Wikipedia

Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy and StarTAC: Difference between pages

(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Warning Template!
 
mNo edit summary
 
Line 1:
{{Infobox Mobile |
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" id="talkheader" align="center" style="text-align:center;background-color: #FFFFFF;"
| name = Motorola StarTAC
|-
| image = MotorolaStarTAC.jpg
! colspan="2" style="border-bottom:1px solid #C0C090; background-color: #F8EABA;" |
| size =
This is the [[Wikipedia:Talk pages|talk page]] for discussing changes to the [[{{PAGENAME}}]] ARTICLE. ''Please place discussions on the underlying political and religious issues on the [[Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Arguments|Arguments page]]''. Non-editorial comments on this talk page may be removed by other editors.
| screen = Digital: [[Liquid crystal display|LCD]]<br>AMPS: Segment [[Light-emitting diode|LED]], Alphanumeric LED
|-
| networks = [[AMPS]], [[CDMA]], [[Time division multiple access|TDMA]], [[Global System for Mobile Communications|GSM]]
| style="background-color: #FFFFFF;text-align:left;" |
| size = 94 mm×55 mm×19 mm (130)
'''Please sign your comments using four tildes (<code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>).''' Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them <nowiki>== A Descriptive Header ==</nowiki>. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see [[Wikipedia:Introduction|Welcome to Wikipedia]] and [[Wikipedia:FAQ|frequently asked questions]].
| weight = 94 g }}
| style="background-color: #FFFFFF;" |
<div style="border: 1px solid #C0C090; background-color: #F8EABA; margin-left: 20px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-right: 3px;">
'''[[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|Talk page guidelines]]'''
 
The '''Motorola StarTAC''' was a [[clamshell]] [[mobile phone]] manufactured by [[Motorola]]. It was released on [[January 3]], [[1996]] and is noted for being the first clamshell mobile phone<ref name="fifty">{{cite news
Please respect [[Wikipedia:Etiquette|Etiquette]], [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assume good faith]] and [[Wikipedia:no personal attacks|be nice]].
| last = Tynan
</div>
| first = Dan
|}
| coauthors =
{{controversial}}
| title = The 50 Greatest Gadgets of the Past 50 Years
{{Good Job|"And we have web pages like Wikipedia or the blogosphere to disseminate actual facts, data, images and opinions that readers can judge with the benefit of all the facts, not just some of them." [On the Jyllands-Posten controversy] &mdash; '''The Times''' (London), February 12, 2006 [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2035815,00.html]}}
| work = [[PC World]]
<div border="1" style="border:black solid; background-color:white; margin: 0.5em; padding: 0.5em;">
| page = 2
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, '''Wikipedia''' 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 free encyclopedia.
| date = 2005-12-24
| url = http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,123950-page,2/article.html
| accessdate = 2006-09-10 }}</ref>. The StarTAC is the successor of the [[Motorola MicroTAC|MicroTAC]], a semi-clamshell design that had been launched in 1989<ref>{{cite press release
| title = Motorola introduces ultra lite 5.9 ounce cellular telephone - MicroTac Ultra Lite Telephone
| publisher = Mobile Phone News; PBI Media, LLC; Gale Group
| date = 1992-02-10
| url = http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3457/is_n18_v10/ai_12627981
| accessdate = 2006-09-10 }}</ref>. Whereas the MicroTAC's shell folded down from below the keypad, the StarTAC folded up from above the [[Light-emitting diode|LED]] / [[Liquid crystal display|LCD]] display screen. In 2005, ''[[PC World (magazine)|PC World]]'' put StarTAC at #6 in ''The 50 Greatest Gadgets of the Past 50 Years''<ref name="fifty"/>.
 
==Release==
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.
<!-- Unsourced image removed: [[Image:StarTAC.jpg|frame||left|Analog StarTAC with Alphanumeric display{{rfu-c|[[2006-12-28]]}}{{replacethisimage}}]] -->
===North America===
StarTAC was unveiled in [[North America]] in January 3, 1996 as the "StarTAC Wearable Cellular Telephone."<ref name="release">{{cite news
| title = The smallest cell phone
| work = [[Milwaukee Journal Sentinel]]
| date = 1996-01-04
| url = http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_19960104/ai_n10237671
| accessdate = 2006-09-10 }}</ref> Then the smallest cell phone available, this [[AMPS]] phone was an immediate success. Successor [[TDMA]] and [[CDMA]] StarTACs were equally popular. [[GSM]] models were available in North America through Powertel and other early GSM carriers. StarTACs remained popular until the early [[2000]]s, appearing in many Hollywood [[film|movies]] of the period like ''[[8mm (film)|8mm]]'' starring [[Nicolas Cage]].Many MicroTAC owners switched to this particular model due to its compact size and light weight.
 
'''Now, please, with kindness, start the discussion over?'''
--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 00:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)</div>
 
{|class="messagebox"
|-
|align="center"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]]
|
<!-- If starting a new talk archive, name it after the next number. If you realize the archive becomes too big (maybe > 100kb?), you may want to split it into at least two different archives (e.g. 2a and 2b) -->
'''Talk archives for this page:''' [[/Archive 1|01]] &middot; [[/Archive 2|02a]] &middot; [[/Archive 2b|02b]] &middot; [[/Archive 3|03a]] &middot; [[/Archive 3b|03b]] &middot; [[/Archive 3c|03c]] &middot; [[/Archive 4|04]] &middot; [[/Archive 5|05]] &middot; [[/Archive 6|06]] &middot; [[/Archive 7|07]] &middot; [[/Archive 8|08a]] &middot; [[/Archive 8b|08b]] &middot; [[/Archive 9|09a]] &middot; [[/Archive 9b|09b]] &middot; [[/Archive 10|10]] &middot; [[/Archive 11|11]] &middot; [[/Archive 12a|12a]] &middot; [[/Archive 12b|12b]] &middot; [[/Archive 13a|13a]]
 
===Europe===
'''Sub-talk Pages:''' [[/Poll Results|Poll 1 2 & 3 Results]] &middot; [[/Arguments|Arguments]]
The phone was released in [[Europe]] as a single band 900MHz GSM telephone in [[1997]]. Despite the advanced technology, it never became a great success in Europe.{{fact|date=May 2007}} While the StarTAC was not a great success, its direct successors (the early Motorola V series) were very popular in Europe until about 2003.{{fact|date=May 2007}}
|}
 
==Key Features==
*'''Please divert comments having to do with international reactions to [[Talk:International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy]]. Thank you.'''
Some key features of the Motorola StarTAC were:
* [[Short message service|SMS]] text messages, although only the later models had the capability to send messages.
* Introduced clamshell design
* 88 grams<ref>{{cite web
| title = Motorola StarTAC Cellular Phone
| publisher = Integrated Electronics Engineering Center
| date = 1996-08
| url = http://www.ieec.binghamton.edu/ieec/teardown/motorola_star_tac_cellular_phone.htm
| accessdate = 2006-09-10 }}</ref> (3.1 ounces<ref name="release"/>)
* It could use an optional [[Li-ion]] battery, at a time when most phones were restricted to short-duration [[NiMH]] batteries
* It had a vibrating ring, "''VibraCall''", the first [[vibration]] feature on a phone. It was then only used by Motorola, as they held the patent<ref name="fifty"/>.
 
==StarTAC 2004==
The StarTAC name was revived in 2004 for a new model designed for the [[South Korea]]n market. It had:
*A 128×160 262,000 TFT Color LCD
*64-channel sound
*A [[Mobile Banking]] feature supported by [[SK Telecom]]
*A 2,800-entry contact book
In addition, a version with an 18k gold directional keypad, and brightwork was released as StarTAC 2004 SE.
 
==Clamshell Phones Today==
*'''Please divert comments having to do with various opinions on the controversy to [[Talk:Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy]]. Thank you. '''
Motorola continued to develop clamshell mobile phones. As of 2005 the latest use of the design by Motorola can be seen in the [[Motorola RAZR V3|RAZR]], [[Motorola KRZR K1|KRZR]], and the [[Motorola PEBL|PEBL]].
 
==See Also==
__TOC__
*[[Motorola DynaTAC]]
*[[Motorola MicroTAC]]
==Notes and references==
{{reflist}}
 
{{Motorola phones}}
 
[[Category:Motorola mobile phones|StarTAC]]
 
[[Category:1996 introductions]]
== What the drawings actually depict ==
 
It's ridiculous that the article starts by stating that the drawings depict Muhammad. Some of them do, not all. That's a kind of misunderstating that has caused much wrongdoing and false debate all over the world, firstly in the world without the freeedom of press. Not that it would've helped a lot telling the truth. But actually, two of the cartoons mock the whole editorial for doing PR for the Danish author whose book no one would illustrate un-anomymously (thus starting the debate). Another one has a Danish/Arab-looking schoolboy sticking his tongue out, showing the writing on a blackboard, stating that the journalists at JP are "reactionary provocateurs". JP may be one of the most critical towards islam, in Denmark, nevertheless they allow space for being mocked in their editorial! I'd like to see something similar on Fox News or the likes of them.
 
:JP did not know what the writing on the blackboard meant. It was mentioned here for a while, but it was later left out as a peculiarity out of scoope. It is still in the Danish version. And if you ask me, Fox News is doing a fine job at parodizing a news outlet every single day! [[User:MX44|MX44]] 23:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 
The point: Start the article by stating how many cartoons actually depict Muhammad. It might be hard to say clearly, in some cases, but at least it could be stated how many clearly do NOT depict Muhammad (the Prophet, that is, the schoolboy's called Muhammad too).
 
It's the same type of journalistic error that made BBC (!) present a European guy with a pig snout (competing in a pig imitation contest at a party) as a Muhammad drawing! Danish imams had included the picture in their material which was shown to muslim leaders, in the beginning of the current bloody, burning controversy. However, the imams didn't asert that the picture originated from JP. BBC, apparently, just never read it.
 
[[User:Kerub|Bonulo]] 21:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:I agree. Stating more prominently that only some of the drawings depicts Muhammad, could help increase the sanity level of the debate. [[User:MX44|MX44]] 23:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:: Agreed. But since it is unclear which ones represent Muhammed, leave any numbers out.[[User:DanielDemaret|DanielDemaret]] 08:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:: ive created a blog to allow people to make their own minds up about the pictures. ive posted all 12 of them at: http://prophetmohammedcartoons.blogspot.com/
 
==El Fagr part of reprint section==
 
Please do not change the wording of '' "but the publication of the images did not engender any known protests from either Egyptian religious authorities nor the Egyptian government."'' as this spells out very clearly to anyone reading about these events the apparent duplicity that has occurred regarding publication of the Jyllands images in various countries. I think it's safe to say that if the fact that an Egyptian newspaper had printed half of the cartoons back in October (without Religious or Governmental protest) had been well know throughout the world, there wouldn't have been a call for boycotting of any other country besides Denmark.
 
[[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 23:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 
: It's mostly the word "engender" that is weird. I't just bad English. How about : "but the publication of the images did not lead to any known protests from Egyptian religious authorities or the Egyptian government." [[User:Azate|Azate]] 23:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:: The word "[http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=engender engender]" is in fact <b>extremely good</b> English (I should know as a native speaker) such language is indeed typically found in encyclopedias. Also as a side note the user [http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Kintaro_Oe Kintaro Oe] added this line : ''"Cette publication en période de Ramadan, n'a suscité aucune réaction ni condamnation des autorités religieuses islamiques ou des autorités gouvernementales egyptiennes."'' in the [http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caricatures_de_Mahomet_du_journal_Jyllands-Posten#Hors_d.27Europe French version] of this entry, which roughly translates into the word changes I've made. Does Wikipedia need to 'dumb down' it's vocabulary? [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 00:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:: A better translation of Kintaro's line would be: "''This publication during Ramadan, did not cause any reaction nor condemnation from either Islamic religious authorities or the government of Egypt.''" I'd be fine with putting that in place of my earlier edit. Thoughts? [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 00:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 
::: I know what engender means. I also don't deny that it's perfectly correct. It's just such extremly good English, that it comes around as weird, something you'd expect in jurisprudence, legistation etc. Oh, and since we're starting to delve into 'good English', I can't help but note that "either/nor" doesn't fly. Should be "neither/nor" or "either/or". Just kidding, of course. It' just a stupid detail. ;-) [[User:Azate|Azate]] 00:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:::: Well at this point... I've changed the edit to reflect Kintaro's text... which after translation struck me as being better balanced than what I wrote earlier. [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 00:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
::::: hey, Thanks to quote me; I took my little french-english dictionnary, and french verb "susciter" is translated as "to give rise", "to provoke" (a controversersy).
::::: My point was just to underline the absence of public reaction by Mubarak's Government or Islamic authorities, since there was after '''A GREAT''' activity in Egypt.
 
::::: * november through december: A delegation of Imams from the Islamic Society in Denmark travel to the Middle East (EGYPT, SYRIA, LEBANON) in order to "bring attention" to the cartoons. They present the Akkari 43 page Dossier to influential political and religious leaders.Among the people the group claims to have met on their visit to Egypt were: - The General Secretary of the [[Arab League]] [[Amr Moussa]],- the Egyptian [[Grand Mufti]] [[Ali Gomaa]] and - the Sheik of Cairo's [[Al-Azhar university]] [[Mohammed Sayed Tantawi]]- the Egyptian foreign office. In Lebanon they met the Grand Mufti [[Muhammad Rashid Kabbani]], top Shiite Sheik [[Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah]], Maronite Church leader [[Nasrallah Sfeir]]. In Syria they met Grand Mufti [[Sheik Ahmed Badr-Eddine Hassoun]].
 
::::: * 02 november 2005 : Lebanese Foreign Affairs Minister have met '''Egyptian ambassador in Lebanon''' to think about which measures to take against Danemak.
::::: * 29 december 2005: The Arab League, base in Cairo ('''Egypt'''), criticises the Danish government for not acting in the matter.
::::: * 06 february 2006. Several thousand students massed on the [[al-Azhar University]] campus in Cairo today to protest against publication of caricatures of Islam’s Prophet Mohammed. Sheikh [[Tantawui]], [[Ali Joamaa]] Egyptian Republic Mufti, [[Mahmoud Hamdi Zagzoug]] Minister of Waqfs (Religious matter) were present to protest.
 
::::: You see my point? [[User:Oe kintaro|Oe kintaro]] 15:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC).
 
The current line: Six of the cartoons were reprinted in the Egyptian newspaper El Fagr on 17 October 2005[24][25][26] along with an article strongly denouncing them, but this publication of the images during Ramadan, did not cause any reaction nor condemnation from either Islamic religious authorities or the government of Egypt.
 
This needs to be improved. The lengthy style is insistent: "reaction nor condemnation", "either Islamic or gov", etc. The result is POV creep because we highlight El Fagr as extra-important. We take this bold step when the press generally ignores this detail. It could be their negligence or it could be that this "independent weekly" is too insignificant. In any case, the sentence should be neutralized by shortening it. [[User:Lotsofissues|Lotsofissues]] 19:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 
 
 
ive created a blog to allow people to make their own minds up about the pictures. ive posted all 12 of them at: http://prophetmohammedcartoons.blogspot.com/
 
== Mohammed With A Bomb ==
 
Some muslims have expressed outrage with the fact that one of the pictures is of Mohammed with a bomb. In explaining this photo, it should be noted that some terrorists (like Osama Bin Laden), justify their actions based on Islam. They object to a picture of Mohammed with a bomb, and yet don't object when a bomb is placed in real life in the name of Mohammed. The irony would make a good cartoon. [[User:Accountable Government|Accountable Government]] 02:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 
::I'm very sure that every Muslim supports radicalism and terrorism as every Christian supports [[Ku Klux Klan|KKK]] =)--[[User:84.249.252.211|84.249.252.211]] 03:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:::So ... We should burn them? [[User:MX44|MX44]]
 
::::I dont think the cartoonist meant to associate every muslim with terrorism. I think, rather, he was directing the criticizm directly to radical muslims. I dont know this for a fact, of course, but its a possibillity.
::::: And there in lies the point, by associating Muhammad as a terrorist he insults every Muslim on the planet, and the seal of the Prophets, the Prophet most Muslims will tell you, whose actions they try to emulate. The images are gravely offnsive to Muslims, far more so than the Rushdie affair. --[[User:210.54.12.83|210.54.12.83]] 07:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::: If you insist in "associating Muhammad as a terrorist", Mr Unsigned, YOU insult Muhammed. I make no such association, nor did I make it when I first saw the cartoon you are referring to. Insults are in the mind of the beholder.[[User:DanielDemaret|DanielDemaret]] 08:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Yes - if there is one thing modern art has taught us it is that art only has meaning if the observer gives it meaning. Art without an observer is just paint or clay. Point being, you can claim "Da Bomb" associates ''all'' muslims with terrorism or that it just points out that Islam is being held hostage by radicals. In either case - you'd be right. [[User:Celcius|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="Black"><b>Celcius</b></font></font>]] [[User_talk:Celcius|<small><sup><font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="Black"><b>(Talk)</b></font></font></sup></small>]] [[Image:Flag_of_Denmark.svg|18px|]] <small><font color="Black">Wiki be With us!</font></small> 13:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 
== Off Topic Jihad must go ==
 
It is getting increasingly hard for people who work on the text, in order to get it to represent a fair and balanced view, to find each other in this mess of opinions about what kind of illustrations might or might not be offensive. There are other forums for this kind of discussion. All you guys do is vandalizing the discussion. Is that what you want? [[User:MX44|MX44]] 04:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 
':Excuse me, did you remove a part of the talk???? [[User:Bertilvidet|Bertilvidet]] 12:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
:Even if MX had removed part of the talk, which you could have checked by looking at history and found out that he didn't, he'd have been in the right to do so. Off-topic discussions have no place on this page. [[User:Kyaa the Catlord|Kyaa the Catlord]] 13:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 
==Jesus cartoons rejected by J-P==
 
Someone at the newspaper later clarified why those cartoons of a Jesus-figure were rejected. It wasn't because they were of Jesus, but they were silly and poor cartoons. When you read a description of the cartoons, you may think that they sound pretty silly.
[[User:69.224.112.100|69.224.112.100]] 04:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC) 11 February 2006
 
:We knew that already. That guy was only promoting his own (lack of?) talent. [[User:MX44|MX44]] 04:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 
::The Jesus cartoons were made by Christoffer Zieler who currently works for the internal paper of the [[University of Copenhagen]]. You can see them on the last page of this pdf: [https://www2.adm.ku.dk/portal/universitetsavisen/pdffiler/140_Universitetsavisen0206.pdf] where Zieler also comments on his little role in the controversy. The cartoon at the bottom of the page is his usual strip in the paper. This weeeks strip seems quite critical of danish islamists and people who "give in" to them, but even though i "get" all the references it's pretty weird, so don't make too much of it. (His strips are often quite weird, and occasionally very funny). About the Jesus cartoons you should know that they were sent unsolicited and JP editor Kaiser thought they'd cause an "uproar". OTOH there's no general self-censorship regarding Jesus caricatures in Denmark (as there apparently was wrt. Mohammed) so publishing them wouldn't have made the same point. [[User:Nvj|Nvj]] 12:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:From the current article: "giving Muslims reasons to assert that a double standard in dealing with them versus others". Kind of picks one POV conspiracy theory and promotes that. [[User:Weregerbil|Weregerbil]] 04:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:Ah! You meant that it was back again ... It is gone now. It is story about talentless wannabe who got rejected. [[User:MX44|MX44]] 05:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 
::As opposed to the talentless wannabes whose cartoons were accepted and sparked a wave of international protest and the single most successfull consumer-led boycott of the past 100 years. --[[User:210.54.12.83|210.54.12.83]] 07:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
:::They were asked with short notice (an afternoon) to comment with their pen on the islamaphobia in Denmark. And I agree ... The result is not always reflecting artistic qualty. Da Bomb is deep though, perhaps deeper than the artist suspected. [[User:MX44|MX44]] 07:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 
::All of these cartoonists/illustrators already make a living out of their talent. This is not in dispute! [[User:MX44|MX44]] 08:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 
== Greyscale ==
 
The first sentnce is important. It summarizes the event in a single sentence. Please say what you think is important and how it will inspire readers to read beyond. [[User:MX44|MX44]] 07:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
: I think it's fine as is. Something else: What's the deal with this pink box in section 1, and why is there a link to "Anders Fogh Rasmussen cartoons", which aren't precisely super-relevant? [[User:Azate|Azate]] 08:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
::I didn't notice that box and I don't know (blushes) [[User:MX44|MX44]] 08:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 
At the moment the first sentence reads "most of which depicted M" which I find to be understood as: "most of which depicted M in a NEGATIVE WAY". This is not excactly true ... Now Wiki have not put the N-word there, but MEDIA have. This is why I ask for opinions on the lead-in? [[User:MX44|MX44]] 09:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:The first sentence seems pretty clear at present. We could be even more specific, e.g. "The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy began after twelve editorial cartoons were published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten on 30 September 2005. The Islamic prophet Muhammad was the central character depicted in seven of these cartoons." I can't see a nice way to express this in a single sentence though. -- [[User:Avenue|Avenue]] 11:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
::Yes but there is a trap of being so politically correct and considerate, so you end up being the opposite. Here is one from CNN:
:::''CNN is not showing the negative caricatures of the likeness of the Prophet Mohammed because the network believes its role is to cover the events surrounding the publication of the cartoons while not unnecessarily adding fuel to the controversy itself.''
::Note that they manage to conclude that the cartoons are indisputeably ''negative'' and then go on to say they will not add fuel. [[User:MX44|MX44]] 18:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 
== Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn ==
 
This article needs to link to the articles on Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh. I added these under comparable incidents, but another user deleted the links. These murders provide critical background to the context in which freedom of expression is understood. Can we agree that these ought to be in the article?
:It's not directly related. I don't think it should be included in this article - in the greater scope of things - Islamic/West Frictions - they ''are'' relevant - but not to the subject of this article. Also, the PT and TVG "incidents" were murders due to individuals - not boycotting of milk by Islamic nations as is the case here - and as such it would be wrong to equate them. [[User:Celcius|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="Black"><b>Celcius</b></font></font>]] [[User_talk:Celcius|<small><sup><font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="Black"><b>(Talk)</b></font></font></sup></small>]] [[Image:Flag_of_Denmark.svg|18px|]] <small><font color="Black">Wiki be With us!</font></small> 12:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
::Van Gogh's murder is directly related to the freedom of expression context. One of the artists approached by Kare Bluitgen gave this murder as a reason for not illustrating the book. But I think this would need to be explained if we did include a link to the [[Theo van Gogh (film director)|Theo van Gogh]] article. -- [[User:Avenue|Avenue]] 15:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
:::I just realised that this is explained already in the [[Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#Debate_about_self-censorship|Debate about self-censorship]] section of the article, and there is a link to the Theo van Gogh article there. -- [[User:Avenue|Avenue]] 15:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 
Surely they are relevant, as the murder on Theo van Gogh was - if my memory serves me right - stated as one of the excuses given by (one?/several? of) the 28 invited cartonists, who declined the invitation to provide a cartoon. [[User:Varga Mila|Varga Mila]] 15:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 
The compareable media incident in this case would be [[Submission_(film)]] which have been linked for ages. The actual murder is just(?) yet another crime [[User:MX44|MX44]] 16:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 
Agree [[User:Varga Mila|Varga Mila]] 22:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 
I suppose it depends on what is the "incident" to which we wish to have similarity. The PF and TVG murders are not similar if the incident is merely the publishing of the cartoon. But if the "incident" also includes the rioting, boycotts, embassy burnings and intimidation of the media, then TVG is comparable -- the TVG murder chilled freedom of expression just as the reaction to the media incident is presently chilling freedom of expression. --Calmarc
 
::Fair enough - it depends on in which context the links are provided. I can see the justification. [[User:Celcius|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="Black"><b>Celcius</b></font></font>]] [[User_talk:Celcius|<small><sup><font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="Black"><b>(Talk)</b></font></font></sup></small>]] [[Image:Flag_of_Denmark.svg|18px|]] <small><font color="Black">Wiki be With us!</font></small> 00:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 
==Alt Map==
A friend just sent me this. http://face-of-muhammed.blogspot.com/
It seems that others are doing the kind of map being done here too. Submitting it here for comparison to our map. There may be more relevant info in this blog, even. :) [[User:DanielDemaret|DanielDemaret]] 12:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
:It's not very NPOV to divide the world into "camps" like that - it's very "you are either with us or against us" type of thing - which will inevitably rely on subjective opinion not suitable for a NPOV encyclopedia. [[User:Celcius|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="Black"><b>Celcius</b></font></font>]] [[User_talk:Celcius|<small><sup><font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="Black"><b>(Talk)</b></font></font></sup></small>]] [[Image:Flag_of_Denmark.svg|18px|]] <small><font color="Black">Wiki be With us!</font></small> 12:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
::That was not the original purpose of the map, but if many interpret it that way, it sadly becomes a very valid point. Is there any chance that one might connect the picture closely to editorial text to show the purpose and to save the intention of what we are trying to show that way? [[User:DanielDemaret|DanielDemaret]] 15:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 
May I remind you all that according to [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]], blogs are not acceptable sources under any circumstances on wikipedia, so if you were planning on adding a blog into the article, whether as a link, or a source, it's not happening. [[User:Swatjester|<font color="red">&rArr;</font>]] [[User_talk:Swatjester|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="black">SWAT</font><font color="goldenrod">Jester</font></font>]] [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]] [[Special:Contributions/Swatjester|<small><sup>Ready</sup></small>]] [[RSTA|<small>Aim</small>]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Terrorism|<small><sub>Fire!</sub></small>]] 20:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
:: Nobody was planning any such thing, of course. What a singularly strange notion. Again, this was a note to compare their map with "our own" map. And last I read the recommendations, which was two days ago, blogs could indeed be accepted under special circumstances.
This is copied from the link you brought up, "...and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications.", hoping that page has not been the victim of any edit wars.
[[User:DanielDemaret|DanielDemaret]] 20:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 
== Cartoon War ==
A few more deaths and we can rename this page to '''[[Cartoon War]]''' and add the war infobox! I hope not.--[[User:TheFEARgod|TheFEARgod]] 15:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
:I read somewhere that the media have been so rash to report all the unrest caused by the cartoons, that they ignore all of the other current violence in the islamic world (Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine etc.). Food for thought, anyway. [[User:Wakuran|惑乱 分からん]] 19:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 
In the US, the news media at least, is barely covering the cartoon violence. Only the newspapers seem to be making a big deal about it, and justifiably so since the controversy directly affects their medium As for the original poster about cartoon war.......yes it's seeming that way isn't it? Wars have been started over less than just an embassy firebombing. [[User:Swatjester|<font color="red">&rArr;</font>]] [[User_talk:Swatjester|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="black">SWAT</font><font color="goldenrod">Jester</font></font>]] [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]] [[Special:Contributions/Swatjester|<small><sup>Ready</sup></small>]] [[RSTA|<small>Aim</small>]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Terrorism|<small><sub>Fire!</sub></small>]] 20:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 
And here is the [http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=437251 cartoon to illustrate] your notion [[User:MX44|MX44]] 23:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 
== ISLAMISTS PROTEST IN FRANCE = BUSTED ==
 
The 11 february 2006, there was in Paris (French Capital) and Strasbourg (French City, Capital of European Union with Brussels) protests of islamists . 7 200 protesters in Paris, 2 000 in Strasbourg.
 
A Team of French Bloggers Called '''"La BAF"''' (Brigade for the money of the French Taxpayers) invited themselves in the demonstration.
'''They were insulted, threatened and french police rescued them.'''
Photo+ video. '''A MUST SEE.''' French/English Version.
 
http://labaf.blogspot.com
 
[[User:Oe kintaro|Oe kintaro]]
 
(The preceding unsigned comments were added by [[User:Oe kintaro|Oe kintaro]])
: Yes it's me.I apologize, I just forgot :D.[[User:Oe kintaro|Oe kintaro]] 21:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 
A demonstration that demands respect for others...and someone shouts "homosexuals!!!" as an insult to a guy holding a danish flag...:) [[User:Apupunchau|Apupunchau]] 20:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
:Would that be an insult to a Dane? Could a Dane answer this please?[[User:DanielDemaret|DanielDemaret]] 20:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 
As a female, absolutely not! :-> To be honest, it is very difficult to think of something that - across most danes would cause an offence.
 
In terms of flag-burning..... if my memory serves me right, it is actually stated in Danish law that disposing of the Danish flag, must not happen by simply throwing it away (e.g. along with the kitchen rubbish); It must be burned !! Which puts the flag-burning protests in an entirely new light (at least presumably different from that of the 'flag-burner') :-> [[User:Varga Mila|Varga Mila]] 22:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
: Yes. Flag-burning, while not illegal, is the most respectable way of disposing the flag in the [[United States]] also. --[[User:Tokachu|Tokachu]] 23:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 
::I have not encountered a single person who cared about the flag burning or name-calling. You often hear "Freedom" when Americans talk of the Stars and Stripes and the French have their "Egalité, Fraternité, Liberté " associated with their tricolor. The Danish flag dosn't really symbolize anything in particular to most Danes except "Oh golly, it's pretty - tie it to the top of the pole, dear". [[User:Celcius|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="Black"><b>Celcius</b></font></font>]] [[User_talk:Celcius|<small><sup><font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="Black"><b>(Talk)</b></font></font></sup></small>]] [[Image:Flag_of_Denmark.svg|18px|]] <small><font color="Black">Wiki be With us!</font></small> 00:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:::If your comment mean that no Danes are offended by the burning of the Danish flag in Nablus and similar places, then I've got news for you. It is also incorrect to assume that no Danes feel any sort of attachment towards their flag. I am personally offended by that act, and I know many other Danes who feel the same way. I'm also offended by people burning e.g. the U.S. flag for that matter, or people burning books. Name calling is another matter; these people may shout as they please. Other Danes I've spoken too feel the same way. --[[User:Valentinian|Valentinian]] 00:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 
::::I don't pretend to speak for all Danes. I'm just saying I'm not offended by it and I personally don't know anybody who cares. You can't equate books and flags - burning a book represents suppression of free speech. Burning a flag is a statement of anger/hate. But since these people don't know anything about this country or its citizens it becomes a completely irrelevant and meaningless statement. Had it been Swedes or Germans doing it - I would feel quite differently as the statement would have substance. [[User:Celcius|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="Black"><b>Celcius</b></font></font>]] [[User_talk:Celcius|<small><sup><font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="Black"><b>(Talk)</b></font></font></sup></small>]] [[Image:Flag_of_Denmark.svg|18px|]] <small><font color="Black">Wiki be With us!</font></small> 03:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::I side that, Celcius. The Danes I have spoken to are not offended by the flag-burning as such, but are chocked by the anger it represents. [[User:Varga Mila|Varga Mila]] 08:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 
::::::I also agree with Celcius. However, it worth mentioning that the [[Danish People's Party]], before this mess started, wanted to pass a law making it illegal to burn the Danish flag (they have a somewhat selective respect for free speech). So some Danes care. Incidentially, burning foreign national flags is already illegal, so at some point in our history we did care about not insulting foreigners.--[[User:Per Abrahamsen|Per Abrahamsen]] 08:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 
::::::: I have never understood people who feel attached to a coloured piece of tissue. In any case, I think than any form of grief should be compensated by the boom in Danish flag exports to Syria, Iran and such. Incidentally, it is "''Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité''". [[User:Rama|Rama]] 09:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 
I have to ask a question. Where do people in the Middle East ''get'' those flags that they burn? If I, in the United States, wanted to burn a Danish flag, I would have no idea how to get one. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 03:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:Well, you know when you go to touristic places often there's shops where - among other things - you can buy flags. Well, I heard about an Egyptian shopkeeper who ordered a tonnes of flags when the whole thing started - apparently he could smell the direction of the coming winds. Unfortunately I understand most of them are imported from Taiwan - so it's really Taiwanese flags cleverly posing as Danish flags. [[User:Celcius|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="Black"><b>Celcius</b></font></font>]] [[User_talk:Celcius|<small><sup><font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="Black"><b>(Talk)</b></font></font></sup></small>]] [[Image:Flag_of_Denmark.svg|18px|]] <small><font color="Black">Wiki be With us!</font></small> 17:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
==Prince Hassan of Jordan BBCworld today==
NPOV part: On BBCWorld today, on a program called "your voice" or something to that effect,
[[Prince Hassan of Jordan]] made some interesting remarks.
http://i-cias.com/e.o/hassan_jordan.htm
If memory serves, he mentioned that he descended from the prophet, and that the issue we are discussing here, if my memory serves, was more an issue internal to Islam than one between Islam and the west. He suggested an internal dialogue, perhaps in Mekka to have a dialogue on matters.
His views seemed to suggest that the violent reactions were totally out of proportion, and no violence should have occured.
MyPOV part: Islam talking with one voice? A consensus of brothers, instead of masses being manipulated by a few totalitarian regimes, or by a few in extremists organisations into senseless violence? I am an incurable optimist, but if consensus works for wikipedia, perhaps there will be more common ground between freedom of expression and Islam in such a future :)[[User:DanielDemaret|DanielDemaret]] 20:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 
== Kofi Annan interview on DR ==
 
Kofi Annan was interviewed by the Danish TV channel [[Danmarks Radio|DR]] today regarding the cartoons and the conflict. The 15-minute interview is available from [http://dr.dk/nyheder/ DR Nyheder], deep link [http://dr.dk/Forms/Published/PlaylistGen.aspx?qid=154271 here] (Windows Media format). There is an introduction in Danish, but the interview itself is of course in English. — [[User:Peter L|Peter L]] &lt;[[User talk:Peter L|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Peter L|contribs]]&gt; 21:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 
 
 
== Grass Interview in Spanish El Pais ==
 
Frage: Haben Sie die gewalttätigen Ausschreitungen überrascht?
 
 
Grass: Wir leben in einer Zeit, in der einer Gewalttat die nächste folgt. Die erste ist die durch den Westen gewesen, die Invasion des Irak. Heute wissen wir, daß damit internationales Recht gebrochen wurde; der Krieg wurde allein auf Grundlage von Bushs fundamentalistischen Argumenten geführt, daß es ein Kampf zwischen dem Guten und dem Bösen sei. Was wir jetzt sehen, ist die fundamentalistische Antwort auf eine fundamentalistische Tat. Mitnichten findet hier ein Kampf der Kulturen statt - vielmehr ist es eine Auseinandersetzung zwischen zwei Un-Kulturen.
 
 
[http://www.welt.de/data/2006/02/10/843397.html from die welt] --[[User:Unfinishedchaos|Chaos]] 21:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:This is English Wikipedia. And the above from [[Günter Grass]] is hardly original. Of marginally more interest is his comparison of the cartoons to the sort of anti-semitic thing that would appear in [[der Stürmer]]. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 00:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 
== [[Snow White and The Madness of Truth]] ==
 
Freedom of speech and Israeli ambassador .. isn,t that more relevant to our case , Enjoy --[[User:Unfinishedchaos|Chaos]] 22:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:I'm not entirely sure what you're alluding to. Could you elaborate on this? Are you making a case for [[Freedom of Expression|freedom of expression]] for artists, or an ''[[ad nauseum]]'' hypocracy argument? --[[User:Tokachu|Tokachu]] 22:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 
==Assisting Muslim Readers==
I've [[Wikipedia:Be Bold|been bold]] and added a "warning" template to the article. This will allow those who might be sensitive to such things to avoid being inadvertently exposed to them. I hope this suggestion itself doesn't cause offense (although I'm not naive enough to expect it won't be controversial). &#0151;&nbsp;[[User:Jeremygbyrne|JEREMY]] 01:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:There is no such template as "offensive," and "controversial" only belongs on talk pages. -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] 01:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:: I think the idea has merit. Now that the big fuss on the talk pages is over and everybody has had time to vent, the "Be nice" idea may have a chance again. How about this:
{| class="messagebox" style="width: 28em; background: AntiqueWhite;"
|-
| [[Image:Stop_hand.svg|none|40px| ]]
| '''This article contains cartoons of<br> the Islamic Prophet Mohammad'''<br> Please see the discussions on the [[:{{NAMESPACE}} talk:{{PAGENAME}}|talk page]]
|-
|}<noinclude>__NOTOC__
:: * People who come for the article or the images will ignore it or view it as a quaint joke.
::* People who are actually offended by the image itself have a chance to leave.
::* People who object to the whole existence/concept/idea/whatever of the image bein reproduced are maybe less likely to vandlize it.
::For this to work, the cartoons would have to be moved down to the relevant section that descibes them. If I recall that correctly, this was also the gist of the posting of Jimbo Wales on his talkpage. [[User:Azate|Azate]] 02:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:::I think it's important to avoid being seen "as a quaint joke", but couching it more in terms of "cultural sensitivities" might work. (The template is generalised so it could be used&nbsp;&mdash; if anyone should ever make a fuss about them&nbsp;&mdash; on pages including images of deceased Aboriginal Australians, for example). &#0151;&nbsp;[[User:Jeremygbyrne|JEREMY]] 02:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:::: Your Template::Offensive has been deleted by sombody. Apparently 3RR rule. [[User:Azate|Azate]] 02:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:::OK, I can see I'm not going to get a general template to fly (it has been protected-deleted now, although not for three reverts), so I'd certainly support the next best thing, which is a situation-specific warning as per Azate's suggestion. How about:
{| class="messagebox" style="width: 480px; background: AntiqueWhite;"
| [[Image:Stop_hand.svg|none|40px| ]]
| '''This article contains images of (the Islamic prophet) [[Muhammad]].'''<br> Please see the discussions on the [[:{{NAMESPACE}} talk:{{PAGENAME}}|talk page]].
|-
|}
 
::::: Can <B>anyone</b> direct me to a similar English Wikipedia page that has a specific warning about imagery? Having just looked at the [[Piss Christ]] article, I noticed that not only is there no warning but the image is at the top bright as day. It's going to seem very 'double standardish' if this article has a warning while similar articles don't. [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 02:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::: There are none, and perhaps there should be none. When 11 Christian rioters die in protests against something, I think we should put a notice on its article too. &#0151;&nbsp;[[User:Jeremygbyrne|JEREMY]] 02:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
::::::: We should not and cannot give into the mob (quite literally in this case). Just because people are killed because of this doesn't mean that we should censor the content we offer. <small>[[User:Jtkiefer|<font color="red">Jtkiefer</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Jtkiefer|<font color="orange">T</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jtkiefer|<font color="green">C</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Jtkiefer|<font color="blue">@</font>]]</sup></small> ---- 03:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:I am strongly against using any form of warning template on the article itself. Things like controversy templates should be used to let editors know on talk pages. <small>[[User:Jtkiefer|<font color="red">Jtkiefer</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Jtkiefer|<font color="orange">T</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jtkiefer|<font color="green">C</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Jtkiefer|<font color="blue">@</font>]]</sup></small> ---- 02:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
::: I utterly, totally object to the use of this template. There is no precedent for anything even remotely like this, nor should there be. That's what [[Wikipedia:Content disclaimer]] is for. [[User:Babajobu|Babajobu]] 02:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:::: There is indeed something like it. It's called <nowiki>{{spoiler}}</nowiki>, and is used to protect people who are worried about seeing information about a fictional plot. &#0151;&nbsp;[[User:Jeremygbyrne|JEREMY]] 02:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
::::: Jeremy, I wouldn't call that "similar"... but I see where you wanted to go with that. [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 03:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
::::::Yeah but spoiler is entirely different. What your pretty much talking about here is hiding the content because some people don't likie it in general. <small>[[User:Jtkiefer|<font color="red">Jtkiefer</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Jtkiefer|<font color="orange">T</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jtkiefer|<font color="green">C</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Jtkiefer|<font color="blue">@</font>]]</sup></small> ---- 03:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
::::::: They seem rather different to me. A general template warning that plot details follow would be very roughly analagous to a general template stating "Offensiveness warning: potentially offensive content follows". It's not analagous to your very specific "Prophet Muhammad images" template. [[User:Babajobu|Babajobu]] 03:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::: Sure, it doesn't ''look'' similar, but it serves a similar function: to avoid our readers accidentally coming across something they'd rather not have seen. It seems slightly incongruous that we're prepared to insert warnings to stop our readers spoiling a movie, but not to stop our readers having their religious sensibilities outraged (and possibly alienating a lot of good editors into the bargain). &#0151;&nbsp;[[User:Jeremygbyrne|JEREMY]] 03:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
::::::: What might make sense is if a 'neutral' disclaimer was made... maybe even a link to the the general content disclaimer as pointed out by Babajou... but doing such a thing would only make sense if other similar articles have been treated similarly. [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 03:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::::: Third time there is edit conflict, ahhhhhh. Original comment: :::::::There's no need for a spoiler warning, I think people know that this is offensive. Spoilers are mainly use in plots and content. This is about a news, current event, so there is no need to put a spoiler tag. (End) Like Netscott said, it would only make sense if other articles have been treated in this way. Maybe a disclaimer warning would be a better idea. --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>[[User:Terenceong1992|nc]][[User talk:Terenceong1992|e Ong]] 03:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
::::::: The template originally read:
 
<center><div style="text-align: center; margin: 0 10% 1em 10%;">
{| class="notice noprint" id="Offensive" style="background: AntiqueWhite; border: 1px solid #aaa; padding: 0.1em; margin: 0.5em auto;"
|-
| valign="top" style="padding: 0.1em" | [[Image:Stop hand.svg|45px| ]]
| style="padding: 0.1em" width = 500| '''This article contains images or text which may [[Offensive|offend]] some readers.'''<br> ''<small>Specifically, the article contains images of the Islamic prophet [[Muhammad]].</small><br>''
|-
|colspan=2 align=center|<div style="font-size: 90%;">To discuss this article, see the [[:{{NAMESPACE}} talk:{{PAGENAME}}|talk page]].</div>
|}
</div></center>
 
::::::: (The template was accidentally deleted by an admin, but subsequently restored.) However, I think I now prefer the more specific warning, as the general template may be opening up an unnecessary can of worms. &#0151;&nbsp;[[User:Jeremygbyrne|JEREMY]] 03:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::::: Has nothing to do with looks. At the very least, it has to do with generality vs. specificity. No such template exists to protect the sensibilities of other groups, why only one for Muslims? A very general template warning of offensive content would duplicate the work of the Content Disclaimer, but at least I can imagine making a case for it. Also reject a "disclaimer warning".[[User:Babajobu|Babajobu]] 03:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
::::::::: I started off agreeing with your position (thinking it could also be used to help avoid Aboriginal Australians coming across images of dead relatives, for example) but I now believe that there's probably too much wikipedia precedent against such general disclaimers that we'd be wasting our time trying to argue for it. If, in future, an article is created which includes content strongly offensive to a large percentage of our Christian, or Jewish, or Hindu or Buddhist readership, we should probably consider such a specific warning for that article. &#0151;&nbsp;[[User:Jeremygbyrne|JEREMY]] 03:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 
Why oh why is the articles title not enough warning in it self? Is it really shocking to find cartoons picturing Muhammad in an article named "Muhammad cartoons controversy"? [[User:The.valiant.paladin|The.valiant.paladin]] 03:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 
People - you can't just slap a warning on like that... If such a thing is needed there has be established a guideline for using it. There are 8000 religions in the world excluding bizarre pseudo-religions like [[Joseph Kony]] - I'm sure quite a few of them have taboos. First of all, you can't measure offence by the scale of protests since that is largely a culturally based response so it means that we should also place a template on [[Piss Christ]].
*1) How many people needs to be offended before the template should be used?
::Next time something comes along which is as obviously divisive, we can deal with that as a special case too. If you see something else like this which you feel represents a problem with wikipedia, please point it out. &#0151;&nbsp;[[User:Jeremygbyrne|JEREMY]] 04:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
*2) Does it only apply to religion and blasphemy?
*3) If so - why?
*4) If not... won't it become impossible to administrate?
I propose moving the pictures down and simply writing in the intro of the article that: "The cartoons were published by so and so on this date which resulted in that and that. The cartoons can be seen in '''that section''' of this article." A simple inter-article link which ''indirectly'' notifies people about the pictures. I'm just saying... template to guard the feelings of readers... can of worms... [[User:Celcius|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="Black"><b>Celcius</b></font></font>]] [[User_talk:Celcius|<small><sup><font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="Black"><b>(Talk)</b></font></font></sup></small>]] [[Image:Flag_of_Denmark.svg|18px|]] <small><font color="Black">Wiki be With us!</font></small> 03:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
: All these issues were already addressed. The community expressed a very clear consensus that the pics should be at the top of the article. I generally dislike polls, but the community interest and participation in the previous poll was so great that I think it should only be overridden by a new poll, rather than by a few editors regurgitating previously discussed ideas. And I continue to dislike the template very strongly. [[User:Babajobu|Babajobu]] 03:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 
::Didn't realize the positioning had been polled. Well, I stand behind the majority then [[User:Celcius|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="Black"><b>Celcius</b></font></font>]] [[User_talk:Celcius|<small><sup><font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="Black"><b>(Talk)</b></font></font></sup></small>]] [[Image:Flag_of_Denmark.svg|18px|]] <small><font color="Black">Wiki be With us!</font></small> 03:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 
: There can be a mirror of this article (dublication) without cartoons, too. So people do not prefer to see them can be directed to the one without cartoons by putting a link on the template... How about that? [[User:216.248.122.252|216.248.122.252]] 04:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:: Not bad. What about a disambiguation page, with a link to this article as it stands, and a link to a "variant" article which clearly announces that the (relevant) images in it will appear as links only? (I'd have to disagree with The.valiant.paladin that no potentially sensitive reader is likely to follow a link to [[Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy]].) &#0151;&nbsp;[[User:Jeremygbyrne|JEREMY]] 04:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 
: Look to be reasonable and worth to try to me. In fact, I believe that, I had a better idea but a few people strongly disagree with that. I was saying that, this article is about the controversy, not about the cartoons. There is no reason to put all of them here (The collection cartoons is also against the Wiki regulations as far as I know). Another point is: A Westerner cannot see anything wrong with them, but Muslims will be ofended. So, only one cartoon (maybe an artist drawing picture) which is less provocative can be replaced with this one. That cartoon gives a good summary of the phenomena, and yet, doesn't offend anybody. I think Jeremy's offer is a good one, if you do not want to go for what I suggested. [[User:Rgulerdem|Resid Gulerdem]] 04:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 
::: Yet another idea that has already been mooted and rejected, this one as a POV fork. [[User:Babajobu|Babajobu]] 04:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:::: Again getting back to the ... <b>"''Where has it been done already on Wikipedia? ®''"</b> question ... It's almost like saying there are two truths... one for sensitive people and one for everyone else. This idea begs the question... are there any Wikipedia rules which specifically disallow the formulating of articles covering the same topic but in different ways? [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 04:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
::::: Yes, there are. I think it's a better solution, but it is probably ''more'' against wikipedia "policy" than the special-case template. (Hey, to make it obvious we could replace the hand-in-stop-sign icon with a guy in a turban! Or not.) But that just gets back to the fact that this is a special case (although the first, probably not the last). &#0151;&nbsp;[[User:Jeremygbyrne|JEREMY]] 04:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::: The 'alternate version' idea is already old in my mind due to the simple fact that there could exist alternate versions [[Ad nauseum]]. One for vegetarians, one for meat eaters... one for no dairy, one for no flesh showing in any image group, etc. etc. etc.... doesn't work, does it? [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 04:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::: As I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Content_labeling_proposal&diff=prev&oldid=13171429 said elsewhere] (see the very end of that page), I think some kind of "virtual forking" of articles could provide useful benefits, although possibly most in [[meta:Wikifiction]]. But in this case you're right; on reflection, forking is probably not the best solution either. Which gets us back to special-purpose tagging... &#0151;&nbsp;[[User:Jeremygbyrne|JEREMY]] 05:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:Blind generalizations doesn't provide any solutions. This is not just a regular contravorsy. It is about 1,5 billion people and has influence on international poitics. [[User:Rgulerdem|Resid Gulerdem]] 04:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
::: Going to have to agree with Babajou on this one... relative to <b><i>the images</i></b>... any changes regarding them should require a full blown vote. And that about wraps it up for me on this question. [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 05:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:As has been mentioned earlier; the title of the article is all the warning necessary. Further, most browsers have a setting to prevent the loading of images. If someone is '''that''' offended by them, yet still wants to read the article, it is possible to see the page without them. The fact that the images are offensive to many is well known, so there really is no need for a special temmplate; and as the images are the singular main thrust of the article, they belong where every other main article has its images—up top. -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] 05:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
::Whether "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy" sufficiently equates to "Warning: may scandalise your religious sensibilities" is a separate argument. It's definitely accidental, good faith "stumbling upon" that the template would seek to prevent. Its addition would detract nothing from the article, and serve only to improve the information content for a specific group of readers. &#0151;&nbsp;[[User:Jeremygbyrne|JEREMY]] 05:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 
This seems to fundamentally be (by some uses, '''literally word for word''') reiterations of previous discussions. [[User:Varga Mila|Varga Mila]] 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:I have to plead ignorance, having noticed this page only mid last week. (I've read chunks of the archives, but haven't come across this argument before.) I'd really appreciate a link. &#0151;&nbsp;[[User:Jeremygbyrne|JEREMY]] 10:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
To chime in (yes, this is all very repetitive): Just like Wikipedia is not censored for minors, it is not censored for Muslims (or Christians, or Hindus, or Jews). Plastering articles with warning templates about potentially offensive material sets a bad precedent, there would soon be hardly an article without it. The ''only'' question we have to ask ourselves on Wikipedia is: Are these images encyclopedic. I was objecting to porn images included in articles on these grounds: The internet is stuffed with porn, and any given porn picture is hardly encyclopedic ''unless it made the news for some reason''. Similarly, random islamophobic cartoons are not encyclopedic, and I will oppose their inclusion. But if we agree that it this particular controversy reaches an "encyclopedic" level of notability (per [[WP:Recentism]]), the images are naturally notable to the topic. Warning messages about potential offense or controversy go to the talkpage or to html comments, ''not'' to the article itself. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''')]]</small> 09:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:Nobody is (currently) suggesting censorship. This suggestion is about providing readers with additional information in order to help them make a choice about whether to read an article. (And I think you'll agree that "there would soon be hardly an article without it" is a slight exaggeration.) &#0151;&nbsp;[[User:Jeremygbyrne|JEREMY]] 10:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
::yes, but people will tag all sorts of articles to make a point. We'll need to develop a ''policy'' if we want to tag articles that "contain encyclopedic material that may be considered offensive by some". So far, there is no such policy, and it will be a nightmare to develop it. For example, can you see the [[Paleolithic]] article plastered with warning messages "this article contains material that may offend the religious sensitivities of Young Earth Creationists"? I think I would leave Wikipedia if something like this was sanctioned by policy. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''')]]</small> 16:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 
Would this be a usable compromise? I've created a "hidden image" template in my userspace, result looks like this:
 
{{User:Sherool/HideImage|Image:Example.jpg|width=300|float=left|heading=Click the show link to see image|caption=Image caption goes here}}
 
Users with JavaScript enabled can then click the "Show" link to display the image. This can be set up in various different ways. Better than a huge warning banner on top of the page at least IMHO, even if it requires JavaScript to work (users without JavaScript will not be eabel to show the image). Just an idea anyway. The "code" is at [[User:Sherool/HideImage]] if anyone is interested in experimenting further with it. --[[User:Sherool|Sherool]] <span style="font-size:75%">[[User talk:Sherool|(talk)]]</span> 18:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:It's a nicer implementation of the "blank link" style of image presentation, but it's unfortunately not acceptable to a majority of the editors who voted in the initial poll. &#0151;&nbsp;[[User:Jeremygbyrne|JEREMY]] 18:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
::I agree with Jeremy on this one. Even though it's a nice template (one which I am going to steal the code to btw) it is unacceptable since A) it is censoring the article and this is an encyclopedia of knowledge and shouldn't be censored for a particular group's sensitivities, and B) there is a strong consensus to keep the image where it is and exactly how it is. <small>[[User:Jtkiefer|<font color="red">Jtkiefer</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Jtkiefer|<font color="orange">T</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jtkiefer|<font color="green">C</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Jtkiefer|<font color="blue">@</font>]]</sup></small> ---- 18:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 
Sherool's suggestion looks to be fair and a good compromise to me. [[User:Rgulerdem|Resid Gulerdem]] 22:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:We have been over and over and over this. The vast majority of editors support keeping the image where it is.--[[User:Jbull|Jbull]] 22:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:Leave that horse alone, Resid, its dead already. [[User:Kyaa the Catlord|Kyaa the Catlord]] 08:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:: At the risk of similar equine necroflagellation:
 
{| class="messagebox" style="width: 342px; background-color: #F8EABA;"
| [[Image:Diamond-caution.png|Diamond-caution.png]]
|'''This article contains [[cartoon]] images of<br/> (the Islamic prophet) [[Muhammad]].'''<br/>
:''Some readers may prefer not to view such images, and are invited to disable automatic downloading of images in their browsers, or to avoid this article.''
<small>Please see the discussion on the article's [[:{{NAMESPACE}} talk:{{PAGENAME}}|talk page]].</small><br/>
|-
|}
 
::Feedback, please. &#0151;&nbsp;[[User:Jeremygbyrne|JEREMY]] 11:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:::Add a translation to Arabic and Turkish? [[User:MX44|MX44]] 11:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
::::Indeed; and Farsi of course. (Err... or should that be "[[Persian language|Persian]]"? One issue at a time...) Although I think we can leave that to others if versions of this are used outside the English wikipedia; readers of this page should be able to understand English. &#0151;&nbsp;[[User:Jeremygbyrne|JEREMY]] 12:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
My humble view: No ~ for the reasons discussed ad near nauseam on this page [[User:Varga Mila|Varga Mila]] 11:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::I agree the general subject has been gone over many times in the last ten days or so. However, this particular approach hasn't specifically been considered, and may just fly. It's a fairly minimalist solution (unlike my general <nowiki>{{Offensive}}</nowiki> template) and doesn't detract from wikipedia's resolute refusal to self-censor, while still providing good-faith readers with additional choice. &#0151;&nbsp;[[User:Jeremygbyrne|JEREMY]] 12:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
::::::There is no particular approach which will satisfy a tidbit of the free information protagonists (myself included). No magic solution, no special template, no words, no phrases, no pictures. It has been approached from this angle already as well. This angle is a specification of a general angle which has already been taken multiple times. The general viewpoint that your idea is an offshoot of is to make it so that users have a warning. No warning is needed, if a user is coming to this page, they will see the image and leave, or view it and read the article. I believe a general consensous has already been reached...3 times now? This being an offshoot of a suggestion that has already been brought up, it is not likely to succeed. -[[User:Moocats|Moocats]] 18:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::::I support it, as long as we put the same warning on every single page with an image, as any image could offend somebody out there. We can't pander to just one group... [[User:Valtam|Valtam]] 20:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
::::::::I concur with Valtam.--[[User:Jbull|Jbull]] 20:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
::Anyone want to add [[equine necroflagellation]] as #redirect <nowiki>[[beating a dead horse]]</nowiki> :-) See if some tight-ass vandalism patroller (such as myself) will delete it as a protologism with no google hits. [[User:Weregerbil|Weregerbil]] 12:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
::: Oppose as per Varga Mila. Also oppose on grounds that readers should not have to have Javascript enabled to access informatiom. [[User:Babajobu|Babajobu]] 16:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I certainly support Jeremy's idea of having a template... [[User:Rgulerdem|Resid Gulerdem]] 06:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
Like I say above, I support the idea only if we have a template on any Wikipedia page that contains an image - there could be SOMEONE out there in the world who may be offended by any given image. If we don't use the template for all images, we are pandering to one group. [[User:Valtam|Valtam]] 19:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
==Poll 4: Special-case Labelling==
Poll attempts to determine support for labelling of this article. (Format of labelling can be changed after poll, if support is indicated;
the template immediately above is an example only.)
 
===Support Labelling===
Support a special-case labelling of this article, which improves the quality of information and choices available to wikipedia's readers&nbsp;&mdash; some of whom might prefer an opportunity to avoid the article's content&nbsp;&mdash; without any concession to self-censorship or the reversal of any previous poll decision. (Precedents for special-case treatments at [[Goatse.cx]], [[Child pornography]], [[Bah%C3%A1%27u%27ll%C3%A1h]], [[Autofellatio]], [[Oral sex]] etc.)
 
:'''Support''' &#0151;&nbsp;[[User:Jeremygbyrne|JEREMY]] 06:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
===Oppose labelling===
Oppose this unprecedented "special-case label" template, reject the notion that it improves "quality of information and choices available to Wikipedia's readers" in any way. "Precedents" cited are not precedents at all: [[child pornography]] is illegal in Florida, where servers are hosted; [[autofellatio]] was resolved by Jimbo's fiat, and is unique in that respect, et cetera; much more analagous are [[Piss Christ]] or [[anti-semitism]], where no template exists to genuflect before sensibilities of communities who might find the images offensive. No special treatment for any community, and please no further efforts to evade clear consensus of community with further pollcruft.
 
:Gods, please don't start more polls. We can't even get people to bloody follow the consensus gained from the ones we already had... In other words '''OPPOSE'''. [[User:Kyaa the Catlord|Kyaa the Catlord]] 09:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:'''OPPOSE''' No need for it, if we go thisway we'll be adding special case templates to everything. Plus as stated the poll isn't well formatted and appears to push one answer over the other, and the use of another poll was against consensus it seems.
 
:'''SPEEDY OPPOSE''', per logic. <sub>→<font style="color:#975612">[[User:AzaToth|Aza]]</font><font style="color:#325596">[[User_talk:AzaToth|Toth]]</font></sub> 14:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:'''OPPOSE''' News can censor itself and warn "viewers" all they want. Wikipedia does not, and CANNOT in order to cater toward a truly neutral viewpoint. Plus, polls have repeatedly verified that wiki will not do this. -[[User:Moocats|Moocats]] 15:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:'''STRONG OPPOSE''' Oppose the template and oppose this poll (as per my rationale for oppositon written above, which is against typical poll format but someone needed to because Jeremy insisted on presenting poll with an argument for his own side), this is just another way of weaseling away from clearly expressed community consensus that picture be presented at top of article, as in [[Piss Christ]] and so many others. Bottom line: community wants this treated like a normal article. Other must learn to respect community decision. [[User:Babajobu|Babajobu]] 15:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:'''STRONGLY OPPOSE''' This poll is terrible. No one comes to these pages by accident. They shouldn't be surprise to find what they are looking for in the first place! [[User:Valtam|Valtam]] 19:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:'''BORED OPPOSE''' This dead horse can't take any more beating.--[[User:Jbull|Jbull]] 19:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:'''OPPOSE''' Well I didn't get a chance to vote in the other polls so here's my chance!!! :-) This content disclaimer idea doesn't make any sense relative to the rest of WikiPedia... again... wikipedia already has a general disclaimer... that really does cover it all! Please do have a look at this proposal for a more [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#Comments|general solution]] though. [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 20:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:'''OPPOSE''' For what it's worth from a non-registered user. ;) This is both a bad precedent to set and one I cannot remember seeing a comparable case for in other encyclopedias I have read. Richard [[User:129.244.128.134|129.244.128.134]] 22:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
===Comment===
: Jeremy, first of all, if you are trying to conduct another poll, please have a look at [[Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Poll_Results|how previous polls were formatted]]. Secondly, the wording of the poll cannot be constructed so as to argue for a particular position. Thirdly, your option of having a "warning" at the top of the article was one of the options in Poll 2, and received little support. Do you have any reason to think people will feel differently now? If not, please don't create another poll for no reason. [[User:Babajobu|Babajobu]] 06:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::I've reformatted the header, but there is only one question here: label or not; ''Support'' or ''Oppose''? &#0151;&nbsp;[[User:Jeremygbyrne|JEREMY]] 06:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:: And yes, determine that there is consensus to override old consensus ''before'' making the change, Jeremy. [[User:Babajobu|Babajobu]] 06:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:::None of the previous three polls addressed such a label (although quite a lot of people mentioned their support for such an idea in their comments). &#0151;&nbsp;[[User:Jeremygbyrne|JEREMY]] 06:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::: Jeremygbyrne please see [[Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#Regarding_Image_removal.2Frelocation_and_warnings|this]]. [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 07:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:::: Hmm... That seems a bit like censorship of my poll suggestion, although I'll assume good faith and trust that you are trying to improve the quality of the information on wikipedia, rather than defending a position for some other purpose. &#0151;&nbsp;[[User:Jeremygbyrne|JEREMY]] 07:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::::: Jeremy, if you want to run a poll, please present options in an NPOV manner without arguing for a particular option, as creators of previous polls managed to do, but you have not. [[User:Babajobu|Babajobu]] 07:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::: Please show me the wikipedia guideline you're referring to. Naturally I have a POV, and I'm voting for my own poll. I'd be happy for you to present a "case for the negative", and to reformat this poll in just about any way you'd like, but I'm not happy for you to simply decide that it's invalid and thus gag the debate. I'm sure you don't want to do that either, however, and I look forward to reaching a win:win compromise over this. &#0151;&nbsp;[[User:Jeremygbyrne|JEREMY]] 07:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::::::: About 5 different people told you not to re-create a poll and you did anyway. What's not to get? There is no "win-win", there's you and a few others who want to "protect" people who don't need protecting (I don't see any newspaper editors rioting in the streets) and the other side of the house telling you it's just information (which it is). No warning label is needed for a specific sect of people...or wanted. -[[User:Moocats|Moocats]] 14:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
There is a warning on the [[Bahá'u'lláh]] page, no? I don't see why this would be any different... --[[User:The tooth|The tooth]] 18:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
: That would perhaps be analagous to the [[Muhammad]] article, where the only image of Muhammad is included part way down the page. But if there was an article [[The Famous Picture of Bahá'u'lláh]], you can bet your money the picture would be at the top, just as the cartoons are at the top of the article about the cartoons. Also, FWIW, the arrangement at Bahá'u'lláh was determined by a relatively small group of editors with little community input. [[User:Babajobu|Babajobu]] 18:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:: Ah, you're right, mea culpa. :) --[[User:The tooth|The tooth]] 18:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
==Bad news==
This page (the talk page) needs to be archived real bad. My computer is almost crashing trying to load this page. [[User:Aucaman|'''Aucaman''']]<sup>[[User_talk:Aucaman|Talk]]</sup> 03:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:Agreed, this is 365 KB long, we need to split it into three parts. --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>[[User:Terenceong1992|nc]][[User talk:Terenceong1992|e Ong]] 03:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 
==Wikipedia unavailable==
I am aware that this is probably not the right forum in which to ask, but I'm curious. Does anyone know why Wikipedia has been unavailable for the past 6 hours? [[User:Varga Mila|Varga Mila]] 16:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 
Varga Mila: There are rumours circulating at the moment that Wikipedia was bought down by a DOS (Denial of Service) attack early this morning, in response to this topic. To the best of my knowledge, this is '''Not True'''. Unfortunately, most of Wikipedia is just as much in the dark about the crash as you are. Please be patient, and I am sure that information on the downtime will become available soon. [[User:Tmalmjursson|Thor Malmjursson]] 16:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC) [[User_talk:Tmalmjursson|Thor's pet yack]]
:: According to some chats I followed in #wikimedia-tech (via irc.freenode.net) The wiki servers providing [[Domain_Name_System|DNS]] malfunctioned for some reason.. it appears to have been related to an ''NFS Debacle'' as mentioned in [https://wikitech.leuksman.com/view/Server_admin_log this Wikitech Server admin log]. [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 17:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
::: As far as I know, there is absolutely no truth whatsoever to the notion that Wikipedia was slowed down by a DoS related to the cartoons. [[User:Babajobu|Babajobu]] 17:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
::::it was a hardware failure, see [http://community.livejournal.com/wikitech/]. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''')]]</small> 21:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::No, no, the rumours are [http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/UnNews:Wikipedia_DDoS_over_Muhammad_cartoons true] after all! :P <font color="red">[[User:Jacoplane|Jaco]]</font><font color="blue">[[User_talk:Jacoplane|plane]]</font> 21:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::: Real nice there Jacoplane ...(<b>not</b>) really showing us all your true colors (your true POV)... that link is extremely lame, racist and insulting and qualifies under the 'just stupid' classification of that site...I'd just as soon erase your link for such things have no place in this discussion. No one is being 'informed' by such an inflamatory thing. [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 22:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Quite right; the one thing we must never allow anywhere in the Wikisphere (especially on controversial matters) is any attempt at humour. Humour, after all, might engender a sense of proportion, where what we ''really'' need is foaming-at-the-mouth fundamentalists (from both sides) who cast everything in absolutist terms. Besides, one person's humour is another person's cause of offence, and if we've learnt anything from this whole affair, it's that anything which might conceivably cause offence to anyone, ever, must be mercilessly eradicated. Death to all humorists! [[User:Vilcxjo|Vilcxjo]] 23:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::::: I see, so you two are in support of the following language, ''"The Muslims have been even more of a pain-in-the-ass than the Chinamen, and that's saying a lot."''? As it appeared (uncyclopedia.org/index.php?title=UnNews:Wikipedia_DDoS_over_Muhammad_cartoons&oldid=534298 at the time) of Jacoplane's posting, then? [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 00:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
::::::::: Netscott, uh...that's why it's Uncyclopedia...it's supposed to be ludicrous. [[User:Babajobu|Babajobu]] 05:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::: Babajou, well I guess that's why it was edited by someone shortly after my initial comment to change the word 'Chinamen' to Scientologists.... heh.. [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 05:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::It's '''''Un'''''News, ok? Wikipedia talkpages are to bitch about Wikipedia content, not about surrealism on the Internet in general. I am glad people joke about this stuff. If you cannot bear to see a joke, you should never have looked at the Internet at all. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''')]]</small> 10:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you seriously so stupid to think that wiki's server farm could be taken down by dipshit script kiddies, especially from arab countries? --[[User:84.249.252.211|84.249.252.211]] 23:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
: As though Muslim hackers couldn't potentially wield botnets?... uh huh....whatever [[User:83.202.47.85|83.202.47.85]] 23:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
::it was a bleeding harddisk crash. If WP was so easy to DoS, it would be DoSed half of the time, seeing the number of people who have an axe to grind with WP by now. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''')]]</small> 10:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
::: There are no Muslim hackers, there are a few script kiddies. Anyone can yield a fucked botnet, anyone. Script kiddie == embarassment. They are too stupid to realize that they are being laughed at --[[User:84.249.252.211|84.249.252.211]] 11:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 
== International Reaction ==
 
The section on international reactions is somewhat lacking. I think it would be nice to focus on a few reactions, some of them sane (like consumer boycot) and some not so sane (torching buildings)
 
What was the deal with the pope voicing his opinion? Bill Clinton? Who said what and in what order, and who did original opinion making (and not only parrotting whatever was safe at the moment.)
 
There is a lot of material to choose from ... [[User:MX44|MX44]] 23:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
: That's the problem. Too much material still coming in. Yesterday, I thought this thing was over. Today, I'm not so sure anymore: The [[IOC]] is escalating this thing even more, calling it "their 9/11" and Iran is now complaining about cartoons about soccer, complete with death threats. See today's [[Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy|Timeline]]. The Blog, that broke the Al-Fagr thing has interesting news, too.
 
Where do you think a quote like this should go?
FROM THE BBC: "They want to test our feelings," protester Mawli Abdul Qahar Abu Israra told the BBC. "They want to know whether Muslims are extremists or not. Death to them and to their newspapers," he said."
(Gibby 23:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC))
: Nowhere. One protester's opinion isn't noteworthy.
 
:That one fits as a single quote-line on commercial news. Here? The garbage bin (unless you can link it to an official statement.) [[User:MX44|MX44]] 23:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 
 
EXAMPLE of what I think would fit in this section:
 
:Yesterday there was a resolution asking for calm issued by 41 important religous leaders, including the grand mufti of Libanon/Syria. One person was missing though: Yussuf Al-Qardawi who runs his own religious TV-show on al-Jazeera. He insists on an apology from the Danish government instead of the newspaper responsible.
 
To make this work, we would also have to quote al-Qardawi from earlier on. Is there such a quote? Can it be linked to the "They want to test our feelings," quote above?
 
[[User:MX44|MX44]] 12:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 
 
(Warning! Strong POV ahead!)
: This is kind of a hard tied knot, because if Rasmusen gives in and lets a TV-priest define the Danish constitution, there would be no way of knowing what Al-Qardawis next demand would be. Public beheading of Rasmusen with exclusive rights to al-Jazeera?
 
[[User:MX44|MX44]] 14:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 
==BBC "Research"==
 
The quote below was posted on BBC earlier today (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4708216.stm).
 
 
"And here came the first inconsistency on one side. More than two years previously, in April 2003, a Danish cartoonist Christoffer Zieler offered some cartoons of Jesus Christ to Jyllands-Posten, Denmark's largest daily paper and generally seen as right-wing. One of the paper's editors told Zieler: "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them."
No such concern prevailed when Jyllands-Posten decided to solicit drawings of Muhammad."
 
On this talk page (Wiki) someone wrote a couple of days ago: "Someone at the newspaper later clarified why those cartoons of a Jesus-figure were rejected. It wasn't because they were of Jesus, but they were silly and poor cartoons".
 
I have heard this elsewhere as well, but have no actual and reliable sources thereof.
Is it another matter of poor BBC research ?
[[User:Varga Mila|Varga Mila]] 23:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:Competing newspaper Politiken was contacted by Ziegler too, and thought that this was a nice chance at getting a shot at JP. So they broke the story. Note that Politiken did not want to publish either, even though they do publish pretty rude cartoons of Jesus now and then. [[User:MX44|MX44]] 00:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:[http://www.politiken.dk/media/grafik/5528.gif Here is one] of Jesus and his stylist ...
 
:: This issue is already dealt with in "4.1 Danish journalistic tradition" with citations etc. [[User:Azate|Azate]] 00:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:::Text description of his cartoons: ''Zieler's five colored cartoons portrayed Jesus jumping out of holes in floors and walls during his resurrection. In one, gnomes rated Jesus for style, another entitled "Saviour-cam" showed Jesus with a camera on his head staring at his feet.'' [[User:MX44|MX44]] 00:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 
::::The point is, that if there is a reliable reference that J-P declined the Jesus cartoon(s) for reasons other than fear of offense, that ought to be in the article. As it presently stands in 4.1 ("In 2003, Jyllands-Posten rejected unsolicited cartoons about Jesus[48], opening them to accusations of a double standard"), there is little reference to the possibility of anything but a double standard. [[User:Varga Mila|Varga Mila]] 00:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::: In other words the Mohammad cartoons were 'solicitated' (bad word=prostitution) because they would cause controversy?[[User:86.52.36.140|86.52.36.140]] 00:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::::That is an interesting, but, I think, quite different issue from the one, to which I refer. [[User:Varga Mila|Varga Mila]] 01:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::::: I just took umbrage with the word 'solicitation'. Don't mind me.[[User:86.52.36.140|86.52.36.140]] 01:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 
::::JP have publically stated that they turned them down "in a polite way", not because they would offend any christians, but because the were just ... plain weired [[User:MX44|MX44]] 01:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 
::::I suggest Zieler send them to the Iranian competion :D [[User:MX44|MX44]]
 
:::::::: I think the word "unsolicited cartoons" will suffice to inform the reader of another reason of the reaction, namely, these cartoons weren't asked for by JP. The footnote 48 says as much.
 
::::::::: Why 'unsolicitated'? Why not 'unrequested'.?
 
::::::::::Yep, unsolicited suffices. I hadn't read footnote 48, which does, as you say, elaborate.[[User:Varga Mila|Varga Mila]] 01:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::: 'uncolicitated ' does certainly not suffice. That is the opinion of a British newspaper. In Danish the proper word would be 'unrequested' or "uopfordret", meaning "uncalled for".[[User:86.52.36.140|86.52.36.140]] 01:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 
::::::::::::"Unsolicited" means "uopfordret" (although the dictionary is my memory). Unsolicited emails, unsolicited contact etc.; the Danish translation, would be 'uopfordrede emails, uopfordret kontakt etc. 'Uncalled for', I believe, bears connotations of something being rude :-> [[User:Varga Mila|Varga Mila]] 01:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC
::::::::::::: Yes, the wording means that you should not send rude messages to the newspaper, since they will not take the responsibility. That is it is uncalled for that you send me messages to convert to Islam, but it is unsolicitated that you send me pictures of the boobs of the minister of justice.[[User:86.52.36.140|86.52.36.140]] 01:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 
 
The description of the rejected cartoon fits with this one (from zielers homepage)
:http://www.zieler.dk/m-images/1opstandelsesspalte%202004.jpg
I am out of dope, so I can't judge them fairly ... You decide! :D [[User:MX44|MX44]] 10:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 
== This pink box in the "Overview" section ==
 
Why is there a prominent link in that pink box to "Anders Fogh Rasmussen Cartoons" ? I think it has no business being there, because these Rasmussen cartoons are nothing more that a footnote in the larger context at hand here. This box is included from somewhere, but I can't figure it out. I also don't like the fact that the dossier is called "Akkari Dossier". Akkari is prominent mostly because he speaks Danish and English fluently, wheras Abu Laban and Sheik Hulayel don't. Akkari didn't pen the dossier. A better name would be "Imams' dossier" or so. [[User:Azate|Azate]] 00:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 
(==Other Cartoon Contests==)
 
I think there could be a new subject heading in this entry that gives links to the cartoon contests that are springing up in the wake of the Cartoon War. Here are some links, and Google will find others. This is a legitimate subject heading so that people are aware of the history and nature of the response to this event.
 
An editorial note would be placed warning people that the material is bound to offend certain people, like other warnings I've seen on the post.
 
Here are the contests (there are probably others):
Fight Hate with Humor Contest World Union of Jewish Students http://www.wujs.org.il/home/cartoon.php
Iranian Pro-Holocaust Cartoon call (many news articles about it. Sec. of State Rice spoke against/about it)
laughyourheadoff.org Islamic Joke and Cartoon Contest gaining steam
http://drawmohammed.com/
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina60206p2.htm
Former Muslims launch cartoon effort
Israelpundit, a blog, had a contest, but then got negative feedback, and now it seems to have vanished from the site??? Maybe Wayback machine has proof they had a contest.
[[User:Wilbrary|Wilbrary]] 01:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 
: This article is not a clearing house for private internet cartoon contests. [[User:Azate|Azate]] 02:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 
== What should we do with this derivative article? ==
 
[[Cartoon Intifada]] Anything to merge? Delete?
[[User:Lotsofissues|Lotsofissues]] 02:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
: None of our business, I'd say. It'll end up as a REDIRECT eventually, I think. [[User:Azate|Azate]] 02:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:: I'll just tag it <nowiki>{{mergeto}}</nowiki>. [[User:Weregerbil|Weregerbil]] 03:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 
== Elsevier Oct 21, De volkskrant, Oct 29, both the Neherlands reprinted cartoons ==
 
I was looking for some references and found that the volkskrant already reprinted 3 cartoons on October 29. I think we slowely have to change the sentence about Januari 2006 to the whole period as there was already stuff going on. There was a response to the october reprint that I still have to read (I am Dutch) --[[User:KimvdLinde|KimvdLinde]] 04:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:Just found out that Elsevier did it already 8 days earlier..... --[[User:KimvdLinde|KimvdLinde]] 05:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
::This fits in together with el-Fagrs publication about the same time, as a discussion happening in media. [[User:MX44|MX44]] 09:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 
 
== Removing Links and Collaboration ==
 
Azate. I don’t understand why you insist on removing links that add value to the dialog, and a case for their inclusion has been made. From what I understand, this is in violation of the spirit of Wikipedia.
 
<i>Respect other contributors. Wikipedia contributors come from many different countries and cultures, and have widely different views. Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in building an encyclopedia. (See Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia etiquette, Wikipedia:Writers' rules of engagement, Dispute resolution.)
 
In the first instance, you removed a link to Annoy.com, referring to a nine year old online publication as an “annoying blog” which suggests you didn’t even clarify what link you were removing, and justified it by making a misstatement and personal judgment.
 
The reason I chose to include Annoy.com’s coverage was because (1) they have a history of free speech and have engaged in two federal First Amendment issues, one before the United States Supreme Court, (2) they have included clean images of the cartoons along with a thoughtful justification for publishing them, (3) they have published related controversies, from Nick Berg’s beheading to the Arab-European League cartoons, as well as their own relevant imagery and (4) experienced their own controversy over images relating to Jesus and the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, that was covered internationally from South Africa to the Middle East.
 
For those reasons, I determined that linking to a site that presents the images in a fair and balanced context (unlike some of the one-sided viewpoints reflected by some of the sites linked to) and owing to their long standing history, are not likely to be here today, gone tomorrow, as we have already seen with some of the links.
 
Unless you have a strong and compelling reasons for removing links, appropriately articulated as opposed to quick judgement calls that are not accurate, please leave them alone.
 
Also, your comment that the Ramussen cartoons are not “original, surprising or controversial” is inappropriate and has nothing to do with why a link or information is provided. Those are your personal value judgments. News is about relevancy and objectivity, not surprise and controversy. What do you mean they are not original? Have they been published elsewhere? Are they violating a copyright? I didn’t even originate that link, but thought it was absolutely appropriate, and I was better informed overall for having followed it. Obviously that was what the editor who posted it to begin with intended.
 
It’s great that you are so enthusiastic about this issue and your contributions are as welcome as anyone else’s but unless a link is not germane to the story, offers no relevant value or is in violation of Wikipedia’s policy, please leave them alone. We are all committed to Wikipedia’s success and providing valuable and informative links are part of that goal.
 
--[[User:JasonWilson|JasonWilson]] 09:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 
: '''Annoy.com link''' : The links leads to a page where the 12 original cartoons are mixed with cartoons that sombody found funny and put there, without clearly distinguishing between the two. There are enough pages with links to the 12 cartoons. There is no need to link to a page that may mislead. I don't care about the great things annoy.com did in the past. This is a superfluous link, that may mislead some not familiar with the cartoons.
: '''The AF Rasmussen cartoons''' : are irrelevant in the context of this article. They are neither about the Mohammad cartoons nor about the reaction of those who opposed them in the Muslim world. They are just witness to the ordinary intra-Danish political debate, and as such just coincident to the Mohammad cartoon controversy, but not part of it. [[User:Azate|Azate]] 10:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 
::The Rasmussen cartoons actually was a part of the discussion of the JP-Debacle. An early Iranian contest you could say. [[User:MX44|MX44]] 11:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 
It appears that the entire page is dedicated to the Jyllands Posten controversy, and the other cartoons are clearly labeled as such. So are the 12 original cartoons clearly labeled, and the Arab-European League cartoons clearly labeled. I doubt anyone with a clear comprehension of English would have a difficult time making sense of that page. I don't think that the page is misleading, nor superfluous, and I believe the grouping of the Dansish cartoons with those of the Arab-European League response and others offers an interesting and valuable comparision. To claim people would be misled is a sweeping generalization based on no fact whatsoever. You might have been, although seem to have clarified it for yourself. I wasn't. (The only reason I brought up Annoy.com's past, is because you referred to it as an "annoying blog". Obviously not.)
 
I agree with MX44. The AF Ramussen cartoons are very much about a response to the cartoons. The "Muslim world" is not the only world that responded to this.
 
I suggest we agree to disagree on this. Wikipedia is not about unilateral decision making. Yours seems to be the only objection to the link, and since we both share a desire to make Wikipedia the best resource posssible, I say leave my contributon and move on. There's so much more we both could, and should, be focused on. --[[User:JasonWilson|JasonWilson]] 19:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 
== Israelis have the right idea ==
 
This Israeli organization has decided to respond to the Iran antisemitic cartoon contest with their own anti-semitic cartoon contest. Seems to me like this is an example of the right way to respond to something intended to anger you.
http://www.boomka.org/
Richard [[User:129.244.23.13|129.244.23.13]] 15:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
: Wonderful, hysterical. I want to see a showdown between the Iranian cartoons and the Israeli cartoons. Is the Israeli organization showing cartoons already? Where? [[User:Babajobu|Babajobu]] 15:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:: Reminds me how folks in the U.S. of black African ethnic origin tend to allow fellow members of their ethnicity refer to each other with a certain [[Nigger|racial slur]]. [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 16:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
::: It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. If the Israeli campaign recieves much notoriety it may very well tend to delfate Iran's own campaign. Babajobu, there appear to be three previously published cartoons already showing on the boomka site.. [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 16:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:There are actually people resonding to the article saying that apparently "this isn't the way to do things". Like throwing rocks, and rioting is :p It'd all be well and good if everyone could just chill out, there's not a single religion in the world that hasn't been made fun of at one time or another. What makes them think they're so special? -[[User:Moocats|Moocats]] 18:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
::the protests are a sign of weakness of the Islamic world; people feel bullied and are fed up with being the "2nd World". Fascism always arises when people feel inferior and abused. They are, of course, also a sign of strength of the fundamentalists. The first casualty of Islamism is Islam. The Israeli reaction is hilarious; the best approach when facing angry insulted Muslims is to show that you can laugh at yourself, too, rather than letting them know you think they are lame or childish. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''')]]</small> 19:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:Anyone know off-hand if [http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Hamshari_newspaper_plans_cartoon_response Hamshari (in Wikinews)] is already linked from any of the Wikipedia pages about this controversy? If so then we should definitely add the Israeli's site. [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 19:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:: I've started a [http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Israeli_group_announces_anti-semitic_cartoons_contest WikiNews entry] about this group's announcement... we'll see if it gets picked up. [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 19:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 
== Veracity of El Fagr article? ==
 
Does anybody have any source for the al Fagr article besides the Egyptian blogger? The edition in question (#21, October 17, 2005) is offline, and I can find no other source anywhere I look.
 
Thanks,
[http://slackbastard.blogspot.com/ Andy].
[[User:60.240.106.174|60.240.106.174]] 15:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:: Jyllands-Posten themselves [http://www.jp.dk/english_news/artikel:aid=3548386/ reprinted an article] by ''The Copenhagen Post'' but apparently The Post used blogger EgyptianSandMonkey as their source. That said, by now El Fagr would no doubt have emphatically denied having printed it if they never did. [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 16:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 
::: According to this [http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/article.php?id=3622993 article] from TV2, a Denmark news station, the Danish Ambassador to Egypt confirmed the story. I also seem to remember someone posting an arabic language site where El Fagr confirmed they had published the cartoons, I'll see if I can find the link. Richard [[User:129.244.23.132|129.244.23.132]] 18:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 
::: Nevermind, it got some facts wrong and doesn't seem terribly reliable. Richard [[User:129.244.23.132|129.244.23.132]] 18:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 
Thanks Netscott and Richard. Apart from Bjarne Soerensen, the Danish Ambassador, 'Freedom for Egyptians' is the only source for this story. Incidentally, I've emailed both Al/El Fagr and the journalist Tasneem Brogger (Bloomberg) asking for confirmation, but am yet to receive a reply. (FYI, there's a long entry on my blog re this.) I think it would be useful to have Soerensen confirm that their source was ''not'' the Egyptian blogger in question.
 
Thanks again,
[http://slackbastard.blogspot.com/ Andy].
[[User:60.240.106.174|60.240.106.174]] 06:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:Andy you should know that the El Fagr story was <b><i>seperately</i></b> confirmed both by ''Freedom for Egyptians'' and ''EgyptianSandMonkey''. [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 07:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
::Netscott, I've looked at both. FfE credits 'Gateway Pundit' ("BTW, it is not '''my''' idea to bring the details of this Egyptian paper, it is Gateway Pundit’s"); 'Gateway Pundit' says "Freedom for Egyptians has the details" (and nothing more); ESM credits FfE ("Freedom For Egyptians reminded me why the cartoons looked so familiar to me"). In brief, this story has '''not''' been separately and '''independently''' confirmed by both FfE and ESM. [http://slackbastard.blogspot.com/ Andy]. [[User:60.240.106.174|60.240.106.174]] 12:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
::: This is the website of El Fagr: http://www.elfagr.org/ The page that contained the image was http://www.elfagr.org/ed_21.html (issue 21 of the paper). I've seen it, but I failed to copy it. It was removed shortly after Wikipedia started linking to it. --[[User:Valentinian|Valentinian]] 12:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:::: Andy, It's true that EgyptianSandMonkey was spurred on by Freedom for Egyptians but according to his site he scanned <i>his own</b> copy of the paper in question. I believe that EgyptianSandMonkey was to first to have a scan up from the edition in question. [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 14:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
== Map Update and help needed ==
Hi all, the map has been updated and such but still more work needs to be done, again it is ''not'' done yet. I need help from anyone who is willing to help make or compile an article about the number of protestors in all the countries. If anyone is willing to, it would be a great help to me. Thanks. Also, I have used a new color scheme and I have been working with WAS 4.250 to make it understandable to the color-blind. One more thing, I didn't put it in the legend but the Danish flag means countries that have boycotted Danish goods. I know I'm missing some so please help me with a table/list. [[User:Hitokirishinji|Hitokirishinji]] 15:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 
[[Image:Caricaturemap.jpg|thumb|right|Still work in progress]]
 
:You might want to add Mexico and Macedonia to the map of reprint countries. --[[User:KimvdLinde|KimvdLinde]] 18:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:There have been some protests in Germany, too. -- [[User:129.13.186.1|129.13.186.1]] 19:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:I suggest dots marking the ___location of the protests (Paris, London, etc.) -- painting France and Britain ''party per bend sinister'' seems a bit much. Likewise, painting the entire subcontinent of India yellow gives a rather misleading image. I suppose you can make the protest-dots large enough to be well visible, and end up with a fairer geographical representation. You can still paint entire countries the government of which has deposited formal protests or something. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''')]]</small> 22:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 
::As much as I would like to do that, certain countries including Denmark and Palestine are so small on the map that a dot to represent the cities which had protests would be incredibly hard to see and if I made them large, they would encompass more than the country itself does. The only way to get around this would be to find a larger blank map. Also, at the moment, I don't have a list of every protest in every country and every city. Unfortunately, I don't have all day to commit to this which is why I am asking if anyone would like to work with me on this by helping me compile such a list. As deciving as painting an entire contient is, it is the same almost about the newspapers. The UK only had one newspaper print 1 cartoon but nonetheless it counts as "published". If anyone can come up with a larger map or better system, please let me know. [[User:Hitokirishinji|Hitokirishinji]] 23:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 
The colors are way too similiar that are far between. It would help if you would make the map more "styled", imo (it looks quite raw). --[[User:84.249.252.211|84.249.252.211]] 00:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:What did you mean by "way to similiar that are far between?" Looks like I will have to update the map and add a new color to the scale. Also, this map has been made color-blind friendly so each color has to be quite distinctive. Considering that some people find the map a little drab, I may consider making a more "stylized" version but I will keep a color-blind friendly version. Once again, if someone wants to find me a bigger version, I could do the cities but also I will need help on compiling where everything has taken place. [[User:Hitokirishinji|Hitokirishinji]] 17:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
== Filipino Muslim views ==
 
Please include this link for Filipino muslim views: link - http://www.maranao.com/index2.htm. Label the link title as "Filipino Muslim Views" and put under the "Islamic Views" section.
 
== Nazi victims of religious prosecution.==
The article currently contains an example of a convicted Nazi war criminal, who was one of the ideologues and instigators of anti-Semitic repression in the third Reich. This man, Streicher, is mentioned as an example of someone prosecuted for blasphemy in violation of free speech, because Streicher has not killed anyone personally. It appears that the example is quite out of place, since instigating murder (including mass murder) is commonly excluded from protected speech in most legal systems due to its extreme danger. Moreover, instigating genocide is principally different from blasphemy which is the topic related to the current article: blasphemy does not directly endanger the life of a faithful. Finally, including an example of a racist in the article about the cartoons of Muhammad is rather frivolous, since, as has been mentioned many times, Muslims are not a race. Therefore, the reference to Streicher, which may be debated in a context of an article, which is dedicated to free speech in general, is out of context on this page. Now, what short of an edit war could be done to pursue people like Netscott to refrain from re-inserting Nazis into the lists of victims of religious prosecution? --[[User:EugeneK|EugeneK]] 04:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:Perhaps if we point to [[International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]] to remind him? [[User:MX44|MX44]]
 
:: Sorry that wasn't my doing... I do admit that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy&diff=39616825&oldid=39611916 I took him out]... but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy&diff=39621705&oldid=39620656 put him back in]... (mistakenly... clearly) only because he was executed for his publishing (which I also admit I wasn't too familiar with). Striecher and Der Sturmer do seem out of place in the whole article. Since my edits... PaxTerra is insisting that he stay in. [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 06:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::: I guess that makes sense about PaxTerra though since [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy&diff=39570762&oldid=39570621 he put him in] as well as Sambo's which seems very out of place. [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 06:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
==Sequencing comparable references==
*''[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48695 Great Lawgivers] ([[frieze]], 2006, Washington D.C.)
*''[[Chief_Illiniwek]] (college mascot, 2006, Illinois)''
*''[[Dieudonné M'bala M'bala]] (comedian, 2005, France)''
*''[[Gerhard Haderer|The Life of Jesus]] (book, 2005, Greece)''
*''[[Jerry Springer - The Opera]] (musical, 2005, Britian)''
*''[[Submission (film)|Submission]] (short film, 2004, Netherlands)''
*''[[Snow White and The Madness of Truth]] (installation, 2004, Sweden)''
*''[[Ecce Homo (exhibition)|Ecce Homo]] (exhibition, 2000, Europe)''
*''[[Rudy_Giuliani#Opposition_to_Brooklyn_Museum_art_exhibit|The Virgin Mary]] (painting, 1999, New York)
*''[[Piss Christ]] (photo, 1989, United States)''
*''[[The Satanic Verses]] (novel, 1988, Europe and Iran)''
*''[[The Last Temptation of Christ]] (film, 1988, United States, Europe)''
*''[[Monty Python's Life of Brian|Life of Brian]] (film, 1979, United States, Europe)''
*''[[Sambo's|Sambo's Restaurant]] (business name, 1979, United States)''
*''[[Mohammad, Messenger of God|The Message]] (film, 1976, United States)''
*''[[Der Stürmer]] (newspaper, 1940s, Germany)''
 
:There's my six ^ [[User:PaxTerra|PaxTerra]] 02:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
Netscott asks if ''Order should give precedence to those occurrences where people have died and then controversies of a religious nature no?'' If that is the case, ''Der Stürmer'' would be at the top of the list, because the publisher of those images was executed by order of an international tribunal and his caricatures attacked a people primarily because of their religion. ''Satanic Verses'' would then fall lower in the list, because Rushdie was not killed. The difficult aspect of ranking items according to their religious nature is that it is difficult to define where religion ends and culture begins.
 
Anti-semitic caricatures are especially difficult to rank according to religiosity because the people in queston are defined by both ethnic and religious affiliations. Likewise, some aspects of native American culture demeaned as mascots are of a religious nature but the religious significance of items such as feathers in headresses is widely considered trivial outside their communities.
 
Attempting to order the religiosity of artifacts according to Western or Christian appreciations of religious symbolism imposes on other cultures an arbitrary and ill-fitting filter. By deciding which aspects of the controversy compare, ranking the relevance of diverse aspects of a complex controversy, we depart from our mission of neutrality. To define this controversy as primarily relgious, we must assume that the Western model of slander and libel laws apply universally -- that defense of individual name or ego is appropriate but that defense of community perceptions through protection of secondary cultural symbols of a religious nature is parochial and backwards. And we presume that defense of religious symbols is not an aspect of protecting self-identity.
 
By many accounts, certain cultures do not separate sacred and profane aspects of their culture. In doing so, we imply that the controversy over the cartoons is primarily religious in nature, and that Islamic people's right to cultural self-determination excludes their right to include profoundly religous ideas in their self-perception. We also in doing so take the side of advocates of such publications who assert that they are making a free-speech demonstration and a not a primarily ethnic attack. Because worldwide discussion considers both whether these publications are ethnic or religious in their focus, I included familiar incidences of opposition to ethnic symbols that were otherwise used under free speech protection. A genuinely representative listing would go beyond cultures associated with Abrahamic faiths to consider the role of symbolism in other religious and ethnic conflicts worldwide.
 
Failing to find any rational subjective order that does not impose cultural presumptions, I propose we rely on a standard neutral system of ranking, which is ascending alphabetical order. That leaves Chief Illiniwek at the top, which isn't my strict preferance, but Wikipedia has only a list of Native American mascots and not an article on the topic that I could find. Were there such an article, that item would appear lower in the list.[[User:PaxTerra|PaxTerra]] 22:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:: While I tend to agree with PaxTerra's argument regarding order I do not agree that ''Der Stürmer'' should be at (or near) the top of the list. In terms of this article I would argue that ''Submission'' is <b>much more</b> pertinent for four reasons 1.It was mentioned by the Danish Imams themselves, 2. Theo Van Gogh was assasinated in an act of terrorism. 3. Submission is concerned about 'free speech' vs. the contention of it insulting Islam. 4. It is considered controversial. That said I also agree that a neutral system for determining order isn't a bad idea. So I propose that we list the references in <b><i>descending</i></b> alphabetical order. This makes ''The Holy Virgin Mary'' number 1 (which granted doesn't seem too logical but still is strictly about religion and not race) and Submission number 2. Frankly while I'm respectful of Native American's arguments about imagery and their cultures, in the context of this article the reference doesn't seem too strong (with perhaps the Sambo's reference being the lowest in pertinence). A big part of the reason that I don't consider ''Der Stürmer'' as pertinent is due to the fact that in Nazi Germany it was considered controversial almost exclusively due its pornographic nature and not for its characterizations of Jews, also Streicher was executed ''legally''. [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 01:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:::If you want a neutral ordering, I would say that time-frame would be a more relevant measure. Start with the most recent events [[User:MX44|MX44]] 01:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:::: That makes sense MX44. That'd take a bit of work to track down though.... [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 01:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::Hint: Use the "loudest" part of the event. The Fatwa for Rushdie (and not the anticlimax when the Mullahs says it is long forgotton.) The murder of van Gogh for Submission (and not the release of the film ...) [[User:MX44|MX44]] 01:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::: I could get behind that, if somebody does the research. But I suggest if somebody indeed checks out a timeline, it would be best to include at least a year in the parenthetical reference to the context, along with perhaps a geolocal reference as in <i>(publication, 1930-1940, Germany)</i>? That would advise readers why the items are thus ordered, and would avoid an inference that the order was somebody's interpretation of the relevance of items that have been discussed in reference to the current controversy? [[User:PaxTerra|PaxTerra]] 01:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::::I thought we were working toward concensus on this? I restored ascending alphabetical order. Nowhere else in this encyclopedia -- or in most contexts -- is descending order used. To choose reverse alphabetical order here implies editors have agreed whatever order places the incidents they consider most relevant is appropriate. To do so, and choose an order to place examples of controversial avante garde art above examples of hate speech implies editors concluded this is more about free speech and religious zealotry than it is about hate speech and religious bigotry. Balance requires strict centering. [[User:PaxTerra|PaxTerra]] 01:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::::: I've reverted to the order that existed prior to your first change until consensus has been determined. I'm highly inclined to go with the choronlogical order of events on this... but I have to admit I'm reluctant to track down all of the necessary details in order to do so. [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 01:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::::::::: Here's what I propose.. we each take a 3rd of the references and track down the dates corresponding to our third. Then we formulate their proper order here for final main page editing. [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 01:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::: You ask a lot for what you pay. I'll take the bottom third -- er the bottom six of sixteen --- Life of Brian to Der Attacker... [[User:PaxTerra|PaxTerra]] 02:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::: Ok so were all on the same page here I've added the list above in it's current order on the main page. That sounds good PaxTerra. I'll take Submisson to Piss Christ... MX44? [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 02:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::::::::::Ehrmm ... What? I was over at Groklaw. Was I supposed to do something?
:::::::::::::: Looks like PaxTerra has handled the job completely.... kind of a bummer... I was hoping for some teamwork... but whatever... [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 03:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
::::::::::::BTW -- are you saying you will go with this sequential list, and accept the entries already there? [[User:PaxTerra|PaxTerra]] 02:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
: This chronological idea makes the most sense with the newest events taking precedence over the older events. No? [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 02:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
My List
*''[[Submission (film)|Submission]] (short film)'' 2 November 2004
*''[[Mohammad, Messenger of God|The Message]] (film)'' 9 March 9 1977
*''[[The Satanic Verses]] (novel)'' 14 February 1989
*''[[Snow White and The Madness of Truth]] (installation)'' 16 January 2004
*''[[The Last Temptation of Christ]] (film)'' 22 October 1988
*''[[Piss Christ]] (photo)'' 18 May 1989
[[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 02:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
::Sure, but it still leaves Chief on top, which isn't my intent at all, but neither do I want to self censor reporting references to discussion among Native Americans of mascotts and hate speech in the context of the Danish cartoons. We could find a better article to describe the native American mascott controversy, or write one, which I'm not up to today. [[User:PaxTerra|PaxTerra]] 02:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::: I wouldn't agree about that... unless something significant has happened withint the last 5 years and my recollectoin serves me right I'd say that the whole Native American Mascot issue 'peaked' in the late 90's. [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 02:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
Chief Illinik looks kind of surrealistic in this context, no? Wouldn't telling a Yo Mama story in the wrong bar create an even greater fuzz? [[User:MX44|MX44]] 03:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC
: Got not arguments from me if chief Illinik made an exit from this article. [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 03:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
M'bala ... I can't find the international link? If it is just hate speach we are after, then I can supply a preacher from up here who is very opiniated about homosexuals ... and gets away with it. The life of Jesus has that link, and the author gets judged by an unintended audience, which is surprising and ... funny [[User:MX44|MX44]] 03:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
 
The Virgin Mary ... Wasn't it the whole [[Sensation exhibition]] that was disliked? Well, that horses head sure did smell funny, but again I find that it is far fetched. Too many of these smallish examples of near incidents just confuses the issue and invites everybody to add their own little controversy. [[User:MX44|MX44]] 04:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
: Be <b>bold</b> and make changes!!! hehe [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 05:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:: 4 in one swoop?! That's <b>bold</b>! LOL! [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 05:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:::Well ... The Chief is back at the top, making it all look like a prank :D [[User:MX44|MX44]] 05:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
::::Reverse chronological order, most recent to least, makes perfect sense. [[User:WookMuff|WookMuff]] 08:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
==Fatwa==
 
I added a fatwa from Sistani. Please dont take it away, i not there are those that hate seeing it. --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 01:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
: That seems pertinent to me. I added that he's in Iraq and corrected some grammar. [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 01:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
==Archive [[Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Archive_13a|13a]]==
I've archived the first half of this previously long page.... if there were active subjects from the areas archived please don't hesitate to pull them back in here. [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 03:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
==extensive reference to Al-Hayat Al-Jadida cartoon controversy==
 
This information didn't appear on the Internet in the past hour, Netscott, which means it was available when you commented out the link "until more information is available". Have you tried [[Google]] as a research tool? It's sometimes almost as good as letting others do your research, and it can help avoid embarassing reversions.
 
<i>Below is a short list of vicious cartoons appearing in the last three years in the major Palestinian Authority (PA) newspaper, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (Palestinian Media Watch, January 7): </i>
 
#Jan. 7, 2006 – An evil-looking caricature of a Jew depicted wreaking havoc beneath the Temple Mount and thus threatening the Dome of the Rock above.
# Sep. 3, 2005 - Text: "Israel" penetrates Pakistan – Israel in scare quotes, depicted as devious vermin trapping Pakistan in to its orbit.
# Apr. 10, 2005 – A Magen David shape is depicted turning the Dome of the Rock and an Arab in front of it in a prison.
# Feb. 5, 2005 - An Israeli soldier depicted as a Nazi, complete with helmet, shaking a blood-soaked hand with a clean-handed Palestinian.
# Dec. 10, 2004 – An Israeli flag, flying from the devil's three-pronged spear and with a corner of its Magen David symbol transformed into a blood-soaked claw, wrapped like a coil around an injured dove of peace.
# Dec. 1, 2004 – Text: "The search for terror is still ongoing" – A figure representing the UN is seen wasting his time looking with a magnifying glass for terrorism while ignoring the figure of a monstrous ape with a caricature of Ariel Sharon's face as the devil.
# Aug 2, 2004 - Jews in Judea Samaria are depicted as a Medusa-like serpent threatening an Arab.
# July 14, 2004 – An anti-Semitic stereotype of a hideous, hook-nosed Israeli soldier, with a uniform and helmet pattern of human skulls.
# April 20, 2004 – Ariel Sharon depicted as a wild bull, pierced with the spears of different Palestinian terror groups.
# March 22, 2004 – Ariel Sharon depicted eating Palestinian children from a bowl of children's corpses.
# Oct. 11, 2003 – A European diplomat is confronted by Israel depicted as an enormous snake.
# Oct. 11, 2003 – An Israeli is depicted as a caveman dripping with blood.
# Oct. 9, 2003 – Israel is depicted as a crocodile about to devour a Palestinian.
# Oct. 4, 2003 – Israel is depicted as a wolf about to devour the Palestinian government.
# Oct. 4, 2003 – The world is depicted as an apple consumed from within by two worms – Israel and the United States, with the text on the apple: Arab world Israel to the USA: "Be strong-we've got a lot of work to do."
[[User:PaxTerra|PaxTerra]] 03:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
At this point your link goes to an essentially [[Al-Hayat_Al-Jadida|blank Wikipedia page]]. Are you planning on putting those references on the [[Al-Hayat_Al-Jadida]] page? If you are planning on doing that, might I suggest in the future that you add the references <b>first</b> to the pertinent article and <b>then</b> add the 'comparable ref' link? [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 03:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
: Unless you're going to add that info promptly you might as well re-uncomment out the Al-Jadida link to help WikiPedia visitors avoid going to an empty resource. [[User:Netscott|Netscott]]
 
::The term is "stub" Scott, and no I don't intend to extend the stubby Palisinian newspaper article unless I find time to conduct adequate research. No, I don't intend to slant the stub with a hasty contribution primarily about Israeli oppositon to the paper's editorial doctrines and I advise you not to damage contributions to this article by removing informative content that readers can easily extend with their own research or by contributing to the relevant article if they have sufficient information.
 
::If you do choose to censor in the name of editing, I suggest you limit your meddling to unwikifying the resource, though to do so is not consistent with widely accepted practices at Wikipedia to leave stubs and links to stubs in place until they have an opportunity to grow. To unwikify the link would deprive readers of an explanation of an otherwise unintelligable Arabic phrase.
 
::Further, I consider myself to have acted promptly to have posted within five minutes of uncommenting your deletion of meaningul content this reference to 16 cartoons. I suggest you sit back and watch what happens, or use your internet connection to gather information before striking out against others' knowledge. In the Hebrew press, the Al-Hayat Al-Jadida cartoons are probably the most widely mentioned controversy raised in rebuttal to complaints about the danish cartoons, with the possible exception to dialogue about Iranian opinion. None of the other items on that list contain references to contexts in which they were discusses vis-a-vis the Danish cartoons, many are only marginally relevant, discussed perhaps among the world of avante garde artists who advocate absolute freedom to slander anyone in the name of comedy, and other links on the list point to topics that only minimally explain how those conroversies are relevant to this one.[[User:PaxTerra|PaxTerra]] 04:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
::: The title of that section is "Comparable references" a simple link to stub article does not a 'comparable reference' make. As a visitor, if I were to click on your reference I'd be inclined to just think, "hmm, that was a pointless link", unless someone comes along and adds something of note to that stub I suspect another editor will just remove that 'reference', I'd uncomment it out again now if I wasn't already at my 3RV limit. [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 04:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
::::as an original reader, I parsed the term "reference" to imply others had mentioned these incidences in reference to current events, not that they are references to a categorization of similar events listed in this opus. Either way, I have now included sufficient citation in and out of Wikipedia to support what is one of the major comparisons in popular diaglogue worldwide. If you feel readers need more information about the Palestinian newspaper, I suggest you offer readers more, not less information. [[User:PaxTerra|PaxTerra]] 05:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
===and on Sambos===
The widespread Sambos restaurant controversies I cited, documented in lawsuits, newspaper articles, petitions and activists writings was a flashpoint for controversy over use of the term "Sambo", derived from a childrens book widely used in elementary schools of the era and on which which the nationwide restaraunt based its marketing images. Mention of the term in reference to the current controversy can be found in the title of an essay by well-known conservative writer Michelle Malkin -- "Ragheads and Sambos and Gooks". Malkin says she sees no comparison with the cartoon, but states that several of her readers have drawn parallels with well-known US racial epithets by a national leader. Malkin extends the reference to "ragheads" to include "sambos". We could add ragheads and gooks to the list, but there was never a campaign to make anybody stop publishing those terms, and such a campaign has not been mentioned in this context.
 
Since all current discussion of this emerging topic is taking place in blogs, letters to the editor, editorial columns and other transient venues, it is fair to take Malkin's ''mention'' of several readers drawing the parallel between a reference to ragheads and the cartoons, and her extending the reference to controversy over the term Sambos as typical of more widespread discussion I am seeing in those venues. I suggest readers unfamiliar with this dialogue are not in touch with current dialogue in the South. The list in this article isn't "A list of events that are just like this cartoon controversy". It is a list of refernces to similar controversies that have been ''mentioned''. The Sambos controversy is a particularly interesting comparison that has been mentioned because it too arose from ostensibly benign caricatures related to a childrens book, and because public pressure led to change in publishing activities. [[User:PaxTerra|PaxTerra]] 07:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
==Focus on judicial remedies==
 
MX44 offers no argument or evidence to support the assertion that there is "too much focus on old nazis". The sentence Mx44 reduced focuses on judicial responses, not on nazis. A generalized reference to "crimes against humanity" denies readers immediate access to otherwise readily available explanatory information. Few younger readers likely have any experience to reference when, where or why anyone was executed for a crime against humanity on evidence that they drew cartoons. Perhaps to balance reference to old nazis we need to include some examples of new nazis who were prosecuted for hate speech. A list alone is insufficient when judicial remedies can be mroe precisely summarized and cited in a a few short phrases. [[User:PaxTerra|PaxTerra]] 05:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:We can also reference architects who got punished by the allies after the war for dreaming up castles for the old nazis ... which is equally relevant [[User:MX44|MX44]] 05:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::And how about the foundation for all modern TV-commercials? Nazi propaganda maker who was hung after the war.[[User:MX44|MX44]] 06:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:::I don't agree with your history of television advertising. It started before WWII. Castles:cartoons --- not a strict comparison. "<i>Nazi propaganda maker who was hung after the war.</i> can you please explain this sentence frag? Striecher was executed for publishing a newspaper and cartoons that were very similar to the ones in this topic. His activities are discussed in the context of these events. Unless you want to start documenting where, on the limited inventory of available Web publications, each of the named incidences are mentioned in this context, I suggest you focus on contributing, not deleting content. [[User:PaxTerra|PaxTerra]] 06:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
::::Similar? I beg to differ ... You seriously suspect Denmark to have orchestrated a plot to conquer the world? And the cartoonists at JP is taking part in this? [[User:MX44|MX44]] 06:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::The point isn't whether I think certain cartooonists are conspiring to take over the world. I'm not writing about my opinion. Striecher is relevant because the name often comes up in discussing the propriety of demeaning editorial cartoons, including those that are the subject of this article. Those who draw the comparison have sound reasons, whether you or I agree with them or not.
 
:::::Julius Streicher didn't conspire with Hitler nor was he in the employ of Nazis, he independently contributed to an ideological environment that, according to an international tribunal, permitted genocidal xenophobia. Those who draw a comparison cite a disproportionatly negative portrayal of ethnic minorities in Danish media, as there was in German media of that time. In the generalized view of Westerners held by many on the "Arab street" Danish and European anti-Muslim sentiment is affiliated with a Western occupation of their territories. Among that that some oh, billion or so, there are widespread suspicions that yes, the West, including Europe, Denmark and the United States, is conspiring to take over the world. And, some Muslim clerics are asking that the artists be executed under Islamic law. As recently as 60 years ago, a cartoonist was legally executed. Granted, Islamic law isn't the international law we might prefer, but the call for judicial execution is not unique.
 
:::::Reference to this historic lawful execution of a cartoonist is appropriate context for readers who have not thought further than to demean "those backwards Muslims" for not understanding our modern system of free speech. Streicher shows that, even with our modern system of free speech, we sometimes choose to legally execute cartoonists for crimes against the peace. 06:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
::::::Compared to Streicher, who was so annoyingly over the top, only Hitler tolerated him, the JP-cartoons are either extremely mild or not even on the topic the muslim propaganda machine have made people believe. I guess the cartoonist at Disney will have to go as well [[User:MX44|MX44]] 07:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::::It's not about our opinions of the comparison. What you call the Muslim propaganda machine comprises people, whose perspectives are to be refelcted in this context. This isn't an article about how dumb we think they are. [[User:PaxTerra|PaxTerra]] 07:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
::::::::Not about being dumb but about deception. I have put Streicher in the context you mention above. I assume it is backed up, an external reference would be nice. Else the whole Streicher thing is hearsay. [[User:MX44|MX44]] 08:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
::::::: I support the inclusion of [[Julius Streicher]] as an item in the list. I oppose elaborating on it with several sentences (even if I find the angle interesting), because none of the other list items gets such preferential treatment. [[User:Azate|Azate]] 08:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
==Perigrine falsely accused?==
 
I found the perigrine edit, but I don't see any vandalism. [[User:PaxTerra|PaxTerra]] 05:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:: Have a look at the bottom of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy&oldid=39695163 Peregrine's edit]].. see anything wrong? [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 05:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:::No. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy&oldid=39698904] I see what appears to be a dutch language reference to a dutch language article that seems to babelfish into content that is consistent with what Perigrene represents. Perigrene's edit history evidences continued good faith editing. I advised Perigrene of your accusation. Perhaps you can exlpain your allegation to the accused. [[User:PaxTerra|PaxTerra]] 06:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:::: Ah you're right [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy&diff=39695163&oldid=39694335] but he failed to close his ref> so the El Fagr image showed up at the bottom of the page... fortunately my comment was "Vandalism?" and not "Vandalism!"... LOL! [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 06:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::Okay, sit tight a minute and I'll fix it. Stevenj removed it for being misformated, but the lack of dutch readers to verify the source is not pertinant to the misformating. Perigrine seems to be a Dutch reader. [[User:PaxTerra|PaxTerra]] 06:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
==Regarding Image removal/relocation and warnings==
I've just removed a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy&oldid=39703613 warning] about the images inserted by Jeremygbyrne. There should be agreement by all editors working on this that no such changes shall occur until a vote decides whether or not to adopt them. [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 06:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
: Agreed. [[User:Babajobu|Babajobu]] 06:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
: These would be special new wikipedia rules you've just thought of now? &#0151;&nbsp;[[User:Jeremygbyrne|JEREMY]] 07:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:: Jeremy, a warning at top of page WAS one of the options in poll two, and it attracted fewer than ten votes. Regardless, in an article about which so much community input has been received, eastablish consensus for major changes ''before'' making them! [[User:Babajobu|Babajobu]] 07:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::: According to the [[Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Poll_Results|poll archive]], the options in the second poll were:
* 1.2.1 Move to body of article with a link directly to the image on the top (Hipocrite's idea)
* 1.2.2 Have picture lower down the article
* 1.2.3 Have picture at top of article
* 1.2.4 Don't care
* 1.2.5 Comment
::: As I have said, this option has not been offered before. Please vote in the poll. &#0151;&nbsp;[[User:Jeremygbyrne|JEREMY]] 07:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::: Keyword here is 'Should' as what Babajobu so succintly stated above, ''"determine that there is consensus to override old consensus before making the change, Jeremy."'' is particularly valid. [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 07:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:::: Jeremy, option 1.2.1 was intended to place an "alert" at top of page, warning people of potentially offensive content lower in the article. It was essentially identical to your solution, except that yours is rather more obtrusive in using a template rather than a simple bolded comment. And again, Jeremy, please take a look at how previous polls were formatted. In addition to presenting the options in a neutral manner (which you fail to do), they created a place where people could vote support or oppose. Moreover, the poll was placed where people would see it, rather than starting off buried in the middle of the talk page. I'll vote oppose in your poll, but think a large majority of users will vote oppose as well as being annoyed by an attempt to repropose an option that was voted down in a previous poll. People don't take kindlt to repeated polls addressing the same issue in precisely the same way. [[User:Babajobu|Babajobu]] 07:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::::: It looks to me like 1.2.1 has nothing to do with labelling, but specifically involves moving the cartoons down the page and linking to them from the top. 1.2.2 does include some comments calling for labelling (or "warnings", which are clearly not well supported, based on wikipedia's disclaimer policy). If you think there'd be general support for doing so, I'd be happy to move the poll to the top of the talk page. Thanks for agreeing to vote, and you may well be right about the eventual result. I can only try. &#0151;&nbsp;[[User:Jeremygbyrne|JEREMY]] 07:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
Hey... no more polling til "my" poll so :P [[User:WookMuff|WookMuff]] 08:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::::As long as vandalism of the image can be contained, the image should stay where it is. [[User:Azate|Azate]] 08:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::No more polls PLEASE !! We can't keep ''repeating'' the polls simply until the opinion of Resid, JEREMY et al. (with all due respect) is met. I, personally refuse to vote in anymore polls on this same issue[[User:Varga Mila|Varga Mila]] 08:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::::::I certainly respect the right of people with "poll fatigue" not to vote (and I expect their opinions might be well over-represented in the results in any case). And again, just to be clear, ''the image will stay where it is'' (as per the results of Poll #2); this is about supplementing the article and enhancing wikipedia by adding information. &#0151;&nbsp;[[User:Jeremygbyrne|JEREMY]] 09:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::::::: Warning people that on the very same screen as the warning is the image itself? Anyway, should your poll ever appear on this page, I'll vote oppose, and express my irritation at the pollcruft and your refusal to accept consensus, as I suspect a large majority of voters will do. [[User:Babajobu|Babajobu]] 09:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::::: I think the label will attract attention first (ie. before the images), and that its presence alone indicates our intent to provide a higher level of service to our readers. Again I reject your persistent claims that this issue has already been dealt with and that your viewpoint somehow represents consensus, but I'll be pleased to see your vote. &#0151;&nbsp;[[User:Jeremygbyrne|JEREMY]] 10:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::::::::: In fact, my viewpoint on how the images should be managed is not the same as the consensus. However, consensus having been expressed, I feel the need to protect it from people who attempt to unilaterally override that consensus by inserting obtrusive templates without any communal mandate whatsoever. As for my vote, there is no poll on this page, no ''oppose'' or ''support'' sections in which to place a vote on any issue. [[User:Babajobu|Babajobu]] 10:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::::::::: If a reader hits this page, it's highly likely they were looking for the image. An encylopedia with a warning, is not an encylopedia, it's a newspaper. It's great and all that you want to "protect" these people, but it doesn't stop here, it would START here. First this, then every image on wiki would have to have a warning of some type...to protect those that don't like it of course. -[[User:Moocats|Moocats]] 14:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
== Meeting with Arab Ambassadors refused by Danish Prime Minister==
I’ve made three small changes to the section, that I hope not will be controversial:
1. Clarifying, with a quote from the letter, that the request for a meeting was about wider issues than just the cartoons.
2. That is was the interpretation of the gvt, that the ambassadors wanted the PM to take legal action against the paper. It is not at all explicit in the letter [[http://www.filtrat.dk/grafik/Letterfromambassadors.pdf]]
3. That the refusal was a major point of criticism from the opposition
[[User:Bertilvidet|Bertilvidet]] 10:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
:: Would someone mind to please clarify for me, as a non-native English speaker, the exact meaning of 'taking someone to task' ? (as per "...urge Your Excellency's government to take all those responsible to task under law of the land..."). Thanks [[User:Varga Mila|Varga Mila]] 10:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:::"make them pay" I would say. ''what'' "law of the land" is alleged to have been broken is not made clear however. I take this to be an explicit enough call for legal action. Can somebody explain why this letter is in ''English'' rather than Danish, seeing that these are all ambassadors to Denmark? You would expect it to be an essential job qualification of an ambassador to be fluent in the language of the host country? [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''')]]</small> 12:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
::::The letters in the [[Akkari-Laban dossier]] seem all to have been written in Arabic. Ekstra Bladet published some of them stressing that the newspaper has translated the material into Danish. [http://ekstrabladet.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=332707] I've been looking for originals written in Danish, but I've found none so far. --[[User:Valentinian|Valentinian]] 12:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::::: There isn't a Danish original, because the original is in English. Amabassadors in EU countries can hand in notes in any of the working languages of the EU (English, French, German), or in the language of the country in question. And anybody who thinks that ambassadors speak the language of the country they are dispatched to, is living in a dream. [[User:Azate|Azate]] 12:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
::::::The letter is about the general development in Denmark, mentioning the cartoons along with several other incidents. Afterwards, "...urge Your Excellency's government to take all those responsible to task under law of the land..." is stated. At least it is not an explicit call for legal pursuit of the paper. And nope, ambassadors are not expected to learn the language og the country they work in, usually they serve in many countries during their career, so they are not expected to know all the local languages - and indeed not to use the local language when dealing with other foreign representations. [[User:Bertilvidet|Bertilvidet]] 13:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
::::::: I think the real reason the Danish were miffed by the ambassadors' demand was that it's against normal procedure to want to see the head of government. This is normally only done when you are really pissed and insistent, such as when declaring war or so. In all other cases ambassadors speak tp the Foreign Office. (which Rasmussen told them they should go do, and they did). And "...urge Your Excellency's government to take all those responsible to task under law of the land..." is REAL strong language in diplomatic circles. [[User:Azate|Azate]] 14:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::::::::The Ambassadors are in effect asking Rasmusen to bypass current Danish laws and regulations. [[User:MX44|MX44]] 15:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
The article wrongly states that Foreign Minister Per Stig Møller met the ambassadors to discuss the matter. Yesterday it was revealed that, yes, the Foreign Minister did have a meeting with 8, not all 11, ambassadors. And the subject was not the Mohammad cartoons but another matter, some UN issues I think. The Palestinian ambassador said that it would be impolite to raise the issue, when that was not what the meeting was about. The Foreign Minster has admitted he made a mistake when he informed the parliament that he had a meeting. The majority of the opposition accepted the apology. However Frank Aaen of the far left party Enhedslisten stated the Foreign Minsiter had deliberately issued misinformation. Source: P1 Orientering 14 feb.[[User:86.52.36.140|86.52.36.140]] 15:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
::::::::: Is there a link for a source ? [[User:Azate|Azate]] 16:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::: Here is a link to the radio program in Danish.
http://www.dr.dk/P1/orientering/indslag/2006/02/14/175715.htm
 
! Not all of them are ambassadors. And not all of the ambassadors are from Arab countries. [[User:Madyasiwi|madyasiwi]] 17:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
::You are right. Perhaps 'representatives' is a better word ?
::: It is very peculiar, I can't seem to find anything in writing about this what is mentioned in the radio program. The only newspaper that mentions it (and it does so only indirectly - i.e. it doesn't work as a reference) is Information (a small'ish paper catering for the left-wing, government-critical inteligensia): http://www.information.dk/InfWebsite/FremvisningPHP/Common/Information.php?pShow=Webavis/WAvVis.php&pWAvVis=1309 [[User:Varga Mila|Varga Mila]] 17:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
== International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ==
 
Why is only the ICCPR included here? There's no shortage of International Law. Also applicaple may be:
 
* Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action
* United Nations Millennium Declaration
* Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities
* Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief
* Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity
* Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
* International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families
* Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals Who are not Nationals of the Country in which They Live
 
and, depending on your point of view:
* Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons
 
::: LOL :D But is this relevant to the Danes, the Muslims, the Pope or ... All? [[User:MX44|MX44]]
 
Singleing out one treaty because some articles sound nice just makes no sense. 1000 things could or could not be applicable, could or colud not be supplantable or being overriden by national law, or European Law. This field is just nuts. Let's not even try to wade into it. (unless one of you is a specialist in the field, of course). [[User:Azate|Azate]] 14:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
: And, no, I didn't make these up. [[User:Azate|Azate]] 16:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
 
: Anonymous Editor commenting against the omission of internationally accepted norms:
: So instead of providing more lights and unbiased and internationally accepted concepts and standards into the underlying legalities of the dilemma, you chose to delete the entire part!? Why not mentioning those additional legalities that you mentioned as reference points for sound judgments in the page? Why do you think they are irrelevant?
 
== Hate Speech and Blasphemy ==
 
In the Comparable references section of this article we currently have the following
 
*''[[Chief Illiniwek]] (college mascot, 2006, Illinois)''
*''[[Dieudonné M'bala M'bala]] (comedian, 2005, France)''
*''[[Gerhard Haderer|The Life of Jesus]] (book, 2005, Greece)''
*''[[Jerry Springer - The Opera]] (musical, 2005, Britain)''
*''[[Submission (film)|Submission]] (short film, 2004, Netherlands)''
*''[[Snow White and The Madness of Truth]] (installation, 2004, Sweden)''
*''[[Ecce Homo (exhibition)|Ecce Homo]] (exhibition, 2000, Europe)''
*''[[Sensation_exhibition|Sensation]] (exhibition, 1999, London, New York)
*''[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48695 Great Lawgivers] ([[frieze]], 1997, Washington D.C.)
*''[[Piss Christ]] (photo, 1989, United States)''
*''[[The Satanic Verses]] (novel, 1988, Europe and Iran)''
*''[[The Last Temptation of Christ]] (film, 1988, United States, Europe)''
*''[[Monty Python's Life of Brian|Life of Brian]] (film, 1979, United States, Europe)''
*''[[Sambo's|Sambo's Restaurant]] (business name, 1979, United States)''
*''[[Mohammad, Messenger of God|The Message]] (film, 1976, United States)''
 
While the majority of these references seem appropriate from the blasphemy angle there are four of them that appear to deal with hate speech. Of those four the following refs seem out of place (with Snow White seemingly appropriate)
 
*''[[Chief Illiniwek]] (college mascot, 2006, Illinois)''
*''[[Sambo's|Sambo's Restaurant]] (business name, 1979, United States)''
*''[[Dieudonné M'bala M'bala]] (comedian, 2005, France)''
 
These seem to take the ''hate speech'' angle, but are these examples of hate speech really Comparable in the context of this controversy?
They don't seem so to me (or perhaps through a highly tenuous link). The only possible ref is Dieudonné due to his reported anti-semitic statements. In terms of hate speech I see two primary angles that are being reported in the news over this controversy, one is that some muslims are claiming that the cartoons are a form of hate speech directed at Islam (ie: overly broad accusation of terrorism) and the other has to do with the proliferation of hateful anti-semitic cartoons that come from certain islamic media sources in comparison to the Jyllands cartoons.
Can we please add more <b>specific and neutral</b> references that better correspond to these two angles and in the mean time remove these tenuously linked references?
[[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 15:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
 
 
I tried to add a link to the Skokie,Ill. Nazi and KKK protests. Skokie, IL resulted in a famous court decision affirming the American Nazi's free speech rights to have a protest march through a neighborhood with a large population of Holocaust survivors. It was commented out: "offense based upon faith does not equal offense based upon historical facts, alphabet best order any other way is too subjective." I think the obvious parallel with weighing offending a religious group vs. free speech is important. I think this is also way more relevant and comparable than Sambo's Restaurant. --Calmarc
 
 
I have tried to adapt the introduction to the list to the current content. It is still kind of psychedelic though ... Giving it up for now. [[User:MX44|MX44]] 18:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
== Representation of Muhammad drawings throughout history ==
 
I believe the article should contain references of the different representations of Muhammad throughout history. I am sure that this is by far not the first one. It should be included, as the Muslims reacted also to the the representation itself of Muhammad. --[[User:Landroni|landroni]] 17:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:We had references to historical and current pictures of Muhammed. Did they disappear?[[User:DanielDemaret|DanielDemaret]] 18:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
== A more general image solution ==
 
Please have a look at a proposal I've made over at [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#Comments|Village Pump (technical)]] about giving Wikipedia visitors simple 'user definable' user experience options relative to images and WikiMedia. [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 20:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
== Link from front page ==
 
Why does the front page thing concerning the controversy not link here? It should link both to this article as well as to the "response" entry, and particularly the response one should actually link to the relevant part of the "response" sub article. [[User:129.59.93.57|129.59.93.57]] 22:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 
== Warning Template! ==
 
These cartoons are obviously offensive to some. Okay, then thats agreed. And we're not removing the picture from the site. Okay, thats agreed as well. How about we create a warning template, similar to the warning about a plot spoiler, that the contents of this site can be offensive to some, and that we move the picture down below the average vertical screen height that browsers reach. Since I am a novice wikipedian, and I can't really contribute by writing a template like this, but hope to in the future, I beckon upon you to follow through on this, and hopefully, it can resolve some issues.
Thanks
[[User:Mkaycomputer|Mkaycomputer]] 22:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy"