Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Arguments/Image-Display

Freedom of speech
Freedom of speech is a relative term or is it not? I mean who would be the judge of what part of speech is offensive to other or not. This is ridiculous when some one says that oh! its one right to express. It is, I agree but on the cost of other person's freedom, that's silly.

Can an employee, use this right of freedom, by abusing his employer in front of the rest of the company, calling him names, and lets say telling him that how sexy his wife or daughter is. Oh yeah he can, but he will get an immediate reaction, he will be fired. And no one will justify it that he done the right thing or he has been wrongly thrown out.

No sir, you can not impose your freedom on other's right to listen, never. if even a single person is offended by some one's wrong or right "opinion", he should avoid expressing it in front of him/her. You can throw a stone on a dog, but when he bytes you can not say you had a right to do that as you have an arm and enough power to carry and throw a stone. Live and let live.

119.153.22.81 (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

REMOVAL OF THE CARTOONS
This is without doubt a blatant display of what most "liberal" and "secular" content publishers use to camouflage their insults on islam and muslims all over the world. Have u ever seen any islamist speaking ill of the Bible or of Jesus or trying to disregard any other religion in such a manner? We do try to warn you and protest peacefully. But u keep trying our patience and justifying your actions my labeling them as examples of "free speech". It is then that some of us loose our patience and adopt violent methods in retaliation. Violence and killing of innocents is not justified in any situation and is unislamic. But to prevent it, we need to remove the root cause. And that can only be done if u give due respect to Islam. I do condemn the reprint of the images of our Prophet (PBUH) in the strongest words. The image should be be removed at the earliest. 04:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Prior discussion has determined that some images of Muhammad are allowed. --Geniac (talk) 02:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

REMOVAL OF THE CARTOONS
(Moved from main discussion page:)

It is requested that the cartoons of our holy prophet(saw) should be removed, they are highly objectionable to all the muslims around the world. The outcry of muslims have already been seen by the whole world. So it is requested that the cartoons should be removed from wikipedia and the controversy should be put to an end. It is not right to insult some one's prophet like this. Imagine what would have happened had the cartoons been of jesus and moses instead of Hazrat Muhammad(saw). Administrators should think about it and remove the cartoons as fast as possible. --Me umar 91 (talk) 08:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the largest reason why the cartoons are going to stay is exactly your point. Satirical cartoons of jesus, moses etc... are printed all of the time and they are the subject of jokes on a regular basis. One religion does not get special treatment over another when it comes to criticism.Nefariousski (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The decision to show the cartoons is the result of one of the longest discussions in Wikipedia's history, and is archived on this talk page. From a purely personal point of view, I think that the cartoons are unfunny and possibly misguided in their intentions. However, there are worse things happening in today's world than some rather lame cartoons, so it is better for people to see them and make up their own minds.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think anything would happen, if it was Jesus or Moses that was depicted. At least in Danish media, Jesus is often used in satire and as an object of satire. There is rarely any reaction at all. But check the discussion as ianmacm points to.--Nwinther (talk) 11:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I am a non-religious American. I think the display of the cartoons is in bad taste. They could be moved lower on the page, or they could be hidden with an option to show them. I see no reason for them to be shown at the top and by default. It seems completely unnecessary. I think that the minorities views are of major importance when the majorities emotions on the subject are minor. :)

75.39.143.25 (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am a non-religious Dane. Since when has freedom of speech become a minor sentiment? I fully accept that a minority have a ban on certain depictions. The rest of us are not bound by that ban, but of course be common decency. Of course, the cartoons are not depictions of Muhammed (how could they be?), but SOME of them are expressions of prejudice, negative stereotypes etc. I think the original commisioning and publication of these cartoons was a stupid provocation for the sake of provocation, but reporting the controversy without showing the drawings would be strange indeed.--Noe (talk) 08:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Did I read that IP's post correctly? No reason to be shown at the top of the page? I think you forgot to add 'except, of course, that they're the subject of the article'!!. WP not censored. RaseaC (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Last I checked I'm not your slave. My ancestors were emancipated in 1865. You have no right to tell me what images I can or can not see...... Ex-masser (makes hand gesture). You cannot stop me from doing that either. I'm no longer your property. I do want I want to do, and see what images I want to see. I am FREE. 71.254.116.39 (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, ok. A "i have a right to view the images" would have work fine without playing the race card... Dayofswords (talk) 09:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Please Remove the cartoons of The Holy Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him. The pictures are very offensive to many people, and there is historically much violence and negativity associated with showing pictures like that. I respect the idea of free speech, but please show muslim wikipedia users some respect and please take those cartoon images off of wikipedia. Thank you.

Abdean (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but no can do. I can refer you to this page for the rationale. Cheers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Isn't there a better image tagging for hiding it, for those that don't want to be exposed to it?
Note that I am not personnally disturbed by these images. But I still think and understand that some people are shocked and that they also need respect of their opinion, otherwise they will simply tag the WHOLE MediaWiki sites as being offensive and will block it completely, including most of the rest that would be beneficial for them. Note that, as soon as such content rating system would be introduced, there will also be the danger of possible conflicts because of different content rating labels. Such conficts can and should still be solved the same way as other edit conflicts that already occur on this page (and if a content is blocked due to the content rating system, there should still be some alternative content displayed or rendered that explicitly informs the user that some content was not rendered as it breaks a clearly identified content rating tag). Thanks for taking this into consideration. verdy_p (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.139.18.39 (talk)
 * The way that is currently suggested to hide this image using the very basic CSS code in the user profile is not very satisfying. Notably because:
 * it is not enforced on all pages using the same image : each page would first need to be updated to include a "span" or "div" element with the HTML or XML id attribute equal to "mi".
 * the code suggested is not large enough to qualify all uses of similar images, this can just hide one of the images displayed on this page, but not all the images, and not all parts of the page that would be equally offensive for similar persons for the same reason (because there cannot be two distinct elements in the same page sharing the same id value.
 * the CSS selector used ("#mi") is too broad as it will affect any page that just appears to have any unrelated element that uses the same very short ID (it could happen for example in a page using section titles just limited to this couple of letters, for example an index, or the latin name of the musical note mi, or the name of a plant, or a list of lexical prefixes...)
 * ♠ Isn't there any way to insert, within the description page of an image, some tags that will be imported automatically with the image, on all wikis where it will be imported, and using a system similar to P3P content rating systems (related to pornography, violence, tobacco and drugs...) and that could easily be supported by browsers?
 * I also suggest using CSS classes, instead of ids, for tagging contents, if this is still performed the way it is suggested (within the pages including the image itself), but if a content rating system is adopted, it should better be part of the HTTP meta-data headers that would be generated from all requests to the same image or related pages qualified with the same content rating tags, without having to modify the pages including or referencing these contents.
 * A standard for possible content rating tags should be defined or developed and maintained by the communauty, with at least the content tags that are already standardized within some widely deployed content rating systems (notably those for protecting children).
 * Note after all that we are already tagging images with permission tags (to comply with copyright laws). It is already complicate to enforce, but at least there are laws to guide us. However, content rating is more difficult as it may be very suggestive (but in this case, there are also laws in some countries where the sharia is guiding the law, and I don't see why an islamic law would be less respectable than a copyright law, for a muslem people living in such country).
 * Also I am NOT requesting the removal of the image. But at least, people must not be exposed to legal risks, just because they are visiting our sites. Note that they may fall on this page without knowing that they would be exposed to its content, by just following a disguised link from another sote. They must still be able to view the content after knowing what are their legal risks. Then it's up to their reponsability if they choose to ignore the displayed warning and still execute some action to bypass the content rating system.

Cartoons of Prophets In this world from start to this day, many civilizations came and went. At present, we can say western countries made a good progress and leading the world in this domain. But nothing is end of world. Let me remind the viewers, Rules are for humans, we make them, change them, implement them and kill them. Developed world made one rule 'Freedom of Speech' and now they dont want to change it for nothing. Dont take it as competition between West and Muslims. There is a very simple point that Muslims of the whole world dont want any sort of cartoons (good or bad) of Muhammad (Peace be upon him) anywhere.

Freedom Of Speech is one of a good rule among many others. But as humans we should consider the emotions, sentiments of other peoples (Muslim, Jews, Hindus, Christians etc.). There must be a clause in this rule where we can relax things a bit. This should not be a dead rule. Nothing is end of the world so why people made Freedom of Speech as no go area. On contrary Religion is sensitive since the start of human history why not we exclude religion out of freedom of speech. It must not be very hard. There is no doubt in the fact that how many people got offended. No matter we UNDERSTAND their logic or not but we saw protests. We should open our eyes and look at the world. Powerful nations should not take basic human rights away from weak nations. Live and let people live. Peace and love for all!
 * Most people consider "freedom of speech" a basic human right, and don't consider "not being offended by a website you don't even have to visit" a basic human right. So in the perspective of most people, people like you are the ones that are trying to "take away basic human rights". I would like to add that limitations on freedom of speech for religious purposes are especially dangerous and have had terrible consequences in the past, and still have today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.108.198 (talk) 21:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sanity???
I wish to say from the beginning that I am a religious Christian. Saying that I wish to add that I can't understand what the fuss with the image is all about. I mean I am personally DEEPLY disturbed by the explicit pictures of human sexual organs that are fully displayed in some of Wikipedia's articles (for example the in the artilce on the penis or on the vagina et al.). Many people are not disturbed by say images. So I am able to imagine and assume that some people would be disturbed by these cartoons in the same way. BUT, whatever the facts I do believe that THE IMAGES SHOULD STAY, all of them, the sexual organs, the Muhammad cartoons, all of them and here are a few quick reasons for that:

1.No one is required by anyone or any law to read a Wikipedia article. If you don't like the contents of this article, you are able to exercise your FREEDOM NOT TO READ IT.

2.If you do want to read the article but don't want to see the pictures, you can configure your Internet browser not to show any pictures. In some browsers, such as in Opera this is done by clicking on a very visible and very easy to use button, there's not technical skill necessary.

3.Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a repository of knowledge, and whether you like it or not we do not obey your laws, we do not even obey the common law of any American jurisdiction, what we obey is common sense (which comes from natural law) and as far as they might be applied certain requirements to obey the laws of the place where the servers that host Wikipedia are located (for example we can't disobey copyright laws here). We OWE YOU NOTHING and we are not responsible IN ANY WAY under any interpretation of the Shari'a Law.

4.As a sidenote to that, I wish to bring to your attention the fact that even if we WERE the dhimmies that you'd probably like us to be, Islamic law as applied in the various places where historically did hold sway (such as in the Ottoman Empire) recognised a system of millet's or millah's, whereby, each religious community was required to respect its own set of laws. Thefeore Christians, as long as they were loyal to the Sultan were required to obey Christian rather than Islamic law.

5.And to bring us back to the point, this is an issue of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Wikipedia is open to anyone to be read, but if you don't like what's presented here, you can exercise your freedom not to read anything and to ignore Wikipedia. Or to ignore this article. Or to ignore the images. The images are presented here FOR THOSE THAT DO WANT TO SEE THEM, not for you who don't, their presentation is not directed at you.

6.Of course you might be one of those people who would like to PREVENT OTHERS from seeing these images, ostensibly "for their own good". Well, good luck with that!

Ok now all of the above was directed ONLY towards people who want the images removed on religious grounds. It is not directed towards any other Wikipedian, not even towards those who'd like the images removed on "community cohesion" grounds.

Quick Edit: Of course I my sense fo Liberty and personal responsibility can be destroyed. If someone threatens to ban me from Wikipedia or anything, I WILL shut up, no really, I will. So please give me anotice before you do that. And on another quick sidenote: I realise that there has already been a conclusion to the debate and I do realise that I've probably violated a whole bunch of Wikipedia policies in my above rant, but please give me some leeway here, I was just advising angry young Muslims to configure their Internet browsers not to show images before their anger takes them to blow anything up or whatever they might do in anger.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.77.251.17 (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hopefully you apply the same standards, when you talk about Wikileaks instead of Jyllands-Posten. --Raphael1 19:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Similar code for plot spoilers
Is there a way that I can add code to articles and to my custom CSS and/or Javascript, so that spoiler-containing plots in movie articles appear in collapsed form to me, but in expanded form to someone who doesn't have the custom code installed? It would need to be in collapsed form, not hidden entirely, so I could just click to expand it. (There used to be a spoiler template that would collapse the Plot sections, but apparently people didn't like having to click to show the section.) Hgrosser (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Request to use Template:Hidden image
Use Template:Hidden image for the images which seems to be unwanted to watch by some readers. 103.230.107.2 (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ Wikipedia is not censored. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 20:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)