Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 4

message: There seems to be a lot of users who want to "compromise" on the issue of representing the images on the page. "Let’s move the image down", "let’s include a link". Neville Chamberlain was also in favour of compromise, but there are some things one simply doesn’t compromise about. Free speech is one of them. Certainly the image could be moved, but there is no earthly reason why it should be. On a page about an image, that image should be prominently displayed. If someone’s sensitivities are hurt by viewing any specific drawing, then we should respect that, but it is their own responsibility to avoid that happening. It certainly should not affect the rest of the world’s access to information.
Censorship is censorship, whether it consists in making information inaccessible or just less accessible. Wikipedia is about the opposite of both. Eixo 17:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a soapbox nor indiscriminate collection of information. You're not seriously proposing that any removal of information from Wikipedia is censorship. Zocky | picture popups 18:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case, removal of the image is censorship. To have an article about a cartoon, but to not show the cartoon so people can make up their own minds about the issue, would be silly. --Alabamaboy 18:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that's simply a bad argument. We also have articles about Da Vinci Code and Deep throat, but neither of those works is available at Wikipedia. Zocky | picture popups 18:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, its not.  Those are full length copyrighted works, and cannot be posted in their entirety as that does not fall under fair use and they are not in the public domain.Kittynboi 18:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Removing "indiscriminate" information would not be censorship. Removing entirely relevant info (a picture of a cartoon, the very subject of the article) to honor someone's religious sensibilities is to place religion above the communication of information, and that's not Wikipedia's place. Again, would you support removing (or hiding below-the-fold) info on evolution or Hugo Chavez in order to protect the pieties of evengelicals and political conservatives? Babajobu 18:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not "info", it's a picture. I'm not at all expressing an opinion on whether this picture should be in this article, I'm just pointing out that "free speech" and "censorship" arguments are baseless. We should instead be talking about whether showing the picture in the article is NPOV. Zocky | picture popups 18:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No one who was talking about compromise was talking about removing the image. Compromise was just better so as not to offend people but also show the cartoon at the same time. Obviously the same thing would happen if a cartoon or any other image was disrespectful towards Christianity, Judaism, communism etc. and some of the people here who are so blatantly "opposed to censorship" surely wouldn't be. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 18:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please don't make the mistake of thinking that a substantial percentage of the people who want the image prominently displayed are doing so out of animosity towards Islam in particular. The cartoon is the very subject of the article, and not prominently displaying it is sheer lunacy. I would say the same thing about any image that is the subject of widespread controversy and media coverage, including ones that mock my own beliefs. Argyrios 20:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Unless I've completely misunderstood the issue, this article is not solely about the image, but rather mostly about the controversy and outrage it sparked in the Islamic world (otherwise it would be enough to show :Image:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings.jpg solely on its own). Please do not call suggestions for moving and rezising the image in the article censorship, as opposed to having it some other "ideal" way around. Scoo 18:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anonymous Editor, in fact everyone arguing to keep the image at head of article seem to agree that articles should be censored for no religion. And Wikipedia has not censored itself for Christian or Jewish or Hindu sensibilities. See Piss Christ, where the pic has never been moved from head of article, even though it's Jesus suspended in urine. People are only saying that Islam should be treated in the same way as those other religions. Babajobu 18:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who here said anything about removing the picture? We are talking about compromise. But just to answer you here, maybe something can be offensive in one religion but not in another? --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 18:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Babajobu, can you answer the other argument, that publishing pictures in an article about the controversy about whether these pictures should ever be published, is tantamount to Wikipedia taking the side of the side that says they should? Zocky | picture popups 18:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't you also say that not publishing it does the same thing for THAT view?Kittynboi 19:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Hehe, I made that really convoluted, but I trust you can decode it :) Zocky | picture popups 18:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Zocky, a compromise in the Evolution article would not mean treating equally the position that evolution is false, and creationism is true. Obscurantism is not a "position" with which an encyclopedia "compromises". Babajobu 18:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying this is exactly like the evolution issue? The evolution article talks about a different perspective and is a completely separate article than creationism. This is however one issue and its about a picture. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 18:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: anonym, this is not about 'a' picture, it's about 'the' picture. The article would not have been created, had these cartoons not been made and published. The image of the cartoons should of course be placed at the top, just as an image of Bill Gates has been placed at the top in the article about him. Surely, you would never suggest that his picture should be moved, would you? That information, whether in the form of text or images, may offend someone should not enter the equation when we discuss NPOV, especially if the text/image is the very SUBJECT of the information. As soon as you start discussion about whether something is offensive or not, you've moved from objective (or neutral) to subjective, and the knowledge or information you're trying to create/distribute cannot reflect reality.--Discus2000 19:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well put.  The null hypothesis for Wikipedia is inclusiveness.  Removal should be based only on an objective basis.  Here, the controversy created is solely a result of the subjective opinions of the reader.  Any offense is the result of POV. Removal of the images out of respect for POV is an argument which knows no bounds. ----Snorklefish 16:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please, no more talk of "compromise" 

message: I see someone added that Jyllands-Posten was evacuated today again, can anyone confirm this with a source? I'll do it myself in the evening since I watch the TV news, and surely it's in there if it happened. I personally live a few miles from the JP HQ and I haven't heard anything yet though. --Sheeo 19:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yup, here it is: http://www.jp.dk/indland/artikel:aid=3532030 --Discus2000 19:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source on the latest bomb-threat evacuation? 

message: Can we have the adjective for natives of Chechnya ("Chechen", not "Chechenian") corrected by whichever powers-that-be have disabled edits on this page? The mistake is right at the bottom of the Timeline section, Feb 1st subsection. Polocrunch 19:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor editorial quibbles 

message: Come on people- we have turned a little artical about a Social-Political debate into a madhouse with vandalism in the article and pressure on Wikipedia from muslims who dont want this to be talked about.
What is all the fuss about over a couple pictures of Mohammed? I know all about the Islamic beliefs that Mohammed's face cannot be shown, and I know that the pictures can be taken as negative by muslims, BUT COME ON PEOPLE- IT IS JUST A FEW SATIRACAL COMICS FEATURING A HISTORICAL PERSON!
:For you it may be "just a historical person", for 1 billion muslims it isn't!
Wikipedia is not handing out any opinions on the pictures, just the cold, hard facts. I dont give a crap about freedom of speech here, or hate crimes- this is not about whether or not those pictures are derogatory to some people. This is about bringing readers of Wikipedia the facts on a current event. Nothing else. (Caesar89 19:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that most people who "don't even want to have a peek at it" are either unwilling or unable to come to Wikipedia at all.  Wikipedia contains far too many articles that contain information that is considered insulting, slanderous, blasphemous, or otherwise dangerous to too many censorship regimes (be it the Great Firewall or NetNanny) for those regimes to allow or condone easy access to the wikipedia.org domain at all, especially because of its dynamic, unmoderated and unpredictable nature.  Therefore, it is very difficult for me to see anybody in this discussion who claims to be a devout Muslim as anything but some sort of internet troll:  either a non-Muslim claiming to be one to amuse themselves, or a person who really does consider themselves to be a true believer but came to this page for the express purpose of finding something to be offended by and complain about (think "Baptist flipping through Playboy").  --Guppy313 05:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say this comment is rather off the mark.  Wikipedia is lucky to have a lot of fantastic Muslim editors.--Pharos 05:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have any of them participated in this discussion?  I've browsed most of this discussion and the only posts I've seen from people against posting the picture in the article itself have either referred to Muslims in the third person, are unsigned, or Qatarson (who is setting off my Troll-O-Meter big time).  A generally rational person who does not want to see the pictures would not come to this article (or, at the very least, come here only after turning off images in their browser);  it can be "edited by anyone" and even if there is some sort of consensus to make the pictures click-through, there will always be internet vandals posting it back onto the main article.   --Guppy313 06:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Me? See, here's the thing: freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Everyone has the right to their opinion, and as religion is entirely a beast of opinion, people have the right to portray it however they want. It is totally alright to insult a "prophet". 100%. I know I do it all the time, as does everyone else on the face of the planet Earth, including Muslims (indeed, I would go so far as to say especially Muslims). A gang rape would be totally different, because that is about someone's right to privacy. Of course, if they were dead, I think that it'd be alright to display it. I bash religion, and with good reason. But this isn't the place to be bashing religion, this is the place to inform. And this article does just that; I found it very informative. Titanium Dragon 19:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This has just become too stupid 

message: * Some Wikipeidans are preventing this article being linked from Muhammed. See Talk:Muhammad Astrotrain 20:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Muhammed main article

message: I have issues with the section entitled "Islamic Art" from the Neutral Point of View perspective. The issue isn't Islamic art - the issue is aniconism, and Islamic art seems to me to be a western point-of-view argument against the Islamic aniconistic tradition.  Also, I can think of at least one good reason why the Islamic world hasn't objected to historical depictions of Mohammed - as far as I can see, most of those depictions have been respectful, or highly respectful, towards Mohammed, thereby making it easy for the Islamic world to respect the tradition of religious iconography and/or free speech that generate the image in the first place.
Technically speaking, I believe that the second command means that Christianity is also supposed to be aniconistic, and indeed there have been iconoclastic periods in Christian history. Chrisobyrne 22:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this isn't a case of Islamic art but only Aniconism, and iconoclams (Cloud02 22:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that if the issue is whether or not Mohammed should be depicted at all, and controversies over depictions of him, then including information about past depictions is relevent.Kittynboi 22:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - so that, for instance, readers can compare and contrast the (mostly) respectful images of the past with the current offerings. Chrisobyrne 23:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The second commandment specifically refers to the creation of idols of anything, be it in heaven or earth. A drawing really isn't much of an idol unless you like go all out on decorating it with like plantinum or something and setting up an altar and stuff, i've made many sketches of things for geometry class, and it hardly seems reasonable that me drawing a bunch of triangles and squares is idol-creating. God then tells us that we shall not bow down to worship idols. These drawings are neither idols, nor are they being bowed down to...I hope, that would be wrong and kind of creepy. Homestarmy 01:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic art and NPoV 

message: I find it sad to see such an extreme amount of vandalism being done on the article.
And this doesn't just go for the "islamic fundamentalist" but for others as well, since there have been anti-islam vandalism as well. (Cloud02 22:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: :::There is no contradiction between free speech and tact. Thats all I'm asking for tact. Don't rub it in people's face. I understand you think we religious people are silly, and we probably are. But why can't this article disseminate its message and respect the people for whom this image is hurtful?
And this is not just an artwork. For many people this is a racist caricature. Compare it to a burning cross not the Venus de Milo, or a minstrel show instead of a piece of theatre. You need to understand that this is hurtful, its like a punch in the stomache. I mean are 19th century caricatures of the blood libel art? Give me a break.
Its not about anti-iconism or whatever the term is. All Muslims as terrorists is the racist image thats acceptable in this age. It took so long for Westerners to stop printing Sambos, Chinamen, and Shylocks in newsapers, I guess we'll have a couple of decades to wait. Ahassan05 22:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: sorry that you feel that way, ahassan05... but whatever you say, this cannot be an act racism - as far as I know, muslims are not a race. And while you continue to argue that the cartoons should not be there (for whatever reason you may have to say so), a lot of others will argue that it is their right as human beings (regardless of race, religion, belief, cultural (in)sensitivity, cross-eyedness or whatever label you may choose) to have unrestricted access to that information. In that sense, removing/moving the picture can, IMHO, only be seen as censorship, which (again, IMHO) is a lot worse than being subjected to cultural or religious insensitivity. You can choose not to view the information, but if the information is not available at all, I cannot choose to view it, i.e. you have a choice, I don't.--Discus2000 22:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Considering the Middle Eastern press often prints racist and anti-Semitic images in their own press, it seems inane to single out the "West" as the only instigators of intra-cultural tension. It seems we'll have a couple more decades to wait before _every_ culture grows up. Sol. v. Oranje 22:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Anyone who thinks this article is a racist caricature is simply wrong. Thparkth 22:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When MiddleEastern newspapers print anti-semetic tripe the educated are revolted. Here it seems the educated are defending the racist tract. And the prophet with a bomb, and the prophet oppressing women is offensive to Muslims. It doesn't matter what you think. Its whats percieved by hundreds of thousands of Muslims. Ahassan05 22:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I may be revolted, but that does not mean I think it should be censored or hidden away.  If something offends me, I respond by arguing against it, by stating my views on it.  Not by trying to censor it or make it less readily available.Kittynboi 22:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: ^--what he said (Cloud02 22:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you're confusing people advocating the inclusion of the cartoons with advocating their content; I do not think that is what's going on here. The inclusion of the cartoons, however hurtful, is necessary because it is fundamental to understanding the controversy in the first place -- and this is the same opinion I would have if there was a global controversy over the publication of anti-Semitic cartoons in the Middle Eastern press (and, funny, but I don't recall seeing so much uproar about those...), or if this controversy was about the "anti-Christian" Piss Christ, etc. Sol. v. Oranje 22:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: We could illustrate the phrase "Jump Jim Crow" with a contemporary caricature of a white man blacked up for comedy purposes. Some people would find that highly offensive hate speech. But we could say it was necessary illustration for the article, and that the fact that we SHOW something doesn't mean we ADVOCATE something. Oh look, we did. Thparkth 22:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps because the word "coon" is not specifically linked with that image.  But this is not an article about a racsit slur or caricature, its about the drawings themselves, and therefore we illustrate the page about the drawings with an image of the drawings.Kittynboi 22:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  And furthermore, not all the cartoons could even veer close to hate speech -- what, a cartoon about a Persian boy writing on a blackboard is hate speech? How about the one of the Danish editor symbolically representing "PR Stunt", or the one showing Mohammed in the desert or with a simply symbological merging of the crescent and star with his face? That's "Hate speech"? Get over your over sensitivity. Sol. v. Oranje 07:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  free speech and tact 

message: I think the title explains it all ;) (Caesar89 23:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where can I find an english translation of the cartoons? 

message: "ANDY. ANDY. ANDY. ANDY. ANDY. ANDY. ANDY. ANDY. ANDY. ANDY. ANDY. ANDY. ANDY. ANDY. " What is this nonsense? "Aisha." "This article has respectfully refrained from showing the picture." Will the inhabitants of this bedlam article please GROW UP already? gee whiz.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 23:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The vandals look like a bunch of 3 year olds

message: The owner of France Soir Raymond Lakah declares that he has removed Jacques Lefranc as the chief editor. He states "We express our apology to the muslim community and to all the person that were chocked by the publication of the cartoons."
someone add this, i cannot edit the page atm. http://www.jp.dk/udland/artikel:aid=3532634/ Al3xander 23:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read conflicting reports whether Jacques Lefranc was the managing director or the chief editor. According to  he was the managing director and Serge Faubert is the Chief Editor. Can someone (perhaps we have a Frenchman here?) verify this fact? Rasmus (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  France soir chief editor sacked 

message: I think maybe there is a solution to this problem. Though I'm sure some will disagree with me. Keep the image in its place but the link to the article should have some sort of warning and those who find such information offensive should be advised to turn off "load images" in their browser. Thus they may freely read the article without having to see the image.Hitokirishinji 23:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to that.  But I don't know if it could be done.Kittynboi 23:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just an idea, if anyone could come up with an implementable version of this... Hitokirishinji 23:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Hiding" the picture solves nothing.  Those who are angry, aren't angry that they saw the picture,  they are angry simply knowing Jyllands-Posten printed the picture.  It would have made no difference if Jyllands-Posten had put a warning on its front page and printed the pictures on the next.   Hiding, warning, or linking doesn't avoid the controversy if Wikipedia chooses to include the picture somewhere.--Snorklefish 16:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Actaully I was thinking about just that and realized the easiest way is simply to put a warning at the front wikipedia page. "Wikipedia contains images that some may find offensive. Please remove "load images" from your browser if believe you may find some images offensive." Most browsers do contain a "load this image" option so people can pick and choose if they really are sensitive. Hitokirishinji 00:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about a warning on the whole internet, saying: "May contain freedom of expression"? Just a suggestion. Eixo 00:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solution to the problem 

message: In fact, could someone please help upload an image for the article on Mammy_archetype, it's woefully lacking in images of mammy, those black appologists are just trying to censor things that they don't like!--64.12.116.10 23:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, considering there's plenty of images of Aunt_Jemima on that article's page, I'd say there's imagery of the Mammy archetype on Wikipedia. Sol. v. Oranje 23:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: While the article mentioned certainly would benefit from an illustration, I don't think this person deserves to be payed attention to, because his reasons for posting this are either to make a point, that doesn't quite work, by being inflammatory, about the present article, or he is just a racist idiot who has nothing constructive to contribute except by accident. ("black apologists"? He can't be serious.)   --Brentt 23:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah you're probably right on this. I thought he was someone who was making a comparison on the nature of "offensiveness", but now I see he may have had a more sinister agenda. Sol. v. Oranje 00:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was clearly trolling. Nevertheless, the article DID need an illustration, which it now has. :) See, even jerks can be useful at times. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: good precedent being set here

message: For the comparable events section; I recall an artist not so long ago displaying an artwork based around a Koran, I think it may have been torn. Pretty sure it was displayed in England and then taken down after concerns. Anyone know theartist/artwork? I think it would be apertinent addition to that section. --bodnotbod 00:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparable events

message: Just saw this at http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php?id=127107®ion=3.
__________________________
In Russia, the Orthodox church and the Mufti Council condemned those European newspapers which republished the cartoons.
"It's very dangerous to insult religious feelings, in so far as they are exceptionally deeply anchored in the human soul," said Mikhail Dudko, spokesman for the Moscow Patriarchate, according to the ITAR-TASS news agency.
__________________________
I dont have sufficient priveleges to edit the article. Can someone put it in ? - Nix24 00:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian Orthodox church condems publication of caricatures 

message: Protect pages linked from the main page. So please stop doing it. This is a long standing policy. the main page is our "welcome mat". What's the point of "anyone can edit" if the first page people see tells them they can't edit. I know it's a pain, but we just can't protect it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 00:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  We do NOT... 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

message: Look, as long as many Middle-Eastern (Muslim) nations are still using images derogatory of Jews, Christians, or anyone else they have no right to claim, nor should be given, special treatment for their prophet. For example, check out this article's section "Controversial newspaper caricatures". 
And as far as I am concerned, the images should be at the top of the article because the article itself is about the very thing that someone would be coming to WP to read about--to see what the hubbub is about. If the Muslim community is offended....well, you can't please everyone...but I ask them to look their own inequities in the face and fix them before going on a censoring campaign. To repeat a statement that I've said before: their religion does not make them "special," it just makes them religious. No reason to bend over backward, to violate a code of law or ethics, or principles, to appease those who are undeserving of such preferential behavior.206.156.242.39 14:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No deal

message: There is nothing alleged about the massacre, ethnic cleansing and forced exile by Turks of up to 2 million Armenianschrisboote 14:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Alleged" massacres of Armenians? 

message: I've seen posters around in Copenhagen, asking danes to join a demonstration for tolerance of religion, to be held at Rådhuspladsen. As far as I can see, its pro-freedom of speech, but saying that the JP drawings was indeed a bit "over the line", and doesnt contribute to anything meaningful in our society. Does anyone have a newssource on this?
Cacophobia (Talk) 14:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demonstration Tonight? (02-02-05) 

message: In the original cartoons, two artists poked fun at Bluitgen's claims.  Were there suspiscions in Denmark before the cartoons ran that Bluitgen was being dishonest about the extent of the Islmaic chilling effect?
Lotsofissues 15:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the insistence of having a childrens book with pictures of Muhammed despite the religious controversy was seen as a sort of pulbicity stunt (though personally I think it comes from an honest wish to give knowledge across cultures/religions), and with the Danish "Jantelov" in mind he was open to (innocent) ridicule himself. Poulsen 16:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kåre Bluitgen 

message: Lotsofissues 16:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Given reason for neutrality dispute? 

message: It seems to me that at this point, this article seems to meet the criteria for a Good article. It's pretty well-written, has an abundance of factual accuracy, is relatively NPOV, (That is, the only POV charge appears to do with showing the picture as opposed to not showing it.) the vandals seemed to of stopped for the most part suddenly and there are so many people to revert it that it is relatively stable, it has a huge amount of references, and of course, images. Should we self-nominate this at Wikipedia:Good articles/Self-nominations? Homestarmy 16:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brint it on!! (Lipatden 16:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article status? 

message: IP 88.105.24.134 just hit ten reverts, if any admin happens to think that's too many. Babajobu 16:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!! --Candide, or Optimism 16:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Just a bit too many... Here's some info on the IP.
inetnum:         88.104.0.0 - 88.107.255.255
netname:         DSL-TISCALI-UK
descr:           Tiscali UK Ltd
descr:           Milton Keynes
descr:           Dynamic DSL
country:         GB
admin-c:         TU935-RIPE
tech-c:          TU935-RIPE
status:          ASSIGNED PA 
mnt-by:          TU935-RIPE-MNT
source:          RIPE # Filtered
Hitokirishinji 16:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Ten Revert Rule

message: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/740
Danish power! Go Denmark! I love Denmark! --Candide, or Optimism 17:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should concentrate on the article... --Powerpete 17:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed, Annitas, it's not that I disagree with some of the underlying sentiments, but this talkpage is absolutely no place for it. Babajobu 17:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  We Are All Danes Now 

message: Unfinished's OR and personal POV essay needs to come out. A section like this would be fine, but it needs to be sourced and coherent. Babajobu 17:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: UnfinishedChaos, your addition had the appearance of a personal essay, and violated WP:NOR. Citations and attributions are crucial in an article like this, particularly in a section giving us a rundown on "what Muslims think". The article really was ridden with grammatical errors, misspellings, punctuation problems, and so on, so it would probably be best to paste something like that to the talk page first so that people can deal with the stylistic issues before we insert it into the article. As for the citations, people seem to have different opinions about whether English citations are necessary. My own opinion is that foreign language citations are fine, though of course English sources are preferable. But you made so many sweeping statements in your essay, it's hard for me to imagine a single Arabic source to which you could attribute all your observations, so it would probably require several sources. But if you want to try again, with citations and attributions, of course go for it! Babajobu 18:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfinished, if you can find some sources to back up what you say - which should be pretty easy since I'm sure it's true - I (and Homestarmy and no doubt others) will be happy to help you with any English language issues. Sources might include online newspaper articles or editorials which express some of the same points you made. Thparkth 18:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The funny thing was I was in the middle of correcting that paragraph's grammer and stuff and adding Citation needed marks, then I got halfway done, and then learned it had been deleted -__-. If you can get some citations for that thing i'll correct the grammer and spelling for you. Homestarmy 18:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unfinished's Original Research

message: I heard the fuss about these cartoons and hunted around the websites of newspapers etc to see for myself without any luck. Then I though 'ah ha, Wikipedia will have this' and so it proved. Well done Wikipedia, you are coming of age!
Philmurray 17:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Proven Uncensored Source

message: * A separate Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhummad cartoons controversy, similar to the timeline of the French riots of late last year, which can be merged back in if necessary after the rate of change has died down but is pretty necessary at the moment, 63kb in length... What does anyone think? Jdcooper 18:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is getting rather long, a seperate timeline (or some other part of the article perhaps) sound good. Al3xander 18:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A Timeline seems to jump out as the best candidate. Or how about also placing the two open letters on wikisource, leaving only the very relavant quotes? Jdcooper 18:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is 63 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size.  

message: Something I find interesting is that the prohibition against depicting Muhammad (or any religious figure) in Islam is tied with the desire to keep idolatry from entering into the hearts and minds of the people.  While these cartoons may not have been respectful of the Muslim viewpoint(in fact, one ought to be clear on that - they weren't), it seems like the chance of anyone, Muslim or otherwise, worshipping these cartoons as graven images or idols, is pretty low, given their subject matter.
While it seems pretty clear that a good portion of the Muslim world is enraged beyond belief at these cartoons, something I would like to ask the Muslim readership of this page is:  if the prohibition is meant to keep idolatry away, why such a ferocious controversy over these particular cartoons?  
Faseidman 18:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just an observation 

message: ::The following text is by User:Unfinishedchaos, the bracketed, caps text is comments added by User:Babajobu.--Anchoress 21:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concerning "Most... American media supports the newspaper and considers the issue to be one of Freedom of Speech," I haven't seen a major US newspaper come out emphatically on the side of the JP, and I don't see, say, the Washington Post or New York Times publishing these pictures;  I doubt any paper that did not publish Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" would publish these drawings (it'd be a double standard if they did, IMO).   If there's an example of a major newspaper in the US publishing the pictures or otherwise taking a strong stance in favor of the publications, I'd like to see the sources.  --Guppy313 20:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslims' Viewpoint 

message: There would be no logic for the article without the pictures; the pictures are out there, and are the reason for some current events. The position is not a problem, top or bottom. For my self I understand the feeling of hundreds of millions of Moslems, but still the cold fact holds The Pictures Exist. All religions suffer the same, no need to put links for hundreds of offensive pictures for other religions to prove that. Yet, it could be easily miss understood that these pictures are actually Mohammad’s; THEY ARE NOT, the article should be clear that these are not an actual pictures or representations of Mohammed, and they reflect nothing but the cartoonist POV. The article in the current form, gives the wrong impression that they are so. And by such, we are manipulating the facts, and giving our own interpolations of the facts. We are not after a religion or a character, nor are we after the cartoonist, we simply after the cold facts. --Tarawneh 18:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I find my 2 year child scratches artistic, but lets stick to the point; I am talking about misleading information in the article. --Tarawneh 20:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The pictures are noting but the cartoonist POV 

message: What would Muhammad think about this satirical drawings? Would he laugh and deem them irrelevant? Would he get really angry? I think Muhammad would have laughed really hard at the cartoons, maybe throw a fart or two in the process and proceed to take care of more important issues.
===Notes on why viewing the image could be considered sinful by Muhammad)===
::::* Baba and others -- thanks for your question. I think Muslims are now conflating the injunction not to make or circulate images of animate beings with the desire to at least speak out when wrong is done. (Both of these points are emphasized in Islam.) 
::::* Every religious tradition has stuff that's "off limits" -- satirizing the Prophet by means of a political cartoon would appear to score a bull's eye in that regard as far as Islam is concerned. I don't know of any specific ruling that equates viewing such an image with punishment in hell (and keep in mind that I was, above, merely trying to convey how seriously the ban on illustration of the Prophet is taken.) 
::::* However, note for comparison that the Prophet forbade the depiction of any human face, and ordered that such images be erased. . So presumably intentionally viewing a drawing of a human face, rather than erasing it, would be considered a sin by some scholars. (I'm speaking only as a lay person here, certainly not as a scholar -- how these traditions get applied to contemporary situations is something for professionals, but I'm giving you my best take on this because you asked.) 
::::* Magazines purchased exclusively for the images depicting animate beings that they contain (even seemingly benign images) are regarded by at least one scholar as haram , which would suggest that staring at such images in a magazine would be haram as well. It's hard  for me to see how an exception could be made for the case of staring at an image created expressly to ridicule and denigrate Islam. 
::::* Speaking personally, I am trying to steer clear of prolonged visual encounters with the controversial image for just this reason.
::::* The more general fault of failing to speak out (or take action) when Islam is defamed might well be considered a sin, but I couldn't find anything on this.
::::* Images of prophets or holy people are generally associated with shirk, the most serious sin of all ], and are thus shunned with particular intensity. 
::::* These are some of the reasons it seems to me that displaying or otherwise sudying disrespectful images of one of the Prophets would be, to this believer's way of thinking, anyway, "off the charts." As it were. Peace, BYT 18:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This issue makes for a very interesting theological discussion 

message: ::::* Baba and others -- thanks for your question. I think Muslims are now conflating the injunction not to make or circulate images of animate beings with the desire to at least speak out when wrong is done. (Both of these points are emphasized in Islam.) 
::::* Every religious tradition has stuff that's "off limits" -- satirizing the Prophet by means of a political cartoon would appear to score a bull's eye in that regard as far as Islam is concerned. I don't know of any specific ruling that equates viewing such an image with punishment in hell (and keep in mind that I was, above, merely trying to convey how seriously the ban on illustration of the Prophet is taken.) 
::::* However, note for comparison that the Prophet forbade the depiction of any human face, and ordered that such images be erased. . So presumably intentionally viewing a drawing of a human face, rather than erasing it, would be considered a sin by some scholars. (I'm speaking only as a lay person here, certainly not as a scholar -- how these traditions get applied to contemporary situations is something for professionals, but I'm giving you my best take on this because you asked.) 
::::* Magazines purchased exclusively for the images depicting animate beings that they contain (even seemingly benign images) are regarded by at least one scholar as haram , which would suggest that staring at such images in a magazine would be haram as well. It's hard  for me to see how an exception could be made for the case of staring at an image created expressly to ridicule and denigrate Islam. 
::::* Speaking personally, I am trying to steer clear of prolonged visual encounters with the controversial image for just this reason.
::::* The more general fault of failing to speak out (or take action) when Islam is defamed might well be considered a sin, but I couldn't find anything on this.
::::* Images of prophets or holy people are generally associated with shirk, the most serious sin of all ], and are thus shunned with particular intensity. 
::::* These are some of the reasons it seems to me that displaying or otherwise sudying disrespectful images of one of the Prophets would be, to this believer's way of thinking, anyway, "off the charts." As it were. Peace, BYT 18:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes on why viewing the image could be considered sinful by Muhammad)

message: Nobody can insult a person who is important for more tham 1.3 billion people ion the world. Insult is different from freedom of speech. I ask you be more consious about what you are doing.
Prophet Mohammed cannot be pictured as the cartoon suggested as he has no action which can be caricaturized that way.
Please note that this is taking us towards the clush of civilizations... Resid Gulerdem 19:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then how about I delete the entire section on Islam, as it inults a person who is important to 1 billion people in the world, because Islam does not claim Jesus as the Messiah.  Your argument is ridiculous.  Not to mention that a general consensus here says that the picture stays, so you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia customs and courtesies.  Deleting information against the will of the community is considered vandalism.  You have been warned. --Maverick 19:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  YOu do not know anything about Islam. Islam accepts Jesaus as Messiah! Resid Gulerdem 19:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RTFA.  Isa is considered a prophet, nothing less but nothing more.  Guppy313 21:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: While the images are offensive to some people, the greater issue the origional newspaper was discussing was the self-censorship of Danish artists.  Therefore the illustrations are only part of that story (and come on the heels of several other works that inpired similar reactions from the islamic world).  Therefore, in my opinion, this article should stand, WITH the images, but only be part of a larger article detailing the history that brought about the newspaper article and the resulting boycotts etc.  While these particular images are a big deal, the Theo Van Gogh film/murder are part of the same story... this is obvious if you read the article that accompanies the origional images.  
So the argument that the images are integral to this article i see as correct, but this article is only part of a larger story.  One that can be told on WP (and read by muslims) without neccesarily viewing the images.
Oo7jeep 19:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The illustrations themselves are only part of the story. 

message: Under opinions, there is a section about the international opinion and the opinion in Denmark. However nothing about the opinion in the muslim world... At the moment it seems like the arabic world speaks with one voice, however there must be differences in opinion. Could we elaborate on this... This probably requires someone who understands arabic (which is why I don't do it myself), to translate/quote articles from the arabic press... Kjaergaard 19:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the problems with Unfinished's essay was that it repeatedly asserted that the Muslim world DOES speak with one voice, which is poppycock, as evidenced by this very talk page. I left some notes in his essay here, hopefully we can get a good section on opinion in the Muslim world. Babajobu 19:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion i Arabic countries 

message: The reverting to remove the contested image was earlier being done by anon-IPs. I then semi-protected the page against unregistered and new users. Now, the revert war has gone on to include non-new users. This issue should be discussed on this talk page. If the reverting keeps up, myself or someone else will be forced to protect the page. We don't work out differences of opinion here by revert warring. Please, stop. --Durin 19:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Durin, the problem is that there is a relatively solid consensus among users that the image should be kept. Some IPs were removing/reverting 8, 9, 10 times, and a couple registered users have reverted/removed, too, but reading the talk page and looking at edit history make clear that a large majority of editors prefer keeping the image. There's really not much left to "work out" in that respect. People just need to stop removing the image against consensus, and we need to be tougher on the IPs that do it a crazy number of times. A strawpoll would back this consensus up, if we took one.  Maybe we need to, to make the consensus undeniable. Babajobu 19:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: * Agreed. Short on time. How about you craft it up please? --Durin 19:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''''ALERT''''': Constant reverts 

message: I mean yes, we all have the right to say what we believe in, but no, we all have to respect other people’s feeling and be responsible for what we said.  In a lot of Europe country, posting this comic strip as to seen without the freedom of speech, but without realizing this is a lot of insult to a lot of people regardless of being Muslim or not, and promote that all Muslim are like the Muhammad in the comic strip.  They didn’t realize that in Muslim world people don’t have any figure or Allah or the Prophets as to avoid the worship of the idol (just like in some chapter of Holy Bible that God tell Moses that if Moses see god face Moses would die, and this is my assumption, and I need people who really know this kind of knowledge to correct that.)  And yes, being a popular newspaper in Demark, Jylland-Posten do somehow representing the country as a lot Dane take the newspaper a resource.  The is not only the problem of freedom and speech, but also how should work ethic in media to balance in the freedom of speech or how people should believe what they take in. <BR>
Another question: If people make the Christian God and make him look like porn actress or poo (as the say the Western world is all trash or equivalent) and try to post it into Time Magazine or Washington Post, do you think editor would even take it?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.225.141.5 (talk • contribs) .
: Check the Piss Christ article, maybe Time Magazine doesn't take it, but wikipedia does! Al3xander 19:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I believe an American or European newspaper would publish such a thing.  Most other cultures don't have such hangups and can keep track of the difference between satire and hostility.  They don't see a need to go on rioting sprees and threatening everyone in sight every time they see something they do not agree with. --StuffOfInterest 19:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The issue of whether the WaPo or Time would publish such cartoons is beside the point; however, if they did, and there was a resulting controversy about those images, then I would think that Wikipedia would _of course_ show those images in the article page on it. Sol. v. Oranje 19:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And check the Jerry Springer Opera...a homosexual Jesus in a diaper. Yes, once and for all, FREEDOM OF SPEECH MEANS FREEDOM TO BASH RELIGION! Babajobu 19:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure, sometimes it is unproductive and dumb to bash religion. When people have freedom to speak their mind, sometimes they'll say unproductive, dumb things. Freedom of speech is not restricted to "freedom to say helpful things." Babajobu 20:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess if so than if a person say "God ban sex and said we are so holy that we dont deserve sex" or "Juses promote people to be door mat" (as an example, this is a if), what would that person become????
people should learn that it's only sticks and stones that break bones, words and pictures will never hurt you.
Im not saying they can't literally bash religion with no reason, im just saying it's unreasonable, whether you have the right to do it or not :/. I dunno, it just seems to me that taking the time to make a rational argument would be more productive and be more helpful. Homestarmy 22:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freedom of speech meaning you can bash other peoples’ religion?! 

message: In the first sentence of the second paragraph, the text states "many Muslims in Denmark and elsewhere view them as provocative and racist".
But Islam is not a race.  Isn't this an incorrect characterization?
Secondly, what is the source of the ban on depicting Islamic prophets?  I can't find any sourcing for this.  Is it in the Koran?  If not, what is the source?
Valtam 19:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, for my part, I just changed "racist" to "Islamophobic". I agree, Islam is not a race, just like Christianity or Buddhism is not a race, and the proper adjectives should be used. Sol. v. Oranje 19:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whew. That was a quick change!  Thanks, Soldaatvanoranje! Valtam 19:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problemo! Sol. v. Oranje 19:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: See Q&A: Depicting the Prophet Muhammad for clarity —Gabbe 19:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Gabbe.  So if I understand it correctly, the Koran bans any images of God/Allah as well as the worship of idols.  In addition, over the years, oral tradition has also led to the ban of the depiction of all Jewish, Christian and Muslim prophets.  Dipicting any living creature is also discouraged.
What about different branches of Islam?  I read somewhere that Shi'ites do not ban depictions of Mohammed, etc.
And does the ban apply only to Muslims?  Or does the ban mean that no human being may depict Mohammed, etc.?
Thanks for the education, all! Valtam 19:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Depends, Valtam - if the muslims in Denmark (and elsewhere) view it as racicm, they view it as racism. Whether or not they attach the 'correct' (e.g. a form of discrimination based on race, especially the belief that one race is superior to another) meaning to "racism" is a totally different thing - and would perhaps warrant an editor's note. What's the source on that statement?--Discus2000 19:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I do know a bit about Islamic law, but the specifics about illustrating God/The Prophet/People-in-general is not really my specialty :). All I can say is that with billions of adherants, Islam is not monolithic. There exists a plethora of differing and condradictory viewpoints on how to interpret religious law, just as there is in Christianity or Judaism. Someone with more in-depth knowledge should be consulted about this... —Gabbe 20:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two questions: Racism and Islamic Tradition 

message: I mean 6000-7000 edits in 5 days on a single page, does that count as a lot on Wiki? Is that record suspect? I imagine that subjects like US election 2004 and the London bombing also have had that many? Is there a page on wiki that list such “over edited “ pages? Twthmoses 20:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Admins can find this out with database queries... I'm not certain that there's a running list anywhere. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I recall one of the most edited pages was the one about the previous Pope. Current event pages tend to be highly edited like that. If I recall correctly, there was an article about that on one of the editions of the Wikipedia Signpost. --cesarb 20:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe there were over 1500 edits to the Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince in a single day (July 16th).  --DDG 20:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I was wondering: is this a lot of edits on Wiki?

message: ...Muhammad as a pedophile demon [6], the second shows Muhammed with a pig snout [7] and the third depicts a praying Muslim being raped by a dog[8][citation needed]. 
See  (da) here and here AlEX 20:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misinformation 

message: The formatting on the last two sections was broken, and I had to temp protect this page in order to avoid edit conflicts. The total protection lasted less than one minute... during which I'm guessing 50-60 people couldn't post. ;) Sorry. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temp protect on Discussion page 

message: If the artist can drive over a billion people to utter madness with a picture, he wins. Hands down. All the endless flame wars and trolling on wikipedia, fark, 4chan, and other big sites can't even possibly compare to a cartoon that results in crazy people taking over an embassy. It's over, everybody. This guy has finally Won the Internet.
:Oh please.  We had a bigger revert war over the Harry Potter movie. --DDG 20:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is great 

message: Matt Drudge has posted the bomb-in-turban Mohammad picture prominently on his high traffic website. Tempshill 20:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drudge 

message: We should probably archive the debate again, it is getting quite lengthy --Snailwalker | talk 21:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please do, and move the poll back down to the bottom. Protect for two minutes if necessary. Babajobu 21:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I second that AlEX 21:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive again? 

message: i don't think the image can be kept in any case because one of the artists has explicitly asked for it not to be reproduced. This is the current state of the discussion on the German version of this article 20:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the discussion is about the controversy covered by the images, it is undoubtably covered by fair use. --DDG 20:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair use is different than German copyright law in any event. Carlossuarez46 20:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Wikipedia database is stored on a server in the State of Florida in the United States of America, and is maintained in reference to the protections afforded under local and federal law." Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyright of cartoon image 

message: Please, let's avoid editing the article while it's protected, even if it's just minor edits. It's a potentially problematic slippery slope. --cesarb 20:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing while protected