This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nwinther (talk | contribs) at 09:06, 17 August 2009 (→Calculations - the Danish cost.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 09:06, 17 August 2009 by Nwinther (talk | contribs) (→Calculations - the Danish cost.: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Skip to table of contents |
 | A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on September 30, 2008. |
|
Important notice: Prior discussion has determined that pictures of Muhammad will not be removed from this article, and removal of pictures without discussion at Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments/Image-Display will be reverted. If you find these images offensive, it is possible to configure your browser not to display them; for instructions, see the FAQ. Discussion of images should be posted to the subpage Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments/Image-Display. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | 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. |
 | Misplaced Pages is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
- Please divert comments having to do with the timeline of the incidents to Talk:Timeline_of_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy.
- Please divert comments having to do with international reactions to Talk:International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.
- Please divert comments having to do with various opinions on the controversy to Talk:Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.
- Please divert comments having to do with any aspect of displaying the cartoon images to Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments/Image-Display.
Any irrelevant discussions can be removed without notice. Aucaman 00:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Useless map
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 Soul 19:41, 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.)
Sardaka (talk) 09:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- There would need to be a WP:CONSENSUS on changing the title, see Misplaced Pages:Requested moves. "Muhammad cartoons" is not quite as descriptive as the current title, and the redirect mentioned is enough for people to find the page easily.--♦IanMacM♦ 09:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
"In popular culture"
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-notable trivia 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. Rodhullandemu 23:33, 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)
Done moved to 22 Rodhullandemu 23:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Protection
Shouldn't this article be protected? --Wadq (talk) 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. Rodhullandemu 14:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Yale U. Press opts not to reproduce the images in a new book about the affair?
Does this seem relevant to the article? BYT (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- It has already been added to the article. So, to answer your question: Yes it is relevant. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Aha -- missed this, my apologies... BYT (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Calculations - the Danish cost.
In the "Economic and social consequences"-section, this is stated: On 9 September 2006, the BBC News reported that the Muslim boycott of Danish goods had reduced Denmark's total exports by 15.5% between February and June. This was attributed to a decline in Middle East exports by approximately 50%. "The cost to Danish businesses was around 134 million euros ($170m), when compared with the same period last year, the statistics showed." (my bolds)
If you do the math, Denmark loses 15,5% of it's exports in 5 months. If you look at the finaicial numbers, this is 134M Euros. Divided by 5 and multiplied by 12 (so we get a years worth of loss) the number is 321.6M Euros. Multiplying that by 6,5 should give us the total Danish export of 2006 or thereabouts (15,5% is roughly one sixth-and-a-half). That's 2.1Bn Euros. However, according to the national statictics of 2006, Danish exports resulted in 72.6Bn Euros. That's a factor of 35(!). While it is certainly not irelevant, that the episode cost Denmark money (or earned Denmark money if you count the apparant rise in exports to the US) - But the math should at least be correct - or not there at all. Obviously, something is wrong with the BBC sources, or the paragraph has to be rewritten to reflect the actual loss/gain to Danish Exports.--Nwinther (talk) 09:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Categories:- Selected anniversaries (September 2008)
- All unassessed articles
- GA-Class Denmark articles
- Mid-importance Denmark articles
- All WikiProject Denmark pages
- GA-Class Islam-related articles
- Unknown-importance Islam-related articles
- WikiProject Islam articles
- GA-Class Comics articles
- Mid-importance Comics articles
- GA-Class Comics articles of Mid-importance
- GA-Class European comics articles
- European comics work group articles
- WikiProject Comics articles
- Misplaced Pages good articles
- Social sciences and society good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- Misplaced Pages objectionable content