Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Jimbo's blanking

• I've restored solely the portions of the discussion prior to Jimbo's blanking that talk about writing an encyclopaedia article (pointers to sources, fact checking, wording and corrections, rendering the NPOV, and so forth). Uncle G 12:57, 1 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)

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum

we really need to quit this argument. We're not a discussion forum, we're an encyclopedia. What any of us thinks is absolutely irrelevant here. - 211.28.79.52 11:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Not a discussion forum? The Tab Heading "discussion" at the top fooled me. DanielDemaret 13:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Uncle G 12:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

---

• This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons article. I suggest go to your local mosque or an Islamic discussion board if you want a Muslim's answer to your questions. --Malthusian (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Danish PM

The Danish Prime Minister has now commented on the issue (http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/article.php?id=3564679 [dk]), so I removed that paragraph. Only the first part of it was documentable anyway, the rest was speculations.

Muhammad paintings in historic perspective

Well my main source for that paragraph was my religion teacher who showed us painting from Shi'a muslim books, but I can't remember the names of the books. I've tried to search the web and found some pages containing pictures of the Prophet Muhammad:

• Other pictures of Muhammad
• Pictures at Commons

I'll try to look up some more sources through the weekend...

Snailwalker 12:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The name of the article

I think the name of the article should be something more specific. --128.214.205.4 08:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, where exactly does "Muhammad Drawings" come from? Is this a translation of some term from the Danish media? Perhaps we could go with something more precise, like Jyllands-Posten Muhammad caricatures.--Pharos 23:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Directly translated from Danish they're called Muhammad Drawings --Snailwalker | talk 23:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I note that Unfinishedchaos has moved the article to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad caricatures. I don't think that is a good name. I realize the intro calls the drawings for caricatures, but that isn't really what they are. Properly speaking they are all drawn in the style of an editorial cartoon. In English media they are usually referred to as the Muhammed drawings so I would prefer Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings (or simply Muhammad drawings since there is nothing to disambiguate from). Rasmus (talk) 10:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, google search: caricatures - 10,700 hits, drawings - 12,800 hits. Jacoplane 11:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

But if we are talking about the name of the controversy we should search: caricatures - 4 hits, drawings - 75, cartoons - 236. Not much to go on there, but since they really aren't caricatures (From caricature: A caricature is a humorous illustration that exaggerates or distorts the basic essence of a person or thing to create an easily identifiable visual likeness), I would argue that those that call them "Muhammad caricatures" are misrepresenting them. Rasmus (talk) 11:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Not much response. Can I take it that noone will complain if I move the page to "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons"? Rasmus (talk) 12:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

ICJ

"The case is now being brought to the International Court of Justice."

What case? What is the specific violation of international law that would be basis for a case before the ICJ and who would bring it? I'm removing this, probably just a part of this campaign of misinformation against Denmark. --Bjarki 12:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Opinions in Denmark

I live in denmark, and first off I'd say it's hard to say that there is such a thing as a "General Oppinion" to be found among the public concerning this subject. I think that statement should be reconsidered.

Secondly, there is evidence that the online poll from Epinion for DR was manipulated, probably by muslims, but I won't draw any too fast conclusions. They received 20,000 votes between a saturday night to the next sunday morning, which is something never experienced before. Such a great number of votes online is highly unlikely, considering that the danish population count is below 5.5 millions.

That was another poll DR (Danish national broadcast) initated on their website, but that they cancelled due to manipulations [1] Bertilvidet 16:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

At last, I just read in a danish newspaper that both the danish prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen along with Jyllands-Posten apologized for the drawings. --Akuen 16:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting newspaper, none of the big ones have that news. I would suggest you to get another paper Bertilvidet 16:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I read that Anders Fogh Rasmussen apologized to the Afganistan president, the article came along with a picture of them both, and I saw the same thing in the TV2 news just minutes ago. Jyllands-Posten are apologizing to everyone offended through an open letter. Here's the Arabian version: http://www1.jp.dk/indland/doku/jp_brev_mo.pdf and here's the danish version: http://www.jp.dk/meninger/artikel:aid=3523372/ I'm going to translate the letter from danish into english, and post it on here. --Akuen 18:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Akuen, that will be really good if you translate the letter from Jyllands-Posten to English to document their position. However, they do not apologize the drawing - but basically say that they have been misinterpreted. Bertilvidet 19:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - I'm translating it right now. They do say that they regret it and they're sorry about it. I interpret that as an apology, but perhaps I am mistaken. --Akuen 19:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I have translated the open letter from Jyllands-Posten, and I am going to post it in the article. I just discovered that a new open letter has been released by Jyllands-Posten on their website, but I'll translate that at a later time.

--

Hi there, I'm not familiar with updating and/or commenting, but just wanted to point out that the Danish prime minister has commented on the drawings on several occasions since they were released. He hasn't argued elaborately, but it's not true to state that he hasn't commented on the topic at all. [User: I don't really know how to upload this] --

Weekend-avisen

Can anyone confirm that they showed 10 more drawings? --Snailwalker | talk 23:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there a link to the 10 pictures from WekendAvisen? ~~

Just put in the links to later article on the issue (Cloud02 13:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC))

The report put together by the islamic delegation contained copies of this article (as well as some much more offensive pictures of unknown origin). Ekstra Bladet's article here includes a copy of the report. The part about Weekend-avisen starts here. If anyone can read arabic, I would be very interested in a translation/summary of the latter parts of the report, btw. Rasmus (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Timeline

To me it sounds like there is some redundancy in saying "personally distances himself" — is this the right way to express it?

BBC disinformation

Ignoring the busted link for the moment, I can't find anything resembling the pictures mentioned here on BBC Online News, although they have given the story plenty of coverage. Should this heading be amended at least? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.8.165.18 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-31 01:29:07 UTC.

• I've looked for a BBC News article on this subject dated 2006-01-30, as the text claimed, and cannot find one. The BBC has articles dated 2006-01-31 and 2006-01-29, but none in between. I've therefore removed mention of the BBC from the rumours section. Uncle G 15:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Apparently it was in a BBC World tv-news report. Here is one source [2] (in Danish, I am afraid). Rasmus (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Put it back in please. And the danish source is a valid source. It was not an article, but aired in television. A human 16:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No-one said that the Danish source wasn't a valid source, or even remarked upon it at all. I and 210.8.165.18 said that we couldn't find the source implied by the text, which was supposedly a BBC News article, not a Danish source. I see that you put the old erroneous text back in yourself. You didn't read what Rasmus Faber wrote above. Uncle G 18:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed

The following section was removed for being a personal POV rant.

In Denmark church, media and governement are seperated. There are a constitutional freedom of speech. Denmark is a little country with a very high percentage of immigrants from Africa and the Middle East, like Danes they all enjoy the extensive benefits from the welfare system such as financial aid, free education, free helathcare and they enjoy the same constitutional rights as ethnic Danes.

The fact that immigrants, especially from the islamic world, are highly represented in crime statistics along with a highly visible minority of fundamentalists who condem the Danish set of values and the benefits the country provide, are causing a tense atmosphe between Danes and immigrants. Generally the Danes are both generous and full of hospitality, but they are also a proud people with a long history and tradition. Danes expects respect from those who move there to live in their society, but more important they expect their visitors to live by the rules and laws, even if they are different from those in the visitors country of origin.

Many second generation immigrants in Denmark has trouble finding their roots. Their parents often give them a hard time for being too danish and the Danes at the same age often sees them as "the others". The canyon between ethnic Danes and immigrants contimues to grow bigger and deeper, because both sides often are too proud to reach out for each other. The muslims must accept that Danes are not muslims and that Denmark is not, and never will be, a islamic state. The young muslim immigrants or second generation immigrants must also be aware of teir behavior, most Danes find it threatening when large groups of people are gathered and yelling, especially if it is in a language they don't understand. The Danes on the other hand must accept that many muslims are very sensitive and easily hurt on their honnor and feelings, this should be respected. For those who reads this, on both sides of the conflict - you should remember that respect is not someting you just get, it is something you must deserve."

There might well be some salvageable content in here, but not in the current format. exolon 01:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think there is some real solid information there, if the POV can be removed I would advicate it's inclusion.--M4bwav 02:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

There is some very good information in there. The problem is to get it in neutral language so that it's acceptable for Wiki. --Tygerbryght 05:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, being a Dane I can confirm and relate to a lot of the points mentioned — though not all of it. I hate to do this, as I know I cannot be completely objective, but I think there's so much great information in this, that I will give the following — hopefully improved — version as a new working draft suggestion, in the hope we can approach something publishable:

---

In Denmark religion and government are seperated. All media is self-regulating, although it should be mentioned that DR is primarily funded by the state, and the TV2 Regionals receive subsidy. There is a constitutional freedom of speech. Denmark is a small country with a fairly high percentage of immigrants from Africa [is that true?] and the Middle East, and like Danes they all enjoy the extensive benefits from the welfare system such as financial aid, free education, free healthcare and practically the same constitutional rights as ethnic Danes [to my knowledge there are differences when it comes to expulsion].

The fact that immigrants, especially from the Islamic world, are relatively over-represented in crime statistics, along with a visible minority of fundamentalists who condemn several of the Danish values, is causing a tense atmosphere between Danes and immigrants in the cities, where ghettoization is becoming very distinct. Immigrants living outside the cities are usually well integrated though, and often very popular due to their openness, which is a good contrast to the Danish reservedness. Danes are generally a proud people with a long history and tradition, and they expect newcomers to adopt and adjust to the Danish mentality, and surely live by the rules and laws of the country.

Many second generation immigrants in Denmark have trouble finding their ground. Their parents often try to hold on to their original traditions and values, which doesn't always go well with the Danish ditto, and hence the gap between ethnic Danes and the immigrants is therefore still considerable.

The Muslims must accept that ethnic Danes are Atheists and Protestants, and Denmark will never be an Islamic state, nor do they have any desire to change their laws and set of values to interoperate better with those the immigrants are used to. Young immigrants must also be aware of their behaviour, most Danes find it threatening when large groups of people are gathered and speaking loudly, especially if it is in a language they don't understand. The Danes on the other hand must accept that many Muslims are very sensitive and easily hurt on their honor and feelings, this should be respected. The Danes should also try to be more open-minded and tolerant, trying to see the advantages of having a mixed society, instead of being afraid of losing their current set of values.

For those who reads this, on both sides of the conflict — you should remember that respect is not someting you just get, it is something you must deserve."

---

I hope I didn't ruin it. Feel free to edit instead of adding it all again. AllanRasmussen 07:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Great attempt, however I think that the word "should" makes it still POV. --hellznrg

Thanks. It actually doesn't seem fair to use two 'musts' for the Muslims, and then follow with two 'shoulds' for the Danes. But I still think this needs a lot more editing before it can be published... AllanRasmussen 10:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as a disapassionate British person who has no strong feelings on this subject I think that whole segment is just ripe for edit wars. I don't know that it's necessary to this article to broaden the scope to include broad immigration issues, crime rates, the welfare state and all the rest (all issues that we debate here in Britain). The whole proposed segment reads like a newspaper editorial to me. I'd steer clear of most of it. --bodnotbod 14:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Anonymously sent is baloney

The Islamic Society was not anonymously sent a thirteenth picture. This is a lie. It has three other pictures in addition to the original 12 and several members have been going on tv throughout the Middle East claiming these were by the Danish cartoonists. The Danish Prime Minister condemned them. Ill try and find a link - I think it might have been from Little Green Footballs. KI 02:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Little Green Footballs is not a very credible source. A more reliable link would be better. I also don't understand the importance. If these other pictures weren't in the newspaper, they shouldn't be part of the controversy. 71.141.251.153 08:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Temporarily locking the article

There seems to be removed information from this article constantly, by unknown users, without any reason given. An edit war. Given the controversial content of this article, wouldn't it be an idea to temporarily lock it - to registered users, if possible? I'm a completely newbie inhere, so I hope one of you will do what it takes if you agree with me. AllanRasmussen 07:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

AllanRasmussen: Repeated vandalism can be easily reverted by any user. If it becomes too intense then an admin can block anonymous page editing, or can block all editing. Edit blocks are an extreme measure and are usually only put in place for an hour so everyone can cool off. If this is occurring on this page (or any other) then the instructions for reporting it are at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. Tempshill 07:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

correction

to the best of my knowledge, the saudi embassy in copenhagen has not been closed, though the embassedor was recalled.

• Jyllands-Posten apologize Qatarson 08:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Swedish printings

About Swedish publication, [3] (in Swedish) claims that the pictures have been printed in three Swedish papers as part of a letter to the editor (written by a muslim) on 7 January. I haven't seen this commentary myself; especially I do not know how much was actually shown, and at what size, which would be relevant to ascertain before adding the information. Arbor 12:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is the article of 7 January "Vi måste tåla nidbilderna" ("We must put up with the shameful pictures") . In the print edition of Kvällsposten, Expressen and GT some (about 5 or 6) of the pictures were shown, but in the net edition they are not shown. As I remeber from seeing the pictures on that day, they were in full size (from JP) but not colourized.

Regarding the 'Orange in the Turban' thing

What exactly does it mean, the main article suggests that it means "good luck", but a Danish person i consulted suggested that it means that you have done somethign really well so as to be proud of it or something to that effect. So could someone clarify that?

The odds that you happend to walk by while an Orange (A rare item in older days - therefore valuable)falls down into your turban (ie. without you doing anything to get it) are slim - so if it happends you are lucky

The Danish prime minister has said more, he condemned the cartoon a few days ago; could someone who knows anything about this please edit it?

The proverb is mostly used when something happens, which is in favor of the person whom the proverb is used abut. On Danish you would say: “it fell like an orange in his turban” or “it’s an orange in his turban” thereby applying that what happened was very fortunate for the person. In this case ‘the orange in the turban’ could refer to all the free publicity the author of the children’s book (Kåre Bluitgen) got due to the following debate about Islam and freedom of speech. Another interpretation could be that the artist behind the drawing felt that Kåre Bluitgen had an anti-Islamic and/or self-promoting agenda, and that the article in Jyllands-Poster further would promote this agenda, hence being an orange in his turban. But it is of course speculations, as I don’t know what exactly the artist meant by the drawing. But at least, that is what the proverb or phrase means :-) --80.164.16.222 23:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Bomb threat and evacuation of Jyllands Posten

According to another Danish newspaper, Jyllands Posten has been the target of a bomb threat and was evacuated. The threat was false: sources (Danish) http://www.jp.dk/indland/artikel:aid=3529144/ (Jyllands Posten) http://ekstrabladet.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=332955 (Other Newspaper Extra Bladet)

Where is the legal text against depiction

I am trying to find the exact place which forbids showing the face of Mohammed. Could anyone please tell me exactly where to find it? Does anyone know of any exact reference to a book or website? If it does exist in the Quran, and I missed it, I would appreciate the line, so I can find it this time around.DanielDemaret 18:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Please consider improving our aniconism article when you find it. Uncle G 20:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• IF I find it, I shall. Since nobody seems to know its source, it may simply stem from a misinterpretation. DanielDemaret 21:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Preliminary finding: There seem to be some who interpret some Hadith, for example 1678 by Bukhari :"Those who draw pictures will be punished on the Day of Resurrection; and it will be said to them: 'Breathe soul into what you have created.'". As far as I can tell, these Hadith are supported mainly by Sunni, but not Shia. It is not from the Quran, but traditions collected 200 years later. Not all muslims seem to agree as to its interpretation, applicability or veracity. There has to be more on this somewhere. It is hard for me to believe right now that these unclear and contentious texts have been enough to create such a firm beliefs. DanielDemaret 23:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Translation of picture in Boycotts section

I am curious as to the sign depicted in the Boycotts section. Is there any chance someone with the appropriate skills could put the translation into the caption of said picture? I'm sure others are curious as well. BinaryTed 18:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Extremist

For this edit. I am adding "extremist" back in there. because they are ones who kill people. matt kane's brain 19:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Original meeting with foreign ministers

"On October 19, 2005 eleven ambassadors from Islamic countries, including Algeria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Morocco, Pakistan, Palestine, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey sent a letter to Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen requesting a meeting and for him to distance himself from hate speech, including remarks by MP Louise Frevert, Culture Minister of Denmark Brian Mikkelsen, and nationalistic radio Radio Holger. 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 at the courts."

The cited article mentions nothing about Louis Frevert or Brian Mikkelsen or Radio Holger. Did they really roll all of these demands together? What exactly did the foreign ministers ask Rasmussen to do? Peregrine981 21:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Splitting the article up

Perhaps it is time to start to split the article, it is getting quite lengthy? --Snailwalker | talk 21:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• It will certainly probably come to that, so I guess we may as well. How about splitting out the time line? Peregrine981 21:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think that the article is long enough to warrant splitting up, yet. Uncle G 12:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

weasel words in intro paragraph

Someone recently added weasel words to the intro paragraph (changes shown):

The drawings are were said to be satirical illustrations accompanying an article on self-censorship and freedom of speech. They were also allegedly meant to highlight the allegation by the Danish writer Kåre Bluitgen that no artist was willing to illustrate a children's book about Muhammad without remaining anonymous, out of fear of revenge from extremist Muslims because depicting Muhammad is prohibited in Islam (see aniconism).

I don't think there's serious grounds to doubt that the drawings were satirical, or that they accompanied an article on self-censorship and free speech, or that the newspaper's intention in publishing them was different from what they stated. So I'd like to rv the weasel words. WP:AWW, subject to discussion. 71.141.251.153 22:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I noticed that too, but since I've reverted twice today, I wouldn't touch it myself. --Valentinian 22:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Size of Arla's exports.

The source given for Arla's 500 mill. $ export - which I'm pretty sure is the global amount, not just exports for the Middle East - gives no such figure. Does anyone have a figure, or should the number just be deleted? --Valentinian 22:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

According to this thing, their sales are 348 million Euros per year in the middle east. That's about 422 million dollars. [4]

Peregrine981 23:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Valentinian 00:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Depiction of Muhammad

The ban on depictions of Muhammad is a central issue here, I believe, but the article doesn't treat it as fully as it deserves. In my understanding, the ban doesn't stem from the Qur'an itself, but is rather derived from the Old Testament, and can therefore be seen as a parallel to various waves of iconoclasm in Christian history. The article refers simply to "Islamic tradition", but what exactly is this, the Hadith? I am no Islamic scholar, and it would be appreciated if someone with better knowledge of the Qur'an and Islam could comment on this. Eixo 01:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The origin in the bible is clear, but it is unclear if that is what they refer to. The Old Testament says clearly not to make any image of god (idols) and also that god made man in his image. Hence, no man may be made an image of. The Hadith are collections of sayings that some believe the prophet said even if not in the Quran. Not all muslims believe in the same collections, and the Hadith that I have read on this issue are vague. The origin is clearly not in any Quran translation that I have read, but I dont read arabic. DanielDemaret 06:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Im no expert on the Qu'ran, but awhile ago I was talking on another wikipedia page on Islamic views of the Bible, and one of their assertions supposedly is that one of the prophecies in Isaiah (which, quite frankly, really is referring to Christ if I remember correctly) prophecises the birth of Muhammad, and that this should give him increadibly high status from a Biblical perspective. But the Old Testiment never once mentions anything literally speaking about Muhammad, and if all drawings are banned by it, (I've never heard of this, but I get the feeling if it is in there, it's probably being taken out of context.) we might have a serious problem, because Jesus drew in the sand when He stepped in to save that woman from being stoned by the Israelites for being an adulteress. (Though now that I think about it, I think the Bible was literally saying he was writing something, im not entirely certain.) and you'd think if what Jesus was doing violated some law, the Jews who pretty much already disliked him alot wouldn't of hesitated to change their target to Christ, yet they didn't. Homestarmy 02:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep the Pics

Wikipedia, as an objective encyclopedia, has a duty to bring all the facts into play. Now if the writers of the article inserted a statement regarding the images that is not objective, then there would be a problem.

If Muslims feel offended because Wikipedia displayed the images then they do not have to look. The article in question is named "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons" which clearly indicates that there will probably be pictures of Mohammed contained therin, so if they would be offended by said pictures they do not have to click on the link or read the article. (Caesar89 01:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC))

What if they want to read the article without seeing the pictures? If the article on leprosy has pictures (I don't want to check and find out), I might want to read the article without seeing pustule photos. Phr 07:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have an idea.. why don't you just NOT read wikipedia, and read the koran instead, since all answers are to be found in your holey books??? and best of all, the koran doesn't contain pictures!!! yay problem solved Hellznrg 08:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

People visiting this page should have a fair chance to form their own opinion on the actual newspaper article that started this controversy. It is extremely important that the article itself is described as objectively as possible. To actually show the article and the cartoons somehow (without violating copyright) is the best way to do that. Thank you all for a great place to share information. Martix 01:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. I posted a similar comment prior to the blanking. It essentially said the following:

As a Muslim myself, I find depictions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) blasphemous to Islam. However, I also realize that I am not forced to look at the depiction in this article (in the same way I don't have to look at the other un-Islamic things in this world). This article in its title says Muhammad cartoons. If that is not a red flag that this article may contain pictures of the Prophet (pbuh), I don't what is. If you don't want to look at the picture, you can read this article, but glance away from the depictions. If you didn't want to get even close to a depiction of the Prophet (pbuh), you should never have visited this article in the first place; the title should have tipped you off to the potentially un-Islamic content in this article. joturner 01:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

=====>> They are drawings by some idiots in Denmark. Get over it! Seriously, this is not helping the world opinion of your religion. You want people to think you are sane, peace-loving people but everytime I turn on the news, people are rioting in the streets. And for what? DRAWINGS!

It's always nice to hear from Muslim people who can see that it's possible to practise their own religion, and believe their own beliefs, without hating the rest of the world and wanting to destroy them :)

Of course, I believe that this applies to the majority of decent Muslim people in this world... and that is what we in the West should not forget. Unfortunately, it's the actions of hatred of the fundamentalist minority which are headline-grabbing, and therefore smear the name of the rest of the regular followers. EuroSong 02:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

As an atheist, it seems pretty unreasonable to have an article about a picture, and not show the picture, that should be obvious, even to those under religious programming. --M4bwav 01:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I notice that the English and Serbo-Croatian wikipedias (en and sr) are the only ones that have the picture. The others (fr, es, etc., including da) only have links to it. Phr 02:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That probably has more to do with their different fair use policies. I know on da, they don't allow any fair use images. Peregrine981 05:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Would it be a solution to make it possible to hide the image, like this (edit to see code): I can't get it to appear alongside the text, though.. But maybe it could be placed after the intro text where it will only interfere with the toc? Poulsen 07:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

hmm great idea.. and while we're at it, lets bend over a little more.. i think mohammed's dick isn't long enough to reach our arseholes Hellznrg 08:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIVGeni 08:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Try looking up the word compromise. Poulsen 08:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

oh man don't u see what's happening here... wikipedia will eventually become censored...! this is the beginning of the end... if the images are ever removed or reduced in any way i'll commit suicide..! i swear! i'll go into a death-fast! just like gandhi! Hellznrg 10:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I commented out the HTML to make a hide-able picture--I'm having trouble getting the page to load and I think the fancy div may be causing the problem (Firefox 1.5). It's a clever idea but I think the technology may be a little too advanced. Phr 07:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty interesting; the navbar display is real ugly in Firefox (letters collide with each other) and it relies on browser javascript, so overall I'm not keen on it, but if you want to give it a try to see what happens, it can't be worse than what's happening now. But, if it's at the top of the page or shows the pic by default, I think it won't fly. Phr 07:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was worth a shot. Poulsen 08:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is it gone AGAIN? Just keep the stupid thing.Kittynboi 07:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)