Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 17

message: I'm glad Wiki has this article.  After reading a few stories in the New York TImes, I wanted to see the cartoon that has created so much fuss.  I looked all over the web and most sites I found were blogs on the topic with other editorial cartoons.  Thankfully Wiki had the article and I was able to become better informed on the topic.
Thank you Wikipedia
this is the only site on the web i could even find these cartoons.  pretty rough considering 1/2 the world is for free speech.
They are elsewhere.  You just need to know where to look. 129.171.187.135 17:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I'm glad WIKI is here for me

message: ===Reliability of the Polls??===
Is it how issues are resolved in wikipedia? The polls were created for a duration of time and closed without any relevant reason!!How could someone judge whenever a poll should be closed? specially that the article is still a current event, so closing it before is not a wise decision. Hence one can ask about reliability of those polls. Another thing is that we should respect religions, and showing such a picture is not the best way to calm things, and two cannot disargue that showing this picture is  provoking others feelings, and that's not what wikipedia is about. the least thing is to put an external link (not internal) of the picture.
:Again, right now we're trying to keep this article together. Now is not the time to reopen the polls, we're having enough trouble just keeping the page together without people blanking the whole thing. In terms of the polls, the votes to keep were so overwhelming, it would be futile to assume a hundred or so people would appear from nowhere and vote for a delete. Regardless, Wikipedia is not here to "calm" or "appease". It is here to inform about everything. We have gone over this before, once again please check the archives. Hitokirishinji 21:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Polls are not a usual way of deciding on article content, but they sometimes happen. In this case, it was deemed that the community had to speak out on the article. Consensus was found, with over 80% in favour of keeping the cartoons in the article. The closure of the poll was therefore within the closing admin's discretion. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 11:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Polls

message: Is it how issues are resolved in wikipedia? The polls were created for a duration of time and closed without any relevant reason!!How could someone judge whenever a poll should be closed? specially that the article is still a current event, so closing it before is not a wise decision. Hence one can ask about reliability of those polls. Another thing is that we should respect religions, and showing such a picture is not the best way to calm things, and two cannot disargue that showing this picture is  provoking others feelings, and that's not what wikipedia is about. the least thing is to put an external link (not internal) of the picture.
:Again, right now we're trying to keep this article together. Now is not the time to reopen the polls, we're having enough trouble just keeping the page together without people blanking the whole thing. In terms of the polls, the votes to keep were so overwhelming, it would be futile to assume a hundred or so people would appear from nowhere and vote for a delete. Regardless, Wikipedia is not here to "calm" or "appease". It is here to inform about everything. We have gone over this before, once again please check the archives. Hitokirishinji 21:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Polls are not a usual way of deciding on article content, but they sometimes happen. In this case, it was deemed that the community had to speak out on the article. Consensus was found, with over 80% in favour of keeping the cartoons in the article. The closure of the poll was therefore within the closing admin's discretion. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 11:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliability of the Polls??

message: I think it would be a good idea to add the "pig person" picture to the article, under the "misinformation" heading. The article has a very low picture/text ratio as it is, and the picture would add to the understanding of the events because it is an example of how misinformation has increased the severity of the conflict. The copyright of the original photo probably belongs to AP, but given the low quality of the reproduction, it should be easy to claim "fair use". Since there seems to be concensus that the picture is of a French pig squealing contestant and not a religious personality of any kind, there should be no blasphemy issue. Still, I post the question here before doing any changes to the article. --PeR 21:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've translated the Danish text (see above) and repeated that this and two other images have never been printed by Jyllands-Posten. --Valentinian 22:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My personal recommendation is not to add the "pig person" picture until we have a translation of the Arabic in the dossier that (may) put it into context.  The picture may apear to be an attempt to deceive, but on its own the suggestion of deception it is again potentially misleading, without context.  Let's take care not add to misinformation by adding our own. -- Vanitas 22:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. There are conflicting claims about it. --Kizor 23:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Agreed. However, I think the fact that the "43p dossier" contains 15 cartoons instead of 12 is interesting regardles of what the arabic text says. When confronted with a thick document, most people tend to just look at the pictures and draw their own conclusions. (In fact, this is the exact reason we're having this discussion. The potentially erroneous claim from the Brussels Journal is already in the article, in text form.) --PeR 23:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  The "pig person" is the one aired by BBC and al-Jazeera just before the outbreak of this controversy. It was added to the dossier to illustrate the percieved general hostility against  muslims in Denmark. It is supposedly send anonymously to an (as yet) unidentified person MX44 23:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If that is true, then the picture is very relevant, regardles of its original context. --PeR 23:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Here's the link in any case. --Kizor 03:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The fact that the pig snort picture was mad public at MSNBC back in August 15 (and possibly elsewhere) actually falsifies the "fact" in our article that "none of them [the additional images] had previously been published by Jyllands-Posten or any other mainstream media outlet". I dont know if it is worthwile to make this clear, or if it will complicate the paragraph unreasonably as it is contradicted a few lines below? Claush66 09:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The pig-person from the dossier is a derived work with an inscription: "The true face of Muhammad". It is in this context that the picture is unpublished. MX44 11:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yet that is not how the Danish media presents it today. The leading tabloid Ekstra-Bladet, has published the original picture in colour on the frontpage with the header "Imam Photo fraud" . Thus the context is lost on the public. Namely that the picture, apparently sent by an anonymous to a Muslim, in the dossier had the "The true face of Muhammed" comment. 86.52.36.140 16:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And exactly /what/ did you expect from a tabloid. MX44 05:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, then Wikipedia is a tabloid. I see you have published the picture without the contextual message. That is manipulation on your behalf. Noted.86.52.36.140 13:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: So the BBC themselves admit they erroneously portrayed this picture as one of the 12. This makes it highly noteworthy, and it should be included as per the above argumentation. Does anybody feel like doing the image preparation and uploading? --PeR 23:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is an improvement from the side of BBC, sure. Unfortunately al-Jazeera also aired the footage, reaching a far wider audience. MX44 05:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding "pig person" picture? 

message: Please remove those cartoons...It is making people more violent, this is a very sensitive issue. If freedom is the right to do anything then why do we needs law ? Article having information about this issue is sufficient enough and there is no need of images. 
We as muslims strongly condemn this blasphemous act and demand to remove this cartoon from this site.
Islam is a religion of peace and it gives respect to other religions therefore Islam must be respected as well.
Remove those cartoons straightaway.
Danish Hameed
:Thank you for your input. We kindly disagree and will be keeping the image. Have a nice day. Kyaa the Catlord 12:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you misunderstand the term "freedom". Anyways, as Kyaa pointed out, we have already decided on this, please check the archives. The image will remain where it is. Hitokirishinji 18:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that the cartoon should stay.  Just as few Muslims (even those upset an the initial printing) objected to the BBC publishing the cartoons in an obvious attempt to help people understand the controversy, it is important that these stay here today.  It is impossible to understand the controversy without seeing the cartoons. --Einhverfr 00:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: There has been a great deal of discussion about this. It's felt that Wikipedia is a reporter and a chronicler. The NPOV, Neutral Point Of View, principle is one of the cornerstones of the project - to the best of our abilities, the encyclopedia does not take sides. Therefore, it can use anti-semitic pictures (examples visible elsewhere on this page) to speak of anti-semitism's existence, instead spereading anti-semitism. Similarily, the cartoons are used here to give information about them and not to voice an opinion. --Kizor 01:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Danish Hameed, we indeed need laws to protect the society against some dangerous things. But if you actually study what the laws say, they definitely do not say that Wikipedia should hide the pictures that are essential for this whole story. On the contrary, the laws give the people freedom of expression, and protect them against those who want to cancel the freedom of expression. Please accept the fact that en.wikipedia.org is a server that follows the laws of the U.S. and the U.K. The Muslims who live in countries where it is not legal to publish pictures, like alqaeda.wikipedia.org, may succeed in erasing the picture. Here it does not work. It is not enough if Mohammed disagrees with being pictured here; Jimbo Wales and the Wikieditors would have to disagree, too. --Lumidek 01:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: alqaeda.wikipedia.org? Be nice, Lumidek. --Kizor 02:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please remove the offensive cartoon 

message: In the rumours and misinformation section there is a report of an incident in Copenhagen which apparently never took place. How many unimportant non-events should we have? I can fabricate as many as you'd like :D  MX44 00:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If people reading the Wikipedia article have heard of the report (which they may well have), it will be useful for us to debunk the rumor. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But this incidence (unlike the rumour of quran burning) is of absolutely no consequence to the developement of the story.  MX44 00:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  I think it makes sense to inform about it since it has twice been on the front page of the Danish national TV station's news section. The background is that the owner of a hot dog stand reported an assault, however, the police now believe that the report was false and he has been charged with falsly reporting a crime. TH 19:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: What?! Somebody brought that? It wasn't even related to the cartoons >_< Apocryphite 02:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Attack on hotdog stand

message: Currently, we link to www.faithfreedom.org for larger versions of the images.  Can we find a different link (e.g. http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/698), please?
I'm not a Muslim myself, but I find www.faithfreedom.org to be hatefully inflammatory; sample quote: "Islam induces hate backed by lies. Muhammad was a terrorist by his own admission."  Linking to such a site just to get a copy of images that are available elsewhere is unnecessary and unwise, in my opinion.
—Steven G. Johnson 00:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No the FF link is better , it is just image no text.--CltFn 01:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we just use this instead.  We don't link to the page.  Most important is reliability of the site and NPOV of the site is a bonus because even though it is unlikely people will seek out more on the sites--if they do it's better not to bring them to the doorstep of partisans.  If there is a more non-partisan site we use it.  I choose faithfreedom for now because the compression is better on it.  I hope you would agree that a site like CNN (if it had a comprable image) should be linked to over FFI. gren グレン ? 08:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please find a better link for larger versions of images 

message: In the span of last 2 hours there has been several acts of anonymous vandalism... can we go back to having this topic locked now? Netscott 01:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. ViewFromNowhere 01:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Azate 02:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. There have been many instances of repeated vandalism over the past 12 hours. Vinkmar 19:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: FWIW, the article is no longer linked from the front page. Babajobu 07:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Topic needs RELOCKING

message: I propose to remove the following sections, because of very limited usefulness:
* 8.2 Bounty on cartoonists. Reason: there are enough documented death threats. if one of them was blown out of proportion is no longer significant.
* 8.7 Muslim organizations in Denmark. Reason: to refute one tangential statement on swedish tv about an organization that is not central to the debate is superfluous.
:: It is the organization who toured  the middle east, but I agree SVTs comments are out of scope. MX44 05:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The mistranslation was used as a headline in arabic press.MX44 05:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove some sections 

message: This section just states the primary source of the treaty... not any real legal interpretation (which is necessary) or who and how scholars have related this to the current incidents.  Unless someone can do that it should be removed.  Likely there should be a sentence about how this situation relates to international law and the body text should be footnoted. gren グレン ? 03:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interpreting international right, or even judging what can be applicable, it one of the trickier problems around. Unless we happen to get a contribution from a top professional on this subject, putting a link to the treaty itself is maybe the smart thing to do. Azate 03:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I have not seen an outside source mention it.  Take it out.  Lotsofissues 03:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  International laws related to the issue - section 

message: The editorial staff of the alternative weekly New York Press walked out today, en masse, after the paper's publishers backed down from printing the Danish cartoons that have become the center of a global free-speech fight.
:I think it is, and someone should put it in the article.  Although NYP is a small newspaper, it is significant that the entire editorial staff of a newspaper has resigned over the decision not to publish the cartoons. Valtam 05:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Kizor 09:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Noteworthy?

message: Can someone confirm that Farid Mortazavi, graphics editor of Hamshahri, said the following:
"The Western papers printed these sacrilegious cartoons on the pretext of freedom of expression, so let's see [if] they mean what they say and print these Holocaust cartoons"
If so, wtf?! Exactly what does he hope to achieve? If they do that, wouldn't this then make the cartoons legitimate, as Muslims are doing the exact same thing to Jews, who did not write the cartoons? And why is he targetting Jews in the first place? I wasn't aware that the Jyllands-Posten chief editor was a Jew in the first place! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find these things much easier to understand if I first assume everyone involved is an idiot. --Kizor 08:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A lot of countries formerly occupied by Nazi Germany (including Germany itself, but excluding Russia) has anti-anti-Semitic laws. I assume they prosecute for it. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 09:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. State-run media in the Muslim world publish this sort of trash all the time...but since this particular publication will be notable, we'll be happy to include it. Babajobu 08:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I don't see how we couldn't, since the project is essentially founded on the dissemination of information - not to mention the very strong precedent set by the prominent display of the cartoons in this article. --Kizor 08:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  To be honest, this article here didn't set a precedent at all. We've always published "offensive images", including images offensive to Jews, without any problem. See the four images to the rightabove. Babajobu 09:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, true, though this would certainly be the instance most often invoked if we wouldn't publish the denial cartoons. --Kizor 12:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Probably so, but the only way we wouldn't publish them would be if they didn't attain notability, and that's extremely unlikely. Babajobu 16:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holocaust cartoons 

message: Embarrassingly bad prose:
Criticism of Muslim reactions
"Commentators find the reactions from the Muslim community hypocritical.[3] They point to the numerous anti-Semitic and anti-Christian publications in Arab media.[4][5] One website, Filibuster Cartoons pointed out this criticism in (oddly enough) a political cartoon [6]. Furthermore, they believe it is odd that cartoons are considered blasphemous when terrorist attacks in the name of Islam are not equally condemned by Muslims.[7][8] Also, aniconism is not limited to Islam, yet violent outcry like this seems to be more frequent in Muslim society.
In addition, they think it is remarkable that in countries like Syria, where demonstration is short of impossible, riots could result in buildings being burned.[9] Considering the current Hariri investigation, this is not an inconvenient distraction for Syria.[10]
However, it is countered that this assumes that because numerous Arab countries sponsor publishing anti-Semitic material, there should be an equivocal denouncement by Muslims.[11].
In contrast, Muslims are angry that the cartoons portray the Muslim religion as promoting terrorism because of the actions of a few of its members."
Lotsofissues 05:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can write in a blog too. Yippee. Does he have some special credibility that Joe Coffee at Live Journal doesn't? Kyaa the Catlord 09:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He is notable. David Sneek 11:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It still remains a blog. I'd avoid using a blog as a source if at all possible. Find someone who actually got published. I could find five hundred live journal or blogspot entries on this, but that doesn't make them a good source. Kyaa the Catlord 11:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Juan Cole is a professor at the University of Michigan.  He has been published in The Guardian, The San Jose Mercury News, Salon, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Boston Review ,The Nation, Tikkun, The Journal of the International Institute, and others .  Technorati.com puts his blog among the top 100 most popular blogs.  Suggesting he is just a random blogger is objectively wrong.--Snorklefish 16:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. Once his views are published in a periodical, I'd be happy to support their use as a source. Until then, blogs don't cut it. If you want to use The New York Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post, cool. But a blog is a blog, the credibility is questionable. Kyaa the Catlord 17:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argument seems to be shifting rapidly.  Are you questioning the relative political prominence of Juan Cole on the left, or are you questioning he wrote what he wrote?  The factual accuracy of what Juan Cole writes is inapposite to the issue of "OPINION" on the left.--64.251.0.102 18:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: There are many wikipedia articles that link to posts by notable bloggers. According to what guideline do you conclude "blogs don't cut it"? David Sneek 18:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We refer to blogs for minor issues in which blog posts by a notable person are significant. For an issue that has made headlines worldwide for an extended period of time, publishing comments from a blog seems inappropriate. Babajobu 03:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cole is notable enough as a ME scholar to link to his blog even here. But anyway, he reworked some of his posts for a Salon piece:  David Sneek 07:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can this be rewritten? 

message: Much improved.
Lotsofissues 05:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great job azate 

message: I think JuanCole.com should be cited under the "opinons of the left" comment on the main page; he has lots of good analysis of the topic. He makes the case against the Right reaction in the west pretty well.
http://www.juancole.com/2006/02/more-on-hypocrisy-of-west-and.html
http://www.juancole.com/2006/02/caricatures-roil-muslim-world-beirut.html
:I can write in a blog too. Yippee. Does he have some special credibility that Joe Coffee at Live Journal doesn't? Kyaa the Catlord 09:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He is notable. David Sneek 11:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It still remains a blog. I'd avoid using a blog as a source if at all possible. Find someone who actually got published. I could find five hundred live journal or blogspot entries on this, but that doesn't make them a good source. Kyaa the Catlord 11:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Juan Cole is a professor at the University of Michigan.  He has been published in The Guardian, The San Jose Mercury News, Salon, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Boston Review ,The Nation, Tikkun, The Journal of the International Institute, and others .  Technorati.com puts his blog among the top 100 most popular blogs.  Suggesting he is just a random blogger is objectively wrong.--Snorklefish 16:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. Once his views are published in a periodical, I'd be happy to support their use as a source. Until then, blogs don't cut it. If you want to use The New York Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post, cool. But a blog is a blog, the credibility is questionable. Kyaa the Catlord 17:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argument seems to be shifting rapidly.  Are you questioning the relative political prominence of Juan Cole on the left, or are you questioning he wrote what he wrote?  The factual accuracy of what Juan Cole writes is inapposite to the issue of "OPINION" on the left.--64.251.0.102 18:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: There are many wikipedia articles that link to posts by notable bloggers. According to what guideline do you conclude "blogs don't cut it"? David Sneek 18:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We refer to blogs for minor issues in which blog posts by a notable person are significant. For an issue that has made headlines worldwide for an extended period of time, publishing comments from a blog seems inappropriate. Babajobu 03:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cole is notable enough as a ME scholar to link to his blog even here. But anyway, he reworked some of his posts for a Salon piece:  David Sneek 07:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Left opinion link 

message: The Guardian is linking to our copy of the cartoons. Babajobu 09:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooooh, quick, get one of those penis vandals back. :P Kyaa the Catlord 09:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can return the favour, although [ All in all, you'd better not look at this.]
It seems a problem that the Guardian link is to the image page, where one has to perform several 'goal-dircted' clicks to get to the actual article. I imagine that many people who come via the Guardian link will only get to the image, and from thereon, to the discussion page. There ought to be a clear indication as to where to click to get to the article. 86.139.217.222 12:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Guardian linking to us

message: This blog post "Cartoons were Published Five Months ago in Egypt" claims that the Jyllands-Posten cartoons were republished in an Egyptian newspaper in October, without any great reaction. Can anyone confirm this report? -- Avenue 10:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about it, but I suspect this is a hoax. If this were published in October, then it will be a hot topic in October last year. Some people like to add fuel to fire. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 11:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: They were originally published in Demark on 30 September, 2005. This blog is claiming Egyptian publication on 17 October, 2005. Paper:Al Fager. However it's just another POV blog.. Secretlondon 14:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: As far as I can tell we can cite it just because it's a fact.  Ignore their analysis and use their scans as a primary source.  We can't analyze what this means yet... but we can say that they were published in Egypt a long time ago. gren グレン ? 05:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The story have just been published/confirmed in a famous Danish paper citing the Danish ambassador in Egypt, Bjarne Sørensen. "Jyllands-posten:Muhammed-tegninger trykt i Egypten" Claush66 16:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Were the cartoons republished in Egypt back in October?

message: In "Burning the Qur'an" it was earlier stated (by me) that 40 extreme right wings and neo nazists did demonstrate in Hillerød. Kyaa the Catlord have changed this to "40 people did demonstrate..." noting that the right wings were mentioned above. But in the above paragraph, it was only mentioned that the RWs spread an SMS. If their relation is not repeated below, the connection is lost.
Actually several hundred people demonstrated in Hillerød that day, all but the 40 RWs in a counter demonstration against those. Hundreds of police officers kept them apart and took more than a hundred to the police station. I think it is plain wrong to state that only 40 people demonstrated in Hillerød. But the relevant information here is that (only) 40 RIGHT WINGS demonstrated in Hillerød. I suggest this detail is added back into the article. Claush66 10:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I removed your change. If you want to add that forty right wingers protested do it, just make sure you do so in a way that makes it apparent that these are seperate from the previous ones. It seemed like all the right wingers in that section were the very same right wingers. Your language was also very suspect you stated something like 40 "extremely right wing...." Tone that down please. Kyaa the Catlord 11:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, I will insert "right wing". Anyway I think I originally wrote "extreme right wing", not "extremely". They ("Dansk Front") together with the nazis really do mark the outer edge of the political spectre in Denmark, (where btw nazisim is not illegal due to our now famous liberal free speech policy). Claush66 11:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If they're wikified, why don't you put forty Dansk Front members? Or better yet, wikilink them, then create their article since they're not. :P Kyaa the Catlord 11:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not wikified (I checked when writing about the demonstration). It is a rather small organisation, and I dont know much about them other than highly racist and provocative right wing propaganda from them and that they often appear with hailing Danish Nazis and someone calling themselves White Pride. I am not able to create a balanced wiki entry about them based on that, and I am not really that interested in them... But it would sure be nice if someone else could do the job. Claush66 12:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who demonstrated in Hillerød? 

message: I would love to contribute something inflammatory to this discussion page, but this is all I can come up with: If I move my mouse over the numbers that link to the footnotes, the URL that appears does not correspond correctly, e.g.: footnote 69 links to Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#_note-65. Not very important, I know, but how to fix it? David Sneek 11:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is a bug. The links point to the right place. Footnotes are numbered in order, starting with one. Links are numbered starting from zero, skipping over named links, as in:  --PeR 11:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I see it now. David Sneek 19:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnote numbering

message: Can editors limit the see also section to the really relevant links? Holocaust denial seems out of place. Otherwise I would suggest inserting racism, right-wing politics, anti-semetism, Islam, Holy figures in Islam, Holy figures in Christianity, the Bible, The Koran, The Thora, et cetera. You get the picture, it makes the list too long. -- Nomen Nescio 11:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, its really too long. I think we really need to shorten the list. --
Terence Ong(恭喜发财) 11:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read the article you'll note it makes mention of so-called "Zionist Conspiracies"--Greasysteve13 11:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please discuss adding these irrelevant links. Holocaust denial surely is not relevant. We are not comparing history with religion.-- Nomen Nescio 12:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You cannot honestly claim that IMMIGRATION is not relevant, can you ????? This is So sill, I dint know where to start!!!" Azate 12:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: See also isn't a dumping ground for wikilinks - if it's linked elsewhere in the article we don't have it at the end as well. Secretlondon 13:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The idea that IMMIGRATION has nothing to to with this article is is so absurd, I don't know where to start. Notice all these weird-looking brown people in Denmark, who are rumoured to pray to allah? I tell you a secret: they're immigrants! And btw: The Wiki links section is the last place in this huge article that needs to be trimmed. Azate 13:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, you (plural) also removed CONTROVERSIAL NEWSPAPER CARRICATURES together with IMMIGRATION ( and 2 or 3 more) . Whazzup with that?? Azate 13:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The link is still in the article, so you are incorrect. As to immigration, please explain why you think it should be mentioned! You can do it here.-- Nomen Nescio 13:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, it's in the article because it put it back twice after you removed it (twice). If you can't figure yourself why immigration is related to this topic, I can't help you. Go ask sombody else. Azate 13:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Oh, now you also removed  the Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy link. Shall I exolain to you why this is related relevant to this article? Azate 13:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I object to your calling 'correcting' what is nothing more that deleting relevant links, for unfathomable reasons. WHY did you delete CONTROVERSIAL NEWSPAPER CARRICATURES, for example? Oh, and IMMIGRATION, again? Azate 14:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: See also

message: I draw your attention to this 4 part article (below) that goes into great detail about why these cartoons are highly offensive and promote racism.
By publishing these cartoons, Wikipedia is promoting racism. People who polled in your polls are obviously not sensitive to the feelings of Muslims worldwide. I believe its a highly biased poll.
The controversy has been going on since Sept 30 and all you did was a 3-day poll? That's not very fair. I didn't get to vote in that poll and hundreds of thousands of other people also didn't know that there was a poll going on.
Governments of many countries, including the US have come out and officially said that these cartoons are offensive.
A highcourt in Johannesberg, South Africa ruled to stop Sunday Times from publishing these cartoons.
Please take these images down ASAP or I feel Muslims will have no choice but to take the matter to the court of law. 
Wikipedia is benefitting from promoting racism and hate against Muslims and Islam, something that is not very Wikipedian.
And to those Jews and Christians who say go publish cartoons about their religion, obviously don't respect their religion as much.
The issue is racism: http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8267
Freedom to Spread Hate? http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8243
Cartoon caricatures were designed to offend http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8274
Please remove the images immediately. 
Frank --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frankmash (talk • contribs) .  Scaife 11:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that society as a whole needs to rereview their ideas about racism if they feel that a few satirical images of Mohammed is spreading race hatred. Hey, colour me insensitive, but something seems wrong with this picture. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Glad to see the socialist worker going to bat for the sanctity of religious belief. Christian fundamentalists are also looking forward to your solidarity on a range of issues. Regardless, all the issues you raise have already been addressed ad nauseum on these talk pages. Go read them. We are not "promoting racism", we are providing a key image relevant to a major event. Babajobu 12:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now away with all your superstitions ... No saviour from on high delivers. Its been a couple of years since I was at a Socialist Worker conference... do they still sing the internationale at the end? - FrancisTyers 14:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: 'We are not "promoting racism", we are providing a key image relevant to a major event'.
Which means you are promoting racism.  The image itself promotes racism, don't you get it? It tells the world that Islam is the source of terrorism and to get rid of terrorism, they should get rid of Islam.
Frank
*Last I checked, Islam was not a race. Kulturkampf is not the same as racism. In any case, Wikipedia is not endorsing the content of the image by displaying it. There is instead a general rule that, as an encyclopedia, we show relevant content for articles, regardless of how offended people might be. If that means a jesus made of feces on a toilet crucifix or trotsky on fire dancing to a fiddle, if it's relevant to an article, it should be included. --Improv 12:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I love those socialist worker party links. Maybe I can find something from New Republic or Fox News to counter them. :D Kyaa the Catlord 12:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Frank, Wikipedia includes a great many offensive images, some of which you might regard as promoting negative images of particular groups. For example, see images such as this one, one of several in Wikipedia that document Nazi propaganda against Jews; or see Piss Christ, which includes an image woefully offensive to Christians. As Improv says, the inclusion of images relevant to various stories does not equate to endorsement of those images. Likewise, including an image of burnt-out Danish embassies is not an endorsement of the burning down of those embassies. This is a pretty simple concept to grasp, and Wikipedia assumes the vast majority of its readers are capable of making it. Babajobu 12:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: what Babajobu said. Now let's hope people capable of complaining here are also capable of reading so we won't have to reiterate this simple argument every five minutes. dab (ᛏ) 14:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Please do not make legal threats again Frank. It is against Wikipedia policy and will not be tolerated, especially since you cannot provide to me state or federal statute that it violates. See WP:NLT⇒ SWATJester  Ready  Aim  Fire! 19:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Is every third comment on this talk page going to be a post by Frank demanding the removal of these images? Give it up Frank, the cartoons stay. Slimdavey 00:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't we just create a daughter talk page for requests for removal...? It would save a lot of space on this page. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 11:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Can someone put a signature on "Frank"'s posts? He should be signing them with --~~~~. That's two dashes, four tildes. --Tokachu 17:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A 3 day poll gives Wikipedia no right to promote racism 

message: Furthermore, the cartoons were published in a conservative mainstream newspaper in the context of what many Muslims perceive to be a pervasive bias against them in many western countries, exemplified by the French law on religious symbols in schools, the short film Submission, and the 2005 Sydney race riots.
This lacks a citation. Also, the listing of the 2005 Sydney race riots may be giving undue prominence to it. There are countless conflicts between Muslims and Christians that were more violent than the Sydney riots, and religion was largely a marker between "us" and "them" in this case. Then again, I'm from Sydney, so maybe I'm biased. Andjam 12:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think all of these citations are giving undue weight to them. Kyaa the Catlord 13:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Andjam. Sydney Riots link should not be there. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I also agree that the Sydney riots should not be included Stephen 05:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sydney riots 

message: Well done, Wikipedia. It must be a near full time job undoing all the vandalism. 82.26.173.144 13:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be cluster-vandalism going on. Almost every wiki-article that I have surfed to that is connected to this article makes my eyes hurt as they their content blurs and changes with each refresh.DanielDemaret 14:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this.  Well done to everyone who has been keeping a level head with this article, when so many others have not.--144.136.180.2 23:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: This is getting tedious. Could someone please semi-protect this page for now? --Ashenai 15:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I blocked him for 24 hours - hence the stop. Secretlondon 15:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yay! Thanks. Kyaa the Catlord 15:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh no! Not the autonomous system!!! *chuckles* --Ashenai 15:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the (AS)Autonomous System anyway?  I've never heard of it! Valtam 16:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_system_%28Internet%29 Dmaftei 16:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Dmaftei! Valtam 19:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protection, please?

message: What happened to the protest and boycot photos that were in the article?  The overall article looks rather stale now with just the cartoon image. --StuffOfInterest 16:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some editors feel the article is too long and started subpages.-- Nomen Nescio 16:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense.  OK, I brought one image forward to the main page for illustation.  Picked the boycot photo rather than rioting and protesting ones. --StuffOfInterest 17:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  One fire would be relevant to show. The one we had before was just fine. MX44 17:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support photos gone? 

message: I do not understand what the big deal is about these cartoons. Muslims should be more tolerant about things just like christians and jews are. This is the 21st century, you cannot force the entire world to see things the way you do, or the ways you may deem as fit. It is very childish, grow up and civilize. Im sorry but its true. Starting riots and burning an embassy doesnt exactly help show a positive image for islam, especially when the entire western world is getting really sick of islam to begin with.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.68.168.169 (talk • contribs) .
:This needs to be moved to Arguments.--Jbull 19:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing like prejudice comments to show how tolerant about things you are... Slimdavey 00:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: These kind of images of God, Jesus, Buddha etc. occur all the time and yes you do see protests as is their right to do so (peacefully that is).  However, rarely does their protest decent into riot and violence and if it does you can rely on the Pope or the Archbishop of Cantebury and almost any other Christian, Jewish or Buddist leader etc. to swiftly and unambiguously condemn the violence.  You will also never see Christian, Jewish etc. protestors calling for the swift and brutal slaughter of blasphemors, baring placards calling for retribution on the west... or any other direction or country. --TedEBare 05:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: The following added text by Azate from the Opinions section doesn't seem to add anything... seems more like personal questions than questions being posed by parties significantly involved in this controversy...the sources for these questions should be cited.
:What has caused the offence felt by many Muslims? Any pictoral representation of the Prophet, or satirical depiction, or sartirical association with terror, or genuine association with terror? Is it really about the Prophent, or Islam in general? Is there 'one Islam' so that every Muslim is offended by association, or is the offence in saying there is 'one Islam'? Is the tolerable amount of offence to be measured by the offence given or by the offence taken? How does one measure such a thing? Does protecting one group more than another mean you respect it more or less?
:Is free speech only worth having when one can go to extremes, or is it exactly then not worth having? Is the tolerable amount of offence the same in speech and writing? Is it good manners to tone down your writing to the level of your speaking, or is the price for your good speaking manners that in writing anything goes? Is religious belief something inseperable from the self like race or gender, or is it an opinion you happen to hold? Is there something wrong with religious people, or are people not religious enough? When being offended, do you return like for like? What if the other one thinks you're escalating when you think he is? When you appease for peace or gain, are you smart or do you erode your principles? Or do you forego your advantage for priciple, and it will be worth it in the end (or is that just counterproductive)? Do you ever change your opinion?
:Opinion leaders have applied these, and more pedestrian matters like politics, history, law, family, nation and economics, to create an almost indefinite range of what's right and what it all means.
Netscott 17:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rhetorical questions, what do they add?

message: A number of ppl have challenged me in this discussion & on my talk-page to find any real "taboo" that exists in western countries / or show an example where freedom of speech is limited in the west - I would agree with you that Europe is very liberal and that such an example is difficult to find. 
However one can construct a scenario quite easily (note that this is different from giving an example though) where a picture would be so offensive that it would be "taboo" to put it on wikipedia or publish it in a newspaper - quite equivalent to what Muslims feel about the Muhammad (pbuh) cartoons.
Consider for example a pornographic picture (e.g. involving ... animals? an extreme close-up? violence? blood?) that would be so offensive to most ppl that you wouldn't dare put it on wikipedia. If you can imagine such a picture then you'll realise how some Muslims feel when they see the controversial cartoons on this page. Less drastic might be a movie of vivisection or extreme animal cruelty - such a movie could also be so offensive that it couldn't be put on wikipedia. Similarly a picture of a human with gross disability or horrific disfigurement. Finally consider this scenario: a computer-generated, photo-realistic picture or movie (i.e. no real humans involved, thus no suffering, etc.) of child abuse. Equally one can easily imagine that this could be so extremely offensive to the general public that it would never be put on wikipedia, not matter what the surrounding circumstance or controversy.
Imagine seeing one of those "taboo" pictures / images described above to help understand how some Muslims feel about the Muhammad (pbuh) cartoons and why we try to delete them. Someone who doesn't believe that animals are sentient might not have a problem with movies of animal cruelty (in fact many indeginous ppl are extremely cruel to animals). A gynaecologist might have no problem with extreme close-ups of sexual organs. All depends on the the context Rajab 18:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incredible to see you insert such sections in the article, Rajab. You really know better than that. --Sir48 19:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Artistic depictions of child pornography are arguably now illegal under U.S. Law, Rajab, according the The PROTECT Act of 2003 (though many believe the U.S. Supreme Court will strike down this aspect of the legislation) There was a successful conviction under this law in December 2005. That's why our Lolicon article shows a drawing of a little girl with a dildo, but no drawings of actual pedophilic acts taking place. Babajobu 19:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I take back everything, just remove those japanese pictures! I have to say they are much much much worse than the controversial cartoons in this current discussion!!! Rajab 21:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Here's the difference, as I see it (from, of course, my admittedly biased, Western, non-Muslim perspective), Rajab.  A picture of animal abuse, child abuse, or an extreme and incredibly offensive pornographic picture exists because a person or an animal was hurt in the real world.  Even most people who don't believe animals are sentient admit the animals can feel pain and see animal abuse as cruel.  Also, I can't think of an example where depictions of child or animal abuse would be as fundamental to an article as the cartoons are to this one—I suppose if there were a controversy over some very borderline photographs or drawings, it might apply, but I can't think of any current articles like that.  If this were an article about the Islamic law that there be no drawings of Muhammad, I would probably agree that drawings don't need to be shown there to illustrate, but this is an article about the controversy surrounding certain drawings and I don't think it would be complete without those drawings.  I happen to agree that the Jyllands-Posten acted in bad taste in publishing these cartoons in the first place, but this is simply an article about the controversy and it would be hard to claim we can fully educate people about it without showing them the cartoons. Polotet 20:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  baba has convinced me - I give up. There is no taboo on this website. Rajab 21:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do we have a breakthrough?! That's what free speech means! No subject is taboo for discussion and information. Weregerbil 21:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  you probably guessed that I think that's a bad thing by the way...Rajab 21:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to see you get what we finally mean Rajab :) Though some people have said the syphilis article has some pretty horrific pictures. Personally they don't bug me, I've seen worse. But then again, my profession requires so much... Anyways, I hope that you can finally help us convince other muslims who are intent on vandilising this page that wikipedia doesn't single out a group of people to offend, it's fine with offending everyone equally! Hitokirishinji 22:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This question already answered several times. Babajobu 03:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  limits of free speech 

message: This article needs at least a rough estimate of the people killed, buildings burt, and other property destroyed.  This is essential information in understanding the scope of the controversy.  We don't need to go into political commentary (x deaths in protests from cartoons that stated Islam promotes violence.) - just a basic statment of facts.
-Mr.Logic 18:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Results of Riots

message: *" Reflections on the Mohammed Cartoons" tygerland, February 3, 2006.
::No problem... if you can convince us that it's a notable blog. It's pretty well-written, but we should be wary of limking to non-notable personal websites. --Ashenai 20:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can someone add this link?

message: Understood.  Well it's linked on a couple of other articles (Henry Jackson Society & Multiculturalism); but I guess any blog is only notable because of its content – so you can decide.
:Well, Google isn't terribly fond of tygerland, and Alexa isn't helpful here. In my opinion, it's non-notable.
:Please don't take this as a personal affront; I quite enjoyed that blog. As I said, it's well-written, and well thought out. But we're here to document noteworthiness, not create it. :) --Ashenai 14:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: tygerland

message: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4692518.stm
Is Wikipedia prepared? I've no doubt some attempts will be made to sabotage the article, over and above common vandalism. --Tatty 21:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hacker attacks 

message: Why dyou feel the need to remove the cartoons? The article is just explaining what is happening, its not saying, "Oh, Muslims suck, who cares what they believe in, oh, and here are some cartoons!" It is just providing the facts (neutrally) for the people to know. Oh, and if there already isn't, I think I am going to make the Japanese article for this, does anyone object?
Bert (^_^)
:Yeah, I guess Japan, with their long tradition of image-based culture and rather liberal censorship would be as confused as the Western world by the controversy. 惑乱 分からん 22:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the Arabic Wikipedia has this article, they include one cartoon, the cartoon of the schoolboy, i.e. the one that does not include the big Muhammad. Babajobu 02:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To This Frank Guy 

message: Would it be relevant to make a reference to this concept in the "see also"
section?  86.52.36.140 21:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PsyOps 

message: Allegedly Denmark has about 40 cartoonists affiliated to the union of editorial cartoonists. After Kåre Bluitgen failed to find willing illustrators for his book, Jyllands-Posten sent out 40 invitations, but only got 12 responses, with 4 belonging to J-P's own staff. I think it would be interesting to know which cartoons were drawn by the J-P cartoonists, since these 4 cartoons probably are among the most anti-islamic of them. Needs some fact-checking, though. 惑乱 分からん 22:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you'll notice the cartoons are signed.--Greasysteve13 02:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jyllands-Posten cartoonists

message: Why do almost all the other major Wikipedias refuse to publish the cartoons? --Lotsofissues 22:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They have made an autonomous decision not to publish them, probably because in their view the cartoons are too blasphemic to publish (AFAIK, most of the wikipedia who haven't published the cartoons are in the muslim world). Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 22:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the Danish Wikipedia we don't allow fair use images, so we didn't even have to discuss it. There are other Wikipedias that doesn't allow fair use images. --Maitch 22:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I was under the impression only en allows fair use.  BrokenSegue 22:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Maitch is right. I have never heard of a principle like "free use" outside of the United States. Most notably, it is not allowed by EU law. --Valentinian 23:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  More than 50% of the other Wikipedias include the images, I think. Babajobu 02:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: UA, note that we cannot use specific-permission licenses on Wikipedia -- the images must be reusable by our mirrors, including possibly commercial ones. --Improv 02:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: We have lots of Wikipedias, so all the images can't be uploaded hundreds of times to all the Wikipedias, as this is under fair use. This would take lots of work. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 08:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why do almost all the other major Wikipedias refuse to publish the cartoons?