| Revision as of 01:38, 18 November 2017 editAnachronist (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, IP block exemptions, Administrators67,258 edits →Irrelevant images added: thanks← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:39, 4 January 2018 edit undoNeilN (talk | contribs)134,455 edits →Lead image meets NFCC: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 163: | Line 163: | ||
| Thanks for weighing in, {{U|TransporterMan}}. I used to give many third opinions myself (they are listed on my user page). I had no idea that 3O responses had become so formalized. ~] <small>(])</small> 01:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC) | Thanks for weighing in, {{U|TransporterMan}}. I used to give many third opinions myself (they are listed on my user page). I had no idea that 3O responses had become so formalized. ~] <small>(])</small> 01:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC) | ||
| == Lead image meets NFCC == | |||
| {{ping|Seraphimblade}} No free equivalent is available as it is the original poster associated with the day and is discussed in depth in the article. --] <sup>]</sup> 03:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:39, 4 January 2018
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Everybody Draw Mohammed Day article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 6 months  |
 | Misplaced Pages is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
 view · edit Frequently asked questions
|
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| A fact from this article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 9, 2010. | ||||||||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Everybody Draw Mohammed Day article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 6 months |
Out of Date?
This article seems to be out of date. All the information is 2010 specific but be don't have any follow up for the next year. This being alluded to as if it were an annual event one might expect there to some followup in 2011. Does anyone know? Did youtube and facebook censor/prevent their own users from re-creating it the next year? Has Molly Norris come out of hiding? Is there a banner one could put on a news type article such as this that solicits updates to the story? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusl (talk • contribs) 00:34 , 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- There is no indication that the event is annual and the article is worded that way. There was a small amount of activity in 2011 based on a Pakistani court assuming that it was an annual event. This activity is covered in the article. There is no 2012 information in the article because nothing has happened or no one editor has added information about 2012 activities. If you find information about the subject of this article, feel free to bring it here for discussion. OlYeller21 18:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- 2011 did not have such a big impact, but in 2012 there was a scandal in Pakistan over banning Twitter for a few hours because of this event: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/pakistan-blocks-then-restores-twitter-access/2012/05/20/gIQAPqBPdU_story.html . The event was to take place on Tweeter because of the supposed blasphemous tweets of Hamza Kashgari. The tweets were very vanilla, yet Hamza faces the death sentence after being deported from Malaysia where he got in an attempt to flee Saudi Arabia: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/12/malaysia-deports-saudi-journalist-prophet (the three tweets can be found in this article http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/blasphemous_tweets_hashtags_of_shame_malaysians_ar.php) - 31 may 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.166.35 (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
The event is still annual, and we still have a page on Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Everybody-Draw-Mohammed-Day/273836769388852 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.194.207 (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Facutal Error
Text says "like Theo van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker who was shot to death." he wasn't shot but stabbed to death — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.245.27.68 (talk) 05:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- I updated the text. Apparently he was shot and stabbed to death. Perhaps that was the cause of the confusion. OlYeller21 17:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Accuracy of Dates
I well remember that Ms. Norris posted her original cartoon (the one shown at the top of this article) some weeks before the appointed date for EDMD. That's why the event gathered so much momentum and attention, she picked a date a little in the future. This article presently states, in two places, that she first posted her cartoon on 2010 April 20, the same day as EDMD. This cannot be correct. When did she actually first post her cartoon? Friendly Person (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- EDMD was a month later (May 20th), unless I'm mistaken. OlYeller21 17:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
DEAR Misplaced Pages,
Please delete the drawings of our beloved prophet.
InshaAllah you will get inner peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.152.221.14 (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Too many images
Why does this article have so many random pictures of Mohammed? There is no encyclopedic value of a bunch of random pictures. Unless it is drawn or distributed in some notable way, I don't see any reason why they should all be here. This is Misplaced Pages, not Flickr. We have WP:CENSORED, but that doesn't throw WP:POINT and MOS:IMAGES out the window.--Loomspicker (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think they're not needed but you'll have to overturn current consensus: Talk:Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day/Requirements_for_gallery_of_depictions_of_Mohammed, Talk:Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day/Archive_1#Metric_for_Choosing_Drawings_for_Inclusion --NeilN 20:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Stupid. This is the closest to vandalism editors have actually accepted onto a page. Readers do not learn or gain any information from that gallery.--Loomspicker (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- I would assert that the guidelines of MOS:IMAGES are not being violated: the images are part of Wikimedia, are relevant to the article, are contained in a single gallery rather than spread through the article, are exemplary of the images drawn in response to the article topic and are not overly numerous. WP:POINT doesn't count: the images are not disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point. So what, exactly are your objections? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 02:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- @Loomspicker - Stupid? Vandalism?? You've given absolutely zero evidence to support your opinions, which are actually personal attacks on any editor that disagrees with you.
- I'm not going to argue any points with you because you haven't argued a single thing. If you feel like actually presenting any sort of argument, I'll be happy to discuss those arguments with you - after and only after you apologize for your personal and ill-defined attacks.
- I understand that you're a new editor (at the very least, your account has few edits) but your current method of arguing will not be tolerated. OlYeller21 04:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
This is like having a hardcore pornographic gallery at the bottom of pornography because we can, or putting more random images at Depictions of Muhammad. It seems as this article is about the censorship of Mohammed, it goes out of its way to dump junky images on it.--Loomspicker (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- About the censorship of Muhammad? You lost me there. OlYeller21 14:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you, Loomspicker. /Upperkatt —Preceding undated comment added 17:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not only with Loomspicker on this one, but I want to go further and point out something he was obviously very reluctant to point out for whatever reason - I'm absolutely convince that this gallery is here for the same reason images are made in the first place. That could be interpreted as mean-spirited continuation of the "campaign" described in the article, only on a small scale with images which are picked randomly. Someone claimed above how it's not WP:POINT, which I disagree, I believe it is and Loomspicker arguments covers that stance well, but even if it's not, it's certainly disregarding WP:AGFC. In this case lack of "good faith", or surplus of "bad faith" makes it very mean-spirited attempt to sneakily include these images with justification that gallery serves encyclopedic purpose as some sort of presentation, which could be quite misleading. More importantly all this business is extremely disrespectful, and it doesn't have to be.
Most of all, very problematic is the fact that article is about "campaign" not images itself, which makes decision to have this gallery extremely strange, while those in support of placing it in the article could be considered as supporters of the "campaign" itself, which finally makes them close to the subject WP:COI, a big no-no!, by the way, with respect to POV-pushingWP:ADVOCACY as well.
It is amazing how we obviously keep forgetting one small thing - Misplaced Pages belongs to those whose feelings will be deeply offended as well ! It's theirs too, we all know that ? If we had any respect for them, we would try and found a link to any outside web page which contains these images and placed it in appropriate section of the article, but obviously that was not intention and purpose, in the first place.
Another issue is editor OlYeller21, making a threat to Loomspicker, and accusing him for not giving any arguments and evidence. Evidence, what evidence ?! Using cheap fallacy and seeking an arguments which is already given, and evidence where evidence isn't an issue and can't be part of debate, is really presumptuous attempt to mislead and intimidate inexperienced, or as he said, "new editor". However, I agree with OlYeller21 that Wikipedians shouldn't allow personal attacks, or inflammatory responses, and I found Loomspicker had his share of problematic behavior, but in this case he made reasonable point and deserved more attention, unlike OlYeller21 who used inappropriate way to deal with it.
Yet again this idiotic business and extremely chauvinistic approach to the issue generate terrible discomfort and makes me feel ashamed of being part of this society which considers itself "ubermensch" civilization, while spiting in the face of all others, when it doesn't actually enslaving them or bombing them.--Santasa99 (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Santasa99, you may want to review the policy that Misplaced Pages is not censored. They meet the guidelines for use of images in an article: how you or anyone else feels about the images is irrelevant. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 01:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I trimmed out what I felt were redundant images. If someone reverts, I will not revert again. In that situation, interested editors may choose to open a well-publicized WP:RFC. --NeilN 03:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Remove gallery images
Gallery: These images lack neutral point of view, verifiability and original research besides being unethical, mischievous and provocative (see Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons). aLSO under "Photographs of identifiable people" section of Deletion policy this image has an unethical objective, i.e., to pervert freedom of expression. This image is unacceptable as it mocks the prophet, whose no real photograph is available till date. Further, the author of this image has no consent to draw this picture from the prophet's heirs (i.e. his descendants, the people of Quraish) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chintu6 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- I refer you to this article's talk archives, linked in the header. Your request has been brought up many times, and the response has always been to keep the images. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 05:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Do you want to see a mushroom cloud over San Francisco? Anyway Misplaced Pages is useless, just unnecessary copy-paste of people's shit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chintu6 (talk • contribs) 02:03, December 22, 2014
- We don't care about your prophet and are free to mock him as we please. And in case you didn't know, Muhammad is dead, not a living person.--Bowlhover (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- "Further, the author of this image has no consent to draw this picture from the prophet's heirs (i.e. his descendants, the people of Quraish)". Please be careful with issuing legal threats, no matter how obviously and ridiculously spurious they may be. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Charlie Hebdo reference unnecessary?
This sentence was added to the article: "In 2015, 17 people were killed and 21 people were wounded in a series of terrorist attacks targeting Charlie Hebdo employees, leading Al-Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula to praise the killers and call for more killings of cartoonists who "insult Islam"." I'm not sure the reference to the Charlie Hebdo shooting is at all necessary for this article since it doesn't have anything directly to do with Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. We don't include every controversy about a Mohammed cartoon in this entry. But I wanted to post it here for any possible discussion before I remove it myself. — Hunter Kahn 17:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. That incident has nothing to do with this article. --Geniac (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- I also agree. It's only tangentially relevant, at best, to the topic of this article. I have removed the sentence. An entry in the "See also" section would suffice. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think that's a good solution. — Hunter Kahn 01:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- I also agree. It's only tangentially relevant, at best, to the topic of this article. I have removed the sentence. An entry in the "See also" section would suffice. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Sources that its still observed?
Do Facebook and Tumblr qualify as valid sources to show that its still being observed? I see posts about it there. Asarelah (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Asarelah: No, that's original research. We need a good quality secondary source saying it's still observed. --NeilN 14:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Likely not observed anymore, but seems to have spawned related events near the same date, like the Draw Muhammad contest that happened earlier this month and made national news when two terrorists were killed there. Whether the existence of that event was influenced by Everybody Draw Muhammad Day, I'm not sure if there's a connection, and in any case a source would be required. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- A quick Google search shows that Draw Mohammed Day is an annual thing, particularly in the online atheist community. That's not the sort of thing you'd go to a newspaper or sociology text to learn about. You just find it the same way you find Misplaced Pages or almost any online social phenomenon -- type it in. Observation may vary from year to year, but that quantity doesn't affect the fact that it is observed. 2015 was distorted a bit due to some people trying to make their own days (May 3 in Garland TX and May 29 in Phoenix AZ) and they ended up getting the press coverage because they appeared to have other motives. In any case in 2015, here is an article marking the day with many links from a popular atheist blog. Further, here is a news report of an expanded Draw Mohammed Day event in Canada on Parliament Hill that would have gone on May 20, but it was cancelled the day before by the government.24.57.193.111 (talk) 08:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Likely not observed anymore, but seems to have spawned related events near the same date, like the Draw Muhammad contest that happened earlier this month and made national news when two terrorists were killed there. Whether the existence of that event was influenced by Everybody Draw Muhammad Day, I'm not sure if there's a connection, and in any case a source would be required. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
how about you remove these images and not appease some autistic neo-nazi retards
^ either that or you should post some more holocaust cartoons and not be hypocrites — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8780:5D0:6C74:2AAD:BCAD:16A2 (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Molly Norris
Why is there no single article devoted to Molly Norris? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julianlawrence (talk • contribs) 03:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Julianlawrence: Because Misplaced Pages generally doesn't have articles about people who are notable for a single event. Instead, we have articles about the events. See WP:1EVENT and WP:BLP1E for details. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Irrelevant images added
Broter (talk · contribs) has been adding links to several self-published drawings of Muhammad, all of which are identical copies of the same base drawing of Muhammad with different surroundings added. I have removed the list twice, for the following reasons:
- They are not relevant to the context of this article, which is Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.
- They are user-generated content on imgoat.com, and WP:ELNO discourages linking to user-generated content.
- They are possibly self-published by Broter, and again WP:ELNO discourages linking to one's own work.
- They don't illuminate the topic of this article in any way.
The WP:BURDEN for including these images clearly hasn't been met. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
This images are relevant for this article!--Broter (talk) 15:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- A mere assertion doesn't make it so. How are they relevant? You haven't addressed a single one of the points above. Again, see WP:BURDEN. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
This images are relevant to the article because they are the continuation of the Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. Furthermore they illuminate the topic of the article by showing what can be done to explain the prophet Mohammed.--Broter (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- There is no evidence that they are any sort of "continuation" of Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. They are just pictures of Mohammed that you uploaded to a public site. The topic of the article is "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day". Pictures that "explain" the prophet Mohammed don't illuminate that specific topic, any more than the Charlie Hebdo images do (and those images have encyclopedic notability; yours don't). Finally, we have WP:ELNO that says to avoid such links. You need to provide a rationale grounded in Misplaced Pages policy to include them. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 Response to Third Opinion Request:
|
| Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Everybody Draw Mohammed Day and cannot recall any prior interaction with the editors involved in this discussion which might bias my response. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here. |
|
Opinion: One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." This article, per the lede, is about the 2010 event. It may be relevant that the event has been continued, but that needs to be added to the text of the article supported by high-quality reliable sources as defined by Misplaced Pages establishing, at least in part, that it is somehow a clear continuation of the 2010 event and not just independent action by individuals or unrelated groups. Until that's happened an EL to subsequently-created images is wholly irrelevant and inappropriate and Anachronist is correct in his/her analysis. If it is added to the text, then it can be debated whether additional images or links to additional images add anything to the article, but it's very hard for me to see how they would. |
|
What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 22:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC) |
Thanks for weighing in, TransporterMan. I used to give many third opinions myself (they are listed on my user page). I had no idea that 3O responses had become so formalized. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Lead image meets NFCC
@Seraphimblade: No free equivalent is available as it is the original poster associated with the day and is discussed in depth in the article. --NeilN 03:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages objectionable content
- All unassessed articles
- Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
- B-Class Freedom of speech articles
- Unknown-importance Freedom of speech articles
- B-Class Islam-related articles
- Low-importance Islam-related articles
- WikiProject Islam articles
- B-Class Religion articles
- Low-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- B-Class Journalism articles
- Low-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- B-Class Comedy articles
- Low-importance Comedy articles
- WikiProject Comedy articles
- B-Class Comics articles
- Low-importance Comics articles
- B-Class Comics articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject Comics articles
- B-Class Animation articles
- Low-importance Animation articles
- B-Class Animation articles of Low-importance
- B-Class American animation articles
- Low-importance American animation articles
- American animation work group articles
- WikiProject Animation articles
- Unassessed Animation articles
- Unknown-importance Animation articles
- Unassessed Animation articles of Unknown-importance
- Unassessed South Park articles
- Unknown-importance South Park articles
- South Park task force articles
- B-Class Human rights articles
- Low-importance Human rights articles
- WikiProject Human rights articles
- B-Class Internet articles
- Low-importance Internet articles
- WikiProject Internet articles
- Misplaced Pages Did you know articles