Please, no more talk of "compromise"
There seems to be a lot of users who want to "compromise" on the issue of representing the images on the page. "Let’s move the image down", "let’s include a link". Neville Chamberlain was also in favour of compromise, but there are some things one simply doesn’t compromise about. Free speech is one of them. Certainly the image could be moved, but there is no earthly reason why it should be. On a page about an image, that image should be prominently displayed. If someone’s sensitivities are hurt by viewing any specific drawing, then we should respect that, but it is their own responsibility to avoid that happening. It certainly should not affect the rest of the world’s access to information.
Censorship is censorship, whether it consists in making information inaccessible or just less accessible. Wikipedia is about the opposite of both. Eixo 17:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
One can argue that all religion is contradictory belief, but that's not the point here. This is an article about a controversy. One side thinks that pictures like these should sometimes be shown in media, the other thinks they should never be shown in media. Now, if we display the picture in the article, are we neutral? Zocky | picture popups 18:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The analogy with evolution seems to be a good one. Many people (primarily in America) seem to think that giving equal time to evolution and creationism/intelligent design in classrooms is only fair. That letting both sides have their say is simply impartiality. I think most of us here agree that it is not, and neither is making an image less accessible to readers, to "compromise" with fundamentalists (or whatever term you would choose to use).
And by the way - in reference to the point many have tried to make - I can say for myself that there is not ONE thing - as a Christian or anything else - that I would object to having published on Wikipedia, as long as it accords with the applicable laws and Wikipedia policy.
Everybody with me here? Eixo 00:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
To be honest I'm in favour of keeping the pictures where they are as it seems the most logical/sensible place for them to be. However, as long as they are in there *somewhere*, to be honest i'm not massively bothered about where, as the stir about the pictures is more important than the pictures themselves and the constant edit war about their positioning is making it more difficult for the article to improve. So against my better judgement, I'd go with moving them if only to get past this issue and on to the main point of the article - to cover the situation in as NPOV a manner as possible. --Black Butterfly 16:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)The picture needs to be on the front page of the article, at the top of it, exactly where it is right now. "Blah blah blah, it offends my beliefs" is not a reason to take it down. It is an informative image which is entirely relevant to the article. It isn't like the Darwin Fish on the evolution page; this is what the article is ABOUT. Thus, the image should be displayed. It doesn't matter that several Islamic countries are complaining about it; we have depictions of Muhammad in various spots in Wikipedia because they are informative. Wikipedia is about information, and displaying such things is information. The position of Wikipedia is to present the world in a neutral voice, not to be politically correct or to censor ourselves. It is the purpose of Wikipedia to inform, and not having the image up is to not inform. Titanium Dragon 19:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Source on the latest bomb-threat evacuation?
I see someone added that Jyllands-Posten was evacuated today again, can anyone confirm this with a source? I'll do it myself in the evening since I watch the TV news, and surely it's in there if it happened. I personally live a few miles from the JP HQ and I haven't heard anything yet though. --Sheeo 19:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Minor editorial quibbles
Can we have the adjective for natives of Chechnya ("Chechen", not "Chechenian") corrected by whichever powers-that-be have disabled edits on this page? The mistake is right at the bottom of the Timeline section, Feb 1st subsection. Polocrunch 19:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
This has just become too stupid
Come on people- we have turned a little artical about a Social-Political debate into a madhouse with vandalism in the article and pressure on Wikipedia from muslims who dont want this to be talked about.
What is all the fuss about over a couple pictures of Mohammed? I know all about the Islamic beliefs that Mohammed's face cannot be shown, and I know that the pictures can be taken as negative by muslims, BUT COME ON PEOPLE- IT IS JUST A FEW SATIRACAL COMICS FEATURING A HISTORICAL PERSON!
Wikipedia is not handing out any opinions on the pictures, just the cold, hard facts. I dont give a crap about freedom of speech here, or hate crimes- this is not about whether or not those pictures are derogatory to some people. This is about bringing readers of Wikipedia the facts on a current event. Nothing else. (Caesar89 19:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC))
I agree; this whole debate is plain silly. 204.52.215.107 21:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the comic strip should be in a link form not in a image and the reason for that is becuase I think people eventually have right to at that, but some people eventually don't even want to have a peek at it. Put this picture in the link would make sure people feel comfortable about, nothing deal with cencoeship, it just like a PG13 thing because this news IS case sensitive. That also state the seriousness of this case. Show this picture is somehow like speading the idea around. 142.161.94.69 01:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I only care baout the event, not the comic strip. I always come here to read any controversy stuff, but sometimes I would like to burn my eye to seeing the picture that is without my own will. I am not a Muslim (I dont have any religion so far), but I insanely hate people who bash Muslim (or other religion) even without thinking why. It already not right to insult a Prophet in a public then post it around the world, it is just like have a tape of a gang rape (or other violation), you know it about that, but you still put it on the site for like edvidence. Who would like that?!66.225.141.5 18:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Muhammed main article
- Some Wikipeidans are preventing this article being linked from Muhammed. See Talk:Muhammad Astrotrain 20:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Featuring the cartoons prominently is (inevitably going to be perceived as) a provocation
... and will inevitably be perceived as a conscious attempt to piss people off. There is nothing about being an encyclopedia that mandates that we try to piss people (or countries) off. We wouldn't run an image of a classified document, for instance, or run pictures of people as they step out of the shower at the local gym, blissfully ignorant of the presence of a cell phone with a camera function.
- Just to recap the point someone else made: Did you notice how Oral sex does not feature images of this sexual activity in the top half of the article?
- Does that decision mean the Puritans are running WP? I don't think so. It means someone made an editorial call somewhere along the line that a photographic image of this activity was not in the best interests of the article or the encyclopedia.
- And here's another example: For what is Sharon Tate famous? Primarily as a victim of the Manson family killing spree, right. Does that mean that this picture belongs at the top of her article? Well, no. And if an editor insisted on including that picture at the top of the article, I would hope that someone would realize that the trauma and pain and disgust associated with placing it there outweiged any arguments about its "relevance" to the piece.
- ' Are such editorial decisions a subversion of the integrity of WP? No. They are recognitions of the reality that certain images attract more negative attention and revulsion than their prominent inclusion justifies.
- What people are failing to take into account here is that about one-fifth of the planet considers this cartoon image not merely offensive, but criminal. Is it possible we could serve this subject justice without tweaking their noses? Sure it is. Let's move the image down. BYT 20:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It is not the job of Wikipedia to cater to any social or cultural group. If that was the case then we should get rid of pictures like Piss Christ. (Caesar89 20:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC))
I agree with the points made above with the Bahai article example. Moving the image down would not make it "less accessible", and would not be censorship -- just a style thing. It would definitely make the article less offensive to some. If you think that this reason alone makes it into censorship, I think you're just suggesting that we act out of spite, rather than be more neutral, and that we become more a tabloid than an encyclopaedia. Just my personal opinion, of course. --BACbKA 20:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC) P.S. I could easier accept an "in your face" placement of the image in a wikinews article (however, this wou
Avreagera
196 har avreagerat sig. Anonym skrev: torsdag 18 december, 2008 kl. 18:32. Fuck off! Svara. Anonym skrev: torsdag 18 december, 2008 kl. 16:28. I think halo is a pretty cool guy. eh ...
OH MY GOD WAT IS THIS I DON'T EVEN
Website: http://anonym.to/http://anonym.to/?http://anonym.to/http://www.infowars.com/ ... Lets Fuck With Teachers Tahko 18/12/08(Thu)13:45 No. 34036 ID: 87fe55 [Reply]
Lolicunt
http://anonym.to/http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2008/12/09/hentai-figure-legends-gallery/ Blow $100 on this shit and I will personally fuck u in the eyeskull.
Protesttag WM 2006: FUCK • Donnerstag, 01.03. 14:09
Beitrag aus dem Tacheles Forum Protesttag WM 2006: FUCK • Donnerstag, 01.03. 14:09 ... Forum: Protesttag WM 2006: Datum: Sonntag, 20.05.2007 18:51: Autor: Anonym: Betreff: FUCK ...
MySpace.com - The ANONYMUS - MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota - Garage / Pop ...
FUCK KNIGHTS(record release Nov 26th @the Hexagon) Nov 24 2008 6:14 PM ...
DoCopenhagen: Top 50 Music Videos Of 2006
The Sad Little Stars - Don t Fuck With Love 21. Bonnie 'Prince' Billy - Cursed Sleep ... 07 december, 2006 19:42 Anonym said... yay Raconteurs! 07 december, 2006 19:52
Danish Mohammed Cartoons: Imams showed pedophile Mohamed
posted by Anonym: 12:57 PM ... Fuck Islam - Burn in hell you pedophile praising infidels. Your god was created by an ...
Danish Mohammed Cartoons: Pictures of Mohammed
posted by Anonym: 4:56 PM ... So what the fuck are you mad about? Mind it if it happens in your fucking country which ...
DoCopenhagen: Top 50 Music Videos Of 2005
Do everyone a favor and kill yourself. fuck you!!!!! 31 december, 2005 05:47 Anonym said... Too bad the music in these videos suck. 31 december, 2005 05:49
MySpace.com - Anonymus - Montreal, CA - Metal - www.myspace.com ...
Member Since: 12/5/2005: Band Website: anonymusmetal.com: Band Members: Carlos Araya ... FUCK THE FACTS
