Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Shouldn't this article be protected? --] (]) 11:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article be protected? --] (]) 11:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
:Vandalism is not really serious enough to warrant protection at present, but the article is watched by admins who will apply protection if necessary. ]] 14:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
:Vandalism is not really serious enough to warrant protection at present, but the article is watched by admins who will apply protection if necessary. ]] 14:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
== Yale U. Press opts not to reproduce the image in a new book about the affair? ==
Does ] seem relevant to the article? ] (]) 19:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark
Template:JournProjectArticlesPlease add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Misplaced Pages. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This map is nonsensical, since it measures printings in absolute value rather than scaled value. For example, 500,000 printings is huge in Switzerland but tiny in the US. So, the map should be redrawn, scaling the total printings by the total population of each country.
As for the "intensity of the protests", how in the world was this measured? By number of people in the streets? Then again, it must be scaled. Don't tell me that scaling both data would amount to scaling none, as it's not true in this case. Let's take one example of the map being uninformative. In the US, only one obscure newspaper published ONE cartoon (the least offensive one), while the mainstream newspapers in the EU countries (except the UK) published ALL cartoons. So the map should take this into account. It should go by number of cartoons published. Example: 100,000 copies of one paper published 2 cartoons --> 200,000. But 100,000 copies of one paper published 12 cartoons --> 1,200,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.92.4 (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think it is much worse than that. As far as I can tell, it is completely original research, not citing a single source for its information. I have removed the image from the article for now - it is still in the article source, but commented out using the <!-- and --> stuff. If anybody can source it all, go ahead and do so and put the image back in the article. -Lilac Soul19:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I think we give sources for much of the data shown in some of our anciliary articles/lists. I've added links to these on the image page. But I think that combining data on republication and protests in one map makes this original research, so I agree it should probably be deleted. -- Avenue (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Change title
I think the title should be changed to "Muhammad cartoons" to make it easier for people to find it, but can't see a "Move" tab at the top of the page, where it normally is. What happened to the Move tab?
(Although I've just found that it redirects from "Mohammad cartoons", I must admit.)
Is the "In popular culture" section in the article entirely necessary? It feels rather awkward and reads just like an excuse to put a South Park reference in an article. Was the South Park reaction that significant from all the others that it warrants an inclusion? —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, there ere numerous pop culture ones, but south park was pretty tame. I mean you can link http://www.mohammeddance.com if you want.
"In popular culture" can be a lazy excuse for adding non-notabletrivia in general. Such additions at least should be sourced, and also shown to be relevant to an understanding of the topic of the article, per WP:NOT (specifically "an indiscriminate collection of information"). Too many articles tend to be dustbins for all sorts of this nonsense. Rodhullandemu23:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, see this cartoon. Unless there is substantial media coverage, "in popular culture" sections soon become a dumping ground for non-notable bloat.--♦IanMacM♦06:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Archive please?
Most of these threads are very stale, some have been dead for 3 months, could someone please archive this? I'd do it myself, but I'm not sure how. --Pstanton (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Vandalism is not really serious enough to warrant protection at present, but the article is watched by admins who will apply protection if necessary. Rodhullandemu14:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Yale U. Press opts not to reproduce the image in a new book about the affair?
Done moved to 22 Rodhullandemu 23:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)