Talk:Descriptions of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons

message: __TOC__
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)

message: If you people had any balls at all you would post the pictures.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.156.89 (talk) 05:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text:  Just DIY... Sorry, I have to leave now for real life. Azate 15:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good idea? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Halo/horns redux

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Isn't it just because of the symbol's association with Islam? I assumed the six vs five points was just due to general ignorance, given the low quality of the work... Skittle 16:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems of understanding 4th cartoon

message: This article was proposed for deletion on the grounds of it being "completely redundant to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, no useful content, and it is all WP:OR. The whole page describes an image, and we can just show the image. The exact description isn't relevant to the controversy anyway, only the general idea."
I reject all these reasons. "Completely redundant" and "no useful content" are conclusions, not reasons. The article is most certainly not "all OR". Showing a picture of a horse and claiming it to be a horse is not research, even if the selfsame opinion has not been explicitly expressed by third-party sources. There is a fine line between describing and interpreting in a novel fashion, but the interpretations offered here are not wholly made up by Wikipedia editors. There are plenty of third-party sites describing the cartoons, and those could (and should) be used as references (for example, the "orange in the turban" one is parenthetically described here).
If it's truly felt that "the description isn't relevant", then that would seem to override all other concerns. But in my opinion it's not. The extent to which these images could or should be considered insulting to a viewer is relevant and not immediately obvious. There are some typically Danish aspects that are not picked up by non-Danish readers and would not be conveyed by "just showing the image". The fact that those who were insulted by the images likely were not aware of these aspects either doesn't mean we should omit them.
Finally, this description is of benefit to blind readers. Although we do not and cannot describe all images in detail, nor is this required for proper understanding of most subjects, I believe this is a situation where such a description is relevant and important to the coverage of the subject, and I find the argument for its removal lacking. 82.95.254.249 12:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion 

message: This is pure speculation on my part, but I was just wondering if anyone has noticed the same thing. I think no. 4 shares quite a lot of similarities with Thøger Seidenfaden (editor of Politiken, well-known for disagreeing with practically everything Jyllands-Posten stands for), and no. 6 looks a lot like Omar Marzouk, famous Danish comedian of Egyptian origin.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.93.184.124 (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Identifying the people in the middle picture

message: This should be said from most cartoons. Now the description says it 'is' Muhammed, his face etc. But given the core message given from the beginning, should one not rather say either 'presumably Muhammed', either that the key persons represents Arabs posing as the sole interpreter of the words of Muhammed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.65.70.50 (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The task set by the newspaper was to draw the prophet Muhammed. It seems reasonable to assume that that is what the cartoonists did, although some gave it a twist, and the "Valby Skole" one clearly is NOT intended to depict the prophet.Noe (talk) 10:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a lot of guys in the Muslim world called Muhammad -- and none of them are the Prophet. Maybe these are intended as pictures of "Muhammad" as (the observer's idea of) the typical Muslim. Nuttyskin (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presumably Muhammed 

message: Is there a reason why the names of the individual artists (cartoonists) are not mentioned? Have the names not been published? It would seem natural (e.g. in the main article) to refer to each drawing by the name of the artist, rather than as "number four", or the like.Noe (talk) 10:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering the exact same thing. At least some of them are known, e.g., Kurt Westergaard has his own page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Westergaard D-b (talk) 10:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artists