Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 21

message: In the Poll entitled "Special-case Labelling"
:*5 votes in support
:*21 votes in opposition
Therefore special-case labelling will not be adopted concerning images on the WikiPedia Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article.
Netscott 01:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   Results of Archived Poll 4 

message: Poll 3 and 4 are closed earlier then necessary, especially compared to Poll 1 and 2. If you still want to vote on the nature of the cartoon posted in the article (Poll 3) or having a template (Poll 4), please do so in the archive above. Resid Gulerdem 23:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Poll 4 is reopened, so you can vote here, below too. I do not want to bring Poll 3 here because intolerant people vandalize it quickly. So you can [vote for Poll 3] if you like in the archive above! Resid Gulerdem 23:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * This poll below (Poll 4) will close at this time tomorrow and be archived with the results wikied here. Netscott 00:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Poll 4 is now closed and archived (see above). Netscott 01:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Let us say, it will be closed on Monday at this time, so more people have a chance to see it! Resid Gulerdem 00:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Uh no, Jeremy said  a couple more days that means tomorrow at this time. Netscott 00:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is ridiculous, it's been brought up FOUR TIMES in small, almost unoticeable differences.  You are ignoring the fact that it has failed every single time, not by a small percentage, but by a large margin...overwhelming for that matter.  I did not close poll 4, as I was going to let it ride out till whenever, because it was quite obvious it was not going to succeed.  People also keep insisting it's going to pass if worded "slightly" differently.  It's not.  In fact, poll 4 shouldn't have even been allowed to go up considering most EVERYONE told him not to do it again.  Let it rest, let it die, stop throwing it around like if it passes once it'll stay up forever (I give it 10 seconds flat before administration kicks in and re-instates it even if it DOES "succeed").  As I've said before, 1 out of 4 polls succeeding quite obviously does not constitute majority on the insanely off chance it does win. -Moocats 01:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POLL 3 and POLL 4 

message: I added a fatwa from Sistani. Please dont take it away, i not there are those that hate seeing it. --Striver 01:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems pertinent to me. I added that he's in Iraq and corrected some grammar. Netscott 01:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, it's definitely relevant. Babajobu 05:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've integrated this addition into the Islamic tradition section... this addition was previously a bit of an 'orphan'. Netscott 16:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fatwa

message: The widespread Sambos restaurant controversies I cited, documented in lawsuits, newspaper articles, petitions and activists writings was a flashpoint for controversy over use of the term "Sambo", derived from a childrens book widely used in elementary schools of the era and on which which the nationwide restaraunt based its marketing images. Mention of the term in reference to the current controversy can be found in the title of an essay by well-known conservative writer Michelle Malkin -- "Ragheads and Sambos and Gooks". Malkin says she sees no comparison with the cartoon, but states that several of her readers have drawn parallels with well-known US racial epithets by a national leader. Malkin extends the reference to "ragheads" to include "sambos". We could add ragheads and gooks to the list, but there was never a campaign to make anybody stop publishing those terms, and such a campaign has not been mentioned in this context.
Since all current discussion of this emerging topic is taking place in blogs, letters to the editor, editorial columns and other transient venues, it is fair to take Malkin's mention of several readers drawing the parallel between a reference to ragheads and the cartoons, and her extending the reference to controversy over the term Sambos as typical of more widespread discussion I am seeing in those venues. I suggest readers unfamiliar with this dialogue are not in touch with current dialogue in the South. The list in this article isn't "A list of events that are just like this cartoon controversy". It is a list of refernces to similar controversies that have been mentioned. The Sambos controversy is a particularly interesting comparison that has been mentioned because it too arose from ostensibly benign caricatures related to a childrens book, and because public pressure led to change in publishing activities. PaxTerra 07:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: and on Sambos

message: I found the perigrine edit, but I don't see any vandalism. PaxTerra 05:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have a look at the bottom of [Peregrine's edit].. see anything wrong? Netscott 05:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  I see what appears to be a dutch language reference to a dutch language article that seems to babelfish into content that is consistent with what Perigrene represents.  Perigrene's edit history evidences continued good faith editing. I advised Perigrene of your accusation. Perhaps you can exlpain your allegation to the accused.  PaxTerra 06:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah you're right  but he failed to close his ref> so the El Fagr image showed up at the bottom of the page... fortunately my comment was "Vandalism?" and not "Vandalism!"... LOL! Netscott 06:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, sit tight a minute and I'll fix it. Stevenj removed it for being misformated, but the lack of dutch readers to verify the source is not pertinant to the misformating. Perigrine seems to be a Dutch reader. PaxTerra 06:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Perigrine falsely accused?

message: I believe the article should contain references of the different representations of Muhammad throughout history. I am sure that this is by far not the first one. It should be included, as the Muslims reacted also to the the representation itself of Muhammad. --landroni 17:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We had references to historical and current pictures of Muhammed. Did they disappear?DanielDemaret 18:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. They are in the section "Islamic tradition". Three foootnotes, same as it ever was. Azate 23:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: THanks Azate :) Reading this article with a gazziollion permutational versions due to edit skirmishes has made me blind. I should give this article a rest a few months and rest my eyes.:)DanielDemaret 08:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK guys. Thanks. It was me who wasn't attentive. --landroni 09:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Representation of Muhammad drawings throughout history 

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

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

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

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

message: Perhaps I simply missed where this was discussed, but is there a reason there is an "Islamic views" category for links on the main page but not one for Danes/Those supporting the freedom of speech argument?  And secondly, why are these links on the main page, instead of on the page specifically for differing opinions on the controversy?  Richard 129.244.128.134 06:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't wait for reason to exclude mere links to external resources that balance other points of view in an article about controversial viewpoints. Be bold in editing. The reason they're not there is because you've not added them yet? Go for it.  PaxTerra 18:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Islamic Views' links section POV? 

message: A while back I mentioned that they closed down a server showing some muhammed cartoons in Sweden. I think this was the picture shown: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mu_mirror.JPG
It is not terribly interesting, but I seem to recall someone here wondering what the picture looked like, and I like the fact that this discussion contains a lot more side-info than the article itself, since it might become relevant later. It is relevant only in as it relates to the note on "govenrnment-induced self-censorship" in swedish media. DanielDemaret 20:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked for it, thankyou for digging! I find it interesting that it is so ... how to say, unprovocative? At least compared to what I had expected. As a cartoon it is only funny because their server was shut down because of it. Illustrates the panic there must have been in Sweden, risking to loose the skyrocketing telecom business in Muslim countries. It was apparently mirrored in Finland by Suomen Sisu (Finnish Power) for an hour, or some such ... MX44 02:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Just a picture from a swedish server

message: While the reference to Julius Steicher in this article may be interesting it is not entirely pertinent.
The one citation that is used to justify this linkage is the word of one Islamic extremist.
This extremist in citing precedent for justification for the call to kill the cartoonists cites acts that
were carried out not by courts of law but primarily individuals[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1570348/posts].
To compare the legal one time publication of 12 cartoons by Jyllands-Posten concerning a religion to the illegal crimes against humanity of 25 years publishing hateful racist propaganda in Der Stürmer that Julius Streicher did inciting Germans to exterminate Jews, truly belittles Streicher's criminal acts.
Based upon this logic I have moved all references to the case of Julius Steicher in Legal traditions to this talk area.
:In the current controversy, at least one cleric has advocated a view seen as extreme even among many who oppose publication of the images that the cartoonists from Jyllands-Posten should be executed under Islamic law.  While killing those responsible for symbolic acts is an extreme response, there is a precedent in 20th Century international jurisprudence of capital punishment for crimes related to publication of literature that incited hatred.  
As others have suggested this would tend to fall under Opinions about the topic of this article. Netscott 03:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, Omar Bakri Muhammad is talking about the Extrajudicial killing of the cartoonists. His own site (via google) alghurabaa.co.uk goes so far as to effectively admit this. 
*"The Islamic verdict on individual or individuals who insult any Prophet needs to be passed by an Islamic Court and implemented by the Islamic State, rather than individuals carrying out the verdict themselves. However, sadly we find that we live in an era where there is not one country in the world implementing the Shari’ah, rather the 55 Muslim countries in existence today all implement non-Islamic law..."
If we follow this logic of citing an extremist who claims Sharia... then the London protestors who displayed signs saying, "Behead those who insult Islam", "Kill those who insult Islam", "Slay those who insult Islam" (see  for photos) should factor in as well into Legal traditions because it could be argued that they were displaying their signs in accordance with Sharia. Netscott 01:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having read your input on this page, it seems important to remind you, N, that articles here are not based on what "could be argued" but what has been said by others. Items are excluded from these articles when they represent a point of view of an editor here, but they a necessary part of an article about rhetorical topics when they represent represent someone esles point of view See the difference? Would you argue an article on a Constitution would exclude the views of those who wrote that Constitution? Rolano 17:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah not sure why you've changed your name PaxTerra to Rolano (is there something to hide?) but the fatwa angle is good. Have any fatwas comparable to Khomeni's calling for death been called for the Jyllands cartoonists? Netscott 17:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Court of law vs. Extrajudicial Sharia?