Misplaced Pages

Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:00, 2 February 2006 editCloud02 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users771 edits rv tal← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:36, 18 September 2024 edit undoAirshipJungleman29 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors43,063 edits assess 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talkheader}} {{Skip to talk}}
<!--{{talkheader|noarchive=yes|search=no}}-->
{{tmbox|style=border-color:#b00000;|type=content
|text=<div>
'''Notice''': Prior discussion has determined that '''''some images of Muhammad are allowed'''''.
Discussion of images, and of edits regarding images, must be posted to ]. Removal of pictures without discussion will be reverted. If you prefer not to see images of Muhammad, you can ].
}}
{{controversial}} {{controversial}}
{{Censor}}
<div border="1" style="border:black solid; background-color:white; margin: 0.5em; padding: 0.5em;">
{{Article history
Ahem. Timeout. I've blanked this talk page momentarily because although there is some good discussion here, there's a lot of very bad discussion. This is not the appropriate place for a general philosophical discussion about Islam, freedom of speech, terrorism, religious tolerance, etc. Not only is '''this talk page''' not the right place for it, '''Misplaced Pages''' is not the right place for it. Here, we are polite, thoughtful, smart, geeky people, trying only to do something which is undoubtably '''good''' in the world: write and give away a 💕.
|action1=GAN
|action1date=2006-02-04, 20:02:36
|action1link=Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 8b#Failed Good Article
|action1result=failed
|action1oldid=38185004


|action2=GAN
Now, there are legitimate questions on both sides regarding this particular article, and I want to encourage a discussion of that. But please, do it with the very strong assumption of good faith on all parties to the discussion, and stick directly and purely to the '''editorial''' question at hand, rather than a general philosophical debate.
|action2date=2006-04-22, 06:55:02
|action2link=Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 19#Good Article nomination has failed
|action2result=failed
|action2oldid=49414612


|action3=GAR
'''Now, please, with kindness, start the discussion over?'''
|action3date=11:13, 25 April 2006
|action3link=Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 19#Good Article
|action3result=failed
|action3oldid=50068378


|action4=GAN
--] 00:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
|action4date=17:20, 25 April 2006
</div>
|action4link=Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 19#GA Pass
|action4result=listed
|action4oldid=50074759


|action5=GAR
{| style="float:right; clear:right;" border="3"
|action5date=2006-04-26, 12:30:26
|-
|action5link=Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 19#Article removed from Misplaced Pages:Good articles
! style="background-color:grey;" | Archives
|action5result=delisted
|-
|action5oldid=50244325
|
*]
*]
*]
|}


|action6=GAR
==Image Poll==
|action6date=09:14, 28 April 2006
{| width="100%" border="3" style="clear:right;"
|action6link=Misplaced Pages:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 1#Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
|-
|action6result=listed
! Have picture in the article (size and placement TBD)
|action6oldid=50556537
! Delete
! Move to separate page and link the image
|-
| valign="top" |
#] 19:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 19:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] ] 19:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 20.01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 20:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 20:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] ] 20:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 20:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 20:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 20:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 20:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 20:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 20:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 20:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#<font color="green">'''Snailwalker |''' </font> 20:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 20:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 20:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] - ] - ] 20:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 20:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 20:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#<font color="red">]</font><font color="blue"> ]</font> 20:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#--] 20:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#--] 20:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] - ] 20:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 20:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#<TT>] <SMALL>(] • ])</SMALL></TT> 20:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#--] 20:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 20:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 20:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 20:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 20:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC) '''Keep''' I believe that the initial publication of these images does not exhibit very good taste. Yet given that the images have been published and became a focus of international discussion and tension, the publication here has significant encyclopedic value.
#— ] &lt;]|]&gt; 20:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#--] 21:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC) One needs to make a personal judgement about how controversial or offensive they might be. THE IMAGE SHOULD BE BIGGER.
#] 21:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC) - '''Keep''': When I first looked at this article yesterday, the images were not present. I wasn't aware of the controversy at the time, but spent time searching for the images elsewhere, because I felt seeing them was necessary to understand what specifically was being discussed.
#] 21:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC) - the image is extremely important in order to fully understand the article.
#] 21:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC). Misplaced Pages should never give in to religious fanatics.
#] 21:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC) STRONGLY in favor of keeping. They are central to the controversy, and must be seen to be understood.
#--] 21:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 22:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC) - Freedom of Speech is more important the religious feelings
#] 22:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
# ] 22:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 22:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC) The image should be somewhere in the article but should be moved and resized smaller. Main picture for the article should be something different.
#] 22:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 22:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 22:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] 22:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Misplaced Pages is generally neutral, but in one sense that it is not neutral is that it believes in freedom of speech. Clearly the image is relevent to the article, therefore putting it in would be sensible, and this coupled with Misplaced Pages's belief in freedom of speech means it '''must''' stay.
#—'']'' 22:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#] ] 22:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#--] 22:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
#--] 22:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC) We should even have indepth descriptions of each cartoon!
# --] 22:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC) keep
| valign="top" |
# ] 20:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
# ] 20:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
# (] 22:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC))
# --] 22:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC) We should even have indepth descriptions of each of the cartoons!
| valign="top" |
# ] 21:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC) second choice only, if inclusion here is not possible. see additional remarks at my first choice.
# --] 22:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC) keep we should even have indepth descriptions of each cartoon!
|}


|action7=PR
==Poll 2 Position of image==
|action7date=2006-05-10, 11:42:48
{| width="100%" border="3" style="clear:right;"
|action7link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/archive1
|-
|action7oldid=52451520
! Move to body of article
! Have picture at top of article
|-
| valign="top" |
# I feel we should move the image down to a lower part of the article to avoid causing offence.--Fil] Éireann 22:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


|action8=GAN
|action8date=22:38, 15 June 2006
|action8link=Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy#GA
|action8result=listed
|action8oldid=58841025


|action9=GAR
| valign="top" |
|action9date=01:27, 16 June 2006
# Leave it at the top. ] 22:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
|action9link=Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy#Article removed from Misplaced Pages:Good articles
#] 22:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
|action9result=delisted
# ] 22:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC), however, I'm for moving the cartoon image down to the middle of the page if we allow larger versions of a sample of the cartoons as some of them are hard to read in the current image format.
|action9oldid=58864762
#] 22:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Keep this image up on top and include larger individual images in the body of the article, accompanied by text.
#] 22:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC) The title warns the user about the picture; putting it some unknown place in the middle may actually surprise the reader.
|}


|action10=GAN
===Comments===
|action10date=09:19, 26 June 2006
This really should be an approval poll, with three entries: Link to Image; Image at head of article, Image in middle of article. I'm not sure if that can be arranged now. ] 20:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
|action10link=Misplaced Pages:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 3#Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
|action10result=listed
|action10oldid=60511843


|action11=GAR
:Ideally, this would be handled through an ]. Unfortunately, given the volatility involved I doubt there would be any hope of enforcing the consensus reached through an RfC short of a total lockdown on the article. --] 20:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
|action11date=2006-06-27, 14:51:18
|action11link=Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy#Article removed from Misplaced Pages:Good articles 2
|action11result=delisted
|action11oldid=60742874


|action12=FAC
:I think at this point we just need to take a straw poll regarding the fate of the image itself; after that is established, we can move on to where in the article it should be (assuming people vote to keep it) ] 20:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
|action12date=2006-07-02, 19:08:59
|action12link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/archive1
|action12result=failed
|action12oldid=61717895


|action13=GAN
:: Agreed. ] 20:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
|action13date=13:22, 7 July 2006
|action13link=Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy#Seeking consensus
|action13result=listed
|action13oldid=62534199


|action14=GAR
::If we have that kind of poll, there needs to be a neutral side, personally, I don't really mind between at the top or in the middle, I just think it needs to be in here at a relevant position.] 20:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
|action14date=2008-10-08
|action14link=Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy#Good article promotion
|action14result=kept
|action14oldid=250490190


|action15=FAC
Whatever the outcome of this poll, it should only be used to point out consensus. Remember that ]. This should be treated as a ]. <font color="red">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> 20:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
|action15date=15:08, 30 January 2009
: I think the neutral position is not to vote. ] 20:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
|action15link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/archive2
I think people's opinions are a little more nuanced than that, and several additional options should be available: (3) Keep image in article, "below the fold" so readers with most computer monitors have to scroll down to see the iamge; (4) Keep image in article but as a smaller thumbnail to reduce legibility (and of course clicking the thumbnail brings up the large .jpg image page). Without these two options I can't vote. ]
|action15result=not promoted
:: Some people have specific opinions about where the image should go, but first we should address the fate of the image itself. If there is a consensus to keep it in article, then we should address where to keep it. But most edit warring has been over whether or not to keep it at all. ] 20:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
|action15oldid=266959653
::: I've been keeping up with the thread, and I disagree. I would say there's been an equal amount of vitriol over simply moving the image down on the page, and I think it's important to structure the straw poll so people don't think their votes will be misinterpreted. ] 20:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
::::There will be another poll, and there's no reason it can't include Link to Image as one of the approvable options. Voting to keep the image now is '''not''' a vote for its present size or position; that will be later. ] 20:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
:::: Agree with Pam, and I don't think anyone's votes will be misinterpreted. Voting to keep the image in the article is not an assertion that it belongs at the top, the bottom, the middle, or anywhere else. More than one editor also said that the picture should be removed until we determined that consensus preferred it in the article. We need to get that simple issues sorted. If there turns out to be a consensus to keep it in the article, then we will need to address where it should go. But I don't think a two-step process to determine consensus is too elaborate a method for an issue that has caused this much warring and disagreement. ] 20:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
::::: I don't like the current poll, whose questions are slanted to produce a preselected result. The correct first poll question is "be hardass / be flexible". If the answer is "hardass", then no 2nd step is needed. If "flexible", then go to a 2nd step and figure out what to do next, no longer insisting on keeping the pic the way it is. ] 21:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::: Yes, because those poll options aren't loaded at all...The current poll is fine as step one of a two-step process, as has been discussed on this page already. ] 21:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
*On ], we have the photo at the end of the article. This prevents religious offense while still keeping the photo for its encyclopedic value. Maybe that would work here. I am strenuously opposed to removing the scan entirely; how can one understand the controversy fully without even seeing the purportedly offensive material? <TT>] <SMALL>(] • ])</SMALL></TT> 20:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
:Um, by clicking on a link, if needed. ] 21:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
*Yes, but ] was not about that photo, this is. Those images ARE the article. This doesn't mean they should stay on top, but placing them all the way down seem a little drastic. I'd say, put them somewhere beside the descriptions of the cartoons. ] 21:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


|action16=PR
When did the poll become three categories?] 21:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
|action16date=19:32, 7 December 2012
|action16link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/archive2
|action16result=reviewed
|action16oldid=526744152


|action17=PR
:It's four now
|action17date=20:41, 13 May 2013
|action17link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/archive3
|action17result=reviewed
|action17oldid= 554065450


|topic=Socsci
'''Poll is bogus''': The disagreements here are less about whether to include the image, than whether it's appropriate to be hardass about its size and placement. Therefore, more options should be presented. I favor operating by "". Replace the main picture with a different one and put the pic of the cartoons in a thumbnail in the article's interior. The current poll pretends that "keep the picture" means "keep the picture as it currently is". #] 21:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
: The current poll does not state that or mean that. Numerous editors have claimed there is no consensus to keep the image at all. We need to address that issue before addressing where to put it. ] 21:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


|action18=FAC
:No, the current poll is about whether to allow the image of the cartoons in the article in _any_ form, and says nothing about whether it should be at the top, bottom, middle, thumbnailed, enlarged, or any other variation therein. It is a poll about its _existence_ and value to the article. The options are: 1) No, remove the image entirely, 2) Remove the image, but provide a link to it, or 3) Allow an image of the cartoons in the article, with the placement of it up for later debate. ] 21:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
|action18date=10:02, 16 October 2013
|action18link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/archive3
|action18result=not promoted
|action18oldid=576255444
|otd1date=2008-09-30|otd1oldid=242039474
|otd2date=2009-09-30|otd2oldid=317057203
|otd3date=2010-09-30|otd3oldid=387954541
|otd4date=2012-09-30|otd4oldid=515336561
|otd5date=2015-09-30|otd5oldid=683133956
|otd6date=2017-09-30|otd6oldid=803049880


|action19 = GAR
== Translation ==
|action19date = 15:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
|action19link = Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/1
|action19result = delisted
|action19oldid = 1244414786
|currentstatus = DGA
}}


{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=c|1=
"Profet! Med kuk og knald i låget som holder kvinder under åget!". In English the poem could be read as: "Prophet! daft and dumb, keeping woman under thumb"
{{WikiProject Denmark|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Journalism|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Freedom of speech|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=Low|Islam-and-Controversy=yes}}
{{WikiProject Comics|importance=Mid|European-work-group=yes}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject International relations |importance=High}}
}}
{{old move|date=30 May 2013|destination=Muhammad cartoons crisis|result=no consensus|link=Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy#Requested move}}
{{afd-merged-from|Muslim Action Committee|Muslim Action Committee|02 November 2012}}
{{merged-from|Economic and social consequences of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy|11 November 2012}}


{{archives|auto=yes|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=90 days|index=/Archive index|search=yes|
This translation of "kuk og knald i låget" as "daft and dumb" is too negative.. i would say "kuk og knald i låget" means to be crazy.
-----
:It may have been unfortunate to translate into English doggerel. But English ''daft'' does mean "crazy", or at least "eccentric" . Could you translate word for word? ] 20:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
* Polls: ], ], ], ]
-----
* ]
-----
* ]
-----<!-- line to separate the bot notice -->
}}<!-- end archive box --><!--


-->
::"knald i låget" means "To have a tile loose", "kuk i låget" would be translated similarly--] 20:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
{{Broken anchors|links=

* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#2011–present) has been ] before. <!-- {"title":"2011–present","appear":{"revid":514686449,"parentid":514660091,"timestamp":"2012-09-26T18:44:08Z","replaced_anchors":{"2011-present":"2011–present"},"removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":641479735,"parentid":641479670,"timestamp":"2015-01-07T21:28:30Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"very_different":"8≥4","rename_to":"Janurary 2015 attack"} -->
:::Yeah. I too think "dumb" is too negative a word. Dumb is not what is said in Danish. Daft is fine, though. So - anybody up for a poetic retranslatation? It needs some word like daft or crazy or eccentric - preferably one that fits the "rhythm" --] 20:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
}}

{| class=
::"holder kvinder under åget" means "subjugating women". "Prophet! With a loose tile and subjugating women"... which should then be turned into a colloquialism or an idiom--] 20:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
! Please divert comments having to do with...

! ... to the page ...
:It is hard to accurate translate into English and still stay poetic. "Prophet! daft and dumb, keeping woman under thumb", while I agree a little to negative, is a very valid try. “Daft” is actually a translation for the entire part of "kuk og knald i låget", and no other word is really needed.
|-
:A more true translation would be "Prophet! daft and keep woman under yoke" (as in under the yoke of a tyrant), but it does not sound poetic anymore. ] 21:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
| the timeline of the incidents

| ]
A more accurate translation: "FACT: Islam = Terror."
|-
::I think 'Prophet with a screw loose' would be a fair equivalent, but (although I'm a published poet), I'm having trouble with the second part. 'Prophet with a screw loose, keeping women in your noose' might not be the best wording.--] 21:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
| international reactions

| ]
== Temp protect on Discussion page ==
|-

| opinions
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. --] | ] 20:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
| ]

|-
== This is great ==
| any aspect of displaying the cartoon images

| ]
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'''.
|}<!-- end "divert talk" table -->
:Oh please. We had a bigger revert war over the Harry Potter movie. --] 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 ] 20:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Which harry potter movie. i want to see
:Snape kills dumbledore] 22:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

== Drudge ==

Matt Drudge has posted the bomb-in-turban Mohammad picture prominently on ] 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. ] 21:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Umm...the cartoons are the controversy!!--] 21:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

: that's not correct, the controversy is the controversy. ] 21:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
:: How can you understand the controversy without seeing the cartoons? ] 21:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
:: Even then I don't underestan them, but that is just my personal opinion... ] 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). ] 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? ] 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." ] 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). ] 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 ] to suppression of information. Furthermore, you know nothing about me or my experiences with "real" censorship, so take your martyr complex elsewhere. ] 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... ] 21:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
:Um, the has the image on the page just like here. <font color="red">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> 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). ] 21:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

::::: so you suggest putting Rushdie's entire book at the beginning of the article on the fatwa?? ] 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. ] 21:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

: now it's gone again from the french version...
:: Yes, but it was when the anon posted his message, and has since been removed by another anon. <font color="red">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> 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. ] 21:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

== Archive again? ==

We should probably archive the debate again, it is getting quite lengthy --<font color="green">'''Snailwalker |''' </font> 21:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

: Yes, please do, and move the poll back down to the bottom. Protect for two minutes if necessary. ] 21:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
: I second that ] 21:45, 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?

== 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 ]. --] 20:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
::Fair use is different than German copyright law in any event. ] 20:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
:::"The Misplaced Pages 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." ] - ] 21:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

== Editing while protected ==
Please, let's avoid editing the article while it's protected, even if it's just minor edits. It's a potentially problematic ]. --] 20:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
* Yep, apologies. ] 21:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
* In general, I agree. However, there is established precedent for fixing spelling, grammatical, and style/formatting problems even while protected as long as the edits are non-controversial and non-substantive. --] | ] 21:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
* I've just noticed that the article is fully protected. I've been editing under the mistaken belief that it was semi-protected, as it has been on several occasions before. I've only wikified some dates, altered and augmented some references, and ensured that there are no bare external hyperlinks in the article. ] 21:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
**I've unprotected it. Articles that are linked from the main page should not be protected. ] | ] 21:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
***For Jacoplane, who was unfamiliar with this policy, please see ]. --] 21:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
* I am new to wikipedia, is there a reason for not editing while under full protection? And what is the diffence with semi-protection?

*Semi-protection means random IP members (Also called "anons") and new members (I think it's like a few weeks old maybe? Im not sure) cannot edit the article. Full protection means only admins and Jimbo Wales can edit it. ] 22:40, 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. ] 21:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

:On the contrary, there is a strong consensus to keep the image. ] - ] 21:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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


== No cartoons untill the pool ended ==


I propose to not post the cartoons untill the pool ended. ] 21:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Also, when does the "pool" end?] 21:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

: The poll is over. It has 36/2/0. This is demonstrative of a strong consensus to keep the image. If this changes in the future, we can get rid of the image. ] - ] 21:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

: Not it is not. It should last at least 2 weeks. ] 21:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

::Says who? -] 21:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

:::Personally, I'd say 24 hours. Not everybody is awake right now. ] 22:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

::::I'd say 48 hours minimum. --] | ] 22:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


No, for two reasons. One: the disputed item should not be altered or deleted during the resolution process. Two: I know you can read. There two users who want it removed thus far, compared to about 20 who want to keep it. --] 21:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not that difficult. As soon as the majority want it gone, it goes. As for now, the majority want it there, it stays. ] 22:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

:: There is no consensus - the oxford english dictionary defines consensus as: Agreement in opinion; the collective unanimous opinion of a number of persons] 21:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

:::It also defines it as "general agreement or accord," which is what we have here. The picture stays. -] 22:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

::::That is an incorrect characterization. The definition to which you are referring is a ''physiological'' one. --] | ] 22:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

::: "Consensus" as used on Misplaced Pages does not require unanimity... and neither does your proffered definition if you read it carefully. --] | ] 22:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

:::: My "proffered" definition does - unanimous is unanimous. ] 22:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

::::: Ok. When you get consensus to remove the image we'll do that. ] - ] 22:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

::::: If Rajab's definition requires unanimity to remove the image, I hereby vote against removing the image, thus making it impossible for there to be a unanimous decision to remove the image. Consider this vote to apply to all future polls regarding this matter. ] 22:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

::::: Unanimity of a group of persons... not ALL PERSONS EVERYWHERE. A group of persons has a unanimous opinion to keep the images. --] | ] 22:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

:: '''I just filed a WP:RfC'''. We should wait untill some more contributions from other people who are not aware of this discussion. ] 22:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

::: If they agree with your position, we'll remove the image then. Delaying tactics should not favor the side delaying. It is becoming difficult to believe you are operating in good faith. ] - ] 22:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

:::: Well he just deleted the picture again, I guess that answers that one. Rajab... go away. You are nothing but a troll and a vandal in my eyes -] 22:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
:::: Is it standard practice to file a WP:RfC after a poll has ended? I'm not that familiar with Misplaced Pages customs...] 22:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


::::: The poll didn't end at all! How long was it running - one hour? a day??

:::Could you please post a link to the RfC you filed. I'm having trouble finding it right now and would like to keep track of the happenings. Thanks. --] 22:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

::: I can't find it either ] 22:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

:: I propose at least 2 weeks. We sohuldnt have the cartoon on untill the pool ends. I wouldn't try to read anybody's intensions. That is not an objective argument. ] 22:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

::: Unfortunately you and your buddy are alone in this one. I do not oppose a longer poll, however customs dictate that the picture stays until the dispute is resolved. Please try to work with us, as you are now acting in bad faith here. -] 22:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

::: There is a clear ''overwhelming'' majority here. Until we get at least a simple majority from the crew in favor of removing the picture (which I really doubt will ever happen), the image should remain in the article. ] 22:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

] is very clear that in Misplaced Pages "consensus" doesn't require unanimity. Generally a ] is regarded as consensus, though Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. There is not doubt that as of now, there is consensus to keep the image. But the poll will continue, and we'll see. ] 22:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

: There are some people who are never going to change their opinion. Therefore it would be impossible to ''ever'' reach a majority. This is about as consensus as consensus can get. We should leave the poll up a little longer, but I wouldn't get your hopes up for a come from behind win from the Remove crew. ] 22:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


I filed it at . ] 22:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

== Botched archiving ==
It's considered poor form to archive ongoing conversations. The last few discussion sections ought to have been left here. Please fix this. --] | ] 21:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
*It's considered poor form to wait less than 30 seconds before complaining whilst a complex process is being performed. ] 22:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
**Then you should have used the In Use tag so that it was apparent that you were still doing the move or used edit summaries to make that clear. Do not fault me because your actions/intentions were not clear. I do not read minds. --] | ] 22:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
*** I'm faulting you for not even thinking "Hmmm. It takes almost 30 seconds to render this page. Perhaps it will take longer than that to perform the complex process of archiving it.". You'll find that I ''did'' use edit summaries, moreover. Please think and check before complaining. ] 22:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
****You DID use edit summaries, correct. If you read MY comments above, you'll see that I faulted you for not using your edit summaries to make it clear that the archival process was ongoing... which you did not. Aside from that, you STILL have not fixed the problem and there are many threads that were active that are STILL not on the current page. Perhaps instead of complaining that I called you out on doing a poor job of archiving, you actually finish the job? --] | ] 22:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
*****I've said it once already. You could have concluded that the archival process was ongoing, ''30 seconds in'', by simply ''thinking''. And there is no problem to be fixed. This was not a poor job at all. Standard operating procedure applies: If there is a conversation that you wish to reactivate, pull it from the archive. ] 22:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
*****{{tl|sofixit}}. --] 22:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
******I was giving him a chance of doing it himself, but since he didn't seem able or willing, I just did. --] | ] 22:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
*******I had already pulled several things from the archive. If I hadn't had to keep responding to your continued complaints, which began, on two separate pages, ''even before the fresh page had rendered'', I might have had the time to have done some more by now. You have only yourself to blame. ] 22:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
********People, let's ]. --] 22:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
*********I'm completely calm. Uncle G is on the defensive because he failed to do the job correctly. It's understandable I suppose. --] | ] 22:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
: Although that is unusual, it was absolutely necessary. In the past two days alone, there have been over 200 new topics started. This talk page has become completely out of control and incoherent. I really don't understand why either, considering that the straw poll indicates a strong consensus towards keeping the picture. I suspect there are just a few dissenters and that many people in favor of the picture are taking advantage of the situation to express their views about Islam, censorship, etc, etc. If something has already been said, a simple "I agree" will do. We need to stop creating unnecessary new sections and adding unnecessarily long posts that simply restate what has already been stated. This is undoubtably the worst talk page I have ever seen. This is absolutely embarrassing that this conversation keeps turning into this war of words over one picture. Just vote in the poll. Add a couple short comments if you need to, but don't go overboard. ] 22:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

== Church Bombings ==
Can somebody please mention about the Church bombings in Iraq that was rumered to be related to the drawings? ] 22:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

:Using the word "rumored" should be a red flag. Please wait until there is confirmation and/or citable sources. ] 22:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
::Indeed, ] should apply to every article. <font color="red">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> 22:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

:::Now their blaming ] for this? If that's really true, then I think that would be something we really need to put in this article, once people start getting angry enough to destroy anyone and everyone, then you know things are going crazy. ] 22:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

::::Assuming it's true, please be sure to qualify who "they" are. ] 22:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

::::: Well small militant groups have claimed for it and said it was retaliation to the cartoons. This is what they are saying in the streets of Baghdad. I think its fair to at leats mention the event, dont you agree? Check out some articles about it. militants coordinate bombings near Christian churches: ] ] 22:42, 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 ] 22:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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

:: It is a *compromise* ] 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) ] 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 ] 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 ] 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. ] 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. ]). While others have not (] 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 Misplaced Pages'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. ] 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) ] 22:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
::: 42 vs 2 implies strong consensus for keeping the pictures. (] 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). ] 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. ] 22:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

:: Exactly. Thanks :) ] 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? ] 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. ] | ] 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. ] - ] 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 ] 22:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
::I like this compromise! Everyone is happy! ] 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. --] 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. --] | ] 22:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

:Or we could just block those who are disrupting the encylopedia. ] | ] 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. ] 22:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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

== Muslims' Viewpoint ==
::''The following text is by ], the bracketed, caps text is comments added by ].''--] 21:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Many Muslims were offended by the publication of the Muhammad cartoons. This anger has been expressed in public protests in Arabic and Islamic countries. Muslims claim that this anger isn't directed against ] - as the western media represent the issue - but rather against an insult to all Muslims, since the cartoons represent their Prophet as terrorist and criminal . According to Muslim opinion , the drawing of Prophet Muhammad is not acceptable (actually, pictures of all prophets including Jesus and Moses are forbidden in Islam) . Additionally they object the way in which <strike> Prophet </strike> Muhammad has been represented as a terrorist , which means in their opinion that all Muslims are terrorists . For Muslims a message of Hate is sent by those cartoons, and they frankly express the modern Islamophobia spreading in the western world , as President Clinton said .
Many Muslims think that the Jyllands Posten should be punished by the Danish Government, and make comparisons to the charges that have been made against writers descriped as anti-semitic in Europe
Most European and American media supports the newspaper and considers the issue to be one of Freedom of Speech, which is one of the most important traditions in the Western, secular world. For them Muhammad should dealt with as any other religious figure - even in satirical cartoons, just like Jesus and Buddha. They believe that Muslims have no right to enforce censorship of the media. Most European and American media supports the newspaper and considers the issue to be one of Freedom of Speech, which is one of the most important traditions in the Western, secular world. For them Muhammad should dealt with as any other religious figure - even in satirical cartoons, just like Jesus and Buddha. They believe that Muslims have no right to enforce censorship of the media.
Line 1344: Line 1350:
For some Muslims, the publication of these pictures is seen as racist. For Many muslims there is no problem with criticism of Islamic belief, rules or behaviour, and there is no prolem either with making fun of religious people, but presenting the prophet Muhammed - who is an ideal for all Muslims - as a terrorist, suggests that all Muslims are fundamentalists and extremeists. They believe that this is a message of hate and intolerance and therefore that goverments shouldn't accepted such behaviour from the media . For some Muslims, the publication of these pictures is seen as racist. For Many muslims there is no problem with criticism of Islamic belief, rules or behaviour, and there is no prolem either with making fun of religious people, but presenting the prophet Muhammed - who is an ideal for all Muslims - as a terrorist, suggests that all Muslims are fundamentalists and extremeists. They believe that this is a message of hate and intolerance and therefore that goverments shouldn't accepted such behaviour from the media .
could u edit it to suit ur criteria ??? --] 18:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Unfinished Chaos, I put bracketed notes in the first two paragraphs of your essay. Take a look, if you are interested. ] 18:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunently, someone is editing this talk page so quickly I can't get in a word edge-wise :/ ] 18:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


nice notes Babajobu ... firstly about the Charges from Danish goverment ... I just express ideas that puplic protests said ... I understand fully the situation of Danish goverment which is in critical position .



about other important note ,
.

that is really unreasonable , when u picture muhammad with a Bomb and when picture it saying we have no virgins , and when u picture him with two veiled women ... u frankly say that muhammad learns muslims how to kill and make terrorism .. isn,t that obvious .

u say that all islam sects and schools say that women must cover all her head and she should stay in home ... ya that is the understanding of group of muslims , but i find it historical and ignorant understanding , but now ur artists come to make all muslims terrorists and ignorant and uncivilized ... the POV is in the pics themselves . have i clarified that ?

other notes is accepted and i can work to make them better --] 19:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

:Concerning "Most... American media supports the newspaper and considers the issue to be one of Freedom of Speech," I haven't seen a major US newspaper come out emphatically on the side of the JP, and I don't see, say, the Washington Post or New York Times publishing these pictures; I doubt any paper that did not publish ] would publish these drawings (it'd be a double standard if they did, IMO). If there's an example of a major newspaper in the US publishing the pictures or otherwise taking a strong stance in favor of the publications, I'd like to see the sources. --] 20:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

:sorry Guppy ... the text will be reformulated according to the notes here --] 22:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I will put the resources in the text later --] 22:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC):



Ok, you've made your point heh. ] 22:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

== "Muslim nazis" image ==

WTF is this image being re-added? It is obvious vandalism. ] - ] - ] 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! (] 22:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC))

== Another suggestion to comprimise ==


Let us have just the link in the article, untill the pool ended?! ] 22:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's not. ] 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. ] 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. ] 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. ] 22:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
::: Ain't it the truth... ] 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? ] - ] 22:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Would certainly make it seem a lot less like the apocalypse around here, yes, IMHO. ] 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". --] <sup>]</sup> 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. ] - ] 22:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

:::Pic's in the middle. Hoping everyone agrees to linking at the top. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

:::: Please, please do this. ] - ] 22:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

:::::I will go try that then. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

:::::: I did it. Let's see if it sticks. ] - ] 22:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

== HI-RES Version ==

I'm considering the possibility of adding a thumbnail of the following HI-RES picture:<br>
http://cryptome.org/muhammad.htm<br>
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:"<br>
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.<p>
Why should this picture be added:<br>
1. It's impossible to study the cartoons in the origial scan. Most Important.<br>
2. Adding a link to a HI-RES version would facilitate a discussion on the cartoons.<br>
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.<br>
4. A HI-RES version is consistant with free speech and fair use.<p>

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

(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)<p>

MrEH<br>

:That would be a copyright violation and wikipedia could be sued. The image is fair use at a low resolution only. --] <sup>]</sup> 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. (] 22:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC))


{{User:MiszaBot/config
: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. ] 22:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
|maxarchivesize = 70K
|counter = 33
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive %(counter)d
}}


{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
: 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. ] 22:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
|target=Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive index
|mask=Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes
}}


== Proposal of removing an inappropriate content ==
==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. --] 22:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


Hello,
::Well put. Compare ], which this event strongly resembles. That article, too, was the subject of bitter controversy. Came out all right in the end. ] 22:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I wish you are fine,
guys this article contains some images that are disrespectful for us,
Please I really would like you to be comprehensive and delete them
Thank you for being comprehensive and kind
Sincerely ] (]) 22:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


:See the template at the top of the page, which links to previous discussions of this issue. You can also configure your browser not to show the images.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 22:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
== Block the vandals ==
:Also read ]. ] (]) 23:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
:No. ] (]) 05:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


== Another point of view ==
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. --] ] 22:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


As many others have already stated these pictures are not only disrespectful to more than 1.6 billion muslims all over the world, but are also a sign of hatred against all of us. It hurts us a lot, so many of us asked for considiration of our feelings, because the article will still be informative even without the picture and it would be a way to show the cohesion and respect between different nations, beliefs and cultures. And not showing pictures due to respect is something, we do on a daily basis. E. g. if an accident happens and people die, most of the countries in this world would show no pictures of the dead people, because it is very impious. So every culture etc. has something they want to protect or respect. We muslims also want that and with 1.6 billion people worldwide it is also a number of people whos feelings deserve to be heared and respected. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:There have already been several blocks relating to removal of the picture in violation of 3RR. --] | ] 22:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
:See the ] template at the top of this page. ] (]) 11:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
:: what's 3RR? 3 reverts rule? (] 22:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC))
::Thank you. I know the rules for censorship. In general, certain content needs to be censored and others can be censored. In particular, the things that can be censored include distasteful content. For 1.6 billion people, these cartoons are beyond distasteful. You also have to distinguish between censorship and simple reporting. The main theme of the article is not conveyed through these images themselves, but through the pain that the mockery causes in us Muslims. The pictures do not have to be shown for this. Just as little as pictures of victims of a massacre have to be shown to show the pain of the relatives. So with all due respect to the right of free speech, freedom of the press and other fundamental rights: Please delete these images from the article, because if the fundamental rights just mentioned can be restricted by acts that are generally considered distasteful, then this should not be an exception because the distaste just affects Muslims. ] (]) 12:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
:::Sorry, but religious beliefs don't get to dictate what happens on Misplaced Pages. Please follow ] for a guide on how to hide images. ] (]) 23:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
::::Thank you for the answer. I imagined that our beliefs will not be the guideline for the decisions about the content on Misplaced Pages. This is why so many of us just asked for it and not commanded it or anything. We have shared our feelings about this with you and it is up to you to either respect our feelings about this or not. I thank all the none-muslims supporters for their attepmt to help us in this matter. It shows to me what a peaceful world would look like. ] (]) 11:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
:::::Why do even dare to speak for all Muslims by using the collective term "we"?? You speak for your own, with your own mind, point of view and religious beliefs.
:::::Secondly, if Muslims are so scared about showing the image of Muhammad, why is that name the most common surname in the muslim world and male adults are growing their beards such as he allegedly did? Isn`t that some sort of taking an image?
:::::Thirdly, freedom of speech is superior to islamic beliefs. You can build your own islamic state and then forbid such cartoons but wikipedia is a western invention or company and here people can express their points of view. ] (]) 01:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
::::::1. I'm pretty sure all muslims would say that a cartoon that disrespects and paints another image to muslims is not freedom of speech
::::::2. We are not scared of showing the prohpets face (pbuh) rather its forbidden, and doing his practices are not taking an image and how is using someones name taking an image??
::::::3.i don't disagree that you can't express your point of view but I don't think what your doing is freedom of speech rather your just disrespecting, but do as you wish
::::::4. You mentioned something about Iraq and Afghanistan having ties with 9/11 which is just wrong, and its been pretty much proven that it was a setup and now people have painted this bad image of Islam
::::::5. And i would like to say neither christians nor muslims would say its "freedom of speech" if someone did the same thing with jesus(pbuh)
::::::6. I highly doubt that people who bought the cartoons in muslim countries, bought it for entertainment or teaching, i think it was too see what was in it ] (]) 06:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Hi @], all peace and respect to you and your feelings. But the image on this page is necessary to allow us to understand what the issues are. Nobody is going to find this page by accident and be triggered by images they hadn't expected. On the contrary, anyone reading here is actively wanting to know about these images, and you can't form an opinion of them without seeing them. The image is of such low resolution that there is not much pleasure in looking at it and it can't be used for any other purpose than forming a basic judgment.
:::::::You mentioned that Christians would feel the same way if it were their religion being depicted. The point is, though, there are many disrespectful cartoons about Jesus on the internet, but they have little impact and aren't widely distributed, because Christians show their contempt by ignoring them. There will always be trolls who want to provoke you, but it's your choice if you give them success by getting angry and trying to silence them. The majority of people do not want to troll your religion and would not be interested in these cartoons, but the minute you say we are not allowed to see them, we want to see them. You yourself said that some people in Muslim countries bought the cartoons. They would never have heard of this provincial little Danish newspaper if devout Muslims had not brought it to their attention. This is called the ]. Quite simply, the best way to deny the cartoonists their success is to turn your back and walk quietly away. ] (]) 09:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


== GA concerns ==
:::] ] | ] 22:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


I am concerned that this article no longer meets the ]. Some of my concerns are listed below:
:::: Rajab has violated 3RR and had already been warned. I posted a note at ], 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. ] 22:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::] does not cover a page --] 22:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::: Then what is the point of the rule if it doesn't cover article pages? ] 22:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::::She meant that the link was broken. I've fixed that with a redirect. --] | ] 22:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
::::::::She is gratefull for that --] 22:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::Sorry about that one. ;) Fixed the gender. --] | ] 22:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::: no offence, happens al the time....--] 22:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


*There is a "neutrality disputed" orange banner since 2019. This should be resolved.
== Image of Protest? ==
*The lead, at 6 paragraphs, is longer than the recommended length at ]
*The article relies on a lot of block quotes. I think these can be summaried instead of using these quotes.
*There is uncited text throughout the article.


Is anyone interested in addressing these concerns, or should this go to ]? ] (]) 05:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
How about adding a proper image of the protest under international consequences?
say one with them burning the Danish flag, just to bring the controversy of the whole article to it's full potential. (] 22:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC))
: agreed --] 22:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
:No, that will offend Danish nationalists.</sarcasm> ] - ] - ] 22:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
::exactly my point (] 22:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC))
: ] 22:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and lets at least have some general consensus before someone just smacks in the picture (] 22:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC))


==Edit summaries== ==GA Reassessment==
{{Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/1}}
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. ] 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. ] 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. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:36, 18 September 2024

Skip to table of contents

Notice: Prior discussion has determined that some images of Muhammad are allowed.

Discussion of images, and of edits regarding images, must be posted to the images subpage. Removal of pictures without discussion will be reverted. If you prefer not to see images of Muhammad, you can configure your browser or use your personal Misplaced Pages settings not to display them.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Censorship warningMisplaced Pages is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.
Former good articleJyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 4, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
April 22, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
April 25, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
April 25, 2006Good article nomineeListed
April 26, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
April 28, 2006Good article reassessmentListed
May 10, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
June 15, 2006Good article nomineeListed
June 16, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
June 26, 2006Good article nomineeListed
June 27, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
July 2, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 7, 2006Good article nomineeListed
October 8, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
January 30, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 7, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
May 13, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
October 16, 2013Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 18, 2024Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 30, 2008, September 30, 2009, September 30, 2010, September 30, 2012, September 30, 2015, and September 30, 2017.
Current status: Delisted good article
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconDenmark Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconJournalism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconFreedom of speech Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIslam: Islam and Controversy Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Islam and Controversy task force.
WikiProject iconComics: European Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Misplaced Pages. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by European comics work group.
WikiProject iconReligion Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconInternational relations High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
On 30 May 2013, it was proposed that this article be moved to Muhammad cartoons crisis. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
Muslim Action Committee was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 02 November 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
The contents of the Economic and social consequences of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy page were merged into Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy on 11 November 2012. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Archives
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors
Please divert comments having to do with... ... to the page ...
the timeline of the incidents Talk:Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
international reactions Talk:International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
opinions Talk:Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
any aspect of displaying the cartoon images Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Arguments/Image-Display


Proposal of removing an inappropriate content

Hello, I wish you are fine, guys this article contains some images that are disrespectful for us, Please I really would like you to be comprehensive and delete them Thank you for being comprehensive and kind Sincerely Usernetme (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

See the template at the top of the page, which links to previous discussions of this issue. You can also configure your browser not to show the images.--♦IanMacM♦ 22:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Also read WP:NOTCENSORED. Some1 (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
No. 106.128.97.210 (talk) 05:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Another point of view

As many others have already stated these pictures are not only disrespectful to more than 1.6 billion muslims all over the world, but are also a sign of hatred against all of us. It hurts us a lot, so many of us asked for considiration of our feelings, because the article will still be informative even without the picture and it would be a way to show the cohesion and respect between different nations, beliefs and cultures. And not showing pictures due to respect is something, we do on a daily basis. E. g. if an accident happens and people die, most of the countries in this world would show no pictures of the dead people, because it is very impious. So every culture etc. has something they want to protect or respect. We muslims also want that and with 1.6 billion people worldwide it is also a number of people whos feelings deserve to be heared and respected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:F5:D700:BE6C:D021:83A7:AA42:6314 (talk) 08:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

See the Misplaced Pages is not censored template at the top of this page. Some1 (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I know the rules for censorship. In general, certain content needs to be censored and others can be censored. In particular, the things that can be censored include distasteful content. For 1.6 billion people, these cartoons are beyond distasteful. You also have to distinguish between censorship and simple reporting. The main theme of the article is not conveyed through these images themselves, but through the pain that the mockery causes in us Muslims. The pictures do not have to be shown for this. Just as little as pictures of victims of a massacre have to be shown to show the pain of the relatives. So with all due respect to the right of free speech, freedom of the press and other fundamental rights: Please delete these images from the article, because if the fundamental rights just mentioned can be restricted by acts that are generally considered distasteful, then this should not be an exception because the distaste just affects Muslims. 2003:F5:D700:BE08:ACFD:3B5B:BEFF:B6C (talk) 12:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, but religious beliefs don't get to dictate what happens on Misplaced Pages. Please follow HELP:NOIMAGE for a guide on how to hide images. Some1 (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the answer. I imagined that our beliefs will not be the guideline for the decisions about the content on Misplaced Pages. This is why so many of us just asked for it and not commanded it or anything. We have shared our feelings about this with you and it is up to you to either respect our feelings about this or not. I thank all the none-muslims supporters for their attepmt to help us in this matter. It shows to me what a peaceful world would look like. 2003:F5:D700:BE98:55F5:CF67:1625:ED3A (talk) 11:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Why do even dare to speak for all Muslims by using the collective term "we"?? You speak for your own, with your own mind, point of view and religious beliefs.
Secondly, if Muslims are so scared about showing the image of Muhammad, why is that name the most common surname in the muslim world and male adults are growing their beards such as he allegedly did? Isn`t that some sort of taking an image?
Thirdly, freedom of speech is superior to islamic beliefs. You can build your own islamic state and then forbid such cartoons but wikipedia is a western invention or company and here people can express their points of view. 62.226.91.97 (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
1. I'm pretty sure all muslims would say that a cartoon that disrespects and paints another image to muslims is not freedom of speech
2. We are not scared of showing the prohpets face (pbuh) rather its forbidden, and doing his practices are not taking an image and how is using someones name taking an image??
3.i don't disagree that you can't express your point of view but I don't think what your doing is freedom of speech rather your just disrespecting, but do as you wish
4. You mentioned something about Iraq and Afghanistan having ties with 9/11 which is just wrong, and its been pretty much proven that it was a setup and now people have painted this bad image of Islam
5. And i would like to say neither christians nor muslims would say its "freedom of speech" if someone did the same thing with jesus(pbuh)
6. I highly doubt that people who bought the cartoons in muslim countries, bought it for entertainment or teaching, i think it was too see what was in it Omar mohammed el-prince (talk) 06:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Omar mohammed el-prince, all peace and respect to you and your feelings. But the image on this page is necessary to allow us to understand what the issues are. Nobody is going to find this page by accident and be triggered by images they hadn't expected. On the contrary, anyone reading here is actively wanting to know about these images, and you can't form an opinion of them without seeing them. The image is of such low resolution that there is not much pleasure in looking at it and it can't be used for any other purpose than forming a basic judgment.
You mentioned that Christians would feel the same way if it were their religion being depicted. The point is, though, there are many disrespectful cartoons about Jesus on the internet, but they have little impact and aren't widely distributed, because Christians show their contempt by ignoring them. There will always be trolls who want to provoke you, but it's your choice if you give them success by getting angry and trying to silence them. The majority of people do not want to troll your religion and would not be interested in these cartoons, but the minute you say we are not allowed to see them, we want to see them. You yourself said that some people in Muslim countries bought the cartoons. They would never have heard of this provincial little Danish newspaper if devout Muslims had not brought it to their attention. This is called the Streisand effect. Quite simply, the best way to deny the cartoonists their success is to turn your back and walk quietly away. Doric Loon (talk) 09:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

  • There is a "neutrality disputed" orange banner since 2019. This should be resolved.
  • The lead, at 6 paragraphs, is longer than the recommended length at WP:LEADLENGTH
  • The article relies on a lot of block quotes. I think these can be summaried instead of using these quotes.
  • There is uncited text throughout the article.

Is anyone interested in addressing these concerns, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 05:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a "neutrality disputed" orange banner since 2019 that needs to be resolved. The article also has lots of uncited text and quoted text. Z1720 (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Categories: