digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Wikipedia defies 180,000 demands to Remove Muhammad's Image

guardian.co.uk — Wikipedia, the free online encyclopaedia, is refusing to remove medieval artistic depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, despite being flooded with complaints from Muslims demanding the images be deleted.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • TheOneTrueGod, on 02/18/2008, -489/+133So, we're supposed to install internet-filters for children. And the towel-heads can't just... not use Wikipedia?

    What they're saying is: "We want to use Wikipedia. But we do not want to see Muhammad depictions in it." Well, you don't get the sweet without the sour, people. It's not *your* web project.

    Or what they're saying is: "Noone in the world shall have depictions of Muhammad." Even those who have not yet converted to Islam?

    I would like to read their view. Until now I have not heard anything from their side.
    • sanman, on 02/18/2008, -69/+21hey, anybody own the domain for mohammed.com? boo-yah!
      • echolyean, on 02/18/2008, -10/+23That was not "boo-yah!" worthy.
      • fancyj, on 02/18/2008, -23/+3you mean muhammad? or is mohammad supposed to be funny somehow?
        • breadfred, on 02/18/2008, -2/+12I have the name seen spelled in many ways. Muhamed, Muhammed, Mohamed.Are you really so easily offended by a spelling that does not follow your own interpretation? That's the problem you see. You see an offense in everything that could possibly misconstrued. Take some advice from a non-believer: When you do not agree with something, first sit down and count to 10. That calms you down a bit. Then try to read the offending paragraph again and try to read through the eyes of someone with an opposite viewpoint. Not everyone is bashing Muhammed/Mohamed.
          • GiggleStick, on 02/18/2008, -0/+5Don't forget Machmoud. Obviously it's not always easy to transliterate a name into another language. Is there even an agreed upon spelling for it in Arabic. I guess so since the consonants seem to be mostly the same all the time (I believe standard Arabic doesn't require vowels.)
          • fancyj, on 02/18/2008, -5/+2It was a serious question. So before you start assuming people are assholes why don't you take your own advice and sit down and count to 10.
      • PaulOwen, on 02/18/2008, -1/+7It's the gourd - follow the gourd!

        (no the shoe follow the shoe)

        etc.
    • epyon180, on 02/18/2008, -76/+350Towel-head? good job with the racism..... *****.
      • whataboutdave, on 02/18/2008, -86/+45Islam is a religion, not a race.
        • AydenV2, on 02/18/2008, -18/+110Are you dense? Since when is "Towel-head" not a racist remark? He isn't talking about all islamists, he is talking about middle eastern people and you know it.
          • mhender, on 02/18/2008, -36/+11If the shoe fits...
          • whataboutdave, on 02/18/2008, -30/+15"Middle eastern" isn't a race, either. I take it you've only been exposed to the Disney version of "the Orient".
          • Lhuth, on 02/18/2008, -4/+20Holy crap the average intelligence on this site just got lower.
        • BruceBogtrotter, on 02/18/2008, -5/+16According to dictionary.com
          Race:
          1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
          2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
          3. A genealogical line; a lineage.
          4. Humans considered as a group.
          • whataboutdave, on 02/18/2008, -3/+2I can convert to Islam. I can't convert to dark skin.
          • BruceBogtrotter, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1What's your point? You could then be considered pat of the Islamic group. Technically that would make you part of that race.
          • jimv1983, on 02/19/2008, -1/+0Islam, Christianity, Mormon, Jewish are religions. American, African, Chinese, Indian are races. I kinda bugs me that people say that Jewish is a race. Like whataboutdave said you can convert to a religion but cannot change your blood. I can become Jewish by following the Jewish religion.
            Unless somehow being Jewish is a religion and a race. If that is the case can someone follow the Jewish faith and not have Jewish heritage or have Jewish heritage and be Christian.
          • wakananda, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1According to orthodox jews - and reformed jews too, as far as I know - you are jewish if your mother was jewish. That makes it a race, a tribe, or union of tribes. Observance is a different question, but not one of the identity you're addressing.
          • jimv1983, on 02/20/2008, -1/+0Not true! I'm atheist. If my mom had been Jewish, I'D STILL BE ATHEIST.
            Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism...etc = RELIGIONS
            White, Black, Hispanic and Asian = RACES
            RELIGION NOT THE SAME AS RACE
      • ozkr, on 02/18/2008, -17/+21Towel-head? Really? Have you noticed how most racial insults ,besides being driven by ignorance and intolerance, are the most ridiculously sounding insults there are? Towel-head,wetback, dothead... etc. who came up with these? A ***** 5-year-old KKK member? ***** racists...
        • Monk22, on 02/18/2008, -8/+12they usually come from the situation people found themselves in actually. towel-head=many of them wear towel like wraps on their head. Wetback=illegals crossed into america by swimming across the rio grande, hence having a wet back. you know the government actually had an Operation Wetback to kick the illegals out a while ago. its really not that difficult to figure out.
          • Monk22, on 02/18/2008, -0/+2"who came up with these?"
            -ozkr
          • notanidiot, on 02/18/2008, -0/+3Well, perhaps we Americans can all start being known as "sister *****", or "fat lazy losers." Face it, in frontier days, there was inbreeding, and now, we are the fattest people around.

            Whats wrong, not as cool when its turned around, eh?
        • DanShapiro, on 02/18/2008, -4/+7A very small percentage of them have "towel like wraps on their head."
          • GiggleStick, on 02/18/2008, -1/+6Don't forget that Sikhs also wear turbans and are very much opposed to Islam, and gave us the cool word "guru". Some other people that aren't Muslim or Sikh wear turbans too I think.
          • DanShapiro, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2@GiggleStick
            Not really, Guru comes from Hinduism, refering to Brihaspati, a deity analogous to Zeus, but more widely references a teacher. However, there are Gurus in Budhism and Sikhism too.
        • Phrag, on 02/18/2008, -2/+5Shut up, cracker.
        • volonix, on 02/18/2008, -2/+2Islam =/= race, ironic that you call him ignorant.
      • Freezingmoose, on 02/18/2008, -23/+17Is racism still bad when it ISN'T driven by ignorance? I will admit to you that after living in the ghetto of northern Louisiana, I have formed a pretty negative image of black people, not because they have different skin but because of much of their culture! My fraternity house has been broken into 9 times in the past five months, I know it was a black person because my neighbor told me she saw him, but the police came too late. Another black person stole my phone in New Orleans. I am not afraid to admit that there are plenty of black people that don't fit this category, but plenty of them do. Why do I get the scarlet letter R when I make a judgment based on truth? Lets be honest, if I told you I was going to sit you in a room and send in one random person I saw on the street, and I gave them a knife, would you prefer a black person or a white person? There is a reason that the majority of people in prison are black, and it isn't because judges are racist. What I am saying is, blind racism, where you hate the black man in a business suit just as much as the black man in a Cadillac is wrong (or calling them all towelheads), but lets not get ahead of ourselves in the war on racism to where we cover our ears and say that race/culture doesn't make a difference!
        • jimv1983, on 02/18/2008, -13/+11Thank you. Well said!! If people want stereotypes to stop than people have to stop making them true. Sometimes when I go to movies there are people that are rude and yell at the screen or use their phones. Every time this has happened to me they have always been black. Also, as a college job I deliver pizzas and its just common knowledge that black people don't tip. Now don't take that to mean that they are the only ones that don't time because its not true. Honestly though out of all the people that don't tip 70 - 80% of them are black. Then there is the Muslims treatment of women. I'm not even sure how to describe that, its just sad. So if you don't like what wikipedia has DON'T GO THERE!!!
          • Phrag, on 02/18/2008, -2/+4"If people want stereotypes to stop than people have to stop making them true." - By that logic it is your duty to make sure no white people are racist before you have a right to ask people not to all you a racist, regardless of whether you are one or not.
          • jimv1983, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2I am not racist. If i was racist towards black people that would mean that I dislike them because of the color of their skin. That has nothing to do with it. It is totally the attitude and life style. Like I said before, being overly loud and disrespectful at many public places (movies,restaurants, apartments, businesses), constantly making up new words(hyphy, jiggy, giggin, crunk, thizz, etc....none of those are real words), or just making themselves look ridiculous with gold teeth aka "grills", "spinners", guys that wear shirts down past their knees(come on just take the next step and put on a god damn dress) and then there is rap much of which promotes murder, thief, the coolness of drug use and just complete and utter disrespect towards women. 90% of rappers are black. I will totally admit that every other race does some of this stuff too, but the majority are black. Also there is the fact that places with a higher black population have more crime. I live in a nice bay area(California) town with a small percentage of black people. There has been 1 murder in the last 20 years. The next town over which is mostly black has 30 - 40 murders every year! And the same is true on the other side of the country. Just to show my point I did a little research. Statistics from Detroit 1950 - 2000

            * Detroit’s overall population decreased 49%, from 1,849,668 to 951,270
            * Detroit’s White population decreased 93%, from 1,545,847 to 116,599
            * Detroit’s Black population increased 159% from 303,721 to 787,687
            * Detroit’s criminal homicide rate increased 582%, from 6.1 to 41.6 per 100,000 residents annually
            * Detroit’s robbery rate rose 596%, from 125 to 870 per 100,000 residents annually
            So the white population decreased by almost 100%, the black population increased over 150% and both robbery and murder both increased by almost 600%. I think thats pretty significant.


            If you remember back in the 60's, during the civil rights movement, blacks were segregated. They were treated as second class citizens. I think that kind of treatment of any human is horrible and I am happy with how far thing have come. So again I am not racist I just get fed up with the having to deal with their lifestyle everywhere I go.
        • danjwray, on 02/18/2008, -2/+13I think you have to look beyond who is committing crimes and consider the 'why'. Crime is far more prevalent in poor societies, and poverty has historically been forced upon racial minorities all over the world, with self-perpetuating legacies lasting to this day. Culture makes a huge difference, but race does not.
          • Freezingmoose, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2Has poverty been FORCED on racial minorities? Just because someone's dad runs off and their mom doesn't want to work doesn't mean he can't try and make something out of himself. Sure it is hard, but how long have the slaves been free now? Lets see, someone born when the civil rights act was signed would be 44 right now, thats about old enough to make a difference, wouldn't you say? And you are telling me that they still can't break free of the "inevitable" poverty cast upon their people?

            And if it is culture, not race (which I stated "not because they have different skin but because of much of their culture!"), then I feel neutral about the black race, and I hate the poor black culture.
        • frazw, on 02/18/2008, -2/+12So you are saying that behavior is a consequence of race rather than upbringing i.e. being raised poor and living in the ghetto?
          You get branded with that scarlet letter because you sought to classify people by the wrong means. Race.
        • dkevinscalf, on 02/18/2008, -1/+18That right there is EXACTLY what makes someone a racist.

          You're judging an entire race by one person's actions. You don't even think that its a thief or someone who's poor you think its a black person.

          You are a racist.
          • Freezingmoose, on 02/19/2008, -2/+2Ok, you are right. I don't hate black people, I hate thugs, gang members, thieves, pimps, and drug dealers. Hey, they might be white, but how many of them?

            I think it is insane that digg is full of such hardcore eRacism people, but are so intolerant of other groups, like for example Christians. Everyone jumps on them because they want to contribute to society while believing something that makes them happy, but you hate people who get tired of being mistreated by a culture! If some girl yells at me "why you do that, I ain't gonna steal nothin', damn little ____" (not an exaggeration) because I locked my car when I went inside to pay for my gas, what can you assume from that scenario? When you say the word "ebonics," what are you referring to? Ebony phonics?! WHAT?! You mean that some races/cultures can be different? No way!

            I DO think that it is a thief, and he may be poor, but he is also black.

            The whole word is classified into people groups, because there ARE differences. Southern people like country music and BBQ a lot more than people in the north. Hispanics like those little candles with Jesus and Mary on them a lot more than anyone else. Asians (even ones born and raised in America) like anime a lot more than anyone else. Differences happen, and they rarely always include everyone, and they aren't always good, but they exist. Ignoring them is just stupid.
          • danjwray, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2No Freezingmoose, *you* are stupid.
        • jimv1983, on 03/05/2008, -0/+0I just wanna say to Freezingmoose. Very well said.
      • akamurph, on 02/18/2008, -2/+0Did your feelings get hurt Epyon? Get a f'ing spine and disregard it. Read all the comments on digg and there are plenty of racist comments.
    • thebellmaster1x, on 02/18/2008, -18/+233You know, it's possible to disagree with somebody and not be a dick about it.
      • HiKevinRose, on 02/18/2008, -12/+17Although less entertaining. Seriously.
      • raybury, on 02/18/2008, -5/+14True. Sadly 180,000 people -- mostly Muslims but no doubt also some people who are too dumb to value freedom over "multiculturalism" -- who should not need to rely on Wikipedia to learn about Mohammed, don't feel that way.
        • zeabu, on 02/18/2008, -0/+1180k on a whole muslim-population of estimated 1.1 billion to 1.8 billion. That's 0,01%-0,02%. There is a 100-fold higher percentage of psychopats in the States, or in Europe, or over there. Just call a place.
    • reventlov, on 02/18/2008, -27/+106The One True God called, he said to shut the ***** up and stop using his name.
      • wearywanderer, on 02/18/2008, -7/+3AMEN to that, my brother!
      • smedrick, on 02/18/2008, -2/+9Praise be to Zeus!
      • nullifidian0, on 02/18/2008, -6/+10Mohammed's a god now?
      • slvrbullet87, on 02/18/2008, -2/+3And i told the one true god to make me, not using followers, he has to do it himself. You see this is why I worship zeus, lightining bolts prove points.
        • relentless1914, on 02/18/2008, -1/+2Nietzsche tried this already.....

          I think God got the last laugh.
      • TheOneTrueGod, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1I called to test you.

        FAIL
    • eon42, on 02/18/2008, -13/+175go ahead and bury me for this, but i support wikipedia for not giving in to the pressure of these ppl being all "offended" by something that is not even doing anything to them
      • echolyean, on 02/18/2008, -1/+79Your comment is not offensive and I believe most rational people would agree with you.
      • sgtbutterscotch, on 02/18/2008, -6/+30The first comment in the next thread was posted 8 hours before you and is also in support of Wikipedia and has 142 diggs... kinda funny you think you will be buried. The only reason the first commenter is being dugg down is because he's a douche.
        • echolyean, on 02/18/2008, -0/+11Either that or he's a master of reverse psychology.
      • fancyj, on 02/18/2008, -20/+8i just buried you for using ppl instead of people. seriously its 3 extra key strokes. you can't be saving that much time.
        • echolyean, on 02/18/2008, -0/+12*Shift* - one extra key while typing another (virtually no time saved).
        • mattmcm, on 02/18/2008, -0/+8I direct you to thebellmaster's comment above - "You know, it's possible to disagree with somebody and not be a dick about it."

          He had a good point, and burying him for taking one shortcut is just a colossal dick move.

          Since I can't be bothered starting a new comment thread - good for Wikipedia!
    • jm4847, on 02/18/2008, -37/+29People are so oversensitive about racial terms.
      • Ameenakel, on 02/18/2008, -12/+25Since when is "Towel-head" a racial "term" and not a racial *slur*?
        • FortyCaliber, on 02/18/2008, -3/+10And ambiguous... you might be referring to Hindus as well.
        • skankyBacon, on 02/18/2008, -0/+1Something being a slur does not mean it's not still a term. In fact, slurs are a subset of "terms."
      • jm4847, on 02/18/2008, -8/+12Last time I checked "Muslim" is not a race.
        • Coffeedemon, on 02/18/2008, -3/+7Towel head is used as an interchangeable slur for anyone who wore a wrap of some sort. Sikhs, Pakistanis, Indians and now Muslims, etc.

          It might not be a race but if I said you were probably an antagonistic dip ***** who hasn't spent enough years on this earth to know true perspective of the effect of their words;

          someone now hiding behind anonymity and semantics to throw a few stones at the target of the day all the while just to shrug and say Oh well its not a racial attack so its OK ... people are too sensitive.

          Its not based on race but you might get offended... see how it works? *****.
        • Phrag, on 02/18/2008, -0/+1Racist is easier to say than religiousist.
        • zeabu, on 02/18/2008, -0/+21. Racism is about races and religion.
          2. Islam is a religion, muslim is a "race". Hence, I'm not baptized, I don't believe in god, but i'm still christian.
        • Faubio, on 02/18/2008, -1/+1Wrong, a Christian is a person of any color, creed, or nationality that believes that Jesus Christ died for their sins and that that belief is the only way into Heaven.
    • anidal, on 02/18/2008, -1/+84If you want an Islamic perspective, here it is (as I understand it):
      The Quran doesn't explicitly forbid images of the Prophet. Not anywhere that I know of at least. The 'ban' in most Islamic societies is due to people taking the image as representative of worship. Since Islam explicitly forbids idolatry, images of Prophets are banned as they may lead to it.

      Since the ban is self-imposed, and nowhere does it say that it should be extended to other cultures, I fail to see the reasoning behind why so many muslims try to impose it on others. And even if it IS wrong, its not any of them that have done it, so the 'sins' aren't theirs to bear anyways... so.. again... why the outcry.
      • FortyCaliber, on 02/18/2008, -11/+32Really?
        You're going to actually try to question the "logic" behind religion?
        • Fordi, on 02/18/2008, -0/+15Those that follow a particular faith have logic behind their followings of their beliefs. Similarly, characters in fictional stories have logic behind their actions, even if those actions involve face-huggng aliens or time travel.

          In short, fiction and logical processes are not mutually exclusive, and while a person may hold an irrational belief, their motivations within those boundaries are normally quite rational.
        • jimv1983, on 02/18/2008, -10/+1FortyCaliber. I have one complaint and its that I can digg your comment more than once
      • macabaret, on 02/18/2008, -2/+11Despite the sarcasm you received, anidal, I really appreciate you explaining this. I'd always kinda wondered what the big deal was.
      • Berkana, on 02/18/2008, -1/+11Are Muslims objecting to depictions of Jesus on Wikipedia as well, since Jesus is regarded as a prophet in Islam? If not, there is no good reason to object to the depictions of Muhammad, since the self imposed ban is against depicting any prophet, not just Muhammad.

        Also, I think it is important to take note that the depictions were made by Ottomans and Persians, who were both Islamic at the time the depictions were made.

        I seriously doubt any person who comes across those depictions would be tempted to worship the images. If the self-imposed ban is against the depiction of Muhammad for fear of idolatry, the objective is to prevent idolatry, not to ban images in and of themselves.
        • pjr12345, on 02/18/2008, -11/+4Muslims, as many false religions, pay lip-service to Jesus. There's an innate understanding that Jesus is the real deal, and that their "prophet" is a fraud. So they attempt to gain legitimacy by leveraging from the truth. If they really believed Jesus, then they'd have to dump their guy, as Jesus (twice in Luke) and Peter (in Acts) state plainly that Jesus is the final prophet who fulfills all the prophecies of the Old Testament. Statements like that don't leave room for a mohammed.
          • Fafnir43, on 02/18/2008, -1/+4Yes, because of course the fact that they believe Jesus /existed/ means they believe the entire New Testament is accurate...

            *facepalm*
          • Phrag, on 02/18/2008, -1/+2"fulfills all the prophecies of the Old Testament" expect for that pesky one about actually coming back.
          • pjr12345, on 02/18/2008, -3/+1@Phrag:Your comment betrays a derth of knowledge and understanding about the Bible.
          • Magnus150, on 02/18/2008, -0/+3As with many false religions? You sound Christian to me.
            What makes you think your belief system is right?
        • pjr12345, on 02/18/2008, -0/+1@Fafnir43: The only verifiable eyewitness records of Jesus of Nazareth and the origins of Christianity are included in the historical books of the New Testament. If they aren't relying on these, how are they forming a valid understanding?
      • salism2, on 02/18/2008, -6/+2actually, we muslims, oppose to the depicting of ALLL prophets including Jesus (peas be upon him)
        the reasons behind this, are many, say if you wanna make a movie, depicting a prophet using any person 2day can never show how good that man was in reality, can't you understand our respect for these people!?

        i hope u see my point.
        • skankyBacon, on 02/18/2008, -2/+5That doesn't explain why a depiction of them is inherently disrespectful.
        • Phrag, on 02/18/2008, -1/+6Don't throw peas at Jesus!
        • zeabu, on 02/18/2008, -0/+3Not depicting was for not making idols out of the prophets. Even you're not depicting, you still do what the Q'ran prohibits. You should not make idols out of prophets.
    • sook81, on 02/18/2008, -3/+9Read TheOneTrueGod's seemingly drug-fueled rant about his having salvaged humanity from certain destruction from the other day on a post called "What Computers have taught me about God." I'm surprised he still posts under his moniker after that embarrassing & pointless rant. This guy's lame as hell and he doesn't have a clue...
      • TheOneTrueGod, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1I am the one true God, maker of the world.

        That you don't believe it does not make it untrue.

        Be happy IF you survive the next months - because then you will know.

        *cough*

        Btw: Words are to move. Not to tell. Mine at least. It is you who does not have a clue.
    • hmcook87, on 02/18/2008, -4/+13"towel-heads".... way to be diplomatic mate.
    • iainc, on 02/18/2008, -4/+4Watch, as some zealots behead the owners of Wikipedia. This is what will happen if they don't get their way. Here's hoping that moderates will get used to Free Speech and calm the ***** down.
    • exronin, on 02/18/2008, -9/+4Its called a turban jackass.
    • Nekiruhs, on 02/18/2008, -7/+4My blocklist, I welcome you to it.
    • ACrazyGerman, on 02/18/2008, -1/+3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhamma ...
    • edmondodantes, on 02/18/2008, -0/+1no god...please!!!

      "The sleep of reason produces monsters"
      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa ...
  • radiantarchon, on 02/18/2008, -27/+1643good for wikipedia.
    • JKAL, on 02/18/2008, -2/+23I wonder where the line is drawn...
      if the article in wikipedia was written in say Egyptian hieroglyphs ( a form of writting by using drawings..) would that be offensive... or for that matter Chinese characters depict a form.
      Even modern writting depicts something. where does one stop.?
      Logically to satisfy their requirements all written and drawings of M...., should be erased from all formats.
      • dualityim, on 02/18/2008, -3/+91Religion is frequently unfriendly to logic. This is just an obvious case of it. Wikipedia is setting a stance for all to follow, that the pursuit of knowledge and the freedom of information shall not be hindered by dogmatic principles.
      • counterplex, on 02/18/2008, -24/+4Your argument is quite flawed unfortunately. Descriptions of Muhammad are allowed. Any images depicting him are prohibited. Ask most muslims and they'll tell you it's purpose is to prevent worship of the man in place of his God. That particular point seems fairly logical to me and, while somewhat strange to Christians who are used to images and even sculptures of their deity, is surely something we can accomodate. If it's important enough to add, I think putting it behind a warning label (e.g. "Potentially Offensive Material Ahead") would certainly be a workable compromise.
        • etherreal, on 02/18/2008, -2/+36Why should we accomodate it? I am not a Muslim, and I am sure a good share of Wikipediots are not Muslims either. There are lots of other "-pedias" out there designed to fit a particular purpose (ie, Conservapedia). If it pisses off the Muslims, then they can make "Islamopedia" if they like.
        • dualityim, on 02/18/2008, -1/+7You missed the point completely.

          "Descriptions of Muhammad are allowed. Any images depicting him are prohibited."

          Where does one draw the line between description and depiction? Some verbal descriptions use characters based on ideograms or hieroglyphs. Should these be considered pictorial depictions? Should a verbal description that creates a vivid imagery in the mind of the reader be considered a pictorial depiction? Should a pictorial depiction that's highly abstract be considered something else entirely?

          The problem of drawing this line in the sand perfectly illustrates the illogic of this dogmatic requirement. It goes to show the illogical and inhumane nature of such dogma in religious systems.
          • diggimator, on 02/18/2008, -0/+1He would have had a strong or interesting argument if it was actually hard to distinguish what were images and what were not. His pretending that words and images of Muhammad are somehow hard to distinguish from each other is only getting voted up because he speaks on the side of the majority. Furthermore, usage of Egyptian hieroglyphs have ended by the time Muhammad was born.
          • pjr12345, on 02/18/2008, -1/+6Why should we accommodate their desire to muzzle freedom?
      • appletalk, on 02/18/2008, -26/+3Don't be foolish. This is not for the sake of neutrality. The image, as a matter of fact, has NO historical value AT ALL. Nor is it important for the article...

        This is just another -implicit- war frontier, that war that they created in your heads, that makes you think a muslim equals a terrorist (if you don't believe it, just search for 'terrorist' on this page). This is America's attempt to show muslims that they won't bow down to any of their requests, even religious.
        • wearywanderer, on 02/18/2008, -0/+16Hey, chill out, man... first off... what makes you the judge of whether that image has no historical value or is important for the article. I'm willing to bet Wikipedia's editors are knowledgeable people more qualified than you in making that judgement...
          Second, in spite of what YOU THINK Amierica's attempts are, most Americans do not equal muslim to terrorist... Stop being such a small pr*ck with such a huge inferiority complex!
        • Fordi, on 02/18/2008, -0/+17A 13th century painting has no historical value. Right. Here's hoping you go to school at some point in your life.
        • nullifidian0, on 02/18/2008, -0/+9No, this is Wikipedia's attempt to show anybody that they won't bow down to censorious requests, especially religious.
      • pjr12345, on 02/18/2008, -11/+3The truth is that muslims don't really care about the image of mohammed. What they're doing is exploiting a weakness of the western world. This is an attempt to conquer us through the rampant political correctness that has been poisoning our societies for the past 50 years. If they can whine and threaten us into sharia law, then they will take us without a fight. Sadly, the useful idiots on the left are unwitting accomplices by clinging to the stupidity that allows this behavior. Strong societies (good or evil) aren't experiencing this sort of attack.
        • archiesteel, on 02/18/2008, -1/+8"Sadly, the useful idiots on the left are unwitting accomplices by clinging to the stupidity that allows this behavior."

          You're the idiot: I'm a leftist and I support Wikipedia in their decision. At the same time, I oppose racist characterization of an entire group of people based on the actions of a few fanatics.
          • pjr12345, on 02/18/2008, -0/+1I agree that we shouldn't characterize "an entire group of people based on the actions of a few fanatics". Equally, we can and should characterize the religion of Islam, which teaches and encourages its faithful to exterminate those who can't be convinced or forced to join it.

            Islam's Koran also teaches that infidels are lesser humans than muslims. Under shariah law non-muslims must pay a tax, and are always wrong in legal issues where muslims are involved. With Islam, membership has its privileges.

            This evil religion and its corresponding barbaric and tyrannic legal system must be defeated everywhere on the planet. Those poor souls suffering under its heavy boot deserve to be freed.
        • saqer, on 02/18/2008, -8/+5You're wrong. I'm Muslim and I care about that image being paraded as a proper depiction of the Prophet when it's far from the truth. Just like the image of Jesus people commonly see. White man with long flowing brown hair? Some people say that's Constantine's face. Jesus had bronze colored skin and was much darker than as portrayed.
          And what the ***** do you know about shariah. Muslims priority is to rid their lands of the powerful and uninvited western influence, and you come here and talking about "threaten us into sharia law". All Muslims want is to live independently of this domineering and threatning western presence.
          Dugg down for ignorance.
          • pjr12345, on 02/18/2008, -2/+9That might ring a bit truer if your brethren weren't trying to kill novelists in England and film-makers in the Netherlands. Not to mention the massively bloody hissy-fits thrown by the masses every time the over-sensitized horde perceives an insult... like naming a teddy bear mohammed.
          • pauleku, on 02/18/2008, -2/+2Dont they have McDonalds and other similar venues over there? Im sure they do....
          • Phrag, on 02/18/2008, -1/+1pjr- Don't judge them all by what a minority do or else you will end up with people claiming all Christians are pedophiles.
          • zeabu, on 02/18/2008, -0/+1Although your point is valid, about a non-proper representation (Jesus indeed was like most people from that area, brown-skinned). You do what the Q'ran prohibits you to do. DO NOT MAKE AN IDOL OF THE PROPHET. Which means a non-proper depicting is not something you'll die from.
    • KingGorilla, on 02/18/2008, -3/+28If we can all digg him to 180000...
    • 10001110101, on 02/18/2008, -13/+125Here is my depiction of Muhammad:
      . O - Hurrah for Allah!
      --|--
      / L
      So.. Will that be censored?
      • redfox2600, on 02/18/2008, -5/+10Why is Muhammad head not attached to his body? And why the hell are Muslims pissed off. I seen the picture, it was drawn by an Islamic scholar and it show a guy teaching his followers. WTF is wrong with that?
        • Turbidity, on 02/18/2008, -6/+14In the Islam religion, it is very much forbidden to create or show ANY depiction of Muhammed. That's why so many Muslims are upset, and also why Wikipedia isn't going to budge.
          • Fordi, on 02/18/2008, -5/+18This isn't true, of course. In some (not all) of the more, shall we say, zealous Muslim nations, it is forbidden to depict Mohammed, an effort to avoid worship of the man over the God. There is no Islam law to that effect, though.
          • jrbrewin, on 02/18/2008, -1/+10i'm sure the mere fact that it is forbidden isn't the sole reason for wikipedia showing it, and refusing to take it down.
            how did the image that they are showing even come to be in existence anyway? I've not seen the article, but if it's a photo of artwork, how come the artwork still exists if it were such a bad thing?
          • ours, on 02/18/2008, -1/+12Why is Fordi been dugg down?
            Mohammed images are forbidden in the same way Christians are forbidden to worship God's depiction and for the same reason. When things turn ridiculous is when fundamentalist prohibit non-believers to make depictions of Muhammed.
            Each religion's code of belief is supposed to be followed by their believers, not necessarily the rest of the world. Well, I guess fundies are the same everywhere, whether christian or islam or whatever.
        • Babel33, on 02/18/2008, -13/+4You "seen" the picture? Did you also marry them thar cousins of yours?
      • dumpyhumpy, on 02/18/2008, -0/+3I like his cape.
      • joker10687, on 02/18/2008, -0/+13was it a coincidence that the 3 letters you used to make muhammed were "O I L" ?
        • 10001110101, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3Yes. I wanted to use a slash, but the comment engine won't let you put it in. And, the middle character is a pipe, not an I.
      • WayOfTheIronPaw, on 02/18/2008, -1/+2[CITATION NEEDED]
    • harveywalbanger, on 02/18/2008, -26/+11AND we can use the email addresses of the 180,000 complaints to track down terrorists! HA HA HA - those crazy guys, they just don't thoroughly plan things out when they get angry, do they.

      -HW
      • Kamill85, on 02/18/2008, -1/+1-Thx4info
      • ianam, on 02/18/2008, -3/+6Few Muslims are terrorists.
        • ProgressBar, on 02/18/2008, -5/+7True, but most terrorists are Muslim.
          • edwartica, on 02/18/2008, -0/+1Well, give it a few years. I'm sure the Scientologists will top that.
          • Phrag, on 02/18/2008, -0/+1Not true. Look at South America which is mostly Christian. There are 9,000 - 12,000 people in FARC alone.
          • zeabu, on 02/18/2008, -0/+1Wrong. Terrorist is "en vogue" since Bush is running bussiness. Before that, it were "rebels". It's not because of a different label, we're talking about different things.
      • letitbleed62, on 02/18/2008, -0/+1Don't disgrace the 1982 Brewers with your ignorant comments
    • appletalk, on 02/18/2008, -32/+3I agree. However, since it pisses off such a large group of people, I think they should enable an option to hide the images by default, and only show them upon clicking (for everyone). It's like nudity. You don't show it by default because a child could come and see it. Why would you show by default something just as offensive -or even more!- for a muslim ?

      What wikipedia ignores is that *nothing* is neutral for everyone... In this case, they should adjust the neutrality.
      • wellyuk, on 02/18/2008, -0/+18they do offer an option to hide the images by default.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/FAQ

        There are several images that would be considered not suitable for viewing by a child, however those aren't censored either.
      • harveywalbanger, on 02/18/2008, -3/+14Hey Appletalk - adjust this! You are the worst kind of pro-censorship bonehead out there. The kind that pretends to agree and then says something completely opposite. Make fun of Jesus and we don't riot and kill each other - for crying out loud - if we bend to every special interest we end up with Orwell's 1984 you sanctimonious ass.

        -HW
        • jrbrewin, on 02/18/2008, -0/+4considering your comment above about using the email addresses of the 180,000 to track down 'terrorists', i believe you should really use sanctimonious to describe yourself. Please don't try to use digg generic get-out claus #1 - "i was being ironic", it doesn't wash.

          and just so you know, you don't really need to sign your bile filled comments, your name appears a few lines above it.
      • starkruzr, on 02/18/2008, -0/+7Wikipedia does not censor anything, including sexually explicit images.
      • edwartica, on 02/18/2008, -0/+1That's the same logic used in Nazi Germany, and led to the Holocaust.
      • zeabu, on 02/18/2008, -0/+1It's like surfing to a porno site, and being shocked there is nudity. If you surf to a non-religious page to get to know something about islam, well, you shouldn't be shocked there's an illustration of the Q'ran, Jezus, Mohamed, .. over there.
    • xkorbin, on 02/18/2008, -2/+94Wikipedia, for defending Free Speech, I salute you.
      • saqer, on 02/18/2008, -6/+1Free Speech needs to come with accuracy, mind you. That photo of Prophet Muhammad is not an accurate depiction of him.
        • Lythium, on 02/18/2008, -0/+7But it IS an accurate representation of how he was viewed by his following, and therefore it is very relevant to the article. I must also point out that your argument has absolutely nothing to do with the nature of the complaints: ANY figurative image is taboo in certain Muslim denominations, and I would think that the more true-to-life it is, the more controversy it would rate.
      • salism2, on 02/18/2008, -5/+0here is the way i see it, and you people don't seem to understand this,
        if say, you have a sick mother who's about to die from being too over-weight, if som1 comes allong and says: "you mother is fat and she's gonna die!" would u take that as free speech?

        isn't your definition of freedom, the right to do anything you want as long as it doesn't violate other peoples' rights??
        • Acolyte357, on 02/18/2008, -0/+4"if say, you have a sick mother who's about to die from being too over-weight, if som1 comes allong and says: "you mother is fat and she's gonna die!" would u take that as free speech?"
          Yes, I might not like it, nor be happy with the comment at all, but I will fight with every ounce of my being to make sure that you have the right to say it.
          "isn't your definition of freedom, the right to do anything you want as long as it doesn't violate other peoples' rights??"
          Yes, and violating the laws of a religion have nothing to do with others right, unless the religion is being forced on them by the government or they are told they can not practice it
    • themastersb, on 02/18/2008, -2/+72All of a sudden I feel like donating money to Wikipedia.
      • daza, on 02/18/2008, -2/+23I'm glad to see my $10 donation is doing well. Would have been disappointed if they bowed down to the demands.
    • chirwan, on 02/18/2008, -10/+5digg http://www.digg.com/world_news/Support_Wikipedia_b ...
    • rentmitchum, on 02/18/2008, -2/+21I like on the Muhammad article it says on the bar on the right in smaller letters "Islamic Prophet" then underneath it says "Muhammad" in bigger print. It reminded me of how the Zelda bosses are introduced. I want in the next Zelda to open a big door with the Master Key and suddenly down from the ceiling jumps a muslim looking guy and it says "Islamic Prophet: Muhammad".. That'd be a good direction for the series to go.
    • Babel33, on 02/18/2008, -5/+4logged in to digg you up.
    • jellygraph, on 02/18/2008, -6/+32[This comment has been removed due to a death threat]
    • mapkinase, on 02/18/2008, -12/+2Actually, if you look soberly, it's Wikipedia moderators who are censoring it. They decided to close the article for editing making arbitrary decision that the pictures are relevant, while they are clearly not and the discussion has very good rationale for removing pictures without any hint of religious discourse.

      Just think about it without context of "towelheads". "Islamic terrorism", "clash of civilization" and turn to the basics.
      • Loonacy, on 02/18/2008, -0/+4Read the actual page:
        This page is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved.
        Protection is not an endorsement of the current version (protection log). Please discuss changes on the talk page or request unprotection. You may use {{editprotected}} on the talk page to ask for an administrator to make an edit for you.
    • Fhwqhgads, on 02/18/2008, -2/+13Free Speech wins today.
    • danielsamuels, on 02/18/2008, -1/+11I agree! [citation needed]
    • peligro18, on 02/18/2008, -10/+1i dont think is good
      is for respect
      just because the webadmin of wikipedia is from the west and he does not consider what the musslims think important
      doesnt mean that is shold remain like that
      wikipedia is for everybody and there should be no offence there
      and an offence is made when the other people feel offended not when u think u made one
      just show respect
      • twitch488, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2wikipedia is not about not showing offensive material

        it is about giving the web community access to CORRECT and TRUE information.

        Everyone is offended by something (i myself am offended when extremist religous people (of any religion) try and use their power to get their own way). If we were to remove everything that was offensive, then wikipedia would lose alot of content.
    • sl123000, on 02/18/2008, -0/+2Every time I refresh this page, this comment jumps easily 20-40 diggs.
    • diggcensors, on 02/18/2008, -0/+5Sorry, my religion is against censorship.
    • LordoftheLoo, on 02/18/2008, -2/+1The thing is, a formal request was made and it was done in a manner that i think their request should of been met. If its not a big deal here, but a major one there, why not just let it slide, and file the pictures under some different section in wikipedia?
      • DeadElephant, on 02/18/2008, -0/+1Let one slide and it all goes downhill.
    • pasta2000, on 02/18/2008, -0/+2I'll add that you can do a Google Image search and find pictures of Muhammad.
    • twitch488, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2Wikipedia needs to get ANON to help them drive the hordes of Angry Muslims back!
      Dugg for great justice.
  • dupswapdrop, on 02/18/2008, -316/+69Hey right now I am using the Wikipedia image of Muhammad as my wallpaper on the desktop in XP. Any of you ragheads want a copy?
    • minnymoo, on 02/18/2008, -20/+143i almost dugg you up, but then saw the word "raghead." -grow up.
      • gritta, on 02/18/2008, -9/+23Yeah, he should have used "towelhead" instead, what an amateur.
    • Ameenakel, on 02/18/2008, -7/+104Yeah! You stick it to 'em! I'm sure the next time they come over to your house, turn on your computer, and log in to XP they'll sure be offended!
    • dupswapdrop, on 02/18/2008, -85/+19sorry didn't I hope I didn't offend you ragheads. Here have a porkchop.
      • riskybeats, on 02/18/2008, -2/+55wow, you are taking offensive to a whole new level with your awesome blend of wit and satire.
    • jm4847, on 02/18/2008, -19/+14I lol'd
    • rossiohead, on 02/18/2008, -10/+21People keep making comments on how enlightened our society is compared to these backward Muslim countries. But if we were really so enlightened, you wouldn't see every third commenter on this page (the OP in particular) going out of their way to be offensive to any Muslim who might be reading.
      • Monk22, on 02/18/2008, -3/+18this is the internet champ not a harvard lecture hall.
    • dupswapdrop, on 02/18/2008, -10/+5Hey lets put this on a T-shirt! anyone know were I can get a high res version?
  • JimmySpaza, on 02/18/2008, -111/+205What a pleasant surprise! Someone at Wikipedia finally grew a set of cajones.

    Not Mohammed - the lying, pedophile, war monger...but close enough.
    http://www.stewwebb.com/BushShiitPetTerrorist.jpg
    • toolsdrummer, on 02/18/2008, -4/+49*cojones
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cojones
      • jecruzs, on 02/18/2008, -4/+12As a Spanish speaker, I'd like to thank you--so much. You have no idea about how grateful I am right now.
      • asurroca, on 02/18/2008, -2/+9Seriously... if you can't speak Spanish, don't.
      • saska, on 02/18/2008, -1/+2You beat me to it.

        Still, it's fun to hear people going around talking about growing a set of dresser drawers.
      • zeabu, on 02/18/2008, -0/+2drawers (cajones) sounds funny too.
    • guria89, on 02/18/2008, -45/+7SHUT UR F***ING MOUTH
    • terminal157, on 02/18/2008, -26/+35Everyone who says "rag heads" gets buried to kingdom come (rightly so) but people are digging Jimmy ***** Spaza of all people for calling Mohammed a "lying, pedophile, war monger"? I realize one is racist and the other is an attack on the religion itself, but it's still bigotry. Come on people.

      Calling him a pedophile in particular is low. People got married when they were basically kids back then and for most of human history. Most biblical figures could probably be considered pedophiles in the same sense.
      • bysin, on 02/18/2008, -7/+18As long as you attack religion and not race, we're cool.
      • vuke69, on 02/18/2008, -6/+266 years old isn't basically a kid, it is absolutely without a doubt a very young child.
      • Tahiri, on 02/18/2008, -16/+24Well Muhammed was a pedophile. So telling the truth doesn't get you buried.
        • saqer, on 02/18/2008, -7/+6Aisha loved the Prophet dearly and he loved her as much. Before he proposed to her she was proposed to by another man. People in that time used to marry young. The marriage was not consummate until she was mature. All the enemies of Islam during that time used to call the Prophet a sorcerer or a crazy person but never did they call him a pedophile. Even the Jewish tribes in Arabia used to marry their girls that young. So what you are saying is faaaaaar from the truth. Grow a set of balls and explore the historic literature without resorting to compare everything of the past to today's standards you ignorant *****.
        • zeabu, on 02/18/2008, -1/+1As it was a normal thing those times. Look at the Greeks or the Romans, and you'll see the same.
        • calibration, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1Just because other people did it doesn't make it right.
      • BGog, on 02/18/2008, -3/+12I see, so it is also bigotry when we make fun of Zenu the volcano god of scientology. Wrong. I will always defend when it's a nasty racial remark. However please, feel free to rip the ***** out of any religion you like. There is no reason to defend someones fantasy. However, defending real people, that is a noble thing.
      • neko6, on 02/18/2008, -8/+18"lying, pedophile, war monger" - But according to the Koran, he was... The 9 year old wasn't his first wife, he didn't NEED to have sex with her, he had his first wife. but he wanted to and did anyway, and he did wage war and killed people all over for not converting to Islam.
        • saqer, on 02/18/2008, -9/+2you think you know it all. As if you have sat down and studied the history from an objective point of view. But you don't. The likes of you who spread lies about the Prophet Muhammad haven't the slightest idea who he really was.
          • Beveridge89, on 02/18/2008, -1/+7Nice reponse. Now trying countering his points.
          • neko6, on 02/18/2008, -1/+4You're welcome to prove me wrong.
          • saqer, on 02/18/2008, -0/+2what are your sources again?
    • Roger, on 02/18/2008, -17/+35"Not Mohammed - the lying, pedophile, war monger...but close enough."

      If you actually looked through the Wikipedia article you'd see he likely wasn't any of those things.
    • Reaper2806, on 02/18/2008, -2/+14I mean no offence to any religion, but it's my right to do as I please. If I make an image of this guy, that's my right. I'm not bound by anyone else's beliefs.
      At the same time I'm not going to draw him just to get a reaction out of someone, that's just provacation, and it goes against common sense and respect.
      The original comic in the Danish newspaper was not attacking a religion, it was just being satirical, and they have the right to do that.
      • zeabu, on 02/18/2008, -0/+1Have you seen that comic? It was not close to funny. It was a centrum-right newspaper in a (far)right governed country publishing "sec" insulting cartoons. Although it should not be censored, nor prohibited by law, there's something like good taste.
        Comparing those stupid Danish cartoons with the picture on wikipedia is plain stupid.
  • swicken, on 02/18/2008, -22/+493As well they should refuse. If you really want to be neutral then you shouldn't give in to one groups demands.
    Plus, it's pretty abusrd on the part of the Muslims protesting to expect a website not professing to be of their religion to follow the tenets of their religion. Maybe I'll carve Muhammad into a pumpkin for next halloween.
    • SierraAlpha, on 02/18/2008, -5/+17If you do that I'm sure something bad will happen to your house *sigh*.
    • bingobongony, on 02/18/2008, -5/+50Fanatical Muslms have sort of made it a habit of trying to force people of all religions to follow the tenets to Islam.
      • satanswetnipple, on 02/18/2008, -11/+20Yet you do not see the hypocrisy of the situation? Most countries in the British Commonwealth have laws called "Blasphemous libel". This makes it a serious jailable offence to criticise the Bible in any way. Many of these countries force public holidays during Christmas and Easter. Stores get fines in the tens of thousands for opening on these Christian days. Even the days of the week are organised by Christianity. Much of the Middle East have their own week days, but they can and do face difficulty because Christian nations prefer that everyone adapt to the Christian way of doing things. Muslims have even had to adapt to a Year numbering system that is based on the birth of the Christian Prophet/Deity.

        And you believe they have "made it a habit" to ask for this one thing?
        • bingobongony, on 02/18/2008, -6/+10Can and do face difficulty is not the same as being blown up. No Crhistians strap dynamite to themselves and blow up people who want to name their days of the week something else.
          • zeabu, on 02/18/2008, -0/+1Christians don't strap dynamite to themselves? That's not what I read about Libanon. That even has happened in Iraq too. It's not only muslims living there.
          • Izult, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1So i guess those Crusades were just a little trip to the holy land just to see the sites then?
        • Claverhouse, on 02/18/2008, -1/+23I've not heard of anyone being jailed for criticising the Bible for centuries. If public holidays grew from religious holidays it doesn't affect anyone since they still get the holidays and are not required to offer any belief to do so. The days of the week are seven days which started in the Middle East, and are mostly named from the Norse Gods; which days are chosen to be days of rest is purely cultural --- the only alternative to them adapting to us is that we adapt to them, and there is no compelling reason to do so unless their way is superior.

          Muslims can get used to our Year numbering system. It was here long before Muhammed was born and will probably be here long after he is forgotten.
        • daza, on 02/18/2008, -0/+12You can bet if Islam was the dominant religion in British Commonwealth countries we would be following the Islamic way of things, be it years, public holidays, or how our women dress. At least these "Christian" lead countries are far more democratic and less prohibitive on our freedom.
          • zeabu, on 02/18/2008, -1/+2Next time you go on holidays, try Poland. Or Bible-belt America. We'll see how free you are.
          • Izult, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2Or Colorado City for that matter. There are Christians who are very intent on making sure that we live life according to THEIR rules. Huckabee for example... remember he's the one that wants to amend the Constitution so it's in line with "God's standards" .. Just who's god exactly? Mine? Yours? His? the Wiccan god/goddess? What about the Islamic god? What about the Jewish god? Or is that splitting hairs too much?
        • Izult, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1If you REALLY dig into the Christian "Traditions" you'll be hard pressed to find any that don't have their origins in some sort of pagan rite.
      • tgc1, on 02/18/2008, -6/+7Reminds me of this other religion I know.
        • bingobongony, on 02/18/2008, -6/+5Yeah...beefore humans sort of EVOLVED past that primitive thinking. Hasn't happened on the same scale with Christianity in centuries.
      • Jeffler, on 02/18/2008, -4/+26Correction.

        Fanatical ________ (insert any belief here, even atheism) have sort of made it a habit of trying to force people of all religions to follow the tenets to ______.
        • bingobongony, on 02/18/2008, -5/+1Update that to post-17th century
        • Jeffler, on 02/18/2008, -0/+1Dude, I'm Catholic and will throw us into the ring...it doesn't have to be violence...could even just be the person who comments on my youtube profile who says they have links to a massive saie on iPhones, and when you click the wink, its a site trying to convert you by saying you WILL go to hell if you don't.

          ***** that *****.
        • Acolyte357, on 02/18/2008, -0/+7Fanatical "atheists" have sort of made it a habit of trying to force people of all religions to follow the tenets to ______. err I'm stumped, could you tell me the tenets of atheism?
      • oxdeltaxo, on 02/18/2008, -0/+5If I went to their country I'd follow the rules, but upon entering mine they'd better learn in a real hurry some of their rules no longer apply. It's that simple.
    • ZeroFive1, on 02/18/2008, -3/+9I think wikipedia should remove all pictures of maggots, because, seriously, those things are disgusting.
    • exomni, on 02/18/2008, -2/+4How would anyone know it's muhammed? Would you depict it molesting a chi--

      ...never mind.
  • BlackDaniel, on 02/18/2008, -57/+315Ragheads and toweljockeys? Seriously, buried hardcore for being total 13 year old dickwads.. "Yeah we totally want your important racial slur imput here!!"

    *****
    • philthetechie, on 02/18/2008, -36/+9buried for not using spell check on imput
      • Karmavs, on 02/18/2008, -5/+31Buried for not using spell-check on input.
        • StarlessKnight, on 02/18/2008, -2/+3@chouch: I believe what Karmavs is playing off of is the lack of quotation marks around "imput," thereby suggesting that philthetechie was saying "imput" rather than input when in context they were obviously talking about BlackDaniel's use of "imput" instead of input. There's the long of it.

          The short of it: Karmavs hates grammar Nazis. jk
          • zeabu, on 02/18/2008, -0/+2And I hate people using Nazi for everything that's not.
    • lickmylovepump, on 02/18/2008, -27/+9yeah, such insensitive jerks. why can't they just say camel ***** like the rest of us?
    • xkorbin, on 02/18/2008, -13/+9Camel jockey*
    • Syphon8, on 02/18/2008, -3/+17Islam: Not a race.
    • BeyondDGrave, on 02/18/2008, -0/+3Your statement is very Ironic...I thought I would just say that....
    • starkruzr, on 02/18/2008, -4/+14As a member of the ***** race, I am highly offended by your comment.
  • bonkeykong, on 02/18/2008, -164/+25180,000 ragheads also demanded Wikipedia remove the image of tubgirl I placed in the article.
    • nightmare1228, on 02/18/2008, -4/+28Grow the ***** up. Is the use of "ragheads" really necessary?
      • bonkeykong, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Grow up, you're the one who knows what raghead means, what tubgirl is and is cursing.
    • Tahiri, on 02/18/2008, -4/+11@Nightmare: No, it's not.

      @bonkeykong: Gees, if you're trying to promote the race/group you belong to as being superior, at least act it. Instead you're a racist bigot.
      • bonkeykong, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1I'm either a racist bigot or an attention craving kid who likes seeing people get huffy on the internet.
  • limezor2, on 02/18/2008, -25/+324If they're such hard core Muslims, why don't they stay on the Arabic version of Wikipedia? They don't have a picture of Mohammad.
    • whataboutdave, on 02/18/2008, -3/+97Jimbo Wales speaks English, so the English language Wikipedia is the definitive Wikipedia. You can read it in translation, but all true followers of Wikipedia aspire to the original English. The metres and cadences of the English language Wikipedia are singularly beautiful.

      ;)
      • Sil369, on 02/18/2008, -1/+27that sounded poetic
        • cptsmidge, on 02/18/2008, -0/+55It was poking fun at the Koran being read in Arabic. Bravo Dave. That made my night.

          "Mohammad spoke Arabic, so the Arabic language Koran is the definitive Koran. You can read it in translation, but all true followers of the Koran aspire to the original Arabic. The metres and cadences of the Arabic language Koran are singularly beautiful."
    • Ameenakel, on 02/18/2008, -14/+35Not that I'm Muslim, but why do you stereotype all of the "hard core [sic] Muslims" to speak only Arabic (or even to speak Arabic at all)?
      • mille716, on 02/18/2008, -1/+40I'm referring back to a religious studies course in college so forgive me if this is off a bit. The Prophet spoke Arabic and the Qur'an is written in Arabic. Most Muslims believe you should know Arabic to properly understand the texts so nothing is lost in translation.
      • riskybeats, on 02/18/2008, -3/+16good thing you inserted [sic]. I thought it was YOU who had neutered the word 'hardcore'. You make internets proud.
      • WoollyMittens, on 02/18/2008, -1/+13If you can't read and recite the koran in its original language, you are not a proper moslim.
        • mowe, on 02/18/2008, -2/+1Most Muslims *can* read and recite the Qur'an in Arabic, I haven't come across any who can't.
        • BaronSamedi242, on 02/18/2008, -1/+3You forgot "memorize'.

          Most Islamic curricula is something like memorize Koran, chant "I hate Jews" for an hour, hit effigies of George Bush and Tony Blair with a stick for 20 minutes, back to memorizing the Koran.....

          And then it's time for bomb making training and how to apply for welfare benefits in Canada training. Interspersed with prayers five times a day.
    • faheemer123, on 02/18/2008, -9/+1lol ur an idiot most muslims dont speak arabic there are more muslims in india then in the whole arabic speaking world
    • d3lta, on 02/18/2008, -1/+13In other news, 180,000 Muslims haven't heard of Evil Wikipedia but agree with its antisemitic sentiment
    • salism2, on 02/18/2008, -2/+0arabs form 12%15% of the muslims in our world! what are you gonna do for the other 85% heh???
      i think all you have is 1pt of view and you can't see ours...
      • assortedg, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1...and you can't force your point of view on all users of the internet. Sorry!
    • dontaskagain, on 02/18/2008, -0/+1It's a good job the 1 IP address that comes out of Saudi Arabia was banned from editing Wiki entries, Otherwise their dogma would of lead to wiki terrorism.
  • vornan19, on 02/18/2008, -54/+12Damn! I'm feeling left out from all the hate.
    *makes snarky racist comment*
    Digg me down!
    • slicedoranges, on 02/18/2008, -0/+3Looks like you got your wish after all.
  • RaysinX, on 02/18/2008, -30/+65Even diggers are sometimes ignorant idiots...
    • grungegbunny, on 02/18/2008, -2/+72sometimes?
    • BlackTye, on 02/18/2008, -3/+25Even? Sometimes?
      Replace those with "Most" and "always"
    • AntzNZ, on 02/18/2008, -2/+7Luckily the majority of them are dugg down, so that leads me to believe that the number of awesome people are much larger than the racist idiots.
      • mowe, on 02/18/2008, -0/+2Well, some of them still get dugg way up :/
  • highPhone, on 02/18/2008, -4/+145Dugg for linkng directly to print view
  • MasterThief117, on 02/18/2008, -65/+39Dear Muslim extremists:
    I am offended by you all wearing turbins on your heads. I demand you remove them at once.
    Thank you.
    -MasterThief117
    • Anonemousk, on 02/18/2008, -40/+7Dear *****-waste,
      I'm offended that you're still alive. I demand you to end yourself at once.
      Thank you.
      -Anonymous
    • Tahiri, on 02/18/2008, -3/+6I agree, not out of racism, but out of revenge for all the assholes who are offended by us saying Merry Christmas.
    • funwithphobias, on 02/18/2008, -2/+4With a name like "MasterThief," I'm sure you draw a lot of importance in the Muslim comunity. Hell, with a name that good, even the whole world must bow at your canned, 13 year-old level of creativity!
    • MonarchWastxD, on 02/18/2008, -4/+12SIKHS WEAR TURBANS NOT MUSLIMS! GRAR!
      • oshear, on 02/25/2008, -1/+0Some Muslims wear turbans too. Sihk, Muslim, doesn't matter -- their costumes look equally ridiculous.
    • ORBAT, on 02/18/2008, -0/+4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbine
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turban
    • thedr96run, on 02/18/2008, -0/+3While this comment may seem petty, I think it also points out how silly the Muslims are being...
    • dogstar0125, on 02/18/2008, -1/+6To all of you people who think that your dim-witted interpretation of your laughable religious text somehow trumps basic human rights and the systems of civil law and common law that have been continually refined over the course of thousands of years:

      1. You have no right to force your religious views on anybody else. If you think otherwise, go the ***** back to the 12th century where you belong. "Freedom of religion" also means "freedom from religion".

      2. "Immutable word of God communicated directly to a living man and transcribed for the benefit of the rest of human kind." Give me a ***** break. Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds to someone who has not been brainwashed by your idiotic little cult? You must be the same people who fall for the "you have won the Spanish national lottery" scam.

      3. Did "God" tell you that independent thought is a sin punishable by eternal damnation? If so, wouldn't you wonder why? And if not, please try it. But be forewarned that removing all logical fallacies and non sequiturs from your train of thought may lead you to an unwelcome conclusion, especially if you've already wasted a lot of time and effort participating in your moronic religious practices.

      4. In the modern world, religious "law" never trumps basic human rights, and those rights include freedom of religion and freedom of expression. If you don't understand this, please hit yourself in the head with a ball-peen hammer until you do. If you think this seems counter-intuitive, consider this: apparently you cannot be more stupid than you are now. Therefore, any change in your mental capacity must be an improvement.

      In conclusion, please ***** off and die. All of you. You're a blight on the earth and an impediment to civil society and human advancement. You are to intellectual development the equivalent of drug addicts in civil society. Society spends endless resources coping with you and gets nothing in return. If fact, you're worse than drug addicts, because drug addicts have some hope of recovery whereas you apparently have none. So please, leave this earth and seek the paradise that awaits you and others who share your smug assurance that you are right and everybody else is wrong.
    • askegg, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2I am offended by your offence - please stop it at once.
  • retzed, on 02/18/2008, -28/+13I wonder how an internet jihad would go down? Oh yeah, that's exactly what Anonymous is.
  • treelovinhippie, on 02/18/2008, -24/+44There are 180,000 radical Muslims on the Net?
    • Claverhouse, on 02/18/2008, -1/+20Maybe 90 with lotz of accounts each.
      • hotmart7, on 02/18/2008, -4/+4figure each one has 72 virgins who in turn now have 8 kids that gives you a total of 180,000. So, in reality we're talking about one family that seems offended.
    • hotmart7, on 02/18/2008, -9/+8figure each one has 72 virgins who in turn now have 8 kids that gives you a total of 180,000. So, in reality we're talking about one family that seems offended.
      • Phoenixito, on 02/18/2008, -1/+1How do virgins have children exactly? Unless you mean they are a very holy family?
    • SIRBERUS, on 02/18/2008, -0/+8That's the thing... there wasn't even 180,000 people asking for it to be taken down.

      If you just read through some of the "digital signatures", there is a large bunch of them written by people supporting wikipedia, but had to "sign" the petition just to voice their opinion to other people reading the petition.

    • salism2, on 02/18/2008, -4/+0we love our prophets and respect them, something which you people don't seem to understand at all...
      • zeabu, on 02/18/2008, -0/+2No we, non-muslims, non-christians, non-religious people are born without neither a heart, nor a soul. We have a hard time in this world without the gift of sharing love and respect. You're as racist as that redneck.
        • dbz253, on 02/18/2008, -1/+1what does any of this have to do with race?
    • raydelmundo, on 02/18/2008, -4/+1its a basic principle of respect
      it doesn't make one a radical
      and just because Christians put statues of Jesus every where
      doesn't mean that other religions feel the same!!!!
      • Rabbethan, on 02/18/2008, -0/+3OK, fine. You put up statues of Jesus everywhere, and we'll take down the images of Muhammad. And then you need to stop talking about your beliefs in public to be respectful to the atheists. Remember, if you own a restaurant, only sell kosher food, to be respectful to the Jews.
  • Theoxenmooving, on 02/18/2008, -32/+247http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/8073/mohammadla ...
    • nicksauce, on 02/18/2008, -10/+11ALLAH WILL SMITE YOU!
    • rdhazrd, on 02/18/2008, -8/+24Dude you're ***** now. They will be pissed you drew him as a white man.
      • d3lta, on 02/18/2008, -2/+1Why everyone knows Jeebus was black and noone is pissed about that...
    • reddikilowatt, on 02/18/2008, -11/+3You just made the list, buddy.
    • riskybeats, on 02/18/2008, -4/+20I didn't know he came with vanilla ice cream poop on his head. I should idolize this ice cream loving fellow.
    • DCB360, on 04/11/2008, -3/+23I'd digg your comment, but for some reason I don't feel its safe enough.
    • callmejordy265, on 02/18/2008, -0/+1why is his head disembodied with the rest of his body?
    • d3lta, on 02/18/2008, -0/+1itsatrap
    • ukblacknight, on 02/18/2008, -0/+11NFSM (Not Safe For Muslims?)
    • domokunt, on 02/18/2008, -0/+6Im so offended right now.... by your crappy paint skills
    • haelios, on 02/18/2008, -0/+2This was so awesome that I... http://digg.com/comedy/Censor_this
    • katieedwards, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1That was an offensive comment. Get over yourself.
  • Sil369, on 02/18/2008, -28/+5Why don't they just DDos the damn site. Sheesh.
    • nullifidian0, on 02/18/2008, -0/+6They prayed for it, but it doesn't seem to have worked.
  • whatthefu, on 02/18/2008, -2/+53To read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/FAQ
    • mille716, on 02/18/2008, -1/+34Holy *****. Read the bottom of the page where Wikipedia is proving that they have other pictures that are considered offensive. I had no idea Wikipedia had pictures of open vaginas, "Piss Jesus", cartoon blow jobs and so many others. Wow.
      • Claverhouse, on 02/18/2008, -1/+6I had no idea there were any such pictures available on the web.
      • dbz253, on 02/18/2008, -1/+1source?
        • mille716, on 02/18/2008, -0/+1Source? Um, the FAQ link above which I was talking about. Its all there man.
    • mille716, on 02/18/2008, -0/+21Forgot about the "Pearl Necklace" picture. Stay classy Wiki.
    • etherreal, on 02/18/2008, -1/+8So *thats* where the clitoris is.
    • DetpackJump, on 02/18/2008, -2/+0The important question is... has anyone unmasked The Nippler!
    • rowdy7001, on 02/18/2008, -1/+2They could do with a jesus pearl necklace picture.
    • sk11, on 02/18/2008, -0/+1I wonder why no muslims object to the offensive portrayals of jesus, a holy muslim prophet?
  • thedragon4453, on 02/18/2008, -5/+91If they take Muhammed down, I don't see how they could justify not giving into everyone's demands. Wiki is supposed to be neutral, but if they acquiesce to every groups demands, it won't be a [halfway] decent resource for much longer.
    • reventlov, on 02/18/2008, -0/+14Agreed. Once they take their first step down that slippery slope of censorship, there is no stopping... because the slope is slippery. It's a simple metaphor, but given the level of discourse around here I feel the need to spell things out in very simple terms. I should use smaller words, methinks.

      I like the way Wikipedia put it:

      "Isn't censorship already employed to protect the masses?

      Simply put, no."
  • Zettri, on 02/18/2008, -42/+13Dressing up the supreme (at least to you) prophet of another religion with a bomb on his head isn't exactly freedom of speech, and we've got the balls to admit that, OK? But protesting on a *decent* picture that Muslims made THEMSELVES and now find it in an ENCYCLOPEDIA IS freedom of speech so get your heads out of your asses, or turbans for that matter. I just can't picture anyone dumb enough, to worship an image of Muhammad on Wikipedia, owning a computer to begin with. So rest the ***** assured and go pump us some more ***** oil.
    • lostmongoose, on 02/18/2008, -2/+15how were the political cartoons not freedom of speech? you should probably speak for yourself when you make such ignorant pronouncements.
      • zeabu, on 02/18/2008, -1/+1Freedom of speech, yes. Funny, no. Tasteful, no. Insulting, yes. Needed, no. Permited, yes. Would I have placed them? Absolutely not. I've better taste.
        • wakananda, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1I thought it was funny. It was also very well drawn.
    • Anonemousk, on 02/18/2008, -1/+10Freedom of Speech doesn't give you the right to NOT be offended.
    • zmjone2992, on 02/18/2008, -2/+5so apparently you have never seen raptor jesus
    • ORBAT, on 02/18/2008, -0/+2The whole point of freedom of speech is that there are no restrictions on speech. When we start deciding what kind of speech is OK and what is not, it's no longer free.
  • GhostyBoy, on 02/18/2008, -11/+127Wikipedia did the right thing here. Unfortunately, demanding that someone not show a particular image is just not practical in our modern age.

    It's time that people start dealing with actually reality, instead of the reality they want to force on people. Religion is meant to give people an understanding of their world, and a way to live within it. If a religion cannot adapt it becomes obsolete. That's how evolution works and no amount of denial can change it.

    As for the bigotry expressed above, the time has come for you to adapt to religious, cultural and racial equality, because the people who share your ignorant way of thinking are a relic of the past, and an obstacle to evolution.
    • DjViral, on 02/18/2008, -0/+17So well put. Don't think it can be said better than that. Wikipedia has done the right thing.
    • altshiftM, on 02/18/2008, -2/+6Dugg for the sake of evolution
    • zeabu, on 02/18/2008, -0/+3Oh my Science. I cannot agree more to that.
  • coheedcollapse, on 02/18/2008, -1/+12How pissed do you think they'll get if the publicity over their demand for censorship turns this into one of those Digg things where everyone posts what is getting people all riled up over and over?
    • ogore, on 02/18/2008, -6/+2It's not really censorship it's not as if it's a real picture of him
    • Tahiri, on 02/18/2008, -1/+7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

      Censorship is the suppression or deletion of material, which may be considered objectionable, harmful or sensitive, as determined by a censor.

      There seems to be no requirements on if it's a real picture or not. Just that trying to prevent us from seeing it is censorship.

      So yes, it's really censorship.
  • jimfin25, on 02/18/2008, -6/+28Need to be more tolerant on such things as pictures. We dont live in the dark ages.
    • WoollyMittens, on 02/18/2008, -1/+10While the west went through the "enlightenment" and the "industrial revolution", some other parts of the world most certainly did not. They do indeed still live in the dark ages.
    • BaronSamedi242, on 02/18/2008, -0/+2Yes, but THEY live in the Dark Ages.

      They used to be the most enlightened, civilised culture on Earth. Then they got all evangelical and holy rollin and suddenly it was cut the privates off the girls, ban chess etc etc etc.

      They're still steaming about the Crusades even though that happened HUNDREDS of years ago... AND THEY WON!

      If your life is all about praying five times a day and trying to get rid of sand, you'd be medieval too.
  • Rodman930, on 02/18/2008, -4/+105"[The editors] say anyone objecting to the controversial images can simply adjust their computers so they do not have to look at them."
    LOL
    • Uranium118, on 02/18/2008, -0/+19Exactly, it's not hard at all. You don't like something, ignore it instead of making a big fuzz over it.
  • Dantetheinferno, on 02/18/2008, -6/+14Anyone have a link to the image?
  • noalias, on 02/18/2008, -6/+7Why do they have a problem with it. Wouldn't a good Muslim warn wikipedia that it is going to hell.
    • IRoaChI, on 02/18/2008, -0/+9sweet. I have some good stuff to read whilst I am burning :) Score!
      • outspoken2, on 02/18/2008, -3/+0This is pretty good lite reading. I'd like an image of ole RAGHEAD to put on a roll of toilet paper, also an image to use as a target when I go shooting and one image for the urinal to urinate on, by the way also a copy of the koran to wipe my feet on.
  • luftrofl, on 02/18/2008, -2/+40Oh no someone doesn't agree with me :(

    Better complain!
    • EdgeOfEpsilon, on 02/18/2008, -0/+1Better complaints than violence. Why are complaints so bad?
      (this isn't a jab against Muslims specifically, just a general observation about humanity)
  • bencongdon, on 02/18/2008, -1/+12When do art galleries around the world receive similar petitions? When will Google remove their images?
    • bcmorrison3, on 02/18/2008, -0/+1Quote from Wall Street Journal, 2/15/08. "In Oslo a Gallery has censored three small watercolor paintings showing the head of the prophet Muhammad on a dog's body, by the Swedish artist Lars Vilks...In Holland...the Hague recently refused to show photos by the Iranian born artist Sooreh Hera of Gay men wearing the masks of the prophet Muhammad and his son Ali...In Belarus an editor has been sentenced to 3 years in forced la