Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 15

In the article you write "Although Jyllands-Posten maintains that the drawings were an exercise in free speech, there are both Muslims and non-Muslims in Denmark and elsewhere who view them as offensive, blasphemous and Islamophobic. "

For the sake of honesty and completion you should add that there are also Danish Muslims WHO DO NOT FIND THEM OFFENSIVE. People who have been in Denmark long enough to understand freedom of speech, and simply chuckle or move on and does not feel threatened on their faith.

80.196.176.94 13:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC) How do you remove your article again?!

New archive
Talk page was getting way too long. If anything is still being discussed please cut-and-paste the individual section back from /Archive 9. Ashibaka tock 04:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I am also new to Wikipedia, so hopefully this IS the right place to post new comments.

I was just curious about one point. You have said that Wikipedia is the place of polite and thoughtful people. I'd like to ask, what is polite and thoughtful about perpetuating the dissemination of these cartoons. Yes, I am all for freedom of the press. But I believe that too often people use the cry of freedom of the press as a means of rationalizing away their complete disregard for their fellow human beings. I think that the reaction to Muslim outrage over the publication of these cartoons (i.e., increasing their publication world-wide) is tantamount to the worst kind of arrogance and self-absorption. When is enough enough?

AdrienneJ 16:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"Complete disregard for fellow human beings" is burning down buildings or killing other people. Publishing comics is far from a "complete disregard". If you really were for freedom of the press you'd understand that the press is not free when religious prohibitions trump their free speech. It's not a good idea to censor the press against saying anything possibly bad about religion. You want a quick example? If no one had reported on the Catholic priest scandal it would probably still be going on to this day. And enough is enough when, finally, Muslims settle down and realize that freedom of speech means things can be published that they may find offensive, but rather than over-react to it, they should just ignore it. And by the way this is isn't the place to be having these discussions, so I shan't continue any longer. I'm sure various forums or Usenet groups would more than welcome these interchanges. -- Cyde Weys 17:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The publication of the images on Wikipedia has been extensively discussed and polled. Please see the discussion archives to avoid needless repetition. Thanks! Weregerbil 17:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) These cartoons are "disseminated" through wikipedia because it has been decided that readers have a right to know what the controversy is about. Aecis Mr.Mojorisin' 17:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

One of Wikipedia's own core principles is that its articles should be written from a Neutral Point of View. By printing them, you are breaching this neutrality by supposing that it is proper to print them which is what the controversy is about. The neutral thing to do would be to not print them and inform the reader that there are postings out there on the world wide web if they are interested in viewing the cartoons. I'm sure most people using Wikipedia know how to find the pictures if they want to.

And if this isn't the place to have this discussion then you could have just said so. I would have posted my thoughts on the polls page that asked for reader input about the inclusion of the cartoons, but it was already closed.

AdrienneJ 18:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to point out that non-publishing is just as much a point of view as publishing, given the nature of the controversy.. Skleinjung 18:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be "neutral" to publish only empty pages so as not to offend anyone. But that's not really what neutrality means in this context. Neutrality means representing views fairly and without bias (taken from WP:NPOV.) Please see the archived talk pages for extensive discussion and polling on the placement of the images to avoid needless repetition. Weregerbil 19:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Removing the pictures would hardly leave the page barren. You might think that the reaction to the cartoons has been ridiculous, and maybe it has been. If the publishers knew how many people were going to die over it and how much destruction and outrage would ensue, I wonder if they still would have gone through with posting them. That people keep insisting upon publishing them, despite the aftermath, is equally ridiculous. And if you hadn't closed the polling page then I could post this comment there. I think it's funny that you already closed them, as the controversy is still ongoing, it's as if you already decided what history is going to say about this before it's actually decided. I'm just glad that most American papers have refused to publish the cartoons, as they are offensive and in poor taste and as one editor of a major paper said, it is not necessary to publish the cartoons in order to give the story full and fair coverage. 152.130.7.65 13:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Compliments
I agree. I found this to be extremely informative and helpful. I was searching around the web for opinions in Denmark and this had all the links I needed. Thanks everyone!

Just wanted to say that this is probably the most informative, complete and balanced article I have found on the subject. My compliments and thanks to all those that have contributed.

Gilraen
 * Wowzers! I wish we got more comments like these! Ashibaka tock
 * Since you ask for more comments like these, I sincerely "second" that compliment.DanielDemaret 15:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

When you read it from an outside POV, it is really quite well done! Everyone here who has been contributing should be quite proud of what has been accomplished, in the midst of all the uproar!!! Nfitz 02:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I want to add my compliments too. This is without a doubt the most comprehensive source of non biased information. It is only because of everyone's hard work here. Congratulations and thank you. A special thanks to those who have tried to add calm when emotions started to take over --Mmmsnouts 03:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I am also very impressed. I can see how difficult it has been from the sheer volume of the discussion, but the end result is fantastic. It is now the best and most informative resource on the net on this issue. GeorgeStepanek\talk 09:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, have you seen the final version? I would like a peek too. I am very curious to see how things ended up! ;-) Claush66 17:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The article is, due to the freshness of the controversy, probably still vulnerable to vandalism, but content-wise I think it's fit to be a Featured Article. Aecis Mr.Mojorisin' 17:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

When I wanted to know what all the fuss was about I came to Wikipedia and there it was, warts and all. This is what the concept of Wikipedia is all about, keep it up guys & gals! Philmurray 09:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Qur'an burnings
Added this under the Rumours and Misconceptions section, but it was edited away:

Public burnings of the Qur'an -	Saturday the 4th of February it was rumoured that neo-nazi groups in Denmark would gather in public plazas and burn copies of the Qur'an, which is considered sacrilege. Although several disjunct demonstrations took place, encouraging tolerance, respect for freedom of speech, anti-racism, there have been no reports on any burnings of the Qur'an. Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Møller declared on international TV that "No Qur'ans have been burned and the police have been instructed to prevent any occasions of the Qur'an being burned."

I don't have a source, but I know for a fact that it is true. Even though there is no citation I still think it is an important enough controversy to mention, as there are people thinking that books were burned with government consensus.


 * I deleted the reference because the initial rumor and Møller's statement were unsourced.--Jbull 03:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is a reference that might be helpful. http://www.cphpost.dk/get/93769.html--Beth Wellington 04:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that this is rather interesting. I have no reason to doubt the good faith of our anonymous visitor, and I reckon that this is an instance of an information which is correct and obvious to a local observer, but which is difficult to include in Wikipedia because few mainstream media will elaborate upon it.
 * Maybe the answer lies in the "Original reporting" of Wikinews, and on a good, compact and sturdy camera that one carries all the time. Rama 08:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This transscript from the cited press conference at the homepage of the Danish Foreign Ministry does state clearly that the Qur'an have not been burned in Denmark. Unfortunately the very word Quran have been written in Danish in this English press release (Koran). Nevertheless it does fully confirm the anonymous writers statement (and I can confirm that it was indeed the words said by Mr. Møller in the television broadcast): |Press conference transscript

Claush66 10:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I just added a section on this rumour to the article, and included information on the neo nazist demonstration, which is the likely cause of the rumour.

Claush66 11:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You mean your not supposed to burn Qu'rans, I thought you had to if they touched the ground.--M4bwav 03:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read the Qur'an article. If you need to dispose a Qur'an, you must respectfully burn or bury it. I don't think the rumour was percieved as an intention to respectfully dispose heavily used and worn out Danish Qur'ans (even though that may occationally happen, as we do have a Muslim community of approximately 200.000 in Denmark). Claush66 09:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Just signing for the initial discussion topic, forgot when I wrote it. Sorry. Apocryphite 17:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Some anon remarks
I think we should put a warning about explicit content and leave the cartoons forever. As for words "fuck" in Russian etc. (they have a special kind of warning)

And no censorship etc. No one is forced to go here. Accept our rules or piss off! &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.84.191.39 (talk &bull; contribs).
 * We don't have a special warning. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Burning embassies over political cartoons?

 * Moved to Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments

The queens quote
Sorry to interrupt, but we do not need to second guess what the queen of Denmark may or may not have meant.

We can ask! MX44


 * I have now sent a polite letter to the royal danish court asking for a correct translation MX44

The queen's quote is slightly inaccurate in our translation. I originally posted as "We have to challenge islam", but this was changed to "It is crucial, that we (the Danes) provide an alternative to Islam". I think this is a bit inaccurate.... It's probably somewhere in between. Any Danish speakers got an opinion about this.... Hmmm, I guess it takes a few hours, before they wake up. Kjaergaard 05:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

G'morning, I agree, 'challenge' is an entirely incorrect translation. 'Alternative' is far closer to the meaning of 'modstykke'. Mila82.26.164.194 06:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not "modstykke", but "modspil", which is closer to challenge. However I don't think either really capture the meaning.... Kjaergaard 06:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a poetic way of saying that the danes should voice their opinions (if they have one), and not lazyly hide behind false pretentions of being tolerant. Think along the lines of drama as in counter actor MX44
 * The direct translation would be counterplay, but I don't think that would work. Here the phrase "give Islam a challenge" is suggested, which I agree comes close to capturing the meaning. Rasmus (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps but but the reference to drama is important. Counterplay is what she said. MX44 14:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * In English, counterplay is a reference to a chess-move. Is it ever used figuratively? Can a native English-speaker, perhaps chime in? Rasmus (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * (Native English speaker): Never heard counterplay used in any context other than gaming. I don't think it is a good word to use unless the queen's words would have conjured images of gaming in a Danish speaker. (Translation is hard!)
 * In the context of drama I would use "counterplay" to denote the opposing role-player(s). As in Julia vs Romeo or Batman vs Catwoman. But not nescessarily a romantic drama ... The main characters from "Blues Brothers" would be equalently valid in this context.MX44 11:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

you are wrong, they are not just political acartoons, they are about the Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) and the Danes deserve punishment &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sharifpasha (talk &bull; contribs).


 * It is a comment from the book Margrethe (2005), a biography by Margrethe II of Denmark / Annelise Bistrup. It is a little unfair; cause not only is the comment taken out of contest of the book, but also out of context of the page talking about Islam. The page in question from the book, can be found here (in Danish):


 * Rough translation (but accurate)

-
 * In these years we are challenged by Islam. Both globally and locally. There is something impressive about people, for whom religion saturate existences from morning to night, from the cradle to the grave. There is also Christians, who has it like this.


 * However it is a challenge, we have to take serious. We have certainly let it flutter for too long. Because we are tolerant – and awful lazy. I don’t think it’s easy in any way and also not very pleasant.


 * Though archaeology I have always known something about Islam, on a more scientific level. So I don’t feel throughout undressed for this debate. There is, as said, something moving about people, whom to this degree surrender to a faith. However there is also something frightening about such a totality, which also is a side of Islam.


 * There has to be counter-play, and once in a while you have to run the risk of getting a less flattering label stuck on you. Because there is certain things one shall not remain tolerant before. When being tolerant, one must probe [one self], if the reason is convenience or conviction. A tolerance of conviction – that is beautiful. A tolerance of convenience – that is not beautiful.


 * We good Danes have always believed, that we are automatically tolerant. And it is very easy to say “Uha” about other people’s reactions, when oneself never have been in the problem. There lay good Lutheran teaching, in this experience of, how we really are.


 * Maybe we stand at a crossroad. Crossroads, regrettable, often show themselves, after you have already passed though them. And it is not always that one came off at the right tangent. However we are surely now aware, that we should not let us [be applied a] bonnet by the things that are frightening.


 * I my case one surely shall not try to place oneself on the high horse and say: “I am indeed so excellent in my convictions. They are the finest of the finest” That, one doesn’t have to rub in the nose of people who really have the problems close.


 * We could maybe have handled this challenge a little better, if we had been aware, what it was, we where up against. However one cannot know more that one knows. We cannot look around corners.

- Twthmoses 06:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I bolded the word translating modspil in the translation above. I'm trying to think of a better word... Counter-play is the literal translation but not perfect. It's got something to do with a constructive dialog, in which the parties try to make their positions clear without locking the situation. Sparring is a related concept, so provide sparring may be a possible translation.--Niels Ø 10:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"Opposing views" may be another possible translation. According to Jyllands-Posten, HRH Queen Margrethe says (in Danish): "det er afgørende, at vi giver islam et modspil" I'd translate this into "It is imperative that we provide Islam with alternative and opposing views".--Discus2000 16:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

How about debate? That's a concise word that comes close to "a constructive dialog, in which the parties try to make their positions clear without locking the situation". 128.2.198.66 16:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have translated the the statement in the context of the interview as: "There is [...] something fascinating about humans who in this degree surrender themselves to a faith. But there is also something scary about such 'totality', which is also a side to Islam. There must be shown interplay of an alternative, and once in a while you have to run the risk of getting a less flattering label stuck upon you. Because there is certain things before which one should not be tolerant." I figure people get the meaning of the somewhat clumsy (but I think precise) 'interplay of an alternative' when they read the surrounding interview. Comments? --Anjoe 21:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW: The Danish word "modspil" also has a positive ring to it. For instance, most Danes in a relationship would demand "modspil" from their partner, not as aggression and opposition, but as something that challenges a persons own habits and thoughts - for that persons own benefit.


 * Agreed. The word is most often used with positive connotations - which I think is the case here. An example is that somebody may wish for a "modspil" (in the meaning "more active/committed role") from their spouse / loved one, from a business partner, or - in this case - in a dialogue. The term implies that you can't have a dialogue / exchange between one position and nothing else. You need two positions, then you can start have a fruitful dialogue. Gyldendal's Red Dictionary translates the word simply as "response". Hope this clarifies it a bit. --Valentinian 08:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

1,000,000,000
The phrase "one billion" muslims, and other such numbers, keep getting thrown around. Where does this number come from? do you have any kind of census information, or is it just a random number? How many of those people live in denmark? How many have the internet? How many come to Wikipedia? Cos yeah, i am just wondering. Ps. I am assuming we are using the american count of billion, not the english which is 1,000,000,000,000 and is hundreds of times the amount of people on earth. WookMuff 05:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The number is confirmed here Major world religions. The number of muslims in Denmark can be found in Denmark. DanielDemaret 07:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * so the wiki says so and thats proof? cool. WookMuff 09:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be cool if it were so, would'nt it? :) . I think "the wiki", as you call it, works with references and concensus instead of the idea of "proof". There are a few references in those articles, at least. It is the first time I have heard anyone question those numbers, however, so I thought there was already consencus. Perhaps someone should investigate and add better references? Or do you have other suggestions as how to get better numbers? The CIA Fact book and the UN Statistics books are frequently updated sources if you would care to start improving the validity of the numbers.DanielDemaret 09:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So how many Muslims do you think there are? 12? 1000000? 3.1416? Let me know, and please cite a reliable source. Sorry, mate, but you are pursuing a loopy argument here. Arno 09:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, thats right, i think their are 12 muslims in the world, and all of them are here vandalizing this article. Idiot. WookMuff 20:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You're all tied up in how many muslims there are. The fact is, it doesn't matter.  This is about right & wrong for wikipedia (NPOV), and exists no point at which wrong becomes right, or right becomes wrong, after you add enough people. 128.135.36.151 16:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Here are some sources showing the # of people of various religions:

http://www.zpub.com/un/pope/relig.html

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

http://www.adherents.com/misc/rel_by_adh_CSM.html

http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

and specifically the # of Muslims

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/11/27/ramadan.begins/index.html

http://www.islamicweb.com/begin/results.htm

http://islam.about.com/blintroa.htm

Estimate, Estimate, Approximate Estimate, and a whole lot of 10yr old stats. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaanyway, my point, if you pay attention, was how many were affected by this controversy, either the original cartoons OR the wiki, before people who traditionally have issues with this idea went and spread it around? WookMuff 20:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Go out and find some sources then. Stop complaining, thinking that someone else will do the work that you want done. Vanessa kelly 09:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yemen participating in protests and boycotts
These links are from the only two English language newspapers in Yemen.

http://www.yobserver.com/news_9384.php http://www.yobserver.com/news_9396.php http://yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=917&p=front&a=3

Worldbound 06:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This is rather ironic. Jaco  plane  16:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Postmodern perspective
Image:Legohammed.jpg
 * Several postmodern satirists have highlighted the point that -- since no one really knows what Mohammed looked like -- any image could be said to depict him. To that end, they have captioned photos of their thumbs or rudimentary stick figures as "Mohammed."
 * (I have changed the image to the link because fair use images are NOT permitted in the Talk namespace.)&#160;—  The KMan  talk  20:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The amount of vandalism my original comments have been subjected to is simply unbelieveable. It seems as if some people have absolutely no concept of honesty and that someone would go to such lengths of dishonesty over a picture of a Lego man is simply incomprehensible. Anyway, here are my original comments and the image, restored, as they shall be until someone in a position of Wiki authority to interpret policy tells me to stop, at which point I will gladly comply. AscendedAnathema 19:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I came across this image on the Mohammed Image Archive
 * Humor aside, I think this image and it's caption present a legitimate point of view: if anyone had an agenda they were pushing or a persecution complex or were just out to get someone, they could theoretically manipulate any image to fit their wishes. Although this sort of logic could easily degrade to the point of absurdity, it presents an interesting intellectual criticism that may be worth elaborating on in this or another article. AscendedAnathema 06:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

As a warning to muslims, "mohammed image archive" linked belown contains lot of pic which you will find it offensive and haram. FWBOarticle 11:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Seriously, do they really need a warning? Doesn't warning them that something called "The Mohammed Image Archive" contains pictures of Mohammed insult the intelligence of Muslims? Kyaa the Catlord 12:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Me just being nice. (^_^) FWBOarticle

Humor aside, I think this image and it's caption present a legitimate point of view: if anyone had an agenda they were pushing or a persecution complex or were just out to get someone, they could theoretically manipulate any image to fit their wishes. Although this sort of logic could easily degrade to the point of absurdity, it presents an interesting intellectual criticism that may be worth elaborating on in this or another article. AscendedAnathema 06:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Legitimate intellectual speculation. Image restored.AscendedAnathema 07:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * May I ask you what use in it in depicting Him. If you are non-muslim what use other than malicious intent do you have? 10.69.166.100
 * Encyclopedic content (for us), engaging in a public debate (for Jyllands-Posten). Not everything has a malicious intent. Aecis Mr.Mojorisin' 16:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * FYI(FOR YOUR INFORMATINON) DEPICTING, SPREADING and STORAGE in any human readable and reproduceble format of any parodies of, caricatures of Muslim Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) IS CONSIDERED BREACH OF RESPECT towards His IDENTITY.
 * The IDENTITY you even do not know.
 * Hey, Airborne, that's not on. What about my high school ethics teacher who educated me about Islam (and other religions including but not limited to Christianity, Taoism, Hindu, and Judaism (Jewishness? Sadly I'm unclear despite his efforts.))? Surely he has to be able (and permitted) to depict Him in order to get across certain points of Islam. --Esseye 09:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * As the statement above clearly states it is FYI not RFC.Again for your information RFC stands for Request For Your Comment.Clearly your technology teacher has not worked well on you ;)10.69.166.100
 * No one here has made any breech of any applicable law by posting a picture of a Lego man. Specifically, I was exercising a freedom I naturally have anywhere, lest I live in a repressive Islamic culture whose laws are defined and dictated by religion. Such images are not forbidden anywhere outside places subject to that sort of law, and you and those of a similar opinion have no right to suggest that those laws have any applicability to individuals outside your own culture. It is offensive, it is wrong, and it will not be accepted. Likewise, low-ball tactics such as falsely impersonating the artist of that image in an effort to get it removed are almost as low as a mob burning down an embassy. AscendedAnathema 14:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Not Every rule Has to be written and be enforced by law. However there exist regulations to protect cultural values. I hope the people speculating about Muslim Prophet (pbuh) are warned that any torturing of islamic traditions are considered provokative and plan their behavior responsibly.10.69.166.100


 * If said cultural values are themselves weak enough to require the protection of the law, then I would not expect them to last much longer, especially in this age of globalization and modernization, in which any society and culture is open to being challenged and altered by others around the globe. But that's really what is at the root of this whole issue, isn't it? Oh, and as for your comments regarding those who do not share such values and that they should "plan their behavior responsibly," that could easily be interpreted as a threat. AscendedAnathema 04:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I should interpret the statement ::Legitimate intellectual speculation. Image restored. as "Legitimate Way of throwing gas into already burning fire." 10.69.166.100


 * Which are my thoughts exactly ... come on, I am sure that the Danish are not so stupid not to realize that there is currently a growing Islamophobia in the world, ongoing threats of terrorism and a feeling of defensiveness among peaceful Muslims (even none practicing ones and non-believers even who belong to the Muslim world!!) and that such cartoons will only INCREASE the Islamophobia, INCREASE the Terrorist Threats, and INCREASE the defensiveness and unpredictability of muslims around the world; because they simply alienate them. And many of those who originally were secular or not really religious and just wanted to live and progress in a secular world and achieve in areas not related to religions feel that they are discriminated against by such generalizations about Muslims and will find no other outlet but to belong to the "other" camp.
 * This irresponsible move from Jyllands-Posten will not really hurt Muslims as Much as it will Hurt Denmark and other Nordic countries; Now Denmark will have to react and change and learn to accommodate their mistake. The change will probably make Denmark a more tolerant country (unless they adamantly stick to their guns, in which case their could be conflict of unpredictable proportions) ... And the price will be time and effort by Denmark and its people. Although J-P made a mistake, I bet the circulation of the paper skyrocketed, especially outside Denmark. Individual 15:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Damn, you are right... terrorists aren't responsible for their actions, they are forced into them by mean newspaper publishers. Poor victims. Like those women who deserve to get raped cos they wear skimpy clothes. WookMuff 20:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I dont see any mention that Terrorists are not responsible for their actions! But most certainly those extremist disturbed individuals will find provocation in such things as those very offensive cartoons; so why would Jyllands-Posten want to provoke such extremists? I mean the majority of muslims (who are moderate) were offended and silently hurt by such blasphemy; but some of the extremist Radical fellows will be more than silently offended, as has been seen in demonstrations already. Now why would Jyllands-Posten do such a thing when the consequences are so clear; I mean, come on, did they expect it to just pass? or was it an intended provocation??? and if so, did Iran swallow the bait?  seems She did.  Jumpster 02:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess I should just sit in a dark corner with my hands over my mouth for fear of provoking someone into doing something stupid because of my words. This argument is as flawed as violent movies being responsible for violent actions.  There is a moment when a person has to decide what to do, and in that moment they have become responsible.Vanessa kelly 09:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There is something called inciting Violence and Spreading hate and this is the argument here ... and your pathetic fears are based on your own actions, I mean if you dont offend anyone, then no-one will get offended, its a simple as that!!! If you spit on my face as i walk peacefully in the street, then you are provoking a reaction, which Yes I am responsible for, but as the instigator you are held more responsible for that reaction. Bush didn't turn the other cheek did he? But I think that after the Jyllands-Posten insult, whether intentional or not, Muslims all over the world will slowly forgive the instigators (and understand that the insult came from their "presumably" immature handling of the notion of "freedom of expression", if proper, respectful and peaceful measures are taken by the instigators. Afterall maybe the artist who drew the cartoon saying "Hold your fire, its just a sketch made by a nobody from Jutland" will find his prophecy fulfilled, but it all depends on the measures taken by the instigators to remedy the situation, as the alternative could be fulfilling the prophecies of the artist who drew the cartoon showing himself sketching the Prophet, while sweating, shaking and looking over his shoulder fearful of the result of his rash (WRONG) actions!


 * Dear anon, please stop using the word STUFFING, it does not mean what you think it does. Thanks. Kyaa the Catlord 07:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * These are not images of, but parodies of. To use language rightly.


 * Oh dear, I guess we're all in trouble already then. I always considered a cup to be a vague caricature of the prophet. I guess we've all committed a breach of respect toward his identity by using these sacriligious objects, even Muslims right? That's the point. Since we don't know his identity, who's to say what really it is? A man with a beard or a clay cup which is my interpretation of his apperance.Hitokirishinji 07:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This discussion is all about you have already made a breach. If you want to learn his identity there are reliable communities that hold information about Him (pbuh). Having images of Him was forbidden does not necesarily mean having historical information about Him and His deeds was forbidden.10.69.166.100


 * Unfortunately for you the rest of the world does not see it this way. Please do us all a favor and stop trying to force YOUR BELIEF STRUCTURES down everyone elses throats, it was wrong when the Catholic church did it, it was wrong when the Japanese empire did it, it is wrong when radical Islam does it. Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord 08:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not forcing anything down anyones throats. But trying to tell what is real. If you feel forced please stop assulting values that may not necessarily be valuable to you. 10.69.166.100
 * Stop assaulting people and property and perhaps you'll have a better argument. Kyaa the Catlord 08:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No one around me have assaulted people and property. If anyone around me have made id they would be punished like any other criminal according to state laws. 10.69.166.100
 * Please desist in vandalizing this page.
 * Please the owner of the image posted above do refrain from publishing provokative and offensive content and do remove the image.
 * We won't be removing an image that is of lower quality that illustrates this particular topic. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I should interpret this as "Legitimate Way of throwing gas into already burning fire." 10.69.166.100
 * Dear anon, please stop using the word STUFFING, it does not mean what you think it does. Thanks. Kyaa the Catlord 07:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Anon, Kyaa is doing a favor by telling you this. I dare you to write "spreading and stuffing" into Google and see what sorta webpages you come up with. Hitokirishinji 07:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I use merriam-webster. not google to find out Meanings of English words. But Thanks, I corrected it.10.69.166.100


 * "Is that image really depicting Mohammed? How do you know? By getting so upset over the picture, aren't you thereby suggesting that Mohammed was a Lego man? AscendedAnathema 07:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No. Now I don't agree with the fact that you can't depict Mohammed, but you are missing the point. The point is that Islam doesn't want a representation of Mohammed, so that the image will not be idolised. As absurd as it sounds, the representation of Mohammed as a Lego man falls under this category, though I doubt anyone whould idolise a Lego-man. I would have thought that a post-modern commentator would get this more easily than others. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well yes that's the logic that is "claimed". Sadly, someone pointed out that this has not prevented some Muslims from idolizing him anyway. Also, please try to refrain from implying anything, your last sentance seems a bit of a "personal attack" Hitokirishinji 08:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have a problem with this argument due to it being silly. I can't believe that Muslims are so weak in their faith that they will worship teh lego-man, or any other silly representation of the Prophet. Kyaa the Catlord 08:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, worshiping a Lego-man is ridiculous. About as ridiculous as worshipping a teapot. However, let me just say that as a Christian I know that the Old Testament had various things to say about making graven images of God - none of them good. I can understand where they are coming from, even if I don't agree with it. The problem, of course, with this whole argument is that Islam categorically rejects post-moderism in that they believe that images of Mohammed do in fact cause offense, and are therefore objectively an attack on Islam. Post-moderism, with its belief that the human experience is subjective and that therefore objective truth is an illusion, is totally contrary. Personally, I'd never base my argument on post-modernism, considering that when one argues that a belief is objectively wrong it strikes me as futile to use a philosophy that states there is no such thing as objective truth (which, incidently, is an objective truth). - Ta bu shi da yu 12:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Why is worshipping a lego man ridiculous? I love my little lego wookies, lego battle droids, lego fireman, lego scuba guy, and all. I would go so far as to say if someone dissed them i would be ready for a fight WookMuff 20:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem in this logic, Ta bu shi da yu, is that religion itself is, by its very definition, created through subjective notions about reality and subjective perceptions of the supernatural. Therefore the idea that there is an objective and absolute truth which can be obtained through religious perceptions and ideas is totally ludicrious and inherently contradictory, and points of view based on such logic should not be recognized as having any weight. AscendedAnathema 19:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey you never know, God works in mysterious ways... Hitokirishinji 07:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm certainly not a postmodernist, although I consider myself open to any legitimate line of thought and I think this particular postmodernist POV of the situation does an excellent job of illustrating how almost anything could be stretched to be considered a depiction or representation of Mohammed, and why Wikipedia should not compromise any of its content to pander to demands based on such an absurd line of thought. AscendedAnathema 08:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... if you are willing to be open to any legitimate line of thought, I'd say you are getting pretty close to becoming a post-modernist. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with AscendedAnathema. There is a point where you have to draw a line between what is Mohammud and what isn't. Not every image which remotely resembles a man with a beard should be considered the prophet....(continued after comment below)


 * Oh thank heavens! I have a beard, my Rebbe has a beard... I'd hate to think every photo or drawing of an Orthodox Jew in my home might be mistaken for Muhammed.  Rooster613Rooster613

...In fact I'll say that my cup of coke I'm holding is my representation of the prophet. Is this considered depiction of him? I hardly think so. On the same note, I'm getting really tired of this, "if you depict him and you are not muslim, it must be an insult towards Islam and you must be punished!" Sorry, it really doesn't work that way. Not every image is intended to be an insult and only people decided what and what isn't an insult through their own eyes. You cannot apply a law and "punish" people for a law they do not recognize, nor follow in their own context. Hitokirishinji 07:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * He needs a lightsaber. (cough) But I agree, if you claim one image is of the "prophet" and do not know what he looked like, you can logically assert that any image contains the prophet, including choice ones of my cat. Not that Muhammed looked like Mr. Wibbles, but he could have. Kyaa the Catlord 07:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I disagree. Add it to some other article. We are not a soapbox. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well since there is no possibity of Two human beings being the same (Unless Cloned. Technology Never stops amazing people ) in this world even today. Likeliness is offtopic. 10.69.166.100
 * *cough* Identical twins? Orbtastic
 * Well, no twins have identical fingerprints to start with. Besides since the topic is about torturing spiritual values physical resemblance is of little importance. And to speak about uniquenes no twins have identical characters. This way you usually differentiate between one another.10.69.166.100


 * Have any actual scholars of postmodernism said this, or is this just WP:NFT? Dsol 13:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I did, in the archive a few days ago... but sadly that doesn't count for wikipedia standards :( WookMuff 20:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The section on islamic tradition could be shorter?
Could not the part in there that has to do with Aniconism could be left entirely to the article on aniconism? Some in the west have tried to attribute the rage to the aniconism, but the BBC quote below makes it clear that aniconism is not what is objected to. Might it not be enough to write a line saying something like "Some in the west have tried to attribute the rage to the aniconism, but the reactions have been about the assumed intended insult against islam of depicting mohammed as a terrorist"?DanielDemaret 07:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I was the one who rewrote that section. Maybe it's just ego, but I think it's important that non-Muslims understand that the "no images" is not in the Qur'an and was not universally observed. I have seen so many articles, posts, etc. that conflate the situation that provoked the cartoons (no illustrator wanting to draw what were presumably going to be straightforward, non-mocking images) with the cartoons (some of which were mocking). Can we let this sit for a few days, until some of the furor has died down, and then trim it a bit if it still seems necessary? Zora 08:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. I agree that if there are still people who think that there is a "no images" clause in the Qu'ran then nothing should be removed. DanielDemaret 09:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that section is very good - it helped me understand the issue. Well done, Zora. there does seem to be a lot of confusion about the source of offense, and it is useful to have it explained. As I understand it, the strictest Muslim interpreters would be offended even by the picture of Mohammed walking in the desert, but there is a separate and wider source of offense in the other ones linking him with terrorism. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  11:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Since that is the case, I totally and unreservedly retract my previous suggestion, just to make sure that everyone understands that there is concensus here. :)) DanielDemaret 11:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Compilation of media showing the cartoons?
I propose a compilation of a list of the newpapers and TV media who have showed the cartoons. Evidently, some Italian newspapers have recently chosen to show the cartoons as well. I think that such a list would be important to emphasize the development of things.maasha 08:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

That is a good idea.

The New York Daily Sun published a couple of the images, according to the article that reference #11 links to.

Isn't this the purpose of the Reprinting in other newspapers section?

I just added Jerusalem Post to the list, based on several Danish media citing Ritzau. It would be nice if somebody could add an international reference, as I am currently unable to find any --- or remove it, if it can not be confirmed, but Ritzau is generally a trustworthy and often cited Danish news source.

Claush66 15:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Some Ukrainian newspaper published them today, too. I forgot the name, but I remember the editor being attacked on BBC World radio. Azate 18:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The name of the Ukrainian newspaper is Segodnya. --Vladko 15:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Here's a clip from the most recent article I could find listing this data - I can't find the specific individual publications but maybe someone else can. "The furore spread to Australia, South Africa, Ukraine, Romania and, most significantly, Israel, as newspapers there printed the cartoons, bringing to 24 the number of countries in which they have appeared. As well as Denmark, the cartoons had already been printed in Austria, Norway, France, Germany, Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, the Irish Republic, Spain, Switzerland, Bulgaria, Hungary, United States, Japan, New Zealand, Jordan, Malaysia and Poland, where the editor of a leading daily and the Foreign Ministry apologised yesterday for any offence." Dryman 14:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Audio link in intro
Rexnl twice removed my insertion of the audio pronunciation of Jyllands-Posten. He says it is distracting.

Most readers are English speakers and will be clueless trying to pronounce that newspaper, which is a principle party in this matter. If the link is removed, readers can still click to find out more, but 99%+ of readers will pass by because there is too much to read to go looking at derivative articles. Arguments against are weak. How is linking once in the intro "distracting"? No harm and its helpful. To avoid a dumb revert war, a couple of ppl agree with me please. Lotsofissues 01:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I sooo totally agree with you. Apupunchau 01:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Me too, I actually clicked it when it was there. Argyrios 17:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you too. Remember, if he reverts it four times he could be blocked for 24 hours. -Maverick 01:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

After further looking at it, I do believe that he is acting in good faith. I'm gonna stay outta this one, as I don't really have an opinion on it anymore -Maverick 01:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Just use IPA. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 04:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your suggestion. IPA is relatively unknown (unusable).  How is it a proper, helpful substitute.  Lotsofissues 07:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Manual_of_Style_%28pronunciation%29 - Pronunciation is indicated in the Wikipedia using the IPA. This is SOP. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Please restore the audio. I listened to it as soon as it was available, and appreciated the opportunity to do so. I'm certain that others will feel the same way. Babajobu 08:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove the audio. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

If someone wants to know to pronounce it there's an audio file in the paper's own article. It doesn't need to be here too. 郵便箱 09:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, fair enough. Babajobu 10:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Policing this talk page
I cannot but notice that this talk page keeps being polluted by personal political speculations of all sorts, which have nothing to do with the process of editorial improvement of this article. I normally dislike harsh measures, but given the situation, perhaps it is time to let administrators remove any off-topic discussion on sight. Rama 09:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The current "policy" is to move them to Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Arguments instead. Many people will feel a need to comment on this controversy, and while wikipedia is not meant for that, it's probably better if the discussions take place on the daughter talk page than here. Aecis Mr.Mojorisin' 16:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Image position
I moved the cartoon image to the section that is actually about the cartoon, and put the Danish Embassy fire in Damascus at the top, because it's the most shocking and recent event. My reasoning is that this article is not about the cartoons, but about the controversy, and given that the image is offensive to many people (including regular editors), it seems gratuitous to leave it at the top of the page. I believe at least one editor has left because of it too, which is a great pity. Editorially, I believe the fire image is far and away the most pertinent to the story, which is about reactions to the cartoons. I hope people who disagree will give this some consideration before reverting. Thank you! SlimVirgin (talk) 09:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * hundreds of people have VOTED, and the consensus is to KEEP the image at the TOP of the page. no one is interested in pandering to the WHIMS and FANCIES of a TINY, CRAZY, and DELUDED MINORITY. now read the preceding sentence again, slowly, and pause a couple of seconds at every word in caps to reflect and ponder. thank you. now go and REVERT Hellznrg 09:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Please Be civil. There's no need for insults just to proove your point. CG 11:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed multiple times already. There have been polls about this here, and there has been CONSENSUS (defined by Wikipedia as > 75%) that the image should be at the top, because it it the root of the story. Moving the image is considered vandalism! Pls. revert! Azate 09:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * reverted twice, once grabbed wrong version. Ooops. Kyaa the Catlord 09:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, Kyaa, if you want to revert the image, fine, but will you please not also revert the several changes that were made in the interim? Please restore them, thanks. Babajobu 09:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Baba, I had an edit conflict with you when I was moving the images, and because it was so fiddly, I overrode your changes. I then went back to restore them, but couldn't find where they were on the page. I could see them in the diff but otherwise not. So their disappearance may be my fault. Sorry! SlimVirgin (talk) 09:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Slim, it wasn't you, the only diff you overrode was a change of hyphens to mdashes, which is fiddly and unimportant. Kyaa reverted numerous changes, several of them substantive. Babajobu 09:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I'll just restore them myself. Babajobu 09:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm an idiot. At least I know better than to move the image when its got HUGE WARNINGS not to do that. Kyaa the Catlord 09:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hang on, Kyaa. The warnings say not to remove the image. I just moved it lower down the page, which I see as a good compromise and, more importantly, editorially sound, given that the article is not about the cartoons per se. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Had you perused the talk pages and archives before messing around with the main page, perhaps you'd have realized that consensus on the placement of the "main" image has been argued and met. As it stands, I'm not touching the article again, not worth the fucking bother. I'm starting to wonder why I bother at all, actually. Kyaa the Catlord 09:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, the issue here is not where the cartoon exists. It's that it's here at all. The postion argument is a spurious one. Arno 09:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Arno, it may be that there is now (or will later be) a solid argument for moving the cartoon lower in the article. However, according to the vigorous participation in--and results of--poll two, I think it's clear that the community does not think there is anything spurious about the argument over positioning of the picture. Babajobu 09:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ahem. I repeat. the issue here is not where the cartoon exists, It's that it's here at all. It could be upside down in lower right-hand side and it would not make a jot of difference to the situation here. Arno 09:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The "existance" argument is such a dead horse. Let's not go there AGAIN. Kyaa the Catlord 09:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Arno, ahem, perhaps it wouldn't make a bit of difference to you, but to all the many people who voted in poll two, clearly it does make a difference. Babajobu 10:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I shall say this one more time and then I give up on you. the issue here is not where the cartoon exists, It's that it's here at all. Arno 01:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I think anyone familiar with the sort of insanely minor squabbles the Israel/Palestine conflict have produced (e.g. font size and positions of names on maps) would agree that the position arguments here could easily not be so "spurious". Soultaco 20:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Cartoon - warning - duplication occurs
Despite my firm stand that the cartoon's existance is an act of absolute bull-headed stupidity, I have not attempted to remove it. There are two reasons for this.

The first reason my corrections will be lucky to last a few minutes before it comes backs back again, having been restored there by some self-righteous individual.

The second reason is less obvious and of greater interest - by deleting it, I would actually be duplicating it. I wonder how many persons who have removed the cartoon have realised this. When you delete it from the article, it does not just vanish. It gets duplicated in the history portion of the article, each copy being as much an antithesis to Muslim teachings as the current one. In short, you are duplicating the cartoon every time you delete it.

Arno 09:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "Self-righteousness" apparently being the desire to implement the very clearly expressed will of the community... Babajobu 09:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So we can't delete it because it will be duplicated in the page history, but we can't keep it because it causes offense? Please, be reasonable! What exactly do you want us to do? You aren't seriously suggestion we purge it from the page history are you? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You actually answered your own question below as to what you could do about it. However, You also said that you will not do it, desite this policy. In the meantime, the irony of deletions causing duplications remains. That was my point. Actually, I had thought that you would have welcomed it, given that this may see a reduction in the number of deletions. Arno 06:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Babajobu, many (including I assume yourself) of those signed it would have non-Muslim backgrounds and whom I therefore doubt if they realise the fully offensive nature of the cartoon. Arno 09:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And the point of this is? Remember, we're supposed to be NPOV. Kyaa the Catlord 09:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Your failure to see the point illustrates mine about a failure to "realise the fully offensive nature of the cartoon".You have managed to completely contradict yourself in two sentences. A pity, you were convincing me that you had some sense in this matter.Arno 01:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * See Piss Christ, et cetera. Wikipedia reproduces and discusses a great deal of hardcore blasphemy directed toward various belief systems. As said before, clamoring for censorship does not become more persuasive as it gets louder. No special deference for any one group. Babajobu 09:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The purpose of the Wikipedia is to inform. By having the cartoons posted we are not presenting a point of view, but we are merely giving the world an opportunity to see the cartoon for themselves and hopefully make an introspective opinion, instead of just assuming a stance due to peer pressure and whatnot. GSchjetne 17:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I fully realise the offense this cartoon has caused among many people. I just don't think it matters. Aecis Mr.Mojorisin' 23:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Another oxymoronic observation. Arno 01:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What is oxymoronic about it? Aecis Mr.Mojorisin' 09:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

All in all, more bluster, none of which addresses the point that I was making above about the ironies of removing that cartoon. Arno 01:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if we delete the image it won't be shown even in the page history. That's not going to happen though. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about "duplicating" the image? The only thing in the history of this article is a link to the image, look at the div. Nothing ever gets deleted or duplicated, unless the actual image is deleted. Jaco  plane  02:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What I mean is that people can still see copies of the said cartoon by looking at past copies of this article in the history section. Arno 06:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Comparable Incidents section
I don't think that the incident with the Satanic Verses is so comparable to this incident. Although there are some similar elements, Rushdie's depiction of Islam was an inside job -- thus, the offense was between him and fundamentalist Muslims. Also, I haven't read the Satanic Verses, but it's a long book and I'm guessing that it has some literary merit, or at least aspires to.

On the other hand, the cartoons published by the Danish paper are not packed with socio-political or artistic merits -- the one with the bomb-turban is the visual equivalent of a religious epithet. Also, the criticism of Islam comes from an outside source at a time when there is great tension between Euro-Christians and Euro-Muslims.

I think that comparing Rushdie to the Danish paper serves to shore up the argument the newspaper would like to make ("this whole argument is about press freedom!") while seriously downplaying the perspective of offended Muslims ("these cartoons are the equivalent of hate speech").Katsam 09:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * They, like any other political cartoons, are brief yet powerful. Of course they aren't as deep as Rushdie's work, but as they say "a picture is worth a thousand words". Kyaa the Catlord 09:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Just for the record. The cartoons were accompanied with an article about freedom of speech and self-censorship relating to the illustrations of a childrens book as well as in general. This article gave them sufficient merit to be printed on page three in the culture section. I will not recite the article here but just offer my own PPOV that the reactions to the cartoons have shown without possible doubt that the article was indeed packed with socio-political merits. Martix 11:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

What is the record amout of talk page archives for an article?
Does this one hold that record?--Greasysteve13 09:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Talk:George W. Bush is currently at 42. Something might have more than that, but I don't know what.  Ral315 (talk) 12:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Terri Schiavo has 43. Bush's are more K apparently. Marskell 12:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Talk:Main Page has at least 50. So that one wins. --Mark J 21:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

But if we rephrase this question. Which talk-page during a period of time have grown the most? → Aza Toth 21:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This one?--Greasysteve13 04:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Probabaly.Pope Benedict XVI Was probably the previous record holder.Geni 11:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This Pink Tulip: Let me tell you somethin: Terri Schiavo talk page ain't gonna have too many more Archives piling up her area 'cause she is ded and 'cause good ol' Pink Tulip is getting everyone to get it all out of their systems and then gettin' 'em to SHUT UP and to get back to work of documenting WHAT HAPPENED 'n lettin' it go at that. We are pounding this with a sledge hammer to pulverize and masticate or organize the information until we are all sick in the stomach about it and that job is DONE! You should try that too BEFORE you go pilin' up too many more Archives of silly-assed cussin' 'n hurt feelins and who-knows-what-else. Let me direct your attention to the recently increased size of Category:Terri Schiavo. That did not happen by accident. -- Pinktulip 14:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course, if you are like User:Marskell, you could let your emotions rule you and destroy my efforts to organize the information and just keep on fighting with each other in your ignorance. -- Pinktulip 14:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Spelling errors
Since I can't edit the main article, someone else will have to fix the typo: "the place of muslims in the West, and the West in Muslim counties" (presumably should be "countries") - from anon.


 * Fixed. Kyaa the Catlord 10:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Image twice
Is there any important reason for having the cartoons twice in the articel? Meaning can't the second one be deleted? -- Nomen Nescio 10:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Already deleted second instance, it was left over from a revert war over positioning. Babajobu 10:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It must have been there three times, cause I just found another copy of it. :D Kyaa the Catlord 10:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Image descriptions
The discription of the image of Muhammad flanked by two women is not quite right yet. He is actually smiling (self confidentially?), and any impression of his possible mood arises in the viewers imagination only, since the expression of his eyes is censored. MX44 10:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I always wave around my sword when I'm happy. :D Kyaa the Catlord 10:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And The Three Musketeers were only really happy while wawing their swords ;) So is angry the right word to use? (and yes, I was the one who put it there) MX44 11:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, I don't think that comparing TTM with this image really does it justice. Its a serious apples to oranges comparison. :D Kyaa the Catlord 11:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Point taken, but to paraphrase your previous comment: -"I always smile when I am angry.", doesn't make a lot of sense either, does it? To me, the smile suggests a more balanced and well prepared mood as in "Make my day", rather than blind furiosity. MX44 11:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

multiple edits
I decided to change "were meant" to "were purportedly meant" earlier to improve NPOV compliance. But I flagged it as a minor edit. Then I changed my mind and decided it wasn't a minor edit after all - so I decided to revert it and resubmit my edit without the minor edit flag. Unfortunately, I accidentally reverted a few other edits made since. So I tried again - and reverted a few more! Whoops. The edits are coming way too fast for me to keep up with right now, so I'm going to back off for a bit and check it over later. Squashy 10:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this change. I don't think that this change does anything except weaken the sentance. JP's claims should be taken as fact while we define the controversy, then show their opponents stance to show NPOV, not make a sentance meaningless by adding weasel words. Kyaa the Catlord 10:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

JP Political Leanings (AGAIN)
I can't remember how this argument ended up last time around. I believe that it was to label JP as centre right, which I did, but I seem to also remember someone saying any "label" should be saved for the newspaper's WP. I'll go back and review the archives, but I think labelling anything "right wing" brings up images of fascist Germany and is terribly laden with POV. Kyaa the Catlord 10:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, JP was supporting Nazi Germany in the 30s. -- ActiveSelective 10:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That is a lie. It is part of a smear campain lanched by the communists after the war.
 * Yes, but demonizing the paper is POV. Kyaa the Catlord 10:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I also think the section "Claims of double standard of Jyllands-Posten" should be deleted. Politikken has offered no actual proof the incident took place, other than the word of the person who claimed to have sent them the drawing. Seconly I don't believe there is anywhere in the world where you can simply mail a drawing to a newspaper and expect them to feel an obligation to print it..
 * Jyllands-Posten is the most right-wing of the daily Danish newspapers. I don't believe calling something "right-wing" is demonizing, nor do I believe that the editorial board of the newspaper would disagree.  They would probably disagree with being called "extreme".  I don't think they would find "centre-right" correct either, it would certainly not be correct in the context of Danish newspapers.--Per Abrahamsen 11:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree completely with Per Abrahamsen. Don't know if 'right wing' has another connotation in the US (which isnt relevant since this is an international site), but for sure its the most adequate definition of the paper. Bertilvidet 11:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think any label is subjective and shouldn't be given. One person's right wing is another person's centrist, depending on where their own personal beliefs lie. Kyaa the Catlord 11:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I suspect that the meaning of "right wing" within the context of Danish politics is rather different than the meaning in much of the Anglo world, and as understood by a great many of our readers. This isn't a U.S. or UK site, but it's not a Danish site, either. Rather than ambiguously labelling them, characterize their politics more precisely, or not at all. Babajobu 11:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting how terms can be interpreted differently. However, the Wiki entry of Right wing fits perfectly to the political orientation of Jyllands-Posten. I guess that would be a more appriate place to discuss the meaning of the term. Bertilvidet 11:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * How about "supports the (right-of-center) Venstre Party"? Since the Prime Minister belongs to it, the fact is material. Septentrionalis 14:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain the introductory paragraph is the right placement for that though. Let's try to keep it as precise as possible. But if you want to put it in the body, that would be good. Kyaa the Catlord 14:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be gross simplification. JP support the original liberal outlook of Venstre and Anders Fogh (in his younger days), but since Venstre politics have become more centrist, JP have at times critizised Venstre for missing liberal initiatives (like, no tax cuts). In any case, "support" is too strong a word. Poulsen 23:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Before attempting to attribute political bias please review WP:OR and WP:CITE. Thanks! Weregerbil 11:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC) Jyllands-Posten is most reasonably considered conservative, although it always flirts with other orientations, mostly liberal. The paper definitely considers itself anti-socialist. However, it bent over backwards to support American President Clinton, during his reign. It is also wildly pro-EU (although less so now, than only a few years ago).

== '''JESUS IS ASHAMED OF ALL DENMARK CHRISTIANS!!! NO RESPECT TO MUSLIMS,THEN DON'T WAIT RESPECT!!! NO PAIN,NO GAIN!!!!!!!!!!' == - &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by'' Gunesl (talk &bull; contribs).

Moved from above, for a moment of zen. Kyaa the Catlord 11:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Checked the history; the user that posted it was Gunesl (see diff). &mdash; digital eon  &bull; talk @ 11:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, unfortunately that wasn't displayed when I went to edit it and I forgot his name. Thanks for the update Digi. Kyaa the Catlord 11:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, there is nothing un-Biblical about drawing a bunch of pictures of Muhammad, you can make fun of what he was doing without actually hating him. Homestarmy 16:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Arabic speakers - Request for translation of Akkari document
Continuing a discussion, requesting translation or English summary of the pages of the document scanned here:

Spiegel (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,398624,00.html) and others have written about Ahmed Akkari's tour of muslim nations, spreading a "43-page dossier" discussing their grievances about the Danish cartoons.

Has anybody here seen this 43-page document? 70.89.39.158 06:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It can be found here, . I do not speak arabic, nor danish, so I cannot tell you what is in it and/or if it is real. This article is also used as a source in the rumors and misinformation section of the article AlEX  08:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much - the scans look pretty credible. Are there enough arabic-speakers here that we might be able to hope for an English translation of this document?  This part of the story seems like a key piece of the timeline: it probably is the most detailed explanation grievances by the danish muslim group that is talking to the press the most, yet is still opaque to us non-Arabic speakers.  I think a translation would be enlightening to all and might help bridge gaps.  Any Arabic-speaking volunteers? -- 70.89.39.158 13:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I just gave these a quick skim, I do speak Arabic. They look quite genuine as a text (although the image resolution makes them a pain to read), I would note that it would take some time to translate, summarising would be more reasonable on a voluntary basis. I was amused by the brief intro on Denmark though. I would note that page 12 closes with an ident of the author as Sheikh Ra'id Halihil (sp unclear to me, could be Halimil), dated 4 Oct 2005. Also the last scan page (image 43) is a table of contents. (Collounsbury 10:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)).


 * Sounds absolutely fascinating. What is the title of the document?  Perhaps we should start a wiki page about the document, with space for people to contribute summaries or partial translations of individual pages -- 70.89.39.158 12:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately the images seem to be down at the moment, at least when I try to access and I did not save them, so I can't give my own translation. See note below, however. (Collounsbury 02:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)).


 * Maybe we should, atm it's still pretty pointless, but as soon as parts of the document have been translated we could do it. AlE  X  17:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There is what claims to be an inexpert translation into English of a Danish translation of the document, mixed with editorial commentary by the translator, at . Not exactly the best possible source but it's a start.. --Sommerfeld 19:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the translation seems (based on my memory of looking at the images earlier) reasonable although rather, shall we say, prejudicial in framing; regardless it gives what my memory seems to be a pretty good rendition of the commentary letter I noted above. The editorial commentary is also, well, a bit bombastic (e.g. problems building mosques, called a lie - I know in the French context that while it is not illegal to build mosques, getting permits appears to be rather difficult - data not being clear. It is not hard to imagine that Danish Muslims face some degree discrimination in this area. Does that make the statement as translated a lie? Well I would say an inflammatory exageration.) Also note, for example, the bit equating respecting Muslim Holy things is following Sharia is again more than slightly an editorial distortion. I would not say that the editorial comments are particularly helpful or even accurate. Also it seems to omit some final text, but my memory (again the images are not presently accessible by myself at least) may be off. Nota bene, the text supports the Imams' contention they did not claim the extra images were published, but were rec'd separately; although the end text (which I don't recall reading) indicates this is a post-facto compiation. (Collounsbury 02:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)).

the pics are scanning of messages and letters between the some muslim organizations and JP and danish goverments with details of meeting and response of islamic goverments and international islamic organzations --Chaos 15:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I am pleased that wikipaedia has shown this information, not because I am for or against it, but because If I am going to have a view on the topic, I believe the cartoons being discussed shoud be available to those who want to look for them. Mostother news outlets have not shown the cartoon, which rather takes the value out of their reports if the reader can't see for themselves what is being discussed.

I speak arabic fluently. However the links to the scanned pages at the site you were taking about are all broken []. Am I missing something? --130.111.19.110 18:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Bashar
 * In my browser (Mozilla), they render as popup pages consisting of a single .jpg file; do you have a popup blocker int he way? --Sommerfeld 19:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, the links are all dead now. AlE  X  20:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * They were available earlier. Possibly a hack or overload. (Collounsbury 02:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)).
 * Some scans of the documents are now available here at Image:Akkari-report-1.jpg through Image:Akkari-report-43.jpg (not all pages here). -- Vanitas 11:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, if Arabic/English speakers are willing, we could start editing the descriptions of the scans to add English translations or summaries of the Arabic text? (Also, there is a bit of Danish text that could benefit from translation as well.) -- Vanitas 14:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The Danish text on Page 5 is from the front page of Jyllands-Posten the day the cartoons were published. The scan is not perfect so I can't make out the bottom line in the left paragraph. The text reads (left side): "The Many Faces of Muhammad. Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten has asked members of the Danish association of newspaper cartoonists to draw Muhammad as they see him. 12 out of 40 replied, and we are printing them ... (last line garbled)". (Right side): "The modern secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand a special position, when they insist that special care is taken not to offend the own religious feelings. This is incompatable with a secular democracy and freedom of expression, where one must be prepared to face scorn or ridicule".


 * If anybody has a better scan, feel free to correct me. --Valentinian 09:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, the Danish image was one of the small "advertisements" for articles further into the paper. There's usually three or four on the front page. The story was *not* headline news. --Valentinian 10:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The front page of today's Wall Street Journal writes about the cartoon controversy with the headline "How Muslim Clerics Stirred Arab World Against Denmark... Dossier Fans the Flames." It's another example of the media standing between the original sources and the readers. I think it's increasingly important to give people access to the original dossier instead of only relying on newspapers re-reporting their own interpretation. Arabic-English translations, I think would be quite helpful. Any volunteers? -- Vanitas 13:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've made a few minor edits. The description of clipping from "Weekend Avisen" is based on my memory. It is a long time since I read it (and it wasn't even that good.) --Valentinian 16:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

typo
It is indeed "spelt FORTY". Well then...no more editing after midnight for me...

Here's another one:

"by the situation of Muslims in Denmark in general, which they perceived as racist and condescending a group of Danish Muslim clerics from multiple organisations"

should be

"by the situation of Muslims in Denmark in general, which they perceived as racist and condescending, a group of Danish Muslim clerics from multiple organisations"

There was a comma missing.

Holocaust denial
Does this need to be in the article? Perceived blasphemy and denying historical facts are not comparable. Religion by definition is based upon unverifiable and subjective notions about the world. To claim that ridiculing religion or pointing out the myriad discrepancies between what religion says and what science says, is identical to denying historical facts seems a stretch.-- Nomen Nescio 16:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The point is that they are both instances of "offensive speech". They are totally dissimilar in other respects, of course. Babajobu 16:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Telling people they are ugly is offensive too. Should we include that also?--[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]] Nomen Nescio 16:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If telling people they are ugly is of hotly contested legality in Europe, and constantly cited by Muslims as evidence of a free speech double standard, then yes, we should. If not, we shouldn't. Babajobu 16:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Since you agreed these examples are not identical, in your own words there can be no double standard. Hence, the request to delete. Or else we can insert homophobia which also represents double standard IMHO. Or better yet, the numerous anti-senetic and anti-catholics stories and pictures in the Arab media without raising a storm like this. Why are anti-semetic pictures acceptable but a picture of the prohet not> That is both offensive and evidence of double standard by muslims.--[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]] Nomen Nescio 16:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you are missing a point here. Wikipedia isn't the place to debate validity or merit of argument. The fact is that lot of muslim cite holocaust denial law as a sign of European hypocracy. So this have to be mentioned (with proper attribution, of course.)


 * Nomen, you and I are not having a debate about what is or is not analagous to the prophet situation. All that matters is what is notable to the story. Muslims around the world are focusing on Holocaust denial as evidence of what they see as a double standard. You and I can think that's bollocks, but the point is that the connection is notable because they are making it. As for your IMHO, well I have plenty of IMHOs, I think the most relevant comparison here is the state of sodomy law in southern U.S. But that could not go in this article, because my personal thoughts are immaterial, as are yours. Babajobu 17:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand, but is it possible to mention that Europeans view that argument as hypocritical, based on the points I advanced earlier.--[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]] Nomen Nescio 17:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, in fact I think that should be inserted, but it would need citations. Apparently Ian Duncan Smith just said something along those lines, so that could be it. Babajobu 17:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I will try and find sources for it. In the mean time I suggest these as arguments: 1 Muslims themselves use very confrontational articles and drawings (anti-semetic, anti-christian), 2 No muslim said the suicide bombers claiming to act on Allahs will are abusing their faith, most prominently the support for the 9-11 attacks.--[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]] Nomen Nescio 20:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hypocrisy

 * Moved to Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments

Flying spaghetti monster
It is an OUTRAGE that you depict his holiness, the Flying_spaghetti_monster in images on this site. One billion Pastafarians demand that you take it down or suffer the wrath of his noodly appendages!! Spazm 17:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Death to the infidels! Allaaaaaah-Alfredo! Haizum 17:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I share your outrage, brother. One small irony: I'd bet good money that the initial "Al" in "Alfredo" is originally from Arabic, probably via Spain during halcyon Arab rule (711-1492). So the phonetic handiness of "Alfredo" in the above formulation is no coincidence. Babajobu 17:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * According to BehindTheName.com, the name Alfred comes from the Old English words ælf (elf) and ræd (counsel). HTH. Aecis Mr.Mojorisin' 17:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Shit. Right, King Alfred and all that. BTW, what does "HCH" mean? Babajobu 17:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * HTH. HTH :-) Weregerbil 18:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I saw many hundred depictions of His Holiness recently in a Tesco store. Clearly the only course of action is to organise protests outside your local supermarkets. Maybe burn one or two down. Liam Plested 18:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The streets will flow with the marinara sauce of the infidels for depicting our noodly and merciful God!AscendedAnathema 20:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL "marinara sauce", I love it. Haizum 20:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's fine to depict Him. As long as He isn't dressed as a pirate.  --JGGardiner 07:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This is easily the best response to all of this gobbeldygook. Allu-Alfredo. Slimdavey 18:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Slimdavey

Rajab and Islamophobia
Rajab, you simply cannot represent "increasing Islamophobia" as an objective fact. Surely you know this. Babajobu 17:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * yes, yes - someone already corrected that sentence :) Rajab 17:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The word islamophobia occurs five times in the article now. Is that theory widely enough spread and such an important factor that it requires such prominence? Can the importance be verified and is not mostly some individual editor's personal belief? It is presented with phrases like "many perceive". Weregerbil 17:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I love how he dredged up arguments from the archive then didn't bother to add anything to them. Why? Who knows! I can't possibly read his mind. :D Kyaa the Catlord 17:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * relax, I will add to it when I get the time Rajab 17:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I looked at the Islamophobia article more carefully. A pretty horrible conspiracy theory page. Weasel words, fact picking, POV city. Need to be careful with this article too; things turn into junk like that one little POV edit at a time. Weregerbil 21:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

In not sure if it was Rajab's edit, but I changed the caption under the Jordanian cartoon in order to remove POV. Specifically, changed 'growing islamophopia' to 'a percieved advancement of Islamophobia in the West.'--XAdHominemx 02:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

one-dimensional thinking [debate continued from archive]
guys, please stop thinking one-dimensionally. 1.) we are different from you. Just because you're not offended by a jesus picture doesn't mean that we're not offended by a muhammad (pbuh) picture. 2.) these pictures come in a certain context. This is what we perceive as an islamophobic background in many western countries & the publication in a conservative mainstream newspaper. For this reason we think the generalisation that Muslims are terrorists is dangerous to us. Much more dangerous than a picture of Jesus, Lassie, etc. would be to you. Rajab 11:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That generalisation would be very dangerous. But you are doing that generalization. I am not. Oh, and, I would never be insulted by a picture of Lassie :). I was suggesting that you might be. Maybe I was wrong :) DanielDemaret 11:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

DanielDemaret 11:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's the cartoonist who makes the generalisation: Muhammad (pbuh) himself has a bomb in his turban. He meets suicide bombers at the gates to heaven... The prophet is the essence of islam & stands for all Muslims. In fact, he's the proto-typical muslim Rajab 11:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The details of the picture that you describe are clearly obvius. Here I agree with you. But I have seen about five different interpretations in these discussion about how to interpret that picture, and your interpretation is not the one that the editor says he meant. So you are saying, 1. Yours is the only possible correct interpretation. 2.The editor of Jyllandsposten is lying. I disagre with you on these points. DanielDemaret 11:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, but many Muslims DO interpret Islam to be that way - that Mohammad DOES support terrorism. And the rest of the Middle East quietly supports it. Does every Middle Easterner support it? No. But many (far too many) do. It was a charicature of the way many Muslims interpret Islam, and was entirely fair. You may not support terrorists, but others do (and burn down embassies over it, thus proving the point). Titanium Dragon 20:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.. Titanium Dragon how do you know that many muslims do interpret Islam that way.. that they think Muhammad (pbuh) does support terrorism? I've read about Muhammad (pbuh) from muslim and non-muslim author, even read about Him in wiki but i don't find anything that says Muhammad (pbuh) supports terrorism. In fact when I read about Muhammad (pbuh) in all those books, he was potrayed as a very peaceful man. So, is it your own opinion or you can read the mind of Muslims around the world? The people who supports terrorism are the terrorist themselves and maybe some morons (those are the people who thinks burning embassies are proving their point NOT) who does not know the real essence of Islam. So Titanium Dragon do get your facts straight before you say or write something :) ~Nadiah~

The main mistake here is that the artist or the journal claimed that is prophet Muhammad, if they make critics from islamic Extremists or islamic religion-men , I,m sure u wouldn,t hear any complains but by saying that Muhammad u make all muslims moderate and extreme concern about that , islam is also linked to terrorism and historical understanding obviously in these pics , and many muslims protest now for depicting all muslims as Extremists ... that is why wee say that these pics is full of Hate and racism .I tried to express what many muslims think, and u should understand this sensitivity to understand the reaction --Chaos 11:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This should be in the article Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 11:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately my edits get vandalised / reversed extremely quickly Rajab 11:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That shouldn't go in the article, unless of course you can find a reliable source... otherwise, it's POV. --Nathan (Talk) 17:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It is one-dimensional thinking to suggest that muslims have the only and correct view of things. Please, accept everybody has a right to an opinion, but not to force others to share it.


 * I'm not forcing you to do anything, I'm just trying to explain the reason for the escalation of this controversyRajab 11:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you Rajab. You and I are both trying to explain the reason for the escalation. I think we are both helping here. DanielDemaret 11:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Clearly, we understand people might be offended. But many things are offensive: ID is offensive to me, religious violence is offensive to me, people forcing me to live according their rules is offensive to me, evolution is offensive to ID proponents, atheism certainly offends believers, homophobia is offensive to homosexuals, et cetera. If we were to limit our words and deeds to what is inoffensive to the entire world we could not say anything. Furthermore, just as other religions have had to learn that things change, also muslems need to accept that freedom of speech only means that we need to be less sensitive and, as Einstein discovered, thaqt everything is relative.--[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]] Nomen Nescio 11:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me advise you: trying to teach us that "everything's relative" is not helpful. Furthermore, I don't want you to limit your words - I'm trying to explain to you the reason for the escalation of this controversyRajab 11:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * For the love of the Standard Model of Particles, let us stop babbling about generalisations and cheap views of the world which interest no one, and focus on the article ! Rama 11:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Nomen, we know the relativity very well , but who begins the generalization is ur artists , we know that some muslims gove bad representation of islam is denmark and netherlands , and the crime of killing Van kock is one of manythings could be done by stupid muslims , but at last u generalize by using the person who is most important to all muslims and u links him to these bad examples , that is against the spirit of understanding and relativity that call for , u have to understand also that this anger is complex anger and doesn,t represent one event , and u should understand that most refuges in ur country has escaped from tolitarist regimes which leads to this appearance of Extremism .... understanding all of that can give u more rational view of teh status. --Chaos 11:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said, Life of Brian is similar, but everybody accepts that it should be allowed. Please, don't try and regulate bad taste. If I could stop everybody saying things that I think are offensive or in bad taste, there would be silence for decades to come. Let's not start a competition on what is most offensive. There is no objective way of determinig who is offended more.--[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]] Nomen Nescio 11:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's focus on the article. Stop critisizing muslims in general for trying to "regulate bad taste", that has nothing to do with the article. Here we just try to explain the background of the controversyRajab 11:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You miss the point. This entire controversy is about muslims not accepting other ways of thinking and thereby imposing their view of the cartoons. This has everything to do with the article since it is the principal reason for the uproar, as it also was with Salman Rushdie.--[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]] Nomen Nescio 13:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I have included the following paragraph under a new subheading:

Pictorial surveys of Islamic religious art can be found at [6], [7], and [8]. Note that the last site also contains some extremely and intentionally offensive modern depictions of Muhammad.

Most contemporary Muslims now believe that portraits and photos, films and illustrations, are permissible. Only some Salafi and Islamist interpretations of Sunni Islam have condemned pictorial representations of any kind, consistent with their emphasis on strict observance of Muslim law. Offensive satirical pictures is somewhat different to the situation discribed above; disrespect to Islam or to Muhammad is considered blasphemous, or even sacrilegious. According to the BBC "It is the satirical intent of the cartoonists, and the association of the Prophet with terrorism, that is so offensive to the vast majority of Muslims."[9] As Muhammad is considered the proto-typical Muslim the association with terrorism is percieved as a generalisation to all Muslims. Furthermore the cartoons were published in a conservative mainstream newspaper in the context of what many Muslims perceive as an islamophobic mood in many of the western countries involved. In this context the Jyllands-Posten cartoons are viewed as considerably more dangerous to Muslims than comparable cartoons of Jesus would be to a Christian living in the west.

Please let me know what you think Rajab 11:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It dramatically lacks sources and precise figures. I am very sceptical of all these "many Muslims", "is considered", "are viewed", etc. These tend to induce the impression that a vast majority of all Muslims share the viewpoint that burning embassies is a good idea, which I strongly doubt. My impression is that the media are saturated by a very vocal and impressive tiny minority; I might be wrong, but I would like to be proved wrong, rather than suggested wrong. Rama 12:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * please improve the points that you have critisized :) Rajab 12:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In addition to these points the escalation was probably also fueled by the authorities in countries like Syria (e.g. by not decisevly stopping protesters from getting close to the embassies). This should also be included as a reason for the escalation, but I can't do that right now... Rajab 12:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Kill the passive verbs. "are considered" and "is viewed" et cetera are no good. Controversial articles suffer from a surfeit of them, and the unnamed agent of the verb usually is just the writer...unacceptable. User:Babajobu 12:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * According to the BBC "It is the satirical intent of the cartoonists, and the association of the Prophet with terrorism, that is so offensive to the vast majority of Muslims." As Muhammad is the proto-typical Muslim this association with terrorism is comparable to a generalisation to all Muslims. Furthermore the cartoons were published in a conservative mainstream newspaper in the context of what many Muslims percieve as an islamophobic mood in many of the western countries involved, , . In this context the danger of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons to Muslims differs significantly from the danger presented by comparable cartoons of Jesus to a Christian living in the west. Another reason for the escalation is that the controversy appears to have been fueled by autocratic regimes. Rajab 12:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I am responding to you, Rajab, about what I think about the BBC article. It is a good article, and as far as it goes, I agree with all of it. I am afraid, however that the part: "It is the satirical intent of the cartoonists, and the association of the Prophet with terrorism," might lead you to read instead: "It is the satirical intent of the cartoonist to show that the Prophet is a terrorist". Is it? This is not what the author writes, and I don't think the author would have been allowed to write that without first checking and then referring to either the editor or the cartoonist as a source. DanielDemaret 12:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I take your point Daniel, we cannot make conclusions about the author's intentions. Irrespective of his intentions however, the cartoons do create a clear association between Muhammad (pbuh) and terrorists - and I think that's where the problem is Rajab 12:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I find this section and its heading "reasons for escalation" to be POV. 1. The intent of Jyllandsposten was to put a question-mark on freedom of speach, not to forward islamophobia. 2. Jyllandsposten is not a particular "conservative" newspaper. Where does that come from - and what is the relevance to the issue? 3. The section changes the meaning of the most disputed drawing from something like "terrorists are often Muslims" to "Muslims are terrorists" which is of course absurd. 4. The reasons for escalation of the conflict are certainly many, including interior policy in the Arab world, none of which is covered by the heading. --Sir48 13:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "terrorists are often Muslims" - this generalisation that you make (or the stereotype that you use) is exactly part of the [islamophobic] attitude that the article refers to, Sir Rajab 13:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sir .. plz understand that tehre is two sides of POV .. Danish ppl see that Muslims' view point is POv and Muslims see that ur viewpoint is POV --Chaos 13:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sir .. please add the factors (including interior policy) that you mentioned to the article. Also please feel free to suggest where in the political spectrum JP actualy stands. Rajab 14:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1. My viewpoint is not POV but reflecting the stated purpose from Jyllandsposten in bringing the cartoons. I used the expression: "terrorists are often Muslims" to illustrate the erroneous tranformation into "Muslims are terrorists". Unfortunately, the expression is not a stereotype. However, I would rather clarify the meaning of the cartoon to be: "Muslim terrorists misuse Mohammad to legimitate their evils." This does not change the fact that the issue for Jyllandsposten is freedom of speach and not to insult Muslims (which would have been an offence according to Danish law - fortunately). 2. Jyllandsposten is a mainstream newspaper not adhering to any particular political party. Point is that this is irrelevant to the article. 3. Reasons for escalation are hypothetical and speculative (political motives, disinformation etc.). That's why the section should be deleted and that I refrain from adding to it. --Sir48 14:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * would you say that "Terrorists are often Muslims" is not a stereotype? That's like saying "debtors are often Jewish". It's not only a stereotype but it's also blatently islamophobic - the IRA are terrorists, the basques have terrorists, the corses have terrorists, etc etc. To hear that "terrorists are often muslim" is really quite offensive to me...Rajab 17:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * you wrote that the cartoons show: "muslim terrorists misuse Muhammad" (pbuh). That's not quite true because Muhammad is shown quite active (rather than passive) in those cartoonsRajab 17:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, someone has just deleted the whole section.Rajab 15:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * the vandal was Azate . He deleted the first part of the section saying the BBC quote was inaccurate. A few minutes later he deleted the rest of the section saying that it doesn't justify a whole section. However I double checked it & found the exact words in the article. Therefore I have re-inserted the article.


 * So you just restored this then. By the way, your constant name calling of people who do not agree with you does not reflect well on you or the view you are trying to promote. You are not helping your cause; quite the opposite. Weregerbil 17:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * you say there exists no islamophobia - the remarks of Sir above demonstrate quite the opposite. The fact that lots of ppl seem to agree with him only shows that it's become acceptable Rajab 18:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I am merely remarking that you appear to have a tendency to call people "vandal" at the drop of a hat, and that does not reflect well on you. In the past I have said similar things to people of various religions a couple of times (I think; I do not consider or try to find out a person's religion when asking them please remain civil). I assure you your accusations of islamophobia are entirely inside your mind in this case at least. Please try not to call people names like that, it just makes you look bad. Weregerbil 18:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Rajab, you need to sit back and read before you strike out. Were didn't say that "there exists no islamophobia", but you leapt to that conclusion. This is a serious problem. You have stopped assuming good faith and have begun to charge windmills. Kyaa the Catlord 18:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not name-calling anyone, I'm just trying to explain to you why these little cartoons have caused a huge stir. And part of this explanation is how we perceive the context in which these cartoons come in Rajab


 * Please avoid dredging the lake Rajab. Kyaa the Catlord 17:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What I said was that the headline "reasons for the esacalation" was inadequate, because THE WHOLE ARTICLE deals with just that. I said a better place for your contribution in question would have been under "Opinions" and "International reactions" were it was, alas, already covered. I was wrong about the BBC quote, said as much, and apologized. Azate 17:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The article is by far the best resource on the Net at the moment. Well done Wikipedia. There is something that I, as a non-Muslim (a Brianist, in fact) would like more information on, to help me understand how Muslims feel about this. As far as I can tell, there are a number of different reasons why the cartoons and their publications are upsetting and/or offensive to Muslims/Islam. These can probably be summarised as 1) The depiction of of human beings, and Muhammed in particular, is forbidden by Islamic tradition. 2) Some of the cartoons depict Muhammed lasciviously. 3) Some of the cartoons depict Muhammed as condoning or participating in terrorism. 4) That the supposed Western tradition of "freedom of speech" is being used to justify the publication of these cartoons in a way that, say, anti-Semitic cartoons would not be tolerated. 5) That the combination of some or all of the above represents a growing Islamophobia in the West. If some genuine Muslims could respond with a short, simple description of how much each of the points above applies to them, then with a number of responses we could perhaps direct the debate a bit better to the most contentious parts of the issue?  (Use marks out of ten, one-word answers, percentages, whatever you like).  If others could keep their comments outside of this thread directly, it will probably help.  Thanks IRSWalker 18:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to interject on the behalf of everyone. The tone I noticed on the discussion page has dramatically decreased to a more civil discussion about the articles. I think we have all taken a major step forward. My own buttons were pressed quite a few times much like everyones but at no one point did it get to a major escalation with threats, racial slurs and name calling. I think we've done a good job :) Hitokirishinji 18:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)