Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Notice: Prior discussion has determined that some images of Muhammad are allowed.

Discussion of images, and of edits regarding images, must be posted to the images subpage. Removal of pictures without discussion will be reverted. If you prefer not to see images of Muhammad, you can configure your browser or use your personal Wikipedia settings not to display them.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Wikipedia is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 4, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
April 22, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
April 25, 2006	Good article reassessment	Delisted
April 25, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
April 26, 2006	Good article reassessment	Delisted
April 28, 2006	Good article reassessment	Listed
May 10, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
June 15, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
June 16, 2006	Good article reassessment	Delisted
June 26, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
June 27, 2006	Good article reassessment	Delisted
July 2, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
July 7, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
October 8, 2008	Good article reassessment	Kept
January 30, 2009	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
December 7, 2012	Peer review	Reviewed
May 13, 2013	Peer review	Reviewed
October 16, 2013	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
September 18, 2024	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 30, 2008, September 30, 2009, September 30, 2010, September 30, 2012, September 30, 2015, and September 30, 2017.
Current status: Delisted good article

Denmark Mid‑importance

	Denmark portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Freedom of speech Mid‑importance

	Freedom of speech portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Islam: Islam and Controversy Low‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Islam and Controversy task force.

Comics: European Mid‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by European comics work group.

Religion Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 30 May 2013, it was proposed that this article be moved to Muhammad cartoons crisis. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Muslim Action Committee was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 02 November 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33

Polls: Results, Old, 3, 3 archive

Cartoon image display

List all subpages

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Charlie Hebdo#2011–present|was firebombed]] The anchor (#2011–present) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

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

Proposal of removing an inappropriate content

Hello, I wish you are fine, guys this article contains some images that are disrespectful for us, Please I really would like you to be comprehensive and delete them Thank you for being comprehensive and kind Sincerely Usernetme (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See the template at the top of the page, which links to previous discussions of this issue. You can also configure your browser not to show the images.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also read WP:NOTCENSORED. Some1 (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. 106.128.97.210 (talk) 05:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another point of view

As many others have already stated these pictures are not only disrespectful to more than 1.6 billion muslims all over the world, but are also a sign of hatred against all of us. It hurts us a lot, so many of us asked for considiration of our feelings, because the article will still be informative even without the picture and it would be a way to show the cohesion and respect between different nations, beliefs and cultures. And not showing pictures due to respect is something, we do on a daily basis. E. g. if an accident happens and people die, most of the countries in this world would show no pictures of the dead people, because it is very impious. So every culture etc. has something they want to protect or respect. We muslims also want that and with 1.6 billion people worldwide it is also a number of people whos feelings deserve to be heared and respected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:F5:D700:BE6C:D021:83A7:AA42:6314 (talk) 08:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See the Wikipedia is not censored template at the top of this page. Some1 (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I know the rules for censorship. In general, certain content needs to be censored and others can be censored. In particular, the things that can be censored include distasteful content. For 1.6 billion people, these cartoons are beyond distasteful. You also have to distinguish between censorship and simple reporting. The main theme of the article is not conveyed through these images themselves, but through the pain that the mockery causes in us Muslims. The pictures do not have to be shown for this. Just as little as pictures of victims of a massacre have to be shown to show the pain of the relatives. So with all due respect to the right of free speech, freedom of the press and other fundamental rights: Please delete these images from the article, because if the fundamental rights just mentioned can be restricted by acts that are generally considered distasteful, then this should not be an exception because the distaste just affects Muslims. 2003:F5:D700:BE08:ACFD:3B5B:BEFF:B6C (talk) 12:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but religious beliefs don't get to dictate what happens on Wikipedia. Please follow HELP:NOIMAGE for a guide on how to hide images. Some1 (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the answer. I imagined that our beliefs will not be the guideline for the decisions about the content on Wikipedia. This is why so many of us just asked for it and not commanded it or anything. We have shared our feelings about this with you and it is up to you to either respect our feelings about this or not. I thank all the none-muslims supporters for their attepmt to help us in this matter. It shows to me what a peaceful world would look like. 2003:F5:D700:BE98:55F5:CF67:1625:ED3A (talk) 11:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do even dare to speak for all Muslims by using the collective term "we"?? You speak for your own, with your own mind, point of view and religious beliefs.

Secondly, if Muslims are so scared about showing the image of Muhammad, why is that name the most common surname in the muslim world and male adults are growing their beards such as he allegedly did? Isn`t that some sort of taking an image?

Thirdly, freedom of speech is superior to islamic beliefs. You can build your own islamic state and then forbid such cartoons but wikipedia is a western invention or company and here people can express their points of view. 62.226.91.97 (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. I'm pretty sure all muslims would say that a cartoon that disrespects and paints another image to muslims is not freedom of speech

2. We are not scared of showing the prohpets face (pbuh) rather its forbidden, and doing his practices are not taking an image and how is using someones name taking an image??

3.i don't disagree that you can't express your point of view but I don't think what your doing is freedom of speech rather your just disrespecting, but do as you wish

4. You mentioned something about Iraq and Afghanistan having ties with 9/11 which is just wrong, and its been pretty much proven that it was a setup and now people have painted this bad image of Islam

5. And i would like to say neither christians nor muslims would say its "freedom of speech" if someone did the same thing with jesus(pbuh)

6. I highly doubt that people who bought the cartoons in muslim countries, bought it for entertainment or teaching, i think it was too see what was in it Omar mohammed el-prince (talk) 06:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Omar mohammed el-prince, all peace and respect to you and your feelings. But the image on this page is necessary to allow us to understand what the issues are. Nobody is going to find this page by accident and be triggered by images they hadn't expected. On the contrary, anyone reading here is actively wanting to know about these images, and you can't form an opinion of them without seeing them. The image is of such low resolution that there is not much pleasure in looking at it and it can't be used for any other purpose than forming a basic judgment.

You mentioned that Christians would feel the same way if it were their religion being depicted. The point is, though, there are many disrespectful cartoons about Jesus on the internet, but they have little impact and aren't widely distributed, because Christians show their contempt by ignoring them. There will always be trolls who want to provoke you, but it's your choice if you give them success by getting angry and trying to silence them. The majority of people do not want to troll your religion and would not be interested in these cartoons, but the minute you say we are not allowed to see them, we want to see them. You yourself said that some people in Muslim countries bought the cartoons. They would never have heard of this provincial little Danish newspaper if devout Muslims had not brought it to their attention. This is called the Streisand effect. Quite simply, the best way to deny the cartoonists their success is to turn your back and walk quietly away. Doric Loon (talk) 09:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

There is a "neutrality disputed" orange banner since 2019. This should be resolved.
The lead, at 6 paragraphs, is longer than the recommended length at WP:LEADLENGTH
The article relies on a lot of block quotes. I think these can be summaried instead of using these quotes.
There is uncited text throughout the article.

Is anyone interested in addressing these concerns, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 05:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a "neutrality disputed" orange banner since 2019 that needs to be resolved. The article also has lots of uncited text and quoted text. Z1720 (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.