Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 2

message: The issue itself can be debated here Danny 02:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you think the two options provided are a little biased? A simple "Keep the Picture" / "Remove the Picture" would have worked. joturner 02:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I would like people to discuss the issue itself, not in reference to Wikipedia. Danny 02:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Danny, the cartoons aren't a "racist insult" since race has nothing to do with anything over here..a better poll would be: "keep the pictures" vs "lets all do as islam says and bend over backwards and become mohammed's harem girls" Hellznrg 08:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Anyways, here, i've created the poll to end all polls!!! Vote NOW!!! Hellznrg 09:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Debate

message: In the References section (da) appears several times.  What does it mean?  Too Old 03:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It means the link is to an article written in Danish.  de would be German, etc. Phr 03:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: dansk. BlueShirts 03:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does '''(da)''' mean? 

message: Bahai adherents object to an image of Bahaullah appearing on the page, so it was agreed to put the image at the bottom of the page, "below the fold", so that people who don't want to see the image can avoid scrolling all the way to the bottom.  Why can't we do that here?  User:Zoe|(talk) 03:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  Information should be free, not subject to the whims of censorship, "repsect" multiculturalism, and religious fervor.Kittynboi 06:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this article should not follow that becaise it's a bad decision.  Information should be free.Kittynboi 07:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how scrolling down a page to see the image makes the information nonfree.  71.141.251.153 10:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because its still an attempt to hide it, just a really pathetic one.  ITs hiding relevant info for delicate sensibilities, which is something that has no place anywhere. Kittynboi 10:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I like that. Phr 03:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would that not be more analogous to putting a drawing of Muhammad below the fold in the Muhammad article? This doesn't really seem comparable. The cartoons are much more central to this topic, methinks. Babajobu 04:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I dunno.  I went ahead and moved the image, let's see what happens.  I was perfectly happy with removing the image and letting people click a link. Phr 04:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We should wait to see if consensus develops before implementing the switch. Babajobu 04:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why wait?  WP:BRD.  I'd say make the change and see if anyone has big problems with it.  There is obviously no consensus to leave the image at the top of the page, since it keeps getting removed.  Putting it at the bottom can't be any worse. Phr 04:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  For one, I don't like it there. This article is about the images in a way that the article about Muhammad or Bahaullah are not about images of those people. I think, as jotourner says, the fact that the article is titled "cartoons" is enough of a warning as anyone should need. What else could they be expecting? Babajobu 04:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know what they're expecting, but I do know they keep removing the image and the revert war is getting ridiculous.  It's time to look for another solution.  Most people wanting to keep the image want it on the (reasonable) grounds that people should be able to see it if they want to.  I don't see how moving it to the bottom fails to satisfy: scrolling down is no big deal.  Phr 04:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think It's a good idea to move it to the bottom or have it accessable by a prominent link. That way it's easily accessable, but easily avoidable. Having it at the very top would be akin to if I wanted to read an article about, say, a new child pornography law, and found myself face-to-face with an example of what the law was trying to stop. While I am not muslim, blasphemey in any religion is a serious offense, and there is certainly no point in offending a large fraction of the world population for the sake of convenience. (Ghostofgauss 04:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, seems like there's a lot of support for this. Leave it and see how it does. All I asked was to wait and see if support emerged. Babajobu 04:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the point of moving it down; it is still there, so we still break the muslim ban on depicting Muhammad. There is as far as I know no ban prohibiting muslims from seeing depictions of Muhammad. If someone wants not to see the drawings for fear of being emotionally disturbed by them, that person should stay away from this article. If someone visits the article in order to know more about its subject matter, the actual drawings are essential (although the description giving of each of the 12 drwaings is even more useful).--Niels Ø 10:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Niels is right on the money. The pictures should stay, at the top, where they belong. If people vandalise the article, they should be reverted, and if they keep vandalising it, blocked. If they have a good reason for them not to be on their page (and much as I respect Islam, religion isn't a valid editorial reason), they can take it here, to the talk page. That is how Wikipedia works. Consensus means not caving in to vocal and disruptive minorities. Otherwise we've got a lot of work to do on pages like 'vulva', 'penis', 'nudity' etc (didn't wikilink those because I don't want to encourage this nonsense to spread). --Malthusian (talk) 10:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd go with Ghostofgauss on this matter, at the very least could the thumbnail be smaller (100 pixels for example) so that people will find it and those who want may see the whole image by clicking on it. Current affairs are clearly not working as there is an edit and revert every five minutes and make constructive editing more difficult as the article keep changing. Scoo 15:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why can't we follow the Bahaullah example?

message: The IP who is attempting to censor the images has now reverted four times. Babajobu 07:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a safe bet that 82.194.62.22 is User:Qatarson who was blocked last night.  I will request an IP block if I can figure out how.  Phr 08:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would block him myself, but I don't use admin privileges on Islam-related articles. Hold on. Babajobu 08:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Look at User:Qatarson's recent edit history, obvious vandalism; if you can check that his IP is the same, then he's evading a block, calls for sanctions against the user independent of the article IMO.  Phr 08:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP has been blocked.Geni 08:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an open proxy though so don't be supirsed if the user comes back from another IP.Geni 08:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done but I suggest you should think of way how you stop people of contacting the authorities about violation the laws in florida.Qatarson 12:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What laws in Florida have been violated, specificially? BinaryTed 15:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This guy is a joke! obviously he doesn't have an inkling of how the governments of western countries operate Hellznrg 21:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please respect yourself and dont talk about me,I'm working on this case and soon you will hear new news.Qatarson 07:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, we await the news stating how Florida is going to reverse the first amendment right to speak out on unpopular subjects. Go read the Constitution unless you've already burned your "offensive" copy of it. Sol. v. Oranje 07:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Violation of 3RR in attempts to censor the image

message: Can anyone provide a link to the place where Die Welt has published some of the cartoons? (see timeline section)... I can't find them (of course I can't speak german), and that piece of news is not in any Danish media. I think it would be nice with a reference here. --Lassefolkersen 12:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks --Lassefolkersen 12:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: There's a slight lag when I try to access it, but I can.  Its probably just slowing down from all the traffic.Kittynboi 10:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: There's a blogspot page that has them.  Lemme try to find it.  Blogspot has tremendous bandwidth. Phr 09:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would imagine it will cost them a ton of money to have their link here. Their bandwidth use will likely go straight through the atmosphere, heading for the Moon. <ouch!> Does Blogspot charge for excess bandwidth? If so, I hope they're prepared! If not, those objecting will get their wish - nobody'll get through. --Tygerbryght 09:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Blogspot charges anything.  If page hits go up, their advertising revenue goes up and pays for the bandwidth. Phr 09:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: Does anyone know if BBC World has retracted their misstatement? I went to the site and searched, but couldn't find anything. It seems to me that, in a situation so explosive, and with their penetration of Islamic regions, that they would recognize the responsibility they have to let listeners know - repeatedly, even - that they blew it. --Tygerbryght 09:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rumours and misinformation