Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

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.

• 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^Talk 00:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Archives
01	02a	02b
03a	03b	03c
04	05	06
07	08a	08b
09a	09b	10
11	12a	12b
13a	13b	14a
15	16	17
18	19	20
21	22
Arguments Archive
Poll 1, 2, 3 & 4 Results
Arguments regarding all aspects of Cartoons Display

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.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(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.<ref>[http://www.spymuseum.org/programs/educate/pdfs/back_active%20measures.pdf Active Measures: The Russian Art of Disinformation] October 2006, AIRSHO magazine</ref>

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.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?

A photograph in the section "Danish Imams tour the Middle East" displays a man wearing a pig nose with the caption "This picture of a French pig-squealing contestant was unrelated to the Muhammed drawings, but was included in the imams' dossier. Original caption included in the dossier: "Her er det rigtige billede af Muhammed", meaning "Here is the real image of Muhammad." I find this hard to believe and it was not cited.It looks suspiciously like a joke or an attempt to discredit the imams' dossier. Could someone check this information out? -67.193.153.105 (talk) 11:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The story is real enough, but you are right it badly needs sourcing. I have tried searching, but the only English non-blog reference of this I can find is in Richard Dawkins The God Delusion on Google Books. It is not hard to find a Danish news source for this, but it seems this fact was rather underexposed in international media. I will add a Danish news link for this, but would not mind anyone exchanging it with an English one if they are to be found. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's the primary basis for the alleged controversy, and does discredit the imams' dossier. Here's a source. It's not Danish, but it's a source nevertheless. ----DanTD (talk) 13:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

REMOVAL OF THE CARTOONS

Content moved to subpage Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments/Image-Display.

Isn't there a better image tagging for hiding it, for those that don't want to be exposed to it?

• The way that is currently suggested to hide this image using the very basic CSS code in the user profile is not very satisfying. Notably because:
  1. it is not enforced on all pages using the same image : each page would first need to be updated to include a "span" or "div" element with the HTML or XML id attribute equal to "mi".
  2. the code suggested is not large enough to qualify all uses of similar images, this can just hide one of the images displayed on this page, but not all the images, and not all parts of the page that would be equally offensive for similar persons for the same reason (because there cannot be two distinct elements in the same page sharing the same id value.
  3. the CSS selector used ("#mi") is too broad as it will affect any page that just appears to have any unrelated element that uses the same very short ID (it could happen for example in a page using section titles just limited to this couple of letters, for example an index, or the latin name of the musical note mi, or the name of a plant, or a list of lexical prefixes...)

  ♠ Isn't there any way to insert, within the description page of an image, some tags that will be imported automatically with the image, on all wikis where it will be imported, and using a system similar to P3P content rating systems (related to pornography, violence, tobacco and drugs...) and that could easily be supported by browsers?

• I also suggest using CSS classes, instead of ids, for tagging contents, if this is still performed the way it is suggested (within the pages including the image itself), but if a content rating system is adopted, it should better be part of the HTTP meta-data headers that would be generated from all requests to the same image or related pages qualified with the same content rating tags, without having to modify the pages including or referencing these contents.
• A standard for possible content rating tags should be defined or developed and maintained by the communauty, with at least the content tags that are already standardized within some widely deployed content rating systems (notably those for protecting children).
• Note after all that we are already tagging images with permission tags (to comply with copyright laws). It is already complicate to enforce, but at least there are laws to guide us. However, content rating is more difficult as it may be very suggestive (but in this case, there are also laws in some countries where the sharia is guiding the law, and I don't see why an islamic law would be less respectable than a copyright law, for a muslem people living in such country).
• Also I am NOT requesting the removal of the image. But at least, people must not be exposed to legal risks, just because they are visiting our sites. Note that they may fall on this page without knowing that they would be exposed to its content, by just following a disguised link from another sote. They must still be able to view the content after knowing what are their legal risks. Then it's up to their reponsability if they choose to ignore the displayed warning and still execute some action to bypass the content rating system.

Note that I am not personnally disturbed by these images. But I still think and understand that some people are shocked and that they also need respect of their opinion, otherwise they will simply tag the WHOLE MediaWiki sites as being offensive and will block it completely, including most of the rest that would be beneficial for them. Note that, as soon as such content rating system would be introduced, there will also be the danger of possible conflicts because of different content rating labels. Such conficts can and should still be solved the same way as other edit conflicts that already occur on this page (and if a content is blocked due to the content rating system, there should still be some alternative content displayed or rendered that explicitly informs the user that some content was not rendered as it breaks a clearly identified content rating tag). Thanks for taking this into consideration. verdy_p (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Missing citation

Citation number 7 ("^ AMIR TAHERI DEBATES TARIQ RAMADAN Amsterdam Forum, Radio Netherlands 11 March 2006") leads to a page which is no longer available. This should be removed or replaced with a valid link.