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.

Don't Look at images of Muhammad

This page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Muhammad-FAQ-Images should enable persons to avoid looking at images of Muhammad.--S. Rich 06:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't we just.....

Make the picture into a collapsible folder. It makes much more sense --Lookingthrough (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not censored. Hiding away pictures is against wiki policy. They have to be incorporated into the article using the same style as used in every other encyclopedia article.Chhe (talk) 01:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed countless times over the last few years actually. but still is an issue with censorship. Jmlk17 04:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If you mean turn it into a collapsible folder where the user opts in to not display the image (they close it) then yes, that would make sense, so long as the image is displayed by default. Does Wikipedia have such tools currently, or would they require someone to make an extension?24.208.231.234 (talk) 07:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It has already been done. See Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Disable image display. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know we all have the right to free speech and I respect that, but I think this is abusing said right. I'm not saying we take away the pictures, I'd be against that but this is a touchy issue and I think this is just a bit reckless. I think all pages concerning religion & controvesy should be given the same treatment--Lookingthrough (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, see the talk page header. WP:NOIMAGE is the best option for people likely to be offended by the images.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Generally when someone prefaces their comments with "I know we all have the right to free speech and I respect that..." it usually means they don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.158.8 (talk) 05:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

New event!

More info will probably follow.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2010/12/20101229133356374274.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12089543 Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

http://jp.dk/indland/krimi/article2290365.ece Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. From a Wikipedia point of view, there is a WP:ALLEGED issue here, because it involves claims that have not been proven in a court of law. This would create issues with adding this to the article at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I brought it up here since it seems likely the cartoons and this event will soon be mentioned as connected by police, poltiticians and media. But until then, hold the press. Here is the danish police statement, by the way. It states that the police thinks JP was the paper that were to be attacked, but not that the cartoons was the reason. http://jp.dk/fakta/article2290403.ece Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Swedish hockey referee suspended

This was removed, because the source given does not unambiguously support the text in this edit:

Facebook publication of Muhammad cartoons draws attention of Security Services In January, 2011, officials from the Swedish National Hockey league contacted Swedish Security Services (SÄPO) and a Swedish national hockey league referee was immediately relieved of all his work duties after the referee published one of the Muhammad cartoons on his facebook page.[1]

The text says "Nu har han stängts av och enligt källor har Säpo kopplats in" (He has now been suspended from work duties, and according to sources, SÄPO contacted." "According to sources" is a journalistic WP:WEASEL term which falls short of actually verifying the claim. The article also says that Peter Andersson, the head of security for the Swedish National Hockey league, declined to comment on whether he was working with SÄPO: "Samarbetar ni med Säpo? – Jag har inga övriga kommentarer." While it does appear that the referee was suspended, the claim that SÄPO was involved would need clearer sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

In any case this seems like an incident that should be included in this article. __meco (talk) 11:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, this could be included, as long as it corresponds to the sourcing. The referee was suspended for publishing the cartoon, but the rest lacks clear sourcing. Also, it would be helpful to have more sourcing than the Aftonbladet article, which is a tabloid source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The linked article does not make it clear whether it is the Jyllands-Posten cartoons that he had posted on Facebook. If it wasn't it has no direct connection to this article, since it is only relevant if events has a direct connection to the Jyllands-Posten cartoons. For example we don't have extensive coverage of the Lars Vilks cartoons here either. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the headline refers to "Muhammed-karikatyr" which is unclear about the actual cartoon.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal of categoy:Opposition to Islam

I have reverted the addition of the "Category:Opposition to Islam", since this category seems too generalised in connection with this case. The main subject, the cartoons, sprang from what can more accurately be described as "Criticism of Islam", a category already present in the article. As I understand the category "Opposition to Islam", it means an opposition to Islam in general, not criticism of some of its parts or schools of interpretation, and that was not the official explanation for these cartoons. While it can be said that they have been used by people and organisations that are opposed to Islam, and have been interpreted by some Muslims as opposition to Islam, it is only a part of this controversy. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Criticism is appropriate, opposition isn't. __meco (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiLeaks cable mentions re-publication in 2006

A recently released Wikileaks cable mentions this controversy, specifically that the originally publishing paper decided against re-publishing the cartoons, and also spoke with the US Embassy in Copenhagen about such an event. See more at http://213.251.145.96/cable/2006/09/06COPENHAGEN1327.html. I think this could warrant being mentioned in the article. Sam metal (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is interesting and probably should be mentioned in the article. It is sourced to James P. Cain, the former US Ambassador to Denmark. It says that a decision was made not to reprint the cartoons on the first anniversary in September 2006, and that "Our discreet discussions with the paper and with senior Danish government officials underscore both how close we came to another potential crisis and how much the defense of free speech and domestic political calculations remain paramount for the government and for many Danes." In plain language, the US seems to have put behind the scenes pressure on Denmark not to reprint at that time. However, the "Bomb in Turban" cartoon was reprinted in 2008. Incidentally, Has the Jyllands-Posten ever reprinted the full set? I'm not clear on this from the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

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)