Jump to content

Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25→Archive 30

Context

The article doesn't really relate the context of the controversy. I mean maybe the fact that Denmark participated in the invasion of a predominately Islamic country two years ago that has killed approx 30,000 of that country should be mentioned????

Danish soldiers have been targeted in Iraq due to the cartoons. Is there any reference to this in the article, or should I go look for one?DanielDemaret 13:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
An attack on Danish soldiers was mentioned here as possibly being related to the controversy on the Timeline on February 6, I don't know if there were other incidents. As to context, I do not recall the Danish presence in Iraq being given as a major reason Muslims were protesting. Do you have any evidence for that claim? RichardRB 15:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Certainly, the Danish participation of the occupation of Iraq fuels the anger towards Denmark. This is obviously, however, hard to document. What could be relevant to include is the fact that the regional (or city?) council of Basra reqeusted the Danish forces to leave because of the drawings. Bertilvidet 07:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
You are now saying that the Cartoon War fueled a controversy about Danish presence in Iraq and that the cause and effect was not the other way around, right? MX44 08:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I am convinced that the extensive protests against the cartoons are rooted in a general dicontent of the policies of the West in the Middle East, and that the publications of the cartoons have made people aware of Denmark's actual foreign policy (2 months ago people were not aware of Denmark being one of Bush' most loyal supportes - at least that is what I feel as a Dane living in a Moslem country). I am sure there will be made research on these issues in the coming time - it would be premature to include such assumptions in the article. Bertilvidet 08:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


I have to agree with Bertilvidet in general ... actually I see that the Protests were general Expressions of what they call : Western Bias towards middle east issues especially supporting Israel ... most of these ppl hardly know where is Denmark and who are Danes ... They protested against american Policy and european policy which at last supports even what they considered Insulting for their beliefs ... in this case especially the middle-Eastern goverment found it is not wise to stop that Expression , espicially that this will warn American politicians not to increase pressure on these goverments to do political reformation . we should notice that the late critics of Islam in europe tends to mention that Islam itself is uncivilized and un-mercifull ... in otherway Islam itself is responsible for Terrorism and Violence ..that was clear in the example of "Submission" film which makes the violence against women comes from the laws of Islam not bad application of Islam by some muslims .. even these Cartoons wanted - as painters said - to satirize from Extreme muslims by using muhammad (who is central for all muslims) , isn't it more reasonable if they satirize muslim Extremists by one of their leaders ... who wants to use Muhammad , he attacks all Muslims by this action and makes them all responsible for Terrorism and stop claiming we understand them in otherway ... I consider myself so tolerant but it is difficulty seen as the JP and other Painters said (reliogion could be cover of terrorism ) .. we have to stop generalizations in the current critics . --Chaos 09:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

On a side note - the Basrah city council apparently asked the Danish contingent of troops to leave Iraq. The Iraqi government has later refuted the request and asked that Danish troops remain in the country. Celcius 17:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

News

Will somebody add Doha summit (Spain was there as a EU member) and recent EU declerations to the article? Resid Gulerdem 04:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I added a EU Declaration yesterday on the timeline 27th Feb, if that is the one you mean. Do you have a link to the Doha summit? DanielDemaret 06:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The only english link I have is this. Resid Gulerdem 18:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I already inserted a link on the 27th about the EU in the timeline. Go ahead and insert yours too, if you like, in the same line on the EU reaction. Or did you want it somewhere else too? Anyway, what was this about the Doha?DanielDemaret 11:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

WWII

I think the statement from the prime minister about WWII should go from intro to overview, just below, just because I have a hard time comparing the events. I am going to let any Dane here decide, however.DanielDemaret 13:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

WWII is in itself incompareable but in the peaceful time since then, this is by far the worst diplomatic crisis. There have been schermisches with Russia about Chechenia, Canada about a tiny island west of Greenland and probably a few with USA about Vietnam and Cuba (the usual suspects ...) I would say keep! MX44 15:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
One could even argue that it is Denmark's only crisis since WWII. For understanding the impact on Denmark I would say keep it...but maybe in a global context it is not so crucial. Bertilvidet 15:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Reprinting

The Danish journalistic magazine ejour has examined the exact extent of reprinting of the cartoons. They arrive at these figures: 56 countries and 143 newspapers. The figures include partial reprinting of some cartoons and online "printing". The figures exclude printing of new/other cartoons of Mohammad in response to the row and newspapers which simply link to the cartoons.

The full list is here: http://www.djh.dk/ejour/52/52Tegninger1.html

The magazine includes only incidents where 2 or more independent sources can be cited.

move

section moved to argument page Bertilvidet 22:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Fight over introduction

I have followed the last hours fight over the wording in the introduction. There seems to be some differing views on how the wording should be. May I suggest that we discuss it here rather than simply editing / reverting?

The current wording goes:

(...) They have also pointed out that similar cartoons are made relative to other religions, demonstrating that Islam and its followers have not been targeted in a discriminatory way.""

This paragraph presents indeed a POV, by saying that cartoons toward other religions are of the same nature, and that Islam and moslems have not been dicriminated against. I will suggest that we replace "pointed out" with "claimed" and "demonstrating" with "arguing", in this way we will present the POV without endorsing it. Bertilvidet 16:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Both "claimed" and "arguing", sound good to me. DanielDemaret 16:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I think they sound good also. I would also like to see a citation for this sentence. The big problem with making a factual claim is that "similar" is rather subjective; among other things, we would need to agree that the message of the cartoons is equivalent and that the publication was as mainstream/widespread as the Jyllands-Posten. AdamRetchless 17:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
A claim needs not be substantiated and is therefore wrong in a case like this where anybody who cares can open old issues of Jyllands-Posten and see for themselves. One specific cartoon depicts The Holy Mary in "blessed conditions", Josef walking in front of the donkey she is riding on saing: "I did not have sex with that woman!" (archived here in the wayback machine.) MX44 17:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear MX44, I am sorry, but I do not agree. To which extent different cartoons are similar or not is indeed a matter that can be discussed, and not a claim that easily can be verifed or falsified. Furthermore people from different religions perceive them in different way, making caricatures of Muhammad is certainly worse for Muslims than making caricatures of Jesus is for Christians. And also, the different characters of the caricatures must be taken into consideration - depicting Muhammad as a terrorist might be worse for Muslims than simply making fun of Josef. Thus, I still see 'claim' as the most appropriate term in order to reach NPOV. Bertilvidet 17:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Josef? They made fun of the idea that Mary was a virgin (and suggesting Clinton as a possible father ...). This is a catholic NoNo! MX44 17:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a bit of a surprise

Marithé François Girbaud had an ad taken down a year ago it seems. http://news.spirithit.com/index/culture_art/more/church_in_france_wins_ban_of_last_supper_ad/ Commercial ads are much more restricted than political satire, of course, but this seems harmless enough. Does anyone know anything more about this?DanielDemaret 19:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Salman Rushdie and 11 other intellectuals speak out in a "MANIFESTO"

http://www.jp.dk/indland/artikel:aid=3585740/

I think this somehow should be included in the article, because the cartoon-affair is linked to Rushdie. Can someone place this in the article somehow ? ( I dont know how )—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.81.128 (talk • contribs)


  • Wow, this is a big deal and definitely needs to be included in the article... just for the fact that Salman Rushdie, Ayaan hirsi Ali, and Taslima Nasreen have signed it alone (all having references in 'our' article as it stands now). It appears that most of the signatories are either Muslim or of Arabic descent judging by the names. Netscott 03:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I agree this is definitely related and relavent and should be watched for future developments. RichardRB 04:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I added an english link about this yesterday to the timeline. Are you saying it should also be written more in detail somewhere else in the article? What would be the best place? Opinions? Or Main? DanielDemaret 09:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC
It seems the muslim protest in court against that mag (Charlie Hebdo) failed . http://www.newswiretoday.com/news/3453/
By the way, I think I saw that Charlie Hebdo is or was a Belgian Satirical Cartoonist. Does anyone know more? His style or his untimely death may be relevant to why this particular mag chose to publish. DanielDemaret 09:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC) probably not. I just got the pun, since it translates as 'Charlie WeeklyMag'.DanielDemaret 09:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


It seems the original Manifesto that the danish text refers to, is simply a reference to the french text in Charle. http://www.faithfreedom.org/Announcement/603012022.htm DanielDemaret 09:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
To me, signature of Bernard-Henri Lévy founder of "the new philosophers" makes the manifesto heavy more than anything else. But perhaps thatis just me? Perhaps he is before your time?DanielDemaret 10:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I suspect that I'm younger than both of you, and to me, Bernard-Henri Lévy's inclusion is a big deal (but then, I'm female.. : ) Varga Mila 13:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


The response : http://agora.blogsome.com/2006/02/28/salman-rushdie-ayaan-hirsi-ali-et-al-slam-islamic-totalitarianism/ Lists 10 papers and about 300 blogs reciting the Manifesto after one day. And counting. DanielDemaret 14:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Well I'm inclined to think that the words of fellow muslims (and former muslims as the case may be) tend to have a bit more weight in this letter. Also I don't know Mr. Levy's racial background (and to me personally it's immaterial) but I do know that the last name of Levy is typically associated with members of the Jewish race..... and in the eyes of Islamists (particularly fanatical ones) such an endorsement would probably not carry any weight for this sole reason. Netscott 15:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe that this letter is going to develop into something of great significance relative to this controversy and so in view of that I've created an article entitled MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism to allow for inclusion and expansion of the developments concerning it. At this point the article needs further work and perhaps a title change... but the ball for it has started rolling now. Netscott 15:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I've been searching for the original (not translated) French version of this letter online but not yet had much success... perhaps someone else might be able to locate it? The letter's article very much needs the original version as it appeared in Charlie Hebdo. Netscott 16:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I have reasons to believe that all of these authors understand english, but not all french. An english original would then make sense.DanielDemaret 17:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Danish and Palestinian Reactions to the timeline

I am about to add 2 more links from March 1st to the timeline. Danish reaction: "Danish police asks the public to stop sending any more charges against the muslim community for hurting Denmark. The substance of the case does not change whether we get 5 or 500 letters." http://www.jp.dk/indland/artikel:aid=3586744:fid=11364/

Palestinian reaction "63% of Palestinians consider violence an appropriate response to cartoons" http://www.jp.dk/indland/artikel:aid=3587188:fid=11364/

DanielDemaret 12:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

63% makes it a "consensus" according to some local ways of thinking.DanielDemaret 12:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Change the introduction?

I think the current approach in the introduction is too argumentative and somewhat incongruous. Here is my suggestion of a different approach:

The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy began after editorial cartoons depicting the Islamic prophet Muhammad were published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten on September 30, 2005. Danish Muslim organizations staged protests in response. As the controversy grew, some or all of the cartoons were reprinted in newspapers for a variety of reasons in more than fifty other countries. As a result, violent protests against the cartoons occurred, particularily in the Islamic world.
Critics deemed the cartoons, variously, as culturally insulting, Islamophobic, and intended to humiliate, ostracize, and promote hatred of Muslims—arguably an increasingly marginalized group.
Additionally, Muslims believe the portrayal of Muhammad is blasphemous and criticized the cartoons based on their religious beliefs. Many of the violent protesters focused primarily or solely on the blasphemous nature of the cartoons rather than on issues of hatred or discrimination.
Most major newspapers did not reprint the cartoons in any context, editorial or otherwise. As a result, brought to the forefront of discussion was the issue of freedom of speech and the free press. Many supported the reprinting of the cartoons for various reasons and chastised media who did not reprint the cartoons for "self-censorship." Some intrepreted the message of the cartoons as purely a provocative commentary on free speech, irrespective of the engineering of this message, and supported what they saw as the primary message. Free speech was also discussed surrounding consideration of religious views and the media. The focus on blasphemy of the more violent responses was seen as dangerously autocratic to some, many of whom advocated reprinting the cartoons as dissension to the religious fanatical response.
Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen has described the controversy as Denmark's worst international crisis since World War II. [1]

I worked hard to get the ideas, instead of the arguments, into the introduction. I'm hoping it will cool the flames somewhat (which, apart from that I think the current introduction is the wrong approach, is one of the reasons why I think it should be rewritten). I'm open to suggestions for editing of course. What do the regulars here think? --Ben 13:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I happen to think that the current introduction does not need a complete rework and rather just needs a few touches. I particularly disagree with this part of your proposed rewrite, "arguably an increasingly marginalized group." as it appears as POV creep into the article. It is not WikiPedia's place to be arguing but merely presenting the arguments in as much of a NPOV as possible. Relative to the current intro, this proposed intro appears rambling and not very concise. This view is tempered by the fact that you don't appear to have done any editing at all relative to this whole controversy until this proposed change on this article's talk page. Netscott 14:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, the current intro already calls Muslims a "marginalized group," which is something which should be cited. That could already be considered POV by some people. I was considering that marginalization is a matter of perspective. In the Middle East Muslims are not marginalized, so it's an arguable point of where that perspective comes from. That can be changed if you want. I've also put some of what I wrote in italics which can be moved out. That would make my version 2 sentences longer. Your view can be tempered by the fact that I haven't edited it, that's ok with me, but that's more about me personally than what I have proposed. I understand some of you worked long and hard on the current version, but it doesn't read well to me.--Ben 22:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The citation was present when it was added. The Argument, and this is citing an argument - not fact, is that Muslims in Denmark (Not the world) are marginalised, and this was an attempt at humiliating them - rather than the collective Muslim world. --Irishpunktom\talk 22:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok I understand that now. If that's what is being referenced, it should say something like "...and intended to humiliate a marginalized minority in Denmark." To me, this creates a problem with the scope of the sentence, since many critics believe the cartoons are not a reference to Muslims in Denmark, but Muslims in general. Critics who believe the cartoons promote hatred are not necessarily concerned only with marginalized Muslims in Denmark. --Ben 23:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This idea of a 'marginalized group' isn't being stated as fact (or even argued in the article) but is being cited by the 'critics'. To further clarify the context of this statement, I've just inserted 'Danish' into the current version. The reasoning behind the removal (to this talk page) of the 4 references regarding 'marginalization' is found up above. Netscott 00:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
What if the critics do not think that it is a marginalized group? Or if the critics are saying Muslims in general or marginalized by the West? There's no room for those critics in that sentence now. --Ben 01:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The marginalized group part was originally added by Irishpunktom... (with the citations above) but what he added didn't specify which group of people the critics were claiming were maginalized... after Irishpunktom's last addition to this discussion it was clear that he meant in Denmark. As far as anyone claiming that Muslims in general are being marginalized by the west... your line is the first I've read to even mention the possibility. Such a possibility is highly doubtful for many reasons not the least of which would be the predominantly Muslim controlled global level of oil resources. Netscott 02:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Netscott and Daniel. This is too long and windy (and possibly argumentative). In addition, this blanket statement is incorrect: "Muslims believe the portrayal of Muhammad is blasphemous". There have been many portrayals of Muhammed by Muslims throughout history. In addition, while some Muslims hold this belief, others do not. Valtam 16:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure whether Muslims believe the portrayal of Muhammad is blasphemous is regardless of how many times He has been portrayed before ;). It could be changed to reference Islam, rather than Muslims. For example, "In the Islamic religion, portrayal of Muhammad is considered blasphmeous." That's a fact. That's why I said I was open to suggestions, and yours is a good and valid suggestion. The issues of promoting hatred and blasphemy I believe are more separate issues and are being conflated by being presented together. I think the current introduction is more argumentative than my version. There are "claims," which imply an alternative argument, not simply an alternative perspective. There is an argumentative "However" in there which I find incongruous in the argument (it implies a contradiction in terms which I don't find contradictory). The last sentence of the second paragraph, regarding what are called similar cartoons about other religions (and this similarity itself can manifest POV), does not have any context to explain the purpose of this argument either. It seems to me this point is a reference to the intensity of the reaction, but what is the point arguing? What is it counter to? Additionally I think the introduction unfairly divides people up into two camps: critics and supporters. I personally think the cartoons are offensive and promote hatred, but at the same time I am concerned about the issue of free speech, and think the self-censorship is a bad idea. Am I a "critic" or "supporter?" --Ben 22:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Ben, I'm sorry but this line "In the Islamic religion, portrayal of Muhammad is considered blasphmeous." is just false (it's a fact only in certain sects of Islamic faith). Have a look at the Shi'a view about the portrayal of Muhammad in images. As far as the contention that the cartoons are promoting hatred, I suggest you read this letter that discusses the fear of Islamist totalitarianism. It's true that the view that there are only two camps is simplistic but the intro hardly seems the place to immediately go into the various levels of debate relative to the cartoons with their corresponding viewpoints. If needed this idea that there are only two viewpoints could be broken up and explained to say something to the effect that there are several viewpoints... but to go into them there seems premature. Netscott 00:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Well it's not too hard to change it to "certain sects of Islam" to be more precise, is it? When it comes to promoting hatred, that's my personal view. I do not need to read anything about totalitarianism, why do you suggest I do? Please respect my perspective. I understand that some people fear Islamic totalitarianism, you've made that quite clear. These kinds of ideas are not that surprising to me, or likely for any historian. Nazis and other anti-Semites often railed and still rail against Jewish totalitarianism in their cartoons, it does not mean that these cartoons do not promote hatred of Jews as a way of furthering their argument through propaganda. The article is about the controversy, I think the introduction does a grave disservice to everyone by trying to play one side off the other with arguments that are not contradictory, and arguments that act and are presented as contradictory to entirely unstated ideas.--Ben 01:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, maybe you missed the point of my directing you to the 'Manifesto'. Your argument about Nazis and other anti-Semites isn't very strong... because one would expect anti-semites to do such things. The 'Manifesto' seems to be coming from a group predominantly consisting of fellow muslims or former muslims (particularly persecuted ones). Netscott 02:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
And I also think something is being missed here. Many protesters did not see the accompanying article on free speech, and only saw the cartoons. Are they critics of the article, or critics of the cartoons? --Ben 23:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Ben, again, sorry but "Many protesters did not see the accompanying article on free speech, and only saw the cartoons." is probably not too accurate of a statement either. Have a look at this map to see an apparent correlation between violent protests and lack of cartoon publication. Perhaps I'm wrong but in getting back to my point about your editing history regarding this controversy it just seems like you might not be as completely informed about the topic as the other editors who've been working on this article for some time are. Don't get me wrong though, I think the more people editing a given article, generally the better balanced the article will be... but that's particularly true if the editors are well informed. Netscott 01:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that that statement is very accurate. If I remember correctly, only the pictures were distributed in the Middle East, and I'm not aware of protesters protesting about the content of the article, they are protesting about the cartoons, right? And was the article printed when the cartoons were not in that map you are showing me? Otherwise I do not see the contradiction. --Ben 01:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The part that is probably wrong is the idea that the protestors 'saw' the cartoons. That is the whole point of the map. If the map is any indication, then it's likely that the majority of protestors neither read the article nor saw the cartoons themselves. Netscott 02:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Getting back to your point about my editing history, I am concerned why you would bring this up again. I find it disconcerting you are trying to discredit my points and perspective this way. Can you please focus on my points and perspective instead? I understand you may believe I am misinformed about an issue or issues, but I do not know what those happen to be. Certainly I admit some of my points, such as blasphemy and Islam, are imprecise, but why focus on those instead of the crux of the point? Regardless, I understand you believe I am doing something wrong, whatever it may be. You don't need to bring up my newcomer status again, I get the point. --Ben 01:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Well as a fellow editor it just surprises me to see someone coming in seemingly out of the blue wanting to make such prominent changes for their first edit on an article that so many other editors have put so much time into. I do agree with Daniel though and appreciate the fact that you didn't just unilaterally make changes without any prior discussion. Netscott 02:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Netscott, thanks for the discussion. I think I am going to wait and see if anyone can offer another perspective on my proposed changes.--Ben 05:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Ben, thank you very much for asking and presenting your suggestion here before editing the article. That was immensely better than those who previously just changed wholesale.I would also like the intro to be improved. But it will probably happen by fine-tuning it. DanielDemaret 16:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok. What do you think should be changed in the current introduction? Like I said it does not sit well with me, and I would appreciate hearing what any alternative suggestions are. --Ben 22:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Most of all, I want the intro not to be too long for the casual reader. (Don't read further in my text if you only want suggestions for improvements) An intro should get the gist, and then let people get into details by reading all the many sections and subsections of this article, and by reading all 14+ archived discussions if they really want to get into it. In this case, there are so many twists and turns that it is hard. Unfortunately, in this artice I feel we have either we bring the entire article with all its claims and counterclaims into the intro, or we let the intro be just an intro. As to what specific changes I would like , well : I have tried to formulate these on paper before, but each time I get a result just such as yours, then I see that this will not do, since it is both too long and too POV, I try to expand on it to make it NPOV, and it gets bigger, some other part gets POV, etc. Would you like me to make a deconstructive analysis on you suggestion instead? I will not make any more suggestions until I think it will improve the heading. Each small suggestion I have made so far has been validly refuted. I have therefore limited myself to stacking new events in the timeline subsection, and to discuss issues that might develop a new structure both to the intro and the entire article. My main concern with the article is that it simply stacks claims and events on top of each other, but that it is slightly lacking in overall explanation, not because we have not had a gazzillion suggestions as to what the overall problem is - we have had plenty - but because each suggestion as to explanation has been reasonably well refuted as not being able to explain everything. DanielDemaret 10:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, please deconstruct! I see a few problems with it myself now but more perspective would be great. I could also deconstruct the current one too if you want to know, in more detail, why I think it is problematic. --Ben 22:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

what did Frank Hvam say about the Koran?

in the Self-censorship section, it used to read that he stated that he dared not satarize the Koran, now it says that he dare not urinate on it. There is no citation, and the Frank Hvam article makes no comment on the situation. I'm reverting to "satarize" because the "urinate" change was made by an anonymous editor without any explanation. I'd like to see a citation of this fact. Maybe we should just take the whole thing out until someone digs up the original source. AdamRetchless 16:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Urinate is a bad translation error. Frank Hvam said he is afraid of making fun of the Koran. He originally used the phrase “tage pis på” (which means “to make fun of”), whereas the word “pis” by itself can translate as “piss”. DanielDemaret 17:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This is the link to the original article, where this statement is made. It is the article that started the whole thing.

http://www.jp.dk/login?url=indland/artikel:aid=3293102:fid=11146 Use this as a citation. It is, after all, the original. DanielDemaret 17:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It is correct to say that he has declared that he dare not satirize the Quran.
But there is slight twist - which however I think is a case of the journalist misunderstanding and misrepresenting Hvam.
"Jeg opdagede, at jeg ikke tør pisse på Koranen for åben skærm. Det gjorde mig frustreret, fordi jeg er blevet opdraget til, at alle kan ytre sig om, hvad de har lyst til. Det er voldsomt provokerende, at nogle mennesker på den måde kan true en til at holde mund," siger Frank Hvam. Det er ikke fordi, han har lyst til at tisse på Koranen. Han ved heller ikke, hvorfor han skulle gøre det. Det ville ikke være specielt sjovt, mener han. :"Men alligevel skal man have lov til det. Man skal have lov til at udtrykke sig på den måde, hvis man føler for det," siger han, mens han kigger ned i båndoptageren, tager sig god tid og overvejer sine ord grundigt"
In the first sentence Hvam says that he discovered that he dare not 'piss on the Quoran on TV'.
The journalist later on rephrases this as (essentially) 'urinating on the Quoran'. However, the phrase 'pisse på koranen' (as Hvam phrased it) is, amongst younger people more likely to mean 'take the piss out of' (i.e. satirize). Varga Mila 17:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest "Jeg opdagede, at jeg ikke tør pisse på Koranen for åben skærm." is best translated as "It dawned on me I wouldn't dare piss all over the Koran on TV." Zenopus 22:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

But in the link to JP above he does not say "tør pisse på". He says "tør tage pis på". DanielDemaret 22:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Besides, if we have to dissect it, then In the sentence following, that which you translated, Zenopus, he uses the word 'ytre' when saying that he was raised, being taught that everyone can 'ytre' themselves about whatever they please. 'Ytre' can indeed mean the general 'express' (which might include actions, such as 'pissing all over the Koran on TV'), but is by far the most often used to describe the act of expressing oneself verbally'.Varga Mila

No matter if the journalist paraphrased Hvam or not, to "pisse op og ned ad ryggen" (piss up and down the back) and "pisse på" (piss on) is equally used as Danish terms of putting someone down, so please don't even consider taking the words literally! The most baroque thing about this is, that no idiot (not even Hvam) would urinate on the Koran, Bible, or any other holy book in the first place, so the refusal to urinate holds no value at all, because *noone* would make that their act, least of all a stand-up comedian busy in mainstream television entertainment. Poulsen 22:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe there is some confusion here - probably my mistake. I was trying to find out wherefrom the possible misrepresentation of 'pissing on the Koran' emanated. The writings from which I was quoting were not from JP but from the following (not a rigid source by any standard, but it may go some way to explain why someone would revert 'satirize' to 'urinate' in the article) : http://zulu.tv2.dk/programmer/article.php?id=2909459
Here is the correct link to the observer article, btw: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,,1702538,00.html Varga Mila 23:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I just took the text Varga Mila had quoted from Zulu earlier - it seems Zulu misquoted? It may be a moot point now but to clarify; in daily conversation I would not understand "to piss all over (something)" to mean to urinate on (something). Zenopus 00:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I do not know what Frank Hvam ment in that article, but Flemming Rose used "Urinate" in his Op-Ed "Why I Published Those Cartoons", futher more, at first glance the article on Zulu seems to be identical with the article in Jyllands-Posten september 18 2005.... so if there is a misquote, then it is JyllandsPosten's journalist's misquote.
Am I the only one who is confused? If we only look at Frank Hvam's statement in the article on Zulu, then there is nothing to suggest that he meant that he would like to piss on the Koran and in the article, "The face of Muhammed" Flemming Rose uses the expression "tage pis på" which can only mean "to satirise". However, if we look at the journalist's statement in the interview with Frank Hvam, then there's no doubt that the journalist interpretated Hvam's statement as if he wanted to "piss on the Koran", which is an interpretation that Flemming Rose is also using in his Op-Ed Hekatombe 00:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Unless the editors misinterpreted, and changed Flemmings statement. Happens a lot. Seems we need to get a letter from Frank himself if we are ever going to get to the bottom of this. Perhaps we should be careful, and settle for some neutral statement like perhaps "insult the koran" or something? DanielDemaret 01:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, a search in www.infomedia.dk (database of Danish newspaper articles) wielded this open letter (læserbrev): "Debat: Bangebuks versus Kulturminister" (Debate: Scaredy-cat versus Minister of Culture), Weekendavisen, 7th October 2005, 3rd section, Bøger, p.7 - a quote of the essential:

... det har jeg ment bogstaveligt. Jeg tør ikke lave en sketch, hvor jeg hiver min kødelige penis frem og urinerer på en autoriseret Koran.

Direct translation:

... this I have meant litterally. I dare not make a sketch comedy, were I pull my carnal penis forth and urinate on an authorized Koran.

Didn't see that one coming. Poulsen 01:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it seems his full intention was to say he had no problem satirizing islam (and had done so in a number of cases), but was afraid of a minor group of radical muslims. He likens it to pissing on rockers' emblems, he is not wary of the cultural groups in general (Danes/Muslims), but the radical minorities (Rockers/Fundamentalists). Poulsen 01:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

One of the cartoonists daughter sought out by 12 muslim men at her school

This piece of news should definately be added to the article. http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2006/03/02/210949.htm Here in english from a blog http://agora.blogsome.com/category/denmark/jyllands-posten/

A small addition from TV 2 News: Rhode has later told Ritzau that he got the information during a meeting with "bladtegnere" (Rough translation of "blandtegnere" could be "Illustrationists for the magazines") Hekatombe 00:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
'N here is the printed version: http://www.jp.dk/indland/artikel:aid=3590798/ (in Danish)Varga Mila 00:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I see it is in the timeline subsection now. Do you think it should also go into the main article? DanielDemaret 10:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Definitely.Varga Mila 10:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
The more I think about it, the more I think we should wait until there is confirmation, of Rohde's statement, by PET or an other branche of the Danish Police. Hekatombe 12:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Note that the time of this event is not known. We only know that it was revealed (by accident?) yesterday. MX44 12:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Acording to this, the chairman of Dansk Journalistforbund (Danish Journalists Association) accuses Rohde for having distorted the facts and says that he exaggerated. Hekatombe 15:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice if the story turns out to be a simple exaggeration. Given however, that the chairman does not provide ANY explanation in exchange for Rohde's, is it not possible that prime motivator of the Danish Journalists Association is that it does not want to provide any more support for the government than that which has already implicitly been claimed by the government. The are a lot of 'internal' politics being fought out on the cartoon stage. We should certainly leave it out of the main article for momentVarga Mila 15:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Agree. And apparently Rohde got the information from a closed meeting. This issue takes the Danish headlines for the moment. As we are not a news service, I suggest we wait at least 24 hours in order to see how it develops before including it in the article.Bertilvidet 15:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Would anybody object if I removed it from the Timeline? (Or else, this should be added to the Timeline) Hekatombe 16:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

According to this - it never happened anyway. Zenopus 21:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Has this been further verified or disproven, or was anything further ever said on it? RichardRB 05:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
No, but since that the cartoonist him self says that Jens Rohde lied, then I very much doubt that there is anything more to be said in this case. Hekatombe 08:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The cartoonist was furious and said that the 12 men were 4-6 school children and it was unrelated to the cartoons. This might be interesting for understanding how some Danish politicians try to swindle the crisis in order to gain domestical popularity...but I think however it seems a bit out of scope for this article. Bertilvidet 09:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

A small addtion to Bertilvidet's explaination of the article: The "4-6 school children" was "4-6 school girls at the age of 10-11". Hekatombe 11:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. And good work on getting it off Wiki as soon as you did. :) RichardRB 13:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Two suggestions for improved readability

For better readability,

1. I think that the overview should be expanded and perhaps restructured to at least mention more recent high-lights, e g total number of deaths and the Manifesto, the children of cartoonists under threat in school and perhaps put all the subsequent sections into a more coherent context.

2. I wonder if perhaps most of the other subsections should be moved into sub-articles to get a better overview of the entire article.

For example, one might

Move to new sub-article, but keep a one-sentence explanation here of: Descriptions of the drawings, Publication of the drawings , Judicial investigation of Jyllands-Posten, Danish Imams tour the Middle East, Reprinting in other newspapers, Danish journalistic tradition, Islamic tradition

Keep section here: Debate about self-censorship (it is central), Jyllands-Posten response ( it is short), International reactions (Already moved), Economic and human costs (Already moved) DanielDemaret 10:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

In my view, yes to both of your suggestions.Varga Mila 12:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Approve. It will indeed make the article more clear. Bertilvidet 12:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Strong agree. The more recent events (including the MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism letter should be readily available). Netscott 20:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for declining to draw cartoons

In the article it says: "Rose eventually received twelve cartoons from different cartoonists for the project and published the cartoons accompanied by an article on self-censorship and freedom of speech."

As far as I recall, some (few/many?) of the approached cartoonists declined with reference to fear of reprisal from Islamists (as in the case of Blutigen's book). Should the sentence above not be rephrased so as to include and clarify this point (admittedly it is alluded to, but one only draws that conclusion, if one already knows about it) ? Varga Mila 12:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It should be explicit. DanielDemaret 12:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps start off the message with : "Although some cartoonists declined with reference to fear of reprisal ..." ?. A citation is necessary before the edit.DanielDemaret 12:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Guess it should be mentioned. However, as I recall it there were various reasons for not wishing to draw cartoons - some also declined because because of respect for Muslims. This should also be mentioned. Bertilvidet 12:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I guess it stalls here until we get a reference..Varga Mila 12:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Citation from the article "Face of Muhammed":
"Kun 25 ud af 40 er aktive, og nogle af de aktive er underlagt en konkurrenceklausul. Enkelte har argumenteret for deres nej til at deltage, andre har henvist til presserende arbejdsopgaver, mens atter andre slet ikke har givet lyd fra sig.".
The artcile says that 25 out of 40 of the illustrators are active. Some of the active illustrators declided due to non-competition clause that they have signed. Some of them declided due to "more urgent assignments". While the rest of them didn't reply. There is nothing to suggest, that any of them declined due to fear. Hekatombe 12:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
"Enkelte har argumenteret for deres nej til at deltage" might suggest anything. But we can not use this to show anything, of course.DanielDemaret 13:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I am however quite sure that I have either read in a newspaper (on the net) that some declined out fear of reprisal, or heard it said on a news program on Danish TV (DR1 or DR2). It seems that more details have been put forward than the ones that you translated, Hekatombe, as BertilVidet also refer to additional information.Varga Mila
I back up Mila on this one. Remember that Jyllands-Postens "project" was launched as part of the ongoing discussion about Bluitgens book. I am sure the 40 artists either were aware of this debate or were made aware of this in Jyllands-Postens request to them. However I have no source for this POV. I would still claim that it is highly likely that some of the declines were based in fear. It seems unlikely that it was virtually impossible to find illustrators to the childrens book because there was so much fear, but that the cartoonists were willing to draw Muhammad for an article in Denmarks biggest newspaper. Some of those declining due to "more urgent assignment" could also very well be declining out of fear for this particular job.
Ongoing discussion about the book? You mean that this article was not a solo "out-of-the-blue" article? Would you, by any chance, have any reference you might share with us? DanielDemaret 13:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Well you can read this in the Wikipedia article: On September 17, 2005, the Danish newspaper Politiken ran an article under the headline "Dyb angst for kritik af islam"[11] ("Profound fear of criticism of Islam"). The article discussed the difficulty encountered by the writer Kåre Bluitgen, who was initially unable to find an illustrator who was prepared to work with Bluitgen on his children's book Koranen og profeten Muhammeds liv ("The Qur'an and the prophet Muhammad's life"). Three artists declined Bluitgen's proposal before an artist agreed to assist anonymously.

Here is a rather interesting reference. The daily Politiken (Profetens ansigt: Ingen selvcensur blandt tegnere Politiken 20. oktober 2005, 2. sektion, side 3) made a poll among 31 of the 43 members of the Danish cartoonist association. 23 are willing to draw Muhammad. One doubts, one refuses because of fear for reprisals, 6 cartoonists refuse to make the drawings because they respect the Muslim ban on depicting the prophet. 15 of the 31 cartoonists reject the Jyllands-Posten's project:

Men det er ikke et problem at finde en tegner, som vil afbilde profeten. Politiken har talt med 31 af de i alt 43 medlemmer af foreningen Danske Bladtegnere, og af dem frygter kun én at tegne Muhammed. Rundspørgen viser, at 23 tegnere ville tegne Muhammed i morgen, hvis de fik opgaven. Én er i tvivl, én siger nej af frygt for repressalier, mens 6 tegnere afviser at tegne Muhammed – ikke fordi de frygter hævnakter, men fordi de respekterer muslimernes forbud mod at tegne profeten. Derudover tager 15 ud af de 31 adspurgte tegnere afstand fra Jyllands- Postens projekt. Bertilvidet 14:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! And interesting. But difficult to integrate succinctly.Varga Mila 14:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

That is all good and fair Bertilvidet. But can you then please explain why the person actually depicting Kaare Bluitgens book has insisted on anonymity ?. And perhaps you can also explain why only 31 out of 43 members were asked ?.


Perhaps 43-31=12 were inactive? Anyway, we do not have to be succinct. It must be incorporated, but not in the intro, so space is not a problem. A reference to Politiken, preferably with a date, is fine, but a reference to the article on the web would of course be even better. The spread of opinion among the cartoonist mirrors the spread of opinions everywhere in the world on this event. DanielDemaret 14:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I am afraid I cannot answer these questions. The illustrator of Bluitgen's book is maybe one of the appearantly few Danish illustrators fearing reprisals. I would guess the daily Politiken didnt manage to reach all members of the association before their deadline (and maybe some refused to participate in the poll). None of these questions are answered in the article. Unfortunately the article is not accesible online; I found it through Infomedia, the Danish equivalant to LexisNexisBertilvidet 14:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
If this points to that there was only one cartoonist afraid, that would indeed be interesting and a bit surprising. Bluitgen himself seems to have claimed that he had trouble finding illustrators, and the one illustrator that finally made the book is anonymous. But what other reference to this claim is there besides the JP claim. To think that wikipedia would be turned into a specialized kind of Investigative Journalists that only hunt for references, rather than facts :) .DanielDemaret 14:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
1) The JP "claim" is nothing but a quote of the Politiken article "Dyb angst for kritik af islam" (see main article). 2) The people Bluitgen asked are not identical to the people JP asked - Bluitgen's book has and artist illustrating the Koran and Muhammad, while JP asked cartoonists (who Politiken then made the mentioned survey amongst). The answers from one group (cartoonists) can not be transfered to the other (artists). Poulsen 17:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
In an article that was published in Politiken ("Islam: Dyb angst for kritik af islam") Bluitgen says that one illustrator declined illustrating the book and says that the illusatrator had refered to the murder of Theo van Gogh as the reason. While another refered to an episode at "Carsten Niebuhr Instituttet in København" and a 3rd had started, but he stopped because Bluitgen insisted that he should draw Muhammed from the front. Bluitgen didn't say why the 4th illusatrator wanted to remain anonymous. Hekatombe 15:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
So there was obviously more than one person who feared the consequenses of illustrating Bluitgens book?
Yes. Hekatombe 18:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Returning to Article content...

I have taken the liberty to attach a non-satirical pictorial representation of Muhammad to the section 'Islamic Tradition'. The picture stems from a book from 1683 (View of all Religions in the World), and was already uploaded and attached to another WP article. Do however please let me know if it is inappropriate.Varga Mila 10:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I see Raphael removed the picture. Personally, I don't think that particular portrait is relevant to the section, because the section is on Islamic tradition, and the portrait in question was not painted by a Muslim. However, Wikipedia also includes some portraits of Muhammad painted by Shia Muslims, which undoubtedly would be relevant to the section. I would not object to inclusion of one of those pictures. Babajobu 10:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Prior to reading this 'Talk' entry I too came to the same conclusion as Babajobu and have since replaced the image with one that better corresponds to the idea of 'Islamic tradition'. Netscott 20:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The picture you put there is from persia, which has nothing to do with the cartoon controversy. Raphael1 02:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Once again, it's important on a contextual basis. RichardRB 05:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Please explain the context. In what way is persia related to the Muhammed controversy? Raphael1 12:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm really starting to think your're trolling. Maybe, this picture is in the section it is, because it is a relevant witness to the question of portraying Mohammad in an intra-inslamic context? Persia -> predominantly muslim, you know? Azate 19:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
[Try here, perhaps?] MX44 20:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, I can see the context now: The iranian president speaks about "offending what is holy to one and a half billion Muslims" in a country, where 700 years ago someone made a picture of Mohammed.
I find another question of the president rather interesting: "How come this affront, which was committed two months ago by some newspaper in a certain county, was constantly repeated in countries in central and western Europe?" Doesn't that mean, that the republishing of the cartoons by Wikipedia is perceived as another affront? Raphael1 02:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Well ... The same fair and balanced source will also tell you: "I assume that a profound Zionist plot is at the core of the matter. They are setting the Muslims and Christians against one another. This is very important for the Zionists — to set the great Muslim community around the world against the Christians, and to set the Christians against the Muslims. That's what this is about. This is the handiwork of the Zionists." ... Not that I for even one second would ever think that he is using JP to push an otherwise unrelated political agenda, the unfinished holocaust (which is apparently not regarded as offensive.)
Anyway, I am glad you figured the Persian connection out. The fact that this painting is 700 years old gives weight to the words like traditional, as opposed to words like opportunistic. MX44 03:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I never said, that your source is fair and balanced. And since offense is in the eye of the beholder, that doesn't matter anyway. Raphael1 01:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Varga Mila, we should compile an Article for pictorial representation of Muhammad if there is none already. -- Connection 01:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Tradition

There is a new picture today in the section on Islamic Tradition. I like the idea as such, but shouldn't it preferably be an Arabic or Persian picture? MX44 10:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

it'll be better to find another image, but for now it will do. PS User:Raphael1 please, don't remove this image. --tasc 10:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The Farsi Wikipedia article on Muhammad includes the new image, but also includes this image of Muhammad as a boy: [1]. That article also used to include another Shia drawing of Muhammad as a man, but it actually seems to have been replaced by the 1683 drawing. Babajobu 11:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Alternative depictions can be found in Siyer-i Nebi MX44 11:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
That one image for the cartoons is good enough, if we add another one, it will be worse and we will have more page vandalisms here. --Terence Ong 11:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep the image. No reason to cave into anyone. Revert vandalism is easy and worth it in this case--Looper5920 11:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
@Tasc Please explain, why this picture is relevant information in the cartoon controversy article? Raphael1 12:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The cartoons are satirical representations, while the said picture is non-satirical. It is relevant because it underscores that it is not the depiction of Muhammad as such that set off the controversy.Varga Mila 12:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think, that every muslim agrees, that the depiction of Muhammad as such did not set off the controversy. IMHO this is an unfounded claim. Raphael1 12:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
it is well documented. Most of the riots took place in countries where the cartoons were not reprinted, wherefore it stands to reason that most protesters had heard about the cartoons but not seen them. dab (ᛏ) 12:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Just because most protesters have not seen the cartoons, does not mean they can't be insulted by the depiction of Muhammad publication of a Mohammed picture . Excuse me that analogy, but it is obvious, that everybody will be offended by the rape of one's wife even if one doesn't have to watch it. Raphael1 13:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Am I supposed to be offended now that you have suggested to rape my wife? I assume you already made a cartoon, no? Please, try to come up with something sensible. MX44 13:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Clearly, Raphael has not suggested that anyone's wife be raped. He has pointed out that you would be offended by such an action, even if you did not see it. Johntex\talk 17:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
He (and only he!) created that sick image! MX44 18:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, obviously there is a difference between rape and cartoon. Don't you think? --tasc 17:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course there is. That's why I called it an analogy. Raphael1 17:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
So? Was it that You wanted to demonstrate Your cunningness in empty rhetorics? Oh! MX44 19:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
That's the whole point. People are offended that the JP made fun of Muhammed regardless of whether the images are on Wikipedia. Just like people are outraged with what the Americans did in Abu Ghraib, regardless of whether there are images on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has pictures of both the Muhammad cartoons and the prisoner abuse. No person in their right mind would accuse Wikipedia of prisoner abuse now, would they? dab (ᛏ) 16:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I guess you don't mind looking at the MC "A nervous caricaturist, shakily drawing Muhammad while looking over his shoulder.". If the cartoon is funny, it is because of an exaggeration. Nobody really believes, that anyone would be afraid of drawing a Mohammed picture at home. The publication of the cartoons has been the offense and the 3rd sentence of our article "As the controversy has grown, some or all of the cartoons have been reprinted in newspapers in more than fifty other countries, leading to violent protests, particularly in the Islamic world." implies, that republications escalated the conflict even more. I know it seems odd, that I defend my "rape" analogy for "publication of MC", while I don't accept the "Abu Ghraib" analogy for "cartoon". But if you make an effort to understand me, you'll find out why. Raphael1 17:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Finally Raphael, our 'humble opinions' on this matter are immaterial. Among other things, the image underscores the sentence immediately below it: "According to the BBC "It is the satirical intent of the cartoonists, and the association of the Prophet with terrorism, that is so offensive to the vast majority of Muslims."[74]""Varga Mila 12:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Varga for telling us your opinion. IMHO the image does not underscore the sentence, instead it's a provocation that may test the claim of the BBC journalist. Raphael1 13:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit war

Can the honourable editors discuss their difference of opinion regarding

Most contemporary Muslims believe that ordinary portraits and photos, films and illustrations, are permissible. Only some Salafi and Islamist interpretations of Sunni Islam still condemn pictorial representations of any kind. Offensive or satirical pictures are a different case — disrespect to Islam or to Muhammad is still widely considered blasphemous or sacrilegious, and blasphemy is seen as a kind of apostasy, which many Muslims believe should be punished by death, though not all Muslims agree that this is the only or correct interpretation.

in stead of deleting-inserting-deleting-inserting (et cetera) what they think is (in)correct?--Holland Nomen Nescio 12:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that paragraph is fair, balanced, and verifiable. It was also quite stable before Raphael1 changed it; I would think the onus is on him to explain the change. I'm quite willing to discuss it, and I didn't (and still don't) want to get into an edit war about it. --Ashenai 13:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I changed the article to
Salafi and Islamist interpretations of Sunni Islam condemn pictorial representations of any kind. Offensive or satirical pictures, disrespect to Islam or to Muhammad is widely considered blasphemous or sacrilegious, and blasphemy is seen as a kind of apostasy, which many Muslims believe should be punished by death, though not all Muslims agree that this is the only or correct interpretation.
because the first sentence is an unfounded claim and because the words "still" implies that something will or should change which is POV. Raphael1 13:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the 'original' sentence - Being unfamiliar with the details of facts of the sentence, I do agree with Raphael1 that the first 'still' is POW - and could be removed. The second 'still' however has a different meaning, and is, in my opinion, not POV. The rest of the sentence contains relevant information, and is, as stated by Ashenai, 'fair and balanced'Varga Mila 13:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Please see the Islam section of our article on aniconism. You will find plenty of sources for the claim there.
As for the word "still" implying that something will or should change, I am simply not seeing that. Let's see: "While our knowledge of physics has advanced commesurately since the mid-20th century, Einstein's theory of relativity is still considered to be valid today.
Do you feel the above usage of "still" to also imply that the situation will or should change? If not, what makes it different? --Ashenai 13:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't see the first "still". Yes,I agree, that does seem quite a bit more gray-area. I'd be happy with removing that. --Ashenai 13:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


In view of the above, might I suggest the following?

While some Salafi and Islamist interpretations of Sunni Islam condemn pictorial representations of any kind, most contemporary Muslims believe that ordinary portraits and photos, films and illustrations, are permissible. Offensive or satirical pictures are a different case — disrespect to Islam or to Muhammad is still widely considered blasphemous or sacrilegious, and blasphemy is seen as a kind of apostasy, which many Muslims believe should be punished by death, though not all Muslims agree that this is the only or correct interpretation. --Ashenai 13:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

In this case, I agree with Raphael. If we're going to make a broad statement about "most contemporary Muslims", then I think there should be some sort of citation of such. If one cannot be found, I think we should at least change the wording to "many contemporary Muslims". Although at the same time, there should probably be a citation if we are going to make a broad statement about the Salafi and Islamist interpretations. In the mean time, "some Salafi and Islamist interpretations" (as proposed by Ashenai) would be appropriate. --JerryOrr 13:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Open any North African, Turkish, Arabic or Iranian newspaper and/or magazine. Tune in any TV-station, they all have pictures ... MX44 14:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't have access to any North African, Turkish, Arabic or Iranian newspapers, magazines, or TV-stations. Furthermore, you can't expect the typical Wikipedia reader to have such access. Let's see a source. On Wikipedia, we like to cite our sources. --JerryOrr 14:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
For starters try http://www.irna.com (The Iranian National News Agency), then you could also have a peek at al-Jazeera http://aljazeera.net ... There is also one Egyptian magazine shown in the very article you are editing. How many sources do you want? Here is one more: http://www.eyoon.com/1/ and I can continue like this in absurdum ... MX44 14:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, those links do not provide the information in question. Perhaps there are articles on those sites that would provide evidence that "most contemporary Muslims believe that ordinary portraits and photos, films and illustrations, are permissible" , and that "Salafi and Islamist interpretations of Sunni Islam condemn pictorial representations of any kind". Since I can see that you are interested in properly citing this article, I assume you would be more than happy to find some specific citations for the previous statements. --JerryOrr 14:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
You are saying that the fact that there are pictures just about everywhere (also on billboards and outside cinemas(!)) doesn't count? Anyway, here is a list of relevant national TV-stations: http://www.arab.de/arab-television.html MX44 15:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
A "portrait" mosts Saudies will accept ;-) MX44 15:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
And that is Muhammed? What country is that from? I'm afraid I can't read Arabic, so if it says so on the bill, I can't tell. And are you also saying that Salafis and Islamists would not accept it?
Honestly, if it is common knowledge (as you seem to think) that most contemporary Muslims are fine with ordinary images of Muhammed, and Salafis and Islamists are not fine with them, then it really shouldn't be very difficult for you to find a source that states it. I am not saying I disagree with those statements; but I have yet to see any evidence, and thus I do not feel the article should state it as a fact. We should be very careful with generalizations... --JerryOrr 15:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Now wait a minute! We were discussing portraying of humans in general, not Muhammad, and I am saying that anybody would have accepted a Saudi Arabian 1 riyal bill back in '77 but today people will probably rather have a peek at 500 MX44 16:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Um, you're kidding, right? I figured it was pretty clear that we were talking about images of Muhammed, considering that is the subject of this entire article. --JerryOrr 16:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I think MX44 simply aimed to back up the following sentence "While some Salafi and Islamist interpretations of Sunni Islam condemn pictorial representations of any kind, most contemporary Muslims believe that ordinary portraits and photos, films and illustrations, are permissible." Fascinating as it is, the word "MOST" still call for a 'proper' reference. Alternatively you might use the word "many" and then link to the image as an example?Varga Mila 16:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Please let me cut the sentence: Most contemporary Muslims believe that ordinary portraits and photos, films and illustrations, are permissible. because it is misleading. In that context nobody would asume, that it should mean portraying of humans in general. The sentence is irrelevant in an article about images of Muhammed. Raphael1 02:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
it's a dependent clause, dependent on "some interpretations of Sunni Islam condemn pictorial representations of any kind". How can this not be clear to people with an attention span of more than half a second? And it is hard to imagine how the "films and photography" part may be taken to refer to Muhammad by any half intelligent reader. Also, it is impossible to discuss the absence of depictions of Muhammad without discussing the history of [complete] aniconism in Islam. The Muhammad bit is just the part that happens to linger on while the more general interdiction has long since been worn away. dab (ᛏ) 13:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Gary Larson Cartoon

Gary Larson have made a cartoon years ago featuring Mohammad and a mountain. The sceene of the cartoon shows Mohammad in a small house with a mountain waiting at the front door. The caption goes something like this "Not expecting any visitors, Mohammad wondered who was at the door". This cartoon did not give rise to any protest or riots that I am aware of, and I admit that I find the cartoon quite amusing (and uninsulting). I suggest that this cartoon is shown in this article as an example of a Mohammed cartoon that did not result in any row, thus illustrating that the current events is driven by more than mere cartoons. Perhaps someone have the cartoon, and could upload it and link it to the talk page, so people can decide if this is a good idea or not? Comment added by Maasha

If you want to report about other cartoons, I'd suggest to start a new page. This article is about the "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons" Raphael1 13:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Why? The context is relevant. Unfortunately, I rather doubt we could do what you suggest, though I do think I remember the comic you have in mind. It is unlikely to be justifiable as fair use, and so in order to avoid violating copyright restrictions, we would have to obtain Mr. Larson's permission. Not a bad idea though, and it would be cool if someone could at least confirm the comic's existence. If nothing else, it might make an interesting footnote to the article. RichardRB 14:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah, here we go. You are correct, Maasha, Larson did in fact do a cartoon on Mohammed. You'll need to scroll down to see it though. We already link to the Mohammed image archive in the article, so mentioning the Larson cartoon specifically is probably unnecessary. Thanks for contributing. RichardRB 15:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
That phrase, and thus the cartoon, have nothing to do with the Prophet Muhammad. --Irishpunktom\talk 12:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Really? I admit I've never looked into the origin, yet I always assumed that it did. Do you have any source about the origin of the phrase? adavidw 04:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I like the idea. Any volunteers to write Larson and request permission? Durova 19:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
From "Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings" (1996: IF THE MOUNTAIN WILL NOT COME TO MOHAMMED, MOHAMMED WILL GO TO THE MOUNTAIN - "If one cannot get one's own way, one must adjust to the inevitable. The legend goes that when the founder of Islam was asked to give proofs of his teaching, he ordered Mount Safa to come to him. When the mountain did not comply, Mohammed raised his hands toward heaven and said, 'God is merciful. Had it obeyed my words, it would have fallen on us to our destruction. I will therefore go to the mountain and thank God that he has had mercy on a stiff-necked generation.' The saying has been traced back in English to 'Essays,' (1625) by English philosopher Frances Bacon (1561-1626). It was included in John Ray's book of English proverbs in 1678. Azate 17:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Problem with that book, because it was Muhammad II, you know, the guy who took Constantinople from Christendom, who famously demanded the mountain come to him. It didn't --Irishpunktom\talk 11:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Islamic tradition text is a disaster

I think the islamic tradition part is really poor, because the unwillingness of the majority to comprimise (linkimage the cartoons) already drew away most people, who know about islamic traditions. Who can tell us, why muslims don't want pictures of Mohammed? One thing is for sure: That tradition has already been in place before the words extremism and islamism even existed. Raphael1 03:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Im not sure what you saying, are you saying that because we are unwilling to hide the cartoons, the Islamic perspective is unable to be accuratly represented? Homestarmy 03:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes. This is because those people who know about the Islamic perspective are all gone now. Raphael1 11:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
What impressive omniscience. Varga Mila 11:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Note, that words "extremism and islamism" did not exist does not mean that aniconism is not an extreme position. That Galileo was not born yet does not mean the Earth was flat in 2000 bc.Holland Nomen Nescio 11:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
@Varga Mila Please prove me wrong: Who knows why islamic tradition forbids pictures of Mohammed? Raphael1 12:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
@Nomen Nescio What is considered "extreme" is relative and depends on your own POV. Besides we are not talking about aniconism here. We are talking about pictures of Muhammed. Raphael1 12:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
The prohibition of pictures is called aniconism. So this debate is based upon aniconism. How do you think aniconism is not relevant? Extreme is not a POV. Extreme is any position polarising opinion, or in other words, having a black and white view of the world without any nuance (i.e. you are either for us, or against us or, the only truth is in the Holy sriptures).--Holland Nomen Nescio 12:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
If aniconism is an extreme position, I'd say that "no censorship" is the other extreme. Not displaying an image of Mohammed (out of respect to muslim Wikipedians) lies somewhere between those two extremes. Raphael1 13:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Allowing everything is entirely different from trying to make information hard or impossible to obtain.Holland Nomen Nescio 13:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I don't understand. Who/What is "trying to make information hard or impossible to obtain", what are you referring to? Raphael1 13:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
.............Varga Mila 14:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
"because those people who know about the Islamic perspective are all gone now" (Raphael1). Ehm, no, we're not all turned off. I'm here. I say the prohibition of the display of pictures of Mohammed stems from suras 41 and 52. Check them out here [[2]]. Enter 41 & 52 and press "submit". A while ago, these two suras were mentioned (I inserted reference to them myself) in this very article. You need a lot of fantasy and handwringing to come to conclusions, and that's probably why they are mentioned no more. But, as far as the Koran goes, these are the two relevant suras, to the best of my knowledge. I you know better, you're welcome to enlighten me. Azate 19:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't know either. I wish, there would be people around, who don't need fantasy to come to conclusions, but have a muslim background and therefore know about the Islamic perspective. Raphael1 01:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
No need to be implicitly insulting, Raphael1. Azate has throughout these discussions displayed an impressive clarity of thought and extensive depth of knowledge.Varga Mila 06:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't my intention to be insulting. How should I know, that Azate might feel insulted by assuming (s)he has no muslim background. Raphael1 14:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
That was clearly neither what I wrote, nor implied.Varga Mila 14:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Raphael1, your desire for sombody who "knows about the Islamic perspective" is just touchingly naive. There is no unified Islamic perspective on almost anything (and pictures of Mohammed are certainly no exception here). There are schools of thought. Some of these schools accept some other schools to certain degrees, ignore, oppose or condemn others. Consequently there isn't even agreement on the number of schools in existance, since most schools consider some others to be outside the realm of Islam altogether. And this is only on the highest level of learning, with serious, well-versed scholars with a whole apparatus of sub-scholars who support them. There's a passage in a widely-accepted hadith which basically says that, after the prophet's death, Islam will split into 72 sects, and 71 of these will burn in hellfire. So, the stakes are high... On the level of ordinary imams, most of whom nominally adhere to a single school, yet are influenced by others too, the level of confusion is much higher still. The theological, philological, logical and historical training of most of today's imam's and such is frankly abysmal. These guys basically just make things up as they go along. And why I should by insulted by your assumption about my muslim background is beyond me. Not everybody shares your currently fashionable fixation with 'insult', you know. Some of us still prefer to deal in more tangible concepts. Azate 16:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
So we need even more people with a muslim background to shed a light on the different Islamic persepectives. Anyway -- the muslim reactions all over the world showed, that there seems to be some consens about the offense the publication of the MC creates. I'm glad, that -- in contrary to what Varga Mila said -- I didn't insult you. But I'm sorry, that the disrespect of the majority here detractes muslims, who would be able to tell us, why they don't want pictures of Mohammed. Raphael1 18:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Once again, Raphael1, you twist other people's words. Whatever Varga Mila 18:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Raphael1: OK, I'll try to keep this concise. As Islam has about a billion adherents and more than a thousand years of history, Islam is not monolithic. As for depictions, there are roughly four views:

  1. Portrait-like depictions of animals and all people are blasphemous.
  2. Portrait-like depictions of animals and people in general are permitted, but any depiction of the Prophet is blasphemous.
  3. Portrait-like depictions of animals and all people (including the Prophet) are permitted, as long as depictions of the Prophet are done with the utmost respect. Deriding depictions of the Prophet are blasphemous.
  4. Portrait-like depictions of animals and all people (including the Prophet) are permitted, regardless of whether they are done respectfully or not.

The Quran is not explicit about which of these four views are valid. Most agree that the first of these four views is only held among some of the most fundamentalist sects of Islam, and that the fourth view is only held by the most secular and liberal Muslims. The question then is whether most Muslims hold view #2 or view #3. My contention is that the widely held view among contemporary Muslims is #3. The BBC articles quoted in the article seems to agree with this. I also have a book on contemporary Islam (unfortunately it's in Swedish!) claiming that #3 is the only widely held view today. People don't burn down embassies because someone draws a cartoon of the Prophet per se. I'd like to see a source claiming that #2 is the most common viewpoint among Muslims today if that claim is to be included in the article. —Gabbe 19:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Logical. However, I'd like to submit a fifth option, which I think is the prevalent one:
  1. Choose freely among the options 1-4 above, as it suits you in any given situation, and avoid thinking too much about it all. Quran 5:101 “Believers! Do not ask questions about things which if made plain and declared to you, may vex you, causing you trouble.” and Quran 5:102 “Some people before you did ask such questions, and on that account they lost their faith and became disbelievers.” Azate 19:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
@Gabbe All the muslims I spoke to would choose #2, but that doesn't prove anything. What is IMHO more interesting, is the reason for their view. Why is the depiction of the prophet considered blasphemous? Raphael1 19:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
WP:NOR, WP:CITE, WP:V, etc., what all those policies come down to is that we're not allowed to claim anecdotal evidence in cases of dispute. Every claim must be verifiable. If #2 is indeed the most widely held view, it should be easy to find a source claiming thusly. The article currently contains several sources claiming that the reason most Muslims are offended is the satirical content of the cartoons, not the fact that the Prophet was depicted per se. If you have a printed or online source claiming otherwise then that would certainly be welcome. As for your second question - why depictions are considered blasphemous - well, most of the material I've seen claims that the line of reasoning is that "paintings depicting Muhammad are tantamount to idolatry, which is explicitly forbidden". —Gabbe 20:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I've found a statement from Prof. Dr. Muhammad Kalisch, who is professor for Islam at the Westfälischen Wilhelms-University Münster in germany. He says, that Muslims generally refrain from the depiction of Muhammed and even where one absolutely wanted to depict him, did so without portraying the face. Islam has developed a general objection against the depiction of humans, because the depiction is seen as idolatry or at least a gateway to idolatry.
The central council of muslims in germany writes, that islam forbids to image angels, prophets and god. It is forbidden to image prophets, because it bears the risk of worship or overdone adoration, which can lead to irritation in the believe in god. Raphael1 23:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, the cartoonist aren't muslims, are they? Shall the muslim laws be extended for them? --tasc 00:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about? We are working on the Islamic tradition section. Although I'd negate both of your questions, I don't think they are relevant here. Raphael1 00:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
The why of holding one of the above opinions stands to reason: Hearsay. Guesswork. Somebody told them so. About 80% of muslims worldwide don't speak Arabic. Translated Qurans are not in use (outside of secular universities), except with the turkish Alevite (ca 1/4-1/3 of Turks), and the Nation of Islam in North America and parts of Africa. There may be other sects I'm unaware of. Most of those that do speak Arabic have great difficulty with the quranic Arabic. Nobody but scholars know more than a handful of memorable Ahadith. Most nice, religious people I know (e.g. parts of my family) flatly refuse to believe that much of what in in Quran/Sunna IS actually there. They think it's anti-islamic propaganda (or that I'm a lunatic). See, I could easily cobble together apologies for any of the five stances above from scripture, that would appear reasonably convincing to the average layman Muslim (or Christian, for that matter), but I won't. I won't, because 'ordinary Muslims' will not do these things for themselves, nor ask their Imams to produce such evidence. This search for a reason, explainable by scripture, is totally divorced from reality. Azate 22:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not looking for a reason, which is explainable by scripture. What I'm looking for is different opinions from muslims, which are respected by larger muslim communities. To reach NPOV, we desperately need the muslim POV, which is underrepresented in this article. IMHO it doesn't make sense, if non-muslims try to research muslim scriptures for that matter. Raphael1 00:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Alright. And only dead Englishmen should do research on Shakespeare. Now that you no longer want reasons, but opinions, I'd say you go collect them, order them, and put them on the subpage "Opinions", under the existing sub-header "Muslim opinion". Feel free to add sub-headers as applicable. Azate 00:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


I don't want you to stop studying the quran, but when you want to include the results of your study, you are IMHO violating WP:NOR. I still want "reasons", but I want the reasons of muslims, not the reason of a non-muslim studying islamic scriptures. I called it "opinion", because in faith there is no "proof". Raphael1 01:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


Raphael, please rephrase the sentence you inserted under Islamic tradition. Being a mere non-muslim mortal, I understand little of it
"Muslims generally refrain from the depiction of all prophets, because such an image bears the risk of worship, which can lead to irritation in the believe in god."Varga Mila 00:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I am not a muslim mortal myself and I'm not even a native english speaker. What is it you don't understand? Can one say "because such an image bears the risk of worship" or do I have to say "because such an image bears the risk of getting worshipped"? Raphael1 01:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hide button added

This does not mean that the comments will not be read or the discussion in any way stifled. Simply, that it makes improvement of other aspects of the article easier if discussions regarding image display are conducted on the specificially designed page. Varga Mila 10:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Direct link to the 'Hide Button Added' topic. Netscott 10:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

New Arguments Page for Image Display Issues

Following Varga Mila's suggestion I've created a Images Display argument area for all matters regarding the display of the cartoons. Netscott 14:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I applaude the effort. However, what are we going to do next now this talk page is going to turn silent?Holland Nomen Nescio 15:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I understand, just kiddin'.Holland Nomen Nescio 15:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Where did the sections "Returning to Article content...", "Islamic Tradition" and "Edit war" go to? Raphael1 16:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I've alread recovered "Islamic tradition" to the "Image Display" sub-page. Where do you think it belongs to? Raphael1 16:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I removed it again from the "Image Display" sub-page. Raphael1 16:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

A question

Direct Link to the 'A question' topic. Netscott 10:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Should every single picture in Wikipedia have a hide option?

Direct Link to the 'Should every single picture in Wikipedia have a hide option?' topic. Netscott 10:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Death Penalty

This is thus far hypothetical, as the court has not yet delivered its decision, but in my view, takes the issue to different level ? Lawyers Demand Capital Penalty for Al-Asadi and Observer Close http://www.yobserver.com/news_9692.php Varga Mila 13:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree, please feel free to add it. Bertilvidet 13:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
No time for clear writing this very minute, I'm afraid.Varga Mila 13:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The (confused?) argumentation of the lawyers is already in Islamic aniconistic tradition. A link (and perhaps a touch-up) will do MX44 13:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Uhmmm ... It was there a little while ago. Seems like somebody is trying very hard to make Islam look like a grand unified religion consistent with his own POV MX44 01:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
BBC and the NY Times have a slightly different take on this, in the interest of factual accuracy and NPOV I suggest we use them for any links on the 'Death Calls'. The Observer cannot be seen as particularly neutral in this case. Furthermore, the 21 (23 according to some sources) lawyers are part of a civil suit on the matter, not the prosecution team, which I feel is an important distinction. RichardRB 14:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
True, the Observer is probably far from neutral. I find it puzzling however, that the BBC doesn't mention this point (I haven't read the NY times), as it has been mentioned in Danish papers. Varga Mila 11:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
NYT writes: The lawyers also reminded the court of a story from the days of the prophet in which a woman was executed for insulting him, and he praised her killer, a citation The Observer took as a threat to demand that the editor be sentenced to death. He currently faces a year in jail or a fine.
They also writes: Lawyers for Mr. Assadi accused the 23 of taking part in a campaign organized by Yemen's main Islamist party, led by Sheik Abdul-Majid al-Zindani. The party has collected about $25,000 to pay for legal action against the journalists.
MX44 14:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Good article nomination again?

Shouldn't we nominate this article again, it is really good in my opinion and it seems that it has become more stable lately. --Snailwalker | talk 18:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You think might be featured on the Main page ? I have my doubts :-) Varga Mila 18:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah with a featured image of one of the drawings :) Nah I was just thinking it could be listed as a good article. I think it's very informative and one of the best un-biased presentations of this subject one can find. --Snailwalker | talk 19:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the article still needs fine tuning and a 'grand unifying' edit.... certain parts seem to have a fragmented sense of order and read less than fluently. Netscott 18:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
We could self-nom it again, but it got kicked out recently when I put it back up for nomination because people didn't feel it was very stable :/. Homestarmy 19:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Explain

re: The good cartoon. If the boy standing at the board is second Generation, how is he an immigrant? --Irishpunktom\talk 20:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

My guess would be that he's not, the editor properly meant that he is "a descended of immigrants" --Hekatombe 21:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
This is a literal translation from the Danish (NPOV) expression "andengenerationsindvandrer". The literal translation is "Second-generation-immigrant", this is a common term in Danish. This can be used in a shortened term "2. g'er" meaning both sophomore in high school and 'second generation'. This is a term that might be considered deragatory by some whereas the first "andengenerationsindvandrer" is not. - hope that might clear up the meaning a bit. Jdonnis 01:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Apology

Someone changed "apology" to "claimed to be an apology": As per: "The second letter was dated 30 January 2006, and includes the following explanation and apology"

to "The second letter was dated 30 January 2006, and includes the following explanation claimed to be an apology: In our opinion, the 12 drawings were sober. They were not intended to be offensive, nor were they at variance with Danish law, but they have indisputably offended many Muslims for which we apologize."

The new phrasing is quite POV ( I reverted it), however it is an interesting point. The Danish language has two words for 'apology' with distinct semantic differences ('beklager' and 'undskylder'). The former indicates a regret of the consequences of an act, while the latter indicates regret of having done 'the act'. JP not surprisingly used the former, however the nuances are not quite clear here. Varga Mila 21:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't English, too: beklager=apologize,(bemoan); undskylder=excuse(hold os. blameless)? Azate 22:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. Sorry ! However, the consequence of the sentence is still an 'apology' for the consequences, not the act (in full accordance with their view), which is probably why 161.184.112.254 objected to calling it an apology (and others seem to do too). Varga Mila 22:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. ^ "70,000 gather for violent Pakistan cartoons protest". 2006-02-15. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |org= ignored (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Archive_23&oldid=1136861398"