CARTOON CONTROVERSY. How does Wikipedia handle an explosive topic? The entry for Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy has been "temporarily disabled" due to "vandalism," so the entry is frozen for the time being. But there's a Wikipedia talk page where debate can take place, though it's hard to follow.

So much attention has been paid to the violence that it might seem to some that the rioters represent all Muslims. Yet there is diversity among the ranks. The "frozen" Wikipedia entry offers the following:

In Iraq, the country's top Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, decried the drawings but did not call for protests. Al-Sistani suggested that militant Muslims were partly to blame for distorting Islam's image. In the United Arab Emirates, the periodical Al-Ittihad published an opinion piece which argued that "the world has come to believe that Islam is what is practiced by Bin Laden, Zawahiri, Zarqawi, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Salafis, and others who have presented a distorted image of Islam. We must be honest with ourselves and admit that we are the reason for these drawings."

The Jordanian paper, Shihan, also published the cartoon and urged Muslims to "be reasonable" in an accompanying editorial. The editorial, written by Editor Jihad Momeni -- a former Jordanian senator -- asked: "Who offends Islam more? A foreigner who endeavors to draw the prophet as described by his followers in the world, or a Muslim with an explosive belt who commits suicide in a wedding party in Amman or elsewhere." Momeni was later fired.

Some Muslims, mainly in Europe, have supported the re-publication of the images so that individual Muslims can make up their own minds and welcomed the debate on the issues that that cartoons have raised....

Yesterday Kofi Annan issued this statement:

The Secretary-General is alarmed by the threats and violence, including the attacks on embassies, that have occurred in Syria and Lebanon and other countries over the past few days. While he shares the distress felt by many Muslims at the publication of caricatures which they see as insulting to their religion, he wishes to emphasize that such resentment cannot justify violence, least of all when directed at people who have no responsibility for, or control over, the publications in question.

Once again, he urges Muslims to accept the apology given by the Danish newspaper, to act in the true spirit of a religion famed for its values of mercy and compassion, and to put this episode behind them. He also appeals to all parties, particularly all Governments and authorities, whether religious or secular, to do everything they can to reduce tension and to avoid actions or statements which might increase it. He believes that now, more than ever, it is time for people of goodwill in all faiths and communities to come together in a spirit of dialogue and mutual respect.