Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 12

message: Someone, apparently from around Aalen in Germany, is using several different IPs to vandalise:
*80.145.98.46
*80.145.90.146
*80.145.109.235
This is probably to avoid being blocked by the 3-revert rule. Can anything be done? Eixo 12:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandal

message: -    
- What about having a section regarding the western media response. The response appears to be that the images shouldn't be reprinted just to be provocative. But also that the muslims should learn to take satire and not be so easily offended as it happens all the time in Western Media. The Times (of london) and The Sun (of London) both said this in their editiorials on Friday User:slamdac 13:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western Newspaper Editiorials 

message: LOL! I've seen this before on wikipedia. I've seen a poll carried out five times on an article. Basically, I think this poll would be repeated again and again until those favoring the image get tired/fed up, or refuse to participate. It's high time to have a policy on wikipedia to discourage this. deeptrivia (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The continuous repolling is most probably due to the lack of consensus about what should be done. Voting, even supermajority voting != consensus. -- The Anome 14:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a consensus according to the standards set by wikipedia. Consensus is defined as 70 to 80% or more. The score is currently 187/25/15 (or, in percentages, 82.4/11/6.6). This equals a consensus. Even if there had been no consensus, "no consensus" defaults in keep. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 14:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New poll

message: The picture at the top is too small and unclear, and as such it is actively encouraging misinterpretations, which is counter-productive.
The only reason that it is quite clear to me is that I have seen it in full size and read the article.
If anyone looks at this picture, and does not know what the issue was about, that picture would not explain anything.
The single picture of the cartoonist drawing in fear does sum it up.
Please see my arguments above in "One particular picture sums up the event, and should perhaps head the page?"
Wikipedia is here to make better articles, not to show pictures that are promote misunderstandings by being too small to see.
The proper place of that minituarized picture is under the heading that describes the pictures.
Also, the text description of the pictures should contain the editors own interpretation.
The present picture should definitely stay in the article, but in a place which helps understanding the issue better.
Had Fleming said that he interpreted the pictures as insults to islaam, then muslims would be correct, and I would not have bothered to write this.
Had Fleming said that he interpreted the pictures as insults to islaam, then this would have been a totally different event, but he did not.
If there is at least one person sympathetic to these thoughts, then please make a poll where we can vote to have the informational cartoon at the top, the mini-picture of the full artice near the text, and the texts together with the editors interpretation, as far as possible
DanielDemaret 14:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Point 2: Let us make the article clearer

message: I added this to "see also" and it was removed. Do you not think there is a reasonable similartity? --Grocer 15:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: not really, since this issue is about freedom of speech vs. respecting religions. (Cloud02 15:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blackface

message: If you have the chance to see "Hardtalk" in BBCWORLD, where Fleming and the Imam that seems to have started the fire, I urge you to do so. It was quite good DanielDemaret 15:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBCWORLD

message: As there are so many calls for public statements or even sorrow by whole nations, maybe other events and an act of fate (or God, Allah, Jehova or whatever name people prefer) could be a chance even caused by misery!?
Talk:Al-Salam_Boccaccio_98#Red_Sea has initial discussion on this. 
--Richard 02:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unite vs. Divide 

message: Looks like the muslims over there have the same handwriting :D? This is so faked...
Which of the discussions before should this refer to???
who care is fake or not?! Its what they believe in, you fake person.142.161.115.85 21:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  hmm.. 

message: He has put his views on the images on his talkpage.  I suggest that everybody go read it. User:slamdac 15:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, those are his personal views as an editor, not his decrees as Our Beloved Leader. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 08:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimbo Wales 

message: > BREAKING NEWS Danish Embassy in Syrian capital of Damascus set on fire during protests over cartoons of Prophet Mohammed, Syrian officials say. 
WikieZach 15:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is so sick, seriously what is wrong with people in this world :( Snailwalker | talk 15:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Religion. Weregerbil 16:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: any source for that, I haven't heard anything yet? AlEX 15:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: cnn.com front page, also on BBC TV. Weregerbil 16:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Take a look at  and  Cacophobia (Talk) 16:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: wow. all this for 12 drawing. Anyway, can we used this  image? I don't really know anything about copyrights. AlEX 16:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an Associated Press image. I guess fair use might be in order in this case. Thoughts anyone? --Valentinian 16:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have uploaded the image, and will be adding it. Any objection, feel free to remove/change it.AlEX 17:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Chaos, the Danish member of parlaiment Naser Khadaer, who is also from Syria, has just said excactly the same on Danish tv...--Snailwalker | talk 16:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CNN news: Embassy On Fire! 

message: What about splitting the Article?
One called Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy and one called Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons
The first one would describe the aftermath of the publishing (could have a burning flag image inline in the top), and the second would have the background for publishing (AND include the controversial image as an inline)
This would be considered a bold edit. Cacophobia (Talk) 16:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: this would be very desirable & acceptable. Rajab 16:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think they should stay together. The cartoons caused the row, so there's no need to report about them separately. -- Trollkontroll 16:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to revert while we discuss this first. While I appreciate your boldness, this is a major change, given the size and publicity of the article and the fact that it is linked from the main page. As such, let's discuss this first. Personally, I'm against it; what would the article on the cartoons discuss? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was putting it up for debate also, not planning to actual do it before we discussed it. I would imagine the "cartoon" article containing the following sections
 "The picture"
 1 Timeline
 2 Background
 2.1 Debate about self-censorship
 2.2 Publication of the drawings
 2.3 Police investigation on Jyllands-Posten
 2.4 Jyllands-Posten response
 Maybe additional content
Cacophobia (Talk) 16:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  The controversy article is way too long, im only proposing a spilt. The "image" could be included, but another primary image might be found? Cacophobia (Talk) 16:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the article is too long. I think that's mainly caused by Recentism. Not everything that is described in the article in a very detailed way is in fact so important for an encyclopedic article. -- Trollkontroll 16:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: That is not a bad idea actually. But if we do split it up, won't that just move the whole revert-war tho the other page? AlEX 16:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting the article 

message: I've changed the description of Jyllandsposten's political bent. They do not represent konservative values as such. The.valiant.paladin 17:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Center-right, not konservative

message: This article (and the talk page too!) are too long. I'm going to create a new article: International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Accordingly, the International_consequences section needs to be trimmed down considerably. Please help. AucamanTalk 18:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that this is the BEST option, but let's see what others think. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This is "recentism", to quote another guy. A single controversy only needs one article. Yes, this is long-- we can trim it down in a month or two. Ashibaka tock 18:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, there's already another article. It is a clear Wikipedia policy that when pages get long they need to be spread over several articles. Stop whining and help. AucamanTalk 18:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not whining, just saying that it'll need to be merged back in after a while. Ashibaka tock 18:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't understand why. Can you refer me to the Wikipedia policy requiring that, "A single controversy only needs one article"? AucamanTalk 19:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the point is that the article will shrink substantially as time goes by, since the current size of the article is as a result of Recentism. Once the article is smaller, it will make more sense to merge the component pieces back together. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, fair enough. AucamanTalk 02:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Someone needs to summarize the main article and put the summary under the section. AucamanTalk 18:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not opposed to the splitting per se, but if someone could please add back at least SOME of the images from the subpages, that would be nice. I think a shot of a burning embassy belongs on this main page. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well maybe "Opinions" should also be put in a different article as well, not the other way around. AucamanTalk 02:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: The section on disinformation used to describe how this controversy escalated because of disinformation regarding the cartoons. Now it starts looking more and more like a pile of junk with all kinds of mudslinging at the top.
1) What is wrong with chronological order?
2) What is wrong with keeping on topic?
MX44 19:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing is wrong with chronological order, it was YOUR removal of some sections that caused the problem when I had to reinstate the sections. Feel free to reorder them, but don't just remove them without discussing it. These are SOURCED pieces of information. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK! Now what is wrong with keeping on topic? Having offtopic articles at the top makes no sense to me. (sorry, forgot to sign ...) MX44 19:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, clearly the people who ADDED them didn't think they were off topic. I am confused as to why you think the two sections you removed are off topic. The one about the accusations of JP refusing to publish Jesus cartoons is rather obviously on topic in my opinion, and so is a report of a bounty issued for the deaths of the cartoonists. The fact that they are both probably INACCURATE is noted in the sections. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How JP decides to write or not to write about Jesus would have been on topic in an article about JP in general. MX44 19:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was being used to illustrate that JP was hypocritcal in it's treatment of Muhammad vs. Jesus. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Read this portion of the talk page to see how people are deeming it relevant.--Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on disinformation hijacked? 

message: Is this event really still the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy? With so many other papers having now published them, perhaps it's just 2006 Muhammad cartoons controversy?
: No. The cartoons were originally published in 2005. bogdan 19:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The source of the cartoons is JP. I'm not sure the name change is an improvement (ignoring the year issue). --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name change

message: Anon IP added that the editor of al-Shihan was fired and arrested after they published 3 of the cartoons. Can anyone confirm? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Danish, BBC Cacophobia (Talk) 20:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Brussels Journal, JP AlEX 20:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source needed 

message: Can someone upload an audio pronunciation for "Ahmad Abu Laban"?
128.54.45.85 20:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, alternatively, give it in text in IPA format. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yo Arabic speakers 

message: This article is too controversial and unstable to be considered as a good article. Maybe after the controversy dies down it might be. joturner 20:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed Good Article 

message: NOTE: ONLY WORKS FOR LOGGED IN USERS
I have added a span id around the image so if you want to be able to read the article without seeing the image you can go to your User:USERNAME/monobook.css (where USERNAME is your username), change monobook.css to whatever your skin name is if you aren't using monobook, and add the line #mi { display:none; } and save, then flush your browser's cache and the image will no longer be displayed for you whenever you are logged in. JtkieferT | C | @  ---- 21:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! I'm sure that this will be a helpful tool for those who don't wish to view it but still wish to contribute to this article. By the way, could someone move the image back to the top? The image was shifted down a paragraph by Rajab without an edit summary, but the straw poll demonstrates that most people think that it should be at the top. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  fine - I moved it back up. Hopefully it will now be easier to find for those who wish to delete it Rajab 21:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  someone moved it back down - it wasn't me Rajab 22:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  image span Id 

message: I see that the see also that were in the lead were removed. I find them very relevant as they're also the core of the events.
Eg. many events are in the Timeline and so on. I favor for they're readded to the lead, so people can clearly (and easily) see that there's alot more to this article. (Cloud02 22:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They were both moved to the "See also" section, where they should be. It's bad style to add "See also" anywhere in the article besides the section at the bottom; if the articles aren't main articles or aren't integrated into the article, they should only be in the see also section. (In fact, the timeline already has a section for itself, although it shouldn't be blank.) Of course, feel free to integrate them into the lead somehow - actually, I'll try and do that myself. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a link to the international response in the lead, and removed both; they're both in the see also section and both are linked prominently near the top as well (the timeline has its own section.) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: good job :) (Cloud02 22:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also 

message: I found out a lot of people in here was trying to express their own opinion but was also battle back by a lot of useless thing, also, there this is a page about trying to make this article collect both side's view equally, but not stuck with one voice (not saying it is not equal enough now, but we can make it better).  If anyone agree this idea, put help making a special page, with these rule: <BR><BR>
:1. This is a personal opinion page, we are not trying to put one's values on others.  That means, if you read somthing that you truly disagree (or even hate it with your guts), ignore it and put it what you truly believe in. <BR>
:2. No bashing other's religion or prejudice or racist.  If you have these it, swallow it, or put in in the garbage.  And yes, you have a freedom to express yourself, but there is a distance between "say whatever you want" and "talking ****".  Have some respect for others. <BR>
:3. No images. If you found a image, put it on this article, not in the talk page.
:4. Last but not least, put yourself in the other's position.  Try to step into the other's belief.  Maybe in your whole life you are in the same value, but try to put it down for others.  <BR>
::And yes, i really don't hope see those opinion of the "Western/Eastern", "Religious/non-religious", values rolling up on there and use it as a abuse. Because you believe in this, doesn't mean others have to, we are inidividual, you can't pressure them. <BR><BR>
And because some people don't respect other's opinion, this controversy happen.
If anyone have any problem or better idea, please post it here MeowKun 22:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except, Wikipedia is not an Internet forum. There are a lot of great forums out there for expressing your views; but this is an encyclopedia talk page, and as Jimbo says, it should be devoted to the article. Ashibaka tock 22:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Political discussions risk dividing the community of editors and distracting it from the search for a neutral point of view. There is a Wikicity called "Wiki-Ed" dedicated to detailed discourse on any topic. They already have a page on the drawings . On Wikinews, we are experimenting with linking to relevant pages on Wiki-Ed from hot discussions. I see no reason why the same should not be tried on Wikipedia, except maybe reluctance to prominently link to a site with Google ads on it. Perhaps Wikicities could be persuaded to remove the ads on this particular wiki.--Eloquence* 22:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we start a Inidividual Talk page and Let people Express their opinion freely??? 

message: I see that most of contributions to this articles is a trial to cover the sequence of events , which we made us as Journalists waiting new news to put it , I think that the task of Wikinews , we have to focus on the Philosophy and the Cultural Backgrounds of this issue rather than trying to give covering of events --Chaos 23:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia should cover both the background and the actual events, unlike a news agency, which covers only the actual events. bogdan 23:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia isn't News agency 

message: How about taking all discussions that are not related to this article, but to islam, freedom of speech, blasphemy, etc, some other place, like Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Sandbox? Perhaps some admin could move all such discussions tehre. (Entheta 23:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A better name would probably be /Rants... Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 00:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I created a subpage for this purpose. I'm going to move any arguments on the underlying issues there, and I've placed a notice at the top of this page telling people to keep the arguments about the underlying issues on that page. <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 00:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, I've redirected the above linked /Sandbox to that page. Would be great if this page got short so it doesn't lag when you try to edit it and doesn't cause so many editing conflicts. (Entheta 00:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sandbox