UPDATE 2: The Wikipedia Muhammad

Transcription

Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
!
"#
$
%
%
$
1
%
&
%
!
#
*
"
##$
%
&'( !
' %
(
(
% $
+!,
&
%'23 0
)'$
- %
.%
/
0
1
# 4
&
5% $
% $
'
&
%
% $
)
)'$
&
&
%
2
$
23 0
&
%
7+!,
%
%
0
%
!
- %
# 4
,6.
.%
&
7
Update 2 Table of Contents
Introduction to Original Edition - page 4
The Wikipedia Articles as of February 12, 2006
Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy - page 5
Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy - page 23
International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy - page 51
The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Updated Talk - page 72
Updated Arguments - page 207
GNU Free Documentation License - page 265
For ease of reading click the View menu and select Full Screen.
3
Introduction to Original Edition
The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate: A War of Ideas is a 2-volume reference work that shows how Wikipedia
(en.wikipedia.org), the world's largest encyclopedia on the Internet, reached the decision to permanently display and
distribute copies of 12 satirical drawings of Muhammad first published by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten.
The main articles, or edited encyclopedia entries, are shown first (and for this publication the cartoons themselves have been
deleted). Then, included here are the full current Wikipedia archives of the discussions about how these articles were written
and edited. Much of this transcript addresses the issue of actually displaying the cartoons within the primary article. Finally,
the official Wikipedia guidelines for editor discussions are reprinted here.
I submit that this transcript is valuable in revealing exactly how a war of ideas is waged. Wikipedia uses an online
collaboration technology that allows its articles to be freely edited by any Wikipedia user. As the primary article about the
Muhammad cartoons evolved, there also arose behind the scenes a fierce debate over whether or not the cartoons themselves
should be included and how they should be displayed.
The transcript of the debate captures not only the ideas expressed by the many contributors and readers, but also the tenor of
the debate, the pleas, the acts of vandalism, the argumentative styles, strategies, tactics and gambits. In other words, the
transcript reveals how some contributors won the debate, how the others lost, and how each side treated the other.
This transcript reveals the mechanics of the clash of civilizations.
Please note that every Wikipedia article is a "living document" that may be further edited in the future. This publication is a
"snapshot" of only today's Wikipedia archive, and is subject to revision at any time, particularly as the Muhammad cartoons
controversy unfolds worldwide.
John Simmons
Iraq Museum International
www.BaghdadMuseum.org
February 10, 2006
4
Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
5
&
%
0
!
3
,&
&
%
,
%
,
$
*
!
%
0
+
'$
&
%
$
&
%
)
$
The Face of Muhammed - The
controversial cartoons of Muhammad,
first published in Jyllands-Posten in
September 2005. Larger versions of
the image are available off-site.
The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy began after twelve editorial cartoons, most of which depicted the
5
Islamic prophet Muhammad, were published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten on September 30, 2005. Danish
Muslim organizations staged protests in response. As the controversy has grown, some or all of the cartoons have been
reprinted in newspapers in 40 other countries. This has led to significant unrest around the world, particularly in Islamic
countries where the cartoons are seen as culturally insensitive.
%'
#
*
&2%
%
8
95
:* %
;6 $
8
93
$
&
2*
$
&
*
0
&
2*
$ $
%
& %
9 9
<
%
%
: =$
3
$
%
;
>6 &
%
? 4
'
? =&& %
%
$
?
%0
?8!
?9
? : 5%
%
?
4
/
$
?;6 % %
%
Background
6
The drawings, including a depiction of Muhammad with a bomb inside or under his
turban, were accompanied by an article on self-censorship and freedom of speech.
Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, commissioned twelve cartoonists for the project and published the
cartoons to highlight the difficulty experienced by Danish writer Kåre Bluitgen in finding artists to illustrate his children's
book about Muhammad. Artists previously approached by Bluitgen were reportedly unwilling to work with him for fear of
violent attacks by extremist Muslims.
Several death threats have been made against those responsible for the cartoons, reportedly resulting in the cartoonists going
into hiding. The foreign ministries of eleven Islamic countries demanded action from the Danish government, and several
Arab countries eventually closed their embassies in Denmark in protest after the government refused to censure the
newspaper or apologise. The Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said, "The government refuses to apologize
because the government does not control the media or a newspaper outlet; that would be in violation of the freedom of
speech". citation needed
A large consumer boycott was organised in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other Middle East countries. The foreign ministers of
seventeen Islamic countries renewed calls for the Danish government to punish those responsible for the cartoons, and to
ensure that such cartoons are not published again. The Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Arab League have
demanded that the United Nations impose international sanctions upon Denmark.[1] Numerous protests against the cartoons
have taken place, some of them violent. On 4 February, the buildings containing the Danish and Norwegian embassies in
Syria were set ablaze, although no one was hurt. In Beirut the Danish General Consulate was set on fire,[2] resulting in the
death of one protestor inside the complex.[3] Deaths have also been reported in riots in Afghanistan.[4] As of February 10,
2006, at least 11 people have been killed in the protests. [5]
Timeline
Wikinews has news relating to this article:
Jyllands-Posten reconsiders printing holocaust denial cartoons
Hamshari newspaper plans cartoon response
French satirical weekly reprints caricatures
7
Danish mission in Beirut set ablaze
Danish and Austrian embassies in Tehran attacked
New Zealand newspapers publish "Mohammad Cartoons"
Danish and Norwegian embassies set on fire
Manipulation alleged in the "Mohammad Cartoons" affair
Tensions continue to rise in Middle East over "Mohammad Cartoons"
Fatah assaults European Union office
Saudis boycott Danish dairy produce
Norway-led peacekeeper base attacked in Afghanistan
Main article: Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
Debate about self-censorship
On September 17, 2005, the Danish newspaper Politiken ran an article under the headline "Dyb angst for kritik af islam"[6]
("Profound fear of criticism of Islam"). The article discussed the difficulty encountered by the writer Kåre Bluitgen, who was
initially unable to find an illustrator who was prepared to work with Bluitgen on his children's book Koranen og profeten
Muhammeds liv ("The Qur'an and the prophet Muhammad's life"). Three artists declined Bluitgen's proposal before an artist
agreed to assist anonymously. According to Bluitgen:
One [artist declined], with reference to the murder in Amsterdam of the film director Theo van Gogh, while another
[declined, citing the attack on] the lecturer at the Carsten Niebuhr Institute in Copenhagen[6].
In October 2004, a lecturer at the Niebuhr institute at the University of Copenhagen was assaulted by five assailants who
opposed the lecturer's reading of the Qur'an to non-Muslims during a lecture[7].
The refusal of the first three artists to participate was seen as evidence of self-censorship and led to much debate in Denmark,
with other examples for similar reasons soon emerging. The comedian Frank Hvam declared that he did not dare satirise the
Qur'an on television, while the translators of an essay collection critical of Islam also wished to remain anonymous due to
concerns about violent reaction.
Publication of the drawings
8
On September 30, 2005, the daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten ("The Jutland Post") published an article titled "Muhammeds
ansigt"[8] ("The face of Muhammad"). The article consisted of 12 cartoons (of which only some depicted Muhammad) and an
explanatory text, in which Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten's culture editor, commented:
The modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand a special position, insisting on special
consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech,
where you must be ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule. It is certainly not always attractive and nice to
look at, and it does not mean that religious feelings should be made fun of at any price, but that is of minor importance
in the present context. [...] we are on our way to a slippery slope where no-one can tell how the self-censorship will
end. That is why Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten has invited members of the Danish editorial cartoonists union to draw
Muhammad as they see him. [...] [9]
After an invitation from Jyllands-Posten to around forty different artists to give their interpretation on how Muhammad may
have looked, twelve caricaturists chose to respond with a drawing each. Some of these twelve drawings portray Muhammad
in different fashions; many also comment on the surrounding self-censorship debate. Four of these twelve cartoons were
illustrated by Jyllands-Posten's own staff, including the "bomb" and "niqaab" cartoons. In the clockwise direction of their
position in the page layout:
The Islamic star and crescent partially symbolizing the face of Muhammad; his right eye is the star, the crescent
surrounds his beard and face.
Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, with a lit fuse and the Islamic creed written on the bomb. This drawing is
considered the most controversial of the twelve.
Muhammad standing in a gentle pose with a halo in the shape of a crescent moon. The middle part of the crescent is
obscured, revealing only the edges which could resemble horns.
An abstract drawing of crescent moons and Stars of David, and a poem on oppression of women "Profet! Med kuk og
knald i låget som holder kvinder under åget!". In English the poem could be read as: "Prophet, you crazy bloke!
Keeping women under yoke"
Muhammad as a simple wanderer, in the desert, at sunset. There is a donkey in the background.
A nervous caricaturist, shakily drawing Muhammad while looking over his shoulder.
Two angry Muslims charge forward with sabres and bombs, while Muhammad addresses them with: "Rolig, venner,
når alt kommer til alt er det jo bare en tegning lavet af en vantro sønderjyde". Translated in English: "Relax, friends, at
the end of the day, it's just a drawing by an infidel South Jutlander".
A 7th grade Arab-looking boy in front of a blackboard, pointing to the Farsi chalkings, which translate into "The
9
editorial team of Jyllands-Posten is a bunch of reactionary provocateurs". The boy is labelled "Mohammed, Valby
school, 7.A", implying that this is a second-generation immigrant to Denmark rather than the founder of Islam. On his
shirt is written "Fremtiden" (the future). Valby is a district of Copenhagen known for having a concentrated population
of immigrants.
Another drawing shows Muhammad prepared for battle, with a short sabre in one hand and a black bar censoring his
eyes. He is flanked by two women in niqaabs, having only their wide open eyes visible.
Muhammad standing on a cloud, greeting dead suicide bombers with "Stop Stop vi er løbet tør for Jomfruer!"
Translated in English: "Stop, stop, we have run out of virgins!"), an allusion to the promised reward to martyrs.
Another shows journalist Kåre Bluitgen, wearing a turban with the proverbial orange dropping into it, with the
inscription "Publicity stunt". In his hand is a child's stick drawing of Muhammad. The proverb "an orange in the
turban" is a Danish expression meaning "a stroke of luck": here, the added publicity for the book.
And in the centre:
A police line-up of seven people wearing turbans, with the witness saying: "Hm... jeg kan ikke lige genkende ham"
("Hm... I can't really recognise him"). Not all people in the line-up are immediately identifiable. They are: (1) A generic
Hippie, (2) politician Pia Kjærsgaard, (3) possibly Jesus, (4) possibly Buddha, (5) possibly Muhammad, (6) generic
Indian Guru, and (7) journalist Kåre Bluitgen, carrying a sign saying: "Kåres PR, ring og få et tilbud" ("Kåre's public
relations, call and get an offer").
Jyllands-Posten response
Jyllands-Posten published two open letters on its website, both in Danish and Arabic versions, and the second letter also in an
English version.[10][11] The second letter was dated 30 January, and includes the following explanation and apology:
In our opinion, the 12 drawings were sober. They were not intended to be offensive, nor were they at variance with
Danish law, but they have indisputably offended many Muslims for which we apologize.
Ambassadors refused by Prime Minister
Having received petitions from groups of Danish imams, eleven Arab ambassadors asked for a meeting with Danish prime
minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen in 12 October 2005, to register their protest[1]. The government declined because the
ambassadors apparently wanted Rasmussen to punish the newspaper, and the government did not see this as an acceptable
10
basis for a meeting.[12]
Police investigation of Jyllands-Posten
27 October 2005, a number of Muslim organizations submitted complaints to the Danish police claiming that Jyllands-Posten
had committed an offence under section 140 and 266b of the Danish Criminal Code. [13]
Section 140 of the Criminal Code prohibits any person from publicly ridiculing or insulting the dogmas of worship of any
lawfully existing religious community in Denmark. Section 266b criminalises the dissemination of statements or other
information by which a group of people are threatened, insulted or degraded on account of their religion. Danish police began
their investigation of these complaints on 27 October 2005. [13]
On 6 January 2006, the Regional Public Prosecutor in Viborg discontinued the investigation as he found no basis for
concluding that the cartoons constituted a criminal offence. He stated that, in assessing what constitutes an offence, the right
to freedom of speech must be taken into consideration. That while the right to freedom of speech must be exercised with the
necessary respect for other human rights, including the right to protection against discrimination, insult and degradation, no
apparent violation of the law had occurred. [13]
Danish Imams tour the Middle East
Main article: Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy 43p dossier
Unsatisfied with the reaction of the Danish Government and Jyllands-Posten and feeling provoked additionally in particular
by
pictures from Weekend Avisen which they called "even more offending" (than the original 12 cartoons),
hate-mail pictures and letters that, according to the dossier's authors, have been sent to Muslims in Denmark, and were
indicative of the rejection of Muslims by the Danish,
a televised interview with Dutch member of parliament and Islam critic Hirsi Ali, who had just received the Freedom
Prize “for her work to further freedom of speech and the rights of women” from the Danish Liberal Party represented
by Anders Fogh Rasmussen
11
a group of Danish imams from several organisations created a 43-page dossier[14]. This appears to have been assembled and
added to until some point after 8 December 2005, with the first lobbying visits to Egypt having taken place before
finalization.
It consists of several letters from Muslim organisations explaining their case, multiple clippings from Jyllands-Posten,
multiple clippings from Weekend Avisen, some clippings from Arabic-language papers, and three additional images.
Pig-face - This picture of
a French pig-squealing
contestant, taken from the
imams' dossier, was
incorrectly identified by the
BBC as one of the
Jyllands-Posten cartoons.
Some claim that the group of imams misrepresented the origin of the latter three images[15][16]. On February 1 BBC World
incorrectly reported that one of them had been published in Jyllands-Posten. [17] This image was later found to be a
wire-service photo of a contestant at a French pig-squealing contest, [18] although the dossier's version also included the
caption Here is the true face of Muhammad (in Danish, with an Arabic translation). The other two additional images
portrayed a muslim being mounted by a dog while praying and Muhammad as a demonic pedophile (referencing the Aisha
controversy). Note that both the pig and the dog are considered impure animals in Islam.
The group set out for a tour of the Middle East to present their case to many influential religious and political leaders, and to
ask for support:[19] The dossier oscillates wildly between diplomatic statements such as:
We urge you [recipient of the letter or dossier]to - on the behalf of thousands of believing Muslims - to give us the
12
opportunity of having a constructive contact with the press and particularly with the relevant decision makers, not
briefly, but with a scientific methodology and a planned and long-term programme seeking to make views approach
each other and remove misunderstandings between the two parties involved. Since we do not wish for Muslims to be
accused of being backward and narrow, likewise we do not wish for Danes to be accused of ideological arrogance
either. When this relationship is back on its track, the result will bring satisfaction, an underpinning of security and the
stable relations, and a flourishing Denmark for all that live here
We call your [recipient of the letter or dossier] attention to this case, and place it in your hands, in such a way that we
together may think and have an objective dialogue regarding how an appropriate exit can be found for these crises in a
way which does not violate the freedom of speech, but which at the same time does not offend the feelings of Muslims
either.
and misinformation:
The faithful in their religion (muslims) suffer under a number of circumstances, first and foremost the lack of official
recognition of the Islamic faith. This has led to a lot of problems, especially the lack of right to build mosques [...]
Even though they [the Danes] belong to the Christian faith, the secularizations have overcome them, and if you say that
they are all infidels, then you are not wrong.
This [the publication of the 12 cartoons] happened in connection with the promotion of a book, which has recently
been published, and which contains these inappropriate cartoons
It is notable that the letters in the dossier that long predate the tour to the Middle East are solidly within the diplomatic and
concillatory range and are free of misinformation, while that later letters use a more urgent language.
Not exactly misinformation, but possibly a misunderstanding was the inclusion in the dossier of the aforementioned cartoons
from Weekend Avisen. These cartoons were more likely to be parodies on the pompousness of Jylland-Posten's cartoons than
cartoons of the Prophet in their own right[20], these consist of reproductions of works such as the Mona Lisa (caption: For
centuries, a previously unknown society has known that this is a painting of the Prophet, and guarded this secret. The back
page's anonymous artist is doing everything he can to reveal this secret in his contribution. He has since then been forced to
go underground, fearing for the wrath of a crazy albino imam, a very obvious pun on the Da Vinci Code), or Composition
VIII by Russian abstract artist Kandinsky (caption: Bellowing Prophet by a Forest Lake, a pun on "Bellowing Deer by a
Forest Lake", an image associated with very poor taste.)
At a 6 December 2005 summit of the OIC, with many heads of state in attention, the dossier was handed around on the
13
sidelines first[21], and eventually an official communique was issued.[1]
Reprinting in other newspapers
El Fagr's Headline Page
for 17 October 2005 - One
of the controversial
cartoons of Muhammad, as
it appeared on the first page
of the Egyptian Newspaper
El Fagr.
Further information: List of newspapers that reprinted Jyllands-Posten's Muhammad cartoons, and [[]], and [[]], and
[[]], and [[]], and [[]], and [[]], and [[]], and [[]]
In 2005, the Muhammad cartoons controversy received only minor media attention outside of Denmark. Six of the cartoons
were reprinted in the Egyptian newspaper El Fagr in October [22][23][24] 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
14
authorities or the government of Egypt. January 2006 saw some of the pictures reprinted in Scandinavia, then in major
newspapers of nearby countries to the south including Germany, Belgium and France. Very soon after, as protests grew, there
were re-publications around the globe, but mostly in continental Europe.
Notable by their absence were re-publications from major newspapers in the USA[25] and the United Kingdom[26], where
editorials covered the story, but almost unanimously took a stance against re-publication of the Mohammad cartoons.
Several editors were fired for their decision, or even their intention[27],to re-publish the cartoons (most prominently the
managing director of France Soir, Jacques Lefranc), some were stopped by publishers[28][29] or courts[30].
Three of the cartoons were reprinted in the Jordanian weekly newspaper al-Shihan[31]. The editor, Jihad Momani, was fired,
and the publisher withdrew the newspaper from circulation. Jihad Momani issued a public apology, was arrested and charged
with insulting religion.[32] Several of the cartoons were reprinted in the Jordanian newspaper al-Mehwar. The editor Hisham
Khalidi was also arrested and charged with insulting religion. Both charges were dropped two days later.[33]
Al-Hurreya newspaper in Yemen was closed down after publishing some images. Owner/Editor Abdul-Karim Sabra was
arrested. [34]
In Malaysia, Lester Melanyi, an editor of the Sarawak Tribune resigned from his post for allowing the reprinting of a cartoon.
The chief editor was summoned to the Internal Security Ministry.[35] The Malaysian government has also shut down the
newspaper indefinitely. [36]
International reactions
15
"To our dear customers:
As a result of mockery
towards The Prophet
(Peace Be Upon Him), Al
Tamimi Markets announces
its boycott of all kinds of
Danish Products"
Main article: International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
What started with the problem of a Danish author trying to find an illustrator for his forthcoming book about Islam has
become an international crisis. It has led to violence, arrests, international tensions, and a renewed debate about the scope of
free speech and the place of Muslims in the West, and the West in Muslim countries. Many governments, organizations and
individuals worldwide have issued statements, trying to define their stance.
Conflicting traditions
Danish journalistic tradition
Freedom of speech in Denmark was obtained in a new constitution with democracy in 1849 and parliamentarism in 1901
together with other liberties, including freedom of religion. These freedoms have been defended vigorously ever since.
Freedom of speech was abandoned temporarily only during the German occupation of Denmark during World War II.
Section 77 of the Constitutional Act of Denmark (1953) reads: “Any person shall be at liberty to publish his ideas in print, in
writing, and in speech, subject to his being held responsible in a court of law. Censorship and other preventive measures shall
never again be introduced.”[37]
Under international law, freedom of expression in Denmark is also protected by among others the European Convention on
Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Section 140 of the Danish Penal Code prohibits blasphemy. However, this law has not been enforced since 1938.[38] Section
266b of the Danish Penal Code prohibits expressions that threaten, deride or degrade on the grounds of race, colour, national
16
or ethnic origin, belief or sexual orientation. The Danish public prosecutor determined that the Muhammad cartoons did not
constitute blasphemy under Danish law.[13]
Jesus and other religious figures are often portrayed in Denmark in ways that many other societies would consider illegal
blasphemy. In 1984 the artist Jens Jørgen Thorsen was commissioned by a local art club to paint the wall of a railway station.
The work displayed a naked Jesus with an erect penis.[39] In 1992 Thorsen directed the film Jesus vender tilbage which
showed Jesus as sexually active and involved with a terrorist group.[40][41] While Thorsen’s work provoked much public
debate and his painting was removed from the public building, he was not charged with any legal offence. It should be noted
that the same newspaper that published the Muhammad cartoons have previously refused to publish cartoons of Jesus in
2003[42], giving Muslims reasons to assert that a double standard in dealing with them versus others.
Danish newspapers are privately owned and independent from the government. There are no restrictions on the political
viewpoints that may be published. There are frequent caricatures of priests and politicians as well as of Queen Margrethe
II.[43]
Although the Danish press is free to satirise, a 2004 report by the European Network Against Racism concluded that a
disproportionate amount of editorial space is devoted to negative reporting on ethnic minorities. [44]
Islamic tradition
Main article: Aniconism
The Qur'an, Islam's holiest book, condemns idolatry, but has no direct condemnations of pictorial art. Direct prohibitions of
pictorial art, or any depiction of sacred figures, are found in some hadith, or recorded oral traditions.
Views regarding pictorial representation within several religious communities (i.e. Jews, Christians and Muslims) have varied
from group to group, and from time to time. Among Muslims, the Shi'a Muslims have been generally tolerant of pictorial
representation of human figures, Sunni Muslims less so. However, the Sunni Ottomans, the last dynasty to claim the
caliphate, were not only tolerant but even patrons of the miniaturists' art. Many Ottoman miniatures depict Muhammad; they
usually show Muhammad's face covered with a veil or as a featureless void emanating light (depicted as flames). Pictorial
surveys of Muhammad can be found on the internet.[45][46][47] Note that the last site also contains some modern depictions,
17
offensive to some, of Muhammad.
Most contemporary Muslims believe that ordinary portraits and photos, films and illustrations, are permissible. Only some
Salafi and Islamist interpretations of Sunni Islam still condemn pictorial representations of any kind. Offensive satirical
pictures are a somewhat different case — disrespect to Islam or to Muhammad is still widely considered blasphemous or
sacrilegious.
According to the BBC "It is the satirical intent of the cartoonists, and the association of the Prophet with terrorism, that is so
offensive to the vast majority of Muslims."[48]
Opinions
Main article: Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
Comparable incidents
Main article: Freedom of speech versus blasphemy
Throughout history, believers from a multitude of faiths have called for boycott, arrest, censorship or even murder of critics,
artists and commentators whose works they considered blasphemous. Some have been punished for comitting a criminal
offence(hate speech), censored or killed, others walked free.
These incidents have seen frequent mention in connection with the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy:
Dieudonné M'bala M'bala (comedian, tried for anti-semitism)
Ecce Homo (exhibition)
Snow White and The Madness of Truth (installation)
Submission (short film)
Piss Christ (photo)
The Satanic Verses (novel)
The Last Temptation of Christ (film)
The life of Jesus (book)
18
The Virgin Mary (painting)
Jerry Springer - The Opera (play, then a television programme)
Life of Brian (film)
Great Lawgivers (frieze in U.S. supreme court building)
See also
Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
Censorship by organized religion
Controversial newspaper caricatures
Freedom of the press
Freedom of speech and freedom of the press in Denmark
Freedom of speech versus blasphemy
Hate speech
Islam in Denmark
List of newspapers that reprinted Jyllands-Posten's Muhammad cartoons
Separation of church and state
Clash of Civilizations
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
^ a b “Muslims seek UN resolution over Danish prophet cartoons,” AFP, 2006-01-29.
^ “Protesters burn consulate over cartoons,” CNN, 2006-02-05.
^ “Protestors killed as global furor over cartoons escalates,” Middle East Times, 2006-02-06.
^ “Muslim cartoon fury claims lives,” BBC, 2006-02-06.
^ “Cartoon anger unabated,” Reuters, 2006-02-10.
^ a b (da)“Dyb angst for kritik af islam,” Politiken, 2005-09-17.
^ (da)“Overfaldet efter Koran-læsning,” TV 2 (Denmark), 2004-10-09.
^ (da)Rose, Flemming: “Muhammeds ansigt”, Jyllands-Posten, 2005-09-30.
^ (da)“Jyllands-Posten: Ytringsfrihed: Mohammes ansigt,” AvisNET, 2005-10-30.
^ (ar)Jyllands-Posten's letter in Arabic
19
11. ^ Jyllands-Posten's letter in English
12. ^ (da)Fogh tager personligt afstand
13. ^ a b c d “Official Response by the Danish Government to the UN Special Rapporteurs,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark,
2006-01-24.
14. ^ “The imam and the unbelievers of Denmark,” Ekstra Bladet, 2006-01-15.
15. ^ A clash of rights and responsibilities, BBC
16. ^ (da)Viste pædofil Muhamed and “Scandinavian Update: Israeli Boycott, Muslim Cartoons,” The Brussels Journal, 2006-01-14.
17. ^ (da)“Imam viste falske billeder,” Jyllands-Posten, 2006-01-30.
18. ^ Neandernews: Danish Imams Busted!A clash of rights and responsibilities, BBC
19. ^ Alienated Danish Muslims Sought Help from Arabs
20. ^ (da)Trossamfund angriber Muhammed-satire i Weekendavisen
21. ^ “How a meeting of leaders in Mecca set off the cartoon wars around the world,” The Independent, 2006-02-10.
22. ^ “Danes Blame Imams for Satire Escalation, Survey Says (Update1),” Bloomberg, 2005-02-10.
23. ^ “First Newsbreaker,” egyptiansandmonkey, 2005-02-09.
24. ^ “No Danish Treatment for an Egyptian Newspaper,” FreedomForEgyptians, 2006-02-08.
25. ^ “A media dilemma: The rest of a story,” Philadelphia Inquirer, 2006-02-04.
26. ^ “US, British media tread carefully in cartoon furor,” Christian Science Monitor, 2006-02-06.
27. ^ “Paper withdrawn over cartoon row,” BBC News, 2006-02-07.
28. ^ “NY Press Kills Cartoons; Staff Walks Out,” The New York Observer, 2006-02-07.
29. ^ “P.E.I. student paper publishes cartoons of Prophet,” CBC, 2006-02-08.
30. ^ “Muslim anger hits SA,” Sunday Tribune (South Africa), 2006-02-05.
31. ^ a “Gunmen shut EU Gaza office over cartoons,” CNN, 2006-02-03.
32. ^ “Embassies burn in cartoon protest,” BBC News, 2006-02-04.
33. ^ (de)“Brennende Botschaften und Antisemitismus,” Spiegel, 2006-02-05.
34. ^ “Newspaper shut for printing cartoons,” The Australian, 2006-02-07.
35. ^ “Sarawak paper prints Prophet cartoon, editor quits,” The Sun (Malaysia), 2006-04-06.
36. ^ “Islam-West divide 'grows deeper',” BBC News, 10 February 2006.
37. ^ The Danish constitution
38. ^ The International Centre for the Legal Protection of Human Rights - Written Comments
39. ^ Painting by Jens Jørgen Thorsen
40. ^ Danish movie Jesus vender tilbage
41. ^ Jesus vender tilbage plot description in the New York Times
42. ^ Guardian article Feb 6, 2006 on refusal to publish Jesus cartoons
43. ^ Making fun of Queen Margrethe II
44. ^ ENAR Shadow Report 2004 Denmark
45. ^ http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hi/hi_fimu.htm
20
46. ^ http://www.superluminal.com/cookbook/index_flat_gallery.html#
47. ^ http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive
48. ^ Abdelhadi, Magdi, "Cartoon row highlights deep divisions", BBC, 4 February 2006.
External links
(da) The official home-page of Jyllands-Posten
The page of Jylland-Posten that contains Muhammad cartoons
Danish reaction to Jyllands-Posten
Additional site listing the 12 offensive cartoons
How this Wikipedia article evolved
Official correspondence
The letter to the Prime Minister from the Muslim ambassadors (PDF)
First open letter in Arabic to the Muslims of Saudi Arabia from Jyllands-Posten (PDF)
Second open letter to the Muslims of Saudi Arabia from Jyllands-Posten
In Arabic (PDF)
In English
The EU Commission's vice-chairman, Franco Frattini (on this issue)
Photocopies of the Imams' dossier
Islamic views
IUMS Statement on Publishing Anti-Prophet Cartoons
Sri Lankan Muslim View
Danish cartoons and sacred imagery
News sites
BBC News article: Q&A: Depicting the Prophet Muhammad
The Guardian--its articles, indexed by country
21
Danish radio broadcasts in English from B&NNS
Copenhagen Post--Danish Weekly in English
Jyllands-Posten--related items in English
World press review by BBC Monitoring
Protests over images
Viewpoints: Cartoon row BBC News, 3 February 2006
At Mecca Meeting, Cartoon Outrage Crystallized - From the New York Times
Images
All the Mohammed drawings in full size
Jihad Against Danish Newspaper - We are all Danes now
Mohammed Image Archive
Mirror site: info2us.dk Mirror site
Enlargeable images link
Additional cartoons accompanying the original Jyllands-Posten set
Picture series - burning of the Danish embassy in Syria
Caricatures of Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, published by the Danish newspaper Information
Caricature of Culture Clash with all 12 of the Jyllands-Posten images, published on Annoy.com
Arab cartoons from the past few years showing anti-semitism images in Arab newspapers
Archive of user-submitted Mohammed drawings
Academic analysis
Complexity and Social Networks Blog at Harvard University discusses and applies various social network theories to
the recent event.
Mixed Viewpoints
Muslim Says: Let's Make More Cartoons Of The Prophet
A letter from Another Denmark
rezgar.com – It is enough now!
22
BBC Viewpoints – Discussion about the cartoon row
The limits to free speech – Economist.com - An article supporting free speech
The Counterterrorism BLOG
Reconciliation
SorryNorwayDenmark – Apology from a Middle-Eastern muslim group to Denmark and Norway for the embassy and
flag burnings
Forsoning nu! Stop the escalating conflict. Take decisive steps towards reconciliation.
Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
,&
&
,
%
,
$
0
)
$
This is the timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. The
cartoons were first published by Jyllands-Posten in late September 2005;
approximately two weeks later, nearly 3,500 people demonstrated peacefully in
Copenhagen. In November, several European newspapers re-published the images,
triggering more protests. Labour strikes began in Pakistan the following month, and
several organizations criticized the Danish government. More protests occurred in
January 2006, and later that month a boycott of Danish goods began. Several
countries withdrew their ambassadors to Denmark, and widespread protests, some of
them violent, began. The protests continued in February. In Damascus, Syria, both
the Norwegian embassy and a building containing the Danish, Swedish, and Chilean
embassies were stormed and set afire by protesters. The Danish General Consulate in
Beirut was burned down by more than 10,000 protesters. As of February 10, 2006, at
least 11 people have been killed in the protests. [1] Main Sources: [2][3]
23
,
,
,
-
&
%
=$
!
5
$ $
$
6
- &-
-
'
2*
%
%
:
$
=%
8! 0
9- %
8
9
:
86 &
;
>
?
8
8
8
9
:
8
9
:
;
>
?
;
>
?
%
2005
September
September:
24
Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, commissioned twelve cartoonists to draw cartoons in
response to the difficulty that Danish writer Kåre Bluitgen had finding artists to illustrate his children's book
about Muhammad, because the artists feared violent attacks by extremist Muslims.
September 30:
The cartoons of Islamic prophet Muhammad are printed in the Danish daily newspaper, Jyllands-Posten.
October
for 17 October 2005 - One
of the controversial
cartoons of Muhammad, as
it appeared on the first page
El Fagr.
October 9:
The Islamic Society in Denmark demands that Jyllands-Posten apologise to all Muslims and withdraw the
25
cartoons.
October 14:
3,500 people stage a peaceful demonstration outside the Copenhagen office of Jyllands-Posten.
Two of the cartoonists are advised to go into hiding after receiving death threats[3].
October 17:
Egyptian Newspaper El Fagr publishes six of the cartoons during Ramadan along with an article strongly
denouncing them, but the publication of the images did not engender any known protests from either Egyptian
religious authorities nor the Egyptian government.[4][5]
October 19:
Eleven ambassadors request a meeting with the Prime Minister of Denmark, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, and want
him to distance himself from the cartoons in Jyllands-Posten as well as various other allegedly derogatory
comments about Islam in the Danish media. The Prime Minister refused to meet the ambassadors, on the grounds
that he cannot infringe on the freedom of the press.
October 28:
Danish police are notified by a number of Muslim organizations, claiming that the intention of the publication of
the cartoons has been to "mock and deride" the Muslim faith, something the Danish penal code prohibits (§ 140).
November
November through December: A delegation of Imams from the Islamic Society in Denmark travel to the Middle East in
order to bring attention to the cartoons. They present a 43 page Dossier to influential political and religious leaders.
In November, another Danish newspaper, WeekendAvisen, published an additional ten satirical cartoons of
Muhammad.[6]
November 3:
The German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung publishes one of the cartoons.citation needed
November 7:
The Bangladeshi government issues a diplomatic protest to the Danish government following the initial
publication of the cartoons.[7]
November 24:
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief and Special Rapporteur on contemporary
forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance request the Permanent Danish Mission
26
to the UN to deliver their observations of the case [8]
December
December 2:
A Pakistani political party, Jamaat-e-Islami apparently offers a roughly $10,000 reward to anyone who kills one
of the cartoonists[3]. It was later discovered that this was a considerable exaggeration, based on a small note in a
local newspaper, citing Jamaat-e-Islami as promising a reward up to a million rupees for the deaths of the
cartoonist. Jamaat-e-Islami claims to be wrongly cited, having merely suggested that the Pakistani government
could promise such a reward. On its way through the Danish ambassador to the Danish media, this fact is blown
up as involving multiple papers and flyers with the reward.[9]
December 7:
Labour strikes begin in Pakistan in response to the cartoons.
Louise Arbour, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has expressed concern over the cartoons and said
that United Nations is investigating racism of the Danish cartoonists.[10]
December 19:
Twenty-two former Danish ambassadors criticise the Prime Minister of Denmark for not meeting with the eleven
ambassadors in October.
The Council of Europe criticises the Danish government for invoking the "freedom of the press" in its refusal to
take action against the "insulting" cartoons. [11]
December 29:
The Arab League criticises the Danish government for not acting in the matter.
2006
January
January 1:
The Prime Minister of Denmark makes his yearly New Year's speech, emphasising that religion and freedom of
speech are equally respected in Denmark.
27
January 6:
The Regional Public Prosecutor in Viborg decided to discontinue the investigation of whether Jyllandsposten had
committed an offence under section 140 (publicly ridiculing or insulting dogmas of worship of any lawfully
existing religious community in Denmark) and 266b (dissemination of statements or other information by which
a group of people are threatened, insulted or degraded on account of e.g. their religion) of the Danish Criminal
Code because there was not a reasonable suspicion that a criminal offence indictable by the state had been
committed and "the right to freedom of speech must be exercised". The original claim was filed on October 27,
2005. [1]
January 7:
Two pictures are printed in the Swedish newspaper Expressen and its sister editions Kvällsposten and GT.
10 January - Magazinet
republishes all 12 cartoons
January 10:
The Norwegian Christian newspaper Magazinet publishes all 12 of the cartoons.
January 22:
The Brussels Journal publishes the cartoons.
January 23:
The Danish government delivers its official response to the UN Special Rapporteurs' request of 24 November
2005. [12]
January 24:
The government of Saudi Arabia issues its first public condemnation of the cartoons. [2]
January 26
28
Message on a Saudi
grocery store. The text
reads: Dear customers, in
response to the insults
towards the Prophet (Peace
be upon Him), the
supermarket of Al Tamini
boycotts all Danish
products.
The people of Saudi Arabia begin boycotting Danish products.
Saudi Arabia recalls its ambassador from Denmark.
The Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs sent a letter to their ambassadors in the Middle East stating that one of the
pillars of Norwegian society is freedom of speech, but they expressed regret that Magazinet did not respect Muslims'
beliefs.[13]
January 27
Boycott begins in Kuwait
January 28
A Danish ambassador in Saudi Arabia is interviewed by the American Associated Press Television News (AP-TV)
where he criticises Jyllands-Posten's lack of judgement and knowledge of Islam, even though the Danish government
has not spoken on the matter.
The Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) states that the Danish government should immediately have
29
condemned the cartoons.
January 29
Libya closes its embassy in Denmark.
The Danish government announces that Denmark's ambassador to Saudi Arabia only expressed his own opinion in the
28 January interview with AP-TV. The Danish People's Party, Dansk Folkeparti, demands he be reprimanded.
The Danish ambassador in Jordan is summoned for a hearing.
The President of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai calls the printing of the cartoons a mistake, and hopes that this will lead to
the media being more responsible and respectful in the future.
The Flag of Denmark is burned in the West Bank cities of Nablus and Hebron.
Yemen's Assembly of Representatives (Majlis al-Nuwaab) condemns the cartoons.
The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) heads to the UN with a resolution that forbids attacks on religious
beliefs.
Bahrain condemns the cartoons.
Syria also condemns the cartoons.
A new denial-of-service attack on Jyllands-Posten's homepage. The first happened on January 27.
Ekstra Bladet reveals that a Danish Muslim association spreading the story in the Middle East, has claimed that it
represents 200,000 Danish Muslims. Its actual membership number is around 15,000. [14]
Palestinian Islamic Jihad Movement gives Danes, Norwegians, and Swedes 48 hours to leave the Gaza Strip.
Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades gives Danes and Swedes 72 hours to leave the area.
A poll from Epinion for Danmarks Radio, the national broadcasting company of Denmark, showed that of 579 Danes
asked, 79% believe that the Prime Minister of Denmark should not apologise to the Muslims, with 48% citing that
would be political interference with the freedom of press, while 44% thought the Prime Minister should try harder to
resolve the controversy. 62% of those asked believed that Jyllands-Posten shouldn't apologise either, and while 58%
did feel that while it was the right of Jyllands-Posten to publish the cartoons, they could understand the Muslim
criticism.[15]
Boycott of Danish goods begins in Qatar
January 30
Jyllands-Posten sends out an apology in both Danish and Arabic. Apologising, not for the printing of the cartoons, but
30
for hurting the feelings of Islamic society (Look below for English translation of the apology).
Armed Palestinians from Fatah take over an EU office as a protest against the cartoons. [16]
Former US President Bill Clinton cites historic anti-Semitism and condemns the publishing of the cartoons. [17]
The Prime Minister of Denmark says that he personally distances himself from the cartoons, but reiterates that the
government cannot intervene in what the media writes. [18]
The European Union backs Denmark, saying that any retaliatory boycott of Danish goods would violate world trade
rules. [19]
The Danish Red Cross says that it will evacuate some workers in Yemen and the Gaza Strip after receiving threats. [20]
Jyllands-Posten sends out a second open letter, this time both in Arabic, Danish, and English, trying to clear up several
misunderstandings, and once again apologising for hurting the feelings of the Islamic society.
A Iraqi militant islamic organisation, the Mujahideen Army, calls for terror strikes against Danish and Norwegian
targets. [21]
Armed gunmen from Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades storm the European Union's office in Gaza and threaten to kidnap the
workers unless they receive an official appology for the cartoons from the EU.
January 31
Following a live televised interview on Al-Jazeera, it is reported [22] that the "apology for any offence caused" made at
the opening of the interview by Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten's cultural editor, was not translated into Arabic.
The Danish Muslim Association is satisfied with yesterday's apologies from Jyllands-Posten and the Prime Minister,
and say they now will help improve the situation. They claim to be deeply sorry and surprised the case got this far.
[23][24]
A bomb threat against Jyllands-Posten leads to evacuation of two offices in Aarhus and Copenhagen.[25]
Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades denies that the threat against Scandinavians is real.[26]
The foreign ministers of seventeen Islamic nations renew demands for the Danish government to punish the authors of
the cartoons and to "ensure that it doesn't happen again." [27]
31
Anders Fogh
Rasmussen
The Prime Minister of Denmark, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, holds a press conference in both Danish and English in
which he repeats that he urges Danes not to take any action that could worsen the situation. He urges Muslims in
Denmark to take actions that can improve the situation. He also repeats that freedom of expression is a vital part of the
Danish society and that the Danish government is not in a position to have any influence on what the press is printing.
He states that he wants to come back to a situation of dialogue, based on the friendship that has existed for a long time
between Denmark and the Muslim world.[28] The prime minister is asked by the TV broadcaster Al Jazeera to appear
in a program, but has not yet decided whether he will accept.
The National Assembly of Bahrain demands an apology from Denmark's head of state, Queen Margrethe II, as well as
from the government. If the demands are not met, they will urge an official boycott of Danish goods and the cutting off
of oil exports of 159,000 barrels per day, in association with other GCC members. [29]
Hamas leader Adnan Asfour demands that Denmark punish the twelve artists and Jyllands-Posten.[30]
Former US President Bill Clinton states that he fears anti-Semitism will be replaced with anti-Islamic prejudice and
condemns "these totally outrageous cartoons against Islam".[31]
Russian president Vladimir Putin indicates in a speech in the Kremlin that the Danish political authorities are using the
theme of freedom of expression to protect those who have insulted the Muslims.
The Icelandic newspaper DV publishes six of the twelve cartoons.
The German newspaper Die Tageszeitung publishes two of the cartoons.
February
February 1
The French newspaper France Soir publishes the cartoons, adding one of their own. Managing director Jacques Lefranc
32
is fired later the same day by owner Raymond Lakah, a French-Egyptian binational and Roman Catholic (the chief
editor, Serge Faubert, is not fired)[32]. The French Government dissociates itself from the initiative[33].
The German newspaper Die Welt publishes some of the cartoons[34], as do the German newspapers Tagesspiegel and
Berliner Zeitung.
The Italian newspaper La Stampa publishes the cartoons.
The Spanish newspaper El Periódico de Catalunya publishes the cartoons.
The Dutch papers Volkskrant, NRC Handelsblad, and Elsevier publish the cartoons.
The cartoon is uploaded to wikipedia
The Danish embassy in Syria is evacuated because of a hoax bomb threat. [35]
Syria recalls its ambassador from Denmark. [2]
The Finnish Minister of Foreign Affairs criticises the Danish government for its slow actions on the matter.
The Russian Orthodox Church and the Muftiat condemned the European newspapers that republished the cartoons.
Chechen warlord, politician, and terrorist leader Shamil Basayev condemns the cartoons.
Jyllands-Posten's headquarters as well as its office in Copenhagen is again evacuated after a bomb threat. [36]
An influential Muslim organization in Malaysia, the Muslim Consumers Association of Malaysia, calls on the
Malaysian government to protest the cartoons with the Danish government. [37]
A spokesman from the Indonesian Foreign Ministry condemns the cartoons, saying that freedom of expression should
not be used as a pretext to insult a religion. [38]
Boycott of Danish goods is instituted by Omani retail chains
February 2
German newspaper Die Zeit publishes one of the cartoons on page five. [39]
The Prime Minister of Denmark appears on the TV station Al-Arabiya. The recording was made 1 February.
The Jordanian newspaper al-Shihan prints the cartoons. The newspaper's manager is fired.[40] [41]
The American newspaper New York Sun publishes two of the cartoons[42].
The Belgian newspaper Le Soir publishes two of the cartoons. [43]
The French newspaper Le Monde publishes a cartoon of Muhammad's face formed only from words that read "I may
not draw the Prophet."
33
The Swiss newspapers Le Temps and Tribune de Genève publish some of the cartoons, as does the Hungarian
newspaper Magyar Hirlap. [44]
The Portuguese newspaper Público publishes one of the cartoons - the most heated one - Muhammad with a bomb on
his head.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark advises Danish citizens to leave Gaza.
Mullah Krekar, alleged leader of Ansar al-Islam and living in Norway, calls the cartoons a "declaration of war" and
says that "[we] Muslims are ready for this".[45]
"Fleeting glimpses" of some of the cartoons are shown in British television news programmes on the BBC, ITV and
Channel 4, [46]. On its flagship current affairs programme Newsnight, the BBC recreates portions of the cartoons but
with the image of Muhammad edited out of the scenes.
In a joint statement, the Roman Catholic bishops of the five Nordic countries deplore the publication of the cartoons.
"Again and again, in our Nordic area, it seems that certain opinion makers feel that they are wholly free to say what
they wish without any respect for the understanding and beliefs of other people (..) Our sympathies go out to our
Muslim sisters and brothers." [47].
Armed gunmen from Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades storm the European Union's office in Gaza for the second time in a
week and kidnapped a German national. He was later released unharmed. [48].
Palestinian gunmen shut down the EU headquarters in Gaza, in protest of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons. According to
CNN, "Masked members of the militant groups Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the armed
wing of the Palestinians' former ruling party, Fatah, fired bullets into the air, and a man read the group's demands....The
gunmen left a notice on the EU office's door that the building would remain closed until Europeans apologize to
Muslims, many of whom consider the cartoons offensive."[49]
The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer on PBS displays some of the cartoons in its segment on the issue.
British Islamist group Al Ghurabaa publishes an article entitled Kill those who insult the Prophet Muhammad (saw),
justifying such action using the Qur'an and Hadith, and applying its argument primarily to Jyllands-Posten, Magazinet
and to the Danish and Norwegian governments. [50]
Protesters in Rabat, Morocco stage a sit-in before the Parliament in response to the cartoons. On the same day, delivery
of the Wednesday issue of the 'France-Soir' and Friday issue of the 'Liberation' daily newspapers was barred by the
Moroccan government. [51]
Danish company Arla Foods reports millions in losses from boycotts
34
February 3
3 February - Danish
prime minister shaking
hands with Charg d'Affaires
from Libya
Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen meets with several Muslim ambassadors in Copenhagen. Egyptian
ambassador responds that Ramoussen's response is inadequate and that Denmark should try harder to 'appease the
whole Muslim world'.
At the Danish embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia an angry mob demands access to the embassy, and upset lamps and
furniture in the lobby in the process. [52] The ambassador talks to the leaders of the demonstration, and the group
disperses.
The Belgian newspaper De Standaard publishes the cartoons. Another Belgian newspaper, Het Volk, prints cartoons of
Muhammad by Flemish cartoonists and quotes Etienne Vermeersch as saying Belgian papers should publish such
caricatures every week "so that Muslims can get used to the idea." [53]
The weekly New Zealand newspaper National Business Review prints one of the cartoons. [54]
British foreign secretary Jack Straw praised the British media for not publishing the cartoons and condemned the
decision of the European newpapers who brought the cartoons as "disrespectful" [55]
Australian TV broadcasters Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC)
show images of some of the cartoons in their evening news bulletins.
The Belgian Muslim Executive, of which some former members have been linked to terrorism, strongly condemns the
cartoons as "an unacceptable attack on Islam".
Protest march in London. Hundreds of Muslims march from the London Central Mosque to the heavily protected
Danish embassy. Chants include "7/7 is on its way" and placard slogans include "Slay those who insult Islam", "Free
35
speech go to hell", "Europe is the cancer and Islam is the cure", "Exterminate those who slander Islam", "Europe you
will pay. Your 9/11 is on its way!!" and "Be prepared for the real holocaust!" [56] [57] [58] [59]
The controversial Danish imam Abu Laban and the editor of culture of Jyllands-Posten meet on the BBC program
Hard Talk. [60]
A US State Department spokesman stated "We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but
it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable." [61]
Newly elected Hamas organizes protests and demonstrations in the Palestinian territories. Demonstrations are
significantly more violent than in previous days.
The Senate of Pakistan adopted a unanimous resolution condemning the Danish newspaper for publishing blasphemous
and derogatory cartoons. [62]
Saudi cleric Sheikh Badr bin Nader al-Mashar refers, in an audio message posted online, to the cartoon furore as "part
of the war waged by the decadent West against the triumphant Islam" and issues a call "to the billion Muslims: where
are your arms? Your enemies have trampled on the prophet. Rise up." [63]
Canada's CTV television network news broadcasts a brief static close up of the cartoons. [64]
The Irish Daily Star publishes one of the cartoons. The accompanying article states that it wishes to "make a stand for
freedom of the press and democratic rights". [65]
Two Muslims with Turkish backgrounds allegedly attack the steward of a hot dog stand[66]. However, after some
investigations, the Danish police has concluded that this was not true[67].
Judge Mohammed Jajbhay pre-emptively bans the publication of the cartoons in South Africa following a request for
an urgent interdict by the Muslim Jamiat-ul Ulama Transvaal organization. This move is widely criticized by
opposition political parties and journalist organizations. [68].
Islamic retailer Ziyad Brothers suspends business with Arla Foods
February 4
36
February 4 - The Danish
embassy in Damascus,
Syria is burned to the
ground after being stormed
by angry mob.
The daily New Zealand newspaper The Dominion Post prints the cartoons and an accompanying article, including text
from the Wikipedia article on the topic. [69]
The Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita publishes the cartoons [70], much like the most influential Czech daily MF
DNES.
The Danish newspaper Dagbladet Information publishes twelve Anders Fogh Rasmussen cartoons.[71]
The editor of the Jordanian newspaper al-Shihan, Jihad Momani, was arrested.[72]
Protest outside the Danish embassy in London organised by Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. A speaker calls on "the
governments of the Muslim world to completely sever all contact with European governments" until they had
"controlled the media". Police later say that two men were arrested near the embassy during the protest. "They were
arrested to prevent a breach of the peace, after a search by officers found leaflets including cartoons of the prophet
Mohammed," a Metropolitan Police Service spokeswoman said. [73]
The building, which houses the Chilean, Swedish, and Danish embassies in Damascus Syria, is set on fire after being
stormed by angry mob. The Swedish and Chilean embassies were very badly damaged[74][75], but the Danish embassy,
which is located on the 3rd floor, was only partially damaged. As a response to this incident, the Danish Ministry of
Foreign Affairs issued a warning urging Danish citizens in Syria to leave the country immediately. The Danish
ambassador had asked the Syrian government for proper protection of the embassy before the attack. Danish
government does not rule out severing diplomatic ties with Syria.
The Norwegian embassy in Damascus is attacked and set on fire. The Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Jonas
Gahr Støre, advises all Norwegians to leave Syria. Støre told the media that he sees the situtation as a very serious
diplomatic crisis and threatens to sever the diplomatic ties with Syria.[76]
Several demonstrations in Hillerød, Denmark collide and become violent[77]. One demonstration was arranged by a
small nationalistic group and included at least one Neo-Nazi. Other groups represented were Muslims, Danish
anti-racists, and a group well known to the police for becoming violent (named autonome). 162 people were arrested.
Around 110 were demonstrating against the nationalistic group and the rest were mostly muslims also demonstrating
37
the nationalistic group.
The Vatican says the right to freedom of expression does not imply the right to offend religious beliefs[78], but also that
a government should not be held responsible for actions of a newspaper.
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan calls for calm and urges Muslims to accept an apology from the Danish paper that
first published the cartoons.
A new network of Danish Muslims (called Moderate Muslims) is founded as a response to the cartoon controversy,
with the Danish Muslim member of parliament Naser Khader as one of the founding members. This new network will
represent Muslims that focus on freedom of speech, democracy, and positive and peaceful relations between Muslims
and non-Muslims.[79]
An editorial in The Wall Street Journal alleges that the controversy was fueled by Danish Muslims who added three
non-published images to the cartoons. (The images are: one involved a pig's nose on his face, another stating him to be
a paedophile, and the third showing an indecent act with a dog).[80]
The US blames Syria for not sufficiently protecting the embassies in Damascus. The White House stated: "We stand in
solidarity with Denmark and our European allies in opposition to the outrageous acts in Syria today."[81]
The president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has ordered to cancel contracts with all countries where media have
published the cartoons[82].
It is revealed, that the newspaper Jyllands Postens wins the "Victor prize", which is given each year by the competing
newspaper Ekstra Bladet. They get it because they have shown to defend freedom of press, even under heavy
pressure[83].
The rumours about burning of the Qur'an in Denmark on February 4 seem to have been incorrect. No media has
reported such burnings, and the police have no reports of such an action.
The German center of culture in the Gaza strip was ravaged by demonstrators.[84].
Rumours that Danes would burn the Qur'an circulated in the Arab world[85]. The probable source of the rumor is an
SMS spread by Danish right wing extremists, which indeed told people to buy and burn the Qu'ran at a demonstration
on February 4 in central Copenhagen[86]. This did not take place.[87]Approximately 40 right wing protestors did
demonstrate in Hillerød instead. No copies of the Qur'an nor other sacred items were burned.[88].
The Danish newspaper Politiken reveals that Jyllands-Posten in 2003, denied an unsolicited submission that caricatured
the resurrection of Jesus, with the reason, that it would lead to an outcry.[89].[90]
The International Cartoon Festival in Belgium choses a "yawning Christ on the cross" as winner. [91]
38
February 5
The UK's Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said to the Sunday Telegraph that some of the placards held at the
Muslim protest in London on February 3 amounted to "incitement to murder" and protesters should be dealt with firmly
by police[92].
Iran recalls its ambassador from Denmark and bans journalists from its country.[93]
The Danish consulate in Beirut, Lebanon is set ablaze during a demonstration[94]. The police arrest many people,
almost half of them are from Syria[95].
Demonstrators in Lebanon from a demonstration at the Danish consulate cause property damage in Christian
neighborhoods of Beirut.[96]
In a press conference in Copenhagen, Danish Minister of Foreign Affairs Per Stig Møller assured that no Qur'an
burnings had taken place in Denmark, and urged all parties to "talk down the crisis" so that they could "move forward
together".[97]
The Arab European League, a conservative Arab nationalist organization, has put several anti-Semitic cartoons on its
website in response to the Danish cartoons[98] [99].
The Syrian newspaper Al-Thawra, which is owned by the state, claims that the Danish government is responsible for
having the embassy burned down[100].
The Iraqi Ministry of Transportation freezes contracts with Denmark and Norway.[101].
In Brussels, Belgium, thousands of Muslims spontaneously gather and hold a peaceful protest against the cartoons.
[102]
Lebanese Interior Minister, Hassan Sabeh, announced his resignation in reaction to the torching of the Danish consulate
in Beirut, and to the following criticism.[103]
A peaceful demonstration was arranged for peace, dialogue, and understanding in Copenhagen. Almost 3000 Muslims
and non-Muslims participated in the demonstration.[104].
The US ambassador to Denmark, James P. Cain, says he is pleased major American newspapers have not re-printed the
cartoons.citation needed
The Islamic Army, a militant Iraqi group with ties to Al-Qaeda, says Danish citizens, and citizens of other countries
who have published the cartoons, should be captured and killed.[105]
The Prime Minister of Norway, Jens Stoltenberg, will formally complain to the United Nations against Syria for its
39
failure to protect the Norwegian embassy in Damascus[106]
Charges against the two Jordanian editors that published the cartoon are dropped.[107]
500 Muslims protest peacefully against the cartoons in Vienna, Austria.[108]
At a press conference, the Danish Foreign Minister says that this is no longer about Denmark and the twelve cartoons
and it is no longer a crisis between Denmark and Arab Muslim countries. Instead, it is a crisis for Western-Arab
cooperation, and has to be solved using international cooperation.[109]
The Conference of European Rabbis expresses its concern at the publication of the cartoons, which "humiliate and
disparage the feelings of Muslims", comparing them to anti-Semitic caricatures.[110]
Andrea Santoro, a Catholic priest, was murdered on Sunday, February 5th, 2006 at the Santa Maria Church in Trabzon,
Turkey where he served. A 16 year-old high school student was arrested two days later carrying a 9mm pistol. The
student told police he had been influenced by the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.[111]
February 6
Australian blogger Tim Blair published the twelve cartoons on his website. [112]
A protest of approximately 5,000 people is planned in Jakarta, Indonesia at the Danish embassy.[113]
Approximately 1,000 protesters marched for three hours in Paris, France in response to the publication of the cartoons
in several European newspapers. French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin condemned the violence that had
occurred internationally in response to the cartoons, but called for tolerance and respect toward other faiths. [114]
Three dead at Afghan demonstration against the cartoons.[115]
Danish soldiers in Iraq were shot at while trying to give first aid to 10-15 Iraqi children who were hit by a truck in a
traffic accident. The Danish soldiers managed to save some of the children and bring them to a hospital. The Danish
army says that this may be a reaction to the cartoons[116].
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark recommends not to spend holiday in the following countries: Egypt,
Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, Sudan, Oman, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Jordan, Iran, Pakistan, and
Afghanistan. This will affect 3,000 people who already bought their tickets.[117]
Ahmed Akkari, spokesman for 29 Muslim organisations in Denmark, offers to go on Arab television with Danish Prime
Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen in order to explain why it is not the Danish Prime Minister or the Danish Queen who
should provide apologies.[118]
40
Sterling Airlines A/S, an Icelandic owned low-fare airline based in Copenhagen, stops all flights to Egypt as a
consequence of the travel recommendations from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark.[119]
Demonstrators in Indonesia damage the Danish consulate and try to damage the US consulate. At the American
consulate, they clash with police, and warning shots are fired.[120]
The government of Lebanon apologizes to Denmark for not having protected the consulate well enough.[121]
The embassy of Austria in Tehran, Iran, has been attacked by firebombs. The firebombs did not catch fire, and shortly
afterwards the security forces protected the embassy.[122] Austria is the current chairman of the European Union.
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair expresses his full support and solidarity with Denmark.[123]
Secretary General of NATO, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, expresses his full support with Denmark.[124]
The Israeli English language newspaper, The Jerusalem Post, has printed the drawings, although very small, almost
impossible to see.[125]
Iran stops all trade with Denmark, thereby violating their agreements with the EU.[126]. This is done at the same time
as Irans atomic program has been reported to the UN Security Council, which has Denmark as member.
Danish Embassy in Indonesia shuts down in order to secure the employees[127]
Danish Embassy in Iran was attacked. About 20 firebombs were thrown at the building, but no damage seems to have
been done[128].
Danish Muslims plan to make a peaceful demonstration in Aarhus, with the motto "In favor of Denmark"[129].
The American Ambassador in Denmark has repeated in several media, that USA is supporting Denmark and is 100%
behind Denmark. He also states, that USA is fully behind freedom of speech and would never intervene against media
who publishes the cartoons[130].
The Grand Mufti of Syria is sorry that the relationship with Denmark has deteriorated, but hopes to restore it as soon as
possible. He says that 10,000 people were at the demonstration at the Danish Embassy, but only 10-15 were responsible
for burning it down. He says that the Syrian population will rebuild the embassy, even nicer than it was before. It would
be a gift to the Danish population. When TV 2 visits him, he gives them a gold plate with citations from the Qur'an as a
gift to the Danish people (Only reference right now: Seen by User:Dybdahl on the Danish tv-channel TV 2 at 18:00
CET today). Syria has officially excused that they didn't protect the embassy well enough.[131]
The Danish Refugee Council, the largest humanitarian aid organisation in Chechnya and supplier of food for 250,000
people in Chechnya and Dagestan, is asked by the government of Chechnya to leave the country, citing the current
controversy.[132]. The organisation also has problems with delivering humanitarian aid in Sudan[133]
41
Ferial Haffajee, editor of South African newspaper The Mail and Guardian, which reprinted the cartoons, reports
receiving threats.[134]
An Iranian newspaper, Hamshahri, announces a competition for cartoons on The Holocaust, apparently in retaliation to
the Jyllands-Posten cartoons. [135]
Two people died at a protest near the Bagram Air Base. The death toll in Afganistan is now at five. [3]
In Somalia, a teenage boy died after protesters attacked police. [4]
US vice secretary of foreign affairs, Daniel Fried, states that Denmark has nothing to excuse.[136]
A man in Aarhus, Denmark has filed charges against Jyllands-Posten both for blasphemy and in doing so, harming the
country.[137]
Terry Davis, secretary general of the Council of Europe, says that the publication of the cartoons crossed an ethical line
even if it still was legal.[138]
Danish illustrator Christoffer Zieler reported that in April 2003 he submitted a series of satirical cartoons about the
resurrection of Christ to Jyllands-Posten, but they were turned down by the editor, who said "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." The cartoons were not solicited by the newspaper. [5]
February 7
In Tehran, Iran, tear gas is used against protesters in front of the Danish embassy.[139]
Thousands of protesters clash with police and NATO peacekeepers in Afghanistan. [140]
Four demonstrators are killed in an attack on a Norwegian-led military base in Maymana, capital of the Faryab
province in western Afghanistan. At least 20 others, among them five Norwegians, are injured. [141]
Thousands of students protest in Egypt[142] and Peshawar, Pakistan.[143] Peaceful anti-Denmark protests also occur in
Niamey, Niger, (tens of thousands) Kano, Nigeria (where lawmakers burned Danish flags), Kashmir, Pakistan, and
Cotabato, Philippines[6]
Protest take place in Helsinki, Finland in front of the Danish embassy, around 200 people attend.[144]
Ali Khamenei, the spiritual leader of Iran, expresses the hypocricy of Western media in publishing these cartoons
during an address, to Iranian air force personnel.[145]
42
Nestlé publishes posters denouncing the rumor that any of its products are Danish in origin.[146]
The defacement of Danish websites by pro-Muslim hackers reaches 578 within 1 week.[147]
The Prime Minister of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, asks Turkey to "neutralize fanatics", after the murder of an Italian
Roman Catholic priest.[148]
Amnesty International publishes a statement declaring that Freedom of Speech is not absolute and should be used
responsibly. [149]
The Taliban urge Muslims to declare Jihad over the cartoons. [150]
After an investigation Danish police come to the conclusion that a story concerning the attack on a hot-dog stand
steward by two Turks on February 3 was a fake story.[151]
A student newspaper editor is suspended for publishing an image of the Prophet Muhammad. Cardiff University's
student union paper Gair Rhydd is the first UK publication to use the image which has caused global protests, and has
recalled 8,000 of its copies.[152]
Approximately 100 demonstrators attack the Norwegian embassy in Tehran, Iran throwing stones and firebombs.[153]
A couple of Danish Muslim organisations arrange a peaceful demonstration in Aarhus with the motto "In favor of
Denmark", in an attempt to make the muslim world recognize, that Denmark should not be punished[154].
US President George W. Bush calls Anders Fogh Rasmussen to confirm that he and the United States support Denmark
during this crisis.
The editorial staff of the alternative weekly New York Press walk out en masse, after the paper's publishers backed
down from printing the Danish cartoons[155].
The yemeni government canceled the publishing license of two yemeni private newspapers, Yemen Observer and
Al-Hourriah(freedom), after they have published the Danish illustrations depicting the Prophet Mohammed.[156]
February 8
French weekly newspaper, Charlie Hebdo, publishes the twelve cartoons plus a new cartoon representing Muhammad
by French cartoonist Cabu. The new cartoon shows Muhammad with his head in his hands and is accompanied by the
legend: "It is tough to be loved by morons" (C'est dur d'être aimé par des cons). French Muslim organisations,
including the French Council of Muslim Faith (CFCM) and the Grand Mosques of Paris and Lyon had unsuccessfully
sued Charlie Hebdo the day before to avoid this publication.[157]
43
Former Danish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Uffe Ellemann-Jensen, states that he thinks that the chief editor Carsten
Juste of Jyllands-Posten should quit. Uffe Ellemann-Jensen is a member of the same political party Venstre, to which
also the prime minister belongs, but is no longer active in politics.[158]
Iranians living in Denmark plan to demonstrate against embassy attacks this Saturday.[159]
The organisation, Moderate Muslims, is to begin a campaign in Arab countries in favor of Denmark. They will use
SMS and newspaper advertisements, paid for by their Muslim members only.[160]
In Turin, Copenhagen is elected over Cairo (by 59 against 40) as host city of the 2009 Olympic Congress by the
International Olympic Committee.[161]
The picture allegedly of Muhammad dressed up as a pig is revealed to be a photo of the "pig-squealing" champion
Jacques Barrot in France.[162] [163]
Muslims demonstrators burn Danish, Norwegian and Croatian flags in Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
This follows the publication of the controversial cartoons in a Croatian weekly on February 6[164]. That was only
incident in peacefull demonstration and organizator later excused for burning flags and stating that was a three man,
wich were identified, who on their own burned paper flags.
Veja, Brazil's largest magazine in terms of circulation, publishes three of the original cartoons in both their print edition
and on their website.[165]
The "Freedom for Egyptians" blog publishes scans reportedly showing six of the cartoons, including the turban bomb
image, as published in the October 17, 2005 issue of Egyptian newspaper El Fagr. [166]
The "Egyptian Sandmonkey" blog publishes its own (different) scans of the relevant pages from the October 17, 2005
issue of Egyptian newspaper El Fagr. That no adverse reaction occurred at that time is taken by some to strengthen the
argument that the controversy was sparked or stoked for political ends. [167]
Administration at the University of Prince Edward Island, Canada, ordered a halt to the on-campus distribution of the
student newspaper Cadre after the cartoons were re-printed in the newspaper. Campus authorities also attempted to
seize all 2,000 copies of the edition containing the cartoons. [168]
Professor Peter March at Saint Mary's University, Canada, is directed by administration there to remove copies of the
cartoons that he posted on his office door. The professor was later the subject of an on-campus student march, and
claimed to have received anonymous messages stating that his actions may have repercussions for Canadians being
held hostage in Iraq. [169]
February 9
44
The Egyptian newspaper El Fagr removes the back issue containing the cartoons from its website. [170]
The Danish tabloid B.T. reports that Bjarne Sørensen, the Danish ambassador to Egypt, has confirmed reports that the
cartoons were published in the Egyptian newspaper El Fagr on October 17, 2005. [171]
BBC reports that, in a speech (full text [7]) in Berlin, Ms. Ayaan Hirsi Ali (colleague of murdered filmmaker Theo van
Gogh) said it was "correct to publish the cartoons" and that the furore over the cartoons had exposed the fear among
artists and journalists in Europe to "analyse or criticise intolerant aspects of Islam". [172]
The Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter reports that, although the foreign office and SÄPO got Sverigedemokraterna's
web site shut down after publishing Muhammad caricatures, they are still available from their youth organisation.[173]
Demonstrations with tens of thousands of participants continue to be held across the Muslim world.[174]
The New York Times: "At Mecca Meeting [ of the Organization of the Islamic Conference ], Cartoon Outrage
Crystallized".[175]
February 10
Ahmad Abu Laban, Islamisk Trossamfund leader, strikes a different tune in his Friday prayer. He calls Denmark a nice
and tolerant country and calls for the violence to stop. He also openly challenged Islam critic Ayaan Hirsi Ali. [176]
[177]
The editor of the Norwegian christian newspaper Magazinet, Vebjørn Selbekk, apologizes for the reactions and
consequences the publishing of the paintings has caused. The Norwegian muslim community accepted his apology, and
considered the issue closed. [178]
At a demonstration in Nairobi, one demonstrator dies in a stampede.[8]
Reuters: "Kenyan police opened fire at hundreds of people [ ... ], wounding at least one.".[179]
Spiegel Online (from AP): Molotov-cocktails thrown at French embassy in Tehran.[180]
Muslims hold the biggest rallies in Asia yet. [9]
The Danish ambassadors and diplomatic staff in Iran, Syria, and Indonesia leave their countries in order to protect their
safety.
[181]
February 11
45
Naser Khader Muslim member of Danish parliament and one of the founding members of Moderate Muslims has asked
the Minister of Religion in Denmark to investigate Abu Laban words in the Friday prayer in the mosque at Dortheavej
in Copenhagen where Abu Laban described Ayaan Hirsi Ali as a rat in a hole.[182]
References
1. ^ “Cartoon anger unabated,” Reuters, 2006-02-10.
2. ^ a b (da)“Sådan har Muhammed-sagen udviklet sig,” Politiken, 2006-01-30.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
^ a b c (da)“Muhammed-tegningerne: Tidslinie,” TV2, 2006-01-30.
^ “Egyptian Newspaper Pictures that Published Cartoons 5 months ago,” Freedom for Egyptians, 2006-02-08.
^ “Egyptian Newspaper Publishes Cartoons,” El Fagr, 2006-02-09.
^ (da)“Trossamfund angriber Muhammed-satire i Weekendavisen,” Danmarks Radio, 2006-01-04.
^ “Bangladesh requests Denmark to tender apology on Prophet cartoon,” New Kerala Newspaper, 2006-02-06.
^ “UN Special Rapporteurs' letter to the Permanent Danish Mission to the UN,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, 2005-12-01.
^ (da) “DUSØREN, DER FORSVANDT,” Journalisten, unknown.
^ “UN to Investigate Racism of Danish Cartoonists,” The Brussels Journal, 2005-12-07.
^ “Strasbourg Warning to Copenhagen's 'Freedom of Press' Thesis,” Zaman (newspaper), 2005-12-19.
^ “Offical Response by the Danish Government to the UN Special Rapporteurs,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark,
2006-01-24.
^ Cucuk, Hasan: “Norway Apologises for Cartoons Insulting Prophet Mohammed”, Zaman Online, 2006-01-28.
^ (da)“Fup-kampagnen,” Ekstra Bladet, 2006-01-28.
^ (da)“Epinion: Ingen skal undskylde Muhammed tegninger,” Danmarks Radio, 2006-01-28.
^ “Fatah assaults European Union office,” Wikinews, 2006-01-30.
^ “Clinton warns of rising anti-Muslim feeling,” Wikinews, 2006-01-30.
^ (da)“Fogh tager afstand fra Muhammed-tegninger,” Politiken, 2006-01-30.
^ Brand, Constant: “EU Backs Denmark in caricature dispute”, Business Week, 2006-01-30.
^ “Danish paper apologises to Muslims,” International Herald Tribune, 2006-01-30.
^ “Iraqi group urges Danish attacks over cartoons,” Reuters, 2006-01-30.
^ (da)“Al-Jazeera oversatte ikke redaktørens beklagelse,” Politiken, 2006-01-31.
^ (da)“Abu Laban beklager boykot-udvikling,” Danmarks Radio, 2006-01-30.
^ (da)“Muslimske organisationer i Danmark afblæser kampagne,” Danmarks Radio, 2006-01-31.
^ (da)“Ansatte tilbage på Jyllands-Posten,” Berlingske Tidende, 2006-01-31.
46
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
^ (da)“Al-Aqsa dementerer trussel,” Ekstra Bladet, 2006-01-30.
^ (da)“Arabiske ministre vil have straf for Muhammed-tegninger,” Politiken, 2006-01-31.
^ English language press statement by the Danish prime minister
^ “Outrage at insult to Islam,” Gulf Daily News, 2006-01-31.
^ (da)“Hamas: »I skal bare sige undskyld«,” Politiken, date.
^ a “Clinton warns of rising anti-Islamic feeling,” Agence France-Presse, 2006-01-30.
^ “Raymond Lakah is French-Egyptian binational and Roman Catholic,” Al-Ahram, 2001-09-01.
^ “Editor fired after publication of Islam cartoons,” MSNBC, 2006-02-02.
^ (de)“Mohammed-Karikaturen: Dänische Zeitung gibt sich geschlagen,” Die Welt, 2006-02-01.
^ (da)“Bombetrussel mod dansk ambassade i Syrien,” Politiken, 2006-02-01.
^ (da)“Ny bombetrussel mod Jyllands-Posten,” Politiken, 2006-02-01.
^ “Malaysian Muslim group calls for protest over Danish cartoon,” Forbes, 2006-02-01.
^ “RI condemns Danish caricatures of Prophet,” The Jakarta Post, 2006-02-02.
^ (de)“Allah und der Humor,” Die Zeit, 2006-02-02.
^ (da)“Jordan trykker Muhammed-tegninger,” Ekstra Bladet, 2006-02-02.
^ (de)“Jordanischer Chefredakteur wagt Abdruck der Karikaturen - und fliegt,” Spiegel Online, 2006-02-03.
^ “In Search of a Brave American Newspaper (Updated),” Michelle Malkin, 2006-02-02.
^ (da)“Aviser over hele Europa bringer Muhammed-tegninger,” Jyllands-Posten, 2006-02-02.
^ “More cartoons, protests in Muhammad blasphemy row,” Reuters, 2006-02-02.
^ (no)“- Nå er det krig,” TV2 Nettavisen, 2006-02-02.
^ “- How UK press shapes up to cartoon row,” BBC, 2006-02-03.
^ (no) Beklager publiseringen av karikaturtegninger av profeten Muhammed. URL accessed on 2006-02-02.
^ “Gunmen kidnap German in W.Bank over cartoons,” Reuters, 2006-02-02.
^ “Gunmen shut EU Gaza office over cartoons,” CNN, 2006-02-02.
^ “Kill those who insult the Prophet Muhammad (saw),” Al Ghurabaa, 2006-02-02.
^ “Rabat : Moroccans stage sit-in to protest Prophet blasphemous cartoons,” Morocco Times, 2006-02-05.
^ (da)“Stormløb mod Danmarks ambassade i Indonesien,” Politiken, 2006-02-03.
^ “Belgian newspapers print cartoons,” CNN, 2006-02-03.
^ “A clash of civilisations -- prompted by a cartoon,” National Business Review, 2006-02-03.
^ “Straw condemns cartoon row press,” BBC News, 2006-02-03.
^ “London protesters: 'Behead those who insult prophet',” Daily Mail, 2006-02-03.
^ “Muslims stage cartoon protest,” London Evening Standard, 2006-02-03.
^ “Muslim outrage gathers pace,” Financial Times, 2006-02-03.
^ “In Their Own Words,” Michelle Malkin, 2006-02-03.
^ (da)“Laban og Jyllands-Posten tørnede sammen på BBC,” Politiken, 2006-02-03.
47
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
^ “US sides with Muslims in cartoon dispute,” Reuters, 2006-02-03.
^ "Pakistani parliament condemns Danish daily cartoon" Islamic Republic News Agency 2006-02-03
^ “Call for Jihad over prophet cartoon row goes online,” Middle East Online, 2006-02-03.
^ “Muslim furor over cartoons continues to spread,” CTV, 2006-02-03.
^ “Star defends cartoon decision,” Ulster Television, 2006-02-03.
^ (da)“Pølsemand fik tæsk af indvandrere,” Ekstra Bladet, 2006-02-05.
^ (da)“Police: Attack on hot dog stand is incorrect,” Berlingske Tidende, 2006-02-05.
^ [1]
^ “What the cartoons were about,” The Dominion Post, 2006-02-04.
^ “Wolno słowa nie jest prowokacj (Freedom of speech is not provocation),” Rzeczpospolita, 2006-02-04.
^ “When words are not enough,” Dagbladet Information, 2006-02-04.
^ “Two Jordan editors are arrested,” BBC, 2006-02-04.
^ “Muslims in fresh cartoonsprotest,” The Scotsman, 2006-02-04.
^ “Embassies burn in cartoon protest,” BBC news, 2006-02-04.
^ (da)“Ambassade i Syrien står endnu,” Danmarks Radio, 2006-02-05.
^ (no)“Gahr Støre hardt ut mot Syria,” Dagbladet, 2006-02-04.
^ (da)“Masseanholdelser og uro i Hillerød,” Politiken, 2006-02-04.
^ “Vatican cardinal criticizes cartoons satirizing prophet Mohammed,” Catholic Online, 2006-02-03.
^ “British Appease While Moderate Muslims Speak Out,” The Brussels Journal, 2006-02-04.
^ “Europe's New Dissidents,” The Wall Street Journal, 2006-02-04.
^ “U.S. blames Syria for not protecting embassies,” Reuters, 2006-02-04.
^ (da)“Iran: Ophæv kontrakter med lande der viser tegninger,” Politiken, 2006-02-04.
^ (da)“Ekstrabladets Victorpris til Jyllands-Posten,” Ekstra Bladet, 2006-02-04.
^ (de)“Deutsches Kulturzentrum in Gaza gestürmt,” Netzeitung.de, 2006-02-04.
^ (da) “Politi: Ingen afbrændinger af Koranen,” Politiken, 2005-12-21.
^ (da) “Sms: Brænd koranen af på Rådhuspladsen,” Politiken, 2006-02-01.
^ “5 February 2006.htm PRESS STATEMENT BY THE DANISH FOREIGN MINISTER, DR. PER STIG MØLLER, 5
FEBRUARY 2006,” Danish Foreign Ministry, 2006-02-05.
^ (da) “Masseanholdelser og uro i Hillerød,” Politiken, 2006-02-04.
^ (da)“Danish paper rejected Jesus cartoons,” The Guardian, 2006-02-06.
^ [2]
^ http://www.hln.be/hln/cch/det/art_166608.html
^ “Tories condemn Muslim protesters,” BBC News, 2006-02-05.
^ (da)“Iran kalder ambassadør hjem fra Danmark,” Politiken, 2006-02-05.
^ “Muslim anger over cartoons kspreads,” CNN, 2006-02-05.
^ (da)“Prosyrere bag angrebet i Libanon,” Danmarks Radio, 2006-02-06.
48
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
^ (da)“Konsulatet i Beirut i brand,” Danmarks Radio, 2006-02-05.
^ “PRESS STATEMENT BY THE DANISH FOREIGN MINISTER,” The Champress, 2006-02-06.
^ “AEL will launch Cartoon campaign,” AEL, 2006-02-05.
^ (nl)“AEL publiceert antisemitische cartoons op website,” De Standaard, 2006-02-05.
^ (da)“Syrien: Afbrænding var Danmarks egen skyld,” B.T., 2006-02-05.
^ “February 20.xml&section=focusoniraq Iraqi transport ministry freezes deals with Denmark,” Khaleej Times, 2006-02-05.
^ (nl)“Spontaan protest tegen cartoon in Brussel,” VRT, 2006-02-05.
^ (da)“Libanons indenrigsminister træder tilbage,” Danmarks Radio, 2006-02-05.
^ (da)“Dansk demonstration for fred og dialog,” Danmarks Radio, 2006-02-05.
^ (da)“Al-Qaeda: Hak danskere i småstykker,” Ekstra Bladet, 2006-02-05.
^ Norway PM blames Syria for embassy attack
^ (de)“Brennende Botschaften und Antisemitismus,” Der Spiegel, 2006-02-05.
^ (de)“500 Muslime protestierten in Wien,” Der Standard, 2006-02-05.
^ (da)“Diplomatisk jernring om Mellemøsten,” Jyllands-Posten, 2006-02-06.
^ Conference of European Rabbis press release
^ “Murder of priest 'religious revenge',” Independent Online, February 8, 2006.
^ “MEDIA TOLD,” Tim Blair, 2006-02-06.
^ “Indonesian Muslim party plans large protest today over cartoons outside Danish embassy,” Khaleej Times Online, 2006-02-06.
^ “Protests in France against controversial cartoons,” Agence France-Presse, 2006-02-06.
^ “Two die in Afghan cartoon protest,” BBC, 2006-02-06.
^ “Shots fired at Danish troops in Iraq,” Mainichi MSN, 2006-02-06.
^ “Danes issue travel warning list,” BBC, 2006-02-06.
^ (da)“Akkari vil på arabisk tv med Fogh,” Danmarks Radio, 2006-02-06.
^ (da)“Sterling stops flying to Egypt,” Ekstra Bladet, 2006-02-06.
^ (da)“Shooting at the American consulate in Indonesia,” Ekstra Bladet, 2006-02-06.
^ (da)“Lebanon apoligizes to Denmark,” Politiken, 2006-02-06.
^ (da)“Iran: firebombs against embassy,” TV 2, 2006-02-06.
^ (da)“Blair supports Denmark,” Danmarks Radio, 2006-02-06.
^ (da)“Blair supports Denmark,” Danmarks Radio, 2006-02-06.
^ (da)“Jerusalem Post prints Muhammad drawings,” Danmarks Radio, 2006-02-06.
^ (da)“Iran stops all trade with Denmark,” Børsen, 2006-02-06.
^ (da)“Danish Embassy closed,” Ekstra Bladet, 2006-02-06.
^ (da)“Danish Embassy in Iran attacked,” Ekstra Bladet, 2006-02-06.
^ (da)“Muslims of Århus will demonstrate,” Ekstra Bladet, 2006-02-06.
^ (da)“USA: We stand together with Denmark,” TV 2, 2006-02-06.
49
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
143.
144.
145.
146.
147.
148.
149.
150.
151.
152.
153.
154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
160.
161.
162.
163.
164.
165.
166.
^ (da)“Excuse from Syria and Lebanon,” TV 2, 2006-02-06.
^ (da)“Nødhjælpsarbejde i Tjetjenien og Darfur ramt af tegninger,” Jyllands-Posten, 2006-02-06.
^ (da)“Danish Refugee Council article about Sudan,” Danish Refugee Council, 2006-02-06.
^ “SA editor threatened over cartoon,” BBC, 2006-02-06.
^ “Iranian paper launches Holocaust cartoon competition,” The Times, 2006-02-06.
^ “USA: Nothing for Denmark to excuse,” Jyllands-Posten, 2006-02-06.
^ (sv)“Jyllands-Posten polisanmäld,” TV4, 2006-02-07.
^ (sv)“Europarådet kritiserar teckningarna,” TV4, 2006-02-07.
^ “Muslims continue protest against satirical cartoons,” ABC.au, 2006-02-07.
^ “Afghans Protest Against Prophet Cartoons,” ABC news, 2006-02-07.
^ “Four killed in attack on Norwegian-led military base in Afghanistan,” Aftenposten, 2006-02-07.
^ “AEgypt: Thousands of students protest over cartoons,” Ireland Online, 2006-02-07.
^ “Ugly protests in cartoons row,” Al-Jazeera, 2006-02-07.
^ “Demonstrators denounce violence,” Helsingin Sanomat, 2006-02-07.
^ “Iran Leader Denounces Prophet Cartoons,” WTOP, 2006-02-07.
^ “Nestlé moves to dodge Middle East boycotts,” Food Production Daily, 2006-02-07.
^ “Muslim hackers blast Denmark in Net assault,” PC Pro, 2006-02-07.
^ “Berlusconi asks Turkey to "neutralise fanatics",” Reuters, 2006-02-07.
^ “Freedom of speech carries responsibilities for all,” Amnesty International, 2006-02-07.
^ “Taliban urges holy war over Mohammed cartoons,” Monsters and Critics, 2006-02-07.
^ (da)“Pølsemands anklage om Muhammed-overfald var falsk,” Politiken, 2006-02-07.
^ “Paper withdrawn over cartoon row,” BBC, 2006-02-07.
^ (no)“Norges ambassade i Teheran angrepet,” Dagbladet, 2006-02-07.
^ (da)“Muslims in Denmark demonstrate in favor of Denmark,” TV 2, 2006-02-07.
^ “NY Press Kills Cartoons; Staff Walks Out,” The New York Observer, 2006-02-07.
^ “Yemeni newspapers close,” Yemen Times, 2006-02-07.
^ “French court OKs cartoons,” NEWS24.com, 2006-02-07.
^ (da)“Ellemann: JP chief editor should quit,” Danmarks Radio, 2006-02-08.
^ (da)“Iranians protest against embassy attacks,” Jyllands-Posten, 2006-02-08.
^ (da)“Muslims advertise for Denmark in arab newspapers,” Politiken, 2006-02-08.
^ “Copenhagen Chosen Host City For 2009 IOC Congress,” GamesBids, 2006-02-08.
^ “Danish Imams Busted!,” Nerandernews, February 8, 2006.
^ “Duo hogs top prize in pig-squealing contest,” MSNBC, August 15, 2005.
^ (hr)“Croatian flag burned in Sarajevo,” Index.hr, 2006-02-08.
^ (pt)“Choque de culturas,” Revista Veja, 2006-02-08.
^ “Egyptian Newspaper Pictures that Published Cartoons 5 months ago,” Freedom for Egyptians, 2006-02-08.
50
167.
168.
169.
170.
171.
172.
173.
174.
175.
176.
177.
178.
179.
180.
181.
182.
^ “Boycott Egypt,” Rantings of a Sandmonkey, 2006-02-08.
^ “P.E.I. student publication raided,” The Gazette (Montreal), 2006-02-09.
^ “Philosophical differences,” The Halifax Herald, 2006-02-10.
^ “[removed,” El Fagr, 2005-10-17.
^ (da)“Muhammed-tegninger trykt i Egypten allerede i oktober 2005,” B.T., 2006-02-09.
^ “Dutch MP backs Muhammad cartoons,” BBC, 2006-02-09.
^ “Muhammedteckning ute trots nedstängning,” Dagens Nyheter., 2006-02-10.
^ “,” BBC., 2006-02-10.
^ “At Mecca Meeting, Cartoon Outrage Crystallized,” The New York Times., 2006-02-09.
^ “[ 'Denmark tolerant' imam says; Danes try to mend fences],” The Star., 2006-02-10.
^ “Danish Imam Condemns Cartoon Violence,” ABC News, 2006-02-10.
^ (sv)“Mener Selbekk beviser sin redelighet,” Magazinet, 2006-02-10.
^ “Kenyan police opened fire,” Reuters., 2006-02-10.
^ (de)“Molotov-cocktails thrown at French embassy in Tehran.,” Spiegel Online., 2006-02-10.
^ (da)“Ambassadefolk flygter efter trusler,” Politiken, 2006-02-10.
^ (da)“Khader: Gør noget ved Laban,” Ekstrabladet, 2006-02-11.
International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons
controversy
,&
&
,
%
,
$
0
)
$
The problem of a Danish author to find an illustrator for his forthcoming book about
Islam has become an international crisis. It has led to violence, arrests, interstate
tensions, and a renewed debate about the scope of free speech and the place of
Muslims in the West, and the West in Muslim countries. Many governments,
organizations and individuals worldwide have issued statements, trying to define their
stance.
51
,
,
,
-
#
&
=$
!
5
$ $
$
6
,
%
- &-
*
%
6
5&
%
%
8
9
@ A
: 3A % 6 $
%
;
>+
?
,
8
9=
0
%
8.
9.
:!
!
B
;
>* '
?*
6
5
$
8
9
:# '
,
5
;,
C
>,
?/ %
!
$
,
9
%
'
2*
%
%
52
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
6
8
9=
:/
;>?3
:6 &
5
8C
%
$$
3
&
3
2*
$
%
$
%
!
%%
%
Political Reactions
Afghanistan
President Hamid Karzai calls the printing of the images a mistake, and hopes that this will lead to the media being more
responsible and respectful in the future.
Bahrain
Bahrain's parliament demands an apology from Denmark's head of state, Queen Margrethe II, as well as from the government.
[1]
MPs call for an extraordinary session of parliament to discuss the cartoons, while protestors set Danish dairy products ablaze.
Al Menbar MP Mohammed Khaled has demanded that Arab leaders take action: "We are stunned by the silence of the Arab
leaders. They don't tolerate any criticism against them, yet allow others to insult the Prophet."[2]
Bangladesh
53
Foreign Minister Morshed Khan states before parliament that a diplomatic protest was lodged with the government of
Denmark on 2006-11-07. Further, he requests the Danish government issue an apology and urges them to prevent further
occurrences of "such heinous acts."[3]
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Muslims in Sarajevo have organized a protest with the government of Denmark, but the Bosnian politics said that "there is no
need to organize such protest, Muslims must calm down".
Czech Republic
After Iran sent a formal sharp objection to the Czech government against the publication of the cartoons in MF DNES and
Hospodarske noviny, the newspapers insisted that it was necessary for them to publish the pictures so that the readers get the
full information. The Czech foreign minister Cyril Svoboda called the Muslim reaction "exaggerated" and advocated a united
European stand on the issue. [1] President Vaclav Klaus argued that freedom of speech is only meaningful as a contract
between a citizen and a particular government. The Czech government expressed solidarity with Denmark.
Finland
On February 1 Finnish Minister of Foreign Affairs Erkki Tuomioja commented on the issue, and said that Denmark should
have acted earlier and paid more attention to Muslim outrage over the offensive caricatures. Further, he said that the Danish
government could apologise for the fact that religious feelings were offended, without endangering freedom of expression.
Tuomioja indicated the belief that EU countries should together condemn the threats of violence.
France
The French foreign minister supported the right to free press, but added that it must be used "in a spirit of tolerance and with
respect for beliefs and religions".[4]
Nicolas Sarkozy, Interior Minister and presidential candidate, said on LCI television that he "preferred an excess of caricature
to an excess of censorship" and pointed out that it is, if necessary, up to the courts to judge whether caricatures go beyond
54
what is reasonable to publish, and not to the governments of Muslim countries.[5]
On 2006-02-06, French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin condemned the violence that had occurred internationally in
response to the cartoons, but called for tolerance and respect toward other faiths.[6]
Germany
Chancellor Angela Merkel said that while she understands that feelings were hurt by the caricatures, violent reactions were
unacceptable. She stressed the central role of freedom of expression, and called for dialogue. "Denmark must not feel let
alone in this issue". Merkel also said that she understands this to be the common position of the E.U.[7]
India
Reactions have largely been muted by India's Muslim community, but on Friday, February 10 protestors burnt the Danish flag
outside the Jama Masjid in Delhi after the imam criticised the Danish government.
Indonesia
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono says the Indonesian government condemned the publication of caricature of the
Prophet Muhammad. "The publication of the caricature of course reflects a lack of sensitivity to the views and belief of other
religious adherents," he said. However, as "religious people", he recommends to "accept the apology". [8]
Iran
The Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for contracts being cancelled with the countries where the publications
of the images have taken place. Iran has recalled their ambassador from Denmark, and banned Danish journalists from
reporting from Iran. Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on February 6th, 2006, that a "Zionist conspiracy"
was to blame for the row over the Prophet Muhammad cartoons, in his first reaction to the controversy: "The reason for the
Zionist action is because of the loss they suffered by Hamas winning". Khamenai was referring to Hamas victory in the
Palestinian legislative election.
55
On February 2, the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, ordered to cancel contracts with all countries where media
have published the cartoons. And on February 5, recalled their ambassador from Denmark. The term for a "Danish" pastry has
been changed to "Mohammedan".[9]
Iraq
Shia cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani condemned the cartoons but also commented about militants who discredit Islam
by their acts. Sistani underlined how un-Islamic acts of extremism are used as justification to attack Islam.[10]
Lebanon
The Lebanese minister of foreign affairs criticised the drawings saying that Freedom of speech ends when sacred values are
offended. [11]
Libya
Libya recalled its ambassador and announced that it would close its embassy in Denmark [12].
Netherlands
The Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Jan-Peter Balkenende, issued the following statement (translated): "I regret the threats
from the Muslim world. In our world, when someone crosses a line, we take the matter to court. There is no place here for
threats and own direction. (I am) Glad there is freedom of speech here. At the same time we have to realize that our images
and ideas can be provocative to others."
New Zealand
The cartoons were published by two daily newspapers, the Dominion Post and Christchurch Press, both owned by Fairfax of
Australia. Fleeting glimpses were also shown on two television networks reporting on the issue. The publication ignited a
national debate and a peaceful street protest by New Zealand Muslims in Auckland. The publication of the cartoons was
condemned by Prime Minister Helen Clark and opposition leader Don Brash, although they both stated that such decisions
56
were up to newspaper editors to make. New Zealand has good trading relations with many Islamic countries and there are
concerns that the controversy will threaten this. New Zealand Muslim groups while condemning the cartoons have asked
Muslim countries not to boycott New Zealand goods.
Malaysia
Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, current chairman of Organization of the Islamic Conference says "This
is a deliberate act of provocation. They should cease and desist from doing so." [13]
Pakistan
Upper House of parliament adopts a unanimous resolution condemning the Danish newspaper for publishing blasphemous
and derogatory cartoons. [14] Pakistan's ambassador urged the Danish prime minister to penalise the cartoonists.
Poland
Polish Prime-Minister Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz said he considered cartoons to be an unnecessary provocation. The Polish
government also said they are quite sorry that the newspaper Rzeczpospolita also offended Muslims.
Russia
Russia president Vladimir Putin indicates in a speech in the Kremlin that the Danish political authorities are using the theme
of freedom of expression to protect those who have insulted the Muslims.
The president of the Institute of the Middle East, Yevgeny Satanovsky, told Itar-Tass on February 6 that "The caricatures of
Prophet Mohammad published as far back as last September angered the entire Islamic world but especially the countries
where Iran’s influence is the strongest, and the apex of the conflict coincided precisely with the discussion of the Iranian
nuclear dossier at the IAEA.” This theory is echoed by Scientific Council of the Moscow Carnegie Centre member, Alexei
Malashenko, who believes that “the fuss around the caricatures was made artificially." That is, at a time when the Muslim
world has no concerted position either on the Iranian nuclear program or Hamas, whose ideology is opposed by moderate
Islamic regimes, the caricature uproar provides a “pretext for showing how coherent Muslims are.” [15]
57
Accordingly, Russian officials have decided to not take sides on the matter unless or until Russia's economic interests are at
stake.
Saudi Arabia
In late January 2006, Saudi Arabia recalled its ambassadors for consultations — a traditional message of diplomatic
displeasure.
Singapore
The Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) issued a statement that said "the inciting of hatred against a faith of a
people is very unfortunate," and that "[they] are fortunate and deeply appreciative that in Singapore, the media and the
community at large have always been mindful of sensitivities… and have helped to promote racial and religious harmony
across society." The Foreign Minister George Yeo and the Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs Dr. Yaacob Ibrahim have
similarly said that the incident shows the need to respect racial and religious sensitivities, have a "responsible media," and to
cultivate good inter-religious relations and confidence beyond just legislation.
Syria
The Syrian government recalled their ambassador from Denmark February 1
Sweden
On February 5, Swedish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Laila Freivalds stated the following in an interview[16]: We support the
freedom of speech, that I think is very clear. But at the same time it is important to say that with this freedom comes a certain
responsibility, and it could be objectionable to act in a way that insults people.
The right wing Swedish Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna ) have started a competition to draw cartoons of Muhammed on
their web site at http://www.sdkuriren.se/
Turkey
58
President Recep Tayyip Erdo an, is quoted in the Turkish press saying: "Caricatures of prophet Muhammad are an attack
against our spiritual values. There should be a limit of freedom of press." [17]
United Arab Emirates
The Justice and Islamic Affairs Minister, Mohammed Al Dhaheri, calls the publication of the cartoon "cultural terrorism, not
freedom of expression." [18]
United Kingdom
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw criticized European newspapers for republishing the cartoons: "There is freedom of
speech, we all respect that, ... But there is not any obligation to insult or to be gratuitously inflammatory. I believe that the
republication of these cartoons has been unnecessary. It has been insensitive. It has been disrespectful and it has been wrong."
Straw also praises British newspapers for their "considerable responsibility and sensitivity" in not printing the cartoons. [19]
United States
The US government has issued a statement saying: "We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression
but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable." [20] A
State Department spokesman said that the images are offensive, but added that U.S. also support the rights of individuals to
express their freely held views and that it is not for the U.S. Government to dictate what is printed in the media. [21].
In the US Department of State's daily briefing for Friday, February 3rd, offical spokesman Sean McCormick, speaking for the
current administration, said (in part), "Our response is to say that while we certainly don't agree with, support, or in some
cases, we condemn the views that are aired in public that are published in media organizations around the world, we, at the
same time, defend the right of those individuals to express their views. For us, freedom of expression is at the core of our
democracy and it is something that we have shed blood and treasure around the world to defend and we will continue to do
so. ... So we would urge all parties to exercise the maximum degree of understanding, the maximum degree of tolerance when
they talk about this issue. And we would urge dialogue, not violence. And that also those that might take offense at these
images that have been published, when they see similar views or images that could be perceived as anti-Semitic or
anti-Catholic, that they speak out with equal vigor against those images." [22]
59
Speaking in Qatar, former U.S. president Bill Clinton strongly criticised the Danish cartoons, comparing historical
anti-semitism in Europe with anti-Islamic feeling today: "So now what are we going to do? ... Replace the anti-Semitic
prejudice with anti-Islamic prejudice?" [23]
Vatican
The Vatican sharply criticized the publication of newspaper cartoons satirizing the prophet Mohammed, saying the
caricatures have offended the religious sentiments of millions of Muslims. Also in their statement the vatican mentioned that
"the right to freedom of expression does not imply the right to offend religious beliefs" and mentioned how goverment law
protects secular symbols (national flags) but ignores respect of religious symbols. [24]
United Nations
The UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, and Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism,
racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance requests the Permanent Danish Mission to the UN to deliver
their observations of the case. [25]
Louise Arbour, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has expressed concern over the cartoons and said that
United Nations is investigating racism of Danish cartoonists. [26]
After being asked to do so by the Secretary-General of the Arab League Amr Mussa, the UN Secretary-General Kofi
Annan, asked the Western media to be more sensitive in its handling of religious themes and asked for use of peaceful
dialogue.[27]
European Union
Franco Frattini, the vice-President of the European Commission and EU Commissioner for Justice, Freedom, and
Security, called the publication of the twelve cartoons "thoughtless and inappropriate" in a time when European
60
animosity towards Islam is said to be on the rise. According to Frattini, the cartoons foment hostility against Islam and
foreigners.
The European Union on 30 January, said that any retaliatory boycott of Danish goods would violate world trade rules.
[28]
Other
Economic sanctions
Saudi Arabia
"To our dear customers: As
a result of mockery towards
The Prophet (Peace Be
Upon Him), Al Tamimi
Markets announces its
boycott of all kinds of
Danish Products"
Wikinews has news related to this article:
Saudis boycott Danish dairy produce
61
People in Saudi Arabia called for a boycott on Danish products on January 20 and carried it out starting January 26. The
boycott primarily targeted dairy products produced by Arla Foods, but has also hit other products such as Bang & Olufsen
and Lego. The Foreign Minister of Denmark, Per Stig Møller, stated that the boycott has not been initiated by the Saudi
Arabian government. The Danish-Swedish dairy company Arla Foods launched a massive ad campaign in Saudi Arabia,
trying to improve their reputation and stop the boycott. This happened after their sales in Saudi Arabia almost came to a
complete stop. The text for the ads was written by the Danish ambassador in Saudi Arabia, Hans Klingenberg, and includes
passages from the Prime Minister of Denmark's New Year's speech. Arla exports account for almost 380 million Euros a year.
[29][30]
Arla has halted production in the Saudi capital Riyadh and sent home 170 employees[31] . Denmark is concerned
about the potential loss of 11,000 jobs resulting from boycotts against Danish products in the Islamic world. [32] In February,
the French international supermarket chain Carrefour takes all Danish products off the shelves in Muslim countries. Posters
with the Carrefour logo proclaiming a boycott of Denmark, resulted in a boycott of Carrefour in Brussels.[33]
Iran
Iran has announced that it will cease all trade with "countries that have published the cartoons". A high level commitee
involving the Foreign Minister, the Deputy Foreign Minister, the Deputy Trade Minister and the Deputy Oil Minister has
been set up.
Kuwait
A web
badge used
by the "Buy
Danish"
campaign.
The boycott has spread to Kuwait where the country's largest retail chain, the state-owned Coop, has taken all Danish
products off the shelves. This has lead to the Confederation of Danish Industries sending an open letter to Jyllands-Posten in
which they state that the paper should comment on these events because they feel their members are caught in a "battle"
62
between religious movements and the paper.[34] The newspaper has reacted to the letter by saying that "Dictatorships should
not dictate what Danish newspapers are to draw and write". [35]
A web badge used by the
"No to Denmark"
campaign.
Reactions in support of Jyllands-Posten
Various people and groups, including conservatives, liberals, anti-Islamist groups, freedom of speech proponents,
anticlericalists and American weblogs[36] have initiated a Buy Danish Goods campaign, which is intended to counter the
boycott from Middle East countries.[37]
The president of Reporters Without Borders Robert Ménard says that Morgenavisen Jyllandsposten has taught the world a
thing or two about free speech and that there is nothing for which to apologise.[38]
On February 1, French newspaper France Soir reproduced the caricatures, along with a caricature of Buddha, Muhammad
and the Christian and Jewish gods all sitting on a cloud. The front page read: “Oui, on a le droit de caricaturer Dieu” ("Yes,
we have the right to caricature God").
The drawings were by this point published in newspapers all over Europe (see timeline). Later that day, the France Soir editor
who published the cartoons was fired by the paper's owner, a Franco-Egyptian and Roman Catholic (see note in timeline for
February 1). Le Monde published in the first page of its February 3 issue a satirical cartoon by Plantu mocking the prohibition
of drawing Muhammad.
63
Websites have started Support Denmark campaigns and online petitions, while weblogs have published their own parodies of
the cartoons.[39][40]
The Dutch conservative politician Geert Wilders placed the cartoons on his website "to support the Danish cartoonists and to
stand up for freedom of speech."[41]
As a variation on Hampster Dance, a Mohammed Dance site features animated versions of the various cartoons.
Muhammed Cartoon Competition
The right wing Swedish Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna ) have started a competition to draw cartoons of Muhammed on
their web site at http://www.sdkuriren.se/. Their ISP shut down their website when the government complained. However,
they have now found another ISP to host them.
Other reactions
In early January the Egyptian government threatened Denmark with an embargo of Danish products, but did not carry
out its threat. Some citizens and major shops started a boycott on their own.
Protesters in Rabat, Morocco staged a sit-in before the Parliament on 2006-02-02, in response to the cartoons. On the
same day, delivery of the Wednesday issue of the 'France-Soir' and Friday issue of the 'Liberation' daily newspapers
was barred by the Moroccan government. [42]
On February 4, 2006, during the Muhammad cartoon crisis, the International Cartoon Festival in Belgium chose a
"yawning Christ on the cross" as winner. [43]
Approximately 1,000 protesters marched for three hours in Paris, France on 2006-02-06 in response to the publication
of the cartoons in several European newspapers. [44]
On February 6, Iran’s biggest-selling newspaper, the Hamshahri of Tehran, announced that it would be holding a
contest to find the 12 "best" cartoons about the Holocaust. [2]
64
On February 8 Flemming Rose the cultural editor for Jyllands-Posten told CNN: "My newspaper is trying to establish a
contact with that Iranian newspaper [Hamshahri], and we would run the cartoons the same day as they publish them".
Later that day the paper's editor-in-chief said that Jyllands-posten under no circumstances would publish the Holocaust
cartoons.
In demonstrations on February 9, 2006 in Beirut, Lebanon, Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, declared that
Muslims should continue to demonstrate against the drawings until European nations pass laws forbidding derogatory
portrayal of the prophet Mohammed.
On February 9, BBC reports that, in a speech in Berlin, Ms. Ayaan Hirsi Ali (colleague of murdered filmmaker Theo
van Gogh) said it was "correct to publish the cartoons" and that the furore over the cartoons had exposed the fear
among artists and journalists in Europe to "analyse or criticise intolerant aspects of Islam". [45]
Violent protests
The Danish embassy in
Damascus, Syria is burned to
the ground after being stormed
by an angry mob.
Deaths
Two protestors were killed and two people and two policemen were injured after protesters shot and threw knives at
government forces in Mihtarlam, Afghanistan. One boy was trampled to death in Bossaso, Somalia when the crowd
stampeded as police fired in the air to disperse them. [46]
65
One demonstator involved in the torching of the Danish consulate in Beirut, Lebanon was found dead on a staircase.
[47]
Four people were killed and 22 injured in an attack on a NATO base in Maymana, Afghanistan.[48]
Andrea Santoro, a Catholic priest, was killed on Sunday, February 5th, 2006 in Trabzon, Turkey. A 16 year-old high
school student was arrested two days later carrying a 9mm pistol. The student told police he had been influenced by the
Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.[49]
Demonstrations
Demonstrations against the cartoons took place in several predominantly or partially Muslim countries and the flags of
Denmark, France, and Norway were burned in streets across the Middle East, (though also many American, British, and
Israeli flags were sometimes being burned with the Danish, Norwegian, and French flags). The controversy produced labour
strikes and protests in Pakistan, and mass demonstrations in Baghdad in Iraq. In Palestine, thousands of people participated in
demonstrations and gunmen in the Gaza Strip threatened violence against any Scandinavians in the area. The European
Union's Gaza offices were raided by 15 masked gunmen from the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades. They demanded apologies from
Denmark and Norway, but left 30 minutes later without any shots being fired or injuries caused. [50]
On February 2, Palestinian gunmen shut down the EU headquarters in Gaza, in protest of the Jyllands-Posten drawings.
According to CNN, "Masked members of the militant groups Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the
armed wing of the Palestinians' former ruling party, Fatah, fired bullets into the air, and a man read the group's
demands....The gunmen left a notice on the EU office's door that the building would remain closed until Europeans apologize
to Muslims, many of whom consider the cartoons offensive." [51] This is the second attack the groups have made on the EU
headquarters in Gaza. One hostage, an unnamed German teacher, was taken and released the same day.
As of February 5, the demonstrations had become too numerous to list.
On February 6, at least four demonstrators in Afghanistan were shot by riot police, while taking part in an assault on the
Bagram Airbase outside Kabul, another two died in Mihtarlam.[52]
Death threats
66
In response to the publication of the drawings, the UK Islamist group Al Ghurabaa publish an article on their website titled,
"Kill those who insult the Prophet Muhammad". The article states, "The insulting of the Messenger Muhammad (saw) is
something that the Muslims cannot and will not tolerate and the punishment in Islam for the one who does so is death. This is
the sunnah of the prophet and the verdict of Islam upon such people, one that any Muslim is able execute."[53] Al Ghurabaa
had organised the 3 February protest march from London Central Mosque to Regents Park [54] [55] where protesters waived
placards reading, "Butcher those who mock Islam", "Kill those who insult Islam", "Europe you will pay, your 9/11 is on the
way", or "7/7 is on its way", "Europe you will pay, Bin Laden is on his way" and "Europe you'll come crawling, when the
Mujahideen come roaring". Despite the similar theme on Al Ghurabaa's website, their spokesman, Anjem Choudary, said he
did not know who wrote the placards.[56] MPs from all parties condemned the protest, calling the Metropolitan police to
pursue those responsible on the grounds that the threats were an incitement to murder.[57]
Churches
The entrance of the
Assyrian Church in
Iraq, after the
bombings
On January 29 six churches in the Iraqi cities of Baghdad and Kirkuk were targeted by car bombs, killing 13-year-old
worshipper Fadi Raad Elias. No militants claimed to be retaliating for the pictures, nor is this the first time Iraqi churches
have been bombed;[58] but the bishop of the church stated "The church blasts were a reaction to the cartoons published in
67
European papers. But Christians are not responsible for what is published in Europe." [59] Many Assyrians in Iraq now feel
like "Westerners should not give wild statements [as] everyone can attack us [in response]" and "Today I'm afraid to walk the
streets, because I'm Christian." [60] On February 5, thousands of Muslims in Lebanon sorounded the Maronite Catholic
church and threw stones at it.[61]
On February 6th, an Italian Catholic priest named Andrea Santoro was reported to have been shot dead at the door-step of his
church in the Black Sea port city Trabzon. The convict, arrested on February 7 who is a Turkish Muslim youth aged 16, told
the public attorney that his action was motivated by cartoons protests. [3]
Also on February 6th, leaflets were distributed in Ramadi, Iraq by the militant group "The Military Wing for the Army of
Justice" demanding Christians to "halt their religious rituals in churches and other worship places because they insulted Islam
and Muslims." [4] and [5]
Fatwa
Also on January 29, a Muslim Cleric in the Iraqi city of Mosul issued a fatwa stating, "Expel the Crusaders and infidels from
the streets, schools, and institutions because they have offended the person of the prophet." [62] It has been reported that
Muslim students beat up a Christian student at Mosul University in response to the fatwa on the same day.[62] On February 2,
Palestinians in the West Bank handed out a leaflet signed by a Fatah militant group and Islamic Jihad stating, "Churches in
Gaza could come under attack" [63].
The Danish government announced that a fatwa had been declared against the Danish troops stationed in Iraq. The
government responded by heightening security for its troops. [64]
Burning embassies
68
The newspaper France
Soir produced these
caricatures on February 1
with the words "Oui, on a
le droit de caricaturer
Dieu" - "Yes, one has the
right to caricature God."
On February 4, the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus, Syria were set on fire, after being stormed by an angry
mob. Within the building housing the Danish embassy were the Chilean and Swedish embassies, both having no formal
connection to the present row.[65]. As it was a holiday, no one was present inside the building when this occured, so no one
was hurt. As a response to this incident, the Danish and Norweigan Ministries of Foreign Affairs issued a warning, urging
their citizens in Syria to leave the country immediately. The German Cultural Centre in Gaza was raided by Palestinian
students[66]
On February 5, the Danish consulate in Lebanon was set on fire by demonstrators, reportedly police and military tried to
restrain them from doing so.
In Tehran, on February 6, the Danish embassy was attacked by protestors. According to reports, homemade grenades were
thrown at the embassy. However, the Danish embassy wasn't set ablaze.
On October 19, ten ambassadors from Islamic countries, including Algeria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran,
Morocco, Pakistan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, as well as the head of the Palestinian delegation in Denmark, sent a
letter to Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen requesting a meeting and asking him to distance himself from hate speech,
including remarks by MP Louise Frevert, Culture Minister of Denmark Brian Mikkelsen, and the Radio Holger station. [67]
Rasmussen declined, saying that the government could not interfere with the right to free speech, but said that cases of
blasphemy and discrimination could be tried before the courts [68], a reaction essentially seen as a snub by the Muslims[69].
69
In the Nordic countries
On January 10, a marginal Norwegian Christian magazine, Magazinet, printed the drawings after getting authorisation from
Jyllands-Posten. Major newspapers in Norway had printed facsimiles from Jyllands-Posten and reproduced all the caricatures
in their online versions; a few days earlier, the Swedish newspaper Expressen had printed two of the drawings in conjunction
with an article discussing the event. [70] However, it was the Magazinet printing that led to a great debate in Norway. A
Norwegian man made a threat against the lives of the people at the magazine, but later claimed, when faced by the police, that
it was just a prank. The Norwegian Foreign Ministry sent a letter to their ambassadors in the Middle East stating that one of
the pillars of the Norwegian society is freedom of speech, but they expressed regret that Magazinet did not respect Muslims'
beliefs. [71]
This is assumed to be the reason for actions directed at Sweden and Norway as well as Denmark. On January 30, Palestinian
groups demanded that all Scandinavians leave the Palestinian territories immediately. On January 30, an Islamic organisation,
the Mujahedeen Army, called for militant attacks against "all available targets" in Denmark and Norway. [72] On January 31
bomb threats were made against the newspaper's offices in Århus and Copenhagen.
In Finland the biggest newspaper Helsingin Sanomat considered publishing the cartoons, however it did not publish them.
Finland's comparatively small muslim community held a peaceful demonstration with tens of demonstrators, close to the
Danish embassy.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
^ “Outrage at insult to Islam,” Gulf Daily News, 2006-01-31.
^ Toumi, Habib: “Dairy products set ablaze in Bahrain”, GulfNews, 2006-01-29.
^ “Bangladesh requests Denmark to tender apology on Prophet cartoon,” New Kerala Newspaper, 2006-02-06.
^ “France enters Muslim cartoon row,” BBC News, 2006-02-01.
^ (fr) “Embarras et inquiétude chez les responsables politiques français,” Le Monde, 2006-02-03.
^ “Gewalt und Appelle zur Mäßigung im Karikaturenstreit,” Reuters, 2006-02-04.
^ “Govt Condemns Publication of Prophet Muhammad's Caricature,” Antara News, 2006-02-04.
^ “CARTOON CRISIS: IRAN RENAMES DANISH PASTRIES,” Adnkronos international, 2006-02-07.
^ (tr)author. Protestolar yayılıyor. work. URL accessed on 2006-02-03.
70
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
^ (fr) "Les réactions à travers le monde " Nouvelobs.com 2006-02-03
^ “Libya to shut embassy in Denmark,” BBC News, 2006-01-29.
^ "M'sia Expresses Regret Over Publication Of Prophet's Caricatures" Bernama 2006-02-03
^ "Pakistani parliament condemns Danish daily cartoon" Islamic Republic News Agency 2006-02-03
^ “Analysts advise Russia to stay away from “caricature war”,” ITAR-TASS, 2006-02-06.
^ (sv)“Laile Freivalds comments on the demonstrations in Syria and Libanon,” SVT, 2006-02-05.
^ “Cartoon controversy spreads throughout Muslim world,” The Guardian, 2006-02-04.
^ “Protest grows over cartoons of Prophet Muhammad; gunmen seize Gaza office,” [CBS News], 2006-01-30.
^ “Muslim Sabbath Marked by Fury,” Washington Post, 2006-02-04.
^ “US backs Muslims in cartoon dispute,” Yahoo! News, 2006-02-03.
^ http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2006/60394.htm
^ “Daily Press Briefing,” US State Department, 2006-02-03.
^ “Clinton warns of rising anti-Islamic feeling,” Agence France-Presse, 2006-01-30.
^ "Vatican cardinal criticizes cartoons satirizing prophet Mohammed" Catholic Online 2006-02-03
^ “UN Special Rapporteurs' letter to the Permanent Danish Mission to the UN,” Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2005-12-01.
^ “UN to Investigate Racism of Danish Cartoonists,” The Brussels Journal, 2005-12-07.
^ (de) "Tage des Zorns," 2006-02-06 Spiegel
^ Brand, Constant: “EU Backs Denmark in caricature dispute”, Business Week, 2006-01-30.
^ “Arla stages ad offensive in Saudi row,” Jyllands-Posten, 2006-01-27.
^ “Arla dairy sales crippled by Middle East boycott,” Dairy Reporter.com, 2006-01-31.
^ “Firms feel pain of people power,” BBC, 2006-02-03.
^ Broder, Henryk M.: “Threaten One, Intimidate a Million”, Der Spiegel, 2005-02-01.
^ “Cartoon War Leads to Role Reversal,” The Brussels Journal, 2006-02-04.
^ “Jyllands-Posten needs to explain itself,” Dansk Industri, 2006-01-27.
^ (da)“Chefredaktør undrer sig over DI's udmelding,” Politiken, 2006-01-27.
^ “Buy Danish! to counter the Islamic boycott,” The American Thinker, 2006-02-01.
^ “'Buy Danish' Campaign Aims to Counter Muslim Boycott,” CNSNews.com, 2006-02-04.
^ (da)“Journalister støtter Jyllands-Posten,” Jyllands-Posten, 2006-02-01.
^ Image Problem. Cox & Forkum Editorial Cartoon. URL accessed on 2006-02-03.
^ Legohammed. URL accessed on 2006-02-03.
^ (nl) Groep Wilders betuigt steun aan Deense cartoonisten en publiceert spotprenten. URL accessed on 2006-02-02.
^ “Rabat : Moroccans stage sit-in to protest Prophet blasphemous cartoons,” Morocco Times, 2006-02-05.
^ (nl)“Cartoon van geeuwende Christus de beste in Knokke-Heist,” hln.be, 2006-02-04.
^ “[ Dutch MP backs Muhammad cartoons,” BBC, 2006-02-09.
^ “First deaths in Muhammad cartoon protests,” Times, February 6, 2006.
71
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
^ “Protestors killed as global furor over cartoons escalates,” Middle East Times, February 6, 2006.
^ “Death toll mounts in rioting over cartoons,” International Herald Tribune, February 8, 2006.
^ “Murder of priest 'religious revenge',” Independent Online, February 8, 2006.
^ “Fatah assaults European Union office,” Wikinews, 2006-01-30.
^ surname, given: “Gunmen shut EU Gaza office over cartoons”, CNN, February 2, 2006.
^ “Muslim Anti-Cartoon clashes turn deadly,” ABCNews, 2006-02-06.
^ author. Kill those who insult the Prophet Muhammad (saw). work. URL accessed on 2006-02-03.
^ author. BBC - Reaction around the world to cartoon row. work. URL accessed on 2006-02-03.
^ author. Al Ghurabaa - Defend the honour of Muhammad. work. URL accessed on 2006-02-03.
^ author. Guardian - Arrest extremist marchers, police told. work. URL accessed on 2006-02-03.
^ author. BBC - Cartoon protest slogans condemned. work. URL accessed on 2006-02-03.
^ http://www.geocities.com/normatti
^ “Iraq Christians on edge as cartoon row escalates,” Reuters UK, 2006-02-03.
^a
^ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060205/ap_on_re_mi_ea/prophet_drawings
!
"
,” Elaph.com, 2006-01-29.
^ a b (ar)“
^ “Palestinian Militants Threaten Churches and Close EU Office Over Cartoons,” org, date.
^ (da)“Fatwa mod danske soldater i Irak,” DR, 2006-01-31.
^ “Cartoon row: Danish embassy ablaze,” CNN, 2006-02-04.
^ “Cartoon row: German culural centre,” Spiegel, 2006-02-04.
^ “Letter from Ambassadors,” org, 2005-12-10.
^ (da)“Fogh afviser muslimsk klage over profet-tegninger,” Politiken, 2005-10-21.
^ “In Arab countries, rage growing over cartoons,” International Herald Tribune, 2006-01-31.
^ (sv)Ouis, Pernilla: “Vi måste tåla nidbilderna”, Expressen, 2006-01-07.
^ Cucuk, Hasan: “Norway Apologises for Cartoons Insulting Prophet Mohammed”, Zaman Online, 2006-01-28.
^ (da)“Irakisk militsgruppe truer med angreb på danske mål,” Jyllands-Posten, 2006-01-30.
Talk: Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy ARTICLE.
Please place discussions on the underlying political and religious issues on the Arguments page. Non-editorial
72
comments on this talk page may be removed by other editors.
&
!
,
!*
$%
E
&
$
)'$
&
$
.~~~~/) * % %
DD 5 - % $ 0 @
)'$
&
0
) %
&
DD
'
&
!
*
!
&
$ %
&
%
,
-
&
,
%
%
$
F#
0
*
&
'$
%
'
$ %
'$
G
1
!"
#$
%&
' (
)* *++,
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.
Now, there are legitimate questions on both sides regarding this particular article, and I want to encourage a discussion
of that. But please, do it with the very strong assumption of good faith on all parties to the discussion, and stick directly
and purely to the editorial question at hand, rather than a general philosophical debate.
Now, please, with kindness, start the discussion over?
--Jimbo Wales 00:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
&
, *
! 25 % 0
H5 % 0
H5 % 0
H 5 % 0 8 H 5 % 0 8 H 5 % 0 8% H
5 % 0 9H5 % 0 :H5 % 0
H5 % 0 ;H5 % 0 > H5 % 0 > H5 % 0 ? H5 % 0 ? H5 % 0
5 % 0
73
H
'
&
!
2*
I86
H5
Please divert comments having to do with international reactions to Talk:International reactions to the
Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Thank you.
Please divert comments having to do with various opinions on the controversy to Talk:Opinions on the
Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Thank you.
E
)
6
8#
*
9 E
:5
7$
E #
#
;*
>*
?
5 %'
*
&
83 %
9# $%
:6
0
C
&
&
*
JJ
&)'$
'
$
7$%
6 %
0
&&
0
&&
%
%
&
J
0 %
0 %
'&
%
6 .=3C !+
%
0
&
2
;!
>@
?@
+
)
)
%
J
%
%
%
? +
? . &
J
<
$
A
'
'
%
$
@
$
%'
=%
K J
74
J
8
9
:58
$
0 )'$
3
$
;
>/
?
2$
%
$
J
8
$$
$
J
8 3
8 6
%
88
&&
$ %
89 6
&6
8: 3
'J
8 6
&
8;
8> @ %'
%'
8? # #
'+
9 * =$
9
2*
%
9 )
98 +L*# *5* 6 5.6 5-L *, .
99 /
&
9: 5
%
0
9 @ %'
9;
3% $
'$
J
9>
%
&
$
9? M
: 3
$
%
: #
2
: %
&
:8 # '
3
&&
:9 =
%
:: 5
%
: =$
.
&
2*
:; 3
$
%
:> #
3
'
:?
6
,
#
&
E 98
$
%
J
< )'$
@ - 356#==!
( &
&
$
! =3#=
%
&
&
'$
$
$
%
0
75
J
6
'
J
3
#
4
8
0
0
9
$
$ $
%
:6 $
$ $
* %
%
;3 & %
0
&
>,
!
$$
?
&
J
; /
$ $
F
E
; 5 %
%
;
:
&
&&
;8 5* ,*-5# ;9 6
&
;: *
)'$
6 $ % 5
; 3
$
%
*=/J
;;
$
;> %
;?
'#
,$
> ) '
&&E
> !
0
"3
$
* %
> 5
#
>8 5
%
>9
0
>: - %
$ $
>
%
%
>;
>> $
' $
>? !
%
$
&? $ $
$%
?
? 3
0
$ %
?8
$&
J
?9
"
?:
'
% J
?
5 % 0 J
?; 6 $
&
0
?> #
- &
&
% % $ %
&
$
%
%
%
&
$$
$%
G
'
=
B * $
$
)
3
2
)'$
F
% N
@ $-
'2
C
76
&
$
% JG
?>
5 C
??
O 4% $ 6
N
$
3
$ %
+
+
.
8)
9
$
:
=&& # $ %
;
%
E
0
-
%
&
)
$
5
)
$%
%
< %
2*
WE NEED TO FIND A BALANCE BETWEEN RIGHT OF SPEECH AND OFENSIVE MATERIAL
I think it is not easy to define the line between the right of expression and the right to respect the religion factor in cases like
this. I was trying to find the balance because I know that the future generations need to see and to know the facts of the
history including the bads things like this. but too, I know how the muslims feel this. always there's a way to solve the things.
we can keep the cartoons for history purposes in a way that the people only can see it by 3-4 clicks away and showing the
rules for view it. but dont make people angry and die just for abusive use of the free of speech.
scaglietti, NJ
I'm glad WIKI is here for me
I'm glad Wiki has this article. After reading a few stories in the New York TImes, I wanted to see the cartoon that has created
so much fuss. I looked all over the web and most sites I found were blogs on the topic with other editorial cartoons.
Thankfully Wiki had the article and I was able to become better informed on the topic.
Thank you Wikipedia
this is the only site on the web i could even find these cartoons. pretty rough considering 1/2 the world is for free speech.
Reliability of the Polls??
77
Is it how issues are resolved in wikipedia? The polls were created for a duration of time and closed without any relevant
reason!!How could someone judge whenever a poll should be closed? specially that the article is still a current event, so
closing it before is not a wise decision. Hence one can ask about reliability of those polls. Another thing is that we should
respect religions, and showing such a picture is not the best way to calm things, and two cannot disargue that showing this
picture is provoking others feelings, and that's not what wikipedia is about. the least thing is to put an external link (not
internal) of the picture.
Again, right now we're trying to keep this article together. Now is not the time to reopen the polls, we're having enough
trouble just keeping the page together without people blanking the whole thing. In terms of the polls, the votes to keep
were so overwhelming, it would be futile to assume a hundred or so people would appear from nowhere and vote for a
delete. Regardless, Wikipedia is not here to "calm" or "appease". It is here to inform about everything. We have gone
over this before, once again please check the archives. Hitokirishinji 21:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Polls are not a usual way of deciding on article content, but they sometimes happen. In this case, it was deemed that the
community had to speak out on the article. Consensus was found, with over 80% in favour of keeping the cartoons in
the article. The closure of the poll was therefore within the closing admin's discretion. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 11:54, 10
February 2006 (UTC)
The Power of Wikipedia
When most major newspapers faced significant wrath for publishing even a part of the cartoons, Wikipedia still stands high
even after having all the cartoons in its page for more than a week. People could intimidate the editors of those newspapers
and force them to resign, but nothing could be done against Wikipedia. I feel, this is a wonderful attribute of Wikipedia that is
on exhibition at the time of this crises. The collective responsibility combined with civilized reactions, makes this as the best
exponent of Free Speech.
Agreed. The power of the Internet and Wikipedia shows us that fundamental people (of different faiths and not just
Muslims) are not able to ban or protest violently against controversial drawings or pictures. Siva1979 13:06, 9 February
2006 (UTC)
I'm quite disappointed by the reactions I've read in the topics below, namely those arrogant and insensitive replies to those
who were requesting the cartoons to be moved to another location, or to provide a link for it (e.g. Hitokirishinji and Kyaa the
Catlord in response to Yosri). The original posts are very civil and humane, whereas it seems in the responses people have
78
picked up a very proud and arrogant attitude for keeping the pictures up no matter what the others say. Replies such as "If you
are mortally offended by wikipedia and western values then there is simply no reason for you to visit the english wikipedia, or
indeed, any western site." (not sure who posted that one) definitely don't go together with the concept of responsibility when
disseminating information. If wikipedia is just a place where the authors demonstrate their power over MSNBC or whoever
else you've depicted as weak (which in my opinion would translate as more sensitive to those different from the mainstream
readers they have) then I guess all that's on the page is justified. Otherwise I would really urge you to think twice before you
post. I personally do not have a clear opinion if the small size images are still offensive to people or not. But if enough people
say it is, I think this is enuogh reason to take it off. Trying to explain to them how they should feel or how in your world
insulting them is completely normal will only fuel anger at your own world, and you'll be wondering why these muslims react
the way they do. Think about it: it's the western media (in the true sense of the word, including internet and sites such as
wikipedia) who disseminate information and pictures, the western readers who read it and form their opinion, and the topic in
question is about people who for the most part don't even understand english. And when the few who can read english give
their input, you tell them not to visit the english sites if they're offended. Doesn't this pave the way for the isolation of a group
of people who don't speak your language, and yet you keep writing about?
Also think about this: not every post is about proving one's point over the others, or for the pure goal of winning over some
debate, but sometimes just about someone's input on how they feel about or experience the topic in question.
212.201.44.249 16:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Serkan
Actaully, this has nothing to do with struggle and power over MSNBC. In fact, I really couldn't care less what MSNBC
has to say about wikipedia. Wikipedia is created by a community of editors, many from every type of background
imaginable. So explain to me how MSNBC and their poll has any accurate ability to measure the consensus of the
Wikipedia community? I would be willing to bet the number of people who voted on that MSNBC poll have ever
registered or logged onto Wikipedia. So, I'll be clear MSNBC is not Wikipedia and its opinion most likely has no
bearing here.
Secondly, we have never said "go away if you don't like it". Instead, we have said "turn off load images" so as to avoid
seeing the image at all. Check the archieves and stop trying to shove words into our mouths. By your logic "...still
offensive to people or not. But if enough people say it is, I think this is enuogh reason to take it off..." we should
remove the state of Israel from the map because its very existence angers and offends many Muslims. And we should
remove Piss Christ and Lolicon. Again, we've been through this before, read the archives.
Lastly, these "non-english" speaking people who have an opinion. Why limit it to Muslims who can't read English?
79
Why not give everyone a chance to express their opinion? Why do you feel that the people who are offended and
cannot speak English only get a valid opinion? What about people can't speak English and are not offended, I suppose
for you they aren't nearly important enough? So to be truely fair, we would have to poll the entire world practically and
I'm sure the 1 billion ethnic Chinese and 1 billion Indians living on the eastern side of the world would have an opinion.
One that shouldn't count any less than anyone elses.
I would hardly qualify my arguments as "arrogant" but more like "really frustrated that we have to go through this
every single time and people keep making up false assumptions as arguments to remove the image that has been
overwhelmingly supported to stay"
Hitokirishinji 18:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I would like to say that these values are not 'Western' values, freedom is something valued by everyone.
What I said has nothing to do with other non-english-speakers, or the jewish state or jesus christ. taking israel off the map
seems like a quite far fetched example to disprove my point. Would you agree that Hamas rules Palestine? (Freedom of
speech, democracy, yeay). Even though few westeners would support hamas, you'd have to be consistant and deal just as
legitimately with Hamas.
All I said was, that a few of the people whose opinion should be worth more on the matter (since i see no-one else that this
directly affects) on the matter have expressed that it is an offense to their beliefs and religion. Who benefits from going
against these people? I think one should really distinguish between freedom of speech in media so that the press may
enlighten the rest of the public on things they should know (like some behind the scenes scandal, or whatever else you can
think of, in which the media has played an important but positive role) and feedom of speech which just serves itself. Since
I'm free to say what I want, I could make borderline comments about people, and claim it's freedom of speech. In any case, I
don't want to rediscuss what's already been discussed many times over here. I just thought the two posts I read were quite
arrogant including yours. Now that you've reworded this, I don't feel so bad about it any more. But the problem in the first
place is not how I perceive things, but how the people you've responded to will feel like. I'm quite sure those muslims around
the world who see defiant reactions from the western media (an example of which was also experienced here) will feel
isolated and disliked. I'm just not sure who would benefit from a sarcastic, mean comment like yours (earlier). Thanks for the
explanations though.
212.201.44.249 19:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Serkan
80
I disagree with you wholeheartedly. Someone's opinion should not be worth more. That's like saying, depending upon
your importance/religion/knowledge/party affliation/place in politics/education you get extra votes so when you vote on
it, we can take into account those things. Sorry, every American gets one vote when we vote for President or Congress.
No one gets anymore because the believe more strongly than others. And I believe we are entirely harming ourselves by
submitting to the demands of the offended. There are many things people can be offended by and just about anything.
To be fair we would have to su~bmit to trying not to "offend" others as well. At that rate, we may as well throw the
encyclopedia away because there are an infinite number of topics people will argue and be offended about. I'm guilty of
being annoyed and letting that getting into my posts as anyone else is but my argument still stands and I think some
will agree with me. About Hamas all I have to say is this, one other nation called for the extermination of the Jewish
people, it was Germany under Hitler and as we have seen before, talking does not seem to work. Until violence is set
aside, I doubt Hamas will be treated very well in international politics. Anways that is a digression, back to the article.
I didn't say whoever believes more strongly should have more of a say. But maybe my question would be more clear if you
tried to answer who else would be more closely related to this topic than muslims. That's like discussing about the effects of
parent separation on kids and not caring about what the kid has to say. Also you have still not addressed how the caricatures
would benefit anyone. The damage is way too obvious and the benefits I couldn't really find on this page. A principle is only
a principle if it serves a purpose.
- We are fighting for the principle of freedom of speech.
- Ok, so what is your message?
- That Mohammed is a terrorist.\
This sounds like a southpark line to me. And I still fail to see the point of defending this caricature.
212.201.44.249 20:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC) Serkan
Actually I never drew the conclusion that Mohammed was a terrorist from the cartoons. It never creeped into my mind
at all and as others have pointed out, this puts the whole thing into context as well as provides a chance to everyone to
form their own opinion, especially not one like "Mohammed" is a terrorist. I doubt anyone here seriously got the
message "Mohammed is a terrorist" from the cartoons. Our line of thought is not "We are promoting this image because
it suggests Mohammed is a terrorist". You are making conclusions for us and assuming intent. Anyone here can back
me up with that? Hitokirishinji 21:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I thought the "bomb turbin" image was quite rediculous. Explosives did not exist during the time period
81
Mohummad lived so it seemed out of context and pretty absurd. Hitokirishinji 21:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
If you interpret the picture metaphorically you might consider it to mean, for example, "The religion founded by
this guy promotes the use of bombs." Depending on the original context, the intent of the cartoonist might be
something different - to suggest that this may be the case, or that it appears to be the case, or is believed by some
to be the case, etc. Regardless, it serves an important purpose in stimulating debate, which is one of the reasons
that we have freedom of speech. Wikipedia's inclusion of it, on the other hand, is motivated by a desire to provide
full information about a topic of interest - in this case, the controversy the cartoons have caused. Neither
wikipedia nor the original newspaper (probably) displayed this image to suggest that Mohammed was literally a
terrorist.--144.136.180.2 01:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
More importantly, none of the opinions matter. If there were a cartoon that had George bush pointing a rocket launcher at an
Iraqi school bus and Dick Cheney next to him saying "well, Osama could be inside after all" it would get protested, but it
would get printed. The only reason it wouldn't get onto wikipedia is because there would be so little controversy over it being
printed that there would be nothing to chronicle. Free speech is applied as evenly as possible. 146.163.218.221 19:27, 10
February 2006 (UTC)
It's time to talk
Moved to Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments#It's time to talk
Ful jävel.
Vad sa du? Rofl, ursäktä, jag kan inte Danska. --84.249.252.211 13:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Adding "pig person" picture?
I think it would be a good idea to add the "pig person" picture to the article, under the "misinformation" heading. The article
has a very low picture/text ratio as it is, and the picture would add to the understanding of the events because it is an example
of how misinformation has increased the severity of the conflict. The copyright of the original photo probably belongs to AP,
but given the low quality of the reproduction, it should be easy to claim "fair use". Since there seems to be concensus that the
picture is of a French pig squealing contestant and not a religious personality of any kind, there should be no blasphemy issue.
Still, I post the question here before doing any changes to the article. --PeR 21:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
82
I agree. It is a quite good illustration of all the misinformation in this whole affair... Claush66 22:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I've translated the Danish text (see above) and repeated that this and two other images have never been printed by
Jyllands-Posten. --Valentinian 22:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
My personal recommendation is not to add the "pig person" picture until we have a translation of the Arabic in
the dossier that (may) put it into context. The picture may apear to be an attempt to deceive, but on its own the
suggestion of deception it is again potentially misleading, without context. Let's take care not add to
misinformation by adding our own. -- Vanitas 22:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Seconded. There are conflicting claims about it. --Kizor 23:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. However, I think the fact that the "43p dossier" contains 15 cartoons instead of 12 is interesting
regardles of what the arabic text says. When confronted with a thick document, most people tend to just
look at the pictures and draw their own conclusions. (In fact, this is the exact reason we're having this
discussion. The potentially erroneous claim from the Brussels Journal is already in the article, in text
form.) --PeR 23:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The "pig person" is the one aired by BBC and al-Jazeera just before the outbreak of this controversy. It was
added to the dossier to illustrate the percieved general hostility against muslims in Denmark. It is supposedly
send anonymously to an (as yet) unidentified person MX44 23:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
If that is true, then the picture is very relevant, regardles of its original context. --PeR 23:59, 7 February
2006 (UTC)
Here's the link in any case. --Kizor 03:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The fact that the pig snort picture was mad public at MSNBC back in August 15 (and possibly elsewhere) actually
falsifies the "fact" in our article that "none of them [the additional images] had previously been published by
Jyllands-Posten or any other mainstream media outlet". I dont know if it is worthwile to make this clear, or if it will
complicate the paragraph unreasonably as it is contradicted a few lines below? Claush66 09:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The pig-person from the dossier is a derived work with an inscription: "The true face of Muhammad". It is in this
context that the picture is unpublished. MX44 11:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Yet that is not how the Danish media presents it today. The leading tabloid Ekstra-Bladet, has published
the original picture in colour on the frontpage with the header "Imam Photo fraud" . Thus the context is lost
83
on the public. Namely that the picture, apparently sent by an anonymous to a Muslim, in the dossier had
the "The true face of Muhammed" comment. 86.52.36.140 16:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
And exactly /what/ did you expect from a tabloid. MX44 05:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, then Wikipedia is a tabloid. I see you have published the picture without the contextual
message. That is manipulation on your behalf. Noted.86.52.36.140 13:18, 9 February 2006
(UTC)
UPDATE from BBC: For an account of how another picture, allegedly of Muhammad portrayed as a pig but in fact a copy of
a photo from a pig-squealing contest in France, played a role, see the end of this article The propaganda factor - the "pig"
picture MX44 12:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
So the BBC themselves admit they erroneously portrayed this picture as one of the 12. This makes it highly
noteworthy, and it should be included as per the above argumentation. Does anybody feel like doing the image
preparation and uploading? --PeR 23:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
This is an improvement from the side of BBC, sure. Unfortunately al-Jazeera also aired the footage, reaching a
far wider audience. MX44 05:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I have uploaded the picture, and put it in the article. --PeR 08:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
It's Time To Reconsider
Moved to Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments#It's Time To Reconsider
Please remove the offensive cartoon
Please remove those cartoons...It is making people more violent, this is a very sensitive issue. If freedom is the right to do
anything then why do we needs law ? Article having information about this issue is sufficient enough and there is no need of
images.
We as muslims strongly condemn this blasphemous act and demand to remove this cartoon from this site. Islam is a religion
of peace and it gives respect to other religions therefore Islam must be respected as well.
84
Remove those cartoons straightaway.
Danish Hameed
Thank you for your input. We kindly disagree and will be keeping the image. Have a nice day. Kyaa the Catlord 12:45,
9 February 2006 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand the term "freedom". Anyways, as Kyaa pointed out, we have already decided on this, please
check the archives. The image will remain where it is. Hitokirishinji 18:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed that the cartoon should stay. Just as few Muslims (even those upset an the initial printing) objected to the
BBC publishing the cartoons in an obvious attempt to help people understand the controversy, it is important that
these stay here today. It is impossible to understand the controversy without seeing the cartoons. --Einhverfr
00:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
There has been a great deal of discussion about this. It's felt that Wikipedia is a reporter and a chronicler. The NPOV,
Neutral Point Of View, principle is one of the cornerstones of the project - to the best of our abilities, the encyclopedia
does not take sides. Therefore, it can use anti-semitic pictures (examples visible elsewhere on this page) to speak of
anti-semitism's existence, instead spereading anti-semitism. Similarily, the cartoons are used here to give information
about them and not to voice an opinion. --Kizor 01:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Dear Danish Hameed, we indeed need laws to protect the society against some dangerous things. But if
you actually study what the laws say, they definitely do not say that Wikipedia should hide the pictures that
are essential for this whole story. On the contrary, the laws give the people freedom of expression, and
protect them against those who want to cancel the freedom of expression. Please accept the fact that
en.wikipedia.org is a server that follows the laws of the U.S. and the U.K. The Muslims who live in
countries where it is not legal to publish pictures, like alqaeda.wikipedia.org, may succeed in erasing the
picture. Here it does not work. It is not enough if Mohammed disagrees with being pictured here; Jimbo
Wales and the Wikieditors would have to disagree, too. --Lumidek 01:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
alqaeda.wikipedia.org? Be nice, Lumidek. --Kizor 02:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I see no reason at all to remove the cartoon - whether anyone finds it offensive or not. Surely the central item of the debate
should appear in the article, as there can be no more appropriate picture to explain what the 'issue' is. Robovski 01:47, 12
February 2006 (UTC)
85
Please remove the offensive cartoon
Please either remove the cartoon or move it down. This cartoon is very offensive to Muslims and Islam worldwide and your
polls are obviously biased. By publishing the cartoon you are putting more fuel over the fire already created by this cartoon.
By publishing the cartoon, Wikipedia is acknowledging that it is not offensive to publish this cartoon. There are many
Muslims in the world and we need to be more considerate about this issue.
If ever highly controversial cartoons about other religions are published, will you publish them like this? I don't think so.
For knowledge purposes, a description of cartoon is more than enough.
Frank
Please be original and request that we blank the faces instead. Seriously, these cartoons are not more offensive than the
work of Richard Wagner. The muslims are overreacting because they have been focusing so much about a kata (martial
arts) (to avoid depictions of prophets) they learned, that they have lost the whole point (to avoid idolatry). This is a
serious problem, and removing/hiding the picture does no good at all. Please inform yourself about phobias and
systematic desensitization. DrJones 23:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, when the anti-jewish cartoons come out from Iran, I'll bet you wikipedia publishes them too. Who are
youto tell me what is offensive or not. Our polls are biased? It's a petition. That's the amount of signatures.
Ready
Westerners are just not offended by this. SWATJester
Aim Fire! 22:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should move this headline nearer to the top of the talk page, along with a link to a subpage for
separate discussion of this topic. This is probably the most frequent posting, and it seems naïve to think that
everyone is going to read the archives before reposting it. --PeR 22:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I actually don't think that the cartoons are the problem but this is not the forum for this discussion. One cannot
understand what is making you so upset if we cannot see the cartoons. There is a difference between knowledge
and understanding. --Einhverfr 00:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
86
You need to better explain your case. You need to explain, in a secular society (and I'm sure you agree that Wikipedia, and
the Internet as a whole, is secular) how an edict by a religious group, trumps freedom of the press. Several people here are
doing what they can to avoid offence, and minimise the usage of the image to what is absolutely necessary. However surely
given the prominence of the story, I don't see how a complete removal of the images is in anyone's benefit. Surely displaying
the images in context, is better for everyone. And has already lead to some interesting results - such that the image that many
were objecting to the most, that of Muhammad as a pig's face, was in reality just a poor-quality photograph from some
pig-calling contest. By completely removing any images, such truths would never have become known. Besides, as far as I
can tell, there is a long history of having images of Muhammad within Islam. The writing in the Koran seems quite vague to
me. And interestingly quite similiar to the comments in the bible about having no idols of anyone but God - which given the
number of Jesus and Mary statues doesn't seem to be taken very seriously. Nfitz 23:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Frank, we've already gone over this issue many times. This community has virtually unanimously decided to keep the
cartoons in the article. Readers have a right to know what the controversy is about, and this right is more important than the
right not to be offended. An encyclopedic article about cartoons needs the cartoons, whether they are offensive or not. We
can't please everyone, we'll never be able to do that. Our goal is to neutrally and objectively inform and educate, and in order
to do that, we need the cartoons. Wikipedia is not censored in any way, shape or form. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:08, 7 February
2006 (UTC)
The poll as to whether to keep the image, delete it, or move it down resulted in MORE THAN 80% of respondents
voting to keep the image at the top of the page. If you're going to make accusations of the poll being biased, you're
going to need to provide some evidence if you want anybody to believe you. BinaryTed 00:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Let us keep the results from the first poll, but conduct a second, longer poll for about a week. We should have at least the
following options:
Muhammad images in article
Muhammad images linked from article
Muhammad images in article but blurred with link to unblurred images
ViewFromNowhere 00:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The first two options were already available in the first poll and 80% of the 240+ people who responded went with
87
option 1. Blurred images serve no informative purpose; I honestly don't see how that's a legitimate option. 65.24.88.67
01:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Frank, I would take two issues with your reasoning.
First, I would not agree that the inclusion of any image in Wikipedia implies that the image is, itself, inoffensive. Wikipedia
contains many articles which show images that are found to be offensive by some large group of people. I was personally
offended by a set of images that used to be associated with the entry for Domestic Violence, (they have been removed, but not
for offense, but because of concerns about copyright.) Other people might be offended by the image "The Ethical Jew" at
Anti-Semitism, or Serrano's famous image entitled Piss Christ--bothe clear examples of cultures and revered religious figures
being treated in a way that large groups of people find deeply offensive. Ergo, publication here does not imply "inoffensive."
Let me be clear, I support, save for the copyright concerns, Wikipedia's inclusion of each of those images, in each case, I
believe there was an important expository value to providing information the reader needed to make sense of this controversy.
Second, I would not agree that a description of the cartoon is sufficient, although I am a bit less firm on this second point.
Descriptions of the cartoons that have appeared in US newspapers have been, quite commonly, inaccurate, even in terms of
specific, objective measures (e.g., how many of the twelve published cartoons contain an image of Mohammad, etc.) Worse,
many of these descriptions strayed from objective descriptions of the material into interpretation without attributing the
interpretation. I, and many readers of news data, find descriptions of such material suspect, and in terms of having enough
information to make our own choices about what to support, wish to have access to the cartoons themselves. --Joe Decker
03:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Please remove the cartoon from the page. Provide a link out for those who wish to see it. You are counting voting written in
English, which is not relevent to a lot of Muslim. Putting it in is showing insensitivity, self centered. Free speech does not
mean the right to insult others. It is not the picture which is offensive. If you put the cartoon title as Bush in Iraq, not many
muslim care about it. It is the meanest of spirit behind it, publishing picture which is known will be insulting, and then ask
why are you angry? Of course I am angry, and insulted. How can two civilization live together when one keep pushing and
hurting physically and mentally the other. Muslim is being killed in Palestine, and Iraq. The western newspaper ignore it, or
just show 1 or 2 officer under trial and claimed "Look we have punish them." Well there are thousand of other cases. This is
no free speech. It's just selected coverage. Please remove the cartoon from the page. Yosri 13:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Of course we're only counting votes in English, this is the english language wikipedia. Why would non-english
speakers/readers surf it? Please see the archives for more arguments related to your pleading to not be insulted. Thanks.
88
Kyaa the Catlord 13:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
By that logic, I guess we should include the votes of all 1 billion Chinese and all 1 billion Hindus. And for once, those
numbers are quite accurate. Wait, why stop there? Hell, we'll have the whole world vote. Who's going with me to North
Korea? I'm sure they'll have an opinion. Hitokirishinji 22:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
OK. I got it. If you don't speak English, you not human, your vote not counted. Your religious is irelevent. Your
feeling not taken into consideration. Similarly, when American army officer killed a Iraq General, he is release
because some instruction to him not clear, wonder what happen to Jerman Nazi officer if he do the thing he did
because his life at stake, and if he did not folow instruction he is hanged because crime for humanity.... Thank
you very much. Now I see what is western value, equality really is. The cartoon is commission because the editor
know this will anger the muslim. It sole purpose is to provoke the muslim, now they asking why the muslim is
angry. Of course the muslim is angry. Of course I'm angry and getting angrier with the western responce, and
these kind of responce. This cartoon is designed to hurt. Those who support it, show they support this kind of
thing. Then do not be suprise if there is retaliation. I do not asked the image be deleted, just no shown in the same
page. Those who want to look at it can click at the link in side the article. Yosri 06:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think why anyone is asking why are Muslims angry. I think we're asking what justification is there to be
burning builds and killing people over cartoons regardless of how offensive. I do not know any justifiable
reason beyond self defense to commit violence and don't try to convince me this is some sort of "self defense".
Death and destruction is not justified in this case and in most cases. Hitokirishinji 18:28, 9 February 2006
(UTC)
Exactly. And this is how it should be. The fact that you are trying to show us some sort of injustice here
merely demonstrates that you seem to be under some sort of delusion that things are, or should be,
otherwise, when this is certainly not the case. If you are mortally offended by wikipedia and western values
then there is simply no reason for you to visit the english wikipedia, or indeed, any western site.
May I suggest instead, that Yosri continues to visit these sites and think about the issue and consider
the consequences that would follow if nothing could be written or shown if it hurt the feelings of
anyone. Similarly, we who don't share Yosri's views could consider our own bias and then keep the
dialogue going in a better, friendlier and more informed way.--Sir48 10:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
These values are not 'western', call them are human values. Everybody should value freedom.
Have a look at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11126728/#survey, 200 voters should not be allowed to insult 1/5th of
89
the world population. These cartoons are simply blasphemous, offensive and contribute nothing to knowledge, and
must be removed from the page.
Mumtaz.siddiqui 00:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Cause we all know the enormous amount of influence MSNBC has upon Wikipedia editors and how it entirely
represents the Wikipedia community. I better shut up now before the chip implanted in my brain by MSNBC
explodes and kills me for blasphemy. Did you happen to notice that little thing on the bottom that says "Not a
scientifically valid survey"? Or did you find it convenient to ignore that? Hitokirishinji 00:46, 9 February 2006
(UTC)
Your collective decision is also not scientifically proven as unbiased. Otherwise allow new users to join
and participate in a fresh poll. I would request again that please keep the text but remove the blasphemous
image. 08:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
And if we do that, what assurance do we have that someone will not use a sockspuppet and a few
hundred bogus e-mails to create a few hundred bogus accounts to vote and severely tip the poll in his
or her favor? I guess you would consider something like that unbiased. No our poll is not scientific
but it reflects the opinion of the editors who have worked on Wikipedia for some time and contribute
to it regularly. So I'll put it simply: Request denied. Check the archives. Hitokirishinji 19:06, 9
February 2006 (UTC)
Read your response carefully and decide what does it proves? unbiased polls?
If our poll is biased towards people who actaully care about freedom of expression,
Wikipedia, and its philosophy rather than personal, religious or racial objectives than I
guess we're biased. Anyways, it's simple, we have decided, nothing you say will change
that. Hitokirishinji 17:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
And an even less reliable MSNBC poll doesn't decide our collective position, which has already been decided.
The cartoons stay in the article, as they do contribute to knowledge: they allow the reader to see what the
controversy is about. And our task as an encyclopedia is to inform. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 00:33, 9 February 2006
(UTC)
I'll believe that poll as much as I believe the "Wayne Rooney" redirecters here are all different people.
90
Weregerbil 00:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the cartoons should be replaced with a link. At the very least they should not be on the top.
Similar potentially offensive pages have pictures at the bottom and a warning at the top with a link.
Cuñado
- Talk 17:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Could you give an example? Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 10:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Ouch! I followed the link to this article from Wikinews:Protest against Muhammad caricatures in Paris. Yes, as I know it,
Wikipedia is allowed to contain offensive content. However some readers, like myself, want to read about Jyllands-Posten
Muhammad cartoons controversy from a neutral point of view without seeing the cartoons themselves. I might replace the
image at the top of the article with a link to the "Image:" page, if I have time later. (I will not be burning embassies, wrecking
cars, or vandalising wikis if Wikipedia chooses to keep the cartoons in their current position at the top of the article.)
--Kernigh 05:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Please do not remove the image. Doing so is considered vandalism. Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord 06:20, 12 February
2006 (UTC)
Iranian Jew cartoons
So, CNN reported that Iran has put out a request that they'll pay people to make 12 Holocaust cartoons as a counter to free
speech. Let me preface this by saying, I'm Jewish. I urge Wikipedians to publish those cartoons. Yes that's right, publish
them. The world has a right to see the art (distasteful as I may find the term), and it would put to rest many arguments about
Ready
THESE cartoons. SWATJester
No urging is needed, if these "response" cartoons materialize, they'll be here. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:51, 7 February
2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm sure there would have to be a poll or two or three. --JGGardiner 22:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
yeah, I know, but I'm hoping that when these do come out (or if), that someone will remember this and put
them up. Not that it won't be national news anyway. I'd find them offensive, but I respect the right for
91
information to be shown. Hell, I'd make an active effort NOT to see them until I could see them first on
Ready
Wikipedia! Hows that for advertising! SWATJester
The Iranians would be about 30 years too late. Several organizations have already printed such cartoons in the United
States, and nobody stopped them back then. They won't be stopped now. --Tokachu 23:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I hope when these holocaust cartoons are published (which we should include on Wikipedia, for sure), the response is
generally a big collective shrug of the shoulders and a 'meh, whatever'. It is the only proper response, and might just let
those who have been offended by the Muhammed cartoons realise how much they are overreacting. As distasteful as
making fun of the holocaust might be, we a) know that it's only a tit-for-tat provocation and b) we have the ability to
recognise and accept satire for what it is.Graham 23:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Has anyone run across the image published by a Muslim group in Belgium of Hitler in bed with Ann Frank (sp?)? That one
would be appropriate as well to show the type of reaction occuring. --StuffOfInterest 23:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Well it depends who published it and whether anyone took any notice. An obscure muslim group publishing a
provocative cartoon wouldn't be _that_ interesting - and there have been many stories about things happening that are
related that turn out not to have happened or to have not been obviously related (the death of a priest comes to mind).
Secretlondon 23:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
It was good enough to make it on ABC news this evening. They showed the photo. Apparently there were two
(both on screen) but the 2nd one wasn't described. Of course, in the next clip, an Imam being interviewed said
these photos were no where near as bad as blasphemy against Muhammad. --StuffOfInterest 23:59, 7 February
2006 (UTC)
Yeah but it may have been produced to get on the news this evening. It sounds like ABC News was shit
stirring too from your description. The media loves sensationalist crap, alas. Secretlondon 00:52, 8
February 2006 (UTC)
What does the holocaust have to do with Denmark?--Greasysteve13 00:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Because people are being told it's part of a Jewish plot.. Secretlondon 00:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed see here :S AlEX 00:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, what does ANY of this have to do with denmark? Nothing. SWATJester
True. much less than 0.000002% of Danes are responsible for these
92
Ready
cartoons.--Greasysteve13 03:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Missed my point Greasysteve13...the point is that This isn't about Denmark.
This isn't about the cartoons. It's about dogma and domination, about
enforcing one religious view upon the world, whether by conquest or by
other methods. It's not about denmark. They're just an excuse.
Ready
SWATJester
Thats also true but, I don't think the protesters themselves even
realise whats going on. (See: irrationality) --Greasysteve13 11:20, 8
February 2006 (UTC)
I would like to point out several differences between showing the "Muhammad cartoons" and the "Jewish Cartoons" on
Wikipedia.
The publishers of the cartoons in Iran do not expect any censorship in publishing the cartoons. They have nothing to risk by
publishing. There is no issue of freedom of speech here or oppression from the government, when the President of Iran has
called for the destruction of Israel, and publicly denied the holocaust. The newspaper itself maybe owned by a government
municipality. Contrast this with the fear of relatiation and a climate of self-sensorship in Denmark.
Notice the difference between publishing anti-jewish and anti-muslim cartoons in Iran. Accountable Government 04:00, 8
February 2006 (UTC)
Sure, there are differences on a thousand levels: but assuming that the Iranian cartoons are notable (which I'm sure they
will be), Wikipedia will run them. These kinds of cartoons have been published by various rags in the West (especially
the U.S.) for decades, and people just usually don't pay them any attention. I echo the sentiments of Graham, above; I
hope the Western reaction to the publication of the Iranian cartoons is a big, bored shrug, even if it's a hot news event in
Dar al-Islam. Babajobu 07:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Somebody asked earlier for Anti-Semitic cartoons published in response to the Muhammed contraversy. The Arab-European
League is one such organization, and are responsible for the publication of the Hitler/Anne Frank cartoon that was asked for. I
leave it to you wikipedian regulars to decide whether to include it or not. Richard 129.244.23.160 14:56, 8 February 2006
(UTC)
WOW!! The AEL is posting some extrordinarily offensive pictures and yet there's calm in the "Western democracies."
It's almost as if "Westerner's" believe in this freedom of speech crap.--64.251.0.102 15:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
93
Keep the cartoons, we have the right to show the actual cartoon on the sight and we shouldnt cave in because a few muslims
want us to take it down, do wew always have to be "sensitive" to others, next thing you know, to be "sensitive", we'll start
removing the Jesus page, because little itty bitty muslims don't want to look at a false messaih... BTW im an atheist
communist and i hate all religion, but the muslims take the cake, the ussr would have talked some sens into these muslim
fanatics.Also i know the USSR didnt have freedom of press, which i support whole heartedly, its just the USSR didnt take shit
from anyone, which is needed in these times. You should scare the shit out of these little embassy buring crackpots. If the
USSR had invaded Afganistan, we wouldnt be having this discussion, the Mujahadin would have been rotting in some prison
in Moscow and we all be happy and free on the shackles of religion, free of the opium of the people.
How are cartoons depicting a prophet analogous to cartoons depicting the slaghter of humans? Jewish orthodoxy says the
image of God shouldn't (or can not) be illustrated. Maybe some illustrations of the Jewish God are in order. Opps.. there are
already childerns' book with those images.. ---Some thing that I could not understand so far, I will appreciate if you can make it clear. In the newspaper there are
always certain limits as to how much of graphical content they can show e.g. a nude woman, a molested dead body etc.
In Austria, for example, it is common to see that newspapers show women breasts but not the lower part. Why do we
have these limits? I think its to protect those who should not or may not watch these pictures and these pictures can be
offensive to them. Can we use the same analogy for these cartoons? Can we say that the newspapers should not print
such pictures as they are offensive to a big majority?
One other thing I have noticed is the confusion between making a picture of Prophet Mohammad and making a cartoon
of Prophet Mohammad. I have read it at so many places that Islam does not allow that pictures be made of God and
Prophet Mohammad. While I agree, but beleive me if someone would have drawn a very nice looking picture of
Prophet Mohammad then even though its not allowed and some people would still have objected, majority would have
been quite. This issue is not JUST making cartoon, issue is making fun of the prophet and portraying him as a 'bad guy'.
Prophet Mohammad is somone that is very dear to Muslims and whether or not they practise on what he has said, they
are not willing to compromose on any thing that is disrespectful to him.
One other thing I would like to highlight is that every society has sacred cows. In Austria, law does not allow anyone to
deny Holocost. Similary, anyone seen by the police raising his arm like the Nazis and saying Hi Hitler can be put in
jail. In US, its a crime to burn the national flag. If such things exists in other socities then why people are surprised that
Muslims are so conservative? Amir Hayat
94
You said "In US, its a crime to burn the national flag." By US, do you mean United States? Flag-burning has
been ruled by the US Supreme Court to be constitutionally protected free speech. The US House of
Representatives has passed amendments banning flag desecration in each of its last six sessions, however not one
has made it through the US Senate, let alone completed the ratification process. For more information on how
this issue has been handled in the United States, see Flag desecration and Flag Desecration Amendment.-BinaryTed 21:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure people have twigged what's really going on here. As I see it, the main aim of the people most vocal in stirring up
the righteous indignation against the cartoons is to enhance muslim solidarity and try and mend the cracks that have opened
up between westernised moderate muslims and hardliners and the Shia-Sunni divide. They have done this at the expense of
doing much to close the divide which had been opening up between Europe and the US. if you think about it there are three
aspects to this cartoons that muslims find offensive. (1) the fact that they show pictures of Muhammad. This is in many ways
the "official reason" for finding them offensive. Is it the real underlying reason? I don't think so. The idea behind having no
pics of the prophet is to stop people from worshipping him rather than Allah himself (in the same way that Protestants got
sniffy (well actually it was more murder and mayhem at the height of the dispute) about Catholics starting to worship statues
of Jesus, the Virgin Mary, and the saints etc). From an islamic perspective there are not syupposed to be picstures and statues
of the other prophets either but we've yet to see people blowing up statues of Jesus (though of course the tallibn did just that
to the Big Buddhas). (2) The association of Muhammad and Islam with terrorism. I think this is the big issue for most
Western moderate muslims. They are pretty hacked off with the fact that since al Qaeda started blowing things up, westerners
have tended to be a little suspicious of them. The radical firebrands who have been stirring things up however and many of
the people waiving Kalashnakov's in Afghanistan and Gaza of course don't have a big problem with associating Islam with
terrorism as they see it as just a brave way of the underdog fighting a technologically superior force. However they have
pretended to be very annoyed to get the moderates on side. (3) there is the issue that the drawings are cartoons and cartoons
are supposed to be funny so in the mind of the muslim mobs in the Middle East, Afghanisatn that means the West is laughing
at themand their religious beliefs, which in their culture is something which cannot be tolerated as muslim culture tends to be
dominated by the concept of Shame rather than the Guilt of the JudeaChristian West.o modern science. The publication of the
anti Holocaust pictures needs to be seen as a further attempt by those looking to unify muslims against the West (in this case
in particular the Iranians who of course want united muslim support re their nuclear weapon plans) and isolate the moderate
western muslims. Of course they know that the reaction of Westerners will be to shrug these images off and just think that it
confirms their prejudice that all muslims are fact denying, racists. The main losers of all this are the many millions of
moderate European muslims who just want to work hard and get on with their lives in Europe. They will suffer increasing
alienation from their host societies as it becomes clear that the radicals have instituted de facto censorship in the name of all
muslims through the use of terror. The main winners will be the Iranians who figure this may make getting nuclear weapons
95
easier, the more right wing Americans who will be able to say a massive "I told you so" to liberal Europeans, The Syrians
who may be able to recover from their recent troubles in Lebanon and the Chinese who will be figuring that this will
strengthens their position as customner of oil and supplier of manuafcatured goods to the Middle East. All because of a few
cartoons! WadeLondon 19:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Deleted section
I've removed a section added by 65.96.9.239 (talk • contribs) ("It should be noted, however, that the thousands of Muslims
engaged in the violent protests, bomb and kidnapping threats, etc. are not angered by one of the cartoons' implication that "all
Muslims are violent terrorists" (or vice versa) since their reaction would otherwise lend some support to that very idea.
Similarly, those violent protesters (who have made this issue the current event that it is) are not motivated by a universalist
notion of respect of all religions and races. Rather, their reaction is an authentic, tribal anger.") as original research, barely
verifiable, generalization (by claiming that they all act out of a tribal anger, thereby preemptively excluding any other
possibilities) and perhaps pov. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Attack on hotdog stand
In the rumours and misinformation section there is a report of an incident in Copenhagen which apparently never took place.
How many unimportant non-events should we have? I can fabricate as many as you'd like :D MX44 00:02, 8 February 2006
(UTC)
If people reading the Wikipedia article have heard of the report (which they may well have), it will be useful for us to
debunk the rumor. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
But this incidence (unlike the rumour of quran burning) is of absolutely no consequence to the developement of
the story. MX44 00:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Here's another vote for the removal of the 'Hot Dog' story... the whole thing does sound rather spurious. Netscott 01:05, 8
February 2006 (UTC)
I think it makes sense to inform about it since it has twice been on the front page of the Danish national TV
station's news section. The background is that the owner of a hot dog stand reported an assault, however, the
police now believe that the report was false and he has been charged with falsly reporting a crime. TH 19:55, 8
96
February 2006 (UTC)
What?! Somebody brought that? It wasn't even related to the cartoons >_< Apocryphite 02:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Please find a better link for larger versions of images
Currently, we link to www.faithfreedom.org for larger versions of the images. Can we find a different link (e.g.
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/698), please?
I'm not a Muslim myself, but I find www.faithfreedom.org to be hatefully inflammatory; sample quote: "Islam induces hate
backed by lies. Muhammad was a terrorist by his own admission." Linking to such a site just to get a copy of images that are
available elsewhere is unnecessary and unwise, in my opinion.
—Steven G. Johnson 00:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Seems reasonable ... though the ones in that brusselsjournal.com link are a bit more compressed, with the text not quite as
clear. And also has other text as well. I spotted another source at one point, where you had to click through 12 slides, that
appeared to be even clearer. Anyone remember that one? Nfitz 00:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
No the FF link is better , it is just image no text.--CltFn 01:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, we just use this instead. We don't link to the page. Most important is reliability of the site and NPOV
of the site is a bonus because even though it is unlikely people will seek out more on the sites--if they do
it's better not to bring them to the doorstep of partisans. If there is a more non-partisan site we use it. I
choose faithfreedom for now because the compression is better on it. I hope you would agree that a site like
CNN (if it had a comprable image) should be linked to over FFI. gren ??? ? 08:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that www.faithfreedom.org is not desirable as a source, but I think that the most important thing is that we get a link to
a version of the images which is as large, readable, and dependable as possible. Unfortunately, most "mainstream" outlets do
not show the cartoons, but if someoen can find a mainstream link that is better than this one please feel free to replace it at
will. I, however, was unable to do so as of this message. Savidan 21:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
97
Criticism of Muslim reactions
Have taken out the following:
Other commentators have noted that Muslim requests for greater "sensitivity" in the Western press are spurious, given
that (a) the cartoons themselves were not particularly offensive, well below the norm for editorial cartoons generally,
and (b) the general lack of respect in Islamic state-sponsored press for other religions, as noted above, as well as the
outright destruction by Islamic governments of other religions' landmarks. The real issue, according to these
commentators, is not Muslim hypocrisy, but rather, Islamic supremacism.citation needed
This is already explained in the paragraph, but most of all the last part is a rather strong statement which it is not substantiated
by sources. I think if we cannot provide a source it is too POV to include.-Nomen Nescio 00:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I changed
However, this assumes that the because some Muslims publish anti-Semitic material, all Muslims are guilty by
association. In addition, these critics are unaware that Muslims around the world have condemned terrorism [1].
into:
However, it is countered that this assumes that because numerous Arab countries sponsor publishing anti-Semitic
material, there should be an equivocal denouncement by Muslims.[2]
The reasons are: 1 There is no logical fallacy since nobody claims all Muslims are guilty of anti-Semetism. They are merely
silent on the subject. 2 Although some Muslims object to the anti-Semetism it is more than evident the general reaction by
Muslims is not comparable to what they do when confronted with perceived anti-Islamic books-pictures-films-plays.
My version more accurately, and in less POV fashion, describes the mood I think.-2006 (UTC)
Nomen Nescio 01:15, 8 February
That's a completely different sentence. The statement was in response to this line:
Commentators find the reactions from the Muslim community hypocritical. They point to the numerous
anti-Semitic and anti-Christian publications in Arab media. One website, Filibuster Cartoons pointed out this
98
criticism in (oddly enough) a political cartoon.
This is the Filibuster cartoon. The argument seems to be that Muslims should not complain about material they find
offensive when [Muslims] themselves create anti-Semitic images. ViewFromNowhere 01:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
No, since their media is abundant with anti-Semetic images. Not that they are making them. Please see this
they believe it is odd that cartoons are considered blasphemous when terrorist attacks in the name of
Islam are not equally condemned by Muslims.
Nomen Nescio 01:32, 8
However, they clearly do not make as much objections as in this case.-February 2006 (UTC)
1. The filibuster cartoon specifically seems to emphasize creation rather than lack of condemnation.
2. How do you measure the level of Muslim condemnation of terrorist attacks? There seem to be a lot. The problem is that
the media tends to concentrate on interesting stories, so actual terrorist attacks would make front page news, while
Muslim condemnations of terrorist attacks would not. Lack of media coverage of Muslim condemnation does not
indicate a lower level of condemnation.
Thinking of the response to i.e. 9-11-2001, I remember few condemnations but many festive people in the
Muslim community. Personally I have never seen Muslims react to terrorist attacks, anti-Semitism, killing of
women that apparently harm the family name (marrying non-muslims, being raped, et cetera), as they are to
perceived anti-Islamic cartoons.-Nomen Nescio 02:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Still, we can't generalize from anecdotal experience, can we? ViewFromNowhere 02:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Give me some time and I will insert sources. Sincerely--
Nomen Nescio 03:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
All right. But Muslims in your area of the Netherlands do not represent all Muslims in the West. ViewFromNowhere
03:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Nice try, but you know in Gaza they also were elated.--
I didn't know Gaza was in the West.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User
talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) .
99
I'm speaking of the Muslims I know who condemn terrorism. Let's try not to generalize people, okay?
I am not talking about Muslims in the west. Muslims means, the same people worldwide that today feel offended.
So, I refer to Muslims in every country. And when we look at the Middle-East and Asia (Pakistan?) I remember
many people supporting OBL and demonising Bush in stead of the current condemnation.-Nomen Nescio
11:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete this sentence: "They believe it is odd that cartoons are considered blasphemous when terrorist attacks in the name of
Islam are not equally condemned by Muslims." --Terrorist Attacks ARE condemnded by all non-fundamentalist moslem
groups, first of all, so this statement is false and secondly it is unnecessary and superfluous. The point has already been made,
and an encyclopedia should not contain vague persons known as "They..." making specific judgements about any group of
people be they jew christian, moslem, gay straight, black or white. Madangry 20:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Last I checked, Muslims weren't burning down the Saudi embassy in their country based on funding supplied to
terrorists by the House of Saud. And that's a case where the actual government is responsible. So no, Muslims as a
whole don't condemn terrorists as much as they've condemned these drawings, assuming you accept massive protests
and the like as a mark of condemnation (and to do otherwise would seem rather odd). Many subsets of the Muslims, of
course, may do otherwise. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Topic needs RELOCKING
In the span of last 2 hours there has been several acts of anonymous vandalism... can we go back to having this topic locked
now? Netscott 01:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. ViewFromNowhere 01:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Azate 02:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. There have been many instances of repeated vandalism over the past 12 hours. Vinkmar 19:22, 8 February
2006 (UTC)
I only see 2 vandals in the last hour. One clearly was a child and did no damage. The other deleted content, but seems to be
the usual pattern of vandalism on articles listed on the Main Page. Nothing really unusual going on here! Nfitz 02:13, 8
February 2006 (UTC)
100
FWIW, the article is no longer linked from the front page. Babajobu 07:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Remove some sections
I propose to remove the following sections, because of very limited usefulness:
8.2 Bounty on cartoonists. Reason: there are enough documented death threats. if one of them was blown out of
proportion is no longer significant.
8.7 Muslim organizations in Denmark. Reason: to refute one tangential statement on swedish tv about an organization
that is not central to the debate is superfluous.
It is the organization who toured the middle east, but I agree SVTs comments are out of scope. MX44 05:47, 8
February 2006 (UTC)
8.8 Confusion between editors-in-chief. Reason: This guy has been incorrectty identified, but the error appears not to
have been spread.
8.9 Opinion of the Queen of Denmark. Reason: The mistranslation has not been widely covered or been commented
upon.
The mistranslation was used as a headline in arabic press.MX44 05:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
(Btw., did you know the article links to a site where you can get a "live fatwa" online? [3]
Azate 02:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
support Lotsofissues 03:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
'Comparable incidents — "freedom of speech" versus "blasphemy"' should go, too. All the events listed there are covered in
detail in Freedom of speech versus blasphemy, which is clearly linked. Azate 04:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I tried cutting but I was reverted. I'll support you if you try again. Lotsofissues 04:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Support. This article really needs to be shortened. "Freedom of speeceh vs. blasphemy" is a good example of content that is
out of scope for this article, but which should be linked and briefly summarized. --PeR 07:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
101
Support... to make this article better but text should be saved to be placed in a sub article if a relevant one arises. gren ??? ?
09:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Support. I suspect that there will be a lot of good editorial article compression if the vandalism disappears. Too much
vandalism/reversal makes it hard to edit well.DanielDemaret 09:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Opposed to the removal of 8.2. A ficticious story about a financial award or a bounty on a person's life from a named
organisation is very different than a mere threat from an anonymous source. Relevance pertaining to the issue is a possible
incident of misinformation by the press. 86.52.36.140 15:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Opposed On the gounds that the removals have not maintained antiquate sumeries! 8.2 should stay. 8.7 should stay as it
cleared up *considerable* missinformation about the real prominance of this organization. 8.9 should stay too. 8.8 can go.
JeffBurdges 22:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Opposed 8.7 and 8.9 clears up considerable misunderstandings that I've encountered several places.130.225.96.2 04:56, 12
February 2006 (UTC)
International laws related to the issue - section
This section just states the primary source of the treaty... not any real legal interpretation (which is necessary) or who and
how scholars have related this to the current incidents. Unless someone can do that it should be removed. Likely there should
be a sentence about how this situation relates to international law and the body text should be footnoted. gren ??? ? 03:15, 8
February 2006 (UTC)
Interpreting international right, or even judging what can be applicable, it one of the trickier problems around. Unless
we happen to get a contribution from a top professional on this subject, putting a link to the treaty itself is maybe the
smart thing to do. Azate 03:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I have not seen an outside source mention it. Take it out. Lotsofissues 03:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Noteworthy?
The editorial staff of the alternative weekly New York Press walked out today, en masse, after the paper's publishers backed
102
down from printing the Danish cartoons that have become the center of a global free-speech fight.[4]
I think it is, and someone should put it in the article. Although NYP is a small newspaper, it is significant that the entire
editorial staff of a newspaper has resigned over the decision not to publish the cartoons. Valtam 05:58, 8 February 2006
(UTC)
Done. --Kizor 09:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Holocaust cartoons
Can someone confirm that Farid Mortazavi, graphics editor of Hamshahri, said the following:
"The Western papers printed these sacrilegious cartoons on the pretext of freedom of expression, so let's see [if] they mean
what they say and print these Holocaust cartoons"
If so, wtf?! Exactly what does he hope to achieve? If they do that, wouldn't this then make the cartoons legitimate, as Muslims
are doing the exact same thing to Jews, who did not write the cartoons? And why is he targetting Jews in the first place? I
wasn't aware that the Jyllands-Posten chief editor was a Jew in the first place! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:55, 8 February 2006
(UTC)
I find these things much easier to understand if I first assume everyone involved is an idiot. --Kizor 08:00, 8 February
2006 (UTC)
A lot of countries formerly occupied by Nazi Germany (including Germany itself, but excluding Russia) has
anti-anti-Semitic laws. I assume they prosecute for it. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 09:03, 8 February
2006 (UTC)
CITATION:
World leaders rally round as crisis deepens;Cartoons Anthony Browne 677 words 7 February 2006 The Times
Lotsofissues 05:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Please -- what makes people think Wikipedia (or any western media) will be afraid to reprint their stupid cartoons? We have
lots of Antisemitic imagery on Wikpedia, showcased as such, and we will showcase the holocaust cartoons as a testimony to
103
the stupidity of Mortazavi or whoever within the minute they are available. Reporting that Iranian newspapers indulge in
Holocaust denial does not amount to actual holocaust denial, just like reporting that Danish cartoonists makes fun of
Muhammad does not amount to actually making fun of Muhammad. dab (?) 07:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
5
?8;G
%$
F+
5
?8>G
%$
F+
CCC
2
5
#
%%
%
$ $
Agreed. State-run media in the Muslim world publish this sort of trash all the time...but since this particular publication
will be notable, we'll be happy to include it. Babajobu 08:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I don't see how we couldn't, since the project is essentially founded on the dissemination of information not to mention the very strong precedent set by the prominent display of the cartoons in this article. --Kizor
08:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
To be honest, this article here didn't set a precedent at all. We've always published "offensive images",
including images offensive to Jews, without any problem. See the four images to the rightabove. Babajobu
09:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
True, true, though this would certainly be the instance most often invoked if we wouldn't publish the
denial cartoons. --Kizor 12:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Probably so, but the only way we wouldn't publish them would be if they didn't attain
notability, and that's extremely unlikely. Babajobu 16:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
How can this be rewritten?
Embarrassingly bad prose:
104
Criticism of Muslim reactions
"Commentators find the reactions from the Muslim community hypocritical.[3] They point to the numerous anti-Semitic and
anti-Christian publications in Arab media.[4][5] One website, Filibuster Cartoons pointed out this criticism in (oddly enough)
a political cartoon [6]. Furthermore, they believe it is odd that cartoons are considered blasphemous when terrorist attacks in
the name of Islam are not equally condemned by Muslims.[7][8] Also, aniconism is not limited to Islam, yet violent outcry
like this seems to be more frequent in Muslim society.
In addition, they think it is remarkable that in countries like Syria, where demonstration is short of impossible, riots could
result in buildings being burned.[9] Considering the current Hariri investigation, this is not an inconvenient distraction for
Syria.[10]
However, it is countered that this assumes that because numerous Arab countries sponsor publishing anti-Semitic material,
there should be an equivocal denouncement by Muslims.[11].
In contrast, Muslims are angry that the cartoons portray the Muslim religion as promoting terrorism because of the actions of
a few of its members."
Great job azate
Much improved.
Left opinion link
I think JuanCole.com should be cited under the "opinons of the left" comment on the main page; he has lots of good analysis
of the topic. He makes the case against the Right reaction in the west pretty well.
105
http://www.juancole.com/2006/02/more-on-hypocrisy-of-west-and.html
http://www.juancole.com/2006/02/caricatures-roil-muslim-world-beirut.html
I can write in a blog too. Yippee. Does he have some special credibility that Joe Coffee at Live Journal doesn't? Kyaa
the Catlord 09:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
He is notable. David Sneek 11:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
It still remains a blog. I'd avoid using a blog as a source if at all possible. Find someone who actually got
published. I could find five hundred live journal or blogspot entries on this, but that doesn't make them a
good source. Kyaa the Catlord 11:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Juan Cole is a professor at the University of Michigan. He has been published in The Guardian, The
San Jose Mercury News, Salon, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Boston Review ,The Nation,
Tikkun, The Journal of the International Institute, and others [5]. Technorati.com puts his blog
among the top 100 most popular blogs.[6] Suggesting he is just a random blogger is objectively
wrong.--Snorklefish 16:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Excellent. Once his views are published in a periodical, I'd be happy to support their use as a
source. Until then, blogs don't cut it. If you want to use The New York Times, the LA Times,
the Washington Post, cool. But a blog is a blog, the credibility is questionable. Kyaa the
Catlord 17:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Your argument seems to be shifting rapidly. Are you questioning the relative political
prominence of Juan Cole on the left, or are you questioning he wrote what he wrote?
The factual accuracy of what Juan Cole writes is inapposite to the issue of "OPINION"
on the left.--64.251.0.102 18:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Snorklefish
There are many wikipedia articles that link to posts by notable bloggers. According to what guideline do you
conclude "blogs don't cut it"? David Sneek 18:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
We refer to blogs for minor issues in which blog posts by a notable person are significant. For an issue that
has made headlines worldwide for an extended period of time, publishing comments from a blog seems
inappropriate. Babajobu 03:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Cole is notable enough as a ME scholar to link to his blog even here. But anyway, he reworked some
of his posts for a Salon piece: [7] David Sneek 07:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Guardian linking to us
106
The Guardian is linking to our copy of the cartoons. Babajobu 09:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Ooooh, quick, get one of those penis vandals back. :P Kyaa the Catlord 09:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
We can return the favour, although All in all, you'd better not look at this.
It seems a problem that the Guardian link is to the image page, where one has to perform several 'goal-dircted' clicks to get to
the actual article. I imagine that many people who come via the Guardian link will only get to the image, and from thereon, to
the discussion page. There ought to be a clear indication as to where to click to get to the article. 86.139.217.222 12:18, 8
February 2006 (UTC) Mila
Were the cartoons republished in Egypt back in October?
This blog post "Cartoons were Published Five Months ago in Egypt" claims that the Jyllands-Posten cartoons were
republished in an Egyptian newspaper in October, without any great reaction. Can anyone confirm this report? -- Avenue
10:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about it, but I suspect this is a hoax. If this were published in October, then it will be a hot topic in
October last year. Some people like to add fuel to fire. --Terence Ong (????) 11:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
They were originally published in Demark on 30 September 2005. This blog is claiming Egyptian publication on 17
October 2005. Paper:Al Fager. However it's just another POV blog.. Secretlondon 14:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
An update: scans of the relevant pages of the paper are now posted on that blog [8]. Different scans of the paper have been
posted in a separate blog. Admittedly both blogs have a strong POV, but this seems like enough confirmation for us to
comment on it. -- Avenue 22:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can tell we can cite it just because it's a fact. Ignore their analysis and use their scans as a primary source.
We can't analyze what this means yet... but we can say that they were published in Egypt a long time ago. gren ??? ?
05:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The story have just been published/confirmed in a famous Danish paper citing the Danish ambassador in Egypt, Bjarne
Sørensen. "Jyllands-posten:Muhammed-tegninger trykt i Egypten" Claush66 16:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The cartoons were published in the egyptian newspaper Al Fagr in October. The blog egyptiansandmonkey.blogspot.com
107
showed this and suddenly changed the course of the events on Feb 8. If an egyptian newspaper published the pictures during
ramadan and there were no protests... That's an indication that the later demonstations were not spontaneous but rather put in
place by political and religious leaders. The blog egyptiansandmonkey.blogspot.com should be mentioned and be given
appropriate credit.
Who demonstrated in Hillerød?
In "Burning the Qur'an" it was earlier stated (by me) that 40 extreme right wings and neo nazists did demonstrate in Hillerød.
Kyaa the Catlord have changed this to "40 people did demonstrate..." noting that the right wings were mentioned above. But
in the above paragraph, it was only mentioned that the RWs spread an SMS. If their relation is not repeated below, the
connection is lost.
Actually several hundred people demonstrated in Hillerød that day, all but the 40 RWs in a counter demonstration against
those. Hundreds of police officers kept them apart and took more than a hundred to the police station. I think it is plain wrong
to state that only 40 people demonstrated in Hillerød. But the relevant information here is that (only) 40 RIGHT WINGS
demonstrated in Hillerød. I suggest this detail is added back into the article. Claush66 10:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I removed your change. If you want to add that forty right wingers protested do it, just make sure you do so in a
way that makes it apparent that these are seperate from the previous ones. It seemed like all the right wingers in that
section were the very same right wingers. Your language was also very suspect you stated something like 40
"extremely right wing...." Tone that down please. Kyaa the Catlord 11:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I will insert "right wing". Anyway I think I originally wrote "extreme right wing", not "extremely". They
("Dansk Front") together with the nazis really do mark the outer edge of the political spectre in Denmark, (where
btw nazisim is not illegal due to our now famous liberal free speech policy). Claush66 11:26, 8 February 2006
(UTC)
If they're wikified, why don't you put forty Dansk Front members? Or better yet, wikilink them, then create
their article since they're not. :P Kyaa the Catlord 11:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
They are not wikified (I checked when writing about the demonstration). It is a rather small
organisation, and I dont know much about them other than highly racist and provocative right wing
propaganda from them and that they often appear with hailing Danish Nazis and someone calling
themselves White Pride. I am not able to create a balanced wiki entry about them based on that, and I
108
am not really that interested in them... But it would sure be nice if someone else could do the job.
Claush66 12:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Footnote numbering
I would love to contribute something inflammatory to this discussion page, but this is all I can come up with: If I move my
mouse over the numbers that link to the footnotes, the URL that appears does not correspond correctly, e.g.: footnote 69 links
to Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#_note-65. Not very important, I know, but how to fix it? David Sneek
11:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this is a bug. The links point to the right place. Footnotes are numbered in order, starting with one. Links
are numbered starting from zero, skipping over named links, as in: <ref name="some_name"/> --PeR 11:55, 8 February
2006 (UTC)
Yes, I see it now. David Sneek 19:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
See also
Can editors limit the see also section to the really relevant links? Holocaust denial seems out of place. Otherwise I would
suggest inserting racism, right-wing politics, anti-semetism, Islam, Holy figures in Islam, Holy figures in Christianity, the
Bible, The Koran, The Thora, et cetera. You get the picture, it makes the list too long. -Nomen Nescio 11:38, 8 February
2006 (UTC)
Yeah, its really too long. I think we really need to shorten the list. -Terence Ong(????) 11:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
If you read the article you'll note it makes mention of so-called "Zionist Conspiracies"--Greasysteve13 11:44, 8
February 2006 (UTC)
Please discuss adding these irrelevant links. Holocaust denial surely is not relevant. We are not comparing
history with religion.-Nomen Nescio 12:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
109
You cannot honestly claim that IMMIGRATION is not relevant, can you ????? This is So sill, I dint
know where to start!!!" Azate 12:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Can you explain what immigration has to do with this subject? --
Azate I understand you feel strongly about it but at least give some arguments. There could be links to similar incident (you
remove them), but I do not understand why your links are related to this story. Please discuss. Just inserting your POV is not
civil.-Nomen Nescio 13:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
See also isn't a dumping ground for wikilinks - if it's linked elsewhere in the article we don't have it at the end as well.
Secretlondon 13:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
(discussion inserted from editors talk page)
This is not related to the article so please remove it. I will observe the 3RR rule, but you could at least engage in the
discussion I started. Furthermore, if you insist on this, than I insist upon inserting sociology, anthropology, racism,
ant-semitism. This clearly is not relevant.-The idea that IMMIGRATION has nothing to to with this article is is so absurd, I don't know where to start. Notice all
these weird-looking brown people in Denmark, who are rumoured to pray to allah? I tell you a secret: they're
immigrants! And btw: The Wiki links section is the last place in this huge article that needs to be trimmed. Azate 13:02,
Oh, you (plural) also removed CONTROVERSIAL NEWSPAPER CARRICATURES together with IMMIGRATION (
and 2 or 3 more) . Whazzup with that?? Azate 13:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The link is still in the article, so you are incorrect. As to immigration, please explain why you think it should be
mentioned! You can do it here.-Nomen Nescio 13:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it's in the article because it put it back twice after you removed it (twice). If you can't figure yourself
why immigration is related to this topic, I can't help you. Go ask sombody else. Azate 13:18, 8 February
2006 (UTC)
Oh, now you also removed the Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy link.
110
Shall I exolain to you why this is related relevant to this article? Azate 13:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
You are incorrect: [9]and that's why you inserted it twice, which I had to correct.[10] The timeline is superfluous.
Let's try and stay calm. I am only asking you to discuss. That is all.--
I object to your calling 'correcting' what is nothing more that deleting relevant links, for unfathomable reasons. WHY
did you delete CONTROVERSIAL NEWSPAPER CARRICATURES, for example? Oh, and IMMIGRATION, again?
Azate 14:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Please, first look at the before repeating that accusation. It clearly shows it is present after my edit, and there was a second
entry of it which I removed along with other duplicate edits.-Nomen Nescio 14:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
A 3 day poll gives Wikipedia no right to promote racism
I draw your attention to this 4 part article (below) that goes into great detail about why these cartoons are highly offensive and
promote racism.
By publishing these cartoons, Wikipedia is promoting racism. People who polled in your polls are obviously not sensitive to
the feelings of Muslims worldwide. I believe its a highly biased poll.
The controversy has been going on since Sept 30 and all you did was a 3-day poll? That's not very fair. I didn't get to vote in
that poll and hundreds of thousands of other people also didn't know that there was a poll going on.
Governments of many countries, including the US have come out and officially said that these cartoons are offensive.
A highcourt in Johannesberg, South Africa ruled to stop Sunday Times from publishing these cartoons.
Please take these images down ASAP or I feel Muslims will have no choice but to take the matter to the court of law.
Wikipedia is benefitting from promoting racism and hate against Muslims and Islam, something that is not very Wikipedian.
And to those Jews and Christians who say go publish cartoons about their religion, obviously don't respect their religion as
much.
111
The issue is racism: http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8267 Freedom to Spread Hate?
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8243 Cartoon caricatures were designed to offend
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8274
Please remove the images immediately.
Frank --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frankmash (talk • contribs) . Scaife 11:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I think that society as a whole needs to rereview their ideas about racism if they feel that a few satirical images of
Mohammed is spreading race hatred. Hey, colour me insensitive, but something seems wrong with this picture. - Ta bu
shi da yu 14:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Glad to see the socialist worker going to bat for the sanctity of religious belief. Christian fundamentalists are also
looking forward to your solidarity on a range of issues. Regardless, all the issues you raise have already been addressed
ad nauseum on these talk pages. Go read them. We are not "promoting racism", we are providing a key image relevant
to a major event. Babajobu 12:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Now away with all your superstitions ... No saviour from on high delivers. Its been a couple of years since I was
at a Socialist Worker conference... do they still sing the internationale at the end? - FrancisTyers 14:42, 8
February 2006 (UTC)
'We are not "promoting racism", we are providing a key image relevant to a major event'.
Which means you are promoting racism. The image itself promotes racism, don't you get it? It tells the world that Islam is the
source of terrorism and to get rid of terrorism, they should get rid of Islam.
Frank
Last I checked, Islam was not a race. Kulturkampf is not the same as racism. In any case, Wikipedia is not endorsing
the content of the image by displaying it. There is instead a general rule that, as an encyclopedia, we show relevant
content for articles, regardless of how offended people might be. If that means a jesus made of feces on a toilet crucifix
or trotsky on fire dancing to a fiddle, if it's relevant to an article, it should be included. --Improv 12:15, 8 February 2006
(UTC)
112
I love those socialist worker party links. Maybe I can find something from New Republic or Fox News to counter them.
:D Kyaa the Catlord 12:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Frank, Wikipedia includes a great many offensive images, some of which you might regard as promoting negative
images of particular groups. For example, see images such as this one, one of several in Wikipedia that document Nazi
propaganda against Jews; or see Piss Christ, which includes an image woefully offensive to Christians. As Improv says,
the inclusion of images relevant to various stories does not equate to endorsement of those images. Likewise, including
an image of burnt-out Danish embassies is not an endorsement of the burning down of those embassies. This is a pretty
simple concept to grasp, and Wikipedia assumes the vast majority of its readers are capable of making it. Babajobu
12:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
what Babajobu said. Now let's hope people capable of complaining here are also capable of reading so we won't
have to reiterate this simple argument every five minutes. dab (?) 14:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
As far the threat of Muslims taking this to the court of law... Wikipedia is subject to Federal laws of the United States,
and the laws of the State of Florida. If you believe the publication of this image violates a specific Florida or US law,
I'm sure many of us would be interested to know which law that is. BinaryTed 14:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Please do not make legal threats again Frank. It is against Wikipedia policy and will not be tolerated, especially
Ready
Aim
since you cannot provide to me state or federal statute that it violates. See WP:NLT SWATJester
Fire! 19:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
In short: no way, Frank, no matter how many times you keep whining about this. Yes, this image may be offensive to some.
So be it. We're here to inform, we're not here not to offend. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 22:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Is every third comment on this talk page going to be a post by Frank demanding the removal of these images? Give it
up Frank, the cartoons stay. Slimdavey 00:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Can't we just create a daughter talk page for requests for removal...? It would save a lot of space on this page.
Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 11:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Can someone put a signature on "Frank"'s posts? He should be signing them with --~~~~. That's two dashes, four
tildes. --Tokachu 17:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion its totally stupid to have a poll about minority rights. Do you think that a poll in nazi germany would have
113
saved the jews???? Raphael 22:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Cleanup
Once again the article's getting outrageously long, and once again I'm the one who has to do the dirty work. I'm moving the
"Opinions" section to a new article, Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. People would have to
move the appropriate references and talks to the subarticle. AucamanTalk 12:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I strongly oppose. This should remain in the article. If you have to edit something out remove the rumours. That clearly
is not that important as discussion on the subject at hand. Could you reinsert the opinions and make a new rumours
article?-Nomen Nescio 12:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The idea is to retain the information and still have the head article be shorter. The article was extremely long. It's
highly undesirable - both for readers and for editors. I've moved everything to the new article. You're free to
move the important things back into the head article, but I recommend summarizing the whole thing into 3-8
paragraphs. I know this is a lot of work, but article size is very important. The "Rumors" section is already very
short. The information is not enough for a new article. AucamanTalk 12:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I understand and support why you did it. However, there are less important parts to the page as I said.
Clearly rumours do not need to be in the main page when commentary is removed? Personally, I think
commentary should always be at the same page. People should not have to look for it. Otherwise, they can
just as well search themselves on the Net.-Nomen Nescio 12:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
We absolutely need a summary at least. No section should be moved without providing a summary
of its contents in this, the main article on the topic. Babajobu 12:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Well I also made a subsection on "International reactions" last week. That was arguably more
important than the "Opinions" section (In fact, back then I was asked why I'm not moving the
Opinions section). Just don't panic. This is a routine procedure. If the section contains important
information, people would rise up and summarize the information back into the article.
AucamanTalk 13:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
114
Good luck with writing that summary for "opinions"... Azate 13:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not the one who suggested it be moved in the first place. We'd be better off moving
rumors out, and leaving opinions in, as Nomen suggests. Babajobu 13:14, 8 February
2006 (UTC)
We reinsert the opinions and exchange it for rumours!!!--
What you're doing is counterintuitive. I said the reason I moved these information was because the article's getting too
long. I doubt taking out rumors would help in any way. AucamanTalk 13:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, not terribly much since I moved some of them around to places they fit better. I'm considering the
remainders and thinking about moving them somewhere where they make more sense. What does the
membership claims of Islamisk Whatever have to do with this article anyways? Or right wingers acting out?
They may seem, distantly, related, but I'm not sure this is the best place for them. Kyaa the Catlord 13:28, 8
February 2006 (UTC)
Nomen is saying remove the "rumors and disinformation" section to a separate article before doing so with
the "opinions" section, because the latter section is more fundamental to the article. I agree with him
totally. Babajobu 13:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Makes sense to me, since these rumors are mainly related to other subjects not to the controversy
itself. Kyaa the Catlord 13:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
You can do whatever you want as long as the article doesn't end up too long - the way it was. I don't
really care about the content of this article - just the readability. When summarizing a section, the
content are usually moved to a new article and then summarized back into the article. I can't think of
any other way. AucamanTalk 13:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, there are a lot of Wikipedians working on this article alone. I'm trying to spread the work into several articles. The
discussion section for this article has had to be archived almost on a daily basis. Again, highly inefficient. You're free to move
the Rumors section, but taking back the Opinions would be a mistake. The section used to be short, but people read stuff
online and start copy-pasting at random. If this continues I doubt we would ever be able to summarize it. By giving it it's own
article, the management becomes easier (look at the "international reactions" article for example). AucamanTalk 13:34, 8
115
February 2006 (UTC)
Opinions as to how to interpret the riots are highly pertinent to the main article. Once again, I say exchange for
rumours. Also the reprinting does not have to be this long, it already has a seperate page.
Does this mean we agree opinions should be reinserted and rumours taken out?-2006 (UTC)
Nomen Nescio 13:49, 8 February
No, the size of the article has to be taken into consideration. New articles will eventually have to be created the
way this article is growing. As I said, a few days ago the Opinions section was much shorter. It's better to address
these problems now than later. AucamanTalk 13:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Why did you not move rumours, and why is the elaborate discussion in timeline not shorter? There you can
win space and I repeat: commentary should stay in the main article. It is important for readers to see not
only the Mulim interpretation, but it should directly be placed in context. If not there would be a Muslim
POV to this page.-Do you read any of my responses? Like I said, you can do whatever you want as long as you don't
make the article any bigger than it should be - 50KB for now. "Commentary should stay in the main
article." Is this a Wikipedia policy? In the mean while, let me refer you to some Wikipedia articles to
read: Wikipedia:Article_size and Wikipedia:How_to_break_up_a_page. Also, if you're saying that
the Opinions section should never be put in a new artilce, that's just no possible considering how fast
the article is growing. But if you do agree that it eventually has to be broken up, then it's better to do
it now than later. AucamanTalk 14:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The point is, all the space you want can be found by moving rumours, shortening timeline and reprinting. However, this
apparently is beyond debate. As to commentary, see Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles and WP:NPOV.-Nomen Nescio 14:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I like I said, if you think you can do better, go for it. But the "Opinions" section would eventually have to be put in a
seperate article. AucamanTalk 14:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Could it be considered anti-Islamic to call all Muslims part of the same race? What would be the term for this? I'm not really
116
sure... Valtam 15:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The Opinions section is horribly unencyclopedic in tone, and should be completely rewritten. For instance, an encyclopedia
should never use the word "you" (outside of an actual quote, of course). I'm not quite feeling up to rewriting it myself right
now; is anyone interested in doing this? If not, I'll do it tomorrow. --Ashenai 16:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I think that it is wrong to move out "rumours" and "opinions". They should be cleaned up and kept in the article. The main
criteria for keeping things in the article should be wheter they are directly related to the event. The rumors probably had an
important effect on the outcome of the events.
"Danish Journalistic traditions", however is an article that would stand well on its own. None of it had any direct consecuence
on the course of events here. Making it a separate article and linking to it from both this one and Politics of Denmark would
improve the quality of both articles.
Opinions cleanup: Basically, opinions should only be included if expressed by world leaders or people directly relevant to the
conflict. What "some muslims" or "many people in denmark" may or may not feel is completely unencyclopaedic unless an
opinion poll is quoted. Anything not related to the cartoons controversy is not for this article.
Also: Statements that the queen of Denmark made in April would only be relevant if those statements can be shown to have
directly influenced the course of events in September when the cartoons were published. (Such statements may be relevant to
an article on the queen herself or on "Islam in denmark" or similar. Personally, however, I think the queens statement only
sounds racist after translation into English, not in Danish as she said it.) --PeR 19:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Sydney riots
Furthermore, the cartoons were published in a conservative mainstream newspaper in the context of what many Muslims
perceive to be a pervasive bias against them in many western countries, exemplified by the French law on religious symbols
in schools, the short film Submission, and the 2005 Sydney race riots.
This lacks a citation. Also, the listing of the 2005 Sydney race riots may be giving undue prominence to it. There are
countless conflicts between Muslims and Christians that were more violent than the Sydney riots, and religion was largely a
marker between "us" and "them" in this case. Then again, I'm from Sydney, so maybe I'm biased. Andjam 12:59, 8 February
117
2006 (UTC)
I think all of these citations are giving undue weight to them. Kyaa the Catlord 13:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Andjam. Sydney Riots link should not be there. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I also agree that the Sydney riots should not be included Stephen 05:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism
Well done, Wikipedia. It must be a near full time job undoing all the vandalism. 82.26.173.144 13:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be cluster-vandalism going on. Almost every wiki-article that I have surfed to that is connected to this
article makes my eyes hurt as they their content blurs and changes with each refresh.DanielDemaret 14:56, 8 February
2006 (UTC)
I second this. Well done to everyone who has been keeping a level head with this article, when so many others
have not.--144.136.180.2 23:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Semi-protection, please?
This is getting tedious. Could someone please semi-protect this page for now? --Ashenai 15:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I tossed his ip on the vandal list. Of course, he stops now.... Kyaa the Catlord 15:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I blocked him for 24 hours - hence the stop. Secretlondon 15:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Yay! Thanks. Kyaa the Catlord 15:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I will then shut down every server and much more: e.g. the whole (AS)Autonomous System if wikipedia would come under a
serious attack. Take it easy ... .
Oh no! Not the autonomous system!!! *chuckles* --Ashenai 15:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
What is the (AS)Autonomous System anyway? I've never heard of it! Valtam 16:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_system_(Internet) Dmaftei 16:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Dmaftei! Valtam 19:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
118
Hmmm... our happy little vandal dude is now using sock puppets. I'm thinking we need a temporary IP-ban, or semi-protect.
Anyone willing and able to do the honors? --Ashenai 19:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Support photos gone?
What happened to the protest and boycot photos that were in the article? The overall article looks rather stale now with just
the cartoon image. --StuffOfInterest 16:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Some editors feel the article is too long and started subpages.--
Makes sense. OK, I brought one image forward to the main page for illustation. Picked the boycot photo rather
than rioting and protesting ones. --StuffOfInterest 17:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
One fire would be relevant to show. The one we had before was just fine. MX44 17:58, 8 February 2006
(UTC)
Comment
I do not understand what the big deal is about these cartoons. Muslims should be more tolerant about things just like
christians and jews are. This is the 21st century, you cannot force the entire world to see things the way you do, or the ways
you may deem as fit. It is very childish, grow up and civilize. Im sorry but its true. Starting riots and burning an embassy
doesnt exactly help show a positive image for islam, especially when the entire western world is getting really sick of islam to
begin with.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.68.168.169 (talk • contribs) .
This needs to be moved to Arguments.--Jbull 19:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Just like christians and jews are? I don't think you live on the same planet I do. Madangry 20:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Nothing like prejudice comments to show how tolerant about things you are... Slimdavey 00:30, 9 February 2006
(UTC)
These kind of images of God, Jesus, Buddha etc. occur all the time and yes you do see protests as is their right to do so
(peacefully that is). However, rarely does their protest decent into riot and violence and if it does you can rely on the
119
Pope or the Archbishop of Cantebury and almost any other Christian, Jewish or Buddist leader etc. to swiftly and
unambiguously condemn the violence. You will also never see Christian, Jewish etc. protestors calling for the swift and
brutal slaughter of blasphemors, baring placards calling for retribution on the west... or any other direction or country.
--TedEBare 05:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Rhetorical questions, what do they add?
The following added text by Azate from the Opinions section doesn't seem to add anything... seems more like personal
questions than questions being posed by parties significantly involved in this controversy...the sources for these questions
should be cited.
What has caused the offence felt by many Muslims? Any pictoral representation of the Prophet, or satirical depiction,
or sartirical association with terror, or genuine association with terror? Is it really about the Prophent, or Islam in
general? Is there 'one Islam' so that every Muslim is offended by association, or is the offence in saying there is 'one
Islam'? Is the tolerable amount of offence to be measured by the offence given or by the offence taken? How does one
measure such a thing? Does protecting one group more than another mean you respect it more or less?
Is free speech only worth having when one can go to extremes, or is it exactly then not worth having? Is the tolerable
amount of offence the same in speech and writing? Is it good manners to tone down your writing to the level of your
speaking, or is the price for your good speaking manners that in writing anything goes? Is religious belief something
inseperable from the self like race or gender, or is it an opinion you happen to hold? Is there something wrong with
religious people, or are people not religious enough? When being offended, do you return like for like? What if the
other one thinks you're escalating when you think he is? When you appease for peace or gain, are you smart or do you
erode your principles? Or do you forego your advantage for priciple, and it will be worth it in the end (or is that just
counterproductive)? Do you ever change your opinion?
Opinion leaders have applied these, and more pedestrian matters like politics, history, law, family, nation and
economics, to create an almost indefinite range of what's right and what it all means.
Netscott 17:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
How about the important question: "Why Wayne Rooney?" Its been bugging me for the past couple of days. Damn vandals.
Kyaa the Catlord 20:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
120
limits of free speech
A number of ppl have challenged me in this discussion & on my talk-page to find any real "taboo" that exists in western
countries / or show an example where freedom of speech is limited in the west - I would agree with you that Europe is very
liberal and that such an example is difficult to find. However one can construct a scenario quite easily (note that this is
different from giving an example though) where a picture would be so offensive that it would be "taboo" to put it on
wikipedia or publish it in a newspaper - quite equivalent to what Muslims feel about the Muhammad (pbuh) cartoons.
Consider for example a pornographic picture (e.g. involving ... animals? an extreme close-up? violence? blood?) that would
be so offensive to most ppl that you wouldn't dare put it on wikipedia. If you can imagine such a picture then you'll realise
how some Muslims feel when they see the controversial cartoons on this page. Less drastic might be a movie of vivisection or
extreme animal cruelty - such a movie could also be so offensive that it couldn't be put on wikipedia. Similarly a picture of a
human with gross disability or horrific disfigurement. Finally consider this scenario: a computer-generated, photo-realistic
picture or movie (i.e. no real humans involved, thus no suffering, etc.) of child abuse. Equally one can easily imagine that this
could be so extremely offensive to the general public that it would never be put on wikipedia, not matter what the surrounding
circumstance or controversy.
Imagine seeing one of those "taboo" pictures / images described above to help understand how some Muslims feel about the
Muhammad (pbuh) cartoons and why we try to delete them. Someone who doesn't believe that animals are sentient might not
have a problem with movies of animal cruelty (in fact many indeginous ppl are extremely cruel to animals). A gynaecologist
might have no problem with extreme close-ups of sexual organs. All depends on the the context Rajab 18:22, 8 February 2006
(UTC)
Images of children having sex is treated in the modern western countries the way blasphemy is treated in Islamic countries.
Even wikipedia shows this bias. Child sexual abuse covers behavior that is not considered "abuse" in other cultures [11]. We
don't have a photo of a child being sexually abused in that article. Not even a drawing of such an event, even though such a
drawing is legal under US law. WAS 4.250 19:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Incredible to see you insert such sections in the article, Rajab. You really know better than that. --Sir48 19:21, 8
February 2006 (UTC)
Artistic depictions of child pornography are arguably now illegal under U.S. Law, Rajab, according the The
PROTECT Act of 2003 (though many believe the U.S. Supreme Court will strike down this aspect of the
121
legislation) There was a successful conviction under this law in December 2005. That's why our Lolicon article
shows a drawing of a little girl with a dildo, but no drawings of actual pedophilic acts taking place. Babajobu
19:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I take back everything, just remove those japanese pictures! I have to say they are much much much worse
than the controversial cartoons in this current discussion!!! Rajab 21:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I take back everything - those japanese drawings that baba pointed out are in fact even worse than the drawings we're
currently discussion. Please consider removing those drawings & the drawings in this articleRajab 21:35, 8 February 2006
(UTC)
Here's the difference, as I see it (from, of course, my admittedly biased, Western, non-Muslim perspective),
Rajab. A picture of animal abuse, child abuse, or an extreme and incredibly offensive pornographic picture
exists because a person or an animal was hurt in the real world. Even most people who don't believe
animals are sentient admit the animals can feel pain and see animal abuse as cruel. Also, I can't think of an
example where depictions of child or animal abuse would be as fundamental to an article as the cartoons
are to this one—I suppose if there were a controversy over some very borderline photographs or drawings,
it might apply, but I can't think of any current articles like that. If this were an article about the Islamic law
that there be no drawings of Muhammad, I would probably agree that drawings don't need to be shown
there to illustrate, but this is an article about the controversy surrounding certain drawings and I don't think
it would be complete without those drawings. I happen to agree that the Jyllands-Posten acted in bad taste
in publishing these cartoons in the first place, but this is simply an article about the controversy and it
would be hard to claim we can fully educate people about it without showing them the cartoons. Polotet
20:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
baba has convinced me - I give up. There is no taboo on this website. Rajab 21:39, 8 February 2006
(UTC)
Do we have a breakthrough?! That's what free speech means! No subject is taboo for
discussion and information. Weregerbil 21:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
you probably guessed that I think that's a bad thing by the way...Rajab 21:39, 8 February 2006
122
(UTC)
Glad to see you get what we finally mean Rajab :) Though some people have said the
syphilis article has some pretty horrific pictures. Personally they don't bug me, I've seen
worse. But then again, my profession requires so much... Anyways, I hope that you can
finally help us convince other muslims who are intent on vandilising this page that
wikipedia doesn't single out a group of people to offend, it's fine with offending
everyone equally! Hitokirishinji 22:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Then what about the conspicuous absence of images of the subject matter of Goatse.cx? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:14,
This question already answered several times. Babajobu 03:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Results of Riots
This article needs at least a rough estimate of the people killed, buildings burt, and other property destroyed. This is essential
information in understanding the scope of the controversy. We don't need to go into political commentary (x deaths in
protests from cartoons that stated Islam promotes violence.) - just a basic statment of facts. -Mr.Logic 18:23, 8 February 2006
(UTC)
Can someone add this link?
" Reflections on the Mohammed Cartoons" tygerland, February 3, 2006.
No problem... if you can convince us that it's a notable blog. It's pretty well-written, but we should be wary of
limking to non-notable personal websites. --Ashenai 20:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Rumors and Disinformation
Where did this section go? (Cloud02 20:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC))
Part of the events as they unroll
123
one part went into 'danish clerics tour middle east', the rest mostly into the timeline. Azate 02:27, 9 February
2006 (UTC)
No, the rest isn't in the timeline (Cloud02 11:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC))
A great deal of the protetsts are exclusively due to rumours and disinfomation, and thus I think it is
essential to keep that part. I see no reason as to why we can't keep it? 80.62.172.74 07:52, 9 February
2006 (UTC)
Nothing has been thrown away. It's all in the time line, even the small stuff: Look for "Hot dog" for example.
except the 3 pictures stuff, which is still on the frontpage (clerics travel to...) Azate 12:21, 9 February 2006
(UTC)
Whether they're on the timeline or not, they're still very relevant for the controversy. As they show what
kinds of rumours and misinformation has been brought on both sides! (Cloud02 12:37, 9 February 2006
(UTC))
Yes exactly. That's why they are still there. In the Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad
cartoons controversy! Azate 13:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
What is the matter with putting them in a section of their own? 80.62.172.74 15:02, 9 February
2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you dont seem to get that i want them to be in the main article, as they're a part of the
main event, and wat has triggered the stuff happening (Cloud02 15:28, 9 February 2006
(UTC))
tygerland
Understood. Well it's linked on a couple of other articles (Henry Jackson Society & Multiculturalism); but I guess any blog is
only notable because of its content – so you can decide.
Well, Google isn't terribly fond of tygerland, and Alexa isn't helpful here. In my opinion, it's non-notable.
Please don't take this as a personal affront; I quite enjoyed that blog. As I said, it's well-written, and well thought out.
But we're here to document noteworthiness, not create it. :) --Ashenai 14:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Hacker attacks
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4692518.stm
124
Is Wikipedia prepared? I've no doubt some attempts will be made to sabotage the article, over and above common vandalism.
--Tatty 21:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
To This Frank Guy
Why dyou feel the need to remove the cartoons? The article is just explaining what is happening, its not saying, "Oh, Muslims
suck, who cares what they believe in, oh, and here are some cartoons!" It is just providing the facts (neutrally) for the people
to know. Oh, and if there already isn't, I think I am going to make the Japanese article for this, does anyone object? Bert (^_^)
Yeah, I guess Japan, with their long tradition of image-based culture and rather liberal censorship would be as confused
as the Western world by the controversy. ?? ???? 22:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
So sorry, I see that there is a Japanese article for it....I may add to it then. And (just wondering) would the Arabic (if there is
one) Wikipedia have this article, but be more leaniant to how its so "Horrible"? And here is what Muslims were chanting (as
well as having signs with this written) in London (Quote from Chicago Tribune): "Massacre those who insult Islam"
"Freedom of expression go to Hell" and "Europe, you will pay, Fantastic 4 are on their way" The Fantastic 4 refers to the 4
London suicide bombers (who were Muslim) that killed 52 people in July. I think that that is WRONG, and I highly doubt
that Muhammad would like his followers to claim innocent lives. Bert (^_^)
Yes, the Arabic Wikipedia has this article, they include one cartoon, the cartoon of the schoolboy, i.e. the one that does
not include the big Muhammad. Babajobu 02:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
PsyOps
Would it be relevant to make a reference to this concept in the "see also" section? 86.52.36.140 21:55, 8 February 2006
(UTC)
People should be aware that there are evil people from danish tabloids here seeking angles to new stories.
Jyllands-Posten cartoonists
Allegedly Denmark has about 40 cartoonists affiliated to the union of editorial cartoonists. After Kåre Bluitgen failed to find
125
willing illustrators for his book, Jyllands-Posten sent out 40 invitations, but only got 12 responses, with 4 belonging to J-P's
own staff. I think it would be interesting to know which cartoons were drawn by the J-P cartoonists, since these 4 cartoons
probably are among the most anti-islamic of them. Needs some fact-checking, though. ?? ???? 22:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I think you'll notice the cartoons are signed.--Greasysteve13 02:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Why do almost all the other major Wikipedias refuse to publish the cartoons?
Why do almost all the other major Wikipedias refuse to publish the cartoons? --Lotsofissues 22:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
They're all un-American and so they don't have our same ideals of freedom of speech. -(UTC)
22:43, 8 February 2006
They have made an autonomous decision not to publish them, probably because in their view the cartoons are too
blasphemic to publish (AFAIK, most of the wikipedia who haven't published the cartoons are in the muslim world).
On the Danish Wikipedia we don't allow fair use images, so we didn't even have to discuss it. There are other
Wikipedias that doesn't allow fair use images. --Maitch 22:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes. I was under the impression only en allows fair use. BrokenSegue 22:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I have read about 20 others to check that statement. Some have the pictures, some link to them. Some seem lazy, some seem
to have stricter rules of copyright/fair use. And some of the articles have them, then they don't, then they are back, and so
forth. We are not the only site language version with Edit Wars. I don't agree with "almost all refuse". DanielDemaret 22:52,
Maitch is right. I have never heard of a principle like "free use" outside of the United States. Most notably, it is not
allowed by EU law. --Valentinian 23:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Just an idea, but if you want to publish the cartoons on the Danish version, why not call up the paper and ask them if you can
publish the cartoons on Wikipedia? I'm sure they would grant you the rights, seing as other papers around the world have
reprinted them. Accountable Government 00:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
126
More than 50% of the other Wikipedias include the images, I think. Babajobu 02:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
UA, note that we cannot use specific-permission licenses on Wikipedia -- the images must be reusable by our
mirrors, including possibly commercial ones. --Improv 02:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Few other wikipedias are as comprehensive as English wikipedia, especially when it comes to images. For example, look at
the article on World War II: tons of images. Look at its counterparts in other languages, some of them featured: very few
images. Savidan 02:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
We have lots of Wikipedias, so all the images can't be uploaded hundreds of times to all the Wikipedias, as this is under
fair use. This would take lots of work. --Terence Ong (????) 08:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
EGYPT PAPER ALREADY PUBLISHED CARTOONS IN OCTOBER
Hephaestion 03:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)This story gets more strange as now it has emerged and Egyptian paper, Al-Fager,
printed the cartoons on October 17th during Ramadan with no adverse outbreak of violence.
http://freedomforegyptians.blogspot.com/2006/02/egyptian-newspaper-pictures-that.html
If this blog is not a fake, then this is astounding. This would suddenly make the the danish Imam who made a tour
showing the fake pictures the MAIN reason for the strong reaction. http://www.neandernews.com/?p=54
.DanielDemaret 23:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
As claimed by Akkiri ,they were not faked but sent to him by an anonymous source. (The picture shown
on Wikipedia is without the message, why?) You would have to show that any Egyptians he showed it to
thought them to be from the newspaper Jyllands-Posten. As I recall it was originally the BBC which made
the confusion. 86.52.36.140 13:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Wow, see if we can get that verified. — TheKMantalk 23:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
And it would also mean that the reason they are reacting so strongly is that this time around, months later, when
public has not been shown the pictures in jyllandsposten, they suddenly react violently - indicating that the only
way to stop the violence is to let them see the pictures for themselves. DanielDemaret 23:17, 8 February 2006
(UTC)
127
In any case, a lot of people are wondering who actually added the three most offensive images to the
collection (the "pig man", the "pedophile Muhammad" and the "dog rapes Muslim" pictures, pages 34-36
in the dossier.) These images were not published in neither Jyllands-Posten, nor Weekend Avisen. Ekstra
Bladet reached this conclusion on 12 January [12] (quote) "But when a group of Danish imams recently
toured the Middle East to win support for their critique of the Muhammad illustrations and Prime Minister
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the cartoons were apparently not provocative enough to serve this purpose."
(unquote) --Valentinian 23:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, as probably has been noted before, the dog and the pig are impure animals in Islam, as well. ??
???? 00:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't buy it. (Btw. although it's pronounced (in egyption arabic) al-fagr, it's spelled al-fajr). As far as I can tell, the rumour
originated here: http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/ I think this a blog with an agenda. The photos of the paper with the
cartoons in them (http://freedomforegyptians.blogspot.com/2006/02/egyptian-newspaper-pictures-that.html) look fishy. They
may well be photoshopped. I take this down from our page (where is is WITHOUT SOURCE). If the story solidifies, there is
ample opportunity to put it back up. Azate 03:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Hephaestion 03:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Thanks Azate, Your action seems reasonable and if indeed that site is the source,
it would be questionable, but I would like to see it left as a discussion item here, until there is firm evidence one way or the
other as it could have a significant bearing if it were true. I was the one who started this thread but forgot to sign.
Wow! I retract. This is for real. Compare these two scans of the same page from two different sources [13] [14]. Look ot the
black frame around the pic with the two women. In one, the green overflows the black frame, in the other they match nicely.
This occasional overflowing is a typical artefact of a lousy printing press. I think this is enough to convince me to but it up
again. Azate 03:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Man what a total Farce this whole freaking 'controversy' has been... I'm really starting to think
that it was those 3 'additional images' that really got all of this crap rolling. As other websites
are starting to wonder I too say, "when does the boycott of Egypt start?" So sad that so many
people have been manipulated and that people have died because of this seemingly
manufactured 'controversy'.
128
Could anyone who knows arabic ask nicely and politely about whether they can find anything that either
substantiates or refutes this link? Just go to arabic link to the left of our english article in the box "other
language" and ask politely?. DanielDemaret 07:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Done. After much bungling. --Kizor 10:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
If this blog and the french pig contest picture are correct, then people have died and houses burned because one
Imam travelled around the arab world with misinformation. If true, then that Imam could be facing charges for
causing these peoples death, could'nt he? DanielDemaret 08:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
There is information here: http://freedomforegyptians.blogspot.com/2006/02/cartoons-were-published-five-months.html
Specifically: Name: Al Fager ! Editor-in-Chief: Adel Hamouda #$ %&$ Edition/issuance no. #: 21 Date: 17 October
2005, Hijri (Islamic Calendar) 14 Ramadan 1425 Reporters: Youssra Zahran and Ahmed Abdel Maksoud ' %(
)* +, -.
$/0 Pages: Front & 17 for details and images The headline in Arabic said : " .
3"4),)&
5 .6- 2
#1
- %
Translation: Continued Boldness. Mocking the Prophet and his wife by Caricature.
Does this help anyone to verify/refute the story? DanielDemaret 09:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
[worldnetdaily.com] now runs this story on their front page as 'breaking news'. They are not exactly my favourite news
source, but they've been around forever and are quite big. I hope somebody there did his homework and called
somebody in Cairo to check out the facts. Azate 10:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I emailed the person who scanned the pages an hour ago, inviting him present more info here. I think he
lives in egypt. DanielDemaret 10:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not comfortable with all this. We're not a news agency. When sombody who can be trusted runs the
story, it can be here. ALL the sites that carry this stuff so far (that I've seen) push an agenda. My gut
feeling is that it's sound, but we should err on the side of caution and not help spreading rumours. Azate
10:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I got a prompt answer from the scanner: "....Here is the website of the newspaper http://elfagr.org/, and the cover of the issue
that I have scanned http://elfagr.org/ed_21.html. I would say average size ciruclation, because this is a new Newspaper. I
don't know accurate figures, because they never mention that in Egypt. Out of fear of getting evil-eyes I guess.
129
What exactly do you want me to write?"
So that is his question to us: How can he prove that such a paper exists and is reliable? DanielDemaret 11:02, 9 February
2006 (UTC)
I am not sure how I could prove to you guys that the largest daily magazine in Sweden exists and is reliable, although I think
it may have 1 million in circulation. What is needed?DanielDemaret 11:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Seems to me that [15] is a reliable source, so I reverted. --Adornix 11:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Hephaestion 11:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Someone keeps removing the Egypt reference on the main page on the section of
Other Newspapers that have reprinted the Story
I'm not shure if it was me who mixed up the article unintentionally :-( Could someone please write in the Elfagr-Reference?
Thanks! --Adornix 11:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
If we have consensus that it should be added, then that link should be added to
1. the timeline
2. the list of papers that has published it and
3. The introduction of the article, since it clearly changes everything
DanielDemaret 11:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
vote++ and asking again if the following quote (which supports the Cairo perspective) from nyt.com could be
useful. "It was no big deal until the Islamic conference when the O.I.C. took a stance against it," said Muhammad
el-Sayed Said, deputy director of the Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo. MX44 12:06, 9
February 2006 (UTC)
I second the proposals from DanielDemaret and MX44. (And I want to thakn user:Rasmus_Faber for
correcting my mistake. --Adornix 12:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
130
You are welcome :) Also, just to placate the very paranoid among us, I checked whois, and
elfagr.org and elfagr.net was created on 2005-05-24, so it seems unlikely to be a hoax site. This will
probably get more press shortly, and we might want to replace/supplement the FreedomForEgyptians
reference with a more mainstream one. Rasmus (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Agree to all above, I added it to both charts on the List of Papers (where I have tried to shepherd things along for
a few days), when the story first broke this morning, and it is still there, so that's fine. The above quote seems
reasonable as well. It all keeps changing so quickly it is hard to know what the final analysis will
bringHephaestion 12:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I support inclusion into 1) timeline 2) list of papers 3) section about papers republishing. I oppose inclusion into
the introduction. What if this story is true, but thae Al-fagr paper has a circulation of, say, 1000 only ? How
significant is it then ? Azate 12:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
On the list of papers talk page I posted a question regarding including circulation information (well known)
for those papers publshing the cartoons. It would help to establish context as to a paper being mainstream
or fringe. It would also help to show frequency of publication such as "500,000/daily" or "1,500/monthly".
--StuffOfInterest 12:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I finally have a circulation number here, and it would a very large paper indeed by swedish standars,
but I am not going to bother publish it since they have censored the web page of that paper now,
thereby elimitating the relevancy of any reference. I feel that they have by this, also eliminated the
relevancy of any reference from that part of the world, but I only say that last part since I am at the
moment miffed about the censorship that I have just witnessed before my eyes. I am not allowed to
publish what my eyes have seen anyway. Lucky for me this particular page is merely a discussion.
I don't believe it. The http://elfagr.org/ed_21.html image has been taken down with no explanation I can see. The pages from
the issue before and the issue after work just fine, but the one with the cartoons printed is missing. That was FAST. Richard
129.244.23.13 13:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Really Fast. I am glad I took a copy of it before it went down. But since we are not allowed "original research", only
references to mainstream sources, and those mainstream sources remove all the evidence they can, then those rules the
wikipedia use will need some serious ... amendments? DanielDemaret 14:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
131
Taking an image out of your browser cache surely doesn't qualify as research, huh? Azate 15:01, 9 February 2006
(UTC)
Hehe. You are right of course. Not in the world outside wikipedia, it doesnt :) But I didnt say research. I used the
phrase "original research", a special wiki-term, which has little to do with any real life research that I have done
or seen any of my collegues do :)DanielDemaret 15:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
It seems someone else copied that page before it was censored. http://derstandard.at/?url=/?id=2336429
The question is: Can anyone vouch for this paper as a resource?DanielDemaret 15:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Ooops. apparently they are discussing the blog, not the original paper.<sulks>DanielDemaret 15:47, 9 February 2006
(UTC)
Thank you, Nescott for adding the image to the article! US fair use is Good. DanielDemaret 16:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Story confirmed by danish ambassador Bjarne Sørensen, Egypt MX44 16:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Are there any references to this story from larger news organisations? Ryanuk 20:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't know how much this matters now that the ambassador has spoken out, but Jyllands-Posten just put up an article
trumpeting the news and giving the Egyptian blogger sandmonkey credit for originally breaking the story. Richard
129.244.128.134 20:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Denmark's TV2 confirms that the Egyptian paper published these cartoons back in October. The station cites
Ambassador Bjarne Sørensen as its source. TV2 is one of the two major tv stations in Denmark. [16] --Valentinian
20:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The item can be read here. It was picked up by the Danish news agency Ritzau:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48746
http://www.aina.org/news/2006029110300.htm
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=3401
http://www.newhumanist.org.uk/more.php?id=1919_0_1_0_C
132
http://www.andnetwork.com/app?service=direct/0/Home/$StorySummary$0.$DirectLink$1&sp=l17176
http://www.israpundit.com/archives/2006/02/extra_e3xtra_re.php
and perhaps at other places. I located them through news.google.com gidonb 20:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism, diferent user
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
(cur) (last) 14:38, February 8, 2006 Islam Yusuf
(cur) (last) 14:35, February 8, 2006 MR SCOTSMAN 1000
(cur) (last) 14:31, February 8, 2006 Zinkao
(cur) (last) 14:28, February 8, 2006 Plough of the rake
(cur) (last) 14:16, February 8, 2006 D A B RADIO DUDE
(cur) (last) 14:13, February 8, 2006 Golbanes
(cur) (last) 18:59, 8 February 2006 Asolor
(cur) (last) 19:08, 8 February 2006 Helluroy
(cur) (last) 13:19, 8 February 2006 Cumbria Borders Runner
All have done the exact same type of (ie redirect to Wayne Rooney) vandalism. It is very likely they all have this IP, anyone
agree with me here? We could consider banning this IP.
My mistake!!! I read the backlog wrong, 141.157.169.200 did not commit any vandalism! A sharp eyed admin caught my
mistake and unblocked the user fairly quickly. Still, someone needs to check user on this list of people, I know these are
right.Hitokirishinji 10:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Putting IPs into google sometimes brings up interesting results. [17] - FrancisTyers 02:43, 9 February 2006
(UTC)
Was this done by CheckUser? I can't recall finding it on the page. Then it again, it has a massive backlog. Elle vécut
à jamais
(Be eudaimonic!) 02:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
heureuse
No, I did it just by checking what sort of changes were made. I hardly found it a coincidence that these all did the
exact same type of vandalism to the page. I'm no admin so I have no special powers :) Hitokirishinji 10:21, 9
February 2006 (UTC)
133
This must be sockpuppetry as it is using the same IP. Anyway, can normal users like myself use the checkuser
function? --Terence Ong (????) 08:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Only Arb Commers have CheckUser. There is a page you can request to have it performed. NSLE (T+C)
08:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Are these the most controversal/infamous cartoons in the history of mankind?
Because if they are it really should be stated in this article.--Greasysteve13 02:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I think when Urrgg painted the image of an Ibex on the wall of his cave it caused outrage throughout the tribe.
Depicting Ibex was forbidden you see, under the religious tenets of the Wuhgggg, the holy doctrine of the Gurggghh
people. The tribe tried to torch Urrgg's cave, but fire hadn't been discovered, and caves don't burn, so in the end it all
fizzled out. For a while though, it was pretty hairy back there. Graham 03:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I always thought that the ox images from Urrgg's tribe had a 'smoky' tint to them. LOL Netscott 03:19, 9 February 2006
(UTC)
We aren't really the ones to make that decision. — TheKMantalk 03:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Who is?--Greasysteve13 03:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
No one. This is personal opinion completely. joturner 03:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
What if I used the word noteworthy?.--Greasysteve13 04:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Saying they are the most noteworthy cartoons in history of mankind is sure to offend some
Marvel fan boys. Also, this is still expressing a POV. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:17, 9 February 2006
(UTC)
What if I used the words widely known?--Greasysteve13 11:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Are they more widely known than, say, Garfield? Maybe. Maybe not. I don't
know, and I suspect you don't, either... --Ashenai 14:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The problem isn't with the adjective—"controversial", "infamous",
"noteworthy", "widely known" or anything else, it's with the adverb "most",
because any adjective of that kind is unquantifiable in any kind of objective
way. Vilcxjo 16:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia artciles use the word "controversal" all the time. I didn't
think "most controversal" was any different.--Greasysteve13 03:20,
134
Hack war
The article should mention the fact that there has been a global hacking war going on to deface websites. [18] Jacoplane
03:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
What do you expect from people like that? Free speech? they wouldn't reckognize it if it hit them in the face, as far as
they're concerned, there's the islamic world and then they're all us infadels running around, making political cartoons of
their leaders, when they deface and attack innocent people, do they ever stop to think that all non-muslims aren't all the
same? that the people they're attacking have done nothing to them?--Hograin's heros 03:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I know what you mean, right now they're trying to use their "TFD" meeting page to have the image completly
censored off of the encylopediaHiggercabin 04:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Not really, it's just that the image is Fair use, and there is a policy that such images cannot be included in
templates. The image will remain in the article itself, just not in the template. Jacoplane 05:02, 9 February
2006 (UTC)
it's mentioned in the timeline (Cloud02 15:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC))
BBC copying wikipedia....?
The 8th BBC posted a page explaining the cartoons: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4693292.stm .
On this page they have the very same poetic translation: "Prophet, you crazy bloke! Keeping women under yoke."
In addition to this, one on Wikipedia described as:
Two angry Muslims charge forward with sabres and bombs, while Muhammad addresses them with: "Rolig, venner, når alt
kommer til alt er det jo bare en tegning lavet af en vantro sønderjyde" (loosely, "Relax guys, it's just a drawing made by some
infidel South Jutlander". South Jutland as reference would, for a Dane, connote the feeling of something like the middle of
nowhere).
In BBC's version: "Relax guys, it's just a drawing made by some infidel South Jutlander (ie from the middle of nowhere)," the
135
figure says.
As a Dane, I think the explanation of Southern Jutland as being in the middle of nowhere is far from obvious. It is definitely
not an standard expression.
This explanation has moved back and forrt a few times. BBC used to quote wike exact, but have shortened it by now
MX44 05:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Here is a bit of insider information: the cartoonist in question is actually from South Jutland. There is to the best of my
knowledge no adage about South Jutlanders signifying being from the middle of nowhere. Voldmer
You're right, he's from Skærbæk. Now it makes sense. I'd never heard that expression before, and no hits when I tried
looking for it. I'm updating this information. --Valentinian 21:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I started out school in southern Jutland. Our cousins allways wanted to "go back to Denmark" when they really
meant Copenhagen :D ... MX44 03:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
A great compliment for wikipedia to be copied by a respectable media such as BBC.... Kjaergaard 05:11, 9 February 2006
(UTC)
What a pity BBC 1 decided it was acceptable to vandalise us. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed =) — TheKMantalk 05:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
What vandalism? Tell me more MX44 06:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Try here — TheKMantalk 07:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
As a good pedant, I feel the need to point out that it was BBC Radio 1, not BBC1 (television).
Personally I'd not give a fig for the abilities or judgement of a Radio 1 DJ. Vashti 12:28, 9
February 2006 (UTC)
New news. Taliban offering death penalty for the cartoonist!!!!
05:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)~
About 1 hour ago BBC World had a headline running across the lower screen that stated Wikipedia reports that... or
something similar. Is that not a problem? If BBC quotes us that must mean we are doing Original Research which is
136
forbidden. Sad I was not fast enough to read what the headline stated. Did anybody? A human 07:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
It is not a problem that we do original research. It is problem only if we publish our original research in our articles. Here in
the discussion are it is safe. And if we manage to find references, then we can publish that. We should just probably not
publish the a blog link in the article itself until we have some kind of consensus that we are all pretty sure it is
fact.DanielDemaret 07:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
What was the subject? Did they *mean* Wikipedia, or something else like Wikinews? Vashti 07:32, 9 February 2006
(UTC)
Sorry I was zapping and missed it. I think it was wikipedia. A human 07:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Congress made Wikipedia changes!!!!!!! [19]
And Wikinews investigates Wikipedia usage by U.S. Senate staff members
Apparently the individual who added this last bit of text failed to mention that this is what was being
discussed on BBC.... how about some follow-through here next time? duh! Netscott 14:35, 9
February 2006 (UTC)
Subarticle of this page has been nominated for deletion
The page about the Dossier of Danish Muslim clerics touring the Middle East has been nominated for deletion. You can opine
on the issue here: [20]. Azate 05:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Question
Our article intro states that it is the publishing in more than 30 countries that has lead to the unrest, or at least that is how I
read it. But the protests are still mainly against Denmark, so is this not a conclusion that is drawn just a tad further than we
can substantiate? DanielDemaret 07:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Comparable Incidents
137
Should mention the 1992 Ayodhya incident (Babri Masjid).
The image - question
I'm definitely too lazy to go back and look through the archives, so I'm asking, has it been discussed if the image should be
shown as a link (like at Autofellatio - NOT WORK SAFE!)? Example on the right.
Jyllands-Posten Muhammad
drawings.jpg (file)
The Face of Muhammed - The
controversial cartoons of
Muhammad, first published in
Jyllands-Posten in September
2005.
NSLE (T+C) 08:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it has. Discussed, rehashed, masticated and regurgitated.DanielDemaret 08:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. I'd have thought this would've been a good compromise, so it slightly surprises me that a possible link as
such on the right has been discussed and turned down. NSLE (T+C) 08:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how it would help. Apparently, the Muslims are angry at people who host the image at all, they
are not so much afraid to be exposed to it (otherwise they could just not buy Jyllands-Posten and be done).
So it won't matter to them if the image is linked or inline just as long as it is on Wikimedia's servers. dab
(?) 08:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
If you take the time to read on in the discussion a bit up, under the heading,
EGYPT PAPER ALREADY PUBLISHED CARTOONS IN OCTOBER, you can see that there might be a dramaticly new
turn of events. If allegations in that section turn out to be correct then these pictures was not what started the
violence.DanielDemaret 09:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
If evidence of this can be uncovered, this would be an amazing scoop for Wikinews. Got a source? - Ta bu
138
shi da yu 09:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Two independent weblogs have presented a set of scans. It changes the focus from the cartoons to
the political mish-mash surrounding them. See previous discussion above MX44 09:30, 9 February
2006 (UTC)
It surely explains why it took months for Muslims to get angry.--
Right, but what event was it that triggered the widespread protest? In the article from NYT I read "It was no big deal
until the Islamic conference when the O.I.C. took a stance against it," said Muhammad el-Sayed Said, deputy director
of the Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo.
Is this a useful quote? MX44 10:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
It seems useful to me. Obsolutely. We now have a plethory of important probable causes, each of which would
have been believed to be the truth if it were the only cause presented. The importance of the cartoons in
Jyllandsposten seems to dimish by the hour. Whatever the end article, there is clearly a lot more to it than just
those cartoons. DanielDemaret 11:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Agree to all above, I added it to both charts on the List of Papers (where I have tried to shepherd things along for
a few days), when the story first broke this morning, and it is still there, so that's fine. The above quote seems
reasonable as well. It all keeps changing so quickly it is hard to know what the final analysis will
bringHephaestion 12:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Which brings us back to what I said earlier on this page. should the opinions part (in which this surely must be mentioned)
not be included in the main article?-Nomen Nescio 12:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Deleting comments from the talk page
Please don't do this. With the comment that was removed gone, the information it provided - that the BBC wasn't actually
quoting us about the cartoon controversy - was also gone, leaving the discussion incomplete. Vashti 13:39, 9 February 2006
(UTC)
Take the Cartoons off
139
I'm not Muslim, i'm catholic. But it seems to me that the muslims (where's frank?) have some justification for claiming that
this site does not respect their religion. why? because
1) comparisons with showing anti-semitic or anti-christian paraphernalia are invalid, i think. the muslims are expressly
forbidden - expressly - to have pictures of the prophet muhammed. i dont believe there is a christian equivalent to this, and if
there was, it wouldn't matter, simply because its overwhelmingly ignored. and even if they are not forbidden to display
muhammed images, as some have claimed, the fact that many people respect that, as a semi-religious duty, means that we
simply have to respect that belief.
2) It could be just me, but it seems that we in the west look slightly down on muslim posters here, maybe subconsciously,
maybe consciously. i think the problem is that we view muslims and islam as a group, as a unit, and not as one billion people
with one billion opinions. therefore, we lump some half-witted imam called muhammed abu alim aziz bashir osama fahd
muhammed muhammed muhammed bin muhammed muhammed and his dumbass fatwas with respectable muslims who
know stuff and dont freak out over everything and anything, and if they write in, even if we dont say it out loud, we think,
"oh, its just another muhammed abu alim... etc etc" and talk dumb to him (see kyaa the catlord's responses on this page).
a dumbass opinion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.21.154.110 (talk • contribs) . 2006-02-09 15:03:32 +0100
False, false, and false. If you were a real Catholic, you would've studied the history of Christianity well enough to know
that similar rules existed for pictures of Jesus, etc. until the Renaissance. We'd prefer that you use your mouth as the
prefered orifice for talking out of. Also, we'd like it if you signed your comments. --Tokachu 16:43, 9 February 2006
(UTC)
Sir/Madame, if you have a personal problem with me, please use my talk page. I'd be willing to have a reasonable discussion
on your view on my responses. Thanks! Kyaa the Catlord 14:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello! This idea is old news...please read the several comments about this previously posted... this is now a non-issue!
Make it stop, make it stop!!! Sorry, your opinion is your opinion and your vote only counts once. 200 people happen to
diagree with you. Read the results of the polls. Hitokirishinji 14:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
But what are they forbidden by? Apparently not the Qu'ran, just some stuff from some Hadith or something made by people a
couple hundered years into Islam's existance, or extremely stretchy interps of the Qu'ran. If we simply have to respect this, I
140
must of missed the memo, because I sure haven't so far. Nextly, personally speaking, I don't like Islam. Other people in this
discussion probably don't like free speech suppression. Either way, people seem extremely convicted in their beliefs on the
matter, so whether we really are lumping people together or not, it's unlikely consensus will be changed soon. Homestarmy
14:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
1) It's a little more complicated than that. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is here to document, not to judge. The
cartoons are central to the contraversy that is still unfolding, and it is the view of the vast majority of Wiki editors that
the images contribute significantly to one's understanding of the event.
2)I think the reason you may be getting that impression is that this objection has been brought up on numerous
occasions, in many cases multiple times each, by a relatively small group of users, and those frequently on this page are
becoming a tad tired of refuting the same reasoning over and over again. This is especially true when you consider that
the people objecting to the image would see their objections answered if they bothered to read just a part of the
archived pages, or even this page alone. Richard 129.244.23.13 14:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
One major reason that we get these objections over and over again, is that the lead to this article states that the main problem
with the pictures is aniconism. People read this, believe it because it says so in wikipedia, and therefore object. Early on, I
believed it had to do with aniconism since I naively so nothing offensive in the pictures per se. In fact, I was a bit surprised at
how inoffensive they were. But I no longer think that the anoconism theory is true. I can buy a picture of Muhammed in shops
in Teheran. I have not seen a single self-proclaimed muslim claim that the problem has to do with aniconism. We in the west
are clearly inventing reasons for the pictures being offensive. The insults I have read muslims write and say are that: 1. They
identify all islam with terrorists and 2. By portraying an arab in a cartoon we are looking down on them. Nothing about
aniconism there. What references do we have that aniconism is the reason? Western references. Did they check this with
muslims or did they just look it up in a dictionary? DanielDemaret 14:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The images should remain for sure. It is relevant information, and removing them would be text-book censorship.
Elfguy 15:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
DanielDemaret, early on in this debate, numerous Muslim editors complained about the image on the grounds
that it is haram to depict Muhammad in any way. The reasoning seems to have grown more multifarious, though,
agreed. Aniconism can no longer be said to be the single reason why it is offensive. Babajobu 17:16, 9 February
2006 (UTC)
141
Hear hear! I (and several others) pointed out there is a image of Mohammud in the South Park article yet no one
seem to set fires embassies over it or even complain to the South Park creators that I know of. It certainly is not
aniconism.Hitokirishinji 17:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
To the original poster: a) Firstly, showing pictures of Muhammed on Wikipedia is acceptable in Islam. Persian
Wikipedia does it on thier Muhammed article [21], so it should be especially acceptable in the English Wikipedia.
Secondly and more Importantly wikipedia is an Encyclopaedia, if that bothers you: vist the uncyclopedia
instead.--Greasysteve13 06:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Other cartoons about muhammad
So the popular internet cartoon Flem did their own version of the muhammad cartoons. Can we add that in to the article?
Ready
SWATJester
Maybe that's like adding logs to the fire, though... @@ ?? ???? 14:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't feel that to be a relevant objection... but I'm against including that bit of trivia, simply because it's not
really noteworthy. --Ashenai 14:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
It is just a spinoff of this controversy. We can't add every single comment / drawing about this controversy.
Just my 2 (euro)cents. --Valentinian 14:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I dont see that it is very relevant to include in the article now, but I urge you ALL to download a
copy each before they censure it/vandalise like they censured el fagr. THEN it will suddenly become
relevant, even if we then can not use it without a reference, at least you will know what
happened.DanielDemaret 15:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The images on the article are relevant because they are at the center of the controversy. I agree that this other image
should not be put there, not because it would add fuel to the fire, but because they are not relevant enough. Elfguy
15:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
the article is about the cartoons and the events Jyllands-Postens cartoons brought. (Cloud02 15:26, 9 February 2006
(UTC))
Arab cartoons
142
I added a link to these [22] images which show the anti-semitic cartoons in Arab newspapers over the last few years which are
just as bad if not worse than the ones from Denmark. I think it's very relevant and a heavy proof toward the opinion of
hypocrisy that some western world sources have stated. Elfguy 15:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The zionists and jews aren't involved in this matter, except for some spurious rockets shot at them. MX44 15:35, 9
February 2006 (UTC)
Except that many of the protesters who are calling for violence aren't only targetting Danish people anymore, but
Israel and other western countries. Hence it's relevant. Elfguy 16:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I think some of them are not far from the truth if you bear in mind that Palestinians have to go through
numerous checkpoints and submit to Israeli soldiers regularly.
About the argument: I definitely don't think those cartoons are worse or more offensive than the ones from Denmark. The
cartoons mostly depict current political figures, making reference to political ideologies and arguments. The ones from
Denmark are about a prophet who lived centuries ago. Whether one agrees on the Anti-Semitist cartoons or not is not the
topic. But one could theoretically and logically discuss them and the messages within. The caricatures from Denmark, without
even looking at the content or the message disseminated through them, are offensive for muslims because of the technical and
quite strict religious limitation, that the prophet can not be depicted in any shape or form (Again if other people agree with
this or not is another matter). So by default this is an offense for muslims. If this point is taken out, then the caricatures are
comparable, and one could discuss the meaning and content. As it is, it is a prophet shown to be a tyrant, and an evil terrorist.
This in my opinion is not acceptable under any pretext.
212.201.44.249 19:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC) Serkan
The Bahraini cartoon of the ugly, hook-nosed Jew is precisely equivalent to Nazi caricatures from Der Sturmer, and is
almost certainly just as offensive to Jews as the Muhammad cartoons are to Muslims. The fact that Jews don't riot and
burn down embassies over these things is not evidence that they don't find such images horrific; they probably just
ignore them. And Wikipedia carries similar cartoons, incidentally, where they are relevant. Babajobu 20:52, 9 February
2006 (UTC)
I agree with your judgement on that particular cartoon, but this was not my point. The equivalent to the Danish caricatures
would be similar drawings of Moses, not Sharon or any other jewish person. Sharon is a political leader and ordinary jewish
people are not comparable to Moses either. 212.201.44.249 21:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC) Serkan
143
The fact you think the link is needed proves my point in another discussion on this page. I already inserted it, but some wise
editor thought it should be moved from the main article. It is here. Once again I would like to suggest reinserting the opinions
part into the main article, because it is a fundamental part of the story.-Nomen Nescio 22:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
No, the issue is what these groups find intolerably offensive. Muslims find images of prophets offensive, while Jews
and Christians do not find such images comparably offensive. Each group has its own bugaboos. Jews find Nazi-style
caricatures most offensive, while Muslims find satirical drawings of Muhammad most offensive. The Bahrain daily
published pics horribly offensive to Jews. The Danish daily published pics horribly offensive to Muslims. No difference
at all, except in the way the respective groups responded. Babajobu 03:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Incorrect. People from all religious groups take offense, you might want to read about the last temptation of
Christ. Also, to claim the anti-semitic publications in the Middle East are less offensive to Jews is of course not
substantiated by fact. What remains is the clear difference in response to perceived horrid pictures by different
religious groups. To state that the group which makes the most noise is therefore entitled more respect is not only
a form of discrimination (inequality in treatment for the same acts), it rewards inappropriate violent reactions we
see today.
Beyond that, there are legitimate questions as to the sincerity of the outcry. That is explained in the opinions part,
among which the odd timing, the fact that buildings are burned in countries where demonstrations are almost
impossible, the fact Egypt published months ago without any response, et cetera.-Nomen Nescio 11:12, 10
February 2006 (UTC)
Open Letters from Jyllands-Posten
Why were the two open letters from Jyllands-Posten removed? They were apologies to the muslim world, and I think it is
important to have such information on Wikipedia to help solve this conflict. I translated the first open letter, which was
published in danish and arabic, from danish to english, and posted it here. The second letter which was published in english as
well, was posted here as well. If no one has any complaints, or good arguments of why not to put them on here, I'm going to
repost the two open letters. --Akuen 15:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree and you should repost them or at least a link to them. Elfguy 16:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'll repost them. I would only be able to link to the second one though, as the first one was not published in english. I
144
did a thorough translation of it from danish to english, though. --Akuen 23:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Comparable incidents
I don't want to touch such a controversial article, but some of you main writers and editors should consider adding The Da
Vinci Code to the list of comparble incidents. Many Catholics found that novel blasphemous when it was released due to its
depiction of Christ and his relationship to Mary Magdelene. J. Van Meter 15:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a great idea, of showing how Christians hated this book and protested, and it never lead to violence of any
sort, and the debate was contained in words and discussions, like civilized people. Elfguy 16:22, 9 February 2006
(UTC)
There is an infinite number of events that never led to any violence. MX44 17:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree.DanielDemaret 16:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The Childrens book that started it all
As I am sure you all know, the childrens book which started it all came out a few days ago. It is selling amazingly well, along
with the export of danish flags. Since it contains many drawings of Mohammed, including a sweet one where he sits with his
youngest little wife on his lap, and it has not resulted in any bad feelings from anyone, is this a significant enough fact for
inclusion into the article? DanielDemaret 16:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Can you please tell us the name of the book..... ? Thanks Ryanuk 16:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
http://www.hoest.dk/Datterforlag/hoestOgSoen/hoestOgSoen.nsf/alle/611C93B8AAA29A11C1257103001E1A6F?opendocument&m
"Koranen og profeten Muhammeds liv". Translates to "The Qu'ran and the life of Mohammed the prophet".
It could be noted that Danish imams have totally objected to the content of the book and to the objectivity
of the writer. However, they have commented on the book with restraint and wording relevant to this
article here.
"...we could not dream of questioning his right to freedom of speech and right to write what he wants, and
145
we don't mind in the least children's books with drawings from the prophets life. However, we prefer to
read a true story" and
"we hereby call upon every Muslim to avoid being provoked but silently thrug his shoulders over
Bluitgen's book. And we appeal to non-Muslims not to believe that we see the prophet, as Bluitgen sees
him."
Let us all discuss our differences in similar language. --Sir48 18:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Flemming Rose and ties to US progandists
Maybe there should be a mention of the ties between the cultural editor of JP, Flemming Rose, and leading US anti-muslim
propagandists like Daniel Pipes? 80.202.25.17 17:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
If the specific ties are relevant and close and you have a good source, then why not? Are they married? DanielDemaret
17:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
File it under conspiracy theory. MX44 17:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I have a new meaning for Islamophobia, the irrational fear that someone is out to get Islam. Kyaa the Catlord
17:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Would'nt that be islamonoia? (re: paranoia) DanielDemaret 17:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I guess it would be. It would have to be capitalized though. Kyaa the Catlord 17:50, 9 February 2006
(UTC)
Suggests Islamanoia... to better correspond to Paranoia. :) Netscott 18:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
These comments are only useful to those who'd like to point out your anti-Islam bias; you're giving them ammunition...
Dmaftei 20:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Translations of the Imam's 43 page dossier are available
Unfortunately, they're in Danish. But better than nothing. Maybe there is sombody interested enough to translate them to
English and put them into the Dossier of Danish imams touring the Middle East section? I'm sure in a day or so they will be
available in other languages anyways, but if sombody really can't wait, all the better. The Danish translations are here: [23]
146
[24] [25] [26] [27] [28] Azate 17:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Is this all? Looks like less than 43 pages.DanielDemaret 19:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
DR (the Danish equivalent to the BBC) has posted a list of 10 misunderstandings / -representations relevant to this issue (they
seem quite well referenced). Some may be new to this article and worth including (
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Temaer/Oevrige_temaer/2006/Tegninger/Artikler/201343.htm )- by the way, where has that
section in the article gone ? Perhaps I've missed part of the discussion, has it been 'axed' ? 86.139.124.242 17:55, 9 February
2006 (UTC)Mila86.139.124.242 17:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Which section? Some of them were moved to seperate pages. Kyaa the Catlord 18:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but I seem to recall that there was a section detailing some of the mistranslations and -representations (the
quite frivoulous one about the queen is the only one that springs to mind! :-) Mila 81.132.174.178 18:18, 9 February 2006
(UTC)
I remember that section too. And I can not find it anywhere now. This is disturbing. DanielDemaret 21:00, 9 February
2006 (UTC)
Can't it simply be reinserted? Mila81.132.174.178 22:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Easily, if one can find it. Does anyone know where that section went to? One could look in the "history" tab. Perhaps
you could look for it there, Mila?DanielDemaret 23:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
No problem. It seems to have been removed by Azate at 12:16 (see below). All the information is there to be reinserted; but I
don't know to do it! Perhaps someone else could do the honor?
(cur) (last) 12:16, 9 February 2006 Azate (7Rumours and misinformation - deleted. this has been much shortened and put
into the timeline (try to look for hot dog e.g.))
Mila81.132.174.178 23:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree, the deletion of this section without any discussion on the talk page is disturbing. I'm not convinced everything
in the section deserved to be in the main article, and perhaps we could use a sub-article on the topic, but it shouldn't be
deleted wholesale without some discussion. So I'll reinsert it. -- Avenue 09:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
147
There is further discussion in the "Rumours and misinformation" section below. -- Avenue 09:55, 10 February
2006 (UTC)
Context
"The barrier to better Arab performance is not a lack of resources, concludes the report, but the lamentable shortage of three
essentials: freedom, knowledge and womanpower. Not having enough of these amounts to what the authors call the region's
three “deficits”. It is these deficits, they argue, that hold the frustrated Arabs back from reaching their potential—and allow
the rest of the world both to despise and to fear a deadly combination of wealth and backwardness." Economist quoting Arab
Muslim scholars WAS 4.250 19:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Timeline
1. "At first, the agitation was limited to Denmark. Ahmed Akkari, 28, a Lebanese-born Dane, acts as spokesman for the
European Committee for Honoring the Prophet, an umbrella group of 27 Danish Muslim organizations to press the
Danish government into action over the cartoons. Mr. Akkari said the group had worked for more than two months in
Denmark without eliciting any response. "We collected 17,000 signatures and delivered them to the office of the prime
minister, we saw the minister of culture, we talked to the editor of the Jyllands-Posten, we took many steps within
Denmark, but could get no action," Mr. Akkari said, referring to the newspaper that published the cartoons. He added
that the prime minister's office had not even responded to the petition. Frustrated, he said, the group turned to the
ambassadors of Muslim countries in Denmark and asked them to speak to the prime minister on their behalf. He refused
them too. "Then the case moved to a new stage," Mr. Akkari recalled. "We decided then that to be heard, it must come
from influential people in the Muslim world." The group put together a 43-page dossier, including the offending
cartoons and three more shocking images that had been sent to Danish Muslims who had spoken out against the
Jyllands-Posten cartoons. Mr. Akkari denied that the three other offending images had contributed to the violent
reaction, saying the images, received in the mail by Muslims who had complained about the cartoons, were included to
show the response that Muslims got when they spoke out in Denmark.In early December, the group's first delegation of
Danish Muslims flew to Cairo, where they met with the grand mufti, Muhammad Sayid Tantawy, Foreign Minister
Ahmed Aboul Gheit and Amr Moussa, the head of the Arab League."After that, there was a certain response," Mr.
Akkari said, adding that the Cairo government and the Arab League both summoned the Danish ambassador to Egypt
for talks."
2. "It was no big deal until the Islamic conference when the O.I.C. took a stance against it, said Muhammad el-Sayed
148
Said, deputy director of the Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo."
3. "As leaders of the world's 57 Muslim nations gathered for a summit meeting in Mecca in December, issues like
religious extremism dominated the official agenda. But much of the talk in the hallways was of a wholly different issue:
Danish cartoons satirizing the Prophet Muhammad. [...] After that meeting, anger at the Danish caricatures, especially
at an official government level, became more public. In some countries, like Syria and Iran, that meant heavy press
coverage in official news media and virtual government approval of demonstrations that ended with Danish embassies
in flames."
4. "At the end of December, the pace picked up as talk of a boycott became more prominent. The Islamic Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization, comprising more than 50 states, published on its Web site a statement
condemning "the aggressive campaign waged against Islam and its Prophet" by Jyllands-Posten, and officials of the
organization said member nations should impose a boycott on Denmark until an apology was offered for the drawings."
5. "On Jan. 26, in a key move, Saudi Arabia recalled its ambassador to Denmark, and Libya followed suit. Saudi clerics
began sounding the call for a boycott, and within a day, most Danish products were pulled off supermarket shelves."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/international/middleeast/09cartoon.html New York Times article: At Mecca
Meeting, Cartoon Outrage Crystallized] WAS 4.250 19:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Mulim government motivations
"The protests also allowed governments to outflank a growing challenge from Islamic opposition movements by defending
Islam. [...] The Saudis did this because they have to score against Islamic fundamentalists [meaning other Islamic
fundamentalists], said Mr. Said, the Cairo political scientist. Syria made an even worse miscalculation, he added, alluding to
the sense that the protest had gotten out of hand. The issue of the cartoons came at a critical time in the Muslim world because
of Muslim anger over the occupation of Iraq and a sense that Muslims were under siege. Strong showings by Islamists in
elections in Egypt and the victory of Hamas in the Palestinian elections had given new momentum to Islamic movements in
the region, and many economies, especially those in the Persian Gulf, realized their economic power as it pertained to
Denmark." New York Times article: At Mecca Meeting, Cartoon Outrage Crystallized WAS 4.250 19:54, 9 February 2006
(UTC)
Egyptian newspaper El Fagr confirms it has published the cartoons
Read
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2006/February/middleeast_February156.xml&section=middleeast
149
second paragraph from the end gidonb 20:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly, they lie about how the cartoons were published. Quote: "[the newspaper] published the upper half of
some of the controversial cartoons, omitting any facial representations". I see plenty of faces here Rasmus (talk) 21:44,
Nope, here they are admitting they published them on tuesday, nothing more than that WookMuff 22:13, 9
February 2006 (UTC)
Depictions of Mohammad with facial expressions. It was also not the upper half, just a choice of the
drawings. Somewhat sloppy journalism by this Dubai-based newspaper. A little apologetic too, but the
important part fact is that is in there. That is more than what you'd expect in Damascus. gidonb 22:40, 9
February 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know the size of this newspaper? I mean, is it worldwide, or is just for some remote place? (Cloud02
23:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC))
I noticed this article says they published them tuesday. Yet there's this guy on a blog who claims they posted it october
last year? [29] .....Can someone actually CONFIRM when it was posted ? (Cloud02 23:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC))
17 October, 2005. [30] Notice that they removed this one picture, just after it broke out. Everything has long been confirmed
by the editor, dimplomats, newspapers, new agencies and television stations. gidonb 04:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Reprinting in other newspapers
Suggestion to correct some factual errors: You can hardly say that Belgium and France are "Denmark'southern neighbors".
Look at the map. - As correctly stated in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_that_reprinted_Jyllands-Posten's_Muhammad_cartoons bigger country's as
France, Germany, Italy and Spain printed two days earlier the cartoons than some Belgium's newspapers.
Price on cartoonists head in December last year
150
According to this source, back in December Pakisatini based group Jamaate-Islami reportedly placed a price of around
€7,000, mistakenly upon the head of a "sole" cartoonist the believe responsible for all 12 cartoons. [31], Tom Spurgeon
carried it, and also reports back in December that "A few observers have suggested the negative reaction to those cartoons
established a precedent for more sustained and violent youth protests that followed in France and in other European countries
in one of the bigger international news stories of 2005." Sadly he doesn't document the sources. [32] Steve block talk 21:23, 9
February 2006 (UTC)
Conflicting views on the influence of religions
- Lot's of people in the West sees this as a religious rule imposed on non believers like Muslims would forbid to other people
to eat pork or Jews impose non Jews to cover their head.
- Many Muslims see it as a provocation like entering a Church in short pants or entering a Buddhist temple with shoes on or
using a religious symbol inappropriately (in the presence of worshipers).
Last time I entered a Catholic church to meet a friend there who happened to be a priest I had short pants. I don't get it?
Who would be offended by that? DanielDemaret 22:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I really have no idea where he got these strange ideas. I've been to Buddhist temples many times and not once did I ever
have to take off my shoes. Also, I've been to cathedrals in shorts, I wasn't set on fire and no crusade against the invader
(namely me) was ever called. And again, these cartoons were printed in Denmark which is secular, separation of
religion from government, try it. Hitokirishinji 17:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
It depends on time and place I think. I was asked to do all this before entering some places of worship. Some things are
not allowed in some religious settings. If you have a better example, please add it.
- That's a ludicrous comparison above. The Danish editor did not enter a mosque in any country with the cartoons. I have
visited mosques, synagogues and churches, and abided their rules. It is a provocation when a religious group tries to tell me
how to behave in the secular World, especially when I am not of their belief or opinion. 84.190.207.92 08:31, 10 February
2006 (UTC)
I don't try to repeat the discussion, just try to clarify it. Besides the point of freedom of speech, there is the point of
151
freedom of (another or no) religion. The West is talking more about freedom of speech, Muslims more talking about
religion. How the prophet is drawn has, I think, more to do with freedom of speech, that he is drawn is more related to
freedom of religion. The discussion gets another dimension that way.
The list of "comparable incidents" covers more the insulting part, the freedom of speech question. The other part, the not
obeying a religious rule, could be covered by other examples. Visiting a sacred place or a religious ceremony, it is accepted
that non believers follow the rules. Are there other situations, incidents like that?
United Nations has appealed to stop publishing these pictures
Kofi Annan has now asked that editors please stop publishing the controversial Muhammad cartoons that have caused such
consternation. In my opinion, this appeal should be responded to, and we should withdraw the samples of the offending
cartoons from wikipedia. Mokwella 21:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it's easy for Kofi to say, but let him put his money where his mouth is. The U.N. should institute a "Oil for
FoodCensorship" programme. Kofi's son needs a new car. - Nunh-huh 23:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Give me a break!!! NO! This whole 'controversy' appears to be unraveling at this very moment... especially with the
revelation that the Egyptian newspaper El Fagr published images involved in this controversy back in Oct. 2005!
Without these pictures shown, we would not have known as much about the events as we do today. It has become clear
to me that if the pictures are not shown, the risk of violence escalates since people who have not seen them protest, but
they do not know exactly what they protest about. Those who have seen them, as eg when the Cairo-citizens who saw
them in October were peaceful. My comment is POV, of course.DanielDemaret 21:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
If anyone made a map, mapping violent protest and non-publication of the images in the same map, would they
co-inside? (even if they did, there are other interpretations, but it would be fun to try)DanielDemaret 21:52, 9
February 2006 (UTC)
They were published in Greenland. No riots. MX44 21:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually it's not hard to make one, we do in fact have a list of the papers that printed the images and it's
obvious which nations are rioting and protesting. If I had more time, I'd make one myself. Hitokirishinji
22:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
This place may be the only source of knowledge in the world at this time that has enough
information to make one. DanielDemaret 22:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I take it back, I'll make it. Hitokirishinji 22:18, 9
152
February 2006 (UTC)
While making this map I'm noticing something...the most violent protests have not had the images
even printed so essentially people are protesting about images they've never seen? Does anyone find
this a bit suspicious? Hitokirishinji 22:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh not again. Simply no, Kofi Annan or not, we will not remove the image. I am even more convinced as Daniel said,
if we do not show these images, we will simply forget and repeat the past someday. And as Netscott is pointing out, this
entire "uproar" seems to be manufactured to play into the hands of people who have an agenda. Hitokirishinji 22:06, 9
February 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. If it had been a decree by Jimbo Wales, then it would have been removed. But if Kofi Annan makes a
plea/request to please not do it, then he can (pardon my French) sh*ve it. Kofi Annan is not wikipedia, and Kofi
Annan is not Jimbo Wales. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
These images are important information, and add context to this informational article. It would be a mistake to remove them,
as it would be detrimental to people who wish to learn more, but can't because of censorship. — TheKMantalk 22:03, 9
February 2006 (UTC)
I am a little puzzled why the publication in Egypt is nice and dandy but for European publications embassies get burned
down. Perhaps someone can explain the difference? gidonb 22:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
That's where the conspiracy theory starts. An increasing number of people, including Ms Rice, have accused Syria and Iran of
provoking things to distract attention from their problems.-Nomen Nescio 22:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
OK well personally I dislike conspiracy theories, although I have seen this one reported in a Dutch quality daily two
days before Rice picked it up. Rice did not talk about the Egyptian publication of the cartoons, however. She just
mentioned that in Iran and Syria large demonstrations are government directed. That is also what the Dutch daily
mentioned before her. gidonb 22:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
This one has very good arguments. Syria and Iran do have serious problems (who with!?). And it would certainly
explain many inconsistencies, such as why did it take 4 months for Muslims to get angry, why can Egypt publish
without problems, why did the Danish imam add three pictures which were the most offensive?-Nomen
Nescio 22:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
153
Yes, these things can happen in such countries. But Rice did not go into those details either. I have read the
transcript. In the same answer she called upon the press to act in a more responsible manner. I think that
her words were taken out of context in most of the following headlines and articles. gidonb 23:03, 9
February 2006 (UTC)
Here its is gidonb 23:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC) MODERATOR: Next question is Charlie Wolfson from CBS.
QUESTION: Madame Secretary, in the aftermath of the printing of the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, there has been
outrage around the world that we've all seen. The question is: Do you think this is spontaneous as it continues? If not, who is
behind it? What group or what governments might be behind it?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, let me first say that this has been a difficult period. We are strong proponents of the freedom of
the press. It is one of the most fundamental freedoms of democratic development. We also believe that with press freedom
comes a certain responsibility. And the United States has been a place where there has been also freedom of religion and that
means that people have to exist in the same body and to respect each other's religious traditions and respect each other's
religious sensibilities and that is also very important.
Now, nothing justifies the violence that has broken out in which many innocent people have been injured. Nothing justifies
the burning of diplomatic facilities or threats to diplomatic facilities around the world. This is a time when everyone should
urge calm and should urge that there is an atmosphere of respect and understanding.
I think that there have been a lot of governments that have spoken out about this. Note, for instance, Afghanistan and
Lebanon, very important comments even by the Ayatollah Sistani about this.
But yes, there are governments that have also used this opportunity to incite violence. I don't have any doubt that given the
control of the Syrian Government in Syria, given the control of the Iranian Government, which, by the way, hasn't even
hidden its hand in this, that Iran and Syria have gone out of their way to inflame sentiments and to use this to their own
purposes. And the world ought to call them on it. All responsible people ought to say that there is no excuse for violence. We
all need to respect each other's religions. We need to respect freedom of the press. But you know, again, with freedom of the
press comes responsibility as well. [33]
When did Kofi Annan say this? From Reuters Canada, I see him saying it's "inappropriate". For all I know, Mokwella is
simply starting another futile argument for removing the images. Unless a Scientologist Lawyer sues us while threatening the
gasoline supply of the world, interrupting cable TV transmissions in the U.S., and summoning the Wrath of God in a manner
154
not unlike Pat Robertson, they will not be removed. --Tokachu 00:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Here is the text from the United Nations Seceretary General's own website: Annan Urges Responsibility Over Caricatures -- 9
February -- At a press encounter this morning, the Secretary-General was asked about the recent publication of caricatures of
the prophet Muhammad, and, while he underlined his support for freedom of speech, he also pointed to the need to exercise
responsibility and judgment. "Quite honestly," he said, "I cannot understand why any editor will publish cartoons at this time
which inflames and pours oil on the fire." http://www.un.org/News/ossg/sg/ From my own perspective, it appears wikipedia
(collectively) is willing to sacrifice civility on the altar of 'freedom of the press'. If this is an encyclopedia, do we not have at
least maintain some level of social responsibility,particularly in regard to images, as opposed to text? Please take the pictures
down. Mokwella 20:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
End of Story?
It is unusually peaceful tonight. Have we reached the end of the "current event" periode? Is it time to pick up all the confusing
little pieces and make a solid article? MX44 21:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about you but I've seen 3 new requests today alone to remove the image so I haven't seen a calm today.
I was thinking about external events. I have seen one proposal to remove a sculpture from Middlekerke, Belgium:
http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=437604 Or perhaps they just thought it was ugly ... MX44 22:26, 9
February 2006 (UTC)
There should to be some reference to the fact that some European newspapers which published the
Cartoons were in a bad situation financially:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060209/ap_on_re_eu/prophet_drawings_profits 86.52.36.140 23:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
That might be, but it is not really relevant in the Danish case. Jyllands-Posten is Denmark's
biggest newspaper. Weekend Avisen, which published the satire over the Jyllands-Posten
images, is a much smaller newspaper, but it is read by many intellectuals (no big player on the
market, but owned by Berlingske Officin which is a major player.) I don't think Weekend
Avisen planned on selling more papers because of its article, since it is not very easily
available. --Valentinian 23:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
155
Vote proposal (don't shoot me down)
I think that, when this stops being current events, we should have (yet) another vote. This time giving "all" the options
available and letting people decide once and for all what they want. If anyone else would like to propose what these options
could be, so be it?
Options i had in mind were: large pic at top, thumb at top with high res pic, small pic at top, link at top, large pic lower down,
thumb lower down with high res pic, small pic lower down, link lower down, no picture or link at all. WookMuff 22:08, 9
February 2006 (UTC)
You forgot another option: large high res picture of each individual cartoon, at top (maybe running down the side of the
article)... Valtam 22:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
yes, there is a very important option you did not mention. Instead of having the whole collection of pics, we can
have just one (maybe the artist drawing cartoon). That would be enough to represent the whole story... Resid
Gulerdem 22:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
This is not the place to support or disagree with one or the other. This is the place to reflect one and the other. --Ezeu
22:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Wrong answer! The correct answer would be: This is an ensiklopedia and so it is not a place to include an insult
in any form. This is a place to account a phenomena objectively and academically. This is not a place for cartoon
collection either... Resid Gulerdem 22:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
We could erase any mentioning of any religion in this encyclopedia, and nobody would be insulted
anymore. Just erase any mention of jews, so muslims will not insulted, any mention of muslims, so jews
would not be insulted, etc, and everyone would be happy. And ignorant. DanielDemaret 22:40, 9 February
2006 (UTC)
Yes! That would be nice. --Ezeu 22:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)´
This is not a place for cartoon collection either... ...except when that collection is central to the subject of
the article. Though (almost?) everyone here knows that already so I don't know why I'm writing it.
Wikipedia may or may not be a place to include insults, but if a collective perception of insult is a notable
issue (as is the case here), it is our encyclopedic duty to inform the reader of what is being perceived as an
insult. In this case, the insult involves a series of cartoons. The reader has a right to know what the cartoons
156
look like that have offended so many. And that right to know trumps the (non-existant) right not to be
offended. Wikipedia is not censored, even if it leads to some feeling offended. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 22:57, 9
February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe because you like playing with words and thinking that it is making some sense? The collection is not
central at all. Everything would be the same if there is just one cartoon. It doesn't change anything. Having the
whole collection is against the Wiki regulations. Resid Gulerdem 22:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Please try to remain civil. As usual, you are wrong in your guessing of other peoples' motives. Re having
pictures: your opinion, others clearly disagree. Discussed at great length and polled. Weregerbil 22:55, 9
February 2006 (UTC)
Which Wiki regulations, in particular, are you alleging violations of? It's certainly not a copyright
issue.BinaryTed 16:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Please try to be honest. My poll is not discussed at a great length, it is vandalized 100 times. I was able to keep it
on for just a night! The others were on for 3 or so days, at least. Resid Gulerdem 23:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a collection of anuses or penises but nonetheless they are there. Hitokirishinji 23:00, 9
February 2006 (UTC)
They are there. The issue is related to health and discussed academically. I do not think that you would consider
it being an insult if one say: 'you have at least one of those'. Resid Gulerdem 23:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia also has a duty to disseminate correct information. Having a scan of the
original page with all 12 cartoons lets people easily discern what was on the page and what was not (such
as the three falsified cartoons) for themselves. Richard 129.244.128.134 23:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
What a silly argument, some people keep permanently. That is not true. We are reporting what has really
happened here. One pic enough to show that some cartoons caused anger and considered insult! It is not the
task of an ensiklopedia to show all cartoons to the people and test the strength of their stomach... Resid
Why is one cartoon any less offensive to you than all 12? SilentC 00:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Because, in that particular cartoon (an artist drawing Mohammed), there is not a clear image of Him. But on the other
hand, you can see what an artist doing, his fear, etc, which completely summerize the situation. Can't you really see any
157
difference between a cartoon, for example, represent Mohammed as a terrorist with a bomp in his turban and the one I
mentiooned above? ... Resid Gulerdem 02:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Everyone keeps saying that cartoon represents Muhammad as a terrorist, even though the artist denies that was
his intent. My question: In the history of terrorism has anyone ever employed a bomb-shaped turban on their
head as a weapon? I think it's clear the cartoons is metaphorical for some conflation of Islam and terrorism, but
Muhammad himself is not being called a terrorist. Babajobu 03:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I see a very important difference: People have DIED because of these cartoons. Embassies and other government
buildings have been burned because of these cartoons. People have not died, nor have embassies been burned,
because of a cartoon of someone else making an obscured drawing of Mohammed. It's an issue of significance:
these cartoons are so significant to the controversy that the controversy would likely not exist without the
cartoons. The cartoon you want in the article is not significant to the controversy: its inclusion or omission offers
no real information to the reader.BinaryTed 16:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Please be honest. The name of this contest is 'faces of Mohammad'. There is an ugly person with a bomp at his turban?
Who is he than? Can suicide bumpers be called as terrorists? If so then what relation can you make using those in your
mind? Resid Gulerdem 03:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Resid, I ask that you stop accusing people of being dishonest. It is rude, and violates WP:NPA. Anyway, I was being honest,
and you should reread what I wrote. I was not denying that the artist was intending to depict Muhammad; what I said was that
a person with a bomb-cum-turban is not a plausible depiction of someone committing a terrorist act. More likely the cartoon
is metaphorical, as such cartoons often are. It's more likely the author is alluding to the use of Islam to justify terrorist acts
than that he was saying "look, this is Muhammad about to blow someone up with a bomb in his turban!" Babajobu 03:57, 10
February 2006 (UTC)
Babajobu, I ask you thionk about the word 'emphaty'. If your understanding of the cartoons are shared by people, why
is this dipute growing up so rapidly? The most important thing here is how people are understanding it. You should not
judge others using your understanding and feelings. Only honesty can solve this problem. Resid Gulerdem 04:13, 10
February 2006 (UTC)
I thought the problem was that there were images at all, not that they may or may not represent someone - that
no-one alive has ever seen - as a terrorist. Also, the one you propose most certainly does have a clear
representation of an Arabic-looking man with a beard. You may not be able to make it out at the resolution at
which it is displayed here, but it is most certainly there. SilentC 03:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The resolution cannot be an excuse. You can use a smaller size pic... The first part of your message is not clear to me...
158
Resid Gulerdem 03:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
It's also the only one that has his name written on it, so there's no question that's who it is intended to be, whereas
the others are less explicitly so. SilentC 03:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I personally want to have a link instead. Since the people would like to see the cartoons so much pointlessly, I
thought we should have one istead. I can see that the cartoon I mentioned is the most acceptible one because the main
theme there is: someone trying to draw a pic of him! Why do not we try and see the reaction of the Muslim users?
Moreover there is no need to put his name on all of them. The name of the contest is 'faces of Mohammed' remember...
The problem with that is that we are not using the editorial cartoons to make some sort of witty allusion to the
fear of cartoonists, Resid. We are showing the cartoons so people can see what started the uproar. And it was the
publication of all 12 that started it, rather than just the one you mention. Babajobu 04:01, 10 February 2006
(UTC)
And that is where you are doing mistake. To have all those cartoons is pointless, because:
A Western can't see anything wrong with that. So it doesn't explain anything about the dispute... Verbal explanations
work much better.
A Muslim definitely find it highly offensive to Islam and an insult. Resid Gulerdem 04:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Regardless, the consensus of the community to keep the pictures has been made very clear, and on Wikipedia one needs
to learn to accept consensus, even when one doesn't agree with it. Babajobu 04:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
A picture is often far better than words - especially when this 'debate' is over what is in essence pictures. Robovski
02:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Should I call this answer as an honest one? You are not answering my points... Just changing course of the discussion. That is
why the consensus you are talking about is not a real one. People is not answering the points they dislike, just using their
dominant number to pass a regulation or a change in the article. Poll 3 here couldn't stay more than a night here? Why?
Unfortunately English Wiki is acting like a Judeo-Christian Forum. I am saddened to realize that. This behaviour will effect
greatly the reliability of WIki and I believe you will realize that soon. Resid Gulerdem 04:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
159
Resid, hang on. We just voted on this matter and decided to keep the pictures. How do you think they are suddenly going to
disappear? Also, three of these picture were published in Egypt. Then how are you going to convince the folks at the English
language Wikipedia to hide them or enter them through a link? Just puzzled. gidonb 04:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Please read what I wrote about your understanding of consesnsus here. You are not answering valid questions.
You do not have convincing answers. You have just dominant here. Can you read what I wrote above please? Try
to answer my questons. And this one: 'Why only English Wiki is insisting on having these pics?' Resid Gulerdem
05:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
No, the point is it doesn't matter what you think, it's what the community consensus is. One person would
not be able to fight a fight against a group of ten. Likewise, one dissenter is not able to change the views of
a consensus of ten, there is no use in arguing further. NSLE (T+C) 05:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
'The world is still round'... I do not know what this reminds you?... Resid Gulerdem 05:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I was not answering any questions, valid or invalid. I was asking them as I was puzzled with the
initiative. I got rather assertive answers and one question back. You ask me why only the English
Wikipedia has the picture. How can I answer such a question, if it is based on untruth? Many
Wikipedias have the pictures. See for example this one, perhaps better take my word for it if you do
not like them, each picture seperate in large format:
http://lb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed-Karikature_vu_Jyllands-Posten. Now those who do not
have it. I looked at the talk page of the Dutch article. They have no problem with the pictures, just
with the copyrights. gidonb 05:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
My answer to your question would be: When you started to mimic the Egiptian media? The point is, if it is correct to
have an insult in an article or not? Resid Gulerdem 05:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The answer would depend on the circumstances. I will give you an example. I am Jewish. I have actively voted to
keep antisemitic pictures in Wikipedia, where they are relevant for the article. They do insult me of course.
gidonb 05:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The point of course is that in an encyclopedia you include the good and the bad. I despise Nazi symbols,
but I think they ought to be included in an article on Nazi-Germany. I would put them there although a
large part of my family has been murdered by people wearing these symbols. Resid and WookMuff, I
160
encourage you to take your tasks as an editor professionaly. We are explaining what happened in the
Jyllands Posten and afterwards, not claiming that these cartoons are good taste. I think the contrary is true.
What you are saying is completely untrue! Can you direct me an antisemitic picture here, I am not aware of them? Your
point doesn't make sense at all because: The antisemitic pictures shows that in fact you are victims. It creates a
sympathy. As a person who strongly against antisemitizm, I cannot see your point by this comparison... The case is
totally different here. The cartoons you are insisting on are not showing that Muslims are right. They are insulting
them. Could you please answer this question sincerely: Would you have the same reaction if the pictures are that of
Abraham, Moses or your God? Keep in mind that you are professional at that hypotetical time too... Resid Gulerdem
08:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Resid, see Piss Christ, where Wikipedia carries a famously offensive image of a crucifix submerged in urine. We
carry it because it's relevant, even though Christians detest the image. And even though Christians hate it, they
understand freedom of speech and understand that Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, documents notable events such
as the creation of that image. We have images that are similarly offensive to Jews, Scientologists, et cetera.
Resid, this article will always carry the images of the twelve cartoons. We cannot provide special treatment for
Islam. You just have to learn to deal with it. Babajobu 09:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Resid, the cases are precisely the same. Antisemetic cartoons are offensive to me, the pictures of
Mohammad are offensive to you. If they are relevant enough to an article, they should be included. Same
applies for pictures of Abraham, Moses or God. On this page you will find plenty of antisemitic art. click
here gidonb 11:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Moved to the bottom WookMuff 23:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Re the above list, Resid, please stop interchanging "only one pic" with "large high res", you're making WookMuff's
comments incorrect when you do so, and I see that as vandalism (bad-faith edit). NSLE (T+C) 05:41, 10 February 2006
(UTC)
You are not aware of what you are doing. Please see the history! Resid Gulerdem 05:46, 10 February 2006
(UTC)
Resid, the point is that ALL of the issues you raised were addressed repeatedly during the poll, and people do not want
161
to go through them all again every time someone brings them up anew. Learn to respect consensus. Babajobu 05:30, 10
February 2006 (UTC)
Not at all. The poll itself couldn't stay on for a single night. It is vandalized 100 times. And closed by an admin
shortly... I would prefer if it is open for at least as the others. Resid Gulerdem 05:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
WookMuff, I would like to propose the following option for your poll:
the outcome of the previous polls is binding
I had a somewhat different take than the one that won, but I strongly believe that the previous outcome is binding. Add the
100 extra categories if you like, but also the one I proposed. I hope my point makes you understand that you will not have a
different result two days later, even if you try to dilute the vote between complex categories. gidonb 05:40, 10 February 2006
(UTC)
Polls are not binding, this is official WP policy. Dmaftei 15:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Wow, my cunning plan revealed... oh wait, thats stupid. My point is a lot of complaining has been done about the
limited options of the first polls... the complaint that the option of "one of the cartoons, the least offensive" has
been bandied about. What i am suggesting is a poll that includes that option, and all possible options. I am not, in
fact, starting that poll. Once the controversy has died down i suggest we take it. For your information, i am of the
"thumbnail at the top" group. I don't feel the need to pander to Islam, but i don't feel we need every single cartoon
in detail up the top in high res. WookMuff 23:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Resid, if this article causes you undue stress, I suggest you never click any link to this article ever again. The image stays.
Continuing this whining will only cost you precious time, which you could also spend on articles needing attention more
desperately. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 21:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I think that, when this stops being current events, we should have (yet) another vote. This time giving "all" the options
available and letting people decide once and for all what they want. If anyone else would like to propose what these options
could be, so be it?
large high-res picture of each individual cartoon, at top
only one picture (the artist drawing cartoon for example) at top
large high-res picture of the original J-P page at top
162
thumbnail of the original J-P page at top with high res pic linked
small picture of the original J-P page at top
link to (any of the above) at top
large picture of original J-P page lower down
thumbnail of original J-P page lower down with high res pic linked
small pic lower down
link lower down
no picture or link at all.
additionally
Each individual cartoon next to its description further down the page
Once more, please don't just come and say "blah blah polls are irrelevant." Please don't comment unless you have something
to add, because there are 10 other pages of places to complain on this topic. Comment here if you think i have left an option
out? WookMuff 23:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
There is a problem with a MultiPoll: imagine every entry getting 100 votes except "remove picture" gets 101. So it seems
"remove" is the popular choice. When in fact 1000 votes were for keeping the picture in some form. It can be very difficult to
extract a meaningful result from that kind of a poll. That's why Poll 1 and Poll 2 were the way they were. Weregerbil 23:31,
Actually i don't have an issue with poll 1, its poll 2 i have issues with. This is just a suggestion, something to bear in
mind. Its hardly set in stone. If you wanna suggest making it two polls, one with "pic on top, link on top, nothing on
top" and then a poll on pic positioning (with more options than poll 2) then suggest away WookMuff 01:26, 11
February 2006 (UTC)
I have no objections, as long as you keep my option in. So far you have forgotten to include it, even though you
did call to suggest additional options. I hope that your call was sincere. gidonb 13:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Your suggestion has been weighed, and found wanting. The call for further options and comments is
sincere, but if this poll happens (and if it does it surely won't be for a few weeks) I, personally, would
rather that people vote on the issue, not vote on feelings of having their previous judgements called into
question. Have a nice day WookMuff 22:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
163
In that case I am against holding your poll. I do not see why you want to forbid me to refer to the previous poll if they are
held so closely together in time. gidonb 01:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Your objection is noted. But, what do you mean about "held so closely together in time"? "My poll" as you have called it, is a
theoretical poll. My proposal is that a poll be held, once things are calm, that has more than yes, no, and comments. If you
want to call it the "WookMuff Poll for Peace and Harmony" then so be it ;) WookMuff 02:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
The best way to achieve peace and harmony is not to vote on the same issue more than once a year. My choice did not
win either, but now that it did not, I go by the consensus and edit many other articles. When was the last time you made
an edit to an article? A week ago? gidonb 02:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually i made two very short edits about an hour ago. But enough of these personal insinuations. I'll go back to
watching tv and you go back to opposing the terrible enemies of free speech. WookMuff 04:22, 12 February
2006 (UTC)
Also, my choice DID win. This is more about the people who feel that their choices weren't even represented.
WookMuff 05:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Article structure
Can somebody explain calmly if there is any argument, besides poll number 3, against moving the cartoons, say, next to the
bulleted list that describes each? Thanks. Dmaftei 22:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant poll number 2. Too many polls...Dmaftei 23:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I could explain, but unfortunately not calmly. --Ezeu 22:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead, then, I'll try to ignore your anger.Dmaftei 22:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Apart from the poll, only argument that I have seen there be pretty much consensus about is that a lot of people are tired
of rehashing this for perhaps the 10th time. And of course there are many arguments that there is no consensus about
too. DanielDemaret 22:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think "people are tired" is a valid argument. What I'm thinking about is the kind of arguments that were
put forward in the discussion about keeping the picture in the article. My summary of those arguments is this:
1. Keep
164
1. it's free speach
2. the picture is relevant to the article
3. (I'm dismissing non-arguments such as "everyone should be deep-throated with it" and "WP should not abide by
the laws of Islamofascism" as totally bogus)
2. Delete
1. it's an insult to Islam
Is there any argument along these lines against moving the picture?Dmaftei 04:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes ther are:
1.
1. Collection of cartoons is against the wiki standards
2. Unecessary: Words would explain the case better without insult.
3. Nonsense: An ensiclopedia article is just a fair account of the phenomena. We cannot include cartoons to let
people see what they are all about. It is pointless, because:
A Western can't see anything wrong with that. So it doesn't explain anythink about the dispute...
A Muslim definitely find it highly offensive to Islam and an insult. Resid Gulerdem 02:31, 10 February
2006 (UTC)
No offense, Resid Gulerdem, but you seem to have completely missed my question... The question is: "is there
any argument against moving the picture from where it is now to a different place?". That means a different
place within the article, I'm not talking about removing the image from the article. Your three points above
address totally different issues (and I also happen to disagree with all of them, sorry...) Dmaftei 04:05, 10
February 2006 (UTC)
A collection of cartoons is not against wikipedia standards, provided the cartoons are relevant to the issue. I think
it's safe to say that the cartoons are relevant to the controversy. Words also will never be able to explain the
pictures sufficiently, because language is not broad enough to deal with nuances the way vision can. And your
argument about westerners and muslims are gross generalizations and void. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 01:13, 11
February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I thought you are talking about the removal. I wish you could explain why you are disagree with what I am saying
above. Resid Gulerdem 04:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
165
We do not wish to scare any muslims. By showing them, they can see for themselves that they are not dangerous at all
MX44 22:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
My question was not about showing or not showing, was about an argument against moving... I'm not
campaining for deletion here.Dmaftei 22:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
2500 Danish for a different Danmark.
I couldn't see in the article that about 2500 Danish signed an online declaration stating that, 'JP should appoligize and they
want peace with Muslims'. JP also puplished a new version of their appology. Will these be included? Resid Gulerdem 22:32,
Does this mean the countries in which criminals burned embassies and people were killed will also apologise?-Nomen Nescio 22:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The people who were killed were not Danish. They were poor muslims in Afghanistan and such trying to protest.
And your conperison is nonsense: What I am saying is, will the news I mentioned above be included in the
article? Ask if they will apologize to them. And add to the article when they do! It should be hard for you to see
what I am saying... I can see you mentality. Resid Gulerdem 23:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
why dont you begin a protest calling for the governments where the embassies have been burned to apologize...
wait.. the governments ALREADY DID!!!! In fact, the interior minister of Lebanon withdrew because of it! And
like the guy above me already said. Those who died, were their own citizes, why on earth should they apologize
if their own citizens were killed? Now even if it weren't their own citizens, why should they apologize? I dont see
USA or the Coalition apologizing to the International community for killing people each day(Cloud02 23:12, 9
February 2006 (UTC))
If the group that launched the online declaration is notable enough, then it might be included. But I doubt it. And I'm
also not impressed by the number. 2,500 people signing a petition on such an important issue, on a population of 5.4
million with virtually everyone having internet access doesn't really seem much to me. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:06, 9
February 2006 (UTC)
...also given the fact that for a party capable of mounting a cyberterror attack against ~900 web sites,
stuffing an online ballot box is a trivial task. Weregerbil 23:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Right, because all the Arabs in the Middle East suddenly learned Danish. (Cloud02 23:12, 9
166
February 2006 (UTC))
Surely not all Arabs have to learn Danish to stuff a simple ballot box. There are
Danish-speaking arabs in Denmark, quite probably elsewhere too. I could stuff an online ballot
box in three or four languages myself ("could" = technically, not in reality as my conscience
would not allow it.) Weregerbil 23:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
2.500 are not that many, but the number was obtained in a very short time (something
like 24 hours). In addition, more than 6.000 have added a greeting to the Muslims, and
their names are Danish. Remember also that we have seen reporting based on rumors
that only a few blockheads threatened to burn the Qu'ran. Personally, I could not sign
the letter because it set forth some demands I do not support (and I stronglly object to
the notion that looking at the picture is equal to "looking down upon" or having
disrespect for Muslims and their faith). I still appreciate the site's attempt to show to the
world and to all sensible Muslims that the overwhelming majority of Danes are not
anti-Muslims (should anybody have doubted that). Many apologies for this un-editorial
remark... --Sir48 00:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
If the petition has been online for that little time with so little subscriptions, I don't
think it should be included. If it remains online for some time and gains a
substantial amount of signings in that time, then it can be included. But I think we
have to hold off on that for now. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 10:05, 10 February 2006
(UTC)
The link to the site (in English) is http://www.anotherdenmark.org/ --Sir48 01:39, 10
February 2006 (UTC)
This should definitely included too. Can an editor could incorporate this into the article please? Resid Gulerdem 02:36,
Excuse me, but I don't see how http://www.sorrynorwaydenmark.com/ (Reconciliation section, at the end) is good for the
article, and at the same time http://www.anotherdenmark.org/ is not. All the arguments above against the inclusion of
http://www.anotherdenmark.org/ are applicable to http://www.sorrynorwaydenmark.com/ too.Dmaftei 19:24, 10 February
2006 (UTC)
MAP UPDATED
167
Blue is where cartoons have been printed. Red is where violent protests have taken place, this is just preliminary, any
feedback is appreciated. Hitokirishinji 23:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Ironically, I forgot to mark in Denmark... I was planning to add more colors for places that have both protests and have
printed the cartoons and others. Hitokirishinji 23:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Any thoughts on making it a world-wide map? — TheKMantalk 23:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Good job, Hitokirishinji. Some cartographic comments: There are very few reds, so it is really a waste not to include all of
Somalia. On the other hand, in the north you can cut the picture just north of continental Norway. There is no need to include
some obscure Norwegian islands that hardly show on the map. You can also cut out some of the east, I would keep all of
Pakistan in although it is white. No need to include the whole world. It would give too much white and too little detail.
Hang on, were the cartoons not published in New Zealand? gidonb 23:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I would make two maps. One which showed the countries in which the cartoons have been published on a world
map. The second could be of the protest on a map of Europe, Africa and Asia. --Maitch 23:41, 9 February 2006
(UTC)
Yes, that is the best idea! My detailed comments refer only to the protest map. gidonb 23:43, 9 February
2006 (UTC)
I realize that I may have left out some countries but simply because the map would be hard to read if
it was really worldwide. If anyone can get me a blank world map that's fairly large (larger than 1280
pixels) with lines outlining the countries, I'd be glad to do it. Hitokirishinji 23:46, 9 February 2006
(UTC)
168
Try Image:BlankMap-World.png. — TheKMantalk 23:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The map should be global since there were burnings of the flag in Nigeria, and protests
in Indonesia and as far away as New Zealand. But if you only count deaths, I think the
map is a fair representation.86.52.36.140 00:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The Danish embassy in Iran has been attacked with Molotov-cocktails. In
addition, countries with major demonstrations could be indicated in a different
colour. --Sir48 01:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Danskjävlar!--Ezeu 00:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC) Sorry I was out of line.
--Ezeu 07:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Erm translation please? Anyways, thanks for the map KMan, this will
work. I will work on it over the weekend and maybe a bit more today
but I will keep you folks updated. I plan to make it hopefully decently
extensive but if anyone has any ideas, throw em on here or on my talk
page if it gets too crowded. Hitokirishinji 00:12, 10 February 2006
(UTC)
It means Danish Devils. It is a strongly offensive Swedish term.
Ezeu apparently hates my people. --Valentinian 00:33, 10
February 2006 (UTC)
What qualifies as "violent"? People killed? Buildings burned? Flags burned? Anything else?Dmaftei 00:15, 10 February 2006
(UTC)
Pretty much anything Ghandi wouldn't approve of. Actaully I was thinking buildings burned and people killed but I
hadn't originally considered flag burning. I suppose that's not an entirely peaceful thing. Hitokirishinji 00:22, 10
February 2006 (UTC)
Forbannade danskar. Translation: good golly danes. --Ezeu 00:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC) That was the merlot
talking. Excuse me. --Ezeu 07:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
No Ezeu! It means DAMN DANES! Stop inserting Swedish derogatory terms towards my people!
--Valentinian 00:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The correct translation must be Damned Danes. But be careful not to disclose our views regarding
169
the Swedes... :-) --Sir48 01:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, Ghandi wouldn't approve of railroads among other things :-) but I'm not sure if he would approve of boycotts. Is
Saudi Arabia RED or WHITE?Dmaftei 00:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I haven't designated a color for "peaceful" protests just yet. But I'd classify boycotts as peaceful, as least no
property is destroyed and no one is physically hurt. I figured this might get kinda complicated... Hitokirishinji
00:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Pink Dmaftei 00:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Also why the decision to invert the red/blue? In Nato wargaming the agressive party is red, while the
defensive party is blue. I think it is clear who were the offensive party here. 86.52.36.140 00:58, 10
February 2006 (UTC)
There were also peaceful demonstrations in Israel. gidonb 01:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Israel/Occupied Gaza and West Bank, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon,
Georgia (country), Bosnia-Herzegovina just off the top of my head where there've been
protests. NSLE (T+C) 02:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it's problematic to describe the protests in UK as "peaceful" just because no one
was killed and no buildings were burned. People were carrying placards promising
another 7/7, saying Europe would be forced to kneel before the Mujahideen, calling for
the beheading of those who supported the cartoons, et cetera. Certainly here people have
contrasted our protestors with "peaceful" protestors elsewhere. Babajobu 02:51, 10
February 2006 (UTC)
I thought about that too actually Baba. I've been pondering what to do. At this point I'm
not sure exactly because it seems like people will be taking issue with whatever color I
choose. So I'm going to make it this, one color for countries that printed, one color for
countries that had protests, mix the colors for countries that had both and in very notable
protests, I will simply just write a damn box or something. Anyone have any better
ideas? The blue and red simply was just on a whim. Red usually seems a more "violent"
color you could say. It had nothing to do with any bias towards a group of people...and I
170
didn't know anything about Nato wargames. If it makes anyone feel better, I'll do green
and yellow instead...or purple. Hitokirishinji 03:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't write a damn box. Blue for published, red for protest, mix for both. I don't
see why WP should use NATO wargames convensions.Dmaftei 04:17, 10
February 2006 (UTC)
Eh? I see Babajobu's point... but, well... let's just use objective markers. Countries
with protests with greater than 1,000 people or something and countries with
newspapers of X circulation that have published it. Sound good-ish?
The cartoons were also printed in Yemen, in the Yemen Observer. The paper was closed by the government after printing the
cartoons. See also Jawa Report and Yemen Times editorial.
Thank you for doing that map! Consider a rainbow scale of colours, where the more violent the event, the hotter (more red) it
gets. It would give more info, and be prettier :) DanielDemaret 09:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll second Daniel's suggestion. This map is a great idea. --Valentinian 10:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Great idea, we need a map to illastrate where the cartoons were published and where there were demonstration. A
world map would be better, as some countries outside Middle East and Europe published the cartoon. I agree to
Daniel's idea of the colours which will give readers a more detailed map. --Terence Ong (????) 11:54, 10
February 2006 (UTC)
I like the idea as well, however you might want to shade Turkey and Pakistan as Red now... :) --Scaife 11:58, 10
February 2006 (UTC)
Update on the map This is what I have so far:
Blue - countries that printed
Sliding scale of pink to hot red - protests, depending upon intensity
Mixed - both protests and printed
Things I wanted to add:
Flame icon - buildings burned
171
Denmark flag icon - places where Danish goods have been boycott
Small red person icon - places where people have died
If anyone feels strongly about anything, please let me know.
--Hitokirishinji 15:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it's very problematic to do this. What do countries have to do with this? In the US, one paper published them, all
the others didn't. Does this lead to the "whole country" having published it? Azate The same goes for coloring countries
with minor demonstations. Did the "whole country" riot? Azate 16:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I could put a number in each country to indicate how many newspapers published the cartoons but of course there
will be a disclamier to check the actaul list. And the "whole country riot" thing is going to be asessed by a sliding
scale like I said, the shades will be different for different number of rioters. If you think you have a better
solution, please feel free to post it. In general though, I like these guidelines at the moment and would prefer to
settle on them so I don't have to constantly remake the map everytime someone finds something offensive or
wrong. Hitokirishinji 16:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Please let me know what you think! I have updated with a new color scheme and everything. Also anyone who is color blind
let me know if you can make sense of it. Also please lets all agree on the colors and everything soon. It takes time to make
this so lets come to a consensus today because once I start working on it over the weekend, it's set in stone. One more thing,
this map is not complete yet. There are still quite a few countries left out so please don't assume its anywhere near done.
I think you are doing a fine job - now just get it up to date and on the article!Robovski 02:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Rumours and Misinformation
The ‘Rumours and misinformation’ section was deleted by Azate earlier today:
(cur) (last) 12:16, 9 February 2006 Azate (_Rumours and misinformation - deleted. this has been much shortened and put into
the timeline (try to look for hot dog e.g.))
It seems quite an important section and ought to be reinserted. All the information is there to be reinserted (go to History and
the time and date noted above), however, I don't know how to do this! Perhaps someone else could do the honor?
172
Furthermore, the following misunderstandings / misrepresentations (which were not included in the ‘Rumors and
Misinformation’ part of Wikipedia article were mentioned on the Danish Radio website this evening:
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Temaer/Oevrige_temaer/2006/Tegninger/Artikler/201343.htm
Below is a rough translation:
1) There were 120 drawings of the prophet Muhammed.
On the third of January the media (amongst this DR Nyheder Online
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Udland/2006/01/03/113630.htm) reported that a researcher at the Dansk Ægyptisk Dialoginstitut
by the name Hanna Ziadeh in a one hour interview on Egyptian television had had to clear up several misunderstandings
regarding the Muhammed-drawings in the Danish newspaper JP. Ziadeh, amongst other things, denied, that it concerned 120
drawings, but could confirm that it concerned 12.
2) The Danish government is considering deleting parts of the Quaran.
In Berlingske Tidende on the 12th of January (http://www.berlingske.dk/grid/indland/artikel:aid=681128) it is mentioned that
part of the material presented by the Imams during their travel claimed that Denmark would publish a censored version of the
Quoran.
3) The Danish government wants to make a film about Muhammed.
According to Berlingske Tidende the 13th of January (http://www.berlingske.dk/grid/indland/artikel:aid=682188), Mahmoud
Bakri, the editor of the paper Al Usbu (“the week”) in Cairo related that the Danish delegation of Imams has claimed that the
Danish government, following the Dutch film ‘Submission’ (which was critical of Islam) is planning to pay for a new film
turned particularly against the prophet Muhammed [the writing is a bit intransparrent here, presumably they mean simply
critical of Muhammed].
4) The prime minister refused meeting the ambassadors, as it was a matter of ‘freedom of speech’.
Fahmi Howaidi, a journalist on Arabnews, writes on the webpage Al-Jazeera.info
(http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2006%20Opinion%20Editorials/January/22%20o/Islam%20and%20the%20West%20Who%20
that 11 Arab ambassadors were refused by prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, as they wished to meet with the purpose
of making him registerer their protest against the insult against Islam. The reason given for the refusal was that the
173
government could not interfere in a case concerning freedom of speech. The prime minister himself, explained the matter as
follows in TV2 Nyhederne on the 30th of January (http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/article.php?id=3564679): “They had written a
letter [demanding …sic] that the government take legal steps against the JP. But there we have to say: It is impossible in a
democracy such as the Danish, which has freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Because of this, I wrote a cordial letter
to the ambassadors, for the exact reason, so as not the escalate the matter.
5) Muslim children are indoctrinated in Danish kindergartens
According to JP (http://www.jp.dk/indland/artikel:aid=3530022/), the Imam Mahmoud Fouad al-Barazi, told an Egyptian
newspaper, that Muslim children in Denmark are indoctrinated in the kindergartens. The imam thinks that this – in
conjunction with other social acts is intended to "rob the Islamic communities of their religion and identity". The assertions
about indoctrination were repeated on the Arabic television station Al-Jazeera in January.
Mila81.132.174.178 00:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Have translated the missing words. --Sir48 01:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Excellent, Sir. I'm afraid that I don't have the time to edit it for the Rumours & Misinformation section, nor to reinsert the
section itself as such. Anyone ...? Mila81.132.174.178 02:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
How far back did you go to dredge that up? I don't mind parts of it being there, but some of that needed to be trimmed
out. Kyaa the Catlord 09:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
HOLY CRAP. You brought back a version from like the VERY BEGINNING. I'm being bold. Try again with
something less... ancient. Kyaa the Catlord 09:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
This has been discussed above for a while under the section Translations of the Imam's 43 page dossier are
available. -- Avenue 09:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem bringing it back. But... find a more recent copy. The one you brought back was
missing changes I made to it nearly four days ago now. Kyaa the Catlord 09:30, 10 February 2006
(UTC)
I think you're mistaken. I inserted precisely the text that Azate deleted in a single edit, less
than 24 hours ago. Comparing my version with the one immediately preceding his edit shows
174
no differences in that section. If your changes were missing, they went missing before that. -Avenue 09:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
That would be my mistake then, i reinsterted an older one which he deleted again. :P
(Cloud02 10:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC))
Ah, then I was mistaken about Azate's conduct. He or she deleted the content in a
series of edits, most recently around 16:30-17:00 on 8 February 2006, and
discussed some of the earlier deletions on this page under "Remove some
sections" and "Rumors and Disinformation". So I was a bit hasty - my apologies.
I still think the possible contribution of rumors and misinformation to the situation
is not covered well by our article at present, but I'm no longer sure that reinserting
old content is the best approach. -- Avenue 11:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for taking the time find this, Mila! Btw, should'nt you get a real signature :) ?
Here you go Varga Mila 10:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you :) Something is strange. When I click on your link, I do not get to a normal user page. Click on mine, and
then on yours, and you will see the difference. Did you have any problems when you registered your name or when you
logged in? DanielDemaret 12:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I think she just hasn't added any content to her userpage yet. She should at least edit it once so her talk page is
activated. :D Kyaa the Catlord 12:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok ok. I just got lost looking and laughing at all the userboxes. Varga Mila 12:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Please Wikipedia, Respect Amish Ordnung
Why do we have Pictures of People! The Pennsylvania Dutch plain folk don't allow for pictures of people. So please respect
Amish Ordnung and not be Amishophobic. You're freedom of speech must respect our right not to be insulted by your graven
images! Just Kidding. long live free speech and the right to critique. Afterall, if the media is going to follow Islamic law, it
must also follow the Ordnung. Stetlerj 01:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
As much as i appreciate your point, and though i am not arguing on the side of "remove the pictures" the difference is that
175
islamic people can own computers and use the net... amish, not so much WookMuff 04:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Stetlerj was being facetious. Also Amish practice regarding photos is not universal
http://www.amishnews.com/amisharticles/amishand%20photos.htm just as Muslim practice regarding aniconism is not
either. Schizombie 21:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, i got that thanks :P WookMuff 23:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Comparable incidents... POV?
"Throughout history, believers from a multitude of faiths have called for boycott, arrest, censorship or even murder of
critics, artists and commentators whose works they considered blasphemous. Some of these have been jailed, censored
or killed, others walked free. There are also many examples of conflicts where a group of people have been offended,
but did not resort to violence and resolved the matter with discussion."
Does this seem to have POV undertones to anyone else, particularly the last sentence? Like it's saying some people managed
to resolve the matter in a civilised manner, whereas the Muslims didn't? --Nathan (Talk) 02:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the paragraph is a bit editorializing. I happen to think it is perfectly true, but that doesn't make it NPOV, it just
makes it MyPOV. Weregerbil 03:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
i think that its ok, except for the last sentence which is absolutely judgemental. WookMuff 04:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, the last sentence stinks. I'll remove it. Azate 13:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
template
I cant edit the page, can someone add {{Muhammad_cartoons}} to the top of the article?
Danish reaction
I've removed the inclusion of the full text of this minor internet petition. First of all, if it belonged anywhere, it would belong
176
in the opinions article, not the main article. Secondly, characterizing it as the "Danish reaction" is totally disingenuous.
Thirdly, a small website launched with a couple thousand alleged signatures probably doesn't warrant mention at all, and
certainly doesn't warrant inclusion of full text of what is written there. But if you want to try to push for a reference to it to be
included, put it in the opinions article. Babajobu 03:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I will put it back. It is as importtant as couple of Imams touring the muslim countries... Resid Gulerdem 03:54, 10 February
2006 (UTC)
No it isn't. The Imams helped to spark the protests in the Muslim world. The petition... well, it did not. gren ??? ?
03:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is. There is no evidence at all that the imams did that, just a speculation. These gorups in Denmark force
JP pull the cartoons back and apologize, as important. Resid Gulerdem 04:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Resid, you are the only one who has identified this little petition as being of such fundamental importance
to the event as requiring inclusion in the main article. If you want to put it in the opinions article, it might
survive here, but it will never make it in the main article. Babajobu 04:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
And everybody else think it shouldn't be there? Where and who are they? It looks you and I talking here... I am not sure
that if you and Grenavitar are everybody... Resid Gulerdem 04:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Resid, it does not matter whether you, Gren, and I believe the small poll is notable. All that matters is that it is
treated as notable by reliable sources. No such source has argued that the poll expresses a notable and important
opinion, and so to include it in Wikipedia would amount to original research. And regardless, even if notable it is
totally inappropriate in the MAIN ARTICLE. Push for it to be included in the OPINIONS article, where it would
belong if notable. Babajobu 04:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The difference is that the news-media have covered the Imams going to the Middle East extensively... no
major source has mentioned that petition (if the BBC, or NYT, or CNN mention it then do tell us). Read
about Wikipedia:Reliable sources gren ??? ? 04:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Do you need a source for it. The link is there I provided. Wouldn't you include this before main media? Resid
177
You need a non-primary source to say that the poll is important. That is why you need the BBC or CNN or
someone to say "this poll is notable" otherwise it's like the millions of other petitions online. Petitions are not
inherently notable. That is what I mean. gren ??? ? 05:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Going to have to agree that your addition Resid, doesn't belong on the main page... I was
thinking maybe in the 'Reconciliation' area... but the letter doesn't really seem to be about
reconciliation. Going to have to agree the with others and suggest 'Opinions'.. Netscott 04:43,
Should it be mentioned Denmark's 3rd largest and one of the most influential parties is pure and clear
Facist?--Ezeu 05:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Hehe. Ultra-Extreme right-wing, Xenophobic and an insult to everyone: yes. Fascist? You may have to go
and redefine fascism first.DanielDemaret 09:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
At the core of fascism is the idea that it the use of violence is legitimate. Danske Folkepartiet uses nasty
words against those who use violence, so in this respect they could be termed anti-fascist. If you insist in
giving the term "fascist" to any group in this controversy, you should attribute it to any group that has used
violence. I would advice against attributing anyone of that term altogether in this discussion, since it seems
irrelevant to me.DanielDemaret 10:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
No, this is not an article on the political parties of Denmark. I'm sure one exists and if you wish to note that
the third largest party is fascist there, it would be on topic. It isn't here. Kyaa the Catlord 09:39, 10
February 2006 (UTC)
Dansk Folkeparti already has an article, see Danish People's Party, but calling them Fascist is
completely off the mark. They are extremely nationalist but Fascist??? I am aware that particularly
one member of the Swedish cabinet likes calling Danes bad names - which looks rather interesting
when these messages are broadcasted here as well - but a remark like this is completely off the mark.
I'll be monitoring that page, just in case. BTW, yes, Denmark has a small Nazi party. They too have
a page, see National Socialist Movement of Denmark. They ran for the regional elections on
Zealand, and got 0.1% of the votes. Nobody takes them seriously. --Valentinian 09:58, 10 February
2006 (UTC)
Nazism still exists?? I thought it doesn't exist after 1945. This is a party that is more of a joke.
178
The Danish People's Party are not facist, they are nationalist. Moving the reaction to a
sub-page is better, and a summary at the section. --Terence Ong (????) 12:07, 10 February
2006 (UTC)
I agree - I think the fascist groups are the ones who are violent. In addition, look at the Wikipedia entry on fascism:
Fascism is also typified by totalitarian attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life: political, social,
cultural, and economic. You tell me which group wants to impose control over all aspects of life... Valtam 17:21, 10
February 2006 (UTC)
Sarawak Tribune Update
Just got some info from a source in Malaysia that the Sarawak Tribune, the paper that re-printed one of the cartoons, and
running since 1945 is now gone. Their license has been revoked, and it looks like their websites are no longer active.
Koguma 04:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I read that they shut down the Newspaper as well. (AP) Accountable Government 07:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Wookmuff's edit
In one of Wookmuff's recent edits to this talkpage he inadvertantly (I assume) deleted a very lengthy section of talk.
Wookmuff (or someone else) please restore it. Babajobu 04:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I just did, before I saw your call. gidonb 05:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
it wasn't inadvertant, but in hindsight it was a mistake... thanks, but i will readd my poll choices WookMuff
22:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
New Event: Campus Police SEIZE Papers With Cartoons
I think this information should be added to the article.
"Issue Invades Canadian Universities"
179
The international furore over Danish newspaper cartoons lampooning the prohet Muhammad has flared at two Canadian
Universities, where officials say public safety fears are forcing them to crack down on efforts to publicize the drawings.
In Charlottetown yesterday, security guards raided the offices of the University of Prince Edward Island student newspaper in
an effort to confiscate 2,000 copies of The Cadre before they could be distributed.
At Saint Mary's University in Halifax, a philosophy professor is vowing to fight a university order issued Tuesday that forced
him to take down the copies of the cartoons posted on his office door.
Dr. Peter March has filed a grievance with his teaching union, saying his academic freedom is under threat.
Ottawa Citizen. Tuesday, February 9,2006. Accountable Government 05:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
wow. sounds pretty noteworthy.--Alhutch 07:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Is there an online edition of this? That SHOULD be included, but probably in the international response article. Kyaa
the Catlord 07:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
One professor lost her job in in Saudi for similar reasons ... MX44 09:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a link directly for that story. But some of the newspapers are related through the Canada.com site. Here's a link to
the story. http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=7b7d851d-a9d9-49fd-8963-fbc665baa637&k=72181
Halifax Herald story: http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/483219.html Thparkth 13:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The current events section on this story was changed to "the administration halted the publication of.." as opposed to the fact
that campus security raided the office of the student paper and seized 2000 copies of it. There is no mention of this story in
the main article, but it's found on a link. The linked article also makes no mention of the fact that they took the papers.
Students actually hid some of the papers before they could get them. Accountable Government 16:43, 10 February 2006
(UTC)
The entry in the timeline article was changed by me, because it had no citation. After checking multiple publications I
changed the entry so that it matched the information that was consistently reported; none of them actually reported the
seizures having occurred, or the other details now seen. I've updated the timeline article with the details given above
now, along with the articles as appropriate citations. — digitaleon • talk @ 21:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
180
Amir Taheri
Does anyone think that this should be added? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
It is not exactly the The Times. Can anyone corroborate that this is a solid publication? And is the contents little more
than just speculation? DanielDemaret 08:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a subscription to the online NY post but the start of it is here at the Post. Also I'm not at home so I
can't sign up for the free subcription. Here's the full version Canada's National Post. CambridgeBayWeather
(Talk) 08:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
A site closed down today
Swedish media just reported that after talks between the swedish foreign department and the swedish security police, the ISP
that hosts the web site for "SverigeDemokraterna" have chosen to close down the a site containing pictures of Mohammed.
http://www.dn.se/ http://www.sr.se . SverigeDemokraterna is very very small, extreme right-wing party that has no seats in
parliament. The picture was, one of Mohammed looking in a mirror, not one of the JD pictures. This happened after several
papers in the middle east decided to publish the report that "a major swedish publication" had published caricatures of
Mohammed. Their web site is defintely not major, it is miniscule. If the ISP was pressured, it would be against the swedish
constitution, but it seems that they decided to do it on their own accord to protect swedish lives abroad. DanielDemaret 08:40,
Depends ... Those guys are not known to stay witin the law. Now if we coul have a look, /then/ we could comment. Do
you have a more detailed textual description? MX44 08:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Pretty boring picture it seems. A man look at himself in the mirror, is all. I see no reason to include the picture
here. I was more concerned with the possibility that the government might break its own constition over it.
Like this one http://islamcomicbook.com/images/mirrorsite.jpg ? MX44 09:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The Swedish Chancellor of Justice , Göran Lambertz, says that he does not spontanously see that the pictures come
under the swedish law "hets mot folkgrupp" (appox: provocation to violence against an ethnic group). Despite this,
Richard Jomshof (editor of SD-Kuriren) will report those other papers in sweden that have previously published the JP
cartoons. He is also going to report the Swedish National Encyclopedia, since it does indeed have a picture of
Mohammed. He says he wants the matter clarified. DanielDemaret 08:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
181
I just thought I would give a resume, since the links are in swedish. DanielDemaret 08:57, 10 February 2006
(UTC)
We aren't based in Sweden, and are not liable to Swedish law, as far as I know, Wikipedia is only governed
by laws of the state of Florida and federal United States law. NSLE (T+C) 09:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
If anyone cares to delete this section, feel free to do so. The more I read about the matter in different
swedish newspapars, the more boring it gets. Everyone seems to be behaving here :) DanielDemaret
09:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Pic http://hodja.wordpress.com/files/2006/02/060202muhammed400.jpg
Believe It or Else
Here is one comic book, 24 pages. Published 2001. These guys have obvious issues with POV. You have been warned.
http://islamcomicbook.com
The publisher appears to be Davidson Press
http://davidsonpress.com/islam/
MX44 09:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Ooookay, but what do we do with this? --Kizor 08:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure yet. Perhaps we could show that all of this is really a conspiracy of the christian race against the
muslim race. (joking) Seriously I wonder how Muhammad's Believe It or Else have managed to stay unnoticed
for so long. It blatantly redicules Islam on every single page, but I have yet to hear any protests. MX44 01:11, 12
February 2006 (UTC)
Describing the paper
Several times I have added "right wing" in despcribing JyllandsPosten in the introcuction of the article. Some people seem to
remove this constantly. Is it not relevant briefly to present what kind of paper it is? We discussed this issue previously, where
182
one or two US-citizens argued that the notion right wing in the US is perceived as far right. If this is the case I suggest you
take that discussion on the right wing page....According to the definiton on right wing it is obvious for anyone - opponents as
well as supporters - that JP is a right wing paper. Bertilvidet 12:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Agree - It is a rather important distinction to make, however only with the caveat that these views are in
someway divergent from the "mainstream" Danish press. -- Scaife 12:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that JP is NOT divergent. It is the largest paper in Denmark, regardless of Bert's wish that it was
some sort of fringe view. If it was a whacko fringe newspaper, I'd be more willing to let it be labelled, but the
facts speak otherwise. It is the mainstream paper and reflects the mainstream view of Danes. Kyaa the Catlord
14:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Have you read the previous discussion on this? Apparently not. This has come up EACH time you've labelled the
paper. Each time people have remembered that previously we'd discussed this and decided NOT to label the paper. If
you want to know about the paper, go to the JP wiki entry not the Muhammed controversy. Kyaa the Catlord 12:32, 10
February 2006 (UTC)
Actually I initiated the previous debate after several reversions. Even though you objected we did not decide
anything. Several users argued - like me - that labelling the paper is relevant. Pls not that noone disagrees that the
paper is right wing. Bertilvidet 13:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Just because noone argues that the paper is right wing does NOT make it relevant to this article. It was
argued once and people decided that even weakening the loaded phrase "right wing" to "centre-right"
wouldn't be correct. It was decided to remove it altogether. Then you added it again, and again people
decided to NOT INCLUDE it. Then you added it again, and started a talk discussion. You are inserting
loaded words and inserting POV into the article unnecessarily. I will NOT remove it for a third time but
this is a dead horse. Kyaa the Catlord 13:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
JP is the largest paper in Denmark. Almost by definition it cannot said to be deviating from the mainstream. Remove
the "right wing" stuff. NONE of the other papers, organizations or individuals on this page have such qualifying
adjectives. If you want to find out about JP, read the wiki article about it. Azate 13:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
No decision was taken previously - however agreement seemed to be reached that right wing is a more correct
description than centre-right, eventhough Kyaa argued against labelling the paper. It is a fact that JP is a right
wing newspaper, which they dont hide, and it thus not loaded to state it. Being right wing is not in contrast to
being mainstream - especially not in Denmark which is being ruled by a right wing government. I believe the aim
of this site is to give correct and relevant information. Is not correct that JP is right wing? is not relevant to state
the nature of the newspaper initiating an international crisis or should people think that this is just an ordinary
183
Danish newspaper as it appears now? Please argue the case instead of just reverting! Bertilvidet 13:50, 10
February 2006 (UTC)
To maintain NPOV, the article should remain politically neutral. JP is a normal Danish newspaper. To
claim it to be otherwise is inserting POV. Kyaa the Catlord 14:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
BTW, couldnt find the previous debate. Guess it is archived somewhere, can someone link it? Bertilvidet
13:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Archive 9b Header 14 and archive 10 header 22, why do other people have to look that up, when you
can just as easily do that yourself? Azate 14:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Link to archive Thank you, Azate, helpful of you to find the way to the archive. The direct links are
[34] and [35]. OPbviously no agreement have been reached. Once again..PLEASE tell if it is
irrelevant or incorrect to label the paper right wing!!!!Bertilvidet 14:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I think it's both correct and relevant. However, I also think it should not be here,
because it's only one _opinion _ among many. People who whould try to change the "group of
Danish Imams" into "group of leftwing/rightwing/extremist/pious/whatever Danish Imams"
have seen these adjectives shot down, too.Azate 15:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Where is the source allowing to label JP as "right wing"? Who says it is? What leads you to
this conclusion? You may find it strange but I think labeling JP as "right wing" is not only
POV but OR. If JP is not declaring itself as "right wing" or there are'nt some very good
sources which do so, this label has not to be in this article. And: many people not only in the
US but in Denmark and Germany too have a very clear view of what "right wing" means. It is
perceived as "right from the center", "biassed" or even "racist". That is the POV you are
inserting in this article if you label JP as "right wing". --Adornix 14:56, 10 February 2006
(UTC)
I did a search on goog for " danmark "højreorienteret avis" " (Denmark "right-wing
newspaper") and look at the bottom [36] (Cloud02 16:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC))
Only two of those links on the googling that you refer to, make a direct link between JP and being right-wing. And they are
both from the same blog ! That hardly makes a strong case. My impression is that JP is conservative paper. It is a pretty much
on par with the government, which means very conservative and right of the political centre. 'Right wing', as such, bears
connotations of extremeitism, which would definitely be incorrect in this case. Varga Mila 17:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
184
Adornix, thank you for arguing substantially for your case. With such disagreements we need to understand our
co-writers, as I believe we all want to ensure a balanced NPOV entry. None of you seem to be vandals, so its important
to argue for any view - even if it appears natural.
In Denmark the paper is usually described as "borgerlig", a term that has no clear equivalent in English - but usually is
translated as either right wing or conservative. JP also defines it self as 'borgerlig´ [37]. Stating this in the article, I do
frankly not see as POV! Try to Google "jyllands-posten" and "borgerlig" - or jyllands-posten and right-wing - you will
see a wide range of sources - right wing and scholar sources all connecting the two. How can it be POV to label a paper
as right wing when both the paper itself, supporters, opponents and scholars call is so?? Bertilvidet 18:23, 10 February
2006 (UTC)
As far as I know the english language and as far as I know the perception of the terms right-wing and
conservative, I would say that they are not synonymous. I would have no objections against labelling
JP as conservative because this term is much less devaluating. But the self definition of JP I found on
their homepage is not only "borgerlig" but "liberal borgerlig", what may be a bit different. I'm not
sure if "borgerlig" is usually read as "right wing" in Denmark. In Germany you have to be quite
leftist to find "bürgerlich" identical to "rechts" (right-wing). The only good english translation of
borgerlig I found is actually french: bourgeois, but I'm not absolutely sure this translation gets the
point. Conservative may be better.
If we can reach sort of consensus about labelling JP at all, conservative would be the best choice, I
think. "Liberal" would irritate most american readers, I fear.
As you may have thought, I'm not entirely against a political label for JP, because most newspapers
in the western world have an explicit political self definition which it is sometimes helpful to know
when you first hear about a specific one. But we have to be very careful not to label JP in a way that
can be seen as deprecatory. So we should be very close to JP's "liberal borgerlig".
I hope my point is clear now, despite the fact I had to use my german-english dictionary and may not
always have chosen the most appropriate terms. --Adornix 20:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
So if they call themselves "liberal borgerlig", should we call them a "liberal conservative"
paper? Or do they mean "liberal" in the sense many Europeans mean it: libertarian? Valtam
20:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
"liberal" is somewhere between "maximization of individual liberties" and a simple
"free market" philosophy, I think, probably more the latter. --Adornix 20:38, 10
185
February 2006 (UTC)
The old translation of "borgerlig" is "bourgeois". The problem with the term is that "right wing" has no easy
definition, and consequently the term has different meanings for different people. E.g. this is an international
encyclopedia based in the United States. Consequently, I define right wing as e.g. the Republican Party in the
U.S. In this context, Jyllands-Posten is clearly a centre-based newspaper. A former U.S. ambassador once
commented on the Danish People's Party is "in America they'd just be a centre party". In a Danish context, I'd
define right wing as the part of the spectrum ranging from the Danish People's Party on one hand, to the Nazis
and "Stop the Immigration" one the other. Jyllands-Posten is surely more left-wing than this. In both cases,
centre-right / right of centre seems to be the best description. --Valentinian 19:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
IMHO "borgerlig" in Danish implies two things, both of which could be defined negatively, namely
"non-socialist", and "non-extremist". "Liberal" in the Danish sense refers mostly to "individualism" as
opposed to conservative "centralism" regarding the role of the state and government. The last label for the
newspaper is "uafhængig", meaning "independent" of any particular group or policy. I support to avoid
labeling the newspaper in this article, since short labels will be interpreted very differently in different
countries. We are talking about the biggest Danish newspaper and its attitudes are - I hope - described in
needed detail in its article. --Sir48 20:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
'Borgerlig' is actually a funny word with lots of different meanings, deriving from the meaning
'bourgeois'. However in contemporary politics it should be translated as 'rigth wing' or conservative'.
I am hesitant about using the term 'liberal', because it has so different connotations around the globe
(esp. diff. betw. US and Europe). Just stating [Right wing] it is neither centre right nor far right. I
find it clearly misleading to lead the paper centre-right - according to the Danish political landscape
it is clearly not. And I dont see how the paper is to be placed left of the Republicans. Using the term
'conservative' seems adequate, if you believe right wing gives wrong connotations. Bertilvidet 20:56,
If you think the similarity between Jyllands-Posten and the U.S. Republican Party is so clear, I
will respectfully suggest that you read more about the Republicans. From what I've read, I see
clear differences. E.g. the importance the religious right plays in the Republican party.
Another example: Jyllands-Posten is often critical of Israel, as well as being critical of the
186
Palestinians. I believe this is a clear case as well. The feeling towards "big business" is another
difference. Jyllands-Posten has - on a number of occations - argumented for free immigration
to Denmark, provided that immigrants - on the other hand - should not be able to receive
government benefits for the first eight or so years in Denmark. On this issue. they differ quite
clearly from the government, the newspaper being more left-wing. In comparison, I have not
heard the GOP call for free immigration to the United States. --Valentinian 21:41, 10 February
2006 (UTC)
It could be observed that we differ rather much, Bertilvidet, which adds to the argument
that our differences in opinion can not be boiled down to a two-word label.--Sir48
22:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
By the way - just to add to the fuel and confusion (fundamentally it is utterly irrelevant) - JP is often known as 'Morgen
facisten Jyllands-Posten' (The Morning facist, the Jyllands-Post), which is a (quite bad) play on the words (the morning news
Jyllands-Posten, which JP 'calls' itself) [it is probably a historical derivative]. ;-) Varga Mila 08:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
"It is the mainstream paper and reflects the mainstream view of Danes." Kyaa the Catlord; What gives you the
idea that newspapers, no matter how common they are, reflect the mainstream view of a certain group of people?
Does the bible reflect the mainstream view of the Earth's human population, as it is one of the most
read/published/translated literary works? Not necessarily. It is also possible that Pravda, for e.g., did not reflect
the mainstream views of citizens of USSR, isn't it? --HJV 20:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
tidbit to include to article
The editor of Jyllands-Posten, the newspaper which first published the cartoons, is sent on leave for an indefinite period, as
the editor of a Norwegian magazine that reprinted them apologises.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4699716.stm
'The editorial staff has told Flemming Rose that he ought to go on holiday. No one can imagine the incredible amount
of pressure he has been under,' said Jyllands-Posten's editor-in-chief Carsten Juste.'
http://www.jp.dk/english_news/artikel:aid=3549984/ MX44 12:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
This issue is frighteningly simple. Muslim prohibitions apply only to Muslims, not to non-believers - unless someone can tell
187
me where in the Quran or the Hadith it says otherwise. I respect the right of Muslims to practice their religion and their
beliefs, and I want the same respect from them for mine. Les Raphael212.219.240.201 15:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC), 10
February 2006
Errors
Why is this not mentioned? JeffBurdges 14:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Who is this David Warren fellow? Does the article add NPOV content?DanielDemaret 14:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Err, no, his article should not be linked! But much of its content is sourceable and should be mentioned. i.e. that
the comics many protesters saw is much worse than the content actually printed. JeffBurdges 21:30, 10 February
2006 (UTC)
Agree with JeffBurdges. By the way: our article isn't NPOV either, I'm afraid. I'm sure the arabic article,
which should also be NPOV, and which I am unable to read (can't even do OR :-) on that) describes the
whole controversy rather differently. And a hypothecical NPOV article written by muslims living in
Denmark/Europe would differ in many other areas, I suppose. --Sir48 21:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
supermarket photo
I tried to figure out what country Image:Dm product.jpg is from. I'm moderately sure that the "al-Tamemi Markets"
mentioned at the image talk are the al-Tamimi Markets of Saudi Arabia. Thoughts? - BanyanTree 15:28, 10 February 2006
(UTC)
Seems logical to me. Arabic has only three vowels, A, I, and U, and translitteration regarding "E"s differ. I think it is a
pretty safe match. (If somebody has some red hot insider information on this issue, feel free to correct me.)
--Valentinian 22:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I've made a note on the original image at Commons. Thanks, BanyanTree 03:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Negligence on the part of Danish prime-minister
When I read the current article, I notice that the fact that the Danish prime-minister did not want to meet with representatives
188
from the Arab League have been left out. Isn't this one of the more escalating points in the developement of the story, and it
has to be mentioned in order to understand both sides? MX44 16:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I Agree. One or two senteces should be there. It's covered in detail in the timeline Azate 16:22, 10 February 2006
(UTC)
It is /almost/ in the introduction. A single well aimed sentence will do it MX44 16:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Then I also think the reason to as why the prime minister refused to meet with the representatives, because
of their demands that the meeting should be about discussing the punishment the danish government
should give Jyllands-posten. The.valiant.paladin 16:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Please see the quote from the prime minister under Rumours and Misinformation above. What is the status on that, by the way
? Will someone incorporate some of the stuff mentioned there in the article ? Varga Mila 17:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
It IS in the article (in the timeline, as is everything else that used to be in "Rumors an Disinformation"), it's just not on
the frontpage anymore. I think we agree that the stuff with the hot dog stand or the koran burning that didn't happen
doesn't deserve mention on the main page. THose rumors that did turn out to be more than that, and that had a major
impact (esp the pig picture thing) are still on the main page. We can't really be in the business of debunking stuff like
"Danish government to issue new version of Koran" here. People how believe this sort of stuff usually don't look it up
in Wikipedia fist, I suspect. What I just said does obviously not apply to the ambassadors not being received by the PM.
This is in the timeline, and it should see short mention on the frontpage. Azate 18:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake Varga Mila 19:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Agree Should be mentioned in the introduction. The fact that the PM refused to meet with the ambassadors is one of
the corner stones in the critique of his handling of the case Bertilvidet 18:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
As I remember the case, television reported in advance that the imams wanted to meet the PM to demand that he
re-introduced censorship. He might be critized in the Arab world, but he still has no legal rights to close /
regulate newspapers (or as the term was coined: "to guarantee that this never happens again" / "influence JP".) It
is not really surprising that he refused to meet them given this pretext, cf. § 77 in the Danish constitution. Point
no. 2 is that the PM does not recognize the imams as leaders of the Muslim community in Denmark, so he didn't
wish to lend them any special authority. By all means include a refence to this event, but include why he refused
to do so. If not, the article will become biased, and people will just read the course of events as "he probably just
hates foreigners". --Valentinian 20:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
189
Ambassadors, not imams. Of course the PM had arguments for refusing to meet the ambsassadors, but in
the Danish debate this refusal has sparked a lot of criticism towards the PM. Bertilvidet 20:27, 10 February
2006 (UTC)
Azate, I noticed you just added a paragraph (nice, balanced). But where do you have the stuff about
the imams from?? Its not in the reference. As far as I know no imams where involved in the letter
from the ambassadors. Let me know if I am wrong Bertilvidet 21:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, you're wrong ;->. Look up the "letter to the amabassadors" which predates their request
for meeting Rasmussen in the "Dossier" artice Azate 21:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The order was: The imams wish for a meeting with the PM -> the PM rejects (citing the reasons above) -> the imams
turn to the Muslim ambassadors -> the ambassadors now wish for a meeting with the PM (to ask for the introduction of
censorship) -> the PM rejects this meeting as well. --Valentinian 21:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake. Just ignore my two previous posts :$ Bertilvidet 22:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Just for clarity: The order was: The imams wish for a meeting with the PM -> the PM rejects (citing the
reasons above) -> the imams turn to the Muslim ambassadors -> the ambassadors now wish for a meeting
with the PM (to ask for the introduction of censorship) -> the PM rejects this meeting as well -> the imams
go to court -> the court says the cartoons are ok -> weekend avisen and Ali hirsi -> the imams go
international Azate 22:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Minister! :-) --Valentinian 22:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
See, that's the sort of remark that'll help you in life ;-> Azate 23:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
How do you read "to ask for the introduction of censorship" out of the paper they sent to Fogh? 1) They bring up a number of
derogatory remarks, not just JP 2) they urge Fogh to "take all those responsible to task under law of the land" - which would
be the Danish law and constitution, right? This might not be the place to start a debate, but your representation of the
ambassadors seems pretty one-eyed. Poulsen 23:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The Imams first went the route via the courts. The courts said the publication was not illegal. Afterwards, they lobby
the ambassadors to "communicate this account of the regrettable situation and this population segment's indignation
and irritation to their governments and to the relevant authorities in their countries with the needed haste, to at least
190
express their protests".
Whatever that means. Lots of Islamic countries' (19?) governments issue a communique (at the IOC conference) that
asks Rasmussen to "reign in the press" and "punish those responsible" to "ensure that such things never happen again"
(quotes from memory. You can read the IOC report, too). Then 11 countries dispatch the 11 ambassadors. Azate 02:09,
The ambassadors requested a meeting in October 2005, the OIC was in January 2006 (if what you are refering to
is this [38]) - your timeline is a little wrangled. Poulsen 02:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
You're right. I'm tired, I mixed things up. Fortunately the page is sound. Azate 03:16, 11 February 2006
(UTC)
Fair enough, but do you still see it as "asking for the introduction of censorship"? As I see it, it was
part of Fogh's political spin, to play down the unfortunate part (for him) of his own cultural minister
and others, while citing that he did so because the ambassadors "want me to break the freedom of
press", even though that was not the exact words of the letter he received, or at least his active
interpretation of it. Poulsen 10:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
pig person picture
I think it is poor taste to put it in a section that is headlined "danish imams tour the middle east". It looks like a wilfully evil
association, like this was a picture of one of the imams. It's on the same wink-wink level as the imams putting it in the dossier
in the first place. I realize this has been disussed before, but that was when the section was much longer and it apperead
midway down, where the picture itself was discussed. The picture is of course still in the "dossier" article, wher it of coure
belongs. Azate 16:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Now that was quite a new angle :) :) :D ... MX44 16:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The article mentions the picture. Therefore would showing the picture be relevant to the article. --Maitch 16:38,
keep, The additional images that the Danish imams added are probably at the core of why this whole thing
got so blown out of proportion... as such, there should be a visual on the main page to better highlight that
probability. Netscott 17:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
191
You got to wonder what the guy in the picture must be thinking right now... "Muslims? I was just trying to be a pig!"
The 'Hirsi' reference skews the whole part into some whining crap. They were dissatisfied, so they went on tour. MX44 17:55,
Yeah. I don't feel it's very relevant, too. But apparently THEY did. Did you read the newly translated dossier? Azate
18:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
No I haven't. Can you somehow boil it down to the essence without reiterating the same statements over and over
again? MX44 18:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
There is no reference to Hirsi Ali in Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy_43p_dossier. So tidy up
I would say MX44 18:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes there is: Quote:
"Several conditions increased our pain and torment:
1. The ridicule of Islam and its followers has become an easily distributed commodity, when an almost extinct newspaper
published images stronger and more offending on 11 November, probably to regain its popularity; this paper is
"Weekendavisen".
2. Muslims received during this period of time - most notably those taking part in the actual protest against the images letters whose tone differed between direct threats and mockery of Islam itself through attacks on the Qu'ran, when these
people claimed that it was a fabrication, and they took part in the attack on the Prophet (PBUH) by sending animated images,
that were stonger and fiercer, and which come from a deep hatred to Islam as a religion.
3. Denmark received the Dutch author of Somali decent, who is the author of the film, that degrades Islam, and whose
producer was killed recently in Holland. The reception for her was a consequently a continuation of the confrontation,
particularly since she gave an interview to Danish television in which she talked about Islam in a degrading way. And the
strange is, that the Prime Minister, who had rejected meeting with the ambassadors, received her and presented her with an
award, like he stated that he appreciated her brave positions and her free opinions. So now you se how it is....
192
This is why the organizations again called to an urgent meeting, in which it was decided to create delegations, who could visit
the Islamic world with the intent of informing them on the danger of the situation and make them take part in the defence and
support of our prophet (PUBH)." Azate 19:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, Couldn't find her name. The Dutch parliament then? Shouldn't that be a murdered Dutch producer? MX44
20:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
She's a member of the Dutch parliament mostly occupied with womens' issues and immigration. How,
precisely, she ended up producing Van Goghs film, I don't know. Probably she also heads some lobbying
groups/organitations that provided (some) funding for the film. Azate 21:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Her bio is linked, so all that and she is Somalian and has father ... and then prizes too. But the imams
objected against her affiliation with the Submission_(film) project, not that she is an MP MX44
21:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
In twisted turn of fate, the reason for Hirsi Ali coming to Copenhagen at this inconvenient time,
instead of a year earlier, was the death threats and the murder of Van Gogh. I think I'll leave it to
Roald Atkinsson to wrap that one up ... MX44 23:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
There is now a fine textual description of The 43p Dossier :) How about lightening it up slightly with a picture of, say a
Chair? Or would that be too offensive? (to Jyllands Komposten, that is.) MX44 03:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The pig-person picture illustrates how the dossier could have inflamed sentiments more than the original 12
Jyllands-Posten cartoons, which I think is an essential part of this section. So if we are going to replace the pig-person
image, I believe we'd need to use an equally inflammatory image, such as one of the dog or pedophile pictures. The
pedophile image is probably the one that is least likely to be perceived as implicitly representing one of the imams.
But I also think that the original source of the pig-person photo, which has nothing to do with Muslims in Denmark,
makes it less objectionable in wider terms. -- Avenue 09:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
It also illustrates that one reputable and arguably disinterested party, BBC World, believed at one stage that this picture
was published in Jyllands-Posten as a result of its inclusion in the dossier. This strengthens the case that the dossier
could have misled some of its intended audience. -- Avenue 09:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
193
The original caption (true face of Muhammad) is missing from the pig-picture. The others (from the three) have
their offensive nature described MX44 09:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I support replacing the current pig-picture with a version that includes the original caption. -- Avenue
10:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I would rather keep the french connection with the picture and focus on the ill-will in the text. BTW,
this picture is getting waay too much attention MX44 12:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
El Fagr
How big is this Newspaper? From what i read it has somewhere around 50.000 made each day. And it's an extreme right-wing
paper, that brings very controversial stuff. And besides that I also read (on politiken.dk, cant find the article now), that the
paper CRITISIZED Jyllands-posten in the article when they brought the pictures alongside.(Cloud02 16:51, 10 February 2006
(UTC))
that's what the article says: "Six of the cartoons were reprinted in the Egyptian newspaper El Fagr in October
2005[21][22][23] along with a highly-critical article". As of "right wing" I don't know, and it doesnt matter anyway. All
I gather from various souces is that it is not state owned, or owned by the governement party or their affiliates, which,
in an Egyptian context, is a rarity and qualifies it as an opposition newspaper. Azate 17:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Again, it is really NOT "an extreme right-wing paper". Boring, conservative, and reactionary, no doubt ! But nothing 'worse'
than that. Varga Mila 17:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
In the political context of the Arab world, the word "right-wing" is absolutely meaningless. Tells you nothing at all.
Babajobu 18:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, the division is rather between "vocal" and "silent" Ruby 22:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Controversial Image placement in Wikipedia entries (is there an informal
policy?)
Having just read Jimbo Wales' Talk page regarding the Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy entry I noticed
194
that he discusses the placement of the main Jyllands-Posten image on the top part of the page:
" I see no particular editorial reason for keeping it at the top, when in other (but not all) similar cases, we have
moved such images to the middle or bottom. "
and it got me wondering about that. Maybe we should move it down lower on the page and have a small disclaimer at the top
so that those coming to this entry will have a choice to continue down the page. Prior to reading his talk page, I didn't really
think that the image should be lower on the page... but afterwards, the idea of placing the image lower doesn't seem so wrong.
His talk page made me curious to know what have other Wikipedia entries with controversial images done relative to image
placement? Does anyone know of other entries that have controversial images? I'd be curious to see at least one entry where
the controversial image has been left at the top and another entry where the controversial image was placed lower. I must
admit though... that part of me thinks that if these images have been used to manipulate people without good faith reasons
(nefariously) then to move them would be in a sense giving into that dark side.
Curiously, as the affair commences, it's less and less about these 12 cartoons, and more and more about the OTHER
images, lobbying and power politics. As witnessed by the El-Fagr publication, it's those that saw the dossier of the
Imams (or nothing at all, that is, the 10,000s of demonstrators), rather than those who saw the pictures, that are really
inflamed about them. This has at least been the case among the Muslim people I know (Turks), whose anger
(everybody had heard about this stuff, mostly from Turkish papers) quickly gave way to "This is all?" comments once
they saw the actual cartoons in German papers or on TV. I see no need for these 'disclaimers', nobody appears to drop
dead from exposure. Azate 00:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, Wales is a sensible person, and it's not unthinkable that we could move the image down. However,
consensus have been reached on the position on the image, and with several other controversial articles having
images that *could* be offensive to *some* people in the same position, and with the image being a central part
of the whole story, I think that consensus is quite defendable.
Now, I also think that a lot of poeple voted as they did out of a sense of "defending freedom of speach". In an
ideal world, Wikipedia should not be about that, just simply be an encyclopedia, a place where you can find
knowledge. However, with supposedly "liberal" countries like Sweden caving in to radical muslims demands and
excerting governmental pressure on ISP's to take down sites that show pictures of Muhammad, it seems like the
world do in fact need Wikipedia to take a stance for free speach.The.valiant.paladin 01:01, 11 February 2006
(UTC)
195
hello
this is my first ever post at wikipedia and dispite risking makeing my self look noobish I would like to make a suggestion
about this article:
Is it possible to link this artcle with the article of islamophobia?
Reasons:
The cartoons may or may not have been a product of islamophobia considering they were made specifically to provoke —The
preceding unsigned comment was added by Dubdub 80 (talk • contribs) .
First, let's not try to guess why the pictures were made. None of us are mind readers. A large part of the deadly violence
around the world is likely to be caused by reckless speculation about other peoples' motives. Second, as you say, "may
or may not". Wikipedia is not a place of speculation. We should keep guessing and speculation to the minimum.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog. And welcome to Wikipedia, I hope you'll have fun here! Weregerbil 01:28,
There are many interpretations. For example, they could have published them to make patent the hypocrisy of several
european media, which have a long tradition of making fun of christianism (because freedom of speech), while at the
same time showing their most sincere respects to muslims (because religion is sacred, and such). Many people in
Europe think they have this double standard just because they know that christians don't react violently, as (some)
muslims do. Under this interpretation, provoking muslims would have been a call to either stop the media for provoking
christians everyday, or stopping the extremists from censoring the media (you know, when they call suicide bombers
rebels instead of terrorists, because it could offend all those people that see them as heroes). DrJones 02:05, 11
February 2006 (UTC)
Now that we've all taken a stand and shown that Wikipedia isn't going to be cowed by demands for self-censorship, is it
perhaps time to heed Jimbo's words and concede that the image doesn't actually have to be at the top, and we can combine
non-censorship with a measure of sensitivity by moving it a least a screenful down (maybe leaving the one with the
schoolboy, i.e. the one which doesn't show the Prophet himself, at the top)? I know we're all sick of the question, but do we
have to be bound for ever by votes taken in the heat of battle? At what point do we allow wiser, calmer counsels (e.g. Jimbo's)
to get a look-in? Vilcxjo 21:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
196
Map final?
Is everyone satisfied with these colors? (including the color blind) I'd like to get this down finally so I can really start working
on it. Hitokirishinji 03:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Shouldnt Jordan, Yemen Egypt and Malaysia also be blue? they printed the cartoons as stated in the article -Astrokey44|talk 04:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
As I stated above, it is NOT done yet. This is merely a sample so I can get some direction and consensus on the
colors. Hitokirishinji 05:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not color blind, but the colors look good to me. Do you expect trouble from large demonstrations in
tiny countries? --Kizor 08:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Go to the list of newspapers table as you are missing half the countries that have printed it including Brazil,
Argentina, Venezuela, Lithuania etc etcHephaestion 05:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The discussion is getting a bit heated, please stay cool. Anyway, a world map will be better and include all
the countries. I hope its not too hard to create a large map. --Terence Ong 09:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The colors look good. The way you are able to show both blue and red is a good idea too! (The other people in this
room applauded, by the way= DanielDemaret 13:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Once again, I'm not done. This map is not complete yet. I know there are countries missing, I chosen not to fill them in yet
until I get some direction on the colors from everyone so I don't have to remake the map everytime a new color is decided.
Anyways, it looks like I'm not getting many comments on the colors so I'm going to assume most folks are satisfied with
them. Hitokirishinji 14:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
What color is to be used for countries (ie Hong Kong, China) who disallows protesters to rally? MX44 00:25, 12
February 2006 (UTC)
197
From aside of what people said, I think the map is too "simple", and I'm not sure if you should color Greenland: I consider
them quite a seperate territory, like Costa-Rica, where they have their own distinctive culture, people, language and media.
You also missed lots of Canadian soil, be careful with those kind of places =) --84.249.252.211 03:08, 12 February 2006
(UTC)
If you would please read the list of papers printing the cartoons, you will see that Greenland's largest daily did print the
cartoons in support of Free Speech and in support of Denmark. So it should definitely be coloured!!!!Hephaestion
06:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Message to Idiots: muslims are not a race!
--Greasysteve13 04:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
First of all don't call other people idiots, it's unecessary and it violates Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy, secondly
it's brought up more than a few times that Muslims are not a race. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 05:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. The fact that it's brought up more than a few times that Muslims are not a race is the reason I
snapped.--Greasysteve13 05:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Ebook about this article?
Check [39] this link: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate: A War Of Ideas.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
Talk
04:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
This is funny. Pretty soon we will have to make an article about this talk page, or rather these pages. The link to the
PDF files is here [40], but there is nothing in them, other what can already be found here in the archives, plus the short
introduction written by John Simmons of the Iraq Museum International. Twthmoses 08:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I'm in a book! :-) --Kizor 08:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I, too, am in a book... sadly i am probably mostly in the book typoing and making an arse of myself with "witty"
comments... damn, i started my poll discussion too late! WookMuff 08:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Yup, having thoroughly and rather egomaniacally searched both pdfs purely for instances of my own nick, i have
to agree i come off both as a provocateur and a smartarse... OUCH. But on the upside, i do have my poll
discussion in there so thats good. Also, someone called me sarcastic. Hitler DID make the trains run on time, its
198
why he had such good supply lines and part of how he managed to consolidate his holdings following blitzkreig.
Call me sarcastic, will you 70.49.166.186... WookMuff 09:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I think that's really awesome. Babajobu 11:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Got my awesome vote too. Kyaa the Catlord 13:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The book states: Copyright 2006 Bagdad Museum. Looks like a violation of GNU GFDL. --Sir48 23:02, 11 February 2006
(UTC)
Missing Archive?
I was looking around for my last comment, and it seems as though it got archived here [41], but there is no corresponding
archive that got created at that time. Is there a hidden archive 11 somewhere?--Rayc 06:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
It's there now. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Reply to requests for removal on HelpDesk-l.
The Wikipedia HelpDesk mailinglist is regularly getting requests for the removal of the cartoons. Can someone please
suggest a short and respectful reply? -- Jeandré, 2006-02-11t06:46z
Version 4:
Wikipedia is not censored, and its editors think that the best way to inform people who choose to learn about the nature
of the cartoons and how they are causing offence, is to give people the opportunity to see the cartoons themselves.
Looks good, you might also consider pointing them to other articles on controversial items such as Piss Christ to
demonstrate that Islam is not being singled out in this case. -Loren 07:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that "In Islam, Jesus (called Isa) is considered one of God's most beloved and important
prophets, a bringer of divine scripture, and also the Messiah." (from Jesus), so that may make things worse.
I was thinking of noting the nasty images at Anti-semitism, but I'm not sure. -- Jeandré, 2006-02-11t15:09z
And tell them that we respect their concerns, but... Babajobu 12:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
199
You could use the wording of {{Mohammed}} for inspiration (except for the warning to block,
which would be inappropriate in this case). Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 12:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The best answer would be: OK we are removing them. As I tried to explain below: The argument that everyone should see the
cartoons which the debate is about is meaningless. To have all those cartoons is pointless. Because: A Westerner will hardly
find anything wrong with the cartoons, on the other hand, a Muslim will be ofended and feel insulted with them. The verbal
discriptioon of the case much more important and strong in this case. Please note that this article is not explanation of the
cartoons, it is about the controversy around them... Resid Gulerdem 23:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Resid, the pictures cannot be removed because there is a consensus to keep them. They contain important information.
The Definition of Encyclopedic Knowledge
The cartoons simply cannot be removed from an ENCYCLOPEDIA. The very word "was chosen as the title of a reference
work covering ALL knowledge." SOURCE: Dictionary.com
—metavalent 07:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
All Knowledge—Except Rubbish
Dear metavalent,
Does it mean that we must, for example, feature pornography on encyclopædia in order to cover our knowledge about it?
Similarly: does one have to consume excrements (shit) to learn about excrements?
Everyone will have his answer to such questions.
One matter of fact is that, theoretically, it’s always possible to learn about things (and even learn things) without
participating in them, even if to do so would sometimes be extremely difficult. Admittedly, in practice, to learn such, for
example, arts as gymnastics or piano playing borders with impossible without performing them.
200
My opinion is that we should try hard to avoid including offensive samples on encyclopædia, unless no clever transfer of
knowledge can be done without doing so. I would see it as a matter of taste and great-spiritedness. Do we want cheap
sensationalism to pervade this website? Shouldn’t we wish to apply imagination and intelligence for cognitive purposes in
such a place as Wikipedia, rather than offend some of us in cases when providing explicit samples will do so? We may often
desire knowledge even at a big cost, but is this one picture worth of this cost, which is trampling the dignity of each other
amongst Wikipedia users? Does this picture itself represent significant knowledge?
Or maybe we want to test the sovereignty of Wikipedia in terms of free speech by attempting to go nasty, in the fashion of
Jyllands Posten. Well, I don’t think that we need to fear about free speech issues on Wikipedia at this moment in history, not
at least on its English edition. Let’s face it that, to many of us, insisting on publishing the picture here is an exercise in
freedom of knowledge, a more or less conscious anti-jihad, rather than actually valuable contribution. I consider this exercise
redundant at best. After all, Wikipedia is no political tool, no matter how big its potential to challenge political issues is. It
can be politically powerful as a side effect of its mission. Probably the following statement will be not trivial to grok: I think
that Wikipedia should resist distortion to knowledge induced by political pressure, but it should avoid becoming a field of war
with any such pressure. I propose that Wikipedians should play wars and propaganda outside Wikipedia, to leave it
unaffected by them and as objective as ever. For Wikipedia is the goal of freedom, not the means to get it ;-). (Alt.:
Freedom is the means to get Wikipedia and not the reverse.)
Said this all, I don’t have this sense of absolute certainty which often accompanies me on other occassions. Therefore I’m
reserving here my right to be wrong. Use my statements as a material to develop your own opinions rather than as what I want
you to think. Maybe someone else can recompute them to a point where they’ll deserve greater judgemental certainty. I’m
always hesitant to attempt making any intervention in Wikipedia, because, as far from its full potential as it may still be, its
quality as a whole puts to shame all my individual creations ever performed.
One least thing, that I’m nearly sure about, that we should do—if to take the assumption of our good faith
seriously—is to always conceal offensive content behind warning messages, so that only those of us, who want to see
them, will see them.
—6birc, 19:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible to read the previous two million discussions before repeating this yet again?-11 February 2006 (UTC)
Dear Nomen Nescio,
201
Nomen Nescio 19:32,
1. Admittedly, it’s difficult to read two million discussions ;-). Do you honestly think that reading these
should become an unconditional prerequisite to participating in any discussions on Wikipedia?
2. It’s all too easy to lose mind to suggestion of circumstances in everyday life affairs, in general, and in such
political affairs like this, in particular. As a result, frequent repetition of obvious truths is indispensible
when circumstances become critical. (They became so.) This reassures people that old truths remain valid
in new context and teaches them to appreciate these more universally. On top of that, many of us never
learn ;-).
3. Maybe we’re duplicating the information present in the “necessary crap” space, that talk is, but at least
we’re doing this with a virtuous purpose in mind: to preserve the “quality” space that article (intendedly) is
;-).
4. ...which statement are you referring to? ;-).
—6birc, 20:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
El Fagr word is spreading!
As of the writing of this entry the Arabic Wikipedia Entry on Jyllands-Posten Cartoon controversy has added the El Fagr
image:
202
for Oct. 17, 2005 - One of
the controversial cartoons
of Muhammad, as it
appeared on the first page
El Fagr.
As well as The serbian version. It would be good to have this image spread around.... to highlight this previous publication, so
if there are other wikipedia editors who edit in other languages maybe you could help add it to the other language controversy
pages as well?
NO! Thanks... Resid Gulerdem 23:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Conspiracy theory
Does anyone think this requires serious consideration: internationalist world govern conspiracy theory? Yeah, I thought so.
Most certainly some of the riots in e.g. Lebanon involve radical groups that want to take power undemocratically (ie
conspire themselves to power). However, I doubt that conspiracy theories really suit this article now...--HJV 20:04, 11
February 2006 (UTC)
Guenter Grass's Interview in Die Welt
Gunter Grass opinion --Chaos 13:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Say what? This is from 2002 and about something else altogether. Azate 15:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
BTW, fpp is in no way a useful source: it's David Irving's holocaust denial outfit. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 19:31, 11
February 2006 (UTC)
203
the original article in Deutsch : die welt --Chaos 21:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Layout
The layout, as it is right now, it awful: There is a gaping white hole right at the top of the page, apparently because the
introduction has been split and a new section "Background" inserted, probably with the laudable intention to move the table
of contents upward. I propose the following: 1) Re-merge "Backgroud" (which is a bad name to begin with) back with the
introduction 2) Have the Table of contents at the side of the introduction. It should be at the top, really. 3) (I hardly dare say
that, after all the fuss) Move the 12 cartoons down to "publication of the drawings",because ther is not enough space for both
the picture and the TOC. Azate 19:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I think I fixed the big space? -- getcrunkjuice
19:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Dunno, maybe it's got to do with screen resolution and font size and whatever. For me, 1/4th of the width is the
TOC, 1/2 is blank white space, 1/4th is the pic. There must be a better solution. I'm no good at this xml-layout
thing, so I won't touch it. Azate 20:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
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
204
parodizing a news outlet every single day! 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.
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. MX44 23:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
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.
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." Azate 23:53, 11
February 2006 (UTC)
205
The word "engender" is in fact extremely good English (I should know as a native speaker) such language is
indeed typically found in encyclopedias. Also as a side note the user 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 French version of this entry, which roughly
translates into the word changes I've made. Does Wikipedia need to 'dumb down' it's vocabulary? Netscott 00:04,
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? 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. ;-) 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. Netscott 00:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
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. Accountable Government 02:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm very sure that every Muslim supports radicalism and terrorism as every Christian supports KKK
=)--84.249.252.211 03:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
So ... We should burn them? MX44
I dont think the cartoonist meant to associate every muslim with terrorism. I think, rather, he was
206
directing the criticizm directly to radical muslims. I dont know this for a fact, of course, but its a
possibillity.
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? MX44 04:17, 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. 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. MX44 04:48, 12 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. 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. MX44
05:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Talk: Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy - Arguments
This miscellaneous page is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.
Please discuss the matter at this page's entry on the Miscellany for Deletion page.
207
You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, move (without knowing exactly what you are
doing), or remove this notice from the page while the discussion is in progress. For more information, read the Guide
to Deletion.
How to list a page for deletion (log)
2*
%
%
0
5
%
4
8@
93
:5
#
;
>@
?-
$
&7
*
!
&
%
$
$
%
8
%
$ 8
9) % 2
%
I
$
:
* '
'$
% %
;#
'
>
0
% <
& J
?)
J
3
%
0
@ %
$$ J
3
&30 A
8
$
&0
9*
$ % M
:4
8
$
0
"#
%
0
8 6
&C
2
3 $
%'
% $
&0
N)
C
N
$%
E
'
%6 $
* 0 3
*
@
$
% 7
%
00
-
'
%
208
A
%
0
8@ $ %
9 E
: - &&
%
$
%
%
J
'
0
$
&
5
%0 A
%'
3
,$ )
!
3 %
# 6 %
& %
J!
%
%
0
%
0
N
%
2
&
%$ %$
&
)
&
;)
> E #
? E #
#
5
85
95
&
%
$
$$
% $
%
&
Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
Hypatia! the light in the world is diminshing again.
Does GOD create hatered. A simple but a big YES...a small cartoon of a man who walked on this earth a few centuries ago is
enough to create ripples of hatered in the minds of people who follow the man. What kind of religion is this? Is it so weak that
an unknown cartoonist can shake it...and that too so violently, that it created inside men the very things that all religion
teaches us not to follow...hatered, violence, crime....you name it...but then something must be wrong. If one wants to get
respect from others then he/she should also respect others. Do they follow it? cow is considered to be a sacared animal and
millions of hindus worship it as GOD, but every year millions of this bovine species are killed and eaten, specially during ID,
a very auspicious islamic festival. Are they not showing disrespect to the hindus when they first butcher their GOD and then
eat it? May be if you ask them they will say that they don't consider the cow to be god and hence eat it...but then the dannish
cartoonist also thought that Mohammed was just like any other man and since we create cartoons of world
leaders,sportsperson, entertainers, scientists...etc why not that of a religius leader...and he created the cartoon.People all over
the world do not show disrespect to hindus when they eat beef, because it is their food. Same way creativity and freedom of
expression, are mental food for people who think they live in a civilized society and have got every right to express their
views. They cannot turn themself into human bombs or fight against people with different views by violent means because
their conscience doesn't allow them, but still think they should put their points across, hence they take the help of cartoons for
example to express their viewpoints. If they dont' they will be living the life of a zombie...so to live they have to
209
express....just like to live one has to eat. Hence the westerern world should not say sorry to anyone, if they say it...they
will be nailing thier own coffins. If this world has to survive and not fall into another dark age then reason must prevail.
(jediath@gmail.com)
Arguments on the underlying issues (Islam, free speech, blasphemy, etc.) go here. Crotalus horridus
00:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
(TALK • CONTRIBS)
Thanks to Wikipedia for providing a venue for the discussion of these ideas.
Arguments
Muslim racism towards Nordic Europeans
Why is this issue being ignored in this topic? Racism against whites deserves to be acknowledged every bit as racism against
non-whites. Merton 04:03 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. What incident(s) are you referring to? Racism sounds like it's a bit off-topic in this article. --Kizor 20:31, 4
February 2006 (UTC)
Calling for the death of Nordic Europeans in retaliation for the cartoons. That is undeniable racism and certainly
relevant to the topic.Merton 04:44 4 February 2006 (UTC)
It's against a nationality and not an ethnic group, but that's semantics. Anyway, the article does note the
negative reactions and the issued threats. If you ask me, there's no point in adding 'and that's bad'. --Kizor
21:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
It not racism, its the prejudice toward religion. You can say the Muslim held prejudice toward Christianity (and vice versa),
but you can't say all Muslim hate Nordic Europeans, becuase is Muslim is a cross-race religion, and welcome any
race.142.161.115.85 21:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Its racism as Muslims are themselves one race of people who worship in Arabic. Also, look at the racism committed by
terrorist named Muhammad and his 4 rightly-guided Caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali) against Copts,
Assyrians, Greeks, Armenians and Nubians with the racist system of dhimmitude consisting of jizyah and kharaj thus
Arabising the entire Middle East. Middle Eastern Christians are not really Arabs. They are Arabs only because they
speak Arabic so we can consider Arabs as a nationality but most of them despise Islamic imperialism. 218.111.36.32
210
11:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Norway is a relatively homoogenous nation, ethnically speaking; so disqualifying any
coments against "Norweigans" as racism by saying that the slur "It's against a nationality and not an
ethnic group" doesn't quite work in this particular case (though not so in others). However, perhaps
xenophobic would be a more accurate description in any case?
Regarding "It not racism, its the prejudice toward religion" I'd like to point out that prejudice imples
that Islam was somehow singled out for special treatment. While you could make a case for that (and
doubtless, you would because of personal bias) it is probably also not accurate. After all, Danes
allow ridicule of Christian icons and other religious icons in equal measure (see the comment in the
article that "In 1984 the artist Jens Jørgen Thorsen was commissioned by a local art club to paint the
wall of a railway station." Yes you could argue this was a self referential act (someone within a
culture refering internally to an aspect of that culture) but that still waters down the prejudice
argument. 193.129.65.37 10:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Examples of "Freedom of Speech and Hate Speech" section should be revived
I think the section should be revived. European do not adhere to freedom of speech seen in America so accusation of
hypocracy is at least a valid topic of discussion. Secondly, given the section of "Islam and blasphamy", counter example of
other religion or culture or political ideology is not only relevant but also fair to muslim. FWBOarticle
Freedom of speech seen in America?! Sorry, but what are you talking about? Just yesterday the Superbowl finals were said
to be censored in real-time, by e.g. cutting out certain parts of the Rolling Stones' songs. Or they did not even allow certain
ones to be performed. All cause they were afraid of another Nipplegate like the one caused by Janet Jackson. OK, I would not
call it speech in her case. (rather expression, and such nudity is not permitted by Islam either in many cases, especially for
Women)
However cutting songs live while performed, or speeches just so nobody ever accidentially pops out the "f*" word, or (as we
all heard) even censoring and faking large number or articles HERE is not, what I'd call freedom of speech...
--Richard 01:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Um, care to elaborate? AFIK the media in Europe is far less prone to auto-censorship than its Americans
counterpart. It's not a coincidence that these cartoons have been published all over Europe by mainstream media
while their US counterparts have not. Also, things like nudity and sex are much more censored in US media. In
211
legal terms, both the US and the European countries have two basic legal restrictions on free speech: libel and
incitement to riot. The US has criminal libel, while the EU countries do not (although a private person can sue
another private person for libel). The "incitement to riot" or "hate speech" restriction exists in both systems. Mind
you though that the common European document is the ECHR, so the more elaborate wording of freedom of
speech laws fall on the individual countries. --Denoir 08:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
For example, in u.k. calling someone "nigger" would violate incitement of racial hatered legistration while
calling someone "mohhamed freak" is legally kosher. There is an legistrative attempt to include faith hate
speech, which failed just two days ago. This was listed in the section. Secondly, many countries in Europe,
Holocaust denial is a criminal offence, example of which I listed in regard to David Irving, a known
holocaust denier, who is currently in jail. Let just remember that, for muslim, Islam is patently true. I also
listed legitrative attempt in u.s. to make flag burning a criminal offense. All these examples were wiped
with section deletion on the basis that it has nothing to do with "Islam". I believe large part of criticism
coming from islamic world is partially based on hypocracy of the West (Europe). So the section actually
touch the core of the controversy. FWBOarticle
It is true that 7 of the 25 EU countries have holocaust denial listed as a crime, but it is a minorty. So
speaking of it as a "European" policy is probably not correct. Plus, as things look now, those laws
will probably be consolidated under a common framework - which won't have those restrictions. In
any case, Denmark that was the origin of this controversy, does not have these restrictions. Further
more, your example of UK law isn't correct. Calling somebody a "nigger" or a "mohammed freak" or
a "frog" or whatever is not considered incitement of racial hatred. It's not even if you say "All limeys
are worthless bastards". For it to qualify as incitement, you need to do it in a indiscriminately public
medium, and you have to call for some action. So if you have a radio show and you say "All limeys
are rotten thieves and bastards. Let's kick them out of Europe!", it would qualify as incitement on the
condition that the intent of the message was really to incite hate against a race. As you can imagine,
these things are extremely difficult to prove and categorize - and that's why very few people get
charged and conviceted for such crimes. What these laws seem to be for is to keep some of the top
nazis off the streets.
The point is that in any system you have some form of restrictions on free speech. You can't for
instance divulge classified information, or falesly yell "fire" in a crowd. That doesn't mean it is
hypocritical to stand firm om free speech in other areas. --Denoir 11:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
212
You are so wrong about the state of freedom of speech in u.k. here,here and here. Yes, in some
case, you can't even say "grass". And in Denmark, the actually do have brashpamy and anti
racist law. It just that they insist the photo doesn't fit the legal definition. So yes, many
European countries are hypocratical. I'm personally on freedom of speech side, precisely
because the law is so inconsistent. FWBOarticle
Well, I admit that the UK in recent years has had a tendency to implement some very
questionable laws (questionable from a civil rights point of view). It is however too soon
to tell the end result of it as they haven't been chewed by the ECJ and in some cases the
EP. Both those institutions lean heavily towards freedom of speech (and civil liberties in
general). It is a bit difficult to generalize on the European level, and will continue to be
so until those laws are harmonized on Union level. And beside the laws, the actual
implementation of them differs widely. For instance here in Sweden we have fairly strict
"hate speech" laws but convictions are extremely rare. After the introduction of the
laws, the supreme court squashed every single case as it violated the ECHR. The latest
case was the gay-bashing pastor Åke Green who was sentenced to a month of prison for
a hate speech, but was acquitted by the supreme court. So they do try now and then, but
at least here the supreme court seems to deal with it directly, rather than wait for it to be
settled on EU level. Ultimately, there's little legal ground for banning hate speech in any
EU country, it's just that the ECJ is slow and the local national governments do their
best to make questionable interpretations of the ECHR. I fully agree with you that the
patchwork of laws in this area is quite inconsistent, but I would not say that it is
hypocritical. There are always limits to free speech. In the US you can say that the
president is an idiot, but you can't say that you want to kill him. Is it hypocritical to
agree that threats against his life should be illegal while at the same time campaigning
for the right to call him an idiot? --Denoir 21:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Threat of (credible) bodily harm is a felony. Child porn is a consequence of rape.
Clasified information has serious consequence to national security. Trade secret is
a part of intellectual patent which has immediate financial consequence. This
doesn't apply to hate speech, holocaust denial, and blasphamy. Plus, without
ratification of European Constitution, ECJ remains merely advisory status to each
state court. Plus it is unrealistic to expect EU to overturn politically entrenched
law in each members state. EU isn't sovereing institution though some pretend it
213
to be. Plus, when EU do something stupid (such as common agricultural policy), it
is near impossible to overturn it because it is so undemocratic. Idea that Brits and
Romanian should be forced on the basis of the EU "consensus" is just stupid.
FWBOarticle
I'd say that free speech is free speech regardless if you are Romanian or
British. But you are right, why should we have common laws for Romania
and Britain, or for England and Wales or for Nottinghamshire and Essex, or
for Bob and Pete? That's clearly stupid. Anyway, the ECJ does not have
advisory status - it's rulings are binding to the national courts. And in the
case of free speech the rules are in the ECHR, specifically Article 10:
Article 10, Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression.
This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart
information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless
of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing
of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and
responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or
penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society,
in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety,
for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals,
for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the
disclosure of information received in confidence,
or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Bottom line on this is the national governments are getting away with it
because the member states are always stalling. Usually when the ECJ comes
with a ruling, the government of the member state twist the ruling and
interpret it the way they like it to. And then it goes back and forth with the
ECJ saying that they're doing it wrong and the national governments (or
courts) finding new ways of misinterpreting rulings. Ultimately however,
it's just stalling. It's just a question of time before the hate speech laws in
EU states are history, because as every lawyer will tell you, they are a
214
violation of the ECHR. --Denoir 02:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, plus ECJ doesn't have enforcement clause. I think best they
have is (financial) penalty. ECJ like to pretend that their
law/juristiction to be supreme ECJ has the power to declare that any
national law inconsistent with a law of the European Community to
be invalid. This is only a claim. Member countries could simply
ignore or reject it. The Constitution would have clarified this but at
this point, they are just (very loud) noise. FWBOarticle
FWBO your comments don't seem to be grounded in practicality. To make a comment about Europeans
being hypocrits because one law or two laws or a certain set of words can't be said is clearly a false
premise. Small numbers of examples may be a cause for concern (do Europeans really have as much free
speach as they think) but that is not to say that on a graduated scale they are not providing freer speech
than most. True freedom of speech is an ideal to (perhaps) be striven for. Saying Europeans are hypocrits
because a couple of items can't be said is like claiming all Americans are hypocrits when they talk about
the land of the free because some people are in jail.
The thing of it is, im in America, and I think the reason these cartoons haven't been published as nobody really cares
much. I told my class about this situation and no one had ever heard about it, so I guess it's just on the other side of the
world to us for now :/. I've never even seen an article about this in the newspapers yet. Homestarmy 14:42, 3 February
2006 (UTC)
[1] linked to from the front page of CNN. Note the last line CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons out of
respect for Islam. --Denoir 21:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Lets remember that Freedom of Expression is really a nice name for "Freedom to Insult". The point of free
speech is the right to offend, the right to criticize, make fun of, etc. There is no point in freedom of expression if
you are only allowed to say "nice things". When you are only allowed to say nice things it means you are
muzzled. Furthermore, when it comes to religious beleifs like "no images of Muhammed", secular governments
cannot uphold these beliefs as law because to do so would be essentially to turn the governement into a
theocrary. The above cited examples, speech limitations like about holocaust denial, or other things like national
security or libel protections are secular in nature, and typically have overwhelming popular support. Also, secular
prohibitions generally allow hypothetical expressions, like a cartoon about killing the president, whereas
religious prohibitions would outlaw even humorous statements. That is the important and very large difference
215
here. Islam may have over 1 billion adherents, but that is a small fraction of the worlds population. We cannot all
be forced to wear your shackles.
Boycott in Paragraph 3
Ironically, the boycott of ALL Danish goods would hurt everyone, regardless of whether or not they wanted the cartoons
published. Accountable Government 07:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
That's what boycotts do. Ta bu shi da yu 08:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Witch-hunt, holocaust & Islamophobia
I see huge news coverages & well....this article too, & all the hue & cry about the freedom of speech. What I don’t see is the
fact that these cartoons are not just insulting, they incite hate & phobia against Islam. It’s not about what Islam teaches or
what it doesn’t teach; it’s about the so called treasured values of Europe. Why a person making jokes against blacks is called
racist, a person making jokes against Jews is called anti-Semite, but when the same thing happens against Islam, everybody
remembers Freedom of speech. Why isn’t the same freedom of speech practiced when dealing with blacks, whites, Jews,
Christian’s e.t.c. Why is kike or nigger considered racist but depicting Muhammad with a bomb in his turban or “Prophet!
daft and dumb, keeping woman under thumb” is called "Freedom of speech”. I am ashamed to see this hypocrisy practiced by
people who consider themselves to be the "civilized world”. Does civilization teach us to have dual standards? I am very
sorry to see that Europe is again being taught to hate. This time inside the shiny wrapping of "Freedom of expression” by the
media. First it was the witch-hunt, then we had the holocaust, I hope we don’t get a third session of global bloodshed, since
before the holocaust; Jews were being depicted in the same manner by the Nazis. Cant we have a single section on this article
about the kind of sick racism that this cartoon is promoting, other that the good old "they don’t understand our values of
freedom" rant, there are tons of Muslim sources saying that these cartoons can be equated with stuff that are considered
<font color="sla'/c
Anti-Semite. F.a.y.& 83$'"
09:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
That is very true. This is a usual Europian hypocricy! They cannot even talk about the 'Holocost' or deny it in their
homes. When it comes to insulting a value of Islam, they are using freedom of speech. 216.248.124.210 10:07, 4
February 2006 (UTC)
This is completely wrong. Please read the comments on the talk page. It is a MINORITY of the European
216
countries that prohibit holocaust-denial, NOT a majority. You are just repeating the same false statements againg.
I have added some cartoons to the Controversial_newspaper_caricatures, now we will soon see what kind of
freedom of expression the Wikipedia allows. Raphael 01:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The reason Holocaust denial is forbidden in some European countries is because it denies an historical
event that has an overwhelming amount of evidence to support the fact that it DID happen. And the places
where such denial is MOST forbidden is in the countries where this event took place, such as Germany.
The Germans KNOW the Holocaust happened because it was their own country -- under a former regime -that carried it out. In Arab countries, the purpose of Holocaust denial is to try and delegitimize the state of
Israel. This is clear in the speeches of the current Iranian president, who has called for a conference on the
Holocaust to try and prove it never happened, and who has also called for Israel to be wiped off the map.
That is hate speech because it publicly incites violence against an entire nation of people, it is not just
about "discussing" something. Rooster613 00:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Rooster613
I think that's why there has been such a controversy... though the response has hardly been civil in many cases which
creates a kind of irony to the situation... Sasquatcht|c 10:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
This sort of discourse if not helpful. We are here to write an article, and this talk page is devoted to topical and
punctual discussions about how to improve the article. By saturating it with this sort of discussion, you and
others make improvements to the article more difficult. If you have general opinions to be voiced, you are
welcome to start a blog. Thank you. Rama 10:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Farhansher, it is very well possible to make jokes about blacks or jews. It's possible to make jokes about
royal families, about the pope, about God, about Jesus Christ, about anyone. I understand that this is a
sensitive issue, but please keep the fallacies of the page. And no, we can't have a section of the article
devoted to exposing "sick racism", since that would violate the neutral point of view. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin'
14:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Farhansher, First of all, "kike" and "nigger" are used all the time and no one burns down buildings
about it. There is a difference between secular, racial, and religious issues. They work in different
ways. The insults of the cartoons is primarily religious. Western countries tend not to consider
religious insults very important, Europe especially has become very secularized. Even in the U.S.
religious fundamentalists rarely complain about being offended, only persecuted or discriminated
against. Secular and racial issues are treated much more seriously. If the cartoons had used words
217
like "sand niggers" and talked about Arabs instead of Muhammed, they would be viewed much more
negatively. You also need to understand the role of facts in Western judgement. A cartoon depicting
blacks as stupid or jews as conspiritors would be simply false and thus only serving to incite hate
violence. The cartoons depicting Muhammed as violent, on the other hand, merely serve to illustrate
the factual connection between his religion and terrorism. Similiar cartoons depicting christians
during the Crusades would be just as valid (one could even argue they would be valid today given
some of US President Bush's statements). Muhammed was in fact a violent caravan raider during the
latter part of his life. Because of these facts, the cartoons are simply not an example of "sick racism".
They are political commentary, and they aren't even that high quality. I don't know how you can
even tell it is supposed to be Muhammed in most of the pictures.
Islamophobia is a correct term although irrelevant. I know this because I'm also personally feeling this phobia. However,
Islamophobes arent burning down foreign embassies and threatening people. In the UK, the protestors have gotten away with
what would put anyone else in jail--calling for beheading and other forms of violence and death.The opening paragraph of
this particular comment assumes that there is something wrong with growing fear when in fact, hundreds of thousands of
people in the region are destroying property and hunting people are creating a good basis for that fear. 134.132.167.123
21:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)TBAS
Actually I think a lot of Islamophobes are threatening people right now and certainly have been doing so for
years (I've seen it in the UK). It just tends to be a ten-on-one with a knife rather than a march with banners. As a
result it doesn't get on the news as much. Slinky Puppet 18:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure Islamophobia IS the correct term to be used here. Phobia implies an irrational fear. Faced with violence on
the scale of bomb blasts in July in London, the murders of Theo Van Gogh and various translators of the works of
Salmon Rushdie, the beating of a Danish professor who read aloud from the Koran in a lecture hall, the burning of
embassies and threats of "beheading infidels" (as well as many many more) in these circumstances fear may be an
extreme and possibly incorrect emotional reaction but one could hardly describe it as irrational per se. 193.129.65.37
10:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
A phobia is also a reaction that is out of proportion to the threat posed. For example, high places could
potentially kill you and some spiders are frighteningly poisionous so the theat is rational but most people are
happpy with taking reasonable precautions. Avoiding any high place or constantly searching for spiders would be
excessive (and a sign of a phobia). While there have been attacks by muslims and some terrorist groups are
composed of muslims, the actual risk of being injured or killed by such a group is miniscule (far less than being
218
run over by a car). Slinky Puppet 18:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
South Park
--User:dtii I cant wait for their reaction when South Park does there Muhammad episode!!!
Are they going to? That would be sweet. Kittynboi 07:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Not too likely, after freedom of speech has already been cut on them, when they did the "Bloody Mary" episode!!! (not seen
it, but it was reported to be about a statue of Mother Mary bleeding where most women do regularly...) --Richard 15:35, 4
February 2006 (UTC)
This is a talk page for the article, it's NOT a forum or discussion board for non-related topics Cacophobia (Talk) 15:42,
I believe the epidode you are refering to Richard was incorrectly refrenced:
Stan is embarrassed in front of his friends when his dad gets pulled over for drunk driving. In a neighboring town, a statue of
the Virgin Mary begins to bleed -- out of her ass -- and people begin to flock around it to find a cure for their diseases. Stan's
dad is sure the bleeding Virgin can cure him of his "disease." etc.
Image:Http://www.southparkstudios.com/img/content/season9/914.gif
Wikipedia Bloody Mary South Park Episode --Pyoungberg 20:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
They will probably at least do something similar to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy without
involving Mohammad, but, then again - there is always Super Best Friends.
Well thanks Pyoungberg, I did not mean to reference it, but as there is quite a detailed article (including all the
medical/religious findings ;-) good you pointed it out. --Richard 01:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Strange enough, the same companies behind that as stated in the article also are involved in other censorships caused by the
Nippelgate affair of Janet Jackson on TV - Viacom
When they make that episode, they'd better not put any "unwanted" material in it. The quintuplets one was peppered with
219
negative references to Romania. {{Template:NazismIsntCool/sig}} 12:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC) PS: If any newspapers in
Romania publish those cartoons, I will not buy Danish products again. --- "PS: If any newspapers in Romania publish those
cartoons, I will not buy Danish products again." did you mean "will not buy Romanian products again." ?
--did you mean "will not buy Romanian products again." ?
wikipedia is no democracy
Your poll is a complete farce! Someone just copied & pasted the signatures from the first poll into the second poll. In any
case, Wikipedia is no democracy but there are rules. Such as WP:DBAD. For this reason I'll move the picture Rajab 16:04, 4
February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I hope, you do not also assume that e.g. because the Troll is also mostly a character initially Scandinavia...?;-)
--Richard 01:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Please don't. We encourage you to discuss here, but the large majority of people think that the image should be on top.
Please do not move the image now, until consensus indicates otherwise. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:06, 4 February
2006 (UTC)
You're being childish. The consensus is that the image needs to stay, because it is important and despite it is offensive
to some. Quoting one randomly picked rule doesn't help. -- Trollkontroll 16:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Then keep the pictures but move them down! Avoid offense! De-escalate! Don't be dicks Rajab 16:13, 4
February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, don't be a dick, either. -- Trollkontroll 17:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Even if wikipedia is not a democracy, there is general consensus that the image should stay on top. Cacophobia (Talk)
16:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
220
Majority is not equal to consensus. A minority is strongly offended by these pictures but the "majority" is not
ready to discuss our proposals to provide Muslims with additional protection from being strongly offended.
Someone above compared it to seeing a nude picture of your sister. Rajab 16:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Like I've told you about eight times now, the level of the majority in the poll is consistent with the
standards for consensus set by wikipedia. As I'm writing this, the score is 201/26/19. This means that
almost 82 percent support keeping the image in the article. 10.6% believe the cartoon should be removed
from the article, while 7.7% believe it should be moved to a separate article. This means that there is a
consensus to keep the image on the article. But even if there had been no consensus, "no consensus"
defaults keep. So the majority in this particular case is large enough to call it a consensus. And if the
minority is so offended by this image, they should stop visiting this article or change their browser settings.
Like I said, wiki is no democracy. Just because there's a "majority" (your 2nd poll is FAKE by the way - some
signatures were just copied & pasted) in favour of it being on top doesn't mean that they should stay on top. A
minority of viewers is strongly offended, for this reason there must be addidional protection. We've made lots of
suggestions (move it down, provide link, add a warning) but unfortunately your side completely ignores the
wikipedia rule WP:DBAD. So what else can I do? Rajab 16:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Disable images in your browser and you don't have to see any pictures neither of Mohammed nor your
naked sister. -- Trollkontroll 16:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Let's not make this a bigger "drama" than it already is shall we?Please learn to put things into context.wikipedia doesn't
believe in censcoring.The image is there to illustrate the situation and to be complete.
Your example of a porno picture of a relative isn't comparable,the porno shot is not notable,this picture IS notable,it's what
the whole uproar is about.If there wasn't an uproar this picture would never have gotten the attention outside denmark than it
is now has.--Technosphere83 16:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
No one speaks of censoring. Just avoid offense! Move the picture down! De-escalate! Add a warning to the top!
What I'm saying is that your side wants to cause offense & this could be easily avoided by moving the pictures.
In any case the article is about the controversy - not the pictures. Show a picture of a demonstration on top Rajab
221
16:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
You can't make any demands here. The consensus is that the image stays on top. You disagree, fine, but as
long as the consensus doesn't change the position of the image will neither. -- Trollkontroll 16:21, 4
February 2006 (UTC)
"your side",I'm on no "side".Maybe I'm so out of the loop,but if I were a muslim I would like to see for myself what this
whole fuss was about.Secondly there is already a general warning on wikipedia that it may contain content that may be
offensive.And lasly wikipedia isn't making a "statement" it only tries to describe.--Technosphere83 16:20, 4 February 2006
(UTC)
You are mixing up two x democracy. (1) Wikipedia is not a democracy in the sense that individuals can endlessly use a
freedom of speech. No, they will be temp-blocked after 3RR, Uncivility, and continuous BadFaith, for example. (2) But
Wikiedia is a democracy in the sense that we as a collective do try to build Wikipedia using discussions, listening to
eachother, and speaking up. Well, the collective has spoken up and decided: "picture at top!" Then leave it there.
By the way, a picture at the top is not WP:DBAD. Moreover, WP:DBAD is not even a rule but only an advice. A
corrollary of an advice, actually. -- ActiveSelective 16:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Rajab - How do you define "your side" anyway? Sounds like a persecution complex (us vs. them)... 207.237.21.117 16:25, 4
February 2006 (UTC)
(after a couple of edit conflicts) Guys, let's all calm down here and try to be civil. Rajab, please stop moving the
picture; the straw poll demonstrates that most Wikipedians believe that the image should be on the top. Would you
mind clarifying what you meant when you say that the second poll was just copied and pasted? From a cursory glance, I
don't see anything like that. While I understand your frustration, keep in mind that the content disclaimer, linked to
from the bottom of every page, states that "Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered
objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or
depictions of human anatomy." Even though this particular image may be considered offensive, it appears that most
Wikipedians consider the encyclopedic value of this image at the top to be great. Feel free to discuss and try and
convince other editors, but please don't move the image again. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:27, 4 February 2006
(UTC)
222
P.S. Rajab, I don't really feel strongly about this particular issue, but would you mind not moving the image while we
discuss? The straw poll above demonstrates that most Wikipedians think that the image should be at the top of the
article. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Incidentall, no one wrongly cut-and-pasted votes as per Rajab's accusation. When the poll was refactored, all votes--keep and
delete and link--were moved to the three-column form. No votes were lost, none were added. Babajobu 19:36, 4 February
2006 (UTC)
I would like to have that picture removed too, but because im not a user in here and dont understand how to eidt it, i cant vote
>.<! 142.161.115.85 20:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Does this make Wikipedia an autocracy?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Greasysteve13 (talk • contribs) .
Thanks
I would like to thank the Muslim popultion for showing us the peace in the religion of peace.--70.153.51.5 17:48, 4 February
2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a chat forum, try these instead:
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/
http://www.freerepublic.com/
Ashibaka tock 17:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
LMAO that's a great response Ashikaba. --
18:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Is violence justified?
Okay, so now we're watching embassies being burned to the ground (including offices for countries not even involved in this
'dispute'). Does true Islam support this behaviour, or is this the behaviour of fundamentalists? Budgiekiller 21:53, 4 February
2006 (UTC)
This is not a forum to discuss such issues. We should only be discussing the article. There are plenty of outlets
for this sort of discussion. Try http://talk.guardian.co.uk --bodnotbod 21:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
223
Apologies. You are completely right. Silly me. So why this discussion? This article (not this Talk) is purely here
to report the facts (i.e. some cartoons were published and lots of people got really, really annoyed). Nothing else.
So why all the heat? Wikipedia is here as an historical document, not as a political, religious soap-box. Let's all
try to remember that. Budgiekiller 22:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, unfortunately, even limiting ourselves to discussion related directly to the article, it is still quite
possible - as we are seeing - for there to be a great deal of heat ;o) It's interesting to think that if the
controversy involved an audio file, which of necessity would have to be clicked and downloaded by
choice, we almost certainly wouldn't be having such a big argument. --bodnotbod 22:11, 4 February 2006
(UTC)
Uh huh! That's probably the key. One step of separation and we wouldn't be here at this time... at least the
Wikipedia community should be capable of coming to a reasonable agreement, all fundamentalism aside...
Budgiekiller 22:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Who is Mohammad?
I have an important question considering this matter. We are talking wheter these cartoons are an insult against the muslim
god. but the person which is portrayed is mohammad and not allah. So if I may ask: is Mohammad seen as an prohet but an
human or is he seen as a god by the muslims? If we consider that Mohammad was also an historic person we could approach
this problem fron this angle. Historic person have alwasy been portrayed in cartoons, anno one is portaying the muslim god,
which is allah?
Muhammad is seen as a Prophet of Allah, but is otherwise just a person. — TheKMantalk 20:26, 4 February 2006
(UTC)
Exactly. As I understand it, Mohammad was/is a human above the humans, since he was chosen by Allah to
spread the word, Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 20:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
If there only were a free online encyclopedia of some sort where one could look up Mohammad that would be way cool
:-) Weregerbil 20:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
The reason for not being allowed to make a picture of Muhammad is that it may cause herecy in the form of
worshipping a person who is not Allah but meerely a prophet. Muneyama 20:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
224
Who is going to worship satirical cartoons? They'd either have to be joking for a PR stunt or someone
would have to be forcing them, either way, it seems far too ridiculous to happen. Homestarmy 20:43, 4
February 2006 (UTC)
It's the mockery of Muhammad that muslims and others are not happy about. — TheKMantalk
20:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Precisely. The actual prohibition against pictures of Muhammad is not followed strictly (there
are illustrated editions of the quaran where he is featured). Muneyama 20:59, 4 February 2006
(UTC)
Founder of the whole Islam culture, set the Arabian in the Monothesis. Were told that ANY PROPHET OR
ALLAH CANT HAVE A PROTRAIT OF IT AS NOT TO VIOLATE THEM AND PEOPLE WONT
WORSHIP THOSE PROTRAIT LIKE THE IDOL. Does this help???
This is fine for Muslims, but you cannot impose this on the whole world. And if this prohibition is about "any
prophet" then why aren't you protesting cartoons about Jesus, Moses, Buddha, Krishna... And are you going to
prohibit the followers of those religions from having depictions of their founders because YOUR religion forbids
it? Rooster613 00:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Rooster613
For some reason I don't think we're going to have to worry about people worshipping 'these
depictions’. Plus that decree came from a time when people were uninformed and access to holy
texts was difficult. I think its a percausion that's run its course. '--24.166.69.76 21:17, 4 February
2006 (UTC).
However, your opinion isn't the issue here. --Kizor 22:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know Muhammad was a violent and ruthless man (and incidentally a
pedophile by 20th-century standards) and I see no reason why we who are not Muslims
(and thus are not obliged to pay any form of homage or respect any kind of taboo
concerning him) should not be entitled to say what we want about him. If you don't like,
go read Shariopedia as someone else said somewhere else.Lenineleal 22:27, 4 February
2006 (UTC)
While I don't follow Islam, I'd filed 'direly offending great numbers of people'
under things I should avoid doing. --Kizor 22:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Off-topic: it's impossible to tell whether he was a pedophile or not. He did marry a
very young girl, but it is impossible to tell when they became sexually active and
225
what the motivations behind this marriage were. Childhood marriages have been
very common for a very long period of time. It was particularly common among
late medieval and early modern European royals. A European king of that time
who hadn't married by the age of 13 was an exception. However, the modern
fairytale of the first wedding night was not known to these people. Marriage was a
strategic alliance between two families, and the couple became sexually active at
an age that roughly corresponds to many youths nowadays: between the age of 15
and 20 (although that age seems to decreasing rapidly). Aecis Mr. Mojo risin'
22:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Cartoons controversy
Quiet to the contrary , I do agree with you and the need to protect freedom of speech not just in Denmark but also in the rest
of the world .JP have the legal and the moral right under Danish Law to publish 'journalistic events' in all forms without
exception.
In my views JP should not have published an apology nor the government of Denmark should apologize on behalf the
newspaper .
In the same token, People of Denmark should not be offended when their products are boycotted.Readers have a fundamental
principal to exercises their rights as they wish . Consumers have the right to buy whatever they choose .
From a philosophical point of view , this is a new form of conflict with two parties . One armed with Democracy taboos and
the other party is armed with Internet chat, text messaging and SMS and collective purchasing power. This is a complete new
form of conflicts and it seems like we are rewriting new chapter of history
So far in this conflict there are no winners .Everyone is hurt .Both People and businesses are hurt .
Holocaust did not happen?
(the opinions expressed below are not my personal ones, they are merely examples, sorry in advance if they offend anyone)
Many readers who seem for deleting the article keep bringing up repeatedly the point that supposedly Western civilization
226
does not allow people to speak ill of the Holocaust or say racists remarks. I would like to clarify this once and for all.
1) You are allowed to say anything you want in most nations with free speech. As someone pointed out earlier, you can
deny the holocaust, you can call black people "niggers", you can call chinese people "chinks", you can call koreans "gooks", I
can march up and down the street with a sign that says all "Jews should die because all they do is take money" and
NOT get fined or arrested as long as I am being peaceful. The few nations that do not allow speaking ill of the holocaust are
the exception rather than the rule. So stop saying "you cannot say this in your nation..." or "this is hippocratic!". Such
reasoning is false and entirely wrong. It based on false assumptions and no actaul understanding of the laws of free speech.
2) Wikipedia is not made up of Jews, Muslims or Christians. There are people from OTHER parts of the world as
well. Or did people start to forget that there are 1 billion Chinese or 1 billion Indians and not to mention the rest of East
Asia. I'm getting very very annoyed at people who think this place is only filled with Europeans and keep voicing that there is
a European bias. The world is not Europe, US and the Middle East. The "other" people have opinions too. Hitokirishinji
20:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
1) In Denmark (as well as Sweden, Norway, Germany and probably a lot of others) it is illegal to express racist opitions
provided that what you are saying can be interpretated as you trying to create hostility against another group of people.
So here it is illegal to say that jews should die.
(True -- but a sandwich board about your neck with the slogan "All Jews are stinky" or similar
displays bad taste (as well as factual innacuracy) but is not illegal. It is the incitement to violence
NOT the comment that is illegal). 193.129.65.37 10:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
there is a difference between secular vs. religious offenses.
I like how you say "probably". Stop making assumptions and find out if this probably is true. I have yet to
see a group be arrested in the US for saying black should die. In fact one well known group says it, it's called the
KKK and they're still around. So far you have named only 4 nations out of how many in Europe? I guess
Eastern Europe does not count (like Ukraine, Russia where anti-semitism is uncharacteristically common,
Belarus, etc). At the same time, find for me the number of people who have actaully been arrested for denying the
holocaust in all of Europe and see if that truely so represents the bias. Hitokirishinji 21:00, 4 February 2006
(UTC)
I like how you like what I am saying. I am not really saying that it is illegal to deny the holocoust, it would
227
be hard to ban that. What i am saying is that expressing racist opinions is illegal in these countries. It is
also illegal in France (under the law "Provocation publique à la haine raciste"), Australia (under the
"Racial Hatred Act"), the United Kingdom (under the "The Race Relations Act 1976"), Austria (under the
"Verbotsgesetz"). Those are the only countries I have checked and i do not know about any eastern europe
countries laws, i am meerely trying to point out that you are wrong in what you are saying. And I dont see
how statistics are relevant so I am not going to spend any time finding any. 213.100.138.53 00:08, 5
February 2006 (UTC)
2) You cannot possibly deny that the vast majority of the english speaking population of the world are christians? And
you cannot deny that the majority of those posting at wikipedia has english as their native language? Muneyama 20:45,
Once again, stop assuming everyone who speaks English is Christian or a Jew. Even so, since you like to
generalize so much I guess I should generalize too right about Muslims and terrorism? Of course
not.Hitokirishinji 21:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not assuming that everyone who speaks english is a christian (look up all the english speaking
countries here on wikipedia, and you will see that christianity is the dominating religion in all of them). I
am saying that the majority of the english speaking world are christians and that the majority of those
posting at wikipedia has english as their native language. I speak english, at least somewhat, and I am not a
christian so I am quite aware that not all who can speak english are christian.213.100.138.53 00:08, 5
February 2006 (UTC)
You have to prove that the intent of the publication of these images was to incite hostility. The publication of
these images WAS NOT intended to do so, although it appears that the Muslim street decided to be hostile in
response to them. Kyaa the Catlord 21:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
The purpose of the caricatures was to provoke a response. It should have been expected that hostility and
violence would be part of the response. — TheKMantalk 21:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, in Europe, carictures of anything is not expected to cause hostility or violence. Islam = peace?
No. Burning embassies, threatening to kill journalists, telling Londoners to expect another July 7th...
more peace please. Budgiekiller 21:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Provoking a response, but not hostility and violence. The hostility and violence of those who are
acting up is a blight on the face of a "peaceful religion". Kyaa the Catlord 21:33, 4 February 2006
(UTC)
228
I agree. This overwhelmingly violent response is surely not a true representation of Islam. It is little
wonder that the ignorant West find it easy to hate those that they don't understand when the problem
is exacerbated like this. Budgiekiller 21:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
well why don't you explain it to us? cartoon=burn buildings?
In the UK you can be arrested for stirring up racial hatred. My view is that the picture
should be behind a link, placing the choice of whether the image is seen or not more
firmly in the hands of the reader. Most people talking about free speech are only
concerned about whether we can show the image, and seem to forget that the more
pertinent question is whether we should. Wikipedia is about education, not needlessly
antagonising people. Hiding the image behind a link would be a sensible compromise.
--bodnotbod 21:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Cartoons makin fun of a religious figure is not racist speech. That's like saying making fun of
jesus hurts all white people.
Wikipedia is indeed about education. That's why people who want to know about
the current controversy should be able to see what the controversy is about. They
should not have to search for other pages to find what the controversy is about.
This would only add to the confusion. Wikipedia is not censored in any way,
shape or form to pander to, cater to, comfort or console any kind of sensitivity. If
people do not want to run the risk of seeing something they do not want to see,
then they shouldn't have come here in the first place. Let's face it, if you go to an
encyclopedia article about a cartoon, you'd be stupid not to expect a cartoon
showing up. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 22:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, fine put the image behind a reliable link. One, the link must remain within Wikipedia so
it doesn't suddenly die, and two, I'm all for people learning the crazy overwhelming reaction to
such a set of cartoons without having to subject themselves to the indecency of having to see
them unless they choose to do so. But I think this has been debated endlessly and will not get
anywhere. The videos of Westerners (and Easterners) having their heads hacked off with
knives are hidden behind links, perhaps this is similar. Budgiekiller 22:14, 4 February 2006
(UTC)
229
Why would they have to be behind a link? Why shouldn't they be in the article itself?
Why make an already confusing situation even more confusing? Creating an extra
article specifically to deal with sensitivities is inconsistent with wikipedia's free flow of
information. Users with an account should do what Jtkiefer has described below, while
users with only an IP should change their browser settings. AFAIK, it's technically
virtually impossible to add videos directly to articles, but if you can find
non-copyrighted images of it, then I won't object to adding them to the relevant articles
(I can't speak for others though). Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 22:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
You seem to feel that you can only win this argument by falsifying my position
and then attacking the false version. In what way does having a link to the image
require "searching for other pages"? Or cause "confusion"? Do you have trouble
following hyperlinks? If so, perhaps you're not sufficiently... gifted to take part in
this argument.
As for "they should be expecting it" - I agree they should suspect it might be
there; but we could be sensitive about it and provide for those who wish to learn
about the issue without throwing it at those who would prefer not to see it. That
way we encourage people to learn about the issue who might - as things stand just shut their browser down without reading the article.
I agree with you; Wikipedia is not censored. Providing a link to a Wikipedia
hosted image is not censorship. It couldn't be further from it. We are hosting and
providing the image. How is that censorship?
You say we should not show any kind of sensitivity. I disagree. And I think it
would be found that a good editor shows sensitivity as a matter of course. I'm not
at all arguing that anyone should say "Wikipedia cannot do this; it is against the
law (or against x, y or z)". I'm saying that simply because you have the right to do
something, doesn't mean you do not exercise judgement before doing it. This
determination to place it at the top of the page, without warning, reeks of a "let's
stick it to 'em" attitude I find distasteful. Already several of the European
newspaper editors that included the image are showing signs of regret.
230
Finally, I would add that it's easy for some of the people arguing this out to take a
gung-ho attitude. It's worth noting, however, that those people won't be the ones
who have to worry about the consequences of their actions. We all know that it's
Jimbo that would take the fall; not the people happily reverting edits that move the
image down the page or seek compromise. So be aware that it's easy to shout
"appeasement" from behind your anonymous monitors, when you know that
Wikipedia has a face; and it isn't yours. --bodnotbod 22:46, 4 February 2006
(UTC)
I do feel we should show sensitivity or respect. But that should be in the
form taken by the {{Mohammed}} template: "We understand that you care
deeply about this issue, but..." In the article's content, I don't think we need
to be overly sensitive. The article should discuss the subject, and if some
people feel offended by the subject, then so be it. I don't think we should be
overly sensitive to muslims on this subject, just like I think we shouldn't be
overly sensitive towards rape victims in an article about rape or a rapist, or
to Germans in an article about WW2, or to Republicans in an article about
George W. Bush. There will always be people who will be offended by
something. That's just a sad reality of life. It shouldn't influence the content
of wikipedia though. This is an encyclopedia, not a psychotherapist. (Note
that I voted "don't care" in the position of the cartoon: I don't care where it
is in the article, as long as it is in the article, and in a relevant section.)
Sure thing, no arguments... I'm just trying to get Wikipedia over this hurdle. It strikes me that
you have two groups of fundamentally differing beliefs - those that believe that Wikipedia is
here as a pure information source, with NPOV, and those find certain articles fundamentally
offensive with no real observation of the NPOV rules. Worryingly, this one article could prove
to be a landmark and those of us fighting for freedom of expression could find ourselves in
trouble (like the Danish embassy in Syria) - not quite in line with the whole ethos of Wkipedia.
RIP Wikipedia. Budgiekiller 22:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
In reply to Aecis... Yep, there's strong consensus. Couldn't be much
231
stronger, in fact. I certainly wouldn't support anyone who removes the
image unilaterally (though, obviously some people will do it not realising
this page and poll is even here if they're not familiar with Wikipedia). I'm
extremely disappointed with that. I should point out, I would probably
support linking to images for penis and vagina too, not that I'm any kind of
prude. I just do feel that that one level of extra action required, that one
click, would be a good practice. --bodnotbod 23:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
...... Uhlan....... Am new There is an element of truth in the cartoons. All the actions of the Prophet were never above scrutiny.
He did order an assasination of a poetess. He did permit mqassacare of Jews after a battkle. He did make his son divorce and
then marry his daughter in law. He somehow made God send edicts to facilitate the divorce and the marriage and numerous
marriages were permitted only to him by Gods edict> he married an underage girl of about 8 years and consumnated the
marriage. The Koran does promise Virgins to martyrs exhorts Believers to kill other religionists, The Muslims have off course
a right not to have their object of faith to be critisised . But this is an article and cartton in a Danish paper, not a paid advt in
an Arab paper. Any average Mullah spits more venom against Christians Jews europeans and Idol worshippers than trhe
cartoon above. The Muslims have to see both sides of in temperate behaviour. Anyway no o0ne nothing is going to remain a
holy cow in the years to come and Muslims have to grow up
Clash of Civilizations
More than a decade back when I read Samuel P. Huntington's article about "Clash of Civilizations" then I was really surprised
about his theory. The question for me was to ponder as to why would Islam and Christianity fight? I couldn't comprehend the
scenario which was to unfold later on. I am a Muslim and have great respect and affection for Lord Jesus Christ (which we
fondly call as Yaso Maseeh or Hazrat Essa) and I believe this is the case with every other Muslim. Any provocative remarks
about Hazrat Essa or Jesus Christ are as disturbing to a Muslim as they could be to a Christian. So why would a bunch of
people (in the name of freedom for expression) try to play with the emotions of more than a Billion Muslims of the world. If
something is considered categorically disturbing to this huge bunch of people then Wikipedia should recognize this fact as
well. I don’t say that the article should be removed but as a Wikiholic I can see that the reproduction of these offensive
pictures will do no good to the reputation of our favorite Wikipedia. It will just hasten up the unnecessary hate war between
Muslims and Christians. My request to you Jimbo, will be to provide a link to these pictures as they are easily available on
other controversial pages and try not to contribute in this Clash of Civilizations. The world is a global village now and
whether we (as Christians, Muslims, and Jews) like it or not but we cannot compartmentalize ourselves. So that now we have
to live together then we have to respect the religious values of each other. (Nigar 14:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC))
232
Please! Save yourself and us a lot of wasted time and energy, and walk through the dicussion page archives where you
can read what people have discussed about this before. You'll find your answers there. -- ActiveSelective 14:37, 4
February 2006 (UTC) Arghhh! Repetitio, repetition, repetition... Repetition, repetition, repetition...
Here are the archives: one | two | three | four | five | six
Muslims point of view
I think most of you guys don't know what the prophet Mohammed means to Muslims is and how they treat their religion in a
holly way probably more than others. You just have to know how Muslims think so you know why they feel that way about
cartoons that you might think it's a tiny silly thing. Prophet Mohammed considered as the simple of Islam, I mean the real
Islam not Osama Bin Ladin's, They probably doesn't care if a leader of their country was attacked or was humiliated the way
the prophet was in the cartoons, It's not about Freedom of speech but it's about stabbing their religion and believes, I do know
some Muslims that doesn't mind to pose nude for Newsweek cover; but they for sure doesn't accept those cartoons. Some
people were talking about the Arabic version of the article, I want to let them know that it's very similar to the English one
except they didn't publish the offensive cartoons; instead they described each one of the 12 cartoons. Radiant 00:37, 5
February 2006 (UTC)
The cartoons are not being placed here as an insult to Islam, but as an important historical detail of the controversy.
Muslims may find them offensive, but that does not make them any less important to understanding the issue. And the
fact that many of them may be very devout and very offended does not, by itself, give them more sway over how
Wikipedia documents current events. Soultaco 01:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The cartoons are giving a wrong stereo type of Muslims plus the freedom of speech rights is not an excuse to humiliate what
others believes. Radiant 06:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they do indeed present a stereotype of Muslims - just as the cartoons in the Anti-semitism entry do about Jews.
But the point is that including the images here does not mean that we endorse their content. They are not being
included here because Wikipedia intends to insult Islam, but because Wikipedia is documenting this controversy. Since
the cartoons are the very focus of the whole issue, it makes perfect sense to include them for reference, for the reader to
judge.
This encyclopedia, as neutral as it may aim to be, is still, a western country encyclopedia and is not going to censor anything
233
because of some group of people considering it offensive. --84.249.252.211 13:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
And we know that Islam considers graven images of its prophet to be offensive. Fine, then - Muslims should not be
producing images of Mohammed. But the makers of these cartoons are (obviously) not Muslim, and not bound by this.
You are essentially demanding that non-Muslims abide by Muslim law - and not only that, but demanding that they also
refuse to acknowledge that others have not abided by Muslim law, by producing these cartoons - which is what many of
us here find exasperating and disturbing. Soultaco 18:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry, but you got it wrong: The cartoons on the Anti-semitism are all historic, but these cartoons are a current
event of religios discrimination. If offending articles would not be deleted in wikipedia, there would be many more
lawsuits. IMHO the cartoons and all other racism or discrimination against a religion, such as vandalism, should not get
displayed in wikipedia.
The publishers of those cartoons are not critizized for not abiding Muslim law, but for mocking the religious believes of
1.3 million people. Other people got fined for selling christian-crosses with the words "masochism can be cured" or for
uttering the words "if st. maria would have aborted, we would have no pope now" (in a german rhyme). Raphael 12:00,
9 February 2006 (UTC)~
Philosophical Question
Gud bevare freespeech
Double Standards
Wow. Someone draws a cartoon offensive to Muslims and how does the Muslim world respond? Some with peaceful protests,
some with violence.
I am a gay man. Many muslim countries (including Saudi Arabia, home of Islam's holiest places) have laws on their books
prescribing exactly how I would be executed if I ever decided to visit one of these countries. That's a little more offensive
than a cartoon. But are gay men buring down Saudi Arabian embassies? No.
234
And you would dare to call us perverted, when you respond to insults with violence? Because love is perverted, but hate is
pure? Is that what's really sacred to you? Hatred?
It was distasteful to publish that cartoon. But the violent ones, the ones calling for blood, are even more disasteful. And the
fact that Western governments are actually intimidated by the bloodthirsty is even more disasteful. In my eyes, everyone has
acted inappropriately. The only ones who have been at all reasonable about this are the Muslims like al-Sistani and the
Jordanians, who have stated that violence is unacceptable as a response.
By the way, if you think being negatively caricatured in the papers is offensive, walk a mile in my shoes. I get hit in the face
with insults all day every day, just because of who I'm attracted to. I have no patience for people who are so thin skinned and
weak that they cannot endure a little criticism. One cartoon. ONE cartoon. Not even two cartoons. Just one page of line
drawings, paper and charcoal. That's what you're upset over? I'm upset because according to Sharia, you're supposed to
collapse a brick wall over me so the bricks will crush me to death. What the hell right do you have to complain about one
crappy cartoon?67.50.32.67
Beautifully said. 69.141.107.202 17:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Well put.--220.238.40.100 02:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Hehe... not to make light of your statements, which are all very valid. I just had this image of a whole bunch of
(stereotypical) gay guys burning down an embassy. WookMuff 05:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Now that's a funny image!! Valtam 18:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I personally know alot of gays in some Islamic countries including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Egypt and many others.
Radiant 07:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and how many of them are living in fear for their lives? 67.50.32.67
I understand it's pretty bad for gays in some of these countries. Our debate in the West is about gay marriage, while the
debate in some of these countries is over the proper way to execute gay people: hang them by the neck, throw them off
a building, or knock a wall over onto them... It's pretty scary... Valtam 18:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
The article is not about homosexuality. There was this teenager who told his parents he was gay, so they sent him to this
fundamentalist refuge, and he's still there being forced to believe that homosexuality is a mental disorder. I'm a vegetarian,
but I haven't been put in a fundamentalist refuge to be force-fed animal products every hour of the day.
{{Template:NazismIsntCool/sig}} 12:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
235
I think it's funny that you say the article is not about homosexuality and then tell some random story about
homosexuality. Hmmm. This article is not about video games. There was this video game I was playing last night - it
was pretty cool! Valtam 16:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
There are double standards at work in this controversy. Why should it be illegal for me to use racial slurs in Denmark but not
portray cartoons of Islam as a violent religion? If these cartoons had been originally published in the US, there would have
been no perception of a double standard because, quite frankly, people are allowed to say or print whatever they want to the
extent that it is not intended to incite imminant lawless action. But there are only two fair options. Either eliminate all
potentially offensive speech and ideas from public discourse and force everyone to live silent lives or protect nobody from the
danger of ideas that are merely offensive, hateful, or insulting. I favor the latter. --Einhverfr 00:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Here in the US, we rely on the Court of Public Opinion alot. That is to say, it's not illegal for you to make an ass out of
yourself. But it's not illegal for the rest of us to stand up and call you an ass, either. You could, as you suggest, use racist slurs
here. But if you do, I'm well within my rights to tell you to shut the fuck up. You won't go to jail for it, and I'm not forced to
like you or help you or do anything for you either. BTW, what do these cartoons have to do with racism? Islam is a faith
practiced by people of different racial backgrounds, so to slam it is not to slam a particular race. That's like calling a person
who is anti-christian a racist.--Anonymous
Exactly why these stupid anti-hate speech laws should be repealled. There is nothing worse for hateful ideas than to be
tried in the court of public opinion. By the way, look up Brandenburg v. Ohio sometime and read footnote 1 in the
Majority Opinion to see just how far this protection goes. Alas such protection is not as substantive in Europe.
--206.130.134.147 07:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Headline text
My personal view: The controversy in a nutshell
Danes will not apologize for insulting a few terrorists, and muslims will not accept that the 12 cartoons where only an
intended as an insult to terrorists. DanielDemaret 23:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it's more. Many Danes will not apologize for insulting a few terrorists and exercising their rights to free speech
while some Danes are happy that some free speech advocates are now supporting their bigotry instead of criticizing it
236
like liberals usually do. Many Muslims take the support of any Dane as an insult to Islam while only a small number
mean that and don't realize that a bigger number are just trying to insult violent elements of Islam or supporting free
speech. All in all viewing it from these different angles is not helping.
But, we should only be discussing the article on this talk page. If you want to discuss this a little more feel free to on
my talk page or on any other user's. gren ??? ? 23:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Rumours of Koran-burnings in Copenhagen started the riots in Damascus
Can we find place for the story that an Imam living in Denmark told an arab news channel that the danes would burn the
Koran in Copenhagen Saturday. Noone eventually did, but the rumours seem to have been spread all over Middle East.
Rasmus (danish Not User) 02:49 February 6th (UTC)
I believe it is not substantiated that it was in fact an Imam who started the rumour. As far as I'm aware it was a rumour
carried by SMS throughout the Middle East. Only Odin knows who started it. Wiki be With us! WanderingWiki 05:17,
Culture Shock
The Western idea of Freedom of Speech evolved over hundreds of years. If piss Christ came out in colonial America, the
artist would have swung from a tree. Now in the United States people can protest the funerals of its fallen soldiers without
government interaction. Try that in the Middle East. Basically the West has grown calluses to people’s opinions. For the most
part peaceful protest has replaced violent reaction.
The internet and mass media have kicked in the front door of the Muslim homes and delivered the Western idea of Free
Speech into their homes. This has been an insensitive shock to the Islamic Identity. The reactions to these cartoons, although
extreme, could have been predicted. Westerners see this reaction as a weak position. Strong ideal beat weak ideals. Violence
beats strong ideals, or at least tries. I see it has a culture that has not (or possibly will not) adapted.
This is a culture shock pure and simple. I understand that Muslims are offended. People DO deny the holocaust everyday.
People DO use racist speech everyday. They are wrong, but have the right to do it. The reaction to these situations is more
237
words.--Thunder 05:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
A French point of view
I'm sorry to speak here in English on Wikipedia (how do you pronounce this in arabic?). I'm French and i don't understand the
needless radicalism of some people i saw on TV.
France-soir is a very bad paper ! This paper is really worst, they search money and celebrity with idiot provocation... I
didn't forget that they were near the bankruptcy two months ago !
France-soir is a paper writed by bastards for bastards, but this DOESNT'T MEAN that French people are bastards too !
So, if someone can tell me - if possible in English, i don't understand arabic (yet - i hope) - what is is sense of these French
flags' conflagrations (i have never seen this in my life!) ?
(Systran automatic translator) ... French Lady
Sorry Lady ... I think this Issue has too many sides and sticking to one or two factors is hard to explain it , firstly i wanna
assert that every muslim felt insulted and attacked by these pics which are obviously racist and islamophobic . the problem in
the pictures are two-sided : firstly they depicts the person of Person Muhammad (PBUH ) which is forbidden in islam to
avoid Idolatory and making persons holy by depicting then giving them a holy nature , so it is opposite to what some
europeans say , muhammad isn,t God of muslims and he is not with holy nature , he is totally human but preferred by god and
so he was chosen as Prophet .
for this reason islam try to limit the depiction of any living thing which is called as aniconism , but still some shiite parties
have another understanding and they depict muhammad rarely and commonly Ali .
so the major factor was the insulting nature of the pics for the muslims which all moderate and extremists felt angry and upset
>
238
apart from that feeling of anger , the Expression of anger as street protests hasn,t happened untill the noewegian journal
re-publish teh pics again and many trials to take condemnations of the danish journal has failed and the danish goverment
declared that it has no right to limit freedom of speech , some muslims say that contradicting with some events happened in
Europe when some ppl is charged because anti-semitism or anti-racism .
the Protests happen anyway with approvment from arabic goverments and islamic goverments which don,t represent the ppl's
will already to keep away from this anger and to use this anger against international pressure as what happened in syria today
.
The anger fromf Westeren Goverments' bias in Israeli-palestenian conflict and iraq invasion and also war against terrosism
has been all expressed in these protests by butning flags , and u know when u r in such protest and with such anger u cannot
recognize between danish or norwegian or french flag .
The Boycott was also a puplic choice to express their condemnation .
i think the globalization could bring more serious events if we don,t learn how we respect the special cultural and religional
differences and if we couldn,t define kind of international rules and law to control such cases .
--Chaos 10:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes but it works both ways. Have you seen the anti semitic cartoons published in certain Islamic countries? Where was
the outcry over those? Ryanuk 11:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Mostly the Caricatures in arabic magazines are considered by arabs anti-zionist not anti-semistic , Secondly no one will
scream for seeing anti-islamic cartoons if u use just extreme or normal muslim but what is refused is claiming that
Muhammad is this reson who is responsible for all terrorism and criminality --Chaos 15:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
But to me, as a Jew, the cartoons in the Arab world ARE anti-semitic. They are just as offensive to me as a Jew
as the Muhammad cartoons are to you as a Muslim. Yet you think it is perfectly OK for your magazines to
publish images of Jews that are stereotyped and hateful because they are "anti-zionist" (political)? But the
Muhammad cartoons were ALSO political. So maybe it is YOU who have a double standard? Rooster613 01:08,
6 February 2006 (UTC)Rooster613
I don't have any problems with jews everywhere in the world exept the ones in the occupied Palestine, because they are
239
attacking our religion not our politics, and that's exactly what i feel about those cartoons. I wouldn't make fun of any prophets
because simpliy i don't have the right to humiliate others. Radiant 07:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Thankfully, I have the right to humiliate others...Valtam 21:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, Chaos, problem being you can't limit freedom of speech from religion. PARTICULARLY not when religious figures
like the Ayatholla or the Pope insists being political. Furtermore - why do you care what a tiny newspaper, in a tiny
predominantly Christian country on an entirely different continent thinks about your prophet? "In Islam it's illegal to draw the
prophet"... Well, you can't seriously expect Europe to conform with Islamic law? I'm sure you don't so what it all boils down
to is respect. Well, you can't force people to respect you either. There will always be nazis, biggots, fascists, racists,
chauvinists, anti-semites, general morons and so on and so forth - the trick is to defeat them with arguments proving you are
right. That's the thing about freedom of speech - you can say what you want - and receive due answer from all who disagrees
with you. Wiki be With us! WanderingWiki 05:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The end is nigh! When whites and muslims all kill each other, zionism will
rule.
This is the beginning of WW III, a war of civilizations. In the end the western civilation or the entire globe will be destroyed.
The arrogance of the whites will destroy all their wealth in return. The west has given a great excuse to UBL to erase entire
infidel cities.
Sorrowfully all big budget press and media around the western world is run by jews, who are controlled from Tel-Aviv. They
want the west to do the dirty job of eliminating all muslims and arabs, so they incite hatred between whites and arabs by
manipulating white's fear and sense of supremacy. We are all puppets in the hands of zionism. In the end when the carnage of
WW III ends, the learned elders will be the undisputed leaders of the remaining planet and nobody will have rights except
jews. This is the greatest conspiracy of history. 213.178.101.38 14:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
China Lotsofissues 14:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
That is just anti-semitism (I'm not jewish by the way) User:slamdac 15.13, 5 February 2006
"all big budget press and media around the western world is run by jews" ? "who are controlled from Tel-Aviv" ???
Rama 15:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
240
Where is the evidence to back this up? User:slamdac 15.23, 5 February
Since when does a Conspiracy theorist need e v i d e n c e.Weregerbil 15:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
None of this thread is relevant to the article. Let it just fizzle out now. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 15:54, 5
February 2006 (UTC)
The sad thing is, this sort of insanity may become relevant to the article. Back when 9/11 happened, like much of the rest of
North America, I had to go overnight from not really taking terrorist groups seriously to realising that at some point we'd have
to deal with them. So, I started reading up on them. The foreign terrorist groups really weren't too interesting, primarily
because most of them were focused on issues specific to geographic locales nowhere near the US or any other country I was
really interested in (e.g., the IRA, ETA, Shining Path, Tamil Tigers). Let's face it, I'm North American, and unless it's a real
threat to North America, I'm not too worried about it. But, I discovered, quite to my surprise, that there were (and are) an
astonishing number of domestic terrorist groups (cf: the Christian Identity movement, The Order, World Church of the
Creator). What really shook me was the fact that at least one of the american neo-nazi groups has recieved rave reviews in
Iran. The main reason? Anti-semitism. Now, think about what the President of Iran has been screaming about Israel lately.
Getting worried yet? I am. Fact is, domestic terror outfits are more of a threat to America than any foreign group. Al-Quaeda
managed to hit two buildings on one day, but haven't managed to get any other attacks off inside the United States itself. If
you access the Southern Poverty Law Center's website and look at what the domestic groups have done, you'll see they have
caused much more damage over a longer period of time. And if you're distressed over the WTC's dramatic collapse, visit the
monument to the Oklahoma City bombing sometime. It took all of Bin Laden's money and thousands of fanatical followers to
bring down the WTC. It took two guys and a rental truck full of fertilizer to destroy the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building.
It's time the US Government got serious about cracking down on domestic terror groups. Hate groups like the neo-nazis
cannot be tolerated in our society any more than Al-Quaeda can. As far as I am concerned, such domestic groups should be
counted as agencies giving aid and comfort to foreign enemies such as Iran's psychopathic government.
1. Millions of muslims are white--220.238.40.100 02:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Zionism is bad--220.238.40.100 02:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
3. And... so is censorship--220.238.40.100 02:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Entartete Kunst
241
Just after Hitler became chancellor and Hindenberg died, leaving Hitler in a position to assume total control of Germany, the
nazis gathered up every work of art they could find that was deemed to be 'dangerous' to the nazi state. The standards they
used for determining which were dangerous and which weren't ranged from works that outright challenged the legitimacy of
the nazi party to experimental works that challenged the neo-classical models that Hitler was so enamored of. The works were
gathered in a warehouse and displayed in a bizzare arrangement intended to be as unflattering as possible to the works and the
artists who crafted them. This exhibit was shown in Berlin for a few days under the name 'Entartete Kunst' (degenerate art),
shortly before they were destroyed.
Why was Adolph Hitler so terrified of art? For the same reason the USSR was terrified of dissidents. Art is dangerous,
because it challenges people to think and to feel. It causes the mind to concieve of new ideas, and leaves the mind free to
determine if such ideas should be accepted, rejected, or simply considered. It challenges existing concepts in much the same
way. This is why communist governments in Eastern Europe and the USSR demanded that only one form of art was to be
allowed, the 'socialist realist' style, which not only did not challenge the concept of state but reinforced it. The Piss Christ,
Robert Mapplethorpe, the ballets of Vaslav Nijinsky and rap music are all examples of art that have challenged the West's
concept of self. The outrage expressed by those who wished to maintain the status quo is merely fear that others who
experience these art forms will reconsider their ideas and maybe even toss them out. If one considers the way things are to be
the ideal, the idea that someone could agitiate for change (and do so efectively) scares the shit out of one. Even art that does
not make political statements, but which challenges the styles seen as acceptable, (cf, Jackson Pollock, abstract
expressionism, Brokeback Mountain) either in content or direction, can be seen as frightening by those who benefit from The
Way Things Are, as they create the possibility that if things are different, their benefits will be cut off.
These cartoons are dangerous art. Several Muslim societies fear them, hate them, because they express ideas that challenge
the Way Things Are. They are today's Entartete Kunst. In a world where the free expression of ideas has become increasingly
regarded as sacred, such art is expressed more freely. The message contained within the cartoons is abominable. But the fact
that they exist is not. In fact, the existence of art that challenges the mind is a thing to be celebrated, not reviled. Art is
dangerous. But without dangerous art, there is no freedom of thought.
Here will be no Sharia!
We Europeans refuse to submit under Sharia law. This is OUR land, Europe, and we are Europeans. Arabia is YOUR land,
Arabs, and you have any rights to set up any laws there accepted by you. You may introduce censorship, medieval inquisition
or even jungle's law in YOUR home. But here you are GUESTS, and we are HOSTS. We have Constitution here, not Sharia.
Our laws do forbid "honour killings" and allows freedom of speech, including the right to criticize a religion. Here is Europe
242
religions take a strictly determined place in the society, and not more. If any religion refuses to accept this, if it proclaims
itself "more tham a religion", then it must be put out of religion protection, and treated as a regular political ideology,
UNDERSTAND?
I don't think "honour killing" need be mentioned here, as it is a barbaric tribal custom which has nothing to do with
Sharia. GCarty 20:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
(See: honour killing)--Greasysteve13 04:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Depiction
Several postmodern satirists have highlighted the point that -- since no one really knows what Mohammed looked like -- any
image could be said to depict him. To that end, they have captioned photos of their thumbs or rudimentary stick figures as
"Mohammed."
What if Muhammad actually looked like a set of floating letters that looked like M U H A M M A D or 9 ? Haizum 12:27,
What if Mohammed were a philosopher dreaming he was a butterfly? More to the point, what if Mohammed was a
butterfly dreaming he was a philosopher?! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
That's a nice idea. But the point for Muslims is that Mohammed as well as God are not to be pictured. The whole conception
of Islam is one of abstraction. So how do you represent an abstract entity? The closest we could get to is the written word
(say, Allah or Mohammed -- in any language), which is seen very often in islamic sculptures on sacral monuments. But, of
course, this is not directly related to the subject here. --Cordula's Web 15:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
But Cordula, that IS the point: what if Muhammad were a butterfly dreaming of being a philosopher? What if?
Babajobu 15:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I was just posing an ironic hypothetical: If the form of Muhammad isn't known, the possibility exists that it could have been
M U H A M M A D in sequence, which would be ironic because of all the Muslims threatening violence (and acting upon it)
for depicting Muhammad; they would then need to cut their own heads off and burn their own diplomatic structures. Haizum
17:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
243
Here is a thought: According to my understanding of Islam, human beings are not to be depicted because it may lead
people to equate these humans being depicted with Allah (see Idolatry, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idolatry; and
Anacrosnism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniconism). So, according to my understadning, the original reason for not
depicting Muhammad would have to be in order not to equate him with Allah. (Muhammad was a human being, see
Muhammad, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad.) But since the purpose of the cartoons in question was not to
glorify Muhammad in any way, the danger of having people equate him with Allah would reasonably be non-existent.
Thus, it is hard to see how these cartoons could be regarded as idolatry/aniconism. Furthermore, some Muslims believe
that no human beings at all are to be depicted. According to the article in question, Sunni Muslims believe so. But
according to the article Islamic Art, "...only the most orthodox Muslims oppose protraiture." (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_art). Thus, by allowing the depiction of human beings and not Muhammad seems
to me to be to put him in the same category as Allah, which would be idolatry/aniconism and blasphemy according to
Islam. PJ 17:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
It's time to talk
Different civilizations are facing each other, violence and insaulting are increasing step by step. After the publishing of the
muhammad cartoons in several newspapers and after torching embassies and General Consulates in Damaskus and Beirut it is
time to stop and to start thinking.
Many people have to learn a lot more about different religions and about different societies and their values. If we understand
more of each other and if we start talking seriously to each other we can reach a peaceful living whith each other. Maybe
that's the only way.
Let's find a platform where we can talk to each other, where we can learn more about each other and find a way to live
together satisfied and in peace on this small planet.
Because I don't think this is the right place for a very general discussion about the whole issue, I have created a new yahoo
group "It's time to talk". Everybody is invited to join and to help understanding each other a little bit better. If we start talking
to each other instead of insaulting and fighting we will be all the winner. If not, we are all lost.
Please join the group and start spreading the information, start other groups, and other efforts to stop any kind of violence and
244
insaulting.
Thank you very much. --NilsB 18:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Um. No. Thanks anyways. :D Kyaa the Catlord 18:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Dear fellow Wikipedians:
This page is for discussing the maintenance of the related Wikipedia article. This is NOT a general chat forum. Please
find one if you wish to chat; there are plenty of them on the Internet. In the interest of keeping down the size of this
page these chats will be moved to the "Arguments" sub-page. Thanks! Weregerbil 18:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
It's time to reconsider. The proposition is for Wikipedia to permanently archive the Muhammad cartoons and make them
freely distributable in perpetuity. I beg you to reconsider this. Please don't put Wikipedians in harm's way, the way Denmark
put Danes in harm's way. The Danes are getting royally spanked for being associated with Jyllands-Posten, who timed their
publication of these cartoons with the first day of Ramadan. Now the Danes are unable to do anything about their burned
down buildings except solicit letters of sympathy from other countries. They don't dare wear their own flag now on their
military uniforms. And nobody can adequately shield them from more consequences to come. Why put Wikipedia through the
same stress? Instead of claiming freedom of the press and rubbing people's noses in it, why not say we are not showing the
cartoons out of respect for Islam? What's not to love? 12.16.126.34 20:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I thoughouly agree, people are seriously angry about this, not even so much because someone would draw these
things, but because newspapers are so blatantly recirculating them now that the muslem community has voiced
their complaints about it. The article itself describes the images well enough, and out of respect for the Islamic
community (and I mean respect, appealing to some common decency) the images should be removed.
172.18.19.33
I strongly disagree. When judging whether a text, pictures or various other arts should be published or not
one should not look solely at the response it's getting. When Monty Python created "Life of Brian" it
generated massive protests from religious communities - should Blockbuster not offer people to rent this
movie? Or what about the "Satanic Verses" by Rushdie? Should bookstores not sell this book? It was
surely bad taste to publish these pictures but now they have become a part of history and should be
recognized as such by this and any other Encyclopedia. Wiki be With us! WanderingWiki 05:07, 9
February 2006 (UTC)
I thoughouly agree, people are seriously angry about this, not even so much because someone would draw these things, but
245
because newspapers are so blatantly recirculating them now that the muslem community has voiced their complaints about it.
The article itself describes the images well enough, and out of respect for the Islamic community (and I mean respect, not
fear, as the previous poster suggests) the images should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by
205.211.145.240 (talk • contribs) .
Islamic Response Proves Cartoons Point
I'd just like to point out that the response by Muslims everywhere, pretty much has proved the point of the original cartoon
that Islam is a religion of terror anyway. Burning embassies, attacking anyone European. How can they be outraged when
what the Danish newspaper has said is entirely accurate?
I like all these Muslims in the UK going around saying "Europe is going to get a 9/11" and "Bin Laden will destroy Europe".
Why don't they just piss off out of our country then, and live somewhere else. What complete hypocrites they are. Agent
Blightsoot 16:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
1) someone draws a cartoon, claiming that you are excessively violent. 2) you protest this cartoon by becoming excessively
violent. 3) Maybe they're on to something here..........
While I wouldn't say "Islam is a religion of terror", the cartoon does make the claim that Islam appears to have more
violent fanatics than other religions and other communities. This claim is either true or false, but it deserves to be
discussed.
Certainly, any culture has a right to defend itself against insults, but when "Piss Christ" was produced, all I remember
was a controversy about whether taxpayer dollars should be funding such art. I don't recall, say, the Vatican asking the
American government to apologize for having allowed such a thing to be created. I don't recall that artist having to fear
for his life, certainly not to the extent of it becoming an international crisis. Now these cartoons appear to insult Islamic
beliefs about as much as "Piss Christ" insulted Christian beliefs, (as far as I can see), but the response has been much
bigger and much more angry. So why is that? Does the Muslim community react to insults more violently than other
cultures? (Can such a question even be answered in a fair way?)
Well, it does warrant consideration, if nothing else. What exactly does the Muslim community intend to do to reverse
this image of violence and terrorism?
Burning embassies over political cartoons?
246
Two wrongs definitely do not make a right.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.139.254.170 (talk • contribs) .
This page is for discussing changes to the encyclopedia article, not debating the news. Ashibaka tock 05:20, 6 February
2006 (UTC)
god how stupid are some Arabs? "oh man, they're implying we're all terrorists, let's ATTACK them!"
134.69.166.132 05:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
This is not discussing the article is it? That aside "The Arabs" did not burn any diplo buildings. Some
Syrians did. (Collounsbury 06:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)).
Actually Syrians are Arabs--Greasysteve13 09:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
You ment religious cartoons Radiant 06:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
These political catoons may have given advantage to groups who want to dis-stabelize political
bonds and relations between Muslim countries and Other Nations.Muslim World and other people.
The subject in cartoons is volatile enough to be used in any way.10.69.166.100
Radiant, I have noticed from my amateur studies of world history that religion and politics are often so entertwined that it's
practically impossible to determine where one begins and the other ends. Take the current War on Terrorism. How much of it
is political? How much of it is religious? Or the whole matter of Israel. Is the Israeli-Arab conflict relious or political?
Looking backward, was the Caliphate political or religious? Or the Vatican? Or the Byzantine Empire? Is there any matter
which exists that is purely religious with no political undertones, or purely political with no religious ones? Even political
entities that have loudly claimed they are atheistic have established personality cults that function as de facto religions.To
refer to the two concepts as distinct is like concieving of the mind as a separate entity from the body. All's well and good until
you study the brain, and then it gets fuzzy, doesn't it?67.50.32.67
Haha, Pwnd! YHBT!
I'm not Islamic, but I don't think the cartoons should've been published. If the Muslims are going to burn down diplomatic
buildings over a few cartoons, a good way to keep them quiet is to wrap some pork in a Danish flag and send it to a mosque.
{{Template:NazismIsntCool/sig}} 13:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC) PS: Don't do it unless you want a fatwa issued against you.
Hypocrisy
247
This whole deal is out of control. These people, and more precisely their religious leaders, are using a minor incident to push
people toward mass protests and violence. One cartoon in Europe showing some religion figure in a satire is hardly more than
a minor incident. Yet the muslim leaders act all outraged, completely forgetting the fact that while it may be illegal to do that
in muslim countries, it is perfectly legal in Europe. Furthermore, these same muslim countries display anti christian and anti
Israel pictures in their own newspapers and media ON A WEEKLY BASIS, then act all outraged about this one cartoon?
Complete utter hypocrisy. It was never about the cartoon, it's about special interest, some fanatic leaders wanting more
violence and less coverage about what goes on in their own communities. Elfguy 16:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, personally I think thats obvious to everyone in the Western world. I mean its hard to have a NPOV when you have on
one side violent protests and burning embassies, and on the other... A CARTOON! ChaosEmerald
I just heard on BBC Radio 4 that British Politician Ian Duncan Smith has criticised some governments for their
objection to these cartoons despite allowing anti-semitic cartoons so regularly. I'm trying to find a written source for it,
and if I do, what do people think about including it in the article? --Nathan (Talk) 17:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Of course. Babajobu 17:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
See discussion directly above.--
I cannot agree more - NPOV can be sooo hard at times like this - but it's a very important part of Wiki. Imagine what
this place would be like if we all gave in to our more 'base' instincts. Robovski 06:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
How do you know, that it is perfectly legal in Europe? It's not legal to show cartoons with anti-semitic content in
germany and austria at least. And it's not legal to discriminate people because of their religion. Raphael Feb 09 2006
It's time to talk
Different civilizations are facing each other, violence and insaulting are increasing step by step. After the publishing of the
muhammad cartoons in several newspapers and after torching embassies and General Consulates in Damaskus and Beirut it is
time to stop and to start thinking.
Many people have to learn a lot more about different religions and about different societies and their values. If we understand
more of each other and if we start talking seriously to each other we can reach a peaceful living whith each other. Maybe
that's the only way.
248
Let's find a platform where we can talk to each other, where we can learn more about each other and find a way to live
together satisfied and in peace on this small planet.
Because I don't think this is the right place for a very general discussion about the whole issue, I have created a new yahoo
group "It's time to talk". Everybody is invited to join and to help understanding each other a little bit better. If we start talking
to each other instead of insaulting and fighting we will be all the winner. If not, we are all lost.
Please join the group and start spreading the information, start other groups, and other efforts to stop any kind of violence and
insaulting.
Thank you very much. --NilsB 18:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Um. No. Thanks anyways. :D Kyaa the Catlord 18:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I second that motion. - No thanks. Valtam 18:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Dear fellow Wikipedians:
This page is for discussing the maintenance of the related Wikipedia article. This is NOT a general chat forum. Please
find one if you wish to chat; there are plenty of them on the Internet. In the interest of keeping down the size of this
page these chats will be moved to the "Arguments" sub-page. Thanks! Weregerbil 18:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry, I already understand more than enough about Islamic culture to know comprimise is not actually an option
and that it is unnaceptable. Homestarmy 20:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Differences or similarities
First of all, I denounce the cartoon as racist. I agree with the other cartoon in the main article saying if the target were Blacks
or Jews, there would be a different argument regarding free speech. I'm all for free speech if it doesn't incite hatred. It seems
to me that the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons do incite that kind of hatred and we should take a stance against it.
--Ian.desouza 20:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
being islamic does not make you a specific race, so the cartoons are hardly racist, they might be depicted as anti religious, or
islamic, but nothing about it has to deal with race. they are a satire that in my opinion many middle easterners have blown out
249
of proportion. burning buildings down over a cartoon is never justified. and there are jokes about Blacks and jews all the time,
ever watch South park, family guy, or just about anything on comedy central. Middle easterners claim theyre mad because it
depicts all of them as terrorist stereotypes. well theyre not helping their image by burning down embassies, burning flags, and
doing actions that result in peoples death. --Barcode 21:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia should not take a stance. Period. We are an encyclopedia, not an op-ed weblog. --Dante Alighieri | Talk
20:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
How puzzling... "Racist"? Just how...Exactly how are these cartoons "racist"? What is "Racism" such cartoons decrying
Islamicist violence by using caricatures of the Prophet of Islam, "racist"?
To be similar, a series of cartoons targeting "Blacks" or Jews would have to be decrying some sort of violent and murderous
acts against others using depictions of a universally lauded religious authority within that community. So...let's try a thought
experiment... Let's imagine a set of cartoons of Moses overseeing slaughter of Palestinians, putting up the Wall, etc. Is that
"racist"? Would Jews (undoubtably offended) do what Muslims are doing? It seems to me that while some Jews might be that
reactionary, we wouldn't have mass demonstrations like we're seeing now.
Another thought experiment... I'm not sure that I can make a plausible one regarding what you call "Blacks"... Perhaps a
"Black" Jesus bashing gays and lesbians? Whatever... I still don't think it would go to this wildly rabid state... And I think that
we would understand the intent and complexity of the cartoon rather that simply interpreting it as "Offensive" and "Racist"
because it ostensively offends some group.
All of this being said... It is perhaps rash of anyone to do anything that might "offend" Muslims these days. If you stick your
stick in a wasp nest...if you poke at a sleeping bear...You shouldn't be surprised if you get hurt. Emyth 21:46, 6 February 2006
(UTC)
Emyth: I think a better comparison would be a caricature of a cannnibal witch doctor in a discussion about Africa. Yes, you
can argue that it is just a parody of religious beliefs but in the context the association of belief and race is so close that it is
easily understood otherwise.
198.54.202.18 23:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
250
I think talking of 'the cartoons' is too general. The bomb-turban one does seem to me rather unpleasant - it may not have been
meant that way but it can easily be understood as a modern version of, say, a corrupt Jewish money-lender. If it wasn't meant
in that way, it is too vague to be effective.
The virgins one, on the other hand, is excellent - a funny skewering of religious fanaticism, and several others seem quite
innocuous to me.
198.54.202.18 22:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
MOOSLAMS ARE NOT A RACE! END OF STORY! THERE IS NO RASCISM HERE UNLESS YOUR TINY LITTLE
LEFTIST BRAINS ARE CREATING IT FROM YOU OWN IMAGINATIONS!
First of all I denounce your momma as a ho...
I'd Just like to point out that the people who are screaming "RACIST" "INFIDEL" and assorted variations on "YOU INSULT TH
Muslims should be the absolutely last people to accuse others of racism.
251
Interesting viewpoint from Australia
Only one paper has published the images so far but there is a debate on whether or not they should be. An Islamic leader in
Melbourne has requested the Australian media to not publish them. Here is a quote from a journalist in the Sydney Morning
Herald which I think sums up the pro argument rather well:
"I accept that to the genuine believer, there can only be one truth and in a pluralist democracy you must be free to proclaim it
and to seek willing converts. But others must be free to debate and even disparage your beliefs.
It is simply not enough to declare your faith to be holy and inviolate and therefore off limits to criticism, however puerile the
criticism might be. Anyway, if your beliefs are firmly and sincerely held, and if they are a divine revelation from God, surely
they will not be shaken by a cartoon? And God will certainly not need protection from those you consider infidels."1
SilentC 22:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Western civilization rocks
I think it is fairly obvious that the western civilizations are superior to those in the Middle East. simple fact: We have freedom
of speech and freeedom of the press and they stone people. They stone married women who are raped.
Well, as a whole, they are superior in creating mass hate propaganda, superior in recruiting people to extreme violence
and superior in fanatic religious extremism... But really, I can’t believe there is not a minority of Middle-Easterners
who are disgusted by all this too, but because they lack those freedoms, we will never hear them over the crowd. -18:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
A large part of the problem is that many European countries, there is an attitude that free speech can and should be
abridged when a party may be deeply offended by the ideas communicated. Therefore it is a crime in Austria to deny
that the Holocaust occurred, and in Denmark, as the article points out, Danish law forbids publically ridiculing the
beliefs of any recognized religion or insulting people based on religious faith. The appropriate response ought to be one
252
where the laws in question are repealled rather than expanded to allow for greater rather than less freedom of
expression.
In Europe, unlike the US, the freedom of expression is rather limited. For example, you can't go to a street corner in
Vienna and proclaim that the Holocaust never occurred. I personally think that the American model is better in this
regard in that it allows for transparency in the discrediting of dangerous and hateful ideas. I hope Europe will follow the
lead of the US in this regard.--Einhverfr 00:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
It's Time to Come Up With a New Cliche
So far, there's been two "It's Time to Talk" posts and one "It's Time to Reconsider" post. Yaaawwwwnnn. So boring. Let's
come up with a new title, okay? Something more original, and less cliche.
It's Time To Reconsider
It's time to reconsider. The proposition is for Wikipedia to permanently archive the Muhammad cartoons and make them
freely distributable in perpetuity. I beg you to reconsider this. Please don't put Wikipedians in harm's way, the way Denmark
put Danes in harm's way. The Danes are getting royally spanked for being associated with Jyllands-Posten, who timed their
publication of these cartoons with the first day of Ramadan. Now the Danes are unable to do anything about their burned
down buildings except solicit letters of sympathy from other countries. They don't dare wear their own flag now on their
military uniforms. And nobody can adequately shield them from more consequences to come. Why put Wikipedia through the
same stress? Instead of claiming freedom of the press and rubbing people's noses in it, why not say we are not showing the
cartoons out of respect for Islam? What's not to love? 12.16.126.34 21:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
So you propose that we bury our heads in the sand and hope it just goes away rather than make a statement about
freedom of speech on the internet? I vote with the Danes. There's something to be said for standing up for your
principles, especially when it's politically inexpedient. There are articles in Wikipedia that run contrary to my personal
beliefs, some that contain material that describes ideas I find bigotted and flat wrong. But I'll not suggest that they be
deleted, and I'll not suggest you delete this one. I'd rather an open discussion continue until al parties are satisfied than
let the whole thing go unattended to just because it's hard to grapple with. This is an excellent opportunity for all of us
to examine the ethics implicated by this incident, and for all of us to come to our own conclusions as to what right and
wrong means in this particular case. Every one of us benefits from these cartoons being preserved here, those that
253
disagree with them and those that agree with them. The reason why is because no matter hat you think about the issue,
you can't ignore it as long as the pictures are here. It forces us to deal with the issue.
No, I propose we hold our heads high with respect and the hope that our example will cause a chain reaction of
good rather than violence. By now our conclusions should be that there is no worse provocation for unbridled
violence than displaying these images, and that continued display provokes additional violence. Therefore, we
should stop displaying them, if only to protect Wikipedia and keep Wikipedians out of harm's way. We don't
have the stun-guns or fire hoses -- or the public safety capacity -- to protect people from collateral damage if we
are attacked in any way. It is one thing for you to insist on showing these images and distributing them for the
rest of our lives, but when the rocks and fire bombs start coming through the windows I can't imagine that you
are going to be standing there protecting innocent victims. This is a bricks and mortar situation, not merely a war
of words. 12.16.126.34 23:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Denmark, before this happened, the only thing I knew about you was from the play Hamlet. I still know very
little about you. But I know that you are brave enough to stand by the principles of freedom of the press and free
speech. And that's all I really need to know. You are some brave muthafuckas. I respect you and your country
much more than I respect those who would cavil before the angry lynch mob in hopes that we can appease them
by betraying our ethics. My president may not support you. But I do.
Now that I got that out of my system, let's talk about Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a repository of information, the internet in
microcosm. The content is dependent upon a system of principles, including the NPOV nature of the commentary made on
the pieces displayed here. It records history in as objective a light as possible, guided by the users who edit the information
and the founders. The content is not, however, judged acceptable or unnacceptable merely because a group with an axe to
grind states that they disapprove. Wikipedia does not attempt to rewrite history to appease an angry mob. Wikipedia merely
records history and preserves a record of it for posterity. It is guided by a desire to understand the universe, not agitate for any
one political or religious viewpoint. Therefore, it would be contrary to the very nature of Wikipedia to remove the
controversial piece recorded here, just as it would be to remove the image of the piss christ. Oh, and one more time: Go
Denmark! Luv ya, babes! Smooch! Big wet sloppy kisses from America! If I see a 'imported from Denmark' label on
something and I can afford it, I'll buy it.
We're showing them because they're the reason for this entire ordeal. We will not be intimidated into removing relevant
information, neither textual nor graphical, from our articles. --Imperialles 21:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the issue here is freedom of speech. I think it might be a "Holy Cow" to Danes and wikipedians alike. In which
case the pictures will stay as long as they are relevant to the article.DanielDemaret 21:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
254
There is already an extremely strong consensus to keep the cartoons in the article. I see no reason why a reconsideration
of the issue now would lead to any different conclusion. BinaryTed 21:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
That's all well and fine when you have the ability to defend yourself from the consequences. But Wikipedia
doesn't have that kind of money. We barely have enough to keep the servers running. As one of the most popular
websites in history, by claiming we are the permanent archive and point of distribution of these drawings, we will
forever be worried about consequences we can't defend ourselves against. Look at what's happening all over the
world. I don't see how you can expect for us to deal with that sort of thing if it happened to us. So why put us
through it? 12.16.126.34 21:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
If the people who own and responsible for the physical security of the Wikipedia servers feel threatened
enough by angry mobs outside of Florida to take this down, then that's their decision. I won't make it for
them. BinaryTed 21:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, but we are all responsible for the well-being of Wikipedia. We can say it until we're blue
in the face: "People shouldn't get violent." But a lot of good that will do us as we get attacked and
nobody's able to shield the blows. That's the big lesson from this weekend. Nothing is there to really
protect us. 12.16.126.34 22:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I am responsible for the "well-being" of the data of Wikipedia in the sense of improving its
value to the world. I am NOT responsible for ensuring the physical well-being of someone
else's private property. That's the responsibility of the owner, and the police. I am not going to
suggest removing an image from the web site because of some unspecific ominous
language.BinaryTed 00:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
What you say is basically that there should be respect of islam, but no respect of human rights, including freedom of the
press and freedom of speech? A lot of the involved people have received death threats - basically proofing the original
point made by Jyllandsposten that you can't publish pictures of Mohammed! Naturally, a death scared press won't
publish something that would irritate the religion in question - and hence our freedom of the press is nullified!
As a scandinavian, I would see human rights as a just as important holy cow to me, as a muslim would feel about others
not offending Mohammed. That doesn't mean that Jyllandsposten were very smart and that the muslims aren't right in
being offended - but I don't think it would be right to demand JP to be stopped by the government, and for certain,
burning embassies and attacking UN soldiers is totally out of the question. There is a classical (mis)quote by Voltaire
that describes the situation very well: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.".
TERdON 22:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I see your point. But I don't see anyone ready to "defend to the death your right" to publish and distribute these
images. The fact is, when people start targeting you the way the Danes are being targeted, these keyboards of
ours are not going to do much good. It's simple, no one has the war chest to really insist on showing these
255
drawings. I, for one, don't want to end up like Van Gogh, and I don't want Wikipedia to have to worry from now
until the end of time about being attacked for displaying and distributing these drawings. 12.16.126.34 22:21, 7
February 2006 (UTC)
I see your point as well - and it basically means it's a very, very sad world we live in. Human rights are
considered an essential part of European society - and it is the ONLY "holy cow" on the part of the
Europeans that I actually am able to find at all. And by what did you mean "start targeting", by the way?
My dad co-owns Arla, he is already being targeted (although not violantly, yet, thank God), even though
he isn't a Dane. To summarize, I see just as much if not more disrespect from parts of the muslim world for
important principles in the west as they see from parts of the Danish society - and that just doesn't bode
well for the future... TERdON 22:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Talk with your Muslim friends. Use your powers of persuasion. When you reach an agreement,
please tell me how you did it. I'm all ears. 12.16.126.34 23:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that it isn't my muslim friends that are protesting - it's the muslims in the
Middle East that are! Actually, it has even been surprisingly quiet in Sweden, although it is
one of the closest countries to Denmark. The news on TV broadcast about protests all over the
arab states, but I haven't really heard about any protests at all here in Sweden... TERdON
19:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I hereby state that I am ready to defend to the death Wikipedia's right to publish these images. Thank God for the
Second Amendment. Valtam 06:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I was about ready to say "I think you mean the First Amendment" but in context, it makes sense...
BinaryTed 17:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it would be a lot harder to defend all those rights, without having Second Amendment rights....
Hopefully, it doesn't come to that... Valtam 18:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Will somebody please move this to "Arguments" where it belongs?--Jbull 21:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Islamofascism? Not a race
so why are we even entertaining the propagandist view that some how anti-terrorist cartoons qualify as "rascism"Call me ishal
dummy 23:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, ishal dummy, "we" don't. Some people just can't keep their cool or have some reason to try to fan the flames.
Ignore them, or at most politely ask them to be civil if they persist. (That "ishal dummy" is a joke of course, it's so
256
obvious someone has to say it so let's get it out of the way :-) Weregerbil 00:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Primarily because the majority portion of the modern civilized world acknowledges that racism is moral evil. Label
something as racist, and you are basically saying that it is evil. It's similair to the way people compare people they dislike to
Hitler. Hitler is acknowledged practically everywhere as evil; therefore, call anyone you think is evil Hitler. Doing this has it's
disadvantages, which are often unfortunately overlooked. Just as comparing anyone you don't like to the nazis diminishes the
horror of what the nazis did (think about it. Your boss may indeed be a tyrannical dickhead. But she hasn't killed 7 million
people. She's not a fucking nazi.) by equating whatever petty grievance you have to the holocaust, comparing a cartoon which
makes political commentary on the recent behaviour of a group of religious fundamentalists (did the political cartoons
regarding the Branch Davidians or Jonestown strike you as racist?) to racism, you are equating something you dislike to
something horrible. In attempting to make the thing you dislike seem horrible, you merely succeed in making the horrible
seem merely disagreeable.
This controversy is controversial!
This is ridiculous. If non-Muslims are also required not to disgrace Islamic traditions then technically every signal Woman in
the world should adhere to the Hijab, and we’ve have no pornography.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by
greasysteve13 (talk • contribs) .
Articles here are biased - need more balanced approach please
There are far more non-Muslim internet users in the world than Muslim ones (the former having pluntered the latter over
hundreds of years of colonialism and post-colonialism and having superior technology). The articles here are biased in favour
or secularism. I would urge everybody to read Nadeem Azam's article How the West is Killing Voltaire.
No--Greasysteve13 04:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
A suggestion of basic principles, for these pages, and others
The issues surrounding free speech and censorship have been debated for centuries, although mainly in societies in which
257
such a notion is accepted. Therefore, for example, in the US, in the Supreme Court and elsewhere, many useful and relevant
principles have been elucidated. Some of these are highly pertinent to the Jyllands-Posten controversy, both in general, and in
the Wikipedia context.
Those who are not from the US or not of western cultural valules should make no mistake here: Do not jump to the
conclusion that any person from the US has no sensibilities and cannot be offended. There are many publically accesiible
exhibitions, works of art, books (both fiction and nonfiction) as well as matters of criticism and opinion, that many US
citizens have found to be highly offensive or even unethical, but which have circulated anyway. Examples abound in art that
has depicted Christian icons and holy images in disregard, ridicule, or even filty contexts. I will not attempt a reference list
here. In addition, ideas and activities that are strictly forbidden by major religous groups are publlically advertised in the US.
Examples are found in commerical adverisement for abortion, or the open promotion of homoesxuality as an accepted
alternative lifestyle.
Anericans have come to a relatively stable arrangement regarding these clashes of personally-held values with public
discourse and open publication of ideas. I believe that the basic principles can be summarized by these two:
1) If something offends you, whether it be an idea, or an image, or a
written page, or a TV program, then you can and should choose to not
expose yourself to it. Turn the page, do not but the newspaper, do not
attend the stage production, stay way from the museum -- if these
media are purveying the content that you find revolting.
The above notion allows us to protect ourselves from offense, provided that the society (government) protects people from a
forced exposure -- and this is not too difficult, as in general there are choices. People are not forced to go to see the offensive
art exhibit. But what if somehow the offensive material is thrust upon us anyway? This leads to the second guideline:
2) Things that are blatantly offensive and that have no other purpose
should in fact be limited by society. There can be age limitations,
warning signs, or prohibitions agaist wide circulation by mass media.
The government has a delicate role here, because something can be outright
banned or, more likely, strongly discouraged, only if it has no
"socially redeeming value" or no "legiotimate purpose" other than to
produce offense.
Let us analyze the Jyllands-Posten ruckus in these perspectves. First, we can appreciate that Muslims, especially strict
Muslims, maye take offense at forbidden depiction. These people should not buy or read such newspapers, or provide viewers
258
to TV stations that show material offensive to them. In places where there are many Muslims, this can be a powerful
economic push towards respecting these values. But that is a secondary effect, the primary one is that the individual avoids
being offended, while those who are no so offended have access to the information, or art, or criticism that they wish to see.
In this regard one must wonder how the masses of people in Afganistan came to have such awareness of what is being
published in a Danish newspaper. This seems to be the opposite effect -- people are seeking out, or being provided with, that
which offends them, even if in the normal course of events they would have no possibility of exposure to the offending
material.
In the opinion of many, and of this author, at least sdome of the 12 cartoons published by Jyllands-Posten had some
conceivable purpose, especially in the context of the story about the childern's book author who could finds no illustrators.
However the supplementary three images - the pig picture, and the dog picture especially, strike me as not only purely
offensive and without purpose, but also out-of-place. It is not diffficult to imagine that some one with a political purpose
added these to the "portfolio", and I have seen no evidence that those pictures were ever intended to be included with the 12
in the Jylands-Posten collection. It is not the present purpose to analyze the clearly manipulative purposes in promoting this
disgustingly "augmented" collection anti-Western propaganda, althoug that seems to be surely the case. However, I believe
that many people would find the supplementary three pictures to warrant condemnation as inflammatory and intrinsically
offensive. Still, I believe that most societies would not place an outright legal ban on the publication of such pictures. Instead,
it could permit them to be regarded as "hate speech" or "obscenity" and thereby make it too risky from the perspective of
most media outlets to widely publicise them.
In the ways outlined above a free society and its citizens can permit free speech while also protecting people from constant
exposure to blatantly offensive material. The Danes would not have published the pig and dog pictures in a major newspaper.
Likewise, religious Muslims may well want to decide to stop buying that newspaper just on the basis of the 12 that were
published. But I cannot imagine that any thinking person could view the Paris Soir front-page cartoon as intrinsically
offensive, even if some reasonable Muslims might choose to not but that day's issue because of a technical violation of a
Muslim tradition.
Including any material in Wikpedia that might be offenmsive to some should be done carefully, with appropriate labels and
warnings. But material shuld not be excluded only because it offends some people, provided that those people have the ability
to avoid seeing it.
88.38.89.137 22:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
259
A Westerner will hardly find anything wrong with the cartoons, on the other
hand, a Muslim will be ofended and feel insulted with them.
The argument that everyone should see the cartoons which the debate is about is meaningless. To have all those cartoons is
pointless. Because: A Westerner will hardly find anything wrong with the cartoons, on the other hand, a Muslim will be
ofended and feel insulted with them. The verbal discriptioon of the case much more important and strong in this case. The
cartoons should be taken from the article or at least only one of them (artist drawing picture cartoon) should be kept! Resid
That is a right point. Therefore I think it is not the right to vote about it....we don't have to have a majority og
Wiki-users to be offended in order to show respect. As these cartoons apperantly offends a minority, I believe,
we the non-Muslims should be mature and respectful enough, to find a solution we all can tolerate. I dont think
they should they should be completely removed, but users dont need to see them at the top of the page. Respect
for all! Bertilvidet 21:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
This topic has already been debated and voted upon; See the archives. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not about
"Showing or not showing" respect, it's about facts and the presentation of facts in the most effective and
straightforward way. This the majority thinks is done by having the image at the top of the page.
The.valiant.paladin 22:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes it have, and as long as the majority not will show respect to the offended minority the debate wil
pop up again and again. Do you think a debate would stop if a majortiy decided to show pictures of
abuse of children or hard core porn on Wikipedia?Bertilvidet 22:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
In fact there are some such pictures which are lowering the standards of Wiki. Somone directed me to some
articles (like penis, vagina -excuse me-) to validate his reasining that, any picture is OK in Wiki. I have no energy
to discuss all these issues, but I am shocked with what I have seen! Wiki has no values at all?!... Is that all
acceptible? Can you imagine a teenager using Wiki? Is this an ensiklopedia or a porn site? Resid Gulerdem
22:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Your point have already been adressed in the archive.The.valiant.paladin 22:18, 11 February
2006 (UTC)
260
I am aware that there is nothing under the sun, except for new people being involved in
the site. But when a majority consciously decides to use its strength in a way that it now
offends a minority, it cannot expect that minority to keep quite. That the debate
continues is an expectable consequence. Bertilvidet 22:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
....Then it is likewise an "expectable consequence" that the majority will ignore
any and all arguments that already have been made before.The.valiant.paladin
22:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Sigh......Not again.. Varga Mila 22:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I would like to thank Bertilvidet for understanding. I cannot see the reason for lack of empahty here. If some people
think it is an insult, and if there is a way to avoid that situation, why people do not go for it? I really cannot understand
it! An ensiklopedia should have some values as well. An insult in an ensiklopedia is not acceptible... Resid Gulerdem
22:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
As an atheist I do feel really insulted and offended by all those religious article around. Would you please take
care of them? --tasc 22:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, everybody will have to see the cartoons to see for themselves and be able to be informed about what they think
about the cartoons. Thue | talk 22:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
A verbal description would work better to that end. The point is, if some people consider the pics as 'insult', it
shouldn't be included in an article. Now there are millions of copies of these cartoons. Once can easily find all of
them and in fact everybody already seen those.. One (less provocative cartoon) should be enough for the
purposes of this article. Please note that this article is not explanation of the cartoons, it is about the
controversy around them. A Westerner can see the cartoons but still may not understand the dispute... Resid
It's terribly hard to make a photo of a controversy. It is however sometimes possible, where the controversy
is about a picture for example, to show the cause of the controversy instead. Nobody denies that this
picture is offensive to many. Still, this doesn't qualify as a reason for exclusion under Wikipedia rules.
Morover, this image is perfectly legal. Wikipedia is about informing, not about catering to the tastes of one
group or another, or making political concessions. With little effort, everybody can find things here, that
he/she is offended by - if he/she looks for them. If you look through the archived discussion, you will find
261
all the opinions. Azate 23:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry but your argument looks to be completely irrelevant to me. Is it hard for you to see this: This article is not
explanation of the cartoons, it is about the controversy caused by them. A Westerner cannot understand the controversy
by looking at the cartoons, neither a Muslim. There should be a fair acoount of what has happened in the article instead... The
article is touching quite many topics and there is no need for -at least all- these pictures. Please answer this point if you want
to respond... Resid Gulerdem 23:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Resid, there are 3 points here:
1) "A verbal description would work better to that end". Absolutely NOT. The most objective, NPV, philosophically and
politically untainted description of the cartoons is provided by...: the cartoons.
Wrong! Again: This article is not explanation of the cartoons, it is about the controversy caused by them. Noone
can understand the dispute by looking at these pictures. Why isn't this all clear? Resid Gulerdem 00:07, 12 February
2006 (UTC)
2) "Some people feel insulted.." This has been discussed extensively. Do respect the time and energy devouted by people
presenting arguments supporting as well as disagreeing with your point of view, and consult the archive.
I do not need to consult the archive. I know what people are talking here... My arguments gets no anwer... All I get is
repetition of the same old and wrong story. When they can't find and answer they change course of the discussion. Or
sometimes, they say, we are dominant here, so you should accept what we said... Resid Gulerdem 00:07, 12 February
2006 (UTC)
3) "One can easily find them and in fact everybody has already seen them". Firstly, save the herostratic cartoon of a man with
a bomb in his turban, they are NOT readily available. Secondly, and most importantly, I am quite sure that many will agree
that a major contributor to much of the unrest is that in fact NOT everybody has already seen the cartoons, but in stead
received those illustrious verbal descriptions of them.
Can you say this while the cartoons are republished in almost all countries of Europe and even some arap countries?
The violent unrest is not in Europe. It is in countries in which access to the cartoons is extremely limited.Varga Mila 00:12,
262
So, we need these cartoons so that people from the countries with limited access to the pics can see them? Some
fuel onto the fire? Resid Gulerdem 00:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand the consequence of my argument. There seems to be a (albeit possibly superficial, but nonetheless)
negative correlation between access to the cartoons and violent unrestVarga Mila 00:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
4) "A Westerner can see the cartoons but still may not understand the dispute". Many Westerners DO understand the dispute,
but do consider the freedom of speech a central tenet to a Western democracy. Freedom of speech includes the right to choose
not to be in nice, or in agreement with others (i.e. the majority/the powerful etc.).Varga Mila 23:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Freedom of speech? Right to choose not be in agreement with others? Consult your suggestion to me in your argument (2).
What a contradiction! Resid Gulerdem 00:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Resid, you are quite free to voice your opinion here (no one will demand that you be prosecuted therefore - or indeed worse).
I am simply saying that if you consult the archives, you can (re-) read page after page presenting the exact same argument,
as you do here. And the responses thereto. Varga Mila 00:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
That is not true. I wish you could show me where this last argument I stated discussed previously. Resid Gulerdem
00:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
An ensiklopedia should has some standarts. Among them, there is no room for an insult in an article! You can practise your
rights to choose not to be nice to people in your daily life... Resid Gulerdem 00:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I think you miss the point of an encyclopedia. It is to provide information. Shocking or insulting pictures, when
relevant, can provide a lot of information. gidonb 00:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes it should. A cartoon (less provocative - artist drawing cartoon) would give enough information about the cartoons. Other
information which is this article is about has nothing to to with seeing the cartoons... Resid Gulerdem 00:23, 12 February
2006 (UTC)
I do not see why is OK to include shocking antisemetic pictures in this encyclopedia, but pictures that insult Muslims
should go out. Either you include anything that is relevant to a topic (and does not break the law) or start deleting a
263
large part of our pics. Personally I believe insulting pictures can be included if done appropriately. I have voted in the
past to keep pictures that personally insult me in, because they were relevant to a topic. gidonb 00:02, 12 February 2006
(UTC)
I answered that question before. As a person strongly against the antisemitism in any form, your comparison, I believe,
makes no sense. An antisemitic pic just creates a symohaty towards Jews, not an insult to their values. Do you have any
cartoons insulting Abraham, Moses, God of Jews, or the like? I would strongly disagree with publishing them in an
article too... Resid Gulerdem 00:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we do. Please consult Piss Christ. --Tokachu 00:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Your concerns have been answered. To your endlessly regurgitated point that this article is about the controversy the
cartoons caused, not the cartoons, I would say that the cartoons in question are vital and integral to understanding the
controversy, thus removing even one of the cartoons would diminish the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it's job
is to inform, not to judge. As such, the offense you take at seeing the pictures is regrettable, but unpreventable, and no
different than someone being offended by any one of a number of other articles. Richard 129.244.128.134 00:36, 12
February 2006 (UTC)
My concerns are unfortunately not answered. My main point is just the opposite of what you are saying. There is
nothing vital with having these cartoons here: A Westerner will hardly find anything wrong with the
cartoons, on the other hand, a Muslim will be ofended and feel insulted with them. I know Wiki is an
ensiklopedia, and you should know that an ensiklopedia cannot include an insult. It is not matter of if I am
insulted (in fact 1,5 billion people we are talking about), but principles matter! We cannot include an insult in
an article. Moreover it is pointless as I am trying to explain all along... Resid Gulerdem 01:05, 12 February 2006
(UTC)
I know that you are against antisemitism. You were quite suprised to learn that we carry such pictures. Sympathy is irrelevant
and, yes, pictures that show Jews as blood thirsty vampires and fat bankers crashing the world with their feet do insult my
values. While Israelis are not all Jewish (actually less than 80%) and Jews mostly not Israelis, pictures of the impacts of
Israeli warfare and the wall are known to create harsh reactions against Jews in general, including physical attacks. I also vote
to keep such pictures in. Pictures of Abraham, Moses and God too if they are relevant. I also encourage you to do a
professional job as a Wikipedia editor and think about which information is important for us as an encyclopedia to provide.
264
GNU Free Documentation License
Version 1.2, November 2002
Copyright (C) 2000,2001,2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
0. PREAMBLE
The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other functional and useful document "free" in the sense of
freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either
commercially or noncommercially. Secondarily, this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for
their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others.
This License is a kind of "copyleft", which means that derivative works of the document must themselves be free in the same
sense. It complements the GNU General Public License, which is a copyleft license designed for free software.
We have designed this License in order to use it for manuals for free software, because free software needs free
documentation: a free program should come with manuals providing the same freedoms that the software does. But this
License is not limited to software manuals; it can be used for any textual work, regardless of subject matter or whether it is
published as a printed book. We recommend this License principally for works whose purpose is instruction or reference.
1. APPLICABILITY AND DEFINITIONS
This License applies to any manual or other work, in any medium, that contains a notice placed by the copyright holder
saying it can be distributed under the terms of this License. Such a notice grants a world-wide, royalty-free license, unlimited
in duration, to use that work under the conditions stated herein. The "Document", below, refers to any such manual or work.
Any member of the public is a licensee, and is addressed as "you". You accept the license if you copy, modify or distribute
the work in a way requiring permission under copyright law.
265
A "Modified Version" of the Document means any work containing the Document or a portion of it, either copied verbatim,
or with modifications and/or translated into another language.
A "Secondary Section" is a named appendix or a front-matter section of the Document that deals exclusively with the
relationship of the publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall subject (or to related matters) and
contains nothing that could fall directly within that overall subject. (Thus, if the Document is in part a textbook of
mathematics, a Secondary Section may not explain any mathematics.) The relationship could be a matter of historical
connection with the subject or with related matters, or of legal, commercial, philosophical, ethical or political position
regarding them.
The "Invariant Sections" are certain Secondary Sections whose titles are designated, as being those of Invariant Sections, in
the notice that says that the Document is released under this License. If a section does not fit the above definition of
Secondary then it is not allowed to be designated as Invariant. The Document may contain zero Invariant Sections. If the
Document does not identify any Invariant Sections then there are none.
The "Cover Texts" are certain short passages of text that are listed, as Front-Cover Texts or Back-Cover Texts, in the notice
that says that the Document is released under this License. A Front-Cover Text may be at most 5 words, and a Back-Cover
Text may be at most 25 words.
A "Transparent" copy of the Document means a machine-readable copy, represented in a format whose specification is
available to the general public, that is suitable for revising the document straightforwardly with generic text editors or (for
images composed of pixels) generic paint programs or (for drawings) some widely available drawing editor, and that is
suitable for input to text formatters or for automatic translation to a variety of formats suitable for input to text formatters. A
copy made in an otherwise Transparent file format whose markup, or absence of markup, has been arranged to thwart or
discourage subsequent modification by readers is not Transparent. An image format is not Transparent if used for any
substantial amount of text. A copy that is not "Transparent" is called "Opaque".
Examples of suitable formats for Transparent copies include plain ASCII without markup, Texinfo input format, LaTeX input
format, SGML or XML using a publicly available DTD, and standard-conforming simple HTML, PostScript or PDF designed
for human modification. Examples of transparent image formats include PNG, XCF and JPG. Opaque formats include
proprietary formats that can be read and edited only by proprietary word processors, SGML or XML for which the DTD
and/or processing tools are not generally available, and the machine-generated HTML, PostScript or PDF produced by some
word processors for output purposes only.
266
The "Title Page" means, for a printed book, the title page itself, plus such following pages as are needed to hold, legibly, the
material this License requires to appear in the title page. For works in formats which do not have any title page as such, "Title
Page" means the text near the most prominent appearance of the work's title, preceding the beginning of the body of the text.
A section "Entitled XYZ" means a named subunit of the Document whose title either is precisely XYZ or contains XYZ in
parentheses following text that translates XYZ in another language. (Here XYZ stands for a specific section name mentioned
below, such as "Acknowledgements", "Dedications", "Endorsements", or "History".) To "Preserve the Title" of such a section
when you modify the Document means that it remains a section "Entitled XYZ" according to this definition.
The Document may include Warranty Disclaimers next to the notice which states that this License applies to the Document.
These Warranty Disclaimers are considered to be included by reference in this License, but only as regards disclaiming
warranties: any other implication that these Warranty Disclaimers may have is void and has no effect on the meaning of this
License.
2. VERBATIM COPYING
You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this
License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all
copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License. You may not use technical measures to
obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. However, you may accept
compensation in exchange for copies. If you distribute a large enough number of copies you must also follow the conditions
in section 3.
You may also lend copies, under the same conditions stated above, and you may publicly display copies.
3. COPYING IN QUANTITY
If you publish printed copies (or copies in media that commonly have printed covers) of the Document, numbering more than
100, and the Document's license notice requires Cover Texts, you must enclose the copies in covers that carry, clearly and
legibly, all these Cover Texts: Front-Cover Texts on the front cover, and Back-Cover Texts on the back cover. Both covers
must also clearly and legibly identify you as the publisher of these copies. The front cover must present the full title with all
words of the title equally prominent and visible. You may add other material on the covers in addition. Copying with changes
limited to the covers, as long as they preserve the title of the Document and satisfy these conditions, can be treated as
verbatim copying in other respects.
267
If the required texts for either cover are too voluminous to fit legibly, you should put the first ones listed (as many as fit
reasonably) on the actual cover, and continue the rest onto adjacent pages.
If you publish or distribute Opaque copies of the Document numbering more than 100, you must either include a
machine-readable Transparent copy along with each Opaque copy, or state in or with each Opaque copy a computer-network
location from which the general network-using public has access to download using public-standard network protocols a
complete Transparent copy of the Document, free of added material. If you use the latter option, you must take reasonably
prudent steps, when you begin distribution of Opaque copies in quantity, to ensure that this Transparent copy will remain thus
accessible at the stated location until at least one year after the last time you distribute an Opaque copy (directly or through
your agents or retailers) of that edition to the public.
It is requested, but not required, that you contact the authors of the Document well before redistributing any large number of
copies, to give them a chance to provide you with an updated version of the Document.
4. MODIFICATIONS
You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document under the conditions of sections 2 and 3 above, provided
that you release the Modified Version under precisely this License, with the Modified Version filling the role of the
Document, thus licensing distribution and modification of the Modified Version to whoever possesses a copy of it. In
addition, you must do these things in the Modified Version:
A. Use in the Title Page (and on the covers, if any) a title distinct from that of the Document, and from those of
previous versions (which should, if there were any, be listed in the History section of the Document). You may use the
same title as a previous version if the original publisher of that version gives permission.
B. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in
the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if
it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement.
C. State on the Title page the name of the publisher of the Modified Version, as the publisher.
D. Preserve all the copyright notices of the Document.
E. Add an appropriate copyright notice for your modifications adjacent to the other copyright notices.
F. Include, immediately after the copyright notices, a license notice giving the public permission to use the Modified
Version under the terms of this License, in the form shown in the Addendum below.
G. Preserve in that license notice the full lists of Invariant Sections and required Cover Texts given in the Document's
license notice.
268
H. Include an unaltered copy of this License.
I. Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new
authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. If there is no section Entitled "History" in
the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then
add an item describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence.
J. Preserve the network location, if any, given in the Document for public access to a Transparent copy of the
Document, and likewise the network locations given in the Document for previous versions it was based on. These may
be placed in the "History" section. You may omit a network location for a work that was published at least four years
before the Document itself, or if the original publisher of the version it refers to gives permission.
K. For any section Entitled "Acknowledgements" or "Dedications", Preserve the Title of the section, and preserve in
the section all the substance and tone of each of the contributor acknowledgements and/or dedications given therein.
L. Preserve all the Invariant Sections of the Document, unaltered in their text and in their titles. Section numbers or the
equivalent are not considered part of the section titles.
M. Delete any section Entitled "Endorsements". Such a section may not be included in the Modified Version.
N. Do not retitle any existing section to be Entitled "Endorsements" or to conflict in title with any Invariant Section.
O. Preserve any Warranty Disclaimers.
If the Modified Version includes new front-matter sections or appendices that qualify as Secondary Sections and contain no
material copied from the Document, you may at your option designate some or all of these sections as invariant. To do this,
add their titles to the list of Invariant Sections in the Modified Version's license notice. These titles must be distinct from any
other section titles.
You may add a section Entitled "Endorsements", provided it contains nothing but endorsements of your Modified Version by
various parties--for example, statements of peer review or that the text has been approved by an organization as the
authoritative definition of a standard.
You may add a passage of up to five words as a Front-Cover Text, and a passage of up to 25 words as a Back-Cover Text, to
the end of the list of Cover Texts in the Modified Version. Only one passage of Front-Cover Text and one of Back-Cover
Text may be added by (or through arrangements made by) any one entity. If the Document already includes a cover text for
the same cover, previously added by you or by arrangement made by the same entity you are acting on behalf of, you may not
add another; but you may replace the old one, on explicit permission from the previous publisher that added the old one.
The author(s) and publisher(s) of the Document do not by this License give permission to use their names for publicity for or
269
to assert or imply endorsement of any Modified Version.
5. COMBINING DOCUMENTS
You may combine the Document with other documents released under this License, under the terms defined in section 4
above for modified versions, provided that you include in the combination all of the Invariant Sections of all of the original
documents, unmodified, and list them all as Invariant Sections of your combined work in its license notice, and that you
preserve all their Warranty Disclaimers.
The combined work need only contain one copy of this License, and multiple identical Invariant Sections may be replaced
with a single copy. If there are multiple Invariant Sections with the same name but different contents, make the title of each
such section unique by adding at the end of it, in parentheses, the name of the original author or publisher of that section if
known, or else a unique number. Make the same adjustment to the section titles in the list of Invariant Sections in the license
notice of the combined work.
In the combination, you must combine any sections Entitled "History" in the various original documents, forming one section
Entitled "History"; likewise combine any sections Entitled "Acknowledgements", and any sections Entitled "Dedications".
You must delete all sections Entitled "Endorsements."
6. COLLECTIONS OF DOCUMENTS
You may make a collection consisting of the Document and other documents released under this License, and replace the
individual copies of this License in the various documents with a single copy that is included in the collection, provided that
you follow the rules of this License for verbatim copying of each of the documents in all other respects.
You may extract a single document from such a collection, and distribute it individually under this License, provided you
insert a copy of this License into the extracted document, and follow this License in all other respects regarding verbatim
copying of that document.
7. AGGREGATION WITH INDEPENDENT WORKS
A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate and independent documents or works, in or on a volume
of a storage or distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the copyright resulting from the compilation is not used to
limit the legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. When the Document is included in
270
an aggregate, this License does not apply to the other works in the aggregate which are not themselves derivative works of the
Document.
If the Cover Text requirement of section 3 is applicable to these copies of the Document, then if the Document is less than
one half of the entire aggregate, the Document's Cover Texts may be placed on covers that bracket the Document within the
aggregate, or the electronic equivalent of covers if the Document is in electronic form. Otherwise they must appear on printed
covers that bracket the whole aggregate.
8. TRANSLATION
Translation is considered a kind of modification, so you may distribute translations of the Document under the terms of
section 4. Replacing Invariant Sections with translations requires special permission from their copyright holders, but you
may include translations of some or all Invariant Sections in addition to the original versions of these Invariant Sections. You
may include a translation of this License, and all the license notices in the Document, and any Warranty Disclaimers,
provided that you also include the original English version of this License and the original versions of those notices and
disclaimers. In case of a disagreement between the translation and the original version of this License or a notice or
disclaimer, the original version will prevail.
If a section in the Document is Entitled "Acknowledgements", "Dedications", or "History", the requirement (section 4) to
Preserve its Title (section 1) will typically require changing the actual title.
9. TERMINATION
You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Document except as expressly provided for under this License. Any
other attempt to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Document is void, and will automatically terminate your rights
under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their
licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
10. FUTURE REVISIONS OF THIS LICENSE
The Free Software Foundation may publish new, revised versions of the GNU Free Documentation License from time to
time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or
concerns. See http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/.
271
Each version of the License is given a distinguishing version number. If the Document specifies that a particular numbered
version of this License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of
that specified version or of any later version that has been published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation. If the
Document does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published (not as a draft) by
the Free Software Foundation.
How to use this License for your documents
To use this License in a document you have written, include a copy of the License in the document and put the following
copyright and license notices just after the title page:
Copyright (c) YEAR YOUR NAME.
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover
Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
Free Documentation License".
If you have Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts and Back-Cover Texts, replace the "with...Texts." line with this:
with the Invariant Sections being LIST THEIR TITLES, with the
Front-Cover Texts being LIST, and with the Back-Cover Texts being LIST.
If you have Invariant Sections without Cover Texts, or some other combination of the three, merge those two alternatives to
suit the situation.
If your document contains nontrivial examples of program code, we recommend releasing these examples in parallel under
your choice of free software license, such as the GNU General Public License, to permit their use in free software.
Wikipedia Source Pages
Update 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy
272
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reactions_to_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments
(End of Update 1)
273

UPDATE 2: The Wikipedia Muhammad

Transcription

Similar documents

Afewerq Yohannis and Debbebe Seyfu: Notes on Ethiopian Writers

Alabama Transportation Facts - University of Alabama at Birmingham

The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate

Sponsored Students and Partnership Opportunities in Iraq

Bioteck Training Course

transnational media events

Memory analysis of the KBeast Linux rootkit

The Danish Club in Brisbane, Australia

Malware memory analysis of the Jynx2 Linux rootkit (Part 1)

Sherds 4-6 2013 - Museum of the Red River

Times The

The Secret Language of The Iraqi Dinar Decoded