This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Meco (talk | contribs) at 07:07, 17 May 2010 (→Wikilinking: seems appropriate). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 07:07, 17 May 2010 by Meco (talk | contribs) (→Wikilinking: seems appropriate)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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: 30 days |
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. |
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 9, 2010. |
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.
|
Note, for additional sources
- Note: Some people apparently were searching with way too narrow inputs. For example, 44 results for "everybody draw" and "south park". Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Mohammed Image Archive
- Mohammed Image Archive I don't know how to edit wikipedia but here's a related source - the idea that Muslims prohibit anyone from drawing Mohammed, is suspect from the fact that they themselves have often drawn him. http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/ "The Mohammed Image Archive is a compendium of images that depict Mohammed (the 7th-century founder of Islam), spanning all historical periods, cultures and genres. The inspiration for this Archive came from the global controversy over the publication of Mohammed cartoons in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, and the need for a comprehensive and even-handed look at the wide variety of Mohammed depictions in Islamic and Western societies from the Middle Ages until today. It will remain online as a resource for those interested in freedom of expression." Friendly Person (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- A disrespectful image, a photo, is on the back cover of Amazon.com's "How Fatima Started Islam: Mohammad's Daughter Tells It All" by the American author Noor Barack. This is part of a book highly insulting to every tenet of orthodox Islam by depicting Mohammad as a urine-soaked, drunken pimp and child molester who stumbles on to Islam and is used by his intelligent daughter to start the religion. The back cover photo has Mohammad in his normal role as Mecca's town drunk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burlytop (talk • contribs) 14:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Is there a reason that this should be included in this article? This isn't an article about every drawn depiction of Mohammad. It's an article about Everybody Draw Mohammad day. OlYeller 17:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- This statement needs a reference and I expect NO reference to be found since it is false: "Depictions of Muhammad are explicitly forbidden by a few hadith (Islamic texts), though not by the Qur'an.". A reference to the Hadith should be given, not some obscure PDF from some non-islamic source which simply declares that depictions are forbidden. PLEASE ADD AT LEAST A "citation needed" after the words "hadith (Islamic texts)" or change the wording to some softer form since I haven't seen ANY EXPLICIT restriction on the depiction of Muhammad. This statement is definitely challanged by the numerous depicions of Muhammad in Islamic sources presented here: http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/islamic_mo_full/ . (talk) 10:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- links to Facebook event and pics http://www.facebook.com/#!/event.php?eid=113257775375783&ref=ts (10,827 attendees as of 2010 Apr 29 noon) PICTURES http://www.facebook.com/#!/photo_search.php?oid=113257775375783&view=all (423 as of 2010 Apr 29 noon) Not sure if these links work if you're not logged in on Facebook.Friendly Person (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Everybody-Draw-Mohammed-Day —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.91.20.94 (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Piss Christ
Piss Christ must replace the items "Andres Serrano – crucifix in urine controversy National Endowment for the Arts controversy" in the "See also", since the two are about the controversy for which "Piss Christ" us a direct link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.68.48 (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Done. -- Cirt (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
BTW, is there a wikipedia article about a 2006 case of "Iranian newspaper to hold contest for cartoons on the Holocaust", in retaliation for caricatures of Muhammed? If yes, then IMO it may be mentioned in "See also". (showing that 'Draw Mohammed Day' was not exactly an original idea of a drawing campaign.) 71.146.68.48 (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- I do not think that there is such an article, but you could try searching for it. -- Cirt (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, that's new. Usually they suicide-bomb at us whenever they're annoyed. Good for them. HalfShadow 19:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Actually I've found it using google on wikipedia! : International Holocaust Cartoon Competition. By the way, this my search revealed other interestion hits, such as Israeli antisemitic cartoons contest. 71.146.68.48 (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Done, added the two links suggested by 71.146.68.48 (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 20:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikilinking
Wikilinks to phrases in the lede, including, Internet, censorship, and freedom of speech, are all extremely relevant to this article, noteworthy, and appropriate wikilinks. Please do not remove them. -- Cirt (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- More helpful info, at Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style#Wikilinks, and at WP:MOSLINK. -- Cirt (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't agree but I'm not going to fight with you. I generally use my time to edit things that matter and not by making sure that people who are using the internet to read an article, understand what the internet is. If you think the best way to improve the project is to link words that readers who can... read will most certainly understand, then by all means. Yes, you're good at linking the MOS as well. Here's a link that actually addresses this issue and not how an internal link works. OlYeller 18:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. Current practice clearly dictates to link what is relevant. These terms are highly relevant and within the given context of the subject matter. -- Cirt (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Current practice, eh? Did you do a study? Do you know how to do a study? What's the p-value of your findings? Do you know what a p-value is? You're not improving your argument. Your over linking and failure to understand how to make an argument speaks for itself. Keep the links. Have a great day. OlYeller 18:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- This last response seems a bit sarcastic and unnecessary. Hopefully in the future the tone of such discussion will be of a more constructive, polite, and positive nature. -- Cirt (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Unnecessary, maybe. Sarcastic, not at all. Nothing I said was sarcastic in the slightest. We're here to discuss a point and you declare your opinion as fact with a comment like "Current practice clearly dictates..". It benefits no one when you claim that your opinions are fact but I'm guessing that's not a concept you've been educated on (as you haven't been educated on how studies are conducted). So in short, I apologize if I came of in a rude manner. In the future, you would do yourself and everyone a favor if you learn how to have an argument in an educated way instead of linking whole guidelines or claiming your opinion to be fact. As it stands now, you're just wasting a lot of people's time. OlYeller 23:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the apology. Let's both try to be more congenial in future communications. :) -- Cirt (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Unnecessary, maybe. Sarcastic, not at all. Nothing I said was sarcastic in the slightest. We're here to discuss a point and you declare your opinion as fact with a comment like "Current practice clearly dictates..". It benefits no one when you claim that your opinions are fact but I'm guessing that's not a concept you've been educated on (as you haven't been educated on how studies are conducted). So in short, I apologize if I came of in a rude manner. In the future, you would do yourself and everyone a favor if you learn how to have an argument in an educated way instead of linking whole guidelines or claiming your opinion to be fact. As it stands now, you're just wasting a lot of people's time. OlYeller 23:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- This last response seems a bit sarcastic and unnecessary. Hopefully in the future the tone of such discussion will be of a more constructive, polite, and positive nature. -- Cirt (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Current practice, eh? Did you do a study? Do you know how to do a study? What's the p-value of your findings? Do you know what a p-value is? You're not improving your argument. Your over linking and failure to understand how to make an argument speaks for itself. Keep the links. Have a great day. OlYeller 18:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. Current practice clearly dictates to link what is relevant. These terms are highly relevant and within the given context of the subject matter. -- Cirt (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. These links are appropriate. It's when people start linking school and father in a biography or when someone died falling out of a window on the 11th floor that we need to start reigning in our editors. __meco (talk) 07:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't agree but I'm not going to fight with you. I generally use my time to edit things that matter and not by making sure that people who are using the internet to read an article, understand what the internet is. If you think the best way to improve the project is to link words that readers who can... read will most certainly understand, then by all means. Yes, you're good at linking the MOS as well. Here's a link that actually addresses this issue and not how an internal link works. OlYeller 18:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages objectionable content
- Misplaced Pages Did you know articles
- All unassessed articles
- Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
- C-Class Islam-related articles
- Low-importance Islam-related articles
- WikiProject Islam articles
- C-Class Religion articles
- Low-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- C-Class Journalism articles
- Low-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- C-Class Comedy articles
- Low-importance Comedy articles
- WikiProject Comedy articles
- C-Class Comics articles
- Low-importance Comics articles
- C-Class Comics articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject Comics articles
- C-Class Animation articles
- Low-importance Animation articles
- C-Class Animation articles of Low-importance
- 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
- C-Class Human rights articles
- Low-importance Human rights articles
- WikiProject Human rights articles
- C-Class Internet articles
- Low-importance Internet articles
- WikiProject Internet articles