Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleJyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 4, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
April 22, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
April 25, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
April 25, 2006Good article nomineeListed
April 26, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
April 28, 2006Good article reassessmentListed
May 10, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
June 15, 2006Good article nomineeListed
June 16, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
June 26, 2006Good article nomineeListed
June 27, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
July 2, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 7, 2006Good article nomineeListed
October 8, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
January 30, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 7, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
May 13, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
October 16, 2013Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article
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


Misreading a source?[edit]

The second paragraph under "Agenda in the West" currently says: "The controversy was used to highlight a supposedly irreconcilable rift between Europeans and Islam – as the journalist Andrew Mueller put it: "I am concerned that the ridiculous, disproportionate reaction to some unfunny sketches in an obscure Scandinavian newspaper may confirm that ... Islam and the West are fundamentally irreconcilable" – and many demonstrations in the Middle-East were encouraged by the regimes there for their own purposes. Different groups used this tactic for different purposes, some more explicitly than others: for example anti-immigrant groups, nationalists, feminists, classical liberals and national governments."

I happened to read the article that the last sentence of that paragraph was referencing, and I think whoever wrote the last sentence may have misunderstood the article. Aside from the somewhat minor fact that the sentence says "classical liberals", when the article itself says "neoliberals" (many people, like myself, consider them to be different), I feel like the article isn't saying that these groups are using any specific tactic more than anyone else, but that it's a cause that unites groups that feel second-class, even if they have little else in common.

I was wondering if this should be changed in the article. Perhaps I'm the one misreading it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riffraff913 (talkcontribs) 19:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Weak section with troubling title and context, or lack thereof[edit]

At least three problematic points with a following sub-section should be noted:

  • Sub-section Relationship between Liberal West and Islam is one big loaded phrase, a lazy trope around stereotypical image of confronted poles. Not only that "relationship" between "liberal West" and "Islam" is semantically nonsensical, unless we are creating midnight news bulletin for FOX news-desk, but also create idea in which, again, West is characteristically heterogeneous (and in part liberal) and on the other side is that darn monolith called "Islam".
  • Second problem is that title and those few paragraphs with statements are related only in section creator(s) mind:
  1. How is Bill Kristol related to the subsection title paradigm ?
  2. How is Lewis related ?
  3. And, are Wikipedians somehow succeeded in transforming Hitchens, posthumously, into a liberal ?
  4. How is Flemming Rose relevant, a Danish conservative journalist and editor at Jyllands-Posten at the time, and as such principal actor in this scandal ?
(How on Earth is this article assessed as GA, with these seemingly small and innocuous exploits ?)
  • And finally, subsection on such a broad scope (sort of relation between two civilizations) is absolutely unbalanced, with only narrow range of hostile views included, something which can't be justified, no matter what is ideological stance of characters whose views and/or statements are introduced.--౪ Santa ౪99° 20:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
It's an awful title. Those reactions aren't fringe and they do belong in the article, but the reader is being primed by Wikipedia to read them a particular light—they're not merely being grouped by theme. I'd suggest first figuring out whether the contents of the section can be rolled into others; if not, then a new title ought to be conceived. WP Ludicer (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

2010 terror plot not mentioned in the article[edit]

In the morning of the 29th December 2010 Danish police raided an apartment in Copenhagen and arrested three men who had travelled to Denmark from Sweden the day before and planned to attack the building belonging to Jyllands-Posten and Politiken (another Danish newspaper) later in the day. In their possession was an automatic rifle and several rounds of ammunition. At the time this was the most serious terrorist incident in Denmark, and it's not mentioned in the article. I see there's a short mention in the article with the timeline, but the omission seems like an oversight, particularly because this article includes incidents that were only in the planning stage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinkofthekittens (talkcontribs) 13:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal of removing an inappropriate content[edit]

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)

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