Talk:Sudanese teddy bear blasphemy case

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)

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)


 * 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)


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

Muhammad/Mohammed
Any particular reason for the mixed transliterations of the name? BigBlueFish 01:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Any reason why not? 91.108.225.161 23:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * See 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)

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

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)

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


 * 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
 * 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)

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

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

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)
 * 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)


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

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

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)

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)

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)