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
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

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

unclear sentence[edit]

> They presented a dossier containing the twelve cartoons from the Jyllands-Posten, and other depictions of Muhammad alongside them, some real and some fake, including one where they claimed he was portrayed as a pig, seen as forbidden and unclean in Islam

Was the pig picture a real one? This sentence is unclear, please clarify (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The picture was real but had nothing to do with Muhammad. Additional details may be found at Akkari-Laban dossier#Experts' view. Favonian (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another point of view[edit]

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[reply]

See the Wikipedia is not censored template at the top of this page. Some1 (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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. (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]