Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 24

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  Varga Mila 14:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning: Blasphemous content on most of these links 

message: I was just reading the article on Flag desecration and noticed that Denmark has a law against desecrating "foreign symbols" becauses this "could be understood as a threat by other countries". It might be instresting to mention this some where in this article just to adress the laws in Denmark dealing with foreign symbols. --The_stuart 15:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarif: The Danish law only prohibits desecrating "national symbols of foreign nations". Not "foreign symbols" in general.  (I have updated Flag desecration to reflect this). Rasmus (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag Desecration 

message: I have sprotected this page due to a rash of blankings by various sockpuppet accounts. As I'm sure the vandal will get tired and move on to something else, feel free to unprotect within 24 hours. If it is still sprotected this time tomorrow, someone please leave me a note on my talk page and I'll unprotect it. Essjay Talk • Contact 10:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tawkerbot2's done good, though. I'm liking that kid more and more. :) --Ashenai 14:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a few hours; I'll go ahead and unprotect and see how it goes. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sprotect 

message: Not living in DK and not following the commentary there closely, I wonder whether the following is 'just another interpretation' or holds some credence ?
"One of the 12 cartoons has been widely reprinted. It depicts a man who has been taken to be Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, but the image has not been understood outside Denmark. The Prophet's face is that of Sheikh Abu Laban, a notorious Danish radical cleric who achieved world fame for showing the 12 cartoons (plus a few more for extra effect) to various religious and political authorities in Egypt. The cartoon could be interpreted as suggesting that Abu Laban likes to portray himself as the Prophet, rather than as a simple besmirchment of the Prophet."
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7363
Varga Mila 10:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: KW haven't mentioned anything more specific than the part of Islam, that provides the spiritual fuel for terrorists. It could look like Abu-Laban except that he has a gray beard and less bushy eyebrows. It could look like me also. (Note to self: Must shave!) MX44 12:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my thought too (save the part of it looking like me!). However, I was wondering whether there had been  anything in the political debate that would substantiate KW's interpretation.Varga Mila 12:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: KW's interpretation? MX44 12:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That the image of was of Abu Laban. However, it is perhaps irrelevant, as the cartoonist's explanation (in the WP article) presumably contradicts that.Varga Mila 12:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is safe to assume that it is intended to be a generic priest representing extremist views under cover of Islam, rather than the prophet Muhammad himself. To go even further and single out Abu-Laban is at the moment unverified. MX44 13:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bomb in turban image depicts Abu Laban ? 

message: I reverted the following edit, by Raphael1: . He voiced his disagreement on my talk page, so I'll put this to everyone else; what are your opinions?
Personally, I feel that Raphael1's edit shifted the focus from the intended thrust of the sentence (that the law is functionally obsolete), to subtly implying a connection between the Nazis and Jyllands-Posten. --Ashenai 16:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I was wondering why you reverted his addition... from a historical point of view I think so long as what he added was true then it was a fair addition. What I see moreso as the reason for his adding it was perhaps trying to demonstrate a 'double-standard' towards Jews by Denmark. But I don't think such a POV is valid because in 1938 the Holocaust wasn't a part of world history. Netscott 16:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not trying to imply anything. I just want to report the historic execution of danish legislation. Raphael1 17:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how the historic execution of Danish legislation belongs in this article, though. It's long and convoluted enough as it is. --Ashenai 17:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's not long enough to add another Mohammed image, isn't it? Raphael1 17:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you've been given several arguments for why the Mohammed image is relevant to the article. On the other hand, I have not yet seen a convincing argument for why "the historic execution of Danish legislation" is relevant. --Ashenai 17:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: * Hmmm, Ashenai... are you now changing your logic for reverting his addition? Honestly I don't really see a very distinct POV in the addition. Netscott 17:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think you misunderstand. I believed that the addition was meant to link the old application of the law to the current situation, thus implying that the Nazis affected by the law last time were somehow similar to the Jyllands-Post. Raphael1 assured us that this was not the case; he merely wanted to document historic execution of Danish legislation. My reason against the addition would then be that simple documentation of Danish legislation is not germane to the article, since it has no significance to the current state of events. In other words, the addition was either weakly relevant to the article (which is what I believed), in which case it would be POV, or it was irrelevant, in which case it would be, well, irrelevant. --Ashenai 17:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: * Yes perhaps you have a point there... I'm curious to see what other editor's views are on the matter. Netscott 17:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: * Raphael1, just out of curiosity, what is your view on the relevance of your adding that info to the article? Netscott 17:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Is the historic enforcement of Danish legislation relevant or not? If it is, then my addition is relevant as well. Raphael1 17:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: * In your view what is the relevance concerning the Nazi case in particular? Netscott 17:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've put forward specific arguments for why the current mention of the law last being enforced in 1938 is relevant, and why I believe your version isn't. I'm afraid I can't see that the two versions are equivalent at all. --Ashenai 17:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: * This question still remains: " In your view what is the relevance concerning the Nazi case in particular? " As a fellow editor, I've already shown a willingness to support your addition but please respond to this question. Netscott 18:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *If you don't reject my statement, there's no point in answering your question. Raphael1 18:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *Well I'm not a big fan of the term 'troll' but it does seem applicable here. Raphael1 are you familiar with the concept of Circular reasoning? That's what you've relied upon to try to justify your addition... it's too bad because you seem like an earnest person who probably has the capacity to make fruitful additions to this article, but perhaps you let emotion play too big a role in your editorial decisions? Netscott 21:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My reversion of subtly POV edit 

message: I no longer read this talk, so I apologize if this is not a relevant article, but I thought it was interesting and relates to a slightly similar event in that there was protest to images.http://www.guardian.co.uk/editor/story/0,,1006209,00.html DanielDemaret 20:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting observations this guy makes, but I'm not sure if we can apply it to this article with enough relevance to justify it.  Anyone want to make a case for where this might fit in the article, if anywhere? RichardRB 20:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "This guy" being Demaret or the female author of the article ? : ) Varga Mila 21:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Hey guys, relax. We are all members of mankind. >;->= MX44 10:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not in my native language (human=menneske, man=mand, woman=kvinde) nor in its germanic origin (Mensch, Mann, Frau). Maybe there's a clear cultural explanation for its form in the English. Completely off the topic though :-) Varga Mila 11:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree about the interesting observations, but I'm not excited about including it in this article, either. --Ashenai 21:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I was not really thinking about including this article directly into the main article. I was thinking of including it into this discussion, since much of this discussion revolves around differences between views among muslims, and since professor Niloofar Haeri is something of an authority in the area of different outlooks among muslims due to both her personal and academic background. I venture to guess that the professor would appreciate the pronoun "guy" since it can denote a very young female person. DanielDemaret 12:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old article 

message: ::::: Islamists and Salafis are not the only ones who disapprove of images of living creatures, and to suggest they are is seriously flawed Original research. --Irishpunktom\talk 20:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean it's about "only Salafis and islamists"? And that there may be additional sects who reject pictures altogether? Ok, this may be so (but I can't think of any spontaneously) but this hardly qualifies as a neutrality dispute. Or is the objection toward "only" that it could be read a a sort of belittlement? I don't get it. Azate 01:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Honestly, it was Irishpunktom who added the neutrality disclaimer and that is the only thing that I can find that he added to the talk page that might correspond to his adding the notice. Irishpunktom has been a seriously heavy POV pusher on this article and due to that fact I'm not surprised to see his having done that. Netscott 01:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see. His objection is that the section "(is) only talking of the "aniconistic traditon", rather than the more important understanding that you simply do not insult the Prophet (Irishpunktom)". As I see it, the section deals with a)aniconism in Islam in general b)as pertains to Mohammad in particular c)as pertains to offensive cartoons of Mohammad. None of the statements strike me as POV. I think to nominate the section as "of disputed neutrality" on the reasons he gives is just frivolous. I vote for removal of the tag. Azate 01:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I vote against it. The sentence "Pictures of Muhammad are a different case — if they are offensive or satirical they are widely considered blasphemous or sacrilegious." is complete nonsense. As I said before: Derogatory depictions of any "prophet" (Jesus, Mohammed, Moses, Buddha, ...) are blasphemous by definition. This is the meaning of the word blasphemous. Raphael1 03:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  If we are talking about conflicting traditions, then the "Tradition" that you do not insult the Prophet must be taken into account. Insulting the prophet led to the deaths of many of the martyrs of Cordoba, it is a grave offence taken as an insult against Islam and Muslims, and is herein being ignored.  The aniconism is only half the story here, when it comes to traditions.  Further, as it stands it whitewashes over Muslim history, and disparges against the traditionalists.  It is not only salafis and so-called islamists who disapprove of living Images.  There is, for just one example, a community of over two thousand in Birmingham who would be considered Sufi who have no images in the Mosque nor images in their homes, and that extends to no television nor photographs. The way it stands, the article would allow the belief that only extremist salafis and Islamists are offended by this, which is clearly wrong.  Further, some of the most violent, even  extreme, salafis, the house of saud, allow living Images (though not images of the Prophet). Further, kindly don't attempt to whitewash my opinions because I happen to be Muslim.--Irishpunktom\talk 18:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have made a valid point here. I support your effort to change the text accordingly. Raphael1 19:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  I attempt to whitewash your opinions because you happen to be a Muslim? 1) Where's any whitewash here? Maybe you mixed up your verbs? 2) How would I be supposed to know you're Muslim? It ain't exactly obvious from your username. 3) As for substance: THe "pure aniconism" position is a tiny minority opinion among Muslims, 2000 additional guys in Birmingham nonwithstanding. I hope we agree so far. This is what the section said a while back. Along came sombody who said "who are they?" So sombody added the salafi and the islamists. 4) Your claim that the casual reader of the article may conlude that only Salafis and Islamists object to the JP cartoons is a bit overanxious, I think. Everybody who didn't spent the last months under a rock (or, alternatively, read the article) got as much. Azate 21:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: neutrality dispute

message: Although Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments/Image-Display was created to be used as location for debate on pictures, I still see a lot of discussion on this page. Does that mean we no longer use the subpage? Nomen Nescio 13:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * No, for this reason, "Please divert comments having to do with any aspect of displaying the cartoon images to Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments/Image-Display. Comments about the images posted here will be moved."... any discussion relative to the cartoons should be moved though. Netscott 13:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Confused

message: The page was getting too large. I've moved the top 75% or so to Archive 16. Azate 19:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Archive 

message: and the other death threats against the cartoonists needs to be linked/mentioned from this page! BlatherAndBlatherscite 23:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *It is mentioned in the Overview section MX44 07:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The references to the death threats ought to be linked Varga Mila 07:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like the old links, ehr ... died? MX44 17:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Desperately needs adding

message: I renamed the section to Islamic Traditions, and sub-divided it to two of the pertinent traditions.  It has since been renamed "Islamic traditions regarding Muhammad and depictions of beings".  Personally I think it's a bit long winded, But, if there is consensus to keep that title, I won't object. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I changed the title and I tend to agree as well that it is a bit long winded... but the generic "Islamic Traditions" is too wide a scope when we're only covering traditions involving insults to Muhammad and Muslim aniconistic traditions. Netscott 12:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * How about Relevent Islamic traditions.. or something similar?--Irishpunktom\talk 12:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: * That to is too generic, remember this section is under the heading "Conflicting Traditions". Netscott 12:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I've just changed it to "Islamic traditions about Muhammad and aniconism" but the word 'about' doesn't seem strong enough. Netscott 12:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: * I changed 'about' to 'involving' that seems a better fit. Netscott 12:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: * The issues covered in the "Conflicting traditions" section are complex ones that as an editor I feel merit being covered in depth. What may be a better solution would be to 'break off' that section as we've done with the other sections and give it it's own sub-page. Netscott 12:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: * Because aniconistic traditions directly relate to this issue. Additionally, if the Islamic aniconistic references are going to go anywhere besides a 'Conflicting traditions' sub-page, they should go in Aniconism and not Depiction of Muhammad as aniconism is not the 'thrust' of the Depiction article. Netscott 12:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Islamic Traditions

message: Where did it all go ? Its still in the history.. but.. its not there.. I'm perplexed.--Irishpunktom\talk 14:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Err

message: Please leave out that reference. It is contrary to Buddhist believes to fuel hatred with a reference to some old stones even if they depicted Buddha and have been destroyed by Muslims. Raphael1 23:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Raphael1, do not remove a very key bit of info that directly relates to one of the hadiths mentioned in that section. Irishpunktom is the one who added the reference to Taliban... and the fact that they destroyed statues is very pertinent to the brand of Muslim aniconism they subscribe to. I'm reverting the ref. now. Netscott 23:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I understood that the destruction of the stone Buddhas was in emulation of the Prophets destruction of the idiols in Mecca, rather than just aniconism... How long do you want to make this?--Irishpunktom\talk 23:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Well long enough to include a prime example of aniconism as regards (Sahih Muslim, Book 24 Verse 5250). You're the one who decided to include the Taliban... I'm just taking your inclusion to it's natural conclusion. What's the problem?? Netscott 23:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I would have thought the Talibans like to keep that reference, no? MX44 23:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: * I suppose the fact that the Taliban destroyed an extremely valuable piece of world heritage might be a bit of an embarassment for some and would incline such folks to not want to include such a citation. I actually cried when I heard the news that they actually did the act. No kidding. Netscott 23:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I was twice in Kabul, thought I would go up to Banyan next time. Then started the war. So much for "next time." MX44 00:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Netscott, why are you lying? MX44, don't worry, you can see the big Buddha  here. Raphael1 00:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: * Raphael1, you've previously demonstrated a penchant for making false accusations... but now you are flat out defaming me and I've half a mind to actually report you to have you blocked and/or banned from Wikipedia... I suggest you read carefully what I wrote previously and respond accordingly. Netscott 00:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dear Raphael1. We know you take all of this to heart very much, and in fact I find your sympathy for Muslim causes quite touching. Yet, that may be not the ideal mindset to contribute to an encylopedia, and in fact, if I'd know you personally, I'd be worried about your wellbeing. Maybe you should just take a step back and relax. Neither Netscott nor MX44 or myself mean you ill personally, and this article will do well without you, too, I'm sure: There are no Nazis lurking here to pounce onto the world when you are not looking. I'm hesitant to say this, for the risk of being misunderstood, but it may be in your own best interest to focus on something else for a little while and, maybe, ask yourself with the help of sombody qualified if you aren't running into serious problems with yourself. Again, no offence indended. Azate 00:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Netscott you know perfectly well, that you tried to foist the addition of the Buddha story to Irishpunktom. (Btw. I never complained about the Taliban reference.)  Raphael1 01:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah ... Irishpunktom invited the Talibans (no television) -> Netscott finishes the job with fireworks. Looks good to me. MX44 01:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It looks like a fact to me, (I think I read something like this in a news article once) what's the big deal? It happened because of this controversy as far as I know and when people start attacking Buudhists because of a bunch of cartoons, you know something is up. Homestarmy 01:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh? No they did not attack the buddha because of the cartoons ...It was the television MX44 01:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: * Raphael1 you'd better respond to Azate's message to you on his talk page so that he'll know you've responded.. the only reason I haven't already tried to have you banned is because he wrote me.... Netscott 01:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you both. Raphael1 02:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * NO, you don't seem to understand, I am about to request your being banned.... unless you take proper steps. Netscott 02:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you want me to do after you ignored my initial plea? It seems, that you wanted me to misunderstand you and apparently I did. Raphael1 03:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  taliban destroyed Buddhas of Bamiyan 

message: This article is way, way too long. I definitely think editors have been using the article space as a forum of debate, with arguments and counter-arguments. As a result, we have an article that is ostensibly ABOUT THE MOHAMMED CARTOON CONTROVERSY, talking about all sorts of vaguely-related crap that nobody will care about in six months' time.
I'm certainly not going to try to prune the article myself; can other editors weigh in, please? Taking a fresh look at the article, it should be obvious that it is absurdly top-heavy. --Ashenai 15:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: hear hear. Sometimes, Wikipedia is a discussion forum. dab (ᛏ) 18:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree, but pruning appears to result in edits with even more explanations MX44 22:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is stupidly long