This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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?! -- Cyde Weys 19:04, 6 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. -- Cyde Weys 19:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
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
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.
Images_of_Jesus#Scientific_reconstructions_of_Jesus.27_appearance
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.
I personally am not religious but think the following are very good articles (historically and otherwise).
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) .
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)
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)
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'.
p.s. excellent article, though.
198.54.202.18 22:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
What exactly qualifies me as "troll"?! Dmaftei 01:11, 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)
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)
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
Should this be incorporated to the article? CJK 02:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
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 (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.
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 tables above.
How about highlighting any newspaper with a circulation over 250,000? Lotsofissues 12:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
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
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 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. AlE X 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)
We are trying to find the name of the Brazilian newspaper that published the cartoons. I've looked through the databases, 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)
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)
Is there a Cliff's notes version? I've been away for a bit. Any new polls? -- JGGardiner 06:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
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 is in the middle of the Hariri investigation. Has anybody heard this too, and should it be mentioned? -- Nomen Nescio 07:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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. -- Ter e nc e Ong ( 恭喜发财) 13:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
Maybe it is. However, radio Holger had its license to send suspended for 3 months, following some hateful transmissions. I 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)
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)
Does anyone have the skills to draw a map of:
Reading long lists is quite cumbersome, it's much nicer to look at a picture :)
Rajab 11:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
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...
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)
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)
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)
If it was not intended to be Muhammad , then nothing from these problems should happen . -- Chaos 13:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
I think this should be included [4] -- Chaos 13:41, 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)
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 "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)
It was definitely not a *competition* as such 86.139.217.222 15:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
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.
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
(ᛏ) 16:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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 until Iran newspaper prints off the Holocaust competition cartoons...then we will test the double standards of 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).
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)
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 guts to send it in, but someone else might have :-).
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)
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)
What is the problem with providing references to those calling for anti-boycotts in the introduction?
Netscott 18:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the following from the page as it does not give adequate sources.--Fil e 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 Islam citation needed and that the 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).
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.
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??
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)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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?! -- Cyde Weys 19:04, 6 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. -- Cyde Weys 19:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
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
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.
Images_of_Jesus#Scientific_reconstructions_of_Jesus.27_appearance
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.
I personally am not religious but think the following are very good articles (historically and otherwise).
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) .
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)
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)
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'.
p.s. excellent article, though.
198.54.202.18 22:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
What exactly qualifies me as "troll"?! Dmaftei 01:11, 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)
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)
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
Should this be incorporated to the article? CJK 02:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Ordered Alphabetically by Country
|
Ordered Chronologically
|
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 (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.
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 tables above.
How about highlighting any newspaper with a circulation over 250,000? Lotsofissues 12:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
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
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 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. AlE X 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)
We are trying to find the name of the Brazilian newspaper that published the cartoons. I've looked through the databases, 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)
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)
Is there a Cliff's notes version? I've been away for a bit. Any new polls? -- JGGardiner 06:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
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 is in the middle of the Hariri investigation. Has anybody heard this too, and should it be mentioned? -- Nomen Nescio 07:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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. -- Ter e nc e Ong ( 恭喜发财) 13:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
Maybe it is. However, radio Holger had its license to send suspended for 3 months, following some hateful transmissions. I 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)
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)
Does anyone have the skills to draw a map of:
Reading long lists is quite cumbersome, it's much nicer to look at a picture :)
Rajab 11:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
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...
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)
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)
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)
If it was not intended to be Muhammad , then nothing from these problems should happen . -- Chaos 13:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
I think this should be included [4] -- Chaos 13:41, 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)
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 "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)
It was definitely not a *competition* as such 86.139.217.222 15:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
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.
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
(ᛏ) 16:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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 until Iran newspaper prints off the Holocaust competition cartoons...then we will test the double standards of 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).
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)
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 guts to send it in, but someone else might have :-).
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)
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)
What is the problem with providing references to those calling for anti-boycotts in the introduction?
Netscott 18:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the following from the page as it does not give adequate sources.--Fil e 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 Islam citation needed and that the 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).
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.
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??
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)