This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 216.248.124.210 (talk) at 11:22, 4 February 2006 (Pool 3 (Vote For Just One Cartoon without the Image of Mohammed)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Hank Schouten (February 4, 2006). "What the cartoons were about". The Dominion Post (Wellington).

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 💕.

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.

Now, please, with kindness, start the discussion over?

--Jimbo Wales 00:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Polls - IN PROGRESS

Image Poll

Poll 2 Position of image

Move to body of article with a link directly to the image on the top (Hipocrite's idea)

1. I feel we should move the image down to a lower part of the article to avoid causing offence.--File Éireann 22:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
2. (Cloud02 23:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC))
3. --a.n.o.n.y.m 23:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Best solution to stop the few days of continuous revert wars and offence. The cartoon image will still be there + another link to it's main image page.
4. User:slamdac 23:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Phr 23:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC) The cartoons do not illustrate the controversy about the cartoons. The top picture should be one that shows the controversy. Move the cartoon pic.
6. BYT 23:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC), though I wish the images did not exist, or, failing that, were not publicized. BYT 23:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

   so do i (Cloud02 00:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC))

7. L33th4x0r 00:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Link to the picture. So that Muslims won't see it. But those who want, could.
8. Since the image is percived as offencive to a large body of people (due in my opion more to the ease with wich it lends itself to a racist interpreation rather then because it depits Mohammad), we should present it in a sensitve way. In doing this we are not censoring the image because it is still there.--JK the unwise 10:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Link--Niels Ø 12:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC) (I think the article is better with drawings at top, but if that provokes repeaed deletions, I can live with this silly compromise)

Have picture lower down the article

Why would that counter the alleged blasphemy? Instead of being offended in the lead paragraph, the article will be offensive at various places throughout its length. Poulsen 01:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Warning after the intro, image further on in the page, no link from the top Put a warning after the intro that the pictural material may be offensive to moslim users, have the complete image somewhat lower and after that individual larger images, each with some text. gidonb 22:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
2. As per the Bahá'u'lláh precedent. See the archives of this discussion for more context. --BACbKA 00:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Warning after the intro, image further on in the page, no link from the top This image is extremely offensive to a large part of the world popultation, yet I want to see it. We solve this sort of situation with spoiler warnings in many articles or links to images (see for example autofellatio), by having a warning here would provide a great service to many people. Also note that the picture at the top of the Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime_show_controversy article is not the one showing Jannet Jackson's wardrobe failure and we have no images at child pornography at all. —Ruud 01:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

   As per images of child pornography, see Lolicon. Genuine child porn is illegal in Florida, however, where our servers are hosted. Babajobu 02:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

4. Warning after the intro, image further on in the page, no link from the top I can agree with this. --a.n.o.n.y.m 00:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Warning after the intro, image further on in the page, no link from the top. I would like to ask those below again whether they would advocate the Goatse image being put at the top of Goatse.cx, and if not, why not. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

   Placing the goatse image at the top of that article is possibly obscenity under Florida law (where the servers are hosted). This image is not obscene under that same law. Apples and oranges. MichelleG 22:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC).

6. Place just after the break, with at the top "Note: this page contains images some people (Muslims in particular) may find offensive. A mirror of this page, without images, is at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (no images)" --GeLuxe 03:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Warning or no warning. There is no consensus among other Misplaced Pages articles for us to make it "like all other articles," so in that repsect the decision is arbitrary. But considering the attitudes of those who insist on maintaining the image at the top, all too many show an air of open defiance, which is POV; this is an encyclopedia, not a manifesto, and so long as "top of the article" is associated with "in your face" the stance is tainted IMO. Placing it elsewhere on the page is not censorship: the image still loads in the viewer's browser regardless of where it is placed in the article. Top of the page is pro-secular and pro-Europe, removal is pro-Islam and pro-censorship, the middle of the article is the only tenable neutral ground. Guppy313 08:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
8. Move image to end of article, add warning at top of article that image is to be found there, as per compromise solution in Bahá'u'lláh article. Whilst this image is not offensive to most readers, and we should avoid self-censorship, we should be aware of how just how offensive this image is to observant Muslims, and take care to avoid causing any unnecessary offence to roughly a sixth of the world's population. -- The Anome 10:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Agree with The Anome, and posibly GeLuxe's suggestion of offering a redirect to a pictureless article (as long as that article is stoped from being differnt to this one in any other way).--JK the unwise 11:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
10. Agree with The Anome. Misplaced Pages shouldn't be censored, but we should be sensitive about upsetting people.Veej 17:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
11. I would move the images “below the fold”. It is legitimate to have it on top but the story/article is no longer primarily about the cartoons but rather the boycott/protests/threats of violence. I would have the Saudi boycott note on top for now. --JGGardiner 17:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
12. Move down, as per The Anome. David Sneek 21:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
13. Move below the fold. Since this was my proposal originally, I'll have to vote for it. :) User:Zoe| 23:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
14. Move to body of article per above, more or less. We're not losing any educational content by this and indeed we're gaining the better will of our diverse readership by a little courtesy.--Pharos 00:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
15. Move to the (sub)section "Publication of the drawings". It should be just beside the no-nonsense bulleted annotations, which contain translations of all Danish (and Farsi) text found in the cartoons as well as a bit of context. That way all the material needed to judge the cartoons (and the decision to publish them) on their merits will be in one place. --Bwiki 07:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Have picture at top of article

1. Leave it at the top... it's fine where it is and where it's supposed to be Hellznrg 16:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Leave it at the top. Valtam 22:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Kittynboi 22:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Sol. v. Oranje 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.
5. joturner 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.

   Joturner the image will be linked right at the top. So the image will be shown in the middle and also have a link to the larger wikipedia image page at the top. The user will know.--a.n.o.n.y.m 23:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

6. --Tatty 23:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC) The controversy started with the cartoons, therefore it's logical to start the article with them. Individual, clear images of the more controversial cartoons should be further down as well (copyright permitting).
7. Fredrik Johansson - talk - contribs 23:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
8. —Ruud 23:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Misplaced Pages is not censored and people who are offended by this image will still be offended if it is placed lower down.
9. Jacoplane 23:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
10. Snailwalker | talk 23:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Keep the image at the top
11. the wub "?!" 23:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
12. --Anchoress 23:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
13. The cartoons are the controversy, without the cartoon, the controvery would not exist, so at the top. --KimvdLinde 23:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
14. as per Jotourner, Babajobu 23:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
15. --Tasc 23:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
16. -- Karl Meier 23:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
17. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
18. Why move it? Arkon 23:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
19. Denoir 23:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC) The controversy is based around the cartoons, so they should have a prominent top position.
20. Vanky 23:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
21. --Jbull 23:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Keep it at the top.
22. — Peter L <talk|contribs> 23:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC), per joturner and anonymous editor ("the user will know").
23. --Nathan (Talk) 23:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
24. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 23:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
25. Leave at top. Anything else is censorship. It's as easy as that. Eixo 00:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
26. The article is about the cartoons. For the sake of being informative, keep at the top. Cipher Pipe 00:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
27. The image stays at the top. Passw0rd 00:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
28. Leave at top. In the style of ALL the other wikipedia articles. Wynler 00:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
29. StuffOfInterest 00:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
30. Hitokirishinji 00:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Not everyone is offended and not everyone obeys Muslim law. No special treatment for any one group of people.
31. Zora 01:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC) As above, no special treatment.
32. Thparkth 01:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC) if this was any other image, nobody would want it moved. therefore to move it is to give special treatment.
33. --*drew 01:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
34. --MiraLuka 01:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
35. It should stay at the top. That image is pivotal to the entire story. The.valiant.paladin 01:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
36. Jtkiefer ---- 01:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
37. --Mmmsnouts 02:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Clearly a precedent has been set on wikipedia with Piss Christ, Anti-Semitism, and blackface. I would be against special treatment for certain groups because they are complain more, more loudly, or more violently.
38. Titanium Dragon 02:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Leave it at the top, where it belongs. We shouldn't self-censor, and frankly, if people are really that disturbed, they should learn how to turn off images on their web browser, as Misplaced Pages will contain such things. As an aside, why are certain religious leaders' portraits not at the top of their articles? There are a couple, and honestly, they should be formatted the way everyone else's biography is. Titanium Dragon 02:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
39. Jdcooper 03:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
40. Fufthmin 04:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
41. Lankiveil 04:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC). This article is about the images, it'd be silly to have the image anywhere but at the top.
42. Tbeatty 05:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Article is about the images. Put it at the top and let the reader decide before he has to read the editors 'filter'/
43. Leave it where it is. Would the image of central importance on any other article be placed anywhere else than at the top-right? Of course not, and this article should not pander itself to those trying to force their religious beliefs on the general style and format of a wiki article. AscendedAnathema 05:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
44. Leave it where it is. The picture is relevant to the article. We DO NOT ever censor articles to keep someone from being offended.--God of War 05:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
45. AlEX 08:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC) There is no reason not to have it at the top, if the muslims themselves go on tour to show the cartoons, why should wikipedia hide them? Again, this article revolves around the image, and therefore the image should have a prominent position...
46. Kaveh 08:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
47. It is fine just like it is now. -- Trollkontroll 08:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
48. The article is about the cartoons. They need to be shown at the top to provide context.Philmurray 09:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
49. WookMuff I know that a lot of us seem to be "getting our backs up", wanting the pics to be there just because "they" don't want them to be. But this article IS about the cartoon's and the controversy they have caused
50. Keep it on top. Pyro19 09:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
51. Should be on top. Aris Katsaris
52. Article is about the cartoons, they should be on top. Maprieto 12:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
53. Top right AdamSmithee 12:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
54. How many polls must we go through? Until Resid and Rajab get their way? Or is it a best out of three... or five... or seven... or... Discus2000 13:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
55. Stays on Top For crying out loud, the article is about the pictures. They belong immediately up top, as any infobox would be as well. Avi 15:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
56. The article is about the drawings. jni 15:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
57. For obvious reasons. (Entheta 15:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC))
58. This is the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons' controversy page. Anyone navigating here should expect to see the images. Moreover, "hiding" the images out of "respect" shows a misunderstanding of the objection to them. "Hiding" still means showing them, which means Misplaced Pages would still violate the "law" against showing pictures of Mumhammed.
59. Keep on Top, for some many reasons already listed above. Skleinjung 16:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
60. Keep on top for obvious reasons and per Misplaced Pages is not censored for the protection of Muslims: "Misplaced Pages may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive." Peyna 16:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

    • In response to comments above, how do those voting to hide the picture feel we should deel with Piss Christ, which contains a highly offensive image at the top of the article. Bear in mind that there are about 8 million more Christians than Muslims in the world. If we're going to worry about offending people, we had better worry about everyone we offend and not just a small group. Facts can be offensive, but so long as they are presented following WP:NPOV we should have nothing to worry about. Peyna 17:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

      Because, as we have seen in the past few days, for every article you name in which the relavent picture is shown at the top of the page, I can name one where it isn't (e. g. Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy). There is no "like all the other articles," the only guideline we have is that placement is arbitrary. Now, there is a difference between offending and deliberately seeking to cause offense, and too many editors want to keep it at the top in order to "shove it in their faces." If the decision of where to put the picture is arbitrary, what does it say about our POV when we arbitrarily decide to keep it in the place that obviously causes the most offense? Guppy313 19:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

      To be honest Guppy, I haven't seen in the past few days how you have "tit for tat" shown an article with no picture at the top. But even if you have, I vote to keep the picture and the top and moreover, move pictures to the top of articles that have hidden pictures "below the fold". If I click on the Super Bowl Controversy link, I expect to see the moment that caused the controversy. Hitokirishinji 19:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

      So you would go so far as to alter potentially dozens of otherwise unrelated articles on Misplaced Pages solely to justify keeping the picture at the top? How is that not POV? I would call that an agenda.

      Forget it, I have more satisfying brick walls to bash my head against. I wash my hands of this affair. Guppy313 20:07, 3 February 2006 (UT

    I would call that an assumption. It is not "justifying keeping the picture at the top" as you would call it. It is justifying NOT making any concessions regardless of whether pictures and I mean ALL pictures are offensive or not. I do not see wikipedia, as I have said earlier, as a platform to placate groups who should find such images offensive. The day wikipedia gives into one groups demands is the day we fail in our philosophy. Free information without bias and concessions. If we are to apply special consideration for one group, we are to do it with ALL groups Regardless if these groups may be religious, ethnic, racial or even simply social. So if you truely believe that this image should be "linked out" or "go below the fold" then I propose we do the same for all potentially offensive images. Anyways, I hope you use soap, bacteria are quite tenacious creatures. Hitokirishinji 21:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

61. Keep on top for reasons described above --Donar Reiskoffer 16:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
62. — Dan | talk 16:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
63. Keep on top for all the reasons already said. Utopianheaven 16:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
64. Keep at top, it's what the article is about after all.--Lewk_of_Serthic 16:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
65. Keep at top. I agree with Mmmsnouts, precedents have been set. Mess with this and what's next? If this article gets changed to pander to islamic beliefs, but other articles go unchanged, it would be an unfair bias imvho. Cal 18:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
66. This is what we do with all other articles. I see no valid reason to do otherwise here. Rama 17:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
67. BMF81 19:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
68. Keep at top. Gérard 20:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
69. Keep Astrotrain 20:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
70. Keep —Aiden 21:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
71. Leave it at the top. That's where it needs to be to establish illustrative context for the rest of the article. Remember, Misplaced Pages is not censored and we shouldn't care if people choose to be offended by cartoons fer chrissakes. --Cyde Weys 21:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
72. Leave at the top since it is what the article is about. We should not censor it or "soften it up".--Kalsermar 22:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
73. Leave the image at the top. Misplaced Pages's goal is to make the sum of human knowledge easily available. Putting the image anywhere but at the top is against that single, noble goal. The image may offend some people, and that is unfortunate, but it's placement there is not pointless, is not intended as an insult to Moslems, and helps the article. If a few Moslems choose to take it as an insult, that is unfortunate, but I think I'll be able to sleep at night. MichelleG 22:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC).
74. Keep at top - Puts the entire subject into perspective. Paulb42 23:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
75. keep at the top the image is the entire point of the article, it should come first. DES 23:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
76. Keep at top per Peyna. --Aaron 23:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
77. Keep at top - as per Peyna --Bletch 00:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
78. Keep at top for the reasons already said. Kaldari 03:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
79. Keep at top Timrollpickering 03:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
80. Keep at top just where it should be. Argyrios 03:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
81. Keep at top. It IS the context of the article. Peace. Metta Bubble 06:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
82. Keep at top. That's what the article is about. Weregerbil 11:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't care

1. Whatever makes edit warring stop. I prefer the top but do not care enough to vote. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
2. I second that, but I still voted for keeping the picture at the top as well. joturner 23:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Someone here said that simply moving down the pictures stopped the deletions. I don't mind, as long as the pictures are there somewhere. If it stops the deletion wars, then why not?
4. As long as the pictures are in the article, and are in an appropriate part of the article. That can be the top, that can be in the "Publication of the drawings" section, that can be in another section, as long as it is directly related to the drawings (so not in the section about boycotts for instance, where the image of the notice is appropriate). Aecis 12:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
5. I agree with the previous person, either at top or at a relevant section, as long as its not hidden in a hyperlink or down at the bottom or something. Homestarmy 14:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
6. I don`t care where that particular image is placed, but it is my belief that at least ONE image should be placed atop, whether that be the grocery store image or a protest image. User:Αchille
7. We are here to distribute information. It is that simple. The nature of the picture's content does not have any relevance in determining the placement of the picture. If it does- then we have a POV-slanted problem. Follow the Manual of Style. Last time I checked, we have been doing exactly that for years without many problems. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 11:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment

1. I fail to see what moving the image further down the article will accomplish. Won't a moval mean that a person taking offence by the images will then necessarily have to skip the part with the image in it anyway? Poulsen 23:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Mirror at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (no images) with link from top, and have image below fold. --GeLuxe 03:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
3. I'm in favour of GeLuxe's idea. There are spoiler warnings for those who want to read about books or films without being spoiled, and it's a similar situation here. Having a warning would be courteous. Shen 10:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Everything Else

Poll 1 Comments

i think image should not be placed no matter what.There are all other sites available and by now most pople would have seen it on other sites.The concept of Bahaullah image doesnt work here.Placing teh image here certainly means that wikipedia is taking sides....Shame on all those who started this controversial war in Denmark.....Naeem Qasai

No, shame on those who turned the publishing of a cartoon into a controversial war. Skleinjung 16:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

/incivility removed/

Knock it off, although I don't agree with him either, you can be more mature about it.--Lewk_of_Serthic 16:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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. Septentrionalis 20:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Ideally, this would be handled through an RfC. 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. --StuffOfInterest 20:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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) Sol. v. Oranje 20:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Babajobu 20:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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.Homestarmy 20:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the outcome of this poll, it should only be used to point out consensus. Remember that Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. This should be treated as a straw poll. Jacoplane 20:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the neutral position is not to vote. Babajobu 20:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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. Tempshill

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. Babajobu 20:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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. Tempshill 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. Septentrionalis 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. Babajobu 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. 71.141.251.153 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. Skleinjung 21:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• On Bahá'u'lláh, 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? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, by clicking on a link, if needed. 71.141.251.153 21:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, but Bahá'u'lláh 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. AlEX 21:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

When did the poll become three categories?Valtam 21:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It's four now

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 "DBD". 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". #71.141.251.153 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. Babajobu 21:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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. Sol. v. Oranje 21:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment In my opinion it is against the principles of Misplaced Pages to delete an image that is fundamentally important to an article, therefore the vote that demands the deletion of the image does not make sense, IMO. -- Trollkontroll 08:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

users and contributions

I do not judge anyone. Just something I noticed. Strange things happen when such polls take place, users just jump in polling, some where never here, some were away for over a year, and some just happened to...

1. Maverick 19:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
   Contributions/Azmaverick623!!!!!
2. User:slamdac 20.01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
   Contributions/Slamdac
3. Sol. v. Oranje 20:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
   Contributions/Soldaatvanoranje
4. Valtam 20:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
   Contributions/Valtam
5. Discus2000 20:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
   Contributions/Discus2000
6. Neim 20:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
   Contributions/Neim
7. AlEX 20:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
   Contributions/Al3xander
8. --Ridethecurve 20:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
   Contributions/Ridethecurve

And there are much more. --Tarawneh 23:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what exactly are you accusing me of? Sol. v. Oranje 23:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Yeah, what is this supposed to mean? What did you notice, Tarawneh? Valtam 23:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not accusing any one. I just noticed that some people just appeared after long vacations. Others just signed just for the sake of this talk page? Is that wrong?????? Or are people offended when some one notices something about the poll? It is only talk, how can it heart any one; after all this is what we are here to talk about!!! --Tarawneh 23:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It's true...we noticed that hordes of IPs showed up to remove the image multiple times, so it's okay for him to notice that a few editors haven't been editing much recently. What conclusions he draws from that, I haven't a clue. Babajobu 23:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not "wrong" but it is kind of rude to assume that these users, including myself, are just "mysteriously" appearing in this discussion page. So what if some of us aren't on Misplaced Pages every day? I've been using Wiki on and off for two years now and don't need to edit articles every day to make my opinions heard on this article or the cartoons. I can't speak for the inspiration of the other users, but please keep in mind that randomly accusing people of suspicious behavior is not exactly kind and welcoming Sol. v. Oranje 23:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand, why do you insist on making this personal? I am not accusing you. It is only your POV regarding my words. Will, it seems that both of us agree that some actions could be miss judged as rode, or aren’t we?--Tarawneh 23:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Considering you were the one who brought up these suspicions about the above list of users, the onus is on you to back up your claims with evidence and an assertment of what we've done wrong (other than to note that most of the users above support using the image of the cartoons in the article). Sol. v. Oranje 00:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Mr Soldaatvanoranje, permit me to ask you how can you know what Mr Tarawneh assumed or think ??? and permit me also to say that i dont see any accustions in the words of Mr. Tarawneh .Just a little suggestion or proposal: make a user check and the onus will be on no one. مبتدئ 00:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

All I know of Tarawneh is that he listed my name under the vague accusation that somehow I have done something "strange" -- how am I supposed to respond to that, silence? Sol. v. Oranje 01:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Um Tarawneh, dude, you should know that earlier this afternoon an editor added this talk page to the RfC list, so undoubtedly there are people who watch that list who came to this page specifically to respond to the request of the editor who added it.--Anchoress 04:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I've used Misplaced Pages for years, but neither edited nor registered. Why did I register? Because I think this is one of the pivotal issues of our time. Specifically, what how does the right to express oneself intersect with the myriad religious laws to the contrary? Secondarily, how does the right to express oneself intersect with the need for restraint in the name of civility? Perhaps, Tarawneh, we (the long-lost and the newbies), are simply guilty of caring?--Snorklefish 20:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well to everyone new and old let me just say welcome to Misplaced Pages, the 💕 that anyone can edit. --JGGardiner 23:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not have the drawings at near full size spread, in a relevant way, evenly across the whole article? Let's say we start with The Schoolboy (not a prophet) who writes in persian that JPs redacteurs are a bunch of reactionare provocatist. A joke origininally aimed at the newspaper itself for posing the question in a stupid way. Second, the drawing of the frightened cartoonist (which is what initiated this debate!). Third perhaps the beutyful one depicting The Prophet in the desert? The Bomb will have to go somewhere too .. Perhaps somewhere in the timeline along with all the current bomb threats?

You get my drift? MX44 23:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I only sign in when i'm at home. When i've been at work i've doing it anon User:slamdac

Translation

"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"

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? Septentrionalis 20:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"knald i låget" means "To have a tile loose", "kuk i låget" would be translated similarly--Discus2000 20:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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" --Lassefolkersen 20:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"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--Discus2000 20:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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. Twthmoses 21:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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.--Anchoress 21:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not understood what this translation has to do with the Topic (the republishing of pictures) but as someone who speaks arabic i can say that the translation of the word islam to terror is not true. Dont you feel some shame of saying something so descreminating and intolerant like that? do you know that it s even in contradiction with law and may lead to juridic consequences? and the most important it decridit you as a serious discussion partner!! I have a little challenge for you: try to find a poem written by muslim that insult jesus. If you dont find think about it why you did not found مبتدئ 01:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The unsigned comment (about Islam = Terror) was someone who was trolling and is not taken to be accurate by the users here at large. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you are all missing the point. Dumb rhymes with thumb. It's artistic leeway. So long as thumb is accurate, it would seem that dumb has to work for the rhyme scheme. Obviously if it is, as some user suggested, "yoke", perhaps something that rhymes with that instead? (bloke?) Swatjester 09:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Isnt it more important to have an accurate translation than having something that rhymes?

Probably, but does anyone know where the translation "daft and dumb..etc." actually comes from? I have seen it a couple of times already. So maybe it should be the one "accepted" in the english media that is shown here. --KingCarrot 21:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don’t know where the daft and dumb comes from. This is the word for word translation; maybe some English poets can wrap it up to sound poetic? - "Profet! Med kuk og knald i låget som holder kvinder under åget! ".

The phrase describes a person with a screw lose / mental unstable / crazy / daft / a tile lose. The actual word for word is, tho the meaning will be lost: "kuk og knald i låget " Twthmoses 00:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

A Usual Europian Hypocricy: Can you say, for example, 'Holocost was a propaganda' in your countries? Where is your freedon of speech? Jews were killed or not, that is a different story. My point is what the Europians are doing is nothing but a two-facedness!

I propose not to have the cartoons in the article untill the pool is ended.

I propose to keep the cartoons in the article until the 'pool' is ended. Valtam 06:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I also propose you sign your posts - I'm responding to this heading; I didn't create it...Valtam 06:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The answer for the (non-European) country in which Misplaced Pages is hosted is "yes." But that also is moot: Misplaced Pages is not the place for "your point" (or the points of any editor, for that matter). Please save these points of yours for a different website. Guppy313 06:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not here? We cannot let an insult appear in a Wiki article. It is completely clear... --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.248.124.126 (talk • contribs)

As noted above, other fairly offensive yet encyclopedic articles exist on Misplaced Pages, see Piss Christ, Blackface, etc. Issues that are offensive should be treated with respect and tact, and that can be done while still keeping these images. --Interiot 06:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The holocaust is backed up by gruwsome FACTS, the cartoons are an opinion. I have no issue with the same in regard to Christain, jewish or whatever deity or prophet --KimvdLinde 07:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If you are interested in matters of Freedom of speech in Europe, you can create an article about it. But you would have to stick to the facts, if you do. -- 129.13.186.1 08:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You may deny Holocaust in Denmark. It is against the law in Germany and Austria (France?) because of their part in WW2 but not in Denmark Slup.

Holocaust denial is also against the law in Belgium. In the Netherlands, it is illegal by jurisprudence, but not yet by legislation (a bill to that end is currently going through parliament). Aecis 14:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

IMO if we do have this Freedom of speech that so many people are arguing about then Holocaust denial should also be legal and not punished as racism. --a.n.o.n.y.m 15:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, perhaps not, but that's not relevant to the article, so let's not go into it here and now. Aecis 15:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's not relevant to the article. Just making sure that the people here realize that there are two same situations. --a.n.o.n.y.m 15:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You ask if I can you say, for example, that the "Holocost" was propaganda?.... Yes I can. I can say lots of nasty, hateful things. I can say the Holocaust is a hoax, all Europeans are Nazis, Women are genetically inferior, Men are the sole reason for war, China is the yellow scourge, Africans have large penises and small IQ's, and Eskimos are born with fur... I can say all of that without legal consequence. I don't believe any of it, and I'm offended even seeing it, but I have the legal right to say it.--Snorklefish 16:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Europe in general don't have U.S. style freedome of speech so yep, accusation of hypocracy is well deserved. Misplaced Pages on the other hand is not Europe and thanks God for that. FWBOarticle

I think you're overgeneralizing a bit now. First of all, you have to keep the difference between de jure and de facto freedom of speech in mind (the specific application of those two types of freedom of speech in Europe and the US is another issue). Secondly, I think it's incorrect to use one label for all European countries. Poland is not Spain, and Italy is not Norway, to name but four countries. But please, we're digressing. Aecis 16:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

What you are doing is another form of hypocricy. It is the main issue here! These cartoons are in fact an insult. An insult cannot be considered as 'freedom of speech'. In fact, the point is: you do not have 'freedom of speech' in your (Europian) countries. A scientist, Roger Groudy was charged for saying that there was no Holocost! And the bottom line is this: When it comes to Jews, you cannot even speek. But for Muslims, you are insulting their beloved Prophet for the sake of freedom of speech! That is exactly what insincerity, two facedness, and a true hypocricy is! 216.248.122.218 19:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That reply was about as non-sequitur as it can get... Aecis 19:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Answer my question! Do not you have an answer for it? Be honest!

I honestly don't know if I've got an answer. I don't even think about responding to such ludicrous allegations. I'm sorry. Aecis 20:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

In the U.S., of course you can deny the holocaust, or publish books or magazines saying the holocaust never happened. The IP has no clue what he's talking about. Free speech equals free speech. Babajobu 20:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Which is why the IP calls it the "European" hypocrisy and not the American. In many countries in Europe you are not allowed to openly deny the holocaust or make the swastika. --a.n.o.n.y.m 23:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I can perfectly say that I dislike jews, or that they stink or whatever, but I can not deny FACTS. KimvdLinde 19:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That is the whole point. I might think that your facts are not strong enough. I should be able to say it. Where? Not in Europe. Can one insult Muslim Prophet, Oh yeah...

I myself believe also that some of the Jews were killed. But what I am pointing out is different here. I hope you can see it! 216.248.122.218 19:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you make a false comparision. My argument if that you can not compare the denial of the holocaust (as the facts are overwelhming) with a personal opinion of a person. So, I can equally voice my opinion about god and allah (or prohets for that matter). So, is there in any western european county a law that forbids making cartoons about god and allows it about allah? KimvdLinde 19:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You are trying to change the course of discussion. It is about freedom of speech, not about some stupid laws!... 128.255.45.117 20:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If the facts are overwhelming, then there is no need for it. You might say a lack of evidence for god existence is overwhelming. But in Europe, you are not punished for being a Christian or an atheist. In fact, whether fact is overwhelming is irrelevant. Should people beig put to jail for practicing homeopathy? The main point is that these restriction is entirely "political". Then there is no reason, at least in Denmark or other European countries, to take "political" decision to legistrate anti blasphamy law for all religions. That is why the current state of law in many European countries are damb. I also hope that those offended by photos realised that this doesn't apply in wikipedia. Nigger is insult and offensive to people of african decent. But it would be damb to ban use of the word nigger or substitute it with "N word" in the page about the word nigger. FWBOarticle

(I think that this post was accidentally deleted earlier) Denmark in particular has allowed Holocaust-deniers free-speech. In Feb. 2004, David Irving gave several addresses there. --JGGardiner 19:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Many of you are missing his point. He says holocaust denail is illegal, so insulting muslims should be, however, holocaust denial IS in this encyclopedia, so insulting muslims should be. There is also an article about the antisemetic conspiracy theory, islamophobia, flying spaghetti monsterism, and the counterstrike mod for half-life. There is no discrimination, this is not a christian european encyclopedia and neither is it an islamic mid-eastern one. 146.163.218.221 02:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Examples of "Freedom of Speech and Hate Speech" section should be revived

I think the section should be revived. European do not adhere to freedom of speech seen in America so accusation of hypocracy is at least a valid topic of discussion. Secondly, given the section of "Islam and blasphamy", counter example of other religion or culture or political ideology is not only relevant but also fair to muslim. FWBOarticle

Um, care to elaborate? AFIK the media in Europe is far less prone to auto-censorship than its Americans counterpart. It's not a coincidence that these cartoons have been published all over Europe by mainstream media while their US counterparts have not. Also, things like nudity and sex are much more censored in US media. In legal terms, both the US and the European countries have two basic legal restrictions on free speech: libel and incitement to riot. The US has criminal libel, while the EU countries do not (although a private person can sue another private person for libel). The "incitement to riot" or "hate speech" restriction exists in both systems. Mind you though that the common European document is the ECHR, so the more elaborate wording of freedom of speech laws fall on the individual countries. --Denoir 08:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

For example, in u.k. calling someone "nigger" would violate incitement of racial hatered legistration while calling someone "mohhamed freak" is legally kosher. There is an legistrative attempt to include faith hate speech, which failed just two days ago. This was listed in the section. Secondly, many countries in Europe, Holocaust denial is a criminal offence, example of which I listed in regard to David Irving, a known holocaust denier, who is currently in jail. Let just remember that, for muslim, Islam is patently true. I also listed legitrative attempt in u.s. to make flag burning a criminal offense. All these examples were wiped with section deletion on the basis that it has nothing to do with "Islam". I believe large part of criticism coming from islamic world is partially based on hypocracy of the West (Europe). So the section actually touch the core of the controversy. FWBOarticle

It is true that 7 of the 25 EU countries have holocaust denial listed as a crime, but it is a minorty. So speaking of it as a "European" policy is probably not correct. Plus, as things look now, those laws will probably be consolidated under a common framework - which won't have those restrictions. In any case, Denmark that was the origin of this controversy, does not have these restrictions. Further more, your example of UK law isn't correct. Calling somebody a "nigger" or a "mohammed freak" or a "frog" or whatever is not considered incitement of racial hatred. It's not even if you say "All limeys are worthless bastards". For it to qualify as incitement, you need to do it in a indiscriminately public medium, and you have to call for some action. So if you have a radio show and you say "All limeys are rotten thieves and bastards. Let's kick them out of Europe!", it would qualify as incitement on the condition that the intent of the message was really to incite hate against a race. As you can imagine, these things are extremely difficult to prove and categorize - and that's why very few people get charged and conviceted for such crimes. What these laws seem to be for is to keep some of the top nazis off the streets.

The point is that in any system you have some form of restrictions on free speech. You can't for instance divulge classified information, or falesly yell "fire" in a crowd. That doesn't mean it is hypocritical to stand firm om free speech in other areas. --Denoir 11:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You are so wrong about the state of freedom of speech in u.k. here,here and here. Yes, in some case, you can't even say "grass". And in Denmark, the actually do have brashpamy and anti racist law. It just that they insist the photo doesn't fit the legal definition. So yes, many European countries are hypocratical. I'm personally on freedom of speech side, precisely because the law is so inconsistent. FWBOarticle

Well, I admit that the UK in recent years has had a tendency to implement some very questionable laws (questionable from a civil rights point of view). It is however too soon to tell the end result of it as they haven't been chewed by the ECJ and in some cases the EP. Both those institutions lean heavily towards freedom of speech (and civil liberties in general). It is a bit difficult to generalize on the European level, and will continue to be so until those laws are harmonized on Union level. And beside the laws, the actual implementation of them differs widely. For instance here in Sweden we have fairly strict "hate speech" laws but convictions are extremely rare. After the introduction of the laws, the supreme court squashed every single case as it violated the ECHR. The latest case was the gay-bashing pastor Åke Green who was sentenced to a month of prison for a hate speech, but was acquitted by the supreme court. So they do try now and then, but at least here the supreme court seems to deal with it directly, rather than wait for it to be settled on EU level. Ultimately, there's little legal ground for banning hate speech in any EU country, it's just that the ECJ is slow and the local national governments do their best to make questionable interpretations of the ECHR. I fully agree with you that the patchwork of laws in this area is quite inconsistent, but I would not say that it is hypocritical. There are always limits to free speech. In the US you can say that the president is an idiot, but you can't say that you want to kill him. Is it hypocritical to agree that threats against his life should be illegal while at the same time campaigning for the right to call him an idiot? --Denoir 21:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Threat of (credible) bodily harm is a felony. Child porn is a consequence of rape. Clasified information has serious consequence to national security. Trade secret is a part of intellectual patent which has immediate financial consequence. This doesn't apply to hate speech, holocaust denial, and blasphamy. Plus, without ratification of European Constitution, ECJ remains merely advisory status to each state court. Plus it is unrealistic to expect EU to overturn politically entrenched law in each members state. EU isn't sovereing institution though some pretend it to be. Plus, when EU do something stupid (such as common agricultural policy), it is near impossible to overturn it because it is so undemocratic. Idea that Brits and Romanian should be forced on the basis of the EU "consensus" is just stupid. FWBOarticle

I'd say that free speech is free speech regardless if you are Romanian or British. But you are right, why should we have common laws for Romania and Britain, or for England and Wales or for Nottinghamshire and Essex, or for Bob and Pete? That's clearly stupid. Anyway, the ECJ does not have advisory status - it's rulings are binding to the national courts. And in the case of free speech the rules are in the ECHR, specifically Article 10:

Article 10, Freedom of expression

 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. 
 This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart
 information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless 
 of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing 
 of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 

 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and
 responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or
 penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, 
 in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, 
 for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, 
 for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the
 disclosure of information received in confidence,
 or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. 

Bottom line on this is the national governments are getting away with it because the member states are always stalling. Usually when the ECJ comes with a ruling, the government of the member state twist the ruling and interpret it the way they like it to. And then it goes back and forth with the ECJ saying that they're doing it wrong and the national governments (or courts) finding new ways of misinterpreting rulings. Ultimately however, it's just stalling. It's just a question of time before the hate speech laws in EU states are history, because as every lawyer will tell you, they are a violation of the ECHR. --Denoir 02:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The thing of it is, im in America, and I think the reason these cartoons haven't been published as nobody really cares much. I told my class about this situation and no one had ever heard about it, so I guess it's just on the other side of the world to us for now :/. I've never even seen an article about this in the newspapers yet. Homestarmy 14:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

linked to from the front page of CNN. Note the last line CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons out of respect for Islam. --Denoir 21:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Archive 4

I have just shaved 35k of the page by archiving all the discussions that didn't have a recent timestamp (recent defined as today — the amount of discussion here is impressive). The way I did (archiving section-by-section) can be annoying to some (section numbers shifting causing edit conflicts, spamming the recent changes); I'm sorry for the annoyance. A side-effect of the method is that it causes an irritant amount of whitespace where the removed sections were; if someone wants to fix it, feel free to (I think I have already abused enough of everyone's patience on this page for today). --cesarb 15:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's a great idea. Makes it more like a forum (which is really what talk pages should be like)

In fact, it's the way it's done on the administrator's noticeboard. The difference is that it's done there via a bot, which archives everything in a single move, and is much faster than me doing it by hand. --cesarb 15:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps someone could archive part of this again. The page is so huge that when I try to edit my computer starts to lag! Perhaps the polls could be moved to a separate page? (Entheta 18:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC))

Unfortunately, too many of the sections have been edited recently, and it's bad to archive recently edited sections. Archiving after 12 hours is already a stretch. However, I'm planning on making another archive around midnight GMT, if enough sections are already mature. --cesarb 21:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

And now for a comedic break

Because some of you REALLY need it.

STOP! Hammertime!

You may now begin your regularly scheduled e-crusades and e-jihads against each other. Swatjester 16:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Yes I knwo this article is big. This is only what, 5 lines or so? It's not doing any harm, and may help calm someone down. Swatjester 16:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems to have worked... Here's some other things to do instead!

Template:Lighten up

Yo Danish speakers

The America television media has ignored this story. So American readers are counting on one of you to upload an audio pronunciation.

Lotsofissues 19:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do we need audio? I think that audio productions of things can only be done to featured articles, I tried self-nominating this to good article status a day or 2 ago I think, but nothing came of it so far, apparently nobody has looked at it :/. Homestarmy 20:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Drats! I left out whole sentences in my request. I would like to hear the newspaper and original complainer pronounced. Lotsofissues 23:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The Newspaper - , whats the name you want? Cacophobia (Talk) 10:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Dude, i hate to point this out but i think even if the american media were interested in the story you would still need proper pronunciation guides ;) WookMuff 05:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Picture Size

We seem to have a revert war brewing about the proper size of the image at the top of the article. It has been changed back and forth between "250px" and "thumb" several times now. I believe the size has been 250px for most of the past 12 hours (when I've been watching). Please comment here if you have issues with the picture size; let's resolve this by consensus. NoSeptember 18:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

My vote is that the image is far too small to be useful. Valtam 18:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

In this particular instance, "thumb" is obviously too small. 81.153.100.14 18:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

All the other images on the page have not been changed in their pixel size, and simply use the "thumb", which is why all the images brought should be kept as 'thumb'. Too small to be useful?! It's on the page, and it's really not hard to click on it, if you want it enlarged. (Cloud02 18:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC))

An image link is also easily clickable, but that option is clearly not the choice of the image poll at the top of this page. I think we need a better reason to have a tiny image. NoSeptember 18:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The matter discussed in polls was whether to keep them or not. Not the size of the images. All i'm saying is that if the rest are thumbs, so should this one be (Cloud02 19:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC))

That is why we are discussing it here. So far most editors seem to prefer the larger image. NoSeptember 19:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I vote for the larger (and more legible) version GraphicArtist just put up. Valtam 19:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

in favour for 250 version KimvdLinde 19:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I belive it should be 250px, because it's a picture of a large newspaper page and is barely visible even at 250. Asdfwtf 19:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

So we've agreed that the picture should stay. Lets not have an edit war about it's size. Were bigger than that. Why can't we just have the thumbnail and if people want to see the full size picture then they can do so. Otherwise it's just taking the piss. User:slamdac19:57, 3 February 2006

I agree wholeheartedly with this, in hindsight. As long as there is a thumbnail of the picture i am happy... if people want to click on said thumbnail to get the larger version, so be it, but i think the option should as least be represented with a thumbnail. WookMuff 05:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

= Using 'taking the piss' about Mohammed might not help the discussion. Valtam 20:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

do you understand the phrase? WookMuff 05:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It just seems to me that the only reason for having the big picture up is to incite the people who don't want the picture up User:slamdac20.07, 3 February 2006

I think it should be a full-size picture, not to 'take the piss', but because, although I've been an editor for a few months, I didn't know you could click on pics to see larger versions until today. As has been pointed out numerous times, there may be many new WP viewers coming to this article from the main page, and IMO we shouldn't assume that they will know to click to view a more legible size of the picture.--Anchoress 20:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The first I ever heard of the 'click-to-see-larger-version' option was when Cloud02 mentioned it at 18:51 above... It wasn't intutitive to me, for some reason... Valtam 20:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

250 pixels if there is a link to larger images, bigger if there is no link. No thumb. Babajobu 20:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

English WIkipedia = Judeo-Christian Forum

I was thinking that we are acting under the universal laws: objectivity, no insult, being verifiable, etc. I realized from the discussion here and from the pool that, the majority of editors here are on one side of the dispute; not on the side of Muslim view, I should add.

If even one person is saying that the cartoons are an insult to my belief, I believe the editors should change it or look for a comprimise. In this case it is about billions of people.

I lost great deal of my trust to the philosophy of Misplaced Pages, and I am totally dissapointed. 128.255.45.117 20:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I lost a great deal of my trust in readers like you. I am NEITHER JEWISH nor CHRISTIAN. Some of us do not associate with either religions and I still fight for free speech and freedom of information without bias. I find your comment very offensive but I will not ask you to remove it simply because offensive comments need to be seen so that others may understand how people truely biased people can act. Hitokirishinji 21:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, will be disappointed and lose a great deal trust in Misplaced Pages, if the images are removed. That is our dilemma in this case. English WIkipedia = Muslim Forum, that also would not be fair either, right? Twthmoses 20:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

And do you think the arabic language version of this isn't skewed the other way? Swatjester 20:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Exacty AlEX

I think readers of Piss Christ would be surprised to learn that we have a Christian bias. Their concerns didn't get nearly the respect that Muslim concerns have gotten. Muslim concerns in this instance have gotten more consideration than those of any other community ever in Misplaced Pages, and still the IP shouts about racism and Islamophobia. Tiresome. Babajobu 20:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

replying to Swatjester ... we do our best in arabic Misplaced Pages to keep neutral and represents the two viewpoints --Unfinishedchaos 21:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I would love to read a translation of the Arabic version for this article. It would likely provide some good first person insight into how people in the Middle-East feel about the situation. --StuffOfInterest 21:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

there are a ton of stuff on wikipedia that I take offense of....Or rather, I would take offence of if I saw it anywhere else than on wikipedia.The.valiant.paladin 21:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should use the rules allowed in court? Is the evidence wholly prejudicial or does it serve some value? BlueGoose 21:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This is funny, in a sad sort of way. For the last couple of weeks I've been listening to some Christians complain that Misplaced Pages is controlled by Atheists. It seems that many groups want to believe that there is massive bias against them unless they control all of the levers. Sorry, Misplaced Pages doesn't work that way. --StuffOfInterest 21:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Your are totally wrong! There is a bias here in English Misplaced Pages, and lack of empathy... An idea can be proposed without insulting people. Here it is not the case...

I would like the simple minded people see this: This kind of discussion cannot bring any benefit to anyone. It works well for terrorists. They already started to take anvantage of it. Eveybody should behave responsibly, for not driving the world to a caos. That is our lives, and we all responsible for it. Do not be a figure used in a large plan...

Who exactly are the 'simple minded people'? Valtam 23:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the ensiklopedia:

It is surprising that some people insist on not to understand the cristal clear, valid arguments. Let me summerize it for you:

• An ensiklopedia cannot include an insult in an article by just claiming 'freedom of speeach'. What is hard to understand in this statement?

Why not? Valtam 23:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• It is clear from the Europian standards (as is discussed above) that they in fact do not have good standards in terms of 'freedom of scpeech'. They cannot deny 'Holocost' but they are insulting Islam's Prophet. That is hypocrisy! Insincerity! Two-facedness!

• By including an insult in an article like this, you are actually breaking the rules of Misplaced Pages and ignoring common sense! 128.255.45.117 22:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If common sense says we should not show these totally not evil pictures, then I say common sense must be highly over-rated. Homestarmy 22:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Other comparable incidents section

I think a lot of the material in this section is not needed in this article and could perhaps be covered in some other article such as Blasphemy or something along those lines. It adds a lot to this article that is only loosely related to the subject of the article. Peyna 21:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking something like that too. I think most of the subsections of "Comparable incidents" could be made into separate articles. (Entheta 22:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC))

Agreed. There it a lot of material in that section that, IMO, is only remotly related to this incidend AlEX 22:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I moved the section "Freedom of speech versus blasphemy" to a separate article, Freedom of speech versus blasphemy. If that was wrong, just revert. (Entheta 22:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC))

Indeed. The Flynt, Pamuk, and Irving cases don't have any obvious similarity to this one that I can see - apart from being high profile freedom of speech issues. -- Danny Yee 22:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I also cut out the "Controversial newspaper caricatures" section and made that into a separate article. I think it's interesting enough to qualify to get its own article, but takes up too much space as off-topic in this article. (Entheta 01:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC))

It seems like I moved those sections, the footnotes didn't go along with the move, so those articles are now "Unreferenced". Anyone know how to fix that? (Entheta 01:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC))

US condems Denmark

We at least should make the image small, and not on the top saying, "look at me!"! WikieZach 21:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Why should we? Misplaced Pages is not censored. The entire article is about the cartoons and it makes no sense to start talking about them without showing them first. --Cyde Weys 22:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the US condemning Denmark? As far as I know, only the State Department has pointed out that these pictures are "offensive to Muslims," and I would be ashamed if the US government suggested the Danish government or anyone else should apologize for exercising their right to freedom of expression or of the press. AscendedAnathema 22:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd be pretty sad too, you'd think our government would realize those cartoons were in the interests of free, relatively inoffensive expression, not Islamophobia. Plus, honestly, I seriously dought the government would get much support from the people if they tried to condemn Denmark. Homestarmy 22:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Aww, guess I was wrong, but I definently don't agree with that government person's assesment that anti-Islamic things are just as frowned upon and anti-jew or anti-Christian stuff, you see shows, MANY shows, and newspapers, and societies, formed up just to do stuff against Christianity, yet i've yet to see a single one get shut down or yelled at, especially when the ACLU and similar organizations protect their "rights". I wonder if the ACLU even has an opinion on this matter, i'd think they side with Denmark, that actually might be noteworthy if they make a statement. Homestarmy 01:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The US did NOT condemn Denmark, but I guess people are allergic to the facts on Misplaced Pages. BlueGoose 07:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Opinion in the muslim world

Why was the image of the jordanian cartoon removed again? Rajab 22:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The page is being vandalised by 198.180.251.157 Neim 23:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes, but you removed the jordanian cartoon as well Rajab 23:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, the vandalisim comes fast and furious. --Neim 23:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Ha, they cut out the face of the cartoonist, who is drawing a stick figure of mohammed. Is depicting artists a sin now? More to the point, I see no reason why not to include this AlEX 23:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC) But a source should be present AlEX

198.180.251.157 has been blocked for 24 hours. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure it should be read clockwise? Wouldn't you read a comic strip from upper right in Arabic? 81.104.214.224 10:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in principle you are right, but it is not of importance. The translation is still okay. -- ActiveSelective 11:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Great picture! Thank you for uploading. -- ActiveSelective 11:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a place to insult the values! Whatever its origin is!

Insult is not a value to insist on or to support, it is a mental pathology which requires a pfessional treatment, caused by lack of ideas and lack of emphaty!

I propose to delete the cartoons as it is an insult to the Prophet of Islam! Resid Gulerdem 23:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing against the picture because it sums up some of the absurdity of the story. Its ok to make fun of black people in Denmark, its ok to deny holocaust, its ok to say that sharon is a nazi AND its ok to draw profets...Apupunchau 23:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying, Resid, that those who wish to keep the pictures on the page have mental pathologies and require professional treatment? (Sounds like an attack to me...) Valtam 23:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean a particular person. It is general observation and idea! Whoever wants to go into it, s/he is wellcome! I would like you see that the cartoons are nothing but an insult!. Resid Gulerdem 23:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Except some of the stereotypes in these cartoons are actually somewhat historical, while equating Nazi's to Jews or saying that Blacks have humungous lips is not. Blind racism and anti-semitism is just stupid, but if Islam was always such a peaceful religion, then these pictures would of been widely condemned as just as stupid. Yet Islam has yet to prove itself to be able to be nice enough to save the world or anything. Homestarmy 23:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Resid, if you don't accept western values regarding freedom of speech, the prehaps wikipedia is not the place for you. User:slamdac 23:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

'Western values? While you are burning people for insanity, in Islamic World they were being treated by music!!!! Who gave those values to you? Do not change the course of discussion: I am for freedonm of speach. What you are not understanding is, freedom of speech is different form insult! Resid Gulerdem 23:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Rgulerdem has vandalised the page multiple times in a matter of minutes. --Neim 23:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I didnt vandalized, just made a change. THey are different! Resid Gulerdem 23:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

He has been advised that his actions are unwise on his talk page. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Resid, you don't decide wikipedia policy or the policy of this article. You have closely followed the discussions on this talk page, judging from your many posts here. It should be very clear to you that there is an overwhelming consensus to keep the cartoon in the article. I cannot ask you to agree with that, but I urge you not to remove the cartoon from wikipedia. I can understand you have deep feelings about this controversy, but if you cannot respect the consensus on this talk page, then I would advise you not to visit this article. Aecis 23:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of western countries burning people for Insanity. Anyway The Times (of London) has a very good editorial on the muhammed cartoons. It sums up my feelings exactly. I suggest everyone read it. It is on their website.

Basically what it says is (in my opinion) :- If muslims are so offended by 12 cartoons drawn by some danes then there is something terribly wrong with islam and they need to have a long hard look at themselves as they are being oversensitive. If they can't handle insults then they shouldn't read western media as it isn;t going to stop. User:slamdac 23:27, 3 February 2006

How about if the western media learn how to write an article without an insult? Actually they know, except if the object in question is Islam! Resid Gulerdem 23:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

We are discussing the rules and standarts of WIkipedia in the first place! We cannot include an insult in an article. That is not how an ensiclopedia should be written! Resid Gulerdem 23:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

These cartoons arn't insults (in my opinion). If they are deemed to be insulted by you then you are being oversensitive and i would advise you not to read western newspapers or watch western media as these are very tame compared to what is on show everyday of the week here. User:slamdac 23:34, 3 February 2006

This is wikipedia NOT islamopedia or shariapedia or muhammedopedia. If you can't deal with it go and start up and islamopedia or a shariaopedia or a muammedopedia. I won't go on it and vandalise it. This is because i know that it would be a eastern publication. You can;t take your values (eastern) and impose them on us (western) User:slamdac 23:41, 3 February 2006

Rgulerdem, it is not up to you to decide how an encyclopedia should be written. It's a community effort. The community has said (and I wholeheartedly agree with that) that the image should be kept in the article. Like I said, I cannot ask you to agree with that, but I would again like to ask you not to remove the image from the article. Aecis 23:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Rgulerdem for 24 hours for violating the three revert rule. Rgulerdem, you are more than welcome to contribute the article, but you are not welcome to singlehandedly remove the cartoon. Aecis 23:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Ban the people who keep removing the images

It seems clear to me that the people who keep removing the images (we all know who they are) will not stop until they are banned. Can somebody please ban them. What does everyone else think? User:slamdac 23:22, 3 February 2006

Wholeheartedly agreed. Anyone who unilaterally removes the image should be instantly and permanently banned as a consequence. Until then, I doubt we'll see any decrease in the blanking vandalism. It also seems that many of the people who unilaterally vandalize the image have common IP addresses. I'm not familiar with IP addresses and how they work, but I'm guessing that since the first three numbers of all of the image vandals are in the 200s, it means they're coming from the Mideast. Perhaps it is possible to broadly but temporarily block IP addresses with this prefix, if it becomes necessary for Wiki to take that drastic of action.AscendedAnathema 23:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think at this point repeated removal of content, against the clear consensus of the community, is essentially simple vandalism. I think a semiprotect is necessary. Babajobu 23:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I have made a similar proposal at WP:AN/I. Aecis 23:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Babajobu - please define consensus for us. More than 10% are very strongly opposed to the pictures. Even if there's a majority in favour of the pictures there must be a protection of minorities Rajab 23:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

There is currently an 82% majority in favour of keeping the image in the article. Just under 11% believe it should be deleted altogether, and just over 6% believe it should be moved to a separate article. The 82% is much more than what is required to constitute a consensus. Aecis 23:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, and does protecting a minority mean ignoring the majority's opinion? AlEX 23:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It does if the minority is VERY strongly offended Rajab 23:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it would be fair to ban a wide IP range that might effectively ban a large number of people from certain countries or areas from editing Misplaced Pages, and there may be many legitimate Wikipedians i those areas. Please, no collective punishment. Just ban the IPs/people that in fact have vandalised the page. If you decide to say to people that "_You_ can't take part in this discussion because you live in such and such country and have IP such and such", that is, perhaps not by definition but anyway - dangerously close to racism. (Entheta 23:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC))

While there have been (sadly) some proposals (mostly from unknown editors) to block Saudi Arabia or the Mideast en masse, this is not a realistic possibility. Rest assured that the people who will be blocked are those who vandalize the article, those who violate the 3RR, those who make threats or personal attacks, and those causing disruption. There MAY be some small range blocks which *could* affect other 3rd party innocent editors, but it will certainly NOT be an attempt to exclude an entire geographic region. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. (Entheta 00:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC))

janet jackson's wardarobe failure doesn't show explicit photo either!

Please note that the first image on that article isn't actually the explicit one. Why can't we use a similar warning in this article here? Rajab 23:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Because we shouldn't treat Muslims differently from how we treat other religious communities. See Piss Christ. See anti-semitism. See Xenu. There should be no special treatment at wikipedia for any community. Babajobu 23:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

the difference here is how strongly the offense is to Muslims. Rajab 23:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll make it really clear for you here Rajab. I find your existance on this earth and on wikipedia very highly offensive to my race and people. I guess you should remove yourself from this earth to make sure that I am not offended! How much sense does that make? And if you are going to say "that's rediculous, I have a right to exist" then it's the same logic, people have a right to free speech. Regardless. Hitokirishinji 00:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

That's ridiculous, why do you think your offense is greater than the offense of other communities when their prophets are insulted and degraded? How arrogant and obnoxious! Do you think only Muslims have beliefs? It's true, though, that fewer members of those groups have demanded that Misplaced Pages be censored for their benefit, that's true. I guess they just understand the concept of a free press. Babajobu 23:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you denying that we are more offended? Please, read the news Babajobu. This insult goes directly against us (implying our prophet (saw) is a terrorist) and what we believe in. See this in the context of islamophobia after 9/11 & you see why it's incredibly awful Rajab 00:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

They are cartoons! Drawings, stick figures. The Piss Christ article has figure of Jesus (to christians not even a prophet, but God himself) submerged in urine. If the offence is stronger to muslims, then muslim are overreacting, alot. Now tell me, how strong do you think the offense should be. Think about a statue of muhammed submerged in urine, what would the muslim world do? I dread to think. AlEX 23:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Go right ahead and put the explicit image at the top of the Janet Jackson article. I don't mind. --Aaron 00:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I just did. -- getcrunkjuice 00:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking at Wardrobe malfunction and it has the picture in question right at the top; no edits for several days, and the picture is at the top of the other edits I checked in the past couple of months. The picture was reprinted in prominent newspapers worldwide ... I saw it in my local papers, and The Economist. There were no complaints I'm aware of, of the newspaper publication - for the picture was by then the story. As it is here. Are we supposed to make an exception for this case? Surely Misplaced Pages is a secular document, and should not be bound by religious dogma! Nfitz 00:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Nfitz, can I cite you for the "Dogma is generally considered bad" paragraph in that article, I think it needs more examples, there's only really the one specific one I added :D. Furthermore, I think the reason that more people don't try to attack that **** Christ article is because that kind of garbage isn't really unexpected, the Bible tells us that many would hate on Christ for various reasons, and there isn't any direct order telling us to wage holy war against all those who defame His name. Of course, if we could, we probably would delete it, but we can't, so I don't see why we should try, it's not that horribly important, it's just a really mean picture :/. Not that it isn't a big deal or anything, it's just I can't think of any Biblical justification for raising Cain over it, there's better things to do with our time...like evangelize, it's really not easy to evangelize while deleting pictures on Misplaced Pages i'd think. Homestarmy 01:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

3 revert rule

Why doesn't the 3 revert rule apply to people who re-insert the offensive cartoon?

Because the reverts are done to undo blanking vandalism, to which 3RR doesn't apply. Aecis 23:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, at this point I think it meets the definition of simple vandalism. Repeatedly removing content when the community has clearly stated it believes the article is better with the image, that amounts to "an effort to degrade the quality of an article". I.e., vandalism. Babajobu 23:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

what do you mean by clearly stated? 10% strongly feel against it. What exactly is your definition of consensu, Babajobu? Rajab 23:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

According to the relevant articles in the wikipedia namespace, consensus is roughly 70 to 80 percent. There is a current consensus of over 80% to keep the cartoon in the article, which constitutes a consensus. Indeed, about 10% strongly feel against the cartoon. That means that 90% don't. Aecis 23:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Because the reversion of vandalism does not count as a 3RR violation. User:Zoe| 00:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

One particular picture sums up the event, and should perhaps head the page?

This comment of mine is certainly POV, but still a suggestion about what might make the article clearer. That there is one single picture that sums up the event from the perspective of many. The one where a man is looking over his shoulder while trying to draw Mohammed. He draws the picture, in fear of muslims that will threaten to kill him. This very picture gets published along with the astounding suggestion that we do not have press freedom even in the land rated #1 according to http://www.rsf.org/. And then the the article is proven right by people threatening to kill the artists. Ignore this or give constructive critisism. DanielDemaret 23:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks interesting to me, but I don't see how we can fit it into the article, since it's not one of the apparently more popular targets for critism :(. Homestarmy

I would agree to keep that only cartoon instead! Resid Gulerdem 23:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's a very interesting perspective as well. It's the least "offending" of the pictures, but probably the one that best examplifies the controversy because it's almost prophetic. (Entheta 23:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC))

at least that one doesn't depict the prophet muhammad (saw) - it only depicts the drawing of his picture %~( Rajab 23:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a nice attempt at compromise, but that single image is not generating the controversy, nor is it in response to the controversy... at best it predicts the controversy. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

protection of minorities

10% of people here feel very strongly offended by those pictures. Minorities have to be protected, even against a majority Rajab 23:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Does protecting a minority mean ignoring the majority's opinion? AlEX 23:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Dude, you are not a minority. No-one is a minority. Its a stupid word with no real meaning. Hi, i am an intelligent heterosexual white lower class white male between the ages of 26 and 29, I am sure there are less of us than there are muslims (A Whole lot less) ;) :P Saying that you need protection is admitting that your "minority" is weaker than the majority. Are you? WookMuff 05:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

if the minority is VERY strongly offended then yes, it does mean just that Rajab 23:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If that minority is so strongly offended by this article, that minority should not click the link to this article. I don't see how you can oppose majority rule but support minority rule. Aecis 00:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

"Protection of minorities" - aparently there is no better word for this concept in the English language. The German wikipedia describes it quite nicely though ]. Maybe someone who speaks German can put an article like this into the English wikipedia & explain it to people like Babajobu Rajab 23:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Off-topic: I think the closest thing in normal English usage would be Minority rights. That article would be a good place to translate the info from the German Misplaced Pages to.--Pharos 00:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Look, I know about being minority. But if you are referring to the polls, the "losers" (for lack of better english word in my vocabulary) are not a minority people, they're just of a minority opinion. And I don't know what you mean they need to be protected against? Other Wikipedians? Misplaced Pages has freedom of opinion, and if any muslim or anyone else of the £10% of people here" that you refer to gets threatened or anything like that, I'm sure there are ways to report that to get the person who threatened him/her punished in some way, like being banned, or if very serious, reported to police. (Entheta 23:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC))

Protection against being strongly & knowingly offended Rajab 23:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a source of some misunderstanding. In most Western cultures, people (minorities or majorities) do NOT have any protections against being offended. This is considered by many to be one of the cornerstones of a free society. The alternative (if people were allowed to stop anything that offended them) is said to be very undesirable. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

then why don't you try walking up to a policeman & calling him a "gay idiot"? Let's see how quickly you'll be fined Rajab 00:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually in the US you can do that and you won't be fined or arrested...However, that's not to say the policeman won't follow you around till you do something minor and actually arrest you for it. Hitokirishinji 00:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hitokirishinji is correct, Rajab... that would likely be considered protected speech. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I know it's true. Even when I was in high school a policeman came to our class for government and talked to us about law and free speech. He said he sees people crossing the street and give him the middle finger but what can he do about it? Really nothing. It's protected by the Constitution. Hitokirishinji 00:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Slight digression. It hinges on whether the message is directed at the cop as an individual or as an Officer. When people flip the bird to the cops, it's pretty much a no-brainer that they're "really" flipping the bird to The Police (not the band), not to an individual cop. To call an individual cop a "gay idiot" (not something like "pig" or other standard derogatory term for cops) is to risk crossing into the realm of fighting words. It's STILL pretty safe, because the police tend to get held to a higher standard, but it's not absolute. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

And I'm not referring to the "loosers" of the poll - I'm refering to all Muslims who use Misplaced PagesRajab 23:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Well, I think everybody should respect the outcome of the poll. It's how elections work. I am sorry if those pictures offend people, but Misplaced Pages is not obliged to answer to muslim law. In the article, there's just a small thumbnail with several pictures. You can't really see the pictures unless you choose to click on the thumbnail to get the large picture. If the pictures offend you or anyone else - don't click the thumbnail. I honestly don't think you can be upset by the thumbnail itself because it's just to small to see the actual pictures that would potentally offend you. (Entheta 00:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC))

What I'm saying is that minorities should be respected & protected. Just because there are more of you doesn't mean that our strong feelings count for nothing Rajab 00:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between protecting someone from PHYSICAL harm and EMOTIONAL harm. There are, in most Western cultures, separate sets of laws to deal with the two harms. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I respect you and I think most people here do. The purpose of having a poll or an election is to come to a solution that would please as many as possible. YOu can never please _Everybody_ on all issues. But we should respect eachother's opinions and I respect your opinion and feelings but I don't think the fact that some people choose to get offended by this should mean that we should censor wikipedia. As for your need for protection, I can't do any more than stand by my advice to report it if you would receive any threats. (Entheta 00:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC))

Rajab, free speech is a provision that DOES provide support for minorities in that it guarantees them to speak their mind even if their opinions are disliked by the majority. The curtailing of free speech is a threat to minorities. Babajobu 01:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Put a link - Delete the picture!

For an ensiclopedia, the important things are the facts. In that sense there is no need to put a cartoon here. We can just put a link istead! If people wants to see it, they can go there... Resid Gulerdem 23:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

And if the linked site is down? Or they want to pront the article? Or just want to be able to look at the pics as they read about the controvosy over them? Removing the pics makes the article worse. We are not in thebusiness of making articles worse. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked Rajab for an hour because he vandalised the picture again--File Éireann 00:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Block vandalism 212.138.47.*

There is a whole block (212.138.47.*) at the moment trying to get the image off line.... This is a SAudi Arabia based internet provider.....KimvdLinde 23:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• 212.138.47.17 (2 times)
• 212.138.47.22
• 212.138.47.24

Why hasn't this article been semilocked yet? The amount of vandalism is simply incomprehensible. I've been watching this article for the past 10 minutes and it has been vandalized at least 3 times. AscendedAnathema 23:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

linked from main page, against the rules... Would be good for the moment... KimvdLinde 23:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I've done a short range block. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Everyone knows who is vandalizing this article! Block IPs from Saudi Arabia and the Mideast and 90% of the vandalism will disappear. Imperator2 23:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Get off you high horse and don't be so stupid. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Get off my "high horse?!" Listen to you! Fuck you, you hypocrite! Imperator2 00:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't feed 'em. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

<stamps foot> But it's fun! I'm never allowed any fun! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Whine, whine, whine. I'll go around pouting and spraying seltzer until you do something! Or else! 165.230.149.152 04:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

These are the people who tried to vandalise the poll earlier. (you will see in the edit history) They tried to remove all the votes from the keep the images in pile. }] 23:47, 3 February 2006

It's obviosly only one person. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

List of Vandals

I suggest that a list of some users and IP addresses who vandalize the image be created so that they may easily face consequences for their violations.

• 163.121.171.245
• 212.138.47.17 (2 times)
• 212.138.47.22
• 212.138.47.24
• Rajab (2 times)
• 203.162.2.133 (5 times; blocked for 24 hours)
• Rgulerdem (I lost count, blocked for 24 hours)

updated by:

• AscendedAnathema 23:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• AscendedAnathema 00:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• KimvdLinde 00:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Aecis 00:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Philosophical Question

One question to all the people who are offended by the image and keep coming back to remove it. Why? If you are so insulted by it why do you keep coming back knowing that it’s going to be there and will be out back as soon as you have tried to remove it? Why subject yourself to that hurt and anguish. (Removed as offensive) It’s insane. so why do it when you know your just going to get upset. Just let everyone else view it and get on with your lives?

User:slamdac 23:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how this is helpful. This behavior is not unique to this page. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

slamdac, that is not analogous! I do not have anything flattering to say about these edit warriors but I can understand their rationale. What if you found a porno of your sister on a popular site?--the porno wasn't voluntarily submitted or sold. Her rakish ex-bf taped it and submitted it to degrade her. If this site had a wiki delete feature, wouldn't you try to eliminate it?

Lotsofissues 00:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Message to the Rajab and other Vandals

Nobody is forcing you to be here. If you don't like it go to a website which doesn't have the images. I'm sure there are a couple out there., At least then we can get on with making a good article rather than having to constantly watch out for vandalisim User:slamdac 00:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, not helpful. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: rename to cartoon war

The wikipage "cartoon war" is redirected to this page whose name seems extremely complicated to me. What about using cartoon war as the primary name of this page? Best, LM --Lumidek 00:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:V. Here at Misplaced Pages we don't get to make up names for things. We either use something descriptive, i.e. "Subject controversy" (this article), or we use a verifiable widespread and widely known name for something. You can't just make up the name "Cartoon War" for an article. --Cyde Weys 00:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please delete the copyrighted images?

The Jordan protest, EU gunman, etc. are copyrighted by the AP and AFP -- those pics can not be reproduced without permission but have been tagged as unrestricted. Lotsofissues 00:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I'll take care of it now. --Aaron 00:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Per a quick discussion with Physchim62, I've decided it's best to just list the photos on WP:CP and let them deal with the copyright issue on their own. If anyone wishes to restore the images on this page in the meantime, I won't object. --Aaron 01:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

They should not have been tagged as unrestricted use, but there is a prima facie claim for their fair use in this article. I'm not going to decide on my own as to whether fair use is completely justified: the point is debatable enough to keep the pictures here, and to discuss the copyright problems at WP:CP, as we would do normally for any other article. Physchim62 (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Now that an admin has gotten involved in a less-than-tactful fashion, I'm walking away from this issue. Someone else can finish tagging the images in question and submitting them to WP:CP, WP:IFD or wherever else might be appropriate. I'm not going to risk a block over some pictures I don't even care about. I was just trying to edit in good faith. --Aaron 02:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Uh...what do you mean? You can feel free to override me. I don't block people I am in disputes with: that is my code of honour, a pledge I made in my RFA. I don't even think this is a dispute, not with me anyway, you have good reason to doubt fair use. I was being bold because I thought you had a misconception, so I didn't wait for discussion. Now that you contest it, feel free to proceed. You did edit in good faith, but I wasn't sure that you knew about the fair use issue (not everyone is a lawyer, anyway, you aren't to be blamed). Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 02:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Archive 5

This one is 56 kilobytes. Again, sorry everyone who was bothered by the amount of noise the method of archiving I've chosen makes. --cesarb 00:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

What I don't understand is that when I click "Edit" on a section header, I'm taken to the edit box for some completely different header, so I have to edit the entire page, which makes it very difficult to find the discussion I want to reply to, and it also causes editing conflicts (Entheta 00:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC))

I've had that problem on-and-off with this page, too. What's up with that? Babajobu 00:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. Perhaps it was just too long. I single handedly without asking, moved the poll to a separate page (please don't stone me) because I thought maybe that would do some help. Perhaps, in combination with the new archive, it will (hasn't had that problem on my two latest edits). (Entheta 00:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC))

Well I guess that wasn't the problem, thanks for clearing it up, Cyde and Dante. (Entheta 00:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC))

It's caused because the section you edit is selected by number, not by name. Oftentimes there are some caching/delay issues so when you click the Edit button you actually end up editing an entirely different section because the overall number or ordering of sections has been changed by someone else. --Cyde Weys 00:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

When you get that sort of problem, try forcing your browser to update the page. This is done in different ways in different browsers, but holding down the Shift key while you click the reload button often works. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, that's why I'm saying sorry every time I archive using that method. It avoids forcing a twenty-minute pause in all conversations (as a "protect the talk page and do everything in a single pass" method would do) or temporarily erasing them all (as a "move the page and start fresh" method would do), but it can be pretty annoying too — edit conflicts, wrong sections appearing, and lots of Recent Changes spam. --cesarb 00:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

HEY! Bring the poll back, that was totally inappropriate! Babajobu 01:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC) You didn't even provide a link to the new poll page. If we need to archive some of this page, let's do so, but don't archive the poll, please! It's still active! Babajobu 01:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Strange. I saw clearly the link he provided to the poll subpage. --cesarb 01:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't. I'm concerned that the poll will be seen by far fewer viewers if it's not at the top of this page, but if others agree with Entheta that the poll should be on a subpage, then go ahead and put it back, and my apologies for (largely) demanding otherwise. Perhaps a poll on the best place for the poll? Babajobu 01:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

American & British Media

Most American & British media did'nt republish the cartoon Images & only covered the evens without publishing these images in other side for first time we start hear about some Islamic countries boycott all european products while other suggest to cut the Oil on europ.Qatarson

And your point is ... ? The discussion page is for talking about how to make the article better. --Cyde Weys 00:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

it is very clear we should mention to the political view of world countries there nothing about it.Qatarson 01:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

We've got away with it before:

--Greasysteve13 01:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The Dominion Post (Wellington) copies our article word for word

The Dominion Post (Wellington), a national paper btw, copies this article word for word, giving us half-credit--which is good enough for me! Congrats everyone. We helped an overwhelmed reporter meet his deadline.

link

Lotsofissues 01:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Kind of sleazy on their part. Isn't Fairfax a giant media company? You can bet they'd have a big problem if we started copying their articles over here word for word. --Aaron 01:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Our articles are licensed under the GFDL. Their articles are not. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Um... the whole point of a 💕 is that it's meant to be copied freely. Now technically, they should have included a GFDL notice as well, but in this case I don't begrudge them that as they fairly credited Misplaced Pages itself.--Pharos 01:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

There should be a template for this that says that this article was featured in a major newspaper, let me try to find it, this is relatively notable :). Homestarmy 01:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

There is one. Check the talk page for List of ethnic slurs. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't find the part in the article where they admit it was taken from us, I think I can't finish adding the template unless they actually cite that they used us. Homestarmy 01:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

If they're not citing their sources then they are plagiarizing. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

From their article: "The following is a translated summary of the article and explanation of the cartoons published in the Internet encyclopedia Misplaced Pages." It's not GFDL-compliant exactly, but they clearly didn't mean to plagiarize.--Pharos 01:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's "good enough". Certainly not plagiarism. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well i've got the template typed out, but part of the template says "This article is cited in this article", and I can't very well lie and say it's cited when it is apparently not, even if it is pretty obvious it is parts of this article. Homestarmy 01:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it in there, but if you can, I guess i'll put in the template :/. Homestarmy 02:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Is Misplaced Pages POV ? A comment on Misplaced Pages nature

Template:Deletethread

Hello,

There's too much to read here. I won't read it all, so I don't know if this has already been discussed here.

Thinking "outside the box", showing the cartoon article in Misplaced Pages ultimately affirms that it has free speech in it's nature. This unconditional Free speech, however, is a convention of at most some parts of the world (although Misplaced Pages seems to be even more liberal than most legalities discussed here). Since there is a lot of people who consider that fundamentalisms are stronger than free speech, it seems that Misplaced Pages has adopted a point of view. Is Misplaced Pages intrinsically POV ? Would Misplaced Pages be nothing more than the synthesis of all the hypocrisy that is typically associated to the Western civilization ? Surely we have great knowledge here. But are they POV ? Stating that an article should not have a point of view is hypocrisy ? --Hdante 01:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Uh... this belongs on a blog, not a talk page for an article that has nothing to do with your question. -Maverick 01:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. --Hdante 01:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

'Tis ok, my friend. People make mistakes :) -Maverick 01:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't his question valid? The answer is -- of course Misplaced Pages is biased to Western ideals. It's hosted in the USA and thus bound (and freed) by those laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.89.38 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages are to be used for the improvement of the article it is attached to; it is not meant to be used for gathering opinions on any bias Misplaced Pages itself might have. -Maverick 07:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

New editorial cartoon available

The author(s) of this image have graciously consented to it being released for any use. It's been tagged as {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} and may be appropriate for inclusion in the article. The source page is already listed as (at last count) reference 34 in the article. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Include it. Babajobu 01:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

That will just make things worse. (unsigned comment)

There doesn't seem to be enough room in the appropriate section, and I'm loath to remove one of the other two images... although they BOTH are French. Thoughts? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I love it. Please tell me that it has appeared in outside publications. Unfortunatley, otherwise it would be original material and not appropriate for Misplaced Pages.

--StuffOfInterest 02:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It has. Check the image source. Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 02:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't seem to find it. I personnaly thought this image was only posted on their website AlEX 08:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, France Soir were the first newspaper to print their own cartoon after Jyllandsposten. So, based on that, France Soir being the first newspaper to support Jyllandsposten with a cartoon, one could argue that we should keep France Soir and replace Le Monde, if we consider the new image as superior to Le Monde's (witch I do....Don't know about the rest of you).The.valiant.paladin 02:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Copies of the poll out of sync

The two copies of the poll (at Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Polls and here) have gotten out of sync (both have votes the other one doesn't). Could someone merge the changes of the two copies into a single copy? --cesarb 01:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Why exactly do we have two copies of the poll? That makes no sense. --Cyde Weys 01:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, wherever we keep the poll, kill the other version. People will always find their way to the other version and vote on it. Babajobu 01:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

"Islam/Muhammad Cartoons : a manipulation of the Muslim Brotherhood" says European Strategic Intelligence & Security Center

 Please insert a note about this sourced accusation.
 It's very important
 Additional note : Tariq Ramadan's grand father is Hassan al Banna, founder of the  Muslim Brotherhood

Some analysts don’t understand why it took so long to the Muslim street to react to the publication of the Muhammad cartoons by a Danish daily, on September 30 last year.

Today (4 months later) the crisis intensifies and hit the whole Muslim world. No one is asserting that four months ago, the publication of the litigious cartoons didn’t provoke any reaction: on October 14, 5 000 angry Muslims demonstrated in Copenhague; two weeks later, some Muslim countries began to protest. Egypt first (on November 2) and, a few days later, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). And then, all the story came down.

But, from the intelligence we collected this last days, we might conclude that this quietness was just an appearance. Those few weeks were used by the Muslim Brothers to mobilize their troops worldwide and to organize the global protest movement which began a few days ago. A movement which compelled many Muslim states to denounce Denmark, Norway and now Europe.

The crisis is now open and huge. That’s exactly what expected the Muslim Brotherhood. It helps them to kill several birds with one shoot. In Europe, the Brotherhood wants to go ahead with the project of a law against blasphemy. But it wants also to strengthen their position by infiltrating the traditional Muslim organizations. More: by using the street as a lever, the Brothers put the Arab governments under a high pressure, and they push them to react. So, they dig the gap between the Western world and the Muslim world.

This will help their own political agenda. In this particular context, the crisis will very likely deepen in the coming days, and a “terrorist” evolution is possible. We’ve seen such an evolution in the Satanic verses affair, years ago (publishers and translators were killed or wounded) , or, more recently, with the assassination of Theo Van Gogh, in Amsterdam in November 2004.

For the Muslims Brotherhood, it would be a good news as they want to impose the communautarism model vs integration. This plan is not exactly new. In November 2001, searching the house of the banker Yussef Nada (who admitted to be one of the Muslim Brotherhood leader in Europe), the Swiss police found some documents extremely interesting regarding the international strategy of the Brotherhood. A strategy of “entrism” and penetration aiming to target the most sensible parts of the immigration, the youth and the students, and to radicalize them.

http://www.esisc.org/print.asp?ID=842

Can any of this be verified? Is it anything else than speculation? The.valiant.paladin 02:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Although it makes a lot of sense, it seems to be nothing more than idle speculation. 209.51.77.64 03:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I found an article on a jewish website in french, that speaks about the documents alledgy found by the swiss police.

New Protest Pictures

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004448.htm Maybe some should be used? Chaldean 03:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-stupidity

I'll say this about this matter. Writing about this controversy is one thing that's quite fitting and right, publishing the idiot cartoons that caused it is quite another. It is an act of sheer provocative stupidity to all Muslims.

This is not freedom of speech, as the thoughtless twits who have been publishing those cartoons say, its an abuse of that prnciple. That's as much relevance as that concept has here. Publishing those cartoons here is holding a red rag to a bull, and needlessly and pointlessly so. By adding its name to the list of venues that have shown them, Misplaced Pages has further fanned the flames of this controversy.

Misplaced Pages is (at least in principle) an ENCYCLOPEDIA, we publish NPOV facts. That's NPOV. This is nothing neutral about an act like this.

To just what extent this will help al-Qaeda I don't know, but this kind of thing suits the purposes of al-Qaeda recruiters just fine.

Incidentally, I am not a Muslim. Arno 03:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I'd like to point out that the pirate article is blasphemy toward the Flying Spaghetti Monster religion, the Israel article promotes a pro israeli agenda and the child porn article promotes views for people who dont accept sex with 5 year olds! How dare they! GraphicArtist 04:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to even bother answering this. The implication that you equate publishing this picture with pro-pedophilia is reason enough not to. Arno 04:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

In order to present facts about the controversy, you actually have to cite the actual inflammatory material. People are not babies. Misplaced Pages isn't touting these images as its viewpoint, either. It's not stupid. QED. Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 04:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

On this issue, it's being extremely stupid. It's as simple as that. I wouldn't care less if that picture was published because Venus entered Leo. It was published and that is provocation enough. Just by publishing that picture, wikipedia has involved itself in this controversy. Arno 04:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's underlying philosophy regards the value of free exchange of information as axiomatic. If the controversy involves the free exchange of information - in this case, the display of controversial material - then Misplaced Pages can't not take a side in the controversy, if only implicitly. 216.162.217.132 05:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Let us suppose that we follow the logic of removing the pictures. We travel back in time and completely censor the cartoons. They no longer exist. Anger from some muslims no longer exists now because the cartoon don't exist. The whole debate over the cartoons has also been destroyed. This is the paradox of censorship. People cannot argue over things they cannot see! Accountable Government 05:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Check out the Misplaced Pages article on Anti-Semitism. The fact is, people can and have written articles that include very offensive images while maintaining a neutral point of view. I'm sure that there are some people who don't like to see these things, but ultimately they shouldn't be looking up the topic in an encyclopedia if they can't endure what they're going to find! More to the point, freedom of speech is our cultural value. Maybe free speech really is inconsistent with Islamic law, just as it is now often so sorely abused by copyright law. Still, as surely as the Misplaced Pages servers will be forced to capitulate when the local apparachniks decide to ban insults to Islam, so just as surely they should resist imposing such censorship so long as it remains legal to discuss such issues in an adult fashion. Perhaps these cartoons are already becoming illegal, not under federal, state, or local law but by Islamic lynch law backed by cash bounties on the heads of cartoonists and editors --- but if so then those surrendering to it should at least do us the courtesy of being honest about their motivations, in the hope that an armed resistance to this invasion might someday be mustered. Mike Serfas 05:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not freedom of speech Actually, it is exactly freedom of speech. See, the great thing about freedom of speech is that it allows crazy arabs to voice their opinions about getting rid of freedom of speech. Try telling Shiek Abdul Al-Halal Al-Salami Al-Habit that you have a differing opinion than the majority and see how long you can keep your head attached to the rest of your body.

User warning template

I've created a warning template (Template:Mohammed) to place on the pages of people who remove the image, as a warning before a block is imposed. See WP:AN/I for a discussion on the appropriateness of blocking for this. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Are things that bad we need a specific warning template for this single article??? --cesarb 04:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think semi-protection would be a better solution, but that doesn't seem to be accepted. On AN/I, several people said that users would be blocked for removing the image after 1 warning. This at least ensures that they get a reasonable notice before getting blocked. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

They aren't that bad. Because of the uselessness of the template, I have put it up for speedy deletion. joturner 04:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It appears the template will be kept (I'm the only delete). One thing... make sure to subst it. Because, when this cools down the templat will be deleted I'd assume. gren グレン 06:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Good work on the template, everyone be sure to subst it! Babajobu 08:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Islam and/or the Western World

Template:Deletethread Those are, according to some proponents of this controversy about the Muhammad pictures, the agendas driving the conflict:

• "THEY" want to take over "OUR" countries by violating "OUR" highly prized social values.
• Therefore, "THEY" pull nonsense and thus attract attention.
• Thus, "THEY" are dangerous to "OUR" highly prized values, and must be stopped at all costs.

In reality, this sort of thinking probably drives the conflict ahead, just as the Russian Tsar-generated "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" stoked the flames of Anti Semitism. 165.230.149.152 04:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The Grand Poobah

I pbuh'd Muhammad's name because this controversy is nothing but a bunch of silly whining, and we might as well try compromising a bit...165.230.149.152 04:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, please don't? We do not use such honorifics here. gren グレン 06:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine. And I won't use the detested template Template:Mohammed on my user talk, either. 165.230.149.152 06:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for all the edits

I know I'm clogging up the history, but I don't want to keep the edit window open too long cuz of version conflicts.--Anchoress 05:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

A request: Ahmed Akkari's "43-page dossier"?

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

My question and request for the Misplaced Pages community is this: does anybody have access to this 43-page dossier? Can we get it scanned and posted here, and possibly translated? It seems like this document is central to this controversy, and is of interest to all sides.

The Spiegel quote:

"One group of Danish Muslims, led by a young imam named Ahmed Akkari, grew so frustrated by the inability of Muslims to get their message across in Denmark that they compiled a dossier of racist and culturally insensitive images circulating in the country and took them on an road show in the Arab World to raise awareness of the discrimination they faced.

"There is currently a climate (in Denmark) that is contributing to an increase in racism," the group warned in the introduction to a 43-page dossier it prepared before traveling to Egypt in late 2005. It dedicated the rest of the dossier to "drawings and pictures" that disparaged Islam and "denigrated the prophet." The offending images included Muhammad with a bomb wrapped in his turban. The Muslim community in the small Scandinavian country erupted in anger -- not only did the images denigrate Islam's central figure, many felt the drawings also equated all Muslims with terrorism.

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

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

Help with editing please

The following paragraph contains sentence fragments I can't decipher:

The Justice and Islamic Affairs Minister of the United Arab Emirates, Mohammed Al Dhaheri, called it "cultural terrorism, not freedom of expression," according to the official WAM news agency. "The repercussions of such irresponsible acts will have adverse impact on international relations." In Tunisia, Abdulaziz Othman Altwaijri, president of the Islamic Organization for Education, Science and Culture (the Islamic world's counterpart to UNESCO) called the drawings "a form of racism and discrimination that one must counter by all available means." He said, "It's regrettable to state today, as we are calling for dialogue, that other parties feed animosity and hate and attack sacred symbols of Muslims and of their prophet," said also Jordan's largest circulation daily, government-run Al-Rai, said the Danish government must apologize.

It's hard to check since the citations seem to be out of order. I'd fix them myself but I really, really, really don't know how.--Anchoress 06:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Boycott in Paragraph 3

Ironically, the boycott of ALL Danish goods would hurt everyone, regardless of whether or not they wanted the cartoons published. Accountable Government 07:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

That's what boycotts do. Ta bu shi da yu 08:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Refactored content

A poll was started as a suggestion to replace the cartoons from Jyllands-Posten with cartoons or other illustrations not depicting Mohammed. This idea, and the poll itself, were quickly rejected. The poll is archived here ("poll 3"). A "poll 4" was started to oppose "poll 3", which gathered some support, but also some opposition to polls and humorous comments.--Eloquence* 10:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Another look

I stated my opinion above, in the first poll, in favor of linking to another page at the top of the article instead of including the image itself. My question to the straight "keep" voters is: should cultural sensitivities of any kind influence our choices of images to include in articles? The most obvious other kinds of things I can think of are extreme violence and explicit sexuality. Obviously views differ, but don't most of us have a limit to what we would consider acceptable for direct presentation? I think in a controversial case you have to consider the degree of offense that may be provoked, and also the number of people who may be provoked. In this case, it looks like severe offense among a huge number of people.

Do we place the images in articles purely on the basis of how relevant they are, or do we also consider the effect of the image on a reader's emotions or beliefs? I think, if we're being responsible, there's no way of getting around giving a certain amount of consideration to that. Moreover, aside from the issue of moral responsibility—the importance of not forcing someone to view something that they would not want to see—there's also the practical perspective: doesn't a degree of sensitivity here make Misplaced Pages more inclusive, in a sense, by enabling people to read our articles without fear of what they might see? These are important issues which I think some of us are not properly considering. Misplaced Pages is made by people for people; when dealing with controversial images, it has take into account things aside from pure relevance. Everyking 09:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The most responsible comment I could ever see in this mess. I completely agree with you! What I am trying to do in the Pool 3 is similar to what you are suggesting in essence. If we are trying to have an objective account of the phenomena, we can do it without hurting some people's feelings. That would be a success, a great article. To impose some pictures that people consider ofensive makes no sense, neither relevant to the philosophy of Wikioedia. 216.248.124.210 09:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Witch-hunt, holocaust & Islamophobia

I see huge news coverages & well....this article too, & all the hue & cry about the freedom of speech. What I don’t see is the fact that these cartoons are not just insulting, they incite hate & phobia against Islam. It’s not about what Islam teaches or what it doesn’t teach; it’s about the so called treasured values of Europe. Why a person making jokes against blacks is called racist, a person making jokes against Jews is called anti-Semite, but when the same thing happens against Islam, everybody remembers Freedom of speech. Why isn’t the same freedom of speech practiced when dealing with blacks, whites, Jews, Christian’s e.t.c. Why is kike or nigger considered racist but depicting Muhammad with a bomb in his turban or “Prophet! daft and dumb, keeping woman under thumb” is called "Freedom of speech”. I am ashamed to see this hypocrisy practiced by people who consider themselves to be the "civilized world”. Does civilization teach us to have dual standards? I am very sorry to see that Europe is again being taught to hate. This time inside the shiny wrapping of "Freedom of expression” by the media. First it was the witch-hunt, then we had the holocaust, I hope we don’t get a third session of global bloodshed, since before the holocaust; Jews were being depicted in the same manner by the Nazis. Cant we have a single section on this article about the kind of sick racism that this cartoon is promoting, other that the good old "they don’t understand our values of freedom" rant, there are tons of Muslim sources saying that these cartoons can be equated with stuff that are considered Anti-Semite. F.a.y. 09:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

That is very true. This is a usual Europian hypocricy! They cannot even talk about the 'Holocost' or deny it in their homes. When it comes to insulting a value of Islam, they are using freedom of speech. 216.248.124.210 10:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This is completely wrong. Please read the comments on the talk page. It is a MINORITY of the European countries that prohibit holocaust-denial, NOT a majority. You are just repeating the same false statements againg.

I think that's why there has been such a controversy... though the response has hardly been civil in many cases which creates a kind of irony to the situation... Sasquatcht|c 10:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This sort of discourse if not helpful. We are here to write an article, and this talk page is devoted to topical and punctual discussions about how to improve the article. By saturating it with this sort of discussion, you and others make improvements to the article more difficult. If you have general opinions to be voiced, you are welcome to start a blog. Thank you. Rama 10:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Danish law on offenses to peace and honour

This was previously (anonymously) top-posted, I'm moving it here.--Eloquence* 10:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Just thought this might interest some people. Don't really know how to fit it in to the article.

Maybe a reference. The judge threw it out of court. Going to European Court of Human Rights - maybe...

This is my translation

Danish Law: Criminal Code

Chapter 27: Offenses to peace and honour

§ 266b

Whomever publicly or with the intent of publication in a wider circle makes a statement or another message, by which a group of persons are threatened, defamed or humiliated because of race, colour of skin, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual preference, is punished with a fine or prison for up to two years.

2. When the punishment is measured it should be considered an aggravating circumstance, if the offense has the character of being part of a propaganda effort. (unsigned)

The islamic community in Denmark brought the case before a judge, who dismissed it. You also need to take the Danish Constitution's §77 into account. Cacophobia (Talk) 10:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I started a pool (Pool 3) and is continiously being vandalized by some people. I want some admins take care of it. Please... 10:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I am an admin, and I have refactored your poll (not "pool"); see above (#Refactored content). The community has spoken quite clearly in preserving the image as it is; replacing it with a photo of the artist or a cartoon unrelated to Muhammad contradicts the stated opinion of the vast majority of the community. Furthermore, we do not start polls randomly, they should always be preceded by a discussion and a collection of arguments. Please make your case in this thread before starting yet another poll.--Eloquence* 10:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The pool I started is totally different from the ones above. It is explained at the beginning. You cannot just delete it. You do not have the right for it. You are an admin and vandalising?!... Who should I talk to then? Stop vandalizing the poll! 216.248.124.210 10:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The poll (not "pool") is not at all "totally different"; it merely restates removing the image that is currently present, an option which has already been widely rejected. I have removed the poll in accordance with normal editing privileges; however, I have now reverted you 3 times (WP:3RR), so I would advise others to remove the poll in my place. Should it continue to be removed, and should you continue to restore it, you can be blocked for edit warring (arguably, you could already be blocked for disruption, but I'm willing to give you a chance to participate constructively in the discussion).--Eloquence* 11:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The poll is totally different! You cannot just delete it. It is against anything I know about Wiki. You cannot block me for starting a pool in a discussion page! The question I am asking is no way rejected! Be honest! Behave as an admin, not vandal! 216.248.124.210 11:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The poll has been removed by another user now and yes, I assure you, you can and will be blocked if you reinstate it.--Eloquence* 11:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

   Yeah i was talking about ppl like this buffoon here... (see below).

Consensus?!!! What consensus

Some pea-brained administrators on Misplaced Pages are touting the nearly 200 "votes" in favor of putting the picture in the article as CONSENSUS.....

Boy, im rolling over the floor with laughter.

200 votes==consensus?? since when?. Well first, poll on the Net is useless anyways, cuz anybody can fake an IP or hack his way through. Second, I higly suspect that some ppl are doctoring these polls. Even if not... then i think a fair "poll" should also consult the opinion of 1.79 billion ppl called "Muslims" on this planet... where would your pathetic "consensus" stand then?

I know my friends from Danes are really pissed off... please take heart. You wont die if Arla does not survive..... probably they are the ones behind this CONSENSUS...

And i thought Europeans were a smart ppl... Hamood Khan

Number of Vandals

I cannot count the number of vandals here. I cannot beleive that. They are deleting the poll I started for no reason! And at least one of these vandals is an admin! 216.248.124.210 11:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Pool 3 (Vote For Just One Cartoon without the Image of Mohammed)

It is enough to have just one cartoon without the image of Mohammed. It doesn't include any insult as claimed and enough to represent the dispute. This might lead to a comprimise and worth to try!

In other words, what is asked in this pool is: Instead of putting a cartoon whcih is found offensive by many, can we put another one without the image of Mohammad, but still give the idea about what is happening (an example; the artist drawing a cartoon!)

So, the previous ones was about should we keep the cartoons, this pool is about what should we post there!

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press