Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Please divert comments having to do with...	... to the page ...
the timeline of the incidents	Talk:Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
international reactions	Talk:International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
opinions	Talk:Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
any aspect of displaying the cartoon images	Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Arguments/Image-Display

Any irrelevant discussions can be removed without notice.

No Pictures? Is this a joke?

What kind of "encyclopedia article" on a series of cartoons fails to show the cartoons? Has Wikipedia caved to the threats of muslims? The little thumbnail-size picture is not enough, given it is the subject of the supposed "article." I looked through the last ten versions of the article's history, but the pictures aren't in any of the articles. Shame. --Lacarids (talk) 14:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The cartoons are in the infobox, and are available at up to 849 × 1,200 pixels resolution by clicking on it. They are copyrighted, but this resolution is enough to see all of them in detail.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I realize that the full resolution JPG can be seen by clicking on it. The article does an excellent job with the history and the sequence of events. It does an excellent job covering the reaction and counter-reaction. I think what it lacks is information about the content about each cartoon. For example, "this is the (first/second/third) cartoon, published (Date), and drawn by (Jens Julius). The text of the cartoon translates to (Stop, Stop, we have run out of virgins), which Muslims find highly offensive because (it alludes to the Koran's promise that Islamic martyrs (in this case suicide bombers) will receive 72 virgins in heaven/jannah). That is what caused the controversy. Regarding the size... I'm not an expert on Wikipedia, nor am I an expert on copyright law... but it seems feasible that an article about the cartoons could include each individual cartoon (instead of the roll-up we have now) if the source were to be properly credited.--72.47.85.92 (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you see that the article links to our descriptions of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons? --Avenue (talk) 04:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Beg pardon, but as a practicing Muslim, I find it hard to read this page without looking at the photos. I'm a Muslim yes, but I want to read this on full and the perspective from others as well. However I find it hard to do so without looking at the caricatures. I request you to please remove the cartoons, list them separately or somehow hidden in a drop down box. I have International relations and media studies as my subjects and my teacher says she would like to open this topic up for discussion but cannot do so due to the photos. For example, I found the Jyllands-Posten response section particularly interesting, and yet I had to disable image loading in firefox to read it. For other reasons as well, such as allowing this to be accessible to more muslims who may not load this page for fear of seeing said caricatures. I think that the purpose of the article, would be better served if more people were able to read it. As for the OP, I find the "Has Wikipedia caved to the threats of muslims?" sentence highly disturbing. You need to do some introspection. Individual threads to do not construe as threats from Muslims. 119.155.0.202 (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you direct your teacher to this link, which informs about how to preset your browser not to display the images. That some people may find them offensive is not a sufficient ground for removing the pictures (as per policy) --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there a standard style method to add those directions at the very top of the article where the disambiguation template usually goes? Alatari (talk) 10:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Adding other "allegations" of theory behind cartoon publication

I cannot see why the proposed addition to the subsection is not allowed? There are the allegations that various eastern moslem religious &/or political leaders have made. It would also seem fair within public interest to mention the proposed allegation. In any case, it proposes a stronger link between the two men than the other points raised in the subsection. If there is an issue of sources, why does the page use at least 2 sources from Daniel Pipes himself, one of which being his own think-tank. By extension his own blog of an article written by Flemming Rose. The language used is neutral and any extra information i.e. concerning Daniel Pipes puts the allegation into context.

I would be interested as why the a change should not be made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritas Lev (talk • contribs) 20:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritas Lev (talk • contribs) 20:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for finally using talk page. The problem with your addition is that an interview with a person is not enough in Wikipedia terms. Making interviews is actually the job of a journalist, and a journalist interviews lots of persons that they don't personally agree with. Using the fact that he interviewed a person to connect it to a Zionist conspiracy theory, would constitute WP:OR. You will need a reliable secondary source stating that this particular interview has been used as an allegation by notable parties to propose a connection with a Zionist conspiracy connected to the cartoons. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and http://www.danielpipes.org/ is a blog source, so it needs to be approached with caution.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply. I'm rather new here and under the assumption that wikipaedia is a free to edit, within reason. Therefore my edit was pertaining to an allegation/agenda for the motivation of publication of cartoons by Flemming Rose, that he has an association with Daniel Pipes. Let me address your issue, it is not an interview, it is a semi-biographical article of Daniel Pipes with the addition of commentary of "Islamism in Europe" etc written by Flemming Rose, please see the link again. I am fully aware what a journalist is and does, Flemming Rose is a journalist. The additional two sources (secondary) and the two original (primary) support the addition I had made to the original article, an allegation of a linkage between the two men. Irrespective of the Blog source, Daniel Pipes does admit of such a meeting (see front page mag link). It is therefore up to the persons reading the allegation if this is fact or fiction.

Cheers. http://www.jewishaz.com/issues/story.mv?060224+danish http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=5463 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritas Lev (talk • contribs) 00:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

There are problems with notability and original research here, as this has not appeared in a reliable published source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see why there is such adversity to adding that to the articles subsection. Which source do you have a problem with? Daniel Pipes himself comments on the frontpagemag (as well as jewishz) of the allegated relationship with Flemming Rose albeit he denies them. Here is another http://www.arabwestreport.info/node/25933 (see your very own article on the insitution) Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritas Lev (talk • contribs) 10:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Arabwestreport is another blog source. The article should stick to what has appeared in mainstream coverage. Speculation about why Flemming Rose allowed the publication of the cartoons is unhelpful, although he is on the record as saying "The modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech, where you must be ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule."[1]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Arabwestreport is " an independent weekly digest of Egyptian newspaper translations and editorial analysis, focusing primarily on Arab-West and Muslim-Christian relations" , and I did include a secondary source requested that comments of the supposed relation or asserted in my earlier replies a motivation for the publication of the cartoons. Why is it unhelpful, it is up to the individual reader to decide whether there prior meeting was causal for the publication of the cartoons or it was incidental. And I am fully aware of his statements, letters etc about his motivations of publishing the cartoons which, I do agree with. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritas Lev (talk • contribs) 12:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

On 29 October 2004, Jyllands-Posten published an interview by Flemming Rose with Daniel Pipes (in Danish here, in English here). Neither source clearly supports the claim that Rose is a neo-conservative or Zionist. The fact that Rose interviewed Pipes in 2004 does not establish a clear link, or explain the publication of the cartoons in 2005. See also Post hoc ergo propter hoc. WP:OR says that statements must be clearly supported by the citations that are given. The Guardian citation here does not mention Pipes at all.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that in a February 2006 article, Daniel Pipes denies links with Flemming Rose other than the 2004 interview. (Those Danish Cartoons and Me).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not a Muslim, but I agree that the pictures should not be shown - or at least not loaded with the page from the start. Frankly, I can think of MANY pictures on a host of subjects Wikipedia would not, and have not, published due to the graphic nature thereof. Once you say ANY picture can be too graphic for display, then the measurement by which judgement of whether a picture is inappropriate becomes subject to "opinion". To a Muslim, this picture is more inappropriate that anything that could otherwise be displayed...and hence, should be removed or hidden from the main page. I find it unfortunate that many who have previously decided this fact were most likely prejudice to making a statement while touting freedom of speech issues that have boundaries within the confines of their own cultural and legal proclivities. If you would like me to list pictures and subject matters that Wikipedia would NOT allow, and would even be considered illegal in the US, I would be more than happy to point these out. We need to respect the laws of other nations and other people - especially in a matter where being polite and respectful does not interfere with the message or information getting across the same way. - JP Cox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jprcox (talk • contribs) 04:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Comparable references section

The Comparable references section needs citations which contains the specific quotations that compares it with the cartoon controversy for each example mentioned. The context is important, it should not just be a pileup of incidents that may have similarities with the cartoon controversy, as the lead sentence in the section says "Numerous comparisons have been offered in public discourse comparing earlier controversies over freedom of speech and art with the controversy that surrounded the Jyllands-Posten cartoons". Without proper citations they do constitute original research. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Pig person.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Pig person.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)