Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 18

EGYPT PAPER ALREADY PUBLISHED CARTOONS IN OCTOBER

Hephaestion 03:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)This story gets more strange as now it has emerged and Egyptian paper, Al-Fager, printed the cartoons on October 17th during Ramadan with no adverse outbreak of violence. http://freedomforegyptians.blogspot.com/2006/02/egyptian-newspaper-pictures-that.html

If this blog is not a fake, then this is astounding. This would suddenly make the the danish Imam who made a tour showing the fake pictures the MAIN reason for the strong reaction. http://www.neandernews.com/?p=54 .DanielDemaret 23:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

As claimed by Akkiri ,they were not faked but sent to him by an anonymous source. (The picture shown on Wikipedia is without the message, why?) You would have to show that any Egyptians he showed it to thought them to be from the newspaper Jyllands-Posten. As I recall it was originally the BBC which made the confusion. 86.52.36.140 13:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, see if we can get that verified. — TheKMan^talk 23:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

And it would also mean that the reason they are reacting so strongly is that this time around, months later, when public has not been shown the pictures in jyllandsposten, they suddenly react violently - indicating that the only way to stop the violence is to let them see the pictures for themselves. DanielDemaret 23:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

In any case, a lot of people are wondering who actually added the three most offensive images to the collection (the "pig man", the "pedophile Muhammad" and the "dog rapes Muslim" pictures, pages 34-36 in the dossier.) These images were not published in neither Jyllands-Posten, nor Weekend Avisen. Ekstra Bladet reached this conclusion on 12 January [1] (quote) "But when a group of Danish imams recently toured the Middle East to win support for their critique of the Muhammad illustrations and Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the cartoons were apparently not provocative enough to serve this purpose." (unquote) --Valentinian 23:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, as probably has been noted before, the dog and the pig are impure animals in Islam, as well. 惑乱 分からん 00:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't buy it. (Btw. although it's pronounced (in egyption arabic) al-fagr, it's spelled al-fajr). As far as I can tell, the rumour originated here: http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/ I think this a blog with an agenda. The photos of the paper with the cartoons in them (http://freedomforegyptians.blogspot.com/2006/02/egyptian-newspaper-pictures-that.html) look fishy. They may well be photoshopped. I take this down from our page (where is is WITHOUT SOURCE). If the story solidifies, there is ample opportunity to put it back up. Azate 03:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hephaestion 03:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Thanks Azate, Your action seems reasonable and if indeed that site is the source, it would be questionable, but I would like to see it left as a discussion item here, until there is firm evidence one way or the other as it could have a significant bearing if it were true. I was the one who started this thread but forgot to sign.

Wow! I retract. This is for real. Compare these two scans of the same page from two different sources [2] [3]. Look ot the black frame around the pic with the two women. In one, the green overflows the black frame, in the other they match nicely. This occasional overflowing is a typical artefact of a lousy printing press. I think this is enough to convince me to but it up again. Azate 03:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Man what a total Farce this whole freaking 'controversy' has been... I'm really starting to think that it was those 3 'additional images' that really got all of this crap rolling. As other websites are starting to wonder I too say, "when does the boycott of Egypt start?" So sad that so many people have been manipulated and that people have died because of this seemingly manufactured 'controversy'.

Netscott 04:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Could anyone who knows arabic ask nicely and politely about whether they can find anything that either substantiates or refutes this link? Just go to arabic link to the left of our english article in the box "other language" and ask politely?. DanielDemaret 07:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. After much bungling. --Kizor 10:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

If this blog and the french pig contest picture are correct, then people have died and houses burned because one Imam travelled around the arab world with misinformation. If true, then that Imam could be facing charges for causing these peoples death, could'nt he? DanielDemaret 08:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

There is information here: http://freedomforegyptians.blogspot.com/2006/02/cartoons-were-published-five-months.html

Specifically: Name: Al Fager الفجر Editor-in-Chief: Adel Hamouda عادل حمودة Edition/issuance no. #: 21 Date: 17 October 2005, Hijri (Islamic Calendar) 14 Ramadan 1425 Reporters: Youssra Zahran and Ahmed Abdel Maksoud يسرا زهران وأحمد عبد المقصود Pages: Front & 17 for details and images The headline in Arabic said : الوقاحة المستمرة. السخرية من الرسول وزوجاته بالكاريكاتير Translation: Continued Boldness. Mocking the Prophet and his wife by Caricature.

Does this help anyone to verify/refute the story? DanielDemaret 09:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[worldnetdaily.com] now runs this story on their front page as 'breaking news'. They are not exactly my favourite news source, but they've been around forever and are quite big. I hope somebody there did his homework and called somebody in Cairo to check out the facts. Azate 10:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I emailed the person who scanned the pages an hour ago, inviting him present more info here. I think he lives in egypt. DanielDemaret 10:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with all this. We're not a news agency. When sombody who can be trusted runs the story, it can be here. ALL the sites that carry this stuff so far (that I've seen) push an agenda. My gut feeling is that it's sound, but we should err on the side of caution and not help spreading rumours. Azate 10:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I got a prompt answer from the scanner: "....Here is the website of the newspaper http://elfagr.org/, and the cover of the issue that I have scanned http://elfagr.org/ed_21.html. I would say average size ciruclation, because this is a new Newspaper. I don't know accurate figures, because they never mention that in Egypt. Out of fear of getting evil-eyes I guess.

What exactly do you want me to write?"

So that is his question to us: How can he prove that such a paper exists and is reliable? DanielDemaret 11:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure how I could prove to you guys that the largest daily magazine in Sweden exists and is reliable, although I think it may have 1 million in circulation. What is needed?DanielDemaret 11:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that [[4]] is a reliable source, so I reverted. --Adornix 11:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hephaestion 11:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Someone keeps removing the Egypt reference on the main page on the section of Other Newspapers that have reprinted the Story

I'm not shure if it was me who mixed up the article unintentionally :-( Could someone please write in the Elfagr-Reference? Thanks! --Adornix 11:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

If we have consensus that it should be added, then that link should be added to

1. the timeline
2. the list of papers that has published it and
3. The introduction of the article, since it clearly changes everything

DanielDemaret 11:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

vote++ and asking again if the following quote (which supports the Cairo perspective) from nyt.com could be useful. "It was no big deal until the Islamic conference when the O.I.C. took a stance against it," said Muhammad el-Sayed Said, deputy director of the Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo. MX44 12:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I second the proposals from DanielDemaret and MX44. (And I want to thakn user:Rasmus_Faber for correcting my mistake. --Adornix 12:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome :) Also, just to placate the very paranoid among us, I checked whois, and elfagr.org and elfagr.net was created on 2005-05-24, so it seems unlikely to be a hoax site. This will probably get more press shortly, and we might want to replace/supplement the FreedomForEgyptians reference with a more mainstream one. Rasmus (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree to all above, I added it to both charts on the List of Papers (where I have tried to shepherd things along for a few days), when the story first broke this morning, and it is still there, so that's fine. The above quote seems reasonable as well. It all keeps changing so quickly it is hard to know what the final analysis will bringHephaestion 12:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I support inclusion into 1) timeline 2) list of papers 3) section about papers republishing. I oppose inclusion into the introduction. What if this story is true, but thae Al-fagr paper has a circulation of, say, 1000 only ? How significant is it then ? Azate 12:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

On the list of papers talk page I posted a question regarding including circulation information (well known) for those papers publshing the cartoons. It would help to establish context as to a paper being mainstream or fringe. It would also help to show frequency of publication such as "500,000/daily" or "1,500/monthly". --StuffOfInterest 12:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I finally have a circulation number here, and it would a very large paper indeed by swedish standars, but I am not going to bother publish it since they have censored the web page of that paper now, thereby elimitating the relevancy of any reference. I feel that they have by this, also eliminated the relevancy of any reference from that part of the world, but I only say that last part since I am at the moment miffed about the censorship that I have just witnessed before my eyes. I am not allowed to publish what my eyes have seen anyway. Lucky for me this particular page is merely a discussion. DanielDemaret 14:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe it. The http://elfagr.org/ed_21.html image has been taken down with no explanation I can see. The pages from the issue before and the issue after work just fine, but the one with the cartoons printed is missing. That was FAST. Richard 129.244.23.13 13:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Really Fast. I am glad I took a copy of it before it went down. But since we are not allowed "original research", only references to mainstream sources, and those mainstream sources remove all the evidence they can, then those rules the wikipedia use will need some serious ... amendments? DanielDemaret 14:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Taking an image out of your browser cache surely doesn't qualify as research, huh? Azate 15:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hehe. You are right of course. Not in the world outside wikipedia, it doesnt :) But I didnt say research. I used the phrase "original research", a special wiki-term, which has little to do with any real life research that I have done or seen any of my collegues do :)DanielDemaret 15:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems someone else copied that page before it was censored. http://derstandard.at/?url=/?id=2336429

The question is: Can anyone vouch for this paper as a resource?DanielDemaret 15:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Ooops. apparently they are discussing the blog, not the original paper.<sulks>DanielDemaret 15:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Nescott for adding the image to the article! US fair use is Good. DanielDemaret 16:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Story confirmed by danish ambassador Bjarne Sørensen, Egypt MX44 16:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Are there any references to this story from larger news organisations? Ryanuk 20:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't know how much this matters now that the ambassador has spoken out, but Jyllands-Posten just put up an article trumpeting the news and giving the Egyptian blogger sandmonkey credit for originally breaking the story. Richard 129.244.128.134 20:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Denmark's TV2 confirms that the Egyptian paper published these cartoons back in October. The station cites Ambassador Bjarne Sørensen as its source. TV2 is one of the two major tv stations in Denmark. [5] --Valentinian 20:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The item can be read here. It was picked up by the Danish news agency Ritzau:

• http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48746
• http://www.aina.org/news/2006029110300.htm
• http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=3401
• http://www.newhumanist.org.uk/more.php?id=1919_0_1_0_C
• http://www.andnetwork.com/app?service=direct/0/Home/$StorySummary$0.$DirectLink$1&sp=l17176
• http://www.israpundit.com/archives/2006/02/extra_e3xtra_re.php

and perhaps at other places. I located them through news.google.com gidonb 20:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism, diferent user

1. (cur) (last) 14:38, February 8, 2006 Islam Yusuf
2. (cur) (last) 14:35, February 8, 2006 MR SCOTSMAN 1000
3. (cur) (last) 14:31, February 8, 2006 Zinkao
4. (cur) (last) 14:28, February 8, 2006 Plough of the rake
5. (cur) (last) 14:16, February 8, 2006 D A B RADIO DUDE
6. (cur) (last) 14:13, February 8, 2006 Golbanes
7. (cur) (last) 18:59, 8 February 2006 Asolor
8. (cur) (last) 19:08, 8 February 2006 Helluroy
9. (cur) (last) 13:19, 8 February 2006 Cumbria Borders Runner

All have done the exact same type of (ie redirect to Wayne Rooney) vandalism. It is very likely they all have this IP, anyone agree with me here? We could consider banning this IP.

My mistake!!! I read the backlog wrong, 141.157.169.200 did not commit any vandalism! A sharp eyed admin caught my mistake and unblocked the user fairly quickly. Still, someone needs to check user on this list of people, I know these are right.Hitokirishinji 10:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Putting IPs into google sometimes brings up interesting results. [6] - FrancisTyers 02:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Was this done by CheckUser? I can't recall finding it on the page. Then it again, it has a massive backlog. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 02:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I did it just by checking what sort of changes were made. I hardly found it a coincidence that these all did the exact same type of vandalism to the page. I'm no admin so I have no special powers :) Hitokirishinji 10:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This must be sockpuppetry as it is using the same IP. Anyway, can normal users like myself use the checkuser function? --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 08:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Only Arb Commers have CheckUser. There is a page you can request to have it performed. NSLE _(T+C) 08:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Are these the most controversal/infamous cartoons in the history of mankind?

Because if they are it really should be stated in this article.--Greasysteve13 02:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think when Urrgg painted the image of an Ibex on the wall of his cave it caused outrage throughout the tribe. Depicting Ibex was forbidden you see, under the religious tenets of the Wuhgggg, the holy doctrine of the Gurggghh people. The tribe tried to torch Urrgg's cave, but fire hadn't been discovered, and caves don't burn, so in the end it all fizzled out. For a while though, it was pretty hairy back there. Graham 03:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I always thought that the [ox images] from Urrgg's tribe had a 'smoky' tint to them. LOL Netscott 03:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

We aren't really the ones to make that decision. — TheKMan^talk 03:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Who is?--Greasysteve13 03:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No one. This is personal opinion completely. joturner 03:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

What if I used the word noteworthy?.--Greasysteve13 04:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Saying they are the most noteworthy cartoons in history of mankind is sure to offend some Marvel fan boys. Also, this is still expressing a POV. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

What if I used the words widely known?--Greasysteve13 11:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Are they more widely known than, say, Garfield? Maybe. Maybe not. I don't know, and I suspect you don't, either... --Ashenai 14:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem isn't with the adjective—"controversial", "infamous", "noteworthy", "widely known" or anything else, it's with the adverb "most", because any adjective of that kind is unquantifiable in any kind of objective way. Vilcxjo 16:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia artciles use the word "controversal" all the time. I didn't think "most controversal" was any different.--Greasysteve13 03:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hack war

The article should mention the fact that there has been a global hacking war going on to deface websites. [7] Jacoplane 03:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• What do you expect from people like that? Free speech? they wouldn't reckognize it if it hit them in the face, as far as they're concerned, there's the islamic world and then they're all us infadels running around, making political cartoons of their leaders, when they deface and attack innocent people, do they ever stop to think that all non-muslims aren't all the same? that the people they're attacking have done nothing to them?--Hograin's heros 03:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I know what you mean, right now they're trying to use their "TFD" meeting page to have the image completly censored off of the encylopediaHiggercabin 04:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Not really, it's just that the image is Fair use, and there is a policy that such images cannot be included in templates. The image will remain in the article itself, just not in the template. Jacoplane 05:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

it's mentioned in the timeline (Cloud02 15:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC))

BBC copying wikipedia....?

The 8th BBC posted a page explaining the cartoons: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4693292.stm .

On this page they have the very same poetic translation: "Prophet, you crazy bloke! Keeping women under yoke."

In addition to this, one on Wikipedia described as:

Two angry Muslims charge forward with sabres and bombs, while Muhammad addresses them with: "Rolig, venner, når alt kommer til alt er det jo bare en tegning lavet af en vantro sønderjyde" (loosely, "Relax guys, it's just a drawing made by some infidel South Jutlander". South Jutland as reference would, for a Dane, connote the feeling of something like the middle of nowhere).

In BBC's version: "Relax guys, it's just a drawing made by some infidel South Jutlander (ie from the middle of nowhere)," the figure says.

As a Dane, I think the explanation of Southern Jutland as being in the middle of nowhere is far from obvious. It is definitely not an standard expression.

This explanation has moved back and forrt a few times. BBC used to quote wike exact, but have shortened it by now MX44 05:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is a bit of insider information: the cartoonist in question is actually from South Jutland. There is to the best of my knowledge no adage about South Jutlanders signifying being from the middle of nowhere. Voldmer

You're right, he's from Skærbæk. Now it makes sense. I'd never heard that expression before, and no hits when I tried looking for it. I'm updating this information. --Valentinian 21:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I started out school in southern Jutland. Our cousins allways wanted to "go back to Denmark" when they really meant Copenhagen :D ... MX44 03:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

A great compliment for wikipedia to be copied by a respectable media such as BBC.... Kjaergaard 05:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

What a pity BBC 1 decided it was acceptable to vandalise us. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed =) — TheKMan^talk 05:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

What vandalism? Tell me more MX44 06:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Try here — TheKMan^talk 07:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

As a good pedant, I feel the need to point out that it was BBC Radio 1, not BBC1 (television). Personally I'd not give a fig for the abilities or judgement of a Radio 1 DJ. Vashti 12:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

New news. Taliban offering death penalty for the cartoonist!!!!

05:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)~

About 1 hour ago BBC World had a headline running across the lower screen that stated Wikipedia reports that... or something similar. Is that not a problem? If BBC quotes us that must mean we are doing Original Research which is forbidden. Sad I was not fast enough to read what the headline stated. Did anybody? A human 07:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not a problem that we do original research. It is problem only if we publish our original research in our articles. Here in the discussion are it is safe. And if we manage to find references, then we can publish that. We should just probably not publish the a blog link in the article itself until we have some kind of consensus that we are all pretty sure it is fact.DanielDemaret 07:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

What was the subject? Did they *mean* Wikipedia, or something else like Wikinews? Vashti 07:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I was zapping and missed it. I think it was wikipedia. A human 07:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Congress made Wikipedia changes!!!!!!! [8]

And Wikinews investigates Wikipedia usage by U.S. Senate staff members

Apparently the individual who added this last bit of text failed to mention that this is what was being discussed on BBC.... how about some follow-through here next time? duh! Netscott 14:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Subarticle of this page has been nominated for deletion

The page about the Dossier of Danish Muslim clerics touring the Middle East has been nominated for deletion. You can opine on the issue here: [9]. Azate 05:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Question

Our article intro states that it is the publishing in more than 30 countries that has lead to the unrest, or at least that is how I read it. But the protests are still mainly against Denmark, so is this not a conclusion that is drawn just a tad further than we can substantiate? DanielDemaret 07:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Comparable Incidents

Should mention the 1992 Ayodhya incident (Babri Masjid).

The image - question

I'm definitely too lazy to go back and look through the archives, so I'm asking, has it been discussed if the image should be shown as a link (like at Autofellatio - NOT WORK SAFE!)? Example on the right. {{linkimage|Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings.jpg|The Face of Muhammed - The controversial cartoons of Muhammad, first published in Jyllands-Posten in September 2005.}} NSLE _(T+C) 08:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it has. Discussed, rehashed, masticated and regurgitated.DanielDemaret 08:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. I'd have thought this would've been a good compromise, so it slightly surprises me that a possible link as such on the right has been discussed and turned down. NSLE _(T+C) 08:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it would help. Apparently, the Muslims are angry at people who host the image at all, they are not so much afraid to be exposed to it (otherwise they could just not buy Jyllands-Posten and be done). So it won't matter to them if the image is linked or inline just as long as it is on Wikimedia's servers. dab (ᛏ) 08:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

If you take the time to read on in the discussion a bit up, under the heading,

EGYPT PAPER ALREADY PUBLISHED CARTOONS IN OCTOBER, you can see that there might be a dramaticly new turn of events. If allegations in that section turn out to be correct then these pictures was not what started the violence.DanielDemaret 09:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

If evidence of this can be uncovered, this would be an amazing scoop for Wikinews. Got a source? - Ta bu shi da yu 09:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Two independent weblogs have presented a set of scans. It changes the focus from the cartoons to the political mish-mash surrounding them. See previous discussion above MX44 09:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It surely explains why it took months for Muslims to get angry.-- Nomen Nescio 10:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Right, but what event was it that triggered the widespread protest? In the article from NYT I read "It was no big deal until the Islamic conference when the O.I.C. took a stance against it," said Muhammad el-Sayed Said, deputy director of the Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo.

Is this a useful quote? MX44 10:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems useful to me. Obsolutely. We now have a plethory of important probable causes, each of which would have been believed to be the truth if it were the only cause presented. The importance of the cartoons in Jyllandsposten seems to dimish by the hour. Whatever the end article, there is clearly a lot more to it than just those cartoons. DanielDemaret 11:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree to all above, I added it to both charts on the List of Papers (where I have tried to shepherd things along for a few days), when the story first broke this morning, and it is still there, so that's fine. The above quote seems reasonable as well. It all keeps changing so quickly it is hard to know what the final analysis will bringHephaestion 12:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Which brings us back to what I said earlier on this page. should the opinions part (in which this surely must be mentioned) not be included in the main article?-- Nomen Nescio 12:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleting comments from the talk page

Please don't do this. With the comment that was removed gone, the information it provided - that the BBC wasn't actually quoting us about the cartoon controversy - was also gone, leaving the discussion incomplete. Vashti 13:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Take the Cartoons off

I'm not Muslim, i'm catholic. But it seems to me that the muslims (where's frank?) have some justification for claiming that this site does not respect their religion. why? because

1) comparisons with showing anti-semitic or anti-christian paraphernalia are invalid, i think. the muslims are expressly forbidden - expressly - to have pictures of the prophet muhammed. i dont believe there is a christian equivalent to this, and if there was, it wouldn't matter, simply because its overwhelmingly ignored. and even if they are not forbidden to display muhammed images, as some have claimed, the fact that many people respect that, as a semi-religious duty, means that we simply have to respect that belief.

2) It could be just me, but it seems that we in the west look slightly down on muslim posters here, maybe subconsciously, maybe consciously. i think the problem is that we view muslims and islam as a group, as a unit, and not as one billion people with one billion opinions. therefore, we lump some half-witted imam called muhammed abu alim aziz bashir osama fahd muhammed muhammed muhammed bin muhammed muhammed and his dumbass fatwas with respectable muslims who know stuff and dont freak out over everything and anything, and if they write in, even if we dont say it out loud, we think, "oh, its just another muhammed abu alim... etc etc" and talk dumb to him (see kyaa the catlord's responses on this page).

a dumbass opinion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.21.154.110 (talk • contribs) . 2006-02-09 15:03:32 +0100

False, false, and false. If you were a real Catholic, you would've studied the history of Christianity well enough to know that similar rules existed for pictures of Jesus, etc. until the Renaissance. We'd prefer that you use your mouth as the prefered orifice for talking out of. Also, we'd like it if you signed your comments. --Tokachu 16:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sir/Madame, if you have a personal problem with me, please use my talk page. I'd be willing to have a reasonable discussion on your view on my responses. Thanks! Kyaa the Catlord 14:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello! This idea is old news...please read the several comments about this previously posted... this is now a non-issue! Netscott 14:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Make it stop, make it stop!!! Sorry, your opinion is your opinion and your vote only counts once. 200 people happen to diagree with you. Read the results of the polls. Hitokirishinji 14:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

But what are they forbidden by? Apparently not the Qu'ran, just some stuff from some Hadith or something made by people a couple hundered years into Islam's existance, or extremely stretchy interps of the Qu'ran. If we simply have to respect this, I must of missed the memo, because I sure haven't so far. Nextly, personally speaking, I don't like Islam. Other people in this discussion probably don't like free speech suppression. Either way, people seem extremely convicted in their beliefs on the matter, so whether we really are lumping people together or not, it's unlikely consensus will be changed soon. Homestarmy 14:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

1) It's a little more complicated than that. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is here to document, not to judge. The cartoons are central to the contraversy that is still unfolding, and it is the view of the vast majority of Wiki editors that the images contribute significantly to one's understanding of the event.

2)I think the reason you may be getting that impression is that this objection has been brought up on numerous occasions, in many cases multiple times each, by a relatively small group of users, and those frequently on this page are becoming a tad tired of refuting the same reasoning over and over again. This is especially true when you consider that the people objecting to the image would see their objections answered if they bothered to read just a part of the archived pages, or even this page alone. Richard 129.244.23.13 14:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

One major reason that we get these objections over and over again, is that the lead to this article states that the main problem with the pictures is aniconism. People read this, believe it because it says so in wikipedia, and therefore object. Early on, I believed it had to do with aniconism since I naively so nothing offensive in the pictures per se. In fact, I was a bit surprised at how inoffensive they were. But I no longer think that the anoconism theory is true. I can buy a picture of Muhammed in shops in Teheran. I have not seen a single self-proclaimed muslim claim that the problem has to do with aniconism. We in the west are clearly inventing reasons for the pictures being offensive. The insults I have read muslims write and say are that: 1. They identify all islam with terrorists and 2. By portraying an arab in a cartoon we are looking down on them. Nothing about aniconism there. What references do we have that aniconism is the reason? Western references. Did they check this with muslims or did they just look it up in a dictionary? DanielDemaret 14:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• The images should remain for sure. It is relevant information, and removing them would be text-book censorship. Elfguy 15:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

DanielDemaret, early on in this debate, numerous Muslim editors complained about the image on the grounds that it is haram to depict Muhammad in any way. The reasoning seems to have grown more multifarious, though, agreed. Aniconism can no longer be said to be the single reason why it is offensive. Babajobu 17:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hear hear! I (and several others) pointed out there is a image of Mohammud in the South Park article yet no one seem to set fires embassies over it or even complain to the South Park creators that I know of. It certainly is not aniconism.Hitokirishinji 17:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

To the original poster: a) Firstly, showing pictures of Muhammed on Wikipedia is acceptable in Islam. Persian Wikipedia does it on thier Muhammed article [10], so it should be especially acceptable in the English Wikipedia. Secondly and more Importantly wikipedia is an Encyclopaedia, if that bothers you: vist the uncyclopedia instead.--Greasysteve13 06:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Other cartoons about muhammad

So the popular internet cartoon Flem did their own version of the muhammad cartoons. Can we add that in to the article? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 14:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that's like adding logs to the fire, though... @@ 惑乱 分からん 14:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel that to be a relevant objection... but I'm against including that bit of trivia, simply because it's not really noteworthy. --Ashenai 14:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It is just a spinoff of this controversy. We can't add every single comment / drawing about this controversy. Just my 2 (euro)cents. --Valentinian 14:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I dont see that it is very relevant to include in the article now, but I urge you ALL to download a copy each before they censure it/vandalise like they censured el fagr. THEN it will suddenly become relevant, even if we then can not use it without a reference, at least you will know what happened.DanielDemaret 15:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• The images on the article are relevant because they are at the center of the controversy. I agree that this other image should not be put there, not because it would add fuel to the fire, but because they are not relevant enough. Elfguy 15:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

the article is about the cartoons and the events Jyllands-Postens cartoons brought. (Cloud02 15:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC))

Arab cartoons

I added a link to these [11] images which show the anti-semitic cartoons in Arab newspapers over the last few years which are just as bad if not worse than the ones from Denmark. I think it's very relevant and a heavy proof toward the opinion of hypocrisy that some western world sources have stated. Elfguy 15:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The zionists and jews aren't involved in this matter, except for some spurious rockets shot at them. MX44 15:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Except that many of the protesters who are calling for violence aren't only targetting Danish people anymore, but Israel and other western countries. Hence it's relevant. Elfguy 16:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I think some of them are not far from the truth if you bear in mind that Palestinians have to go through numerous checkpoints and submit to Israeli soldiers regularly.

About the argument: I definitely don't think those cartoons are worse or more offensive than the ones from Denmark. The cartoons mostly depict current political figures, making reference to political ideologies and arguments. The ones from Denmark are about a prophet who lived centuries ago. Whether one agrees on the Anti-Semitist cartoons or not is not the topic. But one could theoretically and logically discuss them and the messages within. The caricatures from Denmark, without even looking at the content or the message disseminated through them, are offensive for muslims because of the technical and quite strict religious limitation, that the prophet can not be depicted in any shape or form (Again if other people agree with this or not is another matter). So by default this is an offense for muslims. If this point is taken out, then the caricatures are comparable, and one could discuss the meaning and content. As it is, it is a prophet shown to be a tyrant, and an evil terrorist. This in my opinion is not acceptable under any pretext.

212.201.44.249 19:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC) Serkan

The Bahraini cartoon of the ugly, hook-nosed Jew is precisely equivalent to Nazi caricatures from Der Sturmer, and is almost certainly just as offensive to Jews as the Muhammad cartoons are to Muslims. The fact that Jews don't riot and burn down embassies over these things is not evidence that they don't find such images horrific; they probably just ignore them. And Wikipedia carries similar cartoons, incidentally, where they are relevant. Babajobu 20:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your judgement on that particular cartoon, but this was not my point. The equivalent to the Danish caricatures would be similar drawings of Moses, not Sharon or any other jewish person. Sharon is a political leader and ordinary jewish people are not comparable to Moses either. 212.201.44.249 21:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC) Serkan

The fact you think the link is needed proves my point in another discussion on this page. I already inserted it, but some wise editor thought it should be moved from the main article. It is here. Once again I would like to suggest reinserting the opinions part into the main article, because it is a fundamental part of the story.-- Nomen Nescio 22:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No, the issue is what these groups find intolerably offensive. Muslims find images of prophets offensive, while Jews and Christians do not find such images comparably offensive. Each group has its own bugaboos. Jews find Nazi-style caricatures most offensive, while Muslims find satirical drawings of Muhammad most offensive. The Bahrain daily published pics horribly offensive to Jews. The Danish daily published pics horribly offensive to Muslims. No difference at all, except in the way the respective groups responded. Babajobu 03:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. People from all religious groups take offense, you might want to read about the last temptation of Christ. Also, to claim the anti-semitic publications in the Middle East are less offensive to Jews is of course not substantiated by fact. What remains is the clear difference in response to perceived horrid pictures by different religious groups. To state that the group which makes the most noise is therefore entitled more respect is not only a form of discrimination (inequality in treatment for the same acts), it rewards inappropriate violent reactions we see today.

Beyond that, there are legitimate questions as to the sincerity of the outcry. That is explained in the opinions part, among which the odd timing, the fact that buildings are burned in countries where demonstrations are almost impossible, the fact Egypt published months ago without any response, et cetera.-- Nomen Nescio 11:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Open Letters from Jyllands-Posten

Why were the two open letters from Jyllands-Posten removed? They were apologies to the muslim world, and I think it is important to have such information on Wikipedia to help solve this conflict. I translated the first open letter, which was published in danish and arabic, from danish to english, and posted it here. The second letter which was published in english as well, was posted here as well. If no one has any complaints, or good arguments of why not to put them on here, I'm going to repost the two open letters. --Akuen 15:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• I agree and you should repost them or at least a link to them. Elfguy 16:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll repost them. I would only be able to link to the second one though, as the first one was not published in english. I did a thorough translation of it from danish to english, though. --Akuen 23:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The Childrens book that started it all

As I am sure you all know, the childrens book which started it all came out a few days ago. It is selling amazingly well, along with the export of danish flags. Since it contains many drawings of Mohammed, including a sweet one where he sits with his youngest little wife on his lap, and it has not resulted in any bad feelings from anyone, is this a significant enough fact for inclusion into the article? DanielDemaret 16:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you please tell us the name of the book..... ? Thanks Ryanuk 16:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

book link (broken?)

"Koranen og profeten Muhammeds liv". Translates to "The Qu'ran and the life of Mohammed the prophet". DanielDemaret 17:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It could be noted that Danish imams have totally objected to the content of the book and to the objectivity of the writer. However, they have commented on the book with restraint and wording relevant to this article [here].

"...we could not dream of questioning his right to freedom of speech and right to write what he wants, and we don't mind in the least children's books with drawings from the prophets life. However, we prefer to read a true story" and

"we hereby call upon every Muslim to avoid being provoked but silently thrug his shoulders over Bluitgen's book. And we appeal to non-Muslims not to believe that we see the prophet, as Bluitgen sees him."

Let us all discuss our differences in similar language. --Sir48 18:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Flemming Rose and ties to US progandists

Maybe there should be a mention of the ties between the cultural editor of JP, Flemming Rose, and leading US anti-muslim propagandists like Daniel Pipes? 80.202.25.17 17:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

If the specific ties are relevant and close and you have a good source, then why not? Are they married? DanielDemaret 17:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

File it under conspiracy theory. MX44 17:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a new meaning for Islamophobia, the irrational fear that someone is out to get Islam. Kyaa the Catlord 17:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Would'nt that be islamonoia? (re: paranoia) DanielDemaret 17:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess it would be. It would have to be capitalized though. Kyaa the Catlord 17:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggests Islamanoia... to better correspond to Paranoia. :) Netscott 18:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

These comments are only useful to those who'd like to point out your anti-Islam bias; you're giving them ammunition... Dmaftei 20:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Translations of the Imam's 43 page dossier are available

Unfortunately, they're in Danish. But better than nothing. Maybe there is sombody interested enough to translate them to English and put them into the Dossier of Danish imams touring the Middle East section? I'm sure in a day or so they will be available in other languages anyways, but if sombody really can't wait, all the better. The Danish translations are here: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] Azate 17:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this all? Looks like less than 43 pages.DanielDemaret 19:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

DR (the Danish equivalent to the BBC) has posted a list of 10 misunderstandings / -representations relevant to this issue (they seem quite well referenced). Some may be new to this article and worth including ( http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Temaer/Oevrige_temaer/2006/Tegninger/Artikler/201343.htm )- by the way, where has that section in the article gone ? Perhaps I've missed part of the discussion, has it been 'axed' ? 86.139.124.242 17:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Mila86.139.124.242 17:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Which section? Some of them were moved to seperate pages. Kyaa the Catlord 18:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I seem to recall that there was a section detailing some of the mistranslations and -representations (the quite frivoulous one about the queen is the only one that springs to mind! :-) Mila 81.132.174.178 18:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I remember that section too. And I can not find it anywhere now. This is disturbing. DanielDemaret 21:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Can't it simply be reinserted? Mila81.132.174.178 22:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Easily, if one can find it. Does anyone know where that section went to? One could look in the "history" tab. Perhaps you could look for it there, Mila?DanielDemaret 23:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. It seems to have been removed by Azate at 12:16 (see below). All the information is there to be reinserted; but I don't know to do it! Perhaps someone else could do the honor?

(cur) (last) 12:16, 9 February 2006 Azate (→Rumours and misinformation - deleted. this has been much shortened and put into the timeline (try to look for hot dog e.g.))

Mila81.132.174.178 23:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the deletion of this section without any discussion on the talk page is disturbing. I'm not convinced everything in the section deserved to be in the main article, and perhaps we could use a sub-article on the topic, but it shouldn't be deleted wholesale without some discussion. So I'll reinsert it. -- Avenue 09:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There is further discussion in the "Rumours and misinformation" section below. -- Avenue 09:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Context

"The barrier to better Arab performance is not a lack of resources, concludes the report, but the lamentable shortage of three essentials: freedom, knowledge and womanpower. Not having enough of these amounts to what the authors call the region's three “deficits”. It is these deficits, they argue, that hold the frustrated Arabs back from reaching their potential—and allow the rest of the world both to despise and to fear a deadly combination of wealth and backwardness." Economist quoting Arab Muslim scholars WAS 4.250 19:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Timeline

1. "At first, the agitation was limited to Denmark. Ahmed Akkari, 28, a Lebanese-born Dane, acts as spokesman for the European Committee for Honoring the Prophet, an umbrella group of 27 Danish Muslim organizations to press the Danish government into action over the cartoons. Mr. Akkari said the group had worked for more than two months in Denmark without eliciting any response. "We collected 17,000 signatures and delivered them to the office of the prime minister, we saw the minister of culture, we talked to the editor of the Jyllands-Posten, we took many steps within Denmark, but could get no action," Mr. Akkari said, referring to the newspaper that published the cartoons. He added that the prime minister's office had not even responded to the petition. Frustrated, he said, the group turned to the ambassadors of Muslim countries in Denmark and asked them to speak to the prime minister on their behalf. He refused them too. "Then the case moved to a new stage," Mr. Akkari recalled. "We decided then that to be heard, it must come from influential people in the Muslim world." The group put together a 43-page dossier, including the offending cartoons and three more shocking images that had been sent to Danish Muslims who had spoken out against the Jyllands-Posten cartoons. Mr. Akkari denied that the three other offending images had contributed to the violent reaction, saying the images, received in the mail by Muslims who had complained about the cartoons, were included to show the response that Muslims got when they spoke out in Denmark.In early December, the group's first delegation of Danish Muslims flew to Cairo, where they met with the grand mufti, Muhammad Sayid Tantawy, Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit and Amr Moussa, the head of the Arab League."After that, there was a certain response," Mr. Akkari said, adding that the Cairo government and the Arab League both summoned the Danish ambassador to Egypt for talks."
2. "It was no big deal until the Islamic conference when the O.I.C. took a stance against it, said Muhammad el-Sayed Said, deputy director of the Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo."
3. "As leaders of the world's 57 Muslim nations gathered for a summit meeting in Mecca in December, issues like religious extremism dominated the official agenda. But much of the talk in the hallways was of a wholly different issue: Danish cartoons satirizing the Prophet Muhammad. [...] After that meeting, anger at the Danish caricatures, especially at an official government level, became more public. In some countries, like Syria and Iran, that meant heavy press coverage in official news media and virtual government approval of demonstrations that ended with Danish embassies in flames."
4. "At the end of December, the pace picked up as talk of a boycott became more prominent. The Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, comprising more than 50 states, published on its Web site a statement condemning "the aggressive campaign waged against Islam and its Prophet" by Jyllands-Posten, and officials of the organization said member nations should impose a boycott on Denmark until an apology was offered for the drawings."
5. "On Jan. 26, in a key move, Saudi Arabia recalled its ambassador to Denmark, and Libya followed suit. Saudi clerics began sounding the call for a boycott, and within a day, most Danish products were pulled off supermarket shelves." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/international/middleeast/09cartoon.html New York Times article: At Mecca Meeting, Cartoon Outrage Crystallized] WAS 4.250 19:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Mulim government motivations

"The protests also allowed governments to outflank a growing challenge from Islamic opposition movements by defending Islam. [...] The Saudis did this because they have to score against Islamic fundamentalists [meaning other Islamic fundamentalists], said Mr. Said, the Cairo political scientist. Syria made an even worse miscalculation, he added, alluding to the sense that the protest had gotten out of hand. The issue of the cartoons came at a critical time in the Muslim world because of Muslim anger over the occupation of Iraq and a sense that Muslims were under siege. Strong showings by Islamists in elections in Egypt and the victory of Hamas in the Palestinian elections had given new momentum to Islamic movements in the region, and many economies, especially those in the Persian Gulf, realized their economic power as it pertained to Denmark." New York Times article: At Mecca Meeting, Cartoon Outrage Crystallized WAS 4.250 19:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Egyptian newspaper El Fagr confirms it has published the cartoons

Read http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2006/February/middleeast_February156.xml&section=middleeast second paragraph from the end gidonb 20:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, they lie about how the cartoons were published. Quote: "[the newspaper] published the upper half of some of the controversial cartoons, omitting any facial representations". I see plenty of faces here Rasmus (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope, here they are admitting they published them on tuesday, nothing more than that WookMuff 22:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Depictions of Mohammad with facial expressions. It was also not the upper half, just a choice of the drawings. Somewhat sloppy journalism by this Dubai-based newspaper. A little apologetic too, but the important part fact is that is in there. That is more than what you'd expect in Damascus. gidonb 22:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know the size of this newspaper? I mean, is it worldwide, or is just for some remote place? (Cloud02 23:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC))

I noticed this article says they published them tuesday. Yet there's this guy on a blog who claims they posted it october last year? [18] .....Can someone actually CONFIRM when it was posted ? (Cloud02 23:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC))

17 October, 2005. [19] Notice that they removed this one picture, just after it broke out. Everything has long been confirmed by the editor, dimplomats, newspapers, new agencies and television stations. gidonb 04:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Reprinting in other newspapers

Suggestion to correct some factual errors: You can hardly say that Belgium and France are "Denmark'southern neighbors". Look at the map. - As correctly stated in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_that_reprinted_Jyllands-Posten%27s_Muhammad_cartoons bigger country's as France, Germany, Italy and Spain printed two days earlier the cartoons than some Belgium's newspapers.

Price on cartoonists head in December last year

According to this source, back in December Pakisatini based group Jamaate-Islami reportedly placed a price of around €7,000, mistakenly upon the head of a "sole" cartoonist the believe responsible for all 12 cartoons. [20], Tom Spurgeon carried it, and also reports back in December that "A few observers have suggested the negative reaction to those cartoons established a precedent for more sustained and violent youth protests that followed in France and in other European countries in one of the bigger international news stories of 2005." Sadly he doesn't document the sources. [21] Hiding talk 21:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Conflicting views on the influence of religions

- Lot's of people in the West sees this as a religious rule imposed on non believers like Muslims would forbid to other people to eat pork or Jews impose non Jews to cover their head.

- Many Muslims see it as a provocation like entering a Church in short pants or entering a Buddhist temple with shoes on or using a religious symbol inappropriately (in the presence of worshipers).

Last time I entered a Catholic church to meet a friend there who happened to be a priest I had short pants. I don't get it? Who would be offended by that? DanielDemaret 22:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I really have no idea where he got these strange ideas. I've been to Buddhist temples many times and not once did I ever have to take off my shoes. Also, I've been to cathedrals in shorts, I wasn't set on fire and no crusade against the invader (namely me) was ever called. And again, these cartoons were printed in Denmark which is secular, separation of religion from government, try it. Hitokirishinji 17:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It depends on time and place I think. I was asked to do all this before entering some places of worship. Some things are not allowed in some religious settings. If you have a better example, please add it.

- That's a ludicrous comparison above. The Danish editor did not enter a mosque in any country with the cartoons. I have visited mosques, synagogues and churches, and abided their rules. It is a provocation when a religious group tries to tell me how to behave in the secular World, especially when I am not of their belief or opinion. 84.190.207.92 08:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't try to repeat the discussion, just try to clarify it. Besides the point of freedom of speech, there is the point of freedom of (another or no) religion. The West is talking more about freedom of speech, Muslims more talking about religion. How the prophet is drawn has, I think, more to do with freedom of speech, that he is drawn is more related to freedom of religion. The discussion gets another dimension that way.

The list of "comparable incidents" covers more the insulting part, the freedom of speech question. The other part, the not obeying a religious rule, could be covered by other examples. Visiting a sacred place or a religious ceremony, it is accepted that non believers follow the rules. Are there other situations, incidents like that?

United Nations has appealed to stop publishing these pictures

Kofi Annan has now asked that editors please stop publishing the controversial Muhammad cartoons that have caused such consternation. In my opinion, this appeal should be responded to, and we should withdraw the samples of the offending cartoons from wikipedia. Mokwella 21:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's easy for Kofi to say, but let him put his money where his mouth is. The U.N. should institute a "Oil for FoodCensorship" programme. Kofi's son needs a new car. - Nunh-huh 23:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Give me a break!!! NO! This whole 'controversy' appears to be unraveling at this very moment... especially with the revelation that the Egyptian newspaper El Fagr published images involved in this controversy back in Oct. 2005!

Netscott 21:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Without these pictures shown, we would not have known as much about the events as we do today. It has become clear to me that if the pictures are not shown, the risk of violence escalates since people who have not seen them protest, but they do not know exactly what they protest about. Those who have seen them, as eg when the Cairo-citizens who saw them in October were peaceful. My comment is POV, of course.DanielDemaret 21:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

If anyone made a map, mapping violent protest and non-publication of the images in the same map, would they co-inside? (even if they did, there are other interpretations, but it would be fun to try)DanielDemaret 21:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

They were published in Greenland. No riots. MX44 21:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's not hard to make one, we do in fact have a list of the papers that printed the images and it's obvious which nations are rioting and protesting. If I had more time, I'd make one myself. Hitokirishinji 22:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This place may be the only source of knowledge in the world at this time that has enough information to make one. DanielDemaret 22:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I take it back, I'll make it. Hitokirishinji 22:18, 9

February 2006 (UTC)

While making this map I'm noticing something...the most violent protests have not had the images even printed so essentially people are protesting about images they've never seen? Does anyone find this a bit suspicious? Hitokirishinji 22:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh not again. Simply no, Kofi Annan or not, we will not remove the image. I am even more convinced as Daniel said, if we do not show these images, we will simply forget and repeat the past someday. And as Netscott is pointing out, this entire "uproar" seems to be manufactured to play into the hands of people who have an agenda. Hitokirishinji 22:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. If it had been a decree by Jimbo Wales, then it would have been removed. But if Kofi Annan makes a plea/request to please not do it, then he can (pardon my French) sh*ve it. Kofi Annan is not wikipedia, and Kofi Annan is not Jimbo Wales. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 23:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

These images are important information, and add context to this informational article. It would be a mistake to remove them, as it would be detrimental to people who wish to learn more, but can't because of censorship. — TheKMan^talk 22:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I am a little puzzled why the publication in Egypt is nice and dandy but for European publications embassies get burned down. Perhaps someone can explain the difference? gidonb 22:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

That's where the conspiracy theory starts. An increasing number of people, including Ms Rice, have accused Syria and Iran of provoking things to distract attention from their problems.-- Nomen Nescio 22:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

OK well personally I dislike conspiracy theories, although I have seen this one reported in a Dutch quality daily two days before Rice picked it up. Rice did not talk about the Egyptian publication of the cartoons, however. She just mentioned that in Iran and Syria large demonstrations are government directed. That is also what the Dutch daily mentioned before her. gidonb 22:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This one has very good arguments. Syria and Iran do have serious problems (who with!?). And it would certainly explain many inconsistencies, such as why did it take 4 months for Muslims to get angry, why can Egypt publish without problems, why did the Danish imam add three pictures which were the most offensive?-- Nomen Nescio 22:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, these things can happen in such countries. But Rice did not go into those details either. I have read the transcript. In the same answer she called upon the press to act in a more responsible manner. I think that her words were taken out of context in most of the following headlines and articles. gidonb 23:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Here its is gidonb 23:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC) MODERATOR: Next question is Charlie Wolfson from CBS.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, in the aftermath of the printing of the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, there has been outrage around the world that we've all seen. The question is: Do you think this is spontaneous as it continues? If not, who is behind it? What group or what governments might be behind it?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, let me first say that this has been a difficult period. We are strong proponents of the freedom of the press. It is one of the most fundamental freedoms of democratic development. We also believe that with press freedom comes a certain responsibility. And the United States has been a place where there has been also freedom of religion and that means that people have to exist in the same body and to respect each other's religious traditions and respect each other's religious sensibilities and that is also very important.

Now, nothing justifies the violence that has broken out in which many innocent people have been injured. Nothing justifies the burning of diplomatic facilities or threats to diplomatic facilities around the world. This is a time when everyone should urge calm and should urge that there is an atmosphere of respect and understanding.

I think that there have been a lot of governments that have spoken out about this. Note, for instance, Afghanistan and Lebanon, very important comments even by the Ayatollah Sistani about this.

But yes, there are governments that have also used this opportunity to incite violence. I don't have any doubt that given the control of the Syrian Government in Syria, given the control of the Iranian Government, which, by the way, hasn't even hidden its hand in this, that Iran and Syria have gone out of their way to inflame sentiments and to use this to their own purposes. And the world ought to call them on it. All responsible people ought to say that there is no excuse for violence. We all need to respect each other's religions. We need to respect freedom of the press. But you know, again, with freedom of the press comes responsibility as well. [22]

When did Kofi Annan say this? From Reuters Canada, I see him saying it's "inappropriate". For all I know, Mokwella is simply starting another futile argument for removing the images. Unless a Scientologist Lawyer sues us while threatening the gasoline supply of the world, interrupting cable TV transmissions in the U.S., and summoning the Wrath of God in a manner not unlike Pat Robertson, they will not be removed. --Tokachu 00:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is the text from the United Nations Seceretary General's own website: Annan Urges Responsibility Over Caricatures -- 9 February -- At a press encounter this morning, the Secretary-General was asked about the recent publication of caricatures of the prophet Muhammad, and, while he underlined his support for freedom of speech, he also pointed to the need to exercise responsibility and judgment. "Quite honestly," he said, "I cannot understand why any editor will publish cartoons at this time which inflames and pours oil on the fire." http://www.un.org/News/ossg/sg/ From my own perspective, it appears wikipedia (collectively) is willing to sacrifice civility on the altar of 'freedom of the press'. If this is an encyclopedia, do we not have at least maintain some level of social responsibility,particularly in regard to images, as opposed to text? Please take the pictures down. Mokwella 20:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

End of Story?

It is unusually peaceful tonight. Have we reached the end of the "current event" periode? Is it time to pick up all the confusing little pieces and make a solid article? MX44 21:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about you but I've seen 3 new requests today alone to remove the image so I haven't seen a calm today. Hitokirishinji 22:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about external events. I have seen one proposal to remove a sculpture from Middlekerke, Belgium: http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=437604 Or perhaps they just thought it was ugly ... MX44 22:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

There should to be some reference to the fact that some European newspapers which published the Cartoons were in a bad situation financially:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060209/ap_on_re_eu/prophet_drawings_profits 86.52.36.140 23:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

That might be, but it is not really relevant in the Danish case. Jyllands-Posten is Denmark's biggest newspaper. Weekend Avisen, which published the satire over the Jyllands-Posten images, is a much smaller newspaper, but it is read by many intellectuals (no big player on the market, but owned by Berlingske Officin which is a major player.) I don't think Weekend Avisen planned on selling more papers because of its article, since it is not very easily available. --Valentinian 23:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Vote proposal (don't shoot me down)

I think that, when this stops being current events, we should have (yet) another vote. This time giving "all" the options available and letting people decide once and for all what they want. If anyone else would like to propose what these options could be, so be it?

Options i had in mind were: large pic at top, thumb at top with high res pic, small pic at top, link at top, large pic lower down, thumb lower down with high res pic, small pic lower down, link lower down, no picture or link at all. WookMuff 22:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You forgot another option: large high res picture of each individual cartoon, at top (maybe running down the side of the article)... Valtam 22:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

yes, there is a very important option you did not mention. Instead of having the whole collection of pics, we can have just one (maybe the artist drawing cartoon). That would be enough to represent the whole story... Resid Gulerdem 22:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not the place to support or disagree with one or the other. This is the place to reflect one and the other. --Ezeu 22:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Wrong answer! The correct answer would be: This is an ensiklopedia and so it is not a place to include an insult in any form. This is a place to account a phenomena objectively and academically. This is not a place for cartoon collection either... Resid Gulerdem 22:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

We could erase any mentioning of any religion in this encyclopedia, and nobody would be insulted anymore. Just erase any mention of jews, so muslims will not insulted, any mention of muslims, so jews would not be insulted, etc, and everyone would be happy. And ignorant. DanielDemaret 22:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes! That would be nice. --Ezeu 22:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)´

This is not a place for cartoon collection either... ...except when that collection is central to the subject of the article. Though (almost?) everyone here knows that already so I don't know why I'm writing it. Weregerbil 22:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia may or may not be a place to include insults, but if a collective perception of insult is a notable issue (as is the case here), it is our encyclopedic duty to inform the reader of what is being perceived as an insult. In this case, the insult involves a series of cartoons. The reader has a right to know what the cartoons look like that have offended so many. And that right to know trumps the (non-existant) right not to be offended. Wikipedia is not censored, even if it leads to some feeling offended. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 22:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because you like playing with words and thinking that it is making some sense? The collection is not central at all. Everything would be the same if there is just one cartoon. It doesn't change anything. Having the whole collection is against the Wiki regulations. Resid Gulerdem 22:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Please try to remain civil. As usual, you are wrong in your guessing of other peoples' motives. Re having pictures: your opinion, others clearly disagree. Discussed at great length and polled. Weregerbil 22:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Which Wiki regulations, in particular, are you alleging violations of? It's certainly not a copyright issue.BinaryTed 16:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Please try to be honest. My poll is not discussed at a great length, it is vandalized 100 times. I was able to keep it on for just a night! The others were on for 3 or so days, at least. Resid Gulerdem 23:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a collection of anuses or penises but nonetheless they are there. Hitokirishinji 23:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

They are there. The issue is related to health and discussed academically. I do not think that you would consider it being an insult if one say: 'you have at least one of those'. Resid Gulerdem 23:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia also has a duty to disseminate correct information. Having a scan of the original page with all 12 cartoons lets people easily discern what was on the page and what was not (such as the three falsified cartoons) for themselves. Richard 129.244.128.134 23:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

What a silly argument, some people keep permanently. That is not true. We are reporting what has really happened here. One pic enough to show that some cartoons caused anger and considered insult! It is not the task of an ensiklopedia to show all cartoons to the people and test the strength of their stomach... Resid Gulerdem 23:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is one cartoon any less offensive to you than all 12? SilentC 00:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Because, in that particular cartoon (an artist drawing Mohammed), there is not a clear image of Him. But on the other hand, you can see what an artist doing, his fear, etc, which completely summerize the situation. Can't you really see any difference between a cartoon, for example, represent Mohammed as a terrorist with a bomp in his turban and the one I mentiooned above? ... Resid Gulerdem 02:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Everyone keeps saying that cartoon represents Muhammad as a terrorist, even though the artist denies that was his intent. My question: In the history of terrorism has anyone ever employed a bomb-shaped turban on their head as a weapon? I think it's clear the cartoons is metaphorical for some conflation of Islam and terrorism, but Muhammad himself is not being called a terrorist. Babajobu 03:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I see a very important difference: People have DIED because of these cartoons. Embassies and other government buildings have been burned because of these cartoons. People have not died, nor have embassies been burned, because of a cartoon of someone else making an obscured drawing of Mohammed. It's an issue of significance: these cartoons are so significant to the controversy that the controversy would likely not exist without the cartoons. The cartoon you want in the article is not significant to the controversy: its inclusion or omission offers no real information to the reader.BinaryTed 16:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Please be honest. The name of this contest is 'faces of Mohammad'. There is an ugly person with a bomp at his turban? Who is he than? Can suicide bumpers be called as terrorists? If so then what relation can you make using those in your mind? Resid Gulerdem 03:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Resid, I ask that you stop accusing people of being dishonest. It is rude, and violates WP:NPA. Anyway, I was being honest, and you should reread what I wrote. I was not denying that the artist was intending to depict Muhammad; what I said was that a person with a bomb-cum-turban is not a plausible depiction of someone committing a terrorist act. More likely the cartoon is metaphorical, as such cartoons often are. It's more likely the author is alluding to the use of Islam to justify terrorist acts than that he was saying "look, this is Muhammad about to blow someone up with a bomb in his turban!" Babajobu 03:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Babajobu, I ask you thionk about the word 'emphaty'. If your understanding of the cartoons are shared by people, why is this dipute growing up so rapidly? The most important thing here is how people are understanding it. You should not judge others using your understanding and feelings. Only honesty can solve this problem. Resid Gulerdem 04:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought the problem was that there were images at all, not that they may or may not represent someone - that no-one alive has ever seen - as a terrorist. Also, the one you propose most certainly does have a clear representation of an Arabic-looking man with a beard. You may not be able to make it out at the resolution at which it is displayed here, but it is most certainly there. SilentC 03:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The resolution cannot be an excuse. You can use a smaller size pic... The first part of your message is not clear to me... Resid Gulerdem 03:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It's also the only one that has his name written on it, so there's no question that's who it is intended to be, whereas the others are less explicitly so. SilentC 03:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I personally want to have a link instead. Since the people would like to see the cartoons so much pointlessly, I thought we should have one istead. I can see that the cartoon I mentioned is the most acceptible one because the main theme there is: someone trying to draw a pic of him! Why do not we try and see the reaction of the Muslim users? Resid Gulerdem 03:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Moreover there is no need to put his name on all of them. The name of the contest is 'faces of Mohammed' remember... Resid Gulerdem 03:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that is that we are not using the editorial cartoons to make some sort of witty allusion to the fear of cartoonists, Resid. We are showing the cartoons so people can see what started the uproar. And it was the publication of all 12 that started it, rather than just the one you mention. Babajobu 04:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

And that is where you are doing mistake. To have all those cartoons is pointless, because:

• A Western can't see anything wrong with that. So it doesn't explain anything about the dispute... Verbal explanations work much better.
• A Muslim definitely find it highly offensive to Islam and an insult. Resid Gulerdem 04:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, the consensus of the community to keep the pictures has been made very clear, and on Wikipedia one needs to learn to accept consensus, even when one doesn't agree with it. Babajobu 04:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

A picture is often far better than words - especially when this 'debate' is over what is in essence pictures. Robovski 02:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Should I call this answer as an honest one? You are not answering my points... Just changing course of the discussion. That is why the consensus you are talking about is not a real one. People is not answering the points they dislike, just using their dominant number to pass a regulation or a change in the article. Poll 3 here couldn't stay more than a night here? Why? Unfortunately English Wiki is acting like a Judeo-Christian Forum. I am saddened to realize that. This behaviour will effect greatly the reliability of WIki and I believe you will realize that soon. Resid Gulerdem 04:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Resid, hang on. We just voted on this matter and decided to keep the pictures. How do you think they are suddenly going to disappear? Also, three of these picture were published in Egypt. Then how are you going to convince the folks at the English language Wikipedia to hide them or enter them through a link? Just puzzled. gidonb 04:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote about your understanding of consesnsus here. You are not answering valid questions. You do not have convincing answers. You have just dominant here. Can you read what I wrote above please? Try to answer my questons. And this one: 'Why only English Wiki is insisting on having these pics?' Resid Gulerdem 05:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No, the point is it doesn't matter what you think, it's what the community consensus is. One person would not be able to fight a fight against a group of ten. Likewise, one dissenter is not able to change the views of a consensus of ten, there is no use in arguing further. NSLE _(T+C) 05:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

'The world is still round'... I do not know what this reminds you?... Resid Gulerdem 05:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I was not answering any questions, valid or invalid. I was asking them as I was puzzled with the initiative. I got rather assertive answers and one question back. You ask me why only the English Wikipedia has the picture. How can I answer such a question, if it is based on untruth? Many Wikipedias have the pictures. See for example this one, perhaps better take my word for it if you do not like them, each picture seperate in large format: http://lb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed-Karikature_vu_Jyllands-Posten. Now those who do not have it. I looked at the talk page of the Dutch article. They have no problem with the pictures, just with the copyrights. gidonb 05:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

My answer to your question would be: When you started to mimic the Egiptian media? The point is, if it is correct to have an insult in an article or not? Resid Gulerdem 05:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The answer would depend on the circumstances. I will give you an example. I am Jewish. I have actively voted to keep antisemitic pictures in Wikipedia, where they are relevant for the article. They do insult me of course. gidonb 05:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The point of course is that in an encyclopedia you include the good and the bad. I despise Nazi symbols, but I think they ought to be included in an article on Nazi-Germany. I would put them there although a large part of my family has been murdered by people wearing these symbols. Resid and WookMuff, I encourage you to take your tasks as an editor professionaly. We are explaining what happened in the Jyllands Posten and afterwards, not claiming that these cartoons are good taste. I think the contrary is true. gidonb 06:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

What you are saying is completely untrue! Can you direct me an antisemitic picture here, I am not aware of them? Your point doesn't make sense at all because: The antisemitic pictures shows that in fact you are victims. It creates a sympathy. As a person who strongly against antisemitizm, I cannot see your point by this comparison... The case is totally different here. The cartoons you are insisting on are not showing that Muslims are right. They are insulting them. Could you please answer this question sincerely: Would you have the same reaction if the pictures are that of Abraham, Moses or your God? Keep in mind that you are professional at that hypotetical time too... Resid Gulerdem 08:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Resid, see Piss Christ, where Wikipedia carries a famously offensive image of a crucifix submerged in urine. We carry it because it's relevant, even though Christians detest the image. And even though Christians hate it, they understand freedom of speech and understand that Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, documents notable events such as the creation of that image. We have images that are similarly offensive to Jews, Scientologists, et cetera. Resid, this article will always carry the images of the twelve cartoons. We cannot provide special treatment for Islam. You just have to learn to deal with it. Babajobu 09:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Resid, the cases are precisely the same. Antisemetic cartoons are offensive to me, the pictures of Mohammad are offensive to you. If they are relevant enough to an article, they should be included. Same applies for pictures of Abraham, Moses or God. On this page you will find plenty of antisemitic art. click here gidonb 11:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Moved to the bottom WookMuff 23:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Re the above list, Resid, please stop interchanging "only one pic" with "large high res", you're making WookMuff's comments incorrect when you do so, and I see that as vandalism (bad-faith edit). NSLE _(T+C) 05:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You are not aware of what you are doing. Please see the history! Resid Gulerdem 05:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Resid, the point is that ALL of the issues you raised were addressed repeatedly during the poll, and people do not want to go through them all again every time someone brings them up anew. Learn to respect consensus. Babajobu 05:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. The poll itself couldn't stay on for a single night. It is vandalized 100 times. And closed by an admin shortly... I would prefer if it is open for at least as the others. Resid Gulerdem 05:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

WookMuff, I would like to propose the following option for your poll:

• the outcome of the previous polls is binding

I had a somewhat different take than the one that won, but I strongly believe that the previous outcome is binding. Add the 100 extra categories if you like, but also the one I proposed. I hope my point makes you understand that you will not have a different result two days later, even if you try to dilute the vote between complex categories. gidonb 05:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Polls are not binding, this is official WP policy. Dmaftei 15:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, my cunning plan revealed... oh wait, thats stupid. My point is a lot of complaining has been done about the limited options of the first polls... the complaint that the option of "one of the cartoons, the least offensive" has been bandied about. What i am suggesting is a poll that includes that option, and all possible options. I am not, in fact, starting that poll. Once the controversy has died down i suggest we take it. For your information, i am of the "thumbnail at the top" group. I don't feel the need to pander to Islam, but i don't feel we need every single cartoon in detail up the top in high res. WookMuff 23:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Resid, if this article causes you undue stress, I suggest you never click any link to this article ever again. The image stays. Continuing this whining will only cost you precious time, which you could also spend on articles needing attention more desperately. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 21:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that, when this stops being current events, we should have (yet) another vote. This time giving "all" the options available and letting people decide once and for all what they want. If anyone else would like to propose what these options could be, so be it?

• large high-res picture of each individual cartoon, at top
• only one picture (the artist drawing cartoon for example) at top
• large high-res picture of the original J-P page at top
• thumbnail of the original J-P page at top with high res pic linked
• small picture of the original J-P page at top
• link to (any of the above) at top
• large picture of original J-P page lower down
• thumbnail of original J-P page lower down with high res pic linked
• small pic lower down
• link lower down
• no picture or link at all.

additionally

• Each individual cartoon next to its description further down the page

Once more, please don't just come and say "blah blah polls are irrelevant." Please don't comment unless you have something to add, because there are 10 other pages of places to complain on this topic. Comment here if you think i have left an option out? WookMuff 23:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a problem with a MultiPoll: imagine every entry getting 100 votes except "remove picture" gets 101. So it seems "remove" is the popular choice. When in fact 1000 votes were for keeping the picture in some form. It can be very difficult to extract a meaningful result from that kind of a poll. That's why Poll 1 and Poll 2 were the way they were. Weregerbil 23:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually i don't have an issue with poll 1, its poll 2 i have issues with. This is just a suggestion, something to bear in mind. Its hardly set in stone. If you wanna suggest making it two polls, one with "pic on top, link on top, nothing on top" and then a poll on pic positioning (with more options than poll 2) then suggest away WookMuff 01:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no objections, as long as you keep my option in. So far you have forgotten to include it, even though you did call to suggest additional options. I hope that your call was sincere. gidonb 13:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion has been weighed, and found wanting. The call for further options and comments is sincere, but if this poll happens (and if it does it surely won't be for a few weeks) I, personally, would rather that people vote on the issue, not vote on feelings of having their previous judgements called into question. Have a nice day WookMuff 22:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

In that case I am against holding your poll. I do not see why you want to forbid me to refer to the previous poll if they are held so closely together in time. gidonb 01:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Your objection is noted. But, what do you mean about "held so closely together in time"? "My poll" as you have called it, is a theoretical poll. My proposal is that a poll be held, once things are calm, that has more than yes, no, and comments. If you want to call it the "WookMuff Poll for Peace and Harmony" then so be it ;) WookMuff 02:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The best way to achieve peace and harmony is not to vote on the same issue more than once a year. My choice did not win either, but now that it did not, I go by the consensus and edit many other articles. When was the last time you made an edit to an article? A week ago? gidonb 02:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually i made two very short edits about an hour ago. But enough of these personal insinuations. I'll go back to watching tv and you go back to opposing the terrible enemies of free speech. WookMuff 04:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, my choice DID win. This is more about the people who feel that their choices weren't even represented. WookMuff 05:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Article structure

Can somebody explain calmly if there is any argument, besides poll number 3, against moving the cartoons, say, next to the bulleted list that describes each? Thanks. Dmaftei 22:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant poll number 2. Too many polls...Dmaftei 23:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I could explain, but unfortunately not calmly. --Ezeu 22:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead, then, I'll try to ignore your anger.Dmaftei 22:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Apart from the poll, only argument that I have seen there be pretty much consensus about is that a lot of people are tired of rehashing this for perhaps the 10th time. And of course there are many arguments that there is no consensus about too. DanielDemaret 22:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "people are tired" is a valid argument. What I'm thinking about is the kind of arguments that were put forward in the discussion about keeping the picture in the article. My summary of those arguments is this:

1. Keep
   1. it's free speach
   2. the picture is relevant to the article
   3. (I'm dismissing non-arguments such as "everyone should be deep-throated with it" and "WP should not abide by the laws of Islamofascism" as totally bogus)
2. Delete
   1. it's an insult to Islam

Is there any argument along these lines against moving the picture?Dmaftei 04:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes ther are:

1. 1. Collection of cartoons is against the wiki standards
   2. Unecessary: Words would explain the case better without insult.
   3. Nonsense: An ensiclopedia article is just a fair account of the phenomena. We cannot include cartoons to let people see what they are all about. It is pointless, because:
      • A Western can't see anything wrong with that. So it doesn't explain anythink about the dispute...
      • A Muslim definitely find it highly offensive to Islam and an insult. Resid Gulerdem 02:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No offense, Resid Gulerdem, but you seem to have completely missed my question... The question is: "is there any argument against moving the picture from where it is now to a different place?". That means a different place within the article, I'm not talking about removing the image from the article. Your three points above address totally different issues (and I also happen to disagree with all of them, sorry...) Dmaftei 04:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

A collection of cartoons is not against wikipedia standards, provided the cartoons are relevant to the issue. I think it's safe to say that the cartoons are relevant to the controversy. Words also will never be able to explain the pictures sufficiently, because language is not broad enough to deal with nuances the way vision can. And your argument about westerners and muslims are gross generalizations and void. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 01:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I thought you are talking about the removal. I wish you could explain why you are disagree with what I am saying above. Resid Gulerdem 04:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

We do not wish to scare any muslims. By showing them, they can see for themselves that they are not dangerous at all MX44 22:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

My question was not about showing or not showing, was about an argument against moving... I'm not campaining for deletion here.Dmaftei 22:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

2500 Danish for a different Danmark.

I couldn't see in the article that about 2500 Danish signed an online declaration stating that, 'JP should appoligize and they want peace with Muslims'. JP also puplished a new version of their appology. Will these be included? Resid Gulerdem 22:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean the countries in which criminals burned embassies and people were killed will also apologise?-- Nomen Nescio 22:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The people who were killed were not Danish. They were poor muslims in Afghanistan and such trying to protest. And your conperison is nonsense: What I am saying is, will the news I mentioned above be included in the article? Ask if they will apologize to them. And add to the article when they do! It should be hard for you to see what I am saying... I can see you mentality. Resid Gulerdem 23:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

why dont you begin a protest calling for the governments where the embassies have been burned to apologize... wait.. the governments ALREADY DID!!!! In fact, the interior minister of Lebanon withdrew because of it! And like the guy above me already said. Those who died, were their own citizes, why on earth should they apologize if their own citizens were killed? Now even if it weren't their own citizens, why should they apologize? I dont see USA or the Coalition apologizing to the International community for killing people each day(Cloud02 23:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC))

If the group that launched the online declaration is notable enough, then it might be included. But I doubt it. And I'm also not impressed by the number. 2,500 people signing a petition on such an important issue, on a population of 5.4 million with virtually everyone having internet access doesn't really seem much to me. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 23:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

...also given the fact that for a party capable of mounting a cyberterror attack against ~900 web sites, stuffing an online ballot box is a trivial task. Weregerbil 23:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Right, because all the Arabs in the Middle East suddenly learned Danish. (Cloud02 23:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC))

Surely not all Arabs have to learn Danish to stuff a simple ballot box. There are Danish-speaking arabs in Denmark, quite probably elsewhere too. I could stuff an online ballot box in three or four languages myself ("could" = technically, not in reality as my conscience would not allow it.) Weregerbil 23:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

2.500 are not that many, but the number was obtained in a very short time (something like 24 hours). In addition, more than 6.000 have added a greeting to the Muslims, and their names are Danish. Remember also that we have seen reporting based on rumors that only a few blockheads threatened to burn the Qu'ran. Personally, I could not sign the letter because it set forth some demands I do not support (and I stronglly object to the notion that looking at the picture is equal to "looking down upon" or having disrespect for Muslims and their faith). I still appreciate the site's attempt to show to the world and to all sensible Muslims that the overwhelming majority of Danes are not anti-Muslims (should anybody have doubted that). Many apologies for this un-editorial remark... --Sir48 00:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If the petition has been online for that little time with so little subscriptions, I don't think it should be included. If it remains online for some time and gains a substantial amount of signings in that time, then it can be included. But I think we have to hold off on that for now. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 10:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The link to the site (in English) is http://www.anotherdenmark.org/ --Sir48 01:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This should definitely included too. Can an editor could incorporate this into the article please? Resid Gulerdem 02:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I don't see how http://www.sorrynorwaydenmark.com/ (Reconciliation section, at the end) is good for the article, and at the same time http://www.anotherdenmark.org/ is not. All the arguments above against the inclusion of http://www.anotherdenmark.org/ are applicable to http://www.sorrynorwaydenmark.com/ too.Dmaftei 19:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

MAP UPDATED

Blue is where cartoons have been printed. Red is where violent protests have taken place, this is just preliminary, any feedback is appreciated. Hitokirishinji 23:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, I forgot to mark in Denmark... I was planning to add more colors for places that have both protests and have printed the cartoons and others. Hitokirishinji 23:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Any thoughts on making it a world-wide map? — TheKMan^talk 23:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Good job, Hitokirishinji. Some cartographic comments: There are very few reds, so it is really a waste not to include all of Somalia. On the other hand, in the north you can cut the picture just north of continental Norway. There is no need to include some obscure Norwegian islands that hardly show on the map. You can also cut out some of the east, I would keep all of Pakistan in although it is white. No need to include the whole world. It would give too much white and too little detail. gidonb 23:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hang on, were the cartoons not published in New Zealand? gidonb 23:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I would make two maps. One which showed the countries in which the cartoons have been published on a world map. The second could be of the protest on a map of Europe, Africa and Asia. --Maitch 23:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is the best idea! My detailed comments refer only to the protest map. gidonb 23:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I realize that I may have left out some countries but simply because the map would be hard to read if it was really worldwide. If anyone can get me a blank world map that's fairly large (larger than 1280 pixels) with lines outlining the countries, I'd be glad to do it. Hitokirishinji 23:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Try Image:BlankMap-World.png. — TheKMan^talk 23:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The map should be global since there were burnings of the flag in Nigeria, and protests in Indonesia and as far away as New Zealand. But if you only count deaths, I think the map is a fair representation.86.52.36.140 00:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The Danish embassy in Iran has been attacked with Molotov-cocktails. In addition, countries with major demonstrations could be indicated in a different colour. --Sir48 01:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Danskjävlar!--Ezeu 00:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC) Sorry I was out of line. --Ezeu 07:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Erm translation please? Anyways, thanks for the map KMan, this will work. I will work on it over the weekend and maybe a bit more today but I will keep you folks updated. I plan to make it hopefully decently extensive but if anyone has any ideas, throw em on here or on my talk page if it gets too crowded. Hitokirishinji 00:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It means Danish Devils. It is a strongly offensive Swedish term. Ezeu apparently hates my people. --Valentinian 00:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

What qualifies as "violent"? People killed? Buildings burned? Flags burned? Anything else?Dmaftei 00:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much anything Ghandi wouldn't approve of. Actaully I was thinking buildings burned and people killed but I hadn't originally considered flag burning. I suppose that's not an entirely peaceful thing. Hitokirishinji 00:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Forbannade danskar. Translation: good golly danes. --Ezeu 00:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC) That was the merlot talking. Excuse me. --Ezeu 07:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No Ezeu! It means DAMN DANES! Stop inserting Swedish derogatory terms towards my people! --Valentinian 00:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The correct translation must be Damned Danes. But be careful not to disclose our views regarding the Swedes... :-) --Sir48 01:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Ghandi wouldn't approve of railroads among other things :-) but I'm not sure if he would approve of boycotts. Is Saudi Arabia RED or WHITE?Dmaftei 00:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I haven't designated a color for "peaceful" protests just yet. But I'd classify boycotts as peaceful, as least no property is destroyed and no one is physically hurt. I figured this might get kinda complicated... Hitokirishinji 00:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Pink Dmaftei 00:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Also why the decision to invert the red/blue? In Nato wargaming the agressive party is red, while the defensive party is blue. I think it is clear who were the offensive party here. 86.52.36.140 00:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There were also peaceful demonstrations in Israel. gidonb 01:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Israel/Occupied Gaza and West Bank, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, Georgia (country), Bosnia-Herzegovina just off the top of my head where there've been protests. NSLE _(T+C) 02:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's problematic to describe the protests in UK as "peaceful" just because no one was killed and no buildings were burned. People were carrying placards promising another 7/7, saying Europe would be forced to kneel before the Mujahideen, calling for the beheading of those who supported the cartoons, et cetera. Certainly here people have contrasted our protestors with "peaceful" protestors elsewhere. Babajobu 02:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought about that too actually Baba. I've been pondering what to do. At this point I'm not sure exactly because it seems like people will be taking issue with whatever color I choose. So I'm going to make it this, one color for countries that printed, one color for countries that had protests, mix the colors for countries that had both and in very notable protests, I will simply just write a damn box or something. Anyone have any better ideas? The blue and red simply was just on a whim. Red usually seems a more "violent" color you could say. It had nothing to do with any bias towards a group of people...and I didn't know anything about Nato wargames. If it makes anyone feel better, I'll do green and yellow instead...or purple. Hitokirishinji 03:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't write a damn box. Blue for published, red for protest, mix for both. I don't see why WP should use NATO wargames convensions.Dmaftei 04:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Eh? I see Babajobu's point... but, well... let's just use objective markers. Countries with protests with greater than 1,000 people or something and countries with newspapers of X circulation that have published it. Sound good-ish?

The cartoons were also printed in Yemen, in the Yemen Observer. The paper was closed by the government after printing the cartoons. See also Jawa Report and Yemen Times editorial.

Thank you for doing that map! Consider a rainbow scale of colours, where the more violent the event, the hotter (more red) it gets. It would give more info, and be prettier :) DanielDemaret 09:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll second Daniel's suggestion. This map is a great idea. --Valentinian 10:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Great idea, we need a map to illastrate where the cartoons were published and where there were demonstration. A world map would be better, as some countries outside Middle East and Europe published the cartoon. I agree to Daniel's idea of the colours which will give readers a more detailed map. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 11:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea as well, however you might want to shade Turkey and Pakistan as Red now... :) --Scaife 11:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Update on the map This is what I have so far:
Blue - countries that printed
Sliding scale of pink to hot red - protests, depending upon intensity
Mixed - both protests and printed

Things I wanted to add:
Flame icon - buildings burned
Denmark flag icon - places where Danish goods have been boycott
Small red person icon - places where people have died

If anyone feels strongly about anything, please let me know.
--Hitokirishinji 15:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's very problematic to do this. What do countries have to do with this? In the US, one paper published them, all the others didn't. Does this lead to the "whole country" having published it? Azate The same goes for coloring countries with minor demonstations. Did the "whole country" riot? Azate 16:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I could put a number in each country to indicate how many newspapers published the cartoons but of course there will be a disclamier to check the actaul list. And the "whole country riot" thing is going to be asessed by a sliding scale like I said, the shades will be different for different number of rioters. If you think you have a better solution, please feel free to post it. In general though, I like these guidelines at the moment and would prefer to settle on them so I don't have to constantly remake the map everytime someone finds something offensive or wrong. Hitokirishinji 16:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Please let me know what you think! I have updated with a new color scheme and everything. Also anyone who is color blind let me know if you can make sense of it. Also please lets all agree on the colors and everything soon. It takes time to make this so lets come to a consensus today because once I start working on it over the weekend, it's set in stone. One more thing, this map is not complete yet. There are still quite a few countries left out so please don't assume its anywhere near done. Hitokirishinji 22:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you are doing a fine job - now just get it up to date and on the article!Robovski 02:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)