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. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2,
3Auto-archiving period: 180 days
![]() |
![]() |
Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
Frequently asked questions
|
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
May 9, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that
journalist
Michael C. Moynihan announced he would support the
protest movement
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day and post his favorite entries to the
Reason magazine website? |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
|
This article seems to be out of date.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)
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)
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 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)
DEAR Wikipedia,
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)
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 Wikipedia, 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)
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)
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-pushing WP:ADVOCACY as well.
It is amazing how we obviously keep forgetting one small thing - Wikipedia 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)
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 talk to me 03:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Gallery: These images lack neutral point of view, verifiability and original research besides being unethical, mischievous and provocative (see Wikipedia: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)
Bowlhover does this also mean that we are also free to mock your family and you . Also keep your stupid personal thoughts to yourself
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. — Hun ter Ka hn 17:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
^ 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)
Why is there no single article devoted to Molly Norris? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julianlawrence ( talk • contribs) 03:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
![]() |
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 Wikipedia 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)
@ 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 talk to me 03:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Please read the article. Molly Norris drew the original, poster-like cartoon on April 20, 2010, which declared May 20, 2010, to be the first annual "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" The poster inspired the day. -- NeilN talk to me 02:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I think these images must be removed what is the purpose of it anyway and this an educational website don't turn it into shit So just remove it Semervinx ( talk) 20:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
As we all know that these images should be removed anyone who have a little common sense knows they will offend many people so as there anyway we can remove this ?? Semervinx ( talk) 20:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
these images are insulting and directly attack on others due to their religion semervinx ( talk) 22:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.66.53 ( talk) 01:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
it is 2020 and still you people didn't get any sense . it is an educational platform and still so many irrevelant images are added don't you think it will hurt the sentiments and emotions of millions of people. And don't say wikipedia don't care about emotions maybe it dosen't but you should being a human . Also the relevant information can be provided by descriptions . To think it through it will eventually hurt the reputaion of this site plus if the purpose can be completed without offending someone then I think it should be taken . This website is for humans not robots so don't try to justify this by policies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.33.112.53 ( talk) 20:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the Cartoons images Reasons not Necessary will hurt Millions of People will increase anger and hatred recent events have shown this 39.33.112.53 ( talk) 20:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Use Template:Hidden image for the images which seems to be unwanted to watch by some readers. 103.230.107.2 ( talk) 20:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
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. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2,
3Auto-archiving period: 180 days
![]() |
![]() |
Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
Frequently asked questions
|
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
May 9, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that
journalist
Michael C. Moynihan announced he would support the
protest movement
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day and post his favorite entries to the
Reason magazine website? |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
|
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)
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)
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 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)
DEAR Wikipedia,
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)
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 Wikipedia, 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)
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)
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-pushing WP:ADVOCACY as well.
It is amazing how we obviously keep forgetting one small thing - Wikipedia 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)
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 talk to me 03:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Gallery: These images lack neutral point of view, verifiability and original research besides being unethical, mischievous and provocative (see Wikipedia: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)
Bowlhover does this also mean that we are also free to mock your family and you . Also keep your stupid personal thoughts to yourself
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. — Hun ter Ka hn 17:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
^ 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)
Why is there no single article devoted to Molly Norris? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julianlawrence ( talk • contribs) 03:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
![]() |
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 Wikipedia 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)
@ 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 talk to me 03:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Please read the article. Molly Norris drew the original, poster-like cartoon on April 20, 2010, which declared May 20, 2010, to be the first annual "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" The poster inspired the day. -- NeilN talk to me 02:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I think these images must be removed what is the purpose of it anyway and this an educational website don't turn it into shit So just remove it Semervinx ( talk) 20:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
As we all know that these images should be removed anyone who have a little common sense knows they will offend many people so as there anyway we can remove this ?? Semervinx ( talk) 20:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
these images are insulting and directly attack on others due to their religion semervinx ( talk) 22:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.66.53 ( talk) 01:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
it is 2020 and still you people didn't get any sense . it is an educational platform and still so many irrevelant images are added don't you think it will hurt the sentiments and emotions of millions of people. And don't say wikipedia don't care about emotions maybe it dosen't but you should being a human . Also the relevant information can be provided by descriptions . To think it through it will eventually hurt the reputaion of this site plus if the purpose can be completed without offending someone then I think it should be taken . This website is for humans not robots so don't try to justify this by policies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.33.112.53 ( talk) 20:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the Cartoons images Reasons not Necessary will hurt Millions of People will increase anger and hatred recent events have shown this 39.33.112.53 ( talk) 20:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Use Template:Hidden image for the images which seems to be unwanted to watch by some readers. 103.230.107.2 ( talk) 20:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)