Talk:Descriptions of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Good idea? 2 Halo/horns redux 3 Problems of understanding 4th cartoon 4 Cartoon image

I have worked extensively on this previous section on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy to clean it up and properly reflect what the images are composed of. The main page of this article has grown very long and as such much like the several other related sub pages regarding the main article it is time for another. Netscott 06:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good idea?

I tend to think that this is not a good idea. Better to weed out unnecessy detail from the description on the main page. Is it really necessary to give the nomenclature of every belt, dagger or hat that someone is wearing, or to describe the donkey? I think the section should provide translations of the captions, identify the Danish figures that are unknown to the wider public, and point out other non-obvious stuff like the Valby t-shirt colours. Azate 13:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Funny enough I'm inclined to think that there should be finer descriptions of the drawings and that having the descriptions seperate makes a lot of sense not only for slimming down the main article page but also to allow those who are not interested in viewing the actual drawings to read their descriptions. Netscott 14:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Viewing (or "being exposed to" as others have put it) is the default condition, because the cartoons are obviously on the main page. Therfore - for those who object - having an alternative, non-graphic description on a sub-page only is not going to cut any ice. Unless, of coures, you relegate the images to yet another subpage. Obviously, describing every dagger and donkey makes no sense, when you view the cartoon simultaneously. That means the detailed description on the main page is superfluous, ok. But what should remain on the main page is the explanation of the non-obvious parts of the cartoons. (maybe renaming the section accordingly). Azate 14:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• That seems fair as far as having the pertinent details explained on the main page and to explain the possible double entendre meanings found in some of the images. Would you retitle the section corresponding to this idea? Netscott 15:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Just DIY... Sorry, I have to leave now for real life. Azate 15:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Halo/horns redux

We can't just say that the image "suggests" both a halo and horns without saying who thinks this or invoking author's intent or something. We need to source any suggestions of the "horns" POV, as there's no reason to assume that it's anything other than a halo (barring information of which I'm not aware). --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are correct Dante Alighieri otherwise that line is sooner an example of original research. If you have the time please edit this sub-page accordingly. Netscott 18:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

According to No_original_research policy, "(making) descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge" is NOT original reasearch. I submit that to a reasonable adult (within the target demography of the cartoon) this looks like horns first, and upon a little reflection, like a crescent-shaped halo second. Both are emminently reasonble descriptive claims. Both readings should stay. Azate 19:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, OK, if we're going to use that rationale, I submit that to a reasonable adult (within the target demography of the cartoon) this looks like a crescent-shaped halo, and (given sufficient prompting) can be construed to be horns with bizarre unexplained "glow lines" emanating from them. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I like to think I am a reasonable adult, too. I saw the horns (with the devil association) at once, that's for sure. I don't remember it exactly, but I tend to think the crescent/halo thing had to be pointed out to me (here?). Azate 21:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You were the one who initially asserted that a reasonable adult would have to see the horns first. I merely turned your argument on it's ear to display how unreasonable it was. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Mainly, I argued that BOTH readings can be included under existing policy. Admittedly, I don't quite get yet what you are actually arguing for, or against. Azate 02:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The author has stated that it was a halo. Given that, I think that those who hold that they are "clearly" horns need to offer some rational explanation for that POV (as well as explaining what the "glow lines" would be, if they were horns). --Dante Alighieri | Talk 04:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see "glow lines" because the image was low-resolution. And, having seen in my life dozens of cartoons of guys with horns, but not a single one with a crescent-shaped halo, I took them for horns and I'm confident I'm not alone in this, because even knowing what the cartoonist intended they still look very much like horns. This is "easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge". Azate 06:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I can accept that a reasonable person can think that it looks like horns given a cursory glance. I dispute that it is appropriate to say that the image "suggests" horns. These are two different things. Looking at a high-resolution image of the cartoon, and seeing the glow-lines (and yellow color), I don't see how a reasonable interpretation can continue to be "horns". Additionally, while you may have seen many cartoons in your life of guys with horns and none of guys with crescent halos, this isn't just a "cartoon of some guy", but Muhammad, who happens to be the founder of Islam, which has as one of its symbols the crescent moon. That a person can be unaware of the intended interpretation and mistake the image may be worth including in the article, but we ought to make it clear which is the intended and which is the mistaken POV. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems of understanding 4th cartoon

cause of no good article in german wiki I ask here: What is the real meaning of this shematic drawing? Are there the woman painted or what is in the picture ? I hope sombody will translate in next time this article or I will do it after understanding ...

Here is a link to an image of the 4th cartoon only. It's been translated by someone (not me) and has some other stuff on it, but you can clearly see the drawings. Words aside, this is one of the least offensive (visually) of the cartoons, as Muhammad is not portrayed. I suggest you look at the picture as an aid to understand the description. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Mhh I have nearly understanded but there is only one Problem left. Why he draw the Davidsstars as the eyes ??

I don't know why there are the six-pointed stars in the eyes, although there are other uses besides the "Star of David", see hexagram. I haven't seen any analysis of that aspect of the fourth cartoon. Sorry. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a source to back that up, but without thinking much about it, may reading has been that the "prophet, you crazy bloke"-sanctioned opression of women is in the same department as the opression of jews (in the context of WW 2 etc.). Other readings are possible, of course. Azate 18:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cartoon image

Doesn't anyone think that the desciptions would be easier to follow if there was a reference image on the same page? I don't see why the reader should be made to open a new window or continually go back and forth between this page and another to follow what the descriptions are saying. --172.146.66.6 04:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Part of the reason that the descriptions were moved into a seperate subpage is because having a description and the images on the same page is a bit redundant. User:Azate and I have also expressed a logic that there are those who'd rather not look at the images but instead prefer to just read a description about them. Not having the images with their descriptions matches such logic. Of course Wikipedia is not censored and because of that this second bit of logic is not very strong. If you feel strongly enough about this point and wonder if other editors do too, you can call a straw poll about displaying the cartoons here or not. Prior to calling a straw poll though I would advise you to register yourself under a user name (rather than just continue to edit from an anonymous IP address like you are doing now). Netscott 10:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah ok, thanks for taking the time to explain it. I really don't feel that strongly about it. Just thought it might've been handy. --172.129.171.32 02:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)