Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 32

Vandalism?

A photograph in the section "Danish Imams tour the Middle East" displays a man wearing a pig nose with the caption "This picture of a French pig-squealing contestant was unrelated to the Muhammed drawings, but was included in the imams' dossier. Original caption included in the dossier: "Her er det rigtige billede af Muhammed", meaning "Here is the real image of Muhammad." I find this hard to believe and it was not cited.It looks suspiciously like a joke or an attempt to discredit the imams' dossier. Could someone check this information out? -67.193.153.105 (talk) 11:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The story is real enough, but you are right it badly needs sourcing. I have tried searching, but the only English non-blog reference of this I can find is in Richard Dawkins The God Delusion on Google Books. It is not hard to find a Danish news source for this, but it seems this fact was rather underexposed in international media. I will add a Danish news link for this, but would not mind anyone exchanging it with an English one if they are to be found. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's the primary basis for the alleged controversy, and does discredit the imams' dossier. Here's a source. It's not Danish, but it's a source nevertheless. ----DanTD (talk) 13:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Missing citation

Citation number 7 ("^ AMIR TAHERI DEBATES TARIQ RAMADAN Amsterdam Forum, Radio Netherlands 11 March 2006") leads to a page which is no longer available. This should be removed or replaced with a valid link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.157.141 (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Avenue (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Formatting this page

Could someone with a little better understanding than me please format this page so the archive boxes don't clash with the content? Thanks, raseaC^{talk to me} 20:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've rejigged the top of the page, which is somewhat overloaded with different formatting elements.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Admittedly the page looks horrendous whatever is done about it, but atleast it's not getting in the way of content any more. raseaC^{talk to me} 22:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010 Westergaard incident

There were some confused reports about this in the media yesterday. This report in The Guardian says that Westergaard and his granddaughter were barricaded into the bathroom, which is apparently wrong. The attacker was reported to have shouted in broken English that he wanted to kill Westergaard [1], although he is also reported as using poor Danish at [2]. It is normal for there to be some confusion with a breaking news story, but hopefully the article is now clearer about what happened.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

According to this (in Danish) it is actually his bathroom that has been converted into a panic room, so at least that part of the story is true. I have not read anything about the language that he used, so I can't answer that one. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The Times story is useful about the panic room. I'm still confused about how the man got into the building. Was it through the front door, or the window that he broke? The media reports are vague here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Descriptions of the drawings

The "Descriptions of the drawings" section is too short and vague. It hints at things without explaining them. Although there is a more detailed description of the cartoons in Descriptions of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons, the section in the main article could be more forthcoming.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, here's my suggestion. Lots and lots of "original research", but what the heck...

The twelve cartoons were drawn by professional cartoonists in Denmark, most of whom regularly drew political cartoons for Danish newspapers. They are thus in the style of modern Western political cartoons, typically somewhat irreverent and/or humorous, with the intent of entertaining or provoking the reader while making him/her think things over.

Because the cartoons were created by Danes for a Danish newspaper and with an expected limited Danish audience (nobody was expecting a world-wide controversy), some of the cartoons are more related to Danish concepts than they are to Muhammad, making them difficult to understand for non-Danes. Four of the cartoons have Danish texts, one written in a very special style (grook) only familiar to Danes. Several of the cartoons are self-referencing, with the cartoonist making fun of himself or Jyllands-Posten. One is a deliberate evasion of the whole situation, depicting a school child in Denmark named Muhammad, not the prophet Muhammad. One of the cartoons is based on a special Danish cultural expression and one includes a Danish politician.

The intent of the various cartoonists seems to have covered the entire range from innocuous to humorous to ambiguous to critical and provocative, making it unproductive to consider all twelve cartoons as having much in common, other than being fairly typical examples of Western-style freedom of expression.

--RenniePet (talk) 09:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

--RenniePet (talk) 10:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Apropos my claiming that "nobody was expecting a world-wide controversy", "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

--RenniePet (talk) 11:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Archive renumber

Would anyone object if I renumbered the archives to use just only numbers (1, 2, 3, ..., n), instead of the mixed format now in place (1, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, ..., 22)? This would make the automated tools work for everything, thus eliminating a ton of manual markup in the intro section, and making indexing better, etc. All the pages will be kept as-is, they're just be moved to new names. Only issue I can think of is any deep links in to the archive pages would get broken. Thoughts? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No objections, it is non-standard to number archives like this, and it is unclear why it was done. It must have been done manually, because MiszaBot does not do this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I got started on this. I already found a couple pages that were not noted in the archive box. (See prefix search.) However, I've hit a roadblock -- Archive 16 is slated to be renumbered to archive 23, but 23 already exists -- archive 30 used to be 23, and the redirect is blocking the page move. I'm going to have to {{db-move}} each page, wait for an admin to delete it, move the new page there (creating a new redirect), and then repeat. It's going to be a bit like kicking dead whales down the beach, but such is life on Wikipedia. I'll post here when the chore is done. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 06:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done Yay! All done! My thanks to the admins who speedied the pages.  :) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 23:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Danish cartoons versus Holocaust denial

This was removed from the lead section: "There was also the issue of a perceived bias against muslims when Netheland's Public Prosecution Office ruled that published cartoons lampooning Muhammad were not offensive; however, published cartoons that deny the Holocaust were offensive and punishable by law.("Holocaust, Not Prophet Cartoons, Offensive" IO & News Agencies, Wed. Aug 19, 2009)" due to sourcing issues. The blog-style source is not ideal, and it needs to come from a more mainstream source for reliability. The issue of whether Holocaust denial cartoons have been treated differently is looked at in the article, and this BBC news story also looks at how the two areas have been handled.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Also even if it was reliable sourced it is undue weight on local Dutch events. Far from all European countries, including Denmark, has no ban on Holocaust denial (except if you include the European Court ruling which includes all genocides, not specifically the Holocaust), and as such it does not belong in the lead of the article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out that the initial release version of Geert Wilders' film Fitna in March 2008 showed Kurt Westergaard's "bomb in turban" cartoon in the opening sequence. Westergaard complained about not being asked for permission to use the copyrighted image. (news story in Danish) This led to a lawsuit.[3] It would be interesting to know what has become of the lawsuit since 2008. Any new information?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

In this online document, The Danish Union of Journalists and Kurt Westergaard said that they considered the use of the turban cartoon in Fitna to be a "grave violation of Westergaard's author's right (copyright)". However, despite a trawl around Google, I still can't find out what became of the lawsuit. This is something that could be in the article, but it would be useful to know what happened here, as 2008 is now a long while ago.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I can't help you. There has been nothing in the Danish media about any possible outcome of the case. Perhaps it was just a symbolic move by Westergaard with no real action being taken? --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

After a bit of googling i found this. Apparently Wilders made a settlement and paid 7500 euro to Westergaard for his use of the drawing in the movie. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! This should be in the article, and in Fitna, as it fills in an important gap in the story.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Swedish cartoons

Not sure where this fits in: [4] This is in the news today, but it has some relevance on this article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

breach of copyright

like the article here no rules about image copyright? as far as I know has jylandsposten so copyright on the images except the sign of Kurt Westergaard --80.167.149.247 (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

We are permitted to use copyrighted images if they are irreplaceable and their use is justified. Please see Wikipedia:Image use policy. Rodhullandemu 20:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Similar Freedom of Speech incidents concerning Mohamed

Would the recent South Park episodes that caused controversy be considerable for this section?

This has been in the news [5], but it does not involve the Danish newspaper cartoons. This makes it off topic for this article, but it does have relevance in the general context of reactions to perceived negative depictions of the Prophet Mohammed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

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.[6]

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)

Did you see that the article links to our descriptions of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons? --Avenue (talk) 04:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Beg pardon, but as a practicing Muslim, I find it hard to read this page without looking at the photos. I'm a Muslim yes, but I want to read this on full and the perspective from others as well. However I find it hard to do so without looking at the caricatures. I request you to please remove the cartoons, list them separately or somehow hidden in a drop down box. I have International relations and media studies as my subjects and my teacher says she would like to open this topic up for discussion but cannot do so due to the photos. For example, I found the Jyllands-Posten response section particularly interesting, and yet I had to disable image loading in firefox to read it. For other reasons as well, such as allowing this to be accessible to more muslims who may not load this page for fear of seeing said caricatures. I think that the purpose of the article, would be better served if more people were able to read it. As for the OP, I find the "Has Wikipedia caved to the threats of muslims?" sentence highly disturbing. You need to do some introspection. Individual threads to do not construe as threats from Muslims. 119.155.0.202 (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you direct your teacher to this link, which informs about how to preset your browser not to display the images. That some people may find them offensive is not a sufficient ground for removing the pictures (as per policy) --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there a standard style method to add those directions at the very top of the article where the disambiguation template usually goes? Alatari (talk) 10:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Adding other "allegations" of theory behind cartoon publication

I cannot see why the proposed addition to the subsection is not allowed? There are the allegations that various eastern moslem religious &/or political leaders have made. It would also seem fair within public interest to mention the proposed allegation. In any case, it proposes a stronger link between the two men than the other points raised in the subsection. If there is an issue of sources, why does the page use at least 2 sources from Daniel Pipes himself, one of which being his own think-tank. By extension his own blog of an article written by Flemming Rose. The language used is neutral and any extra information i.e. concerning Daniel Pipes puts the allegation into context.

I would be interested as why the a change should not be made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritas Lev (talk • contribs) 20:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritas Lev (talk • contribs) 20:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for finally using talk page. The problem with your addition is that an interview with a person is not enough in Wikipedia terms. Making interviews is actually the job of a journalist, and a journalist interviews lots of persons that they don't personally agree with. Using the fact that he interviewed a person to connect it to a Zionist conspiracy theory, would constitute WP:OR. You will need a reliable secondary source stating that this particular interview has been used as an allegation by notable parties to propose a connection with a Zionist conspiracy connected to the cartoons. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and http://www.danielpipes.org/ is a blog source, so it needs to be approached with caution.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply. I'm rather new here and under the assumption that wikipaedia is a free to edit, within reason. Therefore my edit was pertaining to an allegation/agenda for the motivation of publication of cartoons by Flemming Rose, that he has an association with Daniel Pipes. Let me address your issue, it is not an interview, it is a semi-biographical article of Daniel Pipes with the addition of commentary of "Islamism in Europe" etc written by Flemming Rose, please see the link again. I am fully aware what a journalist is and does, Flemming Rose is a journalist. The additional two sources (secondary) and the two original (primary) support the addition I had made to the original article, an allegation of a linkage between the two men. Irrespective of the Blog source, Daniel Pipes does admit of such a meeting (see front page mag link). It is therefore up to the persons reading the allegation if this is fact or fiction.

Cheers. http://www.jewishaz.com/issues/story.mv?060224+danish http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=5463 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritas Lev (talk • contribs) 00:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

There are problems with notability and original research here, as this has not appeared in a reliable published source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see why there is such adversity to adding that to the articles subsection. Which source do you have a problem with? Daniel Pipes himself comments on the frontpagemag (as well as jewishz) of the allegated relationship with Flemming Rose albeit he denies them. Here is another http://www.arabwestreport.info/node/25933 (see your very own article on the insitution) Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritas Lev (talk • contribs) 10:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Arabwestreport is another blog source. The article should stick to what has appeared in mainstream coverage. Speculation about why Flemming Rose allowed the publication of the cartoons is unhelpful, although he is on the record as saying "The modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech, where you must be ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule."[7]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Arabwestreport is " an independent weekly digest of Egyptian newspaper translations and editorial analysis, focusing primarily on Arab-West and Muslim-Christian relations" , and I did include a secondary source requested that comments of the supposed relation or asserted in my earlier replies a motivation for the publication of the cartoons. Why is it unhelpful, it is up to the individual reader to decide whether there prior meeting was causal for the publication of the cartoons or it was incidental. And I am fully aware of his statements, letters etc about his motivations of publishing the cartoons which, I do agree with. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritas Lev (talk • contribs) 12:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

On 29 October 2004, Jyllands-Posten published an interview by Flemming Rose with Daniel Pipes (in Danish here, in English here). Neither source clearly supports the claim that Rose is a neo-conservative or Zionist. The fact that Rose interviewed Pipes in 2004 does not establish a clear link, or explain the publication of the cartoons in 2005. See also Post hoc ergo propter hoc. WP:OR says that statements must be clearly supported by the citations that are given. The Guardian citation here does not mention Pipes at all.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that in a February 2006 article, Daniel Pipes denies links with Flemming Rose other than the 2004 interview. (Those Danish Cartoons and Me).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not a Muslim, but I agree that the pictures should not be shown - or at least not loaded with the page from the start. Frankly, I can think of MANY pictures on a host of subjects Wikipedia would not, and have not, published due to the graphic nature thereof. Once you say ANY picture can be too graphic for display, then the measurement by which judgement of whether a picture is inappropriate becomes subject to "opinion". To a Muslim, this picture is more inappropriate that anything that could otherwise be displayed...and hence, should be removed or hidden from the main page. I find it unfortunate that many who have previously decided this fact were most likely prejudice to making a statement while touting freedom of speech issues that have boundaries within the confines of their own cultural and legal proclivities. If you would like me to list pictures and subject matters that Wikipedia would NOT allow, and would even be considered illegal in the US, I would be more than happy to point these out. We need to respect the laws of other nations and other people - especially in a matter where being polite and respectful does not interfere with the message or information getting across the same way. - JP Cox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jprcox (talk • contribs) 04:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Comparable references section

The Comparable references section needs citations which contains the specific quotations that compares it with the cartoon controversy for each example mentioned. The context is important, it should not just be a pileup of incidents that may have similarities with the cartoon controversy, as the lead sentence in the section says "Numerous comparisons have been offered in public discourse comparing earlier controversies over freedom of speech and art with the controversy that surrounded the Jyllands-Posten cartoons". Without proper citations they do constitute original research. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Pig person.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Pig person.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead

The last section of the lead sounds like it has been dropped in recently: "Notably by Amer Taheri in a debate questions whether some of the riots were spontaneous outpourings as they took place where typically spontaneous demonstrations are not allowed or quickly dispersed (though generally only true for demonstrations targeting the government), and whether the images of Muhammad per se are offensive to Muslims, although generally established as forbidden, he claims that thousands of illustrations of Muhammad have appeared in books by and for Muslims, the credibility of this claim is dubious at best and regardless the depiction of a Prophet contradicts what most Islamic & Jewish scholars have established as acceptable. (see Aniconism in Islam & Idolatry in Judaism). This is not the quality I would expect from a GA. This section sounds too specific and pointy for the lead. A seven line sentence is pretty horrible in itself. I suggest dropping it all. Span (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

This was added on 1 March 2012 [8] and it is rather clunkily written and not suitable for the WP:LEAD which is a summary. Some of the points from the sourcing could be used later on in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Number of reported deaths

The "100 reported deaths" is an extremely shaky source. The link is broken, but it seems to have gone to a right-wing website that had poor methodology; any unsolved deaths of Christians in Muslim countries around that timeframe were counted towards the total. I am having difficulty finding any exact count of direct or indirectly-related deaths, and suggest we remove the death toll or supply a range using valid sources. BrotherSulayman (talk) 09:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Editnotice

The editnotice template for this page appears twice (and takes up a lot of screen real estate). Is there any way to make it appear only once? Hgrosser (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

External links

It seems that there are way too many external links for a WP article. Any objections to my removing the bulk of them? Peregrine981 (talk) 10:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Probably a chunk of these could go. The main requirement per WP:EL is adding something which is both worthwhile and not already covered in the article. An external links section should not come across as a list of material that could be found by the reader in a Google search on the subject.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Economic and social consequences of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy - proposed merger

I've been trying to streamline and consolidate this article, as well as its associated articles. It seems to me that the pages in general are fairly chaotic, redundant, and suffer from an overload of trivia. We should try to move them in a direction that has a more proportional coverage of the issues and is easier to maintain and navigate.

In that line, I've come to the conclusion that the side article Economic and social consequences of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy is fairly redundant. At the moment it is mostly used to discuss the protests and associated events. However, that is already covered in greater detail at: International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy#Violent protests. The only real added value is to do with the effects of the consumer boycott. However, that information is barely more than what we already have in the main article. It was a useful article in the context of the mass editing at the time of the controversy, but now it is superfluous.

So it seems to me that the information on the protests should be moved to the international reaction + timeline page, and that the economic info be put into the main page, and the entire thing be turned into a redirect to the main page. Any thoughts or objections? Peregrine981 (talk) 13:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hervik "background"

A paragraph reads
"Peter Hervik has argued that the cartoon crisis must be seen in the context of an increasingly politicized media environment in Denmark since the 1990s, increasingly negative coverage of Islam and the Muslim minority in Denmark, anti-Muslim rhetoric from the governing political parties, and policies of the government such as restrictions on immigration, and the abolishment of institutions like the Board for Ethnic Equality in 2002.[117] Hervik believes that these themes have often been left out of international coverage of the issue and that they render a narrative in which Jyllands-Posten and the Danish government were simply innocent victims in a dispute over freedom of speech inaccurate."

This seems a fallacy of "shifting the burden of proof." It used to be used in rape cases, where the woman (victim) was questioned on her apparel and her previous sexual experiences.

More to the point, yes, they were innocent, unless one assumes that Freedom of Speech does not exist. The latter could be true in Denmark, for all I know.

In other words, the statement seems to say, "It was okay to set fire to..shoot... " (or whatever); the paper/government brought down this riot on themselves. The victim is at fault. When, indeed, the publication went essentially unnoticed until the Organisation of Islamic States brought it up and insisted that their members all publicise it.

Also, it presumes correlation proves causation, another fallacy. That is, that the prior lack of censorship and lack of media restraint brought about problems, when this has not been demonstrated.Student7 (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure that Hervik would dispute that characterisation. As I understand it, what he is saying is more along the lines of "it is overly simplistic to jail a man for stealing bread when he is starving." I don't think Hervik condones any of the violence for example, but he does say that the Muslim community in DK had a right to complain that the cartoons were just the latest and most offensive in a long list of media misrepresentations/negative press for the Islamic faith and Muslims in DK. To simply characterize this as the case of an innocent, and truth seeking newspaper which was then suddenly and without warning "attacked" by Muslims is to ignore the long history of misrepresentation of Muslims in the Danish media (according to Hervik). If you read his book he goes into some detail of numerous incidents from 1997 to 2005 that he believes paint a picture of an actively hostile media/political environment. At any rate, he's the one who wrote a published book on the subject, so it is wiki's job to reflect that POV, whether or not we agree. If you think that the passage misrepresents Hervik, or is not clear, then please feel free to help edit it. We certainly have numerous other POVs on here which are at odds with Hervik.Peregrine981 (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The incident can be summarized as follows:

• 1. Turks immigrate to Denmark

  2. "Native" Danes react negatively, as current residents usually do when they think that immigration is too high.

  3. Irreligious cartoons are published of Mohammed.

  4. These are largely ignored for a month.

  5. The OIC decides to publicize these in an effort to poison Arab-West relationships.

  6. Riots occur as the result of 5.

  7. Analysts draw parallels between #2 and #3, irrelevant to the riots. These become published in articles and therefore Wikipedia. But they are non-WP:TOPIC.

World War II did not occur because the English and French spoke unpleasantly about Hitler! Cause and affect should be considered here. This is not a forum for complaints about how Turkish immigrants or their defenders perceive their host country. Material must be germane to article. Student7 (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The relationship between "Turkish immigrants" and their "host country" is entirely relevant here. The whole book is about the Muhammad cartoon crisis and what the author believes to be its deeper causes and context. Whether or not you agree with the conclusions of the author is another thing. I'm sure you can easily find another source disputing its conclusions, for example something by Naser Khadr, who believes that such story lines are exaggerated. The background of the crisis and notable sources' conclusions about it are indisputably on topic and relevant. THis is not some sort of crazy connection that I've made up. THe author explicitly states his belief that the two are connected. Using your above example Franco-British-German relations during the interwar years is certainly relevant to an article on WWII, and therefore should be included (as they are) in articles on the causes of WWII. Peregrine981 (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The article has become pretty much WP:COATRACK, straying into general complaints about Freedom of the Press. The comments may belong somewhere. The article should not serve as an "excuse" to complain about Danish treatment of immigrants. That is not the topic. :::If you would like to rename it to some general higher level article, that would be fine. But this article should be fairly terse with known facts, and not include everyone who has a gripe about the Danes.

It would be okay, using the example above, to have an article that addresses unpleasant remarks made by the Allies about Adolph Hitler prior to WWII. It just wouldn't go into the article "Causes of World War II!"

More to the point, an author can comment about this ten years from now and be published here, even though the controversy would be forgotten by then and (still) not germane. The "controversy" has a clear beginning, middle and end. It did (does) not go on "forever" which would result from inclusion of of everyone in the world with an axe to grind. Student7 (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree that it is being used as a coatrack. This is an article about the controversy surrounding the publication of the Muhammad Cartoons in Jyllands-Posten in 2005. We should discuss the events surrounding the controversy, and also give some context and background information. The Hervik information is from a book he wrote, specifically discussing the Muhammad cartoon crisis, and what he thought were its causes. This is not a tangential discussion of Danish society. This is the publisher's blurb on the book: "The Muhammad cartoon crisis of 2005/06 caught the world by surprise as Denmark decided to ridicule, mug, and insult Muslims because they were Muslims. Through the methodologies of media anthropology, cultural studies, and communication studies, this book brings together more than thirteen years of research on three significant historical media events in order to show the drastic changes and emerging fissures in Danish society and to expose the politicization of Danish news journalism, which has consequences for the political representation and everyday lives of ethnic minorities in Denmark." This is clearly a notable, reliable book directly addressing the topic of the article. I don't agree that it this is just some random complaint about the situation of immigrants in DK. This reliable source says that the treatment of muslims in the Danish media is an important aspect of the controversy. Neither is this aspect being discussed in disproportionate detail. The relevant quote is below. I'd like you to explain in more detail why you think it isn't related to the article.

Peter Hervik has argued that the cartoon crisis must be seen in the context of an increasingly politicized media environment in Denmark since the 1990s, increasingly negative coverage of Islam and the Muslim minority in Denmark, anti-Muslim rhetoric from the governing political parties, and policies of the government such as restrictions on immigration, and the abolishment of institutions like the Board for Ethnic Equality in 2002. Hervik believes that these themes have often been left out of international coverage of the issue and that they render a narrative in which Jyllands-Posten and the Danish government were simply innocent victims in a dispute over freedom of speech inaccurate.

The other passage you have objected to is below. It is not some random discussion about freedom of the press. The article quoted is called: "Caricaturizing Freedom: Islam, Offence, and The Danish Cartoon Controversy". How could it be more on topic than that? It is discussing the philosophical underpinnings of the entire dispute. Are you saying that the article shouldn't address the political issues raised by the controversy?

Ashwani K. Peetush of Wilfrid Laurier University has argued that in a liberal democracy freedom of speech is not absolute, and that reasonable limits are put on it such as libel, defamation, or hate speech laws in almost every society in order to protect individuals from "devastating and direct harm". He argues that the cartoons "create a social environment of conflict and intimidation for a community that already feels that its way of life is threatened. I do not see how such tactics incorporate people into the wider public and democratic sphere, as Rose argues. They have the opposite effect: the marginalized feel further marginalized and powerless." Thus he argues that it is reasonable to consider two of the cartoons as hate speech, which directly undermine a group of people (Muslims) by forming part of an established discourse linking all Muslims with terrorism and barbarity.

These are arguments made by notable sources that explicitly address the topic of this article. I think they are part of a balanced discussion of the issues surrounding the controversy. I don't think any reasonable definition of the scope of this article should leave out such aspects of the controversy. Using your criteria a wikipedia article on WWII shouldn't discuss the Versailles treaty because it isn't actually part of WWII itself. But clearly a discussion of Versailles is essential for a good understanding of WWII itself. Similarly, discussion of the basic facts surrounding the origins of the controversy is clearly within the scope of this article. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

True enough about Versailles. And WWII is a broad topic. But even a large topic like WWII doesn't go on "forever." This was a tiny topic, unnoticed at the time by the world at large and only blown up to epic proportions by the OIC, with the help of the media.

With the end of the Cold War, everything is a "big deal" to the media. It was the "end of history" but the media tries to paper that over. From OJ's trial to Sandusky revelations. All of them presented (by the media) with the implication that "this is the end of the world as we know it" attitude. They have to "sell space" on tv and papers. They would like the controversy to go "forever." But it has died out. Haven't seen anything on this for quite awhile. The media has moved on to another "world crisis," Gaza. But an encyclopedia can take a more balanced approach and leave out the unending hype. Perhaps the article should be renamed so it is not a "Proceedings of the Jyllands Posten Muhammad cartoons Society", with continuing membership and minutes. Student7 (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

ok. Well, what you are arguing here is quite philosophical and frankly goes beyond the scope of this argument (ironically). As I understand it you are essentially saying that nothing important has happened since 1991, and therefore is not "truly" notable. This I would encourage you to go and argue at some more central policy page. However, given the scope of existing wikipedia policy, this is considered to be a "notable" event, and therefore should be treated seriously. Whatever your opinion on the topic, the sources cited treat it as an important one, and the text merely reflects their opinion. They are both academic quality articles discussing aspects of the "crisis" that they think are important. Please engage with the argument on that basis rather than your more metaphysical argument (which could be quite interesting, but as I said is a topic for another page). Peregrine981 (talk) 11:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Worldwide protests

Innocent people were killed in some Muslim countries. Did they all have "protests?" I wonder. Also, the media word "worldwide" needs secondary WP:RS corroboration. Everything the media reports is "worldwide." If there were 100 protests with 2,000 people each in the US over a two-day period, well, at least that brackets it. If there were 100 people in France picketing the Danish Embassy for a week, that kind of tells you something too. "Worldwide" is usually inaccurate. While chronicling every protest is impossible for a Wikipedia editor (and a lot of work and WP:OR to boot), a reporter might have mentioned something somewhere. I think omit and replace with "40 countries" or "12 countries outside of Muslim nations." Something encyclopedic. Something verifiable. Something true. Student7 (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that it is "true" that the protests were "worldwide", in the sense that protests took place in different locations on almost every continent and in a wide variety of countries. I don't know exactly what criteria need to be satisfied in order for something to be truly "worldwide" according to your definition, but if you are concerned about it, I don't mind rewording it to something like: "protests were held in many countries around the world." I think that finding out an exact number of countries would be a) a lot of fairly redundant work, and b) possibly original research. If you think it is important to list every individual protest then we could do that in the subsection on the international protests, or if you know of a source that has tabulated exact numbers of countries where protests were held then I would be happy to include it. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

lamentable laws against 'hate speech' in Europe

We are using a quote that speaks of "lamentable laws." While I have nothing against using WP:RS sources, which I guess this is, I think we should avoid the excesses that people sometimes go to to "push" a pov. BTW, I agree with the speaker! But I am being consistent with disliking extra use of adjectives where none is called for in the material we are trying to present. It is a distraction IMO. If someone else would like to paraphrase this, be my guest. I tried and was reverted. "lamentable" is the word that is pov, in case you were wondering. Student7 (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any issue with the phrase "lamentable laws" as it is in a direct quote from a person that is named and appears relevant to the case. We are not supposed to hide or tone down the point of views that are held by the different parties, rather it is our task to illimunate those POVs. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

This is an interesting issue that I have been wrestling with on this article. There was such a volume of commentary, that I've been having some trouble deciding how much we should quote directly and how much we should paraphrase. I haven't really come to a clear conclusion yet. Direct quotations have the benefit of being directly from the source, thus leaving a minimum of interpretation to us. However, we can't just make it a collection of quotes either considering the vast array available. My current idea is to include quotes when they are clear, and seem to represent a broader current of opinion. In this case I have no problem with the word "lamentable". In fact, I'm inclined to say that it is better to use strong language when warranted than to water it down. As Iselilja says, it in fact goes against the spirit of NPOV to hide the full extent of their opinions. As long as we present other opinions similarly I don't see it as a problem. PS, I apologize for the reversion, it was as much for the stuff about the European parliament as anything. Also, I am slowly trying to move this article in the direction of a featured article, hence the spate of recent edits. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Cartoon Resolution is too small

The resolution of the original newspaper cartoon page is so tiny as to make readers unable to clearly see the cartoons. This is especially true for older readers and others such as myself who have poor eyesight and need to be able to see a larger image. Due to the political nature of the cartoons, as well as past instances of misrepresentation by certain authorities, it is doubly important that readers be able to see and judge the cartoons for themselves.

I understand this may present an issue of fair use. However, I believe it is essential for educational purposes for readers to be able to clearly view the actual subject of controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.233.186.206 (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is a fair use issue. Try this link for full sized images: [9]. Peregrine981 (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Seriously... fuck fair use. It's time that Wikimedia sorted itself out and moved to a country where it were more possible to use such images without all this fair use, copyright violation crap. If Wikimedia expect donations from the rest of the world then the first step they should make is setting up base OUTSIDE of the USA. The image is no use if it's not readable. On the other hand I would also be angry if the image was more visible because it would be provocative. it's a tough decision either way but whatever way it is looked at it should be this issue which determines whether the image is used rather than the copyright issue.--ЗAНИA ^{talk WB talk}] 22:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

ummm.... ok, feel free to make the suggestion to someone wou could do something about it. But I believe that the US actually has one of the most lenient fair use laws in the world. I think it's also more complicated than simply where wikimedia is based. Some wikis don't even allow fair use at all. In many European countries you can't even use photos of buildings whose architects died within the last 70 years. Now THAT is unreasonable. Peregrine981 (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the meaning of fair use, Xania. Fair use actually means that it is possible for us to use a lot of images that it would be copyright violations to use in most other countries (most European countries for example doesn't accept fair use, Denmark being one of them, which is why the Danish Wikipedia doesn't even feature an image of the cartoons). You will be hard pressed to find a country where there exist a comparable (legal) liberal copyright legislation concerning these things. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with ..206. But appreciate that we are lucky to be able to read any of the captions in English, thanks to Peregrine's link. Can the link be imbedded in the article?

Normally most maps and allied work (in other articles) are too small to be read but blow up to readable size when you click on it. Student7 (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You can find a description of each cartoon on Descriptions of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons. I doubt that the text of the article in Jyllands-Posten that the images surround would be of much interest to anyone since the article as such wasn't the object of the dispute. Besides, the captions in the original article are all in Danish, since it is a Danish-language newspaper. 2.107.68.46 (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It should be ok to include links to full-size images in a footnote, & would be useful. Johnbod (talk) 01:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

On 27 September 2012, User:DASHBot reduced the size of the infobox image to 273 × 386 pixels. It was once much larger. This is too small IMHO, but it was done to keep the fair use enthusiasts happy.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Islamic tradition - Aniconism section

I think this rather understates the Islamic aniconic tradition. The section reads (comments in italics):

The Qu'ran condemns idolatry, and this has led some Islamic scholars -one would have to say most; and certainly for sacred subjects- to interpret the Qu'ran as prohibiting figurative representation (this is called aniconism). However, since Islam has many centres of religious authority, opinion and tradition in this regard is varied. In popular practice there is no general injunction against pictorial representation of people, and images of the prophet have been made, with some restrictions, throughout history problematic - the earliest are from some 600 years into the history of Islam, and until recent Shia practice they are always rare, & mostly in private manuscripts that would only be seen by selected people.

Within Muslim communities, views have varied regarding pictorial representations. Shi'a Islam has been generally tolerant of pictorial representations of human figures, including Muhammad.[124] rather misleading: the main tradition was until recently in Persian court-derived manuscripts. But the Persian court went from Sunni to Shia with the Safavid conquest of 1503. Before that Persian Shia were more strongly against images & the earlier examples were Sunni, as were later Ottoman ones. The divide is more ethnic/linguistic; Arabic-speaking parts of the Islamic world have been pretty consistently against religious images & not used any images of human figures much until recently. Contemporary Sunni Islam generally forbids any pictorial representation of Muhammad,[125] but has had periods allowing depictions of Muhammad's face covered with a veil or as a featureless void emanating light.again, shia as well as Sunni A few contemporary interpretations of Islam, such as some adherents of Wahhabism and Salafism, are entirely aniconistic and condemn pictorial representations of any kind. The Taliban, while in power in Afghanistan, banned television, photographs and images in newspapers and destroyed paintings including frescoes in the vicinity of the Buddhas of Bamyan (which they also destroyed).[126] total aniconism is rare, but aniconism re religious subjects (as with old-school Calvinists) pretty common or general among Sunni.

Klausen is hardly a specialist here, but quite a lot of Christiane Gruber, who is, can be read online. Johnbod (talk) 11:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. This has long been one of the weakest sections of the article since it requires some real background in the subject to write on with any authority. I take your points, and can see about incorporating them. Do you have any specific Gruber source that could be most useful? Peregrine981 (talk) 12:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Depictions of Muhammad uses these, all partly online:

• "Gruber (2005)", Gruber, Christiane, Representations of the Prophet Muhammad in Islamic painting, in Gulru Necipoglu, Karen Leal eds., Muqarnas, Volume 26, 2009, BRILL, ISBN 90-04-17589-X, 9789004175891, google books
• "Gruber (2010)", Gruber, Christiane J., The Prophet's ascension: cross-cultural encounters with the Islamic mi'rāj tales, Christiane J. Gruber, Frederick Stephen Colby (eds), Indiana University Press, 2010, ISBN 0-253-35361-0, ISBN 978-0-253-35361-0, google books
• "Gruber (Iranica)", Gruber, Christiane, "MEʿRĀJ ii. Illustrations", in Encyclopedia Iranica, 2009, online

- if you check out the pages referenced in the article & I think Aniconism in Islam, that should give you a start. The Encyclopedia Iranica article is just on one particular episode, but the most common distinct subject showing M, and one always included in the rarer illustrations to biographies of M. Hope that helps. I'm happy to revisit & comment on changes - just let me know on my talk. Somewhere she has a chapter or article on contemporary Shia posters, postcards etc, & her new book on M images in general might be out by now - try her faculty page. Johnbod (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

No: "The Praiseworthy One: The Prophet Muhammad in Islamic Texts and Images, (Bloomington:Indiana University Press,2014)." apparently. Johnbod (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I'll have a look and see what I can do over the next few days as time permits, and I'll get back to you. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I've re-worked the section in an attempt to address Johnbod's concerns. Peregrine981 (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)