Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Arguments

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

Contents 1 Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy 2 Arguments 2.1 Muslim racism towards Nordic Europeans 2.2 Examples of "Freedom of Speech and Hate Speech" section should be revived 2.3 Boycott in Paragraph 3 2.4 Witch-hunt, holocaust & Islamophobia 2.5 South Park 2.6 wikipedia is no democracy 2.7 Is violence justified? 2.8 Who is Mohammad? 2.9 Senseless Violence 3 What does the Quran says about violence? Who is the prophet Muhammad (s.a.s)? 3.1 Cartoons controversy 3.2 Holocaust did not happen? 3.3 Clash of Civilizations 3.4 Muslims point of view 3.5 Philosophical Question 3.6 Double Standards 4 Headline text 4.1 My personal view: The controversy in a nutshell 4.2 Rumours of Koran-burnings in Copenhagen started the riots in Damascus 5 Culture Shock 6 A French point of view 7 Entartete Kunst 8 Depiction 9 It's time to talk 10 Islamic Response Proves Cartoons Point 11 Burning embassies over political cartoons? 12 Hypocrisy 13 It's time to talk 14 Differences or similarities 15 Interesting viewpoint from Australia 16 Western civilization rocks 17 It's Time to Come Up With a New Cliche 18 It's Time To Reconsider 19 Islamofascism? Not a race 20 This controversy is controversial! 21 Articles here are biased - need more balanced approach please 22 A suggestion of basic principles, for these pages, and others 23 A Westerner will hardly find anything wrong with the cartoons, on the other hand, a Muslim will be ofended and feel insulted with them. 24 Everything is offensive to somebody 25 Lunacy of the Issue 26 A usual Europian hypocrisy: David Irving case! Nice to Jews, harsh to Muslims... 27 Free Press ?? 28 David Irving 28.1 That Which Is Right Is Seldom Easy 29 Why different results? 30 Excuse Me 31 Why are cartoonists in hiding?! 32 This talk page is in a sorry state!!! 33 Offensive?

[edit] Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Dont you think it is equally bad that Muslims are rioting and destroying property over this. Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. these acts of violence are equally reprehensible to Islam as the cartoons. REALIZE WHAT YOU ARE DOING. the world is watching act like muslims, not like undisciplined individuals.

--130.108.185.198 03:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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 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 (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Wikipedia for providing a venue for the discussion of these ideas.

I am a professed born again whitey that take offense at this whole escapade I believe dearly in the value of a free press and belive just as strongly that one should have the riht to practice ones religion but for these halfwitted journalist t stand up and pretend that by offended 25% of the popuation of the world they have in some way or other sruck a blow for free speech firstly as the cliche goes free speech is not free and it is certainly not been purchased from some broken crayon in a second rate comic daily in... if people took the time and trouble to invoke every right at our disposal nothing would ever get acomplished. the people that instigated this crap should be ashamed of themselves they're obviously people that have too much time and ink on their hands and now the blood of innocent that have been caught in the cross fire.

[edit] Arguments

[edit] 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 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)

[edit] 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 legal terms, both the US and the European countries have two basic legal restrictions on free speech: libel and incitement to riot. The US has criminal libel, while the EU countries do not (although a private person can sue another private person for libel). The "incitement to riot" or "hate speech" restriction exists in both systems. Mind you though that the common European document is the ECHR, so the more elaborate wording of freedom of speech laws fall on the individual countries. --Denoir 08:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article 10, Freedom of expression

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

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

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

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 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] Witch-hunt, holocaust & Islamophobia

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

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

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

I 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

How can you prove, that the Muhammed cartoons are "discussing" anything? The cartoons are "hate speech" against an entire religious community. Raphael 81.250.233.80 14:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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 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 run over by a car). Slinky Puppet 18:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

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 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." ?

[edit] 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)

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. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 19:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

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 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)

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).

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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. — TheKMan^talk 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)

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. — TheKMan^talk 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 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)

Lying to save the face will not help. Early Muslim writers agree that the marriage was consumed at the age of 9. Accounts show the resentment of her father. You cannot argue it is "a strategic alliance". It was only physical attraction. Further, you cannot argue it "was particularly common" and in another context pretend he was Prophet of Mercy (=Rassoul ar-Rahmah) to mankind. Please think it over.

Connection, please sign your comments. Feel free to delete this once you have. Haizum 00:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Senseless Violence

More than 100 people have died because of riots against the cartoons. The thing is, they are only cartoons, they may be offensive, but seriously they are only cartoons. And people say videogames cause violence...

[edit] What does the Quran says about violence? Who is the prophet Muhammad (s.a.s)?

People always have predjudices towards others.One reason is that people are ignorant.And I believe that the most part of Non-Muslims do not really know the person Muhammad (s.a.s=peace upon with him).I am a Muslim against terror and violence.Allah (s.w.t) says in the Holy Quran Surah 16:90 (translation of the meaning) (and after saying "bismillahirahmanirahim=In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, Most Merciful"):"Allah commands justice, the doing of good, and liberality to kith and kin, and He forbids all shameful deeds, and injustice and rebellion: He instructs you, that ye may receive admonition." Here is a website in many languages describing our Prophet Muhammad (s.a.s): http://www.islamway.com/mohammad

Don't you see? This instruction is relevant only to "kith and kin". Check the Holy Quran carefuly for how to deal with non-Muslims.

[edit] 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 .

[edit] 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 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 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, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

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. — TheKMan^talk 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)

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)

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.

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.) Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 23:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

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 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

[edit] 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))

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

[edit] 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 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)~

[edit] Philosophical Question

Gud bevare freespeech

[edit] 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.

Sir, the reason gays don't burn down embassies is because most embassies are beautifully decorated with satin and greek pillars and most people in there are well-dressed. Don't ever think is it because gays are "good" people!!! Huramath 03:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

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? Wandering Star

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? Wandering Star

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)

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. Wandering Star

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)

[edit] Headline text

[edit] 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 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 グレン ^? 23:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Muslims are fully intitled to their religious belief, but other people are also entitled to diferent beliefs, some worship the devil, some think might even think Muhammad was the devil. If some think he was a saint others are just entitled to think that he was not. Still I don't think it's apropriate to say danes insulted a few terrorists, just because a person might be very religious and muslim doesen't make him a terrorist, same way, over the past years catholics have felt insulted by cartoons, and they are not called terrorists.

[edit] 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, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 words.--Thunder 05:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A French point of view

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 >

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 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)

[edit] Entartete Kunst

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.

[edit] 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 محمد? Haizum 12:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

[edit] 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 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 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) .

[edit] 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?

[edit] Burning embassies over political cartoons?

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.

[edit] Hypocrisy

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.-- Nomen Nescio 20:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] 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 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)

[edit] 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 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)

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 THE PROPHET SO WE'RE GOING TO BLOW YOU ALL TO HELL" are right of centre. The Leftists, like myeslf are saying that we, as humans are entitled to say what we feel. If it offends you then don't read the bloody cartoon!

Muslims should be the absolutely last people to accuse others of racism.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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 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)
• 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 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) -- No -- Junathans 20:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 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.

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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 plundered 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)

No Junathans 20:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No Greasysteve13 08:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 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 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)

[edit] 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 Gulerdem 21:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

Please think about what people write before responding. Vote results and what the majority thinks does not matter in this case. We don't have to have a majority of Wiki-users to be offended in order to show respect. Raphael1 15:04, 5 March 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)

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 Gulerdem 22:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

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 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? Resid Gulerdem 00:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The violent unrest is not in Europe. It is in countries in which access to the cartoons is extremely limited.Varga Mila 00:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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 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. gidonb 00:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

There have been a number of pro-Muslim posts arguing that a cartoon depiction slamming Judaism would be felt as more offensive than one slamming Islam in the West. It's curious you folks would choose Judaism as your target. You see, the vast majority of the West is not Jewish, but christian. Had you asked, "would a cartoon making fun of jesus have been offensive to you?", I would say that you were merely looking for an icon as sacred to the western mind as mohammad is to the eastern mind. But for some reason, you won't use that icon, will you? You keep attacking the Jews, instead. Maybe this is a parapraxis on your part. Maybe it just underlines your fundamental hatred of Jewish people. Your Freudian Slip is showing, dearie. You should cover that up before anyone sees it.

Rasid, I understand that this is very offensive to many Muslims (mostly Sunni as Shiites have been more tolerant of pictures of Mohammed). But there are a few points I think should be made.

1) I think that access to the pictures is important. Whether or not they are prominantly displayed or you have a (click here for the cartoons) links. There are aspects of the cartoons for which the verbal descriptions simply are not adequate. Yet, for those of us who don't speak Danish, Arabic, and Farsee the descriptions are also important. I would not favor merely removing them under any circumstances.

2) I don't think the rage is just about the cartoons. I think a big part of it is ageneral frustration against the West and a sense that they are being the victim of cultural colonialism. Thus publication or not of the cartoons is unlikely to be an issue.

3) I do not think that dialog is furthered by suggesting that nothing that anyone finds merely insulting can be barred from the encyclopedia. If you wish to suggest this, I would ask you to discuss concrete harms of putting it there. Certainly in this context, I don't think that it incites hatred of Muslims.--206.130.134.147 23:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

If I can throw my two cents into the conversation. I'm an American, a Christian, and while I'm not personally insulted by the cartoons because they're not targeting me, I am upset and disappointed that they were published in the first place.

I mean, honestly, who could possibly have said in the paper's editorial meeting, "Let's go ahead and put these comics in our paper because no one will be offended by them?" Clearly, the paper intended to offend people and spark controversy, and there's even an argument to be made that the paper is guilty of incitement to riot.

The editors knew it was going to piss a bunch of people off, and they knew that there are dangerous Islamic extremists that would use the comics as an excuse to blow things up and kill people. And the people who were thinking about becoming terrorists, but were sitting on the fence, might very well have decided to become terrorists as a result of a Western newspaper severely insulting the Prophet Muhammad, the most revered figure in Islam short of Allah Himself.

And even those Muslims who aren't terrorists, and have no intention of becoming terrorists, are still angry about this and seeing it as yet another example of Western values being forced upon the non-Western world, or religious intolerance.

There was simply no good outcome that could possibly have come from the publication of the pictures. Sure, the paper might be counting the few extra krones in their pockets from people buying the paper to see what the fuss is about. And maybe they're enjoying the exposure of having the paper's name in mass media all over the world (figuring that "any publicity is good publicity"). But the paper has exposed its own employees to danger. The paper's headquarters have been the target of several bomb threats, and if you think that there aren't terrorists out there that are anxiously awaiting getting a shot at the cartoonists, you're probably naive.

I'm not saying the terrorists are justified in taking such an action, and I don't believe that anything should be the catalyst for anyone to say, "I'm so angry that I'm going to kill people I don't know and burn buildings in protest", but, really, Jyllands-Posten should've known better!

I'm a supporter of free speech, and I support the right to provoke controversy if it's used to raise the level of debate. But controversy for its own sake, or for the sake of selling a few extra newspapers-- particularly when it's this controversial-- is stupid and wrong. There was absolutely no good outcome that could have resulted from the publication of these comics.

However-- I believe Wikipedia has an obligation to show these pictures, because it is first and foremost a site that is designed to educate and inform. Someone might ask, "What's all the fuss about?" and that person deserves to see the source of the controversy. People are killing each other over this thing! Nothing could possibly justify that, just as it would be equally wrong for an extremist Christian group to bomb a building over Piss Christ.

I'm grateful, in any event, that the images are low-resolution and you can't make out some of the details on some of the comics. There's a thin line here between the need to inform and the need not to cause further insult to Muslims. If someone can't make out all the details and wants to see close-ups, though, they can find them for themselves-- I'm sure they're readily available somewhere, as I've seen high-res shots of them myself.

And, by the way, when I saw the pictures, I shook my head sadly and said, "What in the world inspired someone to publish this?!" I'm not offended on my own behalf but I'm offended on behalf of the Muslims I've met in my life, most of whom are kind, good-hearted and decent people. And I'm offended on behalf of 1.5 billion people, most of whom I've never met but most of whom are not terrorists.

Even if these cartoons had not inspired people to riot and kill, they would still have been a monumentally offensive and stupid idea. I believe that people should have the right to practice whatever religion they wish to practice, and do so without being mocked or offended by people who disagree with what they believe.

So, with all due respect, Resid, you're wrong when you say "a Westerner will hardly find anything wrong with the cartoons." I do, and I'd go so far as to say that many do. I find anything that discriminates against people on the basis of religion, race, gender, sexual orientation or anything else, offensive. I find discrimination itself to be offensive. And, again with all due respect, by saying "a Westerner won't find anything wrong with the cartoons", you're generalizing and, no doubt inadvertently, discriminating too.

I'm not upset with what you said, though, because I'm pretty sure you didn't mean it like that. I just want you to understand that not all Westerners are culturally insensitive, and that not all Westerners want to impose their values on other people. ekedolphin 11:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't cry, emo kid!

Dear Ekedolphin,

I am sorry for my words that you find generalization leading to discrimination. As you kindly emphasised, it was not on purpose.

In the talk page of the article, I realized that, peaple are very insensitive to the values of 'the other'. It greatly saddened me as a person working for interfaith dialogue in my real life. I am teased, ridiculed, and could hardly find a person who are trying to understand what I am saying. In that sense, although I have good Christian friends respectful to Muslim values around me, the people I was talking here shocked me with their bias on the issue.

If you can find some time to review the archives, and Poll 3 (which is closed by someone shortly after it is started) I have two main points:

• The article is not about the cartoons. So there is no reason to have them all. Instead, we can have just one (maybe artist drawing pic of Mohammed: less provocative and summerize what the fuss is all about).
• To have the whole collection is pointless because for (I will say many this time) many Westerners the cartoons are not big deal, but for almost all Muslims they are insult. So, by just looking at these cartoons, many Westerners may not be able to see the reason for the intensity of the reactions.

I would like to thank you for your time and explanations above. It strengthened my belief that the dialogue among different communities is not just a dream. Resid Gulerdem 08:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

MyPOV: I would be personally insulted if I had not been allowed to see the cartoons. I would interpret it as implying that I was so mentally retarded that could not be permitted to make my own interpretation of the cartoons. I do not think I am alone in this. So whether the cartoons stay or go, someone is going to be insulted. DanielDemaret 19:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Everything is offensive to somebody

If newspaper editors refuse to print matter on the sole basis that someone, somewhere, could possibly be offended by what is being said, then almost nothing of value would ever be printed. Go pick up a copy of the TV Guide if you want intellectually dead writing devoid of social commentary, purposefully bland and careful not to offend material. No, wait! TV Guide might offend-remember, Amish people don't watch television. We can't have any depictions of television in the press. Okay, what about USA Today? That's a pretty bland paper. Oh, shit! USA Today has articles about current events. Those are always controversial. Okay, okay. I guess we'll have to stick to kids' publications like Sesame Street. No, wait! One of the characters on the television show died. We can't mention death. THat might offend!

Oh, fuck. Looks like no matter what we print, it'll offend somebody, won't it? Might as well just not print anything at all. Let's all go back to the middle ages, and just forget about reading and writing altogether. We'll let the church and the state determine what we should think. Oh, shit! I forgot. There were crusades in the middle ages, and progroms against Jewish people. That's really offensive. Well, I guess we can't rely on church and state to tell us what to think. Wow. Maybe we should just stop thinking altogether. Let's become a nation of couch potatoes, who can't keep a single thought in our heads other than "Where's the next bag of Doritos coming from" and "I sure would like to fuck Paris Hilton".

Dammit! We're already there!

So, is this a good thing? ekedolphin 07:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

What a poor reasoning... Insult (the cartoons in this case) is a mental pathology caused by lack of ideas and lack of empathy. You can discuss your ideas without insulting others. In fact your ideas will be important and influential only then... Resid Gulerdem 08:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I learned to ignore insults at the age of 6, and for the most part if something upsets me today I don't give them the satisfaction of my attention. When the KKK went marching in Raleigh everybody ignored them, and all the KKK got out of it was a several-thousand-dollar parade permit fee. No anger. No recruits. No attention. It was only mentioned on the radio for a traffic report. If we all acted like Pat Robertson or Timothy McVeigh the entire planet would be a crater.

Everything is offensive to somebody. But then again, that's already been said. --Tokachu 20:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The cartoons were not even insults they were criticisms. And valid ones I might add. --Vagodin ^Talk 20:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

He takes it a bit to far... but the point is that offensive material can be necesarry. Galileo claimed the world was round - Darwin claimed we were not made by God and so on and so forth. Highly controversial and offensive in its time - it even is today to some people i.e.. Creationists and Flat Earthers. So most people can probably agree that printing of controversial issues is not only necesarry - it's fundamental to our society and development of such. Were the cartoons necesarry? IMHO no... but you can't possibly distinguish between necessary and unnecessary publications without limiting freedom of speech offensively ;) Celcius 17:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lunacy of the Issue

Moved from Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy joturner 20:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

If that's actually true, it says a lot about the utter lunacy of this whole issue. Dozens of people are getting killed ... over cartoons?! Good God let it go already! Here in the USA we have honest-to-God Neo-Nazi marches, a lot worse than cartoons, and no one dies. Ah well, different cultures, different values on human life and free speech ... --Cyde Weys 20:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

That's what happens to people when they are doped up on fundamentalism. They value their imaginary gods and prophets more than tangible human life. That should basically be the definition of lunacy. --Vagodin ^Talk 20:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Or die for anything that is made up, for that matter, like e g a "nation", or any other imaginary land units enclosed by imaginary borders. DanielDemaret 21:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is not even about cartoons :). The people that are getting killed have, from what I read in many sources, not been allowed to see the cartoons. If they had actually seen the cartoons, they might well have gone to a movie instead. DanielDemaret 08:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC) Invisible, imaginary cartoons are a lot more powerful than real cartoons, just like imagined insults are a lot more powerful than real insults. DanielDemaret 09:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A usual Europian hypocrisy: David Irving case! Nice to Jews, harsh to Muslims...

Moved from Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 12:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

A usual Europian hypocrisy again!... The people there cannot say what they believe. David Irving charged for saying that 'there actually was no holocaust'. Now where is the 'freedom of speech' for Mr. Irving? Can an editor incorporate this into the article?

Isn't this a two-facedness and double standard? As a person who believe that holocaust has, unfortunately, happened, I still believe that anyone who think the Jewish arguments are not strong, should be able to say it. The dilemma is, people there charging DI for telling his ideas that hurt Jews, but backing up the ones who hurt Muslim's feelings... Resid Gulerdem 23:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

1. First of all, there are still a few laws against free speech in some countries, unfortunately. Those most closely affected by the holocaust still retain these laws, strangely. This does not apply to any of the Northernmost countries, which makes it less interesting. I have argued that they should scrap those laws in some of the central european countries, just as sweden long ago scrapped laws against nazis. General laws against violence, including any speech which incites violence against any person or ethnic group should suffice. If Germany had murdered 6 million arabs, I am sure there would be laws against denying that the arabs were murdered. It would be two-faced if either Denmark had murdered jews, but I can assure you that they did not, or if it had been Germany that had published the cartoons in the first place, but they did not.
2. Secondly, Irving started the first day in court by apologizing, since he has discovered that the papers he relied on have been proven forgeries.
3. Thirdly, although Irving knew a lot about the period, he made some forgeries of his own, which has hurt his credibility somewhat.
4. Fourthly, he has strengthened holocaust knowledge since it took a number of historians to disprove him :p . Ironic, isnt it?
5. Fifthly, we have had this anti-holocaust-law argument before are I am sure many are as tired of this as the polls. DanielDemaret 23:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

In Austria it is against the law to deny the Nazi genocide. It is not against the law to publish cartoons about your prophet. Hypocrisy? Very likely. Go to Austria and change the law if you can. Doesn't change anything in relation to these cartoons. I agree, this guy should be able to say what he wants without being locked up, as long as he is not inciting people to violence by doing so. SilentC 23:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Your (Daniel) arguments above just changing the course of discussion and not helpfull at all:

• This is a new charge. So it worths to mention.
• The point is not if 'holocaust has happened or not' or if 'Mr. Irving is wrong or right' or if 'he knows history very well or not'. The point is, 'how come a person can be charged for his ideas...' Note that he is not supporting violence, just saying that a violence claim is in fact not true! That is it...
• People are quickly flip-flopping... In general, when they speak they start like: Europian values... Western Values... But when it comes to the hypocrisy, they say, 'well Danmark did that not ..... country' so it doesn't apply. In this case almost all Europian countries had those cartoons claiming that they are supporting 'freedom of scpeech'. I do not know how come you miss this point?
• Europian hypocrisy is not restricted to Irving case. They have a long list and history of hypocrisy. Muslim girls cannot wear their headscarf in scools in some Europian countries. People are charged for speaking their own languages in puplic in some countries, etc...
• It is surprising to me that, some editors here do not get tired when marching for issues that are insulting Muslims for the sake of freedom of speech, but easily get tired when discussion is about their rights... Is it just your claim?
• We are discussing the issue here. I do not remember that I asked someone to go and draw a new cartoon, wht is your point SilentC?

The bottom line is: Europian countries misusing their very argument 'freedom of speech' to justify their wrong doing in cartoon case... Resid Gulerdem 00:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I know that one of the significant differences here has to do with race vs. religion. The laws against holocaust denial tend to go hand in hand with laws against racial hate speech (which many European countries have) whereas laws for blasphemy either don't exist or are not enforced. Netscott 00:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, when you say Jew, you actually mean his/her religion first. Their nation based on their religion, and without the religion they couldn't survive. So recial vs religious hate speeches doesn't make sense. I do not want to discuss why this seperation is so meaningless at all... I can see that you are missing the main idea here: The point is not laws or regulations against racial or religious hate speeches, it is about the freedom of speech wheather it is related to this or that thing. Resid Gulerdem 00:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• No when I say Jew, I mean the race, the Jewish race... it is for this reason that Jyllands-Posten will probably not be able to legally print Hamshahri's cartoons because they will be of a racist (not religious) nature. Netscott 01:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, what you call is a different issue. The truth and standard use it what I said. You can ask a Jew about it! You are just repeating the JP's misleading ideas here... They are playing with word, that is why they are not sincere... At the first place they knew what is going to happen if they publish these cartoons. They are playing a dirty game. Resid Gulerdem 01:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Resid, you shoud know that WikiPedia is not censored when it comes to Holocaust denial, even going so far as to provide links to sites who claim the Holocaust didn't occur. Netscott 00:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Please try to see my point. I have no problem with holocaust. My point is, their 'freedom of speech' argument is not sincere and correct and this point need to be mentioned in the article. Resid Gulerdem 01:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Resid, with the exception of the first image displayed on this article (which is not to be changed without editor consensus) , you are free to edit it as you see fit. If other editors decide to edit your additions out then you'll have to argue for their inclusion here and gather a consensus for your edits to remain... just like everyone else here. Netscott 01:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• I tired to add a section about the 'Danish Reaction', it is deleted immediately. People are not looking for a consensus when they are deleting my contribution on this article. That is sad for me, of course, and is the reason why I do not want to touch it! Forever... Resid Gulerdem 01:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Resid the reason your "Danish reaction" section was removed was that you found a minor, relatively unpublicized internet petition, recapitulated the entire thing word-for-word in this article, and characterized it as the "Danish reaction". That's just bad Wikipedia editing, and that's why people removed it. Babajobu 01:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You still fail to understand the centrality of law in most Europeans' thinking: If it's lawful, it's OK. If it's unlawful, it's not. People can certainly see the hypocrisy you're talking about, but (on aggregate) appear to think that their society is better of with the rule of the law, even if it's hypocritical in it's application at times. These laws are a work in progress at any given time, and subject to change, of couse. On the moral plane, hypocrisy is a minor deed: It's neither among the christian cardinal sins, nor is it of great concern to Islamic theology. Azate 00:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Apperantly you think so, although it is just the opposite. Today's world obtained these modern standards by cahnging the rules as you pointed out. Set the laws aside... I am not saying that, Europians are not following the rules when it is about the Muslims. I am saying that, although they needn't do so, they choose to publish the cartoons by insincerely claiming that they support 'freedom of speech'. Clear now? Hypocrisy is never a minor deed! Resid Gulerdem 01:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, if hypocrisy is the issue here, then the state-run media of Arab and Muslim countries--with their incessant racist and anti-semitic images but their fury that anyone should publish images offensive to them--are still light years ahead. Still, I actually agree with you on this. The seven European countries that have outlawed Holocaust denial as a form of hate speech have restricted freedom of speech in an inappropriate fashion. But the Irving case is not a "new case", it's been ongoing for months, and before we integrate it into the article, we need a reliable source to cite it as a frequently mentioned example of perceived European inconsistency in the treatment of Jews and Muslims. We can't just stick it in because we think it should be cited as example of such. But if it gets mentioned in the media in relation to the Muhammad drawings, then I say we should get it in there. Or at least to the "Opinions" sub-article. Babajobu 01:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do not mean the case is new, I meant the charge is new. I am not sure if oyu aware of it but, he is charged for 3 years in jail in Austria recently. And as I pointed out above he is not the only example of hypocrisy. There are many others, and it is widely dicussed all around the Muslim world. It should be mentioned... Resid Gulerdem 01:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Resid, I am understanding of where you are coming from. I'm sorry that you feel offended by the cartoons, and I apologize if I was being an ass to you and others when this story first broke.

That being said, I believe your comments on the talk page of the artice were misguided. Wikipedia isn't about offending or pleasing anybody, it is about documenting the truth of the world to the best of our knowledge and abilities. It is a country that is being hypocritical by charging holocaust deniers, not our community of internet "junkies", if you will. In fact, as it has been stated on said talk page, Wikipedia has a picture of the most (in)famous book on holocaust denial, and not only that, but provides a link to the full text of said book.

Just like you ask us not to blame the entire Muslim community for the violent actions of a few, we ask you not to blame every Westerner on here or elsewhere for the actions of one country's judicial system.

I ask you (and all Wikipedians) to take a deep breath, and remember that above all, understanding and truth leads to peace. And that is the true message whether you call Him Allah, God, Jehovah, Buddah, etc.

Yours in the quest for the ultimate truth,

-Maverick 01:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Maverick, please think a little bit about this: The spread out of the cartoons and consequently the dispute is based on Europian hypocrisy. It is vital in this case. If Danish prime minister accepted the Muslim ambassadors at the first place, the dispute would fade. Remember what he said: Europian standards and freedom of speech! Can you see this? How all these caroons spread out all around the West? Freedom of speech! Isn't this critical? All this fuss is growing on a base formed by insincerety and hypocrisy! I certainly agree that if everyone is looking for the truth we can meet at one point as the truth is unique! Insincirety and hypocrisy is the main bareer for doing so... Resid Gulerdem 01:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the talk page be for discussing the article, not expressing views about the cartoon? Andjam 02:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This talk is about Resid's desire to include information on the article about European hypocrisy (not my view). Netscott 02:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

And I am just on suggesting an addition to it. I am looking for a consensus... Would that be OK for you?

That belongs in the "Opinions" article, with the rest of the opinions. That stuff hasn't been in the main article for over a week, now. Babajobu 02:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Listen, Resid, Austrian Law is NOT related to the issue of the publication of the Muhammad cartoons. Without claiming to speak on behalf of all Europeans, Danes, Non-muslims or agnostics (chose any misperceived frame of opposition you please), I can assure you that many, if not most, are outraged by the surrealistic thought and speech control exerted the Austrian government (regardless of more or less valid discussions of history, truth, the necessity of law, and the shaky distinctions between race and relgion). It is unrelated because such a courtcase would be impossible under the law that allowed publication of the cartoons. Namely, Danish law. Claims, such as "A usual European Hipocracy', are based on the same faulty logic that lead some to pitch the cartoons under the umbrella of orchestrated Jewish attacks on Islam (with the supposed occasional cracks in an armor of cultural superiority, such as in this case, Austrian law). Do stop furthering a simplistic, self-serving enemy image of ALL EUROPEANS against ALL MUSLIMS.

Not only is not the case, but it is also irrelevant for this article. The article is NOT an arena on which to play out any and all cultural, religious or racial (etc. etc.) frustrations.Varga Mila 02:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Varga Mila, that's actually not the point, though. Resid is saying that this is a widely held view in the Muslim world, that the Irving case demonstrates European hypocrisy. If that can be verified, i.e. if he can find reliable sources that do indeed state that this is a common perception, then this should be included in the "Opinions" article. Whether the perception is accurate is immaterial. Babajobu 02:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. My impression was however that he was merely expressing a personal opinion. Varga Mila 02:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me assure you that, in many newspapers in the Muslim World, you can find a comment about Europian hypocrisy. It is widely discussed recently on the cartoons case... I do not know if an article in a different language can be considered as a proof here. I believe this perception should have been mentioned in some articles in Europe or US, but I cannot find a reference at this point. The 'hypocrisy' is a real and strong argument used by Muslims, not only related to the Mr. Irving case. I remember a cartoon was also stating the same when the dispute just started. Resid Gulerdem 06:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

References of such newspaper comments would be most welcome under the heading "Opinions of Muslims", I think. If anyone can just translate the gist of it, it should not matter what language the article itself is. Wiki policy give preference to monolinguistic references, but admits alternatives otherwise. DanielDemaret 08:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Resid. Due to som historical lapses and cultural sensitivity some countries have laws which forbid holocaust denial. But 1) These countries are a minority. 2) These countries does not alone represent "The West" or "Western Values" 3) The JP argument holds up just fine since JP is a Danish newspaper in a country in which you can deny holocaust as much as you want 4) There are some mild pressure on certain governments to remove the holocaust laws.

It should be noted that Christians have complained many times earlier trying to get blasphemy laws passed as many muslims are trying now. Recently Opus Dei has tried to get The DaVinci Code cencored so as to not be offensive to Catholics. This would certainly be a solid point to include as an argument against European hypocrisy. In fact I'm almost certain that if we stick to religious matters you won't find many exceptions to freedom of speech. Political matters as the holocaust can ill be compared with religious matters as the Mohammad Cartoons or Piss Christ. Celcius ^(Talk) Wiki be With us! 10:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I answered some of the points you made above, at the beginning of this talk. Calling Holocaust a political issue doesn't make sense to me at all... Resid Gulerdem 03:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

isn't it Myth that Jews are Race ? upon which scientific base u depend when u claim that jews are race ??? how could u collect European jews and Ethiopian or Yemen jews in one race ... I wonder how could u believe a stupid lie like this --Chaos 15:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not hypocritical at all to charge Irving with denying the Holocaust while doing nothing about cartoons.

Any rational person should be able to see the difference between the inherent evil in the systematic and planned executions of 4-6 million persons... and an editorial cartoon. Thats just common sense.

69.156.153.124 18:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)CanadianPhaedrus

But unfortunately you cannot see the difference between 'executions of 4-6 million persons' and -true or not- claiming that it did not happen... Resid Gulerdem 05:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Free Press ??

Moved from Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 13:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The Prophet Mohammad cartoon controversy was protrayed as a fight for free speech and freedom of press by many people. Now where is the "free speech and freedom of press" when it comes to other controversal issue as "denial of holocaust". One religious belief of prohibition against images is ridiculed while the heresy of "denial of holocaust" results in prison sentence. These events really displays the different perceptions of sacred and profane in different cultures and people.

Siddiqui 04:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Siddiqui, as I mentioned to Resid above, you too shoud know that WikiPedia is not censored when it comes to Holocaust denial, even going so far as to provide links to sites that claim the Holocaust didn't occur. With that in mind, was there anything of an editorial nature regarding Wikipedia's Muhammad cartoons controvery article that you wanted to discuss? Netscott 06:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust denial is illegal in 9 Western countries as far as I'm informed. This is the case for neither for Denmark - in which the cartoons were published - nor for the US in which Wikipedia resides. If you feel this is ambigious you could start en article about it or discuss the matter in a relevant forum for debate which this is not. Celcius ^(Talk) Wiki be With us! 09:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Siddiqui - I think that many Muslims and also Wikipedians of all backgrounds are wrongly putting this argument in the box of religion vs freedom of press. Blasphemy is, simply put, accepted in the west. There are few places where the state has a role in this issue for any religion. What does act to moderate or suppress blasphemy is market forces. Wikipedia may have an article on Piss Christ but there is no way my local newspaper would run that picture! Christians would be furious! My local paper has also not run, nor will it run, the Muhammad cartoons! Arabs are the largest non-European or aboriginal group here... it would make people furious, damage the papers finances! But my central point is that the cartoons are upsetting and offensive, in line with Sambo cartoons. Racist. I think that argument can be made with much greater ease, and in a lot of North America, anyway, it would resonate much more strongly than the religious argument. WayeMason 11:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If I interpret you correctly, WayeMason, you would prefer this argument to be in the "racist" box? If so, which "races" are you referring to? DanielDemaret 11:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

My friend, in the USA right now muslim = arab. There is no concept amongst the unwashed masses of a broader muslim world. AND, more importantly, the cartoons themselves are Arab muslim caricatures. WayeMason 12:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Waye Mason, even if what you say were true (which it's not), with one or two exceptions U.S. papers have not shown the images, and the Bush admin has vocally spoken out against the images. The images have been printed and reprinted all over Europe, so your slightly bigoted and classist comments about "the great unwashed" in America aren't really relevant here. Except that the servers are hosted in American...but even then, the U.S. federal goverment has not (and cannot, per 1st amendment) pass "incitement to racial hatred" laws, so irrelevant again. Babajobu 16:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

"There is no concept amongst the unwashed masses of a broader muslim world." What do you base this belief on? This belief itself, sounds pretty racist to me... And "unwashed masses"? How does hygiene come into it? Valtam 20:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hrumph. Many people in mainstream Canadian media are making the argument that the cartoons are racist. Here in my home town, a local journalism professor and columnist had this to say (in the admitedly left of centre local weekly): The cartoons, first published by a Danish newspaper and then across Europe, led to protests and rioting. Angry Muslims pointed out that Muhammad condemned violence and therefore, the crude drawings grossly distort Islamic teaching. They also reinforce racist stereotypes of violent, barbaric Arabs—cunning religious zealots bent on destroying civilized values such as freedom and tolerance. This is the stereotype George Bush played to when, in the aftermath of 9/11, he denounced "evildoers" who "hate our freedoms—our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other." On the surface, Bush was referring to terrorists who, he said, follow "a fringe form of Islamic extremism." But his words also evoked centuries of hatred and fear. As journalist Robert Fisk points out in his latest book on the Middle East, The Great War for Civilization, British propagandists in the 19th century described Muslim tribesmen in Afghanistan as diabolical, skull-cap wearing fanatics—fiends in human form.- Bruce Wark http://thecoast.ca/1editorialbody.lasso?-token.folder=2006-02-16&-token.story=108196.112113&-token.subpub=

So to recapitulate 1 - yes darn it, I think, and many people think, that some of the 12 cartoons are racist. 2 - no I do not think the article on wikipedia is racist, when did I say that? 3 - unwashed masses is a classic phrase that I feel is appropriate on a talk page, though not in an article. 4 - no I do not in fact believe the majority of American citizens have hygiene problems :) 5 - as a commited third way socialist I am tickled pink (haha) that you think I was being classist. 6 My believing that many many of your citizens are in fact ignorant of the wider world is not racist, its a sadly demonstrable fact, for example, only 1 in 7 American youth 18-24 can FIND IRAQ on a map. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/ and this was merely the FIRST article that google.com gave me on the seach "americans find america on a world map"

Finally, fellas, I am trying to make peace here with our presumable upset brother Siddiqui over there... not start a flame war. Lets keep this thing in perspective. I have been able to footnote my "outrageous statements" and will continue to make them. WayeMason 18:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, OK, I'm being over-sensitive. I was also trying to parody how offended people get over things.

I still don't understand how depictions of followers of a religion can be considered racist. There are Arabs who are not Muslim, just as there are (many!) Muslims who are not Arabs. I think people who equate the two demonstrate their own ignorance and prejudices.

To your #6 above, I've read that U.S. citizens are not much more ignorant of the wider world than pretty much any population in the world. Even in Europe, people have trouble with a map of countries which are thousands of miles away from them (like Iraq is from the U.S.)...

Valtam 20:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Except for those people whose country is currently occupying the remote country in question ... ;) Slinky Puppet 17:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Irving

Moved from Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 13:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Now, where is the beloved freedom of press now? Why dont you also call Australia [sic] for enemies of the freedom of speech? Is it since they aren't Muslims?

The acts of violence, including death threats to Jyllands-Posten's editor, should be condemned. The fact remains, however, that the overwhelming swath of protests, particularly in Europe, where crass banners and suicide-bomber attire were the worst offenses, have so far been peaceful. But those who see this episode as freighted with weightier cultural meanings have another agenda. "This is a far bigger story than just the question of twelve cartoons in a small Danish newspaper," Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten's culture editor, told the New York Times. Too right, but it is not the story Rose thinks it is. Rose claims that "this is about the question of integration and how compatible is the religion of Islam with a modern secular society." In the mistaken belief that Europe is a monoethnic continent to which nonwhite people have just arrived, Rose is not alone in refracting every protest by a minority through a racial, ethnic or religious lens.

In so doing he displays his ignorance of both modern secular society and the role of all religions within it. Without anything as explicit as a First Amendment, Europe's freedom of speech laws are far more piecemeal than those of the United States. Many were adopted as a result of the Holocaust--the most potent reminder of just how fragile and recent this liberal secular tradition truly is in Europe. Last year the French daily Le Monde was found guilty of "racist defamation" against Israel and the Jewish people. Madonna's book Sex was only unbanned in Ireland in 2004. Even as this debate rages, David Irving sits in jail in Austria charged with Holocaust denial over a speech he made seventeen years ago, Islamist cleric Abu Hamza has been convicted in London for incitement to murder and racial hatred and Louis Farrakhan remains banned from Britain because his arrival "would not be conducive to the public good." Even here in America school boards routinely ban the works of authors like Alice Walker and J.K. Rowling. Such actions should be opposed; but no one claims Protestant, Catholic or Jewish values are incompatible with democracy. [2]

Get the name David Irving in this article, i dont really care how, just it is in a notable place, and that it shows how people connect this two events.--Striver 12:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Striver, you know that it was Austria, not Australia? Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 13:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

O, sorry, my hand sliped. I know, the continent, not the small european land. Thanks for the correction. I still await for it to apear in the articel, i wont even bother since i would guess my bad grammar is on auto-revert in this article.--Striver 13:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Striver, put it in the opinions article, just be sure to provide citations demonstrating that Muslims view the Irving case as a sign of double-standards. Babajobu 16:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] That Which Is Right Is Seldom Easy

David irving makes me want to vomit. I detest the man, if you could call him that. He is an apologist for a regime that murdered and tortured millions of innocents, some of whom were my relatives. The man he admires destroyed the country my ancestors came from and forced my grandparents to flee to the US.

One of the more repulsive aspects of the regime David Irving so strongly advocates for was it's capacity to jail people for saying things it felt endangered the state. Much like what Austria did when it jailed David Irving.

Which is why saying that I disagree with his having been jailed makes me sick to my stomach. But to do otherwise would make me sick to my soul. Just as the cartoonists, the Danes, and the West cannot be held liable for having expressed free speech, it is hypocrisy to deny monsters even as foul as David Irving the right to do likewise.

If I met David Irving in person, I would punch him in the face before even saying hello. But I cannot condone having him imprisoned.

Set him free, and then let's all line up to tell him what we think of him.

Wandering Star 23:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Fact of the matter - some people will always be deviant in the sense that they are in opposition to the majority of the population. There will always be pedophiles, racists, nazis, religious and political fundamentalists, biggots, chauvinists and so forth and so on. Some of them are intelligent people who firmly believes in certain ideologies, some are alienated from society and can only find a social base in these communities - and some are plainly ill informed or perhaps just ill. But whatever their reasons might be they are minorities in secular, well educated societies. Why debate the opinions of irrelevant minorities? Irving represents such a small group that it's simply not worth the energy to care - let ham speak - ignore him - and speak against him when he makes to loud a splash. Celcius ^(Talk) Wiki be With us! 05:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You seem to ignore, that sometimes people don't choose to be part of a minority. For example some people get born as a minority (skin color) or get raised with the faith of a minority. Please read about Majoritarianism to find out, why it pays to debate the opinions of minorities. Raphael1 04:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Syria is a sovereign state and has the right to enact laws outlawing ridiculing the prophet Muhammad. Austria is a sovereign state (and what's more a democracy), and has the right to enact laws outlawing holocaust denial. In the US, you have both the right to deny the holocaust and to make fun of Muhammad (but lord have mercy if you have an Arabic name or face and try airtravel). It may be a matter of cultural pov which of these systems is preferable, but it is a simple fact that it is illegal in Austria to deny the holocaust while it is legal in Denmark to draw images of Muhammad, there was no need for an 'affair' to figure this out, and there is no need to torch embassies or disembowel Nigerian minorities about it. Different countries have different laws. If you are caught with a suitcase full of Hashish in Singapore it is no use whining on your way to the scaffold about that in the Netherlands nobody would have given a shit. dab (ᛏ) 10:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You have a point. But, I would argue that while each nation should (and must) respect the laws of other nations, debate about the ethics of law, in your own or someone else's, is healthy. It is only by giving a thourough examination of current events, complete with debate on the ethics and morality of those events, that each individual can improve their understanding of the world they inhabit. I lie variety, and the fact that there are so many different ways of governing ourselves is something I am happy about. And I think that by learning as much as I can about all the different ways of doing things the world over, and by wrestling with the ethics of the ways these things are done, critically, but also open-mindedly, I can have soem great conversations. And, for me, a good conversation is what life is all about.

Keep talking, I'm listening.Wandering Star

Everyone likes a good conversation :) However, your text "each nation should (and must) respect the laws of other nations", is being interpreted by some as "each nation should (and must) OBEY the laws of other nations". There is not really much difference between the two statements. You may argue that the difference is huge, but you would have to argue a long time to make it stick, and you might watch legions of those who have misunderstood it march into war before your argument is finished.DanielDemaret 11:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why different results?

Can anybody help me understand the difference between the resluts of this poll and Poll 1 for this article? What is the rationale behind the results? Please review the comments before answering... Resid Gulerdem 06:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

One is a graphic picture of a man distending his own anus and the other is a cartoon. It's like night and day. --Cyde Weys 06:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• I would say also the fact that there's no controversy about the Goatse.cx image in the news right now is a contributing factor. If there was some sort of international controversy surrounding the printing of the Goatse.cx image in some journal then the controversy would almost oblige its showing. Although I don't happen to particularly appreciate the Goatse.cx image, if the need was there to show individuals the image relative to a controversy about it, I'd say put it front and center. Netscott 07:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that I'm not certain that the difference is as clear as we might like to think. If Resid, Chaos, et cetera were to say that the Muhammad cartoons are not just offensive, but actually horrifying, revolting, and shocking to view, the Goatse of Dar Islam, then, well, that might leave us in an awkward position. However, I think Netscott is right: if the Goatse image somehow prompted rioting and panics and embassy burnings around the world, you can bet we'd display it so our readers could better understand the nature of the image. Regardless, the consensus at Wikipedia right now seems to be that all "blasphemous" and otherwise offensive images are included, while so-called "shock" images are not. Babajobu 18:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• If anyone issues a death threat against showing the goatse.cx picture, and people where censoring that picture. Then that death threat would suddenly become a threat to freedom of speech, and comparable to the muhammed cartoons. Then people who were against censorship would vote to put the picture front and center. DanielDemaret 12:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

To prove this, one would have to conduct an empirical experiment, someone would have to issue a believable death threat, and then see if the picture inserted front and center. Since a death threat is a criminal act, we must refrain from such an experiment.DanielDemaret

Well, the issues are totally different in some aspects. But on the other hand, there is an important point to consider: The main argument here was 'the reader should see the cartoons so s/he understand the phenomena'. But in Goatse case people claim unnecessity of seeing the picture. I wish you could make some comments about this specific point which was core of my question. The article has the description of the cartoons already, which is more important in my opinion. As I said before, a Westerner may not see the reason behind the dispute by just looking at the cartoons, because of the cultural difference. Being more or less contraversial, supporting the freedom of speech looks to be subjective to me and also doesn't change the validity of my question. Are we having the article in this form to support freedom of speech? I was thinking that an article should be based on facts not on if we want to support this or that! Is there a double standard on this issue?... Resid Gulerdem 19:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

P: 'I wish you could make some comments about this specific point which was core of my question.' C: Your core question was to explain the difference in the polls. I commented on that above. If the comment was not enough, then please make a more specific question, and I shall answer.

P: 'The article has the description of the cartoons already, which is more important in my opinion. As I said before, a Westerner may not see the reason behind the dispute by just looking at the cartoons, because of the cultural difference.' C: Both description and picture are necessary. If I had a free hand, I would also include a myriad of alternative interpretations from different sources, but then there would not be room for anything else on the server. I, just like Descartes, and I suspect many others, need to see the picture in front of me. I no longer have the kind of imagination of my childhood where I could picture an image in my head just by someone saying “it is a picture of a man”, and automatically determine if the man is an insult to me.

P: 'Being more or less contraversial, supporting the freedom of speech looks to be subjective to me ' C: Are you saying that freedom of speech is controversial?

Q: 'Are we having the article in this form to support freedom of speech?' A: There is no need for that. We are not having this article in support of free speech. Wikipedia supports freedom of speech simply by being an encyclopaedia, since it wants to give this knowledge to all. It is however, one of the reasons that make the cartoons interesting, and the goatse uninteresting.

Q:'I was thinking that an article should be based on facts not on if we want to support this or that!' A: Are you saying that we should not support freedom of speech and still show the facts? I am afraid that is a logically impossible. The intent in the idiom to "show the facts" already includes the intent of supporting "freedom of speech".

Q: 'Is there a double standard on this issue?' A: By me, right here, there is no double standard. I support showing the facts, that is, I support freedom of speech. Your suggestion is to remove the Mohammed cartoons. I e, your suggestion is clearly that we do not show the facts. However, there seem to be those in wikipedia who would apply double standards. There are, for example, those here who want the cartoons to be seen, since they are not offended by them, and at the same time, want to hide the goatse-pictures since they think that they are grotesque. With such people, you have indeed found a double standard. But not with me, since I don't care about whether the goatse pictures are shown or not per se. It does not matter in the slightest to me whether they are grotesque or not. The only issue to me is whether the pictures add some info to the article. Since I am not interested in goatse (I have seen a lot worse), I have not voted there. DanielDemaret 23:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, and disagree with DanielDemaret. We're not including the cartoons in the article to "support freedom of speech"; We're including them because they are relevant and informative, and for an encyclopedia these are the paramount concerns. We're simply not willing to censor the encyclopedia and reduce its quality and informative value in order to appease religious people with their various aversions. As I say, the consensus on Wikipedia so far seems to be that we include blasphemous images where they are relevant, but that we generally will not include physically grotesque "shock images" like goatse or tubgirl because the images do not add to the quality of the article. For the same reason we (after a long debate) chose not to include a picture of human shit in the feces article: not because that picture was "too much" for Wikipedia, but because people decided it didn't add anything. I agree with Resid that the lines here are grey; he could say the same things about the Muhammad cartoons as other people say about shock images. However, if this reveals a double standard, it is not a double standard applied to Islam, but rather one that applies to religions on Wikipedia generally. We include blasphemy toward everyone, not just Islam. Babajobu 22:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I wrote, Babajobu, the only way to know for certain how people would vote would be to conduct a few experiments. :) But I never meant to imply, as you suggested here, that we are including that we are including the cartoons as a direct support of freedom of speech. My implication was that since people find freedom of speech an interesting issue, then suddenly that interest spills over to the cartoons and make them that more interesting, whereas showing goatse pictures was simply not interesting. You see the difference, I hope. I think that we should work to eliminate "grey lines" here. If you think that there is a double standard where religions are being treated differently than other subject, then we should work to eliminate those differences, or we will indeed have double standards, or else make an official policy that treats religions differently. DanielDemaret 01:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I got you now, and I agree. As for double standard for religion; actually, I think we just have a unique standard for "shock images". Those are the only images we don't include, even when they could arguably provide more info about a topic. Babajobu 02:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Resid, now that I have read this comment from Babajobu, I confirm that, as he confesses, and as I mentioned in the last paragraph of mine above, you are correct in assuming that some people apparently have a double standard. Perhaps they are even in majority, and your accusation would be totally correct against them. I also object to this double standard. I am all the way with you on that point! DanielDemaret 23:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I am glad that my concerns understood this time. It is also good to hear that we are not supporting something here but rather being 'actual factual' for a better article... But on the other hand, I canot not see that this can be considered in a general context as double standard towards religions on Wiki. It seems to me that the double standart is highly specific to Islam and a few (if not one) other examples exists for Christianity. Judaism is completely out of this picture, appearently. I hope you do not attempt to relate blasphamy to Holocaust. Even it is the case, should it be that way? Should that be allowed to have a double standard towards religions? For me the most important point is this: Even blasphamy can be mentioned in an article but without an insult. Insult should not find a room in an ensyclopedia article. By the way where are you discussing the policies and standards on Wiki articles? I am glad again to see that we are all against the double standards... Resid Gulerdem 01:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're welcome to think that the double standard (if one does indeed exist) is specific to Islam. However, evidence to the contrary is all over Wikipedia. First of all, before Muhammad cartoons ever existed, Wikipedia had the Piss Christ article, with the picture. As I've said before, this image caused a nationwide hissy fit by Christians in the United States, but here it is on the wiki. As regards Jews, I find it interesting that you demonstrate the same sort of provincialism toward them as you've claimed others demonstrate toward Islam. When other people have said, "Oh, who cares about a stupid drawing of Muhammad, what's the big deal?" you have said "the things that offend Muslims are not necessarily the same as the things that offend members of other religions. Perhaps it's okay for Jews and Christians to have drawings of Jesus and Moses, but it's not okay to Muslims to have images of Muhammad. We are offended by different things." But then, when people have said to you, "images of Jews as international bloodsuckers or leeches are what they find most horribly offensive", you basically just say "yeah, but that's not that offensive, not REALLY offensive like pictures of a prophet!" Well, I say to you that the things that upset Jews are not necessarily the same as the things that upset Muslims: Wikipedia's many Der Sturmer-style images of Jews are horribly offensive to Jews, but we include them anyway. As for true religious heresy in Judaism, though, we include in Wikipedia an image of the Hebrew name of God with "nekudot", or Semitic vowels. Amazingly enough, to represent the name of God in this way is a horrible blasphemy according to traditional Judaism. I don't know what else we've got for Jews on Wikipedia, but you can be sure we wouldn't take anything out just to protect their sensibilities. The only time we've ever even debated doing this for any religious community is in this article, for Muslims. So Muslims got some special consideration, really. Babajobu 02:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you are confusing when using the terms 'blasphamy' and 'offense' together. My question above was about blasphamy, not offense. I asked it per your statement on a consensus for allowing blasphamy in Wiki articles. You shortly answered my question at your very last sentence. I couldn't quite see that point either: Could you please direct me to the link and be a little bit more specific why Jews think it is a blasphamy? And if it is a widely accepted argument among them or just a group? Could you please direct me to the link also where there is a consensus on having blasphamy?

What I said about Holocaust is: it is just terrible... I cannot think how human being can be that bad. I just hate people who like to kill. I also added: But, when one see these pictures, s/he just feels sympathy which they deserve towards Jews. On the other hand, seeing these cartoons increase prototyping and blames on Muslims. Can't you see this difference?

Let me say this sincerely: I wouldn't be happy to see an article include an insult to Jews or Christians. I would prefer to see the same sensitivity from people towards Muslims as well.

The bottom line and most important point in terms of Wiki standards for an article is: without insult we can still write an ensiklopedia article. And in fact it would be valuable then, only then... Even blasphamy can be included without an insult. Resid Gulerdem 03:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

First insult, not blasphemy, then blasphemy not insult. Consistency would really help the argument. And a policy page the rest of us, so that we could skip what is is turning into a new necroflagellation (oh no... its just the old one in a new form !). The repetition is not terribly constructive. Surely there are more constructive, not to say important, things to do? Varga Mila 08:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I cannot see what you are talking about... Where is the inconsistency? Resid Gulerdem 17:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't like hipponecromastigosis Varga? heh Netscott 10:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The association from the word puts me off my latte ;-) Varga Mila 11:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Resid, my point is that 'blasphemy' was used (if my memory serves me right, by you) in a previous argument for effectively the same case (afraid I don't have the time right now to find the exact 'reference'). Now blasphemy 'may' be included, but not insults (whatever 'insult' may mean; the concept is so utterly subjective that it is simply impossible to establish an objective definition of it).Varga Mila 17:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Varga, I unfortunately have to say that your memory does not serve you right... Are you getting old? I have not been into any blasphamy discussion before. The definition of 'insult' is known. Applicability to this case is clear: pick a Muslim and ask if cartoons can be considered as an insult. That simple! If 1.5 billion poeople are saying the same thing, that is the end of it. I am sure half of the Christians and some Jews, and even many agnostics and atheists will share the same positive answer. Please note that a good article -which adds to the reputation of Wiki- cannot include an insult. Try to think about this, at least, from editorial perspective. Resid Gulerdem 03:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Resid, you're all over the place. Before you asked for examples of blasphemy to religious communities other than Muslims, rather than "insult". If we're back to "insult", then there are many more examples of "insult" to Jews on Wikipedia than to Muslims. The articles on Der Sturmer and Anti-Semitism include numerous "insulting" drawings about Jews. We include them not in order to insult Jews, but because they are informative and relevant to the topics. This conversation is running around in endless circles and getting rather dull. The fact is, Resid, as has been demonstrated to most people's satisfaction, Wikipedia is treating Muslims like any other community...and really it is is this that you object to. Sorry, but no special treatment on Wikipedia for anyone. Take care. Babajobu 06:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Babajobu, I think you are missing my main point. What I am saying is this: There is no place to insult in a Wiki article. I really do not have any sympathy to an insult when subject matter is Christianity, Judaism, or anything else you can name. I believe Wiki is more stronger without these insults. Please try to see my point from an editorial perspective. Resid Gulerdem 18:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

(My last comment on this :-) as I was unclear. It is true, Resid, there IS a definition of what the word 'insult' means. However, the nature of the forms, words etc. that CAUSE insult defies objective definition (to my knowledge). Insult is a deeply subjective matter. Therefore it makes little sense to establish censorship criteria with reference to it.Varga Mila 10:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Varga, I accept that it is not easy but it is not impossible at all either! We can do it. The point is, 'do we really want to do it?'. Ask this to yourself: 'If I had something in a Wiki article that I feel that it is an unacceptible insult, what I would do, or feel?' It can be a personal issue or can be related to some values you respect. Take the most important one into the consideration. An insult-free environment... Isn't it fantastic? Isn't it good for Wiki? Isn't that raise reputation of Wiki? Again from purely editorial perspective... Resid Gulerdem 18:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that an "insult-free environment" would be "fantastic" for Wikipedia? If so, I might warn you that on some days, I'm easily insulted, and therefore on those days, vast numbers of topics on Wikipedia would have to be removed, in order to not insult me... Valtam 20:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I personally and strongly believe that any text can be put into a form that a concern from you or someone else can be eliminated. That simple... The use of language is for it, not for hurting people. Unfortunately nobody wants to hear the voice of many Muslims here and all around the world. A little emphaty could solve the whole problem. Just an example, if Danish prime minister could say 'OK let us talk' to Muslim ambassadors, the tension could fade far ago... Would not that be any better than hundreds of dead bodies of poor people - almost all were Muslims? In purely editorial perspective: the best article is the one which is written in a way that do not hurt people's feelings. Academic objectivity, collective consciousness, the culture of compromise are the tool we need to use for a better Wiki... Resid Gulerdem 23:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Not if the "academic objectivity, collective consciousness and culture of compromise" you're referring to lead to (self-)censorship. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 23:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It should be the case even that leads to a self-censorship... Resid Gulerdem 04:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Resid, I must say that I respect your tenacity for arguing for the removal/reduction of the images! I was pondering this question of 'different results' and a funny thing occured to me... other than the previously well illustrated explanations by others for a difference, there's another thing that we can use to explain this. Ask yourself, would El Fagr (the Egyptian newspaper who reprinted 6 of the Jyllands cartoons back in Oct. 2005) have ever printed an image like Goatse.cx? I think it's pretty safe to say no and yet they printed 6 of the more controversial Jyllands cartoons. In the minds of the editors of El Fagr the cartoons weren't that controversial... To demonstrate this difference, there almost couldn't be a more perfect illustration. Netscott 04:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I am having hard time to see what you really mean... By the way I coudn't see a satisfactory answer to my question above either... Resid Gulerdem 04:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, if the editors of El Fagr don't percieve the cartoons controversial, why did they strongly denounce them in the newspaper. Raphael1 03:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Raphael1, you're misconstruing my statement... El Fagr didn't find them so controversial as to not print them! Of course El Fagr found them controversial (otherwise they'd probably never have did a report on them) but if the editors ever thought that the cartoons themselves were too controversial they would never have re-printed them in the first place! Netscott 01:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• I think, that many muslims wouldn't complain, if WP shows the cartoons while strongly denouncing them. But since a strong denouncement is POV, I'd suggest a linkimage with a warning about blasphemous content. Raphael1 04:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excuse Me

Who the hell deleted the vast majority of my comments from this thread? And why? Yes, I'm using bold. Haizum 00:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

See: History

Probably they have been moved to Arguments/Image-Display. Raphael1 01:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Reason? Haizum 18:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why are cartoonists in hiding?!

Does anyone even know what they look like like?--143.92.1.33 06:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This talk page is in a sorry state!!!

What a mess!! Dozens of warning templates, fork pages, contless archives, it looks like Catrina paid a visit here! Can't something be done to bring this talk page up to a less cluttered appearence? Loom91 11:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Its Katrina for starters....--Greasysteve13 06:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Offensive?

I find it funny that some people can find a cartoon offensive, while finidng the killing of innocent people as a result, just fine and dandy. Just my 2 cents. Pellaken 02:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an Archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.