Jump to content

Talk:International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeInternational reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 28, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed

Please divert general comments to Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Thank you.

Cartoons

[edit]

Could we please actually see the cartoons? I mean, we're talking all about them, shouldn't there at least be a picture of them? IF this is to offensive, at least put an external link to them! --3sn 04:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hackers

[edit]

Someone keeps putting a link at the top of the page that leads to innumerable pop-ups and possible hijacking. Luckily I turned my computer off (manually) before anything awful could happen. 2/15/06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.235.94 (talk • contribs) .

Delete the news agency photos

[edit]

There is no way these protest images are covered by fair use. Applying the same defense over and over, you could argue that every image, every news photographer in the world, on the ground there, is snapping is snatchable fair use because the matter is "politically significant". That's absurd. Deletion listings verify copyrighted sources. We know the protest photos belong to international news agencies, which own the restricted copyright, and make listing useless. They should be deleted now.

Lotsofissues 11:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic reaction

[edit]

The article says: On February 1 Finnish Minister of Foreign Affairs Erkki Tuomioja commented on the issue, and said that Denmark should have acted earlier and paid more attention to Muslim outrage over the offensive caricatures. Further, he said that the Danish government could apologise for the fact that religious feelings were offended, without endangering freedom of expression. Tuomioja indicated the belief that EU countries should together condemn the threats of violence. I read in a swedish newspaper some days ago that the swedish prime minister Göran Persson had said almost exactly the same thing, and that he and the finnish, maybe the norwegian minister too had discussed this and that they thought the same thing. I could not find which newspaper it was when I checked now though.

I am not so sure I remember correctly. I found this[1] article where Persson discussed this briefly without critisizing the danish prime minister.

Bill Clinton as spokesman for the USA?

[edit]

I didn't delete the contri on the off chance I'm just being a cranky old man here, but why is Bill Clinton being cited as a spokesman for the USA's official reaction?

Try looking again. He is being cited as part of a paragraph on the POLITICAL reaction.


The section is "political reactions". For some reason, the "political reactions" have become blurred with "Official government responses." I'm not sure Clinton is relevant in any way here. Tbeatty 22:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Badly worded

[edit]

Poland: Polish Prime-Minister Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz said, he considered cartoons to be not necessary provoking. Polish government said they are really sorry, that Polish newspaper also offended Muslims.

Can someone rewrite this? It is confusingly written --Godtvisken 03:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed "buycott" of Danish products

[edit]

Here's a significant "international reaction" that someone should add to the article. [[2]]

when the main exports are bacon or beer? i dont think they will be too trown back by a boycott somehow!!

removed selfreferences

[edit]

those subarticles should not start with "This article" →AzaToth 20:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linking headings

[edit]

According to the Manual of Style, headings should not be linked. Pepsidrinka 16:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Results of Riots?

[edit]

Not sure if this is the right article to hold this information, but there needs to be a tally of the deaths, buildings burnt, bombing, etc connected with this controversy. -Mr.Logic 18:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lastest is Nigeria. 15 dead and 15 Churches burnt. http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Udland/2006/02/18/210949.htm

"Other" section

[edit]

should we migrate the contents of the "other section" into the timeline and get rid of that section here? probably most of is is in the timeline already, so it wouldn't be much of an effort. Azate 16:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burning embassies

[edit]

"On October 19, ten ambassadors from Islamic countries, including Algeria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Morocco, Pakistan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, as well as the head of the Palestinian delegation in Denmark, sent a letter to Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen requesting a meeting and asking him to distance himself from hate speech, including remarks by MP Louise Frevert, Culture Minister of Denmark Brian Mikkelsen, and the Radio Holger station. [66] Rasmussen declined, saying that the government could not interfere with the right to free speech, but said that cases of blasphemy and discrimination could be tried before the courts [67], a reaction essentially seen as a snub by the Muslims[68]." How does that relate to burning embassies? 80.62.172.74 20:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamshahri Contest

[edit]

1) Could somebody (maybe a Persian speaker) find Hamshahri's contest announcement? The source I provided is second-hand. 2) Any way of providing a translation of said primary source? Babelfish doesn't do Persian... 3) Wouldn't it be ironic if somebody from the West, especially Denmark, won the contest? Heck, if I could draw, I'd be tempted to enter myself. How are the entries to be submitted? Not to dish on Holocaust survivors, but, hey, we can't let these people out-blaspheme us! crazyeddie 06:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the bulletpoint, btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reactions_to_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#Other_reactions crazyeddie 06:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crazyeddie, as your username suggests, you are truly out of your mind. Is this is a contest of who can be the most blasphemous? What glory or honour can there possibly be in winning "the most blasphemous person" contest? Blasphemy has no equal in its severity as a religious offence. It is foolish disregard to treat it as a joke. Your comment adds nothing to enlighten understanding on this issue but only to pour mockery and incite further religious hatred. I deplore what you have said and ask that you give wiser consideration to comments from now on. As it is, your comment has reflected what kind of a person you are. P.S. I am not a Jew so please do not speculate about vested interests.

Muslim Urging against Violence

[edit]

Has there been anyone calling against violence, besides Iraq's Ayatollah al-Sistani? Teh Bomb Sophist 23:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I have heard of, only encouragement for violence

Polls

[edit]

How about some hard polling data on the reaction in different countires. Otherwise we're just publishing other people's speculation. Savidan 16:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Too Many Red Links!

[edit]

The red links must die!--143.92.1.33 03:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? If you have useful ideas with regards to the red-linked text, just click it and start a new article. ;-) — Kimchi.sg | Talk 16:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody does! thats why they are red links.--220.238.191.53 00:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember that you are a red link, so... :) →AzaToth 00:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added Chomsky reference

[edit]

I recently corresponded with Noam Chomsky about this topic. I edited this page to include a statement that he said he has submitted to many people. Here is the e-mail I received from him, an edited version of which I included in the page under the header of "other reactions":

Subj: Re: Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
Date: 2/16/06 10:24:22 AM Central Standard Time
From: chomsky@mit.edu (Noam Chomsky)
To: AndrewParodi@aol.com (by way of Noam Chomsky <chomsky@mit.edu>)


I'm not sure how surprising it is. Suppose the New York Times featured grotesque anti-Semitic caricatures of Moses and Jesus. What would the reaction be?
I've received so many inquiries about this I had to write a form response, below. It inevitably fails to deal with some of the concerns of those who write, and if so, I'll try to be more specific.
Noam
-----------------------
This topic is so suffused by hypocrisy I am reluctant even to comment on it. Doubtless the press in the US at least is legally entitled to print a series of anti-Semitic caricatures of Moses, with disgusting captions like those in Jyllands-Posten, and it's good that US law permits this. Have they done it? As for Jyllands-Posten, they were legally entitled to print cartoons satirizing the resurrection of Jesus, but rejected them, saying it would "provoke an outcry." Actually in Europe, unlike the US, there is only limited protection of freedom of speech. The record in England, France, and elsewhere is disgraceful. Even in the US, a high standard of protection of freedom of speech was only reached recently -- in 1964, in a case involving Martin Luther King. Before that the US record is awful.
The issue of "freedom of speech clashing with journalistic responsibility" does not arise for hypocrites who don't believe in freedom of speech in the first place.

-- Andrew Parodi 01:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just made some additions to the section about Chomsky, based on the below e-mails:


Subj: Re: Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy Date: 2/17/06 8:38:24 PM Central Standard Time From: chomsky@mit.edu (Noam Chomsky) To: AndrewParodi@aol.com (by way of Noam Chomsky <chomsky@mit.edu>)


If the NYT published anti-Semitic cartoons with vicious anti-Semitic captions it would very likely go out of business. But the possibility is so remote that it's not worth discussing.

The European press has a right to run racist cartoons, just as the US press does. It is irresponsible in both cases, and they know it, which is why they don't run anti-Semitic caricatures of Moses with disgusting captions. As I pointed out in the response, they have a right to do so, and that it's irresponsible, as they know, seems too obvious for comment. Rather, I brought up a different question, a crucial one that is entirely ignored in the commentary on this affair: the extreme hypocrisy of those who pretend to defend freedom of speech when they don't protect it or even believe in it, and are using that lie merely to justify their pleasure in ridicule of people under their jackboots.

As for Denmark, the whole campaign was initiated by the Minister of Culture. Here's a quote from the Feb. 15 edition of one of Denmark's most respected journals, Information:


In the weekend before Jyllands-Posten published the cartoons, [Minister for Culture] Brian Mikkelsen established what he called "the cultural struggle's new front". At the Conservative national conference, he exhorted to battle against immigrants from Muslim countries who do not wish to "acknowledge Danish culture and European norms", as they have developed a parallel society where "minorities practise their medieval norms and undemocratic ways of thinking.".... However, the fact remains, as Klaus Rothstein wrote in [weekend paper associated with the conservative daily, Berlingske Tidende] Weekendavisen, that he had declared war on Islam.

It has been documented that the idea of the drawings arose on Jyllands-Posten the Monday after Brian Mikkelsen had held his speech. It is also clear that Flemming Rose in his grounds for the cartoons used arguments and examples from Brian Mikkelsen's speech. Muslim organisations' first response was a letter to the minister for culture, which was not answered. After this, the snowball began to roll.


Noam

At 10:44 AM 2/17/2006, you wrote:

Dear Mr. Chomsky,

Thank you for your response. You make a good point. How often do Christian fundamentalists call for insane things, such as the murder of Venezuela's president, or the murder of gays, etc.? However, if the New York Times ran anti-Semitic and anti-Christian cartoons, I'm not sure it would break out into such violent protests. Then again, maybe it would. Hard to tell, because the chance of the New York Times doing such a thing is almost nill.

Thank you for your form response. I'm a bit confused, though. Are you saying that there should be no question that the European papers had a right to run these cartoons? Or are you saying that it was irresponsible for them to run them? Or are you saying something entirely different and I just haven't grasped it?

Sincerely,

Andrew

- - - - - - -

Subj: Re: Nevermind last question Date: 2/17/06 8:38:15 PM Central Standard Time From: chomsky@mit.edu (Noam Chomsky) To: AndrewParodi@aol.com (by way of Noam Chomsky <chomsky@mit.edu>)

I'd only add that not only do the media not believe in freedom of press in Europe, but neither do the European intellectuals who are posturing about this and lying about their own stand.

Noam Chomsky

At 10:44 AM 2/17/2006, you wrote:

Dear Mr. Chomsky,

I had written requesting clarification regarding your form statement about the Muslim cartoon controversy. I have reread your statement several times now, and I now understand what you were saying. In essence, yes, the media have a right to publish the cartoons, but the fact that they did publish it (all the while they wouldn't publish cartoons making fun of Christianity and Judaism) reveals a bias on their side. Further, the media does not really believe in freedom of expression anyway, therefore the "freedom of expression" leverage can hardly be used in this controversy.

I suppose the part I don't get is how the Muslims involved in the violent protests think they are representing their religion well. They are only playing into the hands of the anti-Islamists. But that's probably not a question to bring to you.

Sincerely,

Andrew

I summarized this in the article. It was difficult to tell where Chomsky began or ended and "Other Reactions" was essentially "Chomsky's Reaction" plus one paragraph. I'm still not entirely sure if it fits within the article, but that section's more balanced now. Coatesd 04:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ISLAMISTS PROTEST IN FRANCE = BUSTED

[edit]

The 11 february 2006, there was in Paris (French Capital) and Strasbourg (French City, Capital of European Union with Brussels) protests of islamists . 7 200 protesters in Paris, 2 000 in Strasbourg.

A Team of French Bloggers Called "La BAF" (Brigade for the money of the French Taxpayers) invited themselves in the demonstration. They were insulted, threatened and french police rescued them. Photo+ video. A MUST SEE. French/English Version.

http://labaf.blogspot.com

Oe kintaro

(The preceding unsigned comments were added by Oe kintaro)

Yes it's me.I apologize, I just forgot :D.Oe kintaro 21:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A demonstration that demands respect for others...and someone shouts "homosexuals!!!" as an insult to a guy holding a danish flag...:) Apupunchau 20:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be an insult to a Dane? Could a Dane answer this please?DanielDemaret 20:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a female, absolutely not! :-> To be honest, it is very difficult to think of something that - across most danes would cause an offence.

In terms of flag-burning..... if my memory serves me right, it is actually stated in Danish law that disposing of the Danish flag, must not happen by simply throwing it away (e.g. along with the kitchen rubbish); It must be burned !! Which puts the flag-burning protests in an entirely new light (at least presumably different from that of the 'flag-burner') :-> Varga Mila 22:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Flag-burning, while not illegal, is the most respectable way of disposing the flag in the United States also. --Tokachu 23:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have not encountered a single person who cared about the flag burning or name-calling. You often hear "Freedom" when Americans talk of the Stars and Stripes and the French have their "Egalité, Fraternité, Liberté " associated with their tricolor. The Danish flag dosn't really symbolize anything in particular to most Danes except "Oh golly, it's pretty - tie it to the top of the pole, dear". Celcius (Talk) Wiki be With us! 00:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If your comment mean that no Danes are offended by the burning of the Danish flag in Nablus and similar places, then I've got news for you. It is also incorrect to assume that no Danes feel any sort of attachment towards their flag. I am personally offended by that act, and I know many other Danes who feel the same way. I'm also offended by people burning e.g. the U.S. flag for that matter, or people burning books. Name calling is another matter; these people may shout as they please. Other Danes I've spoken too feel the same way. --Valentinian 00:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't pretend to speak for all Danes. I'm just saying I'm not offended by it and I personally don't know anybody who cares. You can't equate books and flags - burning a book represents suppression of free speech. Burning a flag is a statement of anger/hate. But since these people don't know anything about this country or its citizens it becomes a completely irrelevant and meaningless statement. Had it been Swedes or Germans doing it - I would feel quite differently as the statement would have substance. Celcius (Talk) Wiki be With us! 03:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I side that, Celcius. The Danes I have spoken to are not offended by the flag-burning as such, but are chocked by the anger it represents. Varga Mila 08:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Celcius. However, it worth mentioning that the Danish People's Party, before this mess started, wanted to pass a law making it illegal to burn the Danish flag (they have a somewhat selective respect for free speech). So some Danes care. Incidentially, burning foreign national flags is already illegal, so at some point in our history we did care about not insulting foreigners.--Per Abrahamsen 08:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have never understood people who feel attached to a coloured piece of tissue. In any case, I think than any form of grief should be compensated by the boom in Danish flag exports to Syria, Iran and such. Incidentally, it is "Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité". Rama 09:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask a question. Where do people in the Middle East get those flags that they burn? If I, in the United States, wanted to burn a Danish flag, I would have no idea how to get one. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you know when you go to touristic places often there's shops where - among other things - you can buy flags. Well, I heard about an Egyptian shopkeeper who ordered a tonnes of flags when the whole thing started - apparently he could smell the direction of the coming winds. Unfortunately I understand most of them are imported from Taiwan - so it's really Taiwanese flags cleverly posing as Danish flags. Celcius (Talk) Wiki be With us! 17:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is Chechnya doing here?

[edit]

I thought the list was for countries only.--Greasysteve13 01:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should I place it into the Russian section myself, then?--Greasysteve13 02:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. But if I get blocked...--Greasysteve13 03:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this information is in "Economic and human costs of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy"

[edit]

Greasysteve13 02:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the big bold edit

[edit]

I deleted a whole bunch of content with a single edit[3] , because a) the focus of this page is (as I understand it) on govenrtnment position (plus UN,IOC,EU, etc.) and b)the deleted content provided detail that already is mostly in the timeline c) the deleted content was unstructured beyond repair, as witnessed by nobody touching it. I will susequently sift through the deleted content and salvage any detail not already covered in other places (like "opinions", "timeline" or "economic & human costs". It doesn't appear to amount much, though.Azate 11:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opening Statement

[edit]

Perhaps a brief evaluation of global deaths, injuries and damages should be listed in the opening paragraph just for historical purposes to stipulate the intensity and magnitude of these racial riots. Jachin 11:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA concern

[edit]

Although I have only glanced at the article, rather than actually reviewing it for GA (I shall leave that to someone else), I have already spotted a major flaw throughout that needs addressed before any reviewer will pass as GA: referencing. Looking over the refs, they are really badly messed up, with vital information missing, incorrectly filled out cite templates, and at least one that is simply a blank line. To top it off, some of them are even still left as simple inline cites, not using the "ref" system at all. These will need a serious overhaul before a GA nom is passed. It's a long job, but not particularly hard, as the info is all there, just in a bit of a mess. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 07:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failed GA

[edit]

For the following reasons:

  • The lead section does not provide a good summary of the article per WP:LEAD.
  • The citations are messy, see Red Sandman's comment above.
  • There are several cleanup templates on the page. These issues need to be sorted out, and if they have already been sorted out then the tags should be removed.

--Konstable 10:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Syria embassy fire.jpg

[edit]

Image:Syria embassy fire.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relatedness of list of deaths & organization of "Violent protests" section

[edit]

(1) Not all of the deaths listed in the "Violent Protests" section have an explicit connection to the cartoon/drawings controversy. I'm not sure that we can assume that all deaths occurring as late as 3-5 months after the publication of the cartoons resulted from their publication.

For example, the Pentagon reported the death of 253 coalition troops from October 1, 2005 to the end of the year. Are any of those related to the drawings.

Thus, deaths shouldn't be included in the article unless there is some credible connection to the cartoons. One death listed is that of a protester [later?] "found dead on a staircase." Another is the apparent suicide of a protester while awaiting a trial.

(2) Because the deaths, while more significant than milder acts of violence, are not the best/strongest example of violent protests against the cartoons, this should not be the first (sub)section. Another reason why deaths should not be the first illustration of violent protests is the fact that some of them are the result of demonstrations, riots, and embassy assaults that have not yet been mentioned in the article. Some of the deaths may be related to the later events described under "Nordic countries" rather than the original publication. The Deaths subsection should be moved down in the order, perhaps to the end.

(3) Also, I'm not sure that the premeditated murder of soldiers and priests, even if clearly motivated by publication of the cartoons, qualify as "protests." So, the Protests section should start with protests - "Demonstrations and Riots."

(4A) The second to the last sentence in the first (?) paragraph of the Demonstrations & riots subsection states:

"An interview in the Russian media asserts that a US newspaper made the cartoons, and the Jyllands-Posten only distributed it."

Interviews don't assert anything. The person being interviewed or the interviewer do. In this case it is the "chief producer of the Arabic service of the Russia Today TV channel." If this statement is correct, this should be reworded as "In an interview in Russian media, the chief producer of the Arabic service of the Russia Today TV channel asserted that it was a US newspaper that made the cartoons, and the Jyllands-Posten only distributed it.

(4B) However, I have a question about whether this statement is accurate. The original link is broken, but I found the article, in English, in the Internet Wayback Machine at:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060308185637/http://mosnews.com/interview/2006/02/28/cartoons.shtml

The most related portion of the article is:

"’The cartoon’ scandal is profitable to the U.S. who condemned the publication of the cartoons thus looking concerned for the image of the Muslims in the eyes of the public. But I do not understand why one would set the Danish and Norwegian embassies on fire, whereas the Islamic world should focus precisely on the United States as the country that has as much as occupied Iraq and Afghanistan, not just drew some cartoons or spoke bad of Islam."

What the interviewee is saying is that he thinks America's occupation of Iraq & Afghanistan is more deserving of protests than Denmark & Norway's publication of the drawings. If someone has interpreted this interview as an accusation of the US being the original source of the cartoons, that source needs to be cited.

In the interview there's another vague claim about the US having used the controversy for political reasons "to solve its own problems," which seems to be related somehow to money being transferred in and out of the US. Whatever that claim is about, it doesn't say anything about what country is the original source of the articles. Is there another article making this claim? If not, this sentence and probably the next one should be deleted.

(4C) "This assertion is widely accepted in the Muslim world.[citation needed]"

If it's true that in the Muslim world it's widely accepted that the US originated the drawings, this statement does indeed require a citation. Regardless of who is the source for this belief, if it exists, there should be some explanation of its relationship to the riots, violence, and other demonstrations. Otherwise, it should just be deleted.

(5) The burning of embassies is an extension of demonstrations and protests and thus should go next.

(6) Next should be "Death threats" & "Fatwa" - in any order. In fact, they should probably be combined.

(7) The first item under Death threats is this:

"Main article: 2006 Islamist demonstration outside the Embassy of Denmark in London"

Why is this related link under Death threats and not under Demonstrations and riots or under Burning embassies?

(8) I'm not sure the attack on churches qualifies as a political protest, like a demonstration at an embassy or outside of a newspaper office does. It might be seen as an extension of the violence, and while it may be a reaction to the publication of the cartoons it doesn't as clearly meet the definition of a "protest" as the prior categories. On the other hand, it can also be seen as an extension of the death threats and especially the fatwas. In fact the Fatwa section cites a the dissemination of a "leaflet signed by Islamic Jihad stating, [that] 'Churches in Gaza could come under attack.'" I would put the church incidents after the Death threats/Fatwa section.

(9) "Deaths" would seem to follow naturally from death threats. Thus I would put that section last. There maybe should be an explanation that these deaths include those that seem to be committed by protesters, but also deaths of protesters themselves.

(10A) Finally, "Nordic Countries" isn't really a subset of "Violent Protests." This subsection provides information on additional inflammatory events subsequent to the Jyllands-Posten publication that is the title of this article. The most significant event was in January of 2006 - which may provide a connection to the 2006 deaths in the "Deaths" list. The responses of protesters listed in that section didn't actually consist of any violent protests. In fact, the section ends with an instance of nonviolent protests.

So, this section needs to be moved somewhere else and/or provided with additional textual context. For example: "In contrast to the protests following the Jyllands-Posten publication of the cartoons, republication of the drawings in other Nordic countries elicited far milder reactions. On January 10, a marginal Norwegian Christian magazine, Magazinet, printed the drawings after getting authorization from Jyllands-Posten. Major newspapers in Norway had printed facsimiles from Jyllands-Posten and reproduced all the caricatures in their online versions; a few days earlier, the Swedish newspaper Expressen had printed two of the drawings in conjunction with an article discussing the event."

Perhaps the section could be titled "Republication of the Cartoons and Subsequent Reactions."

"However, it was the Magazinet printing that led to a great debate in Norway ..."

Is there evidence for this statement? If so, it needs to be cited.

"and is assumed to be the reason for actions directed at Sweden and Norway."

I can't find in this wiki article any mention of protests/actions directed against Sweden. In fact, the Burning embassies section includes this statement: "Within the building housing the Danish embassy were the Chilean and Swedish embassies, both having no formal connection to the present row."
The actions taken against Norway consist of and are listed in the subsections on Demonstrations and riots and Burning embassies. Thus the information about the republishing events that sparked them needs to be presented before the rest of the subsections on Violent protests. Perhaps they could be included in an introductory paragraph under the section title of "Violent protests" together with a textual summary of what that section is about.

(10B) With regard to the peaceful protests in Finland and the decision by its local newspaper to not publish the drawings - did one influence the other? In other words, did the peaceful protests near the Danish embassy result from the local decision not to publish the drawings or did the decision to not publish result from the protests in Finland? When did the protest occur? When was the decision to not publish made? How does the time frame for these 2 events line fit in with the original publication and the demonstrations following that? There should be some text explaining these events and their relationship to the initial J-P event.

It is now the wee hours and I don't think I can improve on my comments or make them any clearer at this time. Cheerio! Ileanadu (talk) 08:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I can't remember, where any of the cartoons published in US media? If so, were there reactions that should be included in this article? Ileanadu (talk) 08:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge

[edit]

Given that the article has few sources and is not sufficient for an individual notable topic, I suggest creating a separate subsection in the article about the cartoon controversy.--69.159.60.247 (talk) 04:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, given no support in over 2 years; article has greatly expanded since proposal made and target is too large (over 100k) Klbrain (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 41 external links on International reactions to the 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 00:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 26 external links on International reactions to the 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:

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) 02:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on International reactions to the 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:

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) 00:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on International reactions to the 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:

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) 11:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on International reactions to the 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:

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) 08:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_reactions_to_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy&oldid=1200373860"