Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 9

message: On January 29, 2006, six churches in the Iraqi cities of Baghdad and Kirkuk were targeted by car bombs, killing 13-year old worshipper Fadi Raad Elias.  No militants claimed to be retaliating for the pictures, but many Assyrians in Iraq claim "Westerners should not give wild statements [as] everyone can attack us [in response]" . Also on January 29, a Muslim Cleric in the Iraqi city of Mosul issued a fatwa stating "expel the Crusaders and infidels from the streets, schools, and institutions because they offended the person of the prophet in Denmark." In reply to the fatwa on the same day, Muslim Students beat up Christian student in Mosul University. On Febuary 2, 2006, Palestinians in the West Bank handed out a leaflet signed by a Fatah militant group and Islamic Jihad stating "Churches in Gaza could come under attack". 
So is this fair? 
Chaldean 01:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. We need to build bridges with Muslims, this controversy is making things worse for the Christians in Iraq and other predominantly Muslim lands.--File Éireann 01:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: we need that not only because of our interest or the interest of christian minority there but because its a question of brotherhood of all human beeings even froma secular point of view. also because of world freedom: the chance is really given to achieve. tehre are people with whom one can discuss but if we continue this way and demonizing people may be it will not lead to nice things.(only for information the iraqi foreign minster Tarek Aziz was christian and the wife of arafat was christian i think the wife of Husni Mubarek to i think the ex un secretary butros butros ghali was egeptian and christian too. If there is any incident wich are mentioned here such things happend in netherland germany and france too. what i want to say please dont generalize like one can not generalise in the case of the mentioned countrys too). best regards مبتدئ 06:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Who is "we"? Encyclopedias need to build bridges with Muslims? I think encyclopedias should focus on providing quality, comprehensive articles on notable topics, and leave the "bridge building" to civil engineers. Babajobu 02:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Either way, since this is pretty much related to the cartoons in many ways, it should go in the article somewhere, it looks good so far to me. Homestarmy 14:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Middle East Christians Persecuted

message: I don't like the juxtaposition of these two sentences in the second paragraph of the intro:
"Although Jyllands-Posten maintains that the drawings were an exercise in free speech, many Muslims in Denmark and elsewhere view them as provocative and Islamophobic. Two newspaper cartoonists have reportedly gone into hiding after receiving death threats, and the newspaper has enhanced its security precautions. [1] "
Presumably most of those who "view [the cartooons] as provocative and Islamophobic" do not advocate the issuance of death threats as an appropriate response or consider it "Islamophobic" to react fearfully when one receives a death threat.--FRS 00:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't like it, it's perfectly OK for you to re-word it (assuming the page isn't locked), but I didn't make the assumption you fear the proximity implies.--Anchoress 00:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I can see your concern, and I've reworded the 2nd sentence: "There have even been some extremists who have issued death threats, resulting in two newspaper cartoonists reportedly going into hiding, and the newspaper enhancing its security precautions." What do you think? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bad. Are these people really extremists? Extremist is a POV statement, and we don't even know who exactly issued the death threats. Thus, I think we should simply move the two sentences apart somehow, though honestly, I do find the juxtaposition somewhat ironic and probably rather fair, given that these people are themselves afraid of freedom. Titanium Dragon 03:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are extremists by definition. Death, as a consequence for this issue, is an extreme suggestion. The word has a definition, and can be used in a non-POV way. Now if you're asserting that the death threats are hoaxes, that's a separate issue. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Paragraph 

message: I have created a mirror at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (no images), which will also need to be maintained, with the offensive image removed.  Now, can we move the image down below the break on the page?  
Problem solved.
--GeLuxe 03:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia does not allow these sorts of forks of articles. As for whether we can move the image down...well, take a look at the consensus demonstrated at the poll. Now what do you think? Babajobu 03:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What was the point of making the mirror? One article is enough. 209.51.77.64 04:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: There was some code being used on a few articles which allowed for toggling pictures on or off... if people think that's a good idea... more or less... this whole thing mystifies me. gren グレン ? 05:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: That's not an AfD, it's a VfD. --cesarb 15:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mirror 

message: thumb|The Face of Muhammed. - The controversial cartoons of Muhammad, first published in Jyllands-Posten in September 2005. The face of Muhammad has been blacked out because many Muslims see the depiction of the prophet's face as offensive. <sarcasm>The extreme mockery of the prophet (with or without face) is of course not the issue here.</sarcasm> For the original image see here
Showing Muhammad's face is forbidden in Islam, this way the original placement of the cartoon could be shown without showing the prophets  face (similar to how some Islamic paintings   show him with a veil) or a film about Muhammad does not show him at all. How about something like this as a compromise? -- Astrokey44|talk 08:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Its not censored since it gives you a link to the original image. The consensus seems to have already been reached not to use pictures of him on the Muhammad page.  If the political cartoon was about any other subject other than specifically showing Muhammad's face than I would support its inclusion, but this is something which is almost always seen as 'off limits'. Seriously how many biographical movies have been made about people where the actual person the movie is about isnt shown at all??  -- Astrokey44|talk 08:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If this article included mockery (and I don't think it does), that should be removed (except for direct and sourced quotations) as POV. (The image, of course, is an exact and thoroughly sourced quotation.) Wikipedians cannot edit mockery elsewhere; in many countries that would be indecent and unlawful. Septentrionalis 15:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: So add it; please include sources to assist further research. Septentrionalis 15:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use modified image - Muhammad's face blocked out 

message: Added sign. --Striver 11:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did you do that? The only thing that's disputed is the excistance and placement of the image, not the text itself. The.valiant.paladin 11:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is about showing the facts objectively. You can hardly say that by just DISPLAYING an image central to the story that the story is POV. The.valiant.paladin 12:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The question in this case is not whether people should be free to do so, but whether people should do so. I would respectfully suggest that the answer to the second question is "no, don't be an asshole"; the first question is a whole 'nother issue. -- The Anome 12:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The disputation of the neutrality of this article is disputed. :P Kyaa the Catlord 12:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do anyone disagree with the *facts* of the story? The.valiant.paladin 12:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I think a lot of people just have their panties in a wad over the picture being present on the article, not with the article in and of itself. Kyaa the Catlord 12:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article seems quite NPOV to me, the remaining controversy appears to be whether the image should be shown at the top, or lower down. -- 80.168.224.156 12:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: That would be moving the article towards NPOV in and of itself. It would be writing for the enemy.  Kyaa the Catlord 12:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *rolls eyes* Giving undue weight to one viewpoint draws the article to NPOV. This is what was suggested. Have fun storming those windmills, however. Kyaa the Catlord 13:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If that's your standard, then you should not show any pictures on WP, except through a link.  Otherwise, you are being inconsistent. Valtam 15:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I see a bit of POV intruding in the textual descriptions of the cartoons.  The pictures are caractures of people in beards and turbans and arab/persian clothing, and it is up to each viewer to decide who each figure represents and what each figure believes.  It seems that only one is objectively identified as "Muhammed", but he's a schoolboy, not a prophet.  --Sommerfeld 21:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: I have removed, and will continue to do so if necessary, three sentences User:Dogface has added to the Other controversial newspaper caricatures section. They are: "No Jewish groups fired upon a British consulate building over this matter", "No Jewish groups fired upon a French consulate building over this matter" and "No Jewish groups fired upon a German consulate building over this matter." I believe these sentences are unnecessary point-making and contrasting (an irrelevant we-they-like contrast). This article should not point at the current response to the cartoons and say "look at what they are doing, look how bad they are, and then see how group suchandsuch responded." I believe that my removal of Dogface's comments is similar to User:TheKMan's removal of the sentences "there were no mass riots, and gunmen did not fire upon a consulate over the matter" and "but nobody fired upon an embassy or consulate building over the matter." These are personal opinions that might belong on a blog, but not in an encyclopedia. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 13:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, obviously, those editorial comments had no place in the article. Babajobu 13:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other controversial newspaper caricatures section

message: It was a very useful tool for those trying to get an overview of how this occurred and developed. Now it's gone an in place we have a lot of tangental and, frankly, weird "similar incidents." Some nutbar shooting Larry Flynt because of an interracial picture in Hustler  thirty years ago has little to nothing to do with this, and the timeline was actually useful.
Whahoppen?MattShepherd 14:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to the timeline? 

message: Surveying and writing about these discussion pages would make for an excellent angle on the nuances and themes of the controversy.  I'm talking to the reporters reading this. Lotsofissues 15:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DIGRESSION WARNING (since everyone else is not talking about the article itself either) 

message: The BBC's dilemma: http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4670000/newsid_4678100/4678186.stm (quite relevant) Thparkth 18:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed a very valid link. It the same discussion we are havibg here. Good read, good find, thanks. Twthmoses 20:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  meta-meta-meta-controversy 

message: Let's keep this Wikipedia article encyclopedic instead of making it a debate. The article describes the controversy around the pictures and therefore, should show the pictures in order for the readers to understand what it's about and make up their own mind and form an informed opinion of their own. This is supposed to be an NPOV encyclopedia and not a debate forum so please, let not religious dogma dictate us (i.e. Wikipedia contributors) to consor ourselves (i.e. our encyclopedia). (Entheta 18:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I need to comment on the picture controversy

message: the low resolution .jpg images was replaced by GraphicArtist to a high resolution .png image  in violation with copyright restrictions KimvdLinde 19:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: .png page is deleted KimvdLinde 20:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  .jpg ->.png version 

message: ...to Wiki namespace: Wikipedia:Recentism. This page is a joke and its unfortunate otherwise earnest contributors are wasting time on it. Marskell 20:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My only significant contribution...