Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

References in Popular Culture Section

I have shortened the summary of the South Park episodes in this sections for two reasons: 1) A full episode summary is not needed; and, 2) The summary seemed to have been written by a seven year old and was rife with poor grammar and improper capitalization (or lack thereof.) Also, it seemed to be composed mostly of sentence fragments. Perhaps that whole section should be removed.

GA

I promoted this last time.. it hasn't changed. Nominate for FAC soon please. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 20:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yay! :D Homestarmy 22:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


Article removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because it seriously violates WP:NPOV.


According to Wikipedia:Good_articles/Disputes I've still got veto-power, which I'm using hereby. To follow the neutral point of view policy, the article would need to fairly present a "Muslim points of view":

  1. Instead of displaying the aniconistic Muslim tradition as baseless prohibition, the article should explain why (according to Muslim scholars) Islam generally forbids any pictorial representation of Muhammad.
  2. Why do we let BBC journalists explain what insults Muslims instead of presenting Muslim (authorities) views on their anti-cartoon stance?
  3. Instead of restricting on reporting the legislation regarding an insult on Muhammad, the article should at least mention the issue of advocating religious hatred by insulting a prophet.
  4. The chapter "Islamism and xenophobia" misses to present the views of Multiculturalism proponents.

Furthermore I fail to see the coherence between Ahmadinejads Holocaust denial and the JP cartoon controversy, but maybe its still more relevant than the 700 years old Muhammad image. Raphael1 01:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Your lack of sight makes the concept no less vivid. Haizum 05:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Would you please elaborate on what I'm not seeing and what concept you are referring to. Raphael1 11:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Those madrassa POVs You (or that emabassy next door?) are advocating can hardly be considered NPOV ... but if you are worried about old material being irrelevant because of its age, think about the quran and the hadiths. They are really getting old by now! :-D (And if you missed the Iranian cartoon contest, you must have been sleeping in class.)
BBC interviews real muslims in the real world having realistic points of view, and therefore we quote the BBC. The random ramblings of extremist religious zealots and self proclaimed leaders are entertaining, but maybe not so very important.
The Multiculturalist proponents went out of fashion when the boycotts of 3rd party dairy farmers started. But it could very well be an interresting study! There is a lot of political vote-fishing nonsense and deception buried there ...
MX44 13:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • To achieve NPOV the "madrassa" POV, as you call it, needs to be fairly presented just as well as the "Jyllands-Posten/freedom of speech" POV is presented right now. Old material can be relevant as well. I.e. that 700 years old image is relevant for Depictions of Muhammad, but it can hardly be relevant for illustrating Islams contemporary aniconism.
  • Where is the coherence between Ahmadinejads Holocaust denial and the Iranian newspapers (Hamshahri) cartoon contest?
  • I don't want to present the views of extremist religious zealots, but the views of popular accredited religious leaders.
  • Whether favouring Multiculturalism is modern or not is irrelevant. If we present the views of those who are disillusioned with multiculturalism, we need to fairly present the views of Multiculturalism proponents as well to reach NPOV. Raphael1 15:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • We would also need to represent the views expressed in "Muhammed, You better believe it ..."
  • The Hamshari Contest was in response to the JP cartoons.
  • Popular? You mean like this?
  • They were disillusioned ...
MX44 16:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I've just found a statement regarding the cartoons signed by many Muslim leaders.[1] It's not even listed in external references let alone is their view presented in the article text. Raphael1 16:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • There is room left in the 'Muslim Views' section. Please add your link. The more, the merrier ...MX44 19:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • One cannot correct the bias of this article by merely adding a link to the External links section. Raphael1 19:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • To those taking extreme point of views, the neutral sanity of this article appears to be far off. MX44 19:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Why are the views of popular religious leaders around the world more extreme, than the views of that Danish newspaper? Do you see it that way, because you are biased towards one side of this controversy? Raphael1 12:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Biased? If you are looking for bias, try this article. MX44 14:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The link you added to the article (apart from being rejected in a recent poll) is not only biased, but wrong too: "Until people stop, in Allah's name, stoning woman to death, killing homosexuals, cutting the hands off children stealing food to survive, flying passenger planes into skyscrapers, car-bombing innocent people, forcing their religious convictions onto others, and other such atrocities, and until Muslims loudly and clearly reject and condemn the violence perpetrated by those who have hijacked and perverted their religion, the likelihood of cartoonists depicting Muhammad as a gentle, olive-branch carrying dove is not particularly high." Muslims around the world indeed loudly and clearly reject and condemn the violence perpetrated by those who have hijacked and perverted their religion, but it seems, that Clinton Fein didn't care to pay attention to that. Raphael1 14:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It was decided the link was not fit as a source for the images. As a freestanding opinion piece by CF it has its merits. Netscott?
  • When you say that muslims loud and clearly condemns violence, does this include: We will not accept less than severing the heads of those responsible," one preacher at Al Omari mosque in Gaza told worshipers during Friday Prayer, according to Reuters. ... That's pretty loud. And clear! MX44 16:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I consider it very unfortunate, that you rather listen to a preacher in war-torn Gaza than to 42 Muslim clerics who reject "attacking foreign embassies or innocent people and other targets"[2] or 72 Muslim clerics who affirmed the Commitment to Global Peace. Raphael1 23:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • That certain clerics after the fact realizes that violence as a response to criticism of violence is counter productive, does not mean the events never took place or that other clerics are not still holding much more radical point of views. Both positions are part of the greater picture, the violent position being so well known, it even forms the basis of internal Muslim jokes. MX44 06:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree, that both positions are part of the greater picture, therefore I wonder why only one of those positions gets displayed in the article.Raphael1 08:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • That the silent majority of the Muslims remained silent regarding the cartoons is a non-event. You want to have a mention of: Those who couldn't be bothered, did not bother ... Hey, after all the title suggests that we are talking about a controversy. Earlier attempts of defining more narrowly exactly what groupations were causing the riots, have been blocked. I am not sure that was the wisest thing to do, since it appears that this strategy of victimizing ALL Muslims have played in the hands of neo-Nazi groupations. Letters like this is now in circulation. But that could change. Recently the riots in Afghanistan have been identified to be ignited by a small group of Pakistani workers employed by one Saudi entepreneur ... And the theory of the Syrian governments involvement in the embassy torchings is already in place. MX44 09:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • We are reporting other non-events as well, such as "Sunni Muslims allowed depictions of Muhammad 700 years ago", "any insult to Muhammad warrants death according to Salafis" or "disillusionment with multiculturalism is widespread in Denmark" or voicing the views of critics of political correctness. OTOH we do not report for example, that those cartoons and the following events damaged the interfaith dialog and (as you've found) played in the hands of neo-Nazi groupations. Raphael1 09:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I said that the self-pittying, pretentious (self-)victimisation of ALL Muslims (even those who do not wish to participate) is playing in the hands of the Nazis. (These events are taking place right now, as we speak, and I have no idea how they will evolve.) The death threats actually happened, so that is not a non-event. I suppose you meant to say, that you wish it was ... And I do not understand why you would want to strike the reference to the Salafis here? More moderate Muslims would certainly like to keep some distance, as also evidenced by the declarations you yourself is pointing to. Or are you trying to say that these declarations are not to be fully trusted? Now, that would be a bit odd .. MX44 09:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know, why you assume a self-victimisation of Muslims. Even the JP-newspaper apologized for indisputably offending many Muslims. Furthermore I never denied that death threats happened. But how Salafis interpret the Shariah is obviously a non-event, which you suggested are not worth mentioning. Even if we mention the Salafis, why don't we mention other Muslim groups too, who contacted the UN in order to criminalize any insult not only to Muhammad but all revered prophetic figures (incl. Jesus and Moses). Raphael1 12:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You would like to hide the Salafi POV being an exception? You would like it to appear as if chopping heads of editors playing with crayons is a natural response, that no sane Muslim should or would object to? Me thinks you are confused, perhaps looking for a united Muslim POV which simply does not exist. MX44 13:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It seems to me, that you deliberately misinterpret my text. Of course I know, that there is no united Muslim POV, therefore I wonder why the article focuses on displaying a lunatic fringe POV.Raphael1 09:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, is that so ... You are now saying that displaying more than one POV is bad because at least one of those views is a bit off, on the far side. In the same sentence you also admit that there is not a unified single POV to focus on. Now who is it then that you want to represent? I suppose it can not be those Danish imams who are joking about sending suicide-bombers along to blow up parliament, since, as I understand it, you do not like people disrespectfully joking about violence and Islam? OTOH, those are the very imams who were complaining about the JP cartoons in the first place. They are representing a fringe minority POV, so the fringe POV stays! MX44 11:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • No, I am not saying, that displaying more than one POV is bad. I am saying, that displaying only one fringe minority POV is bad. I plead for adding a fair display of a more generally accepted Muslim POV.Raphael1 21:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I added OIC's POV on death-penalty for cartoonists to Prohibition to insult Muhammad, along with a quote: "This is not a joke to go and say kill this and that. This is a very serious matter and nobody has the authority to issue a ruling to kill people." That should balance out the hardliners notion of sharia somewhat. MX44 05:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there a special reason, why you've chosen to quote this particular statement of Prof. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu? How about these quotes: "The blasphemous cartoons published by the Danish Jylland-Posten newspaper clearly meant to demonize Islam and its Prophet, to insult its values and principles and to incite animosity and hatred to the adherent of this religion in a way to provoke serious prejudices against them, thus endangering their safety and demeaning them. This is the real issue that the authors of this outrage tried to obscure under the guise of freedom of expression. Maybe the reasons behind the cartoons could be better understood if we remember that the Danish author Jan Hjarno said in a recent book that “there is a tendency among many politicians and media circles to make Islam the explanation of all problems”" [3] And why don't we mention the visit of the Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Bernard Bot, to Prof. Ihsanoglu, where he stated, that "the issue was not a matter of challenging the freedom of speech or that of the press in the West. It was rather that the un-dignifying cartoons had injured the feelings of Muslims as they caused prejudice to their beliefs, values, and most sacred symbols, which points to the need to have a media code of conduct established such as to emphasize that freedom must be founded on the spirit of responsibility and that the notion of freedom of speech must be correlated with that of respect for beliefs, religions and sanctities."[4] Raphael1 11:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • No other reason than that I thought he meant what he said at the time. But after reading the above hateful statements, it is pretty clear that he must have later changed his mind. MX44 12:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • What is it, you consider hateful in those statements? Raphael1 12:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • He is propagandizing for a reasoning behind the drawings which never existed. He is denying any problem with the radical Islamist violence the cartoons commented on, thus legalizing the violence, to the point of provoking it to happen. MX44 12:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The OIC is certainly not denying radical Islamist violence, as they repeatedly "strongly condemned the perpetrators of these heinous terrorist crimes, who pretend to act in the name of Islam or under any other pretext." and stated, that "Islam is innocent of all forms of terrorism which involve the murder of innocent people whose killing is forbidden by Islam, and rejects any attempts to link Islam and Muslims to terrorism because the latter has no relation whatsoever with religions, civilizations, or nationalities." [5] Therefore your claim, that the OIC would legalize the violence is wrong. Raphael1 13:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If I am wrong, and that may be so, then perhaps they should start looking for some other speach-writer, who can better reflect what they intend to get across. MX44 13:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe it's not due to the speach-writer but the reader, who considers the cartoons to be comments on radical Islamist violence, but overlooks that they incite animosity to the majority of peaceful adherents of Islam. Raphael1 13:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • ... and therefore we should write some flaming speaches, calling for arms of all Muslims and prove that Islam really is as violent as we would like to communicate that it is not? Throw in some blatant lies about the intentions of Rose et al for good measure and credibility? Yah, that should work! MX44 14:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Who is calling for arms? Do you think, that Jan Hjarno from the Danish Centre for Migration and Ethnic Studies was lying, when he wrote, that "there is a tendency among many politicians and media circles to make Islam the explanation of all problems"? Raphael1 11:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Ihsanoglu is calling for arms. He is using the Goebbels style of propaganda to implant hatred within the Muslim community towards JP, giving Zawahiri (and others) a free ride to extend this to the whole nation.
  • Hjarno never postulated that there do not exist any problems with Islam. Once again Ihsanoglu is using manipulative, deceptive wording to victimize the Muslims, this time generalizing and extending the target to: "many politicians and media circles." MX44 12:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I guess that you are aware, that Goebbels used stereotypes to propagandize hatred towards a religious group. If any Goebbels rhetoric can therefore be compared to the cartoons published by JP. Furthermore the words "many politicians and media circles" are Hjarnos words, which get cited by Ihsanoglu. Raphael1 16:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Raphael, You are a good soldier! But so where the heroic Hitler-Jugend defending Berlin against the Communists ... It is my firm belief that you are truely trying to fight a good cause, but the quote we are dissecting here is not going in to the article. It would be counter-productive to showing that there exist sanity within Islam. MX44 08:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • There's a connection between the Hamshari Contest and the JP cartoons, but where is the connection between Ahmadinejads Holocaust denial and the Hamshari contest? Raphael1 16:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Holocaust denial is wrong. He is pointing to (minor?) excaggerations by Zionist zealots, putting the whole affair under dispute. This is (deliberately?) misunderstood in the West. I for one interprete his actions not unlike those of a medieval 'Joker', challenging the kings of this world (George W?), setting up a magnifying mirror. His ultimate agenda is that Israel was set up under false premises. If you like, we can discuss why the Jews were not simply given back their properties in, say Austria? I bet that inquiring minds in Palestine would also like to know. MX44 19:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You are not listening. Thanx for playing. Insert coin! MX44 19:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes I am listening, and I agree that Ahmadinejads remarks from October 2005 are relevant regarding world politics, but I see no relevant connection to the following cartoon controversy. We might as well discuss the Iraq war in this article. Raphael1 12:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If we want to include a quote from Ahmadinejad, how about including this statement instead, since it directly refers to the cartoons: "Now in the West insulting the prophet is allowed, but questioning the Holocaust is considered a crime. We ask, why do you insult the prophet? The response is that it is a matter of freedom, while in fact they (who insult the founder of Islam) are hostages of the Zionists. And the people of the U.S. and Europe should pay a heavy price for becoming hostages to Zionists."[6] I'd say this quote should go one section up to "Alleged campaigns by the West and alleged Zionist conspiracy". Raphael1 23:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


Here we go again. Back to the disputes page with ye, there's no excuse for this not passing by now. Homestarmy 16:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

GA vs. FA

I want to inform people about the current discussion about the veto-provisions in the GA-project. It seems that Raphael1 and one other person (no one knows if there is anybody else) is blocking for some sensible changes to the rules. I am myself getting pretty tired of the endless discussion without even a possibility for a decent vote. But note that the Featured Article project ironically does NOT have a built-in veto provision as the Good Article project have, which means that Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy could go straight after FA since GA-status is no requirement for FA-nomination. Just informing about the possibilities given the sad situation. This article definitely deserves recognition somehow. --Anjoe 19:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't you worry, it has recognition ;-) MX44 19:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Err, yes, there was a recomendation by a neutral party that it go to FA. Why doesn;t someone list it was FA, thus skipping the GA controversies.--Irishpunktom\talk 16:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Eh, consensus seems to be forming to relist this on the GA disputes page. Homestarmy 22:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
If this gridlock continues, aiming directly for FA seems like the logical choice. The content is clearly of good quality. Valentinian (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I think an attempt to FA list this article would be a very good thing. Obviously my careful GA dispute page listing of its panoply of inadequacies has had no impact whatsoever on the hardcore "stay on message" advocacy of its champions; perhaps rejection by FA will snap some of you out of your illusions. — JEREMY 06:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Zawahiri mentions cartoons

In his latest statement Zawahiri said "It was also preceded by insults to the holy Koran in Bagram and Guantanamo and by the Danish, French, and Italian peoples' mocking of the most noble Prophet, God's peace and blessings be upon him. Yesterday's incidents were also preceded by Clinton's and Thatcher's honouring of Salman Rushdie, rewarding him for offending the Prophet, may God's prayers and blessings be upon him, and his holy household." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5106330.stm 217.39.11.210 23:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Good, the more honors people like Salman Rushdie get, the better. Politicallyincorrectliberal 10:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

"It would be counter-productive to showing that there exist sanity within Islam." (MX44)

Well I'd say, that the above statement by MX44 deserves a new thread. If this is an opinion shared by the other editors of this article, there's no question that this article violates WP:NPOV. Raphael1 09:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh MX44 just try and leave ole Raphael1 alone now and just focus your time on something a bit more productive. Netscott 12:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Sir! Will do! I obviously have too much unattended free time floating around. MX44 13:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The way things are going this article might got some peace soon. Netscott 14:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The latest quote from Raphael1 in the article demands of the Muslims to continue to show their intolerance [by legal means ...] because Islam is tolerant! :-D Can somebody dig out another quote, having a litle more consistency?
I also wonder what excactly he means by legal means. Is this to be understood so that he demands a change of the laws to better reflect the ideals of the Ummah? Afterall, the case was thrown out of court. MX44 04:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, this kind of "intolerance" is probably a daily event since newspapers get sued quite frequently for publishing controversial cartoons. How far goes your tolerance? [7][8][9][10]
Ihsanoglu probably meant the filing of an appeal since the press release was issued on January 28 and the final court decision was given on March 15.
Why don't we mention the Alliance of Civilizations meeting in Doha on February 25, where the UN, OIC and EU discussed the cartoon controversy? [11][12][13] Raphael1 16:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Cartoons protest: Four in UK court

From Cnn.com news. Needs to be integrated on one of the JP cartoons pages. Netscott 15:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Reinstated GA

As per the discussion on the GA disputes page this article has been reinstated as GA Gnangarra 09:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Does JEREMY and I no longer have veto-power? Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes still reads "everyone has veto power". Raphael1 11:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Funny, general consensus says that the article should be listed... and yet you want to go against that? Netscott 11:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The full statement is Wikipedia:Good articles is an unbureaucratic system to arrive at a quick consensus set of good articles: everyone can nominate good articles, and everyone has veto power. However, sometimes editors disagree whether an article reaches the good article criteria. This page is for dealing with such disputes.
GA dispute page has debated the subject, 14 editors have stated that this article should be reinstated as GA. 2 editors disagreed. The original reasons for delisting are unable to be addressed, without deleting this article. Gnangarra 11:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Raphael1 if you think that this article doesn't belong on wikipedia why try to delist it from GA when you could have just nominated it for deletion. Gnangarra 12:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think, that this article doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I just think, that it needs to display "sanity within Islam" to achieve neutrality. Raphael1 12:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
When consensus is based on ignoring clearly defined and commonsense criteria for Good Articles, consensus is wrong. — JEREMY 12:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Most people who said it should be relisted seem to feel that this article clearly meets defined and commonsense criteria for Good Articles, unless your definition of common sense is not the same as everyone else's. Good Articles are not the same as perfect articles, they only have to be good, not perfect, and not having to be perfect means that sometimes not everyone gets everything into an article they want. Homestarmy 12:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, this is the third listing and delisting of this article. The GA system definitely needs revamping in that those who have not contributed (either in editing on the article or discussing it on it's talk page) should be disqualified from having unilateral veto power. Netscott 12:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
We tried to change the rules, but the mediation failed. Homestarmy 13:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The mediation failed to have the result you would have liked, you mean. If you read the way it wrapped up, you'll see that everyone who bothered to participate seems to have been relatively happy with the way it went. — JEREMY 13:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I was under the impression Anjoe simply dropped the issue because he was too busy, and it seemed like most participants just stopped because you and Anjoe sort of had that long discussion with each other. The rules should be changed because we are still having this argument, why would a system which can create such stalemating arguments even be considered good, the Good Article system would have to be delisted :D. Homestarmy 14:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
We are still having this argument, because Jeremys and my critique gets ignored. If you'd help us to work on our issues, we wouldn't oppose the Good Article status. Raphael1 18:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, most of the issues can either be seen as non-issues or seem to present an overall message of "Change the whole direction of the article", which I don't really have the time or the inclination to do, nor do I suspect most editors have that sort of time either, this is a very extensive article. The article has seemed to me to always have reflected GA criteria ever since stability stopped being a problem, so I don't see the point in re-writing it just to basically make it give Islam a more favorable look and make changes which may or may not have any need to be made. Homestarmy 18:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
You might not see it that way, but I think the article is very much in need to balance the display of Islam. As if the prominently displayed offensive cartoons aren't enough, the article text promotes negative stereotypes of Islam and Muslims too. We don't need to rewrite the whole article, but some key issues definitely need to be addressed to reach neutrality. Raphael1 18:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I have reinstated (again 1st revert occured after only 3 hours) the GA status of this article in line with the GA dispute comments. GA requests that major contributors to article don't review the article for GA status. The first edit by JEREMY , occured on the 13th Feb 2006, the first edit by Raphael1 was on the 8th May 2006. If you see fualts with the article as editors of the article why not just spend productive time fixing instead of continuing this shamozzle. Gnangarra 14:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to fix this article, but unfortunately MX44, who considers it counter-productive to display a more generally accepted Muslim POV, reverts my edits. Raphael1 18:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I am not a "major contributor" in a way which would prevent me exercising my GA veto; to suggest otherwise on the basis of my edit history of the article is at best disingenuous. I have found many if not most of the editors of this article dedicated to using wikipedia as a soapbox for their frequently bigoted extremism, and entirely disinterested in compromise, reason or common sense. Many of them have displayed a bigotry I have seen nowhere else on this project, and frankly I find it challenging to continue to assume their good faith. Thus, beyond the careful critique I have provided in my GA failure notice, I choose to work instead to protect the rest of the project from their disruptive influences — including, in this case, their extraordinary exploitation of the GA system to game this substandard rubbish onto the list and then lobby to change the system to facilitate the vandalism — rather than wasting my time trying to edit the article. This article has gone beyond mere schoolboy obnoxiousness and dumb-ass bias; its ugly, meanspirited influence now threatens the infrastructure of the project itself. — JEREMY
Sure you don't want to just take that back, that seems pretty mean. Homestarmy
Absolutely I want to take it back; it pains me greatly that there are editors "working on" this project who fit the descriptions I've provided above. But while this article and others continue to be dominated by TruthSeekers, Free Speech Advocates and simple xenophobes, I'll continue to call it as I see it. — JEREMY 06:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
No I mean it looks like a WP:NPA violation, and I just didn't want to see you get in trouble for something you might not of meant :/. Homestarmy 16:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
There's no violation of "no personal attacks" here but the commentary is definitely a bit brutal. For me it just rings extremely hollow coming from an editor who up and abandoned this article and made no efforts to improve it for a long time and then when it comes up for listing as a Good Article does his best to shoot down such a listing. Where were you Jeremygbyrne? I'd have to say that I have more respect for User:Raphael1 in this regard who although perhaps his actions were often disruptive and counter-productive at least he stuck with it all of this time like a number of other editors who've been working on this article. Netscott 16:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I can sympathise with Jeremys decision to abandon this article, given the strong uncivil opposition one has to face, if one tries to compromise or make reasonable unbiased edits in this article. In fact I've abandoned the article myself for quite some time for the same reasons. Raphael1 16:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Merciless editing is a big part of Wikipedia, because of this it is often a struggle to render a particular article in accord with neutral point of view. It takes commitment to do this and editors who've demonstrated such commitment tend to earn respect for that commitment. Unless a particular editor develops a reputation for disruptiveness and whose edits are frequently not in accord with consensus their editing over time tends to be viewed beneficially and not suspect. If an editor abandons an article for some time and then comes back around only to complain about it and then not lift a finger themselves to edit it in attempts to improve it relative to such concerns, it's normal for that editor's sudden re-involvement to be viewed with suspect, particularly if that editor is trying to shut down the recognition that an article like this one deserves as generally being "Good". This is why Jeremy's comments and re-involvement rings so very hollow. Netscott 17:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Scott, as is clear from my active involvement in this talk page and my responses to the spillover from this article onto other pages, I have been paying careful attention to it since I made the decision to give up my attempts to help move it towards NPOV some months ago. In the last week I have spent considerable time and effort critiquing this article; I have posted my critique below, and updated it as points from it have been addressed. Your attempts to misrepresent my position do you no favours. That you persist in maintaining that this article is somehow "Good" (let alone a valid FA candidate) beggars belief. — JEREMY 17:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Jeremy, I've told you once I'll tell you again, edit the freaking article! and quit bitching about it. Netscott 17:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Article removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because

  • Criticisms of the cartoon are restricted to weak or strawman arguments. Why is there no mention of critics' suggestions that the cartoons were "Childish. Irresponsible. Hate speech. A provocation just for the sake of provocation. A PR stunt."[14] or "unnecessary, insensitive, disrespectful and wrong"[15]?
  • "Supporters of the cartoons claim they illustrate an important issue" — Again, this kind of uncited generalisation demonstrates the inherent bias in this article. The claim is entirely unsupported by the Economist ref provided.
  • "Several death threats and reward offers for killing those responsible for the cartoons have been made, resulting in the cartoonists going into hiding." — What, all of them?
Yes! 80.216.124.251 17:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Forgive me for being sceptical, but please add refs supporting this. — JEREMY 15:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2024306,00.html MX44 15:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Note the "Publication of the Drawings" is followed immediately by "Jyllands-Posten response", without the apparently inconvenient requirement for an intervening discussion of the Muslim reaction, which would have made some sense of the section titles.

*"It concluded:" — What concluded? The Muslim ambassadors?

The letter from the ambassadors, see footnote ... 80.216.124.251 17:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • "The ambassadors maintained that they had never asked for Jyllands-Posten to be prosecuted" — No cite. And did they maintain this in chorus?
Turkey backed out. Egypt backed out, although their ambassador did not. She tried to take credit for the affair instead and was moved to South-Africa. I do not recall who else, but definately not "all in chorus." MX44 21:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

*"A group of Danish imams, dissatisfied with the reaction of the Danish Government and Jyllands-Posten" — This construction implies motives to the imams without so much as a cite.

Ehrmm ... You want more motives and cites? Read your next objection :-D MX44 22:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • In the bloated and unwieldy "dossier" section (what is it about {{Main}} that's so difficult? You worked it our fine for the "Economic costs" section) Hirsi Ali's interview which so offended the imams is not described. Instead, it is immediately excused by the statement "who had just received the Freedom Prize 'for her work to further freedom of speech and the rights of women' from the Danish Liberal Party represented by Anders Fogh Rasmussen."
The interview was about what you mentioned above, what else? Fashion and cooking? The statement is about what the Muslims disliked and accused her and Fogh Rasmussen for. MX44 22:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The article only gets around to mentioning the names of (some of) the imams in the "Danish Imams under investigation" section; apparently they only merit identification once they're being linked to terrorism.
Actually from, when they are linked to making jokes about Islam and violence. Their names are in the even more bloated and unvieldy Akari/Laban dossier MX44 22:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

*"Contemporary majority Sunni Islam" — What is the "Contemporary" meant to imply? That there was a time when Sunni Islam was the minority?

No, that interpretations change over time. MX44 22:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Of the 18 "Comparable references", all but 3 seem to be entirely OR (ie. they are uncited).
Your notion of what "Comparable references" should look like, appears to be original rearch as well. There isn't much precedence. The external links belong to articles where wikipedia do not have its own or where there may be more material offsite. MX44 17:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • At least some of the few references I've bothered to check are mislabelled (eg. ref #87).
  • The whole shemozzle is rounded out with a liberal smattering of misspellings (eg. "Mgazine", "Jylland-Posten"/"Jyllands Posten"/"Jullands-Posten", and the non-standard "Muhammed" and "Shariah"), homophonic word substitutions (eg. "diffusion" for "defusing"), miscapitalisations (eg. "explained his intent further In the"), introduced redundancies (eg. "We urge you [recipient of the letter or dossier] to - [...] - to give us"), missing spaces, redundant wikilinking, misquotations like "the number of Muslims expanding like mosquitoes" (that would be "is expanding"), a link to the "Bad Democracy Award for March 2006" slipped in as an "online petition" and the unmissed opportunity to include yet more depictions of Muhammad by irrelevantly including the cover of the Kåre Bluitgen book and a 14th century Persian illustration, as well as a "gotcha" link to the entire Wikicommons archive. And this is even without getting started on the cartoons themselves.

The above commentary was inserted [by me] using the GA delisting template, which for some reason doesn't seem to require a signature. — JEREMY 14:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this is all Raphaels, his was the last name I saw in the contrib summary :/. Homestarmy 14:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

no as stated it was JEREMY Gnangarra

Balanced article? Then write it

Instead of complaining about the article being imbalanced, why do you not just go ahead and put the changes you see fit in? --mboverload@ 21:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I've suggested as much myself already. Netscott 21:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I mean, I'm not trying to be a hard-ass here, but I'm completely open to balanced changes. In fact, I WANT some Islamic views in there! People in the west are extremely confused and hurt that some cartoons would cause deaths. We can't understand it. Help us understand it. Just don't deface the article. It's Wikipedia, after all. =D --mboverload@ 22:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is my input towards balance. I've just replaced the IMHO rather weak "Associating Islam with terrorism" section with those two sections. Cyde reverted me and suggested I discuss them here first.


Cartoons incited hatred

  • original caption: Accumulated fuel and dangerous sparks

The enormous resentment that Muslims feel towards the west generally is not fully understood or appreciated in the west. It is driven not only by the blind hatred or religious zealotry of extremists but also by frustration and anger with U.S. foreign policy among the mainstream in the Muslim world. That resentment runs deep, and it is accompanied by a feeling of victimization that calls on memories from the crusades to colonialism. The West's espousal of freedom, democracy, and human rights is often perceived as a hypocritical "double standard" when compared to its policies. For instance, the military actions by the U.S. and European allies in Afghanistan and Iraq is another inflammatory issue, which critics perceive as a neocolonialist military endeavor in order to implement unpopular authoritarian regimes who comply with U.S. foreign policy objectives, especially with respect to Israel and Palestine. This long litany of grievances stretching over many years feeds the anger of many mainstream Arabs and Muslims, as well as extremists. This resentment and deep sense of grievance has been accumulating like a dangerous store of combustible fuels. The Cartoons provided a spark that triggered the explosion of anger and the ensuing fires on a global scale. There were also those who actively fanned the flames to advance their own political agendas. But on the whole, it is a misunderstanding by the west to try to measure the result to the size of the spark, but ignoring the accumulation of fuel.

  • I've asked Mr. Serageldin for a permission to pubish his text under GFDL, but since I haven't got a reply, we'll have to paraphrase the sentences I haven't changed/added. However I'm sure that Mr. Serageldin won't oppose if WP publishes his ideas. Raphael1 13:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Double Standard

  • original caption: On lessons of history and double standards

In Europe it is probably easier for people to make cartoons of Moses, Jesus or even an anthropomorphic God, than to make anti-Semitic cartoons showing Jews with crooked noses and bent backs, and promoting once again the stereotypes that led to the monstrosities of pogroms and the Holocaust.

  • This postulate is factually wrong, as evidenced by the Independent cartoon controversy, thereby shortcutting Serageldin's logic, making his following reasoning look like an ill-researched rant. Not least because you also left out Serageldin's own answers to the questions he rises about holocaust. MX44 05:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know about the UK, but it's a fact, that there are laws in Europe, which prohibit anti-Semitic slurs.[16][17] The Sharon cartoon you mentioned below was classified as anti-Sharon rather than anti-Semitic by the british Press Complaints Commission. Raphael1 13:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The cartoons case was thrown out of court as well, so? MX44 13:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • But would the cartoons case have been thrown out of court, if they'd have depicted Moses with a bomb? At least many European countries which republished the cartoons, wouldn't have republished an anti-Semitic cartoon as there are laws prohibiting them to do so. Raphael1 13:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • We will have to wait for the Jews to send some suicide bombers along, won't we? And then see what the cartoonist can come up with and how the courts will react! MX44 14:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, the IDF prefers to shoot rockets from helicopters. Anyway it's a proven fact, that JP refused to publish Holocaust cartoons so there definitely is some double standard regarding free speech. [18] Raphael1 15:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • There might be double standards, but they are not regarding free speech. Actually it does unfortunately appear you do not even understand what free speech is. Free speech is NOT fair speech (because you have the right to disagree on what is fair). Free speech is not even the right to have both sides presented in a newspaper (it is on the contrary the right of the newspaper to choose what they want to print). Double standards with regards to free speech whould be if Jyllands-Posten published the cartoons, then started arguing for other people NOT having the right to publish other (legally printable) cartoons or oppinions. This has not happened. Lmoelleb 07:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You are certainly right, that free speech doesn't mean that a newspaper needs to be fair and unbiased. But the fact that no newspaper in Denmark would rightly publish anti-Semitic cartoons, because there would be legal consequences and a public condemnation, is certainly an indication for a double standard. Raphael1 13:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yah, the Danish Jews really are way too anonymous, deliberately making it hard to get to them. They really should try harder, and do an effort to make the news ... Like these guys! MX44 13:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you understand the word "rightly"? Raphael1 14:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • For the sake of NPOV i'll place an evil link here from Pakistan as well.
  • Let me try go get this right. In Denmark it is OK to draw (including make fun of) Jesus, Moses, and Gud. However, in order to AVOID double standards, it should NOT be allowed to draw pictures of Muhammed. How is it exactly special rules can apply for Muhammed in order to AVOID double standards? How can it be OK to print a cartoon showing a bomb with the Star of David on it (yes, Jyllands-Posten did this)? Doesn't that associate all Jews with violence? No? but the Muhammed cartoons associate all Muslims with terrorismn... double standards? And please keep anti-Semetic out of it - these drawings are not anti-Islamitic in a Danish context. In a Danish context the drawing of Muhammed with a bomb and the bomd with the Star of David are pretty much equally offensive (in other contexts one might be more offending than the other, but obviosly we are discussing Denmark now). Lmoelleb 16:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Frankly spoken I neither approve a cartoon showing a bomb with the Star of David nor the JP cartoons. We can't keep anti-Semitism out of it, since it's part of the core issue. I don't know, whether a cartoon showing a Star of David is anti-semitic, since the Star of David is a symbol for Judaism as well as the national symbol for Israel. I.e. this picture published by the Jewish World Review probably isn't anti-semitic. However it doesn't really matter how we qualify those cartoons. In contrast to anti-Islamic slurs, there are laws in Europe, which explicitly prohibit anti-semitic slurs, which is why Muslims around the world, who probably don't know about that Star of David cartoon, suspect a double standard in Europe. And to achieve a neutral POV this view needs to be fairly presented. Raphael1 19:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • First of all I will say the move from "...is certainly an indication for a double standard" to "... Muslims around the world, who probably don't know about that Star of David cartoon, suspect a double standard in Europe" makes an important difference. With the right sources I would not see a problem with mentioning that some Muslims suspect a double standard in the article. I am also happy you accept that you can't simply qualify the cartoons as being on level with anti-semetic cartoons - and hence I take it you accept your argument that due to anti-semetic cartoons are illigal these should be as well to avoid double standards is not clear-cut. With "There are laws in Europe" you leave the impression that these laws apply to all of Europe (including Denmark). This is factual wrong. I know it an be read as "Somewhere in Europe the laws exist", but I am not convinced an average reader would read it this way. I am also aware a number of Muslims might think the laws apply everywhere in Europe, but it must then be very clear in the article that this is THEIR viewpoint. That you do not approve of either the Muhammed or Star of David cartoons is fine, but obviously your POV. Lmoelleb 06:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think, that the double standards argument solely pertains to the legal issue. IMHO it applies to the public reaction to the cartoons as well. I'd suspect a much stronger condemnation of the European public, if cartoons would mock Jews or blacks rather than Muslims. Raphael1 21:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • We all have our unproven suspicions about this and that. I could come up with a few as well, but they do not belong in this article so I do not see the point in doing so. Lmoelleb 22:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • But no person of conscience who has seen the evidence and studied the facts can react with anything but revulsion and horror at the atrocities committed by the Nazis. One can understand that European societies can and perhaps should limit free speech in some areas out of fear that it resurrect past specters Excerpt from the same Serageldin article as you are quoting. It's pretty good. You should consider reading it! MX44 16:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I did read it of course and I do not disapprove the "limit" on free speech in my country. But rejecting anti-Semitism and at the same time approving Islamophobia is a double standard. Raphael1 19:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

To Muslims that is another example of double standards. Why is it possible to pass legislation that would ban attacks against Jews and forbid denial of the Holocaust and consider it compatible with free speech, but defend offense to Islam and Muslims in the name of free speech?

  • Try to replace "Jews with X and Muslims with Y". Then you have "It is illigal to attack X. It is legal to offend Y. It's attack/offend that is at stake here, not Jews or Muslims. Personally I agree holocast denail should not be illigal (and it isn't in Denmark). Basically I fully support the idea that everyone should be allowed to express their stupidity in public. :) But I guess it is made illigal because Holocaust denial is basically done by people who either know Holocaust did happen or at least claim it without any valid research to back it up. They do it for pure political reasons, and I can see the point in making it illigal to knowlingly wrongfully deny genocide for own political gain. Notice I said "I can see the point", not "I agree". Lmoelleb 18:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If indeed the overwhelming majority of western society, including its political leaders, would have condemned the cartoons, without necessarily having restricted the right of the newspaper to publish them, the same way as they would have condemned an anti-Semitic paper for its attacks against Jews or a racist paper for its attack against blacks, then it is likely that this would have gone a long way towards establishing trust and de-escalating the issue.

  • Your style of cherry-picking quotes out of context, twisting the authors intentions, is better fit for FOX-News. That you can even imagine this kind of fake reporting could approach NPOV is highly disturbing. MX44 12:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Would you please elaborate on where this summary misleads Mr. Serageldins intentions. Raphael1 13:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I have asked Serageldin to comment on your summary. No reply yet ... MX44 15:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Why do you need Serageldins answer? Since you've claimed that I'm twisting the authors intentions, you should be able to explain how you reached that opinion. Raphael1 15:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually it is my belief that anybody (except for you), who cares to read the original text will come to the same conclusion.
  • Nothing that I could say will convince you anyway. A good spankin from Serageldin might. Are you in a hurry? MX44 15:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not in hurry, but why don't you even try to convince me? Raphael1 15:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Troll? MX44 16:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Raphael1 23:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well did you have adequate references? Several of your statements are certainly controversial, many people would argue that the Islamic fundamentalists do have some justification in Islam for their actions, not just "blind zealotry", and the overall thesis that the west of today is at fault for the possible crimes of generations past certainly needs some strong citations. Besides, there was that Jewish cartoon thing shortly after these, though im not sure if that ever came to pass. Also, I think there's some policy against writing an article with questions to the reader :/. Homestarmy 23:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Nice, somehow I knew that was nearly all about opinion. :-) Netscott 19:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about justifications of Islamic fundamentalists and I don't even write about them. Furthermore I don't write about fault or guilt at all, instead I write about possible motives. What Jewish cartoon thing are you talking about? The question can be changed to: "The legislation that bans attacks against Jews and forbids the denial of the Holocaust is considered compatible with free speech, whereas offense to Islam and Muslims is defended in the name of free speech." Raphael1 23:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
A fast google for "Sharon cartoon" reveals a sea of crooked-nosed jews. I'm sorry, but you are factually wrong! Throw "Independent" into the mix and you get this one which apparently did upset quite a few Jews. OTOH, the Muslims loved it. The UK press watchdog said if a newspaper had to take into account every possible interpretation of published material, regardless of its own motivation in publication, that would "impose burdens on newspapers that would arguably interfere with their rights to freedom of expression". MX44 00:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, a good first effort there User:Raphael1 but what you've written bears the mark of original research. These texts also ring in the tone of opinion. What are your sources for these texts? Netscott 00:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This is good. We need to start somewhere. Thank you Raphael for taking the time to write that, hopefully we may be able to incorporate some of the issues you raise into the article. --mboverload@ 00:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if someone other than Raphael1 were to do this ... Raphael1 has a very long history of tendentious editing on this page, is currently in arbitration, and within a few more days the motion banning him from editing this page entirely might pass (it's currently 3 supports to 0 opposes). --Cyde↔Weys 13:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Please comment on content, not on the contributor. Thank you. Raphael1 14:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

My objections are purely pragmatic. It doesn't make sense for you to try to work out a major rewrite when you're about to be permanently banned from editing this article. --Cyde↔Weys 14:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll stop editing on this article, if the Arbitrators decide to ban me from this article, not because you think they might do so. Raphael1 14:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Blasphemy in Denmark

I think that is might prove insightful to have a section about the blasphemy law in Denmark, there has only been two instances since 1930 where people have been charged for breaking it, and only one conviction. The Danish singer Trille sang, in the 1970s, about how difficult it was to get rid of God, and this was ruled not to be blasphemy. A part of the song goes as follows

But as soon as there is something that tickles

even just the slightest bit

then there is an eye watching up on high

This God character is {explicative} hard to get rid off

Men så snart der er noget, der kilder

bare en lille bitte smule,

så lurer der et øje i det høje.

Ham Gud han er eddermanme svær at få smidt ud.

This was found not to be blasphemous in a Danish court of law Aastrup 13:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

  • we have this:

Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#Judicial_investigation_of_Jyllands-Posten MX44 15:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed GA tag - Why

User:Jeremygbyrne has remove the GA tag completely from this article. I would like to know on what grounds you have done this. Your list of concerns have been addressed, the WP:GA/D page discussion stoped on the 21st of June with 14 editors supporting the article being reinstated as GA and 2 editors opposing. If the article is delisted then the tag {{delistedGA}} should be placed there. Gnangarra 14:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just added the {{delistedGA}} template as you requested. Raphael1 14:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Raphael1. Gnagnarra, although there have been three minor edits to the article which relate to them, my concerns have not been addressed in a substantial way. My vetoing of the GA is entirely legal according to the GA rules, and if others wish to re-nominate it once some more work has been done, I'll be happy to re-assess the article at that point. — JEREMY 15:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
You will be happy? You mean when your contradictory objections all gets resolved simultaniously. Why not be a little honest, and admit you enjoy this :-D MX44 15:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The views exemplified by this article and the debate accompanying it distress and depress me more than I feel able to convey without resorting to hyperbole. Perhaps you enjoy this kind of thing, MX44; it just makes me ill. — JEREMY 16:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I can't make the article shorter and at the same time go in to great detail about interviewing Hirsi-Ali. Which one is it to be? The interview can be found here MX44 17:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the "Good article" system is rather broken. I would suggest not bothering with it anymore and go for Featured article status. That doesn't have provisions for unilateral vetoes. --Cyde↔Weys 15:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

See proposal at good article page Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles#Delisting_change. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Well the FA nom has apparently started anyway, I wouldn't worry about it much anymore either. Homestarmy 15:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Eh never mind, it doesn't seem to be going too well, though not for any of the reasons I saw Jeremy bring up. Homestarmy 16:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

FA nom

Partially per User:Cyde, and mostly because I suspected as much the first time I read the article, I've nominated this for FA status. The article may need another rewrite and renom (for clarity) before being approved, though. —Rob</span> (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  • A link to the actual FA discussion. We'll definitely want to edit the article to generally assuage the concerns expressed there. Netscott 17:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It looks like all the concerns not including Raphael and Jeremy deal with the writing and organization, not the content, doesn't seem that hard a thing to fix to me. Homestarmy 17:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Although JEREMY personally disapprove of content, his formal objections is about writing and style. MX44 04:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • JEREMY should swap his editorial commentary editing for article editing and help make improvements rather than remaining in his long standing position of abandonment in this regard. Netscott 04:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm getting tired of explaining that I don't believe my editing this article will achieve anything. Once the FA fails and people stop trying to pretend it's a GA, perhaps the true believers will relax their stranglehold POV and allow the article to be restructured into something approaching encyclopaedic quality. Until then, I will continue to offer advice from the sideline. — JEREMY 05:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
So far, the only objections not belonging to your or Raphael seem to be one die-hard "If the picture is there I will never endorse" comment and several comments to the effect of "it doesn't read well", so it looks like content or POV is apparently not much of a problem. Homestarmy 15:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Drawmohammed hacked

Nice. This is likely to be repaired shortly. Netscott 23:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That site is rather hateful ordinarily so if there isn't a big Arabic sign reading Muhammad on the front of it, I'd recommend just closing it out. Netscott 23:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Gotta hand it to the hackers, the music seemed like a nice touch. Homestarmy 01:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
It's a bit ironic but the background tune totally reminds me of Madonna's Like a virgin. But yes I agree it is a nice touch. Netscott 02:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
err, never mind the last comment I made, Ad-aware just had a crazy false positive on something else... Homestarmy 02:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


Looks like a DNS hack. Hmmm .... They have a very peculiar interpretation of Christianity:
No doubt, Hz. Isa ( Christ ) would dislike and hate your nation.
Are you talking about the Christ who asked people to love their enemies?
MX44 05:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

now this is a sort of jihad I can heartily endorse :) shouting abuse at people using electronic media is a very evolved, 21st century kind of aggression management dab (ᛏ) 09:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

There exist an early PDF-archive here of what might be of interrest to our readers, mostly historical pictures and book-covers but also posters from Iran and elsewhere as well. A few cartoons commenting on the JP-controversy. WARNING: One picture from a NY-blog thrown in as if to show the real meaning of offensive. MX44 18:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Apology/Explanation

I certainly did not intend to delete commentary in my last edit, and apologise to Netscott and MX44 for doing so. I'm not entirely sure what happened, but I suspect it relates to my disconnection from my local LAN during an edit. — JEREMY 05:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was rather puzzling, apology accepted. Netscott 05:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Archive?

This page is growing long in its beard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MX44 (talk • contribs)

Seeking consensus

OK Dbachmann, I'll bite. Given this article is currently undergoing a peer review as part of the FA nomination procedure, how about we wait to see the result of that before revisting the GA issue? I mean, whether people like it or not, I have used the GA system according to its rules (which, incidentally, I think are entirely appropriate as they are), and the restoration of the templates is pure self-aggrandisement in breach of those rules. — JEREMY 10:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of the relists seems to be the GAAuto bot automatically relisting this article, seems even automation disagrees with your concerns.... :D Homestarmy 15:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The article is perhaps not "good" in a strict encyclopedian sense (when we includide spelling and grammar), but it has some unusual qualities (for an encyclepedia) of aiming at showing the sneakiness of world politics and religious manipulation, inviting the reader to critically make up his own mind. It may have a mild western bias, and some of the editors (that would perhaps be me) may have even harsher biases ... But we all try hard to leave that out when editing the article itself. Everybody is doing their best to be professionally objective, the way pure journalism is taught in the west.
The article is commonly regarded as one of the best starting points for those who wants to scholarly dive into the complexities of this conflict. It provides translations into English of central documents otherwise only available in Arabic or Danish. It also has an unusual high amount of word by word references to who said what and when (and those articles referenced having themselves a collection of links for further reading)
If it achives some kind of wiki-star or not, is not that important MX44 00:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
MX44, I appreciate the work that has gone into this article, and its utility as a translation source; these are not at issue. Unfortunately, the untidiness (slowly being cleaned-up), bias-by-exclusion and the in-your-face, like-it-or-lump-it advocacy in the presentation of the cartoons means that the usefulness is countered by the harm it has done and continues to do to casual observers' impression of wikipedia's NPOV neutrality (not to mention the editors it has driven from the project). That it would be so easy to fix this (moving the image down the article, behind a link or into a sub-article, or even by posting some kind of neutral warning above the lead) only serves to make obvious that the telic determination of some editors not to "give an inch" is grounded in bias — and, in some cases, bigotry.
I notice nobody has actually addressed my point about the FA nomination. It would indeed seem that few here are going to learn anything from the peer review provided there, but instead will rely on their extant biases to allow them to see the rejection from FA as somehow trivial, political, or simply misguided. This is characteristic of the faith-driven neurofundamentalism of many partisans (see Drew Westen#Political bias study) which, while difficult to "blame" on those who are so afflicted, is nevertheless incompatible with a consensus and empathy-driven project such as wikipedia.
If it achives some kind of wiki-star or not, is not that important — I'd like to compliment you on the maturity and spirit of compromise inherent in this comment (not to mention your good work addressing at least some of the problems I have highlighted in my critique, above). — JEREMY 09:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about you, but I don't see the apparent failure for FA as trivial or any of that stuff, rather, most of the objections seem to have to do with the quality of the writing and organization of the article rather than increadible western bias or whatever it is. As I remember it, Raul whatever-the-numbers-were or whoever it was I think is a closing person for FA noms, and he specifically indicated that the objection by one user that the picture shouldn't exist was "Ridiculous, and can be safely ignored". The main problem with the article now seems to simply be how the article reads. Homestarmy 18:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Surely that wasn't the person responsible for FA?! In any case, I've never argued for the picture's removal (at least, not from the project as a whole) and would be content with about as minimalist a compromise as we could manage (eg. a below-the-fold move, with or without warning template, although I'd obviously prefer the latter). To me, it's difficult to argue that a picture showing the manifestation of the controversy (eg. rioting, burning embassies) is somehow less relevant or representative of the subject than a picture showing the cause of the controversy (particularly when many editors are arguing that the real cause of the controversy was lobbying from the Danish Imams). Can you see my point? — JEREMY 06:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy your fellow editors have been going back and forth with this image thing with User:Raphael1 to the point that because of his disruptions in this regard he is about to be bannned from editing on this article for 1 year. I hope you're not taking his place. Netscott 07:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That sounds rather like a threat. I support the forthright display of the cartoons, and commend your efforts in this regard, but grow weary of the arrogant prosecutorial attitude which you continue to bring to bear upon your fellow editors. It's not up to you to hand out bans, and it's distressing to see you gloat over another's misfortune.Timothy Usher 07:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Timothy Usher, you have not had to endure User:Raphael1's long term disruptive behavior over this question of displaying the cartoons. Everyone, and I mean everyone (including supporters of censoring or otherwise modifying the display characteristics of the cartoons is cognizant of that fact.) Mention of the remedy that is about to go into effect relative to that fact as well is not new on this talk page. Please go pick another "battle" for you to involve yourself in and cease admonshing others that have been here all along and dealt with User:Raphael1's nonsense. It is amazing that again we are on this talk page talking about the images! This issue is such an old beaten up dead horse. Why is this horse still being beaten? Netscott 07:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Netscott, I don't see myself taking anyone's place. Indeed, I have been attempting to reach a satisfactory conclusion to this situation since before Raphael1 started editing here. In any event, this discussion isn't supposed to be about images, it's supposed to be about calling some kind of truce over the article's ongoing GA tagging against the veto rules until after the FA nomination has finished. — JEREMY 08:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello?

I'm disappointed at the way this attempt at consensus has gone. I have in good faith refrained from reverting the re-tagging of this page against the current and long-standing GA veto rules under which I delisted it, in the hope that those who persisted in this misrepresentation would give it a break until the FA nomination had gone through its processes. Instead, the tags have remained in place and nobody but MX44 has even bothered to engage in constructive discussion. Please demonstrate a little good faith people, and don't just hide behind it. — JEREMY 07:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

That's makes two of us disappointed, albeit for different reasons. Here's to hoping you someday return to editing this article. Netscott 12:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, you've won

Well, the misleading templates have now remained on the article against GA rules for the entire period of the FA process, despite the fact that nobody but MX44 even bothered to engage in this supposed attempt to reach some kind of consensus position. So, given the unanimous rejection of the article from FA, can someone who supports this ongoing travesty please justify that position? On what basis are you continually re-tagging this clearly not-Good article, when it has been legally been delisted from GA? — JEREMY 12:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

And relisted again by the same current rules. This is currently allowed under the rules, as consensus does not play a role, but individual opinions of editors to list and delist articles in order to keep the system free of extended discussions. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
"Legally"? Might I suggest you peruse Wikipedia:Wikilawyering? Given your efforts citing "GA Rules" I'd say that term is rather applicable in your case Jeremy.

Efforts by Jeremy G. Byrne to keep this article from being listed as a Wikipedia:Good article despite a 11-2 general consensus for reinstatement:

(→Netscott) 21:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

GA Dispute wording change

Related to all of this talk about Wikipedia:Good articles, there is a straw poll on changing the introductory wording to the GA dispute page. Have you say. Netscott 17:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Good articles is an unbureaucratic system to arrive at ... new discussion at this page." :-D MX44 17:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, consensus is what the project essentially operates under... so that equates with discussions after discussions... almost anywhere you go here. :-) Netscott 17:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Goatse image

Moved to Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments/Image-Display#Goatse.cx. It seemed as though User:MX44 was deleting... tsk, tsk.. discussion like this is not to be deleted. Netscott 21:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Goatse discussions do not belong here. It has nothing to do with JP, Muhammad, Cartoons, Denmark, The Middle East ... Whatever! I am in my full right to delete MX44 21:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
The discussion had evolved though... I agree with you that the intial post should have just been deleted however. Netscott 21:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I was moving it to Talk:Goatse but got an edit conflict ... MX44 21:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Fine, take it from there then. Netscott 21:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

this page is a talk forum, anyway; there is no sign that consensus has changed; do another strawpoll in two months if you must. In the meantime, rehashings of the tired debate should be rolled back. Or we could rotate the logs every few days so that the discussion will be ongoing without anyone having to waste their time.... dab (ᛏ) 21:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

JP wiki leadin

Last time we rewrote the lead, we did not have that many links. IMHO they are distracting as it stands. The lead is an overly concentrated summary of the article, and almost every (second?) word can benefit from an explanation. At the time of writing, we tried to just describe that there is a conflict, quoting a few opposing commonly held opinions, ending up with a dramatic comparison with WWII ...

Can we take out excess wiki-links in the lead, please?

The idea in the lead is to let the reader understand that those involved are not even talking on the same page. And then of course invite our reader to take part of our further findings (including links and references.)

MX44 01:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


I have edited out some links, keeping those I believe are the pertinent keywords to this article


MX44 04:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

JP Whitespace

It has been objected that there is too much whitespace in the article, sections that are nothing more than a break out of mainstream with a link. I find three suspects, at first:

  • Descriptions of the drawings

... and near the end:

  • International reactions
  • Economic and human costs


They have very little copy indeed, but I find that the copy there is of good quaity, inviting, no almost screeming, "Click mee!" ...

I'd say leave it. Two of them are so close to the end, you could even argue that they are overlengthy references.

MX44 02:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Where's this complaining? One fairly simple solution is to remove the special <br style="clear:both"> formatting codes in affected sections. I did this formatting to help distinguish a given section relative to a given photo. Netscott 02:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe this complaint was given as a reason to FA reject ... No? Personally I find articles intersperced with whitespace more inviting, more readable, but that is when I am in control of the actual printout. We do not have that luxury on the internet ... Still, having some space where one can breathe, is nice :-) MX44 02:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Descriptions of the Drawings could be moved up to right after the lead-in, yes?MX44 03:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, got ya... wasn't thinking in terms of the FA comments. :-) Edit away there. Netscott 03:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I moved Descriptions up, but it is still below Contents (far away from the image.) What did I do wrong? MX44 03:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, the way it became is correct according to typographical conventions, unless we want to make it part of the lead-in? (Not!) MX44 03:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

JP POV

Now this is a hard one ... Not least because some editors engage in the sayings that it is severely biased beyond belief. It is biased though, albeit mildly. As I can see, the bias is on level with the otherwise fine article by Ismail Serageldin

Discussion: How much distortion can we digest before it becomes a hindrance to our readers? How stupid are our readers?

MX44 04:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I really hope that's a rhetorical question, because it's not one that anyone should attempt to answer. I personally only see a minor bias in the article, and I think that some people yell bias every 5 minutes partially because of the image display and the fact that they consider having it biased (I disagree), also the links section and some of the sections are leaned towards the JP side of it and I can see where people can claim bias on that front. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 05:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
What is the argument for that the links section is leaned towards JP? It looks to me like it could lean in either direction ... Anyways, I heard one complaint about the way Hirsi Ali was mentioned, the word "excuse" comes to mind. Honestly, I don't get it. I would argue that the sentence is overly fact filled and clumpsy, but I am not sure that a full description of the TV-interview would make it any better. Mentioning the death of van Gogh as the reason to why she came at this inconvenient point in time (as opposed to a year before when the prize was given) isn't helpful either. And yes, the question is in part rhetorical. We all know that the vast majority of mankind will do around average or better. MX44 10:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Like this:

Original dossier caption: "Here is the real image of Muhammad."'

... or like this:

Original caption: "Here is the real image of Muhammad."

To me the first version looks as if the imams should have changed or invented the caption? I see no reason to believe that should be the case. MX44 16:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well you've removed the full explanation in the caption... I was making an attempt to re-establish pertinency. The plain "Original caption" makes no specification of it's origin. Optimally it'd say: "Original caption included in the dossier" or something to that effect, no? (→Netscott) 16:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
The full explanation should be in the article or sub-article. The AP stuff was funny but irrelevant. We have a grotesque picture, it has a grotesque caption, done!
What is relevant is that it was in cirkulation for several days from BBC World News, Internet edition. Aired by al-Jazeera as well ... MX44 17:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Overview / Timeline

The overview section has become very short. IIRC, it was longer earlier, but most of that material has gone into sub-articles. So what started out as three-tier solution with lead/overview/details have now become a four-tier behemoth where the second layer is suffering a slow death ... The article as it stands now is' the overview (or should be), and the details are in the sub-articles.

If we start moving stuff down into the timeline, there will be a shortish period with things getting worse untill suddenly ... The overview will be gone. MX44 13:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


For some reason there is no mention of riots in the time line? Otherwise I find that the information in Overview is already present. MX44 14:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Gone! MX44 03:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Table of Contents

Why is a {{TOCright}} placed in the article? It distorts the view of it, I think. Could I remove it? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 01:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please edit away! I tried to reduce the blank space in the article with the {{TOCright}} template.... that was the best I could come up with... (→Netscott) 04:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Article has improved alot

I just wanted to drop in and say that since I decided to take a step back from the endless arguing in March and take a long break this article's improved an enormous amount. Apparently there's still a good deal of vandalism, though, from a brief glance at the edit page. Anyway, I thought those who decided to stick it out deserved to know they HAVE made a difference. RichardRB 11:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Not so sure, maybe it was really bad in March, but it was pretty good waaaaay back, was the best source on the contraversy during the controversy. JeffBurdges 17:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying that, there was a time when the article represented the facts in a better way than the current incarnation does? MX44 03:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Not sure, I just remember it being more informative, without those silly little few line sections which say nothing. Now its more like an index page to its subpages. It be lovely if someone would expand those little sections, it'll never be a featured article like this. 134.214.102.33 13:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Worst is international reactions. Whatever
I have tried to adress that problem now, and I think it works quite well except that it has a premature ending. Who is to get the final word, and what would it be?
As it stands we have the end of a a quote: ... getting into a negative-publicity fight is as inadvisable as wrestling with a pig: You get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I find that this is good advice (for all of us) and do not mind if it stays that way. MX44 19:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I suppose it's in a pig's nature not to recognize its own reflection. It's amazing that you, MX44, of all people, with your attempts to spin this article would give us that advice. Of course, the passage he quotes is spliced from an article widely circulated on right-wing websites. Here's the full sentence: "Muslim activists are finding out why getting into a negative-publicity fight is as inadvisable as wrestling with a pig: You get dirty and the pig enjoys it." It was better said by Nietzsche: "And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." --Kitrus 07:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, dear Kitrus, your comment that you find it "amazing" that MX44 would accept such quote in the article is just another proof that you and a lot of other people still don't get it. People like MX44 actually WANT the article to contain both side of the argument and all kinds of different opnion from all sides alongside the facts. And it is obvious a very common opinion among some muslims, that the West is disgusting (and hence the pig-anology). Why would anyone who is interested in the quality of the article repress such opnion being included? Out of pride, well yes, but if you put your own pride above the quality of the article you would be a very poor editor of Wikipedia indeed. --Anjoe 11:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
His edits on this article show a clear interest in trivializing Muslim outrage to this incident and emphasizing extremist reactions as the only Muslim reactions that came in response to the incident. He has no interest in anything other than melding the article towards his views. If you knew my personal views on the situation, Anjoe, you wouldn't be making such silly and patronizing assumptions about me. Feel free to respond in my talk page. --Kitrus 03:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I conclude from your answer that there is some moderate (in opposition to extreme) muslim point of view, which is lacking from the article and that you would like to have included. Please feel free to suggest any such specific addition and/or changes here. --Anjoe 18:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Oink! MX44 13:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Irony--Kitrus 03:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

User Thoughts

Reading this article and the associated Talk page have taught me more about the state of western politics and Islamic-US-European relations than 30+ years of reading newspapers. So my thanks to all of you, writers, editors, and wreckers alike. Your goal was to inform, and you have succeeded. LamaBillyBob

Banned/Blocked in Pakistan

Access to this article from Pakistani ISP's is currently blocked. Remember its not a blanket ban of wikipedia but just this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.101.48.243 (talk • contribs) .

If this is because of the image of the drawings, they'll need to block this one as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akkari-Laban_dossier
MX44 04:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
That's nice. I wonder if Piss Christ is banned/blocked in Vatican City? Doubt it. --StuffOfInterest 11:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Nah, they just redirect to this version MX44 01:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, so it's ok to start posting offensive material on this site, such as these images, is it??? I wonder if it's also ok to show the Princess Diana death crash photo on the Princess Diana pagem, and naked child on the child pornography page.... DOUBLE STANDARDS.
I wonder how many times we have to explain that it is illegal to show child pornography on the internet. --Maitch 14:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose to get rid of the "Danish Imams investigated" part - nothing appears to have happend either judicially or terroristically. Instead there should be a short mention of these two affairs:

1) A guy tries to kill editor of a big newspaper for publishing the cartoons, is arrested, commits suicide, 50000 people attend his funeral [19]

2) Two suitcase bombs are discovered on trains, several guys arrested, they say they did it because of the cartoons [20]

Thoughts? Azate 12:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not the terrorist thingie that is important to the "Danish Imams investigated" part. It is the hypocrasy: At the same time that they are whining about some cartoons joking about Muslims and suicide bombers, they pull similar jokes amongst themselves ... So I'd say keep.
  • Update: There seems to be some developement of the terrorist aspect to this story. Youssef Mohamed El Hajdib of the German suitcase bombing [apparently] wanted to hide out at imam Abu Bashar's place in Odense. Bashar was head of the first delegation to Egypt, and also the one "explaining" to the BBC about "pig-face." MX44 07:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • That story has gone in a totally different direction by now. MX44 07:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Regarding 1) ... Thats an interresting take on Muslims, murders, suicide and/or torture as well as freedom of the Pakistani press to make up any story that will please their readers ... :-)
(Talking of which: Today I was looking up on Ann Coulter cartoons and found this one.)
Regarding 2) ... Is it just me or is there something fundamentally flawed in their reasoning? Kind of like ultra Christians killing abortion doctors, to preserve life? Anyway, I added this to the "West and Zionist Agendas-."
MX44 17:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
BTW, Yahoo links expires all too quickly ... So here is a replacement ref for 1)
http://www.euro-islam.info/pages/caric_05-14-06.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4976884.stm
That euro-islam.info link appears to claim that Cheema entered the office of Axel Springer. As far as I know, Springer died in the 1990s. Instead, the guy tried to kill Mr Koeppel, chief editor of "Die Welt" newspaper, the flagship paper of the "Springer" publishing group... Azate 01:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I think what is meant here is "the office [building] of [The] Axel Springer [Publishing Group]." At least that was the way I read it at first. MX44 06:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

img link removal

User:Konstable!

You deleted the only link to clean versions of the JP images and kept the altered POV version under disguise of not linking to "Blog's". That is why I rv'd MX44 11:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I have now instead removed the blogger link to

... which you for unknown reasons chose to highlight! MX44 12:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Drawings by DFU

Shouldn't we have something about the recent controversies because some members of Dansk Folkepartis (Danish Peoples Party) youth department made some drawings and humiliated the prophet at a summer part this year. The story has been on the frontpages on almost all Danish news papers and it is also reported that Islamic organizations like IOC are condemning the drawings. Snailwalker | talk 19:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. And since nobody was doing that, I did. I remember the IOC thing too, but can't find a nice source. Can you help out? Azate 14:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Well I think the only sources I have are in Danish, so I guess they're of no use :-S Snailwalker | talk 19:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Danish sources have been no problem so far, why should they now? Just go ahead and add them! If something English turns up, they can still be substituted. Azate 20:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I would like to keep this away from here. The JP-controversy is not the cause of every other conflict in this world, and even if it was, it was certainly not premeditated.
I can agree on that there is a 'JP' pattern arising here, but I think we should wait (a few years?) and see if this is persistent, perhaps worthy an article in its own right (where this article is only used as an example.) MX44 20:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Well I think it should be mentioned because the reason for the contest was the drawings in Jylland Posten and the muslim reaction. But perhaps we should make a new article and just refer a bit about the episode in this one? Snailwalker | talk 11:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


Offended again

I see picture of the section Danish imam's tour to the middle east is very offensive and isn't in the right place .I don't see a need to display such a picture . the comment under the pic is offensive too . so if we agree to diplay the cartoons after a long debate i think there is no need for this additional offensive picture to be displayed . i think it dispute the neutrality of this section by offending muslims and thier prophet Muhammad be peace up on him. Muslims in thier teachings don't eat pig and they think of it as a very filthy animal so putting a pic with such a comment if very humiliating . So i propose the pic of the pig should be removed .Tamer Maged 10:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You mean the picture of the pig-squealing contest? That image is highly relevant, because it was used by the imams to illustrate to the people they visited the discrimination of European muslims they alleged. I also don't see how the caption of the picture is offensive. It says that it's a picture of a pig squealing contest, and what the caption was that was used for the picture in the dossier. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 10:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
This is the picture that the Danish imams distributed world-wide, you'll have to complain to them, that they dared to offend you. And if you were to ask me, I'll agree that that was a silly thing to do. But, we cannot just go around and change basic facts, no matter how inconvenient they may seem to you in hindsight. MX44 11:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
That picture was just one of dozens that were included in the Akkari-Laban dossier which they used during their tour. Its inclusion on the main page (as well as the original caption) is highly pertinent. (→Netscott) 11:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
... and that this one in particular is choosen, is because it is the one that have had by far the most wide-spread circulation. MX44 11:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
May I remind everybody that it is not a picture of Muhammed. It is just a picture of a French guy with a beard. I wonder if Muslims are offended by every single image of a guy with a beard. It should be in the article because it was the most widely circulated non-JP image and was part of a major news story. We could however loose the original caption. --Maitch 13:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
It should have been clear to you from this discussion that there is at least some support for the original caption. So could you please refrain from singlehandedly removing the caption, and bring it up here instead? Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 13:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Some support = only you. I can hardly call that consensus and I did bring it up here. --Maitch 14:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Not just me, Netscott as well: "Its inclusion on the main page (as well as the original caption) is highly pertinent." He also reverted the removal of the caption by Delengar, calling it a "pertinent detail" in his edit summary. Eight minutes later, you removed the caption again. And yes, you brought it up here. And then waited just four minutes before removing the caption... Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 15:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
For the record: I, too, think the caption text is quite alright the way it has been for months now. Azate 19:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, you can't expect everybody to sit and read through the history of this article. Some of us has doesn't spend that much time on Wikipedia. --Maitch 15:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but before you removed the caption, you were involved in this discussion. I'm sure you must have seen Netscott's comment above. Is it too much to ask of you to wait for others to respond to your posting, before you do anything? Was it really that urgent? Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 15:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Maitch - you're going to have to "sit and read through the history of the article" if you want to make changes that other editors don't revert right away. Having an understanding of the article, especially this one, which saw tremendous edit wars in its infancy, is a great help in editing the article. Valtam 16:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to mention that this is stupid. lol How can a stupid little cartoon possibly offend anyone? I mean I could see if the prophet was getting fucked in the ass, or something like that but Jesus Christ, it's fucking nothing. The rest of the world is a bunch of bitches. Fr0 03:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Lego satire

It seems to be new, and subject to some edit warring. But I don't see any discussion of it on the talk page. If I missed the discussion, my apologies. But if there is none, I'm offering a section for the discussion of the Lego satire image. Valtam 16:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing supporting its notability or relevance to the issue. Remove for now, unless and until someone add a justification for it. IronDuke 16:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Totally ridiculous addition. The addition of such an image hardly even merits discussion imho. (→Netscott) 16:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Shaykh Raed Hlayhel leaves Denmark

Shaykh Raed Hlayhel leaves Denmark and moves back to Tripoli in northern Lebanon with his wife and child. Says that he is disappointed with JP's aquittal and that he will never return:

MX44 02:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup needs

  • Under the section "Descriptions of the drawings" there is the unsourced statement that "Some of the cartoons can be difficult to understand for those without knowledge of certain Danish language metaphors or awareness of individuals of note to the Danish public." This statement, which I do not agree with, is not sourced and is vague. Which of the cartoons is hard to difficult, and according to whom? What are these Danish metaphors?
  • Under the section "Debate about self-censorship" a lecturer was said to have been assaulted. Who is this lecturer?
  • Under the section "Danish Prime Minister's meeting refusal" what are and who are "Islamic ambassadors"? Is this suppose to mean ambassadors from largely-Muslim populated countries? If so, then these countries need to be listed, rather than this nonsense title of "Islamic ambassadors." It's not like Britain's ambassadors are referred to as "those Christian ambassadors." Additionally, "Egypt" is said to have played a "leading role in defusing the issue in the Middle East." At the very least that should be the Egyptian Government. That statement is highly debatable and no examples are given for how the Egyptian Government defused the issue.
  • Under the section "Further police investigations" "Pakistani media" is said to have claimed that Amer Cheema had been tortured to death. Which media outlets? Which reporters? Why is this statement notable in this context?
  • There are two different dating styles used.
  • The use of passive voice throughout the article
  • KazakhPol 03:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • All this is is explained on the subpage. The statement doesn't need to sourced since it's "obvious to any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge" (WP:OR). The metaphor in question is the apple-thingy.
  • This has a footnote for the source.
  • "Islamic ambassadors" fixed. The other points have details in footnotes
  • All this is footnoted and also in the Aamir Cheema article
  • 2 dating styles? 1 instance. In a footnote. Fixed. Nitpick!
  • passive voice? here and there. So what?
I removed the tag. Azate 08:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
The "Descriptions" section is nonsense and the main page it links to is superfluous. Do not re-add the Desciptions section without sources. I do not believe it is accurate as I am ignorant of Danish metaphors and I could easily understand the cartoons. KazakhPol 00:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Stating the obvious does not need to be sourced. Stating the obvious is not original research. (→Netscott) 00:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. And I have difficulty beliving that you understood "On his shirt is written "FREM" and then in a new line "-TIDEN". Fremtiden means the future, but Frem (forward) is also the name of a Valby football team whose uniforms resemble the boy's shirt" and "A caricaturized version of journalist and writer Kåre Bluitgen, wearing a turban with the proverbial orange dropping into it, with the inscription "Publicity stunt". In his hand is a child's stick drawing of Muhammad. The proverb "an orange in the turban" is a Danish expression meaning "a stroke of luck": here, the added publicity for his book" without having any knowledge of Denmark. IronDuke 05:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Who is the person is the upper left-hand corner of the page from JP, how is he related to the story and what is that apple-thingie doing there?
Game over, thanx for playing, please insert coin! MX44 12:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Whats the point of 2 articles?

Why does this article have opinions on the controversy, but then Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy also have different opinions on the controversy? Wouldn't this confuse regular readers who overlook the link and read this article only and no get the full opinion on both sides? Personally I believe that either that article be merged with this one or this article remove its opinion section and just have a link to the other one. That way there will be a more neutral point of view on the controversy.

I see your point, but merging would make the article way too long. We are already stretching the limits, setting new Wiki standards here. If it may be of interrest to you, the current structure is the result of a split (actually several ...) of an overlengthy article MX44 12:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The idea is that this article covers opinions broadly whereas that article goes into great detail on the subject. It is fairly common practice to have "daughter articles" that cover an encyclopedic aspect of a subject on greater detail than the main article can afford. —Cuiviénen 13:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Protected

Please unprotect this article. 128.122.89.233 23:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Please make any requests for protection or unprotection at WP:RFPP. Thank you. --StuffOfInterest 23:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Critique of 'racism'

Thanks for the source of a criticism of the cartoons as being racist, Zleitzen. I first raised this issue 11 months ago (see Archive 3a) - Islam is a religion, not a race. To me it would be the same as calling a person who doesn't like Scientologists a "racist". However, your source does quote a German critic of the cartoons as saying they are racist. Not the most logical thing in the world, but there's no sense in trying to educate the German critic on the difference between race and religion, especially so long after the fact. Thanks again... Valtam 22:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The second source provided states that Kuwaitis found the pictures racist as well as Germans. Perhaps the Kuwaitis are confused as to whether they are offended on the basis of race or religion also? Either way, the fact that critics found the cartoons racist is indisputable whether one believes that is possible or not.--Zleitzen 23:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Right, but even if there exist a person such that he believes in theory X, that does not proove that theory X is (even close to) being correct or reasonable. So therefore; to mention theory X as a kind of fact is possibly both misleading as well as uncyclopedic. I would say that we can leave the racism for now, it is a controversial subject with way too many interpretations that really needs an overhaul, but if the lead-in grows any longer, it might be a good time to consider sharpening the editorial scissors. MX44 16:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The process is this : Either notable sources described the cartoons as racist, or they didn't. In this case they did. Whether we can prove that this logic does not follow an X Y theory is not our role. If people view something as racist, on such a grand scale as this - 5 sources have now been provided and there are 100s more to pick from - then that is notable. We write "critics viewed the cartoons as racist". That goes in the article. Then that makes the lead.--Zleitzen 16:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Put it in International_reactions_to_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy along with all the other noteable and noble persons. For some odd reason there is still no entry for Kuwait there? MX44 12:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The citation is already in the lead of this article, where it should be, alongside the five eight ten other citations from different reliable sources used that back up this rather important point. Perhaps someone else can add it to another page. My concern was that something so widespread and easily verifable was removed from the lead based on an editor's own original research and X Y theorising.--Zleitzen 13:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Note that the racist argument cannot be sustained in a debate. The islamophobic argument is obvious to everybody and the blasphemous argument is obvious to all Muslims but the racist argument only works as a rhetorical trick for a few seconds. MX44 13:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Debating skills are not our concern. Verifiability is.--Zleitzen 13:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I would agree. Looks like the word "racist" is being used as a catch-all defamatory word. Just like when kids in the school yard call each other "gay" — they are not really discussing each others' sexual preferences, they just use the word for name calling. And Wikipedia is not under any obligation to act as an indiscriminate collector of all nonsense that falls out of someone's gob in the heat of the moment. Not even if that nonsense is quoted in a newspaper. An encyclopedia is not a regurgitator of everything that is verifiable. Weregerbil 13:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
If you consider the statements of governments, Muslim groups, the UN etc indiscriminate nonsense, then that is your perogative. That is your original research and you can debate that on numerous websites elsewhere. If you have personal theories about what is racist or not as you apparently do, you are also welcome to debate that on various blogs. On Wikipedia we detail notable verifiable views. When they are as notable as the above, and verified, they are placed appropriately.--Zleitzen 14:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Ehh? Since when did it become original research to argue that Islam is not a race? Neither is Christianity or other belief-systems like Communism etc etc ... Try to put it in a sentence: The Muslim race was founded in Mekka and spread over ... , or The Christian race started out as ..., or The Communist race was fathered by Marx and ... You see? Does not compute! MX44 14:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I suggest for future understanding of Wikipedia, editors read these core policies: WP:V which states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" and WP:NOR which excludes "editors' personal views, political opinions, and any personal analysis". Arguing personal views about what is or isn't racist - when it is beyond dispute that a significant amount of people found something racist - would come under that latter policy and is of little consequence or help to the article. --Zleitzen 14:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you do a little reading as well:
WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information
... and stop this WP:NOT gaming, which really isn't that funny anymore. MX44 14:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I refer you to my above comments. None of which are intended to be funny or "game" anything. Instead, on the contrary, they refer to the use of verifiable information supported by sources in an article. Which is the process we use to write articles here. I recommend you set up an WP:RFC to determine whether or not 10 or more notable sources - saying the same thing - is now "indiscriminate information". Perhaps also, the rfc could carry a caveat asking whether the sources citing critics viewing the cartoons as racist - BBC, Washington post etc - are in fact theoretically wrong, and this information should not be detailed?--Zleitzen 16:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to change the sentence to note the confusion of the critics in calling this racism. E.g., "Confused critics of the cartoons describe them as Islamophobic or racist..." or "Critics of the cartoons describe them as Islamophobic or (illogically) racist...""" I have low confidence this change wouldn't be reverted, though. Valtam 16:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That would change the subject to a discussion on the meaning of words rather than an overview of this conflict. That discussion is covered in great depth over at, say Islamophobia. MX44 06:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't editorialize this. Many people who are not "confused" or unclear about the meaning of the word argue that the cartoons were racist. Check this article [21]. "why do so many Europeans across the political spectrum feel compelled to jump to the defence of our ‘freedom of expression’ over the publication of openly racist cartoons? With black eyes looking slyly from underneath bushy eyebrows, the hooked nose, and the curved dagger already drawn, the figures that stare at us from some of the cartoons clearly betray kinship to those that populated the anti-Semitic cartoons of the 1920s and 1930s."

Whether you agree with these definitions of racism or not, they are reputable people making the arguments, not simple men on the street. There's no need to qualify their argument, except to note counter arguments in their own space. Peregrine981 06:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Where's the "counter arguments in their own space"? The accusation about racism are being mentioned two places in the article now. If it were/is such a big argument by the guys who opposes the cartoons to be mentioned right at the top, why hasn't it been more widely reported and naturally countered by guys on the other side? Why not include the obvious counterargument: "Caricatures of people of several races are portayed in the 12 cartoons, so ethnic Arabs can not be said to have been singled out racially." --Anjoe 01:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Archive_28&oldid=1211859327"