Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 3

message: I think this WikiPolicy is valid here.
Wikipedia:Content disclaimer
Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or depictions of human anatomy.
...
Wikipedia's current policy is to include such content, provided it breaches neither any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view) nor the laws of the state of Florida in the United States, where Wikipedia is hosted. See list of controversial issues for some examples of articles that may contain such content. Some of these articles contain warnings, but many do not.
In other words, you may see something offensive on Wikipedia.  Just throwing this into the ring.
Lankiveil 12:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lankiveil, I think we are all aware of that.  The possibility of seeing offensive material on wikipedia doesn't imply that every piece of such material should be placed and sized in a way calculated to give the maximum possible offense.  Phr 13:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content Disclaimer 

message: He is permanently deleting or sabotaging the image at the top of the page, therefore he should be banned.--129.13.186.1 13:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put up a 3RR notice.  Phr 13:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: How fortunate for us this is not an Islamic website then, eh? Lankiveil 13:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: yeah, why don't you go and start an islamic wiki somewhere else! get lost, we don't want your kind here Hellznrg 21:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If you want to change substantial parts of an article you have to reach an agreement about this with the other users first.--Schutzundtrutz 13:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Ubi Comp, you are now in violation of 3RR.  Please ceast and desist from reverting this page until we reach consensus on what it should contain. Lankiveil 13:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah do so, and don't complain on the day that there was noone who stopped us from acting against the right path that Lord has ordered...have fun..Ubi comp 13:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will you be punished for your failure?--Schutzundtrutz 13:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This comment is, in my opinion, out of line.  While I agree that this (presumably) gentleman has a clear POV and agenda, taunting him will achieve nothing. Lankiveil 14:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot see the behaviuor of Ubi comp as gentleman-like at all. But I will not taunt him any further. His problem is not his POV but the way he tries to impose it onto us. Anyway I'm kind of surprised you don't complain about his threat against us evil infidels. --Schutzundtrutz 14:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User "Ubi comp" 

message: Are you likely to fall foul of the 3RR rule when putting the pictures back on the article after they have been removed? MC
 
:I wouldn't imagine so, since simply removing the picture seems to qualify as vandalism.
::No, it doesn't qualify as vandalism, it's an edit dispute.  Read WP:Vandalism carefully.  3RR applies so the reversions need to be done by multiple people.  Phr 15:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR Rule 

message: Qatarson created Denmark boycott which is not only a poor title, but probably consists only of info that can be safely merged here. Thoughts? --Golbez 15:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Make a separate article about boycott and link it to this article. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 15:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: lol they think the problem between Qatarson & Denmark that another point you should know :) many hates & bad words sent to my email from some wikipedia users & in this page also there many bad posts . Qatarson 15:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it should stay as an article but can we have a better title? Also if you are getting harassed then report those editors. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 15:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: anonym, qatarson was blocked for the past day for repeated reverts, some through sockpuppets using open proxies (one of the proxies is now IP blocked).  I'm glad he's now participating in discussion instead of just reverting but the guy is not exactly an innocent.  Phr 16:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please stop abuse me and keep writing about me every where is there personal problem? Qatarson 16:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Boycott article has been renamed (not by me) and Denmark boycott now redirects.  Yes, links in both directions would be good. Phr 15:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: Is that old or something, because this article seems to have pretty good sources cited, should that be changed? Homestarmy 15:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article becomes automatically added to that category by the -tag. Rasmus (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing sources category?

message: I think that Scoo made a good edit at 16:05 on the 1st February 2006 . The image can still be seen at a reasonable size if it is clicked on and Muslims are made aware that if they scroll down then they may see something that is offensive to them. They can then made a reasoned decision as to view it or not. There is no censorship as the image is still freely avaliable to anybody who want's to see it. slamdac
:I must honestely disagree. The general opinion on this talk page has been to keep the pictures as a front image. The size is reasonble small and if you don't want to see the pictures then why come to this page anyway? --Snailwalker | talk 16:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because you want to read an encyclopedic text about the controversy? Zocky | picture popups 16:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Decision Scoo 

message: Why have them removed?  Many things on Wikipedia are offensive, and this article is about these specific cartoons.  It is better to have more information than less, and because the cartoons are the subject of the article, to post them does not violate NPOV any more than the article in and of itself.  There are examples found elsewhere in Wikipedia of even more blatantly racist content.
To prevent people from seeing something that is offensive is directly contrary to the very purpose of Wikipedia.
Twin Bird 16:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this whole article is about the pictures and much misinformation has been spread about them. I would say we should keep em...--Snailwalker | talk 16:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitely keep. 

message: There are a ridiculous number of sockpuppets who have only edited this article, who repeatedly remove the picture, and we are letting each of them have 4 or 5 reverts. Yesterday we let one of them get to 7 reverts before blocking. I don't use admin privileges on Islam-related articles, but if we're not going to semi-protect this article then an admin really needs to step up the plate and start quickly blocking the censorship sockpuppets. It's not enough to say, "oh, we don't semi-protect when linked from front page," and then stand back and let the socks dominate the article. Babajobu 16:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are IPs for both sides of the debate removing and adding. We need to compromise because it's the best solution here. And protection isn't allowed. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 16:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've only seen one IP re-adding the content, he did it three times, and then said he was done. As far as I'm concerned we cannot determine whether a compromise is truly needed, because I suspect there is only one person repeatedly removing the image under various IP proxies. Even one of the editors very sympathetic to the "remove" disposition said yesterday that he suspects we are dealing with a one-person blitz. Until this image is semi-protected, I don't think we'll get a sense of how much support there is for each side. The guideline against semi-protecting articles linked from front page is good in general, because it allows new users to make contributions. But we are not attracting any useful contributions right now, we are just leaving the article vulnerable to a swarm of socks. This article needs to be semi-protected. Babajobu 16:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sockpuppet orgy

message: I think we should probably have a vote on wheter the image should be at the top or further down to settle this debate and continued edit wars.
Vote for picture at top
* Snailwalker | talk 16:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote for keeping the image at the top or not

message: I've semi-protected this. Now I'd better go and check if I've broekn any guidelines... back in a few minutes... William M. Connolley 16:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah protection isn't exactly allowed but might be needed. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 16:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Protection is needed.--Alabamaboy 16:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exceptional circumstances. The edit history over the last 30mins speaks for itself. Thparkth 16:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And as of now, this article no longer has a link from the front page. BinaryTed 17:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: There is a guideline that we shouldn't semi-protect articles linked from front page, so as to allow new editors a chance to edit articles they are most likely to read. But in this case all we are doing is enabling a swarm of socks. Semi-protection is definitely needed in this instance, with an apology should a new, well-intentioned editor actually show up amidst the swarm and be prevented from editing. Semi-protect this sucker, or we'll never determine the appropriate course of action for this article. Babajobu 16:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though semi-protection is defidentally good for what is nominally "my" side (though as wankers like Sullivan join it, I'm less interested in it), it's against policy and not appropriate. Please take it off. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is is absolutely not against policy. Wikipedia:Protection policy is very clear: don't semi-protect articles linked from front page, except when really necessary. For this article at this time, it's necessary. That's in perfect compliance with policy. Babajobu 17:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Removing the image without discussion is aggressively bad editing (which I am often guilty of). It's not vandalism. sprotect is only for vandalism. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Repeated violations of 3RR and using sockpuppets, together with admitting that the purpose of removing the image is to curry favour with one's god and not to improve Wikipedia, doesn't so much cross the line from bad editing to vandalism as pole vault it. --Malthusian (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, my WP:AGF is falling. I still think sprotect is agressive, but not as badly as I did before. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: How is it dubious from a policy POV? The page does not say "you are not allowed to sprotect articles linked from the front page", despite what some have claimed. It actually says (paraphrase) "don't protect articles linked from front page unless it's really necessary". We think it's really necessary. That's perfectly compliant with policy. Babajobu 18:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I did that. I has been protected for 3 hours now, and I think it is time to see if vandalism persists. I'll keep an eye on this article. If it turns out to be necessary, I will protect it again.  RexNL 19:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected this. 

message: Personally, I can't believe we are even debating censoring an article. The bad news is that this debate has now attracted attention from an influential conservative blogger, Andrew Sullivan (see ). Personally, I agree with him and hope that we here at Wikipedia will stick to our beliefs in freedom of speech and content.--Alabamaboy 16:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, I should add that when I first read about these cartoons and the controversy over them in the mainstream media, I was irritated that the media didn't completely cover the subject and didn't show images of the cartoons. I mean, if you are reporting on a visual subject like this but don't allow people to see what the controversy is about for themselves, then your reporting, well, sucks. IMHO Wikipedia's article on this is the best summary of the controvery on the web.--Alabamaboy 16:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree with Alabama. Babajobu 16:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree. EuroSong  18:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: How can attention from Andrew Sullivan be a bad thing, unless you're doing something bad? I'm confident that we will in the end not censor ourselves. And if we do, we can always add Gustav Dore's "Mohammad splitting a gut in Hell" illustration for Dante's Inferno to an appropriate article and begin again. - Nunh-huh 08:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Nunh-huh, we meet again; alas, it's a long way off from the more peaceful days of editing New Haven, Connecticut and Pepe's Pizza. Amazing what a small wikipedian world it is. Sol. v. Oranje 08:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been so long since I've had a chicken pizza. Sigh! - Nunh-huh 09:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This debate attracting media attention 

message: I cannot edit the page now, but "The Brussels Journal publishes the pictures. Says: "We are all danes now." was just added to the timeline, on 1 February . It should actually be moved to 2006-01-22 , as that is the day they where first published, see here.
OK, will fix ... There is just too many reactions at the moment :) When did they start saying "We are all danes now"? It is currently part of their logo on every page.
"We are all danes now" was added today i think, I am not 100% sure about it. --Al3xander 17:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  timeline