Jump to content

Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

What the drawings actually depict

It's ridiculous that the article starts by stating that the drawings depict Muhammad. Some of them do, not all. That's a kind of misunderstating that has caused much wrongdoing and false debate all over the world, firstly in the world without the freeedom of press. Not that it would've helped a lot telling the truth. But actually, two of the cartoons mock the whole editorial for doing PR for the Danish author whose book no one would illustrate un-anomymously (thus starting the debate). Another one has a Danish/Arab-looking schoolboy sticking his tongue out, showing the writing on a blackboard, stating that the journalists at JP are "reactionary provocateurs". JP may be one of the most critical towards islam, in Denmark, nevertheless they allow space for being mocked in their editorial! I'd like to see something similar on Fox News or the likes of them.

JP did not know what the writing on the blackboard meant. It was mentioned here for a while, but it was later left out as a peculiarity out of scoope. It is still in the Danish version. And if you ask me, Fox News is doing a fine job at parodizing a news outlet every single day! MX44 23:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The point: Start the article by stating how many cartoons actually depict Muhammad. It might be hard to say clearly, in some cases, but at least it could be stated how many clearly do NOT depict Muhammad (the Prophet, that is, the schoolboy's called Muhammad too).

It's the same type of journalistic error that made BBC (!) present a European guy with a pig snout (competing in a pig imitation contest at a party) as a Muhammad drawing! Danish imams had included the picture in their material which was shown to muslim leaders, in the beginning of the current bloody, burning controversy. However, the imams didn't asert that the picture originated from JP. BBC, apparently, just never read it.

Bonulo 21:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Stating more prominently that only some of the drawings depicts Muhammad, could help increase the sanity level of the debate. MX44 23:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. But since it is unclear which ones represent Muhammed, leave any numbers out.DanielDemaret 08:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

El Fagr part of reprint section

Please do not change the wording of "but the publication of the images did not engender any known protests from either Egyptian religious authorities nor the Egyptian government." as this spells out very clearly to anyone reading about these events the apparent duplicity that has occurred regarding publication of the Jyllands images in various countries. I think it's safe to say that if the fact that an Egyptian newspaper had printed half of the cartoons back in October (without Religious or Governmental protest) had been well know throughout the world, there wouldn't have been a call for boycotting of any other country besides Denmark.

Netscott 23:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It's mostly the word "engender" that is weird. I't just bad English. How about : "but the publication of the images did not lead to any known protests from Egyptian religious authorities or the Egyptian government." Azate 23:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The word "engender" is in fact extremely good English (I should know as a native speaker) such language is indeed typically found in encyclopedias. Also as a side note the user Kintaro Oe added this line : "Cette publication en période de Ramadan, n'a suscité aucune réaction ni condamnation des autorités religieuses islamiques ou des autorités gouvernementales egyptiennes." in the French version of this entry, which roughly translates into the word changes I've made. Does Wikipedia need to 'dumb down' it's vocabulary? Netscott 00:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
A better translation of Kintaro's line would be: "This publication during Ramadan, did not cause any reaction nor condemnation from either Islamic religious authorities or the government of Egypt." I'd be fine with putting that in place of my earlier edit. Thoughts? Netscott 00:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I know what engender means. I also don't deny that it's perfectly correct. It's just such extremly good English, that it comes around as weird, something you'd expect in jurisprudence, legistation etc. Oh, and since we're starting to delve into 'good English', I can't help but note that "either/nor" doesn't fly. Should be "neither/nor" or "either/or". Just kidding, of course. It' just a stupid detail. ;-) Azate 00:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Well at this point... I've changed the edit to reflect Kintaro's text... which after translation struck me as being better balanced than what I wrote earlier. Netscott 00:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
hey, Thanks to quote me; I took my little french-english dictionnary, and french verb "susciter" is translated as "to give rise", "to provoke" (a controversersy).
My point was just to underline the absence of public reaction by Mubarak's Government or Islamic authorities, since there was after A GREAT activity in Egypt.
* november through december: A delegation of Imams from the Islamic Society in Denmark travel to the Middle East (EGYPT, SYRIA, LEBANON) in order to "bring attention" to the cartoons. They present the Akkari 43 page Dossier to influential political and religious leaders.Among the people the group claims to have met on their visit to Egypt were: - The General Secretary of the Arab League Amr Moussa,- the Egyptian Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa and - the Sheik of Cairo's Al-Azhar university Mohammed Sayed Tantawi- the Egyptian foreign office. In Lebanon they met the Grand Mufti Muhammad Rashid Kabbani, top Shiite Sheik Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, Maronite Church leader Nasrallah Sfeir. In Syria they met Grand Mufti Sheik Ahmed Badr-Eddine Hassoun.
* 02 november 2005 : Lebanese Foreign Affairs Minister have met Egyptian ambassador in Lebanon to think about which measures to take against Danemak.
* 29 december 2005: The Arab League, base in Cairo (Egypt), criticises the Danish government for not acting in the matter.
* 06 february 2006. Several thousand students massed on the al-Azhar University campus in Cairo today to protest against publication of caricatures of Islam’s Prophet Mohammed. Sheikh Tantawui, Ali Joamaa Egyptian Republic Mufti, Mahmoud Hamdi Zagzoug Minister of Waqfs (Religious matter) were present to protest.
You see my point? Oe kintaro 15:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC).

The current line: Six of the cartoons were reprinted in the Egyptian newspaper El Fagr on 17 October 2005[24][25][26] along with an article strongly denouncing them, but this publication of the images during Ramadan, did not cause any reaction nor condemnation from either Islamic religious authorities or the government of Egypt.

This needs to be improved. The lengthy style is insistent: "reaction nor condemnation", "either Islamic or gov", etc. The result is POV creep because we highlight El Fagr as extra-important. We take this bold step when the press generally ignores this detail. It could be their negligence or it could be that this "independent weekly" is too insignificant. In any case, the sentence should be neutralized by shortening it. Lotsofissues 19:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


Off Topic Jihad must go

It is getting increasingly hard for people who work on the text, in order to get it to represent a fair and balanced view, to find each other in this mess of opinions about what kind of illustrations might or might not be offensive. There are other forums for this kind of discussion. All you guys do is vandalizing the discussion. Is that what you want? MX44 04:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

':Excuse me, did you remove a part of the talk???? Bertilvidet 12:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Even if MX had removed part of the talk, which you could have checked by looking at history and found out that he didn't, he'd have been in the right to do so. Off-topic discussions have no place on this page. Kyaa the Catlord 13:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus cartoons rejected by J-P

Someone at the newspaper later clarified why those cartoons of a Jesus-figure were rejected. It wasn't because they were of Jesus, but they were silly and poor cartoons. When you read a description of the cartoons, you may think that they sound pretty silly. 69.224.112.100 04:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC) 11 February 2006

We knew that already. That guy was only promoting his own (lack of?) talent. MX44 04:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
The Jesus cartoons were made by Christoffer Zieler who currently works for the internal paper of the University of Copenhagen. You can see them on the last page of this pdf: [1] where Zieler also comments on his little role in the controversy. The cartoon at the bottom of the page is his usual strip in the paper. This weeeks strip seems quite critical of danish islamists and people who "give in" to them, but even though i "get" all the references it's pretty weird, so don't make too much of it. (His strips are often quite weird, and occasionally very funny). About the Jesus cartoons you should know that they were sent unsolicited and JP editor Kaiser thought they'd cause an "uproar". OTOH there's no general self-censorship regarding Jesus caricatures in Denmark (as there apparently was wrt. Mohammed) so publishing them wouldn't have made the same point. Nvj 12:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
From the current article: "giving Muslims reasons to assert that a double standard in dealing with them versus others". Kind of picks one POV conspiracy theory and promotes that. Weregerbil 04:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah! You meant that it was back again ... It is gone now. It is story about talentless wannabe who got rejected. MX44 05:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
As opposed to the talentless wannabes whose cartoons were accepted and sparked a wave of international protest and the single most successfull consumer-led boycott of the past 100 years. --210.54.12.83 07:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
They were asked with short notice (an afternoon) to comment with their pen on the islamaphobia in Denmark. And I agree ... The result is not always reflecting artistic qualty. Da Bomb is deep though, perhaps deeper than the artist suspected. MX44 07:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
All of these cartoonists/illustrators already make a living out of their talent. This is not in dispute! MX44 08:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

````Jyllands-Posten's (JP's) cultural editor Flemming Rose has "...acknowledged that his newspaper two years ago had declined to publish satirical cartoons depicting Jesus Christ, but said the current situation was not comparable, and noted that over the years Jyllands-Posten had printed cartoons deemed offensive by Christians, Jews and other religions." (Source: news.com.au network Source: AFP _Editor unrepentant over cartoons_ From correspondents in Washington February 16, 2006). In addition, in that same interview, Rose said: "...because we do have a tradition of satire in Denmark, some of the cartoonists, in fact, did make satirical cartoons, but that is what we do with Jesus Christ and that is what we do with the royal family and with politicians".Previous claims about JP not publishing cartoons about/of Jesus were misleading, because they did not address the obvious question of whether Christian/Jesus cartoons had ever been published.

Well they have:

Jyllands-Posten have on previous occasion posted cartoons, which could be offensive to Christians. Here is an example from 2000:

http://www.filtrat.dk/sandbox/images/uploads/Hvem20sagde20hvad.jpg

This should be mentioned as well. In fact the cartoon i link to is drawn by the same guy who did the mohammad as a womanizer cartoon in JP, normally referred to as the "censorship" cartoon.

I side that. It really should be in linked to the part of the article that mentions the 'double standards'. Varga Mila 22:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the copyright rules pertaining to the image (http://www.filtrat.dk/sandbox/images/uploads/Hvem20sagde20hvad.jpg), but I think that it should be linked in the reference list, and that the relevant text should be changed from:
"In 2003, Jyllands-Posten rejected unsolicited cartoons about Jesus[56], opening them to accusations of a double standard."
to: "While Jyllands-Posten has published cartoons depicting Christian figures (ref the image), it rejected unsolicited cartoons about Jesus[56] in 2003, opening them to accusations of a double standard.

Would someone mind to please attach the image ? Varga Mila 09:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Greyscale

The first sentnce is important. It summarizes the event in a single sentence. Please say what you think is important and how it will inspire readers to read beyond. MX44 07:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine as is. Something else: What's the deal with this pink box in section 1, and why is there a link to "Anders Fogh Rasmussen cartoons", which aren't precisely super-relevant? Azate 08:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't notice that box and I don't know (blushes) MX44 08:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

At the moment the first sentence reads "most of which depicted M" which I find to be understood as: "most of which depicted M in a NEGATIVE WAY". This is not excactly true ... Now Wiki have not put the N-word there, but MEDIA have. This is why I ask for opinions on the lead-in? MX44 09:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence seems pretty clear at present. We could be even more specific, e.g. "The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy began after twelve editorial cartoons were published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten on 30 September 2005. The Islamic prophet Muhammad was the central character depicted in seven of these cartoons." I can't see a nice way to express this in a single sentence though. -- Avenue 11:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes but there is a trap of being so politically correct and considerate, so you end up being the opposite. Here is one from CNN:
CNN is not showing the negative caricatures of the likeness of the Prophet Mohammed because the network believes its role is to cover the events surrounding the publication of the cartoons while not unnecessarily adding fuel to the controversy itself.
Note that they manage to conclude that the cartoons are indisputeably negative and then go on to say they will not add fuel. MX44 18:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn

This article needs to link to the articles on Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh. I added these under comparable incidents, but another user deleted the links. These murders provide critical background to the context in which freedom of expression is understood. Can we agree that these ought to be in the article?

It's not directly related. I don't think it should be included in this article - in the greater scope of things - Islamic/West Frictions - they are relevant - but not to the subject of this article. Also, the PT and TVG "incidents" were murders due to individuals - not boycotting of milk by Islamic nations as is the case here - and as such it would be wrong to equate them. Celcius (Talk) Wiki be With us! 12:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Van Gogh's murder is directly related to the freedom of expression context. One of the artists approached by Kare Bluitgen gave this murder as a reason for not illustrating the book. But I think this would need to be explained if we did include a link to the Theo van Gogh article. -- Avenue 15:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I just realised that this is explained already in the Debate about self-censorship section of the article, and there is a link to the Theo van Gogh article there. -- Avenue 15:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Surely they are relevant, as the murder on Theo van Gogh was - if my memory serves me right - stated as one of the excuses given by (one?/several? of) the 28 invited cartonists, who declined the invitation to provide a cartoon. Varga Mila 15:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The compareable media incident in this case would be Submission_(film) which have been linked for ages. The actual murder is just(?) yet another crime MX44 16:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree Varga Mila 22:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on what is the "incident" to which we wish to have similarity. The PF and TVG murders are not similar if the incident is merely the publishing of the cartoon. But if the "incident" also includes the rioting, boycotts, embassy burnings and intimidation of the media, then TVG is comparable -- the TVG murder chilled freedom of expression just as the reaction to the media incident is presently chilling freedom of expression. --Calmarc

Fair enough - it depends on in which context the links are provided. I can see the justification. Celcius (Talk) Wiki be With us! 00:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Alt Map

A friend just sent me this. http://face-of-muhammed.blogspot.com/ It seems that others are doing the kind of map being done here too. Submitting it here for comparison to our map. There may be more relevant info in this blog, even. :) DanielDemaret 12:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not very NPOV to divide the world into "camps" like that - it's very "you are either with us or against us" type of thing - which will inevitably rely on subjective opinion not suitable for a NPOV encyclopedia. Celcius (Talk) Wiki be With us! 12:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
That was not the original purpose of the map, but if many interpret it that way, it sadly becomes a very valid point. Is there any chance that one might connect the picture closely to editorial text to show the purpose and to save the intention of what we are trying to show that way? DanielDemaret 15:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

May I remind you all that according to WP:V and WP:RS, blogs are not acceptable sources under any circumstances on wikipedia, so if you were planning on adding a blog into the article, whether as a link, or a source, it's not happening. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 20:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Nobody was planning any such thing, of course. What a singularly strange notion. Again, this was a note to compare their map with "our own" map. And last I read the recommendations, which was two days ago, blogs could indeed be accepted under special circumstances.

This is copied from the link you brought up, "...and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications.", hoping that page has not been the victim of any edit wars. DanielDemaret 20:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Cartoon War

A few more deaths and we can rename this page to Cartoon War and add the war infobox! I hope not.--TheFEARgod 15:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I read somewhere that the media have been so rash to report all the unrest caused by the cartoons, that they ignore all of the other current violence in the islamic world (Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine etc.). Food for thought, anyway. 惑乱 分からん 19:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

In the US, the news media at least, is barely covering the cartoon violence. Only the newspapers seem to be making a big deal about it, and justifiably so since the controversy directly affects their medium As for the original poster about cartoon war.......yes it's seeming that way isn't it? Wars have been started over less than just an embassy firebombing. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 20:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

And here is the cartoon to illustrate your notion MX44 23:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


Prince Hassan of Jordan BBCworld today

NPOV part: On BBCWorld today, on a program called "your voice" or something to that effect, Prince Hassan of Jordan made some interesting remarks. http://i-cias.com/e.o/hassan_jordan.htm If memory serves, he mentioned that he descended from the prophet, and that the issue we are discussing here, if my memory serves, was more an issue internal to Islam than one between Islam and the west. He suggested an internal dialogue, perhaps in Mekka to have a dialogue on matters. His views seemed to suggest that the violent reactions were totally out of proportion, and no violence should have occured. MyPOV part: Islam talking with one voice? A consensus of brothers, instead of masses being manipulated by a few totalitarian regimes, or by a few in extremists organisations into senseless violence? I am an incurable optimist, but if consensus works for wikipedia, perhaps there will be more common ground between freedom of expression and Islam in such a future :)DanielDemaret 20:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Kofi Annan interview on DR

Kofi Annan was interviewed by the Danish TV channel DR today regarding the cartoons and the conflict. The 15-minute interview is available from DR Nyheder, deep link here (Windows Media format). There is an introduction in Danish, but the interview itself is of course in English. — Peter L <talk|contribs> 21:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


Grass Interview in Spanish El Pais

Frage: Haben Sie die gewalttätigen Ausschreitungen überrascht?


Grass: Wir leben in einer Zeit, in der einer Gewalttat die nächste folgt. Die erste ist die durch den Westen gewesen, die Invasion des Irak. Heute wissen wir, daß damit internationales Recht gebrochen wurde; der Krieg wurde allein auf Grundlage von Bushs fundamentalistischen Argumenten geführt, daß es ein Kampf zwischen dem Guten und dem Bösen sei. Was wir jetzt sehen, ist die fundamentalistische Antwort auf eine fundamentalistische Tat. Mitnichten findet hier ein Kampf der Kulturen statt - vielmehr ist es eine Auseinandersetzung zwischen zwei Un-Kulturen.


from die welt --Chaos 21:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia. And the above from Günter Grass is hardly original. Of marginally more interest is his comparison of the cartoons to the sort of anti-semitic thing that would appear in der Stürmer. Rd232 talk 00:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Snow White and The Madness of Truth

Freedom of speech and Israeli ambassador .. isn,t that more relevant to our case , Enjoy --Chaos 22:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you're alluding to. Could you elaborate on this? Are you making a case for freedom of expression for artists, or an ad nauseum hypocracy argument? --Tokachu 22:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Assisting Muslim Readers

I've been bold and added a "warning" template to the article. This will allow those who might be sensitive to such things to avoid being inadvertently exposed to them. I hope this suggestion itself doesn't cause offense (although I'm not naive enough to expect it won't be controversial). — JEREMY 01:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no such template as "offensive," and "controversial" only belongs on talk pages. -- Avi 01:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the idea has merit. Now that the big fuss on the talk pages is over and everybody has had time to vent, the "Be nice" idea may have a chance again. How about this:
 This article contains cartoons of
the Islamic Prophet Mohammad
Please see the discussions on the talk page
* People who come for the article or the images will ignore it or view it as a quaint joke.
  • People who are actually offended by the image itself have a chance to leave.
  • People who object to the whole existence/concept/idea/whatever of the image bein reproduced are maybe less likely to vandlize it.
For this to work, the cartoons would have to be moved down to the relevant section that descibes them. If I recall that correctly, this was also the gist of the posting of Jimbo Wales on his talkpage. Azate 02:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it's important to avoid being seen "as a quaint joke", but couching it more in terms of "cultural sensitivities" might work. (The template is generalised so it could be used — if anyone should ever make a fuss about them — on pages including images of deceased Aboriginal Australians, for example). &#0151; JEREMY 02:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Your Template::Offensive has been deleted by sombody. Apparently 3RR rule. Azate 02:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, I can see I'm not going to get a general template to fly (it has been protected-deleted now, although not for three reverts), so I'd certainly support the next best thing, which is a situation-specific warning as per Azate's suggestion. How about:
 This article contains images of (the Islamic prophet) Muhammad.
Please see the discussions on the talk page.
Can anyone direct me to a similar English Wikipedia page that has a specific warning about imagery? Having just looked at the Piss Christ article, I noticed that not only is there no warning but the image is at the top bright as day. It's going to seem very 'double standardish' if this article has a warning while similar articles don't. Netscott 02:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
There are none, and perhaps there should be none. When 11 Christian rioters die in protests against something, I think we should put a notice on its article too. &#0151; JEREMY 02:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
We should not and cannot give into the mob (quite literally in this case). Just because people are killed because of this doesn't mean that we should censor the content we offer. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 03:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I am strongly against using any form of warning template on the article itself. Things like controversy templates should be used to let editors know on talk pages. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 02:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I utterly, totally object to the use of this template. There is no precedent for anything even remotely like this, nor should there be. That's what Wikipedia:Content disclaimer is for. Babajobu 02:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
There is indeed something like it. It's called {{spoiler}}, and is used to protect people who are worried about seeing information about a fictional plot. &#0151; JEREMY 02:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Jeremy, I wouldn't call that "similar"... but I see where you wanted to go with that. Netscott 03:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah but spoiler is entirely different. What your pretty much talking about here is hiding the content because some people don't likie it in general. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 03:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
They seem rather different to me. A general template warning that plot details follow would be very roughly analagous to a general template stating "Offensiveness warning: potentially offensive content follows". It's not analagous to your very specific "Prophet Muhammad images" template. Babajobu 03:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Sure, it doesn't look similar, but it serves a similar function: to avoid our readers accidentally coming across something they'd rather not have seen. It seems slightly incongruous that we're prepared to insert warnings to stop our readers spoiling a movie, but not to stop our readers having their religious sensibilities outraged (and possibly alienating a lot of good editors into the bargain). &#0151; JEREMY 03:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
What might make sense is if a 'neutral' disclaimer was made... maybe even a link to the the general content disclaimer as pointed out by Babajou... but doing such a thing would only make sense if other similar articles have been treated similarly. Netscott 03:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Third time there is edit conflict, ahhhhhh. Original comment: :::::::There's no need for a spoiler warning, I think people know that this is offensive. Spoilers are mainly use in plots and content. This is about a news, current event, so there is no need to put a spoiler tag. (End) Like Netscott said, it would only make sense if other articles have been treated in this way. Maybe a disclaimer warning would be a better idea. --Terence Ong 03:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
The template originally read:
This article contains images or text which may offend some readers.
Specifically, the article contains images of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.
To discuss this article, see the talk page.
(The template was accidentally deleted by an admin, but subsequently restored.) However, I think I now prefer the more specific warning, as the general template may be opening up an unnecessary can of worms. &#0151; JEREMY 03:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Has nothing to do with looks. At the very least, it has to do with generality vs. specificity. No such template exists to protect the sensibilities of other groups, why only one for Muslims? A very general template warning of offensive content would duplicate the work of the Content Disclaimer, but at least I can imagine making a case for it. Also reject a "disclaimer warning".Babajobu 03:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I started off agreeing with your position (thinking it could also be used to help avoid Aboriginal Australians coming across images of dead relatives, for example) but I now believe that there's probably too much wikipedia precedent against such general disclaimers that we'd be wasting our time trying to argue for it. If, in future, an article is created which includes content strongly offensive to a large percentage of our Christian, or Jewish, or Hindu or Buddhist readership, we should probably consider such a specific warning for that article. &#0151; JEREMY 03:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Why oh why is the articles title not enough warning in it self? Is it really shocking to find cartoons picturing Muhammad in an article named "Muhammad cartoons controversy"? The.valiant.paladin 03:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

People - you can't just slap a warning on like that... If such a thing is needed there has be established a guideline for using it. There are 8000 religions in the world excluding bizarre pseudo-religions like Joseph Kony - I'm sure quite a few of them have taboos. First of all, you can't measure offence by the scale of protests since that is largely a culturally based response so it means that we should also place a template on Piss Christ.

  • 1) How many people needs to be offended before the template should be used?
Next time something comes along which is as obviously divisive, we can deal with that as a special case too. If you see something else like this which you feel represents a problem with wikipedia, please point it out. &#0151; JEREMY 04:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • 2) Does it only apply to religion and blasphemy?
  • 3) If so - why?
  • 4) If not... won't it become impossible to administrate?

I propose moving the pictures down and simply writing in the intro of the article that: "The cartoons were published by so and so on this date which resulted in that and that. The cartoons can be seen in that section of this article." A simple inter-article link which indirectly notifies people about the pictures. I'm just saying... template to guard the feelings of readers... can of worms... Celcius (Talk) Wiki be With us! 03:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

All these issues were already addressed. The community expressed a very clear consensus that the pics should be at the top of the article. I generally dislike polls, but the community interest and participation in the previous poll was so great that I think it should only be overridden by a new poll, rather than by a few editors regurgitating previously discussed ideas. And I continue to dislike the template very strongly. Babajobu 03:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Didn't realize the positioning had been polled. Well, I stand behind the majority then Celcius (Talk) Wiki be With us! 03:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
There can be a mirror of this article (dublication) without cartoons, too. So people do not prefer to see them can be directed to the one without cartoons by putting a link on the template... How about that? 216.248.122.252 04:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Not bad. What about a disambiguation page, with a link to this article as it stands, and a link to a "variant" article which clearly announces that the (relevant) images in it will appear as links only? (I'd have to disagree with The.valiant.paladin that no potentially sensitive reader is likely to follow a link to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.) &#0151; JEREMY 04:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Look to be reasonable and worth to try to me. In fact, I believe that, I had a better idea but a few people strongly disagree with that. I was saying that, this article is about the controversy, not about the cartoons. There is no reason to put all of them here (The collection cartoons is also against the Wiki regulations as far as I know). Another point is: A Westerner cannot see anything wrong with them, but Muslims will be ofended. So, only one cartoon (maybe an artist drawing picture) which is less provocative can be replaced with this one. That cartoon gives a good summary of the phenomena, and yet, doesn't offend anybody. I think Jeremy's offer is a good one, if you do not want to go for what I suggested. Resid Gulerdem 04:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Yet another idea that has already been mooted and rejected, this one as a POV fork. Babajobu 04:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Again getting back to the ... "Where has it been done already on Wikipedia? ®" question ... It's almost like saying there are two truths... one for sensitive people and one for everyone else. This idea begs the question... are there any Wikipedia rules which specifically disallow the formulating of articles covering the same topic but in different ways? Netscott 04:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there are. I think it's a better solution, but it is probably more against wikipedia "policy" than the special-case template. (Hey, to make it obvious we could replace the hand-in-stop-sign icon with a guy in a turban! Or not.) But that just gets back to the fact that this is a special case (although the first, probably not the last). &#0151; JEREMY 04:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
The 'alternate version' idea is already old in my mind due to the simple fact that there could exist alternate versions Ad nauseum. One for vegetarians, one for meat eaters... one for no dairy, one for no flesh showing in any image group, etc. etc. etc.... doesn't work, does it? Netscott 04:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
As I've said elsewhere (see the very end of that page), I think some kind of "virtual forking" of articles could provide useful benefits, although possibly most in meta:Wikifiction. But in this case you're right; on reflection, forking is probably not the best solution either. Which gets us back to special-purpose tagging... &#0151; JEREMY 05:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Blind generalizations doesn't provide any solutions. This is not just a regular contravorsy. It is about 1,5 billion people and has influence on international poitics. Resid Gulerdem 04:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Going to have to agree with Babajou on this one... relative to the images... any changes regarding them should require a full blown vote. And that about wraps it up for me on this question. Netscott 05:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
As has been mentioned earlier; the title of the article is all the warning necessary. Further, most browsers have a setting to prevent the loading of images. If someone is that offended by them, yet still wants to read the article, it is possible to see the page without them. The fact that the images are offensive to many is well known, so there really is no need for a special temmplate; and as the images are the singular main thrust of the article, they belong where every other main article has its images—up top. -- Avi 05:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Whether "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy" sufficiently equates to "Warning: may scandalise your religious sensibilities" is a separate argument. It's definitely accidental, good faith "stumbling upon" that the template would seek to prevent. Its addition would detract nothing from the article, and serve only to improve the information content for a specific group of readers. &#0151; JEREMY 05:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

This seems to fundamentally be (by some uses, literally word for word) reiterations of previous discussions. Varga Mila 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to plead ignorance, having noticed this page only mid last week. (I've read chunks of the archives, but haven't come across this argument before.) I'd really appreciate a link. &#0151; JEREMY 10:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

To chime in (yes, this is all very repetitive): Just like Wikipedia is not censored for minors, it is not censored for Muslims (or Christians, or Hindus, or Jews). Plastering articles with warning templates about potentially offensive material sets a bad precedent, there would soon be hardly an article without it. The only question we have to ask ourselves on Wikipedia is: Are these images encyclopedic. I was objecting to porn images included in articles on these grounds: The internet is stuffed with porn, and any given porn picture is hardly encyclopedic unless it made the news for some reason. Similarly, random islamophobic cartoons are not encyclopedic, and I will oppose their inclusion. But if we agree that it this particular controversy reaches an "encyclopedic" level of notability (per WP:Recentism), the images are naturally notable to the topic. Warning messages about potential offense or controversy go to the talkpage or to html comments, not to the article itself. dab (ᛏ) 09:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is (currently) suggesting censorship. This suggestion is about providing readers with additional information in order to help them make a choice about whether to read an article. (And I think you'll agree that "there would soon be hardly an article without it" is a slight exaggeration.) &#0151; JEREMY 10:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
yes, but people will tag all sorts of articles to make a point. We'll need to develop a policy if we want to tag articles that "contain encyclopedic material that may be considered offensive by some". So far, there is no such policy, and it will be a nightmare to develop it. For example, can you see the Paleolithic article plastered with warning messages "this article contains material that may offend the religious sensitivities of Young Earth Creationists"? I think I would leave Wikipedia if something like this was sanctioned by policy. dab (ᛏ) 16:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Would this be a usable compromise? I've created a "hidden image" template in my userspace, result looks like this:

Users with JavaScript enabled can then click the "Show" link to display the image. This can be set up in various different ways. Better than a huge warning banner on top of the page at least IMHO, even if it requires JavaScript to work (users without JavaScript will not be eabel to show the image). Just an idea anyway. The "code" is at User:Sherool/HideImage if anyone is interested in experimenting further with it. --Sherool (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a nicer implementation of the "blank link" style of image presentation, but it's unfortunately not acceptable to a majority of the editors who voted in the initial poll. &#0151; JEREMY 18:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Jeremy on this one. Even though it's a nice template (one which I am going to steal the code to btw) it is unacceptable since A) it is censoring the article and this is an encyclopedia of knowledge and shouldn't be censored for a particular group's sensitivities, and B) there is a strong consensus to keep the image where it is and exactly how it is. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 18:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Sherool's suggestion looks to be fair and a good compromise to me. Resid Gulerdem 22:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

We have been over and over and over this. The vast majority of editors support keeping the image where it is.--Jbull 22:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Leave that horse alone, Resid, its dead already. Kyaa the Catlord 08:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
At the risk of similar equine necroflagellation:
Diamond-caution.png This article contains cartoon images of
(the Islamic prophet) Muhammad.
Some readers may prefer not to view such images, and are invited to disable automatic downloading of images in their browsers, or to avoid this article.

Please see the discussion on the article's talk page.

Feedback, please. &#0151; JEREMY 11:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Add a translation to Arabic and Turkish? MX44 11:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed; and Farsi of course. (Err... or should that be "Persian"? One issue at a time...) Although I think we can leave that to others if versions of this are used outside the English wikipedia; readers of this page should be able to understand English. &#0151; JEREMY 12:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

My humble view: No ~ for the reasons discussed ad near nauseam on this page Varga Mila 11:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree the general subject has been gone over many times in the last ten days or so. However, this particular approach hasn't specifically been considered, and may just fly. It's a fairly minimalist solution (unlike my general {{Offensive}} template) and doesn't detract from wikipedia's resolute refusal to self-censor, while still providing good-faith readers with additional choice. &#0151; JEREMY 12:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
There is no particular approach which will satisfy a tidbit of the free information protagonists (myself included). No magic solution, no special template, no words, no phrases, no pictures. It has been approached from this angle already as well. This angle is a specification of a general angle which has already been taken multiple times. The general viewpoint that your idea is an offshoot of is to make it so that users have a warning. No warning is needed, if a user is coming to this page, they will see the image and leave, or view it and read the article. I believe a general consensous has already been reached...3 times now? This being an offshoot of a suggestion that has already been brought up, it is not likely to succeed. -Moocats 18:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I support it, as long as we put the same warning on every single page with an image, as any image could offend somebody out there. We can't pander to just one group... Valtam 20:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Valtam.--Jbull 20:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Anyone want to add equine necroflagellation as #redirect [[beating a dead horse]] :-) See if some tight-ass vandalism patroller (such as myself) will delete it as a protologism with no google hits. Weregerbil 12:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose as per Varga Mila. Also oppose on grounds that readers should not have to have Javascript enabled to access informatiom. Babajobu 16:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I certainly support Jeremy's idea of having a template... Resid Gulerdem 06:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Like I say above, I support the idea only if we have a template on any Wikipedia page that contains an image - there could be SOMEONE out there in the world who may be offended by any given image. If we don't use the template for all images, we are pandering to one group. Valtam 19:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

There is clear evidence about these pictures. When there is similarly clear evidence about other pictures, we should consider providing a similar additional information to our readers about them. &#0151; JEREMY


Bad news

This page (the talk page) needs to be archived real bad. My computer is almost crashing trying to load this page. AucamanTalk 03:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, this is 365 KB long, we need to split it into three parts. --Terence Ong 03:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


International Reaction

The section on international reactions is somewhat lacking. I think it would be nice to focus on a few reactions, some of them sane (like consumer boycot) and some not so sane (torching buildings)

What was the deal with the pope voicing his opinion? Bill Clinton? Who said what and in what order, and who did original opinion making (and not only parrotting whatever was safe at the moment.)

There is a lot of material to choose from ... MX44 23:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

That's the problem. Too much material still coming in. Yesterday, I thought this thing was over. Today, I'm not so sure anymore: The IOC is escalating this thing even more, calling it "their 9/11" and Iran is now complaining about cartoons about soccer, complete with death threats. See today's Timeline. The Blog, that broke the Al-Fagr thing has interesting news, too.

Where do you think a quote like this should go? FROM THE BBC: "They want to test our feelings," protester Mawli Abdul Qahar Abu Israra told the BBC. "They want to know whether Muslims are extremists or not. Death to them and to their newspapers," he said." (Gibby 23:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC))

Nowhere. One protester's opinion isn't noteworthy.
That one fits as a single quote-line on commercial news. Here? The garbage bin (unless you can link it to an official statement.) MX44 23:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


EXAMPLE of what I think would fit in this section:

Yesterday there was a resolution asking for calm issued by 41 important religous leaders, including the grand mufti of Libanon/Syria. One person was missing though: Yussuf Al-Qardawi who runs his own religious TV-show on al-Jazeera. He insists on an apology from the Danish government instead of the newspaper responsible.

To make this work, we would also have to quote al-Qardawi from earlier on. Is there such a quote? Can it be linked to the "They want to test our feelings," quote above?

MX44 12:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


(Warning! Strong POV ahead!)

This is kind of a hard tied knot, because if Rasmusen gives in and lets a TV-priest define the Danish constitution, there would be no way of knowing what Al-Qardawis next demand would be. Public beheading of Rasmusen with exclusive rights to al-Jazeera?

MX44 14:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

BBC "Research"

The quote below was posted on BBC earlier today (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4708216.stm).

"And here came the first inconsistency on one side. More than two years previously, in April 2003, a Danish cartoonist Christoffer Zieler offered some cartoons of Jesus Christ to Jyllands-Posten, Denmark's largest daily paper and generally seen as right-wing. One of the paper's editors told Zieler: "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them." No such concern prevailed when Jyllands-Posten decided to solicit drawings of Muhammad."

NB: New link with changed article from BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4708216.stm The drawing they refer to is this : http://www.filtrat.dk/sandbox/images/uploads/Hvem20sagde20hvad.jpg Interestingly it is drawn by one of the Muhammad-cartoonist.

On this talk page (Wiki) someone wrote a couple of days ago: "Someone at the newspaper later clarified why those cartoons of a Jesus-figure were rejected. It wasn't because they were of Jesus, but they were silly and poor cartoons".

I have heard this elsewhere as well, but have no actual and reliable sources thereof. Is it another matter of poor BBC research ? Varga Mila 23:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Competing newspaper Politiken was contacted by Ziegler too, and thought that this was a nice chance at getting a shot at JP. So they broke the story. Note that Politiken did not want to publish either, even though they do publish pretty rude cartoons of Jesus now and then. MX44 00:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Here is one of Jesus and his stylist ...
This issue is already dealt with in "4.1 Danish journalistic tradition" with citations etc. Azate 00:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Text description of his cartoons: Zieler's five colored cartoons portrayed Jesus jumping out of holes in floors and walls during his resurrection. In one, gnomes rated Jesus for style, another entitled "Saviour-cam" showed Jesus with a camera on his head staring at his feet. MX44 00:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The point is, that if there is a reliable reference that J-P declined the Jesus cartoon(s) for reasons other than fear of offense, that ought to be in the article. As it presently stands in 4.1 ("In 2003, Jyllands-Posten rejected unsolicited cartoons about Jesus[48], opening them to accusations of a double standard"), there is little reference to the possibility of anything but a double standard. Varga Mila 00:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
In other words the Mohammad cartoons were 'solicitated' (bad word=prostitution) because they would cause controversy?86.52.36.140 00:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
That is an interesting, but, I think, quite different issue from the one, to which I refer. Varga Mila 01:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I just took umbrage with the word 'solicitation'. Don't mind me.86.52.36.140 01:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
JP have publically stated that they turned them down "in a polite way", not because they would offend any christians, but because the were just ... plain weired MX44 01:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I suggest Zieler send them to the Iranian competion :D MX44
I think the word "unsolicited cartoons" will suffice to inform the reader of another reason of the reaction, namely, these cartoons weren't asked for by JP. The footnote 48 says as much.
Why 'unsolicitated'? Why not 'unrequested'.?
Yep, unsolicited suffices. I hadn't read footnote 48, which does, as you say, elaborate.Varga Mila 01:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
'uncolicitated ' does certainly not suffice. That is the opinion of a British newspaper. In Danish the proper word would be 'unrequested' or "uopfordret", meaning "uncalled for".86.52.36.140 01:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
"Unsolicited" means "uopfordret" (although the dictionary is my memory). Unsolicited emails, unsolicited contact etc.; the Danish translation, would be 'uopfordrede emails, uopfordret kontakt etc. 'Uncalled for', I believe, bears connotations of something being rude :-> Varga Mila 01:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC
Yes, the wording means that you should not send rude messages to the newspaper, since they will not take the responsibility. That is it is uncalled for that you send me messages to convert to Islam, but it is unsolicitated that you send me pictures of the boobs of the minister of justice.86.52.36.140 01:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


The description of the rejected cartoon fits with this one (from zielers homepage)

http://www.zieler.dk/m-images/1opstandelsesspalte%202004.jpg

I am out of dope, so I can't judge them fairly ... You decide! :D MX44 10:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This pink box in the "Overview" section

Why is there a prominent link in that pink box to "Anders Fogh Rasmussen Cartoons" ? I think it has no business being there, because these Rasmussen cartoons are nothing more that a footnote in the larger context at hand here. This box is included from somewhere, but I can't figure it out. I also don't like the fact that the dossier is called "Akkari Dossier". Akkari is prominent mostly because he speaks Danish and English fluently, wheras Abu Laban and Sheik Hulayel don't. Akkari didn't pen the dossier. A better name would be "Imams' dossier" or so. Azate 00:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 

(==Other Cartoon Contests==)

I think there could be a new subject heading in this entry that gives links to the cartoon contests that are springing up in the wake of the Cartoon War. Here are some links, and Google will find others. This is a legitimate subject heading so that people are aware of the history and nature of the response to this event.

An editorial note would be placed warning people that the material is bound to offend certain people, like other warnings I've seen on the post.

Here are the contests (there are probably others): Fight Hate with Humor Contest World Union of Jewish Students http://www.wujs.org.il/home/cartoon.php Iranian Pro-Holocaust Cartoon call (many news articles about it. Sec. of State Rice spoke against/about it) laughyourheadoff.org Islamic Joke and Cartoon Contest gaining steam http://drawmohammed.com/ http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina60206p2.htm Former Muslims launch cartoon effort Israelpundit, a blog, had a contest, but then got negative feedback, and now it seems to have vanished from the site??? Maybe Wayback machine has proof they had a contest. Wilbrary 01:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is not a clearing house for private internet cartoon contests. Azate 02:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


Elsevier Oct 21, De volkskrant, Oct 29, both the Neherlands reprinted cartoons

I was looking for some references and found that the volkskrant already reprinted 3 cartoons on October 29. I think we slowely have to change the sentence about Januari 2006 to the whole period as there was already stuff going on. There was a response to the october reprint that I still have to read (I am Dutch) --KimvdLinde 04:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Just found out that Elsevier did it already 8 days earlier..... --KimvdLinde 05:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
This fits in together with el-Fagrs publication about the same time, as a discussion happening in media. MX44 09:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


Azate. I don’t understand why you insist on removing links that add value to the dialog, and a case for their inclusion has been made. From what I understand, this is in violation of the spirit of Wikipedia.

Respect other contributors. Wikipedia contributors come from many different countries and cultures, and have widely different views. Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in building an encyclopedia. (See Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia etiquette, Wikipedia:Writers' rules of engagement, Dispute resolution.)

In the first instance, you removed a link to Annoy.com, referring to a nine year old online publication as an “annoying blog” which suggests you didn’t even clarify what link you were removing, and justified it by making a misstatement and personal judgment.

The reason I chose to include Annoy.com’s coverage was because (1) they have a history of free speech and have engaged in two federal First Amendment issues, one before the United States Supreme Court, (2) they have included clean images of the cartoons along with a thoughtful justification for publishing them, (3) they have published related controversies, from Nick Berg’s beheading to the Arab-European League cartoons, as well as their own relevant imagery and (4) experienced their own controversy over images relating to Jesus and the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, that was covered internationally from South Africa to the Middle East.

For those reasons, I determined that linking to a site that presents the images in a fair and balanced context (unlike some of the one-sided viewpoints reflected by some of the sites linked to) and owing to their long standing history, are not likely to be here today, gone tomorrow, as we have already seen with some of the links.

Unless you have a strong and compelling reasons for removing links, appropriately articulated as opposed to quick judgement calls that are not accurate, please leave them alone.

Also, your comment that the Ramussen cartoons are not “original, surprising or controversial” is inappropriate and has nothing to do with why a link or information is provided. Those are your personal value judgments. News is about relevancy and objectivity, not surprise and controversy. What do you mean they are not original? Have they been published elsewhere? Are they violating a copyright? I didn’t even originate that link, but thought it was absolutely appropriate, and I was better informed overall for having followed it. Obviously that was what the editor who posted it to begin with intended.

It’s great that you are so enthusiastic about this issue and your contributions are as welcome as anyone else’s but unless a link is not germane to the story, offers no relevant value or is in violation of Wikipedia’s policy, please leave them alone. We are all committed to Wikipedia’s success and providing valuable and informative links are part of that goal.

--JasonWilson 09:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Annoy.com link : The links leads to a page where the 12 original cartoons are mixed with cartoons that sombody found funny and put there, without clearly distinguishing between the two. There are enough pages with links to the 12 cartoons. There is no need to link to a page that may mislead. I don't care about the great things annoy.com did in the past. This is a superfluous link, that may mislead some not familiar with the cartoons.
The AF Rasmussen cartoons : are irrelevant in the context of this article. They are neither about the Mohammad cartoons nor about the reaction of those who opposed them in the Muslim world. They are just witness to the ordinary intra-Danish political debate, and as such just coincident to the Mohammad cartoon controversy, but not part of it. Azate 10:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The Rasmussen cartoons actually was a part of the discussion of the JP-Debacle. An early Iranian contest you could say. MX44 11:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the entire page is dedicated to the Jyllands Posten controversy, and the other cartoons are clearly labeled as such. So are the 12 original cartoons clearly labeled, and the Arab-European League cartoons clearly labeled. I doubt anyone with a clear comprehension of English would have a difficult time making sense of that page. I don't think that the page is misleading, nor superfluous, and I believe the grouping of the Dansish cartoons with those of the Arab-European League response and others offers an interesting and valuable comparision. To claim people would be misled is a sweeping generalization based on no fact whatsoever. You might have been, although seem to have clarified it for yourself. I wasn't. (The only reason I brought up Annoy.com's past, is because you referred to it as an "annoying blog". Obviously not.)

I agree with MX44. The AF Ramussen cartoons are very much about a response to the cartoons. The "Muslim world" is not the only world that responded to this.

I suggest we agree to disagree on this. Wikipedia is not about unilateral decision making. Yours seems to be the only objection to the link, and since we both share a desire to make Wikipedia the best resource posssible, I say leave my contributon and move on. There's so much more we both could, and should, be focused on. --JasonWilson 19:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Israelis have the right idea

This Israeli organization has decided to respond to the Iran antisemitic cartoon contest with their own anti-semitic cartoon contest. Seems to me like this is an example of the right way to respond to something intended to anger you. http://www.boomka.org/ Richard 129.244.23.13 15:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful, hysterical. I want to see a showdown between the Iranian cartoons and the Israeli cartoons. Is the Israeli organization showing cartoons already? Where? Babajobu 15:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Reminds me how folks in the U.S. of black African ethnic origin tend to allow fellow members of their ethnicity refer to each other with a certain racial slur. Netscott 16:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. If the Israeli campaign recieves much notoriety it may very well tend to delfate Iran's own campaign. Babajobu, there appear to be three previously published cartoons already showing on the boomka site.. Netscott 16:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
There are actually people resonding to the article saying that apparently "this isn't the way to do things". Like throwing rocks, and rioting is :p It'd all be well and good if everyone could just chill out, there's not a single religion in the world that hasn't been made fun of at one time or another. What makes them think they're so special? -Moocats 18:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
the protests are a sign of weakness of the Islamic world; people feel bullied and are fed up with being the "2nd World". Fascism always arises when people feel inferior and abused. They are, of course, also a sign of strength of the fundamentalists. The first casualty of Islamism is Islam. The Israeli reaction is hilarious; the best approach when facing angry insulted Muslims is to show that you can laugh at yourself, too, rather than letting them know you think they are lame or childish. dab (ᛏ) 19:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Anyone know off-hand if Hamshari (in Wikinews) is already linked from any of the Wikipedia pages about this controversy? If so then we should definitely add the Israeli's site. Netscott 19:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I've started a WikiNews entry about this group's announcement... we'll see if it gets picked up. Netscott 19:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Veracity of El Fagr article?

Does anybody have any source for the al Fagr article besides the Egyptian blogger? The edition in question (#21, October 17, 2005) is offline, and I can find no other source anywhere I look.

Thanks, Andy. 60.240.106.174 15:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Jyllands-Posten themselves reprinted an article by The Copenhagen Post but apparently The Post used blogger EgyptianSandMonkey as their source. That said, by now El Fagr would no doubt have emphatically denied having printed it if they never did. Netscott 16:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
According to this article from TV2, a Denmark news station, the Danish Ambassador to Egypt confirmed the story. I also seem to remember someone posting an arabic language site where El Fagr confirmed they had published the cartoons, I'll see if I can find the link. Richard 129.244.23.132 18:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind, it got some facts wrong and doesn't seem terribly reliable. Richard 129.244.23.132 18:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Netscott and Richard. Apart from Bjarne Soerensen, the Danish Ambassador, 'Freedom for Egyptians' is the only source for this story. Incidentally, I've emailed both Al/El Fagr and the journalist Tasneem Brogger (Bloomberg) asking for confirmation, but am yet to receive a reply. (FYI, there's a long entry on my blog re this.) I think it would be useful to have Soerensen confirm that their source was not the Egyptian blogger in question.

Thanks again, Andy. 60.240.106.174 06:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Andy you should know that the El Fagr story was seperately confirmed both by Freedom for Egyptians and EgyptianSandMonkey. Netscott 07:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Netscott, I've looked at both. FfE credits 'Gateway Pundit' ("BTW, it is not my idea to bring the details of this Egyptian paper, it is Gateway Pundit’s"); 'Gateway Pundit' says "Freedom for Egyptians has the details" (and nothing more); ESM credits FfE ("Freedom For Egyptians reminded me why the cartoons looked so familiar to me"). In brief, this story has not been separately and independently confirmed by both FfE and ESM. Andy. 60.240.106.174 12:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
This is the website of El Fagr: http://www.elfagr.org/ The page that contained the image was http://www.elfagr.org/ed_21.html (issue 21 of the paper). I've seen it, but I failed to copy it. It was removed shortly after Wikipedia started linking to it. --Valentinian 12:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Andy, It's true that EgyptianSandMonkey was spurred on by Freedom for Egyptians but according to his site he scanned his own copy of the paper in question. I believe that EgyptianSandMonkey was to first to have a scan up from the edition in question. Netscott 14:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Here Is a short article from Jyllands-Posten on the confirmation by the ambassador. If memory serves, the scans uses by Sandmonkey and FfE were markedly different. Several blogs and news agencies commented, but I'm at a loss as to why none of the major news orgs have done a more thorough investigation of the El Fagr angle. Richard 129.244.128.134 22:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Map Update and help needed

Hi all, the map has been updated and such but still more work needs to be done, again it is not done yet. I need help from anyone who is willing to help make or compile an article about the number of protestors in all the countries. If anyone is willing to, it would be a great help to me. Thanks. Also, I have used a new color scheme and I have been working with WAS 4.250 to make it understandable to the color-blind. One more thing, I didn't put it in the legend but the Danish flag means countries that have boycotted Danish goods. I know I'm missing some so please help me with a table/list. Hitokirishinji 15:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Still work in progress
You might want to add Mexico and Macedonia to the map of reprint countries. --KimvdLinde 18:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
There have been some protests in Germany, too. -- 129.13.186.1 19:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I suggest dots marking the location of the protests (Paris, London, etc.) -- painting France and Britain party per bend sinister seems a bit much. Likewise, painting the entire subcontinent of India yellow gives a rather misleading image. I suppose you can make the protest-dots large enough to be well visible, and end up with a fairer geographical representation. You can still paint entire countries the government of which has deposited formal protests or something. dab (ᛏ) 22:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
As much as I would like to do that, certain countries including Denmark and Palestine are so small on the map that a dot to represent the cities which had protests would be incredibly hard to see and if I made them large, they would encompass more than the country itself does. The only way to get around this would be to find a larger blank map. Also, at the moment, I don't have a list of every protest in every country and every city. Unfortunately, I don't have all day to commit to this which is why I am asking if anyone would like to work with me on this by helping me compile such a list. As deciving as painting an entire contient is, it is the same almost about the newspapers. The UK only had one newspaper print 1 cartoon but nonetheless it counts as "published". If anyone can come up with a larger map or better system, please let me know. Hitokirishinji 23:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I might add that Saudi-Arabia has been boycotting Denmark for 2 years or something already, and demonstrations with 15,000 bussed-in participants in a city that summoned one million to the streets for a spontaneous demonstration against Lebanon isn't really all that great. Therefore, the map says very little about the actual proportions of the demonstrations, since 15,000 in Beirut or whereever is equaled to a few hundred in other places. I would just keep the map centered about where the cartoons were published and where stuff has happened (boycotts, attacks on embassies and so on). Brainman 20:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The colors are way too similiar that are far between. It would help if you would make the map more "styled", imo (it looks quite raw). --84.249.252.211 00:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

What did you mean by "way to similiar that are far between?" Looks like I will have to update the map and add a new color to the scale. Also, this map has been made color-blind friendly so each color has to be quite distinctive. Considering that some people find the map a little drab, I may consider making a more "stylized" version but I will keep a color-blind friendly version. Once again, if someone wants to find me a bigger version, I could do the cities but also I will need help on compiling where everything has taken place. Hitokirishinji 17:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Filipino Muslim views

Please include this link for Filipino muslim views: link - http://www.maranao.com/index2.htm. Label the link title as "Filipino Muslim Views" and put under the "Islamic Views" section.

Nazi victims of religious prosecution.

The article currently contains an example of a convicted Nazi war criminal, who was one of the ideologues and instigators of anti-Semitic repression in the third Reich. This man, Streicher, is mentioned as an example of someone prosecuted for blasphemy in violation of free speech, because Streicher has not killed anyone personally. It appears that the example is quite out of place, since instigating murder (including mass murder) is commonly excluded from protected speech in most legal systems due to its extreme danger. Moreover, instigating genocide is principally different from blasphemy which is the topic related to the current article: blasphemy does not directly endanger the life of a faithful. Finally, including an example of a racist in the article about the cartoons of Muhammad is rather frivolous, since, as has been mentioned many times, Muslims are not a race. Therefore, the reference to Streicher, which may be debated in a context of an article, which is dedicated to free speech in general, is out of context on this page. Now, what short of an edit war could be done to pursue people like Netscott to refrain from re-inserting Nazis into the lists of victims of religious prosecution? --EugeneK 04:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if we point to International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to remind him? MX44
that convention was ratified in 1992. how is it relevant to comparisons offered to Streicher by both sides of controversy in the middle east of the other sides rough humor?
The flawed, POV MX44, Netscott and apparently Jdonnis is pushing is that Islmic opposition is strictly a matter of religious zealotry and perceptions of blasphemy. I have extensively documented that the concerns extend to perceptions of anti-muslim incitement, and explaining that this is the context in which documented references to Streicher are raised. PaxTerra 13:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry that wasn't my doing... I do admit that I took him out... but put him back in... (mistakenly... clearly) only because he was executed for his publishing (which I also admit I wasn't too familiar with). Striecher and Der Sturmer do seem out of place in the whole article. Since my edits... PaxTerra is insisting that he stay in. Netscott 06:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I guess that makes sense about PaxTerra though since he put him in as well as Sambo's which seems very out of place. Netscott 06:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Again, I've listed a dozen examples of how people have offerd comparison to the well-known US controversey over the ethnic slur "sambos" in this context. It is not a matter of if it "Seems out of place" to Netscott. The list is a list of circumstances that have been compared. Netscott doesnt' like that people in the world press have drawn a comparison he finds out of place, and he wants reports of those public discussion censored from this article, apparently to shape the representation of the conflict to fit his perceptions. PaxTerra 13:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
why is the completely unrelated talk about Streicher reinserted? It doesn't have anything to do with this? It is like including a section on communist crimes in the former east bloc or atrocities commited by US puppet regimes in central america? It has nothing to do with this issue. Jdonnis 12:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Jdonnis, you're an editor... as a fellow editor I invite you to do some editing! Netscott 12:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with the information regarding Stericher and omar bakri Muhammad being included on a subpage (freedom of expression vs. blasphemy), but it is so far from the current event, that it clearly does not belong on the main page. Jdonnis 13:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Agree Netscott 13:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The context it is mentioned in this article is punishment. I'll refactor the section as "calls for punishment", and isolate it from the comparable examples section. PaxTerra 13:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
While I still disagree with the inclusion on the main page, the newest version is much better. Jdonnis 15:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Sequencing comparable references


There's my six ^ PaxTerra 02:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Netscott asks if Order should give precedence to those occurrences where people have died and then controversies of a religious nature no? If that is the case, Der Stürmer would be at the top of the list, because the publisher of those images was executed by order of an international tribunal and his caricatures attacked a people primarily because of their religion. Satanic Verses would then fall lower in the list, because Rushdie was not killed. The difficult aspect of ranking items according to their religious nature is that it is difficult to define where religion ends and culture begins.

Anti-semitic caricatures are especially difficult to rank according to religiosity because the people in queston are defined by both ethnic and religious affiliations. Likewise, some aspects of native American culture demeaned as mascots are of a religious nature but the religious significance of items such as feathers in headresses is widely considered trivial outside their communities.

Attempting to order the religiosity of artifacts according to Western or Christian appreciations of religious symbolism imposes on other cultures an arbitrary and ill-fitting filter. By deciding which aspects of the controversy compare, ranking the relevance of diverse aspects of a complex controversy, we depart from our mission of neutrality. To define this controversy as primarily relgious, we must assume that the Western model of slander and libel laws apply universally -- that defense of individual name or ego is appropriate but that defense of community perceptions through protection of secondary cultural symbols of a religious nature is parochial and backwards. And we presume that defense of religious symbols is not an aspect of protecting self-identity.

By many accounts, certain cultures do not separate sacred and profane aspects of their culture. In doing so, we imply that the controversy over the cartoons is primarily religious in nature, and that Islamic people's right to cultural self-determination excludes their right to include profoundly religous ideas in their self-perception. We also in doing so take the side of advocates of such publications who assert that they are making a free-speech demonstration and a not a primarily ethnic attack. Because worldwide discussion considers both whether these publications are ethnic or religious in their focus, I included familiar incidences of opposition to ethnic symbols that were otherwise used under free speech protection. A genuinely representative listing would go beyond cultures associated with Abrahamic faiths to consider the role of symbolism in other religious and ethnic conflicts worldwide.

Failing to find any rational subjective order that does not impose cultural presumptions, I propose we rely on a standard neutral system of ranking, which is ascending alphabetical order. That leaves Chief Illiniwek at the top, which isn't my strict preferance, but Wikipedia has only a list of Native American mascots and not an article on the topic that I could find. Were there such an article, that item would appear lower in the list.PaxTerra 22:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

While I tend to agree with PaxTerra's argument regarding order I do not agree that Der Stürmer should be at (or near) the top of the list. In terms of this article I would argue that Submission is much more pertinent for four reasons 1.It was mentioned by the Danish Imams themselves, 2. Theo Van Gogh was assasinated in an act of terrorism. 3. Submission is concerned about 'free speech' vs. the contention of it insulting Islam. 4. It is considered controversial. That said I also agree that a neutral system for determining order isn't a bad idea. So I propose that we list the references in descending alphabetical order. This makes The Holy Virgin Mary number 1 (which granted doesn't seem too logical but still is strictly about religion and not race) and Submission number 2. Frankly while I'm respectful of Native American's arguments about imagery and their cultures, in the context of this article the reference doesn't seem too strong (with perhaps the Sambo's reference being the lowest in pertinence). A big part of the reason that I don't consider Der Stürmer as pertinent is due to the fact that in Nazi Germany it was considered controversial almost exclusively due its pornographic nature and not for its characterizations of Jews, also Streicher was executed legally. Netscott 01:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
If you want a neutral ordering, I would say that time-frame would be a more relevant measure. Start with the most recent events MX44 01:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
That makes sense MX44. That'd take a bit of work to track down though.... Netscott 01:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Hint: Use the "loudest" part of the event. The Fatwa for Rushdie (and not the anticlimax when the Mullahs says it is long forgotton.) The murder of van Gogh for Submission (and not the release of the film ...) MX44 01:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I could get behind that, if somebody does the research. But I suggest if somebody indeed checks out a timeline, it would be best to include at least a year in the parenthetical reference to the context, along with perhaps a geolocal reference as in (publication, 1930-1940, Germany)? That would advise readers why the items are thus ordered, and would avoid an inference that the order was somebody's interpretation of the relevance of items that have been discussed in reference to the current controversy? PaxTerra 01:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I thought we were working toward concensus on this? I restored ascending alphabetical order. Nowhere else in this encyclopedia -- or in most contexts -- is descending order used. To choose reverse alphabetical order here implies editors have agreed whatever order places the incidents they consider most relevant is appropriate. To do so, and choose an order to place examples of controversial avante garde art above examples of hate speech implies editors concluded this is more about free speech and religious zealotry than it is about hate speech and religious bigotry. Balance requires strict centering. PaxTerra 01:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted to the order that existed prior to your first change until consensus has been determined. I'm highly inclined to go with the choronlogical order of events on this... but I have to admit I'm reluctant to track down all of the necessary details in order to do so. Netscott 01:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Here's what I propose.. we each take a 3rd of the references and track down the dates corresponding to our third. Then we formulate their proper order here for final main page editing. Netscott 01:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
You ask a lot for what you pay. I'll take the bottom third -- er the bottom six of sixteen --- Life of Brian to Der Attacker... PaxTerra 02:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok so were all on the same page here I've added the list above in it's current order on the main page. That sounds good PaxTerra. I'll take Submisson to Piss Christ... MX44? Netscott 02:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Ehrmm ... What? I was over at Groklaw. Was I supposed to do something?
Looks like PaxTerra has handled the job completely.... kind of a bummer... I was hoping for some teamwork... but whatever... Netscott 03:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
BTW -- are you saying you will go with this sequential list, and accept the entries already there? PaxTerra 02:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
This chronological idea makes the most sense with the newest events taking precedence over the older events. No? Netscott 02:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

1

My List

Netscott 02:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but it still leaves Chief on top, which isn't my intent at all, but neither do I want to self censor reporting references to discussion among Native Americans of mascotts and hate speech in the context of the Danish cartoons. We could find a better article to describe the native American mascott controversy, or write one, which I'm not up to today. PaxTerra 02:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't agree about that... unless something significant has happened withint the last 5 years and my recollectoin serves me right I'd say that the whole Native American Mascot issue 'peaked' in the late 90's. Netscott 02:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Chief Illinik looks kind of surrealistic in this context, no? Wouldn't telling a Yo Mama story in the wrong bar create an even greater fuzz? MX44 03:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC

Got not arguments from me if chief Illinik made an exit from this article. Netscott 03:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

M'bala ... I can't find the international link? If it is just hate speach we are after, then I can supply a preacher from up here who is very opiniated about homosexuals ... and gets away with it. The life of Jesus has that link, and the author gets judged by an unintended audience, which is surprising and ... funny MX44 03:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


The Virgin Mary ... Wasn't it the whole Sensation exhibition that was disliked? Well, that horses head sure did smell funny, but again I find that it is far fetched. Too many of these smallish examples of near incidents just confuses the issue and invites everybody to add their own little controversy. MX44 04:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Be bold and make changes!!! hehe Netscott 05:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
4 in one swoop?! That's bold! LOL! Netscott 05:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Well ... The Chief is back at the top, making it all look like a prank :D MX44 05:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Reverse chronological order, most recent to least, makes perfect sense. WookMuff 08:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Archive_20&oldid=1136265654"