Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 12

Number of Vandals
I cannot count the number of vandals here. I cannot beleive that. They are deleting the poll I started for no reason! And at least one of these vandals is an admin! 216.248.124.210 11:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * My friend, you are in a car listening to the radio news bulletin. The news reader says: "And now a traffic warning from the police: one wrong-way driver has been seen on the M4 from London to Glasgow. Please keep left and warn the driver by light signalling" and then you angrily put the radio off, while you shout: "ONE? ONE wrong-way driver? I can see HUNDREDS of wrong-way drivers!" -- ActiveSelective 11:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * a passing remark but, heh, witty. __earth (Talk) 06:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Are we friend? Then listen! I am just trying to initiate a new poll. I would like the users determine what kind of cartoon should be posted. This is a new poll. I am vandalized with some people including an admin. If I am in the wrong way, users can say it. They just will vote for it. Is there a reason to vandalize the poll? I am sure the driver in the wrong way is not shot by police officers... How does your anectode ends? 216.248.124.210 11:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It ends as it ends: with the driver still blaming others of wrong-way driving. The others? Well, at least one admin, eight signed-up users (not anonymous), all have been nice and commented so far on why they deleted your vandalism, and all having said to you many times already: "YOU ARE DRIVING THE WRONG WAY!" -- ActiveSelective 11:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and your suggestion of shooting the driver... maybe we should do that and block you from editing.


 * I wouldn't be suprised. I can see your mentality. You would probably go and write a new Wiki rule with your admin friends: How can a pool owner be banned for no reason! How about using the blood of the driver as an ink. You can do that too, I am sure! 216.248.124.210 11:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe you did not know: Wikipedia is not a democracy. We have rules like WP:3RR that say you can make only 3 similar edits to a page, and not more. Well, you have added the same poll at least 10 times now, while everyone who has deleted your vandalism has done it not more than 3 times. Also, you do not obey the civility-rule in your addressing other users, and no civility by continually opposing the massive outcome of polls we already had. Also, you assume "bad faith" of us, which means you twist our good words as if we intent something evil, and from that you conclude you do not need to listen to us. You have broken 3 rules multiple times. You deserved to be blocked. -- ActiveSelective 12:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * My only hope is to encounter a democrat here! You are far from demcracy. You have started the edit war, not me. And this is a discussion page, not the article. If you want to see that all edits are not vandalism go check the corresponding page. To delete the contribution of a user in a discussion page: that is called vandalism. I am not opposing outcome of the polls. The poll I started is different from the ones already active. It is asking about the nature of the pictures, not posting them or not! I am not deserved to be blocked. I think if you are admins who are vandalizing the contributions in a discussion page, you deserved to be a regular user without the admin privilliges. 216.248.124.210 12:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * We are democrats, but Wikipedia has boundaries. You are the one who is really undemocratic by discarding the massive polls many users voted on, and by trying start all over again. -- ActiveSelective 13:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Admins are vandalizing!
I have deleted this poll on the basis that there is a clear consensus that it is unnecessary and unwanted. Come on everyone, the main polls at the top gave everyone an opportunity to record a comment as well as a vote, and it's poretty obvious what the consensus is. Let's not do this any more. Thparkth 12:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you always lie with no shame? There is no concensus on the Pool 3 being unwanted! You are a true vandal with admin priviliges. 216.248.122.217 13:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a clear consensus. Read the comments in the poll. Also, I'm not an admin. Thparkth 13:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So, how in this world you think that you can delete the poll I have started. If you are not an admin, can I ask, are you stupid?


 * Read the beginning of the poll. It is different from the ones above. Appearently you can read, but I do not think that you can understant what you read. 216.248.122.217 13:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * By re-re-re-re-adding the "poll" that others do not want, and randomly calling people vandals / stupid / etc, you are making yourself look bad. You are not convincing anyone. You are hurting your cause. Think. Weregerbil 13:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Does ANYONE who doesn't have a 216.248.122.* IP address support keeping this new poll? Thparkth 13:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't. They don't like the result of the first poll and they are putting a new one up to try and get a different result. The second poll's questions seem loaded to me. This is not mean't to offend anyone it's just my opinion. User:slamdac 13:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Er, why, oh why - 216.248.122.217 (and add a name, it'll be easier to address you) don't you just post the question and see if people do want another poll? Maybe you did and I missed it, this discussion is getting big and the changes are hard to follow. I'm curious to see if you've something constructive to add, but dubious. Cal 03:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandal
Someone, apparently from around Aalen in Germany, is using several different IPs to vandalise:


 * 80.145.98.46
 * 80.145.90.146
 * 80.145.109.235

This is probably to avoid being blocked by the 3-revert rule. Can anything be done? Eixo 12:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

'''True vandals are the ones with admin privilliges here! '''216.248.122.217 13:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Clash of Civilizations

 * Moved to Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments

Point 1: The article may be promoting an important misunderstanding
The controversy may well be from a few misinterpretations. It may be that:

1. Westerners interpret the interpretation as being a priohibition against showing the face of mohammed. I no longer think this is the case. Muslims do not seem to react to them being representations of mohammed, but rather react to particular pictures as being insulting to Mohammed, in which case many westerners have understood the reaction as being a reaction against mere depiction, and westerners want to protect the right to depict anythingh due to press freedom. Quite possibly, both sides agree to that right of press freedom, and if so, then there is a misunderstanding on both sides about what the other party is attacking and defending.

2. Westerners, like the editor Fleming - according to an interview last night in the TV channel "bbcworld" in the show "hardtalk", and myself, have for example interpreted the face of an arab with a bomb at his head as being an accusation that a few muslims are mis-using islam to justify bombings, i e we are reacting against those few people since we think they are insulting islaam, whereas muslims interpret that same picture very differently, and take it as if it were an accusation against islaam/mohammed as being bombers/terrorists. I absolutely think that Flemings interpretation should be the correct one, since he is responsible for it, having commissioned it. In this case, again, westerners and many muslims agree in that we condemn violence, and nobody has intended to insult neither mohammed nor islaam.

Since it is probable that this event is grounded in a few complex misunderstandings, and since I think that the editors of Jyllands-posten should not apologize, since they think that the pictures do not insult Mohammed, there is no reason to make events worse by making people misinterpret those pictures.

Wikipedia is here to rid the world from misinterpretations, not stoke the fires of misinterpretations.

Point 2: Let us make the article clearer
The picture at the top is too small and unclear, and as such it is actively encouraging misinterpretations, which is counter-productive. The only reason that it is quite clear to me is that I have seen it in full size and read the article. If anyone looks at this picture, and does not know what the issue was about, that picture would not explain anything. The single picture of the cartoonist drawing in fear does sum it up. Please see my arguments above in "One particular picture sums up the event, and should perhaps head the page?" Wikipedia is here to make better articles, not to show pictures that are promote misunderstandings by being too small to see.

The proper place of that minituarized picture is under the heading that describes the pictures. Also, the text description of the pictures should contain the editors own interpretation.

The present picture should definitely stay in the article, but in a place which helps understanding the issue better.

Had Fleming said that he interpreted the pictures as insults to islaam, then muslims would be correct, and I would not have bothered to write this. Had Fleming said that he interpreted the pictures as insults to islaam, then this would have been a totally different event, but he did not.

If there is at least one person sympathetic to these thoughts, then please make a poll where we can vote to have the informational cartoon at the top, the mini-picture of the full artice near the text, and the texts together with the editors interpretation, as far as possible DanielDemaret 14:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

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


 * A few people throughout discussions have mentioned that we have equivalent images in our article on Anti-Semitism. I can't help but feel that there's an important difference there, though. In the anti-semitism article we are saying "there is a history of prejudice against jews, here are some cartoons that illustrate that." With this article on the Muhammad cartoons we are not saying "there is heightened ant-islamic feeling in Western democracies, here are some cartoons that illustrate that". What we are saying is "somebody drew some cartoons and now muslims are being overly sensitive". The two situations are not directly comparable. --bodnotbod 15:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, what "we" are saying is: "somebody drew some cartoons and here's documentation of the resultant controversy". --Dante Alighieri | Talk 05:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

hmm..
Looks like the muslims over there have the same handwriting :D? This is so faked...

Which of the discussions before should this refer to???

who care is fake or not?! Its what they believe in, you fake person.142.161.115.85 21:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

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

additional protection / don't be dicks
There really is no valid argument against affording a level of protection from the images which are obviously & objectively very offensive to a minority of viewers. Except that people from the other side prefer to be dicks WP:DBAD Rajab 15:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Disable the downloading of images in your web browser and please stop calling other people dicks. Thx. -- Trollkontroll 15:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Rajab, please don't move the image again without first checking the discussion here and attempting to gain a consensus. The straw poll above shows that an overwhelming amount of Wikipedians think that the image should be on the top. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 15:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from name calling. It makes you and your cause look bad. It convinces nobody (except perhaps in the opposite direction you would want, as people tend to get unsymphatetic towards people who can't remain civil). Weregerbil 15:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't come up with this wikipedia concept - it's actually called "don't be a dick" WP:DBAD Rajab 16:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Rajab, please review our policy of no personal attacks. I encourage you to join in this discussion, but I echo Jimbo's words above: please try and be as civil as possible and extend good faith toward everyone. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 16:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * whom did I attack "personally"? I said that your side doesn't care about WP:DBAD. How is that a personal attack? 16:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You are in essence saying that everyone who disagrees with you is a "dick". I encourage you to join the discussion, but please heed Jimbo's words at the top of the page to be "polite, thoughtful, smart, [and] geeky". (OK, perhaps not that last one, but... :-) ) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 16:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Read WP:DBAD. What I'm saying is that your side wants to cause offense & this could be easily avoided by moving the pictures. In any case the article is about the controversy - not the pictures. Show a picture of a demonstration on top Rajab 16:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * P.S. Please don't insert any more blank section headers; if you intend to make a comment, please do so, but please don't just insert a blank section header without any additional comments. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 16:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * this site changes so quickly -> I've got to get a foot into the door. If you waited for 5 secs there would have been additional comments. See below


 * OK, sorry about that. But in the future would you try and type your comments in the same edit as the section header? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 16:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

CNN news: Embassy On Fire!
> BREAKING NEWS Danish Embassy in Syrian capital of Damascus set on fire during protests over cartoons of Prophet Mohammed, Syrian officials say.

Wiki e Zach 15:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This is so sick, seriously what is wrong with people in this world :( Snailwalker | talk 15:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Religion. Weregerbil 16:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * any source for that, I haven't heard anything yet? AlE  X  15:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * cnn.com front page, also on BBC TV. Weregerbil 16:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Take a look at and  Cacophobia (Talk) 16:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * wow. all this for 12 drawing. Anyway, can we used this image? I don't really know anything about copyrights.  AlE  X  16:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It is an Associated Press image. I guess fair use might be in order in this case. Thoughts anyone? --Valentinian 16:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have uploaded the image, and will be adding it. Any objection, feel free to remove/change it. AlE X  17:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

In this issue exactly i can be assert that is managed by syrian goverment, syrian regime is under international pressure for making reformation of the rule , i,m syrian and i know that exactly , no one is syria can do such thing without the knowledge of syrian goverment. --Chaos 16:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Chaos, the Danish member of parlaiment Naser Khadaer, who is also from Syria, has just said excactly the same on Danish tv...-- Snailwalker | talk 16:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The Norwegian embassy in Damascus (Syria) is attacked and burned to the ground (see Timeline) AlE  X  17:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Syria is history. __earth (Talk) 17:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

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


 * I think they should stay together. The cartoons caused the row, so there's no need to report about them separately. -- Trollkontroll 16:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to revert while we discuss this first. While I appreciate your boldness, this is a major change, given the size and publicity of the article and the fact that it is linked from the main page. As such, let's discuss this first. Personally, I'm against it; what would the article on the cartoons discuss? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 16:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Was putting it up for debate also, not planning to actual do it before we discussed it. I would imagine the "cartoon" article containing the following sections

"The picture" 1 Timeline 2 Background 2.1 Debate about self-censorship 2.2 Publication of the drawings 2.3 Police investigation on Jyllands-Posten 2.4 Jyllands-Posten response Maybe additional content Cacophobia (Talk) 16:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose - These are absolutely not separable! If you really want a split, then put the picture in both pages. ActiveSelective 16:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The controversy article is way too long, im only proposing a spilt. The "image" could be included, but another primary image might be found? Cacophobia (Talk) 16:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article is too long. I think that's mainly caused by Recentism. Not everything that is described in the article in a very detailed way is in fact so important for an encyclopedic article. -- Trollkontroll 16:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This whole article should really stay together. If Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons should be used for anything, it should be for posting each individual cartoon at a higher resolution, instead of splitting up this page.&#160;—  The KMan  talk  16:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That is not a bad idea actually. But if we do split it up, won't that just move the whole revert-war tho the other page? AlE  X  16:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we should split the articles only if we have the current image on the controversy page and large versions of each cartoons on the 'cartoon' page. It doesn't make sense otherwise. Valtam 17:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

NOTE. Obviously such a large change would need widespread consensus. No one should Be Bold and just perform this split. I'm not taking a position on it one way or the other, I'm just making sure that no one gets the "bright idea" to go ahead and do it without further discussion by a great many more editors. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I oppose this proposal. This is basically the third option of the image poll on the top of the page. An encyclopedia article about a cartoon should contain the cartoon. It's as simple as that. If that causes offense to some, then so be it. You can't please everyone. Aecis Mr.Mojorisin' 19:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

France Soir cover
Should we include the Front cover of France Soir? Currently our articles has one caricature on the "negative" reaction and none "supporting" reactions. bogdan 17:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it was include yesterday. Was there a reason to remove it? And where is the link? AlE  X  17:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The cover should be re-included since it is a response to this controversy (and created some of its own).&#160;—  The KMan  talk  17:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It was lost in the vandalism. I'll be re-including.&#160;—  The KMan  talk  17:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thanks AlE  X

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

Finnish response
I added the fact that Blasphemy is illegal in Finland.

It is? Really? What is "blasphemy"? If I badmouth Christianity is that blasphemy? How about Zoroastrianism? If this is true, which I doubt that it is, this would be a very heavy restriction on free speech. --Cyde Weys 17:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Rikoslain luvun 17 pykälän (§) 10, "Uskonrauhan rikkominen" mukaan (563/1998):


 * Joka


 * 1) julkisesti pilkkaa Jumalaa tai loukkaamistarkoituksessa julkisesti herjaa tai häpäisee sitä, mitä uskonnonvapauslaissa (267/1922) tarkoitettu kirkko tai uskonnollinen yhdyskunta muutoin pitää pyhänä, tai


 * 2) meluamalla, uhkaavalla käyttäytymisellään tai muuten häiritsee jumalanpalvelusta, kirkollista toimitusta, muuta sellaista uskonnonharjoitusta taikka hautaustilaisuutta, on tuomittava uskonrauhan rikkomisesta sakkoon tai vankeuteen enintään kuudeksi kuukaudeks

English ( the entirely text is not translated but the things that matter in this case): 1) Whoever shall insult god or shame him, or anything that a religious community holds sacret, or 2) Making noices, behaving threatening or interrups sacret seremonies must pay fine or sentenced to prison for 6 months at most.


 * Although this law exists it is rarely prosecuted. There was a somewhat famous case last year; a guy programmatically inserted floods of " is gay" type messages in a chat forum over several months, causing the forum to crash repeatedly. He got fined. The charge and conviction were as much (or more) about vandalising the servers. (This is getting way off topic; let's try to keep this to a minimum...) Weregerbil 18:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Pentele. There have been four convictions in over a decade, all of them fines, and at least one was deliberately asking for it. Very few people, aside from help-help-I'm-being-oppressed atheists, care about it. I added a 'nominally' to the fact (which is now in a subarticle), but having thought about it I'll now delete it altogether as it's just not a significant factor. --Kizor 20:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

J-P refused to publish Jesus cartoons?
We're making this claim in the article and referencing a Danish-language source. Can someone please confirm by translating enough of this to understand how well-founded this claim is? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems to be an interview with a cartoonist saying he heard about it (hearsay). My Danish is a little rusty tho. Ashibaka tock 18:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * BT (the source) is a tabloid, and the story seems to be rather unfounded, I'll try to see if a more credible source has this Cacophobia (Talk) 18:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * After reading the paper version of Politiken (Section 3, page 6, today's issue), it seems that an author of some Jesus cartoons submitted them to JP, but they were not asked for. The  former editor of the sunday edition answered in an email: "Dear Christoffer Zieler, thanks for your offer. I do not agree with out. I dont think the JP-readers will find them funny. I think they might cause a serious public reaction. Thats why we will not use them. Yours sincerly, Jens Kaiser (09.04.03". Cacophobia (Talk) 18:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * |The Pictures from the authors website Cacophobia (Talk) 18:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I have to personally say that I don't think they're terrible good cartoons. I mean, that's reason enough not to publish them. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, the article also points out that the newspaper has it's own staff of artists, so no such contribution was needed. Cacophobia (Talk) 19:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The article says that a cartoonist sent a (controversial) picture of Jesus, which was not used by Jyllands-Posten. According to the cartoonist the reason for this was that the editor didn't think the readers of Jyllands-Posten would find it amusing and that it might be to controversial.
 * To me it doesn't seem to be solid evidence. He might just have rejected the image because he didn't have an article for it. But who knows, the cartoonist might be right. --Maitch 18:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've tried to give an even-handed description of this in that section. Thoughts? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've changed the fact that it should have been Politiken that published the story. I find no evidence of that on the website and the link makes a reference to B.T.. --Maitch 18:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The BT-article says J-P would refuse to publish a Jesus with a bomb for example. But it did publish Muhammad with a bomb. The interviewer asked: why? The reason the cartoonist of the J-P Drawings Department gave for this difference, is that the published cartoon (of Muhammed with a bomb) first of all refer to the fundamentalists who use bombs. And then, the J-P cartoonist says, those fundamentalists themselves refer to Islam. (here the article ends).
 * I think the article means to say that the cartoonist infers that this self-reference of terrorists to Muhammad gives J-P the legitimacy of publishing Mohammed with a bomb). If so (and it is probably so) this reasoning of J-P is flawed. There have been more bombs dropped by a single Reborn Christian President of the USA, than all fundamentalists together have done since the invention of the bomb. This makes me believe that the angry Muslims are right when they say J-P is racist.
 * -- ActiveSelective 18:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You got somethin wrong, first of all, it was the editor-in-chief Carsten Juste who answered the questions. Second, the bomb reference, im gonna bring a full translation.
 * Politikken: So you have no problem printning drawings of Jesus, that would offend Christians?
 * Juste: With a bomb on his head?
 * P: Yes, as an example!
 * J: Why would you put a bomb on the head of Jesus?
 * P: Why would you put a bomb on the head of Muhammed? He havent done anything?
 * J: No, you must excuse me, we are talking about 'symbols''. The cartoonist associates a bomb with the turban, because the fundamentalists are themselves are refering to Islam.
 * I think you need to be familiar with Danish language in order to understand that Juste means: Because fundamentalists are defending their acts by refering to Islam, the cartoonist is questioning the connection, by putting a bomb on the head of the prophet.Cacophobia (Talk) 19:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that it's a story from an upset cartoonist. No reason to hype this, AND it was a different editor AND it was a intended for different usage (illustrations for easter). BTW, it's JP not J-P, Cacophobia (Talk) 18:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * He also said that JP almost definately already had published cartoons featuring Jesus and that he wouldn't have a problem with publishing controversial pictures of Jesus, so I would hold back on the racist accusations. Anyway, it's a different editor. --Maitch 19:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone should make these notes in that section. The section should NOT be deleted, IMO. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Tried to summarize it, take a look. Cacophobia (Talk) 22:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
This article (and the talk page too!) are too long. I'm going to create a new article: International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Accordingly, the International_consequences section needs to be trimmed down considerably. Please help. AucamanTalk 18:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that this is the BEST option, but let's see what others think. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This is "recentism", to quote another guy. A single controversy only needs one article. Yes, this is long-- we can trim it down in a month or two. Ashibaka tock 18:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, there's already another article. It is a clear Wikipedia policy that when pages get long they need to be spread over several articles. Stop whining and help. AucamanTalk 18:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not whining, just saying that it'll need to be merged back in after a while. Ashibaka tock 18:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I still don't understand why. Can you refer me to the Wikipedia policy requiring that, "A single controversy only needs one article"? AucamanTalk 19:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe the point is that the article will shrink substantially as time goes by, since the current size of the article is as a result of Recentism. Once the article is smaller, it will make more sense to merge the component pieces back together. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, fair enough. AucamanTalk 02:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


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

I think splitting the article was a bad idea and awkwardly done; the main article now seems more a victim of amputation than pruning. I agree that it's acceptable to have a large article for now, since this is a 'transitional' phase as events unfold. Splitting off the timeline is enough, IMO.--Anchoress 19:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The main article is getting a bit long, I don't see why this is a bad idea. Homestarmy 19:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I think splitting was an error. Why does the main page contain "opinion", but official govt. reactions are in the off-split article unter consequences? This only leads to confusion. People add to the main article without consulting the secondary article first. I think a re- merger should be considerd. This makes consolidation easier. Azate 22:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well maybe "Opinions" should also be put in a different article as well, not the other way around. AucamanTalk 02:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and this page (the discussion page) is OUTRAGEOUSLY long! I'm personally offended. AucamanTalk 02:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Section on disinformation hijacked?
The section on disinformation used to describe how this controversy escalated because of disinformation regarding the cartoons. Now it starts looking more and more like a pile of junk with all kinds of mudslinging at the top.

1) What is wrong with chronological order? 2) What is wrong with keeping on topic? MX44 19:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Nothing is wrong with chronological order, it was YOUR removal of some sections that caused the problem when I had to reinstate the sections. Feel free to reorder them, but don't just remove them without discussing it. These are SOURCED pieces of information. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * OK! Now what is wrong with keeping on topic? Having offtopic articles at the top makes no sense to me. (sorry, forgot to sign ...) MX44 19:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, clearly the people who ADDED them didn't think they were off topic. I am confused as to why you think the two sections you removed are off topic. The one about the accusations of JP refusing to publish Jesus cartoons is rather obviously on topic in my opinion, and so is a report of a bounty issued for the deaths of the cartoonists. The fact that they are both probably INACCURATE is noted in the sections. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * How JP decides to write or not to write about Jesus would have been on topic in an article about JP in general. MX44 19:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It was being used to illustrate that JP was hypocritcal in it's treatment of Muhammad vs. Jesus. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Read this portion of the talk page to see how people are deeming it relevant.--Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Name change
Is this event really still the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy? With so many other papers having now published them, perhaps it's just 2006 Muhammad cartoons controversy?


 * No. The cartoons were originally published in 2005. bogdan 19:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The source of the cartoons is JP. I'm not sure the name change is an improvement (ignoring the year issue). --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Source needed
Anon IP added that the editor of al-Shihan was fired and arrested after they published 3 of the cartoons. Can anyone confirm? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like big news, we need a source. it's a blatant example of censorship of even very pro-Islam opinions in the middle east. Homestarmy 20:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Danish, BBC Cacophobia (Talk) 20:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The Brussels Journal, JP AlE  X  20:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yo Arabic speakers
Can someone upload an audio pronunciation for "Ahmad Abu Laban"?

128.54.45.85 20:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Or, alternatively, give it in text in IPA format. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

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

You might be right, vandalism has been rising again lately, when I nominated it there was a bit less :/. Homestarmy 20:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Articles of significant current events are too volatile. --Kizor 23:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust did not happen?

 * See Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments

image span Id
NOTE: ONLY WORKS FOR LOGGED IN USERS

I have added a span id around the image so if you want to be able to read the article without seeing the image you can go to your User:USERNAME/monobook.css (where USERNAME is your username), change monobook.css to whatever your skin name is if you aren't using monobook, and add the line #mi { display:none; } and save, then flush your browser's cache and the image will no longer be displayed for you whenever you are logged in. Jtkiefer T  21:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Great! I'm sure that this will be a helpful tool for those who don't wish to view it but still wish to contribute to this article. By the way, could someone move the image back to the top? The image was shifted down a paragraph by Rajab without an edit summary, but the straw poll demonstrates that most people think that it should be at the top. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 21:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * fine - I moved it back up. Hopefully it will now be easier to find for those who wish to delete it Rajab 21:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 21:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * someone moved it back down - it wasn't me Rajab 22:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Rewrote Islamic tradition section to recognize diversity of views
The section as it stood was somewhat jumbled. It also appeared to accept the views of the Islamists that "the hadith" forbid pictorial art, thus adopting an extremely simplistic view of hadith. I tried to rewrite the section to show that any given hadith is not necessarily binding, and that views within various Muslim communities have varied over time. Zora 21:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * fairly well written i must say (Cloud02 22:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC))


 * I had just commented on this section above, but Zora altered the article while I was posting my comment, so I'll move it down here. I also felt the Islamic Tradition section was poor.  I think Zora has improved it.  This section had begun by stating "According to various Islamic dogmas presented in the Hadith, any depiction of Islamic religious icons either in drawing or statues, even respectful ones, is banned out of concern that such images could lead to idolatry, and thus worshipping of Muhammad instead of their God."
 * However, I don't know that any of the hadith articulate that reason for the ban, though of course I haven't read them all (and I'm not a muslim). The hadith make it clear that making likenessness of people and animals are prohibited by god.  Zora notes that many hadith are weak, but there are many classified as authentic in the Sahih collections (e.g. Sahih Bukhari) used by Sunni Islam referring to this prohibition.  They also state that angels do not enter homes containing such art, and that god will challenge the artist to bring their art to life on the day of judgment.  See the examples I gave in the entry on Aniconism.  That they are banned for fear of idolatry seems like an inference or interpretation, unless anyone can provide a citation.
 * This interpretation fosters confusion as in the "Who Is Mohammed?" section above - I don't believe anyone fears the cartoons will be idolized. I think the problem people have with the cartoons is less that an islamic prophet has been depicted, but the insulting nature of the depiction, so adding more about the position of islam on blaspheming would seem to be more in order than more information on depicting of prophets. Schizombie 22:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The introduction to the article still states "Islamic teachings forbid the depiction of Muhammad as a measure against idolatry (see aniconism); however, in the past there have been non-satirical depictions of Muhammad by Muslims." which I think is apt to be confusing for the reasons I stated above - it's not quite relevant to the cartoons or the rioting, but I'm not sure what to substitute for it.Schizombie 03:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Add a section?
It seems that an important part of this issue is a perception in the Muslim world that Westerners have singled out Islam for ridicule, while those who support the cartoons view this as one example of a broader tradition of free speech that sometimes parodies a variety of religions. Perhaps there have been editorials or studies on this aspect that could be included in the article? Here's one quote to start:


 * "Respondent contends, however, that the caricature in question here was so 'outrageous' as to distinguish it from more traditional political cartoons. There is no doubt that the caricature of respondent and his mother published in Hustler is at best a distant cousin of the political cartoons described above, and a rather poor relation at that. If it were possible by laying down a principled standard to separate the one from the other, public discourse would probably suffer little or no harm. But we doubt that there is any such standard, and we are quite sure that the pejorative description 'outrageous' does not supply one." Hustler Magazine v. Falwell

Should we start a Inidividual Talk page and Let people Express their opinion freely???
I found out a lot of people in here was trying to express their own opinion but was also battle back by a lot of useless thing, also, there this is a page about trying to make this article collect both side's view equally, but not stuck with one voice (not saying it is not equal enough now, but we can make it better). If anyone agree this idea, put help making a special page, with these rule: 


 * 1. This is a personal opinion page, we are not trying to put one's values on others. That means, if you read somthing that you truly disagree (or even hate it with your guts), ignore it and put it what you truly believe in. 
 * 2. No bashing other's religion or prejudice or racist. If you have these it, swallow it, or put in in the garbage.  And yes, you have a freedom to express yourself, but there is a distance between "say whatever you want" and "talking ****".  Have some respect for others. 
 * 3. No images. If you found a image, put it on this article, not in the talk page.
 * 4. Last but not least, put yourself in the other's position. Try to step into the other's belief.  Maybe in your whole life you are in the same value, but try to put it down for others.  
 * And yes, i really don't hope see those opinion of the "Western/Eastern", "Religious/non-religious", values rolling up on there and use it as a abuse. Because you believe in this, doesn't mean others have to, we are inidividual, you can't pressure them. 

And because some people don't respect other's opinion, this controversy happen.

If anyone have any problem or better idea, please post it here MeowKun 22:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Except, Wikipedia is not an Internet forum. There are a lot of great forums out there for expressing your views; but this is an encyclopedia talk page, and as Jimbo says, it should be devoted to the article. Ashibaka tock 22:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


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

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


 * Wikipedia should cover both the background and the actual events, unlike a news agency, which covers only the actual events. bogdan 23:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

root of controversy not reflected adequatly by article
The essence of the controversy is really that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is depicted as a terrorist (with ticking bomb on his head). In the current political climate, which is percieved as islamophobic by many Muslims, this is considered as a generalisation that is dangerous for muslims. I don't think the article represents that adequatly, there seems to be the impression that all the controversy is solely about depicting the Prophet. This is not true, there were previous depictions which did not cause a similar controversy - because those were not percieved as malicious Rajab 23:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * News agencies (see CNN) report both the depiction of Mohammed and the nature of the pictures as causing ire. Is it an objective verifiable fact or a personal opionion of yours that suitable images are fine and will not cause controversy? Do most or all the islamic people agree with that? Weregerbil 23:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The picture itself is certainly controversial - but it doesn't cause embassies to be put on fire. The gross escalation is due to the context of the images. There have been examples of pictures of the Prophet Muhammad (pub) published in the past which did not lead to an escalation even remotely similar to this oneRajab 23:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, the muslim world has grossly overreacted this time. Kyaa the Catlord 23:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As of the time of this posting, the following is the first line of the article:


 * "The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy began after complaints were made about twelve editorial cartoons depicting the seventh-century founder of Islam, Muhammad, among other things, as a terrorist."


 * I believe this adequately defines what you suggest, Rajab. Kyaa the Catlord 23:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * yes - that's because I added the qualifier "among other things as a terrorist". In the meantime someone has removed it again calling it an "opinion". What would you call a guy with a ticking bomb on his head but a terrorist? Rajab 23:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I Totally agree With rajab, i tried to clarify this point in the Opinions in muslim World section , but it need mor assertion.

to Weregebril, I think the logic thinking will make the second factor more important , we havn,t to forget that arabic goverments use this issue to make the peoples express their anger , from tolitarism , and iraq invasion and many other complicated factors in middle east < for example the burning of embassies is certainly managed by syrian goverment which is under international pressure for making reformation --Chaos 23:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The article begins with a sentence describing complaints about the pictures. According to an article here the complaints were specifically about publishing pictures of Mohammed, not about how he was pictured. So adding the "...as a terrorist amongst other things" appears to make the sentence factually incorrect. Do you have a source for the claim that the complaints were about the content of the pictures or is that your personal opinion? Weregerbil 23:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * yes I do. Others have made pictures of the Prophet Muhamad (pbuh) in the past but there was never such an outrage. This is because of the context. Look at the French version of this article - they've even got what appears to be a middle-age Muslim depiction of the prophet muhammad (pub) Rajab 23:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That still doesn't tell us what the Islamic Society in Denmark complained about. Facts, not guessing. Weregerbil 23:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

People still remove the explanations I have made with the comment that they don't depict the Prophet Muhammad (pub) as a terrorist. But they show him with a ticking bomb on his head & welcoming suicide bombers to heaven. It's this islamophobic & general flavour to the cartoons which makes them particularly outraging & offensive. It is the implication that muslims in general or even the islamic prophet himself is a terrorist what is really offensive & at the root of the escalation Rajab 23:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

If it were really the case that was causing all the fuss was the suggestion that there is a link between terrorism and islam why does there not seem to be a similar level of outrage, condemnation, flag burning, boycotting goods and righteous indignation from people who consider themselves as "moderate muslims" when people, claiming to be fundamentalist muslims fly planes into tower blocks, plant bombs on trains and tube stations, kidnap and behead journalists and aid workers etc saying that they are doing this in the name of Islam? Surely these acts are infinitely more likely to lead the neutral observer to conclude that there may be some link between islam and terrorism than a picture of a a guy labelled as Muhammad with a bomb in his turban in a hitherto obscure Danish newspaper??? GregLondon 01:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * that's exactly the difference: the cartoons imply that every muslim (moderate or not) is a terrorist by targeting the essence of islam - Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) Rajab 10:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Having a bomb on your head doesn't make you a terrorist. As far as I know, NO terrorist has ever done that. On the other hand, having a bomb on you head may kill you real quick and make you a bomb victim. To call this picture a clear case of "depiction as somebody as a terrorist" is thus purely subjective. It may mean all sorts of things. Btw, Rajab, notice how in another cartoon, the Prophet (pbuh) has an APPLE an his head (or turban) and the bomp also looks kind of apple-shaped? This is not a coincidence. Read all about the Danisch proverb in action here in the very article we're talking about?Azate 00:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

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