This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us
assess and improve articles to
good and
1.0 standards, or visit the
wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to
comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the
current tasks, visit the
notice board,
the attached article or discuss it at the
project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to
animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can
the article attached to this page, help out with the
open tasks, or contribute to the
discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Park, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South Park on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South ParkWikipedia:WikiProject South ParkTemplate:WikiProject South ParkSouth Park articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
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. OlYeller21Talktome18:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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 Wikipedia to make a point. So what, exactly are your objections?
TechBear |
Talk |
Contributions02:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)reply
@
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.
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)reply
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 - 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)reply
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. --
NeilNtalk to me03:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Remove gallery images
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)reply
Do you want to see a mushroom cloud over San Francisco? Anyway Wikipedia 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)reply
"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. --[[User:Saddhiyama|Saddhiyama]t s] (
talk)
23:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Bowlhover does this also mean that we are also free to mock your family and you . Also keep your stupid personal thoughts to yourself
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. — HunterKahn17:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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 Wikipedia 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)reply
how about you remove these images and not appease some autistic neo-nazi retards
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.
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)reply
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 Wikipedia policy to include them. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
19:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)reply
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 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.
@
NeilN: The subject of the article is "Everybody Draw Mohammad Day". The question, then, is not "Would the poster be the optimal image?", but "Is there any free image which adequately illustrates the subject 'Everybody Draw Muhammad Day'"? The answer is yes, as any drawing that resulted from it serves as an adequate illustration of the subject as a whole (serving as an illustration of a particular facet of the subject is not enough to render an image irreplaceable; if that kind of narrowing down were allowed, we could never call anything replaceable). It is one of the most replaceable images there is, since literally anyone could make a free replacement with nothing more than a writing implement and piece of paper, and indeed several potential free replacements are already used in the article's "Gallery" section.
SeraphimbladeTalk to me06:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Seraphimblade: That's not quite correct. The policy reads "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." There's nothing in there about the subject of the article. Actually, there is a stronger NFCC case for including the poster in the article as compared to having album covers present in album articles (the cover is not the subject of those articles) because this article article discusses in depth the poster. However if you disagree please nominate the image for deletion as orphaned fair use images can't remain on the project and we'll go through a community discussion. --
NeilNtalk to me14:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I agree. There is no better image to represent this article than the actual poster about the subject. As such, it serves an encyclopedic purpose that cannot be served by a substitute. Seraphimblade's argument is equivalent to saying that an album cover shouldn't be used in an article about a music album because anybody can draw a public-domain picture claimed to be inspired by the album. That argument wouldn't fly anywhere on Wikipedia. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
00:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Uh...no. The argument is that if someone started an event called "Everybody Draw John Lennon Day", a free piece of art inspired by the event is an adequate illustration for the subject (note, "adequate", not best), and that a Beatles album cover would not be necessary. In this case, free art is readily available, inspired by this very event, and so is an entirely appropriate and relevant illustration for the subject.
SeraphimbladeTalk to me01:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Articles about movies have an image of the movie poster, not some art from a random person who was inspired by the movie. Articles about scheduled events, whether they be concerts or art exhibitions, are most appropriately illustrated by the poster for that event, particularly when the poster itself generated significant controversy covered in reliable sources. This article is about an event, and it happens to have a representative poster created specifically for that event, to publicize it, and that poster generated a protest movement and controversy that was newsworthy and covered in reliable sources, unlike the random images in the gallery. For the same reason, we show the appropriate magazine cover in the
Charlie Hebdo shooting article (although it isn't in the lead). This is common sense. There is really no other image that can appropriately serve as an illustration for this particular article here, so I don't see why we should deviate from our standard common sense practice. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
02:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The difference is, when we're talking about a movie, we're not talking about something intended to inspire the art, even if it happened to. In the case of the Charlie Hebdo shooting, I don't see that we'd really have an alternative to the magazine cover that inspired it. There are likely no free images of the shooting incident, nor can any reasonably be expected to be made available. In this case, we are talking about an event specifically intended to encourage people to draw a certain type of picture, and we have free examples of pictures that people drew in response to it. There is no better fit than to say "This event asked people to draw X, and here's some examples of the drawings of X inspired by it".
SeraphimbladeTalk to me02:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
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. --
NeilNtalk to me02:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Alright, let's try another way. Do you think that the gallery images are appropriate and relevant to this article, or do you think the gallery should be removed as inappropriate or irrelevant?
SeraphimbladeTalk to me03:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Well, I'd rather retain the gallery. But you seem to be arguing not to. If any of the gallery images are appropriate and relevant to the subject, they could be used in place of the nonfree image. We always use free images in preference to nonfree. That's the reason for the replaceability rule in the first place.
SeraphimbladeTalk to me03:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
No we don't. That's why we have the specific license text, "This image is a faithful digitisation of a unique historic image, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the person who created the image or the agency employing the person." We would not replace a photo of a historic moment with a non-notable free-use sketch of the historic moment. --
NeilNtalk to me03:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Right. I also agree the gallery can go, unless the pictures in it are demonstrably connected to the topic of the article and not merely random drawings of Muhammad. As the discussion immediately before this one shows, the gallery has been a magnet for wannabe artists to publicize their work to make some sort of point. Wikipedia isn't a platform for that. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
22:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
September 2019
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)reply
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)reply
Nothing to do with religious concerns. It's a shock image for Muslims.
goatse.cx has no image. The image serves no educational value, as the article is about the movement itself. It's cultural appropriation and Wikipedians support it.
Sherwilliam (
talk)
07:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)reply
I think that is an assumption of bad faith. The desire to remove them would be born out of an attempt at political correctness and would, therefore, be censorship. This is not cultural appropriation; hell, the
Content disclaimer explicitly states, "Articles may contain audio, visual, or written representations of people or events which may be protected by some cultures." — RichardBB11:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)reply
No one has the right not to be offended. I am offended everyday by various things including religion. But in a free secular society I believe everyone has the right to believe in what they want and worship if they want. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that is not censored because knowledge should be uncensored. Everyone then has free access to any and all information. Religions and cultures should be open to criticism in whatever (nonviolent) form the critic chooses. If being criticised, mocked, made fun of or whatever is too difficult to take then maybe those offended should look at themselves and their beliefs. And of course you can always not read, look at, search for or otherwise try to locate 'offensive' material.
Robynthehode (
talk)
13:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)reply
That has nothing about assuming bad faith. That's the way people here are. Mohammed has nothing to do with you. You take their Mohammed. Put it on your cups, dresses, toilets, toilet papers, or whatever. And then, you put that image on a so-called encyclopedia. If that's not cultural appropriation, nothing is. By the way, I support having Mohammed images on Mohammed article. Why? Those are paintings from Muslims themselves. As for the principles, if it's something that offends you, say
goatse.cx, then you'll argue your ass off not to have that image. It's nothing to do with any principle or guideline. You shift those principles to suit your need. There's complete insensitivity toward the feelings of others.
Sherwilliam (
talk)
00:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)reply
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)reply