is haram to depict Muhammad in any way. The reasoning seems to have grown more multifarious, though, agreed. Aniconism can no longer be said to be the single reason why it is offensive. Babajobu 17:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hear hear! I (and several others) pointed out there is a image of Mohammud in the South Park article yet no one seem to set fires embassies over it or even complain to the South Park creators that I know of. It certainly is not aniconism.Hitokirishinji 17:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

To the original poster: a) Firstly, showing pictures of Muhammed on Wikipedia is acceptable in Islam. Persian Wikipedia does it on thier Muhammed article [21], so it should be especially acceptable in the English Wikipedia. Secondly and more Importantly wikipedia is an Encyclopaedia, if that bothers you: vist the uncyclopedia instead.--Greasysteve13 06:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Other cartoons about muhammad

So the popular internet cartoon Flem did their own version of the muhammad cartoons. Can we add that in to the article? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 14:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that's like adding logs to the fire, though... @@ 惑乱 分からん 14:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel that to be a relevant objection... but I'm against including that bit of trivia, simply because it's not really noteworthy. --Ashenai 14:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It is just a spinoff of this controversy. We can't add every single comment / drawing about this controversy. Just my 2 (euro)cents. --Valentinian 14:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I dont see that it is very relevant to include in the article now, but I urge you ALL to download a copy each before they censure it/vandalise like they censured el fagr. THEN it will suddenly become relevant, even if we then can not use it without a reference, at least you will know what happened.DanielDemaret 15:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• The images on the article are relevant because they are at the center of the controversy. I agree that this other image should not be put there, not because it would add fuel to the fire, but because they are not relevant enough. Elfguy 15:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

the article is about the cartoons and the events Jyllands-Postens cartoons brought. (Cloud02 15:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC))

Arab cartoons

I added a link to these [22] images which show the anti-semitic cartoons in Arab newspapers over the last few years which are just as bad if not worse than the ones from Denmark. I think it's very relevant and a heavy proof toward the opinion of hypocrisy that some western world sources have stated. Elfguy 15:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The zionists and jews aren't involved in this matter, except for some spurious rockets shot at them. MX44 15:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Except that many of the protesters who are calling for violence aren't only targetting Danish people anymore, but Israel and other western countries. Hence it's relevant. Elfguy 16:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I think some of them are not far from the truth if you bear in mind that Palestinians have to go through numerous checkpoints and submit to Israeli soldiers regularly.

About the argument: I definitely don't think those cartoons are worse or more offensive than the ones from Denmark. The cartoons mostly depict current political figures, making reference to political ideologies and arguments. The ones from Denmark are about a prophet who lived centuries ago. Whether one agrees on the Anti-Semitist cartoons or not is not the topic. But one could theoretically and logically discuss them and the messages within. The caricatures from Denmark, without even looking at the content or the message disseminated through them, are offensive for muslims because of the technical and quite strict religious limitation, that the prophet can not be depicted in any shape or form (Again if other people agree with this or not is another matter). So by default this is an offense for muslims. If this point is taken out, then the caricatures are comparable, and one could discuss the meaning and content. As it is, it is a prophet shown to be a tyrant, and an evil terrorist. This in my opinion is not acceptable under any pretext.

212.201.44.249 19:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC) Serkan

The Bahraini cartoon of the ugly, hook-nosed Jew is precisely equivalent to Nazi caricatures from Der Sturmer, and is almost certainly just as offensive to Jews as the Muhammad cartoons are to Muslims. The fact that Jews don't riot and burn down embassies over these things is not evidence that they don't find such images horrific; they probably just ignore them. And Wikipedia carries similar cartoons, incidentally, where they are relevant. Babajobu 20:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your judgement on that particular cartoon, but this was not my point. The equivalent to the Danish caricatures would be similar drawings of Moses, not Sharon or any other jewish person. Sharon is a political leader and ordinary jewish people are not comparable to Moses either. 212.201.44.249 21:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC) Serkan

The fact you think the link is needed proves my point in another discussion on this page. I already inserted it, but some wise editor thought it should be moved from the main article. It is here. Once again I would like to suggest reinserting the opinions part into the main article, because it is a fundamental part of the story.-- Nomen Nescio 22:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No, the issue is what these groups find intolerably offensive. Muslims find images of prophets offensive, while Jews and Christians do not find such images comparably offensive. Each group has its own bugaboos. Jews find Nazi-style caricatures most offensive, while Muslims find satirical drawings of Muhammad most offensive. The Bahrain daily published pics horribly offensive to Jews. The Danish daily published pics horribly offensive to Muslims. No difference at all, except in the way the respective groups responded. Babajobu 03:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. People from all religious groups take offense, you might want to read about the last temptation of Christ. Also, to claim the anti-semitic publications in the Middle East are less offensive to Jews is of course not substantiated by fact. What remains is the clear difference in response to perceived horrid pictures by different religious groups. To state that the group which makes the most noise is therefore entitled more respect is not only a form of discrimination (inequality in treatment for the same acts), it rewards inappropriate violent reactions we see today.

Beyond that, there are legitimate questions as to the sincerity of the outcry. That is explained in the opinions part, among which the odd timing, the fact that buildings are burned in countries where demonstrations are almost impossible, the fact Egypt published months ago without any response, et cetera.-- Nomen Nescio 11:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Open Letters from Jyllands-Posten

Why were the two open letters from Jyllands-Posten removed? They were apologies to the muslim world, and I think it is important to have such information on Wikipedia to help solve this conflict. I translated the first open letter, which was published in danish and arabic, from danish to english, and posted it here. The second letter which was published in english as well, was posted here as well. If no one has any complaints, or good arguments of why not to put them on here, I'm going to repost the two open letters. --Akuen 15:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• I agree and you should repost them or at least a link to them. Elfguy 16:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll repost them. I would only be able to link to the second one though, as the first one was not published in english. I did a thorough translation of it from danish to english, though. --Akuen 23:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Comparable incidents

I don't want to touch such a controversial article, but some of you main writers and editors should consider adding The Da Vinci Code to the list of comparble incidents. Many Catholics found that novel blasphemous when it was released due to its depiction of Christ and his relationship to Mary Magdelene. J. Van Meter 15:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• I think it's a great idea, of showing how Christians hated this book and protested, and it never lead to violence of any sort, and the debate was contained in words and discussions, like civilized people. Elfguy 16:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

There is an infinite number of events that never led to any violence. MX44 17:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• I agree.DanielDemaret 16:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The Childrens book that started it all

As I am sure you all know, the childrens book which started it all came out a few days ago. It is selling amazingly well, along with the export of danish flags. Since it contains many drawings of Mohammed, including a sweet one where he sits with his youngest little wife on his lap, and it has not resulted in any bad feelings from anyone, is this a significant enough fact for inclusion into the article? DanielDemaret 16:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you please tell us the name of the book..... ? Thanks Ryanuk 16:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

http://www.hoest.dk/Datterforlag/hoestOgSoen/hoestOgSoen.nsf/alle/611C93B8AAA29A11C1257103001E1A6F?opendocument&menu=Boerne

"Koranen og profeten Muhammeds liv". Translates to "The Qu'ran and the life of Mohammed the prophet". DanielDemaret 17:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It could be noted that Danish imams have totally objected to the content of the book and to the objectivity of the writer. However, they have commented on the book with restraint and wording relevant to this article [here].

"...we could not dream of questioning his right to freedom of speech and right to write what he wants, and we don't mind in the least children's books with drawings from the prophets life. However, we prefer to read a true story" and

"we hereby call upon every Muslim to avoid being provoked but silently thrug his shoulders over Bluitgen's book. And we appeal to non-Muslims not to believe that we see the prophet, as Bluitgen sees him."

Let us all discuss our differences in similar language. --Sir48 18:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Flemming Rose and ties to US progandists

Maybe there should be a mention of the ties between the cultural editor of JP, Flemming Rose, and leading US anti-muslim propagandists like Daniel Pipes? 80.202.25.17 17:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

If the specific ties are relevant and close and you have a good source, then why not? Are they married? DanielDemaret 17:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

File it under conspiracy theory. MX44 17:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a new meaning for Islamophobia, the irrational fear that someone is out to get Islam. Kyaa the Catlord 17:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Would'nt that be islamonoia? (re: paranoia) DanielDemaret 17:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess it would be. It would have to be capitalized though. Kyaa the Catlord 17:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggests Islamanoia... to better correspond to Paranoia. :) Netscott 18:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

These comments are only useful to those who'd like to point out your anti-Islam bias; you're giving them ammunition... Dmaftei 20:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Translations of the Imam's 43 page dossier are available

Unfortunately, they're in Danish. But better than nothing. Maybe there is sombody interested enough to translate them to English and put them into the Dossier of Danish imams touring the Middle East section? I'm sure in a day or so they will be available in other languages anyways, but if sombody really can't wait, all the better. The Danish translations are here: [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] Azate 17:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this all? Looks like less than 43 pages.DanielDemaret 19:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

DR (the Danish equivalent to the BBC) has posted a list of 10 misunderstandings / -representations relevant to this issue (they seem quite well referenced). Some may be new to this article and worth including ( http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Temaer/Oevrige_temaer/2006/Tegninger/Artikler/201343.htm )- by the way, where has that section in the article gone ? Perhaps I've missed part of the discussion, has it been 'axed' ? 86.139.124.242 17:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Mila86.139.124.242 17:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Which section? Some of them were moved to seperate pages. Kyaa the Catlord 18:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I seem to recall that there was a section detailing some of the mistranslations and -representations (the quite frivoulous one about the queen is the only one that springs to mind! :-) Mila 81.132.174.178 18:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I remember that section too. And I can not find it anywhere now. This is disturbing. DanielDemaret 21:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Can't it simply be reinserted? Mila81.132.174.178 22:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Easily, if one can find it. Does anyone know where that section went to? One could look in the "history" tab. Perhaps you could look for it there, Mila?DanielDemaret 23:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. It seems to have been removed by Azate at 12:16 (see below). All the information is there to be reinserted; but I don't know to do it! Perhaps someone else could do the honor?

(cur) (last) 12:16, 9 February 2006 Azate (→Rumours and misinformation - deleted. this has been much shortened and put into the timeline (try to look for hot dog e.g.))

Mila81.132.174.178 23:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the deletion of this section without any discussion on the talk page is disturbing. I'm not convinced everything in the section deserved to be in the main article, and perhaps we could use a sub-article on the topic, but it shouldn't be deleted wholesale without some discussion. So I'll reinsert it. -- Avenue 09:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There is further discussion in the "Rumours and misinformation" section below. -- Avenue 09:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Context

"The barrier to better Arab performance is not a lack of resources, concludes the report, but the lamentable shortage of three essentials: freedom, knowledge and womanpower. Not having enough of these amounts to what the authors call the region's three “deficits”. It is these deficits, they argue, that hold the frustrated Arabs back from reaching their potential—and allow the rest of the world both to despise and to fear a deadly combination of wealth and backwardness." Economist quoting Arab Muslim scholars WAS 4.250 19:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Timeline

1. "At first, the agitation was limited to Denmark. Ahmed Akkari, 28, a Lebanese-born Dane, acts as spokesman for the European Committee for Honoring the Prophet, an umbrella group of 27 Danish Muslim organizations to press the Danish government into action over the cartoons. Mr. Akkari said the group had worked for more than two months in Denmark without eliciting any response. "We collected 17,000 signatures and delivered them to the office of the prime minister, we saw the minister of culture, we talked to the editor of the Jyllands-Posten, we took many steps within Denmark, but could get no action," Mr. Akkari said, referring to the newspaper that published the cartoons. He added that the prime minister's office had not even responded to the petition. Frustrated, he said, the group turned to the ambassadors of Muslim countries in Denmark and asked them to speak to the prime minister on their behalf. He refused them too. "Then the case moved to a new stage," Mr. Akkari recalled. "We decided then that to be heard, it must come from influential people in the Muslim world." The group put together a 43-page dossier, including the offending cartoons and three more shocking images that had been sent to Danish Muslims who had spoken out against the Jyllands-Posten cartoons. Mr. Akkari denied that the three other offending images had contributed to the violent reaction, saying the images, received in the mail by Muslims who had complained about the cartoons, were included to show the response that Muslims got when they spoke out in Denmark.In early December, the group's first delegation of Danish Muslims flew to Cairo, where they met with the grand mufti, Muhammad Sayid Tantawy, Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit and Amr Moussa, the head of the Arab League."After that, there was a certain response," Mr. Akkari said, adding that the Cairo government and the Arab League both summoned the Danish ambassador to Egypt for talks."
2. "It was no big deal until the Islamic conference when the O.I.C. took a stance against it, said Muhammad el-Sayed Said, deputy director of the Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo."
3. "As leaders of the world's 57 Muslim nations gathered for a summit meeting in Mecca in December, issues like religious extremism dominated the official agenda. But much of the talk in the hallways was of a wholly different issue: Danish cartoons satirizing the Prophet Muhammad. [...] After that meeting, anger at the Danish caricatures, especially at an official government level, became more public. In some countries, like Syria and Iran, that meant heavy press coverage in official news media and virtual government approval of demonstrations that ended with Danish embassies in flames."
4. "At the end of December, the pace picked up as talk of a boycott became more prominent. The Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, comprising more than 50 states, published on its Web site a statement condemning "the aggressive campaign waged against Islam and its Prophet" by Jyllands-Posten, and officials of the organization said member nations should impose a boycott on Denmark until an apology was offered for the drawings."
5. "On Jan. 26, in a key move, Saudi Arabia recalled its ambassador to Denmark, and Libya followed suit. Saudi clerics began sounding the call for a boycott, and within a day, most Danish products were pulled off supermarket shelves." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/international/middleeast/09cartoon.html New York Times article: At Mecca Meeting, Cartoon Outrage Crystallized] WAS 4.250 19:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Mulim government motivations

"The protests also allowed governments to outflank a growing challenge from Islamic opposition movements by defending Islam. [...] The Saudis did this because they have to score against Islamic fundamentalists [meaning other Islamic fundamentalists], said Mr. Said, the Cairo political scientist. Syria made an even worse miscalculation, he added, alluding to the sense that the protest had gotten out of hand. The issue of the cartoons came at a critical time in the Muslim world because of Muslim anger over the occupation of Iraq and a sense that Muslims were under siege. Strong showings by Islamists in elections in Egypt and the victory of Hamas in the Palestinian elections had given new momentum to Islamic movements in the region, and many economies, especially those in the Persian Gulf, realized their economic power as it pertained to Denmark." New York Times article: At Mecca Meeting, Cartoon Outrage Crystallized WAS 4.250 19:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Egyptian newspaper El Fagr confirms it has published the cartoons

Read http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2006/February/middleeast_February156.xml&section=middleeast second paragraph from the end gidonb 20:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, they lie about how the cartoons were published. Quote: "[the newspaper] published the upper half of some of the controversial cartoons, omitting any facial representations". I see plenty of faces here Rasmus (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope, here they are admitting they published them on tuesday, nothing more than that WookMuff 22:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Depictions of Mohammad with facial expressions. It was also not the upper half, just a choice of the drawings. Somewhat sloppy journalism by this Dubai-based newspaper. A little apologetic too, but the important part fact is that is in there. That is more than what you'd expect in Damascus. gidonb 22:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know the size of this newspaper? I mean, is it worldwide, or is just for some remote place? (Cloud02 23:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC))

I noticed this article says they published them tuesday. Yet there's this guy on a blog who claims they posted it october last year? [29] .....Can someone actually CONFIRM when it was posted ? (Cloud02 23:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC))

17 October, 2005. [30] Notice that they removed this one picture, just after it broke out. Everything has long been confirmed by the editor, dimplomats, newspapers, new agencies and television stations. gidonb 04:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Reprinting in other newspapers

Suggestion to correct some factual errors: You can hardly say that Belgium and France are "Denmark'southern neighbors". Look at the map. - As correctly stated in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_that_reprinted_Jyllands-Posten%27s_Muhammad_cartoons bigger country's as France, Germany, Italy and Spain printed two days earlier the cartoons than some Belgium's newspapers.

Price on cartoonists head in December last year

According to this source, back in December Pakisatini based group Jamaate-Islami reportedly placed a price of around €7,000, mistakenly upon the head of a "sole" cartoonist the believe responsible for all 12 cartoons. [31], Tom Spurgeon carried it, and also reports back in December that "A few observers have suggested the negative reaction to those cartoons established a precedent for more sustained and violent youth protests that followed in France and in other European countries in one of the bigger international news stories of 2005." Sadly he doesn't document the sources. [32] Steve block talk 21:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Conflicting views on the influence of religions

- Lot's of people in the West sees this as a religious rule imposed on non believers like Muslims would forbid to other people to eat pork or Jews impose non Jews to cover their head.

- Many Muslims see it as a provocation like entering a Church in short pants or entering a Buddhist temple with shoes on or using a religious symbol inappropriately (in the presence of worshipers).

Last time I entered a Catholic church to meet a friend there who happened to be a priest I had short pants. I don't get it? Who would be offended by that? DanielDemaret 22:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I really have no idea where he got these strange ideas. I've been to Buddhist temples many times and not once did I ever have to take off my shoes. Also, I've been to cathedrals in shorts, I wasn't set on fire and no crusade against the invader (namely me) was ever called. And again, these cartoons were printed in Denmark which is secular, separation of religion from government, try it. Hitokirishinji 17:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It depends on time and place I think. I was asked to do all this before entering some places of worship. Some things are not allowed in some religious settings. If you have a better example, please add it.

- That's a ludicrous comparison above. The Danish editor did not enter a mosque in any country with the cartoons. I have visited mosques, synagogues and churches, and abided their rules. It is a provocation when a religious group tries to tell me how to behave in the secular World, especially when I am not of their belief or opinion. 84.190.207.92 08:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't try to repeat the discussion, just try to clarify it. Besides the point of freedom of speech, there is the point of freedom of (another or no) religion. The West is talking more about freedom of speech, Muslims more talking about religion. How the prophet is drawn has, I think, more to do with freedom of speech, that he is drawn is more related to freedom of religion. The discussion gets another dimension that way.

The list of "comparable incidents" covers more the insulting part, the freedom of speech question. The other part, the not obeying a religious rule, could be covered by other examples. Visiting a sacred place or a religious ceremony, it is accepted that non believers follow the rules. Are there other situations, incidents like that?

United Nations has appealed to stop publishing these pictures

Kofi Annan has now asked that editors please stop publishing the controversial Muhammad cartoons that have caused such consternation. In my opinion, this appeal should be responded to, and we should withdraw the samples of the offending cartoons from wikipedia. Mokwella 21:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's easy for Kofi to say, but let him put his money where his mouth is. The U.N. should institute a "Oil for FoodCensorship" programme. Kofi's son needs a new car. - Nunh-huh 23:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Give me a break!!! NO! This whole 'controversy' appears to be unraveling at this very moment... especially with the revelation that the Egyptian newspaper El Fagr published images involved in this controversy back in Oct. 2005!

Netscott 21:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Without these pictures shown, we would not have known as much about the events as we do today. It has become clear to me that if the pictures are not shown, the risk of violence escalates since people who have not seen them protest, but they do not know exactly what they protest about. Those who have seen them, as eg when the Cairo-citizens who saw them in October were peaceful. My comment is POV, of course.DanielDemaret 21:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

If anyone made a map, mapping violent protest and non-publication of the images in the same map, would they co-inside? (even if they did, there are other interpretations, but it would be fun to try)DanielDemaret 21:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

They were published in Greenland. No riots. MX44 21:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's not hard to make one, we do in fact have a list of the papers that printed the images and it's obvious which nations are rioting and protesting. If I had more time, I'd make one myself. Hitokirishinji 22:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This place may be the only source of knowledge in the world at this time that has enough information to make one. DanielDemaret 22:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I take it back, I'll make it. Hitokirishinji 22:18, 9

February 2006 (UTC)

While making this map I'm noticing something...the most violent protests have not had the images even printed so essentially people are protesting about images they've never seen? Does anyone find this a bit suspicious? Hitokirishinji 22:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh not again. Simply no, Kofi Annan or not, we will not remove the image. I am even more convinced as Daniel said, if we do not show these images, we will simply forget and repeat the past someday. And as Netscott is pointing out, this entire "uproar" seems to be manufactured to play into the hands of people who have an agenda. Hitokirishinji 22:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. If it had been a decree by Jimbo Wales, then it would have been removed. But if Kofi Annan makes a plea/request to please not do it, then he can (pardon my French) sh*ve it. Kofi Annan is not wikipedia, and Kofi Annan is not Jimbo Wales. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 23:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

These images are important information, and add context to this informational article. It would be a mistake to remove them, as it would be detrimental to people who wish to learn more, but can't because of censorship. — TheKMan^talk 22:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I am a little puzzled why the publication in Egypt is nice and dandy but for European publications embassies get burned down. Perhaps someone can explain the difference? gidonb 22:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

That's where the conspiracy theory starts. An increasing number of people, including Ms Rice, have accused Syria and Iran of provoking things to distract attention from their problems.-- Nomen Nescio 22:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

OK well personally I dislike conspiracy theories, although I have seen this one reported in a Dutch quality daily two days before Rice picked it up. Rice did not talk about the Egyptian publication of the cartoons, however. She just mentioned that in Iran and Syria large demonstrations are government directed. That is also what the Dutch daily mentioned before her. gidonb 22:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This one has very good arguments. Syria and Iran do have serious problems (who with!?). And it would certainly explain many inconsistencies, such as why did it take 4 months for Muslims to get angry, why can Egypt publish without problems, why did the Danish imam add three pictures which were the most offensive?-- Nomen Nescio 22:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, these things can happen in such countries. But Rice did not go into those details either. I have read the transcript. In the same answer she called upon the press to act in a more responsible manner. I think that her words were taken out of context in most of the following headlines and articles. gidonb 23:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Here its is gidonb 23:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC) MODERATOR: Next question is Charlie Wolfson from CBS.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, in the aftermath of the printing of the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, there has been outrage around the world that we've all seen. The question is: Do you think this is spontaneous as it continues? If not, who is behind it? What group or what governments might be behind it?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, let me first say that this has been a difficult period. We are strong proponents of the freedom of the press. It is one of the most fundamental freedoms of democratic development. We also believe that with press freedom comes a certain responsibility. And the United States has been a place where there has been also freedom of religion and that means that people have to exist in the same body and to respect each other's religious traditions and respect each other's religious sensibilities and that is also very important.

Now, nothing justifies the violence that has broken out in which many innocent people have been injured. Nothing justifies the burning of diplomatic facilities or threats to diplomatic facilities around the world. This is a time when everyone should urge calm and should urge that there is an atmosphere of respect and understanding.

I think that there have been a lot of governments that have spoken out about this. Note, for instance, Afghanistan and Lebanon, very important comments even by the Ayatollah Sistani about this.

But yes, there are governments that have also used this opportunity to incite violence. I don't have any doubt that given the control of the Syrian Government in Syria, given the control of the Iranian Government, which, by the way, hasn't even hidden its hand in this, that Iran and Syria have gone out of their way to inflame sentiments and to use this to their own purposes. And the world ought to call them on it. All responsible people ought to say that there is no excuse for violence. We all need to respect each other's religions. We need to respect freedom of the press. But you know, again, with freedom of the press comes responsibility as well. [33]

When did Kofi Annan say this? From Reuters Canada, I see him saying it's "inappropriate". For all I know, Mokwella is simply starting another futile argument for removing the images. Unless a Scientologist Lawyer sues us while threatening the gasoline supply of the world, interrupting cable TV transmissions in the U.S., and summoning the Wrath of God in a manner not unlike Pat Robertson, they will not be removed. --Tokachu 00:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is the text from the United Nations Seceretary General's own website: Annan Urges Responsibility Over Caricatures -- 9 February -- At a press encounter this morning, the Secretary-General was asked about the recent publication of caricatures of the prophet Muhammad, and, while he underlined his support for freedom of speech, he also pointed to the need to exercise responsibility and judgment. "Quite honestly," he said, "I cannot understand why any editor will publish cartoons at this time which inflames and pours oil on the fire." http://www.un.org/News/ossg/sg/ From my own perspective, it appears wikipedia (collectively) is willing to sacrifice civility on the altar of 'freedom of the press'. If this is an encyclopedia, do we not have at least maintain some level of social responsibility,particularly in regard to images, as opposed to text? Please take the pictures down. Mokwella 20:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

End of Story?

It is unusually peaceful tonight. Have we reached the end of the "current event" periode? Is it time to pick up all the confusing little pieces and make a solid article? MX44 21:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about you but I've seen 3 new requests today alone to remove the image so I haven't seen a calm today. Hitokirishinji 22:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about external events. I have seen one proposal to remove a sculpture from Middlekerke, Belgium: http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=437604 Or perhaps they just thought it was ugly ... MX44 22:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

There should to be some reference to the fact that some European newspapers which published the Cartoons were in a bad situation financially:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060209/ap_on_re_eu/prophet_drawings_profits 86.52.36.140 23:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

That might be, but it is not really relevant in the Danish case. Jyllands-Posten is Denmark's biggest newspaper. Weekend Avisen, which published the satire over the Jyllands-Posten images, is a much smaller newspaper, but it is read by many intellectuals (no big player on the market, but owned by Berlingske Officin which is a major player.) I don't think Weekend Avisen planned on selling more papers because of its article, since it is not very easily available. --Valentinian 23:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Vote proposal (don't shoot me down)

I think that, when this stops being current events, we should have (yet) another vote. This time giving "all" the options available and letting people decide once and for all what they want. If anyone else would like to propose what these options could be, so be it?

Options i had in mind were: large pic at top, thumb at top with high res pic, small pic at top, link at top, large pic lower down, thumb lower down with high res pic, small pic lower down, link lower down, no picture or link at all. WookMuff 22:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You forgot another option: large high res picture of each individual cartoon, at top (maybe running down the side of the article)... Valtam 22:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

yes, there is a very important option you did not mention. Instead of having the whole collection of pics, we can have just one (maybe the artist drawing cartoon). That would be enough to represent the whole story... Resid Gulerdem 22:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not the place to support or disagree with one or the other. This is the place to reflect one and the other. --Ezeu 22:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Wrong answer! The correct answer would be: This is an ensiklopedia and so it is not a place to include an insult in any form. This is a place to account a phenomena objectively and academically. This is not a place for cartoon collection either... Resid Gulerdem 22:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

We could erase any mentioning of any religion in this encyclopedia, and nobody would be insulted anymore. Just erase any mention of jews, so muslims will not insulted, any mention of muslims, so jews would not be insulted, etc, and everyone would be happy. And ignorant. DanielDemaret 22:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes! That would be nice. --Ezeu 22:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)´

This is not a place for cartoon collection either... ...except when that collection is central to the subject of the article. Though (almost?) everyone here knows that already so I don't know why I'm writing it. Weregerbil 22:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia may or may not be a place to include insults, but if a collective perception of insult is a notable issue (as is the case here), it is our encyclopedic duty to inform the reader of what is being perceived as an insult. In this case, the insult involves a series of cartoons. The reader has a right to know what the cartoons look like that have offended so many. And that right to know trumps the (non-existant) right not to be offended. Wikipedia is not censored, even if it leads to some feeling offended. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 22:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because you like playing with words and thinking that it is making some sense? The collection is not central at all. Everything would be the same if there is just one cartoon. It doesn't change anything. Having the whole collection is against the Wiki regulations. Resid Gulerdem 22:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Please try to remain civil. As usual, you are wrong in your guessing of other peoples' motives. Re having pictures: your opinion, others clearly disagree. Discussed at great length and polled. Weregerbil 22:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Which Wiki regulations, in particular, are you alleging violations of? It's certainly not a copyright issue.BinaryTed 16:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Please try to be honest. My poll is not discussed at a great length, it is vandalized 100 times. I was able to keep it on for just a night! The others were on for 3 or so days, at least. Resid Gulerdem 23:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a collection of anuses or penises but nonetheless they are there. Hitokirishinji 23:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

They are there. The issue is related to health and discussed academically. I do not think that you would consider it being an insult if one say: 'you have at least one of those'. Resid Gulerdem 23:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia also has a duty to disseminate correct information. Having a scan of the original page with all 12 cartoons lets people easily discern what was on the page and what was not (such as the three falsified cartoons) for themselves. Richard 129.244.128.134 23:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

What a silly argument, some people keep permanently. That is not true. We are reporting what has really happened here. One pic enough to show that some cartoons caused anger and considered insult! It is not the task of an ensiklopedia to show all cartoons to the people and test the strength of their stomach... Resid Gulerdem 23:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is one cartoon any less offensive to you than all 12? SilentC 00:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Because, in that particular cartoon (an artist drawing Mohammed), there is not a clear image of Him. But on the other hand, you can see what an artist doing, his fear, etc, which completely summerize the situation. Can't you really see any difference between a cartoon, for example, represent Mohammed as a terrorist with a bomp in his turban and the one I mentiooned above? ... Resid Gulerdem 02:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Everyone keeps saying that cartoon represents Muhammad as a terrorist, even though the artist denies that was his intent. My question: In the history of terrorism has anyone ever employed a bomb-shaped turban on their head as a weapon? I think it's clear the cartoons is metaphorical for some conflation of Islam and terrorism, but Muhammad himself is not being called a terrorist. Babajobu 03:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I see a very important difference: People have DIED because of these cartoons. Embassies and other government buildings have been burned because of these cartoons. People have not died, nor have embassies been burned, because of a cartoon of someone else making an obscured drawing of Mohammed. It's an issue of significance: these cartoons are so significant to the controversy that the controversy would likely not exist without the cartoons. The cartoon you want in the article is not significant to the controversy: its inclusion or omission offers no real information to the reader.BinaryTed 16:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Please be honest. The name of this contest is 'faces of Mohammad'. There is an ugly person with a bomp at his turban? Who is he than? Can suicide bumpers be called as terrorists? If so then what relation can you make using those in your mind? Resid Gulerdem 03:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Resid, I ask that you stop accusing people of being dishonest. It is rude, and violates WP:NPA. Anyway, I was being honest, and you should reread what I wrote. I was not denying that the artist was intending to depict Muhammad; what I said was that a person with a bomb-cum-turban is not a plausible depiction of someone committing a terrorist act. More likely the cartoon is metaphorical, as such cartoons often are. It's more likely the author is alluding to the use of Islam to justify terrorist acts than that he was saying "look, this is Muhammad about to blow someone up with a bomb in his turban!" Babajobu 03:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Babajobu, I ask you thionk about the word 'emphaty'. If your understanding of the cartoons are shared by people, why is this dipute growing up so rapidly? The most important thing here is how people are understanding it. You should not judge others using your understanding and feelings. Only honesty can solve this problem. Resid Gulerdem 04:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought the problem was that there were images at all, not that they may or may not represent someone - that no-one alive has ever seen - as a terrorist. Also, the one you propose most certainly does have a clear representation of an Arabic-looking man with a beard. You may not be able to make it out at the resolution at which it is displayed here, but it is most certainly there. SilentC 03:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The resolution cannot be an excuse. You can use a smaller size pic... The first part of your message is not clear to me... Resid Gulerdem 03:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It's also the only one that has his name written on it, so there's no question that's who it is intended to be, whereas the others are less explicitly so. SilentC 03:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I personally want to have a link instead. Since the people would like to see the cartoons so much pointlessly, I thought we should have one istead. I can see that the cartoon I mentioned is the most acceptible one because the main theme there is: someone trying to draw a pic of him! Why do not we try and see the reaction of the Muslim users? Resid Gulerdem 03:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Moreover there is no need to put his name on all of them. The name of the contest is 'faces of Mohammed' remember... Resid Gulerdem 03:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that is that we are not using the editorial cartoons to make some sort of witty allusion to the fear of cartoonists, Resid. We are showing the cartoons so people can see what started the uproar. And it was the publication of all 12 that started it, rather than just the one you mention. Babajobu 04:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

And that is where you are doing mistake. To have all those cartoons is pointless, because:

• A Western can't see anything wrong with that. So it doesn't explain anything about the dispute... Verbal explanations work much better.
• A Muslim definitely find it highly offensive to Islam and an insult. Resid Gulerdem 04:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, the consensus of the community to keep the pictures has been made very clear, and on Wikipedia one needs to learn to accept consensus, even when one doesn't agree with it. Babajobu 04:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

A picture is often far better than words - especially when this 'debate' is over what is in essence pictures. Robovski 02:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Should I call this answer as an honest one? You are not answering my points... Just changing course of the discussion. That is why the consensus you are talking about is not a real one. People is not answering the points they dislike, just using their dominant number to pass a regulation or a change in the article. Poll 3 here couldn't stay more than a night here? Why? Unfortunately English Wiki is acting like a Judeo-Christian Forum. I am saddened to realize that. This behaviour will effect greatly the reliability of WIki and I believe you will realize that soon. Resid Gulerdem 04:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Resid, hang on. We just voted on this matter and decided to keep the pictures. How do you think they are suddenly going to disappear? Also, three of these picture were published in Egypt. Then how are you going to convince the folks at the English language Wikipedia to hide them or enter them through a link? Just puzzled. gidonb 04:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote about your understanding of consesnsus here. You are not answering valid questions. You do not have convincing answers. You have just dominant here. Can you read what I wrote above please? Try to answer my questons. And this one: 'Why only English Wiki is insisting on having these pics?' Resid Gulerdem 05:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No, the point is it doesn't matter what you think, it's what the community consensus is. One person would not be able to fight a fight against a group of ten. Likewise, one dissenter is not able to change the views of a consensus of ten, there is no use in arguing further. NSLE _(T+C) 05:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

'The world is still round'... I do not know what this reminds you?... Resid Gulerdem 05:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I was not answering any questions, valid or invalid. I was asking them as I was puzzled with the initiative. I got rather assertive answers and one question back. You ask me why only the English Wikipedia has the picture. How can I answer such a question, if it is based on untruth? Many Wikipedias have the pictures. See for example this one, perhaps better take my word for it if you do not like them, each picture seperate in large format: http://lb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed-Karikature_vu_Jyllands-Posten. Now those who do not have it. I looked at the talk page of the Dutch article. They have no problem with the pictures, just with the copyrights. gidonb 05:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

My answer to your question would be: When you started to mimic the Egiptian media? The point is, if it is correct to have an insult in an article or not? Resid Gulerdem 05:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The answer would depend on the circumstances. I will give you an example. I am Jewish. I have actively voted to keep antisemitic pictures in Wikipedia, where they are relevant for the article. They do insult me of course. gidonb 05:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The point of course is that in an encyclopedia you include the good and the bad. I despise Nazi symbols, but I think they ought to be included in an article on Nazi-Germany. I would put them there although a large part of my family has been murdered by people wearing these symbols. Resid and WookMuff, I encourage you to take your tasks as an editor professionaly. We are explaining what happened in the Jyllands Posten and afterwards, not claiming that these cartoons are good taste. I think the contrary is true. gidonb 06:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

What you are saying is completely untrue! Can you direct me an antisemitic picture here, I am not aware of them? Your point doesn't make sense at all because: The antisemitic pictures shows that in fact you are victims. It creates a sympathy. As a person who strongly against antisemitizm, I cannot see your point by this comparison... The case is totally different here. The cartoons you are insisting on are not showing that Muslims are right. They are insulting them. Could you please answer this question sincerely: Would you have the same reaction if the pictures are that of Abraham, Moses or your God? Keep in mind that you are professional at that hypotetical time too... Resid Gulerdem 08:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Resid, see Piss Christ, where Wikipedia carries a famously offensive image of a crucifix submerged in urine. We carry it because it's relevant, even though Christians detest the image. And even though Christians hate it, they understand freedom of speech and understand that Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, documents notable events such as the creation of that image. We have images that are similarly offensive to Jews, Scientologists, et cetera. Resid, this article will always carry the images of the twelve cartoons. We cannot provide special treatment for Islam. You just have to learn to deal with it. Babajobu 09:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Resid, the cases are precisely the same. Antisemetic cartoons are offensive to me, the pictures of Mohammad are offensive to you. If they are relevant enough to an article, they should be included. Same applies for pictures of Abraham, Moses or God. On this page you will find plenty of antisemitic art. click here gidonb 11:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Moved to the bottom WookMuff 23:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Re the above list, Resid, please stop interchanging "only one pic" with "large high res", you're making WookMuff's comments incorrect when you do so, and I see that as vandalism (bad-faith edit). NSLE _(T+C) 05:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You are not aware of what you are doing. Please see the history! Resid Gulerdem 05:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Resid, the point is that ALL of the issues you raised were addressed repeatedly during the poll, and people do not want to go through them all again every time someone brings them up anew. Learn to respect consensus. Babajobu 05:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. The poll itself couldn't stay on for a single night. It is vandalized 100 times. And closed by an admin shortly... I would prefer if it is open for at least as the others. Resid Gulerdem 05:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

WookMuff, I would like to propose the following option for your poll:

• the outcome of the previous polls is binding

I had a somewhat different take than the one that won, but I strongly believe that the previous outcome is binding. Add the 100 extra categories if you like, but also the one I proposed. I hope my point makes you understand that you will not have a different result two days later, even if you try to dilute the vote between complex categories. gidonb 05:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Polls are not binding, this is official WP policy. Dmaftei 15:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, my cunning plan revealed... oh wait, thats stupid. My point is a lot of complaining has been done about the limited options of the first polls... the complaint that the option of "one of the cartoons, the least offensive" has been bandied about. What i am suggesting is a poll that includes that option, and all possible options. I am not, in fact, starting that poll. Once the controversy has died down i suggest we take it. For your information, i am of the "thumbnail at the top" group. I don't feel the need to pander to Islam, but i don't feel we need every single cartoon in detail up the top in high res. WookMuff 23:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Resid, if this article causes you undue stress, I suggest you never click any link to this article ever again. The image stays. Continuing this whining will only cost you precious time, which you could also spend on articles needing attention more desperately. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 21:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that, when this stops being current events, we should have (yet) another vote. This time giving "all" the options available and letting people decide once and for all what they want. If anyone else would like to propose what these options could be, so be it?

• large high-res picture of each individual cartoon, at top
• only one picture (the artist drawing cartoon for example) at top
• large high-res picture of the original J-P page at top
• thumbnail of the original J-P page at top with high res pic linked
• small picture of the original J-P page at top
• link to (any of the above) at top
• large picture of original J-P page lower down
• thumbnail of original J-P page lower down with high res pic linked
• small pic lower down
• link lower down
• no picture or link at all.

additionally

• Each individual cartoon next to its description further down the page

Once more, please don't just come and say "blah blah polls are irrelevant." Please don't comment unless you have something to add, because there are 10 other pages of places to complain on this topic. Comment here if you think i have left an option out? WookMuff 23:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a problem with a MultiPoll: imagine every entry getting 100 votes except "remove picture" gets 101. So it seems "remove" is the popular choice. When in fact 1000 votes were for keeping the picture in some form. It can be very difficult to extract a meaningful result from that kind of a poll. That's why Poll 1 and Poll 2 were the way they were. Weregerbil 23:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually i don't have an issue with poll 1, its poll 2 i have issues with. This is just a suggestion, something to bear in mind. Its hardly set in stone. If you wanna suggest making it two polls, one with "pic on top, link on top, nothing on top" and then a poll on pic positioning (with more options than poll 2) then suggest away WookMuff 01:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no objections, as long as you keep my option in. So far you have forgotten to include it, even though you did call to suggest additional options. I hope that your call was sincere. gidonb 13:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion has been weighed, and found wanting. The call for further options and comments is sincere, but if this poll happens (and if it does it surely won't be for a few weeks) I, personally, would rather that people vote on the issue, not vote on feelings of having their previous judgements called into question. Have a nice day WookMuff 22:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

In that case I am against holding your poll. I do not see why you want to forbid me to refer to the previous poll if they are held so closely together in time. gidonb 01:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Your objection is noted. But, what do you mean about "held so closely together in time"? "My poll" as you have called it, is a theoretical poll. My proposal is that a poll be held, once things are calm, that has more than yes, no, and comments. If you want to call it the "WookMuff Poll for Peace and Harmony" then so be it ;) WookMuff 02:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The best way to achieve peace and harmony is not to vote on the same issue more than once a year. My choice did not win either, but now that it did not, I go by the consensus and edit many other articles. When was the last time you made an edit to an article? A week ago? gidonb 02:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually i made two very short edits about an hour ago. But enough of these personal insinuations. I'll go back to watching tv and you go back to opposing the terrible enemies of free speech. WookMuff 04:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, my choice DID win. This is more about the people who feel that their choices weren't even represented. WookMuff 05:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Article structure

Can somebody explain calmly if there is any argument, besides poll number 3, against moving the cartoons, say, next to the bulleted list that describes each? Thanks. Dmaftei 22:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant poll number 2. Too many polls...Dmaftei 23:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I could explain, but unfortunately not calmly. --Ezeu 22:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead, then, I'll try to ignore your anger.Dmaftei 22:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Apart from the poll, only argument that I have seen there be pretty much consensus about is that a lot of people are tired of rehashing this for perhaps the 10th time. And of course there are many arguments that there is no consensus about too. DanielDemaret 22:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "people are tired" is a valid argument. What I'm thinking about is the kind of arguments that were put forward in the discussion about keeping the picture in the article. My summary of those arguments is this:

1. Keep
   1. it's free speach
   2. the picture is relevant to the article
   3. (I'm dismissing non-arguments such as "everyone should be deep-throated with it" and "WP should not abide by the laws of Islamofascism" as totally bogus)
2. Delete
   1. it's an insult to Islam

Is there any argument along these lines against moving the picture?Dmaftei 04:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes ther are:

1. 1. Collection of cartoons is against the wiki standards
   2. Unecessary: Words would explain the case better without insult.
   3. Nonsense: An ensiclopedia article is just a fair account of the phenomena. We cannot include cartoons to let people see what they are all about. It is pointless, because:
      • A Western can't see anything wrong with that. So it doesn't explain anythink about the dispute...
      • A Muslim definitely find it highly offensive to Islam and an insult. Resid Gulerdem 02:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No offense, Resid Gulerdem, but you seem to have completely missed my question... The question is: "is there any argument against moving the picture from where it is now to a different place?". That means a different place within the article, I'm not talking about removing the image from the article. Your three points above address totally different issues (and I also happen to disagree with all of them, sorry...) Dmaftei 04:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

A collection of cartoons is not against wikipedia standards, provided the cartoons are relevant to the issue. I think it's safe to say that the cartoons are relevant to the controversy. Words also will never be able to explain the pictures sufficiently, because language is not broad enough to deal with nuances the way vision can. And your argument about westerners and muslims are gross generalizations and void. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 01:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I thought you are talking about the removal. I wish you could explain why you are disagree with what I am saying above. Resid Gulerdem 04:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

We do not wish to scare any muslims. By showing them, they can see for themselves that they are not dangerous at all MX44 22:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

My question was not about showing or not showing, was about an argument against moving... I'm not campaining for deletion here.Dmaftei 22:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

2500 Danish for a different Danmark.

I couldn't see in the article that about 2500 Danish signed an online declaration stating that, 'JP should appoligize and they want peace with Muslims'. JP also puplished a new version of their appology. Will these be included? Resid Gulerdem 22:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean the countries in which criminals burned embassies and people were killed will also apologise?-- Nomen Nescio 22:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The people who were killed were not Danish. They were poor muslims in Afghanistan and such trying to protest. And your conperison is nonsense: What I am saying is, will the news I mentioned above be included in the article? Ask if they will apologize to them. And add to the article when they do! It should be hard for you to see what I am saying... I can see you mentality. Resid Gulerdem 23:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

why dont you begin a protest calling for the governments where the embassies have been burned to apologize... wait.. the governments ALREADY DID!!!! In fact, the interior minister of Lebanon withdrew because of it! And like the guy above me already said. Those who died, were their own citizes, why on earth should they apologize if their own citizens were killed? Now even if it weren't their own citizens, why should they apologize? I dont see USA or the Coalition apologizing to the International community for killing people each day(Cloud02 23:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC))

If the group that launched the online declaration is notable enough, then it might be included. But I doubt it. And I'm also not impressed by the number. 2,500 people signing a petition on such an important issue, on a population of 5.4 million with virtually everyone having internet access doesn't really seem much to me. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 23:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

...also given the fact that for a party capable of mounting a cyberterror attack against ~900 web sites, stuffing an online ballot box is a trivial task. Weregerbil 23:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Right, because all the Arabs in the Middle East suddenly learned Danish. (Cloud02 23:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC))

Surely not all Arabs have to learn Danish to stuff a simple ballot box. There are Danish-speaking arabs in Denmark, quite probably elsewhere too. I could stuff an online ballot box in three or four languages myself ("could" = technically, not in reality as my conscience would not allow it.) Weregerbil 23:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

2.500 are not that many, but the number was obtained in a very short time (something like 24 hours). In addition, more than 6.000 have added a greeting to the Muslims, and their names are Danish. Remember also that we have seen reporting based on rumors that only a few blockheads threatened to burn the Qu'ran. Personally, I could not sign the letter because it set forth some demands I do not support (and I stronglly object to the notion that looking at the picture is equal to "looking down upon" or having disrespect for Muslims and their faith). I still appreciate the site's attempt to show to the world and to all sensible Muslims that the overwhelming majority of Danes are not anti-Muslims (should anybody have doubted that). Many apologies for this un-editorial remark... --Sir48 00:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If the petition has been online for that little time with so little subscriptions, I don't think it should be included. If it remains online for some time and gains a substantial amount of signings in that time, then it can be included. But I think we have to hold off on that for now. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 10:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The link to the site (in English) is http://www.anotherdenmark.org/ --Sir48 01:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This should definitely included too. Can an editor could incorporate this into the article please? Resid Gulerdem 02:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I don't see how http://www.sorrynorwaydenmark.com/ (Reconciliation section, at the end) is good for the article, and at the same time http://www.anotherdenmark.org/ is not. All the arguments above against the inclusion of http://www.anotherdenmark.org/ are applicable to http://www.sorrynorwaydenmark.com/ too.Dmaftei 19:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

MAP UPDATED

Blue is where cartoons have been printed. Red is where violent protests have taken place, this is just preliminary, any feedback is appreciated. Hitokirishinji 23:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, I forgot to mark in Denmark... I was planning to add more colors for places that have both protests and have printed the cartoons and others. Hitokirishinji 23:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Any thoughts on making it a world-wide map? — TheKMan^talk 23:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Good job, Hitokirishinji. Some cartographic comments: There are very few reds, so it is really a waste not to include all of Somalia. On the other hand, in the north you can cut the picture just north of continental Norway. There is no need to include some obscure Norwegian islands that hardly show on the map. You can also cut out some of the east, I would keep all of Pakistan in although it is white. No need to include the whole world. It would give too much white and too little detail. gidonb 23:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hang on, were the cartoons not published in New Zealand? gidonb 23:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I would make two maps. One which showed the countries in which the cartoons have been published on a world map. The second could be of the protest on a map of Europe, Africa and Asia. --Maitch 23:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is the best idea! My detailed comments refer only to the protest map. gidonb 23:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I realize that I may have left out some countries but simply because the map would be hard to read if it was really worldwide. If anyone can get me a blank world map that's fairly large (larger than 1280 pixels) with lines outlining the countries, I'd be glad to do it. Hitokirishinji 23:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Try Image:BlankMap-World.png. — TheKMan^talk 23:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The map should be global since there were burnings of the flag in Nigeria, and protests in Indonesia and as far away as New Zealand. But if you only count deaths, I think the map is a fair representation.86.52.36.140 00:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The Danish embassy in Iran has been attacked with Molotov-cocktails. In addition, countries with major demonstrations could be indicated in a different colour. --Sir48 01:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Danskjävlar!--Ezeu 00:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC) Sorry I was out of line. --Ezeu 07:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Erm translation please? Anyways, thanks for the map KMan, this will work. I will work on it over the weekend and maybe a bit more today but I will keep you folks updated. I plan to make it hopefully decently extensive but if anyone has any ideas, throw em on here or on my talk page if it gets too crowded. Hitokirishinji 00:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It means Danish Devils. It is a strongly offensive Swedish term. Ezeu apparently hates my people. --Valentinian 00:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

What qualifies as "violent"? People killed? Buildings burned? Flags burned? Anything else?Dmaftei 00:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much anything Ghandi wouldn't approve of. Actaully I was thinking buildings burned and people killed but I hadn't originally considered flag burning. I suppose that's not an entirely peaceful thing. Hitokirishinji 00:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Forbannade danskar. Translation: good golly danes. --Ezeu 00:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC) That was the merlot talking. Excuse me. --Ezeu 07:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No Ezeu! It means DAMN DANES! Stop inserting Swedish derogatory terms towards my people! --Valentinian 00:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The correct translation must be Damned Danes. But be careful not to disclose our views regarding the Swedes... :-) --Sir48 01:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Ghandi wouldn't approve of railroads among other things :-) but I'm not sure if he would approve of boycotts. Is Saudi Arabia RED or WHITE?Dmaftei 00:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I haven't designated a color for "peaceful" protests just yet. But I'd classify boycotts as peaceful, as least no property is destroyed and no one is physically hurt. I figured this might get kinda complicated... Hitokirishinji 00:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Pink Dmaftei 00:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Also why the decision to invert the red/blue? In Nato wargaming the agressive party is red, while the defensive party is blue. I think it is clear who were the offensive party here. 86.52.36.140 00:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There were also peaceful demonstrations in Israel. gidonb 01:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Israel/Occupied Gaza and West Bank, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, Georgia (country), Bosnia-Herzegovina just off the top of my head where there've been protests. NSLE _(T+C) 02:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's problematic to describe the protests in UK as "peaceful" just because no one was killed and no buildings were burned. People were carrying placards promising another 7/7, saying Europe would be forced to kneel before the Mujahideen, calling for the beheading of those who supported the cartoons, et cetera. Certainly here people have contrasted our protestors with "peaceful" protestors elsewhere. Babajobu 02:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought about that too actually Baba. I've been pondering what to do. At this point I'm not sure exactly because it seems like people will be taking issue with whatever color I choose. So I'm going to make it this, one color for countries that printed, one color for countries that had protests, mix the colors for countries that had both and in very notable protests, I will simply just write a damn box or something. Anyone have any better ideas? The blue and red simply was just on a whim. Red usually seems a more "violent" color you could say. It had nothing to do with any bias towards a group of people...and I didn't know anything about Nato wargames. If it makes anyone feel better, I'll do green and yellow instead...or purple. Hitokirishinji 03:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't write a damn box. Blue for published, red for protest, mix for both. I don't see why WP should use NATO wargames convensions.Dmaftei 04:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Eh? I see Babajobu's point... but, well... let's just use objective markers. Countries with protests with greater than 1,000 people or something and countries with newspapers of X circulation that have published it. Sound good-ish?

The cartoons were also printed in Yemen, in the Yemen Observer. The paper was closed by the government after printing the cartoons. See also Jawa Report and Yemen Times editorial.

Thank you for doing that map! Consider a rainbow scale of colours, where the more violent the event, the hotter (more red) it gets. It would give more info, and be prettier :) DanielDemaret 09:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll second Daniel's suggestion. This map is a great idea. --Valentinian 10:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Great idea, we need a map to illastrate where the cartoons were published and where there were demonstration. A world map would be better, as some countries outside Middle East and Europe published the cartoon. I agree to Daniel's idea of the colours which will give readers a more detailed map. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 11:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea as well, however you might want to shade Turkey and Pakistan as Red now... :) --Scaife 11:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Update on the map This is what I have so far:
Blue - countries that printed
Sliding scale of pink to hot red - protests, depending upon intensity
Mixed - both protests and printed

Things I wanted to add:
Flame icon - buildings burned
Denmark flag icon - places where Danish goods have been boycott
Small red person icon - places where people have died

If anyone feels strongly about anything, please let me know.
--Hitokirishinji 15:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's very problematic to do this. What do countries have to do with this? In the US, one paper published them, all the others didn't. Does this lead to the "whole country" having published it? Azate The same goes for coloring countries with minor demonstations. Did the "whole country" riot? Azate 16:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I could put a number in each country to indicate how many newspapers published the cartoons but of course there will be a disclamier to check the actaul list. And the "whole country riot" thing is going to be asessed by a sliding scale like I said, the shades will be different for different number of rioters. If you think you have a better solution, please feel free to post it. In general though, I like these guidelines at the moment and would prefer to settle on them so I don't have to constantly remake the map everytime someone finds something offensive or wrong. Hitokirishinji 16:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Please let me know what you think! I have updated with a new color scheme and everything. Also anyone who is color blind let me know if you can make sense of it. Also please lets all agree on the colors and everything soon. It takes time to make this so lets come to a consensus today because once I start working on it over the weekend, it's set in stone. One more thing, this map is not complete yet. There are still quite a few countries left out so please don't assume its anywhere near done. Hitokirishinji 22:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you are doing a fine job - now just get it up to date and on the article!Robovski 02:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Rumours and Misinformation

The ‘Rumours and misinformation’ section was deleted by Azate earlier today:

(cur) (last) 12:16, 9 February 2006 Azate (_Rumours and misinformation - deleted. this has been much shortened and put into the timeline (try to look for hot dog e.g.))

It seems quite an important section and ought to be reinserted. All the information is there to be reinserted (go to History and the time and date noted above), however, I don't know how to do this! Perhaps someone else could do the honor?

Furthermore, the following misunderstandings / misrepresentations (which were not included in the ‘Rumors and Misinformation’ part of Wikipedia article were mentioned on the Danish Radio website this evening: http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Temaer/Oevrige_temaer/2006/Tegninger/Artikler/201343.htm

Below is a rough translation:

1) There were 120 drawings of the prophet Muhammed.

On the third of January the media (amongst this DR Nyheder Online http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Udland/2006/01/03/113630.htm) reported that a researcher at the Dansk Ægyptisk Dialoginstitut by the name Hanna Ziadeh in a one hour interview on Egyptian television had had to clear up several misunderstandings regarding the Muhammed-drawings in the Danish newspaper JP. Ziadeh, amongst other things, denied, that it concerned 120 drawings, but could confirm that it concerned 12.

2) The Danish government is considering deleting parts of the Quaran.

In Berlingske Tidende on the 12th of January (http://www.berlingske.dk/grid/indland/artikel:aid=681128) it is mentioned that part of the material presented by the Imams during their travel claimed that Denmark would publish a censored version of the Quoran.

3) The Danish government wants to make a film about Muhammed.

According to Berlingske Tidende the 13th of January (http://www.berlingske.dk/grid/indland/artikel:aid=682188), Mahmoud Bakri, the editor of the paper Al Usbu (“the week”) in Cairo related that the Danish delegation of Imams has claimed that the Danish government, following the Dutch film ‘Submission’ (which was critical of Islam) is planning to pay for a new film turned particularly against the prophet Muhammed [the writing is a bit intransparrent here, presumably they mean simply critical of Muhammed].

4) The prime minister refused meeting the ambassadors, as it was a matter of ‘freedom of speech’.

Fahmi Howaidi, a journalist on Arabnews, writes on the webpage Al-Jazeera.info (http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2006%20Opinion%20Editorials/January/22%20o/Islam%20and%20the%20West%20Who%20Hates%20Whom%20The%20Danish%20Case%20By%20Fahmi%20Howaidi.htm), that 11 Arab ambassadors were refused by prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, as they wished to meet with the purpose of making him registerer their protest against the insult against Islam. The reason given for the refusal was that the government could not interfere in a case concerning freedom of speech. The prime minister himself, explained the matter as follows in TV2 Nyhederne on the 30th of January (http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/article.php?id=3564679): “They had written a letter [demanding …sic] that the government take legal steps against the JP. But there we have to say: It is impossible in a democracy such as the Danish, which has freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Because of this, I wrote a cordial letter to the ambassadors, for the exact reason, so as not the escalate the matter.

5) Muslim children are indoctrinated in Danish kindergartens

According to JP (http://www.jp.dk/indland/artikel:aid=3530022/), the Imam Mahmoud Fouad al-Barazi, told an Egyptian newspaper, that Muslim children in Denmark are indoctrinated in the kindergartens. The imam thinks that this – in conjunction with other social acts is intended to "rob the Islamic communities of their religion and identity". The assertions about indoctrination were repeated on the Arabic television station Al-Jazeera in January.

Mila81.132.174.178 00:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Have translated the missing words. --Sir48 01:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, Sir. I'm afraid that I don't have the time to edit it for the Rumours & Misinformation section, nor to reinsert the section itself as such. Anyone ...? Mila81.132.174.178 02:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

How far back did you go to dredge that up? I don't mind parts of it being there, but some of that needed to be trimmed out. Kyaa the Catlord 09:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

HOLY CRAP. You brought back a version from like the VERY BEGINNING. I'm being bold. Try again with something less... ancient. Kyaa the Catlord 09:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed above for a while under the section Translations of the Imam's 43 page dossier are available. -- Avenue 09:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem bringing it back. But... find a more recent copy. The one you brought back was missing changes I made to it nearly four days ago now. Kyaa the Catlord 09:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken. I inserted precisely the text that Azate deleted in a single edit, less than 24 hours ago. Comparing my version with the one immediately preceding his edit shows no differences in that section. If your changes were missing, they went missing before that. -- Avenue 09:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That would be my mistake then, i reinsterted an older one which he deleted again. :P (Cloud02 10:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC))

Ah, then I was mistaken about Azate's conduct. He or she deleted the content in a series of edits, most recently around 16:30-17:00 on 8 February 2006, and discussed some of the earlier deletions on this page under "Remove some sections" and "Rumors and Disinformation". So I was a bit hasty - my apologies.

I still think the possible contribution of rumors and misinformation to the situation is not covered well by our article at present, but I'm no longer sure that reinserting old content is the best approach. -- Avenue 11:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time find this, Mila! Btw, should'nt you get a real signature :) ?

Here you go Varga Mila 10:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you :) Something is strange. When I click on your link, I do not get to a normal user page. Click on mine, and then on yours, and you will see the difference. Did you have any problems when you registered your name or when you logged in? DanielDemaret 12:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think she just hasn't added any content to her userpage yet. She should at least edit it once so her talk page is activated. :D Kyaa the Catlord 12:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok ok. I just got lost looking and laughing at all the userboxes. Varga Mila 12:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Please Wikipedia, Respect Amish Ordnung

Why do we have Pictures of People! The Pennsylvania Dutch plain folk don't allow for pictures of people. So please respect Amish Ordnung and not be Amishophobic. You're freedom of speech must respect our right not to be insulted by your graven images! Just Kidding. long live free speech and the right to critique. Afterall, if the media is going to follow Islamic law, it must also follow the Ordnung. Stetlerj 01:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

As much as i appreciate your point, and though i am not arguing on the side of "remove the pictures" the difference is that islamic people can own computers and use the net... amish, not so much WookMuff 04:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Stetlerj was being facetious. Also Amish practice regarding photos is not universal http://www.amishnews.com/amisharticles/amishand%20photos.htm just as Muslim practice regarding aniconism is not either. Schizombie 21:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, i got that thanks :P WookMuff 23:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Comparable incidents... POV?

"Throughout history, believers from a multitude of faiths have called for boycott, arrest, censorship or even murder of critics, artists and commentators whose works they considered blasphemous. Some of these have been jailed, censored or killed, others walked free. There are also many examples of conflicts where a group of people have been offended, but did not resort to violence and resolved the matter with discussion."

Does this seem to have POV undertones to anyone else, particularly the last sentence? Like it's saying some people managed to resolve the matter in a civilised manner, whereas the Muslims didn't? --Nathan (Talk) 02:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the paragraph is a bit editorializing. I happen to think it is perfectly true, but that doesn't make it NPOV, it just makes it MyPOV. Weregerbil 03:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

i think that its ok, except for the last sentence which is absolutely judgemental. WookMuff 04:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, the last sentence stinks. I'll remove it. Azate 13:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

template

I cant edit the page, can someone add {{Muhammad_cartoons}} to the top of the article?

Danish reaction

I've removed the inclusion of the full text of this minor internet petition. First of all, if it belonged anywhere, it would belong in the opinions article, not the main article. Secondly, characterizing it as the "Danish reaction" is totally disingenuous. Thirdly, a small website launched with a couple thousand alleged signatures probably doesn't warrant mention at all, and certainly doesn't warrant inclusion of full text of what is written there. But if you want to try to push for a reference to it to be included, put it in the opinions article. Babajobu 03:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I will put it back. It is as importtant as couple of Imams touring the muslim countries... Resid Gulerdem 03:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't. The Imams helped to spark the protests in the Muslim world. The petition... well, it did not. gren グレン ^? 03:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is. There is no evidence at all that the imams did that, just a speculation. These gorups in Denmark force JP pull the cartoons back and apologize, as important. Resid Gulerdem 04:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Resid, you are the only one who has identified this little petition as being of such fundamental importance to the event as requiring inclusion in the main article. If you want to put it in the opinions article, it might survive here, but it will never make it in the main article. Babajobu 04:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

And everybody else think it shouldn't be there? Where and who are they? It looks you and I talking here... I am not sure that if you and Grenavitar are everybody... Resid Gulerdem 04:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Resid, it does not matter whether you, Gren, and I believe the small poll is notable. All that matters is that it is treated as notable by reliable sources. No such source has argued that the poll expresses a notable and important opinion, and so to include it in Wikipedia would amount to original research. And regardless, even if notable it is totally inappropriate in the MAIN ARTICLE. Push for it to be included in the OPINIONS article, where it would belong if notable. Babajobu 04:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that the news-media have covered the Imams going to the Middle East extensively... no major source has mentioned that petition (if the BBC, or NYT, or CNN mention it then do tell us). Read about Wikipedia:Reliable sources gren グレン ^? 04:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you need a source for it. The link is there I provided. Wouldn't you include this before main media? Resid Gulerdem 04:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You need a non-primary source to say that the poll is important. That is why you need the BBC or CNN or someone to say "this poll is notable" otherwise it's like the millions of other petitions online. Petitions are not inherently notable. That is what I mean. gren グレン ^? 05:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Going to have to agree that your addition Resid, doesn't belong on the main page... I was thinking maybe in the 'Reconciliation' area... but the letter doesn't really seem to be about reconciliation. Going to have to agree the with others and suggest 'Opinions'.. Netscott 04:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Should it be mentioned Denmark's 3rd largest and one of the most influential parties is pure and clear Facist?--Ezeu 05:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hehe. Ultra-Extreme right-wing, Xenophobic and an insult to everyone: yes. Fascist? You may have to go and redefine fascism first.DanielDemaret 09:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

At the core of fascism is the idea that it the use of violence is legitimate. Danske Folkepartiet uses nasty words against those who use violence, so in this respect they could be termed anti-fascist. If you insist in giving the term "fascist" to any group in this controversy, you should attribute it to any group that has used violence. I would advice against attributing anyone of that term altogether in this discussion, since it seems irrelevant to me.DanielDemaret 10:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No, this is not an article on the political parties of Denmark. I'm sure one exists and if you wish to note that the third largest party is fascist there, it would be on topic. It isn't here. Kyaa the Catlord 09:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Dansk Folkeparti already has an article, see Danish People's Party, but calling them Fascist is completely off the mark. They are extremely nationalist but Fascist??? I am aware that particularly one member of the Swedish cabinet likes calling Danes bad names - which looks rather interesting when these messages are broadcasted here as well - but a remark like this is completely off the mark. I'll be monitoring that page, just in case. BTW, yes, Denmark has a small Nazi party. They too have a page, see National Socialist Movement of Denmark. They ran for the regional elections on Zealand, and got 0.1% of the votes. Nobody takes them seriously. --Valentinian 09:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Nazism still exists?? I thought it doesn't exist after 1945. This is a party that is more of a joke. The Danish People's Party are not facist, they are nationalist. Moving the reaction to a sub-page is better, and a summary at the section. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 12:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree - I think the fascist groups are the ones who are violent. In addition, look at the Wikipedia entry on fascism: Fascism is also typified by totalitarian attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life: political, social, cultural, and economic. You tell me which group wants to impose control over all aspects of life... Valtam 17:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sarawak Tribune Update

Just got some info from a source in Malaysia that the Sarawak Tribune, the paper that re-printed one of the cartoons, and running since 1945 is now gone. Their license has been revoked, and it looks like their websites are no longer active.

Koguma 04:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I read that they shut down the Newspaper as well. (AP) Accountable Government 07:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Wookmuff's edit

In one of Wookmuff's recent edits to this talkpage he inadvertantly (I assume) deleted a very lengthy section of talk. Wookmuff (or someone else) please restore it. Babajobu 04:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I just did, before I saw your call. gidonb 05:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

it wasn't inadvertant, but in hindsight it was a mistake... thanks, but i will readd my poll choices WookMuff 22:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

New Event: Campus Police SEIZE Papers With Cartoons

I think this information should be added to the article.

"Issue Invades Canadian Universities"

The international furore over Danish newspaper cartoons lampooning the prohet Muhammad has flared at two Canadian Universities, where officials say public safety fears are forcing them to crack down on efforts to publicize the drawings.

In Charlottetown yesterday, security guards raided the offices of the University of Prince Edward Island student newspaper in an effort to confiscate 2,000 copies of The Cadre before they could be distributed.

At Saint Mary's University in Halifax, a philosophy professor is vowing to fight a university order issued Tuesday that forced him to take down the copies of the cartoons posted on his office door.

Dr. Peter March has filed a grievance with his teaching union, saying his academic freedom is under threat.

Ottawa Citizen. Tuesday, February 9,2006. Accountable Government 05:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

wow. sounds pretty noteworthy.--Alhutch 07:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there an online edition of this? That SHOULD be included, but probably in the international response article. Kyaa the Catlord 07:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

One professor lost her job in in Saudi for similar reasons ... MX44 09:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a link directly for that story. But some of the newspapers are related through the Canada.com site. Here's a link to the story. http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=7b7d851d-a9d9-49fd-8963-fbc665baa637&k=72181

Halifax Herald story: http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/483219.html Thparkth 13:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The current events section on this story was changed to "the administration halted the publication of.." as opposed to the fact that campus security raided the office of the student paper and seized 2000 copies of it. There is no mention of this story in the main article, but it's found on a link. The linked article also makes no mention of the fact that they took the papers. Students actually hid some of the papers before they could get them. Accountable Government 16:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The entry in the timeline article was changed by me, because it had no citation. After checking multiple publications I changed the entry so that it matched the information that was consistently reported; none of them actually reported the seizures having occurred, or the other details now seen. I've updated the timeline article with the details given above now, along with the articles as appropriate citations. — digitaleon • talk @ 21:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Amir Taheri

Does anyone think that this should be added? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not exactly the The Times. Can anyone corroborate that this is a solid publication? And is the contents little more than just speculation? DanielDemaret 08:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a subscription to the online NY post but the start of it is here at the Post. Also I'm not at home so I can't sign up for the free subcription. Here's the full version Canada's National Post. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

A site closed down today

Swedish media just reported that after talks between the swedish foreign department and the swedish security police, the ISP that hosts the web site for "SverigeDemokraterna" have chosen to close down the a site containing pictures of Mohammed. http://www.dn.se/ http://www.sr.se . SverigeDemokraterna is very very small, extreme right-wing party that has no seats in parliament. The picture was, one of Mohammed looking in a mirror, not one of the JD pictures. This happened after several papers in the middle east decided to publish the report that "a major swedish publication" had published caricatures of Mohammed. Their web site is defintely not major, it is miniscule. If the ISP was pressured, it would be against the swedish constitution, but it seems that they decided to do it on their own accord to protect swedish lives abroad. DanielDemaret 08:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Depends ... Those guys are not known to stay witin the law. Now if we coul have a look, /then/ we could comment. Do you have a more detailed textual description? MX44 08:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Pretty boring picture it seems. A man look at himself in the mirror, is all. I see no reason to include the picture here. I was more concerned with the possibility that the government might break its own constition over it. DanielDemaret 09:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Like this one http://islamcomicbook.com/images/mirrorsite.jpg ? MX44 09:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The Swedish Chancellor of Justice , Göran Lambertz, says that he does not spontanously see that the pictures come under the swedish law "hets mot folkgrupp" (appox: provocation to violence against an ethnic group). Despite this, Richard Jomshof (editor of SD-Kuriren) will report those other papers in sweden that have previously published the JP cartoons. He is also going to report the Swedish National Encyclopedia, since it does indeed have a picture of Mohammed. He says he wants the matter clarified. DanielDemaret 08:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I just thought I would give a resume, since the links are in swedish. DanielDemaret 08:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

We aren't based in Sweden, and are not liable to Swedish law, as far as I know, Wikipedia is only governed by laws of the state of Florida and federal United States law. NSLE _(T+C) 09:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If anyone cares to delete this section, feel free to do so. The more I read about the matter in different swedish newspapars, the more boring it gets. Everyone seems to be behaving here :) DanielDemaret 09:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Pic http://hodja.wordpress.com/files/2006/02/060202muhammed400.jpg

Believe It or Else

Here is one comic book, 24 pages. Published 2001. These guys have obvious issues with POV. You have been warned.

http://islamcomicbook.com

The publisher appears to be Davidson Press

http://davidsonpress.com/islam/

MX44 09:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ooookay, but what do we do with this? --Kizor 08:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure yet. Perhaps we could show that all of this is really a conspiracy of the christian race against the muslim race. (joking) Seriously I wonder how Muhammad's Believe It or Else have managed to stay unnoticed for so long. It blatantly redicules Islam on every single page, but I have yet to hear any protests. MX44 01:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, the authors seem to be 1. Christian and 2. not exactly NPOV so it's not particularly balanced. By the way, I think most religious scriptures could be made to look exactly as evil and ridiculous by taking citations out of their context. 惑乱 分からん 19:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Describing the paper

Several times I have added "right wing" in despcribing JyllandsPosten in the introcuction of the article. Some people seem to remove this constantly. Is it not relevant briefly to present what kind of paper it is? We discussed this issue previously, where one or two US-citizens argued that the notion right wing in the US is perceived as far right. If this is the case I suggest you take that discussion on the right wing page....According to the definiton on right wing it is obvious for anyone - opponents as well as supporters - that JP is a right wing paper. Bertilvidet 12:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Agree - It is a rather important distinction to make, however only with the caveat that these views are in someway divergent from the "mainstream" Danish press. -- Scaife 12:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that JP is NOT divergent. It is the largest paper in Denmark, regardless of Bert's wish that it was some sort of fringe view. If it was a whacko fringe newspaper, I'd be more willing to let it be labelled, but the facts speak otherwise. It is the mainstream paper and reflects the mainstream view of Danes. Kyaa the Catlord 14:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the previous discussion on this? Apparently not. This has come up EACH time you've labelled the paper. Each time people have remembered that previously we'd discussed this and decided NOT to label the paper. If you want to know about the paper, go to the JP wiki entry not the Muhammed controversy. Kyaa the Catlord 12:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually I initiated the previous debate after several reversions. Even though you objected we did not decide anything. Several users argued - like me - that labelling the paper is relevant. Pls not that noone disagrees that the paper is right wing. Bertilvidet 13:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Just because noone argues that the paper is right wing does NOT make it relevant to this article. It was argued once and people decided that even weakening the loaded phrase "right wing" to "centre-right" wouldn't be correct. It was decided to remove it altogether. Then you added it again, and again people decided to NOT INCLUDE it. Then you added it again, and started a talk discussion. You are inserting loaded words and inserting POV into the article unnecessarily. I will NOT remove it for a third time but this is a dead horse. Kyaa the Catlord 13:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

JP is the largest paper in Denmark. Almost by definition it cannot said to be deviating from the mainstream. Remove the "right wing" stuff. NONE of the other papers, organizations or individuals on this page have such qualifying adjectives. If you want to find out about JP, read the wiki article about it. Azate 13:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No decision was taken previously - however agreement seemed to be reached that right wing is a more correct description than centre-right, eventhough Kyaa argued against labelling the paper. It is a fact that JP is a right wing newspaper, which they dont hide, and it thus not loaded to state it. Being right wing is not in contrast to being mainstream - especially not in Denmark which is being ruled by a right wing government. I believe the aim of this site is to give correct and relevant information. Is not correct that JP is right wing? is not relevant to state the nature of the newspaper initiating an international crisis or should people think that this is just an ordinary Danish newspaper as it appears now? Please argue the case instead of just reverting! Bertilvidet 13:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

To maintain NPOV, the article should remain politically neutral. JP is a normal Danish newspaper. To claim it to be otherwise is inserting POV. Kyaa the Catlord 14:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, couldnt find the previous debate. Guess it is archived somewhere, can someone link it? Bertilvidet 13:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Archive 9b Header 14 and archive 10 header 22, why do other people have to look that up, when you can just as easily do that yourself? Azate 14:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Link to archive Thank you, Azate, helpful of you to find the way to the archive. The direct links are [34] and [35]. OPbviously no agreement have been reached. Once again..PLEASE tell if it is irrelevant or incorrect to label the paper right wing!!!!Bertilvidet 14:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's both correct and relevant. However, I also think it should not be here, because it's only one _opinion _ among many. People who whould try to change the "group of Danish Imams" into "group of leftwing/rightwing/extremist/pious/whatever Danish Imams" have seen these adjectives shot down, too.Azate 15:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Where is the source allowing to label JP as "right wing"? Who says it is? What leads you to this conclusion? You may find it strange but I think labeling JP as "right wing" is not only POV but OR. If JP is not declaring itself as "right wing" or there are'nt some very good sources which do so, this label has not to be in this article. And: many people not only in the US but in Denmark and Germany too have a very clear view of what "right wing" means. It is perceived as "right from the center", "biassed" or even "racist". That is the POV you are inserting in this article if you label JP as "right wing". --Adornix 14:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I did a search on goog for " danmark "højreorienteret avis" " (Denmark "right-wing newspaper") and look at the bottom [36] (Cloud02 16:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC))

Only two of those links on the googling that you refer to, make a direct link between JP and being right-wing. And they are both from the same blog ! That hardly makes a strong case. My impression is that JP is conservative paper. It is a pretty much on par with the government, which means very conservative and right of the political centre. 'Right wing', as such, bears connotations of extremeitism, which would definitely be incorrect in this case. Varga Mila 17:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Adornix, thank you for arguing substantially for your case. With such disagreements we need to understand our co-writers, as I believe we all want to ensure a balanced NPOV entry. None of you seem to be vandals, so its important to argue for any view - even if it appears natural.

In Denmark the paper is usually described as "borgerlig", a term that has no clear equivalent in English - but usually is translated as either right wing or conservative. JP also defines it self as 'borgerlig´ [37]. Stating this in the article, I do frankly not see as POV! Try to Google "jyllands-posten" and "borgerlig" - or jyllands-posten and right-wing - you will see a wide range of sources - right wing and scholar sources all connecting the two. How can it be POV to label a paper as right wing when both the paper itself, supporters, opponents and scholars call is so?? Bertilvidet 18:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know the english language and as far as I know the perception of the terms right-wing and conservative, I would say that they are not synonymous. I would have no objections against labelling JP as conservative because this term is much less devaluating. But the self definition of JP I found on their homepage is not only "borgerlig" but "liberal borgerlig", what may be a bit different. I'm not sure if "borgerlig" is usually read as "right wing" in Denmark. In Germany you have to be quite leftist to find "bürgerlich" identical to "rechts" (right-wing). The only good english translation of borgerlig I found is actually french: bourgeois, but I'm not absolutely sure this translation gets the point. Conservative may be better.

If we can reach sort of consensus about labelling JP at all, conservative would be the best choice, I think. "Liberal" would irritate most american readers, I fear.

As you may have thought, I'm not entirely against a political label for JP, because most newspapers in the western world have an explicit political self definition which it is sometimes helpful to know when you first hear about a specific one. But we have to be very careful not to label JP in a way that can be seen as deprecatory. So we should be very close to JP's "liberal borgerlig".

I hope my point is clear now, despite the fact I had to use my german-english dictionary and may not always have chosen the most appropriate terms. --Adornix 20:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

So if they call themselves "liberal borgerlig", should we call them a "liberal conservative" paper? Or do they mean "liberal" in the sense many Europeans mean it: libertarian? Valtam 20:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"liberal" is somewhere between "maximization of individual liberties" and a simple "free market" philosophy, I think, probably more the latter. --Adornix 20:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The old translation of "borgerlig" is "bourgeois". The problem with the term is that "right wing" has no easy definition, and consequently the term has different meanings for different people. E.g. this is an international encyclopedia based in the United States. Consequently, I define right wing as e.g. the Republican Party in the U.S. In this context, Jyllands-Posten is clearly a centre-based newspaper. A former U.S. ambassador once commented on the Danish People's Party is "in America they'd just be a centre party". In a Danish context, I'd define right wing as the part of the spectrum ranging from the Danish People's Party on one hand, to the Nazis and "Stop the Immigration" one the other. Jyllands-Posten is surely more left-wing than this. In both cases, centre-right / right of centre seems to be the best description. --Valentinian 19:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

IMHO "borgerlig" in Danish implies two things, both of which could be defined negatively, namely "non-socialist", and "non-extremist". "Liberal" in the Danish sense refers mostly to "individualism" as opposed to conservative "centralism" regarding the role of the state and government. The last label for the newspaper is "uafhængig", meaning "independent" of any particular group or policy. I support to avoid labeling the newspaper in this article, since short labels will be interpreted very differently in different countries. We are talking about the biggest Danish newspaper and its attitudes are - I hope - described in needed detail in its article. --Sir48 20:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

'Borgerlig' is actually a funny word with lots of different meanings, deriving from the meaning 'bourgeois'. However in contemporary politics it should be translated as 'rigth wing' or conservative'. I am hesitant about using the term 'liberal', because it has so different connotations around the globe (esp. diff. betw. US and Europe). Just stating [Right wing] it is neither centre right nor far right. I find it clearly misleading to lead the paper centre-right - according to the Danish political landscape it is clearly not. And I dont see how the paper is to be placed left of the Republicans. Using the term 'conservative' seems adequate, if you believe right wing gives wrong connotations. Bertilvidet 20:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If you think the similarity between Jyllands-Posten and the U.S. Republican Party is so clear, I will respectfully suggest that you read more about the Republicans. From what I've read, I see clear differences. E.g. the importance the religious right plays in the Republican party. Another example: Jyllands-Posten is often critical of Israel, as well as being critical of the Palestinians. I believe this is a clear case as well. The feeling towards "big business" is another difference. Jyllands-Posten has - on a number of occations - argumented for free immigration to Denmark, provided that immigrants - on the other hand - should not be able to receive government benefits for the first eight or so years in Denmark. On this issue. they differ quite clearly from the government, the newspaper being more left-wing. In comparison, I have not heard the GOP call for free immigration to the United States. --Valentinian 21:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It could be observed that we differ rather much, Bertilvidet, which adds to the argument that our differences in opinion can not be boiled down to a two-word label.--Sir48 22:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I see now that it is far more controversial than I initially considered it. Thank you for presenting your arguments in civilized way! Bertilvidet 12:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way - just to add to the fuel and confusion (fundamentally it is utterly irrelevant) - JP is often known as 'Morgen facisten Jyllands-Posten' (The Morning facist, the Jyllands-Post), which is a (quite bad) play on the words (the morning news Jyllands-Posten, which JP 'calls' itself) [it is probably a historical derivative].  ;-) Varga Mila 08:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

"It is the mainstream paper and reflects the mainstream view of Danes." Kyaa the Catlord; What gives you the idea that newspapers, no matter how common they are, reflect the mainstream view of a certain group of people? Does the bible reflect the mainstream view of the Earth's human population, as it is one of the most read/published/translated literary works? Not necessarily. It is also possible that Pravda, for e.g., did not reflect the mainstream views of citizens of USSR, isn't it? --HJV 20:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, HJV, the comparison with Pravda is flawed at best. Pravda was pretty much the only allowed newspaper in the USSR, and was run by the Soviet government (this is where its name lost any connection to its original meaning. I should add that I don't know a thing about how Pravda has been run since the fall of the USSR.) Jyllands-Posten is a privately owned newspaper; it operates in a democratic country and people can choose to buy the paper or a number of others as they see fit. Most supermarkets have at least 4 newspapers on the stand, all costing virtually the same. So if Jyllands-Posten performs well on the market, it is probably because its readers - generally - support the paper's line. Just my 2 (euro)cents. --Valentinian 13:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Thanks for putting that into words. Kyaa the Catlord 13:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

All true. In any case, the fact that JP is the best-selling newspaper in Denmark is more apropos and verifiable than its being "right-wing", a term which is very open to misintepretation, as users from different countries are clearly interpreting the term differently and Wikipedia is not Denmark. Finally, the lead sentence of the article is just not the place to hazard a sloppy attempt at characterizing the politics of the paper...people can click on the link if they want to learn about the paper. Give it up: your assessment of the political disposition of JP does not belong in the lead sentence! Babajobu 16:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

tidbit to include to article

The editor of Jyllands-Posten, the newspaper which first published the cartoons, is sent on leave for an indefinite period, as the editor of a Norwegian magazine that reprinted them apologises. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4699716.stm

'The editorial staff has told Flemming Rose that he ought to go on holiday. No one can imagine the incredible amount of pressure he has been under,' said Jyllands-Posten's editor-in-chief Carsten Juste.' http://www.jp.dk/english_news/artikel:aid=3549984/ MX44 12:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This issue is frighteningly simple. Muslim prohibitions apply only to Muslims, not to non-believers - unless someone can tell me where in the Quran or the Hadith it says otherwise. I respect the right of Muslims to practice their religion and their beliefs, and I want the same respect from them for mine. Les Raphael212.219.240.201 15:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC), 10 February 2006

Errors

Why is this not mentioned? JeffBurdges 14:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Who is this David Warren fellow? Does the article add NPOV content?DanielDemaret 14:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Err, no, his article should not be linked! But much of its content is sourceable and should be mentioned. i.e. that the comics many protesters saw is much worse than the content actually printed. JeffBurdges 21:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree with JeffBurdges. By the way: our article isn't NPOV either, I'm afraid. I'm sure the arabic article, which should also be NPOV, and which I am unable to read (can't even do OR :-) on that) describes the whole controversy rather differently. And a hypothecical NPOV article written by muslims living in Denmark/Europe would differ in many other areas, I suppose. --Sir48 21:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

supermarket photo

I tried to figure out what country Image:Dm product.jpg is from. I'm moderately sure that the "al-Tamemi Markets" mentioned at the image talk are the al-Tamimi Markets of Saudi Arabia. Thoughts? - BanyanTree 15:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems logical to me. Arabic has only three vowels, A, I, and U, and translitteration regarding "E"s differ. I think it is a pretty safe match. (If somebody has some red hot insider information on this issue, feel free to correct me.) --Valentinian 22:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I've made a note on the original image at Commons. Thanks, BanyanTree 03:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Negligence on the part of Danish prime-minister

When I read the current article, I notice that the fact that the Danish prime-minister did not want to meet with representatives from the Arab League have been left out. Isn't this one of the more escalating points in the developement of the story, and it has to be mentioned in order to understand both sides? MX44 16:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I Agree. One or two senteces should be there. It's covered in detail in the timeline Azate 16:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It is /almost/ in the introduction. A single well aimed sentence will do it MX44 16:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Then I also think the reason to as why the prime minister refused to meet with the representatives, because of their demands that the meeting should be about discussing the punishment the danish government should give Jyllands-posten. The.valiant.paladin 16:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see the quote from the prime minister under Rumours and Misinformation above. What is the status on that, by the way ? Will someone incorporate some of the stuff mentioned there in the article ? Varga Mila 17:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It IS in the article (in the timeline, as is everything else that used to be in "Rumors an Disinformation"), it's just not on the frontpage anymore. I think we agree that the stuff with the hot dog stand or the koran burning that didn't happen doesn't deserve mention on the main page. THose rumors that did turn out to be more than that, and that had a major impact (esp the pig picture thing) are still on the main page. We can't really be in the business of debunking stuff like "Danish government to issue new version of Koran" here. People how believe this sort of stuff usually don't look it up in Wikipedia fist, I suspect. What I just said does obviously not apply to the ambassadors not being received by the PM. This is in the timeline, and it should see short mention on the frontpage. Azate 18:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake Varga Mila 19:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree Should be mentioned in the introduction. The fact that the PM refused to meet with the ambassadors is one of the corner stones in the critique of his handling of the case Bertilvidet 18:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

As I remember the case, television reported in advance that the imams wanted to meet the PM to demand that he re-introduced censorship. He might be critized in the Arab world, but he still has no legal rights to close / regulate newspapers (or as the term was coined: "to guarantee that this never happens again" / "influence JP".) It is not really surprising that he refused to meet them given this pretext, cf. § 77 in the Danish constitution. Point no. 2 is that the PM does not recognize the imams as leaders of the Muslim community in Denmark, so he didn't wish to lend them any special authority. By all means include a refence to this event, but include why he refused to do so. If not, the article will become biased, and people will just read the course of events as "he probably just hates foreigners". --Valentinian 20:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ambassadors, not imams. Of course the PM had arguments for refusing to meet the ambsassadors, but in the Danish debate this refusal has sparked a lot of criticism towards the PM. Bertilvidet 20:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Azate, I noticed you just added a paragraph (nice, balanced). But where do you have the stuff about the imams from?? Its not in the reference. As far as I know no imams where involved in the letter from the ambassadors. Let me know if I am wrong Bertilvidet 21:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're wrong ;->. Look up the "letter to the amabassadors" which predates their request for meeting Rasmussen in the "Dossier" artice Azate 21:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The order was: The imams wish for a meeting with the PM -> the PM rejects (citing the reasons above) -> the imams turn to the Muslim ambassadors -> the ambassadors now wish for a meeting with the PM (to ask for the introduction of censorship) -> the PM rejects this meeting as well. --Valentinian 21:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. Just ignore my two previous posts :$ Bertilvidet 22:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Just for clarity: The order was: The imams wish for a meeting with the PM -> the PM rejects (citing the reasons above) -> the imams turn to the Muslim ambassadors -> the ambassadors now wish for a meeting with the PM (to ask for the introduction of censorship) -> the PM rejects this meeting as well -> the imams go to court -> the court says the cartoons are ok -> weekend avisen and Ali hirsi -> the imams go international Azate 22:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Minister! :-) --Valentinian 22:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

See, that's the sort of remark that'll help you in life ;-> Azate 23:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

How do you read "to ask for the introduction of censorship" out of the paper they sent to Fogh? 1) They bring up a number of derogatory remarks, not just JP 2) they urge Fogh to "take all those responsible to task under law of the land" - which would be the Danish law and constitution, right? This might not be the place to start a debate, but your representation of the ambassadors seems pretty one-eyed. Poulsen 23:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The Imams first went the route via the courts. The courts said the publication was not illegal. Afterwards, they lobby the ambassadors to "communicate this account of the regrettable situation and this population segment's indignation and irritation to their governments and to the relevant authorities in their countries with the needed haste, to at least express their protests".

Whatever that means. Lots of Islamic countries' (19?) governments issue a communique (at the IOC conference) that asks Rasmussen to "reign in the press" and "punish those responsible" to "ensure that such things never happen again" (quotes from memory. You can read the IOC report, too). Then 11 countries dispatch the 11 ambassadors. Azate 02:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The ambassadors requested a meeting in October 2005, the OIC was in January 2006 (if what you are refering to is this [38]) - your timeline is a little wrangled. Poulsen 02:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I'm tired, I mixed things up. Fortunately the page is sound. Azate 03:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but do you still see it as "asking for the introduction of censorship"? As I see it, it was part of Fogh's political spin, to play down the unfortunate part (for him) of his own cultural minister and others, while citing that he did so because the ambassadors "want me to break the freedom of press", even though that was not the exact words of the letter he received, or at least his active interpretation of it. Poulsen 10:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I wrote that line in the first place. It seems that our memories differ. I clearly remember a group of imams demanding that the PM should "guarantee that this never happens again" / "stop the newspaper" etc. (there was a number of such remarks.) Any such actions can only be accomplished through the re-introduction of censorship. The letters were written in a polite tone, but I can't see any other logical conclusion. --Valentinian 13:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

So what you're saying is: as Imams called for censorship, the ambassadors implicitly did so as well? How do you make that coupling, at least it is not mentioned in the one letter to Fogh. I think writing "the ambassadors apparently wanted Rasmussen to punish the newspaper" is bordering on npov as it ignores what is written in the letter, and takes Fogh's explanation as the only side in the matter. The original text, which quotes sources on both sides, is now placed in the "International reactions" sub-article under, oddly enough, "Burning embassies", and I think it would be better suited on this page, replacing the current section. Poulsen 17:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

pig person picture

I think it is poor taste to put it in a section that is headlined "danish imams tour the middle east". It looks like a wilfully evil association, like this was a picture of one of the imams. It's on the same wink-wink level as the imams putting it in the dossier in the first place. I realize this has been disussed before, but that was when the section was much longer and it apperead midway down, where the picture itself was discussed. The picture is of course still in the "dossier" article, wher it of coure belongs. Azate 16:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Now that was quite a new angle :) :) :D ... MX44 16:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The article mentions the picture. Therefore would showing the picture be relevant to the article. --Maitch 16:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

keep, The additional images that the Danish imams added are probably at the core of why this whole thing got so blown out of proportion... as such, there should be a visual on the main page to better highlight that probability. Netscott 17:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You got to wonder what the guy in the picture must be thinking right now... "Muslims? I was just trying to be a pig!" Hitokirishinji 17:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The 'Hirsi' reference skews the whole part into some whining crap. They were dissatisfied, so they went on tour. MX44 17:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I don't feel it's very relevant, too. But apparently THEY did. Did you read the newly translated dossier? Azate 18:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No I haven't. Can you somehow boil it down to the essence without reiterating the same statements over and over again? MX44 18:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no reference to Hirsi Ali in Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy_43p_dossier. So tidy up I would say MX44 18:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes there is: Quote:

"Several conditions increased our pain and torment:

1. The ridicule of Islam and its followers has become an easily distributed commodity, when an almost extinct newspaper published images stronger and more offending on 11 November, probably to regain its popularity; this paper is "Weekendavisen".

2. Muslims received during this period of time - most notably those taking part in the actual protest against the images - letters whose tone differed between direct threats and mockery of Islam itself through attacks on the Qu'ran, when these people claimed that it was a fabrication, and they took part in the attack on the Prophet (PBUH) by sending animated images, that were stonger and fiercer, and which come from a deep hatred to Islam as a religion.

3. Denmark received the Dutch author of Somali decent, who is the author of the film, that degrades Islam, and whose producer was killed recently in Holland. The reception for her was a consequently a continuation of the confrontation, particularly since she gave an interview to Danish television in which she talked about Islam in a degrading way. And the strange is, that the Prime Minister, who had rejected meeting with the ambassadors, received her and presented her with an award, like he stated that he appreciated her brave positions and her free opinions. So now you se how it is....

This is why the organizations again called to an urgent meeting, in which it was decided to create delegations, who could visit the Islamic world with the intent of informing them on the danger of the situation and make them take part in the defence and support of our prophet (PUBH)." Azate 19:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, Couldn't find her name. The Dutch parliament then? Shouldn't that be a murdered Dutch producer? MX44 20:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

She's a member of the Dutch parliament mostly occupied with womens' issues and immigration. How, precisely, she ended up producing Van Goghs film, I don't know. Probably she also heads some lobbying groups/organitations that provided (some) funding for the film. Azate 21:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Her bio is linked, so all that and she is Somalian and has father ... and then prizes too. But the imams objected against her affiliation with the Submission_(film) project, not that she is an MP MX44 21:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

In twisted turn of fate, the reason for Hirsi Ali coming to Copenhagen at this inconvenient time, instead of a year earlier, was the death threats and the murder of Van Gogh. I think I'll leave it to Roald Atkinsson to wrap that one up ... MX44 23:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There is now a fine textual description of The 43p Dossier :) How about lightening it up slightly with a picture of, say a Chair? Or would that be too offensive? (to Jyllands Komposten, that is.) MX44 03:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The pig-person picture illustrates how the dossier could have inflamed sentiments more than the original 12 Jyllands-Posten cartoons, which I think is an essential part of this section. So if we are going to replace the pig-person image, I believe we'd need to use an equally inflammatory image, such as one of the dog or pedophile pictures. The pedophile image is probably the one that is least likely to be perceived as implicitly representing one of the imams.

But I also think that the original source of the pig-person photo, which has nothing to do with Muslims in Denmark, makes it less objectionable in wider terms. -- Avenue 09:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It also illustrates that one reputable and arguably disinterested party, BBC World, believed at one stage that this picture was published in Jyllands-Posten as a result of its inclusion in the dossier. This strengthens the case that the dossier could have misled some of its intended audience. -- Avenue 09:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The original caption (true face of Muhammad) is missing from the pig-picture. The others (from the three) have their offensive nature described MX44 09:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I support replacing the current pig-picture with a version that includes the original caption. -- Avenue 10:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I would rather keep the french connection with the picture and focus on the ill-will in the text. BTW, this picture is getting waay too much attention MX44 12:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

El Fagr

How big is this Newspaper? From what i read it has somewhere around 50.000 made each day. And it's an extreme right-wing paper, that brings very controversial stuff. And besides that I also read (on politiken.dk, cant find the article now), that the paper CRITISIZED Jyllands-posten in the article when they brought the pictures alongside.(Cloud02 16:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC))

that's what the article says: "Six of the cartoons were reprinted in the Egyptian newspaper El Fagr in October 2005[21][22][23] along with a highly-critical article". As of "right wing" I don't know, and it doesnt matter anyway. All I gather from various souces is that it is not state owned, or owned by the governement party or their affiliates, which, in an Egyptian context, is a rarity and qualifies it as an opposition newspaper. Azate 17:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, it is really NOT "an extreme right-wing paper". Boring, conservative, and reactionary, no doubt ! But nothing 'worse' than that. Varga Mila 17:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

In the political context of the Arab world, the word "right-wing" is absolutely meaningless. Tells you nothing at all. Babajobu 18:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the division is rather between "vocal" and "silent" Ruby 22:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Controversial Image placement in Wikipedia entries (is there an informal policy?)

Having just read Jimbo Wales' Talk page regarding the Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy entry I noticed that he discusses the placement of the main Jyllands-Posten image on the top part of the page:

" I see no particular editorial reason for keeping it at the top, when in other (but not all) similar cases, we have moved such images to the middle or bottom. "

and it got me wondering about that. Maybe we should move it down lower on the page and have a small disclaimer at the top so that those coming to this entry will have a choice to continue down the page. Prior to reading his talk page, I didn't really think that the image should be lower on the page... but afterwards, the idea of placing the image lower doesn't seem so wrong. His talk page made me curious to know what have other Wikipedia entries with controversial images done relative to image placement? Does anyone know of other entries that have controversial images? I'd be curious to see at least one entry where the controversial image has been left at the top and another entry where the controversial image was placed lower. I must admit though... that part of me thinks that if these images have been used to manipulate people without good faith reasons (nefariously) then to move them would be in a sense giving into that dark side.

Netscott 00:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Curiously, as the affair commences, it's less and less about these 12 cartoons, and more and more about the OTHER images, lobbying and power politics. As witnessed by the El-Fagr publication, it's those that saw the dossier of the Imams (or nothing at all, that is, the 10,000s of demonstrators), rather than those who saw the pictures, that are really inflamed about them. This has at least been the case among the Muslim people I know (Turks), whose anger (everybody had heard about this stuff, mostly from Turkish papers) quickly gave way to "This is all?" comments once they saw the actual cartoons in German papers or on TV. I see no need for these 'disclaimers', nobody appears to drop dead from exposure. Azate 00:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Wales is a sensible person, and it's not unthinkable that we could move the image down. However, consensus have been reached on the position on the image, and with several other controversial articles having images that *could* be offensive to *some* people in the same position, and with the image being a central part of the whole story, I think that consensus is quite defendable.

Now, I also think that a lot of poeple voted as they did out of a sense of "defending freedom of speach". In an ideal world, Wikipedia should not be about that, just simply be an encyclopedia, a place where you can find knowledge. However, with supposedly "liberal" countries like Sweden caving in to radical muslims demands and excerting governmental pressure on ISP's to take down sites that show pictures of Muhammad, it seems like the world do in fact need Wikipedia to take a stance for free speach.The.valiant.paladin 01:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

hello

this is my first ever post at wikipedia and dispite risking makeing my self look noobish I would like to make a suggestion about this article:

Is it possible to link this artcle with the article of islamophobia?

Reasons:

The cartoons may or may not have been a product of islamophobia considering they were made specifically to provoke — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubdub 80 (talk • contribs)

First, let's not try to guess why the pictures were made. None of us are mind readers. A large part of the deadly violence around the world is likely to be caused by reckless speculation about other peoples' motives. Second, as you say, "may or may not". Wikipedia is not a place of speculation. We should keep guessing and speculation to the minimum. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog. And welcome to Wikipedia, I hope you'll have fun here! Weregerbil 01:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

There are many interpretations. For example, they could have published them to make patent the hypocrisy of several european media, which have a long tradition of making fun of christianism (because freedom of speech), while at the same time showing their most sincere respects to muslims (because religion is sacred, and such). Many people in Europe think they have this double standard just because they know that christians don't react violently, as (some) muslims do. Under this interpretation, provoking muslims would have been a call to either stop the media for provoking christians everyday, or stopping the extremists from censoring the media (you know, when they call suicide bombers rebels instead of terrorists, because it could offend all those people that see them as heroes). DrJones 02:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Now that we've all taken a stand and shown that Wikipedia isn't going to be cowed by demands for self-censorship, is it perhaps time to heed Jimbo's words and concede that the image doesn't actually have to be at the top, and we can combine non-censorship with a measure of sensitivity by moving it a least a screenful down (maybe leaving the one with the schoolboy, i.e. the one which doesn't show the Prophet himself, at the top)? I know we're all sick of the question, but do we have to be bound for ever by votes taken in the heat of battle? At what point do we allow wiser, calmer counsels (e.g. Jimbo's) to get a look-in? Vilcxjo 21:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

As he himself indicates, that is Jimbo's view as a common editor, not as our beloved leader. And because of that, his views should be given equal weight to the views of other users. And they have expressed a desire to keep the image on the top of the article. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 11:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Map final?

Is everyone satisfied with these colors? (including the color blind) I'd like to get this down finally so I can really start working on it. Hitokirishinji 03:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Shouldnt Jordan, Yemen Egypt and Malaysia also be blue? they printed the cartoons as stated in the article -- Astrokey44|talk 04:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

As I stated above, it is NOT done yet. This is merely a sample so I can get some direction and consensus on the colors. Hitokirishinji 05:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not color blind, but the colors look good to me. Do you expect trouble from large demonstrations in tiny countries? --Kizor 08:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Go to the list of newspapers table as you are missing half the countries that have printed it including Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Lithuania etc etcHephaestion 05:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The discussion is getting a bit heated, please stay cool. Anyway, a world map will be better and include all the countries. I hope its not too hard to create a large map. --Terence Ong 09:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The colors look good. The way you are able to show both blue and red is a good idea too! (The other people in this room applauded, by the way= DanielDemaret 13:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I'm not done. This map is not complete yet. I know there are countries missing, I chosen not to fill them in yet until I get some direction on the colors from everyone so I don't have to remake the map everytime a new color is decided. Anyways, it looks like I'm not getting many comments on the colors so I'm going to assume most folks are satisfied with them. Hitokirishinji 14:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

What color is to be used for countries (ie Hong Kong, China) who disallows protesters to rally? MX44 00:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

From aside of what people said, I think the map is too "simple", and I'm not sure if you should color Greenland: I consider them quite a seperate territory, like Costa-Rica, where they have their own distinctive culture, people, language and media. You also missed lots of Canadian soil, be careful with those kind of places =) --84.249.252.211 03:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

If you would please read the list of papers printing the cartoons, you will see that Greenland's largest daily did print the cartoons in support of Free Speech and in support of Denmark. So it should definitely be coloured!!!!Hephaestion 06:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Whenever you feel that the map is ready, I strongly support its inclusion into the article, since easy-to-see-overviews improve articles tremendously.DanielDemaret 08:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Great Work! I would like to add it to French WP! Don't forget the egyptian issue, the 17 october 2005, by El Fagr.

Message to Idiots: muslims are not a race!

--Greasysteve13 04:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all don't call other people idiots, it's unecessary and it violates Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy, secondly it's brought up more than a few times that Muslims are not a race. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 05:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. The fact that it's brought up more than a few times that Muslims are not a race is the reason I snapped.--Greasysteve13 05:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Ebook about this article?

Check [39] this link: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate: A War Of Ideas.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

This is funny. Pretty soon we will have to make an article about this talk page, or rather these pages. The link to the PDF files is here [40], but there is nothing in them, other what can already be found here in the archives, plus the short introduction written by John Simmons of the Iraq Museum International. Twthmoses 08:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm in a book! :-) --Kizor 08:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I, too, am in a book... sadly i am probably mostly in the book typoing and making an arse of myself with "witty" comments... damn, i started my poll discussion too late! WookMuff 08:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Yup, having thoroughly and rather egomaniacally searched both pdfs purely for instances of my own nick, i have to agree i come off both as a provocateur and a smartarse... OUCH. But on the upside, i do have my poll discussion in there so thats good. Also, someone called me sarcastic. Hitler DID make the trains run on time, its why he had such good supply lines and part of how he managed to consolidate his holdings following blitzkreig. Call me sarcastic, will you 70.49.166.186... WookMuff 09:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I think that's really awesome. Babajobu 11:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Got my awesome vote too. Kyaa the Catlord 13:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The book states: Copyright 2006 Bagdad Museum. Looks like a violation of GNU GFDL. --Sir48 23:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Missing Archive?

I was looking around for my last comment, and it seems as though it got archived here [41], but there is no corresponding archive that got created at that time. Is there a hidden archive 11 somewhere?--Rayc 06:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It's there now. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply to requests for removal on HelpDesk-l.

The Wikipedia HelpDesk mailinglist is regularly getting requests for the removal of the cartoons. Can someone please suggest a short and respectful reply? -- Jeandré, 2006-02-11t06:46z

Version 4:

Wikipedia is not censored, and its editors think that the best way to inform people who choose to learn about the nature of the cartoons and how they are causing offence, is to give people the opportunity to see the cartoons themselves.

Looks good, you might also consider pointing them to other articles on controversial items such as Piss Christ to demonstrate that Islam is not being singled out in this case. -Loren 07:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that "In Islam, Jesus (called Isa) is considered one of God's most beloved and important prophets, a bringer of divine scripture, and also the Messiah." (from Jesus), so that may make things worse. I was thinking of noting the nasty images at Anti-semitism, but I'm not sure. -- Jeandré, 2006-02-11t15:09z

And tell them that we respect their concerns, but... Babajobu 12:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You could use the wording of {{Mohammed}} for inspiration (except for the warning to block, which would be inappropriate in this case). Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 12:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The best answer would be: OK we are removing them. As I tried to explain below: The argument that everyone should see the cartoons which the debate is about is meaningless. To have all those cartoons is pointless. Because: A Westerner will hardly find anything wrong with the cartoons, on the other hand, a Muslim will be ofended and feel insulted with them. The verbal discriptioon of the case much more important and strong in this case. Please note that this article is not explanation of the cartoons, it is about the controversy around them... Resid Gulerdem 23:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Resid, the pictures cannot be removed because there is a consensus to keep them. They contain important information. gidonb 03:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

If those requests happen to come from muslims, you can add that Wikipedia's stance in this case is actually in parallel with (but not necessarily in accordance with) one of the hadith: "Say what is true, although it may be bitter and displeasing to people." Every muslim must know this hadith[42] and should remind them that Islam supports the freedom to speak the truth (as opposed to Western's freedom of speech). madyasiwi 12:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The Definition of Encyclopedic Knowledge

The cartoons simply cannot be removed from an ENCYCLOPEDIA. The very word "was chosen as the title of a reference work covering ALL knowledge." SOURCE: Dictionary.com

—metavalent 07:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

All Knowledge—Except Rubbish

Dear metavalent,

Does it mean that we must, for example, feature pornography on encyclopædia in order to cover our knowledge about it?

Similarly: does one have to consume excrements (shit) to learn about excrements?

Everyone will have his answer to such questions.

One matter of fact is that, theoretically, it’s always possible to learn about things (and even learn things) without participating in them, even if to do so would sometimes be extremely difficult. Admittedly, in practice, to learn such, for example, arts as gymnastics or piano playing borders with impossible without performing them.

My opinion is that we should try hard to avoid including offensive samples on encyclopædia, unless no clever transfer of knowledge can be done without doing so. I would see it as a matter of taste and great-spiritedness. Do we want cheap sensationalism to pervade this website? Shouldn’t we wish to apply imagination and intelligence for cognitive purposes in such a place as Wikipedia, rather than offend some of us in cases when providing explicit samples will do so? We may often desire knowledge even at a big cost, but is this one picture worth of this cost, which is trampling the dignity of each other amongst Wikipedia users? Does this picture itself represent significant knowledge?

Or maybe we want to test the sovereignty of Wikipedia in terms of free speech by attempting to go nasty, in the fashion of Jyllands Posten. Well, I don’t think that we need to fear about free speech issues on Wikipedia at this moment in history, not at least on its English edition. Let’s face it that, to many of us, insisting on publishing the picture here is an exercise in freedom of knowledge, a more or less conscious anti-jihad, rather than actually valuable contribution. I consider this exercise redundant at best. After all, Wikipedia is no political tool, no matter how big its potential to challenge political issues is. It can be politically powerful as a side effect of its mission. Probably the following statement will be not trivial to grok: I think that Wikipedia should resist distortion to knowledge induced by political pressure, but it should avoid becoming a field of war with any such pressure. I propose that Wikipedians should play wars and propaganda outside Wikipedia, to leave it unaffected by them and as objective as ever. For Wikipedia is the goal of freedom, not the means to get it ;-). (Alt.: Freedom is the means to get Wikipedia and not the reverse.)

Said this all, I don’t have this sense of absolute certainty which often accompanies me on other occassions. Therefore I’m reserving here my right to be wrong. Use my statements as a material to develop your own opinions rather than as what I want you to think. Maybe someone else can recompute them to a point where they’ll deserve greater judgemental certainty. I’m always hesitant to attempt making any intervention in Wikipedia, because, as far from its full potential as it may still be, its quality as a whole puts to shame all my individual creations ever performed.

One least thing, that I’m nearly sure about, that we should do—if to take the assumption of our good faith seriously—is to always conceal offensive content behind warning messages, so that only those of us, who want to see them, will see them.

—6birc, 19:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to read the previous two million discussions before repeating this yet again?-- Nomen Nescio 19:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Nomen Nescio,

1. Admittedly, it’s difficult to read two million discussions ;-). Do you honestly think that reading these should become an unconditional prerequisite to participating in any discussions on Wikipedia?
2. It’s all too easy to lose mind to suggestion of circumstances in everyday life affairs, in general, and in such political affairs like this, in particular. As a result, frequent repetition of obvious truths is indispensible when circumstances become critical. (They became so.) This reassures people that old truths remain valid in new context and teaches them to appreciate these more universally. On top of that, many of us never learn ;-).
3. Maybe we’re duplicating the information present in the “necessary crap” space, that talk is, but at least we’re doing this with a virtuous purpose in mind: to preserve the “quality” space that article (intendedly) is ;-).
4. ...which statement are you referring to? ;-).

—6birc, 20:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

El Fagr word is spreading!

As of the writing of this entry the Arabic Wikipedia Entry on Jyllands-Posten Cartoon controversy has added the El Fagr image:

El Fagr's Headline Page for Oct. 17, 2005 - One of the controversial cartoons of Muhammad, as it appeared on the first page of the Egyptian Newspaper El Fagr.

As well as The serbian version. It would be good to have this image spread around.... to highlight this previous publication, so if there are other wikipedia editors who edit in other languages maybe you could help add it to the other language controversy pages as well?

Netscott 10:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

NO! Thanks... Resid Gulerdem 23:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

Does anyone think this requires serious consideration: internationalist world govern conspiracy theory? Yeah, I thought so. Weregerbil 10:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Most certainly some of the riots in e.g. Lebanon involve radical groups that want to take power undemocratically (ie conspire themselves to power). However, I doubt that conspiracy theories really suit this article now...--HJV 20:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Guenter Grass's Interview in Die Welt

Gunter Grass opinion --Chaos 13:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Say what? This is from 2002 and about something else altogether. Azate 15:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, fpp is in no way a useful source: it's David Irving's holocaust denial outfit. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 19:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

the original article in Deutsch : die welt --Chaos 21:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Layout

The layout, as it is right now, it awful: There is a gaping white hole right at the top of the page, apparently because the introduction has been split and a new section "Background" inserted, probably with the laudable intention to move the table of contents upward. I propose the following: 1) Re-merge "Backgroud" (which is a bad name to begin with) back with the introduction 2) Have the Table of contents at the side of the introduction. It should be at the top, really. 3) (I hardly dare say that, after all the fuss) Move the 12 cartoons down to "publication of the drawings",because ther is not enough space for both the picture and the TOC. Azate 19:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I fixed the big space? -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 19:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Dunno, maybe it's got to do with screen resolution and font size and whatever. For me, 1/4th of the width is the TOC, 1/2 is blank white space, 1/4th is the pic. There must be a better solution. I'm no good at this xml-layout thing, so I won't touch it. Azate 20:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

What the drawings actually depict

It's ridiculous that the article starts by stating that the drawings depict Muhammad. Some of them do, not all. That's a kind of misunderstating that has caused much wrongdoing and false debate all over the world, firstly in the world without the freeedom of press. Not that it would've helped a lot telling the truth. But actually, two of the cartoons mock the whole editorial for doing PR for the Danish author whose book no one would illustrate un-anomymously (thus starting the debate). Another one has a Danish/Arab-looking schoolboy sticking his tongue out, showing the writing on a blackboard, stating that the journalists at JP are "reactionary provocateurs". JP may be one of the most critical towards islam, in Denmark, nevertheless they allow space for being mocked in their editorial! I'd like to see something similar on Fox News or the likes of them.

JP did not know what the writing on the blackboard meant. It was mentioned here for a while, but it was later left out as a peculiarity out of scoope. It is still in the Danish version. And if you ask me, Fox News is doing a fine job at parodizing a news outlet every single day! MX44 23:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The point: Start the article by stating how many cartoons actually depict Muhammad. It might be hard to say clearly, in some cases, but at least it could be stated how many clearly do NOT depict Muhammad (the Prophet, that is, the schoolboy's called Muhammad too).

It's the same type of journalistic error that made BBC (!) present a European guy with a pig snout (competing in a pig imitation contest at a party) as a Muhammad drawing! Danish imams had included the picture in their material which was shown to muslim leaders, in the beginning of the current bloody, burning controversy. However, the imams didn't asert that the picture originated from JP. BBC, apparently, just never read it.

Bonulo 21:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Stating more prominently that only some of the drawings depicts Muhammad, could help increase the sanity level of the debate. MX44 23:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. But since it is unclear which ones represent Muhammed, leave any numbers out.DanielDemaret 08:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

El Fagr part of reprint section

Please do not change the wording of "but the publication of the images did not engender any known protests from either Egyptian religious authorities nor the Egyptian government." as this spells out very clearly to anyone reading about these events the apparent duplicity that has occurred regarding publication of the Jyllands images in various countries. I think it's safe to say that if the fact that an Egyptian newspaper had printed half of the cartoons back in October (without Religious or Governmental protest) had been well know throughout the world, there wouldn't have been a call for boycotting of any other country besides Denmark.

Netscott 23:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It's mostly the word "engender" that is weird. I't just bad English. How about : "but the publication of the images did not lead to any known protests from Egyptian religious authorities or the Egyptian government." Azate 23:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The word "engender" is in fact extremely good English (I should know as a native speaker) such language is indeed typically found in encyclopedias. Also as a side note the user Kintaro Oe added this line : "Cette publication en période de Ramadan, n'a suscité aucune réaction ni condamnation des autorités religieuses islamiques ou des autorités gouvernementales egyptiennes." in the French version of this entry, which roughly translates into the word changes I've made. Does Wikipedia need to 'dumb down' it's vocabulary? Netscott 00:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

A better translation of Kintaro's line would be: "This publication during Ramadan, did not cause any reaction nor condemnation from either Islamic religious authorities or the government of Egypt." I'd be fine with putting that in place of my earlier edit. Thoughts? Netscott 00:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I know what engender means. I also don't deny that it's perfectly correct. It's just such extremly good English, that it comes around as weird, something you'd expect in jurisprudence, legistation etc. Oh, and since we're starting to delve into 'good English', I can't help but note that "either/nor" doesn't fly. Should be "neither/nor" or "either/or". Just kidding, of course. It' just a stupid detail. ;-) Azate 00:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well at this point... I've changed the edit to reflect Kintaro's text... which after translation struck me as being better balanced than what I wrote earlier. Netscott 00:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

hey, Thanks to quote me; I took my little french-english dictionnary, and french verb "susciter" is translated as "to give rise", "to provoke" (a controversersy).

My point was just to underline the absence of public reaction by Mubarak's Government or Islamic authorities, since there was after A GREAT activity in Egypt.

* november through december: A delegation of Imams from the Islamic Society in Denmark travel to the Middle East (EGYPT, SYRIA, LEBANON) in order to "bring attention" to the cartoons. They present the Akkari 43 page Dossier to influential political and religious leaders.Among the people the group claims to have met on their visit to Egypt were: - The General Secretary of the Arab League Amr Moussa,- the Egyptian Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa and - the Sheik of Cairo's Al-Azhar university Mohammed Sayed Tantawi- the Egyptian foreign office. In Lebanon they met the Grand Mufti Muhammad Rashid Kabbani, top Shiite Sheik Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, Maronite Church leader Nasrallah Sfeir. In Syria they met Grand Mufti Sheik Ahmed Badr-Eddine Hassoun.

* 02 november 2005 : Lebanese Foreign Affairs Minister have met Egyptian ambassador in Lebanon to think about which measures to take against Danemak.

* 29 december 2005: The Arab League, base in Cairo (Egypt), criticises the Danish government for not acting in the matter.

* 06 february 2006. Several thousand students massed on the al-Azhar University campus in Cairo today to protest against publication of caricatures of Islam’s Prophet Mohammed. Sheikh Tantawui, Ali Joamaa Egyptian Republic Mufti, Mahmoud Hamdi Zagzoug Minister of Waqfs (Religious matter) were present to protest.

You see my point? Oe kintaro 15:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC).

The current line: Six of the cartoons were reprinted in the Egyptian newspaper El Fagr on 17 October 2005[24][25][26] along with an article strongly denouncing them, but this publication of the images during Ramadan, did not cause any reaction nor condemnation from either Islamic religious authorities or the government of Egypt.

This needs to be improved. The lengthy style is insistent: "reaction nor condemnation", "either Islamic or gov", etc. The result is POV creep because we highlight El Fagr as extra-important. We take this bold step when the press generally ignores this detail. It could be their negligence or it could be that this "independent weekly" is too insignificant. In any case, the sentence should be neutralized by shortening it. Lotsofissues 19:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Mohammed With A Bomb

Some muslims have expressed outrage with the fact that one of the pictures is of Mohammed with a bomb. In explaining this photo, it should be noted that some terrorists (like Osama Bin Laden), justify their actions based on Islam. They object to a picture of Mohammed with a bomb, and yet don't object when a bomb is placed in real life in the name of Mohammed. The irony would make a good cartoon. Accountable Government 02:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm very sure that every Muslim supports radicalism and terrorism as every Christian supports KKK =)--84.249.252.211 03:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

So ... We should burn them? MX44

I dont think the cartoonist meant to associate every muslim with terrorism. I think, rather, he was directing the criticizm directly to radical muslims. I dont know this for a fact, of course, but its a possibillity.

And there in lies the point, by associating Muhammad as a terrorist he insults every Muslim on the planet, and the seal of the Prophets, the Prophet most Muslims will tell you, whose actions they try to emulate. The images are gravely offnsive to Muslims, far more so than the Rushdie affair. --210.54.12.83 07:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

If you insist in "associating Muhammad as a terrorist", Mr Unsigned, YOU insult Muhammed. I make no such association, nor did I make it when I first saw the cartoon you are referring to. Insults are in the mind of the beholder.DanielDemaret 08:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes - if there is one thing modern art has taught us it is that art only has meaning if the observer gives it meaning. Art without an observer is just paint or clay. Point being, you can claim "Da Bomb" associates all muslims with terrorism or that it just points out that Islam is being held hostage by radicals. In either case - you'd be right. Celcius ^(Talk) Wiki be With us! 13:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Off Topic Jihad must go

It is getting increasingly hard for people who work on the text, in order to get it to represent a fair and balanced view, to find each other in this mess of opinions about what kind of illustrations might or might not be offensive. There are other forums for this kind of discussion. All you guys do is vandalizing the discussion. Is that what you want? MX44 04:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

':Excuse me, did you remove a part of the talk???? Bertilvidet 12:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Even if MX had removed part of the talk, which you could have checked by looking at history and found out that he didn't, he'd have been in the right to do so. Off-topic discussions have no place on this page. Kyaa the Catlord 13:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus cartoons rejected by J-P

Someone at the newspaper later clarified why those cartoons of a Jesus-figure were rejected. It wasn't because they were of Jesus, but they were silly and poor cartoons. When you read a description of the cartoons, you may think that they sound pretty silly. 69.224.112.100 04:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC) 11 February 2006

We knew that already. That guy was only promoting his own (lack of?) talent. MX44 04:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

From the current article: "giving Muslims reasons to assert that a double standard in dealing with them versus others". Kind of picks one POV conspiracy theory and promotes that. Weregerbil 04:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah! You meant that it was back again ... It is gone now. It is story about talentless wannabe who got rejected. MX44 05:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

As opposed to the talentless wannabes whose cartoons were accepted and sparked a wave of international protest and the single most successfull consumer-led boycott of the past 100 years. --210.54.12.83 07:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

They were asked with short notice (an afternoon) to comment with their pen on the islamaphobia in Denmark. And I agree ... The result is not always reflecting artistic qualty. Da Bomb is deep though, perhaps deeper than the artist suspected. MX44 07:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

All of these cartoonists/illustrators already make a living out of their talent. This is not in dispute! MX44 08:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Greyscale

The first sentnce is important. It summarizes the event in a single sentence. Please say what you think is important and how it will inspire readers to read beyond. MX44 07:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine as is. Something else: What's the deal with this pink box in section 1, and why is there a link to "Anders Fogh Rasmussen cartoons", which aren't precisely super-relevant? Azate 08:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice that box and I don't know (blushes) MX44 08:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

At the moment the first sentence reads "most of which depicted M" which I find to be understood as: "most of which depicted M in a NEGATIVE WAY". This is not excactly true ... Now Wiki have not put the N-word there, but MEDIA have. This is why I ask for opinions on the lead-in? MX44 09:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence seems pretty clear at present. We could be even more specific, e.g. "The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy began after twelve editorial cartoons were published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten on 30 September 2005. The Islamic prophet Muhammad was the central character depicted in seven of these cartoons." I can't see a nice way to express this in a single sentence though. -- Avenue 11:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes but there is a trap of being so politically correct and considerate, so you end up being the opposite. Here is one from CNN:

CNN is not showing the negative caricatures of the likeness of the Prophet Mohammed because the network believes its role is to cover the events surrounding the publication of the cartoons while not unnecessarily adding fuel to the controversy itself.

Note that they manage to conclude that the cartoons are indisputeably negative and then go on to say they will not add fuel. MX44 18:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn

This article needs to link to the articles on Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh. I added these under comparable incidents, but another user deleted the links. These murders provide critical background to the context in which freedom of expression is understood. Can we agree that these ought to be in the article?

It's not directly related. I don't think it should be included in this article - in the greater scope of things - Islamic/West Frictions - they are relevant - but not to the subject of this article. Also, the PT and TVG "incidents" were murders due to individuals - not boycotting of milk by Islamic nations as is the case here - and as such it would be wrong to equate them. Celcius ^(Talk) Wiki be With us! 12:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Van Gogh's murder is directly related to the freedom of expression context. One of the artists approached by Kare Bluitgen gave this murder as a reason for not illustrating the book. But I think this would need to be explained if we did include a link to the Theo van Gogh article. -- Avenue 15:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I just realised that this is explained already in the Debate about self-censorship section of the article, and there is a link to the Theo van Gogh article there. -- Avenue 15:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Surely they are relevant, as the murder on Theo van Gogh was - if my memory serves me right - stated as one of the excuses given by (one?/several? of) the 28 invited cartonists, who declined the invitation to provide a cartoon. Varga Mila 15:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The compareable media incident in this case would be Submission_(film) which have been linked for ages. The actual murder is just(?) yet another crime MX44 16:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Alt Map

A friend just sent me this. http://face-of-muhammed.blogspot.com/ It seems that others are doing the kind of map being done here too. Submitting it here for comparison to our map. There may be more relevant info in this blog, even. :) DanielDemaret 12:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not very NPOV to divide the world into "camps" like that - it's very "you are either with us or against us" type of thing - which will inevitably rely on subjective opinion not suitable for a NPOV encyclopedia. Celcius ^(Talk) Wiki be With us! 12:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

That was not the original purpose of the map, but if many interpret it that way, it sadly becomes a very valid point. Is there any chance that one might connect the picture closely to editorial text to show the purpose and to save the intention of what we are trying to show that way? DanielDemaret 15:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

May I remind you all that according to WP:V and WP:RS, blogs are not acceptable sources under any circumstances on wikipedia, so if you were planning on adding a blog into the article, whether as a link, or a source, it's not happening. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Nobody was planning any such thing, of course. What a singularly strange notion. Again, this was a note to compare their map with "our own" map. And last I read the recommendations, which was two days ago, blogs could indeed be accepted under special circumstances.

This is copied from the link you brought up, "...and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications.", hoping that page has not been the victim of any edit wars. DanielDemaret 20:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Cartoon War

A few more deaths and we can rename this page to Cartoon War and add the war infobox! I hope not.--TheFEARgod 15:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I read somewhere that the media have been so rash to report all the unrest caused by the cartoons, that they ignore all of the other current violence in the islamic world (Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine etc.). Food for thought, anyway. 惑乱 分からん 19:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

In the US, the news media at least, is barely covering the cartoon violence. Only the newspapers seem to be making a big deal about it, and justifiably so since the controversy directly affects their medium As for the original poster about cartoon war.......yes it's seeming that way isn't it? Wars have been started over less than just an embassy firebombing. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

ISLAMISTS PROTEST IN FRANCE = BUSTED

The 11 february 2006, there was in Paris (French Capital) and Strasbourg (French City, Capital of European Union with Brussels) protests of islamits . 7 200 protesters in Paris, 2 000 in Strasbourg.

A Team of French Bloggers Called "La BAF" (Brigade for the money of the French Taxpayers) invited themselves in the demonstration. They were insulted, threatened and french police rescued them. Photo+ video. A MUST SEE. French/English Version.

http://labaf.blogspot.com

(The preceding unsigned comments were added by Oe kintaro)

A demonstration that demands respect for others...and someone shouts "homosexuals!!!" as an insult to a guy holding a danish flag...:) Apupunchau 20:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Would that be an insult to a Dane? Could a Dane answer this please?DanielDemaret 20:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Prince Hassan of Jordan BBCworld today

NPOV part: On BBCWorld today, on a program called "your voice" or something to that effect, Prince Hassan of Jordan made some interesting remarks. http://i-cias.com/e.o/hassan_jordan.htm If memory serves, he mentioned that he descended from the prophet, and that the issue we are discussing here, if my memory serves, was more an issue internal to Islam than one between Islam and the west. He suggested an internal dialogue, perhaps in Mekka to have a dialogue on matters. His views seemed to suggest that the violent reactions were totally out of proportion, and no violence should have occured. MyPOV part: Islam talking with one voice? A consensus of brothers, instead of masses being manipulated by a few totalitarian regimes, or by a few in extremists organisations into senseless violence? I am an uncurable optimist, but if consensus works for wikipedia, perhaps there will be more common ground between freedom of expression and Islam in such a future :)DanielDemaret 20:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)