Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 23

message: The article doesn't really relate the context of the controversy. I mean maybe the fact that Denmark participated in the invasion of a predominately Islamic country two years ago that has killed approx 30,000 of that country should be mentioned????
:Danish soldiers have been targeted in Iraq due to the cartoons. Is there any reference to this in the article, or should I go look for one?DanielDemaret 13:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  An attack on Danish soldiers was mentioned here as possibly being related to the controversy on the Timeline on February 6, I don't know if there were other incidents.  As to context, I do not recall the Danish presence in Iraq being given as a major reason Muslims were protesting.  Do you have any evidence for that claim? RichardRB 15:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly, the Danish participation of the occupation of Iraq fuels the anger towards Denmark. This is obviously, however, hard to document. What could be relevant to include is the fact that the regional (or city?) council of Basra reqeusted the Danish forces to leave because of the drawings. Bertilvidet 07:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are now saying that the Cartoon War fueled a controversy about Danish presence in Iraq and that the cause and effect was not the other way around, right? MX44 08:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am convinced that the extensive protests against the cartoons are rooted in a general dicontent of the policies of the West in the Middle East, and that the publications of the cartoons have made people aware of Denmark's actual foreign policy (2 months ago people were not aware of Denmark being one of Bush' most loyal supportes - at least that is what I feel as a Dane living in a Moslem country). I am sure there will be made research on these issues in the coming time - it would  be premature to include such assumptions in the article.  Bertilvidet 08:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: On a side note - the Basrah city council apparently asked the Danish contingent of troops to leave Iraq. The Iraqi government has later refuted the request and asked that Danish troops remain in the country. Celcius 17:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Context 

message: Will somebody add Doha summit (Spain was there as a EU member) and recent EU declerations to the article? Resid Gulerdem 04:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a EU Declaration yesterday on the timeline 27th Feb, if that is the one you mean. Do you have a link to the Doha summit?  DanielDemaret 06:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I already inserted a link on the 27th about the EU in the timeline. Go ahead and insert yours too, if you like, in the same line on the EU reaction. Or did you want it somewhere else too? Anyway, what was this about the Doha?DanielDemaret 11:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  News 

message: I think the statement from the prime minister about WWII should go from intro to overview, just below, just because I have a hard time comparing the events. I am going to let any Dane here decide, however.DanielDemaret 13:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WWII is in itself incompareable but in the peaceful time since then, this is by far the worst diplomatic crisis. There have been schermisches with Russia about Chechenia, Canada about a tiny island west of Greenland and probably a few with USA about Vietnam and Cuba (the usual suspects ...) I would say keep! MX44 15:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One could even argue that it is Denmark's only crisis since WWII. For understanding the impact on Denmark I would say keep it...but maybe in a global context it is not so crucial. Bertilvidet 15:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWII 

message: section moved to argument page  Bertilvidet 22:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: move

message: I have followed the last hours fight over the wording in the introduction. There seems to be some differing views on how the wording should be. May I suggest that we discuss it here rather than simply editing / reverting? 
The current wording goes:
(...) They have also pointed out that similar cartoons are made relative to other religions, demonstrating that Islam and its followers have not been targeted in a discriminatory way.""
This paragraph presents indeed a POV, by saying that cartoons toward other religions are of the same nature, and that Islam and moslems have not been dicriminated against. I will suggest that we replace "pointed out" with "claimed" and "demonstrating" with "arguing", in this way we will present the POV without endorsing it. Bertilvidet 16:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both "claimed" and "arguing", sound good to me. DanielDemaret 16:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think they sound good also. I would also like to see a citation for this sentence. The big problem with making a factual claim is that "similar" is rather subjective; among other things, we would need to agree that the message of the cartoons is equivalent and that the publication was as mainstream/widespread as the Jyllands-Posten. AdamRetchless 17:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: A claim needs not be substantiated and is therefore wrong in a case like this where anybody who cares can open old issues of Jyllands-Posten and see for themselves. One specific cartoon depicts The Holy Mary in "blessed conditions", Josef walking in front of the donkey she is riding on saing: "I did not have sex with that woman!" (archived here in the wayback machine.)  MX44 17:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear MX44, I am sorry, but I do not agree. To which extent different cartoons are similar or not is indeed a matter that can be discussed, and not a claim that easily can be verifed or falsified. Furthermore people from different religions perceive them in different way, making caricatures of Muhammad is certainly worse for Muslims than making caricatures of Jesus is for Christians. And also, the different characters of the caricatures must be taken into consideration - depicting Muhammad as a terrorist might be worse for Muslims than simply making fun of Josef. Thus, I still see 'claim' as the most appropriate term in order to reach NPOV. Bertilvidet 17:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Josef? They made fun of the idea that Mary was a virgin (and suggesting Clinton as a possible father ...). This is a catholic NoNo! MX44 17:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fight over introduction 

message: Marithé François Girbaud had an ad taken down a year ago it seems.
http://news.spirithit.com/index/culture_art/more/church_in_france_wins_ban_of_last_supper_ad/
Commercial ads are much more restricted than political satire, of course, but this seems harmless enough. Does anyone know anything more about this?DanielDemaret 19:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a bit of a surprise 

message: I am about to add 2 more links from March 1st to the timeline. 
Danish reaction: "Danish police asks the public to stop sending any more charges against the muslim community for hurting Denmark. The substance of the case does not change whether we get 5 or 500 letters."
http://www.jp.dk/indland/artikel:aid=3586744:fid=11364/
Palestinian reaction "63% of Palestinians consider violence an appropriate response to cartoons"
http://www.jp.dk/indland/artikel:aid=3587188:fid=11364/
DanielDemaret 12:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  63% makes it a "consensus" according to some local ways of thinking.DanielDemaret 12:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danish and Palestinian Reactions to the timeline 

message: I think the current approach in the introduction is too argumentative and somewhat incongruous. Here is my suggestion of a different approach:
:The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy began after editorial cartoons depicting the Islamic prophet Muhammad were published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten on September 30, 2005. Danish Muslim organizations staged protests in response. As the controversy grew, some or all of the cartoons were reprinted in newspapers for a variety of reasons in more than fifty other countries. As a result, violent protests against the cartoons occurred, particularily in the Islamic world. 
:Critics deemed the cartoons, variously, as culturally insulting, Islamophobic, and intended to humiliate, ostracize, and promote hatred of Muslims—arguably an increasingly marginalized group.
:Additionally, Muslims believe the portrayal of Muhammad is blasphemous and criticized the cartoons based on their religious beliefs. Many of the violent protesters focused primarily or solely on the blasphemous nature of the cartoons rather than on issues of hatred or discrimination.
:Most major newspapers did not reprint the cartoons in any context, editorial or otherwise. As a result, brought to the forefront of discussion was the issue of freedom of speech and the free press. Many supported the reprinting of the cartoons for various reasons and chastised media who did not reprint the cartoons for "self-censorship." Some intrepreted the message of the cartoons as purely a provocative commentary on free speech, irrespective of the engineering of this message, and supported what they saw as the primary message. Free speech was also discussed surrounding consideration of religious views and the media. The focus on blasphemy of the more violent responses was seen as dangerously autocratic to some, many of whom advocated reprinting the cartoons as dissension to the religious fanatical response.
:Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen has described the controversy as Denmark's worst international crisis since World War II. 
I worked hard to get the ideas, instead of the arguments, into the introduction. I'm hoping it will cool the flames somewhat (which, apart from that I think the current introduction is the wrong approach, is one of the reasons why I think it should be rewritten). I'm open to suggestions for editing of course. What do the regulars here think? --Ben 13:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I happen to think that the current introduction does not need a complete rework and rather just needs a few touches. I particularly disagree with this part of your proposed rewrite, "arguably an increasingly marginalized group." as it appears as POV creep into the article. It is not WikiPedia's place to be arguing but merely presenting the arguments in as much of a NPOV as possible. Relative to the current intro, this proposed intro appears rambling and not very concise. This view is tempered by the fact that you don't appear to have done any editing at all relative to this whole controversy until this proposed change on this article's talk page. Netscott 14:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: * I agree with Netscott. Also, an intro needs to be short, or nobody will read it. If any change is made, it should be to shorten it, not extending it.DanielDemaret 15:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the current intro already calls Muslims a "marginalized group," which is something which should be cited. That could already be considered POV by some people. I was considering that marginalization is a matter of perspective. In the Middle East Muslims are not marginalized, so it's an arguable point of where that perspective comes from. That can be changed if you want. I've also put some of what I wrote in italics which can be moved out. That would make my version 2 sentences longer. Your view can be tempered by the fact that I haven't edited it, that's ok with me, but that's more about me personally than what I have proposed. I understand some of you worked long and hard on the current version, but it doesn't read well to me.--Ben 22:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The citation was present when it was added. The Argument, and this is citing an argument - not fact, is that Muslims in Denmark (Not the world) are marginalised, and this was an attempt at humiliating them - rather than the collective Muslim world. --Irishpunktom\talk 22:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I understand that now. If that's what is being referenced, it should say something like "...and intended to humiliate a marginalized minority in Denmark." To me, this creates a problem with the scope of the sentence, since many critics believe the cartoons are not a reference to Muslims in Denmark, but Muslims in general. Critics who believe the cartoons promote hatred are not necessarily concerned only with marginalized Muslims in Denmark. --Ben 23:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * This idea of a 'marginalized group' isn't being stated as fact (or even argued in the article) but is being cited by the 'critics'. To further clarify the context of this statement, I've just inserted 'Danish' into the current version. The reasoning behind the removal (to this talk page) of the 4 references regarding 'marginalization' is found up above. Netscott 00:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What if the critics do not think that it is a marginalized group? Or if the critics are saying Muslims in general or marginalized by the West? There's no room for those critics in that sentence now. --Ben 01:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * The marginalized group part was originally added by Irishpunktom... (with the citations above) but what he added didn't specify which group of people the critics were claiming were maginalized... after Irishpunktom's last addition to this discussion it was clear that he meant in Denmark. As far as anyone claiming that Muslims in general are being marginalized by the west... your line is the first I've read to even mention the possibility. Such a possibility is highly doubtful for many reasons not the least of which would be the predominantly Muslim controlled global level of oil resources. Netscott 02:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *I agree with Netscott and Daniel.  This is too long and windy (and possibly argumentative).  In addition, this blanket statement is incorrect: "Muslims believe the portrayal of Muhammad is blasphemous".  There have been many portrayals of Muhammed by Muslims throughout history.  In addition, while some Muslims hold this belief, others do not. Valtam 16:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure whether Muslims believe the portrayal of Muhammad is blasphemous is regardless of how many times He has been portrayed before ;). It could be changed to reference Islam, rather than Muslims. For example, "In the Islamic religion, portrayal of Muhammad is considered blasphmeous." That's a fact. That's why I said I was open to suggestions, and yours is a good and valid suggestion. The issues of promoting hatred and blasphemy I believe are more separate issues and are being conflated by being presented together. I think the current introduction is more argumentative than my version. There are "claims," which imply an alternative argument, not simply an alternative perspective. There is an argumentative "However" in there which I find incongruous in the argument (it implies a contradiction in terms which I don't find contradictory). The last sentence of the second paragraph, regarding what are called similar cartoons about other religions (and this similarity itself can manifest POV), does not have any context to explain the purpose of this argument either. It seems to me this point is a reference to the intensity of the reaction, but what is the point arguing? What is it counter to? Additionally I think the introduction unfairly divides people up into two camps: critics and supporters. I personally think the cartoons are offensive and promote hatred, but at the same time I am concerned about the issue of free speech, and think the self-censorship is a bad idea. Am I a "critic" or "supporter?" --Ben 22:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Ben, I'm sorry but this line "In the Islamic religion, portrayal of Muhammad is considered blasphmeous." is just false (it's a fact only in certain sects of Islamic faith). Have a look at the Shi'a view about the portrayal of Muhammad in images. As far as the contention that the cartoons are promoting hatred, I suggest you read this letter that discusses the fear of Islamist totalitarianism. It's true that the view that there are only two camps is simplistic but the intro hardly seems the place to immediately go into the various levels of debate relative to the cartoons with their corresponding viewpoints. If needed this idea that there are only two viewpoints could be broken up and explained to say something to the effect that there are several viewpoints... but to go into them there seems premature. Netscott 00:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's not too hard to change it to "certain sects of Islam" to be more precise, is it? When it comes to promoting hatred, that's my personal view. I do not need to read anything about totalitarianism, why do you suggest I do? Please respect my perspective. I understand that some people fear Islamic totalitarianism, you've made that quite clear. These kinds of ideas are not that surprising to me, or likely for any historian. Nazis and other anti-Semites often railed and still rail against Jewish totalitarianism in their cartoons, it does not mean that these cartoons do not promote hatred of Jews as a way of furthering their argument through propaganda. The article is about the controversy, I think the introduction does a grave disservice to everyone by trying to play one side off the other with arguments that are not contradictory, and arguments that act and are presented as contradictory to entirely unstated ideas.--Ben 01:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Hmmm, maybe you missed the point of my directing you to the 'Manifesto'. Your argument about Nazis and other anti-Semites isn't very strong... because one would expect anti-semites to do such things. The 'Manifesto' seems to be coming from a group predominantly consisting of fellow muslims or former muslims (particularly persecuted ones). Netscott 02:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: And I also think something is being missed here. Many protesters did not see the accompanying article on free speech, and only saw the cartoons. Are they critics of the article, or critics of the cartoons? --Ben 23:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Ben, again, sorry but "Many protesters did not see the accompanying article on free speech, and only saw the cartoons." is probably not too accurate of a statement either. Have a look at this map to see an apparent correlation between violent protests and lack of cartoon publication. Perhaps I'm wrong but in getting back to my point about your editing history regarding this controversy it just seems like you might not be as completely informed about the topic as the other editors who've been working on this article for some time are. Don't get me wrong though, I think the more people editing a given article, generally the better balanced the article will be... but that's particularly true if the editors are well informed. Netscott 01:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that that statement is very accurate. If I remember correctly, only the pictures were distributed in the Middle East, and I'm not aware of protesters protesting about the content of the article, they are protesting about the cartoons, right? And was the article printed when the cartoons were not in that map you are showing me? Otherwise I do not see the contradiction. --Ben 01:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * The part that is probably wrong is the idea that the protestors 'saw' the cartoons. That is the whole point of the map. If the map is any indication, then it's likely that the majority of protestors neither read the article nor saw the cartoons themselves. Netscott 02:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Getting back to your point about my editing history, I am concerned why you would bring this up again. I find it disconcerting you are trying to discredit my points and perspective this way. Can you please focus on my points and perspective instead? I understand you may believe I am misinformed about an issue or issues, but I do not know what those happen to be. Certainly I admit some of my points, such as blasphemy and Islam, are imprecise, but why focus on those instead of the crux of the point? Regardless, I understand you believe I am doing something wrong, whatever it may be. You don't need to bring up my newcomer status again, I get the point. --Ben 01:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Well as a fellow editor it just surprises me to see someone coming in seemingly out of the blue wanting to make such prominent changes for their first edit on an article that so many other editors have put so much time into. I do agree with Daniel though and appreciate the fact that you didn't just unilaterally make changes without any prior discussion. Netscott 02:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Netscott, thanks for the discussion. I think I am going to wait and see if anyone can offer another perspective on my proposed changes.--Ben 05:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: * Ben, thank you very much for asking and presenting your suggestion here before editing the article. That was immensely better than those who previously just changed wholesale.I would also like the intro to be improved. But it will probably happen by fine-tuning it. DanielDemaret 16:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. What do you think should be changed in the current introduction? Like I said it does not sit well with me, and I would appreciate hearing what any alternative suggestions are. --Ben 22:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Most of all, I want the intro not to be too long for the casual reader. (Don't read further in my text if you only want suggestions for improvements) An intro should get the gist, and then let people get into details by reading all the many sections and subsections of this article, and by reading all 14+ archived discussions if they really want to get into it. In this case, there are so many twists and turns that it is hard. Unfortunately, in this artice I feel we have either we bring the entire article with all its claims and counterclaims into the intro, or we let the intro be just an intro. As to what specific changes I would like , well : I have tried to formulate these on paper before, but each time I get a result just such as yours, then I see that this will not do, since it is both too long and too POV, I try to expand on it to make it NPOV, and it gets bigger, some other part gets POV, etc. Would you like me to make a deconstructive analysis on you suggestion instead? I will not make any more suggestions until I think it will improve the heading. Each small suggestion I have made so far has been validly refuted. I have therefore limited myself to stacking new events in the timeline subsection, and to discuss issues that might develop a new structure both to the intro and the entire article. My main concern with the article is that it simply stacks claims and events on top of each other, but that it is slightly lacking in overall explanation, not because we have not had a gazzillion suggestions as to what the overall problem is - we have had plenty  - but because each suggestion as to explanation has been reasonably well refuted as not being able to explain everything. DanielDemaret 10:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please deconstruct! I see a few problems with it myself now but more perspective would be great. I could also deconstruct the current one too if you want to know, in more detail, why I think it is problematic. --Ben 22:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change the introduction?

message: This piece of news should definately be added to the article.  
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2006/03/02/210949.htm
Here in english from a blog http://agora.blogsome.com/category/denmark/jyllands-posten/
:A small addition from TV 2 News: Rhode has later told Ritzau that he got the information during a meeting with  "bladtegnere" (Rough translation of "blandtegnere" could be "Illustrationists for the magazines") Hekatombe 00:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'N here is the printed version: http://www.jp.dk/indland/artikel:aid=3590798/ (in Danish)Varga Mila 00:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see it is in the timeline subsection now. Do you think it should also go into the main article? DanielDemaret 10:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely.Varga Mila 10:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The more I think about it, the more I think we should wait until there is confirmation, of Rohde's statement, by PET or an other branche of the Danish Police. Hekatombe 12:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Note that the time of this event is not known. We only know that it was revealed (by accident?) yesterday. MX44 12:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Acording to this, the chairman of Dansk Journalistforbund (Danish Journalists Association) accuses Rohde for having distorted the facts and says that he exaggerated. Hekatombe 15:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be nice if the story turns out to be a simple exaggeration. Given however, that the chairman does not provide ANY explanation in exchange for Rohde's, is it not possible that prime motivator of the Danish Journalists Association is that it does not want to provide any more support for the government than that which has already implicitly been claimed by the government. The are a lot of 'internal' politics being fought out on the cartoon stage. We should certainly leave it out of  the main article for momentVarga Mila 15:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree. And apparently Rohde got the information from a closed meeting. This issue takes the Danish headlines for the moment. As we are not a news service, I suggest we wait at least 24 hours in order to see how it develops before including it in the article.Bertilvidet 15:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: According to this - it never happened anyway. Zenopus 21:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has this been further verified or disproven, or was anything further ever said on it? RichardRB 05:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but since that the cartoonist him self says that Jens Rohde lied, then I very much doubt that there is anything more to be said in this case. Hekatombe 08:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: A small addtion to Bertilvidet's explaination of the article: The "4-6 school children" was "4-6 school girls at the age of 10-11". Hekatombe 11:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks.  And good work on getting it off Wiki as soon as you did. :) RichardRB 13:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One of the cartoonists daughter sought out by 12 muslim men at her school 

message: For better readability, 
1. I think that the overview should be expanded and perhaps restructured to at least mention more recent high-lights, e g total number of deaths and the Manifesto, the children of cartoonists under threat in school and perhaps put all the subsequent sections into a more coherent context.
2. I wonder if perhaps most of the other subsections should be moved into sub-articles to get a better overview of the entire article.
For example, one might
Move to new sub-article, but keep a one-sentence explanation here of:
Descriptions of the drawings,
Publication of the drawings ,
Judicial investigation of Jyllands-Posten,
Danish Imams tour the Middle East, 
Reprinting in other newspapers,
Danish journalistic tradition,
Islamic tradition
Keep section here:
Debate about self-censorship (it is central),
Jyllands-Posten response ( it is short),
International reactions (Already moved),
Economic and human costs (Already moved)
DanielDemaret 10:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my view, yes to both of your suggestions.Varga Mila 12:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Approve. It will indeed make the article more clear. Bertilvidet 12:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Strong agree. The more recent events (including the MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism letter should be readily available). Netscott 20:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two suggestions for improved readability 

message: There is a new picture today in the section on Islamic Tradition. I like the idea as such, but shouldn't it preferably be an Arabic or Persian picture? MX44 10:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it'll be better to find another image, but for now it will do. PS User:Raphael1 please, don't remove this image. --tasc 10:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Farsi Wikipedia article on Muhammad includes the new image, but also includes this image of Muhammad as a boy: . That article also used to include another Shia drawing of Muhammad as a man, but it actually seems to have been replaced by the 1683 drawing. Babajobu 11:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Alternative depictions can be found in Siyer-i Nebi MX44 11:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That one image for the cartoons is good enough, if we add another one, it will be worse and we will have more page vandalisms here. --Terence Ong 11:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Keep the image.  No reason to cave into anyone.  Revert vandalism is easy and worth it in this case--Looper5920 11:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  @Tasc Please explain, why this picture is relevant information in the cartoon controversy article? Raphael1 12:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The cartoons are satirical representations, while the said picture is non-satirical. It is relevant because it underscores that it is not the depiction of Muhammad as such that set off the controversy.Varga Mila 12:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think, that every muslim agrees, that the depiction of Muhammad as such did not set off the controversy. IMHO this is an unfounded claim. Raphael1 12:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it is well documented. Most of the riots took place in countries where the cartoons were not reprinted, wherefore it stands to reason that most protesters had heard about the cartoons but not seen them. dab (ᛏ) 12:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just because most protesters have not seen the cartoons, does not mean they can't be insulted by the depiction of Muhammad publication of a Mohammed picture . Excuse me that analogy, but it is obvious, that everybody will be offended by the rape of one's wife even if one doesn't have to watch it. Raphael1 13:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Am I supposed to be offended now that you have suggested to rape my wife? I assume you already made a cartoon, no? Please, try to come up with something sensible. MX44 13:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly, Raphael has not suggested that anyone's wife be raped.  He has pointed out that you would be offended by such an action, even if you did not see it. Johntex\talk 17:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He (and only he!) created that sick image! MX44 18:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Well, obviously there is a difference between rape and cartoon. Don't you think? --tasc 17:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course there is. That's why I called it an analogy. Raphael1 17:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So? Was it that You wanted to demonstrate Your cunningness in empty rhetorics? Oh! MX44 19:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That's the whole point. People are offended that the JP made fun of Muhammed regardless of whether the images are on Wikipedia. Just like people are outraged with  what the Americans did in Abu Ghraib, regardless of whether there are images on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has pictures of both the Muhammad cartoons and the prisoner abuse. No person in their right mind would accuse Wikipedia of prisoner abuse now, would they? dab (ᛏ) 16:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you don't mind looking at the MC "A nervous caricaturist, shakily drawing Muhammad while looking over his shoulder.". If the cartoon is funny, it is because of an exaggeration. Nobody really believes, that anyone would be afraid of drawing a Mohammed picture at home. The publication of the cartoons has been the offense and the 3rd sentence of our article "As the controversy has grown, some or all of the cartoons have been reprinted in newspapers in more than fifty other countries, leading to violent protests, particularly in the Islamic world." implies, that republications escalated the conflict even more. I know it seems odd, that I defend my "rape" analogy for "publication of MC", while I don't accept the "Abu Ghraib" analogy for "cartoon". But if you make an effort to understand me, you'll find out why. Raphael1 17:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Finally Raphael, our 'humble opinions' on this matter are immaterial. Among other things, the image underscores the sentence immediately below it:  "According to the BBC "It is the satirical intent of the cartoonists, and the association of the Prophet with terrorism, that is so offensive to the vast majority of Muslims."[74]""Varga Mila 12:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you Varga for telling us your opinion. IMHO the image does not underscore the sentence, instead it's a provocation that may test the claim of the BBC journalist. Raphael1 13:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic Tradition 

message: Gary Larson have made a cartoon years ago featuring Mohammad and a mountain. The sceene of the cartoon shows Mohammad in a small house with a mountain waiting at the front door. The caption goes something like this "Not expecting any visitors, Mohammad wondered who was at the door". This cartoon did not give rise to any protest or riots that I am aware of, and I admit that I find the cartoon quite amusing (and uninsulting). I suggest that this cartoon is shown in this article as an example of a Mohammed cartoon that did not result in any row, thus illustrating that the current events is driven by more than mere cartoons. Perhaps someone have the cartoon, and could upload it and link it to the talk page, so people can decide if this is a good idea or not? Comment added by Maasha
: If you want to report about other cartoons, I'd suggest to start a new page. This article is about the "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons" Raphael1 13:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? The context is relevant.  Unfortunately, I rather doubt we could do what you suggest, though I do think I remember the comic you have in mind.  It is unlikely to be justifiable as fair use, and so in order to avoid violating copyright restrictions, we would have to obtain Mr. Larson's permission.  Not a bad idea though, and it would be cool if someone could at least confirm the comic's existence.  If nothing else, it might make an interesting footnote to the article. RichardRB 14:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, here we go.  You are correct, Maasha, Larson did in fact do a cartoon on Mohammed.  You'll need to scroll down to see it though.  We already link to the Mohammed image archive in the article, so mentioning the Larson cartoon specifically is probably unnecessary.  Thanks for contributing. RichardRB 15:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That phrase, and thus the cartoon, have nothing to do with the Prophet Muhammad. --Irishpunktom\talk 12:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Really? I admit I've never looked into the origin, yet I always assumed that it did. Do you have any source about the origin of the phrase? adavidw 04:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I like the idea.  Any volunteers to write Larson and request permission? Durova 19:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  From  "Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings" (1996: IF THE MOUNTAIN WILL NOT COME TO MOHAMMED, MOHAMMED WILL GO TO THE MOUNTAIN - "If one cannot get one's own way, one must adjust to the inevitable. The legend goes that when the founder of Islam was asked to give proofs of his teaching, he ordered Mount Safa to come to him. When the mountain did not comply, Mohammed raised his hands toward heaven and said, 'God is merciful. Had it obeyed my words, it would have fallen on us to our destruction. I will therefore go to the mountain and thank God that he has had mercy on a stiff-necked generation.' The saying has been traced back in English to 'Essays,' (1625) by English philosopher Frances Bacon (1561-1626). It was included in John Ray's book of English proverbs in 1678. Azate 17:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Problem with that book, because it was Muhammad II, you know, the guy who took Constantinople from Christendom, who famously demanded the mountain come to him. It didn't --Irishpunktom\talk 11:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gary Larson Cartoon 

message: *Comments having to do with any aspect of displaying the cartoon images are diverted to  Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments/Image-Display.
This does not mean that the comments will not be read or the discussion in any way stifled. Simply, that it makes improvement of other aspects of the article easier if discussions regarding image display are conducted on the specificially designed page. Varga Mila 10:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Go Varga! hehe Netscott 10:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hide button added 

message: Following Varga Mila's suggestion I've created a Images Display argument area for all matters regarding the display of the cartoons. Netscott 14:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I applaude the effort. However, what are we going to do next now this talk page is going to turn silent? Nomen Nescio 15:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * We're actually going to be able to focus on topics that haven't already been hashed/re-hashed so extensively. Netscott 15:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand, just kiddin'. Nomen Nescio 15:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Of course, but Varga Mila's suggestion corresponds to my response. Netscott 15:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Where did the sections "Returning to Article content...", "Islamic Tradition" and "Edit war" go to? Raphael1 16:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Well I had returned them but they appear to have been accidentally edited out... I'll move them back again. Netscott 16:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * They're back now... Netscott 16:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've alread recovered "Islamic tradition" to the "Image Display" sub-page. Where do you think it belongs to? Raphael1 16:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * This main talk page seems right for it. Netscott 16:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I removed it again from the "Image Display" sub-page. Raphael1 16:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Arguments Page for Image Display Issues 

message: *Comments having to do with any aspect of displaying the cartoon images are diverted to  Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments/Image-Display.
Direct Link to the 'A question' topic. Netscott 10:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question 

message: *Comments having to do with any aspect of displaying the cartoon images are diverted to  Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments/Image-Display.
Direct Link to the 'Should every single picture in Wikipedia have a hide option?' topic. Netscott 10:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should every single picture in Wikipedia have a hide option? 

message: Shouldn't we nominate this article again, it is really good in my opinion and it seems that it has become more stable lately. --Snailwalker | talk 18:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You think might be featured on the Main page ? I have my doubts :-) Varga Mila 18:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah with a featured image of one of the drawings :) Nah I was just thinking it could be listed as a good article. I think it's very informative and one of the best un-biased presentations of this subject one can find. --Snailwalker | talk 19:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: * I think the article still needs fine tuning and a 'grand unifying' edit.... certain parts seem to have a fragmented sense of order and read less than fluently. Netscott 18:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could self-nom it again, but it got kicked out recently when I put it back up for nomination because people didn't feel it was very stable :/. Homestarmy 19:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article nomination again? 

message: re: The good cartoon.  If the boy standing at the board is second Generation, how is he an immigrant? --Irishpunktom\talk 20:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess would be that he's not, the editor properly meant that he is "a descended of immigrants"  --Hekatombe 21:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a literal translation from the Danish (NPOV) expression "andengenerationsindvandrer". The literal translation is "Second-generation-immigrant", this is a common term in Danish. This can be used in a shortened term "2. g'er" meaning both sophomore in high school and 'second generation'. This is a term that might be considered deragatory by some whereas the first "andengenerationsindvandrer" is not. - hope that might clear up the meaning a bit. Jdonnis 01:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Explain

message: Someone changed "apology" to "claimed to be an apology":
As per:
"The second letter was dated 30 January 2006, and includes the following explanation and apology"
to
"The second letter was dated 30 January 2006, and includes the following explanation claimed to be an apology:
In our opinion, the 12 drawings were sober. They were not intended to be offensive, nor were they at variance with Danish law, but they have indisputably offended many Muslims for which we apologize."
The new phrasing is quite POV ( I reverted it), however it is an interesting point. The Danish language has two words for 'apology' with distinct semantic differences ('beklager' and 'undskylder'). The former indicates a regret of the consequences of an act, while the latter  indicates regret of having done 'the act'. JP not surprisingly used the former, however the nuances are not quite clear here.  Varga Mila 21:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't English, too: beklager=apologize,(bemoan); undskylder=excuse(hold os. blameless)? Azate 22:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. Sorry ! However, the consequence of the sentence is still an 'apology' for the consequences, not the act (in full accordance with their view), which is probably why 161.184.112.254 objected to calling it an apology (and others seem to do too). Varga Mila 22:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apology