Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 5

message: I think that this link http://face-of-muhammed.blogspot.com/ should be added to the list of "external links" at the bottom of the news article page.
L33th4x0r 01:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I spent ages trying to find decent images of the cartoons and these are definitely the best. Furthermore I don't understand the hooha on this talk page about a 29kb image which isn't sufficiently big to see any detail. --Tatty 02:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Link added! L33th4x0r 03:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  additions to "external links" section 

message: This seems to be an important point that isn't quite clear in the article, or in many other newsarticles. What EXACTLY did the 11 ambassadors write in their letter of the 19th of October. Did they discuss other issues as well as this one? Here it says they did, but I have never seen that anywhere else. In most newsarticles it implies that they simply wanted Rasmussen to distance himself from the cartoons, but here we  have "take legal action against". This is quite a central point as to AFR's handling of the issue. Peregrine981 02:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The letter is in the external links section, or here:  (PDF) Poulsen 08:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! That helps a lot. Peregrine981 15:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meeting With 11 Ambassadors 

message: We should delete this, since we haven't gotten anywhere.
WikieZach 02:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion? 

message: If material is offensive to a significant portion of our readership, we should be tactful and put a warning at the top of the page, and keep the offensive material "below the fold" if then possible.  The example of Oral sex given above is a straightforward analogy; an even closer one is Goatse.cx.  For what possible reason should the Goatse image be remote-linked from the Goatse article while these cartoons should be at the very top of this article?  (For those who don't know what Goatse is, here's a link—it's pretty gross.)
Tact is not censorship.  It's acknowledging that Wikipedia doesn't want to disgust its readership more than is necessary to convey the information it's meant to convey.  Nothing whatsoever is lost from the article if a warning is added to the top and the image moved down. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above.  Several other editors have tried to make this point above but have all tired of being shouted down.  Tempshill 03:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said elsewhere, adding a warning solves nothing if you go ahead and show the picture anyway. Those who are angry, aren't angry that they saw the picture, they are angry simply knowing Jyllands-Posten printed the picture.  Hiding the picture may spare some the hurt of seeing it, but you're still showing it and therefore you're still violating the taboo against iconic representations.--Snorklefish 16:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a practical matter, it was noted earlier that several times when the picture was moved "below the fold", the revert war stopped.  Some value is therefore evidently added.  Tempshill 20:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You know, as gross as that pic is, I think the original goatse one was even worse.  Are you sure they're the same?  The original is something I try hard not to remember. 71.141.251.153 05:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree with the above.  Wikipedia should respect people; telling people to fsck off if they are offended is a complete lack of respect. Samboy 06:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe Wikipedia should tell things as they are, without hiding people from stuff they may find "offensive" -- otherwise, how will anyone, on either side of the issue, get the full facts of the case. To deny any aspect of the visual representation of this article or to shunt it down to obscurity within the doldrums of the article is an insult to people who don't have to abide by the laws of one religion, no matter how large. Sol. v. Oranje 07:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  im not sure however how many 'people who don't have to abide by the laws of one religion' are actually insulted by a lesser visual representation of an image. nothing in this world is absolute, having complete free speech or anything for that matter without having a counterbalance is unwise. Chensiyuan 17:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tact is not censorship 

message: It seems someone has deleted the pictures- is this more vandalism or actions on the part of Wikipedia? I just want to know before I revert the article to include the images. (Caesar89 03:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pic deleted- more vandalism? 

message: For those interested, time to take the opportunity to plug the article Aniconism, which is this very subject and is nearly a stub.  I put a request to expand tag on the article a bit ago.  Tempshill 03:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aniconism plug 

message: Would this qualify as a similar incident?
A Russian art Gallery that organized an exhibit “Beware: Religion!” (“Осторожно, религия!”) has been vandalized by religious zealots. The vandals were acquitted and lauded by Russian Orthodox clergy, while the organizers of the exhibit were put on trial and prosecuted for offending the feelings of the faithful.  Link at http://asf.wdn.com/
--EugeneK 04:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is definitely a good example of similar aggressive actions by counter-"blasphemous" forces; please do include this is the main article. Sol. v. Oranje 07:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparable incidents 

message: It's really hard for readers to make up their mind about the "photographs" when there's no picture of them. The picture in the article is way too small, and there's only one picture in the links (the one with the bomb). Can someone find better pictures or links? Thanks. AucamanTalk 04:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here  bigger images of the cartoons. WARNING don't enter if you're offended by the cartoons, bla bla bla --62.57.93.138 04:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Better pictures?

message: Could we semi-protect this? it is needed now. --Vsion (talk) 04:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: can't, it's in the main page --62.57.93.138 04:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, thanks. --Vsion (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The page should not be semi-protected since semi-protection is only for vandalism, and the image deletions are POV edits (and often improper ones at that), but not vandalism.  [[WP:Vandalism] makes a careful distinction.  If protection is absolutely necessary it should be full protection and not semi-protection.  71.141.251.153 06:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protect this. 

message: What exactly is the justification for having Robert Mapplethorpe and Andres Serrano in the See Also section... They are provocative, sure, but does this justify linking to them from this page.... Kjaergaard 05:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I just took out "Robert Mapplethorpe". Yes, i feel "Andres Serrano" should be removed too. --Vsion (talk) 06:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   See Also 

message: I appreciate the impulse behind Mr. Wales's message at the top of this page, but there is no real way to debate whether or not the drawings should be in Wikipedia without going into far flung issues like Koran citations, differences between Sunni and Shi'a belief... and from there it's an inevitable hop to "philosophy". The very edict against depicting Muhammed's face is philosophically (theologically) grounded, so there is no escape from these questions in this debate.
The sad truth is that "the line it is drawn, the curse it is cast". Nearly all of us working on Wikipedia are deeply against fundamentalist Islamist teaching and there is simply no way to smooth it out. I remember an ultra liberal college professor of mine saying "All culture is good". Well, the culture of those who are so offended by the Jyllands-Posten drawings calls for the death of anyone who creates (or disseminates) an image of Muhammed. We here can twist and turn, writhe into every possible contortion, but we'll never fool ourselves or anyone else into thinking we hold such a culture, or such a central aspect of such a culture, to be good. Face it, my friends. We are enemies of people who want our deaths. Just by reproducing these drawings on this site, we are their mortal enemies. Once we digest that unmodifiable truth, where do we go? How do we act? Do we run scared and try at every turn to appease these enemies (in this case, remove the image from this article) or do we hold to our own principles at the peril of our lives? I'm for defying the fanatics. Thank goodness the Muslims simply lack the power to ignite a world war. The non-muslim world is going to have to band together against this deluded culture and I'm afraid its violence will yield to only one thing: greater violence. Most of you will rail against this. No matter. When it's them or you you will choose yourselves. JDG 06:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, it is just possible to be offended by these drawings without calling for anyone's death, which is of course the overwhelming Muslim reaction.--Pharos 06:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Considering someone has already posted "I think that some has to remind others of their limits words can lead to war and destruction your freedom ends when you step in others or interfer in others life or their busness" in this discussion thread, then yes, it's possible for people to call for people's death over this issue. Speak against this now, or continue apologizing for the extremism that is increasing on display over this article in these efforts to crush freedom of speech and information. Sol. v. Oranje 06:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  There can be no reconciliation 

message: Darn it, the page is once again unprotected allowing sockpuppets to blank content against consensus...protection policy is very clear that we can do so for front-page linked articles when this is necessary. The only time this article has some stability and relief from socks is when it is semi-protected. WHY, OH WHY was it unprotected? Babajobu 06:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even with semi protection, there was an edit war going on. I explained my reasoning. And I wasn't the first to remove the semi protection btw. As I said, it's the general policy. Not trying to pull rank, but I've done 400 protections and unprotections. I know the general policy on articles linked from the main page. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protection

message: Once again vandals are removing the cartoons from the page. This is ridiculous and clearly this page needs to be protected from further vandalism.
:There has not been a single demonstrable incident of vandalism on this page.  There have been immense numbers of improper POV edits, 3RR violations, sockpuppets, etc., but Wikipedia policy carefully distinguishes those from "vandalism" (please read WP:Vandalism before making accusations of vandalism).  The page has been semi-protected twice, with good intentions, but improperly, since semi-protection is supposed to only be invoked for cases of vandalism, and this isn't one, it's a POV edit war.  If page locking is needed for this type of dispute, the appropriate locking is full protection, not semi-protection (WP:SEMI).  Full protection means NOBODY can edit, which de-wikifies the page, so it should be avoided if at all possible.  That means the "enlightenment" extremists should look for other ways to tone down the dispute.  Any further semi-protection of this page is a policy violation and should only be applied after careful consideration and clear evidence that all reasonable compromise attempts have failed.  Right now we have a bunch of logged-in POV pushers calling for semi-protection to lock out the non-logged-in POV pushers while avoiding being locked out themselves.  Policy calls for full protection and not semi-protection precisely to prevent that--if POV pushers can't stop squabbling and the page needs to be locked, it should be fully locked so that neither side can edit.  Locking is bad and is a last resort, and there's much greater incentive to avoid it if those calling for it also have to face its consequences. 71.141.251.153 08:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Numerous IPs repeatedly blanking content against consensus is absolutely cause for semi-protection, and that semi-protection would absolutely not be a violation of policy, it's not even borderline. Babajobu 08:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where is the consensus?  I don't object to the image being removed from the page, as long as there's a link people can click if they want to see it.  I also don't see how to make the policy case for semi-protection, other than WP:IAR.  It may come to that, but IMO it's not time for that yet.  71.141.251.153 08:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  These is a majority in support of maintaining the cartoon image ON the page. In fact, the majority of the debate was regarding which part of the page (top or middle or bottom) the image was supposed to be located at. But then, vandals started repeatedly removing the cartoon image entirely, which is totally NOT the consensus; and YES only providing a link to an outside page with the cartoons is both 1) censorship because you're too afraid to actually host the images here, and 2) prone to link failure in the future, which is a convenient way for these cartoons to vanish in the first place. There is a total legitimate case for semi-protection, also, because of numerous 3RR+ violations on the article page within the last 24 hours. Sol. v. Oranje 08:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  1) Majority is not consensus.  2) The link would be to the wikimedia image server and the image would still be hosted on wikimedia.  3) As far as I can tell, nobody ever removed the image from the page when it wasn't at the top.  It was never in the middle.  It was at the bottom a few times, but people put it back at the top and then it got deleted from the top.  4) The semi-protection policy (WP:SEMI)does not list 3RR violations as grounds for semi-protection.  5) Calling "click here to see the image" censorship trivializes the notion of censorship and disrespects people who have had to deal with real censorship.  Is there a "demi-Godwins law" on wikipedia (miniature version of Godwin's law), that says anyone who doesn't get their POV desires 100% satisfied will eventually start screaming "censorship"? 71.141.251.153 08:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  First of all, get an account with a name so that you don't appear to be hiding under some random IP address. Secondly, a majority in favor of keeping the images on the page, no matter where they are, certainly should warn against removing the images from the page at all, "consensus" or not. Thirdly, when people removed the images, they provided no link whatsoever, and to be honest, why the heck should we trust you, an anonymous commentator, to ensure that such links will be provided in the future AND that they wouldn't be removed wholesale like the cartoons have repeatedly over the last few hours. Fourthly, I am totally not trivializing censorship; and you are in fact the one who is trying to ramrod removing the images and shutting down debate to begin with. Get an account, and deal with the very serious censorship issue at hand here. Sol. v. Oranje 08:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Moreover, none of the admins are enforcing the 3RR. 62.135.95.179 just hit his 6th revert and going strong. Babajobu 06:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, how do we get the admins to get moving on this and start re-blocking these repeat vandals? C'mon, people, where the hell is any desire to stand up for freedom of access to information here. Is this some kind of Google effect on Wikipedia? Sol. v. Oranje 07:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm an admin, but I don't like to use my admin privileges on Islam-related articles. But this is outrageous, we have numerous IPs reverting six, seven, eight times, and the admins on this talk page are doing nothing about it. AND WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR UNPROTECTING THIS PAGE?? Babajobu 07:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why are you hesitant to use your admin privleges on Islam-related articles? I don't understand, are certain topics now verboten to protect or use admin priviledges on to begin with? What kind of free encyclopedia is this? This is freaking crazy, LOCK THIS ARTICLE NOW! Sol. v. Oranje 07:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've placed a message on the administrator's notice board (WP:ANI) saying someone has to restore the semiprotection of this article. I'm not willing to do it, I've gotten into content disputes on Islam-related articles and it's not appropriate for me to use admin privileges for these articles. Violation of 3RR is pretty judgement-free, though, and this article is absolutely plagued by socks and IPs reverting half a dozen times, so maybe I need to start blocking for 3RR violations. Babajobu 07:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I've blocked 62.135.95.179, who reverted 4 times by my count, for 24 hours.--Pharos 07:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for blocking that IP address at the least; he was the largest vandalizer by far within this most recent period of article attacks. Sol. v. Oranje 07:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: That IP originated from Egypt if anyone is interested.Hitokirishinji 08:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How surprising! (rolls eyes) Sol. v. Oranje 08:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lock this page! 

message: I saw many editors & some admins who writing about me or sending emails to my email address please stop abuse me you didn't save anyway to abuse my rights start from banned me till racism emails this article also has many racism words specialy discussion page which is part of it & posted by wikipedia registered users , I see this article becomes a black point in wikipedia history because there people dont knew that their freedom stops when other freedom is begin.Qatarson 08:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Qatarson, no one's freedom is infringed by including the cartoons in the article. No one is obligated to read an article entitled "Muhammad cartoons" if they don't wish to see such cartoons. And incidentally, your legal threats re: Florida are laughable. Reporting the news is not illegal in the U.S. First amendment and all, I know it's frustrating. Babajobu 08:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Qatarson, I've done a search of your name on this discussion page and the only thing anyone has ever said about you is that you continously keep deleting the images and reverting the articles. No one has said anything bad about you and in fact on your talk page, people have even encouraged what you have contributed and gave you fair warning about vandalism. That is certainly far more tolerance than I would give. (which is probably the reason I'll never become an admin) Please don't send us fake threats, most wikipedians are sensible folks and so far your actions have only hurt your reputation even further. Hitokirishinji 08:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: read carefuly the discussion page and you will find it also there some posts is deleted i'm not a joke as some admin said also they forced me to stop writing & banned my proxy which it the same proxy for Internet users in State of Qatar for more than 24 hours i'm one of wikipedia users I have the right to edit in any arctile also any muslim in Denmark or florida have same right if they found anything abuse their rights wikipedia is open encyclopedia for everyone and shouldn't have any kind of hates or racism we should work together not making war.Qatarson 08:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Qatarson, you violated the three-revert rule and were blocked for 24 hours, as any other Wikipedia editor would have been. Being treated like everyone else is not "racism", in fact it's the opposite. In fact, we've been especially tolerant of you, what with your legal threats and so on. Most Wikipedians would have been indefinitely blocked for this, so in fact you are getting special treatment, and you should feel privileged that Wikipedia is being so delicate and kind with you. Babajobu 09:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This is where you are very very wrong. A user does NOT have the right to remove content which will in essence promote censorship. The image does not violate your rights. It is merely offensive to you and being offended and having your rights taken away are two very differnet things. It is merely your own fault for abusing the free edit privilege of wikipedia that prevented your entire state from editing wikipedia. No muslim has the right to remove images he or she deems offensive that while to others serves as informative and in fact, no one has that right. Ever. And another things, last I checked, the UN didn't outline "right to edit wikipedia" in their list of human rights. I consider editing on wikipedia a very honorable privilege that was given to me. If you violate the rules, that privilege is taken away. And if you doing so causes others to be prevented from editing wikipedia, the blame lies on you solely.Hitokirishinji 09:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One more thing, Qatarson, explain to me how wikipedia can be possibly "abusing your rights"? Wikipedia is literally of group of computers transmitting an electronic signal that displays information on the screen. What you interpret from it is your opinion. It does not "violate" or "oppress" you in anyway. Hitokirishinji 09:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: lol I will give example when I was banned I was'nt able to edit any articles the admin who banned me gives himslef the right to stop me of editing whole articles in the encyclopedia not only this article that a point also the public proxy i'm using used by all wikipedia users from State of Qatar which mean they all was'nt able to edit any articles for 24 hours one more thing of my abused rights I was'nt able to talks even with any other users or who using my talk page I can list more than 10 things if you want ;) I donno these users think they only have the right to edit articles.Qatarson 09:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Qatarson, see my above comments, you have been treated with special gentleness and kindness, given privileges that other Wikipedia editors do not have, e.g. the right to make legal threats without being blocked for it. You were only blocked for violation of the three revert rule, as any other Wikipedia would be. But in general you should feel very special and fortunate to have been treated so delicately. And still you complain! Babajobu 09:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would explain to you these cartoon images the reason of all what happened and when I remove it I did this because it is abuse Muslims & i'm one of them and we are users at wikipedia too and removing these cartoons not abuse other wikipedia users and everyone can check the history of the article and will find that i was only remove the cartoons not the article or hidden facts as some people said and on the other side you can check what happen in discussion page and there was realy bad posts one of them called muslims terrorist and killers before it removed anyway I was for while will stop writing in wikipedia by myself after all what happened but there users who asked me to stay & keep writing, by the way there some users suggested to link the image only and they ignored and we did'nt do anything to these users/admins who forced me & some other wikipedia users by banned us and keep the way they choosed of how to place this image after that everyone blames me beacuse I was want to save what happened here or what maybe happen when the news reach to arabic world & the media or the Islamic community in west countries.Qatarson 10:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Qatarson, that was a terrifying run-on sentence, you have to use periods or people will not be able to decipher what you write. Secondly, no matter how you have "hurt feelings", you and all other Wikipedians are still required to abide by the three-revert rule. Even though we have been so gentle and tolerant with you, we still ask that you obey that rule, as all other Wikipedians are required to do. And when we ask that you obey Wikipedia rules, this is not "racist", and it is offensive and gives us "hurt feelings" when you say so. Babajobu 10:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Qatarson will always complain because he believes it is his right to do whatever best fits his definition of "abused rights". Wikipedia is privately run and owned. You do not have a "right". It is a privilege to work on this encyclopedia. If it were up to me, until you get that through your head, you'd be banned from editing anything again. Fortunately for you its not up to me, but I doubt anyone will continue to have the extended patience Babajobu has mentioned with you for very long. You used a public domain to deface an article repeatedly. The admins had no choice but to block you. And preventing you from talking on your talk page is NOT an "abused right" regardless of what you may think. Hitokirishinji 09:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qatarson or Muslims in General 

message: Does Denmark have any anti-hate speech law, similar to UK, Australia, and other countries?  --Vsion (talk) 09:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Short answer: yes. There are rules against racism, as well as against libel and blasphemy. The rules against racism are set down in § 266b of the Danish "Straffeloven" (Penal code). However, it needs to be "[...] a group of persons is threatened, derided or degraded because of their race, colour of skin, national or ethnic background, faith or sexual orientation [...]", so it is questionable whether it would apply to deriding someones faith directly. Rasmus (talk) 09:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow thanks, I didn't expect such a clear and precise response. It's really helpful. Cheers! --Vsion (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-hate speech law 

message: So, we have twelve cartoons, all different, but all supposed to be Mohammed.  Surely only one at most can remotely resemble the man.  If I draw a smiley and write 'Jesus' under it, is that an image of Jesus?.  Ridiculous.
dude, i totally made this arguement already :P wookmuff
If we are not supposed to visualise him, why is this:......
::""Muhammad (pbuh) was of a height a little above the average. He was of sturdy build with long muscular limbs and tapering fingers. The hair of his head was long and thick with some waves in them. His forehead was large and prominent, his eyelashes were long and thick, his nose was sloping, his mouth was somewhat large and his teeth were well set. His cheeks were spare and he had a pleasant smile. His eyes were large and black with a touch of brown. His beard was thick and at the time of his death, he had seventeen gray hairs in it. He had a thin line of fine hair over his neck and chest. He was fair of complexion""
:::....in the Quran???160.84.253.241 09:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Totally Pointless Debate 

message: "On July 21, 2004, German daily "Süddeutsche Zeitung" published a cartoon depicting a Jew demolishing a French Café. "
Can anyone give more information about that?--129.13.186.1 09:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Were you reading my mind? Babajobu 09:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Süddeutsche Zeitung 

message: I moved the picture to the same location where the picture in Oral sex is. --Striver 10:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article about Oral Sex is not a good place for cartoons about Muhammad.--129.13.186.1 10:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. Keep Muhammad out of the Oral sex article, please, his relevance there is tenuous at best. Babajobu 10:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Think you got it all wrong there, Striver moved the image down in the article, under the TOC, a bit like my proposal for a compromise. Scoo 10:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why Oral Sex should be material to this article.--129.13.186.1 11:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed, pictures of oral sex are not relevant to this article. Babajobu 11:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I get that. But the layout of the article of Oral Sex is not relevant for the layout of this article.--129.13.186.1 11:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and why is that? For my stance in the matter, please scroll up. Scoo 11:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Scoo, stop equating Muhammad to a woman performing a blowjob, you're giving me hurt feelings. Babajobu 11:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to derail this convo, but IMO the fellatio pic is of a man giving another man a blow job.--Anchoress 18:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see the image in Oral sex as controversial and I don't think that the position this image has was chosen because some people could feel offended by the image. The image just fits there very well. Furthermore the image in Oral Sex is just an illustration, but the cartoons are the very given reason all these protests, boycotts and threats were made.--129.13.186.1 13:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The salient point here is that you are hurting my feelings, and you should remove evidence of your argument from this page, because it hurts my feelings. Babajobu 11:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No need to include pictures of oral sex in this article, it's about cartoons from an article in Jyllandsposten which included no such thing. Passw0rd 11:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No-one equate Muhammed with a woman performing a blowjob. Scoo implicitly compared the offence of showing Muhammed with a bomb in his turban, to the offence of showing a woman performing a blowjob. I think that makes sence.--Niels Ø 12:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't you get it?? It doesn't matter!! You hurt my feelings!!! Retract the argument! Babajobu 12:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok Babajou, we get the point :P Jacoplane 12:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pic

message: Let's rename this article to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, to better describe what this article is about. Can we have a quick "vote" to see if there's consensus for this move? --Vsion (talk) 10:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's five nouns with no other parts of speech, no offense but it's a textbook example of nightmarish headline writing. Babajobu 10:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly so, but we don't keep John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy at John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography either. The title should be what the article is about. Any ideas for a better name? Zocky | picture popups 10:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I assume that those who moved the article are working on fixing the  double-redirects, right? Also, I would prefer that the article stayed at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons, since that actually is the topic of the article: The cartoons, the history behind their publication and the controversy that occured. That is unlike John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy which only concern the controversy itself (the biography is at John Seigenthaler Sr.). Rasmus (talk) 11:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  STOP!!! "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons (satire) controversy" is not an acceptable title!! At least cut out the psycho parenthetical "satire". Babajobu 11:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The original proposal Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy would do in my humble opinion. Scoo 11:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Ha ... just after I've done the double-redirect for the first move, someone move it again. That's not very considerate ... Is the second move ok for everyone? --Vsion (talk) 11:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I prefer the current title. --Sheeo 16:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming 

message: The cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, Flemming Rose, was on Danish tv (on DR1 in the program Profilen) yesterday where he explained and discussed the pictures. He had an interesting analysis of the image with the bomb in the turban where he said it was not meant to equate Islam with terror but to show that some people used religion as an excuse to execture terrorism.
I think that analysis was quite good, and probably more likely than the drawing is trying to equate Islam with terror. --Snailwalker | talk 10:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting analysis of the bomb in the turban image 

message: From the article:
"When the organisation Islamic Society in Denmark toured the Middle-East to create awareness about the cartoons..."
Presumably the Islamic Society showed people the images in question, if only to say "look how offensive these are!"
If that was OK according to Islamic law and tradition, why is it not OK for this article to do the same?
Thparkth 12:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, several Arabic websites have featured the images prominently within their news stories. See: Aljazeera, Yemen Observer. Jacoplane 13:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Depictions of the Prophet are common even in Islamic history. I don't see the big deal. 82.93.70.118 14:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about showing the images in the Middle East 

message: I don,t wanna to discuss the issue of the pic anymore , but I think we have to discuss more important issues related to the articles itself , I will mention some sides of the Article or in the Issue itself , that muslims consider it unacceptable :
* it should be assured that those pics are totally imagninary and doesn't represent the true shape of Muhammad simply because there is no way to know the True shape , and muslem refuse these pics .
* majority of Muslims : including Liberal and Extreme fundamentalist Muslims think that these pics carry bad racist ideas about Islam and Muslims .
* many muslims refuse the anger campaign against Denmark , but still think that the Journal use the "Freedom of Speech " to express bad intentions , Islamophobia , Racism .
* Considering the Islam is the only religion that has borders for Freedom of speech , is totally wrong , and they give the Example of Catholic Churce and Galilieo case .
The understanding of Freedom in islam should be dicussed deeply and expressing the different schools of islam about this issue , i,m working about that with other muslim editors .
* the Comparison of this case with other cases like critics of the Woman roles in Islam , isn't totally true ... Personally I accept any one to critisize some bad woman rules , cause I consider these rules Epression of a islamic school not for Islam , but when the Insulting is directed towards teh major Character of Islam , then that is attack against all muslims and not against Fundamentalists .
and that make majority of muslims feel upset and they are descriped as Terrorists as their Prophet himself is Terrorist , so they descripe the Cartoons as racist and islamophobic , they are not against Fundemntalism but against Islam itself as they represent all muslims by the Prophet of Islam .
* this issue represent one of the critical cases that face the new world order , or what is called Globalization . when rules of different countries contradicts . How could we gather rules of Blasphemy in Islamic countries with rules of Frredom of speech in secular countries , that gives new challenges for formulating kind of rules suitable for the Whole world not for small region or country ... It is big challenge .
* The muslim Anger has other side doesn,t been taken into account : they feel anger from disputed use of Law in Western Countries , as they complain and that is related to new Expression of Islamophobia after 11/9 and to the past history of competition between islamic Impire and Roman Catholic Empire .
They give an Example by the Anti-semistic rules , that condemns any deny of Holucost or review of number of the Victims , and they consider these laws contradicting with Freedom of speech . so when the matter is related to Blasphemy about Muhammad , westerners claimed that is freedom of speech . as some user here said tehre is no anti-semistic law in Denmark , but u know when u talk about ppl they don,t differntiate between denmark and Holland and Us .
* it is so important to assure that anger against picturing muhammed generally or in this way is hurting for all muslims , and couldn,t be critics for islam . and that what most ppl ask for .
I personally a liberal muslim and i can agree with u about some critics relating fundemntalist muslims and some ancient explanation of Islam but there is no chance to make a musllim happy with seeing this Insult of Whole Islam by picyuring Muhammed . This recognization is so important .
I Think i have summarized most points that muslims Complain against , if we could formulate this view point in the article , it would be perfect . Peace --Unfinishedchaos 12:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should not generalize about "the muslims" or "the majority of the muslims". In fact only a very small number of muslims protested actively against those cartoons. But we don't even know whether those muslims we're sincerely angry or were just happy to find a pretense to make some row.--129.13.186.1 13:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: to the last part... according to the ruling from the district attorney, it's not a violation (I think the plaintiffs are appealing, though, so we'll have to wait for a final ruling)--Discus2000 20:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The quality of Article 

message: I think it matters, whether some image is offensive or not, only in the case, that the image itself is not important for the respective article. If an unimportant image is offensive, you can delete it. But if an image is important (like the cartoons in this article), it doesn't matter anymore whether it is offensive or not.--129.13.186.1 13:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offensive but important 

message: Let's not start that again! Babajobu 13:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Hadith]]spam!