Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions about Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Balance

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)

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. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 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)

Polls

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)

It's time to talk

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

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

The cartoons in the article

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 :S AlE X 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)

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.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]}

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)

The filibuster cartoon specifically seems to emphasize creation rather than lack of condemnation.
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.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|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)
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 right~~above. 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. --Ter e nc e 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)

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 --—The preceding unsigned comment was 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.—The preceding unsigned comment was 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. Polo tet 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. Broken Segue 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. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 08:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Balance

I'm glad WIKI is here for me

The Power of Wikipedia

Polls

Reliability of the Polls??

It's time to talk

Adding "pig person" picture?

It's Time To Reconsider

The cartoons in the article

Please remove the offensive cartoon

Please remove the offensive cartoon

Iranian Jew cartoons

Attack on hotdog stand

Please find a better link for larger versions of images

Criticism of Muslim reactions

Topic needs RELOCKING

Remove some sections

International laws related to the issue - section

Noteworthy?

Holocaust cartoons

How can this be rewritten?

Great job azate

Left opinion link

Guardian linking to us

Were the cartoons republished in Egypt back in October?

Who demonstrated in Hillerød?

Footnote numbering

See also

A 3 day poll gives Wikipedia no right to promote racism

Cleanup

Sydney riots

Vandalism

Semi-protection, please?

Support photos gone?

Comment

Rhetorical questions, what do they add?

limits of free speech

Results of Riots

Can someone add this link?

Rumors and Disinformation

tygerland

Hacker attacks

To This Frank Guy

PsyOps

Jyllands-Posten cartoonists

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