Talk:Sudanese teddy bear blasphemy case

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sudanese teddy bear blasphemy case article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Africa: Sudan Low‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Sudan.

Islam Low‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Sudanese teddy bear blasphemy case be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.

Wikipedians in Sudan may be able to help!

The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Recentism

I disagree with this tagging so please can you bring any arguments re this to the talk page. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I totally disagree with the tagging. Only time will tell if this remains an isolated incident or if it becomes relevant to future (or indeed past) events. It would be illogical to delete this article on the grounds of "recentism" (what a dreadful phrase anyway) when much more irrelevant articles remain pristine. rturus 20:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was a typo, as the creator of this article FOR ME disagree is where its at. Doh. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as a new page patroller myself your argument is spot on. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad/Mohammed

Any particular reason for the mixed transliterations of the name? BigBlueFish 01:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why not? 91.108.225.161 23:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The class that named the bear used a particular version of the name. People who have been following the case will notice that the name is actually quite a big deal, so it would make sense for the article to actually contain the right one.--AlexCatlin 14:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Arabic), which recommends Muhammad. The guide is essential reading for any Wikipedia article dealing with Arabic language. Incidentally, it is currently only a proposed standard for a particular transliteration method - as you may notice from reading the news, there are so many inconsistent transliterations of common Arabic words that one sometimes feels as if they don't have a spelling in English. If Wikipedia can nail down a sound and logical policy, it could spread to journalists at large and break down a major barrier of understanding between English and Arabic speakers worldwide. 70.15.116.59 20:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JP cartoons in See also?

Should we include a wikilink to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy in the See also section of the article, another case involving an allegation of blasphemy involving Muhammad? A ecis^Brievenbus 13:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, should remain IMO. --Brand спойт 19:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Context

What grade level or age were the students? I think that is significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.54.228 (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that teddy bears are an unknown concept in the Sudan, and that bears are still thought of as frightening creatures. Maybe this affected the reaction?--MartinUK 19:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would imply that teddy bears are more or less confined to western countries, and if it were indeed a western concept, that the people of Sudan would not have had any kind of contact with this western phenomenon. A ecis^Brievenbus 21:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." 17Drew 21:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard it on the news that teddybears are not known in Sudan, or if they are, they are not given to children. Also I think they said bears are seen as dirty animals, and this may have some bearing (npi) on the reaction. I think it would be worth noting in the article if a source is found. —Pengo 02:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=130710 - a Sudan Embassy spokesman claimed Teddy Bears are frightening animals.... I seen this and heard this quote in other sources as well. --171046 06:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding some info on the Sudanese perception of teddy bears, and of bears in general, would indeed provide some valuable context to the article, provided it can be referenced from reliable sources obviously. A ecis^Brievenbus 14:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The foremost reason is that bears and animals in general are seen as below humans and therefore not worthy of a human name, least of all the name of the last prophet. Wise King Otto 19:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

teddy bears are known in Sudan mind you it was a British colony, l believe the Sudanese think it's another insult to them from the British since in the colonial era they were treated more like animals than human beings.[asia6,01:49,03/12/2007] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asia6 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through the article now that the issue has been resolved I noticed the line 'She was released from prison into the care of the British embassy in Khartoum, and she later returned to her hometown in Britain, after responding in a written statement, saying, "Where is your god now?"'. Indeed Mrs Gibbons was realised and returned to her hometown of Liverpool, however the quote stated is not correct and doesn't appear anywhere in the source material stated. Furthermore Mrs Gibbons issued a statement of well being and even praise for the sudanise people and apologised for her cultural faux paus. I have removed this accrumonious quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.27.152 (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The written statement you quoted was the result of vandalism to the article, which has been reverted. A ecis^Brievenbus 21:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found an article saying that Saudi Arabia banned the import of teddy bears in 2003, but not why.[1] 70.15.116.59 20:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone knows what a cuddly toy is, whether it looks like a bear or not. Deipnosophista (talk) 14:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the following line be removed from the article on the basis that it's no better than sourcing material from some random bloke in a pub. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A phone-in caller to the BBC World Service radio program, World Have Your Say, noted that according to Islam, giving an animal the name of a human can be considered a serious insult.

More news

I added more news that Gibbons returned home to Britain after a pardon. See this link here. --Angeldeb82 20:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here's another one: Teacher jailed over teddy bear returns to U.K. Well? --Angeldeb82 18:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "See Also" links to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy and The Satanic Verses controversy, but someone added them back. I removed them because I do not believe there is a parallel between those two events and this one. Satanic verses is a book written for the purpose of "exposing" Islam as "evil." It was a purposefully confrontational jab at Islam. The other article is about a group of cartoons, some of which directly mock Mohammad. I fail to see how either of these articles link directly with this one...a story about a teddy bear whose "naming" was not a purposeful affront or critique of Islam. I feel the inclusion of the links to these two articles is inflammatory. ++Arx Fortis 16:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest this material is not reinserted without reliable sources. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed unless a reliable source is connecting these incidences then we should not either. 1 != 2 16:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed the inclusion of the link to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy above (see #JP cartoons in See also?). Both cases involve allegations of blasphemy of Muhammad. The naming of the teddy bear may not have been "a purposeful affront" to Islam, but it was perceived to have been just that, at least by some, at least in Sudan. I don't see how its inclusion is inflammatory. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad the "offending" Wikipedia hyperlinks have been replaced. Hopefully they will be left as is. Both the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy and The Satanic Verses controversy internal hyperlinks are highly relevant and should definitely be included. If nothing else, they can be used by as a "yardstick" by which to compare this and other incidents which may occur in the future. If you genuinely believe that it's being suggested/inferred that all 3 incidents are 100% identical, you're completely missing the point. It's not about being "purposefully confrontational", it's about having a yardstick to compare and contrast different incidents which have similar results. Deleting them would be a big mistake. - 7 Dec 2007 Nabokov (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe anyone in this section used the word "offending." The word I used was "inflammatory." There's quite a difference. Aside from being purposefully confrontational, the subjects referenced by the links were meant to be highly visible to the public (book and newspaper). This incident is quite the opposite. Using the links to compare/contrast this incident with the other two should not be done unless reliable sources can be provided showing the same. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored. Those topics are similar so the see also section makes sense.--Svetovid (talk) 11:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with censorship. Saying it does is simply trying to discredit the opposite position by drawing upon hyperbole. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that those topics do not have enough similar or common features to be mentioned together? If it is so, what does it have to do with being 'inflammatory'?--Svetovid (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the majority that the Muhammad-cartoon incidents should be included in the See Also section. Clearly, the two events are part of the same on-going and ever-evolving culture rift between the sacredness of the prophet of Islam and the freedom of speech of Western society. Suggesting that it's inflammatory to include it, in my opinion, does by default imply a need to censor the relative information. The point is that it's RELATIVE information. It's related. Obviously. -Laikalynx (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also unconvinced that these links are particularly relevant. What has Monty Python's Life of Brian got to do with this case? Saluton (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit protected

Should say "born 1953", not just the year by itself. Thanks Red rocket boy 18:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protest numbers

This article said only 400 protested, but according to The Guardian protesters numbered 10,000. I've updated. As the following photograph proves there were a lot more people protesting than 400. --Ibn Kaafir (talk) 12:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/2192/sudaneseteddybearcontro.jpg

Image and comment from school council chair

Have added a small wiki commons image to lighten the page slightly and a referenced comment from one party involved.Cpsoper (talk) 06:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There have been two editors concerned about the actual identity of the bear, it doesn't seem important to its value in illustrating the article and underscoring the nature of the subject of the dispute in question WP:IUP. Cpsoper (talk) 13:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]