Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
!
"
#$
%
&
&
%
1
&
'
&
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
!
$
+
" #$$%
&
'( !
( &
)
)
& %
,"'
&(34 1
*(%
. &
/&
0
1
2
$ 5
'
6& %
& %
(
'
&
& %
)
*(%
'
'
&
2
%
34 1
'
&
8,"-
&
&
1
&
!
. &
$ 5
-7/
/&
'
8
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Volume 3 Table of Contents
Introduction to Original Edition - page 4
The Wikipedia Articles as of February 15, 2006
Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy - page 5
Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy - page 25
International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy - page 57
The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Archive 11 - page 80
Archive 12a - page 125
Archive 12b - page 177
Current Talk - page 214
Current Arguments - page 268
GNU Free Documentation License - page 329
For ease of reading click the View menu and select Full Screen.
3
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Introduction to Original Edition
The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate: A War of Ideas is a 2-volume reference work that shows how Wikipedia
(en.wikipedia.org), the world's largest encyclopedia on the Internet, reached the decision to permanently display and
distribute copies of 12 satirical drawings of Muhammad first published by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten.
The main articles, or edited encyclopedia entries, are shown first (and for this publication the cartoons themselves have been
deleted). Then, included here are the full current Wikipedia archives of the discussions about how these articles were written
and edited. Much of this transcript addresses the issue of actually displaying the cartoons within the primary article. Finally,
the official Wikipedia guidelines for editor discussions are reprinted here.
I submit that this transcript is valuable in revealing exactly how a war of ideas is waged. Wikipedia uses an online
collaboration technology that allows its articles to be freely edited by any Wikipedia user. As the primary article about the
Muhammad cartoons evolved, there also arose behind the scenes a fierce debate over whether or not the cartoons themselves
should be included and how they should be displayed.
The transcript of the debate captures not only the ideas expressed by the many contributors and readers, but also the tenor of
the debate, the pleas, the acts of vandalism, the argumentative styles, strategies, tactics and gambits. In other words, the
transcript reveals how some contributors won the debate, how the others lost, and how each side treated the other.
This transcript reveals the mechanics of the clash of civilizations.
Please note that every Wikipedia article is a "living document" that may be further edited in the future. This publication is a
"snapshot" of only today's Wikipedia archive, and is subject to revision at any time, particularly as the Muhammad cartoons
controversy unfolds worldwide.
John Simmons
Iraq Museum International
www.BaghdadMuseum.org
February 10, 2006
4
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
*
'
*
&
*
%
+
1
)
%
The Face of Muhammed - The
controversial cartoons of Muhammad,
first published in Jyllands-Posten in
September 2005. Larger versions of
the image are available off-site.
5
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy began after twelve editorial cartoons, most of which depicted the
Islamic prophet Muhammad, were published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten on September 30, 2005. Danish
Muslim organizations staged protests in response. As the controversy has grown, some or all of the cartoons have been
reprinted in newspapers in 40 other countries. This has led to unrest around the world, particularly in Islamic countries:
opponents say that the cartoons are culturally insensitive, insulting, and blasphemous.
91
$
1
.
+
:
;4
'3&
&
%
'
:
;
3+
+ &
!.
<7 %
1
%
6
6
'
'
.
3+
% %
&
' &
; .
;
;:
=
&
&
4 1
9%
!4
%
'
&
<
> 5
(
> 9'' &
&
%
>
&1
>:"
&
>;
> 6&
&
>!7 & &
?7 '
&
41
+
&
7
&
6
+
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Overview
The drawings, including a depiction of Muhammad with a bomb inside or under his turban,
were accompanied by an article on self-censorship and freedom of speech. Flemming Rose,
the cultural editor of the conservative daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten, commissioned
twelve cartoonists for the project and published the cartoons to highlight the difficulty
experienced by Danish writer Kåre Bluitgen in finding artists to illustrate his children's book
about Muhammad. Artists previously approached by Bluitgen were reportedly unwilling to
work with him for fear of violent attacks by extremist Muslims.
Several death threats have been made against those responsible for the cartoons, reportedly
resulting in the cartoonists going into hiding. The foreign ministries of eleven Islamic
countries demanded action from the Danish government, and several Arab countries
eventually closed their embassies in Denmark in protest after the government initially
refused to intervene or apologize. The Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said,
"The government refuses to apologize because the government does not control the media or
*
*
*
+
+
*
$
7
9%
"
% %
6(( 3/
.
+
7 %
.
&
,
+
.
&
+
(
3+
&
a newspaper outlet; that would be in violation of the freedom of speech".[1]
A group of Danish Imams lobbied decision-makers in the Middle East. A large consumer boycott was organised in Saudi
Arabia, Kuwait, and other Middle East countries. Rumours spread via SMS and word-of-mouth.[2] The foreign ministers of
seventeen Islamic countries renewed calls for the Danish government to punish those responsible for the cartoons, and to
ensure that such cartoons are not published again. The Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Arab League have
demanded that the United Nations impose international sanctions upon Denmark[3] and that the EU introduce blasphemy
laws.[4] Numerous protests against the cartoons have taken place, some of them violent. On February 4, 2006, the buildings
containing the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Syria were set ablaze, although no one was hurt. In Beirut the Danish
General Consulate was set on fire,[5] resulting in the death of one protester inside the complex.[6] Deaths have also been
reported in riots in Afghanistan.[7] As of February 13, 2006, at least 13 people have been killed in the protests. [8]
Timeline
7
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Wikinews has news relating to this article:
Israeli group announces anti-semitic cartoons contest
Protest held against Muhammad caricatures in Paris
French satirical weekly reprints caricatures
700,000 march in Beirut; Hezbollah leader lambasts Bush and Rice
Jyllands-Posten reconsiders printing holocaust denial cartoons
Hamshari newspaper plans cartoon response
Danish mission in Beirut set ablaze
Danish and Austrian embassies in Tehran attacked
New Zealand newspapers publish "Mohammad Cartoons"
Danish and Norwegian embassies set on fire
Manipulation alleged in the "Mohammad Cartoons" affair
Main article: Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
Debate about self-censorship
On September 17, 2005, the Danish newspaper Politiken ran an article under the headline "Dyb angst for kritik af islam"[9]
("Profound fear of criticism of Islam"). The article discussed the difficulty encountered by the writer Kåre Bluitgen, who
was initially unable to find an illustrator who was prepared to work with Bluitgen on his children's book Koranen og
profeten Muhammeds liv ("The Qur'an and the prophet Muhammad's life"). Three artists declined Bluitgen's proposal before
an artist agreed to assist anonymously. According to Bluitgen:
One [artist declined], with reference to the murder in Amsterdam of the film director Theo van Gogh, while another
[declined, citing the attack on] the lecturer at the Carsten Niebuhr Institute in Copenhagen[9].
In October 2004, a lecturer at the Niebuhr institute at the University of Copenhagen was assaulted by five assailants who
opposed the lecturer's reading of the Qur'an to non-Muslims during a lecture[10].
The refusal of the first three artists to participate was seen as evidence of self-censorship and led to much debate in
Denmark, with other examples for similar reasons soon emerging. The comedian Frank Hvam declared that he did not dare
8
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
satirise the Qur'an on television, while the translators of an essay collection critical of Islam also wished to remain
anonymous due to concerns about violent reaction.
Publication of the drawings
On September 30, 2005, the daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten ("The Jutland Post") published an article titled "Muhammeds
ansigt"[11] ("The face of Muhammad"). The article consisted of 12 cartoons (of which only some depicted Muhammad) and
an explanatory text, in which Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten's culture editor, commented:
The modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand a special position, insisting on special
consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech,
where you must be ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule. It is certainly not always attractive and nice to
look at, and it does not mean that religious feelings should be made fun of at any price, but that is of minor
importance in the present context. [...] we are on our way to a slippery slope where no-one can tell how the
self-censorship will end. That is why Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten has invited members of the Danish editorial
cartoonists union to draw Muhammad as they see him. [...] [12]
After an invitation from Jyllands-Posten to around forty different artists to give their interpretation on how Muhammad may
have looked, twelve caricaturists chose to respond with a drawing each. Some of these twelve drawings portray Muhammad
in different fashions; many also comment on the surrounding self-censorship debate. Four of these twelve cartoons were
illustrated by Jyllands-Posten's own staff, including the "bomb" and "niqaab" cartoons. In the clockwise direction of their
position in the page layout:
The Islamic star and crescent merged with the face of Muhammad; his right eye is the star, the crescent surrounds his
beard and face.
Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, with a lit fuse and the Islamic creed written on the bomb. This drawing is
considered the most controversial of the twelve.
Muhammad standing in a gentle pose with a halo in the shape of a crescent moon. The middle part of the crescent is
obscured, revealing only the edges which resemble horns.
A schematic stick drawing of five almost identical figures. Each of them resembles a headscarf seen from the side and
has a Star of David and a crescent where the face should be. A poem on oppression of women is attached to the
cartoon: "Profet! Med kuk og knald i låget som holder kvinder under åget!", which could be translated as: "Prophet,
you crazy bloke! Keeping women under yoke!"
9
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Muhammad as a simple wanderer, in the desert, at sunset. There is a donkey in the background.
A nervous caricaturist, shakily drawing Muhammad while looking over his shoulder.
Two angry Muslims charge forward with sabres and bombs, while their leader addresses them with: "Rolig, venner,
når alt kommer til alt er det jo bare en tegning lavet af en vantro sønderjyde", referring to a drawing in his hand. In
English, his words are: "Relax, friends, at the end of the day, it's just a drawing by an infidel South Jutlander".
A 7th grade Arab-looking boy in front of a blackboard, pointing to the Farsi chalkings, which translate into "The
editorial team of Jyllands-Posten is a bunch of reactionary provocateurs". The boy is labelled "Mohammed, Valby
school, 7.A", implying that this is a second-generation immigrant to Denmark rather than the founder of Islam. On his
shirt is written "FREM" and then in a new line "-TIDEN". Fremtiden means the future, but Frem (forward) is also the
name of a Valby football team whose uniforms resemble the boy's shirt. Valby is a district of Copenhagen known for
having a concentrated population of immigrants.
Another drawing shows Muhammad prepared for battle, with a short sabre in one hand and a black bar censoring his
eyes. He seems to be smiling. He is flanked by two women in niqaabs, having only their wide open eyes visible.
Muhammad standing on a cloud, greeting dead suicide bombers with "Stop Stop vi er løbet tør for Jomfruer!"
Translated in English: "Stop, stop, we have run out of virgins!", an allusion to the promised reward to martyrs.
Another shows journalist Kåre Bluitgen, wearing a turban with the proverbial orange dropping into it, with the
inscription "Publicity stunt". In his hand is a child's stick drawing of Muhammad. The proverb "an orange in the
turban" is a Danish expression meaning "a stroke of luck": here, the added publicity for the book.
And in the centre:
A police line-up of seven people wearing turbans, with the witness saying: "Hm... jeg kan ikke lige genkende ham"
("Hm... I can't really recognise him"). Not all people in the line-up are immediately identifiable. They are: (1) A
generic Hippie, (2) politician Pia Kjærsgaard, (3) possibly Jesus, (4) possibly Buddha, (5) possibly Muhammad, (6)
generic Indian Guru, and (7) journalist Kåre Bluitgen, carrying a sign saying: "Kåres PR, ring og få et tilbud" ("Kåre's
public relations, call and get an offer").
Jyllands-Posten response
In response to protests from Danish Muslim groups Jyllands-Posten published two open letters on its website, both in
Danish and Arabic versions, and the second letter also in an English version.[13][14] The second letter was dated 30 January
2006, and includes the following explanation and apology:
10
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
In our opinion, the 12 drawings were sober. They were not intended to be offensive, nor were they at variance with
Danish law, but they have indisputably offended many Muslims for which we apologize.
Meeting with Arab Ambassadors refused by Danish Prime Minister
Having received petitions from Danish imams, eleven Arab ambassadors asked for a meeting with Danish prime minister
Anders Fogh Rasmussen in 12 October 2005, in order to discuss what they perceive as an on-going smearing campaign in
Danish public circles and media against Islam and Muslims.[1]. The government declined because it apparently interpreted
the letter as asking Rasmussen to take legal steps against the newspaper, and the government did not see this as an
acceptable basis for a meeting.[15] However, Foreign Minister Per Stig Møller received them.[16] The refusal of meeting the
ambassadors has been a major point of criticism towards the government from the opposition.
Police investigation of Jyllands-Posten
27 October 2005, a number of Muslim organizations submitted complaints to the Danish police claiming that
Jyllands-Posten had committed an offence under section 140 and 266b of the Danish Criminal Code. [17]
Section 140 of the Criminal Code prohibits any person from publicly ridiculing or insulting the dogmas of worship of any
lawfully existing religious community in Denmark. Section 266b criminalises the dissemination of statements or other
information by which a group of people are threatened, insulted or degraded on account of their religion. Danish police
began their investigation of these complaints on 27 October 2005. [17]
On 6 January 2006, the Regional Public Prosecutor in Viborg discontinued the investigation as he found no basis for
concluding that the cartoons constituted a criminal offence. He stated that, in assessing what constitutes an offence, the right
to freedom of speech must be taken into consideration. That while the right to freedom of speech must be exercised with the
necessary respect for other human rights, including the right to protection against discrimination, insult and degradation, no
apparent violation of the law had occurred. [17]
Danish Imams tour the Middle East
Main article: Akkari-Laban dossier
11
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Unsatisfied with the reaction of the Danish Government and Jyllands-Posten and feeling provoked additionally in particular
by
pictures from Weekend Avisen which they called "even more offending" (than the original 12 cartoons),
hate-mail pictures and letters that, according to the dossier's authors, have been sent to Muslims in Denmark, and were
indicative of the rejection of Muslims by the Danish,
a televised interview with Dutch member of parliament and Islam critic Hirsi Ali, who had just received the Freedom
Prize “for her work to further freedom of speech and the rights of women” from the Danish Liberal Party represented
by Anders Fogh Rasmussen
A group of Danish imams from several organisations created a 43-page dossier[18]. This appears to have been assembled
and added to until some point after 8 December 2005, with the first lobbying visits to Egypt having taken place before
finalization.
It consists of several letters from Muslim organisations explaining their case, multiple clippings from Jyllands-Posten,
multiple clippings from Weekend Avisen, some clippings from Arabic-language papers, and three additional images.
Pig-face - This picture of
a French pig-squealing
contestant, taken from the
imams' dossier, was
identified as an old
Associated Press picture
which made no reference to
Islam.
12
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Apparently, the group of imams misrepresented the origin of the latter three images[19][20]. On February 1 BBC World
incorrectly reported that one of them had been published in Jyllands-Posten. [21] This image was later found to be a
wire-service photo of a contestant at a French pig-squealing contest [22] (the original wire service article can be seen here
[23]
), although the dossier's version also included the caption Here is the true face of Muhammad (in Danish, with an Arabic
translation). According to the BBC, this image was misleadingly circulated by Danish Muslims to illustrate the atmosphere
of Islamophobia which they lived under[24]. The other two additional images portrayed a muslim being mounted by a dog
while praying and Muhammad as a demonic pedophile (referencing the Aisha controversy). Note that both the pig and the
dog are considered impure animals in Islam. Attempts by the Jordanian media to accurately portray the Jyllands-Posten
cartoons and reduce tension in the Middle-East failed when the editors concerned were arrested [25] for insulting religion
under Jordan's press and publications laws.
The group of Imams set out for a tour of the Middle East to present their case to many influential religious and political
leaders, and to ask for support:[26] The dossier oscillates wildly between diplomatic statements such as:
We urge you [recipient of the letter or dossier]to - on the behalf of thousands of believing Muslims - to give us the
opportunity of having a constructive contact with the press and particularly with the relevant decision makers, not
briefly, but with a scientific methodology and a planned and long-term programme seeking to make views approach
each other and remove misunderstandings between the two parties involved. Since we do not wish for Muslims to be
accused of being backward and narrow, likewise we do not wish for Danes to be accused of ideological arrogance
either. When this relationship is back on its track, the result will bring satisfaction, an underpinning of security and
the stable relations, and a flourishing Denmark for all that live here
We call your [recipient of the letter or dossier] attention to this case, and place it in your hands, in such a way that
we together may think and have an objective dialogue regarding how an appropriate exit can be found for these
crises in a way which does not violate the freedom of speech, but which at the same time does not offend the feelings
of Muslims either.
and misinformation:
The faithful in their religion (muslims) suffer under a number of circumstances, first and foremost the lack of official
recognition of the Islamic faith. This has led to a lot of problems, especially the lack of right to build mosques [...]
Even though they [the Danes] belong to the Christian faith, the secularizations have overcome them, and if you say
that they are all infidels, then you are not wrong.
13
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
This [the publication of the 12 cartoons] happened in connection with the promotion of a book, which has recently
been published, and which contains these inappropriate cartoons
It is notable that the letters in the dossier that long predate the tour to the Middle East are solidly within the diplomatic and
concillatory range and are free of misinformation, while that later letters use a more urgent language.
Not exactly misinformation, but possibly a misunderstanding was the inclusion in the dossier of the aforementioned
cartoons from Weekend Avisen. These cartoons were more likely to be parodies on the pompousness of Jylland-Posten's
cartoons than cartoons of the Prophet in their own right[27], these consist of reproductions of works such as the Mona Lisa
(caption: For centuries, a previously unknown society has known that this is a painting of the Prophet, and guarded this
secret. The back page's anonymous artist is doing everything he can to reveal this secret in his contribution. He has since
then been forced to go underground, fearing for the wrath of a crazy albino imam, a very obvious pun on the Da Vinci
Code), or Composition VIII by Russian abstract artist Kandinsky (caption: Bellowing Prophet by a Forest Lake, a pun on
"Bellowing Deer by a Forest Lake", an image associated with very poor taste.)
At a 6 December 2005 summit of the OIC, with many heads of state in attendance, the dossier was handed around on the
sidelines first[28], and eventually an official communique was issued.[3] Later, the Egyptian ambassador was criticised by
the Danish foreign ministry for for adding to the unrest by alleging that Islam was not an offically recognized religion in
Denmark. [29]
Reprinting in other newspapers
14
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
El Fagr's Headline Page
for 17 October 2005 - One
of the controversial
cartoons of Muhammad, as
it appeared on the first page
of the Egyptian Newspaper
El Fagr.
Further information: List of newspapers that reprinted Jyllands-Posten's Muhammad cartoons, and [[]], and [[]],
and [[]], and [[]], and [[]], and [[]], and [[]], and [[]]
Some of the countries
where the images were
published in any form
In 2005, the Muhammad cartoons controversy received only minor media attention outside of Denmark. Six of the cartoons
were reprinted by the Egyptian newspaper El Fagr on 17 October 2005[30][31][32] along with an article strongly denouncing
them, but publication did not provoke any reactions nor condemnations from either religious or government authorities.
Some or all of the cartoons were reprinted between October 2005 and the end of January 2006 in major European
newspapers from the Netherlands, Germany, Scandinavia, Belgium and France, without much protest. Very soon after, as
protests grew, there were further re-publications around the globe, but mostly in continental Europe.
Notable by their absence were re-publications from major newspapers in the USA[33] and the United Kingdom[34], where
editorials covered the story, but almost unanimously took a stance against re-publication of the Muhammad cartoons.
15
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Several editors were fired for their decision, or even their intention[35],to re-publish the cartoons (most prominently the
managing director of France Soir, Jacques Lefranc), some were stopped by publishers[36][37] or courts[38].
Three of the cartoons were reprinted in the Jordanian weekly newspaper al-Shihan[39]. The editor, Jihad Momani, was fired,
and the publisher withdrew the newspaper from circulation. Jihad Momani issued a public apology, was arrested and
charged with insulting religion.[40] Several of the cartoons were reprinted in the Jordanian newspaper al-Mehwar. The
editor Hisham Khalidi was also arrested and charged with insulting religion. Both charges were dropped two days later.[41]
Al-Hurreya newspaper in Yemen was closed down after publishing some images. Owner/Editor Abdul-Karim Sabra was
arrested. [42]
In Malaysia, Lester Melanyi, an editor of the Sarawak Tribune resigned from his post for allowing the reprinting of a
cartoon. The chief editor was summoned to the Internal Security Ministry.[43] The Malaysian government has also shut
down the newspaper indefinitely. [44]
Yemen detained three journalists on Sunday, February 12 and is seeking a fourth after closing three publications that printed
the cartoons. Al-Hurriya, Yemen Observer and al-Rai al-Aam were shut and their case sent to prosecutors. The officials said
those detained are Mohammad al-Asaadi, the editor-in-chief of the English-language Yemen Observer, Akram Sabra, the
managing editor of al-Hurriya weekly newspaper and reporter Yehiya al-Abed of Hurriya. The prosecution has issued a
warrant for Kamal al-Aalafi, the editor-in-chief of al-Rai al-Aam. The Yemeni journalists' association called for the release
of the journalists and for the annulment of the closure decrees "because these measures were not ordered by a court". [45]
[46]
On Sunday February 12, Algeria closed two newspapers and arrested their editors for printing the images of the cartoons of
the Prophet. Kahel Bousaad and Berkane Bouderbala, respectively editors of the pro-Islamist weeklies, Errisala and Iqraa,
were detained last week and will appear before an investigating judge in Algiers on Monday, staff of the two Arabic
newspapers said. [47] [48]
International reactions
16
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
"To our dear customers:
As a result of mockery
towards The Prophet
(Peace Be Upon Him), Al
Tamimi Markets announces
its boycott of all kinds of
Danish Products"
Main article: International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
What started with the problem of a Danish author trying to find an illustrator for his forthcoming book about Islam has
become an international crisis. It has led to death, violence, arrests, international tensions, and a renewed debate about the
scope of free speech and the place of Muslims in the West, and the West in Muslim countries. Many governments,
organizations and individuals worldwide have issued statements, trying to define their stance.
Conflicting traditions
Danish journalistic tradition
Freedom of speech in Denmark was obtained in a new constitution with democracy in 1849 and parliamentarism in 1901
together with other liberties, including freedom of religion. These freedoms have been defended vigorously ever since.
Freedom of speech was abandoned temporarily only during the German occupation of Denmark during World War II.
Section 77 of the Constitutional Act of Denmark (1953) reads: “Any person shall be at liberty to publish his ideas in print, in
writing, and in speech, subject to his being held responsible in a court of law. Censorship and other preventive measures
shall never again be introduced.”[49]
17
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Under international law, freedom of expression in Denmark is also protected by among others the European Convention on
Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Section 140 of the Danish Penal Code prohibits blasphemy. However, this law has not been enforced since 1938.[50] Section
266b of the Danish Penal Code prohibits expressions that threaten, deride or degrade on the grounds of race, colour, national
or ethnic origin, belief or sexual orientation. The Danish public prosecutor determined that the Muhammad cartoons did not
violate either law.[17]
Jesus and other religious figures are often portrayed in Denmark in ways that many other societies would consider illegal
blasphemy. In 1984 the artist Jens Jørgen Thorsen was commissioned by a local art club to paint the wall of a railway
station. The work displayed a naked Jesus with an erect penis.[51] In 1992 Thorsen directed the film Jesus vender tilbage
which showed Jesus as sexually active and involved with a terrorist group.[52][53] While Thorsen’s work provoked much
public debate and his painting was removed from the public building, he was not charged with any legal offence. In 2003,
Jyllands-Posten rejected unsolicited cartoons about Jesus[54], opening them to accusations of a double standard.
Danish newspapers are privately owned and independent from the government. There are no restrictions on the political
viewpoints that may be published. There are frequent caricatures of priests and politicians as well as of Queen Margrethe
II.[55]
Although the Danish press is free to satirise, a 2004 report by the European Network Against Racism concluded that a
disproportionate amount of editorial space is devoted to negative reporting on ethnic minorities. [56]
Islamic tradition
Main article: Aniconism
The Qur'an, Islam's holiest book, condemns idolatry, but has no direct condemnations of pictorial art. Direct prohibitions of
pictorial art, or any depiction of sacred figures, are found in some hadith, or recorded oral traditions.
Views regarding pictorial representation within several religious communities have varied from group to group, and from
time to time. Among Muslims, the Shi'a Muslims have been generally tolerant of pictorial representation of human figures,
Sunni Muslims less so. However, the Sunni Ottomans, the last dynasty to claim the caliphate, were not only tolerant but
18
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
even patrons of the miniaturists' art. Many Ottoman miniatures depict Muhammad; they usually show Muhammad's face
covered with a veil or as a featureless void emanating light (depicted as flames). Pictorial surveys of Muhammad can be
found on the internet.[57][58][59] Note that the last site also contains some modern depictions, offensive to some, of
Muhammad.
Most contemporary Muslims believe that ordinary portraits and photos, films and illustrations, are permissible. Only some
Salafi and Islamist interpretations of Sunni Islam still condemn pictorial representations of any kind. Offensive satirical
pictures are a somewhat different case — disrespect to Islam or to Muhammad is still widely considered blasphemous or
sacrilegious.
According to the BBC "It is the satirical intent of the cartoonists, and the association of the Prophet with terrorism, that is so
offensive to the vast majority of Muslims."[60]
A fatwa exists given by Ali al-Sistani, the Shi'a marja of Iraq, stating that it is permissible to make pictures of Muhammad,
if done with the highest respect. [2]
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ( Full text of the Covenant) is a United Nations treaty based on the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which entered into force on 23 March 1976. Articles 19 and 20 of International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights reads:
Article 19
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or
through any other media of his choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities.
It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are
necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
19
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.
Article 20
1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence
shall be prohibited by law.
Denmark signed the Covenant on 20 March 1968, Iran on 4 April 1968 and The United States on 5 October 1977. [3]
Opinions
Main article: Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
Comparable references
Main article: Freedom of speech versus blasphemy
Throughout history, believers from a multitude of faiths have called for boycott, arrest, censorship or even execution of
critics, artists and commentators whose works they considered blasphemous or racist. Some have been punished for
committing a criminal offence such as hate speech. In some cases publications have been censored. In other cases offending
artists have been aquitted or escaped the wrath of those who were offended. As well, public pressure has led to changes,
such as pressure that resulted in changing the mascots of sports teams in schools across the United States. In the current case
voices have been heard that the cartoonists from Jyllands-Posten should be punished under Muslim law similar to the way
Julius Streicher was excuted for crimes against humanity by the Allies after World War II.
The following references of alleged blasphemy or hate speech have been mentioned in connection with the Jyllands-Posten
Muhammad cartoons controversy:
Al-Hayat Al-Jadida cartoons[61](newspaper, 2006, Palestine)
Chief Illiniwek (college mascot)
Dieudonné M'bala M'bala (comedian)
20
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Ecce Homo (exhibition)
Great Lawgivers (frieze)
Jerry Springer - The Opera (musical)
Life of Brian (film)
Piss Christ (photo)
Sambo's Restaurant (business name)
Sensation (exhibition, 1999, London, New York)
Snow White and The Madness of Truth (installation)
Submission (short film)
The Last Temptation of Christ (film)
The Life of Jesus (book)
The Message (film)
The Satanic Verses (novel)
The Virgin Mary (painting)
See also
Censorship by organized religion
Clash of Civilizations
Controversial newspaper caricatures
Freedom of the press
Freedom of speech and freedom of the press in Denmark
Freedom of speech versus blasphemy
Hate speech
Islam in Denmark
Separation of church and state
External links
How this Wikipedia article evolved
Muhammed cartoons and public upload
Full text of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
21
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Official correspondence
The letter to the Prime Minister from the Muslim ambassadors (PDF)
First open letter in Arabic to the Muslims of Saudi Arabia from Jyllands-Posten (PDF)
Second open letter to the Muslims of Saudi Arabia from Jyllands-Posten
In Arabic (PDF)
In English
Photocopies of the Imams' dossier
The Danish Foreign ministry, rebutting rumours that were spread via SMS and word-of-mouth
Islamic views
Amr khaled - A message to the World
IUMS Statement on Publishing Anti-Prophet Cartoons
Sri Lankan Muslim View
Danish cartoons and sacred imagery
Drawings Against Drawings
News articles
BBC, Q&A Depicting the Prophet Muhammad
The Guardian special reports: cartoon protests
World press review by BBC Monitoring
Protests over images
New York Times: At Mecca Meeting, Cartoon Outrage Crystallized
BBC Viewpoints
Economist: The limits to free speech
Images
The page of Jylland-Posten that contains Muhammad cartoons
Listing of the Muhammad drawings and responses to the controversy
22
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
All the Mohammed drawings in full size
Enlargeable images link
Picture series - Burning of the Danish embassy in Syria
Caricatures of Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, published by the Danish newspaper Information
The 12 Jyllands-Posten images and response in cartoons by the Arab-European League, published on Annoy.com
Academic analysis
Complexity and Social Networks Blog at Harvard University discusses and applies various social network theories to
the recent event.
Reconciliation
SorryNorwayDenmark Muslim groups petition for reconciliation
It is Enough Now Letter for reconciliation in Arabic, Danish and English
Forsoning nu! Danish petition for reconciliation
A letter from Another Denmark Another Danish petition for reconciliation
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
^ “Cartoons that dare not show their face: Europeans must stand up against intolerance,” Rocky Mountain News, 2006-02-07.
^ “E-Mail, Blogs, Text Messages Propel Anger Over Images,” Washington Post, 2006-02-09.
^ a b “Muslims seek UN resolution over Danish prophet cartoons,” AFP, 2006-01-29.
^ “OIC chief presses EU to pass blasphemy laws.,” The Peninsula, 2006-02-14.
^ “Protesters burn consulate over cartoons,” CNN, 2006-02-05.
^ “Protestors killed as global furor over cartoons escalates,” Middle East Times, 2006-02-06.
^ “Muslim cartoon fury claims lives,” BBC, 2006-02-06.
^ “Cartoon anger unabated,” Reuters, 2006-02-10.
^ a b ((Danish)) “Dyb angst for kritik af islam,” Politiken, 2005-09-17.
^ ((Danish)) “Overfaldet efter Koran-læsning,” TV 2 (Denmark), 2004-10-09.
^ ((Danish)) Rose, Flemming: “Muhammeds ansigt”, Jyllands-Posten, 2005-09-30.
^ ((Danish)) “Jyllands-Posten: Ytringsfrihed: Mohammes ansigt,” AvisNET, 2005-10-30.
23
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
13.
14.
15.
16.
^ ((Arabic)) Jyllands-Posten's letter in Arabic
^ Jyllands-Posten's letter in English
^ ((Danish)) Fogh tager personligt afstand
^ ((English)) A Scene in the Wrong Movie
17. ^ a b c d “Official Response by the Danish Government to the UN Special Rapporteurs,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark,
2006-01-24.
18. ^ “The imam and the unbelievers of Denmark,” Ekstra Bladet, 2006-01-15.
19. ^ A clash of rights and responsibilities, BBC
20. ^ ((Danish)) Viste pædofil Muhamed and “Scandinavian Update: Israeli Boycott, Muslim Cartoons,” The Brussels Journal,
2006-01-14.
21. ^ ((Danish)) “Imam viste falske billeder,” Jyllands-Posten, 2006-01-30.
22. ^ Neandernews: Danish Imams Busted!A clash of rights and responsibilities, BBC
23. ^ Duo hogs top prize in pig-squealing contest
24. ^ What the Muhammad cartoons portray
25. ^ Two Jordan editors are arrested
26. ^ Alienated Danish Muslims Sought Help from Arabs
27. ^ ((Danish)) Trossamfund angriber Muhammed-satire i Weekendavisen
28. ^ “How a meeting of leaders in Mecca set off the cartoon wars around the world,” The Independent, 2006-02-10.
29. ^ ((Danish)) http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=438583 Trossamfund angriber Muhammed-satire i Egyptisk ambassadør
fik verbal afklapsning
30. ^ “Danes Blame Imams for Satire Escalation, Survey Says (Update1),” Bloomberg, 2005-02-10.
31. ^ “First Newsbreaker,” egyptiansandmonkey, 2005-02-09.
32. ^ “No Danish Treatment for an Egyptian Newspaper,” FreedomForEgyptians, 2006-02-08.
33. ^ “A media dilemma: The rest of a story,” Philadelphia Inquirer, 2006-02-04.
34. ^ “US, British media tread carefully in cartoon furor,” Christian Science Monitor, 2006-02-06.
35. ^ “Paper withdrawn over cartoon row,” BBC News, 2006-02-07.
36. ^ “NY Press Kills Cartoons; Staff Walks Out,” The New York Observer, 2006-02-07.
37. ^ “P.E.I. student paper publishes cartoons of Prophet,” CBC, 2006-02-08.
38. ^ “Muslim anger hits SA,” Sunday Tribune (South Africa), 2006-02-05.
39. ^ a “Gunmen shut EU Gaza office over cartoons,” CNN, 2006-02-03.
40. ^ “Embassies burn in cartoon protest,” BBC News, 2006-02-04.
41. ^ ((German)) “Brennende Botschaften und Antisemitismus,” Spiegel, 2006-02-05.
42. ^ “Newspaper shut for printing cartoons,” The Australian, 2006-02-07.
43. ^ “Sarawak paper prints Prophet cartoon, editor quits,” The Sun (Malaysia), 2006-04-06.
24
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
^ “Islam-West divide 'grows deeper',” BBC News, 10 February 2006.
^ http://www.ww4report.com/node/1586
^ http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3A6809B2-A7A4-4170-9B94-099FAEE84761.htm
^ http://www.ww4report.com/node/1586
^ http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3A6809B2-A7A4-4170-9B94-099FAEE84761.htm
^ The Danish constitution
^ The International Centre for the Legal Protection of Human Rights - Written Comments
^ ;Painting by Jens Jørgen Thorsen
^ Danish movie Jesus vender tilbage
^ Jesus vender tilbage plot description in the New York Times
^ Guardian article Feb 6, 2006 on refusal to publish Jesus cartoons
^ Making fun of Queen Margrethe II
^ ENAR Shadow Report 2004 Denmark
^ http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hi/hi_fimu.htm
^ http://www.superluminal.com/cookbook/index_flat_gallery.html#
^ http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive
^ Abdelhadi, Magdi, "Cartoon row highlights deep divisions", BBC, 4 February 2006.
^ Goodman, Jacob, Libby, "When Arab papers vilify Jews – freedom of press is claimed", ZOA, 1 February 2006.
Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
*
'
*
&
*
%
+
1
)
%
This is the timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. The
cartoons were first published by Jyllands-Posten in late September 2005; approximately two
weeks later, nearly 3,500 people demonstrated peacefully in Copenhagen. In November,
several European newspapers re-published the images, triggering more protests. Labour
strikes began in Pakistan the following month, and several organizations criticized the
Danish government. More protests occurred in January 2006, and later that month a boycott
of Danish goods began. Several countries withdrew their ambassadors to Denmark, and
25
*
*
*
+
+
6
&
7
9%
"
% %
6(( 3/
.
+
7 %
.
&
&
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
widespread protests, some of them violent, began. The protests continued in February. In
Damascus, Syria, both the Norwegian embassy and a building containing the Danish,
Swedish, and Chilean embassies were stormed and set on fire by protesters. In Beirut,
thousands of people were protesting on the streets, and the Danish General Consulate was
stormed and set on fire. As of February 14, 2006, at least 13 people have been killed in the
protests. [1] Main Sources: [2][3]
%
9&
:" 1
;. &
!
!
<
>
?
:
;
!
:
:
:
;
:
;
!
<
>
?
!
<
>
?
26
,
+
.
(
3+
&
+
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
:
;
:7 '
:
;
&
2005
September
September:
Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, commissioned twelve cartoonists to draw cartoons in
response to the difficulty that Danish writer Kåre Bluitgen had finding artists to illustrate his children's book
about Muhammad, because the artists feared violent attacks by extremist Muslims.
September 30:
The cartoons of Islamic prophet Muhammad are printed in the Danish daily newspaper, Jyllands-Posten.
October
27
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
El Fagr's Headline Page
for 17 October 2005 - One
of the controversial
cartoons of Muhammad, as
it appeared on the first page
of the Egyptian Newspaper
El Fagr.
October 9:
The Islamic Society in Denmark demands that Jyllands-Posten apologise to all Muslims and withdraw the
cartoons.
October 14:
3,500 people stage a peaceful demonstration outside the Copenhagen office of Jyllands-Posten.
Two of the cartoonists are advised to go into hiding after receiving death threats[3].
October 17:
Egyptian Newspaper El Fagr publishes six of the cartoons during Ramadan along with an article strongly
denouncing them, but the publication of the images did not engender any known protests from either Egyptian
religious authorities nor the Egyptian government.[4][5]
October 19:
Eleven ambassadors request a meeting with the Prime Minister of Denmark, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, and want
him to distance himself from the cartoons in Jyllands-Posten as well as various other allegedly derogatory
comments about Islam in the Danish media. The Prime Minister refused to meet the ambassadors, on the
grounds that he cannot infringe on the freedom of the press.
October 28:
Danish police are notified by a number of Muslim organizations, claiming that the intention of the publication
of the cartoons has been to "mock and deride" the Muslim faith, something the Danish penal code prohibits (§
140).
November
November through December: A delegation of Imams from the Islamic Society in Denmark travel to the Middle East
in order to bring attention to the cartoons. They present a 43 page Dossier to influential political and religious leaders.
28
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
In November, another Danish newspaper, WeekendAvisen, published an additional ten satirical cartoons of
Muhammad.[6]
November 3:
The German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung publishes one of the cartoons.citation needed
November 6
Danish cartoon Egoland comments on the drawings. Translation: "How can blasphemy exist? is it god who is
insulted? God is above such things. Is it the believer? is our religion so puny that we let random idiots insult
it?"
November 7:
The Bangladeshi government issues a diplomatic protest to the Danish government following the initial
publication of the cartoons.[7]
November 24:
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief and Special Rapporteur on
contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance request the Permanent
Danish Mission to the UN to deliver their observations of the case [8]
December
December 2:
A Pakistani political party, Jamaat-e-Islami apparently offers a roughly $10,000 reward to anyone who kills one
of the cartoonists[3]. It was later discovered that this was a considerable exaggeration, based on a small note in
a local newspaper, citing Jamaat-e-Islami as promising a reward up to a million rupees for the deaths of the
cartoonist. Jamaat-e-Islami claims to be wrongly cited, having merely suggested that the Pakistani government
could promise such a reward. On its way through the Danish ambassador to the Danish media, this fact is blown
up as involving multiple papers and flyers with the reward.[9]
December 7:
Labour strikes begin in Pakistan in response to the cartoons.
Louise Arbour, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has expressed concern over the cartoons and said
that United Nations is investigating racism of the Danish cartoonists.[10]
December 19:
Twenty-two former Danish ambassadors criticise the Prime Minister of Denmark for not meeting with the
29
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
eleven ambassadors in October.
The Council of Europe criticises the Danish government for invoking the "freedom of the press" in its refusal to
take action against the "insulting" cartoons. [11]
December 29:
The Arab League criticises the Danish government for not acting in the matter.
2006
January
January 1:
The Prime Minister of Denmark makes his yearly New Year's speech, emphasising that religion and freedom of
speech are equally respected in Denmark.
January 6:
The Regional Public Prosecutor in Viborg decided to discontinue the investigation of whether Jyllandsposten
had committed an offence under section 140 (publicly ridiculing or insulting dogmas of worship of any lawfully
existing religious community in Denmark) and 266b (dissemination of statements or other information by
which a group of people are threatened, insulted or degraded on account of e.g. their religion) of the Danish
Criminal Code because there was not a reasonable suspicion that a criminal offence indictable by the state had
been committed and "the right to freedom of speech must be exercised". The original claim was filed on
October 27, 2005. [1]
January 7:
Two pictures are printed in the Swedish newspaper Expressen and its sister editions Kvällsposten and GT.
10 January - Magazinet
30
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
republishes all 12 cartoons
January 10:
The Norwegian Christian newspaper Magazinet publishes all 12 of the cartoons.
January 22:
The Brussels Journal publishes the cartoons.
January 23:
The Danish government delivers its official response to the UN Special Rapporteurs' request of 24 November
2005. [12]
January 24:
The government of Saudi Arabia issues its first public condemnation of the cartoons. [2]
January 26
Message on a Saudi
grocery store. The text
reads: Dear customers, in
response to the insults
towards the Prophet (Peace
be upon Him), the
supermarket of Al Tamini
boycotts all Danish
products.
The people of Saudi Arabia begin boycotting Danish products.
Saudi Arabia recalls its ambassador from Denmark.
31
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
The Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs sent a letter to their ambassadors in the Middle East stating that one of the
pillars of Norwegian society is freedom of speech, but they expressed regret that Magazinet did not respect Muslims'
beliefs.[13]
January 27
Boycott begins in Kuwait
January 28
A Danish ambassador in Saudi Arabia is interviewed by the American Associated Press Television News (AP-TV)
where he criticises Jyllands-Posten's lack of judgement and knowledge of Islam, even though the Danish government
has not spoken on the matter.
The Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) states that the Danish government should immediately have
condemned the cartoons.
January 29
Libya closes its embassy in Denmark.
The Danish government announces that Denmark's ambassador to Saudi Arabia only expressed his own opinion in the
28 January interview with AP-TV. The Danish People's Party, Dansk Folkeparti, demands he be reprimanded.
The Danish ambassador in Jordan is summoned for a hearing.
The President of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai calls the printing of the cartoons a mistake, and hopes that this will lead
to the media being more responsible and respectful in the future.
The Flag of Denmark is burned in the West Bank cities of Nablus and Hebron.
Yemen's Assembly of Representatives (Majlis al-Nuwaab) condemns the cartoons.
The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) heads to the UN with a resolution that forbids attacks on religious
beliefs.
Bahrain condemns the cartoons.
Syria condemns the cartoons.
A new denial-of-service attack on Jyllands-Posten's homepage. The first happened on January 27.
Ekstra Bladet reveals that a Danish Muslim association spreading the story in the Middle East, has claimed that it
32
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
represents 200,000 Danish Muslims. Its actual membership number is around 15,000. [14]
Palestinian Islamic Jihad Movement gives Danes, Norwegians, and Swedes 48 hours to leave the Gaza Strip.
Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades gives Danes and Swedes 72 hours to leave the area.
A poll from Epinion for Danmarks Radio, the national broadcasting company of Denmark, showed that of 579 Danes
asked, 79% believe that the Prime Minister of Denmark should not apologise to the Muslims, with 48% citing that
would be political interference with the freedom of press, while 44% thought the Prime Minister should try harder to
resolve the controversy. 62% of those asked believed that Jyllands-Posten shouldn't apologise either, and while 58%
did feel that while it was the right of Jyllands-Posten to publish the cartoons, they could understand the Muslim
criticism.[15]
Boycott of Danish goods begins in Qatar
January 30
Jyllands-Posten sends out an apology in both Danish and Arabic. Apologising, not for the printing of the cartoons, but
for hurting the feelings of Islamic society (Look below for English translation of the apology).
The Mexican newspaper La Crónica is the first Western newspaper to reprint the Danish cartoons. [16]
Armed Palestinians from Fatah take over an EU office as a protest against the cartoons. [17]
feeling|date=2006-01-30|org=Wikinews|url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060130/pl_afp/denmarkislamqatar_060130151546}}
The Prime Minister of Denmark says that he personally distances himself from the cartoons, but reiterates that the
government cannot intervene in what the media writes. [18]
The European Union backs Denmark, saying that any retaliatory boycott of Danish goods would violate world trade
rules. [19]
The Danish Red Cross says that it will evacuate some workers in Yemen and the Gaza Strip after receiving threats.
[20]
Jyllands-Posten sends out a second open letter, this time both in Arabic, Danish, and English, trying to clear up
several misunderstandings, and once again apologising for hurting the feelings of the Islamic society.
A Iraqi militant islamic organisation, the Mujahideen Army, calls for terror strikes against Danish and Norwegian
targets. [21]
Armed gunmen from Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades storm the European Union's office in Gaza and threaten to kidnap the
33
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
workers unless they receive an official apology for the cartoons from the EU.
January 31
Following a live televised interview on Al-Jazeera, it is reported [22] that the "apology for any offence caused" made
at the opening of the interview by Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten's cultural editor, was not translated into Arabic.
The Danish Muslim Association is satisfied with yesterday's apologies from Jyllands-Posten and the Prime Minister,
and say they now will help improve the situation. They claim to be deeply sorry and surprised the case got this far.
[23][24]
A bomb threat against Jyllands-Posten leads to evacuation of two offices in Aarhus and Copenhagen.[25]
Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades denies that the threat against Scandinavians is real.[26]
The foreign ministers of seventeen Islamic nations renew demands for the Danish government to punish the authors of
the cartoons and to "ensure that it doesn't happen again." [27]
Anders Fogh
Rasmussen
The Prime Minister of Denmark, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, holds a press conference in both Danish and English in
which he repeats that he urges Danes not to take any action that could worsen the situation. He urges Muslims in
Denmark to take actions that can improve the situation. He also repeats that freedom of expression is a vital part of the
Danish society and that the Danish government is not in a position to have any influence on what the press is printing.
He states that he wants to come back to a situation of dialogue, based on the friendship that has existed for a long time
between Denmark and the Muslim world.[28] The prime minister is asked by the TV broadcaster Al Jazeera to appear
34
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
in a program, but has not yet decided whether he will accept.
The National Assembly of Bahrain demands an apology from Denmark's head of state, Queen Margrethe II, as well as
from the government. If the demands are not met, they will urge an official boycott of Danish goods and the cutting
off of oil exports of 159,000 barrels per day, in association with other GCC members. [29]
Hamas leader Adnan Asfour demands that Denmark punish the twelve artists and Jyllands-Posten.[30]
Former US President Bill Clinton states that he fears anti-Semitism will be replaced with anti-Islamic prejudice and
condemns "these totally outrageous cartoons against Islam".[31]
Russian president Vladimir Putin indicates in a speech in the Kremlin that the Danish political authorities are using
the theme of freedom of expression to protect those who have insulted the Muslims.
The Icelandic newspaper DV publishes six of the twelve cartoons.
The German newspaper Die Tageszeitung publishes two of the cartoons.
February
February 1
The French newspaper France Soir publishes the cartoons, adding one of their own. Managing director Jacques
Lefranc is fired later the same day by owner Raymond Lakah, a French-Egyptian binational and Roman Catholic (the
chief editor, Serge Faubert, is not fired)[32]. The French Government dissociates itself from the initiative[33].
The German newspaper Die Welt publishes some of the cartoons[34], as do the German newspapers Tagesspiegel and
Berliner Zeitung.
The Italian newspaper La Stampa publishes the cartoons.
The Spanish newspaper El Periódico de Catalunya publishes the cartoons.
The Dutch papers Volkskrant, NRC Handelsblad, and Elsevier publish the cartoons.
The cartoon is uploaded to wikipedia
The Danish embassy in Syria is evacuated because of a hoax bomb threat. [35]
Syria recalls its ambassador from Denmark. [2]
The Finnish Minister of Foreign Affairs criticises the Danish government for its slow actions on the matter.
The Russian Orthodox Church and the Muftiat condemned the European newspapers that republished the cartoons.
Chechen warlord, politician, and terrorist leader Shamil Basayev condemns the cartoons.
35
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Jyllands-Posten's headquarters as well as its office in Copenhagen is again evacuated after a bomb threat. [36]
An influential Muslim organization in Malaysia, the Muslim Consumers Association of Malaysia, calls on the
Malaysian government to protest the cartoons with the Danish government. [37]
A spokesman from the Indonesian Foreign Ministry condemns the cartoons, saying that freedom of expression should
not be used as a pretext to insult a religion. [38]
Boycott of Danish goods is instituted by Omani retail chains
February 2
German newspaper Die Zeit publishes one of the cartoons on page five. [39]
The Prime Minister of Denmark appears on the TV station Al-Arabiya. The recording was made 1 February.
The Jordanian newspaper al-Shihan prints the cartoons. The newspaper's manager is fired.[40] [41]
The American newspaper New York Sun publishes two of the cartoons[42].
The Belgian newspaper Le Soir publishes two of the cartoons. [43]
The French newspaper Le Monde publishes a cartoon of Muhammad's face formed only from words that read "I may
not draw the Prophet."
The Swiss newspapers Le Temps and Tribune de Genève publish some of the cartoons, as does the Hungarian
newspaper Magyar Hirlap. [44]
The Portuguese newspaper Público publishes one of the cartoons - the most heated one - Muhammad with a bomb on
his head.
The Argentine newspaper Página/12 publishes the cartoon featuring Muhammad with a bomb on his head.[45]
The director of the Sakharov Museum in Moscow, says in the 25th Hour TV Program, that the museum will do an
entire exhibition about the cartoons. Furthermore he wants to illustrate the new Russian edition of Salman Rushdie's
Satanic Verses with the original Danish cartoons.[46]
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark advises Danish citizens to leave Gaza.
Mullah Krekar, alleged leader of Ansar al-Islam and living in Norway, calls the cartoons a "declaration of war" and
says that "[we] Muslims are ready for this".[47]
"Fleeting glimpses" of some of the cartoons are shown in British television news programmes on the BBC, ITV and
Channel 4, [48]. On its flagship current affairs programme Newsnight, the BBC recreates portions of the cartoons but
36
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
with the image of Muhammad edited out of the scenes.
In a joint statement, the Roman Catholic bishops of the five Nordic countries deplore the publication of the cartoons.
"Again and again, in our Nordic area, it seems that certain opinion makers feel that they are wholly free to say what
they wish without any respect for the understanding and beliefs of other people (..) Our sympathies go out to our
Muslim sisters and brothers." [49].
Armed gunmen from Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades storm the European Union's office in Gaza for the second time in a
week and kidnapped a German national. He was later released unharmed. [50].
Palestinian gunmen shut down the EU headquarters in Gaza, in protest of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons. According to
CNN, "Masked members of the militant groups Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the armed
wing of the Palestinians' former ruling party, Fatah, fired bullets into the air, and a man read the group's
demands....The gunmen left a notice on the EU office's door that the building would remain closed until Europeans
apologize to Muslims, many of whom consider the cartoons offensive."[51]
The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer on PBS displays some of the cartoons in its segment on the issue.
British Islamist group Al Ghurabaa publishes an article entitled Kill those who insult the Prophet Muhammad (saw),
justifying such action using the Qur'an and Hadith, and applying its argument primarily to Jyllands-Posten, Magazinet
and to the Danish and Norwegian governments. [52]
Protesters in Rabat, Morocco stage a sit-in before the Parliament in response to the cartoons. On the same day,
delivery of the Wednesday issue of the 'France-Soir' and Friday issue of the 'Liberation' daily newspapers was barred
by the Moroccan government. [53]
Danish company Arla Foods reports millions in losses from boycotts
February 3
3 February - Danish
37
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
prime minister shaking
hands with Charg d'Affaires
from Libya
Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen meets with several Muslim ambassadors in Copenhagen. Egyptian
ambassador responds that Ramoussen's response is inadequate and that Denmark should try harder to 'appease the
whole Muslim world'.
At the Danish embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia an angry mob demands access to the embassy, and upset lamps and
furniture in the lobby in the process. [54] The ambassador talks to the leaders of the demonstration, and the group
disperses.
The Belgian newspaper De Standaard publishes the cartoons. Another Belgian newspaper, Het Volk, prints cartoons
of Muhammad by Flemish cartoonists and quotes Etienne Vermeersch as saying Belgian papers should publish such
caricatures every week "so that Muslims can get used to the idea." [55]
The weekly New Zealand newspaper National Business Review prints one of the cartoons. [56]
The Times of India prints the 12 cartoons. Muslims start burning copies of the paper.[57]
British foreign secretary Jack Straw praised the British media for not publishing the cartoons and condemned the
decision of the European newpapers who brought the cartoons as "disrespectful" [58]
Australian TV broadcasters Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC)
show images of some of the cartoons in their evening news bulletins.
The Belgian Muslim Executive, of which some former members have been linked to terrorism, strongly condemns the
cartoons as "an unacceptable attack on Islam".
Protest march in London. Hundreds of Muslims march from the London Central Mosque to the heavily protected
Danish embassy. Chants include "7/7 is on its way" and placard slogans include "Slay those who insult Islam", "Free
speech go to hell", "Europe is the cancer and Islam is the cure", "Exterminate those who slander Islam", "Europe you
will pay. Your 9/11 is on its way!!" and "Be prepared for the real holocaust!" [59] [60] [61] [62]
The controversial Danish imam Abu Laban and the editor of culture of Jyllands-Posten meet on the BBC program
Hard Talk. [63]
A US State Department spokesman stated "We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but
it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable." [64]
Newly elected Hamas organizes protests and demonstrations in the Palestinian territories. Demonstrations are
significantly more violent than in previous days.
38
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
The Senate of Pakistan adopted a unanimous resolution condemning the Danish newspaper for publishing
blasphemous and derogatory cartoons. [65]
Saudi cleric Sheikh Badr bin Nader al-Mashar refers, in an audio message posted online, to the cartoon furore as "part
of the war waged by the decadent West against the triumphant Islam" and issues a call "to the billion Muslims: where
are your arms? Your enemies have trampled on the prophet. Rise up." [66]
Canada's CTV television network news broadcasts a brief static close up of the cartoons. [67]
The Irish Daily Star publishes one of the cartoons. The accompanying article states that it wishes to "make a stand for
freedom of the press and democratic rights". [68]
Two Muslims with Turkish backgrounds allegedly attack the steward of a hot dog stand[69]. However, after some
investigations, the Danish police has concluded that this was not true[70].
Judge Mohammed Jajbhay pre-emptively bans the publication of the cartoons in South Africa following a request for
an urgent interdict by the Muslim Jamiat-ul Ulama Transvaal organization. This move is widely criticized by
opposition political parties and journalist organizations. [71].
Islamic retailer Ziyad Brothers suspends business with Arla Foods
February 4
February 4 - The building
housing the Danish
embassy in Damascus,
Syria is set on fire after
being stormed by angry
mob.
39
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
The daily New Zealand newspaper The Dominion Post prints the cartoons and an accompanying article, including text
from the Wikipedia article on the topic. [72]
The Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita publishes the cartoons [73], much like the most influential Czech daily MF
DNES.
The Danish newspaper Dagbladet Information publishes twelve Anders Fogh Rasmussen cartoons.[74]
The editor of the Jordanian newspaper al-Shihan, Jihad Momani, was arrested.[75]
Protest outside the Danish embassy in London organised by Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. A speaker calls on "the
governments of the Muslim world to completely sever all contact with European governments" until they had
"controlled the media". Police later say that two men were arrested near the embassy during the protest. "They were
arrested to prevent a breach of the peace, after a search by officers found leaflets including cartoons of the prophet
Mohammed," a Metropolitan Police Service spokeswoman said. [76]
The building, which houses the Chilean, Swedish, and Danish embassies in Damascus Syria, is set on fire after being
stormed by angry mob. The Swedish and Chilean embassies were very badly damaged[77][78], but the Danish
embassy, which is located on the 3rd floor, was only partially damaged. As a response to this incident, the Danish
Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a warning urging Danish citizens in Syria to leave the country immediately. The
Danish ambassador had asked the Syrian government for proper protection of the embassy before the attack. Danish
government does not rule out severing diplomatic ties with Syria.
The Norwegian embassy in Damascus is attacked and set on fire. The Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Jonas
Gahr Støre, advises all Norwegians to leave Syria. Støre told the media that he sees the situtation as a very serious
diplomatic crisis and threatens to sever the diplomatic ties with Syria.[79]
Several demonstrations in Hillerød, Denmark collide and become violent[80]. One demonstration was arranged by a
small nationalistic group and included at least one Neo-Nazi. Other groups represented were Muslims, Danish
anti-racists, and a group well known to the police for becoming violent (named autonome). 162 people were arrested.
Around 110 were demonstrating against the nationalistic group and the rest were mostly muslims also demonstrating
the nationalistic group.
The Vatican says the right to freedom of expression does not imply the right to offend religious beliefs[81], but also
that a government should not be held responsible for actions of a newspaper.
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan calls for calm and urges Muslims to accept an apology from the Danish paper that
first published the cartoons.
A new network of Danish Muslims (called Moderate Muslims) is founded as a response to the cartoon controversy,
40
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
with the Danish Muslim member of parliament Naser Khader as one of the founding members. This new network will
represent Muslims that focus on freedom of speech, democracy, and positive and peaceful relations between Muslims
and non-Muslims.[82]
An editorial in The Wall Street Journal alleges that the controversy was fueled by Danish Muslims who added three
non-published images to the cartoons. (The images are: one involved a pig's nose on his face, another stating him to
be a paedophile, and the third showing an indecent act with a dog).[83]
The US blames Syria for not sufficiently protecting the embassies in Damascus. The White House stated: "We stand
in solidarity with Denmark and our European allies in opposition to the outrageous acts in Syria today."[84]
The president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has ordered to cancel contracts with all countries where media have
published the cartoons[85].
It is revealed, that the newspaper Jyllands Postens wins the "Victor prize", which is given each year by the competing
newspaper Ekstra Bladet. They get it because they have shown to defend freedom of press, even under heavy
pressure[86].
The rumours about burning of the Qur'an in Denmark on February 4 seem to have been incorrect. No media has
reported such burnings, and the police have no reports of such an action.
The German center of culture in the Gaza strip was ravaged by demonstrators.[87].
Rumours that Danes would burn the Qur'an circulated in the Arab world[88]. The probable source of the rumor is an
SMS spread by Danish right wing extremists, which indeed told people to buy and burn the Qu'ran at a demonstration
on February 4 in central Copenhagen[89]. This did not take place.[90]Approximately 40 right wing protestors did
demonstrate in Hillerød instead. No copies of the Qur'an nor other sacred items were burned.[91].
The Danish newspaper Politiken reveals that Jyllands-Posten in 2003, denied an unsolicited submission that
caricatured the resurrection of Jesus, with the reason, that it would lead to an outcry.[92].[93]
The International Cartoon Festival in Belgium choses a "yawning Christ on the cross" as winner. [94]
February 5
The UK's Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said to the Sunday Telegraph that some of the placards held at the
Muslim protest in London on February 3 amounted to "incitement to murder" and protesters should be dealt with
firmly by police[95].
41
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Iran recalls its ambassador from Denmark and bans journalists from its country.[96]
The Danish consulate in Beirut, Lebanon is set ablaze during a demonstration[97]. The police arrest many people,
almost half of them are from Syria[98].
Demonstrators in Lebanon from a demonstration at the Danish consulate cause property damage in Christian
neighborhoods of Beirut.[99]
In a press conference in Copenhagen, Danish Minister of Foreign Affairs Per Stig Møller assured that no Qur'an
burnings had taken place in Denmark, and urged all parties to "talk down the crisis" so that they could "move forward
together".[100]
The Arab European League, a conservative Arab nationalist organization, has put several anti-Semitic cartoons on its
website in response to the Danish cartoons[101] [102].
The Syrian newspaper Al-Thawra, which is owned by the state, claims that the Danish government is responsible for
having the embassy burned down[103].
The Iraqi Ministry of Transportation freezes contracts with Denmark and Norway.[104].
In Brussels, Belgium, thousands of Muslims spontaneously gather and hold a peaceful protest against the cartoons.
[105]
Lebanese Interior Minister, Hassan Sabeh, announced his resignation in reaction to the torching of the Danish
consulate in Beirut, and to the following criticism.[106]
A peaceful demonstration was arranged for peace, dialogue, and understanding in Copenhagen. Almost 3000 Muslims
and non-Muslims participated in the demonstration.[107].
The US ambassador to Denmark, James P. Cain, says he is pleased major American newspapers have not re-printed
the cartoons.citation needed
The Islamic Army, a militant Iraqi group with ties to Al-Qaeda, says Danish citizens, and citizens of other countries
who have published the cartoons, should be captured and killed.[108]
The Prime Minister of Norway, Jens Stoltenberg, will formally complain to the United Nations against Syria for its
failure to protect the Norwegian embassy in Damascus[109]
Charges against the two Jordanian editors that published the cartoon are dropped.[110]
500 Muslims protest peacefully against the cartoons in Vienna, Austria.[111]
At a press conference, the Danish Foreign Minister says that this is no longer about Denmark and the twelve cartoons
42
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
and it is no longer a crisis between Denmark and Arab Muslim countries. Instead, it is a crisis for Western-Arab
cooperation, and has to be solved using international cooperation.[112]
The Conference of European Rabbis expresses its concern at the publication of the cartoons, which "humiliate and
disparage the feelings of Muslims", comparing them to anti-Semitic caricatures.[113]
Andrea Santoro, a Catholic priest, was murdered on Sunday, February 5th, 2006 at the Santa Maria Church in
Trabzon, Turkey where he served. A 16 year-old high school student was arrested two days later carrying a 9mm
pistol. The student told police he had been influenced by the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.[114]
February 6
Australian blogger Tim Blair published the twelve cartoons on his website. [115]
The Ukrainian newspaper Segodnya publishes the cartoons.
A protest of approximately 5,000 people is planned in Jakarta, Indonesia at the Danish embassy.[116]
Approximately 1,000 protesters marched for three hours in Paris, France in response to the publication of the cartoons
in several European newspapers. French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin condemned the violence that had
occurred internationally in response to the cartoons, but called for tolerance and respect toward other faiths. [117]
Three dead at Afghan demonstration against the cartoons.[118]
Danish soldiers in Iraq were shot at while trying to give first aid to 10-15 Iraqi children who were hit by a truck in a
traffic accident. The Danish soldiers managed to save some of the children and bring them to a hospital. The Danish
army says that this may be a reaction to the cartoons[119].
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark recommends not to spend holiday in the following countries: Egypt,
Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, Sudan, Oman, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Jordan, Iran, Pakistan, and
Afghanistan. This will affect 3,000 people who already bought their tickets.[120]
Ahmed Akkari, spokesman for 29 Muslim organisations in Denmark, offers to go on Arab television with Danish
Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen in order to explain why it is not the Danish Prime Minister or the Danish
Queen who should provide apologies.[121]
Sterling Airlines A/S, an Icelandic owned low-fare airline based in Copenhagen, stops all flights to Egypt as a
consequence of the travel recommendations from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark.[122]
Demonstrators in Indonesia damage the Danish consulate and try to damage the US consulate. At the American
43
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
consulate, they clash with police, and warning shots are fired.[123]
The government of Lebanon apologizes to Denmark for not having protected the consulate well enough.[124]
The embassy of Austria in Tehran, Iran, has been attacked by firebombs. The firebombs did not catch fire, and shortly
afterwards the security forces protected the embassy.[125] Austria is the current chairman of the European Union.
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair expresses his full support and solidarity with Denmark.[126]
Secretary General of NATO, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, expresses his full support with Denmark.[127]
The Israeli English language newspaper, The Jerusalem Post, has printed the drawings, although very small, almost
impossible to see.[128]
Iran stops all trade with Denmark, thereby violating their agreements with the EU.[129]. This is done at the same time
as Irans atomic program has been reported to the UN Security Council, which has Denmark as member.
Danish Embassy in Indonesia shuts down in order to secure the employees[130]
Danish Embassy in Iran was attacked. About 20 firebombs were thrown at the building, but no damage seems to have
been done[131].
Danish Muslims plan to make a peaceful demonstration in Aarhus, with the motto "In favor of Denmark"[132].
The American Ambassador in Denmark has repeated in several media, that USA is supporting Denmark and is 100%
behind Denmark. He also states, that USA is fully behind freedom of speech and would never intervene against media
who publishes the cartoons[133].
The Grand Mufti of Syria is sorry that the relationship with Denmark has deteriorated, but hopes to restore it as soon
as possible. He says that 10,000 people were at the demonstration at the Danish Embassy, but only 10-15 were
responsible for burning it down. He says that the Syrian population will rebuild the embassy, even nicer than it was
before. It would be a gift to the Danish population. When TV 2 visits him, he gives them a gold plate with citations
from the Qur'an as a gift to the Danish people. Syria has officially excused that they didn't protect the embassy well
enough.[134]
The Danish Refugee Council, the largest humanitarian aid organisation in Chechnya and supplier of food for 250,000
people in Chechnya and Dagestan, is asked by the government of Chechnya to leave the country, citing the current
controversy.[135]. The organisation also has problems with delivering humanitarian aid in Sudan[136]
Ferial Haffajee, editor of South African newspaper The Mail and Guardian, which reprinted the cartoons, reports
receiving threats.[137]
An Iranian newspaper, Hamshahri, announces a competition for cartoons on The Holocaust, apparently in retaliation
44
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
to the Jyllands-Posten cartoons. [138]
Two people died at a protest near the Bagram Air Base. The death toll in Afganistan is now at five. [3]
In Somalia, a teenage boy died after protesters attacked police. [4]
US vice secretary of foreign affairs, Daniel Fried, states that Denmark has nothing to excuse.[139]
A man in Aarhus, Denmark has filed charges against Jyllands-Posten both for blasphemy and in doing so, harming
the country.[140]
Terry Davis, secretary general of the Council of Europe, says that the publication of the cartoons crossed an ethical
line even if it still was legal.[141]
Danish illustrator Christoffer Zieler reported that in April 2003 he submitted a series of satirical cartoons about the
resurrection of Christ to Jyllands-Posten, but they were turned down by the editor, who said "I don't think
Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry.
Therefore, I will not use them." The cartoons were not solicited by the newspaper. [5]
February 7
In Tehran, Iran, tear gas is used against protesters in front of the Danish embassy.[142]
Thousands of protesters clash with police and NATO peacekeepers in Afghanistan. [143]
Four demonstrators are killed in an attack on a Norwegian-led military base in Maymana, capital of the Faryab
province in western Afghanistan. At least 20 others, among them five Norwegians, are injured. [144]
Thousands of students protest in Egypt[145] and Peshawar, Pakistan.[146] Peaceful anti-Denmark protests also occur
in Niamey, Niger, (tens of thousands) Kano, Nigeria (where lawmakers burned Danish flags), Kashmir, Pakistan, and
Cotabato, Philippines[6]
Protest take place in Helsinki, Finland in front of the Danish embassy, around 200 people attend.[147]
Ali Khamenei, the spiritual leader of Iran, expresses the hypocricy of Western media in publishing these cartoons
during an address, to Iranian air force personnel.[148]
Nestlé publishes posters denouncing the rumor that any of its products are Danish in origin.[149]
The defacement of Danish websites by pro-Muslim hackers reaches 578 within 1 week.[150]
45
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
The Prime Minister of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, asks Turkey to "neutralize fanatics", after the murder of an Italian
Roman Catholic priest.[151]
Amnesty International publishes a statement declaring that Freedom of Speech is not absolute and should be used
responsibly. [152]
The Taliban urge Muslims to declare Jihad over the cartoons. [153]
After an investigation Danish police come to the conclusion that a story concerning the attack on a hot-dog stand
steward by two Turks on February 3 was a fake story.[154]
A student newspaper editor is suspended for publishing an image of the Prophet Muhammad. Cardiff University's
student union paper Gair Rhydd is the first UK publication to use the image which has caused global protests, and has
recalled 8,000 of its copies.[155]
Approximately 100 demonstrators attack the Norwegian embassy in Tehran, Iran throwing stones and firebombs.[156]
A couple of Danish Muslim organisations arrange a peaceful demonstration in Aarhus with the motto "In favor of
Denmark", in an attempt to make the muslim world recognize, that Denmark should not be punished[157].
US President George W. Bush calls Anders Fogh Rasmussen to confirm that he and the United States support
Denmark during this crisis.
The editorial staff of the alternative weekly New York Press walk out en masse, after the paper's publishers backed
down from printing the Danish cartoons[158].
The Yemeni government canceled the publishing license of two yemeni private newspapers, Yemen Observer and
Al-Hourriah(freedom), after they have published the Danish illustrations depicting the Prophet Mohammed.[159]
In Lithuania Respublika prints 4 of the controversial cartoons.
February 8
French weekly newspaper, Charlie Hebdo, publishes the twelve cartoons plus a new cartoon representing Muhammad
by French cartoonist Cabu. The new cartoon shows Muhammad with his head in his hands and is accompanied by the
legend: "It is tough to be loved by morons" (C'est dur d'être aimé par des cons). French Muslim organisations,
including the French Council of Muslim Faith (CFCM) and the Grand Mosques of Paris and Lyon had unsuccessfully
sued Charlie Hebdo the day before to avoid this publication.[160]
Former Danish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Uffe Ellemann-Jensen, states that he thinks that the chief editor Carsten
Juste of Jyllands-Posten should quit. Uffe Ellemann-Jensen is a member of the same political party Venstre, to which
46
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
also the prime minister belongs, but is no longer active in politics.[161]
Iranians living in Denmark plan to demonstrate against embassy attacks this Saturday.[162]
The organisation, Moderate Muslims, is to begin a campaign in Arab countries in favor of Denmark. They will use
SMS and newspaper advertisements, paid for by their Muslim members only.[163]
In Turin, Copenhagen is elected over Cairo (by 59 against 40) as host city of the 2009 Olympic Congress by the
International Olympic Committee.[164]
The picture allegedly of Muhammad dressed up as a pig is revealed to be a photo of the "pig-squealing" champion
Jacques Barrot in France.[165] [166]
Muslims demonstrators burn Danish, Norwegian and Croatian flags in Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
This follows the publication of the controversial cartoons in a Croatian weekly on February 6[167]. That was only
incident in peacefull demonstration and organizator later excused for burning flags and stating that was a three man,
wich were identified, who on their own burned paper flags.
Veja, Brazil's largest magazine in terms of circulation, publishes three of the original cartoons in both their print
edition and on their website.[168]
The "Freedom for Egyptians" blog publishes scans reportedly showing six of the cartoons, including the turban bomb
image, as published in the October 17, 2005 issue of Egyptian newspaper El Fagr. [169]
The "Egyptian Sandmonkey" blog publishes its own (different) scans of the relevant pages from the October 17, 2005
issue of Egyptian newspaper El Fagr. That no adverse reaction occurred at that time is taken by some to strengthen the
argument that the controversy was sparked or stoked for political ends. [170]
Administration at the University of Prince Edward Island, Canada, ordered a halt to the on-campus distribution of the
student newspaper Cadre after the cartoons were re-printed in the newspaper. Campus authorities also attempted to
seize all 2,000 copies of the edition containing the cartoons. [171]
Professor Peter March at Saint Mary's University, Canada, is directed by administration there to remove copies of the
cartoons that he posted on his office door. The professor was later the subject of an on-campus student march, and
claimed to have received anonymous messages stating that his actions may have repercussions for Canadians being
held hostage in Iraq. [172]
February 9
47
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
The Egyptian newspaper El Fagr removes the back issue containing the cartoons from its website. [173]
The Danish tabloid B.T. reports that Bjarne Sørensen, the Danish ambassador to Egypt, has confirmed reports that the
cartoons were published in the Egyptian newspaper El Fagr on October 17, 2005. [174]
The Venezuelan newspaper Últimas Noticias reprints the cartoons from Charlie Hebdo[175]
After the Japanese government urged newspapers not to print the controversial cartoons, several newspapers do print
them, saying that the freedom of speech is absolute and the government should not intervene. The Japanese
government does not react to the printing of these cartoons.[176][177]
BBC reports that, in a speech (full text [7]) in Berlin, Ms. Ayaan Hirsi Ali (colleague of murdered filmmaker Theo
van Gogh) said it was "correct to publish the cartoons" and that the furore over the cartoons had exposed the fear
among artists and journalists in Europe to "analyse or criticise intolerant aspects of Islam". [178]
The Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter reports that, although the foreign office and SÄPO got
Sverigedemokraterna's web site shut down after publishing Muhammad caricatures, they are still available from their
youth organisation.[179]
Demonstrations with tens of thousands of participants continue to be held across the Muslim world.[180]
The New York Times: "At Mecca Meeting [ of the Organization of the Islamic Conference ], Cartoon Outrage
Crystallized".[181]
February 10
Ahmad Abu Laban, Islamisk Trossamfund leader, strikes a different tune in his Friday prayer. He calls Denmark a
nice and tolerant country and calls for the violence to stop. He also openly challenged Islam critic Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
[182] [183]
The editor of the Norwegian christian newspaper Magazinet, Vebjørn Selbekk, apologizes for the reactions and
consequences the publishing of the paintings has caused. The Norwegian muslim community accepted his apology,
and considered the issue closed. [184]
At a demonstration in Nairobi, one demonstrator dies in a stampede.[8]
Reuters: "Kenyan police opened fire at hundreds of people [ ... ], wounding at least one.".[185]
Spiegel Online (from AP): Molotov-cocktails thrown at French embassy in Tehran.[186]
Muslims hold the biggest rallies in Asia yet. [9]
48
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
In Macedonia both newspapers Vreme and Vest print the 12 cartoons.[187]
The Danish ambassadors and diplomatic staff in Iran, Syria, and Indonesia leave after receiving threats.
[188]
February 11
Paris, 2006-02-11, anti-caricature protest banners
Naser Khader Muslim member of Danish parliament and one of the founding members of Moderate Muslims has
asked the Minister of Religion in Denmark to investigate Abu Laban words in the Friday prayer in the mosque at
Dortheavej in Copenhagen where Abu Laban described Ayaan Hirsi Ali as a rat in a hole.[189]
Euronews shows one of the cartoons in a newstrailer, which was originally from a TV programme from Switzerland.
49
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
February 12
The Irish president Mary McAleese condemned the drawings and concluded "Muslims have every right to feel
angry"[190]
February 13
The Iranian ambassador in Berlin is asking the German daily Tagesspiegel to apologize for and "take all steps
necessary for retribution of this immoral act", because they published a cartoon about soccer, that has "caused outrage
and horror in Iran and worldwide". The cartoon accompanied an article (10 Feb 2006) that argued against the idea
that it may be a necessary to have the German army support the police force in securing the soccer world
championship 2006 in Germany. The cartoon depicts a soccer team (Iranian, say the amassadors) in a soccer arena,
wearing suicide bomber belts, watched over by German army personnel. Caption: "That's why it's absolutely
necessary to have the army around." The cartoonist has received three death threats.[10]
EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana meets with the Organization of the Islamic Conference's (IOC)Secretary
General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu to defuse the crisis. Ihsanoglu called upon the EU Parliament to pass legislation to
combat Islamophobia: "People in the Muslim world are starting to feel this is a new 9/11 against them".[11]
A leading Iranian newspaper launches a competition asking people to submit cartoons about the Holocaust. The
Hamshahri daily says the competition is to test the boundaries of free speech for Westerners. The move is seen as
retaliation for the publication in a Danish paper of images satirising the Prophet Muhammad.[12]
Australian cartoonist, Michael Leunig, becomes the victim of a hoax involving the cartoon competition Iranian
newspaper, Hamshahri.[13]
February 14
In South America both Peru's RPP Noticias en Chile's 24 Horas print the Danish cartoons.[191][192]
Finland's National Bureau of Investigation decides to conduct a preliminary investigation into the matter of Suomen
Sisu and others publishing the cartoons. Finnish penal code has a same kind of section on the sanctity of religion as
the Danish law. [193]
In Pakistan, over 1,000 rioters vandalize many western business establishments and torched the provincial assembly
building. At least two people were killed. [194]
50
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
References
1. ^ “Cartoon anger unabated,” Reuters, 2006-02-10.
2. ^ a b ((Danish)) “Sådan har Muhammed-sagen udviklet sig,” Politiken, 2006-01-30.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
^ a b c ((Danish)) “Muhammed-tegningerne: Tidslinie,” TV2, 2006-01-30.
^ “Egyptian Newspaper Pictures that Published Cartoons 5 months ago,” Freedom for Egyptians, 2006-02-08.
^ “Egyptian Newspaper Publishes Cartoons,” El Fagr, 2006-02-09.
^ ((Danish)) “Trossamfund angriber Muhammed-satire i Weekendavisen,” Danmarks Radio, 2006-01-04.
^ “Bangladesh requests Denmark to tender apology on Prophet cartoon,” New Kerala Newspaper, 2006-02-06.
^ “UN Special Rapporteurs' letter to the Permanent Danish Mission to the UN,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark,
2005-12-01.
^ ((Danish)) “DUSØREN, DER FORSVANDT,” Journalisten, unknown.
^ “UN to Investigate Racism of Danish Cartoonists,” The Brussels Journal, 2005-12-07.
^ “Strasbourg Warning to Copenhagen's 'Freedom of Press' Thesis,” Zaman (newspaper), 2005-12-19.
^ “Offical Response by the Danish Government to the UN Special Rapporteurs,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark,
2006-01-24.
^ Cucuk, Hasan: “Norway Apologises for Cartoons Insulting Prophet Mohammed”, Zaman Online, 2006-01-28.
^ ((Danish)) “Fup-kampagnen,” Ekstra Bladet, 2006-01-28.
^ ((Danish)) “Epinion: Ingen skal undskylde Muhammed tegninger,” Danmarks Radio, 2006-01-28.
^ “Dinamarca vs el mundo árabe por caricaturas sobre Mahoma,” Politiken, 2006-01-30.
^ “Fatah assaults European Union office,” Wikinews, 2006-01-30.
^ ((Danish)) “Fogh tager afstand fra Muhammed-tegninger,” Politiken, 2006-01-30.
^ Brand, Constant: “EU Backs Denmark in caricature dispute”, Business Week, 2006-01-30.
^ “Danish paper apologises to Muslims,” International Herald Tribune, 2006-01-30.
^ “Iraqi group urges Danish attacks over cartoons,” Reuters, 2006-01-30.
^ ((Danish)) “Al-Jazeera oversatte ikke redaktørens beklagelse,” Politiken, 2006-01-31.
^ ((Danish)) “Abu Laban beklager boykot-udvikling,” Danmarks Radio, 2006-01-30.
^ ((Danish)) “Muslimske organisationer i Danmark afblæser kampagne,” Danmarks Radio, 2006-01-31.
^ ((Danish)) “Ansatte tilbage på Jyllands-Posten,” Berlingske Tidende, 2006-01-31.
^ ((Danish)) “Al-Aqsa dementerer trussel,” Ekstra Bladet, 2006-01-30.
^ ((Danish)) “Arabiske ministre vil have straf for Muhammed-tegninger,” Politiken, 2006-01-31.
^ English language press statement by the Danish prime minister
^ “Outrage at insult to Islam,” Gulf Daily News, 2006-01-31.
51
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
30. ^ ((Danish)) “Hamas: »I skal bare sige undskyld«,” Politiken, date.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
^ a “Clinton warns of rising anti-Islamic feeling,” Agence France-Presse, 2006-01-30.
^ “Raymond Lakah is French-Egyptian binational and Roman Catholic,” Al-Ahram, 2001-09-01.
^ “Editor fired after publication of Islam cartoons,” MSNBC, 2006-02-02.
^ ((German)) “Mohammed-Karikaturen: Dänische Zeitung gibt sich geschlagen,” Die Welt, 2006-02-01.
^ ((Danish)) “Bombetrussel mod dansk ambassade i Syrien,” Politiken, 2006-02-01.
^ ((Danish)) “Ny bombetrussel mod Jyllands-Posten,” Politiken, 2006-02-01.
^ “Malaysian Muslim group calls for protest over Danish cartoon,” Forbes, 2006-02-01.
^ “RI condemns Danish caricatures of Prophet,” The Jakarta Post, 2006-02-02.
^ ((German)) “Allah und der Humor,” Die Zeit, 2006-02-02.
^ ((Danish)) “Jordan trykker Muhammed-tegninger,” Ekstra Bladet, 2006-02-02.
^ ((German)) “Jordanischer Chefredakteur wagt Abdruck der Karikaturen - und fliegt,” Spiegel Online, 2006-02-03.
^ “In Search of a Brave American Newspaper (Updated),” Michelle Malkin, 2006-02-02.
^ ((Danish)) “Aviser over hele Europa bringer Muhammed-tegninger,” Jyllands-Posten, 2006-02-02.
^ “More cartoons, protests in Muhammad blasphemy row,” Reuters, 2006-02-02.
^ “Diarios de Francia y Alemania volverieron a publicar las caricaturas de Mahoma,” [[{{{org}}}]], 2006-02-02.
^ “Exhibition of Prophet Muhammad's cartoons to be organised in Moscow,” [[{{{org}}}]], 2006-02-02.
^ ((Norwegian)) “- Nå er det krig,” TV2 Nettavisen, 2006-02-02.
^ “- How UK press shapes up to cartoon row,” BBC, 2006-02-03.
^ ((Norwegian)) Beklager publiseringen av karikaturtegninger av profeten Muhammed. URL accessed on 2006-02-02.
^ “Gunmen kidnap German in W.Bank over cartoons,” Reuters, 2006-02-02.
^ “Gunmen shut EU Gaza office over cartoons,” CNN, 2006-02-02.
^ “Kill those who insult the Prophet Muhammad (saw),” Al Ghurabaa, 2006-02-02.
^ “Rabat : Moroccans stage sit-in to protest Prophet blasphemous cartoons,” Morocco Times, 2006-02-05.
^ ((Danish)) “Stormløb mod Danmarks ambassade i Indonesien,” Politiken, 2006-02-03.
^ “Belgian newspapers print cartoons,” CNN, 2006-02-03.
^ “A clash of civilisations -- prompted by a cartoon,” National Business Review, 2006-02-03.
^ “Protests over publication of Prophet's Images in Patna,” [[{{{org}}}]], 2006-02-03.
^ “Straw condemns cartoon row press,” BBC News, 2006-02-03.
^ “London protesters: 'Behead those who insult prophet',” Daily Mail, 2006-02-03.
^ “Muslims stage cartoon protest,” London Evening Standard, 2006-02-03.
^ “Muslim outrage gathers pace,” Financial Times, 2006-02-03.
^ “In Their Own Words,” Michelle Malkin, 2006-02-03.
^ ((Danish)) “Laban og Jyllands-Posten tørnede sammen på BBC,” Politiken, 2006-02-03.
52
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
^ “US sides with Muslims in cartoon dispute,” Reuters, 2006-02-03.
^ "Pakistani parliament condemns Danish daily cartoon" Islamic Republic News Agency 2006-02-03
^ “Call for Jihad over prophet cartoon row goes online,” Middle East Online, 2006-02-03.
^ “Muslim furor over cartoons continues to spread,” CTV, 2006-02-03.
^ “Star defends cartoon decision,” Ulster Television, 2006-02-03.
^ ((Danish)) “Pølsemand fik tæsk af indvandrere,” Ekstra Bladet, 2006-02-05.
^ ((Danish)) “Police: Attack on hot dog stand is incorrect,” Berlingske Tidende, 2006-02-05.
^ [1]
^ “What the cartoons were about,” The Dominion Post, 2006-02-04.
^ “Wolno słowa nie jest prowokacj (Freedom of speech is not provocation),” Rzeczpospolita, 2006-02-04.
^ “When words are not enough,” Dagbladet Information, 2006-02-04.
^ “Two Jordan editors are arrested,” BBC, 2006-02-04.
^ “Muslims in fresh cartoonsprotest,” The Scotsman, 2006-02-04.
^ “Embassies burn in cartoon protest,” BBC news, 2006-02-04.
^ ((Danish)) “Ambassade i Syrien står endnu,” Danmarks Radio, 2006-02-05.
^ ((Norwegian)) “Gahr Støre hardt ut mot Syria,” Dagbladet, 2006-02-04.
^ ((Danish)) “Masseanholdelser og uro i Hillerød,” Politiken, 2006-02-04.
^ “Vatican cardinal criticizes cartoons satirizing prophet Mohammed,” Catholic Online, 2006-02-03.
^ “British Appease While Moderate Muslims Speak Out,” The Brussels Journal, 2006-02-04.
^ “Europe's New Dissidents,” The Wall Street Journal, 2006-02-04.
^ “U.S. blames Syria for not protecting embassies,” Reuters, 2006-02-04.
^ ((Danish)) “Iran: Ophæv kontrakter med lande der viser tegninger,” Politiken, 2006-02-04.
^ ((Danish)) “Ekstrabladets Victorpris til Jyllands-Posten,” Ekstra Bladet, 2006-02-04.
^ ((German)) “Deutsches Kulturzentrum in Gaza gestürmt,” Netzeitung.de, 2006-02-04.
^ ((Danish)) “Politi: Ingen afbrændinger af Koranen,” Politiken, 2005-12-21.
^ ((Danish)) “Sms: Brænd koranen af på Rådhuspladsen,” Politiken, 2006-02-01.
^ “5 February 2006.htm PRESS STATEMENT BY THE DANISH FOREIGN MINISTER, DR. PER STIG MØLLER, 5
FEBRUARY 2006,” Danish Foreign Ministry, 2006-02-05.
^ ((Danish)) “Masseanholdelser og uro i Hillerød,” Politiken, 2006-02-04.
^ ((Danish)) “Danish paper rejected Jesus cartoons,” The Guardian, 2006-02-06.
^ [2]
^ http://www.hln.be/hln/cch/det/art_166608.html
^ “Tories condemn Muslim protesters,” BBC News, 2006-02-05.
^ ((Danish)) “Iran kalder ambassadør hjem fra Danmark,” Politiken, 2006-02-05.
53
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
^ “Protesters burn consulate over cartoons,” CNN, 2006-02-05.
^ ((Danish)) “Prosyrere bag angrebet i Libanon,” Danmarks Radio, 2006-02-06.
^ ((Danish)) “Konsulatet i Beirut i brand,” Danmarks Radio, 2006-02-05.
^ “PRESS STATEMENT BY THE DANISH FOREIGN MINISTER,” The Champress, 2006-02-06.
^ “AEL will launch Cartoon campaign,” AEL, 2006-02-05.
^ ((Dutch)) “AEL publiceert antisemitische cartoons op website,” De Standaard, 2006-02-05.
^ ((Danish)) “Syrien: Afbrænding var Danmarks egen skyld,” B.T., 2006-02-05.
^ “February 20.xml&section=focusoniraq Iraqi transport ministry freezes deals with Denmark,” Khaleej Times, 2006-02-05.
^ ((Dutch)) “Spontaan protest tegen cartoon in Brussel,” VRT, 2006-02-05.
^ ((Danish)) “Libanons indenrigsminister træder tilbage,” Danmarks Radio, 2006-02-05.
^ ((Danish)) “Dansk demonstration for fred og dialog,” Danmarks Radio, 2006-02-05.
^ ((Danish)) “Al-Qaeda: Hak danskere i småstykker,” Ekstra Bladet, 2006-02-05.
^ Norway PM blames Syria for embassy attack
^ ((German)) “Brennende Botschaften und Antisemitismus,” Der Spiegel, 2006-02-05.
^ ((German)) “500 Muslime protestierten in Wien,” Der Standard, 2006-02-05.
^ ((Danish)) “Diplomatisk jernring om Mellemøsten,” Jyllands-Posten, 2006-02-06.
^ Conference of European Rabbis press release
^ “Murder of priest 'religious revenge',” Independent Online, February 8, 2006.
^ “MEDIA TOLD,” Tim Blair, 2006-02-06.
^ “Indonesian Muslim party plans large protest today over cartoons outside Danish embassy,” Khaleej Times Online, 2006-02-06.
^ “Protests in France against controversial cartoons,” Agence France-Presse, 2006-02-06.
^ “Two die in Afghan cartoon protest,” BBC, 2006-02-06.
^ “Shots fired at Danish troops in Iraq,” Mainichi MSN, 2006-02-06.
^ “Danes issue travel warning list,” BBC, 2006-02-06.
^ ((Danish)) “Akkari vil på arabisk tv med Fogh,” Danmarks Radio, 2006-02-06.
^ ((Danish)) “Sterling stops flying to Egypt,” Ekstra Bladet, 2006-02-06.
^ ((Danish)) “Shooting at the American consulate in Indonesia,” Ekstra Bladet, 2006-02-06.
^ ((Danish)) “Lebanon apoligizes to Denmark,” Politiken, 2006-02-06.
^ ((Danish)) “Iran: firebombs against embassy,” TV 2, 2006-02-06.
^ ((Danish)) “Blair supports Denmark,” Danmarks Radio, 2006-02-06.
^ ((Danish)) “Blair supports Denmark,” Danmarks Radio, 2006-02-06.
^ ((Danish)) “Jerusalem Post prints Muhammad drawings,” Danmarks Radio, 2006-02-06.
^ ((Danish)) “Iran stops all trade with Denmark,” Børsen, 2006-02-06.
54
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
143.
144.
145.
146.
147.
148.
149.
150.
151.
152.
153.
154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
160.
161.
162.
163.
^ ((Danish)) “Danish Embassy closed,” Ekstra Bladet, 2006-02-06.
^ ((Danish)) “Danish Embassy in Iran attacked,” Ekstra Bladet, 2006-02-06.
^ ((Danish)) “Muslims of Århus will demonstrate,” Ekstra Bladet, 2006-02-06.
^ ((Danish)) “USA: We stand together with Denmark,” TV 2, 2006-02-06.
^ ((Danish)) “Excuse from Syria and Lebanon,” TV 2, 2006-02-06.
^ ((Danish)) “Nødhjælpsarbejde i Tjetjenien og Darfur ramt af tegninger,” Jyllands-Posten, 2006-02-06.
^ ((Danish)) “Danish Refugee Council article about Sudan,” Danish Refugee Council, 2006-02-06.
^ “SA editor threatened over cartoon,” BBC, 2006-02-06.
^ “Iranian paper launches Holocaust cartoon competition,” The Times, 2006-02-06.
^ “USA: Nothing for Denmark to excuse,” Jyllands-Posten, 2006-02-06.
^ ((Swedish)) “Jyllands-Posten polisanmäld,” TV4, 2006-02-07.
^ ((Swedish)) “Europarådet kritiserar teckningarna,” TV4, 2006-02-07.
^ “Muslims continue protest against satirical cartoons,” ABC.au, 2006-02-07.
^ “Afghans Protest Against Prophet Cartoons,” ABC news, 2006-02-07.
^ “Four killed in attack on Norwegian-led military base in Afghanistan,” Aftenposten, 2006-02-07.
^ “AEgypt: Thousands of students protest over cartoons,” Ireland Online, 2006-02-07.
^ “Ugly protests in cartoons row,” Al-Jazeera, 2006-02-07.
^ “Demonstrators denounce violence,” Helsingin Sanomat, 2006-02-07.
^ “Iran Leader Denounces Prophet Cartoons,” WTOP, 2006-02-07.
^ “Nestlé moves to dodge Middle East boycotts,” Food Production Daily, 2006-02-07.
^ “Muslim hackers blast Denmark in Net assault,” PC Pro, 2006-02-07.
^ “Berlusconi asks Turkey to "neutralise fanatics",” Reuters, 2006-02-07.
^ “Freedom of speech carries responsibilities for all,” Amnesty International, 2006-02-07.
^ “Taliban urges holy war over Mohammed cartoons,” Monsters and Critics, 2006-02-07.
^ ((Danish)) “Pølsemands anklage om Muhammed-overfald var falsk,” Politiken, 2006-02-07.
^ “Paper withdrawn over cartoon row,” BBC, 2006-02-07.
^ ((Norwegian)) “Norges ambassade i Teheran angrepet,” Dagbladet, 2006-02-07.
^ ((Danish)) “Muslims in Denmark demonstrate in favor of Denmark,” TV 2, 2006-02-07.
^ “NY Press Kills Cartoons; Staff Walks Out,” The New York Observer, 2006-02-07.
^ “Yemeni newspapers close,” Yemen Times, 2006-02-07.
^ “French court OKs cartoons,” NEWS24.com, 2006-02-07.
^ ((Danish)) “Ellemann: JP chief editor should quit,” Danmarks Radio, 2006-02-08.
^ ((Danish)) “Iranians protest against embassy attacks,” Jyllands-Posten, 2006-02-08.
^ ((Danish)) “Muslims advertise for Denmark in arab newspapers,” Politiken, 2006-02-08.
55
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
164.
165.
166.
167.
168.
169.
170.
171.
172.
173.
174.
175.
176.
177.
178.
179.
180.
181.
182.
183.
184.
185.
186.
187.
188.
189.
190.
191.
192.
193.
194.
^ “Copenhagen Chosen Host City For 2009 IOC Congress,” GamesBids, 2006-02-08.
^ “Danish Imams Busted!,” Nerandernews, February 8, 2006.
^ “Duo hogs top prize in pig-squealing contest,” MSNBC, August 15, 2005.
^ ((Croatian)) “Croatian flag burned in Sarajevo,” Index.hr, 2006-02-08.
^ ((Portuguese)) “Choque de culturas,” Revista Veja, 2006-02-08.
^ “Egyptian Newspaper Pictures that Published Cartoons 5 months ago,” Freedom for Egyptians, 2006-02-08.
^ “Boycott Egypt,” Rantings of a Sandmonkey, 2006-02-08.
^ “P.E.I. student publication raided,” The Gazette (Montreal), 2006-02-09.
^ “Philosophical differences,” The Halifax Herald, 2006-02-10.
^ “[removed,” El Fagr, 2005-10-17.
^ ((Danish)) “Muhammed-tegninger trykt i Egypten allerede i oktober 2005,” B.T., 2006-02-09.
^ “Piden amusulmanes que aggarren mínimo,” [[{{{org}}}]], 2006-02-09.
^ “Media restraint on Muhammed cartoons,” [[{{{org}}}]], 2006-02-08.
^ “World leaders rally round as crisis deepens,” [[{{{org}}}]], 2006-02-09.
^ “Dutch MP backs Muhammad cartoons,” BBC, 2006-02-09.
^ “Muhammedteckning ute trots nedstängning,” Dagens Nyheter., 2006-02-10.
^ “,” BBC., 2006-02-10.
^ “At Mecca Meeting, Cartoon Outrage Crystallized,” The New York Times., 2006-02-09.
^ “[ 'Denmark tolerant' imam says; Danes try to mend fences],” The Star., 2006-02-10.
^ “Danish Imam Condemns Cartoon Violence,” ABC News, 2006-02-10.
^ ((Norwegian)) “Mener Selbekk beviser sin redelighet,” Magazinet, 2006-02-10.
^ “Kenyan police opened fire,” Reuters., 2006-02-10.
^ ((German)) “Molotov-cocktails thrown at French embassy in Tehran.,” Spiegel Online., 2006-02-10.
^ “Macedonia,” [[{{{org}}}]], 2006-02-10.
^ ((Danish)) “Ambassadefolk flygter efter trusler,” Politiken, 2006-02-10.
^ ((Danish)) “Khader: Gør noget ved Laban,” Ekstrabladet, 2006-02-11.
^ “Irish president condemns Prophet cartoons, violence,” Reuters, 2006-02-12.
^ “RPP Noticias,” [[{{{org}}}]], 2006-02-14.
^ “24 Horas,” [[{{{org}}}]], 2006-02-14.
^ “Finland´s NBI probes Suomen Sisu´s Muhammad cartoon posting,” NewsRoom Finland, 2006-02-14.
^ “Two dead in Pakistan rioting,” CNN, 2006-02-14.
56
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons
controversy
*
*
'
*
&
%
+
1
)
%
The problem of a Danish author to find an illustrator for his forthcoming book about Islam
has become an international crisis. It has led to violence, arrests, interstate tensions, and a
renewed debate about the scope of free speech and the place of Muslims in the West, and
the West in Muslim countries. Many governments, organizations and individuals
worldwide have issued statements, trying to define their stance.
*
*
*
6
&
$
*
9%
"
% %
6(( 3/
.
+
,
+
&
7
6'
&
@
!
<
>,
?
A
1
&
&
:
;
/
!/
<"
>"
?
(
3+
&
4A & 7 %
B
57
7 %
.
&
+
.
:
;
+
+
+
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
+ (
+
7
:
;
:
;9
6
%
!
<$ (
>?: : 0 &
"
%
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
6
C
4
&
&
;
;
; :C
7 &
:
;9
0
!.
<.
>.
?4
7 '
&
6
%%
4
'
4
3+
%
&
%
&
"
&&
&
Political Reactions
Afghanistan
58
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
President Hamid Karzai calls the printing of the images a mistake, and hopes that this will lead to the media being more
responsible and respectful in the future.
Bahrain
Bahrain's parliament demands an apology from Denmark's head of state, Queen Margrethe II, as well as from the
government. [1]
MPs call for an extraordinary session of parliament to discuss the cartoons, while protestors set Danish dairy products
ablaze. Al Menbar MP Mohammed Khaled has demanded that Arab leaders take action: "We are stunned by the silence of
the Arab leaders. They don't tolerate any criticism against them, yet allow others to insult the Prophet."[2]
Bangladesh
Foreign Minister Morshed Khan states before parliament that a diplomatic protest was lodged with the government of
Denmark on 2006-11-07. Further, he requests the Danish government issue an apology and urges them to prevent further
occurrences of "such heinous acts."[3]
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Muslims in Sarajevo have organized a protest with the government of Denmark, but the Bosnian politians said that "there is
no need to organize such protest, Muslims must calm down".citation needed
Czech Republic
After Iran sent a formal sharp objection to the Czech government against the publication of the cartoons in MF DNES and
Hospodarske noviny, the newspapers insisted that it was necessary for them to publish the pictures so that the readers get the
full information. The Czech foreign minister Cyril Svoboda called the Muslim reaction "exaggerated" and advocated a
united European stand on the issue. [1] President Vaclav Klaus argued that freedom of speech is only meaningful as a
contract between a citizen and a particular government. The Czech government expressed solidarity with Denmark.
59
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Finland
On February 1 Finnish Minister of Foreign Affairs Erkki Tuomioja commented on the issue, and said that Denmark should
have acted earlier and paid more attention to Muslim outrage over the offensive caricatures. Further, he said that the Danish
government could apologise for the fact that religious feelings were offended, without endangering freedom of expression.
Tuomioja indicated the belief that EU countries should together condemn the threats of violence.
On February 9 Wikipedia administrators removed the cartoons from the Finnish Wikipedia article describing the
controversy.
On February 14 police opened investigations into the publication of the cartoons on a Finnish web site. In Finland it is
illegal to "disturb religious piece" (literal translation). This law is rarely prosecuted, giving this incident nation-wide
attention. The cartoons have been published on numerous Finnish web sites but not in mainstream media. Police declined to
comment which site or sites are being investigated, and said any media that publishes the cartoons will be similarly
investigated. [2]
France
The French foreign minister supported the right to free press, but added that it must be used "in a spirit of tolerance and with
respect for beliefs and religions".[4]
Nicolas Sarkozy, Interior Minister and presidential candidate, said on LCI television that he "preferred an excess of
caricature to an excess of censorship" and pointed out that it is, if necessary, up to the courts to judge whether caricatures go
beyond what is reasonable to publish, and not to the governments of Muslim countries.[5]
On 2006-02-06, French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin condemned the violence that had occurred internationally in
response to the cartoons, but called for tolerance and respect toward other faiths.[6]
Germany
Chancellor Angela Merkel said that while she understands that feelings were hurt by the caricatures, violent reactions were
unacceptable. She stressed the central role of freedom of expression, and called for dialogue. "Denmark must not feel let
60
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
alone in this issue". Merkel also said that she understands this to be the common position of the E.U.[7]
India
Reactions have largely been muted by India's Muslim community, but on Friday, February 10 protestors burnt the Danish
flag outside the Jama Masjid in Delhi after the imam criticised the Danish government.
Indonesia
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono says the Indonesian government condemned the publication of caricature of the
Prophet Muhammad. "The publication of the caricature of course reflects a lack of sensitivity to the views and belief of
other religious adherents," he said. However, as "religious people", he recommends to "accept the apology". [8]
Iran
The Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for contracts being cancelled with the countries where the publications
of the images have taken place. Iran has recalled their ambassador from Denmark, and banned Danish journalists from
reporting from Iran. Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on February 6th, 2006, that a "Zionist conspiracy"
was to blame for the row over the Prophet Muhammad cartoons, in his first reaction to the controversy: "The reason for the
Zionist action is because of the loss they suffered by Hamas winning". Khamenai was referring to Hamas victory in the
Palestinian legislative election.
On February 2, the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, ordered to cancel contracts with all countries where media
have published the cartoons. And on February 5, recalled their ambassador from Denmark. The term for a "Danish" pastry
has been changed to "Mohammedan".[9]
Iraq
Shia cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani condemned the cartoons but also commented about militants who discredit Islam
by their acts. Sistani underlined how un-Islamic acts of extremism are used as justification to attack Islam.[10]
61
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Ireland
Irish president Mary McAleese condemned the cartoons as designed to provoke, designed to be rude and designed to
inflame. She also condemned the violent protests against the cartoons.[11]
Italy
On February 14, Italy's Reform Minister Roberto Calderoli had T-shirts made emblazoned with cartoons of the Prophet
Mohammad in a move likely to embarrass Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's government. Calderoli, a member of the
anti-immigrant Northern League party, told Ansa news agency on Tuesday that the West had to stand up against Islamist
extremists and offered to hand out T-shirts to anyone who wanted them. Italian minister puts Mohammad cartoon on
T-shirts
Lebanon
The Lebanese minister of foreign affairs criticised the drawings saying that Freedom of speech ends when sacred values are
offended. [12]
Libya
Libya recalled its ambassador and announced that it would close its embassy in Denmark [13].
Netherlands
The Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Jan-Peter Balkenende, issued the following statement (translated): "I regret the
threats from the Muslim world. In our world, when someone crosses a line, we take the matter to court. There is no place
here for threats and own direction. (I am) Glad there is freedom of speech here. At the same time we have to realize that our
images and ideas can be provocative to others."
New Zealand
62
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
The cartoons were published by two daily newspapers, the Dominion Post and Christchurch Press, both owned by Fairfax of
Australia. Fleeting glimpses were also shown on two television networks reporting on the issue. The publication ignited a
national debate and a peaceful street protest by New Zealand Muslims in Auckland. The publication of the cartoons was
condemned by Prime Minister Helen Clark and opposition leader Don Brash, although they both stated that such decisions
were up to newspaper editors to make. New Zealand has good trading relations with many Islamic countries and there are
concerns that the controversy will threaten this. New Zealand Muslim groups while condemning the cartoons have asked
Muslim countries not to boycott New Zealand goods.
Malaysia
Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, current chairman of Organization of the Islamic Conference says "This
is a deliberate act of provocation. They should cease and desist from doing so." [14]
Pakistan
Upper House of parliament adopts a unanimous resolution condemning the Danish newspaper for publishing blasphemous
and derogatory cartoons. [15] Pakistan's ambassador urged the Danish prime minister to penalise the cartoonists.
Poland
Polish Prime-Minister Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz said he considered cartoons to be an unnecessary provocation. The Polish
government also said they are quite sorry that the newspaper Rzeczpospolita also offended Muslims.
Russia
Russia president Vladimir Putin indicates in a speech in the Kremlin that the Danish political authorities are using the theme
of freedom of expression to protect those who have insulted the Muslims.
The president of the Institute of the Middle East, Yevgeny Satanovsky, told Itar-Tass on February 6 that "The caricatures of
Prophet Mohammad published as far back as last September angered the entire Islamic world but especially the countries
where Iran’s influence is the strongest, and the apex of the conflict coincided precisely with the discussion of the Iranian
nuclear dossier at the IAEA.” This theory is echoed by Scientific Council of the Moscow Carnegie Centre member, Alexei
63
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Malashenko, who believes that “the fuss around the caricatures was made artificially." That is, at a time when the Muslim
world has no concerted position either on the Iranian nuclear program or Hamas, whose ideology is opposed by moderate
Islamic regimes, the caricature uproar provides a “pretext for showing how coherent Muslims are.” [16]
Accordingly, Russian officials have decided to not take sides on the matter unless or until Russia's economic interests are at
stake.
Saudi Arabia
In late January 2006, Saudi Arabia recalled its ambassadors for consultations — a traditional message of diplomatic
displeasure.
Singapore
The Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) issued a statement that said "the inciting of hatred against a faith of a
people is very unfortunate," and that "[they] are fortunate and deeply appreciative that in Singapore, the media and the
community at large have always been mindful of sensitivities… and have helped to promote racial and religious harmony
across society." The Foreign Minister George Yeo and the Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs Dr. Yaacob Ibrahim have
similarly said that the incident shows the need to respect racial and religious sensitivities, have a "responsible media," and to
cultivate good inter-religious relations and confidence beyond just legislation. Later, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said
that the publication of the cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammad was provocative and wrong, but he expressed
objection to violent response.[17]
Syria
The Syrian government recalled their ambassador from Denmark February 1
Sweden
On February 5, Swedish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Laila Freivalds stated the following in an interview[18]: We support the
freedom of speech, that I think is very clear. But at the same time it is important to say that with this freedom comes a
64
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
certain responsibility, and it could be objectionable to act in a way that insults people.
The right wing Swedish Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna ) have started a competition to draw cartoons of Muhammed on
their web site at http://www.sdkuriren.se/
Turkey
President Recep Tayyip Erdo an, is quoted in the Turkish press saying: "Caricatures of prophet Muhammad are an attack
against our spiritual values. There should be a limit of freedom of press." [19]
United Arab Emirates
The Justice and Islamic Affairs Minister, Mohammed Al Dhaheri, calls the publication of the cartoon "cultural terrorism,
not freedom of expression." [20]
United Kingdom
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw criticized European newspapers for republishing the cartoons: "There is freedom of
speech, we all respect that, ... But there is not any obligation to insult or to be gratuitously inflammatory. I believe that the
republication of these cartoons has been unnecessary. It has been insensitive. It has been disrespectful and it has been
wrong." Straw also praises British newspapers for their "considerable responsibility and sensitivity" in not printing the
cartoons. [21]
United States
The US government has issued a statement saying: "We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression
but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable." [22] A
State Department spokesman said that the images are offensive, but added that U.S. also support the rights of individuals to
express their freely held views and that it is not for the U.S. Government to dictate what is printed in the media. [23].
In the US Department of State's daily briefing for Friday, February 3rd, official spokesman Sean McCormick, speaking for
65
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
the current administration, said (in part), "Our response is to say that while we certainly don't agree with, support, or in
some cases, we condemn the views that are aired in public that are published in media organizations around the world, we,
at the same time, defend the right of those individuals to express their views. For us, freedom of expression is at the core of
our democracy and it is something that we have shed blood and treasure around the world to defend and we will continue to
do so. ... So we would urge all parties to exercise the maximum degree of understanding, the maximum degree of tolerance
when they talk about this issue. And we would urge dialogue, not violence. And that also those that might take offense at
these images that have been published, when they see similar views or images that could be perceived as anti-Semitic or
anti-Catholic, that they speak out with equal vigor against those images." [24]
Speaking in Qatar, former U.S. president Bill Clinton strongly criticised the Danish cartoons, comparing historical
anti-semitism in Europe with anti-Islamic feeling today: "So now what are we going to do? ... Replace the anti-Semitic
prejudice with anti-Islamic prejudice?" [25]
Vatican City
The Vatican sharply criticized the publication of newspaper cartoons satirizing the prophet Mohammed, saying the
caricatures have offended the religious sentiments of millions of Muslims. Also in their statement the Vatican mentioned
that "the right to freedom of expression does not imply the right to offend religious beliefs" and mentioned how government
law protects secular symbols (national flags) but ignores respect of religious symbols. [26] [27]
United Nations
The UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, and Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of
racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance requests the Permanent Danish Mission to the UN to
deliver their observations of the case. [28]
Louise Arbour, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has expressed concern over the cartoons and said that
United Nations is investigating racism of Danish cartoonists. [29]
After being asked to do so by the Secretary-General of the Arab League Amr Mussa, the UN Secretary-General Kofi
Annan, asked the Western media to be more sensitive in its handling of religious themes and asked for use of peaceful
66
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
dialogue.[30]
European Union
Jose Manuel Barroso, the President of the European Commission, supported the Danish government saying that
freedom of speech cannot be compromised: "It's better to publish too much than not to have freedom.." [31]
Franco Frattini, the vice-President of the European Commission and EU Commissioner for Justice, Freedom, and
Security, called the publication of the twelve cartoons "thoughtless and inappropriate" in a time when European
animosity towards Islam is said to be on the rise. According to Frattini, the cartoons foment hostility against Islam and
foreigners.
The European Union on 30 January, said that any retaliatory boycott of Danish goods would violate world trade rules.
[32]
Other
Economic sanctions
Saudi Arabia
67
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
"To our dear customers: As
a result of mockery towards
The Prophet (Peace Be
Upon Him), Al Tamimi
Markets announces its
boycott of all kinds of
Danish Products"
Wikinews has news related to this article:
Saudis boycott Danish dairy produce
People in Saudi Arabia called for a boycott on Danish products on January 20 and carried it out starting January 26. The
boycott primarily targeted dairy products produced by Arla Foods, but has also hit other products such as Bang & Olufsen
and Lego. The Foreign Minister of Denmark, Per Stig Møller, stated that the boycott has not been initiated by the Saudi
Arabian government. The Danish-Swedish dairy company Arla Foods launched a massive ad campaign in Saudi Arabia,
trying to improve their reputation and stop the boycott. This happened after their sales in Saudi Arabia almost came to a
complete stop. The text for the ads was written by the Danish ambassador in Saudi Arabia, Hans Klingenberg, and includes
passages from the Prime Minister of Denmark's New Year's speech. Arla exports account for almost 380 million Euros a
year. [33][34] Arla has halted production in the Saudi capital Riyadh and sent home 170 employees[35] . Denmark is
concerned about the potential loss of 11,000 jobs resulting from boycotts against Danish products in the Islamic world. [36]
In February, the French international supermarket chain Carrefour takes all Danish products off the shelves in Muslim
countries. Posters with the Carrefour logo proclaiming a boycott of Denmark, resulted in a boycott of Carrefour in
Brussels.[37]
Iran
Iran has announced that it will cease all trade with "countries that have published the cartoons". A high level commitee
involving the Foreign Minister, the Deputy Foreign Minister, the Deputy Trade Minister and the Deputy Oil Minister has
been set up.
Kuwait
68
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
A web
badge used
by the "Buy
Danish"
campaign.
The boycott has spread to Kuwait where the country's largest retail chain, the state-owned Coop, has taken all Danish
products off the shelves. This has lead to the Confederation of Danish Industries sending an open letter to Jyllands-Posten in
which they state that the paper should comment on these events because they feel their members are caught in a "battle"
between religious movements and the paper.[38] The newspaper has reacted to the letter by saying that "Dictatorships
should not dictate what Danish newspapers are to draw and write". [39]
A web badge used by the
"No to Denmark"
campaign.
Reactions in support of Jyllands-Posten
Various people and groups, including conservatives, liberals, anti-Islamist groups, freedom of speech proponents,
anticlericalists and American weblogs[40] have initiated a Buy Danish Goods campaign, which is intended to counter the
boycott from Middle East countries.[41]
69
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
The president of Reporters Without Borders Robert Ménard says that Morgenavisen Jyllandsposten has taught the world a
thing or two about free speech and that there is nothing for which to apologise.[42]
On February 1, French newspaper France Soir reproduced the caricatures, along with a caricature of Buddha, Muhammad
and the Christian and Jewish gods all sitting on a cloud. The front page read: “Oui, on a le droit de caricaturer Dieu” ("Yes,
we have the right to caricature God").
The drawings were by this point published in newspapers all over Europe (see timeline). Later that day, the France Soir
editor who published the cartoons was fired by the paper's owner, a Franco-Egyptian and Roman Catholic (see note in
timeline for February 1). Le Monde published in the first page of its February 3 issue a satirical cartoon by Plantu mocking
the prohibition of drawing Muhammad.
Websites have started Support Denmark campaigns and online petitions, while weblogs have published their own parodies
of the cartoons.[43][44]
The Dutch conservative politician Geert Wilders placed the cartoons on his website "to support the Danish cartoonists and
to stand up for freedom of speech."[45]
As a variation on Hampster Dance, a Mohammed Dance site features animated versions of the various cartoons.
Muhammed Cartoon Competition
The right wing Swedish Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna ) have started a competition to draw cartoons of Muhammed on
their web site at http://www.sdkuriren.se/. Their ISP shut down their website when the government complained. However,
they have now found another ISP to host them.
Other reactions
In early January the Egyptian government threatened Denmark with an embargo of Danish products, but did not carry
out its threat. Some citizens and major shops started a boycott on their own.
Protesters in Rabat, Morocco staged a sit-in before the Parliament on 2006-02-02, in response to the cartoons. On the
same day, delivery of the Wednesday issue of the 'France-Soir' and Friday issue of the 'Liberation' daily newspapers
70
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
was barred by the Moroccan government. [46]
On February 4, 2006, during the Muhammad cartoon crisis, the International Cartoon Festival in Belgium chose a
"yawning Christ on the cross" as winner. [47]
Approximately 1,000 protesters marched for three hours in Paris, France on 2006-02-06 in response to the publication
of the cartoons in several European newspapers. [48]
On February 6, Iran’s biggest-selling newspaper, the Hamshahri of Tehran, announced that it would be holding a
contest to find the 12 "best" cartoons about the Holocaust. [3]
On February 8 Flemming Rose the cultural editor for Jyllands-Posten told CNN: "My newspaper is trying to establish
a contact with that Iranian newspaper [Hamshahri], and we would run the cartoons the same day as they publish
them". Later that day the paper's editor-in-chief said that Jyllands-posten under no circumstances would publish the
Holocaust cartoons.
In demonstrations on February 9, 2006 in Beirut, Lebanon, Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, declared that
Muslims should continue to demonstrate against the drawings until European nations pass laws forbidding derogatory
portrayal of the prophet Mohammed.
On February 9, BBC reports that, in a speech in Berlin, Ms. Ayaan Hirsi Ali (colleague of murdered filmmaker Theo
van Gogh) said it was "correct to publish the cartoons" and that the furore over the cartoons had exposed the fear
among artists and journalists in Europe to "analyse or criticise intolerant aspects of Islam". [49]
Violent protests
71
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
The building housing the
Danish embassy in Damascus,
Syria burning after being
stormed by demonstrators.
Deaths
At least four protestors were killed in Afghanistan, in Mihtarlam and an US air base in Bagram. One boy was
trampled to death in Bossaso, Somalia when the crowd stampeded as police fired in the air to disperse them. On
2006-02-05 one protestor died at the blazing Danish Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon [50]
On 2006-02-06 one demonstator involved in the torching of the Danish consulate in Beirut, Lebanon was found dead
on a staircase. One protestor was shot to death in Laghman Province Afghanistan. [51]
Four people were killed and 22 injured on 2006-02-07 in an attack on a NATO base in Maymana, Afghanistan. [52]
Andrea Santoro, a Catholic priest, was killed on Sunday, February 5, 2006 in Trabzon, Turkey. A 16 year-old high
school student was arrested two days later carrying a 9mm pistol. The student told police he had been influenced by
the cartoons. [53]
On 2006-02-13 two people were killed in Lahore, Pakistan. The next day two were killed in Peshawar, Pakistan; and
another in Lahore. [4]
Demonstrations
Demonstrations against the cartoons took place in several predominantly or partially Muslim countries and the flags of
Denmark, France, and Norway were burned in streets across the Middle East, (though also many American, British, and
Israeli flags were sometimes being burned with the Danish, Norwegian, and French flags). The controversy produced labour
strikes and protests in Pakistan, and mass demonstrations in Baghdad in Iraq. In Palestine, thousands of people participated
in demonstrations and gunmen in the Gaza Strip threatened violence against any Scandinavians in the area. The European
Union's Gaza offices were raided by 15 masked gunmen from the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades. They demanded apologies
from Denmark and Norway, but left 30 minutes later without any shots being fired or injuries caused. [54]
On February 2, Palestinian gunmen shut down the EU headquarters in Gaza, in protest of the Jyllands-Posten drawings.
According to CNN, "Masked members of the militant groups Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the
72
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
armed wing of the Palestinians' former ruling party, Fatah, fired bullets into the air, and a man read the group's
demands....The gunmen left a notice on the EU office's door that the building would remain closed until Europeans
apologize to Muslims, many of whom consider the cartoons offensive." [55] This is the second attack the groups have made
on the EU headquarters in Gaza. One hostage, an unnamed German teacher, was taken and released the same day.
As of February 5, the demonstrations had become too numerous to list.
On February 6, at least four demonstrators in Afghanistan were shot by riot police, while taking part in an assault on the
Bagram Airbase outside Kabul, another two died in Mihtarlam.[56]
Death threats
In response to the publication of the drawings, the UK Islamist group Al Ghurabaa publish an article on their website titled,
"Kill those who insult the Prophet Muhammad". The article states, "The insulting of the Messenger Muhammad (saw) is
something that the Muslims cannot and will not tolerate and the punishment in Islam for the one who does so is death. This
is the sunnah of the prophet and the verdict of Islam upon such people, one that any Muslim is able execute."[57] Al
Ghurabaa had organised the 3 February protest march from London Central Mosque to Regents Park [58] [59] where
protesters waived placards reading, "Butcher those who mock Islam", "Kill those who insult Islam", "Europe you will pay,
your 9/11 is on the way", or "7/7 is on its way", "Europe you will pay, Bin Laden is on his way" and "Europe you'll come
crawling, when the Mujahideen come roaring". Despite the similar theme on Al Ghurabaa's website, their spokesman,
Anjem Choudary, said he did not know who wrote the placards.[60] MPs from all parties condemned the protest, calling the
Metropolitan police to pursue those responsible on the grounds that the threats were an incitement to murder.[61]
Churches
73
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
The entrance of the
Assyrian Church in
Iraq, after the
bombings
On January 29 six churches in the Iraqi cities of Baghdad and Kirkuk were targeted by car bombs, killing 13-year-old
worshipper Fadi Raad Elias. No militants claimed to be retaliating for the pictures, nor is this the first time Iraqi churches
have been bombed;[62] but the bishop of the church stated "The church blasts were a reaction to the cartoons published in
European papers. But Christians are not responsible for what is published in Europe." [63] Many Assyrians in Iraq now feel
like "Westerners should not give wild statements [as] everyone can attack us [in response]" and "Today I'm afraid to walk
the streets, because I'm Christian." [64] On February 5, thousands of Muslims in Lebanon sorounded the Maronite Catholic
church and threw stones at it.[65]
On February 6th, an Italian Catholic priest named Andrea Santoro was reported to have been shot dead at the door-step of
his church in the Black Sea port city Trabzon. The convict, arrested on February 7 who is a Turkish Muslim youth aged 16,
told the public attorney that his action was motivated by cartoons protests. [5]
Also on February 6th, leaflets were distributed in Ramadi, Iraq by the militant group "The Military Wing for the Army of
Justice" demanding Christians to "halt their religious rituals in churches and other worship places because they insulted
Islam and Muslims." [6] and [7]
Fatwa
Also on January 29, a Muslim Cleric in the Iraqi city of Mosul issued a fatwa stating, "Expel the Crusaders and infidels
from the streets, schools, and institutions because they have offended the person of the prophet." [66] It has been reported
that Muslim students beat up a Christian student at Mosul University in response to the fatwa on the same day.[66] On
February 2, Palestinians in the West Bank handed out a leaflet signed by a Fatah militant group and Islamic Jihad stating,
74
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
"Churches in Gaza could come under attack" [67].
The Danish government announced that a fatwa had been declared against the Danish troops stationed in Iraq. The
government responded by heightening security for its troops. [68]
Burning embassies
The newspaper France
Soir produced these
caricatures on February 1
with the words "Oui, on a
le droit de caricaturer
Dieu" - "Yes, people have
the right to caricature God."
On February 4, the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus, Syria were set on fire, after being stormed by an angry
mob. Within the building housing the Danish embassy were the Chilean and Swedish embassies, both having no formal
connection to the present row.[69]. As it was a holiday, no one was present inside the building when this occured, so no one
was hurt. As a response to this incident, the Danish and Norweigan Ministries of Foreign Affairs issued a warning, urging
their citizens in Syria to leave the country immediately. The German Cultural Centre in Gaza was raided by Palestinian
students[70]
75
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
On February 5, the Danish consulate in Lebanon was set on fire by demonstrators, reportedly police and military tried to
restrain them from doing so.
In Tehran, on February 6, the Danish embassy was attacked by protestors. According to reports, homemade grenades were
thrown at the embassy. However, the Danish embassy wasn't set ablaze.
On October 19, ten ambassadors from Islamic countries, including Algeria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran,
Morocco, Pakistan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, as well as the head of the Palestinian delegation in Denmark, sent a
letter to Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen requesting a meeting and asking him to distance himself from hate speech,
including remarks by MP Louise Frevert, Culture Minister of Denmark Brian Mikkelsen, and the Radio Holger station. [71]
Rasmussen declined, saying that the government could not interfere with the right to free speech, but said that cases of
blasphemy and discrimination could be tried before the courts [72], a reaction essentially seen as a snub by the Muslims[73].
In the Nordic countries
On January 10, a marginal Norwegian Christian magazine, Magazinet, printed the drawings after getting authorisation from
Jyllands-Posten. Major newspapers in Norway had printed facsimiles from Jyllands-Posten and reproduced all the
caricatures in their online versions; a few days earlier, the Swedish newspaper Expressen had printed two of the drawings in
conjunction with an article discussing the event. [74] However, it was the Magazinet printing that led to a great debate in
Norway. A Norwegian man made a threat against the lives of the people at the magazine, but later claimed, when faced by
the police, that it was just a prank. The Norwegian Foreign Ministry sent a letter to their ambassadors in the Middle East
stating that one of the pillars of the Norwegian society is freedom of speech, but they expressed regret that Magazinet did
not respect Muslims' beliefs. [75]
This is assumed to be the reason for actions directed at Sweden and Norway as well as Denmark. On January 30, Palestinian
groups demanded that all Scandinavians leave the Palestinian territories immediately. On January 30, an Islamic
organisation, the Mujahedeen Army, called for militant attacks against "all available targets" in Denmark and Norway. [76]
On January 31 bomb threats were made against the newspaper's offices in Århus and Copenhagen.
In Finland the biggest newspaper Helsingin Sanomat considered publishing the cartoons, however it did not publish them.
Finland's comparatively small muslim community held a peaceful demonstration with tens of demonstrators, close to the
Danish embassy.
76
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
References
^ “Outrage at insult to Islam,” Gulf Daily News, 2006-01-31.
^ Toumi, Habib: “Dairy products set ablaze in Bahrain”, GulfNews, 2006-01-29.
^ “Bangladesh requests Denmark to tender apology on Prophet cartoon,” New Kerala Newspaper, 2006-02-06.
^ “France enters Muslim cartoon row,” BBC News, 2006-02-01.
^ ((French)) “Embarras et inquiétude chez les responsables politiques français,” Le Monde, 2006-02-03.
^ “Protests in France against controversial cartoons,” Agence France-Presse, 2006-02-06.
^ “Gewalt und Appelle zur Mäßigung im Karikaturenstreit,” Reuters, 2006-02-04.
^ “Govt Condemns Publication of Prophet Muhammad's Caricature,” Antara News, 2006-02-04.
^ “CARTOON CRISIS: IRAN RENAMES DANISH PASTRIES,” Adnkronos international, 2006-02-07.
^ ((Turkish)) author. Protestolar yayılıyor. work. URL accessed on 2006-02-03.
^ Irish president condemns Prophet cartoons, violence..
^ ((French)) "Les réactions à travers le monde " Nouvelobs.com 2006-02-03
^ “Libya to shut embassy in Denmark,” BBC News, 2006-01-29.
^ "M'sia Expresses Regret Over Publication Of Prophet's Caricatures" Bernama 2006-02-03
^ "Pakistani parliament condemns Danish daily cartoon" Islamic Republic News Agency 2006-02-03
^ “Analysts advise Russia to stay away from “caricature war”,” ITAR-TASS, 2006-02-06.
^ “Singapore PM: Publication of cartoons on Prophet Mohammad wrong, violent response not right,” Xinhua Online, 2006-02-09.
^ ((Swedish)) “Laile Freivalds comments on the demonstrations in Syria and Libanon,” SVT, 2006-02-05.
^ “Cartoon controversy spreads throughout Muslim world,” The Guardian, 2006-02-04.
^ “Protest grows over cartoons of Prophet Muhammad; gunmen seize Gaza office,” [CBS News], 2006-01-30.
^ “Muslim Sabbath Marked by Fury,” Washington Post, 2006-02-04.
^ “US backs Muslims in cartoon dispute,” Yahoo! News, 2006-02-03.
^ http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2006/60394.htm
^ “Daily Press Briefing,” US State Department, 2006-02-03.
^ “Clinton warns of rising anti-Islamic feeling,” Agence France-Presse, 2006-01-30.
^ "Vatican cardinal criticizes cartoons satirizing prophet Mohammed" Catholic Online 2006-02-03
^ "Coexistence Calls for a Climate of Mutual Respect" Zenit 2006-02-03
^ “UN Special Rapporteurs' letter to the Permanent Danish Mission to the UN,” Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2005-12-01.
^ “UN to Investigate Racism of Danish Cartoonists,” The Brussels Journal, 2005-12-07.
^ ((German)) "Tage des Zorns," 2006-02-06 Spiegel
^ {{date=2006-01-30|title=Cartoon Protesters Rampage in Pakistan
url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060214/ap_on_re_mi_ea/prophet_drawings;_ylt=A86.I0r0UfJDWnoAxRlvaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlY
32. ^ Brand, Constant: “EU Backs Denmark in caricature dispute”, Business Week, 2006-01-30.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
77
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
^ “Arla stages ad offensive in Saudi row,” Jyllands-Posten, 2006-01-27.
^ “Arla dairy sales crippled by Middle East boycott,” Dairy Reporter.com, 2006-01-31.
^ “Firms feel pain of people power,” BBC, 2006-02-03.
^ Broder, Henryk M.: “Threaten One, Intimidate a Million”, Der Spiegel, 2005-02-01.
^ “Cartoon War Leads to Role Reversal,” The Brussels Journal, 2006-02-04.
^ “Jyllands-Posten needs to explain itself,” Dansk Industri, 2006-01-27.
^ ((Danish)) “Chefredaktør undrer sig over DI's udmelding,” Politiken, 2006-01-27.
^ “Buy Danish! to counter the Islamic boycott,” The American Thinker, 2006-02-01.
^ “'Buy Danish' Campaign Aims to Counter Muslim Boycott,” CNSNews.com, 2006-02-04.
^ ((Danish)) “Journalister støtter Jyllands-Posten,” Jyllands-Posten, 2006-02-01.
^ Image Problem. Cox & Forkum Editorial Cartoon. URL accessed on 2006-02-03.
^ Legohammed. URL accessed on 2006-02-03.
^ ((Dutch)) Groep Wilders betuigt steun aan Deense cartoonisten en publiceert spotprenten. URL accessed on 2006-02-02.
^ “Rabat : Moroccans stage sit-in to protest Prophet blasphemous cartoons,” Morocco Times, 2006-02-05.
^ ((Dutch)) “Cartoon van geeuwende Christus de beste in Knokke-Heist,” hln.be, 2006-02-04.
^ “Protests in France against controversial cartoons,” Agence France-Presse, 2006-02-06.
^ “[ Dutch MP backs Muhammad cartoons,” BBC, 2006-02-09.
^ “First deaths in Muhammad cartoon protests,” Times, February 6, 2006.
^ “Protestors killed as global furor over cartoons escalates,” Middle East Times, February 6, 2006.
^ “Death toll mounts in rioting over cartoons,” International Herald Tribune, February 8, 2006.
^ “Murder of priest 'religious revenge',” Independent Online, February 8, 2006.
^ “Fatah assaults European Union office,” Wikinews, 2006-01-30.
^ surname, given: “Gunmen shut EU Gaza office over cartoons”, CNN, February 2, 2006.
^ “Muslim Anti-Cartoon clashes turn deadly,” ABCNews, 2006-02-06.
^ author. Kill those who insult the Prophet Muhammad (saw). work. URL accessed on 2006-02-03.
^ author. BBC - Reaction around the world to cartoon row. work. URL accessed on 2006-02-03.
^ author. Al Ghurabaa - Defend the honour of Muhammad. work. URL accessed on 2006-02-03.
^ author. Guardian - Arrest extremist marchers, police told. work. URL accessed on 2006-02-03.
^ author. BBC - Cartoon protest slogans condemned. work. URL accessed on 2006-02-03.
^ http://www.geocities.com/normatti
^ “Iraq Christians on edge as cartoon row escalates,” Reuters UK, 2006-02-03.
^a
^ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060205/ap_on_re_mi_ea/prophet_drawings
!
"
,” Elaph.com, 2006-01-29.
^ a b ((Arabic)) “
^ “Palestinian Militants Threaten Churches and Close EU Office Over Cartoons,” org, date.
78
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
^ ((Danish)) “Fatwa mod danske soldater i Irak,” DR, 2006-01-31.
^ “Cartoon row: Danish embassy ablaze,” CNN, 2006-02-04.
^ “Cartoon row: German culural centre,” Spiegel, 2006-02-04.
^ “Letter from Ambassadors,” org, 2005-12-10.
^ ((Danish)) “Fogh afviser muslimsk klage over profet-tegninger,” Politiken, 2005-10-21.
^ “In Arab countries, rage growing over cartoons,” International Herald Tribune, 2006-01-31.
^ ((Swedish)) Ouis, Pernilla: “Vi måste tåla nidbilderna”, Expressen, 2006-01-07.
^ Cucuk, Hasan: “Norway Apologises for Cartoons Insulting Prophet Mohammed”, Zaman Online, 2006-01-28.
^ ((Danish)) “Irakisk militsgruppe truer med angreb på danske mål,” Jyllands-Posten, 2006-01-30.
Talk: Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy - Archive 11
, *(%
5%
:
; . ''
D
'&
&
4
!
<E
>?
9
*
/ &
:
;
"
5
1
% %
G
'
/
'"
D
&(
1
'
6
%
F
3&
% %
%
(%
& F
% '
%
1 +
4
79
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
% %
!+
< &
%&
> ;6 & 1 F
?9
F
1 &
%
4
-%
4
%
:6 )
HA) I
;.
=
&
.
&
&
!
%
<
% 1
(%
>4
?E
&
G
: $
(
: 4
%
&
&
:
% % %
@ &
&
::
& F
:; $
%
: + &
:! +
&
'
:< 6
5
(
:> $
%
&
:? "
&
; 4
$
#
%
; 6 +
&
4
&
; +
7
;: 46""9$ *6 $DDDDDDDDD
;;
6
'
&
;
&
&
'
;! 9
% '
3+
;< E
'
%
6 &
;> @ "
6%%
&
''
F
%
H' ( I
&
'
&
Go Wikipedia!
80
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
I just want to say I am proud that Wikipedia has more collective cojones than BBC, Fox News, and CNN combined, none of
which would show the controversial cartoons. Ohh, they'll show the riots and pictures of bloodied and dead protestors, but
without the context of showing the original cartoons, none of it makes sense. So I just wanted to give a big thumbs up to
Wikipedia for being one of the few American news sources to stand up and show the controversy. P.S., anyone find it ironic
that news outfits routinely show dead and mutilated bodies, executions, etc., but a freaking cartoon is too "offensive" to
them?! -19:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia, not a news source (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About )
Dmaftei 15:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Pardon me, but this has passed from being news to "history in the making". It will most definitely appear in the
history books, albeit as a footnote (unless this later recognized as a watershed moment), but it will appear. Wiki
just has a shorter time to publication than most encyclopedias.70.178.11.8 06:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
wikipedia IS a news source... it's an unexpected and unintentional extension of its encyclopediacal nature.. or
something to that effect Hellznrg 19:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Ready
Aim Fire!
indeed, news is a documented externality of wikipedia's existence. SWATJester
22:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Hats Off Wikipedia - --203.118.135.21 19:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Ganesh
The thing of it is, together with all those riots, the cartoons still don't make anything make sense, all you get is a picture of
people burning down buildings and demanding the destruction of nations because of the pictures on a piece of paper :/.
Homestarmy 19:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
You're right, there truly is no way to make sense out of people killing others and burning down buildings over a few
pictures. But you get closer to understanding it with the pictures than without. -19:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
*haha* You only mention pictures - what about our long text?? That doesn't help at all? (fishing for compliments ;)
Rajab 20:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
The text helps a lot, Rajab, and you've done some very good work on it (despite our differences). Babajobu
21:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
81
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Cyde Weys - Wikipedia is not an American, nor Asiatic news source - it's global (and American is
not synonymous for U.S. for that matter).--212.88.77.68 23:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Anyone else find it ironic that when a picture depicting a certain religion harbouring hothead elements is published,
the response is for the hotheads to go out and burn and bomb buildings. Errr, doesn't that somewhat validate what the
cartoonist was getting at? Graham 06:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Touche. Vanessa kelly 09:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Well said. Not to paint a group of people with a single broad stroke, but reacting with violence to the
insinuation that your religion breeds violence probably wont help the cause.Slimdavey 18:47, 7 February 2006
(UTC)slimdavey
Graham, what will you do if someone spit in your face? What will you do if someone attack you when you are
just minding your business? What will you do, if a newspaper prints an article full of insults about you? What I
am trying to say is, it is not the way you described it. Qoqnous 10:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not the way you described it either. A better analogy would be: What if someone called you a violent
animal? Because if your immediate response is to physically assault them ... well, you effectively proved
their point. Soultaco 19:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
wow i couldn't have put it better myself... soultaco, i gotta write that down! Hellznrg 19:53, 7
February 2006 (UTC)
Personally, if someone spat in my face, I would burn down the local police station.... My point is, I agree that
muslims were seriously insulted by Jyllands-Posten. But the response is way out of proportions, and the violent
attacks really tend to support the anti-islamic POVs that are commonly found in the articles of this right-wing
newspaper. Extremists on both sides gain from all this. Claush66 10:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
That's funny Claush66. Anyways, as numerous people have pointed out, there are nonviolent and legal
ways to persue such things especially if a newspaper prints things about you that can be damage your
reputation, that's called slander and that can be brought to court. And certainly I wouldn't go and
firebomb the building the paper is run in.
I do agree with "Extremists on both sides gain from all this.", and I do not like those hotheaded attacks.
But who in the first place started trashing and making fun of othe one beliefs? Muslims or
Jyllands-Posten? Qoqnous 11:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
According to reports, neither one. You are arbitrarily assuming intent. Weregerbil 11:21, 7
February 2006 (UTC)
Weregerbil, I think you describe the very basis of the problem; Most muslims outside Europe
82
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
can not imagine that such cartoons were printed without the intent of insulting - and gravely
so. In Denmark many people, muslims and others alike, find that the cartoons can be
percieved as insulting, and that the newspaper lacked tact in publishing them. But I have
heard noone in Denmark accuse Jyllands-Posten of a intent just to make grave and serious
fun of a religion nor demonise it. Most believe that they were insensitive enough not to think
of that. Claush66 11:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's actually hard to argue they weren't intending to insult, if you read the
Jyllands-Posten article. I mean, this was an obvious (and clearly very successful)
attempt to offend and provoke Muslims. That doesn't vindicate the violent reaction, but
the publication of these was still in rather quesionable taste. Soultaco 19:18, 7
February 2006 (UTC)
The point of the article was that Muslims were attempting to censor the world
and make everyone adhere to their bizzare religious taboos. The paper was like
"Well, we don't think that should be so" and published something which showed
that it was okay to print something like that in a free country and that the
Muslims would not prevail. Then the Muslims showed that the bomb-in-turban
depiction was disturbingly accurate by burning down several buildings and
issuing death threats, rather than just not caring. They aren't even that offensive;
people are interpreting them to be offensive because they want to take offense.
Titanium Dragon 23:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
What is this supposed to mean? "their bizzare religious taboos" ? Qoqnous
08:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Oddly enough these people do not find terrorist attacks in the name of Islam offensive, nor do they object
to the blatant anti-semetic cartoons in the Arab media.-Nomen Nescio 10:21, 7 February 2006
(UTC)
I think Qoqnous is trolling, he has a funny name. (CockNose?) Kyaa the Catlord 10:24, 7 February
2006 (UTC)
Trolling am I? No I do not need attention, I just had my opinion about other side of the coin
published. By the way, Qoqnous is an old chat name I prefered to use as my nick in
Wikipedia. Qoqnous 11:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Tis cool. Just noticed it could be pronounced oddly and leapt to blatant speculation. :D
Kyaa the Catlord 11:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
83
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
The servers are absed in Florida, but we're an international news source, dedicated towards fighting systemic bias.
Well, actually, Wikinews is. Wikipedia tends to be written in the past tense. ;-) Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be
eudaimonic!) 10:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Intro expanding out of control.
HTH
Lotsofissues 19:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Just want to ad a thing to the article. The embassy of Sweden was also torched in Syria along with the Danish. They are
(were) situated in the same building. //Otto Vendelkråka
Yeah we should cut it down. Perhaps not write about the torchings but just give an short intro what the cartoons are
about? --Snailwalker | talk 20:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
My guess that story with the cartoons is a very complicated political issue. I've been to two muslim countries
(Egypt&Maroccoo) on holiday and there is one thing that I simply do not understand - they have so many problems like
crumbling buildings, and unfinished houses, or the most recent example of people sunk due to absence of life boats, still
many people seem to be committed to destruction rather than creation. Why do not build something, improve and so on?
Meanwhile, whenever there is a chance to smash and destroy - the images are beamed to the whole world. It's simply
something I can't grasp. There's a very interesting article in the Guardian on possible roots of all this fuss.
Jesus or Muhammad
Images_of_Jesus#Scientific_reconstructions_of_Jesus.27_appearance
Differences or similarities
Moved to Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments#Differences or similarities
84
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
More Caroons Needed I Say!
You call that insulting? Wow. Come on. That's really mild, and nicely demonstates the lack of tolerance in the "Islamic
World" whatever that is, and their totality, black vs white world view. I say somebody draw and distribute a picture of the
prophet getting a nice Beej from his missus, or several of his missuses, with a caption saying "Thank Allah for a bit of
'noggin to make me forget those stupid cartoons" Now THAT'S insulting. What a joke this world is. Lucky for those jerks
"over there" they are allowed the freedom of expression to go protest about stuff.
Interesting reading
I personally am not religious but think the following are very good articles (historically and otherwise).
Abraham
Jesus
Muhammad
Yep. It's a good idea to do some background research to gain a better understanding of the roots of this article.
(specifically on Muhammad) — TheKMantalk 06:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Query regarding quickly developing talk pages in general
I was just wondering if anyone can point to - or offer here - comparisons between the speeds with which Talk pages
"exploded". I realize the record is probably held by some huge event like 9/11, but I would still appreciate a way of putting
this Wikifrenzy into perspective.
On an unrelated note, I'd like to commend those who are working on this article without acting on on their personal beliefs
regarding religion, free speech, and other related issues. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.20.237.11 (talk
• contribs) .
[1] --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
9/11 didn't generate this much activity. Have in mind that Wikipedia has orders of magnitude more readers and editors
85
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
today than it did in 2001. Fredrik Johansson - talk - contribs 22:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
On 7.7.2005, odds were extremely good you'd cause an edit conflict at any given time. --Kizor
See [2] for "50 most edited articles" (includes talk pages) and other things. The most edited talk page, it says, is the Main
page talk page with 16345 edits. WAS 4.250 13:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Users who exist only to edit this article?
I've noticed one user whose entire Wiki existence is devoted to doing nothing but edit this article. What constitutes "recent"
wikipedia membership for purposes of blocking on this article? Dogface 21:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, there is nothing wrong with that. Editing only one article only goes against them if they vandalise or get
engaged in an edit war. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 21:57, 6
February 2006 (UTC)
Got a problem with that? -- Plem11738 08:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Interesting viewpoint from Australia
Moved to Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments#Interesting viewpoint from Australia
Other papers
Although South African newspapers have been banned from printing the cartoons, one newspaper, the Mail and Guardian
(which has a Muslim editor), had already printed one of the cartoons before the ban.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4685040.stm
The French newspaper Libération deserves a mention as a major newspaper to carry two of the cartoons.
Also - why does the International Opinion section focus on Britain? I like the quote from Nicolas Sarkozy: 'I prefer an
excess of caricature to an excess of censorship'.
86
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
p.s. excellent article, though.
198.54.202.18 22:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Why isn't this here?
Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that have caused
a storm of protest throughout the Islamic world, refused to run drawings lampooning Jesus Christ, it has emerged
today. The Danish daily turned down the cartoons of Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to
readers and were not funny. [3] --203.206.177.171 23:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
It is in the article. See the section "Claims of double standard of Jyllands-Posten" Ashibaka tock 23:06, 6 February
2006 (UTC)
Let's face it. Looking at it dispassionately, and irrespective of one's own faith (or lack of faith) and whether they
caused offence, some of the cartoons were funny. Others were 'scraping the bottom of the barrel' and the
cartoonists commissioned were clearly struggling to come up with something. I have seen cartoons depicting
Jesus Christ and aspects of Christianity - some of which were extremely funny, and others which were not at
all. Claims of 'double standards' ignore the fact that the definition of a good cartoon is not 'does it offend
anyone?', but simply: 'is it funny?' Bruce, aka Agendum | Talk 23:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
At the risk of going off-topic: I disagree with you on that. I don't think the level of the humour
automatically defines the quality of the cartoon. Tellingness (?) can also be a measure of quality. There
are many cartoons that are not funny but that stand out and become icons of a time. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin'
23:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
satire Vanessa kelly 09:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Another thing missing (under external links, official correspondence) is the official correspondence between the UN and
Denmark. The correspondence is available from the timeline (November 24 2005, and January 23 2006):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#November and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#January Can someone
add those notes/links?--Discus2000 23:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Some muslims in Canada (an every day Joe, a leader, a comic) thought several of the comics were funny... they were
87
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
interviewed on the Current, a show on CBC Radio 1 on Friday February 3. Not all muslims think its not funny, and it
appears that a lot of people on both sides are making judgments about the comics without having seen them. The
audio is here http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2006/200602/20060203.html WayeMason 00:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Location of image - currently at top of the page
It's unclear to me why this image is located at the top of the page of the article. Typically in Wikipedia, when people have
objectede images that some may find offensive are further down the page, if they are on the page at all. For example the
articles penis, breasts. It seems to me that a significant minority of people are quite genuine that they find these images
offensive. Personally I don't get it, I can't see anything any more offensive here than in a children's comic - they are only
satirical cartoons. However as there are those that are genuinely very offended, I don't understand why there would be
opposition to at least moving the images further down the page. I realise that there was already a vote on this, however I
think the vote was ended prematurely - and it would appear my last comments on this subject were archived within minutes
of me making them! Nfitz 22:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Please see the archived talk; this has been extensively discussed and polled. Plenty of good arguments for and against
in there; little need to re-hash everything. Weregerbil 22:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. See the old polls here. 82% of the voters felt that the article should contain the cartoons, and 70% of the
voters believed that it should be at the top of the article. There's no need to go through that again. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin'
23:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Should there be something like a "sticky" concerning recurring topics in this talk, like whether anything was
agreed on or is still disputed or what were the outcomes and reference to the whole discussion? Such "stickies"
are usually prevalent in web-based forums (such as bbforums and the like). Perhaps even a table on topics
discussed and what was the outcome as of today or smth. I think this would help in avoiding people new to the
discussion rehashing some topics.
-Mardus 23:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
As I referenced in my original post, I did see (and contribute) in the original polls. My concern is that the poll on
location was ended prematurely. I don't think that a debate on the location of the article should have been held in
concert with the debate on removal, as I don't think it yielded a fair result. I don't think we obtained consensus on it,
despite the 70% in favour, as the vote was not held over a long enough period of time - it was open for less than 48
88
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
hours, yet 7-days is more typical on Wikipedia. While I think the issue of whether the image should be on the page or
not, has been clearly resolved, I think the location issue should be subjected to further debate, and perhaps a new poll.
But, rather than open the poll, I was looking for dicussion first. And none of the responses to my comment have
entered discussion. So the question is given that many people appear to be genuinely offended by the image, why
would we not at least show some sensitivity and move the image further down, in the same manner that we have done
on other pages? Nfitz 02:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Why should we respect the feelings of those who were offended, but not of those who were not offended? Also,
I don't think that the poll was ended prematurely. It's true that a lot less people voted in the poll on the location
of the cartoon than in the poll on the presence of the cartoon. However, there was a clear difference. The "top of
the page" option got 70% of the votes. The second most popular option got only 16% of the votes, IIRC
correctly. I doubt that the result would have been much different if the poll had remained open longer. Aecis Mr.
Mojo risin'
00:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm amazed! No objections. Not even any calls for a poll. I'll just move the image further down the page then! Nfitz 23:52, 6
February 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure that a great silent majority is in favor of moving the image. The only "benefit" of keeping the image on top is
offending many people, while moving it down doesn't diminish the value of the article at all. Dmaftei 00:30, 7
February 2006 (UTC)
I think most people probably visit this page to see the images. If someone is trying to ban something, people
want to find out what it is. --Ssj4android 23:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
OOH! A "great silent majority"--how very Nixonian.Dogface 13:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
This has been extensively discussed, polled, and edit wars have been fought. Please please please read the talk
archives and look at the poll results. An overwhelming majority supported keeping the picture where it is.
Weregerbil 00:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
There's no need for "please please please", I've been watching this discussion since it started. To address
your comment, the majority you're referring to is not overwhelming at 70%. Besides, I agree with Nfitz
that the poll regarding the position of the image did not live long enough, therefore is largely
irrelevant.Dmaftei 00:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The poll on the location of the article was up for less than 48 hours; I don't think you can shut debate
permanently over the issue on such an unusually short-lived poll. Also the story itself has developed since
then; people are dying over this. I think we should revisit what consensus is. Nfitz 00:49, 7 February
2006 (UTC)
89
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
IIRC, the poll options got 70/16/10/4 percent of the votes. With those figures, 70% is an immense
majority. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 00:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I'm also nursing the hope (perhaps naively) that common sense and tolerance will FINALLY
prevail... Dmaftei 00:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Tolerance? What is tolerance? Let me guess, threatening mass murder and burning down embassies
over cartoons--THAT is tolerance!Dogface 13:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
No, your nursing the hope that if you whine about it enough and start enough stupid polls over it
people will eventually give in and give you your way by either removing the image entirely or
moving it to the very bottom of the article JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
You might think about making a distinction between the concepts "personal opinion" and
"common sense". Helps understand other people and the world to know that all your opinions
are not always shared by some "great silent majority". Weregerbil 01:00, 7 February 2006
(UTC)
I understand the concepts of freedom of speech vs religious totalitarianism, I support
the former while I am currently fighting the latter and I refuse to let Wikipedia be
screwed over by a bunch of people with 1 day old accounts and an agenda to push so
suck it up or find some other article to troll since consensus is wayyy against you and
unless I see a clear consensus from respectable editors otherwise I plan on fighting to
keep the image as is in line with the goals of the Wikipedia project. JtkieferT | C | @ ---01:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I guess that's what's wrong with Wikipedia: administrators like you... You could
at least use a civil tone. Dmaftei 01:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
You're not exactly using a civil tone when you say it's because of
administrators like him Wikipedia is defective or "wrong". If you were
truely so civil, you'd easily just say, "Please refrain from any personal
attacks, lets not get into a flame war here." Hitokirishinji 19:40, 7
February 2006 (UTC)
(ec) Guys, please, let's calm down here and heed Jimbo's words to discuss
here with the most civility as possible and the strongest assumption of
good faith to everyone. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:05, 7 February
2006 (UTC)
90
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
I guess that's what's wrong with Wikipedia: administrators like
you... You could at least use a civil tone. Dmaftei 01:04, 7 February
2006 (UTC)
A) nobody is forcing you to be here, there are millions of
other sites on the web, B) You'll find that I'm very considerate
when I don't have to deal with trolls. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:08,
7 February 2006 (UTC)
What exactly qualifies me as "troll"?!Dmaftei 01:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Acting trollishly would be a more appropriate term actually since you don't seem to be a troll in general but the fact
that you are part of a group of editors who are repeatedly trying to remove encyclopedic content just because it is
offensive to yours (if you happen to be muslim) or to someone else's (if your not) beliefs and are doing everything in
your power to disrupt normal wikipedia process in doing so including repeatedly holding idiotic little polls until you
get your way, that qualifies you as acting trollishly, though I do give you credit due to the fact that (to my knowledge)
you haven't been one of the ones repeatedly vandalizing the page and/or edit warring over the image). JtkieferT | C | @
---- 01:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
<-------------------------------- Back to left margin
I agree with those who say that this issue has already been extensively discussed and the poll produced a decisive outcome
and indicated a clear consensus to keep the image at the top. However, I think it's reasonable to suspect that as events
continue to unfold, people killed embassies burned, et cetera, that some formerly resolute "At the top" voters may become
more amenable to moving the picture to the "Publication of the Cartoons" section and to put one of the other salient images
as the top. So I don't think the poll on the position of the cartoon should be regarded as permanently binding. Perhaps at
some point we should bring poll 2 back out and reopen it to voting. Finally, Jtkiefer, you're work on this page (and talkpage)
has been great, but I think you're overreacting to Dmaftei here. We've dealth with a ton of vandalism and trolling here, so it's
understandable we'd now spook easily, but I don't think he was trolling. Babajobu 01:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
One potential problem with a re-poll is that there has been plenty of time to raid the sock drawer and do some sowing.
Is there WP precedent or rules about polling only users created before a certain date when a given controversy
started? Weregerbil 01:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Eh, yes. The recent arbcom elections, for one. Also, I'm not talking about reopening the poll on whether to
91
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
include the images, I think that's been pretty decisively settled. Just poll two, about where to include them.
Babajobu 01:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes there is precedent for using suffrage limits but very rarely and it has never over article content issues.
There's also the issue that a suffrage limit would A) would either not be binding or would make people
question the poll results, or B) have people ignore the suffrage limit all together which would make much
more work and would totally throw a poll into disarray. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
For your information, Jtkiefer, I am not "part of a group of editors who are repeatedly trying to remove encyclopedic
content", I voted in a poll to KEEP the image (though not at top), I did NOT edit the article in any way. It is my
understanding that the discussion page is here for people to express their opinions on the article at hand, and that's precisely
what I did, I expressed my opinion that moving the image down would be better. As far as I can say I acted 100% within the
Wikipedia rules, AND with civility. I'm at a loss understanding how this is "acting trollish"?! If you think you could explain
it politely, I'm listening; if you continue being rude and offensive, then don't bother...Dmaftei 02:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
DMaftei, I agree with you that Kiefer mischaracterized your actions and intent. I think he's just exhausted from
defending this page from the group he describes...but you weren't part of it. Babajobu 02:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
This page has been exhaustively vandalizd, debated and constantly, repolled because people cannot accept the
outcome of the poll earlier. Frankly, the poll decided what the article should be and right now, that's what stands. We
should not have to repoll everytime someone thinks the poll results were skewed. I'm fine with opening up the poll
again at a later time but right now we're still just trying to keep the ship together. Half the time we're jumping off the
portside to fight off pirates and vandals. Until, we're out in clear water with the wind in our sails and the waves have
died down, then maybe we should think about visiting the poll. Hitokirishinji 19:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, now's not the time. Babajobu 19:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Irony
Seeing as how this entire controversy is based on people's perceived opinions about each other, would it be appropriate to
include a section in this article devoted to the irony of it all?
Unquestionably, the cartoons portrayed Islam as a violent religion. Reacting violently, groups within Islam demonstrated
this at the expense of their religion's reputation. It could only be more ironic if that artist fellow drew a cartoon depicting the
riots that these people are conducting to protest the cartoons that depict them rioting. sysrpl
92
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
I fear that would anger people... And quite easily be regarded as original research which is naughty and disallowed.
Weregerbil 01:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
That's not irony! It's an expected and predictable outcome. It would have been ironic if the response to the cartoons
had been tolerance and acceptance of others' points of view. That would be irony. SilentC 02:08, 7 February 2006
(UTC)
According to wikipedia, irony has some of its foundation in the onlooker's perception of paradox. Answers.com
defines irony as "Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs". It can be argued that
the intent of these cartoons is humor, and the much delayed reaction from some Islamic groups was the opposite
violence. This might be conjecture, but most people find it paradoxical that some highly visible Islamic
followers are offended by the implication of violence and hatred of a cartoon, only to act out with violence and
hatred in protest.
By the way, what is the wikicode to add a timestamp to my comments? sysrpl
Four tildes (~). Carson.talk 02:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
From my reading, the intent of the cartoons was to illustrate an article about self-censorship for fear of
causing exactly the type of reaction which occurred. I believe humour may have been a secondary
consideration in this case. It would also have been extremely naive of the editor to not expect some sort
of backlash. What he probably didn't expect was for a touring party to take them to the Muslim world.
Given that was what happened, the outcome was to be expected. Also, from what I gather the objection
on the whole is the fact that images were made at all, not that some of them could be construed as
implying violence and hatred. I take your point on the paradox but I think there is a different term for
what is going on there. SilentC 02:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
If your looking for humor in cartoons how bout watching Adult Swim. I can personally guarantee
The Boondocks may or may not be 'burn something down' offensive. (Offensiveness guarantee not
guaranteed)--AdultSwim 06:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
But are these cartoons really 'offensive'? For some reason, I can't take the word of
embassy-burners and their editorial page enablers. Should you? Sysrpl 06:41, 7 February
2006 (UTC)
93
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Iran
Should this be incorporated to the article? CJK 02:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, my! And I think, yes, it should. But perhaps only as "other reaction" or something, until they actually print it.
Azate 02:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Full List of Newspapers who have Printed 1 or more Cartoons
!*
*
*
4
6
,
&
0 (
/
(
3+
FF
&
,
:
!
!
C1J
!
"
&
!
"
%
!
!
<
&
!
<
&
A
.
<
&
,$
"
!&
%
<" 1
&
6
B
5%
:
&
" 1
&
('
!
.
@
,
!
&
@
,
:
.
&
.
*
,
!
&
&
&
94
!
!
!
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
4A &
7 %
&
.
(
'
.
&
;
&
!
:
3+
&
+
&
&
%
&
&
/
,
=
= .
&
&
&
&
/
&
/
&
/ +
K
&
!
&
!
6
B
,
.
$
A
,
.
,
$
*
!
%
,
L
A
.
!
:
!&
L
*
!
&
. 0 ( (
&
"
"74 @
&
"
%
+
&
&
+
%
&
%
+M
&
N &
%
&
:
A
!
95
&(
$
!
!
!
!
!
&
4
A
!
!
1
/
!
:
&
"
!
!&
$
@
" % A
.
0L (%
!
@
!
%
&
&
.
0L (%
&
!
:&
@
.
!
&
@
&
!
&
,
@
:
&
B
,
<" 1
&
!
B
,
!
('
,
!
K
!
!
!
,
1
!
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
+ $6 $
&
.
/
/
&
/ +
&
:&
63
:&
($
!
. 0 ( (
&
"
"74 @
&
"
7 1
"
B
$
"
B
4
"
&
A
+
:&
@
!
6' &
!
!
!
O
(
&
!
!
&
FF
&
0 (
,
/
96
!
:&
;
!
!
&
.
!
&
63
,
;
& +
:&
"
!
&
&
+
-
&
!
"
7 1
!
!
!
%
63
%
!
&
.
"
B
!
&
.
!
!
&
$
!
"
"
B
,
:
;
FF
/
!
&
1
&
!
!
!
" 1
!
:
%
/
!
&
63
/ $
!
&
%
A
!
&
+
"
!
:
!
:
!
:
&
!
&
:
!
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
"
.
&
+
7A &A%
+
+M
%
&
,
+
N &
:
&
4
&
%
+
5%
C1J
&
%
&
,$
A
-
!
&
&(
A
$
,
A
/ $
A
;@
"
+
%
O
(
%
1
&
&
&
&
4A &
7 %
&
'
&
!
"
B
4
!
"
B
$
!
+
7A &A%
!
6
<
!
+
<
!
+ $6 $
!
.
!
@
&
@
A
!
!
!
&
%
&
;
!
;
!
&
!
&
+
!
&
&
&
FF
"
;
!
+
!
!
;
+
%
= .
:
;
& +
.
=
!
&
&
&
4
-
<
!
.
($
!
&
%
-
;
&
6' &
%
&
/ +
!
FF
!
!
!
!
!
:
!
:
!
FF
FF
/ +
FF
FF
" % A
FF
FF
;@
FF
FF
I'm thinking the chronological one is more informative. I'll see if I can find a place to put it. joturner 06:03, 7 February 2006
97
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
(UTC)
I added the table to the article. It's huge, but I tried to make it take up as little space as possible. I'll leave it up to the
rest of the Wikipedia community to do what it thinks is right. However, I do believe it provides important
information, even if it goes on a separate page where it would be eating up a lot of space. joturner 06:18, 7 February
2006 (UTC)
UPDATE 1: Hephaestion 07:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Thanks for that, your table is great. Here are an update as I cannot
edit the main page. Brisbane Courier Mail (1 cartoon) 04/02/06 >>>added (1 cartoon)
Great table! Question : According to http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1700798,00.html the BBC has shown the
pictures. Is perhaps noting that they have been broadcasted in the news relevant even if they are not printed?DanielDemaret
09:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
UPDATE 2: Hephaestion 10:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Another update, the two related, small Jordanian papers, which
carried the cartoons, carried 3 cartoons each. The editors of both papers were arrested, but apparently released although I
can not see any verification of the release other then the Der Spiegel article. Waiting for Reporters without Borders to verify
release, so I have changed the table to reflect 3 cartoons each for the Jordanian papers. I have also removed the orginal table
I put up as your table is sufficient.
I assume you meant www.rsf.org, i e reporters without borders.DanielDemaret 10:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Ooops, Yes I fixed it above, they will be monitoring the situation with any arrested journalists Hephaestion 11:39, 7
February 2006 (UTC)
UPDATE 3: Hephaestion 12:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Also Norways's Dagbladet published all 12 cartoons on January
10th 2006 so I ammended that as well.
We have reports on CNN, BBC or other key sources that newspapers in Japan, Romania, Ukraine and Brazil have also
published the cartoons, can anybody please give details of which paper, which date and how many cartoons for these 4
countries and any others.
UPDATE 4: Hephaestion 12:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC) FIJI PAPER PRINTS CARTOONS: The Fiji Daily Post published
all 12 cartoons on Sunday 5th, reference <http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2006/02/06/1344684.htm> I have amended the
98
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
tables above.
How about highlighting any newspaper with a circulation over 250,000? Lotsofissues 12:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
More newspapers
PUBLISHING MUHAMMAD
Some of the newspapers and magazines across Europe that have published caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad:
Denmark: Jyllands-Posten
Italy: Libero, La Padania Hephaestion 13:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)These are 2 small right-wing papers that published all
the cartoons on 3rd February, I have amended the above table.
Greenland: Sermitsiaq Hephaestion 13:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC) This newspaper published 3 photos on 2nd February, I
have amended the above table.
Hungary: Magyar Hirlap and Nepszabadsag
Spain: El Mundo, El Peiodico de Catalunya, El Pais Hephaestion 13:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)El Mundo all photos
published the same day as El Periodico, February 1, I have amended above.
Belgium: De Standaard; De Morgen, Het Volk and Het Nieuwsblad
France: France Soir, Liberation; Le Figaro and Le Parisien
Switzerland: Le Temps, 24 Heures, Tribune de Geneve, Blick
Bulgaria: Novinar, Monitor
Portugal: Publico
Norway: Magazinet
99
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Sweden: Expressen
Germany: Die Welt
The Associated Press
Lotsofissues 13:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Another AP list, dated Feb 3
Italy -- Libero, La Padania
Greenland -- Sermitsiaq
Hungary -- Magyar Hirlap and Nepszabadsag
Spain -- El Mundo, El Peiodico de Catalunya, El Pais (own)
Belgium -- De Standaard; De Morgen, Het Volk and Het Nieuwsblad (own)
France -- France Soir, Liberation; Le Figaro and Le Parisien (own)
Switzerland -- Le Temps, 24 Heures, Tribune de Geneve, Blick
Bulgaria -- Novinar, Monitor
Portugal -- Publico.
Norway -- Magazinet
Sweden -- Expressen
Germany -- Die Welt
Outside Europe, the caricatures were published in the Shihan newspaper in Jordan and the Rakyat Merdeka of Indonesia
100
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
posted them for a few hours on its website but removed them after reader complaints.
Lotsofissues 13:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
UPDATE 5 Hephaestion 14:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Thanks Lotsofissues for those lists. I have changed the table above
per your additional lists. Where I could not find dates and numbers of cartoons, I have left blank for others to fill in. Still
need names of newspapers in UKRAINE, JAPAN, ROMANIA and BRAZIL that have published.
I changed some dates, and added the number of cartoons for some of the Belgian newspapers. The table on the main page
hasn't been changed yet. AlEX 14:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Two Japanese newspapers published in English, dated Feb. 6, mention nothing about a Japanese newspaper publishing the
articles. The Reuters report is probably wrong. Lotsofissues 15:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
A Ukranian News Agency article makes no mention of any newspaper printing it. No other source than Reuters says
otherwise. Lotsofissues 15:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
An AP wire dated Feb. 6: "Romania's main press organization on Monday urged all media in the country to avoid publishing
caricatures of Prophet Muhammad that have sparked violent protests around the world.
The Romanian Press Club, an association of owners and managers of Romanian media outlets, urged members to refrain
from reproducing the controversial cartoons, which could offend the local Muslim community and lead to dangerous
conflicts." Lotsofissues 15:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The Rocky Mountain News in Denver published one of these pictures today in their editorial/commentary section. Kyaa the
Catlord 16:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I've created the page List of newspapers that reprinted Jylland-Posten's Muhammad cartoons, which is basically a copy of
the tables above, but I've added a reference section. The idea is that we verify this list. --Maitch 18:45, 7 February 2006
(UTC)
Portugues translator needed
We are trying to find the name of the Brazilian newspaper that published the cartoons. I've looked through the databases,
101
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
and I wonder if this Feb 7. article in a Brazilian newspaper has the answer. Here's the excerpt: "Curiosamente, veio do Brasil
talvez a melhor síntese da crise da charge, tendo como pano de fundo a disseminação da baixaria, sob todas as formas, na
chamada "civilização do espetáculo". Falando ao Estado, o xeque Jihad Hassan Hammadeh, radicado em São Paulo, tocou
no nervo da questão. "O Ocidente perdeu o valor do sagrado", constatou. "Se os ocidentais não respeitam os seus valores,
imagine os dos outros." De fato, a permissividade midiática e a aversão do jornalismo de tablóide a educar o público se
entrelaçam para embotar a capacidade do homem comum ocidental de entender as diferenças culturais que se manifestam
especialmente em relação ao "valor do sagrado" em outros ambientes.
Na sexta-feira, o dinamarquês Posten afirma que "subestimou o sentimento de muitos muçulmanos sobre seu profeta" e que,
se soubesse das conseqüências, não teria publicado a charge revoltante. O argumento é pobre. Ela não deveria ter sido
publicada, mesmo que não fosse previsível a reação que provocou. Primeiro, porque não cabe a um jornal criticar - muito
menos escarnecer de - valores culturais com os quais não comunga. Segundo, porque a publicação embutiu a intenção de
ofender toda uma parcela da humanidade que se identifica, acima das etnias que a compõem, com um credo religioso. À
deliberada profanação de um valor alheio somou-se a estigmatização da cultura que o abriga - quando a islamofobia cresce a
olhos vistos na Europa."
Lotsofissues 15:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm portuguese. That excerpt is about a muslim cleric going on and on about how the west has lost its values, and
doesn't respect those of others, blah, blah, blah... Btw, the portuguese newspaper Público didn't print just one cartoon,
I've seen at least 4 there. Could you update that, please? 82.155.196.84 17:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Schoolboy picture
In the description of the cartoon with the schoolboy it states that the text of his shirt reads: "Fremtiden" (the future). This
may be overinterpreted a bit, wanting the cartoon to be prophetic. I think it is more like to be a play with words. His shirts is
clearly the uniform of the local football (soccer) team from Valby: "Frem". Should we change the description to capture
this.... ? Kjaergaard 05:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes - I didn't notice that, and most other people certainly neither. I don't have a suggestion as to what should be
written instead, though. Dybdahl 09:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
It should remain just like it is written right now. Anything else is speculation, thus original research, thus not valid for
102
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
wiki. Only the authors comment that it means something else would be valid. I too is fairly sure who the two
“generic” characters in the seven man line-up is, however I can’t proved it for sure, thus they remain generic.
Twthmoses 10:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
14 Archives?
Is there a Cliff's notes version? I've been away for a bit. Any new polls? --JGGardiner 06:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd say little of significance has happened since the two (...or three...) original polls closed. No new polls, thank His
Noodly Appendage. Fine tuning the article, adding recent developments, the occasional tangential shouting match in
talk. Weregerbil 09:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Other reasons?
Several television and newspaper editorials suggested some orchestrating of events. More to the point, it has been noted that
in Syria and other less democratic countries, it is almost impossible to demonstrate, especially against the government. But
now, without any problems buildings are burned. Commentators think this is a not-inconveniant distraction for Syria, which
Nomen Nescio
is in the middle of the Hariri investigation. Has anybody heard this too, and should it be mentioned? -07:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
It was mentioned on the Canadian (CBC) news as well that some in Lebanon suggested that Syria was behind the
violence there. --JGGardiner 07:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Last weekend I read in "Sydsvenska Dagbladet" a researcher from the swedish military suggested the same, and
on a BBC talkshow, the DOHA Debates, last weekend, Abdallah Schleifer the said the same. None of them
suggest that Syria orchestrated it, but rather that it could not have been done without the tacit approval of the
government there. The swedish researcher suggested that Syria had so many internal problems that they were
happy to let anger vent in another direction for a bit. Did I not read that the Grand Mufti promise to rebuild all
the embassies, for free, even nicer than before, somewhere? DanielDemaret 08:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Added this commentary to article, please look if you agree. Or else, rewrite it?-17:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
103
Nomen Nescio
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Move cartoons down the page to reduce offense?
I think it would be a good idea to move the picture down the page, and put a note on the top that the cartoons are listed
further down the page. That way, people looking for info on it who don't want to see the cartoon will have that option open
to them. What do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.63.139.116 (talk • contribs) .
This already has been proposed. It's a frivolous solution. It's going to appear anyway; and we're not shielding children. After
all, we're not endorsing the cartoons. We're just reporting it. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 08:10, 7 February
2006 (UTC)
This is not going to change anything as the cartoon will still be visible in the article. I don't think children will want to
look at this kind of topics as its not their area of interest. This is a trivial matter, so is no use making a fuss over it.
--Terence Ong (????) 08:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Plus we've already had a poll in which 70% voted to keep it at the top. And incase you're wondering, only 11%
or so wanted to move it down. And arguing that 70% is not consensus is kinda moot, considering 11% is even
less of one. -Maverick 08:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The poll to which Maverick refers was only open less than 48-hours, was held several days ago before
people started dying, and seemed to have a shift in results towards the end of the poll. Yes we've
discussed this, but I don't think we have necessarily reached a consensus. Why not hold a new poll? If
those that are so sure that it won't make a difference, it won't hurt. If people are concerned about
sock-puppets, then we can restrict polling to any user with contributions older than 30 days or something.
Nfitz 15:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
How are the deaths related to this article? Did people start killing others because they saw a cartoon
on wikipedia? Get real. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 15:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you telling me you don't see how real people dying are directly attributable to this
cartoon? While I don't believe in the necessity of religion; don't subscribe to any myself; and
I do believe that if Muhammad or Jesus Christ ever existed in anything near the form that is
attributed to them by their followers, that they would both be horrified by what some of their
followers have done in their name; I think it is clear that there are those who do believe, and
104
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
genuinely take offence at what has been published. Please don't use phrases like "get real", I
think this a violate of the Wikipedia's no personal attacks guideline. Nfitz 15:34, 7 February
2006 (UTC)
Whether the deaths are attributable to the cartoons or to the geopolitical situation in the
region is up for debate, and it is a debate that we should not be having on wikipedia,
and it is a debate that I definitely won't be participating in here. But why should this
change our behaviour or position? I get the feeling that you are grasping at straws here.
Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 16:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Because according to Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms The exercise of these (freedom of
speech), 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.. In other words,
there are limits to freedom of speech, and when it is causing public safety issues
then you need to modify your behaviour and position. I don't think the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is a
straw! Nfitz 16:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
That's what I mean by grasping at straws. The European Convention for
the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is about as
irrelevant as irrelevant can be. Wikipedia is a global organization, with its
main servers in the state of Florida. The European Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms does not apply in
this case, so I don't see why it should be dragged into this. I also don't see
why it should matter to this discussion: it doesn't say anywhere "if
freedom of speech gets people killed, don't use it." The convention only
comes with vague qualifications, intentions, assumptions and guidelines.
That's it. There's nothing in it that's of any use to us. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin'
16:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
105
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
It's entirely relevent, as it is in Europe that the debate is taking
place. I'm not putting forth the position that it should be moved
because we are legally required to move it (to which the answer that
the server is in Florida would be the answer); I'm putting forth the
position that we should move it because people have asked that it be
moved, and this can easily be done without damaging the integrity
of the article, and given that some people have genuine concerns
about the content of the images, then it would be respectful for us to
comply with those wishes to the extent that they don't damage the
integrity of the article, in the same manner as we would in an article
about breasts or penises. If we did want to debate the legality of the
article under US freedom of speech, then we would get into a debate
about how this case involves a clear and present danger; but that is
not the debate that is before us. Nfitz 17:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The debate is not just taking place in Europe, but around the
world. But that´s a minor aside. Indeed, several people have
expressed the desire that the cartoons be moved due to sincere
concerns. However, that has already been polled. The vast
majority of the voters have decided that the image should be
on the top of the article. It would be equally respectful to
comply with their wishes. (I myself didn't vote for that option,
I voted "don't care") Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 20:48, 7 February
2006 (UTC)
Let me be the first to add: The EU is a joke. It is simply
going to drag not one or two countries into a serious
economic depression but every single full-member
nation. Great idea! Cause a whole continent to suffer!
Yeah! Alright! Go EU! --PistolPower 20:46, 7 February
2006 (UTC)
I keep pointing out that I feel that a very short (less than
48-hour poll), taked several days ago, in the midst of another
poll, isn't the be all and end all of the situation until the end of
time. You countering my points by simply saying that the poll
106
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
has already been done, isn't getting anywhere, and is only
going to lead me to start a new poll (for if you are correct, the
results will easily be repeatable). (in terms of the other
comments about the EU being a joke ... not sure I see the
relevence to these comments ... Nfitz 22:28, 7 February 2006
(UTC)
Let me explain it once more. Hopefully you will
understand it this time. Everything you want has been
done before. We've had a poll on the position of the
cartoon. There were four options, and 123 people voted.
That is a very impressive amount, particularly for the
short notice you object to. The results were as follows:
- Move to body of article with a link directly to the
image on the top: 10 votes, 8.1%
- Have picture lower down at the article: 20 votes,
16.3%
- At the top: 86 votes, 69.92%
- Don’t care: 7 votes, 5.7%
You're saying that it doesn't hurt to have another poll.
But why should we go through the hassle again, even if
it doesn't hurt? We've had a poll, everyone had a chance
to cast their votes, and 123 people did. This article and
this talk page have received an immense amount of
traffic during the days the poll was held, as you can see
from the talk page archives. If people didn't cast their
vote back then, it's their problem, not ours. They had a
chance, they didn't take it, 123 people did, and the vast,
vast majority decided to keep the image where it is.
And if there hadn't been consensus, that would have
defaulted in "keep as is," in other words keep the image
at the top of the article. Under the current
circumstances, the option you have proposed (moving
the picture down) would require an additional 240 (!!!)
107
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
votes to reach the consensual majority, provided noone
else votes for the other options. That is simply not a
reasonable or plausible option. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin'
23:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm just not convinced we'd get the same result.
On the other hand, I seem to be the only one
chiming in here ... so if that is the case, I'm
willing to let be. Nfitz 00:24, 8 February 2006
(UTC)
Cleaning Up
I've been going through and de-wikifying terms which have been previously wikified in the article. I'm human so I believe
I'm missing a few. I'm not sure which ones though. This article is huge! (Way too many things are wikified too, I think that
will be my next task.) Kyaa the Catlord 08:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Cleaning up intro
The current Lead section is not doing its job. Rather than giving a brief introduction to the subject, it is cluttered with
snippets of information like:
On 5 February, Iran announced that it was severing all trade with Denmark, effective on 6 February.
Most of this is already in the article or in the timeline. I will try to clean it up radically, if there aren't too many objections.
Eixo 09:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Go for it, most of the vandalism has stopped and I'm thinking its time to clean this baby up while we can. :D Kyaa the
Catlord 09:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Did some editing, though it could probably need an even stricter diet. Eixo 09:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
108
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
"Despite the Islamic prohibition against depictions of Muhammad, in the past Muslims have created non-satirical depictions.
However, many Muslims have publicly indicated that they perceive the Jyllands-Posten cartoons as implying that all
Muslims are terrorists, by depicting Muhammad with a bomb and for collaborating with terrorists (by receiving them in
heaven). This generalisation arises in the context of a perceived lack of religious tolerance toward Muslims, and has led to
the recent escalation of the controversy. Some argue that following the global backlash by Muslims (including but not
limited to the burning of foreign embassies beginning in early February 2006), the suggestion contained in the cartoons that
there is an association between Islam and violence and violent acts has unfortunately been vindicated."
Question, noone has found a source for this and it seems to be wishy washy, anyone mind if it simply goes away? I don't
think it adds anything to the lead as it is written. Kyaa the Catlord 09:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'm going to be bold. Hold on tight! Kyaa the Catlord 10:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I concur. Eixo 10:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
AE/BE standardi(z/s)ation
To rehash an earlier dicussion, this article should be standardized (hey, it's a talk page and I'm from the US) to use BE.
Please keep that in mind when editing. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 09:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
This is an international encyclopedia. There is no need to use an artificial US standard. --Valentinian 10:17, 7
February 2006 (UTC)
Val? Dante was suggesting we change it to BE (British English) so it is more internationalized. Attacking
makes the Kyaa sad. Kyaa the Catlord 10:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Terribly sorry, Kyaa and Dante. I read BE for CE (Common Era; the AD / Common Era thing again), and
I've just seen too many revisions back and forth because of supporters / opponents of that standard. I was
afraid that that dispute would now be mixed into this article (history sections) and I really don't think that
it needs any more controversy :-) I have absolutely no problems with Dante. --Valentinian 10:44, 7
February 2006 (UTC)
V, no problem. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
109
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Mrow. Yeah, thank god we're being reasonable. Well, for the most part. :D Kyaa the Catlord 10:46,
7 February 2006 (UTC)
Nice to see some decent discussion for a change :)--Sir48 11:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Grrr, I wish people would stop making neologisms that require capitalization. :D Islamophobia sticks out like a sore thumb
in a sentance. :D Kyaa the Catlord 12:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
This would be fruitless. There's too many new editors. We can barely keep the intro under control. Lotsofissues 12:41, 7
February 2006 (UTC)
This can't be controlled since this is a current event topic. I think using AE and BE will be fine. Editors worldwide edit in
both American and British English, its definitely hard to control this. --Terence Ong (????) 13:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it's pointless to try and strongarm it at the moment, what with the high frequency of edits. Still if people
are reading the talk pages and would OTHERWISE be inclined to use AE, please use BE as much as possible. We'll
probably have to go through and give it a thorough look-see in a few weeks. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:11, 7
February 2006 (UTC)
Danish journalistic tradition
I removed the following sentences from the article:
"...although some smaller newspapers do receive government subsidies in order to maintain operations. These newspapers
have sometimes had funding cut when expressing overtly hateful views."
Living in Denmark, I have not heard of anything like that for the past 50 years. So it needs a citation to remain there. --Sir48
10:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I stuttered over this for a while also. I think it’s a ref. to Radio Holger, which indeed had its funding cut. However this
is a radio, thus the text should be about media in general and not only newspaper. Twthmoses 11:06, 7 February 2006
(UTC)
Maybe it is. However, radio Holger had its license to send suspended for 3 months, following some hateful transmissions. I
110
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
don't think any funding was involved. Danish local radio is not subsidized, as far as I know. --Sir48 11:25, 7 February 2006
(UTC)
Danish criminal code
Description of section 140 and section 266b of the Danish Criminal Code is found both under the "police investigation of
Jyllandsposten" and under "Danish journalistic tradition". Somebody may contribute to a needed shortening of the article by
removing this redundancy. --Sir48 11:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
why don't you do it then? ;) Rajab 11:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
maps
Does anyone have the skills to draw a map of:
1. the countries where protests have occured
2. the countries which have re-published the cartoons?
Reading long lists is quite cumbersome, it's much nicer to look at a picture :)
Rajab 11:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
That's a great idea. Unfortunatly I cannot help you here, but hopefully someone else can. AlEX 12:13, 7 February
2006 (UTC)
how to improve wikipedia
Wouldn't it be amazing if there were an additional "editor's" version of each article where we could highlight individual
passages / words in an article & give it thumbs-up or thumbs-down? The overall opinion would then be shown as a colour
spectrum from very green (excellent) to very red (crap). Ppl who edit would then immediately know if they edit against the
general consensus or not... for example I've seen lots of great passages that are supported by many of us removed (in good
faith though) by rogue editors who happen to have a different opinion...
111
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
The reason why I thought of this: I'd like to give the word "pervasive" many thumbs up!! But I'm sure it will be removed
again sooner or later without trace by an editor who's not thoughtful... Rajab 12:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
They have been talking about instituting a review process for a while. Not sure how exactly... I don't think we could
(or should) implement it on just one article. But, something like that may come along. gren ??? ? 12:51, 7 February
2006 (UTC)
no, no - I didn't mean just this article. It's an idea for the whole of wiki :) Rajab 13:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
See: m:Article validation feature. Jacoplane 17:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Category
IMHO, this article must be under Category:Racism, but since there is controversy on this article, I´m posting first at talk
page. --Patrick-br msg 13:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
But it isn't racism. Kyaa the Catlord 13:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, where do you see racism? Valtam 16:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Even if you consider the cartoons discriminatory, and an attack on Islam, that would come under islamophobia,
not racism. Racism is representing human beings as inherently superior or inferior to each other based on
perceived racial background, but Islam is a religion that is not restricted to any specific race or ethnic group. An
attack on Islam can therefore never be considered racist.
I saw the word racism thrown about a lot by the rabid image reverters the first few days, but quite frankly I
think that only shows that they have no idea what they’re talking about. Eixo 16:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey, Islamophobia has to be capitalized! :P (God I hate that word. Almost as much as Islamofascist.)
Yes, I did just want to link to that. :D Islamophobia is a real misnomer anyways, it isn't a phobia when its
a rational fear. Kyaa the Catlord 19:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
if you're afraid of something just because it's different(I assume that's why you call the fear of
Islam "rational") then it's called xenophobia ;) Rajab 00:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
fear and phobia is per se the same word :) #AzaToth 19:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
112
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Islamophobia is categorized under Category:Racism. Technically, there is no race on the
human genre, so racism is always a political definition (from race: Conceptions of race, as
well as specific racial groupings, vary by culture and time and are often controversial due to
their impact on social identity and hence identity politics.) --Patrick-br msg 21:05, 7 February
2006 (UTC)
That's why I wrote "perceived racial background". This is not a question of genetics,
it's a question of the perceptions of the proponents of the ideas in question - whether
those are perceptions of race or of religion. And by the way: Islamophobia shouldn't be
categorized under racism. Eixo 23:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Can someone actually fix the Category:Racism page? It has stuff (such as
Islamophobia) which does not belong on that page. Titanium Dragon 00:02, 8
February 2006 (UTC)
I'd call it more bigotry or prejudice, but bigotry is filed under racism for some reason? --Ssj4android 23:09, 7
February 2006 (UTC)
This isn't racist. At all. People need to learn what racist means. It means "discriminating on the basis of race".
Titanium Dragon 23:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
A propos, this tendency to group any form of prejudice as racism makes me think of an episode from Ali G.
He's interviewing a director at the FBI, and asks if you have to be really smart to get a job there. 'Well yes', the
man says 'you do need good grades, and you must be quite intelligent.' To which our goateed friend replies:
'Ain't dat a bit racialist?'
It's the Aligifisation of society. Eixo 00:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Question about one cartoon's interpretation
I'm so very hesitate to get into this fray, but I've been looking over this article and I now question whether this
"Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, with a lit fuse and the Islamic creed written on the bomb" description of that
cartoon is accurate. Is anyone certain that the man drawn there is Muhammad? Might the artist be saying that the bomb with
lit fuse and creed represents Muhammad? Without explicit explanation from all the cartoonists involved, I think the article
needs to be very cautious about how it interprets the drawings. Wouldn't a better description of this one simply be "a man
with a turban..... etc? " J. Van Meter 13:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
113
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Well, the name of the game was "caricatures of Muhammed", so it's quite safe to assume the man depicted is, in fact,
Muhammed. Just my 2pence. --DerHerrMigo 13:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
If it was not intended to be Muhammad , then nothing from these problems should happen . --Chaos 13:33, 7 February 2006
(UTC)
The artists were all asked to come up with their idea of Muhammed, and each of the published cartoons had the label
'Muhammed' next to the image, so they clearly are suppposed to be rpresentations of the Prophet. --Squiddy | (squirt
ink?) 13:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
This article, where the artist is quoted as saying "I would draw him again" implies that he did indeed draw
Muhammed. http://politiken.dk/visArtikel.iasp?PageID=402804 . As to what the bomb means, unfortunately he does
not say here, and I have not found any other source. It would be interesting to hear his own interpretation.
DanielDemaret 15:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The book sells well
The childrens book that started it all is selling well, and has had no negative reactions, only kind words, despite the
drawings it contains. Isn't that nice? http://www.jp.dk/kultur/artikel:aid=3542250/ DanielDemaret 14:17, 7 February 2006
(UTC)
Hmmm....not very nice as it stills contain the cartoon. Everything is in Danish, I don't understand it. --Terence Ong (?
???) 15:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
"the cartoon"? Which specific cartoon are you referring to?DanielDemaret 15:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
like I said, it's all about the context ;) Rajab 18:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
or maybe not all but at least 80% Rajab 18:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Comparable incidents section
114
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Does anyone agree that the section is too lengthy? It's a duplication of the main page. Every other section with a derivative
main article is summarized neatly. I propose it be cut down by at least half. When I tried though, I was reverted. Any other
input. Lotsofissues 13:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Iran paper plans Holocaust cartoons
I think this should be included [4] --Chaos 13:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
this surely won't be difficult. They only have to look at arab newspapers from the past years. These anti-semetic
cartoons are numerous.-Nomen Nescio 13:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
the Belgian AEL has put some anti-semetic cartoons on their website, including one that denies the Holocaust.
But Holocaust denial is illegal in Belgium. AlEX 14:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
AFAIK, it was the Dutch branch of the Belgian organisation. And there is no Dutch law against
Holocaust denial, although there is jurisprudence against it. The Amsterdam-based Centrum Informatie
en Documentatie Israël (CIDI) has now sued the AEL. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 15:08, 7 February 2006
(UTC)
The AEL link is dead at the moment, Bandwidth exceeded. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:28, 7
February 2006 (UTC)
If only more Muslim nations realized that the proper response to offensive hackneyed cartoons was not violence and
destruction, but a back-and-forth dialogue entirely consisting of offensive hackneyed cartoons. --Ryan Utt 18:38, 7 February
2006 (UTC)
Genius. --Tristero Post 20:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Satirical?
The intro states that the cartoons "were intended as satirical illustrations." There are then repeated references to their
"satirical" nature in the rest of the article. Is not this a matter of interpretation rather than fact? Who says they were
115
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
"intended as satirical"? (Some clearly are, e.g. the notorious "bomb-in-the-turban" - others, most obviously the one of
Mohammed in the desert, are surely not.) Has the commissioning editor at JP admitted that that was the intention? Without
a source to clarify the intention, it is factually incorrect as well as, in the circumstances, irresponsible to make such a loaded
claim. Vilcxjo 14:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
What the cultural editor at JP, Fleming Rose, has said and written was that they were not intended to be any insult to
islam, and that he did not view them as insults. Personally, I believe him.DanielDemaret 14:24, 7 February 2006
(UTC)
JP had a competition amongst its cartoon-drawers to make a cartoon of Muhammad (pbuh) in order to highlight
the fact that no illustrator could be found to make pictures of Muhammad (pbuh) for a children's book. They
then printed the cartoons of those cartoon-drawers who responded. So I agree - the intention wasn't sartirical.
The stated intention was to highlight the fact that no illustrator could be found to make pictures of Muhammad
(pbuh) for a children's book. Rajab 14:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that, Rajab - am removing the phrase in question. Vilcxjo 15:26, 7 February 2006
(UTC)
It was definitely not a *competition* as such 86.139.217.222 15:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
they asked all their cartoon-drawers to submit a cartoon about Muhammad (pbuh). The idea was to print the best of
those who responded. In the end they printed all Rajab 18:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Template
I created tempalte Template:Muhammad cartoons and placed it in two article already. Remove the "see also" or "main
article" and replace it with this template.
that's amazing - we have a huge discussion on how to avoid insulting readers by showing the cartoons (e.g. putting a
warning before showing them etc.) & now you come up with a way to show them on each & every article Rajab
15:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC). And you don't even sign your name....
We were not having a discussion on that, you (plural) were talking to us about that. That does not constitute a
dialogue towards avoiding offense. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 15:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
116
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
that's interesting - you don't consider Muslims as equal on wikipedia? Of course *we* (wikipedians) had
a discussion about that. Just have a look at the 9 archives Rajab 18:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
What? Where on earth did you get that from? Where have I ever said anything that remotely
resembles this nonsense? There has been no discussion on how to avoid offense. There have been
only requests by you (plural) towards others to please consider moving the image. Requests do not
constitute a discussion/dialogue. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 20:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Article 9 of the Fair use criteria: "[Fair use images] should never be used on templates". /Djonn 15:13, 7 February
2006 (UTC)
just remove the image from the template; showing it here is adequate. Spreading it over as many related articles as possible
appears a bad faith attempte at "rubbing it in", not very nice. dab (?) 16:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that including the image in a template would have been a bad faith effort to "rub it in". I think it would have
been a perfectly appropriate image for a template relating to the cartoons controversy. However, the point is moot,
because we can't place fair use images in templates, as mentioned above. Babajobu 11:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Princess
Moved to Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments#Princess
Primary source of story on additional (fake) images
Ekstra Bladet imply in their editorial[1] January 12 that they can now reveal that three additional pictures were shown in the
43 page report. user:liftarn have written in the article that "According to TV4 Nyheterna 2006-02-06 the primary source for
the information was Dansk Folkeparti". I removed this sentense because I doubt that Dansk Folkeparti as a political party
would be the first to dig up the story, the cited broadcast from the Swedish news is much more recent and I find it more
likely that TV4 was informed about the story by Dansk Folkeparti, who read it in Ekstra Bladet. If user:liftarn really know
that this is wrong, please explain feel free to change the citation accordingly. Claush66 15:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
117
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
An external link
Time Magazine just printed commentary both for and against the cartoons, written by people from all different perspectives.
You can link to it here (there are three pages worth).--Magmagirl 16:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The Independent cites this article
"One thing I gleaned from the internet - thanks, tomgrossme-dia.com and Wikipedia- is that Islamisk Trossamfund, the
Danish Muslim group which has spent the past few months fomenting unrest about the cartoons, has supplemented the ones
which were originally published by Jyl-lands-Posten, with three additional cartoons of unknown origin: one shows
Mohamed with a pig's snout, one shows the Prophet as a dangerous paedophile and the third shows a Muslim at prayer being
buggered by a dog. If indeed such cartoons are being circulated throughout the Middle East by European-based Muslim
groups then it becomes easier to understand the level of popular outrage - and to understand the real motives of those
leading it." — The Independent, February 7, 2006 Lotsofissues 16:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Woo! Thank you Independent! Kyaa the Catlord 17:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of which, there was a box on this page earlier that stated that we were quoted earlier. It is gone now,
though... Kyaa the Catlord 17:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, someone must have archived it. Babajobu 17:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
New charge will be made
According to Danish newpaper Politiken today, a new organisation, Danes against Blasphemy has asked the Public
Prosecutor, who initially rejected any foundation for a charge, to make a new charge, so that the issue can be given a
decision by the court instead.
One of the founders of the organisation is Jacob Erle, whose Jewish father fled to Denmark in 1939 as a result of Nazi
persecution. The same year the law against derision of etnic or relgious minorites was adopted by the Danish parliament.
He states "Jyllandsposten has directly challanged the law we have regarding the protection of minorities, and that is made
clear by what it wrote on September 30th." 86.52.36.140 17:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
118
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Countries Table: multiples lines for one country
There is 2 lines for "Belgium" and two for "France" too. Why don't regroup them ?
Because they are in a chronological order Azate 18:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
As Politically Correct as it gets.
Wow: "Muslims and Non-Muslims from Denmark and other places in the world...". Thats quite a way to put it. Azate 18:06,
7 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh god. I hope noone minds me tearing that apart and rebuilding it, bigger, better, faster, stronger. Kyaa the Catlord
18:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Polite Request
Please try not to add to the introductory paragraphs. They are HUGE as it is and adding multiple line quotations, albeit
sourced, is not helpful. Add those quotations in the body of the article where they logically fit. We spent hours last night
streamlining the introductory paragraphs and now they are once again bloated to hell. Kyaa the Catlord 18:11, 7 February
2006 (UTC)
Netscott: It stands to reason that a consumer and/or govemtnment organized boycott of Danish products THAT
ACTUALLY HAPPENS is not on the the footing as a call for a retributional boycott from some obscure blog that has had
no impact whatsoever. You can mention it in the appropriate part of the article, but not in the introduction. Please quit
adding it over and over again. Azate 18:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I CANNOT WAIT!!!!!!!!!
i cannot wait until Iran newspaper prints off the Holocaust competition cartoons...then we will test the double standards of
119
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
wikipedia..
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060207/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_cartoons_2—The preceding unsigned comment was added by
212.1.138.17 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC).
They will probably be posted as well. People will be interested in seeing what the big deal is about those cartoons, as
they were about these cartoons. — TheKMantalk 18:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
What double standards? And sign your posts!Valtam 18:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I assume Wikipedia will include those pictures, as well. The IPs can wail as much as they like about a
Wikipedia double standard, but there isn't one; the truth is that Wikipedia is extending the same guidelines to
Muslims as it does to all other communities, and this is what has produced such fury from the IPs. Babajobu
18:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I hope the cartoons are well drawn and funny. It would be sad to have to make an article with low quality
art.DanielDemaret 19:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
You mean another article with low quality art, we already have one! :D Kyaa the Catlord 19:04, 7 February
2006 (UTC)
I stand corrected, Catlord.DanielDemaret 19:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The really funny thing is that this newspaper will happily print holocaust cartoons, but won't print THESE cartoons,
therefore the only hypocrisy is with them WookMuff 19:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, when a state-run media declares that it's going to make a rhetorical point about free speech, it's hard not to roll
your eyes. Babajobu 19:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Assuming the controversy over those cartoons is even a fraction of what we're seeing now, I fully expect them to be
published on wikipedia. I'm not sure exactly what "double standard" you're alleging wikipedia has, but I'm fairly
certain it's nonexistent here. BinaryTed 19:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
It is a pity I wont dare show the coming "holocaust denial"-cartoons to my mother. It would bring back too many bad
memories from when she had to treat those few poor undernourished survivors.DanielDemaret 19:43, 7 February
2006 (UTC)
There is a minor point to mentioning 'Holocaust', since it's supposedly illegal in Germany to try and convince people that
"the Holocaust never existed". I don't know the paragraph in question, so I can't give any specifics on it's wording or
purpose (although I would be very interested). Anyway, this picture: [5] is slightly related to the holocaust. I haven't got the
120
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
guts to send it in, but someone else might have :-).
putting holocaust denial on the same shelf as drawing a cartoon is itself bad faith and lack of categorization (as
was pointed out repeatedly). "Piss Christ" is a valid comparison in terms of blasphemy, and yes, we do have
that image. Those Iranian papers will only manage to make themselves look like sad morons, and I hope the
civilized world will make a point by rolling its eyes and by notable absence of riots or embassy torchings. dab
(?) 20:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
If Iran actually holds such a contest, then we should show samples here in this article. Since it will be a response to this
event, it will be releveant. Would it not be great if this were the first stumbling steps to replacing armed violence with
cartoons? DanielDemaret 22:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
it would be, if muslims (and probably jews after these new cartoons are published) didn't react to said cartoons WITH
violence WookMuff 08:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Heh, if Jews reacted with riots and violence every time antisemitic images were published in the Muslim world,
they'd never stop rioting. I think the chances of this new set of images provoking such a reaction is slim to none.
Also, if they didn't respond with violence when the Iranian head-of-state said the holocaust was a myth, they're
unlikely to be much more exercised about the cartoons. Babajobu 08:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Saudi Arabian influence
I normally say away from hotly contested articles, but I think I'll make an exception on this one. I saw yesterday on dailykos
[6] they were talking about why there was such a delayed reaction to the pictures and the author of the link above stated that
it was because Saudi Arabia was trying to distract people from the Hajj stampedes. The author noted about the same time
people started to complain that Saudi Arabia hadn't fixed the problem that caused the stampedes, Saudi Arabia started to
push the controversy. I couldn't find anything relating to this in the article, and wondered if this was just some tin foil hat
theory or if Wikipedia was just missing it because to much stuff was already put into the article. Anyway, looks good, if not
a bit long. Normally current events get chopped up into sub-articles after they stop occurring, so I wouldn't worry about that.
--Rayc 18:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there's a simpler potential explanation: As per David Conway's blog, [7] the next country to head the U.N.
Security Council, which may impose sanctions on Iran for its nuclear program, is.... Denmark! What better way to put
the pressure on Denmark than this entire controversy? Valtam 18:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
121
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
So we now have two politics based reasons for the riots. Where would be a good place to put "Other possible
causes" and who is bold enough to do it whlie maintaining NPOV? --Rayc 18:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I think we should probably have a "wing-bat conspiracy theory" subhead. But I don't hold my breath on
how long it will last. Some people get upset over the SILLIEST things (like editorial cartoons). Kyaa the
Catlord 19:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Hell, one of Iran's figureheads said the publishing of the images was an israeli plot in retaliation of the win by Hamas
in Palestine. Never mind that the images were published before the elections. Conspiracy theories are fun! Kyaa the
Catlord 19:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Balanced Boycott Info
What is the problem with providing references to those calling for anti-boycotts in the introduction?
Netscott 18:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Your sources aren't reliable. See: WikiPedia:Reliable_sources Kyaa the Catlord 18:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Netscott: It stands to reason that a consumer and/or govemtnment organized boycott of Danish products THAT
ACTUALLY HAPPENS is not on the the footing as a call for a retributional boycott from some obscure blog that has
had no impact whatsoever. You can mention it in the appropriate part of the article, but not in the introduction. Please
quit adding it over and over again. Azate 18:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Ownership of Jyllands-Posten
I have removed the following from the page as it does not give adequate sources.--File Éireann 18:55, 7 February 2006
(UTC) Further misinformation reportedly spread amongst Arab Muslims includes claims that Jyllands-Posten is a
government-owned newspaper, which is incorrect. For example, the spokesman for the Danish delegation Muhammed al
Samha, and delegation member Ahmed al-Harbi said in the Egyptian newspaper al-Ahram: "Jyllands-Posten, a newspaper
belonging to the ruling Danish party — an extreme right-wing party — [was] publishing drawings and sketches of the
prophet Muhammad."citation needed
Other claims include statements that Danish newspapers are running a campaign against Islamcitation needed and that the
122
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Danish government is planning to publish a censored version of the Qur'an.citation needed The confusion might have arisen
because of the recent publication of Kåre Bluitgen's children's book Koranen og profeten Muhammeds liv ("The Qur'an and
the life of Prophet Muhammed"). It is not published by the government but by an independent publisher (Høst og Søn).
The original source was: www.information.dk/Eksport/Temapakker/Tema55.html (from 12 jan. 2006). Azate 19:05, 7
February 2006 (UTC).
Quote from Syphillis Article
I believe a quote from the syphillis article "and the Arabs called it the "Disease of the Christians" because this also incites
religious hatred! Why is it bad drawing pictures and this comment is right?? Somethings not right here.
Well, this is going to be less than politically correct but... Because Christians don't flip out over small slights? Kyaa
the Catlord 19:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it's possible that they called it "Disease of the Christians" because it was Christian visitors to Arabia that
brought the disease? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
So I see, a disease should be named after a religion, so there were never diseases in Arabia at all before the Christian visitors
came?? Does it not occur to anyone, that we are all as bad as each other??
We're not interested in syphillis on this page. Secretlondon 19:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
No, this is not about Syphillis, I am trying to make a point that we are all as bad as each other. Attacking each
other beliefs should stop.
We're not attacking anyone's beliefs. Well, maybe the followers of the Invisible Pink Unicorn but that's
because Steve Eley is damnable. Kyaa the Catlord 19:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC) And apparently not
wikified. Such a shame.
ok, the world really has gone mad! Invisible Pink Unicorn???
"Holocaust competition cartoons" - See what I mean, bad as each other!!
123
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
His Noodly Appendage
Would it be appropriate/NPOV/non-WP:OR/etc to mention Flying Spaghetti Monster as an example of cartoons and humour
as means of religious dialogue? That that sort of thing simply happens in the West. So a Westener might not immediately
guess that someone will start torching buildings if you do it. Just a random idea. (Hmm, does someone think that mentioning
it tries to draw an insulting parallel between midgits and Muhammad...? Oh Jebus I'm getting paranoid.) Weregerbil 20:35, 7
February 2006 (UTC)
You have insulted His Noodleness. Prepare to apologize and eat it all up!
We were talking about his holy noodleness but it got archived Spazm 22:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Talk: Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy - Archive 12a
$
'
(%
* +
& 1
%
& 1
&
+
'
&
G
:$
;+
+
;
* C
'*(%
7
'
G
!6
< G $
>$
&
>
>
?
'
+
FF
(
8% %
$ 7 &
8%&
F
&
+
+
1
1
''
''
1 &
1 &
&
124
1
A
%&
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
6 &(
+
'
4 &
:$ %&
;7
1
'
('
&
7 /94C ",
&
1
'
3
!"
<@
>@
?,
*
*
&
F
&
&
&
> ,
> / '
F
=
%
A
(
(
&
%
@
%
&(
9&
F
P F
:
;6:
%
1 *(%
4
%
!
<0
>
3%
&
%
F
?
%%
%
F
: 4
: 7
&
:
''
% &
:: 7
'7
:; 4
(F
: 7
.
'
:!
:< @ &(
&(
:> $ $
(,
:? + 9%
;
3+
&
; *
%
&
F
=
*(%
'
Balance
125
%
&
F
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
WE NEED TO FIND A BALANCE BETWEEN RIGHT OF SPEECH AND OFENSIVE MATERIAL
I think it is not easy to define the line between the right of expression and the right to respect the religion factor in cases like
this. I was trying to find the balance because I know that the future generations need to see and to know the facts of the
history including the bads things like this. but too, I know how the muslims feel this. always there's a way to solve the
things. we can keep the cartoons for history purposes in a way that the people only can see it by 3-4 clicks away and
showing the rules for view it. but dont make people angry and die just for abusive use of the free of speech.
scaglietti, NJ
I'm glad WIKI is here for me
I'm glad Wiki has this article. After reading a few stories in the New York TImes, I wanted to see the cartoon that has
created so much fuss. I looked all over the web and most sites I found were blogs on the topic with other editorial cartoons.
Thankfully Wiki had the article and I was able to become better informed on the topic.
Thank you Wikipedia
this is the only site on the web i could even find these cartoons. pretty rough considering 1/2 the world is for free speech.
They are elsewhere. YOu just need to know where to look. 129.171.187.135 17:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
The Power of Wikipedia
When most major newspapers faced significant wrath for publishing even a part of the cartoons, Wikipedia still stands high
even after having all the cartoons in its page for more than a week. People could intimidate the editors of those newspapers
and force them to resign, but nothing could be done against Wikipedia. I feel, this is a wonderful attribute of Wikipedia that
is on exhibition at the time of this crises. The collective responsibility combined with civilized reactions, makes this as the
best exponent of Free Speech.
Agreed. The power of the Internet and Wikipedia shows us that fundamental people (of different faiths and not just
Muslims) are not able to ban or protest violently against controversial drawings or pictures. Siva1979 13:06, 9
February 2006 (UTC)
126
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
I'm quite disappointed by the reactions I've read in the topics below, namely those arrogant and insensitive replies to those
who were requesting the cartoons to be moved to another location, or to provide a link for it (e.g. Hitokirishinji and Kyaa
the Catlord in response to Yosri). The original posts are very civil and humane, whereas it seems in the responses people
have picked up a very proud and arrogant attitude for keeping the pictures up no matter what the others say. Replies such as
"If you are mortally offended by wikipedia and western values then there is simply no reason for you to visit the english
wikipedia, or indeed, any western site." (not sure who posted that one) definitely don't go together with the concept of
responsibility when disseminating information. If wikipedia is just a place where the authors demonstrate their power over
MSNBC or whoever else you've depicted as weak (which in my opinion would translate as more sensitive to those different
from the mainstream readers they have) then I guess all that's on the page is justified. Otherwise I would really urge you to
think twice before you post. I personally do not have a clear opinion if the small size images are still offensive to people or
not. But if enough people say it is, I think this is enuogh reason to take it off. Trying to explain to them how they should feel
or how in your world insulting them is completely normal will only fuel anger at your own world, and you'll be wondering
why these muslims react the way they do. Think about it: it's the western media (in the true sense of the word, including
internet and sites such as wikipedia) who disseminate information and pictures, the western readers who read it and form
their opinion, and the topic in question is about people who for the most part don't even understand english. And when the
few who can read english give their input, you tell them not to visit the english sites if they're offended. Doesn't this pave the
way for the isolation of a group of people who don't speak your language, and yet you keep writing about?
Also think about this: not every post is about proving one's point over the others, or for the pure goal of winning over some
debate, but sometimes just about someone's input on how they feel about or experience the topic in question.
212.201.44.249 16:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Serkan
Actaully, this has nothing to do with struggle and power over MSNBC. In fact, I really couldn't care less what
MSNBC has to say about wikipedia. Wikipedia is created by a community of editors, many from every type of
background imaginable. So explain to me how MSNBC and their poll has any accurate ability to measure the
consensus of the Wikipedia community? I would be willing to bet the number of people who voted on that MSNBC
poll have ever registered or logged onto Wikipedia. So, I'll be clear MSNBC is not Wikipedia and its opinion most
likely has no bearing here.
Secondly, we have never said "go away if you don't like it". Instead, we have said "turn off load images" so as to
avoid seeing the image at all. Check the archieves and stop trying to shove words into our mouths. By your logic
"...still offensive to people or not. But if enough people say it is, I think this is enuogh reason to take it off..." we
127
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
should remove the state of Israel from the map because its very existence angers and offends many Muslims. And we
should remove Piss Christ and Lolicon. Again, we've been through this before, read the archives.
Lastly, these "non-english" speaking people who have an opinion. Why limit it to Muslims who can't read English?
Why not give everyone a chance to express their opinion? Why do you feel that the people who are offended and
cannot speak English only get a valid opinion? What about people can't speak English and are not offended, I suppose
for you they aren't nearly important enough? So to be truely fair, we would have to poll the entire world practically
and I'm sure the 1 billion ethnic Chinese and 1 billion Indians living on the eastern side of the world would have an
opinion. One that shouldn't count any less than anyone elses.
I would hardly qualify my arguments as "arrogant" but more like "really frustrated that we have to go through this
every single time and people keep making up false assumptions as arguments to remove the image that has been
overwhelmingly supported to stay"
Hitokirishinji 18:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I would like to say that these values are not 'Western' values, freedom is something valued by everyone.
What I said has nothing to do with other non-english-speakers, or the jewish state or jesus christ. taking israel off the map
seems like a quite far fetched example to disprove my point. Would you agree that Hamas rules Palestine? (Freedom of
speech, democracy, yeay). Even though few westeners would support hamas, you'd have to be consistant and deal just as
legitimately with Hamas.
All I said was, that a few of the people whose opinion should be worth more on the matter (since i see no-one else that this
directly affects) on the matter have expressed that it is an offense to their beliefs and religion. Who benefits from going
against these people? I think one should really distinguish between freedom of speech in media so that the press may
enlighten the rest of the public on things they should know (like some behind the scenes scandal, or whatever else you can
think of, in which the media has played an important but positive role) and feedom of speech which just serves itself. Since
I'm free to say what I want, I could make borderline comments about people, and claim it's freedom of speech. In any case, I
don't want to rediscuss what's already been discussed many times over here. I just thought the two posts I read were quite
arrogant including yours. Now that you've reworded this, I don't feel so bad about it any more. But the problem in the first
place is not how I perceive things, but how the people you've responded to will feel like. I'm quite sure those muslims
around the world who see defiant reactions from the western media (an example of which was also experienced here) will
128
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
feel isolated and disliked. I'm just not sure who would benefit from a sarcastic, mean comment like yours (earlier). Thanks
for the explanations though.
212.201.44.249 19:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Serkan
I disagree with you wholeheartedly. Someone's opinion should not be worth more. That's like saying, depending upon
your importance/religion/knowledge/party affliation/place in politics/education you get extra votes so when you vote
on it, we can take into account those things. Sorry, every American gets one vote when we vote for President or
Congress. No one gets anymore because the believe more strongly than others. And I believe we are entirely harming
ourselves by submitting to the demands of the offended. There are many things people can be offended by and just
about anything. To be fair we would have to su~bmit to trying not to "offend" others as well. At that rate, we may as
well throw the encyclopedia away because there are an infinite number of topics people will argue and be offended
about. I'm guilty of being annoyed and letting that getting into my posts as anyone else is but my argument still stands
and I think some will agree with me. About Hamas all I have to say is this, one other nation called for the
extermination of the Jewish people, it was Germany under Hitler and as we have seen before, talking does not seem to
work. Until violence is set aside, I doubt Hamas will be treated very well in international politics. Anways that is a
digression, back to the article. Hitokirishinji 20:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say whoever believes more strongly should have more of a say. But maybe my question would be more clear if you
tried to answer who else would be more closely related to this topic than muslims. That's like discussing about the effects of
parent separation on kids and not caring about what the kid has to say. Also you have still not addressed how the caricatures
would benefit anyone. The damage is way too obvious and the benefits I couldn't really find on this page. A principle is only
a principle if it serves a purpose.
- We are fighting for the principle of freedom of speech.
- Ok, so what is your message?
- That Mohammed is a terrorist.\
This sounds like a southpark line to me. And I still fail to see the point of defending this caricature.
212.201.44.249 20:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC) Serkan
Actually I never drew the conclusion that Mohammed was a terrorist from the cartoons. It never creeped into my mind
at all and as others have pointed out, this puts the whole thing into context as well as provides a chance to everyone to
form their own opinion, especially not one like "Mohammed" is a terrorist. I doubt anyone here seriously got the
129
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
message "Mohammed is a terrorist" from the cartoons. Our line of thought is not "We are promoting this image
because it suggests Mohammed is a terrorist". You are making conclusions for us and assuming intent. Anyone here
can back me up with that? Hitokirishinji 21:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I thought the "bomb turbin" image was quite rediculous. Explosives did not exist during the time period
Mohummad lived so it seemed out of context and pretty absurd. Hitokirishinji 21:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
If you interpret the picture metaphorically you might consider it to mean, for example, "The religion founded by
this guy promotes the use of bombs." Depending on the original context, the intent of the cartoonist might be
something different - to suggest that this may be the case, or that it appears to be the case, or is believed by
some to be the case, etc. Regardless, it serves an important purpose in stimulating debate, which is one of the
reasons that we have freedom of speech. Wikipedia's inclusion of it, on the other hand, is motivated by a desire
to provide full information about a topic of interest - in this case, the controversy the cartoons have caused.
Neither wikipedia nor the original newspaper (probably) displayed this image to suggest that Mohammed was
literally a terrorist.--144.136.180.2 01:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
More importantly, none of the opinions matter. If there were a cartoon that had George bush pointing a rocket launcher at an
Iraqi school bus and Dick Cheney next to him saying "well, Osama could be inside after all" it would get protested, but it
would get printed. The only reason it wouldn't get onto wikipedia is because there would be so little controversy over it
being printed that there would be nothing to chronicle. Free speech is applied as evenly as possible. 146.163.218.221 19:27,
10 February 2006 (UTC)
Polls
Reliability of the Polls??
Is it how issues are resolved in wikipedia? The polls were created for a duration of time and closed without any relevant
reason!!How could someone judge whenever a poll should be closed? specially that the article is still a current event, so
closing it before is not a wise decision. Hence one can ask about reliability of those polls. Another thing is that we should
respect religions, and showing such a picture is not the best way to calm things, and two cannot disargue that showing this
picture is provoking others feelings, and that's not what wikipedia is about. the least thing is to put an external link (not
internal) of the picture.
Again, right now we're trying to keep this article together. Now is not the time to reopen the polls, we're having
130
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
enough trouble just keeping the page together without people blanking the whole thing. In terms of the polls, the votes
to keep were so overwhelming, it would be futile to assume a hundred or so people would appear from nowhere and
vote for a delete. Regardless, Wikipedia is not here to "calm" or "appease". It is here to inform about everything. We
have gone over this before, once again please check the archives. Hitokirishinji 21:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Polls are not a usual way of deciding on article content, but they sometimes happen. In this case, it was deemed that
the community had to speak out on the article. Consensus was found, with over 80% in favour of keeping the cartoons
in the article. The closure of the poll was therefore within the closing admin's discretion. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 11:54,
10 February 2006 (UTC)
It's time to talk
Moved to Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments#It's time to talk
Adding "pig person" picture?
I think it would be a good idea to add the "pig person" picture to the article, under the "misinformation" heading. The article
has a very low picture/text ratio as it is, and the picture would add to the understanding of the events because it is an
example of how misinformation has increased the severity of the conflict. The copyright of the original photo probably
belongs to AP, but given the low quality of the reproduction, it should be easy to claim "fair use". Since there seems to be
concensus that the picture is of a French pig squealing contestant and not a religious personality of any kind, there should be
no blasphemy issue. Still, I post the question here before doing any changes to the article. --PeR 21:55, 7 February 2006
(UTC)
I agree. It is a quite good illustration of all the misinformation in this whole affair... Claush66 22:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I've translated the Danish text (see above) and repeated that this and two other images have never been printed by
Jyllands-Posten. --Valentinian 22:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
My personal recommendation is not to add the "pig person" picture until we have a translation of the Arabic in
the dossier that (may) put it into context. The picture may apear to be an attempt to deceive, but on its own the
131
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
suggestion of deception it is again potentially misleading, without context. Let's take care not add to
misinformation by adding our own. -- Vanitas 22:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Seconded. There are conflicting claims about it. --Kizor 23:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. However, I think the fact that the "43p dossier" contains 15 cartoons instead of 12 is interesting
regardles of what the arabic text says. When confronted with a thick document, most people tend to just
look at the pictures and draw their own conclusions. (In fact, this is the exact reason we're having this
discussion. The potentially erroneous claim from the Brussels Journal is already in the article, in text
form.) --PeR 23:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The "pig person" is the one aired by BBC and al-Jazeera just before the outbreak of this controversy. It was
added to the dossier to illustrate the percieved general hostility against muslims in Denmark. It is supposedly
send anonymously to an (as yet) unidentified person MX44 23:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
If that is true, then the picture is very relevant, regardles of its original context. --PeR 23:59, 7 February
2006 (UTC)
Here's the link in any case. --Kizor 03:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The fact that the pig snort picture was mad public at MSNBC back in August 15 (and possibly elsewhere) actually
falsifies the "fact" in our article that "none of them [the additional images] had previously been published by
Jyllands-Posten or any other mainstream media outlet". I dont know if it is worthwile to make this clear, or if it will
complicate the paragraph unreasonably as it is contradicted a few lines below? Claush66 09:58, 8 February 2006
(UTC)
The pig-person from the dossier is a derived work with an inscription: "The true face of Muhammad". It is in
this context that the picture is unpublished. MX44 11:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Yet that is not how the Danish media presents it today. The leading tabloid Ekstra-Bladet, has published
the original picture in colour on the frontpage with the header "Imam Photo fraud" . Thus the context is
lost on the public. Namely that the picture, apparently sent by an anonymous to a Muslim, in the dossier
had the "The true face of Muhammed" comment. 86.52.36.140 16:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
And exactly /what/ did you expect from a tabloid. MX44 05:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, then Wikipedia is a tabloid. I see you have published the picture without the contextual
message. That is manipulation on your behalf. Noted.86.52.36.140 13:18, 9 February 2006
(UTC)
132
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
UPDATE from BBC: For an account of how another picture, allegedly of Muhammad portrayed as a pig but in fact a copy
of a photo from a pig-squealing contest in France, played a role, see the end of this article The propaganda factor - the "pig"
picture MX44 12:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
So the BBC themselves admit they erroneously portrayed this picture as one of the 12. This makes it highly
noteworthy, and it should be included as per the above argumentation. Does anybody feel like doing the image
preparation and uploading? --PeR 23:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
This is an improvement from the side of BBC, sure. Unfortunately al-Jazeera also aired the footage, reaching a
far wider audience. MX44 05:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I have uploaded the picture, and put it in the article. --PeR 08:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
It's Time To Reconsider
Moved to Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments#It's Time To Reconsider
The cartoons in the article
Please remove the offensive cartoon
Please remove those cartoons...It is making people more violent, this is a very sensitive issue. If freedom is the right to do
anything then why do we needs law ? Article having information about this issue is sufficient enough and there is no need of
images.
We as muslims strongly condemn this blasphemous act and demand to remove this cartoon from this site. Islam is a religion
of peace and it gives respect to other religions therefore Islam must be respected as well.
Remove those cartoons straightaway.
Danish Hameed
Thank you for your input. We kindly disagree and will be keeping the image. Have a nice day. Kyaa the Catlord
133
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
12:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand the term "freedom". Anyways, as Kyaa pointed out, we have already decided on this,
please check the archives. The image will remain where it is. Hitokirishinji 18:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed that the cartoon should stay. Just as few Muslims (even those upset an the initial printing) objected to
the BBC publishing the cartoons in an obvious attempt to help people understand the controversy, it is
important that these stay here today. It is impossible to understand the controversy without seeing the cartoons.
--Einhverfr 00:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
There has been a great deal of discussion about this. It's felt that Wikipedia is a reporter and a chronicler. The NPOV,
Neutral Point Of View, principle is one of the cornerstones of the project - to the best of our abilities, the
encyclopedia does not take sides. Therefore, it can use anti-semitic pictures (examples visible elsewhere on this page)
to speak of anti-semitism's existence, instead spereading anti-semitism. Similarily, the cartoons are used here to give
information about them and not to voice an opinion. --Kizor 01:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Dear Danish Hameed, we indeed need laws to protect the society against some dangerous things. But if
you actually study what the laws say, they definitely do not say that Wikipedia should hide the pictures
that are essential for this whole story. On the contrary, the laws give the people freedom of expression,
and protect them against those who want to cancel the freedom of expression. Please accept the fact that
en.wikipedia.org is a server that follows the laws of the U.S. and the U.K. The Muslims who live in
countries where it is not legal to publish pictures, like alqaeda.wikipedia.org, may succeed in erasing the
picture. Here it does not work. It is not enough if Mohammed disagrees with being pictured here; Jimbo
Wales and the Wikieditors would have to disagree, too. --Lumidek 01:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
alqaeda.wikipedia.org? Be nice, Lumidek. --Kizor 02:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I see no reason at all to remove the cartoon - whether anyone finds it offensive or not. Surely the central item of the debate
should appear in the article, as there can be no more appropriate picture to explain what the 'issue' is. Robovski 01:47, 12
February 2006 (UTC)
Please remove the offensive cartoon
Please either remove the cartoon or move it down. This cartoon is very offensive to Muslims and Islam worldwide and your
134
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
polls are obviously biased. By publishing the cartoon you are putting more fuel over the fire already created by this cartoon.
By publishing the cartoon, Wikipedia is acknowledging that it is not offensive to publish this cartoon. There are many
Muslims in the world and we need to be more considerate about this issue.
If ever highly controversial cartoons about other religions are published, will you publish them like this? I don't think so.
For knowledge purposes, a description of cartoon is more than enough.
Frank
Please be original and request that we blank the faces instead. Seriously, these cartoons are not more offensive than
the work of Richard Wagner. The muslims are overreacting because they have been focusing so much about a kata
(martial arts) (to avoid depictions of prophets) they learned, that they have lost the whole point (to avoid idolatry).
This is a serious problem, and removing/hiding the picture does no good at all. Please inform yourself about phobias
and systematic desensitization. DrJones 23:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, when the anti-jewish cartoons come out from Iran, I'll bet you wikipedia publishes them too. Who are
youto tell me what is offensive or not. Our polls are biased? It's a petition. That's the amount of signatures.
Ready
Aim Fire! 22:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Westerners are just not offended by this. SWATJester
Maybe we should move this headline nearer to the top of the talk page, along with a link to a subpage for
separate discussion of this topic. This is probably the most frequent posting, and it seems naïve to think that
everyone is going to read the archives before reposting it. --PeR 22:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I actually don't think that the cartoons are the problem but this is not the forum for this discussion. One cannot
understand what is making you so upset if we cannot see the cartoons. There is a difference between knowledge
and understanding. --Einhverfr 00:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
You need to better explain your case. You need to explain, in a secular society (and I'm sure you agree that Wikipedia, and
the Internet as a whole, is secular) how an edict by a religious group, trumps freedom of the press. Several people here are
doing what they can to avoid offence, and minimise the usage of the image to what is absolutely necessary. However surely
135
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
given the prominence of the story, I don't see how a complete removal of the images is in anyone's benefit. Surely
displaying the images in context, is better for everyone. And has already lead to some interesting results - such that the
image that many were objecting to the most, that of Muhammad as a pig's face, was in reality just a poor-quality photograph
from some pig-calling contest. By completely removing any images, such truths would never have become known. Besides,
as far as I can tell, there is a long history of having images of Muhammad within Islam. The writing in the Koran seems
quite vague to me. And interestingly quite similiar to the comments in the bible about having no idols of anyone but God which given the number of Jesus and Mary statues doesn't seem to be taken very seriously. Nfitz 23:00, 7 February 2006
(UTC)
Frank, we've already gone over this issue many times. This community has virtually unanimously decided to keep the
cartoons in the article. Readers have a right to know what the controversy is about, and this right is more important than the
right not to be offended. An encyclopedic article about cartoons needs the cartoons, whether they are offensive or not. We
can't please everyone, we'll never be able to do that. Our goal is to neutrally and objectively inform and educate, and in
order to do that, we need the cartoons. Wikipedia is not censored in any way, shape or form. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:08, 7
February 2006 (UTC)
The poll as to whether to keep the image, delete it, or move it down resulted in MORE THAN 80% of respondents
voting to keep the image at the top of the page. If you're going to make accusations of the poll being biased, you're
going to need to provide some evidence if you want anybody to believe you. BinaryTed 00:22, 8 February 2006
(UTC)
Let us keep the results from the first poll, but conduct a second, longer poll for about a week. We should have at least the
following options:
Muhammad images in article
Muhammad images linked from article
Muhammad images in article but blurred with link to unblurred images
ViewFromNowhere 00:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The first two options were already available in the first poll and 80% of the 240+ people who responded went with
option 1. Blurred images serve no informative purpose; I honestly don't see how that's a legitimate option. 65.24.88.67
136
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
01:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Frank, I would take two issues with your reasoning.
First, I would not agree that the inclusion of any image in Wikipedia implies that the image is, itself, inoffensive. Wikipedia
contains many articles which show images that are found to be offensive by some large group of people. I was personally
offended by a set of images that used to be associated with the entry for Domestic Violence, (they have been removed, but
not for offense, but because of concerns about copyright.) Other people might be offended by the image "The Ethical Jew"
at Anti-Semitism, or Serrano's famous image entitled Piss Christ--bothe clear examples of cultures and revered religious
figures being treated in a way that large groups of people find deeply offensive. Ergo, publication here does not imply
"inoffensive." Let me be clear, I support, save for the copyright concerns, Wikipedia's inclusion of each of those images, in
each case, I believe there was an important expository value to providing information the reader needed to make sense of
this controversy.
Second, I would not agree that a description of the cartoon is sufficient, although I am a bit less firm on this second point.
Descriptions of the cartoons that have appeared in US newspapers have been, quite commonly, inaccurate, even in terms of
specific, objective measures (e.g., how many of the twelve published cartoons contain an image of Mohammad, etc.) Worse,
many of these descriptions strayed from objective descriptions of the material into interpretation without attributing the
interpretation. I, and many readers of news data, find descriptions of such material suspect, and in terms of having enough
information to make our own choices about what to support, wish to have access to the cartoons themselves. --Joe Decker
03:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Please remove the cartoon from the page. Provide a link out for those who wish to see it. You are counting voting written in
English, which is not relevent to a lot of Muslim. Putting it in is showing insensitivity, self centered. Free speech does not
mean the right to insult others. It is not the picture which is offensive. If you put the cartoon title as Bush in Iraq, not many
muslim care about it. It is the meanest of spirit behind it, publishing picture which is known will be insulting, and then ask
why are you angry? Of course I am angry, and insulted. How can two civilization live together when one keep pushing and
hurting physically and mentally the other. Muslim is being killed in Palestine, and Iraq. The western newspaper ignore it, or
just show 1 or 2 officer under trial and claimed "Look we have punish them." Well there are thousand of other cases. This is
no free speech. It's just selected coverage. Please remove the cartoon from the page. Yosri 13:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Of course we're only counting votes in English, this is the english language wikipedia. Why would non-english
speakers/readers surf it? Please see the archives for more arguments related to your pleading to not be insulted.
137
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Thanks. Kyaa the Catlord 13:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
By that logic, I guess we should include the votes of all 1 billion Chinese and all 1 billion Hindus. And for once, those
numbers are quite accurate. Wait, why stop there? Hell, we'll have the whole world vote. Who's going with me to
North Korea? I'm sure they'll have an opinion. Hitokirishinji 22:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
OK. I got it. If you don't speak English, you not human, your vote not counted. Your religious is irelevent. Your
feeling not taken into consideration. Similarly, when American army officer killed a Iraq General, he is release
because some instruction to him not clear, wonder what happen to Jerman Nazi officer if he do the thing he did
because his life at stake, and if he did not folow instruction he is hanged because crime for humanity.... Thank
you very much. Now I see what is western value, equality really is. The cartoon is commission because the
editor know this will anger the muslim. It sole purpose is to provoke the muslim, now they asking why the
muslim is angry. Of course the muslim is angry. Of course I'm angry and getting angrier with the western
responce, and these kind of responce. This cartoon is designed to hurt. Those who support it, show they support
this kind of thing. Then do not be suprise if there is retaliation. I do not asked the image be deleted, just no
shown in the same page. Those who want to look at it can click at the link in side the article. Yosri 06:01, 9
February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think why anyone is asking why are Muslims angry. I think we're asking what justification is there to
be burning builds and killing people over cartoons regardless of how offensive. I do not know any
justifiable reason beyond self defense to commit violence and don't try to convince me this is some sort of "self
defense". Death and destruction is not justified in this case and in most cases. Hitokirishinji 18:28, 9
February 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. And this is how it should be. The fact that you are trying to show us some sort of injustice here
merely demonstrates that you seem to be under some sort of delusion that things are, or should be,
otherwise, when this is certainly not the case. If you are mortally offended by wikipedia and western
values then there is simply no reason for you to visit the english wikipedia, or indeed, any western site.
May I suggest instead, that Yosri continues to visit these sites and think about the issue and
consider the consequences that would follow if nothing could be written or shown if it hurt the
feelings of anyone. Similarly, we who don't share Yosri's views could consider our own bias and
then keep the dialogue going in a better, friendlier and more informed way.--Sir48 10:59, 9
February 2006 (UTC)
These values are not 'western', call them are human values. Everybody should value freedom.
138
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Have a look at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11126728/#survey, 200 voters should not be allowed to insult 1/5th of
the world population. These cartoons are simply blasphemous, offensive and contribute nothing to knowledge, and
must be removed from the page.
Mumtaz.siddiqui 00:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Cause we all know the enormous amount of influence MSNBC has upon Wikipedia editors and how it entirely
represents the Wikipedia community. I better shut up now before the chip implanted in my brain by MSNBC
explodes and kills me for blasphemy. Did you happen to notice that little thing on the bottom that says "Not a
scientifically valid survey"? Or did you find it convenient to ignore that? Hitokirishinji 00:46, 9 February 2006
(UTC)
Your collective decision is also not scientifically proven as unbiased. Otherwise allow new users to join
and participate in a fresh poll. I would request again that please keep the text but remove the blasphemous
image. 08:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
And if we do that, what assurance do we have that someone will not use a sockspuppet and a few
hundred bogus e-mails to create a few hundred bogus accounts to vote and severely tip the poll in
his or her favor? I guess you would consider something like that unbiased. No our poll is not
scientific but it reflects the opinion of the editors who have worked on Wikipedia for some time
and contribute to it regularly. So I'll put it simply: Request denied. Check the archives.
Hitokirishinji 19:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Read your response carefully and decide what does it proves? unbiased polls?
If our poll is biased towards people who actaully care about freedom of expression,
Wikipedia, and its philosophy rather than personal, religious or racial objectives than I
guess we're biased. Anyways, it's simple, we have decided, nothing you say will
change that. Hitokirishinji 17:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
And an even less reliable MSNBC poll doesn't decide our collective position, which has already been decided.
The cartoons stay in the article, as they do contribute to knowledge: they allow the reader to see what the
controversy is about. And our task as an encyclopedia is to inform. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 00:33, 9 February 2006
(UTC)
139
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
I'll believe that poll as much as I believe the "Wayne Rooney" redirecters here are all different people.
Weregerbil 00:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the cartoons should be replaced with a link. At the very least they should not be on the top.
Similar potentially offensive pages have pictures at the bottom and a warning at the top with a link.
Cuñado
- Talk 17:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Could you give an example? Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 10:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Ouch! I followed the link to this article from Wikinews:Protest against Muhammad caricatures in Paris. Yes, as I know it,
Wikipedia is allowed to contain offensive content. However some readers, like myself, want to read about Jyllands-Posten
Muhammad cartoons controversy from a neutral point of view without seeing the cartoons themselves. I might replace the
image at the top of the article with a link to the "Image:" page, if I have time later. (I will not be burning embassies,
wrecking cars, or vandalising wikis if Wikipedia chooses to keep the cartoons in their current position at the top of the
article.) --Kernigh 05:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Please do not remove the image. Doing so is considered vandalism. Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord 06:20, 12 February
2006 (UTC)
Iranian Jew cartoons
So, CNN reported that Iran has put out a request that they'll pay people to make 12 Holocaust cartoons as a counter to free
speech. Let me preface this by saying, I'm Jewish. I urge Wikipedians to publish those cartoons. Yes that's right, publish
them. The world has a right to see the art (distasteful as I may find the term), and it would put to rest many arguments about
Ready
THESE cartoons. SWATJester
Aim Fire! 22:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
No urging is needed, if these "response" cartoons materialize, they'll be here. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:51, 7
February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm sure there would have to be a poll or two or three. --JGGardiner 22:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
yeah, I know, but I'm hoping that when these do come out (or if), that someone will remember this and
140
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
put them up. Not that it won't be national news anyway. I'd find them offensive, but I respect the right for
information to be shown. Hell, I'd make an active effort NOT to see them until I could see them first on
Ready
Wikipedia! Hows that for advertising! SWATJester
Aim Fire! 22:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The Iranians would be about 30 years too late. Several organizations have already printed such cartoons in the United
States, and nobody stopped them back then. They won't be stopped now. --Tokachu 23:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I hope when these holocaust cartoons are published (which we should include on Wikipedia, for sure), the response is
generally a big collective shrug of the shoulders and a 'meh, whatever'. It is the only proper response, and might just
let those who have been offended by the Muhammed cartoons realise how much they are overreacting. As distasteful
as making fun of the holocaust might be, we a) know that it's only a tit-for-tat provocation and b) we have the ability
to recognise and accept satire for what it is.Graham 23:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Has anyone run across the image published by a Muslim group in Belgium of Hitler in bed with Ann Frank (sp?)? That one
would be appropriate as well to show the type of reaction occuring. --StuffOfInterest 23:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Well it depends who published it and whether anyone took any notice. An obscure muslim group publishing a
provocative cartoon wouldn't be _that_ interesting - and there have been many stories about things happening that are
related that turn out not to have happened or to have not been obviously related (the death of a priest comes to mind).
Secretlondon 23:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
It was good enough to make it on ABC news this evening. They showed the photo. Apparently there were two
(both on screen) but the 2nd one wasn't described. Of course, in the next clip, an Imam being interviewed said
these photos were no where near as bad as blasphemy against Muhammad. --StuffOfInterest 23:59, 7 February
2006 (UTC)
Yeah but it may have been produced to get on the news this evening. It sounds like ABC News was shit
stirring too from your description. The media loves sensationalist crap, alas. Secretlondon 00:52, 8
February 2006 (UTC)
What does the holocaust have to do with Denmark?--Greasysteve13 00:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Because people are being told it's part of a Jewish plot.. Secretlondon 00:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed see here :S AlEX 00:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, what does ANY of this have to do with denmark? Nothing.
Aim Fire! 02:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
141
SWATJester
Ready
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
True. much less than 0.000002% of Danes are responsible for these
cartoons.--Greasysteve13 03:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Missed my point Greasysteve13...the point is that This isn't about
Denmark. This isn't about the cartoons. It's about dogma and domination,
about enforcing one religious view upon the world, whether by conquest
or by other methods. It's not about denmark. They're just an excuse.
Ready
SWATJester
Aim Fire! 07:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Thats also true but, I don't think the protesters themselves even
realise whats going on. (See: irrationality) --Greasysteve13 11:20, 8
February 2006 (UTC)
I would like to point out several differences between showing the "Muhammad cartoons" and the "Jewish Cartoons" on
Wikipedia.
The publishers of the cartoons in Iran do not expect any censorship in publishing the cartoons. They have nothing to risk by
publishing. There is no issue of freedom of speech here or oppression from the government, when the President of Iran has
called for the destruction of Israel, and publicly denied the holocaust. The newspaper itself maybe owned by a government
municipality. Contrast this with the fear of relatiation and a climate of self-sensorship in Denmark.
Notice the difference between publishing anti-jewish and anti-muslim cartoons in Iran. Accountable Government 04:00, 8
February 2006 (UTC)
Sure, there are differences on a thousand levels: but assuming that the Iranian cartoons are notable (which I'm sure
they will be), Wikipedia will run them. These kinds of cartoons have been published by various rags in the West
(especially the U.S.) for decades, and people just usually don't pay them any attention. I echo the sentiments of
Graham, above; I hope the Western reaction to the publication of the Iranian cartoons is a big, bored shrug, even if it's
a hot news event in Dar al-Islam. Babajobu 07:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Somebody asked earlier for Anti-Semitic cartoons published in response to the Muhammed contraversy. The Arab-European
League is one such organization, and are responsible for the publication of the Hitler/Anne Frank cartoon that was asked for.
I leave it to you wikipedian regulars to decide whether to include it or not. Richard 129.244.23.160 14:56, 8 February 2006
(UTC)
WOW!! The AEL is posting some extrordinarily offensive pictures and yet there's calm in the "Western democracies."
142
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
It's almost as if "Westerner's" believe in this freedom of speech crap.--64.251.0.102 15:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep the cartoons, we have the right to show the actual cartoon on the sight and we shouldnt cave in because a few muslims
want us to take it down, do wew always have to be "sensitive" to others, next thing you know, to be "sensitive", we'll start
removing the Jesus page, because little itty bitty muslims don't want to look at a false messaih... BTW im an atheist
communist and i hate all religion, but the muslims take the cake, the ussr would have talked some sens into these muslim
fanatics.Also i know the USSR didnt have freedom of press, which i support whole heartedly, its just the USSR didnt take
shit from anyone, which is needed in these times. You should scare the shit out of these little embassy buring crackpots. If
the USSR had invaded Afganistan, we wouldnt be having this discussion, the Mujahadin would have been rotting in some
prison in Moscow and we all be happy and free on the shackles of religion, free of the opium of the people.
How are cartoons depicting a prophet analogous to cartoons depicting the slaghter of humans? Jewish orthodoxy says the
image of God shouldn't (or can not) be illustrated. Maybe some illustrations of the Jewish God are in order. Opps.. there are
already childerns' book with those images.. ---Some thing that I could not understand so far, I will appreciate if you can make it clear. In the newspaper there are
always certain limits as to how much of graphical content they can show e.g. a nude woman, a molested dead body
etc. In Austria, for example, it is common to see that newspapers show women breasts but not the lower part. Why do
we have these limits? I think its to protect those who should not or may not watch these pictures and these pictures
can be offensive to them. Can we use the same analogy for these cartoons? Can we say that the newspapers should not
print such pictures as they are offensive to a big majority?
One other thing I have noticed is the confusion between making a picture of Prophet Mohammad and making a
cartoon of Prophet Mohammad. I have read it at so many places that Islam does not allow that pictures be made of
God and Prophet Mohammad. While I agree, but beleive me if someone would have drawn a very nice looking picture
of Prophet Mohammad then even though its not allowed and some people would still have objected, majority would
have been quite. This issue is not JUST making cartoon, issue is making fun of the prophet and portraying him as a
'bad guy'. Prophet Mohammad is somone that is very dear to Muslims and whether or not they practise on what he has
said, they are not willing to compromose on any thing that is disrespectful to him.
One other thing I would like to highlight is that every society has sacred cows. In Austria, law does not allow anyone
to deny Holocost. Similary, anyone seen by the police raising his arm like the Nazis and saying Hi Hitler can be put in
jail. In US, its a crime to burn the national flag. If such things exists in other socities then why people are surprised
143
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
that Muslims are so conservative? Amir Hayat
You said "In US, its a crime to burn the national flag." By US, do you mean United States? Flag-burning has
been ruled by the US Supreme Court to be constitutionally protected free speech. The US House of
Representatives has passed amendments banning flag desecration in each of its last six sessions, however not
one has made it through the US Senate, let alone completed the ratification process. For more information on
how this issue has been handled in the United States, see Flag desecration and Flag Desecration Amendment.-BinaryTed 21:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure people have twigged what's really going on here. As I see it, the main aim of the people most vocal in stirring
up the righteous indignation against the cartoons is to enhance muslim solidarity and try and mend the cracks that have
opened up between westernised moderate muslims and hardliners and the Shia-Sunni divide. They have done this at the
expense of doing much to close the divide which had been opening up between Europe and the US. if you think about it
there are three aspects to this cartoons that muslims find offensive. (1) the fact that they show pictures of Muhammad. This
is in many ways the "official reason" for finding them offensive. Is it the real underlying reason? I don't think so. The idea
behind having no pics of the prophet is to stop people from worshipping him rather than Allah himself (in the same way that
Protestants got sniffy (well actually it was more murder and mayhem at the height of the dispute) about Catholics starting to
worship statues of Jesus, the Virgin Mary, and the saints etc). From an islamic perspective there are not syupposed to be
picstures and statues of the other prophets either but we've yet to see people blowing up statues of Jesus (though of course
the tallibn did just that to the Big Buddhas). (2) The association of Muhammad and Islam with terrorism. I think this is the
big issue for most Western moderate muslims. They are pretty hacked off with the fact that since al Qaeda started blowing
things up, westerners have tended to be a little suspicious of them. The radical firebrands who have been stirring things up
however and many of the people waiving Kalashnakov's in Afghanistan and Gaza of course don't have a big problem with
associating Islam with terrorism as they see it as just a brave way of the underdog fighting a technologically superior force.
However they have pretended to be very annoyed to get the moderates on side. (3) there is the issue that the drawings are
cartoons and cartoons are supposed to be funny so in the mind of the muslim mobs in the Middle East, Afghanisatn that
means the West is laughing at themand their religious beliefs, which in their culture is something which cannot be tolerated
as muslim culture tends to be dominated by the concept of Shame rather than the Guilt of the JudeaChristian West.o modern
science. The publication of the anti Holocaust pictures needs to be seen as a further attempt by those looking to unify
muslims against the West (in this case in particular the Iranians who of course want united muslim support re their nuclear
weapon plans) and isolate the moderate western muslims. Of course they know that the reaction of Westerners will be to
shrug these images off and just think that it confirms their prejudice that all muslims are fact denying, racists. The main
losers of all this are the many millions of moderate European muslims who just want to work hard and get on with their lives
144
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
in Europe. They will suffer increasing alienation from their host societies as it becomes clear that the radicals have instituted
de facto censorship in the name of all muslims through the use of terror. The main winners will be the Iranians who figure
this may make getting nuclear weapons easier, the more right wing Americans who will be able to say a massive "I told you
so" to liberal Europeans, The Syrians who may be able to recover from their recent troubles in Lebanon and the Chinese
who will be figuring that this will strengthens their position as customner of oil and supplier of manuafcatured goods to the
Middle East. All because of a few cartoons! WadeLondon 19:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Attack on hotdog stand
In the rumours and misinformation section there is a report of an incident in Copenhagen which apparently never took place.
How many unimportant non-events should we have? I can fabricate as many as you'd like :D MX44 00:02, 8 February 2006
(UTC)
If people reading the Wikipedia article have heard of the report (which they may well have), it will be useful for us to
debunk the rumor. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
But this incidence (unlike the rumour of quran burning) is of absolutely no consequence to the developement of
the story. MX44 00:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Here's another vote for the removal of the 'Hot Dog' story... the whole thing does sound rather spurious. Netscott 01:05, 8
February 2006 (UTC)
I think it makes sense to inform about it since it has twice been on the front page of the Danish national TV
station's news section. The background is that the owner of a hot dog stand reported an assault, however, the
police now believe that the report was false and he has been charged with falsly reporting a crime. TH 19:55, 8
February 2006 (UTC)
What?! Somebody brought that? It wasn't even related to the cartoons >_< Apocryphite 02:17, 8 February 2006
(UTC)
Please find a better link for larger versions of images
145
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Currently, we link to www.faithfreedom.org for larger versions of the images. Can we find a different link (e.g.
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/698), please?
I'm not a Muslim myself, but I find www.faithfreedom.org to be hatefully inflammatory; sample quote: "Islam induces hate
backed by lies. Muhammad was a terrorist by his own admission." Linking to such a site just to get a copy of images that are
available elsewhere is unnecessary and unwise, in my opinion.
—Steven G. Johnson 00:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Seems reasonable ... though the ones in that brusselsjournal.com link are a bit more compressed, with the text not quite as
clear. And also has other text as well. I spotted another source at one point, where you had to click through 12 slides, that
appeared to be even clearer. Anyone remember that one? Nfitz 00:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
No the FF link is better , it is just image no text.--CltFn 01:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, we just use this instead. We don't link to the page. Most important is reliability of the site and
NPOV of the site is a bonus because even though it is unlikely people will seek out more on the sites--if
they do it's better not to bring them to the doorstep of partisans. If there is a more non-partisan site we use
it. I choose faithfreedom for now because the compression is better on it. I hope you would agree that a
site like CNN (if it had a comprable image) should be linked to over FFI. gren ??? ? 08:59, 8 February
2006 (UTC)
I agree that www.faithfreedom.org is not desirable as a source, but I think that the most important thing is that we get a link
to a version of the images which is as large, readable, and dependable as possible. Unfortunately, most "mainstream" outlets
do not show the cartoons, but if someoen can find a mainstream link that is better than this one please feel free to replace it
at will. I, however, was unable to do so as of this message. Savidan 21:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Full size (readable), in English images of the Muhammed cartoons can be viewed at,
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21127 The comic book, 'Mohammed's Believe It or Else!' can
be viewed and downloaded at, http://islamcomicbook.com/ Both sites offer lots of interesting info about the reality of Islam.
[User: PeterCurtis] 16:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Criticism of Muslim reactions
146
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Have taken out the following:
Other commentators have noted that Muslim requests for greater "sensitivity" in the Western press are spurious,
given that (a) the cartoons themselves were not particularly offensive, well below the norm for editorial cartoons
generally, and (b) the general lack of respect in Islamic state-sponsored press for other religions, as noted above, as
well as the outright destruction by Islamic governments of other religions' landmarks. The real issue, according to
these commentators, is not Muslim hypocrisy, but rather, Islamic supremacism.citation needed
This is already explained in the paragraph, but most of all the last part is a rather strong statement which it is not
Nomen Nescio 00:52, 8
substantiated by sources. I think if we cannot provide a source it is too POV to include.-February 2006 (UTC)
I changed
However, this assumes that the because some Muslims publish anti-Semitic material, all Muslims are guilty by
association. In addition, these critics are unaware that Muslims around the world have condemned terrorism [1].
into:
However, it is countered that this assumes that because numerous Arab countries sponsor publishing anti-Semitic
material, there should be an equivocal denouncement by Muslims.[2]
The reasons are: 1 There is no logical fallacy since nobody claims all Muslims are guilty of anti-Semetism. They are merely
silent on the subject. 2 Although some Muslims object to the anti-Semetism it is more than evident the general reaction by
Muslims is not comparable to what they do when confronted with perceived anti-Islamic books-pictures-films-plays.
My version more accurately, and in less POV fashion, describes the mood I think.-2006 (UTC)
Nomen Nescio 01:15, 8 February
That's a completely different sentence. The statement was in response to this line:
Commentators find the reactions from the Muslim community hypocritical. They point to the numerous
anti-Semitic and anti-Christian publications in Arab media. One website, Filibuster Cartoons pointed out this
criticism in (oddly enough) a political cartoon.
This is the Filibuster cartoon. The argument seems to be that Muslims should not complain about material they find
147
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
offensive when [Muslims] themselves create anti-Semitic images. ViewFromNowhere 01:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
No, since their media is abundant with anti-Semetic images. Not that they are making them. Please see
this
they believe it is odd that cartoons are considered blasphemous when terrorist attacks in the name
of Islam are not equally condemned by Muslims.
However, they clearly do not make as much objections as in this case.-Nomen Nescio 01:32, 8
February 2006 (UTC)
1. The filibuster cartoon specifically seems to emphasize creation rather than lack of condemnation.
2. How do you measure the level of Muslim condemnation of terrorist attacks? There seem to be a lot. The problem is
that the media tends to concentrate on interesting stories, so actual terrorist attacks would make front page news,
while Muslim condemnations of terrorist attacks would not. Lack of media coverage of Muslim condemnation does
not indicate a lower level of condemnation.
ViewFromNowhere 01:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Thinking of the response to i.e. 9-11-2001, I remember few condemnations but many festive people in the
Muslim community. Personally I have never seen Muslims react to terrorist attacks, anti-Semitism, killing of
women that apparently harm the family name (marrying non-muslims, being raped, et cetera), as they are to
perceived anti-Islamic cartoons.-Nomen Nescio 02:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Still, we can't generalize from anecdotal experience, can we? ViewFromNowhere 02:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Give me some time and I will insert sources. Sincerely--
Nomen Nescio 03:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
All right. But Muslims in your area of the Netherlands do not represent all Muslims in the West. ViewFromNowhere
03:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Nice try, but you know in Gaza they also were elated.--
Nomen Nescio 04:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't know Gaza was in the West.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User
talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) .
148
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
I'm speaking of the Muslims I know who condemn terrorism. Let's try not to generalize people, okay?
ViewFromNowhere 06:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not talking about Muslims in the west. Muslims means, the same people worldwide that today feel
offended. So, I refer to Muslims in every country. And when we look at the Middle-East and Asia (Pakistan?) I
remember many people supporting OBL and demonising Bush in stead of the current condemnation.-Nomen Nescio 11:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete this sentence: "They believe it is odd that cartoons are considered blasphemous when terrorist attacks in the name of
Islam are not equally condemned by Muslims." --Terrorist Attacks ARE condemnded by all non-fundamentalist moslem
groups, first of all, so this statement is false and secondly it is unnecessary and superfluous. The point has already been
made, and an encyclopedia should not contain vague persons known as "They..." making specific judgements about any
group of people be they jew christian, moslem, gay straight, black or white. Madangry 20:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Last I checked, Muslims weren't burning down the Saudi embassy in their country based on funding supplied to
terrorists by the House of Saud. And that's a case where the actual government is responsible. So no, Muslims as a
whole don't condemn terrorists as much as they've condemned these drawings, assuming you accept massive protests
and the like as a mark of condemnation (and to do otherwise would seem rather odd). Many subsets of the Muslims,
of course, may do otherwise. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Topic needs RELOCKING
In the span of last 2 hours there has been several acts of anonymous vandalism... can we go back to having this topic locked
now? Netscott 01:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. ViewFromNowhere 01:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Azate 02:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. There have been many instances of repeated vandalism over the past 12 hours. Vinkmar 19:22, 8 February
2006 (UTC)
I only see 2 vandals in the last hour. One clearly was a child and did no damage. The other deleted content, but seems to be
the usual pattern of vandalism on articles listed on the Main Page. Nothing really unusual going on here! Nfitz 02:13, 8
February 2006 (UTC)
149
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
FWIW, the article is no longer linked from the front page. Babajobu 07:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Remove some sections
I propose to remove the following sections, because of very limited usefulness:
8.2 Bounty on cartoonists. Reason: there are enough documented death threats. if one of them was blown out of
proportion is no longer significant.
8.7 Muslim organizations in Denmark. Reason: to refute one tangential statement on swedish tv about an organization
that is not central to the debate is superfluous.
It is the organization who toured the middle east, but I agree SVTs comments are out of scope. MX44 05:47, 8
February 2006 (UTC)
8.8 Confusion between editors-in-chief. Reason: This guy has been incorrectty identified, but the error appears not to
have been spread.
8.9 Opinion of the Queen of Denmark. Reason: The mistranslation has not been widely covered or been commented
upon.
The mistranslation was used as a headline in arabic press.MX44 05:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
(Btw., did you know the article links to a site where you can get a "live fatwa" online? [3]
Azate 02:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
support Lotsofissues 03:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
'Comparable incidents — "freedom of speech" versus "blasphemy"' should go, too. All the events listed there are covered in
detail in Freedom of speech versus blasphemy, which is clearly linked. Azate 04:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I tried cutting but I was reverted. I'll support you if you try again. Lotsofissues 04:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Support. This article really needs to be shortened. "Freedom of speeceh vs. blasphemy" is a good example of content that is
out of scope for this article, but which should be linked and briefly summarized. --PeR 07:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
150
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Support... to make this article better but text should be saved to be placed in a sub article if a relevant one arises. gren ??? ?
09:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Support. I suspect that there will be a lot of good editorial article compression if the vandalism disappears. Too much
vandalism/reversal makes it hard to edit well.DanielDemaret 09:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Opposed to the removal of 8.2. A ficticious story about a financial award or a bounty on a person's life from a named
organisation is very different than a mere threat from an anonymous source. Relevance pertaining to the issue is a possible
incident of misinformation by the press. 86.52.36.140 15:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Opposed On the gounds that the removals have not maintained antiquate sumeries! 8.2 should stay. 8.7 should stay as it
cleared up *considerable* missinformation about the real prominance of this organization. 8.9 should stay too. 8.8 can go.
JeffBurdges 22:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Opposed 8.7 and 8.9 clears up considerable misunderstandings that I've encountered several places.130.225.96.2 04:56, 12
February 2006 (UTC)
International laws related to the issue - section
This section just states the primary source of the treaty... not any real legal interpretation (which is necessary) or who and
how scholars have related this to the current incidents. Unless someone can do that it should be removed. Likely there
should be a sentence about how this situation relates to international law and the body text should be footnoted. gren ??? ?
03:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Interpreting international right, or even judging what can be applicable, it one of the trickier problems around. Unless
we happen to get a contribution from a top professional on this subject, putting a link to the treaty itself is maybe the
smart thing to do. Azate 03:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I have not seen an outside source mention it. Take it out. Lotsofissues 03:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Noteworthy?
The editorial staff of the alternative weekly New York Press walked out today, en masse, after the paper's publishers backed
151
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
down from printing the Danish cartoons that have become the center of a global free-speech fight.[4]
I think it is, and someone should put it in the article. Although NYP is a small newspaper, it is significant that the
entire editorial staff of a newspaper has resigned over the decision not to publish the cartoons. Valtam 05:58, 8
February 2006 (UTC)
Done. --Kizor 09:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Holocaust cartoons
Can someone confirm that Farid Mortazavi, graphics editor of Hamshahri, said the following:
"The Western papers printed these sacrilegious cartoons on the pretext of freedom of expression, so let's see [if] they mean
what they say and print these Holocaust cartoons"
If so, wtf?! Exactly what does he hope to achieve? If they do that, wouldn't this then make the cartoons legitimate, as
Muslims are doing the exact same thing to Jews, who did not write the cartoons? And why is he targetting Jews in the first
place? I wasn't aware that the Jyllands-Posten chief editor was a Jew in the first place! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:55, 8 February
2006 (UTC)
I find these things much easier to understand if I first assume everyone involved is an idiot. --Kizor 08:00, 8 February
2006 (UTC)
A lot of countries formerly occupied by Nazi Germany (including Germany itself, but excluding Russia) has
anti-anti-Semitic laws. I assume they prosecute for it. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 09:03, 8
February 2006 (UTC)
CITATION:
World leaders rally round as crisis deepens;Cartoons Anthony Browne 677 words 7 February 2006 The Times
Lotsofissues 05:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Please -- what makes people think Wikipedia (or any western media) will be afraid to reprint their stupid cartoons? We have
lots of Antisemitic imagery on Wikpedia, showcased as such, and we will showcase the holocaust cartoons as a testimony to
152
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
the stupidity of Mortazavi or whoever within the minute they are available. Reporting that Iranian newspapers indulge in
Holocaust denial does not amount to actual holocaust denial, just like reporting that Danish cartoonists makes fun of
Muhammad does not amount to actually making fun of Muhammad. dab (?) 07:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
6
?:<I
&%
H,
6
?:>I
&%
H,
CCC
3
6
$
&&
&
% %
Agreed. State-run media in the Muslim world publish this sort of trash all the time...but since this particular
publication will be notable, we'll be happy to include it. Babajobu 08:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I don't see how we couldn't, since the project is essentially founded on the dissemination of information
- not to mention the very strong precedent set by the prominent display of the cartoons in this article. --Kizor
08:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
To be honest, this article here didn't set a precedent at all. We've always published "offensive images",
including images offensive to Jews, without any problem. See the four images to the rightabove.
Babajobu 09:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
True, true, though this would certainly be the instance most often invoked if we wouldn't publish
the denial cartoons. --Kizor 12:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Probably so, but the only way we wouldn't publish them would be if they didn't attain
notability, and that's extremely unlikely. Babajobu 16:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
How can this be rewritten?
Embarrassingly bad prose:
153
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Criticism of Muslim reactions
"Commentators find the reactions from the Muslim community hypocritical.[3] They point to the numerous anti-Semitic and
anti-Christian publications in Arab media.[4][5] One website, Filibuster Cartoons pointed out this criticism in (oddly
enough) a political cartoon [6]. Furthermore, they believe it is odd that cartoons are considered blasphemous when terrorist
attacks in the name of Islam are not equally condemned by Muslims.[7][8] Also, aniconism is not limited to Islam, yet
violent outcry like this seems to be more frequent in Muslim society.
In addition, they think it is remarkable that in countries like Syria, where demonstration is short of impossible, riots could
result in buildings being burned.[9] Considering the current Hariri investigation, this is not an inconvenient distraction for
Syria.[10]
However, it is countered that this assumes that because numerous Arab countries sponsor publishing anti-Semitic material,
there should be an equivocal denouncement by Muslims.[11].
In contrast, Muslims are angry that the cartoons portray the Muslim religion as promoting terrorism because of the actions
of a few of its members."
Lotsofissues 05:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Great job azate
Much improved.
Lotsofissues 05:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Left opinion link
I think JuanCole.com should be cited under the "opinons of the left" comment on the main page; he has lots of good analysis
of the topic. He makes the case against the Right reaction in the west pretty well.
154
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
http://www.juancole.com/2006/02/more-on-hypocrisy-of-west-and.html
http://www.juancole.com/2006/02/caricatures-roil-muslim-world-beirut.html
I can write in a blog too. Yippee. Does he have some special credibility that Joe Coffee at Live Journal doesn't? Kyaa
the Catlord 09:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
He is notable. David Sneek 11:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
It still remains a blog. I'd avoid using a blog as a source if at all possible. Find someone who actually got
published. I could find five hundred live journal or blogspot entries on this, but that doesn't make them a
good source. Kyaa the Catlord 11:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Juan Cole is a professor at the University of Michigan. He has been published in The Guardian,
The San Jose Mercury News, Salon, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Boston Review ,The
Nation, Tikkun, The Journal of the International Institute, and others [5]. Technorati.com puts his
blog among the top 100 most popular blogs.[6] Suggesting he is just a random blogger is
objectively wrong.--Snorklefish 16:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Excellent. Once his views are published in a periodical, I'd be happy to support their use as a
source. Until then, blogs don't cut it. If you want to use The New York Times, the LA Times,
the Washington Post, cool. But a blog is a blog, the credibility is questionable. Kyaa the
Catlord 17:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Your argument seems to be shifting rapidly. Are you questioning the relative political
prominence of Juan Cole on the left, or are you questioning he wrote what he wrote?
The factual accuracy of what Juan Cole writes is inapposite to the issue of "OPINION"
on the left.--64.251.0.102 18:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Snorklefish
There are many wikipedia articles that link to posts by notable bloggers. According to what guideline do you
conclude "blogs don't cut it"? David Sneek 18:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
We refer to blogs for minor issues in which blog posts by a notable person are significant. For an issue
that has made headlines worldwide for an extended period of time, publishing comments from a blog
seems inappropriate. Babajobu 03:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Cole is notable enough as a ME scholar to link to his blog even here. But anyway, he reworked
some of his posts for a Salon piece: [7] David Sneek 07:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Guardian linking to us
155
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
The Guardian is linking to our copy of the cartoons. Babajobu 09:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Ooooh, quick, get one of those penis vandals back. :P Kyaa the Catlord 09:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
We can return the favour, although All in all, you'd better not look at this.
It seems a problem that the Guardian link is to the image page, where one has to perform several 'goal-dircted' clicks to get
to the actual article. I imagine that many people who come via the Guardian link will only get to the image, and from
thereon, to the discussion page. There ought to be a clear indication as to where to click to get to the article. 86.139.217.222
12:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Mila
Were the cartoons republished in Egypt back in October?
This blog post "Cartoons were Published Five Months ago in Egypt" claims that the Jyllands-Posten cartoons were
republished in an Egyptian newspaper in October, without any great reaction. Can anyone confirm this report? -- Avenue
10:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about it, but I suspect this is a hoax. If this were published in October, then it will be a hot topic in
October last year. Some people like to add fuel to fire. --Terence Ong (????) 11:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
They were originally published in Demark on 30 September 2005. This blog is claiming Egyptian publication on 17
October 2005. Paper:Al Fager. However it's just another POV blog.. Secretlondon 14:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
An update: scans of the relevant pages of the paper are now posted on that blog [8]. Different scans of the paper have been
posted in a separate blog. Admittedly both blogs have a strong POV, but this seems like enough confirmation for us to
comment on it. -- Avenue 22:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can tell we can cite it just because it's a fact. Ignore their analysis and use their scans as a primary source.
We can't analyze what this means yet... but we can say that they were published in Egypt a long time ago. gren ??? ?
05:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The story have just been published/confirmed in a famous Danish paper citing the Danish ambassador in Egypt,
Bjarne Sørensen. "Jyllands-posten:Muhammed-tegninger trykt i Egypten" Claush66 16:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The cartoons were published in the egyptian newspaper Al Fagr in October. The blog egyptiansandmonkey.blogspot.com
156
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
showed this and suddenly changed the course of the events on Feb 8. If an egyptian newspaper published the pictures during
ramadan and there were no protests... That's an indication that the later demonstations were not spontaneous but rather put in
place by political and religious leaders. The blog egyptiansandmonkey.blogspot.com should be mentioned and be given
appropriate credit.
Who demonstrated in Hillerød?
In "Burning the Qur'an" it was earlier stated (by me) that 40 extreme right wings and neo nazists did demonstrate in
Hillerød. Kyaa the Catlord have changed this to "40 people did demonstrate..." noting that the right wings were mentioned
above. But in the above paragraph, it was only mentioned that the RWs spread an SMS. If their relation is not repeated
below, the connection is lost.
Actually several hundred people demonstrated in Hillerød that day, all but the 40 RWs in a counter demonstration against
those. Hundreds of police officers kept them apart and took more than a hundred to the police station. I think it is plain
wrong to state that only 40 people demonstrated in Hillerød. But the relevant information here is that (only) 40 RIGHT
WINGS demonstrated in Hillerød. I suggest this detail is added back into the article. Claush66 10:35, 8 February 2006
(UTC)
Yes, I removed your change. If you want to add that forty right wingers protested do it, just make sure you do so in a
way that makes it apparent that these are seperate from the previous ones. It seemed like all the right wingers in that
section were the very same right wingers. Your language was also very suspect you stated something like 40
"extremely right wing...." Tone that down please. Kyaa the Catlord 11:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I will insert "right wing". Anyway I think I originally wrote "extreme right wing", not "extremely". They
("Dansk Front") together with the nazis really do mark the outer edge of the political spectre in Denmark,
(where btw nazisim is not illegal due to our now famous liberal free speech policy). Claush66 11:26, 8 February
2006 (UTC)
If they're wikified, why don't you put forty Dansk Front members? Or better yet, wikilink them, then
create their article since they're not. :P Kyaa the Catlord 11:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
They are not wikified (I checked when writing about the demonstration). It is a rather small
organisation, and I dont know much about them other than highly racist and provocative right wing
propaganda from them and that they often appear with hailing Danish Nazis and someone calling
157
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
themselves White Pride. I am not able to create a balanced wiki entry about them based on that, and
I am not really that interested in them... But it would sure be nice if someone else could do the job.
Claush66 12:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Footnote numbering
I would love to contribute something inflammatory to this discussion page, but this is all I can come up with: If I move my
mouse over the numbers that link to the footnotes, the URL that appears does not correspond correctly, e.g.: footnote 69
links to Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#_note-65. Not very important, I know, but how to fix it? David
Sneek 11:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this is a bug. The links point to the right place. Footnotes are numbered in order, starting with one. Links
are numbered starting from zero, skipping over named links, as in: <ref name="some_name"/> --PeR 11:55, 8
February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I see it now. David Sneek 19:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
See also
Can editors limit the see also section to the really relevant links? Holocaust denial seems out of place. Otherwise I would
suggest inserting racism, right-wing politics, anti-semetism, Islam, Holy figures in Islam, Holy figures in Christianity, the
Bible, The Koran, The Thora, et cetera. You get the picture, it makes the list too long. -Nomen Nescio 11:38, 8
February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, its really too long. I think we really need to shorten the list. -Terence Ong(????) 11:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
If you read the article you'll note it makes mention of so-called "Zionist Conspiracies"--Greasysteve13 11:44, 8
February 2006 (UTC)
Please discuss adding these irrelevant links. Holocaust denial surely is not relevant. We are not
158
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
comparing history with religion.--
Nomen Nescio 12:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
You cannot honestly claim that IMMIGRATION is not relevant, can you ????? This is So sill, I
dint know where to start!!!" Azate 12:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Can you explain what immigration has to do with this subject? --
Nomen Nescio 12:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Azate I understand you feel strongly about it but at least give some arguments. There could be links to similar incident (you
remove them), but I do not understand why your links are related to this story. Please discuss. Just inserting your POV is not
civil.-Nomen Nescio 13:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
See also isn't a dumping ground for wikilinks - if it's linked elsewhere in the article we don't have it at the end as well.
Secretlondon 13:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
(discussion inserted from editors talk page)
This is not related to the article so please remove it. I will observe the 3RR rule, but you could at least engage in the
discussion I started. Furthermore, if you insist on this, than I insist upon inserting sociology, anthropology, racism,
ant-semitism. This clearly is not relevant.-Nomen Nescio 12:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The idea that IMMIGRATION has nothing to to with this article is is so absurd, I don't know where to start. Notice all
these weird-looking brown people in Denmark, who are rumoured to pray to allah? I tell you a secret: they're
immigrants! And btw: The Wiki links section is the last place in this huge article that needs to be trimmed. Azate
13:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, you (plural) also removed CONTROVERSIAL NEWSPAPER CARRICATURES together with IMMIGRATION
( and 2 or 3 more) . Whazzup with that?? Azate 13:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The link is still in the article, so you are incorrect. As to immigration, please explain why you think it should be
mentioned! You can do it here.-Nomen Nescio 13:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it's in the article because it put it back twice after you removed it (twice). If you can't figure
yourself why immigration is related to this topic, I can't help you. Go ask sombody else. Azate 13:18, 8
February 2006 (UTC)
159
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Oh, now you also removed the Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy link.
Shall I exolain to you why this is related relevant to this article? Azate 13:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
You are incorrect: [9]and that's why you inserted it twice, which I had to correct.[10] The timeline is superfluous.
Let's try and stay calm. I am only asking you to discuss. That is all.--
Nomen Nescio 13:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I object to your calling 'correcting' what is nothing more that deleting relevant links, for unfathomable reasons. WHY
did you delete CONTROVERSIAL NEWSPAPER CARRICATURES, for example? Oh, and IMMIGRATION,
again? Azate 14:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Please, first look at the before repeating that accusation. It clearly shows it is present after my edit, and there was a second
entry of it which I removed along with other duplicate edits.-Nomen Nescio 14:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
A 3 day poll gives Wikipedia no right to promote racism
I draw your attention to this 4 part article (below) that goes into great detail about why these cartoons are highly offensive
and promote racism.
By publishing these cartoons, Wikipedia is promoting racism. People who polled in your polls are obviously not sensitive to
the feelings of Muslims worldwide. I believe its a highly biased poll.
The controversy has been going on since Sept 30 and all you did was a 3-day poll? That's not very fair. I didn't get to vote in
that poll and hundreds of thousands of other people also didn't know that there was a poll going on.
Governments of many countries, including the US have come out and officially said that these cartoons are offensive.
A highcourt in Johannesberg, South Africa ruled to stop Sunday Times from publishing these cartoons.
Please take these images down ASAP or I feel Muslims will have no choice but to take the matter to the court of law.
Wikipedia is benefitting from promoting racism and hate against Muslims and Islam, something that is not very Wikipedian.
And to those Jews and Christians who say go publish cartoons about their religion, obviously don't respect their religion as
160
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
much.
The issue is racism: http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8267 Freedom to Spread Hate?
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8243 Cartoon caricatures were designed to offend
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8274
Please remove the images immediately.
Frank --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frankmash (talk • contribs) . Scaife 11:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I think that society as a whole needs to rereview their ideas about racism if they feel that a few satirical images of
Mohammed is spreading race hatred. Hey, colour me insensitive, but something seems wrong with this picture. - Ta
bu shi da yu 14:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Glad to see the socialist worker going to bat for the sanctity of religious belief. Christian fundamentalists are also
looking forward to your solidarity on a range of issues. Regardless, all the issues you raise have already been
addressed ad nauseum on these talk pages. Go read them. We are not "promoting racism", we are providing a key
image relevant to a major event. Babajobu 12:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Now away with all your superstitions ... No saviour from on high delivers. Its been a couple of years since I was
at a Socialist Worker conference... do they still sing the internationale at the end? - FrancisTyers 14:42, 8
February 2006 (UTC)
'We are not "promoting racism", we are providing a key image relevant to a major event'.
Which means you are promoting racism. The image itself promotes racism, don't you get it? It tells the world that Islam is
the source of terrorism and to get rid of terrorism, they should get rid of Islam.
Frank
Last I checked, Islam was not a race. Kulturkampf is not the same as racism. In any case, Wikipedia is not endorsing
the content of the image by displaying it. There is instead a general rule that, as an encyclopedia, we show relevant
content for articles, regardless of how offended people might be. If that means a jesus made of feces on a toilet
161
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
crucifix or trotsky on fire dancing to a fiddle, if it's relevant to an article, it should be included. --Improv 12:15, 8
February 2006 (UTC)
I love those socialist worker party links. Maybe I can find something from New Republic or Fox News to counter
them. :D Kyaa the Catlord 12:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Frank, Wikipedia includes a great many offensive images, some of which you might regard as promoting negative
images of particular groups. For example, see images such as this one, one of several in Wikipedia that document
Nazi propaganda against Jews; or see Piss Christ, which includes an image woefully offensive to Christians. As
Improv says, the inclusion of images relevant to various stories does not equate to endorsement of those images.
Likewise, including an image of burnt-out Danish embassies is not an endorsement of the burning down of those
embassies. This is a pretty simple concept to grasp, and Wikipedia assumes the vast majority of its readers are capable
of making it. Babajobu 12:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
what Babajobu said. Now let's hope people capable of complaining here are also capable of reading so we won't
have to reiterate this simple argument every five minutes. dab (?) 14:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
As far the threat of Muslims taking this to the court of law... Wikipedia is subject to Federal laws of the United States,
and the laws of the State of Florida. If you believe the publication of this image violates a specific Florida or US law,
I'm sure many of us would be interested to know which law that is. BinaryTed 14:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Please do not make legal threats again Frank. It is against Wikipedia policy and will not be tolerated, especially
Ready
since you cannot provide to me state or federal statute that it violates. See WP:NLT SWATJester
Aim Fire! 19:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
In short: no way, Frank, no matter how many times you keep whining about this. Yes, this image may be offensive to some.
So be it. We're here to inform, we're not here not to offend. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 22:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Is every third comment on this talk page going to be a post by Frank demanding the removal of these images? Give it
up Frank, the cartoons stay. Slimdavey 00:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Can't we just create a daughter talk page for requests for removal...? It would save a lot of space on this page.
Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 11:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Can someone put a signature on "Frank"'s posts? He should be signing them with --~~~~. That's two dashes,
four tildes. --Tokachu 17:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
162
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
In my opinion its totally stupid to have a poll about minority rights. Do you think that a poll in nazi germany would have
saved the jews???? Raphael 22:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Cleanup
Once again the article's getting outrageously long, and once again I'm the one who has to do the dirty work. I'm moving the
"Opinions" section to a new article, Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. People would have
to move the appropriate references and talks to the subarticle. AucamanTalk 12:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I strongly oppose. This should remain in the article. If you have to edit something out remove the rumours. That
clearly is not that important as discussion on the subject at hand. Could you reinsert the opinions and make a new
Nomen Nescio 12:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
rumours article?-The idea is to retain the information and still have the head article be shorter. The article was extremely long.
It's highly undesirable - both for readers and for editors. I've moved everything to the new article. You're free to
move the important things back into the head article, but I recommend summarizing the whole thing into 3-8
paragraphs. I know this is a lot of work, but article size is very important. The "Rumors" section is already very
short. The information is not enough for a new article. AucamanTalk 12:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I understand and support why you did it. However, there are less important parts to the page as I said.
Clearly rumours do not need to be in the main page when commentary is removed? Personally, I think
commentary should always be at the same page. People should not have to look for it. Otherwise, they
can just as well search themselves on the Net.-Nomen Nescio 12:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
We absolutely need a summary at least. No section should be moved without providing a summary
of its contents in this, the main article on the topic. Babajobu 12:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Well I also made a subsection on "International reactions" last week. That was arguably more
important than the "Opinions" section (In fact, back then I was asked why I'm not moving the
Opinions section). Just don't panic. This is a routine procedure. If the section contains important
information, people would rise up and summarize the information back into the article.
163
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
AucamanTalk 13:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Good luck with writing that summary for "opinions"... Azate 13:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not the one who suggested it be moved in the first place. We'd be better off moving
rumors out, and leaving opinions in, as Nomen suggests. Babajobu 13:14, 8 February
2006 (UTC)
We reinsert the opinions and exchange it for rumours!!!--
Nomen Nescio 13:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
What you're doing is counterintuitive. I said the reason I moved these information was because the article's getting too
long. I doubt taking out rumors would help in any way. AucamanTalk 13:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, not terribly much since I moved some of them around to places they fit better. I'm considering the
remainders and thinking about moving them somewhere where they make more sense. What does the
membership claims of Islamisk Whatever have to do with this article anyways? Or right wingers acting out?
They may seem, distantly, related, but I'm not sure this is the best place for them. Kyaa the Catlord 13:28, 8
February 2006 (UTC)
Nomen is saying remove the "rumors and disinformation" section to a separate article before doing so
with the "opinions" section, because the latter section is more fundamental to the article. I agree with him
totally. Babajobu 13:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Makes sense to me, since these rumors are mainly related to other subjects not to the controversy
itself. Kyaa the Catlord 13:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
You can do whatever you want as long as the article doesn't end up too long - the way it was. I
don't really care about the content of this article - just the readability. When summarizing a section,
the content are usually moved to a new article and then summarized back into the article. I can't
think of any other way. AucamanTalk 13:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, there are a lot of Wikipedians working on this article alone. I'm trying to spread the work into several articles. The
discussion section for this article has had to be archived almost on a daily basis. Again, highly inefficient. You're free to
move the Rumors section, but taking back the Opinions would be a mistake. The section used to be short, but people read
164
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
stuff online and start copy-pasting at random. If this continues I doubt we would ever be able to summarize it. By giving it
it's own article, the management becomes easier (look at the "international reactions" article for example). AucamanTalk
13:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Opinions as to how to interpret the riots are highly pertinent to the main article. Once again, I say exchange for
rumours. Also the reprinting does not have to be this long, it already has a seperate page.
Does this mean we agree opinions should be reinserted and rumours taken out?-February 2006 (UTC)
Nomen Nescio 13:49, 8
No, the size of the article has to be taken into consideration. New articles will eventually have to be created the
way this article is growing. As I said, a few days ago the Opinions section was much shorter. It's better to
address these problems now than later. AucamanTalk 13:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Why did you not move rumours, and why is the elaborate discussion in timeline not shorter? There you
can win space and I repeat: commentary should stay in the main article. It is important for readers to
see not only the Mulim interpretation, but it should directly be placed in context. If not there would be a
Nomen Nescio 14:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Muslim POV to this page.-Do you read any of my responses? Like I said, you can do whatever you want as long as you don't
make the article any bigger than it should be - 50KB for now. "Commentary should stay in the
main article." Is this a Wikipedia policy? In the mean while, let me refer you to some Wikipedia
articles to read: Wikipedia:Article_size and Wikipedia:How_to_break_up_a_page. Also, if you're
saying that the Opinions section should never be put in a new artilce, that's just no possible
considering how fast the article is growing. But if you do agree that it eventually has to be broken
up, then it's better to do it now than later. AucamanTalk 14:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The point is, all the space you want can be found by moving rumours, shortening timeline and reprinting. However, this
apparently is beyond debate. As to commentary, see Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles and WP:NPOV.-Nomen Nescio 14:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I like I said, if you think you can do better, go for it. But the "Opinions" section would eventually have to be put in a
165
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
seperate article. AucamanTalk 14:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Could it be considered anti-Islamic to call all Muslims part of the same race? What would be the term for this? I'm not really
sure... Valtam 15:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The Opinions section is horribly unencyclopedic in tone, and should be completely rewritten. For instance, an encyclopedia
should never use the word "you" (outside of an actual quote, of course). I'm not quite feeling up to rewriting it myself right
now; is anyone interested in doing this? If not, I'll do it tomorrow. --Ashenai 16:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I think that it is wrong to move out "rumours" and "opinions". They should be cleaned up and kept in the article. The main
criteria for keeping things in the article should be wheter they are directly related to the event. The rumors probably had
an important effect on the outcome of the events.
"Danish Journalistic traditions", however is an article that would stand well on its own. None of it had any direct
consecuence on the course of events here. Making it a separate article and linking to it from both this one and Politics of
Denmark would improve the quality of both articles.
Opinions cleanup: Basically, opinions should only be included if expressed by world leaders or people directly relevant to
the conflict. What "some muslims" or "many people in denmark" may or may not feel is completely unencyclopaedic unless
an opinion poll is quoted. Anything not related to the cartoons controversy is not for this article.
Also: Statements that the queen of Denmark made in April would only be relevant if those statements can be shown to have
directly influenced the course of events in September when the cartoons were published. (Such statements may be relevant
to an article on the queen herself or on "Islam in denmark" or similar. Personally, however, I think the queens statement
only sounds racist after translation into English, not in Danish as she said it.) --PeR 19:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Sydney riots
Furthermore, the cartoons were published in a conservative mainstream newspaper in the context of what many Muslims
perceive to be a pervasive bias against them in many western countries, exemplified by the French law on religious symbols
in schools, the short film Submission, and the 2005 Sydney race riots.
166
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
This lacks a citation. Also, the listing of the 2005 Sydney race riots may be giving undue prominence to it. There are
countless conflicts between Muslims and Christians that were more violent than the Sydney riots, and religion was largely a
marker between "us" and "them" in this case. Then again, I'm from Sydney, so maybe I'm biased. Andjam 12:59, 8 February
2006 (UTC)
I think all of these citations are giving undue weight to them. Kyaa the Catlord 13:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Andjam. Sydney Riots link should not be there. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I also agree that the Sydney riots should not be included Stephen 05:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism
Well done, Wikipedia. It must be a near full time job undoing all the vandalism. 82.26.173.144 13:38, 8 February 2006
(UTC)
There seems to be cluster-vandalism going on. Almost every wiki-article that I have surfed to that is connected to this
article makes my eyes hurt as they their content blurs and changes with each refresh.DanielDemaret 14:56, 8 February
2006 (UTC)
I second this. Well done to everyone who has been keeping a level head with this article, when so many others
have not.--144.136.180.2 23:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Semi-protection, please?
This is getting tedious. Could someone please semi-protect this page for now? --Ashenai 15:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I tossed his ip on the vandal list. Of course, he stops now.... Kyaa the Catlord 15:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I blocked him for 24 hours - hence the stop. Secretlondon 15:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Yay! Thanks. Kyaa the Catlord 15:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I will then shut down every server and much more: e.g. the whole (AS)Autonomous System if wikipedia would come under
a serious attack. Take it easy ... .
Oh no! Not the autonomous system!!! *chuckles* --Ashenai 15:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
167
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
What is the (AS)Autonomous System anyway? I've never heard of it! Valtam 16:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_system_(Internet) Dmaftei 16:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Dmaftei! Valtam 19:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... our happy little vandal dude is now using sock puppets. I'm thinking we need a temporary IP-ban, or semi-protect.
Anyone willing and able to do the honors? --Ashenai 19:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Support photos gone?
What happened to the protest and boycot photos that were in the article? The overall article looks rather stale now with just
the cartoon image. --StuffOfInterest 16:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Some editors feel the article is too long and started subpages.--
Nomen Nescio 16:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Makes sense. OK, I brought one image forward to the main page for illustation. Picked the boycot photo rather
than rioting and protesting ones. --StuffOfInterest 17:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
One fire would be relevant to show. The one we had before was just fine. MX44 17:58, 8 February 2006
(UTC)
Comment
I do not understand what the big deal is about these cartoons. Muslims should be more tolerant about things just like
christians and jews are. This is the 21st century, you cannot force the entire world to see things the way you do, or the ways
you may deem as fit. It is very childish, grow up and civilize. Im sorry but its true. Starting riots and burning an embassy
doesnt exactly help show a positive image for islam, especially when the entire western world is getting really sick of islam
to begin with.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.68.168.169 (talk • contribs) .
This needs to be moved to Arguments.--Jbull 19:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Just like christians and jews are? I don't think you live on the same planet I do. Madangry 20:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Nothing like prejudice comments to show how tolerant about things you are... Slimdavey 00:30, 9 February 2006
168
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
(UTC)
These kind of images of God, Jesus, Buddha etc. occur all the time and yes you do see protests as is their right to do
so (peacefully that is). However, rarely does their protest decent into riot and violence and if it does you can rely on
the Pope or the Archbishop of Cantebury and almost any other Christian, Jewish or Buddist leader etc. to swiftly and
unambiguously condemn the violence. You will also never see Christian, Jewish etc. protestors calling for the swift
and brutal slaughter of blasphemors, baring placards calling for retribution on the west... or any other direction or
country. --TedEBare 05:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Rhetorical questions, what do they add?
The following added text by Azate from the Opinions section doesn't seem to add anything... seems more like personal
questions than questions being posed by parties significantly involved in this controversy...the sources for these questions
should be cited.
What has caused the offence felt by many Muslims? Any pictoral representation of the Prophet, or satirical depiction,
or sartirical association with terror, or genuine association with terror? Is it really about the Prophent, or Islam in
general? Is there 'one Islam' so that every Muslim is offended by association, or is the offence in saying there is 'one
Islam'? Is the tolerable amount of offence to be measured by the offence given or by the offence taken? How does one
measure such a thing? Does protecting one group more than another mean you respect it more or less?
Is free speech only worth having when one can go to extremes, or is it exactly then not worth having? Is the tolerable
amount of offence the same in speech and writing? Is it good manners to tone down your writing to the level of your
speaking, or is the price for your good speaking manners that in writing anything goes? Is religious belief something
inseperable from the self like race or gender, or is it an opinion you happen to hold? Is there something wrong with
religious people, or are people not religious enough? When being offended, do you return like for like? What if the
other one thinks you're escalating when you think he is? When you appease for peace or gain, are you smart or do
you erode your principles? Or do you forego your advantage for priciple, and it will be worth it in the end (or is that
just counterproductive)? Do you ever change your opinion?
Opinion leaders have applied these, and more pedestrian matters like politics, history, law, family, nation and
economics, to create an almost indefinite range of what's right and what it all means.
Netscott 17:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
169
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
How about the important question: "Why Wayne Rooney?" Its been bugging me for the past couple of days. Damn vandals.
Kyaa the Catlord 20:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
limits of free speech
A number of ppl have challenged me in this discussion & on my talk-page to find any real "taboo" that exists in western
countries / or show an example where freedom of speech is limited in the west - I would agree with you that Europe is very
liberal and that such an example is difficult to find. However one can construct a scenario quite easily (note that this is
different from giving an example though) where a picture would be so offensive that it would be "taboo" to put it on
wikipedia or publish it in a newspaper - quite equivalent to what Muslims feel about the Muhammad (pbuh) cartoons.
Consider for example a pornographic picture (e.g. involving ... animals? an extreme close-up? violence? blood?) that would
be so offensive to most ppl that you wouldn't dare put it on wikipedia. If you can imagine such a picture then you'll realise
how some Muslims feel when they see the controversial cartoons on this page. Less drastic might be a movie of vivisection
or extreme animal cruelty - such a movie could also be so offensive that it couldn't be put on wikipedia. Similarly a picture
of a human with gross disability or horrific disfigurement. Finally consider this scenario: a computer-generated,
photo-realistic picture or movie (i.e. no real humans involved, thus no suffering, etc.) of child abuse. Equally one can easily
imagine that this could be so extremely offensive to the general public that it would never be put on wikipedia, not matter
what the surrounding circumstance or controversy.
Imagine seeing one of those "taboo" pictures / images described above to help understand how some Muslims feel about the
Muhammad (pbuh) cartoons and why we try to delete them. Someone who doesn't believe that animals are sentient might
not have a problem with movies of animal cruelty (in fact many indeginous ppl are extremely cruel to animals). A
gynaecologist might have no problem with extreme close-ups of sexual organs. All depends on the the context Rajab 18:22,
8 February 2006 (UTC)
Images of children having sex is treated in the modern western countries the way blasphemy is treated in Islamic countries.
Even wikipedia shows this bias. Child sexual abuse covers behavior that is not considered "abuse" in other cultures [11]. We
don't have a photo of a child being sexually abused in that article. Not even a drawing of such an event, even though such a
drawing is legal under US law. WAS 4.250 19:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Incredible to see you insert such sections in the article, Rajab. You really know better than that. --Sir48 19:21, 8
February 2006 (UTC)
170
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Artistic depictions of child pornography are arguably now illegal under U.S. Law, Rajab, according the The
PROTECT Act of 2003 (though many believe the U.S. Supreme Court will strike down this aspect of the
legislation) There was a successful conviction under this law in December 2005. That's why our Lolicon article
shows a drawing of a little girl with a dildo, but no drawings of actual pedophilic acts taking place. Babajobu
19:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I take back everything, just remove those japanese pictures! I have to say they are much much much
worse than the controversial cartoons in this current discussion!!! Rajab 21:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I take back everything - those japanese drawings that baba pointed out are in fact even worse than the drawings we're
currently discussion. Please consider removing those drawings & the drawings in this articleRajab 21:35, 8 February 2006
(UTC)
Here's the difference, as I see it (from, of course, my admittedly biased, Western, non-Muslim
perspective), Rajab. A picture of animal abuse, child abuse, or an extreme and incredibly offensive
pornographic picture exists because a person or an animal was hurt in the real world. Even most people
who don't believe animals are sentient admit the animals can feel pain and see animal abuse as cruel.
Also, I can't think of an example where depictions of child or animal abuse would be as fundamental to
an article as the cartoons are to this one—I suppose if there were a controversy over some very borderline
photographs or drawings, it might apply, but I can't think of any current articles like that. If this were an
article about the Islamic law that there be no drawings of Muhammad, I would probably agree that
drawings don't need to be shown there to illustrate, but this is an article about the controversy
surrounding certain drawings and I don't think it would be complete without those drawings. I happen to
agree that the Jyllands-Posten acted in bad taste in publishing these cartoons in the first place, but this is
simply an article about the controversy and it would be hard to claim we can fully educate people about it
without showing them the cartoons. Polotet 20:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
baba has convinced me - I give up. There is no taboo on this website. Rajab 21:39, 8 February 2006
(UTC)
Do we have a breakthrough?! That's what free speech means! No subject is taboo for
discussion and information. Weregerbil 21:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
171
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
you probably guessed that I think that's a bad thing by the way...Rajab 21:39, 8 February
2006 (UTC)
Glad to see you get what we finally mean Rajab :) Though some people have said the
syphilis article has some pretty horrific pictures. Personally they don't bug me, I've
seen worse. But then again, my profession requires so much... Anyways, I hope that
you can finally help us convince other muslims who are intent on vandilising this page
that wikipedia doesn't single out a group of people to offend, it's fine with offending
everyone equally! Hitokirishinji 22:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Then what about the conspicuous absence of images of the subject matter of Goatse.cx? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:14,
10 February 2006 (UTC)
This question already answered several times. Babajobu 03:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Results of Riots
This article needs at least a rough estimate of the people killed, buildings burt, and other property destroyed. This is
essential information in understanding the scope of the controversy. We don't need to go into political commentary (x deaths
in protests from cartoons that stated Islam promotes violence.) - just a basic statment of facts. -Mr.Logic 18:23, 8 February
2006 (UTC)
Can someone add this link?
" Reflections on the Mohammed Cartoons" tygerland, February 3, 2006.
No problem... if you can convince us that it's a notable blog. It's pretty well-written, but we should be wary of
limking to non-notable personal websites. --Ashenai 20:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Rumors and Disinformation
Where did this section go? (Cloud02 20:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC))
172
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Part of the events as they unroll
one part went into 'danish clerics tour middle east', the rest mostly into the timeline. Azate 02:27, 9 February
2006 (UTC)
No, the rest isn't in the timeline (Cloud02 11:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC))
A great deal of the protetsts are exclusively due to rumours and disinfomation, and thus I think it is
essential to keep that part. I see no reason as to why we can't keep it? 80.62.172.74 07:52, 9
February 2006 (UTC)
Nothing has been thrown away. It's all in the time line, even the small stuff: Look for "Hot dog" for example.
except the 3 pictures stuff, which is still on the frontpage (clerics travel to...) Azate 12:21, 9 February 2006
(UTC)
Whether they're on the timeline or not, they're still very relevant for the controversy. As they show what
kinds of rumours and misinformation has been brought on both sides! (Cloud02 12:37, 9 February 2006
(UTC))
Yes exactly. That's why they are still there. In the Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad
cartoons controversy! Azate 13:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
What is the matter with putting them in a section of their own? 80.62.172.74 15:02, 9
February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you dont seem to get that i want them to be in the main article, as they're a part of
the main event, and wat has triggered the stuff happening (Cloud02 15:28, 9 February 2006
(UTC))
tygerland
Understood. Well it's linked on a couple of other articles (Henry Jackson Society & Multiculturalism); but I guess any blog
is only notable because of its content – so you can decide.
Well, Google isn't terribly fond of tygerland, and Alexa isn't helpful here. In my opinion, it's non-notable.
Please don't take this as a personal affront; I quite enjoyed that blog. As I said, it's well-written, and well thought out.
But we're here to document noteworthiness, not create it. :) --Ashenai 14:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Hacker attacks
173
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4692518.stm
Is Wikipedia prepared? I've no doubt some attempts will be made to sabotage the article, over and above common
vandalism. --Tatty 21:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
To This Frank Guy
Why dyou feel the need to remove the cartoons? The article is just explaining what is happening, its not saying, "Oh,
Muslims suck, who cares what they believe in, oh, and here are some cartoons!" It is just providing the facts (neutrally) for
the people to know. Oh, and if there already isn't, I think I am going to make the Japanese article for this, does anyone
object? Bert (^_^)
Yeah, I guess Japan, with their long tradition of image-based culture and rather liberal censorship would be as
confused as the Western world by the controversy. ?? ???? 22:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
So sorry, I see that there is a Japanese article for it....I may add to it then. And (just wondering) would the Arabic (if there is
one) Wikipedia have this article, but be more leaniant to how its so "Horrible"? And here is what Muslims were chanting (as
well as having signs with this written) in London (Quote from Chicago Tribune): "Massacre those who insult Islam"
"Freedom of expression go to Hell" and "Europe, you will pay, Fantastic 4 are on their way" The Fantastic 4 refers to the 4
London suicide bombers (who were Muslim) that killed 52 people in July. I think that that is WRONG, and I highly doubt
that Muhammad would like his followers to claim innocent lives. Bert (^_^)
Yes, the Arabic Wikipedia has this article, they include one cartoon, the cartoon of the schoolboy, i.e. the one that
does not include the big Muhammad. Babajobu 02:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
PsyOps
Would it be relevant to make a reference to this concept in the "see also" section? 86.52.36.140 21:55, 8 February 2006
(UTC)
People should be aware that there are evil people from danish tabloids here seeking angles to new stories.
174
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Jyllands-Posten cartoonists
Allegedly Denmark has about 40 cartoonists affiliated to the union of editorial cartoonists. After Kåre Bluitgen failed to find
willing illustrators for his book, Jyllands-Posten sent out 40 invitations, but only got 12 responses, with 4 belonging to J-P's
own staff. I think it would be interesting to know which cartoons were drawn by the J-P cartoonists, since these 4 cartoons
probably are among the most anti-islamic of them. Needs some fact-checking, though. ?? ???? 22:15, 8 February 2006
(UTC)
I think you'll notice the cartoons are signed.--Greasysteve13 02:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Why do almost all the other major Wikipedias refuse to publish the cartoons?
Why do almost all the other major Wikipedias refuse to publish the cartoons? --Lotsofissues 22:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
They're all un-American and so they don't have our same ideals of freedom of speech. -(UTC)
22:43, 8 February 2006
They have made an autonomous decision not to publish them, probably because in their view the cartoons are too
blasphemic to publish (AFAIK, most of the wikipedia who haven't published the cartoons are in the muslim world).
Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 22:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
On the Danish Wikipedia we don't allow fair use images, so we didn't even have to discuss it. There are other
Wikipedias that doesn't allow fair use images. --Maitch 22:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes. I was under the impression only en allows fair use. BrokenSegue 22:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I have read about 20 others to check that statement. Some have the pictures, some link to them. Some seem lazy, some seem
to have stricter rules of copyright/fair use. And some of the articles have them, then they don't, then they are back, and so
forth. We are not the only site language version with Edit Wars. I don't agree with "almost all refuse". DanielDemaret 22:52,
8 February 2006 (UTC)
Maitch is right. I have never heard of a principle like "free use" outside of the United States. Most notably, it is not
allowed by EU law. --Valentinian 23:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
175
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Just an idea, but if you want to publish the cartoons on the Danish version, why not call up the paper and ask them if you
can publish the cartoons on Wikipedia? I'm sure they would grant you the rights, seing as other papers around the world
have reprinted them. Accountable Government 00:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
More than 50% of the other Wikipedias include the images, I think. Babajobu 02:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
UA, note that we cannot use specific-permission licenses on Wikipedia -- the images must be reusable by our
mirrors, including possibly commercial ones. --Improv 02:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Few other wikipedias are as comprehensive as English wikipedia, especially when it comes to images. For example, look at
the article on World War II: tons of images. Look at its counterparts in other languages, some of them featured: very few
images. Savidan 02:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
We have lots of Wikipedias, so all the images can't be uploaded hundreds of times to all the Wikipedias, as this is
under fair use. This would take lots of work. --Terence Ong (????) 08:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Talk: Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy - Archive 12b
$
%
* +
& 1
7
+
*(%
:4
%
&
;
%
7 %
!.
&
<
($
'
(%
& 1
'
7 % & 6
+90F
% %
&
+
'
9
'
-%
176
1
A
%&
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
>* (
''G
?"
1
#4
6
$
6
&
1
:. &
;
&
%
+
&
B + %
*
% %
&
! %
( %
<"
&
>% %
%&
?
4
1
%'
F
%
'.
% &
%
3
*(%
#
:
;
(
4
H
'
%
& FI
& D
& F
6 & 1 F
7 %
'
1
@ %.
!$
. '
'
& & % &C
! 6 C
Q 5& % 7
<
%
D
>4
% &
?,
,
G
1
. *
: /
(3
Rumours and Misinformation
The ‘Rumours and misinformation’ section was deleted by Azate earlier today:
(cur) (last) 12:16, 9 February 2006 Azate (_Rumours and misinformation - deleted. this has been much shortened and put
into the timeline (try to look for hot dog e.g.))
It seems quite an important section and ought to be reinserted. All the information is there to be reinserted (go to History
and the time and date noted above), however, I don't know how to do this! Perhaps someone else could do the honor?
Furthermore, the following misunderstandings / misrepresentations (which were not included in the ‘Rumors and
177
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Misinformation’ part of Wikipedia article were mentioned on the Danish Radio website this evening:
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Temaer/Oevrige_temaer/2006/Tegninger/Artikler/201343.htm
Below is a rough translation:
1) There were 120 drawings of the prophet Muhammed.
On the third of January the media (amongst this DR Nyheder Online
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Udland/2006/01/03/113630.htm) reported that a researcher at the Dansk Ægyptisk Dialoginstitut
by the name Hanna Ziadeh in a one hour interview on Egyptian television had had to clear up several misunderstandings
regarding the Muhammed-drawings in the Danish newspaper JP. Ziadeh, amongst other things, denied, that it concerned 120
drawings, but could confirm that it concerned 12.
2) The Danish government is considering deleting parts of the Quaran.
In Berlingske Tidende on the 12th of January (http://www.berlingske.dk/grid/indland/artikel:aid=681128) it is mentioned
that part of the material presented by the Imams during their travel claimed that Denmark would publish a censored version
of the Quoran.
3) The Danish government wants to make a film about Muhammed.
According to Berlingske Tidende the 13th of January (http://www.berlingske.dk/grid/indland/artikel:aid=682188),
Mahmoud Bakri, the editor of the paper Al Usbu (“the week”) in Cairo related that the Danish delegation of Imams has
claimed that the Danish government, following the Dutch film ‘Submission’ (which was critical of Islam) is planning to pay
for a new film turned particularly against the prophet Muhammed [the writing is a bit intransparrent here, presumably they
mean simply critical of Muhammed].
4) The prime minister refused meeting the ambassadors, as it was a matter of ‘freedom of speech’.
Fahmi Howaidi, a journalist on Arabnews, writes on the webpage Al-Jazeera.info, Islam and the West: Who Hates Whom?
The Danish Case, that 11 Arab ambassadors were refused by prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, as they wished to
meet with the purpose of making him registerer their protest against the insult against Islam. The reason given for the refusal
was that the government could not interfere in a case concerning freedom of speech. The prime minister himself, explained
the matter as follows in TV2 Nyhederne on the 30th of January (http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/article.php?id=3564679): “They
178
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
had written a letter [demanding …sic] that the government take legal steps against the JP. But there we have to say: It is
impossible in a democracy such as the Danish, which has freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Because of this, I
wrote a cordial letter to the ambassadors, for the exact reason, so as not the escalate the matter.
5) Muslim children are indoctrinated in Danish kindergartens
According to JP (http://www.jp.dk/indland/artikel:aid=3530022/), the Imam Mahmoud Fouad al-Barazi, told an Egyptian
newspaper, that Muslim children in Denmark are indoctrinated in the kindergartens. The imam thinks that this – in
conjunction with other social acts is intended to "rob the Islamic communities of their religion and identity". The assertions
about indoctrination were repeated on the Arabic television station Al-Jazeera in January.
MilaUser:86.139.123.36 00:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Have translated the missing words. --Sir48 01:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Excellent, Sir. I'm afraid that I don't have the time to edit it for the Rumours & Misinformation section, nor to reinsert the
section itself as such. Anyone ...? MilaUser:86.139.123.36 02:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
How far back did you go to dredge that up? I don't mind parts of it being there, but some of that needed to be trimmed
out. Kyaa the Catlord 09:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
HOLY CRAP. You brought back a version from like the VERY BEGINNING. I'm being bold. Try again with
something less... ancient. Kyaa the Catlord 09:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
This has been discussed above for a while under the section Translations of the Imam's 43 page dossier
are available. -- Avenue 09:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem bringing it back. But... find a more recent copy. The one you brought back was
missing changes I made to it nearly four days ago now. Kyaa the Catlord 09:30, 10 February 2006
(UTC)
I think you're mistaken. I inserted precisely the text that Azate deleted in a single edit, less
than 24 hours ago. Comparing my version with the one immediately preceding his edit shows
no differences in that section. If your changes were missing, they went missing before that. -Avenue 09:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
179
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
That would be my mistake then, i reinsterted an older one which he deleted again. :P
(Cloud02 10:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC))
Ah, then I was mistaken about Azate's conduct. He or she deleted the content in
a series of edits, most recently around 16:30-17:00 on 8 February 2006, and
discussed some of the earlier deletions on this page under "Remove some
sections" and "Rumors and Disinformation". So I was a bit hasty - my apologies.
I still think the possible contribution of rumors and misinformation to the
situation is not covered well by our article at present, but I'm no longer sure that
reinserting old content is the best approach. -- Avenue 11:43, 10 February 2006
(UTC)
Thank you very much for taking the time find this, Mila! Btw, should'nt you get a real signature :) ?
Here you go Varga Mila 10:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you :) Something is strange. When I click on your link, I do not get to a normal user page. Click on mine, and
then on yours, and you will see the difference. Did you have any problems when you registered your name or when
you logged in? DanielDemaret 12:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I think she just hasn't added any content to her userpage yet. She should at least edit it once so her talk page is
activated. :D Kyaa the Catlord 12:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok ok. I just got lost looking and laughing at all the userboxes. Varga Mila 12:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Please Wikipedia, Respect Amish Ordnung
Why do we have Pictures of People! The Pennsylvania Dutch plain folk don't allow for pictures of people. So please respect
Amish Ordnung and not be Amishophobic. You're freedom of speech must respect our right not to be insulted by your
graven images! Just Kidding. long live free speech and the right to critique. Afterall, if the media is going to follow Islamic
law, it must also follow the Ordnung. Stetlerj 01:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
As much as i appreciate your point, and though i am not arguing on the side of "remove the pictures" the difference is that
islamic people can own computers and use the net... amish, not so much WookMuff 04:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
180
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Stetlerj was being facetious. Also Amish practice regarding photos is not universal
http://www.amishnews.com/amisharticles/amishand%20photos.htm just as Muslim practice regarding aniconism is
not either. Schizombie 21:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, i got that thanks :P WookMuff 23:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Reply: Pictures are not taboo for Muslims. Only a picture of Allah(SWT), otherwise known as God or Prophet
Muhammad(PBUH). This is done to avoid idolatory. The Muslim protest is not based mainly on insulting cartoons, its based
less on the pictorial representation.
Should we remove images of women with their faces uncovered? Women with their heads uncovered? Women with
their arms and legs exposed? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Comparable incidents... POV?
"Throughout history, believers from a multitude of faiths have called for boycott, arrest, censorship or even murder of
critics, artists and commentators whose works they considered blasphemous. Some of these have been jailed,
censored or killed, others walked free. There are also many examples of conflicts where a group of people have been
offended, but did not resort to violence and resolved the matter with discussion."
Does this seem to have POV undertones to anyone else, particularly the last sentence? Like it's saying some people managed
to resolve the matter in a civilised manner, whereas the Muslims didn't? --Nathan (Talk) 02:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the paragraph is a bit editorializing. I happen to think it is perfectly true, but that doesn't make it NPOV, it just
makes it MyPOV. Weregerbil 03:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
i think that its ok, except for the last sentence which is absolutely judgemental. WookMuff 04:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, the last sentence stinks. I'll remove it. Azate 13:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
template
181
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
I cant edit the page, can someone add {{Muhammad_cartoons}} to the top of the article?
Reprinting in other newspapers beginning of February
This would be closer to the reality:
( Reprinting in other newspapers
Further information: List of newspapers that reprinted Jyllands-Posten's Muhammad cartoons
)
In 2005, the Muhammad cartoons controversy received only minor media attention outside of Denmark. Six of the cartoons
were reprinted by the Egyptian newspaper El Fagr on 17 October 2005[24][25][26] along with an article strongly
denouncing them, but publication did not provoke any reactions nor condemnations from either religious or government
authorities. January 2006 saw some of the pictures reprinted in Scandinavia. The first days of February, when international
attention raised, many big newspapers within Europe, with the exception of Great Britain, started printing the cartoons in
support for free speech.
Please see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4673908.stm and the link "Further information... " self.
Danish reaction
I've removed the inclusion of the full text of this minor internet petition. First of all, if it belonged anywhere, it would
belong in the opinions article, not the main article. Secondly, characterizing it as the "Danish reaction" is totally
disingenuous. Thirdly, a small website launched with a couple thousand alleged signatures probably doesn't warrant mention
at all, and certainly doesn't warrant inclusion of full text of what is written there. But if you want to try to push for a
reference to it to be included, put it in the opinions article. Babajobu 03:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I will put it back. It is as importtant as couple of Imams touring the muslim countries... Resid Gulerdem 03:54, 10 February
2006 (UTC)
No it isn't. The Imams helped to spark the protests in the Muslim world. The petition... well, it did not. gren ??? ?
182
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
03:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is. There is no evidence at all that the imams did that, just a speculation. These gorups in Denmark force
JP pull the cartoons back and apologize, as important. Resid Gulerdem 04:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Resid, you are the only one who has identified this little petition as being of such fundamental importance
to the event as requiring inclusion in the main article. If you want to put it in the opinions article, it might
survive here, but it will never make it in the main article. Babajobu 04:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
And everybody else think it shouldn't be there? Where and who are they? It looks you and I talking here... I am not
sure that if you and Grenavitar are everybody... Resid Gulerdem 04:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Resid, it does not matter whether you, Gren, and I believe the small poll is notable. All that matters is that it is
treated as notable by reliable sources. No such source has argued that the poll expresses a notable and important
opinion, and so to include it in Wikipedia would amount to original research. And regardless, even if notable it
is totally inappropriate in the MAIN ARTICLE. Push for it to be included in the OPINIONS article, where it
would belong if notable. Babajobu 04:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The difference is that the news-media have covered the Imams going to the Middle East extensively... no
major source has mentioned that petition (if the BBC, or NYT, or CNN mention it then do tell us). Read
about Wikipedia:Reliable sources gren ??? ? 04:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Do you need a source for it. The link is there I provided. Wouldn't you include this before main media? Resid
Gulerdem 04:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
You need a non-primary source to say that the poll is important. That is why you need the BBC or CNN or
someone to say "this poll is notable" otherwise it's like the millions of other petitions online. Petitions are not
inherently notable. That is what I mean. gren ??? ? 05:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Going to have to agree that your addition Resid, doesn't belong on the main page... I was
thinking maybe in the 'Reconciliation' area... but the letter doesn't really seem to be about
reconciliation. Going to have to agree the with others and suggest 'Opinions'.. Netscott 04:43,
10 February 2006 (UTC)
183
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Should it be mentioned Denmark's 3rd largest and one of the most influential parties is pure and clear
Facist?--Ezeu 05:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Hehe. Ultra-Extreme right-wing, Xenophobic and an insult to everyone: yes. Fascist? You may have to
go and redefine fascism first.DanielDemaret 09:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
At the core of fascism is the idea that it the use of violence is legitimate. Danske Folkepartiet uses nasty
words against those who use violence, so in this respect they could be termed anti-fascist. If you insist in
giving the term "fascist" to any group in this controversy, you should attribute it to any group that has
used violence. I would advice against attributing anyone of that term altogether in this discussion, since it
seems irrelevant to me.DanielDemaret 10:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
No, this is not an article on the political parties of Denmark. I'm sure one exists and if you wish to note
that the third largest party is fascist there, it would be on topic. It isn't here. Kyaa the Catlord 09:39, 10
February 2006 (UTC)
Dansk Folkeparti already has an article, see Danish People's Party, but calling them Fascist is
completely off the mark. They are extremely nationalist but Fascist??? I am aware that particularly
one member of the Swedish cabinet likes calling Danes bad names - which looks rather interesting
when these messages are broadcasted here as well - but a remark like this is completely off the
mark. I'll be monitoring that page, just in case. BTW, yes, Denmark has a small Nazi party. They
too have a page, see National Socialist Movement of Denmark. They ran for the regional elections
on Zealand, and got 0.1% of the votes. Nobody takes them seriously. --Valentinian 09:58, 10
February 2006 (UTC)
Nazism still exists?? I thought it doesn't exist after 1945. This is a party that is more of a
joke. The Danish People's Party are not facist, they are nationalist. Moving the reaction to a
sub-page is better, and a summary at the section. --Terence Ong (????) 12:07, 10 February
2006 (UTC)
I agree - I think the fascist groups are the ones who are violent. In addition, look at the Wikipedia entry on fascism:
Fascism is also typified by totalitarian attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life: political, social,
cultural, and economic. You tell me which group wants to impose control over all aspects of life... Valtam 17:21, 10
February 2006 (UTC)
184
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Sarawak Tribune Update
Just got some info from a source in Malaysia that the Sarawak Tribune, the paper that re-printed one of the cartoons, and
running since 1945 is now gone. Their license has been revoked, and it looks like their websites are no longer active.
Koguma 04:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I read that they shut down the Newspaper as well. (AP) Accountable Government 07:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Wookmuff's edit
In one of Wookmuff's recent edits to this talkpage he inadvertantly (I assume) deleted a very lengthy section of talk.
Wookmuff (or someone else) please restore it. Babajobu 04:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I just did, before I saw your call. gidonb 05:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
it wasn't inadvertant, but in hindsight it was a mistake... thanks, but i will readd my poll choices WookMuff
22:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
New Event: Campus Police SEIZE Papers With Cartoons
I think this information should be added to the article.
"Issue Invades Canadian Universities"
The international furore over Danish newspaper cartoons lampooning the prohet Muhammad has flared at two Canadian
Universities, where officials say public safety fears are forcing them to crack down on efforts to publicize the drawings.
In Charlottetown yesterday, security guards raided the offices of the University of Prince Edward Island student newspaper
in an effort to confiscate 2,000 copies of The Cadre before they could be distributed.
At Saint Mary's University in Halifax, a philosophy professor is vowing to fight a university order issued Tuesday that
forced him to take down the copies of the cartoons posted on his office door.
185
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Dr. Peter March has filed a grievance with his teaching union, saying his academic freedom is under threat.
Ottawa Citizen. Tuesday, February 9,2006. Accountable Government 05:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
wow. sounds pretty noteworthy.--Alhutch 07:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Is there an online edition of this? That SHOULD be included, but probably in the international response article. Kyaa
the Catlord 07:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
One professor lost her job in in Saudi for similar reasons ... MX44 09:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a link directly for that story. But some of the newspapers are related through the Canada.com site. Here's a link
to the story.
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=7b7d851d-a9d9-49fd-8963-fbc665baa637&k=72181
Halifax Herald story: http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/483219.html Thparkth 13:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The current events section on this story was changed to "the administration halted the publication of.." as opposed to the fact
that campus security raided the office of the student paper and seized 2000 copies of it. There is no mention of this story in
the main article, but it's found on a link. The linked article also makes no mention of the fact that they took the papers.
Students actually hid some of the papers before they could get them. Accountable Government 16:43, 10 February 2006
(UTC)
The entry in the timeline article was changed by me, because it had no citation. After checking multiple publications I
changed the entry so that it matched the information that was consistently reported; none of them actually reported the
seizures having occurred, or the other details now seen. I've updated the timeline article with the details given above
now, along with the articles as appropriate citations. — digitaleon • talk @ 21:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Amir Taheri
Does anyone think that this should be added? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
It is not exactly the The Times. Can anyone corroborate that this is a solid publication? And is the contents little more
than just speculation? DanielDemaret 08:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a subscription to the online NY post but the start of it is here at the Post. Also I'm not at home so I
186
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
can't sign up for the free subcription. Here's the full version Canada's National Post. CambridgeBayWeather
(Talk) 08:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
A site closed down today
Swedish media just reported that after talks between the swedish foreign department and the swedish security police, the ISP
that hosts the web site for "SverigeDemokraterna" have chosen to close down the a site containing pictures of Mohammed.
http://www.dn.se/ http://www.sr.se . SverigeDemokraterna is very very small, extreme right-wing party that has no seats in
parliament. The picture was, one of Mohammed looking in a mirror, not one of the JD pictures. This happened after several
papers in the middle east decided to publish the report that "a major swedish publication" had published caricatures of
Mohammed. Their web site is defintely not major, it is miniscule. If the ISP was pressured, it would be against the swedish
constitution, but it seems that they decided to do it on their own accord to protect swedish lives abroad. DanielDemaret
08:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Depends ... Those guys are not known to stay witin the law. Now if we coul have a look, /then/ we could comment.
Do you have a more detailed textual description? MX44 08:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Pretty boring picture it seems. A man look at himself in the mirror, is all. I see no reason to include the picture
here. I was more concerned with the possibility that the government might break its own constition over it.
DanielDemaret 09:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Like this one http://islamcomicbook.com/images/mirrorsite.jpg ? MX44 09:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The Swedish Chancellor of Justice , Göran Lambertz, says that he does not spontanously see that the pictures come
under the swedish law "hets mot folkgrupp" (appox: provocation to violence against an ethnic group). Despite this,
Richard Jomshof (editor of SD-Kuriren) will report those other papers in sweden that have previously published the
JP cartoons. He is also going to report the Swedish National Encyclopedia, since it does indeed have a picture of
Mohammed. He says he wants the matter clarified. DanielDemaret 08:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I just thought I would give a resume, since the links are in swedish. DanielDemaret 08:57, 10 February 2006
(UTC)
We aren't based in Sweden, and are not liable to Swedish law, as far as I know, Wikipedia is only
governed by laws of the state of Florida and federal United States law. NSLE (T+C) 09:06, 10 February
2006 (UTC)
If anyone cares to delete this section, feel free to do so. The more I read about the matter in
different swedish newspapars, the more boring it gets. Everyone seems to be behaving here :)
187
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
DanielDemaret 09:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Pic http://hodja.wordpress.com/files/2006/02/060202muhammed400.jpg
Believe It or Else
Here is one comic book, 24 pages. Published 2001. These guys have obvious issues with POV. You have been warned.
http://islamcomicbook.com
The publisher appears to be Davidson Press
http://davidsonpress.com/islam/
MX44 09:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Ooookay, but what do we do with this? --Kizor 08:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure yet. Perhaps we could show that all of this is really a conspiracy of the christian race against the
muslim race. (joking) Seriously I wonder how Muhammad's Believe It or Else have managed to stay unnoticed
for so long. It blatantly redicules Islam on every single page, but I have yet to hear any protests. MX44 01:11,
12 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, the authors seem to be 1. Christian and 2. not exactly NPOV so it's not particularly balanced. By the
way, I think most religious scriptures could be made to look exactly as evil and ridiculous by taking
citations out of their context. ?? ???? 19:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Describing the paper
Several times I have added "right wing" in despcribing JyllandsPosten in the introcuction of the article. Some people seem
to remove this constantly. Is it not relevant briefly to present what kind of paper it is? We discussed this issue previously,
where one or two US-citizens argued that the notion right wing in the US is perceived as far right. If this is the case I
suggest you take that discussion on the right wing page....According to the definiton on right wing it is obvious for anyone -
188
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
opponents as well as supporters - that JP is a right wing paper. Bertilvidet 12:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Agree - It is a rather important distinction to make, however only with the caveat that these views are in
someway divergent from the "mainstream" Danish press. -- Scaife 12:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that JP is NOT divergent. It is the largest paper in Denmark, regardless of Bert's wish that it was
some sort of fringe view. If it was a whacko fringe newspaper, I'd be more willing to let it be labelled, but the
facts speak otherwise. It is the mainstream paper and reflects the mainstream view of Danes. Kyaa the Catlord
14:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Have you read the previous discussion on this? Apparently not. This has come up EACH time you've labelled the
paper. Each time people have remembered that previously we'd discussed this and decided NOT to label the paper. If
you want to know about the paper, go to the JP wiki entry not the Muhammed controversy. Kyaa the Catlord 12:32,
10 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually I initiated the previous debate after several reversions. Even though you objected we did not decide
anything. Several users argued - like me - that labelling the paper is relevant. Pls not that noone disagrees that
the paper is right wing. Bertilvidet 13:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Just because noone argues that the paper is right wing does NOT make it relevant to this article. It was
argued once and people decided that even weakening the loaded phrase "right wing" to "centre-right"
wouldn't be correct. It was decided to remove it altogether. Then you added it again, and again people
decided to NOT INCLUDE it. Then you added it again, and started a talk discussion. You are inserting
loaded words and inserting POV into the article unnecessarily. I will NOT remove it for a third time but
this is a dead horse. Kyaa the Catlord 13:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
JP is the largest paper in Denmark. Almost by definition it cannot said to be deviating from the mainstream. Remove
the "right wing" stuff. NONE of the other papers, organizations or individuals on this page have such qualifying
adjectives. If you want to find out about JP, read the wiki article about it. Azate 13:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
No decision was taken previously - however agreement seemed to be reached that right wing is a more correct
description than centre-right, eventhough Kyaa argued against labelling the paper. It is a fact that JP is a right
wing newspaper, which they dont hide, and it thus not loaded to state it. Being right wing is not in contrast to
being mainstream - especially not in Denmark which is being ruled by a right wing government. I believe the
aim of this site is to give correct and relevant information. Is not correct that JP is right wing? is not relevant to
state the nature of the newspaper initiating an international crisis or should people think that this is just an
ordinary Danish newspaper as it appears now? Please argue the case instead of just reverting! Bertilvidet 13:50,
10 February 2006 (UTC)
189
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
To maintain NPOV, the article should remain politically neutral. JP is a normal Danish newspaper. To
claim it to be otherwise is inserting POV. Kyaa the Catlord 14:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
BTW, couldnt find the previous debate. Guess it is archived somewhere, can someone link it? Bertilvidet
13:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Archive 9b Header 14 and archive 10 header 22, why do other people have to look that up, when
you can just as easily do that yourself? Azate 14:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Link to archive Thank you, Azate, helpful of you to find the way to the archive. The direct links
are [1] and [2]. OPbviously no agreement have been reached. Once again..PLEASE tell if it is
irrelevant or incorrect to label the paper right wing!!!!Bertilvidet 14:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I think it's both correct and relevant. However, I also think it should not be here,
because it's only one _opinion _ among many. People who whould try to change the "group
of Danish Imams" into "group of leftwing/rightwing/extremist/pious/whatever Danish
Imams" have seen these adjectives shot down, too.Azate 15:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Where is the source allowing to label JP as "right wing"? Who says it is? What leads you to
this conclusion? You may find it strange but I think labeling JP as "right wing" is not only
POV but OR. If JP is not declaring itself as "right wing" or there are'nt some very good
sources which do so, this label has not to be in this article. And: many people not only in the
US but in Denmark and Germany too have a very clear view of what "right wing" means. It
is perceived as "right from the center", "biassed" or even "racist". That is the POV you are
inserting in this article if you label JP as "right wing". --Adornix 14:56, 10 February 2006
(UTC)
I did a search on goog for " danmark "højreorienteret avis" " (Denmark "right-wing
newspaper") and look at the bottom [3] (Cloud02 16:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC))
The paper has been described in the media as right-wing since this started, you
really just discovered the google bomb Nichlas 18:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Only two of those links on the googling that you refer to, make a direct link between JP and being right-wing. And they are
both from the same blog ! That hardly makes a strong case. My impression is that JP is conservative paper. It is a pretty
much on par with the government, which means very conservative and right of the political centre. 'Right wing', as such,
bears connotations of extremeitism, which would definitely be incorrect in this case. Varga Mila 17:03, 10 February 2006
(UTC)
190
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Adornix, thank you for arguing substantially for your case. With such disagreements we need to understand our
co-writers, as I believe we all want to ensure a balanced NPOV entry. None of you seem to be vandals, so its
important to argue for any view - even if it appears natural. Nichlas 18:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
In Denmark the paper is usually described as "borgerlig", a term that has no clear equivalent in English - but usually is
translated as either right wing or conservative. JP also defines it self as 'borgerlig´ [4]. Stating this in the article, I do
frankly not see as POV! Try to Google "jyllands-posten" and "borgerlig" - or jyllands-posten and right-wing - you
will see a wide range of sources - right wing and scholar sources all connecting the two. How can it be POV to label a
paper as right wing when both the paper itself, supporters, opponents and scholars call is so?? Bertilvidet 18:23, 10
February 2006 (UTC)
"Borgerlig" can hardly be translated to "Right Wing". It is more like "slightly conservative", and is used for all
the parties at the right of center. "usualy translated" in this case must mean "wrongly translated". Nichlas 18:50,
13 February 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know the english language and as far as I know the perception of the terms right-wing and
conservative, I would say that they are not synonymous. I would have no objections against labelling JP as
conservative because this term is much less devaluating. But the self definition of JP I found on their homepage
is not only "borgerlig" but "liberal borgerlig", what may be a bit different. I'm not sure if "borgerlig" is usually
read as "right wing" in Denmark. In Germany you have to be quite leftist to find "bürgerlich" identical to
"rechts" (right-wing). The only good english translation of borgerlig I found is actually french: bourgeois, but
I'm not absolutely sure this translation gets the point. Conservative may be better.
If we can reach sort of consensus about labelling JP at all, conservative would be the best choice, I
think. "Liberal" would irritate most american readers, I fear.
As you may have thought, I'm not entirely against a political label for JP, because most newspapers
in the western world have an explicit political self definition which it is sometimes helpful to know
when you first hear about a specific one. But we have to be very careful not to label JP in a way
that can be seen as deprecatory. So we should be very close to JP's "liberal borgerlig".
I hope my point is clear now, despite the fact I had to use my german-english dictionary and may
not always have chosen the most appropriate terms. --Adornix 20:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
So if they call themselves "liberal borgerlig", should we call them a "liberal conservative"
paper? Or do they mean "liberal" in the sense many Europeans mean it: libertarian? Valtam
20:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
191
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
"liberal" is somewhere between "maximization of individual liberties" and a simple
"free market" philosophy, I think, probably more the latter. --Adornix 20:38, 10
February 2006 (UTC)
The old translation of "borgerlig" is "bourgeois". The problem with the term is that "right wing" has no easy
definition, and consequently the term has different meanings for different people. E.g. this is an international
encyclopedia based in the United States. Consequently, I define right wing as e.g. the Republican Party in the
U.S. In this context, Jyllands-Posten is clearly a centre-based newspaper. A former U.S. ambassador once
commented on the Danish People's Party is "in America they'd just be a centre party". In a Danish context, I'd
define right wing as the part of the spectrum ranging from the Danish People's Party on one hand, to the Nazis
and "Stop the Immigration" one the other. Jyllands-Posten is surely more left-wing than this. In both cases,
centre-right / right of centre seems to be the best description. --Valentinian 19:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
IMHO "borgerlig" in Danish implies two things, both of which could be defined negatively, namely
"non-socialist", and "non-extremist". "Liberal" in the Danish sense refers mostly to "individualism" as
opposed to conservative "centralism" regarding the role of the state and government. The last label for the
newspaper is "uafhængig", meaning "independent" of any particular group or policy. I support to avoid
labeling the newspaper in this article, since short labels will be interpreted very differently in different
countries. We are talking about the biggest Danish newspaper and its attitudes are - I hope - described in
needed detail in its article. --Sir48 20:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)::
'Borgerlig' is actually a funny word with lots of different meanings, deriving from the meaning
'bourgeois'. However in contemporary politics it should be translated as 'rigth wing' or
conservative'. I am hesitant about using the term 'liberal', because it has so different connotations
around the globe (esp. diff. betw. US and Europe). Just stating [Right wing] it is neither centre right
nor far right. I find it clearly misleading to lead the paper centre-right - according to the Danish
political landscape it is clearly not. And I dont see how the paper is to be placed left of the
Republicans. Using the term 'conservative' seems adequate, if you believe right wing gives wrong
connotations. Bertilvidet 20:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
If you think the similarity between Jyllands-Posten and the U.S. Republican Party is so clear,
I will respectfully suggest that you read more about the Republicans. From what I've read, I
192
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
see clear differences. E.g. the importance the religious right plays in the Republican party.
Another example: Jyllands-Posten is often critical of Israel, as well as being critical of the
Palestinians. I believe this is a clear case as well. The feeling towards "big business" is
another difference. Jyllands-Posten has - on a number of occations - argumented for free
immigration to Denmark, provided that immigrants - on the other hand - should not be able
to receive government benefits for the first eight or so years in Denmark. On this issue. they
differ quite clearly from the government, the newspaper being more left-wing. In
comparison, I have not heard the GOP call for free immigration to the United States.
--Valentinian 21:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
It could be observed that we differ rather much, Bertilvidet, which adds to the
argument that our differences in opinion can not be boiled down to a two-word
label.--Sir48 22:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, I see now that it is far more controversial than I initially considered
it. Thank you for presenting your arguments in civilized way! Bertilvidet 12:48,
12 February 2006 (UTC)
By the way - just to add to the fuel and confusion (fundamentally it is utterly irrelevant) - JP is often known as 'Morgen
facisten Jyllands-Posten' (The Morning facist, the Jyllands-Post), which is a (quite bad) play on the words (the morning
news Jyllands-Posten, which JP 'calls' itself) [it is probably a historical derivative]. ;-) Varga Mila 08:30, 11 February 2006
(UTC)
"It is the mainstream paper and reflects the mainstream view of Danes." Kyaa the Catlord; What gives you the
idea that newspapers, no matter how common they are, reflect the mainstream view of a certain group of
people? Does the bible reflect the mainstream view of the Earth's human population, as it is one of the most
read/published/translated literary works? Not necessarily. It is also possible that Pravda, for e.g., did not reflect
the mainstream views of citizens of USSR, isn't it? --HJV 20:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, HJV, the comparison with Pravda is flawed at best. Pravda was pretty much the only
allowed newspaper in the USSR, and was run by the Soviet government (this is where its name lost any
connection to its original meaning. I should add that I don't know a thing about how Pravda has been run
since the fall of the USSR.) Jyllands-Posten is a privately owned newspaper; it operates in a democratic
country and people can choose to buy the paper or a number of others as they see fit. Most supermarkets
193
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
have at least 4 newspapers on the stand, all costing virtually the same. So if Jyllands-Posten performs
well on the market, it is probably because its readers - generally - support the paper's line. Just my 2
(euro)cents. --Valentinian 13:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Thanks for putting that into words. Kyaa the Catlord 13:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
All true. In any case, the fact that JP is the best-selling newspaper in Denmark is more
apropos and verifiable than its being "right-wing", a term which is very open to
misintepretation, as users from different countries are clearly interpreting the term differently
and Wikipedia is not Denmark. Finally, the lead sentence of the article is just not the place to
hazard a sloppy attempt at characterizing the politics of the paper...people can click on the
link if they want to learn about the paper. Give it up: your assessment of the political
disposition of JP does not belong in the lead sentence! Babajobu 16:31, 12 February 2006
(UTC)
JP themselves put their political position (liberal) in their one sentence (taken from
their foundation) description of themselves[5]. This is a political discussion I cannot
see how this can not be important. Nor can I see how best-selling somehow conflicts
with their position, as they belong to the same political wing (the right wing) as the
ruling government. --Per Abrahamsen 09:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
tidbit to include to article
The editor of Jyllands-Posten, the newspaper which first published the cartoons, is sent on leave for an indefinite period, as
the editor of a Norwegian magazine that reprinted them apologises.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4699716.stm
'The editorial staff has told Flemming Rose that he ought to go on holiday. No one can imagine the incredible amount
of pressure he has been under,' said Jyllands-Posten's editor-in-chief Carsten Juste.'
http://www.jp.dk/english_news/artikel:aid=3549984/ MX44 12:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
This issue is frighteningly simple. Muslim prohibitions apply only to Muslims, not to non-believers - unless someone can
tell me where in the Quran or the Hadith it says otherwise. I respect the right of Muslims to practice their religion and their
beliefs, and I want the same respect from them for mine. Les Raphael212.219.240.201 15:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC), 10
February 2006
194
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Errors
Why is this not mentioned? JeffBurdges 14:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Who is this David Warren fellow? Does the article add NPOV content?DanielDemaret 14:13, 10 February 2006
(UTC)
Err, no, his article should not be linked! But much of its content is sourceable and should be mentioned. i.e. that
the comics many protesters saw is much worse than the content actually printed. JeffBurdges 21:30, 10
February 2006 (UTC)
Agree with JeffBurdges. By the way: our article isn't NPOV either, I'm afraid. I'm sure the arabic article,
which should also be NPOV, and which I am unable to read (can't even do OR :-) on that) describes the
whole controversy rather differently. And a hypothecical NPOV article written by muslims living in
Denmark/Europe would differ in many other areas, I suppose. --Sir48 21:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
supermarket photo
I tried to figure out what country Image:Dm product.jpg is from. I'm moderately sure that the "al-Tamemi Markets"
mentioned at the image talk are the al-Tamimi Markets of Saudi Arabia. Thoughts? - BanyanTree 15:28, 10 February 2006
(UTC)
Seems logical to me. Arabic has only three vowels, A, I, and U, and translitteration regarding "E"s differ. I think it is a
pretty safe match. (If somebody has some red hot insider information on this issue, feel free to correct me.)
--Valentinian 22:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I've made a note on the original image at Commons. Thanks, BanyanTree 03:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Negligence on the part of Danish prime-minister
When I read the current article, I notice that the fact that the Danish prime-minister did not want to meet with
representatives from the Arab League have been left out. Isn't this one of the more escalating points in the developement of
the story, and it has to be mentioned in order to understand both sides? MX44 16:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
195
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
I Agree. One or two senteces should be there. It's covered in detail in the timeline Azate 16:22, 10 February 2006
(UTC)
It is /almost/ in the introduction. A single well aimed sentence will do it MX44 16:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Then I also think the reason to as why the prime minister refused to meet with the representatives,
because of their demands that the meeting should be about discussing the punishment the danish
government should give Jyllands-posten. The.valiant.paladin 16:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Please see the quote from the prime minister under Rumours and Misinformation above. What is the status on that, by the
way ? Will someone incorporate some of the stuff mentioned there in the article ? Varga Mila 17:07, 10 February 2006
(UTC)
It IS in the article (in the timeline, as is everything else that used to be in "Rumors an Disinformation"), it's just not on
the frontpage anymore. I think we agree that the stuff with the hot dog stand or the koran burning that didn't happen
doesn't deserve mention on the main page. THose rumors that did turn out to be more than that, and that had a major
impact (esp the pig picture thing) are still on the main page. We can't really be in the business of debunking stuff like
"Danish government to issue new version of Koran" here. People how believe this sort of stuff usually don't look it up
in Wikipedia fist, I suspect. What I just said does obviously not apply to the ambassadors not being received by the
PM. This is in the timeline, and it should see short mention on the frontpage. Azate 18:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake Varga Mila 19:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Agree Should be mentioned in the introduction. The fact that the PM refused to meet with the ambassadors is one of
the corner stones in the critique of his handling of the case Bertilvidet 18:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
As I remember the case, television reported in advance that the imams wanted to meet the PM to demand that
he re-introduced censorship. He might be critized in the Arab world, but he still has no legal rights to close /
regulate newspapers (or as the term was coined: "to guarantee that this never happens again" / "influence JP".)
It is not really surprising that he refused to meet them given this pretext, cf. § 77 in the Danish constitution.
Point no. 2 is that the PM does not recognize the imams as leaders of the Muslim community in Denmark, so he
didn't wish to lend them any special authority. By all means include a refence to this event, but include why he
refused to do so. If not, the article will become biased, and people will just read the course of events as "he
probably just hates foreigners". --Valentinian 20:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Ambassadors, not imams. Of course the PM had arguments for refusing to meet the ambsassadors, but in
196
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
the Danish debate this refusal has sparked a lot of criticism towards the PM. Bertilvidet 20:27, 10
February 2006 (UTC)
Azate, I noticed you just added a paragraph (nice, balanced). But where do you have the stuff about
the imams from?? Its not in the reference. As far as I know no imams where involved in the letter
from the ambassadors. Let me know if I am wrong Bertilvidet 21:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, you're wrong ;->. Look up the "letter to the amabassadors" which predates their request
for meeting Rasmussen in the "Dossier" artice Azate 21:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The order was: The imams wish for a meeting with the PM -> the PM rejects (citing the reasons above) -> the imams
turn to the Muslim ambassadors -> the ambassadors now wish for a meeting with the PM (to ask for the introduction
of censorship) -> the PM rejects this meeting as well. --Valentinian 21:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake. Just ignore my two previous posts :$ Bertilvidet 22:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Just for clarity: The order was: The imams wish for a meeting with the PM -> the PM rejects (citing the
reasons above) -> the imams turn to the Muslim ambassadors -> the ambassadors now wish for a meeting
with the PM (to ask for the introduction of censorship) -> the PM rejects this meeting as well -> the
imams go to court -> the court says the cartoons are ok -> weekend avisen and Ali hirsi -> the imams go
international Azate 22:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Minister! :-) --Valentinian 22:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
See, that's the sort of remark that'll help you in life ;-> Azate 23:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
How do you read "to ask for the introduction of censorship" out of the paper they sent to Fogh? 1) They bring up a number
of derogatory remarks, not just JP 2) they urge Fogh to "take all those responsible to task under law of the land" - which
would be the Danish law and constitution, right? This might not be the place to start a debate, but your representation of the
ambassadors seems pretty one-eyed. Poulsen 23:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The Imams first went the route via the courts. The courts said the publication was not illegal. Afterwards, they lobby
the ambassadors to "communicate this account of the regrettable situation and this population segment's indignation
and irritation to their governments and to the relevant authorities in their countries with the needed haste, to at least
express their protests".
197
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Whatever that means. Lots of Islamic countries' (19?) governments issue a communique (at the IOC conference) that
asks Rasmussen to "reign in the press" and "punish those responsible" to "ensure that such things never happen again"
(quotes from memory. You can read the IOC report, too). Then 11 countries dispatch the 11 ambassadors. Azate
02:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The ambassadors requested a meeting in October 2005, the OIC was in January 2006 (if what you are refering
to is this [6]) - your timeline is a little wrangled. Poulsen 02:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
You're right. I'm tired, I mixed things up. Fortunately the page is sound. Azate 03:16, 11 February 2006
(UTC)
Fair enough, but do you still see it as "asking for the introduction of censorship"? As I see it, it was
part of Fogh's political spin, to play down the unfortunate part (for him) of his own cultural
minister and others, while citing that he did so because the ambassadors "want me to break the
freedom of press", even though that was not the exact words of the letter he received, or at least his
active interpretation of it. Poulsen 10:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I wrote that line in the first place. It seems that our memories differ. I clearly remember a
group of imams demanding that the PM should "guarantee that this never happens again" /
"stop the newspaper" etc. (there was a number of such remarks.) Any such actions can only
be accomplished through the re-introduction of censorship. The letters were written in a
polite tone, but I can't see any other logical conclusion. --Valentinian 13:37, 12 February
2006 (UTC)
So what you're saying is: as Imams called for censorship, the ambassadors implicitly
did so as well? How do you make that coupling, at least it is not mentioned in the one
letter to Fogh. I think writing "the ambassadors apparently wanted Rasmussen to
punish the newspaper" is bordering on npov as it ignores what is written in the letter,
and takes Fogh's explanation as the only side in the matter. The original text, which
quotes sources on both sides, is now placed in the "International reactions" sub-article
under, oddly enough, "Burning embassies", and I think it would be better suited on this
page, replacing the current section. Poulsen 17:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
It is based on my memory for one thing. I remember the Egyptian ambassador as very active in calling for the PM to
198
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
"intervene" / guarantee that this did not happen again, or some similar remark. I'm still not able to draw any other
logical conclusion ([7] [8]) Please see the last reference: "Baggrunden for min afvisning er, at de sendte et brev til
mig, hvor konklusionen var, at jeg - som statsminister - skulle tage retslige skridt i forhold til pressen. Det kan jeg
ikke. Det vil jeg ikke. Og hvis jeg gik ind på at holde et møde om samme sag, så var det det samme som at acceptere,
at her var der en relevant problemstilling, der kunne føres dialog om ..." (the background for my rejection was that
they sent a letter to me in which the conclusion was that I should take legal steps in relation to the Press - in my
capacity as PM. I can not do that. I will not. And if I had accepted holding a meeting about this topic, it would mean
the same as accepting that they (the ambassadors) had a relevant case which could be debated ..." Ekstra Bladet
quoting Anders Fogh Rasmussen, 21 December 2005). Regards. --Valentinian 10:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
pig person picture
I think it is poor taste to put it in a section that is headlined "danish imams tour the middle east". It looks like a wilfully evil
association, like this was a picture of one of the imams. It's on the same wink-wink level as the imams putting it in the
dossier in the first place. I realize this has been disussed before, but that was when the section was much longer and it
apperead midway down, where the picture itself was discussed. The picture is of course still in the "dossier" article, wher it
of coure belongs. Azate 16:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Now that was quite a new angle :) :) :D ... MX44 16:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The article mentions the picture. Therefore would showing the picture be relevant to the article. --Maitch 16:38,
10 February 2006 (UTC)
keep, The additional images that the Danish imams added are probably at the core of why this whole
thing got so blown out of proportion... as such, there should be a visual on the main page to better
highlight that probability. Netscott 17:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
You got to wonder what the guy in the picture must be thinking right now... "Muslims? I was just trying to be a pig!"
Hitokirishinji 17:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The 'Hirsi' reference skews the whole part into some whining crap. They were dissatisfied, so they went on tour. MX44
17:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
199
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Yeah. I don't feel it's very relevant, too. But apparently THEY did. Did you read the newly translated dossier? Azate
18:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
No I haven't. Can you somehow boil it down to the essence without reiterating the same statements over and
over again? MX44 18:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
There is no reference to Hirsi Ali in Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy_43p_dossier. So tidy
up I would say MX44 18:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes there is: Quote:
"Several conditions increased our pain and torment:
1. The ridicule of Islam and its followers has become an easily distributed commodity, when an almost extinct newspaper
published images stronger and more offending on 11 November, probably to regain its popularity; this paper is
"Weekendavisen".
2. Muslims received during this period of time - most notably those taking part in the actual protest against the images letters whose tone differed between direct threats and mockery of Islam itself through attacks on the Qu'ran, when these
people claimed that it was a fabrication, and they took part in the attack on the Prophet (PBUH) by sending animated
images, that were stonger and fiercer, and which come from a deep hatred to Islam as a religion.
3. Denmark received the Dutch author of Somali decent, who is the author of the film, that degrades Islam, and whose
producer was killed recently in Holland. The reception for her was a consequently a continuation of the confrontation,
particularly since she gave an interview to Danish television in which she talked about Islam in a degrading way. And the
strange is, that the Prime Minister, who had rejected meeting with the ambassadors, received her and presented her with an
award, like he stated that he appreciated her brave positions and her free opinions. So now you se how it is....
This is why the organizations again called to an urgent meeting, in which it was decided to create delegations, who could
visit the Islamic world with the intent of informing them on the danger of the situation and make them take part in the
defence and support of our prophet (PUBH)." Azate 19:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, Couldn't find her name. The Dutch parliament then? Shouldn't that be a murdered Dutch producer? MX44
20:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
200
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
She's a member of the Dutch parliament mostly occupied with womens' issues and immigration. How,
precisely, she ended up producing Van Goghs film, I don't know. Probably she also heads some lobbying
groups/organitations that provided (some) funding for the film. Azate 21:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Her bio is linked, so all that and she is Somalian and has father ... and then prizes too. But the
imams objected against her affiliation with the Submission_(film) project, not that she is an MP
MX44 21:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
In twisted turn of fate, the reason for Hirsi Ali coming to Copenhagen at this inconvenient time,
instead of a year earlier, was the death threats and the murder of Van Gogh. I think I'll leave it to
Roald Atkinsson to wrap that one up ... MX44 23:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
There is now a fine textual description of The 43p Dossier :) How about lightening it up slightly with a picture of, say a
Chair? Or would that be too offensive? (to Jyllands Komposten, that is.) MX44 03:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The pig-person picture illustrates how the dossier could have inflamed sentiments more than the original 12
Jyllands-Posten cartoons, which I think is an essential part of this section. So if we are going to replace the pig-person
image, I believe we'd need to use an equally inflammatory image, such as one of the dog or pedophile pictures. The
pedophile image is probably the one that is least likely to be perceived as implicitly representing one of the imams.
But I also think that the original source of the pig-person photo, which has nothing to do with Muslims in Denmark,
makes it less objectionable in wider terms. -- Avenue 09:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
It also illustrates that one reputable and arguably disinterested party, BBC World, believed at one stage that this
picture was published in Jyllands-Posten as a result of its inclusion in the dossier. This strengthens the case that the
dossier could have misled some of its intended audience. -- Avenue 09:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The original caption (true face of Muhammad) is missing from the pig-picture. The others (from the three) have
their offensive nature described MX44 09:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I support replacing the current pig-picture with a version that includes the original caption. -- Avenue
10:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I would rather keep the french connection with the picture and focus on the ill-will in the text.
201
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
BTW, this picture is getting waay too much attention MX44 12:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
El Fagr
How big is this Newspaper? From what i read it has somewhere around 50.000 made each day. And it's an extreme
right-wing paper, that brings very controversial stuff. And besides that I also read (on politiken.dk, cant find the article
now), that the paper CRITISIZED Jyllands-posten in the article when they brought the pictures alongside.(Cloud02 16:51,
10 February 2006 (UTC))
that's what the article says: "Six of the cartoons were reprinted in the Egyptian newspaper El Fagr in October
2005[21][22][23] along with a highly-critical article". As of "right wing" I don't know, and it doesnt matter anyway.
All I gather from various souces is that it is not state owned, or owned by the governement party or their affiliates,
which, in an Egyptian context, is a rarity and qualifies it as an opposition newspaper. Azate 17:03, 10 February 2006
(UTC)
Again, it is really NOT "an extreme right-wing paper". Boring, conservative, and reactionary, no doubt ! But nothing 'worse'
than that. Varga Mila 17:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
In the political context of the Arab world, the word "right-wing" is absolutely meaningless. Tells you nothing at all.
Babajobu 18:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, the division is rather between "vocal" and "silent" Ruby 22:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Controversial Image placement in Wikipedia entries (is there an informal
policy?)
Having just read Jimbo Wales' Talk page regarding the Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy entry I noticed
that he discusses the placement of the main Jyllands-Posten image on the top part of the page:
" I see no particular editorial reason for keeping it at the top, when in other (but not all) similar cases, we have
moved such images to the middle or bottom. "
and it got me wondering about that. Maybe we should move it down lower on the page and have a small disclaimer at the
202
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
top so that those coming to this entry will have a choice to continue down the page. Prior to reading his talk page, I didn't
really think that the image should be lower on the page... but afterwards, the idea of placing the image lower doesn't seem so
wrong. His talk page made me curious to know what have other Wikipedia entries with controversial images done relative to
image placement? Does anyone know of other entries that have controversial images? I'd be curious to see at least one entry
where the controversial image has been left at the top and another entry where the controversial image was placed lower. I
must admit though... that part of me thinks that if these images have been used to manipulate people without good faith
reasons (nefariously) then to move them would be in a sense giving into that dark side.
Netscott 00:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Curiously, as the affair commences, it's less and less about these 12 cartoons, and more and more about the OTHER
images, lobbying and power politics. As witnessed by the El-Fagr publication, it's those that saw the dossier of the
Imams (or nothing at all, that is, the 10,000s of demonstrators), rather than those who saw the pictures, that are really
inflamed about them. This has at least been the case among the Muslim people I know (Turks), whose anger
(everybody had heard about this stuff, mostly from Turkish papers) quickly gave way to "This is all?" comments once
they saw the actual cartoons in German papers or on TV. I see no need for these 'disclaimers', nobody appears to drop
dead from exposure. Azate 00:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, Wales is a sensible person, and it's not unthinkable that we could move the image down. However,
consensus have been reached on the position on the image, and with several other controversial articles having
images that *could* be offensive to *some* people in the same position, and with the image being a central part
of the whole story, I think that consensus is quite defendable.
Now, I also think that a lot of poeple voted as they did out of a sense of "defending freedom of speach". In an
ideal world, Wikipedia should not be about that, just simply be an encyclopedia, a place where you can find
knowledge. However, with supposedly "liberal" countries like Sweden caving in to radical muslims demands
and excerting governmental pressure on ISP's to take down sites that show pictures of Muhammad, it seems like
the world do in fact need Wikipedia to take a stance for free speach.The.valiant.paladin 01:01, 11 February
2006 (UTC)
hello
this is my first ever post at wikipedia and dispite risking makeing my self look noobish I would like to make a suggestion
about this article:
203
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Is it possible to link this artcle with the article of islamophobia?
Reasons:
The cartoons may or may not have been a product of islamophobia considering they were made specifically to provoke
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dubdub 80 (talk • contribs) .
First, let's not try to guess why the pictures were made. None of us are mind readers. A large part of the deadly
violence around the world is likely to be caused by reckless speculation about other peoples' motives. Second, as you
say, "may or may not". Wikipedia is not a place of speculation. We should keep guessing and speculation to the
minimum. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog. And welcome to Wikipedia, I hope you'll have fun here!
Weregerbil 01:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
There are many interpretations. For example, they could have published them to make patent the hypocrisy of several
european media, which have a long tradition of making fun of christianism (because freedom of speech), while at the
same time showing their most sincere respects to muslims (because religion is sacred, and such). Many people in
Europe think they have this double standard just because they know that christians don't react violently, as (some)
muslims do. Under this interpretation, provoking muslims would have been a call to either stop the media for
provoking christians everyday, or stopping the extremists from censoring the media (you know, when they call suicide
bombers rebels instead of terrorists, because it could offend all those people that see them as heroes). DrJones 02:05,
11 February 2006 (UTC)
Now that we've all taken a stand and shown that Wikipedia isn't going to be cowed by demands for self-censorship, is it
perhaps time to heed Jimbo's words and concede that the image doesn't actually have to be at the top, and we can combine
non-censorship with a measure of sensitivity by moving it a least a screenful down (maybe leaving the one with the
schoolboy, i.e. the one which doesn't show the Prophet himself, at the top)? I know we're all sick of the question, but do we
have to be bound for ever by votes taken in the heat of battle? At what point do we allow wiser, calmer counsels (e.g.
Jimbo's) to get a look-in? Vilcxjo 21:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
As he himself indicates, that is Jimbo's view as a common editor, not as our beloved leader. And because of that, his
views should be given equal weight to the views of other users. And they have expressed a desire to keep the image
on the top of the article. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 11:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
204
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Map final?
Is everyone satisfied with these colors? (including the color blind) I'd like to get this down finally so I can really start
working on it. Hitokirishinji 03:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Shouldnt Jordan, Yemen Egypt and Malaysia also be blue? they printed the cartoons as stated in the article -Astrokey44|talk 04:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
As I stated above, it is NOT done yet. This is merely a sample so I can get some direction and consensus on the
colors. Hitokirishinji 05:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not color blind, but the colors look good to me. Do you expect trouble from large demonstrations in
tiny countries? --Kizor 08:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Go to the list of newspapers table as you are missing half the countries that have printed it including Brazil,
Argentina, Venezuela, Lithuania etc etcHephaestion 05:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The discussion is getting a bit heated, please stay cool. Anyway, a world map will be better and include
all the countries. I hope its not too hard to create a large map. --Terence Ong 09:04, 11 February 2006
(UTC)
The colors look good. The way you are able to show both blue and red is a good idea too! (The other people in this
room applauded, by the way= DanielDemaret 13:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Once again, I'm not done. This map is not complete yet. I know there are countries missing, I chosen not to fill them in yet
until I get some direction on the colors from everyone so I don't have to remake the map everytime a new color is decided.
Anyways, it looks like I'm not getting many comments on the colors so I'm going to assume most folks are satisfied with
them. Hitokirishinji 14:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
What color is to be used for countries (ie Hong Kong, China) who disallows protesters to rally? MX44 00:25, 12
February 2006 (UTC)
205
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
From aside of what people said, I think the map is too "simple", and I'm not sure if you should color Greenland: I consider
them quite a seperate territory, like Costa-Rica, where they have their own distinctive culture, people, language and media.
You also missed lots of Canadian soil, be careful with those kind of places =) --84.249.252.211 03:08, 12 February 2006
(UTC)
If you would please read the list of papers printing the cartoons, you will see that Greenland's largest daily did print
the cartoons in support of Free Speech and in support of Denmark. So it should definitely be coloured!!!!Hephaestion
06:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Whenever you feel that the map is ready, I strongly support its inclusion into the article, since easy-to-see-overviews
improve articles tremendously.DanielDemaret 08:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Great Work! I would like to add it to French WP! Don't forget the egyptian issue, the 17 october 2005, by El Fagr.
Message to Idiots: muslims are not a race!
--Greasysteve13 04:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
First of all don't call other people idiots, it's unecessary and it violates Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy,
secondly it's brought up more than a few times that Muslims are not a race. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 05:25, 11 February 2006
(UTC)
Sorry. The fact that it's brought up more than a few times that Muslims are not a race is the reason I
snapped.--Greasysteve13 05:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Ebook about this article?
Check [9] this link: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate: A War Of Ideas.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
Talk
04:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
This is funny. Pretty soon we will have to make an article about this talk page, or rather these pages. The link to the
PDF files is here [10], but there is nothing in them, other what can already be found here in the archives, plus the short
introduction written by John Simmons of the Iraq Museum International. Twthmoses 08:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
206
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Hey, I'm in a book! :-) --Kizor 08:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I, too, am in a book... sadly i am probably mostly in the book typoing and making an arse of myself with "witty"
comments... damn, i started my poll discussion too late! WookMuff 08:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Yup, having thoroughly and rather egomaniacally searched both pdfs purely for instances of my own nick, i
have to agree i come off both as a provocateur and a smartarse... OUCH. But on the upside, i do have my poll
discussion in there so thats good. Also, someone called me sarcastic. Hitler DID make the trains run on time, its
why he had such good supply lines and part of how he managed to consolidate his holdings following
blitzkreig. Call me sarcastic, will you 70.49.166.186... WookMuff 09:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I think that's really awesome. Babajobu 11:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Got my awesome vote too. Kyaa the Catlord 13:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The book states: Copyright 2006 Bagdad Museum. Looks like a violation of GNU GFDL. --Sir48 23:02, 11 February 2006
(UTC)
Nope. I checked. Their copyright notice and accompanying text is exactly what is spelled out in the GNU GFDL. We
couldn't ask for better compliance (although they did take some liberties with our cherished logo that we all worked so
hard on :-|).12.16.126.34 15:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Missing Archive?
I was looking around for my last comment, and it seems as though it got archived here [11], but there is no corresponding
archive that got created at that time. Is there a hidden archive 11 somewhere?--Rayc 06:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
It's there now. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Reply to requests for removal on HelpDesk-l.
The Wikipedia HelpDesk mailinglist is regularly getting requests for the removal of the cartoons. Can someone please
suggest a short and respectful reply? -- Jeandré, 2006-02-11t06:46z
Version 4:
207
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Wikipedia is not censored, and its editors think that the best way to inform people who choose to learn about the
nature of the cartoons and how they are causing offence, is to give people the opportunity to see the cartoons
themselves.
Looks good, you might also consider pointing them to other articles on controversial items such as Piss Christ
to demonstrate that Islam is not being singled out in this case. -Loren 07:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that "In Islam, Jesus (called Isa) is considered one of God's most beloved and important
prophets, a bringer of divine scripture, and also the Messiah." (from Jesus), so that may make things
worse. I was thinking of noting the nasty images at Anti-semitism, but I'm not sure. -- Jeandré,
2006-02-11t15:09z
And tell them that we respect their concerns, but... Babajobu 12:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
You could use the wording of {{Mohammed}} for inspiration (except for the warning to block,
which would be inappropriate in this case). Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 12:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The best answer would be: OK we are removing them. As I tried to explain below: The argument that everyone should see
the cartoons which the debate is about is meaningless. To have all those cartoons is pointless. Because: A Westerner will
hardly find anything wrong with the cartoons, on the other hand, a Muslim will be ofended and feel insulted with them. The
verbal discriptioon of the case much more important and strong in this case. Please note that this article is not explanation of
the cartoons, it is about the controversy around them... Resid Gulerdem 23:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Resid, the pictures cannot be removed because there is a consensus to keep them. They contain important information.
gidonb 03:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Resid, your statement that a verbal description of the cartoons is better than the cartoons themselves is ludicrous. No
description of an item will ever be as good as the item itself.Robovski 01:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
If those requests happen to come from muslims, you can add that Wikipedia's stance in this case is actually in parallel with
(but not necessarily in accordance with) one of the hadith: "Say what is true, although it may be bitter and displeasing to
people." Every muslim must know this hadith[12] and should remind them that Islam supports the freedom to speak the
truth (as opposed to Western's freedom of speech). madyasiwi 12:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
208
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
The Definition of Encyclopedic Knowledge
The cartoons simply cannot be removed from an ENCYCLOPEDIA. The very word "was chosen as the title of a reference
work covering ALL knowledge." SOURCE: Dictionary.com
—metavalent 07:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
All Knowledge—Except Rubbish
Dear metavalent,
Does it mean that we must, for example, feature pornography on encyclopædia in order to cover our knowledge about it?
Similarly: does one have to consume excrements (shit) to learn about excrements?
Everyone will have his answer to such questions.
One matter of fact is that, theoretically, it’s always possible to learn about things (and even learn things) without
participating in them, even if to do so would sometimes be extremely difficult. Admittedly, in practice, to learn such, for
example, arts as gymnastics or piano playing borders with impossible without performing them.
My opinion is that we should try hard to avoid including offensive samples on encyclopædia, unless no clever transfer of
knowledge can be done without doing so. I would see it as a matter of taste and great-spiritedness. Do we want cheap
sensationalism to pervade this website? Shouldn’t we wish to apply imagination and intelligence for cognitive purposes in
such a place as Wikipedia, rather than offend some of us in cases when providing explicit samples will do so? We may often
desire knowledge even at a big cost, but is this one picture worth of this cost, which is trampling the dignity of each other
amongst Wikipedia users? Does this picture itself represent significant knowledge?
Or maybe we want to test the sovereignty of Wikipedia in terms of free speech by attempting to go nasty, in the fashion of
Jyllands Posten. Well, I don’t think that we need to fear about free speech issues on Wikipedia at this moment in history,
not at least on its English edition. Let’s face it that, to many of us, insisting on publishing the picture here is an exercise in
freedom of knowledge, a more or less conscious anti-jihad, rather than actually valuable contribution. I consider this
exercise redundant at best. After all, Wikipedia is no political tool, no matter how big its potential to challenge political
209
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
issues is. It can be politically powerful as a side effect of its mission. Probably the following statement will be not trivial to
grok: I think that Wikipedia should resist distortion to knowledge induced by political pressure, but it should avoid
becoming a field of war with any such pressure. I propose that Wikipedians should play wars and propaganda outside
Wikipedia, to leave it unaffected by them and as objective as ever. For Wikipedia is the goal of freedom, not the means to
get it ;-). (Alt.: Freedom is the means to get Wikipedia and not the reverse.)
Said this all, I don’t have this sense of absolute certainty which often accompanies me on other occassions. Therefore I’m
reserving here my right to be wrong. Use my statements as a material to develop your own opinions rather than as what I
want you to think. Maybe someone else can recompute them to a point where they’ll deserve greater judgemental certainty.
I’m always hesitant to attempt making any intervention in Wikipedia, because, as far from its full potential as it may still be,
its quality as a whole puts to shame all my individual creations ever performed.
One least thing, that I’m nearly sure about, that we should do—if to take the assumption of our good faith
seriously—is to always conceal offensive content behind warning messages, so that only those of us, who want to see
them, will see them.
—6birc, 19:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible to read the previous two million discussions before repeating this yet again?-11 February 2006 (UTC)
Nomen Nescio 19:32,
Dear Nomen Nescio,
1. Admittedly, it’s difficult to read two million discussions ;-). Do you honestly think that reading these
should become an unconditional prerequisite to participating in any discussions on Wikipedia?
2. It’s all too easy to lose mind to suggestion of circumstances in everyday life affairs, in general, and in
such political affairs like this, in particular. As a result, frequent repetition of obvious truths is
indispensible when circumstances become critical. (They became so.) This reassures people that old
truths remain valid in new context and teaches them to appreciate these more universally. On top of that,
many of us never learn ;-).
3. Maybe we’re duplicating the information present in the “necessary crap” space, that talk is, but at least
we’re doing this with a virtuous purpose in mind: to preserve the “quality” space that article (intendedly)
is ;-).
4. ...which statement are you referring to? ;-).
210
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
—6birc, 20:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
El Fagr word is spreading!
As of the writing of this entry the Arabic Wikipedia Entry on Jyllands-Posten Cartoon controversy has added the El Fagr
image:
El Fagr's Headline Page
for Oct. 17, 2005 - One of
the controversial cartoons
of Muhammad, as it
appeared on the first page
of the Egyptian Newspaper
El Fagr.
As well as The serbian version. It would be good to have this image spread around.... to highlight this previous publication,
so if there are other wikipedia editors who edit in other languages maybe you could help add it to the other language
controversy pages as well?
211
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Netscott 10:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
NO! Thanks... Resid Gulerdem 23:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Conspiracy theory
Does anyone think this requires serious consideration: internationalist world govern conspiracy theory? Yeah, I thought so.
Weregerbil 10:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Most certainly some of the riots in e.g. Lebanon involve radical groups that want to take power undemocratically (ie
conspire themselves to power). However, I doubt that conspiracy theories really suit this article now...--HJV 20:04, 11
February 2006 (UTC)
Guenter Grass's Interview in Die Welt
Gunter Grass opinion --Chaos 13:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Say what? This is from 2002 and about something else altogether. Azate 15:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
BTW, fpp is in no way a useful source: it's David Irving's holocaust denial outfit. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 19:31, 11
February 2006 (UTC)
the original article in Deutsch : die welt --Chaos 21:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Layout
The layout, as it is right now, it awful: There is a gaping white hole right at the top of the page, apparently because the
introduction has been split and a new section "Background" inserted, probably with the laudable intention to move the table
of contents upward. I propose the following: 1) Re-merge "Backgroud" (which is a bad name to begin with) back with the
introduction 2) Have the Table of contents at the side of the introduction. It should be at the top, really. 3) (I hardly dare say
that, after all the fuss) Move the 12 cartoons down to "publication of the drawings",because ther is not enough space for
212
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
both the picture and the TOC. Azate 19:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I think I fixed the big space? -- getcrunkjuice
19:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Dunno, maybe it's got to do with screen resolution and font size and whatever. For me, 1/4th of the width is the
TOC, 1/2 is blank white space, 1/4th is the pic. There must be a better solution. I'm no good at this xml-layout
thing, so I won't touch it. Azate 20:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Talk: Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy ARTICLE.
Please place discussions on the underlying political and religious issues on the Arguments page. Non-editorial
comments on this talk page may be removed by other editors.
,
!
*
%&
G
'
%
*(%
/~~~~0) + & &
RR 6 . & % 1 @
*(%
'
!.
%
1
* &
!
RR
(
'
+
!
% &
'
&
*
+
&
&
*
%
+
'
H$
(%
&
(
% &
(%
I
Good Job
!"
#$
%&
' (
)* *++, )#
Ahem. Timeout. I've blanked this talk page momentarily because although there is some good discussion here, there's a
lot of very bad discussion. This is not the appropriate place for a general philosophical discussion about Islam, freedom
213
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
of speech, terrorism, religious tolerance, etc. Not only is this talk page not the right place for it, Wikipedia is not the
right place for it. Here, we are polite, thoughtful, smart, geeky people, trying only to do something which is
undoubtably good in the world: write and give away a free encyclopedia.
Now, there are legitimate questions on both sides regarding this particular article, and I want to encourage a discussion
of that. But please, do it with the very strong assumption of good faith on all parties to the discussion, and stick directly
and purely to the editorial question at hand, rather than a general philosophical debate.
Now, please, with kindness, start the discussion over?
--Jimbo Wales 00:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
*
S
S
+
S
'
, !
.
! 1
S
S
S : S : S :& S ; S
S !S <S > S > S ? S ? S
S :
1+
T:7
S6
Please divert comments having to do with international reactions to Talk:International reactions to the
Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Thank you.
Please divert comments having to do with various opinions on the controversy to Talk:Opinions on the
Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Thank you.
9%
*
:
;
!
&
%
9'' $ % &
&
'
*
%
6
= &
%&
&
3+
214
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
<,
>$
?6
4
&
1
%
,
+
*
/6
$ +79$ $ " 76"4 R - $ .
+ & @
'
4
:C ' 6
1
.7
;,
1
%
+
*
$
'$
!6
7
! +
;# % & 3&
/
<
>*(%
1
?
7 &
4 87
& 8
$
% (
5
891 1
8 &
*
1 1
& F
:
1
9&
. 1 ( (
9& ?
;7
1
/ (
4
1
!0
&
'
& F
<
% -%
%
>
%
1
?" A 1&
'
%
&
:
&
&
%
'
&
:
: 6 & 1
:
:: 5
1
'
&
6 3@
63
&
::
:;
&
=
&
: +
'
&&
F
:! 7
1 )
&
:<
6
6
'
.
"
%
&
1
+
Opinions
215
&
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
hey all.. i found this cool song on the net..!!!
Subject: THE ISLAM PROBLEM
Really what these people need is a dose of rock/n/roll.
I suggest the following song is performed in all the mosques:
Hey you groovy Muslims gather round
Its Al K Eeder's funky little 5 piece band
They play Iraq'n'Roll with a real gone sound
They play till the mosque walls come tumbling down
Chorus
Allah bopadidle Islamoomamow mow
Ashariya shooby dooby dooby down down
Ba ba ba ba Bahrain shang a lang a dip dip
Iraqui rock'n'roll is the name of the trip
Chorus
Mohammed's on the mountain and he wants to come down
He sees the party lights on the far side of town
He puts on blue suede shoes a bandana on his crown
He's gonna stomp the night away he's rhythm bound
Chorus
Allah's got soul he does the Infidel Bop
Smoking dope and swigging wine he's found his peace with God
Sha la la Shahada ain't never gonna stop
The rockers of the Prophet gonna bop until they drop
Chorus
The Muslim chicks all throw their yashmaks away
Twistin' and Shoutin' till the break of day
Mosques all over Baghdad got the hippy hippy shakes
Ever since Iraq'n'roll came to stay
found by: Hellznrg 18:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
What the drawings actually depict
It's ridiculous that the article starts by stating that the drawings depict Muhammad. Some of them do, not all. That's a kind of
216
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
misunderstating that has caused much wrongdoing and false debate all over the world, firstly in the world without the
freeedom of press. Not that it would've helped a lot telling the truth. But actually, two of the cartoons mock the whole
editorial for doing PR for the Danish author whose book no one would illustrate un-anomymously (thus starting the debate).
Another one has a Danish/Arab-looking schoolboy sticking his tongue out, showing the writing on a blackboard, stating that
the journalists at JP are "reactionary provocateurs". JP may be one of the most critical towards islam, in Denmark,
nevertheless they allow space for being mocked in their editorial! I'd like to see something similar on Fox News or the likes
of them.
JP did not know what the writing on the blackboard meant. It was mentioned here for a while, but it was later left out
as a peculiarity out of scoope. It is still in the Danish version. And if you ask me, Fox News is doing a fine job at
parodizing a news outlet every single day! MX44 23:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The point: Start the article by stating how many cartoons actually depict Muhammad. It might be hard to say clearly, in
some cases, but at least it could be stated how many clearly do NOT depict Muhammad (the Prophet, that is, the schoolboy's
called Muhammad too).
It's the same type of journalistic error that made BBC (!) present a European guy with a pig snout (competing in a pig
imitation contest at a party) as a Muhammad drawing! Danish imams had included the picture in their material which was
shown to muslim leaders, in the beginning of the current bloody, burning controversy. However, the imams didn't asert that
the picture originated from JP. BBC, apparently, just never read it.
Bonulo 21:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Stating more prominently that only some of the drawings depicts Muhammad, could help increase the sanity
level of the debate. MX44 23:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. But since it is unclear which ones represent Muhammed, leave any numbers out.DanielDemaret 08:49,
12 February 2006 (UTC)
El Fagr part of reprint section
Please do not change the wording of "but the publication of the images did not engender any known protests from either
Egyptian religious authorities nor the Egyptian government." as this spells out very clearly to anyone reading about these
217
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
events the apparent duplicity that has occurred regarding publication of the Jyllands images in various countries. I think it's
safe to say that if the fact that an Egyptian newspaper had printed half of the cartoons back in October (without Religious or
Governmental protest) had been well know throughout the world, there wouldn't have been a call for boycotting of any other
country besides Denmark.
Netscott 23:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
It's mostly the word "engender" that is weird. I't just bad English. How about : "but the publication of the images did
not lead to any known protests from Egyptian religious authorities or the Egyptian government." Azate 23:53, 11
February 2006 (UTC)
The word "engender" is in fact extremely good English (I should know as a native speaker) such language is
indeed typically found in encyclopedias. Also as a side note the user Kintaro Oe added this line : "Cette
publication en période de Ramadan, n'a suscité aucune réaction ni condamnation des autorités religieuses
islamiques ou des autorités gouvernementales egyptiennes." in the French version of this entry, which roughly
translates into the word changes I've made. Does Wikipedia need to 'dumb down' it's vocabulary? Netscott
00:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
A better translation of Kintaro's line would be: "This publication during Ramadan, did not cause any reaction
nor condemnation from either Islamic religious authorities or the government of Egypt." I'd be fine with putting
that in place of my earlier edit. Thoughts? Netscott 00:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I know what engender means. I also don't deny that it's perfectly correct. It's just such extremly good
English, that it comes around as weird, something you'd expect in jurisprudence, legistation etc. Oh, and
since we're starting to delve into 'good English', I can't help but note that "either/nor" doesn't fly. Should
be "neither/nor" or "either/or". Just kidding, of course. It' just a stupid detail. ;-) Azate 00:52, 12 February
2006 (UTC)
Well at this point... I've changed the edit to reflect Kintaro's text... which after translation struck me
as being better balanced than what I wrote earlier. Netscott 00:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
hey, Thanks to quote me; I took my little french-english dictionnary, and french verb
"susciter" is translated as "to give rise", "to provoke" (a controversersy).
My point was just to underline the absence of public reaction by Mubarak's Government or
Islamic authorities, since there was after A GREAT activity in Egypt.
218
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
* november through december: A delegation of Imams from the Islamic Society in Denmark
travel to the Middle East (EGYPT, SYRIA, LEBANON) in order to "bring attention" to the
cartoons. They present the Akkari 43 page Dossier to influential political and religious
leaders.Among the people the group claims to have met on their visit to Egypt were: - The
General Secretary of the Arab League Amr Moussa,- the Egyptian Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa
and - the Sheik of Cairo's Al-Azhar university Mohammed Sayed Tantawi- the Egyptian
foreign office. In Lebanon they met the Grand Mufti Muhammad Rashid Kabbani, top Shiite
Sheik Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, Maronite Church leader Nasrallah Sfeir. In Syria they
met Grand Mufti Sheik Ahmed Badr-Eddine Hassoun.
* 02 november 2005 : Lebanese Foreign Affairs Minister have met Egyptian ambassador in
Lebanon to think about which measures to take against Danemak.
* 29 december 2005: The Arab League, base in Cairo (Egypt), criticises the Danish
government for not acting in the matter.
* 06 february 2006. Several thousand students massed on the al-Azhar University campus in
Cairo today to protest against publication of caricatures of Islam’s Prophet Mohammed.
Sheikh Tantawui, Ali Joamaa Egyptian Republic Mufti, Mahmoud Hamdi Zagzoug Minister
of Waqfs (Religious matter) were present to protest.
You see my point? Oe kintaro 15:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC).
The current line: Six of the cartoons were reprinted in the Egyptian newspaper El Fagr on 17 October 2005[24][25][26]
along with an article strongly denouncing them, but this publication of the images during Ramadan, did not cause any
reaction nor condemnation from either Islamic religious authorities or the government of Egypt.
This needs to be improved. The lengthy style is insistent: "reaction nor condemnation", "either Islamic or gov", etc. The
result is POV creep because we highlight El Fagr as extra-important. We take this bold step when the press generally
ignores this detail. It could be their negligence or it could be that this "independent weekly" is too insignificant. In any case,
the sentence should be neutralized by shortening it. Lotsofissues 19:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Mohammed With A Bomb
Some muslims have expressed outrage with the fact that one of the pictures is of Mohammed with a bomb. In explaining
219
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
this photo, it should be noted that some terrorists (like Osama Bin Laden), justify their actions based on Islam. They object
to a picture of Mohammed with a bomb, and yet don't object when a bomb is placed in real life in the name of Mohammed.
The irony would make a good cartoon. Accountable Government 02:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm very sure that every Muslim supports radicalism and terrorism as every Christian supports KKK
=)--84.249.252.211 03:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
So ... We should burn them? MX44
I dont think the cartoonist meant to associate every muslim with terrorism. I think, rather, he was
directing the criticizm directly to radical muslims. I dont know this for a fact, of course, but its a
possibillity.
And there in lies the point, by associating Muhammad as a terrorist he insults every Muslim
on the planet, and the seal of the Prophets, the Prophet most Muslims will tell you, whose
actions they try to emulate. The images are gravely offnsive to Muslims, far more so than the
Rushdie affair. --210.54.12.83 07:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
If you insist in "associating Muhammad as a terrorist", Mr Unsigned, YOU insult
Muhammed. I make no such association, nor did I make it when I first saw the cartoon
you are referring to. Insults are in the mind of the beholder.DanielDemaret 08:44, 12
February 2006 (UTC)
Yes - if there is one thing modern art has taught us it is that art only has meaning
if the observer gives it meaning. Art without an observer is just paint or clay.
Point being, you can claim "Da Bomb" associates all muslims with terrorism or
that it just points out that Islam is being held hostage by radicals. In either case you'd be right. Celcius (Talk)
Wiki be With us! 13:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Off Topic Jihad must go
It is getting increasingly hard for people who work on the text, in order to get it to represent a fair and balanced view, to find
each other in this mess of opinions about what kind of illustrations might or might not be offensive. There are other forums
for this kind of discussion. All you guys do is vandalizing the discussion. Is that what you want? MX44 04:17, 12 February
2006 (UTC)
220
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
':Excuse me, did you remove a part of the talk???? Bertilvidet 12:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Even if MX had removed part of the talk, which you could have checked by looking at history and found out that he
didn't, he'd have been in the right to do so. Off-topic discussions have no place on this page. Kyaa the Catlord 13:23,
12 February 2006 (UTC)
Jesus cartoons rejected by J-P
Someone at the newspaper later clarified why those cartoons of a Jesus-figure were rejected. It wasn't because they were of
Jesus, but they were silly and poor cartoons. When you read a description of the cartoons, you may think that they sound
pretty silly. 69.224.112.100 04:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC) 11 February 2006
We knew that already. That guy was only promoting his own (lack of?) talent. MX44 04:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
The Jesus cartoons were made by Christoffer Zieler who currently works for the internal paper of the University
of Copenhagen. You can see them on the last page of this pdf: [2] where Zieler also comments on his little role
in the controversy. The cartoon at the bottom of the page is his usual strip in the paper. This weeeks strip seems
quite critical of danish islamists and people who "give in" to them, but even though i "get" all the references it's
pretty weird, so don't make too much of it. (His strips are often quite weird, and occasionally very funny).
About the Jesus cartoons you should know that they were sent unsolicited and JP editor Kaiser thought they'd
cause an "uproar". OTOH there's no general self-censorship regarding Jesus caricatures in Denmark (as there
apparently was wrt. Mohammed) so publishing them wouldn't have made the same point. Nvj 12:54, 15
February 2006 (UTC)
From the current article: "giving Muslims reasons to assert that a double standard in dealing with them versus others".
Kind of picks one POV conspiracy theory and promotes that. Weregerbil 04:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah! You meant that it was back again ... It is gone now. It is story about talentless wannabe who got rejected. MX44
05:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
As opposed to the talentless wannabes whose cartoons were accepted and sparked a wave of international
protest and the single most successfull consumer-led boycott of the past 100 years. --210.54.12.83 07:07, 12
February 2006 (UTC)
221
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
They were asked with short notice (an afternoon) to comment with their pen on the islamaphobia in
Denmark. And I agree ... The result is not always reflecting artistic qualty. Da Bomb is deep though,
perhaps deeper than the artist suspected. MX44 07:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
All of these cartoonists/illustrators already make a living out of their talent. This is not in dispute! MX44 08:28,
12 February 2006 (UTC)
Greyscale
The first sentnce is important. It summarizes the event in a single sentence. Please say what you think is important and how
it will inspire readers to read beyond. MX44 07:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it's fine as is. Something else: What's the deal with this pink box in section 1, and why is there a link to
"Anders Fogh Rasmussen cartoons", which aren't precisely super-relevant? Azate 08:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't notice that box and I don't know (blushes) MX44 08:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
At the moment the first sentence reads "most of which depicted M" which I find to be understood as: "most of which
depicted M in a NEGATIVE WAY". This is not excactly true ... Now Wiki have not put the N-word there, but MEDIA
have. This is why I ask for opinions on the lead-in? MX44 09:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
The first sentence seems pretty clear at present. We could be even more specific, e.g. "The Jyllands-Posten
Muhammad cartoons controversy began after twelve editorial cartoons were published in the Danish newspaper
Jyllands-Posten on 30 September 2005. The Islamic prophet Muhammad was the central character depicted in seven
of these cartoons." I can't see a nice way to express this in a single sentence though. -- Avenue 11:28, 12 February
2006 (UTC)
Yes but there is a trap of being so politically correct and considerate, so you end up being the opposite. Here is
one from CNN:
CNN is not showing the negative caricatures of the likeness of the Prophet Mohammed because the
network believes its role is to cover the events surrounding the publication of the cartoons while not
unnecessarily adding fuel to the controversy itself.
Note that they manage to conclude that the cartoons are indisputeably negative and then go on to say they will
not add fuel. MX44 18:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
222
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn
This article needs to link to the articles on Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh. I added these under comparable incidents, but
another user deleted the links. These murders provide critical background to the context in which freedom of expression is
understood. Can we agree that these ought to be in the article?
It's not directly related. I don't think it should be included in this article - in the greater scope of things - Islamic/West
Frictions - they are relevant - but not to the subject of this article. Also, the PT and TVG "incidents" were murders
due to individuals - not boycotting of milk by Islamic nations as is the case here - and as such it would be wrong to
equate them. Celcius (Talk)
Wiki be With us! 12:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Van Gogh's murder is directly related to the freedom of expression context. One of the artists approached by
Kare Bluitgen gave this murder as a reason for not illustrating the book. But I think this would need to be
explained if we did include a link to the Theo van Gogh article. -- Avenue 15:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I just realised that this is explained already in the Debate about self-censorship section of the article, and
there is a link to the Theo van Gogh article there. -- Avenue 15:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Surely they are relevant, as the murder on Theo van Gogh was - if my memory serves me right - stated as one of the excuses
given by (one?/several? of) the 28 invited cartonists, who declined the invitation to provide a cartoon. Varga Mila 15:42, 12
February 2006 (UTC)
The compareable media incident in this case would be Submission_(film) which have been linked for ages. The actual
murder is just(?) yet another crime MX44 16:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Agree Varga Mila 22:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I suppose it depends on what is the "incident" to which we wish to have similarity. The PF and TVG murders are not similar
if the incident is merely the publishing of the cartoon. But if the "incident" also includes the rioting, boycotts, embassy
burnings and intimidation of the media, then TVG is comparable -- the TVG murder chilled freedom of expression just as
the reaction to the media incident is presently chilling freedom of expression. --Calmarc
Fair enough - it depends on in which context the links are provided. I can see the justification. Celcius (Talk)
Wiki be With us! 00:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
223
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Alt Map
A friend just sent me this. http://face-of-muhammed.blogspot.com/ It seems that others are doing the kind of map being
done here too. Submitting it here for comparison to our map. There may be more relevant info in this blog, even. :)
DanielDemaret 12:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not very NPOV to divide the world into "camps" like that - it's very "you are either with us or against us" type of
Wiki
thing - which will inevitably rely on subjective opinion not suitable for a NPOV encyclopedia. Celcius (Talk)
be With us! 12:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
That was not the original purpose of the map, but if many interpret it that way, it sadly becomes a very valid
point. Is there any chance that one might connect the picture closely to editorial text to show the purpose and to
save the intention of what we are trying to show that way? DanielDemaret 15:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
May I remind you all that according to WP:V and WP:RS, blogs are not acceptable sources under any circumstances on
wikipedia, so if you were planning on adding a blog into the article, whether as a link, or a source, it's not happening.
Ready
SWATJester
Aim Fire! 20:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Nobody was planning any such thing, of course. What a singularly strange notion. Again, this was a note to
compare their map with "our own" map. And last I read the recommendations, which was two days ago, blogs
could indeed be accepted under special circumstances.
This is copied from the link you brought up, "...and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a
well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published
material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by
credible, third-party publications.", hoping that page has not been the victim of any edit wars. DanielDemaret 20:23, 12
February 2006 (UTC)
Cartoon War
A few more deaths and we can rename this page to Cartoon War and add the war infobox! I hope not.--TheFEARgod
15:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
224
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
I read somewhere that the media have been so rash to report all the unrest caused by the cartoons, that they ignore all
of the other current violence in the islamic world (Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine etc.). Food for thought, anyway. ?? ???
? 19:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
In the US, the news media at least, is barely covering the cartoon violence. Only the newspapers seem to be making a big
deal about it, and justifiably so since the controversy directly affects their medium As for the original poster about cartoon
war.......yes it's seeming that way isn't it? Wars have been started over less than just an embassy firebombing.
Ready
SWATJester
Aim Fire! 20:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
And here is the cartoon to illustrate your notion MX44 23:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
ISLAMISTS PROTEST IN FRANCE = BUSTED
The 11 february 2006, there was in Paris (French Capital) and Strasbourg (French City, Capital of European Union with
Brussels) protests of islamists . 7 200 protesters in Paris, 2 000 in Strasbourg.
A Team of French Bloggers Called "La BAF" (Brigade for the money of the French Taxpayers) invited themselves in the
demonstration. They were insulted, threatened and french police rescued them. Photo+ video. A MUST SEE.
French/English Version.
http://labaf.blogspot.com
Oe kintaro
(The preceding unsigned comments were added by Oe kintaro)
Yes it's me.I apologize, I just forgot :D.Oe kintaro 21:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
A demonstration that demands respect for others...and someone shouts "homosexuals!!!" as an insult to a guy holding a
danish flag...:) Apupunchau 20:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Would that be an insult to a Dane? Could a Dane answer this please?DanielDemaret 20:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
225
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
As a female, absolutely not! :-> To be honest, it is very difficult to think of something that - across most danes would cause
an offence.
In terms of flag-burning..... if my memory serves me right, it is actually stated in Danish law that disposing of the Danish
flag, must not happen by simply throwing it away (e.g. along with the kitchen rubbish); It must be burned !! Which puts the
flag-burning protests in an entirely new light (at least presumably different from that of the 'flag-burner') :-> Varga Mila
22:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Flag-burning, while not illegal, is the most respectable way of disposing the flag in the United States also.
--Tokachu 23:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I have not encountered a single person who cared about the flag burning or name-calling. You often hear
"Freedom" when Americans talk of the Stars and Stripes and the French have their "Egalité, Fraternité, Liberté
" associated with their tricolor. The Danish flag dosn't really symbolize anything in particular to most Danes
except "Oh golly, it's pretty - tie it to the top of the pole, dear". Celcius (Talk)
Wiki be With us! 00:40, 13
February 2006 (UTC)
If your comment mean that no Danes are offended by the burning of the Danish flag in Nablus and
similar places, then I've got news for you. It is also incorrect to assume that no Danes feel any sort of
attachment towards their flag. I am personally offended by that act, and I know many other Danes who
feel the same way. I'm also offended by people burning e.g. the U.S. flag for that matter, or people
burning books. Name calling is another matter; these people may shout as they please. Other Danes I've
spoken too feel the same way. --Valentinian 00:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't pretend to speak for all Danes. I'm just saying I'm not offended by it and I personally don't
know anybody who cares. You can't equate books and flags - burning a book represents
suppression of free speech. Burning a flag is a statement of anger/hate. But since these people don't
know anything about this country or its citizens it becomes a completely irrelevant and meaningless
statement. Had it been Swedes or Germans doing it - I would feel quite differently as the statement
would have substance. Celcius (Talk)
Wiki be With us! 03:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I side that, Celcius. The Danes I have spoken to are not offended by the flag-burning as such,
but are chocked by the anger it represents. Varga Mila 08:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
226
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
I also agree with Celcius. However, it worth mentioning that the Danish People's Party,
before this mess started, wanted to pass a law making it illegal to burn the Danish flag
(they have a somewhat selective respect for free speech). So some Danes care.
Incidentially, burning foreign national flags is already illegal, so at some point in our
history we did care about not insulting foreigners.--Per Abrahamsen 08:59, 13
February 2006 (UTC)
I have never understood people who feel attached to a coloured piece of tissue.
In any case, I think than any form of grief should be compensated by the boom
in Danish flag exports to Syria, Iran and such. Incidentally, it is "Liberté,
Égalité, Fraternité". Rama 09:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I have to ask a question. Where do people in the Middle East get those flags that they burn? If I, in the United States, wanted
to burn a Danish flag, I would have no idea how to get one. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Prince Hassan of Jordan BBCworld today
NPOV part: On BBCWorld today, on a program called "your voice" or something to that effect, Prince Hassan of Jordan
made some interesting remarks. http://i-cias.com/e.o/hassan_jordan.htm If memory serves, he mentioned that he descended
from the prophet, and that the issue we are discussing here, if my memory serves, was more an issue internal to Islam than
one between Islam and the west. He suggested an internal dialogue, perhaps in Mekka to have a dialogue on matters. His
views seemed to suggest that the violent reactions were totally out of proportion, and no violence should have occured.
MyPOV part: Islam talking with one voice? A consensus of brothers, instead of masses being manipulated by a few
totalitarian regimes, or by a few in extremists organisations into senseless violence? I am an incurable optimist, but if
consensus works for wikipedia, perhaps there will be more common ground between freedom of expression and Islam in
such a future :)DanielDemaret 20:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Kofi Annan interview on DR
Kofi Annan was interviewed by the Danish TV channel DR today regarding the cartoons and the conflict. The 15-minute
interview is available from DR Nyheder, deep link here (Windows Media format). There is an introduction in Danish, but
the interview itself is of course in English. — Peter L <talk|contribs> 21:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
227
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Grass Interview in Spanish El Pais
Frage: Haben Sie die gewalttätigen Ausschreitungen überrascht?
Grass: Wir leben in einer Zeit, in der einer Gewalttat die nächste folgt. Die erste ist die durch den Westen gewesen, die
Invasion des Irak. Heute wissen wir, daß damit internationales Recht gebrochen wurde; der Krieg wurde allein auf
Grundlage von Bushs fundamentalistischen Argumenten geführt, daß es ein Kampf zwischen dem Guten und dem Bösen
sei. Was wir jetzt sehen, ist die fundamentalistische Antwort auf eine fundamentalistische Tat. Mitnichten findet hier ein
Kampf der Kulturen statt - vielmehr ist es eine Auseinandersetzung zwischen zwei Un-Kulturen.
from die welt --Chaos 21:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
This is English Wikipedia. And the above from Günter Grass is hardly original. Of marginally more interest is his
comparison of the cartoons to the sort of anti-semitic thing that would appear in der Stürmer. Rd232 talk 00:59, 13
February 2006 (UTC)
Snow White and The Madness of Truth
Freedom of speech and Israeli ambassador .. isn,t that more relevant to our case , Enjoy --Chaos 22:02, 12 February 2006
(UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what you're alluding to. Could you elaborate on this? Are you making a case for freedom of
expression for artists, or an ad nauseum hypocracy argument? --Tokachu 22:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Assisting Muslim Readers
I've been bold and added a "warning" template to the article. This will allow those who might be sensitive to such things to
228
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
avoid being inadvertently exposed to them. I hope this suggestion itself doesn't cause offense (although I'm not naive
enough to expect it won't be controversial). — JEREMY 01:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
There is no such template as "offensive," and "controversial" only belongs on talk pages. -- Avi 01:45, 13 February
2006 (UTC)
I think the idea has merit. Now that the big fuss on the talk pages is over and everybody has had time to vent,
the "Be nice" idea may have a chance again. How about this:
*
*
*,
*
+
.
&
(%
* People who come for the article or the images will ignore it or view it as a quaint joke.
People who are actually offended by the image itself have a chance to leave.
People who object to the whole existence/concept/idea/whatever of the image bein reproduced are maybe
less likely to vandlize it.
For this to work, the cartoons would have to be moved down to the relevant section that descibes them. If I
recall that correctly, this was also the gist of the posting of Jimbo Wales on his talkpage. Azate 02:09, 13
February 2006 (UTC)
I think it's important to avoid being seen "as a quaint joke", but couching it more in terms of "cultural
sensitivities" might work. (The template is generalised so it could be used — if anyone should ever make
a fuss about them — on pages including images of deceased Aboriginal Australians, for example). —
JEREMY 02:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Your Template::Offensive has been deleted by sombody. Apparently 3RR rule. Azate 02:39, 13
February 2006 (UTC)
OK, I can see I'm not going to get a general template to fly (it has been protected-deleted now, although
not for three reverts), so I'd certainly support the next best thing, which is a situation-specific warning as
per Azate's suggestion. How about:
*
+
*
)
!
&
./
*
0
(%
Can anyone direct me to a similar English Wikipedia page that has a specific warning about
229
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
imagery? Having just looked at the Piss Christ article, I noticed that not only is there no
warning but the image is at the top bright as day. It's going to seem very 'double standardish'
if this article has a warning while similar articles don't. Netscott 02:47, 13 February 2006
(UTC)
There are none, and perhaps there should be none. When 11 Christian rioters die in
protests against something, I think we should put a notice on its article too. —
JEREMY 02:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
We should not and cannot give into the mob (quite literally in this case). Just
because people are killed because of this doesn't mean that we should censor the
content we offer. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 03:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I am strongly against using any form of warning template on the article itself. Things like controversy templates
should be used to let editors know on talk pages. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 02:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I utterly, totally object to the use of this template. There is no precedent for anything even remotely like
this, nor should there be. That's what Wikipedia:Content disclaimer is for. Babajobu 02:54, 13 February
2006 (UTC)
There is indeed something like it. It's called {{spoiler}}, and is used to protect people who are
worried about seeing information about a fictional plot. — JEREMY 02:57, 13 February 2006
(UTC)
Jeremy, I wouldn't call that "similar"... but I see where you wanted to go with that. Netscott
03:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah but spoiler is entirely different. What your pretty much talking about here is
hiding the content because some people don't likie it in general. JtkieferT | C | @ ---03:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
They seem rather different to me. A general template warning that plot details
follow would be very roughly analagous to a general template stating
"Offensiveness warning: potentially offensive content follows". It's not
analagous to your very specific "Prophet Muhammad images" template.
Babajobu 03:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Sure, it doesn't look similar, but it serves a similar function: to avoid our readers
accidentally coming across something they'd rather not have seen. It seems slightly
incongruous that we're prepared to insert warnings to stop our readers spoiling a
movie, but not to stop our readers having their religious sensibilities outraged (and
possibly alienating a lot of good editors into the bargain). — JEREMY 03:06, 13
230
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
February 2006 (UTC)
What might make sense is if a 'neutral' disclaimer was made... maybe even a link
to the the general content disclaimer as pointed out by Babajou... but doing such
a thing would only make sense if other similar articles have been treated
similarly. Netscott 03:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Third time there is edit conflict, ahhhhhh. Original comment: :::::::There's
no need for a spoiler warning, I think people know that this is offensive.
Spoilers are mainly use in plots and content. This is about a news, current
event, so there is no need to put a spoiler tag. (End) Like Netscott said, it
would only make sense if other articles have been treated in this way.
Maybe a disclaimer warning would be a better idea. --Terence Ong 03:14,
13 February 2006 (UTC)
The template originally read:
*
)
*
!
2 3
-
*
.
$
&
&
..
/
(%
(The template was accidentally deleted by an admin, but subsequently restored.)
However, I think I now prefer the more specific warning, as the general template
may be opening up an unnecessary can of worms. — JEREMY 03:14, 13
February 2006 (UTC)
Has nothing to do with looks. At the very least, it has to do with generality
vs. specificity. No such template exists to protect the sensibilities of other
groups, why only one for Muslims? A very general template warning of
offensive content would duplicate the work of the Content Disclaimer, but
at least I can imagine making a case for it. Also reject a "disclaimer
warning".Babajobu 03:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I started off agreeing with your position (thinking it could also be
used to help avoid Aboriginal Australians coming across images of
dead relatives, for example) but I now believe that there's probably
231
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
too much wikipedia precedent against such general disclaimers that
we'd be wasting our time trying to argue for it. If, in future, an
article is created which includes content strongly offensive to a
large percentage of our Christian, or Jewish, or Hindu or Buddhist
readership, we should probably consider such a specific warning for
that article. — JEREMY 03:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Why oh why is the articles title not enough warning in it self? Is it really shocking to find cartoons picturing Muhammad in
an article named "Muhammad cartoons controversy"? The.valiant.paladin 03:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
People - you can't just slap a warning on like that... If such a thing is needed there has be established a guideline for using it.
There are 8000 religions in the world excluding bizarre pseudo-religions like Joseph Kony - I'm sure quite a few of them
have taboos. First of all, you can't measure offence by the scale of protests since that is largely a culturally based response
so it means that we should also place a template on Piss Christ.
1) How many people needs to be offended before the template should be used?
Next time something comes along which is as obviously divisive, we can deal with that as a special case too. If
you see something else like this which you feel represents a problem with wikipedia, please point it out. —
JEREMY 04:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
2) Does it only apply to religion and blasphemy?
3) If so - why?
4) If not... won't it become impossible to administrate?
I propose moving the pictures down and simply writing in the intro of the article that: "The cartoons were published by so
and so on this date which resulted in that and that. The cartoons can be seen in that section of this article." A simple
inter-article link which indirectly notifies people about the pictures. I'm just saying... template to guard the feelings of
Wiki be With us! 03:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
readers... can of worms... Celcius (Talk)
All these issues were already addressed. The community expressed a very clear consensus that the pics should be at
the top of the article. I generally dislike polls, but the community interest and participation in the previous poll was so
great that I think it should only be overridden by a new poll, rather than by a few editors regurgitating previously
discussed ideas. And I continue to dislike the template very strongly. Babajobu 03:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
232
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Didn't realize the positioning had been polled. Well, I stand behind the majority then Celcius (Talk)
With us! 03:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Wiki be
There can be a mirror of this article (dublication) without cartoons, too. So people do not prefer to see them can be
directed to the one without cartoons by putting a link on the template... How about that? 216.248.122.252 04:13, 13
February 2006 (UTC)
Not bad. What about a disambiguation page, with a link to this article as it stands, and a link to a "variant"
article which clearly announces that the (relevant) images in it will appear as links only? (I'd have to disagree
with The.valiant.paladin that no potentially sensitive reader is likely to follow a link to Jyllands-Posten
Muhammad cartoons controversy.) — JEREMY 04:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Look to be reasonable and worth to try to me. In fact, I believe that, I had a better idea but a few people strongly
disagree with that. I was saying that, this article is about the controversy, not about the cartoons. There is no reason to
put all of them here (The collection cartoons is also against the Wiki regulations as far as I know). Another point is: A
Westerner cannot see anything wrong with them, but Muslims will be ofended. So, only one cartoon (maybe an artist
drawing picture) which is less provocative can be replaced with this one. That cartoon gives a good summary of the
phenomena, and yet, doesn't offend anybody. I think Jeremy's offer is a good one, if you do not want to go for what I
suggested. Resid Gulerdem 04:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Yet another idea that has already been mooted and rejected, this one as a POV fork. Babajobu 04:38, 13
February 2006 (UTC)
Again getting back to the ... "Where has it been done already on Wikipedia? ®" question ... It's
almost like saying there are two truths... one for sensitive people and one for everyone else. This
idea begs the question... are there any Wikipedia rules which specifically disallow the formulating
of articles covering the same topic but in different ways? Netscott 04:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there are. I think it's a better solution, but it is probably more against wikipedia "policy"
than the special-case template. (Hey, to make it obvious we could replace the
hand-in-stop-sign icon with a guy in a turban! Or not.) But that just gets back to the fact that
this is a special case (although the first, probably not the last). — JEREMY 04:45, 13
February 2006 (UTC)
The 'alternate version' idea is already old in my mind due to the simple fact that there
could exist alternate versions Ad nauseum. One for vegetarians, one for meat eaters...
one for no dairy, one for no flesh showing in any image group, etc. etc. etc.... doesn't
233
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
work, does it? Netscott 04:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
As I've said elsewhere (see the very end of that page), I think some kind of "virtual
forking" of articles could provide useful benefits, although possibly most in
meta:Wikifiction. But in this case you're right; on reflection, forking is probably not
the best solution either. Which gets us back to special-purpose tagging... — JEREMY
05:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Blind generalizations doesn't provide any solutions. This is not just a regular contravorsy. It is about 1,5 billion people
and has influence on international poitics. Resid Gulerdem 04:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Going to have to agree with Babajou on this one... relative to the images... any changes regarding them
should require a full blown vote. And that about wraps it up for me on this question. Netscott 05:12, 13
February 2006 (UTC)
As has been mentioned earlier; the title of the article is all the warning necessary. Further, most browsers have a
setting to prevent the loading of images. If someone is that offended by them, yet still wants to read the article, it is
possible to see the page without them. The fact that the images are offensive to many is well known, so there really is
no need for a special temmplate; and as the images are the singular main thrust of the article, they belong where every
other main article has its images—up top. -- Avi 05:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Whether "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy" sufficiently equates to "Warning: may scandalise
your religious sensibilities" is a separate argument. It's definitely accidental, good faith "stumbling upon" that
the template would seek to prevent. Its addition would detract nothing from the article, and serve only to
improve the information content for a specific group of readers. — JEREMY 05:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
This seems to fundamentally be (by some uses, literally word for word) reiterations of previous discussions. Varga Mila
09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I have to plead ignorance, having noticed this page only mid last week. (I've read chunks of the archives, but haven't
come across this argument before.) I'd really appreciate a link. — JEREMY 10:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
To chime in (yes, this is all very repetitive): Just like Wikipedia is not censored for minors, it is not censored for Muslims
(or Christians, or Hindus, or Jews). Plastering articles with warning templates about potentially offensive material sets a bad
precedent, there would soon be hardly an article without it. The only question we have to ask ourselves on Wikipedia is: Are
these images encyclopedic. I was objecting to porn images included in articles on these grounds: The internet is stuffed with
porn, and any given porn picture is hardly encyclopedic unless it made the news for some reason. Similarly, random
234
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
islamophobic cartoons are not encyclopedic, and I will oppose their inclusion. But if we agree that it this particular
controversy reaches an "encyclopedic" level of notability (per WP:Recentism), the images are naturally notable to the topic.
Warning messages about potential offense or controversy go to the talkpage or to html comments, not to the article itself.
dab (?) 09:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Nobody is (currently) suggesting censorship. This suggestion is about providing readers with additional information
in order to help them make a choice about whether to read an article. (And I think you'll agree that "there would soon
be hardly an article without it" is a slight exaggeration.) — JEREMY 10:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
yes, but people will tag all sorts of articles to make a point. We'll need to develop a policy if we want to tag
articles that "contain encyclopedic material that may be considered offensive by some". So far, there is no such
policy, and it will be a nightmare to develop it. For example, can you see the Paleolithic article plastered with
warning messages "this article contains material that may offend the religious sensitivities of Young Earth
Creationists"? I think I would leave Wikipedia if something like this was sanctioned by policy. dab (?) 16:41, 13
February 2006 (UTC)
Would this be a usable compromise? I've created a "hidden image" template in my userspace, result looks like this:
Click the show link to see image
Users with JavaScript enabled can then click the "Show" link to display the
image. This can be set up in various different ways. Better than a huge warning banner on top of the page at least IMHO,
even if it requires JavaScript to work (users without JavaScript will not be eabel to show the image). Just an idea anyway.
The "code" is at User:Sherool/HideImage if anyone is interested in experimenting further with it. --Sherool (talk) 18:12, 13
February 2006 (UTC)
It's a nicer implementation of the "blank link" style of image presentation, but it's unfortunately not acceptable to a
majority of the editors who voted in the initial poll. — JEREMY 18:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Jeremy on this one. Even though it's a nice template (one which I am going to steal the code to btw)
it is unacceptable since A) it is censoring the article and this is an encyclopedia of knowledge and shouldn't be
censored for a particular group's sensitivities, and B) there is a strong consensus to keep the image where it is
and exactly how it is. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 18:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Sherool's suggestion looks to be fair and a good compromise to me. Resid Gulerdem 22:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
We have been over and over and over this. The vast majority of editors support keeping the image where it is.--Jbull
22:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
235
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Leave that horse alone, Resid, its dead already. Kyaa the Catlord 08:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
At the risk of similar equine necroflagellation:
*
*
*
!
.
/
*
0
)
-
+
%
&
& G
(
Feedback, please. — JEREMY 11:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Add a translation to Arabic and Turkish? MX44 11:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed; and Farsi of course. (Err... or should that be "Persian"? One issue at a time...) Although I
think we can leave that to others if versions of this are used outside the English wikipedia; readers
of this page should be able to understand English. — JEREMY 12:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
My humble view: No ~ for the reasons discussed ad near nauseam on this page Varga Mila 11:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree the general subject has been gone over many times in the last ten days or so.
However, this particular approach hasn't specifically been considered, and may just fly. It's a
fairly minimalist solution (unlike my general {{Offensive}} template) and doesn't detract
from wikipedia's resolute refusal to self-censor, while still providing good-faith readers with
additional choice. — JEREMY 12:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
There is no particular approach which will satisfy a tidbit of the free information
protagonists (myself included). No magic solution, no special template, no words, no
phrases, no pictures. It has been approached from this angle already as well. This angle
is a specification of a general angle which has already been taken multiple times. The
general viewpoint that your idea is an offshoot of is to make it so that users have a
warning. No warning is needed, if a user is coming to this page, they will see the
236
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
image and leave, or view it and read the article. I believe a general consensous has
already been reached...3 times now? This being an offshoot of a suggestion that has
already been brought up, it is not likely to succeed. -Moocats 18:20, 14 February 2006
(UTC)
I support it, as long as we put the same warning on every single page with an
image, as any image could offend somebody out there. We can't pander to just
one group... Valtam 20:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Valtam.--Jbull 20:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Anyone want to add equine necroflagellation as #redirect [[beating a dead horse]] :-) See if some tight-ass
vandalism patroller (such as myself) will delete it as a protologism with no google hits. Weregerbil 12:03, 14
February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose as per Varga Mila. Also oppose on grounds that readers should not have to have Javascript
enabled to access informatiom. Babajobu 16:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I certainly support Jeremy's idea of having a template... Resid Gulerdem 06:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Poll 4: Special-case Labelling
Proposed: retain the current special-case labelling of this article, which improves the quality of information and choices
available to wikipedia's readers — some of whom might prefer an opportunity to avoid the article's content — without any
concession to self-censorship or the reversal of any previous poll decision. (Precedents for special-case treatments at
Goatse.cx, Child pornography, Bahá'u'lláh, Autofellatio, etc.) — JEREMY 06:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose: oppose this unprecedented "special-case label" template, reject the notion that it improves "quality of information
and choices available to Wikipedia's readers" in any way. "Precedents" cited are not precedents at all: child pornography is
illegal in Florida, where servers are hosted; autofellatio was resolved by Jimbo's fiat, and is unique in that respect, et cetera;
much more analagous are Piss Christ or anti-semitism, where no template exists to genuflect before sensibilities of
communities who might find the images offensive. No special treatment for any community, and please no further efforts to
evade clear consensus of community with further pollcruft.
Special-case label, removed from article by editors who appear not to support it:
237
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
*
*
*
!
.
/
*
0
)
-
+
%
&
& G
(
(With apologies for the duplication on this talk page.)
Jeremy, first of all, if you are trying to conduct another poll, please have a look at how previous polls were formatted.
Secondly, the wording of the poll cannot be constructed so as to argue for a particular position. Thirdly, your option
of having a "warning" at the top of the article was one of the options in Poll 2, and received little support. Do you
have any reason to think people will feel differently now? If not, please don't create another poll for no reason.
Babajobu 06:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I've reformatted the header, but there is only one question here: label or not; Support or Oppose? — JEREMY
06:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
And yes, determine that there is consensus to override old consensus before making the change, Jeremy.
Babajobu 06:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
None of the previous three polls addressed such a label (although quite a lot of people mentioned their
support for such an idea in their comments). — JEREMY 06:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Jeremygbyrne please see this. Netscott 07:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... That seems a bit like censorship of my poll suggestion, although I'll assume good faith and
trust that you are trying to improve the quality of the information on wikipedia, rather than
defending a position for some other purpose. — JEREMY 07:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Jeremy, if you want to run a poll, please present options in an NPOV manner without arguing
for a particular option, as creators of previous polls managed to do, but you have not.
Babajobu 07:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Please show me the wikipedia guideline you're referring to. Naturally I have a POV,
238
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
and I'm voting for my own poll. I'd be happy for you to present a "case for the
negative", and to reformat this poll in just about any way you'd like, but I'm not happy
for you to simply decide that it's invalid and thus gag the debate. I'm sure you don't
want to do that either, however, and I look forward to reaching a win:win compromise
over this. — JEREMY 07:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Gods, please don't start more polls. We can't even get people to bloody follow the consensus gained from the ones we
already had... Kyaa the Catlord 09:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Bad news
This page (the talk page) needs to be archived real bad. My computer is almost crashing trying to load this page.
AucamanTalk 03:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, this is 365 KB long, we need to split it into three parts. --Terence Ong 03:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia unavailable
I am aware that this is probably not the right forum in which to ask, but I'm curious. Does anyone know why Wikipedia has
been unavailable for the past 6 hours? Varga Mila 16:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Varga Mila: There are rumours circulating at the moment that Wikipedia was bought down by a DOS (Denial of Service)
attack early this morning, in response to this topic. To the best of my knowledge, this is Not True. Unfortunately, most of
Wikipedia is just as much in the dark about the crash as you are. Please be patient, and I am sure that information on the
downtime will become available soon. Thor Malmjursson 16:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC) Thor's pet yack
According to some chats I followed in #wikimedia-tech (via irc.freenode.net) The wiki servers providing DNS
malfunctioned for some reason.. it appears to have been related to an NFS Debacle as mentioned in this
Wikitech Server admin log. Netscott 17:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know, there is absolutely no truth whatsoever to the notion that Wikipedia was slowed down
by a DoS related to the cartoons. Babajobu 17:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
it was a hardware failure, see [3]. dab (?) 21:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
No, no, the rumours are true after all! :P Jacoplane 21:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
239
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Real nice there Jacoplane ...(not) really showing us all your true colors (your true
POV)... that link is extremely lame, racist and insulting and qualifies under the 'just
stupid' classification of that site...I'd just as soon erase your link for such things have
no place in this discussion. No one is being 'informed' by such an inflamatory thing.
Netscott 22:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Quite right; the one thing we must never allow anywhere in the Wikisphere
(especially on controversial matters) is any attempt at humour. Humour, after all,
might engender a sense of proportion, where what we really need is
foaming-at-the-mouth fundamentalists (from both sides) who cast everything in
absolutist terms. Besides, one person's humour is another person's cause of
offence, and if we've learnt anything from this whole affair, it's that anything
which might conceivably cause offence to anyone, ever, must be mercilessly
eradicated. Death to all humorists! Vilcxjo 23:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I see, so you two are in support of the following language, "The Muslims
have been even more of a pain-in-the-ass than the Chinamen, and that's
saying a lot."? As it appeared
(uncyclopedia.org/index.php?title=UnNews:Wikipedia_DDoS_over_Muhammad_cartoons&ol
at the time) of Jacoplane's posting, then? Netscott 00:12, 14 February
2006 (UTC)
Netscott, uh...that's why it's Uncyclopedia...it's supposed to be
ludicrous. Babajobu 05:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Babajou, well I guess that's why it was edited by someone
shortly after my initial comment to change the word
'Chinamen' to Scientologists.... heh.. Netscott 05:44, 14
February 2006 (UTC)
It's UnNews, ok? Wikipedia talkpages are to bitch
about Wikipedia content, not about surrealism on the
Internet in general. I am glad people joke about this
stuff. If you cannot bear to see a joke, you should never
have looked at the Internet at all. dab (?) 10:29, 14
February 2006 (UTC)
Are you seriously so stupid to think that wiki's server farm could be taken down by dipshit script kiddies, especially from
240
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
arab countries? --84.249.252.211 23:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
As though Muslim hackers couldn't potentially wield botnets?... uh huh....whatever 83.202.47.85 23:30, 13 February
2006 (UTC)
it was a bleeding harddisk crash. If WP was so easy to DoS, it would be DoSed half of the time, seeing the
number of people who have an axe to grind with WP by now. dab (?) 10:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
There are no Muslim hackers, there are a few script kiddies. Anyone can yield a fucked botnet, anyone.
Script kiddie == embarassment. They are too stupid to realize that they are being laughed at
--84.249.252.211 11:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
International Reaction
The section on international reactions is somewhat lacking. I think it would be nice to focus on a few reactions, some of
them sane (like consumer boycot) and some not so sane (torching buildings)
What was the deal with the pope voicing his opinion? Bill Clinton? Who said what and in what order, and who did original
opinion making (and not only parrotting whatever was safe at the moment.)
There is a lot of material to choose from ... MX44 23:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
That's the problem. Too much material still coming in. Yesterday, I thought this thing was over. Today, I'm not so
sure anymore: The IOC is escalating this thing even more, calling it "their 9/11" and Iran is now complaining about
cartoons about soccer, complete with death threats. See today's Timeline. The Blog, that broke the Al-Fagr thing has
interesting news, too.
Where do you think a quote like this should go? FROM THE BBC: "They want to test our feelings," protester Mawli Abdul
Qahar Abu Israra told the BBC. "They want to know whether Muslims are extremists or not. Death to them and to their
newspapers," he said." (Gibby 23:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC))
Nowhere. One protester's opinion isn't noteworthy.
That one fits as a single quote-line on commercial news. Here? The garbage bin (unless you can link it to an official
statement.) MX44 23:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
241
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
EXAMPLE of what I think would fit in this section:
Yesterday there was a resolution asking for calm issued by 41 important religous leaders, including the grand mufti of
Libanon/Syria. One person was missing though: Yussuf Al-Qardawi who runs his own religious TV-show on
al-Jazeera. He insists on an apology from the Danish government instead of the newspaper responsible.
To make this work, we would also have to quote al-Qardawi from earlier on. Is there such a quote? Can it be linked to the
"They want to test our feelings," quote above?
MX44 12:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
(Warning! Strong POV ahead!)
This is kind of a hard tied knot, because if Rasmusen gives in and lets a TV-priest define the Danish constitution,
there would be no way of knowing what Al-Qardawis next demand would be. Public beheading of Rasmusen with
exclusive rights to al-Jazeera?
MX44 14:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
BBC "Research"
The quote below was posted on BBC earlier today (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4708216.stm).
"And here came the first inconsistency on one side. More than two years previously, in April 2003, a Danish cartoonist
Christoffer Zieler offered some cartoons of Jesus Christ to Jyllands-Posten, Denmark's largest daily paper and generally
seen as right-wing. One of the paper's editors told Zieler: "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As
a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them." No such concern prevailed when
Jyllands-Posten decided to solicit drawings of Muhammad."
On this talk page (Wiki) someone wrote a couple of days ago: "Someone at the newspaper later clarified why those cartoons
242
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
of a Jesus-figure were rejected. It wasn't because they were of Jesus, but they were silly and poor cartoons".
I have heard this elsewhere as well, but have no actual and reliable sources thereof. Is it another matter of poor BBC
research ? Varga Mila 23:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Competing newspaper Politiken was contacted by Ziegler too, and thought that this was a nice chance at getting a shot
at JP. So they broke the story. Note that Politiken did not want to publish either, even though they do publish pretty
rude cartoons of Jesus now and then. MX44 00:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Here is one of Jesus and his stylist ...
This issue is already dealt with in "4.1 Danish journalistic tradition" with citations etc. Azate 00:18, 14
February 2006 (UTC)
Text description of his cartoons: Zieler's five colored cartoons portrayed Jesus jumping out of holes in
floors and walls during his resurrection. In one, gnomes rated Jesus for style, another entitled
"Saviour-cam" showed Jesus with a camera on his head staring at his feet. MX44 00:24, 14 February
2006 (UTC)
The point is, that if there is a reliable reference that J-P declined the Jesus cartoon(s) for reasons
other than fear of offense, that ought to be in the article. As it presently stands in 4.1 ("In 2003,
Jyllands-Posten rejected unsolicited cartoons about Jesus[48], opening them to accusations of a
double standard"), there is little reference to the possibility of anything but a double standard.
Varga Mila 00:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
In other words the Mohammad cartoons were 'solicitated' (bad word=prostitution)
because they would cause controversy?86.52.36.140 00:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
That is an interesting, but, I think, quite different issue from the one, to which I
refer. Varga Mila 01:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I just took umbrage with the word 'solicitation'. Don't mind
me.86.52.36.140 01:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
JP have publically stated that they turned them down "in a polite way", not because they would
offend any christians, but because the were just ... plain weired MX44 01:14, 14 February 2006
243
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
(UTC)
I suggest Zieler send them to the Iranian competion :D MX44
I think the word "unsolicited cartoons" will suffice to inform the reader of
another reason of the reaction, namely, these cartoons weren't asked for by
JP. The footnote 48 says as much.
Why 'unsolicitated'? Why not 'unrequested'.?
Yep, unsolicited suffices. I hadn't read footnote 48, which
does, as you say, elaborate.Varga Mila 01:29, 14 February
2006 (UTC)
'uncolicitated ' does certainly not suffice. That is the
opinion of a British newspaper. In Danish the proper
word would be 'unrequested' or "uopfordret", meaning
"uncalled for".86.52.36.140 01:36, 14 February 2006
(UTC)
"Unsolicited" means "uopfordret" (although the
dictionary is my memory). Unsolicited emails,
unsolicited contact etc.; the Danish translation,
would be 'uopfordrede emails, uopfordret kontakt
etc. 'Uncalled for', I believe, bears connotations
of something being rude :-> Varga Mila 01:44,
14 February 2006 (UTC
Yes, the wording means that you should
not send rude messages to the newspaper,
since they will not take the responsibility.
That is it is uncalled for that you send me
messages to convert to Islam, but it is
unsolicitated that you send me pictures of
the boobs of the minister of
justice.86.52.36.140 01:51, 14 February
244
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
2006 (UTC)
The description of the rejected cartoon fits with this one (from zielers homepage)
http://www.zieler.dk/m-images/1opstandelsesspalte%202004.jpg
I am out of dope, so I can't judge them fairly ... You decide! :D MX44 10:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
This pink box in the "Overview" section
Why is there a prominent link in that pink box to "Anders Fogh Rasmussen Cartoons" ? I think it has no business being
there, because these Rasmussen cartoons are nothing more that a footnote in the larger context at hand here. This box is
included from somewhere, but I can't figure it out. I also don't like the fact that the dossier is called "Akkari Dossier".
Akkari is prominent mostly because he speaks Danish and English fluently, wheras Abu Laban and Sheik Hulayel don't.
Akkari didn't pen the dossier. A better name would be "Imams' dossier" or so. Azate 00:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
(==Other Cartoon Contests==)
I think there could be a new subject heading in this entry that gives links to the cartoon contests that are springing up in the
wake of the Cartoon War. Here are some links, and Google will find others. This is a legitimate subject heading so that
people are aware of the history and nature of the response to this event.
An editorial note would be placed warning people that the material is bound to offend certain people, like other warnings
I've seen on the post.
Here are the contests (there are probably others): Fight Hate with Humor Contest World Union of Jewish Students
http://www.wujs.org.il/home/cartoon.php Iranian Pro-Holocaust Cartoon call (many news articles about it. Sec. of State
Rice spoke against/about it) laughyourheadoff.org Islamic Joke and Cartoon Contest gaining steam
http://drawmohammed.com/ http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina60206p2.htm Former Muslims launch cartoon effort
Israelpundit, a blog, had a contest, but then got negative feedback, and now it seems to have vanished from the site???
Maybe Wayback machine has proof they had a contest. Wilbrary 01:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
This article is not a clearing house for private internet cartoon contests. Azate 02:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
245
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
What should we do with this derivative article?
Cartoon Intifada Anything to merge? Delete? Lotsofissues 02:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
None of our business, I'd say. It'll end up as a REDIRECT eventually, I think. Azate 02:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll just tag it {{mergeto}}. Weregerbil 03:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Elsevier Oct 21, De volkskrant, Oct 29, both the Neherlands reprinted
cartoons
I was looking for some references and found that the volkskrant already reprinted 3 cartoons on October 29. I think we
slowely have to change the sentence about Januari 2006 to the whole period as there was already stuff going on. There was a
response to the october reprint that I still have to read (I am Dutch) --KimvdLinde 04:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Just found out that Elsevier did it already 8 days earlier..... --KimvdLinde 05:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
This fits in together with el-Fagrs publication about the same time, as a discussion happening in media. MX44
09:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Removing Links and Collaboration
Azate. I don’t understand why you insist on removing links that add value to the dialog, and a case for their inclusion has
been made. From what I understand, this is in violation of the spirit of Wikipedia.
Respect other contributors. Wikipedia contributors come from many different countries and cultures, and have widely
different views. Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in building an encyclopedia. (See
Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia etiquette, Wikipedia:Writers' rules of engagement, Dispute resolution.)
In the first instance, you removed a link to Annoy.com, referring to a nine year old online publication as an “annoying blog”
which suggests you didn’t even clarify what link you were removing, and justified it by making a misstatement and personal
246
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
judgment.
The reason I chose to include Annoy.com’s coverage was because (1) they have a history of free speech and have engaged
in two federal First Amendment issues, one before the United States Supreme Court, (2) they have included clean images of
the cartoons along with a thoughtful justification for publishing them, (3) they have published related controversies, from
Nick Berg’s beheading to the Arab-European League cartoons, as well as their own relevant imagery and (4) experienced
their own controversy over images relating to Jesus and the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, that was covered
internationally from South Africa to the Middle East.
For those reasons, I determined that linking to a site that presents the images in a fair and balanced context (unlike some of
the one-sided viewpoints reflected by some of the sites linked to) and owing to their long standing history, are not likely to
be here today, gone tomorrow, as we have already seen with some of the links.
Unless you have a strong and compelling reasons for removing links, appropriately articulated as opposed to quick
judgement calls that are not accurate, please leave them alone.
Also, your comment that the Ramussen cartoons are not “original, surprising or controversial” is inappropriate and has
nothing to do with why a link or information is provided. Those are your personal value judgments. News is about relevancy
and objectivity, not surprise and controversy. What do you mean they are not original? Have they been published
elsewhere? Are they violating a copyright? I didn’t even originate that link, but thought it was absolutely appropriate, and I
was better informed overall for having followed it. Obviously that was what the editor who posted it to begin with intended.
It’s great that you are so enthusiastic about this issue and your contributions are as welcome as anyone else’s but unless a
link is not germane to the story, offers no relevant value or is in violation of Wikipedia’s policy, please leave them alone.
We are all committed to Wikipedia’s success and providing valuable and informative links are part of that goal.
--JasonWilson 09:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Annoy.com link : The links leads to a page where the 12 original cartoons are mixed with cartoons that sombody
found funny and put there, without clearly distinguishing between the two. There are enough pages with links to the
12 cartoons. There is no need to link to a page that may mislead. I don't care about the great things annoy.com did in
the past. This is a superfluous link, that may mislead some not familiar with the cartoons.
The AF Rasmussen cartoons : are irrelevant in the context of this article. They are neither about the Mohammad
cartoons nor about the reaction of those who opposed them in the Muslim world. They are just witness to the ordinary
247
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
intra-Danish political debate, and as such just coincident to the Mohammad cartoon controversy, but not part of it.
Azate 10:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The Rasmussen cartoons actually was a part of the discussion of the JP-Debacle. An early Iranian contest you
could say. MX44 11:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
It appears that the entire page is dedicated to the Jyllands Posten controversy, and the other cartoons are clearly labeled as
such. So are the 12 original cartoons clearly labeled, and the Arab-European League cartoons clearly labeled. I doubt
anyone with a clear comprehension of English would have a difficult time making sense of that page. I don't think that the
page is misleading, nor superfluous, and I believe the grouping of the Dansish cartoons with those of the Arab-European
League response and others offers an interesting and valuable comparision. To claim people would be misled is a sweeping
generalization based on no fact whatsoever. You might have been, although seem to have clarified it for yourself. I wasn't.
(The only reason I brought up Annoy.com's past, is because you referred to it as an "annoying blog". Obviously not.)
I agree with MX44. The AF Ramussen cartoons are very much about a response to the cartoons. The "Muslim world" is not
the only world that responded to this.
I suggest we agree to disagree on this. Wikipedia is not about unilateral decision making. Yours seems to be the only
objection to the link, and since we both share a desire to make Wikipedia the best resource posssible, I say leave my
contributon and move on. There's so much more we both could, and should, be focused on. --JasonWilson 19:31, 14
February 2006 (UTC)
Israelis have the right idea
This Israeli organization has decided to respond to the Iran antisemitic cartoon contest with their own anti-semitic cartoon
contest. Seems to me like this is an example of the right way to respond to something intended to anger you.
http://www.boomka.org/ Richard 129.244.23.13 15:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Wonderful, hysterical. I want to see a showdown between the Iranian cartoons and the Israeli cartoons. Is the Israeli
organization showing cartoons already? Where? Babajobu 15:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Reminds me how folks in the U.S. of black African ethnic origin tend to allow fellow members of their
ethnicity refer to each other with a certain racial slur. Netscott 16:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. If the Israeli campaign recieves much notoriety it may very
248
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
well tend to delfate Iran's own campaign. Babajobu, there appear to be three previously published
cartoons already showing on the boomka site.. Netscott 16:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
There are actually people resonding to the article saying that apparently "this isn't the way to do things". Like
throwing rocks, and rioting is :p It'd all be well and good if everyone could just chill out, there's not a single religion
in the world that hasn't been made fun of at one time or another. What makes them think they're so special? -Moocats
18:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
the protests are a sign of weakness of the Islamic world; people feel bullied and are fed up with being the "2nd
World". Fascism always arises when people feel inferior and abused. They are, of course, also a sign of strength
of the fundamentalists. The first casualty of Islamism is Islam. The Israeli reaction is hilarious; the best
approach when facing angry insulted Muslims is to show that you can laugh at yourself, too, rather than letting
them know you think they are lame or childish. dab (?) 19:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Anyone know off-hand if Hamshari (in Wikinews) is already linked from any of the Wikipedia pages about this
controversy? If so then we should definitely add the Israeli's site. Netscott 19:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I've started a WikiNews entry about this group's announcement... we'll see if it gets picked up. Netscott 19:45,
14 February 2006 (UTC)
Veracity of El Fagr article?
Does anybody have any source for the al Fagr article besides the Egyptian blogger? The edition in question (#21, October
17, 2005) is offline, and I can find no other source anywhere I look.
Thanks, Andy. 60.240.106.174 15:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Jyllands-Posten themselves reprinted an article by The Copenhagen Post but apparently The Post used blogger
EgyptianSandMonkey as their source. That said, by now El Fagr would no doubt have emphatically denied
having printed it if they never did. Netscott 16:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
According to this article from TV2, a Denmark news station, the Danish Ambassador to Egypt confirmed
the story. I also seem to remember someone posting an arabic language site where El Fagr confirmed they
had published the cartoons, I'll see if I can find the link. Richard 129.244.23.132 18:13, 14 February 2006
(UTC)
Nevermind, it got some facts wrong and doesn't seem terribly reliable. Richard 129.244.23.132 18:20, 14
249
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Netscott and Richard. Apart from Bjarne Soerensen, the Danish Ambassador, 'Freedom for Egyptians' is the only
source for this story. Incidentally, I've emailed both Al/El Fagr and the journalist Tasneem Brogger (Bloomberg) asking for
confirmation, but am yet to receive a reply. (FYI, there's a long entry on my blog re this.) I think it would be useful to have
Soerensen confirm that their source was not the Egyptian blogger in question.
Thanks again, Andy. 60.240.106.174 06:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Andy you should know that the El Fagr story was seperately confirmed both by Freedom for Egyptians and
EgyptianSandMonkey. Netscott 07:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Netscott, I've looked at both. FfE credits 'Gateway Pundit' ("BTW, it is not my idea to bring the details of this
Egyptian paper, it is Gateway Pundit’s"); 'Gateway Pundit' says "Freedom for Egyptians has the details" (and
nothing more); ESM credits FfE ("Freedom For Egyptians reminded me why the cartoons looked so familiar to
me"). In brief, this story has not been separately and independently confirmed by both FfE and ESM. Andy.
60.240.106.174 12:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
This is the website of El Fagr: http://www.elfagr.org/ The page that contained the image was
http://www.elfagr.org/ed_21.html (issue 21 of the paper). I've seen it, but I failed to copy it. It was
removed shortly after Wikipedia started linking to it. --Valentinian 12:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Map Update and help needed
Hi all, the map has been updated and such but still more work needs to be done, again it is not done yet. I need help from
anyone who is willing to help make or compile an article about the number of protestors in all the countries. If anyone is
willing to, it would be a great help to me. Thanks. Also, I have used a new color scheme and I have been working with WAS
4.250 to make it understandable to the color-blind. One more thing, I didn't put it in the legend but the Danish flag means
countries that have boycotted Danish goods. I know I'm missing some so please help me with a table/list. Hitokirishinji
15:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
250
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Still work in progress
You might want to add Mexico and Macedonia to the map of reprint countries. --KimvdLinde 18:59, 14 February
2006 (UTC)
There have been some protests in Germany, too. -- 129.13.186.1 19:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I suggest dots marking the location of the protests (Paris, London, etc.) -- painting France and Britain party per bend
sinister seems a bit much. Likewise, painting the entire subcontinent of India yellow gives a rather misleading image.
I suppose you can make the protest-dots large enough to be well visible, and end up with a fairer geographical
representation. You can still paint entire countries the government of which has deposited formal protests or
something. dab (?) 22:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
As much as I would like to do that, certain countries including Denmark and Palestine are so small on the map
that a dot to represent the cities which had protests would be incredibly hard to see and if I made them large,
they would encompass more than the country itself does. The only way to get around this would be to find a
larger blank map. Also, at the moment, I don't have a list of every protest in every country and every city.
Unfortunately, I don't have all day to commit to this which is why I am asking if anyone would like to work
with me on this by helping me compile such a list. As deciving as painting an entire contient is, it is the same
almost about the newspapers. The UK only had one newspaper print 1 cartoon but nonetheless it counts as
"published". If anyone can come up with a larger map or better system, please let me know. Hitokirishinji
23:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The colors are way too similiar that are far between. It would help if you would make the map more "styled", imo (it looks
quite raw). --84.249.252.211 00:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Filipino Muslim views
Please include this link for Filipino muslim views: link - http://www.maranao.com/index2.htm. Label the link title as
"Filipino Muslim Views" and put under the "Islamic Views" section.
251
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Nazi victims of religious prosecution.
The article currently contains an example of a convicted Nazi war criminal, who was one of the ideologues and instigators
of anti-Semitic repression in the third Reich. This man, Streicher, is mentioned as an example of someone prosecuted for
blasphemy in violation of free speech, because Streicher has not killed anyone personally. It appears that the example is
quite out of place, since instigating murder (including mass murder) is commonly excluded from protected speech in most
legal systems due to its extreme danger. Moreover, instigating genocide is principally different from blasphemy which is the
topic related to the current article: blasphemy does not directly endanger the life of a faithful. Finally, including an example
of a racist in the article about the cartoons of Muhammad is rather frivolous, since, as has been mentioned many times,
Muslims are not a race. Therefore, the reference to Streicher, which may be debated in a context of an article, which is
dedicated to free speech in general, is out of context on this page. Now, what short of an edit war could be done to pursue
people like Netscott to refrain from re-inserting Nazis into the lists of victims of religious prosecution? --EugeneK 04:11, 15
February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps if we point to International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to remind him? MX44
Sorry that wasn't my doing... I do admit that I took him out... but put him back in... (mistakenly... clearly) only
because he was executed for his publishing (which I also admit I wasn't too familiar with). Striecher and Der
Sturmer do seem out of place in the whole article. Since my edits... PaxTerra is insisting that he stay in.
Netscott 06:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I guess that makes sense about PaxTerra though since he put him in as well as Sambo's which seems very
out of place. Netscott 06:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Sequencing comparable references
Great Lawgivers (frieze, 2006, Washington D.C.)
Chief_Illiniwek (college mascot, 2006, Illinois)
Dieudonné M'bala M'bala (comedian, 2005, France)
The Life of Jesus (book, 2005, Greece)
Jerry Springer - The Opera (musical, 2005, Britian)
Submission (short film, 2004, Netherlands)
Snow White and The Madness of Truth (installation, 2004, Sweden)
252
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Ecce Homo (exhibition, 2000, Europe)
The Virgin Mary (painting, 1999, New York)
Piss Christ (photo, 1989, United States)
The Satanic Verses (novel, 1988, Europe and Iran)
The Last Temptation of Christ (film, 1988, United States, Europe)
Life of Brian (film, 1979, United States, Europe)
Sambo's Restaurant (business name, 1979, United States)
The Message (film, 1976, United States)
Der Stürmer (newspaper, 1940s, Germany)
There's my six ^ PaxTerra 02:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Netscott asks if Order should give precedence to those occurrences where people have died and then controversies of a
religious nature no? If that is the case, Der Stürmer would be at the top of the list, because the publisher of those images
was executed by order of an international tribunal and his caricatures attacked a people primarily because of their religion.
Satanic Verses would then fall lower in the list, because Rushdie was not killed. The difficult aspect of ranking items
according to their religious nature is that it is difficult to define where religion ends and culture begins.
Anti-semitic caricatures are especially difficult to rank according to religiosity because the people in queston are defined by
both ethnic and religious affiliations. Likewise, some aspects of native American culture demeaned as mascots are of a
religious nature but the religious significance of items such as feathers in headresses is widely considered trivial outside
their communities.
Attempting to order the religiosity of artifacts according to Western or Christian appreciations of religious symbolism
imposes on other cultures an arbitrary and ill-fitting filter. By deciding which aspects of the controversy compare, ranking
the relevance of diverse aspects of a complex controversy, we depart from our mission of neutrality. To define this
controversy as primarily relgious, we must assume that the Western model of slander and libel laws apply universally -- that
defense of individual name or ego is appropriate but that defense of community perceptions through protection of secondary
cultural symbols of a religious nature is parochial and backwards. And we presume that defense of religious symbols is not
an aspect of protecting self-identity.
By many accounts, certain cultures do not separate sacred and profane aspects of their culture. In doing so, we imply that the
controversy over the cartoons is primarily religious in nature, and that Islamic people's right to cultural self-determination
excludes their right to include profoundly religous ideas in their self-perception. We also in doing so take the side of
253
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
advocates of such publications who assert that they are making a free-speech demonstration and a not a primarily ethnic
attack. Because worldwide discussion considers both whether these publications are ethnic or religious in their focus, I
included familiar incidences of opposition to ethnic symbols that were otherwise used under free speech protection. A
genuinely representative listing would go beyond cultures associated with Abrahamic faiths to consider the role of
symbolism in other religious and ethnic conflicts worldwide.
Failing to find any rational subjective order that does not impose cultural presumptions, I propose we rely on a standard
neutral system of ranking, which is ascending alphabetical order. That leaves Chief Illiniwek at the top, which isn't my strict
preferance, but Wikipedia has only a list of Native American mascots and not an article on the topic that I could find. Were
there such an article, that item would appear lower in the list.PaxTerra 22:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
While I tend to agree with PaxTerra's argument regarding order I do not agree that Der Stürmer should be at (or
near) the top of the list. In terms of this article I would argue that Submission is much more pertinent for four
reasons 1.It was mentioned by the Danish Imams themselves, 2. Theo Van Gogh was assasinated in an act of
terrorism. 3. Submission is concerned about 'free speech' vs. the contention of it insulting Islam. 4. It is
considered controversial. That said I also agree that a neutral system for determining order isn't a bad idea. So I
propose that we list the references in descending alphabetical order. This makes The Holy Virgin Mary number
1 (which granted doesn't seem too logical but still is strictly about religion and not race) and Submission
number 2. Frankly while I'm respectful of Native American's arguments about imagery and their cultures, in the
context of this article the reference doesn't seem too strong (with perhaps the Sambo's reference being the
lowest in pertinence). A big part of the reason that I don't consider Der Stürmer as pertinent is due to the fact
that in Nazi Germany it was considered controversial almost exclusively due its pornographic nature and not for
its characterizations of Jews, also Streicher was executed legally. Netscott 01:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
If you want a neutral ordering, I would say that time-frame would be a more relevant measure. Start with
the most recent events MX44 01:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
That makes sense MX44. That'd take a bit of work to track down though.... Netscott 01:20, 15
February 2006 (UTC)
Hint: Use the "loudest" part of the event. The Fatwa for Rushdie (and not the anticlimax
when the Mullahs says it is long forgotton.) The murder of van Gogh for Submission (and
not the release of the film ...) MX44 01:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
254
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
I could get behind that, if somebody does the research. But I suggest if somebody
indeed checks out a timeline, it would be best to include at least a year in the
parenthetical reference to the context, along with perhaps a geolocal reference as in
(publication, 1930-1940, Germany)? That would advise readers why the items are thus
ordered, and would avoid an inference that the order was somebody's interpretation of
the relevance of items that have been discussed in reference to the current controversy?
PaxTerra 01:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I thought we were working toward concensus on this? I restored ascending
alphabetical order. Nowhere else in this encyclopedia -- or in most contexts -- is
descending order used. To choose reverse alphabetical order here implies editors
have agreed whatever order places the incidents they consider most relevant is
appropriate. To do so, and choose an order to place examples of controversial
avante garde art above examples of hate speech implies editors concluded this is
more about free speech and religious zealotry than it is about hate speech and
religious bigotry. Balance requires strict centering. PaxTerra 01:52, 15 February
2006 (UTC)
I've reverted to the order that existed prior to your first change until
consensus has been determined. I'm highly inclined to go with the
choronlogical order of events on this... but I have to admit I'm reluctant to
track down all of the necessary details in order to do so. Netscott 01:55, 15
February 2006 (UTC)
Here's what I propose.. we each take a 3rd of the references and
track down the dates corresponding to our third. Then we formulate
their proper order here for final main page editing. Netscott 01:59,
15 February 2006 (UTC)
You ask a lot for what you pay. I'll take the bottom
third -- er the bottom six of sixteen --- Life of Brian to
Der Attacker... PaxTerra 02:06, 15 February 2006
(UTC)
Ok so were all on the same page here I've added
the list above in it's current order on the main
page. That sounds good PaxTerra. I'll take
Submisson to Piss Christ... MX44? Netscott
255
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
02:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Ehrmm ... What? I was over at Groklaw.
Was I supposed to do something?
Looks like PaxTerra has handled the
job completely.... kind of a
bummer... I was hoping for some
teamwork... but whatever... Netscott
03:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
BTW -- are you saying you will go with this
sequential list, and accept the entries already
there? PaxTerra 02:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
This chronological idea makes the most sense with the newest events taking precedence over the older events. No?
Netscott 02:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
My List
Submission (short film) 2 November 2004
The Message (film) 9 March 9 1977
The Satanic Verses (novel) 14 February 1989
Snow White and The Madness of Truth (installation) 16 January 2004
The Last Temptation of Christ (film) 22 October 1988
Piss Christ (photo) 18 May 1989
Netscott 02:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Sure, but it still leaves Chief on top, which isn't my intent at all, but neither do I want to self censor reporting
references to discussion among Native Americans of mascotts and hate speech in the context of the Danish
cartoons. We could find a better article to describe the native American mascott controversy, or write one,
which I'm not up to today. PaxTerra 02:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't agree about that... unless something significant has happened withint the last 5 years and my
recollectoin serves me right I'd say that the whole Native American Mascot issue 'peaked' in the late 90's.
256
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Netscott 02:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Chief Illinik looks kind of surrealistic in this context, no? Wouldn't telling a Yo Mama story in the wrong bar create an even
greater fuzz? MX44 03:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC
Got not arguments from me if chief Illinik made an exit from this article. Netscott 03:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
M'bala ... I can't find the international link? If it is just hate speach we are after, then I can supply a preacher from up here
who is very opiniated about homosexuals ... and gets away with it. The life of Jesus has that link, and the author gets judged
by an unintended audience, which is surprising and ... funny MX44 03:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
The Virgin Mary ... Wasn't it the whole Sensation exhibition that was disliked? Well, that horses head sure did smell funny,
but again I find that it is far fetched. Too many of these smallish examples of near incidents just confuses the issue and
invites everybody to add their own little controversy. MX44 04:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Be bold and make changes!!! hehe Netscott 05:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
4 in one swoop?! That's bold! LOL! Netscott 05:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Well ... The Chief is back at the top, making it all look like a prank :D MX44 05:48, 15 February 2006
(UTC)
Reverse chronological order, most recent to least, makes perfect sense. WookMuff 08:16, 15
February 2006 (UTC)
Fatwa
I added a fatwa from Sistani. Please dont take it away, i not there are those that hate seeing it. --Striver 01:26, 15 February
2006 (UTC)
That seems pertinent to me. I added that he's in Iraq and corrected some grammar. Netscott 01:35, 15 February 2006
(UTC)
Archive 13a
257
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
I've archived the first half of this previously long page.... if there were active subjects from the areas archived please don't
hesitate to pull them back in here. Netscott 03:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
extensive reference to Al-Hayat Al-Jadida cartoon controversy
This information didn't appear on the Internet in the past hour, Netscott, which means it was available when you commented
out the link "until more information is available". Have you tried Google as a research tool? It's sometimes almost as good
as letting others do your research, and it can help avoid embarassing reversions.
Below is a short list of vicious cartoons appearing in the last three years in the major Palestinian Authority (PA)
newspaper, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (Palestinian Media Watch, January 7):
1. Jan. 7, 2006 – An evil-looking caricature of a Jew depicted wreaking havoc beneath the Temple Mount and thus
threatening the Dome of the Rock above.
2. Sep. 3, 2005 - Text: "Israel" penetrates Pakistan – Israel in scare quotes, depicted as devious vermin trapping Pakistan
in to its orbit.
3. Apr. 10, 2005 – A Magen David shape is depicted turning the Dome of the Rock and an Arab in front of it in a prison.
4. Feb. 5, 2005 - An Israeli soldier depicted as a Nazi, complete with helmet, shaking a blood-soaked hand with a
clean-handed Palestinian.
5. Dec. 10, 2004 – An Israeli flag, flying from the devil's three-pronged spear and with a corner of its Magen David
symbol transformed into a blood-soaked claw, wrapped like a coil around an injured dove of peace.
6. Dec. 1, 2004 – Text: "The search for terror is still ongoing" – A figure representing the UN is seen wasting his time
looking with a magnifying glass for terrorism while ignoring the figure of a monstrous ape with a caricature of Ariel
Sharon's face as the devil.
7. Aug 2, 2004 - Jews in Judea Samaria are depicted as a Medusa-like serpent threatening an Arab.
8. July 14, 2004 – An anti-Semitic stereotype of a hideous, hook-nosed Israeli soldier, with a uniform and helmet pattern
of human skulls.
9. April 20, 2004 – Ariel Sharon depicted as a wild bull, pierced with the spears of different Palestinian terror groups.
10. March 22, 2004 – Ariel Sharon depicted eating Palestinian children from a bowl of children's corpses.
11. Oct. 11, 2003 – A European diplomat is confronted by Israel depicted as an enormous snake.
12. Oct. 11, 2003 – An Israeli is depicted as a caveman dripping with blood.
13. Oct. 9, 2003 – Israel is depicted as a crocodile about to devour a Palestinian.
14. Oct. 4, 2003 – Israel is depicted as a wolf about to devour the Palestinian government.
258
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
15. Oct. 4, 2003 – The world is depicted as an apple consumed from within by two worms – Israel and the United States,
with the text on the apple: Arab world Israel to the USA: "Be strong-we've got a lot of work to do."
PaxTerra 03:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
At this point your link goes to an essentially blank Wikipedia page. Are you planning on putting those references on the
Al-Hayat_Al-Jadida page? If you are planning on doing that, might I suggest in the future that you add the references first
to the pertinent article and then add the 'comparable ref' link? Netscott 03:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Unless you're going to add that info promptly you might as well re-uncomment out the Al-Jadida link to help
WikiPedia visitors avoid going to an empty resource. Netscott
The term is "stub" Scott, and no I don't intend to extend the stubby Palisinian newspaper article unless I find
time to conduct adequate research. No, I don't intend to slant the stub with a hasty contribution primarily about
Israeli oppositon to the paper's editorial doctrines and I advise you not to damage contributions to this article by
removing informative content that readers can easily extend with their own research or by contributing to the
relevant article if they have sufficient information.
If you do choose to censor in the name of editing, I suggest you limit your meddling to unwikifying the
resource, though to do so is not consistent with widely accepted practices at Wikipedia to leave stubs and links
to stubs in place until they have an opportunity to grow. To unwikify the link would deprive readers of an
explanation of an otherwise unintelligable Arabic phrase.
Further, I consider myself to have acted promptly to have posted within five minutes of uncommenting your
deletion of meaningul content this reference to 16 cartoons. I suggest you sit back and watch what happens, or
use your internet connection to gather information before striking out against others' knowledge. In the Hebrew
press, the Al-Hayat Al-Jadida cartoons are probably the most widely mentioned controversy raised in rebuttal to
complaints about the danish cartoons, with the possible exception to dialogue about Iranian opinion. None of
the other items on that list contain references to contexts in which they were discusses vis-a-vis the Danish
cartoons, many are only marginally relevant, discussed perhaps among the world of avante garde artists who
advocate absolute freedom to slander anyone in the name of comedy, and other links on the list point to topics
that only minimally explain how those conroversies are relevant to this one.PaxTerra 04:19, 15 February 2006
(UTC)
259
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
The title of that section is "Comparable references" a simple link to stub article does not a 'comparable
reference' make. As a visitor, if I were to click on your reference I'd be inclined to just think, "hmm, that
was a pointless link", unless someone comes along and adds something of note to that stub I suspect
another editor will just remove that 'reference', I'd uncomment it out again now if I wasn't already at my
3RV limit. Netscott 04:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
as an original reader, I parsed the term "reference" to imply others had mentioned these incidences
in reference to current events, not that they are references to a categorization of similar events
listed in this opus. Either way, I have now included sufficient citation in and out of Wikipedia to
support what is one of the major comparisons in popular diaglogue worldwide. If you feel readers
need more information about the Palestinian newspaper, I suggest you offer readers more, not less
information. PaxTerra 05:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
and on Sambos
The widespread Sambos restaurant controversies I cited, documented in lawsuits, newspaper articles, petitions and activists
writings was a flashpoint for controversy over use of the term "Sambo", derived from a childrens book widely used in
elementary schools of the era and on which which the nationwide restaraunt based its marketing images. Mention of the
term in reference to the current controversy can be found in the title of an essay by well-known conservative writer Michelle
Malkin -- "Ragheads and Sambos and Gooks". Malkin says she sees no comparison with the cartoon, but states that several
of her readers have drawn parallels with well-known US racial epithets by a national leader. Malkin extends the reference to
"ragheads" to include "sambos". We could add ragheads and gooks to the list, but there was never a campaign to make
anybody stop publishing those terms, and such a campaign has not been mentioned in this context.
Since all current discussion of this emerging topic is taking place in blogs, letters to the editor, editorial columns and other
transient venues, it is fair to take Malkin's mention of several readers drawing the parallel between a reference to ragheads
and the cartoons, and her extending the reference to controversy over the term Sambos as typical of more widespread
discussion I am seeing in those venues. I suggest readers unfamiliar with this dialogue are not in touch with current dialogue
in the South. The list in this article isn't "A list of events that are just like this cartoon controversy". It is a list of refernces to
similar controversies that have been mentioned. The Sambos controversy is a particularly interesting comparison that has
been mentioned because it too arose from ostensibly benign caricatures related to a childrens book, and because public
pressure led to change in publishing activities. PaxTerra 07:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
260
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Focus on judicial remedies
MX44 offers no argument or evidence to support the assertion that there is "too much focus on old nazis". The sentence
Mx44 reduced focuses on judicial responses, not on nazis. A generalized reference to "crimes against humanity" denies
readers immediate access to otherwise readily available explanatory information. Few younger readers likely have any
experience to reference when, where or why anyone was executed for a crime against humanity on evidence that they drew
cartoons. Perhaps to balance reference to old nazis we need to include some examples of new nazis who were prosecuted for
hate speech. A list alone is insufficient when judicial remedies can be mroe precisely summarized and cited in a a few short
phrases. PaxTerra 05:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
We can also reference architects who got punished by the allies after the war for dreaming up castles for the old nazis
... which is equally relevant MX44 05:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
And how about the foundation for all modern TV-commercials? Nazi propaganda maker who was hung after
the war.MX44 06:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree with your history of television advertising. It started before WWII. Castles:cartoons --- not a
strict comparison. "Nazi propaganda maker who was hung after the war. can you please explain this
sentence frag? Striecher was executed for publishing a newspaper and cartoons that were very similar to
the ones in this topic. His activities are discussed in the context of these events. Unless you want to start
documenting where, on the limited inventory of available Web publications, each of the named
incidences are mentioned in this context, I suggest you focus on contributing, not deleting content.
PaxTerra 06:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Similar? I beg to differ ... You seriously suspect Denmark to have orchestrated a plot to conquer the
world? And the cartoonists at JP is taking part in this? MX44 06:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
The point isn't whether I think certain cartooonists are conspiring to take over the world. I'm
not writing about my opinion. Striecher is relevant because the name often comes up in
discussing the propriety of demeaning editorial cartoons, including those that are the subject
of this article. Those who draw the comparison have sound reasons, whether you or I agree
with them or not.
Julius Streicher didn't conspire with Hitler nor was he in the employ of Nazis, he
261
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
independently contributed to an ideological environment that, according to an international
tribunal, permitted genocidal xenophobia. Those who draw a comparison cite a
disproportionatly negative portrayal of ethnic minorities in Danish media, as there was in
German media of that time. In the generalized view of Westerners held by many on the
"Arab street" Danish and European anti-Muslim sentiment is affiliated with a Western
occupation of their territories. Among that that some oh, billion or so, there are widespread
suspicions that yes, the West, including Europe, Denmark and the United States, is
conspiring to take over the world. And, some Muslim clerics are asking that the artists be
executed under Islamic law. As recently as 60 years ago, a cartoonist was legally executed.
Granted, Islamic law isn't the international law we might prefer, but the call for judicial
execution is not unique.
Reference to this historic lawful execution of a cartoonist is appropriate context for readers
who have not thought further than to demean "those backwards Muslims" for not
understanding our modern system of free speech. Streicher shows that, even with our modern
system of free speech, we sometimes choose to legally execute cartoonists for crimes against
the peace. 06:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Compared to Streicher, who was so annoyingly over the top, only Hitler tolerated him,
the JP-cartoons are either extremely mild or not even on the topic the muslim
propaganda machine have made people believe. I guess the cartoonist at Disney will
have to go as well MX44 07:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not about our opinions of the comparison. What you call the Muslim
propaganda machine comprises people, whose perspectives are to be refelcted in
this context. This isn't an article about how dumb we think they are. PaxTerra
07:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Not about being dumb but about deception. I have put Streicher in the
context you mention above. I assume it is backed up, an external reference
would be nice. Else the whole Streicher thing is hearsay. MX44 08:06, 15
February 2006 (UTC)
I support the inclusion of Julius Streicher as an item in the list. I oppose
262
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
elaborating on it with several sentences (even if I find the angle interesting),
because none of the other list items gets such preferential treatment. Azate
08:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Perigrine falsely accused?
I found the perigrine edit, but I don't see any vandalism. PaxTerra 05:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Have a look at the bottom of Peregrine's edit.. see anything wrong? Netscott 05:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
No. [4] I see what appears to be a dutch language reference to a dutch language article that seems to
babelfish into content that is consistent with what Perigrene represents. Perigrene's edit history evidences
continued good faith editing. I advised Perigrene of your accusation. Perhaps you can exlpain your
allegation to the accused. PaxTerra 06:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah you're right [5] but he failed to close his ref> so the El Fagr image showed up at the bottom of
the page... fortunately my comment was "Vandalism?" and not "Vandalism!"... LOL! Netscott
06:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, sit tight a minute and I'll fix it. Stevenj removed it for being misformated, but the lack
of dutch readers to verify the source is not pertinant to the misformating. Perigrine seems to
be a Dutch reader. PaxTerra 06:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Image removal/relocation and warnings
I've just removed a warning about the images inserted by Jeremygbyrne. There should be agreement by all editors working
on this that no such changes shall occur until a vote decides whether or not to adopt them. Netscott 06:52, 15 February 2006
(UTC)
Agreed. Babajobu 06:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
These would be special new wikipedia rules you've just thought of now? — JEREMY 07:11, 15 February 2006
(UTC)
263
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Jeremy, a warning at top of page WAS one of the options in poll two, and it attracted fewer than ten votes.
Regardless, in an article about which so much community input has been received, eastablish consensus for
major changes before making them! Babajobu 07:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
According to the poll archive, the options in the second poll were:
*
*
*
*
*
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
1.2.4
1.2.5
Move to body of article with a link directly to the image on the top (Hipocrite's idea)
Have picture lower down the article
Have picture at top of article
Don't care
Comment
As I have said, this option has not been offered before. Please vote in the poll. — JEREMY 07:33, 15
February 2006 (UTC)
Keyword here is 'Should' as what Babajobu so succintly stated above, "determine that there is consensus
to override old consensus before making the change, Jeremy." is particularly valid. Netscott 07:15, 15
February 2006 (UTC)
Jeremy, option 1.2.1 was intended to place an "alert" at top of page, warning people of potentially
offensive content lower in the article. It was essentially identical to your solution, except that yours
is rather more obtrusive in using a template rather than a simple bolded comment. And again,
Jeremy, please take a look at how previous polls were formatted. In addition to presenting the
options in a neutral manner (which you fail to do), they created a place where people could vote
support or oppose. Moreover, the poll was placed where people would see it, rather than starting
off buried in the middle of the talk page. I'll vote oppose in your poll, but think a large majority of
users will vote oppose as well as being annoyed by an attempt to repropose an option that was
voted down in a previous poll. People don't take kindlt to repeated polls addressing the same issue
in precisely the same way. Babajobu 07:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
It looks to me like 1.2.1 has nothing to do with labelling, but specifically involves moving
the cartoons down the page and linking to them from the top. 1.2.2 does include some
comments calling for labelling (or "warnings", which are clearly not well supported, based
on wikipedia's disclaimer policy). If you think there'd be general support for doing so, I'd be
happy to move the poll to the top of the talk page. Thanks for agreeing to vote, and you may
well be right about the eventual result. I can only try. — JEREMY 07:46, 15 February 2006
(UTC)
Hey... no more polling til "my" poll so :P WookMuff 08:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
264
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
As long as vandalism of the image can be contained, the image should stay where it is. Azate
08:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
No more polls PLEASE !! We can't keep repeating the polls simply until the opinion of
Resid, JEREMY et al. (with all due respect) is met. I, personally refuse to vote in anymore
polls on this same issueVarga Mila 08:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I certainly respect the right of people with "poll fatigue" not to vote (and I expect their
opinions might be well over-represented in the results in any case). And again, just to
be clear, the image will stay where it is (as per the results of Poll #2); this is about
supplementing the article and enhancing wikipedia by adding information. —
JEREMY 09:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Warning people that on the very same screen as the warning is the image itself?
Anyway, should your poll ever appear on this page, I'll vote oppose, and express
my irritation at the pollcruft and your refusal to accept consensus, as I suspect a
large majority of voters will do. Babajobu 09:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the label will attract attention first (ie. before the images), and that
its presence alone indicates our intent to provide a higher level of service
to our readers. Again I reject your persistent claims that this issue has
already been dealt with and that your viewpoint somehow represents
consensus, but I'll be pleased to see your vote. — JEREMY 10:06, 15
February 2006 (UTC)
In fact, my viewpoint on how the images should be managed is not
the same as the consensus. However, consensus having been
expressed, I feel the need to protect it from people who attempt to
unilaterally override that consensus by inserting obtrusive templates
without any communal mandate whatsoever. As for my vote, there
is no poll on this page, no oppose or support sections in which to
place a vote on any issue. Babajobu 10:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Meeting with Arab Ambassadors refused by Danish Prime Minister
I’ve made three small changes to the section, that I hope not will be controversial: 1. Clarifying, with a quote from the letter,
that the request for a meeting was about wider issues than just the cartoons. 2. That is was the interpretation of the gvt, that
265
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
the ambassadors wanted the PM to take legal action against the paper. It is not at all explicit in the letter [6] 3. That the
refusal was a major point of criticism from the opposition Bertilvidet 10:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Would someone mind to please clarify for me, as a non-native English speaker, the exact meaning of 'taking
someone to task' ? (as per "...urge Your Excellency's government to take all those responsible to task under law
of the land..."). Thanks Varga Mila 10:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
"make them pay" I would say. what "law of the land" is alleged to have been broken is not made clear
however. I take this to be an explicit enough call for legal action. Can somebody explain why this letter is
in English rather than Danish, seeing that these are all ambassadors to Denmark? You would expect it to
be an essential job qualification of an ambassador to be fluent in the language of the host country? dab (?)
12:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
The letters in the Akkari-Laban dossier seem all to have been written in Arabic. Ekstra Bladet
published some of them stressing that the newspaper has translated the material into Danish. [7]
I've been looking for originals written in Danish, but I've found none so far. --Valentinian 12:19, 15
February 2006 (UTC)
There isn't a Danish original, because the original is in English. Amabassadors in EU
countries can hand in notes in any of the working languages of the EU (English, French,
German), or in the language of the country in question. And anybody who thinks that
ambassadors speak the language of the country they are dispatched to, is living in a dream.
Azate 12:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
The letter is about the general development in Denmark, mentioning the cartoons along
with several other incidents. Afterwards, "...urge Your Excellency's government to
take all those responsible to task under law of the land..." is stated. At least it is not an
explicit call for legal pursuit of the paper. And nope, ambassadors are not expected to
learn the language og the country they work in, usually they serve in many countries
during their career, so they are not expected to know all the local languages - and
indeed not to use the local language when dealing with other foreign representations.
Bertilvidet 13:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
266
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Talk: Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy - Arguments
This miscellaneous page is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.
Please discuss the matter at this page's entry on the Miscellany for Deletion page.
You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, move (without knowing exactly what you are
doing), or remove this notice from the page while the discussion is in progress. For more information, read the
Guide to Deletion.
How to list a page for deletion (log)
3+
&
&
1
6
&
5
%
:
&
;* & 3
+
:@
;4
6
!$
! (%
<$
(
>
1
?*
4
@ &
4
:
;+
.
5
:
%
: 7
&(
& %
"
'
'8
+
&
%
%
&
% :
&
T
@
%
& 8
&
11
%
(
&
& =
&
'
&
F
F
1
%%
F
'41 A
%
'1
% & E
1
'C
'1
D*
#$
3
&
1
4 %
.
(
&
267
A
&
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
<
>@
?. %&
G
C
D
(
&7
%
+
1
1
4
%
+
&
&
:@ % &
; G
(
. ''
&
!
1
%
'
6
<*
&1 A
&(
> G $
4
-% *
"
4 &
? G $
$ 7 &
' &
F"
&
$
&
1
&
1
D
6 &
3
:6
'
&% &%
'
;6*
'
'
F
&
%
%%
& %
&
'
Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
Hypatia! the light in the world is diminshing again.
Does GOD create hatered. A simple but a big YES...a small cartoon of a man who walked on this earth a few centuries ago
is enough to create ripples of hatered in the minds of people who follow the man. What kind of religion is this? Is it so weak
that an unknown cartoonist can shake it...and that too so violently, that it created inside men the very things that all religion
teaches us not to follow...hatered, violence, crime....you name it...but then something must be wrong. If one wants to get
respect from others then he/she should also respect others. Do they follow it? cow is considered to be a sacared animal and
millions of hindus worship it as GOD, but every year millions of this bovine species are killed and eaten, specially during
ID, a very auspicious islamic festival. Are they not showing disrespect to the hindus when they first butcher their GOD and
then eat it? May be if you ask them they will say that they don't consider the cow to be god and hence eat it...but then the
dannish cartoonist also thought that Mohammed was just like any other man and since we create cartoons of world
leaders,sportsperson, entertainers, scientists...etc why not that of a religius leader...and he created the cartoon.People all over
the world do not show disrespect to hindus when they eat beef, because it is their food. Same way creativity and freedom of
268
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
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
00:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
(TALK • CONTRIBS)
Thanks to Wikipedia for providing a venue for the discussion of these ideas.
Arguments
Muslim racism towards Nordic Europeans
Why is this issue being ignored in this topic? Racism against whites deserves to be acknowledged every bit as racism
against non-whites. Merton 04:03 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. What incident(s) are you referring to? Racism sounds like it's a bit off-topic in this article. --Kizor 20:31, 4
February 2006 (UTC)
Calling for the death of Nordic Europeans in retaliation for the cartoons. That is undeniable racism and certainly
relevant to the topic.Merton 04:44 4 February 2006 (UTC)
It's against a nationality and not an ethnic group, but that's semantics. Anyway, the article does note the
negative reactions and the issued threats. If you ask me, there's no point in adding 'and that's bad'. --Kizor
21:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
It not racism, its the prejudice toward religion. You can say the Muslim held prejudice toward Christianity (and vice versa),
but you can't say all Muslim hate Nordic Europeans, becuase is Muslim is a cross-race religion, and welcome any
race.142.161.115.85 21:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Its racism as Muslims are themselves one race of people who worship in Arabic. Also, look at the racism committed
269
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
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)
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)
270
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
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.
271
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
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
272
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
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
273
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
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
274
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
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.
Boycott in Paragraph 3
Ironically, the boycott of ALL Danish goods would hurt everyone, regardless of whether or not they wanted the cartoons
published. Accountable Government 07:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
That's what boycotts do. Ta bu shi da yu 08:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Witch-hunt, holocaust & Islamophobia
I see huge news coverages & well....this article too, & all the hue & cry about the freedom of speech. What I don’t see is the
fact that these cartoons are not just insulting, they incite hate & phobia against Islam. It’s not about what Islam teaches or
what it doesn’t teach; it’s about the so called treasured values of Europe. Why a person making jokes against blacks is called
racist, a person making jokes against Jews is called anti-Semite, but when the same thing happens against Islam, everybody
remembers Freedom of speech. Why isn’t the same freedom of speech practiced when dealing with blacks, whites, Jews,
Christian’s e.t.c. Why is kike or nigger considered racist but depicting Muhammad with a bomb in his turban or “Prophet!
daft and dumb, keeping woman under thumb” is called "Freedom of speech”. I am ashamed to see this hypocrisy practiced
by people who consider themselves to be the "civilized world”. Does civilization teach us to have dual standards? I am very
sorry to see that Europe is again being taught to hate. This time inside the shiny wrapping of "Freedom of expression” by the
media. First it was the witch-hunt, then we had the holocaust, I hope we don’t get a third session of global bloodshed, since
before the holocaust; Jews were being depicted in the same manner by the Nazis. Cant we have a single section on this
article about the kind of sick racism that this cartoon is promoting, other that the good old "they don’t understand our values
of freedom" rant, there are tons of Muslim sources saying that these cartoons can be equated with stuff that are considered
<font color="sla'/c
Anti-Semite. F.a.y.$ %&'("
09:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
275
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
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
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'
276
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
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
277
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
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)
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.
278
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
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." ?
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)
279
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
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.
280
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
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,
281
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
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) .
Thanks
I would like to thank the Muslim popultion for showing us the peace in the religion of peace.--70.153.51.5 17:48, 4
February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a chat forum, try these instead:
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/
http://www.freerepublic.com/
Ashibaka tock 17:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
LMAO that's a great response Ashikaba. --
18:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Is violence justified?
282
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
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)
Who is Mohammad?
I have an important question considering this matter. We are talking wheter these cartoons are an insult against the muslim
god. but the person which is portrayed is mohammad and not allah. So if I may ask: is Mohammad seen as an prohet but an
human or is he seen as a god by the muslims? If we consider that Mohammad was also an historic person we could approach
this problem fron this angle. Historic person have alwasy been portrayed in cartoons, anno one is portaying the muslim god,
which is allah?
Muhammad is seen as a Prophet of Allah, but is otherwise just a person. — TheKMantalk 20:26, 4 February 2006
(UTC)
Exactly. As I understand it, Mohammad was/is a human above the humans, since he was chosen by Allah to
283
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
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. — TheKMantalk
20:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Precisely. The actual prohibition against pictures of Muhammad is not followed strictly
(there are illustrated editions of the quaran where he is featured). Muneyama 20:59, 4
February 2006 (UTC)
Founder of the whole Islam culture, set the Arabian in the Monothesis. Were told that ANY PROPHET
OR ALLAH CANT HAVE A PROTRAIT OF IT AS NOT TO VIOLATE THEM AND PEOPLE WONT
WORSHIP THOSE PROTRAIT LIKE THE IDOL. Does this help???
This is fine for Muslims, but you cannot impose this on the whole world. And if this prohibition is about "any
prophet" then why aren't you protesting cartoons about Jesus, Moses, Buddha, Krishna... And are you going to
prohibit the followers of those religions from having depictions of their founders because YOUR religion
forbids it? Rooster613 00:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Rooster613
For some reason I don't think we're going to have to worry about people worshipping 'these
depictions’. Plus that decree came from a time when people were uninformed and access to holy
texts was difficult. I think its a percausion that's run its course. '--24.166.69.76 21:17, 4 February
2006 (UTC).
However, your opinion isn't the issue here. --Kizor 22:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know Muhammad was a violent and ruthless man (and incidentally a
pedophile by 20th-century standards) and I see no reason why we who are not Muslims
(and thus are not obliged to pay any form of homage or respect any kind of taboo
284
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
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)
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
285
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
So far in this conflict there are no winners .Everyone is hurt .Both People and businesses are hurt .
Holocaust did not happen?
(the opinions expressed below are not my personal ones, they are merely examples, sorry in advance if they offend anyone)
Many readers who seem for deleting the article keep bringing up repeatedly the point that supposedly Western civilization
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
286
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
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
287
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
violence would be part of the response. — TheKMantalk 21:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, in Europe, carictures of anything is not expected to cause hostility or violence. Islam =
peace? No. Burning embassies, threatening to kill journalists, telling Londoners to expect another
July 7th... more peace please. Budgiekiller 21:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Provoking a response, but not hostility and violence. The hostility and violence of those who are
acting up is a blight on the face of a "peaceful religion". Kyaa the Catlord 21:33, 4 February 2006
(UTC)
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)
288
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
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
289
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
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)
290
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
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
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
291
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
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
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
292
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
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)~
Philosophical Question
293
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Gud bevare freespeech
Double Standards
Wow. Someone draws a cartoon offensive to Muslims and how does the Muslim world respond? Some with peaceful
protests, some with violence.
I am a gay man. Many muslim countries (including Saudi Arabia, home of Islam's holiest places) have laws on their books
prescribing exactly how I would be executed if I ever decided to visit one of these countries. That's a little more offensive
than a cartoon. But are gay men buring down Saudi Arabian embassies? No.
And you would dare to call us perverted, when you respond to insults with violence? Because love is perverted, but hate is
pure? Is that what's really sacred to you? Hatred?
It was distasteful to publish that cartoon. But the violent ones, the ones calling for blood, are even more disasteful. And the
fact that Western governments are actually intimidated by the bloodthirsty is even more disasteful. In my eyes, everyone has
acted inappropriately. The only ones who have been at all reasonable about this are the Muslims like al-Sistani and the
Jordanians, who have stated that violence is unacceptable as a response.
By the way, if you think being negatively caricatured in the papers is offensive, walk a mile in my shoes. I get hit in the face
with insults all day every day, just because of who I'm attracted to. I have no patience for people who are so thin skinned
and weak that they cannot endure a little criticism. One cartoon. ONE cartoon. Not even two cartoons. Just one page of line
drawings, paper and charcoal. That's what you're upset over? I'm upset because according to Sharia, you're supposed to
collapse a brick wall over me so the bricks will crush me to death. What the hell right do you have to complain about one
crappy cartoon?67.50.32.67
Beautifully said. 69.141.107.202 17:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Well put.--220.238.40.100 02:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Hehe... not to make light of your statements, which are all very valid. I just had this image of a whole bunch of
(stereotypical) gay guys burning down an embassy. WookMuff 05:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Now that's a funny image!! Valtam 18:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I personally know alot of gays in some Islamic countries including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Egypt and many others.
Radiant 07:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
294
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Yes, and how many of them are living in fear for their lives? 67.50.32.67
I understand it's pretty bad for gays in some of these countries. Our debate in the West is about gay marriage, while
the debate in some of these countries is over the proper way to execute gay people: hang them by the neck, throw
them off a building, or knock a wall over onto them... It's pretty scary... Valtam 18:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
The article is not about homosexuality. There was this teenager who told his parents he was gay, so they sent him to this
fundamentalist refuge, and he's still there being forced to believe that homosexuality is a mental disorder. I'm a vegetarian,
but I haven't been put in a fundamentalist refuge to be force-fed animal products every hour of the day.
{{Template:NazismIsntCool/sig}} 12:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it's funny that you say the article is not about homosexuality and then tell some random story about
homosexuality. Hmmm. This article is not about video games. There was this video game I was playing last night - it
was pretty cool! Valtam 16:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
There are double standards at work in this controversy. Why should it be illegal for me to use racial slurs in Denmark but
not portray cartoons of Islam as a violent religion? If these cartoons had been originally published in the US, there would
have been no perception of a double standard because, quite frankly, people are allowed to say or print whatever they want
to the extent that it is not intended to incite imminant lawless action. But there are only two fair options. Either eliminate all
potentially offensive speech and ideas from public discourse and force everyone to live silent lives or protect nobody from
the danger of ideas that are merely offensive, hateful, or insulting. I favor the latter. --Einhverfr 00:59, 10 February 2006
(UTC)
Here in the US, we rely on the Court of Public Opinion alot. That is to say, it's not illegal for you to make an ass out of
yourself. But it's not illegal for the rest of us to stand up and call you an ass, either. You could, as you suggest, use racist
slurs here. But if you do, I'm well within my rights to tell you to shut the fuck up. You won't go to jail for it, and I'm not
forced to like you or help you or do anything for you either. BTW, what do these cartoons have to do with racism? Islam is a
faith practiced by people of different racial backgrounds, so to slam it is not to slam a particular race. That's like calling a
person who is anti-christian a racist.--Anonymous
Exactly why these stupid anti-hate speech laws should be repealled. There is nothing worse for hateful ideas than to
be tried in the court of public opinion. By the way, look up Brandenburg v. Ohio sometime and read footnote 1 in the
Majority Opinion to see just how far this protection goes. Alas such protection is not as substantive in Europe.
295
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
--206.130.134.147 07:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Headline text
My personal view: The controversy in a nutshell
Danes will not apologize for insulting a few terrorists, and muslims will not accept that the 12 cartoons where only an
intended as an insult to terrorists. DanielDemaret 23:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it's more. Many Danes will not apologize for insulting a few terrorists and exercising their rights to free speech
while some Danes are happy that some free speech advocates are now supporting their bigotry instead of criticizing it
like liberals usually do. Many Muslims take the support of any Dane as an insult to Islam while only a small number
mean that and don't realize that a bigger number are just trying to insult violent elements of Islam or supporting free
speech. All in all viewing it from these different angles is not helping.
But, we should only be discussing the article on this talk page. If you want to discuss this a little more feel free to on
my talk page or on any other user's. gren ??? ? 23:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Rumours of Koran-burnings in Copenhagen started the riots in Damascus
Can we find place for the story that an Imam living in Denmark told an arab news channel that the danes would burn the
Koran in Copenhagen Saturday. Noone eventually did, but the rumours seem to have been spread all over Middle East.
Rasmus (danish Not User) 02:49 February 6th (UTC)
I believe it is not substantiated that it was in fact an Imam who started the rumour. As far as I'm aware it was a rumour
carried by SMS throughout the Middle East. Only Odin knows who started it. Wiki be With us! WanderingWiki
05:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Culture Shock
296
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
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)
A French point of view
I'm sorry to speak here in English on Wikipedia (how do you pronounce this in arabic?). I'm French and i don't understand
the needless radicalism of some people i saw on TV.
France-soir is a very bad paper ! This paper is really worst, they search money and celebrity with idiot provocation... I
didn't forget that they were near the bankruptcy two months ago !
France-soir is a paper writed by bastards for bastards, but this DOESNT'T MEAN that French people are bastards too !
So, if someone can tell me - if possible in English, i don't understand arabic (yet - i hope) - what is is sense of these French
flags' conflagrations (i have never seen this in my life!) ?
(Systran automatic translator) ... French Lady
Sorry Lady ... I think this Issue has too many sides and sticking to one or two factors is hard to explain it , firstly i wanna
297
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
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)
298
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
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)
The end is nigh! When whites and muslims all kill each other, zionism will
rule.
This is the beginning of WW III, a war of civilizations. In the end the western civilation or the entire globe will be
destroyed. The arrogance of the whites will destroy all their wealth in return. The west has given a great excuse to UBL to
erase entire infidel cities.
Sorrowfully all big budget press and media around the western world is run by jews, who are controlled from Tel-Aviv.
299
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
They want the west to do the dirty job of eliminating all muslims and arabs, so they incite hatred between whites and arabs
by manipulating white's fear and sense of supremacy. We are all puppets in the hands of zionism. In the end when the
carnage of WW III ends, the learned elders will be the undisputed leaders of the remaining planet and nobody will have
rights except jews. This is the greatest conspiracy of history. 213.178.101.38 14:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
China Lotsofissues 14:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
That is just anti-semitism (I'm not jewish by the way) User:slamdac 15.13, 5 February 2006
"all big budget press and media around the western world is run by jews" ? "who are controlled from Tel-Aviv" ???
Rama 15:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Where is the evidence to back this up? User:slamdac 15.23, 5 February
Since when does a Conspiracy theorist need e v i d e n c e.Weregerbil 15:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
None of this thread is relevant to the article. Let it just fizzle out now. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 15:54, 5
February 2006 (UTC)
The sad thing is, this sort of insanity may become relevant to the article. Back when 9/11 happened, like much of the rest of
North America, I had to go overnight from not really taking terrorist groups seriously to realising that at some point we'd
have to deal with them. So, I started reading up on them. The foreign terrorist groups really weren't too interesting, primarily
because most of them were focused on issues specific to geographic locales nowhere near the US or any other country I was
really interested in (e.g., the IRA, ETA, Shining Path, Tamil Tigers). Let's face it, I'm North American, and unless it's a real
threat to North America, I'm not too worried about it. But, I discovered, quite to my surprise, that there were (and are) an
astonishing number of domestic terrorist groups (cf: the Christian Identity movement, The Order, World Church of the
Creator). What really shook me was the fact that at least one of the american neo-nazi groups has recieved rave reviews in
Iran. The main reason? Anti-semitism. Now, think about what the President of Iran has been screaming about Israel lately.
Getting worried yet? I am. Fact is, domestic terror outfits are more of a threat to America than any foreign group. Al-Quaeda
managed to hit two buildings on one day, but haven't managed to get any other attacks off inside the United States itself. If
you access the Southern Poverty Law Center's website and look at what the domestic groups have done, you'll see they have
caused much more damage over a longer period of time. And if you're distressed over the WTC's dramatic collapse, visit the
monument to the Oklahoma City bombing sometime. It took all of Bin Laden's money and thousands of fanatical followers
300
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
to bring down the WTC. It took two guys and a rental truck full of fertilizer to destroy the Alfred P. Murrah Federal
Building. It's time the US Government got serious about cracking down on domestic terror groups. Hate groups like the
neo-nazis cannot be tolerated in our society any more than Al-Quaeda can. As far as I am concerned, such domestic groups
should be counted as agencies giving aid and comfort to foreign enemies such as Iran's psychopathic government.
1. Millions of muslims are white--220.238.40.100 02:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Zionism is bad--220.238.40.100 02:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
3. And... so is censorship--220.238.40.100 02:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Entartete Kunst
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
301
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
the Way Things Are. They are today's Entartete Kunst. In a world where the free expression of ideas has become
increasingly regarded as sacred, such art is expressed more freely. The message contained within the cartoons is
abominable. But the fact that they exist is not. In fact, the existence of art that challenges the mind is a thing to be
celebrated, not reviled. Art is dangerous. But without dangerous art, there is no freedom of thought.
Here will be no Sharia!
We Europeans refuse to submit under Sharia law. This is OUR land, Europe, and we are Europeans. Arabia is YOUR land,
Arabs, and you have any rights to set up any laws there accepted by you. You may introduce censorship, medieval
inquisition or even jungle's law in YOUR home. But here you are GUESTS, and we are HOSTS. We have Constitution here,
not Sharia. Our laws do forbid "honour killings" and allows freedom of speech, including the right to criticize a religion.
Here is Europe religions take a strictly determined place in the society, and not more. If any religion refuses to accept this, if
it proclaims itself "more tham a religion", then it must be put out of religion protection, and treated as a regular political
ideology, UNDERSTAND?
I don't think "honour killing" need be mentioned here, as it is a barbaric tribal custom which has nothing to do with
Sharia. GCarty 20:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
(See: honour killing)--Greasysteve13 04:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Depiction
Several postmodern satirists have highlighted the point that -- since no one really knows what Mohammed looked like -- any
image could be said to depict him. To that end, they have captioned photos of their thumbs or rudimentary stick figures as
"Mohammed."
What if Muhammad actually looked like a set of floating letters that looked like M U H A M M A D or ) ? 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
302
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
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)
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.
303
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
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
304
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
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) .
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.
305
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Certainly, any culture has a right to defend itself against insults, but when "Piss Christ" was produced, all I remember
was a controversy about whether taxpayer dollars should be funding such art. I don't recall, say, the Vatican asking the
American government to apologize for having allowed such a thing to be created. I don't recall that artist having to
fear for his life, certainly not to the extent of it becoming an international crisis. Now these cartoons appear to insult
Islamic beliefs about as much as "Piss Christ" insulted Christian beliefs, (as far as I can see), but the response has
been much bigger and much more angry. So why is that? Does the Muslim community react to insults more violently
than other cultures? (Can such a question even be answered in a fair way?)
Well, it does warrant consideration, if nothing else. What exactly does the Muslim community intend to do to reverse
this image of violence and terrorism?
Burning embassies over political cartoons?
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
306
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
entities that have loudly claimed they are atheistic have established personality cults that function as de facto religions.To
refer to the two concepts as distinct is like concieving of the mind as a separate entity from the body. All's well and good
until you study the brain, and then it gets fuzzy, doesn't it?67.50.32.67
Haha, Pwnd! YHBT!
I'm not Islamic, but I don't think the cartoons should've been published. If the Muslims are going to burn down diplomatic
buildings over a few cartoons, a good way to keep them quiet is to wrap some pork in a Danish flag and send it to a mosque.
{{Template:NazismIsntCool/sig}} 13:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC) PS: Don't do it unless you want a fatwa issued against
you.
Hypocrisy
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
307
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
this place would be like if we all gave in to our more 'base' instincts. Robovski 06:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
How do you know, that it is perfectly legal in Europe? It's not legal to show cartoons with anti-semitic content in
germany and austria at least. And it's not legal to discriminate people because of their religion. Raphael Feb 09 2006
It's time to talk
Different civilizations are facing each other, violence and insaulting are increasing step by step. After the publishing of the
muhammad cartoons in several newspapers and after torching embassies and General Consulates in Damaskus and Beirut it
is time to stop and to start thinking.
Many people have to learn a lot more about different religions and about different societies and their values. If we
understand more of each other and if we start talking seriously to each other we can reach a peaceful living whith each
other. Maybe that's the only way.
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
308
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
page these chats will be moved to the "Arguments" sub-page. Thanks! Weregerbil 18:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry, I already understand more than enough about Islamic culture to know comprimise is not actually an
option and that it is unnaceptable. Homestarmy 20:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Differences or similarities
First of all, I denounce the cartoon as racist. I agree with the other cartoon in the main article saying if the target were
Blacks or Jews, there would be a different argument regarding free speech. I'm all for free speech if it doesn't incite hatred.
It seems to me that the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons do incite that kind of hatred and we should take a stance
against it.
--Ian.desouza 20:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
being islamic does not make you a specific race, so the cartoons are hardly racist, they might be depicted as anti religious, or
islamic, but nothing about it has to deal with race. they are a satire that in my opinion many middle easterners have blown
out 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.
309
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
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!
310
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
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.
Image:Aaaaaa.jpg
Interesting viewpoint from Australia
Only one paper has published the images so far but there is a debate on whether or not they should be. An Islamic leader in
Melbourne has requested the Australian media to not publish them. Here is a quote from a journalist in the Sydney Morning
Herald which I think sums up the pro argument rather well:
"I accept that to the genuine believer, there can only be one truth and in a pluralist democracy you must be free to proclaim
it and to seek willing converts. But others must be free to debate and even disparage your beliefs.
It is simply not enough to declare your faith to be holy and inviolate and therefore off limits to criticism, however puerile
the criticism might be. Anyway, if your beliefs are firmly and sincerely held, and if they are a divine revelation from God,
surely they will not be shaken by a cartoon? And God will certainly not need protection from those you consider infidels."1
SilentC 22:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Western civilization rocks
I think it is fairly obvious that the western civilizations are superior to those in the Middle East. simple fact: We have
freedom of speech and freeedom of the press and they stone people. They stone married women who are raped.
Well, as a whole, they are superior in creating mass hate propaganda, superior in recruiting people to extreme
311
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
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)
It's Time to Come Up With a New Cliche
So far, there's been two "It's Time to Talk" posts and one "It's Time to Reconsider" post. Yaaawwwwnnn. So boring. Let's
come up with a new title, okay? Something more original, and less cliche.
It's Time To Reconsider
It's time to reconsider. The proposition is for Wikipedia to permanently archive the Muhammad cartoons and make them
freely distributable in perpetuity. I beg you to reconsider this. Please don't put Wikipedians in harm's way, the way Denmark
put Danes in harm's way. The Danes are getting royally spanked for being associated with Jyllands-Posten, who timed their
publication of these cartoons with the first day of Ramadan. Now the Danes are unable to do anything about their burned
down buildings except solicit letters of sympathy from other countries. They don't dare wear their own flag now on their
military uniforms. And nobody can adequately shield them from more consequences to come. Why put Wikipedia through
the same stress? Instead of claiming freedom of the press and rubbing people's noses in it, why not say we are not showing
the cartoons out of respect for Islam? What's not to love? 12.16.126.34 21:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
312
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
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
313
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
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
314
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
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)
315
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
Will somebody please move this to "Arguments" where it belongs?--Jbull 21:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Islamofascism? Not a race
so why are we even entertaining the propagandist view that some how anti-terrorist cartoons qualify as "rascism"Call me
ishal dummy 23:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, ishal dummy, "we" don't. Some people just can't keep their cool or have some reason to try to fan the flames.
Ignore them, or at most politely ask them to be civil if they persist. (That "ishal dummy" is a joke of course, it's so
obvious someone has to say it so let's get it out of the way :-) Weregerbil 00:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Primarily because the majority portion of the modern civilized world acknowledges that racism is moral evil. Label
something as racist, and you are basically saying that it is evil. It's similair to the way people compare people they dislike to
Hitler. Hitler is acknowledged practically everywhere as evil; therefore, call anyone you think is evil Hitler. Doing this has
it's disadvantages, which are often unfortunately overlooked. Just as comparing anyone you don't like to the nazis
diminishes the horror of what the nazis did (think about it. Your boss may indeed be a tyrannical dickhead. But she hasn't
killed 7 million people. She's not a fucking nazi.) by equating whatever petty grievance you have to the holocaust,
comparing a cartoon which makes political commentary on the recent behaviour of a group of religious fundamentalists (did
the political cartoons regarding the Branch Davidians or Jonestown strike you as racist?) to racism, you are equating
something you dislike to something horrible. In attempting to make the thing you dislike seem horrible, you merely succeed
in making the horrible seem merely disagreeable.
This controversy is controversial!
This is ridiculous. If non-Muslims are also required not to disgrace Islamic traditions then technically every signal Woman
in the world should adhere to the Hijab, and we’ve have no pornography.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by
greasysteve13 (talk • contribs) .
Articles here are biased - need more balanced approach please
There are far more non-Muslim internet users in the world than Muslim ones (the former having pluntered the latter over
316
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
hundreds of years of colonialism and post-colonialism and having superior technology). The articles here are biased in
favour or secularism. I would urge everybody to read Nadeem Azam's article How the West is Killing Voltaire.
No--Greasysteve13 04:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
A suggestion of basic principles, for these pages, and others
The issues surrounding free speech and censorship have been debated for centuries, although mainly in societies in which
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
317
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
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
318
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
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)
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)
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
319
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
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
320
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
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
321
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
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
322
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
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
323
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
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.
324
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
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.
325
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
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)
326
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
GNU Free Documentation License
Version 1.2, November 2002
Copyright (C) 2000,2001,2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
0. PREAMBLE
The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other functional and useful document "free" in the sense of
freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either
commercially or noncommercially. Secondarily, this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for
their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others.
This License is a kind of "copyleft", which means that derivative works of the document must themselves be free in the
same sense. It complements the GNU General Public License, which is a copyleft license designed for free software.
We have designed this License in order to use it for manuals for free software, because free software needs free
documentation: a free program should come with manuals providing the same freedoms that the software does. But this
License is not limited to software manuals; it can be used for any textual work, regardless of subject matter or whether it is
published as a printed book. We recommend this License principally for works whose purpose is instruction or reference.
1. APPLICABILITY AND DEFINITIONS
This License applies to any manual or other work, in any medium, that contains a notice placed by the copyright holder
saying it can be distributed under the terms of this License. Such a notice grants a world-wide, royalty-free license,
unlimited in duration, to use that work under the conditions stated herein. The "Document", below, refers to any such
manual or work. Any member of the public is a licensee, and is addressed as "you". You accept the license if you copy,
modify or distribute the work in a way requiring permission under copyright law.
A "Modified Version" of the Document means any work containing the Document or a portion of it, either copied verbatim,
or with modifications and/or translated into another language.
327
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
A "Secondary Section" is a named appendix or a front-matter section of the Document that deals exclusively with the
relationship of the publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall subject (or to related matters) and
contains nothing that could fall directly within that overall subject. (Thus, if the Document is in part a textbook of
mathematics, a Secondary Section may not explain any mathematics.) The relationship could be a matter of historical
connection with the subject or with related matters, or of legal, commercial, philosophical, ethical or political position
regarding them.
The "Invariant Sections" are certain Secondary Sections whose titles are designated, as being those of Invariant Sections, in
the notice that says that the Document is released under this License. If a section does not fit the above definition of
Secondary then it is not allowed to be designated as Invariant. The Document may contain zero Invariant Sections. If the
Document does not identify any Invariant Sections then there are none.
The "Cover Texts" are certain short passages of text that are listed, as Front-Cover Texts or Back-Cover Texts, in the notice
that says that the Document is released under this License. A Front-Cover Text may be at most 5 words, and a Back-Cover
Text may be at most 25 words.
A "Transparent" copy of the Document means a machine-readable copy, represented in a format whose specification is
available to the general public, that is suitable for revising the document straightforwardly with generic text editors or (for
images composed of pixels) generic paint programs or (for drawings) some widely available drawing editor, and that is
suitable for input to text formatters or for automatic translation to a variety of formats suitable for input to text formatters. A
copy made in an otherwise Transparent file format whose markup, or absence of markup, has been arranged to thwart or
discourage subsequent modification by readers is not Transparent. An image format is not Transparent if used for any
substantial amount of text. A copy that is not "Transparent" is called "Opaque".
Examples of suitable formats for Transparent copies include plain ASCII without markup, Texinfo input format, LaTeX
input format, SGML or XML using a publicly available DTD, and standard-conforming simple HTML, PostScript or PDF
designed for human modification. Examples of transparent image formats include PNG, XCF and JPG. Opaque formats
include proprietary formats that can be read and edited only by proprietary word processors, SGML or XML for which the
DTD and/or processing tools are not generally available, and the machine-generated HTML, PostScript or PDF produced by
some word processors for output purposes only.
The "Title Page" means, for a printed book, the title page itself, plus such following pages as are needed to hold, legibly, the
material this License requires to appear in the title page. For works in formats which do not have any title page as such,
"Title Page" means the text near the most prominent appearance of the work's title, preceding the beginning of the body of
328
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
the text.
A section "Entitled XYZ" means a named subunit of the Document whose title either is precisely XYZ or contains XYZ in
parentheses following text that translates XYZ in another language. (Here XYZ stands for a specific section name
mentioned below, such as "Acknowledgements", "Dedications", "Endorsements", or "History".) To "Preserve the Title" of
such a section when you modify the Document means that it remains a section "Entitled XYZ" according to this definition.
The Document may include Warranty Disclaimers next to the notice which states that this License applies to the Document.
These Warranty Disclaimers are considered to be included by reference in this License, but only as regards disclaiming
warranties: any other implication that these Warranty Disclaimers may have is void and has no effect on the meaning of this
License.
2. VERBATIM COPYING
You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this
License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all
copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License. You may not use technical measures to
obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. However, you may accept
compensation in exchange for copies. If you distribute a large enough number of copies you must also follow the conditions
in section 3.
You may also lend copies, under the same conditions stated above, and you may publicly display copies.
3. COPYING IN QUANTITY
If you publish printed copies (or copies in media that commonly have printed covers) of the Document, numbering more
than 100, and the Document's license notice requires Cover Texts, you must enclose the copies in covers that carry, clearly
and legibly, all these Cover Texts: Front-Cover Texts on the front cover, and Back-Cover Texts on the back cover. Both
covers must also clearly and legibly identify you as the publisher of these copies. The front cover must present the full title
with all words of the title equally prominent and visible. You may add other material on the covers in addition. Copying
with changes limited to the covers, as long as they preserve the title of the Document and satisfy these conditions, can be
treated as verbatim copying in other respects.
If the required texts for either cover are too voluminous to fit legibly, you should put the first ones listed (as many as fit
329
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
reasonably) on the actual cover, and continue the rest onto adjacent pages.
If you publish or distribute Opaque copies of the Document numbering more than 100, you must either include a
machine-readable Transparent copy along with each Opaque copy, or state in or with each Opaque copy a
computer-network location from which the general network-using public has access to download using public-standard
network protocols a complete Transparent copy of the Document, free of added material. If you use the latter option, you
must take reasonably prudent steps, when you begin distribution of Opaque copies in quantity, to ensure that this
Transparent copy will remain thus accessible at the stated location until at least one year after the last time you distribute an
Opaque copy (directly or through your agents or retailers) of that edition to the public.
It is requested, but not required, that you contact the authors of the Document well before redistributing any large number of
copies, to give them a chance to provide you with an updated version of the Document.
4. MODIFICATIONS
You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document under the conditions of sections 2 and 3 above, provided
that you release the Modified Version under precisely this License, with the Modified Version filling the role of the
Document, thus licensing distribution and modification of the Modified Version to whoever possesses a copy of it. In
addition, you must do these things in the Modified Version:
A. Use in the Title Page (and on the covers, if any) a title distinct from that of the Document, and from those of
previous versions (which should, if there were any, be listed in the History section of the Document). You may use
the same title as a previous version if the original publisher of that version gives permission.
B. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in
the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors,
if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement.
C. State on the Title page the name of the publisher of the Modified Version, as the publisher.
D. Preserve all the copyright notices of the Document.
E. Add an appropriate copyright notice for your modifications adjacent to the other copyright notices.
F. Include, immediately after the copyright notices, a license notice giving the public permission to use the Modified
Version under the terms of this License, in the form shown in the Addendum below.
G. Preserve in that license notice the full lists of Invariant Sections and required Cover Texts given in the Document's
license notice.
H. Include an unaltered copy of this License.
330
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
I. Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new
authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. If there is no section Entitled "History" in
the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page,
then add an item describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence.
J. Preserve the network location, if any, given in the Document for public access to a Transparent copy of the
Document, and likewise the network locations given in the Document for previous versions it was based on. These
may be placed in the "History" section. You may omit a network location for a work that was published at least four
years before the Document itself, or if the original publisher of the version it refers to gives permission.
K. For any section Entitled "Acknowledgements" or "Dedications", Preserve the Title of the section, and preserve in
the section all the substance and tone of each of the contributor acknowledgements and/or dedications given therein.
L. Preserve all the Invariant Sections of the Document, unaltered in their text and in their titles. Section numbers or
the equivalent are not considered part of the section titles.
M. Delete any section Entitled "Endorsements". Such a section may not be included in the Modified Version.
N. Do not retitle any existing section to be Entitled "Endorsements" or to conflict in title with any Invariant Section.
O. Preserve any Warranty Disclaimers.
If the Modified Version includes new front-matter sections or appendices that qualify as Secondary Sections and contain no
material copied from the Document, you may at your option designate some or all of these sections as invariant. To do this,
add their titles to the list of Invariant Sections in the Modified Version's license notice. These titles must be distinct from
any other section titles.
You may add a section Entitled "Endorsements", provided it contains nothing but endorsements of your Modified Version
by various parties--for example, statements of peer review or that the text has been approved by an organization as the
authoritative definition of a standard.
You may add a passage of up to five words as a Front-Cover Text, and a passage of up to 25 words as a Back-Cover Text, to
the end of the list of Cover Texts in the Modified Version. Only one passage of Front-Cover Text and one of Back-Cover
Text may be added by (or through arrangements made by) any one entity. If the Document already includes a cover text for
the same cover, previously added by you or by arrangement made by the same entity you are acting on behalf of, you may
not add another; but you may replace the old one, on explicit permission from the previous publisher that added the old one.
The author(s) and publisher(s) of the Document do not by this License give permission to use their names for publicity for
or to assert or imply endorsement of any Modified Version.
331
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
5. COMBINING DOCUMENTS
You may combine the Document with other documents released under this License, under the terms defined in section 4
above for modified versions, provided that you include in the combination all of the Invariant Sections of all of the original
documents, unmodified, and list them all as Invariant Sections of your combined work in its license notice, and that you
preserve all their Warranty Disclaimers.
The combined work need only contain one copy of this License, and multiple identical Invariant Sections may be replaced
with a single copy. If there are multiple Invariant Sections with the same name but different contents, make the title of each
such section unique by adding at the end of it, in parentheses, the name of the original author or publisher of that section if
known, or else a unique number. Make the same adjustment to the section titles in the list of Invariant Sections in the license
notice of the combined work.
In the combination, you must combine any sections Entitled "History" in the various original documents, forming one
section Entitled "History"; likewise combine any sections Entitled "Acknowledgements", and any sections Entitled
"Dedications". You must delete all sections Entitled "Endorsements."
6. COLLECTIONS OF DOCUMENTS
You may make a collection consisting of the Document and other documents released under this License, and replace the
individual copies of this License in the various documents with a single copy that is included in the collection, provided that
you follow the rules of this License for verbatim copying of each of the documents in all other respects.
You may extract a single document from such a collection, and distribute it individually under this License, provided you
insert a copy of this License into the extracted document, and follow this License in all other respects regarding verbatim
copying of that document.
7. AGGREGATION WITH INDEPENDENT WORKS
A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate and independent documents or works, in or on a
volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the copyright resulting from the compilation is not
used to limit the legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. When the Document is
included in an aggregate, this License does not apply to the other works in the aggregate which are not themselves
derivative works of the Document.
332
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
If the Cover Text requirement of section 3 is applicable to these copies of the Document, then if the Document is less than
one half of the entire aggregate, the Document's Cover Texts may be placed on covers that bracket the Document within the
aggregate, or the electronic equivalent of covers if the Document is in electronic form. Otherwise they must appear on
printed covers that bracket the whole aggregate.
8. TRANSLATION
Translation is considered a kind of modification, so you may distribute translations of the Document under the terms of
section 4. Replacing Invariant Sections with translations requires special permission from their copyright holders, but you
may include translations of some or all Invariant Sections in addition to the original versions of these Invariant Sections.
You may include a translation of this License, and all the license notices in the Document, and any Warranty Disclaimers,
provided that you also include the original English version of this License and the original versions of those notices and
disclaimers. In case of a disagreement between the translation and the original version of this License or a notice or
disclaimer, the original version will prevail.
If a section in the Document is Entitled "Acknowledgements", "Dedications", or "History", the requirement (section 4) to
Preserve its Title (section 1) will typically require changing the actual title.
9. TERMINATION
You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Document except as expressly provided for under this License. Any
other attempt to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Document is void, and will automatically terminate your rights
under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their
licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
10. FUTURE REVISIONS OF THIS LICENSE
The Free Software Foundation may publish new, revised versions of the GNU Free Documentation License from time to
time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or
concerns. See http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/.
Each version of the License is given a distinguishing version number. If the Document specifies that a particular numbered
version of this License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either
of that specified version or of any later version that has been published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation. If
333
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
the Document does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published (not as a draft)
by the Free Software Foundation.
How to use this License for your documents
To use this License in a document you have written, include a copy of the License in the document and put the following
copyright and license notices just after the title page:
Copyright (c) YEAR YOUR NAME.
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover
Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
Free Documentation License".
If you have Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts and Back-Cover Texts, replace the "with...Texts." line with this:
with the Invariant Sections being LIST THEIR TITLES, with the
Front-Cover Texts being LIST, and with the Back-Cover Texts being LIST.
If you have Invariant Sections without Cover Texts, or some other combination of the three, merge those two alternatives to
suit the situation.
If your document contains nontrivial examples of program code, we recommend releasing these examples in parallel under
your choice of free software license, such as the GNU General Public License, to permit their use in free software.
Wikipedia Source Pages
Update 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reactions_to_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Archive_11
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Archive_12a
334
Iraq Museum International: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Archive_12b
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments
(End of Volume 3)
335