Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 6

message: Look, as long as many Middle-Eastern (Muslim) nations are still using images derogatory of Jews, Christians, or anyone else they have no right to claim, nor should be given, special treatment for their prophet. For example, check out this article's section "Controversial newspaper caricatures". 
And as far as I am concerned, the images should be at the top of the article because the article itself is about the very thing that someone would be coming to WP to read about--to see what the hubbub is about. If the Muslim community is offended....well, you can't please everyone...but I ask them to look their own inequities in the face and fix them before going on a censoring campaign. To repeat a statement that I've said before: their religion does not make them "special," it just makes them religious. No reason to bend over backward, to violate a code of law or ethics, or principles, to appease those who are undeserving of such preferential behavior.206.156.242.39 14:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No deal

message: There is nothing alleged about the massacre, ethnic cleansing and forced exile by Turks of up to 2 million Armenianschrisboote 14:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Alleged" massacres of Armenians? 

message: I've seen posters around in Copenhagen, asking danes to join a demonstration for tolerance of religion, to be held at Rådhuspladsen. As far as I can see, its pro-freedom of speech, but saying that the JP drawings was indeed a bit "over the line", and doesnt contribute to anything meaningful in our society. Does anyone have a newssource on this?
Cacophobia (Talk) 14:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demonstration Tonight? (02-02-05) 

message: In the original cartoons, two artists poked fun at Bluitgen's claims.  Were there suspiscions in Denmark before the cartoons ran that Bluitgen was being dishonest about the extent of the Islmaic chilling effect?
Lotsofissues 15:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the insistence of having a childrens book with pictures of Muhammed despite the religious controversy was seen as a sort of pulbicity stunt (though personally I think it comes from an honest wish to give knowledge across cultures/religions), and with the Danish "Jantelov" in mind he was open to (innocent) ridicule himself. Poulsen 16:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kåre Bluitgen 

message: Lotsofissues 16:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Given reason for neutrality dispute? 

message: It seems to me that at this point, this article seems to meet the criteria for a Good article. It's pretty well-written, has an abundance of factual accuracy, is relatively NPOV, (That is, the only POV charge appears to do with showing the picture as opposed to not showing it.) the vandals seemed to of stopped for the most part suddenly and there are so many people to revert it that it is relatively stable, it has a huge amount of references, and of course, images. Should we self-nominate this at Wikipedia:Good articles/Self-nominations? Homestarmy 16:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brint it on!! (Lipatden 16:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article status? 

message: IP 88.105.24.134 just hit ten reverts, if any admin happens to think that's too many. Babajobu 16:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!! --Candide, or Optimism 16:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Just a bit too many... Here's some info on the IP.
inetnum:         88.104.0.0 - 88.107.255.255
netname:         DSL-TISCALI-UK
descr:           Tiscali UK Ltd
descr:           Milton Keynes
descr:           Dynamic DSL
country:         GB
admin-c:         TU935-RIPE
tech-c:          TU935-RIPE
status:          ASSIGNED PA 
mnt-by:          TU935-RIPE-MNT
source:          RIPE # Filtered
Hitokirishinji 16:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Ten Revert Rule

message: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/740
Danish power! Go Denmark! I love Denmark! --Candide, or Optimism 17:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should concentrate on the article... --Powerpete 17:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed, Annitas, it's not that I disagree with some of the underlying sentiments, but this talkpage is absolutely no place for it. Babajobu 17:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  We Are All Danes Now 

message: Unfinished's OR and personal POV essay needs to come out. A section like this would be fine, but it needs to be sourced and coherent. Babajobu 17:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: UnfinishedChaos, your addition had the appearance of a personal essay, and violated WP:NOR. Citations and attributions are crucial in an article like this, particularly in a section giving us a rundown on "what Muslims think". The article really was ridden with grammatical errors, misspellings, punctuation problems, and so on, so it would probably be best to paste something like that to the talk page first so that people can deal with the stylistic issues before we insert it into the article. As for the citations, people seem to have different opinions about whether English citations are necessary. My own opinion is that foreign language citations are fine, though of course English sources are preferable. But you made so many sweeping statements in your essay, it's hard for me to imagine a single Arabic source to which you could attribute all your observations, so it would probably require several sources. But if you want to try again, with citations and attributions, of course go for it! Babajobu 18:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfinished, if you can find some sources to back up what you say - which should be pretty easy since I'm sure it's true - I (and Homestarmy and no doubt others) will be happy to help you with any English language issues. Sources might include online newspaper articles or editorials which express some of the same points you made. Thparkth 18:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The funny thing was I was in the middle of correcting that paragraph's grammer and stuff and adding Citation needed marks, then I got halfway done, and then learned it had been deleted -__-. If you can get some citations for that thing i'll correct the grammer and spelling for you. Homestarmy 18:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unfinished's Original Research

message: I heard the fuss about these cartoons and hunted around the websites of newspapers etc to see for myself without any luck. Then I though 'ah ha, Wikipedia will have this' and so it proved. Well done Wikipedia, you are coming of age!
Philmurray 17:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Proven Uncensored Source

message: * A separate Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhummad cartoons controversy, similar to the timeline of the French riots of late last year, which can be merged back in if necessary after the rate of change has died down but is pretty necessary at the moment, 63kb in length... What does anyone think? Jdcooper 18:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is getting rather long, a seperate timeline (or some other part of the article perhaps) sound good. Al3xander 18:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A Timeline seems to jump out as the best candidate. Or how about also placing the two open letters on wikisource, leaving only the very relavant quotes? Jdcooper 18:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is 63 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size.  

message: Something I find interesting is that the prohibition against depicting Muhammad (or any religious figure) in Islam is tied with the desire to keep idolatry from entering into the hearts and minds of the people.  While these cartoons may not have been respectful of the Muslim viewpoint(in fact, one ought to be clear on that - they weren't), it seems like the chance of anyone, Muslim or otherwise, worshipping these cartoons as graven images or idols, is pretty low, given their subject matter.
While it seems pretty clear that a good portion of the Muslim world is enraged beyond belief at these cartoons, something I would like to ask the Muslim readership of this page is:  if the prohibition is meant to keep idolatry away, why such a ferocious controversy over these particular cartoons?  
Faseidman 18:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just an observation 

message: ::The following text is by User:Unfinishedchaos, the bracketed, caps text is comments added by User:Babajobu.--Anchoress 21:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concerning "Most... American media supports the newspaper and considers the issue to be one of Freedom of Speech," I haven't seen a major US newspaper come out emphatically on the side of the JP, and I don't see, say, the Washington Post or New York Times publishing these pictures;  I doubt any paper that did not publish Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" would publish these drawings (it'd be a double standard if they did, IMO).   If there's an example of a major newspaper in the US publishing the pictures or otherwise taking a strong stance in favor of the publications, I'd like to see the sources.  --Guppy313 20:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslims' Viewpoint 

message: There would be no logic for the article without the pictures; the pictures are out there, and are the reason for some current events. The position is not a problem, top or bottom. For my self I understand the feeling of hundreds of millions of Moslems, but still the cold fact holds The Pictures Exist. All religions suffer the same, no need to put links for hundreds of offensive pictures for other religions to prove that. Yet, it could be easily miss understood that these pictures are actually Mohammad’s; THEY ARE NOT, the article should be clear that these are not an actual pictures or representations of Mohammed, and they reflect nothing but the cartoonist POV. The article in the current form, gives the wrong impression that they are so. And by such, we are manipulating the facts, and giving our own interpolations of the facts. We are not after a religion or a character, nor are we after the cartoonist, we simply after the cold facts. --Tarawneh 18:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I find my 2 year child scratches artistic, but lets stick to the point; I am talking about misleading information in the article. --Tarawneh 20:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The pictures are noting but the cartoonist POV 

message: What would Muhammad think about this satirical drawings? Would he laugh and deem them irrelevant? Would he get really angry? I think Muhammad would have laughed really hard at the cartoons, maybe throw a fart or two in the process and proceed to take care of more important issues.
===Notes on why viewing the image could be considered sinful by Muhammad)===
::::* Baba and others -- thanks for your question. I think Muslims are now conflating the injunction not to make or circulate images of animate beings with the desire to at least speak out when wrong is done. (Both of these points are emphasized in Islam.) 
::::* Every religious tradition has stuff that's "off limits" -- satirizing the Prophet by means of a political cartoon would appear to score a bull's eye in that regard as far as Islam is concerned. I don't know of any specific ruling that equates viewing such an image with punishment in hell (and keep in mind that I was, above, merely trying to convey how seriously the ban on illustration of the Prophet is taken.) 
::::* However, note for comparison that the Prophet forbade the depiction of any human face, and ordered that such images be erased. . So presumably intentionally viewing a drawing of a human face, rather than erasing it, would be considered a sin by some scholars. (I'm speaking only as a lay person here, certainly not as a scholar -- how these traditions get applied to contemporary situations is something for professionals, but I'm giving you my best take on this because you asked.) 
::::* Magazines purchased exclusively for the images depicting animate beings that they contain (even seemingly benign images) are regarded by at least one scholar as haram , which would suggest that staring at such images in a magazine would be haram as well. It's hard  for me to see how an exception could be made for the case of staring at an image created expressly to ridicule and denigrate Islam. 
::::* Speaking personally, I am trying to steer clear of prolonged visual encounters with the controversial image for just this reason.
::::* The more general fault of failing to speak out (or take action) when Islam is defamed might well be considered a sin, but I couldn't find anything on this.
::::* Images of prophets or holy people are generally associated with shirk, the most serious sin of all ], and are thus shunned with particular intensity. 
::::* These are some of the reasons it seems to me that displaying or otherwise sudying disrespectful images of one of the Prophets would be, to this believer's way of thinking, anyway, "off the charts." As it were. Peace, BYT 18:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This issue makes for a very interesting theological discussion 

message: ::::* Baba and others -- thanks for your question. I think Muslims are now conflating the injunction not to make or circulate images of animate beings with the desire to at least speak out when wrong is done. (Both of these points are emphasized in Islam.) 
::::* Every religious tradition has stuff that's "off limits" -- satirizing the Prophet by means of a political cartoon would appear to score a bull's eye in that regard as far as Islam is concerned. I don't know of any specific ruling that equates viewing such an image with punishment in hell (and keep in mind that I was, above, merely trying to convey how seriously the ban on illustration of the Prophet is taken.) 
::::* However, note for comparison that the Prophet forbade the depiction of any human face, and ordered that such images be erased. . So presumably intentionally viewing a drawing of a human face, rather than erasing it, would be considered a sin by some scholars. (I'm speaking only as a lay person here, certainly not as a scholar -- how these traditions get applied to contemporary situations is something for professionals, but I'm giving you my best take on this because you asked.) 
::::* Magazines purchased exclusively for the images depicting animate beings that they contain (even seemingly benign images) are regarded by at least one scholar as haram , which would suggest that staring at such images in a magazine would be haram as well. It's hard  for me to see how an exception could be made for the case of staring at an image created expressly to ridicule and denigrate Islam. 
::::* Speaking personally, I am trying to steer clear of prolonged visual encounters with the controversial image for just this reason.
::::* The more general fault of failing to speak out (or take action) when Islam is defamed might well be considered a sin, but I couldn't find anything on this.
::::* Images of prophets or holy people are generally associated with shirk, the most serious sin of all ], and are thus shunned with particular intensity. 
::::* These are some of the reasons it seems to me that displaying or otherwise sudying disrespectful images of one of the Prophets would be, to this believer's way of thinking, anyway, "off the charts." As it were. Peace, BYT 18:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes on why viewing the image could be considered sinful by Muhammad)

message: Nobody can insult a person who is important for more tham 1.3 billion people ion the world. Insult is different from freedom of speech. I ask you be more consious about what you are doing.
Prophet Mohammed cannot be pictured as the cartoon suggested as he has no action which can be caricaturized that way.
Please note that this is taking us towards the clush of civilizations... Resid Gulerdem 19:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then how about I delete the entire section on Islam, as it inults a person who is important to 1 billion people in the world, because Islam does not claim Jesus as the Messiah.  Your argument is ridiculous.  Not to mention that a general consensus here says that the picture stays, so you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia customs and courtesies.  Deleting information against the will of the community is considered vandalism.  You have been warned. --Maverick 19:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  YOu do not know anything about Islam. Islam accepts Jesaus as Messiah! Resid Gulerdem 19:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RTFA.  Isa is considered a prophet, nothing less but nothing more.  Guppy313 21:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: While the images are offensive to some people, the greater issue the origional newspaper was discussing was the self-censorship of Danish artists.  Therefore the illustrations are only part of that story (and come on the heels of several other works that inpired similar reactions from the islamic world).  Therefore, in my opinion, this article should stand, WITH the images, but only be part of a larger article detailing the history that brought about the newspaper article and the resulting boycotts etc.  While these particular images are a big deal, the Theo Van Gogh film/murder are part of the same story... this is obvious if you read the article that accompanies the origional images.  
So the argument that the images are integral to this article i see as correct, but this article is only part of a larger story.  One that can be told on WP (and read by muslims) without neccesarily viewing the images.
Oo7jeep 19:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The illustrations themselves are only part of the story. 

message: Under opinions, there is a section about the international opinion and the opinion in Denmark. However nothing about the opinion in the muslim world... At the moment it seems like the arabic world speaks with one voice, however there must be differences in opinion. Could we elaborate on this... This probably requires someone who understands arabic (which is why I don't do it myself), to translate/quote articles from the arabic press... Kjaergaard 19:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the problems with Unfinished's essay was that it repeatedly asserted that the Muslim world DOES speak with one voice, which is poppycock, as evidenced by this very talk page. I left some notes in his essay here, hopefully we can get a good section on opinion in the Muslim world. Babajobu 19:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion i Arabic countries 

message: The reverting to remove the contested image was earlier being done by anon-IPs. I then semi-protected the page against unregistered and new users. Now, the revert war has gone on to include non-new users. This issue should be discussed on this talk page. If the reverting keeps up, myself or someone else will be forced to protect the page. We don't work out differences of opinion here by revert warring. Please, stop. --Durin 19:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Durin, the problem is that there is a relatively solid consensus among users that the image should be kept. Some IPs were removing/reverting 8, 9, 10 times, and a couple registered users have reverted/removed, too, but reading the talk page and looking at edit history make clear that a large majority of editors prefer keeping the image. There's really not much left to "work out" in that respect. People just need to stop removing the image against consensus, and we need to be tougher on the IPs that do it a crazy number of times. A strawpoll would back this consensus up, if we took one.  Maybe we need to, to make the consensus undeniable. Babajobu 19:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: * Agreed. Short on time. How about you craft it up please? --Durin 19:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''''ALERT''''': Constant reverts 

message: I mean yes, we all have the right to say what we believe in, but no, we all have to respect other people’s feeling and be responsible for what we said.  In a lot of Europe country, posting this comic strip as to seen without the freedom of speech, but without realizing this is a lot of insult to a lot of people regardless of being Muslim or not, and promote that all Muslim are like the Muhammad in the comic strip.  They didn’t realize that in Muslim world people don’t have any figure or Allah or the Prophets as to avoid the worship of the idol (just like in some chapter of Holy Bible that God tell Moses that if Moses see god face Moses would die, and this is my assumption, and I need people who really know this kind of knowledge to correct that.)  And yes, being a popular newspaper in Demark, Jylland-Posten do somehow representing the country as a lot Dane take the newspaper a resource.  The is not only the problem of freedom and speech, but also how should work ethic in media to balance in the freedom of speech or how people should believe what they take in. <BR>
Another question: If people make the Christian God and make him look like porn actress or poo (as the say the Western world is all trash or equivalent) and try to post it into Time Magazine or Washington Post, do you think editor would even take it?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.225.141.5 (talk • contribs) .
: Check the Piss Christ article, maybe Time Magazine doesn't take it, but wikipedia does! Al3xander 19:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I believe an American or European newspaper would publish such a thing.  Most other cultures don't have such hangups and can keep track of the difference between satire and hostility.  They don't see a need to go on rioting sprees and threatening everyone in sight every time they see something they do not agree with. --StuffOfInterest 19:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The issue of whether the WaPo or Time would publish such cartoons is beside the point; however, if they did, and there was a resulting controversy about those images, then I would think that Wikipedia would _of course_ show those images in the article page on it. Sol. v. Oranje 19:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And check the Jerry Springer Opera...a homosexual Jesus in a diaper. Yes, once and for all, FREEDOM OF SPEECH MEANS FREEDOM TO BASH RELIGION! Babajobu 19:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure, sometimes it is unproductive and dumb to bash religion. When people have freedom to speak their mind, sometimes they'll say unproductive, dumb things. Freedom of speech is not restricted to "freedom to say helpful things." Babajobu 20:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess if so than if a person say "God ban sex and said we are so holy that we dont deserve sex" or "Juses promote people to be door mat" (as an example, this is a if), what would that person become????
people should learn that it's only sticks and stones that break bones, words and pictures will never hurt you.
Im not saying they can't literally bash religion with no reason, im just saying it's unreasonable, whether you have the right to do it or not :/. I dunno, it just seems to me that taking the time to make a rational argument would be more productive and be more helpful. Homestarmy 22:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freedom of speech meaning you can bash other peoples’ religion?! 

message: In the first sentence of the second paragraph, the text states "many Muslims in Denmark and elsewhere view them as provocative and racist".
But Islam is not a race.  Isn't this an incorrect characterization?
Secondly, what is the source of the ban on depicting Islamic prophets?  I can't find any sourcing for this.  Is it in the Koran?  If not, what is the source?
Valtam 19:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, for my part, I just changed "racist" to "Islamophobic". I agree, Islam is not a race, just like Christianity or Buddhism is not a race, and the proper adjectives should be used. Sol. v. Oranje 19:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whew. That was a quick change!  Thanks, Soldaatvanoranje! Valtam 19:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problemo! Sol. v. Oranje 19:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: See Q&A: Depicting the Prophet Muhammad for clarity —Gabbe 19:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Gabbe.  So if I understand it correctly, the Koran bans any images of God/Allah as well as the worship of idols.  In addition, over the years, oral tradition has also led to the ban of the depiction of all Jewish, Christian and Muslim prophets.  Dipicting any living creature is also discouraged.
What about different branches of Islam?  I read somewhere that Shi'ites do not ban depictions of Mohammed, etc.
And does the ban apply only to Muslims?  Or does the ban mean that no human being may depict Mohammed, etc.?
Thanks for the education, all! Valtam 19:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Depends, Valtam - if the muslims in Denmark (and elsewhere) view it as racicm, they view it as racism. Whether or not they attach the 'correct' (e.g. a form of discrimination based on race, especially the belief that one race is superior to another) meaning to "racism" is a totally different thing - and would perhaps warrant an editor's note. What's the source on that statement?--Discus2000 19:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I do know a bit about Islamic law, but the specifics about illustrating God/The Prophet/People-in-general is not really my specialty :). All I can say is that with billions of adherants, Islam is not monolithic. There exists a plethora of differing and condradictory viewpoints on how to interpret religious law, just as there is in Christianity or Judaism. Someone with more in-depth knowledge should be consulted about this... —Gabbe 20:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two questions: Racism and Islamic Tradition 

message: I mean 6000-7000 edits in 5 days on a single page, does that count as a lot on Wiki? Is that record suspect? I imagine that subjects like US election 2004 and the London bombing also have had that many? Is there a page on wiki that list such “over edited “ pages? Twthmoses 20:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Admins can find this out with database queries... I'm not certain that there's a running list anywhere. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I recall one of the most edited pages was the one about the previous Pope. Current event pages tend to be highly edited like that. If I recall correctly, there was an article about that on one of the editions of the Wikipedia Signpost. --cesarb 20:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe there were over 1500 edits to the Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince in a single day (July 16th).  --DDG 20:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I was wondering: is this a lot of edits on Wiki?

message: ...Muhammad as a pedophile demon [6], the second shows Muhammed with a pig snout [7] and the third depicts a praying Muslim being raped by a dog[8][citation needed]. 
See  (da) here and here AlEX 20:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misinformation 

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: We should probably archive the debate again, it is getting quite lengthy --Snailwalker | talk 21:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please do, and move the poll back down to the bottom. Protect for two minutes if necessary. Babajobu 21:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I second that AlEX 21:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive again? 

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)
thread_title:  copyright of cartoon image 

message: Please, let's avoid editing the article while it's protected, even if it's just minor edits. It's a potentially problematic slippery slope. --cesarb 20:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing while protected