Talk:Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please divert general talks to Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Thank you. AucamanTalk 01:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Reference 10 should be re-titled (I don't know how to do this): We need a counter-balance to Islam, says Danish queen. The title that is currently listed was a misquote and was changed.--Jlefort 07:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not lacking sources, but the editor who created this page (why-oh-why) forgot to move the references from the main article. Maybe he could do this so the category can be removed.--Holland Nomen Nescio 16:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are still unattributed/uncited comments on this page, which need to be cleaned up. However, I wouldn't go so far as to call it a "Weasel Word" situation, neccessarily. For example, if I try to substantiate a suspicous-looking remark on the "Criticisms of Muslim Reactions" paragraph and Google "Huntington + Cartoons", I see that many commentators have in fact drawn the linkage between the Jyllands-Posten cartoons and Samuel Huntington's book, Clash of Civilizations, so an appropriate citation can probably be found with some digging. That one in particular would best be from Samuel Huntington himself, if in fact he has commented on this cartoon controversy. I will try to do some work here, in my spare time... I actually think the best and most appropriate thing to do would be to compile cartoon responses to this current event, but there would be copyright problems with that... :p Spir 21:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple ways to interpret this particular drawing though, for example that some Muslims are putting violence into the religion by using bombs, or that Islam is a bomb waiting to go off. Can some one give a source for this statment? --Tarawneh 01:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguity[edit]

"This view leads to the unfortunate conclusion that violent conflict between the West and jihadist elements is both inevitable and uncontrollable." I cannot work out which view is referred to by the words "this view", so I find the whole sentence puzzling. Could whoever wrote this passage please reword? I can't copyedit it myself because I might change the intended meaning. Actually, the sentence looks like an editorial comment, so perhaps it should just be deleted. But maybe it is meant to convey the view of someone being talked about in the previous sentences. Metamagician3000 00:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Include title[edit]

I'd hate to flare this up like on Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, but the cartoons are the subject of the title, so I think it should be included. I'm not that bothered to be honest, because this is quite a pointless article IMO, so if it's gonna cause massive arguments, then it may as well be left out.--Nathan (Talk) 01:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's necessary to put the cartoons on this page as well. As long as they're on the main page about this topic, with clear cross-references, I'm happy. I'd only have been unhappy if wikipedia had censored itself by not providing the photos at all. Metamagician3000 02:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

structure[edit]

Should the article not start with the opinion/motivation of the Danish journalists, continue with the twofold (representing Muhammad and representing Muslims as terrorists) objections of the Muslims in Denmark, the opinions of the visited Muslims in the middle east, the motivation of the reactions in the neighboring country's, the motivation in the Anglo-Saxon press no to publish, the motivations of the governments and international organizations when trying to cool the situation. In short should not't the article not follow the evolution in the opinions while new party's enter the dispute. This in enough detail to avoid generalizations.

motivations[edit]

Freedom of press in often referred to as motivation. I think it would be more accurately to say: - Lot's of people in the West sees this as a religious rule imposed on non believers like Muslims would forbid to other people to eat pork or Jews impose non Jews to cover their head. - Many Muslims see it as a provocation like entering a Church in short pants or entering a Buddhist temple with shoes on or using an religious symbol inappropriately in the presence of worshipers.


Criticism of Israel does not equate to Anti-Semitism[edit]

Many of the cartoons allegedly showing anti-Semitic cartoons in the Arab world [1] are not anti-Semitic, although some of them are. Caricatures of Ariel Sharon killing Palestinians are not necessarily anti-Semitic. Ariel Sharon is not free from criticism because of the mere fact that he is Jewish, or that he is the prime minister of Israel. However, the stereotypical portrayals of Jews are anti-Semitic. ViewFromNowhere 05:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then add a note that only some of these cartoons are anti-Semitic.--Greasysteve13 05:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first picture is of a concentration camp. How is that not anti-Semitic? Sill, even if not all publications are anti-Semitic, there would be enough pictures left to make the argument stand. There are anti-Semitic and anti-Christian publications, which makes the current outcry an example of double standard.--Holland Nomen Nescio 17:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

actually there are no anti-christian publications , that is forbidden in all middle east's laws , even these what u called anti-semitic picturees are really just anti-zionism and anti-israel pictures which is considered an enemy for arabs and palestenians , so don,t try to say that we apply double standards while ur history is full of Violence , Killing , Invasion , and Racism --Chaos 21:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All history is full of violence, killing, invasion, and racism. Please stop the madness; the madness must end.--Greasysteve13 02:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are there really anti-semitic cartoons in the arab world? As far as I know, the arabic people is a semitic people. Battra 00:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the redundancy of the term is noted in the article about anti-semetism (See Anti-Semetism)--Greasysteve13 06:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion of Guenter Grass[edit]

in Deutsch : Die Welt's Interviw --Chaos 21:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you were already told here that this is from 2002.--Wasabe3543 20:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


u havn,t read it even , it is new link --Chaos 22:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

This article is a mess. As it stands now it is a leftover of a past ongoing discussion that more or less stopped when "Opinions" left the main article. I propose to:

  • order arguments not by country but by POV. There may be 5 or 6 different stances, on the whole.
  • leave out excessive detail.
  • find links to high-quality editorials that are exemplary for the different POVs. These will usually have been written latter in the controversy, whereas the links now present are all from early stages.
  • Order by:
    • Initial Publication: needless/ill-intentioned provocation or addressing a real grievance
    • Initial Publication:: legal or illegal
    • Inital Danish Reaction by Muslim Groups and Danish Government correct or overblown or fair or provocative
    • Internationalization of the Issue via the dossier: justified/overblown/desperate/aggressive
    • Reaction of arab (M.E:) states: defenging the faith/playing the issue for domestic gain/international conspiracy/miscalculation
    • Wave of republications: more provocation/ taking sides / attempt to inform
    • unrest: spontaneous/controlled(by whom?)/ill-informed(rumors)
    • prcendents/similarities to past conflict

Azate 20:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I just read the Ops page and it's kind of a mess. POV's I can think of, off the top of my head-
Absolute Freedom of Speech- Those who believe Muslims should stop complaining and get over it.
Sensitivity to Islamic feelings- Those who think others' beliefs should have been respected, but don't support violence. May or may not believe that Jyllands Posten had a right to publish the cartoons.
Peaceful protestors- Protestors who have objected vocally but non violently to the publishing of the cartoons.
Violent protestors- Protestors who have threatened bodily harm to the cartoonists or have encouraged violence over the issue.
If anyone thinks the list needs adjusting, please post. RichardRB 03:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Cautiously Support. I'm hearing deletionist tendencies here... which might be the best way to go, but we should wait a while longer to gain additional distance from the events still raging.
As for finding non-arbitrary categories for the opinions, this article will lose its relevence if it doesn't address the specific political and religious cross-section of opinions as an important distinction. For example, Western opinions should be distinguished as to whether they represent, in a simplified example, the self-described "hawkish right" or "concilliatory left" approach... In an equally simplified example, Muslim opinions should be distinguished between those of the actual "religious activists" versus those the "social critics," the words of governments versus the words of religious leaders, etc. Otherwise we run the risk of projecting opinions onto groups... which is the problem I see with these kinds of discussions anyway. IMHO events such as these act as a mirror... everyone wants to interpret things with their own agenda in mind. Hence, people have called the cartoon controversy a symptom of "the Clash of Civilizations" or "the Lack of Economic Opportunities For Immigrants In Europe" or " a Slap In the Face of Tribal Honor," or puzzlingly, "the Jews" (I'm pretty sure some Jews have said, "hey, please leave us out of this one..."). If this article's goal is to appropriately organize a set of opinions, then we need to provide the context of what's been said. Spir 17:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

uncoursed[edit]

How is

There are multiple ways to interpret this particular drawing though, for example that some Muslims are putting violence into the religion by using bombs, or that Islam is a bomb waiting to go off.

not original research?--Striver 21:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, See my point, a week ago with no answer --Tarawneh 01:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FOX NEWS story is not that accurate[edit]

The following was posted in the fox news article used as a reference is this article ref.(16)

In Iraq, the country's top Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, decried the drawings but did not call for protests.
"We strongly denounce and condemn this horrific action," he said in a statement posted on his Web site and dated Tuesday.
Al-Sistani, who wields enormous influence over Iraq's majority Shiites, made no call for protests and suggested that militant Muslims were partly to blame for distorting Islam's image.
He referred to "misguided and oppressive" segments of the Muslim community and said their actions "projected a distorted and dark image of the faith of justice, love and brotherhood."
"Enemies have exploited this ... to spread their poison and revive their old hatreds with new methods and mechanisms," he said

No statements were issued in English regarding such events. The only language used for such a statement was Arabic. That statement translation was not accurate, and the wrong idea was given by FOX NEWS, I can't argue that it was intended to mistranslate the statement, but it is certain that such a translation gave the wrong idea, and wrong the conclusions. And by the way it was a posted on Monday 1st Moharam 1427H, not Tuesday.

And then, wikipedia writes reinterpret the above statements from Fox news into:

Al-Sistani suggested that militant Muslims were partly to blame for distorting Islam's image.

Well, I only presume good faith in the writers. --Tarawneh 02:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Wikipedia must follow a "no original research" policy, and we can't take an editor's word as to what a non-English text says if they're contradicted by a reliable source (FOX is as reliable as any popular news medium, which is to say largely accurate but makes a lot of mistakes). If you can find another reliable source's translation, or demonstrate that there's a substantial opinion among Arabic speakers that the translation was inaccurate, then you can note that in the article in addition to FOX's translations. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I think this article lacks on the Muslim perspective. Obviously, it's hard for Wikipedians not to be biased on a subject that touches on issues of censorship/suppression of media. But for starters, we could use some better translations and citations of verifiable sources. I think a reader would want to hear or see what the more prominent civil and religious leaders in these various countries were actually saying. Reliable primary sources? Spir 22:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion rather than fact?[edit]

In the Internation Opinions section, reference 5 (in Norwegian) does not seem to actually substantiate the text, which this is more like opinion. Reference 6 in Swedish requires a paid registration; surely not a great reference (and I don't know whether it's a good one as I don't have an account). Even if real references can be found, the sentence still needs untangling to be easier to read; here it is:

Some Muslims have stated in interviews[2][3] that much of the reaction is because it was unexpected and that many Muslims consider Europe, and especially the Scandinavian countries, as more friendly towards the Arab world than for instance USA.

Suggestions? amertner 22:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim media[edit]

I am putting in one muslim who refers to the muslim media in general, if it's ok: http://www.khader.dk/flx/in_english/commentary_i_feel_insulted/ DanielDemaret 21:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Arabcartoon.jpg[edit]

Image:Arabcartoon.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) 05:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did that. The image still got removed without any explanation whatsoever.--15:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

OR[edit]

Please note that all sources in the article must deal with the subject "Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy". If it is about general opinions on Muslims or foreigners, and not about the cartoons, then it doesn't belong here.

Also, the source must say what you want it to say. If a source doesn't call someone you can't call that person a "former Muslim", even though he/she maybe very well be. Please also note that you can't glue together sources to advance a claim; e.g. you can't produce one source that calls a person "former Muslim" and a second source that says the person supports the cartoons and use it to forward the claim "former Muslim XYZ supports the cartoons".Bless sins (talk) 04:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the Former Muslims, yes we can group them together and call them former Muslims. If an article talked about Mike Tyson and a few other boxers, I could mention Tyson and say "Opinions of Boxers in the USA". It can be verified from their articles that they're in the US. In shot, there is no such thing as a claim of them being a former Muslim - you can verify it from their article itself. I would like the view of an outsider on this as well. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the heading to say "Former Muslims" instead of "Former Muslims show support", to keep in line with the rest of the headings (e.g. 'Muslims'). Is that what you were refering to? About your Queens OR tag, she is talking about the controversy obviously so there's no need of the OR tag. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can't call someone a 'former Muslim' without a source. And there is perfect rationale behind that. You are drawing a connection between someone being a former Muslim, and showing support for the cartoons (or even having an opinion on them). The source, makes no such observation, leading to the conclusion that even if this observation were true, it is not-notable.
Remember, wikipedia doesn't include material if it is true, it includes it if it is verifiable.Bless sins (talk) 06:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lets let an outsider comment on this, you're obviously not to get my point. My question is: where is the OR? The section is now titled "Former Muslims". The sources for them being a former Muslim are already in their main articles respectively. Or you want me to put a REF tag for each "former Muslim [1] Ibn Warraq has said" -- is that what you want? This is needless. Its there in their articles already. I've given you the example of Richard Dawkins. In your opinion, how can this be written so its not OR? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 06:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, we should not put these people in categories the source hasn't put them in. Thus if the source doesn't draw connections between Hirsi's former religion and her opinion to the cartoons, neither should we. I know you are barely making an observation, but only a reliable source is entitled to do that. I welcome outside opinion.Bless sins (talk) 06:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are OTHER sources that have called them former Muslims. Those sources can be found in their main articles. Why aren't you applying those same principles to the section Danish Muslims on the same page? and the bigger Opinions of Muslims which has about 8 sub subsections? I can show tonnes of examples of other articles. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your above comments transitions this discussion into WP:SYNTH, very nicely actually. You can't use two (or more) sources to build up an argument! Bless sins (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) What is the argument that I'm trying to build? 2) How does this not apply to the Opinions of Muslims section? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[reset]1. That former Muslims support the cartoons.

2. Aren't we talking about Opinions of former Muslims?Bless sins (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you're not looking at what the other sections say? This is great. The whole website has stuff like this. This is a featured article of today and it says:
Trembling Before G-d has had a wide impact especially within the Orthodox Jewish world, where the reception has been roundly negative.
Then it follows with statements to back that claim up. I'm doing the same thing here. I'm saying that "a number of former Muslims have supported the cartoons". I follow that up with statements of support from a number of former Muslims. Still think this is OR? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 17:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because the source is not saying that "former Muslims have supported the cartoons". I'm going to ask for expert comment.Bless sins (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my responses on Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Is_this_OR.3F_.22A_number_of_people_have_done_this.22
Bless sins (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Free Speech[edit]

On September 30, 2005, the daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten ("The Jutland Post") published an article entitled "Muhammeds ansigt" ("The face of Muhammad"). The article consisted of twelve cartoons (of which only some depicted Muhammad) and an explanatory text, in which Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten's culture editor, commented:

The modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech, where you must be ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule. It is certainly not always attractive and nice to look at, and it does not mean that religious feelings should be made fun of at any price, but that is of minor importance in the present context. [...] we are on our way to a slippery slope where no-one can tell how the self-censorship will end. That is why Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten has invited members of the Danish editorial cartoonists union to draw Muhammad as they see him. [...]


After the invitation from Jyllands-Posten to around forty different artists to give their interpretation of Muhammad, twelve caricaturists chose to respond with a drawing each. Many also commented on the surrounding self-censorship debate. Three of these twelve cartoons were illustrated by Jyllands-Posten's own staff, including the "bomb in turban" and "niqābs" cartoons.

On February 19, Rose explained his intent further In the Washington Post:

The cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions. And by treating Muslims in Denmark as equals they made a point: We are integrating you into the Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding, Muslims. ==


We all believe in free speech and would do anything to defend our right to talk freely about alot of topics, but there has to be boundaries to free speech. It can't simply mean that anything and everything can be talked about and/or mocked. Im not saying that we, as muslims, want to be treated differenty, but what we are saying is it's not right to mock any religion be it christianity, judaism, hinduism or any other religion. It's not that we are special that our prophet shouldn't be talked about but other religious groups are ok, it's that all religions are special to some group of people.

They think that by mocking all religions they treat everybody as equals, well in that case not mocking any religion would also make everybody equal without any insults to anyone. JJBAG (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously have not been following the media of the Muslim Middle Eastern countries and constant mocking and insulting of in particular Judaism. Don't you see how hypocritical you appear to us, that you one the one day air the protocols of the elders on Egyptian, Iranian and etc. television - to speak nothing of the constant filth which incessantly comes out of The Palestinian areas and the Hezbollah channel in Lebanon - and the next day get all up in arms of a small and fairly harmless cartoon in a regional newspaper somewhere way up north.
You write again when there are churches in Mecca and non-Muslim people of Saudi Arabia are allowed to go anywhere, freely express their religion and Muslims can leave Islam if they so wishes. Then we'll talk. Rune X2 (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC) (A Dane)[reply]
Well concerning the media in the middle east, it is not true that the Jewish religion is mocked. The whole region is at war with Israel and attack the country by speeches against politicians and other figures, but never have they attacked the religion itself or made fun of the jewish beliefs like the cartoons do. The media never insulted any other religion or religious icon. And about the churches in mecca, thats like building a mosque in the vatican city, which is not expected to happen. We consider Mecca a holy city, and Saudi Arabia as an Islamic country. Non-muslims are allowed in and are entitled to every right offered to any other person living there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.162.34 (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well Rune X2 have you ever lived in the Middle-east? Then the "constant filth" you talk of simply does not exist. I suggest instead of sounding arrogant you participate like a Wikiuser should and should not comment about things which you (seem to) know very little of (Vatican City has no Mosques so why would Mecca? Their both Holy Places - you would expect that). And in answer to your rhetoric ("Don't you see how hypocritical you appear to us") then a simple answer would be "no" since there is hypocrisy in the Western world too. This discussion has gone way off course. I'm inclined to delete it since Wikipedia is not a forum (WP:NOTFORUM). I'll let other users decide this. Toodles! LOTRrules Talk Contribs 22:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Muslims in Israel can practice their religion. Saudia Arabia does not permit any practice of other religions. As to free speech, try speaking out against the government in most Arab countries. You won't last long. 173.110.72.171 (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Free speech?[edit]

If this is about free speech, why is this cartoon deleted? Please take a look at the deletion review of File:Arabcartoon.jpg. --Raphael1 15:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Opinions on 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 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 21:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Opinions on 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Opinions on 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 05:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Opinions on 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Name of the Archetypal Muslim[edit]

An idea which has not, I think, ever been advanced, is that the "Muhammad" depicted in the cartoons might simply be as an archetype of an Everymuslim figure. I quote from a Wikipedia article on Muhammad as a name: According to the sixth edition of The Columbia Encyclopedia (2000), Muhammad is probably the most common given name [in the world], including variations. It is estimated that more than 150 million men and boys in the world bear the name Muhammad.

Surely it can't be blasphemous to depict all of them? Nuttyskin (talk) 05:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Opinions_on_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy&oldid=1199703327"