Misplaced Pages

Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:58, 3 February 2006 editHitokirishinji (talk | contribs)301 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:36, 18 September 2024 edit undoAirshipJungleman29 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors45,172 edits assess 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
<!--{{talkheader|noarchive=yes|search=no}}-->
{{tmbox|style=border-color:#b00000;|type=content
|text=<div>
'''Notice''': Prior discussion has determined that '''''some images of Muhammad are allowed'''''.
Discussion of images, and of edits regarding images, must be posted to ]. Removal of pictures without discussion will be reverted. If you prefer not to see images of Muhammad, you can ].
}}
{{controversial}} {{controversial}}
{{Censor}}
<div border="1" style="border:black solid; background-color:white; margin: 0.5em; padding: 0.5em;">
{{Article history
Ahem. Timeout. I've blanked this talk page momentarily because although there is some good discussion here, there's a lot of very bad discussion. This is not the appropriate place for a general philosophical discussion about Islam, freedom of speech, terrorism, religious tolerance, etc. Not only is '''this talk page''' not the right place for it, '''Misplaced Pages''' is not the right place for it. Here, we are polite, thoughtful, smart, geeky people, trying only to do something which is undoubtably '''good''' in the world: write and give away a 💕.
|action1=GAN
|action1date=2006-02-04, 20:02:36
|action1link=Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 8b#Failed Good Article
|action1result=failed
|action1oldid=38185004


|action2=GAN
Now, there are legitimate questions on both sides regarding this particular article, and I want to encourage a discussion of that. But please, do it with the very strong assumption of good faith on all parties to the discussion, and stick directly and purely to the '''editorial''' question at hand, rather than a general philosophical debate.
|action2date=2006-04-22, 06:55:02
|action2link=Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 19#Good Article nomination has failed
|action2result=failed
|action2oldid=49414612


|action3=GAR
'''Now, please, with kindness, start the discussion over?'''
|action3date=11:13, 25 April 2006
|action3link=Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 19#Good Article
|action3result=failed
|action3oldid=50068378


|action4=GAN
--] 00:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
|action4date=17:20, 25 April 2006
</div>
|action4link=Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 19#GA Pass
|action4result=listed
|action4oldid=50074759


|action5=GAR
{| style="float:right; clear:right;" border="3"
|action5date=2006-04-26, 12:30:26
|-
|action5link=Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 19#Article removed from Misplaced Pages:Good articles
! style="background-color:grey;" | Archives
|action5result=delisted
|-
|action5oldid=50244325
|
*]
*]
*]
*]
|}


|action6=GAR
== ATTENTION ==
|action6date=09:14, 28 April 2006
|action6link=Misplaced Pages:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 1#Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
|action6result=listed
|action6oldid=50556537


|action7=PR
Please read a few books about Islam traditions before VOTE.
|action7date=2006-05-10, 11:42:48
|action7link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/archive1
|action7oldid=52451520


|action8=GAN
ISLAM is not Usame Bın Laden
|action8date=22:38, 15 June 2006
|action8link=Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy#GA
|action8result=listed
|action8oldid=58841025


|action9=GAR
Because there is he in your '''subconscious'''.--] 04:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
|action9date=01:27, 16 June 2006
|action9link=Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy#Article removed from Misplaced Pages:Good articles
|action9result=delisted
|action9oldid=58864762


|action10=GAN
"I do not agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it." ]/]
|action10date=09:19, 26 June 2006
|action10link=Misplaced Pages:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 3#Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
|action10result=listed
|action10oldid=60511843


|action11=GAR
Misplaced Pages is about disseminating information. Look here if you want to see how Misplaced Pages handled ] controversial religious subjects.
|action11date=2006-06-27, 14:51:18
] 05:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
|action11link=Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy#Article removed from Misplaced Pages:Good articles 2
|action11result=delisted
|action11oldid=60742874


|action12=FAC
= Polls - IN PROGRESS =
|action12date=2006-07-02, 19:08:59
==Image Poll==
|action12link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/archive1
|action12result=failed
|action12oldid=61717895


|action13=GAN
{| width="100%" border="3" style="clear:right;"
|action13date=13:22, 7 July 2006
|-
|action13link=Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy#Seeking consensus
! Have picture in the article (size and placement TBD)
|action13result=listed
! Delete
|action13oldid=62534199
! Move to separate page and link the image
|-
| valign="top" |
<!--Vote below for "Having picture in article (size and placement TBD)"-->
<!-- -->
<!-- -->
#] 18:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Keep of course! The very article is about these pictures!
#KEEP KEEP KEEP! MAKE IT BIGGER!! EVERYONE WHO VISITS THIS PAGE SHOULD BE DEEP-THROATED WITH IT.. THANKS ] 16:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Keep''' Nobody disputes the existence of the images. There is no hypocrisy in showing this image here. Misplaced Pages has both an article for the ] and the ]. Don’t sensor the images and let people judge the truth for themselves. --] 12:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#<small>]<sup>] | ] | ]</sup></small> ---- 01:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 07:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC) People who don't like the image can simply off image loading function of their browser. Plus, use of image here is totally referential. Should we ban the use of word "nigger" in the article titled "nigger"?
#] 19:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 19:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] ] 19:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 20.01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 20:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 20:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] ] 20:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 20:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 20:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 20:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 20:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 20:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#:User's only edits are to this talk page. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 20:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 20:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#<font color="green">'''Snailwalker |''' </font> 20:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 20:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 20:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] - ] - ] 20:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 20:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 20:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#<font color="red">]</font><font color="blue"> ]</font> 20:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#--] 20:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#--] 20:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] - ] 20:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 20:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#<TT>] <SMALL>(] • ])</SMALL></TT> 20:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#--] 20:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 20:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 20:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 20:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 20:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC) '''Keep''' I believe that the initial publication of these images does not exhibit very good taste. Yet given that the images have been published and became a focus of international discussion and tension, the publication here has significant encyclopedic value.
#— ] &lt;]|]&gt; 20:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#--] 21:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC) One needs to make a personal judgement about how controversial or offensive they might be. THE IMAGE SHOULD BE BIGGER.
#] 21:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC) - '''Keep''': When I first looked at this article yesterday, the images were not present. I wasn't aware of the controversy at the time, but spent time searching for the images elsewhere, because I felt seeing them was necessary to understand what specifically was being discussed.
#] 21:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC) - the image is extremely important in order to fully understand the article.
#] 21:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC). Misplaced Pages should never give in to religious fanatics.
#] 21:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC) STRONGLY in favor of keeping. They are central to the controversy, and must be seen to be understood.
#--] 21:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 22:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC) - Freedom of Speech is more important the religious feelings
#] 22:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
# ] 22:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 22:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC) The image should be somewhere in the article but should be moved and resized smaller. Main picture for the article should be something different.
#] 22:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 22:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 22:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Misplaced Pages is generally neutral, but in one sense that it is not neutral is that it believes in freedom of speech. Clearly the image is relevent to the article, therefore putting it in would be sensible, and this coupled with Misplaced Pages's belief in freedom of speech means it '''must''' stay.
#--] 22:28,2 February 2006 (UTC) Freedom of speech! Top, right-justified. Misplaced Pages is neutral and should not yield to hiding the central theme of the discussion. This is a global community, not an encyclopedia based on a certain creed.
#—'']'' 22:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] ] 22:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#--] 22:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#--] 22:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC) We should even have indepth descriptions of each cartoon!
# --] 22:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC) keep
# ] | ] 23:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 23:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#Definitely. See the ], linked to from the bottom of every page. ] <small>(])</small> 23:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
# -- ] 23:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#--] 23:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
# Keep. Doesnt matter where in the article, but as big and legible as possible. The multiplication of rumors and introduction of additional pictures makes it ''imperative'' that the original images are accurately and legibly displayed. The reader needs to see just what trivial pictures someone is willing to kill over. ] 23:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#--] (]) 23:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#--] 23:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#Misplaced Pages is not censored. Not for minors, and not for religious beliefs. —<b><font color="darkgreen">]</font></b> <font size="1">(<b><font color="darkblue">]</font></b>)</font> 23:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
# '''Keep''' and '''enlarge'''--] 00:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#--] 01:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#--] 2 February 2006 (19:15 EST)
#--Keep, or redefine what Misplaced Pages is about. ] 00:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#Second ] ] 00:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#--Keep, but given the number of Muslims in the world and the potential size of the Muslim[REDACTED] community, we should maybe consider moving it to the bottom if Misplaced Pages is to not lose a sizeable chunk of its readership. ] 00:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#--] 00:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Well, the reason behind this dilemma is the pictures; it would be meaningless not put them in the top. But it should be clear that the Pictures are merely the POV of the Cartoonist.
#] 00:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#--] 00:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC) bottom placement only, otherwise count me as '''Delete'''
#] 00:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC) No kneeling to any one group of people to make them "feel" good. Truth and freedom.
#--] 00:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC) it should be in the article, at top, it's the main reason behind the problem and it's how they IMAGINED him.
# ] 01:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC) The reason for the prohibition on images was prevention of idolatry; no Muslim would be tempted to worship those cartoons.
#--] 01:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#--] 01:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 01:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Freedom of speech. Misplaced Pages should not abide by the laws of Islamofascism.
#] 02:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Keep it where it is (at the top), it belongs there and is 100% relevant to the article.
#Keep at the top, it's relevant and a good illustration of the topic. That's all that matters.&mdash;] 02:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Keep''' Misplaced Pages should never bow to religious fanaticism. ] 02:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Keep''', as per many people above me. ] 03:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# '''KEEP.''' The right to free speech and freedom of the press is infinitely more absolute than any commandment of Islam. ] 03:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#--] 03:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# ] 03:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''KEEP''' the image in the article, but not necessarily front and centre; and this poll has itself become a comment on "Islam, freedom of speech, terrorism, religious tolerance, etc" (doesn't the last comment in the ninth "no" vote just say it all). ] 03:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#Has anyone seen him? How do you know he even looks like that anyway? ] 04:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 04:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 04:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 04:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC). Misplaced Pages must not allow special interest groups to dictate what we may or may not see, and what we may or may not publish.
# ] 04:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC) The article on the ] has a picture on the top too.
# ] 05:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# ] 05:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC) On the condition that it is moved below the fold. If you're browsing Misplaced Pages, you're probably already in love with your scroll wheel. I think a bit of scrolling is worth keeping content accessible to the group that, in the main, this concerns.
#--''']]''' 05:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# '''KEEP.''' ] 05:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#--] 06:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC), Misplaced Pages compromises it's purpose and principles if it sets a precedent of allowing itself to be bullied into concealing facts--the cartoons did exist and did get printed--because it hurts the sensibilities of a few.
#&#160;— ]] 06:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#Keep,same size , same placement.] 06:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Keep''' Your religion is no better than mine.
# You can't jihad[REDACTED] can you? Perhaps this shows the world that radical islam ISN'T the true way. ] 07:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# ] (]) 08:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# --] 08:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# ] "Misplaced Pages may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive." ] 08:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#Just keep it like it is. -- ] 08:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#The Misplaced Pages is the obvious place to look for uncensored information. Keep it live and prominent.] 08:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# --] 08:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC) The image is the whole point of this article.
# --] 09:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC) KEEP, it is common sense to keep the image which is the basis of the article.
# --Without seeing the image, we can have neither rational discussion nor informative artical so that people can make up their own mind. Also, trying to appease one religious group would open a can of worm, everybody from Atheists to Christian Fundamentalists will demand the same treatment. ]
#'''Keep''' Should be on top because without it the article is almost useless. ] 09:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# '''Keep''' Only way rational discussion can make sense. Otherwise, people only see the two deliberately offensive images shown briefly in most media, not the whole thing. And Muslims do not insist that non-Muslims comply with Islamic law, surely? And there ''have been'' cartoons showing the Jewish and Christian God, despite the commandment, and nobody has threatened to kill anyone over them. And I give you ], as an example of a Misplaced Pages article that you only go to if you are happy to see the picture. ] 10:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# '''Keep''' and in as prominent position as possible. It's the very point of the article. ]
# '''Keep''' but be sensitive in presentation (i.e. do not have a top)--] 10:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# '''Keep'''. It's kind of necessary for the article. We're reproducing material that made the news&ndash;not endorsing it as a sign of freedom of speech like the newspapers. ] ] <sup>]</sup> 11:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# '''Keep''' it is essential to the event. ] 12:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# '''Keep''' The pictures explain the article. But i agree that they shouldn't be on the top of the page. ] 13:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Keep''' (I also vote for moving to separate page, as I think that is OK too.)--] 12:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Keep''' If there is a controversy, which there undoubtedly is, readers should be able to know what that controversy is about. The cartoons are vital to the controversy, and are therefore vital to an article about that controversy. Also, ]. ] ]]] 12:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Keep''' Misplaced Pages is here to impart information - all information. People say we're being eurocentric, but if a cartoon were so offensive to Christians, it would surely not be removed. People say that we don't need to create a provocation to talk about a provocation, but the provocation is already created, and it garners a better understanding for one to know what the fuss is all about. They say that it shouldn't be printed because it's against Muslim law, but saying the true name of God is against Jewish law, and ]. They say the site is already censored by Congress, but Congress has never stepped in, and if they did, there would be an outrage. The fact that this is even a debate is a sad reflection on our values, too afraid to offend to do what we're here to do. ] 12:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# '''Keep''' It's not violating any rule of Misplaced Pages, neither violating any international law. Misplaced Pages is not standing under the Shariah. No Muslim is forced to open this page. ] 14:39, 3 February 2006 (CET)
# '''Keep''' If someone says he's offended by my eating/drinking/breathing/living, etc., I'm not obliged to stop doing these things. I find this demand equally unreasonable. ] (]) 14:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# '''Keep''' Absolutely. Enlarge too, full page - people want to see this. Censoring an article because it is offensive to someone isn't in the best interests of an encyclopedia. What next? Maybe the ] page should be deleted? ] 14:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# '''Keep''' At the top, in the current size as a sidebar to the first paragraph --] 14:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Keep''' --] 14:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Keep''' --] 14:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#Keep, this is policy. {{User:Sverdrup/sig}} 15:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Keep''' Firstly, this is policy. We have kept articles on the Iranian presidents remarks about Israel; which are orders of magnitude worse IMO. Secondly, have you seen these? . The muslim world is guilty of more henious caricatures than this one. It stays. ] 15:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#The cartoons are intentionally offensive...and we should keep them. "I disagree with everything you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it." ''Voltaire''. "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. " ''Orwell.''----] 15:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Keep''' obviously per policy. Block any and all hypocritical POV-pushers that want to censor Misplaced Pages. ] 15:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#Keep. ] 15:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#''''Keep''' No particular religious group's dogma should not dictate Misplaced Pages. (] 15:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC))
# Keep.--]] 15:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC) This is an article about the cartoons. Our purpose is to provide useful information. A fair use sample of the cartoons is useful information. That is all there is to be said; everything else is POV.
# '''Keep'''. Without it, why do we even have Wikipeida? ] 16:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Keep'''--] 16:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Keep'''. On top. ] 16:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Keep'''. We shouldn't deleted it because it offends a select group of people. It clearly is of encyclopedic value.--] 16:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Keep'''. as per Entheta. ] 16:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Keep'''. But perhaps move the image next to the full description as it reads easier, plus it would stop the complaints about the images being in such a prominent position.] 17:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#Sure, why the hell not ? ] 17:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Keep'''. This is "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy" -- they are the cartoons. Although I would have them "below the fold". --] 17:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Keep'''. Topical, crucial to illustrate the subject. I have to add that most of the arguments to censor this image are despicable, and that it is the honour and duty of any free man to stand against such things. ] 17:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Keep'''. --] 18:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Keep'''. The information is useful; if anyone likely to be offended by cartoons of Muhammad clicks on a link that says "Muhammad cartoons controversy," well, they're asking for it. I feel cheapened, however, by being forced to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with a whole pile of assholes who support the keep for confrontational or race-baiting reasons. ] 19:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Please point out where you see someone 'baiting' someone's race! ] 19:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Keep'''. Intrinsic part of the article which is very important for understanding the debate. ] 19:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''keep''' Poll should be closed ] 19:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''keep as it is''' Poll should be closed ] 19:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 19:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Keep''', of course. ] 20:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Keep''' them, please ! ] 20:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Keep''', definitely. ] 21:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Keep''', There is plenty of content that discusses controversial issues, such as the ] article which includes an Arab cartoon of Nasser kicking the "Jews into the sea." Its presense in Misplaced Pages only documents such controversy, not supports one side or another. —] 21:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Keep'''. ''English'' Misplaced Pages conforms to the freedom of the press ideals of the ''English''-speaking world, which grows out of Western civilization. IMHO, Muslims are demonstrating the incompatibility of Islam with the Western world by their (hypocritical) outrage (they demand respect for their religion, but do not respect the religions of others). ] 21:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Keep'''. Misplaced Pages is not censored, ''period'', and displaying this image is absolutely necessary to establish illustrative context for the rest of the article. --<font style="background: #000000" face="Impact" color="#00a5ff">]</font> 21:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Keep''' -] 21:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
| valign="top" |
<!--Vote below for "Delete"-->
<!-- -->
<!-- -->
#] I love WikiPedia. Long live free speech along side with respect. Certainly nobody can be forced to be respectful. However one of the intrinsic mandates of Misplaced Pages is to be respectful among others. I am asking: how can you be "respectful and polite" by showing '''a cartoon that's exclusive intent is to point fingers to members of a particular religion by disrespecting and ridiculing a prophet!''' The publishers of these cartoons can choose to be disrespectful. I choose to protest them and respect everything that anybody thinks is divine or holy. And I would love to see Misplaced Pages to choose '''RESPECT'''.
# ] 20:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
# ] 20:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC) '''This is nothing but a usual Europian hypocricy. Can you say, for example, 'Holocost is nothing but a propaganda!' in your country? Where is your 'freedom of speech'? Jews were killed or not, that is a different story. My point is you cannot even say it in your countries!...''':Your point is wrong. Period. Check your talk page. ] 21:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# --] 23:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
# (] 22:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC))
# ] 23:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
# Showing the figures of Mohammed is disturbing muslims. And it is a insult to Islam. In Islam making and also looking the figures of Mohammed is forbidden. Every time I enter the page I click as fastly as i can to the "discussion" to dont see the cartoon. That is raping the holy things of Islam. And putting this cartoon in the article is like "show the movie of a raped woman to her husband". And it is not about "freedom". If you want to show the cartoon you can give a link to Magazine site. That dont disturbs the muslims and people can see the cartoon if they want. ]]] 23:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
# ] (threats against[REDACTED] deleted.)
# From an international understanding point of view, the cartoons are so upsetting to millions of muslims worldwide, that I believe this consensus to keep the cartoons is a wrong one. It is however, the decision of the body of Wikipedians, and I will protect the images in sorrow.--Fil] Éireann 00:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# ] I think Misplaced Pages should delete the picture immidietly. For two reason, first, it is an encyclopedia - not a place to redicule my Prophet (peace be upon him). Second in its own words "Not only is this talk page not the right place for it, Misplaced Pages is not the right place for it. ''Here, we are polite, thoughtful, smart, geeky people, trying only to do something which is '''undoubtably good in the world''''': write and give away a 💕." How can you be good, polite and thoughtful if you abuse the person loved and respected by over a billion over their own parents and everybody else in the world. I see this as insulting, rude and foolish thing to do. This is not fanaticism, this is basics of Islam. Something similar to "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." Say how would a Jew react if you drew a picture of His G-d? If Misplaced Pages does not remove this picture Muslim Wikipedians around the World would have another opinion of Misplaced Pages.
# ] 06:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC) There is no point in adding injury to the insult. Don't.
# ] 07:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# Is no added value ]
# ] 11:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Insulting Muslims by showing these pictures is not an NPOV at all. I love Misplaced Pages, but it's not uncensored as you think, since it's censored by US Congress. Muslims could boycott Misplaced Pages and then the key idea of its creation will be violated. Looking at the left column makes me think that all we have is the European POVs, not NPOVs.
# This is a POV,[REDACTED] should have none ]]Zach 12:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# I vote for '''deletion''' ] 13:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# I vote for deletion too ]
# I vote for deletion --] 14:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# I vote for deletion too ]
#:Users only edit. ] | ] 15:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Delete''' --] 16:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Immediatelt Delete the Picture''' because a respectable place like Misplaced Pages should not involve itself in the '''Picture Conroversy''' atleast. By publishing this Picture Misplaced Pages is doing no good to its reputation. Though the article is enough for generating information but reproduction of a picture places Misplaced Pages in the same line in which the Danish Newspaper stands right now. My appeal to Jimbo Wallis is to remove the picture immediately --]


|action14=GAR
| valign="top" |
|action14date=2008-10-08
<!--Vote below for "Move to separate page and link the image"-->
|action14link=Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy#Good article promotion
<!-- -->
|action14result=kept
<!-- -->
|action14oldid=250490190
# Why to show these pictures that are shocking for muslims, while hiding those whith sexual content (I mean, no X pictures, but anatomic ones) ? They don't hurt me, so why should they be hidden ? I think that the same treatment should be aplicated to both.
# ] 21:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC) ''second choice only'', if inclusion here is not possible. see additional remarks at my first choice. ''first choice is keep''
# Showing a picture of Muhammed is extremely offensive to Muslims. There are no portraits at ] and so they should definately not be shown here - provide a link to the image, thats all thats needed -- ]<small>|]</small> 23:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
# Whilst I'm a British, white ] who would - actually - like a world in which religion didn't exist, it isn't at all clear to me that any non-muslims have taken the time to understand that the muslim community is telling us that ''any'' image of Muhammad is regarded as a blasphemy. Therefore, it is not at all clear to me ''why'' we would insist on stirring up strong emotions when we can leave the image, with a warning that it may cause offence, behind a link; leaving the responsibility of "choosing to be offended" with the muslim audience. --] 00:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# I'm in favor of a link, or at least placing it where it can be easily scrolled off the page, because I think that would increase readership of the article. Currently, a reader in a Muslim environment cannot read the article without seeing the image. If the reader is in a cybercafe, or a child using the computer in his/her parents' home, the reader may be unwilling to take the risk of being seen with the images. ] 01:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# I don't see why the pictures can't be linked from the article page. Then no one will be forced to see them. As for showing them at all, I think they have to be available since without viewing them one cannot have an informed opinion. ] 04:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# I think this is the appropriate solution for this neutral Misplaced Pages. ] 10:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# We have Spoiler warnings so people do not see things they do not want to. How is this any different? ] 10:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Move''' (I also vote for keeping at main page, as I think that is OK too.)--] 12:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''This''' is what I think is a reasonable solution. Free Speech is great, but it is blatant that these images are causing more offence than anything on Misplaced Pages. It is without precedent. This will give access to the images for those who are interested, but allow those who are offended to learn about all sides of the controversy. ] 13:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#I strongly defend Misplaced Pages's right to include the images. The ] article displays numerous offensive drawings. Nonetheless, I believe it is proper for us to ''choose'' not to display this image in the main article, but to link to it instead. The information will be there for those who want to see it, while those who are deeply offended can at least read and edit the article. Speech that stops dialog dead in its tracks is best avoided.--] 15:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#Of the three choices in this poll, I guess i'll have to choose this one. The image is obviously offending muslims, however, as previously mentioned, the image does exist, so we should have the right to view it if we want. A link to it helps solve the problem.--dbalsdon 16:05, 3 Febuary 2006(UTC)
|}


|action15=FAC
==Poll 2 Position of image==
|action15date=15:08, 30 January 2009
|action15link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/archive2
|action15result=not promoted
|action15oldid=266959653


|action16=PR
=== Move to body of article with a link directly to the image on the top (]'s idea) ===
|action16date=19:32, 7 December 2012
# I feel we should move the image down to a lower part of the article to avoid causing offence.--Fil] Éireann 22:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
|action16link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/archive2
# (] 23:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC))
|action16result=reviewed
#--] <sup>]</sup> 23:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Best solution to stop the few days of continuous revert wars and offence. The cartoon image will still be there + another link to it's main image page.
|action16oldid=526744152
# ] 23:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
# ] 23:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC) The cartoons do not illustrate the controversy about the cartoons. The top picture should be one that shows the controversy. Move the cartoon pic.
# ] 23:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC), though I wish the images did not exist, or, failing that, were not publicized. ] 23:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#:so do i (] 00:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC))
# ] 00:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC) '''Link''' to the picture. So that Muslims won't see it. But those who want, could.
# Since the image is percived as offencive to a large body of people (due in my opion more to the ease with wich it lends itself to a racist interpreation rather then because it depits Mohammad), we should present it in a sensitve way. In doing this we are not censoring the image because it is still there.--] 10:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Link'''--] 12:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC) (I think the article is better with drawings at top, but if that provokes repeaed deletions, I can live with this silly compromise)


|action17=PR
=== Have picture lower down the article ===
|action17date=20:41, 13 May 2013
Why would that counter the alleged blasphemy? Instead of being offended in the lead paragraph, the article will be offensive at various places throughout its length. ] 01:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
|action17link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/archive3
#'''Warning after the intro, image further on in the page, no link from the top''' Put a warning after the intro that the pictural material may be offensive to moslim users, have the complete image somewhat lower and after that individual larger images, each with some text. ] 22:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
|action17result=reviewed
# As per the ] precedent. See the archives of this discussion for more context. --] 00:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
|action17oldid= 554065450
#<s>'''Warning after the intro, image further on in the page, no link from the top''' This image is extremely offensive to a large part of the world popultation, yet '''I''' want to see it. We solve this sort of situation with spoiler warnings in many articles or links to images (see for example ]), by having a warning here would provide a great service to many people. Also note that the picture at the top of the ] article is ''not'' the one showing Jannet Jackson's wardrobe failure and we have no images at ] at all. —'']'' 01:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)</s>
#: As per images of child pornography, see ]. Genuine child porn is illegal in Florida, however, where our servers are hosted. ] 02:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Warning after the intro, image further on in the page, no link from the top''' I can agree with this. --] <sup>]</sup> 00:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Warning after the intro, image further on in the page, no link from the top'''. I would like to ask those below again whether they would advocate the Goatse image being put at the top of ], and if not, why not. &mdash;] (]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 03:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# Place just after the break, with at the top ''"Note: this page contains images some people (Muslims in particular) may find offensive. A mirror of this page, without images, is at ]"'' --] 03:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#Warning or no warning. There is no consensus among other Misplaced Pages articles for us to make it "like all other articles," so in that repsect the decision is arbitrary. But considering the attitudes of those who insist on maintaining the image at the top, all too many show an air of open defiance, which is POV; this is an encyclopedia, not a manifesto, and so long as "top of the article" is associated with "in your face" the stance is tainted IMO. Placing it elsewhere on the page is not censorship: the image still loads in the viewer's browser regardless of where it is placed in the article. Top of the page is pro-secular and pro-Europe, removal is pro-Islam and pro-censorship, the middle of the article is the only tenable neutral ground. ] 08:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# Move image to end of article, add warning at top of article that image is to be found there, as per compromise solution in ] article. Whilst this image is not offensive to most readers, and we should avoid self-censorship, we should be aware of how just how offensive this image is to observant Muslims, and take care to avoid causing any unnecessary offence to roughly a sixth of the world's population. -- ] 10:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# Agree with The Anome, and posibly GeLuxe's suggestion of offering a redirect to a pictureless article (as long as that article is stoped from being differnt to this one in any other way).--] 11:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# Agree with The Anome. Misplaced Pages shouldn't be censored, but we should be sensitive about upsetting people.] 17:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# I would move the images “below the fold”. It is legitimate to have it on top but the story/article is no longer primarily about the cartoons but rather the boycott/protests/threats of violence. I would have the Saudi boycott note on top for now. --] 17:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# '''Move down''', as per ]. ] 21:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


|topic=Socsci
=== Have picture at top of article ===


|action18=FAC
#Leave it at the top... it's fine where it is and where it's supposed to be ] 16:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
|action18date=10:02, 16 October 2013
# Leave it at the top. ] 22:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
|action18link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/archive3
#] 22:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
|action18result=not promoted
# ] 22:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC), however, I'm for moving the cartoon image down to the middle of the page if we allow larger versions of a sample of the cartoons as some of them are hard to read in the current image format.
|action18oldid=576255444
#] 22:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC) The title warns the user about the picture; putting it some unknown place in the middle may actually surprise the reader.
|otd1date=2008-09-30|otd1oldid=242039474
#: Joturner the image will be linked right at the top. So the image will be shown in the middle and also have a link to the larger[REDACTED] image page at the top. The user will know.--] <sup>]</sup> 23:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
|otd2date=2009-09-30|otd2oldid=317057203
# --] 23:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC) The controversy started with the cartoons, therefore it's logical to start the article with them. Individual, clear images of the more controversial cartoons should be further down as well (copyright permitting).
|otd3date=2010-09-30|otd3oldid=387954541
# ] - ] - ] 23:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
|otd4date=2012-09-30|otd4oldid=515336561
#—'']'' 23:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Misplaced Pages is not censored and people who are offended by this image will still be offended if it is placed lower down.
|otd5date=2015-09-30|otd5oldid=683133956
# <font color="red">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> 23:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
|otd6date=2017-09-30|otd6oldid=803049880
#<font color="green">'''Snailwalker |''' </font> 23:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Keep the image at the top
#] ] 23:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#--] 23:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
# The cartoons '''are''' the controversy, without the cartoon, the controvery would not exist, so at the top. --] 23:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
# as per Jotourner, ] 23:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
# --] 23:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
# -- ] 23:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
# ] <small>(])</small> 23:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
# Why move it? ] 23:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
# ] 23:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC) The controversy is based around the cartoons, so they should have a prominent top position.
# ] 23:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#--] 23:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Keep it at the top.
#— ] &lt;]|]&gt; 23:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC), per joturner ''and'' anonymous editor ("the user will know").
#--] (]) 23:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#—<b><font color="darkgreen">]</font></b> <font size="1">(<b><font color="darkblue">]</font></b>)</font> 23:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
# Leave at top. Anything else is censorship. It's as easy as that. ] 00:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# The article is about the cartoons. For the sake of being informative, '''keep at the top'''. ] 00:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# The image stays at the top. ] 00:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# Leave at top. In the style of ALL the other[REDACTED] articles. ] 00:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 00:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 00:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Not everyone is offended and not everyone obeys Muslim law. No special treatment for any one group of people.
#] 01:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC) As above, no special treatment.
#] 01:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC) if this was any other image, nobody would want it moved. therefore to move it is to give special treatment.
#--] 01:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#--] 01:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#It should stay at the top. That image is pivotal to the entire story. ] 01:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#<small>]<sup>] | ] | ]</sup></small> ---- 01:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# --] 02:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Clearly a precedent has been set on[REDACTED] with ], ], and ]. I would be against special treatment for certain groups because they are complain more, more loudly, or more violently.
# ] 02:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Leave it at the top, where it belongs. We shouldn't self-censor, and frankly, if people are really that disturbed, they should learn how to turn off images on their web browser, as Misplaced Pages will contain such things. As an aside, why are certain religious leaders' portraits not at the top of their articles? There are a couple, and honestly, they should be formatted the way everyone else's biography is. ] 02:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# ] 03:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 04:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# ] 04:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC). This article is ''about'' the images, it'd be silly to have the image anywhere ''but'' at the top.
# ] 05:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Article is about the images. Put it at the top and let the reader decide before he has to read the editors 'filter'/
# Leave it where it is. Would the image of central importance on any other article be placed anywhere else than at the top-right? Of course not, and this article should not pander itself to those trying to force their religious beliefs on the general style and format of a wiki article. ] 05:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# Leave it where it is. The picture is relevant to the article. We DO NOT ever censor articles to keep someone from being offended.--''']]''' 05:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 08:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC) There is no reason not to have it at the top, if the muslims themselves go on tour to show the cartoons, why should[REDACTED] hide them? Again, this article revolves around the image, and therefore the image should have a prominent position...
#] 08:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#It is fine just like it is now. -- ] 08:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#The article is about the cartoons. They need to be shown at the top to provide context.] 09:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#] I know that a lot of us seem to be "getting our backs up", wanting the pics to be there just because "they" don't want them to be. But this article IS about the cartoon's and the controversy they have caused
# Keep it on top. ] 09:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# Should be on top. ]
# Article is about the cartoons, they should be on top. ] 12:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# '''Top right''' ] 12:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# How many polls must we go through? Until Resid and Rajab get their way? Or is it a best out of three... or five... or seven... or... ] 13:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Stays on Top''' For crying out loud, the article is '''about''' the pictures. They belong immediately up top, as any infobox would be as well. ] 15:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# The article is about the drawings. ] 15:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# For obvious reasons. (] 15:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC))
#This is the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons' '''controversy''' page. Anyone navigating here should '''expect''' to see the images. Moreover, "hiding" the images out of "respect" shows a misunderstanding of the objection to them. "Hiding" still means showing them, which means Misplaced Pages would ''still'' violate the "law" against showing pictures of Mumhammed.
# '''Keep on Top''', for some many reasons already listed above. ] 16:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Keep on top''' for obvious reasons and per ]: "Misplaced Pages may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive." ] 16:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#*:In response to comments above, how do those voting to hide the picture feel we should deel with ], which contains a highly offensive image at the top of the article. Bear in mind that there are about 8 million more Christians than Muslims in the world. If we're going to worry about offending people, we had better worry about everyone we offend and not just a small group. Facts can be offensive, but so long as they are presented following ] we should have nothing to worry about. ] 17:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#*::Because, as we have seen in the past few days, for every article you name in which the relavent picture is shown at the top of the page, I can name one where it isn't (e. g. ]). There is no "like all the other articles," the only guideline we have is that placement is arbitrary. Now, there is a difference between offending and deliberately seeking to cause offense, and too many editors want to keep it at the top in order to "shove it in their faces." If the decision of where to put the picture is arbitrary, what does it say about our POV when we arbitrarily decide to keep it in the place that obviously causes the most offense? ] 19:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#*:::To be honest Guppy, I haven't seen in the past few days how you have "tit for tat" shown an article with no picture at the top. But even if you have, I vote to keep the picture and the top and moreover, move pictures to the top of articles that have hidden pictures "below the fold". If I click on the Super Bowl Controversy link, I expect to see the moment that caused the controversy. ] 19:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#*::::So you would go so far as to alter potentially dozens of otherwise unrelated articles on Misplaced Pages solely to justify keeping the picture at the top? How is that ''not'' POV? I would call that an ''agenda''.
#*::::Forget it, I have more satisfying brick walls to bash my head against. I wash my hands of this affair. ] 20:07, 3 February 2006 (UT
#:::::I would call that an ''assumption''. It is not "justifying keeping the picture at the top" as you would call it. It is justifying NOT making any concessions regardless of whether pictures and I mean ALL pictures are offensive or not. I do not see wikipedia, as I have said earlier, as a platform to placate groups who should find such images offensive. '''The day[REDACTED] gives into one groups demands is the day we fail in our philosophy. Free information without bias and concessions. If we are to apply special consideration for one group, we are to do it with ALL groups''' Regardless if these groups may be religious, ethnic, racial or even simply social. So if you truely believe that this image should be "linked out" or "go below the fold" then I propose we do the same for all potentially offensive images. Anyways, I hope you use soap, bacteria are quite tenacious creatures. ] 21:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Keep on top''' for reasons described above --] 16:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# &mdash; ] | ] 16:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Keep on top''' for all the reasons already said. ] 16:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Keep at top, it's what the article is about after all.--] 16:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Keep at top.''' I agree with Mmmsnouts, precedents have been set. Mess with this and what's next? If this article gets changed to pander to islamic beliefs, but other articles go unchanged, it would be an unfair bias imvho. ] 18:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# This is what we do with all other articles. I see no valid reason to do otherwise here. ] 17:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
# ] 19:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Keep at top.''' ] 20:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Keep''' ] 20:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#'''Keep''' —] 21:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
#Leave it at the top. That's where it needs to be to establish illustrative context for the rest of the article. Remember, Misplaced Pages is not censored and we shouldn't care if people choose to be offended by ''cartoons'' fer chrissakes. --<font style="background: #000000" face="Impact" color="#00a5ff">]</font> 21:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


|action19 = GAR
=== Don't care ===
|action19date = 15:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
# Whatever makes edit warring stop. I prefer the top but do not care enough to vote. ] - ] 23:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
|action19link = Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/1
# I second that, but I still voted for keeping the picture at the top as well. ] 23:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
|action19result = delisted
# Someone here said that simply moving down the pictures stopped the deletions. I don't mind, as long as the pictures are there somewhere. If it stops the deletion wars, then why not?
|action19oldid = 1244414786
# As long as the pictures are in the article, and are in an appropriate part of the article. That can be the top, that can be in the "Publication of the drawings" section, that can be in another section, as long as it is directly related to the drawings (so not in the section about boycotts for instance, where the image of the notice is appropriate). ] ]]] 12:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
|currentstatus = DGA
#I agree with the previous person, either at top or at a relevant section, as long as its not hidden in a hyperlink or down at the bottom or something. ] 14:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
}}
#I don`t care where that particular image is placed, but it is my belief that at least ONE image should be placed atop, whether that be the grocery store image or a protest image. {{User:Αchille|2006-02-03|14:16}}


{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=c|1=
===Comment===
{{WikiProject Denmark|importance=Mid}}
#I fail to see what moving the image further down the article will accomplish. Won't a moval mean that a person taking offence by the images will then necessarily have to skip the part with the image in it anyway? ] 23:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Journalism|importance=Low}}
#Mirror at ] with link from top, and have image below fold. --] 03:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Freedom of speech|importance=Mid}}
#I'm in favour of ]'s idea. There are spoiler warnings for those who want to read about books or films without being spoiled, and it's a similar situation here. Having a warning would be courteous. ] 10:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=Low|Islam-and-Controversy=yes}}
{{WikiProject Comics|importance=Mid|European-work-group=yes}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject International relations |importance=High}}
}}
{{old move|date=30 May 2013|destination=Muhammad cartoons crisis|result=no consensus|link=Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy#Requested move}}
{{afd-merged-from|Muslim Action Committee|Muslim Action Committee|02 November 2012}}
{{merged-from|Economic and social consequences of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy|11 November 2012}}


{{archives|auto=yes|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=90 days|index=/Archive index|search=yes|
=Everything Else=
-----
* Polls: ], ], ], ]
-----
* ]
-----
* ]
-----<!-- line to separate the bot notice -->
}}<!-- end archive box --><!--


-->
==Poll 1 Comments==
{{Broken anchors|links=

* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#2011–present) has been ] before. <!-- {"title":"2011–present","appear":{"revid":514686449,"parentid":514660091,"timestamp":"2012-09-26T18:44:08Z","replaced_anchors":{"2011-present":"2011–present"},"removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":641479735,"parentid":641479670,"timestamp":"2015-01-07T21:28:30Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"very_different":"8≥4","rename_to":"Janurary 2015 attack"} -->
i think image should not be placed no matter what.There are all other sites available and by now most pople would have seen it on other sites.The concept of Bahaullah image doesnt work here.Placing teh image here certainly means that[REDACTED] is taking sides....Shame on all those who started this controversial war in Denmark.....Naeem Qasai
}}

{| class=
:: No, shame on those who turned the publishing of a cartoon into a controversial war. ] 16:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
! Please divert comments having to do with...

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

| the timeline of the incidents
::Knock it off, although I don't agree with him either, you can be more mature about it.--] 16:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
| ]

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

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

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

| any aspect of displaying the cartoon images
:: Agreed. ] 20:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
| ]

|}<!-- end "divert talk" table -->
::If we have that kind of poll, there needs to be a neutral side, personally, I don't really mind between at the top or in the middle, I just think it needs to be in here at a relevant position.] 20:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the outcome of this poll, it should only be used to point out consensus. Remember that ]. This should be treated as a ]. <font color="red">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> 20:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
: I think the neutral position is not to vote. ] 20:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I think people's opinions are a little more nuanced than that, and several additional options should be available: (3) Keep image in article, "below the fold" so readers with most computer monitors have to scroll down to see the iamge; (4) Keep image in article but as a smaller thumbnail to reduce legibility (and of course clicking the thumbnail brings up the large .jpg image page). Without these two options I can't vote. ]
:: Some people have specific opinions about where the image should go, but first we should address the fate of the image itself. If there is a consensus to keep it in article, then we should address where to keep it. But most edit warring has been over whether or not to keep it at all. ] 20:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
::: I've been keeping up with the thread, and I disagree. I would say there's been an equal amount of vitriol over simply moving the image down on the page, and I think it's important to structure the straw poll so people don't think their votes will be misinterpreted. ] 20:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
::::There will be another poll, and there's no reason it can't include Link to Image as one of the approvable options. Voting to keep the image now is '''not''' a vote for its present size or position; that will be later. ] 20:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
:::: Agree with Pam, and I don't think anyone's votes will be misinterpreted. Voting to keep the image in the article is not an assertion that it belongs at the top, the bottom, the middle, or anywhere else. More than one editor also said that the picture should be removed until we determined that consensus preferred it in the article. We need to get that simple issues sorted. If there turns out to be a consensus to keep it in the article, then we will need to address where it should go. But I don't think a two-step process to determine consensus is too elaborate a method for an issue that has caused this much warring and disagreement. ] 20:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
::::: I don't like the current poll, whose questions are slanted to produce a preselected result. The correct first poll question is "be hardass / be flexible". If the answer is "hardass", then no 2nd step is needed. If "flexible", then go to a 2nd step and figure out what to do next, no longer insisting on keeping the pic the way it is. ] 21:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::: Yes, because those poll options aren't loaded at all...The current poll is fine as step one of a two-step process, as has been discussed on this page already. ] 21:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
*On ], we have the photo at the end of the article. This prevents religious offense while still keeping the photo for its encyclopedic value. Maybe that would work here. I am strenuously opposed to removing the scan entirely; how can one understand the controversy fully without even seeing the purportedly offensive material? <TT>] <SMALL>(] • ])</SMALL></TT> 20:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
:Um, by clicking on a link, if needed. ] 21:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
*Yes, but ] was not about that photo, this is. Those images ARE the article. This doesn't mean they should stay on top, but placing them all the way down seem a little drastic. I'd say, put them somewhere beside the descriptions of the cartoons. ] 21:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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

:It's four now

'''Poll is bogus''': The disagreements here are less about whether to include the image, than whether it's appropriate to be hardass about its size and placement. Therefore, more options should be presented. I favor operating by "". Replace the main picture with a different one and put the pic of the cartoons in a thumbnail in the article's interior. The current poll pretends that "keep the picture" means "keep the picture as it currently is". #] 21:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
: The current poll does not state that or mean that. Numerous editors have claimed there is no consensus to keep the image at all. We need to address that issue before addressing where to put it. ] 21:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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



===users and contributions===
I do not judge anyone. Just something I noticed. Strange things happen when such polls take place, users just jump in polling, some where never here, some were away for over a year, and some just happened to...
#] 19:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)<br>]!!!!!
#] 20.01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)<br>]
#] 20:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)<br>]
#] 20:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)<br> ]
#] 20:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC) <br> ]
#] 20:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)<br>]
#] 20:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)<br>]
#--] 20:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)<br>]

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

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

:I am not accusing any one. I just noticed that some people just appeared after long vacations. Others just signed just for the sake of this talk page? Is that '''wrong'''?????? Or are people offended when some one notices something about the poll? It is only '''talk''', how can it heart any one; after all this is what we are here to '''talk''' about!!! --] 23:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
:: It's true...we noticed that hordes of IPs showed up to remove the image multiple times, so it's okay for him to notice that a few editors haven't been editing much recently. What conclusions he draws from that, I haven't a clue. ] 23:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


:: It's not "wrong" but it is kind of rude to assume that these users, including myself, are just "mysteriously" appearing in this discussion page. So what if some of us aren't on Misplaced Pages every day? I've been using Wiki on and off for two years now and don't need to edit articles every day to make my opinions heard on this article or the cartoons. I can't speak for the inspiration of the other users, but please keep in mind that randomly accusing people of suspicious behavior is not exactly kind and welcoming ] 23:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
::: I do not understand, why do you insist on making this personal? I am not accusing you. It is only your POV regarding my words. Will, it seems that both of us agree that some actions could be miss judged as rode, or aren’t we?--] 23:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
:::: Considering you were the one who brought up these suspicions about the above list of users, the onus is on you to back up your claims with evidence and an assertment of what we've done wrong (other than to note that most of the users above support using the image of the cartoons in the article). ] 00:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::Hello Mr Soldaatvanoranje, permit me to ask you how can you know what Mr Tarawneh assumed or think ??? and permit me also to say that i dont see any accustions in the words of Mr. Tarawneh .Just a little suggestion or proposal: make a user check and the onus will be on no one. ] 00:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::: All I know of Tarawneh is that he listed my name under the vague accusation that somehow I have done something "strange" -- how am I supposed to respond to that, silence? ] 01:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Um Tarawneh, dude, you should know that earlier this afternoon an editor added this talk page to the RfC list, so undoubtedly there are people who watch that list who came to this page specifically to respond to the request of the editor who added it.--] 04:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
::::::::I've used Misplaced Pages for years, but neither edited nor registered. Why did I register? Because I think this is one of the pivotal issues of our time. Specifically, what how does the right to express oneself intersect with the myriad religious laws to the contrary? Secondarily, how does the right to express oneself intersect with the need for restraint in the name of civility? Perhaps, Tarawneh, we (the long-lost and the newbies), are simply guilty of caring?--] 20:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:Well to everyone new and old let me just say welcome to Misplaced Pages, the 💕 that anyone can edit. --] 23:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

== Translation ==

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

This translation of "kuk og knald i låget" as "daft and dumb" is too negative.. i would say "kuk og knald i låget" means to be crazy.
:It may have been unfortunate to translate into English doggerel. But English ''daft'' does mean "crazy", or at least "eccentric" . Could you translate word for word? ] 20:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

::"knald i låget" means "To have a tile loose", "kuk i låget" would be translated similarly--] 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" --] 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--] 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. ] 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.--] 21:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Islam, in fact, is terror. — love always, Gee-Hod.

== Archive again? ==

We should probably archive the debate again, it is getting quite lengthy --<font color="green">'''Snailwalker |''' </font> 21:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

: Yes, please do, and move the poll back down to the bottom. Protect for two minutes if necessary. ] 21:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
: I second that ] 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. ] 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 ]. --] 20:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
* Yep, apologies. ] 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. --] | ] 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. ] 21:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
**I've unprotected it. Articles that are linked from the main page should not be protected. ] | ] 21:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
***For Jacoplane, who was unfamiliar with this policy, please see ]. --] 21:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
* 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. ] 22:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
**It's not "only admins and Jimbo Wales", it's "only admins". Jimbo Wales is also an admin. --] 23:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
***Yes, but barely qualified to be one. ;-) --] 02:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)



== No cartoons untill the pool ended ==


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

I disagree. Also, when does the "pool" end?] 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. ] - ] 21:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

::::I'd say 48 hours minimum. --] | ] 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). ] 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. --] 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. ] 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 persons] 21:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

::::: Ok. When you get consensus to remove the image we'll do that. ] - ] 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 image. Consider this vote to apply to all future polls regarding this matter. ] 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. --] | ] 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. ] 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. ] - ] 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 -] 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 Misplaced Pages customs...] 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. --] 22:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

::: I can't find it either ] 22:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
::::] 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.--] 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. ] 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 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. -] 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. ] 22:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

] is very clear that in Misplaced Pages "consensus" doesn't require unanimity. Generally a ] is regarded as consensus, though Misplaced Pages 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. ] 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. ] 22:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


I filed it at . ] 22:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


Do not overestimate polls. Among many other things Misplaced Pages is not, Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. See ] -- ] 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. (] 22:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC))
: agreed --] 22:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
:No, that will offend Danish nationalists.</sarcasm> ] - ] - ] 22:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
::exactly my point (] 22:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC))
: ] 22:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
: Another protest that could be added, but I find the one present to work well enough. The article can be found ]
Oh, and lets at least have some general consensus before someone just smacks in the picture (] 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.--] 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. ] ] <sup>]</sup> 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 ] 23:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

: ... and the time to deadline was extremely short! ] 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. ] ] <sup>]</sup> 04:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

== Split the article ==

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

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

The front page link would be to the "controversy" article since that's what its current text refers to. Yes, that would have the effect of getting the cartoon off of a direct front page link. But it's obvious that the front page link is there because of the controversy and refers to it. ] 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 --] 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. ] 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. ] 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. ] 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 Ferdinand (whose assassination was the catalyst for World War 1) is not very prominent in the article about WW1. ] 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. ] 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. Misplaced Pages 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[REDACTED] style guide (]). Anyone arguing that its placement should follow customary[REDACTED] practices, should also be arguing to reduce it to 120px. ] 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 to begin with. ] 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 ] 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. ] 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 ] 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? ] 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. --] 23:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

:Why split this and not ]? 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. ] 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.) ] 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. ] 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." . I dont see pictures of the cartoons at the or the -- ]<small>|]</small> 00:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

:Misplaced Pages 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 ] 00:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

:CNN has existing precedent in witholding publication of offensive material, for their own reasons. Misplaced Pages has none, for different reasons. ] 00:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
::Misplaced Pages does have its own ] about offensive material. --] 02:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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

:: I also don't see ] at The New York Times or CNN. Misplaced Pages's coverage is much more comprehensive. ] 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.

== Add this to page ==

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

I think it's crucial for making sense of this story. Images can be found:
pig-muhammad http://ekstrabladet.dk/grafik/nettet/tegninger38.jpg
muhammad screwing a dog http://ekstrabladet.dk/grafik/nettet/tegninger39.jpg
evil pedo-muhammad http://ekstrabladet.dk/grafik/nettet/tegninger40.jpg

--cokane 2 Feb 2006

: If you had <b>read</b> the article you would have seen the pictures had been brought in the paragraph <i>just</i> before. (] 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? ] 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. ] | ] 00:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

== Church Bombings ==
Can somebody please mention about the Church bombings in Iraq that was rumered to be related to the drawings? ] 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. ] 22:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
::Indeed, ] should apply to every article. <font color="red">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> 22:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

:::Now their blaming ] 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. ] 22:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

::::Assuming it's true, please be sure to qualify who "they" are. ] 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: ] ] 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? ] 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 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. ] 23:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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

::::::::BNL is a reputable source? --] | ] 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." ] {{unsigned|Chaldean}}
::::::::::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? --] | ] 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" ] 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 reputable source, which it appears we do. :) --] | ] 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 ]i cities of ] and ] were targeted by car bombs, killing 13-year old worshipper Fadi Raad Elias. No militants claimed to be retaliating for the pictures, but many ] in Iraq claim "Westerners should not give wild statements everyone can attack us " . Also on January 29, a Muslim Cleric in the Iraqi city of ] issued a ] stating "expel the Crusaders and infidels from the streets, schools, and institutions because they offended the person of the prophet in Denmark." In reply to the fatwa on the same day, Muslim Students beat up Christian student in Mosul University. On Febuary 2, 2006, ]s in the ] handed out a leaflet signed by a ] militant group and ] stating "Churches in Gaza could come under attack".


So is this fair?
] 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.--Fil] 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 ] 06:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:: 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. ] 02:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

::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. ] 14:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the section ''On ] six churches in the ]i cities of ] and ] were targeted by car bombs, killing 13-year-old worshipper Fadi Raad Elias. An announcement by the Dutch religious rights group ] </ref> No militants claimed to be retaliating for the pictures, nor is this the first time Iraqi churches have been bombed; but many ] in Iraq claim "Westerners should not give wild statements everyone can attack us "''
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" ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 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. "

Presumably most of those who "view 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.--] 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.--] 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? --] | ] 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. ] 03:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

:::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. --] | ] 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 ''']'''. 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. --] 01:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
: Same with ], 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 Misplaced Pages works. ] 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. ] 01:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
::: Okay, then we're back to ]. The point is that Misplaced Pages 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? ] 01:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
::::I am not a christian, but personally i have found ] 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 ] 12:53 (]) 3rd of Feb, Ought Six
:::::: Yes, it is. And yet Misplaced Pages displays an image of ] 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. ] 02:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The best example I can find on Misplaced Pages that relates to the image controversy here is this simple image: ]. It's the vowelized form of the ], forbidden to be written in the Jewish religion and potentially highly offensive. And yet we haven't removed it. —<b><font color="darkgreen">]</font></b> <font size="1">(<b><font color="darkblue">]</font></b>)</font> 03:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

:::::: The thing of it is, all those other articles are somewhat very different than this article. All those other articles are reporting on something which was intentionally designed to discriminate, offend, or otherwise do bad, while these cartoons were designed to simply stand out for free speech in the face of pro-Islam censorship in Europe. I would hardly call these cartoons on par with Blackface pictures, the **** Christ picture, or the anti-semitisim poster, the outrage over those pictures is highly understandable and, personally, if I was personally in charge of the **** Christ article, (Which I am not, and thusly do not plan to go near) then I would get rid of the picture. but with these cartoons, it is not designed to attack Islam directly. The other articles were all based on reporting events that were designed to offend, this article is reporting on people being offended at something not being designed to offend. ] 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. --] 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). ] 01:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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

::"Responsible" "glimpses" see --] 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? --] 02:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

:::: I don't think it's relevant - after all they only showed "responsible glimpses", i.e. almost nothing. ] 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 site- http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=904&&edition=2&ttl=20060203045131

::::::I believe they are now embroiled in the controversy. Look at this http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2022442,00.html --] 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[REDACTED] article, I would be under the impression that they were all like this. ] 11:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

] in the US showed several of the images yesterday evening as well. --] 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. ] 17:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

==contribution of مبتدئ==
First of all i understand fully and truly the point of view that is conserned about the liberty of expression or liberty in general. I want just to mention some points wich i may develop later:
*haven t we to distinguish between the liberty of expression and the liberty of offensing other peoples (over the fifth of mankind) or between liberty and hurting others?
*haven t we to assure some balance between this liberty and the right of others (let me mention here that these others are not dogs or animals they are even american citizens or european)?
*where do the liberty of each one of us ends? (may be where the right or liberty of other peoples begins?)
*why are people who are adherent of this point of view always discredited as terrorist or against the liberty of expression or stupid etc... such in some contributions here? does such a priori assumption not descridit the assumption makers more than the assumption object?
*is reducling the queen (1 person) accepted in denmark (or norway i dont remember wich of them) or is it penalized by the law and offending people? i think it s penelized so why a huge community (i think the second religious community in europe) have to accept this offence?
*Does an ethic of journalism and publishing exist or not? if yes is it consistent with republishing the picture? i hope that[REDACTED] and the wikipedian will be the leaders on showing the attachment to this ethics
*is republishing the pictures consistent with antiracist laws and penal laws in general?
*is the publishing of the image really necessary? one can dicribe the picture by words (note i m not saying the article has to be deleted. one can put some related pictures but not those -for example of the boycott-).
so this is my first contribution. I hope we can discuss in respect of each other and without prejudices. thanx ] 01:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

:مبتدئ - this will probably be deleted as being inappropriate for this discussion page, but let me respond briefly to you. Please understand that in a western country, any person or any newspaper can ridicule the king, queen, prime minister, president, any politician, any religious leader, and generally anyone they want. It happens all the time. It is totally legal. They don't suffer any consequences from this. That is why many westerners feel Muhammad should be just the same - a valid target for the type of humour called satire. ] 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? ] 01:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

:You have to understand that[REDACTED] 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 ] 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! - ] --] 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. ]

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

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

# Mr UltraSkuzziyou cite plato and Barry Goldwater but the 2 statments dont fit together somehow. but ok i will ignore this. "Moderation is part of justice": thats why laws are not always applicated or some laws (but almost it has nothing to do with moderation but with ignorance or that you dont have enghoug mony to pay an advocate :-). "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice": may be yes may be no. but i tend to no. thats another topic your talking about here or it will lead us to offtopics like the absolutism of liberty etc... and as babajou sayed (in an other way) i think that liberty is equivalent to resonsability or translate in rsponsability. if you have liberty you have a choice if you have a choice you have to assume the consequences of your choices.... anyway thank you too. and i apologized for thinking i can have a better idea than plato or whom else :-) (for all plato fans)
i want to say it again i m not against liberty of expression, there is really no need to be affraid of an attac against liberties or to feel (in this situation) that you are in the obligation to defend liberty of expression. I think the hole story is a mix of racism (racisme is not the approtriate word because of the word: race ==> racism but let s ignore i think you understand what i mean) and a search of publicity... so thats why ethics (wikipedia is build on ethics for example the free circulation of infos) tells us to be responsable in our beeing as a free person.
] 04:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
: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.--] 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 ] (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. ] 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!!:-)) ] 05:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Aside from your spelling issues, مبتدئ, you lost so much credibility with this- "wich is not the us (thanks god :-))." Regardless of traditions, respect, sedition, the second paragraph of your constitution or whatever, you have just failed the Misplaced Pages'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 ] 06:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

::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. ] 06:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

== 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

] 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 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 ] 04:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

==CNN: "Gunmen shut EU Gaza office over cartoons"==
. We need to add this. Hmmm...where will they dispense all the aid money from, then? ] 02:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

anyway they will not recieve anything since the democtratic choice of the palestinian was not the right one. ] 04:28, 3 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. ] 04:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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

::Added in. ] 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. ] 02:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

::That's the foul stench of hypocracy you are detecting. --] ] 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. ] 02:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


: Your intended audience wouldn't get it. ] 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). ] 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, ] in a turban. ] 02:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

:There are two on the Muhammad page. Although I believe there was only one this morning. Both veiled. --] 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. ] 02:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

:::The captions for the pictures claim that one is Ottoman and the other implies that it is Ottoman or Persian. --] 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. ] 03:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

::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? ] 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"). ] 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. ] 02:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

: Al Jazeera published the pics, although we're looking at them over someone's shoulder. ] 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, even if they are over someone's shoulder, should be included in the article (once the protection is taken down). ] 03:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


:: Al-Jazeera published the fakes from the private collections of imam Abu Laban & Co. BBC did too. ] 03:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
::Also . <font color="red">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> 03:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

== IP Ban ==
Can an admin ban ]? They switched out the image with a penis and this IP has a history of vandalism. ] 03:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
: He's already blocked, not by me. ] 03:09, 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. <small>]<sup>] | ] | ]</sup></small> ---- 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. ] 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. <small>]<sup>] | ] | ]</sup></small> ---- 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). ] 03:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

== Tact is not censorship ==

If material is offensive to a significant portion of our readership, we should be tactful and put a warning at the top of the page, and keep the offensive material "below the fold" if then possible. The example of ] given above is a straightforward analogy; an even closer one is ]. 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, 's a link&mdash;it's pretty gross.)

Tact is not censorship. It's acknowledging that Misplaced Pages 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. &mdash;] (]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 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. ] 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.--] 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. ] 20:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

:::Snorklefish, of course many Muslims would still be offended. However, it might be possible to reduce the offensiveness of the article if a warning is put on top of the page, so that at least Muslim viewers wouldn't have to look upon the sacrilege if they chose not to. &mdash;] (]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 03:30, 3 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. ] 05:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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

::: Maybe Misplaced Pages 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. ] 07:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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

::::Then you ''do'' think the Goatse picture should be at the top of ] (or, in fact, in the article altogether), Soldaatvanoranje, or am I misunderstanding you? &mdash;] (]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 03:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

:::::However, each and every one of the charicatures tried to have some deeper meaning; some perhaps meant to offend, but most generally trying to get the audience to think. In other words, they're not the grainy photographs that were claimed to be a part of the original comics (which, as I've seen, have been remote-linked). For better or for worse, they seem intended to incite debate (which they certainly have here) rather than just stick with the initial "ZOMG!!!11!!1!!!". ] 04:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::: Regardless, as I say the more analagous examples are ones in which we've dealt with images extremely upsetting to religous, ideological or political groups. Misplaced Pages hasn't bent to accommodate their demands, and it shouldn't do so here, either. ] 04:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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

]--] 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 religious iconography is different from that of Sunnis. Thanks for the link. ] 03:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:: Does this explain a lack of any Iranian response?--] 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. ] 03:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
::::Iranians are still diplicting him today ().
:::I was under the impresssion that Iran is too busy being angry at Europe for ]. What's Tehran going to do, put the EU under ]? Heck, I as an American am beginning to feel left out here, all we're getting is second-hand hate. ] 04:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
::::the pakces aI have heard troubles from are primary sunni --] 04:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::Well for starters 75% of Muslims are Sunni.--] 04:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
::::::And here a several more pictures of Mumammad (Warning:Big Link)--] 04:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

== Mirror ==

I have created a mirror at ], 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.'''
--] 03:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

: Misplaced Pages 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? ] 03:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

:: What was the point of making the mirror? One article is enough. ] 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. ] ] <sup>]</sup> 05:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see --] 08:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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

== Misplaced Pages contigency planning ==

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

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

* ]? As far as systems go, given that Misplaced Pages'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... --] 04:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, launching a denial-of-service attack on Misplaced Pages would be like spitting on someone in the rain. Wikipedians wouldn't even know that something special had happened. ] 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 physical attack on systems or key personnel. ] 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. ] 04:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:::* Well, I'm relatively unimportant, so don't worry about me. And Jimbo has his ]s to defend him . As far as firebombing silicon, well... make sure you download a , and we should be relatively okay. --] 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. ] 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. ] ] <sup>]</sup> 06:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

*Apologies all 'round. ] 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.....? ] 05:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

I propose to keep the cartoons in the article until the 'pool' is ended. ] 06:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:I also propose you sign your posts - I'm responding to this heading; I didn't create it...] 06:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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

: Why not here? We cannot let an insult appear in a Wiki article. It is completely clear... --{{unsigned|216.248.124.126}}

:: As noted above, other fairly offensive yet encyclopedic articles exist on Misplaced Pages, see ], ], etc. Issues that are offensive should be treated with respect and tact, and that can be done while still keeping these images. --] 06:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:::'''The holocaust is backed up by gruwsome FACTS, the cartoons are an opinion.''' I have no issue with the same in regard to Christain, jewish or whatever deity or prophet --] 07:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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

You may deny Holocaust in Denmark.
It is against the law in Germany and Austria (France?) because of their part in WW2 but not in Denmark ].
:Holocaust denial is also against the law in Belgium. In the Netherlands, it is illegal by jurisprudence, but not yet by legislation (a bill to that end is currently going through parliament). ] ]]] 14:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

:IMO if we do have this Freedom of speech that so many people are arguing about then Holocaust denial should also be legal and not punished as racism. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
::Perhaps, perhaps not, but that's not relevant to the article, so let's not go into it here and now. ] ]]] 15:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:Of course it's not relevant to the article. Just making sure that the people here realize that there are two same situations. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
You ask if I can you say, for example, that the "Holocost" was propaganda?.... Yes I can. I can say '''lots''' of nasty, hateful things. I can say the Holocaust is a hoax, all Europeans are Nazis, Women are genetically inferior, Men are the sole reason for war, China is the yellow scourge, Africans have large penises and small IQ's, and Eskimos are born with fur... I can say all of that without legal consequence. '''I don't believe''' any of it, and I'm offended even seeing it, but I have the legal right to say it.--] 16:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Europe in general don't have U.S. style freedome of speech so yep, accusation of hypocracy is well deserved. Misplaced Pages on the other hand is not Europe and thanks God for that. ]
:I think you're overgeneralizing a bit now. First of all, you have to keep the difference between ''de jure'' and ''de facto'' freedom of speech in mind (the specific application of those two types of freedom of speech in Europe and the US is another issue). Secondly, I think it's incorrect to use one label for all European countries. Poland is not Spain, and Italy is not Norway, to name but four countries. But please, we're digressing. ] ]]] 16:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

:: What you are doing is another form of hypocricy. It is the main issue here! These cartoons are in fact an insult. An insult cannot be considered as 'freedom of speech'. In fact, the point is: you do not have 'freedom of speech' in your (Europian) countries. A scientist, Roger Groudy was charged for saying that there was no Holocost! And the bottom line is this: '''When it comes to Jews, you cannot even speek. But for Muslims, you are insulting their beloved Prophet for the sake of freedom of speech!''' That is exactly what '''insincerity, two facedness, and a true hypocricy''' is! ] 19:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:::That reply was about as non-sequitur as it can get... ] ]]] 19:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

:::(I think that this post was accidentally deleted earlier) Denmark in particular has allowed Holocaust-deniers free-speech. In Feb. 2004, ] gave several addresses there. --] 19:46, 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? ] 06:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
: reported in violation of 3RR, just waiting for an admin to block this person.--] 06:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
::216.248.124.126 has been blocked by Gamaliel for the 3RR violation. ] ] 06:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
7 times now... ] 06:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)



== 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? --] &#91;&#91;User_talk:Wooddoo-eng&#124;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 ] ) -- ] 07:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

=That would be a funny cartoon!] 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. ]

And then the pictures should be posted on Misplaced Pages.... Just to get the picture right, which Anderson are we talking about...? ] 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 ] 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. ] 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 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.] 07:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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

:Concerning Elizabeth II: ].
:: Heh :) We played that one on local radio, right after christian fundamentalist prayers, on ] ... So far, no death threats. ] 12:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:Concerning what we say to our neighbors: ]
:Considering what happens in Europe, ].
:But in general, ]. ] 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. Misplaced Pages on the other hand is not Europe. So take the complaint elsewhere. ]

: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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] 07:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

::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. ] 14:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

:You can change your religion; you can't change your race (and no, ] doesn't disprove that). France, for one, wouldn't like that idea anyway; they're pretty fed up with religion, one reason you won't be seeing a French Pope anytime soon. ] 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 ''n''<sup>th</sup> 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. ] 17:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

:: Errr, revivied? Is that revived or reviewed?? ] 18:13, 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?
]

* 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. ] 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. ]

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.] 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.] 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.] 17:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


This Sign is fake ... I have no idea about this comment --] 21:21, 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. ] 3rd feb 2006

== 12.221.139.214 ==

This user has vandalized the Arabic language article twice, such as . 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. ] 07:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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

And I don't want to see ambiguous verses either.--] 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. -- ] 08:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

*Perhaps we could link to the wiki article about that verse in the koran.--''']]''' 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 ] for some info. ] 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. ] 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. -- ] 13:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

== Use modified image - Muhammad's face blocked out ==
]]]
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 show him with a veil) or a ] does not show him at all. How about something like this as a compromise? -- ]<small>|]</small> 08:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

*] censored--''']]''' 08:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
*Absolutely not. Agree with God of War. No censorship. ] 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 not to use pictures of him on the ] 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?? -- ]<small>|]</small> 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 ] 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. ] <small>]</small> 08:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

* no ] 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. -- ] 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. ] 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 --] 11:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:So add it; please include sources to assist further research. ] 15:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

== 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.] 08:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:&lt;sarcasm&gt;Yeah. We all know how NPOV tags magically improve articles.&lt;/sarcasm&gt; 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. ] 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. ] 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. ] 13:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

:: Nah, we would then need a meta-NPOV tag, as the bias is in the[REDACTED] policies and not text. Misplaced Pages 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). --] 21:08, 3 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:

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

I have these comments myself:

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

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

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

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

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

--] 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. -- ] 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.--] 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''[REDACTED] page can probably best do without such a discussion. These discussions are often endless, attract ], and doesnt help wiki-editing (which is the main purpose of this page). I wish you luck -- ] 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 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[REDACTED] (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[REDACTED] 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?--] 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.--] 12:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

==Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press in Denmark==
I made a first attempt on writing an article on ] (rather unwieldy title, I am afraid). It might be of interest for those who don't know about the law in Denmark, and those who do might want to help improve it. ] ] 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 <u>vision by</u> Muhammad.

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

"Vision" is therefore the best <u>litteral</u> translation.

It is also the most <u>comprehensive</u> 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)

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

: I am afraid that "ansigt" really only can be translated as "face". "Vision" would be "syn" in Danish. ] ] 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".--] 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. -- ] 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".--] 10:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:::: Does not the word "face" have that same connotation, almost to the same degree as "ansigt"?] 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".--] 10:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

== Depicting the Prophet Muhammad ==

, ], ] ]<br>
This ] 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 ] 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)--] 10:48, 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". ] 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. --<font style="background: #000000" face="Impact" color="#00a5ff">]</font> 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 ] ("there is no God but God, and Muhammad is His prophet") adds insult to injury. By displaying this image ''at the top'' of the article, we risk ''unneccessarily'' offending many observant Muslims who have come here to read about the controversy.

At the same time, I also believe both that the image is relevant to the article, and that Misplaced Pages 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. -- ] 10:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:I agree with you but could you point to the "Baha'i controversy" solution that you refer to?--] 11:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:No worries found it at ]. See no reason we couldn't do the same here?--] 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). ] 11:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


* '''The reason vandalism decreased when the image was moved down was that it then became evident we were <big>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. ] 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. 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. -- ] 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?--] 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. ] ] <sup>]</sup> 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 ] 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. ] 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 ] yet :) If this escalates into a ], 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" ] <small>]</small> 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. -- ] 11:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
::Or, to put it another way, the article is ''about'' provocation, but need not ''of itself'' be a provocation. -- ] 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. ] <small>]</small> 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. -- ] 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. --] 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. ] 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 ] has set out for us.

* Do you agree or disagree? ] 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 seen. ] <small>]</small> 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. ] 18:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


So for instance, the ] 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 <b>not to piss people off.</b> String 'em up from a lamppost in Times Square, I suppose? ] 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. ] <small>]</small> 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? ] 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.... ] 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 ]. I assume we don't have such an image, and I'm not bothering to check. But I'm going to make that assumption based on the principle that a "collaboarative aesthetic" or "collaborative ethic" (for lack of a better word) would predictably preclude such an editorial decision. You just kind of know that a WP article that smart people put a whole bunch of work into is going to move toward the center.

Now here's my point. In other articles, like the Baha'ullah thing and the ] 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.)

==NPOV==
Added sign. --] 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. ] 11:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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. ] 12:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

: Misplaced Pages 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. ] 12:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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. ] 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) ] <small>]</small> 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. -- ] 12:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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

:: Do anyone disagree with the *facts* of the story? ] 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. ] 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. -- ] 12:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


I think the article misses the understanding of muslims' viewpoint wich i work on it --] 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. ] 12:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Which enemy is that, Kyaa? ] 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. ] 13:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If people say the image should be available to the public, why not a link? Why post the image at top while risking that Misplaced Pages can get involved with this whole situation? Just because not a lot of Muslims are active on Misplaced Pages doesn't mean we can make it worse. ] 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. ] 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. --] 21:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

== Poll deletion ==

For a brief period of time, a large part of the poll was deleted by ], a user who (if it is in fact ''one'' user) is responsible for several frivolous edits. I have now removed some lines that ] added to the discussion in that connection as they are no more relevant.--] 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. .--]

==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. ] <small>]</small> 12:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

vote++ ]


: Wouldn't that be slightly misleading?] 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. ] 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 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, Misplaced Pages 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 (not to mention ) are ''far'' more offensive, being a reflection of atavistic primate hatred untempered by satire or self-irony. ] <small>]</small> 12:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
] <small>]</small> 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.
] 13:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

:Racist? Are muslims a race now? ] 13:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
::of course not; but islamophobe caricatures have a tendency to use racial stereotypes. ]
::: Point taken. However, I would like to point out that the drawings are an attack on censorship, not muslims or arabs. ] 13:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

<small>]</small> 13:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' Taking one image out of context is a bad idea. ] 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''.

* 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? ] 13:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

: I resent BYT's claim that Misplaced Pages is pulling a Hitler on Muslims. We are treating Muslims the same way we do every other religious community in Misplaced Pages, 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!" ] 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] 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. ] 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. ] 13:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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

:Because the production of child pornography involves abuse of children. Hence it is illegal. Hence Misplaced Pages do not show that kind of images.] 13:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

:::* Brr. Sounds ominously close to censorship to me. Pretty sneaky. This whole "obeying the law" trend is actually a Trojan horse.
:::* Did you realize that that seemingly harmless decision to obey the law actually limits (!!!!!!) your freedom of expression! You would actually be engaging in self-censorship!
:::* Such a trend could, if we're not careful, be a slippery slope toward socialization, discretion, tact, and (shiver) acceptance of the fact that our words and actions do carry consequences in the real world.
:::*'''Editors get to make judgment calls, and we are making the wrong one here, folks.'''] 13:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
::::I shouldn't respond to you, since I feel that you are simply trolling. Please reread NPOV. Please. ] 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.] 14:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


Is the ] 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? ] 13:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

:Misplaced Pages strives to be better than newspapers. ] 13:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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

: In my honest opinion, yes, they are. The ] 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[REDACTED] to the New York Times is comparing apples to oranges. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, whereas NYT is a newspaper. There is a difference in the goal of each publication. ] 13:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

ok; so how about we ''describe'' the eleven cartoons, in words? ] <small>]</small> 21:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

==Other controversial newspaper caricatures section==
I have removed, and will continue to do so if necessary, three sentences ] has added to the ] 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 ]'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. ] ]]] 13:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
: You're right, obviously, those editorial comments had no place in the article. ] 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). {{User:Αchille|2006-02-03|13:56}}
: ''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"? ] ]]] 13:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:::Fixed, thanks for noticing so quickly {{User:Αchille|2006-02-03|14:12}}
::::The condone/condemn I was referring to was muslim countries and anti-semitic cartoons, not for the Danish government and freedom of speech. See . 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." ] ]]] 14:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

== What happened to the timeline? ==

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

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

the timeline was moved, due to the length of the article. ] ] 14:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

==Hezbollah announcement re: suicide attacks in Denmark and Norway==
According to ], 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? . ] 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. ] 14:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

::The statement read: ''”The international community should understand that any attack against our prophet will not go unpunished.”'' See for other stories. {{User:Αchille|2006-02-03|14:40}}

:::In A.D. 2006, war was beginning......] 14:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
::::What you say?!

That wasn't a threat, Brandon was saying he's leaving Misplaced Pages. Check his userpage: ]. ] 14:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
::Yes it's digusting that some people are using this article to bring their own racism here. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:Read it again, I know he said he was leaving. ] | ] 15:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


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 . ] 15:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
::I believe the legal term is ]. ] 16:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Surely suicide bombing is more offensive than these cartoons. ]
:Depends on who you ask. --] 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.'' ] 15:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

== Images, drawings, illustrations, charicatures or cartoons? ==

What's the proper thing to call it?(] 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) ] 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''' ~ Cheers {{User:Αchille|2006-02-03|15:42}}





== Archive 4 ==

I have just shaved 35k of the page by archiving all the discussions that didn't have a recent timestamp (recent defined as ''today'' &mdash; the amount of discussion here is impressive). The way I did (archiving section-by-section) can be annoying to some (section numbers shifting causing edit conflicts, spamming the recent changes); I'm sorry for the annoyance. A side-effect of the method is that it causes an irritant amount of whitespace where the removed sections were; if someone wants to fix it, feel free to (I think I have already abused enough of everyone's patience on this page for today). --] 15:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:Actually, that's a great idea. Makes it more like a forum (which is really what talk pages should be like)
::In fact, it's the way it's done on the ]. The difference is that it's done there via a ], which archives everything in a single move, and is much faster than me doing it by hand. --] 15:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks. Perhaps someone could archive part of this again. The page is so huge that when I try to edit my computer starts to lag! Perhaps the polls could be moved to a separate page? (] 18:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC))
::Unfortunately, too many of the sections have been edited recently, and it's bad to archive recently edited sections. Archiving after 12 hours is already a stretch. However, I'm planning on making another archive around midnight GMT, if enough sections are already mature. --] 21:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

==And now for a comedic break==

Because some of you REALLY need it.
{{Warning| STOP! Hammertime!}}

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

{{Lighten up}}

== Another picture of the prophet? ==

Does anyone remember that episode in South Park about the ]? I remember distinctly they drew Mohammud and even showed him moving around and using the power of fire. In fact there is even a[REDACTED] 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 ] 17:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)</ref>

:Thank you! I was trying to remember where that was from. ] 17:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:: yep, that's surely Muhammad! ] 17:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:This is a bit weird indeed, it isn't exactly the first time cartoons like these are published. ] 18:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

:Because he wasn't attributed with a relation to terrorism, unlike one the depictions JP has publsihed (] 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? ] 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) (] 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 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. ] 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. ] 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 --] 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) ] 18:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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

==I need to comment on the picture controversy==
Let's keep this Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages contributors) to consor ourselves (i.e. our encyclopedia). (] 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. (] 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 Misplaced Pages?" 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. ] 19:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

:Where do you see examples of race-baiting? And why 'right-wing'? Why not 'left-wing'? ] 19:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:: I'm beginnning to think MattShepherd can't back up any of his 'chest-thumping' claims... ] 19:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
::: And, now I know he can't... ] 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? ] 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. ] 21:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:And now you know why I abstained in the first poll. ] 19:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
::Wisdom noted. I'll be bowing out from now on. This gets uglier by the minute. ]

== Yo Danish speakers ==

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

] 19:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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

== Picture Size ==

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

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

:In this particular instance, "thumb" is obviously too small. ] 18:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
: All the other images on the page have not been changed in their pixel size, and simply use the "thumb", which is why all the images brought should be kept as 'thumb'. Too small to be useful?! It's on the page, and it's really not hard to click on it, if you want it enlarged. (] 18:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC))
::An image link is also easily clickable, but that option is clearly not the choice of the image poll at the top of this page. I think we need a better reason to have a tiny image. ] ] 18:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:::The matter discussed in polls was whether to keep them or not. Not the size of the images. All i'm saying is that if the rest are thumbs, so should this one be (] 19:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC))
::::That is why we are discussing it here. So far most editors seem to prefer the larger image. ] ] 19:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
: I vote for the larger (and more legible) version GraphicArtist just put up. ] 19:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

So we've agreed that the picture should stay. Lets not have an edit war about it's size. Were bigger than that. Why can't we just have the thumbnail and if people want to see the full size picture then they can do so. Otherwise it's just taking the piss. ]19:57, 3 February 2006

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

It just seems to me that the only reason for having the big picture up is to incite the people who don't want the picture up ]20.07, 3 February 2006
:I think it should be a full-size picture, not to 'take the piss', but because, although I've been an editor for a few months, I didn't know you could click on pics to see larger versions until ''today''. As has been pointed out numerous times, there may be many new WP viewers coming to this article from the main page, and IMO we shouldn't assume that they will know to click to view a more legible size of the picture.--] 20:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:: I agree. The first I ever heard of the 'click-to-see-larger-version' option was when Cloud02 mentioned it at 18:51 above... It wasn't intutitive to me, for some reason... ] 20:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
::: 250 pixels if there is a link to larger images, bigger if there is no link. No thumb. ] 20:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

== 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. ] 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 Misplaced Pages.

== .jpg ->.png version ==

the low resolution .jpg images was replaced by to a high resolution .png image in violation with copyright restrictions ] 19:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:.png page is deleted ] 20:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

== English[REDACTED] = Judeo-Christian Forum ==

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

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

'''I lost great deal of my trust to the philosophy of Misplaced Pages, and I am totally dissapointed.''' ] 20:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:'''I lost a great deal of my trust in readers like you. I am NEITHER JEWISH nor CHRISTIAN. Some of us do not associate with either religions and I still fight for free speech and freedom of information without bias. I find your comment very offensive but I will not ask you to remove it simply because offensive comments need to be seen so that others may understand how people truely biased people can act.''' ] 21:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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


{{User:MiszaBot/config
: I think readers of ] would be surprised to learn that we have a Christian bias. Their concerns didn't get nearly the respect that Muslim concerns have gotten. Muslim concerns in this instance have gotten more consideration than those of any other community ever in Misplaced Pages, and still the IP shouts about racism and Islamophobia. Tiresome. ] 20:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
|maxarchivesize = 70K
|counter = 33
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive %(counter)d
}}


{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
::replying to Swatjester ... we do our best in arabic Misplaced Pages to keep neutral and represents the two viewpoints --] 21:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
|target=Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive index
|mask=Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes
}}


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


Hello,
:there are a ton of stuff on[REDACTED] that I take offense of....Or rather, I would take offence of if I saw it anywhere else than on wikipedia.] 21:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I wish you are fine,
guys this article contains some images that are disrespectful for us,
Please I really would like you to be comprehensive and delete them
Thank you for being comprehensive and kind
Sincerely ] (]) 22:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


:See the template at the top of the page, which links to previous discussions of this issue. You can also configure your browser not to show the images.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 22:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps we should use the rules allowed in court? Is the evidence wholly prejudicial or does it serve some value? ] 21:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:Also read ]. ] (]) 23:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
:No. ] (]) 05:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


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


As many others have already stated these pictures are not only disrespectful to more than 1.6 billion muslims all over the world, but are also a sign of hatred against all of us. It hurts us a lot, so many of us asked for considiration of our feelings, because the article will still be informative even without the picture and it would be a way to show the cohesion and respect between different nations, beliefs and cultures. And not showing pictures due to respect is something, we do on a daily basis. E. g. if an accident happens and people die, most of the countries in this world would show no pictures of the dead people, because it is very impious. So every culture etc. has something they want to protect or respect. We muslims also want that and with 1.6 billion people worldwide it is also a number of people whos feelings deserve to be heared and respected. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== My only significant contribution... ==
:See the ] template at the top of this page. ] (]) 11:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
::Thank you. I know the rules for censorship. In general, certain content needs to be censored and others can be censored. In particular, the things that can be censored include distasteful content. For 1.6 billion people, these cartoons are beyond distasteful. You also have to distinguish between censorship and simple reporting. The main theme of the article is not conveyed through these images themselves, but through the pain that the mockery causes in us Muslims. The pictures do not have to be shown for this. Just as little as pictures of victims of a massacre have to be shown to show the pain of the relatives. So with all due respect to the right of free speech, freedom of the press and other fundamental rights: Please delete these images from the article, because if the fundamental rights just mentioned can be restricted by acts that are generally considered distasteful, then this should not be an exception because the distaste just affects Muslims. ] (]) 12:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
:::Sorry, but religious beliefs don't get to dictate what happens on Misplaced Pages. Please follow ] for a guide on how to hide images. ] (]) 23:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
::::Thank you for the answer. I imagined that our beliefs will not be the guideline for the decisions about the content on Misplaced Pages. This is why so many of us just asked for it and not commanded it or anything. We have shared our feelings about this with you and it is up to you to either respect our feelings about this or not. I thank all the none-muslims supporters for their attepmt to help us in this matter. It shows to me what a peaceful world would look like. ] (]) 11:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
:::::Why do even dare to speak for all Muslims by using the collective term "we"?? You speak for your own, with your own mind, point of view and religious beliefs.
:::::Secondly, if Muslims are so scared about showing the image of Muhammad, why is that name the most common surname in the muslim world and male adults are growing their beards such as he allegedly did? Isn`t that some sort of taking an image?
:::::Thirdly, freedom of speech is superior to islamic beliefs. You can build your own islamic state and then forbid such cartoons but[REDACTED] is a western invention or company and here people can express their points of view. ] (]) 01:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
::::::1. I'm pretty sure all muslims would say that a cartoon that disrespects and paints another image to muslims is not freedom of speech
::::::2. We are not scared of showing the prohpets face (pbuh) rather its forbidden, and doing his practices are not taking an image and how is using someones name taking an image??
::::::3.i don't disagree that you can't express your point of view but I don't think what your doing is freedom of speech rather your just disrespecting, but do as you wish
::::::4. You mentioned something about Iraq and Afghanistan having ties with 9/11 which is just wrong, and its been pretty much proven that it was a setup and now people have painted this bad image of Islam
::::::5. And i would like to say neither christians nor muslims would say its "freedom of speech" if someone did the same thing with jesus(pbuh)
::::::6. I highly doubt that people who bought the cartoons in muslim countries, bought it for entertainment or teaching, i think it was too see what was in it ] (]) 06:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Hi @], all peace and respect to you and your feelings. But the image on this page is necessary to allow us to understand what the issues are. Nobody is going to find this page by accident and be triggered by images they hadn't expected. On the contrary, anyone reading here is actively wanting to know about these images, and you can't form an opinion of them without seeing them. The image is of such low resolution that there is not much pleasure in looking at it and it can't be used for any other purpose than forming a basic judgment.
:::::::You mentioned that Christians would feel the same way if it were their religion being depicted. The point is, though, there are many disrespectful cartoons about Jesus on the internet, but they have little impact and aren't widely distributed, because Christians show their contempt by ignoring them. There will always be trolls who want to provoke you, but it's your choice if you give them success by getting angry and trying to silence them. The majority of people do not want to troll your religion and would not be interested in these cartoons, but the minute you say we are not allowed to see them, we want to see them. You yourself said that some people in Muslim countries bought the cartoons. They would never have heard of this provincial little Danish newspaper if devout Muslims had not brought it to their attention. This is called the ]. Quite simply, the best way to deny the cartoonists their success is to turn your back and walk quietly away. ] (]) 09:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


== GA concerns ==
...to Wiki namespace: ]. This page is a joke and its unfortunate otherwise earnest contributors are wasting time on it. ] 20:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:What's the big deal it's afake religion, for nuts who like to kill people {{unsigned|216.231.162.9}}


I am concerned that this article no longer meets the ]. Some of my concerns are listed below:
== Other comparable incidents section ==


*There is a "neutrality disputed" orange banner since 2019. This should be resolved.
I think a lot of the material in this section is not needed in this article and could perhaps be covered in some other article such as ] or something along those lines. It adds a lot to this article that is only loosely related to the subject of the article. ] 21:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
*The lead, at 6 paragraphs, is longer than the recommended length at ]
*The article relies on a lot of block quotes. I think these can be summaried instead of using these quotes.
*There is uncited text throughout the article.


Is anyone interested in addressing these concerns, or should this go to ]? ] (]) 05:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
== US condems Denmark ==


==GA Reassessment==
We at least should make the image small, and not on the top saying, "look at me!"! ]]Zach 21:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
{{Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/1}}

Latest revision as of 15:36, 18 September 2024

Skip to table of contents

Notice: Prior discussion has determined that some images of Muhammad are allowed.

Discussion of images, and of edits regarding images, must be posted to the images subpage. Removal of pictures without discussion will be reverted. If you prefer not to see images of Muhammad, you can configure your browser or use your personal Misplaced Pages settings not to display them.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Censorship warningMisplaced Pages is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.
Former good articleJyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 4, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
April 22, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
April 25, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
April 25, 2006Good article nomineeListed
April 26, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
April 28, 2006Good article reassessmentListed
May 10, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
June 15, 2006Good article nomineeListed
June 16, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
June 26, 2006Good article nomineeListed
June 27, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
July 2, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 7, 2006Good article nomineeListed
October 8, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
January 30, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 7, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
May 13, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
October 16, 2013Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 18, 2024Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 30, 2008, September 30, 2009, September 30, 2010, September 30, 2012, September 30, 2015, and September 30, 2017.
Current status: Delisted good article
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconDenmark Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconJournalism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconFreedom of speech Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIslam: Islam and Controversy Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Islam and Controversy task force.
WikiProject iconComics: European Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Misplaced Pages. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by European comics work group.
WikiProject iconReligion Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconInternational relations High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
On 30 May 2013, it was proposed that this article be moved to Muhammad cartoons crisis. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
Muslim Action Committee was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 02 November 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
The contents of the Economic and social consequences of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy page were merged into Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy on 11 November 2012. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
Archiving icon
Archives
Index 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
31, 32, 33

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors
Please divert comments having to do with... ... to the page ...
the timeline of the incidents Talk:Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
international reactions Talk:International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
opinions Talk:Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
any aspect of displaying the cartoon images Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Arguments/Image-Display


Proposal of removing an inappropriate content

Hello, I wish you are fine, guys this article contains some images that are disrespectful for us, Please I really would like you to be comprehensive and delete them Thank you for being comprehensive and kind Sincerely Usernetme (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

See the template at the top of the page, which links to previous discussions of this issue. You can also configure your browser not to show the images.--♦IanMacM♦ 22:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Also read WP:NOTCENSORED. Some1 (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
No. 106.128.97.210 (talk) 05:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Another point of view

As many others have already stated these pictures are not only disrespectful to more than 1.6 billion muslims all over the world, but are also a sign of hatred against all of us. It hurts us a lot, so many of us asked for considiration of our feelings, because the article will still be informative even without the picture and it would be a way to show the cohesion and respect between different nations, beliefs and cultures. And not showing pictures due to respect is something, we do on a daily basis. E. g. if an accident happens and people die, most of the countries in this world would show no pictures of the dead people, because it is very impious. So every culture etc. has something they want to protect or respect. We muslims also want that and with 1.6 billion people worldwide it is also a number of people whos feelings deserve to be heared and respected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:F5:D700:BE6C:D021:83A7:AA42:6314 (talk) 08:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

See the Misplaced Pages is not censored template at the top of this page. Some1 (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I know the rules for censorship. In general, certain content needs to be censored and others can be censored. In particular, the things that can be censored include distasteful content. For 1.6 billion people, these cartoons are beyond distasteful. You also have to distinguish between censorship and simple reporting. The main theme of the article is not conveyed through these images themselves, but through the pain that the mockery causes in us Muslims. The pictures do not have to be shown for this. Just as little as pictures of victims of a massacre have to be shown to show the pain of the relatives. So with all due respect to the right of free speech, freedom of the press and other fundamental rights: Please delete these images from the article, because if the fundamental rights just mentioned can be restricted by acts that are generally considered distasteful, then this should not be an exception because the distaste just affects Muslims. 2003:F5:D700:BE08:ACFD:3B5B:BEFF:B6C (talk) 12:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, but religious beliefs don't get to dictate what happens on Misplaced Pages. Please follow HELP:NOIMAGE for a guide on how to hide images. Some1 (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the answer. I imagined that our beliefs will not be the guideline for the decisions about the content on Misplaced Pages. This is why so many of us just asked for it and not commanded it or anything. We have shared our feelings about this with you and it is up to you to either respect our feelings about this or not. I thank all the none-muslims supporters for their attepmt to help us in this matter. It shows to me what a peaceful world would look like. 2003:F5:D700:BE98:55F5:CF67:1625:ED3A (talk) 11:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Why do even dare to speak for all Muslims by using the collective term "we"?? You speak for your own, with your own mind, point of view and religious beliefs.
Secondly, if Muslims are so scared about showing the image of Muhammad, why is that name the most common surname in the muslim world and male adults are growing their beards such as he allegedly did? Isn`t that some sort of taking an image?
Thirdly, freedom of speech is superior to islamic beliefs. You can build your own islamic state and then forbid such cartoons but[REDACTED] is a western invention or company and here people can express their points of view. 62.226.91.97 (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
1. I'm pretty sure all muslims would say that a cartoon that disrespects and paints another image to muslims is not freedom of speech
2. We are not scared of showing the prohpets face (pbuh) rather its forbidden, and doing his practices are not taking an image and how is using someones name taking an image??
3.i don't disagree that you can't express your point of view but I don't think what your doing is freedom of speech rather your just disrespecting, but do as you wish
4. You mentioned something about Iraq and Afghanistan having ties with 9/11 which is just wrong, and its been pretty much proven that it was a setup and now people have painted this bad image of Islam
5. And i would like to say neither christians nor muslims would say its "freedom of speech" if someone did the same thing with jesus(pbuh)
6. I highly doubt that people who bought the cartoons in muslim countries, bought it for entertainment or teaching, i think it was too see what was in it Omar mohammed el-prince (talk) 06:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Omar mohammed el-prince, all peace and respect to you and your feelings. But the image on this page is necessary to allow us to understand what the issues are. Nobody is going to find this page by accident and be triggered by images they hadn't expected. On the contrary, anyone reading here is actively wanting to know about these images, and you can't form an opinion of them without seeing them. The image is of such low resolution that there is not much pleasure in looking at it and it can't be used for any other purpose than forming a basic judgment.
You mentioned that Christians would feel the same way if it were their religion being depicted. The point is, though, there are many disrespectful cartoons about Jesus on the internet, but they have little impact and aren't widely distributed, because Christians show their contempt by ignoring them. There will always be trolls who want to provoke you, but it's your choice if you give them success by getting angry and trying to silence them. The majority of people do not want to troll your religion and would not be interested in these cartoons, but the minute you say we are not allowed to see them, we want to see them. You yourself said that some people in Muslim countries bought the cartoons. They would never have heard of this provincial little Danish newspaper if devout Muslims had not brought it to their attention. This is called the Streisand effect. Quite simply, the best way to deny the cartoonists their success is to turn your back and walk quietly away. Doric Loon (talk) 09:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

  • There is a "neutrality disputed" orange banner since 2019. This should be resolved.
  • The lead, at 6 paragraphs, is longer than the recommended length at WP:LEADLENGTH
  • The article relies on a lot of block quotes. I think these can be summaried instead of using these quotes.
  • There is uncited text throughout the article.

Is anyone interested in addressing these concerns, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 05:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a "neutrality disputed" orange banner since 2019 that needs to be resolved. The article also has lots of uncited text and quoted text. Z1720 (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Categories:
Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy: Difference between revisions Add topic