Talk:Martin Rowson

Images from Rowson's Tristram Shandy
Hi all, just to let you know that The Laurence Sterne Trust have donated some great images from Rowson's graphic novel version of The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman that may be useful here or elsewhere: Category:Martin Rowson's Tristram Shandy. Feel free to get in touch if you'd like to find out more or have other requests/suggestions PatHadley (talk) 12:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Martin Rowson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090220172256/http://london.gov.uk/londoner/cartoons/index.jsp to http://www.london.gov.uk/londoner/cartoons/index.jsp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070716230524/http://opal.kent.ac.uk/cartoonx-cgi/artist.py?id=150 to http://opal.kent.ac.uk/cartoonx-cgi/artist.py?id=150

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism
Vandalism. There has recently been vandalism from anon IP addresses. I suggest that Rowson's page is semi-protected from now on. Thanks to @Daniel_Case the page is now seemingly semi-protected. NoPolymath (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Could we please leave the section headers as they are.


 * Eg. The latest change "Cartoon of Richard Sharp" is actually not a cartoon of Richard Sharp, it is one of Boris Johnson, and Sharp is only *part* of that cartoon. Therefore to call it "Cartoon of Richard Sharp" is inaccurate.
 * The original title of that section, Antisemitic cartoon, make more sense, overall. NoPolymath (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I see your point. But no-one seems to be getting worked up about the caricature of Boris Johnson. How about 'Caricature of Richard Sharp'? Or 'Cartoon involving Richard Sharp?' I disagree that 'Antisemitic cartoon' is accurate, as there is no report that this was the intention. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC) added Sweet6970 (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. The cartoon of Sharp is full of antisemitic imagery, and Sharp is Jewish, therefore it relates to antisemitism.
 * Johnson, on the other hand, is not Jewish therefore, this issue is not particularly focused on him.
 * 2. Publishing grotesque pictures of Jewish people is antisemitism. It is as simple as that.
 * Eg.
 * [Please see images at the bottom of this page] https://www.ilholocaustmuseum.org/learn/the-soap-myth-education-resources/
 * https://www.nybooks.com/online/2014/11/14/invention-jewish-nose/
 * https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/irn542390
 * 3. The Sky News links shows a blown up version of Sharp’s representation. Note the disfigured face, nose and lips, etc. I suggest everyone studies it and think more deeply of the implications.
 * ~ NoPolymath (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * PS: Racism does *not* have to be intentional to be racism. NoPolymath (talk) 22:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * PPS: Reverting to original text, as the author of the cartoon has *admitted* the antisemitic overtones in the cartoon.
 * Therefore, it makes sense to impartially characterized it as such, as the author admits it.
 * ~ NoPolymath (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've made a minor adjustment which hopefully all editors will agree with, regardless of their views on the cartoon, or on Martin Rowson.
 * 'Rowson apologized on Twitter for publishing in the Guardian a cartoon of Richard Sharp with strong antisemitic overtones'
 * is definitely preferable to the original text which read...
 * Rowson apologised on Twitter for publishing a cartoon in The Guardian with strong antisemitic overtones of Richard Sharp'. Axad12 (talk) 03:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems OK.
 * However, I would be most grateful if editors do not remove items which *explain* the issue for readers:
 * As in:
 * "Sky News, and other media outlets, commented on the issue and provide an example of the offending imagery from Rowson.[1 ][2 ][3 ][4 ]
 * It *showed* the image and therefore people could make up their own minds on the matter. So makes sensse to keep. NoPolymath (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed.
 * Incidentally, I do wonder if the sentence 'A fuller response will be on my website in about an hour. I'll post the link here as soon as I have it' is really serving any purpose in the article.
 * Either we keep the initial Rowson quote from 'Through carelessness' to 'apologise, unconditionally' (which seems like a succinct expression of his position) and remove the short-term housekeeping comment about a 'fuller response'. Or we take an appropriate quote from the later, fuller response'. Axad12 (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that it would be sensible to delete his comment about a 'fuller response', since this is now on his website. Do you have a suggestion for a quote from Rowson's statement on his website? Sweet6970 (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Rowson's fuller response is essentially a dissection of the contents of the cartoon, rather than a lengthier apology. The quote we already have ('Through carelessness' to 'apologise, unconditionally') probably remains the most succinct expression.
 * I would certainly recommend reading Rowson's fuller response, although the level of detail probably goes beyond what Wikipedia would be looking to include.
 * Perhaps if we include something along the lines of 'Rowson later published a fuller response on his own website, clarifying his intentions when devising the cartoon and emphasising his deep regret at the offence caused'. Or something to that effect at least (along with a link). Axad12 (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would agree to that. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have now made this change. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Cartoon involving Richard Sharp
I disagree with your change. Your wording makes a judgment about the cartoon which Wikipedia editors should not be making. You have said that the cartoon is not just about Richard Sharp, and you are correct that it is mainly about Boris Johnson. So your change does not make sense.

And your wording strongly implies that Martin Rowson is antisemitic, which is potentially defamatory. This is a WP:BLP and you should be more careful. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Please see above. He has admitted his error as such. NoPolymath (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Rowson (of whom I am not a fan) has admitted that the cartoon can be interpreted as antisemitic and has apologised for that (as he should). He hasn't admitted deliberately drawing an antisemitic cartoon, which given his politics and history would seem very unlikely. It would be better to describe the cartoon as 'containing imagery widely considered antisemitic' rather than simply 'antisemitic'. --Ef80 (talk) 09:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The expression used is "with strong antisemitic overtones".
 * That is a reasonable summary of it. NoPolymath (talk) 10:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please direct me to a source which uses the expression ‘with strong antisemitic overtones’ . That wording is not a summary of the sources, and it is inaccurate because it says that the cartoon was antisemitic. Various people have said that they see it as antisemitic, and this could be stated in our article, but saying in wikivoice that it is antisemitic is not accurate, and not neutral. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Let me see if I can deal with each of your points piece by piece:
 * 1. The overall cartoon is not necessarily antisemitic (ie. all of the parts that include Boris Johnson, etc ), it is the depiction of Richard Sharp **within** it which has those overtones.
 * 2. We know this by reference to previous vile cartoon images of Jews from the past, we make a comparison and draw a reasoned conclusion.
 * 3. In the same way that antisemitic imagery in the past exaggerated imagined features of Jews, the cartoon section of Richard Sharp does that.
 * 4. Please do study the Sky News image blowup of Richard Sharp.
 * 5. The author himself has said it is problematic.
 * 6. The Guardian spokesman (the publishers) has said it is problematic.
 * 7. Therefore, a person could be completely free of antisemitic intent and action and yet mistakenly draw a cartoon which has some of those motifs, those three items are logically separate and therefore one could be true, without the other two.
 * 8. The topic of antisemitism is vast, but if it looks like a duck quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, then it is probably a duck and as wiki editors we should have the capacity to admit that. NoPolymath (talk) 12:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, you say above, in the ‘Vandalism’ section …the author admits it. No he doesn’t. Here is a link to his statement on the subject: Sweet6970 (talk) 12:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * NoPolymath – you are still making your own judgment that the cartoon is antisemitic, and inviting me to make the same judgment. But our views are irrelevant to Wikipedia – on Wikipedia, it is what is reported in secondary sources which counts. What the secondary sources say is that some people have described the depiction of Richard Sharp as antisemitic. Rowson himself has not said that the depiction was antisemitic. Our article is giving an erroneous impression in this respect – the wording the sources would justify is to say that the cartoon was criticised as being antisemitic. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It may be useful here to include in the article a direct quote or two from amongst the various people quoted in the media about the cartoon. It should be possible to accurately represent the nature of the response (as most of the responses in the media were of a broadly similar nature).
 * For the purposes of this article, what people are saying about the cartoon in the media is probably more important than how individual well-meaning Wikipedia editors view the cartoon, or how they interpret a specific word.
 * I don't particularly prefer either NoPolymath's or Sweet6970's version of events, just trying to suggest a way forward that hopefully both of you can agree on. Axad12 (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have any suggestions for direct quotes to use? Sweet6970 (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Off the top of my head, no.
 * However, if we had 2 quotes, one of the type saying that the cartoon was the sort of thing more usually seen in Die Sturmer, and another of the type saying that the speaker was surprised and disappointed to see this sort of thing from Rowson, then I think it would capture the range of responses (which mostly seem to have been in one or the other of those two camps). Axad12 (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "you are still making your own judgment that the cartoon is antisemitic,"
 * No, again, it is the depiction of Richard Sharp that is so questionable. Let us be precise.
 * I am taking the author's view as he says as much. Along with the Guardian, etcand various experts in the field. And naturally Antisemitic trope which should be every editors guide on the topic.
 * But you are right, I should beef up the sources and expressly cover his views on the topic, along with more examples etc etc NoPolymath (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * To NoPolymath: You are still saying that Rowson admitted that the cartoon was antisemitic, yet you have never provided any sourced statement by him saying this. It is time to stop this – as I have said previously, Wikipedia reports what is said in the sources,  not the views of  its editors. This is a basic principle of   Wikipedia – you must follow this if you are going to edit Wikipedia.
 * To Axad12: I will have a look at this, and probably provide some suggestions tomorrow. As far as I remember from the sources, the only quotes were those saying the depiction was antisemitic – I don’t remember anyone sticking up for Rowson.
 * Sweet6970 (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I don't remember anyone sticking up for Rowson either. Apologies if I wasn't entirely clear, what I was suggesting was that there were two forms of comments in the media. One saying that the depiction was grotesque and in the Nazi tradition of antisemitic cartoons, and the other saying that the whole affair was particularly disappointing and it was difficult to understand how Rowson could have accidentally created such an image given that he was surely familiar with the reference points(*). The former type of comment, evidently, is more extreme criticism than the latter. Some comments will have covered both bases. As long as we include quotes that include those kind of comments I think we'll be close to achieving a representative cross-section. Two quotes ought to be sufficient really. Happy to see any suggestions you may have.
 * I've not sought to read all media coverage of this story, but from what I've seen it's accurate to say that the cartoon was widely condemned as being antisemitic.
 * (* - this was essentially the point that Rowson addressed in his 'fuller response', if I recall correctly.) Axad12 (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * (* - this was essentially the point that Rowson addressed in his 'fuller response', if I recall correctly.) Axad12 (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I’m not sure what Axad12 has in mind for the other, milder, kind of quote. The 2 most representative quotes I have seen are from Dave Rich (which is in both the BBC and Sky News reports) and Simon Sebag Montefiore (which is in Sky News and the Jewish Chronicle). There is also a useful comment from Rowson in the Sky News report.

I propose that the wording in the article be changed so that which had strong antisemitic overtones be deleted, and replaced by which was criticised as being antisemitic, and the following be added at the end of the paragraph. The historian Simon Sebag Montefiore referred to the cartoon as ‘repellent’ and ‘explicitly racist’. Dave Rich, head of policy at the Community Security Trust (CST) charity, said on Twitter that the cartoon ‘"falls squarely into an antisemitic tradition of depicting Jews with outsized, grotesque features, often in conjunction with money and power". Rowson, who said that he knew Sharp was Jewish, commented: "His Jewishness never crossed my mind as I drew him as it's wholly irrelevant to the story or his actions, and it played no conscious role in how I twisted his features according to the standard cartooning playbook.’

Sweet6970 (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, good job. The quotes look fine to me. Axad12 (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have now made the changes. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

This article needs to be updated to highlight that Rowson's apology has been classed as insincere -

"...He said that “the cartoon was a failure” and he had “offended the wrong people”, adding: “Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa.”

But hours later, a message emerged in which Mr Rowson told a supporter: “Any offence, I fear, is in the eye of the beholder rather than the intention or agency of the cartoonist. That’s a block I’ve been round many many times.”

The leaked message was posted by Never Again, a social media account that campaigns against anti-Semitism. It said that the direct message on Twitter made “clear that his apology was a sham”.. ..."

https://uk.yahoo.com/style/guardian-cartoonist-rekindles-anti-semitism-182349219.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.47.21.170 (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This does not constitute WP:RS, and in any case a pressure group claiming that Rowson's apology was a sham is meaningless. Rowson is just repeating his assertion that the cartoon wasn't consciously and deliberately antisemitic, which it almost certainly wasn't. Suggesting that MR is some sort of closet Nazi is a wilful misinterpretation of events. --Ef80 (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Whatever the ins and outs of this cartoon affair, it seems, to me, to be overlong, taking up over half of the whole section on his career. I feel it should be reduced, since this is not the only thing he is known for. If you disagree, please let me know. 92.111.0.82 (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. It seems to me that the incident is what Rowson is probably best known for. However, I note that you have spent much of this morning removing Richard Sharp-related material from Wikipedia from an IP address. I would suggest that you stop doing so before you give the impression of having an agenda.
 * The argument that the cartoon affair isn't the only thing that Rowson is known for would suggest that the rest of the article needs to be expanded, rather than that properly sourced material needs to be removed. Axad12 (talk) 07:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)