Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 7

Temp protect on Discussion page
The formatting on the last two sections was broken, and I had to temp protect this page in order to avoid edit conflicts. The total protection lasted less than one minute... during which I'm guessing 50-60 people couldn't post. ;) Sorry. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This is great
If the artist can drive over a billion people to utter madness with a picture, he wins. Hands down. All the endless flame wars and trolling on wikipedia, fark, 4chan, and other big sites can't even possibly compare to a cartoon that results in crazy people taking over an embassy. It's over, everybody. This guy has finally Won the Internet.
 * Oh please. We had a bigger revert war over the Harry Potter movie. --DDG 20:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

They were made by 12 artists heh, its more like Denmark has won the internet if that's the standard we're using :D Homestarmy 20:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Which harry potter movie. i want to see (spoiler by Kittynboi 22:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC) removed)

Hahahaaha Denmark wins! Holy shit I never thought of it that way.

Drudge
Matt Drudge has posted the bomb-in-turban Mohammad picture prominently on his high traffic website. Tempshill 20:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Change the picture
As the current title notes, the article is about the controversy, not the cartoons. As one of the editors for the French version of the article put it when removing the Geert Wilders link to the large sized versions, "spam de lien, merci de ne pas le rerajouter. L'important dans l'article ce n'est pas les caricatures elles-mêmes mais la réaction qui a suivi." ("link spam, thank you for not putting it back. What's important in the article is not the cartoons themselves but the reaction that followed"). I'm not so supportive of the link removal but I think that person assigned the correct priorities to the article.

There was supposedly a protest in favor of the cartoons in Denmark tonight, and I think there have already been protests against them in the middle east. I'd like to urge that the picture at the top of the article (that's currently of the cartoons) be replaced by a photo of the protests (maybe two photos composited side by side). That is more appropriate for the article topic (i.e. the controversy) than the pic of the cartoons. The picture of the cartoons themselves, if included at all, should be a lot further down in the page and thumbnailed. The article's main photo should be something that depicts the controversy. The picture of the cartoons is secondary. 71.141.251.153 21:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Umm...the cartoons are the controversy!!--UltraSkuzzi 21:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * that's not correct, the controversy is the controversy. Rajab 21:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * How can you understand the controversy without seeing the cartoons? Valtam 21:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Even then I don't underestan them, but that is just my personal opinion... A l EX  21:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Not only are the cartoons the controversy, but ever since I saw the article title changed I've already assumed it was nothing more than a "salami tactic" to slowly but surely remove and censor the article of the cartoons in question (which are the whole entire reason for the controversy, and thus CRUCIAL to understanding it). Sol. v. Oranje 21:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No. The change of title was to make the title more accurately reflect the article's topic.  And seeing the cartoons is NOT crucial to understanding the controversy.  I've seen them because I'm using a graphical browser, but I sometimes use text-only browsers and I'm confident that I'd still understand the controversy perfectly well from reading just the text descriptions.  Do you really have to see a photo of the actual blow job to understand what the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal was about? 71.141.251.153 21:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, there's a straw poll above -- that poll will determine whether the drawings will stay or not. Go vote. Secondly, you have repeatedly compared the cartoons to photos of sexual acts and murder, which is surreal; sorry, but political caricatures are not even in the same realm as pictures of blowjobs, especially considering that political cartoons have the purpose of informing debate, crafting satire, and inspiring political change and discussion -- pictures of sexual acts rarely have that power, and can sometimes simply be tried for obscenity. There is nothing obscene about these cartoons, many of which don't even show Mohammed or even make fun of the entire newspaper in the first place. Removing these pictures is akin to saying "Yeah, there was this big surge of protest about 12 little cartoons, which have caused death threats, economic boycotts, counter-boycotts, embassy takeovers, kidnappings, and all sorts of wonderful extremism, but NO, you can't see them because we're too scared to allow you to make up your mind for yourself and we have to bow down to religious commands that most Wikipedians don't even follow." Sol. v. Oranje 21:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, I didn't say (at least just now) the cartoons were obscene or even offensive, I simply said one could understand the controversy without seeing them. Second, I'm utterly contemptuous of the notion that having a link saying "click here to see the picture" somehow prevents people from seeing the picture.  If you think providing a link where people can view something with a single mouse click is "censorship", then you have no comprehension at all of what real censorship is.  (And I haven't even advocated changing the picture to a link). 71.141.251.153 21:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool, I'm comteptuous of your refusal to see that the continuing "salami tactics" that you advocate are nothing more than a slippery slope to suppression of information. Furthermore, you know nothing about me or my experiences with "real" censorship, so take your martyr complex elsewhere. Sol. v. Oranje 21:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * the gist of the article is about the immense controversy which was caused by the publication. Understanding why this came about is an important secondary aim of the article, so this should be explained. But the first picture should definitely not be the cartoons themselves... Rajab 21:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, the French version has the image on the page just like here. Jaco  plane  21:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the gist of the article is WHY these cartoons have caused such chaos and extremism, and no reader could fully understand the rationale behind it without seeing the cartoons for themselves (just like no one would understand the Iranian fatwa against Salman Rushdie unless they read the offending book). Sol. v. Oranje 21:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * so you suggest putting Rushdie's entire book at the beginning of the article on the fatwa?? Rajab 21:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, because the book is 1) under copyright, and 2) is too large to include in a wikipedia article. These cartoons are now published widely and under fair use, and are small enough to be included in the article in their entire. Sol. v. Oranje 21:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What about the position of the image in this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-semitism article? The.valiant.paladin 21:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Are there any wiki-reporters on-site ready to take license-free pictures of those protests? --Vsion (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * now it's gone again from the french version...
 * Yes, but it was there when the anon posted his message, and has since been removed by another anon. Jaco  plane  21:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I found the idea of changing the picture acceptible. Yes, there is no reason to have them posted. The protests can be posted instead. I cannot understand what kind of reasoning can justify to have an insult posted in a wiki articel. That is against all rules and common sense. Resid Gulerdem 21:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Finnish minister comment
What is the source of comment of Finnish foreign affairs ministry? I haven't heard it on the news?

Well, i saw it on yahoo's news, but it is in Chinese, as he said that cartoon promote the prejuidce between religions.

copyright of cartoon image
i don't think the image can be kept in any case because one of the artists has explicitly asked for it not to be reproduced. This is the current state of the discussion on the German version of this article 20:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * As the discussion is about the controversy covered by the images, it is undoubtably covered by fair use. --DDG 20:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair use is different than German copyright law in any event. Carlossuarez46 20:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "The Wikipedia database is stored on a server in the State of Florida in the United States of America, and is maintained in reference to the protections afforded under local and federal law." Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 21:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 89 machines in Florida, 3 near Paris, 11 in Amsterdam, 23 in Yahoo!'s Korean hosting facility --Tarawneh 23:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

no consensus
there is no consensus on the picture. The oxford english dictionary defines consensus as: Agreement in opinion; the collective unanimous opinion of a number of persons

I've taken the conservative option to remove the image until there's a consensus on this issue. Rajab 21:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, there is a strong consensus to keep the image. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 21:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * eh, I think the consensus is pretty darn clear. Babajobu 21:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, since thie article is about the pictures. Removing them is unencylopedic. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Currently, the results are at 60-7 [89.55%-10.45%] with 2 votes for the "Lolicon solution". That looks like consensus; it's much more than needed for an FA promotion or even an RfA. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 23:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

compromise
I've put the image into the *middle* of the article. Let's leave it there until the issue is resolved Rajab 22:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's does not have a religion, so its not against its beliefs to censur Mohammed's pics. So what are you doing? Chaldean 22:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a *compromise* Rajab 22:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC) - now the picture is twice in the article (I put it in the middle, someone else "reverted" my edit & put it in the beginning) Rajab 22:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well that's what you get for ignoring the poll, dismissing others' opinions, and not following rules of procedure. If (and when) the poll on whether to remove or have the image closes, we will have _a second_ poll to determine it's location. Your "compromise" just elided that second step, which is wrong Sol. v. Oranje 22:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * now you're just trying to annoy. There's no consensus on keeping the picture. But until that is found let's at least agree somewhere in the middle & move the picture from the very beginning of the article Rajab 22:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but you're the one who keeps altering the article and ignoring the fact that while the poll remains in progress, the cartoon will remain at the top of the page where it began before this brouhaha started to begin with. After the poll concludes there will either be another poll determining where in the article the cartoon image should be posted, or if it should be shrunk or enlarged, etc; or no further polls if the majority conclude the image should not be included. In the meantime, leave the image where it is at the top of the article page. Sol. v. Oranje 22:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As has been pointed out ad nauseam, other unrelated pages have also had relevant pictures moved down from the top (e. g. Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy). While others have not (Piss Christ is the popular example), the fact that it has been done before in numerous articles that have little (if anything) to do with Islam seems to show that this isn't kowtowing, appeasement, a double standard, or anything of the sort. If you insist that the picture be displayed prominently at the top, then all similar articles about a controversial image should be changed (which would probably start the Queen Mother of All Edit Wars in the process). Until Wikipedia's precedent on the matter ceases to be "either/or," so long as the picture is displayed in the article it really doesn't matter where it is placed.


 * If you load the page, the image has been downloaded by your web browser whether you choose to scroll down that far or not; the decision whether to view it or not is placed solely in the hands of the reader. IMO, you'd be hard-pressed to call that censorship. Guppy313 22:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

let's be sensible
The two people (Rajab and Rgulerdem )who objected to the pictures have agreed to put them in the middle. Isn't this a sensible compromise. slamdac


 * Until there is a real consensus & a real poll running for longer than just a few hours the picture should certainly stay in the middle. After we've found a real consensus we can still change that... 22:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Rajab 22:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 42 vs 2 implies strong consensus for keeping the pictures. (Cloud02 22:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC))

I think we're close to a consensus now. I suggested putting the picture in the middle as a compromise but it sounds as like Rajab are going to wait for the situation to calm down and then remove the pictures anyway. I think the pictures should stay in the middle permanently.

slamdac


 * Moving the picture from it present location should be forestalled until after this initial poll at which time we will be able to focus on the placement of the photo (presuming consensus remains to keep the image). Babajobu 22:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, attempts to place the image at the top of the article should be forestalled until after consensus emerges about where it should go. BYT 22:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Thanks :) Rajab 22:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Why should they be forestalled? Why not leave the article as it was before the poll, until the poll is complete? What's the reason for moving the image? Valtam 22:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally I don't mind where the image goes as long as it's somewhere in the article. If moving it to the middle stops the edit war then I'm all for it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no issues with someone enforcing image in the midle and a link to the image at the top via IAR use of the block button, and I doubt any other responsible editor does either. We can reach position consensus only after the revert war ends. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 22:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Why don't we put the picture on both the top and the middle? Then everyone can have their favorite position :D Homestarmy 22:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I like this compromise! Everyone is happy! Valtam 22:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Continued revert warring
Theresa Knott removed the article protection because the article is linked from the main page at this time. This is reasonable. However, following the removal of protection, the revert warring erupted afresh. This will not be tolerated. The protection was to prevent individuals from being blocked, and instead stop the revert warring. Since protection can not now be used, blocks will have to be used instead. If anybody continues to revert war over this, and they have been previously warned, they may be blocked. Stop the revert war. Now. --Durin 22:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * We could always de-link it from the Main page... I'm not saying we SHOULD, but we COULD. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Or we could just block those who are disrupting the encylopedia. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Theresa -- I couldn't agree more.
 * Question: Can you see how some might feel that assuming that there's consensus to place the image at the TOP of the article constitutes "disrupting the encyclopedia"?
 * There ISN'T any such consensus, and the people who are pretending that there is such consensus are basically using the image to provoke a reaction. BYT 22:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody please block Ragal and Rugelmen. They will continue to remove the picture until they are blocked.

"Muslim nazis" image
NO not all muslims hate Jews,[I have few Jews friends who are cool] Islam is not about hatred its about peace. But I guess westerners and the artists get this idea from those Terrorist who used Islam for their own agenda which is not right. And I really need to clarify this to all Muslims and Non-muslims Jihad is not about killing people, Yes, Jihad means holy war is about sacrificing yourself not bombing yourself and thousand and millions of innocents people, its a holy war againts your ownself, by doing what the Quran and Prophet Muhammad tells us. The Quran didn't asked us to kill innocent people, thats not the way of Islam. And also if this happens during the life of Prophet Muahmmad (PBUH), he will probably laugh it off as something stupid. Come on he got spat at, had a camel carcass thrown on his back while praying. And he don't get mad. So yes, the cartoons are very offensive because its about someone we love and respect, yes im very offended but when i think about it there's no need to issue terror threat and all because in the thats not what Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) wants from us. ~Nadiah~

WTF is this image being re-added? It is obvious vandalism. Fredrik Johansson - talk - contribs 22:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless someone can come with a proper news source that has used this image, this cannot be brought related to this article! (Cloud02 22:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC))

Another suggestion to comprimise
Let us have just the link in the article, untill the pool ended?! Resid Gulerdem 22:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's not. Valtam 22:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"Nazi" picture
I agree with Cloud and Fredrik about that picture of the Nazi salute. the image and name seem calculated to do little but stir an already boiling pot. That one should be removed, IMHO. Pat Payne 22:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I restored that image thinking it was the other one. I have no idea what this image even was. Sorry about that. Babajobu 22:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * My apologies as well as I was trying to revert the article back to one with an image of the cartoons and didn't see the Nazi image within the article. Of course, now I am locked out from editing the article at all because an admin assumes _I_ was one of the people trying to remove the cartoon image -- this whole thing is ridiculous and surreal. Sol. v. Oranje 22:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ain't it the truth... Pat Payne 22:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's discuss
Why can't the article have the bold link at the top and the picture in the middle? Will that stop revert warring? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 22:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Would certainly make it seem a lot less like the apocalypse around here, yes, IMHO. BYT 22:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree very much with this. It's a good idea and no one should be complaining about "censorship". -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 22:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a perfectly reasonable interim solution. However, an adminstrator has reverted the page to a pictureless - linkless version that does not indiciate the picture can be found anywhere whatsoever, and then protected it, without notice, while it was on the front page. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 22:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Pic's in the middle. Hoping everyone agrees to linking at the top. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 22:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Please, please do this. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 22:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I can live with that as a compromise. Whether consensus proves to be behind it, we'll see. Babajobu 22:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems like a sensible comprimise for the times being. —Ruud 22:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Go try that then. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 22:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I did it. Let's see if it sticks. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 22:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

HI-RES Version
I'm considering the possibility of adding a thumbnail of the following HI-RES picture: http://cryptome.org/muhammad.htm Placement would be under the section called "Publication of the drawings" after "Each of the twelve drawings portrays Muhammad in a different fashion. In the clockwise direction:" When clicking on the thumb the user should be taken to a new Image-page similar to the picture on the top of the article. This is NOT ment to be a replacement of the picture currectly present in the article but as an addition. Why should this picture be added: 1. It's impossible to study the cartoons in the origial scan. Most Important. 2. Adding a link to a HI-RES version would facilitate a discussion on the cartoons. 3. Some of the cartoons are not critical of Muhammed. Some are funny and some are neutral. When the picture first surfaced in Denmark this was a significant part of the debate but the press and various fundamentals have later botchered this discussion and chosen to view the issue as either a "free-speech-issue" (good IMO) of a "clash-of-civilizations-issue (not so good but not irrellevant IMO). A HI-RES vesion should in theory, since more information is avilable enrich the discussion. 4. A HI-RES version is consistant with free speech and fair use.

I've been reading Wikipedia for four years but this is the first time I have posted anything, so I guess I feel pretty strongly about this one.)

(because of work etc I might not be able to do this because of time constraints so if someone wants to be bold they have my consent. Sorry for my bad English)

MrEH


 * That would be a copyright violation and wikipedia could be sued. The image is fair use at a low resolution only. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 22:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * besides the copyright violation, there are already external links to the images and on top of that, the images content is explained quite clearly throughout the article. (Cloud02 22:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC))


 * They have been posted all over the internet in the last couple of day, so I don't think we should worry about wikipedia being sued. But there is no need, for indeed there are external links leading to these images. AlEX  22:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * At this point, tho, does the 'fair use' standard apply? Maybe we could leave the image of the newspaper publication of the 12 images together on the main page, and have a link to a second page with high-res versions of each picture. Valtam 22:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If there's going to be a hi-res version, it should be a scan of the original JP page/article that caused all this, in its original context (I think you begin to leave the field of "fair use" otherwise). And it shouldn't be translated from Danish (or Farsi); we can fix translation flubs in our articles, but editing pictures is a bit more complex. Guppy313 23:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Below the fold
I was initially against moving the image "below the fold". I think the only reason to change an article for taste is if someone is truly offended and I'm not sure if most of those offended by the image would be satisfied with a movement of inches. However, I think at some point, which may not have happened yet, this story will be more about the boycott and protests than the actual cartoon itself. I was actually happy to see the version with the dairy case boycott notice on top and the cartoon just below. --JGGardiner 22:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well put. Compare Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005, which this event strongly resembles. That article, too, was the subject of bitter controversy. Came out all right in the end. BYT 22:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Block the vandals
Why are we so hesitant to block people who consistently remove the image? When they've received several warnings already and continue to remove it they are not going to stop unless they are made to stop. -- Vagodin  Talk 22:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There have already been several blocks relating to removal of the picture in violation of 3RR. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * what's 3RR? 3 reverts rule? (Cloud02 22:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC))


 * WP:3RR Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Rajab has violated 3RR and had already been warned. I posted a note at WP:ANI/3RR, and hopefully someone will now block him. I agree that the 3RR rule has been woefully enforced in this article, and that the removers have been given unbelievable latitude to try to force their will onto the article. Babajobu 22:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:ANI/3RR does not cover a page --KimvdLinde 22:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Then what is the point of the rule if it doesn't cover article pages? Sol. v. Oranje 22:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * She meant that the link was broken. I've fixed that with a redirect. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * She is gratefull for that --KimvdLinde 22:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that one. ;) Fixed the gender. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * no offence, happens al the time....--KimvdLinde 22:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries
AE, in future if you change the size of the image, which is obviously a very substantive change with which many people will disagree, please don't hide it behind an edit summary that mentions something else. Thanks. Babajobu 22:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's absurd to suddenly change the size of the image without even first mooting the idea on the talk page. I'm annoyed by the resize, annoyed by the way you did it, and I, personally, want the original size back. 250 px at least. Babajobu 22:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with that original. I was about to come back on talk and discuss experiencing only edit conflicts about a proposal for a disclaimer. However, I think Karl needs to respect the 3 days of arguments and not just revert. I am fine with Hipocrites version that we discussed above. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 22:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Just don't try to change the image size without discussing it on talk page or even in an edit summary, please. Babajobu 23:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, but this is one of those cases where you gotta type fast and discuss right after to see if people agree. Now back to discussion. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 23:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Second poll comment
I added a second comment to the page directing people to the second poll at the top of the talk page instead of edit warring; unfortunately, I got so many edit conflicts I had to force the issue and override whatever placement the image had at the moment (the warning only makes sense next to the image, and I had to go fast to squeeze in the tiny time window between one edit conflict and the next). Sorry about that. --cesarb 23:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * lets keep the picture at the top until the poll closes..... when DOES the poll close? (Cloud02 23:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC))
 * Usually, when the issue has calmed down (for instance, no new votes for a full week). Some polls (like the infamous diacritics one) never end. But it doesn't matter; the law of large numbers tends to make the results converge. --cesarb 23:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

sanctions
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4664408.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4668068.stm

Hopefully these are sufficient as a cite.

Please stop semi-protecing the page, it's against policy

 * I posted this to WP:RPP last night as an unprotection request (page was semi-protected at that time). I've made some slight edits since.  Short version: if the page absolutely must be protected, use full protection as per policy.

This article is semi-protected due to a ferocious edit war over the picture at the top of the article, involving endless 3RR violations from IP addresses, sockpuppets, etc. The improper edits all delete the picture while leaving the text pretty much alone, due to a belief that showing the picture constitutes religious blasphemy. That makes them POV edits and not vandalism in the sense of WP:Vandalism. Semi-protection is supposed to be reserved for vandalism. Protection to stop edit wars is supposed to be full protection.

My actual beef with this situation is basically that the edit war is being aggravated by "DBD" (Don't Be a Dick) violations on the part of the "good" guys (also, I prefer to edit without logging in, and I can't do that now). Right now the picture is at the top of the page on the right, as is customary per the style guide (WP:Style_guide), although it's over 2x the pixel width (4x the area) that the style guide suggests. The style guide explicitly states that the customary placement is not mandatory. Several times last night, the image was moved to the bottom of the page and made smaller. When that was done, the erasures stopped, but the "good guys" insisted on moving it back to the top and re-enlarging it, reverting it around 5x in a couple hours (multiple people, so no 3RR vio). Yes, the relocated version was presumably still blasphemous, but the deleters either didn't spot it or else they chose to back off once they saw they were getting at least a gesture of respect. Reasons for insisting on the top placement went along the lines of etc. This is what I mean by DBD violation. When DBD was followed (by being a little bit flexible about the image placement without actually removing it), the problems from the "other side" stopped.
 * "They won't accept it being there at all, so best to rub it in their faces for spite." (Kittynboi 15:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)),
 * "hmm great idea.. [referring to moving the image] and while we're at it, lets bend over a little more.. i think mohammed's dick isn't long enough to reach our arseholes" (Hellznrg 08:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)).

It's pretty clear that the "good guys" are trying to make a POV political statement beyond merely ensuring that the article works as an article, i.e. WP:POINT, WP:DBF, WP:NOT (not a soapbox), etc. Semi-protection allows the logged-in POV to keep editing the article while locking out the other POV that comes mostly from new users (note also the IP's are not necessarily the same person--there are MILLIONS of Muslims mad about the cartoon, so some tiny percentage telling each other about wikipedia is still a lot). If protection is absolutely needed, it should be full protection, unless the DBD violation stops. The point is that full protection pushes the fanatics towards peaceful compromise since otherwise, nobody can edit. Being able to lock out only the other side doesn't foster peacefulness at all. I can't think of a single policy-based justification for semi-protection of this article except WP:IAR if convincingly justified by exceptional circumstances. I'll support WP:IAR-based semi protection if reasonable attempts are made to tone down the offensive placement and the erasure still doesn't stop.

For now, I request either unlocking or full protection, because Wikipedia is advertised as "the encylopedia that anyone can edit", not "the encylopedia where the pictures are always at the top of the articles and 250 pixels wide". Note that this is a front-page linked article so should be unlocked except in extreme situations, though I guess millions of angry Muslims all trying to suppress the same picture qualifies as extreme. 71.141.251.153 10:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi... I suck
Does anyone wanna try to write this up? http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=1153989&tw=wn_wire_story it is apparently a riot in response to the article