File talk:Jyllands-Posten-pg3-article-in-Sept-30-2005-edition-of-KulturWeekend-entitled-Muhammeds-ansigt.png/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Helpme

Could an admin please move the talk from here to this talk page? Netscott 15:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

1. This seems like a ridiculously long file name.
2. Weren't those comments that you want moved made about the other image?--Commander Keane 15:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This file name spells out a very clear source for this image. The comments made for the other image are in fact the same that correspond to this image. To better understand this change please see: this "Less than neutral image" talk. Thanks. Netscott 15:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That link doesn't mention using a different file name. The file name is too long. Also, since the discussion pages were about a different image they should not be moved. If you like, you could add a link to top here saying "there is discussion about a similar image here. I (and {{helpme}}) am done with this issue. The image should be deleted due to its disruptive file name.--Commander Keane 00:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you read the history the discussion pages mentioned were actually about a third picture, the now deleted File:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings.jpg looking like this. They were moved on the 7. of May 2006 to their current location. About the titel of this picture being too long - I don't think so: It is precise. In any case it is Image:Jyllands-Posten-Muhammad-dr.png which should be deleted because it isn't what it purports to be, and is not - nor will be - in use anymore. (And what's with you proposing to delete a picture if you only want it moved?). --Anjoe 13:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It's true that the name of this file is long... but given the extremely contentious nature of this particular image it is fully warranted. Netscott 13:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I said delete because images cannot be moved, a quirk in Mediawiki. I meant that the image should be re-uploaded under a usable filename, then this file would be a duplicate and could be deleted.--Commander Keane 14:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Essentially, I chose this extra long file name so that when it would/might be transmitted to others, the file name alone would give enough details for an average person to be able to easily and fully research the origins of the image. I still hold this view but I'll propose a compromise file name between what it currently is and what it was previously:

Jyllands-Posten-Sept-30-2005-KulturWeekend-article-Muhammeds-ansigt.png

Netscott 14:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Request to remove image

This obtrusive comment was put on the image page. I removed it, and in the interest of fairness I have posted it here:

[Please Remove this picture to not be among those who didn't care about billions of peoples fellings. Thanks]

Эйрон Кинни (t) 09:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't the image totally offensive billions of Muslim viewers who see it? It's not just Muhammad being made an image that's forbidden, but also slanderous to say that he is a suicide bomber because it's not him that did all the bombings, but rather those savage Muslim extremists today, and some other images there that is considered defamatory. Just put yourself in a position where someone makes an exaggerated story about you that includes a number of points that is not even true. Of course, you would want to sue the person who makes defamatory remarks about you - so it's better that such stories to do not the public's ears and eyes. Therefore, I would kind ask the downloader of this image to please ponder upon this matter and consider it's removal. --124.183.101.164 13:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This image will NOT be removed (see the licensing, it all checks out) thank god Hereitisthen (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It is sad but true: If Muslims didn't made so much fuzz about the pictures, it wouldn't be so important as it became world news (it wouldn't be even noted worldwide). As it is now, the cartoons are too damn important (for news and historic value) to be removed out. Anyway these pictures don't have anything illegal in it. About the Muslims who get offended by that, I suggest you take some lessons of tolerance and humility on Christians, who seems to be a lot more tolerant to people who wrongly depict Jesus in cartoons. You shouldn't try to impose your religion into others, that's very POV of you. SSPecter' ^Talk|E-Mail ◆ _{13:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)}.

It is very sad to know this happened again that these images printed in all newspapers in europe. What benefit being gained to print these images. there is lack of responsibility and respect towards Islam,Muslims and Prophet of Universe. Printing these images shows the enmity of the west towards Islam and Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. Do good and have good is the policy we can prevail all over the world. to make this world peaceful please do good work that can benefit all of us'People who work for newspapers should be fair and wise not ignorant, by printing the bad images of the Prophet you are making more Muslims in the world, Islam is one of the fastest religion of the world. Islam is a complete code of life, Islam is not a book of words.So please do understand by printing these images one can not damage the image of the prophet pbuh, for sure he will get the real place in hell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.195.31 (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that is between the cartoonists and Allah. Anyway, welcome to the freedom of speech. SSPecter' ^Talk|E-Mail ◆ _{21:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)}.

Agreed, if the image upsets you, then have a cry. The fact that so many Muslims retaliated by using violence validates the purpose of the image in the first place. - 211.30.227.30 (talk) 09:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

this is not freedom at all the freedom can't exceed the limits of others freedom is that what Islam &prophet Mohamed teached us prophet Mohamed is the best & greatest human being allah saied that please know him first & stop this we must be upset if we do this with your prophet what will u do but we can't do this because we believe in all messengers &prophet s according to our religion violence is not an Islamic feature it is a human being r push hetlar Sharon Muslims —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.191.42.181 (talk) 13:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Religious freedom includes the freedom to criticise religion.

It's a very big difference in offending pictures, and pictures that people are offended by! Some peoples stupid opinions shouldn't limit the freedom of speech.. I could claim that I had a three-headed mouse-monster under my bed, and then tell the world not to depict it because I would have been offended by it.. But that shouldn't limit one of the most important freedoms in the world today! We must stop being so damned respectful towards religions! Religion should be treated as what it really is! (leaving it up to you to decide what religion really is, think about it!) Uchiha Thγmφ (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Higher resolution image?

Given the rationale for our fair-use use of it, would it be appropriate to use a version with higher resolution for the cartoons but stretched out/blurred text? Yarkod 23:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it is always most approrpiate to use the lowest resolution that is still easily veiwable. That's how fair-use policy works FinalWish (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

--Muslims don't make or have pictures of any of the Prophets!!! So you should delete this wrong picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.232.89.160 (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Muslims may be forbidden but that doesn't mean the rest of us should be forbidden. This image is relevant to recent events and is too important to remove. Feel free to find it offensive, but it will not be removed because Wikipedia respects free speech. It does not violate Wikipedia's policies on images as far as I know, so I see no valid reason myself for removing it, and apparently nor do many other people here.--85.211.228.119 (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

They have: --84.166.61.102 (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

English Translation?

Can someone translate it into English? 79.72.134.52 (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

See Descriptions of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons. --Anjoe (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

how about an English translation of the text in the middle of the page? --24.218.8.95 (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That text is under copyright. Wikipedia would be violating copyright law to host a translation unless the paper decided to declare the text as not subject to copyright, or license it under GDFL or something like that. Huadpe (talk) 22:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You can translate copyrighted text. It's under fair use, and besides, it's just translating of languages. WTF? 143.88.86.56 (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this guy just made that up. While I think its questionable whether the image is fair use or not, there's certainly no problem inherent in translating this given page accuratly. --24.29.234.88 (talk) 12:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on copyright, but I think it would be a violation to publish a translation, see Derivative work. If the fair use version of the image were large enough to read the text then it would seem reasonable to extend the fair use claim to translating, but since part of the fair use justification is "It is not of sufficient resolution to facilitate easy reading of the article", I don't think translating it is in the spirit of the fair use. StephenHudson (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

However (see my previous comment), summarizing something is allowed, so I will attempt to summarize the text in the middle of the page. I understand a fair amount of written Norwegian (and therefore Danish as well), but am far from fluent, so I would easily miss subtleties, cultural references, etc., and may get bits wrong, which is why I'll post it here rather than in the article. It would be good if a native Danish speaker could write a summary in English.

The first paragraph paints a picture of the Westerners being very careful not to offend Muslims, citing examples of a comedian stating he wouldn't "dare to take the piss out of the Koran" on TV, an art museum removing a piece of art for fear it would offend Muslims, and a theater season with three shows critical of George W. Bush but none of Osama bin Laden. The paragraph ends by pointing out a meeting in which an imam asked the Danish prime minister to use the government's influence over Danish media to get them to paint a more positive image of Islam.

The second paragraph states that the fears, whether based on real or false grounds, are a reason for concern because they lead to self censorship, causing artists to stay away from "our time's most important meeting of cultures, that between Islam and the secular, Western societies with roots in Christianity."

The third and fourth paragraphs argue that in a secular, Western democracy, special attention cannot be given to the feelings of one religious group. All members of a society in which free speech prevails must therefore be prepared to deal with insult and ridicule. This is contrasted to totalitarian societies, where people may go to prison for saying things that are offensive to the dictator due to laws that claim to protect people's feelings by keeping people from saying offensive things. It says it has not gotten that far in Denmark, but they are on the slippery slope.

The text ends by saying that the paper therefore called on members of the Danish association of political cartoon artists to draw Muhammed as they saw him and that they are publishing the 12 responses they got. It then gives the names of the artists. StephenHudson (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Remove the image NOW.

Remove this image now because there are 1000000000 poeple againt this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.221.24.166 (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This image is VERY offensive and should be removed ASAP. 75.62.40.223 (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. This image is used for valid and justifiable reasons, primarily to add understanding to articles pertaining to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. ReviewDude (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

INSHALLAH THESE KAAFIR SCUM WILL LEARN THE LIGHT OF ALLAH I AM 34 YEARS OLD KUWAITI FEMALE AND THIS PAGE IS DISGUSTING MAY ALLAH BRING FIRE DOWN ON YOUR SOULS ON THESE FILTHY KAAFIR SCUM —Preceding unsigned comment added by PureMuslimah (talk • contribs) 05:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia is not censored. If you do not wish to view the images, you can configure Wikipedia not to show them - as per the

Obvious Troll - 122.106.156.118 (talk) 08:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)FAQ. - RD ^(Talk) 10:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

To reiterate the point, by suggesting violence upon those who publish just validates the purpose of the images in the first place. Religious freedom, and freedom of expression includes the right to criticise religion.

I think it should be noted that while these pictures don't violate Wikipedia policy, threats and personal abuse do, PureMuslimah. --Pstanton (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

please delete it now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.103.233.28 (talk) 11:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

no one is forcing you to come to wikipedia and look at these images. please turn off your computer and disconnect it from the internet if you cannot handle freedom of speech. WookieInHeat (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

please for everybody ,for the free people ,educated revome this page ,that's insult us and touch us in our beleifs. This is increase the tension between religion in our religions Islam ,Chrestian don't allow to insult others. Thanks for understanding Nader Haddad Tunisia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.226.96.237 (talk) 11:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, I did not understand. Most of what you have written isn't actually in English.Mtaylor848 (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

"INSHALLAH THESE KAAFIR SCUM WILL LEARN THE LIGHT OF ALLAH I AM 34 YEARS OLD KUWAITI FEMALE AND THIS PAGE IS DISGUSTING MAY ALLAH BRING FIRE DOWN ON YOUR SOULS ON THESE FILTHY KAAFIR SCUM". I'm not sure whether this is typical, inarticulate, recondite abuse from someone who genuinely believes in their cause (Aaaah, bless!), or someone being satirical. Either way it amused me. Glad you enjoyed the pickies! Mtaylor848 (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I know, personally I'm of the opinion that she was serious, of course threats/personal attacks like hers are against Wiki policy.... I'd just like to congratulate the original uploader of this picture for doing a good thing for Wikipedia. --Pstanton (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

Removal of the above mentioned image from wikipedia, when it adheres to all the predefined requirements, is simply not possible, and requests for such actions should not be accepted. At wikipedia it is up to the users to decide what they want to see and what they don't. ksquarekumar (talk) 10:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.52.74 (talk)

I'm moving the following comment from the malformed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/File:Jyllands-Posten-pg3-article-in-Sept-30-2005-edition-of-KulturWeekend-entitled-Muhammeds-ansigt.png. --Geniac (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

DELETE: Freedom of speech does not mean you forget other people's rights. Playing loud rock music is not freedom of rights its abuse thereof, Freedom of speech does not include libel or defamation. The picture does not need to be shown it can just be described and the pic removed out of respect for Muslims —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhwandk (talk • contribs) 09:40, April 18, 2009

Actually, unattenuated freedom of speech would include all of those things and more. Most people who claim to support freedom of speech actually support an attenuated form, not an absolute one. This raises the very sort of problem we're dealing with here, where different individuals and groups favor different degrees and specifics of attenuation. I personally favor absolute freedom of speech, because I find concepts like "obscenity" and "disrespect" to be arbitrary and incoherent. Words have no power in and of themselves; their impact depends on the listener, not the speaker, which is why we can't tolerate any limits that aren't self-imposed if we want "freedom of speech" to have any real meaning. If I decided that the combination of letters "Akhwandk" offended me, and if I issued a fatwa against you for your username, I doubt that you would take my arbitrary and capricious umbrage seriously, much less indulge me by requesting a name change and apologizing profusely for your insolence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Attention

This page should not be used to:

   * Request or contest deletion;
   * Contact the photographer or uploader;
   * Request corrections to the image;

Maybe you didn't see this. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)