This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Steel1943 (talk | contribs) at 03:35, 13 December 2019 (→top: fix name of archiving bot, replaced: |bot=MiszaBot I → |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:35, 13 December 2019 by Steel1943 (talk | contribs) (→top: fix name of archiving bot, replaced: |bot=MiszaBot I → |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Skip to table of contents |
Notice: Prior discussion has determined that some images of Muhammad are allowed. Discussion of images, and of edits regarding images, must be posted to the images subpage. Removal of pictures without discussion will be reverted. If you prefer not to see images of Muhammad, you can configure your browser or use your personal Misplaced Pages settings not to display them. |
Error: The code letter muh-im
for the topic area in this contentious topics talk notice is not recognised or declared. Please check the documentation.
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. |
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on September 30, 2008, September 30, 2009, September 30, 2010, September 30, 2012, September 30, 2015, and September 30, 2017. |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple 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.
{{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.
|
On 30 May 2013, it was proposed that this article be moved to Muhammad cartoons crisis. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Muslim Action Committee was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 02 November 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
The contents of the Economic and social consequences of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy page were merged into Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy on 11 November 2012. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Archives |
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Please divert comments having to do with... | ... to the page ... |
---|---|
the timeline of the incidents | Talk:Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy |
international reactions | Talk:International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy |
opinions | Talk:Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy |
any aspect of displaying the cartoon images | Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Arguments/Image-Display |
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,
I have just modified 5 external links on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- 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
- 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
- Added
{{dead link}}
tag to http://www.diis.dk/graphics/Publications/Books2007/Yearbook2007/yearbook07_hole.pdf - 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
- 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
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Weak section with troubling title and context, or lack thereof
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.--౪ Santa ౪ 20:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- 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. WP Ludicer (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
2010 terror plot not mentioned in the article
In the morning of the 29th December 2010 Danish police raided an apartment in Copenhagen and arrested three men who had travelled to Denmark from Sweden the day before and planned to attack the building belonging to Jyllands-Posten and Politiken (another Danish newspaper) later in the day. In their possession was an automatic rifle and several rounds of ammunition. At the time this was the most serious terrorist incident in Denmark, and it's not mentioned in the article. I see there's a short mention in the article with the timeline, but the omission seems like an oversight, particularly because this article includes incidents that were only in the planning stage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinkofthekittens (talk • contribs) 13:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- Misplaced Pages good articles
- Social sciences and society good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- Selected anniversaries (September 2008)
- Selected anniversaries (September 2009)
- Selected anniversaries (September 2010)
- Selected anniversaries (September 2012)
- Selected anniversaries (September 2015)
- Selected anniversaries (September 2017)
- All unassessed articles
- GA-Class Denmark articles
- Mid-importance Denmark articles
- All WikiProject Denmark pages
- GA-Class Journalism articles
- Low-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- GA-Class Freedom of speech articles
- Mid-importance Freedom of speech articles
- GA-Class Islam-related articles
- Low-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
- Unassessed Religion articles
- Unknown-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- Unassessed politics articles
- Unknown-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles