Revision as of 03:35, 13 December 2019 editSteel1943 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors196,777 editsm →top: fix name of archiving bot, replaced: |bot=MiszaBot I → |bot=Lowercase sigmabot IIITag: AWB← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 15:36, 18 September 2024 edit undoAirshipJungleman29 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors43,143 edits assess |
(45 intermediate revisions by 27 users not shown) |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
<!--{{talkheader|noarchive=yes|search=no}}--> |
|
<!--{{talkheader|noarchive=yes|search=no}}--> |
Line 7: |
Line 6: |
|
Discussion of images, and of edits regarding images, must be posted to ]. Removal of pictures without discussion will be reverted. If you prefer not to see images of Muhammad, you can ]. |
|
Discussion of images, and of edits regarding images, must be posted to ]. Removal of pictures without discussion will be reverted. If you prefer not to see images of Muhammad, you can ]. |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Article discretionary sanctions|topic=muh-im}} |
|
|
{{controversial}} |
|
{{controversial}} |
|
|
{{Censor}} |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
|action1=GAN |
|
|action1=GAN |
|
|action1date=2006-02-04, 20:02:36 |
|
|action1date=2006-02-04, 20:02:36 |
Line 118: |
Line 117: |
|
|action18result=not promoted |
|
|action18result=not promoted |
|
|action18oldid=576255444 |
|
|action18oldid=576255444 |
|
|
|otd1date=2008-09-30|otd1oldid=242039474 |
⚫ |
|currentstatus=GA |
|
|
|
|otd2date=2009-09-30|otd2oldid=317057203 |
|
|
|otd3date=2010-09-30|otd3oldid=387954541 |
|
|
|otd4date=2012-09-30|otd4oldid=515336561 |
|
|
|otd5date=2015-09-30|otd5oldid=683133956 |
|
|
|otd6date=2017-09-30|otd6oldid=803049880 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action19 = GAR |
|
|
|action19date = 15:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|action19link = Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/1 |
|
|
|action19result = delisted |
|
|
|action19oldid = 1244414786 |
|
⚫ |
|currentstatus = DGA |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
{{OnThisDay|date1=2008-09-30|oldid1=242039474|date2=2009-09-30|oldid2=317057203|date3=2010-09-30|oldid3=387954541|date4=2012-09-30|oldid4=515336561|date5=2015-09-30|oldid5=683133956|date6=2017-09-30|oldid6=803049880}} |
|
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=c|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Denmark|class=GA|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Denmark|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Journalism|class=GA|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Journalism|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Freedom of speech|class=GA|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Freedom of speech|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Islam|class=GA|importance=Low|Islam and Controversy=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=Low|Islam-and-Controversy=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Comics|class=GA|importance=Mid|European-work-group=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Comics|importance=Mid|European-work-group=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Religion}} |
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject International relations |importance=High}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{old move|date=30 May 2013|destination=Muhammad cartoons crisis|result=no consensus|link=Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy#Requested move}} |
|
{{old move|date=30 May 2013|destination=Muhammad cartoons crisis|result=no consensus|link=Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy#Requested move}} |
Line 145: |
Line 157: |
|
|
|
|
|
--> |
|
--> |
|
|
{{Broken anchors|links= |
⚫ |
{| class="wikitable" |
|
|
|
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#2011–present) has been ] before. <!-- {"title":"2011–present","appear":{"revid":514686449,"parentid":514660091,"timestamp":"2012-09-26T18:44:08Z","replaced_anchors":{"2011-present":"2011–present"},"removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":641479735,"parentid":641479670,"timestamp":"2015-01-07T21:28:30Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"very_different":"8≥4","rename_to":"Janurary 2015 attack"} --> |
|
|
}} |
|
⚫ |
{| class= |
|
! Please divert comments having to do with... |
|
! Please divert comments having to do with... |
|
! ... to the page ... |
|
! ... to the page ... |
Line 177: |
Line 192: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Proposal of removing an inappropriate content == |
|
== Misreading a source? == |
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
== External links modified == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello, |
|
I have just modified 5 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: |
|
|
|
I wish you are fine, |
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150118123641/http://www.digibutik.dk/?ID=250&GroupID=250&ProductID=PROD1179&pgid=GROUP249&qq=8D7SR65SK7TUB%2048D9LG6B%20L7T to http://www.digibutik.dk/?ID=250&GroupID=250&ProductID=PROD1179&pgid=GROUP249&qq=8D7SR65SK7TUB%2048D9LG6B%20L7T |
|
|
|
guys this article contains some images that are disrespectful for us, |
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723230916/http://www.nordvux.net/page/305/kronologiovermuhammedaff%C3%A6ren.htm to http://www.nordvux.net/page/305/kronologiovermuhammedaff%C3%A6ren.htm |
|
|
|
Please I really would like you to be comprehensive and delete them |
|
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.diis.dk/graphics/Publications/Books2007/Yearbook2007/yearbook07_hole.pdf |
|
|
|
Thank you for being comprehensive and kind |
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130625133913/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/787/cu4.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/787/cu4.htm |
|
|
|
Sincerely ] (]) 22:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120512105406/http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2009/02/21/freedom-of-speech-wilders-orwell-and-the-%E2%80%9Ckoran-ban%E2%80%9D/ to http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2009/02/21/freedom-of-speech-wilders-orwell-and-the-%E2%80%9Ckoran-ban%E2%80%9D/ |
|
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080605142345/http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/02/04/456821.html?i=1 to http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/02/04/456821.html?i=1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: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.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 22:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. |
|
|
|
:Also read ]. ] (]) 23:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:No. ] (]) 05:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Another point of view == |
|
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 14:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:See the ] template at the top of this page. ] (]) 11:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::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. ] (]) 12:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Sorry, but religious beliefs don't get to dictate what happens on Misplaced Pages. Please follow ] for a guide on how to hide images. ] (]) 23:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Thank you for the answer. I imagined that our beliefs will not be the guideline for the decisions about the content on Misplaced Pages. 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. ] (]) 11:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::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. ] (]) 01:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::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 ] (]) 06:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Hi @], 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 ]. Quite simply, the best way to deny the cartoonists their success is to turn your back and walk quietly away. ] (]) 09:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== GA concerns == |
|
== Weak section with troubling title and context, or lack thereof == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am concerned that this article no longer meets the ]. Some of my concerns are listed below: |
|
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: |
|
|
::#How is Bill Kristol related to the subsection title paradigm ? |
|
|
::#How is Lewis related ? |
|
|
::#And, are Wikipedians somehow succeeded in transforming Hitchens, posthumously, into a liberal ? |
|
|
::#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.--]] 20:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*There is a "neutrality disputed" orange banner since 2019. This should be resolved. |
|
:::It's an awful title. Those reactions aren't fringe and they do belong in the article, but the reader is being primed by Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 18:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*The lead, at 6 paragraphs, is longer than the recommended length at ] |
|
|
*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 ]? ] (]) 05:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
== 2010 terror plot not mentioned in the article == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==GA Reassessment== |
|
] 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. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
{{Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/1}} |
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)
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)
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.
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)
The discussion above is closed.