Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

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

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

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

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

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

• Please divert comments having to do with the timeline of the incidents to Talk:Timeline_of_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy.

• Please divert comments having to do with international reactions to Talk:International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.

• Please divert comments having to do with various opinions on the controversy to Talk:Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.

Any irrelevant discussions can be removed without notice. Aucaman^Talk 00:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

What the drawings actually depict

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

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

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

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

Bonulo 21:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Stating more prominently that only some of the drawings depicts Muhammad, could help increase the sanity level of the debate. MX44 23:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. But since it is unclear which ones represent Muhammed, leave any numbers out.DanielDemaret 08:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

El Fagr part of reprint section

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

Netscott 23:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It's mostly the word "engender" that is weird. I't just bad English. How about : "but the publication of the images did not lead to any known protests from Egyptian religious authorities or the Egyptian government." Azate 23:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The word "engender" is in fact extremely good English (I should know as a native speaker) such language is indeed typically found in encyclopedias. Also as a side note the user Kintaro Oe added this line : "Cette publication en période de Ramadan, n'a suscité aucune réaction ni condamnation des autorités religieuses islamiques ou des autorités gouvernementales egyptiennes." in the French version of this entry, which roughly translates into the word changes I've made. Does Wikipedia need to 'dumb down' it's vocabulary? Netscott 00:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

A better translation of Kintaro's line would be: "This publication during Ramadan, did not cause any reaction nor condemnation from either Islamic religious authorities or the government of Egypt." I'd be fine with putting that in place of my earlier edit. Thoughts? Netscott 00:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I know what engender means. I also don't deny that it's perfectly correct. It's just such extremly good English, that it comes around as weird, something you'd expect in jurisprudence, legistation etc. Oh, and since we're starting to delve into 'good English', I can't help but note that "either/nor" doesn't fly. Should be "neither/nor" or "either/or". Just kidding, of course. It' just a stupid detail. ;-) Azate 00:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well at this point... I've changed the edit to reflect Kintaro's text... which after translation struck me as being better balanced than what I wrote earlier. Netscott 00:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

hey, Thanks to quote me; I took my little french-english dictionnary, and french verb "susciter" is translated as "to give rise", "to provoke" (a controversersy).

My point was just to underline the absence of public reaction by Mubarak's Government or Islamic authorities, since there was after A GREAT activity in Egypt.

* november through december: A delegation of Imams from the Islamic Society in Denmark travel to the Middle East (EGYPT, SYRIA, LEBANON) in order to "bring attention" to the cartoons. They present the Akkari 43 page Dossier to influential political and religious leaders.Among the people the group claims to have met on their visit to Egypt were: - The General Secretary of the Arab League Amr Moussa,- the Egyptian Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa and - the Sheik of Cairo's Al-Azhar university Mohammed Sayed Tantawi- the Egyptian foreign office. In Lebanon they met the Grand Mufti Muhammad Rashid Kabbani, top Shiite Sheik Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, Maronite Church leader Nasrallah Sfeir. In Syria they met Grand Mufti Sheik Ahmed Badr-Eddine Hassoun.

* 02 november 2005 : Lebanese Foreign Affairs Minister have met Egyptian ambassador in Lebanon to think about which measures to take against Danemak.

* 29 december 2005: The Arab League, base in Cairo (Egypt), criticises the Danish government for not acting in the matter.

* 06 february 2006. Several thousand students massed on the al-Azhar University campus in Cairo today to protest against publication of caricatures of Islam’s Prophet Mohammed. Sheikh Tantawui, Ali Joamaa Egyptian Republic Mufti, Mahmoud Hamdi Zagzoug Minister of Waqfs (Religious matter) were present to protest.

You see my point? Oe kintaro 15:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC).

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

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

Off Topic Jihad must go

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

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

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

Jesus cartoons rejected by J-P

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

We knew that already. That guy was only promoting his own (lack of?) talent. MX44 04:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The Jesus cartoons were made by Christoffer Zieler who currently works for the internal paper of the University of Copenhagen. You can see them on the last page of this pdf: [2] where Zieler also comments on his little role in the controversy. The cartoon at the bottom of the page is his usual strip in the paper. This weeeks strip seems quite critical of danish islamists and people who "give in" to them, but even though i "get" all the references it's pretty weird, so don't make too much of it. (His strips are often quite weird, and occasionally very funny). About the Jesus cartoons you should know that they were sent unsolicited and JP editor Kaiser thought they'd cause an "uproar". OTOH there's no general self-censorship regarding Jesus caricatures in Denmark (as there apparently was wrt. Mohammed) so publishing them wouldn't have made the same point. Nvj 12:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

From the current article: "giving Muslims reasons to assert that a double standard in dealing with them versus others". Kind of picks one POV conspiracy theory and promotes that. Weregerbil 04:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah! You meant that it was back again ... It is gone now. It is story about talentless wannabe who got rejected. MX44 05:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

As opposed to the talentless wannabes whose cartoons were accepted and sparked a wave of international protest and the single most successfull consumer-led boycott of the past 100 years. --210.54.12.83 07:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

They were asked with short notice (an afternoon) to comment with their pen on the islamaphobia in Denmark. And I agree ... The result is not always reflecting artistic qualty. Da Bomb is deep though, perhaps deeper than the artist suspected. MX44 07:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

All of these cartoonists/illustrators already make a living out of their talent. This is not in dispute! MX44 08:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Well they have:

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

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

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

I side that. It really should be in linked to the part of the article that mentions the 'double standards'. Varga Mila 22:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the copyright rules pertaining to the image (http://www.filtrat.dk/sandbox/images/uploads/Hvem20sagde20hvad.jpg), but I think that it should be linked in the reference list, and that the relevant text should be changed from:

"In 2003, Jyllands-Posten rejected unsolicited cartoons about Jesus[56], opening them to accusations of a double standard."

to: "While Jyllands-Posten has published cartoons depicting Christian figures (ref the image), it rejected unsolicited cartoons about Jesus[56] in 2003, opening them to accusations of a double standard.

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

Greyscale

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

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

I didn't notice that box and I don't know (blushes) MX44 08:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The first sentence seems pretty clear at present. We could be even more specific, e.g. "The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy began after twelve editorial cartoons were published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten on 30 September 2005. The Islamic prophet Muhammad was the central character depicted in seven of these cartoons." I can't see a nice way to express this in a single sentence though. -- Avenue 11:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes but there is a trap of being so politically correct and considerate, so you end up being the opposite. Here is one from CNN:

CNN is not showing the negative caricatures of the likeness of the Prophet Mohammed because the network believes its role is to cover the events surrounding the publication of the cartoons while not unnecessarily adding fuel to the controversy itself.

Note that they manage to conclude that the cartoons are indisputeably negative and then go on to say they will not add fuel. MX44 18:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn

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

It's not directly related. I don't think it should be included in this article - in the greater scope of things - Islamic/West Frictions - they are relevant - but not to the subject of this article. Also, the PT and TVG "incidents" were murders due to individuals - not boycotting of milk by Islamic nations as is the case here - and as such it would be wrong to equate them. Celcius <sup>(Talk)</sup> Wiki be With us! 12:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Van Gogh's murder is directly related to the freedom of expression context. One of the artists approached by Kare Bluitgen gave this murder as a reason for not illustrating the book. But I think this would need to be explained if we did include a link to the Theo van Gogh article. -- Avenue 15:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I just realised that this is explained already in the Debate about self-censorship section of the article, and there is a link to the Theo van Gogh article there. -- Avenue 15:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Alt Map

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

It's not very NPOV to divide the world into "camps" like that - it's very "you are either with us or against us" type of thing - which will inevitably rely on subjective opinion not suitable for a NPOV encyclopedia. Celcius <sup>(Talk)</sup> Wiki be With us! 12:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

That was not the original purpose of the map, but if many interpret it that way, it sadly becomes a very valid point. Is there any chance that one might connect the picture closely to editorial text to show the purpose and to save the intention of what we are trying to show that way? DanielDemaret 15:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Cartoon War

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

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

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

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

Prince Hassan of Jordan BBCworld today

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

Kofi Annan interview on DR

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

Grass Interview in Spanish El Pais

Frage: Haben Sie die gewalttätigen Ausschreitungen überrascht?

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

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

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

Snow White and The Madness of Truth

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

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

Assisting Muslim Readers

I've been bold and added a "warning" template to the article. This will allow those who might be sensitive to such things to avoid being inadvertently exposed to them. I hope this suggestion itself doesn't cause offense (although I'm not naive enough to expect it won't be controversial). &#0151; JEREMY 01:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no such template as "offensive," and "controversial" only belongs on talk pages. -- Avi 01:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the idea has merit. Now that the big fuss on the talk pages is over and everybody has had time to vent, the "Be nice" idea may have a chance again. How about this:

This article contains cartoons of the Islamic Prophet Mohammad Please see the discussions on the talk page

* People who come for the article or the images will ignore it or view it as a quaint joke.

• People who are actually offended by the image itself have a chance to leave.
• People who object to the whole existence/concept/idea/whatever of the image bein reproduced are maybe less likely to vandlize it.

For this to work, the cartoons would have to be moved down to the relevant section that descibes them. If I recall that correctly, this was also the gist of the posting of Jimbo Wales on his talkpage. Azate 02:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's important to avoid being seen "as a quaint joke", but couching it more in terms of "cultural sensitivities" might work. (The template is generalised so it could be used — if anyone should ever make a fuss about them — on pages including images of deceased Aboriginal Australians, for example). &#0151; JEREMY 02:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Your Template::Offensive has been deleted by sombody. Apparently 3RR rule. Azate 02:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I can see I'm not going to get a general template to fly (it has been protected-deleted now, although not for three reverts), so I'd certainly support the next best thing, which is a situation-specific warning as per Azate's suggestion. How about:

This article contains images of (the Islamic prophet) Muhammad. Please see the discussions on the talk page.

Can anyone direct me to a similar English Wikipedia page that has a specific warning about imagery? Having just looked at the Piss Christ article, I noticed that not only is there no warning but the image is at the top bright as day. It's going to seem very 'double standardish' if this article has a warning while similar articles don't. Netscott 02:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

There are none, and perhaps there should be none. When 11 Christian rioters die in protests against something, I think we should put a notice on its article too. &#0151; JEREMY 02:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

We should not and cannot give into the mob (quite literally in this case). Just because people are killed because of this doesn't mean that we should censor the content we offer. Jtkiefer<sup>T | C | @</sup> ---- 03:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I am strongly against using any form of warning template on the article itself. Things like controversy templates should be used to let editors know on talk pages. Jtkiefer<sup>T | C | @</sup> ---- 02:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I utterly, totally object to the use of this template. There is no precedent for anything even remotely like this, nor should there be. That's what Wikipedia:Content disclaimer is for. Babajobu 02:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

There is indeed something like it. It's called {{spoiler}}, and is used to protect people who are worried about seeing information about a fictional plot. &#0151; JEREMY 02:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy, I wouldn't call that "similar"... but I see where you wanted to go with that. Netscott 03:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but spoiler is entirely different. What your pretty much talking about here is hiding the content because some people don't likie it in general. Jtkiefer<sup>T | C | @</sup> ---- 03:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

They seem rather different to me. A general template warning that plot details follow would be very roughly analagous to a general template stating "Offensiveness warning: potentially offensive content follows". It's not analagous to your very specific "Prophet Muhammad images" template. Babajobu 03:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, it doesn't look similar, but it serves a similar function: to avoid our readers accidentally coming across something they'd rather not have seen. It seems slightly incongruous that we're prepared to insert warnings to stop our readers spoiling a movie, but not to stop our readers having their religious sensibilities outraged (and possibly alienating a lot of good editors into the bargain). &#0151; JEREMY 03:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

What might make sense is if a 'neutral' disclaimer was made... maybe even a link to the the general content disclaimer as pointed out by Babajou... but doing such a thing would only make sense if other similar articles have been treated similarly. Netscott 03:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Third time there is edit conflict, ahhhhhh. Original comment: :::::::There's no need for a spoiler warning, I think people know that this is offensive. Spoilers are mainly use in plots and content. This is about a news, current event, so there is no need to put a spoiler tag. (End) Like Netscott said, it would only make sense if other articles have been treated in this way. Maybe a disclaimer warning would be a better idea. --Terence Ong 03:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The template originally read:

(The template was accidentally deleted by an admin, but subsequently restored.) However, I think I now prefer the more specific warning, as the general template may be opening up an unnecessary can of worms. &#0151; JEREMY 03:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with looks. At the very least, it has to do with generality vs. specificity. No such template exists to protect the sensibilities of other groups, why only one for Muslims? A very general template warning of offensive content would duplicate the work of the Content Disclaimer, but at least I can imagine making a case for it. Also reject a "disclaimer warning".Babajobu 03:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I started off agreeing with your position (thinking it could also be used to help avoid Aboriginal Australians coming across images of dead relatives, for example) but I now believe that there's probably too much wikipedia precedent against such general disclaimers that we'd be wasting our time trying to argue for it. If, in future, an article is created which includes content strongly offensive to a large percentage of our Christian, or Jewish, or Hindu or Buddhist readership, we should probably consider such a specific warning for that article. &#0151; JEREMY 03:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

• 1) How many people needs to be offended before the template should be used?

Next time something comes along which is as obviously divisive, we can deal with that as a special case too. If you see something else like this which you feel represents a problem with wikipedia, please point it out. &#0151; JEREMY 04:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• 2) Does it only apply to religion and blasphemy?
• 3) If so - why?
• 4) If not... won't it become impossible to administrate?

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

All these issues were already addressed. The community expressed a very clear consensus that the pics should be at the top of the article. I generally dislike polls, but the community interest and participation in the previous poll was so great that I think it should only be overridden by a new poll, rather than by a few editors regurgitating previously discussed ideas. And I continue to dislike the template very strongly. Babajobu 03:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Didn't realize the positioning had been polled. Well, I stand behind the majority then Celcius <sup>(Talk)</sup> Wiki be With us! 03:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

There can be a mirror of this article (dublication) without cartoons, too. So people do not prefer to see them can be directed to the one without cartoons by putting a link on the template... How about that? 216.248.122.252 04:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Not bad. What about a disambiguation page, with a link to this article as it stands, and a link to a "variant" article which clearly announces that the (relevant) images in it will appear as links only? (I'd have to disagree with The.valiant.paladin that no potentially sensitive reader is likely to follow a link to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.) &#0151; JEREMY 04:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Look to be reasonable and worth to try to me. In fact, I believe that, I had a better idea but a few people strongly disagree with that. I was saying that, this article is about the controversy, not about the cartoons. There is no reason to put all of them here (The collection cartoons is also against the Wiki regulations as far as I know). Another point is: A Westerner cannot see anything wrong with them, but Muslims will be ofended. So, only one cartoon (maybe an artist drawing picture) which is less provocative can be replaced with this one. That cartoon gives a good summary of the phenomena, and yet, doesn't offend anybody. I think Jeremy's offer is a good one, if you do not want to go for what I suggested. Resid Gulerdem 04:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yet another idea that has already been mooted and rejected, this one as a POV fork. Babajobu 04:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Again getting back to the ... "Where has it been done already on Wikipedia? ®" question ... It's almost like saying there are two truths... one for sensitive people and one for everyone else. This idea begs the question... are there any Wikipedia rules which specifically disallow the formulating of articles covering the same topic but in different ways? Netscott 04:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are. I think it's a better solution, but it is probably more against wikipedia "policy" than the special-case template. (Hey, to make it obvious we could replace the hand-in-stop-sign icon with a guy in a turban! Or not.) But that just gets back to the fact that this is a special case (although the first, probably not the last). &#0151; JEREMY 04:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The 'alternate version' idea is already old in my mind due to the simple fact that there could exist alternate versions Ad nauseum. One for vegetarians, one for meat eaters... one for no dairy, one for no flesh showing in any image group, etc. etc. etc.... doesn't work, does it? Netscott 04:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

As I've said elsewhere (see the very end of that page), I think some kind of "virtual forking" of articles could provide useful benefits, although possibly most in meta:Wikifiction. But in this case you're right; on reflection, forking is probably not the best solution either. Which gets us back to special-purpose tagging... &#0151; JEREMY 05:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Blind generalizations doesn't provide any solutions. This is not just a regular contravorsy. It is about 1,5 billion people and has influence on international poitics. Resid Gulerdem 04:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Going to have to agree with Babajou on this one... relative to the images... any changes regarding them should require a full blown vote. And that about wraps it up for me on this question. Netscott 05:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

As has been mentioned earlier; the title of the article is all the warning necessary. Further, most browsers have a setting to prevent the loading of images. If someone is that offended by them, yet still wants to read the article, it is possible to see the page without them. The fact that the images are offensive to many is well known, so there really is no need for a special temmplate; and as the images are the singular main thrust of the article, they belong where every other main article has its images—up top. -- Avi 05:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy" sufficiently equates to "Warning: may scandalise your religious sensibilities" is a separate argument. It's definitely accidental, good faith "stumbling upon" that the template would seek to prevent. Its addition would detract nothing from the article, and serve only to improve the information content for a specific group of readers. &#0151; JEREMY 05:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Nobody is (currently) suggesting censorship. This suggestion is about providing readers with additional information in order to help them make a choice about whether to read an article. (And I think you'll agree that "there would soon be hardly an article without it" is a slight exaggeration.) &#0151; JEREMY 10:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

yes, but people will tag all sorts of articles to make a point. We'll need to develop a policy if we want to tag articles that "contain encyclopedic material that may be considered offensive by some". So far, there is no such policy, and it will be a nightmare to develop it. For example, can you see the Paleolithic article plastered with warning messages "this article contains material that may offend the religious sensitivities of Young Earth Creationists"? I think I would leave Wikipedia if something like this was sanctioned by policy. dab (ᛏ) 16:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Click the show link to see image

Image caption goes here

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

It's a nicer implementation of the "blank link" style of image presentation, but it's unfortunately not acceptable to a majority of the editors who voted in the initial poll. &#0151; JEREMY 18:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jeremy on this one. Even though it's a nice template (one which I am going to steal the code to btw) it is unacceptable since A) it is censoring the article and this is an encyclopedia of knowledge and shouldn't be censored for a particular group's sensitivities, and B) there is a strong consensus to keep the image where it is and exactly how it is. Jtkiefer<sup>T | C | @</sup> ---- 18:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

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

We have been over and over and over this. The vast majority of editors support keeping the image where it is.--Jbull 22:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Leave that horse alone, Resid, its dead already. Kyaa the Catlord 08:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of similar equine necroflagellation:

This article contains cartoon images of (the Islamic prophet) Muhammad. Some readers may prefer not to view such images, and are invited to disable automatic downloading of images in their browsers, or to avoid this article. Please see the discussion on the article's talk page.

Feedback, please. &#0151; JEREMY 11:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Add a translation to Arabic and Turkish? MX44 11:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

I agree the general subject has been gone over many times in the last ten days or so. However, this particular approach hasn't specifically been considered, and may just fly. It's a fairly minimalist solution (unlike my general {{Offensive}} template) and doesn't detract from wikipedia's resolute refusal to self-censor, while still providing good-faith readers with additional choice. &#0151; JEREMY 12:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no particular approach which will satisfy a tidbit of the free information protagonists (myself included). No magic solution, no special template, no words, no phrases, no pictures. It has been approached from this angle already as well. This angle is a specification of a general angle which has already been taken multiple times. The general viewpoint that your idea is an offshoot of is to make it so that users have a warning. No warning is needed, if a user is coming to this page, they will see the image and leave, or view it and read the article. I believe a general consensous has already been reached...3 times now? This being an offshoot of a suggestion that has already been brought up, it is not likely to succeed. -Moocats 18:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I support it, as long as we put the same warning on every single page with an image, as any image could offend somebody out there. We can't pander to just one group... Valtam 20:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Valtam.--Jbull 20:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyone want to add equine necroflagellation as #redirect [[beating a dead horse]] :-) See if some tight-ass vandalism patroller (such as myself) will delete it as a protologism with no google hits. Weregerbil 12:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose as per Varga Mila. Also oppose on grounds that readers should not have to have Javascript enabled to access informatiom. Babajobu 16:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Poll 4: Special-case Labelling

Poll attempts to determine support for labelling of this article. (Format of labelling can be changed after poll, if support is indicated; the template immediately above is an example only.)

Support Labelling

Support a special-case labelling of this article, which improves the quality of information and choices available to wikipedia's readers — some of whom might prefer an opportunity to avoid the article's content — without any concession to self-censorship or the reversal of any previous poll decision. (Precedents for special-case treatments at Goatse.cx, Child pornography, Bahá'u'lláh, Autofellatio, Oral sex etc.)

1. Support &#0151; JEREMY 06:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Support Can't people be a little more sensitive here? The ones who prefer will be able to see the pics with no problem. Why don't we let the ones who do not want to see them, avoid seeing them? Resid Gulerdem 08:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Support Wikipedia should be a global cross-cultural site where we all can work together, not a site for showing supremacy or fighting a 'clash of civilization'. Let's respect minorites! Bertilvidet 09:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Support (although my real choice is moving the image to the Publication of the drawings subsection.) Dmaftei 17:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Support per User:Rgulerdem. Aucaman<sup>Talk</sup> 00:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose labelling

Oppose this unprecedented "special-case label" template, reject the notion that it improves "quality of information and choices available to Wikipedia's readers" in any way. "Precedents" cited are not precedents at all: child pornography is illegal in Florida, where servers are hosted; autofellatio was resolved by Jimbo's fiat, and is unique in that respect; Oral sex has no warning template and included photograph of woman performing oral sex until photo was removed for copyright reasons; et cetera. Much more analagous are Piss Christ or anti-semitism, where no template exists to genuflect before sensibilities of communities who might find the images offensive. No special treatment for any community, and please no further efforts to evade clear consensus of community with further pollcruft.

1. Gods, please don't start more polls. We can't even get people to bloody follow the consensus gained from the ones we already had... In other words OPPOSE. Kyaa the Catlord 09:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
2. OPPOSE No need for it, if we go thisway we'll be adding special case templates to everything. Plus as stated the poll isn't well formatted and appears to push one answer over the other, and the use of another poll was against consensus it seems.
3. SPEEDY OPPOSE, per logic. <sub>→AzaToth</sub> 14:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
4. OPPOSE News can censor itself and warn "viewers" all they want. Wikipedia does not, and CANNOT in order to cater toward a truly neutral viewpoint. Plus, polls have repeatedly verified that wiki will not do this. -Moocats 15:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
5. STRONG OPPOSE Oppose the template and oppose this poll, this is just another way of weaseling away from clearly expressed community consensus that picture be presented at top of article, as in Piss Christ and so many others. Bottom line: community wants this treated like a normal article. Other must learn to respect community decision. Babajobu 15:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
6. STRONGLY OPPOSE This poll is terrible. No one comes to these pages by accident. They shouldn't be surprise to find what they are looking for in the first place! Valtam 19:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
7. BORED OPPOSE This dead horse can't take any more beating.--Jbull 19:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
8. OPPOSE Well I didn't get a chance to vote in the other polls so here's my chance!!! :-) This content disclaimer idea doesn't make any sense relative to the rest of WikiPedia... again... wikipedia already has a general disclaimer... that really does cover it all! Please do have a look at this proposal for a more general solution though. Netscott 20:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
9. OPPOSE For what it's worth from a non-registered user. ;) This is both a bad precedent to set and one I cannot remember seeing a comparable case for in other encyclopedias I have read. Richard 129.244.128.134 22:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
10. OPPOSE; Don't set a precedent...
11. OPPOSE; Personally I wouldn't mind moving the image down alongside the descriptions, and even stating in the preamble that the images are shown below. But the template would be overkill. And I think this poll is counterproductive - it seems to only be hardening attitudes against any change. -- Avenue 02:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    

    Your preferred option would be counter to the second poll. The label seemed the only option still available. It will clearly lose, but I disagree it has hardened attitudes. I just think it's too late, because alternative viewpoints have already fled the article in the face of principled opposition. &#0151; JEREMY 08:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    

    You mean the silent majority of users who would have supported the template have left the page because they are too decent to debate all the soapboxers? I think that's wishful thinking, Jeremy. From the very beginning a supermajority of users plainly rejected the idea that there should be special treatment for any community on Wikipedia, and argued that this article should be treated like any other. The only principle involved is that Wikipedia is a neutral source of information, and doesn't pick particular communities to protect and honor. That's not getting on a soapbox, it's trying to protect the integrity of the project from those who make unreasonable demands on it. Personally, I think that as time has passed and the violence (embassy-burnings, et cetera) has produced more central and salient images from the controversy than the cartoons themselves, it has become more reasonable to move the cartoons lower in the article, to the "Publication of the cartoons" section. Not because Wikipedia must honor religious sensibilities, or because Wikipedia's content disclaimer is not enough and we must provide more warnings in specific articles, but because the cartoons are no longer the central image from the controversy. But I agree with Avenue that the ceaseless efforts to circumvent the polls by censoring in a slightly different way, providing different content disclaimers than were initially suggested by Hipocrite, et cetera, are annoying people and pushing back the time at which people will be ready to explore the idea of moving the image down for the normal reason that another image would be better at the top. Babajobu 17:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

12. OPPOSE; or else no picture will be left in wikipedia. Even the article itself could be removed because some find it offensive. For those that have missed recent events: censoring information went out of style with the inquisition and the fall of the Berlin wall. Nomen Nescio 09:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
13. OPPOSE. Unless images of women driving bicycles also get a warning, as those may be insulting to people in countries where it is illegal for women to drive a bicycle on a public road. Also oppose dumb polls trying to sneak in erosion of freedom of speech. Weregerbil 10:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
14. STRONGLY OPPOSE. 1652186 17:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose. I fear some parties will never accept that concensus was long ago reached. --StuffOfInterest 21:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment

Jeremy, first of all, if you are trying to conduct another poll, please have a look at how previous polls were formatted. Secondly, the wording of the poll cannot be constructed so as to argue for a particular position. Thirdly, your option of having a "warning" at the top of the article was one of the options in Poll 2, and received little support. Do you have any reason to think people will feel differently now? If not, please don't create another poll for no reason. Babajobu 06:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I've reformatted the header, but there is only one question here: label or not; Support or Oppose? &#0151; JEREMY 06:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

And yes, determine that there is consensus to override old consensus before making the change, Jeremy. Babajobu 06:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

None of the previous three polls addressed such a label (although quite a lot of people mentioned their support for such an idea in their comments). &#0151; JEREMY 06:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Jeremygbyrne please see this. Netscott 07:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... That seems a bit like censorship of my poll suggestion, although I'll assume good faith and trust that you are trying to improve the quality of the information on wikipedia, rather than defending a position for some other purpose. &#0151; JEREMY 07:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy, if you want to run a poll, please present options in an NPOV manner without arguing for a particular option, as creators of previous polls managed to do, but you have not. Babajobu 07:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Please show me the wikipedia guideline you're referring to. Naturally I have a POV, and I'm voting for my own poll. I'd be happy for you to present a "case for the negative", and to reformat this poll in just about any way you'd like, but I'm not happy for you to simply decide that it's invalid and thus gag the debate. I'm sure you don't want to do that either, however, and I look forward to reaching a win:win compromise over this. &#0151; JEREMY 07:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

About 5 different people told you not to re-create a poll and you did anyway. What's not to get? There is no "win-win", there's you and a few others who want to "protect" people who don't need protecting (I don't see any newspaper editors rioting in the streets) and the other side of the house telling you it's just information (which it is). No warning label is needed for a specific sect of people...or wanted. -Moocats 14:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a warning on the Bahá'u'lláh page, no? I don't see why this would be any different... --The tooth 18:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

That would perhaps be analagous to the Muhammad article, where the only image of Muhammad is included part way down the page. But if there was an article The Famous Picture of Bahá'u'lláh, you can bet your money the picture would be at the top, just as the cartoons are at the top of the article about the cartoons. Also, FWIW, the arrangement at Bahá'u'lláh was determined by a relatively small group of editors with little community input. Babajobu 18:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

But this is the "..cartoons CONTROVERSY."Mkaycomputer 22:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you're right, mea culpa. :) --The tooth 18:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Rgulerdem just reverted to Jeremy's version. Do not do that while this is still underway, and consensus is clearly against that. Do NOT do that again. NSLE <sub>(T+C)</sub> 09:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Blocked after second revert on grounds of disruption. NSLE <sub>(T+C)</sub> 09:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This seems unusual use of administrative blocking powers. The circumstances of Rgulerdem's two edits do not appear to resemble the normal criteria for the "controversial" and thus rarely used disruption block. He was not warned (other than via a post to this talk page three minutes prior to his blocking) and has not been offered the chance to be unblocked should he agree not to reintroduce his changes. I invite you to reconsider your block. &#0151; JEREMY 15:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Why? They've got more warnings about not removing the image than on any other image EVER. They have REAMS of information on the talk page, comments section of the image and archived discussions. It's also of the only edits for that account to have been made aside from a post to a topic that has been apparently archived for at least a week (I've been guilty of that btw :). I think common sense won out over nitpicking rules in vandalisms' favor. -Moocats 15:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Archival of poll

I move for a removal to archive of this poll on the basis that it,

• Is headed for defeat (how long were past polls? It looks like only 2-3 days, could be wrong though)
• Would be overruled by the previous 3 polls, which I'm positive would be brought up as a (well founded) reason for overrule of this current poll in the unlikely case that it succeeded.

-Moocats 21:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with qualification not sure how long polls typically run on Wikipedia but regardless... as the votes so far show... nothing is going to change... with that said, archiving this poll would make sense. Netscott 22:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean deletion, my mistake, changed wording to archive as that's what I meant, oops :) -Moocat

Bad news

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

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

International Reaction

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

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

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

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

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

Nowhere. One protester's opinion isn't noteworthy.

That one fits as a single quote-line on commercial news. Here? The garbage bin (unless you can link it to an official statement.) MX44 23:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

EXAMPLE of what I think would fit in this section:

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

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

MX44 12:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

(Warning! Strong POV ahead!)

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

MX44 14:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

BBC "Research"

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

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

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

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

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

Competing newspaper Politiken was contacted by Ziegler too, and thought that this was a nice chance at getting a shot at JP. So they broke the story. Note that Politiken did not want to publish either, even though they do publish pretty rude cartoons of Jesus now and then. MX44 00:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is one of Jesus and his stylist ...

This issue is already dealt with in "4.1 Danish journalistic tradition" with citations etc. Azate 00:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Text description of his cartoons: Zieler's five colored cartoons portrayed Jesus jumping out of holes in floors and walls during his resurrection. In one, gnomes rated Jesus for style, another entitled "Saviour-cam" showed Jesus with a camera on his head staring at his feet. MX44 00:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The point is, that if there is a reliable reference that J-P declined the Jesus cartoon(s) for reasons other than fear of offense, that ought to be in the article. As it presently stands in 4.1 ("In 2003, Jyllands-Posten rejected unsolicited cartoons about Jesus[48], opening them to accusations of a double standard"), there is little reference to the possibility of anything but a double standard. Varga Mila 00:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

In other words the Mohammad cartoons were 'solicitated' (bad word=prostitution) because they would cause controversy?86.52.36.140 00:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

That is an interesting, but, I think, quite different issue from the one, to which I refer. Varga Mila 01:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I just took umbrage with the word 'solicitation'. Don't mind me.86.52.36.140 01:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

JP have publically stated that they turned them down "in a polite way", not because they would offend any christians, but because the were just ... plain weired MX44 01:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest Zieler send them to the Iranian competion :D MX44

I think the word "unsolicited cartoons" will suffice to inform the reader of another reason of the reaction, namely, these cartoons weren't asked for by JP. The footnote 48 says as much.

Why 'unsolicitated'? Why not 'unrequested'.?

Yep, unsolicited suffices. I hadn't read footnote 48, which does, as you say, elaborate.Varga Mila 01:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

'uncolicitated ' does certainly not suffice. That is the opinion of a British newspaper. In Danish the proper word would be 'unrequested' or "uopfordret", meaning "uncalled for".86.52.36.140 01:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

"Unsolicited" means "uopfordret" (although the dictionary is my memory). Unsolicited emails, unsolicited contact etc.; the Danish translation, would be 'uopfordrede emails, uopfordret kontakt etc. 'Uncalled for', I believe, bears connotations of something being rude :-> Varga Mila 01:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC

Yes, the wording means that you should not send rude messages to the newspaper, since they will not take the responsibility. That is it is uncalled for that you send me messages to convert to Islam, but it is unsolicitated that you send me pictures of the boobs of the minister of justice.86.52.36.140 01:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

This pink box in the "Overview" section

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

(==Other Cartoon Contests==)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just found out that Elsevier did it already 8 days earlier..... --KimvdLinde 05:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This fits in together with el-Fagrs publication about the same time, as a discussion happening in media. MX44 09:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Removing Links and Collaboration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Annoy.com link : The links leads to a page where the 12 original cartoons are mixed with cartoons that sombody found funny and put there, without clearly distinguishing between the two. There are enough pages with links to the 12 cartoons. There is no need to link to a page that may mislead. I don't care about the great things annoy.com did in the past. This is a superfluous link, that may mislead some not familiar with the cartoons.

The AF Rasmussen cartoons : are irrelevant in the context of this article. They are neither about the Mohammad cartoons nor about the reaction of those who opposed them in the Muslim world. They are just witness to the ordinary intra-Danish political debate, and as such just coincident to the Mohammad cartoon controversy, but not part of it. Azate 10:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The Rasmussen cartoons actually was a part of the discussion of the JP-Debacle. An early Iranian contest you could say. MX44 11:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Israelis have the right idea

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

Wonderful, hysterical. I want to see a showdown between the Iranian cartoons and the Israeli cartoons. Is the Israeli organization showing cartoons already? Where? Babajobu 15:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Reminds me how folks in the U.S. of black African ethnic origin tend to allow fellow members of their ethnicity refer to each other with a certain racial slur. Netscott 16:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. If the Israeli campaign recieves much notoriety it may very well tend to delfate Iran's own campaign. Babajobu, there appear to be three previously published cartoons already showing on the boomka site.. Netscott 16:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

There are actually people resonding to the article saying that apparently "this isn't the way to do things". Like throwing rocks, and rioting is :p It'd all be well and good if everyone could just chill out, there's not a single religion in the world that hasn't been made fun of at one time or another. What makes them think they're so special? -Moocats 18:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

the protests are a sign of weakness of the Islamic world; people feel bullied and are fed up with being the "2nd World". Fascism always arises when people feel inferior and abused. They are, of course, also a sign of strength of the fundamentalists. The first casualty of Islamism is Islam. The Israeli reaction is hilarious; the best approach when facing angry insulted Muslims is to show that you can laugh at yourself, too, rather than letting them know you think they are lame or childish. dab (ᛏ) 19:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyone know off-hand if Hamshari (in Wikinews) is already linked from any of the Wikipedia pages about this controversy? If so then we should definitely add the Israeli's site. Netscott 19:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I've started a WikiNews entry about this group's announcement... we'll see if it gets picked up. Netscott 19:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Veracity of El Fagr article?

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

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

Jyllands-Posten themselves reprinted an article by The Copenhagen Post but apparently The Post used blogger EgyptianSandMonkey as their source. That said, by now El Fagr would no doubt have emphatically denied having printed it if they never did. Netscott 16:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

According to this article from TV2, a Denmark news station, the Danish Ambassador to Egypt confirmed the story. I also seem to remember someone posting an arabic language site where El Fagr confirmed they had published the cartoons, I'll see if I can find the link. Richard 129.244.23.132 18:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, it got some facts wrong and doesn't seem terribly reliable. Richard 129.244.23.132 18:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Andy you should know that the El Fagr story was seperately confirmed both by Freedom for Egyptians and EgyptianSandMonkey. Netscott 07:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, I've looked at both. FfE credits 'Gateway Pundit' ("BTW, it is not my idea to bring the details of this Egyptian paper, it is Gateway Pundit’s"); 'Gateway Pundit' says "Freedom for Egyptians has the details" (and nothing more); ESM credits FfE ("Freedom For Egyptians reminded me why the cartoons looked so familiar to me"). In brief, this story has not been separately and independently confirmed by both FfE and ESM. Andy. 60.240.106.174 12:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the website of El Fagr: http://www.elfagr.org/ The page that contained the image was http://www.elfagr.org/ed_21.html (issue 21 of the paper). I've seen it, but I failed to copy it. It was removed shortly after Wikipedia started linking to it. --Valentinian 12:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Andy, It's true that EgyptianSandMonkey was spurred on by Freedom for Egyptians but according to his site he scanned his own copy of the paper in question. I believe that EgyptianSandMonkey was to first to have a scan up from the edition in question. Netscott 14:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Here Is a short article from Jyllands-Posten on the confirmation by the ambassador. If memory serves, the scans uses by Sandmonkey and FfE were markedly different. Several blogs and news agencies commented, but I'm at a loss as to why none of the major news orgs have done a more thorough investigation of the El Fagr angle. Richard 129.244.128.134 22:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Map Update and help needed

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

Still work in progress

You might want to add Mexico and Macedonia to the map of reprint countries. --KimvdLinde 18:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

There have been some protests in Germany, too. -- 129.13.186.1 19:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest dots marking the location of the protests (Paris, London, etc.) -- painting France and Britain party per bend sinister seems a bit much. Likewise, painting the entire subcontinent of India yellow gives a rather misleading image. I suppose you can make the protest-dots large enough to be well visible, and end up with a fairer geographical representation. You can still paint entire countries the government of which has deposited formal protests or something. dab (ᛏ) 22:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As much as I would like to do that, certain countries including Denmark and Palestine are so small on the map that a dot to represent the cities which had protests would be incredibly hard to see and if I made them large, they would encompass more than the country itself does. The only way to get around this would be to find a larger blank map. Also, at the moment, I don't have a list of every protest in every country and every city. Unfortunately, I don't have all day to commit to this which is why I am asking if anyone would like to work with me on this by helping me compile such a list. As deciving as painting an entire contient is, it is the same almost about the newspapers. The UK only had one newspaper print 1 cartoon but nonetheless it counts as "published". If anyone can come up with a larger map or better system, please let me know. Hitokirishinji 23:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I might add that Saudi-Arabia has been boycotting Denmark for 2 years or something already, and demonstrations with 15,000 bussed-in participants in a city that summoned one million to the streets for a spontaneous demonstration against Lebanon isn't really all that great. Therefore, the map says very little about the actual proportions of the demonstrations, since 15,000 in Beirut or whereever is equaled to a few hundred in other places. I would just keep the map centered about where the cartoons were published and where stuff has happened (boycotts, attacks on embassies and so on). Brainman 20:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Filipino Muslim views

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

Nazi victims of religious prosecution.

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

Perhaps if we point to International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to remind him? MX44

that convention was ratified in 1992. how is it relevant to comparisons offered to Streicher by both sides of controversy in the middle east of the other sides rough humor?

The flawed, POV MX44, Netscott and apparently Jdonnis is pushing is that Islmic opposition is strictly a matter of religious zealotry and perceptions of blasphemy. I have extensively documented that the concerns extend to perceptions of anti-muslim incitement, and explaining that this is the context in which documented references to Streicher are raised. PaxTerra 13:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that wasn't my doing... I do admit that I took him out... but put him back in... (mistakenly... clearly) only because he was executed for his publishing (which I also admit I wasn't too familiar with). Striecher and Der Sturmer do seem out of place in the whole article. Since my edits... PaxTerra is insisting that he stay in. Netscott 06:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess that makes sense about PaxTerra though since he put him in as well as Sambo's which seems very out of place. Netscott 06:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, I've listed a dozen examples of how people have offerd comparison to the well-known US controversey over the ethnic slur "sambos" in this context. It is not a matter of if it "Seems out of place" to Netscott. The list is a list of circumstances that have been compared. Netscott doesnt' like that people in the world press have drawn a comparison he finds out of place, and he wants reports of those public discussion censored from this article, apparently to shape the representation of the conflict to fit his perceptions. PaxTerra 13:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

why is the completely unrelated talk about Streicher reinserted? It doesn't have anything to do with this? It is like including a section on communist crimes in the former east bloc or atrocities commited by US puppet regimes in central america? It has nothing to do with this issue. Jdonnis 12:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Jdonnis, you're an editor... as a fellow editor I invite you to do some editing! Netscott 12:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with the information regarding Stericher and omar bakri Muhammad being included on a subpage (freedom of expression vs. blasphemy), but it is so far from the current event, that it clearly does not belong on the main page. Jdonnis 13:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree Netscott 13:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The context it is mentioned in this article is punishment. I'll refactor the section as "calls for punishment", and isolate it from the comparable examples section. PaxTerra 13:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

While I still disagree with the inclusion on the main page, the newest version is much better. Jdonnis 15:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Sequencing comparable references

• Great Lawgivers (frieze, 2006, Washington D.C.)
• Chief_Illiniwek (college mascot, 2006, Illinois)
• Dieudonné M'bala M'bala (comedian, 2005, France)
• The Life of Jesus (book, 2005, Greece)
• Jerry Springer - The Opera (musical, 2005, Britian)
• Submission (short film, 2004, Netherlands)
• Snow White and The Madness of Truth (installation, 2004, Sweden)
• Ecce Homo (exhibition, 2000, Europe)
• The Virgin Mary (painting, 1999, New York)
• Piss Christ (photo, 1989, United States)
• The Satanic Verses (novel, 1988, Europe and Iran)
• The Last Temptation of Christ (film, 1988, United States, Europe)
• Life of Brian (film, 1979, United States, Europe)
• Sambo's Restaurant (business name, 1979, United States)
• The Message (film, 1976, United States)

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

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

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

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

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

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

While I tend to agree with PaxTerra's argument regarding order I do not agree that Der Stürmer should be at (or near) the top of the list. In terms of this article I would argue that Submission is much more pertinent for four reasons 1.It was mentioned by the Danish Imams themselves, 2. Theo Van Gogh was assasinated in an act of terrorism. 3. Submission is concerned about 'free speech' vs. the contention of it insulting Islam. 4. It is considered controversial. That said I also agree that a neutral system for determining order isn't a bad idea. So I propose that we list the references in descending alphabetical order. This makes The Holy Virgin Mary number 1 (which granted doesn't seem too logical but still is strictly about religion and not race) and Submission number 2. Frankly while I'm respectful of Native American's arguments about imagery and their cultures, in the context of this article the reference doesn't seem too strong (with perhaps the Sambo's reference being the lowest in pertinence). A big part of the reason that I don't consider Der Stürmer as pertinent is due to the fact that in Nazi Germany it was considered controversial almost exclusively due its pornographic nature and not for its characterizations of Jews, also Streicher was executed legally. Netscott 01:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

If you want a neutral ordering, I would say that time-frame would be a more relevant measure. Start with the most recent events MX44 01:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense MX44. That'd take a bit of work to track down though.... Netscott 01:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hint: Use the "loudest" part of the event. The Fatwa for Rushdie (and not the anticlimax when the Mullahs says it is long forgotton.) The murder of van Gogh for Submission (and not the release of the film ...) MX44 01:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I could get behind that, if somebody does the research. But I suggest if somebody indeed checks out a timeline, it would be best to include at least a year in the parenthetical reference to the context, along with perhaps a geolocal reference as in (publication, 1930-1940, Germany)? That would advise readers why the items are thus ordered, and would avoid an inference that the order was somebody's interpretation of the relevance of items that have been discussed in reference to the current controversy? PaxTerra 01:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought we were working toward concensus on this? I restored ascending alphabetical order. Nowhere else in this encyclopedia -- or in most contexts -- is descending order used. To choose reverse alphabetical order here implies editors have agreed whatever order places the incidents they consider most relevant is appropriate. To do so, and choose an order to place examples of controversial avante garde art above examples of hate speech implies editors concluded this is more about free speech and religious zealotry than it is about hate speech and religious bigotry. Balance requires strict centering. PaxTerra 01:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted to the order that existed prior to your first change until consensus has been determined. I'm highly inclined to go with the choronlogical order of events on this... but I have to admit I'm reluctant to track down all of the necessary details in order to do so. Netscott 01:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I propose.. we each take a 3rd of the references and track down the dates corresponding to our third. Then we formulate their proper order here for final main page editing. Netscott 01:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You ask a lot for what you pay. I'll take the bottom third -- er the bottom six of sixteen --- Life of Brian to Der Attacker... PaxTerra 02:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok so were all on the same page here I've added the list above in it's current order on the main page. That sounds good PaxTerra. I'll take Submisson to Piss Christ... MX44? Netscott 02:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Ehrmm ... What? I was over at Groklaw. Was I supposed to do something?

Looks like PaxTerra has handled the job completely.... kind of a bummer... I was hoping for some teamwork... but whatever... Netscott 03:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW -- are you saying you will go with this sequential list, and accept the entries already there? PaxTerra 02:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

This chronological idea makes the most sense with the newest events taking precedence over the older events. No? Netscott 02:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

1

My List

• Submission (short film) 2 November 2004
• The Message (film) 9 March 9 1977
• The Satanic Verses (novel) 14 February 1989
• Snow White and The Madness of Truth (installation) 16 January 2004
• The Last Temptation of Christ (film) 22 October 1988
• Piss Christ (photo) 18 May 1989

Netscott 02:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but it still leaves Chief on top, which isn't my intent at all, but neither do I want to self censor reporting references to discussion among Native Americans of mascotts and hate speech in the context of the Danish cartoons. We could find a better article to describe the native American mascott controversy, or write one, which I'm not up to today. PaxTerra 02:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree about that... unless something significant has happened withint the last 5 years and my recollectoin serves me right I'd say that the whole Native American Mascot issue 'peaked' in the late 90's. Netscott 02:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Be bold and make changes!!! hehe Netscott 05:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

4 in one swoop?! That's bold! LOL! Netscott 05:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well ... The Chief is back at the top, making it all look like a prank :D MX44 05:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverse chronological order, most recent to least, makes perfect sense. WookMuff 08:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Fatwa

I added a fatwa from Sistani. Please dont take it away, i not there are those that hate seeing it. --Striver 01:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

That seems pertinent to me. I added that he's in Iraq and corrected some grammar. Netscott 01:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's definitely relevant. Babajobu 05:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Archive 13a

I've archived the first half of this previously long page.... if there were active subjects from the areas archived please don't hesitate to pull them back in here. Netscott 03:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

extensive reference to Al-Hayat Al-Jadida cartoon controversy

This information didn't appear on the Internet in the past hour, Netscott, which means it was available when you commented out the link "until more information is available". Have you tried Google as a research tool? It's sometimes almost as good as letting others do your research, and it can help avoid embarassing reversions.

Below is a short list of vicious cartoons appearing in the last three years in the major Palestinian Authority (PA) newspaper, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (Palestinian Media Watch, January 7):

1. Jan. 7, 2006 – An evil-looking caricature of a Jew depicted wreaking havoc beneath the Temple Mount and thus threatening the Dome of the Rock above.
2. Sep. 3, 2005 - Text: "Israel" penetrates Pakistan – Israel in scare quotes, depicted as devious vermin trapping Pakistan in to its orbit.
3. Apr. 10, 2005 – A Magen David shape is depicted turning the Dome of the Rock and an Arab in front of it in a prison.
4. Feb. 5, 2005 - An Israeli soldier depicted as a Nazi, complete with helmet, shaking a blood-soaked hand with a clean-handed Palestinian.
5. Dec. 10, 2004 – An Israeli flag, flying from the devil's three-pronged spear and with a corner of its Magen David symbol transformed into a blood-soaked claw, wrapped like a coil around an injured dove of peace.
6. Dec. 1, 2004 – Text: "The search for terror is still ongoing" – A figure representing the UN is seen wasting his time looking with a magnifying glass for terrorism while ignoring the figure of a monstrous ape with a caricature of Ariel Sharon's face as the devil.
7. Aug 2, 2004 - Jews in Judea Samaria are depicted as a Medusa-like serpent threatening an Arab.
8. July 14, 2004 – An anti-Semitic stereotype of a hideous, hook-nosed Israeli soldier, with a uniform and helmet pattern of human skulls.
9. April 20, 2004 – Ariel Sharon depicted as a wild bull, pierced with the spears of different Palestinian terror groups.
10. March 22, 2004 – Ariel Sharon depicted eating Palestinian children from a bowl of children's corpses.
11. Oct. 11, 2003 – A European diplomat is confronted by Israel depicted as an enormous snake.
12. Oct. 11, 2003 – An Israeli is depicted as a caveman dripping with blood.
13. Oct. 9, 2003 – Israel is depicted as a crocodile about to devour a Palestinian.
14. Oct. 4, 2003 – Israel is depicted as a wolf about to devour the Palestinian government.
15. Oct. 4, 2003 – The world is depicted as an apple consumed from within by two worms – Israel and the United States, with the text on the apple: Arab world Israel to the USA: "Be strong-we've got a lot of work to do."

PaxTerra 03:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

At this point your link goes to an essentially blank Wikipedia page. Are you planning on putting those references on the Al-Hayat_Al-Jadida page? If you are planning on doing that, might I suggest in the future that you add the references first to the pertinent article and then add the 'comparable ref' link? Netscott 03:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless you're going to add that info promptly you might as well re-uncomment out the Al-Jadida link to help WikiPedia visitors avoid going to an empty resource. Netscott

The term is "stub" Scott, and no I don't intend to extend the stubby Palisinian newspaper article unless I find time to conduct adequate research. No, I don't intend to slant the stub with a hasty contribution primarily about Israeli oppositon to the paper's editorial doctrines and I advise you not to damage contributions to this article by removing informative content that readers can easily extend with their own research or by contributing to the relevant article if they have sufficient information.

If you do choose to censor in the name of editing, I suggest you limit your meddling to unwikifying the resource, though to do so is not consistent with widely accepted practices at Wikipedia to leave stubs and links to stubs in place until they have an opportunity to grow. To unwikify the link would deprive readers of an explanation of an otherwise unintelligable Arabic phrase.

Further, I consider myself to have acted promptly to have posted within five minutes of uncommenting your deletion of meaningul content this reference to 16 cartoons. I suggest you sit back and watch what happens, or use your internet connection to gather information before striking out against others' knowledge. In the Hebrew press, the Al-Hayat Al-Jadida cartoons are probably the most widely mentioned controversy raised in rebuttal to complaints about the danish cartoons, with the possible exception to dialogue about Iranian opinion. None of the other items on that list contain references to contexts in which they were discusses vis-a-vis the Danish cartoons, many are only marginally relevant, discussed perhaps among the world of avante garde artists who advocate absolute freedom to slander anyone in the name of comedy, and other links on the list point to topics that only minimally explain how those conroversies are relevant to this one.PaxTerra 04:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The title of that section is "Comparable references" a simple link to stub article does not a 'comparable reference' make. As a visitor, if I were to click on your reference I'd be inclined to just think, "hmm, that was a pointless link", unless someone comes along and adds something of note to that stub I suspect another editor will just remove that 'reference', I'd uncomment it out again now if I wasn't already at my 3RV limit. Netscott 04:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

as an original reader, I parsed the term "reference" to imply others had mentioned these incidences in reference to current events, not that they are references to a categorization of similar events listed in this opus. Either way, I have now included sufficient citation in and out of Wikipedia to support what is one of the major comparisons in popular diaglogue worldwide. If you feel readers need more information about the Palestinian newspaper, I suggest you offer readers more, not less information. PaxTerra 05:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

and on Sambos

The widespread Sambos restaurant controversies I cited, documented in lawsuits, newspaper articles, petitions and activists writings was a flashpoint for controversy over use of the term "Sambo", derived from a childrens book widely used in elementary schools of the era and on which which the nationwide restaraunt based its marketing images. Mention of the term in reference to the current controversy can be found in the title of an essay by well-known conservative writer Michelle Malkin -- "Ragheads and Sambos and Gooks". Malkin says she sees no comparison with the cartoon, but states that several of her readers have drawn parallels with well-known US racial epithets by a national leader. Malkin extends the reference to "ragheads" to include "sambos". We could add ragheads and gooks to the list, but there was never a campaign to make anybody stop publishing those terms, and such a campaign has not been mentioned in this context.

Since all current discussion of this emerging topic is taking place in blogs, letters to the editor, editorial columns and other transient venues, it is fair to take Malkin's mention of several readers drawing the parallel between a reference to ragheads and the cartoons, and her extending the reference to controversy over the term Sambos as typical of more widespread discussion I am seeing in those venues. I suggest readers unfamiliar with this dialogue are not in touch with current dialogue in the South. The list in this article isn't "A list of events that are just like this cartoon controversy". It is a list of refernces to similar controversies that have been mentioned. The Sambos controversy is a particularly interesting comparison that has been mentioned because it too arose from ostensibly benign caricatures related to a childrens book, and because public pressure led to change in publishing activities. PaxTerra 07:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Focus on judicial remedies

MX44 offers no argument or evidence to support the assertion that there is "too much focus on old nazis". The sentence Mx44 reduced focuses on judicial responses, not on nazis. A generalized reference to "crimes against humanity" denies readers immediate access to otherwise readily available explanatory information. Few younger readers likely have any experience to reference when, where or why anyone was executed for a crime against humanity on evidence that they drew cartoons. Perhaps to balance reference to old nazis we need to include some examples of new nazis who were prosecuted for hate speech. A list alone is insufficient when judicial remedies can be mroe precisely summarized and cited in a a few short phrases. PaxTerra 05:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

We can also reference architects who got punished by the allies after the war for dreaming up castles for the old nazis ... which is equally relevant MX44 05:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

And how about the foundation for all modern TV-commercials? Nazi propaganda maker who was hung after the war.MX44 06:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with your history of television advertising. It started before WWII. Castles:cartoons --- not a strict comparison. "Nazi propaganda maker who was hung after the war. can you please explain this sentence frag? Striecher was executed for publishing a newspaper and cartoons that were very similar to the ones in this topic. His activities are discussed in the context of these events. Unless you want to start documenting where, on the limited inventory of available Web publications, each of the named incidences are mentioned in this context, I suggest you focus on contributing, not deleting content. PaxTerra 06:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Similar? I beg to differ ... You seriously suspect Denmark to have orchestrated a plot to conquer the world? And the cartoonists at JP is taking part in this? MX44 06:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The point isn't whether I think certain cartooonists are conspiring to take over the world. I'm not writing about my opinion. Striecher is relevant because the name often comes up in discussing the propriety of demeaning editorial cartoons, including those that are the subject of this article. Those who draw the comparison have sound reasons, whether you or I agree with them or not.

Julius Streicher didn't conspire with Hitler nor was he in the employ of Nazis, he independently contributed to an ideological environment that, according to an international tribunal, permitted genocidal xenophobia. Those who draw a comparison cite a disproportionatly negative portrayal of ethnic minorities in Danish media, as there was in German media of that time. In the generalized view of Westerners held by many on the "Arab street" Danish and European anti-Muslim sentiment is affiliated with a Western occupation of their territories. Among that that some oh, billion or so, there are widespread suspicions that yes, the West, including Europe, Denmark and the United States, is conspiring to take over the world. And, some Muslim clerics are asking that the artists be executed under Islamic law. As recently as 60 years ago, a cartoonist was legally executed. Granted, Islamic law isn't the international law we might prefer, but the call for judicial execution is not unique.

Reference to this historic lawful execution of a cartoonist is appropriate context for readers who have not thought further than to demean "those backwards Muslims" for not understanding our modern system of free speech. Streicher shows that, even with our modern system of free speech, we sometimes choose to legally execute cartoonists for crimes against the peace. 06:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Compared to Streicher, who was so annoyingly over the top, only Hitler tolerated him, the JP-cartoons are either extremely mild or not even on the topic the muslim propaganda machine have made people believe. I guess the cartoonist at Disney will have to go as well MX44 07:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not about our opinions of the comparison. What you call the Muslim propaganda machine comprises people, whose perspectives are to be refelcted in this context. This isn't an article about how dumb we think they are. PaxTerra 07:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Not about being dumb but about deception. I have put Streicher in the context you mention above. I assume it is backed up, an external reference would be nice. Else the whole Streicher thing is hearsay. MX44 08:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of Julius Streicher as an item in the list. I oppose elaborating on it with several sentences (even if I find the angle interesting), because none of the other list items gets such preferential treatment. Azate 08:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

AGREE with Azate. Preferential treatment to one case over others is POV and there is a separate article for the purpose of discussing freedom of speech vs. blasphemy. Furthermore, the description "publications that disturb the peace" is an inaccurate representation of Streicher's work, which consisted of blatant and sustained incitement to violence and oppression over a 25 year period. The passage also makes no mention of the other crimes for which his sentence was handed down other than describing "publishing" as the primary reason for he sentence. Omar Bakri's view of the punishment needed properly belongs on the opinion page, not on the main page. For these reasons I have reverted to Jdonnis's last version.

Der Sturmer did publish cartoons which have been referenced, and I do not object to leaving Der Sturmer as a link in the comparisons section. Richard 129.244.23.111 15:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

(Indenting more to the left so that comment is more readable) IMO text on Omar should be retained, as there are other places in this article where we do mirror text from the "sub-articles". And the one sentence about him is within context. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 17:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy against the peace is not at all innaccurate. It is yet another exact citation of the crime for which he was executed. It seems the problem is not with the content of the article, but with a history MX44 would prefer to revise. T0 claim the Streicher thing is hearsay is yet more hysterical holocaust denial. Streichers prosecution is documented in Wikipedia to the typically scant standard to satisfy whomever wrote that article and is thoroughly documented in the archives of the Nuremberg Tribunal, by the Weisenthal center and in many Mass Communication law or ethics texts. The issue is not freedom of speech vs. Blasphemy, the issue is prosecution of crimes against the peace, putting the also deleted-without-explanation-call of a muslim cleric for prosecution under islamic law in context of the range of judicial relief granted in recent history for crimes against the peace. PaxTerra 16:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

To begin with, "Conspiracy against the peace" is NOT the description I objected to. So your first two sentences are meaningless in context of this discussion. Second, Streicher's punishment is not more relevant than the fate of the others examples on the list who have deeply offended religious as well as cultural and social sentiments, and should not have a more thorough description. The deletion of the call by the Muslim Cleric WAS explained in my post, as OPINIONS on the proper amount of prosecution and punishment to be leveled at the cartoonists should be posted to the OPINIONS page. Not to a list of incidents with which this controversy has been compared. Richard 129.244.128.134 17:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

To offer that people have been prosecuted for hate crimes, then to cite the call for execution by a muslim cleric is point of view pushing, because it establishes a likely standard and then describes the cleric as outside that standard with no point of reference. I have omitted Streicher's name from the passage, which seems to be the criminal most anti-mention editors seem troubled by when they advance their POV that the cartoons are all just good fun, and replaced I it with a simple citation of the extreme range of responses that have been offered under various laws. This tends to resolve both motives -- to not focus too much on Streicher but a clear description of what the human race has in the recent past done in related circumstances. In this manner, I continue to develop the article without reverting and with reluctant tolerance to those who say opening ones eyes comprises having a POV while they deny their own obvious point of view. PaxTerra 17:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You seem immune to the idea that I object not to the inclusion of the Cleric's POV but to your obstinant refusal to post it where it belongs, on the opinions page. You continue to post this particular set of ideas in the wrong place in the article where it has no perspective nor alternative viewpoints readily available. The Cleric's POV in that section only serves to upset the NPOV tone of the article. Richard 129.244.128.134 17:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I've expressed no interest in the Cleric's views. my interest is to cite the range of judicial relief that had been administered in response to symbolic acts involving breaches of peace. Since I have no opinion whatsoever about what is appropriate in this circumstance, I am indeed immune to the concept that it has to do with opinion. One has to read the menu before they form an opinion about what they might like to eat. My citation of capital punishment is in response to claims of "Censorship" and references to "hate crimes." if we're going to list appetizers, let's list the entrees. Then we can deal with opinions as to whether this is a cocktail party or a dinner party.

I have already stated I consider the entire block of text introducing the list out of context except the one sentence precedine the list. But the blank section "opinions" is not the place for a neutral reference to the historic range of judicial relief. Move the whole section detailing similar responses as "Censorship" and "hate crimes" -- along with capital punishment. I created this talk section titled "focus on judicial remedies" because that is the focus of those paragraphs, and that is what I would title that seperate section. I would loose the blank "opinions" section and move it to a "related topics", but there seems to be some other unsettled conflict that resulted in that section remaining solely for a "main article" link. My interests are a. to be inclusive in listing documented comparisons, which seems settled until the night crew shows up again, and b. to assure that the list representing historic judicial remedies is comprehensive aka NPOV. Is that too much to ask? PaxTerra 18:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No, what you've done with transferring to a new section seems fine, although it probably also needs to include some examples where the accused wasn't executed for balance. I'm still not sure the whole thing shouldn't be transferred to opinions as it seems a little like speculation to discuss what their sentence could be, as to my knowledge the cartoonists have not been arrested, but I'll hold off on judging for now.

My only other real problem has to do with the subtle yet still present reference to Streicher as a legal precedent. Please read this carefully and all the way through before passing judgement. As I stated earlier, Streicher had other crimes besides publishing, but more pertinently I do not recall the actual authors of the various cartoons and articles he published being given the death sentence. It seems to me that while Streicher's case could be construed as a legal precedent for executing the publisher and perhaps the editor of the Jyllands-Posten, I'm not sure you can use it for punishing the cartoonists themselves. Richard 129.244.128.134 19:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I've read this entire talk section carefully several times while reviewing those two paragraphs in the article. I think it is important not to represent one extreme or the other as opinion, because it is not anyones opinion -- certianly not mine -- and should not be represented as such. Again, the section as I found it talked bout "have been censored. In other cases offending artists have been aquitted". That opened the door to describing the range of responses found in history. Streicher isn't precedent for this case, it is precedent for a reference to judicial killing in response to symbolic acts. But without surveying the range of opinion, the survey of relevant laws tended to favor one end of the spectrum while painting the other as extreme. Now, the cleric seems to be opinion -- but it serves as a reference to Islamic law, which is appropriately considered in the context of other legal systems.

For that reason, I cautiously trimmed out the copy posted just below this comment as it deals with extrajudicial killing. And here is the most important distinction this section draws -- judicial v. extrajudicial remedies. We need not fear someone might form an opinion on the wrong end of the scale of legal remedies -- the evidence you cite defining differences might speak for itself, if we provide readers access to the information. By reducing the reference to a footnote, we make clear that it is not about Streicher, but simply a marker of one end of a scale and if we omit all opinion from this section and stick with a forensic review of legal traditions that shape responsed to matters such as this. Of course, there are the other legal traditions --- protections of speech --- that are probably amply defined elsewhere, but if we find them under represented, we can develop that in the context of general discussion of legal aspects.

Also, there is a bit of a difference of a precedent -- any precedent -- of judicial killing when hate speech mestasticizes in the extreme, and references "mentioned in comparison in popular dialogue", which is why the der sturmer comparison ended up in the comps section but we still are stuck with that reference to a precedent in the legal category, which somebody is asking for even when I try to omit it.

And one more thing, one reason I am passionate about the demonstrating the worst end of the scale is that it speaks to any person contemplating events such as this -- which is why I was careful to include the widely recognized references to the palestenian cartoons. the prosecutor at nuremburg, as quoted from the source now linked talked about "poison that he has put into the minds of millions of young boys and girls goes on". To fully appreciate the tension in this, we need to fully appreciate barriers to free expression, and we need to appreciate expression mestasticized into poison -- they are elements of the discussion, but we can't draw a parallel-- we have to let others do that. but only when we have glanced at the precipice at eiher end are we prepared to contemplate opinions. For that reason, I would not be as concerned that responsed to hate crimes misdemeanors are underrepresented, but perhaps that we expound briefly on why soem people so covet free expression. Where we say "Freedom of speech was abandoned temporarily only during the German occupation of Denmark during World War II ...." we could use a reference to the consequence that forged a deep appreciation of free expression. "they had their tongues cut out" or somethign as such, not fictional as I offer here, but in reality. How can we make real -- for readers on all sides --the dutch experience that shaped this sentiment? 23:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Parking this copy here for a moment. It was contributed to the Legal traditions section, but it is not specificly calls for judicial execution. Also in that section, the same editor asked for a citation of capitol punishment so I found one and put it there, while maintaining a link to explanation of how that jurisprudence developed in minimizing reference to the particular case to one footnote. See further explanation here PaxTerra 23:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Though this may be seen an extreme view, there are those among those currently protesting who agree, as evidenced by the placards they hold .

Perigrine falsely accused?

I found the perigrine edit, but I don't see any vandalism. PaxTerra 05:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at the bottom of [Peregrine's edit].. see anything wrong? Netscott 05:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No. [3] I see what appears to be a dutch language reference to a dutch language article that seems to babelfish into content that is consistent with what Perigrene represents. Perigrene's edit history evidences continued good faith editing. I advised Perigrene of your accusation. Perhaps you can exlpain your allegation to the accused. PaxTerra 06:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah you're right [4] but he failed to close his ref> so the El Fagr image showed up at the bottom of the page... fortunately my comment was "Vandalism?" and not "Vandalism!"... LOL! Netscott 06:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, sit tight a minute and I'll fix it. Stevenj removed it for being misformated, but the lack of dutch readers to verify the source is not pertinant to the misformating. Perigrine seems to be a Dutch reader. PaxTerra 06:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The link Peregrine added seems to have been to a Danish language article, not a Dutch language article. Aecis <sup>Mr. Mojo risin'</sup> 23:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC) (A Dutch wikipedian)

Regarding Image removal/relocation and warnings

I've just removed a warning about the images inserted by Jeremygbyrne. There should be agreement by all editors working on this that no such changes shall occur until a vote decides whether or not to adopt them. Netscott 06:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Babajobu 06:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

These would be special new wikipedia rules you've just thought of now? &#0151; JEREMY 07:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy, a warning at top of page WAS one of the options in poll two, and it attracted fewer than ten votes. Regardless, in an article about which so much community input has been received, eastablish consensus for major changes before making them! Babajobu 07:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

According to the poll archive, the options in the second poll were:

* 1.2.1 Move to body of article with a link directly to the image on the top (Hipocrite's idea)
* 1.2.2 Have picture lower down the article
* 1.2.3 Have picture at top of article
* 1.2.4 Don't care
* 1.2.5 Comment

As I have said, this option has not been offered before. Please vote in the poll. &#0151; JEREMY 07:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Keyword here is 'Should' as what Babajobu so succintly stated above, "determine that there is consensus to override old consensus before making the change, Jeremy." is particularly valid. Netscott 07:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy, option 1.2.1 was intended to place an "alert" at top of page, warning people of potentially offensive content lower in the article. It was essentially identical to your solution, except that yours is rather more obtrusive in using a template rather than a simple bolded comment. And again, Jeremy, please take a look at how previous polls were formatted. In addition to presenting the options in a neutral manner (which you fail to do), they created a place where people could vote support or oppose. Moreover, the poll was placed where people would see it, rather than starting off buried in the middle of the talk page. I'll vote oppose in your poll, but think a large majority of users will vote oppose as well as being annoyed by an attempt to repropose an option that was voted down in a previous poll. People don't take kindlt to repeated polls addressing the same issue in precisely the same way. Babajobu 07:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like 1.2.1 has nothing to do with labelling, but specifically involves moving the cartoons down the page and linking to them from the top. 1.2.2 does include some comments calling for labelling (or "warnings", which are clearly not well supported, based on wikipedia's disclaimer policy). If you think there'd be general support for doing so, I'd be happy to move the poll to the top of the talk page. Thanks for agreeing to vote, and you may well be right about the eventual result. I can only try. &#0151; JEREMY 07:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey... no more polling til "my" poll so :P WookMuff 08:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

As long as vandalism of the image can be contained, the image should stay where it is. Azate 08:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No more polls PLEASE !! We can't keep repeating the polls simply until the opinion of Resid, JEREMY et al. (with all due respect) is met. I, personally refuse to vote in anymore polls on this same issueVarga Mila 08:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I certainly respect the right of people with "poll fatigue" not to vote (and I expect their opinions might be well over-represented in the results in any case). And again, just to be clear, the image will stay where it is (as per the results of Poll #2); this is about supplementing the article and enhancing wikipedia by adding information. &#0151; JEREMY 09:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Warning people that on the very same screen as the warning is the image itself? Anyway, should your poll ever appear on this page, I'll vote oppose, and express my irritation at the pollcruft and your refusal to accept consensus, as I suspect a large majority of voters will do. Babajobu 09:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the label will attract attention first (ie. before the images), and that its presence alone indicates our intent to provide a higher level of service to our readers. Again I reject your persistent claims that this issue has already been dealt with and that your viewpoint somehow represents consensus, but I'll be pleased to see your vote. &#0151; JEREMY 10:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

In fact, my viewpoint on how the images should be managed is not the same as the consensus. However, consensus having been expressed, I feel the need to protect it from people who attempt to unilaterally override that consensus by inserting obtrusive templates without any communal mandate whatsoever. As for my vote, there is no poll on this page, no oppose or support sections in which to place a vote on any issue. Babajobu 10:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

If a reader hits this page, it's highly likely they were looking for the image. An encylopedia with a warning, is not an encylopedia, it's a newspaper. It's great and all that you want to "protect" these people, but it doesn't stop here, it would START here. First this, then every image on wiki would have to have a warning of some type...to protect those that don't like it of course. -Moocats 14:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Meeting with Arab Ambassadors refused by Danish Prime Minister

I’ve made three small changes to the section, that I hope not will be controversial: 1. Clarifying, with a quote from the letter, that the request for a meeting was about wider issues than just the cartoons. 2. That is was the interpretation of the gvt, that the ambassadors wanted the PM to take legal action against the paper. It is not at all explicit in the letter [[5]] 3. That the refusal was a major point of criticism from the opposition Bertilvidet 10:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Would someone mind to please clarify for me, as a non-native English speaker, the exact meaning of 'taking someone to task' ? (as per "...urge Your Excellency's government to take all those responsible to task under law of the land..."). Thanks Varga Mila 10:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

"make them pay" I would say. what "law of the land" is alleged to have been broken is not made clear however. I take this to be an explicit enough call for legal action. Can somebody explain why this letter is in English rather than Danish, seeing that these are all ambassadors to Denmark? You would expect it to be an essential job qualification of an ambassador to be fluent in the language of the host country? dab (ᛏ) 12:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The letters in the Akkari-Laban dossier seem all to have been written in Arabic. Ekstra Bladet published some of them stressing that the newspaper has translated the material into Danish. [6] I've been looking for originals written in Danish, but I've found none so far. --Valentinian 12:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

There isn't a Danish original, because the original is in English. Amabassadors in EU countries can hand in notes in any of the working languages of the EU (English, French, German), or in the language of the country in question. And anybody who thinks that ambassadors speak the language of the country they are dispatched to, is living in a dream. Azate 12:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The letter is about the general development in Denmark, mentioning the cartoons along with several other incidents. Afterwards, "...urge Your Excellency's government to take all those responsible to task under law of the land..." is stated. At least it is not an explicit call for legal pursuit of the paper. And nope, ambassadors are not expected to learn the language og the country they work in, usually they serve in many countries during their career, so they are not expected to know all the local languages - and indeed not to use the local language when dealing with other foreign representations. Bertilvidet 13:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the real reason the Danish were miffed by the ambassadors' demand was that it's against normal procedure to want to see the head of government. This is normally only done when you are really pissed and insistent, such as when declaring war or so. In all other cases ambassadors speak tp the Foreign Office. (which Rasmussen told them they should go do, and they did). And "...urge Your Excellency's government to take all those responsible to task under law of the land..." is REAL strong language in diplomatic circles. Azate 14:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The Ambassadors are in effect asking Rasmusen to bypass current Danish laws and regulations. MX44 15:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The article wrongly states that Foreign Minister Per Stig Møller met the ambassadors to discuss the matter. Yesterday it was revealed that, yes, the Foreign Minister did have a meeting with 8, not all 11, ambassadors. And the subject was not the Mohammad cartoons but another matter, some UN issues I think. The Palestinian ambassador said that it would be impolite to raise the issue, when that was not what the meeting was about. The Foreign Minster has admitted he made a mistake when he informed the parliament that he had a meeting. The majority of the opposition accepted the apology. However Frank Aaen of the far left party Enhedslisten stated the Foreign Minsiter had deliberately issued misinformation. Source: P1 Orientering 14 feb.86.52.36.140 15:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

..

Yet the 8 embassadors had the chance to raise the issue at that meeting, if they found it to be so urgent as described in their letter. Besides it is also very clear from their letter, that they want the primeminister to take legal actions on the matter. First of all it was not a letter to the foreign minister but the primeminister. Secondly more experts have concluded (Professor Ditlev Tamm in Information 08/02-2006) that the demand raised in the letter were inappropriate, and that the prime minister reacted in an according diplomatic manner. Also bear in mind that the Prime Minister did reply to the letter. Here is his reply http://gfx-master.tv2.dk/images/Nyhederne/Pdf/side3.pdf Now if the letter from the ambassadors was about something else, they had all the chance in the world to approach him to clear up any misunderstanding he would have had about their motives. I think Wikipedia is very one-sided on this issue. The 11 ambassadors broke all normal rules of diplomacy with their letter to Fogh. He responded diplomatically.

..

Is there a link for a source ? Azate 16:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link to the radio program in Danish.

http://www.dr.dk/P1/orientering/indslag/2006/02/14/175715.htm

! Not all of them are ambassadors. And not all of the ambassadors are from Arab countries. madyasiwi 17:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You are right. Perhaps 'representatives' is a better word ?

It is very peculiar, I can't seem to find anything in writing about this what is mentioned in the radio program. The only newspaper that mentions it (and it does so only indirectly - i.e. it doesn't work as a reference) is Information (a small'ish paper catering for the left-wing, government-critical inteligensia): http://www.information.dk/InfWebsite/FremvisningPHP/Common/Information.php?pShow=Webavis/WAvVis.php&pWAvVis=1309 Varga Mila 17:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

That is strange, since according to the Radio Program the Prime Minsiter sent a statement to the press claryfing whether or not a meeting with representaives/ambassadors concerning the Mohammad Cartoon crisis had taken place. A State Radio Program (DR P1) cannot be used as a source?86.52.36.140 22:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I finally found something in English. User:86.52.36.140 is completely right. Azate 23:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Btw. I didn't dispute 86.52.36.140 - It was on the news last night. Link would be great. Varga Mila 00:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Why isnt it written anywhere that the Egyptian ambassador in Denmark went on Egyptian TV telling the lie that Islam is not a recognized religion in Denmark, despite the fact that there are 19 kinds of islam acknowledged here ?. http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=439141

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Why is only the ICCPR included here? There's no shortage of International Law. Also applicaple may be:

• Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action
• United Nations Millennium Declaration
• Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities
• Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief
• Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity
• Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
• International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families
• Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals Who are not Nationals of the Country in which They Live

and, depending on your point of view:

• Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons

LOL :D But is this relevant to the Danes, the Muslims, the Pope or ... All? MX44

Singleing out one treaty because some articles sound nice just makes no sense. 1000 things could or could not be applicable, could or colud not be supplantable or being overriden by national law, or European Law. This field is just nuts. Let's not even try to wade into it. (unless one of you is a specialist in the field, of course). Azate 14:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

And, no, I didn't make these up. Azate 16:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous Editor commenting against the omission of internationally accepted norms:

So instead of providing more lights and unbiased and internationally accepted concepts and standards into the underlying legalities of the dilemma, you chose to delete the entire part!? Why not mentioning those additional legalities that you mentioned as reference points for sound judgments in the page? Why do you think they are irrelevant?

Just to figure out if, say, article 14 of the ICCPR is any any way applicable to this case would require a full-blown legal team and many, many weeks. You'd get 100 different opinions. International law is a minefield. Who has a right to make a claim to the courts against whom? Which courts must have frustraded the applicant beforehand to qualify, or to make then non-applicable? It isn't even established if the ICCPR applies to individuals making a claim agains other individuals within the same jurisdiction. Hell, it isn't even clear if it applies to individuals at all. The legal status of all the above coventions is totally opaque. It all sounds very dandy, but in the real world - it just doesn't have teeth. Azate 22:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous Editor commenting against the omission of internationally accepted norms: It is a matter of principle. ICCPR excerpts are are more "informational" "solid" and "factual" than what appears now in the front page. It is a relevant reference to be cited. Remember that we are not hare to issue judgments, gauge whether something could be enforceable, is dandy or whether it has “teeth” or not. These are internationally accepted concepts. It is a matter of "all-time" reference points.

That's just my point: These are not "internationally accepted norms". Only half of the countries in the world have signed the ICCPR. Of those who did, many (including denmark) added all sorts of caveats and footnotes. As it stands now, the ICCPR (and all the others) is no more than a blueprint of what the UN would like to see in national law, it's not a law that you can bring up in any court. Azate 02:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hate Speech and Blasphemy

In the Comparable references section of this article we currently have the following

• Chief Illiniwek (college mascot, 2006, Illinois)
• Dieudonné M'bala M'bala (comedian, 2005, France)
• The Life of Jesus (book, 2005, Greece)
• Jerry Springer - The Opera (musical, 2005, Britain)
• Submission (short film, 2004, Netherlands)
• Snow White and The Madness of Truth (installation, 2004, Sweden)
• Ecce Homo (exhibition, 2000, Europe)
• Sensation (exhibition, 1999, London, New York)
• Great Lawgivers (frieze, 1997, Washington D.C.)
• Piss Christ (photo, 1989, United States)
• The Satanic Verses (novel, 1988, Europe and Iran)
• The Last Temptation of Christ (film, 1988, United States, Europe)
• Life of Brian (film, 1979, United States, Europe)
• Sambo's Restaurant (business name, 1979, United States)
• The Message (film, 1976, United States)

While the majority of these references seem appropriate from the blasphemy angle there are four of them that appear to deal with hate speech. Of those four the following refs seem out of place (with Snow White seemingly appropriate)

• Chief Illiniwek (college mascot, 2006, Illinois)
• Sambo's Restaurant (business name, 1979, United States)
• Dieudonné M'bala M'bala (comedian, 2005, France)

These seem to take the hate speech angle, but are these examples of hate speech really Comparable in the context of this controversy? They don't seem so to me (or perhaps through a highly tenuous link). The only possible ref is Dieudonné due to his reported anti-semitic statements. In terms of hate speech I see two primary angles that are being reported in the news over this controversy, one is that some muslims are claiming that the cartoons are a form of hate speech directed at Islam (ie: overly broad accusation of terrorism) and the other has to do with the proliferation of hateful anti-semitic cartoons that come from certain islamic media sources in comparison to the Jyllands cartoons. Can we please add more specific and neutral references that better correspond to these two angles and in the mean time remove these tenuously linked references? Netscott 15:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Straw man argument, Scotty. You and you alone established hate speech as a standard. Who told you western hate speech laws are the standard by which people are asking for relief? Sharia isn't a hate speech standard, so your narrow comparison is false. The standard is laws under which people have been punished for insightful comments. Also, you are picking on the Sambos link again. I asked you yesterday if you would agree to the list as it stood and you are still whining about any entry that doesn't fit your narrow POV. Where's the good faith? PaxTerra 06:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The other false construct you are arguing scott is comparability. The standard is not whether you think they compare, or whether Malkin thinks they compare, but whether they have been mentioned in comaparison. Violating the standard of whether others have compared them violates neutrality by imposing your own judgement of what is comparable. Also, that Malkin said she doesn't think they compare isn't the point. Malkin said others have drawn the comparison, and extended the comparison. Obviously she finds it relevant enough to title an article around, even if only to deconstruct the comparison others hold.

Further, you have already admitted ignorance to events surrounding Streicher's publishing activities, so why do you consider yourself qualified to compose statements about why he was executed? Are you a German reader? Have you read Streicher's publications, the Neuremberg trial record or reports of it? Do you know that he was executed for directly advocating murder or for inciting hatred which led to murder? Unless you know and can cite an example of the former, please refrain from adding misinformation based on your imagination of how things might have happened. PaxTerra 06:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I tried to add a link to the Skokie,Ill. Nazi and KKK protests. Skokie, IL resulted in a famous court decision affirming the American Nazi's free speech rights to have a protest march through a neighborhood with a large population of Holocaust survivors. It was commented out: "offense based upon faith does not equal offense based upon historical facts, alphabet best order any other way is too subjective." I think the obvious parallel with weighing offending a religious group vs. free speech is important. I think this is also way more relevant and comparable than Sambo's Restaurant. --Calmarc

did somebody tamper with your entry, Calmarc? Please name them. there are a couple people here pushing POV and bullying away any edits that don't fit their viewpoints. PaxTerra

I have tried to adapt the introduction to the list to the current content. It is still kind of psychedelic though ... Giving it up for now. MX44 18:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Scott! Leave it for a second and lets see how this works out MX44 23:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good my linux developing collaborator! LOL Netscott 23:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Sambo and Streicher are good against each other representing hate speech

The Chief is finally gone!

Your move! MX44 23:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Representation of Muhammad drawings throughout history

I believe the article should contain references of the different representations of Muhammad throughout history. I am sure that this is by far not the first one. It should be included, as the Muslims reacted also to the the representation itself of Muhammad. --landroni 17:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

We had references to historical and current pictures of Muhammed. Did they disappear?DanielDemaret 18:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No. They are in the section "Islamic tradition". Three foootnotes, same as it ever was. Azate 23:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

THanks Azate :) Reading this article with a gazziollion permutational versions due to edit skirmishes has made me blind. I should give this article a rest a few months and rest my eyes.:)DanielDemaret 08:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

OK guys. Thanks. It was me who wasn't attentive. --landroni 09:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

A more general image solution

Please have a look at a proposal I've made over at Wikipedia Village Pump (technical) about giving Wikipedia visitors simple 'user definable' user experience options relative to images and WikiMedia. Netscott 20:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Link from front page

Why does the front page thing concerning the controversy not link here? It should link both to this article as well as to the "response" entry, and particularly the response one should actually link to the relevant part of the "response" sub article. 129.59.93.57 22:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Warning Template!

These cartoons are obviously offensive to some. Okay, then thats agreed. And we're not removing the picture from the site. Okay, thats agreed as well. How about we create a warning template, similar to the warning about a plot spoiler, that the contents of this site can be offensive to some, and that we move the picture down below the average vertical screen height that browsers reach. Since I am a novice wikipedian, and I can't really contribute by writing a template like this, but hope to in the future, I beckon upon you to follow through on this, and hopefully, it can resolve some issues. Thanks Mkaycomputer 22:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Uh, how about we don't. M'Kay? Netscott 22:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

But seriously, sorry for my earlier sarcasm...and welcome to WikiPedia. This issue is truly a deceased horse, well beaten and those of us who've been editing this for a bit are showing the strains of re-encountering that horse. Netscott

Our job is to inform, and the pictures provide that. If it offends, people should not click. The name of the article warns enough. James Kendall [talk] 00:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

That template would still kick ass. Mkaycomputer 00:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a current poll in progress calling for the additional of an informational template to the page. Please see above. &#0151; JEREMY 02:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

El Fagr editor Adel Hamouda has left Egypt

According to the Sandmonkey blog, the editor of El Fagr, Adel Hamouda, has left Egypt for an undetermined length of time on a journalistic investigation mission. I know this isn't a NPOV source, but he gives the link to El Fagr's current front page. Is there anyone who could translate the page and confirm this? Richard 129.244.128.134 23:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

SCOTUS Great Lawgivers frieze

I found this PDF on the SCOTUS website which is apparently from the official tourist brochure. It might be a good idea to include it in the reference to the freize in the article as it provides a more comprehensive overview then the current newspaper articles. Might even be a good base for an article on the subject if someone is interested in doing that. -Loren 01:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

'Islamic Views' links section POV?

Perhaps I simply missed where this was discussed, but is there a reason there is an "Islamic views" category for links on the main page but not one for Danes/Those supporting the freedom of speech argument? And secondly, why are these links on the main page, instead of on the page specifically for differing opinions on the controversy? Richard 129.244.128.134 06:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't wait for reason to exclude mere links to external resources that balance other points of view in an article about controversial viewpoints. Be bold in editing. The reason they're not there is because you've not added them yet? Go for it. PaxTerra 18:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comparable refs need for a vote?

Well it seems that myself (and I believe MX44) seem to not be able to agree with PaxTerra regarding the Comparable references section. This has been going on now for last day or two with with differing points of views having been expressed on both sides. It seems like this issue needs a larger view to get this settled and I'm wondering if a vote on what should be in the comparable references needs to be called? Unfortunately PaxTerra in his blind desire to have his views expressed has already reverted a perfectly good edit made by MX44 that changed an outside link to the 'Law Givers' reference to a wikilink (with more pertinent info). My contention (and I believe MX44's) is that the following references don't belong in the list.

• Chief Illiniwek (college mascot, 2006, Illinois)
• Sambo's Restaurant (business name, 1979, United States)
• Dieudonné M'bala M'bala (comedian, 2005, France)
• Der Stürmer (newspaper, 1940s, Germany)

While PaxTerra thinks they do.

I'm curious... what are other editors opinions on the above references being in this article? Netscott 06:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Regardless my effort to presume to the contrary, Netscott's good faith did not show in accusing competent editor Perigrine of vandalism, then laughing out loud at his own idle accusation, nor does good faith show in Netscott citing a temporary change in a link that I then fixed as evidence of my poor contribution. As the record shows, I also repaired the typographically broken markup Netscott accused Perigrine of vandalism about. And, I repaired Netscott's uninformed fabrication about the facts of Streicher's trial in this article and in the Streicher article after Netscott admitted having no knowledge of the matter. It seems Netscott is persistently reverting after above participating in a consensus process then continuing to complain about edits entered by others that were addressed in a concensus discussion. Regardless Netscott's effort to speak for other editors, the discussion on this page shows MX44 has resigned from the matter, or at least claimed to. What's more, Netscott falsely speaks for myself in claiming I have expressed any interest whatsoever in the Dieudonné M'bala M'bala reference.

There seems to be a complaint by another user above that someone deleted from the page a comparison that doesn't satisfy an editor, when editor appreciation of comparisons drawn in public discussion is not the standard here. I suggest that Netscott, instead of creating a device to exagerate attention to matters that don't suit his preference, correspond substantively with editors involved in the article and then wait to see if anyone else considers his arguments worthy of attention. A start would be to offer some citations for the items he claims have been mentioned in comparison. In the section below, I cite basis for my contributions. PaxTerra 07:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comparisons need citations, not vote

Meeting the standard -- the standard established in the text is that the references have been "mentioned in comparison" in public discourse. The standard is NOT whether netscott likes the mention or the comparison. I suggest Netscott focus on finding citations for the comparisons he likes to draw that so far have found no basis in anything besides an assertion here of an apparent similarity. Wikipedia is not a democracy...Wikipedia is not a soapbox... Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought

Der Sturmer:

• The Toronto Star reports the following comparison being made by Ruth Mas, a lecturer in Islamic studies at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo:

A prominent German Islamic leader said the cartoons were reminiscent of the caricatures of Jews in the Nazi propaganda sheet Der Sturmer. "Press freedom shouldn't be used to insult people. We Germans need to know our history," Michael Muhammad Pfaff, of the German Muslim League told Britain's Guardian newspaper. [7]

that's about as direct a mention of comparison as we can ask for, and from a published newspaper article, which by the way, is being repeated as the subject of debate in other venues

Sambos In light of the following 11 references, I am going to change the reference to the more widely cited Little Black Sambo (-- nix -- there is an article on Sambo (ethnic slur) that best explains current discussion cited in links below (-pt) -- ) which is more direct than a reference to the restaraunt that was caught up in the referenced controversy. In addition to above Malkin citation: "There is no parallel between the Danish cartoons and Piss Christ; a more accurate analogy would be between the Danish cartoons and Sambo drawings." [8] Others: [9][10] [11] [12] [13][14] [15] [16] And if Netscott is going to complain about to many Web sources, this one cites The Telegraph: [17] and Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune:[18]

Chief Illiniwek (as I've stated above, a general reference to Indian mascott controversy is consistent with the more usual comparison I've encountered in my reading, but the following documents the Illiwinek comparison in Robideau's article about the cartoons.) Counterpunch Feb. 10, 2006, Robert Robideau [19] (this printed reference from a nationally circulated magazine in which Robideau specifically cites teh UofI mascot should suffice. Numerous on-online links cites omitted) PaxTerra 08:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (ibid)[20][21][22][23][24][25][26]

A poll? Well ... As far as I can see, PaxTerra's vote is for linking to empty references like Al-Haryat and underwhelming news about high-school mascots, so I can't take him seriously. My vote is for NetScott which makes it two against one. Problem solved and democracy wins MX44 08:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you're only joking. Surely a broader appreciation is gained from more information, not less. Leave the extra links in. &#0151; JEREMY 08:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The link that MX44 and Netscott have persistently deleted with little argument other than personal attack and personal opinion also includes a link to an offsite reference that extensively documents why Al-Hayat Al-Jadida's caricatures are compared across Israel with the Danish cartoons. PaxTerra 09:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

... and the offsite (and lonely) reliable NPOV refernce is: The Zionist Organization of America. BTW, the date of the controversy is again fiddled with. MX44 09:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Going to have to agree with MX44 on this last point here... I originally removed the Al-Hayat reference because it originally only pointed to a stub (and it still does) which seems pointless.. but I too noticed that the final reference that PaxTerra added was anything but NPOV. Netscott 09:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This is an article about cartoons that express a point of view. Of course the link to Zionist Organization of American refers to their point of view. That's what the section is about, contrasting points of view -- not mine, but those represented in popular discussion. Get Real. PaxTerra 09:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The extra links can stay there, no problem! We'll just have to rename the section to incomparable references, which is a reasonable small change given the current state of the list. MX44 09:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

On second thought: Leave it like it is ... as a parody in its own right :D

Well I will concede one thing in PaxTerra's arguments that is absolutely true and that is the definite need for citations for the Comparable references in this article. Netscott 08:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Netscott's accusations

PaxTerra are you now in violation of 3RR? Netscott 09:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

09:38, 16 February 2006 PaxTerra (→Comparable references - include reference to legal control of incitement and hate speech, restore summary introducing list)

09:28, 16 February 2006 PaxTerra (consensus was to order sequencially by most recent volatile discussion of issue)

08:59, 16 February 2006 PaxTerra (→Comparable references - restore another widely cited comparison repeatedly deleted by Netscott) <-- this revert wasn't in fact over an edit of mine but MX44's.

06:37, 16 February 2006 PaxTerra (→Comparable references - restore to consensus version or 12./15)

04:59, 16 February 2006 PaxTerra (→Comparable references - restore as per 02/15/06 concensus)

Isn't that the third time you have edited this page so that it extends to 1600px? And deleted other comments along the way? I've explained below what is the problem with your formatting, and fixed your idle accusation so you can rest assured anyone who cares can read it. PaxTerra 10:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter 3RR does not apply to editing one's own edits which you were forcing me to do by breaking the list layout for my citations. Netscott

It would seem so. Netscott 09:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

"Yet another false allegation, Netscott. Two of those are duplicate links to one edit. Each of the other four links Netscott cites plainly refer to different edits to various parts of a section, to edits being repaired during a flurry of of conflicting edits, and to maintaining the article consistent with discussion that has developed on this page, for the most part in response to edits by Netscott and MX44 who edit regardless efforts to discuss edits. When is the last substantive edit you have contributed to this article, or any other Netscott? Have you nothing better to contribute? Didn't you express some interest in documenting the comparisons you consider relevant? That would be constructive.

What exactly is it about me, besides apparently my being an intelligent presence who has introduced material you are not otherwise familiar with, that so threatens you, Netscott? Have you fallen into a simple need to win something? I certainly feel entrenched in a motivation to accurately support and defend meaningful, neutral, informative and relevant content I have contributed in a charitable spirit. PaxTerra 09:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I happen to not agree with some of your edits/references along with others it seems. Netscott 10:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Not sure why you are disrespecting me by referring to me by the nickname Scotty (which I absolutely detest)... but such disrespect and saying "some of us over 30 years old" as though I was a kid or something doesn't put you in a very favorable light. Netscott 11:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

AND you might do a little research to find out that I've been contributing to this article on a daily basis since Feb. 6th before you question my contributing! Netscott 11:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I am well aware of your edit history. I am referring to your history in the past few hours. Maybe you've run out of content to add? As to the nick, it's common and probably a typo. When I try to type netscott it comes out as netscape, so I do scott. And yes, those of us over 30 -- i could add some more decades, but Streicher is very much a part of 20th century history and that is why he is so much a part of world discussion on this subject. I think we could do a gallup poll and find younger readers perceive the conflict as free-speach vs. zealotry and they would associate it with recent conflicts involving poop er pop art whereas more older readers view the conflict in terms of events involving racial incitement. Not my opinion, just social science or at least a well informed huerestic take on why different understandings of the conflict are advanced among different social groups. So you are more concerned about my personal opinion of you than you are about the credibility of my very few contributions that I have spent way too much time explaining? PaxTerra 11:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine. But for some of us over 30 years old, Streicher is the benchmark that describes the extent of human responses to speech perceived as some to be extremely provacative. It is part of standard mass communication curricula in academies around the world, which is probably why it is so widely discussed in teh context of the recent contoversy. It doesn't mean I want the cartoonists executed -- it means that people calling for their punishment do so in a context that can be studied. And people have referenced Streicher extensively -- maybe it is people around the world who are discussing it in terms of Streicher you disagree with. I am simply citing facts, which is the purpose of this project.

On the second reference, I don't quite understand why you don't think the most popular response in the Jewish press that compares the Dutch cartoons with Palestenian cartoons they have been aware of for years is not relevant. Are you arguing that facts that expose Jewish perspectives on this matter should be excluded from this article? I have carefully documented that the matter is discussed in such terms in the Jewish press. Or is it just that there wasn't much information in the original Al-Hayat Al-Jadida link? You fixed that by pointing it toward what appears to be a more substantive reference. Or is it that the link to ZOA publication represents a point of view? Isn't that what this article is about -- conflicting viewpoints? I don't hold those views, but I don't understand how an encyclopedic presentation can exclude major documented views pertinent to the matter. PaxTerra 11:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Reason for formatting errors explained

Netscott, when you start a line one space away from the left margin, on many operating system/browser combinations it renders as the loose equivilant of a < `pre /> tag -- causing those lines to extend with no breaks, including to 1600px. Your's isn't the only computer in the world scott. This is a large networked environment. Think about that a while, pleez.

Another note, you inexplicable added the date "2006" to the Rushdy item. We discussed sequence yesterday -- you didn't do your 1/3 of the items as per our discussion so I did them all. Whatever -- it would be better if you could explain to readers what happened in 2006, but I'm not going to mess with it. PaxTerra

Sorry what was that about my 1/3? Notice the time...of that post? You're the only one around here that seems to be spouting off false accusations. Netscott 11:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Tehran reissued the Fatwa this week, or rather stressed that it was never withdrawn MX44 10:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Very good. Guess what. I beleive you. But could you please offer a citation, and update the Verses article. I word searched The Satanic Verses for "2006" and found notta. PaxTerra 10:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

There is an external link at the bottom of our Salman Rushdie article which includes a newspaper report about the confirmation of the fatwa. Or you can go directly here. I have updated the Verses article.-- Avenue 12:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

"The Verses" are so far very healthy and doing quite well, unlike the empty stub you referenced regarding "The Haryat" (which I have kind of fixed now)!

And your point was? MX44 11:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

My request was very clear. Please document your edits. It's not a matter of comaparing, but if that is the case, I documented my edit, and am currently helping to document other's edits. Keyword: helpPaxTerra 11:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Help? Well ... Authoring and editing is not only about drowning the reader in a mess of unrelated information, but also about cutting out the crap! I have repeatedly done so! Now would You? MX44 11:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Collaborative editing is about communicating in increasingly precise language. Scatological generalization fails to rise to that standard. I have carefully documented the reason and context for the fewer than 40 words I have contributed. Something like 40,000 words on talk explaining to you and one other editor who seems to have a problem with those 40 well-compose, well-documented non-controversial words that you have very aggresively opposed. Try to focus on contributing, if only by contributing to our understanding of why you don't appreciate the difference in language and feces. PaxTerra 12:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that sure sounded very impressive MX44

Reason for opposition

User at 209.247.158.52 changed the lead to remove reference to cultural insensitivity and insulting nature of cartoons, saying the opposition was strictly a matter of religious ideals. Maybe for FOX news listeners it is. I suppose we must now document to the contrary. First I offer this survey coming from a Harvard Law forum summarizing discussion observed in the MidEast. "That subject took the world by storm; some for and some very against the depiction of the Prophet of Islam not only in a graphical form, which on its own is regarded by Muslims as blasphemous, but the representation was seen as obscene, callous and culturally insensitive." [27]

Peoples Daily headlined an article "Hamas condemns Danish daily for insulting cartoons".[28]

Zaman Daily Newspaper: Protests in Jakarta over Insulting Cartoons [29]

Gulf Daily News (Bahrain):Insulting cartoons 'are unforgivable' [30]

Turkish Weekly: Insulting Cartoons Crisis [31] etc. etc. etc. PaxTerra 11:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Syrian Arab News Agency, aslo Arabic News: Syria Recalls Ambassador In Copenhagen Over Insulting Cartoons [32][33]

Candian Broadcasting Company: Anti-Danish protests flare in the Middle East over insulting cartoons[34] PaxTerra

Well, I guess I should step up and defend my word choice since I originally added the term culturally insensitive. I'm ok with insulting being in the list, although an "insult" is in the eye of the beholder while describing something as being "culturally insensitive" seems to be less biased. Kyaa the Catlord 13:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You have no reason to defend the word choice. 209.247.158.52's clarification between cultural and religious issues seems off base; in terms of Islamic countries, isn't the religion part of their culture?

Regardless of whether or not it is, the sentence in question deals with the views of the cartoons' opponents, who DO view the cartoon as insulting and culturally insensitive. NPOV is maintained. --Marco Passarani 14:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a picture from a swedish server

A while back I mentioned that they closed down a server showing some muhammed cartoons in Sweden. I think this was the picture shown: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mu_mirror.JPG It is not terribly interesting, but I seem to recall someone here wondering what the picture looked like, and I like the fact that this discussion contains a lot more side-info than the article itself, since it might become relevant later. It is relevant only in as it relates to the note on "govenrnment-induced self-censorship" in swedish media. DanielDemaret 20:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I asked for it, thankyou for digging! I find it interesting that it is so ... how to say, unprovocative? At least compared to what I had expected. As a cartoon it is only funny because their server was shut down because of it. Illustrates the panic there must have been in Sweden, risking to loose the skyrocketing telecom business in Muslim countries. It was apparently mirrored in Finland by Suomen Sisu (Finnish Power) for an hour, or some such ... MX44 02:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Court of law vs. Extrajudicial Sharia?

While the reference to Julius Steicher in this article may be interesting it is not entirely pertinent.

The one citation that is used to justify this linkage is the word of one Islamic extremist. This extremist in citing precedent for justification for the call to kill the cartoonists cites acts that were carried out not by courts of law but primarily individuals[35].

To compare the legal one time publication of 12 cartoons by Jyllands-Posten concerning a religion to the illegal crimes against humanity of 25 years publishing hateful racist propaganda in Der Stürmer that Julius Streicher did inciting Germans to exterminate Jews, truly belittles Streicher's criminal acts. Based upon this logic I have moved all references to the case of Julius Steicher in Legal traditions to this talk area.

In the current controversy, at least one cleric has advocated a view seen as extreme even among many who oppose publication of the images that the cartoonists from Jyllands-Posten should be executed under Islamic law. While killing those responsible for symbolic acts is an extreme response, there is a precedent in 20th Century international jurisprudence of capital punishment for crimes related to publication of literature that incited hatred. [36]

As others have suggested this would tend to fall under Opinions about the topic of this article. Netscott 03:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, Omar Bakri Muhammad is talking about the Extrajudicial killing of the cartoonists. His own site (via google) alghurabaa.co.uk goes so far as to effectively admit this.

• "The Islamic verdict on individual or individuals who insult any Prophet needs to be passed by an Islamic Court and implemented by the Islamic State, rather than individuals carrying out the verdict themselves. However, sadly we find that we live in an era where there is not one country in the world implementing the Shari’ah, rather the 55 Muslim countries in existence today all implement non-Islamic law..."

If we follow this logic of citing an extremist who claims Sharia... then the London protestors who displayed signs saying, "Behead those who insult Islam", "Kill those who insult Islam", "Slay those who insult Islam" (see [37] for photos) should factor in as well into Legal traditions because it could be argued that they were displaying their signs in accordance with Sharia. Netscott 01:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

---

PaxTerra, the Judicial traditions section seemed to make sense. What about tracking down specific death penalty cases regarding free speech and Sharia law? Here is an example of a Sharia court having issued a death sentence by stoning against Amina Lawal for acts of adultery... now if the same thing could be found for a speech issue then the section you have about International jurisprudence could be re-integrated into the front page of this article. What do you think? Netscott 06:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Having read your input on this page, it seems important to remind you, N, that articles here are not based on what "could be argued" but what has been said by others. Items are excluded from these articles when they represent a point of view of an editor here, but they a necessary part of an article about rhetorical topics when they represent represent someone esles point of view See the difference? Would you argue an article on a Constitution would exclude the views of those who wrote that Constitution? Rolano 17:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah not sure why you've changed your name PaxTerra to Rolano (is there something to hide?) but the fatwa angle is good. Have any fatwas comparable to Khomeni's calling for death been called for the Jyllands cartoonists? Netscott 17:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Pakistani bounty - new car anyone ? ;-)

This is from the timeline on December 2:

A Pakistani political party, Jamaat-e-Islami apparently offers a roughly $10,000 reward to anyone who kills one of the cartoonists[3]. It was later discovered that this was a considerable exaggeration, based on a small note in a local newspaper, citing Jamaat-e-Islami as promising a reward up to a million rupees for the deaths of the cartoonist. Jamaat-e-Islami claims to be wrongly cited, having merely suggested that the Pakistani government could promise such a reward. On its way through the Danish ambassador to the Danish media, this fact is blown up as involving multiple papers and flyers with the reward.[10]

From today there is now a new semi-official bounty (described in the Danish newspaper Politiken : :http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=439073). The following is a translation: Mohammed Yousaf Qureshi, an imam in Peshawar, Pakistan offerers a bounty of 1,5 mill rupees and a car to the person who kills one of the Danish cartoonists. The declaration was made in front of 1,000 peopole outside a histoircal mosque in Peshawar. "All islamic imams have unilaterally decided that, he who insults the prophet, shall (DA=skal = will/must/shall) be killed". Sirajul Hag, a minister of the Pakistani government, said, at the same occasion, that the Pakistani government, should demand the cartoonists to be extradited, so that they could be tried at a Pakistani court of law.

Doesn't this warrant entry into the timeline ? Varga Mila 14:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Bounty

The AP is reporting a new twist. Mohammed Yousaf Qureshi of the Mohabat Khan mosque in Pakistan has offered 1.5 million rupees, 1 million dollars and a car to whoever kills a cartoonist. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060217/ap_on_re_mi_ea/prophet_drawings_262. PhatJew 23:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove the image

Anonymous editor, please do not remove the image. See this poll. There was overwhelming support for including it. Unless you have a good reason for removing the image that has not yet been considered, please do not remove it. Doing so will be reverted as vandalism, and you will achieve nothing. Thank you! --Ashenai 14:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

NP, although seeing as I did post this on here, a point in the right direction would've been nice :) -Moocats 15:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This talk page is provided by the wikimedia foundation for discussing the article. If you want a philosophical debate there are plenty of other places on the web to go for that. But here is not the place I'm afraid. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Opinion vs. Law

Opinions are one of the basic instruments of law. Every Supreme Court "decision" is based on an opinion. Opinions in US appeals courts are written by a single judge and signed by a majority, and minority opinions are entered by one or many judges. . Netscott argues that legal opinions he does not prefer should be relegated to a section comparing them to rhetorical opinions. To do so would not be a neutral representation of Sharia as appreciated by certain fundamentalist practitioners as documented in the content Netscott hopes to remove from this page. As I understand Wikipedia, efforts are made to explain matters in terms consistent with the understanding of those involved. Also "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. " Surely, there would be no controversy if Sharia was not a prominant viewpoint, albeit not in Western countries. The viewpoint in so far as it is relevant, no matter how offensive, must be represented in a sympathetic tone.

Assertion of a fact is not to offer an opinion. "It's worth observing that scholars are trained so that, even when trying to prove a point, counter-arguments are included, so that they can explain why the counter-arguments fail." Rolano 17:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

PaxTerra, aside from these arguments , why are you using the sock puppet name of Rolano to contribue now? Netscott 18:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

In debate, most traditions involve presenting evidence and counter arguments relevant to the topic at hand. Rolano 19:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

True, but if the moral standing of a contributor is in question then their edits will be questionable as well. Please answer the following question so that we may proceed to address your arguments. Are you denying that the username Rolano is in fact PaxTerra? Netscott 19:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

PaxTerra, there in nothing inherently wrong about using sock puppets but from an editorial standpoint what benefit does your doing so allow for here? Netscott 19:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Concern about recent additions

I am concerned that Rolano's recent edits have introduced a strong POV into the article. Opinions, please? --Ashenai 18:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

As explained above with references to Wikipedia's fundamental policies, factual representation of points of view is a part of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. Omitting significant viewpoints from an article about viewpoints is where neutrality begins to degrede. Could you respond substantively to what personal viewpoints you allege I am advancing? Or could you explain why widespread views of Sharia as held by Muslims are not relevant to a section that discusses what "believers" have "demanded"? Surely you don't think that I hold these views? Rolano 19:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Ashenai, thank you for bringing this up. While many of the edits that PaxTerra (aka Rolano) does seem good there do seem to be POV issues in some of them. Netscott 19:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was talking about when I told PaxTerra I wasn't sure this shouldn't go in Opinions. I don't think it's a good thing to describe a section entitled 'Legal Traditions' as "a section that discusses what 'believers' have 'demanded'?", but that description certainly fits the current 'Legal Traditions' section in this article. Incidentally, this is the Richard from past discussions, I decided if I was going to keep getting involved in this article I might as well sign up. :) RichardRB 22:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Ashenai, as an editor on equal footing with all of the other editors here what is stopping you from editing that which seems overly POV? Netscott 19:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I could be wrong. Either way, I think it's useful to get at least a rough consensus on contentious issues before engaging in what could easily end up as an edit war. --Ashenai 21:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Racist cartoons depicting American Natives from the 19th Century

Considering the genocide of the Native Americans, these humilating cartoons are pertinent.

"The Nation's Ward" by Grant Hamilton

Shows a native as a snake.

http://www2.truman.edu/parker/research/uncsam.jpg

"The Noble Indian," anonymous"

Shows a native looking for cigar-stumps.

http://www2.truman.edu/parker/research/noble.jpg

86.52.36.140 23:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

If we start including references to every single group that has been depicted with racist/anti-religious images/cartoons then this article will start to lose it's focus. Perhaps you could find similar images directed towards Arabs? Netscott 23:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Mosques banned in Denmark?

I heard a contention on the radio last night that Denmark has refused to allow Muslims to build mosques. Is this true? User:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup> 00:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Why would Denmark even consider that? Sounds stupid to me. James Kendall [talk] 00:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

That is not true. If the Muslims in Denmark want to build a mosque they can just buy some land and build it. The story is that they want the city of Copenhagen or Denmark to build a mosque for free. --Maitch 01:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about that. But I know for sure that the Danish Islamic community is so fractured that a single group so far couldn't muster the money to build one from scratch, with minaretts and all the bells and whistles, and that coalitions of serveral groups that tried to pull this off together, have floundered due to infighting. There are all sorts of mosques in Denmark, usually in rented property, that look quite like small mosques do in Islamic countries. There are only no huge, spectacular mosques of the kind you'd find in Cairo or Mekkah. Azate 02:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The only problem I can think of, with regards to mosques in DK is that the call to prayer might be interpreted as a 'disturbance of the peace' by some people. The mosques present are small and AFAIK fairly representative of the fractured moslem community in DK. If enough moslems want to build a mosque somewhere and can get the local city council to approve of the plans, there are no problems. This is scandinavia, not Saudi Arabia....