Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 33

Terror plots
I think the various terror plots are given too little weight in this article. It's very rare that an organization and person (other than authorities) are subjected to such a large amount of terror planning. Some of the plots are linked to Al-Qaida. These terror plots should definitely have their own section title, not simply being put under "aftermath". The continued terror plots and threats are in various ways influending the debate and handling of these kind of controversial drawings/expressions. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My worry with that is that we risk adding a lot of details that don't add a lot of understanding of this complex topic. Surely we must cover the various terrorist plots that have been uncovered, but I think we have to be very careful not to add too much to an already lengthy article. You may be right that we could expand a little bit, but we should be careful to do it in a way that gives an overview of the plots without getting bogged down in minutiae. I would encourage adding details to this article: Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy which exists to catch the details of events as they have unfolded. At one point this article suffered from an overly-extensive coverage of the terror plots, to the point that they really over-whelmed the main story. So, I'd be ok with expanding the coverage slightly, but carefully. Peregrine981 (talk) 08:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus, although Danish Muhammed cartoons controversy might be a good compromise.  Mini  apolis  17:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy → Muhammad cartoons crisis – See above detailed explanation. Muhammad cartoons controversy would also be suitable depending on results of discussion. Peregrine981 (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Peregrine981 (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above comment, "crisis" is too dramatic and Wikipedia article names are not newspaper headlines. Also no mention of the Danish source of the controversy. Would support "Danish Muhammad cartoons controversy".-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * comment:"Crisis" is widely used in the academic litterature on the topic, and is not simply a journalistic shorthand. See,, , , among others for example. I consider the "Danish" modifier to be unnecessary, since there's only really one other comparable muhammad cartoon controversy, and is not that widely used in RS. Peregrine981 (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is far from the only time that cartoons of the prophet Muhammad have caused controversy. "Muhammad cartoons crisis" is insufficiently clear as to what the article is about. Specifically, it is about the cartoons published in a Danish newspaper in September 2005 and the controversy that ensued.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That is a good argument why "crisis" is a suitable name. I think this is the only incident that can realistically be called a crisis, and people would understand what was meant by "muhammad cartoon crisis". There have indeed been a couple of other incidents involving muhammad cartoons and controversy. However, I don't think that the others are even close in terms of their notability. As noted, the Charlie Hebdo incident doesn't even have an article, nor does the South Park controversy. If you look at our article Cartoon controversy, no other incidents are listed. I think 98% of readers will be looking for this incident under the simple title "Muhammad cartoon crisis". WP:Name says, to use only as much detail as is necessary to distinguish the title from another topic. Peregrine981 (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that "crisis" isn't the right word for this. Let's be WP:PRECISE and move to Muhammad cartoons controversy. --BDD (talk) 23:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This also has issues with WP:PRECISE, as the article is specifically about the controversy caused by the 2005 Danish newspaper cartoons, not cartoons of Muhammad as a whole.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no other incident that is ever referred to as "Muhammad Cartoon(s) Crisis". Do a google search, and everything that turns up leads to this incident. There are hundreds, if not thousands of reliable sources referring to this particular incident in that way, including major international news outlets and academics, as well as a large number of general websites. I have found no reliable sources referring to any other incident with that title. However, "Muhammad Cartoon Controversy" is used to refer to a couple of other incidents as well as this one. Given that "Crisis" is widely used in reliable English language sources (which is the #1 criteria listed at WP:CRITERIA), and it is used unambiguously to refer to this incident, I don't see why we shouldn't use it. The current title is overly specific, while "Muhammad Cartoons controversy" is too general. Peregrine981 (talk) 09:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rename?
I have thought about this a bit, and I think it may be time to rename this article. This full title, "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy" is rather unwieldly. It does make it quite precise, but I don't think there's any other muhammad cartoons controversy that approaches this one's notability (and none that currently warrants an article on wikipedia). The extra level of precision (including the newspaper name) is not necessary, and frankly just makes it more difficult for people to find IMO. You will find many cases where the case is even called simply "the cartoon crisis" or "muhammad cartoon crisis/controversy". Which brings me to another point: I would suggest substituting "controversy" by "crisis". This seems to me to be the most wide-spread name in academic and journalistic sources. It is often called a controversy as well, but crisis seems to be more apt frankly. This wasn't just a random controversy, but really a full blown crisis for the Danish state, which involved significant loss of life, loss of property, economic damage, and exacerbated the political situation between the West and the Islamic world. I can find links if people want the proof, but quick google searches on these terms should make it fairly clear that muhammad cartoon crisis is widely used and simple way of referring to this case. In sum, I propose to rename this article to "Muhammad cartoons crisis". Peregrine981 (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Crisis is an overdramatic word. The current title has stood the test of time and is better IMHO. The proposed new name also misses a substantial detail by leaving out the name of the newspaper involved.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree there, but would prefer a name with "Muhammad cartoons" nearer the front. Many people won't recognise "Jyllands-Posten" - could one just say "Danish" or "in Denmark" instead?  "Danish Muhammad cartoons controversy" or something? Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * According to WP:CRITERIA, the name should be recognizable, natural, precise, concise, and consistent. I think my proposal is clearly better on at least 3 of those, and and only worse on one. Mine is a much more natural construction that you could actually imagine someone using, so it is more recognizalbe and natural, and clearly more concise. Yes, the current title has been used for several years, but I think that we can move it now that some more historical perspective has established that it was a fairly unique occurrence. The only incident that could be considered quite similar is Lars Vilks Muhammad drawings controversy, but I think this is clearly a less prominent event.
 * Ultimately it should be based on the name used in reliable sources. I provide below links to the most commonly used names I could find. Based on my search the two most commonly used terms in major journalistic publications and academia are clearly either Muhammad Cartoon Crisis or Muhammad Cartoon Controversy, with the clear edge to crisis IMO. I could live with either of these, which I think are both more suitable than the full current title. I still think "crisis" is better because it designates a clear incident or series of events rather than just an amorphous controversy. I realise that "crisis" could be construed as somewhat over-dramatic, but it is clearly being called a crisis by many reliable sources. Wikipedia's definition of crisis is " any event that is, or expected to lead to, an unstable and dangerous situation affecting an individual, group, community, or whole society." Which seems remarkably apt to this case.


 * See here links to reliable sources: Muhammad Cartoon Crisis, , , , , , , , ,


 * Muhammad Cartoon Controversy:, , , ,


 * Danish Cartoon Crisis: ,


 * Danish Cartoon Controversy:, ,


 * Others: Danish Cartoon Affair, Muhammad Cartoon Row
 * I just don't think the newspaper name is necessary to differentiate this article from anything. This is the assumed "muhammad cartoon controversy/crisis" when someone uses the term. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose proposed renaming. I think there is a more general conflict about Mohammed drawings (Lars Vilks and Charlie Hebdo are two examples), so it must be specified in some way and Jyllandsposten drawings is the most correct. The conflict has also had lasting effect on Jyllandsposten, which still lives under heavy security and several planned terror attacks against the newspaper house in retaliation for the drawings have been uncovered; so the conflict is very directly connected to them. Rather, if the article was to be renamed, the one thing I would consider changing is "controversy", which may border on being an understatement. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I stress this from WP:NAME: "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject." Very few reliable sources refer to this topic with the title we are using. Despite the couple of other incidents, I think this is still clearly the most notable. The Charlie Hebdo incident doesn't even have a stand-alone article. The Vilks incident was clearly much less high profile. I think it is sufficiently more notable that it could count as the "primary topic" under this title, see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.Peregrine981 (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, you are probably right. I am influenced by being Scandinavian myself, so I am used to seeing it being referred to as the Jyllandsposten controversy. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The article is currently move protected, so an ordinary editor cannot rename it. There should be a formal debate with Template:Requested move.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, it seems that the move discussion was closed before we came to a real conclusion. IMO there seems to be at least a will to rename to something, although no consensus over what to rename to. I don't think anyone has fully addressed my arguments (see also below in the closed discussion) which are based on reliable English language sources and specific reference to Wiki guidelines. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk page contents
When I came here earlier to update the ArticleHistory template, I was surprised to find so very many talk page headers. I know they were necessary at one time, but the precipitating event is nearly eight years in the past, and discussion here has certainly leveled off; do we need to be quite so strident here? By comparison, Talk:Muhammad is practically tidy! Some suggestions: Thanks for monitoring what has obviously been a very contentious topic. Maralia (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The "Important Notice", the notice about blocking image display, and the gist of censor could easily be combined in a box similar to the one at Talk:Muhammad.
 * I think calm talk, notaforum, and the "Any irrelevant discussions can be removed without notice" message are probably no longer necessary; the standard talkheader could replace them. I would retain controversial regardless.
 * I don't understand the need for stack; it is squeezing the WikiProject banners and therefore actually making the headers take up more space.
 * I'm surprised that there is no notice of the ArbCom discretionary sanctions "for all pages relating to Muhammad, broadly interpreted". Has this been discussed here?


 * I agree with all of your suggestions. It is not a contentious page any longer, so it is overkill t put so many warnings now. I was unaware of the arbcom case, so no it has not been discussed. Is there anything concrete that should be done? Peregrine981 (talk) 08:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. As far as I know, nothing needs to be done regarding the discretionary sanctions other than to note that they apply here. I've left a note at Template talk:Article discretionary sanctions to point out that the notice template is somewhat broken (it isn't properly linking to the relevant cases). Once that is fixed, I will follow through with my suggestions here, if no one objects. Maralia (talk) 20:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, it looks...slightly less screamy now. I hope it's an improvement. Maralia (talk) 01:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Charlie hebdo 2015
I have removed some of the information and detail about the attack and fall out of the attack on Charlie Hebdo in 2015 because that is not the subject of this article. Please do not interpret this as disinterest, but simply a recognition that those events are are amply covered in other articles, see Charlie Hebdo shooting. This article is already quite long, and has plenty to cover on its own without getting into the intricacies of other similar incidents. It's fair to outline the basics of the other parallel incident and how it relates to the 2006 JP controversy, but we should not go into detail. There are a number of other similar incidents listed at the end of the article; they all have separate articles for a reason. Peregrine981 (talk) 12:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Initial murder?
At the origin, those caricatures were an answer to some murders; no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.99.19.5 (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not directly no, but the murder of Theo van Gogh contributed to the decision. See the first part of the timeline section for a discussion of why the cartoons were published. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 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/20080708204534/http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article344482.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article344482.ece
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100912171317/http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=bd2a1182-255c-4cb4-a7ef-f725bb5a9d41 to http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=bd2a1182-255c-4cb4-a7ef-f725bb5a9d41
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-09-09-yale-muslim-cartoons_N.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.zieler.dk/images.asp?fnavn=1opstandelsesspalte+2004.jpg&mappe=m-images&home=m-index.asp
 * Added tag to http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country%2C%2CUSDOS%2C%2CDNK%2C%2C4cf2d0a2c%2C0.html
 * Added tag to http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=1025wmv&ak=null

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I would like to propose the merger of Descriptions of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons into this article. There is no reason it should be standing alone, and it is a terrible article as it is. It has been marked for maintenance since 2008 even. A merger would serve as an opportunity to fix this.  JT dale Talk ~ 12:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. No reason to maintain as separate article. Easier to keep an eye on them consolidated. Peregrine981 (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking through the archives the original spirit of the separate article was to allow those not wanting to see the images to actually read their descriptions. Someone later on insisted on adding the images to that sub-article so that completely destroyed the original spirit of the article. Maybe just remove the image there and clean up the article? 87.231.139.167 (talk) 21:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I vote merge for the same reasons mentioned by the proposer and Peregrine981.--118.92.204.220 (talk) 02:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 03:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose I see no reason to merge. Info enough to justify different articles for such an important subject.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support merge. Content fork was made under the pretense that this article was becoming too big. It was not and it is not. Prose size (text only): 51 kB (8066 words) "readable prose size". Thus under SIZERULE there was no need for a fork. As the discussion has been open for more than six months, and consensus to merge has been established, I suggest the merger is performed. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 09:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Which consensus? I can not see a consensus.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Five editors support the merger and no valid arguments against merger have been advanced. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 13:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I also support merge. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 15:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Let somebody merge them in the end. Zezen (talk) 10:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I support the merge. The two articles cover similar things and people might be confused with all the page changing. -Anne O. Neemous (your friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man/anonymous Wiki user) 
 * Oppose - above discussion have been stale for some time, I note. The key problem for me is that the target is already too long at 128kB, and would be even more unwieldy with a merge in. There is a conceptual difference between a description of the cartoons themselves and a discussion of the controversy they've provoked, so the separation isn't inimical. Klbrain (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Closing discussion given lack of consensus for a merge over 2.5 years. Klbrain (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riffraff913 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

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 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.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:49, 3 December 2017 (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)

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 99°  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 Wikipedia 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)