Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Important notice: Prior discussion has determined that pictures of Muhammad will not be removed from this article, and removal of pictures without discussion at Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments/Image-Display will be reverted. If you find these images offensive, it is possible to configure your browser not to display them; for instructions, see the FAQ. Discussion of images should be posted to the subpage Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments/Image-Display.

• Please divert comments having to do with the timeline of the incidents to Talk:Timeline_of_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy.

• Please divert comments having to do with international reactions to Talk:International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.

• Please divert comments having to do with various opinions on the controversy to Talk:Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.

• Please divert comments having to do with any aspect of displaying the cartoon images to Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments/Image-Display.

Any irrelevant discussions can be removed without notice. Aucaman^Talk 00:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Archives
01	02a	02b
03a	03b	03c
04	05	06
07	08a	08b
09a	09b	10
11	12a	12b
13a	13b	14a
15	16	17
18	19	20
21	22
Arguments Archive
Poll 1, 2, 3 & 4 Results
Arguments regarding all aspects of Cartoons Display

Useless map

This map is nonsensical, since it measures printings in absolute value rather than scaled value. For example, 500,000 printings is huge in Switzerland but tiny in the US. So, the map should be redrawn, scaling the total printings by the total population of each country. As for the "intensity of the protests", how in the world was this measured? By number of people in the streets? Then again, it must be scaled. Don't tell me that scaling both data would amount to scaling none, as it's not true in this case. Let's take one example of the map being uninformative. In the US, only one obscure newspaper published ONE cartoon (the least offensive one), while the mainstream newspapers in the EU countries (except the UK) published ALL cartoons. So the map should take this into account. It should go by number of cartoons published. Example: 100,000 copies of one paper published 2 cartoons --> 200,000. But 100,000 copies of one paper published 12 cartoons --> 1,200,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.92.4 (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think it is much worse than that. As far as I can tell, it is completely original research, not citing a single source for its information. I have removed the image from the article for now - it is still in the article source, but commented out using the <!-- and --> stuff. If anybody can source it all, go ahead and do so and put the image back in the article. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we give sources for much of the data shown in some of our anciliary articles/lists. I've added links to these on the image page. But I think that combining data on republication and protests in one map makes this original research, so I agree it should probably be deleted. -- Avenue (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Change title

I think the title should be changed to "Muhammad cartoons" to make it easier for people to find it, but can't see a "Move" tab at the top of the page, where it normally is. What happened to the Move tab?

(Although I've just found that it redirects from "Mohammad cartoons", I must admit.)

Sardaka (talk) 09:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

There would need to be a WP:CONSENSUS on changing the title, see Wikipedia:Requested moves. "Muhammad cartoons" is not quite as descriptive as the current title, and the redirect mentioned is enough for people to find the page easily.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"In popular culture"

Is the "In popular culture" section in the article entirely necessary? It feels rather awkward and reads just like an excuse to put a South Park reference in an article. Was the South Park reaction that significant from all the others that it warrants an inclusion? —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, there ere numerous pop culture ones, but south park was pretty tame. I mean you can link http://www.mohammeddance.com if you want.

"In popular culture" can be a lazy excuse for adding non-notable trivia in general. Such additions at least should be sourced, and also shown to be relevant to an understanding of the topic of the article, per WP:NOT (specifically "an indiscriminate collection of information"). Too many articles tend to be dustbins for all sorts of this nonsense. Rodhullandemu 23:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, see this cartoon. Unless there is substantial media coverage, "in popular culture" sections soon become a dumping ground for non-notable bloat.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Archive please?

Most of these threads are very stale, some have been dead for 3 months, could someone please archive this? I'd do it myself, but I'm not sure how. --Pstanton (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done moved to 22 Rodhullandemu 23:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Protection

Shouldn't this article be protected? --Wadq (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism is not really serious enough to warrant protection at present, but the article is watched by admins who will apply protection if necessary. Rodhullandemu 14:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yale U. Press opts not to reproduce the images in a new book about the affair?

Does this seem relevant to the article? BYT (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)