| Revision as of 02:33, 22 January 2015 editAnders Feder (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,552 editsm →Unnecessary political assumption← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:44, 22 January 2015 edit undoCurly Turkey (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users103,777 edits →Unnecessary political assumptionNext edit → | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
| Is it appropriate to call it "centre-left"? First, is there objective, cited evidence that it has a political leaning, and second, is it even relevant to the article? ]<sub>]</sub> (]) 12:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC) | Is it appropriate to call it "centre-left"? First, is there objective, cited evidence that it has a political leaning, and second, is it even relevant to the article? ]<sub>]</sub> (]) 12:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :I think it has some relevance, but whether it can be sourced is of course another matter. Often, the political alignment of newspapers is ] and not really disputed by anyone (including the papers themselves), but disproportionately difficult to prove in some sort of scientific manner. Yet, knowing this paper's alignment helps me understand its motives/message (i.e., it's likely not an overt hatred or opposition towards Muslims or Muslim culture in general, but rather towards religious ] and oppression of free speech), and that understanding is not without value - on the contrary, the mere ] that some paper printed excerpts from the Charlie Hebdo issue would only have little value without an accompanying understanding of that paper's message. That is not to say that considerations for meaningfulness can override Misplaced Pages policies here; but maybe rather that it ''ought to could''.--] (]) 02:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC) | :I think it has some relevance, but whether it can be sourced is of course another matter. Often, the political alignment of newspapers is ] and not really disputed by anyone (including the papers themselves), but disproportionately difficult to prove in some sort of scientific manner. Yet, knowing this paper's alignment helps me understand its motives/message (i.e., it's likely not an overt hatred or opposition towards Muslims or Muslim culture in general, but rather towards religious ] and oppression of free speech), and that understanding is not without value - on the contrary, the mere ] that some paper printed excerpts from the Charlie Hebdo issue would only have little value without an accompanying understanding of that paper's message. That is not to say that considerations for meaningfulness can override Misplaced Pages policies here; but maybe rather that it ''ought to could''.--] (]) 02:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :: Careful: that's veering into ] territory. Being merely interesting or even helpful is not sufficient for inclusion. ] ] 03:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:44, 22 January 2015
 | France: Paris Start‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | Journalism Start‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
English language version
According to 'French Morning' "Anyone wanting to read the new Charlie Hebdo can check out the digital edition, available now on iphone et ipad, Android or Windows Phone. So far it’s only in French, but an update with the translation into English, Spanish, and Arabic, is expected soon." One reviewer of the app (as linked from the CH website) claims other language versions, including English, are "supposed to appear today". I think I read somewhere that the English version was initially/currently only intended to be digital only, whereas Spanish and Italian versions would also be in print. 31.55.241.55 (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
"Survivors' issue" - a loaded term
Despite all that has happened, Misplaced Pages is NOT Charlie Hebdo. And yet, by using the term "Survivors' issue", you appear to be making some kind of a Charlie-supporting statement. To avoid any misunderstanding, might not a more neutral statement be used? What about, "Latest Charlie Hebdo issues printed"?
- Is the issue not referred to as the "survivors' issue"? If it's not, then the title is totally inappropriate and should be changed. Unless some other term is being used in the media, I'd suggest either "Charlie Hebdo issue 1178" or "14 January 2015 issue of Charlie Hebdo". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- There is widespread use of the term in the media . WWGB (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Umm ... WWGB, "survivors' issue" does not appear in a single one of the sources you linked to. The last two have the terms "survivors' edition" (in "scare quotes"), the second has "survivors' cover", and the first has "survival issue". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Agree that survivors' issue is a loaded term, gonna go ahead and move this to "Charlie Hebdo issue No. 1178". --RAN1 (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Umm ... WWGB, "survivors' issue" does not appear in a single one of the sources you linked to. The last two have the terms "survivors' edition" (in "scare quotes"), the second has "survivors' cover", and the first has "survival issue". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- There is widespread use of the term in the media . WWGB (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Ambiguity of respecting the person of the Prophet
The article should provide better information to counter allegations that the cover actually slanders the Prophet. The cover certainly doesn't do that, since it clearly figures the Prophet as someone wholly according to the cartoonist's own heart, and the linked interview of the latter confirms as much: the Prophet is figured as someone with whom the cartoonist can identify with affection, while staying true to himself, his art and his lost friends. In contrast, muslim religious authorities as much as imply that the Prophet is slandered - IOW, pictured on that cover with intent of showing him hateful or ridiculous to the eyes of the journal's ordinary public or the western world. This isn't so at all.
The heart of the irony of the cartoon is thus that it mocks whoever it mocks - if anyone - by loving the Prophet according to the cartoonist's own standards. Whoever that cover mocks, if anybody, is therefore not the Prophet himself. The language of the condemnations of that cover page by various authorities and crowds, seems therefore predicated on a confusion of the matter
(a) of respecting or loving as a non-muslim the person of the Prophet; what, by definition of non-muslim, doesn't include submission to his commands (or alleged commands) - no more so than respecting any arbitrary person as a person, implies a necessity to submit to what that person commands (or is alleged to command),
with the distinct matter
(b) of respecting or loving the person of the Prophet as a Muslim, what would include obeying his words and thus the ban on figuring him derived from these words.
I don't see that the Misplaced Pages article does what's necessary to clear up that confusion, although I see it as being its duty, but given my experience with updating Misplaced Pages articles, I won't try to update it myself. 178.238.175.179 (talk) 10:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- (I removed a few redundant linebreaks in your comment to ease reading, I hope it's okay.) I don't disagree with your view, but we would need to base such an update on reliable sources. If you know of reliable and significant sources which have covered this distinction, you could provide links to them here, and someone might update the article accordingly.--Anders Feder (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Unnecessary political assumption
This statement can be found in the Media coverage section: "The centre-left Turkish newspaper Cumhuriyet included several pages from the Charlie Hebdo issue in its own edition and included small pictures of the cover."
Is it appropriate to call it "centre-left"? First, is there objective, cited evidence that it has a political leaning, and second, is it even relevant to the article? JarmihiGOCE (talk) 12:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think it has some relevance, but whether it can be sourced is of course another matter. Often, the political alignment of newspapers is common knowledge and not really disputed by anyone (including the papers themselves), but disproportionately difficult to prove in some sort of scientific manner. Yet, knowing this paper's alignment helps me understand its motives/message (i.e., it's likely not an overt hatred or opposition towards Muslims or Muslim culture in general, but rather towards religious authoritarianism and oppression of free speech), and that understanding is not without value - on the contrary, the mere factlet that some paper printed excerpts from the Charlie Hebdo issue would only have little value without an accompanying understanding of that paper's message. That is not to say that considerations for meaningfulness can override Misplaced Pages policies here; but maybe rather that it ought to could.--Anders Feder (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Careful: that's veering into WP:OR territory. Being merely interesting or even helpful is not sufficient for inclusion. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)