Talk:Descriptions of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons

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)

Good idea?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

About that drawing, it has also been pointed out that it looks like the first (on the left) person is the only one of them who can see. Could be that's a man, the followers being oppressed women? Hordaland (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

I'm quite bemused at the current situation. We have an article devoted entirely to describing a set of images – but the images themselves don't appear in the article. I had already suspected that 'there are those who'd rather not look at the images but instead prefer to just read a description about them' was taking place here, which makes this a 'POV fork'; so include the images, or this article is a POV fork. In fact, we can bypass this discussion altogether by redirecting it to the main article – and this is a better solution – because the article will never grow above a certain amount. Christopher Connor 13:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the cartoons and read the descriptions. I found it annoying and unnecessary to have to keep flipping back and forth. I agree with the first guy, we should have the cartoons next to each description. Being redundant isn't necessarily a bad thing if it makes sense. And as for those who are offended by seeing the cartoons and only want to read the description, we should not accommodate their sensibilities. On that logic we may as well not publish the cartoons at all for fear of offending. --Jon in California. Unsinged comment by 208.127.73.237 (talk)

Yes, it's annoying to have to keep flipping back and forth. But: 1) This page was introduced to accomodate those who object to being "exposed" to the cartoons themselves. 2) If and when this cartoon appears on this page, I bet you that people will try to remove it from the main page because of "redundancy", thus achieving their original aim of having it removed from the main page. Go through the archived talk pages of the main article if you think this is not going to happen. Don't wake up sleeping dogs. Azate 13:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It was created because it made the main article too long.--Steven X 07:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Too Long or Too Short?

I still do not understand many of these cartoons. I think the descriptions are TOO SHORT AND VEGUE. I can see that the guy has a star in his eye. Why is that funny and/or insulting? Whats the deal with the 5 stick drawings with the head cover and star-of-david eyes? Why does the donkey bear the burden and not the muslim? Is that an animal rights statement? What about the guy with the black over his eyes? A women's rights statement? How about the police lineup? So what a lot of people have beards. With all these examples I do not understand why the jokes are funny or offensive (except for the fact that ANY depiction of the profit is not allowed in islam). SOMEONE PLEASE AS A SMALL DESCRIPTION TO EACH CARTOON AS TO WHY THEY ARE OFFENSIVE AND FUNNY. And respond here too. Also adding a pic of the cartoons to discriptions would be good, see my comments on that below. --Jon in California 5 May 2007. Unsinged comment by 208.127.73.237 (talk)

Short and to the point: Not all of them are offensive, not all of them are funny. Skittle 00:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

With regard to what purports to be an English translation of a two-line poem in the cartoons:

Profet! Med kuk koch knald i låget

Som holder kvinder under åget!

Danish word list:

DANISH ENGLISH

Profet Prophet

med with

kuk cock (penis) [bzzzt wrong! Mad as in "KooKoo"] MX44 (talk)

och and [och? ... Swedish wannabe translator here? Plz!] MX44 (talk)

knald fucking {knald is a mild explisive as in: I'd rather go with a bang ... MX44 (talk)

i in

låget the flame [bzzt wrong! Here the lock (of the can, ie: brains)] MX44 (talk)

som which

holder keeps (holds)

kvinder women

under under

åget the yoke

How does this translate to:

Prophet, you crazy bloke,

Keeping women under yoke.

in the translated text?

Following translation errors:

1. You crazy bloke - the prophet is not addressed in the poem.

2. The word crazy does not occur in the poem and is an addition.

3. The word bloke, guy, dude does not occur and is an addition.

3. The taboo sexual references are not reproduced and are Bowdlerized.

4. It is not possible for readers to judge for themselves the level of insult and irreverence which has been much reduced and is not a faithful translation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.212.1.52 (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Your translation is highly inaccurate, and fails to understand several Danish words. Several English translations emerging during the controversy also failed to understand some words correct. The English translation on the page is a semi accurate translation, which scarifies marginal accuracy in order to still keep it in poem style. It was up for discussion several times on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy talk page, when the text was still on that page. The danish text of the original image reads : "Profet! Med kuk og knald i låget som holder kvinder under åget!”

A direct word for word translation to English would be: "Profet! [Prophet!] Med [with] kuk [cuckoo] og [and] knald [bang] i [in] låget [the lid] som [who] holder [holds/keeps] kvinder [woman] under [under] åget! [yoke!]". Prophet! with cuckoo and bang in the lid who holds/keeps woman under yoke!

The phrase [kuk og knald i låget] which normally is the difficult part to fully accurate translate describes a person with a screw lose / mental unstable / crazy / daft / a tile lose. There are absolutely zero sexual references in the text. Twthmoses (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Tak! Så mange slags takk! = Many thanks to Twthmoses for excellently explaining what that verse really says. This information should be incorporated into the page. The bloke-yoke rhyme is nice, but people want to know what the literal translation is as well. Hordaland (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

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)

Broken link.

Link to Cartoonist in Valby doesn't get me to any such thing, as far as I can see. Hordaland (talk) 05:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for your observation. Wikipedia has this problem with verifying facts from news-sources where the source may at any time decide to retract their space and use it for something new and perhaps less pertinent ...

As the translator of the original news entry I can assure that the facts as reported by Wiki of this date are in line with what was reported at the time by Danish monthly "The Engineer" where said cartoonist was a household name, kicking ass and doing his major parts of work totally unrelated to Jyllands Posten. MX44 (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible to link to an archived copy of the news entry? Either on that site or using the Internet Archive? Skittle (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Identifying the people in the middle picture

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)

Presumably Muhammed

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)

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)

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)

Artists

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)

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)