Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 7

message: The formatting on the last two sections was broken, and I had to temp protect this page in order to avoid edit conflicts. The total protection lasted less than one minute... during which I'm guessing 50-60 people couldn't post. ;) Sorry. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temp protect on Discussion page 

message: If the artist can drive over a billion people to utter madness with a picture, he wins. Hands down. All the endless flame wars and trolling on wikipedia, fark, 4chan, and other big sites can't even possibly compare to a cartoon that results in crazy people taking over an embassy. It's over, everybody. This guy has finally Won the Internet.
:Oh please.  We had a bigger revert war over the Harry Potter movie. --DDG 20:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is great 

message: Matt Drudge has posted the bomb-in-turban Mohammad picture prominently on his high traffic website. Tempshill 20:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drudge 

message: i don't think the image can be kept in any case because one of the artists has explicitly asked for it not to be reproduced. This is the current state of the discussion on the German version of this article 20:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the discussion is about the controversy covered by the images, it is undoubtably covered by fair use. --DDG 20:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair use is different than German copyright law in any event. Carlossuarez46 20:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Wikipedia database is stored on a server in the State of Florida in the United States of America, and is maintained in reference to the protections afforded under local and federal law." Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  89 machines in Florida, 3 near Paris, 11 in Amsterdam, 23 in Yahoo!'s Korean hosting facility --Tarawneh 23:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyright of cartoon image 

message: there is no consensus on the picture. The oxford english dictionary defines consensus as:
Agreement in opinion; the collective unanimous opinion of a number of persons
I've taken the conservative option to remove the image until there's a consensus on this issue. Rajab 21:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, there is a strong consensus to keep the image. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  eh, I think the consensus is pretty darn clear. Babajobu 21:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  no consensus 

message: The two people (Rajab and Rgulerdem )who objected to the pictures have agreed to put them in the middle. Isn't this a sensible compromise. slamdac
:: Until there is a real consensus & a real poll running for longer than just a few hours the picture should certainly stay in the middle. After we've found a real consensus we can still change that... 22:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  42 vs 2 implies strong consensus for keeping the pictures. (Cloud02 22:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Moving the picture from it present location should be forestalled until after this initial poll at which time we will be able to focus on the placement of the photo (presuming consensus remains to keep the image). Babajobu 22:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly. Thanks :) Rajab 22:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I have no issues with someone enforcing image in the midle and a link to the image at the top via IAR use of the block button, and I doubt any other responsible editor does either. We can reach position consensus only after the revert war ends. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Why don't we put the picture on both the top and the middle? Then everyone can have their favorite position :D Homestarmy 22:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this compromise!  Everyone is happy! Valtam 22:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  let's be sensible 

message: Theresa Knott removed the article protection because the article is linked from the main page at this time. This is reasonable. However, following the removal of protection, the revert warring erupted afresh. This will not be tolerated. The protection was to prevent individuals from being blocked, and instead stop the revert warring. Since protection can not now be used, blocks will have to be used instead. If anybody continues to revert war over this, and they have been previously warned, they may be blocked. Stop the revert war. Now. --Durin 22:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could always de-link it from the Main page... I'm not saying we SHOULD, but we COULD. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Or we could just block those who are disrupting the encylopedia. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continued revert warring 

message: NO not all muslims hate Jews,[I have few Jews friends who are cool] Islam is not about hatred its about peace. But I guess westerners and the artists get this idea from those Terrorist who used Islam for their own agenda which is not right. And I really need to clarify this to all Muslims and Non-muslims Jihad is not about killing people, Yes, Jihad means holy war is about sacrificing yourself not bombing yourself and thousand and millions of innocents people, its a holy war againts your ownself, by doing what the Quran and Prophet Muhammad tells us. The Quran didn't asked us to kill innocent people, thats not the way of Islam. And also if this happens during the life of Prophet Muahmmad (PBUH), he will probably laugh it off as something stupid. Come on he got spat at, had a camel carcass thrown on his back while praying. And he don't get mad. So yes, the cartoons are very offensive because its about someone we love and respect, yes im very offended but when i think about it there's no need to issue terror threat and all because in the thats not what Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) wants from us. ~Nadiah~
WTF is this image being re-added? It is obvious vandalism. Fredrik Johansson - talk - contribs 22:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless someone can come with a proper news source that has used this image, this cannot be brought related to this article! (Cloud02 22:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Muslim nazis" image 

message: Let us have just the link in the article, untill the pool ended?! Resid Gulerdem 22:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another suggestion to comprimise 

message: I agree with Cloud and Fredrik about that picture of the Nazi salute. the image and name seem calculated to do little but stir an already boiling pot. That one should be removed, IMHO. Pat Payne 22:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies, I restored that image thinking it was the other one. I have no idea what this image even was. Sorry about that. Babajobu 22:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My apologies as well as I was trying to revert the article back to one with an image of the cartoons and didn't see the Nazi image within the article. Of course, now I am locked out from editing the article at all because an admin assumes _I_ was one of the people trying to remove the cartoon image -- this whole thing is ridiculous and surreal. Sol. v. Oranje 22:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ain't it the truth... Pat Payne 22:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Nazi" picture 

message: Why can't the article have the bold link at the top and the picture in the middle? Will that stop revert warring? Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree very much with this. It's a good idea and no one should be complaining about "censorship". --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 22:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a perfectly reasonable interim solution. However, an adminstrator has reverted the page to a pictureless - linkless version that does not indiciate the picture can be found anywhere whatsoever, and then protected it, without notice, while it was on the front page. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pic's in the middle. Hoping everyone agrees to linking at the top. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 22:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please, please do this. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can live with that as a compromise. Whether consensus proves to be behind it, we'll see. Babajobu 22:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Seems like a sensible comprimise for the times being. —Ruud 22:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go try that then. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 22:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did it. Let's see if it sticks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's discuss 

message: I'm considering the possibility of adding a thumbnail of the following HI-RES picture:
http://cryptome.org/muhammad.htm
Placement would be under the section called "Publication of the drawings" after "Each of the twelve drawings portrays Muhammad in a different fashion. In the clockwise direction:"
When clicking on the thumb the user should be taken to a new Image-page similar to the picture on the top of the article. This is NOT ment to be a replacement of the picture currectly present in the article but as an addition.
Why should this picture be added:
1. It's impossible to study the cartoons in the origial scan. Most Important.
2. Adding a link to a HI-RES version would facilitate a discussion on the cartoons.
3. Some of the cartoons are not critical of Muhammed. Some are funny and some are neutral. When the picture first surfaced in Denmark this was a significant part of the debate but the press and various fundamentals have later botchered this discussion and chosen to view the issue as either a "free-speech-issue" (good IMO) of a "clash-of-civilizations-issue (not so good but not irrellevant IMO). A HI-RES vesion should in theory, since more information is avilable enrich the discussion.
4. A HI-RES version is consistant with free speech and fair use.
I've been reading Wikipedia for four years but this is the first time I have posted anything, so I guess I feel pretty strongly about this one.)
(because of work etc I might not be able to do this because of time constraints so if someone wants to be bold they have my consent. Sorry for my bad English)
MrEH
:That would be a copyright violation and wikipedia could be sued. The image is fair use at a low resolution only. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 22:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: besides the copyright violation, there are already external links to the images and on top of that, the images content is explained quite clearly throughout the article. (Cloud02 22:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: They have been posted all over the internet in the last couple of day, so I don't think we should worry about wikipedia being sued. But there is no need, for indeed there are external links leading to these images. AlEX 22:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: At this point, tho, does the 'fair use' standard apply?  Maybe we could leave the image of the newspaper publication of the 12 images together on the main page, and have a link to a second page with high-res versions of each picture. Valtam 22:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If there's going to be a hi-res version, it should be a scan of the original JP page/article that caused all this, in its original context (I think you begin to leave the field of "fair use" otherwise). And it shouldn't be translated from Danish (or Farsi); we can fix translation flubs in our articles, but editing pictures is a bit more complex. Guppy313 23:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HI-RES Version 

message: I was initially against moving the image "below the fold". I think the only reason to change an article for taste is if someone is truly offended and I'm not sure if most of those offended by the image would be satisfied with a movement of inches. However, I think at some point, which may not have happened yet, this story will be more about the boycott and protests than the actual cartoon itself. I was actually happy to see the version with the dairy case boycott notice on top and the cartoon just below. --JGGardiner 22:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well put. Compare Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005, which this event strongly resembles. That article, too, was the subject of bitter controversy. Came out all right in the end. BYT 22:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Below the fold

message: Why are we so hesitant to block people who consistently remove the image?  When they've received several warnings already and continue to remove it they are not going to stop unless they are made to stop.  --Vagodin  Talk 22:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There have already been several blocks relating to removal of the picture in violation of 3RR. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  what's 3RR? 3 reverts rule? (Cloud02 22:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:3RR Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Rajab has violated 3RR and had already been warned. I posted a note at WP:ANI/3RR, and hopefully someone will now block him. I agree that the 3RR rule has been woefully enforced in this article, and that the removers have been given unbelievable latitude to try to force their will onto the article. Babajobu 22:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:ANI/3RR does not cover a page --KimvdLinde 22:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then what is the point of the rule if it doesn't cover article pages? Sol. v. Oranje 22:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She meant that the link was broken. I've fixed that with a redirect. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She is gratefull for that --KimvdLinde 22:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that one. ;) Fixed the gender. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  no offence, happens al the time....--KimvdLinde 22:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Block the vandals 

message: AE, in future if you change the size of the image, which is obviously a very substantive change with which many people will disagree, please don't hide it behind an edit summary that mentions something else. Thanks. Babajobu 22:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's absurd to suddenly change the size of the image without even first mooting the idea on the talk page. I'm annoyed by the resize, annoyed by the way you did it, and I, personally, want the original size back. 250 px at least. Babajobu 22:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that original. I was about to come back on talk and discuss experiencing only edit conflicts about a proposal for a disclaimer. However, I think Karl needs to respect the 3 days of arguments and not just revert. I am fine with Hipocrites version that we discussed above. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 22:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just don't try to change the image size without discussing it on talk page or even in an edit summary, please. Babajobu 23:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but this is one of those cases where you gotta type fast and discuss right after to see if people agree. Now back to discussion. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 23:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit summaries

message: I added a second comment to the page directing people to the second poll at the top of the talk page instead of edit warring; unfortunately, I got so many edit conflicts I had to force the issue and override whatever placement the image had at the moment (the warning only makes sense next to the image, and I had to go fast to squeeze in the tiny time window between one edit conflict and the next). Sorry about that. --cesarb 23:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: lets keep the picture at the top until the poll closes..... when DOES the poll close? (Cloud02 23:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually, when the issue has calmed down (for instance, no new votes for a full week). Some polls (like the infamous diacritics one) never end. But it doesn't matter; the law of large numbers tends to make the results converge. --cesarb 23:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second poll comment 

message: :I posted this to WP:RPP last night as an unprotection request (page was semi-protected at that time).  I've made some slight edits since.  Short version: if the page absolutely must be protected, use full protection as per policy.  
This article is semi-protected due to a ferocious edit war over the picture at the top of the article, involving endless 3RR violations from IP addresses, sockpuppets, etc.  The improper edits all delete the picture while leaving the text pretty much alone, due to a belief that showing the picture constitutes religious blasphemy.  That makes them POV edits and not vandalism in the sense of WP:Vandalism.  Semi-protection is supposed to be reserved for vandalism.  Protection to stop edit wars is supposed to be full protection.
My actual beef with this situation is basically that the edit war is being aggravated by "DBD" (Don't Be a Dick) violations on the part of the "good" guys (also, I prefer to edit without logging in, and I can't do that now).  Right now the picture is at the top of the page on the right, as is customary per the style guide (WP:Style_guide#Pictures), although it's over 2x the pixel width (4x the area) that the style guide suggests.  The style guide explicitly states that the customary placement is not mandatory.  Several times last night, the image was moved to the bottom of the page and made smaller.  When that was done, the erasures stopped, but the "good guys" insisted on moving it back to the top and re-enlarging it, reverting it around 5x in a couple hours (multiple people, so no 3RR vio).  Yes, the relocated version was presumably still blasphemous, but the deleters either didn't spot it or else they chose to back off once they saw they were getting at least a gesture of respect.  Reasons for insisting on the top placement went along the lines of 
*"They won't accept it being there at all, so best to rub it in their faces for spite." (Kittynboi 15:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please stop semi-protecing the page, it's against policy