Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Split the article

Almost all the text in the article is about the controversy over the cartoons, not about the cartoons themselves. The current title reflects that. But some people (e.g. Sol v. Orange) claim that changing the title from "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons" was a "salami slicing" tactic to change the article's former topic, rather than to more accurately reflect what the topic really was. Obviously there is not consistent agreement on this question.

Proposal: Revert the title change, so the title is again "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons", and split off the part of the article that's about the controversy. The "cartoon" article's content should be the detailed description of the cartoons (taken from the current article and maybe expanded), a nice big picture of the cartoons if the article's editors desire that, and a very brief description of the controversy, with a link to the separate "controversy" article. The "controversy" article would contain the stuff from the current article that's purely about the controversy, with a brief description of the cartoons (no picture of them), plus a link to the "cartoons" article, described as "article describing the cartoons, including a large picture".

The front page link would be to the "controversy" article since that's what its current text refers to. Yes, that would have the effect of getting the cartoon off of a direct front page link. But it's obvious that the front page link is there because of the controversy and refers to it. Phr 23:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I would still keep the cartoons at both pages, as the controversy is about that. It is to easy to see the controversy as something completly seperate --KimvdLinde 23:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with a whole new article on the cartoons themselves, with detailed images of them and descriptions and translations; however, an image of the cartoons would also have to remain on the controversy page itself since the cartoons are the entire catalyst for the controversy. Otherwise, yes, it's "salami tactics" as you're removing the entire basis for the controversy from the controversy page and moving the images solely to an article on the cartoons which could easily be removed or deleted because some might feel it is un-encyclopedic. Sol. v. Oranje 23:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Well OK, there would have to be further discussion on the "controversy" article's talk page about whether the "controversy" article should include the picture, but splitting the article would be intended to remove the argument that the controversy article is about the cartoons. The controversy article is intended to be about the controversy, its main pictures (if it has any pictures) should be related to the controversy (e.g. pictures of protests or boycotts), and any picture of the cartoons themselves should be at most an interior thumbnail. Phr 23:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

But the entire reason for the controversy is the cartoons and what they depict. Just showing pictures of the protests and violent acts spawned by the cartoons and reducing the actual cartoons to a small image within the article would be obscuring the catalyst for the controversy. Sol. v. Oranje 23:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The "controversy" article would not be about the catalyst for the controversy. It would be about the controversy itself. The catalyst is the cartoons, and they would have their own article. The catalyst would not have to be very prominent in the article about the controversy, just like the Archduke Ferdinand (whose assassination was the catalyst for World War 1) is not very prominent in the article about WW1. Phr 23:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

But Archduke Ferdinand remains in the WWI article because it was his death that sparked the war; thus the cartoons, which sparked the controversy, should remain in the article on the controversy itself (and in clear easy-to-view size, I might add, not obscured away like the fanatics want). Furthermore, the cartoons should probably also be inserted into articles regarding blasphemy and religious suppression of free speech as an example of images so "offensive" as to cause all this mess to begin with. Sol. v. Oranje 00:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The Archduke Ferdinand is only briefly mentioned in the WW1 article and there is no picture of him there. There are several pictures of him in his biographical article but no picture of his assassination in that article. There is a separate article about his assassination that contains a picture of the actual assassination. And, the picture of the assassination is fairly far down in the article about the assassination (its top picture is of a memorial of the assassination). Finally, I think you're being disingeneous about the necessary size of the picture. Wikipedia contains many, many thumbnails of pictures where the thumbnails are too small to see important details. It assumes a minimal level of competence on the part of readers, namely the ability to click a mouse if they want to see a bigger version. They don't have to be spoon fed as some fanatics seem to think they do. The current picture (250px) is over 2x the pixel width (4x the area and download time) of the recommendation of the wikipedia style guide (WP:Style_guide#Pictures). Anyone arguing that its placement should follow customary wikipedia practices, should also be arguing to reduce it to 120px. Phr 00:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

And I think you're being disingenous about your motives to censor, obstruct, minimize, reduce, and obscurify these cartoons out of existence. Face it, these cartoons ARE the controversy; they are the fountainhead for everything that has followed. The fact thet that they are media images in and of themselves renders them more important to inclusion in any article on the controversy than a photograph of Ferninand from before the war, especially since other factors led to WWI. Here, the only factor that has created this uproar was the depiction of Mohammed within the cartoons. The matter of the size of the cartoon image will be determined after the second poll closes on where the image should be located to begin with. Sol. v. Oranje 00:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Now I've added a painting of the assassination of Ferninand to the WWI article anyway, right where it begins to outline the reasons for the war. So much more illustrative of that "controversy" and its ultimate catalyst, I think Sol. v. Oranje 00:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The current poll is about where to put the picture in the current article. The placement and size of any picture in a hypothetical new article that's purely about the controversy is a completely different question. And you're being disingeneous if you claim people are too incompetent to click a mouse if they want to see a large picture. Phr 00:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No, readers are not incompetent to click their mouse on an image to enlarge it. I just see no reason to reduce the image in size so much as to render its inclusion pointless to begin with Sol. v. Oranje 00:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that readers are not too incompetent to look up the whole controversy on google or muslimsearch.com or whatever.. so why don't we just delete the "jyllands-posten mohammed cartoons" page? you'd just love that wouldn't you? Hellznrg 16:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That idea sounds reasonable to me. I considered suggesting something similar myself. However, the reason that I did not, is that avoiding the image itself on the controversy page would have the effect of implying that protests and boycotts are not directly related to the cartoons themselves. I was concerned that this might seem as if it were suggesting that those outraged were taking steps that were not proportional their genuine offence. --JGGardiner 23:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Why split this and not Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy? By your logic, should we not also have a separate article entitled "Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show," both with a program schedule and a pixel-by-pixel analysis of Janet Jackson's right breast? After all, the argument could be made that "The controversy isn't about Janet Jackson's exposure but nudity on television in the United States and lax enforcement by the FCC of existing regulations."

Besides, reproducing it in the context of the controversy is fair use, but reproducing solely for reproduction's sake isn't. Guppy313 00:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It would still be editorial use if it were accompanied by description, translations, interpretations of the individual cartoons, etc. And I'd have no problem with the idea of an article about FCC nudity regulations that linked to a separate article about the Janet Jackson incident. (Btw I'm going to have to attend to "real life" shortly, so if I don't respond further for a while, I'm not ignoring you.) Phr 00:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Then you'd be stripping the pictures of nearly all context, leaving people wondering why they qualify as encyclopedic content ("Why are we saving pictures of a bloodthirsty starfish attacking a woman?"). Additionally, the pictures would become all the more offensive to some without the context of the discussion as there would appear to be little reason to host them other than shock value.

Additionally, you'd only be able to move most of the discussion of the comics themselves to the new comic-only article, not all of it; you'd still at least need text explaining what aspects of the comics offended so many, information that would then have to be repeated on the comic-only article to justify its own existence. And then you'd also require more text in this article describing the pictures, more than would be needed if the picture was present for the reader to view. This would result in a great deal of redundant information and the articles would be merged within a month of the split, at most. Guppy313 01:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Why should the images be used at all? Most major newspapers are not printing them, why should we? CNN says "CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons in respect for Islam." [1]. I dont see pictures of the cartoons at the BBC article or the New York Times article -- Astrokey44|talk 00:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the NYT or CNN; in fact, we should strive to be _better_ than those media sources, and I do imagine a large amount of people who've heard of the story from those media outlets would come here to better inform themselves in depth on the controversy -- and that includes seeing the cartoons in question and deciding for themselves if these cartoons are worthy of sparking the tumult the media is reporting because of them Sol. v. Oranje 00:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

CNN has existing precedent in witholding publication of offensive material, for their own reasons. Wikipedia has none, for different reasons. Guppy313 00:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have its own precedent about offensive material. --cesarb 02:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: BBC television is airing the cartoons. --Aaron 01:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I also don't see Ass-to-mouth at The New York Times or CNN. Wikipedia's coverage is much more comprehensive. Babajobu 00:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

In fairness that's a redirect. Although I would assume that CNN is also worried about it's journalists and ratings. Hopefully nobody is going into hotels looking for Danes, Norweigans and Wikipedians.

Church Bombings

Can somebody please mention about the Church bombings in Iraq that was rumered to be related to the drawings? Chaldean 22:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Using the word "rumored" should be a red flag. Please wait until there is confirmation and/or citable sources. Guppy313 22:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, Wikipedia:Verifiability should apply to every article. Jacoplane 22:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Now their blaming Christians for this? If that's really true, then I think that would be something we really need to put in this article, once people start getting angry enough to destroy anyone and everyone, then you know things are going crazy. Homestarmy 22:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Assuming it's true, please be sure to qualify who "they" are. Guppy313 22:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Well small militant groups have claimed for it and said it was retaliation to the cartoons. This is what they are saying in the streets of Baghdad. I think its fair to at leats mention the event, dont you agree? Check out some articles about it. militants coordinate bombings near Christian churches: [[2]] Chaldean 22:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a citation to me directly relating the cartoons to church bombings, this should be able to go into the timeline and article with no problem, why was it removed for not being related to the pictures? Homestarmy 23:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't me, but reading the article, no claims of the attacks beign linked to the controversy are made. In fact, the bombings happened on Sunday (as the article mentions, the Christian day of worship and church attendance), and the coordination of the attacks suggest days of planning, so it seems it happened too soon for it to be a deliberate response to the images.

And in general, I find myself doubtful that churches would be attacked in response to this; it seems that Arab/Muslim vitriol aimed the West (or at least Europe) depict it as a bunch of godless heathens rather than Christian crusaders. Guppy313 23:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You must not have read the latest? [[3]] I think their should be a section called "Christians in the middle east persicuted" That is fair I think 141.217.41.237 00:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

BNL is a reputable source? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

All you had to do is go to google and type in "church, palestinian, cartoon" Earlier, Manuel Mussalam, a priest of the Latin Church in Gaza, delivered an emotional appeal to Dr Zahar after the church received a fax that he said had come from "Fatah gunmen and the Soraya al-Quds". He said: " They threatened our churches in Gaza. We will not be threatened. We are Christians, yes, but Palestinians first." [[4]] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chaldean (talk • contribs) .

How is that all I had to do to discover if BNL is a reputable source? Your link says nothing about BNL. Were you confused by my question? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, I thought you said reliable. Now can we add a section to this article under the title of "Middle East Christians Percicuted" Chaldean 01:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No hard feelings. I have no problem with a section on that in the article, assuming that we have a reputable source, which it appears we do. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

How about something like this: Middle East Christians Percicuted

Middle East Christians Persecuted

On January 29, 2006, six churches in the Iraqi cities of Baghdad and Kirkuk were targeted by car bombs, killing 13-year old worshipper Fadi Raad Elias. [5] No militants claimed to be retaliating for the pictures, but many Assyrians in Iraq claim "Westerners should not give wild statements [as] everyone can attack us [in response]" [6]. Also on January 29, a Muslim Cleric in the Iraqi city of Mosul issued a fatwa stating "expel the Crusaders and infidels from the streets, schools, and institutions because they offended the person of the prophet in Denmark." [7]In reply to the fatwa on the same day, Muslim Students beat up Christian student in Mosul University.[8] On Febuary 2, 2006, Palestinians in the West Bank handed out a leaflet signed by a Fatah militant group and Islamic Jihad stating "Churches in Gaza could come under attack". [9]

So is this fair? Chaldean 01:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You are right. We need to build bridges with Muslims, this controversy is making things worse for the Christians in Iraq and other predominantly Muslim lands.--File Éireann 01:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

we need that not only because of our interest or the interest of christian minority there but because its a question of brotherhood of all human beeings even froma secular point of view. also because of world freedom: the chance is really given to achieve. tehre are people with whom one can discuss but if we continue this way and demonizing people may be it will not lead to nice things.(only for information the iraqi foreign minster Tarek Aziz was christian and the wife of arafat was christian i think the wife of Husni Mubarek to i think the ex un secretary butros butros ghali was egeptian and christian too. If there is any incident wich are mentioned here such things happend in netherland germany and france too. what i want to say please dont generalize like one can not generalise in the case of the mentioned countrys too). best regards مبتدئ 06:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Who is "we"? Encyclopedias need to build bridges with Muslims? I think encyclopedias should focus on providing quality, comprehensive articles on notable topics, and leave the "bridge building" to civil engineers. Babajobu 02:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Either way, since this is pretty much related to the cartoons in many ways, it should go in the article somewhere, it looks good so far to me. Homestarmy 14:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the section On January 29 six churches in the Iraqi cities of Baghdad and Kirkuk were targeted by car bombs, killing 13-year-old worshipper Fadi Raad Elias. An announcement by the Dutch religious rights group Open Door </ref> No militants claimed to be retaliating for the pictures, nor is this the first time Iraqi churches have been bombed; but many Assyrians in Iraq claim "Westerners should not give wild statements [as] everyone can attack us [in response]" Militants tend to be quite open about their motives, so if none of them listed this as a motive, then it's likely "just another Church bombing" Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 20:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Second Paragraph

I don't like the juxtaposition of these two sentences in the second paragraph of the intro:

"Although Jyllands-Posten maintains that the drawings were an exercise in free speech, many Muslims in Denmark and elsewhere view them as provocative and Islamophobic. Two newspaper cartoonists have reportedly gone into hiding after receiving death threats, and the newspaper has enhanced its security precautions. [1] "

Presumably most of those who "view [the cartooons] as provocative and Islamophobic" do not advocate the issuance of death threats as an appropriate response or consider it "Islamophobic" to react fearfully when one receives a death threat.--FRS 00:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like it, it's perfectly OK for you to re-word it (assuming the page isn't locked), but I didn't make the assumption you fear the proximity implies.--Anchoress 00:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I can see your concern, and I've reworded the 2nd sentence: "There have even been some extremists who have issued death threats, resulting in two newspaper cartoonists reportedly going into hiding, and the newspaper enhancing its security precautions." What do you think? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Bad. Are these people really extremists? Extremist is a POV statement, and we don't even know who exactly issued the death threats. Thus, I think we should simply move the two sentences apart somehow, though honestly, I do find the juxtaposition somewhat ironic and probably rather fair, given that these people are themselves afraid of freedom. Titanium Dragon 03:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

They are extremists by definition. Death, as a consequence for this issue, is an extreme suggestion. The word has a definition, and can be used in a non-POV way. Now if you're asserting that the death threats are hoaxes, that's a separate issue. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Blackface...and Antisemitism

Just to throw one more reason in why "the image" should continue to be included in the article, take a look at the feature article Blackface. This portrayal is considered highly offensive to many African-Americans, yet numerous examples are shown in the article. As with most things in life, it is the context as much as the content that determins if something is suitable for display or not. --StuffOfInterest 01:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Same with Antisemitism, an image that is extremely offensive to Jews is right up at the top, because it's a good, informative example of the topic. And Jewish editors have made their peace with that, because that's how Wikipedia works. Babajobu 01:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yet I suspect that you would not be happy with the cartoons being up under anti-Islamism, or whatever the term is. So the analogy doesnt hold. Hornplease 01:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then we're back to Piss Christ. The point is that Wikipedia is not censored to protect the sensibilities of any religious or ideological or political group. Is it really sensible to make a unique exception for Muslims? Babajobu 01:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not a christian, but personally i have found Piss Christ offensive ever since i first heard of it. It brings up all kinds of questions of what IS art and its clearly just sensationalism in its most moneygrubbing form WookMuff who keeps doing his user tag wrong! 12:53 (AEST) 3rd of Feb, Ought Six

Yes, it is. And yet Wikipedia displays an image of Piss Christ at the topic of the article, because that's where it belongs in an article about Piss Christ. Should Muslim Wikipedians receive gentler, kinder treatment than every other group? That's the question we're addressing here. Babajobu 02:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The best example I can find on Wikipedia that relates to the image controversy here is this simple image: Image:YHWH.png. It's the vowelized form of the tetragrammaton, forbidden to be written in the Jewish religion and potentially highly offensive. And yet we haven't removed it. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 03:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The thing of it is, all those other articles are somewhat very different than this article. All those other articles are reporting on something which was intentionally designed to discriminate, offend, or otherwise do bad, while these cartoons were designed to simply stand out for free speech in the face of pro-Islam censorship in Europe. I would hardly call these cartoons on par with Blackface pictures, the **** Christ picture, or the anti-semitisim poster, the outrage over those pictures is highly understandable and, personally, if I was personally in charge of the **** Christ article, (Which I am not, and thusly do not plan to go near) then I would get rid of the picture. but with these cartoons, it is not designed to attack Islam directly. The other articles were all based on reporting events that were designed to offend, this article is reporting on people being offended at something not being designed to offend. Homestarmy 14:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

BBC shows cartoons?

I've just heard a BBC radio report (on Australian ABC radio) stating that the BBC has shown the images briefly on British TV news. Can anyone confirm this? If it's true it should be added. --Tatty 01:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know they haven't. The Beeb still still stands firm as the paladin of political correctness (only when Muslims are concerned, curiously enough). Lenineleal 01:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, according to this (danish) http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/article.php?id=3581417 they actually did. The.valiant.paladin 01:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"Responsible" "glimpses" see [10] --JGGardiner 01:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a significant development and should be added to the article. Surely it will add to the controversy? Anyone agree or otherwise? --Tatty 02:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's relevant - after all they only showed "responsible glimpses", i.e. almost nothing. Lenineleal 02:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

As an aside to the BBCs involvement or lack thereof, have a look at the standard of debate they are happy to host on their site- http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=904&&edition=2&ttl=20060203045131

I believe they are now embroiled in the controversy. Look at this http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2022442,00.html --Tatty 05:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this is highly relevant to keeping the image on the article. Watching the BBC and Channel 4 news, they did show the images, briefly, being shown and spoken about by a very angry muslim. However, the only pictures they showed were the bomb one and the Muhammed-with-knife one. Thus, if I hadn't seen the pictures on the wikipedia article, I would be under the impression that they were all like this. Skittle 11:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

ABC News in the US showed several of the images yesterday evening as well. --StuffOfInterest 11:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

There was also a large protest outside Television Centre last night because of the 6 O Clock news showing the images. Logan1138 17:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Mirror

I have created a mirror at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (no images), which will also need to be maintained, with the offensive image removed. Now, can we move the image down below the break on the page? Problem solved. --GeLuxe 03:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not allow these sorts of forks of articles. As for whether we can move the image down...well, take a look at the consensus demonstrated at the poll. Now what do you think? Babajobu 03:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

What was the point of making the mirror? One article is enough. 209.51.77.64 04:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

There was some code being used on a few articles which allowed for toggling pictures on or off... if people think that's a good idea... more or less... this whole thing mystifies me. gren グレン ^? 05:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see AfD on Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (no pictures) --Descendall 08:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not an AfD, it's a VfD. --cesarb 15:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

what if

what if some newspaper printed a cartoon depicting Elizabeth II having sex with the Spanish King? with Voltaire? with Goethe? with Anderson? with Jesus? with Maria? will the editor be fired? will people hit the street to protest? My god are Eueopeans really full of themselves that they forgot how to respect other people? Do you say "you're a bitch" to your neighbours? You don't, even though you won't get arrested for it. It's called respect. The whole world knows freedom of speech in Europe is top notch. You don't have to prove this by insulting the Muslims. The Islam world is dangerously overreacting, but that doesn't justify your offence. Just out of curiosity, how arrogant can you be? --wooddoo [[User_talk:Wooddoo-eng|Eppur si muove]] 06:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, if such a cartoon was printed in any little arab newspaper, we sure would kidnap randomly chosen Arabs, burn your flags, demand terrorist attacks against Arabs etc. etc. ... (In case some didn't see it himself: This was Irony ) -- Trollkontroll 07:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

=That would be a funny cartoon!Valtam 07:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. In the film "Naked Gun", the main character "accidentally" ended up mounting on the Queen of England in missinary position, sliding along long dinner table, the queen of england screaming. The best commedic moment of the film. (^^) Yes, we are bunch of degenerates. FWBOarticle

And then the pictures should be posted on Wikipedia.... Just to get the picture right, which Anderson are we talking about...? Kjaergaard 07:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually something not too different from this happened in the United States. A magazine published a parody of popular Christian minister Jerry Falwell that depicted him losing his virginity with his own mother in an outhouse. Reverend Falwell sued the publisher and the case went to the supreme court, which decided unanimously in favor of the publisher. The West doesn't single out Islam. I've seen my own religion belittled on television comedy - and quite frankly I enjoyed the joke. My belief is strong enough to laugh off occasional disrespect. Durova 07:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm Muslim and i can't figure out what your point here , I'm against the pictures , and I'm telling you they are the most stupid and horrible pictures i ever seen , but this article is speaking about the issue , so how we can explain it without the pictures ??? have you watched "last temptation of Christ" I watched it , and I'm telling you as a muslim i can't accept any person under any condition to insult any prophet and call it art , but if I'm going to make an article about the movie , and included some photos to explain the idea , should you consider me support the idea of the director ?? have you watched "al-resala" (the message), the message show some people worship stones , are you going to cut these scenes also , here we have different context and they are speaking about the event not to support the news paper.Waleeed 07:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

By referring to Jesus Christ as "any prophet", implying he is not the son of God, is highly offensive to christians and i think you should apologize for that WookMuff

UMMMM , which reply is the best for you ??? Nothing , nothing had been said.Waleeed 22:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Concerning Elizabeth II: God Save the Queen.

Heh :) We played that one on local radio, right after christian fundamentalist prayers, on easter friday ... So far, no death threats. MX44 12:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Concerning what we say to our neighbors: Being miserable and treating other people like dirt is every New Yorker's God-given right.

Considering what happens in Europe, this ain't Europe.

But in general, this isn't the right website for your views. Guppy313 07:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Muslim have valid case against some European countries. If race hate speech is banned why not ban faith hate speech. This is a valid issue to raise in this page. Wikipedia on the other hand is not Europe. So take the complaint elsewhere. FWBOarticle

It's only a valid issue so long as the editors aren't the ones raising it. Find a citable source in which an acceptably notable person (e. g. someone who already has a Wikipedia article about them) makes that case, then it can be included in the article (with the citation). Otherwise, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a debate club. Guppy313 07:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll be blunt, if these are the worst pictures you've ever seen Waleed, then I cannot see how you'll like the internet, many times people are forced to look at disgusting pictures in ads whether we bally well want to or not, that's just how the internet works. At least these pictures don't pop up in the middle of your screen and dance around in your face like a pop-up or something. Homestarmy 14:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You can change your religion; you can't change your race (and no, Micheal Jackson doesn't disprove that). France, for one, wouldn't like that idea anyway; they're pretty fed up with religion, one reason you won't be seeing a French Pope anytime soon. Titanium Dragon 16:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, the Queen and jesus - I doubt it would go down well in certain circles, but if it didn't contravene the law in the country it's hosted, then we'd just be told to "suck it up, princess." People need to lighten up. Imho, any belief system that makes you so furious that you turn to violence (over a cartoon) should not be pandered to. It's no arrogance to suggest we don't bend under pressure, it's simply retaining the way we do things. If someone of any race, religion or culture, even a n^th generation Dane, doesn't like the way we do things in Europe, they're free to go somewhere more compatible with their ideology. Also, if someone is so mentally and emotionally fragile as to riot over a cartoon, they should avoid the internet, it's full of upsetting imagery. Cal 17:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Whats the fuss?

Ok, i can honestly admit that i am no muslim scholar... I tried to read the book once and gave up as it was too hard. My question is twofold. Isn't the point of not showing pictures of the prophet about stoppind the spread of idolatry? If so, how do cartoons mocking the prophet contribute to idolatry? Love that WookMuff

• WookMuff, although many here have quoted the "spread of idolatry"-reason against the cartoons, as you phrase it, those who have been angry at the cartoons in this discussion have simply stated that it is disrespectful to the prophet, and therefore an insult to all muslims. I am beginning to think that you will not find the reason for this in any book, law or scripture. DanielDemaret 08:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Pictorial representation of animal including human is banned because inaccurate represenation of god's creation is offense to god. (Undoctored) Photo is controvercial because it is accurate. Most say it is o.k. but some say it is not. However, if say, photo is used for reverential purpose, such as a teenager having poster of "Nsync" in her foom, then the usage of photo is to divert the reverence of god to something else, so it is wrong. My mate (a muslim) got his poster of Imran Khan ripped by his dad. On top of all this, the disrespect to the messenger of God is also considered as blasphamous which many scholar say deserve death penalty. This is a separate charge. Then implying that he is a terrorist is offense to islam. Basically the photo is wrong in soooo many ways if you are muslim. oh, I'm not a muslim so I appreciate if someone correct whatever mistake I have made. FWBOarticle

for the newspaper case not this article case , the picture was seen as insulting, there is nothing relates it to idolatry !!!! as a muslim i see the picture very insulting , i respect their right in expressing their idea , but in the same time freedom doesn't equal insulting people icons, please note I'm speaking about the newspaper issue not this article issue.Waleeed 07:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Ohh you mean like burning my icon, my flag? My flag means as much to me as Muhammad means to you. Respect is not a one-way road. I have watched this for like a week now on TV. Well most other western nations would say something like "welcome to the club" shaking their shoulders, cause we have all seen it 10.000 times on TV before, and quite frankly don't expect anything else. An appropriate response I guess. Just because most does not immediately run to the streets with banners, boycotts and such, does not make the act of burning my icon any less disrespectful. In fact it is exactly the same kind of disrespect as a Danish newspaper stand accused for.

One also has to realize that western culture use satire and caricatures to expression themselves. It is a part of our culture to do it this way, and no public person, regardless who it is, is excluded from this act. If Muslims (a bunch of Danish imams going campaigning in the ME) had not pushed this case; nobody in the world would even remember these images today. In western culture yesterdays satire and caricatures are dead and forgotten the next day, and rarely is part of some sort of a campaign, which is also not the case with these images.Twthmoses 08:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

YES like that exactly , can you tell me who started this nasty game ?? answer yourself, don't answer me.Unfinishedchaos 17:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This Sign is fake ... I have no idea about this comment --Unfinishedchaos 21:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

you are right , who changed my sign to be yours ????!!!! Waleeed 23:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Can someone show us an actual verse in the Qur'an that forbids us showing those pictures (or any) of Mohammad on wikipedia.

And I don't want to see ambiguous verses either.--Greasysteve13 08:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not important for the article. Please don't use the talk page as a general discussion forum. -- 129.13.186.1 08:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I know it isn't important that was one the points I was making, that censorship because of religious beliefs is unwise because there are so many religious beliefs and if we gave in to one we’d have to give in to all and that’s pretty hard to do since most of them contradict each other. Secondly, I brought up the Qur’an because I don’t even think there is anything in there relevant to the currant situation to begin with.--Greasysteve13 00:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps we could link to the wiki article about that verse in the koran.--God of War 08:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Been discussed already. It's not in the Koran but derives from the teachings of Islamic scholars who came later. See aniconism for some info. 71.141.251.153 08:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• • It is not in the Qu'ran, and I have read a lot of supposedly related Hadith, and not even they actually forbid showing those pictures. This is one of the reasons not all muslims agree, and this is the reason that they have not been quoted in this discussion. The issue seems to be the disrespect to the prophet in general, not any particular verse anywhere. DanielDemaret 09:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. Most Muslims are not actually that rigorous in their religious observance (for example, many Muslims drink alcohol, in the same way that many Jews eat non-kosher food), and a great many are not, of itself, offended by depictions as such. However, a subatantial minority of the billion of so Muslims in the world are strictly observant of Islam as defined in the Qu'ran and Hadith, as well as by Islamic folkways, and will be strongly offended by depictions.

However, what is most offensive to Muslims in general, even the less-observant, is the deliberate provocation apparently displayed here, and the offense to Islam and the prophet which seems to be intended. -- The Anome 13:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Use modified image - Muhammad's face blocked out

File:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings 2.JPG

The Face of Muhammed. - The controversial cartoons of Muhammad, first published in Jyllands-Posten in September 2005. The face of Muhammad has been blacked out because many Muslims see the depiction of the prophet's face as offensive. <sarcasm>The extreme mockery of the prophet (with or without face) is of course not the issue here.</sarcasm> For the original image see here

Showing Muhammad's face is forbidden in Islam, this way the original placement of the cartoon could be shown without showing the prophets face (similar to how some Islamic paintings [11] [12] show him with a veil) or a film about Muhammad does not show him at all. How about something like this as a compromise? -- Astrokey44|talk 08:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• WP:NOT censored--God of War 08:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Absolutely not. Agree with God of War. No censorship. Acetic Acid 08:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Its not censored since it gives you a link to the original image. The consensus seems to have already been reached not to use pictures of him on the Muhammad page. If the political cartoon was about any other subject other than specifically showing Muhammad's face than I would support its inclusion, but this is something which is almost always seen as 'off limits'. Seriously how many biographical movies have been made about people where the actual person the movie is about isnt shown at all?? -- Astrokey44|talk 08:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• this is nonsense of the highest order. I have been outspoken against non-Muslim images of Muhammad on the Muhammad article, since they are not relevant there. They most certainly are relevant to this article. WP is not censored, and WP is not an Islamic project, so there is really nothing to discuss except for legal points of fair use and copyright. No Muslim is forced to come here and look at these images, just like no Muslim is forced to buy Danish newspapers. dab (ᛏ) 08:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• no 206.47.141.21 15:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you all miss the point here. Of course, the original picture does not show "the face of the prophet". Muslims know it is not the face of the prophet. It is a cartoon! Therefore, it doesnt matter if it is blocked or not. The real problem to angry Muslims is that some people say it is the prophet, and then mock him this way - face or no face. Blocking the face doesnt make it less mockery! (maybe it is even worse... imagine, a hypocrit saying he 'respects' Islam by blocking a face only so he can push through the mockery of Islam) So, please leave the original picture the way it was. Stop putting black blocks on some pencil strokes. -- ActiveSelective 08:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If this article included mockery (and I don't think it does), that should be removed (except for direct and sourced quotations) as POV. (The image, of course, is an exact and thoroughly sourced quotation.) Wikipedians cannot edit mockery elsewhere; in many countries that would be indecent and unlawful. Septentrionalis 15:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm muslim and i find that whole idea about hiding the pics or the face of persons in pics silly ..simply because these pics doesn,t represent prophet muhammad ... I find the question of some muslims to hide the pics silly ..cause they r not pics of muhammad in any way and noone can know the shape of muhammad or pridect it ... so keep the pics as it is . I think these these Pics is silly and full of Hate and Racism , for this reason and cause this article is talking about these Pics I think the Pics should be at the top not the Bottom . instead of that it should be explained the real viewpoint of Muslims about these pics and why they consider them racist and islamophobic --Unfinishedchaos 11:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

So add it; please include sources to assist further research. Septentrionalis 15:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

In one of those long-delayed flashes of blinding obviousness, it only now occurs to me that the page is under an NPOV dispute of the highest order. I'm baffled that nobody has put up an NPOV tag already (at least I haven't seen one). I might put one up in a little while, unless somebody beats me to it. It really needs one.71.141.251.153 08:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Yeah. We all know how NPOV tags magically improve articles.</sarcasm> How about trying to address the neutrality issues rather than fretting about whether or not to place a tag? What next? "This sentence could really use a period"?

If you think a tag is warranted, then just insert it, and explain the problem. This involves something more than assertion. 81.58.51.131 08:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, you're right, NPOV dispute may not be exactly the right description. The problem is that the page is under an intense edit war: One faction that thinks the picture at the top is blasphemous and must be removed. That this is an extremely POV notion should be very obvious (that same POV led a few hundred over them to storm the Danish embassy in Indonesia). The other faction insists that the picture must be stuffed down the throats of the first faction based on what I'll describe as a POV that those holding the first POV must be punished for their actions. That POV-ness should be illustrated with examples: I have a few in my post earlier against semi-protecting the page, but I might like to collect a few more (there are lots). So there are two different POV factions warring it out. Each side is demanding things that are non-NPOV (again I'll have to get around to listing some examples, but I'm doing other things right now). I'll refrain from putting up an NPOV tag til I put together more concrete cites but I hope this is enough to explain informally what I'm getting at. If I do put up an NPOV tag announcing a dispute in progress, the next step would be discussion of whether to ask the admins to lock the page. 71.141.251.153 08:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Correctly or not, most people would interpret the NPOV tag to mean that the text itself has bias issues. They won't grok that it's about the placement of the image, at least not without reading this talk page first. That would be a bad outcome because the text itself is pretty incontroversial and seems well balanced. Thparkth 13:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Nah, we would then need a meta-NPOV tag, as the bias is in the wikipedia policies and not text. Wikipedia is biased in that way that it chooses freedom of speech over adherence to religious principles. Any policy, including the no-censorship principle introduces by definiton a bias. And on that meta level, NPOV would be pointless. That however doesn't mean that there is an NPOV problem with the article text (and pictures). --Denoir 21:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Some questions to muslims

Dear muslims. I am not a muslim myself (actually I am a non-religious Dane), but I would like to know what muslims think of the following analysis. Of course I realise that views among muslims will differ.

I think the offence caused by the Muhammed drawings works at several levels:

1. Most current islamic traditions ban depictions of Muhammad, so the mere existence of any such picture, even a dignified one, is to some extent offensive to many muslims.
2. Some of the pictures in question are obviously offensive, even without that ban.
3. The way Jyllandsposten published the pictures - not as illustrations to a story, but as a deliberate act to challenge the ban - naturally prompts reactions from people supporting the ban.
4. The way the Danish government reacted (until recently) was seen as an arrogant refusal to even discuss the matter.

I have these comments myself:

Ad 1., fundamentalists of all kinds may believe that everyone must obey the codex in their particular creed, but the rest of us (and I believe that includes by far most muslims) respect that other people live by other rules. For instance, I do not need to apologise for my eating pork, do I? So, yes, I understand that it is to some extent offensive to many, but in an open democratic world, we all have to accept such offences now and then. E.g., it offends me enormously when someone burn the Danish flag.

I wonder, do muslims who feel offended when told about these drawings, feel more so when they see the actual drawings from Jyllandsposten? Do muslims break any rules by, perhaps inadvertently, seeing the drawings?

Ad 2. and 3., the bomb-in-turban picture could be interpreted as the statement "Muhammad stands behind terror", which, although I suppose Osama bin Laden would happily agree, is an offence to many muslims. An alternative interpretation like "Terror is attributed to Muhammad" (which of course is true) is invalidated by the fact that the artist was commisioned to draw Muhammad, not to draw terror. - The anonymous pig-face picture was published by a Danish islamic organization, not by Jyllandsposten, so it is not relevant here.

For once I agree with the Danish prime minister, though I would like to state it more clearly than he does: Some of these drawings are stupid, but it is not up to the Danish government to decide whether they are blasphemous to a punishable degree; we have a legal system to deal with that. The drawings were published in Denmark, where an artist in 1984 painted a mural at a railway station depicting a nude Jesus with an erect penis. The painting was soon painted over (to the acclaim of Jyllandsposten), but he was not punished. So, it is not only when at the expense of other creeds or cultures that freedom of speach in Denmark is given more weight than respect for other's feelings.

Ad 4., I think it was a mistake when the prime minister refused to meet 11 diplomats from islamic countries 4 months ago, though I understand his reasons. They explicitly asked for the meeting to request that he punished Jyllandsposten, but the prime minister cannot punish anyone. I think he should have refused to meet them with that agenda, but at the same time invited them to a meeting with a different agenda, and I also think he back then should have expressed his dislike of some of the drawings publicly.

--Niels Ø 09:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Niels (/), how is this proclamation of yours of editorial use to the wiki-article? I dont see how. And I dont see why you publish it here. -- ActiveSelective 09:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am really trying to figure out what to think about the appearance of the drawings in the article. I honestly think they should appear prominently, and I try to understand the reasons why that is so strongly opposed by some. So my views may not interest you, but the comments (esp. from muslims) may interest me, and perhaps others too. My naive hope is that a clearer analysis of the offence may enable us to approach consensus.--Niels Ø 09:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I appologize if I sounded rude. I hope you will find your answers! I advise you to add your questions to the many non-wikipedia discussion lists. What I meant, however, was that I believe that this wikipedia page can probably best do without such a discussion. These discussions are often endless, attract trolls, and doesnt help wiki-editing (which is the main purpose of this page). I wish you luck -- ActiveSelective 10:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No need to apologize; I didn't make my intentions clear. I still think the discussion is relevant. Some vote to keep the drawings but move them down or to another page, hidden behind a sort of "spoiler warning" so that people not wanting to see them can avoid that. But who is it who visits this article with a strong wish not to see the drawings? I can imagine people who wish the drawings didn't exist in the world at all (I may be one of them, but they do exist and won't go away). I can also imagine people who think they should be removed from the wikipedia (I strongly disagree with them). But the people who want the compromise of having them "hidden" somewhere, do they do so for their own sake so they don't have to see them themselves, or do they do it because they think someone else may not mind so much that the drawings are there, as long as they can read the article without seeing them? Do such people exist? Perhaps they do, but that's really what I want to know. If they don't exist, we really should consider two alternatives, not three: Either we include the picture, accepting that they will be removed again and again, putting them back every time - or we accept that some other considerations are more important than freedom of speach and dissemination of neutral information. Those other considerations may be respect of religious feelings, or they may be to save the 99.9% of the wikipedia project that are rather uncontroversial, by accepting censorship in a few sensitive cases.

By the way, polls with three alternatives are difficult. If you are opposed to one alternative but can live with the other two, how do you vote?--Niels Ø 11:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, whatching the discussion develop for a while, I think I must acknowledge that there is another valid argument for "hiding" the drawings a little: As some people feel less provoked that way, they may leave it alone rather than remove it. I guess hot-headed muslims (like other hot-headed people) may click to read a page, but then be too impatient to scroll down. And after all, it is a small price to pay. So now I add my vote acordingly, and leave the discussion.--Niels Ø 12:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Reality check

I think I should clarify just how offensive this image is to many Muslims; perhaps the best comparison would be if someone were to wrap a Torah in bacon to prove a point about Judaism.

Wraping a Torah in bacon is not the best example. We are talking here about caricatures. And, as you can read in the article, plenty of caricatures insulting to Jews have been published, especially in Muslim media. That's what I call a "reality check". Neurino 12:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm Jewish and frankly I wouldn't even be offended by wrapping a Torah in bacon. I'd say to myself, wow, that's interesting, I'd never even thought of that before. And I certainly wouldn't go out and riot and destroy things over it. But that's just me. --Cyde Weys 16:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

As if that wasn't enough, the image of Muhammad as a terrorist, wearing a turban that appears to show the Shahadah ("there is no God but God, and Muhammad is His prophet") adds insult to injury. By displaying this image at the top of the article, we risk unneccessarily offending many observant Muslims who have come here to read about the controversy.

At the same time, I also believe both that the image is relevant to the article, and that Wikipedia should avoid self-censorship (I have, for example, consistently taken this position in articles containing anatomical images). In my opinion, the best way to resolve these conflicting goals is to move the image to the end of the article and to add a warning of the form:

Note: There is an image of the controversial newspaper page at the end of this article.

This was the solution reached in the similar Baha'i controversy, and seems to me to work very well.

Several of the comments insisting the image stay at the top of the article seem to have a distinct anti-Islamic slant, something I find quite offensive; we should try to respect other people's sensibilities as far as possible, even if we don't agree with them. -- The Anome 10:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you but could you point to the "Baha'i controversy" solution that you refer to?--JK the unwise 11:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No worries found it at Bahá'u'lláh. See no reason we couldn't do the same here?--JK the unwise 11:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

See the whole talk section and its archives. It's been the subject of intense dispute for the past 2 days. The image has been moved to the bottom a few times, and the deletions have stopped when that's been done. But the "enlightenment" hardliners kept moving it back. (It's still blasphemous wherever it's placed, but for whatever reason the deleters backed off when it wasn't at the top). 71.141.251.153 11:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• The reason vandalism decreased when the image was moved down was that it then became evident we were not intentionally using the image as a provocation.
• Is that a dangerous message to send, that we're not out to provoke people?
• Why on earth we would want to send the message that we ARE using the image as a provocation?
• Al Qaeda is not the only place you will find extremists, apparently. BYT 11:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Although most religions, strictly construed, consider the views of most other religions to be blasphemous; however, most religious communities manage get along together without yelling "blasphemer!" at one another. Similarly, although the image itself is, strictly construed, blasphemous to observant Muslims, it's using it as a provocation that really upsets them. Hence the stopping of deletions when the image is moved to the end. Provocation, from whatever side, is a bad thing. -- The Anome 11:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The (hypothetical) torah-in-bacon is interesting. I think any jew hearing about it would be offended (and so would I). But knowing that it had happened, would a jew be more offended by actually seing the bacon?--Niels Ø 11:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

In terms of the bacon thing I think... if an event like that happened and became newsworthy enough for us to have an article about it then a Torah wrapped in bacon could be our lead image. My problem is that I can't find a more appropriate lead image. If something happened because of this and that became the focal point then we could change the image. But, as of now the cartoons are the focal point. I know it may be offensive and some may view it as provocation but that's what this article is about. If you think some image is more important to the article than the cartoon then propose it as the new lead. Unfortunately I didn't see any picture that came close. gren グレン ^? 11:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

With respect, Gren, I strongly disagree. The cheese image makes it clear that the boycott is an important movement in the Muslim world.

That image, or a comparable one, should lead this article.

And to all those who insist that the image of the cartoon is indispensable to any understanding of this story, let me ask: Are you all going to start howling at the New York Times now? Somehow it managed to get through its coverage of this major news story by using images of the boycott, and not images of the cartoons. BYT 12:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I see your point BYT, but maybe NYT was being cowardly or politically motivated? This is WP, not NYT. Also, the cartoons are in the article's title, this is not Muslim boycott of Danish cheese yet :) If this escalates into a Yemen-Danish war, we will have an article about that, without the cartoon image, but so far this is still a controversy about these very cartoons and not an all-out "clash of civilizations" dab (ᛏ) 12:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Following the Torah-defilement analogy (yes, it is that offensive), since the public display of the depiction is what is causing offence here, the nearest analogy would be going down to the local synagogue and defiling their Torah too, just to show them what the first act was like. I don't think we need to lead with an image; the image is relevant, and should be in the article; it just does not need to be brandished at the top of the article. -- The Anome 11:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Or, to put it another way, the article is about provocation, but need not of itself be a provocation. -- The Anome 11:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You can buy or copy your own Torah and wrap it in a bacon. You may not wrap somebody else's Torah in a bacon. Besides Freedom of Speech, Denmark also has the notion of private property. dab (ᛏ) 12:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed you can. But the question is should you not only go and do so, but do so in public, in order to prove your point? As far as I can see, doing so would be likely seen to by Jews as a deliberate attempt to piss them off, on the basis that it is generally known that this would be offensive; they would also be likely to conclude (rightly or wrongly) nthat your motive for doing so would have been anti-semitism. I can easily see that many Europeans were unaware just how offensive depicting Muhammad is to many Muslims; this is probably no longer true. -- The Anome 12:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but here it's different: someone else did so in public, and you are presenting a picture of the act, while talking about it. --cesarb 14:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

For the umpteen millionth time, it doesn't matter why you find it offensive, nor does it matter that we understand why you find it offensive. This is not your blog, this is not the place to describe your personal feelings, explaining why you find the pictures offensive doesn't make deleting the pictures any more acceptable. Guppy313 17:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The Anome just wrote: "The article is ABOUT provocation, but need not OF ITSELF BE a provocation"

• ... and the distinction is important.

• I would really like to hear some of the people who voted to place the image at the top of the article comment on the distinction that User:The Anome has set out for us.

• Do you agree or disagree? BYT 12:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• the image is the subject matter of the article. Of course it should be placed at the top. If people want to be informed about the controversy, Muslim or non-Muslim, they have no choice but to both read about and look at the cartoons, otherwise they will not be informed, they will just be ranting about cartoons they have not even seen. dab (ᛏ) 12:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"Have no choice?" Only because you're choosing for them. The reader has a right to be willfully ignorant. Moving the image further down the page doesn't change the fact that it will be downloaded onto their hard drive by their browser (i. e. people will still downloaded it, perhaps even more than if it was on top of the page), but it allows flexibility on the part of the reader whether or not to actually see it on their monitor. Guppy313 18:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

So for instance, the New York Times coverage of the story is deficient, in your view, because it doesn't even include the cartoon images? Never mind big or small, prominent or not prominent -- they chose not to piss people off. String 'em up from a lamppost in Times Square, I suppose? BYT 12:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

relax; I agree that some of the cartoons are in bad taste, and I don't suggest people should be lynched for lack of bad taste, so peace to the NYT from me; nor do I, apparently unlike the Muslim protesters, suggest people should be lynched for bad taste. dab (ᛏ) 12:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

What I asked about, though, was whether we could cover a provocation without ourselves being provocative. So far as I can make it out, your answer is "No," right? BYT 12:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

RIP: The collaborative ethic

You're reading too much into the intentions of wikipedians and overreacting. The only one who is responsible for the reaction to the article is the one having the reaction. Wiki isn't supposed to guess at your reaction and censor itself to that possible reaction, that would be writing to your specific POV. We follow an NPOV policy, the facts are presented. If you don't like them, well.... Kyaa the Catlord 13:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well -- the "facts" here include the obvious one that other media outlets have chosen to take a different path than we have taken here...

Not unlike the way WP itself has chosen not to include a still from "Debbie Does Dallas" at Pornography. I assume we don't have such an image, and I'm not bothering to check. But I'm going to make that assumption based on the principle that a "collaboarative aesthetic" or "collaborative ethic" (for lack of a better word) would predictably preclude such an editorial decision. You just kind of know that a WP article that smart people put a whole bunch of work into is going to move toward the center.

Now here's my point. In other articles, like the Baha'ullah thing and the Oral sex article, we have in fact worked out ways to address the sensibilities of readers who are likely to be gravely offended by certain images. Here, in a much more serious case, we are unwilling to do so.

And the reason we are unwilling to do so is that ... ? (I honestly don't know. I'd like to hear your thoughts, though.)

The reason is simple. On Oral sex, a picture might be illustrative, and it might even be iconic. However, the article is not about a particular photograph of a sex act. This article is about a controversy surrounding a particular cartoon, and just like Piss Christ, the fact that that picture is offensive to people who will make a large, public outcry about it, is exactly why it has been pictured here on Wikipedia; not to offend, but to explain what it is that people are busy being offended by. Of course, no one is forced to read Wikipedia (I hope!) and if you are easily offended by those things that occur in the real world, and produce international news, then you almost certainly will be offended by Wikipedia.

One possible solution for such sensitive people is to download the database (which is made freely available) and strip out every article that offends you. Then you can present the "my POV-safe version of Wikipedia". Problem solved. -Harmil 22:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Added sign. --Striver 11:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Why did you do that? The only thing that's disputed is the excistance and placement of the image, not the text itself. The.valiant.paladin 11:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

For a start: The article would be neutral if it didn't set out to insult Muslims and inflame an already potent dispute by waving this red flag in front of them. The article does in fact wave this red flag. It is therefore not neutral. BYT 12:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about showing the facts objectively. You can hardly say that by just DISPLAYING an image central to the story that the story is POV. The.valiant.paladin 12:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure you can. This is the perfect example. Certain extremists feel this image should be as widely distributed as possible BECAUSE it inflames Muslim sentiment and "teaches them a lesson" of some kind. That's a (political) point of view. As of this moment, WP is catering to that sentiment by featuring the image prominently. BYT 12:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• the image is the subject matter of the article. Of course it should be placed at the top. If people want to be informed about the controversy, Muslim or non-Muslim, they have no choice but to both read about and look at the cartoons, otherwise they will not be informed, they will just be ranting about cartoons they have not even seen. And yes you are free to roll a Torah in a bacon in Denmark (provided you are the rightful owner of both the Torah and the bacon) dab (ᛏ) 12:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The question in this case is not whether people should be free to do so, but whether people should do so. I would respectfully suggest that the answer to the second question is "no, don't be an asshole"; the first question is a whole 'nother issue. -- The Anome 12:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The disputation of the neutrality of this article is disputed. :P Kyaa the Catlord 12:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Do anyone disagree with the *facts* of the story? The.valiant.paladin 12:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I think a lot of people just have their panties in a wad over the picture being present on the article, not with the article in and of itself. Kyaa the Catlord 12:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The article seems quite NPOV to me, the remaining controversy appears to be whether the image should be shown at the top, or lower down. -- 80.168.224.156 12:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the article misses the understanding of muslims' viewpoint wich i work on it --Unfinishedchaos 12:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That would be moving the article towards NPOV in and of itself. It would be writing for the enemy. Kyaa the Catlord 12:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Which enemy is that, Kyaa? BYT 12:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

*rolls eyes* Giving undue weight to one viewpoint draws the article to NPOV. This is what was suggested. Have fun storming those windmills, however. Kyaa the Catlord 13:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If people say the image should be available to the public, why not a link? Why post the image at top while risking that Wikipedia can get involved with this whole situation? Just because not a lot of Muslims are active on Wikipedia doesn't mean we can make it worse. 83.160.142.158 13:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If that's your standard, then you should not show any pictures on WP, except through a link. Otherwise, you are being inconsistent. Valtam 15:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I see a bit of POV intruding in the textual descriptions of the cartoons. The pictures are caractures of people in beards and turbans and arab/persian clothing, and it is up to each viewer to decide who each figure represents and what each figure believes. It seems that only one is objectively identified as "Muhammed", but he's a schoolboy, not a prophet. --Sommerfeld 21:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

suggestion: one cartoon

what about picking one of the self-ironic cartoons to show at the top, large? Either the "Mohammed Valloyskele" one where a kid named Muhammad is saying "Jyllands-Posten's journalists are a bunch of reactionary provocateurs", or else the one where the Islamists come running with scimitars and bombs (an anticipation of the controversy really) but their leader is saying "relax folks" (if only!). Both of these are not actually showing a caricature of Mumammad, but ironically refer to Jyllands-Posten's PR stunt itself. dab (ᛏ) 12:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

vote++ MX44

Wouldn't that be slightly misleading?The.valiant.paladin 12:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it not misleading to suggest that all of the images are offensive? I am certain that nobody (who has stopped to think) is offended by the schoolboy cartoon which is blatantly in favour of the free speech with respect argument. And yet the cartoons are referred to as the 12 which have caused offence. I actually think that including that image, at the top, and the complete set at the bottom would be a reasonable compromise. 195.11.74.82 13:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It will also make the point that while everybody seems to assume these are a bunch of racist or islamophobe cartoons (the protesters appartently did not bother to look at them closely), more than half of them are not actually about stereotype views of Muhammad, but about the cartoonists' dilemma. All the more reason to make people look at the cartoons first and discuss later. If fair use permits, Wikipedia should show and discuss the cartoons one by one. Even the "bomb turban" need not be islamophobe, but a political statement about the abuse of Islam for the purposes of extremists. I must say that images like this (not to mention [13] [14]) are far more offensive, being a reflection of atavistic primate hatred untempered by satire or self-irony. dab (ᛏ) 12:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC) dab (ᛏ) 12:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - just one little picture is like being secretive about the other pictures. I find the number of pictures more impressive than a single one, because the full-page really shows the racist attack: manay attacks on Muslims and on Muslims only.

ActiveSelective 13:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Racist? Are muslims a race now? The.valiant.paladin 13:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

of course not; but islamophobe caricatures have a tendency to use racial stereotypes. dab

Point taken. However, I would like to point out that the drawings are an attack on censorship, not muslims or arabs. The.valiant.paladin 13:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

(ᛏ) 13:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Taking one image out of context is a bad idea. Kyaa the Catlord 13:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment As you point out, more than half of the cartoonists (wisely) chose not to take the bait. So far, we're not even that bright.

• I have a feeling that if any steam built up here behind your wise proposal, the folks who are now screaming "the cartoon IS the story" would start screaming, "sorry, um, we meant the image of Muhammad IS the story." And I very much doubt your idea would carry the day. It probably should, though.

• What's happening here is that people are looking for a reason - any reason - to cram down our throats the one thing to which we object. For our "own good" of course. File under: paternalistic excrementum tauri.

• This surrealistic insistence on infuriating people at any cost has, I think, nothing to do with the First Amendment and everything to do with kicking a particular culture, one that has been persistently demonized in the mass media. What was it Hitler taught us about the wisdom of demonizing a whole culture? BYT 13:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I resent BYT's claim that Wikipedia is pulling a Hitler on Muslims. We are treating Muslims the same way we do every other religious community in Wikipedia, i.e. we are not censoring images they find upsetting. You are entitled to demand special treatment, but when the community chooses not to grant you that special treatment, please don't shriek "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!" Babajobu 13:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You can still reach a point, though, where "not giving religions special treatment" becomes "promoting irreligion and secularism," something else Wikipedia isn't supposed to be doing. All too many editors now are on record in favor of putting the picture front and center in the name of the latter. And so long as there is no clear, consistent precedent in Wikipedia articles about where controversial pictures should, keeping it at the top of the page appears to be catering to those particular editors and promoting their secular ideals. Guppy313 18:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello? The article is "the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy". The controversy is the story. The image defines the basis of the controversy. If there was no image, there would be no story. You are not being objective in regards to what the controversy actually is and are, in my opinion, becoming part of the problem which the paper sought to illuminate. Kyaa the Catlord 13:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how dividing the image into several images helps the article become better and more informative; In fact, I think it would confuse more than anything else. And I don't see how it's going to mitigate the "insult" to the muslims. The drawings are still there. Finally if you don't want to see cartoons with Muhammad, don't click on a link that says "Muhammad cartoons". I don't want to see gay sex, so I don't click on links that say "Gay sex". That's just common sense. The.valiant.paladin 13:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

So how come we don't see a picture of child pornography when we click on Child pornography? BYT 13:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Because the production of child pornography involves abuse of children. Hence it is illegal. Hence Wikipedia do not show that kind of images.The.valiant.paladin 13:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Brr. Sounds ominously close to censorship to me. Pretty sneaky. This whole "obeying the law" trend is actually a Trojan horse.
• Did you realize that that seemingly harmless decision to obey the law actually limits (!!!!!!) your freedom of expression! You would actually be engaging in self-censorship!
• Such a trend could, if we're not careful, be a slippery slope toward socialization, discretion, tact, and (shiver) acceptance of the fact that our words and actions do carry consequences in the real world.
• Editors get to make judgment calls, and we are making the wrong one here, folks.BYT 13:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I shouldn't respond to you, since I feel that you are simply trolling. Please reread NPOV. Please. Kyaa the Catlord 14:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, we *could* just go with the law. AFAIK, it's illegal to show child ponography where en.wikipedia's servers is. It's not against the law to show drawings of Muhammad. We could also look at it rationally; Do you really believe that there is no difference between child pornography and the drawings of Muhammad? No muslims were harmed during the production of these drawings, but children is harmed during the production of child pornography. Finally, this is not about tact; it's about presenting the facts as truthfully and effective as possible.The.valiant.paladin 14:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Is the New York Times part of the problem, too? They chose not even to use these images. Was their editorial decision somehow inimical to the job of covering the story? BYT 13:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia strives to be better than newspapers. The.valiant.paladin 13:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

In this case, it is failing in that objective. BYT 13:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

In my honest opinion, yes, they are. The New York Times bent to self-censorship in order to not offend a group and did itself a disservice by not presenting all the facts as fully as it could. However, comparing wikipedia to the New York Times is comparing apples to oranges. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, whereas NYT is a newspaper. There is a difference in the goal of each publication. Kyaa the Catlord 13:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

ok; so how about we describe the eleven cartoons, in words? dab (ᛏ) 21:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Other controversial newspaper caricatures section

I have removed, and will continue to do so if necessary, three sentences User:Dogface has added to the Other controversial newspaper caricatures section. They are: "No Jewish groups fired upon a British consulate building over this matter", "No Jewish groups fired upon a French consulate building over this matter" and "No Jewish groups fired upon a German consulate building over this matter." I believe these sentences are unnecessary point-making and contrasting (an irrelevant we-they-like contrast). This article should not point at the current response to the cartoons and say "look at what they are doing, look how bad they are, and then see how group suchandsuch responded." I believe that my removal of Dogface's comments is similar to User:TheKMan's removal of the sentences "there were no mass riots, and gunmen did not fire upon a consulate over the matter" and "but nobody fired upon an embassy or consulate building over the matter." These are personal opinions that might belong on a blog, but not in an encyclopedia. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 13:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right, obviously, those editorial comments had no place in the article. Babajobu 13:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Westerners argument on this matter

I would like to state what some points of view I have heard in the media but not seen in the article. (Note No personal connection to this, just stating what I have heard in the media). —This user has left wikipedia 13:56 2006-02-03

Roughly from memory: The Danish government can not condemn or impede on freedom of speech. The Muslim countries do not condone Anti Semitic cartoons or Op-Eds, and in fact some engage themselves in antisemitism.

This seems to be in contradiction with each other. Did you mean to say "condemn"? Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 13:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for noticing so quickly —This user has left wikipedia 14:12 2006-02-03

The condone/condemn I was referring to was muslim countries and anti-semitic cartoons, not for the Danish government and freedom of speech. See [15]. I don't know if it's what you meant, but to me the sentence makes more sense like this: "Governments of some/many/whicheverisappropriate muslim countries do not condemn antisemitic cartoons or op-eds, and in fact some engage themselves in antisemitism." Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 14:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the timeline?

It was a very useful tool for those trying to get an overview of how this occurred and developed. Now it's gone an in place we have a lot of tangental and, frankly, weird "similar incidents." Some nutbar shooting Larry Flynt because of an interracial picture in Hustler thirty years ago has little to nothing to do with this, and the timeline was actually useful.

Whahoppen?MattShepherd 14:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

the timeline was moved, due to the length of the article. Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy AlEX 14:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah announcement re: suicide attacks in Denmark and Norway

According to Brussels Journal, Hezbollah has said that it will conduct suicide attacks in Denmark and Norway in retaliation for publication of the cartoons. They say that the announcement is cited in this article in Jyllands-Posten. Anyone read Danish? [16]. Babajobu 14:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I read danish and can confirm that, at least somewhat. The general secretary of Hezbollah didn't say that they would conduct suicide attacks, but said that if "rights of freedom" are absolute, then anyone is free to blow himself up in either Norway or Denmark. The.valiant.paladin 14:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The statement read: ”The international community should understand that any attack against our prophet will not go unpunished.” [17] See Google NewSearch for other stories. —This user has left wikipedia 14:40 2006-02-03

In A.D. 2006, war was beginning......Homestarmy 14:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

What you say?!

That wasn't a threat, Brandon was saying he's leaving Wikipedia. Check his userpage: User talk:BrandonYusufToropov. Babajobu 14:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes it's digusting that some people are using this article to bring their own racism here. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Read it again, I know he said he was leaving. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes I do, but unfortunately I am not god in writhing English. But it is right as you say. I can translate the beginning: "Hezbollah is threatening with suicide attacks in Denmark and Norway… The Hezbollah - movement indicate/give a hint of/suggested* that the cries bye the cartons may led to suicide attacks I Denmark and Norway"

• I locked it up in the dictionary so I did not get it wrong. It is not used the Danish word “si” with means say.

I can quote this Norwegian article http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article1213079.ece "- Vi har vært i kontakt med myndighetene i Libanon i kveld. Statsministeren i landet, og Hezbollah selv, avkrefter på det sterkeste at de har fremsatt trusler mot Norge, sier stats- sekretær Raymond til VG Nett."

"We have been in contact with the authorities in Lebanon to night. The prime minister and the Hezbollah it self, denies that there have been any threats towards Norway, says Parliamentary Secretary Raymond to VG news" For Aftenposten is very good newspaper I Norway, also some articles in English http://www.aftenposten.no/english/world/article1212624.ece

Huh? Well, I found the original article that Jyllandsposten got it's information from. It's in english, så judge for yourself if Hezbollah is threatening anybody here . The.valiant.paladin 15:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe the legal term is incitement. Septentrionalis 16:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Surely suicide bombing is more offensive than these cartoons. User:slamdac

Depends on who you ask. --StuffOfInterest 18:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

DIGRESSION WARNING (since everyone else is not talking about the article itself either)

Surveying and writing about these discussion pages would make for an excellent angle on the nuances and themes of the controversy. I'm talking to the reporters reading this. Lotsofissues 15:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Images, drawings, illustrations, charicatures or cartoons?

What's the proper thing to call it?(Cloud02 15:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC))

What do you mean? Are you asking what to call all of those things? art. What to call this in particular? A political cartoon. (which is, technically also art) Swatjester 15:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The most common use is Cartoons. See a google news search for drawings OR images OR cartoons OR cartoon OR illustration OR illustrations OR caricatures hezbollah OR mohammad link ~ Cheers —This user has left wikipedia 15:42 2006-02-03

Another picture of the prophet?

Does anyone remember that episode in South Park about the Super Best Friends? I remember distinctly they drew Mohammud and even showed him moving around and using the power of fire. In fact there is even a wikipedia article about it and I think he's even in the picture! Someone explain to me why there wasn't an enormous uproar over this? I think this is a pic of him standing next to Jesus! http://images.southparkstudios.com/media/images/504/superbestfriends.gif Hitokirishinji 17:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)</ref>

Thank you! I was trying to remember where that was from. Swatjester 17:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

yep, that's surely Muhammad! Babajobu 17:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a bit weird indeed, it isn't exactly the first time cartoons like these are published. Asdfwtf 18:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Because he wasn't attributed with a relation to terrorism, unlike one the depictions JP has publsihed (Cloud02 18:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC))

So it is ok to show pictures of Mohammud after all as long as it isn't in a negative light? Doesn't that just make this entire argument about "forbidden to draw the prophet" entirely moot? Hitokirishinji 18:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The depcition of Muhammad is not allowed by Islamic tradition (hadith). This however does not submit to non-Muslims, as they aren't muslims (duh). The strong reaction this issue has gotten is because one of the images shows him with a bomb on his head, with the creed written on it. Also this is regarded as being all the anger that has been built up in Muslims in the Middle East towards the wester world being brought out. (Israel-palestine, Iraq, pressure on Syria and now Iran) (Cloud02 18:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC))

You're missing my point. I know that this obviously doesn't apply to non-Muslims and of course the strong reaction is linked to the images associating Mohammud with terrorism. Someone made the argument above as a vote to not keep the image as

"Showing the figures of Mohammed is disturbing muslims. And it is a insult to Islam. In Islam making and also looking the figures of Mohammed is forbidden."

If this is truely so incredibly blasphemous and insulting to Islam, why isn't there a discussion on the page I indicated above? Why aren't there protest and bomb threats being sent to the makers of South Park? (Though I'm sure they've had their nasty run ins with other groups). I think it's absurbed that people are using this excuse as their cover for why they are truely offended. If they were vehmently against such depictions of their prophet, there would be a harder stance upon this rule and it would be applied unilaterally to all images. Hitokirishinji 18:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

But if you read the commentary in this discussion by people who say they are offended by the cartoons, the vast majority of them are offended by all 12 of them, not just the bomb-in-the-turban cartoon. I think it is only the non-Muslims who are focusing on the bomb-in-the-tuban cartoon. Valtam 18:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys ... u discovered many things alone ... actually no one will kill somebody only cause he draw a pic and he say that is muhammad ... it happen manytimes here in middle east that ppl say blasphemy in streets and between each other , but such things are not considered respectful behaviour , shiite says about some pics that they illustrate muhammad or ali , in spite there are no assertion at all about that ... but in this time the feeling of insulting and the explosive position in this area , the anger from goverments and usa politics ... all of that find a way to be expressed by this way of protesting --Unfinishedchaos 19:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

meta-meta-meta-controversy

The BBC's dilemma: http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4670000/newsid_4678100/4678186.stm (quite relevant) Thparkth 18:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed a very valid link. It the same discussion we are havibg here. Good read, good find, thanks. Twthmoses 20:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I need to comment on the picture controversy

Let's keep this Wikipedia article encyclopedic instead of making it a debate. The article describes the controversy around the pictures and therefore, should show the pictures in order for the readers to understand what it's about and make up their own mind and form an informed opinion of their own. This is supposed to be an NPOV encyclopedia and not a debate forum so please, let not religious dogma dictate us (i.e. Wikipedia contributors) to consor ourselves (i.e. our encyclopedia). (Entheta 18:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)) And besides, it's up to everyone whether they want to click that thumbnail or not to see the larger version of the picture. It's not like the little thumbnail version can really offend anyone who doesn't really want to - and have decided in advance to - get offended. (Entheta 19:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC))

I support keeping the image, but...

...a lot of you hopped-up race-baiting right-wing caricatures are seriously tempting me to change my vote to "delete" just to spite you. My god, people, step outside your heads for a second. Comments like "what are you going to do, bomb Wikipedia?" just make you sound like... well, hopped-up race-baiting right-wing caricatures. As stated.

You harm your cause more than you help it with braggadocio and chest-thumping jackassery.

There are serious, academic, intelligent reasons to keep the image, which I support. But my support forces me to stand next to some very shameful human beings. MattShepherd 19:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Where do you see examples of race-baiting? And why 'right-wing'? Why not 'left-wing'? Valtam 19:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm beginnning to think MattShepherd can't back up any of his 'chest-thumping' claims... Valtam 19:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

And, now I know he can't... Valtam 21:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Being AFK for two hours doesn't exactly equal being "unable to back up my claims." And dude, have you actually READ this page? MattShepherd 21:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

But upon reflection, "religion-bating" would have been a much more accurate choice of words than "race-bating." Implications of flat-out racism were not intended. Implications of "let's show them Muslims who's boss!" are very intended, and very, very sad. MattShepherd 21:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. You saw my point that Islam is NOT a race. On the other point, by my count, there have been more threats of violence from those who want to remove the images than chest-thumping from those who want to keep the images. It's just that the threats are removed very quickly and no longer appear on the page. Valtam

And now you know why I abstained in the first poll. Guppy313 19:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wisdom noted. I'll be bowing out from now on. This gets uglier by the minute. MattShepherd

The outside link I removed

Aside from the fact that I am not happy with having an inline link to an unabashedly anti-Islam website, the link used makes no clear distinction between the pictures that were published in the JP and unrelated art, and appears to segue into photographs of bloody street scenes.

Also, as much trouble as we seem to be having in translating the Danish text, I do not think it is a good idea to inline link to doctored images with an English translation added. Guppy313 19:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If you can find a better website, by all means let us know. Until then, it is impossible to see anything other than a 20x20 pixel squish of each cartoon from Wikipedia.

.jpg ->.png version

the low resolution .jpg images was replaced by GraphicArtist to a high resolution .png image [18] in violation with copyright restrictions KimvdLinde 19:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

.png page is deleted KimvdLinde 20:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

My only significant contribution...

...to Wiki namespace: Wikipedia:Recentism. This page is a joke and its unfortunate otherwise earnest contributors are wasting time on it. Marskell 20:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)