The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

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)[reply]

Archives
Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons/Archive 1 Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons/Archive 2 Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons/Archive 3 Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons/Archive 4

ATTENTION

Please read a few books about Islam traditions before VOTE.

ISLAM is not Usame Bın Laden

Because there is he in your subconscious.--Erdemsenol 04:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I do not agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it." Voltaire/Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Wikipedia is about disseminating information. Look here if you want to see how Wikipedia handled other controversial religious subjects.

 Tbeatty 05:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polls - IN PROGRESS

Image Poll

Have picture in the article (size and placement TBD)	Delete	Move to separate page and link the image
Chtito 18:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Keep of course! The very article is about these pictures![reply] KEEP KEEP KEEP! MAKE IT BIGGER!! EVERYONE WHO VISITS THIS PAGE SHOULD BE DEEP-THROATED WITH IT.. THANKS Hellznrg 16:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep Nobody disputes the existence of the images. There is no hypocrisy in showing this image here. Wikipedia has both an article for the Holocaust and the Holocaust Denial. Don’t sensor the images and let people judge the truth for themselves. --Thunder 12:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Jtkiefer^{T \| C \| @} ---- 01:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] FWBOarticle 07:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC) People who don't like the image can simply off image loading function of their browser. Plus, use of image here is totally referential. Should we ban the use of word "nigger" in the article titled "nigger"?[reply] Smapti 19:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Maverick 19:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Vagodin ^Talk 19:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] User:slamdac 20.01, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Babajobu 20:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Sol. v. Oranje 20:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] EuroSong 20:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] KimvdLinde 20:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Valtam 20:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Septentrionalis 20:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Discus2000 20:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Neim 20:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] User's only edits are to this talk page. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] UltraSkuzzi 20:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] AlEX 20:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Snailwalker \| talk 20:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] StuffOfInterest 20:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Nfitz 20:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Fredrik Johansson - talk - contribs 20:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Homestarmy 20:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Carlossuarez46 20:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Jaco plane 20:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] --Ridethecurve 20:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] --Candide, or Optimism 20:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] DanielDemaret 20:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] `Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS)` 20:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] --Lassefolkersen 20:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] The.valiant.paladin 20:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Thparkth 20:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Zerak-Tul 20:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] gidonb 20:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Keep I believe that the initial publication of these images does not exhibit very good taste. Yet given that the images have been published and became a focus of international discussion and tension, the publication here has significant encyclopedic value.[reply] — Peter L <talk\|contribs> 20:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] --Tatty 21:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC) One needs to make a personal judgement about how controversial or offensive they might be. THE IMAGE SHOULD BE BIGGER.[reply] Skleinjung 21:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC) - Keep: When I first looked at this article yesterday, the images were not present. I wasn't aware of the controversy at the time, but spent time searching for the images elsewhere, because I felt seeing them was necessary to understand what specifically was being discussed.[reply] MartinHagberg 21:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC) - the image is extremely important in order to fully understand the article.[reply] Astrotrain 21:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC). Wikipedia should never give in to religious fanatics.[reply] Pat Payne 21:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC) STRONGLY in favor of keeping. They are central to the controversy, and must be seen to be understood.[reply] --Anchoress 21:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Jdonnis 22:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC) - Freedom of Speech is more important the religious feelings[reply] joturner 22:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Chaldean 22:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Phr 22:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC) The image should be somewhere in the article but should be moved and resized smaller. Main picture for the article should be something different.[reply] Maprieto 22:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Denoir 22:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] rst20xx 22:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia is generally neutral, but in one sense that it is not neutral is that it believes in freedom of speech. Clearly the image is relevent to the article, therefore putting it in would be sensible, and this coupled with Wikipedia's belief in freedom of speech means it must stay.[reply] --Prospero 22:28,2 February 2006 (UTC) Freedom of speech! Top, right-justified. Wikipedia is neutral and should not yield to hiding the central theme of the discussion. This is a global community, not an encyclopedia based on a certain creed. —Ruud 22:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] the wub "?!" 22:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] --Tasc 22:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] --The_stuart 22:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC) We should even have indepth descriptions of each cartoon![reply] --Alvestrand 22:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC) keep[reply] Theresa Knott \| Taste the Korn 23:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] abakharev 23:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Definitely. See the content disclaimer, linked to from the bottom of every page. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] -- Vanky 23:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] --Jbull 23:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Doesnt matter where in the article, but as big and legible as possible. The multiplication of rumors and introduction of additional pictures makes it imperative that the original images are accurately and legibly displayed. The reader needs to see just what trivial pictures someone is willing to kill over. Dalembert 23:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] --Nathan (Talk) 23:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] --FRS 23:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia is not censored. Not for minors, and not for religious beliefs. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 23:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep and enlarge--GeLuxe 00:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] --Cipher Pipe 01:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] --omoo 2 February 2006 (19:15 EST) --Keep, or redefine what Wikipedia is about. Eixo 00:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Second Cuiviénen Wynler 00:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] --Keep, but given the number of Muslims in the world and the potential size of the Muslim wikipedia community, we should maybe consider moving it to the bottom if Wikipedia is to not lose a sizeable chunk of its readership. L33th4x0r 00:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] --Tarawneh 00:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Well, the reason behind this dilemma is the pictures; it would be meaningless not put them in the top. But it should be clear that the Pictures are merely the POV of the Cartoonist.[reply] AllanRasmussen 00:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] --BACbKA 00:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC) bottom placement only, otherwise count me as Delete[reply] Hitokirishinji 00:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC) No kneeling to any one group of people to make them "feel" good. Truth and freedom.[reply] --Mido 00:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC) it should be in the article, at top, it's the main reason behind the problem and it's how they IMAGINED him.[reply] Zora 01:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC) The reason for the prohibition on images was prevention of idolatry; no Muslim would be tempted to worship those cartoons.[reply] --drew 01:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] --MiraLuka 01:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Lenineleal 01:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Freedom of speech. Wikipedia should not abide by the laws of Islamofascism.[reply] Titanium Dragon 02:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Keep it where it is (at the top), it belongs there and is 100% relevant to the article.[reply] Keep at the top, it's relevant and a good illustration of the topic. That's all that matters.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 02:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep* Wikipedia should never bow to religious fanaticism. 209.51.77.64 02:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep, as per many people above me. Jdcooper 03:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] KEEP. The right to free speech and freedom of the press is infinitely more absolute than any commandment of Islam. AscendedAnathema 03:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] --Greasysteve13 03:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Aarondude919 03:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] KEEP the image in the article, but not necessarily front and centre; and this poll has itself become a comment on "Islam, freedom of speech, terrorism, religious tolerance, etc" (doesn't the last comment in the ninth "no" vote just say it all). 203.198.237.30 03:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Has anyone seen him? How do you know he even looks like that anyway? SilentC 04:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Fufthmin 04:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] 146.163.218.221 04:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Lankiveil 04:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC). Wikipedia must not allow special interest groups to dictate what we may or may not see, and what we may or may not publish.[reply] Kjaergaard 04:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC) The article on the Invisible Pink Unicorn has a picture on the top too.[reply] Tbeatty 05:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Andrewseal 05:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC) On the condition that it is moved below the fold. If you're browsing Wikipedia, you're probably already in love with your scroll wheel. I think a bit of scrolling is worth keeping content accessible to the group that, in the main, this concerns.[reply] --God of War 05:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] KEEP. 郵便箱 05:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] --Sbatchu 06:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC), Wikipedia compromises it's purpose and principles if it sets a precedent of allowing itself to be bullied into concealing facts--the cartoons did exist and did get printed--because it hurts the sensibilities of a few.[reply] — TheKMan^talk 06:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep,same size , same placement.Waleeed 06:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep Your religion is no better than mine. You can't jihad wikipedia can you? Perhaps this shows the world that radical islam ISN'T the true way. Swatjester 07:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Cacophobia (Talk) 08:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] --OliverW 08:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] WP:NOT "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive." Acetic Acid 08:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Just keep it like it is. -- Trollkontroll 08:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] The Wikipedia is the obvious place to look for uncensored information. Keep it live and prominent.Philmurray 08:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] --Pmsyyz 08:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC) The image is the whole point of this article.[reply] --Kyaa the Catlord 09:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC) KEEP, it is common sense to keep the image which is the basis of the article.[reply] --Without seeing the image, we can have neither rational discussion nor informative artical so that people can make up their own mind. Also, trying to appease one religious group would open a can of worm, everybody from Atheists to Christian Fundamentalists will demand the same treatment. Mparthas Keep Should be on top because without it the article is almost useless. Pyro19 09:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep Only way rational discussion can make sense. Otherwise, people only see the two deliberately offensive images shown briefly in most media, not the whole thing. And Muslims do not insist that non-Muslims comply with Islamic law, surely? And there have been cartoons showing the Jewish and Christian God, despite the commandment, and nobody has threatened to kill anyone over them. And I give you Piss Christ, as an example of a Wikipedia article that you only go to if you are happy to see the picture. Skittle 10:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep and in as prominent position as possible. It's the very point of the article. Aris Katsaris Keep but be sensitive in presentation (i.e. do not have a top)--JK the unwise 10:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep. It's kind of necessary for the article. We're reproducing material that made the news–not endorsing it as a sign of freedom of speech like the newspapers. gren グレン ^? 11:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep it is essential to the event. AdamSmithee 12:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep The pictures explain the article. But i agree that they shouldn't be on the top of the page. Hypnotical 13:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep (I also vote for moving to separate page, as I think that is OK too.)--Niels Ø 12:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep If there is a controversy, which there undoubtedly is, readers should be able to know what that controversy is about. The cartoons are vital to the controversy, and are therefore vital to an article about that controversy. Also, Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 12:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep Wikipedia is here to impart information - all information. People say we're being eurocentric, but if a cartoon were so offensive to Christians, it would surely not be removed. People say that we don't need to create a provocation to talk about a provocation, but the provocation is already created, and it garners a better understanding for one to know what the fuss is all about. They say that it shouldn't be printed because it's against Muslim law, but saying the true name of God is against Jewish law, and that's not censored. They say the site is already censored by Congress, but Congress has never stepped in, and if they did, there would be an outrage. The fact that this is even a debate is a sad reflection on our values, too afraid to offend to do what we're here to do. Twin Bird 12:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep It's not violating any rule of Wikipedia, neither violating any international law. Wikipedia is not standing under the Shariah. No Muslim is forced to open this page. RapaNui 14:39, 3 February 2006 (CET) Keep If someone says he's offended by my eating/drinking/breathing/living, etc., I'm not obliged to stop doing these things. I find this demand equally unreasonable. deeptrivia (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep Absolutely. Enlarge too, full page - people want to see this. Censoring an article because it is offensive to someone isn't in the best interests of an encyclopedia. What next? Maybe the evolution page should be deleted? corelog 14:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep At the top, in the current size as a sidebar to the first paragraph --Sommerfeld 14:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep --TheMidnighters 14:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep --Knio 14:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep, this is policy. User:Sverdrup 15:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep Firstly, this is policy. We have kept articles on the Iranian presidents remarks about Israel; which are orders of magnitude worse IMO. Secondly, have you seen these? http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/ArabCartoons.htm. The muslim world is guilty of more henious caricatures than this one. It stays. Avi 15:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] The cartoons are intentionally offensive...and we should keep them. "I disagree with everything you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it." Voltaire. "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. " Orwell.----Snorklefish 15:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep obviously per policy. Block any and all hypocritical POV-pushers that want to censor Wikipedia. jni 15:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep. 193.77.153.149 15:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] 'Keep No particular religious group's dogma should not dictate Wikipedia. (Entheta 15:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC))[reply] Keep.--Eloquence * 15:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC) This is an article about the cartoons. Our purpose is to provide useful information. A fair use sample of the cartoons is useful information. That is all there is to be said; everything else is POV.[reply] Keep. Without it, why do we even have Wikipeida? Jsnell 16:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep--Donar Reiskoffer 16:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep. On top. Utopianheaven 16:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep. We shouldn't deleted it because it offends a select group of people. It clearly is of encyclopedic value.--Lewk_of_Serthic 16:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep. as per Entheta. Veej 16:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep. But perhaps move the image next to the full description as it reads easier, plus it would stop the complaints about the images being in such a prominent position.Logan1138 17:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Sure, why the hell not ? Darkoneko 17:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep. This is "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy" -- they are the cartoons. Although I would have them "below the fold". --JGGardiner 17:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Topical, crucial to illustrate the subject. I have to add that most of the arguments to censor this image are despicable, and that it is the honour and duty of any free man to stand against such things. Rama 17:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep. --NilsB 18:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep. The information is useful; if anyone likely to be offended by cartoons of Muhammad clicks on a link that says "Muhammad cartoons controversy," well, they're asking for it. I feel cheapened, however, by being forced to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with a whole pile of assholes who support the keep for confrontational or race-baiting reasons. MattShepherd 19:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Please point out where you see someone 'baiting' someone's race! Valtam 19:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Intrinsic part of the article which is very important for understanding the debate. Erudy 19:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] keep Poll should be closed Lotsofissues 19:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] keep as it is Poll should be closed Palmerston 19:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] BMF81 19:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep, of course. J-b 20:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep them, please ! Gérard 20:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep, definitely. 0836whimper 21:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep, There is plenty of content that discusses controversial issues, such as the Six-Day War article which includes an Arab cartoon of Nasser kicking the "Jews into the sea." Its presense in Wikipedia only documents such controversy, not supports one side or another. —Aiden 21:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep. English Wikipedia conforms to the freedom of the press ideals of the English-speaking world, which grows out of Western civilization. IMHO, Muslims are demonstrating the incompatibility of Islam with the Western world by their (hypocritical) outrage (they demand respect for their religion, but do not respect the religions of others). Godfrey Daniel 21:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Wikipedia is not censored, period, and displaying this image is absolutely necessary to establish illustrative context for the rest of the article. --Cyde Weys 21:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep -Semnoz 21:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep, Wikipedia is not censored to preserve the sensitivities of a few. This image will probably offend some, and I am sorry for that, but that does not mean that it should be covered up. Nobody has the right not to be offended. MichelleG 22:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC).[reply] Keep - strong, most definite keep. The pictures are essential to understanding what this article is about. We should value freedom of expression above all else. There is far, far worse printed in the Arabian press on a daily basis.--Kalsermar 22:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Roby 22:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep- We can't move backwards to the dark ages, we must move forward--M4bwav 22:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Keep- We shouldn't tolerate censorship like this. It may be offensive to some, but is not to most people. The response of some of the people opposed to the catoons neatly sums up 'irony'. Tristanb 22:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]	I love WikiPedia. Long live free speech along side with respect. Certainly nobody can be forced to be respectful. However one of the intrinsic mandates of Wikipedia is to be respectful among others. I am asking: how can you be "respectful and polite" by showing a cartoon that's exclusive intent is to point fingers to members of a particular religion by disrespecting and ridiculing a prophet! The publishers of these cartoons can choose to be disrespectful. I choose to protest them and respect everything that anybody thinks is divine or holy. And I would love to see Wikipedia to choose RESPECT. BuLenT Rajab 20:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] This is nothing but a usual Europian hypocricy. Can you say, for example, 'Holocost is nothing but a propaganda!' in your country? Where is your 'freedom of speech'? Jews were killed or not, that is a different story. My point is you cannot even say it in your countries!... Resid Gulerdem 20:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Your point is wrong. Period. Check your talk page. Hitokirishinji 21:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] My point is valid! And very strong! I couldn't see anyting worth to mention in my talk page. I couldn't see a message from you, either. Do not discuss here, use the place provided below... In a wiki article, we cannot include an insult! It is not 'freedom of speech' and against any rules you can name and common sense! Insult is not a value to insist on or to support, it is a mental pathology which requires a professional treatment, caused by lack of ideas and lack of emphaty!... Resid Gulerdem 23:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] --Cretanforever 23:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] (Cloud02 22:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC))[reply] Memty 23:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Showing the figures of Mohammed is disturbing muslims. And it is a insult to Islam. In Islam making and also looking the figures of Mohammed is forbidden. Every time I enter the page I click as fastly as i can to the "discussion" to dont see the cartoon. That is raping the holy things of Islam. And putting this cartoon in the article is like "show the movie of a raped woman to her husband". And it is not about "freedom". If you want to show the cartoon you can give a link to Magazine site. That dont disturbs the muslims and people can see the cartoon if they want. [[Kullanıcı:Ruzgar\|Ruzgar]] 23:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Erdemsenol (threats against wikipedia deleted.) From an international understanding point of view, the cartoons are so upsetting to millions of muslims worldwide, that I believe this consensus to keep the cartoons is a wrong one. It is however, the decision of the body of Wikipedians, and I will protect the images in sorrow.--File Éireann 00:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC) alimustafakhan I think Wikipedia should delete the picture immidietly. For two reason, first, it is an encyclopedia - not a place to redicule my Prophet (peace be upon him). Second in its own words "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." How can you be good, polite and thoughtful if you abuse the person loved and respected by over a billion over their own parents and everybody else in the world. I see this as insulting, rude and foolish thing to do. This is not fanaticism, this is basics of Islam. Something similar to "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." Say how would a Jew react if you drew a picture of His G-d? If Wikipedia does not remove this picture Muslim Wikipedians around the World would have another opinion of Wikipedia. Eşref 06:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC) There is no point in adding injury to the insult. Don't.[reply] Eric 07:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Is no added value 83.160.142.158 Rustam 11:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Insulting Muslims by showing these pictures is not an NPOV at all. I love Wikipedia, but it's not uncensored as you think, since it's censored by US Congress. Muslims could boycott Wikipedia and then the key idea of its creation will be violated. Looking at the left column makes me think that all we have is the European POVs, not NPOVs.[reply] This is a POV, wikipedia should have none Wiki eZach 12:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] I vote for deletion Wisesabre 13:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] I vote for deletion too Qatarson I vote for deletion --Shafei 14:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] I vote for deletion too موهند Users only edit. Theresa Knott \| Taste the Korn 15:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Delete --Ragib 16:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Immediatelt Delete the Picture because a respectable place like Wikipedia should not involve itself in the Picture Conroversy atleast. By publishing this Picture Wikipedia is doing no good to its reputation. Though the article is enough for generating information but reproduction of a picture places Wikipedia in the same line in which the Danish Newspaper stands right now. My appeal to Jimbo Wallis is to remove the picture immediately --Nigar	Why to show these pictures that are shocking for muslims, while hiding those whith sexual content (I mean, no X pictures, but anatomic ones) ? They don't hurt me, so why should they be hidden ? I think that the same treatment should be aplicated to both. [Skippy] gidonb 21:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC) second choice only, if inclusion here is not possible. see additional remarks at my first choice. first choice is keep[reply] Showing a picture of Muhammed is extremely offensive to Muslims. There are no portraits at Muhammed and so they should definately not be shown here - provide a link to the image, thats all thats needed -- Astrokey44\|talk 23:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Whilst I'm a British, white athiest who would - actually - like a world in which religion didn't exist, it isn't at all clear to me that any non-muslims have taken the time to understand that the muslim community is telling us that any image of Muhammad is regarded as a blasphemy. Therefore, it is not at all clear to me why we would insist on stirring up strong emotions when we can leave the image, with a warning that it may cause offence, behind a link; leaving the responsibility of "choosing to be offended" with the muslim audience. --bodnotbod 00:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] I'm in favor of a link, or at least placing it where it can be easily scrolled off the page, because I think that would increase readership of the article. Currently, a reader in a Muslim environment cannot read the article without seeing the image. If the reader is in a cybercafe, or a child using the computer in his/her parents' home, the reader may be unwilling to take the risk of being seen with the images. Geffb 01:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] I don't see why the pictures can't be linked from the article page. Then no one will be forced to see them. As for showing them at all, I think they have to be available since without viewing them one cannot have an informed opinion. Zaslav 04:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] I think this is the appropriate solution for this neutral Wikipedia. sentausa 10:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] We have Spoiler warnings so people do not see things they do not want to. How is this any different? Shen 10:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Move (I also vote for keeping at main page, as I think that is OK too.)--Niels Ø 12:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] This is what I think is a reasonable solution. Free Speech is great, but it is blatant that these images are causing more offence than anything on Wikipedia. It is without precedent. This will give access to the images for those who are interested, but allow those who are offended to learn about all sides of the controversy. Kouros 13:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] I strongly defend Wikipedia's right to include the images. The anti-Semitism article displays numerous offensive drawings. Nonetheless, I believe it is proper for us to choose not to display this image in the main article, but to link to it instead. The information will be there for those who want to see it, while those who are deeply offended can at least read and edit the article. Speech that stops dialog dead in its tracks is best avoided.--agr 15:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Of the three choices in this poll, I guess i'll have to choose this one. The image is obviously offending muslims, however, as previously mentioned, the image does exist, so we should have the right to view it if we want. A link to it helps solve the problem.--dbalsdon 16:05, 3 Febuary 2006(UTC)

Poll 2 Position of image

Move to body of article with a link directly to the image on the top (Hipocrite's idea)

I feel we should move the image down to a lower part of the article to avoid causing offence.--File Éireann 22:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
(Cloud02 23:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Best solution to stop the few days of continuous revert wars and offence. The cartoon image will still be there + another link to it's main image page.[reply]
User:slamdac 23:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Phr 23:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC) The cartoons do not illustrate the controversy about the cartoons. The top picture should be one that shows the controversy. Move the cartoon pic.[reply]
BYT 23:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC), though I wish the images did not exist, or, failing that, were not publicized. BYT 23:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
so do i (Cloud02 00:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
L33th4x0r 00:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Link to the picture. So that Muslims won't see it. But those who want, could.[reply]
Since the image is percived as offencive to a large body of people (due in my opion more to the ease with wich it lends itself to a racist interpreation rather then because it depits Mohammad), we should present it in a sensitve way. In doing this we are not censoring the image because it is still there.--JK the unwise 10:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Link--Niels Ø 12:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC) (I think the article is better with drawings at top, but if that provokes repeaed deletions, I can live with this silly compromise)[reply]

Have picture lower down the article

Why would that counter the alleged blasphemy? Instead of being offended in the lead paragraph, the article will be offensive at various places throughout its length. Poulsen 01:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning after the intro, image further on in the page, no link from the top Put a warning after the intro that the pictural material may be offensive to moslim users, have the complete image somewhat lower and after that individual larger images, each with some text. gidonb 22:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As per the Bahá'u'lláh precedent. See the archives of this discussion for more context. --BACbKA 00:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Warning after the intro, image further on in the page, no link from the top This image is extremely offensive to a large part of the world popultation, yet I want to see it. We solve this sort of situation with spoiler warnings in many articles or links to images (see for example autofellatio), by having a warning here would provide a great service to many people. Also note that the picture at the top of the Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime_show_controversy article is not the one showing Jannet Jackson's wardrobe failure and we have no images at child pornography at all. —Ruud 01:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As per images of child pornography, see Lolicon. Genuine child porn is illegal in Florida, however, where our servers are hosted. Babajobu 02:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Warning after the intro, image further on in the page, no link from the top I can agree with this. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Warning after the intro, image further on in the page, no link from the top. I would like to ask those below again whether they would advocate the Goatse image being put at the top of Goatse.cx, and if not, why not. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Placing the goatse image at the top of that article is possibly obscenity under Florida law (where the servers are hosted). This image is not obscene under that same law. Apples and oranges. MichelleG 22:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Place just after the break, with at the top "Note: this page contains images some people (Muslims in particular) may find offensive. A mirror of this page, without images, is at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (no images)" --GeLuxe 03:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Warning or no warning. There is no consensus among other Wikipedia articles for us to make it "like all other articles," so in that repsect the decision is arbitrary. But considering the attitudes of those who insist on maintaining the image at the top, all too many show an air of open defiance, which is POV; this is an encyclopedia, not a manifesto, and so long as "top of the article" is associated with "in your face" the stance is tainted IMO. Placing it elsewhere on the page is not censorship: the image still loads in the viewer's browser regardless of where it is placed in the article. Top of the page is pro-secular and pro-Europe, removal is pro-Islam and pro-censorship, the middle of the article is the only tenable neutral ground. Guppy313 08:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move image to end of article, add warning at top of article that image is to be found there, as per compromise solution in Bahá'u'lláh article. Whilst this image is not offensive to most readers, and we should avoid self-censorship, we should be aware of how just how offensive this image is to observant Muslims, and take care to avoid causing any unnecessary offence to roughly a sixth of the world's population. -- The Anome 10:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with The Anome, and posibly GeLuxe's suggestion of offering a redirect to a pictureless article (as long as that article is stoped from being differnt to this one in any other way).--JK the unwise 11:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with The Anome. Wikipedia shouldn't be censored, but we should be sensitive about upsetting people.Veej 17:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would move the images “below the fold”. It is legitimate to have it on top but the story/article is no longer primarily about the cartoons but rather the boycott/protests/threats of violence. I would have the Saudi boycott note on top for now. --JGGardiner 17:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move down, as per The Anome. David Sneek 21:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have picture at top of article

Leave it at the top... it's fine where it is and where it's supposed to be Hellznrg 16:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it at the top. Valtam 22:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kittynboi 22:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sol. v. Oranje 22:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC), however, I'm for moving the cartoon image down to the middle of the page if we allow larger versions of a sample of the cartoons as some of them are hard to read in the current image format.[reply]
joturner 22:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC) The title warns the user about the picture; putting it some unknown place in the middle may actually surprise the reader.[reply]
Joturner the image will be linked right at the top. So the image will be shown in the middle and also have a link to the larger wikipedia image page at the top. The user will know.--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Tatty 23:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC) The controversy started with the cartoons, therefore it's logical to start the article with them. Individual, clear images of the more controversial cartoons should be further down as well (copyright permitting).[reply]
Fredrik Johansson - talk - contribs 23:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
—Ruud 23:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia is not censored and people who are offended by this image will still be offended if it is placed lower down.[reply]
Jacoplane 23:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Snailwalker | talk 23:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Keep the image at the top[reply]
the wub "?!" 23:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Anchoress 23:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The cartoons are the controversy, without the cartoon, the controvery would not exist, so at the top. --KimvdLinde 23:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
as per Jotourner, Babajobu 23:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Tasc 23:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-- Karl Meier 23:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why move it? Arkon 23:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Denoir 23:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC) The controversy is based around the cartoons, so they should have a prominent top position.[reply]
Vanky 23:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Jbull 23:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Keep it at the top.[reply]
— Peter L <talk|contribs> 23:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC), per joturner and anonymous editor ("the user will know").[reply]
--Nathan (Talk) 23:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
—Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 23:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leave at top. Anything else is censorship. It's as easy as that. Eixo 00:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the cartoons. For the sake of being informative, keep at the top. Cipher Pipe 00:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The image stays at the top. Passw0rd 00:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leave at top. In the style of ALL the other wikipedia articles. Wynler 00:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
StuffOfInterest 00:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hitokirishinji 00:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Not everyone is offended and not everyone obeys Muslim law. No special treatment for any one group of people.[reply]
Zora 01:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC) As above, no special treatment.[reply]
Thparkth 01:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC) if this was any other image, nobody would want it moved. therefore to move it is to give special treatment.[reply]
--*drew 01:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--MiraLuka 01:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It should stay at the top. That image is pivotal to the entire story. The.valiant.paladin 01:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Mmmsnouts 02:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Clearly a precedent has been set on wikipedia with Piss Christ, Anti-Semitism, and blackface. I would be against special treatment for certain groups because they are complain more, more loudly, or more violently.[reply]
Titanium Dragon 02:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Leave it at the top, where it belongs. We shouldn't self-censor, and frankly, if people are really that disturbed, they should learn how to turn off images on their web browser, as Wikipedia will contain such things. As an aside, why are certain religious leaders' portraits not at the top of their articles? There are a couple, and honestly, they should be formatted the way everyone else's biography is. Titanium Dragon 02:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jdcooper 03:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fufthmin 04:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lankiveil 04:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC). This article is about the images, it'd be silly to have the image anywhere but at the top.[reply]
Tbeatty 05:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Article is about the images. Put it at the top and let the reader decide before he has to read the editors 'filter'/[reply]
Leave it where it is. Would the image of central importance on any other article be placed anywhere else than at the top-right? Of course not, and this article should not pander itself to those trying to force their religious beliefs on the general style and format of a wiki article. AscendedAnathema 05:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it where it is. The picture is relevant to the article. We DO NOT ever censor articles to keep someone from being offended.--God of War 05:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AlEX 08:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC) There is no reason not to have it at the top, if the muslims themselves go on tour to show the cartoons, why should wikipedia hide them? Again, this article revolves around the image, and therefore the image should have a prominent position...
Kaveh 08:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is fine just like it is now. -- Trollkontroll 08:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the cartoons. They need to be shown at the top to provide context.Philmurray 09:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WookMuff I know that a lot of us seem to be "getting our backs up", wanting the pics to be there just because "they" don't want them to be. But this article IS about the cartoon's and the controversy they have caused
Keep it on top. Pyro19 09:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should be on top. Aris Katsaris
Article is about the cartoons, they should be on top. Maprieto 12:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Top right AdamSmithee 12:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How many polls must we go through? Until Resid and Rajab get their way? Or is it a best out of three... or five... or seven... or... Discus2000 13:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stays on Top For crying out loud, the article is about the pictures. They belong immediately up top, as any infobox would be as well. Avi 15:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the drawings. jni 15:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For obvious reasons. (Entheta 15:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
This is the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons' controversy page. Anyone navigating here should expect to see the images. Moreover, "hiding" the images out of "respect" shows a misunderstanding of the objection to them. "Hiding" still means showing them, which means Wikipedia would still violate the "law" against showing pictures of Mumhammed.
Keep on Top, for some many reasons already listed above. Skleinjung 16:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on top for obvious reasons and per Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of Muslims: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive." Peyna 16:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to comments above, how do those voting to hide the picture feel we should deel with Piss Christ, which contains a highly offensive image at the top of the article. Bear in mind that there are about 8 million more Christians than Muslims in the world. If we're going to worry about offending people, we had better worry about everyone we offend and not just a small group. Facts can be offensive, but so long as they are presented following WP:NPOV we should have nothing to worry about. Peyna 17:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  Because, as we have seen in the past few days, for every article you name in which the relavent picture is shown at the top of the page, I can name one where it isn't (e. g. Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy). There is no "like all the other articles," the only guideline we have is that placement is arbitrary. Now, there is a difference between offending and deliberately seeking to cause offense, and too many editors want to keep it at the top in order to "shove it in their faces." If the decision of where to put the picture is arbitrary, what does it say about our POV when we arbitrarily decide to keep it in the place that obviously causes the most offense? Guppy313 19:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  To be honest Guppy, I haven't seen in the past few days how you have "tit for tat" shown an article with no picture at the top. But even if you have, I vote to keep the picture and the top and moreover, move pictures to the top of articles that have hidden pictures "below the fold". If I click on the Super Bowl Controversy link, I expect to see the moment that caused the controversy. Hitokirishinji 19:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  So you would go so far as to alter potentially dozens of otherwise unrelated articles on Wikipedia solely to justify keeping the picture at the top? How is that not POV? I would call that an agenda.
  
  Forget it, I have more satisfying brick walls to bash my head against. I wash my hands of this affair. Guppy313 20:07, 3 February 2006 (UT
I would call that an assumption. It is not "justifying keeping the picture at the top" as you would call it. It is justifying NOT making any concessions regardless of whether pictures and I mean ALL pictures are offensive or not. I do not see wikipedia, as I have said earlier, as a platform to placate groups who should find such images offensive. The day wikipedia gives into one groups demands is the day we fail in our philosophy. Free information without bias and concessions. If we are to apply special consideration for one group, we are to do it with ALL groups Regardless if these groups may be religious, ethnic, racial or even simply social. So if you truely believe that this image should be "linked out" or "go below the fold" then I propose we do the same for all potentially offensive images. Anyways, I hope you use soap, bacteria are quite tenacious creatures. Hitokirishinji 21:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on top for reasons described above --Donar Reiskoffer 16:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Dan | talk 16:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on top for all the reasons already said. Utopianheaven 16:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at top, it's what the article is about after all.--Lewk_of_Serthic 16:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at top. I agree with Mmmsnouts, precedents have been set. Mess with this and what's next? If this article gets changed to pander to islamic beliefs, but other articles go unchanged, it would be an unfair bias imvho. Cal 18:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is what we do with all other articles. I see no valid reason to do otherwise here. Rama 17:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BMF81 19:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at top. Gérard 20:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Astrotrain 20:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Aiden 21:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it at the top. That's where it needs to be to establish illustrative context for the rest of the article. Remember, Wikipedia is not censored and we shouldn't care if people choose to be offended by cartoons fer chrissakes. --Cyde Weys 21:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leave at the top since it is what the article is about. We should not censor it or "soften it up".--Kalsermar 22:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leave the image at the top. Wikipedia's goal is to make the sum of human knowledge easily available. Putting the image anywhere but at the top is against that single, noble goal. The image may offend some people, and that is unfortunate, but it's placement there is not pointless, is not intended as an insult to Moslems, and helps the article. If a few Moslems choose to take it as an insult, that is unfortunate, but I think I'll be able to sleep at night. MichelleG 22:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Don't care

Whatever makes edit warring stop. I prefer the top but do not care enough to vote. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I second that, but I still voted for keeping the picture at the top as well. joturner 23:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone here said that simply moving down the pictures stopped the deletions. I don't mind, as long as the pictures are there somewhere. If it stops the deletion wars, then why not?
As long as the pictures are in the article, and are in an appropriate part of the article. That can be the top, that can be in the "Publication of the drawings" section, that can be in another section, as long as it is directly related to the drawings (so not in the section about boycotts for instance, where the image of the notice is appropriate). Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 12:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the previous person, either at top or at a relevant section, as long as its not hidden in a hyperlink or down at the bottom or something. Homestarmy 14:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don`t care where that particular image is placed, but it is my belief that at least ONE image should be placed atop, whether that be the grocery store image or a protest image. User:Αchille

Comment

I fail to see what moving the image further down the article will accomplish. Won't a moval mean that a person taking offence by the images will then necessarily have to skip the part with the image in it anyway? Poulsen 23:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mirror at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (no images) with link from top, and have image below fold. --GeLuxe 03:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favour of GeLuxe's idea. There are spoiler warnings for those who want to read about books or films without being spoiled, and it's a similar situation here. Having a warning would be courteous. Shen 10:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything Else

Poll 1 Comments

i think image should not be placed no matter what.There are all other sites available and by now most pople would have seen it on other sites.The concept of Bahaullah image doesnt work here.Placing teh image here certainly means that wikipedia is taking sides....Shame on all those who started this controversial war in Denmark.....Naeem Qasai

No, shame on those who turned the publishing of a cartoon into a controversial war. Skleinjung 16:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh boo hoo... why don't you just bomb wikipedia.. isn't bombing the answer to everything? Hellznrg 16:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knock it off, although I don't agree with him either, you can be more mature about it.--Lewk_of_Serthic 16:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This really should be an approval poll, with three entries: Link to Image; Image at head of article, Image in middle of article. I'm not sure if that can be arranged now. Septentrionalis 20:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, this would be handled through an RfC. Unfortunately, given the volatility involved I doubt there would be any hope of enforcing the consensus reached through an RfC short of a total lockdown on the article. --StuffOfInterest 20:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think at this point we just need to take a straw poll regarding the fate of the image itself; after that is established, we can move on to where in the article it should be (assuming people vote to keep it) Sol. v. Oranje 20:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Babajobu 20:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we have that kind of poll, there needs to be a neutral side, personally, I don't really mind between at the top or in the middle, I just think it needs to be in here at a relevant position.Homestarmy 20:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the outcome of this poll, it should only be used to point out consensus. Remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy. This should be treated as a straw poll. Jacoplane 20:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the neutral position is not to vote. Babajobu 20:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think people's opinions are a little more nuanced than that, and several additional options should be available: (3) Keep image in article, "below the fold" so readers with most computer monitors have to scroll down to see the iamge; (4) Keep image in article but as a smaller thumbnail to reduce legibility (and of course clicking the thumbnail brings up the large .jpg image page). Without these two options I can't vote. Tempshill

Some people have specific opinions about where the image should go, but first we should address the fate of the image itself. If there is a consensus to keep it in article, then we should address where to keep it. But most edit warring has been over whether or not to keep it at all. Babajobu 20:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been keeping up with the thread, and I disagree. I would say there's been an equal amount of vitriol over simply moving the image down on the page, and I think it's important to structure the straw poll so people don't think their votes will be misinterpreted. Tempshill 20:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There will be another poll, and there's no reason it can't include Link to Image as one of the approvable options. Voting to keep the image now is not a vote for its present size or position; that will be later. Septentrionalis 20:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Pam, and I don't think anyone's votes will be misinterpreted. Voting to keep the image in the article is not an assertion that it belongs at the top, the bottom, the middle, or anywhere else. More than one editor also said that the picture should be removed until we determined that consensus preferred it in the article. We need to get that simple issues sorted. If there turns out to be a consensus to keep it in the article, then we will need to address where it should go. But I don't think a two-step process to determine consensus is too elaborate a method for an issue that has caused this much warring and disagreement. Babajobu 20:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the current poll, whose questions are slanted to produce a preselected result. The correct first poll question is "be hardass / be flexible". If the answer is "hardass", then no 2nd step is needed. If "flexible", then go to a 2nd step and figure out what to do next, no longer insisting on keeping the pic the way it is. 71.141.251.153 21:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because those poll options aren't loaded at all...The current poll is fine as step one of a two-step process, as has been discussed on this page already. Skleinjung 21:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Bahá'u'lláh, we have the photo at the end of the article. This prevents religious offense while still keeping the photo for its encyclopedic value. Maybe that would work here. I am strenuously opposed to removing the scan entirely; how can one understand the controversy fully without even seeing the purportedly offensive material? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, by clicking on a link, if needed. 71.141.251.153 21:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Bahá'u'lláh was not about that photo, this is. Those images ARE the article. This doesn't mean they should stay on top, but placing them all the way down seem a little drastic. I'd say, put them somewhere beside the descriptions of the cartoons. AlEX 21:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

When did the poll become three categories?Valtam 21:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's four now

Poll is bogus: The disagreements here are less about whether to include the image, than whether it's appropriate to be hardass about its size and placement. Therefore, more options should be presented. I favor operating by "DBD". Replace the main picture with a different one and put the pic of the cartoons in a thumbnail in the article's interior. The current poll pretends that "keep the picture" means "keep the picture as it currently is". #71.141.251.153 21:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current poll does not state that or mean that. Numerous editors have claimed there is no consensus to keep the image at all. We need to address that issue before addressing where to put it. Babajobu 21:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the current poll is about whether to allow the image of the cartoons in the article in _any_ form, and says nothing about whether it should be at the top, bottom, middle, thumbnailed, enlarged, or any other variation therein. It is a poll about its _existence_ and value to the article. The options are: 1) No, remove the image entirely, 2) Remove the image, but provide a link to it, or 3) Allow an image of the cartoons in the article, with the placement of it up for later debate. Sol. v. Oranje 21:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In my opinion it is against the principles of Wikipedia to delete an image that is fundamentally important to an article, therefore the vote that demands the deletion of the image does not make sense, IMO. -- Trollkontroll 08:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

users and contributions

I do not judge anyone. Just something I noticed. Strange things happen when such polls take place, users just jump in polling, some where never here, some were away for over a year, and some just happened to...

And there are much more. --Tarawneh 23:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but what exactly are you accusing me of? Sol. v. Oranje 23:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Yeah, what is this supposed to mean? What did you notice, Tarawneh? Valtam 23:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not accusing any one. I just noticed that some people just appeared after long vacations. Others just signed just for the sake of this talk page? Is that wrong?????? Or are people offended when some one notices something about the poll? It is only talk, how can it heart any one; after all this is what we are here to talk about!!! --Tarawneh 23:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's true...we noticed that hordes of IPs showed up to remove the image multiple times, so it's okay for him to notice that a few editors haven't been editing much recently. What conclusions he draws from that, I haven't a clue. Babajobu 23:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "wrong" but it is kind of rude to assume that these users, including myself, are just "mysteriously" appearing in this discussion page. So what if some of us aren't on Wikipedia every day? I've been using Wiki on and off for two years now and don't need to edit articles every day to make my opinions heard on this article or the cartoons. I can't speak for the inspiration of the other users, but please keep in mind that randomly accusing people of suspicious behavior is not exactly kind and welcoming Sol. v. Oranje 23:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand, why do you insist on making this personal? I am not accusing you. It is only your POV regarding my words. Will, it seems that both of us agree that some actions could be miss judged as rode, or aren’t we?--Tarawneh 23:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering you were the one who brought up these suspicions about the above list of users, the onus is on you to back up your claims with evidence and an assertment of what we've done wrong (other than to note that most of the users above support using the image of the cartoons in the article). Sol. v. Oranje 00:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr Soldaatvanoranje, permit me to ask you how can you know what Mr Tarawneh assumed or think ??? and permit me also to say that i dont see any accustions in the words of Mr. Tarawneh .Just a little suggestion or proposal: make a user check and the onus will be on no one. مبتدئ 00:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I know of Tarawneh is that he listed my name under the vague accusation that somehow I have done something "strange" -- how am I supposed to respond to that, silence? Sol. v. Oranje 01:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um Tarawneh, dude, you should know that earlier this afternoon an editor added this talk page to the RfC list, so undoubtedly there are people who watch that list who came to this page specifically to respond to the request of the editor who added it.--Anchoress 04:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've used Wikipedia for years, but neither edited nor registered. Why did I register? Because I think this is one of the pivotal issues of our time. Specifically, what how does the right to express oneself intersect with the myriad religious laws to the contrary? Secondarily, how does the right to express oneself intersect with the need for restraint in the name of civility? Perhaps, Tarawneh, we (the long-lost and the newbies), are simply guilty of caring?--Snorklefish 20:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well to everyone new and old let me just say welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. --JGGardiner 23:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not have the drawings at near full size spread, in a relevant way, evenly across the whole article? Let's say we start with The Schoolboy (not a prophet) who writes in persian that JPs redacteurs are a bunch of reactionare provocatist. A joke origininally aimed at the newspaper itself for posing the question in a stupid way. Second, the drawing of the frightened cartoonist (which is what initiated this debate!). Third perhaps the beutyful one depicting The Prophet in the desert? The Bomb will have to go somewhere too .. Perhaps somewhere in the timeline along with all the current bomb threats?

You get my drift? MX44 23:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only sign in when i'm at home. When i've been at work i've doing it anon User:slamdac

Translation

"Profet! Med kuk og knald i låget som holder kvinder under åget!". In English the poem could be read as: "Prophet! daft and dumb, keeping woman under thumb"

This translation of "kuk og knald i låget" as "daft and dumb" is too negative.. i would say "kuk og knald i låget" means to be crazy.

It may have been unfortunate to translate into English doggerel. But English daft does mean "crazy", or at least "eccentric" . Could you translate word for word? Septentrionalis 20:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"knald i låget" means "To have a tile loose", "kuk i låget" would be translated similarly--Discus2000 20:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I too think "dumb" is too negative a word. Dumb is not what is said in Danish. Daft is fine, though. So - anybody up for a poetic retranslatation? It needs some word like daft or crazy or eccentric - preferably one that fits the "rhythm" --Lassefolkersen 20:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"holder kvinder under åget" means "subjugating women". "Prophet! With a loose tile and subjugating women"... which should then be turned into a colloquialism or an idiom--Discus2000 20:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to accurate translate into English and still stay poetic. "Prophet! daft and dumb, keeping woman under thumb", while I agree a little to negative, is a very valid try. “Daft” is actually a translation for the entire part of "kuk og knald i låget", and no other word is really needed.

A more true translation would be "Prophet! daft and keep woman under yoke" (as in under the yoke of a tyrant), but it does not sound poetic anymore. Twthmoses 21:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think 'Prophet with a screw loose' would be a fair equivalent, but (although I'm a published poet), I'm having trouble with the second part. 'Prophet with a screw loose, keeping women in your noose' might not be the best wording.--Anchoress 21:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not understood what this translation has to do with the Topic (the republishing of pictures) but as someone who speaks arabic i can say that the translation of the word islam to terror is not true. Dont you feel some shame of saying something so descreminating and intolerant like that? do you know that it s even in contradiction with law and may lead to juridic consequences? and the most important it decridit you as a serious discussion partner!! I have a little challenge for you: try to find a poem written by muslim that insult jesus. If you dont find think about it why you did not found مبتدئ 01:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The unsigned comment (about Islam = Terror) was someone who was trolling and is not taken to be accurate by the users here at large. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are all missing the point. Dumb rhymes with thumb. It's artistic leeway. So long as thumb is accurate, it would seem that dumb has to work for the rhyme scheme. Obviously if it is, as some user suggested, "yoke", perhaps something that rhymes with that instead? (bloke?) Swatjester 09:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isnt it more important to have an accurate translation than having something that rhymes?

Probably, but does anyone know where the translation "daft and dumb..etc." actually comes from? I have seen it a couple of times already. So maybe it should be the one "accepted" in the english media that is shown here. --KingCarrot 21:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archive again?

We should probably archive the debate again, it is getting quite lengthy --Snailwalker | talk 21:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do, and move the poll back down to the bottom. Protect for two minutes if necessary. Babajobu 21:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second that AlEX 21:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Jeez, this page is way too big. Someone needs to archive it (but keep the poll on this page, and the comments directly related to the poll). I don't know how to archive a talk page. Titanium Dragon 05:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing while protected

Please, let's avoid editing the article while it's protected, even if it's just minor edits. It's a potentially problematic slippery slope. --cesarb 20:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, apologies. Babajobu 21:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I agree. However, there is established precedent for fixing spelling, grammatical, and style/formatting problems even while protected as long as the edits are non-controversial and non-substantive. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed that the article is fully protected. I've been editing under the mistaken belief that it was semi-protected, as it has been on several occasions before. I've only wikified some dates, altered and augmented some references, and ensured that there are no bare external hyperlinks in the article. Uncle G 21:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've unprotected it. Articles that are linked from the main page should not be protected. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - For Jacoplane, who was unfamiliar with this policy, please see Wikipedia:Protection policy. --DDG 21:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am new to wikipedia, is there a reason for not editing while under full protection? And what is the diffence with semi-protection?

Semi-protection means random IP members (Also called "anons") and new members (I think it's like a few weeks old maybe? Im not sure) cannot edit the article. Full protection means only admins and Jimbo Wales can edit it. Homestarmy 22:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not "only admins and Jimbo Wales", it's "only admins". Jimbo Wales is also an admin. --cesarb 23:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but barely qualified to be one. ;-) --Jimbo Wales 02:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No cartoons untill the pool ended

I propose to not post the cartoons untill the pool ended. Resid Gulerdem 21:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Also, when does the "pool" end?Valtam 21:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The poll is over. It has 36/2/0. This is demonstrative of a strong consensus to keep the image. If this changes in the future, we can get rid of the image. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not it is not. It should last at least 2 weeks. Resid Gulerdem 21:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? -Maverick 21:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd say 24 hours. Not everybody is awake right now. Guppy313 22:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say 48 hours minimum. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think 24 hrs is quite sufficient for an article which is getting so much attention. If it lasts too long one side or another will organize a mass vote of otherwise-uninterested people. (Of course, maybe that's OK. But I'd rather just count the "honest" votes). Thparkth 03:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, for two reasons. One: the disputed item should not be altered or deleted during the resolution process. Two: I know you can read. There two users who want it removed thus far, compared to about 20 who want to keep it. --Maverick 21:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not that difficult. As soon as the majority want it gone, it goes. As for now, the majority want it there, it stays. AlEX 22:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus - the oxford english dictionary defines consensus as: Agreement in opinion; the collective unanimous opinion of a number of personsRajab 21:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It also defines it as "general agreement or accord," which is what we have here. The picture stays. -Maverick 22:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is an incorrect characterization. The definition to which you are referring is a physiological one. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Consensus" as used on Wikipedia does not require unanimity... and neither does your proffered definition if you read it carefully. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My "proffered" definition does - unanimous is unanimous. Rajab 22:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. When you get consensus to remove the image we'll do that. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Rajab's definition requires unanimity to remove the image, I hereby vote against removing the image, thus making it impossible for there to be a unanimous decision to remove the image. Consider this vote to apply to all future polls regarding this matter. Valtam 22:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unanimity of a group of persons... not ALL PERSONS EVERYWHERE. A group of persons has a unanimous opinion to keep the images. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just filed a WP:RfC. We should wait untill some more contributions from other people who are not aware of this discussion. Resid Gulerdem 22:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they agree with your position, we'll remove the image then. Delaying tactics should not favor the side delaying. It is becoming difficult to believe you are operating in good faith. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well he just deleted the picture again, I guess that answers that one. Rajab... go away. You are nothing but a troll and a vandal in my eyes -Maverick 22:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it standard practice to file a WP:RfC after a poll has ended? I'm not that familiar with Wikipedia customs...Valtam 22:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The poll didn't end at all! How long was it running - one hour? a day??

Could you please post a link to the RfC you filed. I'm having trouble finding it right now and would like to keep track of the happenings. Thanks. --StuffOfInterest 22:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find it either AlEX 22:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFC/REL It's just on the list of RfCs, there isn't a new page created for it, which is probably why there are people showing up here just to vote etc.--Anchoress 05:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose at least 2 weeks. We sohuldnt have the cartoon on untill the pool ends. I wouldn't try to read anybody's intensions. That is not an objective argument. Resid Gulerdem 22:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately you and your buddy are alone in this one. I do not oppose a longer poll, however customs dictate that the picture stays until the dispute is resolved. Please try to work with us, as you are now acting in bad faith here. -Maverick 22:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear overwhelming majority here. Until we get at least a simple majority from the crew in favor of removing the picture (which I really doubt will ever happen), the image should remain in the article. joturner 22:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Consensus is very clear that in Wikipedia "consensus" doesn't require unanimity. Generally a supermajority is regarded as consensus, though Wikipedia is not a democracy. There is not doubt that as of now, there is consensus to keep the image. But the poll will continue, and we'll see. Babajobu 22:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are some people who are never going to change their opinion. Therefore it would be impossible to ever reach a majority. This is about as consensus as consensus can get. We should leave the poll up a little longer, but I wouldn't get your hopes up for a come from behind win from the Remove crew. joturner 22:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I filed it at [1]. Resid Gulerdem 22:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not overestimate polls. Among many other things Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is not a democracy. See WP:NOT -- 129.13.186.1 08:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Protest?

How about adding a proper image of the protest under international consequences? say one with them burning the Danish flag, just to bring the controversy of the whole article to it's full potential. (Cloud02 22:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

agreed --KimvdLinde 22:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that will offend Danish nationalists.</sarcasm> Fredrik Johansson - talk - contribs 22:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

exactly my point (Cloud02 22:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

example AlEX 22:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Another protest image that could be added, but I find the one present to work well enough. The article can be found here AlEX

Oh, and lets at least have some general consensus before someone just smacks in the picture (Cloud02 22:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)) Support: add second image showing some sort of demonstration over the cartoons, but add below the image of the actual cartoons.--ChrisJMoor 02:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial selection

It says that 40 artists were asked and there are twelve drawings. I think an important question arises then... were there only twelve submissions? Did the editor choose which he thought were best? or what was representative? If so, were they representative? I think these are important in relating to how much the newspaper chose to display. gren グレン ^? 23:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those 12 where the only ones to respond out of the 40 Jyllandsposten asked. (in danish) http://www.aiu.dk/avisnet/show.php?id=812 The.valiant.paladin 23:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... and the time to deadline was extremely short! MX44 23:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good, I see it has been changed. I think that's really important because it makes a huge difference if the editor of the paper used his own discretion in choosing or not. The story would be a lot different if he got 30 submissions and thew out 15 that had Muhammad with a halo. gren グレン ^? 04:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split the article

Almost all the text in the article is about the controversy over the cartoons, not about the cartoons themselves. The current title reflects that. But some people (e.g. Sol v. Orange) claim that changing the title from "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons" was a "salami slicing" tactic to change the article's former topic, rather than to more accurately reflect what the topic really was. Obviously there is not consistent agreement on this question.

Proposal: Revert the title change, so the title is again "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons", and split off the part of the article that's about the controversy. The "cartoon" article's content should be the detailed description of the cartoons (taken from the current article and maybe expanded), a nice big picture of the cartoons if the article's editors desire that, and a very brief description of the controversy, with a link to the separate "controversy" article. The "controversy" article would contain the stuff from the current article that's purely about the controversy, with a brief description of the cartoons (no picture of them), plus a link to the "cartoons" article, described as "article describing the cartoons, including a large picture".

The front page link would be to the "controversy" article since that's what its current text refers to. Yes, that would have the effect of getting the cartoon off of a direct front page link. But it's obvious that the front page link is there because of the controversy and refers to it. Phr 23:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would still keep the cartoons at both pages, as the controversy is about that. It is to easy to see the controversy as something completly seperate --KimvdLinde 23:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with a whole new article on the cartoons themselves, with detailed images of them and descriptions and translations; however, an image of the cartoons would also have to remain on the controversy page itself since the cartoons are the entire catalyst for the controversy. Otherwise, yes, it's "salami tactics" as you're removing the entire basis for the controversy from the controversy page and moving the images solely to an article on the cartoons which could easily be removed or deleted because some might feel it is un-encyclopedic. Sol. v. Oranje 23:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well OK, there would have to be further discussion on the "controversy" article's talk page about whether the "controversy" article should include the picture, but splitting the article would be intended to remove the argument that the controversy article is about the cartoons. The controversy article is intended to be about the controversy, its main pictures (if it has any pictures) should be related to the controversy (e.g. pictures of protests or boycotts), and any picture of the cartoons themselves should be at most an interior thumbnail. Phr 23:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the entire reason for the controversy is the cartoons and what they depict. Just showing pictures of the protests and violent acts spawned by the cartoons and reducing the actual cartoons to a small image within the article would be obscuring the catalyst for the controversy. Sol. v. Oranje 23:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "controversy" article would not be about the catalyst for the controversy. It would be about the controversy itself. The catalyst is the cartoons, and they would have their own article. The catalyst would not have to be very prominent in the article about the controversy, just like the Archduke Ferdinand (whose assassination was the catalyst for World War 1) is not very prominent in the article about WW1. Phr 23:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But Archduke Ferdinand remains in the WWI article because it was his death that sparked the war; thus the cartoons, which sparked the controversy, should remain in the article on the controversy itself (and in clear easy-to-view size, I might add, not obscured away like the fanatics want). Furthermore, the cartoons should probably also be inserted into articles regarding blasphemy and religious suppression of free speech as an example of images so "offensive" as to cause all this mess to begin with. Sol. v. Oranje 00:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Archduke Ferdinand is only briefly mentioned in the WW1 article and there is no picture of him there. There are several pictures of him in his biographical article but no picture of his assassination in that article. There is a separate article about his assassination that contains a picture of the actual assassination. And, the picture of the assassination is fairly far down in the article about the assassination (its top picture is of a memorial of the assassination). Finally, I think you're being disingeneous about the necessary size of the picture. Wikipedia contains many, many thumbnails of pictures where the thumbnails are too small to see important details. It assumes a minimal level of competence on the part of readers, namely the ability to click a mouse if they want to see a bigger version. They don't have to be spoon fed as some fanatics seem to think they do. The current picture (250px) is over 2x the pixel width (4x the area and download time) of the recommendation of the wikipedia style guide (WP:Style_guide#Pictures). Anyone arguing that its placement should follow customary wikipedia practices, should also be arguing to reduce it to 120px. Phr 00:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I think you're being disingenous about your motives to censor, obstruct, minimize, reduce, and obscurify these cartoons out of existence. Face it, these cartoons ARE the controversy; they are the fountainhead for everything that has followed. The fact thet that they are media images in and of themselves renders them more important to inclusion in any article on the controversy than a photograph of Ferninand from before the war, especially since other factors led to WWI. Here, the only factor that has created this uproar was the depiction of Mohammed within the cartoons. The matter of the size of the cartoon image will be determined after the second poll closes on where the image should be located to begin with. Sol. v. Oranje 00:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I've added a painting of the assassination of Ferninand to the WWI article anyway, right where it begins to outline the reasons for the war. So much more illustrative of that "controversy" and its ultimate catalyst, I think Sol. v. Oranje 00:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current poll is about where to put the picture in the current article. The placement and size of any picture in a hypothetical new article that's purely about the controversy is a completely different question. And you're being disingeneous if you claim people are too incompetent to click a mouse if they want to see a large picture. Phr 00:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, readers are not incompetent to click their mouse on an image to enlarge it. I just see no reason to reduce the image in size so much as to render its inclusion pointless to begin with Sol. v. Oranje 00:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that readers are not too incompetent to look up the whole controversy on google or muslimsearch.com or whatever.. so why don't we just delete the "jyllands-posten mohammed cartoons" page? you'd just love that wouldn't you? Hellznrg 16:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That idea sounds reasonable to me. I considered suggesting something similar myself. However, the reason that I did not, is that avoiding the image itself on the controversy page would have the effect of implying that protests and boycotts are not directly related to the cartoons themselves. I was concerned that this might seem as if it were suggesting that those outraged were taking steps that were not proportional their genuine offence. --JGGardiner 23:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why split this and not Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy? By your logic, should we not also have a separate article entitled "Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show," both with a program schedule and a pixel-by-pixel analysis of Janet Jackson's right breast? After all, the argument could be made that "The controversy isn't about Janet Jackson's exposure but nudity on television in the United States and lax enforcement by the FCC of existing regulations."

Besides, reproducing it in the context of the controversy is fair use, but reproducing solely for reproduction's sake isn't. Guppy313 00:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would still be editorial use if it were accompanied by description, translations, interpretations of the individual cartoons, etc. And I'd have no problem with the idea of an article about FCC nudity regulations that linked to a separate article about the Janet Jackson incident. (Btw I'm going to have to attend to "real life" shortly, so if I don't respond further for a while, I'm not ignoring you.) Phr 00:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you'd be stripping the pictures of nearly all context, leaving people wondering why they qualify as encyclopedic content ("Why are we saving pictures of a bloodthirsty starfish attacking a woman?"). Additionally, the pictures would become all the more offensive to some without the context of the discussion as there would appear to be little reason to host them other than shock value.

Additionally, you'd only be able to move most of the discussion of the comics themselves to the new comic-only article, not all of it; you'd still at least need text explaining what aspects of the comics offended so many, information that would then have to be repeated on the comic-only article to justify its own existence. And then you'd also require more text in this article describing the pictures, more than would be needed if the picture was present for the reader to view. This would result in a great deal of redundant information and the articles would be merged within a month of the split, at most. Guppy313 01:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the images be used at all? Most major newspapers are not printing them, why should we? CNN says "CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons in respect for Islam." [2]. I dont see pictures of the cartoons at the BBC article or the New York Times article -- Astrokey44|talk 00:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the NYT or CNN; in fact, we should strive to be _better_ than those media sources, and I do imagine a large amount of people who've heard of the story from those media outlets would come here to better inform themselves in depth on the controversy -- and that includes seeing the cartoons in question and deciding for themselves if these cartoons are worthy of sparking the tumult the media is reporting because of them Sol. v. Oranje 00:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CNN has existing precedent in witholding publication of offensive material, for their own reasons. Wikipedia has none, for different reasons. Guppy313 00:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does have its own precedent about offensive material. --cesarb 02:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: BBC television is airing the cartoons. --Aaron 01:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't see Ass-to-mouth at The New York Times or CNN. Wikipedia's coverage is much more comprehensive. Babajobu 00:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness that's a redirect. Although I would assume that CNN is also worried about it's journalists and ratings. Hopefully nobody is going into hotels looking for Danes, Norweigans and Wikipedians.

Add this to page

somewhere in this paragraph: "Akhmad Akkari, spokesman of the Danish Muslim organisations which organised the tour, explained that the three drawings had been added to "give an insight in how hateful the atmosphere in Denmark is towards Muslims." Akkari claimed he does not know the origin of the three pictures. He said they had been sent anonymously to Danish Muslims. However, when Ekstra Bladet asked if it could talk to these Muslims, Akkari refused to reveal their identity. These images had however never been published in Jyllands-Posten."

I think it's crucial for making sense of this story. Images can be found:

pig-muhammad http://ekstrabladet.dk/grafik/nettet/tegninger38.jpg
muhammad screwing a dog http://ekstrabladet.dk/grafik/nettet/tegninger39.jpg
evil pedo-muhammad http://ekstrabladet.dk/grafik/nettet/tegninger40.jpg

--cokane 2 Feb 2006

If you had read the article you would have seen the pictures had been brought in the paragraph just before. (Cloud02 00:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

These pictures are the ones erroniously televised by BBC and al-Jazeera. I am not convinced they need even further attention? MX44 00:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial newspaper caricatures section

What on earth is the basis for the inclusion of this section, or the selection of items mentioned in it? Most of them seem utterly irrelevant. Palmiro | Talk 00:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Church Bombings

Can somebody please mention about the Church bombings in Iraq that was rumered to be related to the drawings? Chaldean 22:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using the word "rumored" should be a red flag. Please wait until there is confirmation and/or citable sources. Guppy313 22:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Wikipedia:Verifiability should apply to every article. Jacoplane 22:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now their blaming Christians for this? If that's really true, then I think that would be something we really need to put in this article, once people start getting angry enough to destroy anyone and everyone, then you know things are going crazy. Homestarmy 22:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming it's true, please be sure to qualify who "they" are. Guppy313 22:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well small militant groups have claimed for it and said it was retaliation to the cartoons. This is what they are saying in the streets of Baghdad. I think its fair to at leats mention the event, dont you agree? Check out some articles about it. militants coordinate bombings near Christian churches: [[3]] Chaldean 22:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a citation to me directly relating the cartoons to church bombings, this should be able to go into the timeline and article with no problem, why was it removed for not being related to the pictures? Homestarmy 23:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't me, but reading the article, no claims of the attacks beign linked to the controversy are made. In fact, the bombings happened on Sunday (as the article mentions, the Christian day of worship and church attendance), and the coordination of the attacks suggest days of planning, so it seems it happened too soon for it to be a deliberate response to the images.

And in general, I find myself doubtful that churches would be attacked in response to this; it seems that Arab/Muslim vitriol aimed the West (or at least Europe) depict it as a bunch of godless heathens rather than Christian crusaders. Guppy313 23:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You must not have read the latest? [[4]] I think their should be a section called "Christians in the middle east persicuted" That is fair I think 141.217.41.237 00:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BNL is a reputable source? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All you had to do is go to google and type in "church, palestinian, cartoon" Earlier, Manuel Mussalam, a priest of the Latin Church in Gaza, delivered an emotional appeal to Dr Zahar after the church received a fax that he said had come from "Fatah gunmen and the Soraya al-Quds". He said: " They threatened our churches in Gaza. We will not be threatened. We are Christians, yes, but Palestinians first." [[5]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaldean (talk • contribs)

How is that all I had to do to discover if BNL is a reputable source? Your link says nothing about BNL. Were you confused by my question? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I thought you said reliable. Now can we add a section to this article under the title of "Middle East Christians Percicuted" Chaldean 01:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No hard feelings. I have no problem with a section on that in the article, assuming that we have a reputable source, which it appears we do. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about something like this: Middle East Christians Percicuted

Middle East Christians Persecuted

On January 29, 2006, six churches in the Iraqi cities of Baghdad and Kirkuk were targeted by car bombs, killing 13-year old worshipper Fadi Raad Elias. [6] No militants claimed to be retaliating for the pictures, but many Assyrians in Iraq claim "Westerners should not give wild statements [as] everyone can attack us [in response]" [7]. Also on January 29, a Muslim Cleric in the Iraqi city of Mosul issued a fatwa stating "expel the Crusaders and infidels from the streets, schools, and institutions because they offended the person of the prophet in Denmark." [8]In reply to the fatwa on the same day, Muslim Students beat up Christian student in Mosul University.[9] On Febuary 2, 2006, Palestinians in the West Bank handed out a leaflet signed by a Fatah militant group and Islamic Jihad stating "Churches in Gaza could come under attack". [10]

So is this fair? Chaldean 01:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. We need to build bridges with Muslims, this controversy is making things worse for the Christians in Iraq and other predominantly Muslim lands.--File Éireann 01:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

we need that not only because of our interest or the interest of christian minority there but because its a question of brotherhood of all human beeings even froma secular point of view. also because of world freedom: the chance is really given to achieve. tehre are people with whom one can discuss but if we continue this way and demonizing people may be it will not lead to nice things.(only for information the iraqi foreign minster Tarek Aziz was christian and the wife of arafat was christian i think the wife of Husni Mubarek to i think the ex un secretary butros butros ghali was egeptian and christian too. If there is any incident wich are mentioned here such things happend in netherland germany and france too. what i want to say please dont generalize like one can not generalise in the case of the mentioned countrys too). best regards مبتدئ 06:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? Encyclopedias need to build bridges with Muslims? I think encyclopedias should focus on providing quality, comprehensive articles on notable topics, and leave the "bridge building" to civil engineers. Babajobu 02:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, since this is pretty much related to the cartoons in many ways, it should go in the article somewhere, it looks good so far to me. Homestarmy 14:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the section On January 29 six churches in the Iraqi cities of Baghdad and Kirkuk were targeted by car bombs, killing 13-year-old worshipper Fadi Raad Elias. An announcement by the Dutch religious rights group Open Door </ref> No militants claimed to be retaliating for the pictures, nor is this the first time Iraqi churches have been bombed; but many Assyrians in Iraq claim "Westerners should not give wild statements [as] everyone can attack us [in response]" Militants tend to be quite open about their motives, so if none of them listed this as a motive, then it's likely "just another Church bombing" Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 20:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second Paragraph

I don't like the juxtaposition of these two sentences in the second paragraph of the intro:

"Although Jyllands-Posten maintains that the drawings were an exercise in free speech, many Muslims in Denmark and elsewhere view them as provocative and Islamophobic. Two newspaper cartoonists have reportedly gone into hiding after receiving death threats, and the newspaper has enhanced its security precautions. [1] "

Presumably most of those who "view [the cartooons] as provocative and Islamophobic" do not advocate the issuance of death threats as an appropriate response or consider it "Islamophobic" to react fearfully when one receives a death threat.--FRS 00:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like it, it's perfectly OK for you to re-word it (assuming the page isn't locked), but I didn't make the assumption you fear the proximity implies.--Anchoress 00:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your concern, and I've reworded the 2nd sentence: "There have even been some extremists who have issued death threats, resulting in two newspaper cartoonists reportedly going into hiding, and the newspaper enhancing its security precautions." What do you think? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad. Are these people really extremists? Extremist is a POV statement, and we don't even know who exactly issued the death threats. Thus, I think we should simply move the two sentences apart somehow, though honestly, I do find the juxtaposition somewhat ironic and probably rather fair, given that these people are themselves afraid of freedom. Titanium Dragon 03:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are extremists by definition. Death, as a consequence for this issue, is an extreme suggestion. The word has a definition, and can be used in a non-POV way. Now if you're asserting that the death threats are hoaxes, that's a separate issue. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blackface...and Antisemitism

Just to throw one more reason in why "the image" should continue to be included in the article, take a look at the feature article Blackface. This portrayal is considered highly offensive to many African-Americans, yet numerous examples are shown in the article. As with most things in life, it is the context as much as the content that determins if something is suitable for display or not. --StuffOfInterest 01:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same with Antisemitism, an image that is extremely offensive to Jews is right up at the top, because it's a good, informative example of the topic. And Jewish editors have made their peace with that, because that's how Wikipedia works. Babajobu 01:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet I suspect that you would not be happy with the cartoons being up under anti-Islamism, or whatever the term is. So the analogy doesnt hold. Hornplease 01:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then we're back to Piss Christ. The point is that Wikipedia is not censored to protect the sensibilities of any religious or ideological or political group. Is it really sensible to make a unique exception for Muslims? Babajobu 01:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a christian, but personally i have found Piss Christ offensive ever since i first heard of it. It brings up all kinds of questions of what IS art and its clearly just sensationalism in its most moneygrubbing form WookMuff who keeps doing his user tag wrong! 12:53 (AEST) 3rd of Feb, Ought Six

Yes, it is. And yet Wikipedia displays an image of Piss Christ at the topic of the article, because that's where it belongs in an article about Piss Christ. Should Muslim Wikipedians receive gentler, kinder treatment than every other group? That's the question we're addressing here. Babajobu 02:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The best example I can find on Wikipedia that relates to the image controversy here is this simple image: Image:YHWH.png. It's the vowelized form of the tetragrammaton, forbidden to be written in the Jewish religion and potentially highly offensive. And yet we haven't removed it. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 03:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The thing of it is, all those other articles are somewhat very different than this article. All those other articles are reporting on something which was intentionally designed to discriminate, offend, or otherwise do bad, while these cartoons were designed to simply stand out for free speech in the face of pro-Islam censorship in Europe. I would hardly call these cartoons on par with Blackface pictures, the **** Christ picture, or the anti-semitisim poster, the outrage over those pictures is highly understandable and, personally, if I was personally in charge of the **** Christ article, (Which I am not, and thusly do not plan to go near) then I would get rid of the picture. but with these cartoons, it is not designed to attack Islam directly. The other articles were all based on reporting events that were designed to offend, this article is reporting on people being offended at something not being designed to offend. Homestarmy 14:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BBC shows cartoons?

I've just heard a BBC radio report (on Australian ABC radio) stating that the BBC has shown the images briefly on British TV news. Can anyone confirm this? If it's true it should be added. --Tatty 01:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know they haven't. The Beeb still still stands firm as the paladin of political correctness (only when Muslims are concerned, curiously enough). Lenineleal 01:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to this (danish) http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/article.php?id=3581417 they actually did. The.valiant.paladin 01:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Responsible" "glimpses" see [11] --JGGardiner 01:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a significant development and should be added to the article. Surely it will add to the controversy? Anyone agree or otherwise? --Tatty 02:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's relevant - after all they only showed "responsible glimpses", i.e. almost nothing. Lenineleal 02:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside to the BBCs involvement or lack thereof, have a look at the standard of debate they are happy to host on their site- http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=904&&edition=2&ttl=20060203045131

I believe they are now embroiled in the controversy. Look at this http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2022442,00.html --Tatty 05:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is highly relevant to keeping the image on the article. Watching the BBC and Channel 4 news, they did show the images, briefly, being shown and spoken about by a very angry muslim. However, the only pictures they showed were the bomb one and the Muhammed-with-knife one. Thus, if I hadn't seen the pictures on the wikipedia article, I would be under the impression that they were all like this. Skittle 11:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ABC News in the US showed several of the images yesterday evening as well. --StuffOfInterest 11:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was also a large protest outside Television Centre last night because of the 6 O Clock news showing the images. Logan1138 17:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

contribution of مبتدئ

First of all i understand fully and truly the point of view that is conserned about the liberty of expression or liberty in general. I want just to mention some points wich i may develop later:

haven t we to distinguish between the liberty of expression and the liberty of offensing other peoples (over the fifth of mankind) or between liberty and hurting others?
haven t we to assure some balance between this liberty and the right of others (let me mention here that these others are not dogs or animals they are even american citizens or european)?
where do the liberty of each one of us ends? (may be where the right or liberty of other peoples begins?)
why are people who are adherent of this point of view always discredited as terrorist or against the liberty of expression or stupid etc... such in some contributions here? does such a priori assumption not descridit the assumption makers more than the assumption object?
is reducling the queen (1 person) accepted in denmark (or norway i dont remember wich of them) or is it penalized by the law and offending people? i think it s penelized so why a huge community (i think the second religious community in europe) have to accept this offence?
Does an ethic of journalism and publishing exist or not? if yes is it consistent with republishing the picture? i hope that wikipedia and the wikipedian will be the leaders on showing the attachment to this ethics
is republishing the pictures consistent with antiracist laws and penal laws in general?
is the publishing of the image really necessary? one can dicribe the picture by words (note i m not saying the article has to be deleted. one can put some related pictures but not those -for example of the boycott-).

so this is my first contribution. I hope we can discuss in respect of each other and without prejudices. thanx مبتدئ 01:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

مبتدئ - this will probably be deleted as being inappropriate for this discussion page, but let me respond briefly to you. Please understand that in a western country, any person or any newspaper can ridicule the king, queen, prime minister, president, any politician, any religious leader, and generally anyone they want. It happens all the time. It is totally legal. They don't suffer any consequences from this. That is why many westerners feel Muhammad should be just the same - a valid target for the type of humour called satire. Thparkth 01:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"between the liberty of expression and the liberty of offensing other peoples". In no democratic society is there a right not to get offended. To the contrary, intrinsic to the freedom of speech and freedom of the press is the freedom to say REALLY offensive things, to ridicule their religion, to mock their prophets, to belittle their beliefs. It's not always wise to do so, but that's for each individual to decide. And of course it's legal to insult the queen, are you kidding? Babajobu 01:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have to understand that wikipedia is a encyclopedia not a journalist. A encyclopedia just states facts and does not censure anything and lets the readers decide. It is up to everyone for themselfs to decide if it was right or wrong originally published in the Danish newspapers Chaldean 01:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue! - Barry Goldwater --UltraSkuzzi 02:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

God, those pakis are unbeleivable. any little reason to have a little party and get the booze flowing.

Moderation is part of justice. Plato

ok thanks to all of you. i did not expect that someone will answer so fast. first of all i apologize for my bad english:

for Mr Thparkth: thank you for explaining how the "west" or "western" socity work. fisrt of all i want to inform you that i m a part of this western socity (i dont like to use this term because it s too much connoteted to clash of west and east or in opposition to east). Mr Thparkth i m a european citizen and i know what i m talking about. it s not allowed to defame peoples and i think this holds without consideration of skin coulour or religion or function or sexual orientation or whatever. so what you are saying is not true. i can even tell you the exact paragraphs of the law. So summa summarum thank you for introducing me to democracy and liberty but i think i can say that i m good informed about this subject. the second point is: i hope that my contribution will not be deleted because i will understand it or it will be undemoctratic and illegal (in sense of wikipedia laws and ethics) and against the liberty of expression that is claimed here (i think what i wrote is related to the subject-in fact who decide if it s relevant or not?-). onother point is that you sayed that they dont have to be affraid of consequence; that s not true too. Mr i remember that a newspaper apologized for a politician just because the newspaper sayed the politician colors his hairs. onother example comes from uk where it was enforced by a court that the dayly mirror i think dont publish the document of bobing aljazeera otherwise they will have to encouter penalities. I hope yopu bleave what i m telling you if not just google a little or if have time i will provide you the urls.
Mr Babajobu: first of all thank of saying: "It's not always wise to do so". Secondly you sayed there is no rhigt of not being offended: please see what i wrote above. thats not true at all!! one check anti deffamition laws two check anti racist laws three check antisemitism laws. these are all laws wich exists i m not lying or inventing them. i m sure 100% of it. ok the laws are made for individual case of deffamation somehow but they surly apply for a group of person and may be in a more strong way. i forget laws relative to social freedom wich are also integrated in some eu legislation and wich penalize every act that puts the social freedom in danger. i agree that these laws are applicated more or less strongly and that some of this laws only take effect if one makes a plaint but nevertheless they exist. in the legislation of my contry the second paragraph in the 1st section says the dignity of human beeing is untouchable for example (i dont remember now the exact words of antidefamation laws thats why i put a more general statement). such picture offend me in my dignty as a citizen (and a lot of other human beings) so they are anticonstitutional. concerning the queen i dont know of wich queen you are talking about (notice uk is not the only kingdom on the world and i v seen Mr been too :-)) anyway thats not the point.

Mr Chaldean: thank you Mr for explaining what Wikipedia is. I m a sysop in wikipedia so i have a little idea of what wikipedia is :-) thanl you anyway for your comment. Mr i dont ask for censoring just be a little bit more responsable that s all. if you speak in terms of was it right or not to publish them by danish newspaper the answer is the newspapers apologized and admitted (may be in a not clear way) that they have doen a mistake by doing this. so the question is already answered. where is the problem in describing the picture by words for examples ???? or / and putting pictures of the boycott (thats what maked the picture famous and mediatize the hole story???)

Mr UltraSkuzziyou cite plato and Barry Goldwater but the 2 statments dont fit together somehow. but ok i will ignore this. "Moderation is part of justice": thats why laws are not always applicated or some laws (but almost it has nothing to do with moderation but with ignorance or that you dont have enghoug mony to pay an advocate :-). "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice": may be yes may be no. but i tend to no. thats another topic your talking about here or it will lead us to offtopics like the absolutism of liberty etc... and as babajou sayed (in an other way) i think that liberty is equivalent to resonsability or translate in rsponsability. if you have liberty you have a choice if you have a choice you have to assume the consequences of your choices.... anyway thank you too. and i apologized for thinking i can have a better idea than plato or whom else :-) (for all plato fans)

i want to say it again i m not against liberty of expression, there is really no need to be affraid of an attac against liberties or to feel (in this situation) that you are in the obligation to defend liberty of expression. I think the hole story is a mix of racism (racisme is not the approtriate word because of the word: race ==> racism but let s ignore i think you understand what i mean) and a search of publicity... so thats why ethics (wikipedia is build on ethics for example the free circulation of infos) tells us to be responsable in our beeing as a free person. مبتدئ 04:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Didn't write the Plato comment, just the Barry Goldwater one. I respect early philosophy, but I think it bears little into this conversation.--UltraSkuzzi 12:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say: "check anti racist laws check antisemitism laws." There are no laws in any Western country against saying racist or antisemitic things. In the U.S., for example, people publish anti-Jewish and racist newsletters all the time, and Mein Kampf (Hitler's book) is available in bookstores everywhere. I don't know where you get your information about the West, but it's simply wrong. Babajobu 04:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I get my information from my constitution and the laws of my country wich is a western country (to take your jargon) and wich is not the us (thanks god :-)). I gave you a litteral translation of the most famous article of my contitution:" the dignity of human beeing is untouchable". I m not speaking about the US. there tey are discussing wehther torture is leagal or not etc... so may the constitution and awareness about human rights their is not so well developped as here??? I think (but im not sure :sure to 80%) that the divulging of Mein Kampf leads to juridic consequence. I know the law so it s really useless to try to say that these laws dont exist and even if you repeat it 100000 times. I can only tell you i m saying what is written in the 2nd paragraph of my constitution and i think the 13 pragraph of the penal law. I didnt mention here international law wich can be interpreted in this sense :-). I know judgments where policemans was suspended because of racist comment. I dont Know Us very good but i think if you can judge a Mcdonald because you became fat or because your dog is dead while you tried to dry it in the microwave i think there is surly a law wich prohibit racism (or still the Blacks have to sit in a section a part in the bus: i dont think!!:-)) مبتدئ 05:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from your spelling issues, مبتدئ, you lost so much credibility with this- "wich is not the us (thanks god :-))." Regardless of traditions, respect, sedition, the second paragraph of your constitution or whatever, you have just failed the Wikipedia's NPOV test. And no, I don't own a copy of Mein Kampf, but it's kinda nice to know I could if I wanted to.

althouhg i dont know who wrote this lines (it s not signed) i will answer it because i will answer it because i dont feel superior to others in the opposite to who wants to judge over me. Mr X i dont want to have deep discussions of what neutrality is etc... this will lead to other large topics. fisrt of all i did not ask you if you have Mein Kampf or not i just sayed here in my land it s prohibited to divulgate it since it s prohibited to divulgate racist litterture. why does these 2 small words descredit me and all the other hundreds of words i hve sayed? because i m outing my self as religious or because i m expressing that i prefer living here then in the US? If you feel offensed through this no problem I apologize i have no problem admitting mistakes offensig others is the mistake here). please consider it as a bad joke if you think i havent the right on personal preferences. besides, notice that i put it in brackets with a little smily. again if you feel offensed i m sorry it wasnt my goal. but please dont try to start a personal attack against me because of it or dont pick on or rag on me because of my spellings. i didnt say that i m anglophone or living in an anglophone country. Dear Mr X i m trying my best and even apologize for torturing your language (may be) but i do my best. and i invite you if you want to discuss in whatever language you want; and as an open minded and educated person you surly can express your self in other languages. with best regards مبتدئ 06:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if it s babajou who wrote the comment: i v seen your personal page, it explains why you did this comment. it s ok its your point of view, i only hope i can correct it some day :-). best regards. مبتدئ 06:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A better caugh split idea

Everyone is forgetting that these images didnt start the whole controversy. The paper commisioned them in response to Danish artist's fear of reprisals from Muslims for Islam related work. The article that the cartoons surround speaks to artist's fear for their own safety after the murder of Theo Van Gogh etc. Here is how the story should be broken down in my opinion.

 Islam Vs. West
   Islam Vs. Denmark
      Islam Vs. Danish Artists
          Islam Vs. Muhhomad Cartoons
             The cartoon itself

Oo7jeep 02:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why dont you put a section Islam Vs. evrithing??? what you write is not correct. In fact the title Islam Vs. West suggest a clash between Islam and the west wich is not true. Notice that islam is the second religion in the "west" in the number of adherent. Notice too that those muslims are integral parts of their societys and citizens like all other western citizens. I heve no problem by mentioning how things began but specialy the main section Islam Vs West and the Section Islam Vs danish Artist can only be set in the frame of someone who is adherent of the theory of the clash of civilisation and the superiority of one side on the other. Sorry that dont sound serious and is not a perspective for me and it is intolerant. Islam has nothing against West (the proof is that islam is established in the West) it has also nothing again artist or danish artist or whoever. Dont people have the right to defend themselfs from beeing defamated and insulted? you know the use of the word Vs west means a thinking in a frame of West against (east or middle east or warsau or urss or what ever) please stop we dont need new concept of enemy. with best regards مبتدئ 04:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CNN: "Gunmen shut EU Gaza office over cartoons"

[12]. We need to add this. Hmmm...where will they dispense all the aid money from, then? Babajobu 02:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

anyway they will not recieve anything since the democtratic choice of the palestinian was not the right one. مبتدئ 04:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People can vote in whichever leaders they like, but they can't assume other countries will love the leaders and want to give them money. Democracy means the right to vote for people who other countries will despise. Anyway, this is off-topic. Babajobu 04:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok you right (and your right this is off topic anyway here) مبتدئ 06:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added in. Swatjester 07:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic extremists respond to cartoons with violence

I think that, even while maintaining a neutral point of view, this article should point out the irony of the violent response to these cartoons, which make fun of Islam's violent fringe.

Interpretation is best left to the reader. This isn't an editorial. Guppy313 02:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the foul stench of hypocracy you are detecting. --Vagodin ^Talk 02:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It assumes that the outrcy is over satirical artwork depicting Muhammed that implicate him with violence, however many Muslims seem to be unhappy over satirical artwork depicting Muhammed, period. There's also the fact that the vast majority of the Muslims are protesting in peaceful ways (such as the widespread boycott) and the worst most have participated in is flag desecration (which is even legal in the United States, if only for the moment).

Heck, you're assuming that most of the protesting Muslims have seen the pictures to begin with. Guppy313 02:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your intended audience wouldn't get it. MX44 02:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim pictures of Muhammad

in the past there have been non-satirical depictions of Muhammad by Muslims.

Can someone please provide a citation for this statement (last part of opening paragraph). Pepsidrinka 02:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that unsourced sentence and someone replaced it. But in Shia countries there are some pretty portrait-like images of Muhammad, no doubt. I have one. He looks like a superhero, Mr. Clean in a turban. Babajobu 02:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are two on the Muhammad page. Although I believe there was only one this morning. Both veiled. --JGGardiner 02:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are pictures on the Muhammad page. But those pictures don't claim to be made by Muslims, and whether they are or not has no bearing. This statement is a very loaded claim in light of the world situation today, and its truthfullness should be cited. Pepsidrinka 02:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The captions for the pictures claim that one is Ottoman and the other implies that it is Ottoman or Persian. --JGGardiner 03:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. I probably should have read the captions, seeing how I was just over there moving pictures around. Nonetheless, I still hold that a citation be included in the article to justify the point in order to show the casual reader that Muslims in the past have created pictures. Pepsidrinka 03:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia I think has a bunch of non-satirical pics of Muhammad under the Muhammad name, they were all created mostly long ago and by many different nations, maybe one was Islamic? Homestarmy 02:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Paper Publishes Cartoons

Just read this at the BBC:

"In Jordan, an independent tabloid, al-Shihan, reprinted three of the cartoons on Thursday, saying people should know what they were protesting about.

In a separate article, the newspaper's editor, Jihad Momani, urged the world's Muslims to "be reasonable" in their response to the drawings.

The paper's publishers sacked him hours later over the "shock" he had caused, Jordan's official Petra news agency reported."

Is this worthy of inclusion? Until now I had not read of any Arab newspaper, even a "tabloid," reprinting any of the cartoons (or suggesting that Muslims "be reasonable"). 209.51.77.64 02:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I thought this was already mentioned, if it isn't it should be added if we can find that exact hyperlink on the BBC to cite this. Homestarmy 02:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al Jazeera published the pics, although we're looking at them over someone's shoulder. [13] Babajobu 02:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I should have checked Al Jazeera. Still, I think the fact that any Arab papers are publishing the cartoons, even if they are over someone's shoulder, should be included in the article (once the protection is taken down). 209.51.77.64 03:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Jazeera published the fakes from the private collections of imam Abu Laban & Co. BBC did too. MX44 03:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also Yemen Observer. Jacoplane 03:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IP Ban

Can an admin ban 209.11.82.24? They switched out the image with a penis and this IP has a history of vandalism. Hitokirishinji 03:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's already blocked, not by me. Babajobu 03:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sprotected

I have reprotected the article due to the massive amount of vandalism that is still being directed at this page. I realize it is an unusual and regrettable need due to the fact that it is a high traffic article and is an on again off again main page article but at least sprotection is really necessary to stop the vandalism and add a small amount of stability to the article. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, even after a consensus, sadly, the page will still probably be vandalised. 209.11.82.24 was from a corporate address, I wonder if that company has any interest in an employee who likes to post pictures of penises rather than actaully working. Hitokirishinji 03:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they're like most of the ISP's home users vandalize from I doubt it. Of all the times I have heard of a vandal being reported to their provider only 7 or 8 to my knowledge have ended in any favorable response, now it's not even really worht trying, we just have to keep our eyes open and revert it as we see it and if the vandalism continues then block. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's actually more or less the opposite; companies pay people to work, while home users pay ISPs to use the internet. Reporting them to the company might actually get some response (namely, that person being fired). Titanium Dragon 03:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tact is not censorship

If material is offensive to a significant portion of our readership, we should be tactful and put a warning at the top of the page, and keep the offensive material "below the fold" if then possible. The example of Oral sex given above is a straightforward analogy; an even closer one is Goatse.cx. For what possible reason should the Goatse image be remote-linked from the Goatse article while these cartoons should be at the very top of this article? (For those who don't know what Goatse is, here's a link—it's pretty gross.)

Tact is not censorship. It's acknowledging that Wikipedia doesn't want to disgust its readership more than is necessary to convey the information it's meant to convey. Nothing whatsoever is lost from the article if a warning is added to the top and the image moved down. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. Several other editors have tried to make this point above but have all tired of being shouted down. Tempshill 03:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said elsewhere, adding a warning solves nothing if you go ahead and show the picture anyway. Those who are angry, aren't angry that they saw the picture, they are angry simply knowing Jyllands-Posten printed the picture. Hiding the picture may spare some the hurt of seeing it, but you're still showing it and therefore you're still violating the taboo against iconic representations.--Snorklefish 16:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a practical matter, it was noted earlier that several times when the picture was moved "below the fold", the revert war stopped. Some value is therefore evidently added. Tempshill 20:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snorklefish, of course many Muslims would still be offended. However, it might be possible to reduce the offensiveness of the article if a warning is put on top of the page, so that at least Muslim viewers wouldn't have to look upon the sacrilege if they chose not to. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, as gross as that pic is, I think the original goatse one was even worse. Are you sure they're the same? The original is something I try hard not to remember. 71.141.251.153 05:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with the above. Wikipedia should respect people; telling people to fsck off if they are offended is a complete lack of respect. Samboy 06:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Wikipedia should tell things as they are, without hiding people from stuff they may find "offensive" -- otherwise, how will anyone, on either side of the issue, get the full facts of the case. To deny any aspect of the visual representation of this article or to shunt it down to obscurity within the doldrums of the article is an insult to people who don't have to abide by the laws of one religion, no matter how large. Sol. v. Oranje 07:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

im not sure however how many 'people who don't have to abide by the laws of one religion' are actually insulted by a lesser visual representation of an image. nothing in this world is absolute, having complete free speech or anything for that matter without having a counterbalance is unwise. Chensiyuan 17:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you do think the Goatse picture should be at the top of Goatse.cx (or, in fact, in the article altogether), Soldaatvanoranje, or am I misunderstanding you? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simetrical, more apropos here than Goatse is how Wikipedia has handled images that are obscenely offensive to other religious communities. For the umpteenth time, see Piss Christ for an example for how Wikipedia deals with the hysterical anger of Christians: the answer is we ignore it, because their religious freak-outs are irrelevant to the project of building an encyclopedia. We keep the Piss Christ image right up at the top where everyone can see it. We do that for Christians and for Jews and for Scientologists and for every other such community...should we really make a special exception for Muslims, show them a deference we show no other religious or ideological or political group? My vote is no. Babajobu 03:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

religious freak out??? irelevant to the project??? let me inform you that religious people are not necessarily freak-outs. arabic wikipedia where the majority of peoples are moslems build the encyclopedia and reached over 10000 articles in a very short time. I m a little bit desappointed: i thought you understand the correlation between liberty and responsability. that you vote with no thats you right; but i consider that it s not ok to vilify or debase every one who defend himself or his beliefs. I think seeing the encyclopedy like you do is not the best angle of view. Mr babajou you surly know the main idea of wikipedia wich is the free circulation or the equality in chances of access to informations. this idea one can put it in a ethical frame this will induce or let you see some other ethical issues or evidences or related topic in the same larger frame...(call it as you like). i think thats the right angle to look to things. about you question "...special exeption for muslims...politicalgroups?": it suggest that there is no difference on the theortical level between us!!?? that means if you find a way of not making exception for all other so there will be no problems in deleting the pictures??? (you answer is surly no :-)) so it s a practical problem :-). I understand your idea and i have to be aware and to apply it as sysop in the arabic wikipedia but i always have to keep in mind the duality of liberty and responsability and where the right of the other begins (this surly a process wich is not only controlled by me) try to find a kind of balance or moderation as mentioned somewehre here. In your work in the enciclopedy try to be minimal restrective (too much rules or ristrections leads in the loss of liberty. and the exrcise of liberty has many aspects so if the people decide to practice their liberty in this way why restricting them ??). last but not least i will copy your end of the message my vote is TO DELETE THE PICTURE and replace it by approriate discriptionمبتدئ 05:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you feel about this? Freedom of speech gives everyone an absolute right to blaspheme any religion. Valtam 06:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and state that I'm one of the people that believes hello.jpg belongs somewhere in the article on goatse.cx, but ultimately I think the comparison is disingenuous. Goatse.cx, as the entry says in the first paragraph, is an internet shock site whose only purpose is to shock, to trigger a gut reaction and not much more. There's no real attempt at a message there beyond "Hey, look at me!"

However, each and every one of the charicatures tried to have some deeper meaning; some perhaps meant to offend, but most generally trying to get the audience to think. In other words, they're not the grainy photographs that were claimed to be a part of the original comics (which, as I've seen, have been remote-linked). For better or for worse, they seem intended to incite debate (which they certainly have here) rather than just stick with the initial "ZOMG!!!11!!1!!!". Guppy313 04:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, as I say the more analagous examples are ones in which we've dealt with images extremely upsetting to religous, ideological or political groups. Wikipedia hasn't bent to accommodate their demands, and it shouldn't do so here, either. Babajobu 04:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Example of unintentionally offensive dipliction of Mumammad in Serbian Wikipedian article on Muhammad that you all may find interesting:

[[14]]--Greasysteve13 03:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That image is from Iran. As I've said above, Shi'ites have produced those sorts of images over time, their attitude to religious iconography is different from that of Sunnis. Thanks for the link. Babajobu 03:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does this explain a lack of any Iranian response?--Greasysteve13 03:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been curious about the attitude of Shi'ites in all this, and I've heard nothing about it. I believe the pic you link to is from pre-revolutionary Iran, and it's very possible that the mullahs are more strict about this thing today than they were under the Shah. But we haven't heard much from them, and Shi'ites definitely have different historical approach to iconography than do Sunnis. I don't know, keep your ears peeled. Babajobu 03:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iranians are still diplicting him today ([15]).

I was under the impresssion that Iran is too busy being angry at Europe for other reasons. What's Tehran going to do, put the EU under Double Secret Probation? Heck, I as an American am beginning to feel left out here, all we're getting is second-hand hate. Guppy313 04:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the pakces aI have heard troubles from are primary sunni --KimvdLinde 04:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well for starters 75% of Muslims are Sunni.--Greasysteve13 04:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And here a several more pictures of Mumammad (Warning:Big Link)[16]--Greasysteve13 04:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mirror

I have created a mirror at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (no images), which will also need to be maintained, with the offensive image removed. Now, can we move the image down below the break on the page? Problem solved. --GeLuxe 03:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not allow these sorts of forks of articles. As for whether we can move the image down...well, take a look at the consensus demonstrated at the poll. Now what do you think? Babajobu 03:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What was the point of making the mirror? One article is enough. 209.51.77.64 04:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was some code being used on a few articles which allowed for toggling pictures on or off... if people think that's a good idea... more or less... this whole thing mystifies me. gren グレン ^? 05:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see AfD on Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (no pictures) --Descendall 08:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an AfD, it's a VfD. --cesarb 15:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia contigency planning

In all seriousness, is this an appropriate place to wonder whether Wikipedia (its systems and key personnel) have appropriate security measures or precautions in place? 203.198.237.30 04:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean...? WP as a terror goal...? Kjaergaard 04:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you threatening me? As far as systems go, given that Wikipedia's traffic is so substantial, it would take a heck of a lot to make a dent. Also, it wouldn't be anything new, since WP is down a lot anyway... --Interiot 04:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, launching a denial-of-service attack on Wikipedia would be like spitting on someone in the rain. Wikipedians wouldn't even know that something special had happened. Babajobu 04:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kjaergaard: Let's start by asking ourselves whether it would make more or less sense than any other attack. Interiot/Babajobu: Call me old fashioned, but I was thinking more along the lines of a firebombing or other violent physical attack on systems or key personnel. 203.198.237.30 04:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I'm well protected, as is my laptop. And I'm the only really key player on this site, so we're fine. Babajobu 04:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm relatively unimportant, so don't worry about me. And Jimbo has his fembots to defend him [17]. As far as firebombing silicon, well... make sure you download a recent backup, and we should be relatively okay. --Interiot 04:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. But this is less about whether any particular thing or person gets bombed...and more about the fact of possible occurrence, and whether appropriate preventative measures and precautions are in place. I feel much better now, knowing there's no need for any real concern. 203.198.237.30 05:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are really concerned about this bring it to the village pump. But, it has nothing to do with this article so please don't continue this here. gren グレン ^? 06:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies all 'round. 203.198.237.30 06:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Arabiya interview with Danish PM

We should have a link to the transcription of the Al-Arabiya interview with the Danish PM... : http://www.statsministeriet.dk/Index/dokumenter.asp?o=2&n=0&d=2508&s=1

Any opinions on where to put it.....? Kjaergaard 05:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Usual Europian Hypocricy: Can you say, for example, 'Holocost was a propaganda' in your countries? Where is your freedon of speech? Jews were killed or not, that is a different story. My point is what the Europians are doing is nothing but a two-facedness!

I propose not to have the cartoons in the article untill the pool is ended.

I propose to keep the cartoons in the article until the 'pool' is ended. Valtam 06:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also propose you sign your posts - I'm responding to this heading; I didn't create it...Valtam 06:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The answer for the (non-European) country in which Wikipedia is hosted is "yes." But that also is moot: Wikipedia is not the place for "your point" (or the points of any editor, for that matter). Please save these points of yours for a different website. Guppy313 06:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not here? We cannot let an insult appear in a Wiki article. It is completely clear... --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.248.124.126 (talk • contribs)

As noted above, other fairly offensive yet encyclopedic articles exist on Wikipedia, see Piss Christ, Blackface, etc. Issues that are offensive should be treated with respect and tact, and that can be done while still keeping these images. --Interiot 06:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The holocaust is backed up by gruwsome FACTS, the cartoons are an opinion. I have no issue with the same in regard to Christain, jewish or whatever deity or prophet --KimvdLinde 07:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested in matters of Freedom of speech in Europe, you can create an article about it. But you would have to stick to the facts, if you do. -- 129.13.186.1 08:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may deny Holocaust in Denmark. It is against the law in Germany and Austria (France?) because of their part in WW2 but not in Denmark Slup.

Holocaust denial is also against the law in Belgium. In the Netherlands, it is illegal by jurisprudence, but not yet by legislation (a bill to that end is currently going through parliament). Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 14:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO if we do have this Freedom of speech that so many people are arguing about then Holocaust denial should also be legal and not punished as racism. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, perhaps not, but that's not relevant to the article, so let's not go into it here and now. Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 15:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's not relevant to the article. Just making sure that the people here realize that there are two same situations. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You ask if I can you say, for example, that the "Holocost" was propaganda?.... Yes I can. I can say lots of nasty, hateful things. I can say the Holocaust is a hoax, all Europeans are Nazis, Women are genetically inferior, Men are the sole reason for war, China is the yellow scourge, Africans have large penises and small IQ's, and Eskimos are born with fur... I can say all of that without legal consequence. I don't believe any of it, and I'm offended even seeing it, but I have the legal right to say it.--Snorklefish 16:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Europe in general don't have U.S. style freedome of speech so yep, accusation of hypocracy is well deserved. Wikipedia on the other hand is not Europe and thanks God for that. FWBOarticle

I think you're overgeneralizing a bit now. First of all, you have to keep the difference between de jure and de facto freedom of speech in mind (the specific application of those two types of freedom of speech in Europe and the US is another issue). Secondly, I think it's incorrect to use one label for all European countries. Poland is not Spain, and Italy is not Norway, to name but four countries. But please, we're digressing. Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 16:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you are doing is another form of hypocricy. It is the main issue here! These cartoons are in fact an insult. An insult cannot be considered as 'freedom of speech'. In fact, the point is: you do not have 'freedom of speech' in your (Europian) countries. A scientist, Roger Groudy was charged for saying that there was no Holocost! And the bottom line is this: When it comes to Jews, you cannot even speek. But for Muslims, you are insulting their beloved Prophet for the sake of freedom of speech! That is exactly what insincerity, two facedness, and a true hypocricy is! 216.248.122.218 19:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That reply was about as non-sequitur as it can get... Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 19:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer my question! Do not you have an answer for it? Be honest!

I honestly don't know if I've got an answer. I don't even think about responding to such ludicrous allegations. I'm sorry. Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 20:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., of course you can deny the holocaust, or publish books or magazines saying the holocaust never happened. The IP has no clue what he's talking about. Free speech equals free speech. Babajobu 20:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can perfectly say that I dislike jews, or that they stink or whatever, but I can not deny FACTS. KimvdLinde 19:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is the whole point. I might think that your facts are not strong enough. I should be able to say it. Where? Not in Europe. Can one insult Muslim Prophet, Oh yeah...

I myself believe also that some of the Jews were killed. But what I am pointing out is different here. I hope you can see it! 216.248.122.218 19:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you make a false comparision. My argument if that you can not compare the denial of the holocaust (as the facts are overwelhming) with a personal opinion of a person. So, I can equally voice my opinion about god and allah (or prohets for that matter). So, is there in any western european county a law that forbids making cartoons about god and allows it about allah? KimvdLinde 19:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to change the course of discussion. It is about freedom of speech, not about some stupid laws!... 128.255.45.117 20:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the facts are overwhelming, then there is no need for it. You might say a lack of evidence for god existence is overwhelming. But in Europe, you are not punished for being a Christian or an atheist. In fact, whether fact is overwhelming is irrelevant. Should people beig put to jail for practicing homeopathy? The main point is that these restriction is entirely "political". Then there is no reason, at least in Denmark or other European countries, to take "political" decision to legistrate anti blasphamy law for all religions. That is why the current state of law in many European countries are damb. I also hope that those offended by photos realised that this doesn't apply in wikipedia. Nigger is insult and offensive to people of african decent. But it would be damb to ban use of the word nigger or substitute it with "N word" in the page about the word nigger. FWBOarticle

(I think that this post was accidentally deleted earlier) Denmark in particular has allowed Holocaust-deniers free-speech. In Feb. 2004, David Irving gave several addresses there. --JGGardiner 19:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by user 216.248.124.126

User 216.248.124.126 has repeatedly vandalized this article by removing the top main image. This is the 3rd time, at least, despite being warned. Can an admin temp block his IP or something to prevent this from reoccuring please? AscendedAnathema 06:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reported in violation of 3RR, just waiting for an admin to block this person.--KimvdLinde 06:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

216.248.124.126 has been blocked by Gamaliel for the 3RR violation. NoSeptember ^talk 06:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 times now... Valtam 06:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what if

what if some newspaper printed a cartoon depicting Elizabeth II having sex with the Spanish King? with Voltaire? with Goethe? with Anderson? with Jesus? with Maria? will the editor be fired? will people hit the street to protest? My god are Eueopeans really full of themselves that they forgot how to respect other people? Do you say "you're a bitch" to your neighbours? You don't, even though you won't get arrested for it. It's called respect. The whole world knows freedom of speech in Europe is top notch. You don't have to prove this by insulting the Muslims. The Islam world is dangerously overreacting, but that doesn't justify your offence. Just out of curiosity, how arrogant can you be? --wooddoo [[User_talk:Wooddoo-eng|Eppur si muove]] 06:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sure, if such a cartoon was printed in any little arab newspaper, we sure would kidnap randomly chosen Arabs, burn your flags, demand terrorist attacks against Arabs etc. etc. ... (In case some didn't see it himself: This was Irony ) -- Trollkontroll 07:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

=That would be a funny cartoon!Valtam 07:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. In the film "Naked Gun", the main character "accidentally" ended up mounting on the Queen of England in missinary position, sliding along long dinner table, the queen of england screaming. The best commedic moment of the film. (^^) Yes, we are bunch of degenerates. FWBOarticle

And then the pictures should be posted on Wikipedia.... Just to get the picture right, which Anderson are we talking about...? Kjaergaard 07:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually something not too different from this happened in the United States. A magazine published a parody of popular Christian minister Jerry Falwell that depicted him losing his virginity with his own mother in an outhouse. Reverend Falwell sued the publisher and the case went to the supreme court, which decided unanimously in favor of the publisher. The West doesn't single out Islam. I've seen my own religion belittled on television comedy - and quite frankly I enjoyed the joke. My belief is strong enough to laugh off occasional disrespect. Durova 07:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Muslim and i can't figure out what your point here , I'm against the pictures , and I'm telling you they are the most stupid and horrible pictures i ever seen , but this article is speaking about the issue , so how we can explain it without the pictures ??? have you watched "last temptation of Christ" I watched it , and I'm telling you as a muslim i can't accept any person under any condition to insult any prophet and call it art , but if I'm going to make an article about the movie , and included some photos to explain the idea , should you consider me support the idea of the director ?? have you watched "al-resala" (the message), the message show some people worship stones , are you going to cut these scenes also , here we have different context and they are speaking about the event not to support the news paper.Waleeed 07:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By referring to Jesus Christ as "any prophet", implying he is not the son of God, is highly offensive to christians and i think you should apologize for that WookMuff

UMMMM , which reply is the best for you ??? Nothing , nothing had been said.Waleeed 22:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Elizabeth II: God Save the Queen.

Heh :) We played that one on local radio, right after christian fundamentalist prayers, on easter friday ... So far, no death threats. MX44 12:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning what we say to our neighbors: Being miserable and treating other people like dirt is every New Yorker's God-given right.

Considering what happens in Europe, this ain't Europe.

But in general, this isn't the right website for your views. Guppy313 07:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim have valid case against some European countries. If race hate speech is banned why not ban faith hate speech. This is a valid issue to raise in this page. Wikipedia on the other hand is not Europe. So take the complaint elsewhere. FWBOarticle

It's only a valid issue so long as the editors aren't the ones raising it. Find a citable source in which an acceptably notable person (e. g. someone who already has a Wikipedia article about them) makes that case, then it can be included in the article (with the citation). Otherwise, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a debate club. Guppy313 07:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be blunt, if these are the worst pictures you've ever seen Waleed, then I cannot see how you'll like the internet, many times people are forced to look at disgusting pictures in ads whether we bally well want to or not, that's just how the internet works. At least these pictures don't pop up in the middle of your screen and dance around in your face like a pop-up or something. Homestarmy 14:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can change your religion; you can't change your race (and no, Micheal Jackson doesn't disprove that). France, for one, wouldn't like that idea anyway; they're pretty fed up with religion, one reason you won't be seeing a French Pope anytime soon. Titanium Dragon 16:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, the Queen and jesus - I doubt it would go down well in certain circles, but if it didn't contravene the law in the country it's hosted, then we'd just be told to "suck it up, princess." People need to lighten up. Imho, any belief system that makes you so furious that you turn to violence (over a cartoon) should not be pandered to. It's no arrogance to suggest we don't bend under pressure, it's simply retaining the way we do things. If someone of any race, religion or culture, even a n^th generation Dane, doesn't like the way we do things in Europe, they're free to go somewhere more compatible with their ideology. Also, if someone is so mentally and emotionally fragile as to riot over a cartoon, they should avoid the internet, it's full of upsetting imagery. Cal 17:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of "Freedome of Speech and Hate Speech" section should be revivied

I think the section should be revived. European do not adhere to freedom of speech seen in America so accusation of hypocracy is at least a valid topic of discussion. Secondly, given the section of "Islam and blasphamy", counter example of other religion or culture or political ideology is not only relevant but also fair to muslim. FWBOarticle

Um, care to elaborate? AFIK the media in Europe is far less prone to auto-censorship than its Americans counterpart. It's not a coincidence that these cartoons have been published all over Europe by mainstream media while their US counterparts have not. Also, things like nudity and sex are much more censored in US media. In legal terms, both the US and the European countries have two basic legal restrictions on free speech: libel and incitement to riot. The US has criminal libel, while the EU countries do not (although a private person can sue another private person for libel). The "incitement to riot" or "hate speech" restriction exists in both systems. Mind you though that the common European document is the ECHR, so the more elaborate wording of freedom of speech laws fall on the individual countries. --Denoir 08:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For example, in u.k. calling someone "nigger" would violate incitement of racial hatered legistration while calling someone "mohhamed freak" is legally kosher. There is an legistrative attempt to include faith hate speech, which failed just two days ago. This was listed in the section. Secondly, many countries in Europe, Holocaust denial is a criminal offence, example of which I listed in regard to David Irving, a known holocaust denier, who is currently in jail. Let just remember that, for muslim, Islam is patently true. I also listed legitrative attempt in u.s. to make flag burning a criminal offense. All these examples were wiped with section deletion on the basis that it has nothing to do with "Islam". I believe large part of criticism coming from islamic world is partially based on hypocracy of the West (Europe). So the section actually touch the core of the controversy. FWBOarticle

It is true that 7 of the 25 EU countries have holocaust denial listed as a crime, but it is a minorty. So speaking of it as a "European" policy is probably not correct. Plus, as things look now, those laws will probably be consolidated under a common framework - which won't have those restrictions. In any case, Denmark that was the origin of this controversy, does not have these restrictions. Further more, your example of UK law isn't correct. Calling somebody a "nigger" or a "mohammed freak" or a "frog" or whatever is not considered incitement of racial hatred. It's not even if you say "All limeys are worthless bastards". For it to qualify as incitement, you need to do it in a indiscriminately public medium, and you have to call for some action. So if you have a radio show and you say "All limeys are rotten thieves and bastards. Let's kick them out of Europe!", it would qualify as incitement on the condition that the intent of the message was really to incite hate against a race. As you can imagine, these things are extremely difficult to prove and categorize - and that's why very few people get charged and conviceted for such crimes. What these laws seem to be for is to keep some of the top nazis off the streets.

The point is that in any system you have some form of restrictions on free speech. You can't for instance divulge classified information, or falesly yell "fire" in a crowd. That doesn't mean it is hypocritical to stand firm om free speech in other areas. --Denoir 11:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are so wrong about the state of freedom of speech in u.k. here,here and here. Yes, in some case, you can't even say "grass". And in Denmark, the actually do have brashpamy and anti racist law. It just that they insist the photo doesn't fit the legal definition. So yes, many European countries are hypocratical. I'm personally on freedom of speech side, precisely because the law is so inconsistent. FWBOarticle

Well, I admit that the UK in recent years has had a tendency to implement some very questionable laws (questionable from a civil rights point of view). It is however too soon to tell the end result of it as they haven't been chewed by the ECJ and in some cases the EP. Both those institutions lean heavily towards freedom of speech (and civil liberties in general). It is a bit difficult to generalize on the European level, and will continue to be so until those laws are harmonized on Union level. And beside the laws, the actual implementation of them differs widely. For instance here in Sweden we have fairly strict "hate speech" laws but convictions are extremely rare. After the introduction of the laws, the supreme court squashed every single case as it violated the ECHR. The latest case was the gay-bashing pastor Åke Green who was sentenced to a month of prison for a hate speech, but was acquitted by the supreme court. So they do try now and then, but at least here the supreme court seems to deal with it directly, rather than wait for it to be settled on EU level. Ultimately, there's little legal ground for banning hate speech in any EU country, it's just that the ECJ is slow and the local national governments do their best to make questionable interpretations of the ECHR. I fully agree with you that the patchwork of laws in this area is quite inconsistent, but I would not say that it is hypocritical. There are always limits to free speech. In the US you can say that the president is an idiot, but you can't say that you want to kill him. Is it hypocritical to agree that threats against his life should be illegal while at the same time campaigning for the right to call him an idiot? --Denoir 21:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The thing of it is, im in America, and I think the reason these cartoons haven't been published as nobody really cares much. I told my class about this situation and no one had ever heard about it, so I guess it's just on the other side of the world to us for now :/. I've never even seen an article about this in the newspapers yet. Homestarmy 14:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[18] linked to from the front page of CNN. Note the last line CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons out of respect for Islam. --Denoir 21:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Errr, revivied? Is that revived or reviewed?? Cal 18:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the fuss?

Ok, i can honestly admit that i am no muslim scholar... I tried to read the book once and gave up as it was too hard. My question is twofold. Isn't the point of not showing pictures of the prophet about stoppind the spread of idolatry? If so, how do cartoons mocking the prophet contribute to idolatry? Love that WookMuff

WookMuff, although many here have quoted the "spread of idolatry"-reason against the cartoons, as you phrase it, those who have been angry at the cartoons in this discussion have simply stated that it is disrespectful to the prophet, and therefore an insult to all muslims. I am beginning to think that you will not find the reason for this in any book, law or scripture. DanielDemaret 08:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pictorial representation of animal including human is banned because inaccurate represenation of god's creation is offense to god. (Undoctored) Photo is controvercial because it is accurate. Most say it is o.k. but some say it is not. However, if say, photo is used for reverential purpose, such as a teenager having poster of "Nsync" in her foom, then the usage of photo is to divert the reverence of god to something else, so it is wrong. My mate (a muslim) got his poster of Imran Khan ripped by his dad. On top of all this, the disrespect to the messenger of God is also considered as blasphamous which many scholar say deserve death penalty. This is a separate charge. Then implying that he is a terrorist is offense to islam. Basically the photo is wrong in soooo many ways if you are muslim. oh, I'm not a muslim so I appreciate if someone correct whatever mistake I have made. FWBOarticle

for the newspaper case not this article case , the picture was seen as insulting, there is nothing relates it to idolatry !!!! as a muslim i see the picture very insulting , i respect their right in expressing their idea , but in the same time freedom doesn't equal insulting people icons, please note I'm speaking about the newspaper issue not this article issue.Waleeed 07:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh you mean like burning my icon, my flag? My flag means as much to me as Muhammad means to you. Respect is not a one-way road. I have watched this for like a week now on TV. Well most other western nations would say something like "welcome to the club" shaking their shoulders, cause we have all seen it 10.000 times on TV before, and quite frankly don't expect anything else. An appropriate response I guess. Just because most does not immediately run to the streets with banners, boycotts and such, does not make the act of burning my icon any less disrespectful. In fact it is exactly the same kind of disrespect as a Danish newspaper stand accused for.

One also has to realize that western culture use satire and caricatures to expression themselves. It is a part of our culture to do it this way, and no public person, regardless who it is, is excluded from this act. If Muslims (a bunch of Danish imams going campaigning in the ME) had not pushed this case; nobody in the world would even remember these images today. In western culture yesterdays satire and caricatures are dead and forgotten the next day, and rarely is part of some sort of a campaign, which is also not the case with these images.Twthmoses 08:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YES like that exactly , can you tell me who started this nasty game ?? answer yourself, don't answer me.Unfinishedchaos 17:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Sign is fake ... I have no idea about this comment --Unfinishedchaos 21:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you are right , who changed my sign to be yours ????!!!! Waleeed 23:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best reason to leave the cartoons...

In my opinion, the best reason for posting the cartoons is to show EXACTLY what was printed by the newspaper in question, and as such to show what was NOT printed. This relates to claims that various unpublished (and allegedly more inflammatory) pictures have been misrepresented as the cartoons in question. WookMuff 3rd feb 2006

12.221.139.214

This user has vandalized the Arabic language article twice, such as here. Not sure if that gets a person banned over here as well but it wasn't just a simple blanking; this usually results in an automatic ban over here. Mithridates 07:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone show us an actual verse in the Qu'ran that forbids us showing those pictures (or any) of Mohammad on wikipedia.

And I don't want to see ambiguous verses either.--Greasysteve13 08:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not important for the article. Please don't use the talk page as a general discussion forum. -- 129.13.186.1 08:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could link to the wiki article about that verse in the koran.--God of War 08:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Been discussed already. It's not in the Koran but derives from the teachings of Islamic scholars who came later. See aniconism for some info. 71.141.251.153 08:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- It is not in the Qu'ran, and I have read a lot of supposedly related Hadith, and not even they actually forbid showing those pictures. This is one of the reasons not all muslims agree, and this is the reason that they have not been quoted in this discussion. The issue seems to be the disrespect to the prophet in general, not any particular verse anywhere. DanielDemaret 09:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's right. Most Muslims are not actually that rigorous in their religious observance (for example, many Muslims drink alcohol, in the same way that many Jews eat non-kosher food), and a great many are not, of itself, offended by depictions as such. However, a subatantial minority of the billion of so Muslims in the world are strictly observant of Islam as defined in the Qu'ran and Hadith, as well as by Islamic folkways, and will be strongly offended by depictions.

However, what is most offensive to Muslims in general, even the less-observant, is the deliberate provocation apparently displayed here, and the offense to Islam and the prophet which seems to be intended. -- The Anome 13:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use modified image - Muhammad's face blocked out

File:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings 2.JPG

The Face of Muhammed. - The controversial cartoons of Muhammad, first published in Jyllands-Posten in September 2005. The face of Muhammad has been blacked out because many Muslims see the depiction of the prophet's face as offensive. <sarcasm>The extreme mockery of the prophet (with or without face) is of course not the issue here.</sarcasm> For the original image see here

Showing Muhammad's face is forbidden in Islam, this way the original placement of the cartoon could be shown without showing the prophets face (similar to how some Islamic paintings [19] [20] show him with a veil) or a film about Muhammad does not show him at all. How about something like this as a compromise? -- Astrokey44|talk 08:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT censored--God of War 08:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. Agree with God of War. No censorship. Acetic Acid 08:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not censored since it gives you a link to the original image. The consensus seems to have already been reached not to use pictures of him on the Muhammad page. If the political cartoon was about any other subject other than specifically showing Muhammad's face than I would support its inclusion, but this is something which is almost always seen as 'off limits'. Seriously how many biographical movies have been made about people where the actual person the movie is about isnt shown at all?? -- Astrokey44|talk 08:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this is nonsense of the highest order. I have been outspoken against non-Muslim images of Muhammad on the Muhammad article, since they are not relevant there. They most certainly are relevant to this article. WP is not censored, and WP is not an Islamic project, so there is really nothing to discuss except for legal points of fair use and copyright. No Muslim is forced to come here and look at these images, just like no Muslim is forced to buy Danish newspapers. dab (ᛏ) 08:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no 206.47.141.21 15:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you all miss the point here. Of course, the original picture does not show "the face of the prophet". Muslims know it is not the face of the prophet. It is a cartoon! Therefore, it doesnt matter if it is blocked or not. The real problem to angry Muslims is that some people say it is the prophet, and then mock him this way - face or no face. Blocking the face doesnt make it less mockery! (maybe it is even worse... imagine, a hypocrit saying he 'respects' Islam by blocking a face only so he can push through the mockery of Islam) So, please leave the original picture the way it was. Stop putting black blocks on some pencil strokes. -- ActiveSelective 08:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this article included mockery (and I don't think it does), that should be removed (except for direct and sourced quotations) as POV. (The image, of course, is an exact and thoroughly sourced quotation.) Wikipedians cannot edit mockery elsewhere; in many countries that would be indecent and unlawful. Septentrionalis 15:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm muslim and i find that whole idea about hiding the pics or the face of persons in pics silly ..simply because these pics doesn,t represent prophet muhammad ... I find the question of some muslims to hide the pics silly ..cause they r not pics of muhammad in any way and noone can know the shape of muhammad or pridect it ... so keep the pics as it is . I think these these Pics is silly and full of Hate and Racism , for this reason and cause this article is talking about these Pics I think the Pics should be at the top not the Bottom . instead of that it should be explained the real viewpoint of Muslims about these pics and why they consider them racist and islamophobic --Unfinishedchaos 11:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So add it; please include sources to assist further research. Septentrionalis 15:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV dispute

In one of those long-delayed flashes of blinding obviousness, it only now occurs to me that the page is under an NPOV dispute of the highest order. I'm baffled that nobody has put up an NPOV tag already (at least I haven't seen one). I might put one up in a little while, unless somebody beats me to it. It really needs one.71.141.251.153 08:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<sarcasm>Yeah. We all know how NPOV tags magically improve articles.</sarcasm> How about trying to address the neutrality issues rather than fretting about whether or not to place a tag? What next? "This sentence could really use a period"?

If you think a tag is warranted, then just insert it, and explain the problem. This involves something more than assertion. 81.58.51.131 08:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, you're right, NPOV dispute may not be exactly the right description. The problem is that the page is under an intense edit war: One faction that thinks the picture at the top is blasphemous and must be removed. That this is an extremely POV notion should be very obvious (that same POV led a few hundred over them to storm the Danish embassy in Indonesia). The other faction insists that the picture must be stuffed down the throats of the first faction based on what I'll describe as a POV that those holding the first POV must be punished for their actions. That POV-ness should be illustrated with examples: I have a few in my post earlier against semi-protecting the page, but I might like to collect a few more (there are lots). So there are two different POV factions warring it out. Each side is demanding things that are non-NPOV (again I'll have to get around to listing some examples, but I'm doing other things right now). I'll refrain from putting up an NPOV tag til I put together more concrete cites but I hope this is enough to explain informally what I'm getting at. If I do put up an NPOV tag announcing a dispute in progress, the next step would be discussion of whether to ask the admins to lock the page. 71.141.251.153 08:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correctly or not, most people would interpret the NPOV tag to mean that the text itself has bias issues. They won't grok that it's about the placement of the image, at least not without reading this talk page first. That would be a bad outcome because the text itself is pretty incontroversial and seems well balanced. Thparkth 13:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, we would then need a meta-NPOV tag, as the bias is in the wikipedia policies and not text. Wikipedia is biased in that way that it chooses freedom of speech over adherence to religious principles. Any policy, including the no-censorship principle introduces by definiton a bias. And on that meta level, NPOV would be pointless. That however doesn't mean that there is an NPOV problem with the article text (and pictures). --Denoir 21:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions to muslims

Dear muslims. I am not a muslim myself (actually I am a non-religious Dane), but I would like to know what muslims think of the following analysis. Of course I realise that views among muslims will differ.

I think the offence caused by the Muhammed drawings works at several levels:

Most current islamic traditions ban depictions of Muhammad, so the mere existence of any such picture, even a dignified one, is to some extent offensive to many muslims.
Some of the pictures in question are obviously offensive, even without that ban.
The way Jyllandsposten published the pictures - not as illustrations to a story, but as a deliberate act to challenge the ban - naturally prompts reactions from people supporting the ban.
The way the Danish government reacted (until recently) was seen as an arrogant refusal to even discuss the matter.

I have these comments myself:

Ad 1., fundamentalists of all kinds may believe that everyone must obey the codex in their particular creed, but the rest of us (and I believe that includes by far most muslims) respect that other people live by other rules. For instance, I do not need to apologise for my eating pork, do I? So, yes, I understand that it is to some extent offensive to many, but in an open democratic world, we all have to accept such offences now and then. E.g., it offends me enormously when someone burn the Danish flag.

I wonder, do muslims who feel offended when told about these drawings, feel more so when they see the actual drawings from Jyllandsposten? Do muslims break any rules by, perhaps inadvertently, seeing the drawings?

Ad 2. and 3., the bomb-in-turban picture could be interpreted as the statement "Muhammad stands behind terror", which, although I suppose Osama bin Laden would happily agree, is an offence to many muslims. An alternative interpretation like "Terror is attributed to Muhammad" (which of course is true) is invalidated by the fact that the artist was commisioned to draw Muhammad, not to draw terror. - The anonymous pig-face picture was published by a Danish islamic organization, not by Jyllandsposten, so it is not relevant here.

For once I agree with the Danish prime minister, though I would like to state it more clearly than he does: Some of these drawings are stupid, but it is not up to the Danish government to decide whether they are blasphemous to a punishable degree; we have a legal system to deal with that. The drawings were published in Denmark, where an artist in 1984 painted a mural at a railway station depicting a nude Jesus with an erect penis. The painting was soon painted over (to the acclaim of Jyllandsposten), but he was not punished. So, it is not only when at the expense of other creeds or cultures that freedom of speach in Denmark is given more weight than respect for other's feelings.

Ad 4., I think it was a mistake when the prime minister refused to meet 11 diplomats from islamic countries 4 months ago, though I understand his reasons. They explicitly asked for the meeting to request that he punished Jyllandsposten, but the prime minister cannot punish anyone. I think he should have refused to meet them with that agenda, but at the same time invited them to a meeting with a different agenda, and I also think he back then should have expressed his dislike of some of the drawings publicly.

--Niels Ø 09:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Niels (/), how is this proclamation of yours of editorial use to the wiki-article? I dont see how. And I dont see why you publish it here. -- ActiveSelective 09:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am really trying to figure out what to think about the appearance of the drawings in the article. I honestly think they should appear prominently, and I try to understand the reasons why that is so strongly opposed by some. So my views may not interest you, but the comments (esp. from muslims) may interest me, and perhaps others too. My naive hope is that a clearer analysis of the offence may enable us to approach consensus.--Niels Ø 09:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appologize if I sounded rude. I hope you will find your answers! I advise you to add your questions to the many non-wikipedia discussion lists. What I meant, however, was that I believe that this wikipedia page can probably best do without such a discussion. These discussions are often endless, attract trolls, and doesnt help wiki-editing (which is the main purpose of this page). I wish you luck -- ActiveSelective 10:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize; I didn't make my intentions clear. I still think the discussion is relevant. Some vote to keep the drawings but move them down or to another page, hidden behind a sort of "spoiler warning" so that people not wanting to see them can avoid that. But who is it who visits this article with a strong wish not to see the drawings? I can imagine people who wish the drawings didn't exist in the world at all (I may be one of them, but they do exist and won't go away). I can also imagine people who think they should be removed from the wikipedia (I strongly disagree with them). But the people who want the compromise of having them "hidden" somewhere, do they do so for their own sake so they don't have to see them themselves, or do they do it because they think someone else may not mind so much that the drawings are there, as long as they can read the article without seeing them? Do such people exist? Perhaps they do, but that's really what I want to know. If they don't exist, we really should consider two alternatives, not three: Either we include the picture, accepting that they will be removed again and again, putting them back every time - or we accept that some other considerations are more important than freedom of speach and dissemination of neutral information. Those other considerations may be respect of religious feelings, or they may be to save the 99.9% of the wikipedia project that are rather uncontroversial, by accepting censorship in a few sensitive cases.

By the way, polls with three alternatives are difficult. If you are opposed to one alternative but can live with the other two, how do you vote?--Niels Ø 11:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whatching the discussion develop for a while, I think I must acknowledge that there is another valid argument for "hiding" the drawings a little: As some people feel less provoked that way, they may leave it alone rather than remove it. I guess hot-headed muslims (like other hot-headed people) may click to read a page, but then be too impatient to scroll down. And after all, it is a small price to pay. So now I add my vote acordingly, and leave the discussion.--Niels Ø 12:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press in Denmark

I made a first attempt on writing an article on Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press in Denmark (rather unwieldy title, I am afraid). It might be of interest for those who don't know about the law in Denmark, and those who do might want to help improve it. Rasmus (talk) 09:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Vision", and not "Face" - title of Danish article

I think, the translation of the Danish "Muhammads ansigt" should be "The Vision of Muhammad" and not "The Face of Muhammad". ("ansight" means both)

(1) The pictures show the supposed vision (not so much the face): a vision of using bombs (and not a face using bombs), a vision of violently controlling women (and not a face violently controlling women), etc. The pictures depict this as the supposed vision by Muhammad.

(2) Also, the pictures themselves are a vision on Muhammed. The subject of the article is these pictures about Muhammadism, not the face of Muhammad.

"Vision" is therefore the best litteral translation.

It is also the most comprehensive translation, since the anger of Muslims is not about drawing the face of the prophet (true, it is not done to draw the prophet's face), but about the mockery of Islam. Many of the discussions above are completely pointless: they focus on the minor thing of drawing a face, while the major issue here is the mockery of the whole of Islam. (Even the few Muslims that are very well accostumned to drawings of the prophet are insulted by these Danish pictures)

-- ActiveSelective 09:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that "ansigt" really only can be translated as "face". "Vision" would be "syn" in Danish. Rasmus (talk) 09:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "ansigt" means "face". Besides the literal meaning, it has a figurative sense, which is not "vision", but perhaps "surface", "appearance", "image", "what is shown to the world".--Niels Ø 09:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about the figural "the face of evil"? It is not about 'the face' of a devil or demon or... But "the face of evil" is about what evil (murder, war, torture) envisions. It is about the vision of evil. This is the way "face" is used here. Not litteral a face. -- ActiveSelective 10:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Vision" puts focus on how others see something; "ansigt" puts focus on what there is for others to see. Thus, "image" is a much better translation for the figurative sense of "ansigt".--Niels Ø 10:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does not the word "face" have that same connotation, almost to the same degree as "ansigt"?DanielDemaret 10:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am Danish, not native English speaker, and I am not sure, but I think you are right: The literal translation "face" is best as it has both the literal and the figurative sense of "ansigt".--Niels Ø 10:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depicting the Prophet Muhammad

Q&A: Depicting the Prophet Muhammad, BBC, 2 February 2006
This BBC article gives a good NPOV description of Islamic rules on the depiction of Mohammad that may be helpful in considerations of whether to have the image. Its interesting to note that Islamic tradition not only prohibits images of Allah and Muhammad but also all the major prophets of the Christian and Jewish traditions, which makes me wonder why no there hasn't been a fuss kicked up at the Jesus page. I don't think we should censor for reasons of religious sensitivity but I do think that we should show some consideration in the way we present an image that can be seen to promote religious hatred and racism. (I have voted to keep but move down)--JK the unwise 10:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reality check

I think I should clarify just how offensive this image is to many Muslims; perhaps the best comparison would be if someone were to wrap a Torah in bacon to prove a point about Judaism.

Wraping a Torah in bacon is not the best example. We are talking here about caricatures. And, as you can read in the article, plenty of caricatures insulting to Jews have been published, especially in Muslim media. That's what I call a "reality check". Neurino 12:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Jewish and frankly I wouldn't even be offended by wrapping a Torah in bacon. I'd say to myself, wow, that's interesting, I'd never even thought of that before. And I certainly wouldn't go out and riot and destroy things over it. But that's just me. --Cyde Weys 16:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As if that wasn't enough, the image of Muhammad as a terrorist, wearing a turban that appears to show the Shahadah ("there is no God but God, and Muhammad is His prophet") adds insult to injury. By displaying this image at the top of the article, we risk unneccessarily offending many observant Muslims who have come here to read about the controversy.

At the same time, I also believe both that the image is relevant to the article, and that Wikipedia should avoid self-censorship (I have, for example, consistently taken this position in articles containing anatomical images). In my opinion, the best way to resolve these conflicting goals is to move the image to the end of the article and to add a warning of the form:

Note: There is an image of the controversial newspaper page at the end of this article.

This was the solution reached in the similar Baha'i controversy, and seems to me to work very well.

Several of the comments insisting the image stay at the top of the article seem to have a distinct anti-Islamic slant, something I find quite offensive; we should try to respect other people's sensibilities as far as possible, even if we don't agree with them. -- The Anome 10:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you but could you point to the "Baha'i controversy" solution that you refer to?--JK the unwise 11:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries found it at Bahá'u'lláh. See no reason we couldn't do the same here?--JK the unwise 11:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the whole talk section and its archives. It's been the subject of intense dispute for the past 2 days. The image has been moved to the bottom a few times, and the deletions have stopped when that's been done. But the "enlightenment" hardliners kept moving it back. (It's still blasphemous wherever it's placed, but for whatever reason the deleters backed off when it wasn't at the top). 71.141.251.153 11:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason vandalism decreased when the image was moved down was that it then became evident we were not intentionally using the image as a provocation.

Is that a dangerous message to send, that we're not out to provoke people?

Why on earth we would want to send the message that we ARE using the image as a provocation?

Al Qaeda is not the only place you will find extremists, apparently. BYT 11:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Although most religions, strictly construed, consider the views of most other religions to be blasphemous; however, most religious communities manage get along together without yelling "blasphemer!" at one another. Similarly, although the image itself is, strictly construed, blasphemous to observant Muslims, it's using it as a provocation that really upsets them. Hence the stopping of deletions when the image is moved to the end. Provocation, from whatever side, is a bad thing. -- The Anome 11:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The (hypothetical) torah-in-bacon is interesting. I think any jew hearing about it would be offended (and so would I). But knowing that it had happened, would a jew be more offended by actually seing the bacon?--Niels Ø 11:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of the bacon thing I think... if an event like that happened and became newsworthy enough for us to have an article about it then a Torah wrapped in bacon could be our lead image. My problem is that I can't find a more appropriate lead image. If something happened because of this and that became the focal point then we could change the image. But, as of now the cartoons are the focal point. I know it may be offensive and some may view it as provocation but that's what this article is about. If you think some image is more important to the article than the cartoon then propose it as the new lead. Unfortunately I didn't see any picture that came close. gren グレン ^? 11:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, Gren, I strongly disagree. The cheese image makes it clear that the boycott is an important movement in the Muslim world.

That image, or a comparable one, should lead this article.

And to all those who insist that the image of the cartoon is indispensable to any understanding of this story, let me ask: Are you all going to start howling at the New York Times now? Somehow it managed to get through its coverage of this major news story by using images of the boycott, and not images of the cartoons. BYT 12:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point BYT, but maybe NYT was being cowardly or politically motivated? This is WP, not NYT. Also, the cartoons are in the article's title, this is not Muslim boycott of Danish cheese yet :) If this escalates into a Yemen-Danish war, we will have an article about that, without the cartoon image, but so far this is still a controversy about these very cartoons and not an all-out "clash of civilizations" dab (ᛏ) 12:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following the Torah-defilement analogy (yes, it is that offensive), since the public display of the depiction is what is causing offence here, the nearest analogy would be going down to the local synagogue and defiling their Torah too, just to show them what the first act was like. I don't think we need to lead with an image; the image is relevant, and should be in the article; it just does not need to be brandished at the top of the article. -- The Anome 11:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or, to put it another way, the article is about provocation, but need not of itself be a provocation. -- The Anome 11:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can buy or copy your own Torah and wrap it in a bacon. You may not wrap somebody else's Torah in a bacon. Besides Freedom of Speech, Denmark also has the notion of private property. dab (ᛏ) 12:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you can. But the question is should you not only go and do so, but do so in public, in order to prove your point? As far as I can see, doing so would be likely seen to by Jews as a deliberate attempt to piss them off, on the basis that it is generally known that this would be offensive; they would also be likely to conclude (rightly or wrongly) nthat your motive for doing so would have been anti-semitism. I can easily see that many Europeans were unaware just how offensive depicting Muhammad is to many Muslims; this is probably no longer true. -- The Anome 12:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but here it's different: someone else did so in public, and you are presenting a picture of the act, while talking about it. --cesarb 14:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the umpteen millionth time, it doesn't matter why you find it offensive, nor does it matter that we understand why you find it offensive. This is not your blog, this is not the place to describe your personal feelings, explaining why you find the pictures offensive doesn't make deleting the pictures any more acceptable. Guppy313 17:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Anome just wrote: "The article is ABOUT provocation, but need not OF ITSELF BE a provocation"

... and the distinction is important.

I would really like to hear some of the people who voted to place the image at the top of the article comment on the distinction that User:The Anome has set out for us.

Do you agree or disagree? BYT 12:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the image is the subject matter of the article. Of course it should be placed at the top. If people want to be informed about the controversy, Muslim or non-Muslim, they have no choice but to both read about and look at the cartoons, otherwise they will not be informed, they will just be ranting about cartoons they have not even seen. dab (ᛏ) 12:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Have no choice?" Only because you're choosing for them. The reader has a right to be willfully ignorant. Moving the image further down the page doesn't change the fact that it will be downloaded onto their hard drive by their browser (i. e. people will still downloaded it, perhaps even more than if it was on top of the page), but it allows flexibility on the part of the reader whether or not to actually see it on their monitor. Guppy313 18:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So for instance, the New York Times coverage of the story is deficient, in your view, because it doesn't even include the cartoon images? Never mind big or small, prominent or not prominent -- they chose not to piss people off. String 'em up from a lamppost in Times Square, I suppose? BYT 12:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

relax; I agree that some of the cartoons are in bad taste, and I don't suggest people should be lynched for lack of bad taste, so peace to the NYT from me; nor do I, apparently unlike the Muslim protesters, suggest people should be lynched for bad taste. dab (ᛏ) 12:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I asked about, though, was whether we could cover a provocation without ourselves being provocative. So far as I can make it out, your answer is "No," right? BYT 12:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RIP: The collaborative ethic

You're reading too much into the intentions of wikipedians and overreacting. The only one who is responsible for the reaction to the article is the one having the reaction. Wiki isn't supposed to guess at your reaction and censor itself to that possible reaction, that would be writing to your specific POV. We follow an NPOV policy, the facts are presented. If you don't like them, well.... Kyaa the Catlord 13:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well -- the "facts" here include the obvious one that other media outlets have chosen to take a different path than we have taken here...

Not unlike the way WP itself has chosen not to include a still from "Debbie Does Dallas" at Pornography. I assume we don't have such an image, and I'm not bothering to check. But I'm going to make that assumption based on the principle that a "collaboarative aesthetic" or "collaborative ethic" (for lack of a better word) would predictably preclude such an editorial decision. You just kind of know that a WP article that smart people put a whole bunch of work into is going to move toward the center.

Now here's my point. In other articles, like the Baha'ullah thing and the Oral sex article, we have in fact worked out ways to address the sensibilities of readers who are likely to be gravely offended by certain images. Here, in a much more serious case, we are unwilling to do so.

And the reason we are unwilling to do so is that ... ? (I honestly don't know. I'd like to hear your thoughts, though.)

The reason is simple. On Oral sex, a picture might be illustrative, and it might even be iconic. However, the article is not about a particular photograph of a sex act. This article is about a controversy surrounding a particular cartoon, and just like Piss Christ, the fact that that picture is offensive to people who will make a large, public outcry about it, is exactly why it has been pictured here on Wikipedia; not to offend, but to explain what it is that people are busy being offended by. Of course, no one is forced to read Wikipedia (I hope!) and if you are easily offended by those things that occur in the real world, and produce international news, then you almost certainly will be offended by Wikipedia.

One possible solution for such sensitive people is to download the database (which is made freely available) and strip out every article that offends you. Then you can present the "my POV-safe version of Wikipedia". Problem solved. -Harmil 22:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

Added sign. --Striver 11:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you do that? The only thing that's disputed is the excistance and placement of the image, not the text itself. The.valiant.paladin 11:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For a start: The article would be neutral if it didn't set out to insult Muslims and inflame an already potent dispute by waving this red flag in front of them. The article does in fact wave this red flag. It is therefore not neutral. BYT 12:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is about showing the facts objectively. You can hardly say that by just DISPLAYING an image central to the story that the story is POV. The.valiant.paladin 12:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you can. This is the perfect example. Certain extremists feel this image should be as widely distributed as possible BECAUSE it inflames Muslim sentiment and "teaches them a lesson" of some kind. That's a (political) point of view. As of this moment, WP is catering to that sentiment by featuring the image prominently. BYT 12:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the image is the subject matter of the article. Of course it should be placed at the top. If people want to be informed about the controversy, Muslim or non-Muslim, they have no choice but to both read about and look at the cartoons, otherwise they will not be informed, they will just be ranting about cartoons they have not even seen. And yes you are free to roll a Torah in a bacon in Denmark (provided you are the rightful owner of both the Torah and the bacon) dab (ᛏ) 12:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question in this case is not whether people should be free to do so, but whether people should do so. I would respectfully suggest that the answer to the second question is "no, don't be an asshole"; the first question is a whole 'nother issue. -- The Anome 12:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The disputation of the neutrality of this article is disputed. :P Kyaa the Catlord 12:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do anyone disagree with the *facts* of the story? The.valiant.paladin 12:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think a lot of people just have their panties in a wad over the picture being present on the article, not with the article in and of itself. Kyaa the Catlord 12:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems quite NPOV to me, the remaining controversy appears to be whether the image should be shown at the top, or lower down. -- 80.168.224.156 12:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article misses the understanding of muslims' viewpoint wich i work on it --Unfinishedchaos 12:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be moving the article towards NPOV in and of itself. It would be writing for the enemy. Kyaa the Catlord 12:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which enemy is that, Kyaa? BYT 12:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*rolls eyes* Giving undue weight to one viewpoint draws the article to NPOV. This is what was suggested. Have fun storming those windmills, however. Kyaa the Catlord 13:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If people say the image should be available to the public, why not a link? Why post the image at top while risking that Wikipedia can get involved with this whole situation? Just because not a lot of Muslims are active on Wikipedia doesn't mean we can make it worse. 83.160.142.158 13:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's your standard, then you should not show any pictures on WP, except through a link. Otherwise, you are being inconsistent. Valtam 15:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I see a bit of POV intruding in the textual descriptions of the cartoons. The pictures are caractures of people in beards and turbans and arab/persian clothing, and it is up to each viewer to decide who each figure represents and what each figure believes. It seems that only one is objectively identified as "Muhammed", but he's a schoolboy, not a prophet. --Sommerfeld 21:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poll deletion

For a brief period of time, a large part of the poll was deleted by user:212.138.47.24, a user who (if it is in fact one user) is responsible for several frivolous edits. I have now removed some lines that user:Slamdac added to the discussion in that connection as they are no more relevant.--Niels Ø 12:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this shows part of the problem. Just because you don't like a poll rusult you shouldn't sabotage it. That's not how things work in the Western World. .--User:slamdac

suggestion: one cartoon

what about picking one of the self-ironic cartoons to show at the top, large? Either the "Mohammed Valloyskele" one where a kid named Muhammad is saying "Jyllands-Posten's journalists are a bunch of reactionary provocateurs", or else the one where the Islamists come running with scimitars and bombs (an anticipation of the controversy really) but their leader is saying "relax folks" (if only!). Both of these are not actually showing a caricature of Mumammad, but ironically refer to Jyllands-Posten's PR stunt itself. dab (ᛏ) 12:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vote++ MX44

Wouldn't that be slightly misleading?The.valiant.paladin 12:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not misleading to suggest that all of the images are offensive? I am certain that nobody (who has stopped to think) is offended by the schoolboy cartoon which is blatantly in favour of the free speech with respect argument. And yet the cartoons are referred to as the 12 which have caused offence. I actually think that including that image, at the top, and the complete set at the bottom would be a reasonable compromise. 195.11.74.82 13:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It will also make the point that while everybody seems to assume these are a bunch of racist or islamophobe cartoons (the protesters appartently did not bother to look at them closely), more than half of them are not actually about stereotype views of Muhammad, but about the cartoonists' dilemma. All the more reason to make people look at the cartoons first and discuss later. If fair use permits, Wikipedia should show and discuss the cartoons one by one. Even the "bomb turban" need not be islamophobe, but a political statement about the abuse of Islam for the purposes of extremists. I must say that images like this (not to mention [21] [22]) are far more offensive, being a reflection of atavistic primate hatred untempered by satire or self-irony. dab (ᛏ) 12:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC) dab (ᛏ) 12:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - just one little picture is like being secretive about the other pictures. I find the number of pictures more impressive than a single one, because the full-page really shows the racist attack: manay attacks on Muslims and on Muslims only.

ActiveSelective 13:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Racist? Are muslims a race now? The.valiant.paladin 13:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

of course not; but islamophobe caricatures have a tendency to use racial stereotypes. dab

Point taken. However, I would like to point out that the drawings are an attack on censorship, not muslims or arabs. The.valiant.paladin 13:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(ᛏ) 13:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Taking one image out of context is a bad idea. Kyaa the Catlord 13:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As you point out, more than half of the cartoonists (wisely) chose not to take the bait. So far, we're not even that bright.

I have a feeling that if any steam built up here behind your wise proposal, the folks who are now screaming "the cartoon IS the story" would start screaming, "sorry, um, we meant the image of Muhammad IS the story." And I very much doubt your idea would carry the day. It probably should, though.

What's happening here is that people are looking for a reason - any reason - to cram down our throats the one thing to which we object. For our "own good" of course. File under: paternalistic excrementum tauri.

This surrealistic insistence on infuriating people at any cost has, I think, nothing to do with the First Amendment and everything to do with kicking a particular culture, one that has been persistently demonized in the mass media. What was it Hitler taught us about the wisdom of demonizing a whole culture? BYT 13:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I resent BYT's claim that Wikipedia is pulling a Hitler on Muslims. We are treating Muslims the same way we do every other religious community in Wikipedia, i.e. we are not censoring images they find upsetting. You are entitled to demand special treatment, but when the community chooses not to grant you that special treatment, please don't shriek "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!" Babajobu 13:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can still reach a point, though, where "not giving religions special treatment" becomes "promoting irreligion and secularism," something else Wikipedia isn't supposed to be doing. All too many editors now are on record in favor of putting the picture front and center in the name of the latter. And so long as there is no clear, consistent precedent in Wikipedia articles about where controversial pictures should, keeping it at the top of the page appears to be catering to those particular editors and promoting their secular ideals. Guppy313 18:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? The article is "the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy". The controversy is the story. The image defines the basis of the controversy. If there was no image, there would be no story. You are not being objective in regards to what the controversy actually is and are, in my opinion, becoming part of the problem which the paper sought to illuminate. Kyaa the Catlord 13:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how dividing the image into several images helps the article become better and more informative; In fact, I think it would confuse more than anything else. And I don't see how it's going to mitigate the "insult" to the muslims. The drawings are still there. Finally if you don't want to see cartoons with Muhammad, don't click on a link that says "Muhammad cartoons". I don't want to see gay sex, so I don't click on links that say "Gay sex". That's just common sense. The.valiant.paladin 13:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So how come we don't see a picture of child pornography when we click on Child pornography? BYT 13:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because the production of child pornography involves abuse of children. Hence it is illegal. Hence Wikipedia do not show that kind of images.The.valiant.paladin 13:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brr. Sounds ominously close to censorship to me. Pretty sneaky. This whole "obeying the law" trend is actually a Trojan horse.
Did you realize that that seemingly harmless decision to obey the law actually limits (!!!!!!) your freedom of expression! You would actually be engaging in self-censorship!
Such a trend could, if we're not careful, be a slippery slope toward socialization, discretion, tact, and (shiver) acceptance of the fact that our words and actions do carry consequences in the real world.
Editors get to make judgment calls, and we are making the wrong one here, folks.BYT 13:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't respond to you, since I feel that you are simply trolling. Please reread NPOV. Please. Kyaa the Catlord 14:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we *could* just go with the law. AFAIK, it's illegal to show child ponography where en.wikipedia's servers is. It's not against the law to show drawings of Muhammad. We could also look at it rationally; Do you really believe that there is no difference between child pornography and the drawings of Muhammad? No muslims were harmed during the production of these drawings, but children is harmed during the production of child pornography. Finally, this is not about tact; it's about presenting the facts as truthfully and effective as possible.The.valiant.paladin 14:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the New York Times part of the problem, too? They chose not even to use these images. Was their editorial decision somehow inimical to the job of covering the story? BYT 13:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia strives to be better than newspapers. The.valiant.paladin 13:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, it is failing in that objective. BYT 13:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my honest opinion, yes, they are. The New York Times bent to self-censorship in order to not offend a group and did itself a disservice by not presenting all the facts as fully as it could. However, comparing wikipedia to the New York Times is comparing apples to oranges. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, whereas NYT is a newspaper. There is a difference in the goal of each publication. Kyaa the Catlord 13:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok; so how about we describe the eleven cartoons, in words? dab (ᛏ) 21:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other controversial newspaper caricatures section

I have removed, and will continue to do so if necessary, three sentences User:Dogface has added to the Other controversial newspaper caricatures section. They are: "No Jewish groups fired upon a British consulate building over this matter", "No Jewish groups fired upon a French consulate building over this matter" and "No Jewish groups fired upon a German consulate building over this matter." I believe these sentences are unnecessary point-making and contrasting (an irrelevant we-they-like contrast). This article should not point at the current response to the cartoons and say "look at what they are doing, look how bad they are, and then see how group suchandsuch responded." I believe that my removal of Dogface's comments is similar to User:TheKMan's removal of the sentences "there were no mass riots, and gunmen did not fire upon a consulate over the matter" and "but nobody fired upon an embassy or consulate building over the matter." These are personal opinions that might belong on a blog, but not in an encyclopedia. Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 13:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, obviously, those editorial comments had no place in the article. Babajobu 13:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westerners argument on this matter

I would like to state what some points of view I have heard in the media but not seen in the article. (Note No personal connection to this, just stating what I have heard in the media). User:Αchille

Roughly from memory: The Danish government can not condemn or impede on freedom of speech. The Muslim countries do not condone Anti Semitic cartoons or Op-Eds, and in fact some engage themselves in antisemitism.

This seems to be in contradiction with each other. Did you mean to say "condemn"? Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 13:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks for noticing so quickly User:Αchille

The condone/condemn I was referring to was muslim countries and anti-semitic cartoons, not for the Danish government and freedom of speech. See [23]. I don't know if it's what you meant, but to me the sentence makes more sense like this: "Governments of some/many/whicheverisappropriate muslim countries do not condemn antisemitic cartoons or op-eds, and in fact some engage themselves in antisemitism." Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 14:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the timeline?

It was a very useful tool for those trying to get an overview of how this occurred and developed. Now it's gone an in place we have a lot of tangental and, frankly, weird "similar incidents." Some nutbar shooting Larry Flynt because of an interracial picture in Hustler thirty years ago has little to nothing to do with this, and the timeline was actually useful.

Whahoppen?MattShepherd 14:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the timeline was moved, due to the length of the article. Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy AlEX 14:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah announcement re: suicide attacks in Denmark and Norway

According to Brussels Journal, Hezbollah has said that it will conduct suicide attacks in Denmark and Norway in retaliation for publication of the cartoons. They say that the announcement is cited in this article in Jyllands-Posten. Anyone read Danish? [24]. Babajobu 14:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read danish and can confirm that, at least somewhat. The general secretary of Hezbollah didn't say that they would conduct suicide attacks, but said that if "rights of freedom" are absolute, then anyone is free to blow himself up in either Norway or Denmark. The.valiant.paladin 14:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statement read: ”The international community should understand that any attack against our prophet will not go unpunished.” [25] See Google NewSearch for other stories. User:Αchille

In A.D. 2006, war was beginning......Homestarmy 14:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you say?!

That wasn't a threat, Brandon was saying he's leaving Wikipedia. Check his userpage: User talk:BrandonYusufToropov. Babajobu 14:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's digusting that some people are using this article to bring their own racism here. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read it again, I know he said he was leaving. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do, but unfortunately I am not god in writhing English. But it is right as you say. I can translate the beginning: "Hezbollah is threatening with suicide attacks in Denmark and Norway… The Hezbollah - movement indicate/give a hint of/suggested* that the cries bye the cartons may led to suicide attacks I Denmark and Norway"

I locked it up in the dictionary so I did not get it wrong. It is not used the Danish word “si” with means say.

I can quote this Norwegian article http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article1213079.ece "- Vi har vært i kontakt med myndighetene i Libanon i kveld. Statsministeren i landet, og Hezbollah selv, avkrefter på det sterkeste at de har fremsatt trusler mot Norge, sier stats- sekretær Raymond til VG Nett."

"We have been in contact with the authorities in Lebanon to night. The prime minister and the Hezbollah it self, denies that there have been any threats towards Norway, says Parliamentary Secretary Raymond to VG news" For Aftenposten is very good newspaper I Norway, also some articles in English http://www.aftenposten.no/english/world/article1212624.ece

Huh? Well, I found the original article that Jyllandsposten got it's information from. It's in english, så judge for yourself if Hezbollah is threatening anybody here . The.valiant.paladin 15:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the legal term is incitement. Septentrionalis 16:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely suicide bombing is more offensive than these cartoons. User:slamdac

Depends on who you ask. --StuffOfInterest 18:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DIGRESSION WARNING (since everyone else is not talking about the article itself either)

Surveying and writing about these discussion pages would make for an excellent angle on the nuances and themes of the controversy. I'm talking to the reporters reading this. Lotsofissues 15:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images, drawings, illustrations, charicatures or cartoons?

What's the proper thing to call it?(Cloud02 15:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

What do you mean? Are you asking what to call all of those things? art. What to call this in particular? A political cartoon. (which is, technically also art) Swatjester 15:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The most common use is Cartoons. See a google news search for drawings OR images OR cartoons OR cartoon OR illustration OR illustrations OR caricatures hezbollah OR mohammad link ~ Cheers User:Αchille

Archive 4

I have just shaved 35k of the page by archiving all the discussions that didn't have a recent timestamp (recent defined as today — the amount of discussion here is impressive). The way I did (archiving section-by-section) can be annoying to some (section numbers shifting causing edit conflicts, spamming the recent changes); I'm sorry for the annoyance. A side-effect of the method is that it causes an irritant amount of whitespace where the removed sections were; if someone wants to fix it, feel free to (I think I have already abused enough of everyone's patience on this page for today). --cesarb 15:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's a great idea. Makes it more like a forum (which is really what talk pages should be like)

In fact, it's the way it's done on the administrator's noticeboard. The difference is that it's done there via a bot, which archives everything in a single move, and is much faster than me doing it by hand. --cesarb 15:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Perhaps someone could archive part of this again. The page is so huge that when I try to edit my computer starts to lag! Perhaps the polls could be moved to a separate page? (Entheta 18:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Unfortunately, too many of the sections have been edited recently, and it's bad to archive recently edited sections. Archiving after 12 hours is already a stretch. However, I'm planning on making another archive around midnight GMT, if enough sections are already mature. --cesarb 21:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And now for a comedic break

Because some of you REALLY need it.

You may now begin your regularly scheduled e-crusades and e-jihads against each other. Swatjester 16:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Yes I knwo this article is big. This is only what, 5 lines or so? It's not doing any harm, and may help calm someone down. Swatjester 16:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have worked... Here's some other things to do instead!

Template:Lighten up

Another picture of the prophet?

Does anyone remember that episode in South Park about the Super Best Friends? I remember distinctly they drew Mohammud and even showed him moving around and using the power of fire. In fact there is even a wikipedia article about it and I think he's even in the picture! Someone explain to me why there wasn't an enormous uproar over this? I think this is a pic of him standing next to Jesus! http://images.southparkstudios.com/media/images/504/superbestfriends.gif Hitokirishinji 17:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)</ref>[reply]

Thank you! I was trying to remember where that was from. Swatjester 17:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yep, that's surely Muhammad! Babajobu 17:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit weird indeed, it isn't exactly the first time cartoons like these are published. Asdfwtf 18:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because he wasn't attributed with a relation to terrorism, unlike one the depictions JP has publsihed (Cloud02 18:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

So it is ok to show pictures of Mohammud after all as long as it isn't in a negative light? Doesn't that just make this entire argument about "forbidden to draw the prophet" entirely moot? Hitokirishinji 18:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The depcition of Muhammad is not allowed by Islamic tradition (hadith). This however does not submit to non-Muslims, as they aren't muslims (duh). The strong reaction this issue has gotten is because one of the images shows him with a bomb on his head, with the creed written on it. Also this is regarded as being all the anger that has been built up in Muslims in the Middle East towards the wester world being brought out. (Israel-palestine, Iraq, pressure on Syria and now Iran) (Cloud02 18:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

You're missing my point. I know that this obviously doesn't apply to non-Muslims and of course the strong reaction is linked to the images associating Mohammud with terrorism. Someone made the argument above as a vote to not keep the image as

"Showing the figures of Mohammed is disturbing muslims. And it is a insult to Islam. In Islam making and also looking the figures of Mohammed is forbidden."

If this is truely so incredibly blasphemous and insulting to Islam, why isn't there a discussion on the page I indicated above? Why aren't there protest and bomb threats being sent to the makers of South Park? (Though I'm sure they've had their nasty run ins with other groups). I think it's absurbed that people are using this excuse as their cover for why they are truely offended. If they were vehmently against such depictions of their prophet, there would be a harder stance upon this rule and it would be applied unilaterally to all images. Hitokirishinji 18:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But if you read the commentary in this discussion by people who say they are offended by the cartoons, the vast majority of them are offended by all 12 of them, not just the bomb-in-the-turban cartoon. I think it is only the non-Muslims who are focusing on the bomb-in-the-tuban cartoon. Valtam 18:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys ... u discovered many things alone ... actually no one will kill somebody only cause he draw a pic and he say that is muhammad ... it happen manytimes here in middle east that ppl say blasphemy in streets and between each other , but such things are not considered respectful behaviour , shiite says about some pics that they illustrate muhammad or ali , in spite there are no assertion at all about that ... but in this time the feeling of insulting and the explosive position in this area , the anger from goverments and usa politics ... all of that find a way to be expressed by this way of protesting --Unfinishedchaos 19:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

meta-meta-meta-controversy

The BBC's dilemma: http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4670000/newsid_4678100/4678186.stm (quite relevant) Thparkth 18:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed a very valid link. It the same discussion we are havibg here. Good read, good find, thanks. Twthmoses 20:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need to comment on the picture controversy

Let's keep this Wikipedia article encyclopedic instead of making it a debate. The article describes the controversy around the pictures and therefore, should show the pictures in order for the readers to understand what it's about and make up their own mind and form an informed opinion of their own. This is supposed to be an NPOV encyclopedia and not a debate forum so please, let not religious dogma dictate us (i.e. Wikipedia contributors) to consor ourselves (i.e. our encyclopedia). (Entheta 18:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)) And besides, it's up to everyone whether they want to click that thumbnail or not to see the larger version of the picture. It's not like the little thumbnail version can really offend anyone who doesn't really want to - and have decided in advance to - get offended. (Entheta 19:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I support keeping the image, but...

...a lot of you hopped-up race-baiting right-wing caricatures are seriously tempting me to change my vote to "delete" just to spite you. My god, people, step outside your heads for a second. Comments like "what are you going to do, bomb Wikipedia?" just make you sound like... well, hopped-up race-baiting right-wing caricatures. As stated.

You harm your cause more than you help it with braggadocio and chest-thumping jackassery.

There are serious, academic, intelligent reasons to keep the image, which I support. But my support forces me to stand next to some very shameful human beings. MattShepherd 19:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see examples of race-baiting? And why 'right-wing'? Why not 'left-wing'? Valtam 19:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginnning to think MattShepherd can't back up any of his 'chest-thumping' claims... Valtam 19:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, now I know he can't... Valtam 21:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being AFK for two hours doesn't exactly equal being "unable to back up my claims." And dude, have you actually READ this page? MattShepherd 21:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But upon reflection, "religion-bating" would have been a much more accurate choice of words than "race-bating." Implications of flat-out racism were not intended. Implications of "let's show them Muslims who's boss!" are very intended, and very, very sad. MattShepherd 21:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. You saw my point that Islam is NOT a race. On the other point, by my count, there have been more threats of violence from those who want to remove the images than chest-thumping from those who want to keep the images. It's just that the threats are removed very quickly and no longer appear on the page. Valtam

And now you know why I abstained in the first poll. Guppy313 19:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wisdom noted. I'll be bowing out from now on. This gets uglier by the minute. MattShepherd

Yo Danish speakers

The America television media has ignored this story. So American readers are counting on one of you to upload an audio pronunciation.

Lotsofissues 19:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need audio? I think that audio productions of things can only be done to featured articles, I tried self-nominating this to good article status a day or 2 ago I think, but nothing came of it so far, apparently nobody has looked at it :/. Homestarmy 20:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Size

We seem to have a revert war brewing about the proper size of the image at the top of the article. It has been changed back and forth between "250px" and "thumb" several times now. I believe the size has been 250px for most of the past 12 hours (when I've been watching). Please comment here if you have issues with the picture size; let's resolve this by consensus. NoSeptember ^talk 18:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is that the image is far too small to be useful. Valtam 18:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular instance, "thumb" is obviously too small. 81.153.100.14 18:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the other images on the page have not been changed in their pixel size, and simply use the "thumb", which is why all the images brought should be kept as 'thumb'. Too small to be useful?! It's on the page, and it's really not hard to click on it, if you want it enlarged. (Cloud02 18:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

An image link is also easily clickable, but that option is clearly not the choice of the image poll at the top of this page. I think we need a better reason to have a tiny image. NoSeptember ^talk 18:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The matter discussed in polls was whether to keep them or not. Not the size of the images. All i'm saying is that if the rest are thumbs, so should this one be (Cloud02 19:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

That is why we are discussing it here. So far most editors seem to prefer the larger image. NoSeptember ^talk 19:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for the larger (and more legible) version GraphicArtist just put up. Valtam 19:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

in favour for 250 version KimvdLinde 19:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I belive it should be 250px, because it's a picture of a large newspaper page and is barely visible even at 250. Asdfwtf 19:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So we've agreed that the picture should stay. Lets not have an edit war about it's size. Were bigger than that. Why can't we just have the thumbnail and if people want to see the full size picture then they can do so. Otherwise it's just taking the piss. User:slamdac19:57, 3 February 2006

= Using 'taking the piss' about Mohammed might not help the discussion. Valtam 20:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It just seems to me that the only reason for having the big picture up is to incite the people who don't want the picture up User:slamdac20.07, 3 February 2006

I think it should be a full-size picture, not to 'take the piss', but because, although I've been an editor for a few months, I didn't know you could click on pics to see larger versions until today. As has been pointed out numerous times, there may be many new WP viewers coming to this article from the main page, and IMO we shouldn't assume that they will know to click to view a more legible size of the picture.--Anchoress 20:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The first I ever heard of the 'click-to-see-larger-version' option was when Cloud02 mentioned it at 18:51 above... It wasn't intutitive to me, for some reason... Valtam 20:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

250 pixels if there is a link to larger images, bigger if there is no link. No thumb. Babajobu 20:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The outside link I removed

Aside from the fact that I am not happy with having an inline link to an unabashedly anti-Islam website, the link used makes no clear distinction between the pictures that were published in the JP and unrelated art, and appears to segue into photographs of bloody street scenes.

Also, as much trouble as we seem to be having in translating the Danish text, I do not think it is a good idea to inline link to doctored images with an English translation added. Guppy313 19:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a better website, by all means let us know. Until then, it is impossible to see anything other than a 20x20 pixel squish of each cartoon from Wikipedia.

.jpg ->.png version

the low resolution .jpg images was replaced by GraphicArtist to a high resolution .png image [26] in violation with copyright restrictions KimvdLinde 19:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.png page is deleted KimvdLinde 20:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English WIkipedia = Judeo-Christian Forum

I was thinking that we are acting under the universal laws: objectivity, no insult, being verifiable, etc. I realized from the discussion here and from the pool that, the majority of editors here are on one side of the dispute; not on the side of Muslim view, I should add.

If even one person is saying that the cartoons are an insult to my belief, I believe the editors should change it or look for a comprimise. In this case it is about billions of people.

I lost great deal of my trust to the philosophy of Wikipedia, and I am totally dissapointed. 128.255.45.117 20:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I lost a great deal of my trust in readers like you. I am NEITHER JEWISH nor CHRISTIAN. Some of us do not associate with either religions and I still fight for free speech and freedom of information without bias. I find your comment very offensive but I will not ask you to remove it simply because offensive comments need to be seen so that others may understand how people truely biased people can act. Hitokirishinji 21:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I, on the other hand, will be disappointed and lose a great deal trust in Wikipedia, if the images are removed. That is our dilemma in this case. English WIkipedia = Muslim Forum, that also would not be fair either, right? Twthmoses 20:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And do you think the arabic language version of this isn't skewed the other way? Swatjester 20:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exacty AlEX

I think readers of Piss Christ would be surprised to learn that we have a Christian bias. Their concerns didn't get nearly the respect that Muslim concerns have gotten. Muslim concerns in this instance have gotten more consideration than those of any other community ever in Wikipedia, and still the IP shouts about racism and Islamophobia. Tiresome. Babajobu 20:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

replying to Swatjester ... we do our best in arabic Wikipedia to keep neutral and represents the two viewpoints --Unfinishedchaos 21:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to read a translation of the Arabic version for this article. It would likely provide some good first person insight into how people in the Middle-East feel about the situation. --StuffOfInterest 21:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there are a ton of stuff on wikipedia that I take offense of....Or rather, I would take offence of if I saw it anywhere else than on wikipedia.The.valiant.paladin 21:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should use the rules allowed in court? Is the evidence wholly prejudicial or does it serve some value? BlueGoose 21:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is funny, in a sad sort of way. For the last couple of weeks I've been listening to some Christians complain that Wikipedia is controlled by Atheists. It seems that many groups want to believe that there is massive bias against them unless they control all of the levers. Sorry, Wikipedia doesn't work that way. --StuffOfInterest 21:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your are totally wrong! There is a bias here in English Wikipedia, and lack of empathy... An idea can be proposed without insulting people. Here it is not the case...

I would like the simple minded people see this: This kind of discussion cannot bring any benefit to anyone. It works well for terrorists. They already started to take anvantage of it. Eveybody should behave responsibly, for not driving the world to a caos. That is our lives, and we all responsible for it. Do not be a figure used in a large plan...

Regarding the ensiklopedia:

It is surprising that some people insist on not to understand the cristal clear, valid arguments. Let me summerize it for you:

An ensiklopedia cannot include an insult in an article by just claiming 'freedom of speeach'. What is hard to understand in this statement?

It is clear from the Europian standards (as is discussed above) that they in fact do not have good standards in terms of 'freedom of scpeech'. They cannot deny 'Holocost' but they are insulting Islam's Prophet. That is hypocrisy! Insincerity! Two-facedness!

By including an insult in an article like this, you are actually breaking the rules of Wikipedia and ignoring common sense! 128.255.45.117 22:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If common sense says we should not show these totally not evil pictures, then I say common sense must be highly over-rated. Homestarmy 22:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My only significant contribution...

...to Wiki namespace: Wikipedia:Recentism. This page is a joke and its unfortunate otherwise earnest contributors are wasting time on it. Marskell 20:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other comparable incidents section

I think a lot of the material in this section is not needed in this article and could perhaps be covered in some other article such as Blasphemy or something along those lines. It adds a lot to this article that is only loosely related to the subject of the article. Peyna 21:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was thinking something like that too. I think most of the subsections of "Comparable incidents" could be made into separate articles. (Entheta 22:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Agreed. There it a lot of material in that section that, IMO, is only remotly related to this incidend AlEX 22:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I moved the section "Freedom of speech versus blasphemy" to a separate article, Freedom of speech versus blasphemy. If that was wrong, just revert. (Entheta 22:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Indeed. The Flynt, Pamuk, and Irving cases don't have any obvious similarity to this one that I can see - apart from being high profile freedom of speech issues. -- Danny Yee 22:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US condems Denmark

We at least should make the image small, and not on the top saying, "look at me!"! Wiki eZach 21:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we? Wikipedia is not censored. The entire article is about the cartoons and it makes no sense to start talking about them without showing them first. --Cyde Weys 22:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with the US condemning Denmark? As far as I know, only the State Department has pointed out that these pictures are "offensive to Muslims," and I would be ashamed if the US government suggested the Danish government or anyone else should apologize for exercising their right to freedom of expression or of the press. AscendedAnathema 22:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be pretty sad too, you'd think our government would realize those cartoons were in the interests of free, relatively inoffensive expression, not Islamophobia. Plus, honestly, I seriously dought the government would get much support from the people if they tried to condemn Denmark. Homestarmy 22:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion in the muslim world

File:Arabcartoon.jpg

This cartoon from a Jordanian newspaper epitomises a feeling of discrimination amongst Muslims. Clockwise: "This one is racist", "this one is anti-semitic", "and this one falls under freedom of speech"

Why was this image removed again? Rajab 22:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page is being vandalised by 198.180.251.157 Neim 23:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, but you removed the jordanian cartoon as well Rajab 23:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, the vandalisim comes fast and furious. --Neim 23:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place to insult the values! Whatever its origin is!

Insult is not a value to insist on or to support, it is a mental pathology which requires a professional treatment, caused by lack of ideas and lack of emphaty!

I propose to delete the cartoons as it is an insult to the Prophet of Islam! Resid Gulerdem 23:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]