Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 10

message: i think image should not be placed no matter what.There are all other sites available and by now most pople would have seen it on other sites.The concept of Bahaullah image doesnt work here.Placing teh image here certainly means that wikipedia is taking sides....Shame on all those who started this controversial war in Denmark.....Naeem Qasai
:: No, shame on those who turned the publishing of a cartoon into a controversial war. Skleinjung 16:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Knock it off, although I don't agree with him either, you can be more mature about it.--Lewk_of_Serthic 16:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

text: I think the neutral position is not to vote. Babajobu 20:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some people have specific opinions about where the image should go, but first we should address the fate of the image itself. If there is a consensus to keep it in article, then we should address where to keep it. But most edit warring has been over whether or not to keep it at all. Babajobu 20:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've been keeping up with the thread, and I disagree.  I would say there's been an equal amount of vitriol over simply moving the image down on the page, and I think it's important to structure the straw poll so people don't think their votes will be misinterpreted.  Tempshill 20:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There will be another poll, and there's no reason it can't include Link to Image as one of the approvable options. Voting to keep the image now is not a vote for its present size or position; that will be later. Septentrionalis 20:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Agree with Pam, and I don't think anyone's votes will be misinterpreted. Voting to keep the image in the article is not an assertion that it belongs at the top, the bottom, the middle, or anywhere else. More than one editor also said that the picture should be removed until we determined that consensus preferred it in the article. We need to get that simple issues sorted. If there turns out to be a consensus to keep it in the article, then we will need to address where it should go. But I don't think a two-step process to determine consensus is too elaborate a method for an issue that has caused this much warring and disagreement. Babajobu 20:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't like the current poll, whose questions are slanted to produce a preselected result.  The correct first poll question is "be hardass / be flexible".  If the answer is "hardass", then no 2nd step is needed.  If "flexible", then go to a 2nd step and figure out what to do next, no longer insisting on keeping the pic the way it is. 71.141.251.153 21:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, because those poll options aren't loaded at all...The current poll is fine as step one of a two-step process, as has been discussed on this page already. Skleinjung 21:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

text: Well to everyone new and old let me just say welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.  --JGGardiner 23:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll 1 Comments

message: 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...
#Maverick 19:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not accusing any one. I just noticed that some people just appeared after long vacations. Others just signed just for the sake of this talk page? Is that wrong?????? Or are people offended when some one notices something about the poll? It is only talk, how can it heart any one; after all this is what we are here to talk about!!! --Tarawneh 23:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's true...we noticed that hordes of IPs showed up to remove the image multiple times, so it's okay for him to notice that a few editors haven't been editing much recently. What conclusions he draws from that, I haven't a clue. Babajobu 23:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: The America television media has ignored this story.  So American readers are counting on one of you to upload an audio pronunciation.
Lotsofissues 19:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Newspaper - , whats the name you want? Cacophobia (Talk) 10:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, the other name was Kåre Bluitgen.  Lotsofissues 14:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dont know how to pronouce his last name correctly sorry Cacophobia (Talk) 15:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "Islamisk Trossamfund"?  Thanks.  128.54.45.85 20:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Ouch.  But perhaps, Touché.   --Deville (Talk) 17:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yo Danish speakers 

message: We seem to have a revert war brewing about the proper size of the image at the top of the article.  It has been changed back and forth between "250px" and "thumb" several times now.  I believe the size has been 250px for most of the past 12 hours (when I've been watching). Please comment here if you have issues with the picture size; let's resolve this by consensus. NoSeptember talk 18:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My vote is that the image is far too small to be useful. Valtam 18:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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

text: All the other images on the page have not been changed in their pixel size, and simply use the "thumb", which is why all the images brought should be kept as 'thumb'. Too small to be useful?! It's on the page, and it's really not hard to click on it, if you want it enlarged. (Cloud02 18:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An image link is also easily clickable, but that option is clearly not the choice of the image poll at the top of this page.  I think we need a better reason to have a tiny image. NoSeptember talk 18:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The matter discussed in polls was whether to keep them or not. Not the size of the images. All i'm saying is that if the rest are thumbs, so should this one be (Cloud02 19:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is why we are discussing it here.  So far most editors seem to prefer the larger image. NoSeptember talk 19:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I vote for the larger (and more legible) version GraphicArtist just put up. Valtam 19:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  in favour for 250 version KimvdLinde 19:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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

text: I agree wholeheartedly with this, in hindsight. As long as there is a thumbnail of the picture i am happy... if people want to click on said thumbnail to get the larger version, so be it, but i think the option should as least be represented with a thumbnail. WookMuff 05:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: do you understand the phrase? WookMuff 05:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

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

message: I think a lot of the material in this section is not needed in this article and could perhaps be covered in some other article such as Blasphemy or something along those lines.  It adds a lot to this article that is only loosely related to the subject of the article. Peyna 21:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I was thinking something like that too. I think most of the subsections of "Comparable incidents" could be made into separate articles. (Entheta 22:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. There it a lot of material in that section that, IMO, is only remotly related to this incidend AlEX 22:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

text: I also cut out the "Controversial newspaper caricatures" section and made that into a separate article. I think it's interesting enough to qualify to get its own article, but takes up too much space as off-topic in this article. (Entheta 01:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other comparable incidents section 

message: We at least should make the image small, and not on the top saying, "look at me!"! WikieZach 21:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should we?  Wikipedia is not censored.  The entire article is about the cartoons and it makes no sense to start talking about them without showing them first.  --Cyde Weys 22:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does this have to do with the US condemning Denmark? As far as I know, only the State Department has pointed out that these pictures are "offensive to Muslims," and I would be ashamed if the US government suggested the Danish government or anyone else should apologize for exercising their right to freedom of expression or of the press. AscendedAnathema 22:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Aww, guess I was wrong, but I definently don't agree with that government person's assesment that anti-Islamic things are just as frowned upon and anti-jew or anti-Christian stuff, you see shows, MANY shows, and newspapers, and societies, formed up just to do stuff against Christianity, yet i've yet to see a single one get shut down or yelled at, especially when the ACLU and similar organizations protect their "rights". I wonder if the ACLU even has an opinion on this matter, i'd think they side with Denmark, that actually might be noteworthy if they make a statement. Homestarmy 01:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US condems Denmark 

message: :Image:arabcartoon.jpg
Why was the image of the jordanian cartoon removed again?
Rajab 22:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 198.180.251.157 has been blocked for 24 hours. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, in principle you are right, but it is not of importance. The translation is still okay. -- ActiveSelective 11:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks :)Rajab 15:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion in the muslim world

message: Insult is not a value to insist on or to support, it is a mental pathology which requires a  pfessional treatment, caused by lack of ideas and lack of emphaty! 
I propose to delete the cartoons as it is an insult to the Prophet of Islam! Resid Gulerdem 23:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying, Resid, that those who wish to keep the pictures on the page have mental pathologies and require professional treatment?  (Sounds like an attack to me...) Valtam 23:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't mean a particular person. It is general observation and idea! Whoever wants to go into it, s/he is wellcome! I would like you see that the cartoons are nothing but an insult!. Resid Gulerdem 23:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: He has been advised that his actions are unwise on his talk page. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about if the western media learn how to write an article without an insult? Actually they know, except if the object in question is Islam! Resid Gulerdem 23:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a place to insult the values! Whatever its origin is! 

message: It seems clear to me that the people who keep removing the images (we all know who they are) will not stop until they are banned.  Can somebody please ban them.  What does everyone else think? User:slamdac 23:22, 3 February 2006
:Wholeheartedly agreed. Anyone who unilaterally removes the image should be instantly and permanently banned as a consequence. Until then, I doubt we'll see any decrease in the blanking vandalism. It also seems that many of the people who unilaterally vandalize the image have common IP addresses. I'm not familiar with IP addresses and how they work, but I'm guessing that since the first three numbers of all of the image vandals are in the 200s, it means they're coming from the Mideast. Perhaps it is possible to broadly but temporarily block IP addresses with this prefix, if it becomes necessary for Wiki to take that drastic of action.AscendedAnathema 23:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think at this point repeated removal of content, against the clear consensus of the community, is essentially simple vandalism. I think a semiprotect is necessary. Babajobu 23:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made a similar proposal at WP:AN/I. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Babajobu - please define consensus for us. More than 10% are very strongly opposed to the pictures.  Even if there's a majority in favour of the pictures there must be a protection of minorities Rajab 23:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is currently an 82% majority in favour of keeping the image in the article. Just under 11% believe it should be deleted altogether, and just over 6% believe it should be moved to a separate article. The 82% is much more than what is required to constitute a consensus. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, and does protecting a minority mean ignoring the majority's opinion? AlEX 23:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It does if the minority is VERY strongly offended Rajab 23:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think it would be fair to ban a wide IP range that might effectively ban a large number of people from certain countries or areas from editing Wikipedia, and there may be many legitimate Wikipedians i those areas. Please, no collective punishment. Just ban the IPs/people that in fact have vandalised the page. If you decide to say to people that "_You_ can't take part in this discussion because you live in such and such country and have IP such and such", that is, perhaps not by definition but anyway - dangerously close to racism. (Entheta 23:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While there have been (sadly) some proposals (mostly from unknown editors) to block Saudi Arabia or the Mideast en masse, this is not a realistic possibility. Rest assured that the people who will be blocked are those who vandalize the article, those who violate the 3RR, those who make threats or personal attacks, and those causing disruption. There MAY be some small range blocks which *could* affect other 3rd party innocent editors, but it will certainly NOT be an attempt to exclude an entire geographic region. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. (Entheta 00:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ban the people who keep removing the images 

message: Why doesn't the 3 revert rule apply to people who re-insert the offensive cartoon?
:Because the reverts are done to undo blanking vandalism, to which 3RR doesn't apply. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, at this point I think it meets the definition of simple vandalism. Repeatedly removing content when the community has clearly stated it believes the article is better with the image, that amounts to "an effort to degrade the quality of an article". I.e., vandalism. Babajobu 23:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  what do you mean by clearly stated? 10% strongly feel against it. What exactly is your definition of consensu, Babajobu? Rajab 23:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the relevant articles in the wikipedia namespace, consensus is roughly 70 to 80 percent. There is a current consensus of over 80% to keep the cartoon in the article, which constitutes a consensus. Indeed, about 10% strongly feel against the cartoon. That means that 90% don't. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Because the reversion of vandalism does not count as a 3RR violation.  User:Zoe|(talk) 00:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3 revert rule

message: This comment of mine is certainly POV, but still a suggestion about what might make the article clearer. That there is one single picture that sums up the event from the perspective of many. The one where a man is looking over his shoulder while trying to draw Mohammed. He draws the picture, in fear of muslims that will threaten to kill him. This very picture gets published along with the astounding suggestion that we do not have press freedom even in the land rated #1 according to http://www.rsf.org/. And then the the article is proven right by people threatening to kill the artists. Ignore this or give constructive critisism. DanielDemaret 23:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think that's a very interesting perspective as well. It's the least "offending" of the pictures, but probably the one that best examplifies the controversy because it's almost prophetic. (Entheta 23:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  at least that one doesn't depict the prophet muhammad (saw) - it only depicts the drawing of his picture %~( Rajab 23:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a nice attempt at compromise, but that single image is not generating the controversy, nor is it in response to the controversy... at best it predicts the controversy. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: One particular picture sums up the event, and should perhaps head the page?