Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy ARTICLE. Please place discussions on the underlying political and religious issues on this page. Non-editorial comments on this talk page may be removed by other editors.
Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them == A Descriptive Header ==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions.	Talk page guidelines Please respect Etiquette, assume good faith and be nice.

Ahem. Timeout. I've blanked this talk page momentarily because although there is some good discussion here, there's a lot of very bad discussion. This is not the appropriate place for a general philosophical discussion about Islam, freedom of speech, terrorism, religious tolerance, etc. Not only is this talk page not the right place for it, Wikipedia is not the right place for it. Here, we are polite, thoughtful, smart, geeky people, trying only to do something which is undoubtably good in the world: write and give away a free encyclopedia.

Now, there are legitimate questions on both sides regarding this particular article, and I want to encourage a discussion of that. But please, do it with the very strong assumption of good faith on all parties to the discussion, and stick directly and purely to the editorial question at hand, rather than a general philosophical debate.

Now, please, with kindness, start the discussion over?

--Jimbo Wales 00:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It's time to talk

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

Adding "pig person" picture?

I think it would be a good idea to add the "pig person" picture to the article, under the "misinformation" heading. The article has a very low picture/text ratio as it is, and the picture would add to the understanding of the events because it is an example of how misinformation has increased the severity of the conflict. The copyright of the original photo probably belongs to AP, but given the low quality of the reproduction, it should be easy to claim "fair use". Since there seems to be concensus that the picture is of a French pig squealing contestant and not a religious personality of any kind, there should be no blasphemy issue. Still, I post the question here before doing any changes to the article. --PeR 21:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It is a quite good illustration of all the misinformation in this whole affair... Claush66 22:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I've translated the Danish text (see above) and repeated that this and two other images have never been printed by Jyllands-Posten. --Valentinian 22:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

My personal recommendation is not to add the "pig person" picture until we have a translation of the Arabic in the dossier that (may) put it into context. The picture may apear to be an attempt to deceive, but on its own the suggestion of deception it is again potentially misleading, without context. Let's take care not add to misinformation by adding our own. -- Vanitas 22:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. There are conflicting claims about it. --Kizor 23:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. However, I think the fact that the "43p dossier" contains 15 cartoons instead of 12 is interesting regardles of what the arabic text says. When confronted with a thick document, most people tend to just look at the pictures and draw their own conclusions. (In fact, this is the exact reason we're having this discussion. The potentially erroneous claim from the Brussels Journal is already in the article, in text form.) --PeR 23:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The "pig person" is the one aired by BBC and al-Jazeera just before the outbreak of this controversy. It was added to the dossier to illustrate the percieved general hostility against muslims in Denmark. It is supposedly send anonymously to an (as yet) unidentified person MX44 23:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If that is true, then the picture is very relevant, regardles of its original context. --PeR 23:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's the link in any case. --Kizor 03:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the pig snort picture was mad public at MSNBC back in August 15 (and possibly elsewhere) actually falsifies the "fact" in our article that "none of them [the additional images] had previously been published by Jyllands-Posten or any other mainstream media outlet". I dont know if it is worthwile to make this clear, or if it will complicate the paragraph unreasonably as it is contradicted a few lines below? Claush66 09:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The pig-person from the dossier is a derived work with an inscription: "The true face of Muhammad". It is in this context that the picture is unpublished. MX44 11:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yet that is not how the Danish media presents it today. The leading tabloid Ekstra-Bladet, has published the original picture in colour on the frontpage with the header "Imam fraud" . Thus the context is lost on the public. Namely that the picture, apparently sent by an anonymous to a Muslim, in the dossier had the "The true face of Muhammed" comment. 86.52.36.140 16:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE from BBC: For an account of how another picture, allegedly of Muhammad portrayed as a pig but in fact a copy of a photo from a pig-squealing contest in France, played a role, see the end of this article The propaganda factor - the "pig" picture MX44 12:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It's Time To Reconsider

Moved to Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments#It's Time To Reconsider

Please remove the offensive cartoon

Please either remove the cartoon or move it down. This cartoon is very offensive to Muslims and Islam worldwide and your polls are obviously biased. By publishing the cartoon you are putting more fuel over the fire already created by this cartoon.

By publishing the cartoon, Wikipedia is acknowledging that it is not offensive to publish this cartoon. There are many Muslims in the world and we need to be more considerate about this issue.

If ever highly controversial cartoons about other religions are published, will you publish them like this? I don't think so.

For knowledge purposes, a description of cartoon is more than enough.

Frank

Please be original and request that we blank the faces instead. Seriously, these cartoons are not more offensive than the work of Richard Wagner. The muslims are overreacting because they have been focusing so much about a kata (martial arts) (to avoid depictions of prophets) they learned, that they have lost the whole point (to avoid idolatry). This is a serious problem, and removing/hiding the picture does no good at all. Please inform yourself about phobias and systematic desensitization. DrJones 23:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, when the anti-jewish cartoons come out from Iran, I'll bet you wikipedia publishes them too. Who are you to tell me what is offensive or not. Our polls are biased? It's a petition. That's the amount of signatures. Westerners are just not offended by this. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should move this headline nearer to the top of the talk page, along with a link to a subpage for separate discussion of this topic. This is probably the most frequent posting, and it seems naïve to think that everyone is going to read the archives before reposting it. --PeR 22:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You need to better explain your case. You need to explain, in a secular society (and I'm sure you agree that Wikipedia, and the Internet as a whole, is secular) how an edict by a religious group, trumps freedom of the press. Several people here are doing what they can to avoid offence, and minimise the usage of the image to what is absolutely necessary. However surely given the prominence of the story, I don't see how a complete removal of the images is in anyone's benefit. Surely displaying the images in context, is better for everyone. And has already lead to some interesting results - such that the image that many were objecting to the most, that of Muhammad as a pig's face, was in reality just a poor-quality photograph from some pig-calling contest. By completely removing any images, such truths would never have become known. Besides, as far as I can tell, there is a long history of having images of Muhammad within Islam. The writing in the Koran seems quite vague to me. And interestingly quite similiar to the comments in the bible about having no idols of anyone but God - which given the number of Jesus and Mary statues doesn't seem to be taken very seriously. Nfitz 23:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Frank, we've already gone over this issue many times. This community has virtually unanimously decided to keep the cartoons in the article. Readers have a right to know what the controversy is about, and this right is more important than the right not to be offended. An encyclopedic article about cartoons needs the cartoons, whether they are offensive or not. We can't please everyone, we'll never be able to do that. Our goal is to neutrally and objectively inform and educate, and in order to do that, we need the cartoons. Wikipedia is not censored in any way, shape or form. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 23:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The poll as to whether to keep the image, delete it, or move it down resulted in MORE THAN 80% of respondents voting to keep the image at the top of the page. If you're going to make accusations of the poll being biased, you're going to need to provide some evidence if you want anybody to believe you. BinaryTed 00:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Let us keep the results from the first poll, but conduct a second, longer poll for about a week. We should have at least the following options:

• Muhammad images in article
• Muhammad images linked from article
• Muhammad images in article but blurred with link to unblurred images

ViewFromNowhere 00:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The first two options were already available in the first poll and 80% of the 240+ people who responded went with option 1. Blurred images serve no informative purpose; I honestly don't see how that's a legitimate option. 65.24.88.67 01:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Frank, I would take two issues with your reasoning.

First, I would not agree that the inclusion of any image in Wikipedia implies that the image is, itself, inoffensive. Wikipedia contains many articles which show images that are found to be offensive by some large group of people. I was personally offended by a set of images that used to be associated with the entry for Domestic Violence, (they have been removed, but not for offense, but because of concerns about copyright.) Other people might be offended by the image "The Ethical Jew" at Anti-Semitism, or Serrano's famous image entitled Piss Christ--bothe clear examples of cultures and revered religious figures being treated in a way that large groups of people find deeply offensive. Ergo, publication here does not imply "inoffensive." Let me be clear, I support, save for the copyright concerns, Wikipedia's inclusion of each of those images, in each case, I believe there was an important expository value to providing information the reader needed to make sense of this controversy.

Second, I would not agree that a description of the cartoon is sufficient, although I am a bit less firm on this second point. Descriptions of the cartoons that have appeared in US newspapers have been, quite commonly, inaccurate, even in terms of specific, objective measures (e.g., how many of the twelve published cartoons contain an image of Mohammad, etc.) Worse, many of these descriptions strayed from objective descriptions of the material into interpretation without attributing the interpretation. I, and many readers of news data, find descriptions of such material suspect, and in terms of having enough information to make our own choices about what to support, wish to have access to the cartoons themselves. --Joe Decker 03:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Please remove the cartoon from the page. Provide a link out for those who wish to see it. You are counting voting written in English, which is not relevent to a lot of Muslim. Putting it in is showing insensitivity, self centered. Free speech does not mean the right to insult others. It is not the picture which is offensive. If you put the cartoon title as Bush in Iraq, not many muslim care about it. It is the meanest of spirit behind it, publishing picture which is known will be insulting, and then ask why are you angry? Of course I am angry, and insulted. How can two civilization live together when one keep pushing and hurting physically and mentally the other. Muslim is being killed in Palestine, and Iraq. The western newspaper ignore it, or just show 1 or 2 officer under trial and claimed "Look we have punish them." Well there are thousand of other cases. This is no free speech. It's just selected coverage. Please remove the cartoon from the page. Yosri 13:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course we're only counting votes in English, this is the english language wikipedia. Why would non-english speakers/readers surf it? Please see the archives for more arguments related to your pleading to not be insulted. Thanks. Kyaa the Catlord 13:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Iranian Jew cartoons

So, CNN reported that Iran has put out a request that they'll pay people to make 12 Holocaust cartoons as a counter to free speech. Let me preface this by saying, I'm Jewish. I urge Wikipedians to publish those cartoons. Yes that's right, publish them. The world has a right to see the art (distasteful as I may find the term), and it would put to rest many arguments about THESE cartoons. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No urging is needed, if these "response" cartoons materialize, they'll be here. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure there would have to be a poll or two or three. --JGGardiner 22:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

yeah, I know, but I'm hoping that when these do come out (or if), that someone will remember this and put them up. Not that it won't be national news anyway. I'd find them offensive, but I respect the right for information to be shown. Hell, I'd make an active effort NOT to see them until I could see them first on Wikipedia! Hows that for advertising! ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The Iranians would be about 30 years too late. Several organizations have already printed such cartoons in the United States, and nobody stopped them back then. They won't be stopped now. --Tokachu 23:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope when these holocaust cartoons are published (which we should include on Wikipedia, for sure), the response is generally a big collective shrug of the shoulders and a 'meh, whatever'. It is the only proper response, and might just let those who have been offended by the Muhammed cartoons realise how much they are overreacting. As distasteful as making fun of the holocaust might be, we a) know that it's only a tit-for-tat provocation and b) we have the ability to recognise and accept satire for what it is.Graham 23:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone run across the image published by a Muslim group in Belgium of Hitler in bed with Ann Frank (sp?)? That one would be appropriate as well to show the type of reaction occuring. --StuffOfInterest 23:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well it depends who published it and whether anyone took any notice. An obscure muslim group publishing a provocative cartoon wouldn't be _that_ interesting - and there have been many stories about things happening that are related that turn out not to have happened or to have not been obviously related (the death of a priest comes to mind). Secretlondon 23:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It was good enough to make it on ABC news this evening. They showed the photo. Apparently there were two (both on screen) but the 2nd one wasn't described. Of course, in the next clip, an Imam being interviewed said these photos were no where near as bad as blasphemy against Muhammad. --StuffOfInterest 23:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but it may have been produced to get on the news this evening. It sounds like ABC News was shit stirring too from your description. The media loves sensationalist crap, alas. Secretlondon 00:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

What does the holocaust have to do with Denmark?--Greasysteve13 00:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Because people are being told it's part of a Jewish plot.. Secretlondon 00:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed see here :S AlEX 00:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, what does ANY of this have to do with denmark? Nothing. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 02:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

True. much less than 0.000002% of Danes are responsible for these cartoons.--Greasysteve13 03:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Missed my point Greasysteve13...the point is that This isn't about Denmark. This isn't about the cartoons. It's about dogma and domination, about enforcing one religious view upon the world, whether by conquest or by other methods. It's not about denmark. They're just an excuse. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thats also true but, I don't think the protesters themselves even realise whats going on. (See: irrationality) --Greasysteve13 11:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out several differences between showing the "Muhammad cartoons" and the "Jewish Cartoons" on Wikipedia.

The publishers of the cartoons in Iran do not expect any censorship in publishing the cartoons. They have nothing to risk by publishing. There is no issue of freedom of speech here or oppression from the government, when the President of Iran has called for the destruction of Israel, and publicly denied the holocaust. The newspaper itself maybe owned by a government municipality. Contrast this with the fear of relatiation and a climate of self-sensorship in Denmark.

Notice the difference between publishing anti-jewish and anti-muslim cartoons in Iran. Accountable Government 04:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, there are differences on a thousand levels: but assuming that the Iranian cartoons are notable (which I'm sure they will be), Wikipedia will run them. These kinds of cartoons have been published by various rags in the West (especially the U.S.) for decades, and people just usually don't pay them any attention. I echo the sentiments of Graham, above; I hope the Western reaction to the publication of the Iranian cartoons is a big, bored shrug, even if it's a hot news event in Dar al-Islam. Babajobu 07:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Somebody asked earlier for Anti-Semitic cartoons published in response to the Muhammed contraversy. The Arab-European League is one such organization, and are responsible for the publication of the Hitler/Anne Frank cartoon that was asked for. I leave it to you wikipedian regulars to decide whether to include it or not. Richard 129.244.23.160 14:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

WOW!! The AEL is posting some extrordinarily offensive pictures and yet there's calm in the "Western democracies." It's almost as if "Westerner's" believe in this freedom of speech crap.--64.251.0.102 15:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted section

I've removed a section added by 65.96.9.239 (talk · contribs) ("It should be noted, however, that the thousands of Muslims engaged in the violent protests, bomb and kidnapping threats, etc. are not angered by one of the cartoons' implication that "all Muslims are violent terrorists" (or vice versa) since their reaction would otherwise lend some support to that very idea. Similarly, those violent protesters (who have made this issue the current event that it is) are not motivated by a universalist notion of respect of all religions and races. Rather, their reaction is an authentic, tribal anger.") as original research, barely verifiable, generalization (by claiming that they all act out of a tribal anger, thereby preemptively excluding any other possibilities) and perhaps pov. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 23:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Attack on hotdog stand

In the rumours and misinformation section there is a report of an incident in Copenhagen which apparently never took place. How many unimportant non-events should we have? I can fabricate as many as you'd like :D MX44 00:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

If people reading the Wikipedia article have heard of the report (which they may well have), it will be useful for us to debunk the rumor. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

But this incidence (unlike the rumour of quran burning) is of absolutely no consequence to the developement of the story. MX44 00:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's another vote for the removal of the 'Hot Dog' story... the whole thing does sound rather spurious. Netscott 01:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to inform about it since it has twice been on the front page of the Danish national TV station's news section. The background is that the owner of a hot dog stand reported an assault, however, the police now believe that the report was false and he has been charged with falsly reporting a crime. TH 19:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

What?! Somebody brought that? It wasn't even related to the cartoons >_< Apocryphite 02:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Please find a better link for larger versions of images

Currently, we link to www.faithfreedom.org for larger versions of the images. Can we find a different link (e.g. http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/698), please?

I'm not a Muslim myself, but I find www.faithfreedom.org to be hatefully inflammatory; sample quote: "Islam induces hate backed by lies. Muhammad was a terrorist by his own admission." Linking to such a site just to get a copy of images that are available elsewhere is unnecessary and unwise, in my opinion.

—Steven G. Johnson 00:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable ... though the ones in that brusselsjournal.com link are a bit more compressed, with the text not quite as clear. And also has other text as well. I spotted another source at one point, where you had to click through 12 slides, that appeared to be even clearer. Anyone remember that one? Nfitz 00:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

No the FF link is better , it is just image no text.--CltFn 01:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, we just use this instead. We don't link to the page. Most important is reliability of the site and NPOV of the site is a bonus because even though it is unlikely people will seek out more on the sites--if they do it's better not to bring them to the doorstep of partisans. If there is a more non-partisan site we use it. I choose faithfreedom for now because the compression is better on it. I hope you would agree that a site like CNN (if it had a comprable image) should be linked to over FFI. gren グレン ^? 08:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Muslim reactions

Have taken out the following:

Other commentators have noted that Muslim requests for greater "sensitivity" in the Western press are spurious, given that (a) the cartoons themselves were not particularly offensive, well below the norm for editorial cartoons generally, and (b) the general lack of respect in Islamic state-sponsored press for other religions, as noted above, as well as the outright destruction by Islamic governments of other religions' landmarks. The real issue, according to these commentators, is not Muslim hypocrisy, but rather, Islamic supremacism.

This is already explained in the paragraph, but most of all the last part is a rather strong statement which it is not substantiated by sources. I think if we cannot provide a source it is too POV to include.-- Nomen Nescio 00:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I changed

However, this assumes that the because some Muslims publish anti-Semitic material, all Muslims are guilty by association. In addition, these critics are unaware that Muslims around the world have condemned terrorism [1].

into:

However, it is countered that this assumes that because numerous Arab countries sponsor publishing anti-Semitic material, there should be an equivocal denouncement by Muslims.[2]

The reasons are: 1 There is no logical fallacy since nobody claims all Muslims are guilty of anti-Semetism. They are merely silent on the subject. 2 Although some Muslims object to the anti-Semetism it is more than evident the general reaction by Muslims is not comparable to what they do when confronted with perceived anti-Islamic books-pictures-films-plays.

My version more accurately, and in less POV fashion, describes the mood I think.-- Nomen Nescio 01:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a completely different sentence. The statement was in response to this line:

Commentators find the reactions from the Muslim community hypocritical. They point to the numerous anti-Semitic and anti-Christian publications in Arab media. One website, Filibuster Cartoons pointed out this criticism in (oddly enough) a political cartoon.

This is the Filibuster cartoon. The argument seems to be that Muslims should not complain about material they find offensive when [Muslims] themselves create anti-Semitic images. ViewFromNowhere 01:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

No, since their media is abundant with anti-Semetic images. Not that they are making them. Please see this

they believe it is odd that cartoons are considered blasphemous when terrorist attacks in the name of Islam are not equally condemned by Muslims.

However, they clearly do not make as much objections as in this case.-- Nomen Nescio 01:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

1. The filibuster cartoon specifically seems to emphasize creation rather than lack of condemnation.
2. How do you measure the level of Muslim condemnation of terrorist attacks? There seem to be a lot. The problem is that the media tends to concentrate on interesting stories, so actual terrorist attacks would make front page news, while Muslim condemnations of terrorist attacks would not. Lack of media coverage of Muslim condemnation does not indicate a lower level of condemnation.

ViewFromNowhere 01:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thinking of the response to i.e. 9-11-2001, I remember few condemnations but many festive people in the Muslim community. Personally I have never seen Muslims react to terrorist attacks, anti-Semitism, killing of women that apparently harm the family name (marrying non-muslims, being raped, et cetera), as they are to perceived anti-Islamic cartoons.-- Nomen Nescio 02:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Still, we can't generalize from anecdotal experience, can we? ViewFromNowhere 02:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Give me some time and I will insert sources. Sincerely-- Nomen Nescio 03:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

All right. But Muslims in your area of the Netherlands do not represent all Muslims in the West. ViewFromNowhere 03:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice try, but you know in Gaza they also were elated.-- Nomen Nescio 04:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know Gaza was in the West.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I'm speaking of the Muslims I know who condemn terrorism. Let's try not to generalize people, okay? ViewFromNowhere 06:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not talking about Muslims in the west. Muslims means, the same people worldwide that today feel offended. So, I refer to Muslims in every country. And when we look at the Middle-East and Asia (Pakistan?) I remember many people supporting OBL and demonising Bush in stead of the current condemnation.-- Nomen Nescio 11:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete this sentence: "They believe it is odd that cartoons are considered blasphemous when terrorist attacks in the name of Islam are not equally condemned by Muslims." --Terrorist Attacks ARE condemnded by all non-fundamentalist moslem groups, first of all, so this statement is false and secondly it is unnecessary and superfluous. The point has already been made, and an encyclopedia should not contain vague persons known as "They..." making specific judgements about any group of people be they jew christian, moslem, gay straight, black or white. Madangry 20:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Topic needs RELOCKING

In the span of last 2 hours there has been several acts of anonymous vandalism... can we go back to having this topic locked now? Netscott 01:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. ViewFromNowhere 01:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Azate 02:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. There have been many instances of repeated vandalism over the past 12 hours. Vinkmar 19:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I only see 2 vandals in the last hour. One clearly was a child and did no damage. The other deleted content, but seems to be the usual pattern of vandalism on articles listed on the Main Page. Nothing really unusual going on here! Nfitz 02:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, the article is no longer linked from the front page. Babajobu 07:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Remove some sections

I propose to remove the following sections, because of very limited usefulness:

• 8.2 Bounty on cartoonists. Reason: there are enough documented death threats. if one of them was blown out of proportion is no longer significant.
• 8.7 Muslim organizations in Denmark. Reason: to refute one tangential statement on swedish tv about an organization that is not central to the debate is superfluous.

It is the organization who toured the middle east, but I agree SVTs comments are out of scope. MX44 05:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• 8.8 Confusion between editors-in-chief. Reason: This guy has been incorrectty identified, but the error appears not to have been spread.
• 8.9 Opinion of the Queen of Denmark. Reason: The mistranslation has not been widely covered or been commented upon.

The mistranslation was used as a headline in arabic press.MX44 05:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

(Btw., did you know the article links to a site where you can get a "live fatwa" online? [3]

Azate 02:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

support Lotsofissues 03:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

'Comparable incidents — "freedom of speech" versus "blasphemy"' should go, too. All the events listed there are covered in detail in Freedom of speech versus blasphemy, which is clearly linked. Azate 04:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I tried cutting but I was reverted. I'll support you if you try again. Lotsofissues 04:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Support. This article really needs to be shortened. "Freedom of speeceh vs. blasphemy" is a good example of content that is out of scope for this article, but which should be linked and briefly summarized. --PeR 07:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Support... to make this article better but text should be saved to be placed in a sub article if a relevant one arises. gren グレン ^? 09:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Support. I suspect that there will be a lot of good editorial article compression if the vandalism disappears. Too much vandalism/reversal makes it hard to edit well.DanielDemaret 09:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Opposed to the removal of 8.2. A financial award or a bounty on a person's life from a named organisation is very different than a mere threat from an anonymous source. Relevance is misinformation by the press. 86.52.36.140 15:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

International laws related to the issue - section

This section just states the primary source of the treaty... not any real legal interpretation (which is necessary) or who and how scholars have related this to the current incidents. Unless someone can do that it should be removed. Likely there should be a sentence about how this situation relates to international law and the body text should be footnoted. gren グレン ^? 03:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Interpreting international right, or even judging what can be applicable, it one of the trickier problems around. Unless we happen to get a contribution from a top professional on this subject, putting a link to the treaty itself is maybe the smart thing to do. Azate 03:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I have not seen an outside source mention it. Take it out. Lotsofissues 03:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Noteworthy?

The editorial staff of the alternative weekly New York Press walked out today, en masse, after the paper's publishers backed down from printing the Danish cartoons that have become the center of a global free-speech fight.[4]

I think it is, and someone should put it in the article. Although NYP is a small newspaper, it is significant that the entire editorial staff of a newspaper has resigned over the decision not to publish the cartoons. Valtam 05:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Kizor 09:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust cartoons

Can someone confirm that Farid Mortazavi, graphics editor of Hamshahri, said the following:

"The Western papers printed these sacrilegious cartoons on the pretext of freedom of expression, so let's see [if] they mean what they say and print these Holocaust cartoons"

If so, wtf?! Exactly what does he hope to achieve? If they do that, wouldn't this then make the cartoons legitimate, as Muslims are doing the exact same thing to Jews, who did not write the cartoons? And why is he targetting Jews in the first place? I wasn't aware that the Jyllands-Posten chief editor was a Jew in the first place! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I find these things much easier to understand if I first assume everyone involved is an idiot. --Kizor 08:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

A lot of countries formerly occupied by Nazi Germany (including Germany itself, but excluding Russia) has anti-anti-Semitic laws. I assume they prosecute for it. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 09:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

CITATION:

World leaders rally round as crisis deepens;Cartoons Anthony Browne 677 words 7 February 2006 The Times

Lotsofissues 05:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Please -- what makes people think Wikipedia (or any western media) will be afraid to reprint their stupid cartoons? We have lots of Antisemitic imagery on Wikpedia, showcased as such, and we will showcase the holocaust cartoons as a testimony to the stupidity of Mortazavi or whoever within the minute they are available. Reporting that Iranian newspapers indulge in Holocaust denial does not amount to actual holocaust denial, just like reporting that Danish cartoonists make fun of Muhammad does not amount to actually making fun of Muhammad. dab (ᛏ) 07:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Antisemitic poster (Germany 1937)
  Antisemitic poster (Germany 1937)
• Antisemitic poster (Germany 1938)
  Antisemitic poster (Germany 1938)
• KKK deny-in
  KKK deny-in
• Antisemitic caricature, Syrian newspaper Tishreen, 2000
  Antisemitic caricature, Syrian newspaper Tishreen, 2000

Agreed. State-run media in the Muslim world publish this sort of trash all the time...but since this particular publication will be notable, we'll be happy to include it. Babajobu 08:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see how we couldn't, since the project is essentially founded on the dissemination of information - not to mention the very strong precedent set by the prominent display of the cartoons in this article. --Kizor 08:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, this article here didn't set a precedent at all. We've always published "offensive images", including images offensive to Jews, without any problem. See the four images to the rightabove. Babajobu 09:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

True, true, though this would certainly be the instance most often invoked if we wouldn't publish the denial cartoons. --Kizor 12:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Probably so, but the only way we wouldn't publish them would be if they didn't attain notability, and that's extremely unlikely. Babajobu 16:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

How can this be rewritten?

Embarrassingly bad prose:

Criticism of Muslim reactions

"Commentators find the reactions from the Muslim community hypocritical.[3] They point to the numerous anti-Semitic and anti-Christian publications in Arab media.[4][5] One website, Filibuster Cartoons pointed out this criticism in (oddly enough) a political cartoon [6]. Furthermore, they believe it is odd that cartoons are considered blasphemous when terrorist attacks in the name of Islam are not equally condemned by Muslims.[7][8] Also, aniconism is not limited to Islam, yet violent outcry like this seems to be more frequent in Muslim society.

In addition, they think it is remarkable that in countries like Syria, where demonstration is short of impossible, riots could result in buildings being burned.[9] Considering the current Hariri investigation, this is not an inconvenient distraction for Syria.[10]

However, it is countered that this assumes that because numerous Arab countries sponsor publishing anti-Semitic material, there should be an equivocal denouncement by Muslims.[11].

In contrast, Muslims are angry that the cartoons portray the Muslim religion as promoting terrorism because of the actions of a few of its members."

Lotsofissues 05:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Great job azate

Much improved.

Lotsofissues 05:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Left opinion link

I think JuanCole.com should be cited under the "opinons of the left" comment on the main page; he has lots of good analysis of the topic. He makes the case against the Right reaction in the west pretty well.

http://www.juancole.com/2006/02/more-on-hypocrisy-of-west-and.html http://www.juancole.com/2006/02/caricatures-roil-muslim-world-beirut.html

I can write in a blog too. Yippee. Does he have some special credibility that Joe Coffee at Live Journal doesn't? Kyaa the Catlord 09:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

He is notable. David Sneek 11:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It still remains a blog. I'd avoid using a blog as a source if at all possible. Find someone who actually got published. I could find five hundred live journal or blogspot entries on this, but that doesn't make them a good source. Kyaa the Catlord 11:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Guardian linking to us

The Guardian is linking to our copy of the cartoons. Babajobu 09:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ooooh, quick, get one of those penis vandals back. :P Kyaa the Catlord 09:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

We can return the favour, although [All in all, you'd better not look at this.]

It seems a problem that the Guardian link is to the image page, where one has to perform several 'goal-dircted' clicks to get to the actual article. I imagine that many people who come via the Guardian link will only get to the image, and from thereon, to the discussion page. There ought to be a clear indication as to where to click to get to the article. 86.139.217.222 12:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Mila

Were the cartoons republished in Egypt back in October?

This blog post "Cartoons were Published Five Months ago in Egypt" claims that the Jyllands-Posten cartoons were republished in an Egyptian newspaper in October, without any great reaction. Can anyone confirm this report? -- Avenue 10:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about it, but I suspect this is a hoax. If this were published in October, then it will be a hot topic in October last year. Some people like to add fuel to fire. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 11:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

They were originally published in Demark on 30 September, 2005. This blog is claiming Egyptian publication on 17 October, 2005. Paper:Al Fager. However it's just another POV blog.. Secretlondon 14:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Who demonstrated in Hillerød?

In "Burning the Qur'an" it was earlier stated (by me) that 40 extreme right wings and neo nazists did demonstrate in Hillerød. Kyaa the Catlord have changed this to "40 people did demonstrate..." noting that the right wings were mentioned above. But in the above paragraph, it was only mentioned that the RWs spread an SMS. If their relation is not repeated below, the connection is lost.

Actually several hundred people demonstrated in Hillerød that day, all but the 40 RWs in a counter demonstration against those. Hundreds of police officers kept them apart and took more than a hundred to the police station. I think it is plain wrong to state that only 40 people demonstrated in Hillerød. But the relevant information here is that (only) 40 RIGHT WINGS demonstrated in Hillerød. I suggest this detail is added back into the article. Claush66 10:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I removed your change. If you want to add that forty right wingers protested do it, just make sure you do so in a way that makes it apparent that these are seperate from the previous ones. It seemed like all the right wingers in that section were the very same right wingers. Your language was also very suspect you stated something like 40 "extremely right wing...." Tone that down please. Kyaa the Catlord 11:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I will insert "right wing". Anyway I think I originally wrote "extreme right wing", not "extremely". They ("Dansk Front") together with the nazis really do mark the outer edge of the political spectre in Denmark, (where btw nazisim is not illegal due to our now famous liberal free speech policy). Claush66 11:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

If they're wikified, why don't you put forty Dansk Front members? Or better yet, wikilink them, then create their article since they're not. :P Kyaa the Catlord 11:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

They are not wikified (I checked when writing about the demonstration). It is a rather small organisation, and I dont know much about them other than highly racist and provocative right wing propaganda from them and that they often appear with hailing Danish Nazis and someone calling themselves White Pride. I am not able to create a balanced wiki entry about them based on that, and I am not really that interested in them... But it would sure be nice if someone else could do the job. Claush66 12:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Footnote numbering

I would love to contribute something inflammatory to this discussion page, but this is all I can come up with: If I move my mouse over the numbers that link to the footnotes, the URL that appears does not correspond correctly, e.g.: footnote 69 links to Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#_note-65. Not very important, I know, but how to fix it? David Sneek 11:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is a bug. The links point to the right place. Footnotes are numbered in order, starting with one. Links are numbered starting from zero, skipping over named links, as in: <ref name="some_name"/> --PeR 11:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see it now. David Sneek 19:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

See also

Can editors limit the see also section to the really relevant links? Holocaust denial seems out of place. Otherwise I would suggest inserting racism, right-wing politics, anti-semetism, Islam, Holy figures in Islam, Holy figures in Christianity, the Bible, The Koran, The Thora, et cetera. You get the picture, it makes the list too long. -- Nomen Nescio 11:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, its really too long. I think we really need to shorten the list. --

Terence Ong(恭喜发财) 11:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

If you read the article you'll note it makes mention of so-called "Zionist Conspiracies"--Greasysteve13 11:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss adding these irrelevant links. Holocaust denial surely is not relevant. We are not comparing history with religion.-- Nomen Nescio 12:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You cannot honestly claim that IMMIGRATION is not relevant, can you ????? This is So sill, I dint know where to start!!!" Azate 12:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain what immigration has to do with this subject? -- Nomen Nescio 12:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Azate I understand you feel strongly about it but at least give some arguments. There could be links to similar incident (you remove them), but I do not understand why your links are related to this story. Please discuss. Just inserting your POV is not civil.-- Nomen Nescio 13:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

See also isn't a dumping ground for wikilinks - if it's linked elsewhere in the article we don't have it at the end as well. Secretlondon 13:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

(discussion inserted from editors talk page)

This is not related to the article so please remove it. I will observe the 3RR rule, but you could at least engage in the discussion I started. Furthermore, if you insist on this, than I insist upon inserting sociology, anthropology, racism, ant-semitism. This clearly is not relevant.-- Nomen Nescio 12:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The idea that IMMIGRATION has nothing to to with this article is is so absurd, I don't know where to start. Notice all these weird-looking brown people in Denmark, who are rumoured to pray to allah? I tell you a secret: they're immigrants! And btw: The Wiki links section is the last place in this huge article that needs to be trimmed. Azate 13:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you (plural) also removed CONTROVERSIAL NEWSPAPER CARRICATURES together with IMMIGRATION ( and 2 or 3 more) . Whazzup with that?? Azate 13:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The link is still in the article, so you are incorrect. As to immigration, please explain why you think it should be mentioned! You can do it here.-- Nomen Nescio 13:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's in the article because it put it back twice after you removed it (twice). If you can't figure yourself why immigration is related to this topic, I can't help you. Go ask sombody else. Azate 13:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, now you also removed the Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy link. Shall I exolain to you why this is related relevant to this article? Azate 13:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect: [5]and that's why you inserted it twice, which I had to correct.[6] The timeline is superfluous.

Let's try and stay calm. I am only asking you to discuss. That is all.-- Nomen Nescio 13:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I object to your calling 'correcting' what is nothing more that deleting relevant links, for unfathomable reasons. WHY did you delete CONTROVERSIAL NEWSPAPER CARRICATURES, for example? Oh, and IMMIGRATION, again? Azate 14:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Please, first look at the edit before repeating that accusation. It clearly shows it is present after my edit, and there was a second entry of it which I removed along with other duplicate edits.-- Nomen Nescio 14:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

A 3 day poll gives Wikipedia no right to promote racism

I draw your attention to this 4 part article (below) that goes into great detail about why these cartoons are highly offensive and promote racism.

By publishing these cartoons, Wikipedia is promoting racism. People who polled in your polls are obviously not sensitive to the feelings of Muslims worldwide. I believe its a highly biased poll.

The controversy has been going on since Sept 30 and all you did was a 3-day poll? That's not very fair. I didn't get to vote in that poll and hundreds of thousands of other people also didn't know that there was a poll going on.

Governments of many countries, including the US have come out and officially said that these cartoons are offensive.

A highcourt in Johannesberg, South Africa ruled to stop Sunday Times from publishing these cartoons.

Please take these images down ASAP or I feel Muslims will have no choice but to take the matter to the court of law.

Wikipedia is benefitting from promoting racism and hate against Muslims and Islam, something that is not very Wikipedian.

And to those Jews and Christians who say go publish cartoons about their religion, obviously don't respect their religion as much.

The issue is racism: http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8267 Freedom to Spread Hate? http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8243 Cartoon caricatures were designed to offend http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8274

Please remove the images immediately.

Frank

I think that society as a whole needs to rereview their ideas about racism if they feel that a few satirical images of Mohammed is spreading race hatred. Hey, colour me insensitive, but something seems wrong with this picture. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see the socialist worker going to bat for the sanctity of religious belief. Christian fundamentalists are also looking forward to your solidarity on a range of issues. Regardless, all the issues you raise have already been addressed ad nauseum on these talk pages. Go read them. We are not "promoting racism", we are providing a key image relevant to a major event. Babajobu 12:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Now away with all your superstitions ... No saviour from on high delivers. Its been a couple of years since I was at a Socialist Worker conference... do they still sing the internationale at the end? - FrancisTyers 14:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

'We are not "promoting racism", we are providing a key image relevant to a major event'.

Which means you are promoting racism. The image itself promotes racism, don't you get it? It tells the world that Islam is the source of terrorism and to get rid of terrorism, they should get rid of Islam.

Frank

• Last I checked, Islam was not a race. Kulturkampf is not the same as racism. In any case, Wikipedia is not endorsing the content of the image by displaying it. There is instead a general rule that, as an encyclopedia, we show relevant content for articles, regardless of how offended people might be. If that means a jesus made of feces on a toilet crucifix or trotsky on fire dancing to a fiddle, if it's relevant to an article, it should be included. --Improv 12:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I love those socialist worker party links. Maybe I can find something from New Republic or Fox News to counter them. :D Kyaa the Catlord 12:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Frank, Wikipedia includes a great many offensive images, some of which you might regard as promoting negative images of particular groups. For example, see images such as this one, one of several in Wikipedia that document Nazi propaganda against Jews; or see Piss Christ, which includes an image woefully offensive to Christians. As Improv says, the inclusion of images relevant to various stories does not equate to endorsement of those images. Likewise, including an image of burnt-out Danish embassies is not an endorsement of the burning down of those embassies. This is a pretty simple concept to grasp, and Wikipedia assumes the vast majority of its readers are capable of making it. Babajobu 12:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

what Babajobu said. Now let's hope people capable of complaining here are also capable of reading so we won't have to reiterate this simple argument every five minutes. dab (ᛏ) 14:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• As far the threat of Muslims taking this to the court of law... Wikipedia is subject to Federal laws of the United States, and the laws of the State of Florida. If you believe the publication of this image violates a specific Florida or US law, I'm sure many of us would be interested to know which law that is. BinaryTed 14:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make legal threats again Frank. It is against Wikipedia policy and will not be tolerated, especially since you cannot provide to me state or federal statute that it violates. See WP:NLT⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

Once again the article's getting outrageously long, and once again I'm the one who has to do the dirty work. I'm moving the "Opinions" section to a new article, Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. People would have to move the appropriate references and talks to the subarticle. Aucaman^Talk 12:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I strongly oppose. This should remain in the article. If you have to edit something out remove the rumours. That clearly is not that important as discussion on the subject at hand. Could you reinsert the opinions and make a new rumours article?-- Nomen Nescio 12:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The idea is to retain the information and still have the head article be shorter. The article was extremely long. It's highly undesirable - both for readers and for editors. I've moved everything to the new article. You're free to move the important things back into the head article, but I recommend summarizing the whole thing into 3-8 paragraphs. I know this is a lot of work, but article size is very important. The "Rumors" section is already very short. The information is not enough for a new article. Aucaman^Talk 12:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand and support why you did it. However, there are less important parts to the page as I said. Clearly rumours do not need to be in the main page when commentary is removed? Personally, I think commentary should always be at the same page. People should not have to look for it. Otherwise, they can just as well search themselves on the Net.-- Nomen Nescio 12:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

We absolutely need a summary at least. No section should be moved without providing a summary of its contents in this, the main article on the topic. Babajobu 12:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I also made a subsection on "International reactions" last week. That was arguably more important than the "Opinions" section (In fact, back then I was asked why I'm not moving the Opinions section). Just don't panic. This is a routine procedure. If the section contains important information, people would rise up and summarize the information back into the article. Aucaman^Talk 13:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Good luck with writing that summary for "opinions"... Azate 13:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one who suggested it be moved in the first place. We'd be better off moving rumors out, and leaving opinions in, as Nomen suggests. Babajobu 13:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

We reinsert the opinions and exchange it for rumours!!!-- Nomen Nescio 13:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

What you're doing is counterintuitive. I said the reason I moved these information was because the article's getting too long. I doubt taking out rumors would help in any way. Aucaman^Talk 13:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, not terribly much since I moved some of them around to places they fit better. I'm considering the remainders and thinking about moving them somewhere where they make more sense. What does the membership claims of Islamisk Whatever have to do with this article anyways? Or right wingers acting out? They may seem, distantly, related, but I'm not sure this is the best place for them. Kyaa the Catlord 13:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Nomen is saying remove the "rumors and disinformation" section to a separate article before doing so with the "opinions" section, because the latter section is more fundamental to the article. I agree with him totally. Babajobu 13:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, since these rumors are mainly related to other subjects not to the controversy itself. Kyaa the Catlord 13:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You can do whatever you want as long as the article doesn't end up too long - the way it was. I don't really care about the content of this article - just the readability. When summarizing a section, the content are usually moved to a new article and then summarized back into the article. I can't think of any other way. Aucaman^Talk 13:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, there are a lot of Wikipedians working on this article alone. I'm trying to spread the work into several articles. The discussion section for this article has had to be archived almost on a daily basis. Again, highly inefficient. You're free to move the Rumors section, but taking back the Opinions would be a mistake. The section used to be short, but people read stuff online and start copy-pasting at random. If this continues I doubt we would ever be able to summarize it. By giving it it's own article, the management becomes easier (look at the "international reactions" article for example). Aucaman^Talk 13:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Opinions as to how to interpret the riots are highly pertinent to the main article. Once again, I say exchange for rumours. Also the reprinting does not have to be this long, it already has a seperate page.

Does this mean we agree opinions should be reinserted and rumours taken out?-- Nomen Nescio 13:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

No, the size of the article has to be taken into consideration. New articles will eventually have to be created the way this article is growing. As I said, a few days ago the Opinions section was much shorter. It's better to address these problems now than later. Aucaman^Talk 13:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Why did you not move rumours, and why is the elaborate discussion in timeline not shorter? There you can win space and I repeat: commentary should stay in the main article. It is important for readers to see not only the Mulim interpretation, but it should directly be placed in context. If not there would be a Muslim POV to this page.-- Nomen Nescio 14:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you read any of my responses? Like I said, you can do whatever you want as long as you don't make the article any bigger than it should be - 50KB for now. "Commentary should stay in the main article." Is this a Wikipedia policy? In the mean while, let me refer you to some Wikipedia articles to read: Wikipedia:Article_size and Wikipedia:How_to_break_up_a_page. Also, if you're saying that the Opinions section should never be put in a new artilce, that's just no possible considering how fast the article is growing. But if you do agree that it eventually has to be broken up, then it's better to do it now than later. Aucaman^Talk 14:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The point is, all the space you want can be found by moving rumours, shortening timeline and reprinting. However, this apparently is beyond debate. As to commentary, see Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles and WP:NPOV.-- Nomen Nescio 14:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I like I said, if you think you can do better, go for it. But the "Opinions" section would eventually have to be put in a seperate article. Aucaman^Talk 14:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Could it be considered anti-Islamic to call all Muslims part of the same race? What would be the term for this? I'm not really sure... Valtam 15:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The Opinions section is horribly unencyclopedic in tone, and should be completely rewritten. For instance, an encyclopedia should never use the word "you" (outside of an actual quote, of course). I'm not quite feeling up to rewriting it myself right now; is anyone interested in doing this? If not, I'll do it tomorrow. --Ashenai 16:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

---

I think that it is completely wrong to move out "rumours" and "opinions". They should be cleaned up and kept in the article. The maint criteria for keeping things in the main article should be wheter they are related directly to the event. The rumors probably had an important effect on the outcome of the events.

"Danish Journalistic traditins", however is an article that would stand well on its own. None of it had any direct consecuence on the course of events here. Making it a separate article and linking to it from both this one and Politics of Denmark would improve the quality of both articles.

Opinions cleanup: Basically, opinions should only be included if expressed by world leaders or people directly relevant to the conflict. What "some muslims" or "many people in denmark" may or may not feel is completely unencyclopaedic unless an opinion poll is quoted. Anything not related to the cartoons controversy is not for this article. For example: Statements that the queen of Denmark made in April would only be relevant if those statements can be shown to have directly influenced the course of events in September when the cartoons were published. (Such statements may be relevant to an article on the queen herself or on "Islam in denmark" or similar. Personally, however, I think the queens statement only sounds racist after translation into English, not in Danish as she said it.) --PeR 19:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Sydney riots

Furthermore, the cartoons were published in a conservative mainstream newspaper in the context of what many Muslims perceive to be a pervasive bias against them in many western countries, exemplified by the French law on religious symbols in schools, the short film Submission, and the 2005 Sydney race riots.

This lacks a citation. Also, the listing of the 2005 Sydney race riots may be giving undue prominence to it. There are countless conflicts between Muslims and Christians that were more violent than the Sydney riots, and religion was largely a marker between "us" and "them" in this case. Then again, I'm from Sydney, so maybe I'm biased. Andjam 12:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think all of these citations are giving undue weight to them. Kyaa the Catlord 13:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Andjam. Sydney Riots link should not be there. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Well done, Wikipedia. It must be a near full time job undoing all the vandalism. 82.26.173.144 13:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be cluster-vandalism going on. Almost every wiki-article that I have surfed to that is connected to this article makes my eyes hurt as they their content blurs and changes with each refresh.DanielDemaret 14:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection, please?

This is getting tedious. Could someone please semi-protect this page for now? --Ashenai 15:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I tossed his ip on the vandal list. Of course, he stops now.... Kyaa the Catlord 15:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I blocked him for 24 hours - hence the stop. Secretlondon 15:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yay! Thanks. Kyaa the Catlord 15:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I will then shut down every server and much more: e.g. the whole (AS)Autonomous System if wikipedia would come under a serious attack. Take it easy ... .

Oh no! Not the autonomous system!!! *chuckles* --Ashenai 15:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

What is the (AS)Autonomous System anyway? I've never heard of it! Valtam 16:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_system_%28Internet%29 Dmaftei 16:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Dmaftei! Valtam 19:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... our happy little vandal dude is now using sock puppets. I'm thinking we need a temporary IP-ban, or semi-protect. Anyone willing and able to do the honors? --Ashenai 19:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Support photos gone?

What happened to the protest and boycot photos that were in the article? The overall article looks rather stale now with just the cartoon image. --StuffOfInterest 16:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Some editors feel the article is too long and started subpages.-- Nomen Nescio 16:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense. OK, I brought one image forward to the main page for illustation. Picked the boycot photo rather than rioting and protesting ones. --StuffOfInterest 17:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

One fire would be relevant to show. The one we had before was just fine. MX44 17:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment

I do not understand what the big deal is about these cartoons. Muslims should be more tolerant about things just like christians and jews are. This is the 21st century, you cannot force the entire world to see things the way you do, or the ways you may deem as fit. It is very childish, grow up and civilize. Im sorry but its true. Starting riots and burning an embassy doesnt exactly help show a positive image for islam, especially when the entire western world is getting really sick of islam to begin with.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.168.169 (talk • contribs)

This needs to be moved to Arguments.--Jbull 19:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Rhetorical questions, what do they add?

The following added text by Azate from the Opinions section doesn't seem to add anything... seems more like personal questions than questions being posed by parties significantly involved in this controversy...the sources for these questions should be cited.

What has caused the offence felt by many Muslims? Any pictoral representation of the Prophet, or satirical depiction, or sartirical association with terror, or genuine association with terror? Is it really about the Prophent, or Islam in general? Is there 'one Islam' so that every Muslim is offended by association, or is the offence in saying there is 'one Islam'? Is the tolerable amount of offence to be measured by the offence given or by the offence taken? How does one measure such a thing? Does protecting one group more than another mean you respect it more or less?

Is free speech only worth having when one can go to extremes, or is it exactly then not worth having? Is the tolerable amount of offence the same in speech and writing? Is it good manners to tone down your writing to the level of your speaking, or is the price for your good speaking manners that in writing anything goes? Is religious belief something inseperable from the self like race or gender, or is it an opinion you happen to hold? Is there something wrong with religious people, or are people not religious enough? When being offended, do you return like for like? What if the other one thinks you're escalating when you think he is? When you appease for peace or gain, are you smart or do you erode your principles? Or do you forego your advantage for priciple, and it will be worth it in the end (or is that just counterproductive)? Do you ever change your opinion?

Opinion leaders have applied these, and more pedestrian matters like politics, history, law, family, nation and economics, to create an almost indefinite range of what's right and what it all means.

Netscott 17:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

limits of free speech

A number of ppl have challenged me in this discussion & on my talk-page to find any real "taboo" that exists in western countries / or show an example where freedom of speech is limited in the west - I would agree with you that Europe is very liberal and that such an example is difficult to find. However one can construct a scenario quite easily (note that this is different from giving an example though) where a picture would be so offensive that it would be "taboo" to put it on wikipedia or publish it in a newspaper - quite equivalent to what Muslims feel about the Muhammad (pbuh) cartoons.

Consider for example a pornographic picture (e.g. involving ... animals? an extreme close-up? violence? blood?) that would be so offensive to most ppl that you wouldn't dare put it on wikipedia. If you can imagine such a picture then you'll realise how some Muslims feel when they see the controversial cartoons on this page. Less drastic might be a movie of vivisection or extreme animal cruelty - such a movie could also be so offensive that it couldn't be put on wikipedia. Similarly a picture of a human with gross disability or horrific disfigurement. Finally consider this scenario: a computer-generated, photo-realistic picture or movie (i.e. no real humans involved, thus no suffering, etc.) of child abuse. Equally one can easily imagine that this could be so extremely offensive to the general public that it would never be put on wikipedia, not matter what the surrounding circumstance or controversy.

Imagine seeing one of those "taboo" pictures / images described above to help understand how some Muslims feel about the Muhammad (pbuh) cartoons and why we try to delete them. Someone who doesn't believe that animals are sentient might not have a problem with movies of animal cruelty (in fact many indeginous ppl are extremely cruel to animals). A gynaecologist might have no problem with extreme close-ups of sexual organs. All depends on the the context Rajab 18:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Images of children having sex is treated in the modern western countries the way blasphemy is treated in Islamic countries. Even wikipedia shows this bias. Child sexual abuse covers behavior that is not considered "abuse" in other cultures [7]. We don't have a photo of a child being sexually abused in that article. Not even a drawing of such an event, even though such a drawing is legal under US law. WAS 4.250 19:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Incredible to see you insert such sections in the article, Rajab. You really know better than that. --Sir48 19:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Artistic depictions of child pornography are arguably now illegal under U.S. Law, Rajab, according the The PROTECT Act of 2003 (though many believe the U.S. Supreme Court will strike down this aspect of the legislation) There was a successful conviction under this law in December 2005. That's why our Lolicon article shows a drawing of a little girl with a dildo, but no drawings of actual pedophilic acts taking place. Babajobu 19:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Results of Riots

This article needs at least a rough estimate of the people killed, buildings burt, and other property destroyed. This is essential information in understanding the scope of the controversy. We don't need to go into political commentary (x deaths in protests from cartoons that stated Islam promotes violence.) - just a basic statment of facts. -Mr.Logic 18:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I present to you....

Fuel to the fire!

[http://lolterrorism.ytmnd.com/]