The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate

Transcription

Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
!
"#
$
%
%
$
1
%
&
%
! "
#
*
!
'
()* "
' %
&
&
# $%%&
,!&
%'+3 1 # 4
)'$
&0
(
% $
. %
/%
2
5% $
% $
#
&
% $
(
&
+
)'$
&
+$
%
%
%
%
7,!-
'
2
%
%
1
+3 1
&
0
1
. %
"
$
# 4
-6/
/%
7
Volume One Table of Contents
Introduction - page 4
The Wikipedia Articles
Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy - page 5
Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy - page 21
International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy - page 48
The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Archive 1 - page 68
Archive 2a - page 83
Archive 2b - page 105
Archive 3a - page 133
Archive 3b - page 168
Archive 3c - page 208
Archive 4 - page 247
For ease of reading click the View menu and select Full Screen.
3
Introduction
The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate: A War of Ideas is a 2-volume reference work that shows how Wikipedia
(en.wikipedia.org), the world's largest encyclopedia on the Internet, reached the decision to permanently display and
distribute copies of 12 satirical drawings of Muhammad first published by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten.
The main articles, or edited encyclopedia entries, are shown first (and for this publication the cartoons themselves have been
deleted). Then, included here are the full current Wikipedia archives of the discussions about how these articles were written
and edited. Much of this transcript addresses the issue of actually displaying the cartoons within the primary article. Finally,
the official Wikipedia guidelines for editor discussions are reprinted here.
I submit that this transcript is valuable in revealing exactly how a war of ideas is waged. Wikipedia uses an online
collaboration technology that allows its articles to be freely edited by any Wikipedia user. As the primary article about the
Muhammad cartoons evolved, there also arose behind the scenes a fierce debate over whether or not the cartoons themselves
should be included and how they should be displayed.
The transcript of the debate captures not only the ideas expressed by the many contributors and readers, but also the tenor of
the debate, the pleas, the acts of vandalism, the argumentative styles, strategies, tactics and gambits. In other words, the
transcript reveals how some contributors won the debate, how the others lost, and how each side treated the other.
This transcript reveals the mechanics of the clash of civilizations.
Please note that every Wikipedia article is a "living document" that may be further edited in the future. This publication is a
"snapshot" of only today's Wikipedia archive, and is subject to revision at any time, particularly as the Muhammad cartoons
controversy unfolds worldwide.
John Simmons
Iraq Museum International
www.BaghdadMuseum.org
February 10, 2006
4
Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
5
&
%
1
"
3
.(
&
%
.
%
.
$
,
"
%
/
1
!
'$
-
!
%
(!
$
(
%
+
$
The Face of Muhammed - The
controversial cartoons of Muhammad,
first published in Jyllands-Posten in
September 2005. Larger versions of
the image are available off-site.
The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy began after twelve editorial cartoons depicting the Islamic prophet
5
Muhammad were published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten on September 30, 2005. Danish Muslim organizations
organised protests. As the controversy has grown, some or all of the cartoons have been reprinted in newspapers in more than
30 other countries, which eventually led to significant unrest around the world, particularly in Islamic countries where the
cartoons were seen as culturally insensitive.
The drawings, including a depiction of Muhammad with a bomb inside or under his turban, were accompanied by an article
on self-censorship and freedom of speech. Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, commissioned twelve
cartoonists for the project and published the cartoons to highlight the difficulty experienced by Danish writer Kåre Bluitgen in
finding artists to illustrate his children's book about Muhammad. Artists previously approached by Bluitgen were reportedly
unwilling to work with him for fear of violent attacks by extremist Muslims.
Several death threats have been made against those responsible for the cartoons, reportedly resulting in the cartoonists going
into hiding. Reaction from the international community was also swift; the foreign ministries of eleven Islamic countries
demanded action from the Danish government, and Libya eventually closed its embassy in Denmark in protest after the
government refused to censure the newspaper or apologise. The Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said, "The
government refuses to apologize because the government does not control the media or a newspaper outlet; that would be in
violation of the freedom of speech".
A large consumer boycott was organised in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other Middle East countries. The foreign ministers of
seventeen Islamic countries renewed calls for the Danish government to punish those responsible for the cartoons, and to
ensure that such cartoons are not published again. The Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Arab League have
demanded that the United Nations impose international sanctions upon Denmark.[1] Numerous protests against the cartoons
have taken place, some of them violent. On 4 February, the buildings containing the Danish and Norwegian embassies in
Syria were set ablaze, although no one was hurt. In Beirut the Danish General Consulate was set on fire,[2] resulting in the
death of one protestor inside the complex.[3] Deaths have also been reported in riots in Afghanistan.[4]
Wikinews has news relating to this article:
Jyllands-Posten reconsiders printing holocaust denial cartoons
Hamshari newspaper plans cartoon response
French satirical weekly reprints caricatures
6
Danish mission in Beirut set ablaze
Danish and Austrian embassies in Tehran attacked
New Zealand newspapers publish "Mohammad Cartoons"
Danish and Norwegian embassies set on fire
Manipulation alleged in the "Mohammad Cartoons" affair
Tensions continue to rise in Middle East over "Mohammad Cartoons"
Fatah assaults European Union office
Saudis boycott Danish dairy produce
Norway-led peacekeeper base attacked in Afghanistan
#
.
*
%
8* %
9
:.
6 $
;
%
&+%
$
&
1
+*
&
+*
$
$ $
%
83
& %
8 .
8
9 =$
:3
$
;6 &
> 4
<
%
%
%
%
'
> =&& %
%
$
>
%1
>8!
>9
> : 5%
%
>
4
0
$
%
7
>;6 %
%
Timeline
Main article: Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons
controversy
.
.
.
Debate about self-censorship
/
/
!
!
#
%
On September 17, 2005, the Danish newspaper Politiken ran an article under the
headline "Dyb angst for kritik af islam"[5] ("Profound fear of criticism of Islam").
The article discussed the difficulty encountered by the writer Kåre Bluitgen, who was
initially unable to find an illustrator who was prepared to work with Bluitgen on his
children's book Koranen og profeten Muhammeds liv ("The Qur'an and the prophet
Muhammad's life"). Three artists declined Bluitgen's proposal before an artist agreed
to assist anonymously. According to Bluitgen:
=$
!
5
0
$ $
!
$
6
%
/ (/
.
'
+*
%
One [artist declined], with reference to the murder in Amsterdam of the film
director Theo van Gogh, while another [declined, citing the attack on] the lecturer at the Carsten Niebuhr Institute in
Copenhagen[5].
In October 2004, a lecturer at the Niebuhr institute at the University of Copenhagen was assaulted by five assailants who
opposed the lecturer's reading of the Qur'an to non-Muslims during a lecture[6].
The refusal of the first three artists to participate was seen as evidence of self-censorship and led to much debate in Denmark,
with other examples for similar reasons soon emerging. The comedian Frank Hvam declared that he did not dare satirise the
Qur'an on television, while the translators of an essay collection critical of Islam also wished to remain anonymous due to
concerns about violent reaction.
Publication of the drawings
8
On September 30, 2005, the daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten ("The Jutland Post") published an article titled "Muhammeds
ansigt"[7] ("The face of Muhammad"). The article consisted of 12 cartoons (of which only some depicted Muhammad) and an
explanatory text, in which Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten's culture editor, commented:
The modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand a special position, insisting on special
consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech,
where you must be ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule. It is certainly not always attractive and nice to
look at, and it does not mean that religious feelings should be made fun of at any price, but that is of minor importance
in the present context. [...] we are on our way to a slippery slope where no-one can tell how the self-censorship will
end. That is why Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten has invited members of the Danish editorial cartoonists union to draw
Muhammad as they see him. [...] [8]
After an invitation from Jyllands-Posten to around forty different artists to give their interpretation on how Muhammad may
have looked, twelve caricaturists chose to respond with a drawing each. Some of these twelve drawings portray Muhammad
in different fashions; many also comment on the surrounding self-censorship debate. In the clockwise direction of their
position in the page layout:
The Islamic star and crescent partially symbolizing the face of Muhammad; his right eye is the star, the crescent
surrounds his beard and face.
Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, with a lit fuse and the Islamic creed written on the bomb. This drawing is
considered the most controversial of the twelve.
Muhammad standing in a gentle pose with a halo in the shape of a crescent moon. The middle part of the crescent is
obscured, revealing only the edges which resemble horns.
An abstract drawing of crescent moons and Stars of David, and a poem on oppression of women "Profet! Med kuk og
knald i låget som holder kvinder under åget!". In English the poem could be read as: "Prophet, you crazy bloke!
Keeping women under yoke"
Muhammad as a simple wanderer, in the desert, at sunset. There is a donkey in the background.
A nervous caricaturist, shakily drawing Muhammad while looking over his shoulder.
Two angry Muslims charge forward with sabres and bombs, while Muhammad addresses them with: "Rolig, venner,
når alt kommer til alt er det jo bare en tegning lavet af en vantro sønderjyde" (loosely, "Relax guys, it's just a drawing
made by some infidel South Jutlander", connoting a harmless local from the middle of nowhere).
An Arab-looking boy in front of a blackboard, pointing to the Farsi chalkings, which translate into "The editorial team
of Jyllands-Posten is a bunch of reactionary provocateurs". The boy is labelled "Mohammed, Valby school, 7.A",
9
implying that this is a second-generation immigrant to Denmark rather than the founder of Islam. On his shirt is written
"Fremtiden" (the future).
Another drawing shows Muhammad prepared for battle, with a short sabre in one hand and a black bar censoring his
eyes. He is flanked by two women in niqaabs, having only their wide open eyes visible.
Muhammad standing on a cloud, greeting dead suicide bombers with "Stop Stop vi er løbet tør for Jomfruer!" ("Stop,
stop, we have run out of virgins!"), an allusion to the promised reward to martyrs.
Another shows journalist Kåre Bluitgen, wearing a turban with the proverbial orange dropping into it, with the
inscription "Publicity stunt". In his hand is a child's stick drawing of Muhammad. The proverb "an orange in the
turban" is a Danish expression meaning "a stroke of luck": here, the added publicity for the book.
And in the centre:
A police line-up of seven people wearing turbans, with the witness saying: "Hm... jeg kan ikke lige genkende ham"
("Hm... I can't really recognise him"). Not all people in the line-up are immediately identifiable. They are: (1) A generic
Hippie, (2) politician Pia Kjærsgaard, (3) possibly Jesus, (4) possibly Buddha, (5) possibly Muhammad, (6) generic
Indian Guru, and (7) journalist Kåre Bluitgen, carrying a sign saying: "Kåres PR, ring og få et tilbud" ("Kåre's public
relations, call and get an offer").
Police investigation of Jyllands-Posten
A number of Muslim organizations submitted complaints to the Danish police claiming that Jyllands-Posten had committed
an offence under section 140 and 266b of the Danish Criminal Code. [9]
Section 140 of the Criminal Code prohibits any person from publicly ridiculing or insulting the dogmas of worship of any
lawfully existing religious community in Denmark. Section 266b criminalises the dissemination of statements or other
information by which a group of people are threatened, insulted or degraded on account of their religion. Danish police began
their investigation of these complaints on 27 October 2005. [9]
On 6 January 2006, the Regional Public Prosecutor in Viborg discontinued the investigation as he found no basis for
concluding that the cartoons constituted a criminal offence. He stated that, in assessing what constitutes an offence, the right
to freedom of speech must be taken into consideration. That while the right to freedom of speech must be exercised with the
necessary respect for other human rights, including the right to protection against discrimination, insult and degradation, no
10
apparent violation of the law had occurred. [9]
Jyllands-Posten response
Jyllands-Posten published two open letters on its website, both in Danish and Arabic versions, and the second letter also in an
English version.[10][11] The second letter was dated 30 January, and includes the following explanation and apology:
In our opinion, the 12 drawings were sober. They were not intended to be offensive, nor were they at variance with
Danish law, but they have indisputably offended many Muslims for which we apologize.
Danish Imams tour the Middle East
Further information: Dossier of Danish imams touring the Middle East
Unsatisfied with the reaction of the Danish Government and Jyllands-Posten and feeling provoked additionally in particular
by a televised interview with Dutch member of parliament and Islam critic Hirsi Ali, who was received by Danish Prime
Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, and by the situation of Muslims in Denmark in general, which they perceived as racist and
condescending, a group of Danish imams from several organisations set out for a tour of the Middle East to present their case
and ask for support.[12]
Pig-face - This picture of
a French pig-squealing
contestant was incorrectly
identified by the BBC as
one of the Jyllands-Posten
11
cartoons.
For this purpose a 43-page dossier was created.[13]. It consists of several letters from Muslim organisations explaining their
case, multiple clippings from Jyllands-Posten, multiple clippings from Weekend Avisen[14], and some additional images that,
according to the dossier's authors, have been sent to Muslims in Denmark, and were indicative of the rejection of Muslims by
the Danish[15]. Some claim that the group of imams misrepresented their origin[16]. On February 1 BBC World incorrectly
claimed that one of the additional images had been published in Jyllands-Posten. [17] This image was later found to be a
completely unrelated wire-service photo of a contestant at a French pig-squealing contest.[18] The other two additional
images portrayed Muhammad being mounted by a dog while praying and as a demonic pedophile.
Among the leadership of the group were Imam Ahmad Abu Laban of the Islamisk Trossamfund and Akhmad Akkari,
spokesman of the Danish-based European Committee for Prophet Honouring.[19] Danish Sheik Rais Huleyhel was named
head of the delegation and signed the petition letters. 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 and 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.[20]
Reprinting in other newspapers
Further information: List of newspapers that reprinted Jyllands-Posten's Muhammad cartoons
12
El Fagr's Headline Page
for Oct. 17, 2005 - One of
the controversial cartoons
of Muhammad, as it
appeared on the first page
of the Egyptian Newspaper
El Fagr.
In 2005, the Muhammad cartoons controversy received only minor media attention outside of Denmark. Six of the cartoons
were reprinted in the Egyptian newspaper El Fagr in October 2005[21][22] [23] along with a highly-critical article, but
publication wasn't considered noteworthy until December when the O.I.C. took a stance against it, based on the 43-page
dossier. January 2006 saw some of the pictures reprinted in Scandinavia, then in major newspapers of Denmark's southern
neighbors Germany, Belgium and France. Very soon after, as protests grew, there were re-publications around the globe, but
mostly in continental Europe.
Notable by their absence were re-publications from major newspapers in the USA[24] and the United Kingdom[25], where
editorials covered the story, but almost unanimously took a stance against re-publication of the Mohammad cartoons.
Several editors were fired for their decision, or even their intention[26],to re-publish the cartoons (most prominently the
managing director of France Soir, Jacques Lefranc), some were stopped by publishers[27][28] or courts[29].
Three of the cartoons were reprinted in the Jordanian weekly newspaper al-Shihan[30]. The editor, Momani, was fired, and
the publisher withdrew the newspaper from circulation. Momani issued a public apology, was arrested and charged with
insulting religion.[31] Several of the cartoons were reprinted in the Jordanian newspaper al-Mehwar. The editor Hisham
Khalidi was also arrested and charged with insulting religion. Both charges were dropped two days later.[32]
Al-Hurreya newspaper in Yemen was closed down after publishing some images. Owner/Editor Abdul-Karim Sabra was
13
arrested. [33]
In Malaysia, Lester Melanyi, an editor of the Sarawak Tribune resigned from his post for allowing the reprinting of a cartoon.
The chief editor was summoned to the Internal Security Ministry.[34]
Boycotts
Starting on 26 January 2006, organized boycotts of Danish goods began in several Islamic countries. Some commentators
predicted the loss of thousands of jobs in Denmark, and Denmark-based Arla Foods is reporting losses in the millions of
Euro.
International reactions
"To our dear customers: As a
result of mockery towards The
Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him),
Al Tamimi Markets announces
its boycott of all kinds of
Danish Products"
Main article: International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
What started with the problem of a Danish author trying to find an illustrator for his forthcoming book about Islam has
become an international crisis. It has led to violence, arrests, international tensions, and a renewed debate about the scope of
14
free speech and the place of Muslims in the West, and the West in Muslim countries. Many governments, organizations and
individuals worldwide have issued statements, trying to define their stance.
Conflicting traditions
Danish journalistic tradition
Freedom of speech in Denmark was obtained in a new constitution with democracy in 1849 and parliamentarism in 1901
together with other liberties, including freedom of religion. These freedoms have been defended vigorously ever since.
Freedom of speech was abandoned temporarily only during the German occupation of Denmark during World War II.
Section 77 of the Constitutional Act of Denmark (1953) reads: “Any person shall be at liberty to publish his ideas in print, in
writing, and in speech, subject to his being held responsible in a court of law. Censorship and other preventive measures shall
never again be introduced.”[35]
Under international law, freedom of expression in Denmark is also protected by among others the European Convention on
Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Section 140 of the Danish Penal Code prohibits blasphemy. However, this law has not been enforced since 1938.[36] Section
266b of the Danish Penal Code prohibits expressions that threaten, deride or degrade on the grounds of race, colour, national
or ethnic origin, belief or sexual orientation. The Danish public prosecutor determined that the Muhammad cartoons did not
constitute blasphemy under Danish law.[9]
Jesus and other religious figures are often portrayed in Denmark in ways that many other societies would consider illegal
blasphemy. In 1984 the artist Jens Jørgen Thorsen was commissioned by a local art club to paint the wall of a railway station.
The work displayed a naked Jesus with an erect penis.[37] In 1992 Thorsen directed the film Jesus vender tilbage which
showed Jesus as sexually active and involved with a terrorist group.[38][39] While Thorsen’s work provoked much public
debate and his painting was removed from the public building, he was not charged with any legal offence.
Danish newspapers are privately owned and independent from the government. There are no restrictions on the political
viewpoints that may be published. There are frequent caricatures of priests and politicians as well as of Queen Margrethe
15
II.[40]
Although the Danish press is free to satirise, a 2004 report by the European Network Against Racism concluded that a
disproportionate amount of editorial space is devoted to negative reporting on ethnic minorities. [41]
Islamic tradition
Main article: Aniconism
The Qur'an, Islam's holiest book, condemns idolatry, but has no direct condemnations of pictorial art. Direct prohibitions of
pictorial art, or any depiction of sacred figures, are found in some hadith, or recorded oral traditions.
Views regarding pictorial representation within several religious communities (i.e. Jews, Christians and Muslims) have varied
from group to group, and from time to time. Among Muslims, the Shi'a Muslims have been generally tolerant of pictorial
representation of human figures, Sunni Muslims less so. However, the Sunni Ottomans, the last dynasty to claim the
caliphate, were not only tolerant but even patrons of the miniaturists' art. Many Ottoman miniatures depict Muhammad; they
usually show Muhammad's face covered with a veil or as a featureless void emanating light (depicted as flames). Pictorial
surveys of Muhammad can be found on the internet.[42][43][44] Note that the last site also contains some modern depictions,
offensive to some, of Muhammad.
Most contemporary Muslims believe that ordinary portraits and photos, films and illustrations, are permissible. Only some
Salafi and Islamist interpretations of Sunni Islam still condemn pictorial representations of any kind. Offensive satirical
pictures are a somewhat different case — disrespect to Islam or to Muhammad is still widely considered blasphemous or
sacrilegious.
According to the BBC "It is the satirical intent of the cartoonists, and the association of the Prophet with terrorism, that is so
offensive to the vast majority of Muslims."[45]
Opinions
Main article: Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
16
Comparable incidents
Main article: Freedom of speech versus blasphemy
Throughout history, believers from a multitude of faiths have called for boycott, arrest, censorship or even murder of critics,
artists and commentators whose works they considered blasphemous. Some of these have been jailed, censored or killed,
others walked free.
These incidents have seen frequent mention in connection with the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy:
Ecce Homo (exhibition)
Snow White and The Madness of Truth (installation)
Submission (short film)
Piss Christ (photo)
The Satanic Verses (novel)
The Last Temptation of Christ (film)
The life of Jesus (book)
The Virgin Mary (painting)
Jerry Springer - The Opera (play, then a television programme)
Life of Brian (film)
Great Lawgivers (frieze in U.S. supreme court building)
See also
Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
Censorship by organized religion
Controversial newspaper caricatures
Freedom of the press
Freedom of speech and freedom of the press in Denmark
Islam in Denmark
List of newspapers that reprinted Jyllands-Posten's Muhammad cartoons
17
Separation of church and state
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
^ “Muslims seek UN resolution over Danish prophet cartoons,” AFP, 2006-01-29.
^ “Protesters burn consulate over cartoons,” CNN, 2006-02-05.
^ “Protestors killed as global furor over cartoons escalates,” Middle East Times, 2006-02-06.
^ “Muslim cartoon fury claims lives,” BBC, 2006-02-06.
^ a b (da)“Dyb angst for kritik af islam,” Politiken, 2005-09-17.
^ (da)“Overfaldet efter Koran-læsning,” TV 2 (Denmark), 2004-10-09.
^ (da)Rose, Flemming: “Muhammeds ansigt”, Jyllands-Posten, 2005-09-30.
^ (da)“Jyllands-Posten: Ytringsfrihed: Mohammes ansigt,” AvisNET, 2005-10-30.
9. ^ a b c d “Official Response by the Danish Government to the UN Special Rapporteurs,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark,
2006-01-24.
10. ^ (ar)Jyllands-Posten's letter in Arabic
11. ^ Jyllands-Posten's letter in English
12. ^ (en)Alienated Danish Muslims Sought Help from Arabs
13. ^ (da)Viste pædofil Muhamed
14. ^ (da)Trossamfund angriber Muhammed-satire i Weekendavisen
15. ^ A clash of rights and responsibilities, BBC
16. ^ (da)Viste pædofil Muhamed and “Scandinavian Update: Israeli Boycott, Muslim Cartoons,” The Brussels Journal, 2006-01-14.
17. ^ (da)“Imam viste falske billeder,” Jyllands-Posten, 2006-01-30.
18. ^ Neandernews: Danish Imams Busted!A clash of rights and responsibilities, BBC
19. ^ (en)“Danish paper rejected Jesus Cartoons,” Guardian, 2006-02-06.
20. ^ (en)“At Mecca Meeting, Cartoon Outrage Crystallized,” New York Times, 2006-02-09.
21. ^ “First Newsbreaker,” egyptiansandmonkey, 2005-02-09.
22. ^ “No Danish Treatment for an Egyptian Newspaper,” FreedomForEgyptians Inquirer, 2006-02-08.
23. ^ “Frontpage of El Fagr,” El Fagr, 2005-10-17.
24. ^ “A media dilemma: The rest of a story,” Philadelphia Inquirer, 2006-02-04.
25. ^ “US, British media tread carefully in cartoon furor,” Christian Science Monitor, 2006-02-06.
26. ^ “Paper withdrawn over cartoon row,” BBC News, 2006-02-07.
27. ^ “NY Press Kills Cartoons; Staff Walks Out,” The New York Observer, 2006-02-07.
28. ^ “P.E.I. student paper publishes cartoons of Prophet,” CBC, 2006-02-08.
29. ^ “Muslim anger hits SA,” Sunday Tribune (South Africa), 2006-02-05.
18
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
^ a “Gunmen shut EU Gaza office over cartoons,” CNN, 2006-02-03.
^ “Embassies burn in cartoon protest,” BBC News, 2006-02-04.
^ (de)“Brennende Botschaften und Antisemitismus,” Spiegel, 2006-02-05.
^ “Newspaper shut for printing cartoons,” The Australian, 2006-02-07.
^ “Sarawak paper prints Prophet cartoon, editor quits,” The Sun (Malaysia), 2006-04-06.
^ The Danish constitution
^ The International Centre for the Legal Protection of Human Rights - Written Comments
^ Painting by Jens Jørgen Thorsen
^ Danish movie Jesus vender tilbage
^ Jesus vender tilbage plot description in the New York Times
^ Making fun of Queen Margrethe II
^ ENAR Shadow Report 2004 Denmark
^ http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hi/hi_fimu.htm
^ http://www.superluminal.com/cookbook/index_flat_gallery.html#
^ http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive
^ Abdelhadi, Magdi, "Cartoon row highlights deep divisions", BBC, 4 February 2006.
External links
(da) The official home-page of Jyllands-Posten
The page of Jylland-Posten that contains Muhammad cartoons
Danish reaction to Jyllands-Posten
Additional site listing the 12 offensive cartoons
Official correspondence
The letter to the Prime Minister from the Muslim ambassadors (PDF)
First open letter in Arabic to the Muslims of Saudi Arabia from Jyllands-Posten (PDF)
Second open letter to the Muslims of Saudi Arabia from Jyllands-Posten
In Arabic (PDF)
In English
The EU Commission's vice-chairman, Franco Frattini (on this issue)
19
Islamic views
IUMS Statement on Publishing Anti-Prophet Cartoons
Danish cartoons and sacred imagery
News sites
BBC News article: Q&A: Depicting the Prophet Muhammad
The Guardian--its articles, indexed by country
Danish radio broadcasts in English from B&NNS
Copenhagen Post--Danish Weekly in English
Jyllands-Posten--related items in English
World press review by BBC Monitoring
Protests over images
Viewpoints: Cartoon row BBC News, 3 February 2006
At Mecca Meeting, Cartoon Outrage Crystallized - From the New York Times
Images
All the Mohammed drawings in full size
Jihad Against Danish Newspaper - We are all Danes now
Mohammed Image Archive
Mirror site: info2us.dk Mirror site
Enlargeable images link
Additional cartoons accompanying the original Jyllands-Posten set
Picture series - burning of the Danish embassy in Syria
Caricatures of Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, published by the Danish newspaper Information
Caricature of Culture Clash with all 12 of the Jyllands-Posten images, published on Annoy.com
Arab cartoons from the past few years showing anti-semitism images in Arab newspapers
Archive of user-submitted Mohammed drawings
Academic analysis
20
Complexity and Social Networks Blog at Harvard University discusses and applies various social network theories to
the recent event.
Mixed Viewpoints
A letter from Another Denmark
forsoningnu.dk – Stop the escalating conflict!
rezgar.com – It is enough now!
BBC Viewpoints – Discussion about the cartoon row
The limits to free speech – Economist.com - An article supporting free speech
Reconciliation
SorryNorwayDenmark - A Website to Mend the Wounds
Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
.(
&
.
%
.
$
/
1
+
$
This is the timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. The
cartoons were first published by Jyllands-Posten in late September 2005;
approximately two weeks later, nearly 3,500 people demonstrated peacefully in
Copenhagen. In November, several European newspapers re-published the images,
triggering more protests. Labour strikes began in Pakistan the following month, and
several organizations criticized the Danish government. More protests occurred in
January 2006, and later that month a boycott of Danish goods began. Several
countries withdrew their ambassadors to Denmark, and widespread protests, some of
them violent, began. The protests continued in February. In Damascus, Syria, both
21
.
.
.
/
/
!
!
(
%
=$
!
5
0
!
$ $
$
6
/ (/
%
the Norwegian embassy and a building containing the Danish, Swedish, and Chilean
embassies were stormed and set afire by protesters. The Danish General Consulate in
Beirut was burned down by more than 10,000 protesters. Main Sources: [1][2]
:
$
=%
8! 1
9. %
8
9
:
86 &
;
>
?
8
8
8
9
:
8
9
:
;
>
?
;
>
?
%
2005
September
22
.
'
+*
%
September:
Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, commissioned twelve cartoonists to draw cartoons in
response to the difficulty that Danish writer Kåre Bluitgen had finding artists to illustrate his children's book
about Muhammad, because the artists feared violent attacks by extremist Muslims.
September 30:
The cartoons of Islamic prophet Muhammad are printed in the Danish daily newspaper, Jyllands-Posten.
October
El Fagr's Headline Page
for Oct. 17, 2005 - One of
the controversial cartoons
of Muhammad, as it
appeared on the first page
of the Egyptian Newspaper
El Fagr.
October 9:
23
The Islamic Society in Denmark demands that Jyllands-Posten apologise to all Muslims and withdraw the
cartoons.
October 14:
3,500 people stage a peaceful demonstration outside the Copenhagen office of Jyllands-Posten.
Two of the cartoonists are advised to go into hiding after receiving death threats[2].
October 17:
Egyptian Newspaper El Fagr publishes six of the cartoons during Ramadan with no apparent adverse
reaction.[3][4]
October 19:
Eleven ambassadors request a meeting with the Prime Minister of Denmark, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, and want
him to distance himself from the cartoons in Jyllands-Posten as well as various other allegedly derogatory
comments about Islam in the Danish media. The Prime Minister refused to meet the ambassadors, on the grounds
that he cannot infringe on the freedom of the press.
October 28:
Danish police are notified by a number of Muslim organizations, claiming that the intention of the publication of
the cartoons has been to "mock and deride" the Muslim faith, something the Danish penal code prohibits (§ 140).
November
November through December: A delegation of Imams from the Islamic Society in Denmark travel to the Middle East in
order to bring attention to the cartoons. They present a 43 page Dossier to influential political and religious leaders.
In November, another Danish newspaper, WeekendAvisen, published an additional ten satirical cartoons of
Muhammad.[5]
November 3:
The German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung publishes one of the cartoons.citation needed
November 7:
The Bangladeshi government issues a diplomatic protest to the Danish government following the initial
publication of the cartoons.[6]
November 24:
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief and Special Rapporteur on contemporary
forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance request the Permanent Danish Mission
24
to the UN to deliver their observations of the case [7]
December
December 2:
A Pakistani political party, Jamaat-e-Islami apparently offers a roughly $10,000 reward to anyone who kills one
of the cartoonists[2]. 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.[8]
December 7:
Labour strikes begin in Pakistan in response to the cartoons.
Louise Arbour, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has expressed concern over the cartoons and said
that United Nations is investigating racism of the Danish cartoonists.[9]
December 19:
Twenty-two former Danish ambassadors criticise the Prime Minister of Denmark for not meeting with the eleven
ambassadors in October.
The Council of Europe criticises the Danish government for invoking the "freedom of the press" in its refusal to
take action against the "insulting" cartoons. [10]
December 29:
The Arab League criticises the Danish government for not acting in the matter.
2006
January
January 1:
The Prime Minister of Denmark makes his yearly New Year's speech, emphasising that religion and freedom of
speech are equally respected in Denmark.
25
January 6:
The Regional Public Prosecutor in Viborg decided to discontinue the investigation of whether Jyllandsposten had
committed an offence under section 140 (publicly ridiculing or insulting dogmas of worship of any lawfully
existing religious community in Denmark) and 266b (dissemination of statements or other information by which
a group of people are threatened, insulted or degraded on account of e.g. their religion) of the Danish Criminal
Code because there was not a reasonable suspicion that a criminal offence indictable by the state had been
committed and "the right to freedom of speech must be exercised". The original claim was filed on October 27,
2005. [1]
January 7:
Two pictures are printed in the Swedish newspaper Expressen and its sister editions Kvällsposten and GT.
10 January - Magazinet
republishes all 12 cartoons
January 10:
The Norwegian Christian newspaper Magazinet publishes all 12 of the cartoons.
January 22:
The Brussels Journal publishes the cartoons.
January 23:
The Danish government delivers its official response to the UN Special Rapporteurs' request of 24 November
2005. [11]
January 24:
The government of Saudi Arabia issues its first public condemnation of the cartoons. [2]
January 26
26
Message on a Saudi
grocery store. The text
reads: Dear customers, in
response to the insults
towards the Prophet (Peace
be upon Him), the
supermarket of Al Tamini
boycotts all Danish
products.
The people of Saudi Arabia begin boycotting Danish products.
Saudi Arabia recalls its ambassador from Denmark.
The Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs sent a letter to their ambassadors in the Middle East stating that one of the
pillars of Norwegian society is freedom of speech, but they expressed regret that Magazinet did not respect Muslims'
beliefs.[12]
January 27
Boycott begins in Kuwait
January 28
A Danish ambassador in Saudi Arabia is interviewed by the American Associated Press Television News (AP-TV)
where he criticises Jyllands-Posten's lack of judgement and knowledge of Islam, even though the Danish government
has not spoken on the matter.
The Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) states that the Danish government should immediately have
27
condemned the cartoons.
January 29
Libya closes its embassy in Denmark.
The Danish government announces that Denmark's ambassador to Saudi Arabia only expressed his own opinion in the
28 January interview with AP-TV. The Danish People's Party, Dansk Folkeparti, demands he be reprimanded.
The Danish ambassador in Jordan is summoned for a hearing.
The President of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai calls the printing of the cartoons a mistake, and hopes that this will lead to
the media being more responsible and respectful in the future.
The Flag of Denmark is burned in the West Bank cities of Nablus and Hebron.
Yemen's Assembly of Representatives (Majlis al-Nuwaab) condemns the cartoons.
The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) heads to the UN with a resolution that forbids attacks on religious
beliefs.
Bahrain condemns the cartoons.
Syria also condemns the cartoons.
A new denial-of-service attack on Jyllands-Posten's homepage. The first happened on January 27.
Ekstra Bladet reveals that a Danish Muslim association spreading the story in the Middle East, has claimed that it
represents 200,000 Danish Muslims. Its actual membership number is around 15,000. [13]
Palestinian Islamic Jihad Movement gives Danes, Norwegians, and Swedes 48 hours to leave the Gaza Strip.
Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades gives Danes and Swedes 72 hours to leave the area.
A poll from Epinion for Danmarks Radio, the national broadcasting company of Denmark, showed that of 579 Danes
asked, 79% believe that the Prime Minister of Denmark should not apologise to the Muslims, with 48% citing that
would be political interference with the freedom of press, while 44% thought the Prime Minister should try harder to
resolve the controversy. 62% of those asked believed that Jyllands-Posten shouldn't apologise either, and while 58%
did feel that while it was the right of Jyllands-Posten to publish the cartoons, they could understand the Muslim
criticism.[14]
Boycott of Danish goods begins in Qatar
January 30
Jyllands-Posten sends out an apology in both Danish and Arabic. Apologising, not for the printing of the cartoons, but
28
for hurting the feelings of Islamic society (Look below for English translation of the apology).
Armed Palestinians from Fatah take over an EU office as a protest against the cartoons. [15]
Former US President Bill Clinton cites historic anti-Semitism and condemns the publishing of the cartoons. [16]
The Prime Minister of Denmark says that he personally distances himself from the cartoons, but reiterates that the
government cannot intervene in what the media writes. [17]
The European Union backs Denmark, saying that any retaliatory boycott of Danish goods would violate world trade
rules. [18]
The Danish Red Cross says that it will evacuate some workers in Yemen and the Gaza Strip after receiving threats. [19]
Jyllands-Posten sends out a second open letter, this time both in Arabic, Danish, and English, trying to clear up several
misunderstandings, and once again apologising for hurting the feelings of the Islamic society.
A Iraqi militant islamic organisation, the Mujahideen Army, calls for terror strikes against Danish and Norwegian
targets. [20]
Armed gunmen from Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades storm the European Union's office in Gaza and threaten to kidnap the
workers unless they receive an official appology for the cartoons from the EU.
January 31
Following a live televised interview on Al-Jazeera, it is reported [21] that the "apology for any offence caused" made at
the opening of the interview by Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten's cultural editor, was not translated into Arabic.
The Danish Muslim Association is satisfied with yesterday's apologies from Jyllands-Posten and the Prime Minister,
and say they now will help improve the situation. They claim to be deeply sorry and surprised the case got this far.
[22][23]
A bomb threat against Jyllands-Posten leads to evacuation of two offices in Aarhus and Copenhagen.[24]
Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades denies that the threat against Scandinavians is real.[25]
The foreign ministers of seventeen Islamic nations renew demands for the Danish government to punish the authors of
the cartoons and to "ensure that it doesn't happen again." [26]
29
Anders Fogh
Rasmussen
The Prime Minister of Denmark, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, holds a press conference in both Danish and English in
which he repeats that he urges Danes not to take any action that could worsen the situation. He urges Muslims in
Denmark to take actions that can improve the situation. He also repeats that freedom of expression is a vital part of the
Danish society and that the Danish government is not in a position to have any influence on what the press is printing.
He states that he wants to come back to a situation of dialogue, based on the friendship that has existed for a long time
between Denmark and the Muslim world.[27] The prime minister is asked by the TV broadcaster Al Jazeera to appear
in a program, but has not yet decided whether he will accept.
The National Assembly of Bahrain demands an apology from Denmark's head of state, Queen Margrethe II, as well as
from the government. If the demands are not met, they will urge an official boycott of Danish goods and the cutting off
of oil exports of 159,000 barrels per day, in association with other GCC members. [28]
Hamas leader Adnan Asfour demands that Denmark punish the twelve artists and Jyllands-Posten.[29]
Former US President Bill Clinton states that he fears anti-Semitism will be replaced with anti-Islamic prejudice and
condemns "these totally outrageous cartoons against Islam".[30]
Russian president Vladimir Putin indicates in a speech in the Kremlin that the Danish political authorities are using the
theme of freedom of expression to protect those who have insulted the Muslims.
The Icelandic newspaper DV publishes six of the twelve cartoons.
The German newspaper Die Tageszeitung publishes two of the cartoons.
February
February 1
The French newspaper France Soir publishes the cartoons, adding one of their own. Managing director Jacques Lefranc
30
is fired later the same day by owner Raymond Lakah, a French-Egyptian binational and Roman Catholic (the chief
editor, Serge Faubert, is not fired)[31]. The French Government dissociates itself from the initiative[32].
The German newspaper Die Welt publishes some of the cartoons[33], as do the German newspapers Tagesspiegel and
Berliner Zeitung.
The Italian newspaper La Stampa publishes the cartoons.
The Spanish newspaper El Periódico de Catalunya publishes the cartoons.
The Dutch papers Volkskrant, NRC Handelsblad, and Elsevier publish the cartoons.
The cartoon is uploaded to wikipedia
The Danish embassy in Syria is evacuated because of a hoax bomb threat. [34]
Syria recalls its ambassador from Denmark. [1]
The Finnish Minister of Foreign Affairs criticises the Danish government for its slow actions on the matter.
The Russian Orthodox Church and the Muftiat condemned the European newspapers that republished the cartoons.
Chechen warlord, politician, and terrorist leader Shamil Basayev condemns the cartoons.
Jyllands-Posten's headquarters as well as its office in Copenhagen is again evacuated after a bomb threat. [35]
An influential Muslim organization in Malaysia, the Muslim Consumers Association of Malaysia, calls on the
Malaysian government to protest the cartoons with the Danish government. [36]
A spokesman from the Indonesian Foreign Ministry condemns the cartoons, saying that freedom of expression should
not be used as a pretext to insult a religion. [37]
Boycott of Danish goods is instituted by Omani retail chains
February 2
German newspaper Die Zeit publishes one of the cartoons on page five. [38]
The Prime Minister of Denmark appears on the TV station Al-Arabiya. The recording was made 1 February.
The Jordanian newspaper al-Shihan prints the cartoons. The newspaper's manager is fired.[39] [40]
The American newspaper New York Sun publishes two of the cartoons[41].
The Belgian newspaper Le Soir publishes two of the cartoons. [42]
The French newspaper Le Monde publishes a cartoon of Muhammad's face formed only from words that read "I may
not draw the Prophet."
31
The Swiss newspapers Le Temps and Tribune de Genève publish some of the cartoons, as does the Hungarian
newspaper Magyar Hirlap. [43]
The Portuguese newspaper Público publishes one of the cartoons - the most heated one - Muhammad with a bomb on
his head.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark advises Danish citizens to leave Gaza.
Mullah Krekar, alleged leader of Ansar al-Islam and living in Norway, calls the cartoons a "declaration of war" and
says that "[we] Muslims are ready for this".[44]
"Fleeting glimpses" of some of the cartoons are shown in British television news programmes on the BBC, ITV and
Channel 4, [45]. On its flagship current affairs programme Newsnight, the BBC recreates portions of the cartoons but
with the image of Muhammad edited out of the scenes.
In a joint statement, the Roman Catholic bishops of the five Nordic countries deplore the publication of the cartoons.
"Again and again, in our Nordic area, it seems that certain opinion makers feel that they are wholly free to say what
they wish without any respect for the understanding and beliefs of other people (..) Our sympathies go out to our
Muslim sisters and brothers." [46].
Armed gunmen from Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades storm the European Union's office in Gaza for the second time in a
week and kidnapped a German national. He was later released unharmed. [47].
Palestinian gunmen shut down the EU headquarters in Gaza, in protest of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons. According to
CNN, "Masked members of the militant groups Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the armed
wing of the Palestinians' former ruling party, Fatah, fired bullets into the air, and a man read the group's demands....The
gunmen left a notice on the EU office's door that the building would remain closed until Europeans apologize to
Muslims, many of whom consider the cartoons offensive."[48]
The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer on PBS displays some of the cartoons in its segment on the issue.
British Islamist group Al Ghurabaa publishes an article entitled Kill those who insult the Prophet Muhammad (saw),
justifying such action using the Qur'an and Hadith, and applying its argument primarily to Jyllands-Posten, Magazinet
and to the Danish and Norwegian governments. [49]
Protesters in Rabat, Morocco stage a sit-in before the Parliament in response to the cartoons. On the same day, delivery
of the Wednesday issue of the 'France-Soir' and Friday issue of the 'Liberation' daily newspapers was barred by the
Moroccan government. [50]
Danish company Arla Foods reports millions in losses from boycotts
32
February 3
3 February - Danish
prime minister shaking
hands with Charg d'Affaires
from Libya
Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen meets with several Muslim ambassadors in Copenhagen. Egyptian
ambassador responds that Ramoussen's response is inadequate and that Denmark should try harder to 'appease the
whole Muslim world'.
At the Danish embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia an angry mob demands access to the embassy, and upset lamps and
furniture in the lobby in the process. [51] The ambassador talks to the leaders of the demonstration, and the group
disperses.
The Belgian newspaper De Standaard publishes the cartoons. Another Belgian newspaper, Het Volk, prints cartoons of
Muhammad by Flemish cartoonists and quotes Etienne Vermeersch as saying Belgian papers should publish such
caricatures every week "so that Muslims can get used to the idea." [52]
The weekly New Zealand newspaper National Business Review prints one of the cartoons. [53]
British foreign secretary Jack Straw praised the British media for not publishing the cartoons and condemned the
decision of the European newpapers who brought the cartoons as "disrespectful" [54]
Australian TV broadcasters Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC)
show images of some of the cartoons in their evening news bulletins.
The Belgian Muslim Executive, of which some former members have been linked to terrorism, strongly condemns the
cartoons as "an unacceptable attack on Islam".
Protest march in London. Hundreds of Muslims march from the London Central Mosque to the heavily protected
Danish embassy. Chants include "7/7 is on its way" and placard slogans include "Slay those who insult Islam", "Free
33
speech go to hell", "Europe is the cancer and Islam is the cure", "Exterminate those who slander Islam", "Europe you
will pay. Your 9/11 is on its way!!" and "Be prepared for the real holocaust!" [55] [56] [57] [58]
The controversial Danish imam Abu Laban and the editor of culture of Jyllands-Posten meet on the BBC program
Hard Talk. [59]
A US State Department spokesman stated "We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but
it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable." [60]
Protests and demonstrations held in the Palestinian territories were for the first time organized by newly elected Hamas.
This caused the demonstrations to be a lot more peaceful than they have been the previous days.
The Senate of Pakistan adopted a unanimous resolution condemning the Danish newspaper for publishing blasphemous
and derogatory cartoons. [61]
Saudi cleric Sheikh Badr bin Nader al-Mashar refers, in an audio message posted online, to the cartoon furore as "part
of the war waged by the decadent West against the triumphant Islam" and issues a call "to the billion Muslims: where
are your arms? Your enemies have trampled on the prophet. Rise up." [62]
Canada's CTV television network news broadcasts a brief static close up of the cartoons. [63]
The Irish Daily Star publishes one of the cartoons. The accompanying article states that it wishes to "make a stand for
freedom of the press and democratic rights". [64]
Two Muslims with Turkish backgrounds allegedly attack the steward of a hot dog stand[65]. However, after some
investigations, the Danish police has concluded that this was not true[66].
Judge Mohammed Jajbhay pre-emptively bans the publication of the cartoons in South Africa following a request for
an urgent interdict by the Muslim Jamiat-ul Ulama Transvaal organization. This move is widely criticized by
opposition political parties and journalist organizations. [67].
Islamic retailer Ziyad Brothers suspends business with Arla Foods
February 4
34
February 4 - The Danish
embassy in Damascus,
Syria is burned to the
ground after being stormed
by angry mob.
The daily New Zealand newspaper The Dominion Post prints the cartoons and an accompanying article, including text
from the Wikipedia article on the topic. [68]
The Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita publishes the cartoons [69], much like the most influential Czech daily MF
DNES.
The Danish newspaper Dagbladet Information publishes twelve Anders Fogh Rasmussen cartoons.[70]
The editor of the Jordanian newspaper al-Shihan, Jihad Momani, was arrested.[71]
Protest outside the Danish embassy in London organised by Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. A speaker calls on "the
governments of the Muslim world to completely sever all contact with European governments" until they had
"controlled the media". Police later say that two men were arrested near the embassy during the protest. "They were
arrested to prevent a breach of the peace, after a search by officers found leaflets including cartoons of the prophet
Mohammed," a Metropolitan Police Service spokeswoman said. [72]
The building, which houses the Chilean, Swedish, and Danish embassies in Damascus Syria, is set on fire after being
stormed by angry mob. The Swedish and Chilean embassies were very badly damaged[73][74], but the Danish embassy,
which is located on the 3rd floor, was only partially damaged. As a response to this incident, the Danish Ministry of
Foreign Affairs issued a warning urging Danish citizens in Syria to leave the country immediately. The Danish
ambassador had asked the Syrian government for proper protection of the embassy before the attack. Danish
government does not rule out severing diplomatic ties with Syria.
The Norwegian embassy in Damascus is attacked and set on fire. The Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Jonas
Gahr Støre, advises all Norwegians to leave Syria. Støre told the media that he sees the situtation as a very serious
diplomatic crisis and threatens to sever the diplomatic ties with Syria.[75]
Several demonstrations in Hillerød, Denmark collide and become violent[76]. One demonstration was arranged by a
small nationalistic group and included at least one Neo-Nazi. Other groups represented were Muslims, Danish
anti-racists, and a group well known to the police for becoming violent (named autonome). 162 people were arrested.
Around 110 were demonstrating against the nationalistic group and the rest were mostly muslims also demonstrating
35
the nationalistic group.
The Vatican says the right to freedom of expression does not imply the right to offend religious beliefs[77], but also that
a government should not be held responsible for actions of a newspaper.
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan calls for calm and urges Muslims to accept an apology from the Danish paper that
first published the cartoons.
A new network of Danish Muslims (called Moderate Muslims) is founded as a response to the cartoon controversy,
with the Danish Muslim member of parliament Naser Khader as one of the founding members. This new network will
represent Muslims that focus on freedom of speech, democracy, and positive and peaceful relations between Muslims
and non-Muslims.[78]
An editorial in The Wall Street Journal alleges that the controversy was fueled by Danish Muslims who added three
non-published images to the cartoons. (The images are: one involved a pig's nose on his face, another stating him to be
a paedophile, and the third showing an indecent act with a dog).[79]
The US blames Syria for not sufficiently protecting the embassies in Damascus. The White House stated: "We stand in
solidarity with Denmark and our European allies in opposition to the outrageous acts in Syria today."[80]
The president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has ordered to cancel contracts with all countries where media have
published the cartoons[81].
It is revealed, that the newspaper Jyllands Postens wins the "Victor prize", which is given each year by the competing
newspaper Ekstra Bladet. They get it because they have shown to defend freedom of press, even under heavy
pressure[82].
The rumours about burning of the Qur'an in Denmark on February 4th seem to have been incorrect. No media has
reported such burnings, and the police have no reports of such an action.
The German center of culture in the Gaza strip was ravaged by demonstrators.[83].
Rumours that Danes would burn the Qur'an circulated in the Arab world[84]. The probable source of the rumor is an
SMS spread by Danish right wing extremists, which indeed told people to buy and burn the Qu'ran at a demonstration
on February 4 in central Copenhagen[85]. This did not take place.[86]Approximately 40 right wing protestors did
demonstrate in Hillerød instead. No copies of the Qur'an nor other sacred items were burned.[87].
The Danish newspaper Politiken reveals that Jyllands-Posten in 2003, denied an unsolicited submission that caricatured
the resurrection of Jesus, with the reason, that it would lead to an outcry.[88].[89]
The International Cartoon Festival in Belgium choses a "yawning Christ on the cross" as winner. [90]
36
February 5
The UK's Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said to the Sunday Telegraph that some of the placards held at the
Muslim protest in London on February 3 amounted to "incitement to murder" and protesters should be dealt with firmly
by police[91].
Iran recalls its ambassador from Denmark and bans journalists from its country.[92]
The Danish consulate in Beirut, Lebanon is set ablaze during a demonstration[93]. The police arrest many people,
almost half of them are from Syria[94].
Demonstrators in Lebanon from a demonstration at the Danish consulate cause property damage in Christian
neighborhoods of Beirut.[95]
In a press conference in Copenhagen, Danish Minister of Foreign Affairs Per Stig Møller assured that no Qur'an
burnings had taken place in Denmark, and urged all parties to "talk down the crisis" so that they could "move forward
together".[96]
The Arab European League, a conservative Arab nationalist organization, has put several anti-Semitic cartoons on its
website in response to the Danish cartoons[97] [98].
The Syrian newspaper Al-Thawra, which is owned by the state, claims that the Danish government is responsible for
having the embassy burned down[99].
The Iraqi Ministry of Transportation freezes contracts with Denmark and Norway.[100].
In Brussels, Belgium, thousands of Muslims spontaneously gather and hold a peaceful protest against the cartoons.
[101]
Lebanese Interior Minister, Hassan Sabeh, announced his resignation in reaction to the torching of the Danish consulate
in Beirut, and to the following criticism.[102]
A peaceful demonstration was arranged for peace, dialogue, and understanding in Copenhagen. Almost 3000 Muslims
and non-Muslims participated in the demonstration.[103].
The US ambassador to Denmark, James P. Cain, says he is pleased major American newspapers have not re-printed the
cartoons.citation needed
The Islamic Army, a militant Iraqi group with ties to Al-Qaeda, says Danish citizens, and citizens of other countries
who have published the cartoons, should be captured and killed.[104]
The Prime Minister of Norway, Jens Stoltenberg, will formally complain to the United Nations against Syria for its
37
failure to protect the Norwegian embassy in Damascus[105]
Charges against the two Jordanian editors that published the cartoon are dropped.[106]
500 Muslims protest peacefully against the cartoons in Vienna, Austria.[107]
At a press conference, the Danish Foreign Minister says that this is no longer about Denmark and the twelve cartoons
and it is no longer a crisis between Denmark and Arab Muslim countries. Instead, it is a crisis for Western-Arab
cooperation, and has to be solved using international cooperation.[108]
The Conference of European Rabbis expresses its concern at the publication of the cartoons, which "humiliate and
disparage the feelings of Muslims", comparing them to anti-Semitic caricatures.[109]
Andrea Santoro, a Catholic priest, was murdered on Sunday, February 5th, 2006 at the Santa Maria Church in Trabzon,
Turkey where he served. A 16 year-old high school student was arrested two days later carrying a 9mm pistol. The
student told police he had been influenced by the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.[110]
February 6
Australia's well-known journalist Tim Blair published the twelve cartoons on his website. [111]
A protest of approximately 5,000 people is planned in Jakarta, Indonesia at the Danish embassy.[112]
Approximately 1,000 protesters marched for three hours in Paris, France in response to the publication of the cartoons
in several European newspapers. French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin condemned the violence that had
occurred internationally in response to the cartoons, but called for tolerance and respect toward other faiths. [113]
Three dead at Afghan demonstration against the cartoons.[114]
Danish soldiers in Iraq were shot at while trying to give first aid to 10-15 Iraqi children who were hit by a truck in a
traffic accident. The Danish soldiers managed to save some of the children and bring them to a hospital. The Danish
army says that this may be a reaction to the cartoons[115].
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark recommends not to spend holiday in the following countries: Egypt,
Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, Sudan, Oman, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Jordan, Iran, Pakistan, and
Afghanistan. This will affect 3,000 people who already bought their tickets.[116]
Ahmed Akkari, spokesman for 29 Muslim organisations in Denmark, offers to go on Arab television with Danish Prime
Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen in order to explain why it is not the Danish Prime Minister or the Danish Queen who
should provide apologies.[117]
38
Sterling Airlines A/S, an Icelandic owned low-fare airline based in Copenhagen, stops all flights to Egypt as a
consequence of the travel recommendations from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark.[118]
Demonstrators in Indonesia damage the Danish consulate and try to damage the US consulate. At the American
consulate, they clash with police, and warning shots are fired.[119]
The government of Lebanon apologizes to Denmark for not having protected the consulate well enough.[120]
The embassy of Austria in Tehran, Iran, has been attacked by firebombs. The firebombs did not catch fire, and shortly
afterwards the security forces protected the embassy.[121] Austria is the current chairman of the European Union.
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair expresses his full support and solidarity with Denmark.[122]
Secretary General of NATO, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, expresses his full support with Denmark.[123]
The Israeli English language newspaper, The Jerusalem Post, has printed the drawings, although very small, almost
impossible to see.[124]
Iran stops all trade with Denmark, thereby violating their agreements with the EU.[125]. This is done at the same time
as Irans atomic program has been reported to the UN Security Council, which has Denmark as member.
Danish Embassy in Indonesia shuts down in order to secure the employees[126]
Danish Embassy in Iran was attacked. About 20 firebombs were thrown at the building, but no damage seems to have
been done[127].
Danish Muslims plan to make a peaceful demonstration in Aarhus, with the motto "In favor of Denmark"[128].
The American Ambassador in Denmark has repeated in several media, that USA is supporting Denmark and is 100%
behind Denmark. He also states, that USA is fully behind freedom of speech and would never intervene against media
who publishes the cartoons[129].
The Grand Mufti of Syria is sorry that the relationship with Denmark has deteriorated, but hopes to restore it as soon as
possible. He says that 10,000 people were at the demonstration at the Danish Embassy, but only 10-15 were responsible
for burning it down. He says that the Syrian population will rebuild the embassy, even nicer than it was before. It would
be a gift to the Danish population. When TV 2 visits him, he gives them a gold plate with citations from the Qur'an as a
gift to the Danish people (Only reference right now: Seen by User:Dybdahl on the Danish tv-channel TV 2 at 18:00
CET today). Syria has officially excused that they didn't protect the embassy well enough.[130]
The Danish Refugee Council, the largest humanitarian aid organisation in Chechnya and supplier of food for 250,000
people in Chechnya and Dagestan, is asked by the government of Chechnya to leave the country, citing the current
controversy.[131]. The organisation also has problems with delivering humanitarian aid in Sudan[132]
39
Ferial Haffajee, editor of South African newspaper The Mail and Guardian, which reprinted the cartoons, reports
receiving threats.[133]
An Iranian newspaper, Hamshahri, announces a competition for cartoons on The Holocaust, apparently in retaliation to
the Jyllands-Posten cartoons. [134]
Two people died at a protest near the Bagram Air Base. The death toll in Afganistan is now at five. [3]
In Somalia, a teenage boy died after protesters attacked police. [4]
US vice secretary of foreign affairs, Daniel Fried, states that Denmark has nothing to excuse.[135]
A man in Aarhus, Denmark has filed charges against Jyllands-Posten both for blasphemy and in doing so, harming the
country.[136]
Terry Davis, secretary general of the Council of Europe, says that the publication of the cartoons crossed an ethical line
even if it still was legal.[137]
Danish illustrator Christoffer Zieler reported that in April 2003 he submitted a series of satirical cartoons about the
resurrection of Christ to Jyllands-Posten, but they were turned down by the editor, who said "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." The cartoons were not solicited by the newspaper. [5]
February 7
In Tehran, Iran, tear gas is used against protesters in front of the Danish embassy.[138]
Thousands of protesters clash with police and NATO peacekeepers in Afghanistan. [139]
Four demonstrators are killed in an attack on a Norwegian-led military base in Maymana, capital of the Faryab
province in western Afghanistan. At least 20 others, among them five Norwegians, are injured. [140]
Thousands of students protest in Egypt[141] and Peshawar, Pakistan.[142] Peaceful anti-Denmark protests also occur in
Niamey, Niger, Kano, Nigeria (where lawmakers burned Danish flags), Kashmir, Pakistan, and Cotabato,
Philippines[6]
Protest take place in Helsinki, Finland in front of the Danish embassy, around 200 people attend.[143]
Ali Khamenei, the spiritual leader of Iran, expresses the hypocricy of Western media in publishing these cartoons
during an address, to Iranian air force personnel.[144]
40
Nestlé publishes posters denouncing the rumor that any of its products are Danish in origin.[145]
The defacement of Danish websites by pro-Muslim hackers reaches 578 within 1 week.[146]
The Prime Minister of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, asks Turkey to "neutralize fanatics", after the murder of an Italian
Roman Catholic priest.[147]
Amnesty International publishes a statement declaring that Freedom of Speech is not absolute and should be used
responsibly. [148]
The Taliban urge Muslims to declare Jihad over the cartoons. [149]
After an investigation Danish police come to the conclusion that a story concerning the attack on a hot-dog stand
steward by two Turks on February 3 was a fake story.[150]
A student newspaper editor is suspended for publishing an image of the Prophet Muhammad. Cardiff University's
student union paper Gair Rhydd is the first UK publication to use the image which has caused global protests, and has
recalled 8,000 of its copies.[151]
Approximately 100 demonstrators attack the Norwegian embassy in Tehran, Iran throwing stones and firebombs.[152]
A couple of Danish Muslim organisations arrange a peaceful demonstration in Aarhus with the motto "In favor of
Denmark", in an attempt to make the muslim world recognize, that Denmark should not be punished[153].
US President George W. Bush calls Anders Fogh Rasmussen to confirm that he and the United States support Denmark
during this crisis.
The editorial staff of the alternative weekly New York Press walk out en masse, after the paper's publishers backed
down from printing the Danish cartoons[154].
February 8
French weekly newspaper, Charlie Hebdo, publishes the twelve cartoons plus a new cartoon representing Muhammad
by French cartoonist Cabu. The new cartoon shows Muhammad with his head in his hands and is accompanied by the
legend: "It is tough to be loved by morons" (C'est dur d'être aimé par des cons). French Muslim organisations,
including the French Council of Muslim Faith (CFCM) and the Grand Mosques of Paris and Lyon had unsuccessfully
sued Charlie Hebdo the day before to avoid this publication.[155]
Former Danish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Uffe Ellemann-Jensen, states that he thinks that the chief editor Carsten
Juste of Jyllands-Posten should quit. Uffe Ellemann-Jensen is a member of the same political party Venstre, to which
41
also the prime minister belongs, but is no longer active in politics.[156]
Iranians living in Denmark plan to demonstrate against embassy attacks this Saturday.[157]
The organisation, Moderate Muslims, is to begin a campaign in Arab countries in favor of Denmark. They will use
SMS and newspaper advertisements, paid for by their Muslim members only.[158]
The picture allegedly of Muhammad dressed up as a pig is revealed to be a photo of the "pig-squealing" champion
Jacques Barrot in France.[159] [160]
Muslims demonstrators burn Danish, Norwegian and Croatian flags in Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
This follows the publication of the controversial cartoons in a Croatian weekly on February 6.[161]
Veja, Brazil's largest magazine in terms of circulation, publishes three of the original cartoons in both their print edition
and on their website.[162]
The "Freedom for Egyptians" blog publishes scans reportedly showing six of the cartoons, including the turban bomb
image, as published in the October 17, 2005 issue of Egyptian newspaper El Fagr. [163]
The "Egyptian Sandmonkey" blog publishes its own (different) scans of the relevant pages from the October 17, 2005
issue of Egyptian newspaper El Fagr. That no adverse reaction occurred at that time is taken by some to strengthen the
argument that the controversy was sparked or stoked for political ends. [164]
Campus Security attempt to seize 2000 copies of the student newspaper Cadre, at the University of Prince Edward
Island in Canada. A professor is also fired after placing a copy of the cartoons on the door outside of his office.citation
needed
February 9
Egyptian newspaper El Fagr removes the back issue containing the cartoons from its website. [165]
Danish tabloid B.T. reports that Bjarne Sørensen, the Danish ambassador to Egypt, has confirmed reports that the
cartoons were published in the Egyptian newspaper El Fagr on October 17, 2005. [166]
BBC reports that, in a speech (full text [7]) in Berlin, Ms. Ayaan Hirsi Ali (colleague of murdered filmmaker Theo van
Gogh) said it was "correct to publish the cartoons" and that the furore over the cartoons had exposed the fear among
artists and journalists in Europe to "analyse or criticise intolerant aspects of Islam". [167]
Dagens Nyheter reports that, although the foreign office and SÄPO got Sverigedemokraterna's web site shut down after
publishing Muhammad caricatures, they are still available from their youth organisation.[168]
42
References
1. ^ a b (da)“Sådan har Muhammed-sagen udviklet sig,” Politiken, 2006-01-30.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
^ a b c (da)“Muhammed-tegningerne: Tidslinie,” TV2, 2006-01-30.
^ “Egyptian Newspaper Pictures that Published Cartoons 5 months ago,” Freedom for Egyptians, 2006-02-08.
^ “Egyptian Newspaper Publishes Cartoons,” El-Fagr, 2006-02-09.
^ (da)“Trossamfund angriber Muhammed-satire i Weekendavisen,” Danmarks Radio, 2006-01-04.
^ “Bangladesh requests Denmark to tender apology on Prophet cartoon,” New Kerala Newspaper, 2006-02-06.
^ “UN Special Rapporteurs' letter to the Permanent Danish Mission to the UN,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, 2005-12-01.
^ (da) “DUSØREN, DER FORSVANDT,” Journalisten, unknown.
^ “UN to Investigate Racism of Danish Cartoonists,” The Brussels Journal, 2005-12-07.
^ “Strasbourg Warning to Copenhagen's 'Freedom of Press' Thesis,” Zaman (newspaper), 2005-12-19.
^ “Offical Response by the Danish Government to the UN Special Rapporteurs,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark,
2006-01-24.
^ Cucuk, Hasan: “Norway Apologises for Cartoons Insulting Prophet Mohammed”, Zaman Online, 2006-01-28.
^ (da)“Fup-kampagnen,” Ekstra Bladet, 2006-01-28.
^ (da)“Epinion: Ingen skal undskylde Muhammed tegninger,” Danmarks Radio, 2006-01-28.
^ “Fatah assaults European Union office,” Wikinews, 2006-01-30.
^ “Clinton warns of rising anti-Muslim feeling,” Wikinews, 2006-01-30.
^ (da)“Fogh tager afstand fra Muhammed-tegninger,” Politiken, 2006-01-30.
^ Brand, Constant: “EU Backs Denmark in caricature dispute”, Business Week, 2006-01-30.
^ “Danish paper apologises to Muslims,” International Herald Tribune, 2006-01-30.
^ “Iraqi group urges Danish attacks over cartoons,” Reuters, 2006-01-30.
^ (da)“Al-Jazeera oversatte ikke redaktørens beklagelse,” Politiken, 2006-01-31.
^ (da)“Abu Laban beklager boykot-udvikling,” Danmarks Radio, 2006-01-30.
^ (da)“Muslimske organisationer i Danmark afblæser kampagne,” Danmarks Radio, 2006-01-31.
^ (da)“Ansatte tilbage på Jyllands-Posten,” Berlingske Tidende, 2006-01-31.
^ (da)“Al-Aqsa dementerer trussel,” Ekstra Bladet, 2006-01-30.
^ (da)“Arabiske ministre vil have straf for Muhammed-tegninger,” Politiken, 2006-01-31.
^ English language press statement by the Danish prime minister
^ “Outrage at insult to Islam,” Gulf Daily News, 2006-01-31.
^ (da)“Hamas: »I skal bare sige undskyld«,” Politiken, date.
30. ^ a “Clinton warns of rising anti-Islamic feeling,” Agence France-Presse, 2006-01-30.
31. ^ “Raymond Lakah is French-Egyptian binational and Roman Catholic,” Al-Ahram, 2001-09-01.
43
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
^ “Editor fired after publication of Islam cartoons,” MSNBC, 2006-02-02.
^ (de)“Mohammed-Karikaturen: Dänische Zeitung gibt sich geschlagen,” Die Welt, 2006-02-01.
^ (da)“Bombetrussel mod dansk ambassade i Syrien,” Politiken, 2006-02-01.
^ (da)“Ny bombetrussel mod Jyllands-Posten,” Politiken, 2006-02-01.
^ “Malaysian Muslim group calls for protest over Danish cartoon,” Forbes, 2006-02-01.
^ “RI condemns Danish caricatures of Prophet,” The Jakarta Post, 2006-02-02.
^ (de)“Allah und der Humor,” Die Zeit, 2006-02-02.
^ (da)“Jordan trykker Muhammed-tegninger,” Ekstra Bladet, 2006-02-02.
^ (de)“Jordanischer Chefredakteur wagt Abdruck der Karikaturen - und fliegt,” Spiegel Online, 2006-02-03.
^ “In Search of a Brave American Newspaper (Updated),” Michelle Malkin, 2006-02-02.
^ (da)“Aviser over hele Europa bringer Muhammed-tegninger,” Jyllands-Posten, 2006-02-02.
^ “More cartoons, protests in Muhammad blasphemy row,” Reuters, 2006-02-02.
^ (no)“- Nå er det krig,” TV2 Nettavisen, 2006-02-02.
^ “- How UK press shapes up to cartoon row,” BBC, 2006-02-03.
^ (no) Beklager publiseringen av karikaturtegninger av profeten Muhammed. URL accessed on 2006-02-02.
^ “Gunmen kidnap German in W.Bank over cartoons,” Reuters, 2006-02-02.
^ “Gunmen shut EU Gaza office over cartoons,” CNN, 2006-02-02.
^ “Kill those who insult the Prophet Muhammad (saw),” Al Ghurabaa, 2006-02-02.
^ “Rabat : Moroccans stage sit-in to protest Prophet blasphemous cartoons,” Morocco Times, 2006-02-05.
^ (da)“Stormløb mod Danmarks ambassade i Indonesien,” Politiken, 2006-02-03.
^ “Belgian newspapers print cartoons,” CNN, 2006-02-03.
^ “A clash of civilisations -- prompted by a cartoon,” National Business Review, 2006-02-03.
^ “Straw condemns cartoon row press,” BBC News, 2006-02-03.
^ “London protesters: 'Behead those who insult prophet',” Daily Mail, 2006-02-03.
^ “Muslims stage cartoon protest,” London Evening Standard, 2006-02-03.
^ “Muslim outrage gathers pace,” Financial Times, 2006-02-03.
^ “In Their Own Words,” Michelle Malkin, 2006-02-03.
^ (da)“Laban og Jyllands-Posten tørnede sammen på BBC,” Politiken, 2006-02-03.
^ “US sides with Muslims in cartoon dispute,” Reuters, 2006-02-03.
^ "Pakistani parliament condemns Danish daily cartoon" Islamic Republic News Agency 2006-02-03
^ “Call for Jihad over prophet cartoon row goes online,” Middle East Online, 2006-02-03.
^ “Muslim furor over cartoons continues to spread,” CTV, 2006-02-03.
^ “Star defends cartoon decision,” Ulster Television, 2006-02-03.
^ (da)“Pølsemand fik tæsk af indvandrere,” Ekstra Bladet, 2006-02-05.
^ (da)“Police: Attack on hot dog stand is incorrect,” Berlingske Tidende, 2006-02-05.
^ [1]
44
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
^ “What the cartoons were about,” The Dominion Post, 2006-02-04.
^ “Wolno słowa nie jest prowokacj (Freedom of speech is not provocation),” Rzeczpospolita, 2006-02-04.
^ “When words are not enough,” Dagbladet Information, 2006-02-04.
^ “Two Jordan editors are arrested,” BBC, 2006-02-04.
^ “Muslims in fresh cartoonsprotest,” The Scotsman, 2006-02-04.
^ “Embassies burn in cartoon protest,” BBC news, 2006-02-04.
^ (da)“Ambassade i Syrien står endnu,” Danmarks Radio, 2006-02-05.
^ (no)“Gahr Støre hardt ut mot Syria,” Dagbladet, 2006-02-04.
^ (da)“Masseanholdelser og uro i Hillerød,” Politiken, 2006-02-04.
^ “Vatican cardinal criticizes cartoons satirizing prophet Mohammed,” Catholic Online, 2006-02-03.
^ “British Appease While Moderate Muslims Speak Out,” The Brussels Journal, 2006-02-04.
^ “Europe's New Dissidents,” The Wall Street Journal, 2006-02-04.
^ “U.S. blames Syria for not protecting embassies,” Reuters, 2006-02-04.
^ (da)“Iran: Ophæv kontrakter med lande der viser tegninger,” Politiken, 2006-02-04.
^ (da)“Ekstrabladets Victorpris til Jyllands-Posten,” Ekstra Bladet, 2006-02-04.
^ (de)“Deutsches Kulturzentrum in Gaza gestürmt,” Netzeitung.de, 2006-02-04.
^ (da) “Politi: Ingen afbrændinger af Koranen,” Politiken, 2005-12-21.
^ (da) “Sms: Brænd koranen af på Rådhuspladsen,” Politiken, 2006-02-01.
^ “PRESS STATEMENT BY THE DANISH FOREIGN MINISTER, DR. PER STIG MØLLER, 5 FEBRUARY, 2006,” Danish
Foreign Ministry, 2006-02-05.
^ (da) “Masseanholdelser og uro i Hillerød,” Politiken, 2006-02-04.
^ (da)“Danish paper rejected Jesus cartoons,” The Guardian, 2006-02-06.
^ [2]
^ http://www.hln.be/hln/cch/det/art_166608.html
^ “Tories condemn Muslim protesters,” BBC News, 2006-02-05.
^ (da)“Iran kalder ambassadør hjem fra Danmark,” Politiken, 2006-02-05.
^ “Muslim anger over cartoons kspreads,” CNN, 2006-02-05.
^ (da)“Prosyrere bag angrebet i Libanon,” Danmarks Radio, 2006-02-06.
^ (da)“Konsulatet i Beirut i brand,” Danmarks Radio, 2006-02-05.
^ “PRESS STATEMENT BY THE DANISH FOREIGN MINISTER,” The Champress, 2006-02-06.
^ “AEL will launch Cartoon campaign,” AEL, 2006-02-05.
^ (nl)“AEL publiceert antisemitische cartoons op website,” De Standaard, 2006-02-05.
^ (da)“Syrien: Afbrænding var Danmarks egen skyld,” B.T., 2006-02-05.
^ “Iraqi transport ministry freezes deals with Denmark,” Khaleej Times, 2006-02-05.
^ (nl)“Spontaan protest tegen cartoon in Brussel,” VRT, 2006-02-05.
^ (da)“Libanons indenrigsminister træder tilbage,” Danmarks Radio, 2006-02-05.
45
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
^ (da)“Dansk demonstration for fred og dialog,” Danmarks Radio, 2006-02-05.
^ (da)“Al-Qaeda: Hak danskere i småstykker,” Ekstra Bladet, 2006-02-05.
^ Norway PM blames Syria for embassy attack
^ (de)“Brennende Botschaften und Antisemitismus,” Der Spiegel, 2006-02-05.
^ (de)“500 Muslime protestierten in Wien,” Der Standard, 2006-02-05.
^ (da)“Diplomatisk jernring om Mellemøsten,” Jyllands-Posten, 2006-02-06.
^ Conference of European Rabbis press release
^ “Murder of priest 'religious revenge',” Independent Online, February 8, 2006.
^ “MEDIA TOLD,” Tim Blair, 2006-02-06.
^ “Indonesian Muslim party plans large protest today over cartoons outside Danish embassy,” Khaleej Times Online, 2006-02-06.
^ “Protests in France against controversial cartoons,” Agence France-Presse, 2006-02-06.
^ “Two die in Afghan cartoon protest,” BBC, 2006-02-06.
^ “Shots fired at Danish troops in Iraq,” Mainichi MSN, 2006-02-06.
^ “Danes issue travel warning list,” BBC, 2006-02-06.
^ (da)“Akkari vil på arabisk tv med Fogh,” Danmarks Radio, 2006-02-06.
^ (da)“Sterling stops flying to Egypt,” Ekstra Bladet, 2006-02-06.
^ (da)“Shooting at the American consulate in Indonesia,” Ekstra Bladet, 2006-02-06.
^ (da)“Lebanon apoligizes to Denmark,” Politiken, 2006-02-06.
^ (da)“Iran: firebombs against embassy,” TV 2, 2006-02-06.
^ (da)“Blair supports Denmark,” Danmarks Radio, 2006-02-06.
^ (da)“Blair supports Denmark,” Danmarks Radio, 2006-02-06.
^ (da)“Jerusalem Post prints Muhammad drawings,” Danmarks Radio, 2006-02-06.
^ (da)“Iran stops all trade with Denmark,” Børsen, 2006-02-06.
^ (da)“Danish Embassy closed,” Ekstra Bladet, 2006-02-06.
^ (da)“Danish Embassy in Iran attacked,” Ekstra Bladet, 2006-02-06.
^ (da)“Muslims of Århus will demonstrate,” Ekstra Bladet, 2006-02-06.
^ (da)“USA: We stand together with Denmark,” TV 2, 2006-02-06.
^ (da)“Excuse from Syria and Lebanon,” TV 2, 2006-02-06.
^ (da)“Nødhjælpsarbejde i Tjetjenien og Darfur ramt af tegninger,” Jyllands-Posten, 2006-02-06.
^ (da)“Danish Refugee Council article about Sudan,” Danish Refugee Council, 2006-02-06.
^ “SA editor threatened over cartoon,” BBC, 2006-02-06.
^ “Iranian paper launches Holocaust cartoon competition,” The Times, 2006-02-06.
^ “USA: Nothing for Denmark to excuse,” Jyllands-Posten, 2006-02-06.
^ (sv)“Jyllands-Posten polisanmäld,” TV4, 2006-02-07.
^ (sv)“Europarådet kritiserar teckningarna,” TV4, 2006-02-07.
46
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
143.
144.
145.
146.
147.
148.
149.
150.
151.
152.
153.
154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
160.
161.
162.
163.
164.
165.
166.
167.
168.
^ “Muslims continue protest against satirical cartoons,” ABC.au, 2006-02-07.
^ “Afghans Protest Against Prophet Cartoons,” ABC news, 2006-02-07.
^ “Four killed in attack on Norwegian-led military base in Afghanistan,” Aftenposten, 2006-02-07.
^ “AEgypt: Thousands of students protest over cartoons,” Ireland Online, 2006-02-07.
^ “Ugly protests in cartoons row,” Al-Jazeera, 2006-02-07.
^ “Demonstrators denounce violence,” Helsingin Sanomat, 2006-02-07.
^ “Iran Leader Denounces Prophet Cartoons,” WTOP, 2006-02-07.
^ “Nestlé moves to dodge Middle East boycotts,” Food Production Daily, 2006-02-07.
^ “Muslim hackers blast Denmark in Net assault,” PC Pro, 2006-02-07.
^ “Berlusconi asks Turkey to "neutralise fanatics",” Reuters, 2006-02-07.
^ “Freedom of speech carries responsibilities for all,” Amnesty International, 2006-02-07.
^ “Taliban urges holy war over Mohammed cartoons,” Monsters and Critics, 2006-02-07.
^ (da)“Pølsemands anklage om Muhammed-overfald var falsk,” Politiken, 2006-02-07.
^ “Paper withdrawn over cartoon row,” BBC, 2006-02-07.
^ (no)“Norges ambassade i Teheran angrepet,” Dagbladet, 2006-02-07.
^ (da)“Muslims in Denmark demonstrate in favor of Denmark,” TV 2, 2006-02-07.
^ “NY Press Kills Cartoons; Staff Walks Out,” The New York Observer, 2006-02-07.
^ “French court OKs cartoons,” NEWS24.com, 2006-02-07.
^ (da)“Ellemann: JP chief editor should quit,” Danmarks Radio, 2006-02-08.
^ (da)“Iranians protest against embassy attacks,” Jyllands-Posten, 2006-02-08.
^ (da)“Muslims advertise for Denmark in arab newspapers,” Politiken, 2006-02-08.
^ “Danish Imams Busted!,” Nerandernews, February 8, 2006.
^ “Duo hogs top prize in pig-squealing contest,” MSNBC, August 15, 2005.
^ (hr)“Croatian flag burned in Sarajevo,” Index.hr, 2006-02-08.
^ (pt)“Choque de culturas,” Revista Veja, 2006-02-08.
^ “Egyptian Newspaper Pictures that Published Cartoons 5 months ago,” Freedom for Egyptians, 2006-02-08.
^ “Boycott Egypt,” Rantings of a Sandmonkey, 2006-02-08.
^ “[removed,” El Fagr, 2005-10-17.
^ (da)“Muhammed-tegninger trykt i Egypten allerede i oktober 2005,” B.T., 2006-02-09.
^ “[ Dutch MP backs Muhammad cartoons,” BBC, 2006-02-09.
^ “[Muhammedteckning ute trots nedstängning,” Dagens Nyheter., 2006-02-10.
47
International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons
controversy
.(
.
&
%
.
$
/
1
+
$
The unwise exploitation of the problem of a Danish author to find an illustrator for
his forthcoming book about Islam has become an international crisis. It has led to
violence, arrests, interstate tensions, and a renewed debate about the scope of free
speech and the place of Muslims in the West, and the West in Muslim countries.
Many governments, organizations and individuals worldwide have issued statements,
trying to define their stance.
.
.
.
/
(
=$
!
5
$ $
!
6
5&
8
9
:
%
'
+*
%
%
,
;
>
?
/
/
!
8!
@
9
:* '
*
;6
48
$
6
/ (/
.
%
!
#
0
*
/
!
.
%
>
?
8
9=
# '
89:0 %
!
$
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
8
9
:
;
>
?
:6 &
5
$
5
A
%
%
9
9
9 8A
6 %
=
%
0
$
.
.
.
3
%
!
%
5
$$
&
+*
%%
%
Political Reactions
Afghanistan
President Hamid Karzai calls the printing of the images a mistake, and hopes that this will lead to the media being more
responsible and respectful in the future.
49
Bahrain
Bahrain's parliament demands an apology from Denmark's head of state, Queen Margrethe II, as well as from the government.
[1]
MPs call for an extraordinary session of parliament to discuss the cartoons, while protestors set Danish dairy products ablaze.
Al Menbar MP Mohammed Khaled has demanded that Arab leaders take action: "We are stunned by the silence of the Arab
leaders. They don't tolerate any criticism against them, yet allow others to insult the Prophet."[2]
Bangladesh
Foreign Minister Morshed Khan states before parliament that a diplomatic protest was lodged with the government of
Denmark on 2006-11-07. Further, he requests the Danish government issue an apology and urges them to prevent further
occurrences of "such heinous acts."[3]
Finland
On February 1 Finnish Minister of Foreign Affairs Erkki Tuomioja commented on the issue, and said that Denmark should
have acted earlier and paid more attention to Muslim outrage over the offensive caricatures. Further, he said that the Danish
government could apologise for the fact that religious feelings were offended, without endangering freedom of expression.
Tuomioja indicated the belief that EU countries should together condemn the threats of violence.
France
The French foreign minister supported the right to free press, but added that it must be used "in a spirit of tolerance and with
respect for beliefs and religions".[4]
Nicolas Sarkozy, Interior Minister and presidential candidate, said on LCI television that he "preferred an excess of caricature
to an excess of censorship" and pointed out that it is, if necessary, up to the courts to judge whether caricatures go beyond
what is reasonable to publish, and not to the governments of Muslim countries.[5]
On 2006-02-06, French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin condemned the violence that had occurred internationally in
50
response to the cartoons, but called for tolerance and respect toward other faiths.[6]
Germany
Chancellor Angela Merkel said that while she understands that feelings were hurt by the caricatures, violent reactions were
unacceptable. She stressed the central role of freedom of expression, and called for dialogue. "Denmark must not feel let
alone in this issue". Merkel also said that she understands this to be the common position of the E.U.[7]
Indonesia
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono says the Indonesian government condemned the publication of caricature of the
Prophet Muhammad. "The publication of the caricature of course reflects a lack of sensitivity to the views and belief of other
religious adherents," he said. However, as "religious people", he recommends to "accept the apology". [8]
Iran
The Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for contracts being cancelled with the countries where the publications
of the images have taken place. Iran has recalled their ambassador from Denmark, and banned Danish journalists from
reporting from Iran. Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on February 6th, 2006, that a "Zionist conspiracy"
was to blame for the row over the Prophet Muhammad cartoons, in his first reaction to the controversy: "The reason for the
Zionist action is because of the loss they suffered by Hamas winning". Khamenai was referring to Hamas victory in the
Palestinian legislative election.
On February 2, the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, ordered to cancel contracts with all countries where media
have published the cartoons. And on February 5, recalled their ambassador from Denmark. The term for a "Danish" pastry has
been changed to "Mohammedan".[9]
Iraq
Shia cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani condemned the cartoons but also commented about militants who discredit Islam
by their acts. Sistani underlined how un-Islamic acts of extremism are used as justification to attack Islam.[10]
51
Lebanon
The Lebanese minister of foreign affairs criticised the drawings saying that Freedom of speech ends when sacred values are
offended. [11]
Libya
Libya recalled its ambassador and announced that it would close its embassy in Denmark [12].
Netherlands
The Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Jan-Peter Balkenende, issued the following statement (translated): "I regret the threats
from the Muslim world. In our world, when someone crosses a line, we take the matter to court. There is no place here for
threats and own direction. (I am) Glad there is freedom of speech here. At the same time we have to realize that our images
and ideas can be provocative to others."
New Zealand
The cartoons were published by two daily newspapers, the Dominion Post and Christchurch Press, both owned by Fairfax of
Australia. Fleeting glimpses were also shown on two television networks reporting on the issue. The publication ignited a
national debate and a peaceful street protest by New Zealand Muslims in Auckland. The publication of the cartoons was
condemned by Prime Minister Helen Clark and opposition leader Don Brash, although they both stated that such decisions
were up to newspaper editors to make. New Zealand has good trading relations with many Islamic countries and there are
concerns that the controversy will threaten this. New Zealand Muslim groups while condemning the cartoons have asked
Muslim countries not to boycott New Zealand goods.
Malaysia
Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, current chairman of Organization of the Islamic Conference says "This
is a deliberate act of provocation. They should cease and desist from doing so." [13]
52
Pakistan
Upper House of parliament adopts a unanimous resolution condemning the Danish newspaper for publishing blasphemous
and derogatory cartoons. [14] Pakistan's ambassador urged the Danish prime minister to penalise the cartoonists.
Poland
Polish Prime-Minister Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz said he considered cartoons to be an unnecessary provocation. The Polish
government also said they are really sorry that the newspaper Rzeczpospolita also offended Muslims.
Russia
Russia president Vladimir Putin indicates in a speech in the Kremlin that the Danish political authorities are using the theme
of freedom of expression to protect those who have insulted the Muslims.
The president of the Institute of the Middle East, Yevgeny Satanovsky, told Itar-Tass on February 6 that "The caricatures of
Prophet Mohammad published as far back as last September angered the entire Islamic world but especially the countries
where Iran’s influence is the strongest, and the apex of the conflict coincided precisely with the discussion of the Iranian
nuclear dossier at the IAEA.” This theory is echoed by Scientific Council of the Moscow Carnegie Centre member, Alexei
Malashenko, who believes that “the fuss around the caricatures was made artificially." That is, at a time when the Muslim
world has no concerted position either on the Iranian nuclear program or Hamas, whose ideology is opposed by moderate
Islamic regimes, the caricature uproar provides a “pretext for showing how coherent Muslims are.” [15]
Accordingly, Russian officials have decided to not take sides on the matter unless or until Russia's economic interests are at
stake.
Saudi Arabia
In late January 2006, Saudi Arabia recalled its ambassadors for consultations — a traditional message of diplomatic
displeasure.
Singapore
53
The Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) issued a statement that said "the inciting of hatred against a faith of a
people is very unfortunate," and that "[they] are fortunate and deeply appreciative that in Singapore, the media and the
community at large have always been mindful of sensitivities… and have helped to promote racial and religious harmony
across society." The Foreign Minister George Yeo and the Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs Dr. Yaacob Ibrahim have
similarly said that the incident shows the need to respect racial and religious sensitivities, have a "responsible media," and to
cultivate good inter-religious relations and confidence beyond just legislation.
Syria
The Syrian government recalled their ambassador from Denmark February 1
Sweden
On February 5, Swedish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Laila Freivalds stated the following in an interview[16]: We support the
freedom of speech, that I think is very clear. But at the same time it is important to say that with this freedom comes a certain
responsibility, and it could be objectionable to act in a way that insults people.
Turkey
President Recep Tayyip Erdo an, is quoted in the Turkish press saying: "Caricatures of prophet Muhammad are an attack
against our spiritual values. There should be a limit of freedom of press." [17]
United Arab Emirates
The Justice and Islamic Affairs Minister, Mohammed Al Dhaheri, calls the publication of the cartoon "cultural terrorism, not
freedom of expression." [18]
United Kingdom
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw criticized European newspapers for republishing the cartoons: "There is freedom of
speech, we all respect that, ... But there is not any obligation to insult or to be gratuitously inflammatory. I believe that the
54
republication of these cartoons has been unnecessary. It has been insensitive. It has been disrespectful and it has been wrong."
Straw also praises British newspapers for their "considerable responsibility and sensitivity" in not printing the cartoons. [19]
United States
The US government has issued a statement saying: "We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression
but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable." [20] A
State Department spokesman said that the images are offensive, but added that U.S. also support the rights of individuals to
express their freely held views and that it is not for the U.S. Government to dictate what is printed in the media. [21].
In the US Department of State's daily briefing for Friday, February 3rd, offical spokesman Sean McCormick, speaking for the
current administration, said (in part), "Our response is to say that while we certainly don't agree with, support, or in some
cases, we condemn the views that are aired in public that are published in media organizations around the world, we, at the
same time, defend the right of those individuals to express their views. For us, freedom of expression is at the core of our
democracy and it is something that we have shed blood and treasure around the world to defend and we will continue to do
so. ... So we would urge all parties to exercise the maximum degree of understanding, the maximum degree of tolerance when
they talk about this issue. And we would urge dialogue, not violence. And that also those that might take offense at these
images that have been published, when they see similar views or images that could be perceived as anti-Semitic or
anti-Catholic, that they speak out with equal vigor against those images." [22]
Speaking in Qatar, former U.S. president Bill Clinton strongly criticised the Danish cartoons, comparing historical
anti-semitism in Europe with anti-Islamic feeling today: "So now what are we going to do? ... Replace the anti-Semitic
prejudice with anti-Islamic prejudice?" [23]
Vatican
The Vatican sharply criticized the publication of newspaper cartoons satirizing the prophet Mohammed, saying the
caricatures have offended the religious sentiments of millions of Muslims. Also in their statement the vatican mentioned that
"the right to freedom of expression does not imply the right to offend religious beliefs" and mentioned how goverment law
protects secular symbols (national flags) but ignores respect of religious symbols. [24]
55
United Nations
The UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, and Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism,
racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance requests the Permanent Danish Mission to the UN to deliver
their observations of the case. [25]
Louise Arbour, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has expressed concern over the cartoons and said that
United Nations is investigating racism of Danish cartoonists. [26]
After being asked to do so by the Secretary-General of the Arab League Amr Mussa, the UN Secretary-General Kofi
Annan, asked the Western media to be more sensitive in its handling of religious themes and asked for use of peaceful
dialogue.[27]
European Union
Franco Frattini, the vice-President of the European Commission and EU Commissioner for Justice, Freedom, and
Security, called the publication of the twelve cartoons "thoughtless and inappropriate" in a time when European
animosity towards Islam is said to be on the rise. According to Frattini, the cartoons foment hostility against Islam and
foreigners.
The European Union on 30 January, said that any retaliatory boycott of Danish goods would violate world trade rules.
[28]
Other
Economic sanctions
56
Saudi Arabia
"To our dear customers: As
a result of mockery towards
The Prophet (Peace Be
Upon Him), Al Tamimi
Markets announces its
boycott of all kinds of
Danish Products"
Wikinews has news related to this article:
Saudis boycott Danish dairy produce
People in Saudi Arabia called for a boycott on Danish products on January 20 and carried it out starting January 26. The
boycott primarily targeted dairy products produced by Arla Foods, but has also hit other products such as Bang & Olufsen
and Lego. The Foreign Minister of Denmark, Per Stig Møller, stated that the boycott has not been initiated by the Saudi
Arabian government. The Danish-Swedish dairy company Arla Foods launched a massive ad campaign in Saudi Arabia,
trying to improve their reputation and stop the boycott. This happened after their sales in Saudi Arabia almost came to a
complete stop. The text for the ads was written by the Danish ambassador in Saudi Arabia, Hans Klingenberg, and includes
passages from the Prime Minister of Denmark's New Year's speech. Arla exports account for almost 380 million Euros a year.
[29][30]
Arla has halted production in the Saudi capital Riyadh and sent home 170 employees[31] . Denmark is concerned
about the potential loss of 11,000 jobs resulting from boycotts against Danish products in the Islamic world. [32] In February,
the French international supermarket chain Carrefour takes all Danish products off the shelves in Muslim countries. Posters
with the Carrefour logo proclaiming a boycott of Denmark, result in a boycott of Carrefour in Brussels.[33]
57
Iran
Iran has announced that it will cease all trade with "countries that have published the cartoons". A high level commitee
involving the Foreign Minister, the Deputy Foreign Minister, the Deputy Trade Minister and the Deputy Oil Minister has
been set up.
Kuwait
A web
badge used
by the "Buy
Danish"
campaign.
The boycott has spread to Kuwait where the country's largest retail chain, the state-owned Coop, has taken all Danish
products off the shelves. This has lead to the Confederation of Danish Industries sending an open letter to Jyllands-Posten in
which they state that the paper should comment on these events because they feel their members are caught in a "battle"
between religious movements and the paper.[34] The newspaper has reacted to the letter by saying that "Dictatorships should
not dictate what Danish newspapers are to draw and write". [35]
A web badge used by the
"No to Denmark"
58
campaign.
Reactions in support of Jyllands-Posten
Various people and groups, including conservatives, liberals, anti-Islamist groups, freedom of speech proponents,
anticlericalists and American weblogs[36] have initiated a Buy Danish Goods campaign, which is intended to counter the
boycott from Middle East countries.[37]
The president of Reporters Without Borders Robert Ménard says that Morgenavisen Jyllandsposten has taught the world a
thing or two about free speech and that there is nothing for which to apologise.[38]
On February 1, French newspaper France Soir reproduced the caricatures, along with a caricature of Buddha, Muhammad
and the Christian and Jewish gods all sitting on a cloud. The front page read: “Oui, on a le droit de caricaturer Dieu” ("Yes,
we have the right to caricature God").
The drawings were by this point published in newspapers all over Europe (see timeline). Later that day, the France Soir editor
who published the cartoons was fired by the paper's owner, a Franco-Egyptian and Roman Catholic (see note in timeline for
February 1). Le Monde published in the first page of its February 3 issue a satirical cartoon by Plantu mocking the prohibition
of drawing Muhammad.
Websites have started Support Denmark campaigns and online petitions, while weblogs have published their own parodies of
the cartoons.[39][40]
The Dutch conservative politician Geert Wilders placed the cartoons on his website "to support the Danish cartoonists and to
stand up for freedom of speech."[41]
As a variation on Hampster Dance, a Mohammed Dance site features animated versions of the various cartoons.
Other reactions
In early January the Egyptian government threatened Denmark with an embargo of Danish products, but did not carry
out its threat. Some citizens and major shops started a boycott on their own.
59
Protesters in Rabat, Morocco staged a sit-in before the Parliament on 2006-02-02, in response to the cartoons. On the
same day, delivery of the Wednesday issue of the 'France-Soir' and Friday issue of the 'Liberation' daily newspapers
was barred by the Moroccan government. [42]
On February 4, 2006, during the Muhammad cartoon crisis, the International Cartoon Festival in Belgium chose a
"yawning Christ on the cross" as winner. [43]
Approximately 1,000 protesters marched for three hours in Paris, France on 2006-02-06 in response to the publication
of the cartoons in several European newspapers. [44]
On February 6, Iran’s biggest-selling newspaper, the Hamshahri of Tehran, announced that it would be holding a
contest to find the 12 "best" cartoons about the Holocaust. [1]
On February 8 Flemming Rose the cultural editor for Jyllands-Posten told CNN: "My newspaper is trying to establish a
contact with that Iranian newspaper [Hamshahri], and we would run the cartoons the same day as they publish them".
Later that day the paper's editor-in-chief said that Jyllands-posten under no circumstances would publish the Holocaust
cartoons.
In demonstrations on February 9, 2006 in Beirut, Lebanon, Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, declared that
Muslims should continue to demonstrate against the drawings until European nations pass laws forbidding derogatory
portrayal of the prophet Mohammed.
On February 9, BBC reports that, in a speech in Berlin, Ms. Ayaan Hirsi Ali (colleague of murdered filmmaker Theo
van Gogh) said it was "correct to publish the cartoons" and that the furore over the cartoons had exposed the fear
among artists and journalists in Europe to "analyse or criticise intolerant aspects of Islam". [45]
Violent protests
60
The Danish embassy in
Damascus, Syria is burned to
the ground after being stormed
by an angry mob.
Deaths
Two protestors were killed and two people and two policemen were injured after protesters shot and threw knives at
government forces in Mihtarlam, Afghanistan. One boy was trampled to death in Bossaso, Somalia when the crowd
stampeded as police fired in the air to disperse them. [46]
One demonstator involved in the torching of the Danish consulate in Beirut, Lebanon was found dead on a staircase.
[47]
Four people were killed and 22 injured in an attack on a NATO base in Maymana, Afghanistan.[48]
Andrea Santoro, a Catholic priest, was killed on Sunday, February 5th, 2006 in Trabzon, Turkey. A 16 year-old high
school student was arrested two days later carrying a 9mm pistol. The student told police he had been influenced by the
Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.[49]
Demonstrations
Demonstrations against the cartoons took place in several predominantly or partially Muslim countries and the flags of
Denmark, France, and Norway were burned in streets across the Middle East, (though also many American, British, and
Israeli flags were sometimes being burned with the Danish, Norwegian, and French flags). The controversy produced labour
strikes and protests in Pakistan, and mass demonstrations in Baghdad in Iraq. In Palestine, thousands of people participated in
demonstrations and gunmen in the Gaza Strip threatened violence against any Scandinavians in the area. The European
Union's Gaza offices were raided by 15 masked gunmen from the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades. They demanded apologies from
Denmark and Norway, but left 30 minutes later without any shots being fired or injuries caused. [50]
61
On February 2, Palestinian gunmen shut down the EU headquarters in Gaza, in protest of the Jyllands-Posten drawings.
According to CNN, "Masked members of the militant groups Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the
armed wing of the Palestinians' former ruling party, Fatah, fired bullets into the air, and a man read the group's
demands....The gunmen left a notice on the EU office's door that the building would remain closed until Europeans apologize
to Muslims, many of whom consider the cartoons offensive." [51] This is the second attack the groups have made on the EU
headquarters in Gaza. One hostage, an unnamed German teacher, was taken and released the same day.
As of February 5, the demonstrations had become too numerous to list.
On February 6, at least four demonstrators in Afghanistan were shot by riot police, while taking part in an assault on the
Bagram Airbase outside Kabul, another two died in Mihtarlam.[52]
Death threats
In response to the publication of the drawings, the UK Islamist group Al Ghurabaa publish an article on their website titled,
"Kill those who insult the Prophet Muhammad". The article states, "The insulting of the Messenger Muhammad (saw) is
something that the Muslims cannot and will not tolerate and the punishment in Islam for the one who does so is death. This is
the sunnah of the prophet and the verdict of Islam upon such people, one that any Muslim is able execute."[53] Al Ghurabaa
had organised the 3 February protest march from London Central Mosque to Regents Park [54] [55] where protesters waived
placards reading, "Butcher those who mock Islam", "Kill those who insult Islam", "Europe you will pay, your 9/11 is on the
way", or "7/7 is on its way", "Europe you will pay, Bin Laden is on his way" and "Europe you'll come crawling, when the
Mujahideen come roaring". Despite the similar theme on Al Ghurabaa's website, their spokesman, Anjem Choudary, said he
did not know who wrote the placards.[56] MPs from all parties condemned the protest, calling the Metropolitan police to
pursue those responsible on the grounds that the threats were an incitement to murder.[57]
Churches
62
The entrance of the
Assyrian Church in
Iraq, after the
bombings
On January 29 six churches in the Iraqi cities of Baghdad and Kirkuk were targeted by car bombs, killing 13-year-old
worshipper Fadi Raad Elias. No militants claimed to be retaliating for the pictures, nor is this the first time Iraqi churches
have been bombed;[58] but the bishop of the church stated "The church blasts were a reaction to the cartoons published in
European papers. But Christians are not responsible for what is published in Europe." [59] Many Assyrians in Iraq now feel
like "Westerners should not give wild statements [as] everyone can attack us [in response]" and "Today I'm afraid to walk the
streets, because I'm Christian." [60] On February 5, thousands of Muslims in Lebanon sorounded the Maronite Catholic
church and threw stones at it.[61]
On February 6th, an Italian Catholic priest named Andrea Santoro was reported to have been shot dead at the door-step of his
church in the Black Sea port city Trabzon. The convict, arrested on February 7 who is a Turkish Muslim youth aged 16, told
the public attorney that his action was motivated by cartoons protests. [2]
Also on February 6th, leaflets were distributed in Ramadi, Iraq by the militant group "The Military Wing for the Army of
Justice" demanding Christians to "halt their religious rituals in churches and other worship places because they insulted Islam
and Muslims." [3] and [4]
Fatwa
Also on January 29, a Muslim Cleric in the Iraqi city of Mosul issued a fatwa stating, "Expel the Crusaders and infidels from
the streets, schools, and institutions because they have offended the person of the prophet." [62] It has been reported that
63
Muslim students beat up a Christian student at Mosul University in response to the fatwa on the same day.[62] On February 2,
Palestinians in the West Bank handed out a leaflet signed by a Fatah militant group and Islamic Jihad stating, "Churches in
Gaza could come under attack" [63].
The Danish government announced that a fatwa had been declared against the Danish troops stationed in Iraq. The
government responded by heightening security for its troops. [64]
Burning embassies
The newspaper France
Soir defiantly reproduced
the caricatures on February
1 with the words "Oui, on
a le droit de caricaturer
Dieu" - "Yes, one has the
right to caricature God."
On February 4, the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus, Syria were set on fire, after being stormed by an angry
mob. Within the building housing the Danish embassy were the Chilean and Swedish embassies, both having no formal
connection to the present row.[65]. As it was a holiday, no one was present inside the building when this occured, so no one
was hurt. As a response to this incident, the Danish and Norweigan Ministries of Foreign Affairs issued a warning, urging
their citizens in Syria to leave the country immediately. The German Cultural Centre in Gaza was raided by Palestinian
64
students[66]
On February 5, the Danish consulate in Lebanon was set on fire by demonstrators, reportedly police and military tried to
restrain them from doing so.
In Tehran, on February 6, the Danish embassy was attacked by protestors. According to reports, homemade grenades were
thrown at the embassy. However, the Danish embassy wasn't set ablaze.
On October 19, ten ambassadors from Islamic countries, including Algeria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran,
Morocco, Pakistan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, as well as the head of the Palestinian delegation in Denmark, sent a
letter to Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen requesting a meeting and asking him to distance himself from hate speech,
including remarks by MP Louise Frevert, Culture Minister of Denmark Brian Mikkelsen, and the Radio Holger station. [67]
Rasmussen declined, saying that the government could not interfere with the right to free speech, but said that cases of
blasphemy and discrimination could be tried before the courts [68], a reaction essentially seen as a snub by the Muslims[69].
In the Nordic countries
On January 10, a marginal Norwegian Christian magazine, Magazinet, printed the drawings after getting authorisation from
Jyllands-Posten. Major newspapers in Norway had printed facsimiles from Jyllands-Posten and reproduced all the caricatures
in their online versions; a few days earlier, the Swedish newspaper Expressen had printed two of the drawings in conjunction
with an article discussing the event. [70] However, it was the Magazinet printing that led to a great debate in Norway. A
Norwegian man made a threat against the lives of the people at the magazine, but later claimed, when faced by the police, that
it was just a prank. The Norwegian Foreign Ministry sent a letter to their ambassadors in the Middle East stating that one of
the pillars of the Norwegian society is freedom of speech, but they expressed regret that Magazinet did not respect Muslims'
beliefs. [71]
This is assumed to be the reason for actions directed at Sweden and Norway as well as Denmark. On January 30, Palestinian
groups demanded that all Scandinavians leave the Palestinian territories immediately. On January 30, an Islamic organisation,
the Mujahedeen Army, called for militant attacks against "all available targets" in Denmark and Norway. [72] On January 31
bomb threats were made against the newspaper's offices in Århus and Copenhagen.
In Finland the biggest newspaper Helsingin Sanomat considered publishing the cartoons, however it did not publish them.
65
Finland's comparatively small muslim community held a peaceful demonstration with tens of demonstrators, close to the
Danish embassy.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
^ “Outrage at insult to Islam,” Gulf Daily News, 2006-01-31.
^ Toumi, Habib: “Dairy products set ablaze in Bahrain”, GulfNews, 2006-01-29.
^ “Bangladesh requests Denmark to tender apology on Prophet cartoon,” New Kerala Newspaper, 2006-02-06.
^ “France enters Muslim cartoon row,” BBC News, 2006-02-01.
^ (fr) “Embarras et inquiétude chez les responsables politiques français,” Le Monde, 2006-02-03.
^ “Gewalt und Appelle zur Mäßigung im Karikaturenstreit,” Reuters, 2006-02-04.
^ “Govt Condemns Publication of Prophet Muhammad's Caricature,” Antara News, 2006-02-04.
^ “CARTOON CRISIS: IRAN RENAMES DANISH PASTRIES,” Adnkronos international, 2006-02-07.
^ (tr)author. Protestolar yayılıyor. work. URL accessed on 2006-02-03.
^ (fr) "Les réactions à travers le monde " Nouvelobs.com 2006-02-03
^ “Libya to shut embassy in Denmark,” BBC News, 2006-01-29.
^ "M'sia Expresses Regret Over Publication Of Prophet's Caricatures" Bernama 2006-02-03
^ "Pakistani parliament condemns Danish daily cartoon" Islamic Republic News Agency 2006-02-03
^ “Analysts advise Russia to stay away from “caricature war”,” ITAR-TASS, 2006-02-06.
^ (sv)“Laile Freivalds comments on the demonstrations in Syria and Libanon,” SVT, 2006-02-05.
^ “Cartoon controversy spreads throughout Muslim world,” The Guardian, 2006-02-04.
^ “Protest grows over cartoons of Prophet Muhammad; gunmen seize Gaza office,” [CBS News], 2006-01-30.
^ “Muslim Sabbath Marked by Fury,” Washington Post, 2006-02-04.
^ “US backs Muslims in cartoon dispute,” Yahoo! News, 2006-02-03.
^ http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2006/60394.htm
^ “Daily Press Briefing,” US State Department, 2006-02-03.
^ “Clinton warns of rising anti-Islamic feeling,” Agence France-Presse, 2006-01-30.
^ "Vatican cardinal criticizes cartoons satirizing prophet Mohammed" Catholic Online 2006-02-03
^ “UN Special Rapporteurs' letter to the Permanent Danish Mission to the UN,” Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2005-12-01.
^ “UN to Investigate Racism of Danish Cartoonists,” The Brussels Journal, 2005-12-07.
^ (de) "Tage des Zorns," 2006-02-06 Spiegel
^ Brand, Constant: “EU Backs Denmark in caricature dispute”, Business Week, 2006-01-30.
^ “Arla stages ad offensive in Saudi row,” Jyllands-Posten, 2006-01-27.
^ “Arla dairy sales crippled by Middle East boycott,” Dairy Reporter.com, 2006-01-31.
66
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
^ “Firms feel pain of people power,” BBC, 2006-02-03.
^ Broder, Henryk M.: “Threaten One, Intimidate a Million”, Der Spiegel, 2005-02-01.
^ “Cartoon War Leads to Role Reversal,” The Brussels Journal, 2006-02-04.
^ “Jyllands-Posten needs to explain itself,” Dansk Industri, 2006-01-27.
^ (da)“Chefredaktør undrer sig over DI's udmelding,” Politiken, 2006-01-27.
^ “Buy Danish! to counter the Islamic boycott,” The American Thinker, 2006-02-01.
^ “'Buy Danish' Campaign Aims to Counter Muslim Boycott,” CNSNews.com, 2006-02-04.
^ (da)“Journalister støtter Jyllands-Posten,” Jyllands-Posten, 2006-02-01.
^ Image Problem. Cox & Forkum Editorial Cartoon. URL accessed on 2006-02-03.
^ Legohammed. URL accessed on 2006-02-03.
^ (nl) Groep Wilders betuigt steun aan Deense cartoonisten en publiceert spotprenten. URL accessed on 2006-02-02.
^ “Rabat : Moroccans stage sit-in to protest Prophet blasphemous cartoons,” Morocco Times, 2006-02-05.
^ (nl)“Cartoon van geeuwende Christus de beste in Knokke-Heist,” hln.be, 2006-02-04.
^ “[ Dutch MP backs Muhammad cartoons,” BBC, 2006-02-09.
^ “First deaths in Muhammad cartoon protests,” Times, February 6, 2006.
^ “Protestors killed as global furor over cartoons escalates,” Middle East Times, February 6, 2006.
^ “Death toll mounts in rioting over cartoons,” International Herald Tribune, February 8, 2006.
^ “Murder of priest 'religious revenge',” Independent Online, February 8, 2006.
^ “Fatah assaults European Union office,” Wikinews, 2006-01-30.
^ surname, given: “Gunmen shut EU Gaza office over cartoons”, CNN, February 2, 2006.
^ “Muslim Anti-Cartoon clashes turn deadly,” ABCNews, 2006-02-06.
^ author. Kill those who insult the Prophet Muhammad (saw). work. URL accessed on 2006-02-03.
^ author. BBC - Reaction around the world to cartoon row. work. URL accessed on 2006-02-03.
^ author. Al Ghurabaa - Defend the honour of Muhammad. work. URL accessed on 2006-02-03.
^ author. Guardian - Arrest extremist marchers, police told. work. URL accessed on 2006-02-03.
^ author. BBC - Cartoon protest slogans condemned. work. URL accessed on 2006-02-03.
^ http://www.geocities.com/normatti
^ “Iraq Christians on edge as cartoon row escalates,” Reuters UK, 2006-02-03.
^a
^ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060205/ap_on_re_mi_ea/prophet_drawings
!
"
,” Elaph.com, 2006-01-29.
^ a b (ar)“
^ “Palestinian Militants Threaten Churches and Close EU Office Over Cartoons,” org, date.
^ (da)“Fatwa mod danske soldater i Irak,” DR, 2006-01-31.
^ “Cartoon row: Danish embassy ablaze,” CNN, 2006-02-04.
^ “Cartoon row: German culural centre,” Spiegel, 2006-02-04.
67
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
^ “Letter from Ambassadors,” org, 2005-12-10.
^ (da)“Fogh afviser muslimsk klage over profet-tegninger,” Politiken, 2005-10-21.
^ “In Arab countries, rage growing over cartoons,” International Herald Tribune, 2006-01-31.
^ (sv)Ouis, Pernilla: “Vi måste tåla nidbilderna”, Expressen, 2006-01-07.
^ Cucuk, Hasan: “Norway Apologises for Cartoons Insulting Prophet Mohammed”, Zaman Online, 2006-01-28.
^ (da)“Irakisk militsgruppe truer med angreb på danske mål,” Jyllands-Posten, 2006-01-30.
Talk: Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy - Archive 1
#
$
. /
% 1
&
'$
% 1
%
*
&
1
B
$%
I've restored solely the portions of the discussion prior to Jimbo's blanking that talk about writing an encyclopaedia
article (pointers to sources, fact checking, wording and corrections, rendering the NPOV, and so forth). Uncle G 12:57,
1 February 2006 (UTC)
* '
)'$
8.
*
9
$
:#
&
3
; =$
.
>) '
+ 1
?#
3
&
6
1
5
%
&
%$
$ % 1
%
'
68
8#
$
%'
9%
%
:
$
6
C=
;
1 %
>)
4
?#
&$%
4
=
&
$
%
$
8
$
9 B
& 5 C 4$
:. $%
&
A $
*%
%
#
&
C
*
$%
%
%
$
South Park
--User:dtii I cant wait for their reaction when South Park does there Muhammad episode!!!
Are they going to? That would be sweet. Kittynboi 07:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Not too likely, after freedom of speech has already been cut on them, when they did the "Bloody Mary" episode!!! (not seen
it, but it was reported to be about a statue of Mother Mary bleeding where most women do regularly...) --Richard 15:35, 4
February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a discussion forum
we really need to quit this argument. We're not a discussion forum, we're an encyclopedia. What any of us thinks is absolutely
irrelevant here. - 211.28.79.52 11:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Not a discussion forum? The Tab Heading "discussion" at the top fooled me. DanielDemaret 13:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Uncle G 12:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
69
This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons article. I suggest go to your
local mosque or an Islamic discussion board if you want a Muslim's answer to your questions. --Malthusian (talk) 13:57,
31 January 2006 (UTC)
Danish PM
The Danish Prime Minister has now commented on the issue (http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/article.php?id=3564679 [dk]), so I
removed that paragraph. Only the first part of it was documentable anyway, the rest was speculations.
Muhammad paintings in historic perspective
Well my main source for that paragraph was my religion teacher who showed us painting from Shi'a muslim books, but I can't
remember the names of the books. I've tried to search the web and found some pages containing pictures of the Prophet
Muhammad:
Other pictures of Muhammad
Pictures at Commons
I'll try to look up some more sources through the weekend...
Snailwalker 12:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The name of the article
I think the name of the article should be something more specific. --128.214.205.4 08:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, where exactly does "Muhammad Drawings" come from? Is this a translation of some term from the Danish media?
Perhaps we could go with something more precise, like Jyllands-Posten Muhammad caricatures.--Pharos 23:11, 30
January 2006 (UTC)
Directly translated from Danish they're called Muhammad Drawings --Snailwalker | talk 23:19, 30 January 2006
(UTC)
70
I note that Unfinishedchaos has moved the article to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad caricatures. I don't think that is a good
name. I realize the intro calls the drawings for caricatures, but that isn't really what they are. Properly speaking they are all
drawn in the style of an editorial cartoon. In English media they are usually referred to as the Muhammed drawings so I
would prefer Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings (or simply Muhammad drawings since there is nothing to
disambiguate from). Rasmus (talk) 10:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, google search: caricatures - 10,700 hits, drawings - 12,800 hits. Jacoplane 11:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
But if we are talking about the name of the controversy we should search: caricatures - 4 hits, drawings - 75,
cartoons - 236. Not much to go on there, but since they really aren't caricatures (From caricature: A caricature is
a humorous illustration that exaggerates or distorts the basic essence of a person or thing to create an easily
identifiable visual likeness), I would argue that those that call them "Muhammad caricatures" are misrepresenting
them. Rasmus (talk) 11:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Not much response. Can I take it that noone will complain if I move the page to "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad
cartoons"? Rasmus (talk) 12:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
ICJ
"The case is now being brought to the International Court of Justice."
What case? What is the specific violation of international law that would be basis for a case before the ICJ and who would
bring it? I'm removing this, probably just a part of this campaign of misinformation against Denmark. --Bjarki 12:01, 30
January 2006 (UTC)
Opinions in Denmark
I live in denmark, and first off I'd say it's hard to say that there is such a thing as a "General Oppinion" to be found among the
public concerning this subject. I think that statement should be reconsidered.
Secondly, there is evidence that the online poll from Epinion for DR was manipulated, probably by muslims, but I won't draw
any too fast conclusions. They received 20,000 votes between a saturday night to the next sunday morning, which is
71
something never experienced before. Such a great number of votes online is highly unlikely, considering that the danish
population count is below 5.5 millions.
That was another poll DR (Danish national broadcast) initated on their website, but that they cancelled due to manipulations
[1] Bertilvidet 16:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
At last, I just read in a danish newspaper that both the danish prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen along with
Jyllands-Posten apologized for the drawings. --Akuen 16:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Interesting newspaper, none of the big ones have that news. I would suggest you to get another paper Bertilvidet 16:15, 30
January 2006 (UTC)
I read that Anders Fogh Rasmussen apologized to the Afganistan president, the article came along with a picture of them
both, and I saw the same thing in the TV2 news just minutes ago. Jyllands-Posten are apologizing to everyone offended
through an open letter. Here's the Arabian version: http://www1.jp.dk/indland/doku/jp_brev_mo.pdf and here's the danish
version: http://www.jp.dk/meninger/artikel:aid=3523372/ I'm going to translate the letter from danish into english, and post it
on here. --Akuen 18:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Akuen, that will be really good if you translate the letter from Jyllands-Posten to English to document their position.
However, they do not apologize the drawing - but basically say that they have been misinterpreted. Bertilvidet 19:06,
Thank you - I'm translating it right now. They do say that they regret it and they're sorry about it. I interpret that as an
apology, but perhaps I am mistaken. --Akuen 19:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I have translated the open letter from Jyllands-Posten, and I am going to post it in the article. I just discovered that a new open
letter has been released by Jyllands-Posten on their website, but I'll translate that at a later time.
-Hi there, I'm not familiar with updating and/or commenting, but just wanted to point out that the Danish prime minister has
commented on the drawings on several occasions since they were released. He hasn't argued elaborately, but it's not true to
state that he hasn't commented on the topic at all. [User: I don't really know how to upload this] --
72
Weekend-avisen
Can anyone confirm that they showed 10 more drawings? --Snailwalker | talk 23:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Is there a link to the 10 pictures from WekendAvisen? ~~
Just put in the links to later article on the issue (Cloud02 13:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC))
The report put together by the islamic delegation contained copies of this article (as well as some much more
offensive pictures of unknown origin). Ekstra Bladet's article here includes a copy of the report. The part about
Weekend-avisen starts here. If anyone can read arabic, I would be very interested in a translation/summary of the
latter parts of the report, btw. Rasmus (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Timeline
To me it sounds like there is some redundancy in saying "personally distances himself" — is this the right way to express it?
BBC disinformation
Ignoring the busted link for the moment, I can't find anything resembling the pictures mentioned here on BBC Online News,
although they have given the story plenty of coverage. Should this heading be amended at least? —The preceding unsigned
comment was added by 210.8.165.18 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-31 01:29:07 UTC.
I've looked for a BBC News article on this subject dated 2006-01-30, as the text claimed, and cannot find one. The
BBC has articles dated 2006-01-31 and 2006-01-29, but none in between. I've therefore removed mention of the BBC
from the rumours section. Uncle G 15:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Apparently it was in a BBC World tv-news report. Here is one source [2] (in Danish, I am afraid). Rasmus (talk)
15:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Put it back in please. And the danish source is a valid source. It was not an article, but aired in television. A human
16:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
No-one said that the Danish source wasn't a valid source, or even remarked upon it at all. I and 210.8.165.18 said
that we couldn't find the source implied by the text, which was supposedly a BBC News article, not a Danish
73
source. I see that you put the old erroneous text back in yourself. You didn't read what Rasmus Faber wrote
above. Uncle G 18:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Removed
The following section was removed for being a personal POV rant.
In Denmark church, media and governement are seperated. There are a constitutional freedom of speech. Denmark is a
little country with a very high percentage of immigrants from Africa and the Middle East, like Danes they all enjoy the
extensive benefits from the welfare system such as financial aid, free education, free helathcare and they enjoy the same
constitutional rights as ethnic Danes.
The fact that immigrants, especially from the islamic world, are highly represented in crime statistics along with a highly
visible minority of fundamentalists who condem the Danish set of values and the benefits the country provide, are causing a
tense atmosphe between Danes and immigrants. Generally the Danes are both generous and full of hospitality, but they are
also a proud people with a long history and tradition. Danes expects respect from those who move there to live in their
society, but more important they expect their visitors to live by the rules and laws, even if they are different from those in the
visitors country of origin.
Many second generation immigrants in Denmark has trouble finding their roots. Their parents often give them a hard
time for being too danish and the Danes at the same age often sees them as "the others". The canyon between ethnic
Danes and immigrants contimues to grow bigger and deeper, because both sides often are too proud to reach out for
each other. The muslims must accept that Danes are not muslims and that Denmark is not, and never will be, a islamic
state. The young muslim immigrants or second generation immigrants must also be aware of teir behavior, most Danes
find it threatening when large groups of people are gathered and yelling, especially if it is in a language they don't
understand. The Danes on the other hand must accept that many muslims are very sensitive and easily hurt on their
honnor and feelings, this should be respected. For those who reads this, on both sides of the conflict - you should
remember that respect is not someting you just get, it is something you must deserve."
There might well be some salvageable content in here, but not in the current format. exolon 01:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I think there is some real solid information there, if the POV can be removed I would advicate it's
inclusion.--M4bwav 02:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
74
There is some very good information in there. The problem is to get it in neutral language so that it's
acceptable for Wiki. --Tygerbryght 05:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, being a Dane I can confirm and relate to a lot of the points mentioned — though not all of it. I hate
to do this, as I know I cannot be completely objective, but I think there's so much great information in this,
that I will give the following — hopefully improved — version as a new working draft suggestion, in the
hope we can approach something publishable:
In Denmark religion and government are seperated. All media is self-regulating, although it should be mentioned that
DR is primarily funded by the state, and the TV2 Regionals receive subsidy. There is a constitutional freedom of
speech. Denmark is a small country with a fairly high percentage of immigrants from Africa [is that true?] and the
Middle East, and like Danes they all enjoy the extensive benefits from the welfare system such as financial aid, free
education, free healthcare and practically the same constitutional rights as ethnic Danes [to my knowledge there are
differences when it comes to expulsion].
The fact that immigrants, especially from the Islamic world, are relatively over-represented in crime statistics, along with a
visible minority of fundamentalists who condemn several of the Danish values, is causing a tense atmosphere between Danes
and immigrants in the cities, where ghettoization is becoming very distinct. Immigrants living outside the cities are usually
well integrated though, and often very popular due to their openness, which is a good contrast to the Danish reservedness.
Danes are generally a proud people with a long history and tradition, and they expect newcomers to adopt and adjust to the
Danish mentality, and surely live by the rules and laws of the country.
Many second generation immigrants in Denmark have trouble finding their ground. Their parents often try to hold on to
their original traditions and values, which doesn't always go well with the Danish ditto, and hence the gap between
ethnic Danes and the immigrants is therefore still considerable.
The Muslims must accept that ethnic Danes are Atheists and Protestants, and Denmark will never be an Islamic state,
nor do they have any desire to change their laws and set of values to interoperate better with those the immigrants are
used to. Young immigrants must also be aware of their behaviour, most Danes find it threatening when large groups of
people are gathered and speaking loudly, especially if it is in a language they don't understand. The Danes on the other
hand must accept that many Muslims are very sensitive and easily hurt on their honor and feelings, this should be
respected. The Danes should also try to be more open-minded and tolerant, trying to see the advantages of having a
mixed society, instead of being afraid of losing their current set of values.
For those who reads this, on both sides of the conflict — you should remember that respect is not someting you just get,
75
it is something you must deserve."
I hope I didn't ruin it. Feel free to edit instead of adding it all again. AllanRasmussen 07:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Great attempt, however I think that the word "should" makes it still POV. --hellznrg
Thanks. It actually doesn't seem fair to use two 'musts' for the Muslims, and then follow with two 'shoulds'
for the Danes. But I still think this needs a lot more editing before it can be published... AllanRasmussen
10:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Speaking as a disapassionate British person who has no strong feelings on this subject I think that
whole segment is just ripe for edit wars. I don't know that it's necessary to this article to broaden the
scope to include broad immigration issues, crime rates, the welfare state and all the rest (all issues
that we debate here in Britain). The whole proposed segment reads like a newspaper editorial to me.
I'd steer clear of most of it. --bodnotbod 14:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Anonymously sent is baloney
The Islamic Society was not anonymously sent a thirteenth picture. This is a lie. It has three other pictures in addition to the
original 12 and several members have been going on tv throughout the Middle East claiming these were by the Danish
cartoonists. The Danish Prime Minister condemned them. Ill try and find a link - I think it might have been from Little Green
Footballs. KI 02:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Little Green Footballs is not a very credible source. A more reliable link would be better. I also don't understand the
importance. If these other pictures weren't in the newspaper, they shouldn't be part of the controversy. 71.141.251.153
08:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Temporarily locking the article
There seems to be removed information from this article constantly, by unknown users, without any reason given. An edit
war. Given the controversial content of this article, wouldn't it be an idea to temporarily lock it - to registered users, if
possible? I'm a completely newbie inhere, so I hope one of you will do what it takes if you agree with me. AllanRasmussen
07:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
76
AllanRasmussen: Repeated vandalism can be easily reverted by any user. If it becomes too intense then an admin
can block anonymous page editing, or can block all editing. Edit blocks are an extreme measure and are usually
only put in place for an hour so everyone can cool off. If this is occurring on this page (or any other) then the
instructions for reporting it are at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. Tempshill 07:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
correction
to the best of my knowledge, the saudi embassy in copenhagen has not been closed, though the embassedor was recalled.
Jyllands-Posten apologize Qatarson 08:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Swedish printings
About Swedish publication, [3] (in Swedish) claims that the pictures have been printed in three Swedish papers as part of a
letter to the editor (written by a muslim) on 7 January. I haven't seen this commentary myself; especially I do not know how
much was actually shown, and at what size, which would be relevant to ascertain before adding the information. Arbor 12:48,
Here is the article of 7 January "Vi måste tåla nidbilderna" ("We must put up with the shameful pictures") . In the print
edition of Kvällsposten, Expressen and GT some (about 5 or 6) of the pictures were shown, but in the net edition they
are not shown. As I remeber from seeing the pictures on that day, they were in full size (from JP) but not colourized.
Regarding the 'Orange in the Turban' thing
What exactly does it mean, the main article suggests that it means "good luck", but a Danish person i consulted suggested that
it means that you have done somethign really well so as to be proud of it or something to that effect. So could someone clarify
that?
The odds that you happend to walk by while an Orange (A rare item in older days - therefore valuable)falls down into your
turban (ie. without you doing anything to get it) are slim - so if it happends you are lucky
The Danish prime minister has said more, he condemned the cartoon a few days ago; could someone who knows anything
77
about this please edit it?
The proverb is mostly used when something happens, which is in favor of the person whom the proverb is used abut.
On Danish you would say: “it fell like an orange in his turban” or “it’s an orange in his turban” thereby applying that
what happened was very fortunate for the person. In this case ‘the orange in the turban’ could refer to all the free
publicity the author of the children’s book (Kåre Bluitgen) got due to the following debate about Islam and freedom of
speech. Another interpretation could be that the artist behind the drawing felt that Kåre Bluitgen had an anti-Islamic
and/or self-promoting agenda, and that the article in Jyllands-Poster further would promote this agenda, hence being an
orange in his turban. But it is of course speculations, as I don’t know what exactly the artist meant by the drawing. But
at least, that is what the proverb or phrase means :-) --80.164.16.222 23:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Bomb threat and evacuation of Jyllands Posten
According to another Danish newspaper, Jyllands Posten has been the target of a bomb threat and was evacuated. The threat
was false: sources (Danish) http://www.jp.dk/indland/artikel:aid=3529144/ (Jyllands Posten)
http://ekstrabladet.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=332955 (Other Newspaper Extra Bladet)
Where is the legal text against depiction
I am trying to find the exact place which forbids showing the face of Mohammed. Could anyone please tell me exactly where
to find it? Does anyone know of any exact reference to a book or website? If it does exist in the Quran, and I missed it, I
would appreciate the line, so I can find it this time around.DanielDemaret 18:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Please consider improving our aniconism article when you find it. Uncle G 20:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
IF I find it, I shall. Since nobody seems to know its source, it may simply stem from a misinterpretation. DanielDemaret
21:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Preliminary finding: There seem to be some who interpret some Hadith, for example 1678 by Bukhari :"Those who
draw pictures will be punished on the Day of Resurrection; and it will be said to them: 'Breathe soul into what you have
created.'". As far as I can tell, these Hadith are supported mainly by Sunni, but not Shia. It is not from the Quran, but
traditions collected 200 years later. Not all muslims seem to agree as to its interpretation, applicability or veracity.
There has to be more on this somewhere. It is hard for me to believe right now that these unclear and contentious texts
have been enough to create such a firm beliefs. DanielDemaret 23:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
78
Translation of picture in Boycotts section
I am curious as to the sign depicted in the Boycotts section. Is there any chance someone with the appropriate skills could put
the translation into the caption of said picture? I'm sure others are curious as well. BinaryTed 18:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Extremist
For this edit. I am adding "extremist" back in there. because they are ones who kill people. matt kane's brain 19:30, 31
January 2006 (UTC)
Original meeting with foreign ministers
"On October 19, 2005 eleven ambassadors from Islamic countries, including Algeria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Egypt, Indonesia,
Iran, Morocco, Pakistan, Palestine, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey sent a letter to Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen
requesting a meeting and for him to distance himself from hate speech, including remarks by MP Louise Frevert, Culture
Minister of Denmark Brian Mikkelsen, and nationalistic radio Radio Holger. Rasmussen declined, saying that the government
could not interfere with the right to free speech, but said that cases of blasphemy and discrimination could be tried at the
courts."
The cited article mentions nothing about Louis Frevert or Brian Mikkelsen or Radio Holger. Did they really roll all of these
demands together? What exactly did the foreign ministers ask Rasmussen to do? Peregrine981 21:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Splitting the article up
Perhaps it is time to start to split the article, it is getting quite lengthy? --Snailwalker | talk 21:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
It will certainly probably come to that, so I guess we may as well. How about splitting out the time line? Peregrine981
21:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that the article is long enough to warrant splitting up, yet. Uncle G 12:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
79
weasel words in intro paragraph
Someone recently added weasel words to the intro paragraph (changes shown):
The drawings are were said to be satirical illustrations accompanying an article on self-censorship and freedom of
speech. They were also allegedly meant to highlight the allegation by the Danish writer Kåre Bluitgen that no artist was
willing to illustrate a children's book about Muhammad without remaining anonymous, out of fear of revenge from
extremist Muslims because depicting Muhammad is prohibited in Islam (see aniconism).
I don't think there's serious grounds to doubt that the drawings were satirical, or that they accompanied an article on
self-censorship and free speech, or that the newspaper's intention in publishing them was different from what they stated. So
I'd like to rv the weasel words. WP:AWW, subject to discussion. 71.141.251.153 22:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I noticed that too, but since I've reverted twice today, I wouldn't touch it myself. --Valentinian 22:10, 31
January 2006 (UTC)
Size of Arla's exports.
The source given for Arla's 500 mill. $ export - which I'm pretty sure is the global amount, not just exports for the Middle
East - gives no such figure. Does anyone have a figure, or should the number just be deleted? --Valentinian 22:13, 31 January
2006 (UTC)
According to this thing, their sales are 348 million Euros per year in the middle east. That's about 422 million dollars.
[4]
Peregrine981 23:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. --Valentinian 00:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Depiction of Muhammad
The ban on depictions of Muhammad is a central issue here, I believe, but the article doesn't treat it as fully as it deserves. In
80
my understanding, the ban doesn't stem from the Qur'an itself, but is rather derived from the Old Testament, and can therefore
be seen as a parallel to various waves of iconoclasm in Christian history. The article refers simply to "Islamic tradition", but
what exactly is this, the Hadith? I am no Islamic scholar, and it would be appreciated if someone with better knowledge of the
Qur'an and Islam could comment on this. Eixo 01:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The origin in the bible is clear, but it is unclear if that is what they refer to. The Old Testament says clearly not to make any
image of god (idols) and also that god made man in his image. Hence, no man may be made an image of. The Hadith are
collections of sayings that some believe the prophet said even if not in the Quran. Not all muslims believe in the same
collections, and the Hadith that I have read on this issue are vague. The origin is clearly not in any Quran translation that I
have read, but I dont read arabic. DanielDemaret 06:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Im no expert on the Qu'ran, but awhile ago I was talking on another wikipedia page on Islamic views of the Bible, and one of
their assertions supposedly is that one of the prophecies in Isaiah (which, quite frankly, really is referring to Christ if I
remember correctly) prophecises the birth of Muhammad, and that this should give him increadibly high status from a
Biblical perspective. But the Old Testiment never once mentions anything literally speaking about Muhammad, and if all
drawings are banned by it, (I've never heard of this, but I get the feeling if it is in there, it's probably being taken out of
context.) we might have a serious problem, because Jesus drew in the sand when He stepped in to save that woman from
being stoned by the Israelites for being an adulteress. (Though now that I think about it, I think the Bible was literally saying
he was writing something, im not entirely certain.) and you'd think if what Jesus was doing violated some law, the Jews who
pretty much already disliked him alot wouldn't of hesitated to change their target to Christ, yet they didn't. Homestarmy
02:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep the Pics
Wikipedia, as an objective encyclopedia, has a duty to bring all the facts into play. Now if the writers of the article inserted a
statement regarding the images that is not objective, then there would be a problem.
If Muslims feel offended because Wikipedia displayed the images then they do not have to look. The article in question is
named "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons" which clearly indicates that there will probably be pictures of Mohammed
contained therin, so if they would be offended by said pictures they do not have to click on the link or read the article.
(Caesar89 01:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC))
81
What if they want to read the article without seeing the pictures? If the article on leprosy has pictures (I don't want to
check and find out), I might want to read the article without seeing pustule photos. Phr 07:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I have an idea.. why don't you just NOT read wikipedia, and read the koran instead, since all answers are to be
found in your holey books??? and best of all, the koran doesn't contain pictures!!! yay problem solved Hellznrg
08:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
People visiting this page should have a fair chance to form their own opinion on the actual newspaper article that started this
controversy. It is extremely important that the article itself is described as objectively as possible. To actually show the article
and the cartoons somehow (without violating copyright) is the best way to do that. Thank you all for a great place to share
information. Martix 01:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree completely. I posted a similar comment prior to the blanking. It essentially said the following:
As a Muslim myself, I find depictions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) blasphemous to Islam. However,
I also realize that I am not forced to look at the depiction in this article (in the same way I don't have to look at the other
un-Islamic things in this world). This article in its title says Muhammad cartoons. If that is not a red flag that this article
may contain pictures of the Prophet (pbuh), I don't what is. If you don't want to look at the picture, you can read this
article, but glance away from the depictions. If you didn't want to get even close to a depiction of the Prophet (pbuh),
you should never have visited this article in the first place; the title should have tipped you off to the potentially
un-Islamic content in this article. joturner 01:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It's always nice to hear from Muslim people who can see that it's possible to practise their own religion, and
believe their own beliefs, without hating the rest of the world and wanting to destroy them :)
Of course, I believe that this applies to the majority of decent Muslim people in this world... and that is what we
in the West should not forget. Unfortunately, it's the actions of hatred of the fundamentalist minority which are
02:02, 1
headline-grabbing, and therefore smear the name of the rest of the regular followers. EuroSong
February 2006 (UTC)
As an atheist, it seems pretty unreasonable to have an article about a picture, and not show the picture, that should be
obvious, even to those under religious programming. --M4bwav 01:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I notice that the English and Serbo-Croatian wikipedias (en and sr) are the only ones that have the picture. The
others (fr, es, etc., including da) only have links to it. Phr 02:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
That probably has more to do with their different fair use policies. I know on da, they don't allow any fair use images.
82
Peregrine981 05:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Would it be a solution to make it possible to hide the image, like this (edit to see code): I can't get it to appear alongside the
text, though.. But maybe it could be placed after the intro text where it will only interfere with the toc? Poulsen 07:21, 1
February 2006 (UTC)
hmm great idea.. and while we're at it, lets bend over a little more.. i think mohammed's dick isn't long enough to reach
our arseholes Hellznrg 08:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
WP:CIVGeni 08:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Try looking up the word compromise. Poulsen 08:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
oh man don't u see what's happening here... wikipedia will eventually become censored...! this is the
beginning of the end... if the images are ever removed or reduced in any way i'll commit suicide..! i swear!
i'll go into a death-fast! just like gandhi! Hellznrg 10:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I commented out the HTML to make a hide-able picture--I'm having trouble getting the page to load and I think the
fancy div may be causing the problem (Firefox 1.5). It's a clever idea but I think the technology may be a little too
advanced. Phr 07:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
That's pretty interesting; the navbar display is real ugly in Firefox (letters collide with each other) and it relies on
browser javascript, so overall I'm not keen on it, but if you want to give it a try to see what happens, it can't be worse
than what's happening now. But, if it's at the top of the page or shows the pic by default, I think it won't fly. Phr 07:44,
Well, it was worth a shot. Poulsen 08:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Why is it gone AGAIN? Just keep the stupid thing.Kittynboi 07:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Talk: Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy - Archive 2a
#
.
/
&
% 1
%
*
&
83
1
B
$%
$
)
8
9.
:)
)
;
>0
? 4
6
% 1
%'
$ %
$$ $
$D
# ' .
E
%
C
'$
F
&
3
D
4
& 866
'
$
$ D
%
&
C
Why locked with image on top?
I've just read this whole talk page, and I'm a little confused about the decision to lock the page with the image "above the
fold." It seems like the overwhelming majority of sensible voices advocated either linking the image, or moving it "below the
fold." It seems clear that wikipedia should not be in the business of telling people which images they should or should not see.
Having the image above the fold is offensive and hurtful to many, and appears to me as inappropriate editorializing by
wikipedia on the issue. Putting the image behind a link or down the page just seems more non-pov to me. Why was it locked
otherwise? --Camipco 23:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The article is about that image. To put it anywhere but the top is illogical. --Xiaphias 00:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Camipco, the majority you assert does not exist. Thparkth 23:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Why not a vote on this? At least that's one way to assert one way or the other what the consensus is on this. Sol. v.
Oranje 23:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Meaning of freedom: Freedom is not the power to do what one wants. Freedom is the power to do what is right." Pope John
84
Paul II "Before you seek one’s freedom, you must assume that any individual, in and of itself, has that quality called freedom,
meaning that he can act according to his own free choice." Yehuda Ashlag "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains"
Jean-Jacques Rousseau "Man is free at the moment he wishes to be" Voltaire "Freedom means the freedom to say two plus
two equals four. All else follows from that" George Orwell "Freedom is participation in power" Cicero "In the truest sense,
freedom cannot be bestowed; it must be achieved" Franklin D. Roosevelt
I think that some has to remind others of their limits words can lead to war and destruction your freedom ends when
you step in others or interfer in others life or their busness. I hope the world learn to apologize because it is vertue to
say sorry and I am wrong, lets see how your wife will react to a caricature of her body in front of others, do not tell me
you are going to say to her I am free, I am sure you will spend your night out, so next time do not talk about freedom of
speech.
Is this some kind of threat? That war and destruction will come because a bunch of freaking Danish cartoons and
whether or not Wikipedia posts them on their site? Are you out of your mind?
No, we will not apologize to people who stand against the cause of free of information and speech. I don't care
what caricatures one could draw anout any important figure in my life...because, duh, they are _caricatures_. And
yes, caricatures, satire. and unplesant humor are a part of modern life and expanding one's mind. Clearly yours is
closed and obsessed with revenge and notions of making other people grovel for being free. For shame. Why are
you even on Wikipedia if all you mean to is to cripple free information? Sol. v. Oranje 06:40, 2 February 2006
(UTC)
My 2 pence
I think that Wikipedia should include the images.
One of the wonderful things about the internet is that there is no censorship (at least, unless the government of a particular
country forcibly blocks content, like in China). It is currently the largest forum for free speech on the planet.
Among all the world's 6 billion people, there are an uncountable number of beliefs and traditions - and, naturally, some are
going to be in direct conflict with others. Offence WILL be caused at some point, when someone talks who advocates a
certain belief, which goes directly against that of another person. There's no way to avoid this.
My personal belief is that it is wrong to pander to one group of people in particular. To censor images of Muhammad for fear
85
of "offending" hard-core Muslims can be seen as offensive to those advocates of free speech. As long as no-one is directly,
physically harming someone else, then it is not wrong to let people speak. EuroSong
01:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree, we cannot start censoring ourselves to save the feelings of some random minority group. From there, it's only a
short step to "oh, the Scientologists are offended by the article on Xenu", "the fundamentalist Christians are offended
by the articles on atheism, evolution, and biblical criticism", etc etc.
We must not let one minority dictate what we may or may not publish here on Wikipedia.
Lankiveil 11:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC).
You know, I always thought censorship meant suppressing information so that people who wanted to obtain it
couldn't do so (at least without difficulty). Do you really think "scroll down if you want to see the picture" is
suppressing anything? It's possible that you have no idea what real censorship is. Phr 11:34, 1 February 2006
(UTC)
I don't see any reason to move it to the bottom to begin with. People might get offended by it. So what?
You can't avoid being offended in life.Kittynboi 14:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Slippery slope, my friend. Read my last sentence that I wrote. If we start making considerations for one
minority, where will it end? Offending people for the sake of offending people is bad, of course, but why
should we subvert and change our normal procedures because someone's feelings might get hurt? Next
thing you'll be telling us that we have to hide the images in penis, Jesus, and cauliflower as well. You
know, because somebody's feelings might be hurt (although its okay if we hide it, porno-store style, and
hope that nobody complains about that). Lankiveil 12:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC).
For a while I was considering to support the people who wanted to move the image "down". But then
I read Lankiveil's post and I have to agree, we can't start catering to certain people because then we'll
have to cater to everyone to be fair. And the most fair and objective way to be about this is display
the image prominently because the article is certainly about the image. Hitokirishinji 22:46, 1
February 2006 (UTC)
Inappropriate to Take Down the Cartoons
Posting the cartoons are, I believe, fundamental to understanding the entire controversy; how can one make an informed
opinion vis-a-vis the offensiveness-vs.-free speech/satire of the works without visually seeing them (with appropriate
explanation of some of the more obscure Danish personalities and idioms expressed in the works)? Furthermore, if Wikipedia
86
takes down the images, then it will have succumbed to anti-free speech demands and would compromise any hope of using
this site as a wide-ranging source of information on every topic, no matter how "controversial" or political. Sol. v. Oranje
01:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
1. Posting the cartoons is not fundamental to understanding the controversy: the text descriptions are perfectly
adequate, and the Danish version of the article, like most of the other language versions, doesn't have the
cartoons (maybe because of copyright) but I'm sure its readers understand the controversy perfectly well. 2. The
current revision battle re this article isn't about taking down the pictures; it's about moving them from one part of
the page to another.
I just don't see it as that big a deal. Insisting on keeping them in a particular spot on the page has nothing to do
with keeping the info available; it's more of an insistence on making a political statement and/or punishing an
adversary. Moving the picture tones down the confrontation while keeping the info available. Phr 11:41, 1
February 2006 (UTC)
If we follow the "text descriptions are perfectly adequate" rationale, then why have any images on
Wikipedia? --Guppy313 04:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia needs to lock this article to stop people from removing the image. You're right.
Understanding the issue is impossible without actually seeing what it is that has so many people upset. Kittynboi 06:36,
I'm ok with removing the inline cartoon and replacing it with a link saying "click here to see the cartoon". The page was
like that for a while last night and it seemed to mollify the most vociferous opponent of including the image. Phr 02:34,
I'm ok with reminding the naive user (in the caption, perhaps) that using the image doesn't constitute endorsement of its
message, and as such shouldn't be construed as racism on wikipedia's part. M0nkey 03:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Several prominent Danish imams have stated publicly that the ban on depicting Muhammad does not apply to
non-muslims (no more than the ban on eating pork does). The offence lies not in depicting Muhammed, which
has been done many times before, but in doing so in a provocative way. Also, I have not heard of a ban for
muslims on seeing depictions of Muhammad. Therefore, I strongly support posting the image in this
encyclopedia. Wikipedia is neither muslim, nor christian (though some authors tend to forget that); it is just
informative. One of the causes of the controversy over the drawings is that "false" Muhammad drawings have
87
been shown in Arabic media - drawings even more offensive than the ones that actually appeared in
Jyllandsposten. Therefore, the actual drawings are important information.--Niels Ø 10:13, 1 February 2006
(UTC) PS. The heading of this section contains the word "Asanine"; I find that unneccesarily harsh. Would it be
OK to change it into "Inappropriate", say?
OK, I changed the heading. Let me try to answer your other question. I think it's important that people can see the
picture if they want to see it. A bunch of others here (let's call them "pro picture") all said approximately the same thing
as that, while some "anti picture" people wanted the picture gone, and kept removing it. There was a confrontation
between the sides, feeding on itself. Then the picture got moved to the bottom of the page; it was still there to see, but
moving it toned down the confrontation, and the anti-picture side stopped removing it. Then, (some of) the "pro
picture" side changed their demand: they insisted that the picture be on top of the page, because dammit, freedom, blah,
blah. See: it was not really about information to the pro-picture side either; they wanted a political statement in the form
of the picture's placement, and they wanted confrontation against whoever didn't like the picture. (That's supposed to be
a no-no: WP:NOT, wikipedia is not a soapbox). I don't think the edit war is about the picture being present or not
present; it's about confrontation and each side trying to punish the other. Moving the picture downward doesn't suppress
the info but it does make a gesture to tone down the confrontation, which appeared effective even with the most
extreme "anti" editor (who only rv'd when it was at the top).
Those insisting on having it at the top really should ask themselves whether it's really an issue of consistent
presentation across Wikipedia (and notice Oak's only pictures of oak trees are at the bottom: the top only has oak
leaves), or whether it's from some need to dominate the opponent? If the latter, that's not really a wikipedia goal.
Look a little further too: do you really think thousands of Muslims marching in the street and boycotting Danish
products really give a damn about some picture in a Danish newspaper? The cartoon is a trivial thing; but there was
huge tension in that population already because of middle east conflicts, thousands of Muslims imprisoned in
Guatanamo without being charged, etc.; the cartoon was simply a spark that set them off. It's just a spot where much
larger forces are colliding. Again, it's best to look for ways to de-escalate. Phr 11:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, but there was no reason to even change the heading. It is indeed "asinine" to remove the cartoons
from an article specifically _about_ the cartoons and the controversy/debate they have spawned. Now we're
getting offended over adjectives? Grow up, people. Furthermore, it's offensive that you promote censorship under
the cause of "de-escalating" this tension; you suggest nothing more than kowtowing to the demands of
fundamentalists who would deny free speech, debate, and information and destroy the very reason for Wikipedia
in the first place. Should we remove the image of "Piss Christ" from its article because it offends Christians or
shunt it to the bottom of the page in obscure miniature? Hell no. Let the cartoons remain, prominently, in the
article, or surrender your right to freedom of speech and information. Sol. v. Oranje 20:15, 1 February 2006
88
(UTC)
Sol perhaps we could change it from asinine and you could stop telling people to 'grow up' toward the end of civility. Discuss
the article. I agree with you but how do you plan on convincing other people if in the same sentence you argue their point and
abuse their person?
It is more than a little frustrating dealing with this issue when it appears many would willingly censor an article that is
on its basis an exercise in free speech. I suppose I have let my temper flare a bit too much. It's hard to resist my Irish
temper in matters like these, but I agree, allowing my anger to surface will do nothing but alienate people from the
position I advocate. Sol. v. Oranje 22:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I think that it should be moved to the bottom of the page, not because of right and wrong, but because as civilised people we
should always do our best to make others as comfortable as possible, without sacrificing our principals. Having the image at
the top of the article is not necessary to make a point, but keeping the image is central to the tenants of free speech. Surely no
one here is so petty as to object to moveing the image, and thus making others fell belittled, just to prove a "point". It is not
about right and wrong, it is about manners. I for one do not fell that "manners" is a dirty word. It is reluctance on all sides to
accomidate the beleifs and sensibilities of others that has lead us the sorry state we are in. Christian and muslem alike.
Now....let's play nice and put the image at the bottom.
That's wierd...I thought the purpose of Wikipedia was to educate and inform people, not to make them feel comfortable.
Shows what I know, I suppose.--141.157.125.90 00:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
What is the difference between the top and the bottom of the page? If one wants to be offended by clicking
a link to this article, is it really "being polite" to require that that person then scroll down to be offended (or
not, depending on their religious persuasion)? No one can honestly claim being uncomfortable because an
image they must have sought out in the first place is "hidden" by being nearer the end than nearer the start
of the "uncomfortable" article. A totally bogus point to even argue - Marshman 00:55, 2 February 2006
(UTC)
Well you know, the whole debate about moving the image up or down the page is beside-the-point
right now as vandals are now re-continually removing the image entire from the article to begin with.
We're back at square one, folks -- either support the inclusion of the image in whatever location, or
bow down to the suppression of freedom of information. Sol. v. Oranje 07:08, 2 February 2006
89
(UTC)
Debate
The issue itself can be debated here Danny 02:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't you think the two options provided are a little biased? A simple "Keep the Picture" / "Remove the Picture" would
have worked. joturner 02:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I would like people to discuss the issue itself, not in reference to Wikipedia. Danny 02:38, 1 February
2006 (UTC)
Danny, the cartoons aren't a "racist insult" since race has nothing to do with anything over here..a better poll would be:
"keep the pictures" vs "lets all do as islam says and bend over backwards and become mohammed's harem girls"
Hellznrg 08:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Anyways, here, i've created the poll to end all polls!!! Vote NOW!!! Hellznrg 09:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
What does (da) mean?
In the References section (da) appears several times. What does it mean? Too Old 03:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It means the link is to an article written in Danish. de would be German, etc. Phr 03:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
dansk. BlueShirts 03:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Why can't we follow the Bahaullah example?
Bahai adherents object to an image of Bahaullah appearing on the page, so it was agreed to put the image at the bottom of the
page, "below the fold", so that people who don't want to see the image can avoid scrolling all the way to the bottom. Why
can't we do that here? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
No. Information should be free, not subject to the whims of censorship, "repsect" multiculturalism, and religious
90
fervor.Kittynboi 06:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I think this article should not follow that becaise it's a bad decision. Information should be free.Kittynboi 07:11, 1
February 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how scrolling down a page to see the image makes the information nonfree. 71.141.251.153 10:26, 1
February 2006 (UTC)
Because its still an attempt to hide it, just a really pathetic one. ITs hiding relevant info for delicate
sensibilities, which is something that has no place anywhere. Kittynboi 10:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I like that. Phr 03:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Would that not be more analogous to putting a drawing of Muhammad below the fold in the Muhammad article?
This doesn't really seem comparable. The cartoons are much more central to this topic, methinks. Babajobu
04:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I dunno. I went ahead and moved the image, let's see what happens. I was perfectly happy with removing
the image and letting people click a link. Phr 04:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
We should wait to see if consensus develops before implementing the switch. Babajobu 04:05, 1
February 2006 (UTC)
Why wait? WP:BRD. I'd say make the change and see if anyone has big problems with it.
There is obviously no consensus to leave the image at the top of the page, since it keeps
getting removed. Putting it at the bottom can't be any worse. Phr 04:08, 1 February 2006
(UTC)
For one, I don't like it there. This article is about the images in a way that the article
about Muhammad or Bahaullah are not about images of those people. I think, as
jotourner says, the fact that the article is titled "cartoons" is enough of a warning as
anyone should need. What else could they be expecting? Babajobu 04:11, 1 February
2006 (UTC)
I don't know what they're expecting, but I do know they keep removing the image
and the revert war is getting ridiculous. It's time to look for another solution. Most
people wanting to keep the image want it on the (reasonable) grounds that people
should be able to see it if they want to. I don't see how moving it to the bottom
fails to satisfy: scrolling down is no big deal. Phr 04:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I think It's a good idea to move it to the bottom or have it accessable by a prominent link. That way it's easily
accessable, but easily avoidable. Having it at the very top would be akin to if I wanted to read an article about,
say, a new child pornography law, and found myself face-to-face with an example of what the law was trying to
stop. While I am not muslim, blasphemey in any religion is a serious offense, and there is certainly no point in
91
offending a large fraction of the world population for the sake of convenience. (Ghostofgauss 04:18, 1 February
2006 (UTC))
Okay, seems like there's a lot of support for this. Leave it and see how it does. All I asked was to wait and
see if support emerged. Babajobu 04:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the point of moving it down; it is still there, so we still break the muslim ban on depicting
Muhammad. There is as far as I know no ban prohibiting muslims from seeing depictions of
Muhammad. If someone wants not to see the drawings for fear of being emotionally disturbed by
them, that person should stay away from this article. If someone visits the article in order to know
more about its subject matter, the actual drawings are essential (although the description giving of
each of the 12 drwaings is even more useful).--Niels Ø 10:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Niels is right on the money. The pictures should stay, at the top, where they belong. If people
vandalise the article, they should be reverted, and if they keep vandalising it, blocked. If they
have a good reason for them not to be on their page (and much as I respect Islam, religion isn't
a valid editorial reason), they can take it here, to the talk page. That is how Wikipedia works.
Consensus means not caving in to vocal and disruptive minorities. Otherwise we've got a lot of
work to do on pages like 'vulva', 'penis', 'nudity' etc (didn't wikilink those because I don't want
to encourage this nonsense to spread). --Malthusian (talk) 10:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd go with Ghostofgauss on this matter, at the very least could the thumbnail be smaller (100 pixels for example) so
that people will find it and those who want may see the whole image by clicking on it. Current affairs are clearly not
working as there is an edit and revert every five minutes and make constructive editing more difficult as the article keep
changing. Scoo 15:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Images gone
92
I just noticed that the images of Mohammed are gone, Was it decided that they were too controversial for Wikipedia, or did
someone just remove them due to personal belief? (Caesar89 04:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC))
They have been moved to the bottom of the page, so people who don't want to see the images can still read the article.
Phr 04:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Some of us disagree that this is an appropriate solution for this particular page, Caesar, but for now there seems
to be a consensus that this is a good idea. Babajobu 04:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
...and once again, any pretense Wikipedia ever had to being a serious provider of knowledge disappears beneath the
juggernaut of fanatics and POV-pushers. Let's see. We have an article about a series of images. Not an article about
artistic or religious concepts in the abstract, but about a very particular group of identifiable images. So where's the
images that are the very subject of the article? That's funny, they don't seem to be here. What's that you say? Oh
there they are - reduced to magnifying-glass size and banished to the bottom of the page. And why is that? Oh right because some readers of this "encyclopedia" feel that some knowledge shouldn't be made known. And a craven group
of editors decides, well, there's a few wheels squeaking out there, and gee, we wouldn't want to offend their sensibilities
just in the name of "knowledge" as we in the West understand that term, so gosh, there seems to be "consensus" for this
suppression of information, so sure, let's hide the material that uniquely, and irreplaceably, illustrates the subject of this
article. Unbelievable. 209.178.136.129 04:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I kind of get the feeling, that as technology progresses, deletion of data will replace book burning, as the
primary method to prevent the spread of contraversial knowledge.--M4bwav 04:44, 1 February 2006
(UTC)
Agree that the present solution, with a tiny clickable image segregated at bottom of page, is kind of
ridiculous considering that the images are the topic of this article. Babajobu 04:56, 1 February 2006
(UTC)
The images are not really the article's main topic. The controversy over the images is the topic.
The edit war IMO was mostly due to people feeling that their POV was being disrespected.
This solution shows some respect to everybody, I think. (I do believe the extra shrinkage was
unnecessary since the Bahaullah picture wasn't shrunken.) Phr 05:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, some people get itchy about censoring Wikipedia, about making it a poorer
resource in order to cater to the pieties of random groups everywhere and anywhere.
Babajobu 05:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Some POVs do not deserve respect if this project is to be taken seriously as an
encyclopedia. 209.178.136.129 05:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Does that include batshit fascists? Because it should.
93
The title of the article is "Jyllands-Posten Muhammed cartoons," not "Jyllans-Posten
Muhammed cartoons controversy." So it would seem that either the pictures are the
subject of the article, or the article needs to be renamed --Guppy313 04:17, 2 February
2006 (UTC)
Well, I think someone already gave the example of the Child pornography article not being
illustrated with an image showing it. Please don't misunderstand: I'm not comparing this
image to child pornography, merely pointing out that there are already some existing
exceptions to the general rule about putting a medium-size thumbnail in the top right (the
Bahaullah article is another such exception, already cited). Some want to view the image and
some don't, but people who don't want to view the image might still want to read about the
controversy and contribute to the article. Why can't Wikipedia meet the needs of both sides? A
neutral point of view isn't served if one side can't edit because it feels a need to stay away from
the article entirely. So you take two seconds to scroll and click... this is equated to book
burning? -- Curps 05:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Curps, child pornography is illegal in the state of Florida. Lolicon is not, and there are
above-the-fold images of it in the article. Check out Wikipedia's content disclaimer.
Actually there have been debates about whether an academic book that talks about the
problem of child pornography can display child pornography. At one time in America, it
was ok to do so because no one had any idea what child pornography was, and the only
way to help people understand it was to display pictures taken from convicted child
pornographers. Of course, we can't show it now, because it's against florida law. But it is
not unprecedented, and some would argue that it is not even immoral to show something
like child pornography if your intent is to prevent or study for the purposes of
preventing it. So I think that I would make a mild challenge at even that perspective.
--M4bwav 05:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
But the fact remains that the images, which are the center of the debate discussed in the article, have been reduced in size and
moved to the botten of the page- hardly objective. Wikipedia is meant to be an objective encylopedia and, as mentioned
above, the article details not a theological debate, but a social-political one. Instead of moving the images, which are central
to the debate and thus central to the article, why not just stick a message at the top of the article saying that images contained
within may be offensive to some readers- the muslims who do not wish to see the images will be notified of their presence in
94
Wikipedia, and the objectivity of the article will be preserved. (Caesar89 05:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC))
OK, but if you put a message at the top of the page and the image at the top of the page too, the message is kind of
moot. That's kind of like putting "don't look at this image if it offends you" in the caption of the image. -- Curps 05:13,
Caesar89, the article is titled "Muhammad cartoons"...no one will actually be surprised to find cartoons on
Muhammad in the article, I don't think. I'm not sure what this is all about, but it's certainly not about
protecting people from getting surprised by the images. Babajobu 05:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
No, that's entirely what it's about. To some observant Muslims, this is goatse. Babajobu, above you
appeared to acquiesce to putting the image at the bottom [1]... have you changed your mind and
reverted to your original point of view? Even at the original thumbnail size, you needed to click... it
was too small to show any meaningful detail for those that want to view it, but large enough to show
unwanted detail for those that don't. So you need to scroll and click... but earlier you had agreed to
the scroll, and you already needed to click before. So you aren't worse off than what you already
agreed to. -- Curps 05:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I've restored the illustration where it belongs. This is not goatse by any rational analysis. We are not going to kowtow to
ignorance and superstition in this encyclopedia. 209.178.136.129 05:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I hope you arent offended if I honestly wish for your death. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by
24.20.237.11 (talk • contribs) .
Please reread your last sentence. You are equating a major world religion (or
perhaps all religions) with ignorance and superstition. -- Curps 05:33, 1 February
2006 (UTC)
Go to the head of the class, Curps. 209.178.136.129 06:05, 1
February 2006 (UTC)
Haha, file that one under rude-but-funny. Babajobu 06:16, 1
February 2006 (UTC)
Curps, unless you are willing to combat all the mockery of ID and
fundamentalist Christianity that we all tolerate every day throughout
wikipedia, your remark sounds exactly like you want to cater to the
ignorance and superstition of a major world religion and your pose of moral
superiority here is hypocritical, bigoted, and offensive to many of us. No
95
more please. Dalembert 05:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Curps, I didn't agree with the decision, I agreed to accede to the community consensus. I
thought then, and think now, that Wikipedia should not be censorored. If the community
disagrees, and determines that censorship is good for Wikipedia, then I will not fight the
implementation of that consensus. But I will not pretend to like it or agree with it. Babajobu
05:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Curps, and as I've stated, I think Bahaullah is not an useful or accurate analogy for this
article. They are entirely different topics on every level. Babajobu 05:28, 1 February
2006 (UTC)
How so? The situations seem comparable. -- Curps 05:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Because this article is about the images and the impact they had...the
articles on Muhammad and Bahaullah are about the men themselves. To
me, that's a self-evident and significant difference, and makes the
sequestering of the cartoon at the bottom of the page seem pretty silly, and
Wikipedia seem a less serious and formidable resource for keeping it there.
Can you clarify further? The Bahaullah article is about Bahaullah; this cartoons
article is about the cartoons. I don't understand what you are saying here. -- Curps
05:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, state the same thing another way: cartoons are a visual medium, and
when writing about cartoons, to omit a picture or a reproduction of the
cartoon drastically reduces the informativeness of the article. On the other
hand, a human being's appearance (except perhaps in the case of a
professional model) is a less fundamental aspect of their notability than is
the case with a cartoon. Babajobu 05:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
1. Wikipedia is an objective enyclopedia 2. Wikipedia should not censor articles based on the opinions of a single group. 3.
Wikipedia is based in the United States which, like most democratic countries, has laws that protect Freedom of Speech and
Freedom of the Press- Wikipedia has no obligation to base its articles on the beliefs of a single group.
As a Catholic Christian I see a number of articles in Wikipedia that could be taken as blasphemous or heretical by both
Catholicism and Christianity it general- BUT, I do not wish to see them taken away as they provide excellent, objective
information. As long as this article with the images of Mohammed remains objective there should be no problem. (Caesar89
96
05:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC))
Yes, for example should the image be removed or hidden from the Piss Christ article? Until today I would have said of
course not, but so long as we're respecting the pieties of various religious or ideological groups, I don't know how I
could argue for keeping the image there. Babajobu 05:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
You couldn't. That is why we are not going to start down that road in this article. Wikipedia is not censored for
the protection of minors, Muslims, minor Muslims, major meanies, or anyone else. 209.178.136.129 05:52, 1
February 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me Mr. or Ms. 209.178.136.129, but who are you to dictate what road we're going to start down or
not start down? You are not in charge of Wikipedia. We're trying to reach a consensus that everyone can
live with (even if they're not completely happy). If we don't reach one, as we might not, then the end result
will be a page that somebody finds intolerable so they go away mad, but that's too bad for them. Now, what
makes you so special that you think that the somebody might not possibly be you? We've been going back
and forth on this for over a day. If you want to discuss possible ways to reach consensus, great. (That may
mean expanding your notion of "tolerable", usually a good strategy for reaching consensus). If you're going
to make high-handed pronouncements like a wannabe deity, well, you deserve no more respect than the
fundie loons who kept removing the picture. So, fix your attitude: see, for example, WP:DBF section on
zeal. You do not get to decide these things unilaterally. Phr 06:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Who am I? Why, I'm an editor (tonight using an IP address and not my account login, since I gave up
on this project a month or so ago for accumulated reasons well exemplified by this debate),
expressing my opinion on how this article ought to be structured, and doing so on the discussion
page and in edit summaries, as appropriate, per policy, blah blah blah wikicakes. And you? who are
you? Let me see ... you are another editor, expressing an opposing opinion, part of a minority of two
expressing that opinion. Pleased to meet you. Fix your own attitude. 209.178.136.129 06:47, 1
February 2006 (UTC)
Erm, my attitude is fine: 1) I'm trying to reach accomodation with other people whose views
differ from mine; you are not. 2) I'm ok with a reasonable range of possible outcomes; you
insist on dictating to everyone else that your preference is the only acceptable outcome. 3)
There may end up being an RFC that ends with an outcome I don't like. If that happens, I'll
shrug my shoulders and do something else. You seem to have stalked off in a huff and now
come back as an IP address. Chill out, dude/dudette. Phr 07:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
97
When it comes to religion I believe there is a differance between being offensive and presenting the facts. For example, I am
offended every year when the Orange Parade goes down my street (although I respect their Freedom of Expression- but that
goes into the question of where do we draw the line), but when I see an article in Wikipedia on the Orange Order I see it as an
objective presentation of the facts.
Same principle applies here- if I went to Iran and put up a big billboard depicting the Mohammed Cartoons, that would be
offensive (and I probably would be killed on the spot), but this article is a presentation on the facts of a Social-Political debate
over the right to show images of Mohammed even if it is offensive to Muslims. (Caesar89 06:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC))
Curps, I think it's clear that this proposed solution does not, in fact, enjoy the support of the community. I think you
should just leave the pic where it was. Babajobu 06:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Babajobu, we already know that there's no solution that can enjoy the support of the community; we're looking
for one that the community finds tolerable. It looked like we found one until 209.178.136.129 swooped in and
pronounced like a mini-dictator that "we are not going to start down that road in this article" regardless of what
anyone else thinks. The picture-advocates initially only said that they wanted people to be able to see the picture;
once they got that (and the removal advocates did NOT object to the thumbnail), the picture advocates escalated
their demands. They are being more fanatical than the removal advocates. WP:DBF. I'm gradually turning into a
removal advocate, just on the grounds of opposing fanaticism. Phr 06:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Phr, it wasn't just the IP...check the edit history, there were several editors who reverted. The fact is that
numerous editors feel that a compromise here would be a compromise with censorship, and they're not
interested in doing that. I think it's a dangerous prospect as well. Wikipedia has loads of content that is
offensive to various groups. Do we want to send the message "kick up enough of a fuss, and you can get
Wikipedia censored for your beliefs"? Do you want Christian fundamentalists to learn that lesson about
Wikipedia, for example? Babajobu 06:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
1) I checked the edit history and it looks like 209.178.136.129 rv'd the thumbnail three times, and
nobody else rv'd the thumbnail even once. The pic did get restored a few times after the page was
vandalized by a different IP when the pic was already at the top. When the pic wasn't at the top, there
was no vandalism. 2) I don't think there is censorship if the pic isn't removed, but only moved to a
different part of the article. I'd like to rv back to the thumbnail unless you no longer find that
acceptable (or if someone else speaks up that it's unacceptable). Me, I just don't find it important that
the picture be there (as long as the article tells people where to find it), since I see the article as being
more about the controversy than about the picture. 3) If xtian fundies want the Piss Christ photo
moved to the bottom of that article, I'm ok with that. Phr 07:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
98
"Fanatical" is a bit inflammatory isn't it? I don't see any fanaticism on this page on either side. You
should reread the article itself, remind yourself what murderous fanaticism really is, and refrain from
insulting those of us who see the importance of this article differently than you do. Dalembert 06:59,
Fanatical in the sense of WP:DBF. Obviously there are degrees of fanaticism. Phr 07:07, 1
February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to revert unless I think someone is making a change that is in clear breach
of consensus. I will respect the consensus on this issue, whether I agree with it or not.
My own vote and position is that Wikipedia should not be censored, and that reducing
the image to a ridiculously small, segregated thumbnail at the very bottom of the page is
equivalent to censoring this article. I could support a normal sized thumb
"below-the-fold", though, as in below the initial screen but within the body of the
article. Babajobu 07:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Babajobu, do you have a specific suggestion for where to put it inside the article?
Do you not think it's simpler to put it at the bottom, so that people wanting to see
it can just scroll directly there instead of having to search for it, and people not
wanting to see it can read the whole article before they get to it? Does Curps
object to a normal sized thumb? (Actually, "normal size" would mean not
specifying a size, which I think would give a 120px default unless overridden by a
user preference. Babajobu, is that what you're suggesting? The old picture was
around 170px, i.e. purposely made larger than the default. 120px is about halfway
between the old picture and Curps's shrunken thumbnail). Anyway, if you want to
move it or resize it or whatever, that would be great. Or I'll do it if you have a
specific suggestion and don't want to do it yourself. Phr 07:23, 1 February 2006
(UTC)
"Consensus" is of course a notably slippery concept, but my quick review of the participants in this discussion
(limited to this particular section, where the substantive conversation has taken place) shows: For a tiny picture
down at the end of the article - Curps, Phr; for a regular-sized picture at the top or in the body of the article Caesar89, Babajobu, M4bwav, Dalembert, me. My recollection of the lengthy discussion before Jimbo blanked it
was that the distribution of views was similar, though I'm not going to go back and count it. To me, that says that
consensus is to have a regular-sized image of the picture in question right up where you would expect to find the
primary illustration if this article were about elephants or Mars or Franklin D. Roosevelt or any other normal
99
topic. Quite seriously, Phr and Curps, and meaning to be neither rude nor funny, what is the justification for
tempering the contents of the encyclopedia to match the sensitivities of the loudest or most sensitive reader,
particularly when those sensitivities are rooted in a worldview that is antithetical to the spirit of free inquiry that
underlies an encyclopedia? Why do the superstitious get a heckler's veto here over the proponents of knowledge?
209.178.136.129 07:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
1) I don't think consensus is a slippery concept: it means something specific, namely reaching a solution
that everyone finds acceptable, even if nobody actually /likes/ it. Right now we have this rv war going on
because the image is linked from the front page. Once it's no longer there, things may calm down. 2) I'd
/like/ the picture at the top of the page, but it looks like that's not a possible consensus solution (i.e. it keeps
getting removed). A consensus solution will necessarily be one that I don't like so much. That's life, I'm ok
with it, the next question is what would I find acceptable (as opposed to "like"). 3) I'd find acceptable : a)
having it at the top; b) having it elsewhere on the page and/or smaller; c) having it removed entirely
leaving a link that people can click if they want to see the picture. I'd find unacceptable: removing it AND
having no link. Even the worst vandals persistently removing the picture last night didn't insist on that. 4)
Only one person as far as I can tell, really found the thumbnail unacceptable, and that person acted
unreasonable in other ways too, no better than the deleters. That person did 3 reverts and then skipped out,
so is no longer a factor. We're left with the thumbnail (or various other approaches) as possible consensus.
Does that make sense? Phr 08:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I think consensus has become impossible at this point between people who want the most
informative possible article, and those who are afraid of offending the muslim faith. Only a
small minority are in the middle on this issue, so it seems that either you show it or you don't
show it. I think erroring on the side of information over censorship, makes sense in that this is
an encyclopedia, not a religious text. If people of the future do not have information on the
contraversies of the Islamic religion and world politics, (like the information available for
other religions and global contraversies) we will be doing a disservice to the human race.
--M4bwav 13:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
How does moving an image from one part of a page to another remove information?
Please try to show some comprehension of what real censorship is. Phr 15:02, 1
February 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't you agree that any attempt to reduce the availability of information is at
least mild censorship? I mean you are trying to intentionally prevent people from
being exposed to information.--M4bwav 15:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
100
Censorship means trying to make information unavailable or inaccessible.
"Click here to see the image" doesn't remotely qualify. Sorry.
71.141.251.153 16:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
While I agree that it is only a small degree of information, the intent
is to prevent people from being exposed to the information. That's
censorship, maybe to an extremely small degree, but still censorship
nonetheless.--M4bwav 17:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I think that it should be moved to the bottom of the page, not because of
right and wrong, but because as civilised people we should always do our
best to make others as comfortable as possible, without sacrificing our
principals. Having the image at the top of the article is not necessary to
make a point, but keeping the image is central to the tenants of free speech.
Surely no one here is so petty as to object to moveing the image, and thus
making others fell belittled, just to prove a "point". It is not about right and
wrong, it is about manners. I for one do not fell that "manners" is a dirty
word. It is reluctance on all sides to accomidate the beleifs and sensibilities
of others that has lead us the sorry state we are in. Christian and muslem
alike. Now....let's play nice and put the image at the bottom.
Violation of 3RR in attempts to censor the image
The IP who is attempting to censor the images has now reverted four times. Babajobu 07:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It's a safe bet that 82.194.62.22 is User:Qatarson who was blocked last night. I will request an IP block if I can figure
out how. Phr 08:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I would block him myself, but I don't use admin privileges on Islam-related articles. Hold on. Babajobu 08:13, 1
February 2006 (UTC)
Look at User:Qatarson's recent edit history, obvious vandalism; if you can check that his IP is the same,
then he's evading a block, calls for sanctions against the user independent of the article IMO. Phr 08:15, 1
February 2006 (UTC)
The IP has been blocked.Geni 08:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
101
It's an open proxy though so don't be supirsed if the user comes back from another IP.Geni
08:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Well done but I suggest you should think of way how you stop people of contacting the
authorities about violation the laws in florida.Qatarson 12:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
What laws in Florida have been violated, specificially? BinaryTed 15:33, 1
February 2006 (UTC)
This guy is a joke! obviously he doesn't have an inkling of how the governments
of western countries operate Hellznrg 21:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Please respect yourself and dont talk about me,I'm working on this case and
soon you will hear new news.Qatarson 07:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we await the news stating how Florida is going to reverse the
first amendment right to speak out on unpopular subjects. Go read the
Constitution unless you've already burned your "offensive" copy of it.
Sol. v. Oranje 07:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
External links
Can anyone provide a link to the place where Die Welt has published some of the cartoons? (see timeline section)... I can't
find them (of course I can't speak german), and that piece of news is not in any Danish media. I think it would be nice with a
reference here. --Lassefolkersen 12:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks --Lassefolkersen 12:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Is anyone able to connect to newspaperindex.com? The one time I seemed to get through, there was absolutely no content on
the page. On all other attempts, I got a can't find or some other message. I'm sure that zillions of people are trying to go there;
I'd imagine that there are also people trying to take them down, permanently. Which makes me wonder whether it would even
be a good idea to put up any other links to sites that might have the cartoons on them (if such sites exist). --Tygerbryght
09:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
There's a slight lag when I try to access it, but I can. Its probably just slowing down from all the traffic.Kittynboi 10:46,
There's a blogspot page that has them. Lemme try to find it. Blogspot has tremendous bandwidth. Phr 09:10, 1 February
102
2006 (UTC)
I would imagine it will cost them a ton of money to have their link here. Their bandwidth use will likely go
straight through the atmosphere, heading for the Moon. <ouch!> Does Blogspot charge for excess bandwidth? If
so, I hope they're prepared! If not, those objecting will get their wish - nobody'll get through. --Tygerbryght
09:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think Blogspot charges anything. If page hits go up, their advertising revenue goes up and pays for
the bandwidth. Phr 09:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I think many links in the References section ought to go into the External links section instead - can someone help?--Niels Ø
10:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Rumours and misinformation
Does anyone know if BBC World has retracted their misstatement? I went to the site and searched, but couldn't find anything.
It seems to me that, in a situation so explosive, and with their penetration of Islamic regions, that they would recognize the
responsibility they have to let listeners know - repeatedly, even - that they blew it. --Tygerbryght 09:13, 1 February 2006
(UTC)
It's silly to hide the image at the bottom
Would you move the image on any other article for any reason? No, of course not. Wikipedia has a given style, and it is
expected that we will stick to that. Have images of Jesus been moved to appease ultra-Protestants and Puritans? Of course
not.
Wikipedia is a source of relevant, factual information, and that is all. The information must be as easy to access as possible,
and hiding pictures where nobody will see them unless they actively search will make that not possible. The images are what
this article is all about, and their use here does not imply an attack on Moslems, either by Wikipedia or an individual editor
(although it would be quite provocative and unnecessary to actually post it on the Mohammed page.) If some people are
offended, that is unfortunate, but it is also irrelevant.
MichelleG 12:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC).
103
Michelle, have you followed this at all? Moving the image to the bottom was inspired by the Bahá'u'lláh article which
does exactly the same thing: Bahá’í adherents don't like to see photographs of Bahá'u'lláh, but others wanted that article
to included a photo, so the agreement was to put the photo at the bottom of the page where Bahá’í can avoid it. So the
answer your first question is: yes, it's been done and found to be a workable solution at least on that other article. As
another example, see the ariticle on oral sex which for a long while contained an explicit photo of someone getting a
blow job (apparently replaced by a drawing, at least for now), fairly far down in the article (and the article still has a
long debate sort of like this one on its talk page about the photo). Do you think THAT photo should be at the top of that
page? Should it be restored? Do you begin to understand? Phr 13:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I have. The difference with the oral sex article is that the article is not about the pictures themselves, the
pictures are just used to illustrate a point. Here, the entire article is about the pictures in question. Although,
personally, I would not have a problem with the oral sex article having an 'explicit' picture, because what do you
expect when you go to an article called "oral sex"? Presumably the same thing you get going to an article called
"Muhammed cartoons" ;-)
The Bahá'í solution, is, I think, a poor solution, and I would support the picture being moved back to the top on
that page too. Would you support scrubbing the pictures of Jesus off Jesus if aniconist puritans objected? Or
would moving everything down to the bottom to appease a vocal minority be an "acceptable" compromise?
Even so, the Bahá'u'lláh reasoning is invalid here, as even that article is talking about the person, not the picture
of the person. A better analogy would be if somebody complained about a swastika appearing in the article
"Swastika". That symbol is offensive to some minorities, so obviously shifting it off somewhere where you can't
see it is an acceptable compromise, right? Ease of accesss to information be damned, because a very shrill
minority doesn't approve!
MichelleG 13:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC).
Well, I bumped into the oral sex picture in a more or less inadvertent way, via an article about a former
Watergate figure who was in the news a few months ago (ok, I did idly click a link from the Watergate
article, and therefore asked for it). And while I didn't have a problem with the picture per se, I saw the
motivation as the same, that it was there more to provoke than to inform, so I felt it didn't belong in
wikipedia. (I didn't get involved in that debate though, just left it alone). Yes, if there were a big aniconist
contingent in christianity that had problems with pictures of jesus on the jesus page, I'd hope people
working on the affected pages would work out some kind of compromise. See WP:POINT and WP:DBF.
The idea is to resolve conflicts, not inflame them. Finally, what you're referring to as a "shrill minority" has
104
millions of people participating in anti-Danish boycotts etc., so it's not a lone couple of nutcases. Phr
14:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
A "shrill minority" of wikipedians, i believe she means, and it really does seem to have been a case
of a minority + apologists vs the wikipedia public en masse. Also, MichelleG is my new hero!
Senor Muffo del Wook
The image is gone. Again. And it's not at the bottom.Kittynboi 13:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Nobody has been moving it to the bottom. It was on the bottom for a while several hours ago, and someone moved it to
the top. Nobody has been reverting it back to the bottom. You can tell that by checking the history. Does it have to be
explained so much? Phr 14:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Talk: Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy - Archive 2b
#
$
8
9
:
;
>
. /
% 1
3
3
. %
7- %
$7
3
1
9
4
/ '
866 6
*
%
&
)
1
&
'$
'
% 1
%
*
&
D
105
1
B
$%
?
D
8
9
:
;
>
?
% %
,
. %
%
. &
' $
%'$ $$
0
& ' $
)
1
+$
%
#
%
5 %
#
G
D
$
D
My 2 Cents
You should NOT censor Wikipedia of material that may offend religious groups. For staters there are thousands of different
religious groups—many of which contradict each other. If we give in to one, we’d have to give in to all. And if we gave in to
all, we wouldn’t have NPOV, we’d have POV.
You'll also find this link interesting [1]--Greasysteve13 12:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes I'm sure we had decided not to take advantage of the lack of copyright on Irainian material on the basis that the
situation could change and make things complicated.Geni 12:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Iranian?--Greasysteve13 12:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Now....let's play nice and put the image at the bottom. Author - Anon.
Yes, the images are offensive to a lot of Muslims. My opinion - perspective is needed. I am certain that Allah if he
106
exists would find threats much more repulsive, and would be able to recognise who drew them, and who didn't.The
pictures, unless enlarged, are small enough to be only recognisable when the viewer has seen the larger image already. I
would suggest keeping it at the top of the page (it is what the article is about, after all) but with a disclaimer that it may
cause offence.
To be honest, if a reader is visiting this page expecting not to see the image, they are being incredibly naive. Kouros
09:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Content Disclaimer
I think this WikiPolicy is valid here.
Wikipedia:Content disclaimer
Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some
readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or depictions of human anatomy.
...
Wikipedia's current policy is to include such content, provided it breaches neither any of our existing policies
(especially Neutral point of view) nor the laws of the state of Florida in the United States, where Wikipedia is
hosted. See list of controversial issues for some examples of articles that may contain such content. Some of
these articles contain warnings, but many do not.
In other words, you may see something offensive on Wikipedia. Just throwing this into the ring.
Lankiveil, I think we are all aware of that. The possibility of seeing offensive material on wikipedia doesn't imply that
every piece of such material should be placed and sized in a way calculated to give the maximum possible offense. Phr
13:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
User "Ubi comp"
107
He is permanently deleting or sabotaging the image at the top of the page, therefore he should be banned.--129.13.186.1
13:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, keeps referring to talk page, but no statement is made by that user 217.157.45.53 13:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I put up a 3RR notice. Phr 13:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Just consider one thing: Prophet Muhammad is dearer to muslims more than their own lives. If a newspaper publish adistorted
picture of your father or mother will you let it spread?
So you are attacking on a religion by publishing this picture on wiki hence violating the rules.
That's a very simple reason why I suggest that this and similar images should be deleted. (deleting image once again).
Muslims even consider it wrong to make picture of any prophet including Jesus...But unfortunatley only those who follow
some religion will understand this. Ubi comp 13:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
How fortunate for us this is not an Islamic website then, eh? Lankiveil 13:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC).
yeah, why don't you go and start an islamic wiki somewhere else! get lost, we don't want your kind here Hellznrg
21:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
If you want to change substantial parts of an article you have to reach an agreement about this with the other users
first.--Schutzundtrutz 13:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
user Lankiveil: what is eh?
User:Schutzundtrutz: I would say same should be applicable when you are *adding* some crucial part to an article. innit?Ubi
comp 13:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Stop vandalizing the article, Ubi comp.--Schutzundtrutz 13:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Ubi Comp, you are now in violation of 3RR. Please ceast and desist from reverting this page until we reach consensus
on what it should contain. Lankiveil 13:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC).
108
yeah do so, and don't complain on the day that there was noone who stopped us from acting against the
right path that Lord has ordered...have fun..Ubi comp 13:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Will you be punished for your failure?--Schutzundtrutz 13:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
This comment is, in my opinion, out of line. While I agree that this (presumably) gentleman
has a clear POV and agenda, taunting him will achieve nothing. Lankiveil 14:01, 1 February
2006 (UTC).
I cannot see the behaviuor of Ubi comp as gentleman-like at all. But I will not taunt him
any further. His problem is not his POV but the way he tries to impose it onto us.
Anyway I'm kind of surprised you don't complain about his threat against us evil
infidels. --Schutzundtrutz 14:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The same is the case for the user with the IP 81.1.79.116 He should be banned, too, IMO.--129.13.186.1 14:50, 1 February
2006 (UTC)
Constant removals
This is really silly. Why is the article not locked? It should be locked once the picture is restored, but I keep seeing it rmoved.
NOt to the bottom, not under a link. The people who are removing the image are NOT going to be satisfied with either of
those solutions. They want it gone. They don't even want the image to exist.
I say put it up for all to see and prevent further edits to the article.Kittynboi 13:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It's an observable fact that the image was moved to the bottom for a while, and replaced by a link for a while, and the
page was NOT vandalized at any time when the image wasn't at the top. That is not hard to understand. The people who
insist on having at the top want it there to get in the face of those who would rather have it gone. And getting in
anyone's face usually results in their trying to get back in yours. Moving it to the bottom or linking it was out-of-face
enough that they left it alone. Phr 13:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Then where does it keep going? Several times I came to the page and it was gone. I looked at the bottom, and it
was not there. Nor could I find a link to it. Why should it not be at the top? As has been pointed out, most all
109
articles where the image is the subject, have the image at the top. I don't see why you feel such concern for the
poor offended muslims?Kittynboi 14:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
When it's at the top of the page, vandals don't move it to the bottom, they delete it. For a while it was at the
bottom or linked, but it got moved back to the top and has been getting re-vandalized. Nobody has moved
it back to the bottom now that all this opposition has emerged. It's flipping between two states: 1) at the
top; 2) deleted. Note that when it was at the bottom, there was a sentence at the top saying to scroll down
to see it. Phr 14:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, keep it there. I don't see why its an issue. Why should THIS image be moved to the bottom?
Should we do thaat will all offensive images? Or just a few? You said above that keeping it at the
top, for some, is about dominating the opponent. Well, I think the desire to delete the image
DESERVES to be dominated and defeated, because it's horrible.Kittynboi 14:18, 1 February 2006
(UTC)
It's abundantly obvious from two days of nonstop edit wars (except for temporary respites
when the page was locked or the image was moved) that there is no way to keep the image at
the top without locking the page. Since Wikipedia is meant to be editable and not locked, if
there's a choice between moving the image or locking the page, I think it's better to move the
image. Wikipedia's claim to fame is editability, not having a picture at the top of every page.
Phr 14:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. Other articles like Sollog have been under constant attack for
more than two days, and altering the article, hiding and obscuring relevant and factual
information, was never seriously considered. There is clearly consensus to keep the
image at the top, so for the moment, that should be what we work towards. Lankiveil
14:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC).
I don't think it's the same people messing with the Sollog article. You can't
presume that edit wars are all alike. For this particular edit war, moving the image
made the deletions stop, until someone undid the move. Whether that would have
lasted if the move hadn't been undone is unknown. Phr 14:46, 1 February 2006
(UTC)
I think that individual sections can be locked, can't they? If so, then lock just a small part
at the top with the picture. And leave the rest alone.Kittynboi 14:24, 1 February 2006
(UTC)
I saw something about a section locking feature but I don't know if it's
implemented yet. If it is, that's a possibility. Phr 14:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
110
I don't think that appeasement has ever worked. If there is a consensus to move the
image, we could do this, but I strongly oppose the idea of moving the image just as a
way to try to prevent vandalism.--129.13.186.1 14:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The erasures stopped when the image was moved. It's the zealots on the other side
that found the move intolerable. (Although, I think they were maybe more
bothered by the size reduction which probably wasn't needed, but they've dug in
their heels now). Anyway, one person's vandalism is another person's legitimate
edits; I think I'll stop using the term vandalism since the erasures are clearly a
content dispute. There's simply no compelling reason for the image to be
ultra-prominent except to rub the other side's nose in it. Look at the Oak article as
mentioned elsewhere; there's no oak tree pictures in it except way at the bottom.
Then there's a gallery of different tree pictures, thumbnail sized. That's a perfectly
good way to present images. Phr 14:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Why should it be moved? If its just to avoid vandalism, then section
locking could work AND we would leave it at the top. If someone
wants to vandalize something, which is prohibited, you shouldn't try
to appease them, you should keep them from breaking the
rules.Kittynboi 14:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
If section locking is available, which it might not be, then that might
be the answer, but there'd have to be some messy dispute process to
get it in place the way you want. Also, reading WP:Vandalism, it's
clear that the pic erasures don't fall into the description and we're
seeing a typical boneheaded edit dispute, not vandalism (I called it
vandalism earlier too, but I see now that was incorrect). Finally,
appeasement is so bad, then why should anyone be willing to appease
YOU? The word you want is "compromise", not "appease". Phr
15:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Why are you so concerned with pleasing these
people? There is no reason to hide the image in
any way. Why do you think its
acceptable?Kittynboi 15:23, 1 February 2006
(UTC)
Wikipedia policy is to try to reach consensus in
111
disputes. If you think it should be different, go
over to Village Pump Policy and put up a policy
proposal to completely reverse the way things are
done now. The objective is to put up an article
with the relevant information even if that means
making a concession here or there about what
order the info is in or whatever. The objective is
not to make political points or win pissing contests
against Muslims or anyone else. If you're more
interested in winning pissing contests than in
producing a usable article, then read WP:DBF and
think about taking a break for a while (I need to do
that soon). As for why I find moving the image
acceptable: it's an attempt to solve the edit dispute
while still resulting in a usable article that contains
the necessary information, and I don't care about
making a political point with the placement. Do
you understand? Your main purpose of insisting on
a particular placement of the picture seems to be
political, and that runs smack up against WP:NOT,
Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Phr 15:37, 1 February
2006 (UTC)
Blanking of content is vandalism. If they had an
editorial reason to do so it would be different, but
they don't. Religion does not form any part of
Wikipedia policy. --Malthusian (talk) 15:29, 1
February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, they do have an editorial reason,
namely an opinion that the image should not
be there, just like you have an opinion that it
should be where it is and nowhere else. It is
a content dispute (a stupid one). Vandalism
is something different. Have you read the
112
vandalism article? WP:Vandalism Phr 15:41,
No, they don't have an editorial
reason. They have a religious reason.
Removing content without good faith
belief that it violates Wikipedia policy
is vandalism. The definition of
'content dispute' does not extend to
'My name is Willy on Wheels and I
dispute that the content of this article
should be at Foo instead of Foo on
wheels', and it does not extend to 'I
believe Jesus/Allah/theInvisible Pink
Unicorn told me to remove this
picture'. --Malthusian (talk) 16:24, 1
February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not negotiate with terro... I mean, uhh... vandals! Lankiveil 14:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC).
I'm on #wikipedia right now trying to get it locked, at least for a short time until this guy gets bored and goes away.
Hopefully they lock the correct version. Lankiveil 13:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC).
It may have to stay protected for a while--I don't think it's just one guy, and if it is, he won't get bored, he's been
at it since last night, using sock accounts, open proxies, etc. He's not going anywhere. Phr 13:49, 1 February 2006
(UTC)
You can't get locked *your* correct version...btw you seem more interesting than myself, what does this show?
Please sign your comments Ubi comp, Cacophobia (Talk) 14:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Looking at this particular IP vandal's talk page, in which he states his intent to use sockpuppetry to get his way, I think
the normal process of giving every single sockpuppet IP up to four warnings before blocking for vandalism makes a
mockery of our good faith, and will discourage editors from assuming it in future. I think all vandals who perform the
same vandalism - removing the picture - should at least immediately get the {{test4}} final warning, and if they
vandalise again, be blocked. --Malthusian (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
113
42 External Links
Am I the only one who thinks this is perhaps a wee bit excessive? It's bloating the page quite a bit. Lankiveil 14:03, 1
February 2006 (UTC).
Perhaps, but at least include the link to
http://www.um.dk/en/servicemenu/News/DrawingsInADanishNewspaperQuestionsAndAnswers.htm, which is the Danish
Ministry of Foreign Affairs' account of the drawings-debate--Discus2000 14:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and then we have the official answer to the UN. Link to the page is:
http://www.um.dk/da/servicemenu/Nyheder/Udenrigspolitik/RegeringensBesvarelseAfHenvendelseFraFNsSpecialrapportoererForISagenOmJylla
Link to the pdf-version of the letter from the UN rapporteur:
http://www.um.dk/NR/rdonlyres/E4612A0B-470A-4E55-B332-5BA106E25C71/0/HenvendelsefraFNspecialrapportoereritegningesagen.pdf
Link to the answer: http://www.um.dk/NR/rdonlyres/00D9E6F7-32DC-4C5A-8E24-F0C96E813C06/0/060123final.pdf
Sorry 'bout the loooooong links ;-) Not sure how to include certain parts of all this info in the article... maybe someone more
knowledgable than me can do the article-editing...--Discus2000 14:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
No problems, Discus2000 :-)
Not saying that any of the links there are bad, just that there are too many there. For a start, I think we can get rid of the
Danish-language stuff, as well as partisan editorials like the ones from the Gulf Daily News and WorldNetDaily. I'll
wait for consensus on this though!
Some of the Danish-language articles contain very interesting information, and their contents are not reflected
anywhere else. If you take those links away, please see to it that the important parts are somehow reflected in
some other way. Or perhaps.... a link to a the danish article "Muhammed-tegningerne" about this in wikipedia,
making sure that the important danish articles are copied there, and perhaps mentioning that some info there is
not taken up here. Then again, that article is getting long too...DanielDemaret 15:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
114
Don't most articles require lots of external links if they want to be considered a "good" article by Wikipedia
standards?Homestarmy 14:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Not necessarily. John Howard, I think, is a quality article, and it's got a single-digit number of external links.
Bloating the section by including lots of pages that simply repeat what a previous link has said, and
spun-like-a-tornado editorials, is generally speaking considered bad. Lankiveil 14:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC).
Actually this article has 9 external links, one of which is in Danish. It has 44 references, however. Unlike
John Howard, this article has references using the new <ref>-tag, which automatically generates a
"References" section. I would strongly disagree with removing references from the article, though we
might be able to consolidate some of them, once overview articles start to appear. Feel free to add or
remove from the "External Links" section, though. Rasmus (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
For the time being i think it's very relevant taht each event is cited with a source to make sure there isn't stated any
wrong info/rumours on the article. At least the time this event is still going. (Cloud02 16:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC))
3RR Rule
Are you likely to fall foul of the 3RR rule when putting the pictures back on the article after they have been removed? MC
I wouldn't imagine so, since simply removing the picture seems to qualify as vandalism.
No, it doesn't qualify as vandalism, it's an edit dispute. Read WP:Vandalism carefully. 3RR applies so the
reversions need to be done by multiple people. Phr 15:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Protection failed
The article has been "protected" several times and each time it was vandalized anyway, so, I guess this protection didn't really
work. Who can fix this?--129.13.186.1 14:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
How can it fail? How are they getting around it?
The article haven't been protected for more than a few minutes (btw. just adding {{sprotect}}, doesn't protect the
article by itself. An administrator has to do it.) It is against policy to protect articles that are linked to from the
115
main page. Rasmus (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It was actually sprotected for a while but was unprotected at my request. It's gotten a number of good edits
since then, so unprotection is appropriate. Phr 15:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Good to see it's protected now. Let's see if it lasts or works. This is as good a time as anyone for muslims, and their
fundamentalist xian counterparts and others, to learn that being offended does not grant them carte blanche to get their
way.Kittynboi 14:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Its now no longer protected. Why?Kittynboi 15:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Article can not be protected because it is part of the main page. Also an administrator has to do it. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:18,
Why not have a link to it?
What is wrong with linking the image to the article? That way we won't have these problems. I want to read why people aren't
agreeing to it. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 14:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Because there's no good reason to do it, that's why.Kittynboi 15:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Well to me I think it just looks better where it is and I don't buy the Islamic blashphemy argument for a second, but im sure
most of the other people here have other reasons with censorship and free speech and whatnot heh. Homestarmy 15:02, 1
February 2006 (UTC)
I think that if there are arguments of the image being offensive vs. it being censorship to remove it that the best solution
is to link it. Also article can not be protected because it is part of the main page. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:06, 1 February 2006
(UTC)
We sure can discuss it, but as I stated above, we should not give in to vandalism. If there's consensus to move image, alright,
so be it, but this consensus has to be reached BEFORE anynone move the image. My opinion is that the image should stay on
top of the page, since these pictures are of fundamental importance for this article.--129.13.186.1 15:05, 1 February 2006
(UTC)
116
Do you think pictures of oak trees are fundamental to the Oak article? I do, and there are several such pictures there, all
thumbnail size and all at the bottom of the article. Also, the conflict we're seeing (hey, it seems to have stopped for
now) does not fit the WP definition of vandalism (WP:Vandalism). It's just an edit dispute. 71.141.251.153 15:23, 1
February 2006 (UTC)
Because we shouldn't give in to vandalism. Well, unless we change the image on cauliflower to a link. I find images of
that particular plant offensive, and I'm going to vandalise the page against consensus until you all cave!
Bwahahahahaha! Lankiveil 15:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC).
See WP:POINT. See, you should know something has gone wrong when winning the pissing contest has become
more important than finding a way to present an informative article. Think about stepping back a little. WP:DBF.
71.141.251.153 15:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I suppose you could try the link method. Would be interesting to see whether or not this would be vandalised also. If it
continues to be vandalised then go back to having the picture on the article, as a compromise would have been offered and
rejected. (MC)
It was tried. It worked. It was undone by people who insisted on having the picture and were willing to put up with the
resulting edit war. 71.141.251.153 15:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Why does the picture have to be at the top. It seems that it is just the quickest place to put it in the edit war. Prehaps if more
thought was put in we could have the picture in the middle of the article so that Muslims could choose whether or not to scroll
down. (MC)
The image was not vandalized when it was linked for a short time. But if people are so concerned over linking it I agree that
moving it to the middle is a good idea. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism is not permitted on wikipedia. Therefore we should do nothing to appease the vandals.Kittynboi
15:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Removing the image because it is found offensive is not vandalism. Instead it's a disputed topic that should be
discussed. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
WP:NOT states "some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links, provided they do not violate any
of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view)" (please keep the image, many people seem to debate
this issue without even seeing the image) Cacophobia (Talk) 15:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
117
Of course it is vandalism. If you remove a fundamental part of an article without consulting the others, you're
nothing but a vandal. Especially if you do this over and over again. There is really no excuse for this kind of
behaviour.--129.13.186.1 16:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
We could do a few things here to solve the problem. 1. Make it into a linked image. 2. Make the image smaller. 3. Move the
image to the middle of the article. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Or we could just leave it where it is, leave it to be seen. There is no obligation to make Muslims feel better.Kittynboi
15:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I am generally not offended by any images, but I do note that we already exclude some images from articles because people
find them offensive or obscene. This shouldn't be a discussion about whether we should ever censor any images (because we
already have a consensus on doing that), but whether this image is one of those that are better linked than shown in the article.
Zocky | picture popups 15:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay. If nobody has a good reason for why the image shouldn't be moved to the middle of the page or made smaller, then I
think it should be moved or made smaller. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Because people are going to come to this article looking for the offending image. That is the main reason people are
coming at the moment. And the information that people are looking for (said image), should be as easy to locate as
possible.
There is clearly no consensus to move or link the image at the present time. Lankiveil 15:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC).
you think to compromise with God? you must not use the image at all. not linked, not small, and not hidden, it is all still an
insult to God and the believers. the army of the faithful will not tire to prevent this insult to God. if wikipedia and jimbo wales
keep insulting God, then God willing, you will all be swept aside in fire by God.
Please try to compromise. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
See people. This is what I've been telling you. They won't accept it being there at all, so best to rub it in their faces for
spite. That may sound extreme, but these repsonses are appropriate in light of demands for censorship. And sign your
posts.Kittynboi 15:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
118
Kittynboi you are new here so I think you should read a few policies first. If you keep acting this way you may
end up blocked from wikipedia. Now please give a good reason why image shouldn't be moved to the middle of
the page or made smaller besides the censorship argument. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Im ok with making it smaller, as long as its clear that this image is avalible for the entry. I dont think
linking will do it. Cacophobia (Talk) 15:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll keep it up. If I get blocked, then I'll be blocked. Why is raising questions about why it should be moved
at all a blockable offense? Feel free to ask that I be banned from wikipedia. You tell me to stop bringing
this up, yet you say NOTHING to the person I was responding to, whose response can only be described as
sick and insane?Kittynboi 15:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I was referring to this behavior - "best to rub it in their faces for spite". Now back to discussion.
--a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I forgot I said that. Regardless, I still have yet yo be convinced that it should be moved or
made in to a link. I don't see people being offended as a valid reason to do that. People get
offended all the time. They just have to deal with it.Kittynboi 15:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok anon, i'll be blunt. I am not afraid of the Qu'ran. Nobody should be afraid of the Qu'ran. it was created, what, 600
years after Christ came? That means you had 600 years or so of people who believed Christ was Lord, and had no
reason to believe otherwise except for cult problems. Therefore, if the Qu'ran was really the word of God, Jesus Christ's
perhaps most faithful followers will all go to hell, disciples included. This is unnaceptable. Furthermore, so i've read,
the only thing that commands anyone to not ever make pictures is a non-Qu'ran source made 200 years after it was
created by a bunch of people trying to invent new policies for Islam. Therefore, it can't be the word of God anyway, and
your threat doesn't have any historical base either. Every way you look at it, there is no reason for anyone to remove
that picture. Homestarmy 15:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
This is not another dispute about the Qur'an or the Bible or Islam vs. Christianity or Jesus. It's a simple dispute over what
people find offensive. I don't see your argument there being any less extremist than the person who wanted to completely
remove the image. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I still don't see anyone making a good case for this. Everyone just seems to think that them ebing offended is reason
enough.Kittynboi 15:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it should be moved to the middle. But not made smaller. How is a person supposed to make a reasoned judgement
on the images if they can't see them properly. I think the comments about Wikipedia and Jimbo Wales are unhelpful. Surely
119
god has better things to do than be angry at some geeks on the internet and some images. Slamdac
Actually you can just click on the image to make it larger so making it smaller won't make it hard to see.
So are people fine with moving it to the middle and/or making it smaller? --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with anything that keeps the image accessible (including linking it). However there are some here who
absolutely insist it has to stay where it is. Moving it to the middle will probably get rv'd (not by me) before long. Phr
16:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I think even a skimming of this discussion makes it clear there is no specific consensus of anything, including moving it
or making it smaller.Kittynboi 15:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Kittynboi you have to compromise somewhere. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Compromise aside, its a reality that, right now, there is nothing even closse to consensus on what to do.Kittynboi
16:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It probably would be just as good in the middle of the article by the descriptions of the pictures. And yea, I know what I said
was probably just as "extremist", but I did put in the historical thing too, and that's from another Wikipedia page heh.
Homestarmy 15:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
How is the article more informative with the image of what the article is about smaller, less prominent or linked?
Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
There is no consensus that the image should be made smaller and moved off the top. If you're going to make that edit, don't
claim it's based on consensus. There isn't one. Thparkth 16:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I did just that. Since there are so many passionate editors at work here, I doubt it will last even an hour (that
attempt at a compromise lasted eight minutes). My personal opinion is that we should try to be as informative as
possible, while at the same time respecting those that are further insulted by having the fun
image/caricature/blasphemous depiction jumping into their face when accessing the article. I hope that both tasks
may be accomplished. Anyway, I hope common ground may be found as the constant reverting hinder productive
editing. And I might counter that there is no consensus to keep it at the top either. Scoo 16:27, 1 February 2006
(UTC)
120
Merge?
Qatarson created Denmark boycott which is not only a poor title, but probably consists only of info that can be safely merged
here. Thoughts? --Golbez 15:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Make a separate article about boycott and link it to this article. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
lol they think the problem between Qatarson & Denmark that another point you should know :) many hates &
bad words sent to my email from some wikipedia users & in this page also there many bad posts . Qatarson
15:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it should stay as an article but can we have a better title? Also if you are getting harassed then
report those editors. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
anonym, qatarson was blocked for the past day for repeated reverts, some through sockpuppets using
open proxies (one of the proxies is now IP blocked). I'm glad he's now participating in discussion
instead of just reverting but the guy is not exactly an innocent. Phr 16:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Please stop abuse me and keep writing about me every where is there personal problem?
Qatarson 16:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The cartoon article is already long, and the boycott effects might expand, so I feel a link to the boycott article would be
best.DanielDemaret 15:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Boycott article has been renamed (not by me) and Denmark boycott now redirects. Yes, links in both directions would
be good. Phr 15:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I vote to Merge Danish products boycott with Posten Muhammad Cartoons - 24.9.10.235 01:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
121
I support a merge on the basis that that article as it stands has the same length and little more content than the corresponding
section in this article. --Stlemur 02:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I also support a merge. I see no reason for having it as a separate page, unless there's a lot more info to add, which is not a
part of this one. AllanRasmussen 02:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Boycott articles should be merged, and in turn merged, as a subsection, with Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons
controversy, which has by far the most complete coverage. The boycott article is contingent on the cartoons article and should
be part of its narrative. Then if the article needs splitting, split it, but an attempt should be made first to pare it down, since
much of it is polemic disguised as reportage. J M Rice 05:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Missing sources category?
Is that old or something, because this article seems to have pretty good sources cited, should that be changed? Homestarmy
15:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The article becomes automatically added to that category by the {{citation needed}}-tag. Rasmus (talk) 15:40, 1
February 2006 (UTC)
Good Decision Scoo
I think that Scoo made a good edit at 16:05 on the 1st February 2006 . The image can still be seen at a reasonable size if it is
clicked on and Muslims are made aware that if they scroll down then they may see something that is offensive to them. They
can then made a reasoned decision as to view it or not. There is no censorship as the image is still freely avaliable to anybody
who want's to see it. slamdac
I must honestely disagree. The general opinion on this talk page has been to keep the pictures as a front image. The size
is reasonble small and if you don't want to see the pictures then why come to this page anyway? --Snailwalker | talk
16:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Because you want to read an encyclopedic text about the controversy? Zocky | picture popups 16:29, 1 February
2006 (UTC)
122
Definitely keep.
Why have them removed? Many things on Wikipedia are offensive, and this article is about these specific cartoons. It is better
to have more information than less, and because the cartoons are the subject of the article, to post them does not violate
NPOV any more than the article in and of itself. There are examples found elsewhere in Wikipedia of even more blatantly
racist content.
To prevent people from seeing something that is offensive is directly contrary to the very purpose of Wikipedia.
Twin Bird 16:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree, this whole article is about the pictures and much misinformation has been spread about them. I would say we
should keep em...--Snailwalker | talk 16:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Sockpuppet orgy
There are a ridiculous number of sockpuppets who have only edited this article, who repeatedly remove the picture, and we
are letting each of them have 4 or 5 reverts. Yesterday we let one of them get to 7 reverts before blocking. I don't use admin
privileges on Islam-related articles, but if we're not going to semi-protect this article then an admin really needs to step up the
plate and start quickly blocking the censorship sockpuppets. It's not enough to say, "oh, we don't semi-protect when linked
from front page," and then stand back and let the socks dominate the article. Babajobu 16:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
There are IPs for both sides of the debate removing and adding. We need to compromise because it's the best solution
here. And protection isn't allowed. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I've only seen one IP re-adding the content, he did it three times, and then said he was done. As far as I'm
concerned we cannot determine whether a compromise is truly needed, because I suspect there is only one person
repeatedly removing the image under various IP proxies. Even one of the editors very sympathetic to the
"remove" disposition said yesterday that he suspects we are dealing with a one-person blitz. Until this image is
semi-protected, I don't think we'll get a sense of how much support there is for each side. The guideline against
semi-protecting articles linked from front page is good in general, because it allows new users to make
contributions. But we are not attracting any useful contributions right now, we are just leaving the article
123
vulnerable to a swarm of socks. This article needs to be semi-protected. Babajobu 16:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Vote for keeping the image at the top or not
I think we should probably have a vote on wheter the image should be at the top or further down to settle this debate and
continued edit wars.
Vote for picture at top * Snailwalker | talk 16:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Schutzundtrutz 16:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC) Fundamental part of the article.
Thparkth 16:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC) VOTE NOT NEEDED but I'll add mine anyway
Sol. v. Oranje 08:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC) If this vote is reactivated, I'm putting my vore for keeping the image, and
keeping it at the top of the page.
Vote for picture further down
Last thing we need is a vote. Zocky | picture popups 16:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Why are we even debating this?
If Wikipedia is meant to be an objective encylopedia there should be no debate on whether or not to include the controversial
images just because a single does not a aprove of them. If we remove these images then we must also remove any other
"offensive" images such as nudity and other controversial pcitures like the Piss Christ. (Caesar89 16:33, 1 February 2006
(UTC))
We already do that. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or pictures. We need to discuss reasons
to include this picture in this article, not whether removing any image at all is censorship. Zocky | picture popups 16:35,
Well, since the article is about the image, I imagine thats reason enough to include it.Kittynboi 17:08, 1 February
2006 (UTC)
And looking for compromise, not removing the pictures off wikipedia. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:36, 1 February 2006
124
(UTC)
Vandals are not cooperative. And if someone is not cooperative you can't find a compromise with
him.--Schutzundtrutz 16:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Summary of what I said above: you cannot compromise with a sockpuppet swarm. I'm willing to
compromise with editors, but not socks. Until this article is semi-protected, we won't be able to
define the positions or the level of support for them, or to reach a compromise. Babajobu 16:42, 1
February 2006 (UTC)
This is an encyclopaedia, it very existence is to present facts, regardless of politics. In this case the case are images.
This is not an image used to illustrate a point in an article, these images are the very reason the article exists in the first
place.
One should not be concerned about various groups attitude toward certain parts of an article, - no Muslim arrives on
this page accidental, they are active looking for information about these drawings – and will natural expect that the
drawings be located here also. One should also give a thought about what it is Muslims complains about, if they do not
look at the drawnings? How can you complain about something you refuse to look at? How can you even have an
opinion?
Just a thought; there must be 100.000 [guess] of Muslims that have never even seen the drawings, while still protesting.
Should wiki then not be what it is meant to be? an encyclopaedia people can come to, look and seen what the facts are
really about. One should not worry about those Muslims that come here and remove the drawings, one should worry
about all those Muslims that now have missed the opportunity to come and see the drawings for the self, because wiki
bowed to politics. Twthmoses 16:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I think most of the muslimus are not really so angry about it. They just see that it might be a good excuse to make
demands against western countries. Sadly, it works.--129.13.186.1 17:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It seems that there are more non muslims here upset over it than there are muslims.Kittynboi 21:07, 1
February 2006 (UTC)
Semi-protected this.
125
I've semi-protected this. Now I'd better go and check if I've broekn any guidelines... back in a few minutes... William M.
Connolley 16:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah protection isn't exactly allowed but might be needed. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Protection is needed.--Alabamaboy 16:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Exceptional circumstances. The edit history over the last 30mins speaks for itself. Thparkth 16:52, 1
February 2006 (UTC)
And as of now, this article no longer has a link from the front page. BinaryTed 17:37, 1 February
2006 (UTC)
Protection is definitely *allowed*, but not encouraged. I've just reviewed the Wikipedia:Protection_policy, wot sez Important
Note: When a page is particularly high profile, either because it is linked off the main page, or because it has recently
received a prominent link from offsite, it will often become a target for vandalism. It is best not to protect pages in this case.
Instead, consider adding them to your watchlist, and reverting vandalism yourself. However, I've sprotected, not protected.
This is the first time I've done this, so I'm a little unsure. I think the page could do with at least a couple of hours of peace
from anons. But more experienced admins will feel free to correct me. William M. Connolley 16:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC).
There is a guideline that we shouldn't semi-protect articles linked from front page, so as to allow new editors a chance
to edit articles they are most likely to read. But in this case all we are doing is enabling a swarm of socks.
Semi-protection is definitely needed in this instance, with an apology should a new, well-intentioned editor actually
show up amidst the swarm and be prevented from editing. Semi-protect this sucker, or we'll never determine the
appropriate course of action for this article. Babajobu 16:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Even though semi-protection is defidentally good for what is nominally "my" side (though as wankers like
Sullivan join it, I'm less interested in it), it's against policy and not appropriate. Please take it off. Hipocrite «Talk» 17:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Is is absolutely not against policy. Wikipedia:Protection policy is very clear: don't semi-protect articles
linked from front page, except when really necessary. For this article at this time, it's necessary. That's in
perfect compliance with policy. Babajobu 17:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
126
Removing the image without discussion is aggressively bad editing (which I am often guilty of). It's
not vandalism. sprotect is only for vandalism. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Repeated violations of 3RR and using sockpuppets, together with admitting that the purpose of
removing the image is to curry favour with one's god and not to improve Wikipedia, doesn't so
much cross the line from bad editing to vandalism as pole vault it. --Malthusian (talk) 17:21, 1
February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, my WP:AGF is falling. I still think sprotect is agressive, but not as badly as I did
before. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Um. This is a difficult case; for the moment, consensus seems to favour the sprotect, even though its dubious from a policy
POV. I'll restate my comment above: other admins will feel free to correct me, if they wish to. BTW, I'm off down the pub in
1/2 hour, and will probably leave the sprotect, so please don't try to talk to me about the sprotect! BTW2, I've noted the
sprotect on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. William M. Connolley 17:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC).
How is it dubious from a policy POV? The page does not say "you are not allowed to sprotect articles linked from the
front page", despite what some have claimed. It actually says (paraphrase) "don't protect articles linked from front page
unless it's really necessary". We think it's really necessary. That's perfectly compliant with policy. Babajobu 18:02, 1
February 2006 (UTC)
it's been 'un-protected' again--Discus2000 19:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I did that. I has been protected for 3 hours now, and I think it is time to see if vandalism persists. I'll keep an eye
on this article. If it turns out to be necessary, I will protect it again. RexNL 19:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
127
This debate attracting media attention
Personally, I can't believe we are even debating censoring an article. The bad news is that this debate has now attracted
attention from an influential conservative blogger, Andrew Sullivan (see [2]). Personally, I agree with him and hope that we
here at Wikipedia will stick to our beliefs in freedom of speech and content.--Alabamaboy 16:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
BTW, I should add that when I first read about these cartoons and the controversy over them in the mainstream
media, I was irritated that the media didn't completely cover the subject and didn't show images of the cartoons. I
mean, if you are reporting on a visual subject like this but don't allow people to see what the controversy is about
for themselves, then your reporting, well, sucks. IMHO Wikipedia's article on this is the best summary of the
controvery on the web.--Alabamaboy 16:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Alabama. Babajobu 16:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Totally agree. EuroSong
18:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
How can attention from Andrew Sullivan be a bad thing, unless you're doing something bad? I'm confident that we will
in the end not censor ourselves. And if we do, we can always add Gustav Dore's "Mohammad splitting a gut in Hell"
illustration for Dante's Inferno to an appropriate article and begin again. - Nunh-huh 08:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, Nunh-huh, we meet again; alas, it's a long way off from the more peaceful days of editing New Haven,
Connecticut and Pepe's Pizza. Amazing what a small wikipedian world it is. Sol. v. Oranje 08:45, 2 February
2006 (UTC)
It's been so long since I've had a chicken pizza. Sigh! - Nunh-huh 09:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Aniconism
Does anyone know more about the Islamic prohibition on depictions of Mohammed? All that the article says is that this
prohibition (which, apparently, is called "aniconism") generated fear in those who were going to illustrate a children's book
on Mohammed - fear of the actions of "extremists". But I thought this aniconism wasn't something that just the extremists
subscribe to - that it is something that moderate Muslims also subscribe to, and that there are good spiritual reasons behind it?
The western world is talking about free speech, and the Islamic world is talking about (lack of) respect. Could it be that the
core of the problem is that we in the west don't quite understand this aniconism? If so, then giving that aspect of the issue
some space could help generate more light and less heat... Chrisobyrne 16:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
128
A few years ago I would have been cynical enough to say that the phrase 'good spiritual reason' is an oxymoron. I
wouldn't quite go that far now. However, the core of the problem at this article (the one behind this talk page) is not that
Westerners don't understand Muslims, but that some Muslims apparently don't understand Wikipedia. (Or possibly one
Muslim, given the sockpuppetry. Or possibly even one troll using religion as a cover, hoping that he/she would gain
support for keeping the vandalism in the name of religious tolerance - which they have). --Malthusian (talk) 17:05, 1
February 2006 (UTC)
Part of the whole problem is that the Islamic world seems to "demand" respect for their beliefs, when in reality they deserve
no such protection. One cannot demand respect, one receives it based on previous action or intent. Which leads to the
question: why should anyone or any religious belief be subject to a greater level of systematic respect than another?...Which
is exactly what is wanted, and not necessarily deservingly so.206.156.242.39 16:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree but is burning the Dannebrog or Norwegian flag not as disrespectful? One can argue if this was a deliberate
stunt by JP, but burning of flags is unmistakable a clear disrespectful act! So are we even now? Twthmoses 17:04, 1
February 2006 (UTC)
Lack of respect breeds lack of respect. So if Jyllands-Posten don't respect the culture of aniconism, then Jyllands-Posten
can hardly expect their culture of free speech to be respected in turn. But free speech is a right, I hear you say. Yes, but
rights come with responsibilities and, IMHO, respect is one of those responsibilities that those with the right of free
speech should adhere to.
Or, turning your argument on its head - why should the (almost religious) belief in free speech receive more respect
than aniconism?
Getting back to the question at hand - would giving more space to aniconism help the article? I think so - however, I
don't know enough about it to be able to add anything useful. Chrisobyrne 17:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, in regards to wikipedia, its an encyclopedia, and its aim is to provide the best information it can. Thats its
purpose. That takes precedence over aniconism. Wikipedia is not out to provide info as long as it doesn't offend
people. Do you think repsect is more important than making information available to all?Kittynboi 17:37, 1
February 2006 (UTC)
Americans have their flag burned all the time. Shall we then demand that those who do so stop? Who is to
enforce such a thing? Whereas it is indeed true that disrespect can breed the same, I still do not see why
129
demanding a non-Islamic state (or organization) to obey the laws of the land (such as the right to critique) isn't
being the line towed. If JP surrenders on this issue, what is to stop any Islamic group from claiming other issues
as "offenses", such as deciding that a nativity scene in public shouldn't be visible?
Most nations are (with few execptions) secular in nature, religion remains with the people and policy with the
government and neither the twain should meet. Once a government steps into religion (or the reverse) unfortunate
meddling will occur.
Should the Muslims continue to decide that they are "special" and deserving of specific concessions they will
continue to set themselves apart culturally and nationally, never assimilating properly, and always remaining an
outsider. If that is the case, then they really haven't learned anything and were better off not having
emigrated.206.156.242.39 17:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this is about Muslims demanding special consideration - I think it is a plea that their aniconism
be recognised as part of their beliefs and culture. As has been pointed out before, there have been a lot of
historical depictions of Mohammed that have been tolerated by the Islamic community - of course, the fact
that most of those depictions (as far as I can see) have been respectful (or very respectful) towards
Mohammed has made it relatively easy for the Islamic community to respect the contrasting tradition of
free speech and/or iconography that generated the images in the first place. I wonder if JP had created the
same message in cartoons that didn't actually depict Mohammed (for example, by obscuring his face, or by
portraying him from behind, both of which I believe are acceptable compromises to Islam), would the
Islamic world have had the same problem? The radical Islamic world would have, of course, but JP seem
to have also stirred up ill feeling amongst the moderate Islamic world. Just a thought. Chrisobyrne 21:55, 1
February 2006 (UTC)
I think everyone is now more than aware that anconism is part of their beliefs. That still doesn't mean
we should follow their beliefs or subject wikipedia to them. They have their beliefs, we know that.
But that does not mean that anyone is obliged to follow them or to tailor wikipedia to suit
them.Kittynboi 22:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
you're speculating there, Chrisobyrne. There's no real evidence as to whether or not moderate
muslims in general have been offended. Some may have, but you also have a number - some quite
prominent ones as well (Danish MP Naser Khader as an example; article in English here: [3]) - who
welcome the debate. Of interest to this article, perhaps, I'm not sure...--Discus2000 22:09, 1 February
130
2006 (UTC)
For an article that describe a similiar phenomenon that applied mostly to Christianity see Iconoclasm. The article might
very well link to that one too. Scoo 17:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not a diplomat or a postmodern sociology professor. It does not seek to respect
or disrespect anyone; its mission is to provide accurate and comprehensive articles on notable topics, without
kowtowing to people's demands for censorship or the hiding of whatever they dislike. Would you support placing
a warning label over the Evolution article, stating that this article may gravely offend evengelical Christians,
scroll down and you will see some information on evolution? For the article on Hugo Chavez, would you support
a warning label that this information may be very objectionable to political conservatives, scroll down for some
information on President Chavez? I doubt it. It's no more appropriate here.Babajobu 17:41, 1 February 2006
(UTC)
I agree in general, but text is not the same as pictures. We already remove pictures people find offensive or
obscene from articles about genitalia. Zocky | picture popups 18:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Well said, I concur --M4bwav 17:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
On the anacronism thing, if I remember right, on the talk page of that article someone said that the rule banning drawings
came from some publication by some head Islamic council or something 200 or so years after the Qu'ran was made, and
supposedly, not even most Islamics agree on it's authenticity or what it means or something. So it is apparently an object of
debate even in Islam, and therefore, it might not even be a majority view even though there's such a ruckus over it.
I teach in a department of religion in a university in the USA. Aniconism is the same in Judaism and certain protestant
traditions as well as Islam. The dogma is intended to protect the sovereignty of God as Creator. The logic is that you can't
have creatures (humans) making other creatures (images of God's work). I.e., only God can make images (creatures) since
creatures are images of God. In these traditions, humans are the image of God, ergo, humans ought not make images.
I think everyone here realizes by now the basics of why people are upset over it. They may not know all the details, or
even the term anaconism, but they know whats offending the Muslims. But many of us don't think wikipedia should
abide by Islamic social or religious rules.
131
Thats Enough!
These images were insulting Islam, how can you people insult someone else's prophet. We didn't do any harm to you. First of
all, why even bother about someone else. The images were republished and this newspaper will surely get great criticism
from the world. How will you feel when some one will insult Jesus, Moses. Yes, we respect your religion. Some of your
prophets are our prophets too. So please stop. - Yu5uF - 4:27 PM GMT
timeline
I cannot edit the page now, but "The Brussels Journal publishes the pictures. Says: "We are all danes now." was just added to
the timeline, on 1 February . It should actually be moved to 2006-01-22 , as that is the day they where first published, see
here.
OK, will fix ... There is just too many reactions at the moment :) When did they start saying "We are all danes now"? It is
currently part of their logo on every page.
"We are all danes now" was added today i think, I am not 100% sure about it. --Al3xander 17:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
In the timeline, I think we need to include the request from the UN rapporteur on 24 November 2005:
http://www.um.dk/NR/rdonlyres/E4612A0B-470A-4E55-B332-5BA106E25C71/0/HenvendelsefraFNspecialrapportoereritegningesagen.pdf
and then also the offical Danish answer from 23 January 2006:
http://www.um.dk/NR/rdonlyres/00D9E6F7-32DC-4C5A-8E24-F0C96E813C06/0/060123final.pdf
The Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs has a section of its homepage dedicated to the drawings. Perhaps it should be
included in the links.
Danish version: http://www.um.dk/da/servicemenu/Nyheder/ForsideNyheder/TegningesagenSpoergsmaalOgSvar.htm
English version: http://www.um.dk/en/servicemenu/News/DrawingsInADanishNewspaperQuestionsAndAnswers.htm
Sorry 'bout the loooooong links ;-)--Discus2000 20:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Suggestion - Move time line to a separate article. It is getting rather long. Andersa 20:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Added 24 Nov and 23 Jan (request and response) to the timeline. I agree it's quite long, but we can hardly do without it in
132
terms of the article--Discus2000 13:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Talk: Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy - Archive 3a
#
. /
% 1
$
&
'$
% 1
%
*
&
1
The page was getting unwieldly, so I've started an archive at:
Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons/Archive 1
Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons/Archive 2
Lankiveil 13:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
*
' & 7%
%
8
9#
:
$
7
1 %
+
<
%
D
$
%
%
;
>
?
$
E
1
$
$
%
0
&
$
#
8# $
!* 0
%
'
$%
%
' '
%
&8
D
133
% 1
F
$
1 %
B
$%
9)
:#
%
1
%
;
> 4$
?
$ %
3
$
6
=
)
!=#
8.
&
&
' '
&
$
*
%
%
%'
%
%
D
&8
+ $
H
1
4%
% %
$
%
&%
%
Please, no more talk of "compromise"
There seems to be a lot of users who want to "compromise" on the issue of representing the images on the page. "Let’s move
the image down", "let’s include a link". Neville Chamberlain was also in favour of compromise, but there are some things one
simply doesn’t compromise about. Free speech is one of them. Certainly the image could be moved, but there is no earthly
reason why it should be. On a page about an image, that image should be prominently displayed. If someone’s sensitivities
are hurt by viewing any specific drawing, then we should respect that, but it is their own responsibility to avoid that
happening. It certainly should not affect the rest of the world’s access to information.
Censorship is censorship, whether it consists in making information inaccessible or just less accessible. Wikipedia is about
the opposite of both. Eixo 17:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a soapbox nor indiscriminate collection of information. You're not seriously proposing that any
removal of information from Wikipedia is censorship. Zocky | picture popups 18:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
In this case, removal of the image is censorship. To have an article about a cartoon, but to not show the cartoon
so people can make up their own minds about the issue, would be silly. --Alabamaboy 18:03, 1 February 2006
(UTC)
Sorry, that's simply a bad argument. We also have articles about Da Vinci Code and Deep throat, but
neither of those works is available at Wikipedia. Zocky | picture popups 18:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
No, its not. Those are full length copyrighted works, and cannot be posted in their entirety as that
does not fall under fair use and they are not in the public domain.Kittynboi 18:46, 1 February 2006
(UTC)
Removing "indiscriminate" information would not be censorship. Removing entirely relevant info (a
134
picture of a cartoon, the very subject of the article) to honor someone's religious sensibilities is to place
religion above the communication of information, and that's not Wikipedia's place. Again, would you
support removing (or hiding below-the-fold) info on evolution or Hugo Chavez in order to protect the
pieties of evengelicals and political conservatives? Babajobu 18:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not "info", it's a picture. I'm not at all expressing an opinion on whether this picture should be in
this article, I'm just pointing out that "free speech" and "censorship" arguments are baseless. We
should instead be talking about whether showing the picture in the article is NPOV. Zocky | picture
popups 18:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
No one who was talking about compromise was talking about removing the image.
Compromise was just better so as not to offend people but also show the cartoon at the same
time. Obviously the same thing would happen if a cartoon or any other image was
disrespectful towards Christianity, Judaism, communism etc. and some of the people here who
are so blatantly "opposed to censorship" surely wouldn't be. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:14, 1 February
2006 (UTC)
Please don't make the mistake of thinking that a substantial percentage of the people
who want the image prominently displayed are doing so out of animosity towards Islam
in particular. The cartoon is the very subject of the article, and not prominently
displaying it is sheer lunacy. I would say the same thing about any image that is the
subject of widespread controversy and media coverage, including ones that mock my
own beliefs. Argyrios 20:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
One can argue that all religion is contradictory belief, but that's not the point here. This is an article about a controversy. One
side thinks that pictures like these should sometimes be shown in media, the other thinks they should never be shown in
media. Now, if we display the picture in the article, are we neutral? Zocky | picture popups 18:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Unless I've completely misunderstood the issue, this article is not solely about the image, but rather mostly about the
controversy and outrage it sparked in the Islamic world (otherwise it would be enough to show Image:Jyllands-Posten
Muhammad drawings.jpg solely on its own). Please do not call suggestions for moving and rezising the image in the
article censorship, as opposed to having it some other "ideal" way around. Scoo 18:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Anonymous Editor, in fact everyone arguing to keep the image at head of article seem to agree that articles
should be censored for no religion. And Wikipedia has not censored itself for Christian or Jewish or Hindu
sensibilities. See Piss Christ, where the pic has never been moved from head of article, even though it's Jesus
135
suspended in urine. People are only saying that Islam should be treated in the same way as those other religions.
Who here said anything about removing the picture? We are talking about compromise. But just to answer
you here, maybe something can be offensive in one religion but not in another? --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:36, 1
February 2006 (UTC)
Babajobu, can you answer the other argument, that publishing pictures in an article about the controversy
about whether these pictures should ever be published, is tantamount to Wikipedia taking the side of the
side that says they should? Zocky | picture popups 18:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Can't you also say that not publishing it does the same thing for THAT view?Kittynboi 19:03, 1
February 2006 (UTC)
Hehe, I made that really convoluted, but I trust you can decode it :) Zocky | picture popups 18:34, 1
February 2006 (UTC)
Zocky, a compromise in the Evolution article would not mean treating equally the position that
evolution is false, and creationism is true. Obscurantism is not a "position" with which an
encyclopedia "compromises". Babajobu 18:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying this is exactly like the evolution issue? The evolution article talks about a
different perspective and is a completely separate article than creationism. This is however one
issue and its about a picture. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
anonym, this is not about 'a' picture, it's about 'the' picture. The article would not have
been created, had these cartoons not been made and published. The image of the
cartoons should of course be placed at the top, just as an image of Bill Gates has been
placed at the top in the article about him. Surely, you would never suggest that his
picture should be moved, would you? That information, whether in the form of text or
images, may offend someone should not enter the equation when we discuss NPOV,
especially if the text/image is the very SUBJECT of the information. As soon as you
start discussion about whether something is offensive or not, you've moved from
objective (or neutral) to subjective, and the knowledge or information you're trying to
create/distribute cannot reflect reality.--Discus2000 19:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Well put. The null hypothesis for Wikipedia is inclusiveness. Removal should be
based only on an objective basis. Here, the controversy created is solely a result of
the subjective opinions of the reader. Any offense is the result of POV. Removal
of the images out of respect for POV is an argument which knows no bounds.
136
----Snorklefish 16:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The analogy with evolution seems to be a good one. Many people (primarily in America) seem to think that giving equal time
to evolution and creationism/intelligent design in classrooms is only fair. That letting both sides have their say is simply
impartiality. I think most of us here agree that it is not, and neither is making an image less accessible to readers, to
"compromise" with fundamentalists (or whatever term you would choose to use).
And by the way - in reference to the point many have tried to make - I can say for myself that there is not ONE thing - as a
Christian or anything else - that I would object to having published on Wikipedia, as long as it accords with the applicable
laws and Wikipedia policy.
Everybody with me here? Eixo 00:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
To be honest I'm in favour of keeping the pictures where they are as it seems the most logical/sensible place for them to be.
However, as long as they are in there *somewhere*, to be honest i'm not massively bothered about where, as the stir about the
pictures is more important than the pictures themselves and the constant edit war about their positioning is making it more
difficult for the article to improve. So against my better judgement, I'd go with moving them if only to get past this issue and
on to the main point of the article - to cover the situation in as NPOV a manner as possible. --Black Butterfly 16:43, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
The picture needs to be on the front page of the article, at the top of it, exactly where it is right now. "Blah blah blah, it
offends my beliefs" is not a reason to take it down. It is an informative image which is entirely relevant to the article. It isn't
like the Darwin Fish on the evolution page; this is what the article is ABOUT. Thus, the image should be displayed. It doesn't
matter that several Islamic countries are complaining about it; we have depictions of Muhammad in various spots in
Wikipedia because they are informative. Wikipedia is about information, and displaying such things is information. The
position of Wikipedia is to present the world in a neutral voice, not to be politically correct or to censor ourselves. It is the
purpose of Wikipedia to inform, and not having the image up is to not inform. Titanium Dragon 19:19, 2 February 2006
(UTC)
Source on the latest bomb-threat evacuation?
I see someone added that Jyllands-Posten was evacuated today again, can anyone confirm this with a source? I'll do it myself
137
in the evening since I watch the TV news, and surely it's in there if it happened. I personally live a few miles from the JP HQ
and I haven't heard anything yet though. --Sheeo 19:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
yup, here it is: http://www.jp.dk/indland/artikel:aid=3532030 --Discus2000 19:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Minor editorial quibbles
Can we have the adjective for natives of Chechnya ("Chechen", not "Chechenian") corrected by whichever powers-that-be
have disabled edits on this page? The mistake is right at the bottom of the Timeline section, Feb 1st subsection. Polocrunch
19:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
This has just become too stupid
Come on people- we have turned a little artical about a Social-Political debate into a madhouse with vandalism in the article
and pressure on Wikipedia from muslims who dont want this to be talked about.
What is all the fuss about over a couple pictures of Mohammed? I know all about the Islamic beliefs that Mohammed's face
cannot be shown, and I know that the pictures can be taken as negative by muslims, BUT COME ON PEOPLE- IT IS JUST
A FEW SATIRACAL COMICS FEATURING A HISTORICAL PERSON!
For you it may be "just a historical person", for 1 billion muslims it isn't!
Wikipedia is not handing out any opinions on the pictures, just the cold, hard facts. I dont give a crap about freedom of speech
here, or hate crimes- this is not about whether or not those pictures are derogatory to some people. This is about bringing
readers of Wikipedia the facts on a current event. Nothing else. (Caesar89 19:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC))
I agree; this whole debate is plain silly. 204.52.215.107 21:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the comic strip should be in a link form not in a image and the reason for that is becuase I think people eventually have
right to at that, but some people eventually don't even want to have a peek at it. Put this picture in the link would make sure
people feel comfortable about, nothing deal with cencoeship, it just like a PG13 thing because this news IS case sensitive.
That also state the seriousness of this case. Show this picture is somehow like speading the idea around. 142.161.94.69 01:37,
138
I suspect that most people who "don't even want to have a peek at it" are either unwilling or unable to come to
Wikipedia at all. Wikipedia contains far too many articles that contain information that is considered insulting,
slanderous, blasphemous, or otherwise dangerous to too many censorship regimes (be it the Great Firewall or
NetNanny) for those regimes to allow or condone easy access to the wikipedia.org domain at all, especially because of
its dynamic, unmoderated and unpredictable nature. Therefore, it is very difficult for me to see anybody in this
discussion who claims to be a devout Muslim as anything but some sort of internet troll: either a non-Muslim claiming
to be one to amuse themselves, or a person who really does consider themselves to be a true believer but came to this
page for the express purpose of finding something to be offended by and complain about (think "Baptist flipping
through Playboy"). --Guppy313 05:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I have to say this comment is rather off the mark. Wikipedia is lucky to have a lot of fantastic Muslim
editors.--Pharos 05:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Have any of them participated in this discussion? I've browsed most of this discussion and the only posts
I've seen from people against posting the picture in the article itself have either referred to Muslims in the
third person, are unsigned, or Qatarson (who is setting off my Troll-O-Meter big time). A generally
rational person who does not want to see the pictures would not come to this article (or, at the very least,
come here only after turning off images in their browser); it can be "edited by anyone" and even if there is
some sort of consensus to make the pictures click-through, there will always be internet vandals posting it
back onto the main article. --Guppy313 06:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I only care baout the event, not the comic strip. I always come here to read any controversy stuff, but sometimes I would like
to burn my eye to seeing the picture that is without my own will. I am not a Muslim (I dont have any religion so far), but I
insanely hate people who bash Muslim (or other religion) even without thinking why. It already not right to insult a Prophet
in a public then post it around the world, it is just like have a tape of a gang rape (or other violation), you know it about that,
but you still put it on the site for like edvidence. Who would like that?!66.225.141.5 18:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Me? See, here's the thing: freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Everyone has the right to their opinion, and as
religion is entirely a beast of opinion, people have the right to portray it however they want. It is totally alright to insult
a "prophet". 100%. I know I do it all the time, as does everyone else on the face of the planet Earth, including Muslims
(indeed, I would go so far as to say especially Muslims). A gang rape would be totally different, because that is about
someone's right to privacy. Of course, if they were dead, I think that it'd be alright to display it. I bash religion, and with
good reason. But this isn't the place to be bashing religion, this is the place to inform. And this article does just that; I
found it very informative. Titanium Dragon 19:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
139
Muhammed main article
Some Wikipeidans are preventing this article being linked from Muhammed. See Talk:Muhammad Astrotrain 20:22, 1
February 2006 (UTC)
Featuring the cartoons prominently is (inevitably going to be perceived as) a
provocation
... and will inevitably be perceived as a conscious attempt to piss people off. There is nothing about being an encyclopedia
that mandates that we try to piss people (or countries) off. We wouldn't run an image of a classified document, for instance, or
run pictures of people as they step out of the shower at the local gym, blissfully ignorant of the presence of a cell phone with
a camera function.
Just to recap the point someone else made: Did you notice how Oral sex does not feature images of this sexual activity
in the top half of the article?
Does that decision mean the Puritans are running WP? I don't think so. It means someone made an editorial call
somewhere along the line that a photographic image of this activity was not in the best interests of the article or the
encyclopedia.
And here's another example: For what is Sharon Tate famous? Primarily as a victim of the Manson family killing spree,
right. Does that mean that this picture belongs at the top of her article? Well, no. And if an editor insisted on including
that picture at the top of the article, I would hope that someone would realize that the trauma and pain and disgust
associated with placing it there outweiged any arguments about its "relevance" to the piece.
'Are such editorial decisions a subversion of the integrity of WP? No. They are recognitions of the reality that certain
images attract more negative attention and revulsion than their prominent inclusion justifies.
What people are failing to take into account here is that about one-fifth of the planet considers this cartoon image not
merely offensive, but criminal. Is it possible we could serve this subject justice without tweaking their noses? Sure it
is. Let's move the image down. BYT 20:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
140
"Just to recap the point someone else made: Did you notice how Oral sex does not feature images of this sexual activity
in the top half of the article?"
In fact this one does: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oralverkehr -- 129.13.186.1 21:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
You yourself referred to Piss Christ in you edit summary on Muhammad. There the image is also prominently featured.
Featuring this image is in no way an attempt to piss people off. It has however been established by consensus that this
image deserves to be prominently featured on the article. Regarding your Sharon Tate comment, I would agree that
having this image on the top of the Muhammad page would be inappropriate. However, this article is about these
comics, so it's a totally different situation. Jacoplane 20:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Lets not and say we didn't. Displaying a classified document is different since that would be illegal under U.S. law, and
Wikipedia is hosted in the U.S. Similarly, taking a candind photo of someone stepping out of the shower would create
similar, real legal problems. Wikipedia does not exist to anger people, but it should not refrain from posting things just
because they will anger someone. As for the oral sex comparison, and the sharon tate comaprison, those don't work
exactly. Oral sex is a general practice and th aarticle is about that in general. The sharon tate article is about Tate in
general. If it were about the tate murders, then you could easily make an argument for including the pic. However, in
both your examples, oral sex and sharon tate, those are general things. This article is not about a general issue of
depciting Mohammed. Its about a SPECIFIC image/set of images that do so, and therefore are not only relevant but
central to the article. Just because some people CONSIDER it criminal does not mean it IS criminal, and it is not
criminal in any meaningful sense in the nation that wikipedia is hosted in. Further, there are surely many things on
wikipedia that some nation or another would find criminal, but we don't take those down either. Nor should
we.Kittynboi 20:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not here be supportive of muslims are anyone else. It is here to provide the cold, hard facts. And to be
honest, those images of Mohammed are central to the issue discussed in the article (wheras tthe Sharon Tate photo is
just central to her death, not her entire biography). Keep the pics where they are and let people judge by the name of the
article whether they want to view the pics or not ('Mohammed Cartoons' seems to suggest that there may be cartoons of
Mohammed in the article).
It is not the job of Wikipedia to cater to any social or cultural group. If that was the case then we should get rid of pictures
like Piss Christ. (Caesar89 20:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC))
Considering the very _existence_ of these cartoons is what is really encouraging this wave of fanaticism, I don't see any
reason to debate moving the images up or down on the page. There will be "controversy" from some quarters until these
141
cartoons are destroyed or removed from the world entire. Why compromise with that mindset? Leave the cartoons as a
clickable image on the top-right of the page.
Furthermore, your comparison with Sharon Tate is meaningless; if this was a debate about the article on Muhammed,
then it would be a comparible situation. However, we're talking about an article that is specifically about the cartoons in
question -- the only comparison would be an article specifically about Sharon Tate's murder, in which case, yes a
picture of her autopsy would be appropriate to the article in question on the top of the page.
As for the fact that a large amount of people are annoyed by these images -- tough. That's what free speech was made
for: to support unpopular or controversial speech in the face of public "outcry". If Wikipedia doesn't stand with free
speech and access to information, no matter how "politically controversial", than what purpose does it really serve at
all? Sol. v. Oranje 20:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not at all sure we've got consensus for prominent inclusion of this image. Lots of shouting, though.
BYT 20:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
There isn't consensus for anything right now.Kittynboi 21:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the points made above with the Bahai article example. Moving the image down would not make it "less
accessible", and would not be censorship -- just a style thing. It would definitely make the article less offensive to some. If
you think that this reason alone makes it into censorship, I think you're just suggesting that we act out of spite, rather than be
more neutral, and that we become more a tabloid than an encyclopaedia. Just my personal opinion, of course. --BACbKA
20:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC) P.S. I could easier accept an "in your face" placement of the image in a wikinews article
(however, this would make wikinews just a bit more sentationalist and a bit less rational in the eyes of a lot of readers,
IMHO). In the main English WP space --- even more wrong. --BACbKA 20:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think moving the cartoon down would achieve anything. A great many people consider the very existence of the
cartoon to be unacceptable, on a par with murder or rape (don't forget that denigration of Muhammad is a capital
offence in many Islamic countries). How exactly does not having it at the top of the article limit the offence, if the
cause of complaint is the very existence of the cartoon? -- ChrisO 21:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
ChrisO, that's a reasonable theory, but the limited experimental evidence we have is that moving the pic down
made the erasures stop. The people who insisted on rv'ing the move were the "enlightened" side. IMO there is no
way to keep it at the top without either dealing with endless revert wars or else locking the page (or section, if
that's possible). Either one of those would be a disruption and therefore invokes WP:POINT. 71.141.251.153
22:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
142
Fewer vandals would see it. BYT 21:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, which is why any debate about moving the cartoons up or down the page is silly and myopically misses
the larger debate about letting the cartoons remain or succumbing to censorship. Talk of "compromise" shows a
lack of understanding of the larger seriousness of this brouhaha. Sol. v. Oranje 21:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
"Censorship is fighting talk"
Censorship is fighting talk. Neither I nor AE are advocating censorship. Please read the posts. BYT 21:40,
By suggesting that the image be moved, you are indeed advocating censorship by dint of putting the
image/information under discussion in a less prominent place. In fact, what you're really doing is
salami tactics of eventually removing the image entire by shunting it off into further obscurity.
Furthermore, may I suggest you refrain from moving the image under discussion from the top of the
article's page -- there is _NO_ consensus whatsoever that the image should be moved from the top of
the page; please stop changing the article to suit your own personal agenda. Sol. v. Oranje 22:00, 1
February 2006 (UTC)
With all respect, Sol, the only rough consensus that has emerged (among, um, actual editors) is that
the images are germane to the article and deserve to be included.
There is no consensus whatoseover for placing the cartoons at the top of the piece -- to the contrary,
this is the very point that is hotly disputed.
I don't get the "tactics" reference about my intent here, but if you check my posts about the recent
(analogous) controversy at Qur'an, you'll see that I advocated retaining the controversial and
potentially offensive image there, just as I am advocating retaining the controversial and defiantly
offensive image here. Not sure that salami business adds up to assuming good intent. BYT 22:08, 1
February 2006 (UTC)
143
"Salami tactics" refers to the manner in which oppression is enforced through small baby steps; it
may be more widely known as "the slippery slope", in which what starts out as a free situation is
slowly turned into a despotic one through incremental restrictions ultimately ending in total
oppression. By moving the image down the page, in my view, is to move the image closer to
obscurity and ultimately destruction. It is in this spirit that I maintain it should remain at the top of
the page, especially considering the article is itself about said cartoons. That's the reason why I
haven't edited the article myself -- and also because I don't think there is consensus to change the
article in the first place; I wait until agreement is had before making edits.
It's great that you've argued for including "offensive" imagery in the Qu'ran article; but was the
image at question in that article the leading first image, or one farther down the page? Sol. v. Oranje
22:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
IMHO, the cartoons MUST stay. It's important for people who are trying to understand the situation to actually see the
cartoons that started the fracas in the first place. Would you understand the Bill of Rights as much if you weren't
allowed to see a text of it and therefore forced to rely on someone else's (possibly biased) description of it? It is NOT
the same as oral sex as one can get a fairly good description of oral sex without having to see a picture of it. Pat Payne
21:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Who's saying the cartoons shouldn't stay? I'm saying move them down "below the fold" so we piss
fewer people off, and have less cleanup work to do. We would be following precisely the same
editorial example as Oral sex. BYT 21:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Below WHAT fold? There is no "fold" as has been pointed out, and at certain resolutions, it
will show up even if its moved down because those reoslutions will show more of that page.
There is no clear, distinct safe space where no one who will be offended will see it.Kittynboi
21:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It was a joke, Kitty. Relax. I know there's not a fold. BYT 22:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
How exactly will it "piss fewer people off" if the problem is the very existence of the cartoon
in the first place? -- ChrisO 22:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I vote for putting the pictures a little bit down, as it really doesn't hurt anyone to scroll the
wheel 3 lines to see them, and I believe people can live with taht "hassle" in trade for a little
144
bit of respect. (Cloud02 22:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC))
lets stay rational and polite.
I would like to make three points/suggestions/rambling incoherent thoughts 1) Is Wikipedia a universal free encyclopedia for
all thw world, or is it just for Westerners with laic western sensibilities? Keep the pictures ofcouse but put them below the
fold. Having them up their when you open the page is a bit unnerving for Muslims. And I thought we Muslims are a part of
Wikipdia too. Just swtich it with another picture that we have in the article. I mean its the polite thing to do. 2) Growing up in
the UK and Italy and the US I have often faced anti-muslim prejudice (not in the US, Go US) but in the other two countries
nasty pamphlets and graffiti were not uncommon in my place of worship. For European Muslims this isn't just a picture of a
historical personage. That man with a bomb in his turban is upsetting in the way a man in black face is upsetting to an African
America. Its not just an actor with paint on his face. Its a sign of hatred. I mean I really couldn't care less now but a couple of
years ago looking at that would have been like a punch in the stomache. 3) And I agree the Danish Newspaper had the right to
publish the photos. And crazy Middle Easterners have the right to boycott Danish cheese, just as neo-cons have the right to
boycott ummmm oil (what else does the Mid-East export? I mean its all silly, but as long as no one is violent or destructive,
right? Ahassan05 20:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)ahassan05
Wikipedia is FOR anyone who wants it, but it is made and hosted in a western nation, and will reflect that. Most of the
people that edit the english language version of Wikipedia are from the West, primarily England, Canada, and the U.S.
So western sensibilities are unavoidable, Further, it cannot please everyone. Nothing can. As many have pointed out,
Wikipedia is not here to cater to Muslims. Just because its unnerving to Muslims is not reason to change the article.
Many things on wikipedia may be unnerving to some, but thats just reality. Even if one of the images is a sign of
hatred, comparable to a person in blackface, its still the subject of the article. I have no objection to it here, and I would
have no objection to a photo of someone in blackface in an article about that.Kittynboi 21:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not "made" in one western nation. It is made throughout the world. It is hosted in Amsterdam,
Florida, Seoul, and other locations. Jacoplane 21:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
However, its primary users, at least for the english language version, are from english speaking nations in
the west.Kittynboi 21:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
What's a primary user? Does that make me a secondary user? Jacoplane 21:20, 1 February 2006
(UTC)
Let's just take out the cartoon from the article, and put an external link to it. This is just being responsible
and sensitive to the world-wide readership of wikipedia. It is also being pragmatic, so that the editing can
145
focus on the facts and aftermath rather than wasting time arguing about the image placement. In my part of
the world (southeast asia) no responsible person, regardless of their religion, will display the cartoon. And
there are many editors and readers of wikipedia from this region. --Vsion (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2006
(UTC)
In your part of the world, no person regardless of their religion will display the cartoon OUT OF
FEAR FOR THEIR LIVES Hellznrg 21:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
No, it is because we understand the sensitivity better, as most people have many Muslims
friends, classmates and colleagues. Please study the history, lots of nasty things had happened
in Europe not too long ago. Let's not repeat similar mistakes. --Vsion (talk) 22:12, 1 February
2006 (UTC)
Just because it's insensitive does not mean the information should not be avialable. The
same goes for the image. Do you think that it should not be available because it offends
people?Kittynboi 22:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The goal of a source of information is to provide information, no matter how unnerving or offensive
that information is. Further, in other parts of the world, it would be displayed. Why should all of
wikipedia conform to what people would do in your part of the world?Kittynboi 21:18, 1 February
2006 (UTC)
And in my part of the world (Europe) newspapers all over the continent print thoose images.
They are at the very heart of this story, and deserve the most prominent position. Remember,
Wikipedia is not about not hurting peoples feelings; It's about showing the facts as objective as
possible, and to stove this image away is to misrepresent the actual case out of fear for hurting
other peoples feelings. It's simply natural that this image is at the top of this article.
The.valiant.paladin 21:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I don't see why all these arguments about sensitivity are being take so
seriously.Kittynboi 21:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
146
Wikipedia is a _global_ source of information and is not beholden to Southeast Asian restrictions. It
is meant to display the widest possible amount of information from across time and experience. The
cartoons must remain to allow readers to decide for themselves what the cartoons mean and whether
they are blasphemy/insult or legitimate satire. It is Southeast Asia's loss that local media publishers
refuse to allow the discussion to even take place by restricting access to the cartoons. Sol. v. Oranje
21:27, 1 Febru0ary 2006 (UTC)
But does this mean Wikipedia has a "Western" sensibility? Thats what some seem to be
implying. People seem to think that a global sensibility means nothing more than striving not
to offend anyone anywhere. Thats not what this is about. And I think it important to remind
people that Wikipedia, regardless of where other hosts are, did originate in the U.S. and its
stance of legal issues will be largely affected by this, which means there is no obligation to
remove the images.Kittynboi 21:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it means that Wikipedia -- as a global source of information beholden to
Floridian/US laws regarding content -- has a mandate to incorporate as much of the
global experience of knowledge as possible. In this sense, Wikipedia is perhaps creating
a new transcultural sensibility of access to everything, no matter what one culture or
another says about its offensiveness. The only restriction would be what is actually
illegal to host under Florida/US law; however, if that ever becomes a serious problem in
terms of censorship, then Wikipedia would move servers to a new country/state in order
to continue its goal of providing the most information possible, inclusive of all
controversial material. It may be currently dominated by "Western" writers and editors,
but I do think we are moving toward a new form of Info-civilization that transcends old
definitions of "West", "East", Old World and New. Sol. v. Oranje 21:37, 1 February
2006 (UTC)
But what is a trans"cultural" sensibility? It seems, from the words of some on
here, that adhering to a global sensibility means nothing more than making a list
of things considered offensive and avoiding them out of "respect". Is there more
to global sensibility than just not offending people? I dislike this global sensibility
idea because this discussion seems to be an indicator that the outcome would be a
supression of information and knowledge based on "cultural" taboos.Kittynboi
147
21:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, in my view this global "transcultural" sensibility would seek to _not_
avoid topics just because one group or another found offense; one could
also say it's a "universalist" approach in that it would seek to replicate
information of all that exists, including controversial topics on the very
basis that users who are not members of a culture that finds certain
information offensive are free to upload whatever info they have on the
subject with the purpose of perhaps enlightening all. Keep in mind that in
no way am I suggesting that Wikipedia bow down to local "taboos"; in fact,
it is in that specific spirit that I feel that grounding Wikipedia in a purely
"Western" mindset would do nothing more but localize Wikipedia with its
own set of Western taboos. By making it transcultural, we might be able to
have the full breadth of human knowledge from all cultures. Sol. v. Oranje
21:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The problem is, it seems so many people, in this case especially,
think that including the perspectives of other nations includes
subjecting wikipedia to their own taboos.Kittynboi 22:11, 1 February
2006 (UTC)
Well, then those people have a problem understanding that
their own local taboos have no place in a transcultural
information database. Because Wikipedia is of the world means
inherently that it is going to include information on local taboos
simply because other residents of Earth have no such problems
discussing what is restricted by that one group. Sol. v. Oranje
22:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, its undeniable that some people want that. Just reading
this discussion, its clear that some people here think wikipedia
should be, to some degree or another, subject to Muslim
taboos.Kittynboi 22:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
148
The purpose of this article is to inform the reader about the cartoons. It is obvious and proper to head an article
which is about an image, with a representation of that image. That's what we do, for instance, with the Mona Lisa
and the Winged Victory of Samothrace and a thousand other articles about works of art. The actual image itself is
central to the story. It's not a mere detail to be tucked away in some subheading. It's the whole point. To put the
image anywhere else (or to get rid of it entirely) is to say; let's make the article less useful and less well written
so we don't offend people who oppose freedom of speech. Furthermore, it's a waste of time. There is no "below
the fold" on a web browser; you don't know what resolution or font size people ar browsing at. Thparkth 21:31, 1
February 2006 (UTC)
You know, I think Ahassan makes a good argument. There's no real reason why the cartoon has to be at the top of the
article; the boycott photo could fit there just as well. To me, simple respect and politeness is a legitimate issue, and as
long as the image isn't censored I have no problem with it being in some slightly less conspicuous position. We
shouldn't be off-putting to our traditional Muslim readers and editors if it can be reasonably avoided.--Pharos 21:35, 1
February 2006 (UTC)
No, the boycott picture could not fit there just as well, because this article is not about the boycott. There's
already an article about that. I still fail to see why wikipedia should go out of the way to not offend. The primary
purpose is to make the information and material available, regardless of who it offends. IT's very ironic that
anyone suggests this sort of thing, as the drawings were drawn BECAUSE of a debate in Denmark on the issue of
self censorship. I find it troubling that the response of a website that seeks to provide free, easy to access
information for all is itself being subjected to calls for similar self censorship. And no amount of semantics or
linguistic acrobatics are going to remove the element of censorship. This is about censorship, regardless of what
anyone says.Kittynboi 21:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I have read this entire page and must say that you, Kittynboi, are wrong. Does a book about a murder have
to have a photo of the corpse on the front of the book? No. Do the authors censor themselves if they decide
to put the photo on page 103? No. If there's a choice between communicating information in a way to be
offensive or not, we choose the latter. We're still communicating the information. You have made it clear
that you're taking your extreme position because you are offended by the implications of co-existing with
aniconists, and at this point you're fighting for that, not really for where the photo should go. And I think
your "best to rub it in their faces for spite" comment means you should immediately disqualify yourself
from this discussion. Tempshill 21:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I find the idea of coexisting with anaxonists very troubling because its clear that they seek to
149
dictate what I and others who do not share their beliefs can and cannot see. If you want me
disqualified for discussion, then request that a moderator ban me.Kittynboi 22:15, 1 February 2006
(UTC)
Sorry Tempshill, that doesn't make sense. Please find one significant article on Wikipedia about an
artwork that doesn't have an image of that artwork, then we can talk. Thparkth 22:05, 1 February
2006 (UTC)
Considering it's the aniconists who are the ones advocating censorship, I'd say they are the ones with
an extreme position and who are intolerant to the rights that non-aniconists have to view whatever
image they want. You're taking "offense" is nothing more than code words for trying to shut down
discussion and debate, best exemplified by your advocating that Kittynboi "disqualify [himself] from
this discussion". Sol. v. Oranje 22:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it is likely that this article may be doomed until the contraversy dies down some. Objective voices are going to
easily drowned out by the massive agendas being thrown around here.--M4bwav 22:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
What qualifies as an agenda though? Many think the image should stay as that is in the spirit and intent of what
wikipedia is supposed to be.Kittynboi 22:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
South Jutland
I think the translation of the cartoon with the "South Jutland" bit needs work. While the explanation of what South Jutland
means is fine, the lead-up doesn't really seem correct. "Calm down, friends, all being said it is just a drawing made by an
infidel South Jute".... this seems wrong to me. I've seen another source translate it as: "Relax folks it is just a sketch made by
a Dane from the south-west Denmark." I suggest something along the lines of "Relax guys, it's just a sketch made by someone
from South Jutland." and then a mention made of the "middle of nowhere" nature of SJ. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:28, 1
February 2006 (UTC)
A "Sønderjyde" is translated as "Southern Jutlander". "Sønderjylland" is "Southern Jutland".--Discus2000 21:34, 1 February
2006 (UTC)
Well, it'd have to be a loose translation literally to capture the spirit of the phrase. As for "Southern Jutlander" vs.
150
"someone from Southern Jutland"... I don't think it matters much. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:43, 1 February 2006
(UTC)
agree, it doesn't really matter... To capture the spirit (I'm Danish), I'd go with something like "Relax guys, it's just a
sketch made by some obscure Dane!" --Discus2000 21:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I changed the article... kept the bit about South Jutland so we can explain about the expression. Change it if it's no
good. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The original text reads "Rolig, venner, når alt kommer til alt er det jo bare en tegning lavet af en vantro
sønderjyde" - directly translated into "Calm, friends, when all comes to all it is just a drawing made by an
infidel Southjute". While a workaround for a local Danish term is fine for me, I don't understand the
omission of the word infidel. It should be: "Relax guys, it's just a drawing made by some infidel South
Jutlander". Poulsen 22:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Correction made in article. I was suffering from an inability to speak Danish, so I didn't know that
the word "infidel" was part of the literal text. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
As a Norwegian, I think the best translation would be "Relax guys, after all it's just a drawing by a unbelieving
Dane." The "after all" should not be let out. "Southern Jutlander" looses all meaning when translated into
English. Since Denmark is so small in global terms, I think just "Dane" fully captures the correct meaning and
casual tone. Also, I think "unbeliever" is better than "infidel". That should be decided by an English speaker, but
"infidel" seems to have strong negative connotations, but the original Danish text seems ironic with an extremely
casual tone.
Islamic art and NPoV
I have issues with the section entitled "Islamic Art" from the Neutral Point of View perspective. The issue isn't Islamic art the issue is aniconism, and Islamic art seems to me to be a western point-of-view argument against the Islamic aniconistic
tradition. Also, I can think of at least one good reason why the Islamic world hasn't objected to historical depictions of
Mohammed - as far as I can see, most of those depictions have been respectful, or highly respectful, towards Mohammed,
thereby making it easy for the Islamic world to respect the tradition of religious iconography and/or free speech that generate
the image in the first place.
151
Technically speaking, I believe that the second command means that Christianity is also supposed to be aniconistic, and
indeed there have been iconoclastic periods in Christian history. Chrisobyrne 22:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree, this isn't a case of Islamic art but only Aniconism, and iconoclams (Cloud02 22:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC))
I think that if the issue is whether or not Mohammed should be depicted at all, and controversies over depictions of
him, then including information about past depictions is relevent.Kittynboi 22:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes - so that, for instance, readers can compare and contrast the (mostly) respectful images of the past with the
current offerings. Chrisobyrne 23:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The second commandment specifically refers to the creation of idols of anything, be it in heaven or earth. A
drawing really isn't much of an idol unless you like go all out on decorating it with like plantinum or something
and setting up an altar and stuff, i've made many sketches of things for geometry class, and it hardly seems
reasonable that me drawing a bunch of triangles and squares is idol-creating. God then tells us that we shall not
bow down to worship idols. These drawings are neither idols, nor are they being bowed down to...I hope, that
would be wrong and kind of creepy. Homestarmy 01:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism
I find it sad to see such an extreme amount of vandalism being done on the article. And this doesn't just go for the "islamic
fundamentalist" but for others as well, since there have been anti-islam vandalism as well. (Cloud02 22:10, 1 February 2006
(UTC))
free speech and tact
There is no contradiction between free speech and tact. Thats all I'm asking for tact. Don't rub it in people's
face. I understand you think we religious people are silly, and we probably are. But why can't this article
disseminate its message and respect the people for whom this image is hurtful?
And this is not just an artwork. For many people this is a racist caricature. Compare it to a burning cross not the Venus de
Milo, or a minstrel show instead of a piece of theatre. You need to understand that this is hurtful, its like a punch in the
152
stomache. I mean are 19th century caricatures of the blood libel art? Give me a break. Its not about anti-iconism or whatever
the term is. All Muslims as terrorists is the racist image thats acceptable in this age. It took so long for Westerners to stop
printing Sambos, Chinamen, and Shylocks in newsapers, I guess we'll have a couple of decades to wait. Ahassan05 22:15, 1
February 2006 (UTC)ahassan05
sorry that you feel that way, ahassan05... but whatever you say, this cannot be an act racism - as far as I know, muslims
are not a race. And while you continue to argue that the cartoons should not be there (for whatever reason you may
have to say so), a lot of others will argue that it is their right as human beings (regardless of race, religion, belief,
cultural (in)sensitivity, cross-eyedness or whatever label you may choose) to have unrestricted access to that
information. In that sense, removing/moving the picture can, IMHO, only be seen as censorship, which (again, IMHO)
is a lot worse than being subjected to cultural or religious insensitivity. You can choose not to view the information, but
if the information is not available at all, I cannot choose to view it, i.e. you have a choice, I don't.--Discus2000 22:32, 1
February 2006 (UTC)
Considering the Middle Eastern press often prints racist and anti-Semitic images in their own press,
it seems inane to single out the "West" as the only instigators of intra-cultural tension. It seems we'll
have a couple more decades to wait before _every_ culture grows up. Sol. v. Oranje 22:21, 1
February 2006 (UTC)
Anyone who thinks this article is a racist caricature is simply wrong. Thparkth 22:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
When MiddleEastern newspapers print anti-semetic tripe the educated are revolted. Here it seems the educated
are defending the racist tract. And the prophet with a bomb, and the prophet oppressing women is offensive to
Muslims. It doesn't matter what you think. Its whats percieved by hundreds of thousands of Muslims. Ahassan05
22:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)ahassan05
I may be revolted, but that does not mean I think it should be censored or hidden away. If something
offends me, I respond by arguing against it, by stating my views on it. Not by trying to censor it or make it
less readily available.Kittynboi 22:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
^--what he said (Cloud02 22:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC))
I think you're confusing people advocating the inclusion of the cartoons with advocating their content; I do
not think that is what's going on here. The inclusion of the cartoons, however hurtful, is necessary because
it is fundamental to understanding the controversy in the first place -- and this is the same opinion I would
have if there was a global controversy over the publication of anti-Semitic cartoons in the Middle Eastern
153
press (and, funny, but I don't recall seeing so much uproar about those...), or if this controversy was about
the "anti-Christian" Piss Christ, etc. Sol. v. Oranje 22:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
To Thparkth:
You're not seriously suggesting that the cartoon isn't based on caricature?
Look, would we illustrate the ethnic slur Coon with this image? Of course not. Why not? Because it's hate speech. But this
cartoon isn't hate speech because ... (Silence, crickets chirping).
We could illustrate the phrase "Jump Jim Crow" with a contemporary caricature of a white man blacked up for
comedy purposes. Some people would find that highly offensive hate speech. But we could say it was necessary
illustration for the article, and that the fact that we SHOW something doesn't mean we ADVOCATE something.
Oh look, we did. Thparkth 22:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps because the word "coon" is not specifically linked with that image. But this is not an article about a racsit
slur or caricature, its about the drawings themselves, and therefore we illustrate the page about the drawings with
an image of the drawings.Kittynboi 22:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
And furthermore, not all the cartoons could even veer close to hate speech -- what, a cartoon about a Persian boy
writing on a blackboard is hate speech? How about the one of the Danish editor symbolically representing "PR
Stunt", or the one showing Mohammed in the desert or with a simply symbological merging of the crescent and
star with his face? That's "Hate speech"? Get over your over sensitivity. Sol. v. Oranje 07:45, 2 February 2006
(UTC)
So fine, it's a major media event. Use it on the page. Just don't lead with it. Give people a chance to get some context before
you whack them over the head with this. BYT 22:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
BYT: you need to read what I wrote a bit more closely. Thparkth 22:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we have freedom of speech, put no, freedom of speech doesn't include bashing other people's religion. And a purpose of
154
a newspaper is tell the truth, but not include speading some random people's hatred.
This is making us all look like a bunch of 3 year olds
My idea was to put the pictures lower down in the article so that Muslims know that they are there and they can choose
whether or not to see them. Slamdac
Hear, hear. BYT 22:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
That proposal has been discussed again and again above. There is still no consensus on it.Kittynboi 22:37, 1
February 2006 (UTC)
And the consensus for using the image to lead the article exists in that ... ? BYT 22:49, 1 February 2006
(UTC)
There is no consensus on using it to lead the article. There's no consensus on anything.Kittynboi
22:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
There doesn't need to be a consensus to put it at the top, because that's the normal thing to do. It's
even the policy thing to do. If this was any other picture, nobody would say it shouldn't be at the top.
Thparkth 22:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The article is about the image. The image should be obvious and prominent and no argument for
"sensitivity" towards any group of people should be made. If we start being PC to one group of
people, we have to start being PC to all of them to be fair. If offended Muslims want a
muslim-friendly wikipedia, then someone should start one. Wikipedia is meant to be fair and free to
all.Hitokirishinji 22:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed that it's SOP for images to be placed at the top of the article, and that it would require a
"new" consensus to move them somewhere else in the article. Is there any particular reason
why the call for a vote was denied? That might be one way to figure this out. Sol. v. Oranje
22:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
155
I actually think we should make an effort to not offend. There is nothing "unfair" about say,
using the boycott image at top and moving the cartoon down. We're an encyclopedia; it's our
primary job to be informative, not provocative. As long as the image is not actually removed
from the article, nothing is being lost as regards educational content. Simple courtesy is not
censorship.--Pharos 23:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Fairness or not, theres no reason to put the boycott image at the top because the article is
not about the boycott. Sometimes simply being informative IS being
provocative.Kittynboi 23:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with being purposefully offensive. As someone else said, normal
protocol says the images go on the top. We should not treat this any different because it
"offends" a group of people. What I find all images in any shape size or form offensive? If
we're going to move this one "down" we should move ALL images in every article down. The
day wikipedia turns PC and starts to be "courteous" to appease people, then our mission of free
information will have already been lost. Do you have any idea how many people would
consider it "courteous" to remove the image in the anus section? Perhaps more than we would
like. Hitokirishinji 23:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It can't go on like this. It's going to start world war 3. slamdac
The cartoons should be on the site. But not at the top. Prehaps in a tubnail sized box which you can click on to expand. This
edit war is getting silly. Muslims need to stop being so sensitive and us europeans need to realise that free speech does not
mean that you HAVE to put the pictures right at the top of the article. Slamdac
No, its doesn't mean we HAVE too, but many people are making arguments that we should for various
reasons.Kittynboi 22:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to add that by clicking on a link that says "Muhammad Cartoons" one should not be shocked to actually
SEE cartoons with Muhammad. As long as the article is named as it is I think that muslims have been given
adequate warning.The.valiant.paladin 23:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, when I checked out the article on the anus. I actaully half suspected there would be a picture of a
real one. I already knew myself and had adequate warning. Hitokirishinji 23:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
156
This article will never ever be agreed. It's going to go on like this until the end of the world. slamdac
Then that makes the article just like everything else in the world. Nothing will ever be 100% agreed upon. Kittynboi
23:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that all day long today, Kittynboi has been the main person loudly saying there's no
consensus to move the image down. 208.57.241.50 23:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Um, there are plenty of others who have also opposed moving the image down the page, including myself,
The.valiant.paladin, Hitokirishinji, Thparkth, Discus2000, Lankiveil and numerous anonymous others. Sol.
v. Oranje 23:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Since there are a lot of strong opinions being voiced here this won't be an easy task. Anyway, I propose the following in an
attempt to resolve the dispute about the image:
The top header section slightly trimmed down, the table of contents placed directly under it, with
Image:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings.jpg placed beneath it.
This way we would satisfy the need to show the image in question while showing common courtesy. Anyone might access the
article and move on to subsections via the TOC. Preferably could the image be shrinked to around 150 pixels as opposed to
the current 250 (takes longer for non-broadband users to load, article itself quite large).
As for the reasons why, consider the following: "controversial" articles such as Oral sex do show images, but a bit down in
the article. Anus does show a drawing at top, but keep a photo of the real thing a bit down. Piss Christ show the photo in
question at the top (at 130 pixels), in part perhaps as the article is quite short.
Some say that the image must be at the top since this article is about the cartoons themselves, I'd like to expand on that, I'd
say the article is mostly about the controversy and outrage surrounding it. Statements that "it is about the cartoon itself"
seems more like an excuse not to deal with opposing views. The article might as well be called Jyllands-Posten Muhammad
cartoons controversy. Scoo 09:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd agree to this, but only if in the process of moving the cartoon image down, we also provide larger, more legible
versions of the cartoons next to their descriptions in the "Publications of the Drawings" section. I'm actually starting to
157
believe that the image currently hosted by Wikipedia is too small to be truly readable or interpretable by the average
viewer at such a small size. Moving them down the page but enlarging them might be a good balance. Sol. v. Oranje
09:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I could support that as a compromise. Babajobu 09:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Nice to see that we might have potential common ground in sight. Please keep the idea brewing, with more
input from fellow editors we might keep a compromise from drowning in the verbal nukes that go off left
and right here. Scoo 09:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I like this idea as a compromise - also where have the first three descriptions gone? this talk page is
getting too long to find info 82.0.4.23 14:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Agree with providing larger image. But I don't agree with moving the cartoon image down on
the page. --168.159.213.36 21:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Putting the pictures down on the bottom would serve no purpose other than caving in. They belong on the
top of the article. Why would a Muslim even WANT to look this entry up knowing that their 'Prophet' will
be depicted?
--TruthCrusader
Top right picture is horns or halo?
Those look like horns to me, how do you know that it is a crescent moon? Homestarmy 22:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I personally never thougt of them as horns, always as a halo, but now you mention it, i don't really know Al3xander 22:56, 1
February 2006 (UTC)
It does look a bit like horns, but the "glow" makes it clear (to me) that it's a crescent-shaped halo. Besides, that whole
"horns" thing was for Moses, not Muhammad. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
158
Well horns can also symbolize Satan, which is what the article said originally, so when it was changed I thought i'd
bring up the subject. Is a crescent moon over the head really a popular symbol for Christ? Maybe it is referring to
Islam, as in Muhammad starting it, and it kind of imitating a halo because of that? —The preceding unsigned comment was
added by Homestarmy (talk • contribs) .
No, Jesus isn't often depicted with a crescent moon, but with a glowing halo. The picture (if it is indeed a
crescent shaped halo) simply compares the Muslim Muhammed to the Christian Jesus, with they similar (to a
certain degree) roles in the different religions. Poulsen 23:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The crescent-moon shape is a clear symbol of Islam. Jesus is never associated with a crescent-moon shape, his
halo is always circular. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, I see the confusion now. I've removed the bit about him "looking like Jesus"... it was referring to the way he
was standing, not to the crescent halo... and I don't agree about that point anyway. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:49,
I saw that 'horns' as a mix between the popular (though wrong) belief that the vikings wore horns on their helmets
and a halo. Thus referencing a carricature of the Danish past with this cartoon. Jdonnis 15:49, 2 February 2006
(UTC)
Where can I find an english translation of the cartoons?
I think the title explains it all ;) (Caesar89 23:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC))
That information should be in the article, it was when I last looked down into it :/ Homestarmy 23:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The vandals look like a bunch of 3 year olds
"ANDY. ANDY. ANDY. ANDY. ANDY. ANDY. ANDY. ANDY. ANDY. ANDY. ANDY. ANDY. ANDY. ANDY. " What
is this nonsense? "Aisha." "This article has respectfully refrained from showing the picture." Will the inhabitants of this
bedlam article please GROW UP already? gee whiz. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and a revert war between someone who felt Muhammad looked like a devil with horns and another who felt
159
he looked like Jesus. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't look at me, I took it to the talk page rather than deciding to revert it, I don't even see how a halo is necessarily
Christ's trademark anyway, angel's have halo's traditionally too.Homestarmy
France soir chief editor sacked
The owner of France Soir Raymond Lakah declares that he has removed Jacques Lefranc as the chief editor. He states "We
express our apology to the muslim community and to all the person that were chocked by the publication of the cartoons."
someone add this, i cannot edit the page atm. http://www.jp.dk/udland/artikel:aid=3532634/ Al3xander 23:10, 1 February
2006 (UTC)
Was it for the cartoons or that nasty anti-all religions even thinking about touching the government even an inch comment?
And i'll try to put it in, someone may of already. Homestarmy 23:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok I put it in, but were those typos with "persons" and "shocked" actually how he spelled it? I spelled them right but if he
didn't....Homestarmy 23:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It was translated from the Danish text, so just correct those errors. thx Al3xander 23:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Loser frogs have no balls. Their country is getting over run with those savages and they do nothing to fight it.
I say France should boycot France Soir
We don't boycott newspapers in France. We read them and agree or disagree. -- daniel 2 feb 2006
-that's the most sensable thing anyone's said so far, good work daniel:)
I have read conflicting reports whether Jacques Lefranc was the managing director or the chief editor. According to [1]
he was the managing director and Serge Faubert is the Chief Editor. Can someone (perhaps we have a Frenchman
here?) verify this fact? Rasmus (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
160
Solution to the problem
I think maybe there is a solution to this problem. Though I'm sure some will disagree with me. Keep the image in its place but
the link to the article should have some sort of warning and those who find such information offensive should be advised to
turn off "load images" in their browser. Thus they may freely read the article without having to see the image.Hitokirishinji
23:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I have no objection to that. But I don't know if it could be done.Kittynboi 23:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It's just an idea, if anyone could come up with an implementable version of this... Hitokirishinji 23:41, 1 February
2006 (UTC)
"Hiding" the picture solves nothing. Those who are angry, aren't angry that they saw the picture, they are
angry simply knowing Jyllands-Posten printed the picture. It would have made no difference if
Jyllands-Posten had put a warning on its front page and printed the pictures on the next. Hiding, warning,
or linking doesn't avoid the controversy if Wikipedia chooses to include the picture
somewhere.--Snorklefish 16:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Sounds Sensible slamdac
How do we make EVERY link to the article in the WHOLE Wikipedia display this "warning"... and do we do it for ALL
potentially "offensive" images? This doesn't sound workable to me. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Actaully I was thinking about just that and realized the easiest way is simply to put a warning at the front wikipedia
page. "Wikipedia contains images that some may find offensive. Please remove "load images" from your browser if
believe you may find some images offensive." Most browsers do contain a "load this image" option so people can pick
and choose if they really are sensitive. Hitokirishinji 00:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
How about a warning on the whole internet, saying: "May contain freedom of expression"? Just a suggestion.
Eixo 00:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Explanation to the Police line-up image=
161
Just an explanation to the centre image, the seven-man Police line-up image, if anybody would like to know what it means. It
is a well-crafted image with multiply layers of information.
First the obvious meaning, the witness has to identify X (it does not really matter who X is), but cannot, alluring to that all
seven people on the image have an agenda, not necessary similar.
2nd, the placement of the images is also important. It represents those people you should be cautious about the further you go
out to the sides. In the centre you got Buddha (4), representing something like peace love and harmony. On easy side you got
the prophets of two major religions, Jesus (3) and Muhammad (5), both with an agenda, they preach something to the people,
thus be cautious. On these sides you got two political figures in Denmark, Pia Kjærsgaard (2) and Imam Fatih Alev (6), both
with a clear agenda, they speak loud and can both be described as radicals on many subjects and have clashed numerous times
in the Danish media long before these images, thus be more cautious. The last two, Imam Abdul Wahid Pedersen (1) and
journalist Kåre Bluitgen (7), are the two to be most cautious about, but it is not immediately obvious. Abdul Wahid is usually
described as a moderate Muslim always trying to get along and Kåre Bluitgen does not really have an agenda. However
Abdul Wahid is also, by some (like Pia Kjærsgaard), described as one of the most dangerous Muslims in Denmark, because
he never really takes a stand on a subject, never really condemns or approves various behaviours, and thus you never really
know where you got him. Kåre Bluitgen likewise is a dangerous person, as he is prepared to initiate a stunt (PR stunt) like this
to promote his book, painfully obvious by the author of the image slapping a sign in his hand saying, “Kåre's public relations,
call and get an offer”, as to say they both work under the radar, thus be very cautious. Twthmoses 23:25, 1 February 2006
(UTC)
Thanks for your interpretation of that particular drawing; it's hard to honestly even parse what that one is about due to
its small size in the image. Is there any way we could link to larger versions of the cartoons, with explanations of the
Danish references within them? It might illuminate just what all these various cartoonists are saying in their works. Sol.
v. Oranje 23:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
This sounds interesting, did you come up with this yourself or was it in that newspaper or what? Unfortunently, original
works like this can't be submitted to a Wikipedia article, if that isn't from some source other than yourself that is :/. If
there's like an explanation for all of them in that newspaper or some other sources, maybe we could put them all into an
interpretation section or something. But what's to be cautious about when it comes to our Lord and Savior, Jesus
Christ? :) Homestarmy 23:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the heads up, I know about original works, that is why you are reading it here on the discussion
page and not in the article! I never intended to post it in the article. Just though some wanted to know what the
162
image was about, it can often be hard for foreigners to understand humour in another country, especially not
knowing, neither by face or politic, the persons involved. Twthmoses 23:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The center image can not be Bhudda. Bhuddism is not central in the Danish Society nor in this conflict. It can (must?) be
"Mother Denmark", a truely neutral deity. MX44 06:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
it's Buddha, regardless of whether or not Buddhism is central in Danish society, Buddha will still reflect the middle
path (as Twthmoses states in his/her update)--Discus2000 07:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I just had a conversion with Annette Carlsen (the artist), who confirms that it indeed was supposed to be the
Buddha. End of story. MX44 12:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Further (email) conversations with Annette Carlsen reveals: Number 1) A generic old hippie, and number 6) A
generic Indian guru.
good precedent being set here
In fact, could someone please help upload an image for the article on Mammy_archetype, it's woefully lacking in images of
mammy, those black appologists are just trying to censor things that they don't like!--64.12.116.10 23:45, 1 February 2006
(UTC)
Well, considering there's plenty of images of Aunt_Jemima on that article's page, I'd say there's imagery of the Mammy
archetype on Wikipedia. Sol. v. Oranje 23:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
There's now an image of an old ad for Aunt Jemima on the Mammy archetype page. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:52, 1
February 2006 (UTC)
While the article mentioned certainly would benefit from an illustration, I don't think this person deserves to be payed
attention to, because his reasons for posting this are either to make a point, that doesn't quite work, by being
inflammatory, about the present article, or he is just a racist idiot who has nothing constructive to contribute except by
163
accident. ("black apologists"? He can't be serious.) --Brentt 23:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah you're probably right on this. I thought he was someone who was making a comparison on the nature of
"offensiveness", but now I see he may have had a more sinister agenda. Sol. v. Oranje 00:00, 2 February 2006
(UTC)
It was clearly trolling. Nevertheless, the article DID need an illustration, which it now has. :) See, even
jerks can be useful at times. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Comparable events
For the comparable events section; I recall an artist not so long ago displaying an artwork based around a Koran, I think it
may have been torn. Pretty sure it was displayed in England and then taken down after concerns. Anyone know
theartist/artwork? I think it would be apertinent addition to that section. --bodnotbod 00:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah, it's OK. I found it [2]. --bodnotbod 00:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
A similiar controversy occurred with the movie version of Muhammad (1976), a link to the wiki article should be included:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad,_Messenger_of_God_(film) --66.185.164.2 20:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Russian Orthodox church condems publication of caricatures
Just saw this at http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php?id=127107&region=3.
__________________________ In Russia, the Orthodox church and the Mufti Council condemned those European
newspapers which republished the cartoons.
"It's very dangerous to insult religious feelings, in so far as they are exceptionally deeply anchored in the human soul," said
Mikhail Dudko, spokesman for the Moscow Patriarchate, according to the ITAR-TASS news agency.
__________________________
I dont have sufficient priveleges to edit the article. Can someone put it in ? - Nix24 00:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
164
Protection is down again because its on the main page once more, you should be able to insert it now. Homestarmy 00:56, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
We do NOT...
Protect pages linked from the main page. So please stop doing it. This is a long standing policy. the main page is our
"welcome mat". What's the point of "anyone can edit" if the first page people see tells them they can't edit. I know it's a pain,
but we just can't protect it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 00:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Well what happened was it dropped off page for a bit, that might of gone by a few people's notice. Homestarmy 00:55, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
Demons
Hi Everybody,
Let me introduce myself. I am quite passionate Muslim in a sense that I strongly believe fundamentals of Islam and entire
Quran. I believe Islam has been misinterpreted and misrepresented by Taliban, Al-Qaeda and the likes of them; consequently
Islam and its practitioners are suffering all over the world in all possible ways.
Talking of freedom of speech, it is an outrageous joke. If somebody says “let's talk about Nazis and Adolf Hitler and their
positive impacts and influences on the rest of the world”. A storm of condemnation and criticism will rise. For the sake of
exemplification let's say an average guy who works 9 to 5 to earn some living in this humanity-eater world gets in trouble
with law just by mistake. Police search his place. They find out some books about Hitler and Nazis. They look into his
computer and find out in last few days he has been visiting web sites about Nazis and Hitler. No matter what the intentions of
that average guy were, he becomes the ultimate evil.
My point is when it comes to Nazis and Hitler, even free-reading becomes a sin and crime and free-speech goes out of
discussion.
Every nation has its own demons and nightmares. Today's conflict is between western modern-conservativ-ism and Eastern
Islam. In addition, Islam is constantly in the state of war with extremism within itself.
165
Since 9/11 (another western demon), Islam and Muslims have been pushed into confrontations against their own demons by
western media.
In every culture, there are taboos; there are ultimate forbidden. Just touch these taboos, and you are in trouble with that
culture and its people. Same is true for both West and Muslims.
Islam is not just a religion, it's a culture in which Muslims all over the world, share certain traditions, rules, laws, taboos and
ultimate forbidden. Drawing pictures and cartoons of Allah (ultimate deity shared by Muslims, Christians and Jews) and
Muhammad or any other prophet (Moses, Jesus, Joseph or Adam) and other Islamic religious personalities are strictly
forbidden in Islam. Muslims don't mind drawings and sculptures of Moses, Jesus, Joseph or Adam by Christians and Jews
because Muslims think that other two religious groups believe in these prophets as much as they do, and Christians and Jews
know what they are doing.
But when it comes to Allah and Muhammad, the people of dominantly western religions don't know what they are doing.
They define Allah as an alien deity created or invented by Muslims and their leader. Why don't they believe in Muhammad, I
don't need to discuss.
Drawing Muhammad's cartoons has nothing to do with free speech; it is out right journalistic aggression against a religious
group of people.
These drawings were not a need of journalism and they did not add any thing positive to journalism or the rest of the world.
These drawings are emotional assault and religious abuse against Muslims. Saying "fuck you motherfucker" in somebody's
face is not free speech; it is abuse. Knowingly insulting somebody without any solid reason is abuse and assault.
Muhammad's cartoons were published knowingly and publishers were very well aware that Muslims would be offended.
Reprinting of the cartoon in other European papers is another aggressive gesture and abuse against all Muslims
indiscriminately.
The best way to deal with this is dragging all these newspapers and their publisher into the court of law with jurors from all
religious faiths.
Szhaider 01:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Hitler made the trains run on time and apparently he was kind to animals. Nazi's had fashionable uniforms, were very
166
disciplined, and had a strong sense of national pride. There, i said something nice about Hitler and will i be arrested or banned
from wikipedia? I dunno, maybe. Let us wait for the storm of controversy and what not. WookMuff
Praising is something different from sarcasm. 70.49.166.186 21:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I would like to say this as nicely as I can, as it appears to me you have very good intentions here. The definitions of
God(Allah) and God in the Bible are different. I could go on a veritable rampage so to speak on the issue, but I don't think
that's necessary. The Bible defines God as also being the Holy Spirit and as being Jesus while still all being God at the same
time; the Qu'ran does not, simply because it says Christ was not God and I don't even think it has the words "Holy Spirit" in
it. Even the Old Testiment paints God in a somewhat different light than from the Qu'ran, though that might take me a little
while longer to really examine, I don't think it's necessary anyway to make my point here.
Moving on, according to the Danish newspaper at least, the reason they hired cartoonists to make those drawings wasn't to
make as horrible an attack against Islam as possible, it was as a result of an observation by an article they wrote that many
people are deathly afraid of insulting Islam, not just because the higher ups in Islan occasionaly issues "Fatwah's" ordering
someone to murder someone who said something they didn't like, (Im thinking of that Satanic book or whatever it was, it's in
the article)but simply because nobody could publish anything easily dealing with legitimitly created pictures of Islamic
figures because the prevalent mood was that it was too sensitive a subject since all images of Muhammad and Allah were
understood to "require" censorship so to speak. This newspaper decided to make a stand against this situation, and had
cartoonists make up any image they wanted of Muhammad. Not all of them were necessarily mean, the middle left one with
Muhammad with the star and crescent symbol on his face certainly wasn't really mean, and they certainly could of been far
worse if that is the kind of cartoon they had been instructed to make. Furthermore, because Wikipedia is in effect an
encyclopedia, we just plain have to tell it like it is. There is currently a crisis going around about this incident, so therefore,
Wikipedia should report it, and showing the pictures is really quite good for this sort of article so people can see what its even
about. And on other European nations, one person running a French newspaper who printed those cartoons together with a
rather spiteful anti-religion comment was just fired, and many leaders have been speaking generally in favor with the Islamic
position so far it seems, so its certainly not a big conspiracy of "let's offend all the Islamic people". Or, if it is, im not paying
attention enough to see it, im not really involved anyway, I don't want to purposefully hurt the feelings of Islamic people if I
can help it. Homestarmy 01:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
As far as matter of showing the cartoons on this web site is concerned, I believe they should not be censored because
the intentions here are not bad and seeing is knowing. By the way, anti-Muslim atmosphere is no conspiracy. It is
blatantly open.
167
Szhaider 02:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
"My point is when it comes to Nazis and Hitler, even free-reading becomes a sin and crime." Szhaider, I don't
know where you heard this, but Mein Kampf is freely available in bookstores across the Western world, and
other Nazi literature is available as well. "Free-reading" is simply not a crime. Babajobu 08:13, 2 February 2006
(UTC)
Or for that matter, Szhaider, go into any Barnes and Noble or Borders and take a gander at both the German
History and Political Science sections of those bookstores. The shelves are chockfull of every single aspect of the
Nazi regime, from acrhitecture to eugenics programs to policy texts and their war plans as uncovered by the
Allies. You are deluded if you think reading about the Nazis or their ideology is forbidden; in fact, it is often
encouraged to read these works to discover the depth of the depravity of the Nazi regime and to ensure their
crimes, and the crimes that lead to such villainy (like suppressing freedom of speech just because you or some
religion doesn't like it), don't ever happen again. Sol. v. Oranje 08:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Moreover you are comparing a story, in a newspaper, about free speech. No, you're comparing an encyclopedia's
coverage of that story and the drawings, to the most evil regieme ever to exist on the face of the earth.
I saw this news article on the front page and have only even see the drawings to judge them on this website. To remove them
you threaten to create an atmosphere where the censorship could lead to escalation because people will be unable to see what
actually was published and will instead be left to imagine, or worse be exposed to a few extra drawings like the ones the
danish group took to the middle east. 146.163.218.221 18:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Talk: Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy - Archive 3b
#
$
. /
% 1
&
'$
% 1
%
*
&
168
1
B
$%
7 4
)
D
' 7
%
5
8.
9# %
%
$
:*%
+
1
D
5 %
$
;3
$
%
>
$%
D
?
+$
%
5
#
%
% %
+$
%
8 / %'
$
G
9I
,
:3
% 1
$
5 +
$ %
;5#
*
.
> J
%
@
?
1
)
$%
*%
6
8
&
9
1
D
:#
*=//
1
$
;I
>#
&5 %
?3
$
D
8 =&&
1
$
8 K
$
G
8 ) %
%
&&
%
1 D
169
additions to "external links" section
I think that this link http://face-of-muhammed.blogspot.com/ should be added to the list of "external links" at the bottom of
the news article page.
L33th4x0r 01:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Some of the translations of captions are different in that page, maybe there's information to correct? Homestarmy 01:56, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I spent ages trying to find decent images of the cartoons and these are definitely the best. Furthermore I don't
understand the hooha on this talk page about a 29kb image which isn't sufficiently big to see any detail. --Tatty 02:07, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
Link added! L33th4x0r 03:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Meeting With 11 Ambassadors
This seems to be an important point that isn't quite clear in the article, or in many other newsarticles. What EXACTLY did
the 11 ambassadors write in their letter of the 19th of October. Did they discuss other issues as well as this one? Here it says
they did, but I have never seen that anywhere else. In most newsarticles it implies that they simply wanted Rasmussen to
distance himself from the cartoons, but here we have "take legal action against". This is quite a central point as to AFR's
handling of the issue. Peregrine981 02:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The letter is in the external links section, or here: [1] (PDF) Poulsen 08:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! That helps a lot. Peregrine981 15:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Deletion?
We should delete this, since we haven't gotten anywhere. WikieZach 02:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Tact is not censorship
170
If material is offensive to a significant portion of our readership, we should be tactful and put a warning at the top of the page,
and keep the offensive material "below the fold" if then possible. The example of Oral sex given above is a straightforward
analogy; an even closer one is Goatse.cx. For what possible reason should the Goatse image be remote-linked from the
Goatse article while these cartoons should be at the very top of this article? (For those who don't know what Goatse is, here's
a link—it's pretty gross.)
Tact is not censorship. It's acknowledging that Wikipedia doesn't want to disgust its readership more than is necessary to
convey the information it's meant to convey. Nothing whatsoever is lost from the article if a warning is added to the top and
the image moved down. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the above. Several other editors have tried to make this point above but have all tired of being shouted
down. Tempshill 03:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
As I said elsewhere, adding a warning solves nothing if you go ahead and show the picture anyway. Those who
are angry, aren't angry that they saw the picture, they are angry simply knowing Jyllands-Posten printed the
picture. Hiding the picture may spare some the hurt of seeing it, but you're still showing it and therefore you're
still violating the taboo against iconic representations.--Snorklefish 16:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
As a practical matter, it was noted earlier that several times when the picture was moved "below the fold",
the revert war stopped. Some value is therefore evidently added. Tempshill 20:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
You know, as gross as that pic is, I think the original goatse one was even worse. Are you sure they're the same? The
original is something I try hard not to remember. 71.141.251.153 05:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I also agree with the above. Wikipedia should respect people; telling people to fsck off if they are offended is a
complete lack of respect. Samboy 06:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe Wikipedia should tell things as they are, without hiding people from stuff they may find "offensive"
-- otherwise, how will anyone, on either side of the issue, get the full facts of the case. To deny any aspect
of the visual representation of this article or to shunt it down to obscurity within the doldrums of the article
is an insult to people who don't have to abide by the laws of one religion, no matter how large. Sol. v.
im not sure however how many 'people who don't have to abide by the laws of one religion' are
171
actually insulted by a lesser visual representation of an image. nothing in this world is absolute,
having complete free speech or anything for that matter without having a counterbalance is unwise.
Chensiyuan 17:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Pic deleted- more vandalism?
It seems someone has deleted the pictures- is this more vandalism or actions on the part of Wikipedia? I just want to know
before I revert the article to include the images. (Caesar89 03:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC))
Aniconism plug
For those interested, time to take the opportunity to plug the article Aniconism, which is this very subject and is nearly a stub.
I put a request to expand tag on the article a bit ago. Tempshill 03:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Comparable incidents
Would this qualify as a similar incident? A Russian art Gallery that organized an exhibit “Beware: Religion!” (“#$%&'&()&,
'*+,-,.!”) has been vandalized by religious zealots. The vandals were acquitted and lauded by Russian Orthodox clergy,
while the organizers of the exhibit were put on trial and prosecuted for offending the feelings of the faithful. Link at
http://asf.wdn.com/ --EugeneK 04:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
That is definitely a good example of similar aggressive actions by counter-"blasphemous" forces; please do include this
is the main article. Sol. v. Oranje 07:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Better pictures?
It's really hard for readers to make up their mind about the "photographs" when there's no picture of them. The picture in the
article is way too small, and there's only one picture in the links (the one with the bomb). Can someone find better pictures or
links? Thanks. AucamanTalk 04:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
172
Here [2] bigger images of the cartoons. WARNING don't enter if you're offended by the cartoons, bla bla bla
--62.57.93.138 04:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Why is the picture removed from the article? This picture has exquisite informatic value, and I don't see any reason for
removing it. Only reason would be to pay tribute to the fight against freedom of speech and thought. -- Obradovi Goran
(talk 04:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
If we agreed to remove this picture, only because someone didn't like it, and he pressured us enough, then I honestly belive
that we do not have the right to use any of the fair-use images on Wikipedia anymore.. ever! When we use the copyrighted
image, we say: "Yes, it is copyrighted, but the importance of this picture is so great that people need to have access to it no
matter what, in order to...". Well, boys and girls, if we fall back against Islamist threats, we don't have the moral right to
advocate against evil corporations anymore -- Obradovi Goran (talk 04:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I think all people (on every side of this issue) should want to see the pictures. How else can they make up their minds? I'm
going insert the link above under the "External links" section. AucamanTalk 04:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Semi-protect this.
Could we semi-protect this? it is needed now. --Vsion (talk) 04:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
can't, it's in the main page --62.57.93.138 04:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I see, thanks. --Vsion (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The page should not be semi-protected since semi-protection is only for vandalism, and the image deletions are POV
edits (and often improper ones at that), but not vandalism. [[WP:Vandalism] makes a careful distinction. If protection is
absolutely necessary it should be full protection and not semi-protection. 71.141.251.153 06:22, 2 February 2006
(UTC)
See Also
What exactly is the justification for having Robert Mapplethorpe and Andres Serrano in the See Also section... They are
provocative, sure, but does this justify linking to them from this page.... Kjaergaard 05:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
173
Oh, I just took out "Robert Mapplethorpe". Yes, i feel "Andres Serrano" should be removed too. --Vsion (talk) 06:06, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
There can be no reconciliation
I appreciate the impulse behind Mr. Wales's message at the top of this page, but there is no real way to debate whether or not
the drawings should be in Wikipedia without going into far flung issues like Koran citations, differences between Sunni and
Shi'a belief... and from there it's an inevitable hop to "philosophy". The very edict against depicting Muhammed's face is
philosophically (theologically) grounded, so there is no escape from these questions in this debate.
The sad truth is that "the line it is drawn, the curse it is cast". Nearly all of us working on Wikipedia are deeply against
fundamentalist Islamist teaching and there is simply no way to smooth it out. I remember an ultra liberal college professor of
mine saying "All culture is good". Well, the culture of those who are so offended by the Jyllands-Posten drawings calls for
the death of anyone who creates (or disseminates) an image of Muhammed. We here can twist and turn, writhe into every
possible contortion, but we'll never fool ourselves or anyone else into thinking we hold such a culture, or such a central aspect
of such a culture, to be good. Face it, my friends. We are enemies of people who want our deaths. Just by reproducing these
drawings on this site, we are their mortal enemies. Once we digest that unmodifiable truth, where do we go? How do we act?
Do we run scared and try at every turn to appease these enemies (in this case, remove the image from this article) or do we
hold to our own principles at the peril of our lives? I'm for defying the fanatics. Thank goodness the Muslims simply lack the
power to ignite a world war. The non-muslim world is going to have to band together against this deluded culture and I'm
afraid its violence will yield to only one thing: greater violence. Most of you will rail against this. No matter. When it's them
or you you will choose yourselves. JDG 06:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
You know, it is just possible to be offended by these drawings without calling for anyone's death, which is of course the
overwhelming Muslim reaction.--Pharos 06:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Considering someone has already posted "I think that some has to remind others of their limits words can lead to
war and destruction your freedom ends when you step in others or interfer in others life or their busness" in this
discussion thread, then yes, it's possible for people to call for people's death over this issue. Speak against this
now, or continue apologizing for the extremism that is increasing on display over this article in these efforts to
crush freedom of speech and information. Sol. v. Oranje 06:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
174
Actually, from what I know about Muslim beliefs, there can indeed be a reconciliation. I just can't find any place, on or
outside the web, where anyone is interested in reaching it.DanielDemaret 08:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Err, actually Pharos, from some of the things i've been reading about on the news about this, many muslims are implying that
they should of killed the people who have insulted them in the past in a manner similar to this, then we wouldn't be in this
situation, according to them. I'm not saying all muslims share this kind of view, but there appears to be enough of them so that
the overwhelming reaction is not calling for nobody to die. Homestarmy 14:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Semi-protection
Darn it, the page is once again unprotected allowing sockpuppets to blank content against consensus...protection policy is
very clear that we can do so for front-page linked articles when this is necessary. The only time this article has some stability
and relief from socks is when it is semi-protected. WHY, OH WHY was it unprotected? Babajobu 06:46, 2 February 2006
(UTC)
Even with semi protection, there was an edit war going on. I explained my reasoning. And I wasn't the first to remove
the semi protection btw. As I said, it's the general policy. Not trying to pull rank, but I've done 400 protections and
unprotections. I know the general policy on articles linked from the main page. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:48, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
Lock this page!
Once again vandals are removing the cartoons from the page. This is ridiculous and clearly this page needs to be protected
from further vandalism.
There has not been a single demonstrable incident of vandalism on this page. There have been immense numbers of
improper POV edits, 3RR violations, sockpuppets, etc., but Wikipedia policy carefully distinguishes those from
"vandalism" (please read WP:Vandalism before making accusations of vandalism). The page has been semi-protected
twice, with good intentions, but improperly, since semi-protection is supposed to only be invoked for cases of
vandalism, and this isn't one, it's a POV edit war. If page locking is needed for this type of dispute, the appropriate
locking is full protection, not semi-protection (WP:SEMI). Full protection means NOBODY can edit, which
de-wikifies the page, so it should be avoided if at all possible. That means the "enlightenment" extremists should look
175
for other ways to tone down the dispute. Any further semi-protection of this page is a policy violation and should only
be applied after careful consideration and clear evidence that all reasonable compromise attempts have failed. Right
now we have a bunch of logged-in POV pushers calling for semi-protection to lock out the non-logged-in POV pushers
while avoiding being locked out themselves. Policy calls for full protection and not semi-protection precisely to prevent
that--if POV pushers can't stop squabbling and the page needs to be locked, it should be fully locked so that neither side
can edit. Locking is bad and is a last resort, and there's much greater incentive to avoid it if those calling for it also have
to face its consequences. 71.141.251.153 08:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Numerous IPs repeatedly blanking content against consensus is absolutely cause for semi-protection, and that
semi-protection would absolutely not be a violation of policy, it's not even borderline. Babajobu 08:19, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
Where is the consensus? I don't object to the image being removed from the page, as long as there's a link
people can click if they want to see it. I also don't see how to make the policy case for semi-protection,
other than WP:IAR. It may come to that, but IMO it's not time for that yet. 71.141.251.153 08:23, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
These is a majority in support of maintaining the cartoon image ON the page. In fact, the majority of
the debate was regarding which part of the page (top or middle or bottom) the image was supposed
to be located at. But then, vandals started repeatedly removing the cartoon image entirely, which is
totally NOT the consensus; and YES only providing a link to an outside page with the cartoons is
both 1) censorship because you're too afraid to actually host the images here, and 2) prone to link
failure in the future, which is a convenient way for these cartoons to vanish in the first place. There
is a total legitimate case for semi-protection, also, because of numerous 3RR+ violations on the
article page within the last 24 hours. Sol. v. Oranje 08:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
1) Majority is not consensus. 2) The link would be to the wikimedia image server and the
image would still be hosted on wikimedia. 3) As far as I can tell, nobody ever removed the
image from the page when it wasn't at the top. It was never in the middle. It was at the bottom
a few times, but people put it back at the top and then it got deleted from the top. 4) The
semi-protection policy (WP:SEMI)does not list 3RR violations as grounds for semi-protection.
5) Calling "click here to see the image" censorship trivializes the notion of censorship and
disrespects people who have had to deal with real censorship. Is there a "demi-Godwins law"
on wikipedia (miniature version of Godwin's law), that says anyone who doesn't get their POV
desires 100% satisfied will eventually start screaming "censorship"? 71.141.251.153 08:45, 2
176
February 2006 (UTC)
First of all, get an account with a name so that you don't appear to be hiding under some
random IP address. Secondly, a majority in favor of keeping the images on the page, no
matter where they are, certainly should warn against removing the images from the page
at all, "consensus" or not. Thirdly, when people removed the images, they provided no
link whatsoever, and to be honest, why the heck should we trust you, an anonymous
commentator, to ensure that such links will be provided in the future AND that they
wouldn't be removed wholesale like the cartoons have repeatedly over the last few
hours. Fourthly, I am totally not trivializing censorship; and you are in fact the one who
is trying to ramrod removing the images and shutting down debate to begin with. Get an
account, and deal with the very serious censorship issue at hand here. Sol. v. Oranje
08:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Moreover, none of the admins are enforcing the 3RR. 62.135.95.179 just hit his 6th revert and going strong. Babajobu
06:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
So, how do we get the admins to get moving on this and start re-blocking these repeat vandals? C'mon, people,
where the hell is any desire to stand up for freedom of access to information here. Is this some kind of Google
effect on Wikipedia? Sol. v. Oranje 07:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm an admin, but I don't like to use my admin privileges on Islam-related articles. But this is outrageous,
we have numerous IPs reverting six, seven, eight times, and the admins on this talk page are doing nothing
about it. AND WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR UNPROTECTING THIS PAGE?? Babajobu 07:07, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
Why are you hesitant to use your admin privleges on Islam-related articles? I don't understand, are
certain topics now verboten to protect or use admin priviledges on to begin with? What kind of free
encyclopedia is this? This is freaking crazy, LOCK THIS ARTICLE NOW! Sol. v. Oranje 07:11, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
I've placed a message on the administrator's notice board (WP:ANI) saying someone has to
restore the semiprotection of this article. I'm not willing to do it, I've gotten into content
disputes on Islam-related articles and it's not appropriate for me to use admin privileges for
177
these articles. Violation of 3RR is pretty judgement-free, though, and this article is absolutely
plagued by socks and IPs reverting half a dozen times, so maybe I need to start blocking for
3RR violations. Babajobu 07:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked 62.135.95.179, who reverted 4 times by my count, for 24 hours.--Pharos 07:20, 2 February 2006
(UTC)
Thank you for blocking that IP address at the least; he was the largest vandalizer by far within this most
recent period of article attacks. Sol. v. Oranje 07:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
That IP originated from Egypt if anyone is interested.Hitokirishinji 08:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
How surprising! (rolls eyes) Sol. v. Oranje 08:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the image should be removed, or at least left here as a link. Muhammad has no images because they would be
offensive, so these caricatures should definately not be here. Each one is described in detail in the "Publication of the
drawings" section, so there is no reason for them to be here. Not to mention that the image is copyrighted and not a free
image. -- Astrokey44|talk 09:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I think there's a revert war going on. Semi-protect the page or lock it possibly. I've not been able to see a non-vandalized
version in the past hour.Kaushik twin
Qatarson or Muslims in General
I saw many editors & some admins who writing about me or sending emails to my email address please stop abuse me you
didn't save anyway to abuse my rights start from banned me till racism emails this article also has many racism words
specialy discussion page which is part of it & posted by wikipedia registered users , I see this article becomes a black point in
wikipedia history because there people dont knew that their freedom stops when other freedom is begin.Qatarson 08:20, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
Qatarson, no one's freedom is infringed by including the cartoons in the article. No one is obligated to read an article
entitled "Muhammad cartoons" if they don't wish to see such cartoons. And incidentally, your legal threats re: Florida
178
are laughable. Reporting the news is not illegal in the U.S. First amendment and all, I know it's frustrating. Babajobu
08:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Qatarson, I've done a search of your name on this discussion page and the only thing anyone has ever said about you is
that you continously keep deleting the images and reverting the articles. No one has said anything bad about you and in
fact on your talk page, people have even encouraged what you have contributed and gave you fair warning about
vandalism. That is certainly far more tolerance than I would give. (which is probably the reason I'll never become an
admin) Please don't send us fake threats, most wikipedians are sensible folks and so far your actions have only hurt
your reputation even further. Hitokirishinji 08:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
read carefuly the discussion page and you will find it also there some posts is deleted i'm not a joke as some
admin said also they forced me to stop writing & banned my proxy which it the same proxy for Internet users in
State of Qatar for more than 24 hours i'm one of wikipedia users I have the right to edit in any arctile also any
muslim in Denmark or florida have same right if they found anything abuse their rights wikipedia is open
encyclopedia for everyone and shouldn't have any kind of hates or racism we should work together not making
war.Qatarson 08:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Qatarson, you violated the three-revert rule and were blocked for 24 hours, as any other Wikipedia editor
would have been. Being treated like everyone else is not "racism", in fact it's the opposite. In fact, we've
been especially tolerant of you, what with your legal threats and so on. Most Wikipedians would have been
indefinitely blocked for this, so in fact you are getting special treatment, and you should feel privileged that
Wikipedia is being so delicate and kind with you. Babajobu 09:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
This is where you are very very wrong. A user does NOT have the right to remove content which will in
essence promote censorship. The image does not violate your rights. It is merely offensive to you and
being offended and having your rights taken away are two very differnet things. It is merely your own fault
for abusing the free edit privilege of wikipedia that prevented your entire state from editing wikipedia. No
muslim has the right to remove images he or she deems offensive that while to others serves as informative
and in fact, no one has that right. Ever. And another things, last I checked, the UN didn't outline "right to
edit wikipedia" in their list of human rights. I consider editing on wikipedia a very honorable privilege that
was given to me. If you violate the rules, that privilege is taken away. And if you doing so causes others to
be prevented from editing wikipedia, the blame lies on you solely.Hitokirishinji 09:04, 2 February 2006
(UTC)
One more thing, Qatarson, explain to me how wikipedia can be possibly "abusing your rights"?
Wikipedia is literally of group of computers transmitting an electronic signal that displays
information on the screen. What you interpret from it is your opinion. It does not "violate" or
179
"oppress" you in anyway. Hitokirishinji 09:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
lol I will give example when I was banned I was'nt able to edit any articles the admin who
banned me gives himslef the right to stop me of editing whole articles in the encyclopedia not
only this article that a point also the public proxy i'm using used by all wikipedia users from
State of Qatar which mean they all was'nt able to edit any articles for 24 hours one more thing
of my abused rights I was'nt able to talks even with any other users or who using my talk page
I can list more than 10 things if you want ;) I donno these users think they only have the right
to edit articles.Qatarson 09:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Qatarson, see my above comments, you have been treated with special gentleness and
kindness, given privileges that other Wikipedia editors do not have, e.g. the right to
make legal threats without being blocked for it. You were only blocked for violation of
the three revert rule, as any other Wikipedia would be. But in general you should feel
very special and fortunate to have been treated so delicately. And still you complain!
I would explain to you these cartoon images the reason of all what happened and
when I remove it I did this because it is abuse Muslims & i'm one of them and we
are users at wikipedia too and removing these cartoons not abuse other wikipedia
users and everyone can check the history of the article and will find that i was
only remove the cartoons not the article or hidden facts as some people said and
on the other side you can check what happen in discussion page and there was
realy bad posts one of them called muslims terrorist and killers before it removed
anyway I was for while will stop writing in wikipedia by myself after all what
happened but there users who asked me to stay & keep writing, by the way there
some users suggested to link the image only and they ignored and we did'nt do
anything to these users/admins who forced me & some other wikipedia users by
banned us and keep the way they choosed of how to place this image after that
everyone blames me beacuse I was want to save what happened here or what
maybe happen when the news reach to arabic world & the media or the Islamic
community in west countries.Qatarson 10:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Qatarson, that was a terrifying run-on sentence, you have to use
periods or people will not be able to decipher what you write.
Secondly, no matter how you have "hurt feelings", you and all other
Wikipedians are still required to abide by the three-revert rule. Even
180
though we have been so gentle and tolerant with you, we still ask that
you obey that rule, as all other Wikipedians are required to do. And
when we ask that you obey Wikipedia rules, this is not "racist", and it
is offensive and gives us "hurt feelings" when you say so. Babajobu
10:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Qatarson will always complain because he believes it is his right to do whatever best fits his
definition of "abused rights". Wikipedia is privately run and owned. You do not have a "right".
It is a privilege to work on this encyclopedia. If it were up to me, until you get that through
your head, you'd be banned from editing anything again. Fortunately for you its not up to me,
but I doubt anyone will continue to have the extended patience Babajobu has mentioned with
you for very long. You used a public domain to deface an article repeatedly. The admins had
no choice but to block you. And preventing you from talking on your talk page is NOT an
"abused right" regardless of what you may think. Hitokirishinji 09:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Could someone archive the page again
it's gotten very large. 71.141.251.153 08:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Let not do anything drastic while this is in the wikipedia front page. FWBOarticle
Archiving the top half of the talkpage wouldn't be "drastic", it would just help readers who are working from a
dial-up connection. Babajobu 09:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Anti-hate speech law
Does Denmark have any anti-hate speech law, similar to UK, Australia, and other countries? --Vsion (talk) 09:08, 2 February
2006 (UTC)
Short answer: yes. There are rules against racism, as well as against libel and blasphemy. The rules against racism are
set down in § 266b of the Danish "Straffeloven" (Penal code). However, it needs to be "[...] a group of persons is
threatened, derided or degraded because of their race, colour of skin, national or ethnic background, faith or sexual
orientation [...]", so it is questionable whether it would apply to deriding someones faith directly. Rasmus (talk) 09:49,
181
Wow thanks, I didn't expect such a clear and precise response. It's really helpful. Cheers! --Vsion (talk) 09:59, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
A Totally Pointless Debate
So, we have twelve cartoons, all different, but all supposed to be Mohammed. Surely only one at most can remotely resemble
the man. If I draw a smiley and write 'Jesus' under it, is that an image of Jesus?. Ridiculous.
dude, i totally made this arguement already :P wookmuff
If we are not supposed to visualise him, why is this:......
""Muhammad (pbuh) was of a height a little above the average. He was of sturdy build with long muscular limbs
and tapering fingers. The hair of his head was long and thick with some waves in them. His forehead was large
and prominent, his eyelashes were long and thick, his nose was sloping, his mouth was somewhat large and his
teeth were well set. His cheeks were spare and he had a pleasant smile. His eyes were large and black with a
touch of brown. His beard was thick and at the time of his death, he had seventeen gray hairs in it. He had a thin
line of fine hair over his neck and chest. He was fair of complexion""
....in the Quran???160.84.253.241 09:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Süddeutsche Zeitung
"On July 21, 2004, German daily "Süddeutsche Zeitung" published a cartoon depicting a Jew demolishing a French Café. "
Can anyone give more information about that?--129.13.186.1 09:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
This controversy reminds me of one of the earliest advocate of freedom of expression, the great Rabbi Gamaliel who replied
to those demanding censorship and incarceration of the Apostles. The Rabbi said:"Its advisable to leave them alone for if they
are truly from God Himself no one can stop them besides the gravest risk of standing against the will of God. But on the other
hand if they are not from God they and their teachings would perish"
182
So lets us not presume to protect the prophets because they do not need our protection. What we can do is live according to
the precepts laid down by them. Men tend to err but only God can forgive or punish. __ G.Manjooran.
Were you reading my mind? Babajobu 09:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks__ G.M.
move the image down
There is a big diference betwen censorship and respect. deleting the image would be censorship in my opinion. however
moving the image to the bottom of the page having a warning is not censorship, and its respectful to muslims. many people
want the image at the top , not because of free speech, but obviously to offend muslims and bash islam - --193.136.128.14
09:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Nobody wants to "bash Islam", anymore than we want to "bash Christians" by prominently displaying the image in Piss
Christ, or "bash Jews" by including the Hebrew lettering for the name of God in some of our articles. We just think that
Wikipedia's Content disclaimer is enough. Wikipedia does not follow your religion, Wikipedia does not share your
hang-ups, Wikipedia is not your mother who protects you from things you don't like. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
1.im not muslim.
2.' Nobody wants to "bash Islam" ' , thats not true. many ppl want the image on the top simply to hit at muslims.
3. and still whats wrong with moving the image down? other than it does not *not* offend muslims....
--193.136.128.14 09:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say you were Muslim, I was paraphrasing the content disclaimer. One problem with moving the
image down is that we are setting a dangerous precedent. Anytime someone shows up and says "I am a
political conservative and I find this content offensive", or "I am an evangelical Christian and I find this
content offensive", or "I am a Scientologist and I find this content offensive", or whatever else, we have
traditionally directed them to Wikipedia's content disclaimer. If we make an exception for Islam and
Muslims, what will then say to any other group of people who want Wikipedia changed to reflect their
preferences? Babajobu 10:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
183
As said below, we already don't include pictures that other groups find offensive. The criteria surely
has to be how offensive they are, not to whom they are offensive. Zocky | picture popups 10:13, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
how do you precisely do that? how do you define how ofensive something is without thinking
about the "whom"? many things are offensive to a culture but not so much to another culture.
for muslims caricatures of mohamed, jesus or any other "prophet" are unthinkable, they are
offensive. but most of us westerns dont understand that now do we? on the other hand some
images are offensive to us westerns specially if we are americans like for example a behaded
mans head: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Berg ,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nick_Berg#This_is_an_encyclopedia_-_let.27s_keep_it_this_way.2C_shall_we.
(as far as i see anyphoto or video link were removed, talk about NPOV criteria....) --193.136.128.14 10:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
A precedent for hiding the image already exists. See how the totally innocuous (imo) photograph in Autofellatio
is presented. So there is no reason not to follow 193.136.128.14's suggestion. David Sneek 10:19, 2 February
2006 (UTC)
You mean the drawing of a man sucking his own pee-pee? Why, it's prominently displayed at top of article.
The click-here-for-picture template exists ONLY for that article, and for no others, and was implemented
by Jimbo himself. There was no community consensus to do so. Babajobu 10:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The photograph, Babajobu. Anyway, it wasn't Jimbo's decision; he initially removed it. There was a
63% majority to present it as a link [3]. David Sneek 10:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, people thought that the autofellatio pick had no informational value--I disagree with
them, and would have voted to keep it inline. Regardless, I don't think anyone here is actually
arguing that the picture is not informative. Anyway, as you say, putting the autofellatio pic as
a link had 63% support, and still needed Jimbo's intervention to do so. If we had a vote here
(and I'm starting to think we do), there's no way removing the image would get anywhere near
a majority. People just have never been impressed by "against my religion!" as a reason for
removing material from Wikipedia, whether that religion is Evangelical Christianity, Judaism,
Scientology, or Islam. Babajobu 11:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Again you misrepresent what happened, Jimbo thought the picture was "completely unacceptable"
[4], but it was kept anyway. Islam is not my religion and I do not advocate removing the image, I
184
only think that making a very small concession to readers who might consider the image
blasphemous - by moving it a bit down the page or placing it one click away - should be no problem.
A simple matter of good manners, that's all. David Sneek 12:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Babajobu: there is a very similar debate in the goatse.cx article which is protected right
now, over whether to put the goatse picture right in that article. Where do you stand on
that? Calling for inlining the (OMG) autofellatio photo is something I'd have to label as
extremist.
FWIW, in the French version of this article someone removed the Geert Wilders link,
calling it "spam de lien, merci de ne pas le rerajouter. L'important dans l'article ce n'est
pas les caricatures elles-mêmes mais la réaction qui a suivi." ("link spam, thank you for
not putting it back. What's important in this article is not the cartoons themselves but the
reaction that followed"). I'm not so supportive of the link removal but I think the person
assigned the correct priorities to the article. 12:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey, do you guy realise that some islamic sect consider photograph of person or animal to be halam. If someon is that
sensitive, they can simply set the option of his or her browser so it won't load image. There is absolutely no point in trying to
make exception to different taste, ideology or faith. Look at Europe where race hate is a crime while faith hate is not. It is just
damb. FWBOarticle
Why this picture should not be in the article
Let me start by debunking some bogus arguments used above:
First of all, these cartoons are clearly not offensive only to Muslim extremists. All religious Muslims are likely to be offended
by the religious implications involved in depicting Mohammad, and even secular people who grew up in Muslim cultures are
likely to be offended by a Western newspaper publishing a caricature of Mohammad with a bomb up his turban.
Second, free speech and censorship arguments are misguided. Neither free speech nor freedom from censorship require that
we publish every piece of info we have or can get. We already pick and chose which images to put in articles, and even have
a tool to prevent some pictures from being put in articles. Including or not including the picture is an editorial decision, not a
question of censorship.
185
This is a major political and news event. Several governments, including fully democratically elected European ones, have
expressed their disapproval of the publishing of these cartoons. No government or a major political party has said that
publishing them is a good thing. Virtually all world media, including those in Muslim countries, have published a story about
it, yet only a handful have re-published the cartoons themselves. Those that have are rare enough to be news themselves, and
are doing it explicitly as a political statement.
The article is not about the cartoons themselves. They're hardly worth a mention by themselves. The article is about the
controversy. surrounding their publication. If we publish the picture in the article about the controversy, we are making the
statement that publishing the picture is the right thing to do, and that those who say it isn't are wrong. That's hardly NPOV.
Some people are claiming that not publishing the picture is just as much a political statement. This would be true only if we
otherwise published all pictures, regardless of sensitivites involved, and singled this one out for different treatmant. But that
is not the case. AFAIK, we don't have, and shouldn't have, pictures of burnt bodies of American contract workers in Fallujah,
nor Muslim extremist posters of Sharon's head on a pig's body. Both were major news events, and I'm sure we could find
pictures if we tried.
The only valid concern that those who argue for the inclusion of the cartoons have brought up is access to information. We
should provide a way for readers who want to see the cartoons to find them. This can be accomplished by providing a link to
an image page or to another site that carries them. Nobody will be denied access to information by not seeing the actual
cartoons in the article itself.
Can anybody provide a principled counter-argument that (a) does not try to claim that we should always publish all relevant
pictures, regardless of the sensitivities and political implications involved, and (b) does not include reasoning like "them
being offended by this is more dumb than me being offended by that." Zocky | picture popups 10:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Zocky, you have strung together a collection of strawman arguments. No one has argued "we should publish all
pictures of everything, because we can", so why have you wasted your time "refuting" such a bogus argument? Also,
according to today's Telegraph, as the story has gotten bigger the pictures have now been published in newspapers all
over Europe, so many that it is no longer sensible to name all of them, and our own article now also only says "and
many other European newspapers". One concern I have is that, as I said to the IP above, Wikipedia contains tons of
content that is offensive to various groups. Piss Christ is an example offensive to Christians. In numerous articles we
publish the Hebrew lettering of the tetragrammaton, which religious Jews believe should only be published in scripture,
prayerbooks, et cetera. We have a horde of content and pictures that Scientologists find objectionable. The list goes on
and on. In the past we have always referred people to Wikipedia's content disclaimer when they've said that Wikipedia
186
should remove content they and their religious/ideological group find objectionable...if we make a special exception for
Muslims and Islam, what will we tell such groups in the future? Babajobu 10:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
We wouldn't be making a special exception for Muslims. We would be doing exactly what we already do with
other pictures that other people find offensive. It's simply not true that we don't censor images other groups find
offensive, in addition to those I mention above, we also don't do explicit porn. The question is, is this picture
offensive in itself, and is our publishing it offensive. It depicts the prophet of a major world religion with a bomb
up his turban, so yes, it's offensive in itself, and European right-wing newspapers are reprinting them to provoke
Muslims further, so yes, joining them in that is offensive too. Not because some people find it offensive, but
because it's meant to offend. Zocky | picture popups 10:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
You're being silly. Most of the newspapers who republished the cartoons, did it in order to DOCUMENT
what was going on. As long as they don't explicitly share the opinions that may be transported through this
images, you can't say, they did it to offend. They did it to document and so should we.--129.13.186.1
10:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The same papers don't use documentary pictures their users would find offensive, so claiming that
they did it to document is naive. Some of them did it to offend, and other did it to increase the sales,
none of which should be our motivations. Zocky | picture popups 10:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
the newsapapers republished the cartoons to "defend" "the right to free speech", ie they republished
the cartoons as a political statement - --193.136.128.14 10:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
How do you know the motivation of all the many newspapers that have now published the
cartoons? Some surely did it as a statement, especially early on, but at this point is it
inconceivable to you that many newspapers actually want to document the events in a growing
news story? And Zocky, sure we do "explicit porn". We had a picture of a woman performing
a blowjob in oral sex for over a year, before it was deleted for not having source info. And we
still have the autofellatio picture, though by Jimbo's fiat it is not inline. Finally, we absolutely
would be making a special exception for the Muslim religion: the image displayed at Piss
Christ is mortally offensive to many Christians, the images of Xenu are supposed to be private
for scientologists, the tetragrammaton lettering in a secular encylopedia is heresy to many
religious Jews, as are the utterings of "Jehovah" in our spoken articles. If we're not willing to
remove content for any of those groups, then we really can't show special reverence for Islam.
187
"French and German newspapers republished caricatures of the Prophet
Mohammed yesterday in what they called a defense of freedom of
expression, sparking fresh anger from Muslims." - Boston Globe
"German's Die Welt printed the bomb-turban picture on its front page, with
the others inside, and an accompanying commentary defending freedom of
expression and the "right to blasphemy" in an open society." CNSNews.com
"The drawings, which first ran in a Danish paper in September and have
riled the Muslim world, were reprinted Wednesday in France Soir and
several other European papers rallying to defend freedom of expression." CNN - --193.136.128.14 10:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The tageszeitung reprinted the caricatures because it sees itself according to the tageszeitung editor - obliged to the "duty to
document" (Dokumentationspflicht).--129.13.186.1 11:12, 2 February
2006 (UTC)
I would absolutely agree with you if we were talking about a picture of an Islamic
depiction of Mohammad, or indeed about a Western depiction of him in art. But we're
talking about a set of cartoons that are anywhere between making fun of and ridiculing
the prophet of a major world religion, and by extension its followers. It's not a question
of whether people are offended, it's whether the picture is meant to offend, and I thinkg
this one is. Zocky | picture popups 10:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
" They did it to document and so should we" (they didnt to document but anyway) even so, no one
(or at least im not) is saying that we shouldnt document, i dont agree the cartoons should be removed
for the article. however moving the pic down to the bottom of the page (with a link on top) would
both respect muslims and document. - --193.136.128.14 10:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
"Offensive" is not really a good word here. "Disrespectful" might be a better word to describe my problem with it. Zocky |
picture popups 10:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
188
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should seek neither to respect or disrespect anyone. It should seek to provide all
relevant information on notable topics. When I edit I think about how the writing can be accurate and well-written, I
don't think about how I can perform gestures that show special "respect" for whoever I am writing about. Babajobu
10:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Surely we should be respectful of everybody, otherwise any information will be lost in the vitriol. I'm not talking
about any "special" respect for anybody. Zocky | picture popups 10:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Sure you are. There is a lot of content in the Wikipedia that might be offensive to several different groups.
But if someone is offended by the documentation of reality, an encyclopedia can't help him.--129.13.186.1
11:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
To recapitulate, nobody has answered why the inclusion of this picture should be judged by different criteria than other
pictures we could have but don't because many people find them offensive (burnt bodies in Fallujah, Sharon's head on a pig's
body posters, people jumping off the twin towers, etc.). Repeating that we don't censor pictures based on sensitivities isn't
going to make it so.
Also, nobody has presented any arguments that not including the picture is a political statement, while there are plenty of
arguments above for the view that including them is.
Have I missed something? Zocky | picture popups 11:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and the latest renaming is just silly. Zocky | picture popups 11:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Zocky, people have answered your question ad nauseum, including before you even asked them. We have loads of
offensive content, which we have refused to remove to honor people's religious sensibilities...just because you have
come up with a few pics we happen not to have, that doesn't mean we censor offensive content, we absolutely don't.
The simple fact is that you are arguing that we should show more respect for Muslims than we do for Christians, Jews,
Scientologists, et cetera, and many of us disagree. We don't think an encyclopedia should "surely be respectful of
everybody". That's not an encyclopedia's job, it's job is to include all relevant info in comprehensive articles on notable
topics. End of story. Babajobu 11:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
If you trully believe that, try to include any of the images I mentioned above and go check after a few days to see
the talk page. When it gets removed, see if you find the same people who are screaming "free speech" here
189
screaming "free speech" there.
Zocky | picture popups 11:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Zocky, that's preposterous, these cries of "oh, you are hurting Muslims and no one else" are totally
disingenuous and contradicted by the evidence. I have provided multiple examples of content that is
MORE offensive to those groups than the examples you provide, and you simply repeat, "yes, but what
about MY examples, see, people really don't care about free speech." If we were to stick your pretty
innocuous examples into an article (which would be fine) you could just come up with some other random
example that happens to not yet be included in Wikipedia. The fact is there is no image that has caused as
much upset among Christians in the past decade than Piss Christ...and Wikipedia sticks that image right at
the top of the article, where it belongs, because we have not yet chosen to truckle before demands for
censorship. You are asking for special treatment of Islam and Muslims. End of story. Babajobu 12:24, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
Double-edged sword. Just as "nobody has answered why the inclusion of this picture should be judged by different
criteria than other pictures we could have but don't," nobody has answered why the picture should be judged by
different criteria than other pictures we could have taken down but haven't.
In my opinion, the pictures serve as important documentary evidence, offensive or otherwise. They are not extraneous
but ultimately the core of the controversy, and nobody can truly make an informed decision about the controversy
without seeing for themselves what caused it. Whether some readers feel offense or not is not as important as the reader
being able to decide for themselves whether to be offended, and whether they feel the reactions we're seeing are
justified, and by removing the pictures the editors would be doing little more than making that judgment call in the
place of the reader, and that would (in my opinion) be an insult to the intelligence and sensibilities of the readers; again,
I do not believe a sensible person who does not want to see the pictures would come to this article, at least not before
disabling images in their web browser.
I am not saying that the pictures are or are not offensive (clearly some are and some aren't), but removing or otherwise
obfuscating them would be supporting the POV that they are offensive, while including them does not necessarily
assume offense but rather lets the reader decide their own point of view. --Guppy313 16:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Pic
190
I moved the picture to the same location where the picture in Oral sex is. --Striver 10:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The article about Oral Sex is not a good place for cartoons about Muhammad.--129.13.186.1 10:41, 2 February 2006
(UTC)
Agreed. Keep Muhammad out of the Oral sex article, please, his relevance there is tenuous at best. Babajobu
10:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Think you got it all wrong there, Striver moved the image down in the article, under the TOC, a bit like my
proposal for a compromise. Scoo 10:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why Oral Sex should be material to this article.--129.13.186.1 11:05, 2 February 2006
(UTC)
Agreed, pictures of oral sex are not relevant to this article. Babajobu 11:07, 2 February 2006
(UTC)
I'm not following, no one has implied that content from Oral sex should be added here or vice-versa. What Striver did was
changing the layout by moving the image down a bit. Scoo 11:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I get that. But the layout of the article of Oral Sex is not relevant for the layout of this article.--129.13.186.1
11:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
...and why is that? For my stance in the matter, please scroll up. Scoo 11:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Scoo, stop equating Muhammad to a woman performing a blowjob, you're giving me hurt feelings.
Not to derail this convo, but IMO the fellatio pic is of a man giving another man a blow
job.--Anchoress 18:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I agreed with Striver's move, it's the sensible thing to do for reasons that have been discussed many times, and it doesn't hurt
anything with regards to "documenting the truth". --Vsion (talk) 11:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Since when do I equate Muhammad to a woman performing a blowjob? I say that the article on Wikipedia about
Jyllands-Postens cartoons/caricatures controversy is a controversial one, and that the Oral sex article and similar are that
too. The difference is that this article show the image at the very top of the page, thus everyone accessing it are bound to see
it. A better way would be to inlude the image at a more sensitive place, for example below the table of contents that anyone
may navigate the article, without having to be exposed to the image. Scoo 11:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the image in Oral sex as controversial and I don't think that the position this image has was chosen because
191
some people could feel offended by the image. The image just fits there very well. Furthermore the image in Oral Sex is
just an illustration, but the cartoons are the very given reason all these protests, boycotts and threats were
made.--129.13.186.1 13:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The salient point here is that you are hurting my feelings, and you should remove evidence of your argument from this
page, because it hurts my feelings. Babajobu 11:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
No need to include pictures of oral sex in this article, it's about cartoons from an article in Jyllandsposten which
included no such thing. Passw0rd 11:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
No-one equate Muhammed with a woman performing a blowjob. Scoo implicitly compared the offence of
showing Muhammed with a bomb in his turban, to the offence of showing a woman performing a blowjob.
I think that makes sence.--Niels Ø 12:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't you get it?? It doesn't matter!! You hurt my feelings!!! Retract the argument! Babajobu 12:19,
Ok Babajou, we get the point :P Jacoplane 12:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Renaming
Let's rename this article to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, to better describe what this article is about.
Can we have a quick "vote" to see if there's consensus for this move? --Vsion (talk) 10:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Zocky | picture popups 10:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
That's five nouns with no other parts of speech, no offense but it's a textbook example of nightmarish headline writing.
Possibly so, but we don't keep John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy at John Seigenthaler Sr.
Wikipedia biography either. The title should be what the article is about. Any ideas for a better name? Zocky |
picture popups 10:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I assume that those who moved the article are working on fixing the double-redirects, right? Also, I would prefer that
the article stayed at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons, since that actually is the topic of the article: The cartoons,
192
the history behind their publication and the controversy that occured. That is unlike John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia
biography controversy which only concern the controversy itself (the biography is at John Seigenthaler Sr.). Rasmus
(talk) 11:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
STOP!!! "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons (satire) controversy" is not an acceptable title!! At least cut out
the psycho parenthetical "satire". Babajobu 11:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The original proposal Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy would do in my humble opinion.
Scoo 11:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Ha ... just after I've done the double-redirect for the first move, someone move it again. That's not very
considerate ... Is the second move ok for everyone? --Vsion (talk) 11:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I prefer the current title. --Sheeo 16:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Use the title of the publication in question: "Muhammids ansigt" controversy. --Guppy313 16:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Interesting analysis of the bomb in the turban image
The cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, Flemming Rose, was on Danish tv (on DR1 in the program Profilen) yesterday where
he explained and discussed the pictures. He had an interesting analysis of the image with the bomb in the turban where he
said it was not meant to equate Islam with terror but to show that some people used religion as an excuse to execture
terrorism.
I think that analysis was quite good, and probably more likely than the drawing is trying to equate Islam with terror.
--Snailwalker | talk 10:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
OH! Just like Jyllands-Posten used the Freedom of Speech excuse to publish these pictures in the first place?
FACT: Islam = Terror.
move the image down?
193
ok, so why not move the image down, maintaining a warning and a link on the top of the page? 1. it would still serve
documentation purposes 2. it would be more respectful to viewers (which may not include just muslims actually) 3. i dare say
it would actually be more neutral, it wouldnt offend anyone, it wouldnt be deleted (which would be "censorship" acording to
some), it would still serve encylopedic purpose.
- --193.136.128.14 11:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Because every time it's been tried, somebody screams "censorship!" and moves it back to the top. 71.141.251.153
11:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
yeah, "its censorship!" its the excuse, but we already seen its not about that - --193.136.128.14 11:52, 2 February
2006 (UTC)
This topic has been discussed in ten other talk threads than this one. If you'd read them, you would see that just some of
the reasons most believe it should be at the top is:
* Wikipedia style
* Importance of image to the article
* Freedom of speech and expression
* Better for them to find the image on Wikipedia than go looking for it on Google, finding a large number of
anti-Islamic sites
* etc, etc
-- Utopianheaven 12:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes as Utopiaheaven said, censorship is NOT the only topic and argument here. Many of course are against removal of
the image on the grounds of censorship which I agree with. Moving the image down however, has rather to do with
pandering to a group of people. Wikipedia is NOT here to make people feel good about themselves. It is NOT here to
alleviate religious tensions by making special provisions for a group of people. Wikipedia is about information. If we
start making concessions to not "disrespect" and "offend" muslim readers, then what about everyone else? Shouldn't we
then start making sure christians, jews and just about every other major religion could not /possibly/ be offended by
wikipedia content? and then where will it end? What if an ethnic group finds something offensive? Then what? Who's
to say North Korea doesn't find everything on here about it offensive and disrespectful? I suppose we should give into
them to cause we don't want to scare away what few propaganda police from NK are looking on here. Simply put, we
should not make any special arrangments for anyone. As someone said before this isn't Christianopedia or any of its
religious equivalents. Hitokirishinji 14:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
194
This debate is damb. If some muslim want to come to this page, they can switch off image loading function of the browser. It
is same as switching channell when you see some TV program you don't like. Leave the discrection to each readers.
Wikipedia is censorship free zone. FWBOarticle
The POLL
Polls are evil...but it seems like it's time to figure out where consensus lies on this issue. Babajobu 11:42, 2 February 2006
(UTC)
sorry but this not help realy and if there voting I will vote to keep it in top this will not solve the conflict.Qatarson
11:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
why will u vote to keep it on top - --193.136.128.14 11:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
because it is like who says ( should we shot him in the head or in ...) & both way are same.Qatarson
? give me a real logical reason - --193.136.128.14 11:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
logical reason !! simplest one why open a door in wikipedia for troubles and take risk of losing
millions of muslims of wikipedia visitors.Qatarson 12:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, please keep all doors and windows closed. Passw0rd 12:11, 2 February 2006
(UTC)
Qatarson, I think you are understimating the maturity and intellectual
sophistication of our Muslim readers. They know this is not "Hallalopedia", just
as our Christian visitors know it's not "Christopedia", Jews know it's not
"Judeopedia", et cetera. For people who can't handle plurality and the uncensored
flow of information, perhaps Wikipedia is not the right place, anyway. Babajobu
12:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep the image, the piss christ image is on top, and come on guys, this
article is about the image, removing it whould not work. Moving it a down
a bit would still work, but apparently some people don't want it anywhere at
all, and keep removing it even when moved down. But I'd say leave it op
top. Al3xander 12:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Well put, Babajobu. I'd be scared to see a Judeopedia, Christopedia,
Hallalopedia, or whatever. Especially after seeing how this has played out
195
during the past 72 hours. (And if it's not totally clear: I strongly believe the
image should be kept at the top as it is currently.) Utopianheaven 12:25, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, wikipedia should not make special concessions to one group of
people. As someone pointed out before, one should not be shocked to see
the cartoons in an article about them and they should be displayed in the
correct wikipedia format. Muslim readers who realize they may see the
image and find it offensive can simply turn off "load images" on their
browsers and in doing so may even score some extra points with the man
upstairs in taking a proactive effort into avoiding violating islamic law.
Hitokirishinji 15:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I am really beginning to resent this discussion. The sequence of the discussion goes:
Person A: This image is calculated to inflame. Let's move it down.
Person B: Give me one good reason.
Person A: Because even though it's newsworthy, if we moved it down, it would not be the very first thing someone
sees, and would not be quite as much of a slap in the face.
(HERE COMES THE PART I RESENT)
Person B: Don't you realize Wikipedia is supposed to be uncensored? Why are you embracing censorship? If people
can't handle the uncensored flow of information, maybe they should go somewhere else.
Well, for @#$%^&*( sake, I'm not talking about censorship. I'm talking about m-o-v-i-n-g t-h-e i-m-a-g-e. There is a
difference between asking that the image be deleted and asking that it be moved. Again, compare Oral sex. What we're
suggesting is not without precedent, not radical, and certainly not censorship. Could you all please stop lumping us together
with the people who (mostly anonymous socks) who are insisting that the image be deleted? BYT 12:27, 2 February 2006
(UTC)
Moving it down is OK, putting it somewhere beside the Publication of the drawings, where it even works better imo.
196
Al3xander 12:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Uh, Brandon, I'm not lumping you in with anyone, but I was responding to Qatarson, who is part of the
contingent of editors who want the picture REMOVED, not moved down. Babajobu 12:35, 2 February 2006
(UTC)
Okay -- it was a confusing exchange, my apologies. However, this has been the basic response from other editors pretty much
every time I've brought this up. BYT 12:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the whole thing has gotten messy and confusing. For my part, I acknowledge that there is a significant difference
between removing the image and placing it elsewhere in the article. Babajobu 12:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, the vote here is somehow unstructred and chaotic. I have great problems to find an appropriate place to vote
and to find a clear formulation for what i vote for. I hope my Vote will be taken in consideration: I vote for
deleting the picture 3 ,14:46 / 0
THE POLL IS AT Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons. Go there to vote.
Muslim viewpoint
I,m muslim and I think these these Pics is silly and full of Hate and Racism , for this reason and cause this article is talking
about these Pics I think the Pics should be at the top not the Bottom . instead of that it should be explained the real viewpoint
of Muslims about these pics and why they consider them racist and islamophobic . --Unfinishedchaos 13:08, 2 February 2006
(UTC)
Bravo, Unfinishedchaos. I for one would fully support a strong statement from a Muslim point of view shown next to
the image. That is true freedom of speech. Thparkth 13:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Um...isn't all of this supposed to be NPOV? --Happylobster 16:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I find it perfectly reasonable to have an explanation of the muslim viewpoint. However the text written by
Unfinishedchaos needs a great deal of corrections in the language. I am not at all capable of doing that but would like to
197
see it included if someone proficient in english could correct it. Martix 17:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Which Muslim point of view should it be, chaos? The extremist, the moderate, the in-between, the Danish Muslims',
the Saudis'... you ARE aware that there are different opinions between muslims as to whether or not these drawings are
actually full of hate and racism, just caricatures trying to generate debate, or something in-between? So, with your view
point (hate/racism), would you be capable of providing a REAL viewpoint, or just one that'll support YOURS? IMO, if
you can't look at the article as encyclopediac information, but attach some sort of subjective meaning to it, you will not
be able to produce information that reflects the objective reality - at least not on your own.--Discus2000 18:35, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
well Discus200 I think I could say majority of muslims are not happy with these pics , and u know why ? cause they make
them Exremists ... it is nice of u that differntiate between Extreme , moderate , in-between , ... but u havn,t noticed that u have
made majority of muslims at least feel upset by insulting their prophet and consiquently insulting them --Unfinishedchaos
18:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
chaos, please don't speculate as to what my opinion about the drawings is or what I may or may not have noticed about
their impact. Can you or can you not distance yourself from your own, personal opinion about the drawings
(hate/racism) and provide an accurate account on how muslims, be they moderate, extreme or in-between, have been
affected by the publishing of these drawings? Can you or can you not, give an objective account of the discourse
attached to the publishing of the drawings?
And chaos, I didn't publish the cartoons, I'm not an employee of Jyllands-Posten, and as such I haven't insulted the
prophet in any way - please don't make the allegation that I have.
Question about showing the images in the Middle East
From the article:
"When the organisation Islamic Society in Denmark toured the Middle-East to create awareness about the cartoons..."
Presumably the Islamic Society showed people the images in question, if only to say "look how offensive these are!"
198
If that was OK according to Islamic law and tradition, why is it not OK for this article to do the same?
I agree with Thparkth ... the issue of position of the Pics or should be included or not , shouldn,t be important .. we have to
discuss the real subject (the article)--Unfinishedchaos 12:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Hear,Hear... Al3xander 13:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The Jordanian tabloid newspaper al-Shihan has published 3 of the images today. Complementing the pictures is the following
text: "Muslims in the World, be reasonable! What hurts Islam the most, these drawings; or pictures of a kidnapper, who in
front of a camera cuts the throat of his victim, or a suicide-bomber, who blows himself up at a wedding in
Amman?--Discus2000 13:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, several Arabic websites have featured the images prominently within their news stories. See: Aljazeera,
Yemen Observer. Jacoplane 13:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Depictions of the Prophet are common even in Islamic history. I don't see the big deal. 82.93.70.118 14:55, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
The quality of Article
I don,t wanna to discuss the issue of the pic anymore , but I think we have to discuss more important issues related to the
articles itself , I will mention some sides of the Article or in the Issue itself , that muslims consider it unacceptable :
it should be assured that those pics are totally imagninary and doesn't represent the true shape of Muhammad simply
because there is no way to know the True shape , and muslem refuse these pics .
majority of Muslims : including Liberal and Extreme fundamentalist Muslims think that these pics carry bad racist
ideas about Islam and Muslims .
many muslims refuse the anger campaign against Denmark , but still think that the Journal use the "Freedom of Speech
" to express bad intentions , Islamophobia , Racism .
199
Considering the Islam is the only religion that has borders for Freedom of speech , is totally wrong , and they give the
Example of Catholic Churce and Galilieo case .
The understanding of Freedom in islam should be dicussed deeply and expressing the different schools of islam about this
issue , i,m working about that with other muslim editors .
the Comparison of this case with other cases like critics of the Woman roles in Islam , isn't totally true ... Personally I
accept any one to critisize some bad woman rules , cause I consider these rules Epression of a islamic school not for
Islam , but when the Insulting is directed towards teh major Character of Islam , then that is attack against all muslims
and not against Fundamentalists .
and that make majority of muslims feel upset and they are descriped as Terrorists as their Prophet himself is Terrorist , so
they descripe the Cartoons as racist and islamophobic , they are not against Fundemntalism but against Islam itself as they
represent all muslims by the Prophet of Islam .
this issue represent one of the critical cases that face the new world order , or what is called Globalization . when rules
of different countries contradicts . How could we gather rules of Blasphemy in Islamic countries with rules of Frredom
of speech in secular countries , that gives new challenges for formulating kind of rules suitable for the Whole world not
for small region or country ... It is big challenge .
The muslim Anger has other side doesn,t been taken into account : they feel anger from disputed use of Law in Western
Countries , as they complain and that is related to new Expression of Islamophobia after 11/9 and to the past history of
competition between islamic Impire and Roman Catholic Empire .
They give an Example by the Anti-semistic rules , that condemns any deny of Holucost or review of number of the Victims ,
and they consider these laws contradicting with Freedom of speech . so when the matter is related to Blasphemy about
Muhammad , westerners claimed that is freedom of speech . as some user here said tehre is no anti-semistic law in Denmark ,
but u know when u talk about ppl they don,t differntiate between denmark and Holland and Us .
it is so important to assure that anger against picturing muhammed generally or in this way is hurting for all muslims ,
and couldn,t be critics for islam . and that what most ppl ask for .
I personally a liberal muslim and i can agree with u about some critics relating fundemntalist muslims and some ancient
explanation of Islam but there is no chance to make a musllim happy with seeing this Insult of Whole Islam by picyuring
200
Muhammed . This recognization is so important .
I Think i have summarized most points that muslims Complain against , if we could formulate this view point in the article , it
would be perfect . Peace --Unfinishedchaos 12:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
You should not generalize about "the muslims" or "the majority of the muslims". In fact only a very small number of
muslims protested actively against those cartoons. But we don't even know whether those muslims we're sincerely
angry or were just happy to find a pretense to make some row.--129.13.186.1 13:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
maby not all muslims protest , but i can assure that most if not all muslims feel upset and feel that they r attacked , offcourse
the reaction if defferent from person to person , but u cannot picture the prophet of islam as terrorist and u wanna them to be
happy .. this thing should be understood ... this pics carry an idea of generalization that all muslims are terrorism and
criminals --Unfinishedchaos 14:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
No one would like to see their God/Saint/National Hero/Prophet/Deties/Idol, or just somebody important, got insult in the
public irrtionaly, while every one support the insults and said its their freedom to make fun of whoever they like. This is the
abuse of freedom of speech and violation of Denmark's freedom of religion. 66.225.141.5 18:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
to the last part... according to the ruling from the district attorney, it's not a violation (I think the plaintiffs are
appealing, though, so we'll have to wait for a final ruling)--Discus2000 20:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you direct your anger at the extremists who are giving the great faith of Islam a bad name? 1 billion Muslims in
this world, the vast majority of which must honest decent people just like billions of other people on this planet - imagine
what they could do if they acted together and demonstrated their outrage against the extremists from the middle ages that are
terrorizing us all? I think the cartoon portraying Muhammed as a terrorist a wake up call for you. Was he really a terrorist? I
know little about him, but I really doubt it. I would imagine he carried a moral message like Christ or any other prophet.
That's just it - here I am displaying my ignorance of your religion for all to see. It's up to you to inform us ignorant people.
What is Islam about anyhow? Is it really about murdering anybody that offends you? I am sure it isn't. There must be
messages about peace and love and brotherhood and that sort of thing, but that's just the problem - your aren't getting the
message out. You need better PR managers than Bin Laden and the like.
All this controversy about a few cartoons drawn by a few individuals who don't represent anyone but themselves. Muslim
laws are for Mulims, and don't apply to anyone outside of their religion.
201
Comparable?
What do Galileo, Larry Flynt, the American flag and emperor Akihito have to do with anything? Is this article supposed to be
an index for all famous "free speech" incidents and issues?
I think Wikipedia should stick to the directly relevant issues, not broaden the scope artificially. "Comparable incidents" starts
off well but quickly degenerates into things that are hardly "comparable". 81.58.51.131 13:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I would agree, this article deals with outrages as perceived by Muslims. Free Speech is a principle, but the Flint et al
examples aren't that pertinent to a Muslim vs non-Muslim argument. They should be withdrawn. (Lipatden 13:40, 2
February 2006 (UTC))
Probably the part "Controversial newspaper caricatures" would be enough.-- 129.13.186.1 13:48, 2 February 2006
(UTC)
That was my initial reaction also. Anyboy wanna be bold? Eixo 15:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Personnally, I believe those issues are important to look at the global attacks on freedom of speech in the
ages, which are amplified by this article.
I agree totally. It seems to be ok in many Muslim nations to defame images of all other religious icons, not to
mention their portrayels of Jews, but god f**king forbid you show a picture of their 'Prophet' and now all of a
sudden everyone is supposed to forget Islams degredation of NON Islamic religious figures?
Lets stop being so PC here ok? Its just a bunch of cartoons about a man who married and had sexual relations with a 9 year
old CHILD. No big deal. get over it. TruthCrusader
Offensive but important
I think it matters, whether some image is offensive or not, only in the case, that the image itself is not important for the
respective article. If an unimportant image is offensive, you can delete it. But if an image is important (like the cartoons in
202
this article), it doesn't matter anymore whether it is offensive or not.--129.13.186.1 13:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Hadithspam!
Let's not start that again! Babajobu 13:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Which images are actually offensive?
Since we've obviously got some serious flaming going on, can anyone say whether the objection is to ANY drawing of
Muhammed, or merely the turban bomb, no-virgins etc pictures...?
I personally think the cartoonist drawing the Prophet while looking over his shoulder is the best, and the one most pertinent to
the discussion, it's not overtly offensive and represents exactly what was meant to be discussed by Jyllands Posten (and
everyone else who's jumped on board), which is:
Why are we so scared of this? (Lipatden 13:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC))
Good Point. I also think the picture of Muhammed calming down the 2 muslims going crazy is quite a good one. It highlights
my view that Muslims are being oversensitive about this and they need to grow up and stop being so insecure about their
religion and be more tolerant of the European Culture.
Any depiction of Muhammad, whether imagined to be "positive" or "negative" in nature, is considered by
Muslims to be not merely offensive, but a crime against Islam.
This is the point some of the editors seem to be overlooking. You know how the Kennedy family kind of
drew the line at public circulation of JFK's autopsy photos, as being WELL out of bounds? Well, that's sort
of what we have on our hands here, except for "Kennedy family," read "One Billion Muslims" and for
"privacy rights of the family" read "eager desire not to go to hell."
No, there is nowhere that those standards are connected to WP. Yes, they are a part of the larger world in
which we live. BYT 14:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Agree with that. Would also point out, though, that the Kennedy family is SOL, because in the age of
the internet anyone who is interested can check out the Kennedy autopsy photos at their leisure. And
if Al Jazeera is now showing pics of the cartoons, how is it possible that Muslims are worried that
203
the publication of these cartoons in Wikipedia will cause the Muslims to be sent to hell? Babajobu
14:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The pictures are not only offensive because it's Muhammad in them but because they are
satire. Also Aljazeera hasn't shown them and I don't know what "Muslims going to hell" has to
do with this? You would get the same reaction with any religion that is being offended but
each is offended in different ways. In this case it's the picture. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:12, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
Al Jazeera has indeed shown them, the link is on this page, I followed it and saw the
picture. Brandon was the one who mentioned "an earnest desire not to go to hell" as one
of the issues here...I was as surprised by it as you are. Babajobu 16:15, 2 February 2006
(UTC)
To clarify about the going-to-hell business: Disobeying the Prophet is a sin for Muslims, period. Two prominent
teachings from the Prophet are about a)avoiding making or circulating images of living things (one hadith describes
imagemakers as in the front rank of hellfire, or something like that) and b) specifically, not making or circulating an
image of the Prophet himself. That means that creating a flattering commemorative painting is generally regarded as a
sin. I'm pretty sure it's a major sin, but can't swear to that. Where does a snarky caricature fall? Where do ten or twelve
of them fall? Someplace I don't want to be. BYT 17:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Brandon, yes, I get that Muslims must not make or be involved in the circulation of images, and particularly
images of Muhammad. What I don't understand is how inadvertantly viewing Wikipedia's image would cause
them concern about being consigned to the hellfire. I also think Anonymous Editor was confused by that notion.
A Muslim who accidentally saw (and was revolted by) a cartoon of Muhammad surely wouldn't get in trouble
with his maker. Babajobu 17:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
There is two points should be clarified :
firstly any picturing of Prophet Muhammad is forbidden in islam and unacceptable for muslims .
secondly : when u make critics of some islamic ideas or even of some "islamic" behaviour (and such behaviour is different
according to the different scools and sects of islam ) , when make this critics using a picture with name (Muhammad) , then u
generalize ur rules and critics and maby ur hate to all muslims not to small group of islam , that what explain that popular
anger .
204
actually , if ur critics or ur pics represent some islamic religoun-man or some fundamentalist without saying that is
muhammad , then surely i won,t make any effort protesting aginst these pics , but when u say that muhammad learns muslims
Terrorism by his behaviour as the pics say , then it is natural to see such anger ... I,m with freedom of speech but simply that
is speech of Hate --Unfinishedchaos 14:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Depicting Muhammed is offensive to Muslims, so now Muslims want all kafirs to abide by their law? Jyllands-Posten
is not a Muslim publication, neither is Wikipedia.
Calling for punishment for expression of fundamental democratic freedoms is unacceptable to most educated
westerners, especially since even the discussion (and drawing can be discussion) of the topic that requires pictorial
references is offending you. It's a self-confirming delusion
Calling for an execution of someone for violating your laws in your country, (even then most countries don't have these
laws, they're merely moral norms) is plainly absurd in International Law.
You offend me with your response to my freedoms. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to
say it" (or draw it). (Lipatden 14:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC))
Not a fan of Voltaire are ye Lipatden? :D Homestarmy 14:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité! No, I'm not French, but I take freedom of expression, and most of all freedom of thought very
seriously, which is what is being suppressed here. (Lipatden 15:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC))
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" Excuse me Lipatden , but I wanna complete
ur quote : I will pay my life for your Freedom , but please don,t use ur freedom to insult me " .
actually noone tries to make some eefort to understand the other's viewpoint , i,m supporter of freedom and i fight to bring
freedom laws into middle east , but wait a minute ... in my opinion it is not : Islam vs. Freedom as the westerners represent the
Issue ... it is muslims vs. Hate and Disrespect .
I don,t deny ur freedom to express ur opinions and ur critics for islam and fundametalist muslims , but why should JP draw
silly pics saying that is muhammad , cannot they use muslem religion-man to do that critics .
another point is when u represent muhammad as terrorist and criminal , u say that all muslims r terrorists and criminals ,
which obviously message of Hate . can u use ur freedom in America to express ur hate for jews and afro-americans . or
205
Expression of Hate is only allowd against muslims --Unfinishedchaos 15:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Sure, American media is replete with critical and/or offensive discussions or images of Jews and Afro-Americans. In a
free media, everyone is fair game, and for the most part, communities in the West have learned to live with it, because
they know life is better with a free press. Babajobu 16:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
People in America DO have the right to express their disgust for others. You can call someone a racial slur even but
that doesn't get you arrested. And as a person who is NOT muslim, the cartoons hardly incite "hate" in me for muslims.
What I do "hate" is people who think that their rules apply to everyone else and those who do not follow should die.
That is probably the single most issue I have found any disgust for so far in this whole debacle. And last I checked, the
newspapers were European weren't they? Why did you not say "are you allowed to express hate for a group of people in
every single truely free nation out there?" Why single out America? You know in Japan they blatantly discrminate
against foreign people. Hitokirishinji 16:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
And just so you truely know, maybe you've heard about the Ku Klux Klan? They MARCH in America on a regular
basis (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/121604.stm). And there is NO other group more well known for being
racist and seeding hate. But we haven't censored them. We all just grew up learning that there is a such thing as
extremist groups and those are best ignored. Hitokirishinji 16:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Hitokirishinji said : " What I do "hate" is people who think that their rules apply to everyone else and those who do not follow
should die. " Exactly the same thing i hate and refuse but simply these pics say that all muslims behave in this way by
representing thier prophet criminal and terrorist . i,m against this generalization which makes all muslims feel angry and
hated ... and day by day the number of Extremists increase . that is what i,m worried about and that is why i wanna you
condemn such hate messages . --Unfinishedchaos 16:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm against generalizations too but that does not mean I have the right to take them down or "hide" them from folks. My
own ethnic group has had its own problems with generalization but you learn to deal with it and by least of all,
removing images. It is one thing to condemn images and I certainly will agree that this does not help the Muslim
population but I do believe it does harm the rest of the world and freedom of speech by hiding them. So I will condemn
the images as you say but I will not agree to their removal. Hitokirishinji 16:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Stop discussing the bomb
206
Please look at my first post in this section. I'm not advocating the offensive images, (but I should be free to acquire them if I
want to) I'm asking why even the intelligent ones like the cartoonist looking over his shoulder is causing outcry. Stop talking
about the blatantly offensive images and answer my first question: Why are we so scared of this?
Exactly where are you attributing the remainder of the quote to? I certainly didn't cite a source, because it is my own belief, I
just like the way those words convey it. Don't imagine I subscribe to any of the new words you've put on as "complete ur
quote".
Your desire to suppress my right to question, discuss and display my thoughts and those of others, which I do to understand
them better (that's you and me), is as abhorrent as your apparent disgust over these images. Again, I'm talking about any
image, especially intelligent ones, and definitely not the blatantly offensives.
Lastly, the first reply indicated a crime against Islam. No problem, I'll make sure all Muslims I come across know this, but
why do you want me to stop? I've got a picture I just doodled on my desk, I've put a big M above it. Can you imagine it?
Have I offended you? I certainly haven't shown it to you, have I still commited a crime against your god? (Lipatden)
Hey Lipatden .... I don,t wanna u to stop , u r free to make what u want to do , I just discuss the whole thing trying to make
the two sides understand eachother , u r free to offend my prophet and my god personally but when u make that in puplic I
think u should be responsible . i think it is ur proplem if u hate me but i think it is wiser not to make generalizations and
describing a religion with many schools and sects in just few words. --Unfinishedchaos 16:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
WP isn't the author of the images, they're just telling everyone what's happened. Are they not allowed to do it? Given a page
without the image, I'm relying on someone else's interpretation of the images to feed my curiosity, and how do I know that
person isn't over- or underdoing it? If I don't substantiate a claim against someone, that's defemation of character. If I do (in
this case by showing the image to help the discussion), I'm now the one offending you.
Why is WP to blamne because they're trying to explain how someone else caused someone else offence? Again, they're not
Muslim, so why follow Islam codes?
How exactly do we debate this without the images? Do you want it debated?
(Lipatden)
207
WP should put the Pics , at the Top also ..That is my opinion ..read my other comments --Unfinishedchaos 17:24, 2 February
2006 (UTC)
Putting figure of Mohammed is an attack to Islam. In Islam showing the figure of Mohammed is forbidden. Painting a image
of Mohammed is a big sin in Islam. That is very important thing and that disturbs the muslimsç —The preceding unsigned
comment was added by 80.144.205.23 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC).
I hardly constitute these figures as an attack. They were hardly made to "assult" islam and its beliefs. I suppose when
the cartoons literally jump off the page and seige an Islamic city I will agree with you. And while were at it, everytime
your mouth is open, you kill thousands of anaerobic bacteria. That is an attack on bacteria and I stand up for bacteria
rights everywhere. Hitokirishinji 18:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Talk: Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy - Archive 3c
#
!
75
8!
9.
:#
7
%
% 1
%
&5
#
DE
*
&
D
+
+ :F
'$
.
; AL
>,1
?,
&
'$
. /
% 1
$
G
&
5
%
1
$
D
D
G
208
1
B
$%
8
9
:
;
>
?
8
9
:
;
>
?
8
8
8
88
89
8:
8
8;
8>
8?
9
9
9
98
#
#
6 1
6
) 5 5 .
!
- &
C =
6
%
5* 1
- %
%
#
$
8'
#
!5@ * %
1
*=0
C0
$
#
$%
%
#
' &
1
!
1
*%
#
1
$
=$
5
%%
5/ 6#" 3
1
& $ %
%
1
*
#
"6 %
%#
6
3
6
1
*%
"
&
&
%
%
G
#
#
$$
%
. %
$
#
.
3
$%
5 % 1
D
%
% $
&%
$
%
%
$
&
2
%
B
*=0
%
%
%
%
&
&
$
&3
$
NN
)'D
No deal
209
M
DG
F
Look, as long as many Middle-Eastern (Muslim) nations are still using images derogatory of Jews, Christians, or anyone else
they have no right to claim, nor should be given, special treatment for their prophet. For example, check out this article's
section "Controversial newspaper caricatures".
And as far as I am concerned, the images should be at the top of the article because the article itself is about the very thing
that someone would be coming to WP to read about--to see what the hubbub is about. If the Muslim community is
offended....well, you can't please everyone...but I ask them to look their own inequities in the face and fix them before going
on a censoring campaign. To repeat a statement that I've said before: their religion does not make them "special," it just
makes them religious. No reason to bend over backward, to violate a code of law or ethics, or principles, to appease those
who are undeserving of such preferential behavior.206.156.242.39 14:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
"Alleged" massacres of Armenians?
There is nothing alleged about the massacre, ethnic cleansing and forced exile by Turks of up to 2 million
Armenianschrisboote 14:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Neutrality
I've read the article, and I think it can be summarised as follows.
Children's book on Mohammed needs an illustration
Artists in fear of religious extremists
Debate on self-censorship
Cartoons depicting Mohammed
Angry reaction from the Islamic world
I understand every point of the above except the last. Unless, of course, I am supposed to link the religious extremists that are
feared by the artists to the angry reaction. The only two glimmers of hope that this isn't the case is a very brief and quite
qualified reference to aniconism, and some links hidden at the bottom of the page to articles on blasphemy and on the
veneration of Mohammed in the Islamic world.
210
Can someone please explain to me (as if I were the proverbial two-year-old) why there has been this reaction? Note that I will
not accept explanations along the lines of "because they are a bunch of evil *&%$@" - there has to be a better answer than
that. Chrisobyrne 14:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Im no expert, but from what i've seen so far, the main objection is either coming from something in the Qu'ran which, in
effect, bans the creating of, actually, ANY image of a person for apparently any reason, or it is coming from some big thing
about 200 years after the Qu'ran was made where, supposedly a bunch of Islamic clerics got together and decided to set down
some new policies, and if im remembering correctly, a similar ban on picturing people, especially allah or a prophet, was
expressly outlined as extraordinary blashphemy. Another reason there might be an angry reaction is because many of the
muslims stirring the islamic world up have been showing cartoons that were not actually printed with the original 12, and the
people who are showing these pictures to rile up people apparently won't give their sources, they just claim they were sent
from Denmark. One of the probably made up ones is supposedly a picture equating Muhammad to a pig, another features him
doing something.....rather mean to a woman who is praying. If many in the Islamic world are thinking those two were actually
among pictures that were printed, then that might be partly the cause of all the anger. Homestarmy 14:51, 2 February 2006
(UTC)
As I see it, the main thing in the build up from September 2005 to the outrage four months later, is the arrogance of the
Danish government and Prime Minister. The eleven foreign ambassadors - the direct representations of their countries wanted to discuss, not only the cartoons but racist and hateful speech other places in the Danish society - like the
homepage of MP Luise Frevert which had some lunatic comparisons of muslims to cancer cells (not written by her, but
her webmaster). The government had the opportunity to distance themselves, officially or personally from one or more
of the statements but played it so cooly (arrogantly) that they more or less told the ambassadors to bugger off. The
reason for this could be many things, among them that Louise Frevert is a member of the party that secures the Prime
Minister's power (Dansk Folkeparti - DS) or that any softening line towards the muslims could strain his relationship
with DS. The Prime Minister has later said he personally dsilikes the charicatures - well why didn't he just tell the
ambassadors that months ago (along with the freedom of press which means he can't do jack about it), and maybe stop
the muslim group's tour to the Middle East to rally support. It is just so hollow that the only thing that gets him out of
his chair is when DI (Danish Industries) moan over lost revenue.
@Homestarmy - the three pics are one of Muhammad as a pedophile, one looks like Saddam Husein photgraph with a
pig snout and one is of a dog humping a praying muslim, none of could ever be published in Denmark and as I
understand it they were sent by email to muslims by some (Danish?) racists along with other idiocy. Poulsen 15:27, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
211
Demonstration Tonight? (02-02-05)
I've seen posters around in Copenhagen, asking danes to join a demonstration for tolerance of religion, to be held at
Rådhuspladsen. As far as I can see, its pro-freedom of speech, but saying that the JP drawings was indeed a bit "over the
line", and doesnt contribute to anything meaningful in our society. Does anyone have a newssource on this? Cacophobia
(Talk) 14:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
This talk page
Dear people who are insistent on the image remaining prominent: Here's the problem. You have editors like me, Muslims
from a secular background, who are really trying to find some kind of common ground with you. And the only response we're
getting is, "No leeway, no discussion, freedom of expression is always absolute, the article on Paul Reubens should ideally
show a close-up of him masturbating, and by extension the only possible way to do this article about the Muhammad cartoons
is to piss about a billion people off and degrade their sense of the sacred." We try to connect, and that is basically what we
hear.
Now, this dynamic I'm talking about -- rejecting the opportunity for dialogue with conciliatory people -- this dynamic plays
out all over, not just in this article, not just in WP, but in a larger sense as part of a deepening crisis where we (so-called)
'moderates' try to initiate a dialogue, try to find some way to communicate together about the importance of a given issue, try
to find some way to bridge the gap in forums like WP, and end up defending assaults on Islam.
Personally, I don't think secularism has to result in hate speech, but lots of other people here apparently do. And the page is
still way over the line to lots of Muslims, many of whom are, um, furious.
Now, I really don't know why you don't want to work something out with those of us in the middle, why you don't want to
hear what we have to say. But you don't. You know what? Maybe we're wrong about the wisdom of trying to build bridges
with you. We didn't draw the @#$%^&* cartoons. BYT 14:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I can't see how it should made a difference whether the image is on top (where it belongs due to its importance) or
somewhere in the middle, if it is forbidden to show it at all (according to muslims). -- 129.13.186.1 15:00, 2 February
212
2006 (UTC)
And to your last sentence: Yes, it is right, "you" didn't draw "the @#$%^&* cartoons", but "you" did some other quite
fucked up stuff - compared to which these cartoons are really nothing to whine about. I'm sure you know yourself, what
I'm talking about. -- Powerpete 15:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Powerpete, that is a blatant inflammatory personal attack. Please stop. Jacoplane 15:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
No, it is not, since the "you" does not refer to him personally. -- Powerpete 15:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Of course not. Just to me as a Muslim. That's not personal at all. Again. Why do I bother?BYT
I was using your generalisation of the "us" (the Muslims) who didn't "draw @#$%^&*
cartoons" and the "you" (the non-Muslims) who apparently did. I, personally, can't remember
that I have drawn any cartoons at all, recently. -- Powerpete 15:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Powerpete and to all others making personal attacks, just because wikipedia has an article on
this image does not mean you can use it to make attacks or for racism. No personal attacks.
Personally, I don't mind if their on top of the page or in the middle, but hiding them won't solve anything. But I think the
reason why many people don't want to work something out is because, well, of the type of talking in your last sentence. Yea,
most of what you were saying was fairly straightforward, but people have a habit of concentrating on the smallest thing
possible in whatever anyone says and blowing it out of proportion....that, and there's some Wiki policy against saying mean
things to people on talk pages excessively or something :/ Homestarmy 15:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Brandon, the article on Paul Reubens needn't show a close-up of him masturbating...to argue that it does would be more
akin to saying these Muhammad cartoons should be prominently displayed in the Muhammad article, and no one is
saying that. However, one of the problems you are encountering is that most of the revert warriors, and some on the talk
page, have been arguing strongly that the pictures should be removed. I think most of us can acknowledge a real
difference between your position and theirs--I could accept a general Wikipedia policy that offensive images go below
the fold--but it's inevitable that your more extreme coreligionists will steal the attention of some of the people with
whom you are trying to build bridges. Whether it still makes sense to attempt to build bridges with secular Westerners
213
is of course for you to decide. Babajobu 15:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I suppose then we should remove ALL articles on North Korea because I'm fairly sure a majority of them the NK
government finds offensive and even "illegal". Or perhaps that group of people isn't important enough for us to not
offend? Muslim readers have the ability to turn off "load images" on their browsers. I don't see why they can't take a
proactive stance and actively avoid the image if it is truely so offensive to them. After all, vegans actively avoid meat
or anything that even touches meat. I am firmly against Wikipedia making concessions to any particular group of
people. Hitokirishinji 15:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I could support a site-wide guideline that offensive images go inline, below the fold. That would mean Piss Christ
below the fold, Lolicon pics below the fold, Xenu below the fold, and anything upsetting to anyone else below
the fold. What I can't accept is a unique exception for Muslims that hides or de-emphasizes only images that that
particular group finds offensive, but not images offensive to any other group. Babajobu 15:15, 2 February 2006
(UTC)
In principle, I agree with you Babajobu. But this leaves the door wide open for any extreme religious/ethnic
groups to label something offensive and move an image down. And probably by the time that is all done, there
won't be any images left on wikipedia "above the fold". Hitokirishinji 15:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Hitokirishinji, yes, we would certainly wind up with a lot of images "below the fold" (by this I mean below
the first screen in a given article). That would be annoying. But at least we would have site-wide policy to
present to people who demand the removal of particular images. Of course, we already have
Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, so maybe this wouldn't work, either. Babajobu 15:27, 2 February 2006
(UTC)
Maybe christianity doesn't find images like that as offensive as Islam does? Similarly maybe
christianity finds something else more offensive than Islam does. Discussions on this page show that
most people arguing for keeping the images don't understand the situation and instead are using the
same censorship line to argue. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Uh, Piss Christ pissed off Christians more than any image or work of art in the past decade, in
case you weren't paying attention. But Wikipedia has chosen to keep the Piss Christ picture
prominently displayed at the top of the article, because, well, that's where it belongs in an
article about Piss Christ. Wikipedia has never removed or de-emphasized a picture in order to
avoid offending any religious or political or ideological group. But as I say, I, personally,
214
would be willing to explore a site-wide policy of bringing such images below the fold. Others
will disagree. You're assertion that people who disagree with you "don't understand the
situation" isn't very insightful or helpful. Babajobu 15:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I fundamentally believe this has more to do with our principles as a free information
source than anything else. As I have said again and again, no concessions to any
particular group of people unless we apply it to ALL groups of people to be fair. If
offending images should be removed, then they ALL should be removed from ALL of
wikipedia. Hitokirishinji 15:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
On the Christianity thing, I sure do think that whatever image on that page is probably extremely offensive
and mean, but that's why I didn't go there, and I am a Christian. Furthermore, the Bible affirms that people
would do that kind of stuff against Christ and His name in general, so it's not like it's entirely unexpected.
Though, if I may ask, what is the point of that **** Christ article, I keep seeing it popping up in the
conversation, but I don't know what its about. Homestarmy 15:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Bravo Homestarmy. This is what I mean, people who truely find images offensive can actively take
steps to avoid them. And again, one should not be shocked to find the cartoons on the page if the
article is about them! The Piss Christ article is about a piece of artwork that is essentially a crucifix
in a container filled with the artist's urine and possibly blood. I'm sure many fundamentalists groups
found it quite offensive and if they had their way, would strike it from wikipedia. But no concession
was made to them so why should any be made to anyone else? Again, I sincerely think that
Homestarmy's actions are laudable. Hitokirishinji 15:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Home, Piss Christ is a picture of a crucifix immersed in urine. It was displayed in an American
museum, and caused intense offense among American Christians. The Wikipedia article has the
image prominently displayed at the top of the page, because Wikipedia does not take Christian
religious sensibilities into account when determining whether and how to display information.
People have been pointing to that article to show concerned Muslims that this policy does not target
them, but is a general one. Babajobu 15:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
And I don't disagree with you there Hitokirishinji, I wouldn't mind if something that was so
blatantly opposed to a religion was removed. But the point I was making before is that maybe
images like these are seen as worse in one religion than in another. And I stand by what I said
215
about not understanding the situation Baba. I am sure that as far as many people on this talk
page know only one side of the issue, "censorship" and haven't researched the entire problem
from the other perspective. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I do disagree with you here anonym. I think many of use do understand that many
muslims find this incredibly blasphemous and offensive while most of the secular world
finds it fairly mild and even harmless. And I think that's why we're fighting so hard for
it. We do not want to give into one group of people when other parts of the world see
nothing wrong with the images or believe there is reason to display them. Hitokirishinji
15:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
AE, for people to insist that Muslim sensibilities only be paid equal respect to
those of other religions does not indicate that they "haven't researched the entire
problem". If we are going to move or de-emphasize images that Muslims find
gravely offensive, then we would have to do that for images that other groups find
gravely offensive. That's not ignorance, it's simple fairness. Babajobu 15:40, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
Good do it for the others. What I am saying here is that Muslims find these
images more offensive than say a Buddhist would. And maybe Buddhists
will find something more offensive than Muslims. Secular here doesn't have
to mean that we have to offend all those who aren't. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:43, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with secularity. Wikipedia's policy is clear:
Wikipedia is not censored to adhere to social norms: anybody's social
norms. Wikipedia welcomes the whole world; but on the terms stated
in policy. If some of the world that cannot accept those terms, that is
deeply regrettable - and not just for Wikipedia; but it's a large
Universe. There are other websites for those who prefer other
policies; if they outshine WP, more power to them. Septentrionalis
15:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, AE, everyone understands that images of their prophet are
more offensive to Muslims than images of other religions'
prophets are to adherents of those religions. It's called
216
aniconism, and we all get it. But pictures of a crucifix
immersed in urine are wildly offensive to Christians, and the
outing of Xenu is wildly upsetting to scientologists, and
Wikipedia generally contains lots of images that ARE offensive
to lots of groups, whatever their particular sensitivities are. The
salient point, though, is that thus far in Wikipedia's history, NO
images, no matter how offensive to members of any group,
have been moved or removed to allay the anger of any group.
So what we are asking for is a SPECIAL EXCEPTION for
Muslims, and many of us are not interested in making special
allowances for one group. But if you argue for a site-wide
policy regarding offensive images, you're more likely to gain
sympathetic ears. Babajobu 15:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
But our point isn't to offend, its to report on what is
going on over this issue. The offense has already been
done, Wikipedia hosting or not hosting the image isn't
going to change that, all we're doing is telling it like it
is....right? Homestarmy 15:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I think if we did, we'd be just entirely opening up a can of worms.
Fine lets say down we take down every possibly offensive image for
every possible religion: Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Daoist,
Hindu, Seek etc. I could go on and on. And what if another religion
finds an opposing religions existance an offensive? It could happen.
Should we then proceed to strip every single religion from wikipedia?
And why do we have to limit ourselves to religions? What about
ethinc groups? Africans, Serbians, Chinese, Japanese, Portugese,
Spanish....it could go on forever. Hitokirishinji 15:52, 2 February
2006 (UTC)
Response to Hito...yes, it's very possible that some Christians
would find images of the Quran or Book of Mormon upsetting
or offensive...or that a Jew would find a crucifix upsetting or
offensive, or whatever. If we had a site wide policy of moving
offensive images below the fold, then in that case pictures of a
217
Quran or Book of Mormon or crucifix would have to go below
the fold. As you say, we'd have a whole lot of images below the
fold. What I'm not talking about, though, is removing such
images altogether. Babajobu 15:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Buy Danish!
Everyone, show your support to the Danish people by adding this userbox to your profile! Let Europe be free! --Candide, or
Optimism 14:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
No, please don't. That is a copyrighted images, and we do not allow fair use images on userpages. Jacoplane 15:06, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how that helps anything. We still have a no attack policy at wikipedia and the copyrighted image think
makes it worse. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
What attack? What are you talking about? I removed the image from my profile because of the copyright
whinning, but other than that, what's the problem? --Candide, or Optimism 15:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
You don't think that something that's clearly going against a fifth of the world's population is going
to cause offence and seem like an attack? --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't care what you and that Jimbo thinks, okay? No censorship and total liberty! I
know that this site is American, but if you go against us, Europeans, and our values, then
you should make your own Wiki! This is important to us. --Candide, or Optimism 15:25,
I agree with Lotsofissues. This is not the place for that. And since you so kindly
pointed out that this site is American and since you seem to be intent on dividing
people into the American camp or European camp, this IS our own wiki. As
lotsofissues said, this is not a place to put up your soapbox and rally people to
your cause. Please respect that we are trying to create and article here, no "go
against" a group of people. Hitokirishinji 15:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it's no attack on anyone to say "Buy Danish", but Annitas, this
site absolutely does not "belong" to Americans and Europeans. "They" (I
gather you mean Muslims) are as much Wikipedians as anyone else, so
please do not suggest otherwise. Wikipedia has no nationality. Babajobu
218
16:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Hear hear! Hitokirishinji 16:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
That's just crazy. Is it racist now to support Denmark? -- Powerpete 15:32, 2 February
2006 (UTC)
Candide, This is not the space to rally like minded ppl. This thread will explode into name calling. We are trying to write an
encyclopedia article--this doesn't contribute. How about respecting those working in this space by moving this thread to your
own space? Lotsofissues 15:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
If I may, there are a wide variety of userboxes which go against Christians, and that as I
understand it is even more than a 5th of the world's population, yet nobody that I know says
that those userboxes are attacks :/. Homestarmy 15:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
That's because a majority of the crusading Christian armies were left behind in the 16th
century. But I'm sure some extremist out there probably believes that it is. Hitokirishinji
15:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
If only! Ever heard of [Fred Phelps]? Anon 15:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Well you don't need crusaders to go on a sockpuppeting revert/deletion
campaign heh. Homestarmy 15:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Where's the "Boycott Danish" userbox? Why shouldn't the Muslim world be free to spend or not spend their money as
they please? Why should I as an American get involved to compensate for some Danes' mistakes?
Sure they are. The Muslims can boycutt all they want, in their attempt to deny us our most basic rights - such as
freedom of speech - here in Denmark. However, I, and all other Danish people are just free to boycutt all the
Muslim businesses and products here in the country. I and many other Danes now boycutt all the muslim stores
and products, and maybe there should be a userbox for that also. "Boycutt the Islamic democracy-haters!" would
be a great title. -- Karl Meier 22:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Seriously, I'm already on record as supporting including the images in the article, but... no. Claiming to support free
expression in Europe while simultaneously denouncing free expression in the Muslim world is hypocrisy. --Guppy313
17:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
You can boycott whatever you want. We don't care. It's not like your business is that profitable. The Danes made
no mistake. --Candide, or Optimism 17:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
219
Guppy, Americans are entitled to support Danish products as an expression of their support for the cartoons, just as Muslims
are entitled to boycott Danish products as expression of their opposition to the cartoons. Both actions are an example of "free
expression", and neither is an attack on it. Babajobu 17:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC) NO, i wont get the userbox thing. It is too
stupid.66.225.141.5 18:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Kåre Bluitgen
In the original cartoons, two artists poked fun at Bluitgen's claims. Were there suspiscions in Denmark before the cartoons ran
that Bluitgen was being dishonest about the extent of the Islmaic chilling effect?
Lotsofissues 15:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the insistence of having a childrens book with pictures of Muhammed despite the religious controversy was seen
as a sort of pulbicity stunt (though personally I think it comes from an honest wish to give knowledge across
cultures/religions), and with the Danish "Jantelov" in mind he was open to (innocent) ridicule himself. Poulsen 16:07, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
Given reason for neutrality dispute?
Lotsofissues 16:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Anonymous_editor, please stop putting the neutrality tag on the article, or otherwise justify here why it is needed. While there
is controversy over the image, I haven't seen anyone complain that the article is not NPOV. If there is anything you think isn't
neutral in the text, fix it instead of putting the neutral tag on. You can't put the neutral tag on an article just because you don't
like it. Thparkth 16:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Good Article status?
It seems to me that at this point, this article seems to meet the criteria for a Good article. It's pretty well-written, has an
abundance of factual accuracy, is relatively NPOV, (That is, the only POV charge appears to do with showing the picture as
opposed to not showing it.) the vandals seemed to of stopped for the most part suddenly and there are so many people to
revert it that it is relatively stable, it has a huge amount of references, and of course, images. Should we self-nominate this at
220
Wikipedia:Good articles/Self-nominations? Homestarmy 16:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Brint it on!! (Lipatden 16:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC))
Ban the vandals!
Ban the vandals that keep vandalizing the article! --Candide, or Optimism 16:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
WE WONT BE SILENCED! JESUS DIDN'T LAUGH AND NEITHER DID MUHAMMAD! Plus, it's a proven
scientific fact that pictures steal your soul. THEY DO! CARTOONISTS WANT TO STEAL MUHAMMAD'S
SOUL! AIIIIEEEEEEEEEE!
The Ten Revert Rule
IP 88.105.24.134 just hit ten reverts, if any admin happens to think that's too many. Babajobu 16:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!! --Candide, or Optimism 16:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Just a bit too many... Here's some info on the IP.
inetnum: 88.104.0.0 - 88.107.255.255 netname: DSL-TISCALI-UK descr: Tiscali UK Ltd descr: Milton Keynes descr:
Dynamic DSL country: GB admin-c: TU935-RIPE tech-c: TU935-RIPE status: ASSIGNED PA mnt-by: TU935-RIPE-MNT
source: RIPE # Filtered Hitokirishinji 16:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
We Are All Danes Now
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/740
Danish power! Go Denmark! I love Denmark! --Candide, or Optimism 17:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I think we should concentrate on the article... --Powerpete 17:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
221
Agreed, Annitas, it's not that I disagree with some of the underlying sentiments, but this talkpage is absolutely no
place for it. Babajobu 17:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Refer to Annitas: No I im not in Denmark! Im not Danes >.< (I support patriotism, but this is not a place for it. I'm sorry)
66.225.141.5 18:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Unfinished's Original Research
Unfinished's OR and personal POV essay needs to come out. A section like this would be fine, but it needs to be sourced and
coherent. Babajobu 17:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Babajobu , the section written by me has been removed twice , by excuses like badly-written or lack of resources . I think
those r not reasonable Excuses to remove the Entire section ... I think u couldn,t get a perfect article if users here insist not to
hear the other viewpoint . The section that i wrote contains general information known to most ppl in middle east , and u can
find many resources to this speech in arabic media ... is that good if i bring u arabic articles talking about this subject ??!!
--Unfinishedchaos 18:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
UnfinishedChaos, your addition had the appearance of a personal essay, and violated WP:NOR. Citations and
attributions are crucial in an article like this, particularly in a section giving us a rundown on "what Muslims think".
The article really was ridden with grammatical errors, misspellings, punctuation problems, and so on, so it would
probably be best to paste something like that to the talk page first so that people can deal with the stylistic issues before
we insert it into the article. As for the citations, people seem to have different opinions about whether English citations
are necessary. My own opinion is that foreign language citations are fine, though of course English sources are
preferable. But you made so many sweeping statements in your essay, it's hard for me to imagine a single Arabic source
to which you could attribute all your observations, so it would probably require several sources. But if you want to try
again, with citations and attributions, of course go for it! Babajobu 18:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Unfinished, if you can find some sources to back up what you say - which should be pretty easy since I'm sure it's true I (and Homestarmy and no doubt others) will be happy to help you with any English language issues. Sources might
include online newspaper articles or editorials which express some of the same points you made. Thparkth 18:48, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
222
The funny thing was I was in the middle of correcting that paragraph's grammer and stuff and adding Citation needed
marks, then I got halfway done, and then learned it had been deleted -__-. If you can get some citations for that thing i'll
correct the grammer and spelling for you. Homestarmy 18:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
A Proven Uncensored Source
I heard the fuss about these cartoons and hunted around the websites of newspapers etc to see for myself without any luck.
Then I though 'ah ha, Wikipedia will have this' and so it proved. Well done Wikipedia, you are coming of age! Philmurray
17:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
This page is 63 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see
article size.
A separate Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhummad cartoons controversy, similar to the timeline of the French riots
of late last year, which can be merged back in if necessary after the rate of change has died down but is pretty necessary
at the moment, 63kb in length... What does anyone think? Jdcooper 18:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
It is getting rather long, a seperate timeline (or some other part of the article perhaps) sound good. Al3xander 18:04, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
A Timeline seems to jump out as the best candidate. Or how about also placing the two open letters on
wikisource, leaving only the very relavant quotes? Jdcooper 18:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok right, i did it, but can anyone help me make it more prominent? For me the timeline was the most interesting bit of
the original article, i think it should be more prominent than just a link in the See also section. Jdcooper 18:17, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
NAZI Picture
Whoever keeps putting the nazi picture on the article should either grow up or go home. slamdac 18:19, 2 February 2006
(UTC)
223
In a similar strain, should any contributor out there living in Germany (where displaying a swastika is illegal)
wish to file a complaint with the ISP behind the address 212.202.233.2, here is the info:
Type: PERSON Name: The QSC Hostmaster Address: QSC AG Address: Mathias-Brueggen-Str. 55 City: Koeln Pcode:
50829 Country: DE Phone: +492216698000 Fax: +492216698009 Email: [email protected] Changed:
2005-10-20T10:12:07+0200 Source: DENIC
Just an observation
Something I find interesting is that the prohibition against depicting Muhammad (or any religious figure) in Islam is tied with
the desire to keep idolatry from entering into the hearts and minds of the people. While these cartoons may not have been
respectful of the Muslim viewpoint(in fact, one ought to be clear on that - they weren't), it seems like the chance of anyone,
Muslim or otherwise, worshipping these cartoons as graven images or idols, is pretty low, given their subject matter.
While it seems pretty clear that a good portion of the Muslim world is enraged beyond belief at these cartoons, something I
would like to ask the Muslim readership of this page is: if the prohibition is meant to keep idolatry away, why such a
ferocious controversy over these particular cartoons?
Faseidman 18:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
POV
it seems that the POV here is Expaining the muslim's viewpoint , so i will put the section just here , hoping it won,t be
removed saying it is unsourced POV section , in spite all the article is POV :
Muslims' Viewpoint
The following text is by User:Unfinishedchaos, the bracketed, caps text is comments added by
User:Babajobu.--Anchoress 21:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
224
Many Muslims were offended by the publication of the Muhammad cartoons. This anger has been expressed in public
protests in Arabic and Islamic countries. Muslims claim [[MUSLIMS AS A WHOLE DO NOT CLAIM ANYTHING; NO
GROUP SPEAKS IN ONE VOICE] that this anger isn't directed against freedom of speech [WHO CLAIMS THIS?] - as the
western media represent the issue [THE WESTERN MEDIA DOES NOT SPEAK IN ONE VOICE EITHER, AND
DIFFERENT MEDIA OUTLETS HAVE REPRESENTED THE CONFLICT IN DIFFERENT WAYS] - but rather against an
insult to all Muslims, since the cartoons represent their Prophet [DO NOT CAPITALIZE PROPHET, AS PER NPOV] as
terrorist and criminal [THE ARTISTS DENY THEY WERE REPRESENTING MUHAMMAD IN SUCH A WAY; CITE
SOMEONE WHO HAS ASSERTED OTHERWISE, YOU CANNOY SIMPLY ASSERT THAT THEY HAVE
REPRESENTED HIM AS "A TERRORIST AND A CRIMINAL"]. According to Muslim opinion [AGAIN, NO SUCH
THING AS A MONOLITHIC "MUSLIM OPINION"], the drawing of Prophet Muhammad [[CALL HIM MUHAMMAD IN
A SECULAR ENCYCLOPEDIA, NOT "THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD", JUST AS WE DO NOT CALL THE
MORMONS' PROPHET "PROPHET JOSEPH SMITH", EVEN THOUGH THEY DO] is not acceptable (actually, pictures
of all prophets including Jesus and Moses are forbidden in Islam) [APPARENTLY SOME SHI'ITES BELIVE
DIFFERENTLY; ISLAM IS DIVERSE]. Additionally they object the way in which Prophet Muhammad has been
represented as a terrorist [AGAIN, ARTISTS CLAIM OTHERWISE], which means in their opinion that all Muslims are
terrorists [ATTRIBUTE THIS OPINION TO SOMEONE]. For Muslims a message of Hate is sent by those cartoons, and
they frankly express the modern Islamophobia spreading in the western world [YOU CANNOT ASSERT THAT THERE IS
"ISLAMOPHOBIA SPREADING IN THE WESTERD WORLD". HERE YOU ATTRIBUTE IT TO CLINTON, BUT CITE
HIM AS AFFIRMING THE TRUTH OF THE NOTION, RATHER THAN JUST STATING THAT HE SAID IT. STILL, A
STEP IN RIGHT DIRECTION], as President Clinton said .
Many Muslims think that the Jyllands Posten should be punished by the Danish Government, and make comparisons to the
charges that have been made against writers descriped as anti-semitic in Europe [WHAT GOVERNMENT CHARGES? THE
DANISH GOVERNMENT HAS NOT PUNISHED ANYONE FOR "ANTI-SEMITISM". WHAT ARE YOU TALKING
ABOUT SPECIFICALLY?]
Most European and American media supports the newspaper and considers the issue to be one of Freedom of Speech, which
is one of the most important traditions in the Western, secular world. For them Muhammad should dealt with as any other
religious figure - even in satirical cartoons, just like Jesus and Buddha. They believe that Muslims have no right to enforce
censorship of the media. Most European and American media supports the newspaper and considers the issue to be one of
Freedom of Speech, which is one of the most important traditions in the Western, secular world. For them Muhammad should
dealt with as any other religious figure - even in satirical cartoons, just like Jesus and Buddha. They believe that Muslims
have no right to enforce censorship of the media. Line 1344: Line 1350: For some Muslims, the publication of these pictures
225
is seen as racist. For Many muslims there is no problem with criticism of Islamic belief, rules or behaviour, and there is no
prolem either with making fun of religious people, but presenting the prophet Muhammed - who is an ideal for all Muslims as a terrorist, suggests that all Muslims are fundamentalists and extremeists. They believe that this is a message of hate and
intolerance and therefore that goverments shouldn't accepted such behaviour from the media . For some Muslims, the
publication of these pictures is seen as racist. For Many muslims there is no problem with criticism of Islamic belief, rules or
behaviour, and there is no prolem either with making fun of religious people, but presenting the prophet Muhammed - who is
an ideal for all Muslims - as a terrorist, suggests that all Muslims are fundamentalists and extremeists. They believe that this
is a message of hate and intolerance and therefore that goverments shouldn't accepted such behaviour from the media .
could u edit it to suit ur criteria ??? --Unfinishedchaos 18:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Unfinished Chaos, I put bracketed notes in the first two paragraphs of your essay. Take a look, if you are interested. Babajobu
18:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunently, someone is editing this talk page so quickly I can't get in a word edge-wise :/ Homestarmy 18:49, 2 February
2006 (UTC)
nice notes Babajobu ... firstly about the Charges from Danish goverment ... I just express ideas that puplic protests said ... I
understand fully the situation of Danish goverment which is in critical position .
Concerning "Most... American media supports the newspaper and considers the issue to be one of Freedom of Speech,"
I haven't seen a major US newspaper come out emphatically on the side of the JP, and I don't see, say, the Washington
Post or New York Times publishing these pictures; I doubt any paper that did not publish Janet Jackson's "wardrobe
malfunction" would publish these drawings (it'd be a double standard if they did, IMO). If there's an example of a major
newspaper in the US publishing the pictures or otherwise taking a strong stance in favor of the publications, I'd like to
see the sources. --Guppy313 20:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
about other important note , [ THE ARTISTS DENY THEY WERE REPRESENTING MUHAMMAD IN SUCH A WAY;
CITE SOMEONE WHO HAS ASSERTED OTHERWISE, YOU CANNOY SIMPLY ASSERT THAT THEY HAVE
REPRESENTED HIM AS "A TERRORIST AND A CRIMINAL"].
that is really unreasonable , when u picture muhammad with a Bomb and when picture it saying we have no virgins , and
when u picture him with two veiled women ... u frankly say that muhammad learns muslims how to kill and make terrorism ..
226
isn,t that obvious .
u say that all islam sects and schools say that women must cover all her head and she should stay in home ... ya that is the
understanding of group of muslims , but i find it historical and ignorant understanding , but now ur artists come to make all
muslims terrorists and ignorant and uncivilized ... the POV is in the pics themselves . have i clarified that ?
other notes is accepted and i can work to make them better --Unfinishedchaos 19:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
[1] [2] ``A few of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons link the prophet to terrorism, said Tyge Trier [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]
The pictures are noting but the cartoonist POV
There would be no logic for the article without the pictures; the pictures are out there, and are the reason for some current
events. The position is not a problem, top or bottom. For my self I understand the feeling of hundreds of millions of Moslems,
but still the cold fact holds The Pictures Exist. All religions suffer the same, no need to put links for hundreds of offensive
pictures for other religions to prove that. Yet, it could be easily miss understood that these pictures are actually Mohammad’s;
THEY ARE NOT, the article should be clear that these are not an actual pictures or representations of Mohammed, and they
reflect nothing but the cartoonist POV. The article in the current form, gives the wrong impression that they are so. And by
such, we are manipulating the facts, and giving our own interpolations of the facts. We are not after a religion or a character,
nor are we after the cartoonist, we simply after the cold facts. --Tarawneh 18:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I have seen numerous claims that these pictures are considered considered racist? islam is a religion, not a race. --Neim18:50,
Yes, I find my 2 year child scratches artistic, but lets stick to the point; I am talking about misleading information
in the article. --Tarawneh 20:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
how could make hating jews anti-semitism ...jew is religion not a race --Unfinishedchaos 18:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Please Tarawneh , could u correct the last section grammatically and i will support it with refrences and resources later
227
..Thanks --Unfinishedchaos 18:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Jew's are considered both a race and religion, so you can be both an ethnic Jew and a Jew religiously, you could be a Jew
ethnically but not be one religiously, or be one religiously and not ethnically. Homestarmy 19:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
There is only one word for "jew", whether you are speaking of a practitioner of the religion or a member of an ethnic group.
Muslims include many ethnic groups, from Arabs to Slavs, including Asians and Africans. So a statement pertaining to Islam
cannont be categorically called "racist". -- anonymous
I find it hard to believe that jews of Europe and jews of Yemen can make one Ethnic group , if u make really scientific study
you find that jews are ppl from different races and i cannot consider them a race , but anyway not to go away from our
subject : u can name that anything instead of racism ..u can call it islamophobia or Hating of muslims .. or anything
..regardless of the Concept ... but don,t u feel that these pics carry this message ?! --Unfinishedchaos 19:38, 2 February 2006
(UTC)
This issue makes for a very interesting theological discussion
What would Muhammad think about this satirical drawings? Would he laugh and deem them irrelevant? Would he get really
angry? I think Muhammad would have laughed really hard at the cartoons, maybe throw a fart or two in the process and
proceed to take care of more important issues.
Notes on why viewing the image could be considered sinful by Muhammad)
Baba and others -- thanks for your question. I think Muslims are now conflating the injunction
not to make or circulate images of animate beings with the desire to at least speak out when
wrong is done. (Both of these points are emphasized in Islam.)
Every religious tradition has stuff that's "off limits" -- satirizing the Prophet by means of a
political cartoon would appear to score a bull's eye in that regard as far as Islam is concerned. I
don't know of any specific ruling that equates viewing such an image with punishment in hell
(and keep in mind that I was, above, merely trying to convey how seriously the ban on
illustration of the Prophet is taken.)
228
However, note for comparison that the Prophet forbade the depiction of any human face, and
ordered that such images be erased. [10]. So presumably intentionally viewing a drawing of a
human face, rather than erasing it, would be considered a sin by some scholars. (I'm speaking
only as a lay person here, certainly not as a scholar -- how these traditions get applied to
contemporary situations is something for professionals, but I'm giving you my best take on this
because you asked.)
Magazines purchased exclusively for the images depicting animate beings that they contain
(even seemingly benign images) are regarded by at least one scholar as haram [11], which
would suggest that staring at such images in a magazine would be haram as well. It's hard for
me to see how an exception could be made for the case of staring at an image created
expressly to ridicule and denigrate Islam.
Speaking personally, I am trying to steer clear of prolonged visual encounters with the
controversial image for just this reason.
The more general fault of failing to speak out (or take action) when Islam is defamed might
well be considered a sin, but I couldn't find anything on this.
Images of prophets or holy people are generally associated with shirk, the most serious sin of
all [12], and are thus shunned with particular intensity.
These are some of the reasons it seems to me that displaying or otherwise sudying
disrespectful images of one of the Prophets would be, to this believer's way of thinking,
anyway, "off the charts." As it were. Peace, BYT 18:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. That's very interesting. Is there not an additional taboo (perhaps only cultural) about depicting Muhammad over
another Prophet? Would these images be worse than the offensive images of Jesus for example? --JGGardiner 19:01, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
Pictures
229
Nobody can insult a person who is important for more tham 1.3 billion people ion the world. Insult is different from freedom
of speech. I ask you be more consious about what you are doing.
Prophet Mohammed cannot be pictured as the cartoon suggested as he has no action which can be caricaturized that way.
Please note that this is taking us towards the clush of civilizations... Resid Gulerdem 19:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Then how about I delete the entire section on Islam, as it inults a person who is important to 1 billion people in the
world, because Islam does not claim Jesus as the Messiah. Your argument is ridiculous. Not to mention that a general
consensus here says that the picture stays, so you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia customs and courtesies.
Deleting information against the will of the community is considered vandalism. You have been warned. --Maverick
19:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
YOu do not know anything about Islam. Islam accepts Jesaus as Messiah! Resid Gulerdem 19:33, 2 February
2006 (UTC) Read more and learn being respectfull!
RTFA. Isa is considered a prophet, nothing less but nothing more. Guppy313 21:00, 2 February 2006
(UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored to prevent offending people. If we had to remove everything that offends, we'd have virtually
no content. Wikipedia is not guided by the various parameters of the world's religions as to what is offensive and what
is not. Instead, Wikipedia is guided by Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. We can talk about this, but engaging in
revert warring is not the way to go about doing it. --Durin 19:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, not to seem too mean about it, but not only can people insult someone who is important for 1.3 billion
people, but the entire point of this article is to detail the non-fiction situation in which people did do it. Furthermore, it seems
the cartoonists disagreed that Muhammad has never done anything to warrent those characitures, as, well, they did the
cartoons anyway how they wanted to do them :/. Homestarmy 19:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The illustrations themselves are only part of the story.
230
While the images are offensive to some people, the greater issue the origional newspaper was discussing was the
self-censorship of Danish artists. Therefore the illustrations are only part of that story (and come on the heels of several other
works that inpired similar reactions from the islamic world). Therefore, in my opinion, this article should stand, WITH the
images, but only be part of a larger article detailing the history that brought about the newspaper article and the resulting
boycotts etc. While these particular images are a big deal, the Theo Van Gogh film/murder are part of the same story... this is
obvious if you read the article that accompanies the origional images.
So the argument that the images are integral to this article i see as correct, but this article is only part of a larger story. One
that can be told on WP (and read by muslims) without neccesarily viewing the images.
Oo7jeep 19:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Eddie
Opinion i Arabic countries
Under opinions, there is a section about the international opinion and the opinion in Denmark. However nothing about the
opinion in the muslim world... At the moment it seems like the arabic world speaks with one voice, however there must be
differences in opinion. Could we elaborate on this... This probably requires someone who understands arabic (which is why I
don't do it myself), to translate/quote articles from the arabic press... Kjaergaard 19:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Unfinishedchaos is working on it I think, we're trying to work on it together somewhat but we need sources, it's a few topics
above this one. Homestarmy 19:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
One of the problems with Unfinished's essay was that it repeatedly asserted that the Muslim world DOES speak with
one voice, which is poppycock, as evidenced by this very talk page. I left some notes in his essay here, hopefully we
can get a good section on opinion in the Muslim world. Babajobu 19:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
ALERT: Constant reverts
The reverting to remove the contested image was earlier being done by anon-IPs. I then semi-protected the page against
unregistered and new users. Now, the revert war has gone on to include non-new users. This issue should be discussed on this
talk page. If the reverting keeps up, myself or someone else will be forced to protect the page. We don't work out differences
of opinion here by revert warring. Please, stop. --Durin 19:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
231
Durin, the problem is that there is a relatively solid consensus among users that the image should be kept. Some IPs
were removing/reverting 8, 9, 10 times, and a couple registered users have reverted/removed, too, but reading the talk
page and looking at edit history make clear that a large majority of editors prefer keeping the image. There's really not
much left to "work out" in that respect. People just need to stop removing the image against consensus, and we need to
be tougher on the IPs that do it a crazy number of times. A strawpoll would back this consensus up, if we took one.
Maybe we need to, to make the consensus undeniable. Babajobu 19:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Short on time. How about you craft it up please? --Durin 19:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Due to ongoing revert warring despite repeated encouragements not to do so, The article is now protected for the time
being. --Durin 19:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Freedom of speech meaning you can bash other peoples’ religion?!
I mean yes, we all have the right to say what we believe in, but no, we all have to respect other people’s feeling and be
responsible for what we said. In a lot of Europe country, posting this comic strip as to seen without the freedom of speech, but
without realizing this is a lot of insult to a lot of people regardless of being Muslim or not, and promote that all Muslim are
like the Muhammad in the comic strip. They didn’t realize that in Muslim world people don’t have any figure or Allah or the
Prophets as to avoid the worship of the idol (just like in some chapter of Holy Bible that God tell Moses that if Moses see god
face Moses would die, and this is my assumption, and I need people who really know this kind of knowledge to correct that.)
And yes, being a popular newspaper in Demark, Jylland-Posten do somehow representing the country as a lot Dane take the
newspaper a resource. The is not only the problem of freedom and speech, but also how should work ethic in media to
balance in the freedom of speech or how people should believe what they take in.
Another question: If people make the Christian God and make him look like porn actress or poo (as the say the Western world
is all trash or equivalent) and try to post it into Time Magazine or Washington Post, do you think editor would even take it?!
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.225.141.5 (talk • contribs) .
Check the Piss Christ article, maybe Time Magazine doesn't take it, but wikipedia does! Al3xander 19:32, 2 February
2006 (UTC)
Yes, I believe an American or European newspaper would publish such a thing. Most other cultures don't have such
hangups and can keep track of the difference between satire and hostility. They don't see a need to go on rioting sprees
and threatening everyone in sight every time they see something they do not agree with. --StuffOfInterest 19:33, 2
232
February 2006 (UTC)
The issue of whether the WaPo or Time would publish such cartoons is beside the point; however, if they did, and there
was a resulting controversy about those images, then I would think that Wikipedia would _of course_ show those
images in the article page on it. Sol. v. Oranje 19:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
And check the Jerry Springer Opera...a homosexual Jesus in a diaper. Yes, once and for all, FREEDOM OF
SPEECH MEANS FREEDOM TO BASH RELIGION! Babajobu 19:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree that it is pretty unreasonable to use freedom of speech simply to bash religion as it solves nothing, gains
nothing, and only makes things worse pretty much. But sometimes when one religion addresses another, their not bashing the
other religion, they are making legitimate critisisms. Of course, if it's a particularily angry opinion it might be hard to see
these critisisms, but many times, they are there. Bashing religions with blanket statements which are false and make no sense
and are only done out of hate and despisement are one thing, but lodging a complaint against, say, ancient Greek religions
such as "There can be no Gods that exist solely inside the universe, since none of them could be infinitly powerful inside an
environment constrained by universal laws and without infinite power they couldn't be immortal, therefore, no Gods can be
on Mount Olympus, and Greek religion is compleatly fake". is quite another entirely, the premise might ultimately be false, (I
don't really know, maybe its a straw man or something, it's just a famous Atheist argument and it's very useful against
small-time tribal type religions.) but it is done earnestly and with a real argument, so then the end result should end up
favorable. Like today, Greek religions with Zeus and all those weird ideas is thankfully compleatly destroyed as far as I
know, though admittedly, much of that was because of Christianity moving in rather than secular critisism.
On the thing in the Bible, the reason Moses would of died was because if Moses looked at God's real face, it would of been so
increadible Moses would of not been able to look at it and survive, sort of like epileptic seizures, except here you've got
infinitly powerful force blasting your brain out. No chance of survival whatsoever. That might not be exactly what it said
though, im pretty sure i've got the main idea right however. But im not sure what that has to do with idols, God's face is not an
idol, it's God's face. Idols have been a problem in Christianity too, such as worship of statues of Mary or something, but
simply making drawings is not the same thing as making an idol, and furthermore Muhammad's likeness in these cartoons just
doesn't strike me as that increadibly great as to make anyone want to worship it. I know I sure won't, I don't like Islam very
much personally and would never bow down before Muhammad or the Qu'ran definition of God, but that is an entirely
different issue. Homestarmy 19:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Sure, sometimes it is unproductive and dumb to bash religion. When people have freedom to speak their mind,
sometimes they'll say unproductive, dumb things. Freedom of speech is not restricted to "freedom to say helpful
233
things." Babajobu 20:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, yes. That's exactly what freedom of speech means. You can say anything you want without legal impunity.
Unfortunately, no country on the planet goes by that definition.
I guess if so than if a person say "God ban sex and said we are so holy that we dont deserve sex" or "Juses
promote people to be door mat" (as an example, this is a if), what would that person become????
people should learn that it's only sticks and stones that break bones, words and pictures will never hurt you.
Im not saying they can't literally bash religion with no reason, im just saying it's unreasonable, whether you have the right to
do it or not :/. I dunno, it just seems to me that taking the time to make a rational argument would be more productive and be
more helpful. Homestarmy 22:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
My Idea to solve the Problem
1. Move the picture to the Publication of the Pictures section 2. Provide a warning at the top of the page to say that the
pictures will be lower in the article. 3. Make it clear that Wikipedia is not a muslim encyclopedia but a western one with
different cultural standards that the muslim world may not like.
Therefore people could make an informed decision. (slamdac)
I seriously disagree with number three. We shouldn't take any sort of stand on this issue whatsoever, merely provide
information in a neutral and unbiased manner. If anything, we should clarify that we don't have an opinion regarding
whether these images are offensive or not, whether they should be banned or not, etc. We merely provide information
for educational purposes, with the exception of being bound by the laws of Florida and the United States where the
servers are hosted. —Gabbe 19:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
:I'm fine with moving the images down to the Publication section; however, I also feel we may need larger images of the
cartoons (or a sampling of them) in addition to the small 26kb newspaper page scan. Sol. v. Oranje 19:47, 2 February 2006
(UTC)
234
Your idea is thoughtful, but I fail to see how it is better than the position of the image as it is now. As I have stated
elsewhere, the very fact that the article is named "Muhammad Cartoon" should be adequate warning that this article do,
in fact, contain drawings of Muhammad. If those muslims who get offended don't get the message the first time around,
why should they get the message the second or third time? Furthermore, IFAIK it's the very exsistance of those
drawings that seem to insult those muslims that believe very strongly in prohibiting drawings of Muhammad, and
therefore I fail to see how a new position, or hiding it behind a link, makes the "insult" less.
Therefore, I say that we keep the image where it is. It is in accordance with wikipedia style and tradition (AFAIK) and
apropriate because those drawings are the very essence of this entire story. The.valiant.paladin 19:50, 2 February 2006
(UTC)
The problem seems to be that precedent is inconsistent on whether to move a controversial/potentially offensive
image "below the fold." Both sides so far have linked to articles where offensive images were at the top, others
with the images moved down to the middle, and so far one example where the same subject has different picture
placements depending on the language of the article. Before we discuss whether to move the picture down from
the top, there should probably be a sitewide standard fixed on whether or not pictures should be moved down in
any article. Guppy313 21:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Two questions: Racism and Islamic Tradition
In the first sentence of the second paragraph, the text states "many Muslims in Denmark and elsewhere view them as
provocative and racist". But Islam is not a race. Isn't this an incorrect characterization?
Secondly, what is the source of the ban on depicting Islamic prophets? I can't find any sourcing for this. Is it in the Koran? If
not, what is the source? Valtam 19:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, for my part, I just changed "racist" to "Islamophobic". I agree, Islam is not a race, just like Christianity or
Buddhism is not a race, and the proper adjectives should be used. Sol. v. Oranje 19:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Whew. That was a quick change! Thanks, Soldaatvanoranje! Valtam 19:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
No problemo! Sol. v. Oranje 19:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
See Q&A: Depicting the Prophet Muhammad for clarity —Gabbe 19:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Gabbe. So if I understand it correctly, the Koran bans any images of God/Allah as well as the worship of
idols. In addition, over the years, oral tradition has also led to the ban of the depiction of all Jewish, Christian and
Muslim prophets. Dipicting any living creature is also discouraged.
235
What about different branches of Islam? I read somewhere that Shi'ites do not ban depictions of Mohammed, etc. And does
the ban apply only to Muslims? Or does the ban mean that no human being may depict Mohammed, etc.? Thanks for the
education, all! Valtam 19:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Nice find Gabbe! Homestarmy 19:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Depends, Valtam - if the muslims in Denmark (and elsewhere) view it as racicm, they view it as racism. Whether
or not they attach the 'correct' (e.g. a form of discrimination based on race, especially the belief that one race is
superior to another) meaning to "racism" is a totally different thing - and would perhaps warrant an editor's note.
What's the source on that statement?--Discus2000 19:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I do know a bit about Islamic law, but the specifics about illustrating God/The Prophet/People-in-general is not
really my specialty :). All I can say is that with billions of adherants, Islam is not monolithic. There exists a plethora of
differing and condradictory viewpoints on how to interpret religious law, just as there is in Christianity or Judaism.
Someone with more in-depth knowledge should be consulted about this... —Gabbe 20:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Rgulerdem Continues to Remove Image of Cartoons]]
Rgulerdem continues to remove the images of the cartoons from the article, and inserts text claiming that showing these
images will lead to a "clash of civilizations" with 1.3 billion Muslims. We need people to keep an eye on the article and make
sure the image remains. Sol. v. Oranje 19:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually he said "clush". I will warn him about a potential WP:3RR block on his talk page. In the same vein, I will
repeat that people should refrain from unnecessary insults, particularly in edit summaries. This edit war is ridiculously
heated enough without it. --DDG
Apologies, but I had been dealing with these reverts all day yesterday and it's beyond frustrating trying to keep
the article with the image _and_ dealing with seemingly bizarre (and mistyped, hehehe) threats against Western
civilization. I'll be more diplomatic in the future. Sol. v. Oranje 19:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
236
Pictures
There is no reason to keep those pictures there. We can discuss without them as well. Why we dont discuss if they are insultt
before posting them there?
Yes, I am saying that these pictures are a step toward a clush of civilization. We need understanding each other and emphaty.
I ask you be more consious!
I am also saying that this is an insult. An insult cannot be placed into a wiki article. That is agains the rules and common
sense. Resid Gulerdem 19:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
First of all, it's "Clash" of civilizations. There is no English word of "clush". Secondly, we _have_ been discussing the
use of the cartoon image in this discussion page; however, you chose to ignore it and went on to remove the image from
the article numerous times, way before any consensus had been achieved on the discussion page.
Wikipedia, furthermore, was not created to never "offend" anyone, and a lot of its content could be seen as
controversial to people with all sorts of different religions, politics, and cultures. This is because Wikipedia's true
culture lies in the distribution of _information_, not in reverting back to a Dark Ages where taboos were used to keep
people in the dark and misinformed about the world. As much as you may personally find these images disturbing, the
majority of the planet does not, and furthermore, they may wish to view the images to understand what the controversy
is about. Who knows -- they may end up agreeing with you that the pictures are wrong, but if they never see them, they
will never get to make that decision for themselves.
Lastly, please stop threatening some conflict between civilizations. That's a threat of violence, and frankly it has no
place in Wikipedia and makes you look like an extremist. Which is, ironically, what the whole point of these cartoons
was about. Sol. v. Oranje 19:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
But the insult was already printed from a separate source, we're just reporting it, that's different than Wikipedia or a
member making up an insult. Also, what is a clush? Furthermore, considering what i've heard about the Muslim
end-of-world view, basically, the hope is that the entire world will be 'united' under Islam, so I don't see what the new
problems is here. Homestarmy 19:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
237
I was wondering: is this a lot of edits on Wiki?
I mean 6000-7000 edits in 5 days on a single page, does that count as a lot on Wiki? Is that record suspect? I imagine that
subjects like US election 2004 and the London bombing also have had that many? Is there a page on wiki that list such “over
edited “ pages? Twthmoses 20:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Admins can find this out with database queries... I'm not certain that there's a running list anywhere. --Dante Alighieri |
Talk 20:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I recall one of the most edited pages was the one about the previous Pope. Current event pages tend to be highly
edited like that. If I recall correctly, there was an article about that on one of the editions of the Wikipedia
Signpost. --cesarb 20:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe there were over 1500 edits to the Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince in a single day (July
16th). --DDG 20:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Misinformation
...Muhammad as a pedophile demon [6], the second shows Muhammed with a pig snout [7] and the third depicts a praying
Muslim being raped by a dog[8][citation needed].
See (da) here and here AlEX 20:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Any objection to my adding this reference to the article whilst it is protected? Uncle G 21:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Not at all, and it is once again unprotected (for now). I am not sure which link to use, as the real one is in danish, but
the english one links to it. AlEX 21:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Be more conscious!
Grown ups are aware of their responsibilities. They generally has some emphaty. Do you have those?
You are not aware of what you are serving to! Would you like the world be a better place or full of fights and wars.
238
We can have a livible place only if we can respect others. Let us not insult values of eachother! That is what grown ups do, or
should do!
Those attempts only increase tension among the civilizations! If you are for peace in the world please reconsider where this
discussion is going to. Not only here in Wiki, but worldwide!
Best. Resid Gulerdem 20:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Resid, I'll repeat what others have said, Wikipedia is not the AUTHOR of the images that you find offensive, it is
DOCUMENTING a controversy. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
We should not report an insult, isnt this clear? Resid Gulerdem 20:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Resid, where exactly IS 'this discussion going to'? Valtam 20:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
It is going unhappiness and discomport in our lives, everywhere. This kind of attemps founds a base for further terorrist
attacs. We should be careful about the people selling themselve as representatives of West and freedom, or Muslims. THere
are stupids among them and they will ruin our lives. Resid Gulerdem 20:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Unhappiness and discomfort are things everyone has to deal with. I'm confused about the rest of what you said.
Valtam 20:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
We are dealing with unhappiness in our lives but we do not create them ourselves. We shoudln't, right?
What I am trying to say is, I am afraid that, this kind of insults, can provide a reason for radical terrorists
for their further attacks to Western civilization. In turn Muslims are being blamed for what terorrists do! Is
that clear this time? Resid Gulerdem 20:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Resid. My opinion is that radical terrorists think they have enough reasons for attacking the
West, with or without the cartoons. I also think that if Muslims do not want to be blamed for what
terrorists do, the Muslim community should stop the terrorism. Valtam 21:15, 2 February 2006
(UTC)
And that is where you are completely wrong. Killing innocent peope is terrorism either pretending like you are
fighting against the terrorism or not. Muslims are far from terrorism. Hitler was killing millions of Jews but never
mentioned as a Christian terrorist. Sharon killed many people in Philistine but never named as Jewish terrorist.
239
Can you see the point? When I say radical terrorist I do not mean Muslim, because they are nothing to do with
terrorism. I mean terrorists who claim they are fighting for Islam. At the same time, I definitely include the
terrorists in black costumes in some capital cities walking like great heros ot the time... Resid Gulerdem 21:41, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
We don't want peace with them. As this insanity proves, they're batshit crazy
Furthermore, they are not asking us to respect their beliefs, they are expecting us to adhere to them. --Vagodin
Talk
20:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC
Yes we should respect eachother! Resid Gulerdem 20:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Please respect the rights of the artists and newspapers to publish these images. If you do not wish to view the images on
wiki, use Alt-F4 to close your browser. Neim 20:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Noone has a right to insult others. That is the most fundamental point of democracy! Resid Gulerdem 20:27, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Insults are protected by freedom of speech. --Vagodin Talk 20:34, 2 February
2006 (UTC)
Wrong, Resid. The ability to criticize and insult other is a much more fundamental point of democracy than
"No one has a right to insult others."Valtam 20:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Resid, where on earth do you get that? Seriously, I'm very interested to know where you picked up the idea
that the most fundamental point of democracy is freedom from insult. --Lukobe 21:02, 2 February 2006
(UTC)
As a mac user, I'm offended by that. --DDG 20:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Translation
"Profet! Med kuk og knald i låget som holder kvinder under åget!". In English the poem could be read as: "Prophet! daft and
dumb, keeping woman under thumb"
This translation of "kuk og knald i låget" as "daft and dumb" is too negative.. i would say "kuk og knald i låget" means to be
crazy.
240
It may have been unfortunate to translate into English doggerel. But English daft does mean "crazy", or at least
"eccentric" . Could you translate word for word? Septentrionalis 20:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
"knald i låget" means "To have a tile loose", "kuk i låget" would be translated similarly--Discus2000 20:33, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. I too think "dumb" is too negative a word. Dumb is not what is said in Danish. Daft is fine, though.
So - anybody up for a poetic retranslatation? It needs some word like daft or crazy or eccentric - preferably
one that fits the "rhythm" --Lassefolkersen 20:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
"holder kvinder under åget" means "subjugating women". "Prophet! With a loose tile and subjugating women"...
which should then be turned into a colloquialism or an idiom--Discus2000 20:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
It is hard to accurate translate into English and still stay poetic. "Prophet! daft and dumb, keeping woman under
thumb", while I agree a little to negative, is a very valid try. “Daft” is actually a translation for the entire part of "kuk og
knald i låget", and no other word is really needed.
A more true translation would be "Prophet! daft and keep woman under yoke" (as in under the yoke of a tyrant), but it
does not sound poetic anymore. Twthmoses 21:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
A more accurate translation: "FACT: Islam = Terror."
I think 'Prophet with a screw loose' would be a fair equivalent, but (although I'm a published poet), I'm having
trouble with the second part. 'Prophet with a screw loose, keeping women in your noose' might not be the best
wording.--Anchoress 21:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Temp protect on Discussion page
The formatting on the last two sections was broken, and I had to temp protect this page in order to avoid edit conflicts. The
total protection lasted less than one minute... during which I'm guessing 50-60 people couldn't post. ;) Sorry. --Dante
Alighieri | Talk 20:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
This is great
241
If the artist can drive over a billion people to utter madness with a picture, he wins. Hands down. All the endless flame wars
and trolling on wikipedia, fark, 4chan, and other big sites can't even possibly compare to a cartoon that results in crazy people
taking over an embassy. It's over, everybody. This guy has finally Won the Internet.
Oh please. We had a bigger revert war over the Harry Potter movie. --DDG 20:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
They were made by 12 artists heh, its more like Denmark has won the internet if that's the standard we're using :D
Which harry potter movie. i want to see
Drudge
Matt Drudge has posted the bomb-in-turban Mohammad picture prominently on his high traffic website. Tempshill 20:22, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
Change the picture
As the current title notes, the article is about the controversy, not the cartoons. As one of the editors for the French version of
the article put it when removing the Geert Wilders link to the large sized versions, "spam de lien, merci de ne pas le
rerajouter. L'important dans l'article ce n'est pas les caricatures elles-mêmes mais la réaction qui a suivi." ("link spam, thank
you for not putting it back. What's important in the article is not the cartoons themselves but the reaction that followed"). I'm
not so supportive of the link removal but I think that person assigned the correct priorities to the article.
There was supposedly a protest in favor of the cartoons in Denmark tonight, and I think there have already been protests
against them in the middle east. I'd like to urge that the picture at the top of the article (that's currently of the cartoons) be
replaced by a photo of the protests (maybe two photos composited side by side). That is more appropriate for the article topic
(i.e. the controversy) than the pic of the cartoons. The picture of the cartoons themselves, if included at all, should be a lot
further down in the page and thumbnailed. The article's main photo should be something that depicts the controversy. The
picture of the cartoons is secondary. 71.141.251.153 21:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Umm...the cartoons are the controversy!!--UltraSkuzzi 21:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
242
that's not correct, the controversy is the controversy. Rajab 21:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
How can you understand the controversy without seeing the cartoons? Valtam 21:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Even then I don't underestan them, but that is just my personal opinion... AlEX 21:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Not only are the cartoons the controversy, but ever since I saw the article title changed I've already
assumed it was nothing more than a "salami tactic" to slowly but surely remove and censor the article of
the cartoons in question (which are the whole entire reason for the controversy, and thus CRUCIAL to
understanding it). Sol. v. Oranje 21:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
No. The change of title was to make the title more accurately reflect the article's topic. And seeing
the cartoons is NOT crucial to understanding the controversy. I've seen them because I'm using a
graphical browser, but I sometimes use text-only browsers and I'm confident that I'd still understand
the controversy perfectly well from reading just the text descriptions. Do you really have to see a
photo of the actual blow job to understand what the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal was about?
71.141.251.153 21:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
First of all, there's a straw poll above -- that poll will determine whether the drawings will stay
or not. Go vote. Secondly, you have repeatedly compared the cartoons to photos of sexual acts
and murder, which is surreal; sorry, but political caricatures are not even in the same realm as
pictures of blowjobs, especially considering that political cartoons have the purpose of
informing debate, crafting satire, and inspiring political change and discussion -- pictures of
sexual acts rarely have that power, and can sometimes simply be tried for obscenity. There is
nothing obscene about these cartoons, many of which don't even show Mohammed or even
make fun of the entire newspaper in the first place. Removing these pictures is akin to saying
"Yeah, there was this big surge of protest about 12 little cartoons, which have caused death
threats, economic boycotts, counter-boycotts, embassy takeovers, kidnappings, and all sorts of
wonderful extremism, but NO, you can't see them because we're too scared to allow you to
make up your mind for yourself and we have to bow down to religious commands that most
Wikipedians don't even follow." Sol. v. Oranje 21:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I didn't say (at least just now) the cartoons were obscene or even offensive, I
simply said one could understand the controversy without seeing them. Second, I'm
utterly contemptuous of the notion that having a link saying "click here to see the
picture" somehow prevents people from seeing the picture. If you think providing a link
where people can view something with a single mouse click is "censorship", then you
have no comprehension at all of what real censorship is. (And I haven't even advocated
243
changing the picture to a link). 71.141.251.153 21:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Cool, I'm comteptuous of your refusal to see that the continuing "salami tactics"
that you advocate are nothing more than a slippery slope to suppression of
information. Furthermore, you know nothing about me or my experiences with
"real" censorship, so take your martyr complex elsewhere. Sol. v. Oranje 21:52, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
the gist of the article is about the immense controversy which was caused by the publication.
Understanding why this came about is an important secondary aim of the article, so this should be
explained. But the first picture should definitely not be the cartoons themselves... Rajab 21:15, 2 February
2006 (UTC)
Um, the French version has the image on the page just like here. Jacoplane 21:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
No, the gist of the article is WHY these cartoons have caused such chaos and extremism, and no
reader could fully understand the rationale behind it without seeing the cartoons for themselves (just
like no one would understand the Iranian fatwa against Salman Rushdie unless they read the
offending book). Sol. v. Oranje 21:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
so you suggest putting Rushdie's entire book at the beginning of the article on the fatwa??
Rajab 21:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
No, because the book is 1) under copyright, and 2) is too large to include in a wikipedia
article. These cartoons are now published widely and under fair use, and are small
enough to be included in the article in their entire. Sol. v. Oranje 21:28, 2 February 2006
(UTC)
What about the position of the image in this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-semitism article?
Are there any wiki-reporters on-site ready to take license-free pictures of those protests? --Vsion (talk) 21:25, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
now it's gone again from the french version...
244
Yes, but it was there when the anon posted his message, and has since been removed by another anon. Jacoplane
21:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I found the idea of changing the picture acceptible. Yes, there is no reason to have them posted. The protests can be posted
instead. I cannot understand what kind of reasoning can justify to have an insult posted in a wiki articel. That is against all
rules and common sense. Resid Gulerdem 21:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Archive again?
We should probably archive the debate again, it is getting quite lengthy --Snailwalker | talk 21:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, please do, and move the poll back down to the bottom. Protect for two minutes if necessary. Babajobu 21:18, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
I second that AlEX 21:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Finnish minister comment
What is the source of comment of Finnish foreign affairs ministry? I haven't heard it on the news?
copyright of cartoon image
i don't think the image can be kept in any case because one of the artists has explicitly asked for it not to be reproduced. This
is the current state of the discussion on the German version of this article 20:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
As the discussion is about the controversy covered by the images, it is undoubtably covered by fair use. --DDG 20:48, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
Fair use is different than German copyright law in any event. Carlossuarez46 20:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
245
"The Wikipedia database is stored on a server in the State of Florida in the United States of America, and is
maintained in reference to the protections afforded under local and federal law." Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:17,
Editing while protected
Please, let's avoid editing the article while it's protected, even if it's just minor edits. It's a potentially problematic slippery
slope. --cesarb 20:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Yep, apologies. Babajobu 21:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
In general, I agree. However, there is established precedent for fixing spelling, grammatical, and style/formatting
problems even while protected as long as the edits are non-controversial and non-substantive. --Dante Alighieri | Talk
21:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I've just noticed that the article is fully protected. I've been editing under the mistaken belief that it was semi-protected,
as it has been on several occasions before. I've only wikified some dates, altered and augmented some references, and
ensured that there are no bare external hyperlinks in the article. Uncle G 21:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I've unprotected it. Articles that are linked from the main page should not be protected. Theresa Knott | Taste the
Korn 21:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
For Jacoplane, who was unfamiliar with this policy, please see Wikipedia:Protection policy. --DDG 21:46,
I am new to wikipedia, is there a reason for not editing while under full protection? And what is the diffence with
semi-protection?
no consensus
there is no consensus on the picture. The oxford english dictionary defines consensus as: Agreement in opinion; the collective
unanimous opinion of a number of persons
I've taken the conservative option to remove the image until there's a consensus on this issue. Rajab 21:52, 2 February 2006
(UTC)
246
On the contrary, there is a strong consensus to keep the image. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
eh, I think the consensus is pretty darn clear. Babajobu 21:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Also , since thie article is about the pictures. Removing them is unencylopedic. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:58, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
The consensus is pretty DAMN clear for keeping the pictures. TruthCrusader
#
$
. /
% 1
&
'$
#
$$
%
. %
#
8.
93
$%
:
%
% $
&%
;
%
>%
$
?
C
3
1
7
B 7
5
8 7! B 7 $ %
9/ C
%
: K +6
0
% 1
%
*
&
$
%
$
247
1
B
$%
;
>
?
&
1
%'
%
%
*
K
$
$
%'
%
+$
%
$
C
$
%
Temp protect on Discussion page
The formatting on the last two sections was broken, and I had to temp protect this page in order to avoid edit conflicts. The
total protection lasted less than one minute... during which I'm guessing 50-60 people couldn't post. ;) Sorry. --Dante
This is great
If the artist can drive over a billion people to utter madness with a picture, he wins. Hands down. All the endless flame wars
and trolling on wikipedia, fark, 4chan, and other big sites can't even possibly compare to a cartoon that results in crazy people
taking over an embassy. It's over, everybody. This guy has finally Won the Internet.
Oh please. We had a bigger revert war over the Harry Potter movie. --DDG 20:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
They were made by 12 artists heh, its more like Denmark has won the internet if that's the standard we're using :D
Which harry potter movie. i want to see (spoiler by Kittynboi 22:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC) removed)
Hahahaaha Denmark wins! Holy shit I never thought of it that way.
Drudge
Matt Drudge has posted the bomb-in-turban Mohammad picture prominently on his high traffic website. Tempshill 20:22, 2
248
February 2006 (UTC)
Change the picture
As the current title notes, the article is about the controversy, not the cartoons. As one of the editors for the French version of
the article put it when removing the Geert Wilders link to the large sized versions, "spam de lien, merci de ne pas le
rerajouter. L'important dans l'article ce n'est pas les caricatures elles-mêmes mais la réaction qui a suivi." ("link spam, thank
you for not putting it back. What's important in the article is not the cartoons themselves but the reaction that followed"). I'm
not so supportive of the link removal but I think that person assigned the correct priorities to the article.
There was supposedly a protest in favor of the cartoons in Denmark tonight, and I think there have already been protests
against them in the middle east. I'd like to urge that the picture at the top of the article (that's currently of the cartoons) be
replaced by a photo of the protests (maybe two photos composited side by side). That is more appropriate for the article topic
(i.e. the controversy) than the pic of the cartoons. The picture of the cartoons themselves, if included at all, should be a lot
further down in the page and thumbnailed. The article's main photo should be something that depicts the controversy. The
picture of the cartoons is secondary. 71.141.251.153 21:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Umm...the cartoons are the controversy!!--UltraSkuzzi 21:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
that's not correct, the controversy is the controversy. Rajab 21:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
How can you understand the controversy without seeing the cartoons? Valtam 21:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Even then I don't underestan them, but that is just my personal opinion... AlEX 21:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Not only are the cartoons the controversy, but ever since I saw the article title changed I've already
assumed it was nothing more than a "salami tactic" to slowly but surely remove and censor the article of
the cartoons in question (which are the whole entire reason for the controversy, and thus CRUCIAL to
understanding it). Sol. v. Oranje 21:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
No. The change of title was to make the title more accurately reflect the article's topic. And seeing
the cartoons is NOT crucial to understanding the controversy. I've seen them because I'm using a
graphical browser, but I sometimes use text-only browsers and I'm confident that I'd still understand
the controversy perfectly well from reading just the text descriptions. Do you really have to see a
photo of the actual blow job to understand what the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal was about?
71.141.251.153 21:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
First of all, there's a straw poll above -- that poll will determine whether the drawings will stay
249
or not. Go vote. Secondly, you have repeatedly compared the cartoons to photos of sexual acts
and murder, which is surreal; sorry, but political caricatures are not even in the same realm as
pictures of blowjobs, especially considering that political cartoons have the purpose of
informing debate, crafting satire, and inspiring political change and discussion -- pictures of
sexual acts rarely have that power, and can sometimes simply be tried for obscenity. There is
nothing obscene about these cartoons, many of which don't even show Mohammed or even
make fun of the entire newspaper in the first place. Removing these pictures is akin to saying
"Yeah, there was this big surge of protest about 12 little cartoons, which have caused death
threats, economic boycotts, counter-boycotts, embassy takeovers, kidnappings, and all sorts of
wonderful extremism, but NO, you can't see them because we're too scared to allow you to
make up your mind for yourself and we have to bow down to religious commands that most
Wikipedians don't even follow." Sol. v. Oranje 21:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I didn't say (at least just now) the cartoons were obscene or even offensive, I
simply said one could understand the controversy without seeing them. Second, I'm
utterly contemptuous of the notion that having a link saying "click here to see the
picture" somehow prevents people from seeing the picture. If you think providing a link
where people can view something with a single mouse click is "censorship", then you
have no comprehension at all of what real censorship is. (And I haven't even advocated
changing the picture to a link). 71.141.251.153 21:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Cool, I'm comteptuous of your refusal to see that the continuing "salami tactics"
that you advocate are nothing more than a slippery slope to suppression of
information. Furthermore, you know nothing about me or my experiences with
"real" censorship, so take your martyr complex elsewhere. Sol. v. Oranje 21:52, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
the gist of the article is about the immense controversy which was caused by the publication.
Understanding why this came about is an important secondary aim of the article, so this should be
explained. But the first picture should definitely not be the cartoons themselves... Rajab 21:15, 2 February
2006 (UTC)
Um, the French version has the image on the page just like here. Jacoplane 21:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
No, the gist of the article is WHY these cartoons have caused such chaos and extremism, and no
250
reader could fully understand the rationale behind it without seeing the cartoons for themselves (just
like no one would understand the Iranian fatwa against Salman Rushdie unless they read the
offending book). Sol. v. Oranje 21:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
so you suggest putting Rushdie's entire book at the beginning of the article on the fatwa??
No, because the book is 1) under copyright, and 2) is too large to include in a wikipedia
article. These cartoons are now published widely and under fair use, and are small
enough to be included in the article in their entire. Sol. v. Oranje 21:28, 2 February 2006
(UTC)
What about the position of the image in this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-semitism article?
Are there any wiki-reporters on-site ready to take license-free pictures of those protests? --Vsion (talk) 21:25, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
now it's gone again from the french version...
Yes, but it was there when the anon posted his message, and has since been removed by another anon. Jacoplane
21:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I found the idea of changing the picture acceptible. Yes, there is no reason to have them posted. The protests can be posted
instead. I cannot understand what kind of reasoning can justify to have an insult posted in a wiki articel. That is against all
rules and common sense. Resid Gulerdem 21:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Finnish minister comment
What is the source of comment of Finnish foreign affairs ministry? I haven't heard it on the news?
Well, i saw it on yahoo's news, but it is in Chinese, as he said that cartoon promote the prejuidce between religions.
251
copyright of cartoon image
i don't think the image can be kept in any case because one of the artists has explicitly asked for it not to be reproduced. This
is the current state of the discussion on the German version of this article 20:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
As the discussion is about the controversy covered by the images, it is undoubtably covered by fair use. --DDG 20:48, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
Fair use is different than German copyright law in any event. Carlossuarez46 20:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
"The Wikipedia database is stored on a server in the State of Florida in the United States of America, and is
maintained in reference to the protections afforded under local and federal law." Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:17,
89 machines in Florida, 3 near Paris, 11 in Amsterdam, 23 in Yahoo!'s Korean hosting facility
--Tarawneh 23:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
no consensus
there is no consensus on the picture. The oxford english dictionary defines consensus as: Agreement in opinion; the collective
unanimous opinion of a number of persons
I've taken the conservative option to remove the image until there's a consensus on this issue. Rajab 21:52, 2 February 2006
(UTC)
On the contrary, there is a strong consensus to keep the image. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
eh, I think the consensus is pretty darn clear. Babajobu 21:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Also , since thie article is about the pictures. Removing them is unencylopedic. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:58, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
Currently, the results are at 60-7 [89.55%-10.45%] with 2 votes for the "Lolicon solution". That looks like consensus; it's
much more than needed for an FA promotion or even an RfA. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 23:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
252
compromise
I've put the image into the *middle* of the article. Let's leave it there until the issue is resolved Rajab 22:06, 2 February 2006
(UTC)
Wikipedia's does not have a religion, so its not against its beliefs to censur Mohammed's pics. So what are you doing?
Chaldean 22:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
It is a *compromise* Rajab 22:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC) - now the picture is twice in the article (I put it in the
middle, someone else "reverted" my edit & put it in the beginning) Rajab 22:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Well that's what you get for ignoring the poll, dismissing others' opinions, and not following rules of
procedure. If (and when) the poll on whether to remove or have the image closes, we will have _a second_
poll to determine it's location. Your "compromise" just elided that second step, which is wrong Sol. v.
now you're just trying to annoy. There's no consensus on keeping the picture. But until that is found
let's at least agree somewhere in the middle & move the picture from the very beginning of the
article Rajab 22:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, but you're the one who keeps altering the article and ignoring the fact that while
the poll remains in progress, the cartoon will remain at the top of the page where it began
before this brouhaha started to begin with. After the poll concludes there will either be another
poll determining where in the article the cartoon image should be posted, or if it should be
shrunk or enlarged, etc; or no further polls if the majority conclude the image should not be
included. In the meantime, leave the image where it is at the top of the article page. Sol. v.
As has been pointed out ad nauseam, other unrelated pages have also had relevant pictures moved down from the
top (e. g. Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy). While others have not (Piss Christ is the popular
example), the fact that it has been done before in numerous articles that have little (if anything) to do with Islam
seems to show that this isn't kowtowing, appeasement, a double standard, or anything of the sort. If you insist that
the picture be displayed prominently at the top, then all similar articles about a controversial image should be
253
changed (which would probably start the Queen Mother of All Edit Wars in the process). Until Wikipedia's
precedent on the matter ceases to be "either/or," so long as the picture is displayed in the article it really doesn't
matter where it is placed.
If you load the page, the image has been downloaded by your web browser whether you choose to scroll down
that far or not; the decision whether to view it or not is placed solely in the hands of the reader. IMO, you'd be
hard-pressed to call that censorship. Guppy313 22:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
let's be sensible
The two people (Rajab and Rgulerdem )who objected to the pictures have agreed to put them in the middle. Isn't this a
sensible compromise. slamdac
Until there is a real consensus & a real poll running for longer than just a few hours the picture should certainly
stay in the middle. After we've found a real consensus we can still change that... 22:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
42 vs 2 implies strong consensus for keeping the pictures. (Cloud02 22:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC))
I think we're close to a consensus now. I suggested putting the picture in the middle as a compromise but it sounds as like
Rajab are going to wait for the situation to calm down and then remove the pictures anyway. I think the pictures should stay
in the middle permanently.
slamdac
Moving the picture from it present location should be forestalled until after this initial poll at which time we will be
able to focus on the placement of the photo (presuming consensus remains to keep the image). Babajobu 22:18, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, attempts to place the image at the top of the article should be forestalled until after consensus emerges about where
it should go. BYT 22:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Thanks :) Rajab 22:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
254
Why should they be forestalled? Why not leave the article as it was before the poll, until the poll is complete? What's the
reason for moving the image? Valtam 22:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Personally I don't mind where the image goes as long as it's somewhere in the article. If moving it to the middle stops the edit
war then I'm all for it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I have no issues with someone enforcing image in the midle and a link to the image at the top via IAR use of the block
button, and I doubt any other responsible editor does either. We can reach position consensus only after the revert war
ends. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Why don't we put the picture on both the top and the middle? Then everyone can have their favorite position :D
I like this compromise! Everyone is happy! Valtam 22:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Continued revert warring
Theresa Knott removed the article protection because the article is linked from the main page at this time. This is reasonable.
However, following the removal of protection, the revert warring erupted afresh. This will not be tolerated. The protection
was to prevent individuals from being blocked, and instead stop the revert warring. Since protection can not now be used,
blocks will have to be used instead. If anybody continues to revert war over this, and they have been previously warned, they
may be blocked. Stop the revert war. Now. --Durin 22:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
We could always de-link it from the Main page... I'm not saying we SHOULD, but we COULD. --Dante Alighieri |
Talk 22:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Or we could just block those who are disrupting the encylopedia. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:24, 2 February
2006 (UTC)
Theresa -- I couldn't agree more.
Question: Can you see how some might feel that assuming that there's consensus to place the image at the TOP of the
article constitutes "disrupting the encyclopedia"?
There ISN'T any such consensus, and the people who are pretending that there is such consensus are basically using the
image to provoke a reaction. BYT 22:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
255
Can somebody please block Ragal and Rugelmen. They will continue to remove the picture until they are blocked.
"Muslim nazis" image
NO not all muslims hate Jews,[I have few Jews friends who are cool] Islam is not about hatred its about peace. But I guess
westerners and the artists get this idea from those Terrorist who used Islam for their own agenda which is not right. And I
really need to clarify this to all Muslims and Non-muslims Jihad is not about killing people, Yes, Jihad means holy war is
about sacrificing yourself not bombing yourself and thousand and millions of innocents people, its a holy war againts
your ownself, by doing what the Quran and Prophet Muhammad tells us. The Quran didn't asked us to kill innocent people,
thats not the way of Islam. And also if this happens during the life of Prophet Muahmmad (PBUH), he will probably laugh it
off as something stupid. Come on he got spat at, had a camel carcass thrown on his back while praying. And he don't get mad.
So yes, the cartoons are very offensive because its about someone we love and respect, yes im very offended but when i think
about it there's no need to issue terror threat and all because in the thats not what Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) wants from us.
~Nadiah~
WTF is this image being re-added? It is obvious vandalism. Fredrik Johansson - talk - contribs 22:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Unless someone can come with a proper news source that has used this image, this cannot be brought related to this
article! (Cloud02 22:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC))
Another suggestion to comprimise
Let us have just the link in the article, untill the pool ended?! Resid Gulerdem 22:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Let's not. Valtam 22:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
"Nazi" picture
I agree with Cloud and Fredrik about that picture of the Nazi salute. the image and name seem calculated to do little but stir
an already boiling pot. That one should be removed, IMHO. Pat Payne 22:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
256
Apologies, I restored that image thinking it was the other one. I have no idea what this image even was. Sorry about
that. Babajobu 22:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
My apologies as well as I was trying to revert the article back to one with an image of the cartoons and didn't see
the Nazi image within the article. Of course, now I am locked out from editing the article at all because an admin
assumes _I_ was one of the people trying to remove the cartoon image -- this whole thing is ridiculous and
surreal. Sol. v. Oranje 22:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Ain't it the truth... Pat Payne 22:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Let's discuss
Why can't the article have the bold link at the top and the picture in the middle? Will that stop revert warring? Hipocrite «Talk» 22:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Would certainly make it seem a lot less like the apocalypse around here, yes, IMHO. BYT 22:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree very much with this. It's a good idea and no one should be complaining about "censorship". --a.n.o.n.y.m t
22:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
This is a perfectly reasonable interim solution. However, an adminstrator has reverted the page to a pictureless linkless version that does not indiciate the picture can be found anywhere whatsoever, and then protected it,
without notice, while it was on the front page. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Pic's in the middle. Hoping everyone agrees to linking at the top. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:40, 2 February 2006
(UTC)
Please, please do this. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I can live with that as a compromise. Whether consensus proves to be behind it, we'll see.
Seems like a sensible comprimise for the times being. —Ruud 22:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Go try that then. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
257
I did it. Let's see if it sticks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
HI-RES Version
I'm considering the possibility of adding a thumbnail of the following HI-RES picture:
http://cryptome.org/muhammad.htm
Placement would be under the section called "Publication of the drawings" after "Each of the twelve drawings portrays
Muhammad in a different fashion. In the clockwise direction:"
When clicking on the thumb the user should be taken to a new Image-page similar to the picture on the top of the article. This
is NOT ment to be a replacement of the picture currectly present in the article but as an addition.
Why should this picture be added:
1. It's impossible to study the cartoons in the origial scan. Most Important.
2. Adding a link to a HI-RES version would facilitate a discussion on the cartoons.
3. Some of the cartoons are not critical of Muhammed. Some are funny and some are neutral. When the picture first surfaced
in Denmark this was a significant part of the debate but the press and various fundamentals have later botchered this
discussion and chosen to view the issue as either a "free-speech-issue" (good IMO) of a "clash-of-civilizations-issue (not so
good but not irrellevant IMO). A HI-RES vesion should in theory, since more information is avilable enrich the discussion.
4. A HI-RES version is consistant with free speech and fair use.
I've been reading Wikipedia for four years but this is the first time I have posted anything, so I guess I feel pretty strongly
about this one.)
(because of work etc I might not be able to do this because of time constraints so if someone wants to be bold they have my
consent. Sorry for my bad English)
MrEH
That would be a copyright violation and wikipedia could be sued. The image is fair use at a low resolution only.
besides the copyright violation, there are already external links to the images and on top of that, the images
content is explained quite clearly throughout the article. (Cloud02 22:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC))
258
They have been posted all over the internet in the last couple of day, so I don't think we should worry about wikipedia
being sued. But there is no need, for indeed there are external links leading to these images. AlEX 22:43, 2 February
2006 (UTC)
At this point, tho, does the 'fair use' standard apply? Maybe we could leave the image of the newspaper publication of
the 12 images together on the main page, and have a link to a second page with high-res versions of each picture.
Valtam 22:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
If there's going to be a hi-res version, it should be a scan of the original JP page/article that caused all this, in its
original context (I think you begin to leave the field of "fair use" otherwise). And it shouldn't be translated from Danish
(or Farsi); we can fix translation flubs in our articles, but editing pictures is a bit more complex. Guppy313 23:02, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
Below the fold
I was initially against moving the image "below the fold". I think the only reason to change an article for taste is if someone is
truly offended and I'm not sure if most of those offended by the image would be satisfied with a movement of inches.
However, I think at some point, which may not have happened yet, this story will be more about the boycott and protests than
the actual cartoon itself. I was actually happy to see the version with the dairy case boycott notice on top and the cartoon just
below. --JGGardiner 22:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Well put. Compare Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005, which this event strongly resembles. That article,
too, was the subject of bitter controversy. Came out all right in the end. BYT 22:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Block the vandals
Why are we so hesitant to block people who consistently remove the image? When they've received several warnings already
and continue to remove it they are not going to stop unless they are made to stop. --Vagodin Talk 22:41, 2 February 2006
(UTC)
There have already been several blocks relating to removal of the picture in violation of 3RR. --Dante Alighieri | Talk
22:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
259
what's 3RR? 3 reverts rule? (Cloud02 22:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC))
WP:3RR Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Rajab has violated 3RR and had already been warned. I posted a note at WP:ANI/3RR, and
hopefully someone will now block him. I agree that the 3RR rule has been woefully enforced in this
article, and that the removers have been given unbelievable latitude to try to force their will onto the
article. Babajobu 22:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
WP:ANI/3RR does not cover a page --KimvdLinde 22:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Then what is the point of the rule if it doesn't cover article pages? Sol. v. Oranje 22:47, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
She meant that the link was broken. I've fixed that with a redirect. --Dante
She is gratefull for that --KimvdLinde 22:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that one. ;) Fixed the gender. --Dante Alighieri | Talk
22:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
no offence, happens al the time....--KimvdLinde 22:53, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
Edit summaries
AE, in future if you change the size of the image, which is obviously a very substantive change with which many people will
disagree, please don't hide it behind an edit summary that mentions something else. Thanks. Babajobu 22:52, 2 February 2006
(UTC)
I think it's absurd to suddenly change the size of the image without even first mooting the idea on the talk page. I'm
annoyed by the resize, annoyed by the way you did it, and I, personally, want the original size back. 250 px at least.
I agree with that original. I was about to come back on talk and discuss experiencing only edit conflicts about a
proposal for a disclaimer. However, I think Karl needs to respect the 3 days of arguments and not just revert. I am
fine with Hipocrites version that we discussed above. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Just don't try to change the image size without discussing it on talk page or even in an edit summary,
260
please. Babajobu 23:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but this is one of those cases where you gotta type fast and discuss right after to see if people
agree. Now back to discussion. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 23:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Second poll comment
I added a second comment to the page directing people to the second poll at the top of the talk page instead of edit warring;
unfortunately, I got so many edit conflicts I had to force the issue and override whatever placement the image had at the
moment (the warning only makes sense next to the image, and I had to go fast to squeeze in the tiny time window between
one edit conflict and the next). Sorry about that. --cesarb 23:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
lets keep the picture at the top until the poll closes..... when DOES the poll close? (Cloud02 23:06, 2 February 2006
(UTC))
Usually, when the issue has calmed down (for instance, no new votes for a full week). Some polls (like the
infamous diacritics one) never end. But it doesn't matter; the law of large numbers tends to make the results
converge. --cesarb 23:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
sanctions
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4664408.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4668068.stm
Hopefully these are sufficient as a cite.
Please stop semi-protecing the page, it's against policy
I posted this to WP:RPP last night as an unprotection request (page was semi-protected at that time). I've made some
slight edits since. Short version: if the page absolutely must be protected, use full protection as per policy.
This article is semi-protected due to a ferocious edit war over the picture at the top of the article, involving endless 3RR
violations from IP addresses, sockpuppets, etc. The improper edits all delete the picture while leaving the text pretty much
alone, due to a belief that showing the picture constitutes religious blasphemy. That makes them POV edits and not vandalism
261
in the sense of WP:Vandalism. Semi-protection is supposed to be reserved for vandalism. Protection to stop edit wars is
supposed to be full protection.
My actual beef with this situation is basically that the edit war is being aggravated by "DBD" (Don't Be a Dick) violations on
the part of the "good" guys (also, I prefer to edit without logging in, and I can't do that now). Right now the picture is at the
top of the page on the right, as is customary per the style guide (WP:Style_guide#Pictures), although it's over 2x the pixel
width (4x the area) that the style guide suggests. The style guide explicitly states that the customary placement is not
mandatory. Several times last night, the image was moved to the bottom of the page and made smaller. When that was done,
the erasures stopped, but the "good guys" insisted on moving it back to the top and re-enlarging it, reverting it around 5x in a
couple hours (multiple people, so no 3RR vio). Yes, the relocated version was presumably still blasphemous, but the deleters
either didn't spot it or else they chose to back off once they saw they were getting at least a gesture of respect. Reasons for
insisting on the top placement went along the lines of
"They won't accept it being there at all, so best to rub it in their faces for spite." (Kittynboi 15:31, 1 February 2006
(UTC)),
"hmm great idea.. [referring to moving the image] and while we're at it, lets bend over a little more.. i think
mohammed's dick isn't long enough to reach our arseholes" (Hellznrg 08:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)).
etc. This is what I mean by DBD violation. When DBD was followed (by being a little bit flexible about the image placement
without actually removing it), the problems from the "other side" stopped.
It's pretty clear that the "good guys" are trying to make a POV political statement beyond merely ensuring that the article
works as an article, i.e. WP:POINT, WP:DBF, WP:NOT (not a soapbox), etc. Semi-protection allows the logged-in POV to
keep editing the article while locking out the other POV that comes mostly from new users (note also the IP's are not
necessarily the same person--there are MILLIONS of Muslims mad about the cartoon, so some tiny percentage telling each
other about wikipedia is still a lot). If protection is absolutely needed, it should be full protection, unless the DBD violation
stops. The point is that full protection pushes the fanatics towards peaceful compromise since otherwise, nobody can edit.
Being able to lock out only the other side doesn't foster peacefulness at all. I can't think of a single policy-based justification
for semi-protection of this article except WP:IAR if convincingly justified by exceptional circumstances. I'll support
WP:IAR-based semi protection if reasonable attempts are made to tone down the offensive placement and the erasure still
doesn't stop.
For now, I request either unlocking or full protection, because Wikipedia is advertised as "the encylopedia that anyone can
edit", not "the encylopedia where the pictures are always at the top of the articles and 250 pixels wide". Note that this is a
262
front-page linked article so should be unlocked except in extreme situations, though I guess millions of angry Muslims all
trying to suppress the same picture qualifies as extreme. 71.141.251.153 10:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi... I suck
Does anyone wanna try to write this up?
http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=1153989&tw=wn_wire_story it is apparently a riot
in response to the article
#
$
5 % 1
. /
% 1
&
'$
% 1
%
*
&
D
$
%
8! %
$
9
&*
D
:
%
5
$
;3
1
$ $ % %
>%
&
?5
O%
O $
3!!" 7,
-, B
&& %
% 4
$
%
$%
&
8
* $ *
3
9 *
%
1
%
1
7
%
263
1
B
$%
:
$
; 4
% 4
%
$
&
$
%
&&
"
&
>)'$
? 5 +5
0
%
1
&
1
$ %
%
&
)'$
%
% $
1
8?
8*
9
: 70
7
. $%
1
.
9>
%
*
9
9
$
%
7
* $
&
% 7+
&.
*
.
'
%
Archive again?
We should probably archive the debate again, it is getting quite lengthy --Snailwalker | talk 21:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, please do, and move the poll back down to the bottom. Protect for two minutes if necessary. Babajobu 21:18, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
I second that AlEX 21:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Jeez, this page is way too big. Someone needs to archive it (but keep the poll on this page, and the comments directly related
to the poll). I don't know how to archive a talk page. Titanium Dragon 05:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Editing while protected
Please, let's avoid editing the article while it's protected, even if it's just minor edits. It's a potentially problematic slippery
slope. --cesarb 20:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Yep, apologies. Babajobu 21:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
In general, I agree. However, there is established precedent for fixing spelling, grammatical, and style/formatting
problems even while protected as long as the edits are non-controversial and non-substantive. --Dante Alighieri | Talk
21:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
264
I've just noticed that the article is fully protected. I've been editing under the mistaken belief that it was semi-protected,
as it has been on several occasions before. I've only wikified some dates, altered and augmented some references, and
ensured that there are no bare external hyperlinks in the article. Uncle G 21:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I've unprotected it. Articles that are linked from the main page should not be protected. Theresa Knott | Taste the
Korn 21:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
For Jacoplane, who was unfamiliar with this policy, please see Wikipedia:Protection policy. --DDG 21:46,
I am new to wikipedia, is there a reason for not editing while under full protection? And what is the diffence with
semi-protection?
Semi-protection means random IP members (Also called "anons") and new members (I think it's like a few weeks old
maybe? Im not sure) cannot edit the article. Full protection means only admins and Jimbo Wales can edit it.
It's not "only admins and Jimbo Wales", it's "only admins". Jimbo Wales is also an admin. --cesarb 23:49, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but barely qualified to be one. ;-) --Jimbo Wales 02:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
No cartoons untill the pool ended
I propose to not post the cartoons untill the pool ended. Resid Gulerdem 21:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Also, when does the "pool" end?Valtam 21:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The poll is over. It has 36/2/0. This is demonstrative of a strong consensus to keep the image. If this changes in the
future, we can get rid of the image. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Not it is not. It should last at least 2 weeks. Resid Gulerdem 21:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Says who? -Maverick 21:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I'd say 24 hours. Not everybody is awake right now. Guppy313 22:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
265
I'd say 48 hours minimum. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I think 24 hrs is quite sufficient for an article which is getting so much attention. If it lasts too
long one side or another will organize a mass vote of otherwise-uninterested people. (Of
course, maybe that's OK. But I'd rather just count the "honest" votes). Thparkth 03:31, 3
February 2006 (UTC)
No, for two reasons. One: the disputed item should not be altered or deleted during the resolution process. Two: I know you
can read. There two users who want it removed thus far, compared to about 20 who want to keep it. --Maverick 21:58, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
It is not that difficult. As soon as the majority want it gone, it goes. As for now, the majority want it there, it stays. AlEX
22:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
There is no consensus - the oxford english dictionary defines consensus as: Agreement in opinion; the collective
unanimous opinion of a number of personsRajab 21:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
It also defines it as "general agreement or accord," which is what we have here. The picture stays.
-Maverick 22:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
That is an incorrect characterization. The definition to which you are referring is a physiological one.
--Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
"Consensus" as used on Wikipedia does not require unanimity... and neither does your proffered definition
if you read it carefully. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
My "proffered" definition does - unanimous is unanimous. Rajab 22:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok. When you get consensus to remove the image we'll do that. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:05, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
If Rajab's definition requires unanimity to remove the image, I hereby vote against removing
the image, thus making it impossible for there to be a unanimous decision to remove the
266
image. Consider this vote to apply to all future polls regarding this matter. Valtam 22:07, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
Unanimity of a group of persons... not ALL PERSONS EVERYWHERE. A group of persons
has a unanimous opinion to keep the images. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:06, 2 February 2006
(UTC)
I just filed a WP:RfC. We should wait untill some more contributions from other people who are not aware of
this discussion. Resid Gulerdem 22:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
If they agree with your position, we'll remove the image then. Delaying tactics should not favor the side
delaying. It is becoming difficult to believe you are operating in good faith. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:03, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
Well he just deleted the picture again, I guess that answers that one. Rajab... go away. You are
nothing but a troll and a vandal in my eyes -Maverick 22:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Is it standard practice to file a WP:RfC after a poll has ended? I'm not that familiar with Wikipedia
customs...Valtam 22:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The poll didn't end at all! How long was it running - one hour? a day??
Could you please post a link to the RfC you filed. I'm having trouble finding it right now and would like to
keep track of the happenings. Thanks. --StuffOfInterest 22:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I can't find it either AlEX 22:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
WP:RFC/REL It's just on the list of RfCs, there isn't a new page created for it, which is probably
why there are people showing up here just to vote etc.--Anchoress 05:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I propose at least 2 weeks. We sohuldnt have the cartoon on untill the pool ends. I wouldn't try to read anybody's
intensions. That is not an objective argument. Resid Gulerdem 22:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately you and your buddy are alone in this one. I do not oppose a longer poll, however customs
267
dictate that the picture stays until the dispute is resolved. Please try to work with us, as you are now acting
in bad faith here. -Maverick 22:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
There is a clear overwhelming majority here. Until we get at least a simple majority from the crew in favor
of removing the picture (which I really doubt will ever happen), the image should remain in the article.
joturner 22:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
WP:Consensus is very clear that in Wikipedia "consensus" doesn't require unanimity. Generally a supermajority is regarded
as consensus, though Wikipedia is not a democracy. There is not doubt that as of now, there is consensus to keep the image.
But the poll will continue, and we'll see. Babajobu 22:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
There are some people who are never going to change their opinion. Therefore it would be impossible to ever reach a
majority. This is about as consensus as consensus can get. We should leave the poll up a little longer, but I wouldn't get
your hopes up for a come from behind win from the Remove crew. joturner 22:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I filed it at [1]. Resid Gulerdem 22:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Do not overestimate polls. Among many other things Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is not a democracy. See WP:NOT -129.13.186.1 08:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Image of Protest?
How about adding a proper image of the protest under international consequences? say one with them burning the Danish
flag, just to bring the controversy of the whole article to it's full potential. (Cloud02 22:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC))
agreed --KimvdLinde 22:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
No, that will offend Danish nationalists.</sarcasm> Fredrik Johansson - talk - contribs 22:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
exactly my point (Cloud02 22:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC))
example AlEX 22:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Another protest image that could be added, but I find the one present to work well enough. The article can be found
here AlEX
268
Oh, and lets at least have some general consensus before someone just smacks in the picture (Cloud02 22:55, 2 February 2006
(UTC)) Support: add second image showing some sort of demonstration over the cartoons, but add below the image of the
actual cartoons.--ChrisJMoor 02:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Editorial selection
It says that 40 artists were asked and there are twelve drawings. I think an important question arises then... were there only
twelve submissions? Did the editor choose which he thought were best? or what was representative? If so, were they
representative? I think these are important in relating to how much the newspaper chose to display. gren ??? ? 23:18, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
Those 12 where the only ones to respond out of the 40 Jyllandsposten asked. (in danish)
http://www.aiu.dk/avisnet/show.php?id=812 The.valiant.paladin 23:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
... and the time to deadline was extremely short! MX44 23:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Good, I see it has been changed. I think that's really important because it makes a huge difference if the editor of
the paper used his own discretion in choosing or not. The story would be a lot different if he got 30 submissions
and thew out 15 that had Muhammad with a halo. gren ??? ? 04:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Add this to page
somewhere in this paragraph: "Akhmad Akkari, spokesman of the Danish Muslim organisations which organised the tour,
explained that the three drawings had been added to "give an insight in how hateful the atmosphere in Denmark is towards
Muslims." Akkari claimed he does not know the origin of the three pictures. He said they had been sent anonymously to
Danish Muslims. However, when Ekstra Bladet asked if it could talk to these Muslims, Akkari refused to reveal their identity.
These images had however never been published in Jyllands-Posten."
I think it's crucial for making sense of this story. Images can be found:
pig-muhammad http://ekstrabladet.dk/grafik/nettet/tegninger38.jpg
muhammad screwing a dog http://ekstrabladet.dk/grafik/nettet/tegninger39.jpg
evil pedo-muhammad http://ekstrabladet.dk/grafik/nettet/tegninger40.jpg
269
--cokane 2 Feb 2006
If you had read the article you would have seen the pictures had been brought in the paragraph just before. (Cloud02
00:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC))
These pictures are the ones erroniously televised by BBC and al-Jazeera. I am not convinced they need even further
attention? MX44 00:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Controversial newspaper caricatures section
What on earth is the basis for the inclusion of this section, or the selection of items mentioned in it? Most of them seem
utterly irrelevant. Palmiro | Talk 00:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
contribution of
First of all i understand fully and truly the point of view that is conserned about the liberty of expression or liberty in general.
I want just to mention some points wich i may develop later:
haven t we to distinguish between the liberty of expression and the liberty of offensing other peoples (over the fifth of
mankind) or between liberty and hurting others?
haven t we to assure some balance between this liberty and the right of others (let me mention here that these others are
not dogs or animals they are even american citizens or european)?
where do the liberty of each one of us ends? (may be where the right or liberty of other peoples begins?)
why are people who are adherent of this point of view always discredited as terrorist or against the liberty of expression
or stupid etc... such in some contributions here? does such a priori assumption not descridit the assumption makers
more than the assumption object?
is reducling the queen (1 person) accepted in denmark (or norway i dont remember wich of them) or is it penalized by
the law and offending people? i think it s penelized so why a huge community (i think the second religious community
in europe) have to accept this offence?
Does an ethic of journalism and publishing exist or not? if yes is it consistent with republishing the picture? i hope that
wikipedia and the wikipedian will be the leaders on showing the attachment to this ethics
is republishing the pictures consistent with antiracist laws and penal laws in general?
270
is the publishing of the image really necessary? one can dicribe the picture by words (note i m not saying the article has
to be deleted. one can put some related pictures but not those -for example of the boycott-).
so this is my first contribution. I hope we can discuss in respect of each other and without prejudices. thanx 3 ,01:50 / 0
1
February 2006 (UTC)
/0
1 - this will probably be deleted as being inappropriate for this discussion page, but let me respond briefly to you.
Please understand that in a western country, any person or any newspaper can ridicule the king, queen, prime minister,
president, any politician, any religious leader, and generally anyone they want. It happens all the time. It is totally legal.
They don't suffer any consequences from this. That is why many westerners feel Muhammad should be just the same - a
valid target for the type of humour called satire. Thparkth 01:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
"between the liberty of expression and the liberty of offensing other peoples". In no democratic society is there a
right not to get offended. To the contrary, intrinsic to the freedom of speech and freedom of the press is the
freedom to say REALLY offensive things, to ridicule their religion, to mock their prophets, to belittle their
beliefs. It's not always wise to do so, but that's for each individual to decide. And of course it's legal to insult the
queen, are you kidding? Babajobu 01:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
You have to understand that wikipedia is a encyclopedia not a journalist. A encyclopedia just states facts and does not
censure anything and lets the readers decide. It is up to everyone for themselfs to decide if it was right or wrong
originally published in the Danish newspapers Chaldean 01:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in
the pursuit of justice is no virtue! - Barry Goldwater --UltraSkuzzi 02:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
God, those pakis are unbeleivable. any little reason to have a little party and get the booze flowing.
Moderation is part of justice. Plato
ok thanks to all of you. i did not expect that someone will answer so fast. first of all i apologize for my bad
english:
1. for Mr Thparkth: thank you for explaining how the "west" or "western" socity work. fisrt of all i want to inform you
that i m a part of this western socity (i dont like to use this term because it s too much connoteted to clash of west and
east or in opposition to east). Mr Thparkth i m a european citizen and i know what i m talking about. it s not allowed to
271
defame peoples and i think this holds without consideration of skin coulour or religion or function or sexual orientation
or whatever. so what you are saying is not true. i can even tell you the exact paragraphs of the law. So summa
summarum thank you for introducing me to democracy and liberty but i think i can say that i m good informed about
this subject. the second point is: i hope that my contribution will not be deleted because i will understand it or it will be
undemoctratic and illegal (in sense of wikipedia laws and ethics) and against the liberty of expression that is claimed
here (i think what i wrote is related to the subject-in fact who decide if it s relevant or not?-). onother point is that you
sayed that they dont have to be affraid of consequence; that s not true too. Mr i remember that a newspaper apologized
for a politician just because the newspaper sayed the politician colors his hairs. onother example comes from uk where
it was enforced by a court that the dayly mirror i think dont publish the document of bobing aljazeera otherwise they
will have to encouter penalities. I hope yopu bleave what i m telling you if not just google a little or if have time i will
provide you the urls.
2. Mr Babajobu: first of all thank of saying: "It's not always wise to do so". Secondly you sayed there is no rhigt of not
being offended: please see what i wrote above. thats not true at all!! one check anti deffamition laws two check anti
racist laws three check antisemitism laws. these are all laws wich exists i m not lying or inventing them. i m sure 100%
of it. ok the laws are made for individual case of deffamation somehow but they surly apply for a group of person and
may be in a more strong way. i forget laws relative to social freedom wich are also integrated in some eu legislation and
wich penalize every act that puts the social freedom in danger. i agree that these laws are applicated more or less
strongly and that some of this laws only take effect if one makes a plaint but nevertheless they exist. in the legislation
of my contry the second paragraph in the 1st section says the dignity of human beeing is untouchable for example (i
dont remember now the exact words of antidefamation laws thats why i put a more general statement). such picture
offend me in my dignty as a citizen (and a lot of other human beings) so they are anticonstitutional. concerning the
queen i dont know of wich queen you are talking about (notice uk is not the only kingdom on the world and i v seen Mr
been too :-)) anyway thats not the point.
1. Mr Chaldean: thank you Mr for explaining what Wikipedia is. I m a sysop in wikipedia so i have a little idea of what
wikipedia is :-) thanl you anyway for your comment. Mr i dont ask for censoring just be a little bit more responsable
that s all. if you speak in terms of was it right or not to publish them by danish newspaper the answer is the newspapers
apologized and admitted (may be in a not clear way) that they have doen a mistake by doing this. so the question is
already answered. where is the problem in describing the picture by words for examples ???? or / and putting pictures
of the boycott (thats what maked the picture famous and mediatize the hole story???)
1. Mr UltraSkuzziyou cite plato and Barry Goldwater but the 2 statments dont fit together somehow. but ok i will ignore
this. "Moderation is part of justice": thats why laws are not always applicated or some laws (but almost it has nothing to
272
do with moderation but with ignorance or that you dont have enghoug mony to pay an advocate :-). "extremism in the
defense of liberty is no vice": may be yes may be no. but i tend to no. thats another topic your talking about here or it
will lead us to offtopics like the absolutism of liberty etc... and as babajou sayed (in an other way) i think that liberty is
equivalent to resonsability or translate in rsponsability. if you have liberty you have a choice if you have a choice you
have to assume the consequences of your choices.... anyway thank you too. and i apologized for thinking i can have a
better idea than plato or whom else :-) (for all plato fans)
i want to say it again i m not against liberty of expression, there is really no need to be affraid of an attac against liberties or to
feel (in this situation) that you are in the obligation to defend liberty of expression. I think the hole story is a mix of racism
(racisme is not the approtriate word because of the word: race ==> racism but let s ignore i think you understand what i mean)
and a search of publicity... so thats why ethics (wikipedia is build on ethics for example the free circulation of infos) tells us
to be responsable in our beeing as a free person. 3 ,04:04 / 0
I Didn't write the Plato comment, just the Barry Goldwater one. I respect early philosophy, but I think it bears little into
this conversation.--UltraSkuzzi 12:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
You say: "check anti racist laws check antisemitism laws." There are no laws in any Western country against saying
racist or antisemitic things. In the U.S., for example, people publish anti-Jewish and racist newsletters all the time, and
Mein Kampf (Hitler's book) is available in bookstores everywhere. I don't know where you get your information about
the West, but it's simply wrong. Babajobu 04:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I get my information from my constitution and the laws of my country wich is a western country (to take your
jargon) and wich is not the us (thanks god :-)). I gave you a litteral translation of the most famous article of my
contitution:" the dignity of human beeing is untouchable". I m not speaking about the US. there tey are discussing
wehther torture is leagal or not etc... so may the constitution and awareness about human rights their is not so
well developped as here??? I think (but im not sure :sure to 80%) that the divulging of Mein Kampf leads to
juridic consequence. I know the law so it s really useless to try to say that these laws dont exist and even if you
repeat it 100000 times. I can only tell you i m saying what is written in the 2nd paragraph of my constitution and
i think the 13 pragraph of the penal law. I didnt mention here international law wich can be interpreted in this
sense :-). I know judgments where policemans was suspended because of racist comment. I dont Know Us very
good but i think if you can judge a Mcdonald because you became fat or because your dog is dead while you tried
to dry it in the microwave i think there is surly a law wich prohibit racism (or still the Blacks have to sit in a
section a part in the bus: i dont think!!:-)) 3 ,05:29 / 0
Aside from your spelling issues, / 0
1, you lost so much credibility with this- "wich is not the us (thanks god :-))." Regardless
273
of traditions, respect, sedition, the second paragraph of your constitution or whatever, you have just failed the Wikipedia's
NPOV test. And no, I don't own a copy of Mein Kampf, but it's kinda nice to know I could if I wanted to.
althouhg i dont know who wrote this lines (it s not signed) i will answer it because i will answer it because i dont feel superior
to others in the opposite to who wants to judge over me. Mr X i dont want to have deep discussions of what neutrality is etc...
this will lead to other large topics. fisrt of all i did not ask you if you have Mein Kampf or not i just sayed here in my land it s
prohibited to divulgate it since it s prohibited to divulgate racist litterture. why does these 2 small words descredit me and all
the other hundreds of words i hve sayed? because i m outing my self as religious or because i m expressing that i prefer living
here then in the US? If you feel offensed through this no problem I apologize i have no problem admitting mistakes offensig
others is the mistake here). please consider it as a bad joke if you think i havent the right on personal preferences. besides,
notice that i put it in brackets with a little smily. again if you feel offensed i m sorry it wasnt my goal. but please dont try to
start a personal attack against me because of it or dont pick on or rag on me because of my spellings. i didnt say that i m
anglophone or living in an anglophone country. Dear Mr X i m trying my best and even apologize for torturing your language
(may be) but i do my best. and i invite you if you want to discuss in whatever language you want; and as an open minded and
educated person you surly can express your self in other languages. with best regards 3 ,06:27 / 0
if it s babajou who wrote the comment: i v seen your personal page, it explains why you did this comment. it s ok
its your point of view, i only hope i can correct it some day :-). best regards. 3 ,06:39 / 0
A better *caugh* split idea
Everyone is forgetting that these images didnt start the whole controversy. The paper commisioned them in response to
Danish artist's fear of reprisals from Muslims for Islam related work. The article that the cartoons surround speaks to artist's
fear for their own safety after the murder of Theo Van Gogh etc. Here is how the story should be broken down in my opinion.
Islam Vs. West
Islam Vs. Denmark
Islam Vs. Danish Artists
Islam Vs. Muhhomad Cartoons
The cartoon itself
Oo7jeep 02:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
why dont you put a section Islam Vs. evrithing??? what you write is not correct. In fact the title Islam Vs. West suggest a
274
clash between Islam and the west wich is not true. Notice that islam is the second religion in the "west" in the number of
adherent. Notice too that those muslims are integral parts of their societys and citizens like all other western citizens. I heve
no problem by mentioning how things began but specialy the main section Islam Vs West and the Section Islam Vs danish
Artist can only be set in the frame of someone who is adherent of the theory of the clash of civilisation and the superiority of
one side on the other. Sorry that dont sound serious and is not a perspective for me and it is intolerant. Islam has nothing
against West (the proof is that islam is established in the West) it has also nothing again artist or danish artist or whoever.
Dont people have the right to defend themselfs from beeing defamated and insulted? you know the use of the word Vs west
means a thinking in a frame of West against (east or middle east or warsau or urss or what ever) please stop we dont need new
concept of enemy. with best regards 3 ,04:23 / 0
CNN: "Gunmen shut EU Gaza office over cartoons"
[2]. We need to add this. Hmmm...where will they dispense all the aid money from, then? Babajobu 02:15, 3 February 2006
(UTC)
anyway they will not recieve anything since the democtratic choice of the palestinian was not the right one. 3 ,04:28 / 0
1
February 2006 (UTC)
People can vote in whichever leaders they like, but they can't assume other countries will love the leaders and want to
give them money. Democracy means the right to vote for people who other countries will despise. Anyway, this is
off-topic. Babajobu 04:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
ok you right (and your right this is off topic anyway here) 3 ,06:30 / 0
Added in. Swatjester 07:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Islamic extremists respond to cartoons with violence
I think that, even while maintaining a neutral point of view, this article should point out the irony of the violent response to
these cartoons, which make fun of Islam's violent fringe.
Interpretation is best left to the reader. This isn't an editorial. Guppy313 02:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
275
That's the foul stench of hypocracy you are detecting. --Vagodin Talk 02:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
It assumes that the outrcy is over satirical artwork depicting Muhammed that implicate him with violence,
however many Muslims seem to be unhappy over satirical artwork depicting Muhammed, period. There's
also the fact that the vast majority of the Muslims are protesting in peaceful ways (such as the widespread
boycott) and the worst most have participated in is flag desecration (which is even legal in the United
States, if only for the moment).
Heck, you're assuming that most of the protesting Muslims have seen the pictures to begin with. Guppy313
02:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Your intended audience wouldn't get it. MX44 02:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Muslim pictures of Muhammad
in the past there have been non-satirical depictions of Muhammad by Muslims.
Can someone please provide a citation for this statement (last part of opening paragraph). Pepsidrinka 02:29, 3 February 2006
(UTC)
I removed that unsourced sentence and someone replaced it. But in Shia countries there are some pretty portrait-like
images of Muhammad, no doubt. I have one. He looks like a superhero, Mr. Clean in a turban. Babajobu 02:45, 3
February 2006 (UTC)
There are two on the Muhammad page. Although I believe there was only one this morning. Both veiled. --JGGardiner
02:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there are pictures on the Muhammad page. But those pictures don't claim to be made by Muslims, and
whether they are or not has no bearing. This statement is a very loaded claim in light of the world situation today,
and its truthfullness should be cited. Pepsidrinka 02:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
276
The captions for the pictures claim that one is Ottoman and the other implies that it is Ottoman or Persian.
--JGGardiner 03:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I stand corrected. I probably should have read the captions, seeing how I was just over there moving
pictures around. Nonetheless, I still hold that a citation be included in the article to justify the point
in order to show the casual reader that Muslims in the past have created pictures. Pepsidrinka 03:13,
Wikimedia I think has a bunch of non-satirical pics of Muhammad under the Muhammad name, they were all
created mostly long ago and by many different nations, maybe one was Islamic? Homestarmy 02:57, 3 February
2006 (UTC)
Jordan Paper Publishes Cartoons
Just read this at the BBC:
"In Jordan, an independent tabloid, al-Shihan, reprinted three of the cartoons on Thursday, saying people should know what
they were protesting about.
In a separate article, the newspaper's editor, Jihad Momani, urged the world's Muslims to "be reasonable" in their response
to the drawings.
The paper's publishers sacked him hours later over the "shock" he had caused, Jordan's official Petra news agency reported."
Is this worthy of inclusion? Until now I had not read of any Arab newspaper, even a "tabloid," reprinting any of the cartoons
(or suggesting that Muslims "be reasonable"). 209.51.77.64 02:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I thought this was already mentioned, if it isn't it should be added if we can find that exact hyperlink on the BBC to
cite this. Homestarmy 02:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Al Jazeera published the pics, although we're looking at them over someone's shoulder. [3] Babajobu 02:57, 3 February
2006 (UTC)
Ah, I should have checked Al Jazeera. Still, I think the fact that any Arab papers are publishing the cartoons,
277
even if they are over someone's shoulder, should be included in the article (once the protection is taken down).
209.51.77.64 03:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Al-Jazeera published the fakes from the private collections of imam Abu Laban & Co. BBC did too. MX44
03:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Also Yemen Observer. Jacoplane 03:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
IP Ban
Can an admin ban 209.11.82.24? They switched out the image with a penis and this IP has a history of vandalism.
Hitokirishinji 03:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
He's already blocked, not by me. Babajobu 03:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Islamic extremists respond to cartoons with violence
I think that, even while maintaining a neutral point of view, this article should point out the irony of the violent response to
these cartoons, which make fun of Islam's violent fringe.
Interpretation is best left to the reader. This isn't an editorial. Guppy313 02:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
That's the foul stench of hypocracy you are detecting. --Vagodin Talk 02:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
It assumes that the outrcy is over satirical artwork depicting Muhammed that implicate him with violence,
however many Muslims seem to be unhappy over satirical artwork depicting Muhammed, period. There's
also the fact that the vast majority of the Muslims are protesting in peaceful ways (such as the widespread
boycott) and the worst most have participated in is flag desecration (which is even legal in the United
States, if only for the moment).
Heck, you're assuming that most of the protesting Muslims have seen the pictures to begin with. Guppy313
278
02:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Your intended audience wouldn't get it. MX44 02:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
sprotected
I have reprotected the article due to the massive amount of vandalism that is still being directed at this page. I realize it is an
unusual and regrettable need due to the fact that it is a high traffic article and is an on again off again main page article but at
least sprotection is really necessary to stop the vandalism and add a small amount of stability to the article. JtkieferT | C | @ ---03:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, even after a consensus, sadly, the page will still probably be vandalised. 209.11.82.24 was from a corporate
address, I wonder if that company has any interest in an employee who likes to post pictures of penises rather than
actaully working. Hitokirishinji 03:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
If they're like most of the ISP's home users vandalize from I doubt it. Of all the times I have heard of a vandal
being reported to their provider only 7 or 8 to my knowledge have ended in any favorable response, now it's not
even really worht trying, we just have to keep our eyes open and revert it as we see it and if the vandalism
continues then block. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 03:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that's actually more or less the opposite; companies pay people to work, while home users pay
ISPs to use the internet. Reporting them to the company might actually get some response (namely, that
person being fired). Titanium Dragon 03:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Example of unintentionally offensive dipliction of Mumammad in Serbian
Wikipedian article on Muhammad that you all may find interesting:
[4]--Greasysteve13 03:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
That image is from Iran. As I've said above, Shi'ites have produced those sorts of images over time, their attitude to
279
religious iconography is different from that of Sunnis. Thanks for the link. Babajobu 03:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Does this explain a lack of any Iranian response?--Greasysteve13 03:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I've been curious about the attitude of Shi'ites in all this, and I've heard nothing about it. I believe the pic
you link to is from pre-revolutionary Iran, and it's very possible that the mullahs are more strict about this
thing today than they were under the Shah. But we haven't heard much from them, and Shi'ites definitely
have different historical approach to iconography than do Sunnis. I don't know, keep your ears peeled.
Iranians are still diplicting him today ([5]).
I was under the impresssion that Iran is too busy being angry at Europe for other reasons. What's Tehran
going to do, put the EU under Double Secret Probation? Heck, I as an American am beginning to feel left
out here, all we're getting is second-hand hate. Guppy313 04:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
the pakces aI have heard troubles from are primary sunni --KimvdLinde 04:11, 3 February 2006
(UTC)
Well for starters 75% of Muslims are Sunni.--Greasysteve13 04:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
And here a several more pictures of Mumammad (Warning:Big
Link)[6]--Greasysteve13 04:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia contigency planning
In all seriousness, is this an appropriate place to wonder whether Wikipedia (its systems and key personnel) have appropriate
security measures or precautions in place? 203.198.237.30 04:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean...? WP as a terror goal...? Kjaergaard 04:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you threatening me? As far as systems go, given that Wikipedia's traffic is so substantial, it would take a heck of a
lot to make a dent. Also, it wouldn't be anything new, since WP is down a lot anyway... --Interiot 04:26, 3 February
2006 (UTC)
Yes, launching a denial-of-service attack on Wikipedia would be like spitting on someone in the rain. Wikipedians wouldn't
even know that something special had happened. Babajobu 04:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Kjaergaard: Let's start by asking ourselves whether it would make more or less sense than any other attack.
Interiot/Babajobu: Call me old fashioned, but I was thinking more along the lines of a firebombing or other violent
280
physical attack on systems or key personnel. 203.198.237.30 04:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry, I'm well protected, as is my laptop. And I'm the only really key player on this site, so we're fine.
Well, I'm relatively unimportant, so don't worry about me. And Jimbo has his fembots to defend him
[7]. As far as firebombing silicon, well... make sure you download a recent backup, and we should be
relatively okay. --Interiot 04:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Heh. But this is less about whether any particular thing or person gets bombed...and more about the fact of possible
occurrence, and whether appropriate preventative measures and precautions are in place. I feel much better now,
knowing there's no need for any real concern. 203.198.237.30 05:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
If you are really concerned about this bring it to the village pump. But, it has nothing to do with this article so please don't
continue this here. gren ??? ? 06:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Apologies all 'round. 203.198.237.30 06:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Al-Arabiya interview with Danish PM
We should have a link to the transcription of the Al-Arabiya interview with the Danish PM... :
http://www.statsministeriet.dk/Index/dokumenter.asp?o=2&n=0&d=2508&s=1
Any opinions on where to put it.....? Kjaergaard 05:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism by user 216.248.124.126
User 216.248.124.126 has repeatedly vandalized this article by removing the top main image. This is the 3rd time, at least,
despite being warned. Can an admin temp block his IP or something to prevent this from reoccuring please?
AscendedAnathema 06:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
reported in violation of 3RR, just waiting for an admin to block this person.--KimvdLinde 06:57, 3 February 2006
(UTC)
281
216.248.124.126 has been blocked by Gamaliel for the 3RR violation. NoSeptember talk 06:59, 3 February 2006
(UTC)
7 times now... Valtam 06:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Best reason to leave the cartoons...
In my opinion, the best reason for posting the cartoons is to show EXACTLY what was printed by the newspaper in question,
and as such to show what was NOT printed. This relates to claims that various unpublished (and allegedly more
inflammatory) pictures have been misrepresented as the cartoons in question. WookMuff 3rd feb 2006
12.221.139.214
This user has vandalized the Arabic language article twice, such as here. Not sure if that gets a person banned over here as
well but it wasn't just a simple blanking; this usually results in an automatic ban over here. Mithridates 07:37, 3 February
2006 (UTC)
Poll deletion
For a brief period of time, a large part of the poll was deleted by user:212.138.47.24, a user who (if it is in fact one user) is
responsible for several frivolous edits. I have now removed some lines that user:Slamdac added to the discussion in that
connection as they are no more relevant.--Niels Ø 12:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I think this shows part of the problem. Just because you don't like a poll rusult you shouldn't sabotage it. That's not how things
work in the Western World. .--User:slamdac
Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press in Denmark
I made a first attempt on writing an article on Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press in Denmark (rather unwieldy title,
I am afraid). It might be of interest for those who don't know about the law in Denmark, and those who do might want to help
282
improve it. Rasmus (talk) 09:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
"Vision", and not "Face" - title of Danish article
I think, the translation of the Danish "Muhammads ansigt" should be "The Vision of Muhammad" and not "The Face of
Muhammad". ("ansight" means both)
(1) The pictures show the supposed vision (not so much the face): a vision of using bombs (and not a face using bombs), a
vision of violently controlling women (and not a face violently controlling women), etc. The pictures depict this as the
supposed vision by Muhammad.
(2) Also, the pictures themselves are a vision on Muhammed. The subject of the article is these pictures about
Muhammadism, not the face of Muhammad.
"Vision" is therefore the best litteral translation.
It is also the most comprehensive translation, since the anger of Muslims is not about drawing the face of the prophet (true, it
is not done to draw the prophet's face), but about the mockery of Islam. Many of the discussions above are completely
pointless: they focus on the minor thing of drawing a face, while the major issue here is the mockery of the whole of Islam.
(Even the few Muslims that are very well accostumned to drawings of the prophet are insulted by these Danish pictures)
-- ActiveSelective 09:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I am afraid that "ansigt" really only can be translated as "face". "Vision" would be "syn" in Danish. Rasmus (talk)
09:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, "ansigt" means "face". Besides the literal meaning, it has a figurative sense, which is not "vision", but perhaps
"surface", "appearance", "image", "what is shown to the world".--Niels Ø 09:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
How about the figural "the face of evil"? It is not about 'the face' of a devil or demon or... But "the face of evil" is
about what evil (murder, war, torture) envisions. It is about the vision of evil. This is the way "face" is used here.
Not litteral a face. -- ActiveSelective 10:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
"Vision" puts focus on how others see something; "ansigt" puts focus on what there is for others to see.
Thus, "image" is a much better translation for the figurative sense of "ansigt".--Niels Ø 10:05, 3 February
2006 (UTC)
283
Does not the word "face" have that same connotation, almost to the same degree as
"ansigt"?DanielDemaret 10:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I am Danish, not native English speaker, and I am not sure, but I think you are right: The
literal translation "face" is best as it has both the literal and the figurative sense of
"ansigt".--Niels Ø 10:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Depicting the Prophet Muhammad
Q&A: Depicting the Prophet Muhammad, BBC, 2 February 2006
This BBC article gives a good NPOV description of Islamic rules on the depiction of Mohammad that may be helpful in
considerations of whether to have the image. Its interesting to note that Islamic tradition not only prohibits images of Allah
and Muhammad but also all the major prophets of the Christian and Jewish traditions, which makes me wonder why no there
hasn't been a fuss kicked up at the Jesus page. I don't think we should censor for reasons of religious sensitivity but I do think
that we should show some consideration in the way we present an image that can be seen to promote religious hatred and
racism. (I have voted to keep but move down)--JK the unwise 10:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#
. /
% 1
$
$
3
&
'$
%
*
&
%
%
3
8
9
:
% 1
%
*
%'& %
3
*
%
$
5
%
D
284
1
B
$%
;
>)
?3
&
&
D
%
1
I
C
&
$%
E
F &
'$
!*=0
&
$
+
C & %
%'
3
% %'
5
<
" 7#
%
5 =-# $ 1 %
9 6 *" #
%
1
%
!*=0
"
%
=
%
1
$ $ % %
%
)
)
$$
D
K B
%
"
%
%'
.
. ,6
=! )56! !, E %
1
%
%
%
5
$%
&
$ $
D
+
+
+%
1
%
$%
%
1
$$
' $
#
'
1
<$ +P $
1
&%
%
86
9#
:
;
>
?
8
9
:
;
>
?
=
'
'
D
#
/
$
1 %
7
!
%
&
F
Split the article
Almost all the text in the article is about the controversy over the cartoons, not about the cartoons themselves. The current
title reflects that. But some people (e.g. Sol v. Orange) claim that changing the title from "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad
cartoons" was a "salami slicing" tactic to change the article's former topic, rather than to more accurately reflect what the
topic really was. Obviously there is not consistent agreement on this question.
Proposal: Revert the title change, so the title is again "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons", and split off the part of the
285
article that's about the controversy. The "cartoon" article's content should be the detailed description of the cartoons (taken
from the current article and maybe expanded), a nice big picture of the cartoons if the article's editors desire that, and a very
brief description of the controversy, with a link to the separate "controversy" article. The "controversy" article would contain
the stuff from the current article that's purely about the controversy, with a brief description of the cartoons (no picture of
them), plus a link to the "cartoons" article, described as "article describing the cartoons, including a large picture".
The front page link would be to the "controversy" article since that's what its current text refers to. Yes, that would have the
effect of getting the cartoon off of a direct front page link. But it's obvious that the front page link is there because of the
controversy and refers to it. Phr 23:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I would still keep the cartoons at both pages, as the controversy is about that. It is to easy to see the controversy as
something completly seperate --KimvdLinde 23:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with a whole new article on the cartoons themselves, with detailed images of them and descriptions and
translations; however, an image of the cartoons would also have to remain on the controversy page itself since the
cartoons are the entire catalyst for the controversy. Otherwise, yes, it's "salami tactics" as you're removing the entire
basis for the controversy from the controversy page and moving the images solely to an article on the cartoons which
could easily be removed or deleted because some might feel it is un-encyclopedic. Sol. v. Oranje 23:40, 2 February
2006 (UTC)
Well OK, there would have to be further discussion on the "controversy" article's talk page about whether the
"controversy" article should include the picture, but splitting the article would be intended to remove the
argument that the controversy article is about the cartoons. The controversy article is intended to be about the
controversy, its main pictures (if it has any pictures) should be related to the controversy (e.g. pictures of protests
or boycotts), and any picture of the cartoons themselves should be at most an interior thumbnail. Phr 23:43, 2
February 2006 (UTC)
But the entire reason for the controversy is the cartoons and what they depict. Just showing pictures of the
protests and violent acts spawned by the cartoons and reducing the actual cartoons to a small image within
the article would be obscuring the catalyst for the controversy. Sol. v. Oranje 23:48, 2 February 2006
(UTC)
The "controversy" article would not be about the catalyst for the controversy. It would be about the
controversy itself. The catalyst is the cartoons, and they would have their own article. The catalyst
would not have to be very prominent in the article about the controversy, just like the Archduke
286
Ferdinand (whose assassination was the catalyst for World War 1) is not very prominent in the
article about WW1. Phr 23:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
But Archduke Ferdinand remains in the WWI article because it was his death that sparked the
war; thus the cartoons, which sparked the controversy, should remain in the article on the
controversy itself (and in clear easy-to-view size, I might add, not obscured away like the
fanatics want). Furthermore, the cartoons should probably also be inserted into articles
regarding blasphemy and religious suppression of free speech as an example of images so
"offensive" as to cause all this mess to begin with. Sol. v. Oranje 00:17, 3 February 2006
(UTC)
The Archduke Ferdinand is only briefly mentioned in the WW1 article and there is no
picture of him there. There are several pictures of him in his biographical article but no
picture of his assassination in that article. There is a separate article about his
assassination that contains a picture of the actual assassination. And, the picture of the
assassination is fairly far down in the article about the assassination (its top picture is of
a memorial of the assassination). Finally, I think you're being disingeneous about the
necessary size of the picture. Wikipedia contains many, many thumbnails of pictures
where the thumbnails are too small to see important details. It assumes a minimal level
of competence on the part of readers, namely the ability to click a mouse if they want to
see a bigger version. They don't have to be spoon fed as some fanatics seem to think
they do. The current picture (250px) is over 2x the pixel width (4x the area and
download time) of the recommendation of the wikipedia style guide
(WP:Style_guide#Pictures). Anyone arguing that its placement should follow customary
wikipedia practices, should also be arguing to reduce it to 120px. Phr 00:28, 3 February
2006 (UTC)
And I think you're being disingenous about your motives to censor, obstruct,
minimize, reduce, and obscurify these cartoons out of existence. Face it, these
cartoons ARE the controversy; they are the fountainhead for everything that has
followed. The fact thet that they are media images in and of themselves renders
them more important to inclusion in any article on the controversy than a
photograph of Ferninand from before the war, especially since other factors led to
WWI. Here, the only factor that has created this uproar was the depiction of
Mohammed within the cartoons. The matter of the size of the cartoon image will
be determined after the second poll closes on where the image should be located
287
to begin with. Sol. v. Oranje 00:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Now I've added a painting of the assassination of Ferninand to the WWI article
anyway, right where it begins to outline the reasons for the war. So much more
illustrative of that "controversy" and its ultimate catalyst, I think Sol. v. Oranje
00:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The current poll is about where to put the picture in the current article. The
placement and size of any picture in a hypothetical new article that's purely
about the controversy is a completely different question. And you're being
disingeneous if you claim people are too incompetent to click a mouse if
they want to see a large picture. Phr 00:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
No, readers are not incompetent to click their mouse on an image to
enlarge it. I just see no reason to reduce the image in size so much as
to render its inclusion pointless to begin with Sol. v. Oranje 00:52, 3
February 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure that readers are not too incompetent to look up the whole
controversy on google or muslimsearch.com or whatever.. so why
don't we just delete the "jyllands-posten mohammed cartoons" page?
you'd just love that wouldn't you? Hellznrg 16:46, 3 February 2006
(UTC)
That idea sounds reasonable to me. I considered suggesting something similar myself. However, the reason that I did
not, is that avoiding the image itself on the controversy page would have the effect of implying that protests and
boycotts are not directly related to the cartoons themselves. I was concerned that this might seem as if it were
suggesting that those outraged were taking steps that were not proportional their genuine offence. --JGGardiner 23:41,
Why split this and not Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy? By your logic, should we not also have a
separate article entitled "Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show," both with a program schedule and a pixel-by-pixel
analysis of Janet Jackson's right breast? After all, the argument could be made that "The controversy isn't about Janet
Jackson's exposure but nudity on television in the United States and lax enforcement by the FCC of existing
regulations."
Besides, reproducing it in the context of the controversy is fair use, but reproducing solely for reproduction's sake isn't.
288
Guppy313 00:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
It would still be editorial use if it were accompanied by description, translations, interpretations of the individual
cartoons, etc. And I'd have no problem with the idea of an article about FCC nudity regulations that linked to a
separate article about the Janet Jackson incident. (Btw I'm going to have to attend to "real life" shortly, so if I
don't respond further for a while, I'm not ignoring you.) Phr 00:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Then you'd be stripping the pictures of nearly all context, leaving people wondering why they qualify as
encyclopedic content ("Why are we saving pictures of a bloodthirsty starfish attacking a woman?").
Additionally, the pictures would become all the more offensive to some without the context of the
discussion as there would appear to be little reason to host them other than shock value.
Additionally, you'd only be able to move most of the discussion of the comics themselves to the new
comic-only article, not all of it; you'd still at least need text explaining what aspects of the comics offended
so many, information that would then have to be repeated on the comic-only article to justify its own
existence. And then you'd also require more text in this article describing the pictures, more than would be
needed if the picture was present for the reader to view. This would result in a great deal of redundant
information and the articles would be merged within a month of the split, at most. Guppy313 01:23, 3
February 2006 (UTC)
Why should the images be used at all? Most major newspapers are not printing them, why should we? CNN says "CNN has
chosen to not show the cartoons in respect for Islam." [1]. I dont see pictures of the cartoons at the BBC article or the New
York Times article -- Astrokey44|talk 00:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the NYT or CNN; in fact, we should strive to be _better_ than those media sources, and I do imagine a
large amount of people who've heard of the story from those media outlets would come here to better inform
themselves in depth on the controversy -- and that includes seeing the cartoons in question and deciding for themselves
if these cartoons are worthy of sparking the tumult the media is reporting because of them Sol. v. Oranje 00:41, 3
February 2006 (UTC)
CNN has existing precedent in witholding publication of offensive material, for their own reasons. Wikipedia has none,
for different reasons. Guppy313 00:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia does have its own precedent about offensive material. --cesarb 02:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: BBC television is airing the cartoons. --Aaron 01:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
289
I also don't see Ass-to-mouth at The New York Times or CNN. Wikipedia's coverage is much more
comprehensive. Babajobu 00:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
In fairness that's a redirect. Although I would assume that CNN is also worried about it's journalists and
ratings. Hopefully nobody is going into hotels looking for Danes, Norweigans and Wikipedians.
Church Bombings
Can somebody please mention about the Church bombings in Iraq that was rumered to be related to the drawings? Chaldean
22:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Using the word "rumored" should be a red flag. Please wait until there is confirmation and/or citable sources.
Guppy313 22:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, Wikipedia:Verifiability should apply to every article. Jacoplane 22:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Now their blaming Christians for this? If that's really true, then I think that would be something we really
need to put in this article, once people start getting angry enough to destroy anyone and everyone, then you
know things are going crazy. Homestarmy 22:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Assuming it's true, please be sure to qualify who "they" are. Guppy313 22:31, 2 February 2006
(UTC)
Well small militant groups have claimed for it and said it was retaliation to the cartoons. This
is what they are saying in the streets of Baghdad. I think its fair to at leats mention the event,
dont you agree? Check out some articles about it. militants coordinate bombings near Christian
churches: [2] Chaldean 22:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like a citation to me directly relating the cartoons to church bombings, this should
be able to go into the timeline and article with no problem, why was it removed for not being
related to the pictures? Homestarmy 23:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't me, but reading the article, no claims of the attacks beign linked to the
controversy are made. In fact, the bombings happened on Sunday (as the article
290
mentions, the Christian day of worship and church attendance), and the coordination of
the attacks suggest days of planning, so it seems it happened too soon for it to be a
deliberate response to the images.
And in general, I find myself doubtful that churches would be attacked in response to
this; it seems that Arab/Muslim vitriol aimed the West (or at least Europe) depict it as a
bunch of godless heathens rather than Christian crusaders. Guppy313 23:18, 2 February
2006 (UTC)
You must not have read the latest? [3] I think their should be a section called
"Christians in the middle east persicuted" That is fair I think 141.217.41.237
00:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
BNL is a reputable source? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:50, 3 February 2006
(UTC)
All you had to do is go to google and type in "church, palestinian,
cartoon" Earlier, Manuel Mussalam, a priest of the Latin Church in
Gaza, delivered an emotional appeal to Dr Zahar after the church
received a fax that he said had come from "Fatah gunmen and the
Soraya al-Quds". He said: " They threatened our churches in Gaza.
We will not be threatened. We are Christians, yes, but Palestinians
first." [4] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chaldean (talk
• contribs) .
How is that all I had to do to discover if BNL is a reputable
source? Your link says nothing about BNL. Were you confused
by my question? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:15, 3 February
2006 (UTC)
I am sorry, I thought you said reliable. Now can we add a
section to this article under the title of "Middle East
Christians Percicuted" Chaldean 01:29, 3 February 2006
(UTC)
No hard feelings. I have no problem with a section
on that in the article, assuming that we have a
291
reputable source, which it appears we do. :)
--Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:39, 3 February 2006
(UTC)
How about something like this: Middle East Christians Percicuted
Middle East Christians Persecuted
On January 29, 2006, six churches in the Iraqi cities of Baghdad and Kirkuk were targeted by car bombs, killing 13-year old
worshipper Fadi Raad Elias. [5] No militants claimed to be retaliating for the pictures, but many Assyrians in Iraq claim
"Westerners should not give wild statements [as] everyone can attack us [in response]" [6]. Also on January 29, a Muslim
Cleric in the Iraqi city of Mosul issued a fatwa stating "expel the Crusaders and infidels from the streets, schools, and
institutions because they offended the person of the prophet in Denmark." [7]In reply to the fatwa on the same day, Muslim
Students beat up Christian student in Mosul University.[8] On Febuary 2, 2006, Palestinians in the West Bank handed out a
leaflet signed by a Fatah militant group and Islamic Jihad stating "Churches in Gaza could come under attack". [9]
So is this fair? Chaldean 01:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
You are right. We need to build bridges with Muslims, this controversy is making things worse for the Christians in
Iraq and other predominantly Muslim lands.--File Éireann 01:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
we need that not only because of our interest or the interest of christian minority there but because its a
question of brotherhood of all human beeings even froma secular point of view. also because of world
freedom: the chance is really given to achieve. tehre are people with whom one can discuss but if we
continue this way and demonizing people may be it will not lead to nice things.(only for information the
iraqi foreign minster Tarek Aziz was christian and the wife of arafat was christian i think the wife of Husni
Mubarek to i think the ex un secretary butros butros ghali was egeptian and christian too. If there is any
incident wich are mentioned here such things happend in netherland germany and france too. what i want
to say please dont generalize like one can not generalise in the case of the mentioned countrys too). best
regards 3 ,06:55 / 0
Who is "we"? Encyclopedias need to build bridges with Muslims? I think encyclopedias should focus on
providing quality, comprehensive articles on notable topics, and leave the "bridge building" to civil engineers.
292
Either way, since this is pretty much related to the cartoons in many ways, it should go in the article somewhere,
it looks good so far to me. Homestarmy 14:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the section On January 29 six churches in the Iraqi cities of Baghdad and Kirkuk were targeted by car bombs,
killing 13-year-old worshipper Fadi Raad Elias. An announcement by the Dutch religious rights group Open Door </ref> No
militants claimed to be retaliating for the pictures, nor is this the first time Iraqi churches have been bombed; but many
Assyrians in Iraq claim "Westerners should not give wild statements [as] everyone can attack us [in response]" Militants
tend to be quite open about their motives, so if none of them listed this as a motive, then it's likely "just another Church
bombing" Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 20:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Second Paragraph
I don't like the juxtaposition of these two sentences in the second paragraph of the intro:
"Although Jyllands-Posten maintains that the drawings were an exercise in free speech, many Muslims in Denmark and
elsewhere view them as provocative and Islamophobic. Two newspaper cartoonists have reportedly gone into hiding after
receiving death threats, and the newspaper has enhanced its security precautions. [1] "
Presumably most of those who "view [the cartooons] as provocative and Islamophobic" do not advocate the issuance of death
threats as an appropriate response or consider it "Islamophobic" to react fearfully when one receives a death threat.--FRS
00:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
If you don't like it, it's perfectly OK for you to re-word it (assuming the page isn't locked), but I didn't make the
assumption you fear the proximity implies.--Anchoress 00:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I can see your concern, and I've reworded the 2nd sentence: "There have even been some extremists who have issued
death threats, resulting in two newspaper cartoonists reportedly going into hiding, and the newspaper enhancing its
security precautions." What do you think? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Bad. Are these people really extremists? Extremist is a POV statement, and we don't even know who exactly
issued the death threats. Thus, I think we should simply move the two sentences apart somehow, though honestly,
I do find the juxtaposition somewhat ironic and probably rather fair, given that these people are themselves afraid
of freedom. Titanium Dragon 03:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
293
They are extremists by definition. Death, as a consequence for this issue, is an extreme suggestion. The
word has a definition, and can be used in a non-POV way. Now if you're asserting that the death threats are
hoaxes, that's a separate issue. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Blackface...and Antisemitism
Just to throw one more reason in why "the image" should continue to be included in the article, take a look at the feature
article Blackface. This portrayal is considered highly offensive to many African-Americans, yet numerous examples are
shown in the article. As with most things in life, it is the context as much as the content that determins if something is suitable
for display or not. --StuffOfInterest 01:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Same with Antisemitism, an image that is extremely offensive to Jews is right up at the top, because it's a good,
informative example of the topic. And Jewish editors have made their peace with that, because that's how Wikipedia
works. Babajobu 01:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Yet I suspect that you would not be happy with the cartoons being up under anti-Islamism, or whatever the term
is. So the analogy doesnt hold. Hornplease 01:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, then we're back to Piss Christ. The point is that Wikipedia is not censored to protect the sensibilities
of any religious or ideological or political group. Is it really sensible to make a unique exception for
Muslims? Babajobu 01:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not a christian, but personally i have found Piss Christ offensive ever since i first heard of it. It
brings up all kinds of questions of what IS art and its clearly just sensationalism in its most
moneygrubbing form WookMuff who keeps doing his user tag wrong! 12:53 (AEST) 3rd of Feb,
Ought Six
Yes, it is. And yet Wikipedia displays an image of Piss Christ at the topic of the article,
because that's where it belongs in an article about Piss Christ. Should Muslim
Wikipedians receive gentler, kinder treatment than every other group? That's the
question we're addressing here. Babajobu 02:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The best example I can find on Wikipedia that relates to the image controversy here is this simple image: Image:YHWH.png.
It's the vowelized form of the tetragrammaton, forbidden to be written in the Jewish religion and potentially highly offensive.
And yet we haven't removed it. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 03:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The thing of it is, all those other articles are somewhat very different than this article.
294
All those other articles are reporting on something which was intentionally designed to
discriminate, offend, or otherwise do bad, while these cartoons were designed to simply
stand out for free speech in the face of pro-Islam censorship in Europe. I would hardly
call these cartoons on par with Blackface pictures, the **** Christ picture, or the
anti-semitisim poster, the outrage over those pictures is highly understandable and,
personally, if I was personally in charge of the **** Christ article, (Which I am not, and
thusly do not plan to go near) then I would get rid of the picture. but with these cartoons,
it is not designed to attack Islam directly. The other articles were all based on reporting
events that were designed to offend, this article is reporting on people being offended at
something not being designed to offend. Homestarmy 14:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
BBC shows cartoons?
I've just heard a BBC radio report (on Australian ABC radio) stating that the BBC has shown the images briefly on British
TV news. Can anyone confirm this? If it's true it should be added. --Tatty 01:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know they haven't. The Beeb still still stands firm as the paladin of political correctness (only when Muslims are
concerned, curiously enough). Lenineleal 01:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, according to this (danish) http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/article.php?id=3581417 they actually did. The.valiant.paladin
01:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
"Responsible" "glimpses" see [10] --JGGardiner 01:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a significant development and should be added to the article. Surely it will add to the
controversy? Anyone agree or otherwise? --Tatty 02:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's relevant - after all they only showed "responsible glimpses", i.e. almost nothing.
Lenineleal 02:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
As an aside to the BBCs involvement or lack thereof, have a look at the standard of debate
they are happy to host on their sitehttp://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=904&&edition=2&ttl=20060203045131
295
I believe they are now embroiled in the controversy. Look at this
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2022442,00.html --Tatty 05:13, 3 February
2006 (UTC)
Actually, this is highly relevant to keeping the image on the article. Watching the BBC and Channel 4 news, they did show
the images, briefly, being shown and spoken about by a very angry muslim. However, the only pictures they showed were the
bomb one and the Muhammed-with-knife one. Thus, if I hadn't seen the pictures on the wikipedia article, I would be under
the impression that they were all like this. Skittle 11:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
ABC News in the US showed several of the images yesterday evening as well. --StuffOfInterest 11:26, 3 February 2006
(UTC)
There was also a large protest outside Television Centre last night because of the 6 O Clock news showing the images.
Logan1138 17:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Mirror
I have created a mirror at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (no images), which will also need to be
maintained, with the offensive image removed. Now, can we move the image down below the break on the page? Problem
solved. --GeLuxe 03:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not allow these sorts of forks of articles. As for whether we can move the image down...well, take a
look at the consensus demonstrated at the poll. Now what do you think? Babajobu 03:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
What was the point of making the mirror? One article is enough. 209.51.77.64 04:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
There was some code being used on a few articles which allowed for toggling pictures on or off... if people think
that's a good idea... more or less... this whole thing mystifies me. gren ??? ? 05:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Please see AfD on Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (no pictures) --Descendall 08:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
That's not an AfD, it's a VfD. --cesarb 15:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
296
what if
what if some newspaper printed a cartoon depicting Elizabeth II having sex with the Spanish King? with Voltaire? with
Goethe? with Anderson? with Jesus? with Maria? will the editor be fired? will people hit the street to protest? My god are
Eueopeans really full of themselves that they forgot how to respect other people? Do you say "you're a bitch" to your
neighbours? You don't, even though you won't get arrested for it. It's called respect. The whole world knows freedom of
speech in Europe is top notch. You don't have to prove this by insulting the Muslims. The Islam world is dangerously
overreacting, but that doesn't justify your offence. Just out of curiosity, how arrogant can you be? --wooddoo
[[User_talk:Wooddoo-eng|Eppur si muove]] 06:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, sure, if such a cartoon was printed in any little arab newspaper, we sure would kidnap randomly chosen Arabs,
burn your flags, demand terrorist attacks against Arabs etc. etc. ... (In case some didn't see it himself: This was Irony )
-- Trollkontroll 07:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
=That would be a funny cartoon!Valtam 07:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Seconded. In the film "Naked Gun", the main character "accidentally" ended up mounting on the Queen of England in
missinary position, sliding along long dinner table, the queen of england screaming. The best commedic moment of the
film. (^^) Yes, we are bunch of degenerates. FWBOarticle
And then the pictures should be posted on Wikipedia.... Just to get the picture right, which Anderson are we talking about...?
Kjaergaard 07:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually something not too different from this happened in the United States. A magazine published a parody of
popular Christian minister Jerry Falwell that depicted him losing his virginity with his own mother in an outhouse.
Reverend Falwell sued the publisher and the case went to the supreme court, which decided unanimously in favor of the
publisher. The West doesn't single out Islam. I've seen my own religion belittled on television comedy - and quite
frankly I enjoyed the joke. My belief is strong enough to laugh off occasional disrespect. Durova 07:23, 3 February
2006 (UTC)
I'm Muslim and i can't figure out what your point here , I'm against the pictures , and I'm telling you they are the
most stupid and horrible pictures i ever seen , but this article is speaking about the issue , so how we can explain
it without the pictures ??? have you watched "last temptation of Christ" I watched it , and I'm telling you as a
297
muslim i can't accept any person under any condition to insult any prophet and call it art , but if I'm going to
make an article about the movie , and included some photos to explain the idea , should you consider me support
the idea of the director ?? have you watched "al-resala" (the message), the message show some people worship
stones , are you going to cut these scenes also , here we have different context and they are speaking about the
event not to support the news paper.Waleeed 07:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
By referring to Jesus Christ as "any prophet", implying he is not the son of God, is highly offensive to
christians and i think you should apologize for that WookMuff
UMMMM , which reply is the best for you ??? Nothing , nothing had been said.Waleeed 22:58, 3
February 2006 (UTC)
Concerning Elizabeth II: God Save the Queen.
Heh :) We played that one on local radio, right after christian fundamentalist prayers, on easter friday ... So far,
no death threats. MX44 12:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Concerning what we say to our neighbors: Being miserable and treating other people like dirt is every New Yorker's
God-given right.
Considering what happens in Europe, this ain't Europe.
But in general, this isn't the right website for your views. Guppy313 07:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Muslim have valid case against some European countries. If race hate speech is banned why not ban faith hate speech. This is
a valid issue to raise in this page. Wikipedia on the other hand is not Europe. So take the complaint elsewhere. FWBOarticle
It's only a valid issue so long as the editors aren't the ones raising it. Find a citable source in which an acceptably
notable person (e. g. someone who already has a Wikipedia article about them) makes that case, then it can be included
in the article (with the citation). Otherwise, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a debate club. Guppy313 07:48,
I'll be blunt, if these are the worst pictures you've ever seen Waleed, then I cannot see how you'll like the internet,
many times people are forced to look at disgusting pictures in ads whether we bally well want to or not, that's just
how the internet works. At least these pictures don't pop up in the middle of your screen and dance around in
your face like a pop-up or something. Homestarmy 14:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
You can change your religion; you can't change your race (and no, Micheal Jackson doesn't disprove that). France, for
one, wouldn't like that idea anyway; they're pretty fed up with religion, one reason you won't be seeing a French Pope
298
anytime soon. Titanium Dragon 16:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, the Queen and jesus - I doubt it would go down well in certain circles, but if it didn't contravene the law in the
country it's hosted, then we'd just be told to "suck it up, princess." People need to lighten up. Imho, any belief system that
makes you so furious that you turn to violence (over a cartoon) should not be pandered to. It's no arrogance to suggest we
don't bend under pressure, it's simply retaining the way we do things. If someone of any race, religion or culture, even a nth
generation Dane, doesn't like the way we do things in Europe, they're free to go somewhere more compatible with their
ideology. Also, if someone is so mentally and emotionally fragile as to riot over a cartoon, they should avoid the internet, it's
full of upsetting imagery. Cal 17:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Whats the fuss?
Ok, i can honestly admit that i am no muslim scholar... I tried to read the book once and gave up as it was too hard. My
question is twofold. Isn't the point of not showing pictures of the prophet about stoppind the spread of idolatry? If so, how do
cartoons mocking the prophet contribute to idolatry? Love that WookMuff
WookMuff, although many here have quoted the "spread of idolatry"-reason against the cartoons, as you phrase it,
those who have been angry at the cartoons in this discussion have simply stated that it is disrespectful to the prophet,
and therefore an insult to all muslims. I am beginning to think that you will not find the reason for this in any book, law
or scripture. DanielDemaret 08:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Pictorial representation of animal including human is banned because inaccurate represenation of god's creation is offense to
god. (Undoctored) Photo is controvercial because it is accurate. Most say it is o.k. but some say it is not. However, if say,
photo is used for reverential purpose, such as a teenager having poster of "Nsync" in her foom, then the usage of photo is to
divert the reverence of god to something else, so it is wrong. My mate (a muslim) got his poster of Imran Khan ripped by his
dad. On top of all this, the disrespect to the messenger of God is also considered as blasphamous which many scholar say
deserve death penalty. This is a separate charge. Then implying that he is a terrorist is offense to islam. Basically the photo is
wrong in soooo many ways if you are muslim. oh, I'm not a muslim so I appreciate if someone correct whatever mistake I
have made. FWBOarticle
299
for the newspaper case not this article case , the picture was seen as insulting, there is nothing relates it to idolatry !!!! as a
muslim i see the picture very insulting , i respect their right in expressing their idea , but in the same time freedom doesn't
equal insulting people icons, please note I'm speaking about the newspaper issue not this article issue.Waleeed 07:53, 3
February 2006 (UTC)
Ohh you mean like burning my icon, my flag? My flag means as much to me as Muhammad means to you. Respect is
not a one-way road. I have watched this for like a week now on TV. Well most other western nations would say
something like "welcome to the club" shaking their shoulders, cause we have all seen it 10.000 times on TV before, and
quite frankly don't expect anything else. An appropriate response I guess. Just because most does not immediately run
to the streets with banners, boycotts and such, does not make the act of burning my icon any less disrespectful. In fact it
is exactly the same kind of disrespect as a Danish newspaper stand accused for.
One also has to realize that western culture use satire and caricatures to expression themselves. It is a part of our culture
to do it this way, and no public person, regardless who it is, is excluded from this act. If Muslims (a bunch of Danish
imams going campaigning in the ME) had not pushed this case; nobody in the world would even remember these
images today. In western culture yesterdays satire and caricatures are dead and forgotten the next day, and rarely is part
of some sort of a campaign, which is also not the case with these images.Twthmoses 08:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
YES like that exactly , can you tell me who started this nasty game ?? answer yourself, don't answer
me.Unfinishedchaos 17:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
This Sign is fake ... I have no idea about this comment --Unfinishedchaos 21:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
you are right , who changed my sign to be yours ????!!!! Waleeed 23:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Can someone show us an actual verse in the Qur'an that forbids us showing
those pictures (or any) of Mohammad on wikipedia.
And I don't want to see ambiguous verses either.--Greasysteve13 08:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
That's not important for the article. Please don't use the talk page as a general discussion forum. -- 129.13.186.1 08:10,
I know it isn't important that was one the points I was making, that censorship because of religious beliefs is
300
unwise because there are so many religious beliefs and if we gave in to one we’d have to give in to all and that’s
pretty hard to do since most of them contradict each other. Secondly, I brought up the Qur’an because I don’t
even think there is anything in there relevant to the currant situation to begin with.--Greasysteve13 00:39, 4
February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we could link to the wiki article about that verse in the koran.--God of War 08:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Been discussed already. It's not in the Koran but derives from the teachings of Islamic scholars who came later. See
aniconism for some info. 71.141.251.153 08:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
It is not in the Qu'ran, and I have read a lot of supposedly related Hadith, and not even they actually forbid
showing those pictures. This is one of the reasons not all muslims agree, and this is the reason that they have not
been quoted in this discussion. The issue seems to be the disrespect to the prophet in general, not any particular
verse anywhere. DanielDemaret 09:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's right. Most Muslims are not actually that rigorous in their religious observance (for example,
many Muslims drink alcohol, in the same way that many Jews eat non-kosher food), and a great many are
not, of itself, offended by depictions as such. However, a subatantial minority of the billion of so Muslims
in the world are strictly observant of Islam as defined in the Qu'ran and Hadith, as well as by Islamic
folkways, and will be strongly offended by depictions.
However, what is most offensive to Muslims in general, even the less-observant, is the deliberate
provocation apparently displayed here, and the offense to Islam and the prophet which seems to be
intended. -- The Anome 13:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Use modified image - Muhammad's face blocked out
301
The Face of Muhammed.
- The controversial cartoons
of Muhammad, first
published in
Jyllands-Posten in
September 2005. The face
of Muhammad has been
blacked out because many
Muslims see the depiction
of the prophet's face as
offensive. <sarcasm>The
extreme mockery of the
prophet (with or without
face) is of course not the
issue here.</sarcasm> For
the original image see here
Showing Muhammad's face is forbidden in Islam, this way the original placement of the cartoon could be shown without
showing the prophets face (similar to how some Islamic paintings [11] [12] show him with a veil) or a film about Muhammad
does not show him at all. How about something like this as a compromise? -- Astrokey44|talk 08:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
WP:NOT censored--God of War 08:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Agree with God of War. No censorship. Acetic Acid 08:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Its not censored since it gives you a link to the original image. The consensus seems to have already been reached
302
not to use pictures of him on the Muhammad page. If the political cartoon was about any other subject other than
specifically showing Muhammad's face than I would support its inclusion, but this is something which is almost
always seen as 'off limits'. Seriously how many biographical movies have been made about people where the
actual person the movie is about isnt shown at all?? -- Astrokey44|talk 08:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
this is nonsense of the highest order. I have been outspoken against non-Muslim images of Muhammad on the
Muhammad article, since they are not relevant there. They most certainly are relevant to this article. WP is not
censored, and WP is not an Islamic project, so there is really nothing to discuss except for legal points of fair use and
copyright. No Muslim is forced to come here and look at these images, just like no Muslim is forced to buy Danish
newspapers. dab (?) 08:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
no 206.47.141.21 15:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I think you all miss the point here. Of course, the original picture does not show "the face of the prophet". Muslims know it is
not the face of the prophet. It is a cartoon! Therefore, it doesnt matter if it is blocked or not. The real problem to angry
Muslims is that some people say it is the prophet, and then mock him this way - face or no face. Blocking the face doesnt
make it less mockery! (maybe it is even worse... imagine, a hypocrit saying he 'respects' Islam by blocking a face only so he
can push through the mockery of Islam) So, please leave the original picture the way it was. Stop putting black blocks on
some pencil strokes. -- ActiveSelective 08:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
If this article included mockery (and I don't think it does), that should be removed (except for direct and sourced
quotations) as POV. (The image, of course, is an exact and thoroughly sourced quotation.) Wikipedians cannot edit
mockery elsewhere; in many countries that would be indecent and unlawful. Septentrionalis 15:56, 3 February 2006
(UTC)
I'm muslim and i find that whole idea about hiding the pics or the face of persons in pics silly ..simply because these pics
doesn,t represent prophet muhammad ... I find the question of some muslims to hide the pics silly ..cause they r not pics of
muhammad in any way and noone can know the shape of muhammad or pridect it ... so keep the pics as it is . I think these
these Pics is silly and full of Hate and Racism , for this reason and cause this article is talking about these Pics I think the Pics
should be at the top not the Bottom . instead of that it should be explained the real viewpoint of Muslims about these pics and
why they consider them racist and islamophobic --Unfinishedchaos 11:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
So add it; please include sources to assist further research. Septentrionalis 15:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
303
NPOV dispute
In one of those long-delayed flashes of blinding obviousness, it only now occurs to me that the page is under an NPOV
dispute of the highest order. I'm baffled that nobody has put up an NPOV tag already (at least I haven't seen one). I might put
one up in a little while, unless somebody beats me to it. It really needs one.71.141.251.153 08:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
<sarcasm>Yeah. We all know how NPOV tags magically improve articles.</sarcasm> How about trying to address the
neutrality issues rather than fretting about whether or not to place a tag? What next? "This sentence could really use a
period"?
If you think a tag is warranted, then just insert it, and explain the problem. This involves something more than
assertion. 81.58.51.131 08:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, you're right, NPOV dispute may not be exactly the right description. The problem is that the page is
under an intense edit war: One faction that thinks the picture at the top is blasphemous and must be removed.
That this is an extremely POV notion should be very obvious (that same POV led a few hundred over them to
storm the Danish embassy in Indonesia). The other faction insists that the picture must be stuffed down the
throats of the first faction based on what I'll describe as a POV that those holding the first POV must be punished
for their actions. That POV-ness should be illustrated with examples: I have a few in my post earlier against
semi-protecting the page, but I might like to collect a few more (there are lots). So there are two different POV
factions warring it out. Each side is demanding things that are non-NPOV (again I'll have to get around to listing
some examples, but I'm doing other things right now). I'll refrain from putting up an NPOV tag til I put together
more concrete cites but I hope this is enough to explain informally what I'm getting at. If I do put up an NPOV
tag announcing a dispute in progress, the next step would be discussion of whether to ask the admins to lock the
page. 71.141.251.153 08:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Correctly or not, most people would interpret the NPOV tag to mean that the text itself has bias issues.
They won't grok that it's about the placement of the image, at least not without reading this talk page first.
That would be a bad outcome because the text itself is pretty incontroversial and seems well balanced.
Nah, we would then need a meta-NPOV tag, as the bias is in the wikipedia policies and not text. Wikipedia is
biased in that way that it chooses freedom of speech over adherence to religious principles. Any policy, including
the no-censorship principle introduces by definiton a bias. And on that meta level, NPOV would be pointless.
That however doesn't mean that there is an NPOV problem with the article text (and pictures). --Denoir 21:08, 3
304
February 2006 (UTC)
Some questions to muslims
Dear muslims. I am not a muslim myself (actually I am a non-religious Dane), but I would like to know what muslims think
of the following analysis. Of course I realise that views among muslims will differ.
I think the offence caused by the Muhammed drawings works at several levels:
1. Most current islamic traditions ban depictions of Muhammad, so the mere existence of any such picture, even a
dignified one, is to some extent offensive to many muslims.
2. Some of the pictures in question are obviously offensive, even without that ban.
3. The way Jyllandsposten published the pictures - not as illustrations to a story, but as a deliberate act to challenge the
ban - naturally prompts reactions from people supporting the ban.
4. The way the Danish government reacted (until recently) was seen as an arrogant refusal to even discuss the matter.
I have these comments myself:
Ad 1., fundamentalists of all kinds may believe that everyone must obey the codex in their particular creed, but the rest of us
(and I believe that includes by far most muslims) respect that other people live by other rules. For instance, I do not need to
apologise for my eating pork, do I? So, yes, I understand that it is to some extent offensive to many, but in an open
democratic world, we all have to accept such offences now and then. E.g., it offends me enormously when someone burn the
Danish flag.
I wonder, do muslims who feel offended when told about these drawings, feel more so when they see the actual drawings
from Jyllandsposten? Do muslims break any rules by, perhaps inadvertently, seeing the drawings?
Ad 2. and 3., the bomb-in-turban picture could be interpreted as the statement "Muhammad stands behind terror", which,
although I suppose Osama bin Laden would happily agree, is an offence to many muslims. An alternative interpretation like
"Terror is attributed to Muhammad" (which of course is true) is invalidated by the fact that the artist was commisioned to
draw Muhammad, not to draw terror. - The anonymous pig-face picture was published by a Danish islamic organization, not
by Jyllandsposten, so it is not relevant here.
305
For once I agree with the Danish prime minister, though I would like to state it more clearly than he does: Some of these
drawings are stupid, but it is not up to the Danish government to decide whether they are blasphemous to a punishable degree;
we have a legal system to deal with that. The drawings were published in Denmark, where an artist in 1984 painted a mural at
a railway station depicting a nude Jesus with an erect penis. The painting was soon painted over (to the acclaim of
Jyllandsposten), but he was not punished. So, it is not only when at the expense of other creeds or cultures that freedom of
speach in Denmark is given more weight than respect for other's feelings.
Ad 4., I think it was a mistake when the prime minister refused to meet 11 diplomats from islamic countries 4 months ago,
though I understand his reasons. They explicitly asked for the meeting to request that he punished Jyllandsposten, but the
prime minister cannot punish anyone. I think he should have refused to meet them with that agenda, but at the same time
invited them to a meeting with a different agenda, and I also think he back then should have expressed his dislike of some of
the drawings publicly.
--Niels Ø 09:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments
Niels (/), how is this proclamation of yours of editorial use to the wiki-article? I dont see how. And I dont see why you
publish it here. -- ActiveSelective 09:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I am really trying to figure out what to think about the appearance of the drawings in the article. I honestly think they
should appear prominently, and I try to understand the reasons why that is so strongly opposed by some. So my views may
not interest you, but the comments (esp. from muslims) may interest me, and perhaps others too. My naive hope is that a
clearer analysis of the offence may enable us to approach consensus.--Niels Ø 09:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I appologize if I sounded rude. I hope you will find your answers! I advise you to add your questions to the many
non-wikipedia discussion lists. What I meant, however, was that I believe that this wikipedia page can probably best do
without such a discussion. These discussions are often endless, attract trolls, and doesnt help wiki-editing (which is the
main purpose of this page). I wish you luck -- ActiveSelective 10:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
No need to apologize; I didn't make my intentions clear. I still think the discussion is relevant. Some vote to keep
the drawings but move them down or to another page, hidden behind a sort of "spoiler warning" so that people
not wanting to see them can avoid that. But who is it who visits this article with a strong wish not to see the
306
drawings? I can imagine people who wish the drawings didn't exist in the world at all (I may be one of them, but
they do exist and won't go away). I can also imagine people who think they should be removed from the
wikipedia (I strongly disagree with them). But the people who want the compromise of having them "hidden"
somewhere, do they do so for their own sake so they don't have to see them themselves, or do they do it because
they think someone else may not mind so much that the drawings are there, as long as they can read the article
without seeing them? Do such people exist? Perhaps they do, but that's really what I want to know. If they don't
exist, we really should consider two alternatives, not three: Either we include the picture, accepting that they will
be removed again and again, putting them back every time - or we accept that some other considerations are more
important than freedom of speach and dissemination of neutral information. Those other considerations may be
respect of religious feelings, or they may be to save the 99.9% of the wikipedia project that are rather
uncontroversial, by accepting censorship in a few sensitive cases.
By the way, polls with three alternatives are difficult. If you are opposed to one alternative but can live with the
other two, how do you vote?--Niels Ø 11:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, whatching the discussion develop for a while, I think I must acknowledge that there is another valid
argument for "hiding" the drawings a little: As some people feel less provoked that way, they may leave it alone
rather than remove it. I guess hot-headed muslims (like other hot-headed people) may click to read a page, but
then be too impatient to scroll down. And after all, it is a small price to pay. So now I add my vote acordingly,
and leave the discussion.--Niels Ø 12:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Reality check
I think I should clarify just how offensive this image is to many Muslims; perhaps the best comparison would be if someone
were to wrap a Torah in bacon to prove a point about Judaism.
Wraping a Torah in bacon is not the best example. We are talking here about caricatures. And, as you can read in the
article, plenty of caricatures insulting to Jews have been published, especially in Muslim media. That's what I call a
"reality check". Neurino 12:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm Jewish and frankly I wouldn't even be offended by wrapping a Torah in bacon. I'd say to myself, wow, that's
interesting, I'd never even thought of that before. And I certainly wouldn't go out and riot and destroy things over
it. But that's just me. -16:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
As if that wasn't enough, the image of Muhammad as a terrorist, wearing a turban that appears to show the Shahadah ("there
307
is no God but God, and Muhammad is His prophet") adds insult to injury. By displaying this image at the top of the article,
we risk unneccessarily offending many observant Muslims who have come here to read about the controversy.
At the same time, I also believe both that the image is relevant to the article, and that Wikipedia should avoid self-censorship
(I have, for example, consistently taken this position in articles containing anatomical images). In my opinion, the best way to
resolve these conflicting goals is to move the image to the end of the article and to add a warning of the form:
Note: There is an image of the controversial newspaper page at the end of this article.
This was the solution reached in the similar Baha'i controversy, and seems to me to work very well.
Several of the comments insisting the image stay at the top of the article seem to have a distinct anti-Islamic slant, something
I find quite offensive; we should try to respect other people's sensibilities as far as possible, even if we don't agree with them.
-- The Anome 10:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you but could you point to the "Baha'i controversy" solution that you refer to?--JK the unwise 11:05, 3
February 2006 (UTC)
No worries found it at Bahá'u'lláh. See no reason we couldn't do the same here?--JK the unwise 11:08, 3 February 2006
(UTC)
See the whole talk section and its archives. It's been the subject of intense dispute for the past 2 days. The image
has been moved to the bottom a few times, and the deletions have stopped when that's been done. But the
"enlightenment" hardliners kept moving it back. (It's still blasphemous wherever it's placed, but for whatever
reason the deleters backed off when it wasn't at the top). 71.141.251.153 11:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The reason vandalism decreased when the image was moved down was that it then became evident we were not
intentionally using the image as a provocation.
Is that a dangerous message to send, that we're not out to provoke people?
Why on earth we would want to send the message that we ARE using the image as a provocation?
Al Qaeda is not the only place you will find extremists, apparently. BYT 11:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. Although most religions, strictly construed, consider the views of most other religions to be blasphemous;
however, most religious communities manage get along together without yelling "blasphemer!" at one another.
308
Similarly, although the image itself is, strictly construed, blasphemous to observant Muslims, it's using it as a
provocation that really upsets them. Hence the stopping of deletions when the image is moved to the end. Provocation,
from whatever side, is a bad thing. -- The Anome 11:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The (hypothetical) torah-in-bacon is interesting. I think any jew hearing about it would be offended
(and so would I). But knowing that it had happened, would a jew be more offended by actually seing
the bacon?--Niels Ø 11:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
In terms of the bacon thing I think... if an event like that happened and became newsworthy enough for us to have an
article about it then a Torah wrapped in bacon could be our lead image. My problem is that I can't find a more
appropriate lead image. If something happened because of this and that became the focal point then we could change
the image. But, as of now the cartoons are the focal point. I know it may be offensive and some may view it as
provocation but that's what this article is about. If you think some image is more important to the article than the
cartoon then propose it as the new lead. Unfortunately I didn't see any picture that came close. gren ??? ? 11:38, 3
February 2006 (UTC)
With respect, Gren, I strongly disagree. The cheese image makes it clear that the boycott is an
important movement in the Muslim world.
That image, or a comparable one, should lead this article.
And to all those who insist that the image of the cartoon is indispensable to any understanding of this
story, let me ask: Are you all going to start howling at the New York Times now? Somehow it
managed to get through its coverage of this major news story by using images of the boycott, and not
images of the cartoons. BYT 12:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I see your point BYT, but maybe NYT was being cowardly or politically motivated? This is
WP, not NYT. Also, the cartoons are in the article's title, this is not Muslim boycott of Danish
cheese yet :) If this escalates into a Yemen-Danish war, we will have an article about that,
without the cartoon image, but so far this is still a controversy about these very cartoons and
not an all-out "clash of civilizations" dab (?) 12:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Following the Torah-defilement analogy (yes, it is that offensive), since the public display of the depiction is
what is causing offence here, the nearest analogy would be going down to the local synagogue and defiling their
Torah too, just to show them what the first act was like. I don't think we need to lead with an image; the image is
relevant, and should be in the article; it just does not need to be brandished at the top of the article. -- The Anome
11:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
309
Or, to put it another way, the article is about provocation, but need not of itself be a provocation. -- The Anome
11:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
You can buy or copy your own Torah and wrap it in a bacon. You may not wrap somebody else's Torah in a
bacon. Besides Freedom of Speech, Denmark also has the notion of private property. dab (?) 12:17, 3 February
2006 (UTC)
Indeed you can. But the question is should you not only go and do so, but do so in public, in order to prove
your point? As far as I can see, doing so would be likely seen to by Jews as a deliberate attempt to piss
them off, on the basis that it is generally known that this would be offensive; they would also be likely to
conclude (rightly or wrongly) nthat your motive for doing so would have been anti-semitism. I can easily
see that many Europeans were unaware just how offensive depicting Muhammad is to many Muslims; this
is probably no longer true. -- The Anome 12:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah, but here it's different: someone else did so in public, and you are presenting a picture of the act,
while talking about it. --cesarb 14:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
For the umpteen millionth time, it doesn't matter why you find it offensive, nor does it matter that we understand why
you find it offensive. This is not your blog, this is not the place to describe your personal feelings, explaining why you
find the pictures offensive doesn't make deleting the pictures any more acceptable. Guppy313 17:58, 3 February 2006
(UTC)
The Anome just wrote: "The article is ABOUT provocation, but need not OF
ITSELF BE a provocation"
... and the distinction is important.
I would really like to hear some of the people who voted to place the image at the top of the article comment on the
distinction that User:The Anome has set out for us.
Do you agree or disagree? BYT 12:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
the image is the subject matter of the article. Of course it should be placed at the top. If people want to be
informed about the controversy, Muslim or non-Muslim, they have no choice but to both read about and look at
the cartoons, otherwise they will not be informed, they will just be ranting about cartoons they have not even
310
seen. dab (?) 12:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
"Have no choice?" Only because you're choosing for them. The reader has a right to be willfully ignorant.
Moving the image further down the page doesn't change the fact that it will be downloaded onto their hard drive
by their browser (i. e. people will still downloaded it, perhaps even more than if it was on top of the page), but it
allows flexibility on the part of the reader whether or not to actually see it on their monitor. Guppy313 18:02, 3
February 2006 (UTC)
So for instance, the New York Times coverage of the story is deficient, in your view, because it doesn't even include the
cartoon images? Never mind big or small, prominent or not prominent -- they chose not to piss people off. String 'em up
from a lamppost in Times Square, I suppose? BYT 12:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
relax; I agree that some of the cartoons are in bad taste, and I don't suggest people should be lynched for lack of bad
taste, so peace to the NYT from me; nor do I, apparently unlike the Muslim protesters, suggest people should be
lynched for bad taste. dab (?) 12:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
What I asked about, though, was whether we could cover a provocation without ourselves being provocative. So far as I can
make it out, your answer is "No," right? BYT 12:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
RIP: The collaborative ethic
You're reading too much into the intentions of wikipedians and overreacting. The only one who is responsible for the
reaction to the article is the one having the reaction. Wiki isn't supposed to guess at your reaction and censor itself to
that possible reaction, that would be writing to your specific POV. We follow an NPOV policy, the facts are presented.
If you don't like them, well.... Kyaa the Catlord 13:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Well -- the "facts" here include the obvious one that other media outlets have chosen to take a different path than we have
taken here...
Not unlike the way WP itself has chosen not to include a still from "Debbie Does Dallas" at Pornography. I assume we don't
have such an image, and I'm not bothering to check. But I'm going to make that assumption based on the principle that a
"collaboarative aesthetic" or "collaborative ethic" (for lack of a better word) would predictably preclude such an editorial
311
decision. You just kind of know that a WP article that smart people put a whole bunch of work into is going to move toward
the center.
Now here's my point. In other articles, like the Baha'ullah thing and the Oral sex article, we have in fact worked out ways to
address the sensibilities of readers who are likely to be gravely offended by certain images. Here, in a much more serious
case, we are unwilling to do so.
And the reason we are unwilling to do so is that ... ? (I honestly don't know. I'd like to hear your thoughts, though.)
The reason is simple. On Oral sex, a picture might be illustrative, and it might even be iconic. However, the article is
not about a particular photograph of a sex act. This article is about a controversy surrounding a particular cartoon, and
just like Piss Christ, the fact that that picture is offensive to people who will make a large, public outcry about it, is
exactly why it has been pictured here on Wikipedia; not to offend, but to explain what it is that people are busy being
offended by. Of course, no one is forced to read Wikipedia (I hope!) and if you are easily offended by those things that
occur in the real world, and produce international news, then you almost certainly will be offended by Wikipedia.
One possible solution for such sensitive people is to download the database (which is made freely available) and strip
out every article that offends you. Then you can present the "my POV-safe version of Wikipedia". Problem solved.
-Harmil 22:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
NPOV
Added sign. --Striver 11:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Why did you do that? The only thing that's disputed is the excistance and placement of the image, not the text itself.
For a start: The article would be neutral if it didn't set out to insult Muslims and inflame an already potent dispute by waving
this red flag in front of them. The article does in fact wave this red flag. It is therefore not neutral. BYT 12:04, 3 February
2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is about showing the facts objectively. You can hardly say that by just DISPLAYING an image central to the
story that the story is POV. The.valiant.paladin 12:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
312
Sure you can. This is the perfect example. Certain extremists feel this image should be as widely distributed as possible
BECAUSE it inflames Muslim sentiment and "teaches them a lesson" of some kind. That's a (political) point of view. As of
this moment, WP is catering to that sentiment by featuring the image prominently. BYT 12:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
the image is the subject matter of the article. Of course it should be placed at the top. If people want to be informed
about the controversy, Muslim or non-Muslim, they have no choice but to both read about and look at the cartoons,
otherwise they will not be informed, they will just be ranting about cartoons they have not even seen. And yes you are
free to roll a Torah in a bacon in Denmark (provided you are the rightful owner of both the Torah and the bacon) dab
(?) 12:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The question in this case is not whether people should be free to do so, but whether people should do so. I would
respectfully suggest that the answer to the second question is "no, don't be an asshole"; the first question is a
whole 'nother issue. -- The Anome 12:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The disputation of the neutrality of this article is disputed. :P Kyaa the Catlord 12:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Do anyone disagree with the *facts* of the story? The.valiant.paladin 12:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
No, I think a lot of people just have their panties in a wad over the picture being present on the article, not
with the article in and of itself. Kyaa the Catlord 12:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The article seems quite NPOV to me, the remaining controversy appears to be whether the image
should be shown at the top, or lower down. -- 80.168.224.156 12:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the article misses the understanding of muslims' viewpoint wich i work on it --Unfinishedchaos 12:30, 3 February
2006 (UTC)
That would be moving the article towards NPOV in and of itself. It would be writing for the enemy. Kyaa the Catlord
12:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Which enemy is that, Kyaa? BYT 12:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
*rolls eyes* Giving undue weight to one viewpoint draws the article to NPOV. This is what was suggested. Have fun
storming those windmills, however. Kyaa the Catlord 13:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
313
If people say the image should be available to the public, why not a link? Why post the image at top while risking that
Wikipedia can get involved with this whole situation? Just because not a lot of Muslims are active on Wikipedia doesn't mean
we can make it worse. 83.160.142.158 13:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
If that's your standard, then you should not show any pictures on WP, except through a link. Otherwise, you are being
inconsistent. Valtam 15:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I see a bit of POV intruding in the textual descriptions of the cartoons. The pictures are caractures of people
in beards and turbans and arab/persian clothing, and it is up to each viewer to decide who each figure represents and
what each figure believes. It seems that only one is objectively identified as "Muhammed", but he's a schoolboy, not a
prophet. --Sommerfeld 21:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
suggestion: one cartoon
what about picking one of the self-ironic cartoons to show at the top, large? Either the "Mohammed Valloyskele" one where a
kid named Muhammad is saying "Jyllands-Posten's journalists are a bunch of reactionary provocateurs", or else the one where
the Islamists come running with scimitars and bombs (an anticipation of the controversy really) but their leader is saying
"relax folks" (if only!). Both of these are not actually showing a caricature of Mumammad, but ironically refer to
Jyllands-Posten's PR stunt itself. dab (?) 12:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
vote++ MX44
Wouldn't that be slightly misleading?The.valiant.paladin 12:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Is it not misleading to suggest that all of the images are offensive? I am certain that nobody (who has stopped to
think) is offended by the schoolboy cartoon which is blatantly in favour of the free speech with respect argument.
And yet the cartoons are referred to as the 12 which have caused offence. I actually think that including that
image, at the top, and the complete set at the bottom would be a reasonable compromise. 195.11.74.82 13:40, 3
February 2006 (UTC)
It will also make the point that while everybody seems to assume these are a bunch of racist or islamophobe cartoons (the
314
protesters appartently did not bother to look at them closely), more than half of them are not actually about stereotype views
of Muhammad, but about the cartoonists' dilemma. All the more reason to make people look at the cartoons first and discuss
later. If fair use permits, Wikipedia should show and discuss the cartoons one by one. Even the "bomb turban" need not be
islamophobe, but a political statement about the abuse of Islam for the purposes of extremists. I must say that images like this
(not to mention [13] [14]) are far more offensive, being a reflection of atavistic primate hatred untempered by satire or
self-irony. dab (?) 12:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC) dab (?) 12:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - just one little picture is like being secretive about the other pictures. I find the number of pictures more
impressive than a single one, because the full-page really shows the racist attack: manay attacks on Muslims and on
Muslims only.
ActiveSelective 13:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Racist? Are muslims a race now? The.valiant.paladin 13:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
of course not; but islamophobe caricatures have a tendency to use racial stereotypes. dab
Point taken. However, I would like to point out that the drawings are an attack on censorship, not muslims
or arabs. The.valiant.paladin 13:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
(?) 13:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Taking one image out of context is a bad idea. Kyaa the Catlord 13:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment As you point out, more than half of the cartoonists (wisely) chose not to take the bait. So far, we're not even
that bright.
I have a feeling that if any steam built up here behind your wise proposal, the folks who are now screaming "the
cartoon IS the story" would start screaming, "sorry, um, we meant the image of Muhammad IS the story." And I very
much doubt your idea would carry the day. It probably should, though.
What's happening here is that people are looking for a reason - any reason - to cram down our throats the one thing to
which we object. For our "own good" of course. File under: paternalistic excrementum tauri.
315
This surrealistic insistence on infuriating people at any cost has, I think, nothing to do with the First Amendment and
everything to do with kicking a particular culture, one that has been persistently demonized in the mass media. What
was it Hitler taught us about the wisdom of demonizing a whole culture? BYT 13:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I resent BYT's claim that Wikipedia is pulling a Hitler on Muslims. We are treating Muslims the same way we do every
other religious community in Wikipedia, i.e. we are not censoring images they find upsetting. You are entitled to
demand special treatment, but when the community chooses not to grant you that special treatment, please don't shriek
"Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!" Babajobu 13:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
You can still reach a point, though, where "not giving religions special treatment" becomes "promoting irreligion
and secularism," something else Wikipedia isn't supposed to be doing. All too many editors now are on record in
favor of putting the picture front and center in the name of the latter. And so long as there is no clear, consistent
precedent in Wikipedia articles about where controversial pictures should, keeping it at the top of the page
appears to be catering to those particular editors and promoting their secular ideals. Guppy313 18:37, 3 February
2006 (UTC)
Hello? The article is "the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy". The controversy is the story. The image
defines the basis of the controversy. If there was no image, there would be no story. You are not being objective in
regards to what the controversy actually is and are, in my opinion, becoming part of the problem which the paper
sought to illuminate. Kyaa the Catlord 13:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how dividing the image into several images helps the article become better and more informative; In
fact, I think it would confuse more than anything else. And I don't see how it's going to mitigate the "insult" to
the muslims. The drawings are still there. Finally if you don't want to see cartoons with Muhammad, don't click
on a link that says "Muhammad cartoons". I don't want to see gay sex, so I don't click on links that say "Gay sex".
That's just common sense. The.valiant.paladin 13:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
So how come we don't see a picture of child pornography when we click on Child pornography? BYT 13:29, 3 February 2006
(UTC)
Because the production of child pornography involves abuse of children. Hence it is illegal. Hence Wikipedia do not
show that kind of images.The.valiant.paladin 13:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Brr. Sounds ominously close to censorship to me. Pretty sneaky. This whole "obeying the law" trend
316
is actually a Trojan horse.
Did you realize that that seemingly harmless decision to obey the law actually limits (!!!!!!) your
freedom of expression! You would actually be engaging in self-censorship!
Such a trend could, if we're not careful, be a slippery slope toward socialization, discretion, tact, and
(shiver) acceptance of the fact that our words and actions do carry consequences in the real world.
Editors get to make judgment calls, and we are making the wrong one here, folks.BYT 13:55, 3
February 2006 (UTC)
I shouldn't respond to you, since I feel that you are simply trolling. Please reread NPOV. Please.
Kyaa the Catlord 14:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, we *could* just go with the law. AFAIK, it's illegal to show child ponography where
en.wikipedia's servers is. It's not against the law to show drawings of Muhammad. We could also
look at it rationally; Do you really believe that there is no difference between child pornography and
the drawings of Muhammad? No muslims were harmed during the production of these drawings, but
children is harmed during the production of child pornography. Finally, this is not about tact; it's
about presenting the facts as truthfully and effective as possible.The.valiant.paladin 14:07, 3
February 2006 (UTC)
Is the New York Times part of the problem, too? They chose not even to use these images. Was their editorial decision
somehow inimical to the job of covering the story? BYT 13:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia strives to be better than newspapers. The.valiant.paladin 13:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
In this case, it is failing in that objective. BYT 13:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
In my honest opinion, yes, they are. The New York Times bent to self-censorship in order to not offend a group and did
itself a disservice by not presenting all the facts as fully as it could. However, comparing wikipedia to the New York
Times is comparing apples to oranges. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, whereas NYT is a newspaper. There is a
difference in the goal of each publication. Kyaa the Catlord 13:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
ok; so how about we describe the eleven cartoons, in words? dab (?) 21:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
317
Other controversial newspaper caricatures section
I have removed, and will continue to do so if necessary, three sentences User:Dogface has added to the Other controversial
newspaper caricatures section. They are: "No Jewish groups fired upon a British consulate building over this matter", "No
Jewish groups fired upon a French consulate building over this matter" and "No Jewish groups fired upon a German consulate
building over this matter." I believe these sentences are unnecessary point-making and contrasting (an irrelevant we-they-like
contrast). This article should not point at the current response to the cartoons and say "look at what they are doing, look how
bad they are, and then see how group suchandsuch responded." I believe that my removal of Dogface's comments is similar to
User:TheKMan's removal of the sentences "there were no mass riots, and gunmen did not fire upon a consulate over the
matter" and "but nobody fired upon an embassy or consulate building over the matter." These are personal opinions that might
belong on a blog, but not in an encyclopedia. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 13:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
You're right, obviously, those editorial comments had no place in the article. Babajobu 13:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Westerners argument on this matter
I would like to state what some points of view I have heard in the media but not seen in the article. (Note No personal
connection to this, just stating what I have heard in the media). —Achille 2006-02-03 13:56Z
Roughly from memory: The Danish government can not condemn or impede on freedom of speech. The Muslim
countries do not condone Anti Semitic cartoons or Op-Eds, and in fact some engage themselves in antisemitism.
This seems to be in contradiction with each other. Did you mean to say "condemn"? Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 13:59, 3
February 2006 (UTC)
Fixed, thanks for noticing so quickly —Achille 2006-02-03 14:12Z
The condone/condemn I was referring to was muslim countries and anti-semitic cartoons, not for the
Danish government and freedom of speech. See [15]. I don't know if it's what you meant, but to me
the sentence makes more sense like this: "Governments of some/many/whicheverisappropriate
muslim countries do not condemn antisemitic cartoons or op-eds, and in fact some engage
themselves in antisemitism." Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 14:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
What happened to the timeline?
318
It was a very useful tool for those trying to get an overview of how this occurred and developed. Now it's gone an in place we
have a lot of tangental and, frankly, weird "similar incidents." Some nutbar shooting Larry Flynt because of an interracial
picture in Hustler thirty years ago has little to nothing to do with this, and the timeline was actually useful.
Whahoppen?MattShepherd 14:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
the timeline was moved, due to the length of the article. Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
AlEX 14:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Hezbollah announcement re: suicide attacks in Denmark and Norway
According to Brussels Journal, Hezbollah has said that it will conduct suicide attacks in Denmark and Norway in retaliation
for publication of the cartoons. They say that the announcement is cited in this article in Jyllands-Posten. Anyone read
Danish? [16]. Babajobu 14:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I read danish and can confirm that, at least somewhat. The general secretary of Hezbollah didn't say that they would
conduct suicide attacks, but said that if "rights of freedom" are absolute, then anyone is free to blow himself up in either
Norway or Denmark. The.valiant.paladin 14:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The statement read: ”The international community should understand that any attack against our prophet will
not go unpunished.” [17] See Google NewSearch for other stories. —Achille 2006-02-03 14:40Z
In A.D. 2006, war was beginning......Homestarmy 14:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
What you say?!
That wasn't a threat, Brandon was saying he's leaving Wikipedia. Check his userpage: User talk:BrandonYusufToropov.
Yes it's digusting that some people are using this article to bring their own racism here. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:16, 3
February 2006 (UTC)
Read it again, I know he said he was leaving. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
319
Yes I do, but unfortunately I am not god in writhing English. But it is right as you say. I can translate the beginning:
"Hezbollah is threatening with suicide attacks in Denmark and Norway… The Hezbollah - movement indicate/give a hint
of/suggested* that the cries bye the cartons may led to suicide attacks I Denmark and Norway"
I locked it up in the dictionary so I did not get it wrong. It is not used the Danish word “si” with means say.
I can quote this Norwegian article http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article1213079.ece "- Vi har vært i kontakt med
myndighetene i Libanon i kveld. Statsministeren i landet, og Hezbollah selv, avkrefter på det sterkeste at de har fremsatt
trusler mot Norge, sier stats- sekretær Raymond til VG Nett."
"We have been in contact with the authorities in Lebanon to night. The prime minister and the Hezbollah it self, denies that
there have been any threats towards Norway, says Parliamentary Secretary Raymond to VG news" For Aftenposten is very
good newspaper I Norway, also some articles in English http://www.aftenposten.no/english/world/article1212624.ece
Huh? Well, I found the original article that Jyllandsposten got it's information from. It's in english, så judge for yourself
if Hezbollah is threatening anybody here . The.valiant.paladin 15:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe the legal term is incitement. Septentrionalis 16:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Surely suicide bombing is more offensive than these cartoons. User:slamdac
Depends on who you ask. --StuffOfInterest 18:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
DIGRESSION WARNING (since everyone else is not talking about the article
itself either)
Surveying and writing about these discussion pages would make for an excellent angle on the nuances and themes of the
controversy. I'm talking to the reporters reading this. Lotsofissues 15:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Images, drawings, illustrations, charicatures or cartoons?
320
What's the proper thing to call it?(Cloud02 15:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC))
What do you mean? Are you asking what to call all of those things? art. What to call this in particular? A political
cartoon. (which is, technically also art) Swatjester 15:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The most common use is Cartoons. See a google news search for drawings OR images OR cartoons OR
cartoon OR illustration OR illustrations OR caricatures hezbollah OR mohammad link ~ Cheers —Achille
2006-02-03 15:42Z
Another picture of the prophet?
Does anyone remember that episode in South Park about the Super Best Friends? I remember distinctly they drew
Mohammud and even showed him moving around and using the power of fire. In fact there is even a wikipedia article about it
and I think he's even in the picture! Someone explain to me why there wasn't an enormous uproar over this? I think this is a
pic of him standing next to Jesus! http://images.southparkstudios.com/media/images/504/superbestfriends.gif Hitokirishinji
17:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)</ref>
Thank you! I was trying to remember where that was from. Swatjester 17:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
yep, that's surely Muhammad! Babajobu 17:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
This is a bit weird indeed, it isn't exactly the first time cartoons like these are published. Asdfwtf 18:02, 3 February
2006 (UTC)
Because he wasn't attributed with a relation to terrorism, unlike one the depictions JP has publsihed (Cloud02 18:03, 3
February 2006 (UTC))
So it is ok to show pictures of Mohammud after all as long as it isn't in a negative light? Doesn't that just make
this entire argument about "forbidden to draw the prophet" entirely moot? Hitokirishinji 18:16, 3 February 2006
(UTC)
The depcition of Muhammad is not allowed by Islamic tradition (hadith). This however does not submit to
non-Muslims, as they aren't muslims (duh). The strong reaction this issue has gotten is because one of the
images shows him with a bomb on his head, with the creed written on it. Also this is regarded as being all
the anger that has been built up in Muslims in the Middle East towards the wester world being brought out.
(Israel-palestine, Iraq, pressure on Syria and now Iran) (Cloud02 18:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC))
You're missing my point. I know that this obviously doesn't apply to non-Muslims and of course the
321
strong reaction is linked to the images associating Mohammud with terrorism. Someone made the
argument above as a vote to not keep the image as
"Showing the figures of Mohammed is disturbing muslims. And it is a insult to Islam. In Islam
making and also looking the figures of Mohammed is forbidden."
If this is truely so incredibly blasphemous and insulting to Islam, why isn't there a discussion on the
page I indicated above? Why aren't there protest and bomb threats being sent to the makers of South
Park? (Though I'm sure they've had their nasty run ins with other groups). I think it's absurbed that
people are using this excuse as their cover for why they are truely offended. If they were vehmently
against such depictions of their prophet, there would be a harder stance upon this rule and it would
be applied unilaterally to all images. Hitokirishinji 18:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
But if you read the commentary in this discussion by people who say they are offended by the cartoons, the
vast majority of them are offended by all 12 of them, not just the bomb-in-the-turban cartoon. I think it is
only the non-Muslims who are focusing on the bomb-in-the-tuban cartoon. Valtam 18:45, 3 February 2006
(UTC)
Hey guys ... u discovered many things alone ... actually no one will kill somebody only cause he draw a pic and he say that is
muhammad ... it happen manytimes here in middle east that ppl say blasphemy in streets and between each other , but such
things are not considered respectful behaviour , shiite says about some pics that they illustrate muhammad or ali , in spite
there are no assertion at all about that ... but in this time the feeling of insulting and the explosive position in this area , the
anger from goverments and usa politics ... all of that find a way to be expressed by this way of protesting --Unfinishedchaos
19:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
meta-meta-meta-controversy
The BBC's dilemma: http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4670000/newsid_4678100/4678186.stm (quite
relevant) Thparkth 18:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed a very valid link. It the same discussion we are havibg here. Good read, good find, thanks. Twthmoses 20:45, 3
February 2006 (UTC)
322
I need to comment on the picture controversy
Let's keep this Wikipedia article encyclopedic instead of making it a debate. The article describes the controversy around the
pictures and therefore, should show the pictures in order for the readers to understand what it's about and make up their own
mind and form an informed opinion of their own. This is supposed to be an NPOV encyclopedia and not a debate forum so
please, let not religious dogma dictate us (i.e. Wikipedia contributors) to consor ourselves (i.e. our encyclopedia). (Entheta
18:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)) And besides, it's up to everyone whether they want to click that thumbnail or not to see the
larger version of the picture. It's not like the little thumbnail version can really offend anyone who doesn't really want to - and
have decided in advance to - get offended. (Entheta 19:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC))
I support keeping the image, but...
...a lot of you hopped-up race-baiting right-wing caricatures are seriously tempting me to change my vote to "delete" just to
spite you. My god, people, step outside your heads for a second. Comments like "what are you going to do, bomb
Wikipedia?" just make you sound like... well, hopped-up race-baiting right-wing caricatures. As stated.
You harm your cause more than you help it with braggadocio and chest-thumping jackassery.
There are serious, academic, intelligent reasons to keep the image, which I support. But my support forces me to stand next to
some very shameful human beings. MattShepherd 19:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Where do you see examples of race-baiting? And why 'right-wing'? Why not 'left-wing'? Valtam 19:14, 3 February
2006 (UTC)
I'm beginnning to think MattShepherd can't back up any of his 'chest-thumping' claims... Valtam 19:56, 3
February 2006 (UTC)
And, now I know he can't... Valtam 21:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Being AFK for two hours doesn't exactly equal being "unable to back up my claims." And dude,
have you actually READ this page? MattShepherd 21:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
But upon reflection, "religion-bating" would have been a much more accurate choice of words than
"race-bating." Implications of flat-out racism were not intended. Implications of "let's show them
Muslims who's boss!" are very intended, and very, very sad. MattShepherd 21:54, 3 February 2006
(UTC)
323
Fair enough. You saw my point that Islam is NOT a race. On the other point, by my count,
there have been more threats of violence from those who want to remove the images than
chest-thumping from those who want to keep the images. It's just that the threats are removed
very quickly and no longer appear on the page. Valtam
And now you know why I abstained in the first poll. Guppy313 19:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Wisdom noted. I'll be bowing out from now on. This gets uglier by the minute. MattShepherd
The outside link I removed
Aside from the fact that I am not happy with having an inline link to an unabashedly anti-Islam website, the link used makes
no clear distinction between the pictures that were published in the JP and unrelated art, and appears to segue into
photographs of bloody street scenes.
Also, as much trouble as we seem to be having in translating the Danish text, I do not think it is a good idea to inline link to
doctored images with an English translation added. Guppy313 19:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
If you can find a better website, by all means let us know. Until then, it is impossible to see anything other than a 20x20
pixel squish of each cartoon from Wikipedia.
.jpg ->.png version
the low resolution .jpg images was replaced by GraphicArtist to a high resolution .png image [18] in violation with copyright
restrictions KimvdLinde 19:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
.png page is deleted KimvdLinde 20:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
My only significant contribution...
...to Wiki namespace: Wikipedia:Recentism. This page is a joke and its unfortunate otherwise earnest contributors are wasting
time on it. Marskell 20:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
324
(End of Volume One of two volumes)
325

The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate

Transcription

Similar documents

Afewerq Yohannis and Debbebe Seyfu: Notes on Ethiopian Writers

Alabama Transportation Facts - University of Alabama at Birmingham

The cases of June 2000, November 2002 and September 2002 as

UPDATE 2: The Wikipedia Muhammad

China 2006 July 7 - 18 Beijing, Xi`an, Shanghai and Hong Kong

Advantages and limitations of using satellite images for

Piratez Are Just Disgruntled Consumers

Sponsored Students and Partnership Opportunities in Iraq

Weekly Iraq - Xplored

11/21/03 – PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE - BUSINESS