Jump to content

Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

My 2 Cents

You should NOT censor Wikipedia of material that may offend religious groups. For staters there are thousands of different religious groups—many of which contradict each other. If we give in to one, we’d have to give in to all. And if we gave in to all, we wouldn’t have NPOV, we’d have POV.

You'll also find this link interesting [1]--Greasysteve13 12:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes I'm sure we had decided not to take advantage of the lack of copyright on Irainian material on the basis that the situation could change and make things complicated.Geni 12:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Iranian?--Greasysteve13 12:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that it should be moved to the bottom of the page, not because of right and wrong, but because as civilised people we should always do our best to make others as comfortable as possible, without sacrificing our principals. Having the image at the top of the article is not necessary to make a point, but keeping the image is central to the tenants of free speech. Surely no one here is so petty as to object to moveing the image, and thus making others fell belittled, just to prove a "point". It is not about right and wrong, it is about manners. I for one do not fell that "manners" is a dirty word. It is reluctance on all sides to accomidate the beleifs and sensibilities of others that has lead us the sorry state we are in. Christian and muslem alike. Now....let's play nice and put the image at the bottom. Author - Anon.

Yes, the images are offensive to a lot of Muslims. My opinion - perspective is needed. I am certain that Allah if he exists would find threats much more repulsive, and would be able to recognise who drew them, and who didn't.The pictures, unless enlarged, are small enough to be only recognisable when the viewer has seen the larger image already. I would suggest keeping it at the top of the page (it is what the article is about, after all) but with a disclaimer that it may cause offence.
To be honest, if a reader is visiting this page expecting not to see the image, they are being incredibly naive. Kouros 09:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Content Disclaimer

I think this WikiPolicy is valid here.

Wikipedia:Content disclaimer

Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or depictions of human anatomy.

...

Wikipedia's current policy is to include such content, provided it breaches neither any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view) nor the laws of the state of Florida in the United States, where Wikipedia is hosted. See list of controversial issues for some examples of articles that may contain such content. Some of these articles contain warnings, but many do not.

In other words, you may see something offensive on Wikipedia. Just throwing this into the ring.

Lankiveil 12:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC).

Lankiveil, I think we are all aware of that. The possibility of seeing offensive material on wikipedia doesn't imply that every piece of such material should be placed and sized in a way calculated to give the maximum possible offense. Phr 13:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

User "Ubi comp"

He is permanently deleting or sabotaging the image at the top of the page, therefore he should be banned.--129.13.186.1 13:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, keeps referring to talk page, but no statement is made by that user 217.157.45.53 13:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I put up a 3RR notice. Phr 13:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


Just consider one thing: Prophet Muhammad is dearer to muslims more than their own lives. If a newspaper publish adistorted picture of your father or mother will you let it spread?

So you are attacking on a religion by publishing this picture on wiki hence violating the rules.

That's a very simple reason why I suggest that this and similar images should be deleted. (deleting image once again). Muslims even consider it wrong to make picture of any prophet including Jesus...But unfortunatley only those who follow some religion will understand this. Ubi comp 13:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

How fortunate for us this is not an Islamic website then, eh? Lankiveil 13:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC).
yeah, why don't you go and start an islamic wiki somewhere else! get lost, we don't want your kind here Hellznrg 21:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
If you want to change substantial parts of an article you have to reach an agreement about this with the other users first.--Schutzundtrutz 13:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

user Lankiveil: what is eh?

User:Schutzundtrutz: I would say same should be applicable when you are *adding* some crucial part to an article. innit?Ubi comp 13:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing the article, Ubi comp.--Schutzundtrutz 13:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ubi Comp, you are now in violation of 3RR. Please ceast and desist from reverting this page until we reach consensus on what it should contain. Lankiveil 13:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC).
yeah do so, and don't complain on the day that there was noone who stopped us from acting against the right path that Lord has ordered...have fun..Ubi comp 13:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Will you be punished for your failure?--Schutzundtrutz 13:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
This comment is, in my opinion, out of line. While I agree that this (presumably) gentleman has a clear POV and agenda, taunting him will achieve nothing. Lankiveil 14:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC).
I cannot see the behaviuor of Ubi comp as gentleman-like at all. But I will not taunt him any further. His problem is not his POV but the way he tries to impose it onto us. Anyway I'm kind of surprised you don't complain about his threat against us evil infidels. --Schutzundtrutz 14:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The same is the case for the user with the IP 81.1.79.116 He should be banned, too, IMO.--129.13.186.1 14:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Constant removals

This is really silly. Why is the article not locked? It should be locked once the picture is restored, but I keep seeing it rmoved. NOt to the bottom, not under a link. The people who are removing the image are NOT going to be satisfied with either of those solutions. They want it gone. They don't even want the image to exist.

I say put it up for all to see and prevent further edits to the article.Kittynboi 13:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It's an observable fact that the image was moved to the bottom for a while, and replaced by a link for a while, and the page was NOT vandalized at any time when the image wasn't at the top. That is not hard to understand. The people who insist on having at the top want it there to get in the face of those who would rather have it gone. And getting in anyone's face usually results in their trying to get back in yours. Moving it to the bottom or linking it was out-of-face enough that they left it alone. Phr 13:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Then where does it keep going? Several times I came to the page and it was gone. I looked at the bottom, and it was not there. Nor could I find a link to it. Why should it not be at the top? As has been pointed out, most all articles where the image is the subject, have the image at the top. I don't see why you feel such concern for the poor offended muslims?Kittynboi 14:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
When it's at the top of the page, vandals don't move it to the bottom, they delete it. For a while it was at the bottom or linked, but it got moved back to the top and has been getting re-vandalized. Nobody has moved it back to the bottom now that all this opposition has emerged. It's flipping between two states: 1) at the top; 2) deleted. Note that when it was at the bottom, there was a sentence at the top saying to scroll down to see it. Phr 14:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, keep it there. I don't see why its an issue. Why should THIS image be moved to the bottom? Should we do thaat will all offensive images? Or just a few? You said above that keeping it at the top, for some, is about dominating the opponent. Well, I think the desire to delete the image DESERVES to be dominated and defeated, because it's horrible.Kittynboi 14:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It's abundantly obvious from two days of nonstop edit wars (except for temporary respites when the page was locked or the image was moved) that there is no way to keep the image at the top without locking the page. Since Wikipedia is meant to be editable and not locked, if there's a choice between moving the image or locking the page, I think it's better to move the image. Wikipedia's claim to fame is editability, not having a picture at the top of every page. Phr 14:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. Other articles like Sollog have been under constant attack for more than two days, and altering the article, hiding and obscuring relevant and factual information, was never seriously considered. There is clearly consensus to keep the image at the top, so for the moment, that should be what we work towards. Lankiveil 14:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC).
I don't think it's the same people messing with the Sollog article. You can't presume that edit wars are all alike. For this particular edit war, moving the image made the deletions stop, until someone undid the move. Whether that would have lasted if the move hadn't been undone is unknown. Phr 14:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I think that individual sections can be locked, can't they? If so, then lock just a small part at the top with the picture. And leave the rest alone.Kittynboi 14:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I saw something about a section locking feature but I don't know if it's implemented yet. If it is, that's a possibility. Phr 14:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that appeasement has ever worked. If there is a consensus to move the image, we could do this, but I strongly oppose the idea of moving the image just as a way to try to prevent vandalism.--129.13.186.1 14:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The erasures stopped when the image was moved. It's the zealots on the other side that found the move intolerable. (Although, I think they were maybe more bothered by the size reduction which probably wasn't needed, but they've dug in their heels now). Anyway, one person's vandalism is another person's legitimate edits; I think I'll stop using the term vandalism since the erasures are clearly a content dispute. There's simply no compelling reason for the image to be ultra-prominent except to rub the other side's nose in it. Look at the Oak article as mentioned elsewhere; there's no oak tree pictures in it except way at the bottom. Then there's a gallery of different tree pictures, thumbnail sized. That's a perfectly good way to present images. Phr 14:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Why should it be moved? If its just to avoid vandalism, then section locking could work AND we would leave it at the top. If someone wants to vandalize something, which is prohibited, you shouldn't try to appease them, you should keep them from breaking the rules.Kittynboi 14:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
If section locking is available, which it might not be, then that might be the answer, but there'd have to be some messy dispute process to get it in place the way you want. Also, reading WP:Vandalism, it's clear that the pic erasures don't fall into the description and we're seeing a typical boneheaded edit dispute, not vandalism (I called it vandalism earlier too, but I see now that was incorrect). Finally, appeasement is so bad, then why should anyone be willing to appease YOU? The word you want is "compromise", not "appease". Phr 15:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Why are you so concerned with pleasing these people? There is no reason to hide the image in any way. Why do you think its acceptable?Kittynboi 15:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy is to try to reach consensus in disputes. If you think it should be different, go over to Village Pump Policy and put up a policy proposal to completely reverse the way things are done now. The objective is to put up an article with the relevant information even if that means making a concession here or there about what order the info is in or whatever. The objective is not to make political points or win pissing contests against Muslims or anyone else. If you're more interested in winning pissing contests than in producing a usable article, then read WP:DBF and think about taking a break for a while (I need to do that soon). As for why I find moving the image acceptable: it's an attempt to solve the edit dispute while still resulting in a usable article that contains the necessary information, and I don't care about making a political point with the placement. Do you understand? Your main purpose of insisting on a particular placement of the picture seems to be political, and that runs smack up against WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Phr 15:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Blanking of content is vandalism. If they had an editorial reason to do so it would be different, but they don't. Religion does not form any part of Wikipedia policy. --Malthusian (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, they do have an editorial reason, namely an opinion that the image should not be there, just like you have an opinion that it should be where it is and nowhere else. It is a content dispute (a stupid one). Vandalism is something different. Have you read the vandalism article? WP:Vandalism Phr 15:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
No, they don't have an editorial reason. They have a religious reason. Removing content without good faith belief that it violates Wikipedia policy is vandalism. The definition of 'content dispute' does not extend to 'My name is Willy on Wheels and I dispute that the content of this article should be at Foo instead of Foo on wheels', and it does not extend to 'I believe Jesus/Allah/theInvisible Pink Unicorn told me to remove this picture'. --Malthusian (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not negotiate with terro... I mean, uhh... vandals! Lankiveil 14:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC).
I'm on #wikipedia right now trying to get it locked, at least for a short time until this guy gets bored and goes away. Hopefully they lock the correct version. Lankiveil 13:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC).
It may have to stay protected for a while--I don't think it's just one guy, and if it is, he won't get bored, he's been at it since last night, using sock accounts, open proxies, etc. He's not going anywhere. Phr 13:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
You can't get locked *your* correct version...btw you seem more interesting than myself, what does this show?
Please sign your comments Ubi comp, Cacophobia (Talk) 14:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Looking at this particular IP vandal's talk page, in which he states his intent to use sockpuppetry to get his way, I think the normal process of giving every single sockpuppet IP up to four warnings before blocking for vandalism makes a mockery of our good faith, and will discourage editors from assuming it in future. I think all vandals who perform the same vandalism - removing the picture - should at least immediately get the {{test4}} final warning, and if they vandalise again, be blocked. --Malthusian (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks this is perhaps a wee bit excessive? It's bloating the page quite a bit. Lankiveil 14:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC).

Perhaps, but at least include the link to http://www.um.dk/en/servicemenu/News/DrawingsInADanishNewspaperQuestionsAndAnswers.htm, which is the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs' account of the drawings-debate--Discus2000 14:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and then we have the official answer to the UN. Link to the page is: http://www.um.dk/da/servicemenu/Nyheder/Udenrigspolitik/RegeringensBesvarelseAfHenvendelseFraFNsSpecialrapportoererForISagenOmJyllandspostensAfbildningAfPro.htm Link to the pdf-version of the letter from the UN rapporteur: http://www.um.dk/NR/rdonlyres/E4612A0B-470A-4E55-B332-5BA106E25C71/0/HenvendelsefraFNspecialrapportoereritegningesagen.pdf Link to the answer: http://www.um.dk/NR/rdonlyres/00D9E6F7-32DC-4C5A-8E24-F0C96E813C06/0/060123final.pdf

Sorry 'bout the loooooong links ;-) Not sure how to include certain parts of all this info in the article... maybe someone more knowledgable than me can do the article-editing...--Discus2000 14:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

No problems, Discus2000 :-)
Not saying that any of the links there are bad, just that there are too many there. For a start, I think we can get rid of the Danish-language stuff, as well as partisan editorials like the ones from the Gulf Daily News and WorldNetDaily. I'll wait for consensus on this though!
Some of the Danish-language articles contain very interesting information, and their contents are not reflected anywhere else. If you take those links away, please see to it that the important parts are somehow reflected in some other way. Or perhaps.... a link to a the danish article "Muhammed-tegningerne" about this in wikipedia, making sure that the important danish articles are copied there, and perhaps mentioning that some info there is not taken up here. Then again, that article is getting long too...DanielDemaret 15:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


Lankiveil 14:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC).
Don't most articles require lots of external links if they want to be considered a "good" article by Wikipedia standards?Homestarmy 14:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Not necessarily. John Howard, I think, is a quality article, and it's got a single-digit number of external links. Bloating the section by including lots of pages that simply repeat what a previous link has said, and spun-like-a-tornado editorials, is generally speaking considered bad. Lankiveil 14:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC).
Actually this article has 9 external links, one of which is in Danish. It has 44 references, however. Unlike John Howard, this article has references using the new <ref>-tag, which automatically generates a "References" section. I would strongly disagree with removing references from the article, though we might be able to consolidate some of them, once overview articles start to appear. Feel free to add or remove from the "External Links" section, though. Rasmus (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
For the time being i think it's very relevant taht each event is cited with a source to make sure there isn't stated any wrong info/rumours on the article. At least the time this event is still going. (Cloud02 16:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC))

3RR Rule

Are you likely to fall foul of the 3RR rule when putting the pictures back on the article after they have been removed? MC

I wouldn't imagine so, since simply removing the picture seems to qualify as vandalism.
No, it doesn't qualify as vandalism, it's an edit dispute. Read WP:Vandalism carefully. 3RR applies so the reversions need to be done by multiple people. Phr 15:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Protection failed

The article has been "protected" several times and each time it was vandalized anyway, so, I guess this protection didn't really work. Who can fix this?--129.13.186.1 14:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

How can it fail? How are they getting around it?
The article haven't been protected for more than a few minutes (btw. just adding {{sprotect}}, doesn't protect the article by itself. An administrator has to do it.) It is against policy to protect articles that are linked to from the main page. Rasmus (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It was actually sprotected for a while but was unprotected at my request. It's gotten a number of good edits since then, so unprotection is appropriate. Phr 15:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Good to see it's protected now. Let's see if it lasts or works. This is as good a time as anyone for muslims, and their fundamentalist xian counterparts and others, to learn that being offended does not grant them carte blanche to get their way.Kittynboi 14:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Its now no longer protected. Why?Kittynboi 15:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Article can not be protected because it is part of the main page. Also an administrator has to do it. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with linking the image to the article? That way we won't have these problems. I want to read why people aren't agreeing to it. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 14:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Because there's no good reason to do it, that's why.Kittynboi 15:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well to me I think it just looks better where it is and I don't buy the Islamic blashphemy argument for a second, but im sure most of the other people here have other reasons with censorship and free speech and whatnot heh. Homestarmy 15:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that if there are arguments of the image being offensive vs. it being censorship to remove it that the best solution is to link it. Also article can not be protected because it is part of the main page. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

We sure can discuss it, but as I stated above, we should not give in to vandalism. If there's consensus to move image, alright, so be it, but this consensus has to be reached BEFORE anynone move the image. My opinion is that the image should stay on top of the page, since these pictures are of fundamental importance for this article.--129.13.186.1 15:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you think pictures of oak trees are fundamental to the Oak article? I do, and there are several such pictures there, all thumbnail size and all at the bottom of the article. Also, the conflict we're seeing (hey, it seems to have stopped for now) does not fit the WP definition of vandalism (WP:Vandalism). It's just an edit dispute. 71.141.251.153 15:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Because we shouldn't give in to vandalism. Well, unless we change the image on cauliflower to a link. I find images of that particular plant offensive, and I'm going to vandalise the page against consensus until you all cave! Bwahahahahaha! Lankiveil 15:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC).
See WP:POINT. See, you should know something has gone wrong when winning the pissing contest has become more important than finding a way to present an informative article. Think about stepping back a little. WP:DBF. 71.141.251.153 15:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you could try the link method. Would be interesting to see whether or not this would be vandalised also. If it continues to be vandalised then go back to having the picture on the article, as a compromise would have been offered and rejected. (MC)

It was tried. It worked. It was undone by people who insisted on having the picture and were willing to put up with the resulting edit war. 71.141.251.153 15:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Why does the picture have to be at the top. It seems that it is just the quickest place to put it in the edit war. Prehaps if more thought was put in we could have the picture in the middle of the article so that Muslims could choose whether or not to scroll down. (MC)

The image was not vandalized when it was linked for a short time. But if people are so concerned over linking it I agree that moving it to the middle is a good idea. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism is not permitted on wikipedia. Therefore we should do nothing to appease the vandals.Kittynboi 15:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Removing the image because it is found offensive is not vandalism. Instead it's a disputed topic that should be discussed. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
WP:NOT states "some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links, provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view)" (please keep the image, many people seem to debate this issue without even seeing the image) Cacophobia (Talk) 15:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Of course it is vandalism. If you remove a fundamental part of an article without consulting the others, you're nothing but a vandal. Especially if you do this over and over again. There is really no excuse for this kind of behaviour.--129.13.186.1 16:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


We could do a few things here to solve the problem. 1. Make it into a linked image. 2. Make the image smaller. 3. Move the image to the middle of the article. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Or we could just leave it where it is, leave it to be seen. There is no obligation to make Muslims feel better.Kittynboi 15:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I am generally not offended by any images, but I do note that we already exclude some images from articles because people find them offensive or obscene. This shouldn't be a discussion about whether we should ever censor any images (because we already have a consensus on doing that), but whether this image is one of those that are better linked than shown in the article. Zocky | picture popups 15:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay. If nobody has a good reason for why the image shouldn't be moved to the middle of the page or made smaller, then I think it should be moved or made smaller. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Because people are going to come to this article looking for the offending image. That is the main reason people are coming at the moment. And the information that people are looking for (said image), should be as easy to locate as possible.
There is clearly no consensus to move or link the image at the present time. Lankiveil 15:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC).

you think to compromise with God? you must not use the image at all. not linked, not small, and not hidden, it is all still an insult to God and the believers. the army of the faithful will not tire to prevent this insult to God. if wikipedia and jimbo wales keep insulting God, then God willing, you will all be swept aside in fire by God.

Please try to compromise. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
See people. This is what I've been telling you. They won't accept it being there at all, so best to rub it in their faces for spite. That may sound extreme, but these repsonses are appropriate in light of demands for censorship. And sign your posts.Kittynboi 15:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Kittynboi you are new here so I think you should read a few policies first. If you keep acting this way you may end up blocked from wikipedia. Now please give a good reason why image shouldn't be moved to the middle of the page or made smaller besides the censorship argument. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Im ok with making it smaller, as long as its clear that this image is avalible for the entry. I dont think linking will do it. Cacophobia (Talk) 15:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll keep it up. If I get blocked, then I'll be blocked. Why is raising questions about why it should be moved at all a blockable offense? Feel free to ask that I be banned from wikipedia. You tell me to stop bringing this up, yet you say NOTHING to the person I was responding to, whose response can only be described as sick and insane?Kittynboi 15:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I was referring to this behavior - "best to rub it in their faces for spite". Now back to discussion. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I forgot I said that. Regardless, I still have yet yo be convinced that it should be moved or made in to a link. I don't see people being offended as a valid reason to do that. People get offended all the time. They just have to deal with it.Kittynboi 15:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok anon, i'll be blunt. I am not afraid of the Qu'ran. Nobody should be afraid of the Qu'ran. it was created, what, 600 years after Christ came? That means you had 600 years or so of people who believed Christ was Lord, and had no reason to believe otherwise except for cult problems. Therefore, if the Qu'ran was really the word of God, Jesus Christ's perhaps most faithful followers will all go to hell, disciples included. This is unnaceptable. Furthermore, so i've read, the only thing that commands anyone to not ever make pictures is a non-Qu'ran source made 200 years after it was created by a bunch of people trying to invent new policies for Islam. Therefore, it can't be the word of God anyway, and your threat doesn't have any historical base either. Every way you look at it, there is no reason for anyone to remove that picture. Homestarmy 15:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not another dispute about the Qur'an or the Bible or Islam vs. Christianity or Jesus. It's a simple dispute over what people find offensive. I don't see your argument there being any less extremist than the person who wanted to completely remove the image. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see anyone making a good case for this. Everyone just seems to think that them ebing offended is reason enough.Kittynboi 15:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should be moved to the middle. But not made smaller. How is a person supposed to make a reasoned judgement on the images if they can't see them properly. I think the comments about Wikipedia and Jimbo Wales are unhelpful. Surely god has better things to do than be angry at some geeks on the internet and some images. Slamdac

Actually you can just click on the image to make it larger so making it smaller won't make it hard to see. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

So are people fine with moving it to the middle and/or making it smaller? --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with anything that keeps the image accessible (including linking it). However there are some here who absolutely insist it has to stay where it is. Moving it to the middle will probably get rv'd (not by me) before long. Phr 16:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I think even a skimming of this discussion makes it clear there is no specific consensus of anything, including moving it or making it smaller.Kittynboi 15:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Kittynboi you have to compromise somewhere. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Compromise aside, its a reality that, right now, there is nothing even closse to consensus on what to do.Kittynboi 16:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It probably would be just as good in the middle of the article by the descriptions of the pictures. And yea, I know what I said was probably just as "extremist", but I did put in the historical thing too, and that's from another Wikipedia page heh. Homestarmy 15:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

How is the article more informative with the image of what the article is about smaller, less prominent or linked? Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus that the image should be made smaller and moved off the top. If you're going to make that edit, don't claim it's based on consensus. There isn't one. Thparkth 16:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I did just that. Since there are so many passionate editors at work here, I doubt it will last even an hour (that attempt at a compromise lasted eight minutes). My personal opinion is that we should try to be as informative as possible, while at the same time respecting those that are further insulted by having the fun image/caricature/blasphemous depiction jumping into their face when accessing the article. I hope that both tasks may be accomplished. Anyway, I hope common ground may be found as the constant reverting hinder productive editing. And I might counter that there is no consensus to keep it at the top either. Scoo 16:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge?

Qatarson created Denmark boycott which is not only a poor title, but probably consists only of info that can be safely merged here. Thoughts? --Golbez 15:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Make a separate article about boycott and link it to this article. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
lol they think the problem between Qatarson & Denmark that another point you should know :) many hates & bad words sent to my email from some wikipedia users & in this page also there many bad posts . Qatarson 15:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it should stay as an article but can we have a better title? Also if you are getting harassed then report those editors. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
anonym, qatarson was blocked for the past day for repeated reverts, some through sockpuppets using open proxies (one of the proxies is now IP blocked). I'm glad he's now participating in discussion instead of just reverting but the guy is not exactly an innocent. Phr 16:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Please stop abuse me and keep writing about me every where is there personal problem? Qatarson 16:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The cartoon article is already long, and the boycott effects might expand, so I feel a link to the boycott article would be best.DanielDemaret 15:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Boycott article has been renamed (not by me) and Denmark boycott now redirects. Yes, links in both directions would be good. Phr 15:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that it should be moved to the bottom of the page, not because of right and wrong, but because as civilised people we should always do our best to make others as comfortable as possible, without sacrificing our principals. Having the image at the top of the article is not necessary to make a point, but keeping the image is central to the tenants of free speech. Surely no one here is so petty as to object to moveing the image, and thus making others fell belittled, just to prove a "point". It is not about right and wrong, it is about manners. I for one do not fell that "manners" is a dirty word. It is reluctance on all sides to accomidate the beleifs and sensibilities of others that has lead us the sorry state we are in. Christian and muslem alike. Now....let's play nice and put the image at the bottom.

I vote to Merge Danish products boycott with Posten Muhammad Cartoons - 24.9.10.235 01:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I support a merge on the basis that that article as it stands has the same length and little more content than the corresponding section in this article. --Stlemur 02:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I also support a merge. I see no reason for having it as a separate page, unless there's a lot more info to add, which is not a part of this one. AllanRasmussen 02:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Boycott articles should be merged, and in turn merged, as a subsection, with Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, which has by far the most complete coverage. The boycott article is contingent on the cartoons article and should be part of its narrative. Then if the article needs splitting, split it, but an attempt should be made first to pare it down, since much of it is polemic disguised as reportage. J M Rice 05:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Missing sources category?

Is that old or something, because this article seems to have pretty good sources cited, should that be changed? Homestarmy 15:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The article becomes automatically added to that category by the {{citation needed}}-tag. Rasmus (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Good Decision Scoo

I think that Scoo made a good edit at 16:05 on the 1st February 2006 . The image can still be seen at a reasonable size if it is clicked on and Muslims are made aware that if they scroll down then they may see something that is offensive to them. They can then made a reasoned decision as to view it or not. There is no censorship as the image is still freely avaliable to anybody who want's to see it. slamdac

I must honestely disagree. The general opinion on this talk page has been to keep the pictures as a front image. The size is reasonble small and if you don't want to see the pictures then why come to this page anyway? --Snailwalker | talk 16:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Because you want to read an encyclopedic text about the controversy? Zocky | picture popups 16:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Definitely keep.

Why have them removed? Many things on Wikipedia are offensive, and this article is about these specific cartoons. It is better to have more information than less, and because the cartoons are the subject of the article, to post them does not violate NPOV any more than the article in and of itself. There are examples found elsewhere in Wikipedia of even more blatantly racist content.

To prevent people from seeing something that is offensive is directly contrary to the very purpose of Wikipedia.

Twin Bird 16:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this whole article is about the pictures and much misinformation has been spread about them. I would say we should keep em...--Snailwalker | talk 16:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet orgy

There are a ridiculous number of sockpuppets who have only edited this article, who repeatedly remove the picture, and we are letting each of them have 4 or 5 reverts. Yesterday we let one of them get to 7 reverts before blocking. I don't use admin privileges on Islam-related articles, but if we're not going to semi-protect this article then an admin really needs to step up the plate and start quickly blocking the censorship sockpuppets. It's not enough to say, "oh, we don't semi-protect when linked from front page," and then stand back and let the socks dominate the article. Babajobu 16:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

There are IPs for both sides of the debate removing and adding. We need to compromise because it's the best solution here. And protection isn't allowed. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I've only seen one IP re-adding the content, he did it three times, and then said he was done. As far as I'm concerned we cannot determine whether a compromise is truly needed, because I suspect there is only one person repeatedly removing the image under various IP proxies. Even one of the editors very sympathetic to the "remove" disposition said yesterday that he suspects we are dealing with a one-person blitz. Until this image is semi-protected, I don't think we'll get a sense of how much support there is for each side. The guideline against semi-protecting articles linked from front page is good in general, because it allows new users to make contributions. But we are not attracting any useful contributions right now, we are just leaving the article vulnerable to a swarm of socks. This article needs to be semi-protected. Babajobu 16:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Vote for keeping the image at the top or not

I think we should probably have a vote on wheter the image should be at the top or further down to settle this debate and continued edit wars.

Vote for picture at top * Snailwalker | talk 16:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Vote for picture further down

Last thing we need is a vote. Zocky | picture popups 16:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Why are we even debating this?

If Wikipedia is meant to be an objective encylopedia there should be no debate on whether or not to include the controversial images just because a single does not a aprove of them. If we remove these images then we must also remove any other "offensive" images such as nudity and other controversial pcitures like the Piss Christ. (Caesar89 16:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC))

We already do that. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or pictures. We need to discuss reasons to include this picture in this article, not whether removing any image at all is censorship. Zocky | picture popups 16:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, since the article is about the image, I imagine thats reason enough to include it.Kittynboi 17:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
And looking for compromise, not removing the pictures off wikipedia. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Vandals are not cooperative. And if someone is not cooperative you can't find a compromise with him.--Schutzundtrutz 16:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Summary of what I said above: you cannot compromise with a sockpuppet swarm. I'm willing to compromise with editors, but not socks. Until this article is semi-protected, we won't be able to define the positions or the level of support for them, or to reach a compromise. Babajobu 16:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
This is an encyclopaedia, it very existence is to present facts, regardless of politics. In this case the case are images. This is not an image used to illustrate a point in an article, these images are the very reason the article exists in the first place.
One should not be concerned about various groups attitude toward certain parts of an article, - no Muslim arrives on this page accidental, they are active looking for information about these drawings – and will natural expect that the drawings be located here also. One should also give a thought about what it is Muslims complains about, if they do not look at the drawnings? How can you complain about something you refuse to look at? How can you even have an opinion?
Just a thought; there must be 100.000 [guess] of Muslims that have never even seen the drawings, while still protesting. Should wiki then not be what it is meant to be? an encyclopaedia people can come to, look and seen what the facts are really about. One should not worry about those Muslims that come here and remove the drawings, one should worry about all those Muslims that now have missed the opportunity to come and see the drawings for the self, because wiki bowed to politics. Twthmoses 16:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I think most of the muslimus are not really so angry about it. They just see that it might be a good excuse to make demands against western countries. Sadly, it works.--129.13.186.1 17:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It seems that there are more non muslims here upset over it than there are muslims.Kittynboi 21:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected this.

I've semi-protected this. Now I'd better go and check if I've broekn any guidelines... back in a few minutes... William M. Connolley 16:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah protection isn't exactly allowed but might be needed. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Protection is needed.--Alabamaboy 16:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Exceptional circumstances. The edit history over the last 30mins speaks for itself. Thparkth 16:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
And as of now, this article no longer has a link from the front page. BinaryTed 17:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Protection is definitely *allowed*, but not encouraged. I've just reviewed the Wikipedia:Protection_policy, wot sez Important Note: When a page is particularly high profile, either because it is linked off the main page, or because it has recently received a prominent link from offsite, it will often become a target for vandalism. It is best not to protect pages in this case. Instead, consider adding them to your watchlist, and reverting vandalism yourself. However, I've sprotected, not protected. This is the first time I've done this, so I'm a little unsure. I think the page could do with at least a couple of hours of peace from anons. But more experienced admins will feel free to correct me. William M. Connolley 16:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC).

There is a guideline that we shouldn't semi-protect articles linked from front page, so as to allow new editors a chance to edit articles they are most likely to read. But in this case all we are doing is enabling a swarm of socks. Semi-protection is definitely needed in this instance, with an apology should a new, well-intentioned editor actually show up amidst the swarm and be prevented from editing. Semi-protect this sucker, or we'll never determine the appropriate course of action for this article. Babajobu 16:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Even though semi-protection is defidentally good for what is nominally "my" side (though as wankers like Sullivan join it, I'm less interested in it), it's against policy and not appropriate. Please take it off. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Is is absolutely not against policy. Wikipedia:Protection policy is very clear: don't semi-protect articles linked from front page, except when really necessary. For this article at this time, it's necessary. That's in perfect compliance with policy. Babajobu 17:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Removing the image without discussion is aggressively bad editing (which I am often guilty of). It's not vandalism. sprotect is only for vandalism. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Repeated violations of 3RR and using sockpuppets, together with admitting that the purpose of removing the image is to curry favour with one's god and not to improve Wikipedia, doesn't so much cross the line from bad editing to vandalism as pole vault it. --Malthusian (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, my WP:AGF is falling. I still think sprotect is agressive, but not as badly as I did before. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Um. This is a difficult case; for the moment, consensus seems to favour the sprotect, even though its dubious from a policy POV. I'll restate my comment above: other admins will feel free to correct me, if they wish to. BTW, I'm off down the pub in 1/2 hour, and will probably leave the sprotect, so please don't try to talk to me about the sprotect! BTW2, I've noted the sprotect on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. William M. Connolley 17:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC).

How is it dubious from a policy POV? The page does not say "you are not allowed to sprotect articles linked from the front page", despite what some have claimed. It actually says (paraphrase) "don't protect articles linked from front page unless it's really necessary". We think it's really necessary. That's perfectly compliant with policy. Babajobu 18:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

it's been 'un-protected' again--Discus2000 19:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did that. I has been protected for 3 hours now, and I think it is time to see if vandalism persists. I'll keep an eye on this article. If it turns out to be necessary, I will protect it again. RexNL 19:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that it should be moved to the bottom of the page, not because of right and wrong, but because as civilised people we should always do our best to make others as comfortable as possible, without sacrificing our principals. Having the image at the top of the article is not necessary to make a point, but keeping the image is central to the tenants of free speech. Surely no one here is so petty as to object to moveing the image, and thus making others fell belittled, just to prove a "point". It is not about right and wrong, it is about manners. I for one do not fell that "manners" is a dirty word. It is reluctance on all sides to accomidate the beleifs and sensibilities of others that has lead us the sorry state we are in. Christian and muslem alike. Now....let's play nice and put the image at the bottom.

This debate attracting media attention

Personally, I can't believe we are even debating censoring an article. The bad news is that this debate has now attracted attention from an influential conservative blogger, Andrew Sullivan (see [2]). Personally, I agree with him and hope that we here at Wikipedia will stick to our beliefs in freedom of speech and content.--Alabamaboy 16:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I should add that when I first read about these cartoons and the controversy over them in the mainstream media, I was irritated that the media didn't completely cover the subject and didn't show images of the cartoons. I mean, if you are reporting on a visual subject like this but don't allow people to see what the controversy is about for themselves, then your reporting, well, sucks. IMHO Wikipedia's article on this is the best summary of the controvery on the web.--Alabamaboy 16:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Alabama. Babajobu 16:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Totally agree. EuroSong 18:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
How can attention from Andrew Sullivan be a bad thing, unless you're doing something bad? I'm confident that we will in the end not censor ourselves. And if we do, we can always add Gustav Dore's "Mohammad splitting a gut in Hell" illustration for Dante's Inferno to an appropriate article and begin again. - Nunh-huh 08:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, Nunh-huh, we meet again; alas, it's a long way off from the more peaceful days of editing New Haven, Connecticut and Pepe's Pizza. Amazing what a small wikipedian world it is. Sol. v. Oranje 08:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
It's been so long since I've had a chicken pizza. Sigh! - Nunh-huh 09:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Aniconism

Does anyone know more about the Islamic prohibition on depictions of Mohammed? All that the article says is that this prohibition (which, apparently, is called "aniconism") generated fear in those who were going to illustrate a children's book on Mohammed - fear of the actions of "extremists". But I thought this aniconism wasn't something that just the extremists subscribe to - that it is something that moderate Muslims also subscribe to, and that there are good spiritual reasons behind it?

The western world is talking about free speech, and the Islamic world is talking about (lack of) respect. Could it be that the core of the problem is that we in the west don't quite understand this aniconism? If so, then giving that aspect of the issue some space could help generate more light and less heat... Chrisobyrne 16:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

A few years ago I would have been cynical enough to say that the phrase 'good spiritual reason' is an oxymoron. I wouldn't quite go that far now. However, the core of the problem at this article (the one behind this talk page) is not that Westerners don't understand Muslims, but that some Muslims apparently don't understand Wikipedia. (Or possibly one Muslim, given the sockpuppetry. Or possibly even one troll using religion as a cover, hoping that he/she would gain support for keeping the vandalism in the name of religious tolerance - which they have). --Malthusian (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Part of the whole problem is that the Islamic world seems to "demand" respect for their beliefs, when in reality they deserve no such protection. One cannot demand respect, one receives it based on previous action or intent. Which leads to the question: why should anyone or any religious belief be subject to a greater level of systematic respect than another?...Which is exactly what is wanted, and not necessarily deservingly so.206.156.242.39 16:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree but is burning the Dannebrog or Norwegian flag not as disrespectful? One can argue if this was a deliberate stunt by JP, but burning of flags is unmistakable a clear disrespectful act! So are we even now? Twthmoses 17:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Lack of respect breeds lack of respect. So if Jyllands-Posten don't respect the culture of aniconism, then Jyllands-Posten can hardly expect their culture of free speech to be respected in turn. But free speech is a right, I hear you say. Yes, but rights come with responsibilities and, IMHO, respect is one of those responsibilities that those with the right of free speech should adhere to.
Or, turning your argument on its head - why should the (almost religious) belief in free speech receive more respect than aniconism?
Getting back to the question at hand - would giving more space to aniconism help the article? I think so - however, I don't know enough about it to be able to add anything useful. Chrisobyrne 17:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, in regards to wikipedia, its an encyclopedia, and its aim is to provide the best information it can. Thats its purpose. That takes precedence over aniconism. Wikipedia is not out to provide info as long as it doesn't offend people. Do you think repsect is more important than making information available to all?Kittynboi 17:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Americans have their flag burned all the time. Shall we then demand that those who do so stop? Who is to enforce such a thing? Whereas it is indeed true that disrespect can breed the same, I still do not see why demanding a non-Islamic state (or organization) to obey the laws of the land (such as the right to critique) isn't being the line towed. If JP surrenders on this issue, what is to stop any Islamic group from claiming other issues as "offenses", such as deciding that a nativity scene in public shouldn't be visible?
Most nations are (with few execptions) secular in nature, religion remains with the people and policy with the government and neither the twain should meet. Once a government steps into religion (or the reverse) unfortunate meddling will occur.
Should the Muslims continue to decide that they are "special" and deserving of specific concessions they will continue to set themselves apart culturally and nationally, never assimilating properly, and always remaining an outsider. If that is the case, then they really haven't learned anything and were better off not having emigrated.206.156.242.39 17:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this is about Muslims demanding special consideration - I think it is a plea that their aniconism be recognised as part of their beliefs and culture. As has been pointed out before, there have been a lot of historical depictions of Mohammed that have been tolerated by the Islamic community - of course, the fact that most of those depictions (as far as I can see) have been respectful (or very respectful) towards Mohammed has made it relatively easy for the Islamic community to respect the contrasting tradition of free speech and/or iconography that generated the images in the first place. I wonder if JP had created the same message in cartoons that didn't actually depict Mohammed (for example, by obscuring his face, or by portraying him from behind, both of which I believe are acceptable compromises to Islam), would the Islamic world have had the same problem? The radical Islamic world would have, of course, but JP seem to have also stirred up ill feeling amongst the moderate Islamic world. Just a thought. Chrisobyrne 21:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I think everyone is now more than aware that anconism is part of their beliefs. That still doesn't mean we should follow their beliefs or subject wikipedia to them. They have their beliefs, we know that. But that does not mean that anyone is obliged to follow them or to tailor wikipedia to suit them.Kittynboi 22:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
you're speculating there, Chrisobyrne. There's no real evidence as to whether or not moderate muslims in general have been offended. Some may have, but you also have a number - some quite prominent ones as well (Danish MP Naser Khader as an example; article in English here: [3]) - who welcome the debate. Of interest to this article, perhaps, I'm not sure...--Discus2000 22:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
For an article that describe a similiar phenomenon that applied mostly to Christianity see Iconoclasm. The article might very well link to that one too. Scoo 17:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not a diplomat or a postmodern sociology professor. It does not seek to respect or disrespect anyone; its mission is to provide accurate and comprehensive articles on notable topics, without kowtowing to people's demands for censorship or the hiding of whatever they dislike. Would you support placing a warning label over the Evolution article, stating that this article may gravely offend evengelical Christians, scroll down and you will see some information on evolution? For the article on Hugo Chavez, would you support a warning label that this information may be very objectionable to political conservatives, scroll down for some information on President Chavez? I doubt it. It's no more appropriate here.Babajobu 17:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree in general, but text is not the same as pictures. We already remove pictures people find offensive or obscene from articles about genitalia. Zocky | picture popups 18:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Well said, I concur --M4bwav 17:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

On the anacronism thing, if I remember right, on the talk page of that article someone said that the rule banning drawings came from some publication by some head Islamic council or something 200 or so years after the Qu'ran was made, and supposedly, not even most Islamics agree on it's authenticity or what it means or something. So it is apparently an object of debate even in Islam, and therefore, it might not even be a majority view even though there's such a ruckus over it. Homestarmy 18:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I teach in a department of religion in a university in the USA. Aniconism is the same in Judaism and certain protestant traditions as well as Islam. The dogma is intended to protect the sovereignty of God as Creator. The logic is that you can't have creatures (humans) making other creatures (images of God's work). I.e., only God can make images (creatures) since creatures are images of God. In these traditions, humans are the image of God, ergo, humans ought not make images.

I think everyone here realizes by now the basics of why people are upset over it. They may not know all the details, or even the term anaconism, but they know whats offending the Muslims. But many of us don't think wikipedia should abide by Islamic social or religious rules.

Thats Enough!

These images were insulting Islam, how can you people insult someone else's prophet. We didn't do any harm to you. First of all, why even bother about someone else. The images were republished and this newspaper will surely get great criticism from the world. How will you feel when some one will insult Jesus, Moses. Yes, we respect your religion. Some of your prophets are our prophets too. So please stop. - Yu5uF - 4:27 PM GMT


timeline

I cannot edit the page now, but "The Brussels Journal publishes the pictures. Says: "We are all danes now." was just added to the timeline, on 1 February . It should actually be moved to 2006-01-22 , as that is the day they where first published, see here.

OK, will fix ... There is just too many reactions at the moment :) When did they start saying "We are all danes now"? It is currently part of their logo on every page.

"We are all danes now" was added today i think, I am not 100% sure about it. --Al3xander 17:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

In the timeline, I think we need to include the request from the UN rapporteur on 24 November 2005: http://www.um.dk/NR/rdonlyres/E4612A0B-470A-4E55-B332-5BA106E25C71/0/HenvendelsefraFNspecialrapportoereritegningesagen.pdf, and then also the offical Danish answer from 23 January 2006: http://www.um.dk/NR/rdonlyres/00D9E6F7-32DC-4C5A-8E24-F0C96E813C06/0/060123final.pdf
The Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs has a section of its homepage dedicated to the drawings. Perhaps it should be included in the links.
Danish version: http://www.um.dk/da/servicemenu/Nyheder/ForsideNyheder/TegningesagenSpoergsmaalOgSvar.htm
English version: http://www.um.dk/en/servicemenu/News/DrawingsInADanishNewspaperQuestionsAndAnswers.htm
Sorry 'bout the loooooong links ;-)--Discus2000 20:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion - Move time line to a separate article. It is getting rather long. Andersa 20:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Added 24 Nov and 23 Jan (request and response) to the timeline. I agree it's quite long, but we can hardly do without it in terms of the article--Discus2000 13:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Archive_3&oldid=1136861435"