Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 16

Go Wikipedia!
I just want to say I am proud that Wikipedia has more collective cojones than BBC, Fox News, and CNN combined, none of which would show the controversial cartoons. Ohh, they'll show the riots and pictures of bloodied and dead protestors, but without the context of showing the original cartoons, none of it makes sense. So I just wanted to give a big thumbs up to Wikipedia for being one of the few American news sources to stand up and show the controversy. P.S., anyone find it ironic that news outfits routinely show dead and mutilated bodies, executions, etc., but a freaking cartoon is too "offensive" to them?! -- Cyde Weys 19:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia, not a news source (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About ) Dmaftei 15:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Pardon me, but this has passed from being news to "history in the making". It will most definitely appear in the history books, albeit as a footnote (unless this later recognized as a watershed moment), but it will appear. Wiki just has a shorter time to publication than most encyclopedias.70.178.11.8 06:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * wikipedia IS a news source... it's an unexpected and unintentional extension of its encyclopediacal nature.. or something to that effect Hellznrg 19:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * indeed, news is a documented externality of wikipedia's existence. &rArr;    SWAT Jester   [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]]  Ready    Aim    Fire!  22:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hats Off Wikipedia - --203.118.135.21 19:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Ganesh

The thing of it is, together with all those riots, the cartoons still don't make anything make sense, all you get is a picture of people burning down buildings and demanding the destruction of nations because of the pictures on a piece of paper :/. Homestarmy 19:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right, there truly is no way to make sense out of people killing others and burning down buildings over a few pictures. But you get closer to understanding it with the pictures than without. -- Cyde Weys 19:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * *haha* You only mention pictures - what about our long text?? That doesn't help at all? (fishing for compliments ;) Rajab 20:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The text helps a lot, Rajab, and you've done some very good work on it (despite our differences). Babajobu 21:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Cyde Weys - Wikipedia is not an American, nor Asiatic news source - it's global (and American is not synonymous for U.S. for that matter).--212.88.77.68 23:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyone else find it ironic that when a picture depicting a certain religion harbouring hothead elements is published, the response is for the hotheads to go out and burn and bomb buildings. Errr, doesn't that somewhat validate what the cartoonist was getting at? Graham 06:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Touche. Vanessa kelly 09:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well said. Not to paint a group of people with a single broad stroke, but reacting with violence to the insinuation that your religion breeds violence probably wont help the cause.Slimdavey 18:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)slimdavey
 * Graham, what will you do if someone spit in your face? What will you do if someone attack you when you are just minding your business? What will you do, if a newspaper prints an article full of insults about you? What I am trying to say is, it is not the way you described it. Qoqnous 10:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not the way you described it either. A better analogy would be: What if someone called you a violent animal? Because if your immediate response is to physically assault them ... well, you effectively proved their point. Soultaco 19:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * wow i couldn't have put it better myself... soultaco, i gotta write that down! Hellznrg 19:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally, if someone spat in my face, I would burn down the local police station.... My point is, I agree that muslims were seriously insulted by Jyllands-Posten. But the response is way out of proportions, and the violent attacks really tend to support the anti-islamic POVs that are commonly found in the articles of this right-wing newspaper. Extremists on both sides gain from all this. Claush66 10:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's funny Claush66. Anyways, as numerous people have pointed out, there are nonviolent and legal ways to persue such things especially if a newspaper prints things about you that can be damage your reputation, that's called slander and that can be brought to court. And certainly I wouldn't go and firebomb the building the paper is run in.
 * I do agree with "Extremists on both sides gain from all this.", and I do not like those hotheaded attacks. But who in the first place started trashing and making fun of othe one beliefs? Muslims or Jyllands-Posten? Qoqnous 11:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * According to reports, neither one. You are arbitrarily assuming intent. Weregerbil 11:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Weregerbil, I think you describe the very basis of the problem; Most muslims outside Europe can not imagine that such cartoons were printed without the intent of insulting - and gravely so. In Denmark many people, muslims and others alike, find that the cartoons can be percieved as insulting, and that the newspaper lacked tact in publishing them. But I have heard noone in Denmark accuse Jyllands-Posten of a intent just to make grave and serious fun of a religion nor demonise it. Most believe that they were insensitive enough not to think of that. Claush66 11:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it's actually hard to argue they weren't intending to insult, if you read the Jyllands-Posten article. I mean, this was an obvious (and clearly very successful) attempt to offend and provoke Muslims. That doesn't vindicate the violent reaction, but the publication of these was still in rather quesionable taste. Soultaco 19:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The point of the article was that Muslims were attempting to censor the world and make everyone adhere to their bizzare religious taboos. The paper was like "Well, we don't think that should be so" and published something which showed that it was okay to print something like that in a free country and that the Muslims would not prevail. Then the Muslims showed that the bomb-in-turban depiction was disturbingly accurate by burning down several buildings and issuing death threats, rather than just not caring. They aren't even that offensive; people are interpreting them to be offensive because they want to take offense. Titanium Dragon 23:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What is this supposed to mean? "their bizzare religious taboos" ? Qoqnous 08:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oddly enough these people do not find terrorist attacks in the name of Islam offensive, nor do they object to the blatant anti-semetic cartoons in the Arab media.--[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]] Nomen Nescio 10:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Qoqnous is trolling, he has a funny name. (CockNose?) Kyaa the Catlord 10:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Trolling am I? No I do not need attention, I just had my opinion about other side of the coin published. By the way, Qoqnous is an old chat name I prefered to use as my nick in Wikipedia. Qoqnous 11:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Tis cool. Just noticed it could be pronounced oddly and leapt to blatant speculation. :D Kyaa the Catlord 11:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The servers are absed in Florida, but we're an international news source, dedicated towards fighting systemic bias. Well, actually, Wikinews is. Wikipedia tends to be written in the past tense. ;-) Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 10:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Intro expanding out of control.
HTH

Lotsofissues 19:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC) - Just want to ad a thing to the article. The embassy of Sweden was also torched in Syria along with the Danish. They are (were) situated in the same building. //Otto Vendelkråka
 * Yeah we should cut it down. Perhaps not write about the torchings but just give an short intro what the cartoons are about? -- Snailwalker | talk 20:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

My guess that story with the cartoons is a very complicated political issue. I've been to two muslim countries (Egypt&Maroccoo) on holiday and there is one thing that I simply do not understand - they have so many problems like crumbling buildings, and unfinished houses, or the most recent example of people sunk due to absence of life boats, still many people seem to be committed to destruction rather than creation. Why do not build something, improve and so on? Meanwhile, whenever there is a chance to smash and destroy - the images are beamed to the whole world. It's simply something I can't grasp. There's a very interesting article in the Guardian on possible roots of all this fuss.

Jesus or Muhammad
Images_of_Jesus

Differences or similarities

 * Moved to Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments

More Caroons Needed I Say!
You call that insulting? Wow. Come on. That's really mild, and nicely demonstates the lack of tolerance in the "Islamic World" whatever that is, and their totality, black vs white world view. I say somebody draw and distribute a picture of the prophet getting a nice Beej from his missus, or several of his missuses, with a caption saying "Thank Allah for a bit of 'noggin to make me forget those stupid cartoons" Now THAT'S insulting. What a joke this world is. Lucky for those jerks "over there" they are allowed the freedom of expression to go protest about stuff.

Interesting reading
I personally am not religious but think the following are very good articles (historically and otherwise).


 * Abraham
 * Jesus
 * Muhammad


 * Yep. It's a good idea to do some background research to gain a better understanding of the roots of this article. (specifically on Muhammad)&#160;—  The KMan  talk  06:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Query regarding quickly developing talk pages in general
I was just wondering if anyone can point to - or offer here - comparisons between the speeds with which Talk pages "exploded". I realize the record is probably held by some huge event like 9/11, but I would still appreciate a way of putting this Wikifrenzy into perspective.

On an unrelated note, I'd like to commend those who are working on this article without acting on on their personal beliefs regarding religion, free speech, and other related issues. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.20.237.11 (talk • contribs).


 * --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 9/11 didn't generate this much activity. Have in mind that Wikipedia has orders of magnitude more readers and editors today than it did in 2001. Fredrik Johansson - talk - contribs 22:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * On 7.7.2005, odds were extremely good you'd cause an edit conflict at any given time. --Kizor

See for "50 most edited articles" (includes talk pages) and other things. The most edited talk page, it says, is the Main page talk page with 16345 edits. WAS 4.250 13:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Users who exist only to edit this article?
I've noticed one user whose entire Wiki existence is devoted to doing nothing but edit this article. What constitutes "recent" wikipedia membership for purposes of blocking on this article? Dogface 21:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, there is nothing wrong with that. Editing only one article only goes against them if they vandalise or get engaged in an edit war. See Assume good faith. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 21:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Got a problem with that? -- Plem11738 08:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting viewpoint from Australia

 * Moved to Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments

Other papers
Although South African newspapers have been banned from printing the cartoons, one newspaper, the Mail and Guardian (which has a Muslim editor), had already printed one of the cartoons before the ban. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4685040.stm

The French newspaper Libération deserves a mention as a major newspaper to carry two of the cartoons.

Also - why does the International Opinion section focus on Britain? I like the quote from Nicolas Sarkozy: 'I prefer an excess of caricature to an excess of censorship'.

p.s. excellent article, though.

198.54.202.18 22:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't this here?
'''Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that have caused a storm of protest throughout the Islamic world, refused to run drawings lampooning Jesus Christ, it has emerged today. The Danish daily turned down the cartoons of Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny.''' --203.206.177.171 23:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It is in the article. See the section "Claims of double standard of Jyllands-Posten" Ashibaka tock 23:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's face it. Looking at it dispassionately, and irrespective of one's own faith (or lack of faith) and whether they caused offence, some of the cartoons were funny. Others were 'scraping the bottom of the barrel' and the cartoonists commissioned were clearly struggling to come up with something. I have seen cartoons depicting Jesus Christ and aspects of Christianity - some of which were extremely funny, and others which were not at all. Claims of 'double standards' ignore the fact that the definition of a good cartoon is not 'does it offend anyone?', but simply: 'is it funny?' Bruce, aka Agendum | Talk 23:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * At the risk of going off-topic: I disagree with you on that. I don't think the level of the humour automatically defines the quality of the cartoon. Tellingness (?) can also be a measure of quality. There are many cartoons that are not funny but that stand out and become icons of a time. Aecis Mr.Mojorisin' 23:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * satire Vanessa kelly 09:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Another thing missing (under external links, official correspondence) is the official correspondence between the UN and Denmark. The correspondence is available from the timeline (November 24 2005, and January 23 2006): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#November and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#January Can someone add those notes/links?--Discus2000 23:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Some muslims in Canada (an every day Joe, a leader, a comic) thought several of the comics were funny... they were interviewed on the Current, a show on CBC Radio 1 on Friday February 3. Not all muslims think its not funny, and it appears that a lot of people on both sides are making judgments about the comics without having seen them.   The audio is here http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2006/200602/20060203.html WayeMason 00:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Location of image - currently at top of the page
It's unclear to me why this image is located at the top of the page of the article. Typically in Wikipedia, when people have objectede images that some may find offensive are further down the page, if they are on the page at all. For example the articles penis, breasts. It seems to me that a significant minority of people are quite genuine that they find these images offensive. Personally I don't get it, I can't see anything any more offensive here than in a children's comic - they are only satirical cartoons. However as there are those that are genuinely very offended, I don't understand why there would be opposition to at least moving the images further down the page. I realise that there was already a vote on this, however I think the vote was ended prematurely - and it would appear my last comments on this subject were archived within minutes of me making them! Nfitz 22:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see the archived talk; this has been extensively discussed and polled. Plenty of good arguments for and against in there; little need to re-hash everything. Weregerbil 22:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. See the old polls here. 82% of the voters felt that the article should contain the cartoons, and 70% of the voters believed that it should be at the top of the article. There's no need to go through that again. Aecis Mr.Mojorisin' 23:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Should there be something like a "sticky" concerning recurring topics in this talk, like whether anything was agreed on or is still disputed or what were the outcomes and reference to the whole discussion? Such "stickies" are usually prevalent in web-based forums (such as bbforums and the like). Perhaps even a table on topics discussed and what was the outcome as of today or smth. I think this would help in avoiding people new to the discussion rehashing some topics.
 * -Mardus 23:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As I referenced in my original post, I did see (and contribute) in the original polls. My concern is that the poll on location was ended prematurely.  I don't think that a debate on the location of the article should have been held in concert with the debate on removal, as I don't think it yielded a fair result.  I don't think we obtained consensus on it, despite the 70% in favour, as the vote was not held over a long enough period of time - it was open for less than 48 hours, yet 7-days is more typical on Wikipedia.  While I think the issue of whether the image should be on the page or not, has been clearly resolved, I think the location issue should be subjected to further debate, and perhaps a new poll.  But, rather than open the poll, I was looking for dicussion first.  And none of the responses to my comment have entered discussion.  So the question is given that many people appear to be genuinely offended by the image, why would we not at least show some sensitivity and move the image further down, in the same manner that we have done on other pages? Nfitz 02:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Why should we respect the feelings of those who were offended, but not of those who were not offended? Also, I don't think that the poll was ended prematurely. It's true that a lot less people voted in the poll on the location of the cartoon than in the poll on the presence of the cartoon. However, there was a clear difference. The "top of the page" option got 70% of the votes. The second most popular option got only 16% of the votes, IIRC correctly. I doubt that the result would have been much different if the poll had remained open longer. Aecis Mr.Mojorisin' 00:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm amazed! No objections. Not even any calls for a poll. I'll just move the image further down the page then! Nfitz 23:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that a great silent majority is in favor of moving the image. The only "benefit" of keeping the image on top is offending many people, while moving it down doesn't diminish the value of the article at all. Dmaftei 00:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think most people probably visit this page to see the images. If someone is trying to ban something, people want to find out what it is. --Ssj4android 23:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * OOH! A "great silent majority"--how very Nixonian.Dogface 13:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This has been extensively discussed, polled, and edit wars have been fought. Please please please read the talk archives and look at the poll results. An overwhelming majority supported keeping the picture where it is. Weregerbil 00:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no need for "please please please", I've been watching this discussion since it started. To address your comment, the majority you're referring to is not overwhelming at 70%.  Besides, I agree with Nfitz that the poll regarding the position of the image did not live long enough, therefore is largely irrelevant.Dmaftei 00:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The poll on the location of the article was up for less than 48 hours; I don't think you can shut debate permanently over the issue on such an unusually short-lived poll. Also the story itself has developed since then; people are dying over this.  I think we should revisit what consensus is.  Nfitz 00:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * IIRC, the poll options got 70/16/10/4 percent of the votes. With those figures, 70% is an immense majority. Aecis Mr.Mojorisin' 00:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm also nursing the hope (perhaps naively) that common sense and tolerance will FINALLY prevail... Dmaftei 00:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Tolerance? What is tolerance?  Let me guess, threatening mass murder and burning down embassies over cartoons--THAT is tolerance!Dogface 13:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, your nursing the hope that if you whine about it enough and start enough stupid polls over it people will eventually give in and give you your way by either removing the image entirely or moving it to the very bottom of the article  Jtkiefer T   00:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You might think about making a distinction between the concepts "personal opinion" and "common sense". Helps understand other people and the world to know that all your opinions are not always shared by some "great silent majority". Weregerbil 01:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand the concepts of freedom of speech vs religious totalitarianism, I support the former while I am currently fighting the latter and I refuse to let Wikipedia be screwed over by a bunch of people with 1 day old accounts and an agenda to push so suck it up or find some other article to troll since consensus is wayyy against you and unless I see a clear consensus from respectable editors otherwise I plan on fighting to keep the image as is in line with the goals of the Wikipedia project.  Jtkiefer T   01:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess that's what's wrong with Wikipedia: administrators like you... You could at least use a civil tone. Dmaftei 01:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You're not exactly using a civil tone when you say it's because of administrators like him Wikipedia is defective or "wrong". If you were truely so civil, you'd easily just say, "Please refrain from any personal attacks, lets not get into a flame war here." Hitokirishinji 19:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * (ec) Guys, please, let's calm down here and heed Jimbo's words to discuss here with the most civility as possible and the strongest assumption of good faith to everyone. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 01:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess that's what's wrong with Wikipedia: administrators like you... You could at least use a civil tone. Dmaftei 01:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * A) nobody is forcing you to be here, there are millions of other sites on the web, B) You'll find that I'm very considerate when I don't have to deal with trolls. Jtkiefer T   01:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

What exactly qualifies me as "troll"?!Dmaftei 01:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Acting trollishly would be a more appropriate term actually since you don't seem to be a troll in general but the fact that you are part of a group of editors who are repeatedly trying to remove encyclopedic content just because it is offensive to yours (if you happen to be muslim) or to someone else's (if your not) beliefs and are doing everything in your power to disrupt normal wikipedia process in doing so including repeatedly holding idiotic little polls until you get your way, that qualifies you as acting trollishly, though I do give you credit due to the fact that (to my knowledge) you haven't been one of the ones repeatedly vandalizing the page and/or edit warring over the image). Jtkiefer T   01:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

< Back to left margin

I agree with those who say that this issue has already been extensively discussed and the poll produced a decisive outcome and indicated a clear consensus to keep the image at the top. However, I think it's reasonable to suspect that as events continue to unfold, people killed embassies burned, et cetera, that some formerly resolute "At the top" voters may become more amenable to moving the picture to the "Publication of the Cartoons" section and to put one of the other salient images as the top. So I don't think the poll on the position of the cartoon should be regarded as permanently binding. Perhaps at some point we should bring poll 2 back out and reopen it to voting. Finally, Jtkiefer, you're work on this page (and talkpage) has been great, but I think you're overreacting to Dmaftei here. We've dealth with a ton of vandalism and trolling here, so it's understandable we'd now spook easily, but I don't think he was trolling. Babajobu 01:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * One potential problem with a re-poll is that there has been plenty of time to raid the sock drawer and do some sowing. Is there WP precedent or rules about polling only users created before a certain date when a given controversy started? Weregerbil 01:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Eh, yes. The recent arbcom elections, for one. Also, I'm not talking about reopening the poll on whether to include the images, I think that's been pretty decisively settled. Just poll two, about where to include them. Babajobu 01:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes there is precedent for using suffrage limits but very rarely and it has never over article content issues. There's also the issue that a suffrage limit would A) would either not be binding or would make people question the poll results, or B) have people ignore the suffrage limit all together which would make much more work and would totally throw a poll into disarray. Jtkiefer T   01:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

For your information, Jtkiefer, I am not "part of a group of editors who are repeatedly trying to remove encyclopedic content", I voted in a poll to KEEP the image (though not at top), I did NOT edit the article in any way. It is my understanding that the discussion page is here for people to express their opinions on the article at hand, and that's precisely what I did, I expressed my opinion that moving the image down would be better. As far as I can say I acted 100% within the Wikipedia rules, AND with civility. I'm at a loss understanding how this is "acting trollish"?! If you think you could explain it politely, I'm listening; if you continue being rude and offensive, then don't bother...Dmaftei 02:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * DMaftei, I agree with you that Kiefer mischaracterized your actions and intent. I think he's just exhausted from defending this page from the group he describes...but you weren't part of it. Babajobu 02:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This page has been exhaustively vandalizd, debated and constantly, repolled because people cannot accept the outcome of the poll earlier. Frankly, the poll decided what the article should be and right now, that's what stands. We should not have to repoll everytime someone thinks the poll results were skewed. I'm fine with opening up the poll again at a later time but right now we're still just trying to keep the ship together. Half the time we're jumping off the portside to fight off pirates and vandals. Until, we're out in clear water with the wind in our sails and the waves have died down, then maybe we should think about visiting the poll. Hitokirishinji 19:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, now's not the time. Babajobu 19:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Irony
Seeing as how this entire controversy is based on people's perceived opinions about each other, would it be appropriate to include a section in this article devoted to the irony of it all?

Unquestionably, the cartoons portrayed Islam as a violent religion. Reacting violently, groups within Islam demonstrated this at the expense of their religion's reputation. It could only be more ironic if that artist fellow drew a cartoon depicting the riots that these people are conducting to protest the cartoons that depict them rioting. sysrpl


 * I fear that would anger people... And quite easily be regarded as original research which is naughty and disallowed. Weregerbil 01:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not irony! It's an expected and predictable outcome. It would have been ironic if the response to the cartoons had been tolerance and acceptance of others' points of view. That would be irony. SilentC 02:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * According to wikipedia, irony has some of its foundation in the onlooker's perception of paradox. Answers.com defines irony as "Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs". It can be argued that the intent of these cartoons is humor, and the much delayed reaction  from some Islamic groups was the opposite violence. This might be conjecture, but most people find it paradoxical that some highly visible Islamic followers are offended by the implication of violence and hatred of a cartoon, only to act out with violence and hatred in protest.


 * By the way, what is the wikicode to add a timestamp to my comments? sysrpl
 * Four tildes (~). Carson.talk 02:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * From my reading, the intent of the cartoons was to illustrate an article about self-censorship for fear of causing exactly the type of reaction which occurred. I believe humour may have been a secondary consideration in this case. It would also have been extremely naive of the editor to not expect some sort of backlash. What he probably didn't expect was for a touring party to take them to the Muslim world. Given that was what happened, the outcome was to be expected. Also, from what I gather the objection on the whole is the fact that images were made at all, not that some of them could be construed as implying violence and hatred. I take your point on the paradox but I think there is a different term for what is going on there. SilentC 02:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If your looking for humor in cartoons how bout watching Adult Swim. I can personally guarantee The Boondocks may or may not be 'burn something down' offensive. (Offensiveness guarantee not guaranteed)--AdultSwim 06:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * But are these cartoons really 'offensive'? For some reason, I can't take the word of embassy-burners and their editorial page enablers. Should you? Sysrpl 06:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Iran
Should this be incorporated to the article? CJK 02:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, my! And I think, yes, it should. But perhaps only as "other reaction" or something, until they actually print it. Azate 02:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Full List of Newspapers who have Printed 1 or more Cartoons
I'm thinking the chronological one is more informative. I'll see if I can find a place to put it. joturner 06:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I added the table to the article. It's huge, but I tried to make it take up as little space as possible. I'll leave it up to the rest of the Wikipedia community to do what it thinks is right. However, I do believe it provides important information, even if it goes on a separate page where it would be eating up a lot of space. joturner 06:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE 1: Hephaestion 07:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Thanks for that, your table is great. Here are an update as I cannot edit the main page. Brisbane Courier Mail (1 cartoon) 04/02/06 >>>added (1 cartoon)

Great table! Question : According to http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1700798,00.html the BBC has shown the pictures. Is perhaps noting that they have been broadcasted in the news relevant even if they are not printed?DanielDemaret 09:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE 2: Hephaestion 10:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Another update, the two related, small Jordanian papers, which carried the cartoons, carried 3 cartoons each. The editors of both papers were arrested, but apparently released although I can not see any verification of the release other then the Der Spiegel article. Waiting for Reporters without Borders to verify release, so I have changed the table to reflect 3 cartoons each for the Jordanian papers. I have also removed the orginal table I put up as your table is sufficient.


 * I assume you meant www.rsf.org, i e reporters without borders.DanielDemaret 10:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ooops, Yes I fixed it above, they will be monitoring the situation with any arrested journalists Hephaestion 11:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE 3: Hephaestion 12:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Also Norways's Dagbladet published all 12 cartoons on January 10th 2006 so I ammended that as well.

We have reports on CNN, BBC or other key sources that newspapers in Japan, Romania, Ukraine and Brazil have also published the cartoons, can anybody please give details of which paper, which date and how many cartoons for these 4 countries and any others.

UPDATE 4: Hephaestion 12:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC) FIJI PAPER PRINTS CARTOONS: The Fiji Daily Post published all 12 cartoons on Sunday 5th, reference  I have amended the tables above.

How about highlighting any newspaper with a circulation over 250,000? Lotsofissues 12:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

More newspapers
PUBLISHING MUHAMMAD

Some of the newspapers and magazines across Europe that have published caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad:

Denmark: Jyllands-Posten

Italy: Libero, La Padania Hephaestion 13:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)These are 2 small right-wing papers that published all the cartoons on 3rd February, I have amended the above table.

Greenland: Sermitsiaq Hephaestion 13:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC) This newspaper published 3 photos on 2nd February, I have amended the above table.

Hungary: Magyar Hirlap and Nepszabadsag

Spain: El Mundo, El Peiodico de Catalunya, El Pais Hephaestion 13:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)El Mundo all photos published the same day as El Periodico, February 1, I have amended above.

Belgium: De Standaard; De Morgen, Het Volk and Het Nieuwsblad

France: France Soir, Liberation; Le Figaro and Le Parisien

Switzerland: Le Temps, 24 Heures, Tribune de Geneve, Blick

Bulgaria: Novinar, Monitor

Portugal: Publico

Norway: Magazinet

Sweden: Expressen

Germany: Die Welt

The Associated Press

Lotsofissues 13:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Another AP list, dated Feb 3

Italy -- Libero, La Padania

Greenland -- Sermitsiaq

Hungary -- Magyar Hirlap and Nepszabadsag

Spain -- El Mundo, El Peiodico de Catalunya, El Pais (own)

Belgium -- De Standaard; De Morgen, Het Volk and Het Nieuwsblad (own)

France -- France Soir, Liberation; Le Figaro and Le Parisien (own)

Switzerland -- Le Temps, 24 Heures, Tribune de Geneve, Blick

Bulgaria -- Novinar, Monitor

Portugal -- Publico.

Norway -- Magazinet

Sweden -- Expressen

Germany -- Die Welt

Outside Europe, the caricatures were published in the Shihan newspaper in Jordan and the Rakyat Merdeka of Indonesia posted them for a few hours on its website but removed them after reader complaints.

Lotsofissues 13:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE 5 Hephaestion 14:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Thanks Lotsofissues for those lists. I have changed the table above per your additional lists. Where I could not find dates and numbers of cartoons, I have left blank for others to fill in. Still need names of newspapers in UKRAINE, JAPAN, ROMANIA and BRAZIL that have published.

I changed some dates, and added the number of cartoons for some of the Belgian newspapers. The table on the main page hasn't been changed yet. AlE X  14:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Two Japanese newspapers published in English, dated Feb. 6, mention nothing about a Japanese newspaper publishing the articles. The Reuters report is probably wrong. Lotsofissues 15:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

A Ukranian News Agency article makes no mention of any newspaper printing it. No other source than Reuters says otherwise. Lotsofissues 15:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

An AP wire dated Feb. 6: "Romania's main press organization on Monday urged all media in the country to avoid publishing caricatures of Prophet Muhammad that have sparked violent protests around the world.

The Romanian Press Club, an association of owners and managers of Romanian media outlets, urged members to refrain from reproducing the controversial cartoons, which could offend the local Muslim community and lead to dangerous conflicts." Lotsofissues 15:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The Rocky Mountain News in Denver published one of these pictures today in their editorial/commentary section. Kyaa the Catlord 16:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I've created the page List of newspapers that reprinted Jylland-Posten's Muhammad cartoons, which is basically a copy of the tables above, but I've added a reference section. The idea is that we verify this list. --Maitch 18:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Portugues translator needed
We are trying to find the name of the Brazilian newspaper that published the cartoons. I've looked through the databases, and I wonder if this Feb 7. article in a Brazilian newspaper has the answer. Here's the excerpt: "Curiosamente, veio do Brasil talvez a melhor síntese da crise da charge, tendo como pano de fundo a disseminação da baixaria, sob todas as formas, na chamada "civilização do espetáculo". Falando ao Estado, o xeque Jihad Hassan Hammadeh, radicado em São Paulo, tocou no nervo da questão. "O Ocidente perdeu o valor do sagrado", constatou. "Se os ocidentais não respeitam os seus valores, imagine os dos outros." De fato, a permissividade midiática e a aversão do jornalismo de tablóide a educar o público se entrelaçam para embotar a capacidade do homem comum ocidental de entender as diferenças culturais que se manifestam especialmente em relação ao "valor do sagrado" em outros ambientes.

Na sexta-feira, o dinamarquês Posten afirma que "subestimou o sentimento de muitos muçulmanos sobre seu profeta" e que, se soubesse das conseqüências, não teria publicado a charge revoltante. O argumento é pobre. Ela não deveria ter sido publicada, mesmo que não fosse previsível a reação que provocou. Primeiro, porque não cabe a um jornal criticar - muito menos escarnecer de - valores culturais com os quais não comunga. Segundo, porque a publicação embutiu a intenção de ofender toda uma parcela da humanidade que se identifica, acima das etnias que a compõem, com um credo religioso. À deliberada profanação de um valor alheio somou-se a estigmatização da cultura que o abriga - quando a islamofobia cresce a olhos vistos na Europa."

Lotsofissues 15:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm portuguese. That excerpt is about a muslim cleric going on and on about how the west has lost its values, and doesn't respect those of others, blah, blah, blah... Btw, the portuguese newspaper Público didn't print just one cartoon, I've seen at least 4 there. Could you update that, please? 82.155.196.84 17:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Schoolboy picture
In the description of the cartoon with the schoolboy it states that the text of his shirt reads: "Fremtiden" (the future). This may be overinterpreted a bit, wanting the cartoon to be prophetic. I think it is more like to be a play with words. His shirts is clearly the uniform of the local football (soccer) team from Valby: "Frem". Should we change the description to capture this.... ? Kjaergaard 05:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes - I didn't notice that, and most other people certainly neither. I don't have a suggestion as to what should be written instead, though. Dybdahl 09:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It should remain just like it is written right now. Anything else is speculation, thus original research, thus not valid for wiki. Only the authors comment that it means something else would be valid. I too is fairly sure who the two “generic” characters in the seven man line-up is, however I can’t proved it for sure, thus they remain generic. Twthmoses 10:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

14 Archives?
Is there a Cliff's notes version? I've been away for a bit. Any new polls? --JGGardiner 06:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say little of significance has happened since the two (...or three...) original polls closed. No new polls, thank His Noodly Appendage. Fine tuning the article, adding recent developments, the occasional tangential shouting match in talk. Weregerbil 09:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Other reasons?
Several television and newspaper editorials suggested some orchestrating of events. More to the point, it has been noted that in Syria and other less democratic countries, it is almost impossible to demonstrate, especially against the government. But now, without any problems buildings are burned. Commentators think this is a not-inconveniant distraction for Syria, which is in the middle of the Hariri investigation. Has anybody heard this too, and should it be mentioned? -- Nomen Nescio 07:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It was mentioned on the Canadian (CBC) news as well that some in Lebanon suggested that Syria was behind the violence there. --JGGardiner 07:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Last weekend I read in "Sydsvenska Dagbladet" a researcher from the swedish military suggested the same, and on a BBC talkshow, the DOHA Debates, last weekend, Abdallah Schleifer the said the same. None of them suggest that Syria orchestrated it, but rather that it could not have been done without the tacit approval of the government there. The swedish researcher suggested that Syria had so many internal problems that they were happy to let anger vent in another direction for a bit. Did I not read that the Grand Mufti promise to rebuild all the embassies, for free, even nicer than before, somewhere? DanielDemaret 08:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Added this commentary to article, please look if you agree. Or else, rewrite it?--[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]] Nomen Nescio 17:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Move cartoons down the page to reduce offense?
I think it would be a good idea to move the picture down the page, and put a note on the top that the cartoons are listed further down the page. That way, people looking for info on it who don't want to see the cartoon will have that option open to them. What do you think? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.63.139.116 (talk • contribs).

This already has been proposed. It's a frivolous solution. It's going to appear anyway; and we're not shielding children. After all, we're not endorsing the cartoons. We're just reporting it. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 08:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not going to change anything as the cartoon will still be visible in the article. I don't think children will want to look at this kind of topics as its not their area of interest. This is a trivial matter, so is no use making a fuss over it. --Ter e nce Ong (恭喜发财) 08:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Plus we've already had a poll in which 70% voted to keep it at the top. And incase you're wondering, only 11% or so wanted to move it down. And arguing that 70% is not consensus is kinda moot, considering 11% is even less of one. -Maverick 08:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The poll to which Maverick refers was only open less than 48-hours, was held several days ago before people started dying, and seemed to have a shift in results towards the end of the poll. Yes we've discussed this, but I don't think we have necessarily reached a consensus.  Why not hold a new poll?  If those that are so sure that it won't make a difference, it won't hurt.  If people are concerned about sock-puppets, then we can restrict polling to any user with contributions older than 30 days or something. Nfitz 15:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * How are the deaths related to this article? Did people start killing others because they saw a cartoon on wikipedia? Get real. Aecis Mr.Mojorisin' 15:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you telling me you don't see how real people dying are directly attributable to this cartoon? While I don't believe in the necessity of religion; don't subscribe to any myself; and I do believe that if Muhammad or Jesus Christ ever existed in anything near the form that is attributed to them by their followers, that they would both be horrified by what some of their followers have done in their name; I think it is clear that there are those who do believe, and genuinely take offence at what has been published.  Please don't use phrases like "get real", I think this a violate of the Wikipedia's no personal attacks guideline. Nfitz 15:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Whether the deaths are attributable to the cartoons or to the geopolitical situation in the region is up for debate, and it is a debate that we should not be having on wikipedia, and it is a debate that I definitely won't be participating in here. But why should this change our behaviour or position? I get the feeling that you are grasping at straws here. Aecis Mr.Mojorisin' 16:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Because according to Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms The exercise of these (freedom of speech), since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.. In other words, there are limits to freedom of speech, and when it is causing public safety issues then you need to modify your behaviour and position.  I don't think the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is a straw! Nfitz 16:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's what I mean by grasping at straws. The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is about as irrelevant as irrelevant can be. Wikipedia is a global organization, with its main servers in the state of Florida. The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms does not apply in this case, so I don't see why it should be dragged into this. I also don't see why it should matter to this discussion: it doesn't say anywhere "if freedom of speech gets people killed, don't use it." The convention only comes with vague qualifications, intentions, assumptions and guidelines. That's it. There's nothing in it that's of any use to us. Aecis Mr.Mojorisin' 16:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's entirely relevent, as it is in Europe that the debate is taking place. I'm not putting forth the position that it should be moved because we are legally required to move it (to which the answer that the server is in Florida would be the answer); I'm putting forth the position that we should move it because people have asked that it be moved, and this can easily be done without damaging the integrity of the article, and given that some people have genuine concerns about the content of the images, then it would be respectful for us to comply with those wishes to the extent that they don't damage the integrity of the article, in the same manner as we would in an article about breasts or penises.  If we did want to debate the legality of the article under US freedom of speech, then we would get into a debate about how this case involves a clear and present danger; but that is not the debate that is before us. Nfitz 17:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The debate is not just taking place in Europe, but around the world. But that´s a minor aside. Indeed, several people have expressed the desire that the cartoons be moved due to sincere concerns. However, that has already been polled. The vast majority of the voters have decided that the image should be on the top of the article. It would be equally respectful to comply with their wishes. (I myself didn't vote for that option, I voted "don't care") Aecis Mr.Mojorisin' 20:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me be the first to add: The EU is a joke. It is simply going to drag not one or two countries into a serious economic depression but every single full-member nation. Great idea! Cause a whole continent to suffer! Yeah! Alright! Go EU! --PistolPower 20:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I keep pointing out that I feel that a very short (less than 48-hour poll), taked several days ago, in the midst of another poll, isn't the be all and end all of the situation until the end of time. You countering my points by simply saying that the poll has already been done, isn't getting anywhere, and is only going to lead me to start a new poll (for if you are correct, the results will easily be repeatable). (in terms of the other comments about the EU being a joke ... not sure I see the relevence to these comments ... Nfitz 22:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me explain it once more. Hopefully you will understand it this time. Everything you want has been done before. We've had a poll on the position of the cartoon. There were four options, and 123 people voted. That is a very impressive amount, particularly for the short notice you object to. The results were as follows:
 * - Move to body of article with a link directly to the image on the top: 10 votes, 8.1%
 * - Have picture lower down at the article: 20 votes, 16.3%
 * - At the top: 86 votes, 69.92%
 * - Don’t care: 7 votes, 5.7%
 * You're saying that it doesn't hurt to have another poll. But why should we go through the hassle again, even if it doesn't hurt? We've had a poll, everyone had a chance to cast their votes, and 123 people did. This article and this talk page have received an immense amount of traffic during the days the poll was held, as you can see from the talk page archives. If people didn't cast their vote back then, it's their problem, not ours. They had a chance, they didn't take it, 123 people did, and the vast, vast majority decided to keep the image where it is. And if there hadn't been consensus, that would have defaulted in "keep as is," in other words keep the image at the top of the article. Under the current circumstances, the option you have proposed (moving the picture down) would require an additional 240 (!!!) votes to reach the consensual majority, provided noone else votes for the other options. That is simply not a reasonable or plausible option. Aecis Mr.Mojorisin' 23:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm just not convinced we'd get the same result. On the other hand, I seem to be the only one chiming in here ... so if that is the case, I'm willing to let be. Nfitz 00:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning Up
I've been going through and de-wikifying terms which have been previously wikified in the article. I'm human so I believe I'm missing a few. I'm not sure which ones though. This article is huge! (Way too many things are wikified too, I think that will be my next task.) Kyaa the Catlord 08:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up intro
The current Lead section is not doing its job. Rather than giving a brief introduction to the subject, it is cluttered with snippets of information like: On 5 February, Iran announced that it was severing all trade with Denmark, effective on 6 February. Most of this is already in the article or in the timeline. I will try to clean it up radically, if there aren't too many objections. Eixo 09:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Go for it, most of the vandalism has stopped and I'm thinking its time to clean this baby up while we can. :D Kyaa the Catlord 09:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Did some editing, though it could probably need an even stricter diet. Eixo 09:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

"Despite the Islamic prohibition against depictions of Muhammad, in the past Muslims have created non-satirical depictions. However, many Muslims have publicly indicated that they perceive the Jyllands-Posten cartoons as implying that all Muslims are terrorists, by depicting Muhammad with a bomb and for collaborating with terrorists (by receiving them in heaven). This generalisation arises in the context of a perceived lack of religious tolerance toward Muslims, and has led to the recent escalation of the controversy. Some argue that following the global backlash by Muslims (including but not limited to the burning of foreign embassies beginning in early February 2006), the suggestion contained in the cartoons that there is an association between Islam and violence and violent acts has unfortunately been vindicated."

Question, noone has found a source for this and it seems to be wishy washy, anyone mind if it simply goes away? I don't think it adds anything to the lead as it is written. Kyaa the Catlord 09:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm going to be bold. Hold on tight! Kyaa the Catlord 10:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur. Eixo 10:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

AE/BE standardi(z/s)ation
To rehash an earlier dicussion, this article should be standardized (hey, it's a talk page and I'm from the US) to use BE. Please keep that in mind when editing. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 09:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This is an international encyclopedia. There is no need to use an artificial US standard. --Valentinian 10:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Val? Dante was suggesting we change it to BE (British English) so it is more internationalized. Attacking makes the Kyaa sad. Kyaa the Catlord 10:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Terribly sorry, Kyaa and Dante. I read BE for CE (Common Era; the AD / Common Era thing again), and I've just seen too many revisions back and forth because of supporters / opponents of that standard. I was afraid that that dispute would now be mixed into this article (history sections) and I really don't think that it needs any more controversy :-) I have absolutely no problems with Dante. --Valentinian 10:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * V, no problem. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Mrow. Yeah, thank god we're being reasonable. Well, for the most part. :D Kyaa the Catlord 10:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice to see some decent discussion for a change :)--Sir48 11:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Grrr, I wish people would stop making neologisms that require capitalization. :D Islamophobia sticks out like a sore thumb in a sentance. :D Kyaa the Catlord 12:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This would be fruitless. There's too many new editors. We can barely keep the intro under control. Lotsofissues 12:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This can't be controlled since this is a current event topic. I think using AE and BE will be fine. Editors worldwide edit in both American and British English, its definitely hard to control this. --Ter e nce Ong (恭喜发财) 13:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's pointless to try and strongarm it at the moment, what with the high frequency of edits. Still if people are reading the talk pages and would OTHERWISE be inclined to use AE, please use BE as much as possible. We'll probably have to go through and give it a thorough look-see in a few weeks. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Danish journalistic tradition
I removed the following sentences from the article:

"...although some smaller newspapers do receive government subsidies in order to maintain operations. These newspapers have sometimes had funding cut when expressing overtly hateful views."

Living in Denmark, I have not heard of anything like that for the past 50 years. So it needs a citation to remain there. --Sir48 10:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I stuttered over this for a while also. I think it’s a ref. to Radio Holger, which indeed had its funding cut. However this is a radio, thus the text should be about media in general and not only newspaper. Twthmoses 11:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it is. However, radio Holger had its license to send suspended for 3 months, following some hateful transmissions. I don't think any funding was involved. Danish local radio is not subsidized, as far as I know. --Sir48 11:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Danish criminal code
Description of section 140 and section 266b of the Danish Criminal Code is found both under the "police investigation of Jyllandsposten" and under "Danish journalistic tradition". Somebody may contribute to a needed shortening of the article by removing this redundancy. --Sir48 11:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * why don't you do it then? ;) Rajab 11:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

maps
Does anyone have the skills to draw a map of: Reading long lists is quite cumbersome, it's much nicer to look at a picture :)
 * 1) the countries where protests have occured
 * 2) the countries which have re-published the cartoons?

Rajab 11:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a great idea. Unfortunatly I cannot help you here, but hopefully someone else can. AlE  X  12:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

how to improve wikipedia
Wouldn't it be amazing if there were an additional "editor's" version of each article where we could highlight individual passages / words in an article & give it thumbs-up or thumbs-down? The overall opinion would then be shown as a colour spectrum from very green (excellent) to very red (crap). Ppl who edit would then immediately know if they edit against the general consensus or not... for example I've seen lots of great passages that are supported by many of us removed (in good faith though) by rogue editors who happen to have a different opinion...

The reason why I thought of this: I'd like to give the word "pervasive" many thumbs up!! But I'm sure it will be removed again sooner or later without trace by an editor who's not thoughtful... Rajab 12:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * They have been talking about instituting a review process for a while. Not sure how exactly... I don't think we could (or should) implement it on just one article.  But, something like that may come along. gren グレン ? 12:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * no, no - I didn't mean just this article. It's an idea for the whole of wiki :) Rajab 13:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * See: Article validation feature. Jaco  plane  17:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Category
IMHO, this article must be under Category:Racism, but since there is controversy on this article, I´m posting first at talk page. --Patrick-br msg 13:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * But it isn't racism. Kyaa the Catlord 13:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, where do you see racism? Valtam 16:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Even if you consider the cartoons discriminatory, and an attack on Islam, that would come under islamophobia, not racism. Racism is representing human beings as inherently superior or inferior to each other based on perceived racial background, but Islam is a religion that is not restricted to any specific race or ethnic group. An attack on Islam can therefore never be considered racist.


 * I saw the word racism thrown about a lot by the rabid image reverters the first few days, but quite frankly I think that only shows that they have no idea what they’re talking about. Eixo 16:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, Islamophobia has to be capitalized! :P (God I hate that word. Almost as much as Islamofascist.) Yes, I did just want to link to that. :D Islamophobia is a real misnomer anyways, it isn't a phobia when its a rational fear. Kyaa the Catlord 19:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * if you're afraid of something just because it's different(I assume that's why you call the fear of Islam "rational") then it's called xenophobia ;) Rajab 00:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * fear and phobia is per se the same word :) → Aza Toth 19:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Islamophobia is categorized under Category:Racism. Technically, there is no race on the human genre, so racism is always a political definition (from race: Conceptions of race, as well as specific racial groupings, vary by culture and time and are often controversial due to their impact on social identity and hence identity politics.) --Patrick-br msg 21:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's why I wrote "perceived racial background". This is not a question of genetics, it's a question of the perceptions of the proponents of the ideas in question - whether those are perceptions of race or of religion. And by the way: Islamophobia shouldn't be categorized under racism. Eixo 23:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Can someone actually fix the Category:Racism page? It has stuff (such as Islamophobia) which does not belong on that page. Titanium Dragon 00:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd call it more bigotry or prejudice, but bigotry is filed under racism for some reason? --Ssj4android 23:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This isn't racist. At all. People need to learn what racist means. It means "discriminating on the basis of race". Titanium Dragon 23:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * A propos, this tendency to group any form of prejudice as racism makes me think of an episode from Ali G. He's interviewing a director at the FBI, and asks if you have to be really smart to get a job there. 'Well yes', the man says 'you do need good grades, and you must be quite intelligent.' To which our goateed friend replies: 'Ain't dat a bit racialist?'


 * It's the Aligifisation of society. Eixo 00:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Question about one cartoon's interpretation
I'm so very hesitate to get into this fray, but I've been looking over this article and I now question whether this "Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, with a lit fuse and the Islamic creed written on the bomb" description of that cartoon is accurate. Is anyone certain that the man drawn there is Muhammad? Might the artist be saying that the bomb with lit fuse and creed represents Muhammad? Without explicit explanation from all the cartoonists involved, I think the article needs to be very cautious about how it interprets the drawings. Wouldn't a better description of this one simply be "a man with a turban..... etc? " J. Van Meter 13:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the name of the game was "caricatures of Muhammed", so it's quite safe to assume the man depicted is, in fact, Muhammed. Just my 2pence. --DerHerrMigo 13:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If it was not intended to be Muhammad, then nothing from these problems should happen. --Chaos 13:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The artists were all asked to come up with their idea of Muhammed, and each of the published cartoons had the label 'Muhammed' next to the image, so they clearly are suppposed to be rpresentations of the Prophet. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  13:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This article, where the artist is quoted as saying "I would draw him again" implies that he did indeed draw Muhammed. http://politiken.dk/visArtikel.iasp?PageID=402804 . As to what the bomb means, unfortunately he does not say here, and I have not found any other source. It would be interesting to hear his own interpretation. DanielDemaret 15:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The book sells well
The childrens book that started it all is selling well, and has had no negative reactions, only kind words, despite the drawings it contains. Isn't that nice? http://www.jp.dk/kultur/artikel:aid=3542250/ DanielDemaret 14:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm....not very nice as it stills contain the cartoon. Everything is in Danish, I don't understand it. --Ter e nce Ong (恭喜发财) 15:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "the cartoon"? Which specific cartoon are you referring to?DanielDemaret 15:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * like I said, it's all about the context ;) Rajab 18:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * or maybe not all but at least 80% Rajab 18:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Comparable incidents section
Does anyone agree that the section is too lengthy? It's a duplication of the main page. Every other section with a derivative main article is summarized neatly. I propose it be cut down by at least half. When I tried though, I was reverted. Any other input. Lotsofissues 13:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Iran paper plans Holocaust cartoons
I think this should be included --Chaos 13:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * this surely won't be difficult. They only have to look at arab newspapers from the past years. These anti-semetic cartoons are numerous.--[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]] Nomen Nescio 13:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * the Belgian AEL has put some anti-semetic cartoons on their website, including one that denies the Holocaust. But Holocaust denial is illegal in Belgium. AlE  X  14:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, it was the Dutch branch of the Belgian organisation. And there is no Dutch law against Holocaust denial, although there is jurisprudence against it. The Amsterdam-based Centrum Informatie en Documentatie Israël (CIDI) has now sued the AEL. Aecis Mr.Mojorisin' 15:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The AEL link is dead at the moment, Bandwidth exceeded. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If only more Muslim nations realized that the proper response to offensive hackneyed cartoons was not violence and destruction, but a back-and-forth dialogue entirely consisting of offensive hackneyed cartoons. --Ryan Utt 18:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Genius. --Tristero Post 20:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Satirical?
The intro states that the cartoons "were intended as satirical illustrations." There are then repeated references to their "satirical" nature in the rest of the article. Is not this a matter of interpretation rather than fact? Who says they were "intended as satirical"? (Some clearly are, e.g. the notorious "bomb-in-the-turban" - others, most obviously the one of Mohammed in the desert, are surely not.) Has the commissioning editor at JP admitted that that was the intention? Without a source to clarify the intention, it is factually incorrect as well as, in the circumstances, irresponsible to make such a loaded claim. Vilcxjo 14:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What the cultural editor at JP, Fleming Rose, has said and written was that they were not intended to be any insult to islam, and that he did not view them as insults. Personally, I believe him.DanielDemaret 14:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * JP had a competition amongst its cartoon-drawers to make a cartoon of Muhammad (pbuh) in order to highlight the fact that no illustrator could be found to make pictures of Muhammad (pbuh) for a children's book. They then printed the cartoons of those cartoon-drawers who responded. So I agree - the intention wasn't sartirical. The stated intention was to highlight the fact that no illustrator could be found to make pictures of Muhammad (pbuh) for a children's book. Rajab 14:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying that, Rajab - am removing the phrase in question. Vilcxjo 15:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It was definitely not a *competition* as such 86.139.217.222 15:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * they asked all their cartoon-drawers to submit a cartoon about Muhammad (pbuh). The idea was to print the best of those who responded. In the end they printed all Rajab 18:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Template
I created tempalte Template:Muhammad cartoons and placed it in two article already. Remove the "see also" or "main article" and replace it with this template.


 * that's amazing - we have a huge discussion on how to avoid insulting readers by showing the cartoons (e.g. putting a warning before showing them etc.) & now you come up with a way to show them on each & every article Rajab 15:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC). And you don't even sign your name....
 * We were not having a discussion on that, you (plural) were talking to us about that. That does not constitute a dialogue towards avoiding offense. Aecis Mr.Mojorisin' 15:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * that's interesting - you don't consider Muslims as equal on wikipedia? Of course *we* (wikipedians) had a discussion about that. Just have a look at the 9 archives Rajab 18:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What? Where on earth did you get that from? Where have I ever said anything that remotely resembles this nonsense? There has been no discussion on how to avoid offense. There have been only requests by you (plural) towards others to please consider moving the image. Requests do not constitute a discussion/dialogue. Aecis Mr.Mojorisin' 20:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Article 9 of the Fair use criteria: "[Fair use images] should never be used on templates". /Djonn 15:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

just remove the image from the template; showing it here is adequate. Spreading it over as many related articles as possible appears a bad faith attempte at "rubbing it in", not very nice. dab (&#5839;) 16:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree that including the image in a template would have been a bad faith effort to "rub it in". I think it would have been a perfectly appropriate image for a template relating to the cartoons controversy. However, the point is moot, because we can't place fair use images in templates, as mentioned above. Babajobu 11:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Princess

 * Moved to Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments

Primary source of story on additional (fake) images
Ekstra Bladet imply in their editorial January 12 that they can now reveal that three additional pictures were shown in the 43 page report. user:liftarn have written in the article that "According to TV4 Nyheterna 2006-02-06 the primary source for the information was Dansk Folkeparti". I removed this sentense because I doubt that Dansk Folkeparti as a political party would be the first to dig up the story, the cited broadcast from the Swedish news is much more recent and I find it more likely that TV4 was informed about the story by Dansk Folkeparti, who read it in Ekstra Bladet. If user:liftarn really know that this is wrong, please explain feel free to change the citation accordingly. Claush66 15:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

An external link
Time Magazine just printed commentary both for and against the cartoons, written by people from all different perspectives. You can link to it here (there are three pages worth).--Magmagirl 16:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The Independent cites this article
"One thing I gleaned from the internet - thanks, tomgrossme-dia.com and Wikipedia- is that Islamisk Trossamfund, the Danish Muslim group which has spent the past few months fomenting unrest about the cartoons, has supplemented the ones which were originally published by Jyl-lands-Posten, with three additional cartoons of unknown origin: one shows Mohamed with a pig's snout, one shows the Prophet as a dangerous paedophile and the third shows a Muslim at prayer being buggered by a dog. If indeed such cartoons are being circulated throughout the Middle East by European-based Muslim groups then it becomes easier to understand the level of popular outrage - and to understand the real motives of those leading it." &mdash; The Independent, February 7, 2006 Lotsofissues 16:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Woo! Thank you Independent! Kyaa the Catlord 17:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which, there was a box on this page earlier that stated that we were quoted earlier. It is gone now, though... Kyaa the Catlord 17:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, someone must have archived it. Babajobu 17:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

New charge will be made
According to Danish newpaper Politiken today, a new organisation, Danes against Blasphemy has asked the Public Prosecutor, who initially rejected any foundation for a charge, to make a new charge, so that the issue can be given a decision by the court instead.

One of the founders of the organisation is Jacob Erle, whose Jewish father fled to Denmark in 1939 as a result of Nazi persecution. The same year the law against derision of etnic or relgious minorites was adopted by the Danish parliament.

He states "Jyllandsposten has directly challanged the law we have regarding the protection of minorities, and that is made clear by what it wrote on September 30th." 86.52.36.140 17:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Countries Table: multiples lines for one country
There is 2 lines for "Belgium" and two for "France" too. Why don't regroup them ? Because they are in a chronological order Azate 18:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

As Politically Correct as it gets.
Wow: "Muslims and Non-Muslims from Denmark and other places in the world...". Thats quite a way to put it. Azate 18:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh god. I hope noone minds me tearing that apart and rebuilding it, bigger, better, faster, stronger. Kyaa the Catlord 18:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Polite Request
Please try not to add to the introductory paragraphs. They are HUGE as it is and adding multiple line quotations, albeit sourced, is not helpful. Add those quotations in the body of the article where they logically fit. We spent hours last night streamlining the introductory paragraphs and now they are once again bloated to hell. Kyaa the Catlord 18:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Netscott: It stands to reason that a consumer and/or govemtnment organized boycott of Danish products THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS is not on the the footing as a call for a retributional boycott from some obscure blog that has had no impact whatsoever. You can mention it in the appropriate part of the article, but not in the introduction. Please quit adding it over and over again. Azate 18:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I CANNOT WAIT!!!!!!!!!
i cannot wait until Iran newspaper prints off the Holocaust competition cartoons...then we will test the double standards of wikipedia..

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060207/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_cartoons_2 &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.1.138.17 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC).
 * They will probably be posted as well. People will be interested in seeing what the big deal is about those cartoons, as they were about these cartoons.&#160;—  The KMan  talk  18:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What double standards? And sign your posts!Valtam 18:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I assume Wikipedia will include those pictures, as well. The IPs can wail as much as they like about a Wikipedia double standard, but there isn't one; the truth is that Wikipedia is extending the same guidelines to Muslims as it does to all other communities, and this is what has produced such fury from the IPs. Babajobu 18:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope the cartoons are well drawn and funny. It would be sad to have to make an article with low quality art.DanielDemaret 19:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean another article with low quality art, we already have one! :D Kyaa the Catlord 19:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected, Catlord.DanielDemaret 19:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The really funny thing is that this newspaper will happily print holocaust cartoons, but won't print THESE cartoons, therefore the only hypocrisy is with them WookMuff 19:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, when a state-run media declares that it's going to make a rhetorical point about free speech, it's hard not to roll your eyes. Babajobu 19:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Assuming the controversy over those cartoons is even a fraction of what we're seeing now, I fully expect them to be published on wikipedia. I'm not sure exactly what "double standard" you're alleging wikipedia has, but I'm fairly certain it's nonexistent here. BinaryTed 19:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a pity I wont dare show the coming "holocaust denial"-cartoons to my mother. It would bring back too many bad memories from when she had to treat those few poor undernourished survivors.DanielDemaret 19:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a minor point to mentioning 'Holocaust', since it's supposedly illegal in Germany to try and convince people that "the Holocaust never existed". I don't know the paragraph in question, so I can't give any specifics on it's wording or purpose (although I would be very interested). Anyway, this picture: is slightly related to the holocaust. I haven't got the guts to send it in, but someone else might have :-).


 * putting holocaust denial on the same shelf as drawing a cartoon is itself bad faith and lack of categorization (as was pointed out repeatedly). "Piss Christ" is a valid comparison in terms of blasphemy, and yes, we do have that image. Those Iranian papers will only manage to make themselves look like sad morons, and I hope the civilized world will make a point by rolling its eyes and by notable absence of riots or embassy torchings. dab (&#5839;) 20:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If Iran actually holds such a contest, then we should show samples here in this article. Since it will be a response to this event, it will be releveant. Would it not be great if this were the first stumbling steps to replacing armed violence with cartoons? DanielDemaret 22:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * it would be, if muslims (and probably jews after these new cartoons are published) didn't react to said cartoons WITH violence WookMuff 08:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh, if Jews reacted with riots and violence every time antisemitic images were published in the Muslim world, they'd never stop rioting. I think the chances of this new set of images provoking such a reaction is slim to none. Also, if they didn't respond with violence when the Iranian head-of-state said the holocaust was a myth, they're unlikely to be much more exercised about the cartoons. Babajobu 08:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Saudi Arabian influence
I normally say away from hotly contested articles, but I think I'll make an exception on this one. I saw yesterday on dailykos they were talking about why there was such a delayed reaction to the pictures and the author of the link above stated that it was because Saudi Arabia was trying to distract people from the Hajj stampedes. The author noted about the same time people started to complain that Saudi Arabia hadn't fixed the problem that caused the stampedes, Saudi Arabia started to push the controversy. I couldn't find anything relating to this in the article, and wondered if this was just some tin foil hat theory or if Wikipedia was just missing it because to much stuff was already put into the article. Anyway, looks good, if not a bit long. Normally current events get chopped up into sub-articles after they stop occurring, so I wouldn't worry about that. --Rayc 18:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, there's a simpler potential explanation: As per David Conway's blog, the next country to head the U.N. Security Council, which may impose sanctions on Iran for its nuclear program, is.... Denmark!  What better way to put the pressure on Denmark than this entire controversy? Valtam 18:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So we now have two politics based reasons for the riots. Where would be a good place to put "Other possible causes" and who is bold enough to do it whlie maintaining NPOV? --Rayc 18:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we should probably have a "wing-bat conspiracy theory" subhead. But I don't hold my breath on how long it will last. Some people get upset over the SILLIEST things (like editorial cartoons). Kyaa the Catlord 19:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hell, one of Iran's figureheads said the publishing of the images was an israeli plot in retaliation of the win by Hamas in Palestine. Never mind that the images were published before the elections. Conspiracy theories are fun! Kyaa the Catlord 19:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Balanced Boycott Info
What is the problem with providing references to those calling for anti-boycotts in the introduction?

Netscott 18:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Your sources aren't reliable. See: Reliable_sources Kyaa the Catlord 18:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Netscott: It stands to reason that a consumer and/or govemtnment organized boycott of Danish products THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS is not on the the footing as a call for a retributional boycott from some obscure blog that has had no impact whatsoever. You can mention it in the appropriate part of the article, but not in the introduction. Please quit adding it over and over again. Azate 18:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ownership of Jyllands-Posten
I have removed the following from the page as it does not give adequate sources.--Fil e Éireann 18:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Further misinformation reportedly spread amongst Arab Muslims includes claims that Jyllands-Posten is a government-owned newspaper, which is incorrect. For example, the spokesman for the Danish delegation Muhammed al Samha, and delegation member Ahmed al-Harbi said in the Egyptian newspaper al-Ahram: "Jyllands-Posten, a newspaper belonging to the ruling Danish party — an extreme right-wing party — [was] publishing drawings and sketches of the prophet Muhammad."

Other claims include statements that Danish newspapers are running a campaign against Islam and that the Danish government is planning to publish a censored version of the Qur'an. The confusion might have arisen because of the recent publication of Kåre Bluitgen's children's book Koranen og profeten Muhammeds liv ("The Qur'an and the life of Prophet Muhammed"). It is not published by the government but by an independent publisher (Høst og Søn).


 * The original source was: www.information.dk/Eksport/Temapakker/Tema55.html (from 12 jan. 2006). Azate 19:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC).

Quote from Syphillis Article
I believe a quote from the syphillis article "and the Arabs called it the "Disease of the Christians" because this also incites religious hatred! Why is it bad drawing pictures and this comment is right?? Somethings not right here.
 * Well, this is going to be less than politically correct but... Because Christians don't flip out over small slights? Kyaa the Catlord 19:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it's possible that they called it "Disease of the Christians" because it was Christian visitors to Arabia that brought the disease? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

So I see, a disease should be named after a religion, so there were never diseases in Arabia at all before the Christian visitors came?? Does it not occur to anyone, that we are all as bad as each other??


 * We're not interested in syphillis on this page. Secretlondon 19:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, this is not about Syphillis, I am trying to make a point that we are all as bad as each other. Attacking each other beliefs should stop.


 * We're not attacking anyone's beliefs. Well, maybe the followers of the Invisible Pink Unicorn but that's because Steve Eley is damnable. Kyaa the Catlord 19:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC) And apparently not wikified. Such a shame.


 * ok, the world really has gone mad! Invisible Pink Unicorn???


 * "Holocaust competition cartoons" - See what I mean, bad as each other!!

His Noodly Appendage
Would it be appropriate/NPOV/non-WP:OR/etc to mention Flying Spaghetti Monster as an example of cartoons and humour as means of religious dialogue? That that sort of thing simply happens in the West. So a Westener might not immediately guess that someone will start torching buildings if you do it. Just a random idea. (Hmm, does someone think that mentioning it tries to draw an insulting parallel between midgits and Muhammad...? Oh Jebus I'm getting paranoid.) Weregerbil 20:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You have insulted His Noodleness. Prepare to apologize and eat it all up!
 * We were talking about his holy noodleness but it got archived Spazm 22:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)