Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Please divert comments having to do with...	... to the page ...
the timeline of the incidents	Talk:Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
international reactions	Talk:International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
opinions	Talk:Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
any aspect of displaying the cartoon images	Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Arguments/Image-Display

Proposal of removing an inappropriate content

Hello, I wish you are fine, guys this article contains some images that are disrespectful for us, Please I really would like you to be comprehensive and delete them Thank you for being comprehensive and kind Sincerely Usernetme (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

See the template at the top of the page, which links to previous discussions of this issue. You can also configure your browser not to show the images.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Also read WP:NOTCENSORED. Some1 (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

No. 106.128.97.210 (talk) 05:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

unclear sentence

> They presented a dossier containing the twelve cartoons from the Jyllands-Posten, and other depictions of Muhammad alongside them, some real and some fake, including one where they claimed he was portrayed as a pig, seen as forbidden and unclean in Islam

Was the pig picture a real one? This sentence is unclear, please clarify 185.109.254.170 (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The picture was real but had nothing to do with Muhammad. Additional details may be found at Akkari-Laban dossier#Experts' view. Favonian (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Another point of view

As many others have already stated these pictures are not only disrespectful to more than 1.6 billion muslims all over the world, but are also a sign of hatred against all of us. It hurts us a lot, so many of us asked for considiration of our feelings, because the article will still be informative even without the picture and it would be a way to show the cohesion and respect between different nations, beliefs and cultures. And not showing pictures due to respect is something, we do on a daily basis. E. g. if an accident happens and people die, most of the countries in this world would show no pictures of the dead people, because it is very impious. So every culture etc. has something they want to protect or respect. We muslims also want that and with 1.6 billion people worldwide it is also a number of people whos feelings deserve to be heared and respected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:F5:D700:BE6C:D021:83A7:AA42:6314 (talk) 08:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

See the Wikipedia is not censored template at the top of this page. Some1 (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I know the rules for censorship. In general, certain content needs to be censored and others can be censored. In particular, the things that can be censored include distasteful content. For 1.6 billion people, these cartoons are beyond distasteful. You also have to distinguish between censorship and simple reporting. The main theme of the article is not conveyed through these images themselves, but through the pain that the mockery causes in us Muslims. The pictures do not have to be shown for this. Just as little as pictures of victims of a massacre have to be shown to show the pain of the relatives. So with all due respect to the right of free speech, freedom of the press and other fundamental rights: Please delete these images from the article, because if the fundamental rights just mentioned can be restricted by acts that are generally considered distasteful, then this should not be an exception because the distaste just affects Muslims. 2003:F5:D700:BE08:ACFD:3B5B:BEFF:B6C (talk) 12:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but religious beliefs don't get to dictate what happens on Wikipedia. Please follow HELP:NOIMAGE for a guide on how to hide images. Some1 (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. I imagined that our beliefs will not be the guideline for the decisions about the content on Wikipedia. This is why so many of us just asked for it and not commanded it or anything. We have shared our feelings about this with you and it is up to you to either respect our feelings about this or not. I thank all the none-muslims supporters for their attepmt to help us in this matter. It shows to me what a peaceful world would look like. 2003:F5:D700:BE98:55F5:CF67:1625:ED3A (talk) 11:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Why do even dare to speak for all Muslims by using the collective term "we"?? You speak for your own, with your own mind, point of view and religious beliefs.

Secondly, if Muslims are so scared about showing the image of Muhammad, why is that name the most common surname in the muslim world and male adults are growing their beards such as he allegedly did? Isn`t that some sort of taking an image?

Thirdly, freedom of speech is superior to islamic beliefs. You can build your own islamic state and then forbid such cartoons but wikipedia is a western invention or company and here people can express their points of view. 62.226.91.97 (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

1. I'm pretty sure all muslims would say that a cartoon that disrespects and paints another image to muslims is not freedom of speech

2. We are not scared of showing the prohpets face (pbuh) rather its forbidden, and doing his practices are not taking an image and how is using someones name taking an image??

3.i don't disagree that you can't express your point of view but I don't think what your doing is freedom of speech rather your just disrespecting, but do as you wish

4. You mentioned something about Iraq and Afghanistan having ties with 9/11 which is just wrong, and its been pretty much proven that it was a setup and now people have painted this bad image of Islam

5. And i would like to say neither christians nor muslims would say its "freedom of speech" if someone did the same thing with jesus(pbuh)

6. I highly doubt that people who bought the cartoons in muslim countries, bought it for entertainment or teaching, i think it was too see what was in it Omar mohammed el-prince (talk) 06:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Omar mohammed el-prince, all peace and respect to you and your feelings. But the image on this page is necessary to allow us to understand what the issues are. Nobody is going to find this page by accident and be triggered by images they hadn't expected. On the contrary, anyone reading here is actively wanting to know about these images, and you can't form an opinion of them without seeing them. The image is of such low resolution that there is not much pleasure in looking at it and it can't be used for any other purpose than forming a basic judgment.

You mentioned that Christians would feel the same way if it were their religion being depicted. The point is, though, there are many disrespectful cartoons about Jesus on the internet, but they have little impact and aren't widely distributed, because Christians show their contempt by ignoring them. There will always be trolls who want to provoke you, but it's your choice if you give them success by getting angry and trying to silence them. The majority of people do not want to troll your religion and would not be interested in these cartoons, but the minute you say we are not allowed to see them, we want to see them. You yourself said that some people in Muslim countries bought the cartoons. They would never have heard of this provincial little Danish newspaper if devout Muslims had not brought it to their attention. This is called the Streisand effect. Quite simply, the best way to deny the cartoonists their success is to turn your back and walk quietly away. Doric Loon (talk) 09:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Danish pastries

Our article on Danish pastries has a section on this controversy, as there was a brief campaign to rename the pastries in protest. I am proposing that the section should be deleted, because it is too trivial a detail for an understanding of the baking tradition. But it may not be trivial for an understanding of the cartoon controversy. So if any of you who are working here want to copy that over from there to here (in whole or part), this might be the time to do it. Doric Loon (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

And I have just noticed that in 2006 there was some discussion of this already, but not a decision (see archive 22). Anyway, I'm not active here, so I'll leave it to those of you who are. Doric Loon (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)