Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Jyllands-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.
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.

Charlie hebdo 2015[edit]

I have removed some of the information and detail about the attack and fall out of the attack on Charlie Hebdo in 2015 because that is not the subject of this article. Please do not interpret this as disinterest, but simply a recognition that those events are are amply covered in other articles, see Charlie Hebdo shooting. This article is already quite long, and has plenty to cover on its own without getting into the intricacies of other similar incidents. It's fair to outline the basics of the other parallel incident and how it relates to the 2006 JP controversy, but we should not go into detail. There are a number of other similar incidents listed at the end of the article; they all have separate articles for a reason. Peregrine981 (talk) 12:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Initial murder?[edit]

At the origin, those caricatures were an answer to some murders; no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.99.19.5 (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Not directly no, but the murder of Theo van Gogh contributed to the decision. See the first part of the timeline section for a discussion of why the cartoons were published. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

I would like to propose the merger of Descriptions of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons into this article. There is no reason it should be standing alone, and it is a terrible article as it is. It has been marked for maintenance since 2008 even. A merger would serve as an opportunity to fix this. JTdaleTalk~ 12:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. No reason to maintain as separate article. Easier to keep an eye on them consolidated. Peregrine981 (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Looking through the archives the original spirit of the separate article was to allow those not wanting to see the images to actually read their descriptions. Someone later on insisted on adding the images to that sub-article so that completely destroyed the original spirit of the article. Maybe just remove the image there and clean up the article? 87.231.139.167 (talk) 21:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I vote merge for the same reasons mentioned by the proposer and Peregrine981.--118.92.204.220 (talk) 02:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
AgreeZumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 03:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I see no reason to merge. Info enough to justify different articles for such an important subject.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support merge. Content fork was made under the pretense that this article was becoming too big. It was not and it is not. Prose size (text only): 51 kB (8066 words) "readable prose size". Thus under SIZERULE there was no need for a fork. As the discussion has been open for more than six months, and consensus to merge has been established, I suggest the merger is performed. Pinging collaborators (JTdaleZumoarirodokaBabbaQPeregrine98187.231.139.167118.92.204.220) -- Sam Sailor Talk! 09:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Which consensus? I can not see a consensus.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Five editors support the merger and no valid arguments against merger have been advanced. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 13:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Support Let somebody merge them in the end. Zezen (talk) 10:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I support the merge. The two articles cover similar things and people might be confused with all the page changing. -Anne O. Neemous (your friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man/anonymous Wiki user)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)