Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy[edit]

Article meets FA criteria; content is stable in terms of value, not in terms of vandalism (i.e., GA-related edit-wars, etc.) Peer reviewed and Passed GA with vast consensus. —Rob (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Poor lead, and too many one sentence paragraphs abound in the article. Generally does not flow like a FA should. --Wisden17 15:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm not impressed with the writing (which strikes me as merely decent) but a bigger issue is the continual edit warring over the article. I don't think this article meets the "stability" requirement for an FA. As evidence of this, I should note that editors are arguing on the article's talk page about whether the article even deserves to be listed as a "good article" (with some editors listing it as such and others removing the listing).--Alabamaboy 16:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object The article does not satisfy the FA criteria 2(b), since it neglects major factors which contributed to this controversy. (See: [1]). And btw. the article did not pass GA. Raphael1 16:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It passed several times and was vetoed several times to be exact. Homestarmy 16:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Article is poorly-constructed, heavily biased and full of basic errors of sense, spelling mistakes, incorrectly identified references etc. (see the outstanding problems listed on its talk page). It has been delisted from GA twice, and yet the critiques of those delisting it have not been addressed in anything but the most cursory and dismissive manner. (Incidentally, the FA nomination above is quite misleading: vandalism has played no part in the GA-related "edit wars", the article has not been peer reviewed, and it did not "[pass] GA with a vast consensus" but rather it was promoted to GA by a single user, HighwayCello, twice — perhaps what Rob means is that its advocates achieved a supermajority in a GA Disputes page discussion.) — JEREMY 16:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps "non-content-related editing" would have been a better term. Nonetheless, if a supermajority (or, as I read it, consensus) works for featured articles, I fail to see, even granting that WP:GA doesn't have very many set standards, how consensus doesn't apply to GA. As for the article itself, I would help with the flow but I'm a poor copyeditor. —Rob (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I take back the "no vandalism" comment, given I have in fact accused those promoting the article to GA against its rules of vandalism. I'd ask that you change your "peer review" claim and clarify the "passed GA with vast consensus" wording, above. — JEREMY 17:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could we please keep the GA war out of this nomination? Let's try keeping this nomination relevant and only comment on the content of the article. --Maitch 18:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The article has real a problem with the flow.
    • Merge the overview section with the timeline. The lead should be the only overview section.
    • The "Danish Imams tour the Middle East" section needs to be shortened. It already has a sub article, so we will not waste any information.
    • The timeline should include the massive demonstrations around the world, which right now are mysteriously omitted.
    • There are three really short sections, which only purpose seems to be to lead the reader towards a sub article. Something needs to be done with those. These are "Descriptions of the drawings", "International reactions" and "Economic and human costs".
    • Rewrite the section "Comparable references" into prose. --Maitch 16:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. In addition to all the above, the article has too much 'back-and-forth' in the line of "this side says X, that side says Y". Although a degree of that is necessary in an article of this nature, in this case it overwhelms the content and disrupts the flow of the text. The intro in particular needs to be rewritten to focus more on the basic facts and less on vague opinions by "supporters" and "critics". --Aquillion 20:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The article is slightly biased. The recent edit warring as well as the issues mentioned to the above don't make it a quealified Featured Article (yet! - be bold and keep improving it! - there's always hope!). --HolyRomanEmperor 20:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object; prose still seems as choppy as a current event article ("In Muslim societies, for a Muslim to insult the prophet Muhammad is one of the most serious crimes anyone could commit." reads like a school project on Islam), article is not consistant on Muhammed, Mohamed, Mohammed etc. and masses of white space is occuring in some bits of the article, such as "Reprinting in other newspapers". Plus, listing an article for FA because it failed GA seems too "Pointy". smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 16:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A big part of the problem is at this point, I have no idea if it passed GA or not. I do know that in my opinion it's not a huge leap to FA status from where it's at right now; refinement just needs to occur, and maybe at some point in the near-term or far-term, it might be stable. Just because an issue is unusually controversial doesn't mean it can't be FA, though. —Rob (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon etc. discussions[edit]

  • Oppose, simply because I believe the image should be hidden behind a link and not appear immediately and involuntarily to the reader. I feel pretty strongly about that and I doubt I could ever feel comfortable supporting this article unless the presentation of that image is done in a less provocative way. Everyking 11:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This ridiculous objection can be safely ignored. Raul654 04:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suppose you are the one best in a position to ignore it, Raul, but I don't like having my objection called ridiculous. There is a serious controversy about the presentation of this image, and a good many Wikipedians feel it is quite inappropriate to present the image to the reader without giving him or her a choice about viewing it. I will concede that it would not be possible to implement my suggestion, due to the apparent majority in favor of having the image as it is, but I maintain that the controversy is simply too deep, serious and ongoing for this article to be featured now. Everyking 08:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your objection can be ignored because it goes flatly against policy - eg, that Wikipedia is not censored. Moreover, it's not as if the image is gratitious - if we want to inform readers about the controversy surrounding the cartoons, it would be extremely remiss of us not to actually show the cartoons. Raul654 00:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're simplifying an issue that is much more complex. Wikipedia is full of censorship in a loose sense: tactful, considered choice and placement of images. That's not the same thing as deleting the image outright, which would be censorship. I would not in a million years want for us to not present the image—my concern is about how it is presented, with an eye towards cultural sensitivity without eliminating the information. Everyking 03:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm essentially in accord with this, although I feel a slightly better solution would be to spin-off a "cartoon" article with the images and descriptions, then replace the image of the cartoon in the main article with an image showing an aspect of the controversy itself (ie. the actual subject of the article) such as a burning embassy or a mob of protesters. Failing that, the image should be moved down the article to a place more appropriate to its relevance to the article subject. (Of course, if you attempt to convince the article's champions of either your or my solution, they will refer triumphantly to their straw polls, which reject anything less than placing the cartoon images at the head of the article as prominently as possible to demonstrate their solidarity with the Free Speech position adopted by Jyllands-Posten.) — JEREMY 12:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Totally ridiculous idea to move the cartoons to another article, the cartoons are at the heart of what the article is about. As far as the motivations for why the cartoons are as prominently displayed as they are why not conduct a survey of the 200+ individuals who expressed their view about where the cartoons should be shown rather than make an attempt at blanket referring to the sum of their motivations as being in accord with a desire to, "demonstrate their solidarity with the Free Speech position adopted by Jyllands-Posten". Such conjecture really strikes me as mean spirited. Netscott 13:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the images are a problem where they are. It is important to remember that context is important; when they were originally published, most of the Islamic world saw them as a deliberate insult to Muhammad and Islam. On the other hand, simply reporting on them is not a deliberate insult; many papers in the Islamic world (such as El Fagr in Egypt) reprinted them while reporting on them without attracting anyone's ire. Likewise, republications intended to 'take a stand for free speech' (and therefore, implictly, against an Islamic anti-free speech movement) were seen as an insult to Islam, while republications commenting more neutrally on the controversy generally weren't. As long as the article is NPOV, in other words, any images used within its context will be, too. --Aquillion 15:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The way the events were unfolding regarding this controversy does not support your thesis, that republications weren't perceived as insult. In fact there have been more violent protests as the cartoons were republished in various newspapers. Raphael1 20:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I personally support free speech and the right of newspapers to print whatever cartoons they like, I am a bit concerned that by placing the image right there on the page with no warning, it actually pushes one POV. We would appear to clearly support the free speech camp. On the other hand, not showing the cartoon at all would put us firmly on the side of the protesters. Therefore I feel that putting the image on a separate page is an effective NPOV compromise (although perhaps not perfect). By not compromising, I worry that Wikipedia might become part of the controversy rather than just reporting on it. The reaction of different segments of the Muslim public to reprinting the cartoon in other media is irrelevant either way. We shouldn't care what people think. It's impossible to please everyone. I will support any decision as long as it sticks to what in my mind is the #1 goal of Wikipedia: neutrality. A newspaper is not obliged to stay neutral on its editorial page. We are.Sheep81 21:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, this is truly like déjà vu. My only recommendation to those who don't agree with the display characteristics is to do like was repetitively done previously and conduct a straw poll. User:Aquillion's comments above couldn't be more eloquent in explaining that it is about context. The most strident agitator for censorship of the cartoons User:Raphael1 himself said that he'd be fine to see the cartoons displayed on the islamophobia article... his reason? I'll paraphrase here, "Because Wikipedia would be making a statement against the cartoons by doing so." Wikipedia is not in the making statements business (not a soap box). Regardless, corresponding to his view they'd be fine there for informational purposes, well excuse me but why are they on this very article? Netscott 22:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Aquillion's comments could in fact be more eloquent... for instance, if they were factually accurate. Sheep81 08:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC) Comment withdrawn, inappropriate tone... must get more sleep. Sheep81 08:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe that there's people in earnest suggesting to move the cartoons to another page than the one that they're on, beliving that it will make the article more NPOV - That's like suggesting that a mathematical formula should be listed on another page than the page describing the formula, because some oddball religion thinks mathematical formulas is an affront to all that is holy and therefore the formula should be placed on another page for greater "NPOV". It's simply ridiculus; Without the cartoons, no controversy. Finally, anybody searching for "Muhammed cartoons controversy" or clicking a link saying that should expect to see the Muhammed cartoons that created the controversy. Now, this article might have some problems with it's flow, may need to have some sections shortened and others (like the timeline) elaborated; These are valid problems with the article. But please, the cartoons are right where they need to be and any and all criticism of the cartoons are therefore invalid and only serves to distract the editors from the real improvements the article needs. The.valiant.paladin 14:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your analogy is off the mark. But you are right, there are other problems with the article that need attention and the placement of the image is clearly a done deal anyway.Sheep81 08:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a "done deal" so long as the short-term one-cause wikipedians defending it so vehemently continue to hang around here. Once they've gotten bored and left, sanity and good sense can and will be restored. I give it a year or so. — JEREMY 08:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jeremy, you've done well to make a foolish statement that is excellent in a capacity to mischaracterize Wikipedians but lacking otherwise. You've falied to mention one key aspect here and that is that the display characteristics of the cartoons are not going to change until general consensus about them changes. As well you've called those who've endeavored to maintain respect of the current consensus "fanatics" which is a personal attack against such individuals and is very poor form to say the least. We mustn't forget Jeremy that it is policy to not personally attack other editors on Wikipedia. Netscott 10:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't really a personal attack in my view... (maybe WP:CIVIL). Ian¹³/t 14:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeking Consensus Rob, as the only person supporting the article's FA nomination in the discussions above, are you prepared to withdraw your nomination at this point? Is there anyone else who'd like to add a support vote, lest this be recorded as a unanimous rejection? — JEREMY 07:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe I can have a vote as the nominator (at least, in my head, that's how it should work)... plus I think an administrator usually does that sort of process-related thing. It'll take care of itself. —Rob (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rob, good idea.. to let the process complete itself. Jeremy's the only one asking for you to withdraw your nomination. One wonders if he might be looking for a little satisfaction from an early close. Cheers. Netscott 19:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/archive1&oldid=1143873876"