Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 30

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)

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 Wikipedia: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.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be worong to change it, as these cartoons are not the only ones that exist of Muhammad. --Oddeivind (talk) 08:36, 14 September 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)

Descriptions of the drawings
I think this short section (which mainly is there to link to a subpage) should mention that at least one of the twelve drawings clearly is not meant as a depiction of the prophet Muhammed (the "Valby skole" one). But I realise I am pushing an agenda here: I believe most people being offended by the other eleven should actually be pleased by this one (and also find it amusing the Jyllands-Posten's editors allegedly didn't know at the time that they printed a statement denouncing them). - Actually, I think two drwaings stand out from the rest and may deserve a brief mention here - the other one being the "Bomb in turban" one that is offensive to many not only because of the ban on depictions.

Opinions? Or an elegant way of doing this?Noe (talk) 10:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Russian agenda section
I moved the following section to the talk page:


 * ====Russian agenda====
 * Members of the intelligence community have laid the blame for the controversy at the feet of Russia, alleging that the publication of the cartoon and subsequent protests were examples of active measures by Russian intelligence agencies, aimed at fomenting tensions between the Islamic world and the West. Proponents of this theory include historian Thomas Boghardt at the International Spy Museum.  He cites former KGB general Oleg Kalugin as noting that Jyllands-Posten editor Flemming Rose spent much time in Moscow and "published a spate of obviously government-sponsored, anti-Chechen articles."  Similarly, famed FSB defector Alexander Litvinenko noted that Rose is "married to the daughter of an ex-KGB officer."  Peter Earnest, a former CIA clandestine service officer in the Middle East, also remarked about the suspicious connections that the Russian secret services had to the incident.

To my knowledge this is not a major theory of the controversy? It's referenced to just one source, and that source even admits that the case is entirely circumstantial and uses the word may a lot. There are also WP:BLP issues here. Accusing the editor of the newspaper of treason, basically - being a Russian agent who caused Denmark great damage, or at least a dupe - is serious stuff. This should be well-referenced on something better than "well, this would totally fit the style and agenda of the FSB." I'm especially worried because the article uses the fact that Mr. Rose wrote anti-Chechen editorials as supporting evidence he might be under Russian employ. But there's another, obvious explanation here: Mr. Rose is not a fan of what he sees as Islamic extremism, and thus sympathizes with the Russians against the Muslim Chechans. The same sentiments would explain why he published the cartoons.

To be sure, I wouldn't be all that surprised if it turns out Russian agents egged on the controversy after it had already broken (though I'd argue Middle Eastern governments are far more to blame here). The "editor is a traitor" theory is going to need more referencing, though. Anyone have any more sources on the topic? I don't think the section should return to the article until they're found. SnowFire (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Where there is controversy, conspiracy theories are sure to follow. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is probably the classic example of deliberate propaganda of this type, but a few rather unfunny cartoons in a Danish newspaper do not seem to fit the bill. In any case, there would need to be some reliable sourcing to establish notability rather than the usual web chatter.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)